Focus; The Pentagon's Scientific Intelligence on a Dramatic Changing Climate

In this part of the show we will also be talking about the environment and change over long periods of time in response to the human activity. We'll be talking about global climate change and our specific jumping off point for this is a report that was commissioned by the Pentagon and it was done last year although just. Maybe about a month or so ago it came to the attention of the media here in the United States and elsewhere and ended up getting a lot of attention. Essentially what happened was the Pentagon asked a couple of Futurists. That's how they're often referred to in the media to imagine a worst case scenario what would happen if there was abrupt very abrupt. Change in the global climate and what they concluded was that it would have real serious implications for American security. The authors of the report said that while this kind of change might be unlikely it was not impossible and in fact here's how they write in this report. We've created a

climate change scenario that although not the most likely is plausible and would challenge the United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately and got a lot of attention in the media obviously. And we'll be talking about it a bit this morning with two guests Dr. Daniel lash off. He's a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington D.C. and also Paul Higgins He's a visiting research fellow at University of California at Berkeley. Questions of course are welcome as we talk here this morning. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 and toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Well doctor a lash out fellow hello and Paul Higgins Hello to you. Hi thanks for having me on. Well thanks to both of you for giving us some of your time. I'm going to go back at you again and just talk about this this report a little bit more people might have read about it certainly did get some attention in the media and people who are concerned with the issue of global warming environmentalists certainly

latched onto it because they said they said here's an example of the administration on the one hand saying they didn't really think global warming is that much of a problem. And here over at the Pentagon a place not known to be stocked with environmentalists here they are preparing for a worst case scenario for global warming. It's my understanding that that someone in the Pentagon a man who was there for many years in a job that involves thinking about long term threats was concerned about what he had been seeing particularly a report that was done by the national academies of science about global climate change and he went out and found these other guys and said Well what I want you guys to do is sit down and just imagine for me I suppose the worst happens then what. That's that's kind of my understanding about how this this whole thing happened. Right. Well that's right David. This report was commissioned by Andrew Marshall who's the director of the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon which is

an office charged with long term strategy. Thinking and I think it is very significant and appropriate for the Pentagon to be looking at the security implications of environmental change in general and global warming in particular. Now as you mentioned this particular scenario that was examined is a worst case scenario and not the most likely outcome it's important to keep data my but it is equally important to keep in mind that if you do look at the more likely scenarios that scientists have examined then the reality is that there are a lot of threats to our health our economy and our environment. Even if the worst doesn't happen in other words if we disco along based on the mid range most likely projections of global warming is a very serious issue and even those projections could have. Security implications particularly

as some of the poorer countries face food shortages and coastal inundation leading to migration of environmental refugees and other kinds of problems that that could exacerbate regional tensions. So there's a lot there. There is definitely reason to look at the security implications and other implications from global warming in both the worse case as well as a case which I would say is bad enough to justify taking action now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. It seems that what one of the basic sorts of ideas that's laid out here has to do with. As we think about potential for conflict in the future what is it that people are going to be fighting over and that it seems in the minds of these people as again as they imagine this worst case scenario they find people fighting over some very basic resources

now obviously control of natural resources has provided the basis for wars in the past and there are now people who think that we fought a couple of recent ones just over oil. But here the people who put together the scenario are imagining people fighting over water access to water are being indeed being motivated to fight because they're not able to feed themselves. It seems that that's a kind of a level of concern that we really haven't seen that much in the past. Well I think that that is it. I think it depends on how far into the past we think I think often in the past wars were fought over resources and increasingly one hears members of the environmental community particularly concerned about water issues and and certainly even the the more moderate

climate change scenarios that Daniel was mentioning just a minute ago will also change the distribution of the goods and services that biological systems produce and that will certainly have implications for what regions and populations have resources the resources that they need. Well I want to ask you specifically about the. The scenario that they're laying out or that the causes for it because I find it a little confusing myself and I think maybe counter-intuitive because what they're talking about is a combination depending on where you are of of cooling and warming. And I think when people think about the issue of climate change as it has been described they think generally about warming and the fact that I don't think anybody disputes the fact that over roughly speaking over the last century the average global temperature has gone up about a degree

