Obama did more to stop climate change in one month than Clinton/Gore did in 8 years.

[Radical Activist]

First, he appointed a strong environmental team that's serious about climate change.

Second, he set the stage for allowing California and other states to set stricter emissions standards on vehicles and force automakers to offer more alternative fuel vehicles.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/California_Request_for_Waiver_Under_the_Clean_Air_Act/

Now, the stimulus bill provides by far the largest investment America has ever made in renewable energy, efficiency projects, and alternative and public transportation.
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/02/13/detailed-summary-of-energy-investments-in-stimulus/

This is not small change or third way politics. This is already a transformative Presidency in a way that Bill Clinton's never was.

Clinton failed to pass Kyoto and waited until his final 30 days to rush through a series of environmental regulations.

This is change I can believe in.

[vaberella]

1. I agree, mainly about the last 30 days.

I was rather pissed about that. We needed major and dynamic changes for his 8 years and it wasn't until the last 30 days was he making mandates and creating parks. But didn't Bush override a few of those?

[Radical Activist]

2. Yes, Bush was able to stop

many of the last minute regulations. Clinton did manage to declare a lot of land a national monument, to his credit.

[vaberella]

4. For Clinton's failure. Bush was worse.

It's like that show Captain Planet...where Bush was the evil guys who polluted.

[JI7]

3. Clinton didn't really care about the environmental issues

i think he probably didn't really understand it. he is very intelligent but he didn't how important it was.

i know Obama gets it .

[vaberella]

5. Why do you think Gore didn't push it more then? Or did he & had it turned away.

I agree, I do think that Obama gets it. He's been talking about the environment and clean fossil fuel for the last 2 years. Thank God for that.

[Radical Activist]

6. even as a state senator

he was the only black Illinois state senator from an urban district talking about the environment.

[tsuki]

94. Gore went to COP3 and negotiated in good faith. When he came

back with the treaty, Clinton blew him off.

[Radical Activist]

9. I suppose you're right.

But if I want to be fair about it, I didn't realize how important climate change was in '95 either. Most people didn't. Of course, I was pretty young then and I would have listened if there had been a President talking about it.

[JI7]

12. there were politicians who did get it

John Kerry did which is one of the reasons i became a supporter of his.

Al Gore did also but as VP he was more loyal to Clinton and from what i understand Clinton didn't really listen or care much about what Gore had to say about the issue. i think it was probably more that Clinton just didn't understand how big a thing it was rather than just not caring about it.

but thinking back to the presidential campaigns i think it's true the environment wasn't a top concern in the 90s .

[Radical Activist]

14. It wasn't a concern then.

And even though Gore and Kerry both cared, they didn't make it a major part of their campaigns. Obama was the first Democratic nominee to make the environment a major part of his platform in every campaign speech. The press never acknowledged that fact and they still don't.

[sandnsea]

17. "We need a New Manhattan Project"

Kerry said it in every speech and, in fact, 90% of Obama's platform is straight from John Kerry's mouth. Especially on the environment.

[Radical Activist]

20. I just knew

some Kerry loyalist would come along and object to that. You're making an inaccurate comparison. The environment and energy got a few sentences near the end of Kerry's convention acceptance speech in '04. Even that focused on dependence on Saudi oil without mentioning the worlds climate change or global warming or renewable energy. Obama highlighted it as a top issue, and spoke about it in detail at every campaign stop. There's absolutely no comparison between how much Kerry and Obama emphasized climate change and energy.

And yes, I know all the excuses about how it was a different time and people were focused on different things etc. But attitudes didn't shift magically. It took people speaking out boldly and Kerry chose not to emphasize that issue in '04.

[politicasista]

77. Ok, you love Obama, but

you don't need to keep knocking Kerry and Gore just to praise him.

You also ignore sandnsea's fact that 90% of Obama's platform came from Kerry. Glad Obama gets that.

I am sure glad President Obama continues to show more respect for those who go to bat for him than most do.

[Radical Activist]

95. It's important to make distinctions

and learn from the past. I didn't ignore that Kerry was right on global warming. It's just not too relevant to my point. Gore was right too. But neither one made it the focus of their campaign like Obama did. That's not about me loving Obama. It's an important fact.

Obama was the first Democratic nominee to make the environment and global warming a top focus of his campaign and he got 53% of the vote including 2/3 of young voters. Of course, there are a lot of different reasons for that result, but maybe we can learn something from this. Maybe all the conventional wisdom pundits and consultants who convinced Kerry and Gore that they had to run away from being seen as a tree-hugger were full of shit. This is important to point out.

Asking a candidate to not talk about the issues they're really passionate about is probably a mistake. Ignoring an issue that a large majority Americans care about because our corporate funders and the corporate media propagandists don't like it is a mistake. Running away from an issue because we're afraid of talk radio stereotypes about tree-huggers is a cowardly mistake. This is a top issue to young people and any campaign that wants to appeal to them needs to be talking about it from now on. Worrying about giving Gore and Kerry credit for being right, even though they hid their light under a bushel, misses the point.

[politicasista]

115. And they set the tone for President Obama

And are most likely advising him on this issue. No need to pin them against each other.

[YvonneCa]

80. Go to the Council on Foreign Relations website and...

...listen to Kerry's speech in 2005, "Real Security in a Post 9/11 World":

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9397/real_security_in_a_post911_world_audio.html

He spoke there AFTER the 2004 election, but if you listen to that speech and the Q and A it is obvious he WAS and IS knowledgeable AND that he understands the link to our national security. His speaking out boldly in that setting...along with Al Gore's work with LIVE EARTH and the WE campaign also set the tone for the Dem Party (with Obama now leading) on climate change.

[Jennicut]

107. It was not as accepted then as a serious problem. And Gore was VP.

[sandnsea]

16. He was focused on land protection

He did a lot of wildland swaps to set aside larger areas of land in exchange for opening some up to development. In the end, the land he set aside got opened up anyway, which he should have been smart enough to realize would happen. He wasn't focused on air quality anywhere near as much as he should have been, but otoh, we had just made progress on acid rain issues. I wish he had been a more vocal leader on these issues, but he was just more interested in negotiating anything in the short term with no real regard for long term consequences. imo.

