Terri | AlterNet

Gore Not Interested in 'Climate Czar' Post

Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress at 9:19 AM on November 13, 2008.

Many reports have mentioned Al Gore as a possible candidate for a new 'Climate Czar' position in the Obama administration.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
6 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Amanda Terkel RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

In recent weeks, there has been increased talk of possibly creating a White House "climate czar" position in the Obama administration, which would "oversee various government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, to focus on tackling global warming and fostering clean energy to jump-start the flagging economy." While many of these reports have mentioned Al Gore as a possible candidate, the vice president has indicated that he isn't interested:

"Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. "He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis."

Return to Amanda Terkel » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 6 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also by Amanda Terkel
America Can't Wait for Bush to Leave New poll finds that 75% of Americans are glad President Bush is leaving office. December 28, 2008.	RNC Chair Candidate Distributes 'Barack the Magic Negro' as His Christmas Greeting The Hill reports that for his Christmas greeting this year, Chip Saltsman sent out a CD of the song "Barack the Magic Negro." December 27, 2008.	Dick Cheney Still Loves Gitmo, Thinks Obama Will Appreciate Expansion of Powers "So Guantanamo has been very, very valuable. And I think they'll discover that trying to close it is a very hard proposition." December 16, 2008.	Colin Powell Slams Palin and the Republican Party I’m from the South Bronx, 'and there’s nothing wrong with my value system.' December 13, 2008.	New Unemployment Claims Hit 26-Year High Labor Department reports this morning show new claims for unemployment benefits hit 573,000 last week, the highest level in 26 years. December 11, 2008.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
If he took the job he might actually have to Do Something [Report this comment] Posted by: 2dogarage on Nov 14, 2008 10:06 AM Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] ...besides give a slick presentation. If he took the job people might start questioning his own personally hefty carbon footprint again; the inconsistencies in his slide show would be up for ridicule again, etc. etc. If he was truly an ambassador for addressing the issues of climate change he would still be active in effecting the needed reforms and innovations. But that might be too much like work. Instead we haven't heard from him in any substantive way since he made the film, unless you call a guest appearance on the Fey-Baldwin show substantive. Maybe he's gotten even fatter and is too vain to appear in public? Or maybe he's too busy attending those secret meetings in submarines below the Arctic Ocean... He was integral in creating huge momentum for the climate change movement, one that needs to be implemented in leaps and bounds at our nearest "convenience". I'm disappointed that Mr. Gore hasn't taken a more active role in leading the country toward the clean-energy and climate-stabilizing practices and technologies that he argues are so vital for the survival of the planet. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] But apparently climate change isn't important to Americans [Report this comment] Posted by: 2dogarage on Nov 14, 2008 10:16 AM Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] ...either. Did everyone's electricity just go out? I checked all the Sarah Palin articles to see where everyone was posting and there were a fair amount of people over there. That would be like, so inconvenient if the electricity failed but I don't think we have to worry too much. They say there's plenty of coal in them thar hills, you just gotta blast their tops off and slide the dirt into the rivers to get to it. Only poor people live there and they don't really mind I don't think. 10:17 and nobody's home. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Dear Bruce Nilles: What about the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD and organic compounds in coal? [Report this comment] Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2008 10:05 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] COAL companies have DUPED most Americans into thinking that Nuclear power is dangerous. Nuclear is the safest. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans. Meanwhile, COAL kills 24000 Americans every year. Coal kills more like a Million Chinese every year. It isn't just mercury. It is all heavy metal poisons plus organic carcinogens that coal contains. Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out of the ground. What would you expect of a rock? Reference: OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE: THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE by Alex Gabbard Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Selections from the 19th Annual Conference SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY March 14,15,16, 1996 Nashville, Tennessee Published by the SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY 1996 Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D. Conference Director The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders. Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant. Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load. See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review Bruce Nilles: Why don't you provide us with the email addresses of those state Attorneys General who are taking action so that we can inform them of the other poisons in coal? Sincerely, The Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy www.ecolo.org PS: How did the previous copy of this post get erased from Alternet without a trace? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] It is easy to shut down coal fired power plants. Just make them follow the same rules that nuclear power plants have to obey. [Report this comment] Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2008 10:16 AM Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out of the ground. What would you expect of a rock? Reference: OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE: THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE by Alex Gabbard Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Selections from the 19th Annual Conference SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY March 14,15,16, 1996 Nashville, Tennessee Published by the SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY 1996 Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D. Conference Director The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders. Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant. Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load. See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Is the Sierra Club being paid by the coal industry to withhold information? [Report this comment] Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2008 10:26 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] If not, how did the original copy of my post above get erased without a trace? The Sierra Club is obviously fighting with one hand tied behind its back. Why is that? Thought Criminal, please do your "follow the money trail" thing. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Terri [Report this comment] Posted by: TERRIROBSON on Nov 18, 2008 5:40 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I had wondered if he would be picked and if he would accept. Al Gore has a point, given the economic climate and it's relation to environmental climate becoming more dependent on each other, he has more power where he is without the restrictions Washington would bring. I thought I heard Robert Kennedy Jr. was being thought about. For my money this is just as good a pick, and brings an even younger generation. It also would be my pick. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Search: