Climate One

Swelling sea levels used to be a concern associated with future generations and faraway lands. Then Superstorm Sandy poured the Atlantic Ocean into the New York subway. Here on the west coast, we’re no less vulnerable to the rising tide, and it’s not only our coastal communities that will be affected. From shoreline to bay to Delta and beyond, California’s economy is bound together by highways, railways and airports. Cities and states are beginning to realize they need to start planning now for tides heading their way. The citizens of Redwood City have already made the issue of rising sea levels a priority. But as Alicia Aguirre, that city’s former mayor, points out, the problem is not limited to one community. “It's not just fixing what's happening in Redwood City, it's fixing what's happening all along the bay and along the coast as well. How do you work with developers and politicians and county government…and say, "This is what we can do?” Larry Goltzband, Executive Director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, agrees that for Californians, focusing on one area is short-sighted. “Those ships you see…docking at the port of Oakland, many times carry product that employs people in Redding or employs people in Tulare County…. So, it is in the best interest of all of California, whether you touch the bay, whether you see the bay on a daily basis, to actually invest in the bay for economic and environmental reasons.” Adding to the big picture, Julian Potter of San Francisco International Airport points out the ripple effect that damage to the region’s airports would cause worldwide. “The economic impact is not singular to any one side -- everybody gets impacted by it, whether or not you’re near water. Chicago will be impacted by it, any of these hub cities.” Goltzband says retreating from the shoreline is not an option. “People will always want to build near the water,” he says. “I think that's probably just part of our DNA after thousands of years. The question that we…have to figure out is, how do we ensure that as the water rises, economic vitality and our community's vitality continues to grow?” Whether it’s due to a hurricane, tsunami or just the slowly rising tide, it’s inevitable that our coastline will be changing dramatically in the coming decades, and with it our economy, our environment and our way of life. Sandbags and levees aren’t enough – Californians must come together to create and enact real solutions, or we’ll all be in over our head. Laura Tam, Sustainable Development Policy Director, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, Bay Conservation and Development Commission Alicia Aguirre, member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, former Mayor, Redwood City Julian Potter, Chief of Staff, San Francisco International Airport This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 11, 2014

What’s really preventing us from enacting environmental change? Blame our brains, says Daniel Goleman, author of Ecological Intelligence. As he explains it, “The problem comes down to a design flaw in the human brain.” Evolution fine-tuned our brains to protect us from immediate survival threats – lions, tigers and bears. But long-term dangers, such as those that threaten our planet today, don’t register. “The problem is that we don’t perceive, nor are we alarmed by, these changes,” says Goleman. “And so we’re in this dilemma where we can show people, “Well, you know, your carbon footprint is this,” but it doesn’t really register in the same way as “there’s a tiger around the block.” Facts alone aren’t enough, he adds, “We need to find a more powerful way of framing them…a way which will activate the right set of emotions and get us moving.” George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at U.C. Berkeley, sees the issue as a moral, rather than environmental, crisis: “…the greatest moral crisis we have ever been in. It is the moral issue of our times and it’s seen just as an environmental issue.” But morality can mean different things to different people. This sets up a debate that quickly goes from the political to the personal, as Josh Freedman, author of Inside Change, points out. “When we start saying, “okay, they’re good, and they’re bad,” what happens is we’re actually fueling this threat system that is what’s in the way of us actually solving these problems.” So what is the solution? How do we retune our primitive brains – and those of our political and business leaders — to focus on a less than clear, less than present danger? Throughout the discussion, several key avenues rose to the top: economics, education and emotional appeal. If major institutions can be persuaded to divest from environmentally unsound companies, says Lakoff, “then what will happen is that the prices of the stocks will go down for those energy companies. When they go down that way, they stay down…you have an opportunity to shift investment away in a way that has an exponential feedback loop.” Educating today’s youth was a powerful and recurring theme for all the speakers. “What kids learn and tell their parents is important,” Goleman said. “Schools are a big counterforce that we can do a much better job of deploying in this battle for minds and heart.” Despite our primitive wiring, the speakers concluded, we humans do have the capacity for the ecological intelligence – and the morality – to effect global change. “Your morality is what defines who you are as a human being,” says Lakoff, “it’s who you are emotionally and morally as a human being that matters in your life, what you do every day. This isn’t a matter of compromise…we have, like, 35 years to turn this around, period. That’s not long.” “All change starts on the inside,” says Freedman, “If we can support children and adults to connect with that capability and to develop what’s already there, then things are going to get a lot better.” Daniel Goleman, Author, Ecological Intelligence: The Hidden Impacts of What We Buy (Crown Business, 2010) Joshua Freedman, CEO, Six Seconds; Author, Inside Change: Transforming Your Organization With Emotional Intelligence (Six Seconds, 2010) George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and author of many books, including The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics (Penguin Books, 2009) This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on May 1, 2014.

