Natural Resources Defense Council | Frances Beinecke | Talks at Google

In the early days where mandatory enforcement was critical, NRDC were the people to go to to get the bad guys to comply with the law. And they've evolved over the years as we've worked towards more market based solutions trading. Now NRDC is launching a new market transformation initiative and they're doing exciting critical work in this space. Dan Reicher, who's our new director of energy and climate initiatives@google.org worked at NRDC for seven and a half years and his early years fighting nuclear power plants and other evil activities in the nuclear power sector. And we were proud actually to work with E2, which is an arm of NRDC largely here in California, working with business leaders to speak on behalf of strong environmental policies. And we worked when we lobbied for AB32, the California global warming bill. E2 played a critical role in enabling us to do that. So. So we're excited to have Frances here working with us today. Thank you.

Well, thanks Amy. And it's nice to be here. It's fun to obviously come to Mountain View and see Google. You hear a lot about it. It's my second visit coming from the torrential downpour in New York where I was earlier this week. It's nice to see the sunshine. For those who missed it, it was a pretty bad weekend on the east coast and created a lot of problems for people getting here. But I think was actually emblematic of the subject that I want to talk about, which is global warming and what the changes are that we can anticipate. Not that you can see a cause and effect, but there are plenty of changes going forward and NRDC is really working to address these from a policy standpoint as quickly as we can. Just to give you a little bit more background on nrdc. Natural Resources Defense Council, We've been around, as amy said, for 35 years. And it's an interesting story because in 1970 we were a little organization. We were a bold idea created to really create a law firm for the environment that would represent the public. And it was a bold idea. There were a lot of young lawyers coming out of the Yale Law School and no one had created a public interest law firm at the time. In fact, it was very difficult for us at the time to get permission from the Internal Revenue Service for a tax exempt status. It just shows you, I think, how far the public interest has come in that 35 years. We've had tremendous success. Originally our aim was to create environmental laws and implement and enforce them and we did that well. But what we learned was there are so many other issues that we want to work on from an environmental standpoint. And there's a whole array of tools that we use in addressing these issues. So with each decade or even every five year period, we're again reassessing what are the critical issues facing the planet and what do we as an institution do to work on them, how do we address them? We did that a couple of years ago, which was very well timed because it preceded the new Congress, and we were really ready for the new Congress. We have spent, as the entire environmental community has the last six years, in a very defensive mode. We had spent 30 years advancing environmental law, and actually, the United States has made huge progress in cleaning up its air, its water, protecting wild places. Not to say that we don't have great challenges lying ahead. We do, but we have made progress. And you can surely see that if you go around the rest of the world that hasn't had the ability to make those commitments. So, you know, it was important for us to look forward, but then the Bush administration came in and kind of prevented us from advancing solutions. Really, we were in a very defensive mode as many of those laws that we worked to put in place were rolled back, and they were rolled back with great intensity. But we fighters that we are sort of went back to the courts and did everything we could to prevent the rollbacks of environmental laws. I think in many ways we were very successful. I mean, we still have the Clean Air act, the Clean Water Act, Many of the legislative and administrative changes that were proposed weren't enacted, and we're proud of that. But at the same time, we weren't able to advance the solutions that we thought were critical in this environment that we're working in now. So, as I said, we kind of reassessed, looked at who we are, how large we are. We're an organization of 350 people. We have had four principal offices, new York, Washington, San Francisco. And so we're saying, you know, look at planet Earth. What can we be doing here that's more effective than we've done in the past? So we sort of regrouped, identified six major priorities to work on, and those are curbing global warming. Number one, it actually has impacts on every single issue that we're working on is absolutely critical at the front of the line, moving America beyond oil. Basically, what is the energy policy of the United States? And. And these are integrated, but they're also independent and they're treated independently in Congress, which is one of the reasons that we separated them, because the strategies need to be separate but connected. And there's a lot of people who respond strongly to energy independence and looking for what a new energy strategy is in this country who aren't necessarily yet on board global warming. So we're sort of taking them together, integrating them, and then using the opportunity of both to advance energy solutions that we think are part of the 21st century. Reviving the oceans is the third. And I don't know if anyone here has been watching the Discovery TV show on Planet Earth that's being narrated by Sigourney Weaver. Unbelievable images. You can't imagine actually how these photographers get these images, but it really gives you a sense of the spectacular resource in all ecosystems in the planet, but particularly in the ocean, because you don't see it, you