Is former vice president Al Gore too controversial to carry the torch for the clean-energy movement?
Let’s be right up front about this. While Gore is a hero to many environmentalists, he is a toxic figure to many people of the conservative persuasion.
Last week, Gore received a lot of attention when he proposed a crash program to shift from carbon-based fuels to renewable supplies, such as solar and wind. (See Associated Press story by Dina Cappiello.) I was surprised that Gore said nothing about what has gone on before with the help of U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, and his New Apollo Energy Project and others involved in the Apollo Alliance.
Yes, Gore has managed to raise the profile on this issue like nobody before him. But as Michael Gerson says in an opinion column in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun:
Some Republicans and conservatives are prone to an ideologically motivated skepticism. On AM talk radio, where scientific standards are not particularly high, the attitude seems to be: “If Al Gore is upset about carbon, we must need more of it.” Gore’s partisan, conspiratorial anger is annoying, yet not particularly relevant to the science of this issue.
This points, however, to a broader problem. Any legislation ambitious enough to cut carbon emissions significantly and encourage new energy technologies will require a broad political and social consensus. Nothing this complex and expensive gets done on a party-line vote.
Yet many environmental leaders seem unpracticed at coalition building. They tend to be conventionally, if not radically, liberal. They sometimes express a deep distrust for capitalism and hostility to the extractive industries. Their political strategy consists mainly of the election of Democrats. Most Republican environmental efforts are quickly pronounced “too little, too late.”
Gore is well known for his concerns about climate change, which he revealed in his book and later the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Now, he has hitched his ambitions to a crash program of energy conversion, something that Inslee has written about in his own book, “Apollo’s Fire.”
In interviews I’ve seen and heard, Gore gives barely a nod to legislation that others have been pushing. He exhibits more than his usual arrogance in acting like this was his idea alone.
Now, T. Boone Pickens, the multi-billionaire oil man, is muscling in with his own clean-energy initiative, including a potential $53 million ad campaign to promote wind energy and break America from its oil addiction.
Maybe all sides of the energy issue should come together and decide what can be reasonably accomplished with a bipartisan effort. While Al Gore could bring something to the table, I’m not sure whether everyone would welcome him there. And the notion that he should become some kind of “energy czar” for the country might just turn the table upside down.
Hear Gore in his own words on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.”
Like it or not, Al Gore is bringing the environment home to people who didn’t notice before he stepped in – arrogant or not doesn’t matter…spreading the word matters…the message counts.
I hadn’t thought of Gore and discussed an environment issue with someone who jumped in quoting Gore, assuming I had my information and comments from him.
I laughed but this person and possibly many others are aware of a problem through Al Gore’s involvement.
Sharon O’Hara
Can we please pick someone withOUT a political agenda? Someone who actually and truly cares about the environment and isn’t just looking for votes in 2012?
We’re aware of it now. Let’s get someone who really cares to lead this charge. LC
The self proclaimed inventor of the internet is exhibiting more than his usual arrogance. Next he will be proclaiming himself the savior of all mankind. His arrogance seems to have no limit.