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 ovde održao pre dve godine, prikazao sam oko 2000 puta. Danas ću vam prikazati kratku prezentaciju i to po prvi put - ustvari - ja ne želim niti imam potrebu da uvećam pokazatelje; Ja ustavri pokušavam da ih umanjim. Sastavio sam ovo tako da odgovara ovoj izazovnoj temi.
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 me je podsetila da se kod ispravnog razumevanja religije ne radi o verovanju, već o ponašanju. Možda bismo isto mogli reći i o optimizmu. Kako se usuđujemo da budemo optimistični? Za optimizam nekada kažemo da je to uverenje, intelektualni stav. Kao što je Mahatma Gandi slavno rekao, "Budi promena koju želiš da vidiš u svetu." A ishod u vezi sa kojim želimo da budemo optimistični neće proizaći samo iz verovanja, osim u slučaju kada verovanje dovede do novog oblika ponašanja. Ali i reč " ponašanje" je prema mom mišljenju u ovom kontekstu, pogrešno shvaćena. Ja sam veliki zagovornik zamene sijalica i kupovine hibridnih vozila, Tiper i ja smo postavili 33 solarne ploče na našu kuću, i iskopali geotermalne bunare i sve druge stvari. Ali, koliko god da je važno promeniti sijalice, važnije je promeniti zakone. Kada promenimo naše svakodnevno ponašanje, ponekada izostavljamo naše građanske dužnosti i demokratiju. Da bismo postali optimistični po ovom pitanju, moramo da postanemo izuzetno aktivni građani u našoj demokratiji. Da bismo rešili klimatsku krizu, moramo da rešimo demokratsku krizu. A imamo je.
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)
Pokušavam da ispričam ovu priču već dugo. Na to me je nedavno podsetila jedna žena koja je zurila u mene, prolazeći pored stola za kojim sam sedeo. Bila je u svojim sedamdesetim, prijatnog lica. Nisam razmišljao o tome sve dok krajičkom oka nisam primetio dok mi je prilazila iz suprotnog smera, da i dalje zuri u mene. I tako sam rekao, "Kako ste?" A ona je rekla, " Znate, da ofarbate kosu u crno, izgledali biste isto kao Al Gore." (smeh)
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.
Pre mnogo godina, dok sam još bio mladi kongresmen, provodio sam mnogo vremena baveći se izazovom kontrole nuklearnog oružja - u trci nuklearnog naoružanja. Tokom tog vremena, vojni istoričari su me naučili da se vojni sukobi dele u tri kategorije: lokalne bitke, regionalne ili ograničene ratove i retke ali sveobuhvatne globalne, svetske ratove. Strateške sukobe. A svaki nivo sukoba zahteva drugačiju raspodelu resursa i drugačiji pristup, drugačiji organizacioni model. Izazovi očuvanja životne sredine spadaju u iste tri kategorije, i većina onih o kojima razmišljamo jesu lokalni problemi životne sredine: zagađenost vazduha, vode, odlaganje opasnog otpada. Ali tu su i regionalni problemi životne sredine, poput kiselih kiša od srednjeg zapada do severoistoka, kao i sa zapadne Evrope do Arktika, te od srednjeg zapada niz Misisipi do mrtve tačke meksičkog zaliva. I ima puno takvih primera. Ali klimatska kriza je ne tako čest ali sveobuhvatni globalni, ili strateški konflikt. Sve je pogođeno. I moramo da organizujemo našu reakciju na odgovarajući način. Potrebna nam je svetska, globalna mobilizacija za obnovljivu energiju, očuvanje, korišćenje i globalni prelaz na nisko ugljeničnu ekonomiju. To moramo odraditi. I možemo da prikupimo resurse i politički volju. Ali politička volja mora biti mobilisana kako bi se mobilisali resursi.
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.
