Tagged ‘Al Gore‘

Survival of the Richest or Radical Living

HuffPost Green

March 4, 2016

by Angie Cordeiro




Humans need habitat to survive, to live, and to thrive. Air, water, food, shelter.

Reality Check:

We are living on a planet with a scarce amount of drinking water, limited regions that are able to grow food, and ever increasing regulated areas for housing.

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is becoming “… as certain as death and taxes.” There’s even an interactive game to acclimate our young people to evaluate every person, place, and thing on our planet. Placing a price tag, a cost, a monetary value on existence itself.

Time is money, ticktock, ticktock…

Can You Cost the Earth?


Natural resources:


Value: $73.48 trillion

Renewal of water supplies is dependent upon a variety of natural assets, for example, healthy soils, wetlands and forests. Without new freshwater there would soon be no economy, so the total aggregate value of the water-related services provided by Nature is presented as at equivalent to global GDP (about $73.48 trillion). Researched by Juniper/WCMC-UNEP.


Value: $16.2 trillion

The numbers presented in relation to the contribution made by trees are derived from Costanza, R. et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change. The number for ‘trees’ is produced from an aggregation of figures presented in this paper in relation to different kinds of forests. Researched by Juniper/WCMC-UNEP.


Value: $222 billion

The value of plankton is estimated on the basis of their role in carbon capture and is derived from Siegel, D.A. et al. (2014). Global assessment of ocean carbon export by combining satellite observations and food-web models. Global Biochemical Cycles. The six billion tonnes of carbon captured by plankton was multiplied by ‘the social cost of carbon’ as calculated by the US Government (at $37 per tonne). Researched by Juniper/WCMC-UNEP.

A bald eagle

Value: $39

The value of a single bald eagle is calculated by Richardson, S. and Loomis, J. (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics.

A gray whale

Value: $35

The value of a single gray whale is calculated by Richardson, S. and Loomis, J. (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics.

The United States

Value: $17.42 trillion

The US is valued by its Gross Domestic Product (Purchase Power parity), (2014 est), provided by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook.

Average US worker

Value: $47,230

The annual earnings of a US worker in 2015 are calculated by the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics on its website under the sections Occupational Employment Statistics and May 2014 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, as published on 5 October, 2015.


Marketed as “the next bottled water” fresh air bottled in Canada and shipped to China as a solution to serious smog problems sells in two flavors, and comes in single or twin packs.

Sales of canned Canadian air booming in China...
Vitality Air said that the first batch of 500 canisters filled with fresh air from the Rocky Mountain town of Banff went on sale in China last month (November 2015) and sold out within two weeks.
“Now we’re taking lots of pre orders for our upcoming shipment. We’re getting close to the 1,000 mark,” said Harrison Wang, director of China operations. The air sells for $14 to $20, depending on the size of the canister.


What about those of us that live in relatively smog free areas of the planet?


Atmospheric CO2 (has recently) Rocketed to 405.6 ppm — A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years

…Unfortunately, this daily February peak at 405.66 parts per million is not the end to the current year’s ramp up. Typical atmospheric peaks occur during May. And this year, we are likely to see atmospheric levels hit near 407 parts per million in the weekly and monthly averages over the next few months. Such a range thrusts us solidly out of the Pliocene climate context and well into that of the Miocene.

Though the Middle Miocene was not a hothouse extinction climate, it was one much more foreign to humankind. Back then, only the great apes existed. Our most ancient ancestor, Australopithecus, was still at least 9 million years in the future. It’s fair to say that no human being, or even our closer offshoot relatives, have ever breathed air with the composition that is now entering our lungs.

“If you really think that the environment is less important than the economy, try holding your breath while you count your money.” Dr. Guy McPherson



Civilization is contaminating nearly all of the natural water resources on our planet by chemical, physical, radioactive or pathogenic microbial substances.


“There are two categories of people: those who shit in their drinking water supplies and those who don’t.”


The Humanure Handbook–a 255-page guide to composting human manure, including building your own toilet and turning your own excrement into rich, crumbly brown humus for your garden…deemed “the book most likely to save the planet!”
Jenkins has been a compost practitioner in the United States since 1975 and has grown his family’s food with humanure compost for the past thirty-five years. His website offers videos, instructions and the complete Humanure Handbook free of charge.

Every time we flush a toilet, we launch five or six gallons of polluted water into the world. That would be like defecating into a five gallon water jug and then dumping it out before anyone could drink any of it. Then doing the same thing when urinating. Then doing it every day, numerous times. Then multiplying that by about 305 million people in the United States alone.

