WEBVTT 00:00.466 --> 00:02.266 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% [Scott] Next on "Energy Switch," 00:02.266 --> 00:03.800 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% we'll look at climate impacts 00:03.800 --> 00:05.533 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% and how we should respond to them. 00:05.533 --> 00:07.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - Part of that problem is the uncertainty. 00:07.600 --> 00:11.666 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% The basic economics and the basic human behavior 00:11.666 --> 00:13.466 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% points out, well, when there's lots of uncertainty, 00:13.466 --> 00:15.000 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% actually, that's a cause for action, 00:15.000 --> 00:16.133 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% not a cause for inaction. 00:16.133 --> 00:19.366 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - Whatever the world does about emissions, 00:19.366 --> 00:22.200 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% we know it will adapt to a changing climate. 00:22.200 --> 00:26.166 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% It's what we humans have done for forever. 00:26.600 --> 00:28.466 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% [Scott] Coming up on "Energy Switch," 00:28.466 --> 00:31.033 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% how should we respond to climate change? 00:32.800 --> 00:34.300 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% [Announcer] Funding for "Energy Switch" 00:34.300 --> 00:36.200 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% was provided in part by 00:36.200 --> 00:37.700 align:left position:40% line:89% size:50% Microsoft 00:37.700 --> 00:41.033 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% and the University of Texas at Austin. 00:43.766 --> 00:44.966 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% - I'm Scott Tinker 00:44.966 --> 00:46.633 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% and I'm an energy scientist. 00:47.333 --> 00:48.766 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% I work in the field, 00:48.766 --> 00:49.866 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% lead research, 00:49.866 --> 00:51.333 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% speak around the world, 00:51.333 --> 00:52.700 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% write articles 00:52.700 --> 00:54.833 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% and make films about energy. 00:55.633 --> 00:57.800 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% This show brings together leading experts 00:57.800 --> 01:01.333 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% on vital topics in energy and climate. 01:01.333 --> 01:03.166 align:left position:35% line:83% size:55% They may have different perspectives, 01:03.166 --> 01:06.000 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% but my goal is to learn and illuminate 01:06.000 --> 01:09.500 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% and bring diverging views together towards solutions. 01:10.400 --> 01:12.700 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% Welcome to the "Energy Switch." 01:14.066 --> 01:16.666 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% Addressing climate change is complicated. 01:16.666 --> 01:19.200 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% We need to understand the impacts today 01:19.200 --> 01:21.266 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and predict the impacts tomorrow, 01:21.266 --> 01:24.366 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% then recognize the uncertainties of doing so. 01:24.366 --> 01:28.233 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% The timeframes required in contrasting global priorities 01:28.233 --> 01:31.066 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% in order to quantify the costs and benefits 01:31.066 --> 01:33.533 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 01:33.533 --> 01:36.200 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% and adapting to climate change. 01:36.200 --> 01:38.933 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% My guests for this vital conversation are: 01:38.933 --> 01:42.533 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% Dr. Michael Greenstone directs the Energy Policy Institute 01:42.533 --> 01:44.433 align:left position:22.5% line:5% size:67.5% and the Becker Friedman Institute 01:44.433 --> 01:46.333 align:left position:15% line:5% size:75% at the University of Chicago 01:46.333 --> 01:49.400 align:left position:20% line:5% size:70% and was a chief economist for the Obama administration. 01:49.933 --> 01:52.166 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% Dr. Steve Koonin, a physicist, 01:52.166 --> 01:55.266 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% is director of NYU's Center for Urban Science 01:55.266 --> 01:58.400 align:left position:10% line:83% size:80% and was the Department of Energy Undersecretary for Science, 01:58.400 --> 01:59.866 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% also under Obama, 01:59.866 --> 02:01.933 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% and provost of Caltech. 02:02.300 --> 02:04.433 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% On this episode of "Energy Switch," 02:04.433 --> 02:06.966 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% how should we respond to climate change? 02:08.300 --> 02:09.566 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% So let's dive right in. 02:09.566 --> 02:11.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% We're gonna talk about the impacts of climate. 02:11.600 --> 02:13.733 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% Is the temperature rising? 02:13.733 --> 02:15.000 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% Michael, let's start with you. 02:15.000 --> 02:16.933 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - I think there's incontrovertible evidence 02:16.933 --> 02:18.500 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% that the temperature's rising. 02:18.500 --> 02:20.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% You see it every day in our personal lives. 02:20.733 --> 02:23.900 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% You see it compared to the historical record as well. 02:23.900 --> 02:24.833 align:left position:42.5% line:89% size:47.5% - Yeah. 02:24.833 --> 02:27.066 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - So there is, of course, nuance to that, 02:27.066 --> 02:29.500 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% as there is in all things in science. 02:29.500 --> 02:31.933 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% The temperature that's commonly talked about 02:31.933 --> 02:35.566 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% is the average temperature over the globe 02:35.566 --> 02:38.066 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% relative to what the normal is, 02:38.066 --> 02:41.966 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% and it's risen by about two degrees Fahrenheit 02:41.966 --> 02:43.400 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% over the last century, 02:43.400 --> 02:45.333 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% since 1900 or so. 02:45.333 --> 02:47.466 align:left position:35% line:83% size:55% But that rise hasn't been steady. 02:47.466 --> 02:50.933 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% It went up pretty strongly from 1910 to 1940, 02:50.933 --> 02:53.633 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% then it actually went down for 30 years, 02:53.633 --> 02:57.266 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% and then it's been going up since about 1980. 02:57.266 --> 02:59.433 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% So that fact that it's not a smooth rise 02:59.433 --> 03:01.500 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% tells you already, it's a little more complicated 03:01.500 --> 03:04.466 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% than just greenhouse gases are warming the planet. 03:04.466 --> 03:05.733 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% - Yeah, interesting. 03:05.733 --> 03:07.700 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% Always a nuance there. 03:07.700 --> 03:10.200 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% And so that gets us into the trends 03:10.200 --> 03:13.633 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% over this century and how do they compare 03:13.633 --> 03:16.000 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% to human drivers, carbon dioxide being one 03:16.000 --> 03:17.666 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% of the big human greenhouse gases. 03:17.666 --> 03:19.400 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% Methane's another one. 03:19.400 --> 03:20.733 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% How do you see that? 03:20.733 --> 03:22.300 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% - Yeah, I think the evidence 03:22.300 --> 03:24.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% that greenhouse gases play a central role 03:24.733 --> 03:26.966 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% in increase in temperature is, 03:26.966 --> 03:28.466 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% I think Steve might not like this word, 03:28.466 --> 03:29.900 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% but it's consensus. 