Inhofe vows to put brakes on Gore’s ‘Live Earth’ concert at the Capitol

By Elana Schor
March 28, 2007

Fresh from his face-to-face tussle with former Vice President Al Gore, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is vowing to stall Gore’s hotly anticipated Capitol concert to draw attention to global warming.

Inhofe’s belief that climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is common knowledge in the capitol, and environmental groups cheered the new prospects for carbon-capping legislation when he ceded the Environment and Public Works Committee gavel this session. But Inhofe’s parliamentary powers can block indefinitely the resolution that would permit Gore to choose the capitol’s West Front for the U.S. leg of his seven-continent Live Earth concert tour — a collaboration between Gore and promoter Kevin Wall, who masterminded previous blockbuster charity concerts Live Aid and Live 8.

“There has never been a partisan political event at the Capitol, and this is a partisan political event,” Inhofe said yesterday.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attempted late last week to pass the authorizing measure for Live Earth by unanimous consent. But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) raised an objection on the floor, seeking more time for his side to look at the resolution.

Inhofe appeared to see little room for an accommodation that could allow the concert to go forward. “There’s no compromise. Either we change the rules or we don’t.”

Inhofe added that other members share his concerns, including unnamed Democrats as well as Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), ranking member of the Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over the concert resolution.

Democrats “may not be willing to stand up to Al Gore, but many of them found it just as objectionable as Republicans do,” he said.

Bennett’s office did not return a request for comment by press time.

Inhofe’s latest challenge to Gore comes after their forceful exchange during last week’s hearing in the environment committee, when Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) stepped in to stop Inhofe from dictating terms of response to the 2000 presidential nominee. Gore declined to sign a personal energy usage pact proffered by Inhofe.

The Mall is already booked during the July 7 date slated for Live Earth, so the exigent need to secure use of the Capitol led Rules Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to support unanimous passage, Rules staff director Howard Gantman said.
“They have made it clear that they’re opposed to it,” Gantman said of the GOP. “They’re blocking passage of the bill. As far as next steps, if Republicans wanted to discuss their opposition, we would do so.”

Chad Griffin, an adviser to Live Earth, was taken aback by Inhofe’s objections to using the Capitol to promote environmental health. The West Front was used to inaugurate Earth Day in a 1990 event, for which Gore, a former senator, sponsored the authorizing resolution.

“This is a totally non-partisan event,” Griffin said, noting that Reid cosponsored the concert resolution with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).

The Capitol concert would be free of charge, incurring a $5 million cost to Live Earth. Promoters would recoup that amount if they were forced to choose another venue, Griffin said. Reid added language to the resolution ensuring that the Capitol Police would be reimbursed in advance for their estimated $1.5 million in security costs.

“It was a priority for Live Earth that the taxpayers not pay a single dime” for the show, Griffin said. “Given that, we remain optimistic.”

Snowe, a longtime supporter of carbon emissions curbs who co-chairs an international climate-change group, said yesterday that she was surprised the concert idea had become controversial among her colleagues. She expressed hope that concert organizers would not be forced to move the U.S. performance out of Washington if the Capitol proves impossible.

“That would certainly provide an unfortunate message on behalf of the U.S., that somehow we’re languishing in our desire to combat the problem,” Snowe said. “We should be a leader in this endeavor.”

Reid remains optimistic that the climate-change fight can come to the Capitol dome, spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said.

Why the **** would they ever allow a concert at the Capitol? Seems like a stupid idea.

Agreed! "Chad Griffin, an adviser to Live Earth, was taken aback by Inhofe’s objections to using the Capitol to promote environmental health. The West Front was used to inaugurate Earth Day in a 1990 event, for which Gore, a former senator, sponsored the authorizing resolution."

I would not be surprised if the right folds...

Since when was protecting the environment a partisan issue?

Common sense approaches to reduce pollution is a great thing....The Global Warming debate is another topic in itself.

hey, as long as the taxpayers aren't paying a dime, what's the problem?

I don't see how recognizing global warming as a threat makes something partisan either.

Oh, well what are some of the common sense approaches our presidency has taken to reduce pollution? Oh wait...

Your right...let's follow the great Gore...let’s use as much energy as he does...? I do not think anyone has any bragging rights.

Both of your points are questionable, to devalue the environmental movement because of two hack politicians? Either way, I can't wait to see the concert at the vatican! Perhaps in westminster abbey. Oooh the russian and german parliaments next?

you see, this is what happens when you cross corrupted politicians with music and the environment.

Questionable...I do not devalue a clean environment; Pollution is something we must deal with; both side of the aisle must come to terms with that...the extreme side of environmentalism is what is questionable.

Your comment is rather vague. Would you care to list some examples of extremist environmentalism?

Off-Topic: Speaking of environmentalism, the ethical treatment of animals should be high on everyone's list. Please click the ad in my signature and fill out their short form to show your support for stopping the seal hunt -- 300,000 voices for 300,000 seals. You don't have to pay for anything, subscribe to any emails, or anything like that. It'll take less than five minutes of your time. I would appreciate it

I don't see you out there trying to help prevent further pollution of the earth. And so what if he uses energy? You can't reach the masses of America by not using any energy at all. You could call him a hypocrite for using his own private jets and whatnot, but the point is he's out there trying to accomplish something and spread his opinion. If he makes a difference, I think the ends justify the means in his case. This is America after all, and last I knew, free speech was what this country was built on. And even if the whole "global warming" thing isn't so true as many portray it to be, there's nothing wrong at all with preventing pollution to our planet. You can't say it will NEVER affect us.

