The new urgency of climate change

The coronavirus brought much of the world to a standstill, dropping carbon emissions by five percent. Al Gore says keeping those rates down is now up to us. In this illuminating interview, he discusses how the steadily declining cost of wind and solar energy will transform manufacturing, transportation and agriculture, offer a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear energy and create millions of new jobs. Stay tuned for a lively debate about geoengineering and hear Gore's thoughts about how humanity can create a clean, prosperous future through a focused global effort and a generation of young people committed to change. (This virtual conversation, hosted by head of TED Chris Anderson, was recorded June 23, 2020.)

Chris Anderson: Al, welcome.

So look, just six months ago --

it seems a lifetime ago,
but it really was just six months ago --

climate seemed to be on the lips
of every thinking person on the planet.

Recent events seem to have swept it
all away from our attention.

How worried are you about that?

Al Gore: Well, first of all Chris,
thank you so much for inviting me

to have this conversation.

People are reacting differently

to the climate crisis

in the midst of these
other great challenges

that have taken over our awareness,

appropriately.

One reason is something
that you mentioned.

People get the fact
that when scientists are warning us

in ever more dire terms

and setting their hair
on fire, so to speak,

it's best to listen
to what they're saying,

and I think that lesson
has begun to sink in in a new way.

Another similarity, by the way,

is that the climate crisis,
like the COVID-19 pandemic,

has revealed in a new way

the shocking injustices
and inequalities and disparities

that affect communities of color

and low-income communities.

There are differences.

The climate crisis has effects
that are not measured in years,

as the pandemic is,

but consequences that are measured
in centuries and even longer.

And the other difference is that
instead of depressing economic activity

to deal with the climate crisis,

as nations around the world
have had to do with COVID-19,

we have the opportunity to create
tens of millions of new jobs.

That sounds like a political phrasing,

but it's literally true.

For the last five years,

the fastest-growing job in the US
has been solar installer.

The second-fastest has been
wind turbine technician.

And the "Oxford Review of Economics,"
just a few weeks ago,

pointed the way to
a very jobs-rich recovery

if we emphasize renewable energy
and sustainability technology.

So I think we are crossing
a tipping point,

and you need only look
at the recovery plans

that are being presented
in nations around the world

to see that they're very much
focused on a green recovery.

CA: I mean, one obvious impact
of the pandemic

is that it's brought the world's economy
to a shuddering halt,

thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I mean, how big an effect has that been,

and is it unambiguously good news?

AG: Well, it's a little bit
of an illusion, Chris,

and you need only look back
to the Great Recession in 2008 and '09,

when there was a one percent
decline in emissions,

but then in 2010,

they came roaring back during the recovery

with a four percent increase.

The latest estimates are that emissions
will go down by at least five percent

during this induced coma,

as the economist Paul Krugman
perceptively described it,

but whether it goes back the way it did
after the Great Recession

is in part up to us,

and if these green recovery plans
are actually implemented,

and I know many countries
are determined to implement them,

then we need not repeat that pattern.

After all, this whole process is occurring

during a period when
the cost of renewable energy

and electric vehicles, batteries

and a range of other
sustainability approaches

are continuing to fall in price,

and they're becoming
much more competitive.

Just a quick reference
to how fast this is:

five years ago, electricity
from solar and wind

was cheaper than electricity
from fossil fuels

in only one percent of the world.

This year, it's cheaper
in two-thirds of the world,

and five years from now,

it will be cheaper in virtually
100 percent of the world.

EVs will be cost-competitive
within two years,

and then will continue falling in price.

And so there are changes underway

that could interrupt the pattern
we saw after the Great Recession.

CA: The reason those pricing differentials
happen in different parts of the world

is obviously because there's different
amounts of sunshine and wind there

and different building costs and so forth.

AG: Well, yes, and government policies
also account for a lot.

The world is continuing
to subsidize fossil fuels

at a ridiculous amount,

more so in many developing countries
than in the US and developed countries,

but it's subsidized here as well.

But everywhere in the world,

wind and solar will be cheaper
as a source of electricity

than fossil fuels,

within a few years.

CA: I think I've heard it said
that the fall in emissions

caused by the pandemic

isn't that much more than, actually,
the fall that we will need

every single year

if we're to meet emissions targets.

Is that true, and, if so,

doesn't that seem impossibly daunting?

AG: It does seem daunting,
but first look at the number.

That number came from a study
a little over a year ago

released by the IPCC

as to what it would take to keep
the Earth's temperatures from increasing

more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

And yes, the annual reductions
would be significant,

on the order of what we've seen
with the pandemic.

And yes, that does seem daunting.

However, we do have the opportunity
to make some fairly dramatic changes,

and the plan is not a mystery.