know, it's not a place that you are. So when you see, you know, the great white shark and then, you know, the seals, sea lions, marine mammals, abundant fisheries, coral reefs, all of which are under serious threat now, you know, it really motivates us to have a very aggressive program on reviving the oceans. And the oceans are not yet on the radar screen. I mean, five years ago I would have said global warming isn't yet on the radar screen. Well, now it is, and I'm sure you're seeing that every day. But the oceans aren't. So our first challenge there is to really raise public awareness and get enough of a public concern out there in the citizenry that we can actually advance policies and change ocean governance in a way that it needs to be changed. California, in a lot of these issues, is very much on the cutting edge. And I had the very good fortune in the kind of coldest part of the winter on the east coast to spend five or six weeks out here this winter. And, you know, I was really impressed. California, there is an embedded commitment to the environment that just isn't really evident in the rest of the country. So when you come out here, you just, you feel it, particularly if you're here for a concentrated period. There's another, you know, a few more imports from the East Coast. It's a very different sensation. So we actually at NRDC have invested mightily in California in public policy here because we really can see changes, we can help get changes in place, and those then become the template for the rest of the country, either in the states or at the federal government. And just to give you a couple examples, this weekend, California adopted a system of marine protected areas. And those are very much the design of what we think needs to happen in the Oceans. Just as you need wilderness protected in forests and mountains and ecosystems, you need ocean wilderness protected too, because that provides the nursery ground for all the creatures of the ocean. And yet that really hasn't been adopted. But now California has adopted it. And that will create a design for the rest of the country to follow. And we're trying to get that in place in New York and a few states in the Southeast, and then take that to Congress. And I hope we have success there. Global warming is clearly an issue where California has been absolutely on the cutting edge. And, and it's kind of a great story because people make a difference. There are individuals out there who make a huge difference. And who are they and what kind of a difference did they make? Well, in 2000, a schoolteacher from Southern California was elected to the California Assembly, Fran Pavley. Fran Pavley taught middle school. She was a local mayor down there. She was elected to the assembly and she cared deeply about air pollution. And she just became a teacher, a teacher of the assembly on the issue of global warming. And she created, over the six year period, because of the term limits, she had a limited period of time in which to do this. But through her sponsorship and also sponsored by nrdc, she created the most cutting edge legislation on global warming that had been passed in the country. Both a law, AB, which was the first one, 1493, to control emissions from cars, and then AB32 this summer, which creates an economy wide system of reducing carbon emissions by 25% by 2020. These are absolutely signature changes and have sent shock waves across the country and actually in many ways across the planet. I mean, they. California has set a standard, it's created a bar that every other state and the federal government has to respond to. And that's very exciting. So from NRDC standpoint, one, we wanted to get these laws passed. Two, we're focused very strongly right now on actually what does it take to implement these laws? Same time, we're involved in the courts, because on the law on car emissions, the automobile companies are fighting it through the courts, so we're defending it in the courts. We had a very, very important victory in the Supreme Court two weeks ago, actually two decisions the same day, one affecting power plants and one affecting cars, saying, guess what, epa, you have the authority to regulate carbon emissions from cars and you better get at it. Which was hugely powerful. You know, another arrow in the quiver to get this issue on the radar and get moving. And so in what has been a very stalled public policy arena in the environment over the Last six years, suddenly, since January has absolutely taken off and California's really been at the forefront of that. I had the occasion to go to the World Economic Forum in January at Davos and I had gone a couple of years ago and environment was kind of relegated to a couple of sessions and not that many people were interested and it was kind of minor. Well, this time it was major. 17 sessions on this topic. It actually permeated every conversation I was in, but not all. I mean, obviously it did, because that's what I do. But for many, many other sessions revolving around energy, what the future economy was, global warming was really at the center of it and California was at the center of that. In the final talk, which was given by Tony Blair because he was completing his, he is completing his term, I guess, as Prime Minister and they had asked him to give the final talk, he pointed out two things that he thought absolutely pointed to the changes that we were going to be able to adopt. And one was California's leadership on AB32 that that would really send a signal to the country and get us on the move and Governor Schwarzenegger's leadership. The other, which NRDC was also involved in, was an announcement in January right before the Davos meeting by 10 major companies. It's called USCAP, the U.S. climate Action Partnership. We had worked with several other NGOs and these 10 big companies, GE, DuPont, Alcoa, PG&E. Duke Energy, third largest coal fired utility in the country, several others on an