Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol

[Ginto]

Source: MSNBC

ATHENS, Greece — In a mea culpa of sorts, former Vice President Al Gore on Monday said he made a mistake in supporting corn-based ethanol while he was in office, admitting he was more interested in farm votes for his presidential run than what was best for the environment.

Like most politicians in the late 1990s, Gore supported huge subsidies for ethanol made from corn — a decision that was later blamed for higher food prices.

Total U.S. ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year, according to the International Energy Industry, and many of those tax credits will soon be up for renewal.

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first generation ethanol," said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens, Greece. First generation ethanol refers to the most basic, but also most energy intensive, process of converting corn to ethanol for use in vehicle engines.

"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small," he said, referring to how much energy is produced in the process.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40317079/ns/us_news-environment/from/toolbar

[kestrel91316]

1. It takes integrity to admit one's mistakes. Gore has more integrity

in his pinky finger than the entire Republican party.

[wysimdnwyg]

27. "Gore has more integrity in his pinky finger than the entire Republican party."

Richard Nixon had more integrity than today's Republican party.

[Jakes Progress]

49. Nixon was a freaking nightmare for the country, but

you are right. Next to today's gop, nixon would be Bobby Kennedy.

[notesdev]

66. Nixon had more integrity than Gore, too

admitting one was a corrupt asshole (when everyone paying attention already knew that) gets no points from me.

Ethanol-as-fuel is a crime against humanity. How many have starved due to quarter plus of the US corn crop being diverted to this?

[Creative]

60. Integrity...? Mistakes...?

No, Gore weighed his choices and determined that getting elected was more important than the truth.

Still, he is no different than any other politician in that he doesn't even know the meaning of the word "integrity."

[lynne]

71. There is NO INTEGRITY in selling the environment, the economy, and the nation short -

- to garner votes. Gore's integrity level is equal to anyone of any party that would do such a thing. Non-Existent.

You do realize that any and every thing he's ever done - no matter if it was right or good - just went down the tubes with that admission, don't you?

[Yupster]

72. So when he mocked Ross Perot

on Larry King for saying there would be a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the USA if NAFTA was passed, you think Gore knew Perot was right then too?

[swilton]

2. Glad Gore clarified the Agro-Business influence on this

issue....

We still need strong leadership to address the global warming/climate change crisis - Gore is the best person to provide that leadership....He must be surprised as well as embarrassed that the US is still in the Dark Ages of appreciating the crises we face for our procrastination.

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[no limit]

4. I hate that politicians always develop a conscience only after they stop running for something

[Uncle Joe]

6. I believe Gore always had a conscience but there are other dynamics

that come in to play as well.

[no limit]

14. I agree. The dynamics of throwing away your values for votes

as long as politicians keep doing it we will continue down the same road. Coming out and saying you did this 10 years after the fact doesn't really help. This is why Obama made deals with pharmaceuticals and that is why he keeps trying to play nice with Republicans. I care about these actions now especially since they know they are wrong, not their regrets about these actions a decade later.

[Uncle Joe]

15. If you truly care about "now" then "now" matters, especially as these tax breaks

expire Dec. 31st of this year, Gore coming out with this announcement matters, whether he's in power or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4624857

ATHENS, Nov 22 (Reuters) - Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was "not a good policy", weeks before tax credits are up for renewal. U.S. blending tax breaks for ethanol make it profitable for refiners to use the fuel even when it is more expensive than gasoline. The credits are up for renewal on Dec. 31. Total U.S. ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year according to the International Energy Industry, which said biofuels worldwide received more subsidies than any other form of renewable energy.

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol," said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank. "First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

It's not as simple as a question of "throwing away your values for votes," it becomes a question of what values are most important, if for example survival of the species is considered as the paramount value, then you may make compromises on your best judgment in other areas in order to avert the greater catastrophe.

It takes integrity to admit a mistake or fault whether it's real time or later, with Gore there's never been any doubt as to where the buck stops.

[no limit]

19. So you think implementing policy that is bad for votes is okay?

I guess you think the ends always justify the means?

[Uncle Joe]

24. No, the ends don't "always" justify the means, but sometimes they do.

The example I posted was survival of the human species, how important is that motivation and how many compromises would you make to save life as we know it, none?

If you did make a compromise in the belief that you could correct it, would you admit your mistake later?

[no limit]

25. But he is only coming out against these tax breaks because he has nothing to lose

when he did have something to lose (an election) he chose to back these subsidies. I see absolutely no character in that. And that sucks, because I've come to like Al Gore.

