Poetic Matrix Press
| If poets and lovers of poetry don't write, publish, read, and purchase poetry books then we will have no say in the quality of our contemporary culture and no excuse for the abuses of language, ideas, truth, beauty, and love in our cultural life. |
Al Gore continued from bottom of page
No, these were calls to come to the defense of
the common future. They were calls upon the
courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples,
citizens of every class and condition who were
ready to stand against the threat once asked to do
so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free
people would not rise to the challenge; they were,
of course, catastrophically wrong.
Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat
that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once
again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for
ignoring this challenge are immense and growing,
and at some near point would be unsustainable
and unrecoverable. For now we still have the
power to choose our fate, and the remaining
question is only this: Have we the will to act
vigorously and in time, or will we remain
imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?
Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest
democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve
with what he called “Satyagraha” – or “truth
force.”
In every land, the truth – once known – has the
power to set us free.
Truth also has the power to unite us and
bridge the distance between “me” and “we,”
creating the basis for common effort and shared
responsibility.
There is an African proverb that says, “If you
want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far,
go together.” We need to go far, quickly.
We must abandon the conceit that individual,
isolated, private actions are the answer. They can
and do help. But they will not take us far enough
without collective action. At the same time, we
must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not
invite the establishment of ideological conformity
and a new lock-step “ism.”
That means adopting principles, values, laws,
and treaties that release creativity and initiative at
every level of society in multifold responses
originating concurrently and spontaneously.
This new consciousness requires expanding
the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The
innovators who will devise a new way to harness
the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine
that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or
Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that
entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the
globe have the chance to change the world.
When we unite for a moral purpose that is
manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy
unleashed can transform us. The generation that
defeated fascism throughout the world in the
1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome
challenge, that they had gained the moral
authority and long-term vision to launch the
Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level
of global cooperation and foresight that unified
Europe and facilitated the emergence of
democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan,
Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary
leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and
not by the lights of every passing ship.”
In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace
Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000
people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was
described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of
the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and
hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the
Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his
commitment to world peace and global
cooperation.
My parents spoke often of Hull, always in
tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks
ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest
emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my
hometown paper that simply noted I had won the
same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that
moment, I knew what my father and mother
would have felt were they alive.
Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority
in rising to solve the world crisis caused by
fascism, so too can we find our greatest
opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In
the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and
Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the
first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.”
By facing and removing the danger of the climate
crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral
authority and vision to vastly increase our own
capacity to solve other crises that have been too
long ignored.
We must understand the connections between
the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty,
hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these
problems are linked, so too must be their
solutions. We must begin by making the common
rescue of the global environment the central
organizing principle of the world community.
Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth
Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I
presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the
delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a
treaty that establishes a universal global cap on
emissions and uses the market in emissions
trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most
effective opportunities for speedy reductions.
This treaty should be ratified and brought into
effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of
2010 – two years sooner than presently
contemplated. The pace of our response must be
accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the
crisis itself.
Heads of state should meet early next year to
review what was accomplished in Bali and take
personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It
is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our
circumstances, that these heads of state meet every
three months until the treaty is completed.
We also need a moratorium on the
construction of any new generating facility that
burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and
store carbon dioxide.
And most important of all, we need to put a
price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then
rebated back to the people, progressively,
according to the laws of each nation, in ways that
shift the burden of taxation from employment to
pollution. This is by far the most effective and
simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.
The world needs an alliance – especially of
those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales
where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and
Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to
meet the challenge, and the new government in
Australia, which has made solving the climate
crisis its first priority.
But the outcome will be decisively influenced
by two nations that are now failing to do enough:
the United States and China. While India is also
growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely
clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most
of all, my own country –– that will need to make
the boldest moves, or stand accountable before
history for their failure to act.
Both countries should stop using the other’s
behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead
develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared
global environment.
