Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Walmart Workers Walk Off Job in First Wave of 1000 Protests
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- Already? Obama Tells Supporters to Expect 'Bitter Pills'
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- Walmart Workers Walk Off Job in First Wave of 1000 Protests
Popular content
Today's Top News
Moving Beyond Kyoto
NASHVILLE -- We -- the human species -- have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.
Our home -- Earth -- is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don't stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.
In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground - mainly in the form of coal and oil - and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth's atmosphere.
The concentrations of CO2 - having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years - have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.
As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could -- within 10 years -- make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization.
Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap -- which helps the planet cool itself -- is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.
This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.
On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."
We -- all of us -- now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground -- having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years -- and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It's the carbon dioxide.
This threat also requires us, in Reagan's phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.
Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, "If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?"
Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)
But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon -- all were the result of American leadership.
Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.
To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here -- much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.
Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 - and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.
If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.
A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product-- countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis- - really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?
Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future -- indeed, the future of all human civilization -- is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced -- even as the danger bears down on us.
We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.
But there's something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of "The Assault on Reason."
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


25 Comments so far
Show AllWe all follow in the footsteps of the people of Rapa Nui.
Hopefully moving beyong Kyoto doesnt mean Kyoto Light where our unprecedented global dominance enables us to browbeat developing nations to carry the burden of our emissions.
If moving beyond Kyoto means even more stringent controls on the CO2 emmissions on the West (U.S., Europe) then its worth investigating. If on the contrary we use our economic muscle to bend the will of developing nations into adhering to stricter controls then its hypocritical and immoral.
Equality will only be achieved if the consumption ( and emmissions) of the average american is on par with that of every other individual on the planet.
"It is a question between right vs. wrong"
Exactly!
It is wrong for Al Gore not to run for president.
Hi Max, I am not sure what you mean about clayhughes spamming these comments, I'm new with comoputers. What is clay doing, it doesn't sound like anything good,caan I be spammed too? I like Spam in my fried rice.
clayhughes, stop spamming these comments. I've seen the same irrelevant comments from you in several places. I would hope there's an "or else" that applies to you. Moderators, take note please.
"We must all be the change we wish to see for the world." My apologies to Mahatma Gandhi if I butchered his words.President Gore ,is right.A real reapraisal of Kyoto is needed now. peace
I am intrigued by Gore's phrase "a conscious choice as a species". By my book that is exactly what we need and it is something we can have. Here is a first draft of a mechanism for global democratic input - a "voice of humanity" if you will. Gore says a conscious choice is "unprecedented, even laughable", and it is unprecedented, yes, but not laughable - it is doable.
Inevitably we have to have people who hold a grudge against Gore make a dig at him when he speaks or is spoken of. It is tiresome, irresponsible, and not remotely convincing.
Electricity does not pollute the air, nor will it heat the planet by contributing to CO2 emissions. Thus it doesn't matter if Gore has a $20,000 electricity bill, or a $100,000 bill. So it makes no sense that anyone would feel the need to bring it up But then the comment wasn't made out of concern for the environment, was it? It was made to bash Gore.... Because after the Supreme court ended the matter of the 2000 election - the final say in the matter, he didn't lead the liberal warriors into some kind of bloody conflict to sit in the White House...
I think it's time to get over it... He has a very important mission and vital information that nees to be spread. And people are listening to him. We should all support his efforts...
Electricity does not polute the air? You are not really that stupid, are you? If you are, let me educate you. There is a little plug in your house. Out of it comes electricity. This electricity arrives because the plug is connected to a "power line". You may have seen one of these before. The power line travels miles and miles until it comes to a "generating plant". The generating plant is either nuclear (UGH O HORRORS!!!) or burns something, probably coal, oil, or gas. When you burn coal, oil, or gas, you POLLUTE. Duh.
Duh...there are more sources of electricity than nuclear or coal/oil/gas you moron.. Have you heard of hydroelectic power plants? In the Pacific Northwest, water is the main source of electricity, as it likely is in other parts of the country. Have you heard of windmills and solar panels? We wouldn't have this greehouse problem if we had electric cars would we? Electricity is not the problem. His use of it does not negate his words on what really is the problem.
powerslave1 is a rabble-rousing Republican voyeur and is best ignored.
The Kyoto treaty was indeed flawed.
Want to solve the problem. We could have the whole of the U.S. converted to run on zero pollution hydrogen within 10 to 15 years. We could then point to ourselves as an example and lead the way for others to do the same.
Lobo Gris
I couldn't wait for that one to arrive. the word stupid is an obvious clue. It would be much more courteous and productive to ask___ why do you state that, did yu know that blah blah blah is so? I hate to see attakcs on others like that. Good reply aquietman.
By the way, what is occuring in Australia with solar/wind towers is a hope for the future. One tower will supply enough electricity for 10,000 homes. The towers use a two square mile of land area, no fuel is used except clean air and the heat from the sun.
aquietman, I have heard of many alternative sources of energy. Combined, they produce less than 10% of what comes out of your plug. And things like dams and windmill farms are fought tooth and nail by "progressives" whenever they are proposed.
