I have given the slide show that I gave here two years ago about 2,000 times. I'm giving a short slide show this morning that I'm giving for the very first time, so -- well it's -- I don't want or need to raise the bar, I'm actually trying to lower the bar. Because I've cobbled this together to try to meet the challenge of this session.
Prezentaciju koju sam ovdje održao prije dvije godine prikazao sam oko 2.000 puta. Jutros ću vam pokazati kratku prezentaciju koji prikazujem po prvi puta... naime... ja ne želim i ne trebam podignuti pokazatelje, ja zapravo pokušavam sniziti pokazatelje. Ovo sam posložio kako bih pokušao udovoljiti izazovu ove teme.
And I was reminded by Karen Armstrong's fantastic presentation that religion really properly understood is not about belief, but about behavior. Perhaps we should say the same thing about optimism. How dare we be optimistic? Optimism is sometimes characterized as a belief, an intellectual posture. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "You must become the change you wish to see in the world." And the outcome about which we wish to be optimistic is not going to be created by the belief alone, except to the extent that the belief brings about new behavior. But the word "behavior" is also, I think, sometimes misunderstood in this context. I'm a big advocate of changing the lightbulbs and buying hybrids, and Tipper and I put 33 solar panels on our house, and dug the geothermal wells, and did all of that other stuff. But, as important as it is to change the lightbulbs, it is more important to change the laws. And when we change our behavior in our daily lives, we sometimes leave out the citizenship part and the democracy part. In order to be optimistic about this, we have to become incredibly active as citizens in our democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis. And we have one.
A sjajna prezentacija Karen Armstrong podsjetila me da se kod ispravnog razumijevanja religije ne radi o vjerovanju, već o ponašanju. Možda bi to isto trebalo reći za optimizam. Kako se usuđujemo biti optimistični? Za optimizam ponekad kažemo da je vjerovanje, intelektualni stav. No Mahatma Gandhi izrekao je slavne riječi: "Ti moraš postati promjena koju želiš vidjeti u svijetu." A ishod u vezi s kojim želimo biti optimistični neće nastati jedino na temelju vjerovanja, osim do mjere u kojoj to vjerovanje dovede do novog ponašanja. Ali i riječ "ponašanje" je po mom mišljenju ponekad krivo shvaćena u ovom kontekstu. Ja sam veliki zagovornik zamjene žarulja i kupnje hibridnih vozila, Tipper i ja smo stavili 33 solarna panela na našu kuću, iskopali geotermalne bunare i napravili još štošta drugo. No, koliko god bilo važno zamijeniti žarulje, još je važnije promijeniti zakone. Kada mijenjamo naše svakodnevno ponašanje ponekad izostavljamo građanske dužnosti i demokraciju. Kako bismo po ovome pitanju postali optimistični mi moramo postati izuzetno aktivni kao građani u našoj demokraciji. Kako bismo riješili klimatsku krizu, mi moramo riješiti krizu demokracije. A krizu i imamo.
I have been trying to tell this story for a long time. I was reminded of that recently, by a woman who walked past the table I was sitting at, just staring at me as she walked past. She was in her 70s, looked like she had a kind face. I thought nothing of it until I saw from the corner of my eye she was walking from the opposite direction, also just staring at me. And so I said, "How do you do?" And she said, "You know, if you dyed your hair black, you would look just like Al Gore." (Laughter)
Ja već jako dugo pokušavam ispričati ovu priču. Nedavno me na to podsjetila jedna žena koja prošla pored stola za kojim sam sjedio i zurila u mene dok je prolazila. Bila je u svojim sedamdesetima, izgledala je kao fina gospođa. Nisam o njoj razmišljao sve dok krajičkom oka nisam spazio da se vraća iz suprotnog smjera, opet zureći u mene. Pa sam joj rekao, "Kako ste?" A ona je rekla, "Znate, da obojite kosu u crno, izgledali biste baš kao Al Gore."
