One day after the sweeping new rules to limit power plant emissions were announced by the EPA’s Gina McCarthy, China just announced a major carbon emissions cap. Yet the climate change deniers and the the coal lobby are campaigning to preserve carbon polluting energy. It’s valuable to reflect on why these new rules are critical to the future of mankind.
As McCarthy described it, “We have a moral obligation to the next generation to ensure the world we leave is healthy & vibrant.”
Others might be more direct: It’s climate change, stupid.
I recently interviewed CBS 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl and she shared her emotional reaction to climate change. She witnessed the rapid ice melt in Greenland and reported about it for Years of Living Dangerously, the documentary series on climate change.
“I thought global warming needed an alarm bell rung before I went, but it was extremely emotional for me to see first hand the ice melt,” says Stahl. “…knowing what it’s going to do for the rest of the planet.”
In this exclusive Fresh Dialogues interview, Gavin Newsom, Lt. Governor of California and new father, explains why the U.S. requires a national carbon tax. Newsom was attending the NY Times Global Forum in San Francisco, June 20, and shared his views on climate change, oil companies and his dream of being Governor of California one day.
Newsom, whose wife Jennifer Siebel, just gave birth to their third child on July 3rd, frames the argument in a way that even a five-year old can understand.
“You wanna move the mouse, you gotta move the cheese,” says Newsom, who describes other measures to combat climate change, such as composting, green building, plastic bag bans etc., as “playing a bit in the margins.”
Newsom argues that putting a price on carbon is the real macro solution to climate change. Nevertheless, he praises the entrepreneurial spirit of many city mayors who have proved that you can grow your economy and reduce your Green House Gas emissions. Local case in point: San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s Green Vision
Here are some highlights of our conversation
On Oil Companies and Interesting Bed Fellows
Newsom: “Some of the big oil companies are talking about a carbon tax as they’re more and more concerned about cap and trade…especially in California with AB 32. Now they’re saying, ‘now wait…a carbon tax may make sense.’ Interesting bedfellows now. I think there’s a different dialogue that could potentially be held. I’m not suggesting for a moment that Chevron is saying ‘time for a carbon tax’ but in the private conversations that I’ve had with a lot of these big energy producers, you don’t have that negative reaction that we had four or five years ago…”
Fresh Dialogues: What’s in it for the oil companies?
Newsom: “I don’t want to put words in their mouth. The bottom line is: what most of these big producers want is consistency across jurisdictions.”
On Leaning In to Green Growth
“I want to see a standard that could bring this country back to international prominence in terms of leaning into a low carbon green growth strategy, so that we can dramatically change the way we produce and consume energy and lead the world as a pace setter in terms of efforts to reduce Green House Gas emissions and radically reorient our economy in a 21st Century manner that could produce jobs and address stresses on the economy: inequality, lack of middle income…and create sustainable opportunities.”
On Being Governor of California
“No one knows what the future holds politically speaking. I have got an entrepreneurial energy. I like doing, not just being. I’ve long talked about the position as governor, as a platform to really engage in bottom up thinking and go local in terms of economic development strategies, workforce development strategies and find substantive solutions to deal with the issue of climate change. So inverting the pyramid, but being there in Sacramento to begin to scale those best practices is something I’ve long wanted to do.”
See more videos and stories on energy policy and join the conversation at our Fresh Dialogues Facebook Page
This exclusive Fresh Dialogues interview was recorded at the New York Times Global Forum in San Francisco, June 20, 2013. The forum organizers provided the painful background music, which sadly couldn’t be removed from the audio track.
In this exclusive Fresh Dialogues interview, former Energy Secretary Steven Chu shares his reaction to Obama’s major speech on climate change; explains how a carbon tax will drive U.S. competitiveness; has a message for climate deniers; and even shares tips for being more energy efficient in the kitchen. When did you last get cooking tips from a Nobel Prize winning physicist who’s been described as the One Hundred Billion Dollar Man? It’s time to listen up folks! It’s time to listen up folks!
“This is a real issue. We have to do something about it!”
When asked if he wrote or was involved in writing the speech, Chu joked that he has ‘been involved’ for 4 1/4 years and recently regaled several heads of state (including President Obama) with his powerpoint pitch for raising appliance efficiency standards, reminding them that “there’s money to be made…and saved.”
On Carbon Tax
“A carbon tax must be non-regressive and revenue neutral. It will drive efficiency…competitiveness. Educating the public (on climate change, energy policy) is very important, but it’s about economic opportunities and (creating) a growth market. Change will be partly market driven.”
On Climate Change Deniers
“I’d put them in the same category as people who said, in the 60’s and 70’s, that you haven’t proved to me that smoking causes cancer.”
