Gore Bashes US
On December 13, 2007, former US Vice-President Al Gore spoke at the UN Climate Conference in Bali. Once again Mr. Gore chose to attack his home country.
I am not an official and I am not bound by diplomatic niceties. So I am going to speak an inconvenient truth: my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali
— Al Gore
At the UN Climate Conference
I suppose this is no surprise; Al Gore’s primary shtick is bashing the US. It is sadly also unsurprising that Mr. Gore is once again ignoring some truly inconvenient facts about the usefulness of the Kyoto Protocol:
It would seem reasonable to think that the signatory nations would be doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. It would also seem reasonable to think that the US, who won’t even ratify the Kyoto Protocol, would keep emitting CO2 at growth levels much higher than those signatory nations. It would be fallacious to think so.
Data on CO2 emission levels per nation are available from the U.S. Census Bureau. By comparing numbers from 1997 (the year the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon) and 2004 (the latest year data is available for) we can arrive at the following statistics:
- Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
- Emissions from signatory nations increased 21.1%.
- Emissions from non-signatory nations increased 10.0%.
- Emissions from the United States increased 6.6%.
In point of fact United States’ CO2 emissions grew slower than those of over 75% of the Kyoto Protocol’s signatory nations.The Kyoto Protocol isn’t working – except as a vehicle for Al Gore’s ego.
One possible piece of good news for the world is that the Bali talks were aimed at launching negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Hopefully something will be put into place that works this time. Perhaps the UN could start by stripping China and India of their supposed Emerging Nation statuses and applying the Protocol them as well.
- Emission increased from China 55%
- Emission increased from India 27%
Since the fact that these two up and coming commercial and industrial powerhouses wouldn’t be bound by the Kyoto Protocol due to their Emerging Nation status was one of the major reasons for the US’ refusal to ratify the treaty, perhaps that should be the first correction.
Tags: Al Gore | Climate Change | CO2 | Global Warming | Kyoto Protocol | Politics | The Environment | UN
December 14th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
LMAO, and this guy wanted to be President! This guy is so into puffing himself up, he never gets around to lauding the numerous companies here in the U.S. that are spending mega bucks on research to come up with ways to perserve our environment AND do it so people don’t lose their jobs in the process AND so people don’t have to “shock” their systems with a radical life change in the process!
This guy’s hidden agenda is his own pocketbook and personal finances.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Yep! And I’ve read he makes $6000 / minute for speaking engagements.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:51 am
First, Gore should be bashing the US in this instance. You cannot look at just percentages and take that to mean that the US is doing its part. It is by far the worlds biggest polluter and also the country that can most afford to cut back, not increase its CO2 emissions. There are countries that could increase their levels by a 1000 % and still be just 1% of US levels. Your facts sound like Bush’s political double speak. As far as bashing Gore because of the money he makes for speaking, lets see some comparisons with other former White House staff or cabinet members. Personally I would rather pay Gore that much than Shaq O’neil or Barry Bonds.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Excellent post. I feel Gore’s agenda is not for the betterment of our country. While I believe we should all respect, and care for the earth, I think the purpose here is to promote him-self as a Citizen of the world vs an american.
To me, the motives are Internationalism. Loss of Sovereignty, and redistribution of wealth. Just my opinion..
December 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Brian,
Way back in the Clinton years, the Senate said they wouldn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocols until it also had provisions for developing (emerging) nations like: China, India, the UIA, and others. Clinton – though Gore symbolically signed the treaty – never sent the treaty to the Senate. Bush has done exactly the same.
Also, China in 2004 was producing almost as many millions of metric tons of CO2 as the US ( China: 1,284 vs. US: 1,612), so even the raw tonnage doesn’t back up the statement that the US “is by far the worlds biggest polluter.” Given anecdotal reports and documented trends, China probably now surpasses the US in CO2 emissions.
