Gore Calls For Freeze on C02 Emissions & Elimination of Payroll TAXES !!!

Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gore-speech/

Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes
Today, Former Vice President Al Gore gave a major speech on global warming at NYU law. Notably, he called for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions:

"Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.

"An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead."

Gore also called for the complete elimination of the payroll tax. It would be replaced by a tax on CO2:

"For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution."

Gore concludes:

"This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a better brighter future — a future worthy of the generations who come after us and who have a right to be able to depend on us."

of the whole PLANET!!!!

:thumbsup:

Go Al go! You got my vote!

k/r

....person's pocket.

also part of gross income subject to Federal income tax, a real double whammy on the poor and middle class. Besides, these taxes provide a mythical lock box of trillions of dollars for the politicians to loot and sprinkle among hard-pressed large corporations and multi-millionaires.

it will come back to haunt us.

*wink* :D It's ok.

many issues

Run Al Run

:bounce: :party: :kick:

Can't help but love the man. :bounce:

because they have years of case-law backing them up...I would love for it to be illegal...but there are many tax-protestors in jail or in hock due to this exact mindset.

sP

not all tax protesters go to jail.

download the movie here:

http://www.truthstream.org/?p=212

...if there is no tax law backing it up. Remove the law, and you remove the IRS from the equation.

Go, Al, go!

What part of the 16th Amendment doesn't cover payroll taxes?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

:patriot:


:kick:

If the payroll tax is eliminated in favor of a CO2 tax, it would seem to me like manufacturers, transportation companies and farms would have to raise their prices in order to cover the additional costs of the CO2 tax (since presumably it would be greater than the payroll taxes they're currently paying) while "service" industries like lawyers, doctors, investment banks would benefit greatly. Retailers would benefit from the reduced payroll taxes as well, but since they need the transportation industry to a much greater degree than the service industries above, and would have to pay the additional costs of shipping, I'm not sure whether it will be a net-positive or negative for them in the end.

You can't really send your transportation jobs overseas, but this would certainly create a further incentives to send your manufacturing overseas. Am I missing something?

a freeze in emissions would cripple any econonmy during the time that it would take to replace the technology...but hey, who cares about jobs and the people...right?

sP

I guess that means Japan isn't making any cars any more. Or western Europe. The USA and Australia are the only functioning developed economies left, huh? :sarcasm:

but hey...never mind that the economies (and economies of scale) are drastically different. Nor pay any attention to countries like India and China that are growing by leaps and bounds and will NOT be able to live up to the requirements of Kyoto...oh yeah...they have exemptions...

sP

you didn't really mean it, then? You meant, perhaps, "some other economy in the world would grow faster than the US, and we mustn't allow that to happen"?

not just certain countries with exemptions for others. Even playing field...that is all I am asking. But read-in whatever you like...

sP

You know, if the business can't cover their damage and pollution to the environment, and to all of us, then they shouldn't be in business. Pretty simple. Let someone else find a way to make it work. It's called leadership and ingenuity vs. same-old-shit.

but hey...that is your prerogative...

sP

in doing something about it.

to go about increasing their emissions...China is number 2...and with such a vast # of their population being argrarian...if you exclude them...well, you get the picture...

sP

The EU has MORE people than the US.

:wtf:

is starting to produce a significant number of cars in countries that haven't ratified Kyoto (like the US) or have exemptions (like India). I see that BMW, Mercedes, Pugeot are doing that as well.

:applause:

are made in America now?

The simple Econ 1 approach is that it would hurt manufacturing jobs. For years, unions and corporations opposed environmental regulation and emissions trading because they thought it would reduce jobs. Most of the research I've seen, indicates that more environmental regulation results in new technologies, new production to adapt to the new technology, and more and better jobs. Before the elimination of our edge in environmental technologies, America greatly benefitted from adaptations of global environmental reduction regulations. We had the best and the brightest in this field, so they had to buy from us. I don't know if you've noticed, but labor, for the most part, no longer sides with corporations on opposing environmental regulations.

What this proposal will do, is encourage a shift from some technologies to others. Petroleum, autos running solely on gas, many power plants will be hurt. There will also be an initial required outlay for new technologies. I'm currently doing research on green buildings and long term value. Conventional wisdom says they cost more but that is not what actual research shows. The cost is about the same, slightly higher, but there is cost savings on energy, water, and sewage.



(I majored in environmental economics and have worked for many years as a policy analyst.)

the zero emission growth and required reductions have two problems. Number one is that to set a zero emission growth target in the short term without available (readily available and affordable) technology to adjust to that change will in the short term cause issues. Secondly, countries like India and China have exemptions that should not be allowed as they are tremendous contributors to CO2 emissions. The argument that "per capita emissions" are not valid as VAST quantities (and percentages) of their populations live in conditions of squalor...it would be hard to say the Beijing, Hong Kong or Shanghai should be exempt when New York, Los Angeles and Seattle would not be. Apply the rules to all...and then the playing ground is fair...otherwise it should not be considered.

sP

to adopt the new technologies. Since, they are just building much of their infrastructure, they can adapt better technologies. I've read some reports on green buildings that are very positive with what they are doing. While I agree the Kyoto treaty is not perfect, mainly the targets are not enough, but at least it was a start.

We no longer have a choice about whether to consider this. It's no longer just about fairness but about whether we have a major environmental crisis like nothing we've ever experienced. I'm not so worried about a few disruptions when I think of the crisis we are facing.

China and India are already developed infrastructure wise in the primary areas of emissions. All of the major metro areas in those two countries are already road-based nightmares. Mumbai is a traffic disaster. HK is not much better...until those two countries agree to comply as all others, then the treaty is useless. Based on their growth rates and emissions rates they will outproduce the US (each country independently) within a few years in CO2 production. That is unacceptable. An even playing field is required...

sP

way that best meets their needs. If their system is as bad as you say, then they can get better reductions for less money by adopting simple changes. Since the US is the worse with emissions, then we should have to do more. Again, we don't have a choice if we want to survive. We have to change and quickly.

that is better for their needs. That works. We should all be reducing emissions...and Kyoto as it stands doesn't do that...

sP

I just read a report that claimed emissions is some countries that signed onto Kyoto actually went up... so again, it is human nature and profit motive that we need to contend with... and also population trends. Legislation is great, but if we don't have the moral will to carry it out, it means nothing.

:rofl: :popcorn:

did you even read what was written? If so, that was a 'well-reasoned' response...

sP

...doing the right thing, even if it is painful. Arguing that we shouldn't be the ones to start until everyone else is equally burdened ignores the moral responsibility that we all have. Someone has to be the first to do the right thing, or we will all continue to drown in our own wastes while we wait for someone else to start doing something about it.

Second, the U.S. is far and away the largest per capita energy consumer and anthropogenic CO₂ producer on Earth-- we SHOULD start if for no other reason than that we are the biggest part of the problem. Yes, it will hurt. It is still the right thing to do.

but other should be forced to come along as well...what do you do when China and India become # 1 and 2? What if they say fuck off to Kyoto then? Mark my words...that is the path Kyoto would set us on. I am not saying we should not be doing something...but the world (and I mean ALL of it) should be as well.

sP

own the new markets. Once our technology is less expensive, more available and MORE EFFICIENT, they will most likely want it. Then they can come to us and pay for it. Industrial Revolution... Technology Revolution... next... Efficiency or Green Revolution. Why wouldn't we take the lead? And again, What other choice do we really have? Do nothing unless THEY agree?

You guys want to take China's example? Why should they care about the environment when they don't care about the average citizen in China? Money trumps everything in China, go live there if you want those blood money manufacturing jobs. Life is cheap there, not just the products.

then Silicon Valley would be in
Louisiana, not California.

