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.
Am facut aceeasi prezentare, pe care am realizat-o aici acum 2 ani, de aproape 2000 de ori. Voi face o prezentare scurta in dimineata aceasta o prezentare pe care o fac pentru prima data, deci este-nu vreau si nu pot sa ridic standardul, de fapt incerc sa reduc standardul. Pentru ca am pus aceasta prezentarea laolalta avand in vedere provocarea acestei editii.
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.
Iar fantastica prezentare a lui Karen Armstrong mi-a reamintit ca religia inteleasa cum trebuie nu e despre credinta, ci despre comportament. Poate ar trebui sa spunem acelasi lucru despre optimism. Cum indraznim sa fim optimisti? Optimismul e unori caracterizat ca si o credinta, o postura intelectuala. Dupa cum a zis Mahatma Gandhi, "Trebuie sa devii schimbarea pe care doresti sa o vezi in lume." Si rezultatul despre care vrem sa fim optimisti nu va fi creat doar de credinta, ci numai daca asa credinta va aduce cu ea o schimbare de comportament. Dar cuvantul "comportament" este, dupa parerea mea, inteles gresit cateodata, in acest context. Sunt un mare sustinator al schimbarii becurilor si a cumpararii vechiculelor hibrid, eu si Tipper am pus 33 de panouri solare pe casa noastra, si am sapat fantani geotermale, si am facut toate celalalte lucruri. Dar, la fel de important ca si schimbarea becurilor, e poate si mai importanta schimbarea legilor. Iar cand ne schimbam comportamentul in viata de zi cu zi, cateodata lasam la o parte cetatenia si democratia. Pentru a fi optimisti despre asta, trebuie sa devenim incredibil de activi ca cetateni in democratia noastra. Pentru a rezolva criza climatica, trebui sa rezolvam criza democratica. Si avem una.
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)
Incerc de mult timp sa spun aceasta poveste. Acest lucru mi l-a reamintit recent o femeie care a trecut pe langa masa la care stateam, holbandu-se la mine in timp ce trecea. Avea vreo 70 de ani, si parea sa aiba o fata binevoitoare. Nu m-am gandit la asta pana cand am vazut cu coada ochiului ca mergea din directia opusa, tot holbandu-se la mine. Iar atunci am zis, "Ce mai faceti?" Iar ea a zis, "Stiti daca v-ati vopsi parul negru, ati arata exact ca si 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.
Acum multi ani, cand eram un tanar membru al congresului, am petrecut mult timp cu provocarea controlului armelor nucleare - cursa armelor nucleare. Si istoricii militari m-au invatat in timpul acelei provocari, ca toate conflictele militare sunt de obicei puse in trei categorii: batalii locale, razboaie regionale sau teatrale, si rare dar importante razboie globale, mondiale. Conflicte strategice. Iar fiecare nivel de conflict necesita o alocare diferita a resurselor o abordare diferita, un model de organizare diferit. Provocarile mediului cad in acelasi trei categorii, si majoritatea opiniilor noastre sunt despre probleme de mediu locale: poluarea aerului, poluarea apelor, deseuri toxice. Dar in acelasi timp exista probleme de mediu regionale, cum ar fi ploaia acida din vest pana in nord-est, din Europa de Vest pana la Arctic, din Vestul de mijloc pana la Mississippi, in zona moarta a Golfului Mexican. Si exista multe din acestea. Dar criza climatica este rarul dar importantul conflict global sau strategic. Totul este afectat. Si trebuie sa ne organizam raspunsul intr-un mod potrivit. Avem nevoie de o mobilizare mondiala, globala pentru energie reinnoibila, conservare, eficienta si o tranzitie globala la o economie cu emisii scazute de carbon. Avem de lucru. Si putem mobiliza resurse si vointa politica. Dar vointa politica trebuie mobilizata pentru a mobiliza resursele.
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.