03:29.900 --> 03:32.133 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% And I think the climate community, 03:32.133 --> 03:34.366 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% climate scientists have been very clear 03:34.366 --> 03:37.866 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% that we don't know that perfectly, 03:37.866 --> 03:39.166 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% the relationship, 03:39.166 --> 03:43.400 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% but there's been a narrowing of the range of uncertainty. 03:43.400 --> 03:45.566 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% But there's no doubt that CO2 03:45.566 --> 03:47.833 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% is causing increases in temperature. 03:47.833 --> 03:52.166 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% And the latest kind of review 03:52.166 --> 03:54.466 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% would suggest that it's probably between, 03:54.466 --> 03:57.066 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% for doubling the CO2, 03:57.066 --> 03:58.900 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% maybe between two and five degrees. 03:58.900 --> 04:00.733 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% And I think their most likely number 04:00.733 --> 04:01.966 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% is about three degrees 04:01.966 --> 04:03.066 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% and that's all C. - DDC, yeah. 04:03.066 --> 04:04.100 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% - That's all C. 04:04.100 --> 04:06.133 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% But I just wanna be, I wanna be clear, 04:06.133 --> 04:08.100 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% because I think Steve's very focused 04:08.100 --> 04:09.100 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% on the uncertainty. 04:09.100 --> 04:10.866 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% And I think the climate community, 04:10.866 --> 04:12.200 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% the climate scientists have been very clear 04:12.200 --> 04:13.600 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% about that uncertainty. 04:13.600 --> 04:14.966 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% And that's why they don't express, 04:14.966 --> 04:17.633 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% "Well, it's gonna go up by three degrees C for sure." 04:17.633 --> 04:18.600 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% They give this range. 04:18.600 --> 04:21.133 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% - There's not a CO2 temperature knob 04:21.133 --> 04:23.866 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% in the sense of, I dial that in, I get that. 04:23.866 --> 04:25.433 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% But that's a pretty big range. 04:25.433 --> 04:26.466 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% [Michael] It's a pretty big range. 04:26.466 --> 04:27.566 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% [Scott] And they're honest about it. 04:27.566 --> 04:28.733 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% - Yeah, they're quite open about it. 04:28.733 --> 04:29.900 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% - Not everybody's open about it, 04:29.900 --> 04:31.533 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% but the climate community. 04:31.533 --> 04:34.033 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% - I think two things, 04:34.033 --> 04:36.733 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% one is about the treatment of uncertainties. 04:36.733 --> 04:39.133 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% I think when you get back to the research papers 04:39.133 --> 04:41.566 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% and even the recent report, 04:41.566 --> 04:43.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% they're pretty explicit about the uncertainties. 04:43.600 --> 04:45.633 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% It's as you get further down the chain 04:45.633 --> 04:47.366 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% into the summary for policy makers 04:47.366 --> 04:49.233 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% and into the media and the political discussion 04:49.233 --> 04:51.066 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% that you lose that nuance. 04:51.066 --> 04:53.400 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% There are several factors 04:53.400 --> 04:56.300 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% that change the Earth's temperature. 04:56.300 --> 04:58.433 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% Most obviously, as you mentioned, 04:58.433 --> 05:01.433 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% greenhouse guesses, which exert a warming influence, 05:01.433 --> 05:04.833 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% but also aerosols that humans produce, 05:04.833 --> 05:07.200 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% which exert a cooling influence. 05:07.200 --> 05:09.133 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% The net effect of what we see 05:09.133 --> 05:11.300 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% is really not just CO2, 05:11.300 --> 05:15.333 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% but is that combination of aerosols and greenhouse gases 05:15.333 --> 05:18.433 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% that makes it particularly tough to disentangle things. 05:18.433 --> 05:20.600 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% And even tougher is the fact 05:20.600 --> 05:21.966 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% that the climate system 05:21.966 --> 05:25.433 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% has long-term natural variations 05:25.433 --> 05:26.366 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% that extend over. 05:26.366 --> 05:28.300 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% We know about some El Niño, for example, 05:28.300 --> 05:30.200 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% is the most familiar, 05:30.200 --> 05:32.633 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% couple years, every five or six years, 05:32.633 --> 05:33.833 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% but then there are things 05:33.833 --> 05:37.100 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation 05:37.100 --> 05:38.933 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation 05:38.933 --> 05:40.700 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% that run over 70 years. 05:40.700 --> 05:43.433 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% And the models have a hard time reproducing those. 05:43.433 --> 05:45.633 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% And so depending on where we are in those cycles, 05:45.633 --> 05:48.300 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% the warming may be enhanced by those 05:48.300 --> 05:49.433 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% or diminished by those. 05:49.433 --> 05:50.666 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% And we don't really know. 05:50.666 --> 05:52.433 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - When you say a hard time reproducing, 05:52.433 --> 05:56.633 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% it means the existing models 05:56.633 --> 06:00.700 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% struggle to fully understand and model the past? 06:00.700 --> 06:02.366 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% - Yeah, yeah. 06:02.366 --> 06:04.233 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% - It's a bloody hard problem. - Yes. 06:04.233 --> 06:05.733 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% [Scott] It's multivariate non-linear. 06:05.733 --> 06:08.166 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% [Steve] It's a chaotic system. - It's a terrible problem. 06:08.166 --> 06:10.000 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% You haven't even mentioned the oceans. 06:10.000 --> 06:11.766 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And the oceans play an important role. 06:11.766 --> 06:12.866 align:left position:40% line:89% size:50% - Right. 06:12.866 --> 06:14.566 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% - But I think one thing that, 06:14.566 --> 06:17.233 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% and I read Steve's book in the last week, 06:17.233 --> 06:19.400 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% it's a terrific book, 06:19.400 --> 06:22.100 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% but one thing that I don't think comes completely clear 06:22.100 --> 06:23.900 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% in the book is 06:23.900 --> 06:26.033 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% there really seems to be little uncertainty 06:26.033 --> 06:28.033 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% about what the impact of greenhouse gases are 06:28.033 --> 06:29.233 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% on changing temperature. 