[SOUND] Stanford University.
[MUSIC]
>> This is a problem unlike I would say any we've seen before, and
this is why it poses such interesting questions.
>> It effects the food that we're trying to grow and
the water resource that we're trying to get for people.
So, climate change is very much intertwined with so
many other things that we care about and are important to humanity.
>> There needs to be a way to get beyond that I'm right,
you're wrong, to look, this is affecting all of us.
>> We're very good at maintaining all this information among the academic elite, but
we cannot convey the same information to the rest of the world and
the rest of the population.
And I think that's where the main work needs to be done.
>> I guess I'd want to hear, how are we're going to do this?
>> The conversation I want to hear is about what we do next.
How do we limit climate change?
How do we adapt to the climate change that we're already in, entrained in.
>> I think it's also important to,
to divorce a question of is climate change happening and
is it caused by humans from the question of what should we do about it.
Because science can tell you that first question but values are important for
the second question you know?
What should we do about it?
Well that depends on how much do we care about the future or
people in other countries or nature. Right?
And I can't tell you that,
and you know, you, you can't decide that, but together, we have to,
kind of, look at our collective values and, and make a judgment on that.
>> There's a real opportunity for, for a conversation about climate risk management
and discussion of what we can do to build resilience to decrease vulnerability,
to adapt to climate changes.
>> I want to hear a conversation that's looking forward boldly to the solutions.
How can firms make responding to this challenge.
Creating the next generation of technology.
The business opportunity of the 21st century?
How can we act together to rein in emissions and
drive them down in this century.
How can we all make sure that our communities, and
our families, and our countries are safe in a changing climate?
>> From the research that we've done over the last 20 years monitoring American
public opinion, it's clear that Americans do place a priority on climate change.
There's strong public will to see government take action, on the other hand
government is not taking the magnitude of action the public would like to see.
>> Climate change is something that affects every part of
society that matters and that has an impact on people's life's.
And, as we move forward, I think the worst part of it, is that those who are,
who least have the power to change their circumstances and to protect themselves,
are the ones who are most vulnerable and who will suffer the most.
And it just seems like,
this just seems like the kind of injustice that ought to be addressed.
>> There's a wonderful English proverb that is,
may you live in interesting times.
Some people call it a curse.
But it's also just thinking about, challenge as an opportunity.
And I think that humanity is going to have to respond.
And so our society an our politics will definitely be changing.
>> This is a question on which our generation will be judged and
evaluated in the future.
Do we make tough decisions and solve it?
Or do we essentially punt and, and kind of kick the can down the road.
And, and push these buttons onto generations to come.
[SOUND].
>> Please welcome our Stanford round table panelists and our moderator, Leslie Stahl.
[APPLAUSE].
>> Thank you, thank you.
[APPLAUSE] Wow, my first time performing on a basketball court.
This is wonderful, and in the round.
Well, we have with us the rock stars of the environmental and
energy sector in the United States, and I am just so
thrilled to be able to introduce them to you.
Alvaro Umana, who is Senior Research Fellow at
the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, and
was Costa Rica's first Minister of Energy and Environment. Alvaro.
[APPLAUSE] JB Straubel Co-founder and
Chief Technology Officer of Tesla Motors.
[APPLAUSE]
Chris Field professor of Environmental Earth System Sciences,
Senior Fellow at Stanford Precourt Institute and Woods Institute.
He is also founding director of the Carnegie Institute's Department of
global ecology.
Chris.
[APPLAUSE] Bina Vankacharmin,
Director of Global Policy Initiatives at the Brode Institute of MIT and Harvard.
Until earlier this month, just a few weeks ago, she was the White House advisor for
climate change innovation. Bina.
[APPLAUSE]
George Shultz, everybody knows
George Schultz, former Secretary of State and former Secretary of the Treasury and
distinguished fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
[APPLAUSE] And Tom Steyer,
president of NextGen Climate, cofounder of
Stanford's Tomkat Center for Sustainable Energy and the stier center for
energy police and finance, Tom Stark [APPLAUSE].
Well I'm assuming this is an subject of great interest to everybody here,
not just the panel.
And I want to start with Chris Field.
And Chris, I want to tell you about an interview I've just done with a senator,
a prominent senator of the United States.
I'm going to read you the transcript of the section on the, our topic and
have you comment.
And I want the audience to know, we're going to get to the questions of what we
should be doing about this, but I need to hear the answer to this, okay.
So I asked him, what, what his thoughts were on global warming.
We haven't seen any climate warming in 16 years.
Scientists call this a pause, a hiatus.
16 years?
Come on Leslie.
I say, what about the rising seas?
The droughts.
None of that can you scientifically say is caused by global warming.
Because there hasn't been any.
Since I've been in Congress, there hasn't been any.
Why are the glaciers melting in Greenland?
Why are they building up twice as fast in Antarctica?
Okay, take it away Chris Field.
>> Thanks Rosie.
>> [LAUGH]
>> There's no question that the planet's warm.
It's warmed by about one and half degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, and
there's also no question that the majority of this warming over the last 50 years or
so was the result of human actions.
The amount of heat in the Earth's system has been increasing really rapidly over
the last 15 years or so.
The period during which the atmosphere hasn't warmed as rapidly.
What we've seen is a small switch so that this big
increase in heat in the Earth's system has been partitioned more into the ocean's and
less into the atmosphere than in previous decades.
We don't know if this'll be sustained or not, but the striking thing is that
the amount of heat uptake has actually increased dramatically.
We haven't seen a pause in the heat uptake,
we've a dramatic increase, such that there may be
40% more rapid warming than we had understood until just recently.
the, the impacts of this are really widespread.
The, one of the clearest indications came from a brilliant Stanford study that was
just published a couple of weeks ago, and it showed that
there's basically this mountain of high pressure in the in the Central Pacific,
and it's making the storms that come toward California bounce off.
That we don't know.
>> Is that, is that because of, global warming?
>> So, that's the question.
And, Noah Diffenbaugh who you saw on the great video's group recently asked
that and said is it the case that we can say that California's drought with this
big mountain of high pressure air, is causing, caused by climate change?
And what they found is that even though you can't say with 100% certainty.
That the mountain of high air is a product of climate change,
we know that in the climate of today.
It's four times more likely we'll see that kind of condition.
Than in the climate before humans altered.
Four times more likely we'll get the kind of conditions that have
produced this devastating drought we're seeing now in California.
>> But when you say you can't say for sure, I mean, that's what's gets.
That's what I think gets confusing.
You can't say for sure it is climate change.
You, you think it's climate change.
George, jump in.
>> We have a guy around here now named Gary Rupping.
He recently retired as Chief of Naval Operations.
And we have a task force on the Arctic.
And what's going on there?
And the consequences and the opportunities and the problems and
so forth that are associated with it, why?
Because the ice is melting, the sea ice is melting fast.
And he has a little video that shows over time, gradually, and
then, all of a sudden, there's a discontinuity.
So how is it that a new ocean is being created?
That hasn't happened since the last Ice Age.
>> No. I've been to Greenland.
I saw it too, but I think the question is about the extreme storms and the drought.
You know, it's just a little confusing, because it's out there, and
it should be nailed and answered and let's get rid of the question.
Why is it even on the table, why does a Senator say this?
You know, just, let's get rid of it.
But we can't. >> So I think this issue of uncertainty
a little bit of a, it's a little bit of a copout for us, as a society.
We make decisions amid uncertainty all of the time.
We make decisions about bets on financial markets that we're going to invest in.
We make decisions about what university we're going to attend.
We make decisions about what course of treatment to take.
Think of when you're a patient in front of a doctor.
A doctor might present you a sort of
body of research about people who have symptoms like yours.
The doctor can't tell you I'm 100% certain in every case that
this intervention's going to turn out perfectly.
I'm not 100% certain that if you don't do the intervention that you are going to
die or that you're going to suffer.
