Would the environment be in such trouble, if Al Gore was elected POTUS in 1988?(Details.)

Yes, naturally. The alarms on global environmental trends toward disaster were loudly available to people who cared, in 1988. If the USA had actually led the world to do things about it, it could have had massive effects on humans’ destructive behaviors, starting decades ago.

I totally forgot that Gore ran in 1988. I know he ran in 2000.

Probably. If I remember correctly he put forward bills or measures of some sort when he was in congress in the early 80’s. I believe President Bill Clinton was on board with Gore’s concerns, so that begs the question, was he unable to do much or did he not try to do as much as Gore would have. That was already in the 90’s of course.

Jimmy Carter had put solar panels on the White House. Reagan took them down. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/02/the-forgotten-story-of-jimmy-carters-white-house-solar-panels/ Imagine if he had won a second term.

As a side note: I voted for Gore in the state of NC in 2000.

No, it would not. He was very strong on the environment. He made it the most prominent issue of his campaigns.

Of course yes. We fueled civilization with fossil fuels and can’t just flip the switch. It takes time to turn a ship as big as the planet around. Would Gore have been able to influence the rest of the world to stop their industry, commerce, and transportation?

Mine should say probably not. It’s probably obvious by what I wrote. I didn’t remember how the Q was phrased when I was writing my answer.

Although, I do think part of the reason climate change became political was because Gore introduced it to the country in a prominent way, and the Republicans seized in it as something to make into a wedge issue. I blame the Republicans not Gore, but I do think it’s a lesson that at this point anything and everything can be made into a political issue. We need to be smarter and more aware.

It would be worse.

How so, @SnipSnip? If we’d had a president who cared deeply about the environment, how would that have made it worse? Or do you just dislike Gore and democrats and to hell with the issues.

@SnipSnip 50 words no more than 100 words – - Why ? ?

This question seems to be confusing not just to me, because of the way it’s worded. I answered “yes” but I’d forgotten the question was “Would the environment be in such trouble”. By the time I answered, I was thinking “Would the environment be in less trouble.” Oh well.

I apologize for the wording of the question.

@Blackwater_Park One of the jobs of an American president, is to help lead global efforts to help the environment. This usually takes place in the form of agreements by many countries to do things like incrementally reduce their population. If the US doesn’t act assertively in this arena, no most other countries won’t care about the environment. They have “summits,” about the environment around the world and many follow the US ‘s lead.

Some countries have done exceptionally well in “going green. Although, I do think that it was “easier,” in less populated countries.

It wasn’t JUST Gore, trying to warn us back then. I personally don’t think he would have been a good POTUS, and it might have gone down in history as him being a bad president. But.
We would, I believe, be in a better position if we had listened to scientists and those who told us about this future we live in. I am/was part of the problem. At least my attitude towards the environment anyway, when I was younger was pretty careless.
I have grown to see the errors in that thinking.

I’d say a resounding yes…the environment would be pretty much where it is today if he were elected back in 1988. He was the original climate change alarmist, telling everyone the sky was falling if we don’t do something right away. All as he flew around on his private jet, meeting with other people that flew around on their public jets, trying to figure out how to best leverage the power of the environmental fear to control people. Also purposely avoiding holding the major polluters of the planet accountable.

The problem with all the environmental doomsayers is the same…they are hypocrites. They are not looking at solving problems, they are looking at controlling people.

^Should people be allowed to ruin the environment, for their profit, and rob us of our futures?

There is an excellent reason, why it is growing more popular not to allow people to smoke cigarettes in public places (especially indoors.)
Logically. I fail to see the difference. The scale is clearly bigger, bit the point is the same.

That is, essentially the basis of American “freedom.’
That one has the “right” to do whatever they want, in the pursuit of happiness, as long as it does not infringe on any other (equally important) citizen’s “rights.”
Destruction of the air I breathe, water I drink, and ground I live on, is not the “right” of another.

If you look at everything the same way, there is always a slippery slope.

I will say ; Gore likely would have profited greatly, from forcing America to be “greener.”
I’m certain that many people who develop or in other ways profit from “greener” energy, would profit as well.

If you want, you can call it
“scare tactics.” Gore made us aware of something that could destroy our planet. That’s something that should have scared us more.
And yes.
People who have/continue to profit from fossil fuels, manufacturing companies, and essentially ALL businesses and people, would have had to probably spend or lose a lot of profits, by adhering to greener regulations.

If you want to look at it solely from a political or financial view, it would have been older money types suffering great loses, and newer people essentially getting that money. Not an exchange, of course. But naturally solar companies, may have eaten directly into oil and coal revenues.
If THAT is an injustice, so be it.
From MY perspective, it’s just wealthy people robbing each other, except if the green people became the wealthy ones, we’d have a better quality of overall health and it’s hard (for me) to see the downside there.

