Al Gore Reflects on China’s Climate Leadership as U.S. Abandons Clean Tech Race
In 1996, Al Gore was on the brink of his U.S. presidential campaign’s final leg, just weeks away from an election that would eventually slip away despite winning the popular vote. His platform emphasized ambitious climate action, with America poised to lead a global environmental transition.
Twenty-five years later, Gore reflects on China’s emergence as the world’s leading force in the energy transition—a reality that would have seemed almost unfathomable to the politician who once aimed to steer American climate policy from the Oval Office. However, Gore is not mourning China’s climate leadership; instead, he expresses frustration over America’s retreat and celebrates China stepping up to the challenge.
In a recent conversation with an editor, Gore and Lila Preston of Generation Investment Management discussed their ninth annual climate report. The comprehensive study details both setbacks in U.S. climate policy and China’s rapid ascent as what they term the world’s “first electro state.”
The discussion delved into current headlines: the tech industry’s increasing demand for rare earth minerals, responsible mining methods, the AI boom’s impact on global energy consumption, and the space industry’s rocket launches. Here are excerpts from that conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Given the policy fluctuations between U.S. administrations, should other countries rely less on America to lead on long-term global challenges?
Al Gore: There is a significant momentum moving in the right direction, but there are smaller obstacles working against it. The world is progressing steadily towards renewable energy, and although the U.S. has played a crucial role, its inconsistent leadership is regrettable. However, even with setbacks under current administration, the rest of the world will continue to move forward, albeit at a slower pace.
The report suggests China is becoming the world’s first “electro state” while the U.S. abandons the race for clean tech leadership. Could you have foreseen this scenario 25 years ago?
Gore: If I were looking back from 25 years ago, I would not have predicted that China would be the most likely outcome. However, I’ve always admired Chinese leadership’s keen attention to scientific advice.
The picture is becoming clearer now. When prolonged droughts diminished their hydro capacity, some regional leaders expressed concern about potential job losses, leading them to construct coal plants and use them at low utilization rates. Meanwhile, the breakneck construction of solar energy has been astonishing; they achieved their solar goal six years early. This year, they’ve opened the equivalent of three one-gigawatt nuclear power plants in solar capacity for several months. It’s simply remarkable.
At the start of this year, China announced it no longer wished to be judged by carbon intensity measurements but rather actual reductions. Such a statement indicates their commitment, as they never set standards they don’t intend to meet and surpass.
Speaking of coal, the EPA recently proposed ending the requirement for thousands of coal plants and refineries to report greenhouse gas emissions. What does it mean when we stop measuring the problem we are trying to solve?
Gore: This move seems part of an apparent effort to make the crisis disappear by removing all information detailing the crisis. However, there is some encouraging news. Partners at Generation Investment Management have been significant seed funders of Climate TRACE, which tracks real-time atmospheric carbon emissions. We now measure 99% of greenhouse gas emissions globally—covering every significant GHG pollution source in the U.S.
Lila Preston: Climate TRACE is partnering with the private sector to provide real-time supply chain visibility. Companies like Altana, one of our portfolio companies, have collaborated with them to assess the risk and opportunity within their supply chains.
In January, President Trump announced the $500 billion Stargate Project to build massive AI data centers, starting in Texas. Your report discusses rising electricity demand threatening clean energy progress. Can we pursue ambitious AI development without hindering our climate goals?
Preston: This is one of the most complex systems-level problems we’ve ever faced. The significant demand surge—approximately 65% originating from the U.S.—represents a shock to the system. Energy use from data centers is 2% currently and expected to at least double by 2030. However, we believe renewables, storage, and long-term geothermal could meet this demand.
The flipside is how AI applications across energy, transport, and agriculture can reduce global emissions—some estimate up to 6-10% annually by 2035. There’s also a significant water footprint—a trillion gallons annually by 2027. We need to approach this massive platform shift holistically.
Gore: Efforts are underway to provide clean baseload power for the decoupling of emissions intensity and compute intensity. Many of the largest builders of new AI capacity recognize that solar plus batteries now offer such significant cost advantages that it makes sense to use them as a catalyst for expanding solar plus battery infrastructure.
On the same topic, Elon Musk’s xAI was reportedly operating unpermitted gas turbines for over a year at its Memphis data center in a historically Black neighborhood already dealing with air quality issues.
Gore: This is indeed a significant concern. My former constituents in southwest Memphis have faced environmental injustice before, and to subject a 97% Black community—which already has a cancer risk five times higher than the national average—to additional emissions from large methane turbine generators is unfair.
They’ve recently won a fight to halt a high-pressure oil pipeline from running through their communities and water source. However, Tennessee State Legislature passed a law stating no community or city can interfere with any kind of fossil fuel infrastructure moving forward. This demonstrates how the fossil fuel industry has managed to seize control of policy-making processes in numerous jurisdictions—local, regional, state, and even national politics.
They’ve used their political and economic power to stall the policy-making process in many areas—local, regional, state, and at the federal level. They also derailed plastic negotiations because that’s their third-largest market, petrochemicals, and used their power to prevent global limitations on the amount of plastic particles we absorb into our bodies.
However, the world is starting to catch up to them, and communities like Memphis and others are saying, “Enough is enough.” That plastics continue to grow unchecked is a significant story. Precious metals are another big story this year due to the tech industry’s need for these materials. What’s your stance on what this pursuit means for our environment?
Gore: These materials must be mined responsibly and sustainably, but they can be. There should be aggressive efforts to eliminate harmful practices seen in some areas. However, if you consider the volumes, it’s a tiny fraction compared to the damage from mining and extracting fossil fuels every day.
Preston: We’re seeing innovation using advanced modeling and AI to locate these materials while minimizing environmental impact on landscapes and local communities. While there are still issues, progress has been made in the past three to four years as alarm bells were raised globally about the need for more sustainable practices.
While we discuss tech, the space industry is thriving. Launching more rockets generates significant carbon emissions. Should we regulate the emissions associated with space launches, or do the climate benefits of space technology justify the carbon footprint?
Gore: I’ve always believed that the usefulness of Earth observation from space outweighs the harm from space launches significantly.
Looking at this year’s report, what are your biggest reasons for optimism and concern?
Gore: My ongoing optimism stems from the steady advancement and accelerating deployment of solutions we need. They continue to become cheaper, and the resistance from polluting industries is diminishing regularly. This transition is inevitable.
However, the question remains whether we’ll make this transition in time to avoid negative tipping points. Just recently, we received a startling report stating that the cold upwelling along the western coast of South America—the Humboldt Current crucial for the marine food chain—did not occur this year for the first time ever.
I’m fond of Dornbusch’s Law: things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could. I believe we have crossed that point now, but we need to accelerate the change. We have the technologies, the deployment models, the economics are in our favor—we just need to speed up the decline in the ability of polluting industries to resist it.