Today’s teenagers, also known as Millenials or Generation Y, now have a new moniker: Greenagers. That’s because they are coming of age in an era plagued by the effects of climate change. Severe floods, storms and fires on the rise and are forecast to increase further as carbon pollution increases. What are high school students learning about the causes and consequences of climate volatility? And what steps can they take now to secure a more optimistic future for the earth’s ecology? In this episode of Climate One, panelists cite changing the planet for the better can come from “doing one thing,” sourcing cafeteria food locally, and fighting apathy. “We need a transformation of the way we teach these things because it’s not just a matter of getting the information out there about climate change and energy and food,” says Mark McCaffrey, Program and Policy Director at the National Center for Science Education. “We need to be able to get that information out in a way that is building knowledge and know-how…to be able to transform the world, to be able to minimize the impacts, and be able to be ready for whatever changes (are) in store for us.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Lick-Wilmerding High School in San Francisco on March 25, 2014. AshEl Eldridge, Education and Leadership Manager, Alliance for Climate Education Heather Frambach, Statewide Food Systems Coordinator, Community Alliance with Family Farmers Mark McCaffrey, Program and Policy Director, National Center for Science Education

Three years after Fukushima is nuclear power dead in the water? Or is it poised for revival due to the world’s desperate need for carbon-free energy? Every day the Fukushima reactors dump 70,000 gallons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, and there is no end in sight. In the United States, the industry faces more systemic challenges - abundant and cheap natural gases are making new nukes uneconomic, despite the efforts of the Obama administration to jumpstart a nuclear renaissance. Per Peterson, a professor of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley and a former member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, says the Fukushima disaster has had a significant impact on how engineers design the nuclear power plants of the future, and their safety systems. He says it has led to the development of what is called “passive safety” – the ability for the plant to shut down without needing external sources of electrical power. Two new plants are currently being constructed in South Carolina and Georgia, but at a staggering cost - $10+ billion per project. Peterson says that cost is due in part to major improvements over previous designs. “One of them is the passive safety…but the other is the use of modular construction technology which now does the majority of the fabrication of the buildings and the equipment modules and factories.” Peterson says. “And the implementation of modular construction does have the potential to give you much better control over schedule and cost. This said, it’s still a puzzle why the construction prices are as high as they are…there must be some way to bring these numbers closer together.” Dozens of old plants are receiving a new lease on life from regulators who have approved letting them run another decade or two. But what happens when plants are run beyond their expected lifetimes? “We’ve had nuclear power plants in the United States get into trouble in far shorter than their lifetimes.” says Dave Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We’ve also had some nuclear power plants running longer than 40 years. So it’s not what the calendar says; it’s how well you maintain the plant and ensure that safety measures are maintained, whether it’s one year or 41 years.” Jon Koomey, a research fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford, and author of the book “Cold Cash, Cool Climate” says it’s important to recognize that all energy technologies have risks. “We need to figure out a way to innovate not just in technology but also in our institutional structures, in our incentives, in the ways that we encourage people to report problems,” Koomey says. “And if we don’t do institutional innovation as well as technological innovation, then we’re not going to be able to count on many of these technologies that we would like to count on to reduce climate risks.” Dave Lochbaum, Director, Nuclear Safety Project, Union of Concerned Scientists Jon Koomey, Research Fellow, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, Stanford University Per Peterson, Member, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future; Professor of Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on April 3, 2014.

