23

Gore: Climate fix can be economic boon

Al Gore speaks at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills, Calif.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

Kai Ryssdal: If you had to pick one person in this country most closely associated with the fight against global warming, Al Gore is probably gonna come to mind. Ever since "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, he has painted a fairly scary picture of what could happen to our planet if we don't do more to control climate change and do it more quickly. His latest book, "Our Choice," is what you might call an instruction manual to fight global warming. He will be in Copenhagen next week. And he says he is confident that delegates will come to an agreement. Mr. Gore, welcome to the program.

AL GORE: Thank you. Good to be on Marketplace.

Ryssdal: You know, one of the things you pick up on in this book and that you mention quite a bit is this idea of efficiency. That there are large gains to be made if we just, you know, seal our windows and be smart about how we use energy. Is it true that anything we do has to be cheap and easy for it to take effect?

GORE: Well, sometimes it does seem that way. But it's actually a happy coincidence that so many of the things that are needed to solve the climate crisis do actually end up saving us money. It doesn't mean that they're all easy. Some of them are, like changing the light bulbs. But changing the windows, which saves even more money, is not easy. It takes a decision. These are, taken together, solutions that require us to think about it ahead of time and make a conscious choice to save money while we're saving the planet.

Ryssdal: You know, I've been trying to think of a metaphor for the whole discussion of climate change and why it's so hard. And the one I've come up with is this, and bear with me for a second. Remember when your kids were young, and they were acting up and they were misbehaving, and you kept saying, "You guys cut it out. I really mean it this time, cut it out." That seems to me to be where we are with climate change. That you have to keep saying these things, and yet nobody ever listens.

GORE: Well, it's an interesting analogy, but the stakes are so high. If your kid is playing with an electric plug, you use a different tone of voice. And whatever strategy you use, you make sure it succeeds. We're putting 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every day. And the accumulations have now reached levels that are unprecedented going back as far as they can measure in the ice records and most of the other records. So we really have to make a conscious choice to solve this problem.

Ryssdal: You spend some time in your book talking about the political issues about global warming and climate change and some of the problems. Let me see if I can turn that on its head for a second, though, and ask you to address the economic issues. When this meeting in Copenhagen gets down to it, and the richer countries are told by the developing countries, "Hey now, you had your run, we want our run." Do you think it's possible for rich countries to just pay these poorer countries to fight climate change and say, "Listen, we understand, here's some money, help us with the problem."

GORE: Well the disparity in the levels of income between countries like the United States, compared to many of these low-income, poor countries is so great that, of course, there will be an international fund established to help these poor countries with the adjustments they won't be able to make. The argument will be over the size of that fund. But the other thing that's changed the way the world looks at that particular dispute is that a lot of these poor countries have come to grips with the impacts that global warming are beginning to have on them. I was in Egypt a few weeks ago, and they're just now recognizing that almost half of their agriculture in is the Nile Delta, less than 1 meter above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. These developing countries are discovering fresh and urgent reasons why they need to work with the rest of the world to get a comprehensive, global solution because they've got so much at stake.

Ryssdal: Kind of speaks to the denial of the whole thing, right? The Egyptians just now realizing that the Nile Delta is a meter above sea level?

GORE: Well, the old cliche, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" is now fully complete. It is also a river in Egypt.

Ryssdal: You'd think I'd set you up for that, wouldn't you?

GORE: Well, could be, could be.

Ryssdal: Listen, on the theory that there is a limit to the public purse for even spending on this issue. Is there room for the private sector to step in? As a guy who I imagine invests in green technology -- and who is conversant in these kinds of things -- what do you think has to come out of Copenhagen that's going to make this viable as an investment and as an economic opportunity?

