You can watch the live stream below:

24 Presenters. 24 Time Zones. 13 Languages. 1 Message. 24 Hours of Reality is a worldwide event to broadcast the reality of the climate crisis. It will consist of a new multimedia presentation created by Al Gore and delivered once per hour for 24 hours, representing every time zone around the globe. Each hour people living with the reality of climate change will connect the dots between recent extreme weather events — including floods, droughts and storms — and the manmade pollution that is changing our climate. We will offer a round-the-clock, round-the-globe snapshot of the climate crisis in real time. The deniers may have millions of dollars to spend, but we have a powerful advantage. We have reality.

Gore does acknowledge the “incredible challenges” that is confronting President Obama and recognizes the climate-friendly efforts Obama has achieved, such as the historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and for instructing EPA to “move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act”. But despite this Gore says Obama has “failed” to present “bold action on climate change” and that Obama has only “slightly” moved the country forward on the climate issue. Gore writes:

“But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates including one Republican felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that “drill, baby, drill” is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.”

Because Obama failed to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution in the US he also contributed, Gore writes, to the disappointing failure of securing a global climate treaty at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen (Cop15) in 2009.

“The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that’s all it was a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from “How do we complete this historic breakthrough?” to “How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?”"

Gore also directed strong criticism against Obama for failing to defend the climate science from “dishonest attacks” by the climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry.

“President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.”

There is really no denying. Since taking office in 2008 Obama has failed to bring the change he promised. His track record has so far been a huge disappointment, especially when it comes to the climate crisis. Gore is just saying what has been on many environmentalists minds for a while now. And yet people who want to see real change on the climate issue doesn’t have many political options. As Dina Cappiello from the Associated Press writes:

“Regardless of views such as Gore’s, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would hurt the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not go to the polls.”

And this is really where the problem lies. The current two-party system in the US is undemocratic and is now also clearly responsible for killing our climate. But it’s a political system that Al Gore still remains a firm supporter of.

“There is no debate here — just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don’t get a vote. We shouldn’t decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesn’t make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it. As in: Eat shit, 20 trillion flies can’t be wrong.

Or take this recent headline: "TV weathercasters divided on global warming." Who gives a shit? My TV weathercaster is a bimbo with big tits who used to be on a soap opera on Telemundo. Media, could you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate." The other day, I saw a professor from the Union of Concerned Scientists face off against a distinguished expert on Tea Partying, whose brilliant analysis, recently published in the New England Journal of Grasping at Straws, was that we shouldn’t teach climate science in schools because kids find it scary. As they should. I hope they’re peeing in their pants.”

The video comes from a TED conference in February 2009. Watch it:

Photo credit: kevindooley

When most of us think of a community fair, we think of ferris wheels, halls of mirrors, rodeos and greasy food. Families come from miles around to ride the rides, watch the shows, look at the animals and stuff their faces. The good news is that local fairs are still going strong, the even better news is that more fairs are focused on being green.

Green fairs seem to be a great new trend in communities. Instead of crazy rides and sloppy food, green fairs show off the latest green products, ideas and organic foods. A green fair might not have adrenalin pumping rides or shows, but they definitely get people pumped up about being green.

What exactly makes up a green fair? In Plymouth Michigan, the Green Street Fair has all sorts of events over three days. There are expert speakers, bands rocking for the Earth, companies showing off their green products, tons of great food and much more! Events like the Plymouth fair are a great place for families to come and have a great time and also learn about things they can do to take care of Mother Earth.

Why aren’t all communities holding green events? I think this is a question everyone who cares about the well being of our environment should be asking. Most people don’t think about environmental issues unless they are in their face on a regular basis. What better way to bring up great ways we can do our part then a big fair! Having great music, awesome food and fantastic hands on exhibits will reach a lot farther than Al Gore lecturing about Global Warming. It’s a great way to get people into the mood of doing what is right. We all know that if we are not in the mood to do something, it just doesn’t get done.

What should we all be doing? We all should be pushing to spread events like the Plymouth Green Fair all over the world! It really isn’t difficult to talk to local business owners, the chamber of commerce and the city mayor to get the wheels turning. There will be many people in your community that will want to help out! Throwing a green fair in your community just may be the push folks need to make the environment a higher priority!