You start with the two sectors that are
closest to an effective transition --

electricity generation, as I mentioned --

and last year, 2019,

if you look at all of the new
electricity generation built

all around the world,

72 percent of it was from solar and wind.

And already, without the continuing
subsidies for fossil fuels,

we would see many more of these plants

being shut down.

There are some new
fossil plants being built,

but many more are being shut down.

And where transportation is concerned,

the second sector ready to go,

in addition to the cheaper prices
for EVs that I made reference to before,

there are some 45 jurisdictions
around the world --

national, regional and municipal --

where laws have been passed
beginning a phaseout

of internal combustion engines.

Even India said that by 2030,
less than 10 years from now,

it will be illegal to sell
any new internal combustion engines

in India.

There are many other examples.

So the past small reductions

may not be an accurate guide
to the kind we can achieve

with serious national plans

and a focused global effort.

CA: So help us understand
just the big picture here, Al.

I think before the pandemic,

the world was emitting

about 55 gigatons of what
they call "CO2 equivalent,"

so that includes other greenhouse gases

like methane dialed up
to be the equivalent of CO2.

And am I right in saying that the IPCC,

which is the global
organization of scientists,

is recommending that
the only way to fix this crisis

is to get that number from 55 to zero

by 2050 at the very latest,

and that even then, there's a chance
that we will end up with temperature rises

more like two degrees Celsius
rather than 1.5?

I mean, is that approximately
the big picture

of what the IPCC is recommending?

AG: That's correct.

The global goal established
in the Paris Conference

is to get to net zero on a global basis

by 2050,

and many people quickly add

that that really means a 45
to 50 percent reduction by 2030

to make that pathway
to net zero feasible.

CA: And that kind of timeline
is the kind of timeline

where people couldn't even imagine it.

It's just hard to think
of policy over 30 years.

So that's actually a very good shorthand,

that humanity's task is to cut
emissions in half by 2030,

approximately speaking,

which I think boils down to about
a seven or eight percent reduction a year,

something like that, if I'm not wrong.

AG: Not quite. Not quite that large

but close, yes.

CA: So it is something like the effect
that we've experienced this year

may be necessary.

This year, we've done it
by basically shutting down the economy.

You're talking about a way of doing it
over the coming years

that actually gives some
economic growth and new jobs.

So talk more about that.

You've referred to
changing our energy sources,

changing how we transport.

If we did those things,

how much of the problem does that solve?

AG: Well, we can get to --

well, in addition to doing
the two sectors that I mentioned,

we also have to deal with manufacturing
and all the use cases

that require temperatures
of a thousand degrees Celsius,

and there are solutions there as well.

I'll come back and mention an exciting one
that Germany has just embarked upon.

We also have to tackle
regenerative agriculture.

There is the opportunity
to sequester a great deal of carbon

in topsoils around the world

by changing the agricultural techniques.

There is a farmer-led movement to do that.

We need to also retrofit buildings.

We need to change our management
of forests and the ocean.

But let me just mention
two things briefly.

First of all, the high
temperature use cases.

Angela Merkel, just 10 days ago,

with the leadership of
her minister Peter Altmaier,

who is a good friend
and a great public servant,

have just embarked on
a green hydrogen strategy

to make hydrogen

with zero marginal cost renewable energy.

And just a word on that, Chris:

you've heard about the intermittency
of wind and solar --

solar doesn't produce electricity
when the sun's not shining,

and wind doesn't
when the wind's not blowing --

but batteries are getting better,

and these technologies are becoming
much more efficient and powerful,

so that for an increasing number
of hours of each day,

they're producing often way more
electricity than can be used.

So what to do with it?

The marginal cost
for the next kilowatt-hour is zero.

So all of a sudden,

the very energy-intensive process
of cracking hydrogen from water

becomes economically feasible,

and it can be substituted
for coal and gas,

and that's already being done.

There's a Swedish company
already making steel with green hydrogen,

and, as I say, Germany has just embarked
on a major new initiative to do that.

I think they're pointing the way
for the rest of the world.

Now, where building retrofits
are concerned, just a moment on this,

because about 20 to 25 percent
of the global warming pollution

in the world and in the US

comes from inefficient buildings

that were constructed
by companies and individuals

who were trying to be competitive
in the marketplace

and keep their margins acceptably high

and thereby skimping on insulation
and the right windows

and LEDs and the rest.

And yet the person or company
that buys that building

or leases that building,

they want their monthly
utility bills much lower.

So there are now ways

to close that so-called
agent-principal divide,

the differing incentives
for the builder and occupier,

and we can retrofit buildings with
a program that literally pays for itself

over three to five years,

and we could put tens of millions
of people to work

in jobs that by definition
cannot be outsourced

because they exist
in every single community.

