Al Gore

Wind energy went up by almost 50 percent during his first term.

And we are seeing

that 60 percent during his first four years of new energy came from renewable energy, and coal investments went down almost 20 percent.

So there's good news and there's bad news.

A lot's happened in the last 10 years.

But I want to ask this question.

The fossil fuel industry wants to ignore the amazing good news, and they are labeling the commitments that the world made at the Paris negotiations as a fantasy, and they're calling for an abandonment of the efforts to reduce emissions.

the fossil fuel burning, and they're now advocating a new approach that they call climate realism.

Well, climate realism, according to them, we should abandon the efforts to deal with the principal cause of the climate crisis, 80 percent of it comes from burning fossil fuels, and we should focus on adaptation as well, almost exclusively.

Well, we need adaptation.

A lot of people are suffering, but do we want to vastly increase the number of people that have to go through that hardship and suffering instead of dealing with the cause of the crisis and solving the climate crisis?

They, according to climate realism, historically the energy transitions have

have taken place very slowly.

So we have no right as human beings to even imagine that we could go faster in the future than what history has told us was the reality in the past, even though human civilization is at stake.

For the so-called climate realists, the goal of solving a climate crisis is way less important than other goals, such as especially increasing energy access to developing countries, which is obviously important, we'll deal with that, but they want to do it, obviously, by burning more fossil fuels.

According to climate realism, it's just not practical to stop using the sky as an open sewer for the emissions from burning fossil fuels and the other emissions.

Instead, we should just continue using the sky as an open sewer.

So where climate realism is concerned, I have some questions.

Is it realistic to ignore the one to two billion climate refugees that the climate scientists are warning us will cross international borders and have to move inside their own nations by 2050 because of the climate crisis?

You know the temperatures keep