But here are the,
here are the probabilities, here is the information that I can tell you.
And then let me know about you.
What's your tolerance for risk?
What's your personal history?
What's your vulnerability?
And with those decisions,
with that interaction with the science we make decisions.
And frankly we make decisions to avoid risks.
We made a decision, make decisions as a society to avoid harm, and
that's what we need to do in this case.
>> Tom. [APPLAUSE].
>> Well, obviously I agree with Bena but
I think there's something else here too because she's talking about the ability,
and the need to make decisions in uncertainty.
But the other question is what is, what is the size and
character of the risk we're willing to undergo?
And I was an investor for 30 years and I had a good friend who ran a big company.
And he told me the one thing you never do when you run a big company is
risk the whole enterprise.
So if you have 95% probability coming from scientists,
you are saying we really need to nail this we need 100%.
We have 95% probability of this with a risk to the whole enterprise.
Now what sensible person looking at those percentages and that, you know,
gigantic risk that no CEO should ever really take, wouldn't want to take action.
[APPLAUSE].
>> You nailed it.
All right, back to Chris for a minute.
So here's another thing I hear, in that it is only 95%.
Let's not invest that much right now [LAUGH], because you know there's that
little, we can't afford it really, and this isn't the time, we're not there yet.
Hit that out of the ballpark the way he just did.
[LAUGH].
>> Well, there are two elements that are really important to understand.
The first is that,
there's a tremendous amount of inertia in the way climate change works.
Some of this inertial is as result of emissions that have already occurred.
And, and the physics.
And some of it is inertia as a result of the infrastructure that we have,
the coal fired power plants, the all electricity generation.
We know that we're going to continue to use fossil fuels for
some time in the future.
And the only way that we can transition effectively off is to start now.
The longer you wait, the more it costs, the more complicated solutions get to be,
and the more residual impacts you deal with.
There's no reason to wait because there are smart,
effective, low cost things we could be doing today.
>> Give me one low cost example that you think we should be doing today.
>> Just as an example, we could be dramatically increasing
the efficiency of water utilization in California.
Huge amount of water in California goes, energy goes into pumping water around.
We don't need to be doing that.
>> Okay someone keep track of all the ideas we get, okay?
[LAUGH] And let's get someone to, seriously, seriously.
One more question before we open it up Chris.
I, in your opinion,
in order to really get a handle on this issue, in terms of solutions.
Is it essential that the government be
continue to subsidize in the R&D industry?
>> We can have a great conversation about this.
My feeling is that we need a level playing field.
With a level playing field, we can unleash the potential, the innovation across
the economy to come up with solutions that work, but a level playing field has to
acknowledge the damage that's being done by the emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Once we address that.
>> I'm very comfortable that the marketplace can solve the core of
the problem.
>> But do we need government now to, to start it?
>> You know, there are critical elements of playing field leveling,
including support for research and development which I know is a passion of
George's that, that are essential elements, in creating environment
in which the market forces can come up with compelling solutions.
>> Okay.
Alvaro Umana you led a deep,
a rescue a reverse of deforestation in Costa Rica and it was a success.
We would love to know what the formula was and
how that translates to what we might do in this country.
>> Well, it actually started here at Stanford 40 years ago.
I was a young graduate student in, in environmental engineering, a physicist.
And the economist kept telling me the climate change and
the use of global resources and the environment, it's an externality.
And I could not accept that everything on which the economy depends we
could call an externality.
So I enrolled in economics to learn their language and
I learned that you know, we treat CO2 different than everything else.
We have a fossil fuel that reacts with free oxygen from the atmosphere and
generates useful energy, and CO2.
But we don't count the CO2.
And we have to start counting the cost of CO2 for
the level playing field that Chris is is talking about because we need it for
efficiency for renewables so that other solutions can compete on an equal basis.
So I learned that and you know in 40 years
we have accumulated this huge global externality that Nick Stern,
a British economy calls the mother of all externalities.
100s of billions of tons of CO2 that will stay in the atmosphere for
a very long time.
So we have to implement an economic solution.
And I represented Costa Rica and Central America at the Cup one,
the first meeting of the parties in Berlin in 1995, and I came back and
told the president we have to start acting because everybody's going to start acting.
And I convinced him to put a 5% tax on fuels, to operate as a carbon tax.
It was later negotiated down to 3.5%.
But it has been respected by all these governments in 17 years.
And we put that money for forest protection and reforestation.
And that along with expansion of private reserves and
public parks and restrictions on land use led to the reversal of deforestation.
In the past decade, Costa Rica has sequestered or
taken up from air a 100 million tons of carbon and, [APPLAUSE].
>> Something.
>> So, at, at, at, at a very reasonable cost we've also
developed a system that is 90% renewable energy in the electric grid.
Mostly hydro, but also geothermal and wind, and five years ago we started this,
important challenge of trying to become carbon neutral.
The concept of carbon neutrality is very powerful,
because each of us can calculate our footprint.
You can go to the Internet, and many calculators.
Our schools can become carbon neutral.
Our communities can become carbon neutral.
Our churches can become carbon neutral.
So what you do is you figure out how much you're emitting, how much you can reduce,
and then how you can compensate the rest.
And a lot of people, businesses communities, regions are working
on this and we feel that it shows you first that you can do things and
first that it won't break the economy.
We could, we can not accept this proposition.
You can do small things right away that will be very effective.
>> Beautiful, beautiful [APPLAUSE] George Schultz,
I know you've been thinking about this.
I have two questions, it's a two-parter.
The first one is, when I first spoke to you about this,
you mentioned something called the Montreal Protocol.
As a possible step we could take, so please explain that.
And secondly, what do you think about a carbon tax?
>> In the mid 1980's, when I was Secretary of State, we found that
many good scientists thought the ozone layer was depleting.
There were others who doubted it, but we found as we talked to
them they all agreed that if it happened, it would be a catastrophe.
So I thought about this a lot, I had the privilege of twice a week
private meetings with the president, and I discussed it with him carefully.
And out of those conversations came the concept [COUGH] of an insurance policy.
That is, instead of going to the people who disagreed and banging on them and
castigating them, [COUGH] we said, okay, you have your opinion.
We don't agree with it,
but you have agreed that it would be a catastrophe if it happens.
So let's agree on an insurance policy, so they did.
So, instead of alienating them, we put arms around them, and, and
then it's often the case when something really serious emerges,
the entrepreneurial juices in the American economy assert themselves.
And in this case the DuPont company came up with something you could do.
Not what you aspire to do but what you can actually do and put it into a fact.
So we got that to happen in a lot of places, and it caught on and
eventually we went to Montreal and had a treaty called the Montreal Protocol.
>> Could this work?
>> And it worked.
>> Could this work?
>> It worked and it's interesting to see that as,
as it turned out in retrospect, the scientists who were worried were right.
And the Montreal protocol I think it's fair to say came along just in time.
So it seems to me we aught to, look at the consequences of climate change,
and say well, let's not argue about whether it's taking place or
not, let's see what the consequences are.
Tom sponsored something called Risky Business that I
was involved in designed to do just exactly that.
So you can say, look, these are serious consequences.
Now going back to the way you look at it, we say well if you have these consequences
and there is x percentage of likelihood, maybe we better do something.
And if we do my nomination is two things.
One of which is a piece of cake, if we handle it right.
And the other is harder, but it's getting somewhere.
First of all, is sustained support for energy R and D.
>> From the government?
>> That is happening.
From the government, from other sources.
But the interesting thing is [COUGH] when there is a serious government commitment,
private money comes.
I think at Stanford, something like three to one private to, to government money.
I'm very familiar with the MIT program it's about the same.
Interesting the government lab at NREL has the same experience.
So the private money comes when they see this.
Why?
Because they're energy companies and
they want to be, if something's going to happen, they want to know about it.
And not be blindsided, so they come, and it's fine.
Some universities are scared to death of companies being around.
