Uber-environmentalist Al Gore has blamed America’s sluggish response to climate change on scientists, arguing that a consensus should have been reached years ago.
In a revised foreword to his book, Earth in the Balance, Gore launched a scathing attack on scientists for failing to force the US Government into taking strong action on climate change.
“The nature and severity of the climate crisis had seemed painfully obvious to me for quite a long time,” writes the former Vice President. “I wish that we could have had in the 1990s the deafening scientific consensus that has emerged in more recent years.”
Gore also said that George W. Bush, who beat him to the Presidency in controversial fashion in 2000, has “led the nation in precisely the wrong direction” – and claimed that he would’ve pursued a green agenda as President.
Despite being busy promoting the Live Earth concerts due to take place next month, speculation is increasing that Gore may exploit the current ‘greening’ of US politics and have another crack at the Presidency in 2008.
Surely Mr Gore is being a tad disingenuous here. Perhaps he should’ve challenged Bush’s ‘win’ in 2000 then…
Comment by Andy — June 25, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I believe Mr. Gore did challenge Mr. Bush’s “win”. But the court decided. Believing in the rule of law and not the rule of one man, Mr. Gore upheld the principle of democracy yet has continued to make life hell for the president.
Comment by charles — June 26, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Gore had the most votes in 2000 and would have won with a full recount. This is barely contested today. Bush did not ‘win’ the election, therefore; he was awarded it by a split and partisan Supreme Court ruling.
Following the ruling, however, Gore and the Democrats blocked an attempt to force a recount by the Black Caucus of the House. Only one Representative and one Senator needed to support this move – Gore and the Democrats explicitly refused.
Is this what you mean by upholding ‘the principle of democracy’?
It may be inconvenient for Gore to accept this today – and convenient to say he would’ve done things differently to Bush – but he nevertheless allowed it to happen.
I take on board your point that he has since succeeded in giving Bush a hard time by relentlessly spearheading the popular environmental movement. But surely you must at least question the man’s highly selective use of hindsight.
Comment by Andy — June 26, 2007 @ 9:25 am
AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT!
Comment by Dude — June 28, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Obviously Gore is going to say that he would have done things differently. As one of those people who did not get their vote counted in 2000, I wish we would have had the opportunity to find out what it is that he would have done. I don’t know how I feel about him running in 2008 because I think that there are good canidates with out him- but I am pleased that he had taken on global warming as his cause. Whether he runs or not, it is important that as Americans we learn as much about the canidates that we have so we can make the best decision possible. I am not sure who I will vote for yet, but John Edwards has some great ideas for combating the problems with environment.
Comment by Melissa — July 16, 2007 @ 11:42 pm