Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Uncle Joe

(58,364 posts)
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 06:14 PM Apr 2016

Al Gore is hugely optimistic when it comes to one thing about climate change



(snip)

Ten years on, things have predictably deteriorated. Gore, a former US presidential candidate who has campaigned for years for more climate friendly policies in the US and globally, presented an updated, quick-fire version of the slideshow to a large audience in Oxford this week at the Skoll World Forum on social entrepreneurship. (His presentation proper starts at 1:06 and goes on until 1:53. The video doesn’t show all the slides.)

(snip)

His message is as terrifying as ever. Anthropogenic climate change is already producing massive sea temperature changes, huge storms, rising water levels, and climate refugees, Gore says.

He likens the “mass delusion” that now exists in fossil-fuel markets—the value of which are based on the premise that those fuels can be burned without consequence—to America’s sub-prime mortgage crisis, only worse. There exists $22 trillion dollars of “book market capital” in fossil fuels that cannot be burned if we’re to avoid complete destruction of the environment, he says. This is based on “an assumption even more absurd” than what led to 2008’s global financial meltdown, he adds.
And yet, only minutes before the end of his presentation, Gore says he is optimistic.


“There’s exciting news,” he says. And that, it turns out, is the enormous increase in renewable-energy technology and generation capacity. The costs of mature renewable technologies like wind and solar are plummeting, he says. Last year, 90% of all new energy capacity built was renewable, according to the International Energy Agency.

(snip)

Gore likens the shift to greener energy to the advent of the mobile phone—a technology which not only revolutionized how we communicate, but also allowed societies without fixed-line networks to “leapfrog” directly to mobiles. In the same way, he explained, societies that have never had a power grid are eschewing centralized generation for distributed renewable networks.

Gore asks three questions through his talk: Do we have to change, can we change, and will we change? And, a master of rhetoric, he quotes Wallace Stevens to answer them:

“After the final no there comes a yes
And on that yes the future world depends.”


http://qz.com/662233/al-gore-is-hugely-optimistic-when-it-comes-to-one-thing-about-climate-change/


17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Hekate

(90,704 posts)
4. You know exactly what I mean. I just didn't want to start yet another discussion about...
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 06:37 PM
Apr 2016

...how whether there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties, or even between the Rep and Dem candidates.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
9. Roger, that. There was no way the Petroligarchs and the Lords of Money...
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 07:10 PM
Apr 2016

...were ever going to let Albert Gore, Jr. anywhere near the Oval Office... Every dirty trick in the GOP playbook would be used to subvert the will of the people.

Uncle Joe

(58,364 posts)
5. Honestly malaise, if the U.S. actually had a free press instead of monopolized versions, I don't
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 06:50 PM
Apr 2016

believe it would've ever reached the Supreme Court, the race simply wouldn't have been close enough for the Bush the Least to steal.

Some people will argue and rightfully so that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 created our media monopoly.

I view it as a short term trade off for the long term because it also expanded the Internet into rural areas that weren't served and wired hundreds if not thousands of schools around the nation.

This came back to haunt Al in 2000 because the Internet simply wasn't strong enough then to counter corporate media conglomerate propaganda.

It was strong enough to greatly aid Obama in 2008 and I have no doubt that without the Internet and it's ability to promote Bernie's message through the corporate media conglomerate swamp and work to fund him, his run would've ended months ago as he was little known and the CMGs had no intention of altering that dynamic.

The people that grew up with the Internet are of course Bernie's strongest supporters.



Uncle Joe

(58,364 posts)
8. The corporate media conglomerates were the primary culprits behind the coup of 2000.
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 07:05 PM
Apr 2016

They were the drivers and to a large part still are, of American Perception.

No individual or institution had that kind of power, for them it was personal because Gore was the primary political champion for opening the Internet to the people so going by the political playbook of "attacking your opponent's strength, that's precisely what they did against Al with relentless slander and libel.