I guess at Stanford we figure,
Silicon Valley's just a big Stanford spinoff so what the hell?
We might as well.
[LAUGH] [APPLAUSE] So
if you support energy R and D and then as Chris was saying I
think let's put a price on Carbon, and make it revenue neutral.
That [APPLAUSE] that levels the playing field.
Because the people who,
who's energy is producing carbon are imposing a cost on society.
It's, I was in Washington once, we were doing this and somebody said we're
a bunch of nut cakes out of California, I said, yeah, we're a bunch of nut cakes,
we even care about the air we breath, how nutty can you get?
But if you put a revenue neutral carbon tax on it,
I can argue with the tax mafia look its not really a tax it's revenue neutral.
It's just leveling the playing field.
And I think that's beginning to get some traction,
it takes a while but it's beginning to get some traction.
I think we'll get there if we keep after it.
>> Okay.
[APPLAUSE] So JB.
I want to ask you what's on the drawing board in terms of technology and
innovation in this area.
And I want to also ask you if you support a carbon tax?
Revenue neutral or not or whatever.
We're going to get a consensus here I think.
>> Well, there, there's a lot of exciting stuff on the drawing board,
and in particular, we spend a lot of time on energy storage.
You know, that ends up being kind of a lynch pin technology to a lot of,
both electric vehicles, electrification of transportation in general but
also storage of renewables on the grid and going to higher percentages of
renewables and you know before I mentioned the carbon tax.
I, I want to reinforce something Secretary Schultz said which is I think
the entrepreneurial and innovative side to this is a huge part of the solution.
>> Yeah. >> We can't incentivize ourselves to
a scale a solution at scale that will fix what we're up against.
We can get started in certain areas but you know, we have to
find ways to make this profitable and make new businesses, you know, succeed based on
their own merits, you know, for whatever technologies are being applied.
In terms of a carbon tax I, I'm not sure the exact right mechanism but
I think, you know, having the right accounting for
the external, external cost of carbon is critical.
We, we have to find a way to do that.
You know there needs to be a market place that values that and that's that's up
you know, smarter people perhaps to figure out what the right structure for that is.
But, I think that once that gets to be in place and
perhaps even before you know, there will be a massive pull of people and
talent into the space to find solutions to it that we can't even predict right now.
>> Can you give us some something on the drawing board that you think or
maybe do a little more with storage.
What do you mean by that?
>> Well, in particular, batteries are something that we spend a lot of
time on and I think batteries are often talked about.
They're in the press a lot.
There's new announcements, government labs working on this, many startup companies.
and, you know there's often a perception that batteries are just waiting for
some big breakthrough.
You know when is the big breakthrough going to happen?
>> Right. >> But,
in in actuality it it's happening gradually over a long period of time.
You know there are many little breakthroughs being made by
100s actually 1000s of people, and it's steadily improving.
So, to me, that's one of the most exciting things,
is looking forward at the road map for how cheap and how
high-performance batteries will be in a much shorter timeframe than people expect.
>> Okay, Bina?
You and I had a very brief exchange, and you mentioned something what,
that I find interesting.
And that is that, all the movement in this area is happening at the local or
state level, not the federal level and I suppose that's
because people at that level are seeing the effects of extreme weather.
Tell us some of the examples of what you're seeing down there.
>> Sure, sure and I'll just put an asterisk on what you said.
I didn't say that all of the movement is happening at the local and state level.
And I will, I will extol some of the work that is happening at
the federal level because I, I do believe that it's going to make a difference.
But, one of the points that I wanted to make, and
I think that we were talking about, is that, Well think about it this way,
here we are in Silicone Valley and it's a epicenter of technological innovation.
And we like to think about innovation as something that two guys in
a garage came up with.
And you know as someone who lived in a garage in Palo Alto 11 years ago,
I have nothing against garage's.
But, the real innovation, in climate change is happening when
many people share the same idea and are working together to make it happen.
It's not just about the lone innovators, and
that is happening at the level of communities.
And the communities in some cases are geographic communities like states and
localities, in other cases they are communities of people who share some
common purpose and values such as companies.
So you have companies like Disney and
Microsoft putting an internal price on carbon.
You have communities like New York City and Chicago taking ambitious action around
both climate resilience, shoring up their defenses and their ability to bounce back
from impacts of coastal flooding and heat waves and droughts.
But also making ambitious targets towards reducing their own emissions of cities.
You see networks of cities working globally to share lessons learned on
how best to do those things.
You also are seeing communities of people who are working together
across sort of on the cap and trade agenda and mitigation.
So you're seeing that regionally in the northeast, here in California certainly.
Similarly on that sort of adaptation and resilience side in southern Florida.
We've seen four counties come together and forge a regional plan to prepare for
sea levels rise and coastal impacts.
So, I think there's something to this about the level of
citizen engagement being a sort of Goldilocks just right approach.
Where people in close contact are able to share the, the ability to get each other
energized, share some of the common vulnerabilities to climate change, and
share some of the solutions.
>> I, I have to bring you all the way back to the beginning,
because tell us what Microsoft and Disney have done?
>> So, both of these companies have taken it upon themselves internally to
set a price on carbon so basically what they've done is make purchase decisions.
Make decisions about their supply chains based on
the carbon footprint that they will have.
Quite forward thinking.
>> Yes. I think the business side is critical to
solve this problem.
And that's an important first step.
But there's nine companies in the world that generate two thirds of
all global emissions.
So it's really there that we have to put pressure.
For example, let's take, I don't want to pick on Apple, but
the iPhone is such an iconic product of our age.
You know, the iPhone, top of the line iPhone 6.
Carries a chain of carbon that weighs 110 kilograms.
Okay?
From 95 to 110.
More than 30 kilos more than the iPhone 5.
Okay?
The good news is that Apple is now calculating it,
and you can go to their website and see the footprint of each phone.
>> What's where is all, where is, what in the phone is causing that?
>> From the materials, the assembly, the construction, okay, and
the smaller the phone, the higher the footprint.
Now, the good news is that with only a few dollars,
you could upset, offset those emissions.
The problem is that nobody in the business world wants to be the first one.
They all want to be the last.
That's why the signal that secretary Schules was
saying that the government has to send the signal, because then they will say yes,
maybe we should start doing this and we should start compensating our emissions,
and I think Apple has a great opportunity to be a leader in this sense.
>> So this point about the interaction between government policy and
innovation, I think is a really important one that's coming out.
And we have to, I think, look at precedent of how regulatory policy.
How government policy can be an enabler and
accelerant of private sector innovation.
Because we all want to see those marketplace innovations that are going to
respond to this crisis.
And make it a train that keeps going that we can't stop.
>> You talk to the innovators and they'll say get government out of the way.
>> It depends.
So you look at the history of the 2007 light bulb efficiency rules that
George W Bush put into place, and the flourishing of CFLs and
LED technology that came after that.
The 2009 CAFE standards on fuel emissions where President Obama doubled our
fuel efficiency targets for light vehicles.
And the 50 some hybrid and
electric vehicles that are coming, flooding the market in response.
So I think government policy can set the groundwork and
it can trigger to innovators that response that we saw with the Montreal Protocol
where they are willing to come and step up and
use their ingenuity to respond to the challenge.
>> Tom, I just want to make two points.
One is to respond to amplify on what Mena said before.
When you think about local governments as opposed to national governments,
you have to start from the idea that this is actually a global problem.
So when you think about the city of Miami Beach spending $350 million on new pumps.
Because that king tides, there's salt water that runs through their streets.
That is dealing, in the way that local government should, with a local human
problem, and adapting to what exists, but it is definitely not attacking the problem
which is that the sea is rising, and that however many pumps we buy.
Unless we deal with the underlying causes, that sea is going to continue to rise and
they're going to have to spend more than $350 million on pumps.
