Lec10 ClimateChangePoliticsandtheEconomy 25870

This program is presented by University of
California Television. Like what you learn. Help others discover UCTV podcasts by leaving a comment or rating for us in iTunes Welcome on this beautiful morning. It feels a little bit like fall out there,
which is nice. Hi, I’m Henry Brady. I am the Dean of the Goldman School of Public
Policy, here at UC Berkeley. It’s a tremendous pleasure to be here this
morning with this distinguished panel. This is another activity sponsored by the
class of ’68 Center for Civility and Democratic Engagement which is a center we have at the Goldman school. Let me start by introducing the moderator
for today, who is Dick Beahrs. As you can see from the program flyer, he’s a member of the centers, the Center for
Civility and Democratic Engagement’s advisory board. He was ASUC president when he was a student
here at Cal and he went on to an extraordinary career
in media and television And he’s now retired, but not really. Dick’s doing all sorts of other things. He’s a fierce advocate, trusted advisor, and
philanthropist for the campus especially in the College of
Natural Resources, where he’s been a member of the advisory board
for two decades. He’s championing Berkeley in all sorts of
areas, especially in the Beahrs Environmental Leadership Program, which he supports with his wife Carolyn. This has been a program that has trained people
from around the world in leadership and development
activities. In addition to the many hats he has at Berkeley, Dick’s current business activities include serving on the board of the San Jose
Giants a minor league affiliate of the San Francisco
Giants and his role as Senior Advisor for Revolution
Foods which promotes nutritious meals for schools
throughout the nation including a partnership with the San Francisco
Unified School District, to provide healthier school meals to its diverse population of students. So Dick is a guy doing a lot of fascinating and
interesting things. He’s going to lead our panel today. So let’s welcome Dick Beahrs. Thank you very much Dean. We certainly do have the A team involved with
our panel today. We have a world class scientist in Dan Kammen. We have a committed citizen activist who has been successful in many fields in
Tom Steyer. And we rescheduled to have a former Lieutenant
Governor, Cal graduate, and now a Congressman, John
Garamendi. But as you can imagine, John has had to cancel
at the last moment and stay in Washington. I think in as sense we can take John’s absence
today as perhaps his contribution to the panel, and that we probably shouldn’t be looking
to Congress to solve problems like climate change. I’ve been pleased in the past to serve as a moderator of a number of panels.
But I want to tell you that never have I been
involved with a panel where I’ve had more advice coming in from
many different places about topics that everyone would hope we would
cover. So accordingly, I’d like to give you, perhaps,
a little bit of a context for the panel which I think we’ll
have today. Number one, as a media executive, I was very
very frustrated about what I considered false equivalency
by the media, where they give equal amounts of time, Is climate change a problem or is it not a
problem? I’m going to go out on the limb today and
say, Climate change is a problem. Now, by saying that, I don’t want to imply
that there’re not many many unanswered questions. The pace of which climate change is taking
place, issues like reciprocal feedback, how do we
deal with it. I think the key question’s just how much
time we have. How it’s going to impact rainfall and the
like. So my proposal here is, today climate change
is a problem. We are going to focus very much on the nuances
we have to face, the unanswered questions, and then, what we
do about it. I think that one of my greatest concerns on
the issue of climate change is the issue of timing. I was a history major at Berkeley. I love history. I read a lot still. If you look at American history, I think you can say we often times respond
late to an issue. Slavery is obviously one, Hitler’s aggression, environmental degradation, and the like. I’m sure most of you have heard Winston Churchill’s famous observation, You can always count on the United States
to do the right thing after trying everything else first. In that issue, I think one of the great challenges
we face with climate change is, exactly how much time do
we have? I’ve asked that Dan Kammen be our first
speaker today, because of his involvement from a scientific
stand point. He has been very, very involved . He has one of those CVs that kind of steps
off the page. If you read it before talking to him, you’re almost intimidated to ask a question. But we’re happy to have him at Berkeley. He’s been very involved with the Energy and
Resources Group, also the Goldman School. And he was one of the people that led to Berkeley’s receiving the largest
grant, I think, of any type that has been received by a university,
which is for the Energy and Biosciences Institute
here at Berkeley. He’s also been involved with the climate change
panel that was co-recipient with Al Gore of the
Nobel Peace Prize. And then, our next speaker is Tom Steyer. First of all, I would encourage you all to
read the article about two weeks ago in the New Yorker, which very heavily features Tom. And if you’re like Carolyn and me, I’m sure
you know you’ve got a big stack of New Yorkers, somewhere in your house, and you haven’t read as many articles as you
thought you should. So I would encourage when you go home, or through the wonders of Google, find the
article involving Tom, and you’ll learn a great deal about his perspective about climate change. Tom is an extremely active citizen. He and his wife, Kat Taylor, have joined with
Warren Buffett, Bill and Belinda Gates, and other wealthy
individuals in giving the pledge of promise to donate
the majority of their wealth to charitable and
nonprofit activities during their lifetimes. They have created the Oakland-based One Pacific Coast Bank and Foundation, which provides loans and banking services to underserved small businesses, communities and individuals along the west
coast. They also founded two renewable energy research institutes at Stanford: the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy and the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy
and Finance. They also own the TomKat ranch, dedicated
to the health and preservation of the land and
community. And I’m going to bet you’re a fan of Duarte’s and their great ties, and Tasker Darrell. Everyone should try it. At their ranch they use solar powered electric
fences and rotational grazing practices to avoid
overgrazing. So I would now like to introduce Dan. Both Dan and Tom will speak for approximately
20 minutes, and then we will have, I think, a very vibrant
Q and A. So I think that I look for a very, very lively
discussion. So Dan, if you could please come up. And again, I’ll rephrase the question of, just how much
time do we have? How acute are the problems? So I think it’s a real testament to Berkeley
and to Stanford that people are here today instead of getting the
barbecue pregames. So thank you all for being here. And Dick, thank you for doing it. And Henry thanks for organizing and getting us going on, on this
event. To get to Dick’s question right off, the generic answer is, we have 37 years. 37.0 years to get the significant figures
in correctly in there. And that really means that the climate assessment
is that by 2050 we have to have completely changed
our ways. And there’s a whole number of reasons why that’s going to be a very challenging
story. So I’ll use my 20 minutes opening salvo just to highlight some of the issues and opportunities,
and to really focus a little bit on why I think
it’s so exceptional to be doing this in the bay area at Berkeley, and the ability to work on these kinds of
projects. I see one of my students, from my undergraduate and graduate class, here in the room today.