Even after the contaminated water is treated in wastewater treatment plants, it may still be polluted with excessive levels of nitrates, chlorine, pharmaceutical drugs, industrial chemicals, detergents and other pollutants. This “treated” water is discharged directly into the environment.


The future for food is vegan. Sadly it’s not because of compassion and a reverence for all life on our planet. Nor is a vegan future about taste, or health, or sustainability; it is simply because eating meat is too inefficient.



Family and community addresses our human need to socialize. Tiny home communities are an empowering solution to dis-empowering high cost shelters that further marginalize the human spirit.


Tiny houses were seized in L.A. last week without offering any viable alternative to those who will now sleep on the streets, truly homeless.


L.A. is seizing tiny homes from the homeless
Cannon, 58, said her husband, a Vietnam-era Marine veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder and memory loss, was hospitalized with a seizure Feb. 5, then disappeared.

Larry Joe Cannon turned up Friday, but the couple’s house was gone. As Summers (an L.A. resident who says he was once homeless, had placed donated structures within encampments on overpasses along the 110 Freeway, for homeless people to use instead of tents ) drove off with her house on a flatbed trailer, Julia Cannon sat on a thin bedroll on the ground and pointed to the concrete.

“I’m staying right here,” she said, her eyes filling with tears.



Humanity has a handful of years left of habitat to support life on Earth. Our predicament is dire.

“Live simply so others may simply live” is not being presented as a TED conference “Dream Team” topic by former VPOTUS Al Gore, nor is simplifying our lives being suggested by the gang.


The choice of embracing the sacredness of all life, pursuing excellence everyday; or blindly yielding to the cleverly marketed solutions that will only benefit an elitist few; once again, polarizes our collective consciousness as human beings.




Upworthy Reveals Audience Behavior, Begins “Collaborations” With Brands, NGOs

Unilever will be first commercial brand in new program, underwriting curated content around building a brighter future for children

Digital Journal

April 1, 2014

NEW YORK, PRNewswire

WKOG admin: Aside from embracing misogyny, more recently, Unilever, with Kellogg’s, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, and other corporate entities  funneled big money into defeating Prop 37. Now, Unilever, one of the largest consumer products corporations in the world, is looking to  employ “effective story-telling” to help Unilever “engage with people more meaningfully” in order to “create a better future for children.” (We can assume this is the same children unwittingly being fed genetically modified “foods”). (More on Unilever here.)

It is critical to note that one of the two co-founders of Upworthy is Avaaz co-founder Eli Pariser, as well as president/chairman of’s board. [“Prior to position of chair, Pariser served as the Executive Director of Pariser has worked directly with former Vice President Al Gore on drafting MoveOn-sponsored speeches and assisted in fundraising for John Kerry’s presidential campaign. In December 2003 Pariser worked with Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros, on a campaign. On December 9, 2004, one month after Kerry’s defeat, Pariser declared that MoveOn had effectively taken control of the Democratic Party.” Source]

220 Members of FAWU, employed by Unilever`s Food Solutions and Tea Factory divisions in Pietermaritzburg have embarked on strike on Friday, 17 January 2014 as a result of a dispute between the company and the union. – See more at:
220 Members of FAWU, employed by Unilever`s Food Solutions and Tea Factory divisions in Pietermaritzburg have embarked on strike on Friday, 17 January 2014 as a result of a dispute between the company and the union. – See more at:
220 Members of FAWU, employed by Unilever`s Food Solutions and Tea Factory divisions in Pietermaritzburg have embarked on strike on Friday, 17 January 2014 as a result of a dispute between the company and the union. – See more at:

Fergie Teams up with Unilever on Universal Children's Day

Utilizing celebrities: Effective behavioral change and indoctrination of children into corporate culture.

The average Upworthy post generates 42x as many Facebook interactions as the average post from a top 50 U.S. media site. Promoted brand content on performs at 73x the average. These and other first-time insights into the highly engaged Upworthy audience will be shared later today at the Ad Age Digital Conference here. The company will also announce its initial revenue approach, and that Unilever will become the first commercial brand to join a new “Upworthy Collaborations” advertising and sponsorship program.