GORE: Well, that's not my principal business, but I have made some investments. And I want to be part of the change that I want to see in the world, to quote a famous man. But a recognition of the artificial subsidies that are now going to the burning of coal and oil is really the single most important thing. And putting a price on C02 emissions is the way to introduce a level of reality into the measuring of the choices that we make. We're pretending now that it's perfectly OK to dump 90 million tons of this stuff into the thin shell of atmosphere around our planet every single day, as if it's an open sewer. And it's not OK. And the sooner we recognize the reality of the situation and start having rules of the road that let investors and business people and everybody get a clearer picture of the real value of the choices we're making, the better it's going to be for our economy, the better it's going to be for our children.

Ryssdal: Quantify this for me for a second, would you? On the scale of railroads and computers, what kind of economic transformation are we looking at here with a low-carbon, green energy, save-the-planet economy?

GORE: Think about what happened after the Internet was introduced to the world of personal computers, and personal digital assistants, and now iPhones, and in the same way the development of these smart grids with much more efficient energy generation, storage, transmission, distribution and consumption will trigger a giant, global marketplace. We're moving to what they call a widely-distributed model, meaning of course that instead of relying on large central station, thousand mega-watt generating plants, people are going to have rooftop photovoltaic cells and smart batteries and all kinds of devices. Some of them, again, haven't even been invented yet. But there's going to be a giant new family of industries coming out of this transition to a low-carbon economy.

Ryssdal: Al Gore. His most recent book is called "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis." Mr. Gore, thanks a lot for your time.

GORE: Thank you very much, Kai.

Pages

richard schumacher's picture
richard schumacher - Dec 11, 2009

Eliminating fossil fuels worldwide will require building hundreds of nuclear power plants, millions of wind turbines, thousands of square miles (!) of Solar collectors, and hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines to connect all of those sources with customers. That means millions of good jobs in engineering, manufacturing, construction, and maintenance. The benefits will go mostly to people who take the lead, and not to those who whine about the initial investment and effort required.

For discussion of the facts of global warming see
http://www.realclimate.org

Julian Bruno's picture
Julian Bruno - Dec 10, 2009

What is so obvious now is that Marketplace is now going along with "hiding the decline"; it's pathetic.

Demos Papadopoulos's picture
Demos Papadopoulos - Dec 10, 2009

There's nothing wrong with going green as long as we are not fooling ourselves thinking that we are going to cool down the earth. And don't be fooled that cap & trade will reduce total emissions. All it does is to shift money around. When ever there is movement of money someone takes a cut. Guess who that will be?

Doug Tetrault's picture
Doug Tetrault - Dec 10, 2009

Al Gore is totally on point. Green jobs and the green economy are the wave of the future in this country. There is tons of information out there about the new green economy and how companies and states are taking advantage of this unique opportunity even during these difficult economic times. The website http://www.greencollareconomy.com has a directory of thousands of businesses who have embraced the new green market and are using the power of collaboration and global networks to produce jobs and economic prosperity. At www.greencollareconomy.com there are also a number of white papers that demonstrate the opportunity we have to create a green jobs and examples of those who are already moving toward this market in full force. I encourage readers to take a look and learn more about the green collar economy as this will be a signature strategy to alleviating our economic and environmental crises.

Doug Tetrault's picture
Doug Tetrault - Dec 10, 2009

Al Gore is totally on point. Green jobs and the green economy are the wave of the future in this country. There is tons of information out there about the new green economy and how companies and states are taking advantage of this unique opportunity even during these difficult economic times. The website http://www.greencollareconomy.com has a directory of thousands of businesses who have embraced the new green market and are using the power of collaboration and global networks to produce jobs and economic prosperity. At www.greencollareconomy.com there are also a number of white papers that demonstrate the opportunity we have to create a green jobs and examples of those who are already moving toward this market in full force. I encourage readers to take a look and learn more about the green collar economy as this will be a signature strategy to alleviating our economic and environmental crises.

