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.