>> THIS WEEK, "FOURTH STREET
FORUM" IS ON THE ROAD TO THE
11th ANNUAL SUSTAINABILITY
SUMMIT, HELD AT THE WISCONSIN
CENTER IN DOWNTOWN MILWAUKEE.
THE TOPIC TODAY -- CLIMATE
CHANGE, A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY,
AND NEW ENERGY.
WELCOME TO "FOURTH STREET
FORUM."
I'M MARCUS WHITE OF THE GREATER
MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION AND YOUR
HOST THIS WEEK FOR THE FORUM.
THE GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION
IS A NEARLY CENTURY OLD
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION WITH A
MISSION OF INSPIRING
PHILANTHROPY AND STRENGTHENING
COMMUNITIES.
IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT WE ARE
WORKING WITH MILWAUKEE PUBLIC
TELEVISION TO BRING YOU THESE
CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS.
WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE AT
THE SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT AND I
JUST WANT TO START OFF RIGHT
AWAY BY THANKING OUR GUESTS.
WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE
THESE THREE GUESTS WITH US
TODAY, FOR "FOURTH STREET
FORUM."
THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL BRING
US NATIONAL AS WELL AS
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS EFFECTS
ON THE ECONOMY AND OUR FUTURE.
OUR GUESTS ARE --
DR. CHARLES HALL IS A PROFESSOR
OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND
FORESTRY AT SUNY COLLEGE IN
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK.
PROFESSOR HALL HAS SPENT
RESEARCH AND TEACHING TIME IN
MANY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING
ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, CHINA, COSTA
RICA, AND MEXICO.
WELCOME, CHARLES.
>> THANK YOU.
DR. DEBRA ROWE IS THE SENIOR
EDUCATION FELLOW FOR THE
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY
LEADERS FOR A SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE.
PROFESSOR ROWE HAS TAUGHT FOR
OVER 20 YEARS IN THE AREAS OF
RENEWABLE ENERGIES AND ENERGY
MANAGEMENT.
HER STUDENTS HAVE INCLUDED
BUILDERS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS,
AND BUILDING TRADES PEOPLE AS
WELL AS FACILITY MANAGERS.
SHE IS A FORMER OWNER OF A
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND MANAGEMENT
COMPANY.
WELCOME, DEBRA.
>>
>> CARL HEDDE IS DIRECTOR OF
CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT AT
MUNICH RE AMERICA, A WORLD
LEADER IN REINSURANCE.
THEY ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN
THE ISSUES OF CLIMATE AND
SUPPORT CLIMATE PROTECTION AND
ADAPTATION TO GLOBAL WARMING.
MR. HEDDE'S WORK INCLUDES
CATASTROPHE MANAGEMENT AND RISK
EVALUATION.
HE ALSO MANAGES A GROUP OF
SCIENTISTS THAT PROVIDE
SEISMOLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL
EXPERTISE AND RESEARCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WELCOME, CARL.
GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
CHARLES, WE'LL START WITH YOU
AND ASK EACH OF YOU THE SAME
QUESTION TO GET US STARTED, JUST
VERY BRIEFLY, AND THAT IS REALLY
JUST TO HELP US DEFINE SOME
TERMS HERE AT THE VERY
BEGINNING.
WE'RE AT THE SUSTAINABILITY
SUMMIT.
WHAT DOES THE TERM
SUSTAINABILITY MEAN FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE?
>> MOST PEOPLE THINK ABOUT IT AS
HAVING THEIR CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN HAVING THE SAME
OPPORTUNITIES, IN ENVIRONMENT
AND SO FORTH, AS WE, THE NATIVE
AMERICANS IN SYRACUSE, IN THAT
REGION OF UPSTATE NEW YORK, SAY
FOR SEVEN GENERATIONS, AND IF WE
DO THAT, THEN IT'S -- IT'S
PRETTY TOUGH.
DO YOU WANT MORE?
>> A LITTLE MORE.
WELL, MINE, ARE HOURS --
>> OK.
I THINK THERE'S NO WAY POSSIBLE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE
SUSTAINABILITY AT THE LEVEL OF
POPULATION AND AFFLUENCE THAT WE
HAVE COME TO EXPECT.
MY FOCAL POINT IS ON OIL AND
SOMETHING CALLED PEAK OIL.
YOU GO THROUGH A NATURAL
RESOURCE OVER TIME, SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, A CURVE OVER TIME OF
USE AND WE'RE SOMEWHERE UP HERE
WITH OIL AND PRETTY SOON, WITH
GAS, AND LITTLE BIT MORE,
ANOTHER FEW DECADES FOR COAL,
AND EXACTLY WHEN WE DON'T KNOW,
BUT WE KNOW IT'S COMING, AND
EVERYTHING WE DO IS DEPENDENT
UPON PETROLEUM.
>> SO TELL ME WHAT
SUSTAINABILITY MEANS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>> HAND THEN THERE'S CLIMATE.
>> THAT'S A GOOD START.
DEBRA, WHAT DOES SUSTAINABILITY
MEAN TO YOU?
>> WELL, I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU
THE MOST COMMONLY RECOGNIZED
DEFINITION INTERNATIONALLY.
IT WAS DEVELOPED BY OVER 100,000
PEOPLE, AND -- IN OVER 100
COUNTRIES AND IT'S A DEFINITION
OF SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT
THAT SAYS MEETING THE NEEDS OF
THE PRESENT IN SUCH A WAY THAT
FUTURE GENERATIONS CAN MEET
THEIR OWN NEEDS.
I WOULD ALSO LOOK TO THE WORLD
OF BUSINESS WHO STARTED COMING
TO BUSINESS SCHOOLS IN THE
UNITED STATES AS WELL AS
INTERNATIONALLY AND SAYING, GIVE
US STUDENTS WHO WERE EDUCATED IN
SUSTAINABILITY, BECAUSE WE'RE
BEING ASKED TO DO SUSTAINABILITY
ANNUAL REPORTS AND AUDITS, AND
SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT NOT ONLY
OUR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE, BUT
ALSO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND OUR
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE.
AND SO THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE IS
ANOTHER WAY THAT SUSTAINABILITY
IS OFTEN LOOKED AT.
THAT BY MAKING SMARTER DECISIONS
WITH BETTER INFORMATION, WE CAN
SIMULTANEOUSLY CREATE HEALTHIER
ECOSYSTEMS, SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND
ECONOMIES AT THE SAME TIME.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT
I TEND TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY, AND I
JUST FINISHED, WE JUST PUBLISHED
LAST WEEK AN ENCYCLOPEDIA CALLED
ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY,
VISIONS, PRINCIPLES AND
PRACTICES AND IN THE PREFACE I
ACTUALLY USED THE THEME OF
SUSTAINABILITY ABUNDANCE, SO WE
CAN COME BACK TO THAT.
>> VERY GOOD.
CARL?
>> I LOOK AT SUSTAINABILITY FROM
AN INSURANCE PERSPECTIVE, AND
REALLY, DOWN TO THE MICROLEVEL
OF US AS RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE IN
THE COMMUNITY.
WE'VE SEEN CLIMATE CHANGE, WE'RE
SEEING THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND OUR LOSS OF
STATISTICS OVER THE LAST 34 --
30, 40 YEARS SHOW THAT.
AND NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN
DEBATING WHAT IT IS AND HOW --
WHAT'S CAUSING IT.
I TAKE A VERY LOCAL LOOK AND
SAY, WHAT DO WE DO TO PROTECT
OURSELVES.
SO WE'VE BEEN DOING AN AWFUL LOT
OF RESEARCH IN AN ORGANIZATION
THAT I'M INVOLVED IN WITHIN THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY, TRYING TO
STUDY AND HOW DO WE BUILD OUR
HOMES AND BUSINESSES SAFER.
YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD PROTECT
SOMEBODY IN A STORM, NOT THAT
THEY SHOULD BE STAYING IN A CAT
5 STORM, BUT IF THEIR ROOF
DOESN'T BLOW OFF, OR THE HOUSE
DOESN'T GET DESTROYED, THE
COMMUNITY BECOMES MORE
SUSTAINABLE OVER TIME.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO MOVE OUT AND
LEAVE A COMMUNITY.
THE SAME THING WITH OUR LOCAL
BUSINESSES.
IF THESE THINGS COULD SURVIVE,
THAT THE CHANGING WEATHER THAT
WE'RE SEEING, I THINK I LOOK AT
IT'S COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY,
BUT IT STARTS WITH A FAMILY
SUSTAINABILITY.
>> WELL, CARL, LET ME STAY WITH
YOU THERE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE, YOU
KNOW, A SORT OF VERY REAL
PERSPECTIVE, GIVEN YOUR
INDUSTRY.
AND YOU MENTIONED LOSS, AND LOST
STATISTICS.
SO YOU KNOW, JUST FOR THE SAKE
OF THE ARGUMENT, IS THIS REAL,
IS CLIMATE CHANGE REAL AND ARE
YOU SEEING IT IN TERMS OF THE
IMPACT IT HAS ON THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY?
>> I'M LUCKY TO WORK FOR MUNICH
RE AS YOU MENTIONED AS I WAS
INTRODUCED.
OUR ORGANIZATION STARTED TO SEE
AND UNDERSTAND AND THINK OF THE
IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON ITS POR
FOLAYEMI OF BUSINESS AROUND THE
WORLD ABOUT 30, 40 YEARS AGO IN
THE EARLY 1970'S.
WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST
INSURERS, REINSURERS TO START TO
HIRE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND
START TO STUDY IT.