and then they have the controversy and the concern comes when people ask this question well is that a trend and what can we expect in the future. Hear what they're talking about is something that involves And I'm not sure I understand it very well and maybe one of you can explain it. It involves things like ocean currents and the salinity of the ocean and the fact that the ocean does play a role in regulating global temperature and they lay out this idea and I think a number of scientists have have looked at this and they're thinking about it that that depending on how things go and how things might change. You could actually see an increase in temperatures in the southern hemisphere but actually a decrease it could actually be colder here in North America. And I'm not really quite sure I understand it so maybe one of you can explain. Well David that's right I mean global warming in fact is already underway and as you mentioned. Global average temperature has gone up by about a degree centigrade

so almost two degrees Fahrenheit over the last hundred years. The polar ice caps are melting even the length of our seasons is changing and so we're seeing clear evidence that that global warming is happening and scientists have been able to conclude from recent research that pollution of the atmosphere with heat trapping gases is primarily responsible for those trends at least over the last 50 years or so. Now the abrupt climate change scenario examined in this report for the Pentagon goes the next step from from this warming try. It inan is closely linked to this observed reduction in Arctic sea ice but basically as a particularly polar ice melts not as much the sea ice but land based ice sheets. That puts

freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean and can change the way in which the large scale ocean circulation takes place. If that happens then it couldn't indeed lead to some regions particularly northern Europe cooling because those regions now are warmed very substantially by the Gulf Stream current and the notion here is that changes induced by global warming and ocean circulation could potentially shut down the Gulf Stream current and lead to some regions cooling. Still in the context of overall global warming because the ocean currents redistribute heat around the earth but don't fundamentally change the global temperature. Trend overall and then what they're what they're arguing but people have argued is that

if you look at what would happen here both in terms of getting warmer some places and cooler other places that this would have a very significant impact obviously on agriculture and on the ability of various places to go to raise food. And that's it seems that that's one of the basic things here that they are imagining that is that if we have significant shortages in food production various places that that's a that's a recipe for conflict. Right. I think that's certainly true and to build to build just a little bit off of Daniel's last statement I think it's also important to recognize that we have seen these changes in the the Gulfstream or the North northward transport of heat in the ocean. Throughout the past climate record particularly ten thousand years ago and between 10 and 100000 years ago changes in this this type of ocean circulation were relatively common and

when they occurred there were these major changes at least in some locations or regionally throughout the world. So it has happened before it where we're not imagining something that has never happened there is some basis for concern because particularly on these two occasions that you mention it has happened well let me ask you one question though I can imagine people hearing that and again hooking back to the conversation about global warming and to what extent that is the result of human activity and to what extent that is the result of some kind of long term cycles that had that happen in the climate. You certainly if you look at what happened 80 200 years ago in London thousand five hundred years ago you can't pin that on human activity. The Doesn't doesn't that help make the case for those people who'd say will it when you know there are fluctuations in the in the climate globally and it's it's just going to happen it's not because of anything we had to do with that which also would suggest then than remediation is not perhaps not necessary or is not going to be that effective in some of the is going to happen

anyway. Well there are certainly national climate fluctuations over very long periods of time and those can involve also some of these abrupt change. As part of that. But what we're seeing now is loading of the atmosphere with heat trapping gases due to burning primarily coal and power plants and oil in automobiles and other sources which are actually overwhelming those natural processes. And you mention the National Academy of Sciences report that looked at this question a couple of years ago and kind of prompted the Pentagon to commission the study. They pointed out that the risk of sudden changes in a complex interactive system like our climate system really increases as you push that system with what's called climate forcing But what that means in. This case is adding heat

