The Future

by Al Gore

  The fact that any reputable scientist would lend his or her name to such proposals is certainly a measure of the desperation that those who understand the climate crisis feel about the abject failure of the world’s political leadership to begin reducing the rate of emissions of global warming pollution. But given the unanticipated consequences of the planetary experiment we already have under way—pumping 90 million tons of heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere every twenty-four hours—it would, in my opinion, be utterly insane to launch a second planetary experiment in the faint hope that it might temporarily cancel out some of the consequences of the first experiment without doing even more harm in the process.

  Among the other consequences of the SO2 proposal that was pointed out in a 2012 scientific study is this startling change: the sky we have gazed at since the beginning of humankind’s existence on Earth would no longer be blue—or at least no longer be as blue. Does that matter? Perhaps we could explain to our grandchildren why there were so many references to “blue skies” in the history of the cultures on Earth. Maybe they would understand that it was necessary to sacrifice the blueness of the sky in order to accommodate the political agenda of oil, coal, and gas companies. The levels of pollution above cities have already changed the color of the night sky from black to reddish black.

  No one has any idea what such proposals would mean for the photosynthesis of food crops and other plants; light needed for life would be partially blocked in order to create more “thermal space” to be occupied by steadily increasing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The effectiveness of photovoltaic conversion of sunlight into electricity—one of the most promising renewable energy technologies—might also be damaged. And none of these exotic proposals would do anything whatsoever to halt the acidification of the oceans.

  In addition, if we failed to reduce CO2 emissions, the sulfur dioxide injections or orbiting tinfoil strips would have to be increased steadily, year by year. Nor does anyone have the faintest idea of what these wack-adoodle proposals would do to climate patterns, precipitation, storm tracks, and all of the other phenomena that are already being disrupted. Have we gone stark raving mad?

  No, we haven’t gone mad. It’s just that our way of communicating about global challenges and debating reasonable solutions has been subjected to an unhealthy degree of distortion and control by wealthy corporate interests who are themselves desperate to prevent serious consideration of reducing global warming pollution.

  Technically, there are a range of benign geoengineering proposals that may well offer marginal benefits without imposing reckless risks. Painting roofs white, for example, or planting millions of roof gardens are both examples of riskless changes to the reflective characteristics of the Earth’s surface that could bounce more of the incoming sunlight back into space before the heat energy it carries is absorbed in the lower atmosphere. In a variation on this theme, Peru is painting rocks white high in the Andes in a desperate effort to slow the melting of glaciers and snowpacks on which they rely for drinking water and irrigation.

  If we continue to delay the launching of a serious multipronged global effort to reduce the emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gas pollution, we will find ourselves pushed toward increasingly desperate measures to mitigate the growing impacts of global warming. We will try to muddle through, argue and fight with one another, pursue our self-interest at the expense of others, often deceiving them and ourselves in the process. That is the course that we are on now.

  But when the survival of what we hold most dear is clearly at risk, then we must act. In all of human history, there have been rare moments when we have risen to transcend our past and charted a new course to safeguard our deepest values. At one such challenging moment in history, Abraham Lincoln said, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

  This time, our world is at stake. Not the planet itself; it would, of course, survive nicely without human civilization, albeit in an altered state. Rather, what is at stake is the set of environmental conditions and the health of the natural systems on which our civilization depends. And the fact that this crisis is global in nature is part of the unique challenge we face.

  Only twice before in all of human history has the future of our entire global civilization been at risk. Once, at the dawn of Homo sapiens’ time on Earth 100,000 years ago, anthropologists tell us that our numbers were reduced to less than 10,000 people, yet somehow we prevailed. The second occasion was when the United States and the former Soviet Union came all too close to unleashing massive nuclear arsenals against one another, killing hundreds of millions and risking a nuclear winter with potentially apocalyptic consequences. And again, somehow we prevailed.

  This time, the threat to our future is one that would not arrive in a matter of minutes with bright flashes and deafening sounds. It would be drawn out, and generations yet to come would live all their lives with the painful knowledge that once upon a time the Earth was hospitable to humans. It sustained and nourished us with cool breezes and abundant food and water. It inspired and renewed us with its majestic beauty.

  When memories of that Earth faded, the story would still be told: in the early decades of the twenty-first century, a generation gifted by those that came before them with the greatest prosperity and most advanced technologies the Earth had ever known broke faith with the future. They thought of themselves and enjoyed the bounty they had received, but cared not for what came after them. Would they forgive us? Or would they curse us with the dying breaths of each generation to come?

  If, on the other hand, we do find a way to rise to this occasion, we will have the rare privilege of meeting and overcoming a challenge that is worthy of the best in us. We have the tools we need. Some of them, it is true, need repair. Others need to be improved and perfected for the task ahead. All that we lack is the will to prevail, but political will can be renewed and strengthened by acknowledging the truth of our circumstances and accepting our obligation to safeguard the future for the next generation and all who will follow them.

  What we most need is a shift in our way of thinking and a rejection of the toxic illusions that have been so assiduously promoted and continually reinforced by opponents of actions, principally large carbon polluters and their allies. In some ways, this struggle to save the future will be played out in a contest between Earth Inc. and the Global Mind. The interconnection of people all over the world by means of the Internet has created the potential for an unprecedented global effort to communicate clearly among ourselves about the challenge that now confronts us and the solutions that are now available.

  On the other hand, the increasing interconnections among businesses and industries all over the world has generated powerful commercial momentum that is highly resistant to any effort by governments to rein in its more destructive tendencies. Earth Inc. is now the dominant source of influence over governments. Fortunately, there are a great many examples of the emergence of a global conscience on the Internet that has exerted powerful pressure to correct injustices and moral failures such as child labor, abusive working conditions, false imprisonment, sex slavery, persecution of vulnerable minorities, and destruction of the environment, among other causes.

  In some countries, this new emergent capacity for the development of a collective global conscience has also contributed greatly to policies aimed at solving the climate crisis. The number of grassroots, Internet-based NGOs devoted to safeguarding the ecological system of the Earth has been growing. The remaining question that is crucial to our future is whether the requisite force of truth necessary to bring about a shift in consciousness powerful enough to change the current course of civilization will emerge in time.

  * * *

  * In the old days before pesticides, farmers understood that turtles, birds, and bats were their friends. To protect the turtle
s from the plow, farm boys and girls would walk the fields in many areas prior to plowing to rescue turtles. They would put them on fence posts, and after the tilling was done the turtles would be released, generally at sunset.

  † Additionally, climate alterations caused by changes in the gravitational pull from ice sheets have measurable effects on relative sea level rise in some areas.

  ‡ Another reason is that at low latitudes, a much greater fraction of the trapped energy goes into evaporation (evaporative cooling) than into heating the air.

  For a larger version of the following image, click here.

  CONCLUSION

  “So often do the spirits

  Of great events stride on before the events,

  And in today already walks tomorrow.”

  —SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE

  THE PERSONAL JOURNEY I HAVE TAKEN IN WRITING THIS BOOK BEGAN with that single question which demanded an answer more thoughtful than the one I first offered. My search for a better answer has led me to new questions that also demand answers—especially from political, business, civic, and faith leaders around the world.

  To begin with, who are we? The initial answer, once again, is readily available: we are Homo sapiens. “Beings that know.” The usual suspects. We have been on a very long journey already—from forests to savannahs to farms to megacities; from two to thousands to millions to billions; from stones to plows to assembly lines to nanobots; from syllables to encyclopedias to airwaves to the Global Mind; from families to tribes to communities to nations.

  But that is the way we have been. Where our journey takes us next will depend upon what kind of beings we humans choose to be. To put it another way, our decision about the way we choose to live will determine whether the journey takes us, or whether we take the journey.

  The currents of change are so powerful that some have long since taken their oars out of the water, having decided that it is better to surrender, enjoy the ride, and hope for the best—even as those currents sweep us along faster and faster toward the rapids ahead that are roaring so deafeningly we can hardly hear ourselves think.

  “Rapids?” they shout above the din. “What rapids? Don’t be ridiculous; there are no rapids. Everything is fine!” There is anger in the shouting, and some who are intimidated by the anger learn never to mention the topic that triggers it. They are browbeaten into keeping the peace by avoiding any mention of the forbidden subject.

  For now at least, that is how some in the news media behave. They are terrified to even utter certain words—like “climate,” for example—lest they trigger rage from those who don’t want to hear about the destructive changes gaining momentum. The result is an almost pathological silence concerning the most important challenges we face, and a dangerous collective disregard for the future consequences of our present actions. But ultimately, that is not really who we are.

  Anyone who spends time thinking about the possibilities of a better future must first make an assumption about human nature. Idealists who want and hope for the best sometimes make the mistake of thinking that intrinsic human nature can change, and will improve according to their hopes. Cynics enjoy catching that mistake and pointing out that human nature doesn’t change at all.