06:29.233 --> 06:30.766 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% Again, there's this range. 06:30.766 --> 06:32.533 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% We don't know exactly where it's gonna end, 06:32.533 --> 06:35.500 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% and there's things that don't make sense with the models 06:35.500 --> 06:37.233 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% or contradict the models. 06:37.233 --> 06:39.566 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% Steve has pointed out several of them. 06:39.566 --> 06:42.200 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% I think that there's probably many PhD dissertations 06:42.200 --> 06:44.266 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% that are gonna be written as a follow up to that, 06:44.266 --> 06:47.400 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% but I don't think it changes the central understanding. 06:47.400 --> 06:49.366 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - I would agree. - That's interesting. 06:49.366 --> 06:52.933 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% - But when society thinks about how it's going 06:52.933 --> 06:56.233 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% to respond to these, 06:56.233 --> 06:58.066 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% it's got to make some judgment 06:58.066 --> 07:00.266 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% about what the uncertainties are. 07:00.266 --> 07:03.166 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% If you're 99% sure that the planet's gonna go to hell 07:03.166 --> 07:04.733 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% and become unlivable, 07:04.733 --> 07:07.500 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% then that's a very different discussion than, 07:07.500 --> 07:09.400 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% well, maybe two generations from now 07:09.400 --> 07:11.633 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% we might see a little more storminess. 07:11.633 --> 07:12.566 align:left position:45% line:89% size:45% Okay? 07:12.566 --> 07:15.266 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% So the uncertainties are important 07:15.266 --> 07:18.000 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% in the policy discussion, I believe. 07:18.000 --> 07:21.233 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% - I think it's really clear what you should do is, 07:21.233 --> 07:23.000 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% it's a cost-benefit problem. 07:23.000 --> 07:26.133 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% You should decide how much it's gonna cost to reduce, 07:26.133 --> 07:29.300 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% let's say US emissions by a billion tons of CO2. 07:29.300 --> 07:31.333 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% That would be not insubstantial reduction, 07:31.333 --> 07:34.000 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% not wild either. 07:34.000 --> 07:35.966 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% [Scott] About 20% of the US. - About 20%. 07:35.966 --> 07:38.466 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% And then what are the benefits 07:38.466 --> 07:40.333 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% in terms of reduced climate damages? 07:40.333 --> 07:41.566 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% And I understand 07:41.566 --> 07:43.633 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% the way you're describing it-- - Even the rest of the world 07:43.633 --> 07:45.400 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% doesn't do, or does very little, 07:45.400 --> 07:47.600 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% even if emissions still keep going up? 07:47.600 --> 07:49.333 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% - Whatever the rest of the world does 07:49.333 --> 07:51.900 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% doesn't have any impact on what our, 07:51.900 --> 07:53.966 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% like, if we reduce by a billion tons, 07:53.966 --> 07:55.666 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% we've reduced by a billion tons, that's terrific. 07:55.666 --> 07:57.566 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And then we and the rest of the world 07:57.566 --> 07:58.633 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% gets the benefits from it. 07:58.633 --> 08:00.766 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - So even if we were to just do a little bit, 08:00.766 --> 08:02.666 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% you would say that would be worth it? 08:02.666 --> 08:05.366 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - What I'm saying is, we would wanna compare 08:05.366 --> 08:07.300 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% the costs and the benefits of that. 08:07.300 --> 08:12.066 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% And, you know, just jumping to the conclusion here, 08:12.066 --> 08:14.900 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% small reductions in emissions, 08:14.900 --> 08:16.833 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% or even meaningful reductions 08:16.833 --> 08:18.533 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% in emissions in the United States, 08:18.533 --> 08:20.866 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% if done in an economically efficient way, 08:20.866 --> 08:24.533 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% have benefits that vastly exceed the cost. 08:24.533 --> 08:27.700 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - Are there some things we can agree 08:27.700 --> 08:30.066 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% that are changing in the timeframes 08:30.066 --> 08:33.566 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% of industrial activity that matter to us? 08:33.566 --> 08:35.466 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% - Yes, but if I just take the cue 08:35.466 --> 08:38.000 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% from the latest IPCC report, 08:38.000 --> 08:40.400 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% so temperatures are going up. 08:40.400 --> 08:42.300 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% Heat waves are becoming more common, 08:42.300 --> 08:44.733 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% although not in the US, but globally, 08:44.733 --> 08:47.966 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% which we see more heavy precipitation events 08:47.966 --> 08:49.900 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% even if the average precipitation 08:49.900 --> 08:52.000 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% is not changing much. 08:52.000 --> 08:56.800 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% But when it rains, it rains more. 08:56.800 --> 08:59.366 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% But in terms of hurricanes, 08:59.366 --> 09:00.866 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% thunderstorms, 09:00.866 --> 09:02.133 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% severe winds, 09:02.133 --> 09:03.600 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% mid-latitude storms, 09:03.600 --> 09:05.700 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% there are no trends detected. 09:05.700 --> 09:07.300 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% - In counts? 09:07.300 --> 09:09.233 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% In numbers of these things? - In various metrics. 09:09.233 --> 09:10.933 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% The one that's been in the news 09:10.933 --> 09:14.266 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% for the last couple years are wildfires. 09:14.266 --> 09:19.366 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% And wildfires are a very complicated phenomenon, 09:19.366 --> 09:23.466 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% at least in the Western US and in Australia. 09:23.466 --> 09:26.700 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% They involve how much forest is there. 09:26.700 --> 09:28.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% They involve are there people living there or not, 09:28.600 --> 09:30.400 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% both because of damages, 09:30.400 --> 09:33.033 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% but also people start these fires as well, 09:33.033 --> 09:35.866 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% and certainly a drying climate. 09:35.866 --> 09:37.466 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% The drought index for the West 09:37.466 --> 09:40.633 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% has gone down over the last 30 years. 09:40.633 --> 09:43.866 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% Now, to what extent that's human influence or not 09:43.866 --> 09:46.100 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% I think is still a bit debatable, 09:46.100 --> 09:47.733 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% but it's clear that a changing climate, 09:47.733 --> 09:49.733 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% for whatever reason, 09:49.733 --> 09:51.633 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% is playing a role in that phenomenon. 