Upworthy lands Unilever as first brand customer #aadigital

Today, Upworthy has one of the most engaged audiences on the Web:

  • The average piece of Upworthy content drives more than 75,000 Facebook likes per post, some 12x more than BuzzFeed, according to engagement data from Newswhip.
  • In 2013, the average unique visitor spent 11.44 hours with the company’s curated content. Currently, the site is registering more than 5 million “attention minutes” per day.
  • Unique monthly visitors to the site now consistently top 50 million.
  • And 78% of Americans on Facebook have either Liked Upworthy or have a friend who has.

“Billions of sharing actions take place in our network, and Upworthy consistently ranks number one across many of our social metrics, from shares-per-post to percentage of incoming traffic from social networks,” said Sachin Kamdar, CEO of, a provider of content analytics solutions for publishers, whose clients include Conde Nast, Fox News, Atlantic Media, and The Cheezburger Network.

“Upworthy attracts a huge community of highly influential, socially conscious citizens — people who share our goal of building a better future for children,” said Marc Mathieu, Unilever Senior Vice President, Global Marketing. “Our partnership will include work for several of our brands, and we are looking forward to seeing how effective story-telling can help us engage with people more meaningfully.”

Unilever Marketing Vice President Kathy O’Brien will join Upworthy co-founders Eli Pariser and Peter Koechley on stage at Ad Age Digital to discuss the companies’ partnership to promote the core values of Unilever’s Project Sunlight. The program aims to engage people in more sustainable behaviors that will create a better future for children. Upworthy will curate content from across the web, highlighting stories of leaders working toward a more sustainable world, and will work with Unilever agency partner Mindshare to promote the best Project Sunlight content.

“Unilever’s leadership in moving to improve child welfare and contribute to a more sustainable world made them a strong fit for this program,” said Upworthy’s Pariser. “The heart of Project Sunlight matches several of the top topics our audience voted to see more of in 2014. We look forward to working together to bring more attention to young people who are making the world more sustainable.”

First Three Types of Upworthy Collaborations

Participation in the Upworthy Collaborations program will extend to brands, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and foundations. It will take three initial forms:

  • Promoted Posts — Here, participants create content and pay Upworthy to present and distribute it on and Upworthy social channels. Pilots of this approach in 2013 included one with Skype.
  • Sponsored Curation — Here, participants underwrite Upworthy’s curation costs on a given topic. In this category, Upworthy retains full editorial control of both the selection and presentation of the content. Pilots of this approach in 2013 included All 7 Billion with The Gates Foundation.
  • Content Consultation — Here, Upworthy will work with participants to advise on content selection, packaging, and distribution strategies with a focus on testing and optimization to draw shared insights as a relationship evolves.

The program blends these elements with additional reader-engagement tactics to build always-on content partnerships, fueled by shared learning, organic optimization, and true relationship building with the Upworthy community.

Reception to the paid-content pilots in 2013 was positive, with strong performance of the individual posts and praise from the Upworthy community for how clearly the content was marked.

Upworthy Collaborations launches amid continued strong performance from the two-year-old company:


  • Upworthy’s core community of subscribers now tops 7 million, comprising nearly 6 million Facebook fans, 1.6 million email subscribers, and more than 350,000 Twitter followers. All receive content daily and form the core of a massive sharing community.



Upworthy brings massive amounts of attention to things that matter in the world. Every day, curators unearth and spotlight awesome, important content using a proprietary approach that combines deep social science, strong voice, and a passionate community. Co-founders Eli Pariser and Peter Koechley have raised $12 million in initial financing from a group that included prominent venture capital firm Spark Capital, the Knight Foundation, and leading individual investors such as Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, and BuzzFeed co-founder John Johnson. Each month, more than 50 million people experience Upworthy content. Learn more at

Logo –

SOURCE Upworthy


Paid to Lose | The Progressive Movement is a PR Front for Rich Democrats

Paid to Lose | The Progressive Movement is a PR Front for Rich Democrats


Weekend Edition March 15-17, 2013

by John Stauber

There is good news in the Boston Globe today for the managers, development directors, visionaries, political hacks and propaganda flacks who run “the Progressive Movement.”   More easy-to-earn and easy-to-hide soft money, millions of dollars,  will be flowing to them from super rich Democrats and business corporations.  It will come clean, pressed and laundered through Organizing for Action, the latest incarnation of the Obama Money Machine which has recently morphed into a “nonpartisan non-profit corporation” that will  ‘‘strengthen the progressive movement and train our next generation of leaders.’’

