On Nov. 14-15, the Climate Reality Project held its second annual “24 Hours of Reality”
marathon, spending an entire day and night live-streaming events and
panels around the globe to highlight various aspects of the climate
crisis. (This year’s theme was “dirty weather.”) More than 100 people —
elected leaders, scientists, business people, and activists — appeared
on panels and millions tuned in to watch.
I caught up with Climate Reality founder Al Gore around hour 18 of
his all-nighter and asked him about current U.S. climate politics, carbon taxes, and natural gas.
Q. Did you see Obama’s press conference the other day?
A. I heard the excerpts on climate, and [laughs] … oh …
Q. Go ahead!
A. No, I’m not going to go ahead! We have conflicting interests here! [laughs]
Well, I think it’s too early to put a definitive interpretation on
where he left it with that comment. I was genuinely encouraged that he
said, in the first half of his answer, that he was going to conduct a
wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers, etc. Many urged
him to do it in the first term and I’m glad that he’s pledging to do
that now. That could take on a life of its own and have an impact how he
thinks about it. And … as I say, I really do believe it’s premature to
put a definitive interpretation on what it means about his intentions.
Q. Did you hear [White House press secretary] Jay Carney this morning?
A. No, God help us, what’d he say?
Q. He said, “We would never propose a carbon tax, and have no intention of proposing one.”
A. I don’t think that comes as a big surprise
to anyone. Those of us that hold out some hope that we will find a way
to get a price on carbon, and know there are multiple ways to do it,
have felt that the convergence of the fiscal cliff and the climate cliff
could produce some surprising results. And there have been some private
comments by some Republicans to that effect. But certainly that’s
something you wouldn’t wanna bet money on in Vegas.
Q. What do you think of this idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax?
A. I have proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax for a long time, 30 years. I proposed it in my first book, Earth in the Balance.
I supported cap-and-trade because a lot of folks felt that it offered
the opportunity for bipartisan consensus. And by the way, it may yet
gain altitude globally — China, as you know, is implementing it in five
provinces and two cities. They have indicated that they intend to use
these pilots as a model for the nationwide program. Many are skeptical,
but they often do follow through with what they say they’re going to
do. And [cap-and-trade] just started in California
yesterday. Australia is now linking theirs to the E.U. system. South
Korea’s moving, British Columbia, Quebec — there are a lot of parallel
developments that could converge, particularly if China does follow
through. It’s premature to write [cap-and-trade] off, even thought it’s
has been demonized and so many people are afraid to talk about it.
But from the very beginning, I preferred a carbon tax. (And by the
way, I’d be in favor of both; I don’t think they’re inconsistent at
all.) And yet, the political environment in the U.S. has not changed to
the point where it’s something you’d wanna bet on. But look, we’ve got
to solve this. It’s an irresistible force meeting an immovable object,
and something’s gotta give. I have enough faith in humanity to believe,
against a lot of evidence, that we’re going to solve this.
Q. Does this idea of a carbon/income
tax swap make you nervous? The income tax is one of the only places we
have progressivity in the U.S. tax code.
A. I have not proposed doing it on the income
tax, I have proposed doing it on the payroll tax. I am also friendly to
the notion of a rebate scheme, though I doubt they’ll do that. It needs
to be progressive — the rising inequality in the country is too serious
to run the risk of worsening that.
Q. Do you worry that you getting out in front of this might brand it in a certain way —
A. Well, they come after anybody who speaks
up in favor of doing something on climate. It’s not going to surprise
any of them that I’m in favor of it. I’ve said it on practically a daily
basis for years and years.
Q. One thing that pops up every time
you enter this debate is this notion that you’ve made a bunch of money
off your green investments. I remember you saying to Congress that
you’ve donated that money to your climate group.
A. I have. The question was about Kleiner
Perkins [a venture-capital firm in which Gore is an investment partner].
I have given, and do give, every year, 100 percent of my salary and 100
percent of distributions from Kleiner Perkins to the Climate Reality
Project. There is absolutely no income of any sort from Kleiner Perkins
that I do not give completely and totally to the Climate Reality
Project.
Q. The political climate in the U.S.
seems stuck [on the climate issue]. What’s your take on how it’s
developing in other countries?
A. First of all, I don’t agree that it is
stuck in the U.S. I really don’t. I think there is a great deal of
movement beneath the surface. I run into people all the time who are
former deniers, former opponents of doing anything on climate who are
saying, “Look, this is just getting too weird. It’s clear that this is
going on, we’ve got to do something.” Now, we’re not at the tipping
point, but we’re much closer than we have been.
I’ve said this before and I really do believe it’s true: Changes like
this don’t occur in a linear way. The potential for change builds up,
unmanifested, until it reaches a critical mass. You don’t always see it
coming. There are plenty of examples of that. I believe we’re seeing
just that kind of movement just beneath the surface here in the U.S.
States are moving. Local governments are moving. Business is moving
thanks to the happy discovery by so many businesses that initiated
sustainability changes for branding reasons that it makes them money.
It’s not a cost, but a benefit. By now, that’s pretty widely known in
the business community. News Corp, for goodness sakes, is CO2 neutral.
They don’t brag about it. They do it because it saves them money.
I’m not saying we’re right on the tipping point. I know better than
that. But neither do I think it’s accurate to say that we’re stuck in
neutral. I don’t think we are.
