>> THIS PROGRAM IS SPONSORED
BY THE THOMAS JEFFERSON
INSTITUTE, VIRGINIA'S
NONPARTISAN INDEPENDENT
PUBLIC FOUNDATION, THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THIS DEBATE ARE
THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE
PARTICIPANTS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF
THEIR ORGANIZATIONS.
>> CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY
CAPTION ASSOCIATES, LLC
WWW.CAPTIONASSOCIATES.COM.
>>
>> GOOD EVENING, I'M BOB
HOLSWORTH.
WELCOME TO THE THOMAS
JEFFERSON PRESENTS, OUR
DEBATE TOPIC IS LIVING WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE AND WE'VE
BROUGHT TOGETHER TWO OF THE
FOREMOST EXPERTS IN VIRGINIA
TO HELP US DISCUSS THIS
ISSUE.
ON MY RIGHT IS DAVID SCHNARE,
THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LEGAL INSTITUTE, AN INSTITUTE
THAT TRIES TO ADDRESS WHAT IT
CONSIDERS TO BE THE ONEROUS
FEDERAL REGULATION AND
FEDERAL ACTIVITY THAT COULD
NEGATIVELY IMPACT ENERGY AND
THE ENVIRONMENT.
DAVID IS ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF
A CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP AT THE THOMAS
JEFFERSON INSTITUTE, HE HAS A
PHD IN ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT CHAPEL HILL AND LAW DEGREE
AND J.D. FOR GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY.
NEXT TO DAVID IS GLEN BESTA
FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE
VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE SEE
YEAR CLUB, THE NATION'S
LARGEST GRASSROOTS
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION
WITH 15,000 MEMBERS IN
VIRGINIA, AND GLEN IS FOCUSED
ON TRYING TO ADDRESS CLIMATE
CHANGE THROUGH CLEAN ENERGY
SOLUTIONS.
GLEN IS ALSO AN ATTORNEY, A
GRADUATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
BALTIMORE.
OUR FORMAT THIS EVENING IS
QUITE SIMPLE:  WE HAVE THREE
BASIC SEGMENTS.
THE FIRST OPENING SEGMENT, WE
HAVE OUR TWO DEBATERS, WE'LL
START WITH OPENING
STATEMENTS, THREE MINUTES
EACH, THEY HAVE TWO MINUTES
FOR REBUTTAL, THEN ONE MINUTE
FOR REBUTTAL.
IN THE SECOND SEGMENT, I WILL
HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE WILL
HAVE QUESTIONS DRAWN FROM THE
AUD NENCE WHICH THE OPEN
DEBATER WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES
A 2-7B9 RESUGGEST --
RESUGGESTAL, A MINUTE SIR
REBUTTAL AND CONCLUDING
STATEMENTS BY EACH DEBATER.
LET'S BEGIN RIGHT 2340U AND
LET ME TURN TO DAVID SCHNARE.
>> THANK YOU BOB.
THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE
TONIGHT ARE NOT IS THERE
GLOBAL WARMING.
THE QUESTION IS HOW CERTAIN
ARE WE OF IT AND IN WHAT
RANGE DO WE SEE THIS KIND OF
POTENTIAL PROBLEM.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF
IT, ON EARTH DAY, 45 YEARS
AGO, DR. KENNETH LAW SAID THE
WORLD HAS BEEN CHILLING
SHARPLY FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.
IF THIS DOESN'T -- IF THIS
PRESENT TRENDS CONTINUES THE
WORLD WILL BE 4 DEGREES
COLDER IN 1990, 11 DEGREES
COLDER IN THE YEAR 2000.
THIS IS ABOUT TWICE WHAT IT
WOULD TAKE TO PUT US INTO AN
ICE AGE.
EIGHTEEN YEARS LATER, NASA
SCIENTIST JIM HANSON SAID HE
WAS 99 PERCENT CERTAIN THAT
THE THEN-CURRENT WARMING
TREND WAS NOT A NATURAL
VARIATION BUT THAT WAS CAUSED
BY GREENHOUSE GASES.
HE SAID THE CURRENT CASE OF
BUILDUP OF GREENHOUSE GASES
WILL RESULT IN A WARMING OF
3-9 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT BY THE
YEAR 2025.
WHO WAS RIGHT?
WELL, NEITHER OF THEM OR BOTH
OF THEM.
WE DON'T KNOW.
WE DO KNOW, THOUGH, THAT
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS GOING
ON.
SEA LEVEL RISE IS REAL.
IT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE
MIDDLE ICE AGE.
AND WHAT COULD HAPPEN?
WELL, THE VIRGINIA INSTITUTE
OF MARINE SCIENCE PREDICT
THAT IS GLOBAL WARM WILL GO
SEE VIRGINIA TO SEE SEA LEVEL
RISE BY 3-7 FEET, 100 YEARS
FROM NOW.
IF YOU LOOK AT, HOWEVER, A
CHART WE HAVE ON THE SEA
LEVEL RISE HERE ON THE
VIRGINIA COASTAL, YOU WILL
SEE IT HASN'T CHANGED.
IT'S BEEN RISING EXACTLY THE
SAME LEVEL FOR ABOUT 100
YEARS.
AND IF YOU PROJECT FROM
THERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
SEA LEVEL RISE OF ABOUT ONE
AND A HALF FEET.
SO WHAT DO WE DO WHEN WE
DON'T KNOW?
THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.
DO WE KNOW.
ACCORDING TO JUDITH YOURIE,
CHAIR OF THE DWAZ INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC
SCIENCES PROGRAM, SHE SAYS WE
JUST DON'T KNOW.
WELL, WE KNOW SOME THINGS.
WE KNOW IT'S WITHIN A RANGE.
IT MAY BE A VERY LARGE RANGE,
BUT THERE ARE MINIMUMS, AND
WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THOSE.
AND WHEN WE HAVE A SOLUTION
THAT CAN GIVE US PROTECTION,
EVEN FROM THE MAXIMUMS, AT
THE SAME TIME, WE NEED TO
SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THEM.
GLEN AND I WILL TALK I HOPE
TBOON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
COULD HAPPEN HERE IN
VIRGINIA, THINGS THAT I THINK
EVERYONE COULD AGREE MAKE
GOOD SENSE.
THAT WILL BE OUR PURPOSE AND
THAT'S WHAT I LOOK FORWARD TO
TALKING ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU.
GLEN?
>> SO CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL,
CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING.
THE TITLE OF THIS PROGRAM IS
LIVING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
I THINK DAVID AND I ARE GOING
TO PART COMPANY WITH REGARD
TO EXACTLY HOW MUCH THERE IS
IN THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONSENSUS IN
THE FACT THAT WE'RE SEEING
INCREASES IN GLOBAL AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE, THERE'S AN
EXPECTATION WE'LL SEE A
2-3-DEGREE MINIMUM RIDE,
CELSIUS, BY THE END THE
CENTURY.
THAT CREATES PROBLEMS.
THE SCIENTISTS DOING THE WORK
HERE BELIEVE THAT IF WE REACH
2 DEGREES CELSIUS BY THE END
OF THE CENTURY WE'LL SEE A
LOT OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,
SEA LEVEL RISE IS GOING TO
ACCELERATE, WE'RE GOING TO
SEE DROUGHTS SOME PLACES,
FLOODING OTHER PLACES,
EXAGGERATED WEATHER PATTERNS
THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE A LOT
OF DISOFT AND A LOT OF COST
TO US.
AND I THINK AS DAVID POINTED
OUT, WE NEED TO CONFRONT WHAT
WE THINK THOSE COSTS ARE AND
PREPARE FOR THOSE.
SO I'D LIKE TO DRAW THE
ANALOGY HERE, BECAUSE
SOMETIMES PEOPLE SAY
2 DEGREES OR LETS SAY --
LET'S SAY 3.6 DEGREES
FAHRENHEIT IS NOT THAT MUCH.
CERTAINLY IN THE DAILY SWING
OF THE WEATHER PATTERNS HERE
IN VIRGINIA, THAT'S NOT A
LOT.
WE CAN GO FROM 20 DEGREES TO
60 IN A SPRING DAY.
BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE
GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
AND OUR PERSONAL AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE, AROUND 90.6, A
3.6-DEGREE INCREASE WOULD BE
ABOUT 103-DEGREE TEMPERATURE.
AND IF YOU ARE HAVING A
102-DEGREE TEMPERATURE YOU'D
BE FEELING PRETTY LOUSY,
FRANKLY.
MIGHT HAVE THE FLU.
WITH THAT COMES A LOT OF
SYMPTOMS.
IN THE CASE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE, THINK ABOUT THE EARTH
AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS
WHAT'S HAPPENING BASED UPON
THE AVERAGE ACROSS THE ENTIRE
PLANET, AND AS A RESULT OF
THOSE INCREASES, WE ARE
SEEING THINGS LIKE SEA LEVEL
RISE, WE'RE SEEING ICE CAPS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,
THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH
UNCERTAINTY TO WITH REGARD TO
WHAT THE BASE LEVEL INCREASE
THIS & TEMPERATURE IS GOING
TO BE.