And I kind of note that when I first came to Berkeley
15 years ago, this room would have been seen as too big for our energy and society class. And today, it is in the largest auditorium in the new development in the North West corner
of campus. And so it really does speak of the testament
of what’s changed overall in the process. So when I look at the balance between doing
science, developing policy, and engaging on the output
side of the story, I really couldn’t be more pleased and a
little bit more worried that we’ve done a number of remarkable things in California and elsewhere. And the uptake of those around the world has
been much too slow. We’re not doing everything right here as Dick and Henry are alluded to, but we have moved very slowly. So one place where we’ve had an interesting, I would say, sea change in thinking, is that since 2010 I’ve been Secretary of Clinton’s
and then now Secretary of Kerry’s energy on void
of the Americans, to try to make relationships between universities, industry in Latin America, the Caribbean and
the US. And it’s one of the places that I kind of highlight back to lessons we’ve learned from the cold war, where one of the places where dialogue could really flush even if
there was an action or large scale action was in the science, in that time in non proliferation, and now in terms of these engagements. So here’s a picture in the field in the Atlantic
coast Nicaragua, right on the edge of the Pearl Laguna, swampy
area that’s a clean energy leader. I’m then in Managua giving a talk around some of the initiatives that we have
in place. And it highlights to me the need to act on
the courage of one’s I don’t say convictions because the science
is much stronger than just convictions, but to act on what we see going on. So when I look at the types of engagements, we’ve been able to work through a number
of policies in California that have really spread. A few of them have been blocked by notable secretaries
of treasury such as the PACE financing Property Assessed
Clean Energy, but in developing federal support for clean
energy standards, working on Californians green house gas law, developing a clean energy standard for fuels called the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. All of these things have come out of this
dialogue between entrepreneurs, California, largely
business people, policy makers in the state and around. It’s been a pretty interesting set of projects. And to someone who definitely has no business
sense, my wife keeps telling me, we’ve been able to spin off a number of
companies and international initiatives that have taken
some of these things on So it really is a place where doing good and
finding opportunities to spread those messages are
in the water. I’ll spend a couple of minutes on one slide
because I think it’s, maybe, the most important thing
I’ll say today. And that is, that in thinking about how to act with this rough 37 years and I say that because the climate story is, if we don’t change our energy equation by
2050, then we condemn tropical coral reefs, we condemn ourselves to much greater frequency
of fires, we condemn ourselves to a whole range of climate
catastrophes that will cost us not billions and not trillions,
but really, redefining the environmental economic landscape
in which we live. So the world that I grew up in as a physicist
is to think about, what is the science of climate change. And these are the iconic or generic grafts, showing climate change, going back with data
to the 1850s’. The top one is a version of the hockey stick,
as it’s called, looking at the change in surface temperature. The middle one is sea level rise, and then
the last record which isn’t anywhere near as detailed yet is the amount of northern hemisphere snow and of course, California’s water. Our agriculture is tied up in managing that
well. So while the data set isn’t as long there, it’s critical to understanding the story. My upbringing as a physicist was, this is
where the action is. Think through these lessons. Write papers on them, and then just sort of make the messages clear. But that’s nowhere near good enough. And I’m going to highlight this because, as
Dick mentioned, the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change for which I’m very proud to be a member of despite its several missteps along the way, did share the Nobel Prize with Al Gore in
2007. Since there was a couple of thousands of us,
and one Al Gore, I guess we’re micro Gores by one metric. But I notice on campus, that we didn’t even get a shared bike rack, let alone a parking space for winning the
Nobel Prize. But maybe we’ll address that later on. But this science story has to be translated
into action. And the IPCC process is to take science generated by several hundred, and now several thousand
leaders, and then get that through review by the UN
member nations. Not a simple task. And so when this process began with the first
assessment report, that green vertical line in 1990, the statement
was, It will take us a decade to figure this out. Despite the facts that from my physicist background, that looks like we’re pretty clearly on the
climb. Second assessment report, five years later, the balance of human evidence suggests discernible human influence. And one of those words took eight hours to
negotiate, discernible. The third assessment report notice a year of slippage in the debate as the process heated up 2001, most of the warming in the last 50 years, likely with a probability warms my heart due to human activities. And then the fourth assessment report notice a little more slippage 2007, most of the warming vary likely, 90% probability due to human activity. And then the IPCC took what I think is the
bravest step, the one that’s been most challenging, and
that is to begin to discuss the implications of that
process. Warming will most strongly and quickly impact
the global poor. It doesn’t say just developing nations. It says the poor in the north and south. My wife is a radiologist at a children’s hospital, and she routinely sees people coming in for
immunizations for diseases not normally seen in this area. On the uptake, Florida has dengue fever and
malaria returning to south Florida. I don’t think that’s a political statement. I think that’s a statement about the climate. So we’re seeing these changes in the works
and in the water. In 2011, we produced one of the interim reports that goes into this process. That was with the ungainly named, the special report on mineable energy and
efficiency a very nerdy title. And it said that we can do this 80% transition
to clean energy if and that if then statement is a computer programmers
nightmare. If this if that, it goes on for pages and
pages. But it indicates what scientifically we’ve
known, and that is, these transitions are possible. The latest report released on Friday, which
you can see it’s the cover article on the Daily Cow
says that warming is human caused; 95% confidence. And the rest of the more normative statements, the technical and the policy statements will appear in a series of reports that will appear between now and the spring. I highlight the story for several reasons. One is that it shows where we are in the science, but it shows one thing that the science community, myself included, has done an absolutely abysmal
job doing. And that is translating that into actionable
policy statements that have had real international legs. So just to highlight where we are on this
process, California, despite having a financially crippling energy
crisis in 2001, by 2006 and 7, was passing landmark legislation
that said, By 2020 we have to get off that grey ‘Business
as Usual’ path and get on to the ‘Green’ path. And in fact, we’re on the green path. California is on pace to get back down to
its 1990 emissions. That’s the internationally accepted baseline
year by 2020. Just for a comparison to European standards, or generally 20-40% below that zero baseline
by 2020. But given where we started, this is pretty
good. But this is really a down payment on making
the cuts back down to 80% below that baseline by 2050. We do not technically know how to get all
the way there, despite lots of cute models and assessments. We’re going to have to discover this in practice and through implementation. And the reason why I would say this is so
possible, why it’s not some impossible challenge that looks beyond costly and beyond technically
possible, when I look at the Moscone Center this is a picture during the retrofit, when the Moscone Center went from the old
incandescent bulbs to the new more efficient bulbs. And they’ve actually even replaced those T-5 light bulbs to the stage. Notice that, A, the quality of light is better. And that’s something we often leave out of the clean energy and energy efficiency
equation. It’s not just replacing a brown dirty bit
of energy, a brown electron with a green one, it’s that, can we find a way to make the business proposition
more exciting? Can the green electron be a better service? When you go from a walkman to an mp3 player, you didn’t just get a smaller device to
have more songs, you got all kinds of other services, backing up your computer etcetera, etcetera. Too much in the clean tech world, we have
failed on this story. We’ve given good arguments why we should go solar instead of going gas
or coal, but we haven’t found ways to make that new business opportunity better. And that’s really the challenge. The Moscone Center is a great example, because
not only did they do this upgrade, but they saved enough
money. And largely, they saved the money by being
able to downsize their air conditioning because old light bulbs are, basically, little
heaters. Think of your easy bake oven with a light
bulb, being able to bake food. But these more efficient light bulbs give
out much less heat, so you could downsize the heating system and
actually save money, not just buy green but have an improvement. And what did the city do with that savings? They didn’t pocket it or do other things. They used it to install solar on the roof and they did that early on. And that was the largest solar array in the
United States, when the Moscone Center and [inaudible] did
it. That’s a remarkable positive feedback. And Dick mentioned the negative feedbacks
