-
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
to 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.