Pokazaću vam sledeće slajdove. Mislio sam da počnem sa logom. Ono sto nedostaje ovde je, naravno, severni ledeni prekrivač . Grendland je ostao. Pre 28 godina, ovako je izgledao severni ledeni prekrivač na kraju leta za vreme jesenjeg ekvinocija. Prošle jeseni, otišao sam u Centar za obradu podataka o ledu i snegu u Bolderu, Kolorado, i razgovarao sa istraživačima ovde u Montereju u postdiplomskoj pomorskoj laboratoriji. Ovo se dešavalo prethodnih 28 godina. Godina 2005 je bila rekordna. Evo šta se desilo prošle jeseni a što je zaista uznemirilo istraživače. Severni ledeni prekrivač je geografski iste veličine - iako ne izgleda tako - ali je iste veličine kao i Sjedinjene Države, manji za površinu koja je približno iste veličine kao Arizona. Površina koja je nestala 2005. jednaka je svemu istočno od Misisipija. Dodatna površina koja je nestala prošle jeseni takođe je bila jednaka ovoj. Površina se obnavlja tokom zime, ali ne kao čvrst, već kao tanak led. Krhak. Preostala površina može u potpunosti da nestane tokom leta u narednih 5 godina. To stavlja ogromni pritisak na Grenland. Već sada, oko Arktičkog kruga - ovo je poznato selo na Aljasci. Ovo je grad u Njufaundlendu. Antarktik. Najnovija istraživanja NASA -e. Oblast prosečnog do ozbiljnog topljenja snega površinski odgovara 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.
"To su bila najbolja vremena, to su bila najgora vremena": najpoznatija uvodna rečenica engleske književnosti. Želim ukratko da podelim "Priču o dve planete." Zemlja i Venera su potpuno iste veličine. Prečnik Zemljine lopte je za oko 400km veći, ali je izvorno iste veličine. Imaju tačno isti procenat ugljenika. Ali razlika je u tome što je na Zemlji većina ugljenika vremenom izvučena iz atmosfere, i nataložena u tlo kao ugljen, nafta, prirodni gas, itd. Na Veneri, veći deo je u vazduhu. Razlika je u tome što je naša prosečna temperatura 15 stepeni celzijusa. Venerina je 457,22 stepena celzijusa. Ovo je važno za našu trenutnu strategiju izvlačenja što je moguće više ugljenika iz tla, što je brže moguće i puštanja istog u okolinu. Venera nije toplija zato što je malo bliža Suncu. Tri puta je toplija od Merkura, koji je odmah do Sunca. Sad, vrlo kratko, ovde je slika koju ste videli među starim slikama, ali je pokazujem zato što želim ukratko 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.
Svetska naučna zajednica kaže, od ljudi stvoreno globalno zagrevanje, ispušteno u okolinu, zgušnjavajući ovo, zarobljava više odlazećeg infracrvenog zračenja. To svi znate. U sižeu sa poslednjeg Vladinog panela o klimatskim promenama (IPCC), naučnici su hteli da kažu "Koliko ste sigurni?" Želeli su da odgovore "99 procenata." Kinezi su se pobunili, pa je komrpomisni odgovor glasio "više od 90 posto. " Skeptici bi rekli, "Čekaj malo, moguće da su to varijacije u... u energiji koja dolazi od Sunca." Ako bi to bila istina, stratosfera bi bila zagrejana, isto kao i niža atmosfera, kad bi više energije dolazilo. Ako je više energije zarobljeno na odlasku, onda biste očekivali da bude toplije ovde, a hladnije ovde. Ovo je niža atmosfera. Ovo 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.
E sad, ovo su dobre vesti. 68 procenata Amerikanaca veruje da je ljudska aktivnost odgovorna za globalno zagrevanje. 69 posto veruje da se Zemlja značajno zagreva. Bilo je napretka, ali ovde je poenta: kada se suočite sa listom izazova, globalno zagrevanje je i dalje pri dnu. Ono što nedostaje je osećaj hitnosti. Ako se slažete sa analizom činjenica, a nemate osećaj hitnosti, gde vas to vodi? Pa, Savez za zaštitu klime, koji vodim zajedno sa CurrentTV - koja je to radila besplatno, sproveo je takmičenje na svetskom nivou za pravljenje reklame na temu kako razgovarati o ovome. Ovo je pobednik.