>> Right. >> So when we
think about the broad scale changes that George and Chris have talked about, what
you're really trying to do is not to, you said keep government out of my business.
What you're really trying to say is,
we're going to include the cost when you make decisions.
And we're not going to tell you what your answer should be.
But we're going to let you run a computer program that includes all the costs so
that you can make the best decisions, the way that businesses are supposed to.
And you can let all of your innovation and creativity run.
That, that's my first point.
>> Do you mandate that?
Do you mandate the, the.
>> That they have to, do you mandate that there has to be that balance?
>> You have to.
I mean the, the point is George's which is this, the polluter should pay for
the pollution.
I always say if I were running.
[APPLAUSE].
>> That's right. That's the basic point.
>> If, if I were running a garbage company, and so I went to everybody on
this panel and picked up their garbage, and dumped it in George's front yard.
I could have really low cost.
>> [LAUGH]
>> George and Charlotte might not be to happy about that.
>> Yes.
>> That wouldn't be fair and that's really what's happening.
And the other point I'd like to say is we are at Stanford.
You know, if you think about 1983.
>> Uh-huh.
>> So in 1983 they broke up Ma Bell.
In 1996 to 98 they deregulated the telephone industry.
When you think about in 1983 when we had rotary phones in my kitchen and
very simple TVs.
We didn't even have the language for what's happening now.
There is the explosion of private sector creativity combined with research,
development, innovation that's happened, you know, this is kind of the epicenter,
Maple's Pavilion, the epicenter of that revolution.
There is no reason to think that that kind of revolution can't happen in energy if we
level the playing field the way these guys are recommending.
[APPLAUSE] >> Totally agree.
>> Nice.
>> George, did you, did you.
>> You mentioned people's reaction to being overregulated, and so
this is one of my prime arguments for the revenue neutral carbon tax.
You don't like all these little bits and pieces telling you what to do?
Let's put in a price, and
then you can react to that price in any way you make sense.
And the second point I'd like to bring into this conversation, and
that is security.
Our grid is very vulnerable.
Not just to natural disasters but to cyber attack and
other terrorist attacks as we've seen right here in San Jose.
So I think we should be focusing on having more energy where we use it.
So we're not as vulnerable.
And here's where batteries come in.
And it's been fascinating to me to recently run across a guy
who I think has solved the problem of large scale storage.
And if he has, and I think he has, that's a genuine breakthrough.
Among other things it takes the intermittency problem out of
wind and solar.
But it also means that you can have energy where you use it you.
And, and I'm a Marine.
So I'm always watching what the Marines do.
And in Afghanistan you know, they carry all this electronic gear,
it's getting heavier and heavier they want to lighten up.
So what have they done, they've invented this thing, it's very light and
you just flip it open, what is it?
A bunch of solar panels.
So you lay it out there and you plug in your gear and store them up.
And it's created where you use it and there's no pollution connected with it.
What's not to like?
Go Marines.
[APPLAUSE].
>> That's fantastic.
So I want to go back to Tom for a minute because, you know, the,
the question of whether there is going to be public support for
what everybody's talking about.
Means that you do have to bring the skeptics in.
You do have to create, some kind of momentum, and I know you think about this.
This is what you're up to right now.
So give us your thoughts on what is the next step to get people energized and
together on it.
This.
>> Well, let's start from where we are,
and where we are is that about two-thirds of Americans believe this is a problem,
believe it is caused by human activity, and pretty much in
general agree with the panel in terms of what the con, solution should be.
The issue is they don't think it's that important.
When asked to rank energy and
climate in terms of problems that they face, it ranks pretty low.
And in order for there to be action, in order for them to push elected
officials to do the right thing, it has to be much more important to them.
They have to think that it's something that really affects them, their families,
and the people they love.
Because if they don't, then most people have enough issues in their lives, jobs,
healthcare, education, actually having a little fun, they, they won't put in the,
they don't think it's important enough.
And they won't communicate that.
>> Right. >> So, the question really becomes how do
you make this a real?
You know, I believe this is, as someone said in the video,
the leading challenge for our generation, that this will, in fact,
be the issue on which we're judged to have succeeded or failed as a society.
And so, the question is, how do you communicate that?
And I think the answer to that is very different from what we've been
talking about today.
I think that when you talk to people, you have to under, you have to
put it in terms that matter to them, and that means they have to be local terms.
So, for instance, the people in California do not lie awake at
night worried about the sea water running down Miami Beach, and
conversely the people in Miami Beach are not lying awake worried about our drought.
>> Yeah.
>> So what you really have to do is it's gotta be very local, and
it's gotta be human.
Because people are, you know, you have to be able to translate a scientific and
policy discussion into terms that people don't spend their time
thinking about science and policy can relate to and care about and it matters.
Then they understand, so
for instance, in the, in Los Angeles county, 20 to 25% of the kids have asthma.
That is caused by pollution.
So in Las Angeles county,
those families are not wondering whether this is an issue.
They know it's an issue, because it's affecting their kids' lives, and
it's going to affect the trajectory of their kids' lives.
So, when we look at trying, making people care about this,
you have to put yourself in the position of the people you're talking to and
understand what is the, how is it going to impact their economic livelihood?
How's it going to impact their health?
And how are they really being treated by society?
>> Let, let’s have a round on your ideas on how we move, what number?
[APPLAUSE] You said it’s where on the scale of priorities? 19?
How you think it’s possible to
move the interest and concern up that ladder.
Chris have you thought about this?
>> I, I think there are really two core ideas that people need to keep in mind.
The first was, was introduced really eloquently by George and Bina and
it's this concept of an insurance policy.
Even if you are only 95% certain that there's a serious issue out there.
Smart people will make investments in insurance, in, in protection.
But I think the other element that we're really just beginning to unfold is that
the kinds of actions we're talking about aren't net drains on the economy.
What we're talking about is building more resilient societies, more robust
economies, and having investments in dealing with climate change.
At the same time, be investments in building a better world.
And we have that opportunity to target the kinds of actions that are taken so
that there investments and where we collectively want to go in
the future at the same time we address the climate problem.
>> So you want to argue that to move in the direction of
clean green clean companies whatever.
It's, it's going to be healthier for the economy in the end.
>> An, and we'll be addressing Asthma in Los Angeles, we'll be,
we'll be addressing a wide range of issues about sustainablilty,
about equal access to energy, and about empowerment of individuals, and
communities around the world.
>> Cause you keep hearing, we can't afford it.
Anybody else, any ideas on how to move, Tom has, Tom has a million ideas.
>> Well, I just want to address the idea that we can't afford it.
>> Oh, okay. >> Because actually there've been
a series of studies.
That have come out this year that say fact, the alternatives of doing nothing or
preceding on a more progressive energy policy on an economic basis we're
much better off preceding on a progressive energy policy.
So the idea that somehow we can either have a healthy environment or
we can have a healthy economy.
That dichotomy.
If you ever fall into that trap you're lost.
It's not true.
And there's been a ton of work done to say that in fact the opposite is true.
[APPLAUSE] >> I want to second that.
Because there are two very damaging misconceptions about climate change.
One is that its a very long term gradual process that
will affect the future generations and not us.
And I think we really have to make the point that climate change will only be
addressed when it becomes a local issue.
>> I, I agree completely.
We're not doing this for other people, we have to do it for ourselves.
Also we have to work at all levels.
We have to work governments, we have to work businesses and
we have to work citizens.
For example, a group of school children in
Oregon sued the federal government for not protecting the atmosphere.
Citizens we are trying to get 1 billion people to sign a petition
to go to the International Court of Justice to define who owns the atmosphere.
And the atmosphere is not owned by governments,
it should be owned by individual citizens, so that we can protect it.
[APPLAUSE] so, and
this is critical because we are living a tragedy of the commons, you know.
We are trying, treating the atmosphere as a cess pool, so as long as
there's no property right, there's nobody standing up for the atmosphere.
Just dumping.
