Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • [SOUND] Stanford University.

  • [MUSIC]

  • >> This is a problem unlike I would say any we've seen before, and

  • this is why it poses such interesting questions.

  • >> It effects the food that we're trying to grow and

  • the water resource that we're trying to get for people.

  • So, climate change is very much intertwined with so

  • many other things that we care about and are important to humanity.

  • >> There needs to be a way to get beyond that I'm right,

  • you're wrong, to look, this is affecting all of us.

  • >> We're very good at maintaining all this information among the academic elite, but

  • we cannot convey the same information to the rest of the world and

  • the rest of the population.

  • And I think that's where the main work needs to be done.

  • >> I guess I'd want to hear, how are we're going to do this?

  • >> The conversation I want to hear is about what we do next.

  • How do we limit climate change?

  • How do we adapt to the climate change that we're already in, entrained in.

  • >> I think it's also important to,

  • to divorce a question of is climate change happening and

  • is it caused by humans from the question of what should we do about it.

  • Because science can tell you that first question but values are important for

  • the second question you know?

  • What should we do about it?

  • Well that depends on how much do we care about the future or

  • people in other countries or nature. Right?

  • And I can't tell you that,

  • and you know, you, you can't decide that, but together, we have to,

  • kind of, look at our collective values and, and make a judgment on that.

  • >> There's a real opportunity for, for a conversation about climate risk management

  • and discussion of what we can do to build resilience to decrease vulnerability,

  • to adapt to climate changes.

  • >> I want to hear a conversation that's looking forward boldly to the solutions.

  • How can firms make responding to this challenge.

  • Creating the next generation of technology.

  • The business opportunity of the 21st century?

  • How can we act together to rein in emissions and

  • drive them down in this century.

  • How can we all make sure that our communities, and

  • our families, and our countries are safe in a changing climate?

  • >> From the research that we've done over the last 20 years monitoring American

  • public opinion, it's clear that Americans do place a priority on climate change.

  • There's strong public will to see government take action, on the other hand

  • government is not taking the magnitude of action the public would like to see.

  • >> Climate change is something that affects every part of

  • society that matters and that has an impact on people's life's.

  • And, as we move forward, I think the worst part of it, is that those who are,

  • who least have the power to change their circumstances and to protect themselves,

  • are the ones who are most vulnerable and who will suffer the most.

  • And it just seems like,

  • this just seems like the kind of injustice that ought to be addressed.

  • >> There's a wonderful English proverb that is,

  • may you live in interesting times.

  • Some people call it a curse.

  • But it's also just thinking about, challenge as an opportunity.

  • And I think that humanity is going to have to respond.

  • And so our society an our politics will definitely be changing.

  • >> This is a question on which our generation will be judged and

  • evaluated in the future.

  • Do we make tough decisions and solve it?

  • Or do we essentially punt and, and kind of kick the can down the road.

  • And, and push these buttons onto generations to come.

  • [SOUND].

  • >> Please welcome our Stanford round table panelists and our moderator, Leslie Stahl.

  • [APPLAUSE].

  • >> Thank you, thank you.

  • >> Thank you, thank you.

  • [APPLAUSE] Wow, my first time performing on a basketball court.

  • This is wonderful, and in the round.

  • Well, we have with us the rock stars of the environmental and

  • energy sector in the United States, and I am just so

  • thrilled to be able to introduce them to you.

  • Alvaro Umana, who is Senior Research Fellow at

  • the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, and

  • was Costa Rica's first Minister of Energy and Environment. Alvaro.

  • [APPLAUSE] JB Straubel Co-founder and

  • Chief Technology Officer of Tesla Motors.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • Chris Field professor of Environmental Earth System Sciences,

  • Senior Fellow at Stanford Precourt Institute and Woods Institute.

  • He is also founding director of the Carnegie Institute's Department of

  • global ecology.

  • Chris.

  • [APPLAUSE] Bina Vankacharmin,

  • Director of Global Policy Initiatives at the Brode Institute of MIT and Harvard.

  • Until earlier this month, just a few weeks ago, she was the White House advisor for

  • climate change innovation. Bina.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • George Shultz, everybody knows

  • George Schultz, former Secretary of State and former Secretary of the Treasury and

  • distinguished fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.

  • [APPLAUSE] And Tom Steyer,

  • president of NextGen Climate, cofounder of

  • Stanford's Tomkat Center for Sustainable Energy and the stier center for

  • energy police and finance, Tom Stark [APPLAUSE].

  • Well I'm assuming this is an subject of great interest to everybody here,

  • not just the panel.

  • And I want to start with Chris Field.

  • And Chris, I want to tell you about an interview I've just done with a senator,

  • a prominent senator of the United States.

  • I'm going to read you the transcript of the section on the, our topic and

  • have you comment.

  • And I want the audience to know, we're going to get to the questions of what we

  • should be doing about this, but I need to hear the answer to this, okay.

  • So I asked him, what, what his thoughts were on global warming.

  • We haven't seen any climate warming in 16 years.

  • Scientists call this a pause, a hiatus.

  • 16 years?

  • Come on Leslie.

  • I say, what about the rising seas?

  • The droughts.

  • None of that can you scientifically say is caused by global warming.

  • Because there hasn't been any.

  • Since I've been in Congress, there hasn't been any.

  • Why are the glaciers melting in Greenland?

  • Why are they building up twice as fast in Antarctica?

  • Okay, take it away Chris Field.

  • >> Thanks Rosie.

  • >> [LAUGH]

  • >> There's no question that the planet's warm.

  • It's warmed by about one and half degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, and

  • there's also no question that the majority of this warming over the last 50 years or

  • so was the result of human actions.

  • The amount of heat in the Earth's system has been increasing really rapidly over

  • the last 15 years or so.

  • The period during which the atmosphere hasn't warmed as rapidly.

  • What we've seen is a small switch so that this big

  • increase in heat in the Earth's system has been partitioned more into the ocean's and

  • less into the atmosphere than in previous decades.

  • We don't know if this'll be sustained or not, but the striking thing is that

  • the amount of heat uptake has actually increased dramatically.

  • We haven't seen a pause in the heat uptake,

  • we've a dramatic increase, such that there may be

  • 40% more rapid warming than we had understood until just recently.

  • the, the impacts of this are really widespread.

  • The, one of the clearest indications came from a brilliant Stanford study that was

  • just published a couple of weeks ago, and it showed that

  • there's basically this mountain of high pressure in the in the Central Pacific,

  • and it's making the storms that come toward California bounce off.

  • That we don't know.

  • >> Is that, is that because of, global warming?

  • >> So, that's the question.

  • And, Noah Diffenbaugh who you saw on the great video's group recently asked

  • that and said is it the case that we can say that California's drought with this

  • big mountain of high pressure air, is causing, caused by climate change?

  • And what they found is that even though you can't say with 100% certainty.

  • That the mountain of high air is a product of climate change,

  • we know that in the climate of today.

  • It's four times more likely we'll see that kind of condition.

  • Than in the climate before humans altered.

  • Four times more likely we'll get the kind of conditions that have

  • produced this devastating drought we're seeing now in California.

  • >> But when you say you can't say for sure, I mean, that's what's gets.

  • That's what I think gets confusing.

  • You can't say for sure it is climate change.

  • You, you think it's climate change.

  • George, jump in.

  • >> We have a guy around here now named Gary Rupping.

  • He recently retired as Chief of Naval Operations.

  • And we have a task force on the Arctic.

  • And what's going on there?

  • And the consequences and the opportunities and the problems and

  • so forth that are associated with it, why?

  • Because the ice is melting, the sea ice is melting fast.

  • And he has a little video that shows over time, gradually, and

  • then, all of a sudden, there's a discontinuity.

  • So how is it that a new ocean is being created?

  • That hasn't happened since the last Ice Age.

  • >> No. I've been to Greenland.

  • I saw it too, but I think the question is about the extreme storms and the drought.

  • You know, it's just a little confusing, because it's out there, and

  • it should be nailed and answered and let's get rid of the question.

  • Why is it even on the table, why does a Senator say this?

  • You know, just, let's get rid of it.

  • But we can't. >> So I think this issue of uncertainty

  • a little bit of a, it's a little bit of a copout for us, as a society.

  • We make decisions amid uncertainty all of the time.

  • We make decisions about bets on financial markets that we're going to invest in.

  • We make decisions about what university we're going to attend.

  • We make decisions about what course of treatment to take.

  • Think of when you're a patient in front of a doctor.

  • A doctor might present you a sort of

  • body of research about people who have symptoms like yours.

  • The doctor can't tell you I'm 100% certain in every case that

  • this intervention's going to turn out perfectly.

  • I'm not 100% certain that if you don't do the intervention that you are going to

  • die or that you're going to suffer.