Al Gore’sClimate Reality P roject: 24 hours of climate reality, but market fantasy

By Joseph Green
Wed, 14 Sep 2011


Today was the start of Al Gore's 24 hours of internet presentations,
which will last till Sept 15, about the reality of climate warming.
These presentations are putting forward many facts about what's
happening to the climate. They dramatize the effect these changes are
having on countries and people around the world.

    But when it comes to solutions, Al Gore is as stuck in the atmosphere
of denial as the market-fanatic John Boehner and the other
head-in-the-sand politicians referred to in the 24 hours of
presentations. Gore still promotes the market-based measures that have
helped lead to the present threat of global climate catastrophe. He
still says that capitalist corporations will do the right thing for the
environment out of the motivation to make higher profits. Meanwhile
Gore and the other speakers are silent on the movement for environmental
justice and say nothing about the many activists who are fighting
militantly to protect the environment against those business interests
that Al Gore praises. And Gore is silent on the urgent need for
extensive environmental and economic planning and regulation.

     The article below, which will appear in the coming issue of
"Communist Voice", discusses Gore's stands in the weeks leading up to
the 24 hours of reality. It brings out those truths about global
warming, and about what needs to be done, which Gore closes his eyes to.
It is not Adam Smith and the drive for higher profits that will save the
environment, but the development of a working-class environmentalism
that breaks with pro-business environmentalism and instead takes part in
the class struggle.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

        Gore created a flurry of interest when he chided President Obama in
"Rolling Stone" (June 2, 2011). This, it turns out, was a warmup for his
new Climate Reality Project, which was announced on July 12. Gore speaks
with passion about those who deny the ongoing environmental crisis, and
he titled his article "Climate of denial: Can science and truth
withstand the merchants of poison?". He says that climate change is not
a matter of the future: no, it is here today. He even gently reproaches
Obama for inaction.

    But when it comes to what to do, Gore still clings to market methods,
rather than regulation and planning. He makes a point of praising the
supposed environmental concern of the vicious wage-cutting profiteer
Walmart, but says nothing about the important role of militant activists
for environmental justice. He demands action, but the action he demands
is supporting big business, "reward(ing) those companies that are
providing leadership", and providing more support to the very reprobate,
Obama, who is sitting on his hands and letting the environment deteriorate.

    Worse yet, Gore chides Obama only for inaction, not for advocating
harmful policies like "cap and trade", which is a proven failure at
cutting carbon emissions.. Gore hides the many ways the Obama
administration has actively worked with big business in ravaging the
environment, whether it is backing the fraud of "clean coal",
encouraging the land-destroying practice of hydraulic "fracking" for
natural gas, pooh-poohing the significance of the Fukushima nuclear
disaster while letting American reactors evade safety standards, or
helping BP minimize its liability for the Gulf oil spill.

    Al Gore's Climate Reality Project is calling for 24 hours of reality on
September 14-15. Its website declares: "What can change in a day?
Everything. On September 14, the world will focus its attention on the
truth about the climate crisis. For 24 hours, we will all live in
reality." This change is to be accomplished by "a new multimedia
presentation created by Al Gore and delivered once per hour for 24
hours, in every time zone around the globe."
( But how much reality can
he put forward when he is still in a state of denial over the failed
market measures which he advocates?

The environmental crisis is here

    As usual, Gore is at his best in pointing out the dangers of climate
change. He points to the disasters of the past 12 months: last year is
tied with 2005 as the hottest year since scientific heat measurement was
begun; huge floods displaced 20 million people in Pakistan, and
submerged an area of Australia larger than Germany and France combined;
a level of flood that is only supposed to come once every thousand years
struck Gore's home town of Nashville, Tennessee; heat and drought was so
hot in Russia that fires spread; ice continues to melt at an accelerated
pace, threatening faster sea-level raises than previously predicted; etc.

    Gore also denounces the way that a "climate of denial" has been created
in the mass media to drown out the evidence of climate change and hide
the scientific consensus on global warming being a reality. He admits
that "the concerns of the wealthiest individuals and corporations
routinely trump the concerns of average Americans and small business."