Sa va arat aceste proiectii. M-am gandit sa incep cu logo-ul. Ce lipseste aici desigur, este calota de gheata a Polului Nord. Groenlanda ramane. Acum 28 de ani, asa arata calota polara - cea a Polului Nord - la sfarsitul verii la echinoxul de toamna. In aceasta toamna, am mers la Centrul de date despre gheata si zapada din Boulder, Colorado, si am vorbit cu cercetatorii de aici din Monterey de la Laboratorul Postuniversitar Naval. Asta s-a intamplat in ultimii 28 de ani. Pentru a pune lucrurile in perspectiva, 2005 a fost recordul precedent. Uitati ce s-a intamplat toamna trecuta - asta a fost ceea ce i-a descurajat pe cercetatori. Calota polara este de aceeasi marime geografic. Nu arata chiar de acceasi marime, dar este de aceeasi marime ca si Statele Unite, fara o suprafata aproximativ egala cu statul Arizona. Suprafata care a disparut in 2005 este echivalenta cu toata suprafata la est de Mississippi. Suprafata care a disparut toamna trecuta este echivalenta cu atat de mult. Revine iarna, dar nu ca si gheata permanenta: ci ca si gheata subtire. Vulnerabila. Cantitatea ramasa ar putea disparea pe timpul verii in mai putin de cinci ani. Asta pune multa presiune asupra Groenlandei. Deja, in jurul cercului arctic - acesta este un sat renumit in Alaska. Acesta este un orasel din Newfoundland. Antarctica. Cele mai recente studii de la NASA. Canitatea de zapada moderata pana la severa care se topea de pe o suprafata echivalenta cu cea a Californiei.
"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.
"Erau timpurile cele mai bune, erau timpurile cele mai rele": o deschidere renumita in literatura engleza. Vreau sa va relatez pe scurt despre "Povestea celor doua planete." Terra si Venus sunt de exact aceeasi marine. Diametrul Terrei este cu aproximativ 400 de kilometri mai mare, dar in esenta aceeasi marime. Au exact acceasi cantitate de carbon. Dar diferenta este, ca pe Terra, majoritatea carbonului s-a scurs, de-a lungul timpului, din atmosfera, depozitat in pamant ca si carbune, petrol gaze naturale, etc. Pe Venus, mare parte din el este in atmosfera. Diferenta este ca temperatura noastra este in medie de 59 de grade Farhenheit. Pe Venus este 855. Acest lucru are relvanta in strategia noastra actuala de a scoate cat mai mult carbon din pamant cat mai repede posibil si a-l repune in atmosfera. Nu este din cauza ca Venus e putin mai aproape de Soare. Este de trei ori mai cald ca Mercur, care este chiar langa Soare. Acum, pe scurt, aceasta e o imagine pe care ati vazut-o ca una din imaginile vechi, dar v-o arat pentru ca doresc sa va prezint CSI:Climat.
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.
Comunitatea globala stiintifica spune ca, poluarea responsabila de incalzirea globala facut de om, pune in atmosfera, ingrosand-o, prinzand razele infrarosu care ar trebui sa iasa. Cu totii stiti asta. La ultima intalnire IPCC, oamenii de stiinta doreau sa spuna, "Cat de siguri sunteti?" Ei vroiau sa raspunda "99 la suta." Chinezii s-au opus, si atunci compromisul a fost "mai mult de 90 la suta." Acum, scepticii vor spune, "Oh, asteptati, ar putea exista variatii in aceasta energie care vine de la Soare." Daca asta ar fi adevarat stratosfera ar fi incalzita la fel ca si atomsfera mai joasa, daca vine mai mult inauntru. Daca este mai multa prinsa captiva in timp ce iese, atunci te-ai astepta sa fie mai cald aici si mai racoare aici. Aici este atmosfera joasa. Aici se afla stratosera: mai racoroasa. CSI:Climat.
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.
Acum, vestea cea buna. 68 la suta din Americani cred acum ca activitatea umana este responsabila de inclazirea globala. 69 la suta cred ca Terra se incalzeste intr-un mod semnificativ. Exista progres dar aici este cheia: cand se face o lista a provocarilor care trebuie confruntate, incalzirea globala este inca listata spre final. Ce lipseste este un sentiment al urgentei. Daca sunteti de acord cu analiza faptelor, dar nu aveti un sentiment de urgenta, asta unde va lasa? Pai, Alianta pentru Protectia Climatica, pe care eu o conduc in conjunctie cu CurrentTV - care a facut asta pro-bono, a creat un concurs international pentru a face reclame despre cum sa se comunice asta. Aceasta e cea care a castigat.