THE CONSENSUS IS AROUND A
2-DEGREE INCREASE BY THE END
OF THE CENTURY AND WITH THAT
WE ARE GOING TO SEE
CONSEQUENCES SO WE NEED TO
GET READY FOR THOSE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED A
POLICY WITH REGARD TO WHAT
THE SOLUTIONS ARE, AND I
THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO
THAT TODAY.
ONE OF THE SOLUTION SOCIAL
SECURITY THE EPA'S CLEAN
POWER PLAN.
THE EPA HAS FOR THE VERY
FIRST TIME PROPOSED
EMISSIONS, CARBON EMISSIONS
FROM FOSSIL FUEL POWER
PLANTS.
WE CONTROL MERCURY, A RANGE
OF OTHER POLLUTANTS BUT WE
HAVEN'T UP UNTIL NOW
CONTROLLED THE CARBON
POLLUTION.
THE CLEAN POWER PLANT IS THE
EPA'S REDUCING OF CARBON
EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS
AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO
THE ROLLING OUT OF THOSE
REGULATIONS EARLY THIS SUMMER
AND WORKING WITH GOVERNOR
MCAULIFFE TO IMPLEMENT THEM
IN VIRGINIA.
>> GREAT.
DAVID?
TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
>> THANK YOU.
LET ME STATE THE TWO POINTS.
ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH
THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
CHANGES WE'VE SEEN.
FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS, THE
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN
LEVEL.
HASN'T GONE UP, HASN'T GONE
DOWN.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS.
IT COULD GO UP, IT COULD GO
DOWN.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FIGURE
OUT HOW TO PLAN SO THAT
WHATEVER HAPPENS, WE'RE DOING
SOMETHING SENSIBLE.
THE CLEAN POWER PLANET SELF
IS PROBLEMATIC IN THAT IT
COSTS SO MUCH MONEY AND WILL
UPSET SOME OF THE WORK WE DO
ON OUR ELECTRONIC GRID TO
SUCH A DEGREE THAT WE NEED TO
HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE KIND
OF CHANGES THAT EPA CURRENTLY
WANTS MAKE GOOD SENSE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WANT TO
GET RID OF CARBON, ONE OF THE
BEST SOLUTIONS WOULD BE TO GO
TO NUCLEOLAR ENERGY.
I WOULD HOPE GLEN WILL JOIN
ME ON THIS AND SAY, YOU KNOW,
NEW TECHNOLOGY, NUCLEOLAR
PLANTS, SMALL PLANTS,
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY, DOESN'T
NEED A LOT OF WATER, DOESN'T
PRODUCE WASTE.
IF YOU CAN MAKE A BOMB OUT OF
T. HERE IS GOOD TECHNOLOGY WE
OUGHT TO GO FOR.
THERE'S ONE THAT'S A NO
REGRETS POLICY.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE
NEED TO DO.
WITH REGARD TO OTHER KINDS OF
PROBLEMS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS ON THE COAST.
PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORGET THAT
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS NOT JUST A BODY
OF WATER.
IT'S ALSO A CONNECTED WETLAND
AN AN AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPORTANCE.
WHEN THE SEA LEVEL RISES AND
SOMEONE PUTS UP A WALL, THAT
MAY BE VALUABLE IN SOME
PLACES, BUT WE CAN'T LOSE
YOUR WEAPONS, SO WE HAVE TO
MAKE LONG RANGE DECISIONS ON
HOW WE ARE GOING TO ENSURE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
OF OUR BAY AND THE WATER AND
HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN A
WAY SO THAT WE DON'T END UP
WITH NO MONEY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BECAUSE
IT'S BEING SPENT ON A CLIMATE
CHANGE PROGRAM ELSEWHERE IN
THE STATE.
>> GLEN, TWO MINUTES.
>> SO SCIENCE IS, AS I SAID,
PRETTY CLEAR, THERE'S A GREAT
DEAL OF CON SEN U.90 PERCENT
OF SCIENTISTS AGREE WE'LL SEE
THESE INCREASES, AND THE GOOD
NEWS IS THAT THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOW.
I THINK THEY'VE BEEN
OBSERVING NOT ONLY THE
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS COMING
OUT, BUT SEEING THE NEWS
COMING OUT OF THE PLACES OF
THE ARCTIC, EARLIER SPRINGS
IN THEIR OWN BACK YARD, AND
SO THE DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, THERE'S MORE
THAN A MAJORITY NOW THAT
AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS
REAL.
AND SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT
THIS.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING
TO BE WASTE AGO LOT OF MONEY
ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
IF ANYTHING, WE ARE GOING TO
BE FRINGE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING
TO PAY FOR IT.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
IS THAT THE OLD SAYING, A
STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE,
WELL, NICOLAS STERN, A
PROMINENT ECONOMIST FROM
ECLAND, HAD DONE A REPORT IN
2006 AND THERE HAVE BEEN
UPDATES SINCE THEN, BUT
BASICALLY HE FOUND THAT WE
COULD DIVERT -- IF WE DON'T
DIVERT SOMETHING IN THE ORDER
OF ABOUT 1 PERCENT OF OUR
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT TO
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE, WE
COULD SEE COST IMPACTS OF
5 PERCENT OR MORE, EVEN UP TO
20 PERCENT.
SO THE POINT IS THAT WE NEED
TO DO SOMETHING NOW.
WE NEED TO DO IT AGGRESSIVELY
TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.
OR WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
INCREASED COSTS.
THE COSTS OF ADDRESSING SEA
LEVEL RISE RIGHT NOW IS IN
THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN
NEW YORK CITY AS WELL, WE
RECOGNIZED THAT -- I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
WE'VE BEEN IGNORING THIS
PROBLEM FOR A LONG TIME, THE
LAST 27 YEARS, YOU KNOW.
YOU REFERRED TO JIM HANSON,
HE IT TESTIFIED IN 1988, AND
THEN WE HAD THE HOCKEY STICK
CURVE COME OUT FROM MICHAEL
MANN IN 1998, AND 2006, WE
SAW AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH,
AND NOW HERE WE ARE, 27 YEARS
LATER, AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY
TAKEN MUCH ACTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE.
SO IT'S TIME TO ACT NOW.
>>  FINAL REBUTTAL, ONE
MINUTE FOR DAVE.
>> THANK YOU BOB.
THE SCIENCE IS STILL OUT.
I'M A PHD SCIENTIST AND
PEOPLE SAY YOU'RE A SKEPTIC,
AND MY ANSWER IS, WELL, ALL
SCIENTISTS ARE SKEPTICS.
THAT'S WHAT BEING A SCIENTIST
IS.
SO WHEN YOU HEAR A CONSENSUS
SAYING GEE, WE THINK THIS IS
A BIG PROBLEM AND THEN YOU
ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE REAL
SCIENCE AND YOU FIND OUT
GOSH, THE TEMPERATURE HAS NOT
GONE THE WAY WE PREDICTED IT
WOULD, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND
ASK HOW ARE OUR ASSUMPTIONS
DOING, ARE WE REALLY RIGHT,
AND WHEN YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE SIZE OF INVESTMENT
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WE NEED
TO HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF
CONFIDENCE.
WHAT WE HAVE, THOUGH, ARE
OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE
SENSIBLE CHANGES, CHANGES
THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE
ON THAT WILL BE BETTER FOR
US.
WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT OUR
ROADS, OUR NEW HOMES, WHICH
KIND OF HOMES ARE WE GOING IT
TO HAVE TO ABANDON?
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THE
FINAL CALL IS HAVE A GOOD
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS
AND WHEN YOU DO, YOU FIND
THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO
GO ANY FURTHER THAN THEY HAVE
TO BECAUSE OF THE OTHER
EXPENSES THEY HAVE IN LIFE.
>> GLEN, LAST MINUTE.
>> SURE.
THE TEMPERATURE ACTUALLY HAS
BEEN INCREASING.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
QUESTIONS RAISED WITH REGARD
TO HOW FAST, AND MORE
RESEARCH HAS DETERMINED THAT
FIRST OFF, IT'S -- FIRST OFF
IT'S IMPORTANT TO UDZ
80 PERCENT OF THE HEAT IS
GOING TO THE OCEAN.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING THE
SIGNIFICANT INCREASES, AND
THE HEALTH OF THE OCEAN IS
THE SERIOUS CONCERN WITH
REGARD TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
NOT ONLY IS THE CO26789
LARGER IN TEMPERATURES BUT
AFFECTING THE ACIDITY OF THE
OCEAN, THE CO2 AT THE SURFACE
OF THE OCEAN CREATES ACIDIC
CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSES A
GREAT DEAL OF PROBLEMS WITH
REGARD TO THE BIOLOGY OF THE
OCEAN.
THERE'S LOTS OF IMPACTS WITH
REGARD TO CLIMATE CHANGE THAT
WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT
AND WE NEED TO GET ON WITH
THIS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT BACK IN 1988, THE
CLIMATE CHANGE WAS NOT
HAPPENING ACCORDING TO THE
SKEPTIC, AND THEN IT WAS NOT
HUMAN-CAUSED, AND THEN IT WAS
WELL, MAYBE CLIMATE CHANGE IS
BENEFICIAL.
THEN IT WAS WELL, WHY ISN'T
CHINA DOING?
AND NOW IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING,
IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
>> LET'S GET ON WITH IT RIGHT
NOW AND LET'S BEGIN TO FOCUS
ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE RIGHT HERE IN VIRGINIA.
