Al Gore As Head Of The EPA? I Wouldn’t Rule It Out.
At a recent campaign event Barack Obama was asked if he’d consider taking on Al Gore as his presidential running mate. Obama laughed off the idea by saying that “having won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, being vice president again would probably be a step down for him”. But Obama did offer Gore a “very senior capacity” role in his administration if he was interested.
This brings up an interesting question, where does Al Gore fit in if he doesn’t run? Gore seem’s to have shaken off the problems that
I don’t really see Al Gore running for president at this point and I certainly don’t see him settling for VP, but I’ve constantly wondered what would happen if he was offered a role like Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or even just as an advisor. If global warming is really his top priority (and I believe it is), I don’t see how he could possibly turn down the opportunity like that.
On the other hand he’d have to be confirmed by the Senate, a process that might not go so smoothly. He’s also got some business interests he’d have to think about. He’s been on Apple’s board of directors since 2003 and is the chairmen of Current TV.
When taking everything into account I’d put my money on a Democrat offering Gore an advisor role, but I think at this point nothing is off limits. Any campaign with Gore onboard will probably gain a lot more support.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I think both Gore and (Bill) Clinton are looking beyond our national boundaries and the UN is their goal.
After all, the UN is full of the same ideology.
You can take that as positive, or ….
October 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Randy,
I see what you mean but I don’t think it’s right for Gore (I think you have something about Bill though). The UN has already done a lot but there are some countries like the U.S. that have resisted them. There’s also countries like Australia that hold off on taking action until they see the U.S. getting on board. If Gore can get the U.S. on track there’s a good chance other countries will follow our lead.
To go off topic (and addressed to anyone that reads this), I also think the reaction to global warming prevention efforts has been exaggerated. In fact there’s a lot of similarities to the way the tobacco industry reacted to reports of smokings health risks.
Furthermore I think the economic impact that fighting global warming have also been exaggerated. Sure some companies will take a hit, but only for the short term. Just look at Toyota, they diverted some of their effort towards building high mileage vehicles while American companies focused on SUV’s. Looking back, which company would you rather have invested in?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
The difference in car choices are not all that have sunk the American automakers. The fact that a Detroit unskilled laborer was making more than some doctors and guaranteed full employment helped. American management made a lot of mistakes. The extra costs just made it harder for them to adapt. The management rested on their laurels too long, content to take whatever profit they could.
I have another theory that the stockholders are partially to blame. The American stockholder is only concerned about short term profits. The Japanese, look at things 10, 20 even 100 years down the line.
Which brings global warming to the frontline. We are competing with the Chinese, the Brazillians, the Indians and residents of every country. The “evidence” of global warming has enough holes in it to call into question (a British judge found nine key scientific errors in Gore’s movie).
But back to Gore, are you saying what he SHOULD do, or what he WILL do? I see it as two different things. Same with Bill. I truly believe we’ll see both of them in some international position.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I know there are other factors but I’m sure gas mileage is pretty high on the list.
I’m familiar with that ruling. Did you also know said that the film was “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” (PDF)? The problem is just in the specifics. And just for the record the plaintiff in the case was also funded by an anti-environmentalist lobbying group. Remember how I said all this reminded me of the tobacco industry? That kind of stuff is why.
If you skip the media and special interests and go straight to peer reviewed scientific journals I think you’ll find that they tend to have a more uniform opinion on global warming.
In any case I’d hope we all can agree that saving energy is a good thing, whether it’s to save the planet or just to save a couple bucks. If we can do something to keep chemicals out of the air than we probably should. After all, if it doesn’t cause global warming it’ll probably cause cancer or respiratory problems.
As for Gore, I think he would sign on as adviser (though perhaps unofficial). As for the EPA thing, I’m just pointing out that any candidate offering Gore such a post would gain the support of many Gore supporters and thus is possible.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Unfortunately, you can’t trust peer review either. Too many peers that have disagreed have been ignored.
Yes, saving electricty and cutting down on chemicals in the air is a good thing. The question becomes at what expense. A very good case in point is regarding the drought that recently hit Georgia. The Army Core of Engineers was releasing water from the lakes by order of federal law to protect some wildlife downstream. By doing so, they were (and still are) endangering the long term life of humans.
Saing wildlife is important, but saving humans is more important. Saving jobs is important. Which is more important, taking chemicals out of the air or saving jobs? The answer has to be “it depends”. It depends on which chemicals. If the relative harm is low, jobs make take precedence.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Peer review isn’t about opinion, it’s about whether or not the reasoning and research is sound. But even throwing that point aside, who do you trust on this?
Also, who gets to decide whether the cost of cost of cutting back on pollution is justified? The corporations? I think you’ve already made my point in an earlier comment: Americans (not just investors) are too short sighted. If we start making efforts now I think we’ll save money in the long run, rather than if we wait for a bigger problem and have to fix things quickly.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Peer review isn’t SUPPOSED to be about opinion. But there’s peer review on both sides. Who do you trust?
Yes, we need to save energy and cut pollutants. Al Gore did a good job of simplifying his beliefs and putting them out there. And yes, starting earlier will save money in the long run.
But Al Gore is NOT the one that I trust, nor most of the “chicken little” crowd. They ignore the other side (as do most right wingers) and attempt to discredit them. And (I believe) Gore’s viewpoint is biased due to his investments in Carbon Credit companies (can you say conflict of interest?) And he doesn’t live what he preaches.
Gore is one of 2 or 3 individuals that I would vote AGAINST in any election, even as dog catcher. His addition to the Global Warming issue decreases the credibility in my book.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I’ll be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the carbon credits either. They’re too controversial, you have to trust that the company that sells them will be honest, and even in the best case they’re only a temporary fix.
I think Al Gore’s ties to carbon credits have been exaggerated. Yes he has some, but in the big picture I doubt they are a big fraction of his income. Plus Gore has been the target of misinformation in the past, for instance he never claimed to have invented the internet.
But in any case Gore doesn’t have to be relevant to environmentalism. You also don’t have to run right out and install solar panels on your roof either. Why not just try a single CFL lightbulb? I know you’ve heard some horror story about mercury in them but I really don’t think that was typical (it sounded like an urban legend). Old thermometers had about 100 times as much mercury, were much easier to break, and people put those in their mouths. I’ve used CFL for about a year now and I’ve never had a problem. I even had a free one sent to me through the mail with only the typical cardboard packaging (fitting tightly inside a similar sized shipping box) supporting it and it held up fine.