So we need, if the governments are not stepping up to the plate,
citizens have to take the slack.
And businesses have to take leadership, as well.
>> Now, what, what do you, any of you, think can be
done about the fact that this, in some way, has become a religious issue.
The opposition has, has become a question for some religions.
How do you, how do you argue?
>> I think you also have to notice that it's become a religious issue from
the perspective of support for action on climate change.
So we've seen some of the evangelical community, communities of
faith from across the spectrum of the world's religions actually have.
Come to the fore saying action on climate change actually reflects our values.
Because we care about the planet.
We care about future generations.
We care about aligning our belief system with the actions that governments take.
The actions that companies take.
The actions that citizens take.
So, I think there's definitely areas of common ground,
from a theological perspective, from a belief community perspective.
There may be particular groups that
oppose it and
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> Wield.
Yes.
Wield religion as an answer, as an, as an explanation.
But I don't think at the core there's an inherent conflict with any of
the world's religions with acting on climate change.
>> No, but if, if, if public policy is in gridlock on this issue.
Part of the reason is that that in certain parts of the country,
the religion is saying it's not real.
So how do you deal with that aspect of it?
Anybody?
>> Well, I think that we have to clarify to people that,
that we are the stewards of creation and, and that we have that responsibility.
And, and I think that resonates with, with people of faith.
The problem, you know, you, we started with the discussion, is 95% enough?
Science doesn't work on 100%.
You know, if you're in the 100% you're in,
in the realm of dogma not in the realm of science.
And that's what is hard for people to understand.
But I do not see an inherent conflict.
I think that people can understand.
It, it, if they believe in god and
a creator then we have the duty to maintain and steward this planet.
[APPLAUSE] >> Tom?
>> I, I think when you think about the religious
implications of preserving the planet.
They're two really strong core religious beliefs that virtually everyone
who believes in God shares.
One is that we're stewards of the Earth.
That God created the Earth and
our job is to pass it on and take care, take care of it.
And the second is, that we are, you know we should be respectful and
careful about the most vulnerable people on the planet.
And almost every religious person believes they have a responsibility to their
fellow humans.
Particularly the most vulnerable.
And when you see the impact, and, you know,
Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of an extreme weather event.
When you see who suffers in extreme weather events,
it is the most vulnerable amongst us.
So I think that when you talk to religious people and
when I have talked to religious people.
I find incredible common ground with them on those two core principles.
And which I think I've never really heard someone come back from me
on a faith based, for a faith based reason honestly.
[APPLAUSE] >> Finding someone in the New York I had
the privilege of addressing an interfaith group.
That it had representatives of more or less all of the world's major religions.
There were Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and Jews.
And what was striking about that group is that each saw
really important value in the kinds of, of stewardship and concern.
For the vulnerable that, that Tom's just expressed.
I, I think that the issue we're talking about runs through all of
the world's major religions.
>> You know, I want to tell you all about Greenland.
George, you mentioned the seas rising because the ice is melting.
Well I went to Greenland to do a story.
And you can see the re, the receding glacier.
You could actually see it.
You see these little pieces of ice, falling into the sea.
And Greenland's way of life has always been to fish off ice.
It's just been a big piece of ice, the country.
Everybody has sled dogs.
Everybody has a sled.
That's the way they get around.
And all of a sudden, there is no ice.
And their way of,
their whole history has been challenged, their traditions, everything.
However as the ice recedes.
Guess what?
They're finding oil.
>> [LAUGH]
>> And they are going to develop the fossil fuel industry.
So I mean it's every time you think well there's going to be
something obvious here something comes around whacks you in the head.
The, these are the horrible things that's are happening out there.
>> Slight parenthetical to your comment about Greenland.
Greenland isn't a little piece of ice, it's a big piece of ice.
[SOUND] The, the, the sea level equivalent in Greenland is between 20 and 25 feet.
When Greenland, if Greenland melts and it's in our hands,
that means that something like a third of south Florida disappears.
So you know, in some sense, we're talking about whether people are going to
pursue their, ambitions in, in Greenland or in Florida.
And that's more or less the trade-off.
>> Well, if you go to Greenland.
The issue's unmistakable if you see it yourself and
it's pretty dramatic up there.
Bina, you had mentioned something to me.
because I know a little bit about this and it's really fascinating.
NASA has these two twin satellites.
That are going around the Earth like this constantly.
You want to tell us about that?
>> Sure.
each, they're twins, and they're each about the size of a small car.
Not sure if a Tesla, or Volkswagen Bug, [LAUGH] or what the, what the make.
And they're the GRACE satellites.
And they are just two of the many examples of
the robust observing system that we invest in as a country, the U.S..
And something that we should be proud of.
Those of us who are staying, or are part of this country in some fashion.
And they are taking measurements of changes in the Earth's gravitational pull.
tiny, perceptible changes, including changes from the drawing down of aquifers,
subterraneous fresh water sources.
Such as the Central Valley aquifer.
And the GRACE satellites were among the resources that scientists have
relied on to be able to anticipate, phenomenon.
Like the drought that California is experiencing and
is being devastated by right now.
And, the reason I think I shared that with you, if I remember correctly.
Is that there's a combination of sort of short-run innovation that we need to
jump start and solutions to this crisis.
But there's also, a challenge, and a need for sustained and
long-term action and thinking on this crisis.
We need a long-term record of observation if we hope to understand the planet,
understand these changes that are happening.
And satellites like the GRACE Resource and others.
Are giving us that fundamental understanding.
And I think, you know it, it this has been touched upon a bit,
but when it comes to climate change we are sort of driving in the car.
We're driving in the car and we're looking in the rearview mirror.
We are making decisions based on our past understanding and
our past experience of risk.
Not based on what's right on the road in front of us,
let alone what's around the bend.
And when it comes to complicating that view,
getting us to look out the windshield instead of in this rearview mirror.
We need that scientific understanding that's going to underpin our,
our ability to make and understand risks.
That said the scientific community can do a lot more and
is beginning to do a lot more to make that science relevant.
And I think this speaks to Tom's earlier point.
But people don't make decisions based on global average temperatures or
global ocean temperatures.
That information is critical.
They make decisions based on what's affecting them in their homes.
How often their basements are going to flood.
How much the people in their family may be affected by the next heat wave.
And so we need to find increasing ways to make that science and
that investment in that long term understanding.
Actionable to people at the decision making level that they have in
their communities and their companies and their neighborhoods.
>> But what, what the twin satellites, NASA, is studying the planet from space.
So the, the satellites you mentioned to me, they're called GRACE.
And what they're studying and
looking at is the groundwater level, as you suggested, the aquifers.
And they're, they do it.
It's, it's so complicated how it's done.
It's genius, though.
It's absolutely genius.
They can see underground somehow or figure out what's going on underground.
>> Or take pictures of changes in the earth's gravitational pull.
>> Exactly.
Because of gravity.
But what they're finding is that the ground water all over
the planet is receding everywhere, not just here in California.
Can we talk a sec about California the drought and
mainly lets talk about water and how water is going to become important in our lives.
We we get it free.
We don't even think about it in most parts of the country.
And it's going to become in many parts of the world it already is as
precious as diamonds and oil and things like that.
Who we can talk about it in political terms because it's
can cause stability where there is serious drought.
We can talk about it in terms of science and innovation.
So anybody who wants to have a discussion, because I'd love to,
on the question of water.
>> I think we're going to see real progress,
technologically, in how to desalinate water, or purify it.
Because the pressure is there, and people are starting to respond.
And I know of a few who are working on it pretty hard.
So there's not possibility, but still [COUGH] it's
one of those things you point to and people.
I thought the earlier question was people making a religion out of
opposing climate change, not established religions.
And I say to those people, look at things like what's happening in the Arctic.
That's not a one off event,
that's something you can observe with your own eyes.
It's happening.
And if they're political people I say be careful with your words because you
can get mugged by reality and you can lose your job as a result.