AND LET'S GO TO ONE THAT YOU
RAISED IN YOUR OPENING
COMMENTS, DAVID, AND THAT'S
SEA LEVEL RISE.
CLEARLY, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER
OF STUDIES LOOKING AT THIS
RIGHT NOW, WE'VE HAD MAJOR
HEARINGS, WE'VE HAD THE
SENATE COME DOWN, SOME OF OUR
SENATORS HOLDING HEARINGS IN
HAMPTON ROADS, AND SEARCH
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE
IMPLICATIONS ARE, IT HAS SOME
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTS
AND FLOODING, FOR OUR
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, AND
FOR THE TREMENDOUS TOURISM
THAT THIS CONTRIBUTES BOTH TO
THE ENJOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF VIRGINIA.
IN YOUR STANCE RIGHT NOW,
WHAT SHOULD VIRGINIA BE DOING
ABOUT THIS SEA LEVEL RISE IN
THE PUBLIC POLICY ARENA?
>> I THINK THE CRITICAL
ASPECT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS
WHAT TIME FRAME DO WE DO
THINGS ON.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A ONE AND
A HALF FOOT INCREASE OVER THE
NEXT 100 YEARS, THAT'S REALLY
NOT THAT DIFFERENT THAN SAY A
3-FOOT INCREASE OVER THE NEXT
100 YEARS, BECAUSE THE
PLANNING THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE
FOR THAT HAS TO BE DONE NOW,
AND HAS TO BE DONE IN A
SENSIBLE MANNER, AND IF YOU
ARE TRYING TO MOVE THINGS TO
A GROUND THAT ISN'T GOING TO
FLOOD, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
150 FEET, 200 FEET
DIFFERENCE.
SO THERE ARE WAYS TO LOOK AT
THIS AND SAY IF WE'RE GOING
TO BUILD A NEW MAJOR ROAD,
PLUTS PUT A ROAD SOMEWHERE,
WHERE 300 YEARS FROM NOW THAT
WILL STILL AB GOOD ROAD.
HERE'S THE TOUGH PART.
SOMEONE HAS A HOUSE DOWN NEAR
THE FLOOD PLAIN OR ON IT, IT
GETS FLOODED EVERY THIRD
YEAR, THEY PAY INSURANCE OR
WE PAY INSURANCE TO FIX IT.
THERE COMES A POINT IN TIME
IN WHICH WE HAVE TO SAY LOOK,
THAT'S THE FUTURE WETLAND, WE
HAVE TO REALIZE WE HAVE TO
HAVE THAT WETLAND, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT CREATES VALUE IN
THE BAY.
SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
MAKE SOME VERY HARD DECISIONS
THERE.
WITH REGARD TO THE MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS, LET ME GIVE
YOU A VERY QUICK STORY.
IN CHICAGO, 100 YEARS AGO,
THE CITY WAS BUILT ON MUD,
MAN HAD HIS HEAD ABOVE THE
MUD AND ALL THE REST BELOW
HIM WAS GONE.
SOMEONE SAID DO YOU NEED HELP
AND HE SAID NO, I HAVE A VERY
FINE HORSE UNDERNEATH ME,
I'LL DO FINE, AND THE REALITY
WAS THAT IN CHICAGO THEY WENT
AND LIFTED THEIR BUILDINGS
14 FEET UP USING MECHANICAL
TECHNIQUES.
IN SO DOING -- WE WON'T DO IT
QUITE THAT WAY, BUT YOU CAN
NOT, AND I WAS IN FOR NOK ON
AN AIRCRAFT CAREER IN MY NAVY
DAYS, YOU CAN'T MOVE PEERS
UP.
YOU'VE GOT TO DO THINGS THAT
WILL MAKE SENSE ON THAT HEAVY
INFRASTRUCTURE.
ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE
IT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY
FOR US TO TAKE TIME, FIND OUT
WHERE WE CAN DO SOMETHING,
AND MAKE SURE WE SET ASIDE
FUNDS AND LAND TO DO IT.
>> GLEN ONE MINUTE.
>> THIS IS AN AREA WHERE
DAVID AND I AGREE.
I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THE
LIFE PROCEED DISWREKSES ARE.
THEY DO A LOT OF GOOD WORK
AND WHEN THEY SAY 3-5 FEET, I
THINK WE NEED TO BE THINKING
3-5 FEET WITH A FUDGE FACTOR
ON TOP OF THAT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SCIENCE
AND COME TO SOME POLICY
AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO
EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAN
FOR, THEN YOU NEED TO BE
LOOKING AT ROADS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE BUILD
A HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO BE
THERE A WHILE.
YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD A
HOUSE WHERE YOU HAVE TO MOVE
IT OR BUILD A ROAD WHY IT'S
-- WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE
FLOODED OR YOU TO TO -- HAVE
TO REBUILD IT.
WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS
WHERE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE
WHERE TO RETREAT.
THERE WILL BE SOME PLACES
WHERE WE WILL HAVE TO RETREAT
FROM THE AREAS.
THAT'S A TOUGH POLICY PROBLEM
AND ONE THAT A LOT OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS DON'T WANT TO
GRAPPLE WITH.
WHO WANTS TO GRAPPLE WITH
THAT, DECIDE WHO CAN SAY AND
WHO CAN GO?
IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY A
POLITICAL DECISION IN THE
BEST SENSE OF THE TERM BUT A
TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE.
>> ONE MINUTE DAVE.
>> THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN
PUT ON THE TABLE.
I'LL MENTION A FEW RIGHT NOW.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO
SEE DONE IS CREATE A LARGER
EASTERN OYSTER SANCTUARY, THE
BAY NEEDS RECOVERY ON ITS
OYSTERS.
IF WE COULD EXPAND THE
SANCTUARY BY 9000 ACRES
TODAY, WE CAN DO IT AHEAD OF
THE FLOODING, AHEAD OF THE
TIME, WHEN WE NEED TO DEAL
WITH OTHER KINDS OF PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH OUR WATER.
AND SO THERE ARE OTHER KINDS
OF THINGS OF THAT KIND WE
HAVE TO DO THAT I WILL BE
FRANKLY -- THE FOLKS IN THE
COUNTIES DOWN THERE ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO GET SERIOUS AND GO
AFTER SERIOUS LAND USE
PLANNING, THEY ARE GOING TO
NEED THE INPUT OF LOTS OF
CITIZENS, AND BUSINESSES, AND
WE NEED TO CREATE AN
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH OUR
BUSINESSES, ESPECIALLY THOSE
ASSOCIATED WITH MARITIME,
RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO GO AND
TAKE GOOD ACTION.
>> THANK YOU.
GLEN, THIS QUESTION STARTS
OFF WITH YOU, AND I WANT TO
GO TO -- BACK TO ONE OF YOUR
OPENING COMMENTS ABOUT THE
EPA'S NEW RULES AND
REGULATIONS.
>> SURE.
>> I THINK THOMAS JEFFERSON
INSTITUTE COMMISSIONED A
STUDY IN WHICH THEY SAID AT
THE END OF THE STUDY THAT
THESE NEW REGULATIONS WOULD
CAUSE SEVERE ECONOMIC
TRADEOFFS IN VIRGINIA,
SUGGESTING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE
MAJOR LOSS OF JOBS AND ON THE
OTHER HAND, WE MIGHT FIND
CONSUMERS HAVING TO PAY
25 PERCENT MORE FOR ENERGY.
HOW DO ENVIRONMENTALISTS
ADDRESS THESE KIND OF CLAIMS
ABOUT THE ECONOMIC TRADEOFFS
THAT MIGHT COME WITH THE
EPA'S NEW RULES HERE IN
VIRGINIA?
>> SURE.
FIRST, I THINK HISTORICALLY,
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE
EVERY TIME THERE'S A MAJOR
REGULATION PROPOSED, INDUSTRY
AND THE COMPANY -- AND THE
INSTITUTIONS THAT WORK WITH
INDUSTRY SAY IT'S GOING TO
BANKRUPT THEM.
I MEAN, I WAS LOOKING TODAY
ACTUALLY AT AN AD, A P., A
LARGE UTILITY WAS RUNNING IN
1974, THEY WERE SAYING THAT
AS A RESULT OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT, IMPROVEMENTS, THERE WERE
GOING TO BE BLACKOUTS AND
BROWNOUT, WE HAD THE SAME
SITUATION WITH REGARD TO AIR
BAGS.
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO US
INSTALL AIR BAGS IN OUR CARS
BECAUSE OF RESISTANCE FROM
THE INDUSTRY?
THE INDUSTRY'S KNEE JERK
REACTION IS IT'S GOING TO
COST TOO MUCH, IT'S GOING TO
COST TOO MUCH.
WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE
EPA, OTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES, HAVE A VERY
THOROUGH VETTING PROCESS
INVOLVED IN DETERMINING
EXACTLY WHAT THE REGULATIONS
WILL BE, AND THEY HEAR FROM
INDUSTRY BEFORE THEY DO THIS.
AND SO THIS CLAIM THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE TOO EXPENSIVE IS
JUST NOT ACCURATE.
IN FACT, EPA PROJECTS THAT WE
WILL SEE AS MUCH AS AN
8 PERCENT DECREASE IN OUR
ELECTRIC BILLS PER WHAT THEY
WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN BY
2030.