I think you saying that the survival of human species depends on these taxes being extended or not is a bit absurd. But that's for another argument.

[Uncle Joe]

29. The election was about having the ability and power to change our

suicidal national addiction to fossil fuels and avert the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change, Gore still has everything to lose as do we all.

This is a bad policy and needs to be ended but I don't know where you got from my post that survival of the human species was dependent on this particular policy.

My assertion is that Gore believed coming to power was critical to make the across the board changes that were necessary to avoid global catastrophe and this bad policy was the compromise he made.

[no limit]

31. I don't buy that. Where is the line? Maybe voting for the Iraq war was worth it too then

right? I mean if all those democrats didn't vote for the war a number of them would have lost the election that followed. If we use your logic they should have voted for the war as otherwise they wouldn't have power to make any change.

[Uncle Joe]

33. The line is within your own conscience and is also affected by the circumstances,

was Iraq a threat to the human species?

I'm believe that global warming climate change is a growing threat to life as we know it, and I'm convinced Al Gore believes that as well.

I didn't say Gore was right in this, I just stated my belief as to his motivation.

[no limit]

38. His motivation was morally wrong, you are trying to sugar coat it.

I don't know about the Iraq war being a threat to the human species. It was certainly a threat to 20 million Iraqis (a million of which ended up dead). The circumstances of the Iraq war were that the Bush administration made it politically inconvenient to vote against it. What you seem to be advocating in this thread is to go with the politically right move, not the morally right move as long as you say your long term intentions are good.

Global warming is a threat, it is not a threat to the human species as we know them. Yes, many people will die. Yes, economies will crash. Yes, there will be huge problems we probably can't imagine. But it will not be the end of the human species, infact I think the only people that will truly get screwed by it are the poor people on this planet (as with everything else).

Al Gore is a typical politician. We see this same shit in Obama today. Why do we not have cap and trade? Because Obama thinks that fighting for it will cost him votes. Whatever excuse he comes up with 10 years from now won't be relevent. As I said above and I'll repeat again, what's important are the decisions that you make today, not the regrets you have tomorrow.

[Uncle Joe]

42. What is so sugarcoating about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x571415

Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.

More than 50 billion tons could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere, she said.

But the rate of defrosting is hard to assess with the data at hand.

"If permafrost were to thaw suddenly, in a flash, it would put a tremendous amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We would feel temperatures warming across the globe. And that would be a big deal," she said. But it may not happen so quickly. "Depending on how slow permafrost thaws, its effect on temperature across the globe will be different," she said.

If the rich believe they will be spared, they're seriously deluding them selves, to my knowledge poor people don't own too much ocean front property. This catastrophe will be across the board and we're talking billions of deaths.

Avoiding this fate is the ultimate moral move, just as avoiding all out nuclear war would be, and in comparing Gore to Obama, Gore was running for the Presidency, he wasn't President.

[no limit]

51. You are trying to make Al Gore in to something he is not. He is a politician, that's all

or atleast he was one. Back when he had something to lose he didn't make the right decisions. Now that he has nothing to lose suddenly he's a moral crusader.

A few degrees of higher temperatures are not going to hurt the rich, they will be fine. The rest of us might not be. And I would love to discuss that in more detail with you sometime but currently that is not what this thread is about. My sugercoat it comment was about your statements on Al Gore (how what he did was okay because the ends justify the means), not global warming.

[Uncle Joe]

56. So was every President that ever held office, Gore made plenty of right decisions and often did

it bucking against the powers that be.

He admits this was a bad tax credit policy and that his desire to reach the White House may have influenced his thinking but if you believe "he just turned in to a moral crusader," you haven't been paying attention.

One thing is for certain from your posts, you don't truly believe the overwhelming science re:the growing threat against humanity from global warming climate change, Gore's motivation and the political circumstances of the day are intricately tied to this thread.

[no limit]

62. I believe in science, not hyperbole. Yes, every president is running for the next election

and that is exactly the problem. We don't need presidents that care about their reelection, we need presidents to do the right thing. The Clinton administration with the backing of Gore did do some good things, but they also did a lot of bad things that dug us in to a huge hole. And I know that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they didn't care. As Al Gore just told us.

Global warming is not going to wipe out the human race, period. Plenty of rich people will be fine. Science won't tell you differently, but some people might.

[Uncle Joe]

76. The overwhelming scientific evidence says global warming climate change threatens

life as we know it, that's not hyperbole, that's just the facts.

Now you're putting words in Al Gore's mouth, he never said "he didn't care" but that getting elected may have influenced his decision making on that singular issue and the Clinton Administration didn't leave the nation in a "huge hole," but Gore was poised to lead the nation to much greater gains from economic and environmental stand points.