09:51.633 --> 09:52.900 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% [Scott] Sure. Okay. 09:52.900 --> 09:54.366 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% So fire is being a big one. 09:54.366 --> 09:55.966 align:left position:42.5% line:83% size:47.5% - Yep. - Yep. 09:56.533 --> 10:00.566 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% - Yeah, I think, so one thing is we're at the dawn 10:00.566 --> 10:03.533 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% of a super interesting era in economics 10:03.533 --> 10:06.433 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% where, up until about a decade ago, 10:06.433 --> 10:09.700 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% what we knew about economic damages from climate change, 10:09.700 --> 10:12.366 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% people didn't have computers that were up to the task. 10:12.366 --> 10:14.966 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% And so now we can really begin to use data. 10:14.966 --> 10:17.200 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% And a variety of exciting things 10:17.200 --> 10:18.600 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% are emerging from that. 10:18.600 --> 10:22.033 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% I think one that sits 10:22.033 --> 10:25.866 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% kind of in my mind in a center place 10:25.866 --> 10:29.100 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% is the impacts of temperature on mortality 10:29.100 --> 10:32.233 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% are much more severe than personally I had realized 10:32.233 --> 10:34.433 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% and I think than the literature had realized before. 10:34.433 --> 10:35.900 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% - Is that geographic, Michael? 10:35.900 --> 10:37.733 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - Yeah, so let me try to unpack that. 10:37.733 --> 10:39.300 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% So what is part of the reason 10:39.300 --> 10:40.766 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% that we didn't know that before? 10:40.766 --> 10:43.233 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% Part of the reason is that the only places 10:43.233 --> 10:45.300 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% that we had had data before 10:45.300 --> 10:47.766 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% were kind of rich, temperate climates, 10:47.766 --> 10:50.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% so Northern Europe and parts of the United States. 10:50.600 --> 10:53.300 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% And so, yeah, when temperature goes up a little bit, 10:53.300 --> 10:54.533 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% well, that's good 'cause you get rid 10:54.533 --> 10:56.400 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% of some of the cold days that are dangerous 10:56.400 --> 10:57.866 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and you're not really to the part 10:57.866 --> 10:59.200 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% of the temperature distribution 10:59.200 --> 11:01.333 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% that are causing impacts. 11:01.333 --> 11:03.866 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% Now that we have data that covers most of the globe, 11:03.866 --> 11:06.766 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% a much richer and more nuanced picture is emerging. 11:06.766 --> 11:09.000 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% A paper that I wrote finds that, 11:09.000 --> 11:11.800 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% by the end of the century, 11:11.800 --> 11:13.766 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% there would be about 74 additional deaths 11:13.766 --> 11:16.033 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% per 100,000 people, that's sounds super wonky. 11:16.033 --> 11:17.966 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% If you wanna put it in English, 11:17.966 --> 11:19.433 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% it's about as much mortality as we have 11:19.433 --> 11:20.600 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% from infectious diseases, 11:20.600 --> 11:23.633 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% pre-COVID, on the planet. 11:23.633 --> 11:25.866 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% And to your question though, 11:25.866 --> 11:28.333 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% it is not equally distributed around the world. 11:29.500 --> 11:32.666 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And in places like Pakistan and Bangladesh 11:32.666 --> 11:35.500 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% and Ghana, it's expected, 11:35.500 --> 11:37.300 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% it'll be like 200 per 100,000. 11:37.300 --> 11:38.633 align:left position:40% line:83% size:50% So like- - Equatorial. 11:38.633 --> 11:41.033 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - Yeah, places that are already hot and poor 11:41.033 --> 11:42.200 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% are in the bullseye. 11:42.200 --> 11:44.300 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% - Let's come to the social cost of carbon. 11:44.300 --> 11:45.966 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% And this is something you've helped lead 11:45.966 --> 11:49.700 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% and think through in the Obama administration, 11:49.700 --> 11:51.500 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% what all goes into that? 11:51.500 --> 11:53.700 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% - Yeah, so I like to refer to it 11:53.700 --> 11:55.833 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% as the most important number you've never heard of. 11:55.833 --> 11:57.266 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% [Scott] [chuckles] Okay. 11:57.266 --> 12:00.200 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% - And it's kind of audacious in its hopes and dreams. 12:00.200 --> 12:03.500 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% What it aims to do is to provide 12:03.500 --> 12:08.200 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% a monetary measure of the reduction in damages 12:08.200 --> 12:10.066 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% from mitigating or preventing 12:10.066 --> 12:12.600 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% one additional ton of CO2 from going in the atmosphere. 12:12.600 --> 12:14.866 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% And it should, in principle, 12:14.866 --> 12:17.166 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% encompass whatever the health effects are, 12:17.166 --> 12:19.066 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% whatever the crop yield effects are, 12:19.066 --> 12:22.400 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% whatever the labor supply effects are, 12:22.400 --> 12:24.866 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% whatever impacts there are on migration, 12:24.866 --> 12:27.100 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% on sea level rise, 12:27.100 --> 12:28.100 align:left position:37.5% line:83% size:52.5% everything. - Right. 12:28.100 --> 12:30.000 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - Okay, so in that way, it's kind of almost-- 12:30.000 --> 12:31.233 align:left position:35% line:83% size:55% - It should. - Yeah, it should. 12:31.233 --> 12:32.533 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And it almost has- - But it's hard. 12:32.533 --> 12:34.000 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% - It's very hard. 12:34.000 --> 12:35.433 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% There's lots of uncertainty around it, 12:35.433 --> 12:37.866 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% and getting all of that exactly right 12:37.866 --> 12:39.433 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% is very challenging. 12:39.433 --> 12:43.700 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% But, that led to a value of $51 per ton. 12:43.700 --> 12:44.633 align:left position:42.5% line:89% size:47.5% - Okay. 12:44.633 --> 12:47.000 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% - The Biden administration has adopted that 12:47.000 --> 12:48.233 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% on an interim basis 12:48.233 --> 12:51.233 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% while reviewing the changes in scientific understanding 12:51.233 --> 12:53.900 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% that have taken place 12:53.900 --> 12:55.400 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% in the last 10 years or so. 12:55.400 --> 12:56.400 align:left position:42.5% line:89% size:47.5% - Okay. 12:57.000 --> 12:59.600 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% - My sense, my read of the literature 12:59.600 --> 13:01.966 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% is it would be very difficult to come up 13:01.966 --> 13:04.766 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% with a number lower than $125. 