You know – China the emerging nation that wouldn’t be bound by the treaty 🙂
angie,
Thank you, I agree that parts of the the Kyoto Protocol’s unsaid agenda are Globalism, Loss of Sovereignty, and Wealth Redistribution. It’s a UN vehicles and they we created to foster those ideas. I do believe though that there’s also valid and good motives – Climate Change – as well.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I worry like hell about the kind of destruction China’s emissions in particular will wreak on our planet in the future. It’s like a ticking time bomb.
I do think America has the ability and resources to either stay our emissions or decrease them annually, despite our increasing population. In that sense, I’m sad to see an increase in emissions, even if by a comparatively slim margin.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
It’d be nice to lower the emissions, but I’m heartened to see that the US’ emissions were already growing at a much lower rate than other countries – without a treaty, just public opinion to force it.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Jonolan, China has 1.32 BILLION people, more than a billion more than the US. They have thousands of coal mines because they operate largely on coal power. I would expect that they would outstrip any other polluter on the planet by far. Do they? As of 2006 they are roughly equal to the US, who has the most efficient energy technology in the world. There are many reasons for that, one being that we have absolutely no controls on automobile use and the resulting pollution they cause.
Some years ago, in addition to my Dodge Ram and my wife’s Cherokee, my son and daugher both had cars while still living at home. That’s four cars in one household. Typical of many American families.
In most of the world that is economically impossible. It should be in the US as well.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Yes, the US is car crazy – there’s no doubt of that. China however is moving in exactly the same direction, yet the UN doesn’t seem willing to require them to change their lifestyle. You don’t either; you offer apologetics instead. Why is that?
I’m all in favor of reducing emissions, even though I’m skeptical of the idea that humanity is greatly effecting the climate. However, I’d like to see any treaties that are signed include requirements and time-lines for those supposedly emerging or developing nations as well. Anything else smacks of wealth & power redistribution as the agenda instead of environmentalism.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The UN does not have the power to make anyone change their lifestyles. I am not apologizing for anyone and I agree that developing nations have to be included, indeed everyone has to be included in a serious effort to clean up the environment and reverse the warming trend.
I must say that to believe that industrial pollution (humans) are not having a dramatic impact on this seems a little naive for you. It’s like saying we are not having an impact on species becoming endangered or the rainforests disappearing.
I’m also a little surprised at the Gore bashing. If Bill Gates was leading this effort would he be bashed for as well? Is it that a wealthy person shouldn’t lead the effort? Are there any wealthy people that don’t use more energy than poor people? Would a poor person, no matter how dedicated, even be heard on this issue?
Someone had to stand up and take the lead. Gore is as good as anyone and better than most. I’m glad he did. To accuse him of grandstanding, as one commenter did, is absurd. If he joined the presidential race, no one could beat him. But he won’t. Anyway, good debate. That’s what this media is all about.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
On Global Warming – The science is still vague and conflicted on the level of human impact. I’m saying I don’t believe we’re a major cause, I’m saying I’m skeptical. Sadly, if we’re (humanity) not the major culprit, then we’re probably screwed.
On Gore – He’s a hypocrite who just started reducing his own emissions – a little – in 2007. Yes, I’ve bashed Gates was well for his laptops for the poor scam – all of which ran only Windows. A rich person can certainly do good, but they’re bound by the same rules of behavior as anyone else. Just because they’re powerful doesn’t mean they get a free ride to aggrandize themselves at the world’s expense.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
At least we know how he really feels about the US now.
He and compardras claimed for so long that they support and love their country, turns out they lied.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:21 am
dila, Greetings and welcome.
I’m not sure if we really know how Gore feels about the US. He makes a lot of money and gets a lot of attention by bashing the US. That sort of thing may not be actual dislike but just his shtick – like an old vaudeville showman with only one act.
Then again, if I’d had the 2000 Presidential election essentially stolen from me by the US Supreme Court, I might be just a tad bitter myself 😉 – so I don’t find his behavior that shocking.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
LOL.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Aaahh! I came across a great cartoon a few weeks ago, and I found it again on a goole image search. I hope the link sends you to it…it worked for me on a new page.
http://www.nypost.com/delonas/2006/05/05252006.jpg
December 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
LOL! That’s just so funny! Thanks, Rhea.