America is in the midst of a fracking boom. Most new oil and gas wells in this country are drilled using hydraulic fracturing, the injection of a cocktail of water and chemicals at high pressure to release bubbles of oil or gas trapped in shale rock. Thanks to fracking, America is awash in cheap natural gas and is poised to become the world’s largest petroleum producer next year. That would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. “People thought that the United States was tapped out.” says Russell Gold, a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, and author of The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World. “There’s more energy than we frankly know what to do with right now.” But some say the boom comes with a cost. Opponents of fracking cite risks to groundwater supplies, and argue that it’s not climate friendly. Mark Zoback, a professor of Geophysics at Stanford agrees that when dealing with a large industrial process like fracking, things can go wrong, but that fracking itself isn’t the problem. “The real problem is well construction,” Zoback says, “and if you do a good job of building a well, and we know how to build wells, we really can prevent the kinds of problems we should worry about below the earth’s surface, and that is the leakage that could contaminate aquifers that could leak gas to the atmosphere and obviate the benefit of using natural gas instead of coal, for example, for greenhouse gas emissions.” Gold and Zoback recently sat down at the Commonwealth Club to weigh in on the costs and benefits of fracking, along with Trevor Houser, co-author of Fueling Up: The Economic Implications of America’s Oil and Gas Boom. Houser speaks to the economic benefit of fracking, but cautions against believing any hype. “The climate consequences of the gas boom have been oversold by environmentalists, the climate benefits of the gas boom have been oversold by the industry,” Houser says. “Same as the economic story….it’s not as good as you think, it’s not as bad as you think.” Hype or not, it’s a boom that’s taking place right in our own backyard, says Russell Gold. “This is not an energy boom that’s happening above the Arctic Circle in Alaska or way off in Gulf of Mexico over the horizon,” Gold says. “This is happening in county after county in many places. And while that is intrusive and while we are talking about an industrial process, if we’re not doing it here in the United States, it’s going to be done somewhere else.” Russell Gold, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal; Author, The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World Trevor Houser, Partner, Rhodium Group; Co-Author, Fueling Up: The Economic Implications of America’s Oil and Gas Boom Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics at Stanford, former member of the Secretary of Energy’s Committee on Shale Gas Development from 2011 to 2012 This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on April 1, 2014.

Who should take responsibility for reducing the amount of plastic debris that litters our cities, waterways and oceans? While many consumers have given up their plastic grocery bags, most still rely on the convenience of plastic water bottles, liquid soap and fast food in styrofoam containers. “Many of our companies are looking at bio-based materials and other kinds of plastics,” says Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council. “High density polyethylene, made from sugarcane, is one of the largest uses today of bioplastics.” But is plant-based plastic the answer? As Molly Morse of Mango Materials points out, without oxygen to break them down, bioplastics can last as long as or longer than conventional plastic. Her company is working to create plastic out of methane gas harvested from wastewater treatment plants. “It can break down in the ocean,” she says. Bridgett Luther, President of Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, helps steer companies toward more responsible solutions for design, manufacturing and packaging their products. She points out that this approach led to market success for one company that eschewed the use of non-recyclable foam in their chairs. “ [Herman Miller] developed one of the fastest selling office chairs ever, the Aeron Chair. The end of use of that Herman Miller chair was a lot of super valuable materials that can be easily recycled.” The household cleaning company Method Products has been harvesting discarded plastic from beaches in Hawaii to produce their Ocean Plastic bottle. “Using the plastic that’s already on the planet is a solution that we have today,” says co-founder Adam Lowry. “So I tend to favor solutions that we can employ right now rather than saying, “Yes. The technology is coming.” Despite these promising steps, all agree that it’s going to take a village — manufacturers, consumers and legislators — to work together if we’re going to rid our world of plastic waste. Keith Christman, Managing Director for Plastics Markets, American Chemistry Council; Co-chair, Global Action Committee on Marine Litter Adam Lowry, Co-founder and Chief Greenskeeper, Method Products PBC Bridgett Luther, President, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute Molly Morse, CEO, Mango Materials This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on January 30, 2014