13:04.766 --> 13:06.266 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% I think our understanding 13:06.266 --> 13:09.300 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% about the impacts of climate change have improved 13:09.300 --> 13:13.100 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% and they are pointing to bigger negative impacts 13:13.100 --> 13:14.766 align:left position:37.5% line:83% size:52.5% than we had previously understood. 13:14.766 --> 13:17.933 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% And again, that is, it is so useful that I refer 13:17.933 --> 13:19.333 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% to social cost of carbon as 13:19.333 --> 13:21.333 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% the most important number you ever heard of 13:21.333 --> 13:23.933 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% because it provides this bright line of, 13:23.933 --> 13:26.166 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% well, anything that we spend per ton 13:26.166 --> 13:29.166 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% that is less than that number, it's a good deal. 13:29.166 --> 13:30.600 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% The benefits are gonna exceed the cost. 13:30.600 --> 13:33.566 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% - When you say the impacts, 13:33.566 --> 13:35.433 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% presumably you mean net impacts. 13:35.433 --> 13:37.233 align:left position:42.5% line:83% size:47.5% - Yeah. - Because there are 13:37.233 --> 13:40.600 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% positive impacts from a rising CO2 13:40.600 --> 13:42.100 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% and a rising temperature. - Absolutely. 13:42.100 --> 13:45.966 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - Agricultural yields are greatly enhanced 13:45.966 --> 13:47.666 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% by an extended growing season, 13:47.666 --> 13:50.500 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% but also by the fertilization of CO2. 13:50.500 --> 13:52.766 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% So you've gotta take that into account. 13:52.766 --> 13:54.566 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% I don't know if people do that when they calculate 13:54.566 --> 13:56.233 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% the social cost. - It's all in the benefits. 13:56.233 --> 13:57.266 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% - So one number. 13:57.266 --> 13:58.966 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - And so like, let me come back to mortality 13:58.966 --> 14:01.966 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% where the largest net costs are, 14:01.966 --> 14:04.233 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% they are enormous benefits 14:04.233 --> 14:06.133 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% from getting rid of very cold days. 14:06.133 --> 14:08.066 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% And those are counted in there. 14:08.066 --> 14:10.333 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% And so if you're in Oslo 14:10.333 --> 14:13.900 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% or your favorite Northern Canadian city, 14:13.900 --> 14:15.333 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% climate change is really gonna be beneficial 14:15.333 --> 14:16.433 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% in terms of human health 14:16.433 --> 14:18.300 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% 'cause it's gonna get rid of these very deadly days. 14:18.300 --> 14:20.633 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% It's just that when you add it up across the globe, 14:20.633 --> 14:23.333 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and even within the United States, 14:23.333 --> 14:28.233 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% the damages of the hot days outweigh the benefits. 14:28.233 --> 14:31.066 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - So do you agree to curb CO2, Steve? 14:31.066 --> 14:33.333 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% - All the things being equal, I would say yes, 14:33.333 --> 14:37.900 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% but in the end, it's, again, a values discussion. 14:37.900 --> 14:39.166 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% You face a lot of problems 14:39.166 --> 14:42.066 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% in trying to cut down hard, 14:42.066 --> 14:44.333 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% hard enough to make a difference. 14:44.333 --> 14:47.066 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% One is that we have the developing world 14:47.066 --> 14:50.533 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% who need energy in order to improve their lot. 14:50.533 --> 14:52.533 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% We have the fact that fossil fuels 14:52.533 --> 14:53.833 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% are the most convenient 14:53.833 --> 14:55.900 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% and reliable way to do that. 14:55.900 --> 14:58.866 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% We also have, for the existing energy systems, 14:58.866 --> 15:00.400 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% as we have in the US, 15:00.400 --> 15:02.900 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% what I'd like to say is the recalcitrants 15:02.900 --> 15:05.400 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% of changing energy systems. 15:05.400 --> 15:07.733 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% The energy assets live a long time. 15:07.733 --> 15:09.866 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% They have to be operated reliably, 15:09.866 --> 15:12.366 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% which takes decades of experience, 15:12.366 --> 15:16.133 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% improving the technologies and operating procedures. 15:16.133 --> 15:18.600 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% The assets have to be paid off over time, 15:18.600 --> 15:20.366 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% and they all have to work together. 15:20.366 --> 15:22.966 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% The fuel for vehicles has to work with the vehicles 15:22.966 --> 15:25.066 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and the fueling infrastructure, and so on. 15:25.066 --> 15:27.600 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% So the energy system, historically, 15:27.600 --> 15:30.700 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% doesn't like to change rapidly. 15:30.700 --> 15:32.133 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - That's interesting. - The current discussion 15:32.133 --> 15:34.800 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% in the US is really too fast. 15:34.800 --> 15:36.200 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% to be optimal. 15:36.200 --> 15:37.733 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% - And I think a lot of big industries 15:37.733 --> 15:39.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% that are gonna have to do this would agree. 15:39.600 --> 15:42.466 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% And so we get down the road, 15:42.466 --> 15:44.600 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% what are the levers we can throw? 15:44.600 --> 15:48.100 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% What are some of the big things that will have an impact 15:48.100 --> 15:50.800 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% in the timeframes at the scales 15:50.800 --> 15:53.466 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% that we can deploy globally? 15:53.466 --> 15:54.566 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% - You know, in some respects, 15:54.566 --> 15:56.400 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% I think it's actually, to think of it, 15:56.400 --> 15:59.266 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% the climate challenge is you've got the microscope 15:59.266 --> 16:01.266 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% a little too close to the piece of paper. 16:01.266 --> 16:03.366 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% I actually think the right thing 16:03.366 --> 16:05.166 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% is the global energy challenge. 16:05.166 --> 16:09.166 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% And I think of it as a stool that has three legs. 16:09.166 --> 16:10.866 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% The first leg is how do we get access 16:10.866 --> 16:14.466 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% to inexpensive and reliable sources of energy? 