trapping gases to the atmosphere the faster you do that the more likely you are to cross the threshold and trigger abrupt change of course even if abrupt change doesn't happen. You're causing a lot of changes which have serious consequences in and of themselves. So it would be a mistake to say just that because these kinds of abrupt changes are observed in the climate record in the you know thousands several ten thousand years ago as you mentioned that human activity isn't playing a role now. In fact the pollution we're putting into the atmosphere now is overwhelming the natural process. And I think that does create an urgency about taking action to limit the pollution that is pushing the cause. Limit system into unprecedented territory. It is also important to realize that human civilization has

struggled at times with relatively small changes in climate. And we're talking about much larger changes expected as a result of human activities. Now maybe not then. We have seen at times in the distant past but certainly larger climate changes than any human society has ever had to endure. We have a calling to bring a conversation let me just Rick Whitley introduce Again our guest Paul Higgins. I believe that was the last person you heard he's visiting research fellow at University of California Berkeley and also Dr. Daniel lash offi senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council we're talking about global climate change and particularly this recent report that was done at the behest of the Pentagon looking at a worst case scenario what would happen if there was an abrupt change in climate and the finding of at least the the two people who did this report Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall was that it did pose a

significant security concern for the United States and something that that we should be. Thinking about at the very least the telephone lines are open here if you want to give us a call 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have toll free line that's good to anywhere that you can hear us and that is eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 Live color here in Oakwood ready to go on a line number for you. Hello there. Yes yes good morning gentlemen. You know I hear here I'm going to go ahead and do the devil's advocate bit because we're you know global warming yes no human induced. And I'm looking at that article from the leader one of the local smaller newspapers around here and it says that perhaps the threat has been exaggerated. I'm going to hang up here when I'm when I'm done talking let you guys respond of course. But this was from a lady named Cathy Reed. Former publisher

has the Wilson Quarterly from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and she quoted a couple reports here from the Harvard Smithsonian Center to Jim and me were Sally probably Eunice and Willie Hoon and they were talking about the fact that they had reviewed a hundred and two previous studies and found they said overwhelming majority debunked the idea that the Earth is in the midst of an extraordinary warming. And one thing we said here was the actual trend that we're experiencing now begin almost a thousand years ago. And then they go on to say that they're anti and not anti but they found fault with the Kyoto Protocol and all that. So you know we're sitting out here and hearing one side hearing the other

and just curious to get your response. Well very good will do that. Thank you. All right. Well last I let me just. Didn't Paul probably have things to add to it. I think it's important for listeners to recognize that while there are there are scientists will always be scientists who will challenge the mainstream view and that's good for science that that does represent a really tiny minority within the scientific community at this point in time I'm familiar with. The particular paper that the caller referenced and it really doesn't have much credibility in the scientific community because although it assessed a lot of literature it didn't do it in a quantitative way it basically qualitatively looked at studies that may have looked at a small region or small period of time and categorized them. And counted studies there been a number of other analyses of the earth's temperature record over the

last thousand years that have quantitatively combined different measures that scientists have to reconstruct our our temperature history going back to the time before we had thermometer readings around the world. Those studies consistently show that the warming of the late 20th century is unprecedented that it is almost certainly related to the build up of heat trapping pollution in the atmosphere and that in fact the 1990s as a decade. Very likely the warmest decade of the last thousand years and that that's a record. When it's quantitatively examined really can't be explained without considering the role of heat trapping pollution in the late 20th century warming.

Mr. Higgins you want to add any of that. Well sure. You know the one the one point that I'd like to add to that is that that paper certainly got a lot of attention within the scientific community it was it was taken very seriously because it contradicted the findings of a number of other groups roughly five to 10 other. Groups and and research programs that have shown had shown a much different picture of that that the warming currently is unprecedented over the past thousand years. And as a result the scientific community took it very seriously and looked at it very seriously and has has really demonstrated that the paper that that work from the leanest and soon did not hold up it didn't stand up

when when compared with other results and looked at in more detail. And that's one of the ways that science moves forward. But one of the big problems that. That climate change and people in public policy in the general population have been understanding climate change in that those who for whatever reason do not want climate change to be taken seriously aren't as concerned about it or have a vested interest in in maintaining the status quo if you will latch on to these isolated and unrepresentative findings and broadcast them widely. And it's really not appropriate when there are you know ten ten pieces of evidence that suggest

one thing. To then look only at the one piece of evidence that supports your view it's not appropriate an appropriate way to use science. And maybe by analogy it is like concluding that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous because you happen to know one healthy 90 year old who's smoked their whole lives. It's just simply not a representative. Aggregation of the research and therefore paints a misleading picture of what is really known and understood about climate change. Well there it seems that some things are difficult to argue with the kinds of numbers in fact that you've been talking about. The the the increase in average global temperature over the last hundred years the almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

