Al Gore served as Vice President to Bill Clinton, 1993-2001. As the Democratic nominee, he was an unsuccessful contender for the Presidency at the 2000 election. He is now a "climate change campaigner" and in that capacity he was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
His famous film about climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, promoted in many schools in this country and aboad without any counter-arguments provided, was found by an impartial High Court judge to contain nine significant errors. The film is nevertheless still marketed as "factual" without reference to those substantive criticisms or to the fact that there are dissenting scientific viewpoints.
He is the subject of the usual array of hatchet jobs performed on successful US politicians and little store should be set by that. More credibly, he is attacked for hypocrisy in relation to the environment, both in terms of his portfolio and his manner of living (as Greg Barker pointed out on this site recently, a single 747 flight to Australia produces emissions equal to the production of 750,000 plastic bags - and Gore does a heck of a lot of flying). Moreover, though, he has personally profited enormously from his climate change campaigning. He has a host of demands as a speaker, in addition to his $100,000 fee per speech - I make no criticism of that; the market is willing to pay that to hear him speak, so - no matter how weird that market might be - he's paid what the market is willing to provide.
But it is in the profit from carbon trading and offsets that criticism should be offered - both for Gore effectively being a judge in his own court, profiting when people agree with his arguments and then act on them, and for his dishonesty about it. He denies that he is profiting from his "crusade" - but this is impossible really to maintain; his company, Generation Investment Management, conducts investment management on behalf of clients who are stirred by the Gore message and seek to gain public approval through their "ethical investment". Certainly, the company doesn't do so for free. Its founder and chairman (Al Gore) benefits from its income and profit. And the company gains enormously when former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner gives his stump speech on the environment, capitalising on a unique market position provided by his high profile. Its market position also promises even greater profits in the future, if carbon trading or "ethical investment offsets" are encouraged or made compulsory by states, as US critics point out (this article also provides a useful overview of GIM and Gore's investment in the climate change business).. And, as BusinessWeek reports this week, he stands to profit enormously in a forthcoming IPO - the success or even viability of which would be in doubt without his climate change-driven profile. As the climate change agenda continues to gain importance in the public eye, his profits can only grow. All the political parties in this country now subscribe to the man-made climate change position, a useful sign of the fact that Gore's position is one that is likely to improve rather than worsen with time.
What do you think of Gore?
*This is the second in an occasional series of posts on icons of the left. Related Post: Left Icon Backgrounder #1: Salvador Allende of Chile