Gore does acknowledge the “incredible challenges” that is confronting President Obama and recognizes the climate-friendly efforts Obama has achieved, such as the historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and for instructing EPA to “move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act”. But despite this Gore says Obama has “failed” to present “bold action on climate change” and that Obama has only “slightly” moved the country forward on the climate issue. Gore writes:

“But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates including one Republican felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that “drill, baby, drill” is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.”

Because Obama failed to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution in the US he also contributed, Gore writes, to the disappointing failure of securing a global climate treaty at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen (Cop15) in 2009.

“The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that’s all it was a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from “How do we complete this historic breakthrough?” to “How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?”"

Gore also directed strong criticism against Obama for failing to defend the climate science from “dishonest attacks” by the climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry.

“President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. 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.”

There is really no denying. Since taking office in 2008 Obama has failed to bring the change he promised. His track record has so far been a huge disappointment, especially when it comes to the climate crisis. Gore is just saying what has been on many environmentalists minds for a while now. And yet people who want to see real change on the climate issue doesn’t have many political options. As Dina Cappiello from the Associated Press writes:

“Regardless of views such as Gore’s, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would hurt the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not go to the polls.”

And this is really where the problem lies. The current two-party system in the US is undemocratic and is now also clearly responsible for killing our climate. But it’s a political system that Al Gore still remains a firm supporter of.

“Quietly in public, loudly in private, climate scientists everywhere are saying the same thing: it’s over. The years in which more than 2C of global warming could have been prevented have passed, the opportunities squandered by denial and delay. On current trajectories we’ll be lucky to get away with 4C. Mitigation (limiting greenhouse gas pollution) has failed; now we must adapt to what nature sends our way. If we can.”

Read this important piece on the Guardian!

Photo credit: azrainman

New research from the UK Met Office, one of the world’s leading providers of environmental and weather-related services, shows that the world’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions would only offer a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below the two degree threshold.

Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office states: “Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be around a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2 °C.

“This idealised emissions scenario is based on emissions peaking in 2015 and quickly changing from an increase of 2–3% per year to a decrease of 3% per year. For every 10 years we delay action another 0.5 °C will be added to the most likely temperature rise.”

The new research shows that early action against man-made climate change is a must to be able to avoid the doomsday scenarios that comes with a two degree increase in global temperatures.

“These new figures suggest quite unambiguously that the world is on course for calamity unless rapid action can be taken which is far more drastic than any politicians are so far contemplating – never mind the general public.

If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a “business-as-usual” scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible.”

The new findings from the UK Met Office were presented at the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress in Copenhagen last week. And they will put even more pressure on the countries around the world now starting to gather and negotiate in Copenhagen for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference this December – the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”.

Al Gore says the world will agree on a new and better climate deal this time. He argues that a “political tipping point” regarding climate change has been reached:

“There is a very impressive consensus now emerging around the world that the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis,” he says. “I actually think we will get an agreement at Copenhagen.”

I am on the other hand not that optimistic. Sure, we might reach an agreement in Copenhagen. But will it be a strong agreement that actually take the new scientific findings into account? Or will it surrender to short-sighted economic gains from corporate interests?

I do see light in the tunnel. With the election of Barack Obama we got rid of the ignorant and idiotic stopping block, that is to say George Bush and the Republican Party. But even Obama is showing signs of weakness. Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s new top climate-change negotiator, says that a 25% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 is “not possible”:

“It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,”

And so far all the climate conferences and talks have ended in a total failure. The climate targets that have been set and agreed on are too conservative and don’t take the science into account. And pretty much all the reductions that countries so far have managed to do have been by outsourcing the pollution to poorer developing countries. For example the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, ended in embarrassment for the European Union when it’s leaders failed to agree on a strong climate deal. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, even called the new EU deal for “carbon colonialism”.

What we need is a new stronger climate deal that is based on science and not corporate interests. We need a climate deal with a goal of 350 ppm as a level to balance and stabilize the CO2 in our atmosphere. And we need a climate deal that includes sanctions against countries that do not follow the climate roadmap. Is that really too much to ask for?

It seems that Obama in a foolish effort to please the Republicans have agreed to allow over 30% of the stimulus package to go towards pointless tax cuts. Democrat Peter DeFazio, of Oregon’s 4th Congressional District, interviewed by Rachel Maddow puts the blame on the Republicans and Lawrence Summers, Obama’s own adviser:

I really don’t understand this. Why would Obama want to try to please Republicans and their failed policies and ideology? They lost the election and have no real political power left. The people in USA voted for change, not for the same failed policies that have plagued USA and the world for eight years now.