And we really ought to get serious
about doing this,

because we're going to need all those jobs

to get sustainable prosperity
in the aftermath of this pandemic.

CA: Just going back
to the hydrogen economy

that you referred to there,

when some people hear that,

they think, "Oh, are you talking
about hydrogen-fueled cars?"

And they've heard that that
probably won't be a winning strategy.

But you're thinking much more
broadly than that, I think,

that it's not just hydrogen
as a kind of storage mechanism

to act as a buffer for renewable energy,

but also hydrogen could be essential

for some of the other processes
in the economy like making steel,

making cement,

that are fundamentally
carbon-intensive processes right now

but could be transformed if we had
much cheaper sources of hydrogen.

Is that right?

AG: Yes, I was always skeptical
about hydrogen, Chris,

principally because it's been
so expensive to make it,

to "crack it out of water," as they say.

But the game-changer has been

the incredible abundance
of solar and wind electricity

in volumes and amounts
that people didn't expect,

and all of a sudden,
it's cheap enough to use

for these very energy-intensive processes

like creating green hydrogen.

I'm still a bit skeptical
about using it in vehicles.

Toyota's been betting on that for 25 years
and it hasn't really worked for them.

Never say never, maybe it will,

but I think it's most useful for these
high-temperature industrial processes,

and we already have a pathway
for decarbonizing transportation

with electricity

that's working extremely well.

Tesla's going to be soon the most valuable
automobile company in the world,

already in the US,

and they're about to overtake Toyota.

There is now a semitruck company
that's been stood up by Tesla

and another that is going to be a hybrid
with electricity and green hydrogen,

so we'll see whether or not
they can make it work in that application.

But I think electricity is preferable
for cars and trucks.

CA: We're coming to some
community questions in a minute.

Let me ask you, though, about nuclear.

Some environmentalists
believe that nuclear,

or maybe new generation nuclear power

is an essential part of the equation

if we're to get to a truly clean future,

a clean energy future.

Are you still pretty skeptical
on nuclear, Al?

AG: Well, the market's skeptical
about it, Chris.

It's been a crushing disappointment
for me and for so many.

I used to represent Oak Ridge,
where nuclear energy began,

and when I was a young congressman,

I was a booster.

I was very enthusiastic about it.

But the cost overruns

and the problems in building these plants

have become so severe

that utilities just don't have
an appetite for them.

It's become the most expensive
source of electricity.

Now, let me hasten to add
that there are some older nuclear reactors

that have more useful time
that could be added onto their lifetimes.

And like a lot of environmentalists,

I've come to the view
that if they can be determined to be safe,

they should be allowed to continue
operating for a time.

But where new nuclear
power plants are concerned,

here's a way to look at it.

If you are -- you've been a CEO, Chris.

If you were the CEO of --
I guess you still are.

If you were the CEO
of an electric utility,

and you told your executive team,

"I want to build a nuclear power plant,"

two of the first questions
you would ask are, number one:

How much will it cost?

And there's not a single
engineering consulting firm

that I've been able to find
anywhere in the world

that will put their name on an opinion

giving you a cost estimate.

They just don't know.

A second question you would ask is:

How long will it take to build it,
so we can start selling the electricity?

And again, the answer you will get is,

"We have no idea."

So if you don't know
how much it's going to cost,

and you don't know
when it's going to be finished,

and you already know that
the electricity is more expensive

than the alternate ways to produce it,

that's going to be a little discouraging,

and, in fact, that's been the case
for utilities around the world.

CA: OK.

So there's definitely
an interesting debate there,

but we're going to come on
to some community questions.

Let's have the first
of those questions up, please.

From Prosanta Chakrabarty:

"People who are skeptical
of COVID and of climate change

seem to be skeptical
of science in general.

It may be that the singular
message from scientists

gets diluted and convoluted.

How do we fix that?"

AG: Yeah, that's
a great question, Prosanta.

Boy, I'm trying to put this
succinctly and shortly.

I think that there has been

a feeling that experts in general

have kind of let the US down,

and that feeling is much more pronounced
in the US than in most other countries.

And I think that the considered opinion
of what we call experts

has been diluted over the last few decades

by the unhealthy dominance
of big money in our political system,

which has found ways
to really twist economic policy

to benefit elites.

And this sounds a little radical,

but it's actually what has happened.

And we have gone for more than 40 years

without any meaningful increase
in middle-income pay,

and where the injustice experienced
by African Americans

and other communities
of color are concerned,

the differential in pay between
African Americans and majority Americans

is the same as it was in 1968,

and the family wealth,

the net worth --

it takes 11 and a half so-called
"typical" African American families

to make up the net worth of one
so-called "typical" White American family.