Caring about getting elected or reelected and doing the right thing are not mutually exclusive, and in some cases doing the former is required in order to complete the latter.

[no limit]

77. What science where says that the human race, or even civilizations, will be wiped out?

You are right, saying he didn't care isn't fair. He did care, care about the votes, not about what was right.

[Uncle Joe]

78. This is just one small sample, I could give you links all day long if you like, but I imagine.

you could find them if you really wanted to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3043342

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2739926.ece

'Humanity's very survival' is at risk, says UN

The speed at which mankind has used the Earth’s resources over the past 20 years has put “humanity’s very survival” at risk, a study involving 1,400 scientists has concluded.

<snip>

Climate change was identified as one of the most pressing problems but the condition of fresh water supplies, agricultural land and biodiversity were considered to be of equal concern.

Simple logic should tell you that global warming climate change will aggravate those other critical issues as well, mass numbers of species; not able to adapt to their rapidly changing environment will go extinct, floods and droughts will diminish both fresh water supplies and suitable agricultural land.

[no limit]

79. If we stopped all CO2 emissions today the problems in your article would still exist

you made the claim that global warming will destroy the entire human race and said you had science to back you up. The article you posted does not back that up. So would you like to try again?

Yes, the earth's resources are limited and we are destroying those resources. Global warming is not the leading cause of that (although it is an accelerant). However, once the resources get so scarce that people actually start dying in all parts of the world populations will thin out and eventually we will again have enough resources to keep people alive. This is very basic stuff that a 5th grader can understand. The people that are well off will be fine, everyone else will get the shaft. But your claim that global warming is responsible or that this will case the end of the human race is simply not true.

This hyperbolic rhetoric does nobody any good, you should stop it. It makes it harder for people that have serious scientific concers about global warming to be taken seriously.

[Uncle Joe]

81. Global warming climate change is not just an accelerant of those other conditions, although

that's certainly part of it.

Ocean level rises, droughts, floods and extreme weather; in all manner will test human society with the inevitable problems of wars, disease and refugees.

I'm curious, how much "thinning out" do you believe would need to happen for the human species to survive?

You may be correct about one thing, there may be some survivors along the lines of Mad Max but I don't believe gambling on that proposition to be either wise nor a worthy goal. I also don't believe it diminishes in any way the imperative of working to avoid the worst effects of global warming climate change.

[no limit]

84. As I said above, if we cut off all CO2 emissions today the problems you posted would still exist

how much would the population have to be cut? According to the article that you posted it would have to be cut by a 3rd of what it is today. That's a whole lot of people, but it's not the catastrophic population wipe out you keep insisting that it is.

The survivors will not be along the lines of Mad Max, absoloutely absurd statement to make on your part. Depending on the part of the world you are in the survivors will be regular people that will live their lives just fine. Again, it will the poor people of this planet that will get the worst of it, as is always the case.

I would like to again go back to your claim that you have science to back up what you said about the human race being wiped out because of global warming. You are yet to back this up. Will you admit you don't actually have any evidance of this? Otherwise please post it.

[Uncle Joe]

86. A third of the Earth's population being wiped out is not catastrophic?

Where do you believe the people of Florida will go, should vast portions of the state go under water?

How about Manhattan, do only poor people live there?

This isn't just a poor or "third world" problem whether you wish to comfort your self with that belief or not, this is a global crisis.

I posted one sample which did back up the possibility of human extinction but you couldn't bring yourself to accept it, that's your problem, not mine.

[no limit]

87. Who said it wasn't catastrophic? You said it was the end of the human race which is absolutely false

It's not that I didn't accept the link you posted, I refuted it. I don't dispute what is in the links you posted, I dispute what you said was in those links. Again, try to follow. I'll type slowly. You said the human race would be wiped out because of global warming. The link you posted to did not blame global warming nor did it say the entire human race would be wiped out.

So would you like to try again or simply admit that the human race will not be destroyed because of global warming? After all the time I wasted with you it's the least you could do.

And I swear, arguing with you is like arguing with a 9/11 truther. I dispute one of your claims and you simply post another one without any back up.

What evidance do you have that florida will be under water? Before you address this please finish the point I asked you to address above. Thanks.

[Uncle Joe]

88. I said global warming climate change was a growing threat against life as we know it and that it

could threaten the human species, the article supports my claim.

As for Florida I will post a link for your reading pleasure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x189108

Scientists will warn this week that rising sea levels, triggered by global warming, pose a far greater danger to the planet than previously estimated. There is now a major risk that many coastal areas around the world will be inundated by the end of the century because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting faster than previously estimated.