The fact that if you just look at the statistics that we have over that we have been collecting now that since we've been collecting this kind of data that there's good evidence to show that as I think it was Stan lash of the said that over the last thousand of the last thousand years the 90s were the warmest decade that we've had over that period and that it is believed that is due in fact to as you say the fact that we have put a lot. Carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. And that's that's what happened. It seems that that part is harder to argue with. The part that still I think in a lot of minds people's minds seems to be uncertain though is what happens next. Is there do you do you the way you see it do you think that there is some kind of consensus within the scientific community in particular when we're talking about atmospheric scientists people who really do deal with this this this issue. Is there a consensus about what is going to be happening here over the next

five 10 20 years. And is this the beginning of a trend. Should we expect more warming. Well I think there's clear consensus that we should expect more warming and a number of changes that go along with that like increased risk of drought in mid continental areas the potential for wildfires in the in the West for example reductions in Mt.. Snow pack and. And problems with water resources associated with that. To name just a few. There is of course a range that we might expect when you look out into the future and the Earth's climate system is very complex and we can't predict in detail every aspect of how it will respond as you put more and

more heat trapping pollution into the atmosphere so scientists typically project. And this is the conclusion of a very elaborate International a Festen process that the warming over the 21st century will be somewhere between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And obviously it makes some difference. Whether it's 10 degrees or 3 degrees but. That is that entire range means significant change due to global warming pollution. And it should be stressed that part of that range is uncertainty about how the climate system itself responds. Part of that range is uncertainty about how much pollution we're going to put into the atmosphere which of course is something that policy can influence. And you know we can make decisions about using better technology to produce electricity and better technology in our vehicles

that will minimize the amount of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping pollution is going to the atmosphere that will certainly push the likely outcome towards the lower end of that range and with aggressive enough transition to clean energy sources potentially two to stabilizing global warming at lower levels. Well let me. I think often when we have these discussions we do focus on the worst case scenarios and as you say there's a pretty big difference between the three degrees increase in temperature and a 10 degrees. But just if we look at it on the lower left the lower end and we have the most optimistic assessment we say so OK so it'll only be three just how serious is that. Is that something that we would we could just brush off. Or does a three degree overall rise in temperature pose serious problems and things that we simply can't can't overlook if we were if we were living

with them. Well. So it's a great question and it's one that different aspects different elements of the scientific community are still working on. If so I think the way to think of the logo changes at the lower end is that on balance we believe for the scientific community believes that human society could adapt for the most part. But there would likely be individual populations groups of people particular locations that could have some serious negative consequences. One of the one of the interesting and and difficult almost cultural divides on this question though comes up between biologists who are natural

scientists and economists economists on balance. I think that changes at the low end would be relatively easy to deal with. They believe that human societies can adapt and substitutes you know to substitute things that they lose with things that we can we can gain technological capacity or our wealth can buy our way out of the problems or any problems that come up. But in contrast many biologists. Feel and recognize that there are natural systems that humans depend on for us and so on. And biological systems can be very sensitive to even relatively small changes in climate and and as a result these biological systems can be damaged and biologists

think that the biological systems are less substitutable than the economists do. So in sorting out how how serious climate change at that low and will be or even moderate and it really it really is unclear and and different groups differ of scientists to see it a little differently based on on their background information. If I can add to that I would say. A couple things first. It's important to recognize that even at the low end of mainstream projections on global warming we're talking about a rate of change in the earth's climate faster than anything we've seen in the history of written civilization so in the last faster than anything we've seen in 10000 years. And there are a number of particularly sensitive systems that clearly would be disrupted even if we're sort of

