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.
Ob prosojnicah, predstavljenih tukaj pred dvema letoma, sem predaval približno 2000 krat. Danes zjutraj predstavljam krajše predavanje ob prosojnicah, ki jih predstavljam čisto prvič, torej - dobro je -- nočem in ne rabim zvišati nivoja; pravzaprav poskušam zmanjšati nivo. Ker sem spravil to skupaj, da bi dosegel izziv te predstavitve.
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.
In opomnjen sem bil ob fantastični prestavitivi Karen Armstrong, da je religija res ustrezno dojeta ni na ravni prepričanja, temveč vedenja. Morda bi morali reči isto za optimizem. Kako si drznemo biti optimistični? Optimizem je včasih označen kot prepričanje, intelektualno prepričanje. Kot je Mahatma Gandhi v znanem govoru rekel, "Vi morate poosebiti spremembe, ki jih želite videti v svetu." In izzd o katerem želimo biti optimistični ne bo ustvarjen na podlagi samega prepričanja, razen do mere, ki jo prepričanje prinaša glede novega vedenja. Toda beseda "vedenje" je tudi, mislim, včasih nerazumljena v tem kontekstu. Sem velik zagovornik sprememb: menjavi žarnic in nakupu hibridnih vozil, in Tipper in jaz sva postavila 33 sončnih panelov na našo hišo, in vrtala geotermalne vodnjake ter vse ostale stvari. Toda, kot je pomembno menjati žarnice, še bolj pomembno je spremeniti zakone. In ko spremenimo naše vedenje v našem vsakdanjiku, včasih spregledamo državljanski del, in demokratičen del. Da bi bili optimistični o tem, moramo postati neverjetno aktivni, kot državljani v naši demokraciji. Če želimo rešili klimatsko krizo, moramo rešiti krizo demokracije. In prav to 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)
To zgodbo sem poskušal povedati že večkrat. Na to sem bil opomnjen pred nedavnim, ko je gospa, ki se je sprehodila mimo mize ob kateri sem sedel, le zijala vame, ko je šla mimo. Bila je v svojih 70., videti je bila prijetnega obraza. Nisem dal pozornosti na to, dokler nisem videl v kotu očesa, da je hodila iz nasprotne smeri, in prav tako zijala vame. Tako sem rekel "Kako ste kaj?" In rekla je "Veste, če bi si barvali lase črno, bi bili videti kot 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.
Pred mnogimi leti, ko sem bil mlad kongresnik, sem namenil ogromno časa izzivu problema nadzora nukleranega orožja -- jederske tekme. In vojaški zgodovinarnji so me med tem iskanjem naučili, da so vojaški konflikti tipično, razvršeni v tri kategorije: lokalni boji, regionalni ali gledališke vojne, in redki, toda najbolj pomembni: globalne, svetovne vojne. Strateški konflikti. In vsak nivo konflikta zahteva različno dodelitev virov drugačen pristop, drugačen organizacijski model. Okoljske izzive lahko razdelimo v iste tri kategorije, in največ o čemer razmišljamo, so lokalni okoljski problemi: onesnaženje zraka, onesnaženje vode, odlaganje nevarnih odpadkov. Toda tu so tudi regionalni okoljski problemi, kot je kisel dež, od Srednjega zahoda do severovzhoda ZDA in od zahodne Evrope do Arktike, ter od sredjegazahoda ZDA iz Missisipija v mrtvo cono Mehiškega zaliva. In veliko je tega. Toda klimatska kriza je redek toda vse-pomemben globalen ali strateški konflikt. Vse je prizadeto. In moramo organizirati naš odziv na ustrezen način. Potrebujemo svetovno, globalno mobilizacijo za obnovljivo energijo, ohranjevanje, učinkovitost in globalen prehod na ekonomijo nizkih ogljikovih ravni. Čaka nas delo. In lahko mobiliziramo vire in politično voljo. Toda politična volja mora biti najprej mobilizirana, če želimo mobilizirati vire.
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.