SO THE EPA HAS DONE A LOT OF
WORK ON THIS.
THEY ARE SAYING WE'RE GOING
TO SAVE MONEY.
I WOULD TRUST THE EPA, NO
OFFENSE, BEFORE THE TOM
ASJEFFERSON INSTITUTE AND THE
INDUSTRY FOLKS SAYING IT'S
GOING TO COST TOO MUCH.
THEY PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO
THESE REGULATIONS.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO
CREATE SOMETHING IN THE ORDER
OF 5000 JOBS NET, ACCORDING
TO SOME STUDIES THAT WERE
DONE AT THE RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
ADDITION TO THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RETIRING
COAL PLANTS THAT ARE 50 AND
60 YEARS OLD, SO WE REALLY
NEED TO BE INNOVATING, NEED
TO BE MAKING INVESTMENTS.
THE OTHER REASON THIS RULE IS
IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE OF THE
HEALTH IMPACTS.
THIS IS GOING TO
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE AIR
POLLUTION.
WE'RE GOING TO SEE INCREASES
IN PUBLIC HEALTH.
>> DAVID, ONE MINUTE.
>> THANKS.
I SPENT 33 YEARS WITH EPA, I
STARTED OUT AS A REGULATORY
ANALYST AND HAVE NO
CONFIDENCE IN WHAT THE EPA
HAS SAID ABOUT THE CLEAN
POWER PLANT.
THE FACT IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS ASKED HOW
MUCH IS THIS GOING TO HAVE AN
EFFECT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE,
AND THE SCIENTISTS ARE TRYING
TOICAL DAYLIGHT, AND THEY
ESTIMATE THAT THIS RULE,
WHICH IS GOING TO COST
$27 BILLION MINIMUM -- AND
WHEN I SAY THAT, OUT OF THE
POCKETS OF CITIZENS -- WILL
ENSURE THAT GLOBAL
TEMPERATURES ONLY RISE BY
.02 DEGREES.
IT'S A RIDICULOUSLY SMALL
NUMBER.
THE NUMBER OF JOBS LOST,
WE'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE
300,000 JOBS, AND WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT 700,000 POOR
VIRGINIANS WHOSE RATES ARE
GOING TO GO UP BY
25-30 PERCENT ACCORDING TO
THE STATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.
>> GLEN?
>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT
DIFFERENT NUMBERS HERE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT PGM, THE GRID
THAT WE RELY ON FOR OUR
POWER, JUST CAME OUT WITH A
REPORT ABOUT A MONTH AGO, AND
THEY FOUND THAT IT WAS GOING
TO BE RELATIVELY EASY FOR
VIRGINIANS TO ACTUALLY MEET
THE STANDARD, AND WOULD
ACTUALLY SAVE US MONEY.
NOW, THAT IS NOT AN OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, THE SEER WITH
AA CLUB, THE NATIONAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,
THAT'S THE PEOPLE THAT RUN
THE GRID, MADE UP OF A LOT OF
UTILITIES AND IT WAS THEIR
DETERMINATION IT WOULD
ACTUALLY SAVE US MONEY HERE
IN VIRGINIA.
THE EPA'S ESTIMATES WERE THAT
THE HEALTH BENEFITS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RULE
WERE SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER
OF 55-$93 BILLION A YEAR, AND
THAT THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH
COMPLIANCE WERE SOMEWHERE IN
THE ORDER OF ABOUT
7-$8 BILLION A YEAR.
THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE
IN SAVINGS.
WE'RE GOING TO SEE A
REDUCTION IN PREMATURE DEATHS
ASSOCIATED WITH AIR POLLUTION
AND FOR THOSE REASONS WE
THINK THAT THE CLEAN POWER
PLAN IS A REASONABLE APPROACH
TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE.
LET ME JUST SAY THIS TOO,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT AS A RESULT OF THE
30 PERCENT INCREASE IN CO2
FROM FOSSIL FUEL POWER
PLANTS, OKAY?
>> THANKS.
LET'S TURN TO A THIRD ISSUE
THAT'S REALLY COME UP
RECENTLY IN VIRGINIA, AND
THAT'S THE GAS PIPELINE.
THE ATLANTIC PIPELINE, AND
THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE BEING
SPOKEN ABOUT NOW.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN THERE IS THAT
WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF
CITIZEN GROUPS AND SOME OF
THESE IMPACTED AREAS
PROTESTING AGAINST THE
PIPELINE, WE'VE SEEN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SAYING
THAT THIS WOULD BE NOT
BENEFICIAL TO VIRGINIA, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE
GOVERNOR MCAULIFFE, LARGEST
POWER COMPANY IN VIRGINIA,
DOMINION, SORT OF IN
PARTNERSHIP, SAYING THIS
WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR
VIRGINIA, IT'S GOING TO HELP
JOBS, IT'S GOING TO HELP
ENERGY.
WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THIS
AND WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT
IT?
>> THE REALITY, BOB, IS THAT
NATURAL GAS IS THE TRANSITION
FROM COAL TO SOMETHING.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO.
BUT IT HAS BECOME A RESOURCE
THAT IS -- NOT JUST IN
VIRGINIA, BUT IN THE UNITED
STATES, ONE THAT MAKES
AMERICA'S SELF-DEPENDENT FOR
THAT KIND OF ENERGY.
HOWEVER, WE CAN'T EXPAND IF
WE DON'T HAVE MORE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE GAS
FROM WHERE IT IS TO WHERE WE
NEED TO USE IT.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN TEXAS,
WHEN THE GAS LINES FROZE ONE
WINTER AND THEY MOVED TO GAS
TECHNOLOGY FOR THEIR ENERGY,
THEY HAD MASSIVE BLACKOUTS.
THAT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
PIPELINES EITHER DIDN'T EXIST
OR WEREN'T THERE.
NOW, WHERE YOU PUT A PIPELINE
IS A CRITICAL QUESTION, BUT
TO HAVE A PIPELINE IS NOT.
WE SIMPLY HAVE TO HAVE A WAY
TO GET THE GAS FROM WHERE IT
IS OUT OF THE GROUND TO WHERE
IT'S GOING TO BE USED, AND IN
VIRGINIA, A LOT OF THAT IS
GOING TO BE DONE ON THE
COAST, IN THE SOUTHEAST.
SO THE PIPELINE WILL COME
DOWN NOT JUST TO VIRGINIA,
BUTTAL THE WAY SOUTH TO THE
SOUTHERN STATES, AND THE
FOLKS THAT DECIDE WHERE THE
PIPELINES GO ARE CONFRONTED
WITH AN INTERSTATE PROBLEM
THAT'S JUST BEYOND VIRGINIA.
BUT VIRGINIA WILL BENEFIT
FROM IT.
WE SIMPLY NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT AS THAT PIPELINE IS
BUILT AND PUT IN THE GROUND,
THAT IT'S DONE IN A
RESPONSIBLE MANNER, IT GOES
THROUGH PLACES THAT ARE NOT
UNIQUE AND OF SUCH A TYPE
THAT YOU CAN'T REPLACE THEM.
AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS
TO SEE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO
PUT IT.
WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE THEY
CURRENTLY WANT TO PUT IT.
THERE ARE FOLKS IN IRON
COUNTY THAT AREN'T HAPPY
ABOUT IT, BUT THE REALITY IS
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF TIME.
DOMINION POWER HAS SPENT A
LIFETIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHERE IT WOULD BEST GO AND
THAT'S THEIR INTENT.
>> GLEN ONE MINUTE.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING
WITH NATURAL GAS I WOULD
CALCULATE IS A FRACKING
FRENZY.
THERE'S JUST A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF INTERESTING
INDUSTRY, IN GETTING AS MUCH
GAS OUT OF THE GROUND AS THEY
CAN, AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN.
THE PIPELINE ITSELF
REPRESENTS A LOT OF THE
TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS THAT DAVID
MENTIONED, AS WELL AS
HISTORICAL VALUES AND SCENIC
VALUE THAT IS ARE JEOPARDIZED
TOO.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE
WITH NATURAL GAS PIPELINES IS
THAT THERE IS THIS
OVERRELIANCE ON NATURAL GAS
AS A WAY OF MEETING THE CLEAN
POWER PLAN AND IF YOU LOOK AT
DOMINION GENERAL POWER, ONE
OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE GAS
LINES, THEIR PLANS WITH
REGARD TO HOW THEY'RE GOING
TO MEET THE ELECTRICITY
REQUIREMENT RELIES INFORM
ENTIRELY ON NATURAL LINES AND
WE'RE SEEING A 39 PERCENT
INCREASE IN CO2, THEIR
PREDICTION, 39 PERCENT
BETWEEN NOW AND 2028 IF THEY
GO FORWARD WITH THE PLANS.
IF WE WANT TO REDUCE CLIMATE
CHANGE WE HAVE TO REDUCE THE
CO2, NOT INCREASE IT.
>> DAVID ONE MINUTE.
>> I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE
IS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE
ENERGY IF WE'RE GOING TO GROW
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO AFFORD ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY WE HAVE TO PAY IT FOR
IT AND ONLY A WEALTHY STATE
OR NATION CAN DO THAT.