Low-lying areas including Bangladesh, Florida, the Maldives and the Netherlands face catastrophic flooding, while, in Britain, large areas of the Norfolk Broads and the Thames estuary are likely to disappear by 2100. In addition, cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defences.

"It is now clear that there are going to be massive flooding disasters around the globe," said Dr David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey. "Populations are shifting to the coast, which means that more and more people are going to be threatened by sea-level rises."

<snip>

But the report contained an important caveat: that its sea-level rise estimate contained very little input from melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. The IPCC forecast therefore tended to underestimate forthcoming changes.

[no limit]

89. Now you are just being dishonest or forgetful. You said:

and I quote:

"The example I posted was survival of the human species, how important is that motivation and how many compromises would you make to save life as we know it, none?"

Lets not pretend, you kept suggesting that the human race would be wiped out. Clearly that is not the case. And I have a hard time believing that you simply forgot what you said earlier since you obviously went back through your posts. I think admiting you were wrong takes a lot more integrity than lying about what you said.

And again, your link says nothing about Florida being under water. Some parts of Florida would be, especially in the south. But the majority of Florida would be fine. In fact if we go by what your article says, that sea levels will rise only by 1.5 meters by 2100 then actually virtually all of Florida and all of New York will be untouched:

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml (be sure to change 7 meters to 2 meters)

Even if we got by 3 meters in 2200 most of Florida and New York would again be untouched.

So you keep making these false hyperbolic claims that really put your credibility in question.

We could keep this pissing match going all day since it's clear you are incapable of admitting any fault in your statements even after it is clear your statements were completely wrong or misleading. Which is a real shame since above you claimed admitting being wrong takes a lot of integrity. But since you refuse to admit any flaws in what you say I will simply end this here. Have a happy thanksgiving.

[Uncle Joe]

90. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference while ignoring a cataclysm,

could or would.

The article I linked stated that global warming climate change was a major component which could/would lead to extinction of the human species, but you seem to have a problem seeing the forest for the trees.

As for Florida, apparently you didn't read the last sentence which I bolded, not to mention the sentence about most people having moved near the coast.

You continue to discount this information as if it's a minor issue.

But the report contained an important caveat: that its sea-level rise estimate contained very little input from melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. The IPCC forecast therefore tended to underestimate forthcoming changes.

[no limit]

91. Like I said, have a happy thanksgiving

[Uncle Joe]

92. Same to you, Happy Thanksgiving.

:hi:

[WhiteTara]

73. the rain don't fall on one man's house

says Bob Marley. When there is no air, no one breathes.

And I guess you really hate Al Gore you have been going on so.

[no limit]

74. I hate Al Gore? What exactly did I say that makes you think that?

Any specific statements of mine you have an issue with?

I've actually come to like Al Gore quite a bit, that's why I'm so disappointed by this.

[happyslug]

69. The Debs vs Bryan debate

Eugene Debs and William Jennings Byran lived at the same time, and ran for President at the same time (In Different Elections, Bryan in 1896, 1900 and 1908, Debs in 1912, and 1920). Byran died in 1925, Debs in October 20, 1926. On Bryan's Death Debs commented that he had stood for things in the past, but not at the present (Paraphrased, Debs was talking about 1925).

The real difference was the compromises Bryan made to get elected (The Democratic Base was the South at that time, thus Bryan made no statement against segregation, through he also made no statements for segregation. This is held against him, but was clearly the result of what he thought was necessary to get elected. Bryan was a "Dry" i.e. for prohibition, but also against any strict law to enforce it i.e. no confiscation of property, no long jail terms etc. Bryan was personally against alcohol, more for the social problems it caused then any other reason (Through in the 1896 election he was noted for smelling of (i think it was gin, but it could be some other hard liquor) but he used it to clean his suits between speeches (Dry cleaning was just coming in and NOT available in most of the Country). His wife was not only Collage educated, but he sponsored her admittance into the BAR of lawyers after she had read for him as a lawyer (Which was the norm in those days) AND had taken several classes on the Law (which was more formal education then most lawyers did at that time). His Daughter later became a US Congress person, but lost her seat in the Democratic Primary of 1932 to a "Wet" Democrat. When it came to the time to vote to repeal Prohibition (after she had lost the primary BUT before the general election), she voted to repeal prohibiting for that was what the people in her district clearly wanted even through she, like her father personally was for it.