Naj vam pokažem te prosojnice. Mislil sem začeti začel z logotipom. Kar manjka tukaj, je seveda, severni polarni led. Grenlandija ostaja. Tako je zgledal severni polarni led 28. let nazaj -- severni polarni led ob koncu poletja ob jesenskem enakonočju. Prejšnjo jesen, sem obiskal podatkovno središče za Sneg in led v Boulder, Koloradu in govoril z raziskovalci tukaj v Montereju v laboratoriju podiplomske plovbe. To je, kar se je zgovilo v zadnjih 28. letih. Da damo v prespektivo, 2005 je bil predhodnji rekord. To se je zgodilo lansko jesen, kar je res razburilo raziskovalce. Severni polarni pokrov je geografsko iste velikosti. Čeprav ni videti enake velikosti, toda je enake velikosti, kot ZDA brez področja približne velikosti zvezne države Arizona. Količina, ki je izginila v letu 2005 je enakovredna vsemu vzhodno od Missisipija. Dodatna količina, ki je izginila prejšnjo jesen, je ekvivalentna temu. Povrne se pozimi, toda ne kot trajen led, ampak kot tanek led. Ranljivo. Količina ki ostaja lahko povsem izgine poleti v obdobju kratkem zgolj peti let. To pomeni velik pritisk za Grenlandijo. Že sedaj, okrog Arktičnega kroga -- to je znamenita vasica na Aljaski, To je mestece v Novi Funlandiji. Antarktika. Najnovejše študije agencije NASA. Količina zmernega do hudega taljenja snega je ekvivalentna velikosti 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.
"Bili so dobrni časi in bili so hudi časi", najbolj znan začetni stavek v angleški literaturi. Želim na kratko deliti z vami "Povest o dveh planetih." Zemlji in Veneri. Zemlja in venera sta povsem enake velikosti. Zemljin premer je približno 400 kilometrov daljši, toda v bistvu enake velikosti. Imata povsem enako količino ogljika. Toda razlika je, da na Zemlji, večina ogljika izpuščena tekom časa v ozračje, je bila v začetku v obliki ogljikovodikov v premogu, nafti. plinu, id. Na Veneri je večina le tega v atmosferi. Razlika je v tem, da je naša temperatura je povprečno 15 stopinj Celzija, na Veneri je ta 457 stopinj Celzija. To je pomembno za našo trenutno strategijo črpanja čimveč vodika iz tal v čim krajšem času in vnosu le tega v atmosfero- To ni posledica tega, da je Venera nekoliko bližje Soncu. Je trikrat bolj vroča od Merkurja, ki je čisto ob soncu. Zdaj na kratko, tu je slika, ki ste jo videli, kot eno izmed starih slik, toda prikazijem jo, ker vam želim podati 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 skupnost govori: človeško povzročeno svetovno onesnaženje, izpuščeno v ozračje, ga zgoščuje, tako ujame več izhodnega infrardečega sevanja. Vsi vemo to. Na zadnjem srečanju IPCC, znanstveniki so želeli sporočiti: "Kako gotovi ste o tem?" želeli so odgovoriti "99 odstotno." Kitajci so nasprotovali in kompromis je bil "več kot 90 %". Zdaj skeptiki pravijo "Hej, počakaj trenutek, to so lahko varijacije v - v tej energiji, ki prihaja iz Sonca." Če bi to bilo res, bi bila segreta stratosfera, kot tudi nižje plasti atmosfere, če je večji vnos. Če je več ujetega na poti ven, potem lahko pričakujemo, da je topleje tukaj in hladnjeje tu. To so nižje plasti atmosfere. In to je stratosfera: hladnejša. 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.
Zdaj, tu so dobre novice. 68% američanov zdaj verjame, da so človeške aktivnosti odgovorne za globalno segrevanje. 69% verjame, da se Zemlja segreva in to opazno. Prišlo je do napredka, toda tu je ključ: ob danem seznamu izzivov je globalno segrevanje še vedno pri dnu. Kar manjka je občutek za nujnost. Če se strinjate z analizo dejstev, toda ne čutite občutka njunosti, kaj vam to prepušča? No, združenje za zaščito klime, katerega vodim v sodelovanju z CurrentTV - ki to opravlja v dobro, sta pripravili so svetovni natečaj za oglase, kako to sporočati. To je zmagovalni oglas.