Many years ago, when I was a young congressman, I spent an awful lot of time dealing with the challenge of nuclear arms control -- the nuclear arms race. And the military historians taught me, during that quest, that military conflicts are typically put into three categories: local battles, regional or theater wars, and the rare but all-important global, world war -- strategic conflicts. And each level of conflict requires a different allocation of resources, a different approach, a different organizational model. Environmental challenges fall into the same three categories, and most of what we think about are local environmental problems: air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste dumps. But there are also regional environmental problems, like acid rain from the Midwest to the Northeast, and from Western Europe to the Arctic, and from the Midwest out the Mississippi into the dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico. And there are lots of those. But the climate crisis is the rare but all-important global, or strategic, conflict. Everything is affected. And we have to organize our response appropriately. We need a worldwide, global mobilization for renewable energy, conservation, efficiency and a global transition to a low-carbon economy. We have work to do. And we can mobilize resources and political will. But the political will has to be mobilized, in order to mobilize the resources.
Prije mnogo godina, dok sam bio mlad kongresnik, jako sam puno vremena provodio baveći se izazovom kontrole nuklearnog oružja - utrke u nuklearnom naoružavanju. A vojni povjesničari su me naučili tijekom tog razdoblja da se vojni sukobi obično dijele u tri kategorije: lokalne bitke, regionalne ili ograničene ratove, te rijetke no sveobuhvatne globalne, svjetske ratove. Strateške sukobe. A svaka razina sukoba zahtijeva drugačije raspoređivanje resursa, drugačiji pristup, drugačiji organizacijski model. Izazovi očuvanja okoliša mogu se svrstati u iste tri kategorije i većina onih o kojima razmišljamo su lokalni problemi okoliša: zagađenje zraka, zagađenje voda, odlaganje opasnog otpada. No postoje i postoje regionalni problemi očuvanja okoliša, poput kiselih kiša od Srednjeg zapada do Sjeveroistoka, te od Zapadne Europe do Arktika i od Srednjeg zapada niz Mississippi do mrtve zone Meksičkog zaljeva. I takvih ima puno. Ali klimatska kriza je onaj rijetki, ali sveobuhvatni globalni, odnosno strateški sukob. Utječe na sve. I našu reakciju moramo organizirati na odgovarajući način. Trebamo svjetsku, globalnu mobilizaciju za obnovljivu energiju, očuvanje, efikasnost i svjetsku tranziciju na nisko ugljičnu ekonomiju. To treba odraditi. I možemo mobilizirati resurse i političku volju. No politička volja mora biti mobilizirana da bi mobilizirala resurse.
Let me show you these slides here. I thought I would start with the logo. What's missing here, of course, is the North Polar ice cap. Greenland remains. Twenty-eight years ago, this is what the polar ice cap -- the North Polar ice cap -- looked like at the end of the summer, at the fall equinox. This last fall, I went to the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, and talked to the researchers here in Monterey at the Naval Postgraduate Laboratory. This is what's happened in the last 28 years. To put it in perspective, 2005 was the previous record. Here's what happened last fall that has really unnerved the researchers. The North Polar ice cap is the same size geographically -- doesn't look quite the same size -- but it is exactly the same size as the United States, minus an area roughly equal to the state of Arizona. The amount that disappeared in 2005 was equivalent to everything east of the Mississippi. The extra amount that disappeared last fall was equivalent to this much. It comes back in the winter, but not as permanent ice, as thin ice -- vulnerable. The amount remaining could be completely gone in summer in as little as five years. That puts a lot of pressure on Greenland. Already, around the Arctic Circle -- this is a famous village in Alaska. This is a town in Newfoundland. Antarctica. Latest studies from NASA. The amount of a moderate-to-severe snow melting of an area equivalent to the size of California.