Bryan, a progressive who ran as a progressive at the same time he had to make some compromises with certain elements within the Democratic party (and the country as a whole) to win the nomination AND to get elected. Bryan always did 40 plus percentage points (Compared to Deds 3.7 % in 1920, and 6 % in 1912). In many ways the group he united to form his base later became the base for the New Deal under FDR (Who also did NOT do anything on Civil Rights, through his wife did, the reason FDR did not do anything was for the same reason Bryan never did, both needed the South to win election).

Debs always ran as an idealistic Candidate, more to show the support Socialism had in the US then to get elected. Debs plan for each campaign was more to show Americans a Socialist could win, and to teach America what socialism was then to actually get elected. In many ways Debs helped Bryan by showing Bryan was NOT the most leftest candidate (Through Debs ran against Wilson not Bryan in 1912). Debs also hurt the Democrats by drawing away from the Democrats Voters who otherwise would have voted for the Democratic Candidate (And this was one of the reasons when the GOP won the Presidency in 1921, President Harding released Debs from Prison having served only two years of a 10 year term for speaking against the Draft in 1917, Wilson had refused to do so prior to March 4, 1921, the end of Wilson's term even through his Attorney General Palmer, of Palmer raids fame, had supported the release of Debs).

My point is Debs was the candidate with the most progressive ideas of his time period, but he refused to make the needed compromises to get elected let alone get the progressive packaged past. Bryan, tried to get elected by making the least compromises he had to, but still be a viable candidate. Bryan lost three times, but none was a blowout (Mencken, who HATED Bryan, was of the opinion Bryan lost in 1896 do to extensive cheating by the GOP, the later defeats appear to be more "fair" but questions exists as to all of them as to GOP cheating).

Debs was NEVER even close enough to be a threat to be elected, to to his idealism, but appears to have been used in 1920 to minimize Democratic support in that election AND in 1912 to do to the Democrats what the GOP was doing to itself with the Split between Theodore Roosevelt and Taft.

People actually running for office MUST get elected to be effective. Any person running for an office MUST make enough promises to get 50.1% of the Vote. If the Candidate gets less, the Candidate loses and thus can NOT vote on the things he really wants. This is what Gore was doing when he was running for the Senate and later the Vice Presidency and the Presidency. It is the Debs vs Bryan comparison, Debs was full of Ideals, but never in a position (or even close to be in a position) to vote for such ideals. Bryan, on the other hand, had always been close to being elected and once elected would have been able to support many of the same ideals Debs was for. Gore followed Bryan lead and went for the office, knowing once he was in it, he could support the things he wanted. Now, Gore is in the position of Debs, can state what his ideal are for Gore is no longer running for office and thus his ideals can NOT be used against him to deny him the office. Every Politician must make that chose, what they need to say to get elected, what they need to do to get re-elected and what they can do, that the voters oppose, and still get elected. Gore in Tennessee needed Corn farmers to win, so he was for Corn Bio-fuel. Now, Gore no longer need those votes, can say what he really thinks of Corn Bio-fuel. Gore today, is like Debs, an ideal man. In the past Gore was like Bryan, a man trying to get elected AND still stand for most progressive ideals.

[no limit]

75. But because of this the system is still the same today as it was 100 years ago

someone needs to stand up and change it, instead of just playing for votes. By no means is that an easy task but someone should try. When he was in a position to Gore didn't do it. Obama in my opinion is the same way.

And again I have to ask where do you draw the line? Bush made it politically unpopular to vote against the Iraq war. Does that mean the people that knew it was the wrong thing to do should have voted for it anyway because otherwise it might have caused them the next election?

Finally, as interesting as your story is Bryan never actually got elected as president. He was beat every time that he got the nomination.

Edit: fixed typo

[TheEuclideanOne]

18. It takes integrity to admit

that you have no integrity. :) Seems like a fair argument to me.

I am a bit disappointed, though, because I actually liked Gore alot and did not expect this from him.

[DesertDiamond]

21. I think voluntarily admitting to being wrong shows the ultimate integrity

[TheEuclideanOne]

23. No

It doesn't. It might show a guilty concience or lack of judgement, but it doesn't make you somehow of higher integrity. But he didn't admit to being wrong. He admitted to doing something that lacked integrity. Big difference. Not sure if this is a good analogy, but if you are working for a company and say you will work 40 hours and it ends up you could only work 35 due to circumstances beyond your control, you are wrong. If you worked 35 hours, but told the person paying you you worked 40 hours and collected the money, you did something lacking integrity.

[Uncle Joe]

26. I refer you to post #15, Gore said it was "not good policy."

That can be interpreted as a mistake or being wrong, the rest is his explanation for doing so, and both admissions do require integrity.