HASN'T BEEN POPULAR WITH SOME OF
OUR CLIENTS AROUND THE GLOBE,
BUT WE SEE IT IN OUR LOSS OF
STATISTICS.
NOW, IS IT ALL CLIMATE, I'M NOT
SURE, I DON'T THINK SO, IT MIGHT
BE SOME DEMOGRAPHICS LEAKING
INTO THE STATISTICS, BUT IF YOU
SAW THE GEOPHYSICAL EVENTS, THE
LOSSES SUSTAINED IS FAIRLY
CONSTANT OVER THE LAST 40, 50
YEARS.
IT'S THE WEATHER RELATED EVENTS
THAT WE'VE SEEN THE UPTICK, SO I
THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S REAL, AND
AGAIN, COMING BACK TO MY EARLIER
RESPONSE, IT'S REAL, I WORK FOR
AN ORGANIZATION, WE'RE NOT
DEBATING IT'S REAL, WE SPEND A
LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT TRYING TO
EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT,
OK, WHAT DO WE DO AS A SOCIETY,
HOW DO WE REACT, ADJUST AND LIVE
IN THAT CHANGING CLIMATE.
>> THAT I HOPE IS FOR US IN THIS
CONVERSATION WHAT PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE AWAY
FROM IT IS WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO
IN OUR SOCIETY.
DEBRA, LET'S ASSUME THAT INDEED,
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, THAT
WARMING IS REAL, THAT STORMS
HAVE INTENSIFIED AND ARE
DIFFERENT.
COULD IT BE THAT THIS IS SIMPLY
PART OF A CYCLE, MAYBE EVEN A
CENTURY'S LONG CYCLE THAT WE
JUST DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO KNOW
THAT THIS KIND OF THING HAPPENS?
>> NO, WE HAVE THE DATA, OK.
THE ONLY WAY YOU THINK WE DON'T
HAVE THE DATA IS IF YOU LISTEN
TO TALK SHOW HOSTS THAT DON'T
LET EXPERTS SPEAK TO THE FACTS,
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN SCIENCE,
WHAT YOU DO IS COMPILE A LOT OF
EVIDENCE, AND THE OVERWHELMING
AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SHOWS THE
CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING,
THAT PART OF IT IS HUMAN
INDUCED, THE PART THAT'S REALLY
MAKING IT SO DANGEROUS, IT'S
GOING TO INCREASE HUMAN
SUFFERING SO MUCH, A LOT OF IT
HAS TO DO WITH THE COMBUSTION OF
FOSSIL FUELS.
BEYOND THAT, THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVES, WE COULD BE MOVING
TOWARDS THOSE ALTERNATIVES.
THEY WOULD BE NOT ONLY SAFER FOR
US IN TERMS OF OUR OWN HEALTH,
IN TERMS OF OUR ECONOMIC
SECURITY, BUT THEY ALSO END UP
BEING GOOD INVESTMENTS.
AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS UNFURL
THE REGULATIONS OF THE
MONOPOLIES AND THE OLOGOPIES
THAT WE CALL UTILITIES COMPANIES
THAT HAVE BEEN HOLDING TO THE
STATUS QUO BECAUSE THEY MAKE
MONEY BY HOLD TO GO COMBUSTIBLE
FUEL AND NOBODY HAS MADE US
FULLY MAY FOR THE ILLINOIS
ECONOMIC EFFECTS AND THE
LONG-TERM DESTRUCTION OF
ECOSYSTEMS THAT WE ALL DEPEND ON
TO LIVE EVERY DAY.
>> CHARLES, YOU MENTIONED IN
YOUR OPENING REMARKS, COAL, AND
DEBRA HAS TALKED ABOUT FOSSIL
FUELS AND THE EFFECTS, SO HOW
MUCH IS COAL THE BURNING OF
FOSSIL FUELS, HOW MUCH HAS THAT
CONTRIBUTED TO THIS NEW REALITY?
>> I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER THIS.
I SPEND MOST OF MY LIFE STUDYING
THIS QUESTION.
I'M CONVINCED THAT CLIMATE IS
CHANGE, AND I'M NOT PERFECTLY
CONVINCED THAT HUMANS ARE BEHIND
IT, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT'S -- I'M
A MODELER, I KNOW THESE MODELS
AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT
ARE UNANSWERED IN THE MODELS,
ESPECIALLY WATER VAPOR AND
ISSUES RELATED TO THAT, BUT
LET'S NOT GO THERE.
THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, I
WOULD AGREE, IS FOR HUMANS
BEHIND IT, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE COIN IS THIS.
THAT IF YOU STOP BURNING FOSSIL
FUEL TOMORROW, 95, 99% OF THE
PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WOULD DIE.
WHAT'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF THAT, AND SO IF WE ARE GOING
TO GO TO SOMETHING ELSE, I'M AN
ECOLOGIST, I WAS AT ONE TIME PRO
NUCLEAR, WHICH, IF YOU LOOK AT
THE DATA, IS SAFEER THAN COAL
CERTAINLY, AND BUT IT'S TOO LATE
FOR THAT.
CAN WE POSSIBLY -- DO WE EVEN
HAVE ENOUGH FOSSIL FUEL TO BUILD
ENOUGH SOLAR DEVICES TO HAVE
ANYTHING LIKE TODAY'S STANDARD
OF LIVING FOR SEVEN BILLION
PEOPLE.
IT'S NOT CLEAR.
>> WELL --
>> WE'RE CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE SITUATIONS IN
MY OPINION, AND I DON'T KNOW
THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEMS APPROACH,
I'M A SYSTEMS SCIENTIST, A
SYSTEMS ECOLOGIST, I DON'T THINK
WE HAVE A SYSTEMS APPROACH, WE
ARE NOT EDUCATING TO A SYSTEMS
APPROACH TO TRAIN PEOPLE TO DEAL
WITH THE ENTIRETY OF THE
PROBLEM.
EVERYBODY JUST TAKES THEIR ONE
PIECE.
AND ARGUES FROM THAT POINT OF
VIEW.
I COULD GO ON, BUT --
>> DEBRA, I WANT TO ASK YOU, YOU
KNOW, BASED ON SOMETHING CHARLES
SAID, IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO ME IN A
LOT OF CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY
ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY, ABOUT
QUALITY OF LIFE, I THINK THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT CHARLES,
THAT WE HAVE THIS ASSUMPTION
THAT FOR GENERATIONS TO COME, WE
NEED TO SUSTAIN AN AMERICAN
MIDDLE CLASS LIFESTYLE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S
SIMPLY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE
WORLD.
WHAT'S THE IMPACT RIGHT NOW ON
THE REST OF THE WORLD, IN TERMS
OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE,
AND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TRYING
TO CREATE SOME KIND OF, YOU
KNOW, TWO-CAR FAMILY FOR
EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD?
>> I LOVE THE UNITED STATES.
I LOVE OUR COUNTRY AND I WANT TO
CONTINUE TO SEE IT BE A
WONDERFUL COUNTRY THAT OTHERS
CAN LOOK TO, BUT WE'RE DOING
SOME THINGS THAT ARE REALLY OFF
BASE, SO IF YOU LOOK AT
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT, YOU'LL
FIND THAT IF EVERYBODY LOOKS IN
THE WORLD LIKE WE DO, IN THE
U.S., WE'LL NEED FOUR TO SIX
PLANETS OF RESOURCES.
>> JUST FOR THE RESOURCES --
>> WE ONLY HAVE ONE, SO LET ME
EXPLAIN TO YOU, I HAVE GRADUATE
DEGREES IN PSYCHOLOGY, I HAVE A
Ph.D. IN BUSINESS, I OWNED AN
ENERGY COMPANY, I WENT INTO
SENIOR CITIZEN COMPLEXES, WHERE
PEOPLE WERE CHOOSING BETWEEN
HEATING AND EATING.
AND SHOWED THEM HOW THEY DIDN'T
HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE.
THE AMOUNT OF WASTE IN THIS
COUNTRY, IN OUR CONSUMPTION, IS
UNCONSCIONABLE.
IT'S SHAMEFUL.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH OF WHAT
BUILDS QUALITY OF LIFE, ONCE YOU
CAN PAY YOUR BASIC BILLS, IT'S
THE QUALITY OF YOUR
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS,
IT'S NOT MORE STUFF.
SO PART OF THIS IS EDUCATING OUR
COMMUNITY, EDUCATING WHICH IS A
LOCAL COMMUNITY, A NATIONAL
COMMUNITY AND A GLOBAL COMMUNITY
ABOUT HOW TO BUILD A QUALITY OF
LIFE THAT DOESN'T DESTROY THE
PLANET FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
WILL WE PAY THE PRICE FOR WHAT
WE'VE DONE SO FAR?
ABSOLUTELY.
ARE THERE THINGS WE CAN DO?
YES.
ALTHOUGH I WOULD WARN ABOUT
PUTTING A STRONGER ROOF ON A
HOUSE THAT'S ON A COASTLINE,
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE SO MANY
STORMS, BUT IT'S STILL NOT
VIABLE AND I'M NOT SURE I WANT
MY TAX DOLLARS RECOOP RATING AND
SAVING THAT -- RECUPERATING AND
SAVING THAT COMMUNITIES OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE
INVESTMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO
PAY FOR THEMSELVES AND CREATE
CLEAN AND GREEN ENERGY FOR ALL
OF US FOR THE FUTURE.