Gristmill also has a lengthy post about Sarah Palin and her record on issues related to energy and the environment. For example they list Sarah Palin’s support to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope and her suggestion to eliminate Alaska’s gas tax.

Gristmill also lists several quotes from Sarah Palin and from people who have reacted to her nomination. Such as this one from Gene Karpinski, the President of the League of Conservation Voters:

“Unfortunately, with her support for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and off our coasts, Governor Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration and their Big Oil friends — policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil.

Governor Palin characterizes McCain’s flip-flop on drilling offshore as a positive step in his transformation from maverick to Big Oil’s best friend. She has implored McCain to change his position against drilling in the Arctic — something she will have plenty of opportunities to pursue as his running mate.

In addition to supporting backward-looking energy policies, Governor Palin has also opposed a crucial clean water initiative, sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and opposed other important wildlife protection measures.”

The post Sarah Palin’s awful environmental record has been updated with the new information.

Last week the Republican presidential contender John McCain announced his choice for running mate and Vice President. John McCain selected a rather unknown 44 year-old women named Sarah Palin from Alaska.

The pro-lifer Sarah Palin, a lifetime member of the NRA, was the former mayor of a town of 9,000 for nearly two years. She wants to teach creationism in schools and is “a firm believer in free market capitalism.” She is also in the centre of the “TrooperGate” scandal currently being unfolded in Alaska. During an interview with Larry Kudlow from CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co” Sarah Palin said that someone needed to explain for her “what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” According to Cindy McCain, “Palin has national security experience because Alaska is close to Russia.”

Already now it’s perfectly clear that Sarah Palin is inappropriate and incompetent for the Vice President position and being one heartbeat away from the presidency for one of the most powerful superpowers in the world.

You could ask yourself why John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, and if he really was sane at that moment. Faye Palin, Palin’s mother-in-law, also wonders that very same question as she said to a New York Daily News reporter that “I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she’s a woman and a conservative.” But it seems not even John McCain liked the idea of Sarah Palin as the Vice President of USA.

We have earlier reported about Joe Biden, the Democrats nominee for Vice President, and his impressive green environmental record. So the question is. How green is really Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin hates polar bears as she doesn’t want to add them to her nation’s list of endangered species, saying “listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.” She has also filed a lawsuit seeking to reverse that very decision.

Sarah Palin wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. She also wants more offshore drilling.

Sarah Palin has supported and led Alaska’s efforts to shoot down wolves from airplanes and helicopters.

Sarah Palin denies that global warming is man-made, saying “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”

Sarah Palin is married to Todd Palin, an oil field production operator from BP. And that is something that surely will become an interest conflict between her and big oil. Sarah Palin has said that she “want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S.” And during a phone interview with the Anchorage Daily News Palin said that “I am happy to and very honored to be asked to do this. I know it’s going to be great for Alaska.”

Jacob from the blog Force Change tells us that Sarah Palin supports mining in Bristol Bay, which could threaten salmon, bears, and caribou. He lists three other major anti-green policies from Sarah Palin and comes to the conclusion that her “overall position towards the environment is quite poor.”

Gristmill also has a lengthy post about Sarah Palin and her record on issues related to energy and the environment. For example they list Sarah Palin’s support to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope and her suggestion to eliminate Alaska’s gas tax.

Gristmill also lists several quotes from Sarah Palin and from people who have reacted to her nomination. Such as this one from Gene Karpinski, the President of the League of Conservation Voters:

“Unfortunately, with her support for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and off our coasts, Governor Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration and their Big Oil friends — policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil.

Governor Palin characterizes McCain’s flip-flop on drilling offshore as a positive step in his transformation from maverick to Big Oil’s best friend. She has implored McCain to change his position against drilling in the Arctic — something she will have plenty of opportunities to pursue as his running mate.

In addition to supporting backward-looking energy policies, Governor Palin has also opposed a crucial clean water initiative, sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and opposed other important wildlife protection measures.”

Sarah Palin is, like I said earlier, still very unknown and we don’t yet know all her standpoints when it comes to the environment. As the election progress continues we will probably find out more. But one thing is for sure. Her environmental record is not even half as good as Joe Biden’s.