[mod mom]

50. Clinton was in bed w the Money Party financiers (here's an example):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/21045/9822/688/446786

[NYC_SKP]

7. Right on...

Recommended.

Carter was the only environmental president within memory.

[Radical Activist]

11. yeah

although i'm amazed at how much Johnson did. a lot more than he gets credit for. he's the one who got the ball rolling.

[jobycom]

8. Yeah, it's a competition between Clinton and Obama.

You can't say nice things about Obama without trying to start a flamewar?

Clinton did the best he could with a Gingrich-led Congress. Obama's toughest battles so far haven't been close to the impossibility Clinton faced on his easiest days. And if you don't think Clinton transformed this nation from where Reagan had us to where we were when he left office, you are either too young or you were too busy listening to the Talking Heads during the 80s. I don't know when Democrats started having such a pretty view of Reagan, but he was as bad as Bush, at least.

Praise to Obama. But no criticism of Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

10. I get easily irked

by a few of the "Obama is another third way centrist President like Clinton and he won't make any real change" comments around here.

Yes, Clinton did good things but most of it was erased by Bush in 6 months. I don't want another President like that.

[wyldwolf]

28. then you'll continue to get irked

As jobycom said, Clinton was facing a Gingrich-led congress.

If you look through third way policy papers, you'll see what the Clinton people wanted.

Plus it's 16 years later - the environment is more pressing and we know more.

Finally, you can't escape Obama's third way leanings. He wrote a book on it.

[Radical Activist]

35. And I suspect

Obama will continue to prove them wrong. I read Obama's book and he rejected third way politics as he did during the campaign. And yes, I remember the quotes you or someone else cut & pasted out of context during the primary, so don't bother. I remember the parts that were critical of Clinton and I remember his statements during the primary that he wanted to be a more transformative President than Bill. Those comments were a clear rejection of Clintonian politics.

[wyldwolf]

49. he rejected third-way policies? Well, all of them except ...

Welfare Reform
Private social security companion accounts
Rejection of identity-based politics, etc.

And he had real nice things to say about third way politics in general.

If you think he rejected them, then you obviously aren't clear on what they are.

[Radical Activist]

75. He did criticize

Clinton's welfare reform in his book and contrasted himself to Clinton. The fact that he had some nice things to say about it, along with negative things, doesn't mean he was casting himself in that mold.

[wyldwolf]

76. quote it

[Radical Activist]

81. sigh. fine.

I thought you quoted the paragraph where he praised it before so here's the following paragraph where he criticizes it in the chapter on Race in The Audacity of Hope.

"But we also need to admit that work alone does not ensure that people can rise out of poverty. Across America, welfare reform has sharply reduced the number of people on the public dole; it has also swelled the ranks of the working poor, with women churning in and out of the labor market, locked into jobs that don't pay a living wage, forced every day to scramble for adequate child care, affordable housing, and accessible health care, only to find themselves at the end of each month wondering how they can stretch the last few dollars that they have left to cover the food bill, the gas bill, and the baby's new coat."

Obama also subtly acknowledges the bait and switch of Clinton's progressive campaign platform in '92 in contrast to what he actually delivered as President:
"In his platform - if not always in his day-to-day politics - Clinton's Third Way went beyond splitting the difference."

You can google Obama's criticism of welfare reform during the campaign. His comments on wanting to be a more transformational President like Kennedy or FDR were a clear rejection of the idea that he would be another third way placeholder.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

It's too bad that Bill and Hillary's petty distortion of that comment in the primary made some people miss the point.

[wyldwolf]

85. yes, you're right. He did criticize that plan

But he didn't reject welfare reform.

As I recall, there were two schools of thought - welfare needed reforming and welfare should be left alone.

Obama clearly falls into the former - even saying the Republicans were correct in their thinking. He just didn't like the plan as presented.

[mvd]

88. As I recall, even Clinton didn't like the specifics, but Congress wouldn't..

send him another bill. Where they differ is I'm not sure Obama would have signed it as written. He hasn't talked much about welfare lately except for that video touting getting reform passed in the Illinois Senate.

So yes, you are right in a way - I'd like to see Obama more to the left here.

[wyldwolf]

90. you're exactly correct. Clinton signed the third bill that came to him

[Radical Activist]

103. There was a third school who believed

that welfare needed to be reformed, but that reform shouldn't be a code word for gutting the system. That's where most Democrats fell. You're repeating the Republican framing that allowed them to gut much of the system in the name of reform.

[wyldwolf]

104. That was the first school of thought

The difference was over the plan presented.

[mvd]

65. He once spoke out against the welfare reform law that Clinton signed

Obama moved to the center in the GE, but that always happens. I never liked the term "third way" since it assumes that progressives believe the same way on every issue. DLC actually has an ideology/philosophy of its own, and I think Obama wants to cut across all the ideology to find what he sees as good ideas.

[jobycom]

33. I can understand that, mostly, although Clinton wasn't quite as "third way"

as he pretended, either. Both did what it takes to get elected, both did what it takes to get as much of their agenda passed as they could. With Clinton, he moved us left, but we were so far right, and Congress was trying to push us further right than even Goldwater had wanted (Goldwater said as much). Obama has greater opportunities, and so far it's looking pretty good.

I guess like you I get irked, when Clinton gets labeled a rightie. Some of us here worked as hard for Clinton as many are working for Obama, and many of us saw why he had to do what he did, and were impressed he accomplished as much as he did. So I bristle when I hear accusations that he didn't do enough. Same as with you and Obama.

So, peace, eh?

[wyldwolf]

27. exactly. Instead of comparing Obama to the GOP, they turn it into Donny Osmond vs. David Cassidy

[Skwmom]

106. Clinton teamed up with the Republicans

and passed the deregulation that that led to this collapse. I think someone who played a substantial role in destroying this country deserves criticism.