>> WE'RE ADVOCATES OF THE FIRST
STEP IS REALLY THE LAND USE
PLANNING, IT'S NOT BUILDING --
THE OTHER PIECE THAT I THINK
THAT WE -- I KNOW WE ADVOCATE
AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
IS RISK-BASED PRICING.
AND RISK BASED PRICING AND
HIGHLY USE IT IN THE CONTEXT OF
INSURANCE PRODUCT, IF YOU PUT
YOURSELF ON THE COAST, IF YOU
PUT YOURSELF IN HARM'S WAY, YOU
SHOULD BE PAYING A HIGHER PRICE
TO ENSURE YOURSELF.
>> THIS IS WHERE WE'RE MOVING
RIGHT NOW.
ISN'T THERE ACTION IN CONGRESS
TO DO JUST THAT.
>> THERE WAS ON THE NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, BUT
THAT'S BEEN ROLLED BACK A FEW
YEARS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW,
RISK-BASED PRICING WAS A LITTLE
BIT MAYBE TOO OUT THERE FOR
POLITICS.
>> OK.
>> OF THE SITUATION, BUT RISK
BASED PRICING, I THINK, WILL
CHANGE PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
CHANGE.
WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, DO
SOMETHING SMARTER.
DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN HARMS WAY,
BUT IF YOU ARE IN HARM'S WAY,
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A COST
TO THAT, UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
COULD MAKE YOUR HOUSE AND ROOF
STRONGER, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE,
BECAUSE WE WORRY ABOUT LIFE
SAFETY ISSUES AS WELL AND AGAIN,
NOT THAT YOU SHOULD STAY IF
YOU'RE TOLD TO EVACUATE
SOMEPLACE, YOU SHOULD GET OUT,
BUT WE'VE DONE SOME TESTING AND
YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN THE WIND
RESEARCH FACILITY AT THE IBHS,
WE BUILT TWO FULL-SCALE HOMES IN
THIS WIND RESEARCH FACILITY,
BOTH BUILT TO ILLINOIS BUILDING
CODES, SUBJECTED THEM TO 90,
95-MILE-PER-HOUR WINDS AND ONE
THAT WAS BUILT TO CODE BUT
WASN'T BUILT TO FORTIFIED
STANDARDS BLEW DOWN.
BUILT TO CODE.
AND A 90, 95-MILE-PER-HOUR WIND,
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A
MASSIVE HURRICANE-FORCE WIND, SO
THINK ABOUT A YOUNG FAMILY
THAT'S LIVING IN THAT BRAND NEW
HOME THAT THEY'VE JUST MOVED
INTO, AND THAT HAPPENS, SO WE
HAVE TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, IT'S
LAND USE PLANNING, WE HAVE TO
CHANGE OUR BUILDING CODES, WE
HAVE TO CHANGE OUR BUILDING
PRACTICES.
SO MUCH WE COULD DO AND NOW SOME
OF THE RESEARCH THAT'S BEING
SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ARE TEACHING
US HOW TO MAKE SOME OF THESE
CHANGES.
>> ARE WE SEEING MORE OF A
NEGATIVE IMPACT IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE WORLD, IS IT A CASE WHERE
YOU KNOW, THE WESTERN EUROPE,
NORTH AMERICA, WE'RE LIVING OUR
LIFE STILLS AND OTHER PARTS OF
THE WORLD ARE SEEING THEIR WATER
RISE, ARE WE AT THAT KIND OF
POINT YET?
>> THAT'S NOT MY AREA OF
EXPERTISE.
>> MY AREA.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND WHO IS A
LAWYER FOR THE HIGH -- ISLAND
STATES AND SHE COMES TO
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES WITH A
MASK AND SNORKEL ON, BECAUSE SHE
WANTS TO SHOW PEOPLE THEY'RE
GOING UNDER WATER.
I WORKS WITH SMALL BUSINESSES,
COLLEGES AND COMMUNITIES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY, TO INFUSE
SUSTAINABILITY IN WHAT THEY DO,
BUT WE GREW UP IN THIS STATE OF
HISTORY CALLED THE FOSSIL FUEL.
IF YOU THINK EVERYBODY HAS A
TERRIBLE QUALITY OF LIFE BEFORE
THEY WERE FOSSIL FUELS, I DON'T
THINK SO.
WHETHER WE WORK WITH THESE --
>> BUT NOT FOR SEVEN BILLION
PEOPLE.
>> I KNOW.
SO WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS
THAT AND I THINK WE CAN.
>> POPULATION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
LET'S GIVE CONTRACEPTION TO
EVERY WOMAN WHO WANTS IT AND
EDUCATION.
LIFTING THEM OUT OF POVERTY.
IF YOU HAVEN'T READ PLAN D, A
PLAN TO SAVE CIVILIZATION BY
LESTER BROWN, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD
IT AND IT SAYS AT THE END THINGS
CAN YOU DO TO LIFT PEOPLE OUT OF
THE POVERTY AT THE SAME TIME
THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THESE
ISSUES OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
IS IT ALL THE SOLUTIONS OR NOT?
NO.
BUT IS THERE A CONTINUUM OF
REDUCING HUMAN SUFFERING AND
IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE?
YES.
SO STOP FEELING DOOM AND GLOOM
AND GO OUT THERE AND HELP BE
PART OF THE SOLUTION.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
>> WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT.
I AM BY THE WAY NOT GOING TO
THROW MY NOTES AWAY, BECAUSE --
BUT CHARLES, LET'S TALK MORE
ABOUT THE SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE,
AND INDEED, PRIOR TO FOSSIL
FUELS, THERE WAS A QUALITY OF
LIFE, EARTH HAD NOTHING LIKE THE
POPULATION IT HAS NOW.
>> HALF A BILLION PEOPLE.
>> HALF A BILLION PEOPLE,
INCREDIBLE.
SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WOULD
SUGGEST THAT WE AS INDIVIDUALS
DO?
THE POPULATION IS ONLY GOING TO
CONTINUE INCREASING, RIGHT?
EVERY PROJECTION --
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> WELL, LET'S ASSUME IT'S GOING
TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS,
THERE WILL BE A LEVELING OFF OF
POPULATION.
>> INTERESTING.
>> TANNED -- AND THERE MAY BE --
>> AND THERE COULD BE A LOT MORE
LEVELING, EXCUSE ME FOR
INTERRUPTING.
>> I APPRECIATE.
>> THERE COULD BE A LOT MORE IF
WE COULD GET POPULATION BACK IN
THE MAINSTREAM DISCUSSION, IN
THE MEDIA, IN OUR CONGRESS, AND
ALL AROUND THE WORLD, BECAUSE A
5% OR 10% OF THE PEOPLE WITH
VERY STRONG VIEWS, NOT THAT I
DON'T RESPECT EVERYBODY'S VIEWS,
BUT 5% OR 10% OF THE PEOPLE FOR
THE LAST 50 YEARS HAVE BEEN
RUNNING THESE AGENDA ON
POPULATION AN WE HAVEN'T BEEN
TALKING ABOUT IT AND WE'VE BEEN
BAILING OUT MORE PEOPLE WITH
MORE OIL, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN
DOING AND NOW WE CAN'T DO IT
ANYMORE.
AND YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD,
YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PLACES THAT
ARE HAVING HUGE POLITICAL
ISSUES, SYRIA, EGYPT, VENEZUELA,
ARGENTINA, AND WE CAN GO ON, ALL
OF THESE COUNTRIES WERE ONCE
MAJOR OIL PRODUCERS, HAVE
REACHED THEIR OWN PEAK AND ARE
DECLINING AND IT'S A 12 OR 15
YEARS AFTER THEIR PEAK, AROUND
ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY NOT ONLY
DON'T HAVE THE BENEFITS OF
SELLING THEIR OIL TO THE WORLD,
WHICH WAS OFTEN HOW THE
GOVERNMENT IS PAID FOR WHATEVER
THEY DID, NOW THEY HAVE TO BUY
IT, SO THAT EGYPT CAN'T EVEN --
DOESN'T EVEN HAVE DIESEL TO RUN
ITS PUMPS, TO PUMP THE NILE
RIVER UP TO THE AGRICULTURE, TO
RUN THEIR TRACTORS, BECAUSE IT'S
TOO EXPENSIVE.
>> SO THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SAID IF
WE STOP BURNING FOSS STILL FUELS
TOLD, IT'S BECAUSE SO MUCH OF
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE RELIES ON
FOSSIL FUELS.
>> WITH SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE OR
EVEN WITH 300 MILLION, 300 PLUS
MILLION IN THE UNITED STATES, AT
OUR LEVEL OF AFFLUENCE.
IT'S ALL DEPENDENT UPON OUR USE
OF FOSSIL FUELS AND NOT --
>> BUT WE'RE ALL PRETTY CLOSE TO
ALL.
>> LET ME GIVE YOU AN
ALTERNATIVE.
DR. MARK JACOBSON IS AT THE
STANFORD ENERGY INSTITUTE AND HE
A FEW YEARS AGO PUBLISHED A
PAPER BASED ON RESEARCH, SAYING
WE COULD MEET 100% OF OUR
ENERGY.
A LOT OF EXPERTS ARGUE, IS IT
70%, 80%, 100%, WE'RE NOT EVEN
CLOSE TO THAT NOW.
SO WE'RE SITTING WITH THE
POTENTIALS OF INSTALLING SYSTEMS
THAT WILL PAY FOR THEMSELVES,
WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU BOUGHT
SOMETHING THAT PAID FOR ITSELF?