agreement of how carbon ought to be controlled in this country. And it sent again shockwaves out there, particularly in Congress, because Congress thinks that it's defending those corporations that don't want change. And yet here were many of these corporations, very big ones, saying, you know, we see this as an opportunity. And that I think is what you really feel too when you're in California with the tech community and the venture capital community, that this is no longer a, you know, like an albatross around our necks that we have to suffer through. And this, I think is something that the environmental community has been trying to shed for the last 30 years since Jimmy Carter, I don't know how many of you remember this, put on his sweater and told us all that we were going to have to suffer through conservation if we were going to survive the energy crisis. And that's been a bit of a burden for the environmental community to bear because when people think of environmental protection, they think of suffering. And that isn't the American way. The United States does not want to think of suffering. They want to think of solutions and how we solve the problem. And I think that that's the shift we finally made in the last six months where people see we have to have a green tech future. We have to know what the energy policies are that will shed us of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, make us more efficient, and allow us to be leaders in solving the global warming problem. And we're beginning to get there now. The devil's in the details. And a lot of this ends up in Washington, D.C. at the Halls of Congress. So, you know, I was saying to Michael and Amy here that we're no longer saying in these conversations we need a cap and trade system or we need global warming legislation. We're no longer in the convince mode because everybody's talking about it. But now what we're in is, well, how do you actually do that? This is a little more complicated than just saying, yeah, we all believe this is a serious problem facing the planet. How you actually execute that and move an entire energy system that supports the economy of the world down a different track and do it in a way that creates winners and losers, but the losers, you know, that human beings don't suffer in the process is extremely challenging. And that's the debate that we're beginning to be part of. And there's tremendous curiosity now. It's actually, it's an exciting moment because there are requests for input. You know, place, please help us design how this might work. What if we did it this way? What if we had an auction? What if we have an allocation system? You know, how do you design this? What's the experience in Europe, which has been very much on the cutting edge, but they've, you know, they've had an experience that isn't exactly totally successful, but that's good. California is designing its Strategy for implementing AB32, and that will create something of a template. Congress won't follow it, but it will be a learning experience. So there are very rich conversations going on right now, and it's across sectors. There's no single answer to this. And I think for those of you who are familiar with Bill McKibben, who's a great writer, a professor at Middlebury, he has this great phrase, there's no silver bullet, it's silver buckshot. And I think, you know, that's the reality here. You know, Professors Rob Sokolow and at Princeton have designed the very famous wedge diagram, which is, you know, there are 15 different strategies that could get you there. You got to pick at least seven of them, none of the seven are easy. NRDC has picked its group. Other organizations pick theirs. But we're working on each of them. And each of them is a challenge. I mean, first we're working on efficiency. We're working on efficiency in any area that we can find. So we need more fuel efficient cars, we need more fuel efficient appliances, more fuel efficient buildings, more fuel efficient electronics. What we have is great success. Again, California is on the cutting edge. Here is the most energy efficient state in the country with having kept per capita energy use even for the last 30 years, while the rest of the country has grown by 40%. And I always like that story because, you know, when you go, I was giving a talk in Kansas about California as the model, and maybe a little dubious in Kansas about California. But you know, one thing about it, nobody thinks that Californians are suffering. Everybody thinks that Californians have a good lifestyle. So if you come and you say, you know, California is incredibly energy efficient. No other state has achieved that. And yet people like living in California. Nobody's leaving California because it's an energy efficient state. I mean, you know, so it's a good example, it's a good story to tell. And I think that one of our challenges is constantly to be positive, to really look at what are the solutions out there and to show that there are pathways. Because I think, you know, we'll never be able to achieve success if people don't see what the pathways are. So efficiency is one, renewables is two. Again, Google is a great example of that with the solar panels that you're putting up right now. Solar is key, Wind is key. Wind's a challenge. I just spent part of last summer in Denmark. 