[progressoid]

13. Has he dropped that idiotic "clean coal" nonsense yet?

[Radical Activist]

15. He finally made renewable energy the top priority

for federal funding for the first time.

[sandnsea]

18. Half our power comes from coal

If we can figure out a way to burn it with no pollution, we ought to try.

[progressoid]

22. It's also our biggest polluter.

It will never be able to produce power without pollution. A more sensible solution would be to bypass it and move on to more efficient and less toxic energy sources.

[sandnsea]

23. You don't know that

When a country has as much coal as we do, we would be irresponsible not to put money into research that would eliminate coal pollution.

[progressoid]

25. Coal is our biggest polluter. Period.

Even the guvmint knows that.

From the Dept of Energy: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/environment/co2emiss00.pdf

Summary of Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Net Generation in the United States, Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons):

Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,799,762
Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110,244
Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .291,236
Other Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,596
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,214,837

Even if they removed 75% of the carbon produced by coal it would still exceed the CO2 produced by all other energy producers combined.

[sandnsea]

26. Because we use more coal

That's the entire point. And they are aiming for 95-99% clean, so if they could do that, it would be a huge reduction. I cannot understand why anybody opposes any kind of research. As long as money is going into other kinds of energy R&D at the same time, how can it possibly hurt.

[progressoid]

29. "if they could do that"

The most optimistic scenario I've seen is 85% by the year 2030. Assuming it works and the American public will want to pay the additional costs to retrofit these plants.

Of course this just deals with CO2. None of this addresses the mercury output. Or strip mining away the equivalent of the state of Delaware. Or water pollution. Or Sulfur. Or radium. Or arsenic. Or ash ponds. etc. etc.

But even if we deal with ALL of that, it still doesn't address the rest of the world. Particularly China, who brings two new coal plants online every week. It'll take decades for them to catch up.

It ain't a pretty picture.

[Radical Activist]

47. Because,

every dollar spent subsidizing coal industry research is a dollar that could be spent on a real clean energy alternative that actually works.

The UN says what we do to stop climate change in the next few years is critical. Even the coal industry says carbon capture will take at least a decade or two to implement. By then it will be too late. We don't need to waste money on false solutions that will be too little too late. Let the coal industry fund their own research. They're the ones who need it.

[FrenchieCat]

19. It's Clean Coal Technology that is being discussed......

Are you saying that it is impossible?

[Radical Activist]

21. It's a huge waste of money

and a giveaway to the coal industry that wasn't in the house version of the stimulus bill. We can mostly thank Dick Durbin pandering to voters in Southern Illinois for the money being wasted on clean coal experiments instead of using it on real clean energy that actually works.

[phleshdef]

32. Poor states that use to have a booming coal industry continue to suffer because of people like you

...as a person who grew up in Southern WV, its horrible that people with your point of view can't have a more open mind about sciences that can be used to develop a cleaner emission from coal. We need a revival of the coal industry in my home town that is dying more every day. And its just not my home state but other surrounding states as well. You need to get off your high horse and think about the vast number of people that would benefit from a clean coal industry.

[Radical Activist]

36. It's horrible

that the coal industry and pandering politicians keep selling people in poor regions on this false hope that the coal industry is going to revive and give people jobs again. Even if coal production came back to the same level it was once at (it isn't) it doesn't take half as many people to mine coal as it used to because of new equipment. So no matter what people like me do COAL WILL NEVER EMPLOY AS MANY PEOPLE OR SUPPORT A REGIONAL ECONOMY AGAIN ANYWHERE. It's a big lie.

West Virginia is exactly like Southern Illinois and they keep playing the same cruel game of stringing people along with false hopes and giving them unrealistic expectations. Did you ever notice how every coal producing region in America is also one of the poorest regions in America? Do you know why? Because the coal industry wants to make sure people are desperate enough to have a coal plant built next to their house and to work in the mines. Because only people with no other options will put up with higher rates of birth defects, asthma rates, black lung, collapsed mines and all the other hazards that go along with coal plants and mining.

Think about this. Other parts of the country are getting jobs doing energy efficiency projects, building parts for wind mills and getting other new energy jobs. Why the hell should West Virginia have to wait 10-20 years for carbon capture technology to get new jobs when they could be getting them RIGHT NOW if they ditched coal and looked for new clean energy jobs?

Coal isn't doing WV any favors anymore. It will never be like it used to be and it's time to move on to something better. Southern WV and Southern Illinois need leaders who are going to work on serious job creation programs instead of playing the coal industry game.

[phleshdef]

39. WVa has no other viable industries to entertain.

Though I suppose we could catch a little wind on top of the mountains, we aren't going to get jack from current solar technologies.

Coal CAN still support a regional economy, or at least improve it. Even if it only employed half as many people as before, that would be twice as many people that are employed with decent jobs now. The only thing you can do in southern WVa right now is hope a Walmart opens up nearby or leave the state (many are taking the latter option).

I am all for making sure that coal mining is performed under regulations that keep people that live nearby from being harmed. I am all for banning mountain top removal and doing it "the old way" as well. Most of all, I am all for coal becoming a union operated industry again instead of being nothing more than a non-job generating machine that keeps AT Massey execs in their fat cat status.

But what I'm not for is ignoring the fact that we have a resource that could continue to be tapped into, not just for energy needs but for other products that we have discovered can be created from coal (for instance, WVU figured out how to make a great, environmentally safe insulation from slate).

No one has put a lot of honest time in clean coal research and thats why I have many doubts about your assertion that its a waste of time. How can we ever know if there hasn't been any real time "wasted" on the research?

Maybe its an issue of pride for a person like me that grew up in the last waning breath of the coal fields of Logan County, WVa. All I can tell you is that we had nothing there before we had a strong, unionized coal industry. We had everything while we had it and we haven't had anything since it went on decline.