These are the last few years of decision, but
they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful
future if we do what we must. No one should
believe a solution will be found without effort,
without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge
that if we wish to redeem squandered time and
speak again with moral authority, then these are
the hard truths:
The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary
of what we currently believe is feasible is still far
short of what we actually must do. Moreover,
between here and there, across the unknown, falls
the shadow.
That is just another way of saying that we have
to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In
the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado,
“Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the
path as you walk.”
We are standing at the most fateful fork in that
path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of
two futures – each a palpable possibility – and
with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the
necessity of choosing between those two futures,
and the urgency of making the right choice now.
The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen,
wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation
will come knocking at my door.”
The future is knocking at our door right now.
Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us
one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What
were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”
Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the
moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a
crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”
We have everything we need to get started,
save perhaps political will, but political will is a
renewable resource.
So let us renew it, and say together: “We have
a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will
rise, and we will act.”
No, these were calls to come to the defense of
the common future. They were calls upon the
courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples,
citizens of every class and condition who were
ready to stand against the threat once asked to do
so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free
people would not rise to the challenge; they were,
of course, catastrophically wrong.
Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat
that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once
again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for
ignoring this challenge are immense and growing,
and at some near point would be unsustainable
and unrecoverable. For now we still have the
power to choose our fate, and the remaining
question is only this: Have we the will to act
vigorously and in time, or will we remain
imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?
Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest
democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve
with what he called “Satyagraha” – or “truth
force.”
In every land, the truth – once known – has the
power to set us free.
Truth also has the power to unite us and
bridge the distance between “me” and “we,”
creating the basis for common effort and shared
responsibility.
There is an African proverb that says, “If you
want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far,
go together.” We need to go far, quickly.
We must abandon the conceit that individual,
isolated, private actions are the answer. They can
and do help. But they will not take us far enough
without collective action. At the same time, we
must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not
invite the establishment of ideological conformity
and a new lock-step “ism.”
That means adopting principles, values, laws,
and treaties that release creativity and initiative at
every level of society in multifold responses
originating concurrently and spontaneously.
This new consciousness requires expanding
the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The
innovators who will devise a new way to harness
the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine
that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or
Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that
entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the
globe have the chance to change the world.
When we unite for a moral purpose that is
manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy
unleashed can transform us. The generation that
defeated fascism throughout the world in the
1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome
challenge, that they had gained the moral
authority and long-term vision to launch the
Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level
of global cooperation and foresight that unified
Europe and facilitated the emergence of
democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan,
Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary
leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and
not by the lights of every passing ship.”
In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace
Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000
people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was
described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of
the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and
hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the
Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his
commitment to world peace and global
cooperation.
My parents spoke often of Hull, always in
tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks
ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest
emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my
hometown paper that simply noted I had won the
same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that
moment, I knew what my father and mother
would have felt were they alive.
Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority
in rising to solve the world crisis caused by
fascism, so too can we find our greatest
opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In
the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and
Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the
first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.”
By facing and removing the danger of the climate
crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral
authority and vision to vastly increase our own
capacity to solve other crises that have been too
long ignored.
We must understand the connections between
the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty,
hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these
problems are linked, so too must be their
solutions. We must begin by making the common
rescue of the global environment the central
organizing principle of the world community.
Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth
Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I
presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the
delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a
treaty that establishes a universal global cap on
emissions and uses the market in emissions
trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most
effective opportunities for speedy reductions.
This treaty should be ratified and brought into
effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of
2010 – two years sooner than presently
contemplated. The pace of our response must be
accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the
crisis itself.
Heads of state should meet early next year to
review what was accomplished in Bali and take
personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It
is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our
circumstances, that these heads of state meet every
three months until the treaty is completed.
We also need a moratorium on the
construction of any new generating facility that
burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and
store carbon dioxide.
And most important of all, we need to put a
price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then
rebated back to the people, progressively,
according to the laws of each nation, in ways that
shift the burden of taxation from employment to
pollution. This is by far the most effective and
simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.