THAT WILL GIVE YOU RETURNS ON
INVESTMENT, THAT ARE LESS
VOLATILE, AND AS HEALTHY AS WHAT
YOU SEE IN A STOCK MARKET, SO
NOW WE HAVE ECONOMIC SECURITY
FOR PEOPLE'S RETIREMENT.
WHY IS IT THAT IF YOU HOOK UP TO
YOUR UTILITY COMPANY, YOU'RE
PAYING FOR A COAL-FIRED POWER
PLANT, THAT HAS BEEN FINANCED
OVER A VERY LONG TERM, AND YOU
ONLY PAY SMALL PAYMENTS, BUT IF
YOU WANT TO GO SOLAR, YOU HAVE
TO PAY FOR THE WHOLE THING UP
FRONT AND PAY FOR THE
MAINTENANCE.
THAT IS A -- THAT IS A POLITICAL
POLICY PROBLEM.
SO YOU CAN CONTACT YOUR
UTILITIES, CONTACT YOUR ELECT
REPRESENTATIVES, THEY ARE TOO
COMFORTABLE RIGHT NOW WITH THE
STATUS QUO.
SHINE A LIGHT ON THEM AND SAY,
WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS, AND
YOU'RE NOT MOVING FAST ENOUGH.
WE HAVE A GROUP CALLED YOUTH
ENERGY SOLUTION, THAT'S DOING
EXACTLY THAT.
BUT GO LOOK AT MARK JACOBSON'S
WORK AT THE STANFORD ENERGY
INSTITUTE, LOOK AT THE SOLAR
INSTITUTE AT GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY, LOOK AT THE ENERGY
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, LOOK
AT WHAT THE WORLD BANK IS DOING,
REFUSING TO FINANCE MORE
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS AND YOU
START TO SEE THE SOLUTIONS THAT
ARE OUT THERE.
ALSO, YOU GOT TO DO SOME WORK ON
OVERCOMING YOUR GRIEF.
HONOR YOUR GRIEF, BUT MOVE
BEYOND IT, SO THE DOOM AND GLOOM
DOESN'T KEEP YOU FROM MOVING
FORWARD ON VIABLE SOLUTIONS.
>> SO CARL, IN TERMS OF MOVING
FORWARD, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ALL
CAN DO, WE KNOW WE CAN MAKE --
WE CAN CREATE GREATER DEMAND FOR
SOLAR, FOR WIND POWER, WHAT ARE
SOME OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO BE
DOING IN OUR OWN HOUSEHOLDS, IN
OUR OWN COMMUNITIES.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS,
AND AS AN INSURANCE, REINSURANCE
ORGANIZATION, WE HELP TRANSFER
RISK, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT SOLAR
PANELS UP ON YOUR ROOF, AND
THERE'S A RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT.
SO MY ORGANIZATION, WE'VE BEEN
SUPPORTERS OF THAT RISK TRANSFER
MECHANISM.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE MADE
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN
DIFFERENT I WOULD SAY DIFFERENT
ENERGY TYPES OF NOT NATURAL GAS
OR COAL, BUT SOLAR AND WIND
FORMS, BOTH FROM A RISK
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, BUT ALSO
INVESTMENTS.
WE HAVE A MAJOR INVESTMENT AS
WELL AS RISK MANAGEMENT TRANSFER
MECHANISM FOR A SOLAR FORM
CALLED DESERT TECH, IN NORTHERN
AFRICA, SO YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE
THAT, WE COULD DO, AN COMING
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL, YOU HAVE
TO TAKE STEPS IN YOUR OWN
FAMILY, WHETHER IT'S
CONSERVATION, WHETHER IT'S
CHANGES TO YOUR OWN
INFRASTRUCTURE.
>> ARE WE GOING TO SEE
COMMUNITIES, YOU MENTIONED
NORTHERN AFRICA, ARE WE GOING TO
SEE PLACES IN THE DEVELOPING
WORLD THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO GROW, TO DEVELOP
THEIR ECONOMIES, WITHOUT EVER
HAVING THE SAME RELIANCE ON
FOSSIL FUELS THAT WE HAVE HAD?
>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING.
THERE ARE EXAMPLES IN CHINA,
THERE ARE EXAMPLES IN AFRICA,
INDIA, SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE A
LOOK.
SO, SO MANY OF US ARE ISOLATED
IN THE UNITED STATES.
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF THE
SOLUTIONS OUT THERE AND YOU CAN
EVEN USE GOOGLE AND FIND THOSE
SOLUTIONS.
YOU KNOW AUSTRALIA HAS A
NATIONAL ENERGY EDUCATION PLAN.
WE DON'T.
IN THE UNITED STATES.
I'M OFTEN A KEYNOTE SPEAKER
INTERNATIONALLY, AT CONFERENCES,
AND OFTENTIMES, THEY CAN'T HEAR
WHAT'S GOING ON THAT'S SO GREAT
IN THE UNITED STATES.
BECAUSE THEY HEAR ALL THE THINGS
WE AREN'T DOING, ALL OF THE
THINGS WE'RE DOING THAT'S
CONTINUING TO CREATE MORE
POLLUTION AND ILLNESS.
NOT ONLY IN THE ECONOMY, BUT IN
PEOPLE'S HEALTH, HERE AND AROUND
THE WORLD.
AND UNTIL THEY ASK THE QUESTION
OF WHAT ARE YOU DOING OVER
THERE?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
DOING, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT?
THAT THEN THEY CAN HEAR THE GOOD
THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO,
BUT REALLY, THE MODELS ARE IN
OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL.
TAKE A LOOK AT THE REACH LAWS.
YOU KNOW, THE THOUSANDS OF
CHEMICALS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS
COUNTRY THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN
TESTED FOR SAFETY?
WELL, IN THE EUROPEAN UNION THEY
TOOK BLOOD SAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE POLICYMAKERS AND AS SOON AS
THEY SAW THAT STUFF WAS IN THEIR
BLOOD, THEY PASSED A LAW TO TEST
THOSE.
>> WELL, ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?
CHARLES, LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE POLICY SIDE, AND
YOU KNOW, CARL MENTIONED A
LITTLE BIT, THAT THEY'VE ROLLED
BACK ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE
CHANGES.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW,
IN ANY PRESIDENTIAL KIND OF
ELECTION PERIOD, NO ONE WANTS TO
ALIENATE FLORIDA, AND SO PERHAPS
IT JUST GETS DOWN TO POLITICS
MORE THAN POLICY, IN TERMS OF
ANY OF THESE CHANGES.
THE NOTION OF A CARBON TAX COMES
UP FROM TIME TO TIME, IT SEEMS
TO GO IN FITS AND STARTS.
IS THERE SOMETHING TO THAT, IF
WE DO INDEED NEED TO DECREASE
OUR DEPENDENCY ON FOSSIL FUELS,
EITHER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OR
BECAUSE THEY'RE COMPLETING, IS
THERE A WAY THERE -- COMPLETING,
IS THERE A WAY THERE TO MOTIVATE
DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR?
>> FIRST OF ALL AS A SCIENTIST,
I TRY NOT TO DO POLICY SO I HAVE
TO ANSWER AS A CITIZEN.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
>> AND CARBON -- WHEN YOU DO
THESE KINDS OF THINGS -- OH,
YOU'RE GOING TO KILL ME FOR
THIS.
>> I'M SITTING FURTHER, YOU'RE
SAFE.
>> YOU USUALLY HAVE TO DO A COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND IF THE COST
OF BURNING A TON IS $20, THEN
I'VE GOT AT LEAST ONE STUDY,
MAYBE IT'S SUSPECT, MAYBE NOT,
THAT SAID THE BENEFIT IS 100
TIMES MORE.
THAT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME,
BECAUSE ALL OF OUR WEALTH
ESSENTIALLY COMES FROM BURNING
FOSSIL FUEL.
NOW, COULD WE DO THAT WITH OTHER
FORMS OF ENERGY, WE ALL WOULD
LIKE THAT?
IT'S VERY, VERY TOUGH.
BECAUSE THE ENERGY RETURN ON
INVESTMENT, THAT'S MY THING, THE
ENERGY YOU GET BACK FROM THE
ENERGY YOU PUT IN IT IS
GENERALLY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU
INCLUDE DEALING WITH THE
IRREGULARITIES OF AVAILABILITY
OF SOLAR AND WIND AND SO FORTH,
BUT ANYWAY, IT'S QUITE -- AS THE
WORLD EXISTS NOW, WHICH IS, I
ACCEPT THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT
IS, NOT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, WE
CERTAINLY GET A HUGELY GREATER
RETURN FROM A TON THAN WE GET
FROM BURNING IT.
NOW SHOULD WE HAVE A TAX THAT
WILL ENCOURAGE US TO GO IN A
DIFFERENT WAY?
I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE FAIR
IN DOING BENEFITS AS WELL AS
COSTS, IN FOSSIL FUEL, MOST
PEOPLE WOULD NOT LIKE TO GIVE UP
THEIR AFFLUENCE.
EVERY COUNTRY -- I WORKED IN 30
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, I NEVER MET
ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO BE POOR.
>> CARL, FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE --
>> AGAIN, I'LL PUT MY CITIZEN
HAT ON, AND YOU KNOW, COMES BACK
TO MY EXAMPLE OF RISK ADEQUATE
PRICING ON THE INSURANCE SIDE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY,
IF IT WAS RISK ADEQUATE PRICING
ON THE ENERGY SIDE, AND THERE'S
A COST OF RISK, IT'S NOT --
MIGHT NOT BE JUST THE COST OF
THE PRODUCT ITSELF.
