Since the 1980s, Al Gore's chief policy issue has been climate change. He published the book An Inconvenient Truth in 1989, and starred in a 2006 documentary of the same name. Most discussions about a Gore victory in 2000 tend to focus on how he might've handled 9/11 and the economy differently from Bush. But wouldn't Gore want to use the power of the presidency to address the issue he's most concerned about? If Gore had won in 2000, how might he have addressed climate change? Would he have been able to enact new environmental policies, either through executive order or legislative action? Would these policies be effective?
If Gore Had Won in 2000, How Could He Have Addressed Climate Change?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
- Status
I sure that we have ended up with more regulation from the EPA. How Effective is something I not sure of.
If the regulation hurt businesses profits , when a Republican President is elected , they would be over turned. (Same as Trump has done with Obama Era Environmental Regulations ).
the EPA would have been strengthened and plenty of environmental executive orders would have been done. This may have helped perhaps push EVs faster than our current TL, probably push against coal and sped up the shift to natural gas at the least.
The real question is whether or not he would have been able to pass a full carbon tax or cap and trade type bill- which could have been a real possibility back then because there was far more cooperation than there is now due to far less polarization.
I certainly agree that the eventual backlash with a Republican after Gore would have seen some relaxed standards but not nearly to the extent that Trump is doing so because a clean environment, drinking water and such polls well generally and most Republicans (pre Trump) weren't 'fuck the environment' types. The real question on lasting impact would be on things like any full laws passed (like a carbon tax) that would be far, far less likely to be repealed even in a Republican administration after Gore.
The real question is whether or not he would have been able to pass a full carbon tax or cap and trade type bill- which could have been a real possibility back then because there was far more cooperation than there is now due to far less polarization.
I certainly agree that the eventual backlash with a Republican after Gore would have seen some relaxed standards but not nearly to the extent that Trump is doing so because a clean environment, drinking water and such polls well generally and most Republicans (pre Trump) weren't 'fuck the environment' types. The real question on lasting impact would be on things like any full laws passed (like a carbon tax) that would be far, far less likely to be repealed even in a Republican administration after Gore.
marathag
Banned
With the Ds in control of the Senate for much of the first few years, Byrd won't be of much help in reining in Coal, his conversion was years in the future
Lots of EOs means the Rs will be energized, regaining the Senate.
Greens don't like Natural Gas, it still Fossil Fuel. busting down on the recently relaxed Fracking Rules, means the NG Boom is throttled back
GM was losing money with each EV-1 Leased, which was the not inexpensive $4-500 a month, not far off from what Tesla charges today, but this was with Year 2000 Dollars, and you are leasing a GM Econo car for Mercedes money.
How is Gore going to force GM into keeping production up? at the time the EV-1 was a 100mile range car with NiMH batteries, that suck when the temps go up, and self discharge rates worse than old NiCads. Only thing they had going for them, was less hazardous materials and higher capacity
You really need to wait for Li-Ion Cells for Electric Cars. There are not enough Ed Begley Jrs around to change this in 2000 to get widespread adoption of electrics at this point.
And during all of this will have to deal with the popping of the .com economy, and Enron and the rest of Corporate shenanigans at work.
Then what Bin Ladin does, with one to all four Jets hitting their targets.
- Status