I personally, wouldn’t lose any sleep, over say oil tycoons losing money.
Oil and other nasty things would still have great value. The oil Barrons, would just not be AS wealthy as before. But they’d still be VERY wealthy.

To me, it’s greed that fuels the push for reducing people’s responsibilities for their mess, so they can profit more.

Wulf, you can call Gore a “doomsayer,” and “hypocrite.”
You may be correct.
This IS Trump’s strategy, of course. Telling you the world is in dire need of him, to protect you.

This wasn’t intended to be a partisan thread. It has drifted there, nonetheless.

Absolutely. Any amount of time and focus on it earlier would have us in a better place.

@MrGrimm888 Presidents can get countries to sign environmental agreements that they’ll just mostly ignore (and historically have)

@MrGrimm888 Now you are asking another question. Should people be allowed to ruin the environment? That is not the same question as would things be different with the environment if Gore had been elected.

I have an entirely different view of climate change from many people on here. That’s no big secret. Your new question of should people be allowed to ruin the environment brings up more questions and concerns. Define “ruin”. Who gets to decide who is guilty and should be punished for “ruining” the environment and who should be let off? Because what is happening now is that there is a lot of fear being spread by people that are doing everything in their power to destroy the environment for their own convenience, supported by celebrities and politicians that are doing the same. China and India are not held to any need to stop polluting and they are a huge percentage of the global pollution. If the USA went completely carbon neutral today, it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket towards the global issue.

There are many, many things being pushed right now as “must do” things to clean up the environment that are dreadfully destructive to it. EVs are a perfect example. The mining that goes into getting all the rare earth metals required contribute significantly to pollution. The extra weight of the vehicles means the tires are going to wear out more quickly and the roads are going to get worn out double quick. Tire and road dust contribute. The materials used to make tires are contributors. The materials used in paving roads are contributors. But we don’t bother actually admitting to any of these problems. We just virtue signal and push ahead.

Well Gore won the Nobel peace prize and is said to have raised the issue to prominence with an Inconvenient Truth.
There were also jokes about him and his planes, and his financial interests. Basically he was viewed by intellectuals as alarmist and over-dramatic.
If we’d acted on it back then it would likely be showing results but without the major players involved, like China, what can we actually do?

Wulf. I’m not going to bother with defining a ruined environment, and only a Trump supporter could fail to see whom is responsible.
You changed the direction of the thread, by making it about controlling people.
I am simply following your thoughts, not changing the question.

For those who say it doesn’t matter what the world’s largest economic powerhouse, and (at least previously,) the world’s largest “super power,” with unquestionably the most influence in the world does about it’s pollution, I disagree.

Again. We typically lead the charge on such issues. This goes well beyond pollution.
America typically leads the efforts to save/protect certain species, and ecosystems.

You’re ALL correct, that agreements are treated differently by different nations.
However.
Take whale hunting, for example.
It took an international effort, to stop hunting whales into extinction. Today, the results of such programs are undeniably positive. Sure. People still hunt them illegally, or under false presence, but the overall problem, is effectively helping the whales recover. (Most targeted for protecting, at least.)

It did NOT benefit many nations, to join THAT effort, but they did.

Amongst all of the horrible events of the pandemic, mostly the world worked together. So. We have recent evidence that it is possible.

I’m not trying to make an argument out of this.
I guess, I thought about it, and was curious what others thought.

I didn’t know Gore ran in 1988, either. I myself was just debunking Santa at that time, as a child.

I initially was going to ask about if he’d been elected in his more memorable loss to GWB, as always, the dems lost to the electoral college, and “coincidentally” GWB’s brother was the governor of Florida and they had some voting issues…
But I thought, maybe he had ran before, and Google said he had ran in ‘88.
That REALLY made me think, of how a few decades of evolving away from fossil fuels, and forcing tighter regulations on industrial waste or byproducts, could have possibly been a big turnaround point for humanity.
Oh well. In the meantime, meteorologists almost all agree that the new rise in intensity of these storms will require us to make a new category for such storms. Currently, most of you probably know that hurricanes are in categories 1–5 (5 being the worst.) Recent Cat 5 storms, have forced evaluators to consider adding a 6th category.
As the storms were really worse, than Cat 5’s on occasion in their strengthening process.

Hopefully Trump has some “yuge” plans, for helping us out with this.

@KNOWITALL Why should China do something the US is not willing to do? Seems like a vicious circle. Someone needs to lead. Plus, the US might make a dent, we are such large consumers.

Doing more back then might have meant not having to be so dramatic now. Like I wish I hadn’t gone in the sun so much when I was a teenager so I could get more now. Lol. I’m a believer in moderation.

@KNOWITALL Yes, Gore won the Nobel Prize. So did Obama. He won it for….well…campaign promises? Being a black president? I dunno. An Inconvenient Truth had all sorts of alarmist things in it. According to that movie I should be underwater right now and we shouldn’t have any polar ice at all. It set the stage for all future alarmist claims that also failed to bear fruit.