YOU CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE -- WE MAKE
DECISIONS ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS.
AND IF YOU FEEL THAT THAT'S COST
EFFECTIVE FOR YOU TO CHANGE YOUR
BEHAVIOR, I THINK THAT WILL
CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
>> DEBRA, LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS
CHANGE THAT WE'RE SEEING.
WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF
AGRICULTURE, IN TERMS OF SOME OF
THE BASICS OF LIFE.
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT OUR CARS AND
THE ENERGY WE NEED FOR THIS AND
THAT.
BUT WHAT ABOUT SOME OF THE
FUNDAMENTALS, ARE WE SEEING AN
IMPACT ON HOW WE'RE ABLE TO EVEN
PRODUCE FOOD?
>> WE'RE SEEING IMPACTS, YES.
WE ARE NOT REALIZING POTENTIALS
YET.
SO IF YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT
SOLYNDRA OF THE POSITIVE
POSSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVEN'T
IMPLEMENTED YET, GO LOOK AT THE
WORK AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY.
ONE OF THE FIRST LAND GRANT
COLLEGES IN THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE
DONE THE ANALYSES ON CAN WE FEED
THE WORD WITH SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE.
FAN FAST -- FANTASTIC.
AGRICULTURE IS COMPLICATED,
DEPENDING ON THE WATER AND SOIL
THAT IN SOME PLACES YOU'LL BE
ABLE TO PRODUCE MORE, OTHER
PLACES LESS, BUT THAT WE CAN
MEET OUR FOOD NEEDS, WITH THE
FORM OF AGRICULTURE THAT DOES
NOT DESTROY OUR ECOSYSTEMS OR
OUR HEALTH.
THE SECOND PLACE THAT I WOULD
LOOK TO IS THE DAIRY INNOVATION
COUNCIL.
SO THE DAIRY INNOVATION COUNCIL
WORKED WITH THE U.S. DAIRY
FARMERS ASSOCIATION AND THEY
WERE THE ONLY GROUP TO MAKE FIRM
COMMITMENTS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE
GASES FROM THE UNITED STATES AT
THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE.
YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO
THE DEMOCRATIC, THE REPUBLICAN,
AND THE LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENTS
FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ALL THREE
EXIST AND TO STOP POLARIZING
THESE GROUPS.
WHEN I SAW THE TEA PARTY AND THE
SIERRA CLUB COME TOGETHER IN
GEORGIA TO ASK FOR MORE
RENEWABLE ENERGY HANDS ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, BECAUSE IT MADE
ECONOMIC HEALTH, IT MADE
PHYSICAL HEALTH SENSE, THEN I
SAW THAT THINGS ARE MOVING IN A
GOOD DIRECTION, BECAUSE THEN
IT -- THEN YOU'RE GOING TO START
TO GET THE POLICY DONE.
AS A SOCIAL SCIENTIST, WE
ACTUALLY ANALYZE POLICY AND ITS
IMPACTS.
THOSE STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE.
THERE ARE LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF
WHERE THOSE STUDIES HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER COUNTRIES
IN SPECIFIC STATES IN THIS
COUNTRY.
GO TO AC-EEE, AMERICAN COUNCIL
ON ENERGY EFFICIENT ECONOMY,
THEY'RE WELL KNOWN FOR ANALYZING
DIFFERENT STATES AND THE
POLICIES.
CAN YOU GO TO DSIREUSA.ORG AND
YOU WILL GET A WHOLE DATABASE OF
THE DIFFERENT INCENTIVES THAT
EXIST.
DO YOU KNOW THAT NO, SIR SILL
FUELS GET $100 BILLION MORE A
YEAR IN SUBSIDIES THAN RENEWABLE
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, AND THAT'S
ACCORDING TO THE ENERGY
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION,
WHICH IS NOT SOME KIND OF, YOU
KNOW, ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION,
IT'S A WELL-KNOWN, WELL
RESPECTED ORGANIZATION, LOOK UP
THE ENERGY LITERACY HANDBOOK,
IT'S IN ONE OF THOSE PAGES.
>> BUT THEY PROVIDE 100 TIMES
MORE ENERGY IN RETURN.
YOUR ENERGY BACK PER DOLLAR, TAX
DOLLAR INVESTED IS NOT SO
TERRIBLY DIFFERENT.
>> SO YOU REALLY NEED TO READ
THE STANFORD ENERGY INSTITUTE
REPORT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT
ABOUT -- IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW MUCH
DO WE SUBSIDIZE VERSUS HOW MUCH
DO WE GET BACK?
BECAUSE DON'T YOU HEAR THAT
RENEWABLE ENERGIES ARE TOO
EXPENSIVE SOMETIMES?
EVEN THOUGH THE FACT IS IS THAT
WIND IS COST EFFECTIVE AGAINST
COAL.
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THAT VERY
MUCH, HAVE YOU?
THAT ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS MUCH
MORE -- HAVE YOU EVER FOUND A
FOSSIL FUEL PLANT THAT PAID FOR
ITSELF, WHERE THE FUEL IS FREE?
NO.
HAVE YOU FOUND AN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROGRAM WHERE IT IS?
YES.
IS ENERGY EFFICIENCY FULLY
IMPLEMENTED IN THIS COUNTRY?
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
STILL WITH A HIGH QUALITY OF
LIFE.
SO THIS THING THAT YOU HAVE TO
BURN FOSSIL FUELS IN ORDER TO
HAVE A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE
INSTEAD OF USING RENEWABLE
ENERGIES IN STORAGE, I THINK WE
NEED TO DIG IN TO THAT A LOT
MORE.
>> FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.
>> I WANT TO GO WHERE YOU WANT
TO GO.
>> WE HAVE TO GO WHERE I GO.
WE WON'T HAVE ANY MORE OF THIS
STUFF, BUT WILL WE DESTROY OUR
ECOSYSTEMS IN THE MEANTIME, SO
THE FASTER WE GO, THE LESS HUMAN
SUFFERING WILL BE CAUSED.
AND WE HAVE THE SOLUTIONS
SITTING THERE.
>> AND CHARLES, IF WE WERE TO
STOP, DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE OF
HOW LONG THE DAMAGE WILL
CONTINUE EVEN IF WE WERE TO STOP
TODAY?
IS THERE -- WITH THE GREENHOUSE
GAS, ETC., IS IT JUST OUT THERE
SO MUCH THAT EVEN IF WE TRIED TO
CLEAN THINGS UP, WE'RE STILL
LOOKING AT YEARS OR DECADES OF
DAMAGE TO COME?
>> OH --
>> YES.
>> CENTURIES.
>> CENTURIES.
FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE TO DATE.
>> GOD, YES.
BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU TAKE THE
LONGER VIEW, ONCE THE LARGEST
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT'S EVER
HAPPENED TO THE EARTH?
THE EVOLUTION OF GREEN PLANTS.
BECAUSE THEY PUT THIS TOXIC
STUFF, OXYGEN, INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE, AND OVER THE LONG
TIME, ORGANIZE ORGANISMS --
ORGANISMS NOT ONLY ADAPTED TO
IT, THEY USED IT.
YOU AND I NEED OXYGEN.
AT ONE TIME IT WAS 4 BILLION
YEARS AGO, IT WAS VERY TOXIC.
SO YES, WE'VE CHANGED THE WORLD
A LOT, WE'VE CHANGED IT IN WAYS
I DON'T LIKE, AND I'M SURE MOST
OF US DON'T LIKE.
BUT WILL IT GO AWAY IN DECADES
OR CENTURIES IF HUMANS
DISAPPEARED FROM THE PLANET?
WELL, THE CHANGE AND IF YOU WANT
TO CALL IT DAMAGE, I PROBABLY
WOULD AGREE, BUT IN LONG HAUL,
ORGANISMS WILL ADAPT TO THAT.
AND SO IT'S REALLY WHAT DO
HUMANS WANT.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE EARTH
DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT WE DO.
>> RIGHT.
RIGHT.
>> TALK ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO
SAVE THE EARTH, THE EARTH IS
GOING TO BE HERE.
NOW WHETHER WE'RE HERE, THAT'S A
DIFFERENT QUESTION.
>> TOTALLY AGREED.
>> THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL THING.
THE EARTH IS BIGGER THAN
HUMANITY.
THE EARTH WILL CONTINUE, LIFE
WILL CONTINUE, WE JUST MIGHT NOT
BE PART OF IT.
WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT HERE AND
TAKE QUESTIONS FROM OUR AUDIENCE
AT THE SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT.
YES?
>> HI.
MY NAME IS MEL BROMBERG, I GOT
THE FIRST HONOR OF ASKING THE
QUESTION HERE.
SO YOU'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT
BEHAVIOR, AND CHANGING BEHAVIOR,
AND WE'VE HAD 19 GLOBAL
CONFERENCES ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
WHERE THE COUNTRIES CAN'T DECIDE
WHAT KIND OF ADAPTATIONS OR
MITIGATIONS THEY WANT TO HAVE,
AND SO I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO
KNOW IS, AND THEY GET ACCUSED OF
POLITICAL WILL IS PART OF THE
PROBLEM, THEY WON'T ACCEPT THIS.
WHY CAN'T WE GET COUNTRIES TO
SIGN ON TO COMMITMENTS WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE WHEN WE'RE ALL
TRYING TO CHANGE OUR BEHAVIORS
INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY AND
WHAT IS IT THAT'S STOPPING
COUNTRIES, INCLUDING OUR UNITED
STATES, WHERE THERE'S BEEN MANY
HOPES FOR SIGNING ON TO A
CLIMATE AGREEMENT, THAT WE CAN'T
GET THIS DONE?
