Climate One

Measure What? Michel Gelobter, Chief Green Officer, Hara Eric Olson, Senior Vice President, Advisory Services, BSR Glen Low, Principal, Blu Skye Forward-thinking companies are coming to realize that sustainability isn’t just good for their bottom lines; it makes it easier to win over customers and compete in the market, say three corporate greening experts. As new tools such as carbon accounting software become more sophisticated and widely adopted, the panelists say, benefits will accrue not only to more efficient companies but to customers better able to trust companies’ green claims. First, says Eric Olson, Senior Vice President, Business for Social Responsibility, companies need to figure out whether they should they be listening to their customers, or leading them. Olson leans toward the latter. “There is a school of thought that says what we are talking about is so complex that what consumers want is for us to solve the problem for them,” he says. “They’re not going to sit down and ask for fair trade coffee – they don’t even know what that is. But they do know that they want a product that doesn’t have practices behind it that they wouldn’t believe in,” he adds. In a relatively recent shift, companies aren’t making green strides just because regulators forced them to. “Sustainability leadership about five years ago was very compliance oriented. Sustainability leadership today is about competitive advantage. It’s about innovation,” says Glen Low, Principal, Blu Skye, a sustainability consultancy. In a rapidly changing landscape, smart companies that pivot toward efficiency now, be they small firms or industry giants, will be big winners, says Michel Gelobter, Chief Green Officer, Hara.“There are a lot of companies, like a Wal-Mart, that are taking pretty aggressive actions right now,” he says. “The biggest value of scale is the size of the bets that you can win. The best use of large capital is winning big-risk bets. There’s a history of very big industries emerging from these kinds of pivotal moments.” Sustainability represents one of those pivotal moments, he says. All the positioning among agile companies looking to gain a green edge has led to a relatively new development, says Eric Olson: companies influencing policy in a progressive direction. These companies, Olson says, are clamoring for Congress to act, by stating: “We need a level playing field. We need incentives. We need long-term, predictable signals around the cost of energy sources in order to be as competitive as we should be.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on April 15th, 2011

Cell Power: Sprint CEO Dan Hesse Dan Hesse, CEO, Sprint Nextel Sprint wants to be recognized as the green leader in the wireless industry, says CEO Dan Hesse in this return visit to Climate One. Hesse warns against the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile and announces the release of the fourth phone in Sprint’s green series, the Samsung Replenish. “As we meet here today,” Hesse says, “the innovative power of the wireless industry is under serious threat” by the proposed AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile. Much had already been written about the possible implications of the move for consumers and pricing, he says, “but to my surprise, very little attention had been paid to its potential impact on the wireless industry’s ability to foster innovation” – including innovation in the green space. “Wireless technology helps consumers by providing new ways to reduce, re-use, and recycle,” says Hesse. Take telecommuting. Just 3.9% of Americans regularly work outside the office, he says, even though wireless technology gives them access to the same information at their office desks. Hesse says Sprint is also working to address one of the industry’s lingering dilemmas: waste. Just 10% of mobiles phones are recycled each year in the United States, he says, meaning some 140 million phones end up in landfills. In 2008, Sprint set a goal to recycle 90% of the phones it sells. The new Samsung Replenish “is as green as we could make it,” says Hesse – energy-efficient, housed in recycled plastics, and made from 82% recyclable materials. In an effort to “take green really mainstream,” Hesse says, Sprint is lowering the monthly rate for the Replenish by $10 per month. The green moves and others – including connecting ECOtality’s Blink electric vehicle charging network, purchasing wind energy for its corporate headquarters, and upgrading the energy efficiency of its network – are done to improve the company’s brand, Hesse says, but also to motivate employees. “The thing about green is your people want to make it. They’re excited and love the fact that this is what we’re really focusing on, and that we have made it to a goal they care about,” Hesse says. “I’ve had zero pushback in getting people aligned and wanting to do it.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on April 15th, 2011