20% of Denmark's power comes from renewables. I mean, they have made a huge commitment to renewables on the East Coast. We can't site a wind farm. Every place is too beautiful on the east coast for a wind farm. I mean, I am telling you, there is no place that is not exquisitely beautiful that would allow a wind farm to go forward. That's truly a very big problem. And it is actually a conflict within the environmental community. Because a lot of the conservationists, you know, they're not looking at energy policy, they're looking at landscape protection. And kind of equating landscape protection with energy policy and getting us to come together so we don't look like we're fighting all the time with one another is one of the challenges we really face. I mean, I think wind has enormous potential. I mean, what can be Better. It's free. The wind blows, turbines go around, the energy comes in. You know, if we discover something else, 40 years from now, you can take down the turbines. You know, they haven't had, you know, a major deleterious effect. But there's a psychology there that is really hard for us to get ahead of, and that's a problem. Biomass growing fuels out of biofuels is also a challenge. I mean, on the one hand, we think it's a great opportunity. We really think we can grow fuels, cellulosic biofuels. That would be great. But we're in a corn frenzy right now, you know, particularly with the Iowa caucuses. Suddenly everybody loves corn. And, you know, so there are other ways to address biofuels, but the discussion is all around subsidies to the corn industry. So to have a broader conversation of what is the strategy on biofuels is just very hard to achieve now politically, but we're working on it. Another very big challenge is coal. 60% of our electricity comes from coal. And I personally think coal is part of the immediate future. I don't think as a country, we're going to jump fully into a nuclear program. We still have to generate electricity. It's not going to all come from renewables. So we have coal future to deal with in the immediate future. There are people in the environmental community who don't agree with that. They think we can get away from coal, but in the meantime, you have to have a transition. There are 150 coal plants now proposed in the United States. The environmental community, as a group, and we're part of it, are fighting the permitting of those plants. There are 1,500 plants, I think, planned around the world. If those are all built according to current coal standards, traditional pulverized coal plants, they will generate as much CO2 as all the CO2 that's been generated in human history. Just those 1500 plants. That would take us down a path that we could not shift away from. We can't allow that to happen. So on the one hand, we have to fight traditional plants. And we had a very big success with this TXU buyout, which I'll talk about in a minute. But on the other hand, we have to look at technologies to clean up carbon from coal and face whether or not that's a possibility. We believe it is. We think you can capture carbon and sequester it. That we need to push a lot of R and D money into that coal strategy and see if it works while we promote efficiency and all these other things at the Same time. But you know, we feel you can't put blinders on about coal. I mean, if you do it in this country, it's still, you know, hugely abundant resource in China and it's an abundant resource in India. So you know, we have to deal with it and the rest of the world has to deal with it. So the more we can promote technology and really assess whether that technology is going to be able to address the problem, I, I think is a hugely important thing for us to be doing. So, you know, we're committed to that. Just to go back to txu, I mean this is an interesting story because it kind of shows you a little bit about where, how this issue is kind of up front and center and then how NRDC is integrated into it. You know, TXU is big Texas utility. It has been a target of the environmental community because it has 11 coal fired power plants that they, they are boldly promoting in the state of Texas. And they have become kind of the poster child for bad energy planning. Tpg, Texas Pacific Group put in a proposal to have a leveraged buyout of TXU and they invited NRDC and our colleague organization Environmental Defense to come in and talk specifically about what the environmental liabilities of that deal were. And David Hawkins on our staff and Joe Martin Marston, Jim Marston from Ed, worked with TPG on what the environmental criteria of that deal should be and TPG adopted it. Eight coal plants went out the window and they made a huge commitment in efficiency in power plants, which is another, you know, is part of the California success story, but hasn't been adopted around the country and really sent, I think, huge ripples throughout the investment world because it put environmental, the environmental future and the global warming issue on the map in the financial sector. And I think now, I mean, as I say, I'm in New York, talk to people in the financial community a lot and suddenly we're actually having conversations. They want to know what we think are going to be the policy initiatives that are developed, what's going to happen in Congress, how does that affect long term commitments, long term investments that they're making. So you know, it's just fascinating over a 30 year period looking at these issues that suddenly the issue of environment, the future of the planet from a global warming standpoint and what the energy future of this country and the world is a top tier issue in public policy in this country, I can assure you. And I'm sure Michael will say the same thing, Amy too. It has never been there since Earth Day 1970. You know, there was a window in that period of time when these issues were crucial, top tier issues to the country. They're important issues, but they're in the second tier now. They're in the first tier because I think our economy and our security are absolutely woven up with them and people realize that. So that creates a huge opportunity for us. But I think it's also a real responsibility because we have to get it right. When I was out here earlier this winter talking to a lot of companies about AB32 and how that was going to affect their business, they want to know how it's going to work. They want to know what the investments they have to make, what the costs are going to be. And you know, they have a lot riding on it. So, you know, I came back to our staff. You better get this