Rift between Clinton Administration and Gore over Kyoto and Climate Change Revealed!

[KoKo]

(Long NYT's interview with Gore reveals some details that have been overlooked about his relationship with Clinton WH and some fellow Dems)

Al Gore Has Big Plans
James Traub

Whatever the merits of the TV-and-neurological-pathways argument, I couldn’t help thinking that Gore was consoling himself, in a typically depersonalized and abstract fashion, for, as he told me, “30 years of beating my head against the wall.” Gore first learned about the buildup of greenhouse gases at Harvard, and he began trying to publicize the issue soon after reaching Congress in 1977. He made it a prominent part of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1988, at a time when public awareness of global warming was close to zero. Finally, when he became Bill Clinton’s vice president, he had the chance to raise the issue at the highest levels. This proved to be a time of tremendous frustration.

After the Republican House and Senate victories of 1994, environmental groups, and their allies in Congress and the White House, were forced to fight a desperate rear-guard action to protect core legislation, including the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Real progress on issues like gas-mileage standards and the development of alternative fuels was next to impossible. “We got slam-dunked on almost every issue,” as Kathleen McGinty, former head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, recalls; “and not just by Republicans but by Democrats as well.” She and other former aides give Gore high marks for steadfastness in the face of massive resistance. But the resistance came not only from the business lobby and their allies in Congress but also from some of the administration’s own top officials. As Gore himself recalls: “It was seen as an arcane, hobbyhorse issue: We’ll indulge Vice President Gore, and let him do his thing yet again, and then we’ll get back to what we know is the serious stuff.”

This internal clash came to a head in 1997, with negotiations over the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions, which the business community, and above all the energy industry, vehemently opposed. Timothy Wirth, a committed environmentalist and then under secretary of state for global affairs, assembled a bipartisan advisory group of a dozen or so senators to build support for the treaty. “I could not get a single White House official to come to any of these meetings,” Wirth recalls. “They would not identify themselves with Kyoto.” Wirth planned to assemble a range of such groups, as he had with earlier pacts; but the White House took over the process before he could do so and made no outreach effort. “It was a goddamn scandal,” Wirth says. “It was horrible.” Wirth stepped down a few weeks before the treaty was to be finalized.

Gore was quite taken aback when I relayed Wirth’s remarks. “He’s not talking about me,” he said. “I don’t know who he’s talking about.” But he also adds: “If I had been president, would I have bent every part of the administration and every part of the White House to support this? Yes, I would have. Does that translate into criticism of President Clinton for not doing this? No. I was vice president, not president.” Or maybe Gore would rather not do the translation. When the international negotiations looked as if they were about to collapse, in part owing to American resistance, Gore suggested that he fly to Kyoto to demonstrate Washington’s commitment. David Sandalow, who worked on environmental affairs at the National Security Council, recalls a meeting with a dozen advisers “in which nobody recommended he go, with the range of opinion running from neutral to strongly against.” Gore went anyway. “His arrival was galvanizing,” Sandalow says. (Others are less convinced.) Gore returned in triumph — and instantly encountered, he recalls, “resistance in the White House to even signing it, much less submitting it to the Senate for ratification.” Gore used his last dram of political capital to persuade Clinton to sign the Kyoto pact; it was never sent to the Senate, where it surely would have died an ugly death. The Clinton administration thus surrendered without firing a shot. For Gore, it was a humiliating denouement.

Gore’s advisers in the 2000 campaign worried that he would commit political suicide by global warming. The issue had advanced far enough in public consciousness that George W. Bush saw fit to endorse regulating carbon emissions (a position he promptly ignored once taking office). But it was still a net loser. Gore says he believes that he lost West Virginia, and possibly Kentucky, by calling for restrictions on coal-fired utilities. Gore could be excused a case of epic bitterness; but his total immersion in a cause he deeply believes in appears to have seen him through. The only what-if in which he indulged during our time together was to say, only half-jokingly, that if he had had the “presentation skills” he has since learned, “I think I’d be in my second term as president.”

More of this at........
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20wwln-gore-t.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5090&en=f5c6d299dc59a63c&ex=1337313600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[beachmom]

1. Wow. Incredible. And depressing. n/t

[LisaM]

2. Thank you for finding that article. It validates many things

that I've long felt to be true about Gore's commitment to clean air differing with the Clinton administration's policies.

[tavalon]

21. Yeah

I remember celebrating the night Clinton won but there were many things about that administration that made me go whaaaaat?!

[rinsd]

3. In regards to this section of the article.

"Gore used his last dram of political capital to persuade Clinton to sign the Kyoto pact; it was never sent to the Senate, where it surely would have died an ugly death."

Given what happened during the Byrd Hagel amendment that passed 95-0, this is not exactly an understatement.

"The Clinton administration thus surrendered without firing a shot. For Gore, it was a humiliating denouement."