Evelyn Smith July 1st, 2007 11:04 pm
"By the way, what is occuring in Australia with solar/wind towers is a hope for the future. One tower will supply enough electricity for 10,000 homes. The towers use a two square mile of land area, no fuel is used except clean air and the heat from the sun."
Yup, saw that too on Discovery. If the pilot project proves successful the towers electrical output could also be used to produce hydrogen by cracking sea water
Lobo Gris
Hi Lobo, Hope this doesn't come up twice, the last one just disappeared. ___ Full moon?
I never thought about that Lobo, can you imagine having them along our coasts? We could shut down all of the fuel fired and nukers in short order.
The Chinese are into it in a big way, spending millions on the project. We may have a chance after all.
It could open millions of new jobs in our country if we did it. Gore would go for it,__ Maybe. Are we dreaming?
"Combined, they produce less than 10% of what comes out of your plug."
If our govt subsidizes alternate energy sources like they have been subsidizing the carbon fuel industry our entire energy supply can come out of that 'plug' ... i mean the electric kind.
To the sheepish Republican wasting his or her time trying to infect readers of this great news source with your dribble:
Look, Al Gore lives in an old colonial mansion. It takes massive energy to operate. Okay, we've admitted it. Now what? Are we supposed to assume that everything else that comes out of his mouth is meaningless because he himself is not the picture perfect model of environmental sustainability? Let's not forget he himself, and his whole family, are "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets. Of course the offsets programs here in the states are a joke and don't do much, but that is because our government and our citizens - particularly those who can afford them - don't take the idea seriously.
Lastly, just for my own inquiry, what does it feel like to be a part of one of the most browbeaten minorities in the history of the world? I mean, you could walk down the street in Mississippi and find more agreement with progressive principles than those that you put fourth in these comment sections. For the rest of us, what could possibly make you want to stay aligned with a group of people who have the vast majority of the scientific community, the voting public, certainly the non-voting public, virtually everyone with anything higher than a BA degree, and most people around the world completely convinced to the contrary of everything you represent? What does it feel like, and what keeps you there? Other than money and tax relief, I can't think of anything.
aquietman is correct. Further, Gore goes out of his way to buy more expensive sustainable energy to power his house; so it is not only 10% of his plugs.
Powerslave1 is correct that the massive majority of electric power does pollute the air and then there's nuclear waste from those plants. One should ask why is this so slow to turn around. It's like everything else that's wrong. It always centers on profits, and way too many people are employed in these systems and will fight change. Carter set the speed limit at 55, what happened to that? It was a positive start a long time ago.
Carter did not set it, Nixon did...
powerslave1 is a rabble-rousing Republican voyeur and is best ignored.
Think for a moment the ENORMOUS GOODWILL Al Gore is generating WORLD WIDE for the cause of reversing Global Warming and Climate Change....
Then ignore petty, craven, facile, specious, puerile and pedantic arguments regarding Al Gore alleged energy use.....
Please: constructive and healthy perspective is required....
Okay, my zwei pfennig is that we need to:
*Take at least one-third of the military budget for ~gadgets~ (such as funds earmarked for the ill-advised "missile defense system") and turn these funds over to subsidies for renewable energy. This is not to ignore the medical, financial, social, or spiritual needs of our troops, but to reign in rampant Pentagon-candy contracts.
*Subsidize Wind, Water, Solar, and Geothermal on a national level as is most feasible for each locale.
*Subsidize the industries that can provide consumer goods for the household use; solar panels for roofs, windmills for backyards make them practical for apartment dwellers as well.
*Develop a rooftop neighborhood grid locally at city and state levels, supported by these subsidies.
*Make a sizable tax break for people living existing housing if they will equip their rooftops with their choice of these technologies or a rooftop garden. Make these options mandatory for any new housing developed.
*Speaking of housing: mandate the use of more recycled material in new homes, more skylights (write-offs for the contractors perhaps?), more eco-landscaping.
*Somehow convince Al Gore to take Dennis Kucinich as his running mate in 2008 and make his candidacy for the White House a reality. (Because I don't want to vote for the lesser evil this time.)
I hope that this can further our conversation and get some more brainstorms and contructive criticisms going…
It is my wish that everyone here has the chance to reflect upon what we can do individually and collectively to move our nation forward this Independence Day. And then pick one and try it out!
Join the discussion:
Also regarding taxes and subsidies, it's a matter of shifting the priorities as to who gets them, not necessarily spending gobs more on them. For example, end the tax break on SUV's. Stop subsidizing coal. Yes the energy industry will screech for a decade or so, but then it will figure that's the way to do business now, since that's where the subsidies are.
Any thoughts?
Yeah lyllyth, I think you should chair the debate. Buttt by now, everyone has gone onto the next page and will be debating a different issue. For the most, this one is yesterdays news. Perhaps Common Dreams should reduce the number of issues we could comment on.