blood and gore in the blogosphere: on Al’s all-in speech

gore gets icy treatment

Sheesh! Ya woulda tho't Al Gore had enough cred by now to avert the slings and arrows.

Wot matters most is that he's pushing greener, sooner, cheaper...80% by 2020, versus the G8's 50% by 2050.

Wot matters least is whether Gore's the best advocate for this more urgent sustainability agenda.

David Roberts slams Tom Brokaw for his "awful" questioning of Gore on Sunday's Meet the Press (via gristmill). He also decries Gore's "let down" performance. Watch Van Jones, instead, says Roberts.

Roberts' editor asked him to suggest some alternative questions Gore should have been asked (via gristmill). Here's my favorite:

"In our current political economy, opposition to expanding the use of renewables is centered in coal country, around towns built on coal, coal companies and the legislators representing them. There's no prospect of that constituency dipping below 40 votes in the Senate. What can be done to persuade them to drop their opposition, or to overcome it?"

Heck, we know Gore's plan is doable. Let's figure out how to!

Still, Andy Posner notes (via huffingtonpost) that Gore's core idea "has been met with a chorus of criticism, with the naysayers claiming that it would be too costly, too impractical, and too risky to attempt to meet such a goal."

As Matthew McDermott writes (via treehugger):

"Perhaps Bill McKibben, quoted in the We Campaign’s press materials, says it more succinctly that I can, “Finally a response to both the science of climate and the economics of energy on a scale commensurate with the problem. This is a plan that breaks us out of muddling, temporizing stalemate and sets a clear path forward towards an imaginable future.”

Meanwhile, sustainability guru John Elington says (via volans) he's "long felt that the vision of George C. Marshall is exactly what we need again today - and if we were able to stretch Gore’s vision for America to the wider world, that is exactly what we would have."

And Bruce Sterling points out (via viridiandesign) that "(((... there is no other prominent political figure from any other nation-state who is thinking this creatively. So, Al's got some right to frame his idea as a great last hope.)))BTW, if ya wanna ROTFL romp through Gore's speech, read Sterling's full post.

Oh, and, Roberts' funniest follow-up question for Gore? "Why are you and your house so fat?"

Hey! We can laugh, right?

"In our current political economy, opposition to expanding the use of renewables is centered in coal country, around towns built on coal, coal companies and the legislators representing them. There's no prospect of that constituency dipping below 40 votes in the Senate. What can be done to persuade them to drop their opposition, or to overcome it?"

Heck, we know Gore's plan is doable. Let's figure out how to!

Still, Andy Posner notes (via huffingtonpost) that Gore's core idea "has been met with a chorus of criticism, with the naysayers claiming that it would be too costly, too impractical, and too risky to attempt to meet such a goal."

As Matthew McDermott writes (via treehugger):

"Perhaps Bill McKibben, quoted in the We Campaign’s press materials, says it more succinctly that I can, “Finally a response to both the science of climate and the economics of energy on a scale commensurate with the problem. This is a plan that breaks us out of muddling, temporizing stalemate and sets a clear path forward towards an imaginable future.”

And Bruce Sterling points out (via viridiandesign) that "(((... there is no other prominent political figure from any other nation-state who is thinking this creatively. So, Al's got some right to frame his idea as a great last hope.)))

Published by Ken on July 24th, 2008 tagged Climate Change, Community Initiatives

Comments are closed.