right, because there is a lot at stake here, not only for California, but really for the rest of the country. Country. Because you're creating a model. And so from that point of view, we're in a very, very exciting time. And there is a lot happening in Congress. Not enough. And we don't think that the solutions that we, we know we don't have enough support for the best solutions. And we're working on that. And that's where people come in. You know, we. NRDC has a tagline. Had a tagline. We changed our tagline from time to time, but we had a tagline for years. We're the power of science, the power of law, the power of people. But we didn't really have people. The people we had were our own staff. We didn't have a constituency. Now we have a constituency of over a million people. And that's not enough. And the environmental community, which is about 10 million people, is really not enough. Our challenge now is to take these issues well beyond the environmental community. You don't have to be an environmentalist to care about the future of the planet. You don't have to be an environmentalist to be concerned about global warming. Because it's really a moral issue more than an environmental issue across all sectors. And we need all sectors engaged. So we're really reaching out and working with people who are involved from a whole host of communities who want to get involved in this issue and take a stand and make a, you know, have a voice. And I think the great thing that's happened is there are so many ways to do that. For a very long time we didn't have a lot of things to offer. When people said they want to get involved, you Know, particularly from an environmental standpoint, it was, well, you can recycle. And then that was sort of the end of the conversation. You know, a lot of people said, we call, oh, what can we do? We can recycle. And we're the public policy people. Well, it really isn't like that anymore. I mean, I think now, finally there are a lot of choices to be made. There are choices in the marketplace, in the. You can make decisions on your car, on your cleaning products, on your recycled paper. You know, there are many ways to get involved. You can get involved. I mean, this is the great thing about the Internet, you know, whereas before people marched on Washington, now we have a virtual march. Lori David, who's on our board, who's married to Larry David, Curb youb Enthusiasm. Maybe you've seen it. She's not at all like the wife on the show, but she's passionate, I am telling you, about global warming because she is concerned about her kids future. And she has become, I think, one of the most powerful forces on this issue out there. And she comes out of the entertainment world. She, you know. Well, she used to do comedy. I mean, she didn't do comedy shows. She was like an agent for comedy shows. So she knows how to get things done. She's a producer, so she's the person who actually said to Al Gore when she saw his slideshow, you have to make a movie out of that. So she rounded up the producer. She rounded him up. She got that movie made. I mean, there are other people. But I'm telling you it was her idea. And he'll tell you it was her idea. And when he went up to get his Oscar, she was up there with him. Now she's on a bus trip through the southern part of the United States with Sheryl Crow. They're going on a bus tour from college to college over the last two weeks, talking to people about global warming, doing media briefings. I mean, she's been on the Today Show, ABC News and all these things. Because her approach, what she did was say, what can I do? I'm not a policy expert, I'm not a scientist, but I care deeply about this issue. I know how to reach out to pop culture. That's what I do. And I am telling you, she is the most dynamic, unbelievable force out there. And I really think, if you look back over the last year, who are the people who have made a huge difference on this issue? She's one of them. I mean, there are a whole bunch of people. Fran Pavley was One, she set the standard for California, you know, and now Lori David is another. And, you know, everybody can have an impact in their own way. And I think that's really the thing that we're learning. There's a great. I went to a talk recently by Wangari Maathai, who's the Nobel Prize Peace Prize laureate, and you may have heard this story, but she has a great story about a hummingbird. And, you know, it's a story of, you know, the great African forest. There's a huge inferno of a fire, and all the animals are fleeing, fleeing, fleeing. And I was reminded by this story yesterday because I was actually on a walk in San Francisco and saw a little hummingbird. And I thought, oh, I remember that hummingbird story. And the story was that hummingbird kept going into the river and dipping, getting a little bit of water and putting it on the fire, putting it on the fire, putting it on the fire. And these animals are saying, what are you doing? You can't do anything. You have a little drip of water and there's this huge inferno. And the hummingbird said, well, everybody has to do their own part. They have to participate. And this is what I can do. And I'm doing it. And I think that is really, if I've learned any lesson in the last few years, that's really it, that everybody has a role to play. No matter what business you're in, no matter what you do day to day, you can do it personally, you can do it in your community, you can do it in your church, you can do it through electoral work. It really doesn't matter. But I think I would just say that the issue of global warming is so serious, it's such an important issue facing us, facing the planet, that everybody has a role and they should figure it out. And I encourage you all to do that because, number one, there are things to do and that's exciting. But number two, we really need you. So thank you. And if you wanted to talk about it, any questions to answer, I'd be happy to do it. Yep.