And you look at the soaring incomes

in the top one
or the top one-tenth of one percent,

and people say, "Wait a minute.

Whoever the experts were
that designed these policies,

they haven't been doing
a good job for me."

A final point, Chris:

there has been an assault on reason.

There has been a war against truth.

There has been a strategy,

maybe it was best known as a strategy
decades ago by the tobacco companies

who hired actors and dressed them up
as doctors to falsely reassure people

that there were no health consequences
from smoking cigarettes,

and a hundred million people
died as a result.

That same strategy of diminishing
the significance of truth,

diminishing, as someone said,
the authority of knowledge,

I think that has made it
kind of open season

on any inconvenient truth --
forgive another buzz phrase,

but it is apt.

We cannot abandon our devotion
to the best available evidence

tested in reasoned discourse

and used as the basis

for the best policies we can form.

CA: Is it possible, Al,
that one consequence of the pandemic

is actually a growing number of people

have revisited their opinions
on scientists?

I mean, you've had a chance
in the last few months to say,

"Do I trust my political leader
or do I trust this scientist

in terms of what they're saying

about this virus?"

Maybe lessons from that
could be carried forward?

AG: Well, you know, I think
if the polling is accurate,

people do trust their doctors
a lot more than some of the politicians

who seem to have a vested interest
in pretending the pandemic isn't real.

And if you look at the incredible bust

at President Trump's rally in Tulsa,

a stadium of 19,000 people
with less than one-third filled,

according to the fire marshal,

you saw all the empty seats
if you saw the news clips,

so even the most loyal Trump supporters

must have decided to trust their doctors
and the medical advice

rather than Dr. Donald Trump.

CA: With a little help from
the TikTok generation, perchance.

AG: Well, but that didn't
affect the turnout.

What they did, very cleverly,
and I'm cheering them on,

what they did was affect
the Trump White House's expectations.

They're the reason why he went out
a couple days beforehand

and said, "We've had
a million people sign up."

But they didn't prevent --

they didn't take seats that others
could have otherwise taken.

They didn't affect the turnout,
just the expectations.

CA: OK, let's have our next question here.

"Are you concerned the world will rush
back to the use of the private car

out of fear of using
shared public transportation?"

AG: Well, that could actually be
one of the consequences, absolutely.

Now, the trends on mass transit

were already inching
in the wrong direction

because of Uber and Lyft
and the ridesharing services,

and if autonomy ever reaches the goals
that its advocates have hoped for

then that may also have a similar effect.

But there's no doubt that some people

are going to be probably
a little more reluctant

to take mass transportation

until the fear of this pandemic
is well and truly gone.

CA: Yeah. Might need
a vaccine on that one.

AG: (Laughs) Yeah.

CA: Next question.

Sonaar Luthra, thank you
for this question from LA.

"Given the temperature rise
in the Arctic this past week,

seems like the rate
we are losing our carbon sinks

like permafrost or forests

is accelerating faster than we predicted.

Are our models too focused
on human emissions?"

Interesting question.

AG: Well, the models are focused
on the factors that have led

to these incredible temperature spikes

in the north of the Arctic Circle.

They were predicted,
they have been predicted,

and one of the reasons for it

is that as the snow and ice cover melts,

the sun's incoming rays are no longer
reflected back into space

at a 90 percent rate,

and instead, when they fall on
the dark tundra or the dark ocean,

they're absorbed at a 90 percent rate.

So that's a magnifier
of the warming in the Arctic,

and this has been predicted.

There are a number of other consequences
that are also in the models,

but some of them
may have to be recalibrated.

The scientists are freshly concerned

that the emissions of both CO2 and methane

from the thawing tundra

could be larger than they
had hoped they would be.

There's also just been a brand-new study.

I won't spend time on this,

because it deals with a kind of geeky term
called "climate sensitivity,"

which has been a factor in the models
with large error bars

because it's so hard to pin down.

But the latest evidence
indicates, worryingly,

that the sensitivity may be
greater than they had thought,

and we will have
an even more daunting task.

That shouldn't discourage us.

I truly believe that once
we cross this tipping point,

and I do believe we're doing it now,

as I've said,

then I think we're going
to find a lot of ways

to speed up the emissions reductions.

CA: We'll take one more question
from the community.

Haha. "Geoengineering
is making extraordinary progress.

Exxon is investing in technology
from Global Thermostat

that seems promising.

What do you think of these air and water
carbon capture technologies?"

Stephen Petranek.

AG: Yeah. Well, you and I have
talked about this before, Chris.

I've been strongly opposed

to conducting an unplanned
global experiment

that could go wildly wrong,

and most are really
scared of that approach.

However, the term "geoengineering"
is a nuanced term that covers a lot.