Freeze does not mean SHUT DOWN. Freeze at CURRENT LEVELS and use tax policy to encourage reductions makes sense.

it looks as if people here think I am against, in principle, the Kyoto Protocol. I am not...however, it should apply to all parties evenly to be truly useful. A 100% freeze on the part of the US while India and China continue to run amok on the emissions front does not make sense. If everyone (and I do mean everyone) agrees, then ok...let's do it. But to say that exemptions exist is to say that our fragile ecosystem is not as important as the growth in countries like India and China.

sP

When the China car company or the India car company sell their CO2 belches here, tax them as a company that has an emission problem. This makes the car un affordable, it does not get bought, like a very high tariff. But because India and China do not comply with CO2 emission standards, that should not relieve the US of its obligation to taking care of its corner of the world. Al Gore does not set Chinese or Indian policy, he can only talk with and try to influence them.

when it comes to CO2 standards and therein lies the problem. Allowing a few 'developing' countries a pass on the protocol simply guarantees that they will climb to #1 and 2. And then what?

sP

It is called the United States of America. It is called leading by example. It does not guarantee that any country will climb to #1 and #2. If you lead by example, influence other countries through diplomacy and well thought out arguments those developing countries will be selling products that nobody else in the world buys except themselves.

Howard Dean did something similar to this in his little corner of the world while governor of Vermont. His project, I believe, was mercury. He made it policy in VT, then talked with the states upwind of VT so his corner of the world would not be polluted. He talked with states that may be down wind of VT and sold them on the idea and added to his group that talked to the upwind states. He even got Ontario or Quebec to see the sense of his plan and adopt it because they share some common waterways.

It has worked, it can work, but it never will work until somebody starts. The hardest part of a new idea is letting go of the old one.

view, the other countries that did sign on and are trying to do SOMETHING about it, shouldn't... until we all agree. I for one am glad THEY aren't sitting back, waiting.

DOING SOMETHING in this real one we're living in.

Creativity NEVER happens in a vacuum. Michelangelo created the Sistine ceiling frescos with the Pope on his case and lots of architectural detail in his way. He could have just said "Oh! No Siree: I cannot paint on this already overly ornamented ceiling! And you cannot give me suggestions on content, either."

Anything that can be sent overseas is already being sent there.


(as usual, edited for typos)

the economy? OUR FUCKING LIFE ON EARTH? I think there are such things as PRIORITIES! Do away first with that which is KILLING the planet..cause without a place for people on the planet why the fuck manufacture ANYTHING?

to Mexico, India, or anywhere else prevent the sea levels from rising 2-3-5 feet?

or to use his words:

We in the United States of America have a particularly important responsibility, after all, because the world still regards us — in spite of our recent moral lapses — as the natural leader of the community of nations. Simply put, in order for the world to respond urgently to the climate crisis, the United States must lead the way. No other nation can.

Developing countries like China and India have gained their own understanding of how threatening the climate crisis is to them, but they will never find the political will to make the necessary changes in their growing economies unless and until the United States leads the way. Our natural role is to be the pace car in the race to stop global warming.

So, what would a responsible approach to the climate crisis look like if we had one in America?

http://thinkprogress.org/gore-nyu

In other words, nothing will change until we take the initiative to change it.

Given the current "esteem" we're held in by other nations, I don't see them looking to follow our lead anytime soon. Even if Gore becomes president, it will take years to fix the current mess that is American diplomacy. In the meantime, other countries will benefit from this policy, as they will gain manufacturing jobs, thus making it even less desirable (economically) to follow in our footsteps in the near future.

for help and guidance on other things and issues. The longer Bush stays in office the less credibility we have.

America is looked at for guidance on a lot of issues and for a lot of things, computer technology, software, medical research, to name a few. America still has a lot of great educational institutions, that's why we have so many foreign students. America is still one of the richest nations on this earth. We have a lot of influence we just aren't using it correctly.

I just don't agree that if we were to do this, and someone else were to benefit economically from it, that they would have the same incentive as we do to actually make this change.

For example, in the short term, a manufacturer in the US (or a group of them) decides that this policy makes their business unprofitable (or not sufficiently profitable). They will have to build a new plant. They can start construction of a new plant with new technology here or somewhere without the same CO2 restrictions. In the end, a new plant in the US would cost more to build (with the new technologies, if they're even market ready) then building the same plant in another country where they won't have to deal with this tax at all. The jobs, and the CO2 now move to another country, and the net CO2 emissions remain unchanged. The best way to get another country on board is to show that our actions are making a difference. If we just end up shifting the pollution from one place to another, we won't be able to do that. I think a better idea is the Kyoto plan to phase in these changes, though I'm not a big fan of all the exemptions.

things than either of us. I'm sure there's more behind this and I trust his judgment.

14 million children will go to bed hungry tonight in this country. That's rich.

has the slogan "Nothing will change until we change Congress". Nancy Boyda (D- running in KS 2nd CD) up 2% in the polls over the incumbent rethug because people around here understand that message.

President Gore is suggesting we lead by example first, showing that you can indeed manufacture without destroying the environment. If there's a further shift of manufacturing jobs away from the U.S. (which is happening anyway despite our reckless disregard of environmental impact), then we can talk about tariffs on non-Kyoto countries. But first we have to regain the moral high ground on this issue by taking care of our own house. (That's a good strategy on other issues too!)

But there's a difference between "leading by example" and shooting yourself in the foot. I'd like to get the money out of politics, but I'd be upset to see the democrats refusing what are legal (and not ethically questionable) contributions. If everyone is on a level playing field, that's one thing, but that wouldn't be the case with political financing, and it wouldn't be the case with global CO2 emissions controls. If we were to go into this as part of a wide-ranging international agreement (like Kyoto), that would be one thing, but that's not what Gore is proposing.

With all the manufacturing jobs going overseas it sound very much like we're not going to demonstrate anything about manufacturing in an environmentally conscious way. Also, India (for example) has signed Kyoto, they just get an exemption. It isn't a "non-Kyoto" country. We are a non-Kyoto country.

VOILA!:think:

:patriot:

All the manufacturing jobs have already been sent overseas, by the same "business-friendly" republicans who get hives at the idea of protecting the environemnt.

And if we don't do something about global warming, there won't BE any jobs, or people to work them, left.

manufacturers would have no need to "raise prices" because they would have no net increase in taxes.

Plus the economy would get a boost from the huge increase in workers disposable income.

I was under the impression that by "tax-neutral" he meant that as far as the FEDERAL GOVT. is concerned all the revenue they would lose by giving up the payroll tax would be offset by the CO2 tax, not that it would be tax-neutral for each company. Otherwise, why would it be a CO2 tax if those producing the C02 pay no more taxes than they do now? Manufacturers would in most cases produce more CO2, and therefore pay more in taxes, and have to raise prices.

Maybe I'm the one getting it wrong, though.

It would appear that a low-emissions industry (say a legal firm or call center) would pay almost no taxes, while trucking and distribution companies will pay incredible taxes, relative to their income.

My second, more pessimistic thought, was that we'll end up with both taxes (how many people here believe the government would disband all income taxation?).

would see it's taxes go way up. Wouldn't that be even more encouragement for them to move their manufacturing facilities to other countries (like they're doing now anyway)?

And that would be bad. Considering the environmental standards in the countries they'd likely relocate to, the environment is far better off if those factories stay in the US.

The goods from China would be more expensive too. It could be worked to make it cheaper to manufacture goods in the US than transport them from overseas.

Bill

that it would generate more C02 to produce 1000 cars (for example) then to ship 1000 cars to the US. You could be right, though. Of course, that would seem to make it prohibitively expensive to produce something here and ship it overseas since you'd be paying for both the production and shipping taxes.

It's the cheap plastic crap that we have a problem manufacturing. Well, TVs too. It's something to consider....

Bill

it doesn't really matter the quality of the goods, just how much CO2 is produced in making them. To the corporations it's all about profit margins, so they'll produce things wherever it's cheapest to make them and bring them to market (factoring in transportation costs and taxes).

I thought NAFTA and the WTO already moved them all overseas.

The approximately 900 billion in US exports breaks down this way...

capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%
industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%
consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%

Most of this would seem to involve some level of manufacturing (excluding the agricultural, although that industry does also produce C02).

