Al Gore Takes Cash for Water Campaign from Chemical Firm

Gore takes cash for water campaign from chemical firm

Environmentalists condemn former vice-president for letting controversial company fund Life Earth

By Nina Lakhani

Sunday, 18 April 2010


Al Gore, the self-styled squeakiest-clean and deepest-green politician in American history, has some explaining to do this weekend. His environmental organisation has taken money to raise awareness about the need for clean water from a controversial chemicals company involved in the aftermath of one of the world's worst pollution disasters.

Dow Chemical, the US firm which now owns the leaking pesticides factory responsible for thousands of deaths in Bhopal, India, is sponsoring Life Earth events in 150 cities today. The event aims to raise money for clean water programmes. Research by environmental organisations has found dangerous levels of highly toxic chemicals in rivers, lakes and other water supplies close to several other factories owned by Dow and its subsidiaries in countries including the United States, Brazil and South Africa.

Dow's factories at its global headquarters in Midland, Michigan, have been accused of contaminating the region, including the Tittabawassee River floodplains, with high levels of dioxin – one of the "dirty dozen" most dangerous chemicals. In 2007, the highest level of dioxin contamination ever measured by the US Environmental Protection Agency was found in the Michigan Saginaw River. Residents are advised to avoid contact with river sediments and not to eat locally caught fish.

Campaigners are outraged by what they call Dow's "blatant attempt" to paint itself as a green company and divert attention from the Bhopal scandal, where 25 years after the 1984 disaster at the plant (then owned by Union Carbide) thousands of villagers are still forced to use contaminated water which causes birth defects, cancer and skin disorders.

...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gore-takes-cash-for-water-campaign-from-chemical-firm-1947723.html

Gore himself didn't take any money. Funny how there's no quote from these "campaigners" and "environmentalists" who are so outraged at Gore, except for one guy from a group I've never heard of. Odd.

NAFTA cleared the Senate by one vote. Al Gore was called in to perform his constitutional role as Senate President to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the treaty. Clinton and Gore, through Gore's tie-breaking vote, delivered what Bush I could only dream of. Thus began the precipitous hollowing-out of American manufacturing. The Clinton-Gore passion for "free" trade agreements such as NAFTA, the WTO, and GATT greatly accelerated the pace of exporting the American manufacturing base in ways that backers of their Republican predecessors could only dream of. The massive negative impact of these agreements on American workers was immediate, but was largely masked by the growth (both real and speculative) in the IT sector. It also took a few years for the full for the full intensity of the changes to be felt as the transition phased-in.

Democrats and progressives often complain that the transformation of the American economy to a third-world service economy accelerated under Bush II. While it is true that the Bush White House was disinterested in taking any action that would have preserved American jobs in a way that would cause even minor inconvenience to corporate elites, it is also true that most of the major structural damage was already done before Clinton-Gore left office.

This massive betrayal of labor by the Clinton-Gore team also had far reaching political consequences. It created a wide-spread (and well justified) feeling among the working and middle classes that Democrats had taken them for granted and that Republicans could be no worse. Disaffection among US labor groups and working Americans helped to usher in the Republican congress in 1994. Some labor groups, notably the Teamsters, went so far as to support Bush (not Nader) in 2000. As the effects of "free" trade undercut and disempowered American workers, the Democrats lost one of their most powerful and reliable traditional allies.

When Gore was running for president Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace group, highlighted six issues in its Presidential voter guide. On five of these, Gore and Bush agree:

"Increase Pentagon spending" (Yes), "Spend $60 billion or more on 'Star Wars' anti-missile system" (Yes), "Give aid to Colombian army guilty of human rights violations" (Yes), "End sanctions on food and medicine to civilians in Iraq" (No), and "Require labor rights and environmental protections in all trade agreements" (No).

Here's more Gore.

GORE: We have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he’s taking advantage of this situation to once again make threats and he needs to understand that he’s not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing with us.

BUSH: The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it’s unraveling, let’s put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there’s going to be a consequence, should I be the president.

--------------------

Q: You could get him out of there?

BUSH: I’d like to, of course. But it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

Q: You feel that as a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: We have maintained the sanctions. I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Some say they’re too weak to do it. But that’s what they said about those opposing Milosevic in Serbia.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Gore wanted to go FURTHER than just mere sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands!

Gore does not inherit all the sins of Dow, by accepting their money for a good project.

The article states that "campaigners are outraged" yet it fails to provide any proof or quotes to verify that outrage.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's great to see free speech is allowed here. Some places frown on political critiques of certain icons. Good to see the welcome mat laid out so generously here.

Here, others had the free speech to discuss and disagree with the article you posted. Free speech does not mean that others will agree with you. Here, your other post explains more. It shows why you intensely don't like Gore. That explains why you are willing to see something wrong where there might not be a problem. If there are no strings, there is nothing wrong here.

It is a most generous place, but those who actively campaign against Dem candidates and progressive ideals may find themselves on a less generous mat.

Just saying your post could be misconstrued as being problematic when I'm certain that isn't your case. Know the rules, understand how they are applied and you should be fine. Those who are only here to critique Dems don't last long as free speech does have it's limits on a privately owned board.

Welcome!

Now, I would have a problem if Gore was putting money in Dow to make money, but this isn't it. This is an idiotic hit piece. Gore by accepting money with no strings does not inherit all the problems of Dow.



(In addition, though Gore has done more than anyone on global warming, he was never the best Senator on enviromental matters.)

that Dow would do this if it might in any way negatively affect their bottom line? All this says is that Gore's effort is pro-capitalist and thus anti-human.

Most companies do - and the things they do to do so are usually good. By the way, this likely does negatively impact the bottom line as the gain in intangible.

The fact is that your view is simplistic. pro-capitalist does not equate to anti-human. In addition, taking money from corporations is not by definition pro capitalist. The question will be what does Gore's program do and what are its impacts. That, not who gave them money, is important.

And of course he's getting seriously rich on the carbon trading scam.

Capitalism IS anti-human. War, inequality, hunger, mass displacement the wasting of the planet, these, along with the wealth of the ruling class are the products of capitalism. Everything else is incidental.

If Dow wants to give money to a good cause I see no reason not to let them.

should attack every NPO that gets United Way money, which is from corporations.

he's a major league hypocrite.

:rofl:

As his father was on the board of occidental petroleum, it isn't a huge surprise. Does the means justify the ends here? I wonder...
Wish I had time to post more info for you. Thanks!