  • But here are the,

  • here are the probabilities, here is the information that I can tell you.

  • And then let me know about you.

  • What's your tolerance for risk?

  • What's your personal history?

  • What's your vulnerability?

  • And with those decisions,

  • with that interaction with the science we make decisions.

  • And frankly we make decisions to avoid risks.

  • We made a decision, make decisions as a society to avoid harm, and

  • that's what we need to do in this case.

  • >> Tom. [APPLAUSE].

  • >> Well, obviously I agree with Bena but

  • I think there's something else here too because she's talking about the ability,

  • and the need to make decisions in uncertainty.

  • But the other question is what is, what is the size and

  • character of the risk we're willing to undergo?

  • And I was an investor for 30 years and I had a good friend who ran a big company.

  • And he told me the one thing you never do when you run a big company is

  • risk the whole enterprise.

  • So if you have 95% probability coming from scientists,

  • you are saying we really need to nail this we need 100%.

  • We have 95% probability of this with a risk to the whole enterprise.

  • Now what sensible person looking at those percentages and that, you know,

  • gigantic risk that no CEO should ever really take, wouldn't want to take action.

  • [APPLAUSE].

  • >> You nailed it.

  • All right, back to Chris for a minute.

  • So here's another thing I hear, in that it is only 95%.

  • Let's not invest that much right now [LAUGH], because you know there's that

  • little, we can't afford it really, and this isn't the time, we're not there yet.

  • Hit that out of the ballpark the way he just did.

  • [LAUGH].

  • >> Well, there are two elements that are really important to understand.

  • The first is that,

  • there's a tremendous amount of inertia in the way climate change works.

  • Some of this inertial is as result of emissions that have already occurred.

  • And, and the physics.

  • And some of it is inertia as a result of the infrastructure that we have,

  • the coal fired power plants, the all electricity generation.

  • We know that we're going to continue to use fossil fuels for

  • some time in the future.

  • And the only way that we can transition effectively off is to start now.

  • The longer you wait, the more it costs, the more complicated solutions get to be,

  • and the more residual impacts you deal with.

  • There's no reason to wait because there are smart,

  • effective, low cost things we could be doing today.

  • >> Give me one low cost example that you think we should be doing today.

  • >> Just as an example, we could be dramatically increasing

  • the efficiency of water utilization in California.

  • Huge amount of water in California goes, energy goes into pumping water around.

  • We don't need to be doing that.

  • >> Okay someone keep track of all the ideas we get, okay?

  • [LAUGH] And let's get someone to, seriously, seriously.

  • One more question before we open it up Chris.

  • I, in your opinion,

  • in order to really get a handle on this issue, in terms of solutions.

  • Is it essential that the government be

  • continue to subsidize in the R&D industry?

  • >> We can have a great conversation about this.

  • My feeling is that we need a level playing field.

  • With a level playing field, we can unleash the potential, the innovation across

  • the economy to come up with solutions that work, but a level playing field has to

  • acknowledge the damage that's being done by the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

  • Once we address that.

  • >> I'm very comfortable that the marketplace can solve the core of

  • the problem.

  • >> But do we need government now to, to start it?

  • >> You know, there are critical elements of playing field leveling,

  • including support for research and development which I know is a passion of

  • George's that, that are essential elements, in creating environment

  • in which the market forces can come up with compelling solutions.

  • >> Okay.

  • Alvaro Umana you led a deep,

  • a rescue a reverse of deforestation in Costa Rica and it was a success.

  • We would love to know what the formula was and

  • how that translates to what we might do in this country.

  • >> Well, it actually started here at Stanford 40 years ago.

  • I was a young graduate student in, in environmental engineering, a physicist.

  • And the economist kept telling me the climate change and

  • the use of global resources and the environment, it's an externality.

  • And I could not accept that everything on which the economy depends we

  • could call an externality.

  • So I enrolled in economics to learn their language and

  • I learned that you know, we treat CO2 different than everything else.

  • We have a fossil fuel that reacts with free oxygen from the atmosphere and

  • generates useful energy, and CO2.

  • But we don't count the CO2.

  • And we have to start counting the cost of CO2 for

  • the level playing field that Chris is is talking about because we need it for

  • efficiency for renewables so that other solutions can compete on an equal basis.

  • So I learned that and you know in 40 years

  • we have accumulated this huge global externality that Nick Stern,

  • a British economy calls the mother of all externalities.

  • 100s of billions of tons of CO2 that will stay in the atmosphere for

  • a very long time.

  • So we have to implement an economic solution.

  • And I represented Costa Rica and Central America at the Cup one,

  • the first meeting of the parties in Berlin in 1995, and I came back and

  • told the president we have to start acting because everybody's going to start acting.

  • And I convinced him to put a 5% tax on fuels, to operate as a carbon tax.

  • It was later negotiated down to 3.5%.

  • But it has been respected by all these governments in 17 years.

  • And we put that money for forest protection and reforestation.

  • And that along with expansion of private reserves and

  • public parks and restrictions on land use led to the reversal of deforestation.

  • In the past decade, Costa Rica has sequestered or

  • taken up from air a 100 million tons of carbon and, [APPLAUSE].

  • >> Something.

  • >> So, at, at, at, at a very reasonable cost we've also

  • developed a system that is 90% renewable energy in the electric grid.

  • Mostly hydro, but also geothermal and wind, and five years ago we started this,

  • important challenge of trying to become carbon neutral.

  • The concept of carbon neutrality is very powerful,

  • because each of us can calculate our footprint.

  • You can go to the Internet, and many calculators.

  • Our schools can become carbon neutral.

  • Our communities can become carbon neutral.

  • Our churches can become carbon neutral.

  • So what you do is you figure out how much you're emitting, how much you can reduce,

  • and then how you can compensate the rest.

  • And a lot of people, businesses communities, regions are working

  • on this and we feel that it shows you first that you can do things and

  • first that it won't break the economy.

  • We could, we can not accept this proposition.

  • You can do small things right away that will be very effective.

  • >> Beautiful, beautiful [APPLAUSE] George Schultz,

  • I know you've been thinking about this.

  • I have two questions, it's a two-parter.

  • The first one is, when I first spoke to you about this,

  • you mentioned something called the Montreal Protocol.

  • As a possible step we could take, so please explain that.

  • And secondly, what do you think about a carbon tax?

  • >> In the mid 1980's, when I was Secretary of State, we found that

  • many good scientists thought the ozone layer was depleting.

  • There were others who doubted it, but we found as we talked to

  • them they all agreed that if it happened, it would be a catastrophe.

  • So I thought about this a lot, I had the privilege of twice a week

  • private meetings with the president, and I discussed it with him carefully.

  • And out of those conversations came the concept [COUGH] of an insurance policy.

  • That is, instead of going to the people who disagreed and banging on them and

  • castigating them, [COUGH] we said, okay, you have your opinion.

  • We don't agree with it,

  • but you have agreed that it would be a catastrophe if it happens.

  • So let's agree on an insurance policy, so they did.

  • So, instead of alienating them, we put arms around them, and, and

  • then it's often the case when something really serious emerges,

  • the entrepreneurial juices in the American economy assert themselves.

  • And in this case the DuPont company came up with something you could do.

  • Not what you aspire to do but what you can actually do and put it into a fact.

  • So we got that to happen in a lot of places, and it caught on and

  • eventually we went to Montreal and had a treaty called the Montreal Protocol.

  • >> Could this work?

  • >> And it worked.

  • >> Could this work?

  • >> It worked and it's interesting to see that as,

  • as it turned out in retrospect, the scientists who were worried were right.

  • And the Montreal protocol I think it's fair to say came along just in time.

  • So it seems to me we aught to, look at the consequences of climate change,

  • and say well, let's not argue about whether it's taking place or

  • not, let's see what the consequences are.

  • Tom sponsored something called Risky Business that I

  • was involved in designed to do just exactly that.

  • So you can say, look, these are serious consequences.

  • Now going back to the way you look at it, we say well if you have these consequences

  • and there is x percentage of likelihood, maybe we better do something.

  • And if we do my nomination is two things.

  • One of which is a piece of cake, if we handle it right.

  • And the other is harder, but it's getting somewhere.

  • First of all, is sustained support for energy R and D.

  • >> From the government?

  • >> That is happening.

  • From the government, from other sources.

  • But the interesting thing is [COUGH] when there is a serious government commitment,

  • private money comes.

  • I think at Stanford, something like three to one private to, to government money.

  • I'm very familiar with the MIT program it's about the same.

  • Interesting the government lab at NREL has the same experience.

  • So the private money comes when they see this.

  • Why?

  • Because they're energy companies and

  • they want to be, if something's going to happen, they want to know about it.

  • And not be blindsided, so they come, and it's fine.

  • Some universities are scared to death of companies being around.

