October 26, 2011 San Francisco

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon was interviewed by Greg Dalton at Climate One at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. This video features excerpts related to energy and climate change.

Partial Text Transcript:

2:44 CO2s Emissions Increasing
“So not only do we have way too much carbon dioxide in the air but the pace is growing quickly. This has all kinds of threats to the planet. So we should do everything possible, in conservation, in solar energy, in potential wave energy, in wind energy, to replace the carbon based energy economy with a non carbon based.”

4:29 ‘Citizens United’ – The Power and Finance Behind Policy
“Let me tell you that when you look to policy, you can’t just look at policy itself, you have to look at the power behind different perspectives in policy, and there’s a huge powerful interest in the oil and coal world that the last thing that they want is for us to move to non carbon sources. And so their presence is intense. They fund lots of think tanks to come up with lots of arguments not to proceed to non carbon based. Under Citizens United, they can put enormous amounts anonymously into campaigns across America. And let me give you a sense of this. If Exxon spent 3% in 2008 of its net profits it would have exceeded all the dollars spent in the presidential campaign by all the various parties involved. One company, three percent of net profits. And under Citizens United, it can be done secretively, anonymously. And so it’s a very powerful interest. It’s the reason we need to have discussions across this country about where we’re headed and why we need to change the course were on, because ultimately it’s an informed citizenry that is going to create the push back and allow us change course.”

14:15 International climate Negotiations in South Africa later this year
Q:”Given the relative failure of the United States to pass any kind of climate cap and trade or anything in our own country, what do you think we should bring forward to the table in South Africa in the negotiations. What should our approach be?”

A: “The hope had been that substantial progress by America would lead to a framework that we could advocate for internationally. I think we’re somewhat at sea in terms of what international role we can take.”

“I do want to point out that the administration proceeded to by administrative rule do a terrific piece of work in terms of the gas efficiency of vehicles, by requiring for the years I think 2017 to 2030 a 5% per year improvement. That has largely gone unnoticed and un-discussed. In my think tank case that I did on how to end our dependence on foreign oil over a twenty year period I have a 6% per year in there, so 5% per year, that’s pretty solid, and managed to bring a lot of parties together. That doesn’t necessarily set the stage for an international set of responsibilities.”

“But what we’re talking about in terms of international conversation is about the global commons. So again, here we have this air, this very thin layer that wraps around this beautiful blue green planet. And changing the chemistry depends upon what every country around the world puts into it. And so how are we going to work together to address a set of rules that will protect this commons, this atmosphere, that we all share. And that is so important, because there is no way, no matter how good of a legislation we do here in the U.S. by ourselves, that we are going to change the general global dynamic.”

“But the hope is, by being engaged at the U.S., we gain credibility and have more ability to work with countries around the world and not have everyone saying, ‘you first, you first’. Developing countries saying ‘you first’ industrialized world because you’ve already benefited from burning a lot of carbon, now we want to burn a lot of carbon. And for us to say, ‘you first’ you poor countries because you’re doing more coal we’re already doing a lot of hydro and renewables so you get rid of your coal first and then let’s talk. We’ve got to get out of the ‘you first’ and get into the us together have to take care of this problem.”

Report by James George

‘The new organization will combine C40, a coalition of international cities run by Mr. Bloomberg, and the Clinton Climate Initiative, a project of Mr. Clinton’s philanthropic foundation, doubling the groups’ annual budgets and staff.’

via Bloomberg and Bill Clinton to Merge Climate Groups – NYTimes.com.

Nov 16, 2010 San Francisco

Climatologist James Hansen was interviewed by Greg Dalton at Climate One and the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. Topics included climate change, government greenwash, cap and trade, fossil fuels, and a carbon tax. Afterward he signed copies of his recent book “Storms of my Grandchildren”.

Partial excerpt:

“The politicians have learned to say the right words. They say we have a planet in peril, and governments will even set targets for future emissions at some time after they’re out of office. But the fact is if you look at their policies you see that they’re doing essentially nothing, that emissions if anything continue to increase. So it’s putting a good face on their policies or attempting to, but in fact they’re not taking the necessary steps.”

“I just think they haven’t given it the degree of seriousness that it deserves. There is not a clear recognition of the fact that we are really close to a point where, we are going to pass tipping points in the climate system which have major repercussions especially for people who are now young people, our children and our grandchildren. Because of the inertia of the system you don’t see that much happening yet, you know the weather is fine. ” [Dalton: “It’s been pretty warm in San Francisco lately”] Hansen:” It’s a little warmer than normal but that doesn’t seem so bad”
“The problem is though that once these dynamic of the systems begin to take over..whether it’s the disintegration of an ice sheet or its the pressure we’re putting on species and cause some of them to begin to go extinct or become very small in number, then because of the interdependencies among the species, you can get more of them, you can get ecosystems to collapse, and we’re getting closer to passing those tipping points.”
“The earths’ history is very good for telling us what is the level that we can afford to have for atmospheric composition for example. Because we can see how big the changes were in the past. But the dynamics of a non-linear system – it’s very difficult to say when something collapses, so for example an ice sheet – it’s very hard to predict exactly when it will collapse but we can say by looking at the Earth’s history that if we left the climate system with 350 or 400 ppm for a few centuries, then we know that the equilibrium ice sheet consistent with that atmosphere is a much smaller ice sheet- sea level would be tens of meters higher. But we can’t say exactly when it will collapse, but when it does collapse, sea level goes up 5 meters per century is not usual in the earth’s history so one meter every twenty years, so you don’t want to get to that point.”
13:40
“The simple fact is that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy we will keep using them. You have to put a significant price on it. The business community has to know that that’s going to continue to go up, and if that happened they would invest in alternatives, and there would be innovations, and people would… because it would be a significant price. By the time it gets up to $100/ton of CO2, it’s about a dollar a gallon of gasoline, and it begins to be something that people can see. But by the time it gets up that high, with the current fossil fuel use in the United States that’s $600 billion dollars per year. If you distribute that to the public it’s two and a half to three thousand dollars per legal adult resident of the country – including half a share for children up to two per family so seven or eight thousand dollars per family with two or more children. So that sixty percent of the people would get more in this monthly green check than they would pay in increased energy prices.”

Climate One posted a shorter excerpt of the same talk.

Report by James George

‘…The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy.’

via Editorial – In Climate Denial, Again – NYTimes.com.

‘Reuters – The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto if Congress passes a measure to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.’

via White House eyes veto if Senate curbs EPA climate power | Reuters.

‘US President Barack Obama has vowed to end the “cosy relationship” between oil companies and US regulators in the light of the Gulf of Mexico disaster.’

via BBC News – Barack Obama: No more cosying up to oil industry.

‘(Reuters) – The Pentagon is working hard to promote development of biomass fuels that could power future fighter jets and other warplanes, but defense officials say it could take years to get a full-fledged industry on its feet.’

via Pentagon focused on developing alternative energy | Reuters.

‘BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill — and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals — was unlikely, or virtually impossible.’

via BP plan deemed major spill from Gulf well unlikely – Yahoo! News.