Óþægilegur sannleikur

Al Gore vann Óskarinn fyrir bestu heimildarmyndina. !!!  

As Prepared Remarks by Former Vice President Al Gore
New York University School of Law
September 18, 2006


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you Paul and Jim for those kind introductions.  I would especially
like to thank our host, New York University and the President of the College
John Sexton and the Dean of the Law School Richard Revesz.  I am also
grateful to our co-sponsors, the World Resources Institute and Set America
Free.

A few days ago, scientists announced alarming new evidence of the rapid
melting of the perennial ice of the north polar cap, continuing a trend of
the past several years that now confronts us with the prospect that human
activities, if unchecked in the next decade, could destroy one of the
earth¹s principle mechanisms for cooling itself. Another group of scientists
presented evidence that human activities are responsible for the dramatic
warming of sea surface temperatures in the areas of the ocean where
hurricanes form. A few weeks earlier, new information from yet another team
showed dramatic increases in the burning of forests throughout the American
West, a trend that has increased decade by decade, as warmer temperatures
have dried out soils and vegetation. All these findings come at the end of a
summer with record breaking temperatures and the hottest twelve month period
ever measured in the U.S., with persistent drought in vast areas of our
country. Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special
issue this month with the following sentence: ³The debate on global warming
is over.²

Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several
³tipping points² that could ­ within as little as 10 years ­ make it
impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet¹s habitability
for human civilization. In this regard, just a few weeks ago, another group
of scientists reported on the unexpectedly rapid increases in the release of
carbon and methane emissions from frozen tundra in Siberia, now beginning to
thaw because of human caused increases in global temperature. The scientists
tell us that the tundra in danger of thawing contains an amount of
additional global warming pollution that is equal to the total amount that
is already in the earth¹s atmosphere. Similarly, earlier this year, yet
another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32
glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale ­
a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep
within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to
raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea.
Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary
emergency ­ a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce
carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth¹s
thermostat and avert catastrophe.

The serious debate over the climate crisis has now moved on to the question
of how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic
damage.

This debate over solutions has been slow to start in earnest not only
because some of our leaders still find it more convenient to deny the
reality of the crisis, but also because the hard truth for the rest of us is
that the maximum that seems politically feasible still falls far short of
the minimum that would be effective in solving the crisis. This no-man¹s
land ­ or no politician zone ­falling between the farthest reaches of
political feasibility and the first beginnings of truly effective change is
the area that I would like to explore in my speech today.

T. S. Eliot once wrote: Between the idea and the reality, Between the motion
and the act Falls the Shadow. %u0160 Between the conception and the creation,
Between the emotion and the response Falls the Shadow.

My purpose is not to present a comprehensive and detailed blueprint ­ for
that is a task for our democracy as a whole ­ but rather to try to shine
some light on a pathway through this terra incognita that lies between where
we are and where we need to go. Because, if we acknowledge candidly that
what we need to do is beyond the limits of our current political capacities,
that really is just another way of saying that we have to urgently expand
the limits of what is politically possible.

I have no doubt that we can do precisely that, because having served almost
three decades in elected office, I believe I know one thing about America¹s
political system that some of the pessimists do not: it shares something in
common with the climate system; it can appear to move only at a slow pace,
but it can also cross a tipping point beyond which it can move with
lightning speed. Just as a single tumbling rock can trigger a massive
landslide, America has sometimes experienced sudden avalanches of political
change that had their beginnings with what first seemed like small changes.

Two weeks ago, Democrats and Republicans joined together in our largest
state, California, to pass legally binding sharp reductions in CO2
emissions. 295 American cities have now independently ³ratified² and
embraced CO2 reductions called for in the Kyoto Treaty. 85 conservative
evangelical ministers publicly broke with the Bush-Cheney administration to
call for bold action to solve the climate crisis. Business leaders in both
political parties have taken significant steps to position their companies
as leaders in this struggle and have adopted a policy that not only reduces
CO2 but makes their companies zero carbon companies. Many of them have
discovered a way to increase profits and productivity by eliminating their
contributions to global warming pollution.

Many Americans are now seeing a bright light shining from the far side of
this no-man¹s land that illuminates not sacrifice and danger, but instead a
vision of a bright future that is better for our country in every way ­ a
future with better jobs, a cleaner environment, a more secure nation, and a
safer world.