>> DEBRA?
>> SO I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT
UPON EVERY CITIZEN IN THE UNITED
STATES TO GO READ ABOUT THE KOCH
BROTHERS.
AND TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR
CAMPAIGN FINANCE, TO GET
MISINFORMATION OUT OF OUR
AIRWAVES, TO HAVE MYTH BUSTERS,
AND WE DO HAVE THEM, YOU JUST
HAVE TO GO TO THEM, AND READ
ABOUT IT.
THERE ARE VESTED INTERESTS THAT
ARE WORKING VERY HARD.
I'LL GIVE YOU A VERY SPECIFIC.
WHEN I STARTED TEACHING
RENEWABLE ENERGIES 30 YEARS AGO,
NOT 20 YEARS AGO, I USED TO HAVE
TO GO UP TO THE CAPITOL OF OUR
STATE TO HAVE MEETINGS WHERE WE
WORKED ON FOUGHT THANK YOU OF
THE ELECTRICITY PLANT FOR THE
STATE.
I RAN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
EVERY SINGLE TIME WE WENT TO A
MEETING, THERE WERE UTILITY
STAFF PEOPLE WHO WERE PAID TO
GO.
I ALWAYS HAD TO GO ON MY OWN
TIME.
IF WE HIT A WEEK WHERE THOSE OF
US GOING ON HOUR OWN TIME
COULDN'T ATTEND, THINGS GOT
PASSED IN OUR ABSENCE.
SO -- AND IT'S NOT THAT THE
UTILITY COMPANIES ARE BAD
PEOPLE, THEY AREN'T BAD PEOPLE.
WE HAVE REGULATED THEM TO MAKE
MONEY OFF OF THE BURNING OF
FOSSIL FUELS, SO THEY DO THAT AS
WELL AS THEY CAN TO MAKE MONEY
FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.
I DID SOMETHING THAT BILL Mc
KIPEN MIGHT ACTUALLY
DISAGREE WITH.
I BOUGHT STOCK IN MY LOCAL
UTILITIES, JUST A LITTLE BIT AND
I SHOWED UP AT THE ANNUAL
STOCKHOLDER MEETING AND I SAID,
YOU KNOW, I HAVE A POND IN MY
FRONT YARD AND IN MY POND AND IN
EVERY INLAND LAKE IN THIS STATE,
PEOPLE CAN'T EAT FISH OUT OF
THAT LAKE.
IF YOU'RE OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE
MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH BECAUSE
OF THE MERCURY, AND THAT'S
COMING OUT OF COAL-FIRED POWER
PLANTS TO A LARGE EXTENT, AND
WHY ARE YOU PUTTING MY MONEY AT
RISK?
AND THE C.E.O. OF THE UTILITY
COMPANY CAME OVER AND SAID,
DEBRA, I WANT TO DO A DEEPER
DIVE INTO ENERGY EFFICIENCY, I
WANT THAT TO BE MY LEGACY.
I HAD THREE STUDENTS CALL A
SENATOR, AND CHANGED HIS VOTE ON
A SOLAR BANK BILL.
IMAGINE IF THERE WAS A BANK
WHERE ALL OF YOU COULD INVEST IN
SOLAR ON YOUR HOME, AND YOU
WOULD TAKE IT NOT OUT OF YOUR
OWN PERSONAL CREDIT, BUT FROM
THIS BANK AND PAY BACK OUT OF
THE SAVINGS, YOUR CASH FLOW
AHEAD EACH YEAR, THERE ARE WAYS
FOR US TO GET THIS DONE.
BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET INVOLVED IN
THE POLICY PIECE.
I WAY LAYED YOUR QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
TREK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER
QUESTION.
YES.
>> HOW ARE YOU PANEL?
>> I'M SO GLAD TO HAVE THIS
GROUP OF PEOPLE, BECAUSE YOU
COME FROM DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES.
SO MY QUESTION IS THIS.
HOW DO WE GET CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND
EARTHQUAKE RISK, THE CATASTROPHE
OF EARTHQUAKES AND ANOTHER
EXAMPLE, WE HAVE FOLKS THAT ARE
MOVING TO NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA,
THE SUNBELT, THERE'S NO WATER
THERE.
HOW DO WE GET PERSONS TO
UNDERSTAND THIS?
>> CARL, I HEARD RISK AND
CATASTROPHE.
>> THE CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE
ISSUE IS VERY INTERESTING.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A MAJOR
EARTHQUAKE IN CALIFORNIA IN
QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS.
AND CURRENTLY, WE THINK ABOUT 15
TO 20% OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY
BUY EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.
AND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE LIVE ON
SOME OF THE MAJOR EARTHQUAKE
FAULTS, AND YOU HEAR THE SCIENCE
TALKS ABOUT A VERY HIGH
PROBABILITY OF HAVING A MAJOR
EARTHQUAKE OVER THE NEXT 20 TO
25 YEARS.
NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
IT'S -- IT'S THAT EDUCATION,
IT'S THAT PERCEPTION OF RISK.
IF PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE A
RISK, AND THEY UNDERSTAND IT, I
THINK THEY THEN REACT TO TAKE
CARE OF IT.
AND THEN THERE'S THE COST OF
THIS.
WELL, WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE SINCE
I'VE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE, SO YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE BECOME COMPLACENT.
THE SAME THING, WE'RE VERY MUCH
CONCERNED, WE HAVEN'T HAD A
MAJOR HURRICANE IN THE U.S., I
THINK IN SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS
AND FLORIDA DEFINITELY HASN'T
HAD ONE.
THEY THINK ONLY THE HURRICANES
HAPPEN UP IN THE NORTHEAST.
PEOPLE BECOME COMPLACENT.
THEY DON'T -- THEY'RE NOT
TAKING -- EITHER NOT BUYING THE
RIGHT AMOUNT OF INSURANCE, WHICH
IS SECONDARY, IT'S REALLY HOW DO
YOU PROTECT YOUR FAMILY, HOW DO
YOU PROTECT YOURSELF, AND HOW DO
YOU PROTECT YOUR BUSINESSES AND
PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE BETTER
DECISIONS.
>> THERE'S ALSO A QUESTION IN
THERE ABOUT WATER AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF WATER AND WE'RE
SEEING POPULATION GROWTH IN
AREAS WHERE WATER IS VERY HARD
TO COME BY AND VERY EXPENSIVE.
WHAT ROLE, DEBRA LET ME ASK YOU
ABOUT THAT, WHAT ROLE DOES
ACCESS TO FRESH WATER PLAY AND
IS THAT GOING TO GET MORE HAND
MORE DIFFICULT?
>> SO PEOPLE KILL EACH OTHER
OVER WATER, RIGHT?
I MEAN, THE WILD WILD WEST IS --
WE GOT A RICH HISTORY OF PEOPLE
KILLING EACH OTHER OVER WATNEY,
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE GOING BACK MORE
TOWARDS IN THAT DIRECTION.
IT FEEDS INTO THE FIRST QUESTION
WE HAD TOO, WHICH IS, HOW DO WE
DEVELOP THE KNOWLEDGE, AND THE
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS, SO THAT
WE'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S A --
THERE ARE PROBLEMS, AND WATER
AND CLIMATE CHANGE, AND WE HAVE
THE BEHAVIORAL CHANGES, BOTH AT
THE INDIVIDUAL ELLEN DEGENERES
AND AT THE SYSTEM -- INDIVIDUAL
LEVEL AND THE SYSTEMIC LEVEL TO
CREATE THE KIND OF CIVILIZATION
WE WANT.
I WOULD ARGUE WE NEED TO GET RID
OF ALGEBRA.
>> ALGEBRA.
>>
>> ALGEBRA.
>> I'M ALL FOR THAT.
>> MOST PEOPLE ARE.
WHAT IT DOES IS ALGEBRA -- I
HAPPEN TO LOVE ALGEBRA, I'M A
MATH PERSON, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE
GET TURNED OFF TO MATH THE WAY
WE TEACH MATH.
INSTEAD, WE COULD TEACH A MATH
THAT APPLIES TO THE ISSUES OF
THE DAY.
SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND
THAT THEY'RE AT RISK, IN THEY
LIVE IN CERTAIN AREAS, THEY
WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR
ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
AND WE ALSO HAVE, I RUN TWO
NATIONAL NETWORKS OF HIGHER ED
ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE WORKING ON
SUSTAINABILITY, AND WE SAY, THE
ASSIGNMENTS SHOULD BE AROUND
REAL WORLD PROBLEM SOLVING.
NONE OF THIS WRITE A PAPER AND
GET GRADED ON IT AND GET IT
HANDED BACK OR MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS.
ENGAGE IN THE COMPLEX PROBLEMS
WE HAVE TODAY AND BE PART OF THE
SOLUTIONS LEARN HOW TO BE
EFFECTIVE CHANGE AGENTS WHILE
YOU'RE IN SCHOOL, LEARN
FINANCIAL LITERACY, INSTEAD OF
ALGEBRA, LEARN THE STATISTICS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
LEARN STATISTICS.
WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU USED
THE QUADADRIC EQUATION?
BUT INSTEAD WE COULD USE REAL
WORLD MATH AND PROBLEM SOLVING
SO YOU COME OUT EMPOWERED AND
HAVE THE SKILLS AND SELF-CONCEPT
TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE
NEED.
>> LAND TO DO THE ACTUAL COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT WE ALL
NEED TO DO AND CHARLES, YOU HAD
MENTIONED THAT.
YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> JUST BRIEFLY.
SINCE I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE
REPRESENTING DEPLETION AND I
THINK DEPLETION, PARDON ME ME,
WILL TRUMP MOST OTHER THINGS,
ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO HIGH
QUALITY FOSSIL FUELS, BUT A BIG
ONE IS DEPLETION OF OUR AQUIFERS
IN COLORADO, TEXAS, AND SO
FORTH.
AS WE USE UP THE FOSSIL WATERS,
FOSSIL MEANS OLD, AS WE USE UP
THE OLD WATER, THAT'S WAY DOWN
IN THE GROUND, THEN WE HAVE TO
USE MORE AND MORE ENERGY TO PUMP
IT A HIGHER DISTANCE TO GET IT
UP TO THOSE IRRIGATED
AGRICULTURE, UNTIL SOME POINT WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO DO THAT, AND SO
YEAH, WHY THE HELL ARE PEOPLE
MOVING DOWN TO --
>> BECAUSE THEY CAN AND SO WE
DON'T HAVE THE REGULATIONS, WE
DON'T HAVE THE VISION.
WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A HUMAN
CONVERSATION ABOUT -- HUMAN
CONVERSATION ABOUT IS WATER A
HUMAN RIGHT.
>> IS WATER A HUMAN RIGHT.
>> HOW CAN IT NOT BE A HUMAN
RIGHT.
ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY --
I'M GOING TO FILM MY SWIMMING
POOL AND YOU'RE GOING TO DIE OF
DROUGHT.
INDIVIDUAL DEATHS, ARE YOU
WILLING TO WASTEWATER BECAUSE
YOU THINK THAT MAKES YOU COOLER
AS A PERSON WHO HAS WEALTH?
I MEAN, REALLY.
I LIVE IN DETROIT.
WE LIVE -- I LIVE IN OAKLAND
COUNTY, IT IS THE THIRD
WEALTHIEST COUNTY IN THE
COUNTRY, FILLED WITH ALL THESE
PEOPLE WITH CONSPICUOUS
CONSUMPTION, RIGHT ON THE BORDER
WITH DETROIT.
ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY
POOR AND THROUGH OUR COURSES,
THEY BOTH LEARNED THAT STUFF
DOESN'T MAKE THEM HAPPIER, AND
WHAT DOES MAKE THEM HAPPIER AND
THEN YOU START TO SEE THE
BUILDING OF COMMUNITY.
YOU START TO SEE THE DEEPER
FULFILLMENT OF LIFE
POSSIBILITIES THROUGH WORK, AS A
COMMUNITY MEMBER, AS A FAMILY
MEMBER, AS A CITIZEN.
THAT'S WHERE SUSTAINABLE
ABUNDANCE CAN COME FROM.
>> VERY GOOD.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER
QUESTION.
YES?
>> HI.
GEORGE STONE, MILWAUKEE AREA
TECHNICAL COLLEGE.
CHARLIE SAID FOSSIL MEANS OLD,
HERE I AM.
NOW, STUFF, I COULDN'T AGREE
MORE.
GEORGE CARLIN TAKE HIS ADVICE,
GET RID OF IT.
I HAVE A COMMENT AND A QUESTION.
JAMES HANSON LIKED TO SAY WITH
REGARD TO THE INEVITABLE
TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL
FUELS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, HE
WOULD SAY WE HAVE TO DO THIS
EVENTUALLY ANYWAY, SO WHY NOT DO
IT NOW BEFORE WE TOTALLY TRASH
THE PLANET.
AND SO THAT'S MY COMMENT.
MY QUESTION IS, ASIDE FROM THE
DIRECT SUBSIDIES, FOSSIL FUELS
BENEFIT FROM A LOT OF INDIRECT
SUBSIDYIES.
CARL IS TALKING ABOUT RISK, COST
OF RISK, AND FACTORING THAT IN.
WHAT ABOUT THE COST OF AWFUL THE
EXTRAANALTIS.
DEBRA TALKS ABOUT THE MERCURY IN
THE FISH.
YOU CAN'T EAT THE BIG FISH FROM
LAKE MICHIGAN BECAUSE OF ALL THE
COAL THEY BURN.
WHAT ABOUT THE PLANETARY PROBLEM
OF GLOBAL WARMING, LET'S CALL IT
CLIMATE CHANGE, TEMPERATURE
RISING DUE TO COMBUSTION OF
FOSSIL FUELS, CAUSING ALL KINDS
OF CATASTROPHES.
TAKE TYPHOON HYAN, THE FOSSIL
FUEL COMPANIES, WHICH ARE
INDIRECTLY CAUSING ALL THIS
DAMAGE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY A
DIME.
INSTEAD, WE'RE PAYING THEM.
THAT CREATES AN UNEVEN PLAYING
FIELD, AND IT MAKES THE
TRANSITION, THE INEVITABLE
TRANSFORMATIVIZATION WAY FROM
FOSSIL FUELS ALL THAT MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
>> CHARLES, I'M GOING TO THROW
THAT ONE TO YOU FIRST.
>> YOU WANT ME TO DEFEND FOSSIL
FUELS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE HORRIBLE.
BUT THE ALTERNATIVES AREN'T THAT
GREAT EITHER IF YOU LOOK INTO
IT.
ALL OF OUR WIND TURBINES HAVE
600 TONS OF NEODEMION IN THEM.
I SHOWED A PICTURE AT THIS
CONFERENCE OF WHEN OUR NEODEMION
IS COMING FROM AND IT'S TRASHING
A WHOLE BIG AREA OF CHINA SO WE
CAN HAVE THE CLEAN WIND TURBINES
IN THE UNITED STATES, AND
THERE'S FOSSIL -- I MEAN, SOLAR
TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T COME FREE
EITHER AND THEY'RE VERY ENERGY
INTENSE DIFFICULT AND FOSSIL
FUEL INTENSE DIFFICULT TO GET UP
AND -- INTENSIVE AND FOSSIL FUEL
INTENSIVE.
I JUST DID A STUDY WITH THE
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER OF SPAIN,
IT'S IN A BOOK FROM SPRINGER'S,
SPAIN'S PB REVOLUTION AND WE
LOOKED AT THE DATA FROM SPAIN
AND SPAIN IS THE SUNNIEST PLACE
IN EUROPE CERTAINLY, AND WE
LOOKED AT WHAT THE ENERGY RETURN
ON INVESTMENT IS.
REMEMBER THAT'S MY THING.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DO THAT JUST
LOOKING AT THE COLLECTORS, BUT
WE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING YOU
NEEDED TO DO TO MAKE A SOLAR
SYSTEM WORK, AND WE FOUND THAT
OVER 25 YEARS, YOU GOT BACK ONLY
2.4, OUR BEST ESTIMATE,
CALORIES, WE USED JEWELS, BUT
CALORIES PER CALORIE INVESTED.
THAT'S A DAM LOW ENERGY RETURN
ON INVESTMENT AND SOMEBODY SAYS,
HOW COME THESE COUNTRIES AREN'T
TURNING SO SOLAR.
WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS IS,
THEY'RE EXPENSIVE AND ONE OF THE
REASONS THEY'RE EXPENSIVE IS
THAT THE ENERGY RETURN ON
INVESTMENT AT THIS POINT IN TIME
AND AS WE DO IT NOW, IS NOT VERY
GOOD, AND EVERYBODY IN THE SOLAR
COMMITTEE COMES AND BEATS ME ON
THE HEAD HAND THEN TWO MORE
STUDIES, ONE BY GRAM PALMER IN
AUSTRALIA AND ONE FROM GERMANY
COME UP WITH THE SAME NUMBERS WE
DO FOR VERY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS.
SO I'M SORRY, WE ALL LIKE
VOLTOVOTAICS, BUT FROM THE
ENERGY VIEW, THEY'RE NOT GREAT.
THEY'RE POSITIVE BUT NOT GREAT.
IF YOU CAN GET 80 TO 1 FROM COAL
AND 2.4-1 FROM SOLAR, IT'S GOING
TO BE REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL
DECISIONS THAT MAKING -- PEOPLE
ARE MAKING.
NOW DO WE WANT TO TIP THE FIELD,
PUT IN TAXES AND SO FORTH, AS A
CITIZEN, I WOULD SUPPORT IT TO
HAVE MORE SOLAR, BUT I DEAL WITH
REALITY.
AND THAT'S REALITY.
>> RIGHT.
SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT ENERGY
INTO ENERGY OUT IS THE WRONG
METRIC.
IF THE ENERGY IN, TO ENERGY OUT
ARE MOTOR RENEWABLE ENERGIES,
VERSUS THE ENERGY IN, TO ENERGY
OUT IS POLLUTING DISEASE-CAUSING
ECOSYSTEM DESTROYING ENERGY,
THAT YOU HAVE TO EXPAND THE KIND
OF METRICS YOU'RE USING.
>> SO IS THE SOLAR AND IF YOU
TOOK ALL OF THE OUTPUT FROM THE
SOLAR AND YOU GREW IT SO THAT IT
MADE 50% OF OUR ENERGY OUTPUT,
YOU WOULDN'T GET ANY OUTPUT, FOR
25 TO 50 YEARS.
>> THAT'S YOUR TRIPLE BOTTOM
LINE, RIGHT, DEBRA, IT'S NOT
JUST THE INPUT AND THE OUTPUT,
BUT THERE ARE OTHER IMPACTS?
>> IT'S NOT ONLY THAT, IT
RECOVERS THE ENERGY THAT IT PUTS
IN AND PRODUCES MORE.