From Egyptian irrigation systems to Roman aqueducts to the dikes and canals of The Netherlands, the world’s civilizations have long found innovative ways to harness and conserve their water supply. But with California entering the third year of an historic drought, what 21st century technologies are on the horizon to help us deal with an ever-shrinking pool of water? Peter Yolles is the CEO of Watersmart Software, which takes a grass-roots approach to the issue by educating residential and commercial customers on how to save water. For most residential customers, says Yolles, saving water is part of the social compact. “Research tells us that only 1 out of 10 people will change their behavior to save money.” Yolles says. “Only 1 out of 10 people will change their behavior to save the environment. But 8 out of 10 will do so because of what’s happening around them.” Comparing water usage within a community, he says, is the first step. “That really motivates people to say, “Gosh, I’m using a lot more than my neighbors. What can I do to save water?” Tamin Pechet is the Chairman of Imagine H20, which seeks out and funds start-ups in the water industry. He says the need for new ideas is greater than ever. “Over the past couple of decades, the pressures on our water system have increased,” says Pechet. “When we face an acute event, like a drought or…a heavy series of rains that causes more water to enter into our storm and sewer systems, we don’t have the same level of excess capacity to deal with that as we used to. We essentially need a new wave of innovation to address those problems.” And a new wave of entrepreneurs and innovators are out there, exploring solutions from desalination to wastewater treatment to mining satellite data. Despite dire predictions for California’s reservoirs and rivers, Pechet says the future of water technology is promising. “There’s a lot of really cool stuff out there,” he told the Commonwealth Club audience. “The history of water in civilization is one of innovation. And so just about anything that you dream up…is something that someone could innovate and come up with. If you look hard enough, you can find a company doing it.” Steven Hartmeier, CEO, mOasis Tamin Pechet, CEO, Banyan Water, Chairman, Imagine H2O Peter Yolles, CEO, WaterSmart Software This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on March 11, 2014

Since 1989, The Goldman Environmental Prize has honored more than 150 grassroots heroes who are fighting on the front lines to deliver clean water, clean air and preserve the world’s ecosystems. Brothers John and Douglas Goldman are carrying on the work of their parents, environmental activists Richard and Rhoda Goldman, who founded the prize. “My mom was a recycler before the term was ever coined,” remembers John. “She was far ahead of her time.” The most important impact of the award, says Douglas, is its role in spotlighting the often unrewarding work of environmental activism. John adds that there’s a common thread among the past winners: “[These are] individuals whose force of nature really made a difference, their impact was significant, and they may have had significant personal risk.” One of those people is Maria Gunnoe, who received the prize in 2009. Beginning with her successful effort to stop the coal industry from devastating the hollows of her native Appalachia, she has become a leading voice in the push to expose the environmental hazards of coal production. But, she says, she didn’t start out to be an activist. “I didn't really get into fighting the industry; the industry took me on,” she laughs. “They challenged me and my love for my property.” Kimberly Wasserman’s battle to close toxin-spewing coal-fired power plants in southwest Chicago was an equally personal one. “Feeling the impacts that countless parents in our community feel, of having children with asthma, just triggered that voice in me to…want to do something about it,” says Wasserman, adding, “there is no greater threat than a mom who's mad!” She was awarded the prize in 2013. Both women have continued to fight for clean air and water, and have even linked their causes together, stressing that, no matter which end of the coal conveyer belt your family is on, we’re all in this together. “Environmental impact doesn't just happen to any singular community,” says Wasserman. “It's happening across the board to low-income people, and we need to be united and be coming together to fight this.” John Goldman, President, Goldman Environmental Foundation Douglas Goldman, Vice President, Goldman Environmental Foundation Maria Gunnoe, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Goldman Environmental Prize Winner, 2009 Kimberly Wasserman, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Goldman Environmental Prize Winner, 2013 This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on March 6, 2014