Nuclear Power: Setting Sun? Jacques Besnainou, CEO AREVA Inc. Lucas Davis, Professor, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley Jeff Byron, Former Commissioner, California Energy Commission This panel agrees that nuclear power, despite offering the promise of carbon-free electricity and safer next-generation reactors, is challenged by steep upfront costs and where to store spent fuel. Jeff Byron, formerly a member of the California Energy Commission, says the Fukushima tragedy offers the nuclear industry and its regulators a sobering learning opportunity. “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission just can’t go ahead and rubber-stamp license renewal applications,” says Byron. Uncertainty over how to proceed has put the United States in a bind, he adds. The US nuclear fleet is aging, with every reactor at least 30 years old. “We really want to retire them,” Byron says. “We’re extending the license of every one of these existing plants well beyond their intended design life. These are 50-year-old designs. I wouldn’t get on a 50-year-old aircraft if you paid me.” Lucas Davis, an energy economist based at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, warns against the prohibitive expense required to replace all of those aging plants. “If you look at lifetime costs, including waste disposal at the end, the levelized cost of nuclear, with updated cost and fuel numbers, is about $0.10 per kilowatt-hour compared to $0.05/kWh for natural gas. That’s a big gap,” he says. Despite the obstacles, Jacques Besnainou, CEO of US-based AREVA Inc., insists that policymakers maintain nuclear in the energy mix. ”I’m not saying nuclear is the solution. But there is no solution without nuclear energy,” he says. Lucas Davis agrees, offering that he’d welcome to be proved wrong on the question of costs. “Get in there and prove to us that you guys can build reactors on budget and an on time. That would change everything. But, to be fair, for 60 years the industry has been saying that costs are going to come down and the empirical evidence on it is pretty mixed,” he says. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on April 8th, 2011

Energy Policy: What’s Next? T.J. Glauthier, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy James Sweeney, Director, Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford Tony Knowles, Chair, National Energy Policy Institute; Former Governor, Alaska The United States does not have a national energy policy. In this panel convened by Climate One three experts long involved in the US energy debate conspire to shape their own. The plan: steadily increasing the cost of gasoline at the pump, replace diesel with liquefied natural gas for heavy trucking, harvest cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities, and boost the production of shale gas.“These are not new issues,” says former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles. “Unfortunately, I think Tom Friedman said it best: ‘Our national energy policy is more the sum total of our best lobbyists, rather than our best wisdom.’” Politics, not science or economics, has shaped our energy policy, Knowles says. A proposal recently put forward by the California Secure Transportation Energy Partnership, where Stanford University’s Jim Sweeney is a member, would add a penny per month to the state’s gas tax for 10 years. Tony Knowles cited a similar proposal recommended by the National Energy Policy Institute, which would increase the federal gas tax by $0.08 per gallon each year for 20 years with the goal of reducing oil consumption by 1.5 million barrels per day. Knowles and T.J. Glauthier, a former Deputy Secretary at the US Department of Energy, advocate for retrofitting the country’s heavy trucking fleet to run on domestic liquefied natural gas (LNG). “We’ve got truck stops all over the country. If we spent some money helping build out the natural gas refueling parts of those truck stops, and provide some help to trucking companies for the conversions, there’s a huge benefit,” says Glauthier. Jim Sweeney, Director of Stanford’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, emphasizes the abundant opportunity that exists for consumers to save money with energy efficiency improvements. We just have to get the incentives right. “People talk about those as the ‘low-hanging fruit.’ Unfortunately, some of that fruit has been low-hanging for decades now and hasn’t been picked, which means there’s a reason,” he says. Knowles and Glauthier also recommend that shale gas be a part of the energy mix. “It’s great for the American public, it’s great for the energy sector, to have natural gas supplies that are much larger, and they’re all domestic,” says Glauthier. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on April 5th, 2011

