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.
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
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next ›
The Big Bang, relativity, quantum mechanics -- all theories. How did anthropogenic global warming Pass Theory, Collect $2T & Go Straight To Being Settled?
Come on, Kai, I expect more from you and the Marketplace team. You have seriously made me question your judgment and journalistic integrity.
I have to say I am a little disappointed in Marketplace and Kai for not bringing up “Climategate†and a more financial point of view in his interview with Al Gore but, I still like Marketplace your still cool Kai :). While I don't agree with Global warming especially with “Climategate†being released which is actually not biased but scientist who where just ignored for not having the same point of view, I do believe this so called "Green Economy" can have a great financial impact on our economy and help to create laws that keep regular poor, middle class and rich alike from subsidizing insurance for people who love ocean front property then cry on the 5:00 o'clock news when their house gets swept away (or the burned down from a forest fire, like in California). A "Green Economy" could help create new jobs, remove us from being reliant on oil and the countries that hate us so much but deal with us only out of necessity (Saudi, Dubai, etc...). We could make money then, from refining oil for other countries (at least in the west) and even selling it from Alaska, Texas and coastal Atlantic states such as South Carolina. We talk about giving money to poor countries, visit Myrtle Beach and surrounding areas such as Conway and Choppee in Horry County during Myrtle Beaches off season and I'll show you poor like none other. If it was on the news you'd think it was New Orleans part 2. Off sure drilling and selling that oil would be a substantial income for those that live in areas like that. Nuclear plants could be built which means you need nuclear plant workers, which calls for better steal products , research into dealing with nuclear waste and better nuclear output. Construction areas would boom as a result of creating houses more efficient. There are many areas that can boom from a "Green Economy" but the reason why some ideas are promoted is due to who invest in them. BP supports wind energy but, they burn both ends of the stick, promote wind energy and produce oil.
Eliza: You say that in the scientific community, it's not possible to fake results. Oh, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't know why you give scientists a pass but you assume everyone else is driven by greed and therefore must be wrong. You don't think that there is a profit motive behind their research results? How do you think they get their funding? They get it from the feds by yelling fire and scaring everyone into giving them more money for research. And speaking of their research and climate models: I have a computer science background and have actually worked on some of those climate models, and I can make them give you any result you want. There is nothing sacred about a climate model, it's just a program. It's only as honest as the person who creates it. When people conspire, as the emails have shown, then data will be manipulated.
One big falsehood coming from the Church of Global Warming is that there is "consensus among scientists" and slogans such as "the debate is over now", let's move on to the solution. When the press is embed with the alarmists and becomes a propaganda arm and also suppresses any dissenting evidence, then you have, what you call, "consensus". So then, what is this entire exercise about if there is no global warming? It's about world domination. The Marxists have found that the path to world socialism is through the environment. There are plenty of useful idiots in the green movement. And of course who doesn't want to help the poor countries etc. etc.
Capitalism is the only model that works. It was here before the feudal times, and it got Europe out of the dark ages. Russia, China at the cost of millions of lives have tried socialism and have abandoned it, and thanks to our community organizer and his czars, will overtake the US and we'll be left sucking our thumbs.
Here are a few more facts:
- CO2 is not a pollutant it's plant food,
- Obama was given the nobel because he is to deliver the US to the Marxists. He's a good student,
- Al Gore is a charlatan and will be raking in Billions brokering the cap and tax credits,
- The earth's temperature has been oscillating long before anyone was here to measure it, and a couple of hundred years of disputable data does not make for a pattern for the life of the planet, just wishful thinking.
- The US has been pouring trillions in to developing countries and it's only because of the success of our capitalist system that we have been able to carry the rest of the world on our back and defend them from each other. You take away our system and redistribute our wealth and we'll end right down there with them, dirt floors and all.
WAKE UP!!!
I was pretty surprised to read some of these comments...
Walt Larkins--Nobody said that the Polar Bear was "endangered." The Polar Bear is under the umbrella term "threatened" within which its status is "vulnerable" as opposed to "endangered" or "critically endangered." In 1973 5 countries in which polar bears live signed the "International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears," which might explain then why there would be more polar bears today than there were in the 70s. As much of the land which polar bears live on today is melting from under them, the agreed-upon terms "threatened" or "vulnerable" seem appropriate to me. They are literally losing ground.
Owen Musselwhite--I see your point. Designated aid money doesn't always go where it is supposed to and that's a problem. Would you then say though that the "developed" contries in the world should wait while people in "developing" nations continue to suffer? We have enough resources, enough money, for everyone in the world to eat, and yet so many people in the world are still starving. Should I be able to take for granted bottled water when children all over the world are hungry every day? What should the richer countries do?--it doesn't seem anyone has the answer, but we can't forget that question.
Richard Lather--is it so hard to believe that Al Gore might not be acting? Being Politic, sure, but acting? Is it possible that he might actually care about what seems to be happening to our earth--that the exorbitant amount of waste we create and dump has run out of places to go and now overflows into our air and water--and that he wants to do something about it? It is conceivably possible in some scenario that he could be doing this for attention or money. But if you listen to what he is saying--what countless scientist are observing: The Carbon that humans release into the atmosphere, mostly by burning coal and petroleum and by cutting down trees, is 100 times the amount of carbon released by volcanic activity world-wide. Considering how much CO2 volcanoes produce, that's impressive. Overall, there has been a measurable 30% increase in CO2 from before the Industrial Revolution. That's dangerous.
Demos Papadopoulos--these measurements are taken regularly and by many different people. In the scientific community it's not really possible to fake results like that. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but the people who came up with the word "Climategate," these "whistleblowers" are the same people who benefit from our capitalist system the way it is now and who don't want to change it. They like gasoline and cars and making goods cheaply. They have investments in these industries and they don't want to let go of them. They want you to think that Al Gore is a bad guy so you won't turn around and question them. They want you to think Climate change is a hoax so that you continue to use and buy the resources that are making them rich. And I'm sorry but you're buying and repeating that propaganda. Why can't we take care of our Earth and have opportunities we want to have at the same time? And why don't we start by making sure that everyone is fed?
Comments so far are ad hominem. Sen. Gore is quoting scientists. Do people disbelieve in the Greenland ice cores analysis? Reports that the ice roads carrying heavy equipment to the North Slope are melting? that one ice shelf after another has broken off? Do they believe reports that kids who live near freeways have permanently impaired lung capacity?
As world leaders gear up for what could be a historic climate meeting in Copenhagen, chances of a succesul outcome and agreement by the nations to curb emissions seem grim.
Perhaps the only way these problems will ever get solved is if we humans change our values; when we start to value the important things in life like love, quality time, family values, friendships and respect, care for the better world for our children, and NOT status or material goods. Maybe we humans are just too vain, and in this climate problem we are seeing the worst of ourselves in the mirror, we see power struggle, we see greed, we see corruption. And it is sad to see that that is all our society amounts to at the end of the day.
Climate change is just too deeply rooted in the economy and the push for more consumption of an ever growing population of consumers. Here in United States at least, and probably around the rest of the world, the solution to the problem is greatly retarded by the lack of scientific and technological awareness. Here superstitions and political passions often trump sound reasoning. A lot of folks still believe emissions just vanish and do not impact climate in any way, they fail to reason that adding human produced chemicals to a finite atmosphere changes that atmosphere. Most don't even know about the island of trash in the Pacific Ocean. Let's look at an example... we can probably curb at least CO2 emissions by undertaking serious steps into nuclear energy and innovating our vehicles to be electric... But just try to pass that legislature. All car manufacturers and god knows how many other financially interested corporations will be lobbying to kill it. Adaptation to a new standard is much more costly then simply paying lobbyists and tv/radio stations to influence opinions and killing legislature.
Our parents and grandparents fought many great wars for human rights, to make a world a better place. They accomplished a lot and solved many challenges of their generations, and now it is time for our generation to take a torch and continue their legacy. It is time for us to solve the problems that face our generation. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our planet.
To the people who have boldly commented on their disbelief in global warming and their disdain for Al Gore, I would like to see you all put some money down on your 'let's-all-put-our-heads-in-the-sand' attitude. An excellent way to demonstrate your certainty would be to buy a home or 2 within the 3 feet above current sea-level zone. Arrogant and foolish are the words that come to my mind when I read your flip remarks. To think that 9 billion humans can't have a detrimental affect on the environment that sustains them is short-sighted indeed.
Al Gore stands to make hudreds of millions of dollars on this hoax if God forbid(yes, I said God)any of this "legislation" ever becomes law. In 1970 there were 5,000 polar bears, today there are 25,000. They hardly seem endangered to me. I noticed that you left out some of Al's blatent hoax "facts" i.e. "40% of the arctic is already gone and the rest will be gone in a decade". The only thing that will be "gone" is our freedom and lots of our money. I find it hard to believe that anyone takes this guy seriously. I don't know if anyone has ever been required to return a Nobel prize, but he should be the first.
Does America really need to do this now? Already we are in a credit depression and we are constantly losing jobs due to the global wage arbitrage. Now, we are willfully sabotaging ourselves with a tax that is globally agreed on, but not globally applied. Are we so ashamed of our success that we are willing to fall on our sword?
My feelings regarding this story are in line with the other commenters. Let's just skip over the unproven assertions Mr. Gore and company so blythly toss about (unchallenged by you) and go straight to the money. After all isn't that what your show i supposed to be about? Mr. Gore says it's only right the richer nations of the world fund (read: subsidize) the "poorer" country's anti-climate change expenses. Would these be the same countries we've given over a trillion aid dollars too since the 1950s? These self same countries which remain worn torn bastions of pirates and famine? So tell me, how in God's these country's leaders who don't see fit to buy food for their starving citizens will suddenly feel the need to seal the windows and doors on the hovels of thes serfs? Amazing! How much actual thought would it take for Mr. Gore to connect the dots and see that money will go nowhere near the peole of these countries because it'll be funding the private armies and private jets of the same despots who hoard aid dollars sent to them now. To a murderous dictator what's the difference between a stolen "aid" dollar and a stolen "climate change" dollar?
What's worse? You journalists don't ask him OBVIOUS questions about these leaps of faith he is so graciously willing to take with other people's money! WHAT ARE YOU [not] THINKING?
Sign me,
Disappointed Listener
Pages
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next ›