[Radical Activist]

42. You wrote:

"The only thing you can do in southern WVa right now is hope a Walmart opens up nearby or leave the state (many are taking the latter option)."

Why is that? Because local leaders keep selling you this lie that the coal industry is coming back instead of finding new industries. That's what happens when local politicians answer to the industry.

You wrote: "I am all for making sure that coal mining is performed under regulations that keep people that live nearby from being harmed."

That's not scientifically possible. The best we can do is reduce the effects, but preventing them is impossible. Plus, global warming will harm everyone, not just those nearby.

Wyoming and Colorado now have factories each employing hundreds of people building wind turbines. Other states have smaller factories building parts and every state can create new jobs now working on efficiency projects. Do you want some of those jobs in Southern WV or do you want to wait 10-20 years while the coal industry does experiments on carbon capture and hope for the best?

Southern WV, Easter KY, and Southern IL are all coal country and they have all been dirt poor for a very long time. Depending on the coal industry doesn't work for anyone but the coal companies.

[phleshdef]

48. "local leaders keep selling you this lie that the coal industry is coming back "... no they aren't

No one in Southern WV is acting like the coal industry is ever going to get better. The people running the show down there offer very little hope for anything other than capitalizing on cleaning up the illegal drug industry that is now running rampant down there (and are still doing very little other than offering lip service on it).

You may say its scientifically impossible to have a coal industry that can be ran responsibly in terms of people's health but I'm not buying that just yet. I haven't see any effort into really trying to achieve that is why.

As for building factories, have you ever been to Appalachia? Where the hell are we going to build factories at without blowing entire mountains down? Christ, an acre of flat land is worth 10 times down there than in my current state of Ohio simply because there isn't much of it, and what little there is exists in flood zones that are too risky to build on. Wyoming an Colorado don't have that problem.

I think you need to learn a little more about the physical makeup of the state... then you may realize why coal is so important to us. Even if we went with your suggestion of focusing on some other way to have a viable export, you are still talking 10 to 20 years of development to create a place to even put those factories, which would result in a lot the same problems that are all ready caused by mining coal.

[Radical Activist]

56. There's never a shortage of excuses.

Taxpayers have already subsidized billions of dollars of clean coal research for years. If the theoretical technology ever does pan out years from now it will make coal more expensive than wind and solar.

I don't think you're being totally honest about how WV politicians talk about coal. This one is giving speeches for the coal industry just like Southern Illinois Congressmen do.

http://www.register-herald.com/archivesearch/local_story_202211327.html

About a year and a half ago, anyone preaching the gospel of coal to liquids as a means of breaking the stranglehold of foreign oil merchants on America must have felt only the choir was listening.

With gas prices flirting around the $3 mark in recent weeks, however, folks like Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., are making more converts.

Next month, Rahall is helping to headline a special two-day summit at The Resort at Glade Springs on what he perceives as a critical venture in converting coal — abundant in his home state — into fuels.

---

Coal to liquids is horribly destructive and dirtier than gasoline.

[blindpig]

37. So I guess you're OK with Mountain Top Removal?

Seems like a lot of folks in that neck of the woods feel otherwise.

[phleshdef]

38. Hell no I'm not. We got coal before and employed more people doing it the "hard way".

[stevietheman]

105. As long as mountains are lopped off and streams polluted in the process...

there is no such thing as clean coal.

And I'm from Kentucky.

[progressoid]

24. yes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html

[mod mom]

51. »Al Gore: ‘Clean Coal’s Like Healthy Cigarettes’

Gore’s Call to Action
By PAUL VITELLO

Fo
Al Gore, the former vice president and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is nothing if not passionate on the issue of global warming. But his usual fired-up remarks on the subject took a step into the Gandhian realm on Wednesday when he told an audience at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York that the crisis was so severe and intractable that it was time for direct action.

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” he said at the third annual meeting of former President Bill Clinton’s initiative, which arranges partnerships between the very rich and the very needy.

Mr. Gore said the civil disobedience should focus on “stopping the construction of new coal plants,” which he said would add tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere — despite “half a billion dollars’ worth of advertising by the coal and gas industry” claiming otherwise. He added, “Clean coal does not exist.”

-snip

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/gores-call-to-action/





Al Gore: ‘Clean Coal’s Like Healthy Cigarettes’

At the Clinton Global Initiative, Al Gore ripped apart “clean coal,” the coal industry catch-all propaganda term for advanced coal technologies, both existing ones that reduce traditional pollutants and developmental ones, like carbon capture and sequestration. Gore was asked by Bill Clinton, “Do you believe that the current economic difficulties will make it harder or easier to pass good climate legislation?” Here’s Gore’s answer:

For the first time in all of human history, we, as a species, have to makea decision. If we make the right decision then the answer to the question you asked is, the economic crisis can provide an opportunity to make the right kind of changes.

What should we do? We should stop burning coal . . . without sequestering the CO2. The coal and oil companies have spent in the United States alone a half a billion dollars in the first eight months of this year promoting a lie that there is such a thing as “clean coal.” Clean coal’s like healthy cigarettes — it does not exist. It could theoretically exist. The only demonstration plant was canceled. How many, how many such plants are there? Zero. How many blueprints? Zero.

Watch it:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/28/gore-clean-coal-cigarettes/


RFK Jr: "In fact, there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates."

Coal's True Cost
Posted November 29, 2007 | 09:31 PM (EST)

Last evening's GOP CNN/YouTube debate and the Democratic presidential debate on November 15 were jointly sponsored by a coal industry coalition comprised of mining, railroad and utility interests.

Their high profile civic involvement is designed to further confuse American voters about coal's true cost to our society. Many of the Republican candidates have endorsed massive new subsidies for King Coal and dutifully parrot industry talking points including earnest promises of cheap "clean coal." Given that climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival, it is shocking that no debate moderator has pressed the candidates to clearly state their positions on "clean coal."

In fact, there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country.

