11:05 Jhirad I feel that we're talking that before 2020 is a feasible time frame. 2045 is too long. We need to look very hard at how the sectoral agreements might be structured.
Montgomery It's striking that the real showstopper on CCS is not the technological issues; it's the legal liability and regulatory framework. Private firms are going to find it difficult to invest in CCS if the EPA finds a leak. A real regulatory framework needs to be established. I see no way of maintaining competitive viability without putting a limit on the price of carbon.
11:10 Delahunt (D-MA) Are you all in agreement that the issue of climate change is serious, that the science has completed, that the issue of global warming has to be addressed?
Montgomery Yes. I think there are massive uncertainties in about every range of the subject but the risks have to be addressed.
Delahunt What do we need to do to bring new technology to the market?
Montgomery Moving ahead I don't think the technology is moving fast enough. We need to allocate substantially more money for R&D at the federal level.
Jhirad In the last 6-12 months it's been phenomenal how Wall Street has been factoring in the effects of climate change. You need to accelerate the flow from the lab to the marketplace.
11:14 Delahunt In the Department of State is there a point person that is guiding our relationship in terms with climate change in the international community. Ought there be one?
Claussen The assistant secretary of state of oceans and the environment (a position I once held), the undersecretary of global affairs have jurisdiction but noone is totally focused.
Delahunt Should there be one?
Claussen Someone in charge of global warming and energy issues would be good.
11:17 Rohrabacher You know that there are hundreds of scientists who object to this. For example, Dr. Timothy Ball, a very respected man, "Believe it or not global warming is not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide. This is the greatest deception in science." The earth is getting a little warmer. Since 1850 there's been a 1 1/2 degree temperature rise. They don't mention that 1850 happened to be at the tail end of a 500 year decline in temperatures. Not something we should be concerned about. When Greenland was green, it was in fact a very wonderful time for the Earth, crops flourished, population expanded. In and of itself, temperature rise is not a problem. Just like the warming on Mars and other planets. Probably due to sunspots. That said, we need to do things aimed at energy and cleaning the air. We are now vulnerable to foreign potentates and terrorists who want to do us harm. Not because the air is any warmer than it was 300 years ago. Is there not a parallel direction here, for those of us interested in human health that draws us together, and that the global warming thing, we may not have to be in agreement here?
Speechless!
Jhirad I beg to disagree on the science but let's not have that argument here. As a former astrophysicist I assure you that sunspots are a tiny little perturbation on the problem. We should take us forward on clean energy. Clearly our largest companies see this is the direction of the future and make us more competitive.
Montgomery There are two policy areas that anyone can agree on: a massive investment on energy R&D. An emphasis on institutional reform in developing countries. China's dirty economy lacks market elements like strong intellectual property protections.
11:24 Payne What are some of the worst case scenarios for polar caps, coral reefs, islands in the Pacific, our coastland?
Claussen Even if the polar caps don't melt entirely, we're talking about significant sea level rise. That's a global issue. We believe there will be more droughts in some areas and more storms in others. There could be health issues. There will be a loss in biodiversity.
11:28 Jhirad In the Cold War we spent a lot of money on low-probability worst-case scenarios. I don't want to draw the parallel too closely, but as policy people we want to look at the long term.
Montgomery There's an immense amount of uncertainty. There's a small chance it'll all go away, there's a small chance it'll be catastrophic in my life time. Most scientists expect something in between.
11:29 Last week the House passed the Intelligence Authorization Bill which includes a call for study for global warming. Do you believe our intelligence agencies are equipped to make such a study? Is it a greater threat than terrorism?
Claussen If they are not, I think it is very important that they become equipped. We need to be able to deal with multiple threats.
Jhirad Our national security agencies have to acquire the capacity to deal with these issues. I'd hate to have a comparative analysis of which threat is worse. They're interconnected, on different timescales.
Montgomery I think we finally have something we disagree on. I chaired an interagency group on energy analysis. I am somewhat attracted to the notion of an NIE on global warming, because they're been so much utter nonsense on this issue. Having said that, I think it's absurd to say that global warming can pose anywhere near as clear and present danger as terrorism. The people who knew about energy issues really knew their business but there were very few of them. I don't know if those people should be diverted to this. I think there are more pressing dangers.
11:34 Sanchez Are there are any alternatives to joining Kyoto that would pacify international criticism?
Claussen The time for Kyoto has passed. The international community is looking at what happens after 2012. We need to take action on our own emissions, if we are to have any credibility.
Jhirad The message that resonates with industry leaders in India and China that mandatory policies to cut carbon can be a spur to technological innovation. The president of India called for 25% renewable by 2030. Many of the industry leaders are promoting a path towards giving carbon a value. When one talks about technology and investment you really get heard in China and India. We would not be credible if we don't take action ourselves.
Montgomery We all agree that the United States needs to be involved in a longterm framework. As far as developing countries, they all say "You go first." They don't say "We will follow."
Comments are closed on this story.