When Big Oil executives “advised” the Bush administration on energy policy, a lot of people were rightfully upset over the obvious conflict of interest. So, should we also be upset that Barack Obama is getting environmental advice from those who stand to profit from increased regulation and green investment? Well, Al Gore is in Chicago to discuss energy and climate change with Obama and Joe Biden. And Gore now stands to substantially profit from the implementation of his ideas.

[Gore has] plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.” …

Mr. Gore also has a position in a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit — another group of people investing in companies that would be worth real money in an America with Gore-favored environmental policies. The firm sells carbon “offsets,” which are only window dressing at present, but which would be assigned artificial value through artificial scarcity under state-imposed emissions limits.

Gore’s investments by no means invalidate his opinion or diminish his knowledge on the subject. But they do create certain conflicts of interest that Obama and other government officials will have to take into account when seeking Gore’s advice.

A lot of people find ways to profit from the field in which they work. And there is nothing wrong with investing in technologies and companies that are advancing a cause in which you believe. But there is a difference between an advocate and a lobbyist. If Gore is promoting government action that would directly profit him, it’s hard to say he’s not a lobbyist. And if he’s lobbyist, we have to treat him with increased skepticism.

Right now, there’s no indication that Gore is trying to use his access and authority to generate a big payday. Nor do we know if Obama is turning to Gore just to be considerate or if he plans to turn to Gore repeatedly. But there’s reason for the rest of us to pay attention. Nothing pollutes public policy as quickly as conflicts of interest. That’s true whether we’re talking about Big Oil or clean-energy technology.

Get off fossil fuels by 2018. That’s Gore’s completely unrealistic charge to our nation.

Here’s more…

Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in remarks prepared for the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

And do note how Obama doesn’t endorse Gore’s explicit challenge, but he definitely agrees with the long term spirit of it…as do I…

For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer.

Again, I’m all for weening ourselves completely off of fossil fuels, but Gore is out of his mind with a 10 year time table. The gasoline infrastructure switchover alone would take a decade at least. Unless the government mandates that all infrastructure and autos need to support hydrogen fuel cell tech. But then we’d have to subsidize the HELL out of it. Think that’ll happen? Not unless the numbers make sense and oil hits $400 a barrel. Then you may be able to convince the nation…maybe.

In short, it may be sexy to call for a massive amount of change so quickly, but the reality puts the lie to it and Gore is well aware I’m sure.

In any event, nice speech Al.

I’m no global warming denialist. I believe human action is causing the Earth to warm and our climates to change. I am an avid conservationist. But I am also appropriately skeptical of the global warming doomsayers such as Gore. I don’t take on faith that every change in temperature, every climate shift and every catastrophic weather event is repayment for our sins of carbon emission. Our climate and weather are far too complicated and naturally volatile for me to think there isn’t more affecting these systems than simple human action.

That’s why I cringe when I hear Gore and others connect horrible tragedies to global warming. Sure, these events make the problem seem very real and very immediate, but it’s scientifically dishonest not to admit that there is no hard proof that recent big storms are the result of our carbon emissions. You can’t one moment stand behind the banner of science and then the other moment conveniently leave out facts because those facts are inconvenient to your political objectives.

If we are going to rally the world to combat the human-caused elements of global warming, we have to stick to the scientific facts and resist the urge to inappropriately use weather-related tragedies to frighten people into action.

That is, of course, nonsense. He only looks good because no one’s been beating him up for the last few months. Obama and Clinton are both still very viable. The licks they’ve taken during the primary campaign are no different than the licks they would have taken if either were already the presumptive nominee. No candidate can get through a presidential campaign without some damage to their image, particularly in this age of ubiquitous cameras and gotcha-style journalism.

A lot of people are fretting that the Democratic party looks bad because they can’t seem to wrap up their nomination process. That’s just silly. If they REALLY want to look bad, they can decide to throw out the last four months of elections and choose a guy whose name hasn’t appeared on a single ballot. Picking Gore is a maneuver that would have worked just fine in the nineteenth century. But in 2008, it would look ridiculously undemocratic.

Once again, I advise Democrats to chill. The party is going to end up with a competitive candidate. Neither Obama nor Clinton are going to be ruined by a long primary campaign. Heck, if they can’t survive a little intramural sparing, they’ll never survive the real contest anyway. They’ll be fine. Leave Gore on the shelf.

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.

Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”

Personally, I think she should stay in as long as she wants, but if the Dem establishment is going to line up behind the unlikely juggernaut that Obama has become, I won’t cry too much.

A woman at a town hall asked the Illinois senator if elected president would he consider tapping the former vice president for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to address global warming.

“I would,” Obama said. “Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He’s somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I’m already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now.”

There’s probably no arrangement between Obama and Gore but Obama sure isn’t being shy here. He’s pretty much saying Gore can have what he wants in an Obama administration. I wonder if Hillary Clinton would be willing to extend Gore the same level of praise and respect.

Taegan Goddard asks the question and suggests its a possibility.

Here’s my answer: jeezus h…

Sometimes blogging can really go off into the weeds. This “Gore as the savior” meme is beyond weird. Come on bloggers, get back on your game!

By the way, does anybody here go to Political Wire anymore? It was a daily read for me, but now I’m not a very big fan. TPM Election Central is SO much better.

FYI Taegan.

Here are some excerpts:

In his latest book, Assault on Reason, former Vice President Gore wrote: “Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.” [...]

Former House Speaker Gingrich, in an op-ed written in February with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, called for a different kind of presidential campaign – one involving “more thought, more creativity, more substance, more solutions–and a whole lot less rhetoric.” [...]

And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in announcing this summer that he was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent, took a shot at the way the two parties in Washington have governed.

“I am particularly upset that the big issues of the time keep getting pushed to the back and we focus on small things that only inside the Beltway are important,” Bloomberg said. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no
limit to what we can do.”

Good observations by WTT, but I think the ultimate conclusion that these guys need to set a voluntary contribution limit of $500 doesn’t really address the problem. But the idea that these guys need to run on the idea of political reform is significant. Because I believe that a lot of independents don’t think this is just a change election…it’s also a reform election. People are looking to reshape the political landscape and how we cooperate with one another, not just switch an R to a D.

Of all the actual candidates who are running I’ve heard so far, Ron Paul and Barack Obama have picked this meme up the most. Obama is fond of saying that there’s not a liberal America or a conservative America, but a United States of America. It’s a good line, and it resonated with me. Paul talks about broad reform based around respecting the Constitution, and that’s radical enough to give rise to a viable third party movement, and I wish he’d consider that more closely and possibly embrace the Unity 08 movement so he wouldn’t have to do all the leg work to get on the ballot in the 50 states.

And yet with all this talk about reform…the polls suggest that Giuliani and Hillary are the front runners. Sure, Barack is up there with Hill, but Paul trails far, far behind. There is no candidate talking about reform in the first tier of the GOP field.

The question then is do we really have a shot at reform in 2008 or is this merely a change election? And if the Dems were to win, are we really ready for another Clinton and thereby ushering in at least 24 years where a Clinton or a Bush has held the Oval Office?

If nothing else in this next election, I’m looking for the “change” to come with a heavy dose of reform. And if not…well, I just may sit this one out.