Wow! This could bring those voters into the fold.

Go Al!

with pay roll taxes. They have to match what we pay into medicare and social security 100% as part of our wages.

It is another deal like Clinton. He did things that the dems wouldn't have let the republicans get by with.

:popcorn:

Right?11!!!11!

undertmining the Kyoto mechanism.........

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1157894465424&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


5//The Toronto Star, Canada Sep. 10, 2006. 05:25 PM

CONSERVATIVES REVERSE POLLUTION AID FOR POOR COUNTRIES
Dennis Bueckert, Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives are cancelling a $1.5 million pledge by the previous Liberal government to help developing countries cut greenhouse emissions under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol.

Abandoning the pledge made at a United Nations conference in Montreal last December is another blow to the teetering climate treaty which the Conservative government still claims to support.

The money would have gone to the treaty's clean development mechanism (CDM), which allows industrialized countries to earn credits by investing in emissions-cutting projects in the Third World.

"Taxpayers' dollars will not be spent on international credits," said Ryan Sparrow, spokesman for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, in an interview.

"That's what our government's position has been since taking office."

Canada was among 20 industrialized countries which collectively pledged more than $8 million for the CDM. Canada's pledge, the biggest of any country, was seen as a big boost for the Kyoto process.

MORE

from the Sept 11, 2006 World Media Watch

That its either him (running in 08 -edit-) or really hard times... we need a serious brain
in the white house to clean up this bush mess without crashing the bird.

pleeeeaaasse run Al

Damn that short-sighted Gore!!!

:sarcasm:

years ago, "...take a walk, we'll tax your feet..."-for example.

There's taxation and there's over taxation. That kind of income tax level existed at one time (in the UK AFAIK that was around at some point) .... and that is ridiculous level of tax.

But scrap payroll tax for emissions tax? That's an interesting concept.

/Mark.

we had the Korean War & Vietnam then, too...and everybody knows that expensive wars are, well, expensive. Glad nothing like that is going on NOW!

high threshhold. When JoeCEO gets "paid" a salary of, say, 25 Million dollars per year, plus perks, options, and tax-free loans which are later FORGIVEN(!), plus plus plus...that's a ridiculous level of compensation.

Ridiculous pay deserves a ridiculous tax. Tax policy in the US has always been used to encourage Corporate and personal behavior--as it should be.

Shifting the tax burden FROM clean, green companies and all (All!) workers would boost our economy, standard of living, education level, social lives, etc. beyond our imagination. The benefits are broad, deep, and so far not mentioned on this thread. Why NOT fashion tax policy to best benefit We the People -- of the US and, in cases like Gore's proposal, the planet?

Clinton said it on the Daily Show last night : Surely there are SOME good ideas out there! Surely we can't fight & be divided overevery single issue! Let's focus on things that benefit everybody.

Almost feels like he gets Gore's proposal. Imagine that. :shrug:

Note to Mr.Gore: If you ran on this idea in 2000, I missed it. Abolish all payroll tax and the Mepublicans would have laid down their LIVES for you, BigGuy!

Never too late, sir.

choose from.

More precious than gold.

:patriot: :kick:

of all humanity for life. Shoot. I'd vote for him! (AGAIN!)

:patriot:

I like the payrol tax idea.

and don't allow any dirtyplants to be built on the cheap anymore, I think. This would pressure them to cut or stop emissions...the Fed has used tax policy to encourage appropriate behavior by companies & individuals for, well, forever, and shoudl do so now.

Dear KimGeorge Il:

SNAP! I'll show you a tax cut, alright, ya chucklehead!

XOX,
Al

that work fairly well. Essentially, if you want to site a new manufacturing plant then you can't unless you can buy emissions credits from another facility. Perhaps pay another plant to install new technology or close an obsolete plant, then you can buy their emissions credits so you can build the new plant or expand an existing plant.

So, I assume we would adopt laws saying that CO2 emissions can not increase and then set up an emissions trading system.

Good point, thoughtful post. Thanks!

www.cafepress.com/democatic

I agree with the poster who said Gore for president of the planet!

this. I can't see how that would work.

touch Social Security or unemployement. There should be a shift for taxing wealth rather than income in the private sector and more taxes taken from large corporations that operate in more than one state or country.

Is it treasonous to suggest that, yet?

What if we passed laws that demand that 60% of the goods on shelves like Wal-mart have to be domestically produced or they lose their license to operate. That companies who operate in our country must keep 60% of the jobs in this country or they could be considered foreign companies operating on our soil. In that case they should be charged a hugh amount of money for permits to do so, maybe a percentage of the gross revenue they make here. There are lots of ways to address this issue, which to me is a separate issue, than who should be taxed.

in influencing behavior. If you start giving tax breaks to every special interest that comes along, you end up with the same system we have now, with the tax burden being born mostly by those who can least afford to be taxed and the rest not paying what they should into the system for the benefits they enjoy.

For instance you have got to admit that mega-corporations and very wealthy people use up more of our resources, energy, infrastructure and natural resources like water than the mom and pop business and working class dudes and dudettes do, yet the taxes they pay don't cover their usage. Instead the burden is shifted to the rapidly disappearing middle class.

Also, you seem to be concerned about jobs and good wages being disappeared. This has happened because no one coerced them to do business in an honest way. Instead lassaiz faire business practices have put us where we are with NAFTA treaties and other business practices put into place that benefit the corporations stock holders and no one else.

maybe you should read up on it.

http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/fasttrack/nafta_factsheet.asp

Therefore, I would think NAFTA would have to be considered in any global climate crisis program regarding trade.

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4865§ionID=13

Again, with regards to what Mr. Gore was speaking about in regards to American ingenuity and making sustainable products that we would then ship worldwide, we would have to learn from our previous mistakes regarding any "climate crisis" trade treaties we might think to enter.

a request to explain it or to sass me.

Got anything positive?

Can you name 5 immediate benefits to the AS if payroll taxes on wages are repealed? Please.

And the MILLION dollar Christmas bonuses of CEOs. Suggesting the elimination of payroll taxes is not a great idea in my view, and I love the man. We surely need to be bi=partisan in coming to solutions, but do we have to actually be like Republicans to do it?

he couldn't garner enough electoral votes to override the Florida rigged election. He lost because Bush promised everyone that they would get a part of the budget surplus back in taxes. I guess all the freepers got $300 to $600 back in actuality. Stupid people. I could see exactly what was going to happen but no one would listen to me.

If Gore promises to eliminate all payroll taxes, it leaves the Republicans nothing to promise. This is a very astute move on the part of Gore. It means he will have to tax wealth, but these people aren't enough to tip an election so it's a win, win. I understand Newt Gingrich is positioning himself to run for President and he most likely will get his party's rubber stamp.

Gingrich is a slithering snake next to Bush's reptilian persona. He will most likely attack social security with privatization schemes that sound good but really are destructive neo-con policies. I think Gore is ready for the fight. He of course can't do any of this without Congress's approval, so we will see some kind of compromises made here in actuality if he becomes President.

But fer chrissakes he's a politician. If he doesn't have political maneuvers, and I think this is a brilliant one, he'd better not run.

Was 2004 then really a giveaway? Because I saw the urgency of this issue then, as did many others. That is really what I am curious about, and I can assure you that if Mr. Gore runs this time touting a "planetary emergency" now when he didn't say those words in 2004, that question will be asked.

Who has claimed many times in the previous months that the political system is toxic. I don't see him as a politician, I see him as an environmental ambassador and statesman.

He may break from the current pack of idjits and point out hte obvious but make no mistake--he's a politician. In a good way.

Public service is a dying vocation. He may be one of the very last of his kind.

Asking for a clearer explanation and trying to look at all aspects of it instead of just kissing ass is not negative. It is reasoned. And believe it or not, Mr. Gore respects people who ask questions and want to understand better. Why you then are continuing to single me out I'll never know. Bottomline: it is a concept that will need more explanation, and I hope we get it. I have nothing against holding polluters accountable, I simply want a measure that will be fair, and won't be abused, as with many such programs ways to abuse it and loopholes are found. If you don't comprehend that, then I suggest you study up on the reality of the corporate world.

dozens of Fort 500 co's and many top-tier law firms. I get your point,(finally). It just seems we've had lots of DUers lately who have weird agendas, and who make mostly negative posts ("That won't work" etc.) w/o backing them up. As a result I doubt the sincerity of folks who come off as naysayers.

I'm sorry if I insulted you.

I want Gore to reclaim his rightful place in American History. His aborted Presidency was, imo, the worst moment in American politics. Since then it's result has grown into a full-fledged disaster.

and Disability? What would happen to them? This is a huge mistake!

understand this.

dramatically. Like a wealthtransfer FROM companies (especially naughty dirty ones) TO Joe taxpayer. Essentially the opposite of Republican tax policies. Does that help?

future repuke goons from altering the funding formula and leaving us SOL? I never minded paying for Social Security because it is an intergenerational pact and I knew that the money was going to someone's relative or friend who worked for it. I want the whole program in a lockbox. I do not think that Gore would ever abuse the system, but after Bush, my motto is Trust No one.

Nothing except public outrage - - that's why Smirk tried it and that's why he failed to convince the rubber stamp Congress to approve his Social Security destruction package.

It would just be a fine way to finish off those of us at the bottom who depend on government programs.

Yanno, those ones that Dems don't take seriously anymore?

Gore's been one of the strongest supporters of social security - - and a huge champion of disability rights.

The speech doesn't say anything about dropping existing social programs in order to combat global warming. He specifically says that the details of how the freeze would work needs to be a national debate. The direct quote is:

My purpose is not to present a comprehensive and detailed blueprint ­ for that is a task for our democracy as a whole ­ but rather to try to shine some light on a pathway through this terra incognita that lies between where we are and where we need to go. Because, if we acknowledge candidly that what we need to do is beyond the limits of our current political capacities, that really is just another way of saying that we have to urgently expand the limits of what is politically possible.

You can read the whole transcript here:

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416&Itemid=299

But I'll take a stab at it.

OK let's go on faith for a moment that it would be revenue neutral, as advertised. I take that to mean that the tax burden would be the same overall, but I don't think that would be true for each individual.

Some are delighted with the prospect of having more money due to elimination of payroll taxes. This reduction in government receipts would have to be made up somewhere. There would be winners and losers.

Take, for example, an employee who currently rides a bicycle or takes the subway to work. Elimination of payroll tax and little or no new CO2 tax (except for increased cost of goods and services in general) = winner.

Now consider a 70 year old who is living on a pension and has to drive from his rural home to get groceries and satisfy other needs. Pension income is not currently subject to payroll taxes, so he would not benefit from elimination of payroll taxes. A new CO2 tax burden would be imposed because he drives a car, and he would probably have to pay more for goods and services in general due to new costs that have been passed on to consumers - this would be particularly noticeable on most electricity bills. This would be an example of a loser under Gore's plan.

I see a lot of potential for shifting the payroll tax burden from current workers to the elderly and others. I don't think I'll sign onto this Gore proposal just yet.

but it's not mandatory to write irrational, obviously silly rules on purpose. Yet.

Gore proposest taxing Companies emissions--not Grandpa's.

And so I'm trying to learn more. Help me out - where does it say that Gore proposes taxing corporate emissions and not those of personal vehicles?

the tax burden to the poor and/or elderly.

He's always been a very strong supporter of social security. (Remember how he was ridiculed in 2000 for his social security "lockbox"?) He's been very aware of the affects of public policy on the poor, the working class and the lower middle class - - which is why he created the program which brought free internet service to public libraries and schools.

If you look at the way that California runs its smog check program, you'll see that it's easy to create a program that contains financial support for those who can't afford to have clean cars now.

You say, "Again, it's extremely unlikely that Gore's final proposal would shift the tax burden to the poor and/or elderly." Unlikely based on what?

I furnished examples to show that it is probable that a burden will be shifted to this segment, partly due to a certain increase in the cost of goods and services in general with no offsetting benefit of payroll tax elimination. There is no substance to your reaction.

I agree that Gore has a good track record of trying to protect our social programs, but I don't know what point you were trying to make when you mentioned that unless you are suggesting that I should just trust him on this. I don't.

This sweeping proposal is sadly lacking in detail. Legitimate concerns in this thread about the potential negative impact of eliminating the payroll tax have been met with empty assurances, such as:

"He said in his speech he would be working on the details for a year..."
"I'm sure the final plan will at least include..."
"It may also include..."
"...how will it impact the working poor - - will definitely be addressed in a meaningful way."

Gore made a big mistake in delivering this speech. If he didn't have anything to say he shouldn't have said it. Most of all, I'm concerned that he has emboldened those who want to gut our New Deal social programs.

to be nervous.

It's no skin off the nose of others who don't have to worry about such things as survival.

I'm with ya... :pals:

I'm guessing you're familiar with history, and knowing that it's the poor folk who always die off first.

Sure isn't the rich, or in this country, the muddleclass.

It's not something the muddleclass gives much thought to very often, probably. Some of us have it in our faces all the time.

came to your conclusions about this proposal (i.e., how and why it will cause you to "die first"). If you feel this proposal has the potential to shorten your life, you've identified something I obviously haven't thought of. What is it?

It's hardly confrontational to ask for elaboration on such a startling statement. I'm sorry you felt insulted.

Being a one-person business and just barely getting by, I would love the idea of a payroll tax elimination.

Obviously this country is not heading towards a national health care system. More money in my pocket would really help. Now if we could just reduce that damn Oregon personal income tax, one of the highest in the U.S.

i.e. most people would probably pay the same amount, unless they drastically reduced the amount of energy they use

"It's not as crappy as you think it is!" --new TX motto

Or in Tennessee, either, and I lived there, too, seems like a long time ago. I must be some kind of financial masochist, moving to a state with one of the highest PIT levels. But I do love these mountains here in Oregon.

I lived in Arlington and thought it was great, except it had no mountains. I never thought Texas was crappy, except for the fact bush was governor at the time. :D

...It would be hard not to vote Gore if he's on the ticket, I have to say. Part of me thinks he can do more as a private citizen than being in politics, where he's be hindered at every turn -- by lobbyists, corprats, and Republicans. As a Visionary, he has an (comparatively) open road.

That was a BOLD, NEW IDEA he proposed, there. Bravely, clearly, unapologetically, and without worrying whether it would piss off Bob, Ted, Alice, or the "Values Voters".

I hope our Democrats in congress were listening.

"Your kids/wifes/neighbors/enemies/etc. will just have more drug/booze/cigs/etc. money in their pockets!"

"Colleges will be too crowded if more parents can pay!"

"Grandma's a greedy old bat who makes MORE than enough on free SS handouts & her Walmart job!"

"Al Gore is a goober: he doesn't know CO2 is actually GOOD for you!"

"His wife has a big __________!"

"The illegals/minorities/gays/Muslims/ will have the money to buy houses near YOURS!"

"He is a megalocraziac! He said he invented the internets tubes!"

"AL Gore once worked with a guy who had extra-marital SEX!"

My fave: "He went to VIETNAM! During the WAR! On PURPOSE! Obviously cannot be trusted!"


Gosh I can't wait. It'll be fun.

I can't BELIEVE how good an idea this is! It has all the virtues of appealing to Business and the supposed "conservatives" because it's effect would be to reduce the size of government! Think of all the IRS Auditors and agents, social security accountants etc who would be put out to pasture and be freed to stop sucking off the public teat!

And business would actually have an incentive to reduce their energy usage - the more they conserve or invest in alternative energy the more MONEY they get to keep - and give to their f@#$%ing CEO's. No matter; it's worth it if we actually start reversing the damage caused by global warming. And Viola! No more argument to increasing the minimum wage to a living standard that would allow people who WORK for a living to survive in our economy.