the climate has. But here is one where innovation of one area led to innovations in another area. And it’s that kind of process, using the science
that comes out of our universities, the national
labs, companies, to do something that really was important
climate wise. Making the building more efficient, and then
being innovative and plowing back some of that innovation
capital, back into making the building a landmark for
clean energy. Now, that’s a trivial size solar array in
terms of commercial [inaudible]. We have companies like Bright Source, Astra and many others, doing not arrays that are six-tenths of a
megawatt, but 600 megawatts in size. So we found a whole new scale of operation. I will not go through the details of this
slide here. It’ll be an exam after this discussion. But what I highlight here is that California went from this energy crisis in
2001, to having what I describe as a dense network of mutually reinforcing clean
energy policies. We have a standard for clean electricity called, Renewable Portfolio Standard. We have adopted a European strategy called,
a Feed-in Tariff. And we have a small addition of Feed-in Tariff that many people like myself want to expand. That strategy alone gives us targets for clean
energy. We have a carbon market that we’ll talk about
greatly. California’s market right now is a cap-and-trade
market. Cap-and-trade in-tacts will be talked about
later on. There’re benefits and drawbacks to both. And we’ll talk about it. And I’ll kind of reveal what my preferences
are in this, as we go But California also has a mandate for solar
rooftops. It’s got a mandate for electric vehicles. It has aspects of the regulation within the
different sectors: transportation, forestry industry, home building that all work together. And so by 2020 all of California’s new homes have to create as much energy as they produce. They have to be net zero energy, even though the term isn’t exactly right. That we know how to do today. But in 2030, all of California’s office buildings need
to be net zero energy. And we don’t know how to do that. And so this is a real push where science led
us somewhere. And our policy makers, in particular, Governor Schwarzenegger and the PUC pushed us to a target beyond where we were
thinking. And it’s a real interesting back and forth
of innovation, public statements, and need to make good on
them. And it’s something that’s really important in the process of finding ways to make this
process happen. Picture of solar neighborhoods that 15 years ago were literally only a dream, now we’re seeing opportunities to build out
whole areas with electric vehicles in the garages, with
solar on rooftops, with ways to biologically produce hydrogen
for local fuel sales. All kinds of things tied together. This that process where California’s special
source, special approach has really made a big impact. I won’t talk about the details of the analysis
of how we get them Our lab is very engaged in building models
that the western states, China, and elsewhere use to examine
the energy mix. But more or less, what we find is that when you think about scaling up the amount
of renewables, scaling up the amount of natural gas, and
finding ways so that even if we scale up the amount of gas now
to replace coal, they were doing so in a way that it’s going
to be as painless as possible to ramp that wedge of added gas
down; because we can’t just ramp up gas. We have to get almost all of that out of the
system by 2052. That means we have to have a much greatly
accelerated window to depreciate those gas assets. They would need to pay off for investors. But we cannot pivot from coal to gas and be
stuck there. That’s what the climate story, that’s what
Dick’s number say. We’re seeing tremendous innovation, for example, in the price of solar. This is a graph showing that right now solar
is just above the average price of electricity and light
in the United States. It’s come down several folds from what it was only a couple of decades
ago. And in fact, president Obama’s sun shop program to have solar a dollar Watt by 2020 is something we think we can make good on technically and
scientifically, and that would make solar a unsubsidized direct
competitor with fossil fuels in only 7 years. We are going to need innovations like that
to go forward. Berkeley and other places have been center points of the debate over things like the Keystone Pipeline to bring quite dirty
fossil fuels from Alberta into large scale use in the United
States and for export from the United States. And we are going to need to look at what are the pieces of this equation. Importantly, in president Obama’s summer speech
on climate, he said something which warms the cockles
of my academic side. He said. We’re going to asses this project in terms of its green house gas impacts. And that would be the determinant whether
we do it or not. And as a scientist, I know that the answer
is, if that truly is our metric, we don’t do
it. If that’s not what we do in the end, that’ll
change the equation. The stuff that will flow through that pipe tar sands or oils sands, depending if you’re pre or post the Canadian good PR campaign around changing the name from tar to oil sands is one of the examples. Does it determine the whole climate equation? No. But it’s one of those lines in the sand that we’re going to have to think about. The other part of the story is we have to
engage internationally. No matter what happens in Europe in California
and elsewhere, California’s 2% of global green house or
gas emissions, if we don’t build partnership we’re not going to change the equation. This is a ramp up of projected energy use
around the world, noting India in there. But I’ll add China itself. If we don’t engage China in a positive way
we don’t win. Today China has a carbon tax. US does not. Now, Chinas number is too low. California’s number is arguably a little
bit too low, but we’re ramping up. But those kinds of engagements are critical. And those of you who also have been to China
recently know that the absolutely abhorrent air quality
conditions, due to power plants and vehicles, is a place
where technology and policy can really drive a very interesting
difference. When we look at China’s goals for clean
energy, they’re exceptional. This is the ramp up of hydro controversial, wind not as controversial, but a little bit nuclear highly controversial, solar not so controversial. And as benchmarks, total energy demands today
Western North America is the blue line, total energy demand in California is the yellow
line. That shows that as much as we want to criticize
China for building up a new coal power plant every
two weeks, their goals for clean are way up there compared to many other places. China, in many ways, is going in all directions
at once. Lots of coal construction, and yet they are
the global leader in solar manufacturing, electric vehicle battery
manufacturing, and wind turbine manufacturing. So without a positive engagement there we
don’t win this equation But we’ve got to demonstrate we can do these
things at home. I’ll spend only a couple of minutes on it, but the other part of the story is that energy access is as big or a bigger crisis
as climate. And some people have fallen into what I think
is the trap of saying, We can either have clean energy for
all or access, and as much as we can clean our energy mix
in the US, in Europe and elsewhere, energy access for the poor has got to come
from whatever source. I would say that argument is totally wrong. We see again and again that to beat down on these large pie charts, on
the right in each case shows the number of people both urban and
rural who are projected to be without access to
electricity by 2030. That’s an unacceptable baseline because it means that we don’t get those
services. Secretary Ban Ki-moon has said, By 2030 the
UN mandate is, everyone has access to electricity, everyone
in the planet. We’re going to make modern energy access
available to everyone, but we’re going to do that at the same time that we double the deployment of energy efficiency and we double the global share of renewables. I applaud the first one. The second and third, that sound hard. We have to go way beyond that. We will not get there if by 2030 we’re only getting these doubling on the rates. A journal that I hope you all read regularly, the North Borneo Post, highlighted just one of these example engagements. We were asked by an environmental group in
the North Borneo, the Malaysian state of Sabah, to look at alternatives to coal after the
government had already purchased a coal plant from China. So this sounds like kind of a hopeless boondoggle. Why would you want to waste academic time
on it? Well, we held a number of community forums. We assessed the options. The newspaper reported biomass, but we also talked about solar and wind. And they’re part of the equation. And in fact, what happened is that the state ordered the power company, after
our report came out and after those community hearings, to cancel the already signed agreement for
that coal power plant. That’s a great opportunity because I’d highlighted these other opportunities, and it was biomass, solar, gas, and other
things. We did this several years ago. A new minister came in last week and said,
Well, think we should re-visit that coal plant story. So what I say for this, this is sort of a full employment of a faculty. Because you fight it once, now we can recycle that fight and have it
again. But I hope we’re going to win this second
time around. There’re places like this. This is the capital of South Sudan, Juba. Newest country on the planet, lowest electricity rate of any country and what you see on the outskirts of Juba
here is what I would call unplanned international
development. Here you can see the traditional communities, the thatched roof huts, and here you can see an Aid project built by a company I won’t
mention in the UK. And they’ve built a set of nice new homes but there’s no infrastructure. There’s no wiring. There’s no water. There’s
no anything. They built nice high quality homes, but because of budget issues in getting things
done, they didn’t tie the story together. One of the places where Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, [inaudible], and a few other key leaders in thinking through how to do the science and do the action have been instrumental is looking at solutions
