objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at [Al Gore's] touch. . . .
[his recent essay in Rolling Stone] illuminates his shortcomings more than his strengths and makes crystal clear that if global climate policy is going to change, then Al Gore must get out of the way. . . .
[Gore] speaks, he writes, he speaks again, and the [climate change] movement lies on the ground, crippled and inert.
A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been. This gentle treatment hurts both Gore and the greens; he does not know just how disabling, how crippling the gap between conduct and message truly is. The greens do not know that his presence as the visible head of the movement helps ensure its political failure. . . .
I am not one of those who thinks him a hypocrite; I think rather that he shares an illusion common amongst the narcissistic glitterati of our time: that politically fashionable virtue cancels private vice. . . .
If Al Gore really wants to understand why the global green movement has tanked, he should start by taking a long hard look in the mirror.
The failure of Al Gore and "why the global green movement has tanked"
Part I from Walter Russell Mead