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 - Pokazaću vam sve TV mreže ovde - vrhunski novinari NBC-a postavili su 956 pitanja u 2007. predsedničkim kandidatima: od toga, dva su bila u vezi sa klimatskom krizom. ABC: 844 pitanja, dva u vezi sa klimatskom krizom. FOX: dva. CNN: dva. CBS: nula. Od smeha do suza. Ovo je jedna od starijih reklama za cigarete. Dakle, ovo je ono što činimo. Ovo je potrošnja goriva u svim ovim zemljama. I kod nas. Ali nisu u pitanju samo razvijene zemlje. Zemlje u razvoju nas prate i ubrzavaju svoj razvoj. Ustvari, njihova zajednička emisija ove godine je jednaka našoj iz 1965. I stižu nas vrlo brzo. Ukupnim koncentracijama: do 2025., zapravo će biti tamo gde smo mi bili u 1985. Kada bogatih zemalja uopšte ne bi bilo na slici, i dalje bismo imali ovu krizu. Ali zemljama u razvoju smo dali tehnologiju i načine razmišljanja koji kreiraju krizu. Ovo je u Boliviji. Tokom 30 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 prekomerni ulov ribe. Šezdesete. Sedamdesete. Osamdesete. Devedesete. Moramo da zaustavimo ovo. A dobra vest je da možemo. Imamo tehnologiju. Moramo da imamo jedinstven pogled na to kako prići sledećem: borba protiv siromaštva u svetu i izazov smanjivanja štetne emisije u bogatim zemljama, svi imaju jedno, jednostavno rešenje.
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, "Šta je rešenje?". Ovo. Staviti cenu na ugljenik. Potrebni su nam porezi za ugljendioksid, nezavisni od prihoda, da zamene porez za nezaposlenost, koji je uveo Bizmark, a neke stvari su se promenile on 19 veka. U siromašnom svetu, moramo da povežemo odgovor na problem siromaštva sa odgovorom na problem rešenja klimatskih kriza. Planovi za borbu protiv siromaštva u Ugandi su sporni ako ne rešimo 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.
Rešenja zaista mogu da promene mnogo toga u siromašnim zemljama. Ovo je predlog o kojem se mnogo pričalo u Evropi. Ovo je iz časopisa Priroda (Nature Magazine). Ovo su koncentrisane solarne elektrane obnovljive energije, povezane u tzv. supermrežu koja obezbeđuje ukupnu električnu energiju čitavoj Evropi, uglavnom iz zemalja u razvoju. Visokonaponska jednosmerna mreža. Ovo nisu "kule u oblacima", ovo može da se napravi.
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.
Moramo to da napravimo za našu ekonomiju. Poslednje cifre pokazuju da stari model ne radi. Postoji mnogo dobrih investicija. Ako uložite u katran pesak, ili naftu iz škriljaca, onda imate portfolio koji je pretrpan trećerazrednim CO2 investicijama. I zasnovan je na zastarelom modelu. Narkomani nađu vene na svojim nožnim prstima kada su im one na rukama i nogama propale. Razvijanje bitumenskog ulja i nafte iz škrljaca je potpuno isto. Evo samo nekoliko investicija za koje lično mislim da imaju smisla. Imam deonice u ovima, pa ću se odreći odgovornosti. Geotermalna, koncentrisana solarna energija, napredni fotonaponski uređaji, efikasnost i očuvanje.
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.