@MrGrimm888 “I’m not going to bother with defining a ruined environment, and only a Trump supporter could fail to see whom is responsible.” Nice dodge. I am right on track with your original question. And I believe I am right on track with the climate change issue as well. I’ve been in science fields for most of my life. I think like a scientist. That includes questioning things. Did you know that on the first UN IPCC report on climate change that the gaggle of scientists they had looking into it didn’t all agree on the subject? And, in fact, “there is climate change and it is all caused by mankind” had the smallest support of all the opinions? Yet when the data was given to the bureaucrats, it was rewritten to make that the only conclusion the scientists had. That is why many of them divorced themselves from the issue at that point.

But let’s think about this from a realistic aspect. If you have something polluting or contaminating a system and you want to control the system you have to do several things all at once. You have to not only stop the polluting but you have to clean up what is already polluted. Every single proposal on climate change that I have seen ignores that second part. It’s like they are saying “Mankind is the cause!” but not worrying about what is done. It is unrealistic to believe someone could flip a switch and stop all man-made contributions to what they claim are the causes of climate change. It isn’t possible. So until you can stop them you need to slow the impact. So why aren’t they trying to do anything about that? Why aren’t they pushing to plant millions of trees all over the world and protect them? Why aren’t all the developed nations paying to protect the rainforests? Why are the powers that be not holding developing nations to the same standards as developed nations? These are all questions I see at a glance that have no answers. The only answers I can gather are that either they are complete idiots or the issue isn’t as grave as they project or that mankind isn’t really the biggest contributor.

I’m all for not polluting. I think taking a shit in the air we breath and the food we eat is a horrible idea. I’d love to sink a lot more effort into research to look into making renewables more efficient, to look into new power sources, to look into better ways to control pollution from existing technologies. But that sort of research cost money that no one wants to spend without a guarantee of success which is unrealistic in scientific research.

^Sorry. I couldn’t get passed “I think like a scientist.”..

Did your nose get longer, after that?
I hate to drag other threads in, but I will here.

Wulf. You put forth a thread about the Grand Canyon’s existence as evidence of the fable of Noah’s Ark.
You allowed yourself to be spoonfed a bunch of BS, from some creationist “science show.”

You just ate it. It seemed to fit your desired narrative, so you NEVER questioned it, or even listened to FACTS that proved otherwise.
You don’t “think like a scientist” sir.
Maybe you once did. But your true colors, are blinding at this point.

The fact that you demonize Gore’s film, which DID have scientific research, but staunchly defended pro-Christian indoctrination material, tells me ALL I need to know about your inner scientist…

@MrGrimm888 I put forth that there were actual geologists that supported the idea of a massive flood causing the Grand Canyon. I put forth that I found it compelling. And what is funniest is that all you loons on the left didn’t actually discuss the science, you attacked the source. Yeah, your credibility is intact….not. A scientist would actually look at the evidence without a bias. Whether it takes them where they want it to go or not. That is how science works.

As for Gore’s film, I didn’t demonize it…it did that to itself. He made all sorts of wild claims and predictions that all failed to come true and that were later proven to be wrong. There wasn’t one single prediction he made that came true. But since you so desperately want it to be true, you can’t admit that.

^You NEVER had responses, for the scientific reasons why the entertainment program you had seen was quite obviously wrong. Leaving me to conclude, you had rightfully let it go, as pro-Christian propaganda.
Or do you not “desperately admit,” that?

I already know the answer.
“An Inconvenient Truth,” is less credible than your Grand Canyon creationism propaganda, in your mind. Amazing.

It’s too bad that the truth, is indeed inconvenient for you Wulf…

@seawulf575 Yes, and Noah floated his Ark down it.

@seawulf575 “I put forth that there were actual geologists that supported the idea of a massive flood causing the Grand Canyon”

This is the point where we all realize it’s
A. Completely pointless to continue the conversation with you because you do not know the first thing about Geology if believe creationist tripe like that. Those were not actual geologists.
B. You’re a young earth creationist and science is your adversary because it proves the creation story is not biblically accurate.
C. See the above two answers again.

@Blackwater_Park Ahhh….and your scientific proof? You claim the people that were making the claim were not actual geologists. They had degrees in Geology and related fields and they were, at least in a couple examples, professors teaching classes in these things. So what is your definition of a geologist?

Where did you get your geology degree from?

Because they are not. Everyone here can look up those yahoos you cite. They work for answers in Genesis.

Henry M. Morris
Graduated from Rice University with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering in 1939. He also received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.

