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 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 September 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 (15 C), the average temperature on Venus is 867
degrees (464 C). 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.
This Saturday, 7-7-07, 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 (details
about the pledge are available at www.algore.com).
But individual action will also have to shape and drive
government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility.
Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a
global challenge.
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 on 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
the US 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.
The author, US vice-president from 1993 to 2001, is chairman
of the Alliance for Climate Protection. The New York Times
Syndicate.
(China Daily via agencies July 4, 2007)