16:14.466 --> 16:16.200 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% Every society wants that. 16:16.200 --> 16:19.366 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% It unlocks increases in living standards 16:19.366 --> 16:21.366 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% that we take for granted here. 16:21.366 --> 16:23.200 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% The second is, 16:23.200 --> 16:25.766 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% can that be done without causing air pollution 16:25.766 --> 16:29.433 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% that causes people to lead shorter and sicker lives? 16:29.433 --> 16:30.633 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% - Three million a year. 16:30.633 --> 16:32.366 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - Yeah, and that's from regular air pollution. 16:32.366 --> 16:34.466 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And then the third is how do we avoid 16:34.466 --> 16:35.866 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% disruptive climate change 16:35.866 --> 16:37.633 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% while also satisfying these first two goals? 16:37.633 --> 16:41.266 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% And the painful part of the energy challenge 16:41.266 --> 16:44.600 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% is that you can name policies or actions 16:44.600 --> 16:47.800 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% that improve one or two of those goals, 16:47.800 --> 16:48.966 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% but it's almost impossible 16:48.966 --> 16:51.700 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% to name one that hits all three at once. 16:51.700 --> 16:53.100 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% And so that's why there's trade-offs. 16:53.100 --> 16:55.833 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% - So let's talk about the decarbonization strategy 16:55.833 --> 16:57.266 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% a little bit. 16:57.266 --> 17:01.833 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% The strategy is to basically electrify everything. 17:01.833 --> 17:04.366 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And so we're gonna electrify transport. 17:04.366 --> 17:07.533 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% We're gonna electrify residential heating, 17:07.533 --> 17:09.600 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% and we are then going to, 17:09.600 --> 17:11.766 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% or perhaps, coincidentally, 17:11.766 --> 17:14.466 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% decarbonize the electrical system. 17:14.466 --> 17:16.166 align:left position:35% line:83% size:55% So everything becomes electricity 17:16.166 --> 17:17.900 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% except maybe for airplanes, 17:17.900 --> 17:20.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% which we can do with biofuels or heavy ships. 17:20.733 --> 17:23.833 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% But the real question is can you create a grid 17:23.833 --> 17:27.100 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% that is simultaneously affordable, 17:27.100 --> 17:29.566 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% reliable, and clean? 17:29.566 --> 17:32.933 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% And as we've been discussing, that's really hard. 17:32.933 --> 17:35.333 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% The technical levers for doing that, 17:35.333 --> 17:38.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% I believe, are first of all, fission. 17:38.733 --> 17:41.333 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% Right now, it's the only reliable 17:41.333 --> 17:44.700 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% emissions-free source of electricity that we have. 17:44.700 --> 17:45.566 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% - And it's scalable. 17:45.566 --> 17:46.833 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% - And it's scalable. 17:46.833 --> 17:47.933 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% We have already scaled it. 17:47.933 --> 17:51.233 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% The problem is, with nuclear right now, 17:51.233 --> 17:53.766 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% is that we've been building them big 17:53.766 --> 17:57.000 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and each one is different in the US. 17:57.000 --> 17:59.500 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% If we build them small and standardized, 17:59.500 --> 18:01.400 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% small modular reactors, 18:01.400 --> 18:03.833 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% when I was in the government, I was promoting that, 18:03.833 --> 18:07.566 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% I think there's a lot of potential for that. 18:07.566 --> 18:10.066 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% - We talked about carbon capture a little bit. 18:10.066 --> 18:13.100 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% I think we agree that's a piece of this puzzle. 18:13.100 --> 18:15.100 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - I think we should be throwing everything we can 18:15.100 --> 18:18.000 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% at trying to understand how it works. 18:18.000 --> 18:19.633 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% - Yeah, we should certainly try 18:19.633 --> 18:20.833 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% to bring the cost down. 18:20.833 --> 18:25.133 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% Right now, the costs for direct capture are $500 a ton. 18:25.133 --> 18:28.100 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% And people are trying to get to 100, optimistically. 18:28.100 --> 18:29.766 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - Which would get us to a lot of playing. 18:29.766 --> 18:31.500 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - It starts to get-- - If you have carbon cash 18:31.500 --> 18:32.600 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% at $100 a ton, 18:32.600 --> 18:33.600 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% I think scale-- - You're there. 18:33.600 --> 18:35.400 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% - If the price is $100-- - But the scale thing 18:35.400 --> 18:37.066 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% is an enormous problem. - Yeah, it's a big deal. 18:37.066 --> 18:40.266 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% How about, well, something we haven't talked about, 18:40.266 --> 18:42.600 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% what about energy efficiency? 18:42.600 --> 18:44.100 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% What about doing more with less? 18:44.100 --> 18:47.900 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% How do we get that translated into our worlds? 18:47.900 --> 18:50.766 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - So I have run some real experiments, 18:50.766 --> 18:53.333 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% randomized control trials, 18:53.333 --> 18:56.500 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% in the residential sector in the United States 18:56.500 --> 18:59.000 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% where some households 18:59.000 --> 19:01.966 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% were given energy efficiency investments, 19:01.966 --> 19:02.966 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% others weren't. 19:02.966 --> 19:06.500 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And the surprising finding was that the rate, 19:06.500 --> 19:08.333 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% the realized rate of return 19:08.333 --> 19:10.400 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% was much lower than what was promised 19:10.400 --> 19:12.400 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% and that a lot of these weren't very good investments. 19:12.400 --> 19:14.000 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - That's interesting. - It does fit this idea 19:14.000 --> 19:15.533 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% that economists love to believe, 19:15.533 --> 19:17.333 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% which is there's not free money laying around. 19:17.333 --> 19:20.833 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% - Well, actually, Mr. Jevons realized 19:20.833 --> 19:24.000 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% in the 19th century that improvements in efficiency 19:24.000 --> 19:28.066 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% don't necessarily translate into reduced energy use, 19:28.066 --> 19:29.233 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% because if it's more efficient, 19:29.233 --> 19:30.633 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% you'll use more of it. 19:30.633 --> 19:34.166 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% And also if you save some money through energy costs, 19:34.166 --> 19:35.566 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% you're gonna go spend the money on something else 19:35.566 --> 19:37.000 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% that uses energy, 19:37.000 --> 19:39.366 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% like take an airplane trip or something like that. 19:39.366 --> 19:40.900 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - So kind of a rebound- - Yeah, a rebound. 