Why the right hates Al Gore

[Paul Krugman]

Without commenting on Gore's winning specifically, here is Paul Krugman's (as published in his NY Times column yesterday) take on the domestic political discussion and how it is driving right-wingers nuts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

[oldmike]

Why is Honest Al not contesting the Democrat nomination for president?
Or is he & I have not noticed?

[Paul Krugman]

oldmike said:

Why is Honest Al not contesting the Democrat nomination for president?
Or is he & I have not noticed?

No. He isn't.
And your point is?

[sundaymorningstaple]

Paul said:

oldmike said:

Why is Honest Al not contesting the Democrat nomination for president?
Or is he & I have not noticed?

No. He isn't.
And your point is?

He just asked a question. Why does he have to have a point? Maybe it was for general knowledge in the hopes that someone might know? As you didn't answer THAT question I would guess you didn't know either. Maybe there is someone else out there that has more on the ball than the ability to cut & paste articles.

[Paul Krugman]

sms said:

He just asked a question. Why does he have to have a point? Maybe it was for general knowledge in the hopes that someone might know? As you didn't answer THAT question I would guess you didn't know either. Maybe there is someone else out there that has more on the ball than the ability to cut & paste articles.

Everybody knows that Al Gore isn't running, so that looked like the usual stupid stuff right wing people say when they are confronted with a very good argument they don't know how to deal with. However, as I might be wrong, I asked him is he had a point after answering his question.

[oldmike]

Thanks for the right wing complement.
My problem is, all the major governments have done is institute
" Green" taxes, subsidise the turning of food into fuel, and generated a lot of hot air.
Even a stupid right winger can see what would work:
1) Build many more nuclear power stations, at once.
2)Put real money into commercialising nuclear fusion, which is the only long term really non polluting energy.
3) Immediately require the US motorist to drive a car that consumes not more than 6 litres of fuel per 100 Km.
4) Rebuild towns so that everything was accessible by public transport.

But Gore and his mob do not do these things.
It follows that they are too stupid, too selfish or too cynical to try to do so.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Paul said:

Everybody knows that Al Gore isn't running, so that looked like the usual stupid stuff right wing people say when they are confronted with a very good argument they don't know how to deal with. However, as I might be wrong, I asked him is he had a point after answering his question.

You know what they say about assumptions right?

How many people know who Ron Paul is (that aren't internet savvy that is}? So there there are a lot of people out their that don't know he's not running. A lot of died in the wool GOP fans might not know (blindly following the GOP without knowing why) Al's not running either.

[Paul Krugman]

I had a smile on my handsome face reading your usual rubbish that doesn't work or will never work for various very practical reasons. My smile kept getting bigger and bigger as you went on with these impractical ideas, but I literally LOL when I read the last one:

oldmike said:

4) Rebuild towns so that everything was accessible by public transport.

But Gore and his mob do not do these things.
It follows that they are too stupid, too selfish or too cynical to try to do so.

So you want to destroy all the towns and rebuild them so that people won't need public transport! Hilarious!

And you complain that Gore and his mob do not do these things!

LOL!

Are you under the effect of hallucinogenic substances, did you get a few beers too many, or are you just pulling my leg? ;D

And you even say that they are too stupid, selfish or cynical to destroy and rebuild all the towns!

This is the funniest message you ever posted!

[oldmike]

Do you have a better idea?
Or are you too attached to your car?

[oldmike]

"I had a smile on my handsome face reading your usual rubbish that doesn't work or will never work for various very practical reasons. My smile kept getting bigger and bigger as you went on with these impractical ideas, "

Are you, then, just a pretty face?
Please explain why these ideas are impractical and unworkable.
Please suggest practical workable ideas to achieve the same end.

[Paul Krugman]

1) Nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy ever invented (OK, one of the most expensive). And what with nuclear power plant accidents? Don't they pollute?
2) Nuclear fusion only works on paper. No commercial enterprise would invest in it. Why else do you think no commercial enterprise invests in it??
3) There are not enough cars that produce less than 6 litres of fuel per 100 km being produced right now to "Immediately require the US motorist to drive a car that consumes not more than 6 litres of fuel per 100 Km." If you want to implement this (which I would support) you would have to introduce this gradually, within 5 years for example.
4) LOL! I can see Bush telling the nation: Tomorrow we will destroy all your cities, and rebuild it to make it more accessible by public transport. LOL!

No, I am not JUST a pretty face. My very practical suggestion:
1) Raise drastically the price of oil (double or triple or more of what it is now in Europe).
2) Have subsidies for renewable energy (paid for by taxation on fossil fuels).
3) Further subsidise public transport.

That would take care of the pollution caused by transport.