Videli ste ovaj slajd ranije, ali postoji promena. Jedine dve zemčlje koje nisu ratifikovale (Kjoto sporazum) a sad je ostala samo jedna. Australija je imala izbor. I postojala je kampanja u Australiji koja je uključivala televizijsku, radijsku i internet reklamu za podizanje osećaja nužnosti, među ljudima. I obučili smo 250 ljudi kako da, u svakom gradu, selu, naselju u Australiji, održe prezentaciju. Mnogo drugih stvari je tu doprinelo, ali novi Premijer je najavio da je njegov prioritet promena službenog stava Australije o Kjotu, a to je i učinio. Istina, osvestili su se delom i zbog velike suše koja ih je pogodila. Ovo je jezero Lanier. Moja prijatlejica Hajdi Kalins rekla je kada bi sušama davali imena kao što to činimo sa uraganima, sadašnja suša na jugoistoku bi se zvala Katrina, i rekli bismo da se kreće prema Atlanti. Ne možemo da čekamo sušu poput one u Australiji da bismo promenili našu političku svest. Evo još dobrih vesti. Broj gradova u Americi koji podržavaju Kjoto se popeo na 780, čini mi se da sam video jedan kako prolazi, da to malo lokalizujem. Što je dobra vest.
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 zaključimo, pre nekoliko dana čuli smo o značaju pretvaranja pojedinačnog herojstva u nešto toliko uobičajeno, da postane stvar rutine. Ono što nam je potrebno je još jedna herojska generacija. Oni od nas koji živimo u Sjedinjenim državama naročito danas, ali i ostatak sveta, nekako moramo shvatiti da nam je istorija dala izbor - baš kao što je Džil Bolt Tejlor shvatila kako da spasi svoj život dok ju je ometalo zadivljujuće iskustvo kroz koje je prolazila. Mi danas imamo kulturu koja nas ometa. Ali imamo i planetarnu uzbunu. I moramo da nađemo način da kreiramo, u ovoj generaciji koja živi danas, osećaj generacijske misije. Voleo bih da nađem reči da pojasnim ovo. Ovo je još jedna herojska generacija koja je donela demokratiju na ovu planetu. Još jedna koja je prekinula ropstvo. I koja je dala ženama pravo glasa. Mi možemo da učinimo ovo. Nemojte da mi kažete da nemamo kapaciteta za to. Da imamo samo onoliko koliko potrošimo za nedelju dana na rat u Iraku, bili bismo na dobrom putu da rešimo ovaj izazov. Imamo snage za to.
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.
Zaključna reč. Ja sam optimističan, zato što verujem da imamo kapaciteta, u trenutku velikog izazova, da stavimo sa strane razloge ometanja pažnje i da se suprotstavimo izazovu koji nam istorija postavlja. Ponekad čujem ljude kako na uznemirujuće činjenice o klimatskoj krizi kažu, "O, to je tako strašno. Kakav teret imamo." Upitao bih vas da to preoblikujemo. Koliko generacija u ljudskoj istoriji je imalo priliku da prihvati izazov koji je vredan naših najvećih napora? Izazov koji iz nas može da izvuče više nego što smo znali da možemo? Mislim da bismo trebali pristupiti ovom izazovu sa osećajem duboke radosti i zahvalnosti što smo mi generacija koju će, za hiljadu godina od danas, filharmonijski orkestri i pesnici i pevači, da slave govoreći, oni su bili ti koji su u sebi pronašli ono što je trebalo da se kriza reši i postavili temelje za vedriju i optimističniju budućnost čovečanstva.
Let's do that. Thank you very much.
Hajde da to uradimo. Mnogo vam 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.
Kris Anderson: Za mnoge ljude u TEDu, postoji duboki bol da je u suštini pitanje dizajna - na kraju krajeva, dizajn glasačkih listića - jedan loš dizajn je značio da se vaš glas nije čuo u poslednjih osam godina na poziciji gde ste mogli da ostvarite ove stvari. To boli.
Al Gore: You have no idea. (Laughter)
Al Gor: Ni ne znate koliko. (smeh)
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?
KA: Kada pogledate šta vodeći kandidati u vašoj stranci trenutno čine - mislim - jeste li uzbuđeni njihovim planovima oko globalnog zagrevanja?
