Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • I was excited to be a part of the "Dream"

  • theme, and then I found out I'm leading off the "Nightmare?" section of it.

  • (Laughter)

  • And certainly there are things about the climate

  • crisis that qualify. And I have some bad news, but I have a lot more good news. I'm going

  • to propose three questions and the answer to the first one necessarily involves a little

  • bad news. But -- hang on, because the answers to the second and third questions really are

  • very positive.

  • So the first question is, "Do we really have to change?" And of course, the Apollo Mission,

  • among other things changed the environmental movement, really launched the modern environmental

  • movement 18 months after this Earthrise picture was first seen on earth, the first Earth Day

  • was organized. And we learned a lot about ourselves looking back at our planet from

  • space. And one of the things that we learned confirmed what the scientists have long told

  • us. One of the most essential facts about the climate crisis has to do with the sky.

  • As this picture illustrates, the sky is not the vast and limitless expanse that appears

  • when we look up from the ground. It is a very thin shell of atmosphere surrounding the planet.

  • That right now is the open sewer for our industrial civilization as it's currently organized.

  • We are spewing 110 million tons of heat-trapping global warming pollution into it every 24

  • hours, free of charge, go ahead.

  • And there are many sources of the greenhouse gases, I'm certainly not going to go through

  • them all. I'm going to focus on the main one, but agriculture is involved, diet is involved,

  • population is involved. Management of forests, transportation, the oceans, the melting of

  • the permafrost. But I'm going to focus on the heart of the problem, which is the fact

  • that we still rely on dirty, carbon-based fuels for 85 percent of all the energy that

  • our world burns every year. And you can see from this image that after World War II, the

  • emission rates started really accelerating. And the accumulated amount of man-made, global

  • warming pollution that is up in the atmosphere now traps as much extra heat energy as would

  • be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every 24 hours, 365 days a

  • year. Fact-checked over and over again, conservative, it's the truth. Now it's a big planet, but

  • --

  • (Explosion sound)

  • that is a lot of energy, particularly when you multiply it 400,000 times per day. And

  • all that extra heat energy is heating up the atmosphere, the whole earth system.

  • Let's look at the atmosphere. This is a depiction

  • of what we used to think of as the normal distribution of temperatures. The white represents

  • normal temperature days; 1951-1980 are arbitrarily chosen. The blue are cooler than average days,

  • the red are warmer than average days. But the entire curve has moved to the right in

  • the 1980s. And you'll see in the lower right-hand corner the appearance of statistically significant

  • numbers of extremely hot days. In the 90s, the curve shifted further. And in the last

  • 10 years, you see the extremely hot days are now more numerous than the cooler than average

  • days. In fact, they are 150 times more common on the surface of the earth than they were

  • just 30 years ago.

  • So we're having record-breaking temperatures. Fourteen of the 15 of the hottest years ever

  • measured with instruments have been in this young century. The hottest of all was last

  • year. Last month was the 371st month in a row warmer than the 20th-century average.

  • And for the first time, not only the warmest January, but for the first time, it was more

  • than two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average. These higher temperatures are having

  • an effect on animals, plants, people, ecosystems.

  • But on a global basis, 93 percent of all the extra heat energy is trapped in the oceans.

  • And the scientists can measure the heat buildup much more precisely now at all depths: deep,

  • mid-ocean, the first few hundred meters. And this, too, is accelerating. It goes back more

  • than a century. And more than half of the increase has been in the last 19 years. This

  • has consequences.

  • The first order of consequence: the ocean-based storms get stronger. Super Typhoon Haiyan

  • went over areas of the Pacific five and a half degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal

  • before it slammed into Tacloban, as the most destructive storm ever to make landfall. Pope

  • Francis, who has made such a difference to this whole issue, visited Tacloban right after

  • that. Superstorm Sandy went over areas of the Atlantic nine degrees warmer than normal

  • before slamming into New York and New Jersey. The second order of consequences are affecting

  • all of us right now. The warmer oceans are evaporating much more water vapor into the

  • skies. Average humidity worldwide has gone up four percent. And it creates these atmospheric

  • rivers. The Brazilian scientists call them "flying rivers." And they funnel all of that

  • extra water vapor over the land where storm conditions trigger these massive record-breaking

  • downpours. This is from Montana. Take a look at this storm last August. As it moves over

  • Tucson, Arizona. It literally splashes off the city. These downpours are really unusual.

  • Last July in Houston, Texas, it rained for

  • two days, 162 billion gallons. That represents more than two days of the full flow of Niagara

  • Falls in the middle of the city, which was, of course, paralyzed. These record downpours

  • are creating historic floods and mudslides.