I'VE NEVER SEEN A FOSSIL FUEL
THAT DOES THAT.
AT LEAST THE FOSSIL FUELS WHEN
THEY'RE CAUSING DISEASE AND
THEY'RE CAUSING ECOSYSTEM
DESTRUCTION, IF YOU ADD IN THOSE
COSTS, WHICH WE ALL HAVE TO PAY.
>> WE WANT TO TRY TO SQUEEZE
IN --
>> YOU REALLY HAVE TO -- YOU
KNOW WHAT, THAT'S A GREAT PLACE
TO GET INVOLVED WITH POLICY AS
WELL.
DO YOU KNOW THAT COUNTRIES NEXT
YEAR HAVE TO REPORT WHETHER
THEIR MINERALS OR CONFLICT
MINERALS OR NOT.
LET'S DO A LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS
ON ALL OF THIS, AND BY THE WAY,
I AGREE WITH WHAT GEORGE STONE
SAID AND AT THE SAME TIME THE
FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES MAKING THE
HIGHEST CORPORATE PROFITS OF
CORPORATE PROFITS IN OUR
COUNTRY.
SO THE CASH FLOW CHANGES ARE
POSSIBLE TO REDUCE HUMAN
SUFFERING, AND I THINK YOU WOULD
AGREE WITH THAT.
THE CASH FLOW CHANGES ARE
POSSIBLE, THROUGH FINANCING AND
POLICY CHANGES, TO REDUCE HUMAN
SUFFERING, AND HAVE CLEANER AND
CLEANER ENERGY.
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 100% GREEN,
IT HAS TO BE LESS DAMAGING THAN
WHAT WE DO NOW.
>> I WOULD LIKE -- JUST LET ME
SAY ONE THING.
>> WE'LL DO ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> WE HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENTS,
BUT I REALLY RESPECT YOUR
ARGUMENTS.
I HOPE YOU RESPECT AT LEAST SOME
OF MINE, AND I THINK YOU AND I
COULD SIT DOWN AND DO A HELL OF
A GOOD ANALYSIS, BUT NOBODY PAYS
TO DO THAT.
>> LET'S DO ONE LAST QUESTION,
QUICKLY.
>> HI, MY NAME IS THERESA, I'M A
GRADUATE STUDENT AT MARQUETTE
UNIVERSITY, WE'VE TALKED A LOT
ABOUT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN
VARIOUS SYSTEMS, BETWEEN
ECOSYSTEMS AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS,
AND ABOUT VAIR VARIOUS
CONSUMPTION LEVELS AND I WAS
INTERESTED IN ADDITION TO
CONSUMPTION LEVELS, HOW OUR
CONSUMPTION MIGHT BE INFORMED BY
UNEQUAL IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ON DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES?
>> DEBRA.
>> SO THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET US TO PAY
ATTENTION TO THAT AT EVERY
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE THAT WE
HAVE.
THE AMOUNT OF SUFFERING CAUSED
BY FLOODING AND
NONINDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES IS
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD MAKE ALL
OF US CRY.
YOU KNOW, SUSTAINABILITY AT ITS
CORE, IS ABOUT LOVING PEOPLE
BEYOND YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
AND IF YOU LOVE PEOPLE BEYOND
YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, AND YOU
KNOW, WE'RE OF QUITE YOUNG
SPECIES, SO I THINK SOMEWHERE IN
THE TODDLER OR ADOLESCENT STAGE
AND DON'T THINK THAT OUR HUMAN
NATURE IS WE BAILIFF SO FAR AS
THE HUMAN NATURE WE HAVE TO HAVE
IN THE FUTURE.
LET'S BUILD OUR EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE.
LET'S BUILD OUR ABILITY TO DO
TEAMWORK AND DEMOCRATIC
CONVERSATIONS THAT CAN CREATE
WIN-WIN SOLUTIONS THAT TAKE IN
TO ACCOUNT THOSE IMPACTS,
BECAUSE WHEN WE GO TO
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES NOW,
THEY'RE CALLING US TO THE TABLE
ABOUT HOW IT'S BEEN OUR USE OF
FOSSIL FUELS THAT IS CAUSING
THEIR HUMAN SUFFERING, AND
THEY'RE SHOWING US SOME MODELS
ABOUT HOW TO USE RENEWABLE
ENERGIES, JUMP OVER AND AWAY
FROM FOSSIL FUELS AND STILL HAVE
A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFESTYLE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CARL, WE'LL WRAP THINGS UP.
WE'LL START WITH YOU, AND WE'LL
JUST COME BACK AROUND AND ASK
EACH OF YOU VERY BRIEFLY, REALLY
IN JUST ABOUT 20 SECONDS IF YOU
CAN, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS MATTER, ASSUMING THE DESIRE
TO IMPROVE THINGS, WHAT IS
SOMETHING THAT'S IMPERATIVE FOR
EACH OF US AS INDIVIDUALS TO DO?
>> WE'VE SAT HERE AND I'VE
GOTTEN MORE HAND MORE DEPRESSED
AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS.
BUT IT COMES BACK TO -- I
THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ON A LARGE
SCALE, BUT THEN, IT'S COMING
BACK AND CHANGING, FIRST YOUR
OWN BEHAVIOR, AND THEN STARTING
TO DRIVE SOCIETIAL BEHAVIOR.
WE CAN ALWAYS TAKE SMALL STEPS
AND I'M HOPING THAT WE'RE STILL
TODDLERS AND NOT THE RETIREMENT
AGE, BUT I THINK WE COULD ALL --
IT STARTS WITH OURSELVES.
>> THANK YOU.
DEBRA?
>> SO I WOULD SAY WE CAN TAKE
LARGE STEPS NOT SMALL STEPS.
LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE
PAST FEW DECADES, WITH CIVIL
RIGHTS, WITH HUMAN RIGHTS, WITH
SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS WE HAVE SOLVED, AND I'D
SAY WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGE ON
TWO LEVELS.
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, THAT'S GREAT,
GO TO ENERGY STAR AND READ ABOUT
THAT, GO TO MOM'S RISING, ALL
YOU MOMS AND DADS AND PEOPLE WHO
CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE, AND GET
INFORMATION THERE.
BUT ALSO, WORK ON MAKING
SYSTEMIC CHANGE, LOOK AT THE
LEVERAGE POINTS TO CHANGE
POLICY.
GET INVOLVED, SHINE THE LIGHT ON
THE UTILITY COMPANIES, ON YOUR
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS ON
YOUR STATE LEGISLATURES.
DON'T BE AFRAID TO TALK TO THEM
E. AND TELL THEM YOU WANT A
CLEANER, GREENER ENERGY FUTURE.
>> THANK YOU.
CHARLES, WHAT'S SOMETHING WE ALL
MUST DO?
>> LIVE THERE WHERE YOU WORK,
DON'T BUY STUFF YOU HAVE -- YOU
DON'T NEED, GET RID OF
ADVERTISE, WHICH MAKES PEOPLE
BUY STUFF THAT THEY DON'T NEED,
AND GET RID OF THE IDIOTS ON THE
TALK SHOWS HAND SO FORTH, WHO
DELIBERATELY GIVE OUT LIES.
THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT AN ISSUE
NOT TO HAVE -- IT'S FINE TO HAVE
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, AND WE
HAVE TO HAVE DEBATES TO DO THAT
WHEN WE CAN'T DO IT BY EVERYBODY
TURNING TO WHATEVER IS THEIR
FAVORITE POLITICAL CHANNEL.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM TOGETHER,
AND WE'VE GOT TO DEPOLITICIZE A
LOT OF THIS, AND AS A SCIENTIST,
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, THERE ARE
FACTS OUT THERE, YOU NEED MORE
THAN FACTS, BUT YOU CAN'T WORK
WITH LIES INSTEAD OF FACTS.
>> VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
AND WATCH MORE PUBLIC
TELEVISION.
>> AND WATCH MORE PUBLIC
TELEVISION.
>> THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT
DISCUSSION.
WILL YOU ALL JOIN ME IN THANKING
HOUR GUESTS.
THANK YOU HALL VERY MUCH.
 -- THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, CARL.
>> THAT WAS GREAT.
>> WE THANK OUR GUESTS, WE ALSO
WANTS TO BE SURE TO THANK THE
TEAM HERE AT THE 11th ANNUAL
SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT FOR
HOSTING US TODAY AND SPECIAL
THANKS TO THE SUMMIT'S CO-CHAIR,
DR. GEORGE STONE.
[APPLAUSE]
>> NEXT WEEK, "FOURTH STREET
FORUM" RETURNS TO HISTORIC
TURNER HALL FOR PART TWO OF THIS
DISCUSSION, PROFITING FROM
SUSTAINABILITY.
MOVING FORWARD A SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY IS NEW TERRITORY.
NOW, WISCONSIN BUSINESSES SEEK
PROFITABILITY AS THEY TRANSFORM
TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE AND
SUSTAINABILITY.
"FOURTH STREET FORUM" GETS DOWN
TO EARTH WITH GUESTS WHO TAKE
PROFITS AND SUSTAINABILITY
SERIOUSLY.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SHOW, TO SIGN UP FOR WEEKLY
EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS, OR TO WATCH
ANY OF OUR PREVIOUS PROGRAMS, GO
TO THE "4TH STREET FORUM" PAGE
AT WWW.MPTV.ORG.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AT THE
SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING PART OF THIS
CONVERSATION, LET'S KEEP
TALKING.
[APPLAUSE]
