How "Green" Would An Al Gore Presidency Have Been?

The topic of Al Gore being elected President in 2000 has come up in Alternate History a lot, which is probably due in no small part to how close the election was. A lot of the time, they tend to deal with 9/11 and other issues that face the Bush Administration. In recent years, Gore has become mainly known as a champion for Environmentalism, and taking action on Climate Change.

Let's suppose that Gore won the 2000 Presidential Election, and for the sake of argument assume he won a second term in 2004 (I know that's not likely, but I'll hand wave it for the sake of the discussion).

What I'm wondering is, how much action would Gore tried to take on Climate Change and other environmental issues if he had been President? How much could he have accomplished? Is it even possible that if 9/11 is avoided that Gore might be able to focus the international community on taking action on Climate Change?

Thoughts and ideas?
 
Given how much of a pet project environmentalism is to him, I can see Gore pushing the issue as far as he can... but I can't see him accomplishing anything near his ultimate goals. Maybe some lighter pro-environmental legislation, but I assume the Republicans would block his every move for any significant climate change legislation, especially given that this was still an era where the phenomenon was seen primarily as a "hoax".
 
He might be able to reduce the US Government's energy usage, thus making a big impact.
OTL, a major shift to green tech by the US has to do with the logistics of transporting petroleum places. The USAF is a major operator of Wind Farms. The Marines are testing solar power.
 
Probably not all that different than when Clinton was President. Even if the voters elected a bunch of Green Party members to Congress, Gore would only go so far. Anything that would seriously hamper industry and risk the loss of high-paying jobs he would not dare. Having too many people lose their jobs is a good way for a politician to lose his. The EPA might get to place higher restrictions on cars (MPG and whatnot) and the Feds might try to subsidize electric cars that are too expensive for anyone to buy, but there won't be no magic ecotopia.
 
Gore always governed as a moderate, so he won't be adopting any radical measures. However, I could see him making a major push to reform taxes to be less on income and instead adopt a carbon or BTU tax. He'd also be willing to accept various low hanging fruit that the environmental movement could take, but which the radicals generally refuse because they want a complete, nor partial, legislative victory.

The US won't join the Kyoto Accords.
 
The EPA can actually unilaterally institute cap-and-trade, so I'd expect moves like that unless he gets a Democratic Congress.
 
Gore is a hypocrit when it comes to personal choices. In his political life, he made hay out of environmental issues. In his business life after losing the election he made lots of hay out of hyping the issues, while trammeling them personally. Ultimately, though, I think he works toward being a little more green than average if he'd been elected. He's not going to be some rabid tree hugger, though he'll pump that image. Certainly more green than GW Bush, or Obama. As someone else said, about what Clinton was.
 
First, you do know that Cap and trade was coined by the first Bush Administration, in regards to sulfur dioxide, right?
Second, one big thing Gore could do would involve reducing the US government's usage of energy. That has the potential to reduce operating costs as well as decreasing emissions.
One big book that came out around 2000 was Hawken, Lovins and Lovins's Natural Capitalism, which was a major work which helped change the perspectives of a lot of people. I'm sure Gore would try and advocate for a lot of the proposals in there- many of which would require minimal or no government involvement.
 
instead of bush tax cuts gore would use the surplas on welfare or entiltlement programs and i think he would sign the kyoto accord but could not have got the nesscarry support needed from congress to met the goals also when 9/11 happens an invasion of afganistan would happen but an iraqi invasion i doubt
 
Gore's not going to get any legislation passed as long as Republicans control Congress. But he can push the federal government towards adopting more "green" fuel sources, while giving the EPA greater flexibility and authority.
 
The Democrats would, at least, control the Senate. And the post-2002 republican takeover was dependent on 9/11, which probably wouldn't happen under any vaguely competent administration of either party, and even if it did would play out differently politically with a democratic president.
 
The Democrats would, at least, control the Senate. And the post-2002 republican takeover was dependent on 9/11, which probably wouldn't happen under any vaguely competent administration of either party, and even if it did would play out differently politically with a democratic president.

Not to derail the thread, but actually midterms tend to go against the party controlling the White House in any event, which the "rally around the President" aura following 9/11 prevented OTL -- so ironically, GOP pickups are less likely if 9/11 still happens.
 
I think 09/11 would still happen and that there would be a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate in 2002. This would result in a healthcare reform bill being passed, a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban, and expansion of social/health services. The downside would be an earlier expansion of housing loans (often justified as a "help the poor/elderly" schema in some areas), probably a larger public debt due to military *and* social expansion, and some form of No Child Left Behind. The Republicans also keep the illusion as the party of fiscal conservancy and if the election is close they might sweep in 2004.
 
Top