Al Gore: Cheaper clean energy can outlast climate rollbacks

Akshat Rathi asks what the US midterm election means for climate action after President Donald Trump's rollbacks. Former vice president Al Gore sees the result as a rejection of the administration's record, including its climate policies, although he also points to voter concerns about tariffs, wars and other issues.

Rathi notes that Democrats did not campaign chiefly on climate and asks how they might put it back on the ballot in 2028. Gore distinguishes supporting action from talking about it. He compares the silence to 'climate hushing' by companies that continue sustainability work while saying less about it.

Gore argues that disruptions to fossil fuel supplies and volatile prices have brought energy security and climate security together. At the same time, he says, solar, wind, batteries and electric vehicles have continued to become cheaper, making clean energy attractive to businesses as well as policymakers.

Gore says renewables accounted for 86% of new electricity generation installed worldwide in the previous year and 91% in the US. He contrasts what he describes as a five- to six-year wait for gas turbines with ready availability of solar and batteries.

Rathi cites a Global Carbon Project projection that emissions could fall 0.4% in 2026 and asks whether declines can continue without shocks like the energy crisis. Gore contrasts the pandemic's temporary drop with what he sees as a more lasting shift in power generation and transport, while acknowledging that disruptions may also contribute.

Gore says sales of internal combustion vehicles have fallen from their peak as electric vehicles get cheaper. He attributes China's position in clean technology to decisions the country made earlier, and expects the US eventually to make similar choices. In his view the underlying change is likely to continue.

Rathi turns to a bipartisan permitting bill that supporters say would speed clean energy projects and asks why Gore opposes it. Gore says he respects the Democratic negotiators but believes the election changed the balance of power since the negotiations began.

The executive branch will remain under Trump for the next two years, Gore says, and he does not trust the president to implement the bill fairly. He points to Trump's opposition to wind farms and worries that faster approvals would instead benefit pipelines and plastics facilities.

Gore also raises environmental justice, referring to communities in southern Louisiana's industrial corridor known as Cancer Alley. He agrees that project approvals need to move faster, but argues that the proposed bill gives the president too much discretion. Significant amendments could change his view, he says.

Rathi asks what Congress can accomplish after climate enforcement and legal protections have been weakened and some companies have walked back commitments. Gore expects political struggle but says public opinion is shifting. He leaves open the possibility of compromise even as he doubts Trump's intentions.

One option, Rathi suggests, would be for Congress to pass a major climate bill and force a presidential veto. Gore says some Democrats support that approach, while others may seek compromises, including the return of some clean-energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Asked about the role of states, Gore expects them to pursue their own policies rather than necessarily acting together. He says his team's post-election analysis found that states with Democratic governors account for 68% of US greenhouse gas emissions, and credits states, cities and businesses with continuing climate work.

Rathi says people he meets abroad are tired of the US repeatedly leaving and rejoining climate agreements. He asks how much credibility the country can retain if it also leaves the underlying UN climate treaty, rather than only the Paris Agreement.

Gore calls the legal path back into the treaty unsettled. He thinks a future administration might be able to rejoin without a Senate treaty vote, and says some international implementation goals do not require a treaty. He does not know of a near-term action Congress could take before the withdrawal date.

Rathi presses the practical question: credibility also requires money, and even the Biden administration struggled to meet all its international climate finance commitments. Gore agrees that raising large sums for international funds has always been politically difficult in the US.

Gore argues that the central financing challenge is access to affordable private credit. He says developing countries sometimes pay interest rates six times those in Europe, North America or Japan, which makes projects harder to finance even as the underlying technology becomes cheaper.

He points to the World Bank's efforts and says currency swings, contract enforcement and corruption help explain why investors charge more. Nevertheless, he argues that the public and private financial system allocates credit unfairly and that developing countries need access on better terms.

Citing a report, Gore says developing countries are expected to account for future emissions growth but receive a small share of finance for the energy transition. He also describes solar panels becoming familiar household purchases in Pakistan and Nigeria and says cheaper Chinese electric vehicles are entering developing markets.

Rathi describes the speed of solar deployment: after the first terawatt took years to install, two more followed within roughly four years, with developing countries accounting for a growing share. Gore compares adoption in places without extensive power grids to the way mobile phones bypassed landlines.

Rathi says Chinese companies are also offering finance to help customers buy their solar panels, while Chinese government lending supports purchases of clean technology. He contrasts that growing influence with what he sees as China's quieter position in international climate negotiations and the US withdrawal from climate diplomacy.

Gore adds that some countries in Africa and Southeast Asia have grown resentful of the terms of Chinese credit arrangements. He nevertheless thinks the world would welcome a sincere US return to climate diplomacy and that a future president with a strong team and proposals could rebuild credibility.

Asked what a new version of An Inconvenient Truth would cover, Gore names access to finance in developing countries and ways to speed permitting without handing too much power to climate opponents. He would also examine technologies beyond solar, wind and batteries, including heat pumps for cold climates and industrial uses.

Gore cites research suggesting AI could help reduce emissions through efficiency, possibly by more than its data centers add, but says the outcome remains to be seen. He notes that fossil fuel companies also use AI to expand production. He expects opposition to petroleum-based plastics to encourage substitutes.

Rathi asks how to create public urgency when climate plans remain weak and extreme weather is worsening. Gore invokes an economist's observation that change can take longer than expected and then happen faster than expected. He thinks falling clean-technology costs and mounting climate impacts could combine to produce a positive tipping point.

Gore points to the tragedy in Nepal and the wider importance of Himalayan ice to major Asian rivers and water supplies. He also warns that rising heat, humidity and water scarcity could increase displacement and put pressure on political systems.

Gore says solar installation has accelerated dramatically over the past two decades as its cost has fallen. On data centers, he argues that using solar in place of gas turbines could help address community concerns about pollution and energy prices and make projects easier to support.

Rathi asks Gore for the moral argument that has long animated his climate advocacy. Gore describes climate change as an immense challenge and says fossil fuel policies and subsidies act like a thermostat: they influence how much carbon is released into the atmosphere.

Gore says the technologies and deployment models needed for action are available, while political will remains in question. His closing argument is that political will can be renewed, which he believes the US election has demonstrated.