lucky if you will and have the kind of lower end outcomes. So global warming at three degrees doesn't mean that everywhere warms by that for example the Arctic is expected to warm about twice as fast as the earth as a whole and in fact is warming very rapidly now and we're already seeing impacts in a number of Arctic and sub-Arctic areas. So what we're seeing now that the boreal forest in Southeast Alaska is being devastated by a bark beetle that is able to generate an extra. Generation during the year because it's warmer there now we're seeing native villages that are literally going to have to be moved to new locations as the Arctic sea ice retreats and sea levels rise and they're being

pounded with erosion. Polar bears are our friend that's low and in the tropics coral reefs are clearly friend even at the low end and an Alpine systems. So those are some examples where even at the low end of likely warming we would see some severe disruptions. And of course I think. If you think what are the implications of this what we should do betting the planet on the hope that things will come out at the low end of the range of forecasts is not a bet I would want to take. We have some other callers to bring in the conversation a couple local people here. Let's go to line 1 or better. Well yes hello. Let's hope this is this is on topic. And I was wondering if either of your guests knew

anything about this. This carbon dioxide that I've heard is talk about being sequestered. This is due to from a commercial byproduct. And the carbon dioxide being either pumped into the oceans underground or absorbed into underground reservoirs or something and I don't I don't know the details but it is just a kind of I thought I thought we had a system for processing carbon dioxide in the world they're called Trees. And the whole idea of burying carbon dioxide gas in the ground. That to me sounds kind of like it's some kind of an environmental time bomb but maybe maybe that's exaggerating it so I'd like to hang up and listen in and see what if anybody can discuss that. All right. Can one of the. The other you talk about that well I can talk

about a couple aspects of it and then maybe Daniel can hit on a couple of the others hopefully. There are a number of ways that get talked about as the caller suggested for sequestering or taking up the CO2 that we that in the atmosphere the caller alluded to the fact that trees take it up. It's that's an important it's an important point but it's it's important to realize that what we're doing when we take fossil fuels out of the earth and and burn them is what we take. We take this carbon dioxide that's out of the system and put it into the atmosphere. Trees and biological systems are able to naturally take up some of that but not all of that. And so that is that is why we are having this increase in carbon dioxide and as of. As

of the current moment we've we've increased concentrations in the atmosphere by about 35 percent. Now there are these ideas that get floated and that are considered for capturing that carbon dioxide some of the carbon dioxide we produce by burning fossil fuels and either putting it into him back into the earth. They where where we originally got the oil from or at the bottom of the ocean. I think that the the idea to put it at the bottom of the ocean in particular. I find troubling in that they are there are biological systems a lot of life at the bottom of the ocean that would be affected by that. So in some sense we would at best be exchanging one type of global change in this climate change for another putting in the putting the carbon at the bottom of the

ocean and and the I think there are easier solutions and more practical solutions for dealing with the carbon problem than than either of those methods. But but certainly they are contemplated currently in scientific and policy communities. Yeah I agree with that. Certainly the best solution is not to generate the carbon dioxide in the first place which we can accomplish by increasing energy efficiency using technologies like gasoline electric hybrid drive trains in our vehicles that could increase the number of miles we go per pound of pro-Gadhafi put in the atmosphere for example by 50 percent or more by using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar that don't generate any

carbon dioxide. The question is using those types of technologies and others can we reduce emissions fast enough to avoid dangerous global warming. And it's not entirely clear. So I think it does make sense to look at the option that has received a lot of attention over the last couple of years capturing carbon dioxide coming out particularly power plants. An idea here would be to use for example whole but instead of burning it as as is done in a conventional power plant where it's just basically ground up into a powder and burned in a boiler the coal would be gasified in a chemical process and in and then burned in in a high efficiency gas turban type of power or power plant similar to the ones that are used for natural gas. You know in the

