Former Vice President Al Gore says US may meet Paris Accord goals

[Independent voter]

As a Democrat, Al Gore might've made the whole climate change thing partisan.

He recently did an interview on NPR, Morning Edition, shilling his new documentary about climate change.

Here in the U.S. we've had 11 once-in-a-thousand-year events in the last seven years.

we have an excellent chance of meeting the commitments that former President Obama made in the Paris agreement regardless of what Donald Trump says.







http://www.npr.org/2017/07/24/538391...e-side-of-hope

Former Vice President Al Gore helped shape the conversation about climate change with An Inconvenient Truth. Now he's back with a sequel — called An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, due out next month — and it follows Gore as he continues the crusade he made famous with that first film.

The movie shows Gore standing in Miami floodwater, flying over imploding boulders of ice in Greenland and in Paris — trying to push the climate agreement over the finish line.

President Trump, however, promised last month to undo that victory when he announced plans to pull the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.

Want To Slow Global Warming? Researchers Look To Family Planning
ENVIRONMENT
Want To Slow Global Warming? Researchers Look To Family Planning
"I did my best to convince him to stay in the Paris agreement," Gore tells NPR's Steve Inskeep in one of two recent Morning Edition interviews. "And I thought that there was a chance he would come to his senses, but I was wrong."

Still, Gore is hopeful about reversing the effects of global climate change.

"[O]ne of the big differences between today and a decade ago is that we do have the solutions now," he says. Renewable energy like solar and wind electricity, he says, have evolved just like other technologies such as mobile phones and TVs so that "when production scales up they come down even faster in cost."


On recutting the movie to address President Trump's withdrawing of the Paris climate accord

We always anticipated that we could not end the movie until we realized who was going to win the election and what would happen thereafter. And I will tell you that when President Trump made his announcement that the U.S. will pull out of the Paris agreement I was deeply concerned that other countries might use that as an excuse to withdraw themselves. But I've been gratified that the entire rest of the world has doubled down on their commitments to the Paris agreement and that here in this country so many governors and mayors and business leaders have stepped up to fill the gap and say "We're still in Paris." And I really think, and the scientists think now as well, that we have an excellent chance of meeting the commitments that former President Obama made in the Paris agreement regardless of what Donald Trump says.

On whether he thinks Trump believes in human-caused climate change


I don't know. I have heard him say different things. I've heard him say in public things that would lead you to believe that he doesn't believe in it. But the scientific community has been virtually unanimous for a couple of decades and now there's a new participant in the debate: Mother Nature. The other big change from 10 years ago is that these climate-related extreme weather events are way more common — unfortunately way more destructive. Here in the U.S. we've had 11 once-in-a-thousand-year events in the last seven years. Last year was the hottest year globally ever measured. The second hottest was the year before, the third hottest was the year before that. And Mother Nature is more persuasive than the scientific community.

On those who dismiss climate change science because they've lost faith in experts

I think that one cause of this populist authoritarianism that we've seen not just in the U.S. but in Poland and Turkey and the Philippines and in Hungary ... is that the expert blueprint for globalization that has been touted for quite some time has caused those who feel left behind to feel real anger that middle-income wages have stagnated for decades and I think that generalized anger at how things are going extends over into a vulnerability to listen to demagogic claims that the scientific community doesn't know what it's talking about when they warn us of the climate crisis.



I know the events I did for [Hillary Clinton] in the 2016 election evoked a powerful response. I didn't see any other events that were devoted to climate so maybe I missed that.

I think that a lot of national politicians are told by their pollsters and experts that they ought to focus on other issues, but I think that's changing quite a bit. And I think that the partisan divide is now fading on climate, I really do.

I think the Democratic Party should focus much more on [climate change]. And I believe that's beginning to happen. If you look at Jerry Brown in California, Jay Inslee in the state of Washington, Andrew Cuomo in the state of New York and many others, we're now beginning to see a surge of interest in people who want to get away from the fossil fuel utilities, they want energy freedom, they want energy choice, and I think it will be a much bigger political plus in the years to come.

[Allybeboba]

One has to wonder if he stands to profit from the sequel. If so, it truly is a matter of 'convenience' this film is released now.

[Endus]

As a Democrat, Al Gore might've made the whole climate change thing partisan.

Err, no. Gore never made it partisan. What made it partisan was a whole suite of Republican voters who saw a Democrat who was also focused on climate change outreach, and they decided that they had to make it partisan, and deny the scientific realities by extension.

Climate change science is non-partisan, entirely. It's rooted in a global research network involving thousands of scientists in most countries around the globe, so acting like it's in any way partisan to a particular American political party is just . . . insane.

If you want to debate what we should do to adapt to the coming changes, that's political. Disputing the science itself? That's anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance, and nothing more. It isn't an informed political stance, it's antagonism to anything a Democrat says or supports solely because a Democrat supports it.

[Independent voter]

Err, no. Gore never made it partisan. What made it partisan was a whole suite of Republican voters who saw a Democrat who was also focused on climate change outreach, and they decided that they had to make it partisan, and deny the scientific realities by extension.

Climate change science is non-partisan, entirely. It's rooted in a global research network involving thousands of scientists in most countries around the globe, so acting like it's in any way partisan to a particular American political party is just . . . insane.

If you want to debate what we should do to adapt to the coming changes, that's political. Disputing the science itself? That's anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance, and nothing more. It isn't an informed political stance, it's antagonism to anything a Democrat says or supports solely because a Democrat supports it.

I'm saying that it wasn't a good idea to have someone who's obviously partisan, Clinton's VP, push climate change. Get some non-partisan bureaucrat or a minor celebrity to push climate change, that way it wouldn't have become a left versus right issue. It would've remained a science issue.