IN THIS CASE IF WE DON'T WANT
TO GO TO NATURAL GAS, LET'S
GO TO NUKE U -- NUKE ULAR BUT
IT'S BEEN WANING.  THOSE
CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING
CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR,
THEY'VE NOT COME OUT AND SAID
FINE, LET'S DO THAT, AND WE
KNOW THAT WIND POWER AND
SOLAR POWER CANNOT PRODUCE
ENOUGH ELECTRICITY TO MEET
OUR NEEDS AND THEREFORE WE
HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
QUESTION OF WHERE ARE WE
GOING TO GET THE ENERGY WE
HAVE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED, THOUGH,
THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
A SMALL COST, NOT JUST FOR
THE PIPELINE AT REDUCING
CARBON.
THE CLEAN POWER PLAN
CURRENTLY IS LIKELY TO COST
47,000 -- THOUSAND 47,700
PREMATURE DEATHS BECAUSE IT'S
SO EXPENSIVE, POOR PEOPLE
WON'T BE ABLE TO FEED
THEMSELVES, THEY WON'T BE
ABLE TO GET TO THE DOCTORS,
THEY WILL GET SICK.
AND THIS IS FEDERAL DATA.
THIS IS NOT MADE UP OUT OF A
BLUE SKY.
SO YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM THEN.
IT JUST HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.
NATURAL GAS WILL HELP WITH
THAT.
>> GLEN, I'M GOING TO ASK A
QUESTION, A LITTLE DIFFERENT
THAN THE ONE I WAS ORIGINALLY
GOING TO ASK JUST BECAUSE OF
THE LAST EXCHANGE THAT WE'VE
HAD.
YOU PRESENTED SOMEWHAT YOU
FELT WERE HEALTH EFFECTS OF
THE CLEAN POWER PLAN, DAVID
HAS JUST PRESENTED SOME VERY
DIFFERENT EFFECTS.
HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE
EFFECTS THAT HE JUST
MENTIONED?
>> RIGHT.
WELL, I MEAN, EPA IS ACTUALLY
IN THE BUSINESS OF PROTECTING
OUR HEALTH, AND I DON'T
BELIEVE ANYBODY BUYS THE
ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE GOING
TO PROPOSE A RULE THAT'S
GOING TO COST 47,000
PREMATURE DEATHS.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE GOOD SENSE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S
ANOTHER WAY TO MEET THESE
POWER NEEDS AND THAT'S ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN VIRGINIA.
RIGHT NOW, WE RANK VERY LOW
IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
INVESTMENTS IN THE STATE.
DOMINION AS A RUE TILT RANKS
LAST WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE TO GET
OUR POWER FROM FIRST OFF WE
NEED TO BASICALLY DO A BETTER
JOB OF USING OUR POWER MORE
EFFICIENTLY, THEN WE NEED TO
LOOK TO WIND AND SOLAR.
THERE'S AN INTERESTING -- I
THINK IT WAS CHURCHILL WHO
SAID YOU CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON
AMERICANS TO DO THE RIGHT
THING AFTER THEY'VE TRIED
EVERYTHING ELSE AND WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE WE'VE TRIED
EVERYTHING ELSE.
WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT
THING, INVEST IN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, SOLAR, WIND.
>> DAVID, ONE MINUTE.
>> THE 47,000 NUMBER COMES
FROM EPA'S OWN ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURE.
IT'S ONE I USED WHEN I WORKED
AT EPA.
THE REASON DAVE DOESN'T TALK
ABOUT IT IS FOR THE OBVIOUS
REASON, THEY DON'T LIKE THE
OUTCOME OF THE ANALYSIS, BUT
I AGREE WITH GLEN, WE NEED TO
DIVERSIFY OUR ELECTRICITY
WHERE IT'S ECONOMICALLY
SENSIBLE.
WIND POWER SIMPLY CAN'T
PRODUCE THE KIND OF LEVELS
THAT WE ARE SEEING.
WE ARE SEEING STATES ALL
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, NORTH
CAROLINA IS JUST DOING IT
RIGHT NOW, REDUCING THE
AMOUNT THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
REQUIRE FROM WIND BECAUSE
THEY REALIZE THEY CAN'T GET
IT.
SO WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO
SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE
PIPELINE, WE HAVE TO FIND
WAYS TO BUILD IT SO THAT WE
CAN GROW AS A STATE AND THEN
WE CAN BE COMPETITIVE
ECONOMICALLY.
>>
>> GLEN ONE MINUTE.
>> OH OKAY, GOOD.
WELL, LET ME ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF NUCLEAR BECAUSE IT
WAS RAISED AND I THINK IT'S
AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TOO.
THE SIERRA CLUB IS NOT A BIG
FAN OF NUCLEAR AND MOST
ENVIRONMENT -- MOST
ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE NOT.
THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH
NUCLEAR, IF YOU LOOK AT CLERN
OBIL AND FUKUSHIMA, THAT WHEN
THINGS GO WRONG, THEY GO
SERIOUSLY WRONG.
IF YOU HAVE A DISASTER AT A
GAS OR COAL PLANT, I DON'T
THINK YOU'LL HAVE A DISASTER
AT A SOLAR PLANT, THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE TOO MUCH
RISK.  WITH RESPECT TO
VIRGINIA,DOMIN YOIN IS
PROPOSING TO BUILD A NUCLEAR
REACTOR AND POWER STATION.
THEY JUST HAD A SIGNIFICANT
EARTHQUAKE IN 2011 THAT SHUT
THE PLANTS DOWN, CRACKED THE
NATIONAL MANMENT, THE
NATIONAL CATHEDRAL IN D.C.
FROM OUR STANDPOINT,
INVESTING IN NUCLEAR IS TOO
RISKY, IT'S TOO COSTLY.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY STATE
CORPORATION COMMISSION
THOUGHT THAT THE POWER PLANT
WAS TOO COSTLY WAS BECAUSE
THEY WERE FACTORING IN A
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WHICH
DOMINION SAYS COULD BE
$10 BILLION OR MORE.
>> DAVID, LET ME TRY TO SORT
OF BROADEN THAT DISCUSSION A
LITTLE BIT, THAT MANY
POLITICAL FIGURES, BOTH IN
VIRGINIA AND IN THE NATION,
TAKE THIS POSITION WHERE THEY
CLAIM THAT WHAT THEY'D LIKE
TO SEE IS AN ALL OF THE ABOVE
POLICY WITH RESPECT TO
SOURCES OF POWER THAT WE ARE
GOING USE.
WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THAT
AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO
CONTRAST OUT WITH WHAT YOU
MIGHT SAY HERE.
>> THE INTERESTING POINT IS
WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN WHEN
THEY SAY ALL OF THE ABOVE IS
THEY MEAN ALL OF THE ABOVE
THE GROUND, WHICH MEANS NO
COAL NO, NATURAL GAS.
THE REALITY IS GOOD ENGINEERS
COME UP WITH GOOD IDEAS AND
THAT'S WHAT ENGINEERS DO FOR
A LIVING.
AND ONE OF THE GREAT ADVANCES
IN ENGINEERING TODAY HAS TO
DO WITH SMALL PACKAGE
NUCLEOLAR POWER PLANT THAT IS
DON'T USE A LOT OF WATER,
THEY ARE NOT RISKY, THEY
DON'T PRODUCE MATERIALS THAT
COULD BE USED TO CREATE A
BOMB, AND THEY HAVE BEEN USED
IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY,
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR OVER 40
YEARS AND NOT A SINGLE
ACCIDENT.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF
METHODS THAT WE THINK NEED TO
BE ADDRESSED, AND THE KINDS
OF SOLUTIONS WE THINK WILL
HELP.
NOW, CAN YOU USE WIND?
YES.
HOW MUCH?
WELL, WE'VE NOT SEEN IT GROW
MORE THAN 2 PERCENT AND THIS
IS AN INDUSTRY THAT'S BEEN
HEAVILY SUBSIDIZE FOD 20
YEARS NOW.
SO IF A SUBSIDIZED INDUSTRY
CAN'T GET OFF THE GROUND, HOW
CAN WE RELY ON IT IN THE
FUTURE?
NATURAL GAS, WE'RE GOING TO
SEE, IS GOING TO GROW FOR A
WHILE, BUT WHERE WE NEED TO
LOOK AT IS ALTERNATIVES,
WHEREVER THEY COME, FROM AND
IF THEY ARE COST-EFFECTIVE,
LET'S TAKE CARE OF THAT.
COAL REMAINS AND WILL REMAIN
FOR QUITE SOME TIME AN
IMPORTANT PART OF OUR
NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND
ELECTRIC GRID.
>> GLEN?
>> WELL, WE HAVE A MUCH
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF
WHAT POLITICIANS MEAN WHEN
THEY SAY ALL OF THE ABOVE,
BECAUSE FROM OUR EXPERIENCE
WHEN THEY SAY ALL OF THE
ABOVE, THEY'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT ABOVE GROUND.
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BELOW
GROUND.
AND TAKE A LOOK AT OUR TWO
U.S. SENATORS, THEY ARE FOR
OFF SHORE DRILLING FOR GAS,
YOU KNOW, THEY ARE FOR THE
PIPELINE, AND WHILE WE
RESPECT THOSE SENATORS FOR
RECOGNIZING THAT CLIMATE
CHANGE IS REAL, WE ALSO ARE
CONCERNED THAT THAT PATHWAY
TO RELYING ON FOSSIL FUELS IS
NOT THE WAY TO GO.
IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE
MODELS THAT THE CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS ARE USING, WHAT
THEY ARE SAYING IS WE REALLY
HAVE A PRETTY SMALL BUDGET
RIGHT NOW AND WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO KEEP A LOT OF THAT
FOSSIL FUEL IN THE GROUND.
EVERY TIME I READ THE PAPER
ABOUT A NEW OIL STRIKE OR NEW
GAS STRIKE, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT'S MISSING IS THE IMPACT
THAT IS USING THAT COAL -- OR
OIL OR GAS -- WILL HAVE ON
THE ENVIRONMENT.
IN FACT, THE BEST ESTIMATES
ARE THAT WE MAY NEED TO KEEP
AS MUCH AS TWO-THIRDS OF THAT
CARBON IN THE GROUND AND NOT
TBURN IF WE ARE GOING TO
AVOID THE WORST CONDITIONS
WITH THE CLIMATE EFFECT.
>> IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN
MIND THAT WHEN TOP SCIENTISTS
LIKE CURRIE SAY WE REALLY
DON'T KNOW, WHEN MICHAELS
COMES OUT AND -- HE WAS THE
STATE CLIMATOLOGIST FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS -- COMES OUT
AND SAYS LOOK, IT DOESN'T
LOOK LIKE THAT THE MODELS ON
WHICH PEVMENT A BASES ITS
DECISIONS ARE ACCURATE, AND
WE CAN SHOW STATISTICALLY
THEY ARE NOT, WE HAVE TO ASK
OURSELVES, ALL RIGHT, HOW
SERIOUS A PROBLEM IS THIS AND
ARE WE GOING TO SACRIFICE OUR
ECONOMY ON THE BACK OF THE
FEAR.
AND SO WHAT I AM SUGGESTING
IS THAT WE LOOK AT SOLUTIONS
THAT ARE NO REGRETS, LET'S DO
THE THINGS WE CAN THAT MAKE
GOOD SENSE, BUT LET'S NOT CUT
OFF OUR NOSE TO SPITE OUR
FACE.
WE HAVE THE NEED FOR ENERGY.
WE ARE GOING TO GROW.
WE WILL HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO
CREATE ENERGY THAT MAKES GOOD
SENSE.
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO USE
GOOD SENSE, THEN WHAT WE
CANNOT DO IS TAKE THE WORST
CASE SCENARIO AND SAY THAT'S
THE BASIS FOR WHAT WE ARE
GOING TO DO.
>> WELL, WE HAVE A SET OF
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
NOW.
LET ME BEGIN WITH GLEN.
ON THE ISSUE OF TEMPERATURE,
WHY IS THERE DISAGREEMENT ON
TEMPERATURE OVER THE PAST 20
YEARS?
SHOULDN'T THE FACTS BE PRETTY
CLEAR?
>> WELL, THERE REALLY ISN'T A
DIFFERENCE OVER THAT.
I GUESS THE MODELS ARE
MODELS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
THEY ALL CONVERGE AROUND
CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS.
AND WE LEARN AS WE GO.
BUT THE POINT HERE IS THAT
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF
SCIENTISTS WORKING ON THESE
QUESTIONS, AND THEY HAVE COME
TO A CONSENSUS.
90 PERCENT OF CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS ARE OF THE
CONSENSUS WE ARE SEEING
SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE
INCREASES, THAT WE WILL SEE
THEM IN THE FUTURE, THAT WE
ARE SEEING THEM IN THE OCEAN,
NOT JUST IN THE AIR, AND THE
OCEANS ACTUALLY DRIVE A LOT
OF OUR CLIMATE AND OUR
WEATHER.
SO THE POINT IS THAT WE ARE
SEEING INCREASES IN
TEMPERATURE.
I THINK NOT ONLY DOES THE
SCIENCE SAY THAT, BUT PEOPLE
NOTICE THAT THEMSELVES.
THEY SEE SPRING COMING
EARLIER, THEY RECOGNIZE OTHER
THINGS HAPPENING IN THEIR
DAILY LIVES THAT ARE
UNCOMMON, AND THAT IS
BASICALLY COMMON SENSE
INFORMATION, CONFIRMING WHAT
THE SCIENTISTS ARE TELLING
US.
>> ONE MINUTE.
>> THE FACT IS YOU HAVE TO GO
TO THE DATA.
THE 97 PERCENT CONSENSUS IS A
STUDY THAT FRANKLY WOULDN'T
PASS A HIGH SCHOOL GRADE
TEST.
BUT THE ACTUAL DATA ON
TEMPERATURE IS SOMETHING WE
KNOW.
WE MEASURE IT WITH
SATELLITES, WE MEASURE IT
WITH BALLOON, WE KNOW IT'S
NOT GOING UP, IT HASN'T FOR
18 YEARS.
WE KNOW USING STATISTICS TO
SHOW THE PROJECTIONS, AND YOU
SAW THE CHART WE HAD UP
EARLIER, THE PROJECTIONS AND
REALITY ARE DIVERGING, AND
WHEN THEY DID I VERGE WE HAVE
TO GO WITH REALITY.
I CAN'T BASE MY POLICY
DECISIONS ON PROJECTIONS THAT
SIMPLY HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED.
SO WE HAVE GOT TO DEAL WITH
THE KIND OF PROBLEM THAT WE
MAY HAVE.
SEA LEVEL RISE MAY BE A
PROBLEM.
WARMING IN THE OCEAN,
HOWEVER, WE PUT OUT THOUSANDS
OF BUOYS, WE CANNOT FIND THE
HEAT IN THE OCEAN.
IT'S NOT IN THE DEEP OCEAN,
IT'S NOT NEAR THE TOP.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE HEAT GO
ANYWHERE.
AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE
WE GOING TO DO WHEN WE
ACTUALLY KNOW WHERE IT IS.
>> GLEN, ONE MINUTE.
>> I THINK YOU ARE JUST
MISSING THE DATA.  THIS HAS
COME OUT TIME AND AGAIN THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, THIS MARCH, THIS
PAST MARCH WAS THE HOTTEST
MARCH, YOU KNOW, I THINK ON
RECORD.
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE
HOTTEST YEARS ON RECORD, THE
LAST SEVEN YEARS, I THINK,
HAVE BEEN THE HOTTEST SEVEN
YEARS, AT LEAST FOR THE LAST
DECADE -- IN THE LAST DECADE,
WE'VE SEEN THE HIGHEST
RECORDS.
WE'VE SEEN THE SEA LEVEL
RISE, THE DATA CMPLEGS IT AND
WE HAVE AN DISAGREEMENT ON
WHAT THE DATA IS BECAUSE THE
DATA IN FACT SHOWS THE
TEMPERATURES ARE RISING.
>> DAVID, ANOTHER QUESTION
FROM THE AUDIENCE.
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY OF
THE CHESAPEAKE INTAI ALREADY
COMPROMISED, AS EVIDENCE BY
INABILITY TO HAVE MARINE
CHANGES.
WOULDN'T NUCLEAR ENERGY
FUTURE POSE EVEN MORE HAZARD
TOSS OUR WATER SUPPLY AND
MARINE ANIMAL?
>> NOT THE KIND OF NUCLEOLAR
POWER I'M TALKING B THE
NEWEST INVESTIGATIONS DO NOT
USE WATER TO COOL THE PLANET
IF THEY DON'T NEED TO.
THEY DON'T USE URANIUM AS THE
POWER EITHER.
THEY USE OTHER KINDS OF
MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT HAVE
DANGEROUS WASTES AND DON'T
REQUIRE WATER.
FURTHERMORE THEY ARE SMALL
PACKAGE PLANT THAT IS COULD
BE PUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE
SO AS TO PROTECT THE GRID.
THESE ARE GOOD SOLUTIONS.
THEY DON'T COST AS MUCH AS A
BIG POWER PLANT.
FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE -- IF YOU
WANT TO PROTECT THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY, LET'S
CONCENTRATE ON THE BAY, BUT
LET'S NOT WORRY ABOUT
NUCLEOLAR POWER WHAT'S NOT
USING TO -- GOING TO USE
WATER FROM THE BAY AND
DISCHARGE WATER INTO THE BAY.
>> GLEN?
>> SO THE SMALL PACKAGE PLANT
VERSUS NEVER BEEN BUILT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY WOULD SAY A NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT IN THEIR BACK
YARD.
THEY ARE PRETTY CONTAGIOUS.
WITH REGARD TO THE BAY ISSUE,
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SERIOUS
ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE BAY.
IT'S INTERESTING, YOU WOULD
THINK THAT THE TEMPERATURE IN
THE OCEAN MIGHT BE THE SAME
ACROSS THE WORLD, BUT THEY'RE
NOT.
SO WE'VE SEEN
DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASES IN
OCEAN TEMPERATURES IN THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST.
OYSTER FARMERS HAVE HAD TO
ABANDON THEIR -- ABANDON
THEIR FARMS AND MOVE TO
HAWAII WHERE THEY CAN GROW
THEM.
IN THE BAY, WE'RE NOT CLEAR
WHETHER WE WILL SEE THE OCEAN
CERTIFICATION THAT COULD
INTERRUPT THAT TOO.