How was it humiliating? Would it have been less humiliating for Kyoto to be rejected by the Senate?

[AtomicKitten]

5. I heard Clinton speak on this issue on CPAN this weekend.

He said the Congress voted it down before he even sent it to them.

[karynnj]

27. They voted for the Byrd/Hagel amendment

They did not vote on Kyoto. It depends on the meaning of "it" this time. :) Rinsd and BLM explain it pretty well - there are also many long detailed explanations in the Senate record.

It was clear they wanted to give the administration leverage to push doing the developing nations piece. Both Kerry and Gore have said in different ways that if China builds coal plants at the rate they are building them, without better technology, the world is in trouble no matter what we do.

As to the cost piece, the most recent serious analysis, the Stern Study, done by the British, found the cost of NOT doing anything likely to be far higher than the cost of doing what had to be done. (The estimates were, I think 5% of GDP forever (dealing with all the problems) or 1% of GDP. As Kerry has positioned it tis creates good high tech jobs, we can sell the technology and the products, the air will be cleaner, which leads to people being healthier which leads to lower health costs. So, he has said if he and Gore etc were wrong, there were positive benefits anyway. If Inhofe (who he was debating) was wrong, there is castrophe.

It was clear the Senators and Gore who were working on that vote had the intention of guiding them to make Kyoto better as well as to delay until we had enough votes.

The sad thing is that even on a far simpler bill that required water projects to consider climate change, Kerry and Feingold only got 51 votes, rather than the 60 needed. After all Gore's incredible work even many Democrats voted against this including a few DU favorites like Tester and Webb.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Clinton said he thought the Kyoto Protocol didn't go far enough.

I find that interesting in light of what is being alleged in the OP.

It's getting so you have to have a flashlight and a map to navigate your way through the info being thrown on the boards at DU.

[karynnj]

31. I've read some of Wirth's and Kerry's Senate speeches

when I was trying to make sense of it 6 months ago. There was nothing to suggest that anyone was concerned it didn't go far enough unless he was speaking specifically to insuring that the developing nations were controlled as well. if Clinton is implying he wanted more than Gore, he is not being truthful. This was a Gore passion back to his Senate days.

[AtomicKitten]

32. Apparently advisers told Gore not to punctuate it in 2000.

Regardless, America is ready for it now. This is his time and I really, really hope he runs.

[karynnj]

36. I hope he does too

This is very likely a Democratic year and I'm not convinced that any of the candidates are strong enough to deal with all they will have to deal with.

[blm]

10. Kyoto did need fixing at that point, but that bill wasn't the end-all treaty killer

that it's made out to be by those who like to use it to end debate.

[rinsd]

14. Really? Granted it was a resolution but look at the wording.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

Here's Byrd-Hagel


Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

Also GOP had a 55 to 45 edge in Senators at that point.

[blm]

15. that was to get an accompanying analysis - it was never a killer - just worded to get

more GOPs on board AFTER a cost analysis was done, as it was expected at that point that President Gore COULD sign Kyoto with less obstruction once that threshold was met.

[rinsd]

17. Well that is sort of what I am saying.

Not bringing it up for ratification was a delaying tactic until it had a greater chance to actually be ratified.

Because once we reject it, its back to square one with negotiations.

[karynnj]

33. I think that Gore and the Senate environmentalist

would have wanted more involvement - asking for changes to the agreement etc. The fact that it simply died was bad.

It actually would have been better to be submitted and the arguments made - possibly by the President of the Senate (aka the VP). When you are trying to get change being able to have a forum to make your case is needed to get some progress. (Consider that on Iraq, Kerry/Feingold got only 13 people, but recent timeline proposals got 48 and 51. Without the issue being raised and gaining exceptance, you would never have change. (A better example would be how many times the civil rights law was introduced before it was enacted.)

[MH1]

4. Gore, Tim Wirth, John Kerry, and John Heinz were green allies in the Senate

Gore mentions these guys in the beginning of Earth in the Balance. Heinz especially was very active in pushing environmental legislation.

If John Heinz had lived, I wonder if he would still be a Republican?

[karynnj]

7. I wonder if Heinz would have been President

There was always talk of it. He was a very well liked moderate Republican before they were driven out of the party. One reason he never tried was that Teresa was never for him running. Had he lived and had he run in either 1992 or 1996, I likely would have voted for him.

In 1992, because was so good on the environment and Bill Clinton was not good. He was very good on issues like pensions. On a personal level, from the very small amount I knew of him (as a Senator from a neighboring state) he seemed a nice guy.

I don't remember Teresa from then, other than that she was beautiful and had young sons. Had they run, Teresa's marching against appartheid and heading a group of Sentator's wives who lobbied for Soviet Jews would have impressed me.

I never voted for a Republican, though I was tempted to vote for Anderson over Carter, but didn't as it would help Reagan.

