介绍:
*Why you should listen
Unlike some in public office, Al Gore always intended to get something done, and since leaving Washington, DC -- following the tumultuous 2000 election -- he&`&s still at it. In fact, his campaign for alerting the world to the dangers of climate change has only gained momentum. His Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth is the third most successful documentary ever released at the box office. Gore&`&s famed PowerPoint presentation has drawn in a reluctant public, with its meticulously researched content and lucid style.
Meanwhile, Gore himself has found his footing as a communicator. The once "wooden" style has given way to a warmth and humor that reveal the depth of his experience as a soldier, congressman, senator, veep, TV executive, teacher and author. Arguably, Gore is better positioned today than he has ever been to affect the future of our environment and world.
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."
*Transcript:
I have given the slide show that I gave here two years ago about 2,000 times. I&`&m giving a short slide show this morning that I&`&m giving for the very first time, so -- well it&`&s -- I don&`&t want or need to raise the bar, I&`&m actually trying to lower the bar. Because I&`&ve cobbled this together to try to meet the challenge of this session.
And I was reminded by Karen Armstrong&`&s fantastic presentation that religion really properly understood is not about belief, but about behavior. Perhaps we should say the same thing about optimism. How dare we be optimistic? Optimism is sometimes characterized as a belief, an intellectual posture. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "You must become the change you wish to see in the world." And the outcome about which we wish to be optimistic is not going to be created by the belief alone, except to the extent that the belief brings about new behavior. But the word "behavior" is also, I think, sometimes misunderstood in this context. I&`&m a big advocate of changing the lightbulbs and buying hybrids, and Tipper and I put 33 solar panels on our house, and dug the geothermal wells, and did all of that other stuff. But, as important as it is to change the lightbulbs, it is more important to change the laws. And when we change our behavior in our daily lives, we sometimes leave out the citizenship part and the democracy part. In order to be optimistic about this, we have to become incredibly active as citizens in our democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis. And we have one.
I have been trying to tell this story for a long time. I was reminded of that recently, by a woman who walked past the table I was sitting at, just staring at me as she walked past. She was in her 70s, looked like she had a kind face. I thought nothing of it until I saw from the corner of my eye she was walking from the opposite direction, also just staring at me. And so I said, "How do you do?" And she said, "You know, if you dyed your hair black, you would look just like Al Gore." (Laughter)
Many years ago, when I was a young congressman, I spent an awful lot of time dealing with the challenge of nuclear arms control -- the nuclear arms race. And the military historians taught me, during that quest, that military conflicts are typically put into three categories: local battles, regional or theater wars, and the rare but all-important global, world war -- strategic conflicts. And each level of conflict requires a different allocation of resources, a different approach, a different organizational model. Environmental challenges fall into the same three categories, and most of what we think about are local environmental problems: air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste dumps. But there are also regional environmental problems, like acid rain from the Midwest to the Northeast, and from Western Europe to the Arctic, and from the Midwest out the Mississippi into the dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico. And there are lots of those. But the climate crisis is the rare but all-important global, or strategic, conflict. Everything is affected. And we have to organize our response appropriately. We need a worldwide, global mobilization for renewable energy, conservation, efficiency and a global transition to a low-carbon economy. We have work to do. And we can mobilize resources and political will. But the political will has to be mobilized, in order to mobilize the resources.Let me show you these slides here. I thought I would start with the logo. What&`&s missing here, of course, is the North Polar ice cap. Greenland remains. Twenty-eight years ago, this is what the polar ice cap -- the North Polar ice cap -- looked like at the end of the summer, at the fall equinox. This last fall, I went to the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, and talked to the researchers here in Monterey at the Naval Postgraduate Laboratory. This is what&`&s happened in the last 28 years. To put it in perspective, 2005 was the previous record. Here&`&s what happened last fall that has really unnerved the researchers. The North Polar ice cap is the same size geographically -- doesn&`&t look quite the same size -- but it is exactly the same size as the United States, minus an area roughly equal to the state of Arizona. The amount that disappeared in 2005 was equivalent to everything east of the Mississippi. The extra amount that disappeared last fall was equivalent to this much. It comes back in the winter, but not as permanent ice, as thin ice -- vulnerable. The amount remaining could be completely gone in summer in as little as five years. That puts a lot of pressure on Greenland. Already, around the Arctic Circle -- this is a famous village in Alaska. This is a town in Newfoundland. Antarctica. Latest studies from NASA. The amount of a moderate-to-severe snow melting of an area equivalent to the size of California.