that don’t just drop anthills in the Savanna, if you don’t mind a quote from Chinua Achebe. And that is not just nice homes, but without
anything else. This is a picture of a place where we’ve been
engaged with a number of people supported by philanthropist
in San Francisco, to build out micro hydro as a way to build
sustainable hydro to bring energy services to the community. And you’ll notice down bottom left, there’s a picture of the store in that town. That’s the solar panel. That’s the energy system from the town. There’s a boy selling charcoal on the airstrip. And there I am with my guard or guide looking
at this site. And I’m going to end there because the real story I’ve hoped to highlight
is that we’re not done with the story in California
by any science, technical policy, or political means, as we dig down further into those wedges of
decarbonization. We’re going to see technical hurdles. We’re going to see the need to push hard. We’ve already seen strong pushback from certain
industry sectors when Prop 23 came up to undo Proposition 32,
something about 32, we’ve seen the need to fight back and to explain,
what are the green jobs benefits, what are the technological
benefits, what are the global leadership benefits, all the kinds of things we’ll talk about today. But that our engagement in our example, whether it’s in China, India or around the
world, is critical because if we don’t make these stories spread, we don’t win even if we feel like we win
at home. So thank you all for being here. And I look forward to the next part of the
talk. Thank you very much for that excellent presentation, and also for the reminder to re-do my subscription to the North Borneo Post, which I will do
very soon. I’d now like to bring up Tom Steyer, who I’m
meeting for the first time, but I’ve read a great
deal about him. And I’ve been very impressed because I think he has that business man’s laser focus on
key priorities, where the biggest opportunities to make a
difference. And I think as many of you are aware, he has
been very outspoken on the issue of the keystone
pipeline, which I know is of concern to many people
in the room. And I’m going to kind of take the liberty perhaps he wants to answer this in the Q and
A or I’ll throw it out now. I think many people are interested of, how did Tom come to focus on Keystone as opposed to other possible answers like
the carbon tax. I’m sure we’d like to address many things, but as a business executive, how did it come that become at the top of
your agenda? Good morning. Thank you very much for having me here. As you probably know, I don’t have a Nobel
Prize. I also don’t have a PHD, a Cal degree, and I also don’t have any slides. I think we can establish right up front that
I am an idiot and you probably shouldn’t listen to what I have to say from here on out. But since I’m here, I will give you the benefit of the last few years of what I’ve done about
energy. Just so you know, I founded and ran an investment
firm. I founded it about 30 years ago, and ran it to the end of last year. It was in San Francisco, but we had our offices
around the world. I’m healthy. I was very happy and I was dramatically overpaid. And the question I would ask you this morning
is, we’re facing a difficult task, I have no official
job whatsoever, and the cash flow is going in the exact wrong
way. So you have to ask yourself, what went wrong? How could I possibly have made this decision? Well, I actually resigned my job at the end
of last year because I felt as if there was a need to do
something in the coalition that’s fighting on energy
and climate. And there wasn’t anybody who really wanted
the job. I view it as kind of like being a garbage
man, that everybody knows someone needs to do the
job but not a lot of people are lining up to get
the job. And I happen to think that Berkeley is a perfect
place to be talking about this, this morning. First of all, I am shocked and thrilled that we have standing room only on a football Saturday
at 10 o’clock in the morning. That’s actually not a joke. I really am. Because what I’m going to talk about is why that is actually essential, that people feel
this in their bones. As you know, the motto of Berkeley, which is perfect for today’s topic is Let There Be Light. Berkeley has three
US energy labs. They’re absolutely fantastic. I’m a huge believer in setting out what we’re
doing. I’m a huge believer in knowing what your mission
is. I don’t understand how to accomplish something
until you’ve sat down and decided what it is you’re trying
to accomplish. And I think a lot of times people assume that they agree amongst themselves what it is they’re
trying to do. But my experience is, when you set out to
do something, it’s worth having a hard discussion upfront to define what your task is. So let me give you the task that we came up
with after sitting there and arguing with each other for three
or four months, at the beginning of this year, after I left
my job. Our mission is to act politically to prevent climate disaster and preserve American
prosperity. Now, there’s a good question about why I would leave my job to do that. And I’m going to get to what that really means
to act politically to prevent climate disaster and preserve American
prosperity, but let me say this right up front. The reason I am doing this, the reason that
I think people in this room should take this as seriously
as I do is, you know, I have four kids, and I’m sure everyone
in this room feels they have responsibilities to younger people in the world than themselves. And I think this is our generational challenge. I think that it’s traditional; it’s typical
for American society to face a huge challenge in a generation. I think that’s how generations get measured. If you go back through times, that’s what’s
happened and that’s what people are proud of, when they realize what the issue is and they actually
step up to it. Churchill does have a famous quote about doing everything else first, but traditionally,
Americans have been willing to accept difficult truth
and act on them. And that is exactly where I think we are today. Let me just take you through how I came here. My wife and I had funded research at several
universities, on energy and climate. And really the reason we did it is we can
read. We could read. We went through all the science. Dick and Dan were talking about the science
in IPCC report. But if you can read and it was pretty obvious, a fair bit ago that this was actually something
that was going on and for some reason our system was unable
to respond to it. And if you think about the responses I’m going to talk about what I think the key
response is but if you think about what our societal response is going to be
on this, it’s going to be based on policy, technology
and finance. And we thought, Okay, we’ll push on technology. We’ll try and enable scientists to do the
kind of work that Dan was talking about, to come up with
new ideas, how to generate new energy more effectively,
more cleanly. In 2010, these two companies, Dan referred
to it, tried to push a proposition on to us, to undo California’s energy laws. And just so you know, California has the most progressive energy
laws in the world. We really do. The people who passed that suit of laws are
heroes in my mind. They did it at a very tough time that it was not at all a gimmick, and they were
passed. And then a couple of other state companies
came in and said, Let’s undo it. And at that point, the history politically, of propositions on the ballot was, if you fight big energy companies, you spend tens of millions of your own money, and you lose and are embarrassed. So once again, it was a garbage man’s job, which turns out is perfect of me. But what was true is, I’m a Democrat, but we did something different in 2010. I know this is UC Berkeley. So I know that stands for the University of
California. I am that smart. But I don’t know how many of you guys live
in California for Californians. Prop 23, we did something
different. We did not do the traditional environmental
fight. I co-chaired it with George Shultz, who is
a famous Republican, of course, having been in a Republican administration back to Eisenhower. But let me talk about why it was different
politically too. We did different messages. We didn’t do environmental messages. We asked ourselves, not what do we want to
tell people, but what can people hear that they care about. And that is a critical difference in terms
of political messaging So in fact, we didn’t talk about climate. We didn’t talk about global warming. We talked about clean energy jobs, health, and the fact that some companies were trying to take advantage of California citizens. And those are three messages people could
respond to. And we used different messengers. The American Lung Association was our messenger
on health. There’s a woman who unfortunately has died,
Jane Wener, who was fantastic on it. But we weren’t using traditional environmental
speakers. We were using somebody When the head of the American Lung ‘Association
said she’s concerned about your ability to breathe, everybody knows that’s true because that’s who the American Lung Association
is. So we used a different message, different
messengers, and the last thing that was really different, we had a completely different coalition. Because the fact of the matter is, for those of you like me who are obsessively
read Pulse and I don’t know how many people are that
boring in this room, but there is at least one person, namely me who is that boring the environmentalist in the state of California are not who you think they are. The group that votes by far the strongest
on the environment and it’s been true in every pol and after
every election is Latinos, number two, Asian Americans, and number three, African Americans. So if you’re going to have a coalition on environmental proposition in the state
of California, if you really think that you’re going to do
it from a narrow band of environmentalists that is actually not how you’re going to win. So we specifically organized clean businesses. We specifically enlisted organized labor on
our side, and got both of those so that we could absolutely
say, This is not jobs versus the environment. But in addition we had a very broad coalition
of people and we talked a lot about environmental justice.