[TheEuclideanOne]

28. Well I better go kill somebody and take all of their money.

I can just explain later how that was bad judgement and maybe not such a good idea. Based on your logic, I can be even more moral than I was before I killed that person. I will be back in about 1 hour(I have the person in mind).

[Uncle Joe]

30. If you had integrity you wouldn't feel the need to put words in my post that aren't there.

Wherein did I imply that admitting a mistake or wrong makes you more moral than if you never committed the mistake?

"Based on your logic, I can be even more moral than I was before I killed that person."

This doesn't take into account the hyperbole of your post equating cold blooded murder and robbery to a bad tax credit policy.

[TheEuclideanOne]

32. Yeah, it was just bad tax credit policy.

That's the ticket!

[Uncle Joe]

34. One that could and should easily be changed come Dec 31st and I believe

that's why Al Gore is coming out with this statement now.

[TheEuclideanOne]

41. Great, so in the future, when Al Gore takes a position on things

you really do not know where he stands on it. Fortunately for him, he has people like you behind him who will support him no matter what. Yeah, he didn't lie about it, it was just bad policy. Lie is such an ugly word, isn't it. Try to avoid it at all costs, even if does apply.

I have heard him take various positions on the Green Economy, ignoring all of those Right Wingers saying that he is just doing it for the money. Maybe they are right after all. It is hard to say now. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it bothers me.

[Uncle Joe]

47. I've read his books and Gore has been advocating the fight against

global warming climate change long before it was popular or profitable to do so.

Those Right Wingers have absolutely nothing against anyone making money for the most immoral of reasons, whether it's for profit health insurance, for profit mercenaries or for profit prisons, but if Gore uses the system to create an investment trust to sprout green technologies, suddenly he's just doing it all for the money?

[TheEuclideanOne]

52. That is pretty much my point

These kind of things help to prove them right. That should bother you. I can totally understand loyal support for one of your heroes, but you should be more upset than most when things like this happen. Blind support is never a good thing.

It reminds me of when Grayson was busted for unethically editting a video. As much as I like Grayson, this bothered me alot and I did not just give him a free pass because I am a huge supporter. In fact, it bothered me more because all of the knuckledraggers who fight against him on a factless cause now have something substantial to make them feel like they are correct.

FWIW, I do understand how it feels to have somebody who you do respect get called on something where they should be called out on it. Most of the people here support folks who get a bad enough rap from an army of Fox viewers, even if these people are fighting for things that benefit them. I hate to see us give them any ammunition to repeat over and over and over again on the radio and news.

[Uncle Joe]

58. If I felt that Gore putting his money, name and expertise toward fighting the greatest threat

against humanity's survival to be a bad thing, I would call it as such, but I don't.

Our society is capitalist, money is an engine of change and if you're not in political power to change things, then economic power is another avenue.

What I'm suggesting to you is, don't those give those "Right Wingers" power over your deliberations without total context.

I'm not giving Gore a free pass re: this corn bio-fuel tax credit, but I understand it.

[truedelphi]

45. + 1. n/t

[notesdev]

67. Admitting doesn't take much integrity

Restitution, now that takes integrity. But how can Al Gore possibly make restitution for the immense damage that this policy has caused? The only thing I would accept as sincere is if he voluntarily surrendered the fortune he made promoting this kind of thing.

He could use the practice living like the commoners he would rule.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Gore said

Gore said he instead supports so-called second generation technologies that do not compete with food — using farm waste or non-food sources like switchgrass to make ethanol.

"I do think second and third generation that don't compete with food prices will play an increasing role, certainly with aviation fuels," he added.

Thanks for the thread, Ginto.

[karynnj]

16. John and Teresa Kerry spoke of switchgrass and other alternatives to corn in their 2007 book

This moment on earth.

Teresa spoke of not just the poor conversion rate of corn, but the excessive amount of fertilizer needed to product it that ended up in the rivers and the streams. I think this was their position even in 2004.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Unfortunately the direct link to MSN has been scrubbed, but Gore had his own concerns

re: biofuels in 2007 and I believe probably before.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RestoreGore/46

I believe Gore came out specifically with this corn biofuel policy being a mistake because of the upcoming Dec. 31st tax credit expiration date.

[karynnj]

22. Thanks

I was making the point that Democrats, involved on environmental issues have spoken on this. The Kerry book which was released in March 2007 - and written in the 2005 and 2006 was one instance that I could put a definitive date to. It was spoken of - by Teresa that I for sure - in Iowa in 2004.