After all, many Americans are tired of borrowing huge amounts of money from
China to buy huge amounts of oil from the Persian Gulf to make huge amounts
of pollution that destroys the planet¹s climate. Increasingly, Americans
believe that we have to change every part of that pattern.



When I visit port cities like Seattle, New Orleans, or Baltimore, I find
massive ships, running low in the water, heavily burdened with foreign cargo
or foreign oil arriving by the thousands.  These same cargo ships and
tankers depart riding high with only ballast water to keep them from rolling
over.



One-way trade is destructive to our economic future. We send money,
electronically, in the opposite direction. But, we can change this by
inventing and manufacturing new solutions to stop global warming right here
in America.  I still believe in good old-fashioned American ingenuity.  We
need to fill those ships with new products and technologies that we create
to turn down the global thermostat. Working together, we can create jobs and
stop global warming. But we must begin by winning the first key battle ­
against inertia and the fear of change.


In order to conquer our fear and walk boldly forward on the path that lies
before us, we have to insist on a higher level of honesty in America¹s
political dialogue. When we make big mistakes in America, it is usually
because the people have not been given an honest accounting of the choices
before us. It also is often because too many members of both parties who
knew better did not have the courage to do better.

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 the spectacle of censorship of the best scientific
evidence about the truth of our situation and harassment of honest
scientists who are trying to warn us about the 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 in the United States of America have a particularly important
responsibility, after all, because the world still regards us ­ in spite of
our recent moral lapses ­ as the natural leader of the community of nations.
Simply put, in order for the world to respond urgently to the climate
crisis, the United States must lead the way. No other nation can.

Developing countries like China and India have gained their own
understanding of how threatening the climate crisis is to them, but they
will never find the political will to make the necessary changes in their
growing economies unless and until the United States leads the way. Our
natural role is to be the pace car in the race to stop global warming.

So, what would a responsible approach to the climate crisis look like if we
had one in America?

Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions
and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates
about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase
emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways,
that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the
gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it
is not.

An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to
understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical
starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead. I remember a
quarter century ago when I was the author of a complex nuclear arms control
plan to deal with the then rampant arms race between our country and the
former Soviet Union. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the nuclear
freeze movement, which I saw as simplistic and naive. But, 3 4 of the
American
people supported it ­ and as I look back on those years I see more clearly
now that the outpouring of public support for that very simple and clear
mandate changed the political landscape and made it possible for more
detailed and sophisticated proposals to eventually be adopted.

When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat, our nation
needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is
broadly supported on a bipartisan basis.

A responsible approach to solving this crisis would also involve joining the
rest of the global economy in playing by the rules of the world treaty that
reduces global warming pollution by authorizing the trading of emissions
within a global cap.

At present, the global system for carbon emissions trading is embodied in
the Kyoto Treaty. It drives reductions in CO2 and helps many countries that
are a part of the treaty to find the most efficient ways to meet their
targets for reductions. It is true that not all countries are yet on track
to meet their targets, but the first targets don¹t have to be met until 2008
and the largest and most important reductions typically take longer than the
near term in any case.

The absence of the United States from the treaty means that 25% of the world
economy is now missing. It is like filling a bucket with a large hole in the
bottom. When the United States eventually joins the rest of the world
community in making this system operate well, the global market for carbon
emissions will become a highly efficient closed system and every corporate
board of directors on earth will have a fiduciary duty to manage and reduce
CO2 emissions in order to protect shareholder value.

Many American businesses that operate in other countries already have to
abide by the Kyoto Treaty anyway, and unsurprisingly, they are the companies
that have been most eager to adopt these new principles here at home as
well. The United States and Australia are the only two countries in the
developed world that have not yet ratified the Kyoto Treaty. Since the
Treaty has been so demonized in America¹s internal debate, it is difficult
to imagine the current Senate finding a way to ratify it. But the United
States should immediately join the discussion that is now underway on the
new tougher treaty that will soon be completed. We should plan to accelerate
its adoption and phase it in more quickly than is presently planned.

Third, a responsible approach to solutions would avoid the mistake of trying
to find a single magic ³silver bullet² and recognize that the answer will
involve what Bill McKibben has called ³silver-buckshot² ­ numerous important
solutions, all of which are hard, but no one of which is by itself the full
answer for our problem.

One of the most productive approaches to the ³multiple solutions² needed is
a road-map designed by two Princeton professors, Rob Socolow and Steven
Pacala, which breaks down the overall problem into more manageable parts.
Socolow and Pacala have identified 15 or 20 building blocks (or ³wedges²)
that can be used to solve our problem effectively ­ even if we only use 7 or
8 of them. I am among the many who have found this approach useful as a way
to structure a discussion of the choices before us.