And that is something that is going to have to
happen going forward. And in 2010 that is one of the most important
things we did. So obviously we won that. The Californians, we got 70% of the votes. We got more votes than anyone running for
office or any proposition in the United States that
year. Now, California happens to be the biggest
state. So getting the highest number for a prop here pretty much gets you the country, but nonetheless. And let me say, we ran another prop. George and I co-chaired another prop in 2012, which was also environmental, which had to do with renovating schools for
energy and then using the saved money to spend on actual teaching, teachers, school materials, which we got 60%. And let me talk to you for a second about
what I learned there because it’s actually relevant for what we’re going to do going forward and it’s relevant for what we need to do. Everybody in this room needs a way to think
about what your options and responsibilities are. So basically, we ran a different kind of campaign
again in 2012. Because the political landscape I’m going to talk tactics here for a second. It’s interesting to me. I’m interested in poles. I’m interested in tactics. So if I’m boring you, I’ll apologize. But the world has changed politically and
you could look at the Obama-Romney campaign to see what works
politically. And it is not what worked 10 years ago. What works politically is field, human beings talking to human beings. Get out the vote, field, online to field and
coalition. What doesn’t work in politics in 2012 and
2013, TV Ads. The traditional way that people spend money
in politics is they buy TV Ads in major media markets, and
they saturate it, and that’s how they make huge changes in
people’s opinion. Our proposition in 2012 was Prop 39. It was a very crowded ballot, by definition,
39. There were a lot of props for the people who still live in California. There were some very high level, high profile
props. So we were dealing with a crowded ballot in a presidential election year. So we could do a poll every single day and see what TV advertising did to change
awareness or change votes, virtually nothing. 58% of Californians click through your ads automatically on their
TV. So you’re starting with 42% of the people. I imagine of those 42, I want to say what percentage are getting a beer during
your ad but the traditional idea that if you put something
on TV you can really move the numbers is absolutely
not true and if you look at what happened in the presidential
election and you look and Ohio which was the key state all along in that
presidential election, Obama had 250 field operations there, Romney
had 40. I don’t think the Republicans understood what this election was about. In 2012, we knocked on 5 million doors in the State of California on prop 39. That was something where we absolutely that was an organisational task based on coalition
of people who voluntarily spent the last few weekends
going door to door. You only knocked on doors where you knew who
was living there and that they were likely to be in your camp to knock on them and tell them exactly what
to do on the props. So the world has changed politically. Now as I said, I’m not exactly sure what
my new job is but I do know a few things. It’s not about science. The science, let’s take dick’s word is
good, is settled. There’re questions but we’re not debating
the science today. The other thing we’re not debating is the
policy. Because the fact of the matter is this is
not the first time in American history that we’ve have to deal
with pollution. We have done this before. We had the acid rain crisis. We had the hole in the ozone crisis. The fact of the matter is the policies we’re going to talk about them and I don’t wanna trying to say that they are
not important because they’re absolutely important. I don’t want to conflate policy and politics. The tea party so let’s talk policy just quickly I’m going to get to Dick’s question about why the hell am I spending time on the Keystone
Pipeline when we all know that the fact of the matter
is we need some kind of tax on carbon. I will get there. But let me say this the job of government in this case is to set the framework for the business community
to make it work. Now let me give you an example of how this happened in a different industry
but the same way. In 1983, and so this is sponsored by the class
of 68 so hopefully you were all around in 1983, we had a communications monopoly called Montebello. We also had rotary phones. There had not been much innovation in the last 80
years before 1983. Not that they didn’t have great labs, they
had great labs. They just didn’t innovate. We were all using rotary phones. They broke up AT&T. They did the Communications Act of 1986. All of a sudden in 2013 the talk is of the
Twitter IPO. We went from the rotary phone to the Twitter
IPO in 30 years. There’re probably 10,000 innovations that
took us on that path. The fact is, they changed the framework, they gave the right incentives to business
and mayhem ensued in the most positive way. And that is exactly what has to happen here. We have to set up the framework correctly,
the policy right and let American business figure out the cheapest
and most effective way that will knock all our
socks off and we’ll look back and go like, Of course there’s
a Twitter IPO. That’s so obvious Tom, that isn’t even the newest thing. Get with the program. I know that. And that is what will happen
in energy. So why are we having this problem? It’s politics. That’s why our mission is to act politically. What we have is political failure here. Let me say this, what is it, the 5th of October. Washington DC is basically out of business. When we’re talking about political dysfunction, we’re seeing it right before our eyes in
Washington. So think about where we were at the beginning
of 2013. We all knew we were going to get some form
of gun control bill. That was a given. We knew for sure we were going to get some form of immigration
reform. That was what the election was about. Of course we’re getting immigration reform. And then the question is, Are we going to get a grand bargain to deal
with entitlements going forward in return for the
short term? That was something that was a high probability. None of them, all of them are off the table
and the question is, How do we think about that and how do we behave
in it? So let me once again speak to the Californians
in the room. We have lived this. We have had I always tease people outside California because when I go there I don’t want them to think I’m bragging
about our state. I love our state and I want to go and be one
of those people who shows up in Missouri and tells them how
great California is. So I always say, Look California likes to
lead. We had a dysfunctional legislature before
anybody else. We had an inability to pass a budget before
anyone else. Web based democracy failed, representational democracy failed in Sacramento before it failed everywhere else. And we had the same demographic trends here. So the fact is, when I look at Washington
DC I remember California and it’s playing out
exactly the same. A minority party has a vital and has decided to exercise it on legislation
and budget matters. That happened in the state of California. We spent 10 years reading, we’re bankrupt,
we can’t do anything, budget crisis in Sacramento, people being
[inaudible], paying people with script. We’ve lived this before. We know how this turns out. It’s exactly the same. But the fact of the matter is, in California representational democracy didn’t work for
a while and so we did something else. We did this huge experiment much lampooned of direct democracy called
propositions. That basically the 37 million Californians
believe in democracy. Well, the 317 million Americans also believe
in democracy. So the question is not, Do we have dysfunction in Washington DC? We
do. The question is, What are we going to do about
it? And we don’t have propositions in the United
States of America. Because I promise you if we did, people would be using them just the way they use
them in California and if you remember in California everything
went to props. They changed the tax rates, free strikes,
death penalty, marriage equality, everything went to the
props. So what are we going to do today? Well it turns out there are other forms of
government that don’t reside in Washington DC. And that includes the state governments and that the leading state government in the country particularly in energy and climate is in California. So what we’re going to do is that we’re going to push in this states. We’re going to push in this states because there’s real leadership in this
states. Not only in California, if you go up and down
the West Coast if you look in New England, there is a desire on the part of governors and it is not at all this kind of partisan dysfunction that we see in DC for people to actually act on this and to
actually lead on this. They think it’s a great opportunity for
them to be leaders. To make their states lead and get clean energy
jobs and push hard and actually progress. And the question is, Not only can that happen in states but can
states link up? Can we get regional things the way they have in New England where they have a regional combine having to deal with electricity utility generation? Can we do that in the rest of the United States? Because as Dan said, look this is a global problem that requires a global
solution. So what do we even care if the state of Washington decides to have a policies like California and we have a regional energy policy. Why does that matter in a world where China is by far the biggest greenhouse gas
emitter? And the answer is if it is a global solution
we need, the United States is still the essential country. It’s not like we’re going to be the only
leader here but this is not happening without American
Political leadership, technology leadership and economic leadership. We‘re not going to be alone, it’s going
to be a coalition but that’s exactly what has to happen and
before it happens we have to win politically in the United States
overtly. If you think this is and I really believe this is a generational
challenge we’re not going to win a generational challenge