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: Teško mi je odgovoriti na ovo pitanje, jer, sa jedne strane, mislim da bi trebalo da se osećamo sjajno zbog činjenice da Republikanski kandidati - određeni kandidat - Džon Mekkejn, i oboje finalista demokratske partije - svo troje imaju različitu i naprednu poziciju o klimatskoj krizi. Svo troje je ponudilo vođstvo, i svo troje imaju različit pristup od pristupa trenutne vlade. Takođe mislim da je svo troje bilo odgovorno u davanju predloga i planova. Ali dijalog u kampanji - ilustrovan ovim pitanjima - koji je sastavila Liga glasača za očuvanje prirode, usput, analiza pitanja, i, usput, sve rasprave je sponzorisalo nešto sa orvelovskim nazivom: "Čist ugljen." Da li je to neko primetio? Sve i jednu raspravu je sponzorisao "Čist ugljen." "Sada još manja emisija!"
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 demokratiji nije postavilo temelje za vrstu hrabre inicijative koja nam je zaista potrebna. Dakle, oni govore prave stvari i možda će - ko god bio izabran - uraditi pravu stvar, ali da vam kažem: kada sam se vratio iz Kjotoa 1997., sa osećajem velike radosti da smo tamo napravili prekretnicu, i kada sam se suočio sa američkim senatom, samo jedan od 100 senatora je bio rad da izglasa ratifikaciju sporazuma. Štagod kandidati rekli to mora biti u skladu sa onim što narod kaže.
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 čitavu našu civilizaciju. CO2 je ono što naša civilizacija izdiše, bukvalno. I sad smo mehanizovali taj proces. Menjanje te navike zahteva opsežnu, veliku i brzu promenu koja je izvan svega onoga što smo učinili u prošlosti. Zato sam počeo rekavši, budite optimistični u onome što radite, ali budite aktivni građanin. Zahtevajte - zamenite sijalice, ali menjajte i zakone. Promenite globalne sporazume. Moramo biti glasniji. Moramo rešiti ovu demokratsku - ovu - Imamo sklerozu u našoj demokratiji. I moramo to da promenimo. Koristite internet. Idite ne internet. Povežite se sa ljudima. Postanite vrlo aktivni građani. Napravimo moratorijum - ne bismo trebali imati nikakvih novih elektrana na ugljen koje nisu sposobne da skupe i pohrane CO2. Što znači da moramo brzo izgraditi obnovljive izvore. E sada, niko ne govori o tome na tom nivou. Ali ja verujem da je to moguće, od danas do novembra. Alijansa za zaštitu klime će pokrenuti nacionalnu kampanju - široku mobilizaciju, tv reklame, internet oglasi, radio, novine - u sradnji sa svima od izviđača, lovaca i ribara.
We need help. We need help.
Potrebna nam je pomoć. Potrebna nam je pomoć.
CA: In terms of your own personal role going forward, Al, is there something more than that you would like to be doing?
KA: U smislu vaše lične uloge u budućnosti, Al, da li postoji nešto drugo, što biste voleli da radite?
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: Molio sam se da budem spreman da odgovorim na to pitanje. Šta mogu učiniti? Bakminster Fuler je napisao, "Da budućnost ljudske civilizacije zavisi od mene, šta bih učinio? kakav bih bio?" To zavisi od svih nas, ali opet, ne samo o sijalicama. Mi, većina nas ovde, smo Amerikanci. Mi imamo demokratiju. Možemo da promenimo stanje, ali moramo aktivno da ga menjamo. Ono što je potrebno je ustvari viši nivo svesnosti. A to je teško - teško kreirati - ali i to se menja. Postoji stara afrička poslovica za koju su neki od vas čuli koja kaže, "Ako želiš da brzo napreduješ, idi sam; ako želiš daleko da stigneš, idi u društvu." Moramo ići daleko brzo. Dakle, moramo imati promenu svesti. Promenu onoga što nam je važno. Novi osećaj hitnosti. Novi osećaj zahvalnosti za privilegiju koju imamo u suočavanju sa ovim izazovom.
CA: Al Gore, thank you so much for coming to TED.
KA: Al Gor, hvala vam mnogo za dolazak na TED.
AG: Thank you. Thank you very much.
AG: Hvala vama. Mnogo vam hvala.