  • I guess at Stanford we figure,

  • Silicon Valley's just a big Stanford spinoff so what the hell?

  • We might as well.

  • [LAUGH] [APPLAUSE] So

  • if you support energy R and D and then as Chris was saying I

  • think let's put a price on Carbon, and make it revenue neutral.

  • That [APPLAUSE] that levels the playing field.

  • Because the people who,

  • who's energy is producing carbon are imposing a cost on society.

  • It's, I was in Washington once, we were doing this and somebody said we're

  • a bunch of nut cakes out of California, I said, yeah, we're a bunch of nut cakes,

  • we even care about the air we breath, how nutty can you get?

  • But if you put a revenue neutral carbon tax on it,

  • I can argue with the tax mafia look its not really a tax it's revenue neutral.

  • It's just leveling the playing field.

  • And I think that's beginning to get some traction,

  • it takes a while but it's beginning to get some traction.

  • I think we'll get there if we keep after it.

  • >> Okay.

  • [APPLAUSE] So JB.

  • I want to ask you what's on the drawing board in terms of technology and

  • innovation in this area.

  • And I want to also ask you if you support a carbon tax?

  • Revenue neutral or not or whatever.

  • We're going to get a consensus here I think.

  • >> Well, there, there's a lot of exciting stuff on the drawing board,

  • and in particular, we spend a lot of time on energy storage.

  • You know, that ends up being kind of a lynch pin technology to a lot of,

  • both electric vehicles, electrification of transportation in general but

  • also storage of renewables on the grid and going to higher percentages of

  • renewables and you know before I mentioned the carbon tax.

  • I, I want to reinforce something Secretary Schultz said which is I think

  • the entrepreneurial and innovative side to this is a huge part of the solution.

  • >> Yeah. >> We can't incentivize ourselves to

  • a scale a solution at scale that will fix what we're up against.

  • We can get started in certain areas but you know, we have to

  • find ways to make this profitable and make new businesses, you know, succeed based on

  • their own merits, you know, for whatever technologies are being applied.

  • In terms of a carbon tax I, I'm not sure the exact right mechanism but

  • I think, you know, having the right accounting for

  • the external, external cost of carbon is critical.

  • We, we have to find a way to do that.

  • You know there needs to be a market place that values that and that's that's up

  • you know, smarter people perhaps to figure out what the right structure for that is.

  • But, I think that once that gets to be in place and

  • perhaps even before you know, there will be a massive pull of people and

  • talent into the space to find solutions to it that we can't even predict right now.

  • >> Can you give us some something on the drawing board that you think or

  • maybe do a little more with storage.

  • What do you mean by that?

  • >> Well, in particular, batteries are something that we spend a lot of

  • time on and I think batteries are often talked about.

  • They're in the press a lot.

  • There's new announcements, government labs working on this, many startup companies.

  • and, you know there's often a perception that batteries are just waiting for

  • some big breakthrough.

  • You know when is the big breakthrough going to happen?

  • >> Right. >> But,

  • in in actuality it it's happening gradually over a long period of time.

  • You know there are many little breakthroughs being made by

  • 100s actually 1000s of people, and it's steadily improving.

  • So, to me, that's one of the most exciting things,

  • is looking forward at the road map for how cheap and how

  • high-performance batteries will be in a much shorter timeframe than people expect.

  • >> Okay, Bina?

  • You and I had a very brief exchange, and you mentioned something what,

  • that I find interesting.

  • And that is that, all the movement in this area is happening at the local or

  • state level, not the federal level and I suppose that's

  • because people at that level are seeing the effects of extreme weather.

  • Tell us some of the examples of what you're seeing down there.

  • >> Sure, sure and I'll just put an asterisk on what you said.

  • I didn't say that all of the movement is happening at the local and state level.

  • And I will, I will extol some of the work that is happening at

  • the federal level because I, I do believe that it's going to make a difference.

  • But, one of the points that I wanted to make, and

  • I think that we were talking about, is that, Well think about it this way,

  • here we are in Silicone Valley and it's a epicenter of technological innovation.

  • And we like to think about innovation as something that two guys in

  • a garage came up with.

  • And you know as someone who lived in a garage in Palo Alto 11 years ago,

  • I have nothing against garage's.

  • But, the real innovation, in climate change is happening when

  • many people share the same idea and are working together to make it happen.

  • It's not just about the lone innovators, and

  • that is happening at the level of communities.

  • And the communities in some cases are geographic communities like states and

  • localities, in other cases they are communities of people who share some

  • common purpose and values such as companies.

  • So you have companies like Disney and

  • Microsoft putting an internal price on carbon.

  • You have communities like New York City and Chicago taking ambitious action around

  • both climate resilience, shoring up their defenses and their ability to bounce back

  • from impacts of coastal flooding and heat waves and droughts.

  • But also making ambitious targets towards reducing their own emissions of cities.

  • You see networks of cities working globally to share lessons learned on

  • how best to do those things.

  • You also are seeing communities of people who are working together

  • across sort of on the cap and trade agenda and mitigation.

  • So you're seeing that regionally in the northeast, here in California certainly.

  • Similarly on that sort of adaptation and resilience side in southern Florida.

  • We've seen four counties come together and forge a regional plan to prepare for

  • sea levels rise and coastal impacts.

  • So, I think there's something to this about the level of

  • citizen engagement being a sort of Goldilocks just right approach.

  • Where people in close contact are able to share the, the ability to get each other

  • energized, share some of the common vulnerabilities to climate change, and

  • share some of the solutions.

  • >> I, I have to bring you all the way back to the beginning,

  • because tell us what Microsoft and Disney have done?

  • >> So, both of these companies have taken it upon themselves internally to

  • set a price on carbon so basically what they've done is make purchase decisions.

  • Make decisions about their supply chains based on

  • the carbon footprint that they will have.

  • Quite forward thinking.

  • >> Yes. I think the business side is critical to

  • solve this problem.

  • And that's an important first step.

  • But there's nine companies in the world that generate two thirds of

  • all global emissions.

  • So it's really there that we have to put pressure.

  • For example, let's take, I don't want to pick on Apple, but

  • the iPhone is such an iconic product of our age.

  • You know, the iPhone, top of the line iPhone 6.

  • Carries a chain of carbon that weighs 110 kilograms.

  • Okay?

  • From 95 to 110.

  • More than 30 kilos more than the iPhone 5.

  • Okay?

  • The good news is that Apple is now calculating it,

  • and you can go to their website and see the footprint of each phone.

  • >> What's where is all, where is, what in the phone is causing that?

  • >> From the materials, the assembly, the construction, okay, and

  • the smaller the phone, the higher the footprint.

  • Now, the good news is that with only a few dollars,

  • you could upset, offset those emissions.

  • The problem is that nobody in the business world wants to be the first one.

  • They all want to be the last.

  • That's why the signal that secretary Schules was

  • saying that the government has to send the signal, because then they will say yes,

  • maybe we should start doing this and we should start compensating our emissions,

  • and I think Apple has a great opportunity to be a leader in this sense.

  • >> So this point about the interaction between government policy and

  • innovation, I think is a really important one that's coming out.

  • And we have to, I think, look at precedent of how regulatory policy.

  • How government policy can be an enabler and

  • accelerant of private sector innovation.

  • Because we all want to see those marketplace innovations that are going to

  • respond to this crisis.

  • And make it a train that keeps going that we can't stop.

  • >> You talk to the innovators and they'll say get government out of the way.

  • >> It depends.

  • So you look at the history of the 2007 light bulb efficiency rules that

  • George W Bush put into place, and the flourishing of CFLs and

  • LED technology that came after that.

  • The 2009 CAFE standards on fuel emissions where President Obama doubled our

  • fuel efficiency targets for light vehicles.

  • And the 50 some hybrid and

  • electric vehicles that are coming, flooding the market in response.

  • So I think government policy can set the groundwork and

  • it can trigger to innovators that response that we saw with the Montreal Protocol

  • where they are willing to come and step up and

  • use their ingenuity to respond to the challenge.

  • >> Tom, I just want to make two points.

  • One is to respond to amplify on what Mena said before.

  • When you think about local governments as opposed to national governments,

  • you have to start from the idea that this is actually a global problem.

  • So when you think about the city of Miami Beach spending $350 million on new pumps.

  • Because that king tides, there's salt water that runs through their streets.

  • That is dealing, in the way that local government should, with a local human

  • problem, and adapting to what exists, but it is definitely not attacking the problem

  • which is that the sea is rising, and that however many pumps we buy.

  • Unless we deal with the underlying causes, that sea is going to continue to rise and

  • they're going to have to spend more than $350 million on pumps.

  • >> Right. >> So when we

  • think about the broad scale changes that George and Chris have talked about, what

  • you're really trying to do is not to, you said keep government out of my business.