19:40.900 --> 19:42.133 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% - Built into all that. 19:42.133 --> 19:43.733 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% - So you gotta be careful. 19:44.366 --> 19:45.966 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - These are all these different responses, 19:45.966 --> 19:47.166 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% and we've talked about the costs 19:47.166 --> 19:48.900 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% and benefits and the challenges. 19:48.900 --> 19:50.833 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% One of the concerns I hear consistently 19:50.833 --> 19:53.200 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% is how do I know that that kind of investment's 19:53.200 --> 19:55.033 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% gonna have a payout? 19:55.033 --> 19:56.233 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% What do we say? 19:56.233 --> 19:59.966 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% - Oh, I think the best answer is 19:59.966 --> 20:01.800 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% we can run experiments. 20:01.800 --> 20:03.700 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% In India, I've been running an experiment 20:03.700 --> 20:05.133 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% with the Gujarat, 20:05.133 --> 20:07.400 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% state of Gujarat's, pollution control board, 20:07.400 --> 20:10.466 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% where industries were randomly assigned 20:10.466 --> 20:14.400 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% to face cap and trade market for regulation 20:14.400 --> 20:18.800 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% versus the standard command and control, 20:18.800 --> 20:19.900 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and the results are very striking. 20:19.900 --> 20:22.533 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% The cap and trade approach is much more effective. 20:22.533 --> 20:25.733 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% - Really? That's interesting. - Yeah, and so I think, 20:25.733 --> 20:28.066 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% yeah, we're facing an era where we're gonna have 20:28.066 --> 20:30.033 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% to make big changes. 20:30.033 --> 20:32.400 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% And I don't think we should have the hubris 20:32.400 --> 20:34.666 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% to think that every idea we have is gonna work 20:34.666 --> 20:36.966 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% and we should, you know, we can run tests. 20:36.966 --> 20:39.500 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - Have the courage and give the political leaders 20:39.500 --> 20:43.300 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% to be able to say, "That didn't work. 20:43.300 --> 20:44.533 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% Let's try something else." 20:44.533 --> 20:47.833 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% Right now they're held to some standard that- 20:47.833 --> 20:48.666 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% - The gotcha, yeah. 20:48.666 --> 20:50.200 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% I mean, Steve probably can tell 20:50.200 --> 20:52.300 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% terrible war stories about Solyndra. 20:52.300 --> 20:53.333 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% - Yeah, right. 20:53.333 --> 20:55.033 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - Which was, you know, that program was designed 20:55.033 --> 20:56.866 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% to have firms fail. 20:56.866 --> 20:58.333 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% - Right, that's what I said on TV 20:58.333 --> 21:00.400 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% and I got bashed for it. 21:00.400 --> 21:02.766 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - Let's talk a little bit about adaptation 21:02.766 --> 21:05.033 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% because we've agreed this is gonna take some time. 21:05.033 --> 21:07.233 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% And so what do we do? 21:07.233 --> 21:10.133 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% What are some of the better adaptation strategies, 21:10.133 --> 21:12.766 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and again, cost benefits to those? 21:12.766 --> 21:16.600 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% - So let me first speak generally about adaptation. 21:17.400 --> 21:21.366 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% Whatever the world does about emissions, 21:21.366 --> 21:24.433 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% we know it will adapt to a changing climate. 21:24.433 --> 21:26.933 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% And there are several reasons why I believe 21:26.933 --> 21:29.233 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% that that will be the dominant response 21:29.233 --> 21:31.133 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% over the next 30 or 40 years. 21:31.133 --> 21:32.400 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% It's autonomous. 21:32.400 --> 21:36.866 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% It's what we humans have done for forever. 21:38.133 --> 21:40.066 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% It's politically saleable. 21:40.066 --> 21:44.466 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% It does not involve having to convince most of the world 21:44.466 --> 21:46.766 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% or even a given country to reduce its emissions 21:46.766 --> 21:48.700 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% because of something that's gonna happen 21:48.700 --> 21:52.766 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% two generations from now and a half a world away. 21:53.233 --> 21:55.433 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% And it's effective. 21:55.433 --> 21:57.933 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% I mean, people adapt their societies. 21:57.933 --> 22:01.300 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% We move from all the way up in Hudson Bay 22:01.300 --> 22:03.600 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% all the way down to Ecuador. 22:03.600 --> 22:05.966 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And those are quite viable societies. 22:05.966 --> 22:08.300 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% They have different characteristics, of course. 22:08.300 --> 22:09.700 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% So I think that's what, again, 22:09.700 --> 22:12.933 align:left position:12.5% line:83% size:77.5% without trying to be normative about what society should do, 22:12.933 --> 22:15.366 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% I think that's what society will do. 22:15.366 --> 22:16.533 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% - How do you see it, Michael? 22:16.533 --> 22:19.166 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - Oh yeah, adaptation is not free. 22:19.166 --> 22:20.366 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% It's costly. 22:20.366 --> 22:23.033 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% Anyone who's been to Houston in the middle of the summer 22:23.033 --> 22:25.300 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% or Montreal in the middle of the winter 22:25.300 --> 22:26.966 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% knows there's very expensive investments made 22:26.966 --> 22:28.766 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% to make those places habitable. 22:28.766 --> 22:29.933 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% And those are resources 22:29.933 --> 22:31.833 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% that you could spend on your kids, 22:31.833 --> 22:33.466 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% a whole variety of things. 22:33.466 --> 22:35.866 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And so I think what government can do 22:35.866 --> 22:37.600 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% is balance what people are gonna do 22:37.600 --> 22:41.666 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% to protect themselves with reducing CO2 emissions 22:41.666 --> 22:45.433 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% and try and search for the optimal combination 22:45.433 --> 22:48.866 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% of adaptation and mitigation. 22:49.300 --> 22:50.833 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% - Some of both are good. 22:50.833 --> 22:53.700 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% It gives you a little bit more flexibility, 22:53.700 --> 22:55.133 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% optionality. 