but the world will be in complete chaos if everything unfolds like were told it will. i knwo someone will respond to this saying that i have been affected by the leftwing media, but if you use common sense and logical thinking theres a high possibility that what theyre saying might be right
I've only skimmed this thread since I kicked things off with saying that I highly doubt Gore will run for President and if he does I highly doubt he will win. This thread shows only a sample of why he will not likely win considering that he hasn't been in office for the last 8 years nor ran for office yet has been consistently attacked and ridiculed for everything including low TV ratings for Live Earth. Al Gore for the Right Wing is as polarizing as Hillary Clinton and once he runs the attacks on him will make the comments we've seen now seem like friendly ribbing. The other problem is that while Al Gore might be right on the issues and has won many accolades for helping to push these issues how he's gone about it could easily be turned against him. Getting praise from Hollywood and the international community won't necessarily translate over to US domestic supports and attacks on Al Gore will play on middle American distrust of "Hollyweird" liberals and innate nativisms. If the worldwide popularity mattered in the US presidential race Kerry would've won in a landslide in 2004. In regard to the issues Gore running for president though has to run on more than just Global Warming so where does Al Gore stand on issues like immigration, trade, homeland security and a host of other problems? While Al Gore has taken positions on these before his main issue has been Global Warming and he's going to find that issue diluted as he addresses a host of other issues. For that matter given the coalition nature of Democratic party the labor wing of that party has never fully warmed up to addressing Global Warming where it hurts their interests. To gain labor support would Al Gore have to compromise his Global Warming positions? Finally Al Gore is in a better position to advocate the issue of Global Warming than as president where he will have to deal with a host of other crisis and issues. While he might wield the power and bully pullpit of the presidency he will also be subject to the daily scrutiny of the office and wrestling with congress to get things passed. Right now for Al Gore the impression I get is that he is in a much better and more comfortable possesion to advocate his cause than trying to run a messy campaign or even being president.
You keep on talking about protecting economies but have you considered how much money will be needed to be put into building dikes and and trying to make major cities like Venice? Things like that will be far more expensive in the long run than attempting to address the build up in greenhouse gases now through reducing fossil fuel use. As for your comments regarding China and India, yes they are becoming a bigger global warming threat than the US but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing anything. Its like if your neighbor's house is on fire doesn't mean you should set yours on. I don't know about India but I know for a fact that the PRC is taking steps to address pollution and global warming. They themselves are very aware of the problem and while in a quandry regarding maintaining their growth are taking steps to conserve energy and clean up their environment. Given that pollution is taking a huge toll on their own population and that many of their coastal areas are already prone to flooding this is a problem that they realize they have to address. You've frequently brought up the straw man that for Global Warming to be addressed we have to return to the stone age but that totally ignores that the technologies and practices exists to power our culture and industry without relying so heavily on fossil fuels.
There is no current technology today to solve the rising C02 question. Wind and Solar do not generate enough, and nuclear has it's problems with the green folks that makes it politically impossible today. We need to invest in that technology and figure out a pathway to dropping CO2 levels without limiting growth. China and India will not sacrafice growth for a global cause, they feel it's their legitimate right to industrialize and gain the affluence other nations have - and they have a strong case. I am all for finding solutions and investing in technology. But I see that it will probably be a 20-30 year process. By then, by the statements people make here, it will be too late to save cities from being inundated by water level rises if that indeed will happen. So I say we need to put a plan into place to deal with the possible outcomes that people are saying will happen. I am proposing risk management. You have to accept the fact that realistically, lowering CO2 levels anytime soon is unlikely for multiple reasons. Now, we have 50 years to plan for rising sea-levels, so why not begin that process? Zero progress has been made to cut C02, infact, it's rising each year. It will continue to rise, and even if we get to a point where it is constant, it will continue to worsen the greenhouse effect. Now we can put all our efforts into ceasing CO2 levels, which may result in a world economic downturn and still have no impact. Or we can put our efforts into finding ways to cut CO2 levels without hurting jobs (like nuclear power). Push that and I say you got a chance. But we also must start preparing for what you claim to be the inevitable. Even though I am not sure it is, I do think we need to prepare for it. Why are so many people against this?
One of the differences between Japanese and American corporations is that many Japanese companies would look out 100 years, while many American corporations over-emphasize the short-term as they acquiesce to pressures from the stock market. This is not recognized as a positive attribute. It's no great surprise that bush's sight (I can't get myself to use 'vision' for the man)... so intrinsically alligned with business interests... is short term. The abhorrence is that our financial benefit is at the expense of our children and grandchildren. Leaders lead, esp on tough issues. They don't get dragged kicking and screaming.
Gore just uploaded 3 videos on the Current TV web site... One on Health Care:http://current.com/items/84987281_health_care_is_a_right One on Congressional oversight and Exec power:http://current.com/items/84986911_americans_deserve_more_protection# and one on Iraq: http://current.com/items/84986481_get_the_troops_home Is he running? I've always thought that if he does run, it won't look like any campaign in our recent past. Is this the start?
Don't troll. Your snide little attempt at derailing the thread has been addressed in the previous pages. Go read them. The question before you relates to the videos Gore just posted and what they may mean for 2008.
It was actually a MISPRINT. Should say: Roflmcwaffles awarded Nobel Peace Prize. Oh well I will get credit at due time.
It doesn't, and D&D is being over run by the liberal trolls who are basically attacking everyone who disagrees with them. They've succeeded in destroying this forum.