Well now you can visit coal country without ever having to leave your home. Every presidential candidate and every American ought to take a few seconds to visit an ingenious new website created by Appalachian Voices, that allows one to tour the obliterated landscapes of Appalachia. And it's not just Arch Coal, Massey Coal and their corporate toadies in electoral politics who are culpable for the disaster. The amazing new website allows you to enter your zip code to learn how you're personally connected to the great crime of mountaintop removal. Using this website Americans from Maine to California can see these mountains and the communities that were sacrificed to power their home. The tool uses Google Maps and Google Earth as interfaces to a large database of power plants and mountaintop removal coal mines. A November 15, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journalhighlighted the site as one of the most innovative, cutting-edge uses of these powerful tools. The site puts a human face on the issue by highlighting the stories of families living in the shadows of these mines.

Each day the coal barons from companies like Massey and Arch detonate 2500 tons of explosives-the power of a Hiroshima bomb every week-to blow away Appalachian mountain tops to reach the coal seams beneath. Colossal machines then plow the rock and debris into the adjacent river valleys and hollows, destroying forests and burying free-flowing mountain streams, flattening North America's most ancient mountain range. According to EPA 1,200 miles of American rivers and streams have already been permanently interred and 470 of Appalachia's largest mountains have simply disappeared, leaving behind giant pits and barren moonscapes, some as large as Manhattan Island. I recently flew over one 18 square-mile pit - Hobet 21 - which you can now tour on Google Earth!

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/coals-true-cost_b_74738.html

[debbierlus]

99. We need to pressure him to not waste valuable resources on pollution.

[ShortnFiery]

30. Let's see what Bubba is doing now since he's going to hog the media spotlight this week

with interviewing on Larry King ... probably about his illustrious "Global Initiative." :eyes: That man can NOT stop seeking media attention ... like a spoiled 10 year old. :(

[invictus]

31. K&R

[mvd]

34. I do think President Obama is more liberal than Clinton

Obama's rhetoric is conciliatory, and his strategy is not rigid. Like Clinton, I believe he really wants bipartisanship. But he didn't agree with Clinton on all specifics of his welfare reform - and he continues to be a big picture guy more than a compromiser IMO.

[garybeck]

40. can we join Kyoto now? n/t

[Radical Activist]

43. It's too late for Kyoto.

We need something new that's more aggressive.

[AtomicKitten]

44. It's a start that would signal global cooperation. They can always fine tune it. n/t

[Radical Activist]

45. the new round of talks are already underway.

it could provide a false sense of having accomplished what we need to do. signing Kyoto right before a new agreement is reached sounds like a poor use of political capital.

[AtomicKitten]

46. don't underestimate the power of image and signaling cooperation is a good start n/t

[garybeck]

119. well then lets' sign the new one. either one. anything. no more excuses. Clinton should have

signed it. I know, "the republican congress wouldn't have ratified it" well enough of this "they will or they won't" bullshit. put it on their desk and make them do it (or not). make them fillibuster.

[AtomicKitten]

41. I'll be impressed if Obama can get the Kyoto Protocol ratified. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

52. Damn right. President Obama is a pragmatic liberal/progressive that gets things done.

[LanternWaste]

53. Well, if nothing else...

Well, if nothing else Pres. Obama's planned changes, when and if put into effect in the future would possibly do more.

But having *already* done more? Well, I'm not really an Absolutist kinda guy...

[Uncle Joe]

54. 1. Al Gore never held Presidential Power.

2. Al Gore made Obama's job easier by.

A. Championing opening up the Internet while in Congress and as Vice-President thereby helping to bring about the most potent vehicle which helped to empower President Obama's run to the White House. Al Gore did win a Webbie Award for his work in this regard. However Al Gore paid a heavy price from the corporate media for this transgression of working to magnify the American People's Freedom of Speech rights more than anything since the First Amendment was first declared in effect Dec. 15th 1791, as this gave the American People a growing power to communicate in mass around and or through the corporate media's filter, thereby threatening their monopoly on information along with the power, influence and money that goes with it. Thus Al Gore's integrity and credibility was relentlessly attacked and whenever he or the scientists did speak about the looming catastrophe of global warming, the corporate media chose to ignore it. Like they say if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Not during the 2000 Presidential Race because the corporate media made certain no one heard it.

B. Al Gore along with the scientists and their Nobel Peace Prize, Academy Award, Grammy Award winning "An Inconvenient Truth" Documentary and Gore's work ie; speeches, world wide concerts raising awareness about global warming since being out of office, again along with the growing power and influence of the Internet changed the political environment helping to make President Obama's job easier regarding this issue.

Honorable mention must be given to Bush because if he hadn't screwed the economy up so bad, Obama would've had a tougher time selling to the public and getting such a giant stimulus bill through the Congress.

[Radical Activist]

58. All of those things are great.

But Gore didn't deliver when he and Clinton were in office and had the power to make a real impact. And Gore chose not to make climate change a major issue during his 2000 campaign. The media can't be blamed entirely for that. It was a decision he made.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Yes the corporate media can be blamed and Al Gore did make it an issue.

However Al Gore never had a Cheney/Bush arrangement, Gore recognized and rightfully so that Bill Clinton was President, not his puppet.

Al Gore could advise, he could lobby but as Vice-President his power was limited to making Clinton the most successful President he could, however Clinton's agenda held preeminence. It's just too bad that Clinton didn't believe in returning the favor.

[Radical Activist]

63. Look at his 2000 convention speech.

Global warming got once sentence. That's it. One lousy sentence with nothing about how we were going to stop it. No, you can't blame the media for ignoring the issue when Al Gore did too. Maybe he would have done better if he hadn't allowed people to convince him to hide away the issues he felt really passionate about.

[Uncle Joe]

66. While Global Warming was mentioned once, the environment in general

was covered more extensively, but global warming was mentioned and I have no doubt President Gore would have given great resource to this issue. Again, the political climate was different then, only one Senator supported Kyoto, his President was coming off impeachment, credibility was the issue of the day.