22:55.133 --> 22:56.966 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% - There's simple things, 22:56.966 --> 23:00.700 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% I don't build or keep rebuilding in places 23:00.700 --> 23:02.833 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% that are prone to flooding 23:02.833 --> 23:05.433 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% even though the land might be wonderfully arable. 23:05.433 --> 23:08.833 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% - Yeah, and I actually I believe the Biden administration 23:08.833 --> 23:10.533 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% just made this major change 23:10.533 --> 23:11.900 align:left position:35% line:83% size:55% in how flood insurance is priced, 23:11.900 --> 23:13.533 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% which I think was really, 23:13.533 --> 23:15.600 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% probably has not received enough attention. 23:16.400 --> 23:17.933 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% It used to be, 23:17.933 --> 23:20.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% or under the National Flood Insurance Program, 23:20.733 --> 23:22.400 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% that coastal communities, 23:22.400 --> 23:23.833 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% which tend to be richer communities, 23:23.833 --> 23:25.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% were being subsidized by inland people. 23:25.733 --> 23:29.166 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% And so they were paying below market flood insurance. 23:29.166 --> 23:31.400 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% And I think that is now going away. 23:31.400 --> 23:33.233 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% To Steve's point, 23:33.233 --> 23:35.100 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% it'll begin to reshape the country. 23:35.100 --> 23:38.333 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% You will not see vulnerable developments built there 23:38.333 --> 23:40.500 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% because it'll just be too expensive. 23:40.500 --> 23:41.333 align:left position:32.5% line:89% size:57.5% [Scott] Right. 23:41.333 --> 23:42.866 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% - There's gonna be a temptation 23:42.866 --> 23:48.233 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% to blunt the message that markets are trying to send, 23:48.233 --> 23:50.033 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% that's the subsidized coastal people 23:50.033 --> 23:54.266 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% or people who are at risk from wildfires, 23:54.266 --> 23:56.000 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% to subsidize them 23:56.000 --> 23:58.833 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% so their current lifestyles can continue. 23:58.833 --> 24:02.900 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% And it's a very appealing and strong force, 24:02.900 --> 24:04.800 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% but, ultimately, it limits the adaptation 24:04.800 --> 24:07.166 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% that is gonna have to take place in the end. 24:07.166 --> 24:09.400 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% [Scott] Anything that either of you 24:09.400 --> 24:11.333 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% would like to add that we haven't covered? 24:11.333 --> 24:13.400 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% - Just a knotty problem. 24:13.400 --> 24:16.000 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% It involves humans, 24:16.000 --> 24:17.433 align:left position:37.5% line:89% size:52.5% technology, 24:17.433 --> 24:18.600 align:left position:30% line:89% size:60% the environment, 24:18.600 --> 24:22.433 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% and we need to really think it through and do it well. 24:22.433 --> 24:23.500 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% If we don't do it well, 24:23.500 --> 24:25.166 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% we will create more damage 24:25.166 --> 24:27.066 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% than we might get from the climate. 24:27.066 --> 24:28.833 align:left position:35% line:89% size:55% - Yeah, yeah. 24:28.833 --> 24:30.733 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% - Yeah, I would just say part of that problem 24:30.733 --> 24:32.233 align:left position:27.5% line:89% size:62.5% is the uncertainty 24:32.233 --> 24:33.966 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% and there's uncertainty throughout it. 24:34.566 --> 24:38.166 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% And I think for too long that uncertainty 24:38.166 --> 24:40.966 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% has been a cause for inaction. 24:40.966 --> 24:43.800 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% And I think the basic economics 24:43.800 --> 24:47.166 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% and basic human behavior points out, 24:47.166 --> 24:48.466 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% well, when there's lots of uncertainty, 24:48.466 --> 24:49.900 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% actually that's a cause for action, 24:49.900 --> 24:51.066 align:left position:20% line:89% size:70% not a cause for inaction. 24:51.066 --> 24:54.400 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% - Uncertain doesn't mean unsolvable and unaddressable. 24:54.400 --> 24:57.633 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% I think addressing the uncertainty is so important. 24:57.633 --> 25:01.000 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% I worry myself that we take these binary 25:01.000 --> 25:04.700 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% kind of soundbites and people take positions. 25:04.700 --> 25:07.633 align:left position:15% line:83% size:75% And to me, if we could really bring these things together, 25:07.633 --> 25:09.633 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% like we've just done, 25:09.633 --> 25:12.133 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% and address these in investment ways, 25:12.133 --> 25:13.800 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% I think we'll be able to get a lot closer 25:13.800 --> 25:17.900 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% to solutions that are better for everyone. 25:18.400 --> 25:20.733 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% Climate modeling is not precise, 25:20.733 --> 25:22.300 align:left position:15% line:89% size:75% but shows that human activity 25:22.300 --> 25:24.133 align:left position:35% line:83% size:55% is increasing global temperatures 25:24.133 --> 25:25.900 align:left position:25% line:89% size:65% with varying impacts. 25:25.900 --> 25:28.500 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% IPCC reports suggest heat waves 25:28.500 --> 25:30.466 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% and heavy rain events are increasing, 25:30.466 --> 25:33.966 align:left position:17.5% line:83% size:72.5% but they're less conclusive on storms and wildfires. 25:33.966 --> 25:36.566 align:left position:20% line:83% size:70% Calculating the societal cost of carbon emissions 25:36.566 --> 25:37.900 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% is also very difficult, 25:37.900 --> 25:40.033 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% but offers a way to evaluate the price 25:40.033 --> 25:42.533 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% of different CO2 reduction strategies 25:42.533 --> 25:45.366 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% against the value of their expected benefits. 25:45.366 --> 25:47.366 align:left position:10% line:89% size:80% Ideally, we could find solutions 25:47.366 --> 25:49.066 align:left position:12.5% line:89% size:77.5% that provide affordable energy 25:49.066 --> 25:51.566 align:left position:32.5% line:83% size:57.5% while reducing environmental impacts. 25:51.566 --> 25:53.000 align:left position:30% line:83% size:60% In the end, we'll need to compare 25:53.000 --> 25:56.233 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% the cost of mitigation against adaptation 25:56.233 --> 25:58.233 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% and their likely benefits. 25:58.233 --> 25:59.900 align:left position:17.5% line:89% size:72.5% How much we choose to spend 25:59.900 --> 26:02.866 align:left position:25% line:83% size:65% will be influenced by other global priorities. 26:04.900 --> 26:15.400 align:left position:47.5% line:89% size:42.5% ♪ ♪ 26:15.400 --> 26:25.933 align:left position:47.5% line:89% size:42.5% ♪ ♪ 26:25.933 --> 26:35.733 align:left position:47.5% line:89% size:42.5% ♪ ♪ 26:36.600 --> 26:38.100 align:left position:22.5% line:83% size:67.5% [Announcer] Funding for "Energy Switch" 26:38.100 --> 26:40.100 align:left position:22.5% line:89% size:67.5% was provided in part by 26:40.100 --> 26:41.600 align:left position:40% line:89% size:50% Microsoft 26:41.600 --> 26:45.566 align:left position:27.5% line:83% size:62.5% and the University of Texas at Austin.