Photo credit: azrainman

New research from the UK Met Office, one of the world’s leading providers of environmental and weather-related services, shows that the world’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions would only offer a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below the two degree threshold.

Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office states: “Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be around a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2 °C.

“This idealised emissions scenario is based on emissions peaking in 2015 and quickly changing from an increase of 2–3% per year to a decrease of 3% per year. For every 10 years we delay action another 0.5 °C will be added to the most likely temperature rise.”

The new research shows that early action against man-made climate change is a must to be able to avoid the doomsday scenarios that comes with a two degree increase in global temperatures.

“These new figures suggest quite unambiguously that the world is on course for calamity unless rapid action can be taken which is far more drastic than any politicians are so far contemplating – never mind the general public.

If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a “business-as-usual” scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible.”

The new findings from the UK Met Office were presented at the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress in Copenhagen last week. And they will put even more pressure on the countries around the world now starting to gather and negotiate in Copenhagen for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference this December – the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”.

Al Gore says the world will agree on a new and better climate deal this time. He argues that a “political tipping point” regarding climate change has been reached:

“There is a very impressive consensus now emerging around the world that the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis,” he says. “I actually think we will get an agreement at Copenhagen.”

I am on the other hand not that optimistic. Sure, we might reach an agreement in Copenhagen. But will it be a strong agreement that actually take the new scientific findings into account? Or will it surrender to short-sighted economic gains from corporate interests?

I do see light in the tunnel. With the election of Barack Obama we got rid of the ignorant and idiotic stopping block, that is to say George Bush and the Republican Party. But even Obama is showing signs of weakness. Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s new top climate-change negotiator, says that a 25% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 is “not possible”:

“It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,”

And so far all the climate conferences and talks have ended in a total failure. The climate targets that have been set and agreed on are too conservative and don’t take the science into account. And pretty much all the reductions that countries so far have managed to do have been by outsourcing the pollution to poorer developing countries. For example the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, ended in embarrassment for the European Union when it’s leaders failed to agree on a strong climate deal. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, even called the new EU deal for “carbon colonialism”.

What we need is a new stronger climate deal that is based on science and not corporate interests. We need a climate deal with a goal of 350 ppm as a level to balance and stabilize the CO2 in our atmosphere. And we need a climate deal that includes sanctions against countries that do not follow the climate roadmap. Is that really too much to ask for?

In an interview with the Guardian last week Al Gore talked about the climate negotiations in Copenhagen this year, the European carbon market, climate change deniers, smart grids and nuclear energy.

The most surprising comment from Gore was about nuclear energy and its role in fighting climate change. According to Gore nuclear energy is not the answer to our problems because it’s dirty, too expensive, unsafe and that it poses a threat to world peace.

“I’m not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I’m now sceptical about it. There’s a few reasons. Let’s assume for the moment that we will solve the problem of long-term storage of radioactive waste. Let’s assume also that we’ll figure out how to standardise their design as [each plant] is currently unique and that enhances the risk of operator accidents. Let’s assume we can solve the terrorism threat to nuclear reactors. That still leaves a couple of very difficult problems.

First and foremost, economics. The nuclear industry cannot give any reliable cost estimate for how much it will take to build a nuclear plant. When a utility is confronted with the absence of any advances for how much the construction cost is going to be, then that’s a problem. Because the economics of nuclear only work at scale. You’ve got to have a 1,000 megawatt plant for it to be efficient and competitive. In the current environment, if you run a large utility that sells electricity you’ve got a certain amount of money to allocate in your budget. If you’re looking at the trends towards more conservation and the rapid introduction of renewables, it’s hard for you to project what your demand is going to be with as much precision as when the world was more predictable. As a result, you are less inclined to take all of your money and place one big bet on something that matures 12-15 years from now at an uncertain cost. That what’s called a “lumpy investment” and they want smaller increments that give them smaller flexibility. In the US, there hasn’t been a new order for a new reactor in 36 years.

Yes, there is [more appetite for nuclear power now]. And because of the carbon crisis there will be more nuclear plants built and some of those being retired will be replaced by others. I think it will play a somewhat larger role, but it will not be the main option chosen.

