Al Gore: "We have all the tools we need to solve 3 or 4 climate crises"

[bananas]

The Next Innovation Al Gore Most Wants to See--You May Be Surprised
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 09.23.09
Business & Politics



Talking Innovation at the Clinton Global Initiative
The unique ways we can harness innovation for sustainable development in the 21st century was the topic for the third major session at the Clinton Global Initiative. The dominant theme, unsurprisingly, was the use of innovation to emerge from various crises--of the economic, health, and, yes, climate variety. Al Gore was on hand to issue another call to action on climate, and he revealed the surprising innovation he'd most like to see develop next.

<snip>

"We Have All the Tools We Need to Solve 3 or 4 Climate Crises"
In the discussions, Al Gore was first to speak. Of course, he used the opportunity to draw attention to climate change. He was vehement and animated, perhaps inspired by the many important climate-themed events going on this week in the US. Since the topic was innovation, Gore discussed the recent work he's done assessing various solutions to the climate problem. Potential solutions were rooted in subjects as diverse as forestry and neurology, he said. And his conclusion?

"We have all the tools we need to solve 3 or 4 climate crises--but we only need to solve one," he said. What we're lacking is political will. Gore went on to discuss Copenhagen, saying, "it's very important we get a deal - not necessarily that the deal be perfect and include everything." He used the analogy to the treaty enacted to save the planet's ozone to point out that a treaty need not be perfect to solve a global crisis.

<snip>

Gore's Dream Innovation
The moderator asked the panelists (which included Nobel Laureate microfinance guru Muhammad Yunus) which innovation they'd most like to see emerge next. And the innovation Gore would most like to see? The emergence of sustainable capitalism, he said. Which would need to include placing an adequate cost on externalities, the like emissions generated from burning coal and the byproducts of manufacturing. As it is, some commodities and processes (coal, oil) are far too cheap--their price doesn't factor in the pollution and contamination they create. The companies that trade and use them dodge the price tag of environmental messes that other people must clean up, and the ill health effects others must pay to remedy.

<snip>

A lot of us have come to the same conclusion - there are more than enough solutions for global warming, nuclear energy isn't needed at all.

[NecklyTyler]

1. We have the tools to solve the problem, what we lack is the will power to implement a solution

As long as the existing energy companies have money to influence politicians, the legislation necessary to move to a low carbon, sustainable, renewable energy base will never pass. What it is going to take is for the people to vote the Republicans out of office and replace them with intelligent progressives and liberals who have the needs of the environment at the top of their list

[Nihil]

2. True: That is the problem but the solution is currently beyond reach (or serious belief).

> What it is going to take is for the people to vote the Republicans out of
> office and replace them with intelligent progressives and liberals who have
> the needs of the environment at the top of their list

It's not going to happen. Sure, you can take turns at voting one of the
wings of the Corporate Party into office but you will not see an "intelligent
progressive/liberal who has the needs of the environment at the top of
their list" coming into the race ... just remember what happened to Kucinich
in the last run around ...

:shrug:

[pscot]

8. We had all the tools when Al was VP

All we lacked was the will. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[elocs]

3. There may be the tools, but there is not the will. Until the wolf is at the door,

not enough people will be moved to act and by that time it will really be too late. There also needs to be contingency plans to deal with the outcome of climate change, but that won't happen either until it is already in full bloom.

[GliderGuider]

4. It's too late to change the trajectory of climate change, or a hundred other ecological horrors.

Fortunately, it's never too late to change the trajectory of the human heart.

As Tommy Douglas (the sainted Canadian socialist and leader of the New Democratic Party) once said, "Courage my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world."

[Nederland]

5. I'm always confused by you

Is it:

"...too late to change the trajectory of climate change, or a hundred other ecological horrors."

Or is it:

"...not too late to build a better world."


I suppose with your post-modernist narrative at work, the concept of two statements being logically contradictory is of no concern.

[GliderGuider]

6. That's a good thing.

The reason you're confused is that the two statements are orthogonal while you're still thinking in a single plane. We can have a better world even in the presence of unstoppable climate change and all the rest. We simply need to redefine the aspects of the human experience that give it value, and make those "better".

My candidate for such a redefinition is fostering the understanding that a strong sense of community is the primary key to personal happiness, and that all life is part of our global community. Damaging the quality of life of other community members diminishes the quality of life for all, so damaging the global community of life in any way is then seen as a sociopathic act. Presto, change.

[pscot]

9. The Guider is Canadian, you know

The language barrier sometimes causes essential elements to be lost in translation.