If you want to paint roofs white
to reflect more energy

from the cityscapes,

that's not going to bring a danger
of a runaway effect,

and there are some other things

that are loosely called "geoengineering"
like that, which are fine.

But the idea of blocking out
the sun's rays --

that's insane in my opinion.

Turns out plants need sunlight
for photosynthesis

and solar panels need sunlight

for producing electricity
from the sun's rays.

And the consequences of changing
everything we know

and pretending that the consequences
are going to precisely cancel out

the unplanned experiment of global warming
that we already have underway,

you know, there are
glitches in our thinking.

One of them is called
the "single solution bias,"

and there are people
who just have a hunger to say,

"Well, that one solution, we just need
to latch on to that and do that,

and damn the consequences."

Well, it's nuts.

CA: But let me push back on this
just a little bit.

So let's say that we agree
that a single solution,

all-or-nothing attempt
at geoengineering is crazy.

But there are scenarios where the world
looks at emissions and just sees,

in 10 years' time, let's say,

that they are just not
coming down fast enough

and that we are at risk
of several other liftoff events

where this train will just
get away from us,

and we will see temperature rises
of three, four, five, six, seven degrees,

and all of civilization is at risk.

Surely, there is an approach
to geoengineering

that could be modeled, in a way,
on the way that we approach medicine.

Like, for hundreds of years,
we don't really understand the human body,

people would try interventions,

and some of them would work,
and some of them wouldn't.

No one says in medicine, "You know,

go in and take an all-or-nothing decision

on someone's life,"

but they do say, "Let's try some stuff."

If an experiment can be reversible,

if it's plausible in the first place,

if there's reason to think
that it might work,

we actually owe it to
the future health of humanity

to try at least some types of tests
to see what could work.

So, small tests to see
whether, for example,

seeding of something in the ocean

might create, in a nonthreatening way,

carbon sinks.

Or maybe, rather than filling
the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide,

a smaller experiment
that was not that big a deal

to see whether, cost-effectively, you
could reduce the temperature a little bit.

Surely, that isn't completely crazy

and is at least something
we should be thinking about

in case these other measures don't work?

AG: Well, there've already been
such experiments

to seed the ocean

to see if that can increase
the uptake of CO2.

And the experiments
were an unmitigated failure,

as many predicted they would be.

But that, again, is the kind of approach

that's very different

from putting tinfoil strips
in the atmosphere orbiting the Earth.

That was the way that solar
geoengineering proposal started.

Now they're focusing on chalk,

so we have chalk dust all over everything.

But more serious than that is the fact
that it might not be reversible.

CA: But, Al, that's the rhetoric response.

The amount of dust that you need

to drop by a degree or two

wouldn't result in chalk dust
over everything.

It would be unbelievably --

like, it would be less than the dust
that people experience every day, anyway.

I mean, I just --

AG: First of all, I don't know
how you do a small experiment

in the atmosphere.

And secondly,

if we were to take that approach,

we would have to steadily
increase the amount

of whatever substance they decided.

We'd have to increase
it every single year,

and if we ever stopped,

then there would be a sudden snapback,

like "The Picture of Dorian Gray,"
that old book and movie,

where suddenly all of the things
caught up with you at once.

The fact that anyone is even
considering these approaches, Chris,

is a measure of a feeling of desperation

that some have begun to feel,

which I understand,

but I don't think it should drive us
toward these reckless experiments.

And by the way, using your analogy
to experimental cancer treatments,

for example,

you usually get informed consent
from the patient.

Getting informed consent
from 7.8 billion people

who have no voice and no say,

who are subject to the potentially
catastrophic consequences

of this wackadoodle proposal
that somebody comes up with

to try to rearrange
the entire Earth's atmosphere

and hope and pretend
that it's going to cancel out,

the fact that we're putting
152 million tons

of heat-trapping, manmade
global warming pollution

into the sky every day.

That's what's really insane.

A scientist decades ago

compared it this way.

He said, if you had two people
on a sinking boat

and one of them says,

"You know, we could probably use
some mirrors to signal to shore

to get them to build

a sophisticated wave-generating machine

that will cancel out
the rocking of the boat

by these guys in the back of the boat."

Or you could get them
to stop rocking the boat.

And that's what we need to do.
We need to stop what's causing the crisis.

CA: Yeah, that's a great story,

but if the effort to stop the people
rocking in the back of the boat

is as complex as the scientific
proposal you just outlined,

whereas the experiment to stop the waves

is actually as simple as telling
the people to stop rocking the boat,

that story changes.

And I think you're right that
the issue of informed consent

is a really challenging one,

but, I mean, no one gave informed consent

to do all of the other things
we're doing to the atmosphere.

And I agree that the moral hazard issue

is worrying,

that if we became dependent
on geoengineering

and took away our efforts to do the rest,

that would be tragic.