Whatever countries such as the US and the UK do, it will have a demonstration effect for the rest of the world. As the world comes to grips with how to solve the climate crisis, we in the US and the UK have a leadership role. If we told the rest of the world that nuclear is the answer [they would follow]. For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different [nuclear] technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you’re a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That’s what’s happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it’s not going to happen.”

And Greenpeace was of course happy by Gore’s comment. Martin Lloyd, from the Greenpeace blog Making Waves, said that:

“It’s always nice when people agree with you. We’ve maintained that nuclear power is a dangerous distraction to the real solutions to the climate crisis for a long time now. It’s dirty, it’s unsafe, it’s a threat to world peace and it is terribly, terribly expensive.”

“Now, Al Gore, who’s sometimes been on the other side of this argument has come round to our position. Because, as he notes, even if you assume problems with safety and waste can be overcome, it just doesn’t make sense economically.”

Al Gore and The Alliance for Climate Protection have announced that they are interested in creating a new .eco domain name extension. The .eco domain extension will be for individuals to express their support for environmental causes, for companies to promote their environmental initiatives, and for environmental organizations to maintain their websites in a namespace that is more relevant to their core missions.

“We fully support Dot Eco LLC in its efforts to secure the .eco top level domain through the ICANN application process and look forward to working with Dot Eco LLC to promote .eco. This is a truly exciting opportunity for the environmental movement and for the internet as a whole,” said Al Gore.

But what is more exciting than a new “green” domain extension is that a majority of the profits generated from the sales of the .eco domains will be distributed to support environmental causes and organizations.

Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection said that: “The .eco initiative, as proposed by Dot Eco LLC, is a unique approach for fundraising for nonprofit environmental organizations such as ours. We are thrilled to be working with Dot Eco LLC to generate funds for our organization and to promote awareness of climate change.”

“It is an honor and a privilege to be working with Al Gore and Cathy Zoi on the .eco initiative,” said Fred Krueger, CEO of Dot Eco LLC. “We are confident that we will generate substantial funds for the Alliance for Climate Protection to promote their efforts to increase awareness of climate change.”

Dot Eco LLC will be applying for the .eco domain name extension idea through the ICANN gTLD application process in late 2009. So maybe in a near future you will read this blog on www.green-blog.eco?

Watch the whole testimony below:

You can also watch it on YouTube.

Watch it:

Below you can find the lyrics for Will.I.Am’s new music video “Take Our Planet Back”:

Al Gore: Today, I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100% of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

Calling all the leaders to lead us out the hole
Asking all deceivers the things I want to know

If we’re so technological
Why’re we still burning oil

‘Cause I got a car you plug into the wall that’s faster than a GTO

We shot for the stars, put rovers on Mars, make planes like UFOs

So why are we borrowin’ money from China to buy oil from the Gulf and destroyin’ the world

Al Gore: Every bit of that has to change…

Now that’s got to change
Now that’s got to change

(Chorus x3)
We’ll stand up
We’ll stand up and take our planet back
You and me

We’ll stand up
We’ll stand up and take our planet back

Talkin’ ‘bout we

Talkin’ ‘bout we

Talkin’ ‘bout

Calling all the citizens
(Al Gore: Citizens…)
Citizens of the land

Ask you your politicians
(Al Gore: Political Leaders…)
All these questions

If we fight another war on terror
Why aren’t we fighting for the environment

We spend a billion dollars on wars in foreign lands
But nothin’ on education

Nikola Tesla turned the Niagara Falls into energy way back when
(Al Gore: Energy…)

And we’re still burning coal
(Al Gore: Coal…)
When you can make electricity with solar and wind
(Al Gore: Solar and wind…)

Now who’s getting played?
You and me

And who’s getting paid?

(Chorus x3)
We’ll stand up
We’ll stand up and take our planet back
You and me

We’ll stand up
We’ll stand up and take our planet back

Talkin’ ‘bout we

Talkin’ ‘bout we, we, we, we

I’m askin’ all the citizens to take action
(Al Gore: Citizens…)
Take action and take back the government
Tell the government to start taxin’ pollution
Makin’ laws ‘cause that’s the solution
It should be against the law to make pollution
So if they make products that do what the other products do
But they didn’t pollute, what are you gonna choose?

Al Gore:
We should tax what we burn, not what we earn.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable
I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo
And then bear witness to the people’s appetite for dramatic change
The time is now.