So if you want to vote “green” and end George Bush’s last eight years of failed economic and environmental policies John McCain, Sarah Palin nor the Republican Party should be an option for you.

Updates:
- Sarah Palin Wins 2008 Rubber Dodo Award
- Sarah Palin can’t name a single man-made cause to climate change

But now the Climate Change Science Program has released their results and they clearly show that “human activity was responsible for the rapid warming of the 20th century.”

“The evidence is pretty convincing that the models give a good simulation of climate,” lead author David Bader of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California told reporters last week. He concedes that the report did not examine predictions of future climate change. Nor did it address policy issues, which will be left to the next administration.

Via New Scientist

“We’ve raised concerns for years about primates being in peril, but now we have solid data to show the situation is far more severe than we imagined,” said Russell A. Mittermeier, president of Conservation International (CI) and the longtime chairman of the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Primate Specialist Group. “Tropical forest destruction has always been the main cause, but now it appears that hunting is just as serious a threat in some areas, even where the habitat is still quite intact. In many places, primates are quite literally being eaten to extinction.”

The new analysis reveals that:

• Over 70% of Asian primates are threatened with extinction, and at least two dozen taxa are Critically Endangered.
• Virtually all gibbons are threatened with extinction — and one of the rarest subspecies, the Yunnan white-handed gibbon, may already be extinct.
• All great apes — all gorillas, all chimpanzees, all orangutans, all bonobos — are either Endangered or Critically Endangered.
• Across all primate taxa, a full 48% are threatened — nearly half of all primates, in harm’s way and likely to go extinct in our own lifetime.

And just in time for the release of this depressing report the Associated Press reports that President George Bush is “proposing changes that would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether subdivisions, dams, highways and other projects have the potential to harm endangered animals and plants.”

But offshore drilling is not a “quick fix” and it won’t help to lower the gas prices. The only ones that will profit from this are Bush and McCain’s friends in the oil industry. While people are suffering from the high gas prices the oil companies are reporting record profits after record profits.

Greenpeace has listed a bunch of reasons why offshore drilling is not the answer to high gas prices at the pump:

“The United States burns 24 percent of the world’s oil, yet we only have 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Even if we drilled every drop of oil the U.S. has on shore or off its coasts, we will never be able to drill our way to lower oil prices or energy security. We simply burn more than we could ever drill.”

“Offshore oil drilling is not a short-term fix. It would take at least a decade to bring new leases into production. And, it will be years before exploration could begin and years after that before production would start. If any effect were to be felt on gas prices (most likely only a few pennies per gallon), that effect is decades away.”

“Offering up more of our coastline for drilling won’t lower gas prices. Since President Bush took office in 2000, the number of wells in federally leased areas has increased exponentially, yet gas prices have doubled during that same time. Yet, this type of evidence is never mentioned in the media or by proponents for offshore drilling.”

“Another reason that drilling for more oil in the U.S. won’t result in lower gas prices is because oil prices are set on the global oil market. What this means is that all oil produced around the world is sold all at the same price. There is no guarantee that we would even be using the oil that was drilled here in the U.S. And, we certainly wouldn’t get a discount just because we drilled for it on U.S. soil. We would pay the same rate as the rest of the world.”

The only things that will lower the fuel prices, create more jobs, solve the climate crisis and fix this fragile economy is to invest in clean renewable energy sources, setting strict mpg standards for all automobiles and transform our current society to a sustainable one.

Going green will fix many problems, one of them are high gas prices.

Daniel Mittler, political advisor to Greenpeace International, said this when he was about to leave the G8 Summit in Toyako, Japan:

There are a lot empty water bottles and even more coffee cups lying around the International Media Centre at the G8. The rooms are slowly emptying out and the faces of those remaining are drained and tired. As I am sure is mine. The last three days were wasted days for addressing the global crises we face. But at least we managed to counter the predictable, positive spin leaders put on the pathetic statements they put out here. For one (of gladly many) good media stories on the united NGO reaction against the G8 climate deal click here. Our Home, the Planet needs action. All it got here, was 8 leaders’ signatures who failed to do what is needed…

And of course Bush had to joke about his climate criminal acts when he left the pointless G8 meeting: Bush to G8: ‘Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter’

President George Bush signed off with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept global climate change targets at his last G8 summit.

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

President Bush made the private joke in the summit’s closing session, senior sources said yesterday. His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry. He had given some ground at the summit by saying he would “seriously consider” a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

You can discuss G8 in our green forum here. Via Making Waves.