This more than anything kept the election close enough for Bush the Least to steal, nothing else ever came close.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
10. Nader had nothing to do with it....nothing more than a convenient scapegoat.
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 07:12 PM
Apr 2016

And ANYONE that says different, truly does not have a clue. The fix was in long, long before Ralph Nader.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
12. Sorry, more Dems actually voted for bush* than for Nader. You may want to start with them.
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:13 PM
Apr 2016

While we looking at reasons for Florida 2000:

1. What about the tens and tens and tens of thousands of lawful, legal presumed Democrat voters removed from the Florida voter roles by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris that specifically targeted Democratic-leaning minority precincts long before the first ballot for ANYONE was ever cast. You don't think they had anything to do with the Florida electoral debacle?

2. What about Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, Co-Chairperson for the Committee to Elect Bush*/Cheney* in Florida, running the statewide campaign to elect Bush* from her Secretary of State Tallahassee office, and time-and-time again ruling every electoral nuance in Cheney*/Bush* favor... You don't think she had anything to do with the Florida 2000 election results?

3. What about the outright voter intimidation in Democratic Black and Hispanic precincts on election day by Florida State Police, encouraging minorities to "move along" without casting their ballots... You don't think they had anything to do with the Florida electoral results?

4. What about the notorious butterfly ballot - conceived by a Democrat-for-a-day County Clerk that allowed for over 3000 votes for rabid anti-semite Pat Buchanan in a predominately, elderly JEWISH precinct. Even Buchanan admitted there was most likely a mistake, and he did not believe he received those votes in that precinct. You don't think that had anything to do with the Florida 2000 election results?

5. What about the notorious black box voting machines - manufactured by two staunchly republican-owned interests - that were designed to be non-paper trail verifiable, whose "secret operating code" was ALWAYS unavailable for neutral third-party inspection, AND that were actually witnessed by impartial observers over and over again switching votes from Albert Gore to George fucking Bush*... You don't think that had anything to do with the Florida 2000 election results?

6. And what do you think about the usually accurate as hell Exit Polls that showed Albert Gore handily beating George Bush*? You don't think there was any problem there?

7. And finally, what about a brutally partisan, republican-majority SCOTUS that clearly had no authority to halt a legitimate Florida recount, and that basically stated in their "shall not set precedent" miscarriage of a majority ruling that - and I paraphrase - If the recount showed that Bush*/Cheney* did not win, it would be hard for them to govern. You really don't think that had anything to do with putting Cheney*/Bush* in the White House?

So seriously, you want to throw Florida 2000 at the feet of Ralph Nader?

FLPanhandle

(7,107 posts)
16. Frankly, that's bullshit
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:30 PM
Apr 2016

Ignore Nader if it makes you feel better, but he was a significant factor. Denying that makes you look silly.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
17. I didn't support Nader, nor did I vote for Nader
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:09 PM
Apr 2016

And you can fling all the bullshit you like, won't change a thing.

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

Florida Voters

Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency.

"Democrats for Bush, Democrats for nobody"

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000


Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.

The Florida Vote

Republican = 2,912,790
Democratic = 2,912,253
Green = 97,488
Natural Law = 2,281
Reform = 17,484
Libertarian = 16,415
Workers World = 1,804
Constitution = 1,371
Socialist = 622
Socialist Workers = 562
Write-in = 40

The Final Count

According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election.

Conclusion

Green Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader did not work for the Florida Secretary of State, the Palm Beach County Election Commission, the Al Gore campaign committee, or the United States Supreme Court. Yet, he has become a scapegoat among many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss of the 2000 election, and, beyond the election, the person to blame for the resulting policies of George Bush. These diehard Democrats are averse to looking at the failings of their candidate, and they are not blaming voters for failing to vote at all. Instead, they are upset that Ralph Nader did not acquiesce to dropping out of the race as many urged him to do. As a side note, if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the necessary Electoral College votes to have won the election and the Florida results would have been irrelevant.

The facts are compelling and undeniable that Ralph Nader is not the reason, and should not be blamed, for George Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
13. I also will never forgive or forget, Malaise.
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:13 PM
Apr 2016

But this is wonderful to hear. I've read about advances, but to have what is going well summarized like this is exciting. 90% of all new energy is from renewable sources? That figure may be soft, but in any case the reality must be very high.

Distributed renewable networks. I want those here. They can be augmented by regional and national power exchange grids.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Al Gore is hugely optimis...