So be careful.
And they pay attention, but
I think the insurance policy that Chris was mentioning.
Is a good concept,
because it's actually not that expensive to take out a reasonable insurance policy.
If we support in a sustained way energy R and D and we put in
a revenue neutral carbon tax, that's not expensive, but it will do a huge amount.
>> We want is really essential,
it's central to the life of California's west and the entire world.
Water availability, water resources is one of the things where we see the clearest
impact of climate changes that have already occurred.
Especially in the West where we know that the snow pack is lasting less
long into the springtime.
And snowpack is really the, it's the foundation of California's water system.
And the water system for the entire west.
And we're seeing that, that foundation is being eroded.
It's one of the clearest things that you can't keep in a, in a warming climate.
At the same time the warmer atmosphere wants to evaporate more water.
So there's less water available.
And more that's going up into the atmosphere.
As George says, there are a lot of technology things we can do I think,
that increase in the efficiency with which we use water.
Breeding better crops, improving agricultural technology,
improving the markets for water.
There are amazing opportunities for
making sure that water gets to the places that it's needed.
But it really illustrates how there are opportunities for
doing better with the current variability.
That'll absolutely essential for dealing with the problems that we'll
face not only here in California and the West in the future.
But around the world.
Water is in many ways.
It's the the first thing to go in a changing climate.
It's the one where we have the most opportunities to really be successful.
>> So I read living in New York that there is a crisis,
a water crisis in California but people still water their lawns.
They don't, they don't hear it.
They're living in the midst of it.
Talking about public opinion.
>> We've taken out our front lawn [CROSSTALK] Chips, it's great.
>> Well my daughter who lives in Los Angeles has artificial grass and
it is gorgeous.
It looks like real glass.
You know, they put a little brown in it so it really looks like.
You know, when you think about water, it is kind of a hybrid resource.
In the sense that we all think of it as a common resource that we
have an absolute right too.
So, if someone wants to water their lawn in Los Angeles they feel
like water is essentially free.
And I have a right, you know, we all have a right to as much water use as we want.
And that is a very deeply engrained belief.
And it coincides with the idea that when you have a resource that you
don't pay for, you overuse it.
Because it's free.
And so therefore-
>> So >> Trying to introduce pricing
into water markets.
Particularly given that 80% of water of water in California is used for
agricultural purposes.
So when you introduce prices into that market, you're
changing people's ability to make money, and in some cases to water their lawns.
So we really have a hybrid resource that has
a very complicated regulatory framework, a very complicated legal framework.
And working out the policy implications of that which I actually think our
state government is doing a pretty good job at.
Is something we can do to adapt to the problem we
have which is ongoing which is a water shortage.
The issue's going to be we can do that, we can be successful at that.
But we can never get away from the idea that we have to deal with
the underlying causes for why we're having a water shortage in the first place.
>> Tom, I've got news for you.
If you lived, if you lived on the Stanford campus, as I do, you pay for your water.
And you get a little-
>> Really?
>> Every month, you get a little bill.
>> But, George, I know that's true.
But I was in a meeting with about 50 people the other day and someone asked.
How many of you know what your water bill is?
And there were very, very few hands that went up.
So the question is, is it significant enough that
anyone really knows how much they're paying per month?
And until they do, are they going to change the way they.
[INAUDIBLE]. >> Does everybody on
the panel think that we, we should all have, we should all pay for our water.
And it should the cost of it should be substantial so
that we'll talk, think about this.
It's, it's. [CROSSTALK] >> But, but
we have to not only pay for water but change our systems.
You know we cannot continue flushing toilets with potable quality water.
[APPLAUSE] We have to
start you know separate water systems, great water systems, recycled watered,
technology now allows us to do that much better, you know?
As a, as an environmental engineer, we had a program here of what have we
learned in 50 years in environmental engineering.
And one of the things is that the energy and
the waste, this what drives, the process.
So, we have to get the energy out of the waste.
And the other thing is that we don't have to build huge treatment plants anymore.
Eh, you can have a building with its own treatment plant
that collects all the water and treats all the, all, all the waste water.
>> Right in the building?
>> Right on the premises.
And this is the type of change that we have to do.
>> S,so I think, [APPLAUSE] I think that this issue of paying for
water is an important one to raise, but
I think we also have to understand that water is an, an issue of equity as well.
And I'll give you an example from here in the Bay Area.
Is Palo Alto if you look at the per capita water usage per day of east Palo Alto and
Hillsborough two fairly different communities in the bay area.
Hills Hillsborough is affluent suburban,
East Palo Alto is mixed race more working class.
East Palo Altoan's use about a, a third er, sorry I should say it this way.
Hillsboro residents use more than three times as
much water per capita per day than residents of East Palo Alto.
So when we think about how we organize the solutions to water usage, it's important
to think about the equity issues and who, who you're constraining from use in
a pricing system and there are ways to design that I think and optimize it.
There's another dimension to this water issue as we look globally,
across the landscape as well.
I think it was Mark Twain who was credited with saying that whiskey is for
drinking and water is for fighting over.
[LAUGH] And this is the reason why
the Pentagon is really looking at this issue of climate change and
the threats, the global threats that we face in a world with less water.
And I think that's the critical component of this, and when we think about the costs
of inaction, we think about the costs of lives, the costs in terms of
military deployments, the costs in terms of human conflict.
>> You know there was a documentary called The Years of Living Dangerously and
Tom Friedman.
The columnist at the New York Times did a piece making the case that
the rebellion in Syria, which has now spun out as we've seen it,
started because of a drought and complaints that
the Government wasn't doing enough to provide the people there with water.
So that is the, a, a,
an example of how water can lead to instability, right before our very eyes.
Tom?
>> I wanted to add to what Bina was saying, which is, you are asking,
does everyone agree that there should be a steep price on water.
>> Yes. >> And, I think you've,
Bina's point is a very good one.
>> It is. >> Which is,
I started by saying, water is a strange, commodity because it's the stuff of life,
we all need it to survive and pricing it at a level where poor people can't get
the water they need is something we can't do as a society, obviously.
>> [APPLAUSE].
>> So, that's one point.
The second point I want to make is,
I was talking to John Hennessey before we went on today.
And John was saying that Stanford is doing a big project on water reuse, that we're
doing a ton of research, we're going to be a model for how to use less water.
That it's the perfect Stanford opportunity to take you know, to walk the walk of what
we believe, and we have the opportunity to do it and I think Stanford,
he was talking about massive reductions in our water use as a campus.
Which I think will not affect our productivity,
will not affect our way of life at, at all, it's just a question of
us applying the kind of technology that's available and we know how to use.
>> Now if you watch 60 Minutes, you will see,
now this is a way we get our ratings up by the way, if you all watch I have
a piece coming on water on California, which is why I am so interested.
And I went to San Diego where they are recycling waste, waste.
And their not turning it, giving it, turning it into our taps,
thank goodness, but they are using it to replenish the aquifer.
So they are putting it back into the, into our ground, which is very important.
I asked, well, why can't they do that in the Central Valley?
They don't make enough waste.
That's the reason.
They don't make enough waste.
They don't have enough people to create enough of it, to recycle it and
put it back.
So there are some places where it makes sense to recycle and
others, actually the place that needs it the most really can't do that.
>> Mm mh >> Kind of a catch 22.
>> That's a valid user study of water.
>> I know that.
>> That's where the agriculture is.
>> Exactly.
And when they now drill, they have to go down so
deep, that they are really they're destroying the groundwater.
There's not going to be any left pretty soon and they have no choice.
>> And the problem with,
with climate change is that the impacts that you see in water are worldwide.
For example in Costa Rica,
the models say we will get an increase of only 10% average precipitation.
And you say, well, we could live with 10%, but
when you look how it happens, is the dry areas becoming drier, and
the wet areas becoming wetter, so 10% is a huge thing when, when you look at that.