But to get to your real question, I think that what happened in
Australia was hugely significant. What’s going on in China is quite
significant. The fact that the E.U. is hanging tough and some member
states are actually torquing up their commitment is very significant. I
think Mexico is significant; we’ll see what [Mexican President-elect
Enrique] Peña Nieto does when he takes over in a couple of weeks, but
they’ve made a commitment for 75 percent reduction and they’ve got a
broad societal consensus. I think what Hawaii is doing is enormously
significant. You know, a lot of countries around the world are looking
at their hold cards, they’re looking at the damage, and it is now
translating into a set of commitments that are meaningful and will
continue.
Q. The federal level is blocked up,
but there’s this movement underneath the surface. What’s the right way
to take advantage of that movement?
A. The sooner we can increase the scale of
renewable installations, the steeper the cost down-curve is going to be.
We’ve kind of got a Moore’s Law
Jr. underway on [solar] PV. Wind is not as steep as PV. Efficiency is
probably steeper than both, or comparable to PV. So there are a lot of
trends moving in the right direction. Any policies that accelerate the
movement to scale will help.
In many areas, renewables, particularly solar and wind, are
competitive. Not everywhere by a long shot, but in a growing number of
areas. That in itself drives a certain tipping point, because when
utilities are confronted with a better bargain, even with all the
regulatory morass, they do make changes. We’ve seen 166 coal plants
close. Yes, [natural] gas is a big part of it, but so is the impact of
renewables on the margin. And that margin’s getting wider and wider all
the time.
Q. What’s your take on the natural gas revolution that’s happening?
A. I’m concerned about methane leakage
— the fact that it’s a valuable commodity and they have an incentive to
capture it hasn’t stopped the leakage. Particularly in the fracking process,
when they pull the fluids out, there’s just a huge outgassing. There
are still leaks throughout the production and distribution chain, and
the magnitude may well be sufficient to outweigh any CO2 advantage that
you would otherwise gain.
The fact that [then-Vice President Dick] Cheney exempted [fracking]
from [the Safe Drinking Water Act] really put the whole industry in such
a privileged position, it disadvantages the advocates of the public
interest, which was the intention. But it does mean that there are a lot
of legitimate questions that need to be run to ground, no pun intended.
If you assume for the moment that those questions can be answered, then I think it’s responsible — only
in that circumstance — to view gas as a short- to medium-term bridge
fuel, substituting for coal, to buy some time for getting to scale and
riding the cost down-curve on renewables.
I do worry that we could make such a legacy investment in gas
infrastructure that the nation’s appetite for making a second conversion
would be severely diminished. But I weigh that against the inherent
market power of the cost down-curve for solar and wind reaching the
point where utilities — and homeowners, and business owners — simply
can’t say no to it, even if we’re in the middle of the bridge
substitution strategy.
Q. Right now the activist community is taking on two big fights — one is against the Keystone pipeline, the other against coal export terminals in the Northwest. Where do you stand on those? Is it possible to keep some of the coal in the ground?
A. I know the realpolitik and business
perspective is to say, “It’s gonna come out no matter what,” but I don’t
buy that. We have a planetary emergency. I know it drives some people
nuts when I say that, but dammit, that’s what we face. We have to take
that reality on board.
I’m going to support [Washington] governor-elect Jay Inslee.
He is my close friend and I think he is going to handle this extremely
well. The folks around the Northwest ports have their own reasons for
being concerned about what’s planned. I’m going to support those who are
skeptical about this giant export strategy of coal.
And let me answer the first part of that question — you’re probably
not in as much suspense about that one. I am strongly opposed to that
tar-sands pipeline. I think it’s crazy. Again, you have the
realpolitik/business logic, but I just think it is morally wrong for us
to open a brand new source of even dirtier carbon-based energy when we
are desperately trying to bend down the curves.
I understand why a lot of people think it’s unrealistic in the
extreme for one of these things to be slowed down or stopped. But you
know, if you take that position, then you are inherently saying, “Well,
it’s not that unrealistic to destroy the future of human civilization.”
WRITERS BLOGGERS CHRISTIANS WIFES MOTHER FIGHTERS FOR FREEDOM CHARLENE CLEO EIBEN CHARLENE ZECHENDER Alexandra Day Debra Fish JEFF WALLER charlene zechender
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The unremarkable Rep. Marcia Fudge called a presser to condemn Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Questioning the veracity of Susan Rice’s statements about Benghazi is obvious racism. If the questioner is a Republican. Nearly 100 House members have signed a letter opposing Rice for Secretary of State. James Clyburn has denounced it as “racist” and accused the GOP of, as usual, using code words. With all of their clever code words and dog whistles, one would think the Republicans would be better at winning elections. The questions about Rice’s credibility must be strictly about her race and gender; yes, those Republicans are still waging their War on Women. The concerns couldn’t possibly be connected to the giant whoppers Rice told about Benghazi on five separate Sunday news programs. If McCain and Graham were Democrats, they would never raise issues about Rice’s integrity. Everyone knows the Democrats are the permanent champions of civil rights. Of course, to believe that is to ignore history. The Republican party was formed for the sole purpose of abolishing slavery. The KKK was a creation of southern Democrats. It was Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act, against the wailing of Democrats. It was Dwight Eisenhower who sent the National Guard to Little Rock to make sure little black children were granted access to all white schools. And it was not the Republican party that had a Grand Cyclops of the KKK sitting in the senate for 128 years. Anyone following the Benghazi disaster has pretty much figured out what happened and at what level. Someone high up in the administration fed Rice her talking points and she obediently spewed them five times in a row. Obama cared about running out the clock through election day. His scheme worked. Rice’s reward for making a fool of herself both on the talk show circuit and as ambassador to the UN is supposed to be the Secretary of State position. Why not? Is it even possible to be more incompetent than Hillary? At least now we know Rice can lie with the best of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment