UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
An Hour With Al Gore
- LATEST COMMENTS
- AL: Thank you for all you have done to publicize ... - crestview2
- David Miller, Thanks so very much for asking the question---it ... - scottmil
- Well, on that last question — of whether the earth as ... - David Miller
Al Gore is a very busy ex-vice president.
He's received an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, his most visible and multi-platform push. But he hasn't exactly been a shrinking violet when it comes to some of the other big questions of our time. In the last few years, in a series of prominent speeches, he’s taken on President Bush for what he saw as abuses of executive power. And he's lambasted the media, arguing that the marketplace of ideas has been destroyed. (And he even entered the media fray himself with Current, an online and TV experiment in citizen journalism and viewer participation.)
The questions he raised in those appearances still reverberate.
After outlining what he saw as America's long history of war-time executive branch over-reaches, Gore remarked that "in each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret." Where are we in that cycle now — and what have we learned?
If our overall media climate means that "American democracy is in grave danger," as Gore noted four years ago, are blogs and other two-way adventures true paths to a thriving participatory democracy or just more entertaining distractions?
And on climate change — the focus of Gore's upcoming An Inconvenient Truth sequel — how exactly can the issue be "depoliticized"?
Al Gore will join us for an hour-long special. What do you want to ask him?
Note: This show was recorded in front of a live audience at OPB on Wednesday, November 18th from 5-6 pm. To see photos from the event check out the OPB Events Flickr page.
Tagged as: al gore · climate change
Photo credit: Michael Clapp / OPB
COMMENTS: (44 total)
-
I, too, have wondered a lot about this. Recently I ran across an interesting book (after reading an article by the author, David Schweikart, in the WorldWatch magazine) called After Capitalism, in which he talks about a slightly different model for economic development which is not dependent on population growth (at least theoretically!), and I know that people like Herman Daly and Hazel Henderson are working on nongrowth models of economic development. I think there are many others, but I haven't taken the time to track them down. If we really provide full health care and economic equality for women, it appears that population growth would lessen pretty quickly, and that would seem to dictate the emergence of different economic models. If we don't move against forced childbearing for women and for adequate healthcare for women and children, it would seem highly probable that death rates will rise dramatically and that will lead to some pretty severe economic outcomes. Either way, economic models as we are currently opertating are pretty unsustainable! It is a fascinating question academically--and a vital one for each of our lives!
Hope Mr. Gore has some input on this!
-
Thank you for your participation.
I am having difficulty following the reasoning process of the Peace Committee, especially in the past few years. It seems that great efforts for lifetime achievement in promoting world cooperation and peace are no longer criteria for awarding the Nobel peace prize. Rather, the award seems to have become European political anointing of well placed individuals in the hopes they will become great future leaders in some good cause.
The selection of President Obama as the newest recipient of the Nobel peace prize surprised many people. You yourself received that award a couple of years ago and there was the same reaction. Obviously, your public involvement via your work as a narrator for An Inconvenient Truth helped enormously in publicizing the climate change debate. President Obama speaks well of peace and I am sure he would like to see world peace.
Frankly, however, (and please forgive me if this offends) were there other specific criteria besides your film narration used to determine you advanced the cause of world peace ? And what actions of a brand new president so endeared him to the committee that he was awarded the prize? In each case, I do not doubt the good intentions of either recipient, but would like to know why the award was given.
Thank you for your time.
-
I have the same question barbara. The Nobel peace prize almost seems celebrity driven and attached to whomever has the most cache at the time even if it has yet to be vetted.
I would like to ask Al Gore how a tax on carbon tax offset will effect the economy especially now. The tax will have a ripple effect through the economy.
-
I'd like to ask the ex-Vice President why I should take any climate change solutions seriously when the issue at the core of the problem is not addressed... too many people!
As politically uncomfortable as it is, I don't see a long-term solution without a plan to first stabilize and then reduce our numbers. A sustainable plan for a 6B-person planet is untenable for a 9B-person planet. We can talk "green" all we want, until we offer incentives to put the planet above our personal biological imperitives, it means little if anything.
-
Given the vicious response by the Republican party and their corporate sponsors to health care reform, which is stalled in the Senate and appears doomed to be a watered-down, pro-industry bill...how can the average American expect anything meaningful in the way of climate change legislation short of revolution?