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 - voi arata toate canalele prezente aici - jurnalistii de varf ai NBC-ului au pus 956 de intrebari in 2007 candidatilor prezidentiali: doua din ele au fost despre criza climatica. ABC: 844 de intrebari, doua despre criza climatica. Fox: doua. CNN: doua. CBS: zero. De la rasete la lacrimi. Asta este una din vechile reclame despre tutun. Deci asta este ceea ce facem. Acesta este consumul de benzina din aceste tari. Si noi. Dar nu sunt doar tarile dezvoltate. Tarile in stare de dezvoltare ne urmeaza acum si isi accelereaza pasul. Si de fapt, emiterile lor puse laolalta in acest an le echivaleaza pe ale noastre in 1965. Si ne ajung din urma intr-un mod dramatic. Concentratiile totale: pana in 2025, vor fi unde eram noi in 1985. Daca tarile bogate ar lipsi in totalitate din peisaj, criza tot ar exista. Dar le-am dat tarilor in dezvoltare tehnologia si modul de gandire care creeaza criza. Asta este in Bolivia. De-a lungul a 30 de ani.
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.
Acesta e pescuitul la apogeu in cateva secunde. Anii '60. '70. '80. '90. Trebuie sa oprim asta. Si vestea buna e ca putem. Avem tehnologia. Trebuie sa avem o viziune universala despre cum sa abordam acest lucru: lupta impotriva saraciei in lume si provocarea reducerii emisiilor tarilor bogate toate au o singura solutie, foarte simpla.
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.
Oamenii spun, "Care este solutia?" Aceasta este. Puneti un pret pe carbon. Avem nevoie de o taxa pe CO2, neutra din punct de vedere al venitului, care se inlocuiasca taxarea pe salariu, care a fost inventata de Bismark - si unele lucruri s-au schimbat din secolul XIX. In lumea saraca, trebuie sa integram raspunsurile la saracie cu solutiile la criza climatica. Planurile de lupta impotriva saraciei in Uganda sunt fara sens daca nu rezolvam criza climatica.
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.
Dar raspunsurile pot face o diferenta vasta in tarile sarace. Aceasta este o propunere mult discutata in Europa. Aceasta a fost din Nature Magazine. Acestea sunt centrale de energie solara concentrate, conectate intr-un asa numit supergrid care furnizeaza toata energia electrica necesara pentru Europa, in mare parte din tarile care sunt in stadii de dezvoltare. Curent direct de voltaj inalt. Asta nu e "placinta din cer;" acest lucru poate fi facut.
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.
Trebuie sa facem acest lucru si pentru economia noastra. Cele mai recente numere arata ca vechiul model nu functionaza. Sunt o multime de investitii pe care le puteti face. Daca investiti in nisipuri asfaltice sau uleiuri din sisturi bituminoase, atunci aveti un portofoliu care este sufocat de actiuni de carbon neprofitabile. Si este bazat pe un model vechi. Dependentii gasesc vene la degetele de la picioare atunci cand cele din brate si din picioare ii lasa. Dezvoltarea nisipurilor asfaltice si a sisturilor de carbune este echivalentul. Iata cateva din investitille care eu cred ca sunt logice. Eu am investit in ele, deci am o scuza. Dar geotermale, concentrari solare, photovoltice avansate, eficienta si conservarea.
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.