Duke of Energy Jim Rogers, Chairman and CEO, Duke Energy Outside of the Oval Office, one of the most influential voices in the energy debate is Jim Rogers, Chairman and CEO of Duke Energy. Here Rogers talks about the future of energy policy in the United States in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster. Rogers says Duke Energy will continue to pursue new nuclear power, despite movements by some governments to rethink their nuclear strategy. “With respect to Japan,” he says, “we will pause. We will learn. And that will make us stronger and better in the future.” Rogers emphasizes the safety record of US nuclear plants and the fact that nuclear plants supply 70% of America’s carbon-free electricity. “If you’re serious about climate legislation, you have to be serious about nuclear because of the role it plays in providing zero greenhouse gases, 24/7,” he says. Rogers emphasizes that Duke Energy is investing in advanced coal, solar, wind, and energy efficiency, in addition to nuclear. “From an investor’s perspective, and from our customers’ perspective, developing a portfolio is a smarter way to move forward than making a bet on any single fuel,” he says. Even though today’s Congress appears incapable of tackling climate change, Rogers says he is making decisions now in anticipation of the day a future Congress acts to limit carbon. A critical first step is junking old, dirty coal plants. Rogers notes that the United States electricity mix includes 300,000 megawatts (MW) of coal; 100,000MW comes from plants more than 40 years old and never retrofitted to remove sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, or mercury. “In my judgment those plants should be shut down, and will be shut down over the next decade,” Rogers says. Many of those obsolete coal plants will be pushed into retirement when greenhouse gas rules being drafted by the US Environmental Protection Agency come into force. Rogers prefers that Congress, not the EPA, show companies the way forward. “My hope, and the reason I don’t oppose [the EPA] doing it, is they act, and you see their rules – very limited because the Clean Air Act wasn’t written to do this. It will become obvious that Congress has to act. And maybe it will force Congress to do its job,” he says. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on April 5th, 2011

Ted Danson: Our Endangered Oceans and What We Can Do to Save Them Ted Danson, Actor; Environmentalist; Author, Oceana In the mid-1980s, actor Ted Danson was walking along a Santa Monica beach when he noticed a sign: “Water polluted, no swimming.” "Trying to explain that to my kid was hard," he says. Already wealthy and famous from playing Sam Malone on “Cheers,” Danson decided then to use his celebrity to raise awareness about the plight of the world’s oceans. “It sunk in that there is a lot that has come before us, there is a lot that will come after us, and that this time were are here is not just about us. It’s about stewardship,” he says. At Climate One, Danson talks about his life in activism and the manifold threats to oceans, the subject of his new book, Oceana. “No one disagrees that we’re headed in the direction where we could conceivably commercially fish out our oceans – no more fish, jelly fish soup – if we do not stop fishing destructfully and wastefully,” he says. Danson shares a statistic that points to one culprit: rampant overfishing by big boats. Ninety percent of the world’s fishermen are small-scale operations, harvesting from the sea as they have for millennia, he says. These fishermen account for 10% of the global take. The other 90% is harvested by the remaining 10% of boats, commercial-scale trawlers, some with nets big enough to snare a 747. Once the nets are hauled up to the boat, “a third of what the world catches is thrown overboard dead or dying because it’s not the fish they’re after.” The situation is dire, but Danson cautions against despair. He published Oceana, he says, to leave those concerned about the oceans feeling hopeful and empowered to act. “When you show up en masse in an email, you literally change policy around the world,” he says. “And it’s the best feeling. To not be overwhelmed by headlines, and to know you are doing something about it. You will know, in your children or grandchildren’s lifetime whether you succeeded. And that’s cool. That’s exciting. That’s not overwhelming or depressing.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on March 22nd, 2011