  • What you're really trying to say is,

  • we're going to include the cost when you make decisions.

  • And we're not going to tell you what your answer should be.

  • But we're going to let you run a computer program that includes all the costs so

  • that you can make the best decisions, the way that businesses are supposed to.

  • And you can let all of your innovation and creativity run.

  • That, that's my first point.

  • >> Do you mandate that?

  • Do you mandate the, the.

  • >> That they have to, do you mandate that there has to be that balance?

  • >> You have to.

  • I mean the, the point is George's which is this, the polluter should pay for

  • the pollution.

  • I always say if I were running.

  • [APPLAUSE].

  • >> That's right. That's the basic point.

  • >> If, if I were running a garbage company, and so I went to everybody on

  • this panel and picked up their garbage, and dumped it in George's front yard.

  • I could have really low cost.

  • >> [LAUGH]

  • >> George and Charlotte might not be to happy about that.

  • >> Yes.

  • >> That wouldn't be fair and that's really what's happening.

  • And the other point I'd like to say is we are at Stanford.

  • You know, if you think about 1983.

  • >> Uh-huh.

  • >> So in 1983 they broke up Ma Bell.

  • In 1996 to 98 they deregulated the telephone industry.

  • When you think about in 1983 when we had rotary phones in my kitchen and

  • very simple TVs.

  • We didn't even have the language for what's happening now.

  • There is the explosion of private sector creativity combined with research,

  • development, innovation that's happened, you know, this is kind of the epicenter,

  • Maple's Pavilion, the epicenter of that revolution.

  • There is no reason to think that that kind of revolution can't happen in energy if we

  • level the playing field the way these guys are recommending.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Totally agree.

  • >> Nice.

  • >> George, did you, did you.

  • >> You mentioned people's reaction to being overregulated, and so

  • this is one of my prime arguments for the revenue neutral carbon tax.

  • You don't like all these little bits and pieces telling you what to do?

  • Let's put in a price, and

  • then you can react to that price in any way you make sense.

  • And the second point I'd like to bring into this conversation, and

  • that is security.

  • Our grid is very vulnerable.

  • Not just to natural disasters but to cyber attack and

  • other terrorist attacks as we've seen right here in San Jose.

  • So I think we should be focusing on having more energy where we use it.

  • So we're not as vulnerable.

  • And here's where batteries come in.

  • And it's been fascinating to me to recently run across a guy

  • who I think has solved the problem of large scale storage.

  • And if he has, and I think he has, that's a genuine breakthrough.

  • Among other things it takes the intermittency problem out of

  • wind and solar.

  • But it also means that you can have energy where you use it you.

  • And, and I'm a Marine.

  • So I'm always watching what the Marines do.

  • And in Afghanistan you know, they carry all this electronic gear,

  • it's getting heavier and heavier they want to lighten up.

  • So what have they done, they've invented this thing, it's very light and

  • you just flip it open, what is it?

  • A bunch of solar panels.

  • So you lay it out there and you plug in your gear and store them up.

  • And it's created where you use it and there's no pollution connected with it.

  • What's not to like?

  • Go Marines.

  • [APPLAUSE].

  • >> That's fantastic.

  • So I want to go back to Tom for a minute because, you know, the,

  • the question of whether there is going to be public support for

  • what everybody's talking about.

  • Means that you do have to bring the skeptics in.

  • You do have to create, some kind of momentum, and I know you think about this.

  • This is what you're up to right now.

  • So give us your thoughts on what is the next step to get people energized and

  • together on it.

  • This.

  • >> Well, let's start from where we are,

  • and where we are is that about two-thirds of Americans believe this is a problem,

  • believe it is caused by human activity, and pretty much in

  • general agree with the panel in terms of what the con, solution should be.

  • The issue is they don't think it's that important.

  • When asked to rank energy and

  • climate in terms of problems that they face, it ranks pretty low.

  • And in order for there to be action, in order for them to push elected

  • officials to do the right thing, it has to be much more important to them.

  • They have to think that it's something that really affects them, their families,

  • and the people they love.

  • Because if they don't, then most people have enough issues in their lives, jobs,

  • healthcare, education, actually having a little fun, they, they won't put in the,

  • they don't think it's important enough.

  • And they won't communicate that.

  • >> Right. >> So, the question really becomes how do

  • you make this a real?

  • You know, I believe this is, as someone said in the video,

  • the leading challenge for our generation, that this will, in fact,

  • be the issue on which we're judged to have succeeded or failed as a society.

  • And so, the question is, how do you communicate that?

  • And I think the answer to that is very different from what we've been

  • talking about today.

  • I think that when you talk to people, you have to under, you have to

  • put it in terms that matter to them, and that means they have to be local terms.

  • So, for instance, the people in California do not lie awake at

  • night worried about the sea water running down Miami Beach, and

  • conversely the people in Miami Beach are not lying awake worried about our drought.

  • >> Yeah.

  • >> So what you really have to do is it's gotta be very local, and

  • it's gotta be human.

  • Because people are, you know, you have to be able to translate a scientific and

  • policy discussion into terms that people don't spend their time

  • thinking about science and policy can relate to and care about and it matters.

  • Then they understand, so

  • for instance, in the, in Los Angeles county, 20 to 25% of the kids have asthma.

  • That is caused by pollution.

  • So in Las Angeles county,

  • those families are not wondering whether this is an issue.

  • They know it's an issue, because it's affecting their kids' lives, and

  • it's going to affect the trajectory of their kids' lives.

  • So, when we look at trying, making people care about this,

  • you have to put yourself in the position of the people you're talking to and

  • understand what is the, how is it going to impact their economic livelihood?

  • How's it going to impact their health?

  • And how are they really being treated by society?

  • >> Let, let’s have a round on your ideas on how we move, what number?

  • [APPLAUSE] You said it’s where on the scale of priorities? 19?

  • How you think it’s possible to

  • move the interest and concern up that ladder.

  • Chris have you thought about this?

  • >> I, I think there are really two core ideas that people need to keep in mind.

  • The first was, was introduced really eloquently by George and Bina and

  • it's this concept of an insurance policy.

  • Even if you are only 95% certain that there's a serious issue out there.

  • Smart people will make investments in insurance, in, in protection.

  • But I think the other element that we're really just beginning to unfold is that

  • the kinds of actions we're talking about aren't net drains on the economy.

  • What we're talking about is building more resilient societies, more robust

  • economies, and having investments in dealing with climate change.

  • At the same time, be investments in building a better world.

  • And we have that opportunity to target the kinds of actions that are taken so

  • that there investments and where we collectively want to go in

  • the future at the same time we address the climate problem.

  • >> So you want to argue that to move in the direction of

  • clean green clean companies whatever.

  • It's, it's going to be healthier for the economy in the end.

  • >> An, and we'll be addressing Asthma in Los Angeles, we'll be,

  • we'll be addressing a wide range of issues about sustainablilty,

  • about equal access to energy, and about empowerment of individuals, and

  • communities around the world.

  • >> Cause you keep hearing, we can't afford it.

  • Anybody else, any ideas on how to move, Tom has, Tom has a million ideas.

  • >> Well, I just want to address the idea that we can't afford it.

  • >> Oh, okay. >> Because actually there've been

  • a series of studies.

  • That have come out this year that say fact, the alternatives of doing nothing or

  • preceding on a more progressive energy policy on an economic basis we're

  • much better off preceding on a progressive energy policy.

  • So the idea that somehow we can either have a healthy environment or

  • we can have a healthy economy.

  • That dichotomy.

  • If you ever fall into that trap you're lost.

  • It's not true.

  • And there's been a ton of work done to say that in fact the opposite is true.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> I want to second that.

  • Because there are two very damaging misconceptions about climate change.

  • One is that its a very long term gradual process that

  • will affect the future generations and not us.

  • And I think we really have to make the point that climate change will only be

  • addressed when it becomes a local issue.

  • >> I, I agree completely.

  • We're not doing this for other people, we have to do it for ourselves.

  • Also we have to work at all levels.

  • We have to work governments, we have to work businesses and

  • we have to work citizens.

  • For example, a group of school children in

  • Oregon sued the federal government for not protecting the atmosphere.

  • Citizens we are trying to get 1 billion people to sign a petition

  • to go to the International Court of Justice to define who owns the atmosphere.

  • And the atmosphere is not owned by governments,

  • it should be owned by individual citizens, so that we can protect it.

  • [APPLAUSE] so, and

  • this is critical because we are living a tragedy of the commons, you know.

  • We are trying, treating the atmosphere as a cess pool, so as long as

  • there's no property right, there's nobody standing up for the atmosphere.

  • Just dumping.

  • So we need, if the governments are not stepping up to the plate,

  • citizens have to take the slack.