secretly. We’re not going to win World War II secretly. We have to declare World War II for all hands
to be on deck. Now in this, believe it or not, the crazy people of the bay area are actually
leading which is a fantastic thing as someone who
lives here. I think the people in this region and this
state recognize what this is and are willing to
work on it. So how are we actually going to accomplish
this change? Well there’s a lot of talk about what we
can do from a and I’m going to finish with Dick’s question but let me just say this there’s a lot of talk about what we can
do voluntarily. You know, that we can put and weed. I happen to have PV on the roof. I happen to have been driving a hybrid for
12 years. We can all do those things and probably the people in this room actually
do those things. But honestly, I think that’s incredibly
important if you read Martin Luther King’s letter from Mount [inaudible]
Jail, one of the things that’s required for huge
change and to lead is self-purification. So I don’t want to say anything against
that. I think it is critical and if you think about
World War II as an all hands on deck change for American
society there were victory gardens. People who had never grown vegetables grew
vegetables. Was that important? It was important because it was a statement
of who they were. But did we win World War II because of Victory
Gardens? No actually, we won World War II because Detroit stopped making cars and started making tanks and battleships and plants. So for us to change we need complete societal
change which is going to require the framework which
we put in so that American business starts to do what they did in World War II which is completely change itself. So it’s absolutely assumed that these are
the rules and everybody just throws away the old rules and
moves forward. So let me end with the Keystones versus The
Carbon Tax. Given all that, then what we really need to
do is fight politically and end up with a society-wide
change in policy which is going to be difficult to affect politically which is why we are working politically. Why the hell would I be talking about the
Keystone Pipeline? But there are two good reasons. One is: You don’t always get to choose the
fight you’re in. Sometimes you’re just in a fight. The Keystone Pipeline really is a terrible
idea. It opens up these tar sands. It lets the development move up. You know, it’ll be three times faster, it
really is terrible oil. It’s a gigantic deposit that they’re trying
to open. It is not good for the United States of America
in any way and from a climate and energy standpoint it’s
absolutely rotten. But the biggest thing about Keystone is that we have to make a change. We have to make a decision to do something
different. We’re not doing this secretly. It’s not like we’re going to do a few
good things and okay, we’ll do a few bad things. We have to make a deliberate decision to do
the right thing. And if we do that, we’ll end up with a Carbon
tax, we’ll end up with some control of carbon. That’s a given. But the question is at what point do we decide we’ve had our Pearl Harbour moment. And until we do, we’re not going to take this with the seriousness
it merits. We’ll not be recognizing it’s a generational
challenge and the fact is when you think about politics, if 100% of the people in the United States
of American wanted to save the Polar Bears but nobody will change their vote, it’s
not their issue. Of course I’m for the Polar Bears, who’s
not for the Polar Bears. But if nobody changes their vote, the Polar Bears don’t exist politically. If you won’t change your vote, then that
issue does not exist and that’s how American politics works out. And with one last story about this, a friend of mine is really big on gun control. And he was going around the country and taking
to senators trying to convince them that they needed to sign on to background checks. And he was talking to a senator, and explaining
it to her and she started to cry because he was laying a pretty heavy thing
on her which was that; if we don’t get some kind of gun control
you can see that there’re going to be more six-year-olds who are going to get gunned down. And that’s just the odds that there’re
going to be people who are going to have access to guns who otherwise
wouldn’t and they’re going to shot innocent people and some of them are going to be little kids. And so the Senator started to cry and said,
Look, I want to vote for it but I can’t vote for
it because I won’t get re-elected if I vote
for this. So she’s crying in her office and the guy
said, I felt really bad for her. And I said, Let me tell you something, I didn’t
feel bad for her. Because she basically said my job is more
important to me than the lives of innocent six-year-olds. Let’s not fight that. That is our system.
That is okay. We need to go out and change the votes that tell that senator that’s the wrong
decision. And that’s what we need to do in energy
and climate. It’s not enough. The reason we don’t talk about Polar Bears, nobody changes their votes on Polar Bears. You have to be able to talk to people about what they care about at their kitchen
table, talking to their family about what they care
about most and until that happens, we won’t get the society-wide move we need, we won’t get the broad policies we need. And we will never unleash the innovation power, the research, the development, the kind of research based industry that we
deserve in this and that we absolutely need in it and so that is why we have them on what we
do. Thank you. Great talk. Thank you. Thank you both to Dan and Tom for simply extraordinary presentations. And I think I also want to point out that we were so anxious to get Tom on this panel we said that for the first time in Berkeley
history, someone could wear a red tie to homecoming
on campus. And that’s a I thought it was a huge payment. Happily, we have a full 30 minutes for questions and I know they’re going to come so we start right here? And please direct that to either Dan or Tom and I’m sure many of the questions you might
like to hear their different perspectives on the same
question. This is for Dan. Yes I know we’ve done a great thing passing 1832. I work in transportation. SP375 is supposed to be the way to implement that and transportation planning. But when you look at it SP375 is really a
lot of wishful thinking There’s no teeth in it, there’s a big out for communities. They say they have to include climate, greenhouse gas in their plans but if it’s economically infeasible they can get out of it. We’re not really getting at the root of
the problem which is this fiscal zone in problem we have
caused by prop13 where communities are over zoning for commercial
retail. Residential gets pushed out and it’s impossible
to plan for that. We’re going to end up with the central valley as a second metropolitan
area state. And their average vehicle mile per travel is much greater than what we have here so somehow we need to change the equation. Right now all we have in transport everybody wants more capacity, everybody wants to reduce congestion but nobody’s really thinking about how re-engineer our land use to reduce travel. SP375 is a really interesting and it is certainly a flawed piece of legislation. But it’s flawed in ways that are both positive and is part of what I expect to be the innovation. The most interesting feature of SP375 for
me is that this is the first time we have a land use
planning feature and you noted the issues about residential
commercial properties but it’s a land use law where all of the teeth are actually tied to a climate
law. It’s a really unique piece of I would say
California Innovation exactly in the line that Tom said. And I actually am more positive about it than
you are for a couple of reasons. Does it solve all they issues? Absolutely
not, does it have outs? Escape valves if you will, it certainly does. AB32 has escape valves one of which was the grand compromise around how we were going to set up our carbon market and if the price of carbon went too high then credits would be released into the market and that would keep us with a reasonable price
early on but also keep everyone in the game. The reason that’s so important is because we’ve seen in New England and we’ve seen in Europe high profile much, much heralded climate markets, carbon markets
go to port because their prices fell so low because they gave away credits and they gave away loopholes in ways that
didn’t actually allow the regulators to keep everyone
in the story. And so the feature of 375 that I find most
heartening is that it requires everyone to do the math. Communities that want to do new development
projects whether they are residential or commercial
have to do the analysis and those goal are tied back to the
climate goals. So the piece of the story that I think is
the most important here is that California right now has the most
aggressive solar and in particular in this case, the most aggressive electric vehicle standards
in the country. And that to meet local development standards you have to comply with those. Does that mean we have the whole story figured
out? Absolutely not but what it does do is it’s given a lot of strength to the argument
that California in this transition that Tom and
I are talking about is going to have to push aggressively hard
on homes and businesses that are net zero energy and are clean energy generators and that we’re all driving around, the driving that we have to do in vehicles that are dramatically better than
what we have now in terms of emissions. Does that solve big traffic jams? No. You can have as a bad traffic jam in electric
vehicles as regular cars but knowing that we have to
use some mode of transportation, this is a way to link the
important ways. We have to deal with some of the items you
highlighted but the fact that 375 links into the climate
plan I think is exactly the right approach. And the reason why it doesn’t seem to have
more teeth as of today is because while our climate law is in place the course numbers have not really began to
bite hard. As we get towards 2020 and beyond, those numbers are going to require much bigger
innovations, the 10,000 innovations between the rotary phone
and the Twitter IPO. If we don’t keep these laws in place, we
defeat our ability to have a structural state which can operate