Pokazat ću vam ove slajdove. Mislio sam početi s logom. Ono što ovdje nedostaje je naravno, ledeni prekrivač Sjevernoga pola. Grenland je ostao. Prije 28 godina ovako je izgledao polarni ledeni prekrivač - ledeni prekrivač Sjevernoga pola - na kraju ljeta za jesenskoga ekvinocija. Prošle jeseni sam otišao Centar za obradu podataka o snijegu i ledu u Boulderu u Coloradu te razgovarao sa znanstvenicima ovdje u Montereyu u Poslijediplomskom pomorskom laboratoriju. Ovo se dogodilo u posljednjih 28 godina. Da to stavimo u perspektivu, prethodni rekord je iz 2005. Evo što se dogodilo prošle jeseni i stvarno uznemirilo znanstvenike. Ledeni prekrivač Sjevernoga pola je iste površine - zemljopisno - ne čini se tako ali jest - točno iste veličine kao Sjedinjene države, umanjene za površinu otprilike jednaku veličini Arizone. Površina koja je nestala 2005. bila je jednaka svemu istočno od Mississippija. Dodatna površina koja je nestala prošle jeseni je jednaka ovome. Površina se vraća zimi ali ne kao trajan led već kao tanak led. Krhak. Preostala površina bi mogla potpuno nestati za vrijeme ljeta već u idućih pet godina. To stvara veliki pritisak na Greenland. Već sada, oko Arktičkog kruga... Ovo je slavno selo na Aljasci. Ovo je grad u Newfounlandu. Antarktika. Najnovija istraživanja NASA-e. Područje umjerenog do izrazitog topljenja snijega je površine jednake veličini Kalifornije.
"They were the best of times, they were the worst of times": the most famous opening sentence in English literature. I want to share briefly a tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are exactly the same size. Earth's diameter is about 400 kilometers larger, but essentially the same size. They have exactly the same amount of carbon. But the difference is, on Earth, most of the carbon has been leeched over time out of the atmosphere, deposited in the ground as coal, oil, natural gas, etc. On Venus, most of it is in the atmosphere. The difference is that our temperature is 59 degrees on average. On Venus, it's 855. This is relevant to our current strategy of taking as much carbon out of the ground as quickly as possible, and putting it into the atmosphere. It's not because Venus is slightly closer to the Sun. It's three times hotter than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. Now, briefly, here's an image you've seen, as one of the only old images, but I show it because I want to briefly give you CSI: Climate.
"Bila su to najbolja vremena, bila su to najgora vremena": najpoznatija početna rečenica engleske književnosti. Htio bih ukratko ispričati "Priču o dva planeta." Zemlja i Venera su točno iste veličine. Zemljin promjer je oko 400 kilometara veći, no u biti su jednake veličine. Oba planeta imaju jednaku količinu ugljika. No razlika je u tome što je na Zemlji većina ugljika s vremenom izvučena iz atmosfere i nataložena u tlu kao ugljen, nafta, prirodni plin, itd. Na Veneri je većina u atmosferi. Razlika je u tome da je naša prosječna temperatura 15 stupnjeva C. Na Veneri je 457. To je ima veze s našom trenutnom strategijom izvlačenja što više ugljika iz tla što je moguće brže i njegovog ispuštanja u atmosferu. Venera nije toplija jer je nešto bliža Suncu. Ona je tri puta toplija od Merkura koji je odmah pored Sunca. Sada, kratko, ovo je slika koju ste vidjeli kao jednu od rijetkih starih slika, no ja je pokazujem jer vam želim na brzinu prikazati CSI: Klima.
The global scientific community says: man-made global warming pollution, put into the atmosphere, thickening this, is trapping more of the outgoing infrared. You all know that. At the last IPCC summary, the scientists wanted to say, "How certain are you?" They wanted to answer that "99 percent." The Chinese objected, and so the compromise was "more than 90 percent." Now, the skeptics say, "Oh, wait a minute, this could be variations in this energy coming in from the sun." If that were true, the stratosphere would be heated as well as the lower atmosphere, if it's more coming in. If it's more being trapped on the way out, then you would expect it to be warmer here and cooler here. Here is the lower atmosphere. Here's the stratosphere: cooler. CSI: Climate.
Globalna znanstvena zajednica kaže, od ljudi stvoreno globalno toplinsko zagađenje, ispušteno u atmosferu, zgušnjavajući ovo, zarobljava više odlaznog infracrvenog zračenja. Svi to znate. U zadnjem IPCC sažetku, znanstvenici su na "Koliko ste sigurni?" htjeli reći "99 posto." Kinezi su se pobunili pa je kompromis bio "više od 90 posto." Sada skeptici govore: "Pa čekajte malo, moguće da su to varijacije u... u toj energiji koja dolazi od Sunca." Da je to istina stratosfera bi bila zagrijana kao i niža atmosfera, da nam dolazi više energije. Ako je više zarobljeno na odlasku, onda biste očekivali da je toplije ovdje, a hladnije ovdje. Ovdje je niža atmosfera. Ovdje je stratosfera: hladnije. CSI: Klima.