So our Pacific Northwest which is our California,
is suffering the same type of drought that you're having here.
>> Wow. >> Because it has to
do with things that are happening in the Pacific Ocean, and the temperatures, and
the El Nino frequency, and, you know, it's, it's a very complicated system.
But ultimately what is happening, is that, the distribution of water is, is changing,
and the dryer places are becoming dryer, and the wetter, get an excess of water.
>> Let's talk about a global issue right now.
George, this is for you.
Saudi Arabia, right now,
is doing everything it can to get the, the cost of gas down.
And one of the reasons is that they want, don't want us to go to renewables.
They want us to keep using the fossil fuels.
They're very clever and they've done this in the past.
How do we fight something like that?
>> Well, we wise up.
[LAUGH] I've seen this a couple of times.
[APPLAUSE] I was secretary of treasury, when we had the first a boycott,
oil boycott.
And it was a calamity.
There was no energy department.
So people would come in and see me and tell me about all the ideas they had, and
I thought they sounded pretty good but there was a long ways to go.
But then the price of oil went back down and everything stopped.
The people totally lost interest >> Same thing happened when they
had the Iranian resolution, revolution, the price went up, people got interested.
Now, however, we've had a sustained period and we've had,
I think, the most impressive scientific and engineering effort that
we've ever applied to this area going on, and we have produced results, big time.
And they're starting, they're continuing.
And so, I think it's now demonstrable that energy R and D pays off.
And I have a little book I want to plug.
>> Just happen to have a little book here.
We had a coup, two or three years ago, we had a conference here at Stanford, and
we had 12 MIT scientists come, and we had about the same number of Stanford,
and we spent two days talking about what we call game changers.
And then, a year later, we had a similar meeting at MIT.
We took our act to Washington, I might say.
I got John Banor, I told him set us up with a meeting with
the republicans on the energy, House Energy Committee, and he did.
And we took our group there selling energy R and
D was an absolute piece of cake, was no problem.
But if somebody, as soon as somebody says well then,
the government sees a good idea, we should get in there and run a business.
You loose it.
So I say to people be smart politically.
Get, keep the government out of business, focus on R and
D and you'll get plenty of money.
But so, anyway,
Bob Armstrong who now runs the MIT when Ernie Monise now is secretary of energy.
And I, organized this material into a little book on gamechangers.
And there's a lot of stuff here.
Then we rode around to a few other universities and
said, have you got something that you'd like to contribute?
And so, quite a few did, and you can see, there are little take outs in the book.
It's some there, but
some take outs that say, scientist X plugged this in and added this and
took away that, all of a sudden look what we've got, a better battery or something.
>> What's the name of it?
>> Game Changers Energy on the Moon.
It's a Stanford publication.
>> There you go. >> It's free
>> [LAUGH].
I know I'm bouncing around a little but this just popped into my head.
Chris.
Ebola.
Are all these strange diseases and
specifically Ebola in any way connected to global warming?
>> One of the things we see is that,
climate change tends to operate as a threat multiplier.
That's actually the term that the Department of Defense uses.
I don't think there is a specific climate change link where warmer temperatures are,
somehow associated.
But what we're seeing in the emergence of many diseases, especially diseases that
are transferred from animals to humans as, as Ebola was, is that
more dense urban areas, especially urban areas with very poor social services.
Create environments where these diseases have the potential to really take off.
And in many cases especially in, in parts of Africa a big pressure for
the densification of urban areas has been shortages of water and
stresses on rural lifestyles.
So, this is an illustration of the kind of indirect linkage, that you wouldn't want
to dismiss even though I don't know of any scientist who would say, yes there's
a one-to-one relationship between the outbreak of Ebola and climate change.
>> But, but there is with respect to malaria or dengue fever or Chikungunya.
The, the those, you know, for example, Malaria is back in the United States.
And with climate change in other areas, it's going up higher,
to higher altitudes, than it was before.
So, there might not be with Ebola, but there are with other diseases.
And public health is a, it's an area where it's actually been very difficult to
diagnose these one to one relations of the climate change,
because public health is an area where,
the delivery of services from governments can make so much difference.
And in general we've been incredibly fortunate through the century, especially
in places like the United States, whereas, the, the range of the mosquitos that
carry malaria is shifting, that the public health system has responded, and,
and a really key component of effectively adapting to climate change.
Is making sure that the infrastructure for delivery of public health, for
delivery of good early warning systems and disaster responses is really in place.
>> Now consumption and demand for energy
in this country anyway, this country has been going down, and I wonder why.
Does, do any of you have any thoughts about what's happening?
>> Efficiency.
>> We are, we are learning how to use energy more efficiently.
It's the cleanest energy there is.
And that's happening.
>> I totally agree.
We're doing, you know,
we're doing more actual useful work with the energy that we are consuming.
So the actual amount of work and good productivity coming out of the energy,
is going up.
But we're not wasting as much, so the consumption can drop.
>> I wish it were true that the consumption in the US were going down.
From 2007 to 2012, we saw consistent year on year decreases in
total greenhouse gas emissions from the US.
Unfortunately, in 2013, they headed back up.
>> They did. >> And, the, Interpretation is that, most
of the decrease was a result of natural gas replacing coal and the electricity
sector, which is an a really important step toward decreasing overall emissions.
But that's been countered by increase in economic activity, which,
which is also something that we, we, we want to-
>> Because we can't have a recession.
>> Nurture. Right.
>> Yeah. >> And, and
the real challenge is how to be more energy efficient and
to make sure that the energy that we are putting in the system in
the futures isn't based on fossil fuels and high emitting fossil fuels.
>> I think water is the same situation.
You know there's such phenomenal waste with water that it hasn't even caught up
to anywhere close to the level of visibility and
accountability that energy has.
Most people don't know their energy bill let alone their water bill. But
>> Right.
The waste with water is truly amazing.
>> Okay.
>> There is the issue of the carbon intensity of the economy, you know,
how much tons of CO2 per thousand dollars of GDP?
And that is a very important measure for all the countries in the world,
and developed countries have lower carbon intensities.
As, as you go through developement, carbon intensity, improves.
But, this is an important variable to track because that's what
we really want to do.
We want to get more work out of the energy with less emissions.
that, that is happening, but
it's one of the things that developing countries have really to focus on.
For example, China had a very, very inefficient economy.
And that's why their goal is to improve 45% in
the carbon intensity of the economy.
And a lot of developing countries have to do that.
The US, as well, but the US is already in a, in a different stage.
>> Okay.
I'm going to ask a final question for all of you.
And we'll go, we'll do a round.
And its a its a two part question are you optimistic or not about.
Humanity's ability to get their hands on this issue, and
at least, begin to solve the problem and,
is there any question I didn't ask you that you want to leave the audience with.
Let's start with you We'll go this way.
>> Well, I think we have some biological inclination towards optimism.
otherwise, we, we wouldn't be around.
[APPLAUSE] but, but
you know, I've been in this game for 40 years and have not seen much progress.
So there, there is a high level of frustration.
But the what we have to do really is that we have to work harder and, and
work smarter.
I thought we were going to be moved by big ethical issues.
You know Captain Cousteau once told me,
I have a recurring dream more a nightmare, of thousands of eyes of thousands of
unborn children looking at me and telling me how could you be so irresponsible.
Of course he was talking about the oceans, but we're treating the atmosphere the same
way, and I do think that this is critical issue for our generation.
And that we have to work harder, we have to work at all levels and,
if we go down, we go down fighting, but we can't stop.
[APPLAUSE] >> You don't sound that optimistic to me.
[LAUGH] JB?
>> Well, I'm incredibly optimistic.
You know, I, I feel I think we focused a lot on some of the kind of negativity and
the, the, maybe a little more on the fear of you know, what, what climate change
and, and the, the sort of negative impacts might be, but there are, there are so
many cool opportunities and so many things that are evolving and improving.