Cloud Power: Microsoft + Google (3/11/11) Rob Bernard, Chief Environmental Strategist, Microsoft William Weihl, Green Energy Czar, Google Greg Dalton, Climate One Founder, Moderator Arch rivals Microsoft and Google find common cause at Climate One promoting the energy efficiency of the cloud. Efficiency alone won’t solve the climate crisis, Rob Bernard of Microsoft and Google’s William Weihl say, but smart IT can reduce emissions, help green the grid, and save money companies and consumers money. “The very simple thing is that we can save money by using less electricity. So by investing engineering effort, investing capital in making our systems more efficient, we save money in the end,” says Weihl, Google’s Green Energy Czar. Google and Microsoft operate power-hungry data centers around the globe, so they have good reason to promote energy efficiency, but Weihl and Rob Bernard, Microsoft’s Chief Environmental Strategist, insist that their efficiency gains will be shared as IT becomes ever-more integrated into the global economy. “I would actually bet that as a percentage of global electricity use that information and communication technology will use a higher percentage over time. But in the process it will make the entire economy more energy efficient. So, yes, that 2% will grow, but the other 98% will shrink, and shrink faster,” says Weihl. Bernard cites an example. Stanford researcher Jonathan Koomey, had, he says, looked into the carbon footprint and energy use resulting from the switch from CDs to digital music. “Even in the worst case, it was a 40% to 50% reduction in the amount of energy,” Bernard says. During the Q&A, an audience member asks Bernard and Weihl what can be done to overcome the barriers holding up even bigger efficiency gains. “Most energy efficiency work I would say actually is a no brainer. But people don’t seem to have brains,” Weihl says. One big problem, he says, is the disjointed decision-making practiced at many companies. “If you focus people on total cost of ownership, lifetime cost – capital, plus operating cost – and get everybody to think in those terms, not just in terms of their own budget, you can make a lot of progress,” he says. Bernard agrees. “More and more when I go and talk to customers, the challenge is much if not more governance and behavior than it is technology,” he says. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco on March 11th, 2011

Generation Hot Mark Hertsgaard, Author, Generation Hot Scott Harmon, Sustainability Advisor to Boy Scouts of America Alec Loorz, Founder, Kids-vs-Global-Warming.com Greg Dalton, Founder of Climate One, moderator The climate change debate in America appears hopelessly stuck. If the US is to have any chance to break the stalemate, young people must get involved and force their voice to be heard, says this panel of activists convened by Climate One. For Alec Loorz, the 16-year-old founder of www.Kids-vs-Global-Warming.com, change will come because his generation and those that follow demand it. What’s needed, he says, is “revolution” one that “ignites the compassion in people’s hearts so that they realize that the way we are doing things now is not right and it doesn’t live with the survival of my generation and future generations in mind.” Loorz is organizing the iMatter march, planned for this spring, which aims to mobilize 1 million young people in all 50 states on the same day. “Youth have the moral authority to say to our parents, our leaders, and our teachers, ‘Do I matter to you? Does my future mater to you?” he says. Mark Hertsgaard, author, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, welcomes the activism of youth because the forces arrayed against them are so powerful. Oil companies “are the richest business enterprise in the history of humanity. It is not surprising that they have enormous political power,” but, he says, “the only way that you overcome that kind of entrenched money power is through sustained and very determined people power.” Scott Harmon, sustainability advisor to Boy Scouts of America, is mobilizing youth by harnessing the power and reach of the world’s largest youth organization: scouting. Scouts may march, Harmon said, but even more important is “to get them educated. I want to get their hands dirty doing projects that teach them about the solution.” He wants youth to do two things: wake up the parents and, when they enter the workforce in five or ten years, force their companies to become more sustainable. “We’re not going to get it done in our generations, even your generation probably [to Alec Loorz], so we better get the next generation, and the one behind that ready, otherwise we’re really toast,” he says. This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club on March 9, 2011

American Wasteland Jonathan Bloom, Author, American Wasteland Michael Dimock, President, Roots of Change A.G. Kawamura, Former Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture Greg Dalton, Founder of Climate One, moderator The ubiquity of food in the United States blinds the mind to a tragic fact: much of it is wasted. Exact numbers are elusive, but estimates suggest that at least a quarter and as much as half of the food produced in this country is never consumed. A panel of food experts convened by Climate One says that much of the waste is unnecessary. Lest consumers think most of the waste ends up in supermarket or restaurant trash bins, Jonathan Bloom, author, American Wasteland, cites a study from New York State, which found that households account for 40% of wasted food. “In terms of the American consumer’s psyche, we’ve gotten to this point where we see beautiful food everywhere – the rise of food TV and glossy magazines – everywhere we turn, it seems, we’re constantly seeing images of food that looks pretty. Appearance trumps taste,” he says. “We have tremendous inefficiencies on both sides, pre-harvest and post harvest,” says A.G. Kawamura, former Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture. If prices collapse, he says, a farmer might not be able to afford to pay for the fuel and labor needed to harvest a crop. Fortunately, he says, groups such Farm to Table are partnering with farmers to offset the cost of a second or third harvest to prevent food from wasting in the field. For Michael Dimock, President, Roots of Change, the primary driver of waste in the food system is how we think. “It’s really changing our consciousness about what is waste and what is not. That’s the first step in combating this problem,” he says. There are reasons to be optimistic that the system is evolving, he says, citing the food separation and composting efforts underway in San Francisco and Sonoma County. Also encouraging, he says, is the increased interest in “food sovereignty.” Everything from families and communities planting and tending gardens to consumers “mining” trash bins at supermarkets and restaurants for green waste to feed to backyard chickens. “I’m thankful that we have a system of abundance,” says A.G. Kawamura. “Can we make it a system of efficiency? We’re lucky we don’t have a system of scarcity.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on March 2, 2011