Now, here's the good news. Sixty-eight percent of Americans now believe that human activity is responsible for global warming. Sixty-nine percent believe that the Earth is heating up in a significant way. There has been progress, but here is the key: when given a list of challenges to confront, global warming is still listed at near the bottom. What is missing is a sense of urgency. If you agree with the factual analysis, but you don't feel the sense of urgency, where does that leave you? Well, the Alliance for Climate Protection, which I head in conjunction with Current TV -- who did this pro bono -- did a worldwide contest to do commercials on how to communicate this. This is the winner.
A sada evo dobrih vijesti. Trenutno 68% amerikanaca vjeruje da je ljudska aktivnost odgovorna za globalno zagrijavanje. 69% vjeruje da se Zemlja znatnije zagrijava. Postoji napredak, no ključno je ovo: kada pogledate popis izazova s kojima se suočavamo, globalno zagrijavanje se još uvijek nalazi pri dnu. Ono što nedostaje je osjećaj hitnosti. Ako se slažete s analizom činjenica, no ne osjećate hitnost, kamo vas to vodi? Savez za zaštitu klime, kojeg vodim, u suradnji s CurrentTV - koja je to radila bez naknade, raspisao je svjetski natječaj za izradu reklama na temu kako ovo komunicirati. Ovo je pobjednik.
NBC -- I'll show all of the networks here -- the top journalists for NBC asked 956 questions in 2007 of the presidential candidates: two of them were about the climate crisis. ABC: 844 questions, two about the climate crisis. Fox: two. CNN: two. CBS: zero. From laughs to tears -- this is one of the older tobacco commercials. So here's what we're doing. This is gasoline consumption in all of these countries. And us. But it's not just the developed nations. The developing countries are now following us and accelerating their pace. And actually, their cumulative emissions this year are the equivalent to where we were in 1965. And they're catching up very dramatically. The total concentrations: by 2025, they will be essentially where we were in 1985. If the wealthy countries were completely missing from the picture, we would still have this crisis. But we have given to the developing countries the technologies and the ways of thinking that are creating the crisis. This is in Bolivia -- over thirty years.
NBC - pokazat ću sve mreže ovdje - vrhunski novinari NBC-a postavili su 956 pitanja predsjedničkim kandidatima 2007. - od toga su dva bila o klimatskoj krizi. ABC 844 pitanja, dva o klimatskoj krizi. Fox: dva. CNN: dva. CBS: nula. Od smijeha do suza. Ovo je jedna od starijih reklama za duhanske proizvode. To je ono što radimo. Ovo je potrošnja benzina u svim ovim zemljama. I kod nas. Ali nisu u pitanju samo razvijene države. Zemlje u razvoju nas sada slijede i ubrzavaju svoj tempo. I zapravo, zbroj njihovih emisija ove godine jednak je onome gdje smo mi bili 1965. I sustižu nas vrlo dramatično. Ukupnim koncentracijama do 2025. zapravo će biti tamo gdje smo mi bili 1985. Kada bogatih zemalja uopće ne bi bilo na slici, još uvijek bismo imali ovu krizu. Ali mi smo zemljama u razvoju dali tehnologije i načine razmišljanja koji stvaraju ovu krizu. Ovo je u Boliviji. Tijekom trideset godina.
This is peak fishing in a few seconds. The '60s. '70s. '80s. '90s. We have to stop this. And the good news is that we can. We have the technologies. We have to have a unified view of how to go about this: the struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions, all has a single, very simple solution.
Ovo je prekomjerni izlov riba u nekoliko sekundi. Šezdesete. Sedamdesete. Osamdesete. Devedesete. Moramo ovo zaustaviti. I dobra vijest je da možemo. Imamo tehnologije. Moramo imati jedinstveni pogled na to kako pristupiti ovome. Borba protiv siromaštva u svijetu i izazov smanjenja onečišćenja iz bogatih zemalja, sve ima jedinstveno, vrlo jednostavno rješenje.