  My own way of thinking about human nature is neither idealistic nor cynical. I believe there is a difference between intrinsic human nature—which I agree does not change, and the aspects of human nature we routinely express, which can and do change. The 35,000-year-old paintings in the caves at Chauvet, in France, and the figurines made by our ancient ancestors in Eurasia and Africa, clearly reflect a consciousness and sensibility not very different—perhaps not intrinsically different at all—from our own. But in other ways, we are very different indeed.

  We are each individuals, but as all of our major faith traditions teach us, we are all connected to one another. And science teaches us that human nature is inherently social. The social groups to which we belong have their own form of evolution. Some behaviors and norms survive from one generation to the next and others are discouraged. Habits and customs become rituals and rules, which evolve over time into cultures, social systems, laws and institutions, and which exercise a profound influence over which aspects of human nature we express.

  Consider what we have learned about the human genome: even though 99.9 percent of them are identical in every human being, our 23,000 genes—and millions of proteins—contain a universe of possibilities. Some genes are expressed while others remain inchoate, vestigial. Sometimes, capacities that evolved in the distant past are awakened for new purposes when our circumstances change. Consider also what neuroscientists have learned about the human brain: neuron trees grow dense and vibrant when they are used; others atrophy when they are not.

  Some have long believed that the most important strategy for empowering the “better angels of our nature” is education. And while I certainly agree that high-quality, universal education is not only desirable but essential, it is not sufficient. Some of the worst atrocities in human history have been organized and perpetrated by well-educated villains.

  Ignorance and misunderstanding are certainly enemies of genuine progress, just as knowledge, integrity, and character are crucial to our success. But the evolution of our collective behaviors, and the emergence of a genuine understanding of how deeply our connected fates are intertwined with the health of the ecological system of the Earth, will depend upon the choices we make about the structure of the systems we use. The way we measure what we do and the results of our actions, the way we communicate with one another, and the incentives and disincentives we build into our political, economic, and social systems all have a powerful influence on the future.

  Behaviors that bring rewards become more common. Those that don’t diminish. The elements of our nature that are activated by rewarded behaviors gain strength. Social groups establish values that reflect both the behaviors they wish to reward and those they want to discourage. These values become embedded in tribes, communities, nations, economic systems, institutions, and cultures.

  I fall back on the example that inspired me and has inspired people throughout the world for more than two centuries: the enduring genius of the U.S. Constitution stemmed from its authors’ clear-eyed, dead-on understanding of human nature—even though it was limited to white males—and their design of structural safeguards that discouraged the impulse to egotistical power-seeking and incentives that rewarded the impulse to resolve their differences through collective reasoning that maximized the likelihood of creative compromises based on the pursuit of the greater good.

  The separation of powers and checks and balances woven into the design of the Constitution embodied a sophisticated understanding of how to discourage some behaviors inherent in human nature and encourage positive ones instead. Others have tried to structure economic systems with incentives that unleash creativity and dynamism, encourage behaviors deemed of value, and discourage other behaviors that are destructive to the common good.

  Over time, we have come to recognize that the way we measure economic value also exerts a kind of evolutionary force on behavior—and that the things not measured at all are ignored as if they have no value, either positive or negative. When we change the measurements of value, the nature of the incentives, and the structure of the systems we use for making political, economic, and social decisions, we inevitably encourage the expression of some aspects of human nature and discourage others. So while intrinsic human nature may not change, the expressions of human nature—the aspects of our nature manifested in our behaviors and choices—can and do change readily in response to the incentives we establish as a basis for civilization. And they shape our future.

  If we signal to business, for example, that unlimited pollution will incur no cost or penalty, it is of little use to then decry them as immoral when they respond predictably to the incentives we give them. When we signal to our politicians that victory in elections is best assured by spending most of
their time asking for large sums of money from people and corporations that have special agendas for the shaping of public policies after the election, we incentivize politicians to express in their behavior negative aspects of human nature familiar to all of us—because they are intrinsic to all of us—even though most of us suppress them and understand fully why we should be discouraging the soft bribery and betrayal of the public trust that predictably results.

  More serious problems arise when those who benefit from these distorted incentives and dysfunctional rules manage to gain sufficient political power to prevent reforms that would encourage the aspects of human nature that we want to see manifested in political and economic decision making.

  Long periods of stability, which most of us naturally prefer, can enhance the vulnerability of any political or economic system to exploitation by those who have learned to distort its rules and incentives. Decades ago, the late University of Maryland political economist Mancur Olson published an extensive analysis of how elites in any society come to accumulate a steadily larger share of wealth and influence, and then use it to block reforms of the incentives and rules that work to their advantage.