Gore is a F%$^Ing GENIUS!!

But of coarse there is that one little problem. he's a dayum librul!! He couldn't POSSIBLY have any ideas of merit! Hell I bet he doesn't even LIKE NASCAR! (Oh wait he's from Tennessee. I bet he does but only for political reasons of course!)

Bwa ha ha, we can let the oil companies breath this stuff in :-)

There are some caveats although I have not heard all the details and like a new idea, it can evolve. The one thing these companies might do if they are taxed for their C02 levels is push the cost on consumers. The oil companies don't seem to have any issues with increasing the price of gas 200%!

Despite that, I think we need to start somewhere, someone has to be the leader. Someone has to step in and get things done.

..and the Repugs will get all over Gore for flying in a plane or driving a car but the one thing Gore actually does is give to the environmental causes. And these same repubs who spout the bullshit don't give a damn thing to the environment.

Gore '08- Our Leader!

Dap

not slow down the rich at all.

I've been impressed with your speeches of late, Al, but you showed me where you stand.

Nope, I refuse to vote against my own best interest, so...
do us all a HUGE favor, and stay out of politics now!

Stick to working on Global Climate Change. Keep the rest to yourself.

Thank you.

Bye, Al.

The more you consume the more CO2 you create, the more taxes you pay. It would not hurt the poor, and those needing gov help would continue to receive that help.

It is a brilliant idea and is one that would ensure poor people are saved from the harm increased CO2 will cause. The rich will be able to buy their way away from the coming problems, but the poor will be crushed the way things are going.

And being able to call themselves carbon neutral will still allow them to spew CO2 into the air from their SUVS... then they can just say they planted a tree to soak it up, or gives some money to a "sustainable" company they already invested in, thus making a double profit, as they get to still act irresponsibly while claiming they aren't.

incoming.

you lost me 100%. That is a bad idea.

Sure we should tax those that pollute the air, but you can't just throw payroll taxes away and count on getting the money. As you know, the baby boomers have paid extra since 1983 into FICA for Social Security, to self fund their retirement. They will be cashing in those bonds gradually as they need them. The money will be needed to pay back the bonds, but it won't be enough to pay them back and replace payroll taxes.

I read yesterday that Al Gore was a dlc New Democrat. I didn't believe it then, but I do now.

I am sad that Al Gore isn't the person I thought he was.

I found this interesting article about him and it says that he was in the dlc but changed back to the left. It is very interesting to read about.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Probably of all politicians, I would trust Al Gore the most. But he does need to tred carefully. He is dealing with peoples bread and butter when he messes with the FICA and employment tax.

He said the level of taxation would be the same, probably that means we wouldn't get the pay roll taxes to spend, the money would go to another tax.

I am not going to give up on Al, I believe he is a decent person and would make a great leader. I just hope he hasn't let the dlc brainwash him.

all through 2000 and in early 2001 immediately claimed that Gore "lost" because he was "too populist" and didn't follow the DLC's advice.

The last time anybody in the press asked Gore about the DLC, he said he had "evolved" beyond them. (That was back in 2002.)

Don't worry about the DLC "brainwashing" Gore.

don't seem familiar with most of them. What's up with that?

psst! DU Hint o'the day:Google is your friend.

For your information, I was actually hoping for a link to have where he definitively stated that to use when others come at me stating that he is still DLC, because I know he isn't. I am VERY WELL versed on what happened in 2000 and since. And I HAVE looked for interviews where he has stated that, but wasn't able to find one. The only information I have was his remark to Al Franken on Air America during its first broadcast when he stated that the DLC left him, and his not attending the conference in 2001. You can remove your foot from your mouth now.

I'm a big fan of Gore.

that is a most excellent bumper sticker.

Impressive. Most Impressive. Howard Dean has taught you well.

He should be quite alright politically, IF he survived the freezing process.

The Empire will compensate you for any damages Social Security may sustain.

Impressive. Most Impressive. Howard Dean has taught you well.

He should be quite alright politically, IF he survived the freezing process.

The Empire will compensate you for any damages Social Security may sustain.

a CO2 tax has potential, but it's also potentially regressive. It's a lot like a sales tax in fact. Poorer people will pay disproportionately more of their incomes. There would have to be a co2 'budget' for each person, where for example, the first x amount od electricity per household is priced reasonably, and then gradually increases until it gets exorbitant. But there are a lot of issues to consider - older people are more susceptible to cold so need extra heating for their homes to avoid getting ill in winter, and a 3-bedroom house could have from 1 to 6 people in it, etc - how will issues like that be factored in? And don't forget consumption of goods - a car takes around 4 tons of CO2 to manuafcture - if it's built in the states will it get the tax for that? what about imports? And if the tax is just on CO2 to manufacture, I don't think the difference is that great between a medium-size car and an SUV - though I may be wrong. The whole thing would take years to implement, especially if you try to make it fair. And what about states that have an income tax? They generally use IRS returns to base their taxes on - these states would have to implement their own method of tracking income, or else switch to a regressive tax like sales tax.

I personally thinmk you get get the same effect without the upheaval by charging a dollar a gallon tax on gas (or pwerhaps even ration it) and aviation, enforce a stepped charging system for other energy, create a gas-guzzler tax and a square-footage charge for new homes, and use all this money to fund research, mass transportation, etc. and to give people grants to do basic things like insulate their houses and install double-glazing.

I know a lot of people have a visceral reaction to so-called 'payroll taxes' and swoon with delight when anybody mentions getting rid of them, and I don't know why. Of all the taxes in existence, it's about the only one that takes into account the ability to pay.

basing our tax revenue on an ever decreasing stream of money will not work. If the goal is to eliminate CO2 then when achieved the tax revenue will be zero. What would you do then?

I am all for eliminating payroll taxes and to put the responsibility on business to pay the overhead of having a country. Social Security is more like insurance than a tax and we only confuse people when call it a tax. Small adjustments in that program and it can go on forever.

I think a CO2 tax is a very good idea but it should be used to pay the debit and most especially pay back the SS money that has been borrowed for the last 35 years. My generation (Gore's too) is retiring and the deal that was made to us needs to be lived up to. Promises were made to us and we paid the money all these years.

I think Gore is running and I believe he could be a great candidate. Have you seen his movie, he IS running.

They like the regressive payroll taxes but probably wouldn't mind replacing them with what would be similar to a regressive sales tax on goods and services. I think it's likely they're trying to figure out how the SS tust fund could be 'lost' in the confusion of such a conversion.

They've been unsuccessfully trying smoke and mirrors like privatization and a phony SS 'chrisis' to convince people that changes need to be made - all detrimental to the interests of beneficiaries and to the health of the program as we know it. Their goal has been to reduce SS liabilities enough so that the program can be sustained on payroll taxes alone, ensuring that the trust fund would not ever cash in any of the $2 trillion (this does not include the Medicare trust fund) in treasury bonds that are owed to it by the general fund.

By avoiding redemption of these bonds by benefit cuts they would effectively steal the $2 trillion from beneficiaries.

Gore wouldn't open negotiations without shooting for the moon.

He's pretty smart.

k&R

:P

He can get all science-y yet be understood by the typical high school sophmore. Yay, Al! Good going, sir.



Check this out & see for yourself. Really cool site:

http://resources.aellalei.com/tools/writer/sample.php

Bad news: They're all utility companies. They'll TRY to jack us on rates.
Good news: They're all utility companies. You can't move your power plants offshore.

List, link:

American Electric Power Company; the Southern Company; Tennessee Valley Authority; Xcel Energy Inc.; and Cinergy Corporation. Together, they own or operate 174 fossil fuel burning power plants in 20 states that emit some 650 million tons of carbon dioxide each year – almost a quarter of the U.S. utility industry's annual carbon dioxide emissions and about 10 percent of the nation's total.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/jul/jul21a_04.html

Why have executive making obscene profits on something so critical? How does that help?

leaning government. I am all for nationalizing all extraction industries within our national borders. Mining for minerals (oil and gas), ores (silver, gold copper, etc.), lumbering, leasing of grazing land (which is already, but they don't charge the going rate.) fishing grounds (commercial fisheries should get permits to operate as well as the fishing licenses we are familiar with) and the like.

