Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • 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.

Chris Anderson: Al, welcome.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it