    So his article has some useful material. It may be of use in waking up
some people to the ongoing climate crisis. That's what the 24 hours of
reality in September are supposed to do, and his presentation is likely
to point to the real dangers that face us. But Gore's agitation that
people should wake up and smell the coffee is accompanied by sweet
lullabies to put people back to sleep. For Gore may travel around the
world far from his native Tennessee, but he has never left the state of
denial, and he works hand in hand with the very business elite which
include the "merchants of poison". So, when it comes to solutions,
Gore's article is an example of the type of blindness that is widespread
in the establishment environmentalist organizations. And we can expect
that his presentation on September 14 will be in the same vein,

Hand-in-hand with the merchants of poison

    There is more than one type of climate denial. Gore admits the
environmental crisis, but clings to the failed policies that have helped
bring it on. It was Clinton and Gore, as president and vice-president,
who insisted that the Kyoto Protocol be based on market measures.
Instead of using the regulatory methods that had been used to fight a
number of other environmental problems, Clinton and Gore championed
market-fundamentalism, or neo-liberalism. They sought to develop
artificial markets in pollution, and then hoped that Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" would result in pollution being phased out. Today Gore
may denounce the "merchants of poison", but Clinton and Gore insisted on
the "cap and trade" schemes which created the poison markets in which
these merchants operate. The idea was that the more societal regulation
was replaced by the self-serving decisions of the "merchants of poison"
the better: poison markets would supposedly result in environmental
improvement, as a result of individual companies making decisions based
on what was most profitable, and regulations on them would continue to
be loosened or dropped.

    This was the so-called "cap and trade" scheme. It hasn't worked. But
Gore simply closes his eyes to this. Instead, he continues to advocate
policies that would worsen the situation.

    Gore's idea is that we all should walk hand-in-hand with big business,
which he imagines would act responsibly and help reduce carbon
emissions. He goes out of his way to praise business whenever he can.
But what's happened? Most capitalists are pooh-poohing the problem, and
Gore just hasn't noticed it. Oh yes, he says, *some* companies do engage
in "green-washing". But for him, the fault lies just in ideologues and
some of the richest companies (except for Walmart, of course, which he
adores). All it takes, in his view, is for "individuals" to "demand
change in the marketplace", and the business community will respond.

    Gore's most radical step in his books and articles is to advocate that
there should be *both* a "cap and trade" system *and* a carbon tax. (See
his latest book, "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis", Ch
15, "The True Cost of Carbon".) The carbon tax is another market measure
designed to replace environmental regulation. It is supposed to create
financial incentives for businesses to reduce carbon emissions, just as
cap and trade was supposed to have done. Actually, the weight of the
carbon tax would fall on the people, while most of the business world,
especially big business, would pass the tax on to consumers. Workers,
independent truckers, small fishermen and others couldn't pass the tax
on, but the big energy companies certainly could. So it would have the
harshest effects on those with the least power to determine whether
goods are produced in an environmentally-proper way, and the least
effect on the big businesses with the most power. For example, workers
might find that driving to work had become fabulously expensive, but the
carbon tax would do nothing to provide them with any alternative to
driving. Moreover, this tax would turn the slogan "make the polluters
pay" into a denunciation of the mass of consumers, rather than of the
corporate polluters. For this and other reasons, it's likely to be the
biggest fiasco ever -- making environmentalism hated among substantial
sections of the masses, while failing to accomplish environmental goals.
(See for a more thorough
discussion of the carbon tax.)

    True, in this article Gore doesn't say anything directly about the
carbon "tax"; instead he talks about setting a price on carbon. But it's
just different words to describe the same thing.

Gore at his worst

    So as usual, Gore is at his worst when it comes to solutions. His basic
idea is to keep doing the things that haven't worked -- cap and trade;
working hand-in-hand with the corporations and giving them subsidies;
keeping government small and privatized; and hiding the extent of
corporate crimes.

    Gore is utterly committed to  introducing market principles into
everything. Indeed, Gore helped "reinvent government" under the Clinton
administration: this meant privatizing government functions, removing
regulations, providing incentives and subsides for business, and letting
the affected industries call the shots in the regulatory agencies. This
plan, carried out by both Democrats and Republicans, has led to
disaster. To be more precise, it has been disaster for the environment
and the working class, but profitable to many businesspeople. It has
meant marking time as far as global warming; ravaging the public schools
through Bush's No Child Left Behind and Obama's Race to the Top; relying
on private insurance in Obama's health plan, and so on. But energy
companies, educational companies, insurance companies, and upper-level
administrative personnel have made out like bandits.

    Gore sums up his approach near the end of his article. It comes down to
this: "above all, don't give up on the political system." By this, he
means, don't give up on the Democrats and the Obama administration. So
the alpha and omega of his proposals are to accept the pro-market
politicians and search for big businesses to work with. If he chides
Obama for inaction, he takes it back by suggesting that if we all get
behind him and push, Obama will do the right thing.