On Chu’s vision for distributed energy
“Distribution companies partnering with the private sector have the opportunity to access fairly inexpensive capital and be part owners in distributed power and energy storage in benign environments, like inside a home or building. When you do that, the price of electricity will go down (3 to 4 times). All of a sudden utility companies will be in a growth business…Utilities should wake up and see there’s money to be made!”
Chu cited the advantages of black-out reduction thanks to demand control; and underlined the multitude of opportunities that low-priced software and sensing equipment offer.
On Cooking with Chu
Tip #1: “If you’re boiling a pot of water: if you put a lid on it, it comes to boil much more quickly.”
Tip #2: “Pick the right sized pot, don’t pick a pot five times bigger, twice as big.”
– Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winner in physics 1997, Former Energy Secretary, 2009-13.
No word yet on whether Steven Chu is planning to give up his new job at Stanford University for a prime time cooking show…Though we hear there is an opening.
The interview was recorded at the Silicon Valley Energy Summit, presented by the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University on June 28, 2013. Photos by Lina Broydo.
A frisson of excitement swept through the crowd as ABC’s Cheryl Jennings introduced Silicon Valley’s most famous woman. It was definitely a “rock star” moment for many of the four thousand women attending San Francisco’s Moscone Center May 23.
Jaws dropped, eyes shone, and the applause was deafening. Cheers and whoops rang out as Sheryl Sandberg strolled across the stage and did her thing. With a remarkable nonchalance, she managed to engage every person in the room by asking them to do something for her. “Put your hands up if you’ve ever said, I’m going to be CEO of this company.”
In her best selling book “Lean In” and in dozens of interviews, Sandberg has been coy about using certain terms. She calls her book “a sort of feminist manifesto” and in her interview with Google’s Eric Schmidt, she talked about “unleashing a movement,” but on Thursday, she was feeling the women power. Referring to the handful of men present, she said, “You’ll get a pass when the inevitable revolution happens.”
Here are highlights of her speech. Check back soon for video highlights with Sheryl Sandberg and Congresswoman Jackie Speier.
“The rate of change for women in getting top jobs in corporate America has stalled out in the last 10 years. It’s been flat at 14%. Women are held back by sexism, discrimination, bad corporate policy, bad public policy and a leadership ambition gap.” Sheryl Sandberg
“I believe that a world where more women were running organizations, where women ran half of companies and countries and men ran half of our homes, would be a better world.” Sheryl Sandberg
On Warren Buffett
“Warren Buffett said he was successful because he was only competing with half the population.” Sheryl Sandberg
The Economic Argument
“The laws of economics tell us that if more people compete, if you are sourcing talent from the full population you will get better outcomes.” Sheryl Sandberg
The Growth Opportunity
“In every industry, sector, government, we’re picking from roughly half the pople. If we source from the whole population our performance as companies, as countries will improve. This is not just about equality…this is about creating growth and opportunity.” Sheryl Sandberg
“In order to change…it’s going to change person by person, woman by woman.”
Find out more about the Lean In movement and Lean In circles for inspiring women.
Let’s face it, President Obama is struggling to get anything through Congress right now, never mind a national energy policy, but here’s a big idea from Berkeley’s Jennifer Granholm to create more clean energy and clean jobs… from the bottom up.
You may remember Jennifer Granholm as the Governor of Michigan (2003-2011), the TV host of “The War Room” or the passionate speechmaker at the DNC 2012; but perhaps her most lasting contribution to the world will be this big idea: a Clean Energy Race to the Top.
Leveraging her experience in Michigan, where she attempted to transform the state’s “rustbelt” image to “greenbelt” by investing heavily in clean energy and green jobs, she’s seen the strategy’s economic impact and is eager to keep the momentum going. This time, on a national basis.
Modeled after the Education Race to the Top (RTT), her clean energy idea is to offer a pot of money to incentivize all 50 states to compete and raise their clean energy standards to 80% by 2030. Just think: The Amazing Race for Clean Energy.
Her budget? A cool $4.5 Billion. By her calculations, that’s less than one tenth of 1% of Federal funding (and close to the RTT budget for education), nevertheless in today’s economy, funding prospects look grim.
Granholm’s Clean Energy Race to the Top sounds like a smart idea, but in these times of brutal belt tightening and sequestration, securing that funding looks like mission impossible. It will be fascinating to watch the debate unfold here and at her TED talk; and see if she gets any traction for it during this congress.
It might not be perfect time for a Clean Energy Race to the Top, but don’t expect the idea to wither and die. Granholm may be keeping a relatively low profile as a law professor at UC Berkeley these days, but if there’s another Clinton (or Obama) in the White House in 2016 or beyond (I’m talking Hillary or Michelle), we may see Granholm taking a cabinet role. She’s earning her stripes for a position as Energy Secretary, and that could one day make her big idea a reality.