Horsepower: Accelerating EVs into the Fast Lane Anthony Eggert, Commissioner, California Energy Commission, Transportation Lead Diane Wittenberg, Executive Director, California EV Strategic Plan Diarmuid O'Connell, Vice President of Business Development, Tesla Motors Marc Geller, Co-founder, Plug-In America Greg Dalton, Founder of Climate One, Moderator Born before the Model T, revived and then extinguished a decade ago by GM, the electric vehicle is poised to dominate the global car industry, says this panel of transportation experts convened by Climate One. “The demand for these vehicles is greater than the supply,” says Marc Geller, Co-Founder, Plug in America. “Through this year it would appear that Nissan and Chevrolet have all but sold out of their first 35,000 vehicles, with the Leaf and the Volt. There are customers who are ready for electric and plug-in hybrids for many different reasons, but it’s really an issue of getting the cars to market.” Manufacturers are responding, says Diarmuid O’Connell, Vice President of Business Development, Tesla Motors, because this time there is a market, and money to be made. “This is hardly a philanthropic endeavor that we’ve taken on,” he says. One potential obstacle to widespread adoption of EVs is their (for now) higher upfront cost. Anthony Eggert, former Commissioner at the California Energy Commission, stresses the low lifetime cost of owning an EV. “You really want to look at total cost of ownership. It’s not just the initial purchase price of the vehicle, which is going to be higher,” he says. Diane Wittenberg, Executive Director, California EV Strategic Plan, agrees. “An average conventional vehicle, to drive 100 miles, costs about $6 in fuel; with pure electric, it would be about $2. Most people don’t know that off the top of their heads. It’s an education challenge,” she says. Manufacturers must also contend with customer fears that EVs will leave them stranded. “We should be clear when we’re speaking about charge time,” says Marc Geller. “We act as if these vehicles are actually driving 24/7, as if they’re all in taxi fleets. Most people’s cars sit 22 hours a day.” During the Q&A, a member of the audience asks how policymakers plan to replace sales tax revenue lost when drivers fill up with electricity rather than gas. “These vehicles will eventually have to pay their fair share of road taxes, to be able to use the system,” says Anthony Eggert, “but the actual impact to the collection of road taxes is likely to be negligible for the next 5 plus years.“ “That would be a high-class problem, as far as I’m concerned,” responds Tesla’s O’Connell. “Let’s hope that we’ll be solving that problem within five years.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club on January 13, 2011

