What Al Gore could do

There's a need for someone to draw contrasts among candidates on climate

Posted by David Roberts at 10:44 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Read more about: politics | elections | presidential race 08 | John McCain | Al Gore

I said earlier that there's no point in Al Gore endorsing anyone in the primary. But if he does want to have a salutary effect on the presidential election, I have a proposal for him. More on that in a minute.

It's looking like John McCain has a better than even chance of getting the Republican nomination. He has the distinction of being by far the most sensible Republican candidate on the subject of climate change. It is one of his storied heresies from Republican orthodoxy.

He is drawing fire from the right on the issue, insuring a stream of glowing press (never underestimate the press's love of a maverick, faux or not) and a powerful appeal to independents (one of the reasons he won so big in NH). This makes him a very potent candidate in the general election, if he makes it there.

Inexplicably, green groups seem determined to help McCain as well, actively muddying the differences among the candidates on climate. "The true frontrunner in the 2008 presidential campaign so far is the issue of global warming: all four winning candidates to date support capping greenhouse gas emissions and solving the global warming crisis," said LCV. Representatives of Environmental Defense and NRDC echoed the message. One NGO green said that all four winning candidates have "a position that is certainly far better than the Bush administration" on climate, which is a bit like saying your ankles and your ears are both above your feet.

These groups are effectively trumpeting their own success -- "look how important we made this issue!" -- at great peril to the climate they claim to be protecting. The fact is, McCain would be a much worse president on climate than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Those who support strong action on climate would do well to highlight, not elide, that difference.

It's not about partisan attacks. It's about giving voters who care about the issue the information they need to express that concern with their vote. The message that "everybody's great on climate" does the opposite -- it removes all political valence and neutralizes the issue.

That's where Al Gore could come in. He's not particularly well-received in the political realm, be he is viewed as an authority on the subject of climate change. His judgment on which candidate is strongest on climate would carry considerable weight, and might offer countervailing pressure against the forces working to push the issue off the table.

If I were advising Gore, I'd tell him to refrain from endorsing a candidate at all, even in the general. When asked, he should say, "I've had my fill of American electoral politics. I have bigger things on my mind now. What I care about is a serious plan to address the climate crisis. I will make my opinion about the candidates' proposals on that subject well known." The fact is, if he assessed the candidates honestly on climate, McCain would come out looking shabby.

Why is McCain worse than Obama and Clinton on climate? I'll address that in a separate post.

For story: What Al Gore could do
5 Comments | Post a Comment

muddying the waters

Yes, DR, I agree that McCain is down around the ankles.

As for the Democrats, though, let us not muddy the way to feel through the muddiness.

Or, perhaps better said, there are two different levels of muddiness, and one level matters much more than the other.

The level that does not matter so much is that of policy statements. All of these are provisional, and can be tweaked, adjusted and negotiated. So, muddiness on this level is quite tolerable.

The level that matters is the level of the candidates' respective commitment to the issue. How committed are they, really? If they are really committed, is it because they find such commitment politically expedient, or is it because they have sincerely embraced the issue as huge, as the reason they are now seeking to serve the public, in sort of an Al-Gore-ish way?

By no means are all the Democrats to be believed to be interchangeable on that level.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 6:25 AM on 14 Jan 2008

Are there only two Dem candidates?

It seems to me that Edwards would be the better choice for the environment. No mention of him anywhere. I guess this site believes the corporate team player is the best choice for the environment?

by T Ray at 7:20 AM on 14 Jan 2008

I agree there needs to be clearer answers

Getting a straight answer from candidates is important to me. Unfortunately, I am not representative of the majority of America. As we know, environmental matters are not a deciding factor in these elections. I wrote a post about this a few months ago.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com

marguerite manteau-rao http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com 'It's All About Green Psychology'

by lamarguerite at 8:50 AM on 14 Jan 2008

Say Anything

If, during the election period, a presidential candidate articulates a clear plan to address climate change, you can only be sure that it means that he/she cares enough about the election to do their homework.

I am interested in a candidate who first consults their heart and then their experts, rather than one who first consults the polls and then their experts. (It would be helpful to have the experts in their somewhere.)

The truth is that an election is dominated by rhetoric. Would Al Gore's platform issue endorsements merely shape the candidates' future rhetoric?

The real question is who do you believe will aggressively address the Environmental agenda immediately. Having an aggressive plan is great, but who would actually work immediately to carry it out?

So far, I believe that it would be:

McCain [already has]
Kucinich [already walks the walk]
Clinton [on E&PW Committee]
Edwards
Obama [He will be too busy working on his re-election campaign.]
all the rest of the republican presidents.

That being said, has anyone other than McCain taken any leadership on environmental issues? (Hillary Clinton is on the Environment & Public Works Committee.) Pretty sad, if the boldest environmental leader of the pack (to date) has been a republican.

So, if one looks to past leadership performance as a decision-making tool, McCain looks good. (Of course, he looks horrible on so many other issues, IMO.)

Now, which president would provide continuity on Environmental issues is another list.

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

by Greta at 11:01 AM on 14 Jan 2008

oh dear, Johnny gets the silver

T Ray,
FYI, I have been throughout a strong supporter of John Edwards; I voted for him in the NY primary in 2004, and I plan to vote for him again next month; I proudly and loyally follow his banner, as he leads us on into his political cul-de-sac ...

Greta,
believe it or not, the one and only time in my life that I registered Republican was in 2000, so that I could vote in the NY primary for John McCain: partly because of his own virtues, partly because the way the Republican establishment got behind W. and made him their inevitable candidate was disgusting.

But I have subsequently been wrestling with the ethics of that temporary switch, seeing that I would not have voted for McCain in the general election, had he in fact won his party's nomination.

Anyway, his conduct over the past few years has turned me against him.

But why do you rank him so high? The environmental agenda does not come across at all as a central part of his political mission. DR will of course explain the problem with McCain far better than I can.

As for John Edwards, concerns about climate change and other environmental dangers fit naturally with what his candidacy is about, so I would definitely throw him into the mix squabbling for the gold.

I do not have any grave objection to Hillary being up there, though you may recall that a few of us join Tom Philpott in feeling dismayed about her selection of a CAFO queen to represent her in the farm states.

As for Obama, I am afraid he has done little to assure us that your cynicism is clearly off the mark.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:27 PM on 14 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.