  • And businesses have to take leadership, as well.

  • >> Now, what, what do you, any of you, think can be

  • done about the fact that this, in some way, has become a religious issue.

  • The opposition has, has become a question for some religions.

  • How do you, how do you argue?

  • >> I think you also have to notice that it's become a religious issue from

  • the perspective of support for action on climate change.

  • So we've seen some of the evangelical community, communities of

  • faith from across the spectrum of the world's religions actually have.

  • Come to the fore saying action on climate change actually reflects our values.

  • Because we care about the planet.

  • We care about future generations.

  • We care about aligning our belief system with the actions that governments take.

  • The actions that companies take.

  • The actions that citizens take.

  • So, I think there's definitely areas of common ground,

  • from a theological perspective, from a belief community perspective.

  • There may be particular groups that

  • oppose it and

  • >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Wield.

  • Yes.

  • Wield religion as an answer, as an, as an explanation.

  • But I don't think at the core there's an inherent conflict with any of

  • the world's religions with acting on climate change.

  • >> No, but if, if, if public policy is in gridlock on this issue.

  • Part of the reason is that that in certain parts of the country,

  • the religion is saying it's not real.

  • So how do you deal with that aspect of it?

  • Anybody?

  • >> Well, I think that we have to clarify to people that,

  • that we are the stewards of creation and, and that we have that responsibility.

  • And, and I think that resonates with, with people of faith.

  • The problem, you know, you, we started with the discussion, is 95% enough?

  • Science doesn't work on 100%.

  • You know, if you're in the 100% you're in,

  • in the realm of dogma not in the realm of science.

  • And that's what is hard for people to understand.

  • But I do not see an inherent conflict.

  • I think that people can understand.

  • It, it, if they believe in god and

  • a creator then we have the duty to maintain and steward this planet.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Tom?

  • >> I, I think when you think about the religious

  • implications of preserving the planet.

  • They're two really strong core religious beliefs that virtually everyone

  • who believes in God shares.

  • One is that we're stewards of the Earth.

  • That God created the Earth and

  • our job is to pass it on and take care, take care of it.

  • And the second is, that we are, you know we should be respectful and

  • careful about the most vulnerable people on the planet.

  • And almost every religious person believes they have a responsibility to their

  • fellow humans.

  • Particularly the most vulnerable.

  • And when you see the impact, and, you know,

  • Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of an extreme weather event.

  • When you see who suffers in extreme weather events,

  • it is the most vulnerable amongst us.

  • So I think that when you talk to religious people and

  • when I have talked to religious people.

  • I find incredible common ground with them on those two core principles.

  • And which I think I've never really heard someone come back from me

  • on a faith based, for a faith based reason honestly.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Finding someone in the New York I had

  • the privilege of addressing an interfaith group.

  • That it had representatives of more or less all of the world's major religions.

  • There were Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and Jews.

  • And what was striking about that group is that each saw

  • really important value in the kinds of, of stewardship and concern.

  • For the vulnerable that, that Tom's just expressed.

  • I, I think that the issue we're talking about runs through all of

  • the world's major religions.

  • >> You know, I want to tell you all about Greenland.

  • George, you mentioned the seas rising because the ice is melting.

  • Well I went to Greenland to do a story.

  • And you can see the re, the receding glacier.

  • You could actually see it.

  • You see these little pieces of ice, falling into the sea.

  • And Greenland's way of life has always been to fish off ice.

  • It's just been a big piece of ice, the country.

  • Everybody has sled dogs.

  • Everybody has a sled.

  • That's the way they get around.

  • And all of a sudden, there is no ice.

  • And their way of,

  • their whole history has been challenged, their traditions, everything.

  • However as the ice recedes.

  • Guess what?

  • They're finding oil.

  • >> [LAUGH]

  • >> And they are going to develop the fossil fuel industry.

  • So I mean it's every time you think well there's going to be

  • something obvious here something comes around whacks you in the head.

  • The, these are the horrible things that's are happening out there.

  • >> Slight parenthetical to your comment about Greenland.

  • Greenland isn't a little piece of ice, it's a big piece of ice.

  • [SOUND] The, the, the sea level equivalent in Greenland is between 20 and 25 feet.

  • When Greenland, if Greenland melts and it's in our hands,

  • that means that something like a third of south Florida disappears.

  • So you know, in some sense, we're talking about whether people are going to

  • pursue their, ambitions in, in Greenland or in Florida.

  • And that's more or less the trade-off.

  • >> Well, if you go to Greenland.

  • The issue's unmistakable if you see it yourself and

  • it's pretty dramatic up there.

  • Bina, you had mentioned something to me.

  • because I know a little bit about this and it's really fascinating.

  • NASA has these two twin satellites.

  • That are going around the Earth like this constantly.

  • You want to tell us about that?

  • >> Sure.

  • each, they're twins, and they're each about the size of a small car.

  • Not sure if a Tesla, or Volkswagen Bug, [LAUGH] or what the, what the make.

  • And they're the GRACE satellites.

  • And they are just two of the many examples of

  • the robust observing system that we invest in as a country, the U.S..

  • And something that we should be proud of.

  • Those of us who are staying, or are part of this country in some fashion.

  • And they are taking measurements of changes in the Earth's gravitational pull.

  • tiny, perceptible changes, including changes from the drawing down of aquifers,

  • subterraneous fresh water sources.

  • Such as the Central Valley aquifer.

  • And the GRACE satellites were among the resources that scientists have

  • relied on to be able to anticipate, phenomenon.

  • Like the drought that California is experiencing and

  • is being devastated by right now.

  • And, the reason I think I shared that with you, if I remember correctly.

  • Is that there's a combination of sort of short-run innovation that we need to

  • jump start and solutions to this crisis.

  • But there's also, a challenge, and a need for sustained and

  • long-term action and thinking on this crisis.

  • We need a long-term record of observation if we hope to understand the planet,

  • understand these changes that are happening.

  • And satellites like the GRACE Resource and others.

  • Are giving us that fundamental understanding.

  • And I think, you know it, it this has been touched upon a bit,

  • but when it comes to climate change we are sort of driving in the car.

  • We're driving in the car and we're looking in the rearview mirror.

  • We are making decisions based on our past understanding and

  • our past experience of risk.

  • Not based on what's right on the road in front of us,

  • let alone what's around the bend.

  • And when it comes to complicating that view,

  • getting us to look out the windshield instead of in this rearview mirror.

  • We need that scientific understanding that's going to underpin our,

  • our ability to make and understand risks.

  • That said the scientific community can do a lot more and

  • is beginning to do a lot more to make that science relevant.

  • And I think this speaks to Tom's earlier point.

  • But people don't make decisions based on global average temperatures or

  • global ocean temperatures.

  • That information is critical.

  • They make decisions based on what's affecting them in their homes.

  • How often their basements are going to flood.

  • How much the people in their family may be affected by the next heat wave.

  • And so we need to find increasing ways to make that science and

  • that investment in that long term understanding.

  • Actionable to people at the decision making level that they have in

  • their communities and their companies and their neighborhoods.

  • >> But what, what the twin satellites, NASA, is studying the planet from space.

  • So the, the satellites you mentioned to me, they're called GRACE.

  • And what they're studying and

  • looking at is the groundwater level, as you suggested, the aquifers.

  • And they're, they do it.

  • It's, it's so complicated how it's done.

  • It's genius, though.

  • It's absolutely genius.

  • They can see underground somehow or figure out what's going on underground.

  • >> Or take pictures of changes in the earth's gravitational pull.

  • >> Exactly.

  • Because of gravity.

  • But what they're finding is that the ground water all over

  • the planet is receding everywhere, not just here in California.

  • Can we talk a sec about California the drought and

  • mainly lets talk about water and how water is going to become important in our lives.

  • We we get it free.

  • We don't even think about it in most parts of the country.

  • And it's going to become in many parts of the world it already is as

  • precious as diamonds and oil and things like that.

  • Who we can talk about it in political terms because it's

  • can cause stability where there is serious drought.

  • We can talk about it in terms of science and innovation.

  • So anybody who wants to have a discussion, because I'd love to,

  • on the question of water.

  • >> I think we're going to see real progress,

  • technologically, in how to desalinate water, or purify it.

  • Because the pressure is there, and people are starting to respond.

  • And I know of a few who are working on it pretty hard.

  • So there's not possibility, but still [COUGH] it's

  • one of those things you point to and people.

  • I thought the earlier question was people making a religion out of

  • opposing climate change, not established religions.

  • And I say to those people, look at things like what's happening in the Arctic.

  • That's not a one off event,

  • that's something you can observe with your own eyes.

  • It's happening.

  • And if they're political people I say be careful with your words because you

  • can get mugged by reality and you can lose your job as a result.

  • So be careful.