People say, "What's the solution?" Here it is. Put a price on carbon. We need a CO2 tax, revenue neutral, to replace taxation on employment, which was invented by Bismarck -- and some things have changed since the 19th century. In the poor world, we have to integrate the responses to poverty with the solutions to the climate crisis. Plans to fight poverty in Uganda are mooted, if we do not solve the climate crisis.
Ljudi pitaju "Što je rješenje?" Evo ga. Staviti cijenu na ugljik. Trebamo CO2 porez, neovisan o prihodima, kao zamjenu za porez na zaposlenost, koji je izmislio Bismark - a neke stvari su se promijenile od 19. stoljeća. U siromašnom svijetu, moramo povezati rješavanje siromaštva s rješavanjem klimatske krize. Planovi za borbu protiv siromaštva u Ugandi su sporni ako ne riješimo klimatsku krizu.
But responses can actually make a huge difference in the poor countries. This is a proposal that has been talked about a lot in Europe. This was from Nature magazine. These are concentrating solar, renewable energy plants, linked in a so-called "supergrid" to supply all of the electrical power to Europe, largely from developing countries -- high-voltage DC currents. This is not pie in the sky; this can be done.
No reakcije mogu doista puno promijeniti u siromašnim zemljama. Evo prijedloga o kojem se puno govorilo u Europi. Ovo je iz časopisa Nature. Ovo su koncentrirane solarne elektrane obnovljive energije, povezane u tzv. supermrežu koja opskrbljuje Europu svom potrebnom električnom energijom, većinom iz zemalja u razvoju. Visokonaponska istosmjerna mreža. Ovo nisu "kule u oblacima", ovo je moguće.
We need to do it for our own economy. The latest figures show that the old model is not working. There are a lot of great investments that you can make. If you are investing in tar sands or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these, so I'll have a disclaimer there. But geothermal, concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency and conservation.
To moramo učiniti za naše vlastito gospodarstvo. Zadnji podaci pokazuju da stari model ne funkcionira. Postoji mnogo sjajnih investicija. Ako investirate u ležišta bitumenskog pijeska ili naftnog škriljavca, tada imate portfelj koji je pretrpan trećerazrednim CO2 investicijama. I temelji se na starom modelu. Narkomani traže vene u nožnim prstima kad su im u rukama i nogama uništene. Eksploatacija bitumenskog pijeska i naftnih škriljavaca je to isto. Evo samo nekoliko investicija za koje osobno smatram da imaju smisla. Imam udjele u ovima, zato je ovdje odricanje od odgovornosti. Geotermalna, koncentrirana solarna energija, napredni fotonaposnski uređaji, efikasnost i pohrana.
You've seen this slide before, but there's a change. The only two countries that didn't ratify -- and now there's only one. Australia had an election. And there was a campaign in Australia that involved television and Internet and radio commercials to lift the sense of urgency for the people there. And we trained 250 people to give the slide show in every town and village and city in Australia. Lot of other things contributed to it, but the new Prime Minister announced that his very first priority would be to change Australia's position on Kyoto, and he has. Now, they came to an awareness partly because of the horrible drought that they have had. This is Lake Lanier. My friend Heidi Cullen said that if we gave droughts names the way we give hurricanes names, we'd call the one in the southeast now Katrina, and we would say it's headed toward Atlanta. We can't wait for the kind of drought Australia had to change our political culture. Here's more good news. The cities supporting Kyoto in the U.S. are up to 780 -- and I thought I saw one go by there, just to localize this -- which is good news.