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 - prikazal bom vse TV-postaje, -- najboljši novinarji za NBC so vprašali 956 vprašanj v 2007 predsedniškim kandidatom, le dve vprašanji od teh so bili o klimatski krizi. ABC: 844 vprašanj, dve o klimatski krizi. Fox: dve. CNN: dve. CBS: nobeno. Od smeha do solz. To je en starejših tobačnih oglasov. To je kar počnemo. To je poraba nafte v vseh naštetih državah in v ZDA. Niso le razvite države. Države v razvoju nam sledijo in povečujejo hod. In pravzaprav njihove skupne emisijie so v tem letu ekvivalente našim v letu 1965. In dohitevajo nas zelo dramatično. Skupne koncentracije: do 2025 bodo v bistvu tam, kjer smo mi bili leta 1985. Četudi bi bogate države povsem izginile iz slike, bi vseeno imeli to krizo. Toda mi smo dali državam v razvoju tehnologije in način razmišljanja, ki sutvarjajo krizo. To je Bolivija. V preseku 30 leti.
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.
To je vrhunec v nekaj sekundah. 60. 70. 80. 90. To moramo ustaviti. In dobra novica je, da lahko. Imamo tehnologije. Moramo imeti poenoten pogled kako pristopiti k temu: boj z revščino v svetu in izziv zmanjšanja emisij v bogatih državah, vse ima enotno, zelo preprosto rešitev.
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.
Ljudje sprašujejo "Kakšna je rešitev?" In tukaj je. Dajmo ogljiku ceno. Potrebujemo davek na CO2, prihodkovno-nevtralen, ki bo zamenjal davke na zaposlovanje, ki so Bismarkov izzum. In nekatere stvari so se spremenile od 19. stoletja. V obubožanem svetu, moramo integrirati odzive na revščino z rešitvami za klimatsko krizo. Načrti za boj z revšino v Ugandi so sporni, če ne rešimo klimatske krize.
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.
Toda odzivi lahko dejansko naredijo veliko razliko v revnih državah. To je predlog o katerem se je veliko govorilo v Evropi. To je iz revije Nature. To so zgoščevalne sončne obnovljive-elektrarne, povezane v tako imenovano super mrežo za nudenje vse električne energije za Evropo, v glavnem iz držav v razvoju. Visokonapetostni tokovi. To niso "sanje v oblakih", to je mogoče narediti.
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 rabimo za našo lastno ekonomijo. Zadnje številke kažejo, da je stari modeli ne delujejo. Obstaja veliko odličnih investicij, ki jih lahko izberete. Če investirate v pesek bogat z oljem, potem imate portfolio, ki je obremenjem z ogljikom. In je osnovan na starem modelu. Zasvojenci najdejo žile na palcih nog, ko so tiste na rokah in nogah pred kolapsom. Razvoj pridobivanja nafte ujete v pesku je enakoverden temu. Tu je le nekaj naložb za ketere osebno menim, da so smiselne. Sam imam delež v teh, zato moram tole razglasiti. Toda geotermična, zbirna sončna, napredna fotovoltaika, učinkovitost in ohranjevanje.
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.
To prosojnico ste že videli pred tem, toda tu je sprememba. Le dve državi nista ratificirali -- sedaj le ena. Avstralija je imela volitve. In kampanija v Avstraliji je vključevala televizijske, internetne in radijske oglase, za dvigovanje občutka njunosti pri prebivalcih. Izurili smo 250 ljudi za predavatelje, ki so predavali v vsakem mestu in kraju v Avstraliji. Veliko drugih stvari je prispevalo k temu, predsednik vlade je napovedal, da je njegova prva prioriteta sprememba pozicije Avstralije glede Kjotskega sporazuma, in to je tudi storil. Zdaj so ozaveščeni deloma zaradi hude suše, ki so jo utrpeli. To je Lake Lanier. Moja prijateljica Heidi Cullins je rekla, da če suše poimenujemo, kot poimenujemo orkane, bi to sušo na jugovzhodu poimenovali Katrina in rekli, da je na poti proti Atlanti. Ne smemo čakati na sušo, podobno tisti, ki je prizadela Avstralijo, da spremenimo našo politično kulturo. Tu je več dobrih novic. Število mestv ZDA, ki podpirajo Kjotski sporazum, se je povzpelo na 780 - in mislim, da vidim še eno med njimi, da postavim to v lokalen kontekst. To je dobra novica.