  • This one is from Chile last year. And you'll see that warehouse going by. There are oil

  • tankers cars going by. This is from Spain last September, you could call this the running

  • of the cars and trucks, I guess. Every night on the TV news now is like a nature hike through

  • the Book of Revelation.

  • (Laughter)

  • I mean, really.

  • The insurance industry has certainly noticed, the losses have been mounting up. They're

  • not under any illusions about what's happening. And the causality requires a moment of discussion.

  • We're used to thinking of linear cause and linear effect -- one cause, one effect. This

  • is systemic causation. As the great Kevin Trenberth says, "All storms are different

  • now. There's so much extra energy in the atmosphere, there's so much extra water vapor. Every storm

  • is different now." So, the same extra heat pulls the soil moisture out of the ground

  • and causes these deeper, longer, more pervasive droughts and many of them are underway right

  • now.

  • It dries out the vegetation and causes more fires in the western part of North America.

  • There's certainly been evidence of that, a lot of them.

  • More lightning, as the heat energy builds

  • up, a considerable amount of additional lightning also.

  • These climate-related disasters also have

  • geopolitical consequences and create instability. The climate-related historic drought that

  • started in Syria in 2006 destroyed 60 percent of the farms in Syria, killed 80 percent of

  • the livestock, and drove 1.5 million climate refugees into the cities of Syria, where they

  • collided with another 1.5 million refugees from the Iraq War. And along with other factors,

  • that opened the gates of Hell that people are trying to close now. The US Defense Department

  • has long warned of consequences from the climate crisis, including refugees, food and water

  • shortages and pandemic disease.

  • Right now we're seeing microbial diseases from the tropics spread to the higher latitudes;

  • the transportation revolution has had a lot to do with this. But the changing conditions

  • change the latitudes in the areas where these microbial diseases can become endemic and

  • change the range of the vectors, like mosquitoes and ticks that carry them. The Zika epidemic

  • now -- we're better positioned in North America because it's still a little too cool and we

  • have a better public health system. But when women in some regions of South and Central

  • America are advised not to get pregnant for two years -- that's something new, that ought

  • to get our attention. The Lancet, one of the two greatest medical journals in the world,

  • last summer labeled this a medical emergency now. And there are many factors because of

  • it.

  • This is also connected to the extinction crisis. We're in danger of losing 50 percent of all

  • the living species on earth by the end of this century. And already, land-based plants

  • and animals are now moving towards the poles at an average rate of 15 feet per day.

  • Speaking of the North Pole, last December

  • 29, the same storm that caused historic flooding in the American Midwest, raised temperatures

  • at the North Pole 50 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal, causing the thawing of the North

  • Pole in the middle of the long, dark, winter, polar night. And when the land-based ice of

  • the Arctic melts, it raises sea level.

  • Paul Nicklen's beautiful photograph from Svalbard illustrates this. It's more dangerous coming

  • off Greenland and particularly, Antarctica. The 10 largest risk cities for sea-level rise

  • by population are mostly in South and Southeast Asia. When you measure it by assets at risk,

  • number one is Miami: three and a half trillion dollars at risk. Number three: New York and

  • Newark. I was in Miami last fall during the supermoon, one of the highest high-tide days.

  • And there were fish from the ocean swimming in some of the streets of Miami Beach and

  • Fort Lauderdale and Del Rey. And this happens regularly during the highest-tide tides now.

  • Not with rain -- they call it "sunny-day flooding." It comes up through the storm sewers. And

  • the Mayor of Miami speaks for many when he says it is long past time this can be viewed

  • through a partisan lens. This is a crisis that's getting worse day by day. We have to

  • move beyond partisanship.

  • And I want to take a moment to honor these House Republicans --

  • (Applause)

  • who had the courage last fall to step out

  • and take a political risk, by telling the truth about the climate crisis.

  • So the cost of the climate crisis is mounting

  • up, there are many of these aspects I haven't even mentioned. It's an enormous burden. I'll

  • mention just one more, because the World Economic Forum last month in Davos, after their annual

  • survey of 750 economists, said the climate crisis is now the number one risk to the global

  • economy. So you get central bankers like Mark Carney, the head of the UK Central Bank, saying

  • the vast majority of the carbon reserves are unburnable. Subprime carbon. I'm not going

  • to remind you what happened with subprime mortgages, but it's the same thing. If you

  • look at all of the carbon fuels that were burned since the beginning of the industrial

  • revolution, this is the quantity burned in the last 16 years. Here are all the ones that

  • are proven and left on the books, 28 trillion dollars. The International Energy Agency says

  • only this amount can be burned. So the rest, 22 trillion dollars -- unburnable. Risk to

  • the global economy. That's why divestment movement makes practical sense and is not

  • just a moral imperative.