Ovaj popis ste vidjeli i prije, no postoji promjena. Jedine dvije zemlje koje nisu ratificirale [Kyoto] - sada je ostala samo jedna. Australija je imala izbore. I imali su kampanju koja je obuhvaćala televiziju, internet i radio reklame da povećaju osjećaj hitnosti među ljudima. Obučili smo 250 ljudi da drže predavanja u svakom mjestu i selu i gradu u Australiji. Još mnogo čega je pridonijelo tome, ali novi premijer je objavio da će njegov prvi prioritet biti promijeniti službeni stav Australije o Kyotu, a to je i učinio. Istina, do osvješćivanja je došlo dijelom i zbog užasne suše koju su imali. Ovo je jezero Lanier. Moja prijateljica Heidi Cullins rekla je da kada bi sušama davali imena kao što ih dajemo uraganima, sadašnja suša na jugoistoku zvala bi se Katrina i rekli bismo da ide smjeru Atlante. Ne možemo čekati sušu poput one u Australiji da bismo promijenili našu političku kulturu. Evo još dobrih vijesti. Broj gradova koji podržavaju Kyoto u SAD, popeo se na 780 - čini mi se da sam vidio kako je prošao... da malo lokaliziram ovo... Što je dobra vijest.
Now, to close, we heard a couple of days ago about the value of making individual heroism so commonplace that it becomes banal or routine. What we need is another hero generation. Those of us who are alive in the United States of America today especially, but also the rest of the world, have to somehow understand that history has presented us with a choice -- just as Jill [Bolte] Taylor was figuring out how to save her life while she was distracted by the amazing experience that she was going through. We now have a culture of distraction. But we have a planetary emergency. And we have to find a way to create, in the generation of those alive today, a sense of generational mission. I wish I could find the words to convey this. This was another hero generation that brought democracy to the planet. Another that ended slavery. And that gave women the right to vote. We can do this. Don't tell me that we don't have the capacity to do it. If we had just one week's worth of what we spend on the Iraq War, we could be well on the way to solving this challenge. We have the capacity to do it.
Za zaključak, čuli smo prije nekoliko dana o značaju pretvaranja individualnog junaštva u nešto toliko uobičajeno da postane banalno ili navika. Ono što trebamo je još jedna generacija junaka. Mi koji živimo u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama posebno danas, ali i ostatak svijeta, moramo nekako razumjeti da nam je povijest dala izbor - baš kako je Jill Taylor razmišljala kako da spasi svoj život dok je bila ometana zadivljujućim iskustvom kroz koje je prolazila. Mi sada imamo kulturu koja nas ometa. No imamo planetarnu hitnu krizu. I moramo naći način da stvorimo, u ovoj generaciji koja živi danas, osjećaj generacijske misije. Kada bih barem mogao naći riječi da prenesem ovo. Ovo je bila još jedna generacija junaka koja je planetu donijela demokraciju. Još jedna koja je okončala ropstvo. I koja je dala ženama pravo glasa. Mi to možemo. Nemojte mi reći da nemamo sposobnosti za to. Da smo imali vrijednost samo jednotjedne potrošnje na rat u Iraku, bili bismo na dobrom putu rješavanja ovog izazova. Imamo sposobnost da to učinimo.
One final point: I'm optimistic, because I believe we have the capacity, at moments of great challenge, to set aside the causes of distraction and rise to the challenge that history is presenting to us. Sometimes I hear people respond to the disturbing facts of the climate crisis by saying, "Oh, this is so terrible. What a burden we have." I would like to ask you to reframe that. How many generations in all of human history have had the opportunity to rise to a challenge that is worthy of our best efforts? A challenge that can pull from us more than we knew we could do? I think we ought to approach this challenge with a sense of profound joy and gratitude that we are the generation about which, a thousand years from now, philharmonic orchestras and poets and singers will celebrate by saying, they were the ones that found it within themselves to solve this crisis and lay the basis for a bright and optimistic human future.
I zaključna poanta. Optimističan sam jer vjerujem da imamo sposobnosti, u trenucima velikog izazova, staviti u stranu uzroke ometanja i prihvatiti izazov koji povijest stavlja pred nas. Ponekad čujem kako ljudi na uznemirujuće činjenice klimatske krize reagiraju govoreći "Oh, to je tako grozno, kakav mi teret imamo." Htio bih vas zamoliti da preoblikujemo to. Koliko je generacija u cjelokupnoj ljudskoj povijesti imalo priliku prihvatiti izazov koji je vrijedan naših najvećih napora? Izazov koji iz nas može izvući više nego smo znali da možemo? Mislim da bismo trebali pristupiti ovom izazovu s osjećajem duboke radosti i zahvalnosti što smo mi generacija koju će, tisuću godina od danas, filharmonijski orkestri, pjesnici i pjevači slaviti govoreći, oni su bili ti koji su u sebi našli ono što je trebalo da se kriza riješi i postavili temelje za svijetlu i optimističnu budućnost čovječanstva.