[GliderGuider]

10. "Two nations, divided by a common language" - Churchill

:toast:

[The2ndWheel]

7. "Sustainable capitalism. Sounds nice, doesn't it?"

It does sound nice. Makes about as much sense as changing the climate in order to stop climate change though.

The solution to the problem creates the next problem to be solved. We can't escape that. To think that we can, means that you haven't ever paid attention to anything that's ever happened anywhere ever. The more people you involve in the solution to the problem(which is always the basis of our solutions), results in more people being affected by the next problem. The fewer people you involve in the solution, results in the decreased ability to solve the problem, which then creates the next problem. We can't escape.

[kristopher]

11. Gore is spot on - as usual.

The naysayers and doomers - not so much.

[NNadir]

14. Any evidence for this appeal to authority statement by fiat?

Or should we believe it because some denialist blogger posts his obliviousness?

Who says?

Some dumb fundie who can't read a graph like the one below and spends all of his time opposing the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy?

Um, fundie boy, you do realize that like Muhammad Yunus, Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics?

Do they really teach in Fundie school that a Nobel Prize in Economics makes one an expert on energy? Maybe the real situation is that you and peel boy are so intellectually weak that you can't understand even the simplest fact, like winning a Nobel Prize in say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Stark">Physics doesn't make one an expert in say, the genetics of race.

If you guys actually knew any science, you wouldn't need "Al Gore says" and "Muhammad Yunus says" arguments. You would be able to explain concepts, like how that big F150 Ford Truck you drive is actually powered by wood, or that big giant solar PV system on your roof.

There is a poster here, by the way, who did convert a car to electricity, and posted the pictures of his work here. I don't think though, that he is waving his hands with bourgeois denial and announcing "there's no fucking problem here, it's easy!!!!!!"

He, I think, unlike you, can understand what the graph says:



"Not so much?"

What an ass.

[kristopher]

15. Isn't it great that the Republicans lost the election

And we are going to take action to meet our energy and climate crisis by deploying renewable energy instead of continuing to burn fossil fuels or by building more nuclear plants?

Isn't that GREAT???

I think it is.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. But, unfortunately, there are WAY too many tools trying to prevent that from happening.

[NickB79]

13. Of course we have plenty of tools. What we're desperately short on is time

Time in which to implement all of these grand plans before global warming hits its stride and goes into runaway warming mode (if it hasn't already).

Once the methane hydrates destabilize to a significant degree, nothing short of widespread geoengineering can stop the warming process.

[excess_3]

16. Gore will say anything, to help sell his carbon credits

if what Gore says is so easy,

the Europeans would reduce carbon unilaterally

[kristopher]

17. You are a liar.

[excess_3]

18. is Gore any different than Ed McMahon peddling insurance?

is Gore any different than the late Ed McMahon peddling insurance?
both have/had conflicts.

they would stand to make $$, if you take their advice.

[kristopher]

19. Ok brainiac

What company does Gore own that sells carbon offsets? Please include a stock symbol if possible so that we can research the ownership and business model of the company via its annual report.

You are spreading a bald faced right wingnut lie straight from the lips of Sean Hannity.

[excess_3]

21. please inform me when Gore spends a penny of his own money ...

please inform me when Gore spends a penny of his own money
to built a zero emissions electrical power station

try this link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html

Ok its Faux, but it the first thing that showed
up when I typed 'al gore carbon offsets'
into Yahoo.

.................................
First, Al Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets out of his own pocket and the actual economic cost, if any, to him is unknown.

The actual offset purchaser is a London-based investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), that Al Gore co-founded with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood and others in 2004.
....................................

[kristopher]

22. How is he making money?

You said Gore is promoting climate change action in order to make money. How is he doing it? GIM doesn't sell carbon offsets.

You stated a right wing lie as truth and slandered a man who is working very hard to do positive things for the world. Perhaps since you can't back it up (and that article doesn't give ANY evidence he is making money) you could see your way clear to apologize.

[GliderGuider]

20. Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

WASHINGTON – Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update.

Scientists looked at emission plans from 192 nations and calculated what would happen to global warming. The projections take into account 80 percent pollution cuts from the U.S. and Europe by 2050, which are not sure things.

Even if the developed world cuts its emissions by 80 percent and the developing world cuts theirs in half by 2050, as some experts propose, the world is still facing a 3-degree (1.7 degree Celsius) increase by the end of the century, said Robert Corell, a prominent U.S. climate scientist who helped oversee the update.

The same article is here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x211606

I thought it made in interesting counterpoint to Al's optimism.

There is no sign yet of the global political will needed to achieve anything close to what is required. Or even what is "planned", for that matter.