Al Gore 3.0

Do you believe, as some predict, that we are going to run out of oil within fifty years?
It's a sophisticated debate between the geologists on one side and the economists on the other. But the debate over oil reserves misses the point. We have more than enough oil, not to mention coal, to completely destroy the habitability of the planet. The real constraint on oil and coal is not supply, but global warming. There's a saying: "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones. And the Age of Fossil Fuels won't end because we run out of fossil fuels."

The fact that oil is beginning to get more expensive more quickly will contribute to the realization of how dysfunctional our current pattern is. Take the tar sands of western Canada. For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family's home for four days. And they have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one barrel of oil. It is truly nuts. But you know, junkies find veins in their toes. It seems reasonable, to them, because they've lost sight of the rest of their lives.

As Lincoln said in the darkest days of America's darkest passage: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." Our biggest challenge, our biggest foe, is thrall. The word sounds ancient, but it means anything that imprisons our thinking and prevents us from seeing the reality of our situation. We're in thrall to oil. We've got to break out of it. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we will save our planet.

Let's look at Iraq right now. Is there some way we can pull out?
We're going to have to pull out of there. But the hard truth is that even those of us who tried like hell to prevent this catastrophic mistake are now bound to share in the moral consequences of whatever choices we as a nation make in the manner of our leaving. We have to pursue two objectives simultaneously, and that's always hard. The first objective is to get the hell out of there as quickly as we can. The second objective is to avoid the moral mistake of doing even more harm to those people in the manner of our leaving than we did in the manner of our invasion. And, tragically, it is possible to do even more harm if we are not alert to the ethical choices that we have to make as we prepare to leave. Unfortunately there are no "good options," because Bush and Cheney have driven us into an ethical cul-de-sac. General Odom, who used to run defense intelligence, said last year that the invasion of Iraq "will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

So do you support the "strategic redeployment" advocated by Rep. Jack Murtha?
I think Jack's awfully good on these questions, and yet I would like to know more about what that really means. It may be different in different parts of the country. Look at the looming conflict with Iran over its nuclear program and the bizarre statements by its president. We have in effect given him 135,000 hostages on his doorstep. And the government that has just emerged in Baghdad is on much more friendly terms with Tehran than Washington is.

We're all, in some ways, lashed to the mast of our ship of state here. Because the little group at the helm should resign. You know, Rumsfeld and that whole gang have made horrible mistake after horrible mistake, and yet Bush continues to keep them in charge. How do the rest of us play a responsible role in advising the group in the White House that doesn't want to hear what any of us say in any case?
If you had written this in a novel before it all played out, you'd get the proverbial rejection slip -- nobody would believe it. That any group of leaders could be this incompetent, and catastrophically blind to reality. But here's my point: What they've done with Iraq, what they did with Katrina, is exactly the approach they're taking to global warming. They're ignoring reality, they're twisting and cherry-picking the evidence to create false impressions that serve the interests of a small, powerful group that has a financial interest in the outcome.
Now, Iraq was more complicated than that -- there were other factors that created that perfect storm. But their willingness to deny reality and twist the truth is the same as with global warming. And the stakes are too high for us to let them proceed without pulling out all the stops and trying to alert the American people and engineer a very broad and strong consensus that crosses party lines, that causes people to rise up and say, "No, not with our future!"

I saw someone recently who knows you very well and asked, "Is he going to run for president?" And the answer was "I think he wants to be president, he just doesn't want to spend two years in Iowa."
[Laughs] I love Iowa! I do think the political system as a whole is pretty toxic. I think that it may well be that the highest and best use of whatever skills I have gained is to focus on trying to change the way we Americans think about the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced. So that those who do run will encounter an informed, aroused and demanding electorate, one that insists that all of the candidates, in both parties, make the climate crisis their top priority.

Do you still consider yourself a Democrat?
Oh, yeah. I mean, I still consider myself a Baptist too, even though the denomination has tried to run me off with their attitude toward women and so forth! [Laughs] I will continue to play a role as a citizen, not only on global warming but also on eavesdropping and torture and civil liberties and the other vital issues of the day. I've got a full plate right now. Being a candidate for president again is not part of my plan for the next several years. If I can just figure out a way to appear in the pages of Rolling Stone every several months, that will be fulfillment enough.

Selected reader responses will appear in Rolling Stone magazine: Write to us at letters@rollingstone.com.