There’s been a fair bit of fur flying as a result of Al Gore’s recent article in Rolling Stone: Climate of Denial. Most of the controversy centers around the fact that Gore calls out President Obama for not doing enough on climate change – not using his “bully pulpit.” More about that tack in a moment.
Most of the article, however, is about how (a) money has corrupted American politics and (b) how the media has not been reporting the reality of climate change properly.
As to money, this is by far the most important commentary Gore has in the article. “In the new ecology of political discourse, special-interest contributors of the large sums of money now required for the privilege of addressing voters on a wholesale basis are not squeamish about asking for the quo they expect in return for their quid. Politicians who don’t acquiesce don’t get the money they need to be elected and re-elected. And the impact is doubled when special interests make clear — usually bluntly — that the money they are withholding will go instead to opponents who are more than happy to pledge the desired quo. Politicians have been racing to the bottom for some time, and are presently tunneling to new depths.” Dead on the money. (Forgive the pun.)
Constitutional scholars like Ronald Dworkin have warned us about how devastating the Supreme Court’s decision is – excuse me, the decision of the right wing majority of the Supreme Court in early 2010 in granting corporations access to politicians limited only by how much money they are willing to spend to buy the right decisions on the Hill. In endorsing legislation to overturn the travesty that is the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, Obama himself asked us to “ …imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians.” The legislation failed.
I would have preferred Gore to have focused on this aspect of how badly warped American politics has become, with the illustration of the frustrating state of affairs in Congress relative to climate and energy legislation.
One other big picture point that he tries to make in his article is how badly the media has reported climate change. That is, in a way, old news – as it were. Yes, the media played that absurd game of “balance” in reporting the views of climate scientists and climate deniers for far too long. The American media, in particular, has much to answer for in this regard, but I think we’re past that now. Fox – there’s nothing you can do about Fox. Neither Limbaugh nor the others of his stripe. You can’t reach them with reason or science – they are actively against both. So are their listeners.
The message, though, of the dire pass we have brought ourselves to with fossil fuels, deforestation, industrial agriculture and our lunatic galloping consumption of resources (including meat) has been, in fact, penetrating to the consciousness of publics around the world, very much including America. Al Gore, to his enormous credit, is responsible for a good measure of this increased awareness and willingness to confront the issues.
But then so is Barack Obama. Barry has been in the driver’s seat and has been doing seriously useful work. (Gore would’ve been there on Inauguration Day 2001 but for his inexplicable choice of running mate. Don’t get me started.)
I don’t subscribe to the nay-saying on Obama’s performance from so many people for whom I have tremendous admiration: Joe Romm, Hendrik Hertzberg, Betsy Kolbert. They, and Gore in the Rolling Stone article, decry the President’s work. They generally acknowledge the extraordinary things the Obama Administration has done, but then they launch into a jeremiad about what he’s not done. He has not, it appears, gotten blood out of a stone.
Gore describes the “upper” house of the Congress this way: “…a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party…” Okay, so this august body is not, according to Gore, particularly predisposed to effect good legislation. I have argued that the Senate is, by its very nature, dysfunctional. You may remember the principle of one person, one vote that is touted as a bedrock of democracy. Just not in our Constitution, tragically.
But, if Gore is right, who could make the Senate do the right thing? He also says, referring to Obama: “After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority.” Why would he? It was a losing proposition all along. By the way, when you were the Vice President of the United States, did you try to get the Senate to accept the Kyoto Protocol? Didn’t even try, did you? The Byrd-Hagel resolution was a rather stout shot across your bow, wasn’t it?
There are other criticisms of the President that I think are unfounded. For instance, Gore says: “He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.” Pish. The Administration has vigorous, well-funded, and robustly led climate science programs that are producing great science and reaching the public. I teach this stuff and use material from NASA, NOAA, and the National Academies all the time.
On international leadership, Gore thinks because there hasn’t been federal legislation produced by the magic incantations that only the White House knows – but seems to have been unwilling to pronounce – then we are dead in the water. We are, in fact, moving forward on any number of fronts, many of which I’ve mentioned here.
I also disagree with Gore’s contention that “Ultimately, however, the only way to address the climate crisis will be with a global agreement that in one way or another puts a price on carbon.” I wrote here about how California, the EU, the Northeast States (with or without Chris Christie and New Jersey), among others, are shifting the emphasis to a “bottom-up” approach on a price on carbon. No less an analyst of international finance than George Soros endorses this way of doing business.
Vice President Gore is a figure of world historical importance owing to his dedication to confronting the climate crisis. He is not, though, by any stretch of the imagination, the only player, and I think he does a disservice to the cause by calling the President, for all intents and purposes, a bystander. “The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.” This has been a global problem all along and the solutions have been coming, make no mistake, from any number of quarters: the EU, the sustainable development movement, the NGOs, the corporate community e.g. Siemens and Google, among others, and, yes, the Obama White House.