It just seems like,

I wish it was possible
to have a nuanced debate

of people saying, you know what,

there's multiple dials
to a very complex problem.

We're going to have to adjust
several of them very, very carefully

and keep talking to each other.

Wouldn't that be a goal

to just try and have
a more nuanced debate about this,

rather than all of that geoengineering

can't work?

AG: Well, I've said some of it,

you know, the benign forms
that I've mentioned,

I'm not ruling those out.

But blocking the Sun's rays
from the Earth,

not only do you affect 7.8 billion people,

you affect the plants

and the animals

and the ocean currents

and the wind currents

and natural processes

that we're in danger
of disrupting even more.

Techno-optimism is something
I've engaged in in the past,

but to latch on to some
brand-new technological solution

to rework the entire Earth's
natural system

because somebody thinks he's clever enough

to do it in a way
that precisely cancels out

the consequences of using
the atmosphere as an open sewer

for heat-trapping manmade gases.

It's much more important to stop using
the atmosphere as an open sewer.

That's what the problem is.

CA: All right, well, we'll agree that that
is the most important thing, for sure,

and speaking of which,

do you believe the world
needs carbon pricing,

and is there any prospect
for getting there?

AG: Yes. Yes to both questions.

For decades, almost every economist

who is asked about the climate crisis

says, "Well, we just need
to put a price on carbon."

And I have certainly been
in favor of that approach.

But it is daunting.

Nevertheless, there are
43 jurisdictions around the world

that already have a price on carbon.

We're seeing it in Europe.

They finally straightened out
their carbon pricing mechanism.

It's an emissions trading version of it.

We have places that have put
a tax on carbon.

That's the approach the economists prefer.

China is beginning to implement
its national emissions trading program.

California and quite a few other states
in the US are already doing it.

It can be given back to people
in a revenue-neutral way.

But the opposition to it, Chris,
which you've noted,

is impressive enough
that we do have to take other approaches,

and I would say most climate activists
are now saying, look,

let's don't make the best
the enemy of the better.

There are other ways to do this as well.

We need every solution
we can rationally employ,

including by regulation.

And often, when the political difficulty
of a proposal becomes too difficult

in a market-oriented approach,

the fallback is with regulation,

and it's been given
a bad name, regulation,

but many places are doing it.

I mentioned phasing out
internal combustion engines.

That's an example.

There are 160 cities in the US

that have already by regulation ordered
that within a date certain,

100 percent of all their electricity
will have to come from renewable sources.

And again, the market forces that
are driving the cost of renewable energy

and sustainability solutions
ever downward,

that gives us the wind at our back.

This is working in our favor.

CA: I mean, the pushback on carbon pricing

often goes further from parts
of the environmental movement,

which is to a pushback
on the role of business in general.

Business is actually -- well,
capitalism -- is blamed

for the climate crisis

because of unrelenting growth,

to the point where many people
don't trust business

to be part of the solution.

The only way to go forward
is to regulate,

to force businesses to do the right thing.

Do you think that business
has to be part of the solution?

AG: Well, definitely,

because the allocation of capital
needed to solve this crisis

is greater than what
governments can handle.

And businesses are beginning,

many businesses are beginning
to play a very constructive role.

They're getting a demand that they do so

from their customers,
from their investors,

from their boards,

from their executive teams,
from their families.

And by the way,

the rising generation is demanding
a brighter future,

and when CEOs interview
potential new hires,

they find that the new hires
are interviewing them.

They want to make a nice income,

but they want to be able to tell
their family and friends and peers

that they're doing something
more than just making money.

One illustration of how
this new generation is changing, Chris:

there are 65 colleges in the US right now

where the College Young Republican Clubs
have joined together

to jointly demand that
the Republican National Committee

change its policy on climate,

lest they lose that entire generation.

This is a global phenomenon.

The Greta Generation is now leading this

in so many ways,

and if you look at the polling,

again, the vast majority
of young Republicans

are demanding a change on climate policy.

This is really a movement

that is building still.

CA: I was going to ask you about that,

because one of the most painful things
over the last 20 years

has just been how climate
has been politicized,

certainly in the US.

You've probably felt yourself
at the heart of that a lot of the time,

with people attacking you personally

in the most merciless,
and unfair ways, often.

Do you really see signs
that that might be changing,

led by the next generation?

AG: Yeah, there's no question about it.

I don't want to rely on polls too much.

I've mentioned them already.

But there was a new one that came out

that looked at the wavering
Trump supporters,

those who supported him
strongly in the past

and want to do so again.

The number one issue,
surprisingly to some,

that is giving them pause,

is the craziness of President Trump
and his administration on climate.