They should be nationalized because first they are supposedly owned by the people of the USA. Second they can be regulated by the people. Since there isn't a profit motive, they can operate environmentally. Third the proceeds should be used for the people, education, health care. roads and other infrastructure, alternative energies developing and so on.

:dunce:

Agree with everything you just said.

That won't go over well

:applause:

all for him running again.

taxes? Its a great thing that could rally the middle class and working poor. His 2000 campaign somehow forgot to mention everything good about Gore. He ran like he had no record at all.

This is only part one of my reply to Mr. Gore's speech, because I honestly have some questions and need further explanation of some aspects of it before I can make a judgement on them, preferably regarding his plan for eliminating payroll taxes and substituting it with a carbon tax. I'm wondering how that would effect my contributions from my paycheck to Social Security and unemployment benefits should I become unemployed. I also have questions regarding carbon sequestration in regards to groundwater supplies and costs, and also questions regarding a timeline for all of this, and knowing just how the consumer isn't going to have to bear the brunt of costs for any suggestion undertaken by businesses.

While I do think it was forward thinking, visionary, and passionate in the plea for change alas, unless business, religion, and the grassroots really join together in this all the way the status quo will remain, and as Mr. Gore also stated in his speech, without spiritual and moral will it won't happen. I was hoping he was going to go into more detail about how he believes we are going to change human nature, because to me that is the key ingredient to success with this.

That stated, I had written a while back that the position doesn't make the man, nor does it make a man a leader just to have the word "President" in front of his name. And Al Gore proves that maxim with every speech and every good deed. And for me, this speech was so radical and profound regarding the sweeping changes it asks for from a political, business, and moral standpoint, that it would never be the speech of any political candidate or someone looking to be a political candidate. It was the speech of an environmental visionary who sees that we must now seek radical change from outside the confines of the political world in order to bring it along with us. WE must now be the leader.

On the whole, this speech has laid before us all a chance to begin in earnest the work of preserving our only home for future generations. It calls for responsible stewardship, moral responsibility, and ethical business practices that can produce the greatest results both economically and environmentally if not perverted for selfish gain, corporate coffers, or war chests...

And that of course is where the human nature part comes into play because as good as the intentions of Mr. Gore in relaying these suggestions may be, it in the end depends on the moral will of the majority overriding the greedy will of those with the cash who will once again even with that ten year window closing look for an easy cheap way out.

I responded to only parts of it for now, and was actually a bit disappointed in some of it on second look, especially the idea of doing away with all payroll taxes. I believe we need to face this crisis head on (and would actually be willing to pay an additional bit out of my pay for it,) but we also need Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, roads, bridges, WATER infrastructure, etc. How do you offset that? How do you also monitor corporations so as to know whether or not they are fudging numbers just to avoid paying this carbon tax? Will they be precluded from paying it if they keep within carbon cap limits? Where will that "tax" money go and who will regulate it? Because if they would be precluded from paying it if they met carbon caps, you are going to see MAJOR FRAUD with that in my view, and it will once again be the poor who lose out.


Excerpts:

"Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special issue this month with the following sentence: “The debate on global warming is over.”

Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could - within as little as 10 years - make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization. In this regard, just a few weeks ago, another group of scientists reported on the unexpectedly rapid increases in the release of carbon and methane emissions from frozen tundra in Siberia, now beginning to thaw because of human caused increases in global temperature. The scientists tell us that the tundra in danger of thawing contains an amount of additional global warming pollution that is equal to the total amount that is already in the earth’s atmosphere. Similarly, earlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale - a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency - a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe.

The serious debate over the climate crisis has now moved on to the question of how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic damage."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response:

Absolutely 100% agree with all of this. The evidence is in and it is overwhelming. However, for me, the debate has moved on to not only crafting solutions to this problem, it has also moved on to crafting solutions that will not place an unfair burden on the world's poor who do not contribute to this crisis as much as others do. And unfortunately, I do believe a couple of the solutions outlined by Mr. Gore would wind up doing just that in the longrun because people would abuse them, as I will outline below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"This debate over solutions has been slow to start in earnest not only because some of our leaders still find it more convenient to deny the reality of the crisis, but also because the hard truth for the rest of us is that the maximum that seems politically feasible still falls far short of the minimum that would be effective in solving the crisis. This no-man’s land - or no politician zone Ðfalling between the farthest reaches of political feasibility and the first beginnings of truly effective change is the area that I would like to explore in my speech today.

T. S. Eliot once wrote: Between the idea and the reality, Between the motion and the act Falls the Shadow. ... Between the conception and the creation, Between the emotion and the response Falls the Shadow.

My purpose is not to present a comprehensive and detailed blueprint - for that is a task for our democracy as a whole - but rather to try to shine some light on a pathway through this terra incognita that lies between where we are and where we need to go. Because, if we acknowledge candidly that what we need to do is beyond the limits of our current political capacities, that really is just another way of saying that we have to urgently expand the limits of what is politically possible."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response

From where I sit the political world cannot face this crisis as it needs to be faced because they simply do not have the moral fiber as a whole necessary to carry it out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I have no doubt that we can do precisely that, because having served almost three decades in elected office, I believe I know one thing about America’s political system that some of the pessimists do not: it shares something in common with the climate system; it can appear to move only at a slow pace, but it can also cross a tipping point beyond which it can move with lightning speed. Just as a single tumbling rock can trigger a massive landslide, America has sometimes experienced sudden avalanches of political change that had their beginnings with what first seemed like small changes.

Two weeks ago, Democrats and Republicans joined together in our largest state, California, to pass legally binding sharp reductions in CO2 emissions. 295 American cities have now independently “ratified” and embraced CO2 reductions called for in the Kyoto Treaty. 85 conservative evangelical ministers publicly broke with the Bush-Cheney administration to call for bold action to solve the climate crisis. Business leaders in both political parties have taken significant steps to position their companies as leaders in this struggle and have adopted a policy that not only reduces CO2 but makes their companies zero carbon companies. Many of them have discovered a way to increase profits and productivity by eliminating their contributions to global warming pollution."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response:

Well, this is true, and I suppose California should be commended... however, we have yet to see any results from it. Again, legislation doesn't automatically equal adherence, especially in an election year. Schwarzenegger wants to get re-elected, that's what I see about this. And in seeing the reality of the political world based on its track record especially in the past six years is not being a pessimist. I would dare say that after the coup of 2000 that Americans including Mr. Gore seem to have now swept under the rug, I think it is absolutely warranted to think of the political sphere as nothing more than a pit of amoral vipers who don't do anything unless it benefits their wallets. If I am given proof to the contrary I will change my opinion on that, however, I have yet to see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many Americans are now seeing a bright light shining from the far side of this no-man’s land that illuminates not sacrifice and danger, but instead a vision of a bright future that is better for our country in every way - a future with better jobs, a cleaner environment, a more secure nation, and a safer world.

"After all, many Americans are tired of borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the Persian Gulf to make huge amounts of pollution that destroys the planet’s climate. Increasingly, Americans believe that we have to change every part of that pattern."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response

Yes we do, so why did millions of them vote for Bush? Why have they put up with this policy for so long even though they suffer because of it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"When I visit port cities like Seattle, New Orleans, or Baltimore, I find massive ships, running low in the water, heavily burdened with foreign cargo or foreign oil arriving by the thousands. These same cargo ships and tankers depart riding high with only ballast water to keep them from rolling over. One-way trade is destructive to our economic future. We send money, electronically, in the opposite direction. But, we can change this by inventing and manufacturing new solutions to stop global warming right here in America. I still believe in good old-fashioned American ingenuity. We need to fill those ships with new products and technologies that we create to turn down the global thermostat. Working together, we can create jobs and stop global warming. But we must begin by winning the first key battle - against inertia and the fear of change."

