Part of the Bay Area News Group

Al Gore to speak on climate change at Stanford

By Josh Richman
Monday, April 15th, 2013 at 3:53 pm in Al Gore, Global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore will speak on climate change and take questions from students at Stanford University next Tuesday, April 23.

Al GoreGore, 65, now chairman of the Climate Reality Project, is giving the first Stephen H. Schneider Memorial Lecture, in honor of the Stanford professor and world-renowned climate scientist who died in 2010. The program at Memorial Auditorium is open to the public and will start at 7 p.m., but I think all of the free tickets already have been snapped up. Stanford students and postdoctoral fellows need only their Stanford identification card to be admitted.

“Al Gore worked closely with Steve to sound the alarm about climate change, long before the average person understood there was a problem,” Terry Root, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, said in a news release.

The institute is sponsoring the event along with the Stanford Speakers Bureau and two student groups: Stanford in Government and Students for a Sustainable Stanford.

Gore’s address will be titled “Peril and Opportunity: Solving the Climate Crisis and Reinvigorating Democracy.”

Gore was a Tennessee congressman from 1976 through 1984, a U.S. Senator from 1985 to 1991 and vice president from 1993 to 2001. He now chairs the Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit devoted to solving the climate crisis, and is the author of “Earth in the Balance,” “An Inconvenient Truth,” “The Assault on Reason” and “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” as well as a new book titled “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change.” He is the co-recipient, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for “informing the world of the dangers posed by climate change.”

And no, he never claimed he “invented the Internet.”

Schneider at the time of his death was the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute. His most recent work centered on communicating the possible risks, vulnerabilities and impacts of climate change to ensure that leaders were sufficiently informed to apply smart risk management strategies in climate-policy decision making. He founded the interdisciplinary journal “Climatic Change” and continued to serve as its editor-in-chief until his death. He consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in every U.S. presidential administration since the Nixon era, and was an author of the first four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • RR senile columnist

    Al the Bore.

  • GV Haste

    Whenever Al speaks one can’t help but remember the 100 million dollars he got from selling his TV network to Al Jazeera which is owned by the Qatari government, an oil-producing nation.

    Mr. Environment, oh yeah.
    BTW, after selling his network for oil money, he also got another 60 million or so for simply sitting on the Apple board and getting stock.

    The man is now said to be worth more than Mitt Romney, of 1% fame.

    Love the photo though. Reminds me of this man.

    http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw4eV-oDVjhj4VJKTpJYaYFAJ6EI7KcbEYEloWt3dKfJv8h8Xk

  • Elwood

    Al looks like his hemorrhoids hurt.

  • Common Tater

    Why doesn’t he also talk about the Abominable Snowman?
    It’s just as real as Global Warming.

  • JAFO

    Just what we need, more hot air!

  • JohnW

    I wonder how anybody can possibly question that the country is better off as a result of the candidate who got the most votes in 2000 losing the election. Just imagine. We probably would have invaded Iraq, doubled the national debt to “pay for” tax cuts and ended up his term of office with the economy in a real mess. Thank goodness that didn’t happen.

  • JAFO

    It strikes me as remarkably tiresome to hear libs continue to whine about how the self-described “inventor of the Internet” and self-described model for the sappy movie “Love Story” was robbed of his apparent birthright 2000 presidential election. How inconvenient that the Electoral College vote total that year trumped the nationwide popular vote; and, that despite repeated claims by the sour grapes crowd that “Uncle Al” had more Florida votes than George W. Bush, a very expensive recount paid for by a Florida newspaper proved just the opposite. Dang! Don’t you just hate when that happens? Good gracious. Get over it.

  • JohnW

    @7

    First, saying that the candidate who got the most votes in 2000 lost the election is a straight-forward, non-embellished, non-whining statement of fact. I’ll be the first to concede that the Supreme Court was in a tough spot. Had the Court not intervened the way it did, the election would have been decided by the House. And Republicans controlled the House. Gore was doomed either way. He deserves credit for the statesmanlike way he handled the matter in his televised speech once the Court ruled. The whole thing was an ungodly mess. People will not be happy if it happens again — a distinct possibility if the GOP legislatures in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania decide to change the rules on how electoral votes get allocated.

    Few would argue with the notion that the major things that define the Bush administration are (a) war on terror; (b) Iraq invasion; (c) debt-financed tax cuts and Medicare expansion; and (d) the economy. If you believe that items b, c and d turned out well and better than if the 2000 election outcome had been different, you’re entitled to that opinion.

    As for the internet, Al Gore never said that he invented it. However, he was THE leader in Congress on information technology and the concept of an “Information Superhighway” years before others jumped on the bandwagon. Don’t take my word for it. Read the link.

    As for the “Love Story,” business, I’ll give you that one!

    the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology

  • Publius

    @8

    Subtracting the war in Iraq all of the failures of George Bush were because he followed the democratic philosophy of expanding the role of government, increasing the public debt, and spending like a drunk democrat.

    As far as financing tax cuts with debt. How much more do you want to tax people? My effective rate combined with all state and local taxes is 50%. Just for knowledge I am not a millionaire. How much more do you want? Government spending is the problem and always has been.

  • JohnW

    @9

    Reagan ran up the national debt big time too, by design, through a combination of tax cuts and Defense spending. As Dick Cheney put it, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” I agreed with Reagan’s Defense spending strategy (except for “Star Wars”). But we should have paid for it. Democrats JFK and Carter were actually fairly tight-fisted on spending.

    You ask how much more do I want to tax people? Generally speaking, I’m for a flat income tax in California and probably the Reagan federal tax rates on ordinary and investment income.

    However, by “income,” I mean gross income, with few if any exclusions, deductions and exemptions. Same for state. That means those who currently don’t itemize would pay less and those who have a boatload of deductions would pay more. I’m for people with comparable incomes paying comparable taxes. I think federal individual income tax revenue should be pegged at roughly 9-10% of GDP — about where they were under the Clinton rates — you remember, when we actually balanced the budget.

    You say your combined effective rate for federal/state/local is 50%. I’ll take your word for it, but people often over-estimate that, even when they include federal payroll taxes, state income, sales, and gas taxes, property taxes and vehicle taxes. For a person with $100k gross income, that would be $50k. For $200k gross income, it would be $100k etc. In any event, I think the federal income tax used to pay the general operations of the national government needs to be evaluated on it’s own merits and not burdened with the high income tax sins of California or the property taxes in New Jersey.