I'd also like to echo the comments of others here regarding population control. How can we overcome the worldwide cultural biases against birth control?
-
With all due respect.
Your, “Inconvenient Truth” contained a few, Convenient Lies.
Why after lying on such a grand scale, would anyone believe anything you say from that point forward? -
All these other questions are so big and important but there's this little thing that has always bugged me so I have to ask: if dark colors absorb more heat than light colors, why do we make all our roads black? Wouldn't our cities be cooler if they didn't have all that asphalt absorbing the sun's energy? Even if asphalt is naturally dark there has to be a way to make it lighter so it reflects more heat than it absorbs. I'm probably missing some key science detail, but it's something I've always been curious about. Thanks.
-
I understand that it is predicted that the US population will grow to 500 million by 2050 and one billion by 2100. Since the native born US population growth rate is leveling this then would be due to immigration. Won't this greatly added number of energy consumers make the US an even bigger waster of energy and contributor to global warming?
-
Dear President Gore,
How do we get the rich and priviliged to redistribute wealth, jobs and resources so that we can all work together to solve our problems? Too-big-to-succeed governments and corporations aren't moving fast enough in the most beneficial directions.
-
Mr. Gore,
I have so many questions for you, but I'll try and keep this brief.
- How would you compare working in government vs. working in the public interest as a private citizen? Which do you think has had more effect overall?
- The new Pew Research numbers that have come out conclude that the public is less concerned about global warming now than they were 3-4 years ago. Pair that with the recent Pew "news IQ Quiz" that concluded only 23% of the public knows what cap and trade pertains to and we can draw a conclusion that lack of knowledge on the subject leads to lack of care. What will this mean for cap and trade legislation? What might this mean to the business community that run companies based on market trends and thus impact their respective lobby platforms?
- How do you feel about the entertainment media's focus on global issues that seem to get less news media coverage? Given your skepticism about media accountability and yet your reliance on media for your platforms, where do you feel that entertainment and accountability intersect and what that means to the future global perspective in America?
Thank you for your time! TOL please pick one of my questions to ask!
-
Mr. Vice President,
Our government has now invested $79 Billion (that is not a typo – it’s about the cost of the Iraq war up to when Saddam was captured) in “research” to validate your Global Warming theory and has not been able to convincingly do so. Many scientists and experts, most notably Lord Moncton, have repeatedly offered to debate you on this important topic. Your predictions have, so far, not come to pass. The planet has not warming for the past ten years and has been cooling for the past seven (Source: IPCC data). The “hockey stick” you presented has been debunked as a "hokey stick" (a fraud), and the polar bears are increasing in numbers.
Question: Why do you refuse to debate climate skeptics on this important subject?
-
I hope she asks this question as well.
-
Lord Moncton--or Lord Monckton--is NOT a scientist. He, like Al Gore, is a politician and writer. He is NOT an expert on climate change. His beliefs go against scientific evidence and the scientific community at large. One can't argue with that sort of belief. Lord Monckton may in fact believe the earth is not round even though most of us can see that it is when we experience an eclipse. He is entitled to believe this and any number of things he wishes to believe but debating him about such things? Riduculous and futile.
-
Mr. Vice President,
Global temperatures over the past ten years have not continued to rise (many argue they've fallen) despite steady increases in atmospheric CO2. Granting room for natural variation, how many additional years of flat or cooling temperatures would it take for you, personally, to begin to doubt a causal connection? Would it take another 5 years, 10, 20, 100? At what point would you begin to doubt?
-
Mr. Vice President,
Thank you for coming and speaking to Oregonians.
I, like you, am very concerned about the environment. I've been trying to make changes: use my car less, recycle more, etc. But, the problem is much bigger than a me, Portland or even Oregon. Most of the US is heavily car-centric out of necessity (LA, Houston, etc. are built on sprawl), and even though many of these cities are making small changes like introducing some light rail, it's not widely used. It seems it won't be used enough to stop our polar ice caps from melting, which seems imminent.
I believe President Obama is right in that green jobs is a (not the only, but certainly important) way out of the recession, but I don't see a lot of stimulus money supporting business people to create these green jobs. I also don't see a lot of general support even statewide for green jobs, even in a green state such as ours. I believe most issues are really solvable when government and business (with some nonprofit help) work together.