Tim Koopman is a fourth-generation rancher; his family has been raising cattle on their ranch in Alameda County since 1918 and he now heads the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA). David Robinson Simon is the author of a book that lambasts industrialized meat production. What did these two advocates from “opposite sides of the steer” have to say to each other when they sat down to debate the ethical, nutritional and environmental costs of animal agriculture? Host Greg Dalton started things off on the hot-button topic of animal cruelty. According to Simon, large factory farms have lobbied heavily to eliminate anti-cruelty protections for their industry. “So what we’ve seen the last several decades is that literally, anti-cruelty protections that once protected farm animals from abusive behavior have simply been eliminated in virtually every state in this country.” Koopman said that the demonization of his industry is based on inaccuracies; ranchers, he says, care about their animals. “It’s disturbing for us as livestock producers to have this perception that production basically lives on the backs of animals that are abused from the time they’re born until the time they’re slaughtered.” He was quick to point out that his 200-some head of cattle are treated with respect, nurtured and allowed to roam freely. And he adds that the 3,000 members of the CCA are equally vigilant. “Our membership is very cognizant of and very aware of… animal treatment, all the good things that go along with the nurturing of these animals. We will fight against the mistreatment of animals just as much as David or anybody else would.” Dalton next brought up the connection between livestock, methane emissions and climate change. According to the UN publication Livestock’s Long Shadow, nearly twenty percent of all greenhouse gases can be attributed to the livestock industry. Koopman challenged that figure, saying it was closer to three percent; Simon, not surprisingly, contends that the UN figures are conservative. Both men agree, however, that methane emission is a problem that needs to be addressed. Ironically, grass-fed cattle may be making things worse, not better, says Simon: “The unfortunate result is that they produce four times as much methane as grain-fed animals and so we get this very bizarre result that organically-fed cattle are not necessarily more eco-friendly than inorganically raised animals.” One solution, says Koopman, is genetic improvement, which has led to an overall reduction in the number of cows nationwide. Fewer cows, he points out, means less gas. But there are other reasons to believe ranching is straining our resources. “It takes on average, five times as much land to produce animal protein as it does plant protein,” says Simon. “It takes 11 times the fossil fuels and it takes 40 times or more water to produce animal protein than plant protein… that’s a major sustainability problem.” Koopman disagrees. With two-thirds of the land in the U.S. not farmable, he sees cattle ranching as a necessary part of global food sourcing. “We’ve got an increasing world population with huge demand for protein as a part of their diet. And on the absence of grazing livestock and having that land available to produce food, I think we would be in a lot worse shape than we are.” David Robinson Simon, Author, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much – and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter Tim Koopman, President, California Cattlemen’s Association This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 24, 2014