People Power: Rethinking Electricity Dian Grueneich, Former Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission Mark Duvall, Director of Electric Transportation and Energy Storage, Electric Power Research Institute Ted Howes, Partner, IDEO Greg Dalton, Founder of Climate One, Moderator The utility-consumer relationship is primed for a fundamental overhaul. Armed with information, formerly passive consumers will take charge of their energy future, say a panel of experts convened by Climate One. “A lot of the more forward-thinking utilities are starting to think about the ratepayer as a customer. That for them is a big innovation,” says Ted Howes, formerly a Partner at the design and innovation firm IDEO. Utilities are struggling, he says, to prepare for the complexity that comes with the new two-way relationship. “Oftentimes, utilities are taking it from a fundamentally technology-centered standpoint, not a human-centered standpoint,” he says. Mark Duvall, Director of Electric Transportation and Energy Storage Electric Power Research Institute, agrees that the customer relationship must change, but emphasizes the importance of the utility and the grid in a decentralized energy future in which many more consumers generate their own power. “If you decide that you’re going to build a zero-net energy home, put a lot of solar energy on the home, that doesn’t mean you don’t need the electric grid. In fact, you could say you need it more,” he says. Dian Grueneich, formerly a Commissioner with the California Public Utilities Commission, adds that the electrical utility sector will innovate much faster if nimble green tech start-ups are able to scale new technologies. “There hasn’t been much innovation or technology change in 100 years. That tells you there is a business opportunity.” What we haven’t seen, she adds, is for these technology innovators to master the arcane world of publicly-regulated utilities serving millions of customers. “You may have the best product in the world, but a state commission can kill your business plan overnight.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on January 13., 2011.

Why Family Dinners Matter: How Every Concern Crosses Your Dinner Plate Laurie David, Producer, An Inconvenient Truth; Author, The Family Dinner Greg Dalton, Founder of Climate One We are at risk of losing a cherished and nourishing tradition, the family dinner, says author and activist Laurie David. Producer of An Inconvenient Truth and author of the just-released The Family Dinner, David says a host of pressures and dangers threaten the family dinner. The culprits are familiar: long commutes; TV, phones, and video games; more women in the workforce; school events and extra-curricular activities scheduled during dinnertime; and the microwave. Despite the challenges, David says family dinner must again become routine, for the good of our children and our environment. “Family dinner can help tremendously with three of the biggest problems we face today: our national health crisis, our difficulty connecting with each other through the fog of technology, and our urgent need to take better care of our environment,” David says. Home-cooked meals are not only better for us, she says, but by gathering the family around one table, they create memories, and help kids develop self-esteem, resiliency, patience, listening skills, vocabulary, and empathy. “Our grandparents knew it, and most of our parents, too, that frequent family dinner can help protect kids from everything a parent worries about – from drugs to alcohol to poor self-esteem, low school grades, and poor nutrition,” she says. David admits it’s not easy to goad kids into leaving their computers or TVs for a sit-down meal at home. But, during the conversation with Climate One founder Greg Dalton and audience Q&A, David offers some helpful tips. One: get kids involved in the cooking. Another: prepare what David calls “participation food” – meals, such as soups, that kids can add to by tossing in ingredients at the dinner table. “We should think of family dinner as the most important activity our kids and our family can do,” David says. “It’s a nightly dress rehearsal for adulthood, a safe, dependable place to practice cooperation, patience, and manners, kindness and gratitude, and share stories.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on November 3, 2010

Science As A Contact Sport Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Noah Diffenbaugh, Professor, Environmental Earth System Science, Stanford Uninversity Greg Dalton, Climate One - Moderator Confronted with overwhelming evidence of a warming planet, scientists have a duty to leave the laboratory and engage the public, say two leading climatologists. This Climate One program, titled “Science as a Contact Sport,” is a tribute to the late Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider, whose last work was a book of the same name. Ben Santer, a researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Noah Diffenbaugh, Professor, Environmental Earth System Science, Stanford University, comment on Schneider’s legacy: cutting-edge research complemented by unmatched communications skills. Despite the need, Santer and Diffenbaugh say, Ph.D.s are not likely to receive communications training during their formal studies. Santer says he learned on the job; Diffenbaugh says he was trained only to communicate with other scientists. The omission is particularly worrisome with attacks against climate science, and its practitioners, ascendant. The attacks leave scientists no choice but to defend the integrity of their work and reputations, say Santer and Diffenbaugh. “We’re in a challenging position as climate scientists,” Diffenbaugh says, “in that there’s a very charged political atmosphere out in the real world. In some ways, it’s the path of least resistance to dump the information on the world, and then do it again for the next paper.” Santer and Diffenbaugh both describe a moral duty to speak out, as publishing alone hasn’t persuaded policymakers to act or silenced skeptics. “When I started off as a climate scientist,” Santer says, “I believed that if you did the best possible science, it would be good enough. Ultimately, people would do the right thing if the science was credible, if it was compelling, if the physical evidence was consistent, coherent. But it’s not.” As a result, he says, “part of our job, too, is to demystify, to speak truth to power when people try to demonize climate science and climate scientists. You can’t just be a bystander.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club on November 3, 2010