Need I say more...

Are you implying that I sound like an "extreme" environmentalist? Or are you implying that you simply do not care at all what happens to the earth because you wont have to be around when we could possibly have problems?

I am not implying anything on you KingBob; I do not know you...I am an animal lover as you appear to be. I have two dogs and two cats...every stray I find I take in and find them a home or take to a non-kill shelter.

But When I read stuff like this...

Fight Global Warming by Going Vegetarian

According to the United Nations, the meat industry “emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

Global warming has been called humankind’s “greatest challenge” and the world’s most grave environmental threat.1 The scientific community says that there is no doubt that global warming is real and that humans are largely to blame. Human activities are emitting vast amounts of “greenhouse gases” that prevent heat from escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists report that this phenomenon will increasingly lead to catastrophic natural disasters, such as more frequent and intense droughts, floods, and hurricanes; rising sea levels; and more disease outbreaks. Scientists also warn that global warming threatens the lives of millions of humans and countless other animals. Many conscientious people are trying to help reduce global warming by driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs. Although this helps, science shows that going vegetarian is perhaps the most effective way to fight global warming.

In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Senior U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld reported that the meat industry is “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.”2
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide together cause the vast majority of global warming. Raising animals for food is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide and the single largest source of both methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Carbon Dioxide: The burning of fossil fuels (such as oil and gasoline) releases carbon dioxide, the primary gas responsible for global warming. Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide—than does a calorie of plant protein.3 Feeding massive amounts of grain and water to farmed animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh is extremely energy-intensive. In addition, enormous amounts of carbon dioxide stored in trees are released during the destruction of vast acres of forest to provide pastureland and to grow crops for farmed animals. On top of this, animal manure also releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.

You could exchange your “regular” car for a hybrid Toyota Prius and, by doing so, prevent about 1 ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, but according to the University of Chicago, being vegan is more effective in the fight against global warming; a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does.4 The math is simple: You could spend more than $20,000 on a Prius and still emit 50 percent more carbon dioxide than you would if you just gave up eating meat and other animal products.

Methane: The billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows who are crammed into factory farms each year in the U.S. produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Scientists report that every pound of methane is more than 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide is at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 The Environmental Protection Agency shows that animal agriculture is the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S.6
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.7

You Can Help Stop Global Warming!

The most powerful step that we can take as individuals to avert global warming is to stop eating meat, eggs, and dairy products.

So with this not only should we stop producing animals...let's get the hunters some ammo, right?

Prius = Dust to Dust maybe worse for the planet then a Hummer >>>>> Source

While your "dust to dust" example may be true, the point is, at least an effort is being made and there can be no harm in that. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and maybe they do use more energy per mile as of now, but the efforts made to get this far as it is will likely improve this with time. We can only hope that the ends will justify the means, that's what change is all about. It might be a small risk, but many times it is for the better.

I don’t quite see the extremist environmentalism in kingbob’s post. Gore may need to take planes to get his message out. So what? You can argue about the pollution caused by a single plane in comparison to all of the reductions that take place because of Gore’s influence on people – not to mention those people who spread the idea to their friends, the children who learn about conserving electricity and stuff when they are young so an entirely new generation of polluters like ourselves won’t sprout up, people who write in to their mayors and representatives, and so on. It can certainly be said that Gore is helping more than hurting.

I also don’t quite see how becoming a vegetarian for environmental reasons constitutes extremism. Vegetarianism is essentially a way to get your energy more directly instead of it going through a long cycle and wasting a lot of the energy. It really isn’t much different from what software programmers do. You find a function in your code that is needlessly consuming CPU cycles and RAM storage space – energy consumption – and reduce it to improve the efficiency of the program. Vegetarianism is also an ethical way of attaining food. I’ve been contemplating the switch myself.

As for the “Hummer is Greener than Prius” stuff, that has been disproven for a while already. It’s not your fault for not noticing though. The media really didn’t report on the rebuttals that have been put forward. I think this article, and many of the comments made to it, gives plenty of good reasons the Hummer study was flawed: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/115426/732

That is my point MegamanXplosion; let's slow down and sort fact from fiction....We have all kinds of stories coming out...each side seems to have the truth. From what I can tell the almighty GREEN dollar is the only thing being protected on both sides. We have folks preaching at us to live a better way; while they do want they want... Do not eat meat to save the planet....next hunters will say "Let’s Kill Animals for the Planet" Let’s get the facts and then act accordingly

It's not solely aimed at Americans. Does he know that?

I am not sure Joel; I do know that Global Warming is being used to stop third world countries from using fossil fuels...Americans are not yet giving their lives. The biggest proponents will not even curtail their use...they use their wealth to buy carbon credits............phonies. I wonder how much green they make pushing this....

Holy conspiracy theory, Batman!

The hunters may claim that we should kill animals for the planet. It wouldn’t surprise me. After all, how different of an argument would that be in comparison to their arguments in favor of hunting seasons? I think their arguments would fail though – rhetoric like that of the Hummer article.

Thread Moved