We're seeing big majorities
of the Republican Party overall

saying that they're ready
to start exploring some real solutions

to the climate crisis.

I think that we're really getting there,
no question about it.

CA: I mean, you've been
the figurehead for raising this issue,

and you happen to be a Democrat.

Is there anything
that you can personally do

to -- I don't know -- to open the tent,
to welcome people,

to try and say, "This is
beyond politics, dear friends"?

AG: Yeah. Well, I've tried
all of those things,

and maybe it's made a little
positive difference.

I've worked with
the Republicans extensively.

And, you know, well after
I left the White House,

I had Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson

and other prominent Republicans

appear on national TV ads with me

saying we've got to solve
the climate crisis.

But the petroleum industry

has really doubled down

enforcing discipline
within the Republican Party.

I mean, look at the attacks
they've launched against the Pope

when he came out with his encyclical

and was demonized,

not by all for sure,

but there were hawks
in the anti-climate movement

who immediately started
training their guns on Pope Francis,

and there are many other examples.

They enforce discipline

and try to make it a partisan issue,

even as Democrats reach out

to try to make it bipartisan.

I totally agree with you
that it should not be a partisan issue.

It didn't use to be,

but it's been artificially
weaponized as an issue.

CA: I mean, the CEOs
of oil companies also have kids

who are talking to them.

It feels like some of them are moving

and are trying to invest

and trying to find ways
of being part of the future.

Do you see signs of that?

AG: Yeah.

I think that business leaders,
including in the oil and gas companies,

are hearing from their families.

They're hearing from their friends.

They're hearing from their employees.

And, by the way, we've seen
in the tech industry

some mass walkouts by employees

who are demanding
that some of the tech companies

do more and get serious.

I'm so proud of Apple.

Forgive me for parenthetically
praising Apple.

You know, I'm on the board,
but I'm such a big fan of Tim Cook

and my colleagues at Apple.

It's an example of a tech company

that's really doing fantastic things.

And there's some others as well.

There are others in many industries.

But the pressures on
the oil and gas companies

are quite extraordinary.

You know, BP just wrote down
12 and a half billion dollars' worth

of oil and gas assets

and said that they're never
going to see the light of day.

Two-thirds of the fossil fuels
that have already been discovered

cannot be burned and will not be burned.

And so that's a big economic risk
to the global economy,

like the subprime mortgage crisis.

We've got 22 trillion dollars
of subprime carbon assets,

and just yesterday,
there was a major report

that the fracking industry in the US

is seeing now a wave of bankruptcies

because the price
of the fracked gas and oil

has fallen below levels
that make them economic.

CA: Is the shorthand
of what's happened there

that electric cars and electric
technologies and solar and so forth

have helped drive down the price of oil

to the point where
huge amounts of the reserves

just can't be developed profitably?

AG: Yes, that's it.

That's mainly it.

The projections for energy sources
in the next several years

uniformly predict that electricity
from wind and solar

is going to continue to plummet in price,

and therefore using gas or coal

to make steam to turn the turbines

is just not going to be economical.

Similarly, the electrification
of the transportation sector

is having the same effect.

Some are also looking at the trend

in national, regional
and local governance.

I mentioned this before,

but they're predicting
a very different energy future.

But let me come back, Chris,

because we talked about business leaders.

I think you were getting in a question
a moment ago about capitalism itself,

and I do want to say a word on that,

because there are a lot of people who say

maybe capitalism is the basic problem.

I think the current form of capitalism
we have is desperately in need of reform.

The short-term outlook is often mentioned,

but the way we measure
what is of value to us

is also at the heart of the crisis
of modern capitalism.

Now, capitalism is at the base
of every successful economy,

and it balances supply and demand,

unlocks a higher fraction
of the human potential,

and it's not going anywhere,

but it needs to be reformed,

because the way we measure
what's valuable now

ignores so-called negative externalities

like pollution.

It also ignores positive externalities

like investments
in education and health care,

mental health care, family services.

It ignores the depletion of resources
like groundwater and topsoil

and the web of living species.

And it ignores the distribution
of incomes and net worths,

so when GDP goes up, people cheer,

two percent, three percent -- wow! --
four percent, and they think, "Great!"

But it's accompanied
by vast increases in pollution,

chronic underinvestment in public goods,

the depletion of irreplaceable
natural resources,

and the worst inequality crisis we've seen
in more than a hundred years

that is threatening the future
of both capitalism and democracy.

So we have to change it.
We have to reform it.

CA: So reform capitalism,
but don't throw it out.

We're going to need it as a tool
as we go forward

if we're to solve this.

AG: Yeah, I think that's right,
and just one other point:

the worst environmental abuses
in the last hundred years

have been in jurisdictions
that experimented during the 20th century

with the alternatives to capitalism
on the left and right.