John C. Whitcomb
Studied at Princeton University and received his Ph.D. from Grace Theological Seminary

From Google AI

Not Geology degrees @seawulf575

@Tropical_Willie Snelling has a PHD in Geology but he is not a Geologist he has abandoned the very fundamentals of what he has learned to become a propagandist for Answers in Genesis. Geologists are scientists, you cannot be a scientist and ignore science. That would be like a medical doctor using prayer and faith healing to cure cancer. I suspect he does not believe his own bullshit, but collects a much better paycheck spewing it.

So you don’t have a geology degree or anything close to it, you don’t want to actually have to consider any view but the one you want regardless of the credentials of those that do hold the degrees, and so you fall back to just ignoring their education and opinions that had pretty valid points by the sound of it. I believe I just described ignorance.

@seawulf575 Oh, I’m a handful of classes away from one. I worked in geotechnics as a licensed engineer for a long time. I’m educated enough and have more than a decade in the field, I know what is bullshit and what is not. Honestly, a high schooler can debunk this too. It’s geology 101. Answers in Genesis bankrolled this guy so people like you can say this dogma is “science-based” when everyone here except you knows that in fact, it is not.

@Blackwater_Park Didn’t you tell me before that you changed majors in your Junior year? That means you got all the garbage classes you needed for a degree out of the way and probably only a couple basic classes that were specific to your major. If you are the expert, then explain WHY what they suggested is wrong, not just that it is wrong. Take their points one by one and tell me why they are wrong. Not that I expect you to do that because you’d rather just rant and rave without substance. Typical lefty.

I will entertain your response if you can show me there are a good number of scientists that believe Noah’s flood caused the grand canyon who don’t work for answers in Genesis. Want to really know the basics? Get a 101 Geology textbook and read it.

“Typical lefty ”

I’m a Republican.

@Blackwater_Park So you can’t really defend your point of view and want to try making it sound like I’m the one with the problem. That is very lefty of you. And just to point out, Liz Cheney was a Republican too. Apparently most republicans and an overwhelming constituents didn’t feel she was either.

@seawulf575 I can, but I’m not going to go through a whole entry-level Geology course with you. While some of the Grand Canyon was formed during localized flooding events it was mostly a long-term erosion of the strata over timelines that are much older than you believe the earth to be. We know this because there are various ways we can date when rocks and minerals form, how quickly they weather, and other telltales that determine when and how things happened. Radioactive decay is just one. But, you’ll attempt to refute that as well even though it’s well established. It did not happen in a global flood. We know this also for several reasons. The first being, that there is no evidence of a global flood in the geologic record. Before I can even begin to refute your position that the Grand Canyon was caused by this, you have to prove that it even happened in the first place. Show us a shred of evidence that it did. That burden is yours to bear. I’m not making it sound like you have a problem, you do have a problem.

The only time the Earth had that much water, was 4.5 billion years ago.
End of discussion…......

But not, for someone who doesn’t like scientific facts, that don’t match their beliefs.

And THAT, is/was my point, about Wulf’s interpretation of Gore’s film.

I’m sorry for dragging you back through that Wulf. But. You helped me illustrate a point about conservatives, succinctly.

Conservative biases, prevent them from being capable of making rational decisions.

THAT is (I’m sure) the reason, the film was called “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Because it’s pretty inconvenient, if scientific proof, is met with rage, because it doesn’t match mythological fantasy.

This lesson, to me, could be applied across the spectrum of what conservatives view as “liberal lies.”
They meet challenges to their faith, with great anger. And obviously, it takes an unhealthy amount of denial, to maintain indefensible positions as technology, and science have already exposed religious beliefs.
Not to mention, what is now known about The Catholic church, and it’s evil history and present.

This, I have known. Trump is taking advantage of American Christians, and they are willfully, and blissfully ignorant victims.

The same thinking from 1988, is clearly still around, at least in conservative circles.
They are more willing to blame “the deep state,” for creating and directing a hurricane, than remember that this storm is straight from the predictions of climatologists that have been trying to get our attention for decades.

@Blackwater_Park Wait, wait, wait….some of the Grand Canyon was formed by localized flooding? What is this? Before you were claiming it was only erosion over a long time. Hedging your bets? Know you can’t actually refute the case made by those you despise so you want to make a proviso so you can be right no matter what? Why is your story changing? And if it was localized flooding, where did that much water come from? The Grand Canyon has a volume of some 4 trillion cubic meters…that’s a lot of water. The nearest body of water that could fill that is some 400 miles away. The elevation of the rims is 7000 – 8000 feet above sea level. The bottom of the canyon is about 2500 feet above sea level. So how did that much water get that far inland? There is not obvious source.

You are admitting to flooding being there, but don’t want to come up with any admission of how it got there. You are full of shit.

@seawulf575 Not all of it, we see erosion in localized flooding events everywhere like we just did in Asheville. Localized flooding is part of long-term erosion. Are you being obtuse on purpose? Where is the evidence of this global flood event?