July 1, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/opinion/01gore.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is
unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could
actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is
nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is
not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable
for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to
put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our
world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth
and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average
temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an
end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization
depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been
removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in
the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million
tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per
million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts
per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million
this year.

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving
closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make
it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s
habitability for human civilization.

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north
polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly
three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models
predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone
in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet,
near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow
melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects
the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left
versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it
is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the
prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession
with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all
the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal
threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly
our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from
outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from
outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly
the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The
difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground —
having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600
million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59
degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus
is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star;
Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right
next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in
recognition of our common bond.

Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will
ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to
make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate
crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the
solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or
failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and
what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”

Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone
who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to
take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the
pledge are available at algore.com.)

But individual action will also have to shape and drive government
action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most
of our short history, the United States and the American people have
provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of
Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in
World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were
the result of American leadership.

Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to
take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for
success.

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an
international treaty within the next two years that cuts global
warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more
than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a
healthy Earth.

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the
Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I
believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States
that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter
administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded
strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations
will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.

Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT
agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for
it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a
new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete
this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as
currently planned.

If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a
domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt
that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to
sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new
treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course;
countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon
their historical share or contribution to the problem and their
relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well
established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.

There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use
xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be
held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our
gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in
the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load
as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we
cannot lead?

Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their
future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in
the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the
best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to
warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than
politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the
greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger
bears down on us.

We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this
challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as
corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic
opportunities offered by a clean energy future.

But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the
right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience
what few generations in history have had the privilege of
experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a
shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put
aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine
moral and spiritual challenge.