CA: Interesting. All right.

Two last community questions quickly.

Chadburn Blomquist:

"As you are reading the tea leaves
of the impact of the current pandemic,

what do you think in regard to
our response to combatting climate change

will be the most impactful
lesson learned?"

AG: Boy, that's a very
thoughtful question,

and I wish my answer could rise
to the same level on short notice.

I would say first,

don't ignore the scientists.

When there is virtual unanimity

among the scientific and medical experts,

pay attention.

Don't let some politician dissuade you.

I think President Trump is slowly learning

that's it's kind of difficult
to gaslight a virus.

He tried to gaslight the virus in Tulsa.

It didn't come off very well,

and tragically, he decided
to recklessly roll the dice a month ago

and ignore the recommendations
for people to wear masks

and to socially distance

and to do the other things,

and I think that lesson
is beginning to take hold

in a much stronger way.

But beyond that, Chris,

I think that this period of time
has been characterized

by one of the most profound opportunities

for people to rethink
the patterns of their lives

and to consider whether or not
we can't do a lot of things better

and differently.

And I think that this rising
generation I mentioned before

has been even more profoundly affected

by this interlude,

which I hope ends soon,

but I hope the lessons endure.

I expect they will.

CA: Yeah, it's amazing how many things
you can do without emitting carbon,

that we've been forced to do.

Let's have one more question here.

Frank Hennessy: "Are you encouraged
by the ability of people

to quickly adapt to the new
normal due to COVID-19

as evidence that people can and will
change their habits

to respond to climate change?"

AG: Yes, but I think we have
to keep in mind

that there is a crisis within this crisis.

The impact on the African American
community, which I mentioned before,

on the Latinx community,

Indigenous peoples.

The highest infection rate
is in the Navajo Nation right now.

So some of these questions
appear differently

to those who are really
getting the brunt of this crisis,

and it is unacceptable
that we allow this to continue.

It feels one way to you and me

and perhaps to many in our audience today,

but for low-income communities of color,

it's an entirely different crisis,

and we owe it to them

and to all of us

to get busy and to start
using the best science

and solve this pandemic.

You know the phrase "pandemic economics."

Somebody said, the first principle
of pandemic economics

is take care of the pandemic,

and we're not doing that yet.

We're seeing the president
try to goose the economy

for his reelection,

never mind the prediction

of tens of thousands
of additional American deaths,

and that is just
unforgivable in my opinion.

CA: Thank you, Frank.

So Al, you, along with others
in the community played a key role

in encouraging TED to launch
this initiative called "Countdown."

Thank you for that,

and I guess this conversation
is continuing among many of us.

If you're interested
in climate, watching this,

check out the Countdown website,

countdown.ted.com,

and be part of 10/10/2020,

when we are trying
to put out an alert to the world

that climate can't wait,

that it really matters,

and there's going to be
some amazing content

free to the world on that day.

Thank you, Al, for your inspiration
and support in doing that.

I wonder whether you
could end today's session

just by painting us a picture,

like how might things roll out
over the next decade or so?

Just tell us whether there is still
a story of hope here.

AG: I'd be glad to.

I've got to get one plug in.
I'll make it brief.

July 18 through July 26,

The Climate Reality Project
is having a global training.

We've already had 8,000 people register.

You can go to climatereality.com.

Now, a bright future.

It begins with all of the kinds of efforts

that you've thrown yourself into
in organizing Countdown.

Chris, you and your team have been amazing

to work with,

and I'm so excited
about the Countdown project.

TED has an unparalleled ability

to spread ideas that are worth spreading,

to raise consciousness,

to enlighten people around the world,

and it's needed for climate
and the solutions to the climate crisis

like it's never been needed before,

and I just want to thank you
for what you personally are doing

to organize this fantastic
Countdown program.

CA: Thank you.

And the world? Are we going to do this?

Do you think that humanity
is going to pull this off

and that our grandchildren

are going to have beautiful lives

where they can celebrate nature
and not spend every day

in fear of the next tornado or tsunami?

AG: I am optimistic that we will do it,

but the answer is in our hands.

We have seen dark times
in periods of the past,

and we have risen to meet the challenge.

We have limitations of our long
evolutionary heritage

and elements of our culture,

but we also have the ability
to transcend our limitations,

and when the chips are down,

and when survival is at stake

and when our children
and future generations are at stake,

we're capable of more than we sometimes
allow ourselves to think we can do.

This is such a time.

I believe we will rise to the occasion,

and we will create a bright,

clean, prosperous, just and fair future.

I believe it with all my heart.

CA: Al Gore, thank you
for your life of work,

for all you've done to elevate this issue

and for spending this time with us now.

Thank you.

AG: Back at you. Thank you.