  • So the answer to the first question, "Must we change?" is yes, we have to change. Second

  • question, "Can we change?" This is the exciting news! The best projections in the world 16

  • years ago were that by 2010, the world would be able to install 30 gigawatts of wind capacity.

  • We beat that mark by 14 and a half times over. We see an exponential curve for wind installations

  • now. We see the cost coming down dramatically. Some countries -- take Germany, an industrial

  • powerhouse with a climate not that different from Vancouver's, by the way -- one day last

  • December, got 81 percent of all its energy from renewable resources, mainly solar and

  • wind. A lot of countries are getting more than half on an average basis.

  • More good news: energy storage, from batteries

  • particularly, is now beginning to take off because the cost has been coming down very

  • dramatically to solve the intermittency problem. With solar, the news is even more exciting!

  • The best projections 14 years ago were that we would install one gigawatt per year by

  • 2010. When 2010 came around, we beat that mark by 17 times over. Last year, we beat

  • it by 58 times over. This year, we're on track to beat it 68 times over.

  • We're going to win this. We are going to prevail.

  • The exponential curve on solar is even steeper and more dramatic. When I came to this stage

  • 10 years ago, this is where it was. We have seen a revolutionary breakthrough in the emergence

  • of these exponential curves.

  • (Applause)

  • And the cost has come down 10 percent per year for 30 years. And it's continuing to

  • come down.

  • Now, the business community has certainly noticed this, because it's crossing the grid

  • parity point. Cheaper solar penetration rates are beginning to rise. Grid parity is understood

  • as that line, that threshold, below which renewable electricity is cheaper than electricity

  • from burning fossil fuels. That threshold is a little bit like the difference between

  • 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 33 degrees Fahrenheit, or zero and one Celsius. It's a difference

  • of more than one degree, it's the difference between ice and water. And it's the difference

  • between markets that are frozen up, and liquid flows of capital into new opportunities for

  • investment. This is the biggest new business opportunity in the history of the world, and

  • two-thirds of it is in the private sector. We are seeing an explosion of new investment.

  • Starting in 2010, investments globally in renewable electricity generation surpassed

  • fossils. The gap has been growing ever since. The projections for the future are even more

  • dramatic, even though fossil energy is now still subsidized at a rate 40 times larger

  • than renewables. And by the way, if you add the projections for nuclear on here, particularly

  • if you assume that the work many are doing to try to break through to safer and more

  • acceptable, more affordable forms of nuclear, this could change even more dramatically.

  • So is there any precedent for such a rapid

  • adoption of a new technology? Well, there are many, but let's look at cell phones. In

  • 1980, AT&T, then Ma Bell, commissioned McKinsey to do a global market survey of those clunky

  • new mobile phones that appeared then. "How many can we sell by the year 2000?" they asked.

  • McKinsey came back and said, "900,000." And sure enough, when the year 2000 arrived, they

  • did sell 900,000 -- in the first three days. And for the balance of the year, they sold

  • 120 times more. And now there are more cell connections than there are people in the world.

  • So, why were they not only wrong, but way

  • wrong? I've asked that question myself, "Why?"

  • (Laughter)

  • And I think the answer is in three parts. First, the cost came down much faster than

  • anybody expected, even as the quality went up. And low-income countries, places that

  • did not have a landline grid -- they leap-frogged to the new technology. The big expansion has

  • been in the developing counties. So what about the electricity grids in the developing world?

  • Well, not so hot. And in many areas, they don't exist. There are more people without

  • any electricity at all in India than the entire population of the United States of America.

  • So now we're getting this: solar panels on grass huts and new business models that make

  • it affordable. Muhammad Yunus financed this one in Bangladesh with micro-credit. This

  • is a village market. Bangladesh is now the fastest-deploying country in the world: two

  • systems per minute on average, night and day. And we have all we need: enough energy from

  • the Sun comes to the Earth every hour to supply the full world's energy needs for an entire

  • year. It's actually a little bit less than an hour. So the answer to the second question,

  • "Can we change?" is clearly "Yes." And it's an ever-firmer "yes."

  • Last question, "Will we change?" Paris really

  • was a breakthrough, some of the provisions are binding and the regular reviews will matter

  • a lot. But nations aren't waiting, they're going ahead. China has already announced that

  • starting next year, they're adopting a nationwide cap and trade system. They will likely link

  • up with the European Union. The United States has already been changing. All of these coal

  • plants were proposed in the next 10 years and canceled. All of these existing coal plants

  • were retired. All of these coal plants have had their retirement announced. All of them

  • -- canceled. We are moving forward. Last year -- if you look at all of the investment in

  • new electricity generation in the United States, almost three-quarters was from renewable energy,

  • mostly wind and solar.