Ati mai vazut aceasta proiectie, dar exista o schimbare. Singurele doua tari care nu au ratificat - iar acum a ramas doar una. Australia a avut alegeri. Si a existat o campanie in Australia care a continut reclame la televizor, la radio si pe internet cu menirea de a mari simtul de urgenta pentru oamenii de acolo. Si am invatat 250 de oameni sa faca aceasta prezentare in fiecare localitate si sat si oras din Australia. Multe alte lucruri au contribuit, dar noul prim ministru a anuntat ca prima lui prioritate e sa schimbe pozitia Australiei in privinta tratatului de la Kyoto, si a facut-o. Acum, au ajuns la o constientizare in mare parte datorita secetei pe care au avut-o. Acesta este Lacul Lanier. Prietena mea Heidi Cullins a zis ca daca am da nume secetelor precum le dam uraganelor, cea de acum din sud est s-ar numi Katrina, si am zice ca se indreapta catre Atlanta. Nu putem astepta ca o seceta de tipul celei din Australia sa ne schimbe cultura politica. Alte vesti bune. Orasele care sustin tratatul Kyoto in Statele Unite au ajuns la 780 - si cred ca am vazut unul trecand, doar ca sa localizam asta. Astea sunt vesti bune.
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.
Acum pentru a incheia, am auzit acum cateva zile despre importanta transformarii eroismului indivdiual in ceva comun astfel incat el devine banal sau rutina. Avem nevoie acum de o noua generatie de eroi. Acei din noi care sunt in viata in Statele Unite ale Americii azi in mod special, dar si restul lumii, trebuie cumva sa inteleaga ca istoria ne-a lasat sa facem o alegere - la fel cum Jill Bolte Taylor incerca sa afle cum sa isi salveze viata in timp ce era distrasa de experienta uimitoare prin care trecea. Avem o cultura care distrage atentia. Dar avem o urgenta planetara. Si trebuie sa gasim un mijloc de a crea, in generatia celor in viata azi, un simt al unei misuni generationale. As vrea sa gasesc cuvintele care sa transmita acest lucru. Aceasta a fost o alta generatie de eroi care a adus democratia pe planeta. Alta care a pus capat sclaviei. Si care a dat femeilor drept de vot. Putem face acest lucru. Nu imi spuneti ca nu avem capacitatea sa o facem. Daca am avea doar o saptamana din ce cheltuim pe bugetul razboiului din Iraq, am putea fi deja pe drumul rezolvarii acestei probleme. Avem capacitatea sa o facem.
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.
Un ultim punct. Sunt optimist, pentru ca eu cred ca avem capacitatea, in momente de mare provocare, sa dam la o parte lcururile care ne distrag atentia si sa ne ridicam la asteptarile provocarii pe care istoria ne-o prezinta. Cateodata aud raspunsurile oamenilor la problemele tulburatoare ale crizei climatice zicand, "Oh, este teribil. Ce povara avem." As vrea sa va rog sa reformulati. Cate generatii in istoria oamenilor au avut ocazia sa se ridice la asteptarile unei provocari care merita cele mai intense eforturi? O provocare care poate sa scoata din noi mai mult decat am stiut ca putem? Cred ca trebuie sa abordam aceasta provocare cu un simt al bucuriei si al multumirii pentru ca suntem generatia care, peste o mie de ani, orchestrele filarmonice si poetii si cantaretii o vor celebra prin a spune, ca ei au fost cei care au reusit sa rezolve criza si sa puna bazele unui viitor uman stralucit si optimist.
Let's do that. Thank you very much.
Sa facem asta. Va multumesc foarte mult.
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.
Chris Anderson: Pentru multi participanti la TED, este o durere profunda care este o problema a designului - la sfarsitul zilei, o problema a designului pe un formular de vot - o problema a designului prost inseamna ca vocea voastra nu se facea auzita ca in ultimii opt ani intr-o pozitie unde puteati face ca lucrurile sa se advereasca. Asta doare.
Al Gore: You have no idea. (Laughter)
Al Gore: Nu ai idee.
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?
Cand te uiti la candidatii principali ai partidului tau si ce fac ei acum - adica, este - esti entuziasmat de planurile lor in legatura cu incalzirea globala?
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!"