process of doing that the carbon dioxide is separated from other constituents. And so you have a relatively pure stream of CO2 and it is plausible that it could be injected underground in a manner that that would be secure. That's something that certainly needs to be looked at very carefully to make sure that it's not going to leak out in the future but after all natural gas has been in certain geologic deposits for millions of years. And in principle it should be possible to find deposits where CO2 could be safely stored underground without having a significant environmental. So I think it's an area that deserves greater attention and it may well come into the solution mix if we put in place policies that really limit the total emissions

of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases in the private sector will invest in these types of technologies and kind of sort out which ones are our most cost effective. So it sounds I think an important idea here. Just the last thing that you said was as far as you're concerned that the two strategies that is reducing are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide we produce that have would have to go hand in hand with some kind of strategy that says well we can can we can somehow capture carbon dioxide prevented from being released in the atmosphere and put it somewhere. Uku you wouldn't say that that would. We don't even have to worry about. Release of carbon dioxide because we can figure out some way to round it up and store it. You are saying very clearly that we're actually we might be able to do that to some extent but that the two things have to go together. Yeah absolutely I think that's very important. If people get the idea that there's a sort of silver bullet technology we can just capture CO2 and stick it underground and we don't have to worry about being more energy efficient or developing

renewable energy sources that would be a huge mistake because the one there's no guarantee that this carbon capture idea will really work out in a practical way. Second it's a huge volume of carbon dioxide that has to be dealt with so and everything we can do to minimize how much of that we have to do is going to make the whole process of reducing heat trapping pollution more economical and more practical so we really need to have a portfolio of measures that we're pursuing in order to get a handle on this problem. Our guest here this morning Dr. Daniel lash offi senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington also joining us is Paul Higgins. He's visiting research fellow University of California at Berkeley. And we're talking about global climate issues and questions are welcome we have a couple of people here standing by. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5.

Next up is another band of color and line two well I really think that there's a need for a national debate and I'm always wondering why that is and I know why it hasn't occurred a certain degree because of politics. I can remember back when the when we had the energy crisis when we talked about conservation and we did a lot in terms of you know insulation etc. etc. and we weren't going to get in this bind again. We know the politics of oil we use something like 20 million barrels a day in the United States. We're wasteful I mean we're very wasteful. The other one is that we don't pay the true cost of the Economist always says OK you know when the prices get up high enough and all that but they've never let it happen. From my understanding we should be paying $5 and 23 cents a gallon for

gasoline but because of all these additional costs and you know what they say later on and what the price that we pay. We could actually be a leader. As far as I'm concerned and in terms of renewable sources Gee the other big problem that comes up nobody taught it was a mention from China in terms of the air pollution there and so even using more oil. So I mean you know we have to have a you know a solution to this problem there's no question about it. But I'll leave it at that. OK. Well I thank you again for the for the comments. I don't know if the two of you down last softball Higginson want to comment on some of the things the caller said. Well let me just say if I had started to say Danielle I just mentioned in terms of stimulating a national debate I think that there are some leaders in the Congress now who are trying to do that in and moving the debate forward just yesterday. There's a

bipartisan group of 20 prominent members of the House of Representatives led by. Congressman Gilchrist of Maryland and Congressman all over of Massachusetts who introduced a bill called the Climate Stewardship Act that would set limits on the total amount of global warming pollution being produced by the power plants and large industry and transportation fuels and that would really stimulate investments in the kind of solutions that the caller was talking about that follows on an effort that was started by Senator McCain and Lieberman and they're really committed to bringing this issue to the Congress and force members to vote on it and to debate the issue of the war and what we're going to do about it. And that's the. Definition then I think we really need to get people to focus. I think the caller raised another really important point about the true

costs of not being captured in the cost of energy burning a gallon of gas or burning burning coal or natural gas natural gas. If you if you think of it if you think of it this way we all when we buy a gallon of gas we all individually get the benefit from that gallon of gas we can drive around it moves us around. The benefits accumulate entirely to the purchaser of the gallon of the gas of that gallon of gas. But the individual who burns that gas who gets the benefit doesn't pay the for all of the cost of that gas we certainly pay the cost for the most part of getting that gallon of gas to the pump. But we get to dump the pollution in the form of greenhouse gases in this case into the atmosphere free of charge. So society as a whole pays those costs.