In order to conquer our fear and walk boldly forward on the path that lies before us, we have to insist on a higher level of honesty in America’s political dialogue. When we make big mistakes in America, it is usually because the people have not been given an honest accounting of the choices before us. It also is often because too many members of both parties who knew better did not have the courage to do better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response

In recent polls 50% of Americans still believe Hussein planned 9.11, and I don't see them insisting for anything. I truly wish I could share Mr. Gore's optimism regarding the American people as a whole, but I don't. Sixty five million of them thought Bush was still the better choice in 2004. And I bet if he ran again people would still vote for him despite the lies. And again, it is wonderful to create technologies and products that will advance sustainability globally, but how do developing countries in debt afford them? How do we if we are poor?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future - indeed the future of all human civilization - is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than the spectacle of censorship of the best scientific evidence about the truth of our situation and harassment of honest scientists who are trying to warn us about the looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced - even as the danger bears down on us.

We in the United States of America have a particularly important responsibility, after all, because the world still regards us - in spite of our recent moral lapses - as the natural leader of the community of nations. Simply put, in order for the world to respond urgently to the climate crisis, the United States must lead the way. No other nation can."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response

Moral "lapses" actually doesn't quite cut it for me. To claim it was a moral "lapse" to torture people means you had morals to begin with. There is no going back from what the Bush regime did and is still doing regarding our nation's soul, and there is no "our" involved in that. I had no moral lapse, and neither did many of those who these amoral cretins think they speak and act for. I truly expected better than this regarding Bush and their amoral behavior from Mr. Gore. He surely appears to have softened since his February 2002 speech when he screamed that Bush betrayed this country. And in order for this country to lead on the climate crisis our national image must be repaired because much of this world no longer sees us as a helping hand, but a clenched fist looking to control the entire Middle East by force keeping us in a perpetual war that will ultimately bring this economy down. Call for John Bolton to be rejected as UN Ambassador as a start and maybe then we can talk about mending those "moral lapses."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Developing countries like China and India have gained their own understanding of how threatening the climate crisis is to them, but they will never find the political will to make the necessary changes in their growing economies unless and until the United States leads the way. Our natural role is to be the pace car in the race to stop global warming.

So, what would a responsible approach to the climate crisis look like if we had one in America?

Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response:

Good idea, but who regulates it? Some government agency?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead. I remember a quarter century ago when I was the author of a complex nuclear arms control plan to deal with the then rampant arms race between our country and the former Soviet Union. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the nuclear freeze movement, which I saw as simplistic and naive. But, 3/4 of the American people supported it - and as I look back on those years I see more clearly now that the outpouring of public support for that very simple and clear mandate changed the political landscape and made it possible for more detailed and sophisticated proposals to eventually be adopted.

When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat, our nation needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is broadly supported on a bipartisan basis.

A responsible approach to solving this crisis would also involve joining the rest of the global economy in playing by the rules of the world treaty that reduces global warming pollution by authorizing the trading of emissions within a global cap.

At present, the global system for carbon emissions trading is embodied in the Kyoto Treaty. It drives reductions in CO2 and helps many countries that are a part of the treaty to find the most efficient ways to meet their targets for reductions. It is true that not all countries are yet on track to meet their targets, but the first targets don’t have to be met until 2008 and the largest and most important reductions typically take longer than the near term in any case.

The absence of the United States from the treaty means that 25% of the world economy is now missing. It is like filling a bucket with a large hole in the bottom. When the United States eventually joins the rest of the world community in making this system operate well, the global market for carbon emissions will become a highly efficient closed system and every corporate board of directors on earth will have a fiduciary duty to manage and reduce CO2 emissions in order to protect shareholder value.

Many American businesses that operate in other countries already have to abide by the Kyoto Treaty anyway, and unsurprisingly, they are the companies that have been most eager to adopt these new principles here at home as well. The United States and Australia are the only two countries in the developed world that have not yet ratified the Kyoto Treaty. Since the Treaty has been so demonized in America’s internal debate, it is difficult to imagine the current Senate finding a way to ratify it. But the United States should immediately join the discussion that is now underway on the new tougher treaty that will soon be completed. We should plan to accelerate its adoption and phase it in more quickly than is presently planned.

Third, a responsible approach to solutions would avoid the mistake of trying to find a single magic “silver bullet” and recognize that the answer will involve what Bill McKibben has called “silver-buckshot” - numerous important solutions, all of which are hard, but no one of which is by itself the full answer for our problem.

One of the most productive approaches to the “multiple solutions” needed is a road-map designed by two Princeton professors, Rob Socolow and Steven Pacala, which breaks down the overall problem into more manageable parts. Socolow and Pacala have identified 15 or 20 building blocks (or “wedges”) that can be used to solve our problem effectively - even if we only use 7 or 8 of them. I am among the many who have found this approach useful as a way to structure a discussion of the choices before us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response

I believe the Kyoto Treaty is a great start, but that we do need a tougher treaty with ASIAN countries signing on as well. The U.S of course must lead on this, but again, how is it justified now in the longrun with China growing economically stronger, becoming more industrialised, and engaging in building coal burning plants and putting more automobiles on its roads that stand to negate our progress? I then say that any American companies that do business in China or any country that doesn't sign onto the toughter treaty should then be penalized for it on top of any "carbon tax." But good luck trying to pass ANYTHING in this Congress that actually penalizes corporations...which brings us right back to square one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Over the next year, I intend to convene an ongoing broad-based discussion of solutions that will involve leaders from government, science, business, labor, agriculture, grass-roots activists, faith communities and others.

I am convinced that it is possible to build an effective consensus in the United States and in the world at large on the most effective approaches to solve the climate crisis. Many of those solutions will be found in the building blocks that currently structure so many discussions. But I am also certain that some of the most powerful solutions will lie beyond our current categories of building blocks and “wedges.” Our secret strength in America has always been our capacity for vision. “Make no little plans,” one of our most famous architects said over a century ago, “they have no magic to stir men’s blood.”

I look forward to the deep discussion and debate that lies ahead. But there are already some solutions that seem to stand out as particularly promising:

First, dramatic improvements in the efficiency with which we generate, transport and use energy will almost certainly prove to be the single biggest source of sharp reductions in global warming pollution. Because pollution has been systematically ignored in the old rules of America’s marketplace, there are lots of relatively easy ways to use new and more efficient options to cheaply eliminate it. Since pollution is, after all, waste, business and industry usually become more productive and efficient when they systematically go about reducing pollution. After all, many of the technologies on which we depend are actually so old that they are inherently far less efficient than newer technologies that we haven’t started using. One of the best examples is the internal combustion engine. When scientists calculate the energy content in BTUs of each gallon of gasoline used in a typical car, and then measure the amounts wasted in the car’s routine operation, they find that an incredible 90% of that energy is completely wasted. One engineer, Amory Lovins, has gone farther and calculated the amount of energy that is actually used to move the passenger (excluding the amount of energy used to move the several tons of metal surrounding the passenger) and has found that only 1% of the energy is actually used to move the person. This is more than an arcane calculation, or a parlor trick with arithmetic. These numbers actually illuminate the single biggest opportunity to make our economy more efficient and competitive while sharply reducing global warming pollution.

To take another example, many older factories use obsolete processes that generate prodigious amounts of waste heat that actually has tremendous economic value. By redesigning their processes and capturing all of that waste, they can eliminate huge amounts of global warming pollution while saving billions of dollars at the same time.