With Gore, even if he did take the easy road in the 1990s, he has done more than anyone to educate the American people on the need to deal with climate change. The fact is that the political calculation of pushing it in the 1990s could have been worth that damage if it were needed to get him elected President so he could seriously deal with climate change. Two of the people who worked with him from the 1980s were John Kerry and John Heinz.

The credit for ethanhol does end this year -

"Domestic ethanol producers are facing the expiration at the end of this year of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, also known as VEETC and the blender's tax credit. The federal benefit that started in 2005 gives a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of pure ethanol blended into gasoline. Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.) have introduced legislation with a five-year extension of the benefit.

The tax credit could be worth plenty in the future. The 2007 energy bill created a requirement that the United States use 36 billion gallons a year of biofuels by 2022. That created a demand for ethanol, Green said, because it is the most readily available biofuel. Cellulosic biofuel crops including switch grass, wood chips and the nonfood parts of corn have obstacles including higher production costs, he said."

(Green is an AEI person, who told the Finance committee that we could "adapt" to climate change in a very intense grilling by Kerry.)

In the something I didn't know category - Wes Clark is the co-chair of Growth Energy.

""Ethanol is America's fuel: It's made here in the U.S., it creates U.S. jobs, and it contributes to America's national and economic security," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Growth Energy's co-chairman. "This ad campaign is designed to reach beyond the Beltway to communicate those facts about ethanol to the broader American public -- people who until now have only heard one side of the story."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/13/13greenwire-rival-ethanol-trade-groups-campaigning-to-woo-s-2028.html

[rosesaylavee]

39. Uncle Joe...

I really like you and not surprised to see you here today! :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

43. I feel the same way about you, rosesaylavee.

Peace to you and have a Happy Thanksgiving.:hi:

[robcon]

7. So it was pandering to farmers, not science or technology

Gore just shot himself in the foot, credibility-wise.

[sweetapogee]

9. I think

you have spoken a great truth. There is much harm to our cause and the enemies of the earth will latch onto this and ride it for all it is worth and then some.

The truth in all things is always the best policy. When you don't know or if you can't prove your position, don't support it. 7.7 Billion is a lot of money. I would like to know why this is coming out now.

[swilton]

11. There is a big difference between 'corporate farmers'

and farmers.

[progressoid]

13. Ironically, Gore pissed off farmers here...

when he made a (truthful) statement that human waste is more regulated than hog waste. And there are a LOT more hogs producing a LOT more shit than there are people in Iowa. When he said we need more regulations on hog lots, he lost a lot of farmer support.

[swilton]

53. I disagree with you

The waste from the small hog farms is manageable...It's the mega farms (analogous to Frank Purdue & chickens) that are the problem....

[progressoid]

63. I didn't say it isn't manageable.

It is manageable, but as Gore stated there aren't proper regulations to deal with 50 million tons of animal shit. The size of the farm notwithstanding, animal waste is less regulated than human waste.

[blackspade]

20. Not really.

At least he is willing to tell a truth that could propel the discussion into a current context.
The fact is, that this practice is still ongoing. Calling attention to it now, just before the subsidies are supposed to lapse may at least prompt debate.

[Dave From Canada]

8. I guess the "science" was wrong back then. I wonder what other policies he's supporting for reasons

other than science.

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. Careful, bro. nt

[Dave From Canada]

12. I'm just asking legitimate questions. n/t

[karynnj]

37. That is completely unfair - Gore has been a strong proponent of

dealing with global warming for at least 30 years. It is not clear that ethanol helps on climate change, but it does help reduce the foreign oil needed - and that NOT climate change was the reason it was originally passed.

Now, that you would react with surprise that a politician would do something to favor Iowa - if they have Presidential ambitions is silly. I would assume that all of them have.

[AngryAmish]

80. And his green hedge fund will in no way benefit if concrete steps against warming are taken

Not a penny.

[Uncle Joe]

82. I hope his green fund becomes a major beneficiary.

There is political power to change society and there is economic power.

For too long the economic deck has been stacked in favor of keeping the nation addicted to fossil fuel, changing government policy was all the more difficult because of this.

I believe as Gore wasn't in the realm of politics anymore putting investments to work on behalf of sustainable technologies is a good thing.

[karynnj]

85. You have been listening far too much to RW talking points

Al Gore wrote his first book on Global Warming, Earth in the Balance" for a 1992 Presidential run that never happened. He held the first hearings in a sub committee of the Commerce committee in 1986. His concern has been of LONG duration.