I shall think of more after lunch

[oldmike]

1) Nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy ever invented (OK, one of the most expensive). And what with nuclear power plant accidents? Don't they pollute?

Please support this statement with facts. Included in your explanation should be an analysis of the reason why France's electricity, almost all nuclear, is cheap enough to export to most of the rest of Europe. Sure nuclear accidents pollute. however, the number of people killed extracting fossil fuels and breathing their combustion products is far higher than those killed by nuclear accidents, including Chernobyl.


2) Nuclear fusion only works on paper. No commercial enterprise would invest in it. Why else do you think no commercial enterprise invests in it??

Because the technology is not yet developed. That is why it needs startup support


3) There are not enough cars that produce less than 6 litres of fuel per 100 km being produced right now to "Immediately require the US motorist to drive a car that consumes not more than 6 litres of fuel per 100 Km." If you want to implement this (which I would support) you would have to introduce this gradually, within 5 years for example.


certainly. this cannot be done immediately, but suggesting that it is done at would be a start.

4) LOL! I can see Bush telling the nation: Tomorrow we will destroy all your cities, and rebuild it to make it more accessible by public transport. LOL!


I did not say destroy. I said rebuild. Most modern construction has an economic life of 10 years or so. look at what is happening around you in Singapore. Cities more than 100 or so years old were originally designed to work without cars. they have been distorted to accommodate the car. New building to replace obsolete stock could be designed to avoid the need for the internal combustion engine.

No, I am not JUST a pretty face. My very practical suggestion:
1) Raise drastically the price of oil (double or triple or more of what it is now in Europe).

I presume you mean the price of petrol.
The price of petrol in Britain is approaching 1 GBP per litre.
So, say the new price is 3 GBP per litre.
At current exchange rates that is US$ 23.22 per US gallon.
The average price of self-serve gasoline in the US is presently
$2.76 per US gallon.

Suppose Bush went on TV this morning telling folks that from tomorrow gas would be going up by 840%.
Do you find this a credible scenario?



2) Have subsidies for renewable energy (paid for by taxation on fossil fuels).
If by renewable you mean gasohol and bio diesel you are advocating the destruction of whatever pristine environment is left.


3) Further subsidise public transport.
Here I agree!!


I shall think of more after lunch

Eat well.

[mimi]

I don't think raising the price of petrol will stop people using their cars. People are very attached to their cars and resist using public transport, even when it's good, as in Singapore. Look at the number of cars on the road here, the high cost doesn't seem to deter a lot of people. A good cheap public transport system would help, but many people would still stick with their cars, whatever the cost.

The only solution I can see is to ban them from city centres and produce more fuel efficient cars. Why people in singapore drive those 4x4s I cannot understand - but thats a whole other thread ...

[Paul Krugman]

One more thing I wanted to add is:

oldmike said:

But Gore and his mob do not do these things.
It follows that they are too stupid, too selfish or too cynical to try to do so.

It's funny how you blame the environmental problems (when you don't outright deny them! ) on Al Gore "and his mob" (mob="disorderly crowd of people"! Are you still under the effect of hallucinogenic substances? All they do is spending their time and energy to find out things to improve the world in which we live. What is the last time they fought against the police?).

Last time I checked they weren't in power in any country in the world, so how can they influence policies?

Shouldn't one blame those in power for not doing anything to sort out the problems we have? NO! Apparently the problems are caused by those who suggest solutions!! LOL!

And no, buildings and roads don't have a 10 year lifespan! LOL!

[oldmike]

Paul said:

One more thing I wanted to add is:

oldmike said:

But Gore and his mob do not do these things.
It follows that they are too stupid, too selfish or too cynical to try to do so.

It's funny how you blame the environmental problems (when you don't outright deny them! ) on Al Gore "and his mob" (mob="disorderly crowd of people"! Are you still under the effect of hallucinogenic substances? All they do is spending their time and energy to find out things to improve the world in which we live. What is the last time they fought against the police?).

Last time I checked they weren't in power in any country in the world, so how can they influence policies?

Shouldn't one blame those in power for not doing anything to sort out the problems we have? NO! Apparently the problems are caused by those who suggest solutions!! LOL!

And no, buildings and roads don't have a 10 year lifespan! LOL!

Gore was once Vice President. Was that a tiotally powerless position?
He did nothing. He contributed to the problems.

OK. For 10 years life of houses read 15.
Roads last longer than the stick houses built in the USA.
But that does not invalidate the proposition that cities should be remodeled to eliminate the car.

What would be the result of your proposal to triple the (European) cost of petrol? Could a car based city survive?

What is your solution?

Please give verifiable facts. Anyone can laugh.

[Paul Krugman]

>>> Gore was once Vice President. Was that a tiotally powerless position?
>>> He did nothing. He contributed to the problems.