When Al Gore gave specific global warming speeches during the campaign the same corporate media which claimed he claimed to have invented the Internet ignored or derided them. However,regarding the issue of global warming there is no doubt where Al Gore work or his passion lay.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/demconvention/gore.html

"That's why I ran for Congress. In my first term, a family in Hardeman County, Tennessee wrote a letter and told how worried they were about toxic waste that had been dumped near their home. I held some of the first hearings on the issue. And ever since, I've been there in the fight against the big polluters.

Our children should not have to draw the breath of life in cities awash in pollution. When they come in from playing on a hot summer afternoon, every child in America, anywhere in America, ought to be able to turn on the faucet and get a glass of safe, clean drinking water.

On the issue of the environment, I've never given up, I've never backed down, and I never will.

And I say it again tonight: we must reverse the silent, rising tide of global warming.

<snip>

And that's the difference in this election. They're for the powerful, and we're for the people.
Big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMO's. Sometimes you have to be willing to stand up and say no - so families can have a better life."

[Radical Activist]

68. I don't doubt

that Gore is passionate about it. But he still didn't make it a major theme in his campaign. Obama was the first Democratic nominee to make climate change and clean energy a major part of his stump speech and emphasize it as one of his top issues.

And the political climate in any time isn't a natural force. It's created and shaped by what leaders choose to talk about or not talk about.

[Uncle Joe]

71. To a large extent, it is a natural force and depending on the circumstances

it is dependent on a multitude of factors, timing is everything.

I highly doubt President Lincoln would have been successfully elected had he run in 1789, and there was a world of difference in the political environment just between 2000 and 2008.

Eight years of the corporate media Clinton Witch hunt, and a relatively prosperous economy made the American People complacent and to some extent ready for a change. Credibility was the issue of the day and the corporate media simply transferred the sins of Clinton's transgression on to Al Gore.

Cheney/Bush couldn't have been a worse administration and the Internet was stronger and more influential in 2008 than 2000, that's where Obama's primary resources came from allowing him to out spend McCain.

[Radical Activist]

101. No. The political climate isn't like the weather.

It isn't out of our control. Gore deserves a lot of credit for changing the political climate on the global warming issue after he left office. He also deserves blame for not doing it ten years earlier while he was still vice-president. You can't give Gore credit for changing the political climate for Obama and then pretend that the political climate was totally out of his control when he was still Vice President. He could have toured the country talking about global warming in 1995 when he would have gotten even more media coverage for it. He chose not to.

[Uncle Joe]

109. No one person can or ever has changed the political climate overnight,

particularly when our so called Fourth Estate Free Press as an institution is against it. When the people and or society are ready for change, that's when leaders can work most dramatically. When the leaders are trying to move the people to change, that's a longer term prospect.

As my post 108 mentions I don't believe you've ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth" or you would know that movie is about Al Gore's entire career trying to wake the people up regarding the looming catastrophe of global warming.

Without Al Gore's work in Congress regarding this issue, authoring his best seller "Earth In The Balance" and his virtual lone support for the Kyoto Treaty, there would have been no "An Inconvenient Truth."

[Radical Activist]

111. lol

I hosted a showing of An Inconvenient Truth and got over 50 people to show up.

I'm all for giving Gore credit for what he did. It still doesn't excuse the fact that nothing tangible happened for the 8 Clinton/Gore years and Gore rarely emphasized that issues for those 8 years and during his 2000 campaign. Everything Gore did before and after those 8 years is commendable but it has nothing to do with the lack of real world results when we had a Democratic President. My post is about results. Gore did good things. Obama got results. We easily could have ended up with another Democrat who treated it like a side issue for 8 years like Clinton did.

[Uncle Joe]

113. Obama got results because of Al Gore's work,

and because of Al Gore's work, combined with the rest of the current political environment, Obama couldn't ignore those results.

One other little fact, you seem to overlook, after 1994, Clinton/Gore had a Republican controlled Congress to deal with, Obama had a Democratic Controlled Congress from day 1.

[earth mom]

55. Bullshit. Obama would be NOWHERE if Gore hadn't paved the way & got the word out the way he has.

If Gore hadn't won an Oscar & the Nobel prize for his efforts, Obama wouldn't have been able to do jack shit.

To compare Obama's efforts to the Clinton/Gore administration is disingenuous at best, a lie at it's worst. :puke:

So stop the gawd damn disinfo!

[Radical Activist]

57. Your argument doesn't contradict mine.

Sure, Gore did a lot after he was Vice-President. That doesn't change the fact that Obama has already done more on climate change than the Clinton admin ever did.

If you think my post is a lie then why don't you show me exactly what the Clinton/Gore admin did to stop global warming and show how it was more significant than what Obama has done? Go ahead. Show me the list of laws and regulations they passed to stop climate change. Gore won his awards for things he did long after being out of office.

[Uncle Joe]

59. That's incorrect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x97572

1. "The former US VP has toured the world the past year with the film "An Inconvenient Truth", which has actualized the climate change issue for a great many people. Gore has worked with environmental issues for over 20 years and had a decisive role in forming the Kyoto protocol for reducing CO2 emissions in 1997."

2. Al Gore won a Webbie Award, I believe to date the only political leader to do so, for his work in championing opening up the Internet to the people while he was in Congress and as Vice-President.

[Radical Activist]

61. What do you think is incorrect?

As I wrote in my OP, Kyoto was never ratified by the US, so that's not much of an accomplishment.

And his touring for An Inconvenient Truth was after he was vice President.

So you can call me a liar and incorrect all you want but you still haven't produced anything to back that up.

[Uncle Joe]

62. This sentence.

"Gore won his awards for things he did long after being out of office."

The Nobel Peace Prize included language attributing his work while in office. The fact, that only one Senator; I believe it was the late Paul Wellstone would support Kyoto doesn't negate Al Gore's work.