Raspunsul la aceasta intrebare e dificil pentru mine pentru ca, pe de-o parte, cred ca ar trebui sa ne simtim bine despre faptul ca nominalizatul Republican - nominalizatul sigur - John McCain, si ambii finalisti pentru nominalizarea Democrata - toti trei au diferite pozitii despre criza climatica. Toti trei au dovedit un spirit de conducator, si toti trei au abordat problema intr-un mod diferit fata de administratia curenta. Si cred ca toti trei sunt respnosabili pentru crearea de planuri si propuneri. Dar dialogul din campanie care - asa cum s-a vazut si din intrebari - a fost organizat de Liga Votantilor pentru Conservare, apropo, analizarea tuturor intrebarilor -- si , apropo, dezbaterile au fost sponsorizate de ceea ce poarta o eticheta Orwelliana "Carbune Curat." A observat cineva asta? Toate dezbaterile au fost sponsorizate de "Carbune Curat." "Acum, emisii si mai mici!"
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.
Bogatia dialogului in democratia noastra nu a pus bazele unei intiative curajoase de care este intr-adevar nevoie. Ei spun lucrurile corecte si pot chiar - oricare din ei va fi ales - sa faca lucrurile corecte, dar sa va spun: cand m-am intors de la Kyoto. in 1997 cu un sentiment de fericire ca am realizat un lucru mare acolo si apoi am confruntat Senatul Statelor Unite doar unul din 100 de senatori a fost gata sa voteze, sa confirme, sa ratifice tratatul. Orice ar spune candidatii trebuie sa fie analizat in paralel cu ce spun oamenii.
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.
Aceasta provocare este o parte din constructia intregii noastre civilizatii. CO2 este expiratia civilizatiei noastre, la propriu. Si acum noi am mecanizat acest proces. Pentru a schimba acest lucru ne trebuie o intindere, o scara, o viteza a schimbarii care este dincolo de ceea ce am facut in trecut. Deci, de aceea am inceput prin a spune, fiti optimisti in ceea ce faceti, dar fiti cetateni activi. Cereti - schimbati becurile, dar schimbati legile. Schimbati tratatele globale. Trebuie sa ridicam vocea. Trebuie sa rezolvam aceasta democratie - aceasta - exista scleroza in democratia noastra. Si trebuie sa schimbam asta. Folositi internetul. Intrati pe internet. Conectativa cu oamenii. Deveniti cetateni activi. Creati un moratoriu -- nu ar trebui sa avem noi centrale pe carbune care nu sunt capabile sa captureze si sa stocheze CO2. Ceea ce inseamna ca trebuie sa contruim rapid aceste resurse regenerabile. Acum nimeni nu discuta la aceasta scara. Dar cred ca intre astazi si noiembrie, este posibil. Alianta pentru Schimbarea Climei va lansa o campanie nationala - pentru o mobilizare de baza, reclame TV, anunturi pe internet, radio, in ziare - in parteneriat cu toata lumea de la cercetase pana la vanatori si pescari.
We need help. We need help.
Avem nevoie de ajutor. Avem nevoie de ajutor.
CA: In terms of your own personal role going forward, Al, is there something more than that you would like to be doing?
CA: In ceea ce priveste rolul tau personal de acum incolo, Al, mai este ceva in plus ce ai dori sa faci?
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.
AG: M-am rugat sa pot fi in stare sa gasesc raspunsul la aceasta intrebare. Ce pot face? Buckminster Fuller a scris odata, "Daca viitorul intregii civilizatii umane ar depinde de mine, ce as face? Cum as fi?" Depinde de noi toti, dar iarasi, nu doar cu becurile. Noi, cei mai multi de aici, suntem americani. Avem o democratie. Putem schimba lucrurile, dar trebuie sa schimbam activ. Ceea ce este necesar este un nivel mai inalt de constientizare. Iar acest lucru este greu de infaptuit - este greu de creat - dar vine. Exista un vechi proverb african pe care unii dintre voi il stiu care spune ca, "Daca vrei sa mergi repede, mergi singur; daca vrei sa mergi departe, mergi impreuna cu altii." Noi trebuie sa mergem departe repede. Deci trebuie sa schimbam nivelul de constientizare. O schimbare in angajament. Un nou simt al urgentei. O noua apreciere a privilegiului pe care il avem angajandu-ne in aceasta schimbare.
CA: Al Gore, thank you so much for coming to TED.
CA: Al Gore, multumim foarte mult ca ai venit la TED.
AG: Thank you. Thank you very much.
AG: Multumesc. Multumesc foarte mult.