How can we as average citizens encourage more green jobs besides buying green energy (which I'm doing) and investing (which I'm doing as much as I can)?
Thank you!
-
Mr. Vice President,
I would like to hear your thoughts about the connection between livestock production and climate change.
I don't expect that most Americans will stop eating meat. But surely we can begin to talk more openly about the environmental catastrophe of factory farming, which keeps meat artificially cheap by externalizing the tremendous costs we all pay to support this industry.
What can environmentally conscious Americans do about the problem of factory farming?
-
Will you personally try to persuade specific energy-producing companies, as well as environmentally dangerous corporations, to change their ways? In which ways, positive or negative?
-
Mr. Vice President, the environmental impact of eating a meat based diet has been widely studied and acknowledged as a major contributor to greenhouse gases. What standard do you think we should hold our officials to in establishing policies for a better food-based ecological footprint? Thank you.
-
My comment echos other questions that have been asked. Since it is well known that animal agriculture contributes more to global warming than anything else, when will you encourage people to eat a plant based diet - or to at least eat a lot less meat? CAFTAS are also a major contributor to water and air pollution. And our meat habit is causing much of the Amazon jungle to be cut down.
Susanlh
-
Mr. Vice President,
All of the comments so far seem to reflect different aspects of a very large problem with no consensus on a solution. Assuming this is true and that the clock is running out on us to contain unsustainable population growth, global warming, etc., etc., do you think there is anything that we could realistically agree on to do to lessen the overall impact?
Alternatively, might the problems we are concerned with all become moot if the forecasts of a number of oil economists from M. King Hubbert(the Hubbert curve) to Dr. Colin Campbell ("The Coming Oil Crisis") to Jeff Rubin ("Why Your World is About to get a Whole Lot Smaller") become a reality in the near future (as seems to be happening)? If relatively cheap oil, that we are addicted to, becomes history everything changes. Cheap food, cheap transportation, cheap imports, excessive consumption of fossil fuels and, yes, global warming all have the brakes applied without any domestic or international plan or agreements. The world economies will be turned upside down but the problems that we can't agree on today will be forgotten and suddenly replaced with new and different problems.
The final question is: shouldn't we be thinking in totally different directions?
Thanks for being on Think Out Loud and listening to us.
garybgreen
-
Dear Mr. Gore,
I am enormously appreciative of the work you have done to raise awareness of the facts about climate change and our urgent need to take action to moderate it.
Your new book looks excellent from my first look through, and I am looking forward to reading it more thoroughly. I was well impressed when I read "Earth in the Balance" and voted for Bill Clinton because he had the good sense to choose you for his vice president!
I would be interested in hearing from you a comparison of your approach with another outstanding presentation of actions needed to defend our world, "Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization" by Lester Brown, the eminent environmental scholar. It seems to me that his books and yours complement each other well, with some interesting differences in emphasis. You primarily emphasize climate change, with additional information on areas such as water, crop land, population, et al. Lester Brown primarily emphasizes water, food, population, soils, and also the important interactions with climate change. Anyone reading your book would surely appreciate Plan B, and vice versa, and I would be very interested in hearing your comments about similarities and differences in approach. Clearly, both of you stand for facts and realities, rather than denial and ignorance, and neither of you receive any support from ExonMobil!
Thanks for your true patriotism and courage--for our country and our world!
-
Mr. 'Glamorous' Gore,
There is a conceptual or existential component to climate change that makes it hard to tackle, that keeps it distant. One's life is only so long and into the little time we have, we arrive confused. Confused about our existence. Confused about the world around us. And, confused about who to trust. As a curious child we ask 'why' over and over again. And, the biggest obstacle to widespread efforts to temper climate change is as simple and basic as the child's 'why?'
The science has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that climate change is occurring. But, many still question why climate change matters? Some, perhaps defeated, ask: even if we believe the planet is warming, what difference does it make? Why can't our world come to a stop? Why should this earth continue? Could this not be the natural course of nature? In a way, it is all nature after all---the technology, the industry, the good and the bad. Perhaps, I am in a minority, but I think the elephant in the room are these questions? How can we put stock in saving something, saving this planet, when we are not certain why it should be saved? Unfortunately, politics and public discourse rarely takes on such questions.