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.
Da zaključim, pred nekaj dnevi smo slišali o vrednosti posameznega junaštva, ki postane tako vsakovnevno, da postane običajno ali rutinsko. Kar potrebijemo je nova generacija herojev. Med nami, ki živimo v ZDA danes, še posebej, kot tudi v drugih predelih sveta, moramo nekako razumeti, da nam zgodovina nudi možnost izbire - tako kot Jill Bolte Taylor je poskušala ugotoviti kako rešiti svoje življenje, medtem ko jo je zmotila neverjetna izkušnja pred njo. Sedaj imamo kulturo odvračanja pozornosti. Toda imamo globalno krizo. In moramo najti način ustvarjanja, med generacijo tistih, ki živimo danes, občtek generacijske misije. Želim, da bi našel prave besede, da vam posredujem to. To je še ena generacija herojev, ki so prinesli demokracijo našemu planetu. Še eni, ki so končali sužensjtvo. In dali ženskam volilno pravico. Mi to zmoremo. Ne recite mi, da nimamo sposobnosti izpeljati tega. Če imamo le tednesko vrednost tega, kar danes zapravimo za vojno v Iraku, smo lahko na lepi poti do rešitve izziva. Imamo vse sposobnosti, da to naredimo.
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.
Kot končna točka. Sem oprimist, ker verjamem, da imamo sposobnost, v trenutkih velikih izzivov, da damo na stran zadeve, ki odvračajo našo pozornost in se posvetimo pravim izzivom, kot nam jih ponuja zgodovina. Včasih slišim odzive ljudi na moteča dejstva o klimatski krizi, ko govorijo "Joj, to je tako strašno. Kako breme nosimo." Rad bi vas vprašal da to ponovno uokvirite. Koliko generacij v celotni zgodovini človeštva je imelo priložnost da se zoperstavi izzivu vrednemu naših najboljših moči? Izzivu, ki nas lahko potegne več kot vemo, več lahko naredimo? Mislim, da moramo približati ta izziv z smislom in globokim veseljem in hvaležnostjo, da smo mi generacija o kateri, bodo čez tisoče let od danes, orkestri, pesniki in pevci slavili, z besedami, da so oni tisti, ki so našli v sebi rešitev krize in postavitev osnov svetle in optimistične prihodnosti človeštva.
Let's do that. Thank you very much.
Naredimo to. Najlepša 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.
Chris Anderson: Za veliko ljudi pri TED, je velika bolečina, da je v osnovi vprašanje oblikovanja - na koncu dneva, vprašanje oblikovanja na glasovalnem obrazcu. slabo oblikovanje lahko pomeni, da vaš glas ni bil slišan, kot v preteklih osmih letih na položaju, ko bi lahko uresničili te stvari. To bili.
Al Gore: You have no idea. (Laughter)
Al Gore: Nimate pojma.
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?
CA: Ko gledate na to, kar počnejo vodilni kandidati v vaši lastni stranki - mislim, je - ali ste razburjeni nad njihovimi načrti glede globalnega segrevanja?
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!"