So thank you very much for coming. It's very exciting to have you here. If you wouldn't mind, I have two questions that are related yet separate. The first is, if you feel comfortable, very clear about the NRDC's plans for the 2008 presidential campaign.

That's an easy one because we're not allowed to do any electoral work, so we can't endorse candidates, we'd lose our tax status. But we can ask candidates to address issues and Actually, about three or four months ago, we posed to all the candidates who had announced the question of will you run a carbon neutral campaign? And John Edwards has actually responded affirmatively and he's come out with some very strong statements on global warming. I think global warming will be an issue in this campaign no matter which party you're from. I mean, John McCain is a great leader on the issue and that will pull all the Republicans, although Mitt Romney flipped on the issue in Massachusetts. So it will be interesting to see what he does. And I can tell you from New York, Rudy Giuliani didn't do anything. So I'm very curious to see what he's going to do. And then on the, on the Democratic side, Edwards is already, you know, very much out front. Hillary Clinton's on the Environment and Public Works Committee has been very strong, particularly on energy policy, and now is getting stronger on global warming. And Barack Obama is a little bit more interesting. Well, more challenging really, because he's from Illinois, Illinois is a coal state. So, you know, his coal policies are not fantastic yet, but, but we hope that they get better and there are people who are working on that. So I think it will be very much in the forefront. And, you know, our job is not to pick any candidate, but to have all the candidates address the issue and with specificity. I mean, I think it's one thing to say, you know, we're very concerned about global warming, we have to reduce emissions. But the big challenge right now is what strategy actually gets us there. So, you know, we will, with others in the environmental community in particular, particularly the League of Conservation Voters, will hold them accountable for very specific strategies to do that.

And I think you got pretty close then, too, to the second piece of that question, which was if you wouldn't mind talking a little bit about the changing pace of the environment within the political sphere. There's no longer the environmental lobby. Now you've got Senator Dodd, who tomorrow will give his energy independence upon his speech. But you've also got in the last week, Schwarzenegger and Governor Charlie Cristopher. Great talks.

Yeah, well, you know, I mean, I think the challenge for us is to make sure it's a bipartisan issue. This cannot be a Democratic issue. First of all, we can't get anything passed, you know, with confidence in Congress unless we have Democrats and Republicans on board. And there's been great leadership from the states. I mean, Governor Schwarzenegger has been great. Governor Pataki in New York was very strong on these issues. Governor Cristian Florida Is looks like he's going to be pretty good. And in a way, part of our strategy is to have a little bit of a competition among the states to be really good and then to create enough diversity in policy that particularly companies are screaming for one system at the federal level. So, you know, that's beginning to happen and that's good from our standpoint, you know, there's. States can be incubators of change and they are. And different states are approaching these issues in different ways. And that's all a learning experience. And then the more we can kind of end. Every policy they put in place is actually reducing carbon emissions while we wait for the federal government and Congress to actually get there. And that's actually what it's all about. I mean, we have to reduce carbon emissions. So, you know, every ton that's reduced through a state policy is fantastic from our point of view of reaching the goal. And you know, I had a meeting, I was with Governor Schwarzenegger in February, I guess, and you know, he's very pleased about being an environmental leader. Good, that's great. You know, get out there, take advantage of it. He was at Georgetown last week making a big speech on energy. And you know, the more the better from my point of view.

