Source: Governor of California's website
URL: http://gov.ca.gov/video.php?id=48
Date: 15/12/2011
Event: The Global Climate Challenge (partial transcript)
Attribution: The Governor of California
People:
Felicity Barringer: Dr Pachauri, there are out there a lot of local government officials, or people who speak with local government officials all the time. There are some towns and regions of California that have been working on policies that are not directly because of climate change but because it works for them. The town of Versaya [?], where I was a years back, has a policy now that if you want - if you're a developer and you come and say "I want to build [loud microphone noise] - (something to do with mine ...) You have to come with your own water. You can't assume the town's going to give you water, you have to know where your water's coming from, ahead of time. You're looking at regions around the world - we have a representative of the Netherlands in attendance here. What are the best practices out there, in local and regional governments, that you've seen, that might be applicable in California?
Rajendra Pachauri: Well, I think firstly you've got to get an estimate and a projection of what impacts are going to be suffered in different parts of a large state like California. And it's not as though these impacts are going to be uniform. And that requires a substantial amount of sophisticated modelling. And downscaling the results of those models to show what's going to happen in one remote corner of the system [?] or the other. Once you equip local government with that kind of information, then I think it's for that particular location to see what are the measures that are required to deal with impacts that are going to take place in the future. And you could be prepared for these adequately in advance, because you would create local capacity, you may need to invest in infrastructure.
I mean, I'll give you the example of the city of Mumbai, where in 2005 there was a massive cloudburst, an extreme precipitation event, as a result of which the entire city was completely submerged. Several people lost their lives, a lot of property was lost. Now if that kind of event, which took place, let's say, once in 50 years, is now going to take place once in 5 years, then you possibly need to revamp the infrastructure for your entire drainage system. Also your transport system, so that people can get away when something like this happens. And most importantly, you need an early warning system.
So I think what we really need to do is to equip local governments with knowledge of what might happen, and then ask them to create capacity - some of it could be what you might call low-regrets strategies, like setting up information systems. And those information systems will have to be two-way, because you know there are things that might need to be brought to the attention of the governor. Local government may not be able to do everything.
So I think those are the kinds of things that we must start doing. And I'm delighted that the governor mentioned the fact that he wants to convert California into a major solar energy and renewable energy state. But I think it's critically important that at local level we also create capacity and abilities to deal with the impacts of climate change, through adaptation. You need a combination of the two.
Jerry Brown: [Inaudible] ... public money going on infrastructure - storm drains, sewers, various other kinds of pipes - it's diminishing. We're spending less money, and as inequality has continued to increase, there is a real push to compensate with various kinds of support programs, income maintenance assistance, a form of medical assistance, food stamps, things like that. So you have a real conflict between the demands to ameliorate the increased poverty and hardship, and then often that's done at the neglect of building the basic infrastructure to actually deal with floods and these extreme weather events. So things are going to get more expensive, and the mantra, of course, is "Shrink government, keep taxes down", and yet, whether it's paying for your water, your electricity or your storm bill, there's a big challenge, there. And this can be very difficult to communicate the need for investment and actually get around to making it, and getting the money. So that's why I have to quote Mr Hobbes again, when he said "In the state of nature, it's a war of all against all." You know, "Bellum omnia contra omnes," I like to put it in Latin so you get a real sense of it.
Felicity Barringer: I thought you didn't like Latin roots?
Jerry Brown: I don't like Latin roots but I like Latin words. [Audience laughter.] So if you use Latin, use it in this pure form. But it's the sense of - you have the state of nature, which is not good, and you have civil society and government, makes everything fine. Well, that's becoming more difficult every year.
Richard Branson: - I just - there is an enormous opportunity. I mean, the - er - your President ran on the basis of creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs, and that - we have something called the Carbon War Room, which is a centre to try to get 25 gigatons of carbon out of the 25 industries that emit the most carbon, and so, obviously, aviation is one, shipping is another, but cities is [sic] another one.
You know, we convened a meeting with 25 mayors of 25 of the biggest cities, in Vancouver about a year ago, and asked them "Look, why aren't you greening your cities? Why aren't you just cutting - most carbon comes out of buildings - why aren't you doing it?" And they said "lack of finance". So the Carbon War Room went to the financial community and said "Why aren't you lending to the cities, to do it?" And they said "lack of security". So, working with Miami, the Miami mayor or governor, you know, worked out that by increasing - sorry, by using security of the properties themselves, the finances could then lend [sic], and so there's a billion dollar investment going into greening - starting to green Miami's city. You know, about 30,000 jobs will be created, and I think the particular scheme itself seems to make a lot of sense, the finances are secured against the house or against the office itself, and just a little bit extra money just goes onto the rates - or whatever you call them, in America - the property tax, and it's a win-win all round.
You know, the money does not go to the Middle East, it pays back in four or five years, lots of jobs are created, and I think that can be multiplied up, you know in a major way. Maybe in
California, you are doing something similar, but it seems to work.