  • And they pay attention, but

  • I think the insurance policy that Chris was mentioning.

  • Is a good concept,

  • because it's actually not that expensive to take out a reasonable insurance policy.

  • If we support in a sustained way energy R and D and we put in

  • a revenue neutral carbon tax, that's not expensive, but it will do a huge amount.

  • >> We want is really essential,

  • it's central to the life of California's west and the entire world.

  • Water availability, water resources is one of the things where we see the clearest

  • impact of climate changes that have already occurred.

  • Especially in the West where we know that the snow pack is lasting less

  • long into the springtime.

  • And snowpack is really the, it's the foundation of California's water system.

  • And the water system for the entire west.

  • And we're seeing that, that foundation is being eroded.

  • It's one of the clearest things that you can't keep in a, in a warming climate.

  • At the same time the warmer atmosphere wants to evaporate more water.

  • So there's less water available.

  • And more that's going up into the atmosphere.

  • As George says, there are a lot of technology things we can do I think,

  • that increase in the efficiency with which we use water.

  • Breeding better crops, improving agricultural technology,

  • improving the markets for water.

  • There are amazing opportunities for

  • making sure that water gets to the places that it's needed.

  • But it really illustrates how there are opportunities for

  • doing better with the current variability.

  • That'll absolutely essential for dealing with the problems that we'll

  • face not only here in California and the West in the future.

  • But around the world.

  • Water is in many ways.

  • It's the the first thing to go in a changing climate.

  • It's the one where we have the most opportunities to really be successful.

  • >> So I read living in New York that there is a crisis,

  • a water crisis in California but people still water their lawns.

  • They don't, they don't hear it.

  • They're living in the midst of it.

  • Talking about public opinion.

  • >> We've taken out our front lawn [CROSSTALK] Chips, it's great.

  • >> Well my daughter who lives in Los Angeles has artificial grass and

  • it is gorgeous.

  • It looks like real glass.

  • You know, they put a little brown in it so it really looks like.

  • You know, when you think about water, it is kind of a hybrid resource.

  • In the sense that we all think of it as a common resource that we

  • have an absolute right too.

  • So, if someone wants to water their lawn in Los Angeles they feel

  • like water is essentially free.

  • And I have a right, you know, we all have a right to as much water use as we want.

  • And that is a very deeply engrained belief.

  • And it coincides with the idea that when you have a resource that you

  • don't pay for, you overuse it.

  • Because it's free.

  • And so therefore-

  • >> So >> Trying to introduce pricing

  • into water markets.

  • Particularly given that 80% of water of water in California is used for

  • agricultural purposes.

  • So when you introduce prices into that market, you're

  • changing people's ability to make money, and in some cases to water their lawns.

  • So we really have a hybrid resource that has

  • a very complicated regulatory framework, a very complicated legal framework.

  • And working out the policy implications of that which I actually think our

  • state government is doing a pretty good job at.

  • Is something we can do to adapt to the problem we

  • have which is ongoing which is a water shortage.

  • The issue's going to be we can do that, we can be successful at that.

  • But we can never get away from the idea that we have to deal with

  • the underlying causes for why we're having a water shortage in the first place.

  • >> Tom, I've got news for you.

  • If you lived, if you lived on the Stanford campus, as I do, you pay for your water.

  • And you get a little-

  • >> Really?

  • >> Every month, you get a little bill.

  • >> But, George, I know that's true.

  • But I was in a meeting with about 50 people the other day and someone asked.

  • How many of you know what your water bill is?

  • And there were very, very few hands that went up.

  • So the question is, is it significant enough that

  • anyone really knows how much they're paying per month?

  • And until they do, are they going to change the way they.

  • [INAUDIBLE]. >> Does everybody on

  • the panel think that we, we should all have, we should all pay for our water.

  • And it should the cost of it should be substantial so

  • that we'll talk, think about this.

  • It's, it's. [CROSSTALK] >> But, but

  • we have to not only pay for water but change our systems.

  • You know we cannot continue flushing toilets with potable quality water.

  • [APPLAUSE] We have to

  • start you know separate water systems, great water systems, recycled watered,

  • technology now allows us to do that much better, you know?

  • As a, as an environmental engineer, we had a program here of what have we

  • learned in 50 years in environmental engineering.

  • And one of the things is that the energy and

  • the waste, this what drives, the process.

  • So, we have to get the energy out of the waste.

  • And the other thing is that we don't have to build huge treatment plants anymore.

  • Eh, you can have a building with its own treatment plant

  • that collects all the water and treats all the, all, all the waste water.

  • >> Right in the building?

  • >> Right on the premises.

  • And this is the type of change that we have to do.

  • >> S,so I think, [APPLAUSE] I think that this issue of paying for

  • water is an important one to raise, but

  • I think we also have to understand that water is an, an issue of equity as well.

  • And I'll give you an example from here in the Bay Area.

  • Is Palo Alto if you look at the per capita water usage per day of east Palo Alto and

  • Hillsborough two fairly different communities in the bay area.

  • Hills Hillsborough is affluent suburban,

  • East Palo Alto is mixed race more working class.

  • East Palo Altoan's use about a, a third er, sorry I should say it this way.

  • Hillsboro residents use more than three times as

  • much water per capita per day than residents of East Palo Alto.

  • So when we think about how we organize the solutions to water usage, it's important

  • to think about the equity issues and who, who you're constraining from use in

  • a pricing system and there are ways to design that I think and optimize it.

  • There's another dimension to this water issue as we look globally,

  • across the landscape as well.

  • I think it was Mark Twain who was credited with saying that whiskey is for

  • drinking and water is for fighting over.

  • [LAUGH] And this is the reason why

  • the Pentagon is really looking at this issue of climate change and

  • the threats, the global threats that we face in a world with less water.

  • And I think that's the critical component of this, and when we think about the costs

  • of inaction, we think about the costs of lives, the costs in terms of

  • military deployments, the costs in terms of human conflict.

  • >> You know there was a documentary called The Years of Living Dangerously and

  • Tom Friedman.

  • The columnist at the New York Times did a piece making the case that

  • the rebellion in Syria, which has now spun out as we've seen it,

  • started because of a drought and complaints that

  • the Government wasn't doing enough to provide the people there with water.

  • So that is the, a, a,

  • an example of how water can lead to instability, right before our very eyes.

  • Tom?

  • >> I wanted to add to what Bina was saying, which is, you are asking,

  • does everyone agree that there should be a steep price on water.

  • >> Yes. >> And, I think you've,

  • Bina's point is a very good one.

  • >> It is. >> Which is,

  • I started by saying, water is a strange, commodity because it's the stuff of life,

  • we all need it to survive and pricing it at a level where poor people can't get

  • the water they need is something we can't do as a society, obviously.

  • >> [APPLAUSE].

  • >> So, that's one point.

  • The second point I want to make is,

  • I was talking to John Hennessey before we went on today.

  • And John was saying that Stanford is doing a big project on water reuse, that we're

  • doing a ton of research, we're going to be a model for how to use less water.

  • That it's the perfect Stanford opportunity to take you know, to walk the walk of what

  • we believe, and we have the opportunity to do it and I think Stanford,

  • he was talking about massive reductions in our water use as a campus.

  • Which I think will not affect our productivity,

  • will not affect our way of life at, at all, it's just a question of

  • us applying the kind of technology that's available and we know how to use.

  • >> Now if you watch 60 Minutes, you will see,

  • now this is a way we get our ratings up by the way, if you all watch I have

  • a piece coming on water on California, which is why I am so interested.

  • And I went to San Diego where they are recycling waste, waste.

  • And their not turning it, giving it, turning it into our taps,

  • thank goodness, but they are using it to replenish the aquifer.

  • So they are putting it back into the, into our ground, which is very important.

  • I asked, well, why can't they do that in the Central Valley?

  • They don't make enough waste.

  • That's the reason.

  • They don't make enough waste.

  • They don't have enough people to create enough of it, to recycle it and

  • put it back.

  • So there are some places where it makes sense to recycle and

  • others, actually the place that needs it the most really can't do that.

  • >> Mm mh >> Kind of a catch 22.

  • >> That's a valid user study of water.

  • >> I know that.

  • >> That's where the agriculture is.

  • >> Exactly.

  • And when they now drill, they have to go down so

  • deep, that they are really they're destroying the groundwater.

  • There's not going to be any left pretty soon and they have no choice.

  • >> And the problem with,

  • with climate change is that the impacts that you see in water are worldwide.

  • For example in Costa Rica,

  • the models say we will get an increase of only 10% average precipitation.

  • And you say, well, we could live with 10%, but

  • when you look how it happens, is the dry areas becoming drier, and

  • the wet areas becoming wetter, so 10% is a huge thing when, when you look at that.