The world needs an alliance – especially of
those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales
where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and
Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to
meet the challenge, and the new government in
Australia, which has made solving the climate
crisis its first priority.
But the outcome will be decisively influenced
by two nations that are now failing to do enough:
the United States and China. While India is also
growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely
clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most
of all, my own country –– that will need to make
the boldest moves, or stand accountable before
history for their failure to act.
Both countries should stop using the other’s
behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead
develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared
global environment.
These are the last few years of decision, but
they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful
future if we do what we must. No one should
believe a solution will be found without effort,
without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge
that if we wish to redeem squandered time and
speak again with moral authority, then these are
the hard truths:
The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary
of what we currently believe is feasible is still far
short of what we actually must do. Moreover,
between here and there, across the unknown, falls
the shadow.
That is just another way of saying that we have
to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In
the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado,
“Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the
path as you walk.”
We are standing at the most fateful fork in that
path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of
two futures – each a palpable possibility – and
with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the
necessity of choosing between those two futures,
and the urgency of making the right choice now.
The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen,
wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation
will come knocking at my door.”
The future is knocking at our door right now.
Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us
one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What
were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”
Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the
moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a
crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”
We have everything we need to get started,
save perhaps political will, but political will is a
renewable resource.
So let us renew it, and say together: “We have
a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will
rise, and we will act.”
Americans reading less continued
Publishers and booksellers have noted that teen
fiction is a rapidly expanding category in an
otherwise flat market, but the NEA's director of
research, Sunil Iyengar, wondered how much of that
growth has been caused by the "Harry Potter" books,
the last of which came out in July.
"It's great that millions of kids are reading these
long, intricate novels, but reading one such book
every 18 months doesn't make up for daily reading,"
Gioia said.
Doug Whiteman, president of the Penguin Young
Readers Group, a division of Penguin Group (USA),
said sales of teen books were the strongest part of
his business. But he added that a couple of factors
could explain why scores were dropping: Adults are
also buying the "Potter" books, thus making the teen
market seem bigger on paper, and some sales are for
non-English language books.
"There are so many nuances," Whiteman said.
"Reading scores don't necessarily have any
relevance to today's sales."
The head of Simon & Schuster's children's
publishing division, Rick Richter, saw another
reason why sales could rise even as scores go down:
A growing gap between those who read and those
who don't. Richter considers it "very possible" that
the market is driven by a relatively small number of
young people who buy large numbers of books.
Test scores, meanwhile, are lowered by the larger
population of teens who don't read.
"A divide like that is really a cause for concern,"
Richter said.
The report emphasizes the social benefits of
reading: "Literary readers" are more likely to
exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current
events, vote in presidential elections and perform
volunteer work.
"This should explode the notion that reading is
somehow a passive activity," Gioia said. "Reading
creates people who are more active by any measure.
... People who don't read, who spend more of their
time watching TV or on the Internet, playing video
games, seem to be significantly more passive."
Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the
most important socio-economic issue in the United
States," and called for changes "in the way we're
educating kids, especially in high school and college.
We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and
enlightenment."
"'To Read or Not to Read' suggests we are losing
the majority of the new generation," Gioia said. "The
majority of young Americans will not realize their
individual, economic or social potential."
Publishers and booksellers have noted that teen
fiction is a rapidly expanding category in an
otherwise flat market, but the NEA's director of
research, Sunil Iyengar, wondered how much of that
growth has been caused by the "Harry Potter" books,
the last of which came out in July.
"It's great that millions of kids are reading these
long, intricate novels, but reading one such book
every 18 months doesn't make up for daily reading,"
Gioia said.
Doug Whiteman, president of the Penguin Young
Readers Group, a division of Penguin Group (USA),
said sales of teen books were the strongest part of
his business. But he added that a couple of factors
could explain why scores were dropping: Adults are
also buying the "Potter" books, thus making the teen
market seem bigger on paper, and some sales are for
non-English language books.
"There are so many nuances," Whiteman said.
