Gore and Clinton reunited

I'm not sure when Al Gore and Bill Clinton were last in the same room together, let alone on a stage together, but they reunited publicly today at the start of the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting. (And, to focus on the superficial for a moment, their handshake -- clumsy and brief, an afterthought really -- didn't look at all like the sort of handshake you might expect a former U.S. president and his erstwhile second-in-command to share.)

Clinton introduced and honored several people before the plenary officially kicked off, including Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) and the president of the Florida Power & Light Company, for their joint efforts to expand solar power as a means of bringing Florida's emissions into line with the goals of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. It wasn't the sexiest thing I've seen all week, but it may be of higher impact to recognize work like that in a room full of rich, powerful people than to have Al Gore speak about climate change for the kerjillionth time.

The opening plenary featured, among others, World Bank President Robert Zoellick, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who made a weird pitch for an Afghan pen manufacturer ... which is nice and all, but points out that he doesn't have much incentive to invest what little money his country has into things like carbon mitigation.

Lee Scott, for his part, announced that Wal-Mart would reach its goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs by the end of the year. Nice and all, but it seems to me that Wal-Mart should pledge to only sell compact fluorescent bulbs.

On just that score, Gore made the point that market changes are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for averting the climate crisis. Governments need to be involved. Laws need to be changed. On this subject, Matt Yglesias writes that Clinton's efforts might best be spent convincing "rich guys and executives at big companies to take a more enlightened attitude toward the political process, to return to the sort of public-spirited involvement in public affairs that characterized the business class in the 1950s and 60s."

It's a fair enough point, but the CGI actually encourages both philanthropy and political involvement, even if the focus is on the former.

Of course, if Clinton convinced his wife -- possibly future president of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton -- to take an aggressive stance on this issue (maybe, say, surprise us all with a climate policy as ambitious as her late-in-coming health platform), he could very well advance the cause much, much farther than any number of Global Initiative panels ever will.

Cross posted at Grist.

Comments

Brian,

Noblesse Oblige is not a progressive program.

CGI is a prime example.

And yes it's great that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are pooling resources to stamp out AIDS in Africa but let's be honest, for $60 billion you should eradicate AIDS and the common cold and find a cure for cancer none of which is going to happen. What will happen is that a couple of hundred people fromt he upper middle class will pull down six figure salaries administering all that money.

The Clinton hold on the Democratic Party needs to be removed and a proper re-New-ed Deal needs to be put in its place based on new progressive taxation that allows government to function as the engine of equality and progress.

No more excuses for that pusillanimous wretch, his spouse and his hedge-fund rainmaking daughter.

Garshin

Posted by: Raphael Garshin on September 27, 2007 03:32 PM

Garshin, why not do everyone a favor and put your shibboleth about Chelsea Clinton right up front in your post so everyone will know where you're coming from.

I mean, you're obviously a crank, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and listen to your rant until you tipped your hand. What relevance does Chelsea's job have to the activities of her parents? Try a little decency.

Posted by: Chief Brodie on September 27, 2007 05:25 PM

I don't think of myself as a crank. I think,as the parent of an only child, that the values of the parents are most clearly reflected in the choices made by these one-off offspring. children.

Chelsea is an adult, does occasionally turn up at her mother's campaign events and is thus open to comment. And from my perspective her post Stanford CV is worthy of comment. Of course, I'm jaundiced. Her first job was working for McKinsey, and I lost my job when the young geniuses from McKinsey turned up at my place of employment looked at my age and saary and decided I didn't fit the necessary metric to achieve better productivity. As for hedge funds: you can make an apology for them ... I can't.

I think people brought up with her level of privilege might do better than choose to enrich themselves through the "social capital" created by their father's position in life. The fact that she hasn't speaks volumes about the values her parents instilled in her.

And so we return to my wider point: noblesse oblige is not a form of progressive politics. When Bill Clinton brings together the people who JOhn Edwards appeals to with the rich, fat cats who attend the CGI and they agree on a Democratic party platform plank on a fairer tax system I will begin to respect the old lecher.

But going back to the word "crank:" Raphael Garshin is my name. Is "Chief" yours? Are you a native American? A firefighter in Manhattan?

Garshin

Posted by: Raphael Garshin on September 28, 2007 06:07 AM

Post A Comment