"They were the best of times, they were the worst of times": the most famous opening sentence in English literature. I want to share briefly a tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are exactly the same size. Earth&`&s diameter is about 400 kilometers larger, but essentially the same size. They have exactly the same amount of carbon. But the difference is, on Earth, most of the carbon has been leeched over time out of the atmosphere, deposited in the ground as coal, oil, natural gas, etc. On Venus, most of it is in the atmosphere. The difference is that our temperature is 59 degrees on average. On Venus, it&`&s 855. This is relevant to our current strategy of taking as much carbon out of the ground as quickly as possible, and putting it into the atmosphere. It&`&s not because Venus is slightly closer to the Sun. It&`&s three times hotter than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. Now, briefly, here&`&s an image you&`&ve seen, as one of the only old images, but I show it because I want to briefly give you CSI: Climate.The global scientific community says: man-made global warming pollution, put into the atmosphere, thickening this, is trapping more of the outgoing infrared. You all know that. At the last IPCC summary, the scientists wanted to say, "How certain are you?" They wanted to answer that "99 percent." The Chinese objected, and so the compromise was "more than 90 percent." Now, the skeptics say, "Oh, wait a minute, this could be variations in this energy coming in from the sun." If that were true, the stratosphere would be heated as well as the lower atmosphere, if it&`&s more coming in. If it&`&s more being trapped on the way out, then you would expect it to be warmer here and cooler here. Here is the lower atmosphere. Here&`&s the stratosphere: cooler. CSI: Climate.
Now, here&`&s the good news. Sixty-eight percent of Americans now believe that human activity is responsible for global warming. Sixty-nine percent believe that the Earth is heating up in a significant way. There has been progress, but here is the key: when given a list of challenges to confront, global warming is still listed at near the bottom. What is missing is a sense of urgency. If you agree with the factual analysis, but you don&`&t feel the sense of urgency, where does that leave you? Well, the Alliance for Climate Protection, which I head in conjunction with Current TV -- who did this pro bono -- did a worldwide contest to do commercials on how to communicate this. This is the winner.
NBC -- I&`&ll show all of the networks here -- the top journalists for NBC asked 956 questions in 2007 of the presidential candidates: two of them were about the climate crisis. ABC: 844 questions, two about the climate crisis. Fox: two. CNN: two. CBS: zero. From laughs to tears -- this is one of the older tobacco commercials. So here&`&s what we&`&re doing. This is gasoline consumption in all of these countries. And us. But it&`&s not just the developed nations. The developing countries are now following us and accelerating their pace. And actually, their cumulative emissions this year are the equivalent to where we were in 1965. And they&`&re catching up very dramatically. The total concentrations: by 2025, they will be essentially where we were in 1985. If the wealthy countries were completely missing from the picture, we would still have this crisis. But we have given to the developing countries the technologies and the ways of thinking that are creating the crisis. This is in Bolivia -- over thirty years.
This is peak fishing in a few seconds. The &`&60s. &`&70s. &`&80s. &`&90s. We have to stop this. And the good news is that we can. We have the technologies. We have to have a unified view of how to go about this: the struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions, all has a single, very simple solution.People say, "What&`&s the solution?" Here it is. Put a price on carbon. We need a CO2 tax, revenue neutral, to replace taxation on employment, which was invented by Bismarck -- and some things have changed since the 19th century. In the poor world, we have to integrate the responses to poverty with the solutions to the climate crisis. Plans to fight poverty in Uganda are mooted, if we do not solve the climate crisis.
But responses can actually make a huge difference in the poor countries. This is a proposal that has been talked about a lot in Europe. This was from Nature magazine. These are concentrating solar, renewable energy plants, linked in a so-called "supergrid" to supply all of the electrical power to Europe, largely from developing countries -- high-voltage DC currents. This is not pie in the sky; this can be done.
We need to do it for our own economy. The latest figures show that the old model is not working. There are a lot of great investments that you can make. If you are investing in tar sands or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these, so I&`&ll have a disclaimer there. But geothermal, concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency and conservation.
More transcript please refer to:http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis/transcript?language=en
