Moving
Beyond Kyoto
By
Al
Gore
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.