  • So our Pacific Northwest which is our California,

  • is suffering the same type of drought that you're having here.

  • >> Wow. >> Because it has to

  • do with things that are happening in the Pacific Ocean, and the temperatures, and

  • the El Nino frequency, and, you know, it's, it's a very complicated system.

  • But ultimately what is happening, is that, the distribution of water is, is changing,

  • and the dryer places are becoming dryer, and the wetter, get an excess of water.

  • >> Let's talk about a global issue right now.

  • George, this is for you.

  • Saudi Arabia, right now,

  • is doing everything it can to get the, the cost of gas down.

  • And one of the reasons is that they want, don't want us to go to renewables.

  • They want us to keep using the fossil fuels.

  • They're very clever and they've done this in the past.

  • How do we fight something like that?

  • >> Well, we wise up.

  • [LAUGH] I've seen this a couple of times.

  • [APPLAUSE] I was secretary of treasury, when we had the first a boycott,

  • oil boycott.

  • And it was a calamity.

  • There was no energy department.

  • So people would come in and see me and tell me about all the ideas they had, and

  • I thought they sounded pretty good but there was a long ways to go.

  • But then the price of oil went back down and everything stopped.

  • The people totally lost interest >> Same thing happened when they

  • had the Iranian resolution, revolution, the price went up, people got interested.

  • Now, however, we've had a sustained period and we've had,

  • I think, the most impressive scientific and engineering effort that

  • we've ever applied to this area going on, and we have produced results, big time.

  • And they're starting, they're continuing.

  • And so, I think it's now demonstrable that energy R and D pays off.

  • And I have a little book I want to plug.

  • >> Just happen to have a little book here.

  • We had a coup, two or three years ago, we had a conference here at Stanford, and

  • we had 12 MIT scientists come, and we had about the same number of Stanford,

  • and we spent two days talking about what we call game changers.

  • And then, a year later, we had a similar meeting at MIT.

  • We took our act to Washington, I might say.

  • I got John Banor, I told him set us up with a meeting with

  • the republicans on the energy, House Energy Committee, and he did.

  • And we took our group there selling energy R and

  • D was an absolute piece of cake, was no problem.

  • But if somebody, as soon as somebody says well then,

  • the government sees a good idea, we should get in there and run a business.

  • You loose it.

  • So I say to people be smart politically.

  • Get, keep the government out of business, focus on R and

  • D and you'll get plenty of money.

  • But so, anyway,

  • Bob Armstrong who now runs the MIT when Ernie Monise now is secretary of energy.

  • And I, organized this material into a little book on gamechangers.

  • And there's a lot of stuff here.

  • Then we rode around to a few other universities and

  • said, have you got something that you'd like to contribute?

  • And so, quite a few did, and you can see, there are little take outs in the book.

  • It's some there, but

  • some take outs that say, scientist X plugged this in and added this and

  • took away that, all of a sudden look what we've got, a better battery or something.

  • >> What's the name of it?

  • >> Game Changers Energy on the Moon.

  • It's a Stanford publication.

  • >> There you go. >> It's free

  • >> [LAUGH].

  • I know I'm bouncing around a little but this just popped into my head.

  • Chris.

  • Ebola.

  • Are all these strange diseases and

  • specifically Ebola in any way connected to global warming?

  • >> One of the things we see is that,

  • climate change tends to operate as a threat multiplier.

  • That's actually the term that the Department of Defense uses.

  • I don't think there is a specific climate change link where warmer temperatures are,

  • somehow associated.

  • But what we're seeing in the emergence of many diseases, especially diseases that

  • are transferred from animals to humans as, as Ebola was, is that

  • more dense urban areas, especially urban areas with very poor social services.

  • Create environments where these diseases have the potential to really take off.

  • And in many cases especially in, in parts of Africa a big pressure for

  • the densification of urban areas has been shortages of water and

  • stresses on rural lifestyles.

  • So, this is an illustration of the kind of indirect linkage, that you wouldn't want

  • to dismiss even though I don't know of any scientist who would say, yes there's

  • a one-to-one relationship between the outbreak of Ebola and climate change.

  • >> But, but there is with respect to malaria or dengue fever or Chikungunya.

  • The, the those, you know, for example, Malaria is back in the United States.

  • And with climate change in other areas, it's going up higher,

  • to higher altitudes, than it was before.

  • So, there might not be with Ebola, but there are with other diseases.

  • And public health is a, it's an area where it's actually been very difficult to

  • diagnose these one to one relations of the climate change,

  • because public health is an area where,

  • the delivery of services from governments can make so much difference.

  • And in general we've been incredibly fortunate through the century, especially

  • in places like the United States, whereas, the, the range of the mosquitos that

  • carry malaria is shifting, that the public health system has responded, and,

  • and a really key component of effectively adapting to climate change.

  • Is making sure that the infrastructure for delivery of public health, for

  • delivery of good early warning systems and disaster responses is really in place.

  • >> Now consumption and demand for energy

  • in this country anyway, this country has been going down, and I wonder why.

  • Does, do any of you have any thoughts about what's happening?

  • >> Efficiency.

  • >> We are, we are learning how to use energy more efficiently.

  • It's the cleanest energy there is.

  • And that's happening.

  • >> I totally agree.

  • We're doing, you know,

  • we're doing more actual useful work with the energy that we are consuming.

  • So the actual amount of work and good productivity coming out of the energy,

  • is going up.

  • But we're not wasting as much, so the consumption can drop.

  • >> I wish it were true that the consumption in the US were going down.

  • From 2007 to 2012, we saw consistent year on year decreases in

  • total greenhouse gas emissions from the US.

  • Unfortunately, in 2013, they headed back up.

  • >> They did. >> And, the, Interpretation is that, most

  • of the decrease was a result of natural gas replacing coal and the electricity

  • sector, which is an a really important step toward decreasing overall emissions.

  • But that's been countered by increase in economic activity, which,

  • which is also something that we, we, we want to-

  • >> Because we can't have a recession.

  • >> Nurture. Right.

  • >> Yeah. >> And, and

  • the real challenge is how to be more energy efficient and

  • to make sure that the energy that we are putting in the system in

  • the futures isn't based on fossil fuels and high emitting fossil fuels.

  • >> I think water is the same situation.

  • You know there's such phenomenal waste with water that it hasn't even caught up

  • to anywhere close to the level of visibility and

  • accountability that energy has.

  • Most people don't know their energy bill let alone their water bill. But

  • >> Right.

  • The waste with water is truly amazing.

  • >> Okay.

  • >> There is the issue of the carbon intensity of the economy, you know,

  • how much tons of CO2 per thousand dollars of GDP?

  • And that is a very important measure for all the countries in the world,

  • and developed countries have lower carbon intensities.

  • As, as you go through developement, carbon intensity, improves.

  • But, this is an important variable to track because that's what

  • we really want to do.

  • We want to get more work out of the energy with less emissions.

  • that, that is happening, but

  • it's one of the things that developing countries have really to focus on.

  • For example, China had a very, very inefficient economy.

  • And that's why their goal is to improve 45% in

  • the carbon intensity of the economy.

  • And a lot of developing countries have to do that.

  • The US, as well, but the US is already in a, in a different stage.

  • >> Okay.

  • I'm going to ask a final question for all of you.

  • And we'll go, we'll do a round.

  • And its a its a two part question are you optimistic or not about.

  • Humanity's ability to get their hands on this issue, and

  • at least, begin to solve the problem and,

  • is there any question I didn't ask you that you want to leave the audience with.

  • Let's start with you We'll go this way.

  • >> Well, I think we have some biological inclination towards optimism.

  • otherwise, we, we wouldn't be around.

  • [APPLAUSE] but, but

  • you know, I've been in this game for 40 years and have not seen much progress.

  • So there, there is a high level of frustration.

  • But the what we have to do really is that we have to work harder and, and

  • work smarter.

  • I thought we were going to be moved by big ethical issues.

  • You know Captain Cousteau once told me,

  • I have a recurring dream more a nightmare, of thousands of eyes of thousands of

  • unborn children looking at me and telling me how could you be so irresponsible.

  • Of course he was talking about the oceans, but we're treating the atmosphere the same

  • way, and I do think that this is critical issue for our generation.

  • And that we have to work harder, we have to work at all levels and,

  • if we go down, we go down fighting, but we can't stop.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> You don't sound that optimistic to me.

  • [LAUGH] JB?

  • >> Well, I'm incredibly optimistic.

  • You know, I, I feel I think we focused a lot on some of the kind of negativity and

  • the, the, maybe a little more on the fear of you know, what, what climate change

  • and, and the, the sort of negative impacts might be, but there are, there are so

  • many cool opportunities and so many things that are evolving and improving.

  • Somewhat to address climate change, but

  • also just because technology is moving forward so quickly.