Somewhat to address climate change, but
also just because technology is moving forward so quickly.
That I think a lot of the solutions are going to come,
completely in parallel, maybe not mandated by a particular government or
a particular policy, but you know they'll come because consumers just want
a better product that's using different or newer technology.
And at Tesla we focus a ton on this.
We can't rely on a certain government policy to, you know, convince or, or
force a customer to buy a product.
We have to make the product better.
We have to make the, the customer want to buy [LAUGH] the product, because it's
cool, it's fun and it's better than the, the incumbent competition.
And in more and more places, not just cars, but
in renewable energy with wind energy being cheaper than fossil fuel in mo,
many places, solar energy dropping to parity.
You know, I think we're going to see that happening irregardless of
whether people are, are fixated on the negativity of the climate change.
And in general we're, we're completely surrounded by solutions to this.
You know, I'd be pessimistic if we didn't have you know, enough solar energy in
absolute abundance or enough wind energy or hydro or geothermal.
We can pick, you know, any one of, like, five or six solutions here for
this whole system and do it today without much cost increase.
You know, the, the pessimism, I think, should come if there wasn't a ready
solution but we see many of them, so, to me, I'm pretty optimistic.
I think we're going to fix it and
I think it's actually going to end up a better place than where we are today
on almost every level [APPLAUSE].
>> Yeah.
You know, JD, I wish I'd saved you for last so
we can all go out [INAUDIBLE] feeling good.
[LAUGHTER} Chris?
>> My research is on the impact of climate change.
And the impacts we've already seen are really intimidating and
the prospects of impacts going forward are intimidating.
The, the most challenging aspect of the climate problem is, is the urgency
of action and the consequence of delaying even by a few years or a few decades.
On the other hand, it's incredibly inspirational to sit in
a group like this with thousands of people making it a priority, for
a great university like Stanford to make it a priority, and for people from
across the political spectrum to have really creative ideas about solutions.
So what, what I'm optimistic about is that the, the pieces are there.
But what I'm concerned about is that we continue to have this oh,
we can start thinking about it tomorrow, we can start thinking about it next year,
we can start thinking about it in the next administration.
And I, I think that the progress we've seen in California, the progress we've
seen from the Obama administration have really begun to turn the corner, and
that's what I'm optimistic about.
>> Began to turn the corner.
>> I hope.
>> And I wish I'd ended with you.
[LAUGH] Bina.
>> So there's a cartoon from 1861, Vanity Fair,
that a climate scientist friend of mine recently shared with me, and
in the cartoon, you see a bunch of whales and the whales are clinking their
champagne glasses together because of the discovery of oil well in Pennsylvania.
[APPLAUSE] [LAUGH]
>> [CROSSTALK] >> And, and yes, and so I think.
[LAUGH].
One of the insights is that humor,
I think is what keeps a lot of people who work in this arena going and optimistic,
and the other insight from that for me is that the reason this cartoon was funny,
is because nobody was thinking about the whales, right,
they were thinking about the future, and the fuel of the future.
And that we are beginning, I think, to focus on the future and
the road that lies ahead and and what the opportunities are for
making our society better by acting on climate change, and that gives me hope.
Certainly the urgency of the crisis and the time we have is troubling.
I look at the time that we're in and I feel energized.
I feel like it is the time that we're going to address this.
I feel we are going to take bold action in my lifetime.
And I look at the time between Stonewall and gay marriage rights.
I look at the time between Selma and Montgomery and
electing the first black president and I think we have been at this a while with
climate change, but maybe this is our moment.
[SOUND] >> Wow.
That's great.
[APPLAUSE] George.
>> I think the problems are daunting.
And they come at a time when governments are weakening.
>> Mm-hm.
>> Severn capacity is becoming less.
The information and
communication age means that you have to pay attention to diversity.
And, over the years, it's been denied or suppressed, you can't do that anymore.
Hong Kong will never be the same.
So governments have to get their act together in a much better way.
At the same time,
I've had enough experience with apparently intractable problems.
Getting worked that I, I have the optimism that comes from seeing that happen.
And in the case of [COUGH] the global warming issues and the energy issues.
There's so much productivity in the energy R&D that I
got exposed to, that, these things are going to happen that are very positive,
and, I think if we can get the kind of incentives that come from a carbon tax or
something like that, we'll, we'll get there.
And people say, well, if we do well, then what about China?
I think China can be worked with and we gotta figure out how to do it.
I think the way is fairly clear.
But we gotta get busy on things like that and it can be done.
So, I say yes it's a tough road out there.
But it can be we, we've had so many tough roads in the past, that we've dealt with.
But I'm sure we can do this one.
>> [LAUGH]
[APPLAUSE] >> Tom.
>> So.
I would like to break this up into two parts and
to say that I'm optimistic about both.
The first one has to do with what JB was talking about which is
our ability to innovate.
I just find it impossible to sit on the stage at Naples Pavillion, and
say we can't innovate technically, that we can't come up with new
solutions to problems that are better, cheaper, cleaner.
That just seems to me to be entirely illogical and
a real disservice to American research and American business.
So, I strongly believe that our ability to solve this from a technical standpoint and
to come up with ideas that exist now,
multiple ideas, absolutely exist, and I think that, right.
I'll end by saying in this part, I was with someone named Paul Hockin who
is doing something called draw down, and he has 94 different technologies, and
their impact on global warming, and, green house gas emissions.
And he shows if we adopt them on a reasonable scale and
we do them all simultaneously,
what is that going to do to our ability to get the carbon neutrality?
And when you look at it, it's very reassuring that we
have the ability to do this form an innovation standpoint.
But I think there's been one thing that we have not talked about today that I
think is the critical part of this.
And the question for the United States to do what George is talking about,
which is to be part of the leadership or to be a leader,
the country the we really are and lead the world on a, a global problem, is politics.
And we have not talked about the politics here.
[APPLAUSE] So, so let me say this.
I, you know, I'm a humble Stanford MBA.
And I quit my job in the private sector to try and
understand the political issue in the United States with this problem.
And we have been working in 2014 in 10 states, to try and
put climate and energy on the ballot on November 4th.
So I can tell you, most of what we're doing, two thirds to
three quarters of what we're doing is what we describe as citizen to citizen contact.
>> Yeah.
So going back to 1776 and having people talk to each other about why this is
important, why they should care, why they should change their vote based on this.
And I will say this as someone who's not a political professional.
I think that the power of democracy is incredible.
I think that, its ability,
our ability as citizens to change what, to really lead on this.
To do what Americans have traditionally done which is to
look at the biggest problems in the world and analyze them and
decide how to solve them, is something that has been going on for generations.
Really hundreds of years.
And to question whether we have that ability seems, to me,
to be, you know, really unrealistic.
We have this ability when we choose to act on it.
And I believe, if you look at 2014, in those ten states, energy and
climate have moved up to being a first-tier issue.
They will determine how people look at candidates.
People are being forced to address these issues directly to get elected, and
I don't think that that is the ceiling of where we are going.
I think that we are going to move this to a place,
where people understand, how critical this is to us as a nation,
and really that this is an opportunity for
us, to be the kind of country that we've always been.
[APPLAUSE] >> Wow.
I would, I would like to congratulate Stanford for putting together
such a brilliant combination of people, all obviously passionate on the issue.
All have so much to say, I hope you enjoyed it and learned a lot.
I did. And, [APPLAUSE]
thank you.
And the other thing in terms of political action or the people getting interested.
All the great ideas always start with academics and
intellectuals talking about it and then it moves out from there.
And I think it's already started moving out from there.
So I want to congratulate all of you.
George you have a final word?
>> I have a final word.
Thank you, Leslie-
>> Yes, Leslie. >> For coming here and doing this.
[APPLAUSE] >> Thank you.
[APPLAUSE] >> Thank you all.
Thank you. Thank you.
>> For more,
please visit us at stanford.edu.