We must go back to the basics and discuss the bigger, although rudimentary issues, before we can make real progress on reversing climate change. How can you build higher with a flimsy foundation? How can an apathetic culture, that barely wants to roll out of bed in the morning, get its hands around something so grand as the continuation of life on planet earth? Often people don't even care enough, about the people around them, in the here and now. We have seen this recently in the reluctance to give health-care to everyone. In the health-care debate there is also a reticence to speak openly about the ethics of assisting your fellow compatriots. We instead talk about pseudo-technicalities and partisan fluff.
In our personal lives, many of us find it hard to follow the medical advice of doctors and can't make the changes to lesson our own risk of developing certain diseases or prolonging our lives. How can our culture possibly grapple with the lives of future generations, when it has little but animus for this generation? Isn't this the real problem: not the science, but our humanity?
-
Mr. Vice President. The US had refused, in the past, to implement the Kyoto agreement. Since, many countries have worked to reduce their carbon emissions and even implement a tax on carbon emission. US population is reluctant to any taxes or governement involvement. How can you convince other countries that US can be serious to reduce its carbon emission? What will you consider a success at the Copenhaguen climate conference? What will be a great outcome for the US?
-
Jimmy Carter once commented in an interview that if the United States were to apply to the Carter Center for supervision to assure credible results in a presidential election, the Center would have to turn down the application due to factors such as the role of money in politics and disparate treatment of candidates by mass media. Mr. Carter's comment sadly reiterated a concern articulated years ago by John Gardner, whose work has helped us understand the extent of the problem. What realistic, practical steps should now be taken to reduce corruption in American politics and improve the legitimacy of our political culture?
-
When will the drawing occur and will we be notified even if we are not chosen?
-
Dear Judi, the drawing has happened. If you weren't notified, the tickets went to other people. We had a huge number of emails; more than ten times what we could accomodate. Please keep posting questions, we will try to get as many in as possible.
Many thanks,
Emily
Emily Harris — Tue Nov. 17th 12:24a.m.
-
Mr Gore,
Capping carbon emissions seems like a good way to reduce green house gases. Trading carbon credits seems like a good way to get companies to "pay" a "market value" for polluting the environment. It makes sense that emissions will reduce. And that seems to be a good thing. But, who really profits from creating this carbon trading market? It seems like Wallstreet and in particular Goldman Sachs stand to make BILLIONS. If the governement received the revenue from these trades and this could reduce the TREMENDOUS deficit that has been created, then I could support this approach to reducing emmissions. However, the legislation as proposed seems to create a market that is ripe for abuses and profit taking by Wallstreet (and Goldman Sachs in particular - read the article in July 2009 Rolling Stone Magazine) with the government and the American people loosing out. Can you please comment on where the profits will flow from this carbon trading market? Can you discuss specifically how Wallstreet will be involved and where the profits will go? Can you discuss how abuses of speculation on carbon credits will be avoided? How do you personally stand to gain in all of this or companies that you are affiliated with?
-
I imagine Mr. Gore will gain substantially.
-
Hi Emily,
Your show is wonderful. You do a really great job! Thanks for what you do. It makes a difference. I particularly like many of the topics and your style of asking relevant, important, and insightful questions. Keep it up!
-
Climate change is occurring, but is the past climate preferable? Why do we think the past climate architecture is the 'right' one? Yes, land will be reclaimed by the sea, people will loose homes or cities, some may even die. But, nature has always done this, and it still kills us, although perhaps on a smaller scale. Suggesting the planet's climate should stay as-is could be seen as suggesting the planet was intended to be this way. Who intended it? In a way it proposes someone set the knob, they turned the dial to the optimum temperature for life---it is like we are saying there was a creator. As an atheist I find this reasoning hard to swallow. Am I missing something? Did I make a wrong connection? Is there another way to have certainty about the correct climate or that the earth is best as-is?
-
Thank you. I heartily agree. The planet is very dynamic. Static climate would indicate that something is probably very wrong. The climate is sure to change, certain to get warmer as it has many many times in the past, and certain to get colder as it has many times in the past.