on these things. But I think we are actually on the right path
here. Are we on a fast enough path? Because I think is the question behind the
question. I would say we’re not on a fast enough path but 375 is a landmark linking of land use
back to climate. Right you. Thank you, Peter Joseph, from Citizen’s
Climate Lobby. I just want your opinions about how would our lives and your work and all the work that’s being done to pull us out of the climate ditch that we
have dug. How would that change if everybody on the
planet knew that carbon pollution was on schedule to become
less and less profitable through a progressively rising
fee on carbon emissions levied on fossil fuels at their point of entry
in the economy. In other words the carbon tax that we’ve
discussed, Doctor Kevin said that the carbon markets
haven’t worked. Indeed emissions are not going down and wouldn’t it be wonderful and the political
picture that people need in their minds to change their votes to have a campaign to use the most powerful
engine in the world, in the human world outside of nature which
is the economy itself to rescue us from the hole that we’ve dug
ourselves through the free faecal fuel feast to quote
Naomi Oreskes, that we’ve been on for the last 250 years. Isn’t that the enzyme, the catalyst that
we need? Tom, I wonder if you could speak to that and also perhaps in your own thinking how you evaluate that kind of option verses
Keystone. When you think about a carbon tax, let’s
separate it. I think you asked two questions, Peter. One was: Economically what difference does
it make and secondly, politically how does that fit into all the
other solutions. The way I think about business is, it’s
a very think about them as a computer program. And I’m a thirty-year business person, they put into their program the potential
revenues and the cost and if you tell them there is a new cost they will factor into every single decision
that they make. And not only will they decide if we and let me give you example of why that’s
better than a series of decisions dealing with a
series of industries. Let’s say we incent wind. We’re making a decision that clean wind energy is something that we should support
as a society so we subsidise it through tax breaks which is in fact the truth. What that doesn’t do, that encourages wind but what it doesn’t do is let the people who are making investment decisions compare wind equally with solar or hydro or
anything else. When you do a pure carbon tax it’s put into
all the programs and then you think about, wind doesn’t get
any subsidy, it’s being treated fairly because all the
cost of coal, of natural gas, of oil are included in their
production. Right now they basically are in the position where they have pollution cost which society
has to pick up. And so instead of doing I love a society-wide, Full-Cost-Accounting
of costs so that you can compare between the different
industries. So that is one thing that we’ve traditionally
been able to do. An American industry will fight it right up
to the second that they use it to solve the problem. The second thing is politically, how does this fit in with all the other things
we’re trying to do What we need is to limit this and we need to do a Full-Cost-Accounting. Now, let me just say Full-Cost-Accounting
sounds great because what it really says is we’re going to include
all the costs and we’re going to make each industry pay
the full cost. So for instance coal has 4 cents per kilowatt
hour health cost in terms of the people who live within a mile. If you live within a mile of a coal plant,
your kids are going to get asthma with a much higher degree of likelihood. It’s bad for you from a health standpoint and its 4 cents per kilowatt hour. For those of you who don’t spend your time
thinking about energy production the average is about 10 cents per
kilowatt hour. So a free 4 cents is an amazing subsidy to
you. But let me ask you another question while we’re talking about Full-Cost-Accounting
because in this god is in the details. What does it cost for us to keep the straights
of Hamas open so the oil can flow from the Middle East and
who is paying for that? We have two fleets 365 days a year sent out
into the ocean to protect the straights in Asian and the straights in the Middle East. That is something that the Tax payers of the
United States pay for without any question and it has 100% to do with the free flow of oil
around the world. What is Full-Cost-Accounting in one of those
circumstances but the fact is for carbon we can do this. It will let people compare across and that is where we have to get. The question is, politically how do we get
there? How do we incent people to care about this? What are the things how do you speak? You know Bill Clinton is smart. And he described the job of a politician as taking a complicated policy that no one
understands, and remember, Americans didn’t like Eleventh
Grade science. When Dan showed up they laughed. They didn’t most people don’t want to
think about science and they certainly don’t want to think about
this so what Clinton said is, The job of a politician is to take a complicated
policy idea and translate it into words that people can relate
to and care about. That’s the job. So remember: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Mend it don’t end it, that’s what he was doing the whole time. He was trying to take ideas and translate
them into something. Americans spend five minutes a month on politics,
five. It better be short and sweet, it better be
straight forward and it better hit them right in the gut. Maybe to add just one point there, I think that what Tom said is really key. Fight it up to the point that it is inevitable
and then find ways to exploit it. And we’ve seen that over and over again. The military was seen for the longest time as a real stumbling block on this. They weren’t going to turnaround. They invested their duper money in things that didn’t have any relation here and then when the number came around that a barrel of oil costs $1,000 on the battle
field, the military is now the biggest driver of fuel sales, of solar, of all kinds of efficiencies and it’s this turnaround at the last minute. California’s policies as imperfect and still in formation as they are have already turned off coal projects that were
under construction and coal projects that were going to be built across the Mountain West because they weren’t seen as profitable. I just went to visit a company in Montana
and they have said, You know, we didn’t know what we we’re
going to do. We had a board meeting, we had a crisis, we had on all hands on deck, it kind of sounds like a few baseball teams I know, and what they
said is, we realised we have all these land assets now we’re going to invest in wind. They would never have gotten there without
that push. And so are our policies today perfect? No. But if you don’t get these structures in
place you don’t get that innovation on the private
sector and the universities in those states seeing this as the next place to go innovate. Peter, we have a question back here. Yeah, so Tom said earlier that he thinks science
is not a problem and I totally agree with him I think though that there is an additional
problem in what I’d like to call ‘Shadow science’. If we take what Dan said earlier about if Keystone axel is assessed strictly on GHG
emissions it’s not going to get approved but the most recent government commission
assessment of it shows that carbon increases are pretty much
negligible and to use the words of Tom again any idiot of course can look and say you know gallon for gallon this oil and gas has a higher carbon intensity of what the majority of oil and gas has been
produced globally. And so my question is, I wonder what you guys
think are the challenges for restoring integrity
to science and what are the challenges for getting the
government to respect that integrity. For every study that there is showing that fracking is dangerous, there is a study showing that you can drink a glass of fracking fluid and you can be perfectly
fine. Of course that government commissions study
weeks later they were shown to be a tonne of conflicts
of interest. They had relationships with investors and
Trans-Canada Corp and all that sort of thing and they’re doing another assessment as a result
but it just seems like that’s a constant challenge
and a challenge for the American people to decipher
between what we know is the true facts of set science
and this other kind of science that we’re being constantly
bombard with. Can I just give you a quick response on that on the Keystone question part of it? I mean basically, the people who were designated because it’s an international pipeline to determine whether it caused an increase
in gas emissions was the state department. And they did hire a firm which had previously been hired by Trans-Canada but which they had neglected to mention that in their statement of history which means that they’re going to redo the
work. But the basic way that they looked at it was
this. They said, This stuff is going to get developed under
all circumstances so therefore the only thing we’re talking
about is how it gets transported which is, is it going to be through a pipeline, on railroads, through other pipelines going across the Rockies or back to the Atlantic or is it going on
trucks. And they determined that if you assume that it was getting developed under all circumstances the pipeline had a negligible impact. Well the fact is the pipeline all the things that they assumed that were possible turned out weren’t possible. The second choice was to go to British Columbia, British Columbia turned down their pipeline. There was a big rail disaster that caused a bunch of people to die. So all of the assumptions that it was going
to get developed under any circumstances at the same pace turned out to be false, now that didn’t just happen. What happened
was I think they were basically making an argument about how this was a jobs builder for the
United States, it had no greenhouse gas impact. The jobs turned it out they were completely exaggerating and it turned out that their alternatives
weren’t true. So make two points. one Somebody spoke back to them. Bill McKibben spoke back to them and said,
Baloney, you numbers are false. and made it a political