Breathing, eating and consuming, an individual human being produces tons of carbon every year – population may be the key to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Populations are expected to skyrocket in developing areas like sub-saharan Africa, generating even more carbon pollution. Reducing population growth could also help fight climate change, but in the wake of India’s forced sterilizations in the 1970s and China's mandatory one-child policy, nationwide family planning has a stigma. Malcolm Potts, a professor of family planning at UC Berkeley, believes talking about condoms should be as natural as talking about cabbages. “They're not a medical thing. They are choices, they should be available. Like cabbages, they should be where your vegetables are.” Alan Weisman’s most recent book Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth addresses the question of the world’s teeming masses head on. Weisman and Potts recently sat down at The Commonwealth Club to tackle the sensitive topic of our growing population and its part in straining the earth’s resources. Both Weisman and Potts emphasized that education is key to reducing growth rates, and in particular, the education of girls. And the reverse is true as well. “People in developing countries want fewer children,” says Potts, “because they all know the power of education and they all know if you have a smaller family, your kids are more likely to get educated. But if we remove the barriers between family planning, the knowledge and means to do it, then even illiterate people will have fewer children.” Equating the world’s bourgeoning population with climate change, says Weisman, is a no-brainer. “We’ve jet propelled society. We can do all these incredible things. We have electricity but we also have these waste products and they float up into the atmosphere. And the more of us demanding this stuff, the more carbon dioxide is up there. There's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now than there has been in 3 million years.” Solving our climate problem could be simpler – and less expensive – than we think. “Carbon-free energy, we don't know how to do that really well yet, but even if we did, it would be really expensive.” Weisman says. But birth control? “This doesn't involve any technological leaps. To make contraception universally available, it's been calculated that it would cost about a little over $8 billion per year.” “For 200,000 years, there was not a population explosion. We were roughly in balance with our environment” says Potts. “We've done wonderful things to reduce infant mortality. And we're being blind and stupid and curious about not offering people family planning at the same time.” Alan Weisman, Senior Radio Producer, Homelands Productions; Author, Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth? (Little, Brown & Company, 2013) Malcolm Potts, Fred H. Bixby Endowed Chair in Population and Family Planning, School of Public Health, UC Berkeley This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 25, 2014.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, Poland last year achieved modest progress toward an international agreement on reducing carbon pollution. In 2015, the heads of nearly 200 nations will again meet, this time in Paris, and the hope is that they can seal a deal that would take effect in 2020. But rich and developing countries are still far apart on who should bear responsibility for increasing human impacts of severe weather. Even some of the most vigorous proponents of moving away from fossil fuels doubt the UN process will ever produce a treaty with teeth. Ambassador Todd Stern is US Special Envoy for Climate Change, a position he also held during the Clinton administration. Stern started his talk at the Commonwealth Club with a summary of where we are in a process that started two years ago: “[At the] Conference of the Parties, the COP in South Africa, there was a decision to start a new negotiation that would cover the period of the 2020s, in which the parties would negotiate an agreement, legal in some way.” And its due date is 2015. “As it turns out, the big climate meeting at the end of 2015 is going to be in Paris. So we sit right in the middle of that process, about halfway through.” Todd Stern, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on February 19, 2014

Swelling sea levels used to be a concern associated with future generations and faraway lands. Then Superstorm Sandy poured the Atlantic Ocean into the New York subway. Here on the west coast, we’re no less vulnerable to the rising tide, and it’s not only our coastal communities that will be affected. From shoreline to bay to Delta and beyond, California’s economy is bound together by highways, railways and airports. Cities and states are beginning to realize they need to start planning now for tides heading their way. The citizens of Redwood City have already made the issue of rising sea levels a priority. But as Alicia Aguirre, that city’s former mayor, points out, the problem is not limited to one community. “It's not just fixing what's happening in Redwood City, it's fixing what's happening all along the bay and along the coast as well. How do you work with developers and politicians and county government…and say, "This is what we can do?” Larry Goltzband, Executive Director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, agrees that for Californians, focusing on one area is short-sighted. “Those ships you see…docking at the port of Oakland, many times carry product that employs people in Redding or employs people in Tulare County…. So, it is in the best interest of all of California, whether you touch the bay, whether you see the bay on a daily basis, to actually invest in the bay for economic and environmental reasons.” Adding to the big picture, Julian Potter of San Francisco International Airport points out the ripple effect that damage to the region’s airports would cause worldwide. “The economic impact is not singular to any one side -- everybody gets impacted by it, whether or not you’re near water. Chicago will be impacted by it, any of these hub cities.” Goltzband says retreating from the shoreline is not an option. “People will always want to build near the water,” he says. “I think that's probably just part of our DNA after thousands of years. The question that we…have to figure out is, how do we ensure that as the water rises, economic vitality and our community's vitality continues to grow?” Whether it’s due to a hurricane, tsunami or just the slowly rising tide, it’s inevitable that our coastline will be changing dramatically in the coming decades, and with it our economy, our environment and our way of life. Sandbags and levees aren’t enough – Californians must come together to create and enact real solutions, or we’ll all be in over our head. Laura Tam, Sustainable Development Policy Director, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, Bay Conservation and Development Commission Alicia Aguirre, member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, former Mayor, Redwood City Julian Potter, Chief of Staff, San Francisco International Airport This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 11, 2014