Let's do that. Thank you very much.
Učinimo to. Hvala.
Chris Anderson: For so many people at TED, there is deep pain that basically a design issue on a voting form -- one bad design issue meant that your voice wasn't being heard like that in the last eight years in a position where you could make these things come true. That hurts.
- Za mnoge ljude na TED-u, postoji duboka bol da je u biti pitanje dizajna - na kraju krajeva, problematičan dizajn glasačkog listića - jedan loš dizajn je značio da se vaš nije na ovaj način čuo u zadnjih osam godina na poziciji gdje ste to mogli i ostvariti. To boli.
Al Gore: You have no idea. (Laughter)
- Nemate pojma koliko.
CA: When you look at what the leading candidates in your own party are doing now -- I mean, there's -- are you excited by their plans on global warming?
- Kada pogledate što vodeći kandidati u vašoj stranci trenutno čine - hoću reći - jeste li uzbuđeni njihovim planovima oko globalnog zagrijavanja?
AG: The answer to the question is hard for me because, on the one hand, I think that we should feel really great about the fact that the Republican nominee -- certain nominee -- John McCain, and both of the finalists for the Democratic nomination -- all three have a very different and forward-leaning position on the climate crisis. All three have offered leadership, and all three are very different from the approach taken by the current administration. And I think that all three have also been responsible in putting forward plans and proposals. But the campaign dialogue that -- as illustrated by the questions -- that was put together by the League of Conservation Voters, by the way, the analysis of all the questions -- and, by the way, the debates have all been sponsored by something that goes by the Orwellian label, "Clean Coal." Has anybody noticed that? Every single debate has been sponsored by "Clean Coal." "Now, even lower emissions!"
- Odgovor na to pitanje je težak za mene jer, s jedne strane, mislim da bi nam trebalo biti stvarno drago zbog činjenice da republikanski kandidat, konkretan kandidat, John McCain i oba finalista za demokratsku nominaciju - svi troje imaju bitno drugačiju i naprednu poziciju o klimatskoj krizi. Svi troje su ponudili vodstvo i svi troje imaju vrlo drugačiji pristup od pristupa koji ima trenutna vlada. I mislim da su svi troje bili odgovorni u predlaganju planova i davanju prijedloga. Ali... dijalog u kampanji - kako su ona pitanja ilustrirala - pitanja koja je prikupila Liga glasača za očuvanje okoliša, usput, analiza svih pitanja - i usput, sve debate je sponzoriralo nešto Orwellovskog naziva: "Čisti ugljen". Je li to netko primijetio? Svaku pojedinu debatu je sponzorirao "Čisti ugljen." "Sada još manje onečišćenje!"
The richness and fullness of the dialogue in our democracy has not laid the basis for the kind of bold initiative that is really needed. So they're saying the right things and they may -- whichever of them is elected -- may do the right thing, but let me tell you: when I came back from Kyoto in 1997, with a feeling of great happiness that we'd gotten that breakthrough there, and then confronted the United States Senate, only one out of 100 senators was willing to vote to confirm, to ratify that treaty. Whatever the candidates say has to be laid alongside what the people say.
Bogatstvo i potpunost dijaloga u našoj demokraciji nije postavilo temelje za hrabru inicijativu kakvu trebamo. Dakle oni govore prave stvari i moguće da će učiniti pravu stvar bez obzira tko od njih bio izabran, no dopustite mi da vam kažem: kad sam se vratio iz Kyota 1997. s osjećajem velike sreće da smo tamo napravili prekretnicu, i nakon toga se suočio sa Senatom SAD. Samo jedan od 100 senatora bio je voljan glasati za ratifikaciju sporazuma. Što god kandidati rekli to mora biti u skladu s onime što ljudi govore.