issue. He deserves a lot of credit for it. Because it’s easy to win an argument if none is arguing against you and that is exactly what was happening with Key
Stone. On the jobs issue which is an absolutely critical
issue the assumption here is, either we do Keystone or we don’t do Keystone. No the fact of the matter is, either we develop energy in one way or we develop it another way. So that’s like saying either we’re going to put solar on the roof it’s going to produce these many jobs we will never produce another job and we will never create another kilowatt. No, the alternative to Keystone is doing it a different way that will produce 10 times more jobs or 100
times more jobs. So I’ll make one last point which is this:
the criteria looked clean when the president talked about it in July but if you read the papers, we’re in a political situation here. Criteria are not clean. There’s a huge political overlay to this
which is why people in DC the president is weighing this in the context of all the other things he
needs to deal with. The budget, the debt sealing and all the other
things he’d like to pass from a legislative standpoint and the 2014 midterms. So the scientific criteria looked clean but Washington DC is a complicated place. And this is why I actually think this case is why I brought up things like the North Boneo case. Because we fought the battle, we won it, but the reward for that victory is that you
keep fighting it. You have to keep doing the science and we’ve consistently found when I employ Canadian
groups, U.S.groups that those tar sand barrels are 20-30% dirtier than the other barrels. The bottom of the barrel boil a few wells
dirtier, but the science is only the substrate, the beginning of this broader engagement and
so when Alberta was saying, Well if you don’t
take in U.S. and get the jobs and the export money because all this oil is basically going to Louisiana to sale for a few fat caps then instead we’ll send it to China via British Colombia. British Colombia said, We just did our own
analysis, we’re getting 232 jobs out of this, the
answer is No. Alberta was then faced with California saying, We don’t want it. We’re just going to be saying, We don’t
want it. And now a huge battle on their hands and my Canadian friends are shocked they are
saying, We’re the bad guys in any discussion? and that’s not the Canadian way. So you turn this around by not winning the story with the science but you’ve got to have it in your back pocket. Looking in the lights is there a question in the back I can’t
see Here. Hi everyone, thank you so much my name is
Vera Paree from the centre of Biological Diversity. I have a question for Tom. It seems to me the million dollar question raised by the discussion is the one
you posed which is: how do we change the votes? What is it that we’re going to say to make those five minutes a month actually
effective and the Keystone fight has been effective in my
opinion because it has done a little heart trick. It has been able to unite a splintered community. A community that has many hobby horses, different goals, yet the Key Stone fight and Bill McKibben’s work was able to unite at least the advocacy group and business
group and everyone else and pulling in the right
direction. But Keystone is of course just one issue. So my real question for you is You must have a matrix, you are a smart guy you must be figuring out I started by saying I was an idiot. But you must be figuring out on a local, regional, and national level, how do you sort the issues to come up with
the one that you believe has the highest ROI. Okay so let me just take that question because that’s a great question. I actually see it completely differently. This isn’t an issue we think that we can
win consistently around the United States but it’s a local
question. Energy in the United States is local. It’s generated locally, it’s used locally. The votes are local. So we have to have the ability right now we’re spending a lot of time in
a bunch of dough in the governor’s race in Virginia where there’s a guy running who sued the University of Virginia for teaching
Climate science which is an amazing fact and it is absolutely
important that that guy not be the governor of Virginia. Partially because he would actually have an
impact and partially because everybody else, when
I said that there was a senator who wouldn’t vote on
gun control because she felt she’d lose her job, you have to know that if you take this crazy positions on energy that you’re not going to win. So our key is to be able to go Virginia and
be look and see not just how do you defeat that guy and put in someone who is much better, not just how to defeat him, but how do you
defeat him so he knows he is losing on energy and climate because it’s not enough that he loses because he’s been sleeping with Bunny yard
animals. That’s doesn’t make the point. We don’t do that. We don’t do that. He has to lose for the right reasons to make
the point. So when we think about the American poll and we can do this. When I told you what I thought we’d learned
in California between 2010 and 2012, people think California is crazy, right? We’ve done this in Massachusetts we don’t think California is crazy. We think that the rest of the United States is like California but you need to translate California into
our local place. So in California we don’t use coal. We really don’t. We don’t do heavy manufacturing. If you go to Ohio which is considered a coal
state which does heavy manufacturing, it has real capability there and start talking like a Californian a) They don’t like Californians coming in and telling them what to do b) They have a different issue and you have
to translate it into words they care about and
win locally. Because if you want to win any, it’s not just the legislature in Ohio if
you want to win, if you want to win senate or congress or anything
else you’ve got to be local with messengers who are credible on the topics they care about
and that’s what we think we can do. I’m sure we are all extremely disappointed
that we are at the end of the time for this panel. I don’t know if Dan and Tom have any time
to hang around for a moment anyway I know you’ve got crazy
schedules but I would like to ask both of you in closing if you’d like to make a final comment and
I know one thing I’m going to hear from a lot of people,
What can I do? So I would ask each of you from your perspective. What would you if you had a chance to talk one on one with everyone in this audience, what specific actions would you urge them
to take? Do you want to refer them to a website, sign
up for this, what would your advocacy be? Okay, I actually came here with one of the
people from my office because he is a Carl Undergrad and could deliver me successfully to the room. And he has successfully delivered me to one
other room and after it was done I said, How did you
think that went? He said, I’d give you a B-minus We grade tough here For me a B-minus is a good grade though. And he said, You need to be clear with people
what they can do. So l want to make two points. The second is what you can do. The first is this. Look to me this is the St.Crispin’s Day
speech. It really is. You guys don’t want to go and root for [inaudible]
in an hour. Good for you. But this to me is St.Crispin’s Day about what it means to do it together. Democracy does not work unless people actively
take part, volunteer, make it happen. We are not going to defeat the largest industry in the history of the
world passively. If everybody leaves and goes home and says, Dan was great, Dick was great, the other guy
I can’t remember that’s not enough. You actually have to
participate. I’ll give you the numbers of our website which is www.keystonetruth.com and www.nextgenclimate.org but the truth of the matter is what we need is for the American people to think this is
their challenge. And if enough of us do that and volunteer and think this the number one issue of our
generation, if this is how we’re going to look back
and talk to our kids and grandkids and say that, We did a good
job. That is what it will take for us to win on
this and that’s what the people in this room we really need each other to do that. So for me it’s a pretty simple equation. On the first slide I put up I had the website of our laboratory and that is groups like ours and Stanford
elsewhere they do work at the boundaries between science and policy
and politics. Need your support and so supporting labs we have some people in the room who are doing
that, supporting these types of groups or all these universities is critical because this area of being a public intellectual
and engaging and assisting the policy world or playing that role in doing science, no matter what we say is not well supported, it’s in the gaps and that’s so one thing which is a real self-serving version of the
story but it leads into the second part of it and that’s the voluntary issues. The putting solar on the roof, the electric
car, having the heat pumped the Tom Freeman articles about making your home
a green leader. Those are the places where you try out and you gain the experience to know that the Tesla fire was a unique event and is fixable in next round of Tesla’s so that we can demonstrate that the green
energy economy isn’t just a green substitute for the black
energy economy. It’s a better economy. That’s the story that we need everyone to be able to say with conviction. I can say I read an article on sight American or New Yorker and I think it’s true because I read it, but you have experience with it so you can go fight those fights so the politicians who run for office and
say, I’m campaigning on the Green Energy Platform don’t just say, Well, this could be better that everyone who votes for them knows it’s
better. And those are the elections where you kick
out the coal or the dirty other waste politicians and put
in the good ones. So it’s that story at home and then it’s
that story in public. And that’s got to be the case if we’re going to make this 37 years which is really short in the Energy Economy. When will we recreate the industrial revolution the last time was in 50 years, another 4 decades? Thank you and I’d like to ask

Posts Tagged with…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *