JK on climate change July 2010

I ran across this video again, while posting something about climate change in GD (response to posting on upcoming Gore article in Rolling Stone, which evidently criticizes Obama for his slow action on climate change) .
I think we posted this video earlier, but it was nice to revisit this terrific interview . JK is TOTALLY on top of this issue (though I think he's entirely too nice to Boone Pickens here : )):

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currents/2010/07/john-kerry.html

I hope that the Gore comments are being over hyped and that they are not worse than what many of us have said.

Gore has never spoken of how low a priority the Clinton/Gore administration made climate change, when the economic environment would have made passing something far easier. I looked at pollingreport.com's long series on a question designed to trade off economic gains and environmental gains and, as would be expected, the stronger the economy, the more likely people are will to sacrifice a little for the environment. (I believe Kerry that this tradeoff might not really exist and, in fact, this might be what is needed to improve the economy, but it is that perceived relationship that led the 14 Democratic Coal state Senators to write the letter they did. ) Gore was a Congressman and a Senator for long enough that he had to know how hard passing something comprehensive would be - and, having been VP, he likely knew the limits of the huge amount of power a President has.

I do realize that a VP does not have the power to set the agenda - the President does - and that he would be constrained while in office. I also have been annoyed that Gore has been a little dishonest on Kyoto and the Congress. The Byrd/Hagel vote was a few months before Kyoto ended and it laid out what the Congress thought should be required before the US signed on. It could have been used by Gore to develop something more like what was agreed to in Bali - and gotten agreement that they could impose tariffs on countries not complying. Instead the Congressional concerns were ignored and the Kyoto agreement was never brought up in the Senate. I suspect that Gore speaks of the Senate rejecting Kyoto because it is simpler to explain and because it ignores that he, like Obama, did not really do all he could to sell the issue to the Senate.

That said, I can imagine Gore's (or Kerry's) frustration that this was not given higher priority than it was. Axelrod in his comments made it clear that he thought this to be less important than many other issues - suggesting that he does not really internalize his acceptance of the science. But, looking at the two years when Obama had the House and the Senate, it is not clear that he really could have done more. With the background of the wars and foreign policy troubles, there were 4 major domestic issues - climate change, healthcare, banking/finance reform, and immigration. He was able, though the Republicans fought everything tenaciously, to make serious strides in two of them. On climate change, it seems that all he can do now is whatever incentives for clean energy he can get and using the EPA to fight to end the worst pollution sources. Given the needs, I really don't know if a President Gore or a President Kerry, who really passionately cared about this - in a way Obama doesn't, could have gotten something passed. I also don't know what,if anything, they would have lost that Obama accomplished to do this.

All written obviously before the article appears - risking looking quite stupid if the suggestions that he criticized Obama were not true or if they were more measured than I expected.

Gore attacks Obama or not. Certainly, the media has done its job well. They dont want to talk about issues, so they talk about a supposed conflict. And everybody follows without a gram of critical mind. These are days like that that DU/GDP drives me crazy. You could think issues do not matter, and for many, they do not. It is all about the horse race. So, if you have not read it, read Gore's column.

And for some perspective on this, here is one of Fallows' latest post about the media, and about this column in particular.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/from-the-archives-why-we-hate-the-media/240854/


Once again, we follow the media where they want us to go. Not talking about you, karyn, but about all of us (blogs and media) at one time or another.Follow the media at your own risk.

of what Obama has done. As I noted, I had not read it yet, so I was influenced more by earlier Gore criticisms. I do wish that Obama would have put more of his strength behind it, but recognize that he really had a huge number of things that all needed be done in those first 2 years. I do think that climate change might have been the most intractable - even more than immigration.

It is an interesting article - as most Gore articles since 2001 have been.

Just watched the video in full-Fantastic interview! Though this was nearly a year ago, most everything JK touched on is still 100% or very relevant. Loved his observations on the GOP gridlock and the stain of the pro-Corporate SC decision, especially. Agree that he's too nice to Pickens though..JK has more patience and forgiveness in him than I would in that same situation, I think! :) Admirable though.

Really enjoyed this!