Skip to content
Grist home
Grist home
  • Gore’s Law

    Modelled after Godwin’s Law, here is Gore’s Law: As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one. (via Deltoid)

  • Al Gore at TED

    Al Gore addresses the TED conference, March 2008: Pretty intense. You can see how he is consciously attempting to transcend politics — he’s shooting for something bigger now.

  • At least, according to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):

    "Climate change is the road less traveled but he's traveled it even more than Al Gore," Graham said. "Al Gore has talked about it and deserves great recognition but he was around here a long time and never introduced a bill."

    Let's see: McCain got 43 votes the first time he pushed his bill with Lieberman. He added some nuclear subsidies for the second go-round and got 38 votes. I'm not sure he can lay claim to great achievements.

    The key point for me is that unlike Gore -- and unlike Clinton and Obama -- McCain doesn't support the policies needed to successfully address catastrophic climate change without devastating the economy (and without an absurd over-reliance on nuclear power):

    Heck, McCain ramped down his talk about climate recently, even as Gore ramps up his communications effort. For the full statement by Graham, and a full rebuttal, see ThinkProgress, which has a great post that I'll just reprint below [unindented]:

  • Obama just can’t quit Gore

    In response to a question about whether he’d consider Gore for a cabinet position, Obama said: I would. Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He’s somebody I talk to […]

  • Thoughts on the newly announced ‘we’ campaign

    So Al Gore announced a $300 million 3-year effort "aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."

    My question is, wouldn't it be better to spend that money on building grassroots organizations pushing for climate change legislation instead of spending it mostly, I presume, on advertising? If $100 million was spent each year on grassroots organizations in 30 major cities, that would work out to $3 million per each major metropolitan area, enough for a decent-sized effort to organize citizens to push their legislators.

    Or how about setting up some think tanks and media outlets, as the conservative movement did? Or is raising money for ads much easier than raising money for grassroots organizing? Color me confused.

  • Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection unveils ambitious $300 million ad campaign

    If you read Juliet Eilperin’s great rundown in the Washington Post, you know that today marks the launch of a massive PR effort from Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. Gore has concluded that U.S. politicians will continue to be timid on climate change until the public demands otherwise. “The simple algorithm is this: It’s […]

  • BREAKING: Al Gore still not running, though superdelegates may force him to, only probably not

    In his column today, Joe Klein spins out a preposterously unlikely scenario whereby the Democratic superdelegates get together and conspire to pass over both Obama and Clinton and instead hand the nomination to … Al Gore. Two or three paragraphs in I thinking, oh, Joe, pish-tosh. Then: Pish-tosh, you say, and you’re probably right. OK […]

  • Competitive Whining, er, Enterprise Institute bashes Gore with all they’ve got

    A short while ago, Sir Oolius received a fundraising email from the Competitive Enterprise Institute asking for donations to help them with their new raison d'etre: yelling "FU, Al Gore!" as loudly and as often as possible. The fruits of this effort are now upon us in the form of a national ad whining campaign:

    If carbon = life, then Al Gore ...