THE PROBLEM WITH SEA LEVEL
RISING IS WE ARE LOSING
WETLANDS.
IF WE'VE GOT HARDENED SHORES
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THOSE
RETREAT AND THE WETLANDS ARE
THE BASIS FOR A LOT OF LIFE
IN THE BAY.
CLIMATE CHANGE, I DON'T THINK
NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ANSWER.
>> FINAL MINUTE.
>> THE NUCLEOLAR POWER PLANTS
I'M TALKING ABOUT HAVE BEEN
TESTED AND ARE AVAILABLE.
SO WE ARE GET ON THAT TRAIN
AND RIDE IT.
WITH REGARD TO THE BAY, THE
CHALLENGES TO THE BAY ARE NOT
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND
THEY'RE NOT ABOUT ACIDITY. 
THEY ARE ABOUT FERTILIZER AND
OTHER NUTRIENTS GOING INTO
THE BAY AND THE QUESTION IS
HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH
THAT.
I HOPE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT
SOMETIME.
AS FAR AS CLIMATE CHANGE GOES
THE REAL CHALLENGE IS WE'RE
NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN SO WE HAVE TO TAKE
STEPS WE KNOW WE CAN TAKE
THAT MAKE GOOD SENSE, STEPS
THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW BAD OR
HOW NATIONAL BAD IT MIGHT BE,
STILL MAKE GOOD SENSE AS WE
MOVE FORWARD.
>> ALL RIGHT.
GLEN, HERE'S THE NEXT
QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE.
SPECULATION ABOUT SEA LEVEL
RISES IS COM POISED NOT ONLY
OF WATER RISING BUT OF LAND
SINKING.
ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS ON
THE STUDIES.
HOW MUCH OF THIS POSSIBLE
INCREASE WOULD LIKELY COME
FROM SINKING LAND AND NOT
WATER RISING?
>> GOOD QUESTION.
SUBSIDENCE OF THE LAND IS DUE
TO A COUPLE OF FACTORS.
ONE IS THERE WAS A LARGE
METEOR STRIKE OR SOME LARGE
CELESTIAL BODY CRASHED INTO
THE BAY AND JUMBLED THE ROCKS
UP.
THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT
YOU'VE GOT THE ISSUE OF WATER
WITHDRAWAL, WHICH IS A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, TOO
PRESIDENT YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF
WATER OUT OF THE WATER TABLE.
THOSE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE
SUBSIDENCE.
THAT'S MORE LIKE ABOUT A
FOOT, FOOT AND A HALF TOTAL.
THAT'S RELATIVELY CONSTANT.
WHAT WE ARE SEEING WITH THE
SEA LEVEL RISE IS AN
ACCELERATION IN THE RATE.
SO IT'S NOT A CONSTANT.
IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT LINE LIKE
THE SUBSIDENCE, BUT
INCREASING CLIMATE CHANGE,
WE'RE SEEING SEA LEVEL RISE,
SO MOST OF THAT 7-FOOT IS
COMING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE.
>> DAVID?
>> GLEN IS RIGHT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SEA LEVEL
RISE THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE
LAST 100 YEARS, ABOUT HALF OF
IT COMES FROM SUB I'DANCE --
SUBSIDANCE AND HALF OF IT
FROM A WARMING WORLD, A
WARMING WORLD SINCE THE ICE
AGE.
WITH REGARD TO THE POTENTIAL
FOR SIGNIFICANT INCREASE
AFTER THAT, THAT'S ALL JUST A
GOOD QUESTION, BUT IT'S UP IN
THE AIR.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND IS THAT EVEN IF IT
WAS AS BAD AS THE WORST
ESTIMATE, WE ARE MAKE
DECISIONS TODAY THAT WILL
AFFECT HOW WE USE OUR LAND
AND HOW WE MAKE OUR CHOICES
SO THAT WE CAN MAKE ONES THAT
-- IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE A
DIFFERENCE WHETHER IT'S A
FOOT AND A HALF OR 7 FEET.
WE CAN MAKE THE KIND OF LAND
USE CHOICES THAT WILL PROTECT
US IN A SENSIBLE MANNER FROM
ANY ONE OF THOSE.
>> GLEN, ONE MINUTE.
>> I JUST SAW IN THE PAPER
TODAY, NORTH CAROLINA IS
TAKING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
TACTIC ON THIS.
THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT
THEY'RE GOING TO SEE A
5-7-FOOT INCREASE BECAUSE
IT'S HARD TO SELL REAL ESTATE
WHEN THE PERSON IS GOING TO
BUY A HOUSE THEY EXPECT TO
LIVE IN FOR MORE THAN 30
YEARS, SO THERE WAS
FORTUNATELY FOR US IN
VIRGINIA, WE ARE RECOGNIZING
THAT WE NEED TO LOOK BEYOND
2050, AND IF YOU ARE BUILDING
A HOUSE OR BUILDING A ROAD,
YOU NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF
EXACTLY WHERE THAT SEA IS
GOING TO RISE.
SO I THINK THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE THAT DAVID AND I
HAVE IS EXACTLY HOW HIGH THAT
SEA IS GOING TO RISE BUT WHAT
IS BEING DONE TO PREPARE FOR
THE SEA LEVEL RISE, IT'S
CLEAR WE HAVE TO BE PRETTY
THOUGHTFUL, PRETTY OPEN, IN
MAKING THESE DIFFICULT
CHOICES.
THERE HAS TO BE A LOT OF
PUBLIC DEBATE WITH REGARD TO
WHERE YOU RETREAT, YOU KNOW,
WHERE YOU BUILD NEW ROADS, SO
THAT YOU DON'T WASTE PRECIOUS
DOLLARS, PUBLIC DOLLARS, IN
TERMS OF INVESTMENTS.
>> DAVID, ANOTHER QUESTION
FROM THE AUDIENCE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
HUMAN INDUSTRY, CO2
EMISSIONS, ARE A TINY PORTION
OF WHAT IS PUT INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT BY OTHER NATURAL
OCCURRENCES.
IS THIS TRUE?
IF SO, HOW WILL RELATIVELY
TINY REDUCTIONS MAKE ANY REAL
DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE CHANGE?
>> WELL, THE REALITY IS, AND
THE PRIVATE CYCLE IS
UNDERSTOOD, ONE FOREST FIRE
WILL PUT MORE CARBON IN THE
AIR, PAR TICK LANT IN THE
AIR, THAN THE ENTIRE
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN THE
UNITED STATES.
IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN
INVESTMENT, MAYBE ONE OF THE
INVESTMENTS WE OUGHT TO MAKE
IS BETTER CARE OF OUR FORESTS
AND HOW WE MANAGE THEM.
BUT IN REALITY, THE CO2
INCREASES THAT WE'VE SEEN DO
REFLECT HUMAN ACTIVITY.
THE QUESTION IS HOW IMPORTANT
OR HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THAT.
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT
WE CAN DO IN THIS COUNTRY, IF
YOU SHUT DOWN ALL OF THE
COAL-POWERED POWER PLANTS IN
THE WHOLE UNITED STATES, ITS
EFFECT ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND
ON TEMPERATURE INCREASE WOULD
BE MARGINAL, IN FACT
UNMEASURABLE ON A NORMAL
THERMOMETER.
WHY?
BECAUSE WE LIKE IT OR NOT,
INDIA AND CHINA HAD THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING
ABOUT IT.  THEY'RE GOING IT
TO THINK ABOUT IT IN 20
YEARS, THEY'RE GOING TO THINK
ABOUT IT IN 30 YEARS, BUT
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE
WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND THEY
ARE BUILDING NEW COAL-FIRED
POWER PLANTS ON A WEEKLY AND
MONTHLY BASIS.
>>ORILIER -- EARLY DAVID
CRITICIZE THE THE POWER
PLANTS FOR NOT SHOWING
REDUCTIONS IN TEMPERATURE.
IT'S GOOD TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THAT IS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO
THE POINT HE JUST RAISED, AND
THAT IS THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT COAL POWER PLANTS IN
REDUCING CO2 FROM FOSSIL FUEL
POWER PLANTS BY 30 PERCENT BY
2030.
AND THAT IS JUST A SMALL PART
OF THE CARBON THAT WE ARE
EMIT AG CROSS THE GLOBE AS
HUMANS.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT BECAUSE
OF THE RECOGNITION OF THE
PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE,
BOTH INDIA AND CHINA HAVE
COME ON BOARD WITH REGARD IT
TO MAKING REDUCTIONS.  MOST
RECENTLY, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN
JANUARY, THE PRESIDENT
ANNOUNCED A MAJOR AGREEMENT
WITH CHINA WITH REGARD TO
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS, AND
THEY ARE PLANNING TO MOVE
AWAY FROM CARBON AS WELL.
INDIA, NOT QUITE AS FAR ALONG
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT
THERE IS GOING TO BE A
CONFERENCE IN PARIS THIS
DECEMBER WHERE ALL THE
COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO BE
LAYING ON THE TABLE -- IN
FACT RIGHT NOW, WHAT THEY
EXPECT THEIR MISSION
REDUCTIONS TO BE.
>> DAVID, ONE MINUTE.