-
As an atheist, I find it very easy to swallow that the earth does indeed need to have very particular environmental "settings" for life to exist. This is why life does not exist on the other planets in our solar system--at least not in a way that we are able to recognize and is likely fairly rare in the universe. Not because some holy being set the knob at a certain setting but because the astronomical phenomena that created the planet had to happen in a very particular way for there to be a mix of carbon, water, oxygen etc. that supported life.
I agree with you scottmil on your earlier entry about the existential component of this issue although I would argue a simple premise that humans are in large part good. Yes we do incredibly horrible things and perpetuate horrendous calamity on the planet but as individual beings I believe we are larely good. And for the sake of that goodness I will continue to fight for a just, beatiful, and loving life on this planet. It all may prove futile in the end--ie, humans' time on this planet may be nearly done but I will continue to fight as much for the plants and animals that we take down with us as for the generations that come next. It is only human and I believe our humanity is largely in tact only clouded by consumerism.
-
To be clear, I believe without doubt climate change is occurring and it is potentially a bad thing for life. As the science indicates much of this is man induced change. I believe in science and this science wholeheartedly. Maybe this is too literal or my approach is, but I think of life as something neither good nor bad. It just is. Of course I could be off my rocker and not seeing things clearly, but I think most arguments go too far or just haven't heard one that resonates with me.
If humans are humane, it certainly doesn't seem like we started out that way, it has taken thousands of years to tame us and we certainly are not even close (but I suppose using my logic I am probably not sure what humane is---although we at least seem to be in conflict and on a personal level: I am often unhappy with things). If life on earth is just a crap-shot or the confluence of the right events, then I imagine its end will come about in the same way. I feel like we go too far by trying to preserve things, it almost seems sentimental. Or we attempt to add a godlike or religious value to it all.
NewsToYou, I certainly agree that it is "easy to swallow that the earth does indeed need to have very particular environmental 'settings' for life to exist." It probably sounds like I am saying more then I was, or maybe I was going too far. I am not disputing that we need certain environmental settings for 'our' kind of life. I'm just not certain why we need to preserve them or why we can't just play it as it lays. Perhaps, I should have left this second comment off, because it was largely stuck in semantics or what I perceive our culture means when we say 'intended.' If it is our nature simply playing out to end things, then it could equally be our nature to try and 'save' things. I can't propose one side without the other. In the end, it all seems to fall back on the fundamental question of: whether we think it is worth saving?
-
Well, on that last question — of whether the earth as we know it is worth saving — what did you make of Gore's response? (And did you get any frisson from momentarily stupefying a seemingly unstoppable talking force?)
David Miller — Thu Nov. 19th 3:07p.m.
-
David Miller,
Thanks so very much for asking the question---it was exciting and maybe a bit embarrassing. Without being in the studio, I am not sure what his expression, and so on, were like. On air, I thought maybe he just thought it was a silly question.
The answer seemed a bit political, and in some ways like maybe he hadn't thought much about it before, but it was sweet and kind at the same time.
As unsentimental as I try to be, in all honesty, it was pretty cool!
-
Dave & Emily, I’d recommend trying to get the two authors of the Nov 2009 Scientific American magazine article “A Path To Sustainable Energy; by 2030″, Mark Z Jacobson and Mark A Delucchi as guests on a show. That is a very encouraging article about the beneficial economics of cleaning up humanities act concerning the burning of Fossil Fuels.
-
I would like to ask Al Gore how a carbon tax will effect the economy especially now. Businesses will undoubtably pass this tax along to the consumers and slow employment especially for those companies that do not receive incentives from the government to change their practices. The tax will have a ripple effect through the economy and I am not convinced that it will be a positive one.
I can see how some industries will spring up but I wonder if this is enough to offset those businesses and people who will not be able to participate in the new green economy from an employment or even standard of living perspective due to lack of access and qualifications.
-
Although I agree with Mr. Gore that we have to change the way we impact our planet, I don't think there is enough information yet to really be sure what we can expect for the future. Our tenure here on this planet has just been a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of time the earth has been around. We really don't know anything about what is normal and considering the way were going, won't.