[Endus]

I'm saying that it wasn't a good idea to have someone who's obviously partisan, Clinton's VP, push climate change. Get some non-partisan bureaucrat or a minor celebrity to push climate change, that way it wouldn't have become a left versus right issue. It would've remained a science issue.

1> Nobody "had Gore push climate change". He chose to do it on his own. He wasn't selected by some secret council somewhere, or something.

2> Literally the only reason it's a left/right issue at all is willful ignorance by the fraction of right-wingers who have become climate change denier conspiracy nuts. If you started giving them the credibility they deserve (in other words, "none"), then there's be no partisan conflict basic scientific facts.

Gore isn't the problem. Propagandist deniers are the problem. If you're blaming Gore, you're essentially just saying that even the deniers don't REALLY believe their own garbage, it's just a lie they knowingly perpetuate for political gain.

If you want an analogy, it's like if Hillary Clinton came out and supported a campaign to combat cancer, and a whole bunch of right-wingers started denying that cancer even exists. That wouldn't be Clinton's fault. Nor was she the one who made it a partisan issue, by supporting the fight against cancer.

[Mittens]

I'm saying that it wasn't a good idea to have someone who's obviously partisan, Clinton's VP, push climate change. Get some non-partisan bureaucrat or a minor celebrity to push climate change, that way it wouldn't have become a left versus right issue. It would've remained a science issue.

Wasn't arnold schwarzenegger fully on board?

Either way, for all the hate climate change deniers get, I don't think its a particularily harmful belief as long as they are not wasteful.

OT: Kinda expected tbh

[BuckSparkles]

Wasn't this the same guy who said the ice caps would be melted by now?

Still waiting....

[Sky High]

Yep, the market has decided coal is dead and it's time to move onto cheaper, cleaner forms of energy. Free market capitalism doing something right for once in what seems forever.

[Taso]

It's funny that democrats took a stance that republicans created. Nixon created the EPA via executive order only to have it approved by congress later. Also passed the clean air act as well. Teddy prior to Nixon started the conservation movement which is how we(USA) have national parks. Maybe in time republicans will swing back.

[Daelak]

Wasn't this the same guy who said the ice caps would be melted by now?

Still waiting....

He didn't say that.

[Taso]

Yep, the market has decided coal is dead and it's time to move onto cheaper, cleaner forms of energy. Free market capitalism doing something right for once in what seems forever.

If we ended fossil fuel subsidies it would be way more easier to switch to alternative however the USA gov still provides those subsidies.

[GreenJesus]

OMG I saw the commercial for this trash at the movies in Newport Beach (affluent white area in Southern California). The audience definetly didn't like it. "There was a hurricane here and this part of the city flooded for 2 hours, SEEE GLOBAL WARMING!" Climate change is real but al gore is a dramatic idiot that wants to cash in on doomsday. Manbearpig all over again.

[Sky High]

If we ended fossil fuel subsidies it would be way more easier to switch to alternative however the USA gov still provides those subsidies.

Because the government is bribed to keep giving them said subidies, a few million in for a few billion out is sound investing.

[Garnier Fructis]

He recently did an interview on NPR, Morning Edition, shilling his new documentary about climate change.

How does one shill their own product?

[Jeezy911]

Did he fly in his private jet to make that announcement? Nothing worse than a hypocrite, also Bernie and his multiple mansions paid for by college kids.

[Sky High]

Did he fly in his private jet to make that announcement? Nothing worse than a hypocrite, also Bernie and his multiple mansions paid for by college kids.

Might as well toss in Hillary and Benghazi to complete this set of retarded talking points.

[Independent voter]

1> Nobody "had Gore push climate change". He chose to do it on his own. He wasn't selected by some secret council somewhere, or something.

Where do you come up with this stuff? At the worst he might've seen an opportunity to advance himself.

2> Literally the only reason it's a left/right issue at all is willful ignorance by the fraction of right-wingers who have become climate change denier conspiracy nuts. If you started giving them the credibility they deserve (in other words, "none"), then there's be no partisan conflict basic scientific facts.

The scientific community lost faith with the masses. They should've been more non-partisan and not so left wing.

Gore isn't the problem. Propagandist deniers are the problem. If you're blaming Gore, you're essentially just saying that even the deniers don't REALLY believe their own garbage, it's just a lie they knowingly perpetuate for political gain.

If you want an analogy, it's like if Hillary Clinton came out and supported a campaign to combat cancer, and a whole bunch of right-wingers started denying that cancer even exists. That wouldn't be Clinton's fault. Nor was she the one who made it a partisan issue, by supporting the fight against cancer.

I think Pope Francis came out and said that climate change was a problem. After that most of the right changed their minds and admitted climate change is a problem. Heck most of Trump's administration admits climate change is a problem.

All that was needed was a non-biased person or group, someone who had the trust of most of the right to come out on the climate change side and behold, most of the right now believes in climate change.

[Elegiac]

The scientific community lost faith with the masses. They should've been more non-partisan and not so left wing.

Um, what?

The scientific community is not being partisan; the GOP is making it a partisan issue.

[Vash The Stampede]

Wasn't this the same guy who said the ice caps would be melted by now?

Still waiting....

Ahem....

[Deleted]

Deep beneath all the issues, isn't it just 'war industry' and worldwide 'national security' issues that needs reliable oil first and foremost? To safely operate it needs diverse sources (best would be... Enitre world's economy) of it. World going green is a threat to safe diverse sources of oil.
At the end of the day, your car may run fine on electricity, your house may be powered by solar panels or wind, but tanks, smaller ships, fighter jets and whatnot need high energy density of oil, without it, your country's defense crumbles.

In this matter alone Germany going green hard with its war history is an interesting case, but that would be too divergent from main point.