Over the next year, I intend to convene an ongoing broad-based discussion of
solutions that will involve leaders from government, science, business,
labor, agriculture, grass-roots activists, faith communities and others.

I am convinced that it is possible to build an effective consensus in the
United States and in the world at large on the most effective approaches to
solve the climate crisis. Many of those solutions will be found in the
building blocks that currently structure so many discussions. But I am also
certain that some of the most powerful solutions will lie beyond our current
categories of building blocks and ³wedges.² Our secret strength in America
has always been our capacity for vision. ³Make no little plans,² one of our
most famous architects said over a century ago, ³they have no magic to stir
men¹s blood.²

I look forward to the deep discussion and debate that lies ahead. But there
are already some solutions that seem to stand out as particularly promising:

First, dramatic improvements in the efficiency with which we generate,
transport and use energy will almost certainly prove to be the single
biggest source of sharp reductions in global warming pollution. Because
pollution has been systematically ignored in the old rules of America¹s
marketplace, there are lots of relatively easy ways to use new and more
efficient options to cheaply eliminate it. Since pollution is, after all,
waste, business and industry usually become more productive and efficient
when they systematically go about reducing pollution. After all, many of the
technologies on which we depend are actually so old that they are inherently
far less efficient than newer technologies that we haven¹t started using.
One of the best examples is the internal combustion engine. When scientists
calculate the energy content in BTUs of each gallon of gasoline used in a
typical car, and then measure the amounts wasted in the car¹s routine
operation, they find that an incredible 90% of that energy is completely
wasted. One engineer, Amory Lovins, has gone farther and calculated the
amount of energy that is actually used to move the passenger (excluding the
amount of energy used to move the several tons of metal surrounding the
passenger) and has found that only 1% of the energy is actually used to move
the person. This is more than an arcane calculation, or a parlor trick with
arithmetic. These numbers actually illuminate the single biggest opportunity
to make our economy more efficient and competitive while sharply reducing
global warming pollution.

To take another example, many older factories use obsolete processes that
generate prodigious amounts of waste heat that actually has tremendous
economic value. By redesigning their processes and capturing all of that
waste, they can eliminate huge amounts of global warming pollution while
saving billions of dollars at the same time.

When we introduce the right incentives for eliminating pollution and
becoming more efficient, many businesses will begin to make greater use of
computers and advanced monitoring systems to identify even more
opportunities for savings. This is what happened in the computer chip
industry when more powerful chips led to better computers, which in turn
made it possible to design even more powerful chips, in a virtuous cycle of
steady improvement that became known as ³Moore¹s Law.² We may well see the
emergence of a new version of ³Moore¹s Law² producing steadily higher levels
of energy efficiency at steadily lower cost.

There is yet another lesson we can learn from America¹s success in the
information revolution. When the Internet was invented ­ and I assure you I
intend to choose my words carefully here ­ it was because defense planners
in the Pentagon forty years ago were searching for a way to protect
America¹s command and communication infrastructure from being disrupted in a
nuclear attack. The network they created ­ known as ARPANET ­ was based on
³distributed communication² that allowed it to continue functioning even if
part of it was destroyed.

Today, our nation faces threats very different from those we countered
during the Cold War. We worry today that terrorists might try to inflict
great damage on America¹s energy infrastructure by attacking a single
vulnerable part of the oil distribution or electricity distribution network.
So, taking a page from the early pioneers of ARPANET, we should develop a
distributed electricity and liquid fuels distribution network that is less
dependent on large coal-fired generating plants and vulnerable oil ports and
refineries.

Small windmills and photovoltaic solar cells distributed widely throughout
the electricity grid would sharply reduce CO2 emissions and at the same time
increase our energy security. Likewise, widely dispersed ethanol and
biodiesel production facilities would shift our transportation fuel stocks
to renewable forms of energy while making us less dependent on and
vulnerable to disruptions in the supply of expensive crude oil from the
Persian Gulf, Venezuela and Nigeria, all of which are extremely unreliable
sources upon which to base our future economic vitality. It would also make
us less vulnerable to the impact of a category 5 hurricane hitting coastal
refineries or to a terrorist attack on ports or key parts of our current
energy infrastructure.