Scott Q's picture
Scott Q - Dec 10, 2009

I could scarcely believe that Kai didn't question Gore on the financial impact to the citizens: companies are obviously not going to eat the cost of implementing carbon-reduction measures but are going to pass them to the consumer. Additionally, citizens will be forced to come up with more money to fix their house, change their cars, etc. Gore may benefit financially from all of this but the general population will certainly be damaged.

OH - and remember - this is all to alleviate hypothesized impacts from a THEORY (that humans are the cause of any global warming trends) - a theory backed by number-fudging scientists. There is NO evidence to imply that changes to be forced on us (carbon reduction) will actually impact anything.

C H's picture
C H - Dec 10, 2009

What always confuses me about this debate is the desperate need people seem to have for concrete proof. "What will happen in ten years if we don't change our behavior at all". Are we really so thick that we need a state to fall off into the ocean or something in order to finally say ok we are changing the planet and not in a good way and maybe a little change in behavior won't kill us but stubbornly refusing to do anything at all might?

Daryl Reece's picture
Daryl Reece - Dec 10, 2009

Marketplace pretends to talk about business, but doesn't do a good job on this one. The problem with all of these efforts (e.g. efficiency, conservation and green energy) is they have large up front capital investments which leads to lower returns. If we put more resources into climate change, there will be less for cancer treatment, combatting hunger, recreation, ..... This is a very difficult problem understand and I would guess that most peple who have opinions on the matter have no idea what an absorption spectra is, let alone understand the full problem.

Harvey Johnson's picture
Harvey Johnson - Dec 10, 2009

NPR did do a segment on "Climategate". The most damaging email was one which stated that there was a set of data from the 1960's that did not follow the curve and they did not have an explanation for it. But one glitch in climate data from one institution does not disprove the whole thing. To take one isolated set of data to disprove the whole lot of data is bad science being used to call science bad.

Reading the arguments back and forth on the climate, it is so ironic to see the same arguments going on with the citizens of Tuvalu, an island nation between Hawaii and Australia. Their agriculture is failing because it is being poisoned by rising sea water, and they are having increasing tidal flooding. There are discussions going on in Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand about which nation will accept evacuees. Even in the face of these happenings, people like the former Prime Minister Maatia Toafa insist his government did not regard rising sea levels as such a threat that the entire population would need to be evacuated. And his government said the current discussions on where to place evacuees were not related to environmental concerns.

I do confess that having Al Gore as a lead spokesperson for the planet is bad idea, as he was already hated by the Republicans before he took up the issue. And I am disappointed with him that after getting on his "Repower America" news email list, every bit of news he sends out is done in the context of fund raising.

Michael McFadden's picture
Michael McFadden - Dec 10, 2009

GORE: "And the accumulations have now reached levels that are unprecedented going back as far as they can measure in the ice records and most of the other records."

This is a PATENTLY FALSE statement.
Ice core records show that the past atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been as much as 20-30 times (!) higher than current levels and it did not lead to runaway global warming (quite the opposite, in fact). Furthermore, the ice core records also show that global temperature increases *lead* atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, not the other way around. In particular, atmospheric CO2 concentrations lag temperature increases by ~800 years! There are other data points I could cite, but it all amounts to mean (at least) two things - CO2 is not responsible for climate change, and Al Gore is deliberately deceiving the public and should be called out as a fraud.

There is no consensus among scientists that human carbon emissions are responsible for climate change, and proving that climate change is happening is not proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible. I'm a scientist (with my very own PhD to prove it), and I say that anthropogenic climate change is a load of tripe, and so do more than 31,000 others who have signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project (see www.petitionproject.org)

Nevertheless, even if there were a consensus among 99.9999% of scientists, it would make no difference: science is not a democracy. As Gore himself likes to say, "facts are facts." There used to be a scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but that wasn't true either.

Kai, Marketplace, APM, you have got to issue a correction of Gore's statement, and be a little more rigorous in your reporting in the future - that, or run the risk of Marketplace degenerating into a forum for shills like Gore to plug their latest pseudo-scientific fictions.

Pages