And as a result that provide this incentive for us to use more gas than we would otherwise individually be choosing to use and to use gas more inefficiently or more wastefully than we would if we were paying for the cost that our activities imposed on society. This is an important point. There are reasons why we might as a society want to continue that subsidy. I don't personally think we do but but one important. Consequence of this is that when leaders say is that. Dealing with climate change or reducing greenhouse gas emissions would hurt the economy. That technically is not correct. It's actually considered from an economic standpoint and an improvement. If you can internalize

those costs currently paid by society into the cost that we as individuals pay when we when we make the decisions to buy a gallon of gas and to drive around and whether we get an SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon or a hybrid that gets 50. And so and so there are some. Well there's there's some misleading use of economics when politicians in particular will say that dealing with climate change must necessarily require economic sacrifice. That's really not true. Let's go on to another caller let's go to line four again in Urbana Illinois. Are you talking to me. Yes I'm in Atlanta. Oh I'm in Atlanta I'm sorry. Well go ahead please. OK. I just want to echo everything that last caller talked about I think you two one of the first person that called in that's really directed his interest toward conservation

and I think conservation is the least the definitely the SAARC term key to solving all these problems. Technology seems to actually be energy use. Required for the technology or use the phone. You know it makes the problem worse. So I think as far as conservation you know we could start today and how we need to start with conservation is education from the first grade on we we need to make everybody understand that to be responsible for their acts in other words whatever act they do in society what is that dirty and how that hurt in the earth and I think after the gas shortage in the 70s we had the education system kind of geared up to do that. And as I see it now it's kind of fallen to the wayside as far as that I just wonder what your opinions of education are concerning our relation to the earth. Thanks I'll stay on here for a minute. They would say Well I think that's certainly a good point and improve. People's understanding of the process that causes

global warming of how our choices about energy consumption or conservation it affect the environment are very important. I don't know what it is I think that you need a combination of education and sensible standards that can help drive technology to more efficient means. One example of that is we have had success in some areas that we paid attention to. For example there have been energy efficiency standards for certain household appliances like refrigerators. And it's a huge success story that is pretty much invisible because refrigerators look pretty much the same or they're actually bigger than they used to be. But over the last 25 years the amount of electricity they've used has been driven down by 75 percent. And of course they still keep the beer cold. And and do the job that they're intended to do so that's the example of driving

technology that we really need to do in a much more comprehensive manner. But we've added other equipment you know that counteract of the refrigerator by the fact of computers and although having been in the computer business for become much more efficient for you know. Over they do. But as far as the total volume of electricity or amount of electricity they use you know they've actually decreased although they do a lot more so. Technology is still in the long term where we're using more energy per capita now than we ever did. Yeah we've made strides in some places but we've added these other items that of you know boost at the usage. Well that's no that's absolutely right I mean it is and we keep finding creative new ways to do to use energy and we don't we haven't had a consistent comprehensive policies to drive efficiency interest to drive cleaner energy sources and so as I said oh well we've made some

had some real huge successes in some areas. You're right overall we're losing ground emissions of carbon dioxide have been increasing that went up about 15 percent during the last decade. Under current policies they'll go up another 15 percent this decade so certainly we're not doing enough. We're going to will have to stop here because we've come to the end of the time one thing I'm going to mention very quickly we did begin talking about this this Pentagon report. And for people who have Internet access if you're interested in reading it I can tell you one place where you can see it if you go to a website of something called the Environmental Media Services which is w w w e M.S. Orji and type in the words climate change to their search engine there. You can read the complete report it's about 20 pages long. I don't want to say also to our guest here Paul Higgins He's visiting research fellow University of California Berkeley. Thank you Paul very much for talking with us. Thank you for having me on. And Dr. Daniel Ashenoff senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council thank you.

I thank you I really appreciate it.