Jerry Brown: There was a program in a dozen or more states past, to lend to homeowners for renewable technologies, and then to put it as a lien on a house. Unfortunately the Federal administration killed the idea. It wasn't the President, but it's this regulator who controls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that still is an obstacle. But we're finding some other alternatives. But that notion of securing a loan on a building makes a lot of sense, and it can be done, I think, prudently. But it does take some imagination and some decision-making. And we're going to do that.
Rajendra Pachauri: I think the point made by Sir Richard is absolutely valid, because we have found, in the work of the IPCC, in looking at mitigation opportunities, that the building sector is by far the most attractive. And I'm thinking if one could retrofit buildings to make them more efficient - not only in the use of energy but some things like use of water - and if new buildings could be built to standards that make the best of knowledge that exists in the field of architecture and building technology, it's really a win-win situation. As a matter of fact, I might mention that overall, we have estimated that the building sector has the largest potential for reduction in emissions. And therefore, I think that if one can start a program - and California has done an enormous amount already - I know Dr Art Rosenfeld is here in the audience - there have been some remarkable leaders who have done a lot in California. But I would say the potential is still larger. And I think if this was done country-wide in the U.S., it would make an enormous difference.
Richard Branson: And the job creation is enormous -
Rajendra Pachauri: Absolutely.
Richard Branson: I mean, the regulator of Fannie Mae and - whatever - needs to have his head - someone needs to shake him, [audience laughter] because - or maybe some clever way of standing behind him, or that - somebody's got to cut through and sort that out, because it would be awful if that's what's holding it back.
Rajendra Pachauri: Put him on an aircraft and take him through a turbulent place - it might shake him up [audience laughter.]
Richard Branson: A one-way ticket to space, I think [audience and panel laugh.] I'd be happy to oblige.
Felicity Barringer: Dr Pachauri, science has been at the fulcrum of climate change discussions for a quarter of a century now. Science and scientists have been leading this discussion. Going forward, since you all have the scars to show - you and your colleagues at the IPCC have the scars to show for your leadership, are you going to - is the Cassandra role going to be ceded to another institution? Like the insurance industry? Emergency services industry? Financial markets? Military? I mean, I ask this of you, but I'm asking it of all three panellists, if you will.
Jerry Brown: You call it the "Cassandra role"?
Felicity Barringer: Yeah, well, you've been Latin, I gotta be Greek.
Jerry Brown: Yeah, but if it's Cassandra, then no-one will listen. Cassandra was the person in Greek mythology that nobody listened to, so - I want someone to listen [audience laughter].
Felicity Barringer: Fair enough, I stand by the analogy anyway, given where we are right now.
Rajendra Pachauri: Well, may I say this, that I think all stakeholders have to be involved, because this is not going to leave business untouched. What the governor said about - and what we heard earlier about, on the NBC program, that you had so many extreme events where the loss has been a billion dollars or more. We have estimated that, world-wide, since 1980, we have had losses - economic or monetised losses which could be estimated at anywhere from a few billion dollars a year to 200 billion dollars a year in 2005. And that was largely because of Hurricane Katrina. But we must remember that there are some losses you can't monetise. I mean, what do you do about loss of ecosystem services. What do you do about loss of lives? What do you do about loss of cultural heritage? All of that really can't be monetised.
And I think, on the role of the IPCC, what we are trying to do is to tell the world, through scientific work - which involves the best scientists, thousands of them, mobilised and working together without any compensation from the IPCC, purely as a labour of love - is the fact that if we don't do something, the impacts are going to get progressively more negative. And the solutions are so much in the field of attractive options, that we ought to get on with it. And you know we want so many co-benefits - energy security. If you're sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other parts of the world, you're depriving your own citizens of the opportunity to invest that money in doing other productive things.
So I think we've got to bring about this transition, and those who are becoming obstacles in implementing what is rational, should be made the responsibility of Sir Richard to give this one-way ticket to outer space. Of course, space would be unfortunate to get some of these fellows [audience laughter] but...
Felicity Barringer: I recall from my early studies of physics, it doesn't have an atmosphere, right?
Richard Branson: If we were in a war situation, which is why we're actually called the Carbon War Room - I mean, you would be sitting down around a table, thinking "Okay, all this money is pouring out to the Middle East, and even the Republicans must be able to realise that", and - sorry, sorry - and then, you know, just work backwards from there. How do we, you know - forget global warming - if you don't believe it, that's fine. But how do you stop - how do we make sure that none of that money goes to the Middle East, it all stays within our own countries, and as business - as an entrepreneur, I would be able to come up with entrepreneurial ways of doing that. And the end result would be that your country is going to be much wealthier, much better off, you know, and we'll get on top of - for those people who want to get on top of the problems of global warming, we can sort that out as well. But, you know, thousands and thousands of jobs can be created, if we just put our mind to it, and cut through some of the red tape that is stopping us. And it just seems sad - in America you don't talk about global warming, you talk about other ways around it, because of the Republicans, which is sad, but in a sense, everybody should be on the same page.