[Radical Activist]

64. Oh come on.

Now you're arguing over minutia. Fine, the Nobel mentioned his work on Kyoto. So what? I'm being challenged for my OP which states that Obama has already done more to stop global warming than the Clinton/Gore admin for their entire eight years. No one has posted a single thing to prove me wrong.

Give Gore a moral victory for his work on Kyoto but since it never passed it didn't actually DO anything inside the US. The climate doesn't care about moral victories. It cares about more carbon or less carbon. Since Kyoto never became US policy, it didn't actually DO much, and certainly not equal to what Obama has done.

[Uncle Joe]

67. And I'm saying you're comparing apples to oranges.

The political climates and circumstances were and are entirely different, to not give Al Gore his rightfully due credit for helping to bring about this change in more ways than one, making President Obama's job that much easier is a disservice to the truth.

[Radical Activist]

70. That's an excuse.

Gore deserves credit for many things, but getting things done during the 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration is NOT one of them. If Gore had spent eight years publicly pushing the issue like he did AFTER he was VP then the political climate would have been very different in 2000 than it was.

[Uncle Joe]

73. That's a reality and Al Gore did get things done,

you ignore the power of the corporate media's witch hunt propaganda over an eight year stretch against Clinton while then transferring their wrath against Al Gore by slander and libel beginning in March of 99 just a few months after Clinton's impeachment.

President Obama has only experienced a small taste of that, but when they did it to him, his poll ratings were adversely affected during the campaign and support for the stimulus bill dropped after-wards.

As I posted before timing is everything.

President Obama has some fundamental advantages that Al Gore didn't and Gore helped make that possible by championing opening up the Internet for the people and by his global warming climate change work.

Sometimes you just don't see the fruits of your labors until after your time has passed.

The same can be said for Martin Luther King and Moses before him, if you believe the Old Testament.

[Radical Activist]

82. There are two separate facts.

One fact is that Gore did a lot of work to move the public on the global warming issue after he was vice-President.

Fact two is that Obama already did more as President to stop global warming than Clinton.

You keep bringing up fact one as though it contradicts fact two. It doesn't. You're not refuting anything I wrote in my OP. You're so concerned about Gore getting credit for his work but it doesn't change the basic facts of my post.


And the media was just as powerful when An Inconvenient Truth was released as it was in 1996. Even more powerful thanks to Clinton's media consolidation bill. Those are excuses. Obama is dealing with a MORE concentrated and powerful media that Clinton did.

Gore chose not to make global warming a major issue in his 2000 campaign. That wasn't the media's decision. It was Al Gore's decision. Stop making up excuses for that. No one is responsible for Al Gore's choices other than Al Gore.

[Uncle Joe]

108. No, the corporate media wasn't nearly as powerful

when an "Inconvenient Truth" came out as they were compared to 1996.

The Internet significantly grew in power and influence as a counter balance, some people forget that expansion of the Internet was part of the media consolidation bill. It was a trade off of sorts because the Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

However the corporate media had been setting the political atmosphere from the moment Clinton/Gore took office.

The first half of the 90s was almost exclusively devoted to the OJ Simpson trial, including live feeds from court, morning and prime time analysis, late night comedian jokes, all day, every day. I believe this magnified conscious and subconscious feelings of racism throughout the nation, which naturally hurt the Democratic Party.

When they wore that out, the second half of the 90s became almost exclusively about Monica Lewinsky, and impeachment. They telecast the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" night and day, this was a blatant lie to the nation, handing the Republicans their B.S. "restoring honor and integrity issue."

Osama Bin and his band of criminal lunatics had declared war against us, the World Trade Towers had been bombed the first time, two embassies in Africa had been blown up, and the U.S. Naval ship "Stark" was attacked. When Clinton retaliated with cruise missile attacks, it was cited as a "Wag The Dog" strategy to take our attention off Monica.

Credibility was the key issue, particularly in moderate to conservative states. Within weeks after impeachment the corporate media began slandering and libeling Al Gore ie: he claimed to have invented the Internet, etc. etc. this was a blatant lie on their part and they knew it. The aim was to hurt his credibility, making it more difficult for him to convince the American People, global warming was for real.

Finally you keep missing the central point about "An Inconvenient Truth," so I doubt you've seen it. The movie is about Al Gore's entire career ringing the alarm bell regarding the looming catastrophe of global warming. Beginning in the Congress when he authored his best seller "Earth In the Balance", to when he was Vice-President supporting the Kyoto Treaty, virtually alone, without that history, there would have been no "An Inconvenient Truth."

[Radical Activist]

117. You have so many excuses.

You're so fixated on praising Gore that you can't acknowledge the central point of my post.

My post was about the 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration. Earlier in the conversation I asked you or anyone else to prove me wrong by naming what was done DURING THOSE EIGHT YEARS that is comparable to what Obama is already doing. Not you or anyone else has been able to respond.

You can write about how Gore is a godlike savior of mankind for what he did to raise awareness about global warming until you're blue in the face but it still doesn't change the fact that when he was Vice President IT DIDN'T GET DONE.

Seriously, it's possible to give Gore credit for what he did and still accept the reality that it didn't get done during the Clinton years. It's OK to admit that. It doesn't make you a Gore-hater, it just makes you honest.

If you can't give me examples of what actually got passed into law and accomplished tangible results during the eight years of the Clinton administration then you have no germane response to my post.

[Uncle Joe]

120. Speaking of fixated

your rigid thought can't seem to grasp the realities of different times, conditions, people or leaders and their affect on future change. Space time is a continuum, not a one block at a time episode.

You're O.P. originated from nothing but spite over some petty, perceived grievance from some anonymous poster, and instead of confronting them on the subject post and defend Obama, you decided to use a cheap apples and oranges comparison to slam or downgrade Al Gore's performance and contributions to the change and raised awareness of this critical issue.

1. Al Gore strongly supported the Kyoto Treaty.

2. Al Gore was Vice-President, not President.

3. The Republicans controlled both houses of the Congress after 1994.

4. If you seriously viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" you would know that in spite of overwhelming evidence by the scientific community in concurrence on this issue, the corporate media all but ignored it.

