Al Gore.... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By colliric
#14830569
.... Would have made a better President than Clinton and Obama.... And probably Bush at the very start at least. May not have done as much damage as those three did.

And we wouldn't have gotten his stupid self serving money making documentaries and "lecture circuit only, and please give me a heap of cash and pay for my carbon emitting gas fuelled Jet" fame.

Sometimes I wish I could reverse time just to see what would happen if Gore won....Democrats would go full batshit Fabian probably, just like Sanders threatened....
User avatar
By Suntzu
#14830579
I kinda put him in the same category as the Clintons, getting rich in politics. He's gotta be up there with Joel Osteen when it comes to snake oil salesmen. He is preaching save the Earth while having a carbon foot print bigger than Omaha.

MMGW has made Algore rich. In 2000 he had a net worth of less the two million dollars. Today it is estimated his net worth is three hundred million dollars. He is living in a mansion (one of three) that consumes 34 times the electricity as the average home in America. :eh:
User avatar
By MB.
#14830620
Albert Gore absolutely would have been a more effective president than George W. Bush in the very least regard because the Iraq war would not have taken place.

He is preaching save the Earth while having a carbon foot print bigger than Omaha.


I'm not sure why this concerns anyone. Climate change can only be addressed at the level of the state and really now at the global level. Al Gore's personal jet setting has no impact on this. I find people make the same criticisms about Leonardo Dicaprio and other celebrities who advocate for climate change solutions but personally lead extravagant lives fitting of the rich and famous.

What are you, a communist? Do you think the rich should not be allowed to be rich because of the carbon footprint?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14830629
What is funny is supporting global trade and saying you want to protect the environment. Eliminate globalism and you eliminate the major problems. Cargo ships by themselves are a huge factor. Commercial airlines, the military. Etc, individual humans contribution is not a problem.
User avatar
By MB.
#14830631
The solution you're advancing would result in lower standards of living. Most politicians are unwilling to accept that solution since they would probably be voted out of office (as happened, at least in part, to Jimmy Carter when he attempted to respond to the OPEC price gouging by advocating domestic increases in coal consumption- the famous, "put on a sweater" tagline that was cited as being unAmerican).
User avatar
By colliric
#14830749
I'm not sure why this concerns anyone.


Because it's hypocritical for those with better memories who can remember what Green politics was founded on. It goes against the traditional frugal "Everyone has to do their bit, every small change counts, please turn off your lights when you leave the room, try not to use as many Aerosols, go on Public Transport if possible, switch to Solar Power, etc" teaching of the 80s-energy-fossil-fuel-ozone-saving-cum-00s-climate-change movement.

They're doing all the stuff their political movement told us was wrong in the 80s and 90s.

Alex Jones is right about it, they're telling third world Africans they can't have air conditioning, cars and big screen TVs. Everything they have and freely use themselves.
User avatar
By MB.
#14830751
Right. The truth is, the 80s/90s "mitigation" practices were based on pretty optimistic expectations about people's ability and willingness to work collectively to solve a global problem. I would like to argue that this approach was a huge mistake.

1) it made it seem like the problem wasn't very significant/ trivialized it. Will climate change be solved if you recycle your plastic? no. This left the door wide open for idiots to "deny" climate change.
2) it put the burden on the individual when this was always a state problem, that could only be solved with national (and in fact international) reforms and regulations/subsidies
3) the state failed to educate people about what was really happening. Today there's still this lingering belief that "if only people were more frugal" - or worse, that there is no problem- etc, when the reality is that the situation is so much worse and totally beyond mitigation at this point.

There's really no one talking about mitigation seriously anymore. Without educating the people about why, the large pollutors have abandoned mitigation, which is now recognized as both too little too late and not effective, and transitioned to adaptation. In my experience people are not generally aware of this or what it will ultimately entail for their standard of living.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]