"Reading scores don't necessarily have any
relevance to today's sales."
The head of Simon & Schuster's children's
publishing division, Rick Richter, saw another
reason why sales could rise even as scores go down:
A growing gap between those who read and those
who don't. Richter considers it "very possible" that
the market is driven by a relatively small number of
young people who buy large numbers of books.
Test scores, meanwhile, are lowered by the larger
population of teens who don't read.
"A divide like that is really a cause for concern,"
Richter said.
The report emphasizes the social benefits of
reading: "Literary readers" are more likely to
exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current
events, vote in presidential elections and perform
volunteer work.
"This should explode the notion that reading is
somehow a passive activity," Gioia said. "Reading
creates people who are more active by any measure.
... People who don't read, who spend more of their
time watching TV or on the Internet, playing video
games, seem to be significantly more passive."
Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the
most important socio-economic issue in the United
States," and called for changes "in the way we're
educating kids, especially in high school and college.
We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and
enlightenment."
"'To Read or Not to Read' suggests we are losing
the majority of the new generation," Gioia said. "The
majority of young Americans will not realize their
individual, economic or social potential."
SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE
ACCEPTANCE
OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
DECEMBER 10, 2007
OSLO, NORWAY
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses,
Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.
I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I
have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed
that God would show me a way to accomplish it.
Sometimes, without warning, the future
knocks on our door with a precious and painful
vision of what might be. One hundred and
nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his
own obituary, mistakenly published years
before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor
had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh
judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him
“The Merchant of Death” because of his
invention – dynamite. Shaken by this
condemnation, the inventor made a fateful
choice to serve the cause of peace.
Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize
and the others that bear his name.
Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own
political obituary in a judgment that seemed to
me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But
that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious
if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh
new ways to serve my purpose.
Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me
here. Even though I fear my words cannot match
this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart
will be communicated clearly enough that those
who hear me will say, “We must act.”
The distinguished scientists with whom it is
the greatest honor of my life to share this award
have laid before us a choice between two
different futures – a choice that to my ears
echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or
death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose
life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
We, the human species, are confronting a
planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of
our civilization that is gathering ominous and
destructive potential even as we gather here. But
there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability
to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though
not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly,
decisively and quickly.
However, despite a growing number of
honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s
leaders are still best described in the words
Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored
Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange
paradox, decided only to be undecided,
resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid
for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”
So today, we dumped another 70 million
tons of global-warming pollution into the thin
shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if
it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will
dump a slightly larger amount, with the
cumulative concentrations now trapping more
and more heat from the sun.
As a result, the earth has a fever. And the
fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a
passing affliction that will heal by itself. We
asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a
fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated
with increasing alarm, is that something basic is
wrong.
We are what is wrong, and we must make it
right.
Last September 21, as the Northern
Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists
reported with unprecedented distress that the
North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One
study estimated that it could be completely gone
during summer in less than 22 years. Another
new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy
researchers later this week, warns it could
happen in as little as 7 years.
Seven years from now.
In the last few months, it has been harder
and harder to misinterpret the signs that our
world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in
North and South America, Asia and Australia are
nearly out of water due to massive droughts and
melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing
their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic
and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning
evacuations of places they have long called
home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a
half million people from their homes in one
country and caused a national emergency that
almost brought down the government in
another. Climate refugees have migrated into
areas already inhabited by people with different
cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the
potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the
Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities.
Millions have been displaced by massive
flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18
countries in Africa. As temperature extremes
have increased, tens of thousands have lost their
lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our
forests and driving more and more species into
extinction. The very web of life on which we
depend is being ripped and frayed.
We never intended to cause all this
destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended
that dynamite be used for waging war. He had
hoped his invention would promote human
progress. We shared that same worthy goal
when we began burning massive quantities of
coal, then oil and methane.
Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few
warnings of the likely consequences. One of the
very first winners of the Prize in chemistry
worried that, “We are evaporating our coal
mines into the air.” After performing 10,000
equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated
that the earth’s average temperature would
increase by many degrees if we doubled the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger
Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began
to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels
day by day.
But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is
invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has
helped keep the truth about what it is doing to
our climate out of sight and out of mind.
Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is
unprecedented – and we often confuse the
unprecedented with the improbable.
We also find it hard to imagine making the
massive changes that are now necessary to solve
the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely
inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a
time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds
us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up
against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
In the years since this prize was first awarded,
the entire relationship between humankind and
the earth has been radically transformed. And
still, we have remained largely oblivious to the
impact of our cumulative actions.
Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to
wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the
earth's climate are locked in a relationship
familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured
destruction."
More than two decades ago, scientists
calculated that nuclear war could throw so much
debris and smoke into the air that it would block
life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere,
causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent
warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the
world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.
Now science is warning us that if we do not
quickly reduce the global warming pollution that
is trapping so much of the heat our planet
normally radiates back out of the atmosphere,
we are in danger of creating a permanent
“carbon summer.”
As the American poet Robert Frost wrote,
“Some say the world will end in fire; some say
in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”
But neither need be our fate. It is time to
make peace with the planet.
We must quickly mobilize our civilization with
the urgency and resolve that has previously
been seen only when nations mobilized for war.
These prior struggles for survival were won
when leaders found words at the 11th hour that
released a mighty surge of courage, hope and
readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal
challenge.
These were not comforting and misleading
assurances that the threat was not real or
imminent; that it would affect others but not
ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even
in the presence of extraordinary threat; that
Providence could be trusted to do for us what
we would not do for ourselves.
Al Gore continue top of page
ACCEPTANCE
OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
DECEMBER 10, 2007
OSLO, NORWAY
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses,
Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.
I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I
have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed
that God would show me a way to accomplish it.
Sometimes, without warning, the future
knocks on our door with a precious and painful
vision of what might be. One hundred and
nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his
own obituary, mistakenly published years
before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor
had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh
judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him
“The Merchant of Death” because of his
invention – dynamite. Shaken by this
condemnation, the inventor made a fateful
choice to serve the cause of peace.
Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize
and the others that bear his name.
Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own
political obituary in a judgment that seemed to
me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But
that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious
if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh
new ways to serve my purpose.
Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me
here. Even though I fear my words cannot match
this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart
will be communicated clearly enough that those
who hear me will say, “We must act.”
The distinguished scientists with whom it is
the greatest honor of my life to share this award
have laid before us a choice between two
different futures – a choice that to my ears
echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or
death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose
life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
We, the human species, are confronting a
planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of
our civilization that is gathering ominous and
destructive potential even as we gather here. But
there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability
to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though
not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly,
decisively and quickly.
However, despite a growing number of
honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s
leaders are still best described in the words
Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored
Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange
paradox, decided only to be undecided,
resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid
for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”
So today, we dumped another 70 million
tons of global-warming pollution into the thin
shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if
it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will
dump a slightly larger amount, with the
cumulative concentrations now trapping more
and more heat from the sun.
As a result, the earth has a fever. And the
fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a
passing affliction that will heal by itself. We
asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a
fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated
with increasing alarm, is that something basic is
wrong.
We are what is wrong, and we must make it
right.
Last September 21, as the Northern
Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists
reported with unprecedented distress that the
North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One
study estimated that it could be completely gone
during summer in less than 22 years. Another
new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy
researchers later this week, warns it could
happen in as little as 7 years.
Seven years from now.
In the last few months, it has been harder
and harder to misinterpret the signs that our
world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in
North and South America, Asia and Australia are
nearly out of water due to massive droughts and
melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing
their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic
and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning
evacuations of places they have long called
home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a
half million people from their homes in one
country and caused a national emergency that
almost brought down the government in
another. Climate refugees have migrated into
areas already inhabited by people with different
cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the
potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the
Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities.