[windy252]

6. K & R n/t

[fooj]

8. The Clinton administration thus surrendered without firing a shot.

Gore returned in triumph — and instantly encountered, he recalls, “resistance in the White House to even signing it, much less submitting it to the Senate for ratification.”

Hmmmmm...

[rinsd]

9. Yes, it was all in subserviecne of Poppy...

:eyes:

Or Clinton realized in the aftermath of Byrd-Hagel that the treaty would not be ratified by the Senate. And once the Senate rejects the treaty we cannot participate in it.

[flyarm]

18. ahh no that was this weekend at Univ of New Hampshire commencement

poppy bush needs his sidekick clinton with him..they make a lovely couple don't you think????????

per Bill's own words.."I've decided women can run everything, so George and I can play more golf"


should we expect anything else from poppy's new adopted son???????
fly

[rinsd]

19. sefl delete

[karynnj]

11. Can we take this as not endorsing Hillary in the primaries?

It would be interesting if Gore and Kerry endorse the same person. The combined impact would likely be bigger than the sum of the impact of each endorsing. Whatever problems anyone has with either, there is pretty much agreement among Democrats that they are both serious public servants of great integrity.

[flyarm]

23. it would be better if they ran together!! and i believe in my heart they will!! eom

[politicasista]

34. It really would

:hi:

[FogerRox]

12. Not this time around

[fooj]

13. Great graphic!

[FogerRox]

16. Thanks, I just made it today

[tavalon]

20. Fuck

But OTOH, it shows that he knows where the seat of power is in this government so that gives me even more belief that he will go for the brass ring. He wants to bend the worlds strongest (for now) country toward protecting our earth.

[illinoisprogressive]

22. I was not happy with the Clinton administration and this is one reason why.

he caved too much to corporate interests and did not validate Gore, who I thought was propping up the administration the last few years.
Clinton loves to blur everything and take credit for things he did not do.
I am so sick and tired of the Clintons.

[flyarm]

24. i agree!! thx..eom

[karynnj]

26. Even in his autobiography he rarely gave credit to others for

anything except Hillary.

The worst was where he failed to credit Kerry even in the opening of Vietnam which he describes as a major accomplishment. he credits McCain a few times. Kerry is only listed in the middle of the list of war vet Senators who gave him backing.

In truth, Kerry led the committee and from McCain's book did an incredble job running a difficult committee. (after all McCain credits Kerry with sitting next to him and lighting putting a hand on McCain's arm to keep him from exploding. (McCain needs a new person to do this). Kerry did a great job on the diplomacy - the condition that they commit to the effort to repatriate American remains was Kerry's and he, Vallery (who headed a Vet project and a longtime SFRC staffer) drafted the treaty. Only last week, many of us in the Kerry group read of another involvement. Kerry rescued the troubled negotiations to set up a tribunal in Cambodia for the Pol Pot era crimes. Kerry's solution of a hybrid UN/Cambodian tribunal was adapted by the UN for Siera Leone.

So, in July 2004, Bill Clinton put out a 900 plus page autobiography that spoke of openning Vietnam and completely editted the role of the man who was accepting the nomination a month later. To add further insult Clinton ate the month before the convention with reporter looking up the letter "L". The Kerry people were reported at the tiome to be upset with his timing. Then in his convention speech, using 1 of Kerry's 3 hours of national time, Clinton spoke of Kerry going to Vietnam as a young sailor, then switched and briefly spoke of Edwards, finally coming to his favorite topic - himself and how good he did. (Then he had the Chutzpah after the election of complaining Kerry spoke too much about Vietnam, when he spoke more about it then Kerry in his speech.)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicasista]

35. Yep n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Did HRC show leadership in this during her hyped "experience" in the White House?

We constantly here how her living in the WH is a major reason why she is well-qualified to be president. What we rarely here is anything about her actual record and performance during those eight years. Was she silent on this issue like she was about Wal-Mart's anti-union policies when she was on Wal-Mart's board?

[karynnj]

30. Pretty silent

The Walmart article sopoke of her pushing on some environmental issues. But, it was a Tyson lawyer who taught her about futures trades - where she made $100,000 from a $5000 initial investment in leass than a year, while Bill created a task force to exaime whether the extensive chicken waste was creating environmental problems. The task force met for 2 years and did little per the Time account of Clinton's record in 1992.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. It is funny how her "experience" as 1st Lady is cited but her record as 1st Lady is never mentioned

Her mere presence in the WH and governor's mansion is enough to qualify her for the presidency. :sarcasm: She apparently showed no leadership on anything during her "experience" in the WH as well as during her "experience" in Little Rock. If she did we would certainly be hearing of it constantly. She evidently has never shown any leadership as a public figure. Is this who we want to "lead" our party and perhaps, if she sweeps the 45-55% of people who would still consider voting for her (even with 45% of the vote she can win via the electoral college. Have FAITH!), "lead" our nation?