5. Al Gore didn't stop working to bring this issue to public awareness after his term ended, he continued fighting the good fight, with the result of changing the political environment, and making it by comparison a piece of cake for President Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress to pass this stimulus bill, which addressed global warming.

[politicasista]

79. Exactly n/t

[biopowertoday]

69. So why be nasty and pit Democrats against each other. A

lot of the conditions have changed for the last several years also. Basically there is a more accepting environment worldwide for action to take place. No reason to demean one Democratic pres against another.

[LoZoccolo]

72. It is a less controversial idea now. n/t

[Adelante]

86. I think that's right

The country is ready for it now.

[AJH032]

74. Didn't the Clinton administration try to enter into Kyoto?

In fact, President Clinton did sign Kyoto. It was the Senate that voted against it. Blame the Senate, not President Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

84. I can blame Clinton

for not having the ability and not making it a big enough priority to get it passed.

[AJH032]

89. You can

You can also blame Kerry voters for not having the ability to get out more Kerry votes and thus for Bush getting elected.

That doesn't make the blame valid.

[Paulaguyon]

92. Correct. The OP is misleading

Clinton cannot be blamed for Republican obstructionism. The difficulty in swaying Republicans has been proved in the stimulus issue. Only the huge majority enjoyed by Democrats in congress saved the package. Zero Republicans flipped in the House and 3 in the Senate.

[Radical Activist]

98. Excuses don't change facts.

Making excuses doesn't change the fact that Clinton didn't pass Kyoto and waited until the last month of his Presidency to pass many environmental regulatory changes. You can blame Republicans all you want but the fact is that of all the things Clinton accomplished, doing much of anything to stop climate change was one of them.

[Sparkly]

78. Why are you doing this?

Why even make such comparisons?

Are you TRYING to create divisions of some kind?

Is it not possible to recognize what Clinton/Gore did and value it, while also feeling positive about what Obama is doing and may do in future?

Earth in the Balance alone made a significant contribution to understanding the issue. And for the record, here's some of the record:

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/environment.html

[Radical Activist]

83. Because it needs to be said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8199568&mesg_id=8199585

[Sparkly]

91. Why?

Seriously -- why?

Why not argue whatever the point is in response to the post you linked, directly, in that thread?

Why start a new one dragging in more contention and setting up a false comparison?

Why would this reassure anyone who's concerned that Obama is centrist?

I don't think any of this needed to be said. I think there's far too much heat about personalities and far too little light about policies, issues, actions, decisions, goals, processes, etc.

[Radical Activist]

93. Because I'm a giant a-hole.

[Radical Activist]

96. and its comment 95 n/t

[Starry Messenger]

100. So...

this *is* a call out thread?

[Radical Activist]

102. It's one example

of a common sentiment, but feel free to alert if you're worried about it.

[YvonneCa]

87. All Hands on Deck...

...means all our leaders need to work together. Go to the Council on Foreign Relations website and...
...listen to John Kerry's speech in 2005, "Real Security in a Post 9/11 World":

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9397/real_security_in_a_...

He spoke there AFTER the 2004 election, but if you listen to that speech and the Q and A it is obvious he WAS and IS knowledgeable AND that he understands the link to our national security. His speaking out boldly in that setting...along with Al Gore's work with LIVE EARTH and the WE campaign also set the tone for the Dem Party (with Obama now leading) on climate change.

[smalll]

97. Third, he made January so snowy and cold! /nt

[Mass]

110. Poor comparison. Obama has become president at a time where the general public is much more

aware of the dangers of global warming and where, except from a few GOPers, these dangers are accepted. It is telling that the discussion has become man made vs nature and market based solutions vs state based solution.

so, while I am happy to see Obama do that, I seriously doubt any Democrats elected president now would have done less. This is just the continuation of the work those who have an history of caring about these issues have done in the last 20 years (both in the scientific and political world). My guess is more Obama coming at the right moment than a show of political courage.

[Radical Activist]

112. The right moment didn't happen magically.

If Gore had made the kind of educational effort he made with An Inconvenient Truth while he was still Vice-President, and if Clinton had fully supported those efforts, then the right time would have come much sooner.

So yes, the moment is right, but I don't think we should take it for granted that we have a President who has been an environmental champion for his entire career, as opposed to someone like Bill Clinton who didn't make it a top priority.

[Mass]

114. The moment is not right because of Obama. The moment is right because of those

who fought for these issues in the last 16 years. That does not include Clinton, but it definitively includes Gore (and others). The moment is not right because Obama is president. The moment is right because of the activists who fought for it.

Not sure what your point is, but you are spinning wheels here. Any dems would have done that. It was in the democratic platform since 2004 at least (may have been in 2000, I cannot remember).

[Radical Activist]

116. I didn't claim the moment is right because of Obama.

But Obama is taking advantage of the moment by getting results. And no, I don't agree that anyone would have put the same focus on it. The other candidates in the primary didn't talk about it as much as Obama, nor did they all have platforms as aggressive. It shouldn't be taken for granted that we have a President showing real leadership on this because there are many other things that could have been given a higher priority in the stimulus bill or in the first week of his Presidency.

[YvonneCa]

118. Have you listened to any of Al Gore's speeches...

...since 2004? (repoweramerica.org) Kerry's ? (johnkerry.com) Have you read 'Assault on Reason'? or 'This Moment on Earth'? Have you seen any of Gore's testimony to Congress...last year or this year? If not, you need to.


You obviously care about environmental issues. You are deservedly proud of what Obama is doing...as am I. But, JMHO, you are missing a few facts. The foundation has been built over years, since the Clinton Administration and Gore's 2000 election run. This is a team effort....built upon lessons learned by Gore as VP, by Kerry's 2004 run, AND by Obama's beautiful and skillful leadership.

We should...ALL of us...be proud of all of them.