AG: Odgovor na to vprašanje je težek, ker na eni strani, menim, da bi se morali počutiti odlično že ob dejstvu, da je Republikanski kandidat - določen kandidat- John McCain, in oba finalista med Demokrati - vsi imajo zalo različne in naprej usmerjene poglede glede klimatske krize. Vsi trije do ponudili vodstvo, in vsi so povsem drugačni od pristopa trenutne administracije. In mislim, da so vsi trije zelo odgovorno postavili plane in predloge. Toda kampanija dialoga, ki kot ilustrirano s pomočjo vprašanj, ki so jih sestavilo pri volilci pri Ligi za Ohranitev, mimogrede, analiza vseh vprašanj - in mimogrede, vse debate so bile sponzorirane iz nečesa, kar presega oznako Orwelliansko, "Čisti premog" Je kdo opazil to? Vsaka posamezno debato je omogočil "Čisti premog". "Zdaj, še nižji izpusti"
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.
Bogastvo in polnost dialoga v naši demokraciji nima osnov za močne pobude, ki jih res potrebujemo. Torej pravijo, prave stvari, ki jih morda -- kdorkoli je že izvoljen -- morda bo naredil pravo stvar. toda naj vam povem: ko sem se vrnil iz Kjota lata 1997 z občutkom sreče, da nam uspe preboj, in se soočil z senatom ZDA, le en on 100 senatorjev je bil pripralvjan glasovati in potrditi ter ratificirati pogodbo. Karkoli kandidati rečejo mora biti postavljeno poleg tega, kar ljudje rečejo.
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.
Izziv je del tkiva naše celotne civilizacije. CO2 je izdih naše civilizacije, dobesedno. In zdaj smo mehanizirali ta proces. Spremenili vzorec, kar zahteva obseg, doseg in hitrost sprememb, ki presega tiste iz preteklosti. Zato sem začel, s tem da sem dejal, bodimo optimistični v tem kar delamo, bodimo aktivni državljani. Zahtevajmo. Menjajmo žarnice in spremenimo zakone. Spremenimo globalne pogodbe. Moramo spregovoriti. Moramo rešiti to demokracijo -- to -- Naša demokracija je pozabljiva. In to moramo spremeniti. Uporabimo Internet. Pojdimo na Internet. Povežimo se z ostalimi. Postanimo zelo aktivni državljani. Vzpostavimo moratorije -- ne smemo imeti nobenih novih elektrarn na premog, ki niso sposobne zajemanja in shranjevanja CO2. Kar pomeni, da moramo hitro graditi obnovljive vire energije. Danes, nihče ne dela tega v takem obsegu. Toda varjamem, da med zdaj in novembrom, je to mogoče. Naše zavezništvo za zaščito klime bo začelo nacionalno kampanijo -- mobilizacijo prek televizijskih, internetnih oglasov, radia, novic -- s pomočjo partnerstva z vsemi od tabornic do lovcev in ribolovcev.
We need help. We need help.
Potrebujemo pomoč. Potrebujemo pomoč.
CA: In terms of your own personal role going forward, Al, is there something more than that you would like to be doing?
CA: V okviru vaše osebne vloge vnaprej, Al, je še kaj več, kar bi radi počeli?
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: Molil sem, da bi našel odgovor na to vprašanje. Kaj lahko počnem? Buckminster Fuller je nekoč zapisal: "Če je prihodnost vsega človeštva odvisna od mene, kaj lahko storim? Kakšen bi bil?" Odvisna je od nas vseh, toda spet, ne samo od menjave žarnic. Mi, večina nas tukaj, smo Američani. Imamo demokracijo. Lahko spremenimo stvari, toda moramo aktivno spreminjati. Kar v resnici potrebujemo, je višji nivo zavesti. In to je težko - to je težko ustvariti -- toda to je na poti. Star afriški pregovor, morda ga nekateri med vami poznajo, govori: "Če želite hitro, pojdite sami. Če želite daleč, pojdite skupaj." Mi moramo daleč in hotro. Zato moramo spremeniti zavest. Sprememba k zavezi. Nov občutek nujnosti. Novo cenjenje privilegija, da se soočamo s tem izzivom.
CA: Al Gore, thank you so much for coming to TED.
CA: Al Gore, najlepša hvala, za udeležbo na TED.
AG: Thank you. Thank you very much.
AG: Hvala. Najlepša hvala tudi vam.