When we introduce the right incentives for eliminating pollution and becoming more efficient, many businesses will begin to make greater use of computers and advanced monitoring systems to identify even more opportunities for savings. This is what happened in the computer chip industry when more powerful chips led to better computers, which in turn made it possible to design even more powerful chips, in a virtuous cycle of steady improvement that became known as “Moore’s Law.” We may well see the emergence of a new version of “Moore’s Law” producing steadily higher levels of energy efficiency at steadily lower cost.
~~~~~~~
Response:

Well, we need to see a "Moore's Law" regarding streamlining automobiles that are lighter but stronger. They would get better mileage while costing less to produce. The savings could then be passed on in corporations that produce such vehicles by working towards carbon caps, or passing it on to the consumer. That I like, but again, what of the price to the consumer? Just because it costs less for a company to produce something doesn't mean it will automatically pass that savings on to the consumer in lieu of using the savings to make an even bigger profit to offset less cost in production. And we absolutely need plug-in hybrid cars and solar photovoltaic cars at some point in my opinion, and cars that get that 80 miles to the gallon scientists have said we have the capacity to produce, until such other methods are available.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Small windmills and photovoltaic solar cells distributed widely throughout the electricity grid would sharply reduce CO2 emissions and at the same time increase our energy security. Likewise, widely dispersed ethanol and biodiesel production facilities would shift our transportation fuel stocks to renewable forms of energy while making us less dependent on and vulnerable to disruptions in the supply of expensive crude oil from the Persian Gulf, Venezuela and Nigeria, all of which are extremely unreliable sources upon which to base our future economic vitality. It would also make us less vulnerable to the impact of a category 5 hurricane hitting coastal refineries or to a terrorist attack on ports or key parts of our current energy infrastructure.

Just as a robust information economy was triggered by the introduction of the Internet, a dynamic new renewable energy economy can be stimulated by the development of an “electranet,” or smart grid, that allows individual homeowners and business-owners anywhere in America to use their own renewable sources of energy to sell electricity into the grid when they have a surplus and purchase it from the grid when they don’t. The same electranet could give homeowners and business-owners accurate and powerful tools with which to precisely measure how much energy they are using where and when, and identify opportunities for eliminating unnecessary costs and wasteful usage patterns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response

For me solar energy is the wave of the future, and we have not even scratched the surface of what we could do with it. I like the idea of an "electranet", but again, who would regulate it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will have another response to his speech, specifically regarding carbon sequestration. This is such a voluminous meaty speech, that one can't possibly respond to it all in one response. And even though I don't necessarily agree with one or two of the points made by Mr. Gore in it, there is no doubt that this speech was written with sincerity and passion which is why I wish to respond to it.

Again, how can you MAKE companies respond to this if they do not see it as viably profitable, and what is to stop them from just flat out lying about what they are doing? And GOOGLE was one of the companies that ignored this survey. Isn't Mr. Gore an advisor to GOOGLE? I think he should then advise them that ignoring this is not really wise from a business perspective. And don't get me wrong, I think corporations NEED to be penalized for not adhering to carbon caps and such, but again,who is going to regulate it? Because companies will abuse it and they will lie about their caps just to avoid penalty which in the end really isn't a solution. We definitely then need more information on this.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...38156/story.htm


UK: September 19, 2006


LONDON - Nearly 30 percent of the world's top companies did not respond to a survey, backed by major investors, about the impact of climate change-related issues on their business, the survey's results showed on Monday. Investors want to be well-placed to face the effects of climate change -- for example by betting on companies that are planning for expected penalties on burning fossil fuels. Many have supported the annual survey, the fourth by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and 225 investors with assets of more than US$31 trillion signed a questionnaire sent last February to the world's top companies, members of the FT 500 index.

But the results, published on Monday, showed virtually no change in response rate from surveyed companies -- at 72 percent from 71 percent last year. "These findings suggest that the response rate to the CDP may have reached a threshold," the authors said. "A small minority of firms are persistently ignoring the CDP information request."

A list published by CDP showed that big name companies which did not respond this time included Web search leader Google Inc , which was not in the FT 500 in the past surveys, as well as Web search firm Yahoo Inc and French food group Danone, which have answered in previous rounds.
Google, Yahoo and Danone were not immediately available for comment.
Some companies, including telecoms firms and retailers, have ignored every round.

This year the US response rate was up, with 58 percent answering the questions, up from 42 percent in 2005, and many companies outside the FT 500 were surveyed for the first time. But tangible action on climate change by businesses, beyond answering the FT 500 survey, appeared limited -- fewer than half had implemented a programme to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer responding companies this year felt climate change represented a threat to business, although these still represented a hefty 87 percent versus 92 percent in 2005. In addition, fewer than half of FT 500 companies provided greenhouse gas emissions data, compared to more than half in the last survey.

more at link.

did not have the courage to do better."

That's a quote.

That's the truth.

Then check out these sites ...
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com
www.draftgore2008.org
www.climatecrisis.net

In Gore We Trust :)

Is it only the employer's portion of payroll tax they match to ours he proposes to see repealed and substituted with a carbon tax? Would employees still contribute payroll tax for SS, unemployment compensation, and Medicare? Because to me, if we don't pay into SS and Medicare, how does it then get funded? Especially with the billions we are sending to Iraq to be extorted, and the trillions in deficits we have?

Reading a bit more on this, I think I can see what Mr. Gore is talking about regarding the carbon tax being a revenue swap. Instead of using the revenue to take it out of employee's pay for payroll taxes, it is used as a carbon tax to generate revenue to make businesses more sustainable and can even be used for rebates. I still need to understand how the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds make out in all of this, and how businesses would be regulated regarding it. I'm sure or would hope he will give a follow up speech on this.

Meeting with (basically ad hoc) think tanks and making future speeches on the subject.

He's been a very strong supporter of Social Security for his entire career. He's also very aware of the need to create ways for the poor and lower middle class to benefit from emerging technology - - that's why he created the program that brought free internet service to libraries and schools.

I'm sure the final plan will at least include an alternate revenue stream for social security. It may also include improvements to the program.

And am now taking actual action on this crisis on my own and will definitely be writing about any other speeches he makes as I have been for the last five years. Thanks.

but am wondering how his tax system would affect the working poor. Many of us drive old gas guzzlers.

Out here in Cali, personal vehicles have to meet emissions standards - - so we have mandatory smog tests that each vehicle has to pass every two years. Only state certified smog test stations can run the check, only state licensed shops can make any repairs needed.

If a vehicle fails the smog test, you have to get it repaired or the state won't issue (or renew) your vehicle registration.

If you can't afford to make the repairs, the state's commuter assistance program will pay up to $500 to make the repairs. (It's in a repair shop's best interests to make sure that the repairs can be done for under $500, otherwise they price themselves out of a steady flow of revenue.) There's also a state vehicle retirement program that will pay eligible motorists up to $1000 to retire their high polluting vehicles.

So IMNSHO what you do is you write into the law the following things:

1.) A revenue stream that will pay for the program (unlike Smirk's programs, which never have realistic budgets or have any plan to actually pay for them). This means that the corporations and people who can afford to pay for their pollution have to pay, and there has to be meaningful enforcement.

2.) The support for the car companies to switch to plug in hybrid and clean technologies (like Gore mentioned). This will eventually drive down the price of cleaner cars, and when newer, better technology hits the streets, the middle class and upper middle class people who have hybrids now will trade up, making more used hybrids available.

3.) Massive investment into public transportation systems, especially in larger cities.

4.) Phase in the law, so that consumers have a reasonable amount of time to switch to a cleaner technology.

5.) Build in government support for people who can afford a junker car but can't afford to fix it or trade up (like the Cali smog test programs).

And Al Gore being Al Gore, all these kinds of issues - - how will it impact the working poor - - will definitely be addressed in a meaningful way.

The federal government is the largest single user of energy inside the United States, and the Department of Defense (DOD) is the largest user within the federal government, accounting for 70% of the government’s total. Accordingly, DOD is a likely source of emissions reductions if the Administration is to achieve the level to which it agreed at Kyoto.

But according to an internal DOD memo subsequently made public, reducing DOD fuel usage by 10 percent, a not unlikely target, would have a significant impact on unit readiness of US ground forces, steaming time for US Navy ships, and flying hours for the aviation components of all the services. The memo states that in the event of such a reduction, it would be difficult for the American military to meet the requirements of the US national security strategy.

Run, Al, Run!!!