Add one more thing about the presidential candidate thing. I think for everybody here who gets involved with a campaign candidate, no matter who you pick, just know where you think they should stand and educate them and hold their feet to the fire. Because I think it's going to be, that's going to be the challenge is that, you know, you may pick a candidate on a variety of issues, but I think we lost the best leader on this when Governor Vilsack dropped out. This is a guy who was governor of Iowa and even so was supporting getting rid of a tariff protecting corn based ethanol by putting a huge tariff on Brazilian based ethanol, sugarcane drip ethanol, which is much better for the environment because he said it was better. It's the right answer. Corn isn't. And this is a guy who was willing to go against his own state's interest. And I think with Obama and people like that, I think the urgency is so much here on climate change, we don't really have time for those procurement risks. We really need to get people to be brave on this. So no matter who you pick, I just.

Yeah, and I think the challenge, you know, the challenge with the candidates is they're all going to be good. I mean, there's no way. I mean, I'd be very surprised. I mean, Giuliani may be the one who doesn't say much. I don't know. But, you know, basically this is an issue of our time. They're going to address it. The question is, is it specific enough? And then how do you actually make it happen? And you all know that there's plenty of commitments made, but actually getting them executed is a huge part of the challenge. And that's, you know, where we come in and that's where constituents come in. That's what really matters now. I mean, we are involved with many others in the environmental community with on the ground activities in states. I mean, they, it's, it's interesting to watch. You know, there was a period of time where we thought, you know, Congress led. That was a long time ago. We don't really feel that Congress leads anymore. Congress has to be pushed. And that's why the state examples are really important. And that's why constituent activity is really important. I mean that, you know, so we're out in a lot of states. We just opened an office in Chicago to cover the Midwest because basically the environmental community is very bi. Coastal. Everybody, all the organizations, their membership is east and west, and yet there are a lot of senators in the middle. And, you know, it's hard to go and to advocate in front of them if you're not representing anybody who votes for them. So, you know, we've all been recognizing that and really trying to become much more of a national operation. Not only nrdc, but other organizations too. And I actually think it's fascinating. We need to understand more what the psychology of different regions of the country are. What are the motivators, what things they're trying to address and deal with so that we can come up with policy solutions that really work. And then, you know, the. We also just opened an office about six months ago in Beijing. And that's a whole other story about, you know, once we actually address something here. There's still a huge amount of carbon being emitted in Asia, particular particularly in China. And how do you move that economy towards a much more efficient model, a much cleaner model? You know, we're working on that and it's extremely challenging. And as you know, and actually 20 to 30% of California's air pollution comes from China. So it's not a distant issue for you. It's kind of. And that number will grow. So any other questions you have.

I know, don't. I don't know if this is on. Thank you for coming. And I see on your website that you've got five good Google Earth KMLs illustrating various things from global warming, visiting spots around Alaska and parks and issues. And I just wondered what's next on the lineup or if you know what people are planning. Because I've thought and we've talked, there are lots of potential things to visualize like these new California sanctuaries or where coal plants are in the US or.

Yeah, we are doing actually a coal plant emission study. I also think that one of the things that it could really help in is where the impacts are happening, particularly in the Arctic. You know, one of the, again that Planet Earth show, I think one of the most powerful images were the polar bears basically with receding sea ice swimming for miles and miles and not being able to find land or I mean it was just really devastating. Powerful image. And I think, you know, there are places that are already seeing change. I mean, California is already seeing change. The snowpack in California where you get your drinking water is already 55% of what it was. I mean that is of course what's going to happen and already has happened here. Climate change will also be a great driver for new infrastructure proposals which really aren't that great. Like two new reservoirs in the Sierra which you know, is under discussion right now. But actually seeing how drought is occurring, seeing sea level rise, seeing the effect in the Arctic, I mean how many people are going to get to Greenland? Not too many, but they can see it through Google Earth. And I think that's where there could be just tremendous potential there. And you know, visuals. We were, I would say we were an organization slow to go visual. You know, we're kind of a word organization. You know, we write a lot, talk a lot. But actually one of our board members is Robert Redford and he came to a board meeting. He doesn't come that often. He does a lot of great things for us. But anyway, he said, you know, you're all about the beauty of the planet and yet you never show any pictures. What is this about? So he actually, you know, okay, yeah, we got that message and so we've started doing that much more effectively. But I think you're tools are very, very powerful ones that we can use very successfully. You know, one of the great