An interview with Al Gore

• Share
  • Email
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Buzz up!
  • Del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google
• Print
• Comments (0)
• Feeds
  • PopMatters
  • Read
  • PopWire

SEATTLE — Former Vice President Al Gore was in Seattle recently to speak at Town Hall and promote his new book, “Our Choice: Creating a Green Future.” He sat down briefly with The Seattle Times.

Q. The U.S. Senate is still fighting over reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions that contribute to global warming. President Obama recently admitted an international accord was unlikely during a December climate summit in Copenhagen. What’s your assessment?

A. “Is it frustrating to see them scale back expectations for Copenhagen? Yes, of course, but this problem is so difficult it’s not surprising that we have to take a couple of runs at it. And the current state of the U.S. Senate, in its struggles to pass anything that has the characteristics of reform, makes it unfortunately not surprising that it’s difficult to get the votes put together. The good news is it has passed the House. The president is committed to progress and the progress in other nations has been very impressive.

“Don’t forget, the Environmental Protection Agency just enacted a binding rule that requires CO2 reductions whether legislation passes or not. All major CO2 emitters will have to publicly report their emissions. ...

“I’ll admit that I look for causes of optimism, but the good news is I find a lot of it.”

Q. Some supporters of greenhouse-gas reductions are disappointed with Obama. What do you think?

A. “Within the first month after taking office, he adopted a package of green stimulus measures that jump-started the planning and construction of a supergrid, led to renewed activity in solar, wind, enhanced geothermal. He’s now pushing hard on an aggressive buildings efficiency program — both retrofits and standards for new buildings. His approach to Copenhagen was hobbled by the inability to get legislation out of the Senate, because after the last 10 years the world community understandably needs to see that the U.S. is actually going to change its laws. And the health-care battle dragged on far longer than anyone thought it would.”

Q. Was it a mistake to take up health care?

A. “Well, it was a judgment call. The truth is we need both climate legislation and health reform and a new president has a maximum mandate at the beginning of his term. Would I like to see the No. 1 priority be climate? Yes. But the very fact that he has made it one of his top three priorities is welcome.”

Q. Do you think whatever climate legislation the Senate passes will work?

A. “I’m one who believes that the House legislation, though much weaker than I would have wanted, nevertheless begins the process of powerful change that I think would prove to be unstoppable. And if the Senate legislation ends up as good ... it will be criticized as too weak, but it will be a very important step forward. The truth is, once the business community and the political community sees this process under way, they’ll find — as they’ve always found in these pollution reduction efforts — that it’s cheaper and easier than the naysayers say.”

A recent Pew Research Center poll suggests the public is less likely than a few years ago to believe global warming is a problem. What do you make of that?

A. “There’s a seeming paradox in the polls if you take them all together over the last 10 years. When you ask people how important this issue is, how real is it, should we do something about it, big majorities always say yes, it’s real, its manmade, we’ve got to do something about it. But then, when you turn it to one side and give people a list of 20 problems and ask them to rank them in priority order, climate has usually come out in the bottom quartile. And I think one of the reasons for that is something I address (in a chapter in his new book) about the way we think about climate change.

“It’s unprecedented in its scope, in its magnitude, in its seriousness, but in other ways as well. Because its unfolding manifestations play out on a global scale, it masquerades as an abstraction. And because the length of time between the cause and the consequence is stretched out over a longer period than we’re used to dealing with viscerally, it requires a different kind of approach.”