I don't know the details (or much of anything at all) of his green hedge fund, assuming he has one. But, a hedge fund's goal is to fund companies when they are still risky and possibly never going to amount to anything. The idea is that many will fail, but the upside of being there at the beginning for super successful companies makes the composite profitable - or even very profitable. There are many technology companies that are start ups whose main assets are the intelligence and creativity of their employees and some ideas they are working on - do you think those assets are sufficient for a regular bank to grant loans to keep them afloat for the years before the ideas become successful products? Other than government grants, where do you think they get the capital to make a go of it?

You can argue against the preferred tax treatment of hedge funds or point to hedge funds that break various rules. I will agree with you that the former is unfair and that the latter should be prosecuted. However, I think that in a field where technical innovation is so critical (and profits so risky), hedge funds are doing an important service. (Note - I know nothing Of Gore's in specific. I have not ever worked at a Hedge Fun and know no one who has.)

[rayofreason]

35. Self-interest then...

...self-interest now?

Follow the money.

[Uncle Joe]

36. It wasn't self-interest then and it's not self interest now.

But if you truly want to follow the money, you will find it covered in oil.

[rayofreason]

40. No self-interest...

....nope. none at all -

I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president - Al Gore.

Nope, no self-interest at all. Move along now. Nothing to see here. Corn subsidies? Ah shucks, forget about that little 'ol thang. Who made money? Why worry your pretty little head about that? How'd Gore get to be so rich? Not through self-interest, that's for sure! It just happened!!!

</sarcasm>

When I see a politician get rich I know something is not right.

http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001034

[Uncle Joe]

44. This isn't self interest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.

More than 50 billion tons could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere, she said.

But the rate of defrosting is hard to assess with the data at hand.

"If permafrost were to thaw suddenly, in a flash, it would put a tremendous amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We would feel temperatures warming across the globe. And that would be a big deal," she said. But it may not happen so quickly. "Depending on how slow permafrost thaws, its effect on temperature across the globe will be different," she said.

[laughingliberal]

54. That's it then. Gore's discredited & we can just quit listening to him & let the oil companies...

set all our energy policies.

Oh, wait...

[craigmatic]

46. It might've been wrong for the environment but if we can just get off foreign gas,

we're still better off with corn ethanol(at least until something better comes along).

[former9thward]

57. Sure and too bad for those in the developing countries

who are seeing their the price of their food staples rise. Let them starve. At least we won't be using foreign oil.

[craigmatic]

64. They won't we give farmers subsidies not to plant. If we take them away we could still ship food to

third world countries.

[Jakes Progress]

48. One wonders what we might hear from Obama

in 12 or so years.

[notesdev]

68. Didn't take Obama that long

Obama already had his "shovel-ready" mea culpa. Of course that was oddly unattached to any change in policy...

[Romulox]

50. Yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite. But it's only because of his greed and lust for power!

Nice SUVs parked in front of your mansion, Mr. Vice President!

[pscot]

55. Gore is an easy target

but he wasn't President. Maybe he could have done more, but it takes guts to start hacking away at the pillars of our economy. Tipper was probably telling him, Al! Think of the children! So he split the difference. He was still pretty much all alone out there.

[2nd_try]

59. Al Gore is 1st and foremost a politician.

When he needed the money and support of farmers, he was all for it. Now, it's all changed.

I read, many years back how the energy conversion factor alone prevented ethanol from ever being able to knock even a small dent in our fossil fuel requirements.

And, in the last 10 years or so Mr. Gore's personal worth has grown exponentially. Much of this is from eco-business ventures. Maybe I'm jaded by the underbelly of so many politicians being exposed over the years. But, while they all tell us they're working in our interests, I believe far too many are in business for themselves. Not to single out Mr. Gore, it's just an overview of our system as it operates today. While I'm sure some have, you just don't see many people pull a couple or more tours as Senators who don't leave a hell of a lot richer than when they first went to DC.

[laughingliberal]

61. +1 nt

[yurbud]

65. that stuff about energy conversion ratios is bullshit from the oil companies

how energy intensive do you think it is to extract fuel from tar sands or shale oil.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. Look up "Energy Return On Energy Invested"...

since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about (EROEI for Canadian tar sands is about 5, which means the energy return is 5x what's expended in getting it). EROEI for 1st gen ethanol from corn is right around 1 (which means you get as much energy from the ethanol as it took to grow the corn and convert it to ethanol in the first place)...which makes it not an energy source but an energy carrier. See here: http://www.bioenergywiki.net/Net_energy_debate

[Steerpike]

83. all things being equal

Al Gore is still the man...all you haters can bugger off!