Proposition 23: Yes or No? Bob Epstein, Founder, Environmental Entrepreneurs Nancy Floyd, Manging Director, Nth Power Jack Stewart, President, California Manufacturers Tom Tanton, President, T2 & Associates Greg Dalton, Climate One - Moderator The night before an election that would decide the fate of California’s landmark climate change law, a panel of energy experts convened by Climate One debates whether AB 32 would catalyze or cripple the state’s economy. The measure before voters, Proposition 23, would suspend AB 32 until California achieves four consecutive quarters of unemployment below 5.5%. Jack Stewart, President, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and Tom Tanton, President, T2 & Associates, argue that with California suffering 12.4% unemployment, now is not the time to burden business with additional regulation. “There’s a lot of pain and very little gain,” in pushing ahead with the law, Tanton says. Stewart agrees: “Do we want to go forward and have a growing economy and hold off on AB 32,” he asks, “or do we hobble the California economy and make it more difficult to employ the 2.3 million Californians who are out of work?” Nancy Floyd, Founder and Managing Director, Nth Power, and Bob Epstein, Founder, Environmental Entrepreneurs, counter that cleantech is the fastest growing job sector in California and critical to maintaining the state’s competitive edge globally. Floyd says that 500,000 green jobs have already been created in California, and that her venture firm alone had invested $200 million in 35 companies in the state. Epstein takes issue with claims by Stewart and Tanton that California’s climate change rules would subject the state’s businesses to onerous regulations and uncertainty. “This legislation lays out a 10-year plan. For an oil company, they tell you every place you need to be for 10 years.” Win or lose on Nov. 2, Epstein says the fight over Prop 23 has succeeded in mobilizing interests – environmentalists, venture capitalists, utilities, and tech firms – with a stake in the green economy. “What you have done, by bringing Prop 23 to the table, is you united a community that really needed to be united,” he says.

Calories and Carbon Ken Cook, Founder and President, Environmental Working Group Whendee Silver, Professor of Ecology, UC Berkeley; Marin Carbon Project Helene York, Director, Bon Appetit Management Company Foundation Greg Dalton, Founder of Climate One, moderator Grappling with the carbon impact of our food system is not easy. Faced with such uncertainty, Ken Cook’s simple advice is apt: “Eat lower down the food chain – better for you, better for the planet.” Cook, founder and president of the Environmental Working Group, joins Whendee Silver, professor of ecology, U.C. Berkeley, and Helene York, director, Bon Appétit Management Company Foundation, for a discussion on calories, carbon, and the way forward. The panelists stress how far we’ve come in such a short time. “There was a time, not too long ago, that if you went into an organic restaurant, or tried to shop for organic produce, you really wondered whether the food had been harvested, or maybe had escaped,” Cook says. Helene York agrees, sharing the experience of Bon Appétit, which serves 100 million meals each year. Over two years, her 500 chefs reduced the amount of meat served by 20%. But, York emphasizes, they did so without scrimping on taste. “The real key,” she says, “is to offer alternatives that our guests want to eat. They look good. They taste good. They’re at a reasonable price point, and they’re appetizing.” Whendee Silver, who specializes in carbon number-crunching, stresses the importance of education. Researchers are valiantly attempting to assess the life-cycle cost of food, she says, but it is very hard to compare, say, the carbon impact of grass-fed versus feedlot beef. “There are big gaps in the data. Right now, many of the life-cycle analyses that we’re working with have pretty significant uncertainties,” she says. Despite the challenges, we can transition to grass-fed beef and seasonal, local produce, the panel says. “We have to be thoughtful as consumers about it. But I think people want straight-forward cues,” Cook says. “Take grass-fed beef. It’s more expensive to produce in many cases. But make that investment and that sector is going to start to grow.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on October 21, 2010