From the Alliance for Climate Protection
 to the Climate Reality Project

    So in his article Gore recommended that people join an organization,
namely, the Alliance for Climate Protection (,
which he founded in 2006 and  chairs, and whose name is now being
changed to the Climate Reality Project. The ACP praises the European
Union's version of cap and trade, the so-called Emission Trading Scheme,
which is the heart of the Kyoto Protocol, which has failed badly. But
why should Gore care that's he's advocating a policy that has failed?
Indeed, it's notable that the ACP's website even praises some things,
like the Copenhagen Climate Summit, that Gore himself calls a failure in
his article in "Rolling Stone". The extent of these failures can be seen
in that, according to both the International Energy Agency and the top
UN climate official, last year, 2010, saw, not a decrease, but *a record
increase* in greenhouse gas emissions. (See
chief, and also

    Indeed, the Alliance for Climate Protection hasn't even made the mild
criticisms of unnamed corporations and special interests that Gore makes
in his article. Why, right and left, government and industry, everyone
should just go hand-in-hand. The ACP promotes such fantasy as having the
"WE Campaign" unite pro-business liberals and hard-right conservatives,
minorities and racists, together in defense of the environment. The ACP
website says: "Some of the most popular WE Campaign advertisements
include the  Unlikely Alliances' campaign, which paired together such
seemingly polar opposites as Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich and Revs.
Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton." (

    Gore has now decided to rechristen the ACP as the Climate Reality
Project. But the website for the CRP has even less information than that
of the Alliance for Climate Protection. Gore does denounce "fossil fuel
interests", and that's about it.

    In his article, Gore writes that "To make our elected leaders take
action to solve the climate crisis, we must forcefully communicate the
following message:  I care a lot about global warming; I am paying very
careful attention to the way you vote and what you say about it; if you
are on the wrong side, I am not only going to vote against you, I will
work hard to defeat you -- regardless of party. If you are on the right
side, I will work hard to elect you." But the ACP and the CRP haven't
uttered a word about Obama's record, nor that of any other politician.
They fawn on the rich and powerful, and search out ways to praise them.
How this is going to create pressure to do anything in favor of the
environment, is Gore's little secret.

Bring the class struggle
into the environmental movement

    Gore to the contrary, the establishment leaders, the corrupt
politicians, and the profiteering corporations, are not "our leaders".
Workers should abandon Gore's pro-business politics as usual, and so
should anyone with a real concern for the environment. Of course,
workers should abandon, not politics, but pro-capitalist politics. They
should seek to rebuild a better politics, based on struggle against the
big corporations, a politics of class struggle. They should get
organized   at the workplace, in the community, and in solidarity with
workers around the world   to fight the capitalist rulers of this world.
They should fight against the current world austerity drive of the
bourgeoisie, and they should fight about the environment too. With
regard to the environmental crisis, they should push for the things Gore
is silent about:

    * comprehensive environmental regulation, which should enforce
compulsory standards on big energy and, for that matter, big business as
a whole;

    * that environmental planning should include concern for the mass
livelihood: it's a conservative trickle-down fraud to believe that
"green jobs" will automatically provide prosperity; instead there must
be programs directly  guaranteeing people's basic needs;

    * the need to bring the class struggle into the environmental movement,
rather than searching for big corporations to praise;

    * comprehensive economic planning and regulation, which is needed both
for the sake of the environment and to be able to surmount the economic

    * the need for planning be done in a new way; that the privatization of
government functions should be reversed; that the industries being
regulated should be pushed out of the government bodies regulating them;
that regulations should be made transparent; and that workers should be
brought, as far as possible, into the process of planning, and of
enforcing the planning;

    * the need to look towards the working class, not the business world,
as the bastion of environmental concern.

    Gore is silent about these things, because he's still a
market-fundamentalist politician, albeit one that claims to be against
market-fundamentalism. His recommendations show the narrow limits in
which establishment environmentalism is caught, and the narrow limits of
the left-right, community-big business cooperation on the environmental
front which is so fashionably advocated in mainstream environmentalist
circles today. Gore may preach against climate denial. And yes indeed,
as far as climate change, the Republicans would have us go to our doom
with our eyes shut, but Gore would have us go to our doom with our eyes
half-open. To survive, one should instead open one's eyes all the way,
and see not just the looming disasters, but the policies needed to avoid

--Joseph Green