Millions have been displaced by massive
flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18
countries in Africa. As temperature extremes
have increased, tens of thousands have lost their
lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our
forests and driving more and more species into
extinction. The very web of life on which we
depend is being ripped and frayed.
We never intended to cause all this
destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended
that dynamite be used for waging war. He had
hoped his invention would promote human
progress. We shared that same worthy goal
when we began burning massive quantities of
coal, then oil and methane.
Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few
warnings of the likely consequences. One of the
very first winners of the Prize in chemistry
worried that, “We are evaporating our coal
mines into the air.” After performing 10,000
equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated
that the earth’s average temperature would
increase by many degrees if we doubled the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger
Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began
to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels
day by day.
But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is
invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has
helped keep the truth about what it is doing to
our climate out of sight and out of mind.
Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is
unprecedented – and we often confuse the
unprecedented with the improbable.
We also find it hard to imagine making the
massive changes that are now necessary to solve
the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely
inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a
time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds
us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up
against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
In the years since this prize was first awarded,
the entire relationship between humankind and
the earth has been radically transformed. And
still, we have remained largely oblivious to the
impact of our cumulative actions.
Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to
wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the
earth's climate are locked in a relationship
familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured
destruction."
More than two decades ago, scientists
calculated that nuclear war could throw so much
debris and smoke into the air that it would block
life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere,
causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent
warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the
world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.
Now science is warning us that if we do not
quickly reduce the global warming pollution that
is trapping so much of the heat our planet
normally radiates back out of the atmosphere,
we are in danger of creating a permanent
“carbon summer.”
As the American poet Robert Frost wrote,
“Some say the world will end in fire; some say
in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”
But neither need be our fate. It is time to
make peace with the planet.
We must quickly mobilize our civilization with
the urgency and resolve that has previously
been seen only when nations mobilized for war.
These prior struggles for survival were won
when leaders found words at the 11th hour that
released a mighty surge of courage, hope and
readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal
challenge.
These were not comforting and misleading
assurances that the threat was not real or
imminent; that it would affect others but not
ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even
in the presence of extraordinary threat; that
Providence could be trusted to do for us what
we would not do for ourselves.
Al Gore continue top of page
| Government study: Americans reading less By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Mon Nov 19, 12:31 AM ET Sent by: Jamie Asae FitzGerald Poets & Writers, Program Associate jfitzgerald@ pw.org NEW YORK - The latest National Endowment for the Arts report draws on a variety of sources, public and private, and essentially reaches one conclusion: Americans are reading less. The 99-page study, "To Read or Not to Read," is being released Monday as a follow-up to a 2004 NEA survey, "Reading at Risk," that found an increasing number of adult Americans were not even reading one book a year. "To Read or Not to Read" gathers an array of government, academic and foundation data on everything from how many 9-year-olds read every day for "fun" (54 percent) to the percentage of high school graduates deemed by employers as "deficient" in writing in English (72 percent). "I've done a lot of work in statistics in my career, and I've never seen a situation where so much data was pulled from so many places and absolutely everything is so consistent," NEA chairman Dana Gioia said. Among the findings: In 2002, only 52 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24, the college years, read a book voluntarily, down from 59 percent in 1992. Money spent on books, adjusted for inflation, dropped 14 percent from 1985 to 2005 and has fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s. The number of adults with bachelor's degrees and "proficient in reading prose" dropped from 40 percent in 1992 to 31 percent in 2003. Some news is good, notably among 9-year-olds, whose reading comprehension scores have soared since the early 1990s. But at the same time, the number of 17-year-olds who "never or hardly ever" read for pleasure has doubled, to 19 percent, and their comprehension scores have fallen. "I think there's been an enormous investment in teaching kids to read in elementary school," Gioia said. "Kids are doing better at 9, and at 11. At 13, they're doing no worse, but then you see this catastrophic falloff. ... If kids are put into this electronic culture without any counterbalancing efforts, they will stop reading." Americans reading less continue top of page |
Articles