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, Poland last year achieved modest progress toward an international agreement on reducing carbon pollution. In 2015, the heads of nearly 200 nations will again meet, this time in Paris, and the hope is that they can seal a deal that would take effect in 2020. But rich and developing countries are still far apart on who should bear responsibility for increasing human impacts of severe weather. Even some of the most vigorous proponents of moving away from fossil fuels doubt the UN process will ever produce a treaty with teeth. Ambassador Todd Stern is US Special Envoy for Climate Change, a position he also held during the Clinton administration. Stern started his talk at the Commonwealth Club with a summary of where we are in a process that started two years ago: “[At the] Conference of the Parties, the COP in South Africa, there was a decision to start a new negotiation that would cover the period of the 2020s, in which the parties would negotiate an agreement, legal in some way.” And its due date is 2015. “As it turns out, the big climate meeting at the end of 2015 is going to be in Paris. So we sit right in the middle of that process, about halfway through.” Ambassador Todd Stern, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 19, 2014

Who should take responsibility for reducing the amount of plastic debris that litters our cities, waterways and oceans? While many consumers have given up their plastic grocery bags, most still rely on the convenience of plastic water bottles, liquid soap and fast food in styrofoam containers. “Many of our companies are looking at bio-based materials and other kinds of plastics,” says Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council. “High density polyethylene, made from sugarcane, is one of the largest uses today of bioplastics.” But is plant-based plastic the answer? As Molly Morse of Mango Materials points out, without oxygen to break them down, bioplastics can last as long as or longer than conventional plastic. Her company is working to create plastic out of methane gas harvested from wastewater treatment plants. “It can break down in the ocean,” she says. Bridgett Luther, President of Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, helps steer companies toward more responsible solutions for design, manufacturing and packaging their products. She points out that this approach led to market success for one company that eschewed the use of non-recyclable foam in their chairs. “ [Herman Miller] developed one of the fastest selling office chairs ever, the Aeron Chair. The end of use of that Herman Miller chair was a lot of super valuable materials that can be easily recycled.” The household cleaning company Method Products has been harvesting discarded plastic from beaches in Hawaii to produce their Ocean Plastic bottle. “Using the plastic that's already on the planet is a solution that we have today,” says co-founder Adam Lowry. “So I tend to favor solutions that we can employ right now rather than saying, “Yes. The technology is coming.” Despite these promising steps, all agree that it’s going to take a village -- manufacturers, consumers and legislators -- to work together if we’re going to rid our world of plastic waste. Keith Christman, Managing Director for Plastics Markets, American Chemistry Council; Co-chair, Global Action Committee on Marine Litter Adam Lowry, Co-founder and Chief Greenskeeper, Method Products PBC Bridgett Luther, President, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute Molly Morse, CEO, Mango Materials This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on January 30, 2014

“For us, a drought means human misery, economic devastation to some natural assets and certainly an unproductive living standard for the majority of our people,” said California state senator Jean Fuller ®, who represents the Central Valley. With the state’s rainfall hitting record lows in 2013, California’s drought is a pressing issue in this election year. The shortage will be felt most by farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, and while many fields have been converted to water-conserving drip irrigation, “there’s still a large percentage of crops in California that are irrigated by flood irrigation,” according to Matt Weiser, senior writer at The Sacramento Bee. But conservation can’t be limited to agriculture – all sectors need to recognize that water is a limited resource, according to state senator Lois Wolk (D). “If you tie the amount of water to the price, you create an immediate incentive for conservation,” Wolk said. Experts debate management and policy opportunities as California faces its third year of drought. Lois Wolk, California State Senator (D-Davis) Jean Fuller, California State Senator (R-Bakersfield) Matt Weiser, Senior Writer, The Sacramento Bee This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on January 10, 2014