I am not sure what Al Gore did, but he certainly did more than Bush, who is a climate change denier like you. Gore at least accepted the Kyoto Protocol. He might have pushed for the Kyoto protocol to be submitted to congress. I don't know and I am not going to find out. Surely he signed some laws in favour of the environment?

But at least he talked about climate change. Talking about it is vital, because at the end of the day who pollutes and consumes are the polluters and consumers, i.e. the people. You have to convince the people to change their lifestyle (e.g. drive less), so talking about it is much much better than doing like Bush and you: saying that climate change doesn't exist, and even if it did, fossil fuels would not to blame.

Something it didn't do: invade Iraq. ;D

>>> OK. For 10 years life of houses read 15.

Duh! You rebuild your house every 15 years?

>>> What would be the result of your proposal to triple the (European) cost of petrol? Could a car based city survive?

>>> What is your solution?

Yes, people would still buy cars, but they would buy more efficient ones. Personally, I would be in favour out outlawing private fossil-fuel based transport. But I know that most people wouldn't accept it. So, this is my solution. Still better than destroying all our cities! what are you? Osama Bin Laden?

[oldmike]

I never said we should destroy cities. I said we should rebuild towns.
If you live in Singapore you will see it happening all around you.
It would not be beyond human skill to do this rebuilding so that private transport became unneccessary.
Why this obsession with the automobile?

[Paul Krugman]

oldmike said:

Why this obsession with the automobile?

Search me! I don't have a car and never had one, and traveled more and in more countries than about 99.99% of the world population.

And it's called 'car'. You are not American by any chance? That would explain a lot!

[oldmike]

No, I'm not a US Citizen but from your posts I thought you probably were and was trying to speak your dialect.

[oldmike]

SEE !! The left wingers running London agree with me!!

Olympics chiefs set to ban all car travel

Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
The team organising the London Olympics in 2012 is adopting the most aggressive anticar policy ever applied to a major event in an attempt to deliver a permanent shift in people’s travel habits.

The eight million spectators will be banned from travelling by car and forced to take public transport, walk or cycle. Only a small number of disabled people will be allowed to park anywhere near the car exclusion zones planned for the main venues in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff, and Weymouth and Portland in Dorset.

The Times has been given an exclusive preview of the transport plan, which describes organising the Games as the “country’s largest peacetime logistical operation”. On the busiest days, 800,000 people will converge on the venues.

The plan discloses that the Olympic Delivery Authority wants to make the Games a testing ground for a radical shift in transport planning to be extended to all major cultural and sporting events. It is even trying to deter spectators from using cars for part of their journey and has cancelled plans in the original bid for two giant park-and-ride sites on the M25 and M11.

Everyone booking a ticket will be sent a personalised, detailed itinerary, showing how to get from their front doors to the venue.

On the day, live travel information relevant to their route will be sent to their mobile phones. If there are delays, they will be advised of an alternative route.

All spectators travelling to an event in London will receive a free all-zones travelcard. Those from outside London will be able to buy discounted, flat-rate rail tickets from any station to the capital.

Even drivers not travelling to the Olympics will be affected by the plan because, for two months around the Games, one lane on several key routes in London will be reserved for 80,000 members of the “Olympic family” – athletes, officials and media. These routes, dubbed “Zil lanes” after the routes reserved for the Soviet Politburo cavalcades in Moscow, are likely to be policed by dozens of cameras and a team of enforcement officers.

The core route will run from Hyde Park Corner, to Parliament Square, along Embankment to Tower Hill, on to The Highway and out to Stratford.

In an interview with The Times, Hugh Sumner, the ODA transport director, said: “We have a very aggressive programme to make it the greenest games in modern times. We want to leave both a hard legacy in terms of infrastructure and a living legacy in the way people think about transport and about how they travel to sports and cultural events.”

He said that the Games would build on changing attitudes towards car travel since the congestion charge was introduced in London in 2003. London is the only major city in the world that has had a decline in car use and an increase in bus and rail travel.

“We want to accelerate the shift to public transport and cycling that we have seen in London in recent years.

“There will need to be traffic controls around competition venues. We will make it very plain to people that there isn't going to be parking.”

The RAC Foundation welcomed the investment in new rail lines, such as more than doubling the capacity of the North London Line for the Olympics.

But Edmund King, the foundation director, gave warning that making the Games an experiment in mass movement without cars would deter many families from travelling to the Olympics.

“Many people will want to take their children to the Games to inspire them. But the prospect of lugging toddlers, prams and a picnic on and off buses and trains will make many abandon hope of being there to witness this historic event.

“The organisers should guard against being overzealous and too politically correct in their transport aspirations.”