This challenge is part of the fabric of our whole civilization. CO2 is the exhaling breath of our civilization, literally. And now we mechanized that process. Changing that pattern requires a scope, a scale, a speed of change that is beyond what we have done in the past. So that's why I began by saying, be optimistic in what you do, but be an active citizen. Demand -- change the light bulbs, but change the laws. Change the global treaties. We have to speak up. We have to solve this democracy -- this -- We have sclerosis in our democracy. And we have to change that. Use the Internet. Go on the Internet. Connect with people. Become very active as citizens. Have a moratorium -- we shouldn't have any new coal-fired generating plants that aren't able to capture and store CO2, which means we have to quickly build these renewable sources. Now, nobody is talking on that scale. But I do believe that between now and November, it is possible. This Alliance for Climate Protection is going to launch a nationwide campaign -- grassroots mobilization, television ads, Internet ads, radio, newspaper -- with partnerships with everybody from the Girl Scouts to the hunters and fishermen.
Ovaj izazov je utkan u cijelu našu civilizaciju. CO2 je ono što naša civilizacija izdiše, doslovno. I sad smo mehanizirali taj proces. Promjena tog uzorka traži opseg, veličinu i brzinu promjena veću od bilo čega što smo činili u prošlosti. Zato sam započeo rekavši, budite optimistični u onome što radite, no budite aktivni građani. Zahtijevajte... zamijenite žarulje, no mijenjajte i zakone. Promijenite globalne sporazume. Moramo biti glasniji. Moramo riješiti ovu demokratsku... ovu... Imamo sklerozu u našoj demokraciji i to moramo promijeniti. Koristite internet. Idite na internet. Povežite se s ljudima. Postanite vrlo aktivni kao građani. Napravimo moratorij - ne bismo trebali imati nikakvih novih elektrana na ugljen koje nisu sposobne skupiti i pohraniti CO2. Što znači da moramo brzo graditi obnovljive izvore. Nitko u ovome trenutku ne govori na toj razini. No vjerujem da je između danas i studenog to moguće. Spomenuti Savez za klimatsku zaštitu će pokrenuti nacionalnu kampanju široku mobilizaciju, televizijske oglase, internet oglase, radio, tisak - uz partnerstvo sa svima od izviđača do lovaca i ribolovaca.
We need help. We need help.
Trebamo pomoć. Trebamo pomoć.
CA: In terms of your own personal role going forward, Al, is there something more than that you would like to be doing?
- U smislu vaše osobne uloge u budućnosti, Al, postoji li još nešto što bi ste voljeli činiti?
AG: I have prayed that I would be able to find the answer to that question. What can I do? Buckminster Fuller once wrote, "If the future of all human civilization depended on me, what would I do? How would I be?" It does depend on all of us, but again, not just with the light bulbs. We, most of us here, are Americans. We have a democracy. We can change things, but we have to actively change. What's needed really is a higher level of consciousness. And that's hard to -- that's hard to create -- but it is coming. There's an old African proverb that some of you know that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together." We have to go far, quickly. So we have to have a change in consciousness. A change in commitment. A new sense of urgency. A new appreciation for the privilege that we have of undertaking this challenge.
- Molio sam se da budem u stanju pronaći odgovor na to pitanje. Što mogu učiniti? Buckminster Fuller je jednom napisao: "Da budućnost cjelokupne ljudske civilizacije ovisi o meni, što bih učinio? Kakav bih bio?" To ovisi o svima nama, no opet, ne samo o žaruljama. Većina nas ovdje smo Amerikanci. Imamo demokraciju. Možemo promijeniti stvari, no moramo aktivno mijenjati. Ono što je stvarno potrebno je viša razina svijesti. A to je teško - to je teško napraviti - ali dolazi. Postoji stara Afrička poslovica koju neki od vas znaju ona kaže: "Ako želiš ići brzo, idi sam; ako želiš ići daleko, idi u društvu." Mi moramo ići daleko brzo. Dakle moramo imati promjenu svijesti. Promjenu onoga što nam je važno. Novi osjećaj hitnosti. Novi osjećaj zahvalnosti za privilegiju koju imamo u suočavanju s ovim izazovom.
CA: Al Gore, thank you so much for coming to TED.
- Al Gore, puno vam hvala za dolazak na TED.
AG: Thank you. Thank you very much.
- Hvala vam. Puno hvala.