This Fresh Dialogues interview took place at the Claremont Hotel, Berkeley on February 21, 2013
Senator Dianne Feinstein shared her plans to introduce a new “carbon fee” bill, during a press conference Wednesday in downtown San Francisco.
“I think a carbon fee is growing in popularity,” said Feinstein, after an appearance at the Commonwealth Club. Her plans follow President Obama’s SOTU call for “market based solutions to climate change,” and a growing consensus among experts in favor of using the taxation system to control carbon dioxide emissions.
By increasing the price of fossil fuel in the market…
It levels the playing field between carbon-based fuels and renewable fuels, such as wind and solar, making renewables more competitive and attractive to consumers and investors.
A portion of the “dividend” (the carbon “fee” proceeds) would be refunded to US residents.
Similar schemes have been implemented in British Columbia, Sweden and Ireland with some success. The aim is to encourage consumers to see the true cost of their energy choices. The fee represents some of the externalities of choosing fossil fuel, such as particulate pollution and greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change.
Feinstein’s proposal was short on details, but she confirmed, “It’s my intention to introduce a fee of $10 a ton and we’ll see what happens to it.”
The Boxer-Sanders proposal is for a tax (or “fee”) of $20 per ton of carbon. Presumably Feinstein feels it’ll be more palatable to start at a lower level and gradually phase in a higher tax over several years.
Feinstein acknowledged that with other issues stealing center stage (notably saber-rattling in North Korea and the ongoing domestic gun control debate), climate change is not currently on the government’s “high priority list,” so it’s hard to predict what progress the government will achieve.
Nevertheless, Feinstein was vocal on the topic of climate change and bullish about renewable energy during an earlier interview with the Commonwealth Club’s Greg Dalton:
“People don’t really understand. They think the earth is immutable. They think we can’t destroy it, that it’s here to stay. It’s not so… As we fill the atmosphere with pollutants: methane, carbon dioxide, other things…it warms the earth. And it begins with animal habitat disappearing, the ocean beginning to rise, more violent hurricanes, tornadoes…drought is more prevalent.”
“What’s going to be the ultimate change is weather. People see weather, they see the devastation and so eventually people are going to come around to support restrictions on carbon dioxide, maybe a fee on the use of carbon to replace our deficit, our debt. A $20 fee (per ton of carbon or methane equivalent) is like $1.2 Trillion in revenue over 10 years. If you just take half that: $600 Billion.”
“I wouldn’t say there’s much (support in the Senate) but I would say this: people are coming to realize now… climate change is getting worse. Actually since 2008, ‘good energy’ has doubled. Electric cars are being more prevalent, hybrids are being more prevalent. People are saving money. Good things are happening. The question is: can we really bite the bullet and make the decision that we’re going to save the planet?”
On the Keystone Pipeline
“I’m told the area in Alberta (Canada) is bigger than the state of Florida, I’m told it’s a forested area which they mow down and begin to dig the huge giant lakes which they pour chemicals in to produce this form of tar sands oil. The earth is defaced forever.”
“Now we have to make up our minds: do we want to deface large portions of our earth forever? I don’t think so because we’re making progress on clean energy and that ought to really be where we go.”
“Some people say if the pipeline isn’t built north-south through the center of our country, they’re only going to do it east to west and send it to China. That’s not a good argument.”
“I don’t think candidly that it’s all that necessary. There will be no oil drilling off the coast of California, if Senator Boxer and I prevail, and we have so far. My emphasis would be on clean energy: the wind farms, the solar facilities and there’s so much research going on on different forms of fuel. Leave those fossil fuels alone because they pollute the atmosphere.” Read more on the country’s largest shale oil resource from KQED.
Photo by Alison van Diggelen
On Tesla’s Model S
“I sat on one (a Tesla Model S) out at the Tesla Fremont plant. I kind of dented the fender. But anyway…” (laughter)
Feinstein drives a Lexus hybrid
On California’s water shortages
“We’re on our way to a much drier climate…the Sierra Nevada snowpack’s drying up and it’s very serious…The key is: we need to store more water from the wet years and hold it for the dry years and this environmentalists don’t like. It may mean raising a couple of dams (eg Shasta)…I do believe that the time is now to have a storage water bond. The most important thing we can do for our state is to hold water from the wet years for the dry years and we should get that done (or) we’re going to lose our agriculture… I live in Washington now for a lot of the time and I can tell you the crops grown in California taste much better than most places in the world.”
On subsidies to oil and gas
“I think the day has come for subsidies to go for industries other than startups like some of the clean energy…solar. As you know, everything is “cut cut cut” back there (DC) right now. With sequestration cutting another $85 Billion before the beginning of the fiscal year and the amount goes up. So there’s going to be cut after cut after cut. And they’re big cuts. So I think we need to look at tax reform and we need to look at all those deductions and remove a lot of them and we also need to look at our entitlements programs.”