  • We are solving this crisis. The only question is: how long will it take to get there? So,

  • it matters that a lot of people are organizing to insist on this change. Almost 400,000 people

  • marched in New York City before the UN special session on this. Many thousands, tens of thousands,

  • marched in cities around the world. And so, I am extremely optimistic. As I said before,

  • we are going to win this.

  • I'll finish with this story. When I was 13 years old, I heard that proposal by President

  • Kennedy to land a person on the Moon and bring him back safely in 10 years. And I heard adults

  • of that day and time say, "That's reckless, expensive, may well fail." But eight years

  • and two months later, in the moment that Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, there was

  • great cheer that went up in NASA's mission control in Houston. Here's a little-known

  • fact about that: the average age of the systems engineers, the controllers in the room that

  • day, was 26, which means, among other things, their age, when they heard that challenge,

  • was 18.

  • We now have a moral challenge that is in the tradition of others that we have faced. One

  • of the greatest poets of the last century in the US, Wallace Stevens, wrote a line that

  • has stayed with me: "After the final 'no,' there comes a 'yes,' and on that 'yes', the

  • future world depends." When the abolitionists started their movement, they met with no after

  • no after no. And then came a yes. The Women's Suffrage and Women's Rights Movement met endless

  • no's, until finally, there was a yes. The Civil Rights Movement, the movement against

  • apartheid, and more recently, the movement for gay and lesbian rights here in the United

  • States and elsewhere. After the final "no" comes a "yes."

  • When any great moral challenge is ultimately

  • resolved into a binary choice between what is right and what is wrong, the outcome is

  • fore-ordained because of who we are as human beings. Ninety-nine percent of us, that is

  • where we are now and it is why we're going to win this. We have everything we need. Some

  • still doubt that we have the will to act, but I say the will to act is itself a renewable

  • resource.

  • Thank you very much.

  • (Applause)

  • Chris Anderson: You've got this incredible combination of skills. You've got this scientist

  • mind that can understand the full range of issues, and the ability to turn it into the

  • most vivid language. No one else can do that, that's why you led this thing. It was amazing

  • to see it 10 years ago, it was amazing to see it now.

  • Al Gore: Well, you're nice to say that, Chris.

  • But honestly, I have a lot of really good friends in the scientific community who are

  • incredibly patient and who will sit there and explain this stuff to me over and over

  • and over again until I can get it into simple enough language that I can understand it.

  • And that's the key to trying to communicate.

  • CA: So, your talk. First part: terrifying, second part: incredibly hopeful. How do we

  • know that all those graphs, all that progress, is enough to solve what you showed in the

  • first part?

  • AG: I think that the crossing -- you know, I've only been in the business world for 15

  • years. But one of the things I've learned is that apparently it matters if a new product

  • or service is more expensive than the incumbent, or cheaper than. Turns out, it makes a difference

  • if it's cheaper than.

  • (Laughter)

  • And when it crosses that line, then a lot of things really change. We are regularly

  • surprised by these developments. The late Rudi Dornbusch, the great economist said,

  • "Things take longer to happen then you think they will, and then they happen much faster

  • than you thought they could." I really think that's where we are. Some people are using

  • the phrase "The Solar Singularity" now, meaning when it gets below the grid parity, unsubsidized

  • in most places, then it's the default choice.

  • Now, in one of the presentations yesterday, the jitney thing, there is an effort to use

  • regulations to slow this down. And I just don't think it's going to work.

  • There's a woman in Atlanta, Debbie Dooley,

  • who's the Chairman of the Atlanta Tea Party. They enlisted her in this effort to put a

  • tax on solar panels and regulations. And she had just put solar panels on her roof and

  • she didn't understand the request.

  • (Laughter)

  • And so she went and formed an alliance with the Sierra Club and they formed a new organization

  • called the Green Tea Party.

  • (Laughter)

  • (Applause)

  • And they defeated the proposal. So, finally, the answer to your question is, this sounds

  • a little corny and maybe it's a cliché, but 10 years ago -- and Christiana referred to

  • this -- there are people in this audience who played an incredibly significant role

  • in generating those exponential curves. And it didn't work out economically for some of

  • them, but it kick-started this global revolution. And what people in this audience do now with

  • the knowledge that we are going to win this. But it matters a lot how fast we win it.

  • CA: Al Gore, that was incredibly powerful.

  • If this turns out to be the year, that the partisan thing changes, as you said, it's

  • no longer a partisan issue, but you bring along people from the other side together,

  • backed by science, backed by these kinds of investment opportunities, backed my reason

  • that you win the day -- boy, that's really exciting.

  • Thank you so much.

  • AG: Thank you so much for bringing me back

  • to TED. Thank you!

  • (Applause)

I was excited to be a part of the "Dream"

Subtitles and vocabulary

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