TresSugar

Gore's Inconvenient Follow Up on Its Way - Would You Buy It?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:50:09 -0700

Climate change crusader Al Gore is back with a new book - Our Choice. The follow up to An Inconvenient Truth will spell out everything Gore has learned in the last few years, including concrete solutions to the climate issue. As the title hints at, Gore will hammer home the need to make bold choices.

And of course the book wouldn't be relevant without a tie-in to the current economic crisis (people can only handle one crisis at a time!). Our Choice explains how green policies can create new jobs and stimulate the economy.

Would you choose to buy Al Gore's new book when it's released in November?

Source

Not Evil Just Wrong - New Film to Take on Al Gore

LibertySugar — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:30:42 -0800

The new documentary Not Evil Just Wrong challenges so-called "global warming hysteria." The Irish filmmakers behind the project believe the effort to save the planet only hurts the poor, and they hope the film will discredit "alarmists" like Al Gore.

The film presents some alleged inconvenient truths that counter Al Gore. In the trailer, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is presented as a dark fearmongerer demanding that people drastically change the way they live, or that factories close and take away millions of jobs. Those in the documentary emotionally explain that such efforts destroy industry and ultimately cost people's lives.

Do you think this documentary could change your view of global warming?

And Now We're Russia: What's With Obama's Czars?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:30:36 -0800

Forget becoming Communist Russia, try a cabinet filled with all-powerful czars. When "climate czar" first popped into our lexicon earlier this week, I thought it was a one-time title for Al Gore because he's already been vice president - a cabinet title would practically be a demotion - and it has a nice ring to it. And because, really, how can there be a climate czar without it being Al Gore?

Well Al Gore doesn't want the job, and a slew of new czar titles have been tossed around this week: auto czar, tech czar, energy czar, education czar, style czar (joking! . . . but Tim Gunn, yes?). What makes a czar different from a regular cabinet secretary? To find out, read more.

Czar is really just a slang term in the US for a government position with lots of power. They report directly to the president instead of the president's chief of staff, so any czars in the Obama administration can work around what will likely be Rahm Emanuel's tight grip.

Don't think the US doesn't already have czars, though. The senate voted to establish a drug czar in 1982 to control US drug policy, and the Bush administration established a terrorism czar, war czar (though Bush never found any takers so the position remains open), and cybersecurity czar (highest ranking position in Homeland Security). Just last month, Congress agreed to appoint a copyright czar, which will be named by President-elect Obama.

I'd take a world with copyright and climate czars over war and terrorism czars any day. But what's the point anyway? Is it dangerous to give one person so much power, or a good way to get a lot accomplished?

Source

Al Gore Says Thanks, but No Thanks to Climate Czar Role

LibertySugar — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:30:39 -0800

Word on the street is that Barack Obama plans to create a "climate czar" position to lead his administration's climate change and energy policies. But Al Gore, the most likely candidate, has already said that he doesn't want the job.

Perhaps Al Gore either didn't want to fill out that cumbersome questionnaire Obama is passing out to potential appointees, or saw the position as a demotion from vice president. Then again maybe he thinks he can get more done outside of government. Whatever the reason, Al Gore's disinterest may clear the way for another candidate - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Source

ABC Refuses to Air Gore's Ad: In the Tank For Oil Companies?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:00:12 -0700

With all the talk lately about who's "in the tank" for whom, this is one story where the imagery just might fit. The CEO of Al Gore's big We Campaign is accusing ABC of putting the concerns of big oil over their message of planetary goodwill by refusing to run the latest Al Gore ad, called, "Repower America."

In a scathing email the CEO said:

“Did you notice the ads after last night’s presidential debate? ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby. But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad – the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby.”

The We Campaign is striking back with an online petition aimed at getting the ad on the air during Friday's airing of 20/20. The petition has over 80,000 signatures.

To see whether ABC has an agenda, read more.

The ad blasts oil companies as a hurdle to clean energy saying, "Big oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy." The non-airing of the ad seems odd given the network hasn't ignored the climate situation. They have a big budget special called Earth: 2100 planned warning that our civilization is set to go the way of the Mayans if we continue on this path.

On the other hand, in a study by the Business & Media Institute, ABC included more climate change skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than the other networks. Does this combined with the ad's absence dictate a tacit environmental agenda?

Al Gore Calls For "Civil Disobedience" Against New Coal Plants

CitizenSugar — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:45:35 -0700

At the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative kicked off yesterday in New York City, Al Gore made a perhaps inconvenient call to action: civil disobedience. Gore, surrounded by Queen Raina, Clinton, and Bono painted a grim planetary picture:

This is a rout. We are losing badly. This is the result of a dysfunctional, insane global system pattern that we have to change.

Then his plan to gain ground on the climate crisis:

If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.

To see what he means, read more.

Currently 28 coal plants are under construction and another 20 more have been approved. The carbon capture he mentioned is a technology that keeps coal plant emissions out of the atmosphere by liquefying them and storing them in underground rock layers, long term. Capture doesn't exist yet in a commercial scale as the cost to implement it increases any project's budget by 50 percent.

