At last night’s climate change debate (“Will Green Put us In the Red?”) Eric Roston, senior associate at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy at Duke University said that his goal for the evening was to show the audience that the issues of climate change are far more confusing than we thought they were.
I think he succeeded.
“I’m confused and I do this full time,” admitted Roston, author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat
What’s there to be confused about? Plenty.
First off, the 1400-page Waxman-Markey bill that’s now before Congress, the primary component of which is a “cap-and-trade” program that will (among other things) cap greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. Second, comprehending why there is rising skepticism of climate change around the world (amongst both liberals and conservatives), despite there being plenty of science proving that the atmosphere is warming due to man-made C02 emissions. Finally, what exactly is geoengineering and why is it getting a lot of attention on both Capitol Hill and The Daily Show?
Though the four panelists agreed that climate change is real and that there’s scientific evidence to prove it, they all had different ideas on how to go about fixing things. (So did moderator Dennis Kneale, anchor of CNBC’s Power Lunch.)
Ralph Cavanagh, senior attorney and co-director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s energy program, reminded the audience repeatedly that there’s evidence that we (and various industries) can actually save money by reducing energy. Cavanagh cited a McKinsey report that shows that we can achieve energy efficiency merely by changing the appliances and building materials we use from here on out. (The report, summarized here, estimates we would save $1.2 trillion as a nation by 2020 if we invested $520 billion in efficiency improvements.)
While this notion of energy reduction saving money did not seem like earth-shattering news to most of us, apparently it was for some on the panel.
Steve Hayward, the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (and host of “An Inconvenient Truth…or Convenient Fiction?”), argued that developing countries such as India and China cannot afford to adopt the clean technologies that the U.S. and other western nations are already starting to use. (There is reason to be concerned about this as China has already overtaken the U.S. in carbon emissions, and India is soon to follow.)
This is no reason not to do what we can to stop climate change here in the U.S., as one member of the audience pointed out.
Ronald Bailey, author and science correspondent at Reason magazine agreed with Cavanagh that the entire fossil fuel infrastructure is going to be replaced in 40 years—“The question is, will it be cost effective or not?” asked Bailey. Bailey was the panelist most skeptical of government intervention and urged trusting the genius of the marketplace. Roston concurred, at least in regards to ethanol, which the government mistakenly espoused even though it doesn’t make environmental sense.
“Drinking it is the best idea!” Roston continued, promising he’d have a few glasses of ethanol as soon as the panel concluded.
Towards the end of the evening, we learned about vaporizing ocean water (to create white clouds that would deflect the sun, reducing global temperatures) and other controversial “geoengineering” projects that are gaining currency in Washington. (Controversial because some people, such as author Steven Levitt, argue that we should turn to geoengineering instead of, not in addition to, reducing man-made CO2 emissions.)
A smirking Hayward mentioned that Jon Stewart had Levitt, one of the authors of SuperFreakonomics
“Have you stepped on a secular religion?” Stewart asks Levitt at one point, referring to the controversy generated by his chapter. (For more on this controversy, see this excellent post by Brian Merchant of Treehugger.)
Cavanagh says there’s something to these technological solutions, such as painting roofs white to deflect the sun (and thereby reducing planetary warming), but he cautioned that we’ve got to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for other reasons than reversing climate change. “This is also about energy security and public health, not just climate change,” Cavanagh said.
Suzanne Dawson, a public relations executive for energy companies including Duke Energy and PPL, said she was surprised by how much she enjoyed the rowdy debate. “I loved the intimate setting,” said Dawson, referring to the cozy bar on the 3rd floor of the Norwood Club.
Asked what he got out of the evening, entrepreneur Locke Raper said, “The issue is complicated in terms of underlying science, possible outcomes of future scenarios and underlying politics. But we do know enough at this point to be rationally concerned and to invoke the human ‘fight or flight’ response at a collective level, which given the limited options for ‘flight’ means we need to ‘fight’ by systematically and simultaneously incentivising energy conservation (both in consumption/production) and reorienting energy supplies with a goal of reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.”
There, now you know what to do…
Credits:
This event was co-hosted by Shari Rosen from InterConnect Events
Our not-for-profit partner:
Global Nomads Group, established in 1998, an international non-profit organization that fosters dialogue and understanding among the world’s youth.
Supporting Partners:
Tablet Hotels, Hotels for Global Nomads, represents exclusive, hand-picked luxury and boutique hotels worldwide.
New Energy Fund LP, a hedge fund that invests exclusively in renewable energy technologies and clean-tech companies.
Photos by John Benton