With that said, the most significant and obvious problem facing this planet is simply TOO MANY HUMANS!!! Period! The fact is the earth has a finite amount of space and recources to provide living creatures. It's time we started to consider this as a whole an what our responsibilities are if we wish to continue here.
-
While carbon from previous generations of crops is a large component of the top several inches of soil, please note that plants do not uptake carbon from the soil. They get their carbon from the air. Hence the carbon/oxygen cycle we are all familiar with. The carbon in the soil is food for worms and bacteria, who in turn recycle that carbon into nutrients that the plants can use. An over-abundance of carbon in the form of plant residue can often lead to poorer growing conditions. Plant residue must be properly managed to remain a healthy componet of the soil.
Also, Mr. Gore stated that organically grown food is healthier than traditionally grown food. This has not been shown to be true. Please search the internet for information on this subject. There are scientific studies available. Additionally, organic growing practices are notoriously low yielding. If we switch to 100% organic food we will have to live with maybe a third(I am guessing at a number here) of the worlds human population dying from starvation. Hunger is already a massive problem. We mustn't compound it. Modern agriculture must change, no doubt, but it is sustainable. People are working hard to solve the problems associated with chemical fertilizer. An interesting note: The Penn and Teller show Bull**** did a blind taste comparison on the street between organic and traditionally grown fruit. The people always chose the traditionally grown fruit. Was there a bias on their show? Of course. Just as everything Mr. Gore does has a bias to his point of view.
Scientific studies, I might add, seem to be lacking in the extreme when Mr. Gore is making his points. I do not remember any direct citations in An Inconvient Truth. If there were any, they were exceedingly few. Instead he would say, "The scientists say...", or "My good frient told me...". The which scientists said what? We never find out. Sorry, Al, but I can't get behind that. Show me the proof, then we can talk.
I wonder what Gore's carbon foot print for being on the show today was? He has gobs of money, a private jet, many homes and cars, and lots of very fine suits. If he were truly worried about climate change, he would not have a carbon foot print many times larger than a normal middle class family
-
You've stumped me. What are you thinking of with regards to excessive Carbon from plant residue adversely effecting growing conditions? Are you making the arguement that Milk will kill you if you drink a gallon in five minutes? Or are you refering to the initial lag in Nitrogen availability if a high C:N ratio organic like sawdust is added to a soil?
-
To the Hosts:
Thanks for the show, I am disappointed that I was late in joining and could not comment sooner. I really like what you guys do and try to listen often.
-
I cringe every time I hear Al Gore refer to the "consensus of the worlds' top scientists". As others have noted, 'consensus' is more about politics than science. Science is about our best attempt at not fooling our selves in all the usual human ways.
The problem we have with our current concerns about CO2 emissions and possible catastrophes, is very much like our concerns with Saddams nuclear capabilities. We can't know enough to prove anything for certain. And, we don't want to err on the wrong side of a potentially catastrophic unknown.
So, while a 'consensus of scientists', about something that cannot be proved, should be an oxymoron, it may be the best we humans can do when confronted with a potentially dangerous unknown.
I think Al Gores' strongest arguement - that I whole heartedly agree with - is that we need to be doing these things for other reasons anyway.
-
AL:
Thank you for all you have done to publicize many of the sources of global warning. You have "conveniently" left out one of the most significant sources - that of the production of livestock products. This is likely due to your family's historical ties with the industry. Which is more important - improving and protecting planetary and human health, or continuing to ignore the (livestock) elephant in the room?
We can all begin to ride bicycles and drive Prius's, but only until we move strongly down the food chain to vegetables, fruits, and grains (locally grown mostly) will we have a prayer of slowing climate change.
I have enclosed links to articles that speak much more eloquently than I can about the scientific and moral need to move on this. For the sake of planetary and human health, please incorporate this message into all future presentations. The very future of our quality of life depends on it.
D
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/061200.htm (two first of two articles contains a picture of a young Al Gore.)
-
Mr. Vice-President, economic growth is dependent upon the continual growth of human population and consumption, which is of course non-sustainable. How, then, is it possible for economic growth to be sustainable, as you suggest?
Shouldn't we instead be transitioning to an economic system that is based upon our human populations and consumption stabilized within the carrying capacities of our bioregions, and which levels the playing field for small local businesses and their employees to prosper?