Gore summed up his case against coal like this: “Clean coal is like healthy cigarettes - it does not exist.” Are you with Gore? Is it time for civil disobedience - or is calling for it an irresponsible act?

Source

Energy Faceoffs Spark Police Raids and Surprising Couplings

CitizenSugar — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:58:52 -0700

Grab a Redbull, it's a big week of energy match-ups: Obama vs. McCain, Protesters vs. Police, and Pickens plus Gore?

While Barack Obama may be declaring it "energy week" in a speech in the US today, in the UK police have cracked down on a camp of eco-activists protesting a new coal-fired power station. Police made arrests today during a second raid of the campsite.

View 5 Photos ›

Earlier, around 200 officers raided the climate camp, taking custody of hundreds of items they said could be used to break the law. The week-long camp out is being held at the proposed site of the UK's first new coal-fired power station in 30 years.

To see their difference in opinion, plus the green team of Pickens and Gore, read more.

The protesters claim that the police are stopping their message that a new coal station will stop the UK from meeting CO2 targets, while the police have a different take. They say the items taken (super glue, climbing ropes, and bolt cutters) show the protesters had a more malicious intent.

Meanwhile, energy mavericks Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens have been in talks about what could be the most interesting combo of planet warriors to date. The duo are said to be in talks about their respective campaigns to overhaul US energy. Is it too late for Pickens/Gore '08?

Source

Moving Endangered Species To Save From Global Warming?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:56:40 -0700

The biological community is facing global climate change with a radical plan to create a sort of Darwin-assisted species-triage program: moving threatened species to safer locations. As we heard in Al Gore's big global warming speech yesterday, warming is huge - and one of the effects is that many species are now facing extinction as the weather shifts, leading some to ask if a big move can lead to the salvation of a species.

Ten years ago, this idea was wildly opposed when it was introduced into the scientific community as data on global warming began mounting. Now, as warming becomes more acute, scientists and conservationists are seriously considering the idea of providing a one-way ticket to disappearing species.

View 10 Photos ›

Radical ideas are tricky, and this is no exception. There are two major sticking points. To see what those problems entail, read more.

The first hitch is, as any biologist will tell you, if you move any species from one environment to another it might not survive - or worse - it may fare entirely too well and destroy its new neighbors with impunity. If one of the newer kids on the endangered block, the Polar Bear, were moved to the only other environment in which it might call home – Antarctica – the penguins would most likely go extinct very quickly having no natural defense against the new predator, Marching, no more.

The second dilemma is what to save and what to let slip away into the oblivion of eternal death. Stanford biologist, Terry Root, says: “Ultimately the decision about whether to actively assist the movement of a species into new territories will rest on ethical and aesthetic grounds as much as on hard science.” And there's a cute factor? Would the more precious like the baby Siberian Tiger pictured above get preferential treatment over the Oahu tree snail?

No matter what scientists decide to save and what to let go extinct, there are those that simply have no alternatives. The native endangered species of the Sky Islands in Arizona and New Mexico have such specific survival environments that can not be found elsewhere. Root is objective about such fates: “Those species are functionally extinct right now. They’re toast.”

Hopefully the new homes won't be on the list of endangered places . . . but is moving species the solution? Should endangered species pack their bags?

Source

Gore Shoots For the Moon With 10-Year Climate Change Goal

LibertySugar — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:01:55 -0700

Al Gore wants every kilowatt of electricity we use to be produced by wind, sun, and other sustainable energy sources within 10 years.

Gore is giving a speech on global warming right now in Washington, but previewed his finer points to the Associated Press saying he hopes the new president will share his deadline. Though he has endorsed Barack Obama, he praised both Obama and McCain for being "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

The cost of switching to alternative electrical sources could be as much as 3 trillion dollars over 30 years in public and private money. It's a spendy bill, but Gore says it will "pay itself back many times over." To see how he hopes to incite change, read more. Gore added:

I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now. . . . It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels.

Gore actually compared his challenge to President Kennedy's pledge in May 1961 to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. In order to meet his target, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation would have to increase its use of solar, wind, geothermal, and clean coal energy. This would require enormous investments in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing grids, as well as support from the public. (Note to Gore: Have you adjusted your at-home energy use yet? I have!)

Source

Al Gore's Own Warming - His Home Energy Use Goes Up!

CitizenSugar — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:00:45 -0700

Oh, Al! It's as if I'm psychic. Just the other day we were talking about the factors that distract from environmental causes, and his royal greenness himself, Al Gore, and his energy sucking house of eco-horrors came up.

Surely with his big ad campaign with Al Sharpton telling us to green our act, he's made some changes and stopped the energy suck at his own digs . . . right? Uh, no. In fact, quite the opposite. According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al's energy consumption jumped 10 percent.

His house currently uses enough energy in a year to power 232 regular houses for a month. And this is after he spent $16,533 on eco-upgrades including solar panels, a geothermal system, new light bulbs, and better windows. Oh, and earning about $100 million dollars, a Nobel Prize, an Oscar, and a Grammy for his global warming agenda. Is this latest report a bout of bad luck or a big green monster?

Al. That's not acid rain - you're making the planet cry.

Source