>> THE PROBLEM IS A PROMISE
THAT I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT
IN 20 YEARS IS ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT FROM ACTUALLY
FORCING COAL-FIRED POWER
PLANTS TO TURN OFF THEIR
ENGINES HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES.
THE REALITY IS WE ARE GOING
TO SEE CARBON LEVELS GO UP.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS WHAT
IT'S GOING TO MEAN.
AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
MAKING MAJOR INVESTMENTS IN
AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE, AT
TIME WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO
ALSO BE ECONOMICALLY
COMPETITIVE IN THIS WORLD, WE
CAN'T HAVE ALL THE MONEY WE
WOULD SPEND ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY OTHERWISE GO
EXCLUSIVELY TO DEALING WITH A
POTENTIAL PROBLEM OR A
POTENTIAL NONPROBLEM.
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME
OF THE THINGS WE CAN DO, WE
OUGHT TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT MAKE GOOD SENSE.
IT HAS TO DO WITH ENERGY
EFFICIENCY.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY CAN BE
EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
IN NEW YORK CITY -- ARE WE
GOING TO STOP COAL-POWERED
POWER -- COAL-FIRED POWER
PLANT?
WE NEED THEM.
WE CAN'T.
>> ONE QUESTION, I WANT TO
GIVE YOU ONE MINUTE EACH,
GLEN, WHAT'S THE COST TO A
VIRGINIA FAMILY FOR THE EPA'S
CLEAN POWER PLAN VERSUS
ALTERNATIVES.
>> OKAY.
WELL, ACCORDING TO THE EPA,
WE SHOULD SEE AS MUCH AS AN
8 PERCENT REDUCTION IN OUR
BILLS THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE
SEE BY 2030.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE WOULD
EXPECT TO SEE A NET INCREASE
OF 5000 JOBS IN VIRGINIA AS A
RESULT OF THE INVESTMENTS IN
THE CLEAN POWER PLAN AND
ALONG WITH THAT, SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTIONS IN HEALTH COSTS.
>> DAVID.
>> OUR ANALYSIS SUGGESTS AND
THE STATE CORPORATION
COMMISSION'S ANALYSIS
SUGGESTS THE COSTLESS GO UP
25-30 PERCENT.
WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT
LOSING SOMEWHERE AROUND
35,000 JOBS.
AND I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT
IS THERE ARE 25 GOVERNORS, 22
ATTORNEYS GENERAL, SEVEN
STATE LEGISLATURES, 13 PUBLIC
UTILITY COMMISSIONS, AND 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENTS
THAT ALL BELIEVE THIS
COAL-POWERED PLANT IS
ILLEGAL.
IF IT IS AND WE HAVE EXPENDED
A LOT OF MONEY ON SOMETHING
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO
BACK AND REDO AGAIN, WE ARE
IN REAL TROUBLE, WHICH IS WHY
A LOT OF FOLKS, INCLUDING THE
GOVERNOR, HAVE SAID GOSH,
THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS
WITH THIS RULE, WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING
TREATED FAIRLY.
IT'S WHY THE SENATE MAJORITY
LEADER SAID MAYBE THE TIME
NOW IS JUST TO WAIT AND SEE.
LET'S SEE IF IT'S LEGAL.
IF IT'S LEGAL, WE CAN GO
FORWARD.
IF IT'S NOT, WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE
DRAWING BOARD.
AND FOR VIRGINIA, WHAT WE
DON'T WANT TO DO IS MAKE
COMMITMENTS THAT COST US
MONEY WE OTHERWISE WOULDN'T
HAVE TO SPEND.
>> GREAT.
LET'S TURN TO OUR FINAL
STATEMENTS, OUR CLOSING
STATEMENTS, AND BY THE COIN
TOSS, DAVID, YOU ARE GOING TO
GO FIRST.
>> THANK YOU BOB.
OUR CHALLENGE HERE IS TO FIND
THINGS WE CAN DO TOGETHER.
THE CHALLENGE IS TO FIND
THINGS THAT WE CAN DO THAT
MAKE SENSE FOR VIRGINIA.
THINGS THAT WILL ALLOW US TO
BE IN A POSITION TO TAKE CARE
OF OURSELVES IF THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN
TEMPERATURE, IF THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SEA
LEVEL RISE.
BUT ALSO, DOES NOT EXPEND
MONEY THAT WOULD BE WASTED IF
THERE ISN'T.
SO WE HAVE A CHALLENGE IN
FRONT OF US.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EASY.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL,
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME PEOPLE THAT
WE WON'T INSURE THEIR HOMES
ANYMORE IF THEY ARE PUTTING
IT IN A PLACE THAT IS CLEARLY
GOING TO BE INUNDATED BY
WATER.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO MAKE OTHER, EASIER
SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE.
I THINK THE BUY A WETLANDS
PROGRAM, NONPROFIT, CAN
INVEST IN PURCHASING LAND AND
MAKE SURE THAT THIS BECOMES A
WETLAND IS A GREAT IDEA AND
WE SUPPORT THAT, BUT THE
REALITY IS WE CANNOT
SACRIFICE AN ECONOMY ON THE
BACK OF CONCERNS ABOUT A
PROBLEM FOR WHICH, AS JUDITH
YOURIE PUT IT, WE JUST DON'T
KNOW.
>> GLEN?
>> THANK YOU.
IN 19 # EIGHT, JIM HANSON
TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS
ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
IN 1998, MICHAEL MANN'S
REPORT CAME OUT THAT SHOWED
THE LINK BETWEEN INCREASED
CO2 AND TEMPERATURE.
IT'S CALLED THE FAMOUS HOCKEY
STICK GRAPH.
IN 2006, AL GORE TALKED ABOUT
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
IT'S NOW 2015.
WE'VE HAD 27 YEARS OF DELAY,
AND IT'S TIME TO ACT.
THE CONCERN WE HAVE IS WHAT
YOU HEAR FROM DAVID TIME AND
TIME AGAIN IS WE DON'T KNOW,
WE DON'T KNOW.
WE REFER TO THESE PEOPLE AS
MERCHANTS OF DOUBT.
THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER
QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE
ANSWERED BEFORE WE ACT.
THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW.
THE SCIENCE IS IN.
THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR CITIZENS
TO PUSH BACK AGAINST
OIL-FINANCED INDUSTRY EFFORTS
TO RAISE DOUBT, TO TAKE BACK
OUR GOVERNMENT AT THE STATE,
LOCAL AND FEDERAL LEVEL AND
MAKE SURE THEY ARE INVESTING
IN CLEAN ENERGY AND
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE CLEAN POWER PLAN IS A
GOOD PLACE TO START, AND WE
ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE EPA IS
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THAT, AND THAT WE WILL SEE A
STRONG PLAN FROM GOVERNOR
MCAULIFFE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU KNOW, THIS EVENING, I
WANT TO THANK BOTH DAVID AND
GLEN FOR REALLY HAVING WHAT
WE WANTED TO DO WITH THIS
PROGRAM, AND THAT IS TO HAVE
A SPIRITED AND VERY CIVIL
DEBATE, ONE THAT WOULD
ADDRESS ALL THE BIG ISSUES,
AND AT THE SAME TIME, NOT BE
THE KIND OF SHOUTING MATCH
THAT YOU SOMETIMES SEE WHEN
YOU GET TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE
SAW HERE IN VIRGINIA.
SO FIRST,IT JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU TWO FOR THAT.
SECONDLY I WANT TO THANK OUR
AUDIENCE FOR ALL THE GREAT
QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD,
WHICH IS REALLY EVIDENCE, I
THINK, OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING
IN THE COMMONWEALTH TODAY,
AND ACROSS AMERICA, WHICH IS
AN AUDIENCE THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY ENGAGED WITH THIS
ISSUE, AND THAT REALLY CARES
ABOUT NOT ONLY CLIMATE CHANGE
AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN
THE FUTURE, BUT THEY ARE
LOOKING AT ALL OF THE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS, BOTH PRO
AND CON, THAT WILL COME FROM
THE NEW ENERGY ENVIRONMENT
THAT WE ARE ENTERING TODAY.
AND THEN FINALLY, I THINK WE
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE THOMAS
JEFFERSON INSTITUTE AND THIS
SHOW AND WE WANT TO ASK
ANYBODY HERE WHO ARE WATCHING
TONIGHT AND WHO HAVE IDEAS
ABOUT FUTURE SHOWS, WHAT WE
CAN DO TO IMPROVE THESE
SHOWS, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO
WRITE THE THOMAS JEFFERSON
INSTITUTE, GO TO THOMAS
JEFFERSON INST.ORG, GO TO
THAT WEBSITE, GIVE US
WHATEVER THOUGHTS AND
COMMENTS YOU HAVE ABOUT
FUTURE TOPICS AND HOW WE CAN
ENHANCE THESE DEBATES.
ONCE AGAIN, LET ME JUST THANK
YOU TWO FOR JUST A WONDERFUL
EVENING, AND THANK THE
AUDIENCE AND EVERYONE HERE
FOR HAVING THE KIND OF DEBATE
THAT I THINK IS REALLY A
MODEL FOR WHAT WE NEED TO BE
DOING IN VIRGINIA.
SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU BOB.
>> THANK YOU DAVID.
>> THANK YOU GLEN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY
CAPTION ASSOCIATES, LLC
WWW.CAPTIONASSOCIATES.COM