  • That I think a lot of the solutions are going to come,

  • completely in parallel, maybe not mandated by a particular government or

  • a particular policy, but you know they'll come because consumers just want

  • a better product that's using different or newer technology.

  • And at Tesla we focus a ton on this.

  • We can't rely on a certain government policy to, you know, convince or, or

  • force a customer to buy a product.

  • We have to make the product better.

  • We have to make the, the customer want to buy [LAUGH] the product, because it's

  • cool, it's fun and it's better than the, the incumbent competition.

  • And in more and more places, not just cars, but

  • in renewable energy with wind energy being cheaper than fossil fuel in mo,

  • many places, solar energy dropping to parity.

  • You know, I think we're going to see that happening irregardless of

  • whether people are, are fixated on the negativity of the climate change.

  • And in general we're, we're completely surrounded by solutions to this.

  • You know, I'd be pessimistic if we didn't have you know, enough solar energy in

  • absolute abundance or enough wind energy or hydro or geothermal.

  • We can pick, you know, any one of, like, five or six solutions here for

  • this whole system and do it today without much cost increase.

  • You know, the, the pessimism, I think, should come if there wasn't a ready

  • solution but we see many of them, so, to me, I'm pretty optimistic.

  • I think we're going to fix it and

  • I think it's actually going to end up a better place than where we are today

  • on almost every level [APPLAUSE].

  • >> Yeah.

  • You know, JD, I wish I'd saved you for last so

  • we can all go out [INAUDIBLE] feeling good.

  • [LAUGHTER} Chris?

  • >> My research is on the impact of climate change.

  • And the impacts we've already seen are really intimidating and

  • the prospects of impacts going forward are intimidating.

  • The, the most challenging aspect of the climate problem is, is the urgency

  • of action and the consequence of delaying even by a few years or a few decades.

  • On the other hand, it's incredibly inspirational to sit in

  • a group like this with thousands of people making it a priority, for

  • a great university like Stanford to make it a priority, and for people from

  • across the political spectrum to have really creative ideas about solutions.

  • So what, what I'm optimistic about is that the, the pieces are there.

  • But what I'm concerned about is that we continue to have this oh,

  • we can start thinking about it tomorrow, we can start thinking about it next year,

  • we can start thinking about it in the next administration.

  • And I, I think that the progress we've seen in California, the progress we've

  • seen from the Obama administration have really begun to turn the corner, and

  • that's what I'm optimistic about.

  • >> Began to turn the corner.

  • >> I hope.

  • >> And I wish I'd ended with you.

  • [LAUGH] Bina.

  • >> So there's a cartoon from 1861, Vanity Fair,

  • that a climate scientist friend of mine recently shared with me, and

  • in the cartoon, you see a bunch of whales and the whales are clinking their

  • champagne glasses together because of the discovery of oil well in Pennsylvania.

  • [APPLAUSE] [LAUGH]

  • >> [CROSSTALK] >> And, and yes, and so I think.

  • [LAUGH].

  • One of the insights is that humor,

  • I think is what keeps a lot of people who work in this arena going and optimistic,

  • and the other insight from that for me is that the reason this cartoon was funny,

  • is because nobody was thinking about the whales, right,

  • they were thinking about the future, and the fuel of the future.

  • And that we are beginning, I think, to focus on the future and

  • the road that lies ahead and and what the opportunities are for

  • making our society better by acting on climate change, and that gives me hope.

  • Certainly the urgency of the crisis and the time we have is troubling.

  • I look at the time that we're in and I feel energized.

  • I feel like it is the time that we're going to address this.

  • I feel we are going to take bold action in my lifetime.

  • And I look at the time between Stonewall and gay marriage rights.

  • I look at the time between Selma and Montgomery and

  • electing the first black president and I think we have been at this a while with

  • climate change, but maybe this is our moment.

  • [SOUND] >> Wow.

  • That's great.

  • [APPLAUSE] George.

  • >> I think the problems are daunting.

  • And they come at a time when governments are weakening.

  • >> Mm-hm.

  • >> Severn capacity is becoming less.

  • The information and

  • communication age means that you have to pay attention to diversity.

  • And, over the years, it's been denied or suppressed, you can't do that anymore.

  • Hong Kong will never be the same.

  • So governments have to get their act together in a much better way.

  • At the same time,

  • I've had enough experience with apparently intractable problems.

  • Getting worked that I, I have the optimism that comes from seeing that happen.

  • And in the case of [COUGH] the global warming issues and the energy issues.

  • There's so much productivity in the energy R&D that I

  • got exposed to, that, these things are going to happen that are very positive,

  • and, I think if we can get the kind of incentives that come from a carbon tax or

  • something like that, we'll, we'll get there.

  • And people say, well, if we do well, then what about China?

  • I think China can be worked with and we gotta figure out how to do it.

  • I think the way is fairly clear.

  • But we gotta get busy on things like that and it can be done.

  • So, I say yes it's a tough road out there.

  • But it can be we, we've had so many tough roads in the past, that we've dealt with.

  • But I'm sure we can do this one.

  • >> [LAUGH]

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Tom.

  • >> So.

  • I would like to break this up into two parts and

  • to say that I'm optimistic about both.

  • The first one has to do with what JB was talking about which is

  • our ability to innovate.

  • I just find it impossible to sit on the stage at Naples Pavillion, and

  • say we can't innovate technically, that we can't come up with new

  • solutions to problems that are better, cheaper, cleaner.

  • That just seems to me to be entirely illogical and

  • a real disservice to American research and American business.

  • So, I strongly believe that our ability to solve this from a technical standpoint and

  • to come up with ideas that exist now,

  • multiple ideas, absolutely exist, and I think that, right.

  • I'll end by saying in this part, I was with someone named Paul Hockin who

  • is doing something called draw down, and he has 94 different technologies, and

  • their impact on global warming, and, green house gas emissions.

  • And he shows if we adopt them on a reasonable scale and

  • we do them all simultaneously,

  • what is that going to do to our ability to get the carbon neutrality?

  • And when you look at it, it's very reassuring that we

  • have the ability to do this form an innovation standpoint.

  • But I think there's been one thing that we have not talked about today that I

  • think is the critical part of this.

  • And the question for the United States to do what George is talking about,

  • which is to be part of the leadership or to be a leader,

  • the country the we really are and lead the world on a, a global problem, is politics.

  • And we have not talked about the politics here.

  • [APPLAUSE] So, so let me say this.

  • I, you know, I'm a humble Stanford MBA.

  • And I quit my job in the private sector to try and

  • understand the political issue in the United States with this problem.

  • And we have been working in 2014 in 10 states, to try and

  • put climate and energy on the ballot on November 4th.

  • So I can tell you, most of what we're doing, two thirds to

  • three quarters of what we're doing is what we describe as citizen to citizen contact.

  • >> Yeah.

  • So going back to 1776 and having people talk to each other about why this is

  • important, why they should care, why they should change their vote based on this.

  • And I will say this as someone who's not a political professional.

  • I think that the power of democracy is incredible.

  • I think that, its ability,

  • our ability as citizens to change what, to really lead on this.

  • To do what Americans have traditionally done which is to

  • look at the biggest problems in the world and analyze them and

  • decide how to solve them, is something that has been going on for generations.

  • Really hundreds of years.

  • And to question whether we have that ability seems, to me,

  • to be, you know, really unrealistic.

  • We have this ability when we choose to act on it.

  • And I believe, if you look at 2014, in those ten states, energy and

  • climate have moved up to being a first-tier issue.

  • They will determine how people look at candidates.

  • People are being forced to address these issues directly to get elected, and

  • I don't think that that is the ceiling of where we are going.

  • I think that we are going to move this to a place,

  • where people understand, how critical this is to us as a nation,

  • and really that this is an opportunity for

  • us, to be the kind of country that we've always been.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Wow.

  • I would, I would like to congratulate Stanford for putting together

  • such a brilliant combination of people, all obviously passionate on the issue.

  • All have so much to say, I hope you enjoyed it and learned a lot.

  • I did. And, [APPLAUSE]

  • thank you.

  • And the other thing in terms of political action or the people getting interested.

  • All the great ideas always start with academics and

  • intellectuals talking about it and then it moves out from there.

  • And I think it's already started moving out from there.

  • So I want to congratulate all of you.

  • George you have a final word?

  • >> I have a final word.

  • Thank you, Leslie-

  • >> Yes, Leslie. >> For coming here and doing this.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Thank you.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Thank you all.

  • Thank you. Thank you.

  • >> For more,

  • please visit us at stanford.edu.

[SOUND] Stanford University.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 美國腔

2014年斯坦福圓桌會議。你沒有聽到的氣候對話 (Stanford Roundtable 2014: The climate conversation you haven’t heard)

  • 389 35
    Eating 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字