Just as a robust information economy was triggered by the introduction of
the Internet, a dynamic new renewable energy economy can be stimulated by
the development of an ³electranet,² or smart grid, that allows individual
homeowners and business-owners anywhere in America to use their own
renewable sources of energy to sell electricity into the grid when they have
a surplus and purchase it from the grid when they don¹t. The same electranet
could give homeowners and business-owners accurate and powerful tools with
which to precisely measure how much energy they are using where and when,
and identify opportunities for eliminating unnecessary costs and wasteful
usage patterns.

A second group of building blocks to solve the climate crisis involves
America¹s transportation infrastructure. We could further increase the value
and efficiency of a distributed energy network by retooling our failing auto
giants ­ GM and Ford ­ to require and assist them in switching to the
manufacture of flex-fuel, plug-in, hybrid vehicles. The owners of such
vehicles would have the ability to use electricity as a principle source of
power and to supplement it by switching from gasoline to ethanol or
biodiesel. This flexibility would give them incredible power in the
marketplace for energy to push the entire system to much higher levels of
efficiency and in the process sharply reduce global warming pollution.

This shift would also offer the hope of saving tens of thousands of good
jobs in American companies that are presently fighting a losing battle
selling cars and trucks that are less efficient than the ones made by their
competitors in countries where they were forced to reduce their pollution
and thus become more efficient.

It is, in other words, time for a national oil change. That is apparent to
anyone who has looked at our national dipstick.

Our current ridiculous dependence on oil endangers not only our national
security, but also our economic security. Anyone who believes that the
international market for oil is a ³free market² is seriously deluded. It has
many characteristics of a free market, but it is also subject to periodic
manipulation by the small group of nations controlling the largest
recoverable reserves, sometimes in concert with companies that have great
influence over the global production, refining, and distribution network.

It is extremely important for us to be clear among ourselves that these
periodic efforts to manipulate price and supply have not one but two
objectives. They naturally seek to maximize profits. But even more
significantly, they seek to manipulate our political will. Every time we
come close to recognizing the wisdom of developing our own independent
sources of renewable fuels, they seek to dissipate our sense of urgency and
derail our effort to become less dependent. That is what is happening at
this very moment.

Shifting to a greater reliance on ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, butanol, and
green diesel fuels will not only reduce global warming pollution and enhance
our national and economic security, it will also reverse the steady loss of
jobs and income in rural America. Several important building blocks for
America¹s role in solving the climate crisis can be found in new approaches
to agriculture. As pointed out by the ³25 by 25² movement (aimed at securing
25% of America¹s power and transportation fuels from agricultural sources by
the year 2025) we can revitalize the farm economy by shifting its mission
from a focus on food, feed and fiber to a focus on food, feed, fiber, fuel,
and ecosystem services. We can restore the health of depleted soils by
encouraging and rewarding the growing of fuel source crops like switchgrass
and saw-grass, using no till cultivation, and scientific crop rotation. We
should also reward farmers for planting more trees and sequestering more
carbon, and recognize the economic value of their stewardship of resources
that are important to the health of our ecosystems.

Similarly, we should take bold steps to stop deforestation and extend the
harvest cycle on timber to optimize the carbon sequestration that is most
powerful and most efficient with older trees. On a worldwide basis, 2 and
1 2
trillion tons of the 10 trillion tons of CO2 emitted each year come from
burning forests. So, better management of forests is one of the single most
important strategies for solving the climate crisis.

Biomass‹whether in the form of trees, switchgrass, or other sources‹is one
of the most important forms of renewable energy.  And renewable sources make
up one of the most promising building blocks for reducing carbon pollution.

Wind energy is already fully competitive as a mainstream source of
electricity and will continue to grow in prominence and profitability.

Solar photovoltaic energy is‹according to researchers‹much closer than it
has ever been to a cost competitive breakthrough, as new nanotechnologies
are being applied to dramatically enhance the efficiency with which solar
cells produce electricity from sunlight‹and as clever new designs for
concentrating solar energy are used with new approaches such as Stirling
engines that can bring costs sharply down.

Buildings‹both commercial and residential‹represent a larger source of
global warming pollution than cars and trucks.  But new architecture and
design techniques are creating dramatic new opportunities for huge savings
in energy use and global warming pollution. As an example of their
potential, the American Institute of Architecture and the National
Conference of Mayors have endorsed the ³2030 Challenge,² asking the global
architecture and building community to immediately transform building design
to require that all new buildings and developments be designed to use one
half the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume for each building
type, and that all new buildings be carbon neutral by 2030, using zero
fossil fuels to operate.  A newly constructed building at Oberlin College is
producing 30 percent energy than it consumes.  Some other countries have
actually required a standard calling for zero carbon based energy inputs for
new buildings.

The rapid urbanization of the world¹s population is leading to the
prospective development of more new urban buildings in the next 35 years
than have been constructed in all previous human history.  This startling
trend represents a tremendous opportunity for sharp reductions in global
warming pollution through the use of intelligent architecture and design and
stringent standards.

Here in the US the extra cost of efficiency improvements such as thicker
insulation and more efficient window coatings have traditionally been
shunned by builders and homebuyers alike because they add to the initial
purchase price‹even though these investments typically pay for themselves by
reducing heating and cooling costs and then produce additional savings each
month for the lifetime of the building.  It should be possible to remove the
purchase price barrier for such improvements through the use of innovative
mortgage finance instruments that eliminate any additional increase in the
purchase price by capturing the future income from the expected savings.  We
should create a Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association to market these new
financial instruments and stimulate their use in the private sector by
utilities, banks and homebuilders.  This new ³Connie Mae² (CNMA) could be a
valuable instrument for reducing the pollution from new buildings.

Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming
pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power
plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to
nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear
reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries
as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about
nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world¹s energy future is not
the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or
the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let¹s assume for the moment that all
three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues
that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current
generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only
come in one size ­ extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy
prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand ­
and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental
additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and
quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer,
more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become
available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear
power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we
would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons
proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons
proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor
program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea
are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to
separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply
process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want
reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors
will only play a limited role.

The most important set of problems by that must be solved in charting
solutions for the climate crisis have to do with coal, one of the dirtiest
sources of energy that produces far more CO2 for each unit of energy output
than oil or gas. Yet, coal is found in abundance in the United States,
China, and many other places . Because the pollution from the burning of
coal is currently excluded from the market calculations of what it costs,
coal is presently the cheapest source of abundant energy. And its relative
role is growing rapidly day by day.

Fortunately, there may be a way to capture the CO2 produced as coal as
burned and sequester it safely to prevent it from adding to the climate
crisis. It is not easy. This technique, known as carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) is expensive and most users of coal have resisted the
investments necessary to use it. However, when the cost of not using it is
calculated, it becomes obvious that CCS will play a significant and growing
role as one of the major building blocks of a solution to the climate
crisis.

Interestingly, the most advanced and environmentally responsible project for
capturing and sequestering CO2 is in one of the most forbidding locations
for energy production anywhere in the world ­ in the Norwegian portions of
the North Sea. Norway, as it turns out, has hefty CO2 taxes; and, even
though there are many exceptions and exemptions, oil production is not one
of them. As a result, the oil producers have found it quite economical and
profitable to develop and use advanced CCS technologies in order to avoid
the tax they would otherwise pay for the CO2 they would otherwise emit. The
use of similar techniques could be required for coal-fired generating
plants, and can be used in combination with advanced approaches like
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). Even with the most advanced
techniques, however, the economics of carbon capture and sequestration will
depend upon the availability of and proximity to safe deep storage
reservoirs. Nevertheless, it is time to recognize that the phrase ³clean
coal technology² is devoid of meaning unless it means ³zero carbon
emissions² technology.

CCS is only one of many new technological approaches that require a
significant increase by governments and business in advanced research and
development to speed the availability of more effective technologies that
can help us solve the climate crisis more quickly. But it is important to
emphasize that even without brand new technologies, we already have
everything we need to get started on a solution to this crisis.

In a market economy like ours, however, every one of the solutions that I
have discussed will be more effective and much easier to implement if we
place a price on the CO2 pollution that is recognized in the marketplace. We
need to summon the courage to use the right tools for this job.

For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll
taxes ­ including those for social security and unemployment compensation ­
and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes ­
principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the
same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead
of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage
business from producing more pollution.

Global warming pollution, indeed all pollution, is now described by
economists as an ³externality.² This absurd label means, in essence: we
don¹t to keep track of this stuff so let¹s pretend it doesn¹t exist.

And sure enough, when it¹s not recognized in the marketplace, it does make
it much easier for government, business, and all the rest of us to pretend
that it doesn¹t exist. But what we¹re pretending doesn¹t exist is the stuff
that is destroying the habitability of the planet. We put 70 million tons of
it into the atmosphere every 24 hours and the amount is increasing day by
day. Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to
reduce that pollution.

When we place a more accurate value on the consequences of the choices we
make, our choices get better. At present, when business has to pay more
taxes in order to hire more people, it is discouraged from hiring more
people. If we change that and discourage them from creating more pollution
they will reduce their pollution. Our market economy can help us solve this
problem if we send it the right signals and tell ourselves the truth about
the economic impact of pollution.

Many of our leading businesses are already making dramatic changes to
reduce their global warming pollution. General Electric, Dupont, Cinergy,
Caterpillar, and Wal-Mart are among the many who are providing leadership
for the business community in helping us devise a solution for this crisis.

Leaders among unions ­ particularly the steel workers ­ have also added
momentum to this growing movement.

Hunters and fishermen are also now adding their voices to the call for a
solution to the crisis. In a recent poll, 86% of licensed hunters and
anglers said that we have a moral obligation to stop global warming to
protect our children¹s future.

And, young people ­ as they did during the Civil Rights Revolution ­ are
confronting their elders with insistent questions about the morality of not
moving swiftly to make these needed changes.

Moreover, the American religious community ­ including a group of 85
conservative evangelicals and especially the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops ­ has made an extraordinary contribution to this entire enterprise.
To the insights of science and technology, it has added the perspectives of
faith and values, of prophetic imagination, spiritual motivation, and moral
passion without which all our plans, no matter how reasonable, simply will
not prevail.   Individual faith groups have offered their own distinctive
views .   And yet --- uniquely in religious life at this moment and even
historically --- they have established common ground and resolve across
tenacious differences. In addition to reaching millions of people in the
pews, they have demonstrated the real possibility of what we all now need to
accomplish: how to be ourselves, together and how to discover, in this
process, a sense of vivid, living spirit and purpose that elevates the
entire human enterprise.

Individual Americans of all ages are becoming a part of a movement, asking
what they can do as individuals and what they can do as consumers and as
citizens and voters. Many individuals and businesses have decided to take an
approach known as ³Zero Carbon.² They are reducing their CO2 as much as
possible and then offsetting the rest with reductions elsewhere including by
the planting of trees. At least one entire community ­ Ballard, a city of
18,000 people in Washington State ­ is embarking on a goal of making the
entire community zero carbon.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue. It affects the
survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left vs. right; it
is a question of right vs. wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the
habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that
follows ours.
What is motivating millions of Americans to think differently about
solutions to the climate crisis is the growing realization that this
challenge is bringing us unprecedented opportunity. I have spoken before
about the way the Chinese express the concept of crisis. They use two
symbols, the first of which ­ by itself ­ means danger. The second, in
isolation, means opportunity. Put them together, and you get ³crisis.² Our
single word conveys the danger but doesn¹t always communicate the presence
of opportunity in every crisis. In this case, the opportunity presented by
the climate crisis is not only the opportunity for new and better jobs, new
technologies, new opportunities for profit, and a higher quality of life. It
gives us an opportunity to experience something that few generations ever
have the privilege of knowing: a common moral purpose compelling enough to
lift us above our limitations and motivate us to set aside some of the
bickering to which we as human beings are naturally vulnerable. America¹s
so-called ³greatest generation² found such a purpose when they confronted
the crisis of global fascism and won a war in Europe and in the Pacific
simultaneously. In the process of achieving their historic victory, they
found that they had gained new moral authority and a new capacity for
vision. They created the Marshall Plan and lifted their recently defeated
adversaries from their knees and assisted them to a future of dignity and
self-determination. They created the United Nations and the other global
institutions that made possible many decades of prosperity, progress and
relative peace. In recent years we have squandered that moral authority and
it is high time to renew it by taking on the highest challenge of our
generation. In rising to meet this challenge, we too will find self-renewal
and transcendence and a new capacity for vision to see other crises in our
time that cry out for solutions: 20 million HIV/AIDs orphans in Africa
alone, civil wars fought by children, genocides and famines, the rape and
pillage of our oceans and forests, an extinction crisis that threatens the
web of life, and tens of millions of our fellow humans dying every year from
easily preventable diseases. And, by rising to meet the climate crisis, we
will find the vision and moral authority to see them not as political
problems but as moral imperatives.

This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity
to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a
better brighter future ­ a future worthy of the generations who come after
us and who have a right to be able to depend on us.

Josh Cherwin
Office of the Honorable Al Gore


  Al Gore on Global Warming, Sept 18, 2006.doc