things last weekend there was an event that Bill McKibben created, the step it up campaign. It was the Step it up telling Congress to step it up to take action to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050. And they had events all over the country. I don't know if any of you went to any. But then they, all these Images came in. We were in Washington at the National Indian Museum and just hundreds of images of events that people were involved in all over the country came in. And you know, it was virtual. You felt the power of these thousands and thousands and thousands of people. And I mean his idea, which I thought was great, was we don't want people generating carbon emissions to come and march in Washington. We want them to be right where they are, but making a statement and transmitting it. And that happened. And you know that as I said to him, okay, Bill, this is good, but this was like the first day of you can't step it up and stop. This is like step one on the step it up campaign. It's got to be every day until we get the legislation. And you know we will, but it's tricky, very tricky. Can you elaborate somewhat on your vision of a cap and trade system and how you would like it to be such that everybody wants to participate in it? Well, first of all, the cap and trade system, or we were just talking earlier, cap and auction, because basically we prefer auctioning off the rights and creating a fund that you can use to generate investment in new technology and that it shouldn't be a giveaway. And in fact, in Europe it was a giveaway and it really didn't succeed. So we're looking at what the model would be to auction it off and to be, first of all, it has to be economy wide. It can't be. And this is, you know, there's a lot of discussion between the various sectors, maybe just the power plants or you know, figure keep the cars out. The cars would like to be kept out, but you know, they need to come in too. And then it's not enough to have a cap and auction system. You got to have sectoral policies too. And we have to deal with coal, coal fired power plants directly. We won't deal with it quickly enough. If we just create a cap and trade system, we won't be able to get the technology investment as quick as we're going to need it. And I think that's true with cars too. We have to get cars more fuel efficient and you know, that has to happen quickly. That's very hard to do. We've tried and failed repeatedly since the 70s. You know, maybe that's beginning to shift a little bit. But you know, we're actually now kind of, and I can assure you I am not in the devil in the details, but there, you know, there's just a lot of discussions going on about how would you structure it, how do you create it so that markets drive the change, but you get the change as quickly as you need it. And I think, you know, what's the price got to be on carbon to move that technology quickly and allow that transition to occur without a tremendous amount of hardship, but knowing that there's going to be winners and losers. And, you know, I personally cannot design that for you. We have people, like, in each sector, people looking at the automobiles, looking at the power plants, looking at coal technology, each one trying to figure out, and then how does it all go together? And it's. It's. I don't think there's any more complicated issue right now because it affects every. I mean, it affects the economy and, you know, across the board. And, you know, I don't think anybody has a magic, you know, kind of idea about how it's going to work. It's going to be a lot of trial and error, and then there's going to be a lot of political horse training. And that's what we're most worried about, is the horse training. Yeah. One concern I've heard recently is that.

Commercial air travel may be one of the worst contributors to global warming and that all of us may have to start curtailing back on our air flights. And that would impact a company like this, which has offices around the world with people who fly around quite a lot pretty severely. Do you think there's any truth to that? And what could be the first of.

All, you know, it's interesting. Airplanes are major carbon emitters. They haven't been sort of, you know, people haven't been looking at that. They've been looking at power plants and cars. They haven't been looking at airplanes. But airplanes do generate a lot of carbon. And I think all the airlines, you know, largely because of the fuel cost, are looking at how you design lighter planes and whether they're alternative fuels. And Richard Branson at Virgin, you know, has put. I think it's $30 million. Is it, Michael, 20 or $30 million in an investment to figure out, you know, is there a renewable fuel that could fuel the airplanes that would be carbon neutral? And I also think we should be flying less. I mean, it's very interesting. The Hewlett foundation, for example, which is up or down the road, I don't know where it is relative. It's close by. You know, they're giving grants to organizations like ours to create video conferencing equipment. So we reduce the amount of air travel we have, and we actually have used that, and it really helps. I was at a conference or meeting last week at Yale University where they're designing a sustainability plan. And one of the guys on the committee basically said, you know, if you don't include air travel, you're really not getting at the core of the issue. So we were saying, well, don't you have to, you know, people have to meet each other. I mean, you know, human interaction is a big part of, you know, what it is to be human being on the planet. And if you're, you know, trying to negotiate or doing a deal or whatever you're doing, you got to have. There's a human element. So he was saying, well, you know, if you're in, like, an academic conference, you're trying to do something, something, you could meet in the beginning, have a series of videos, and then meet at the end, but you could reduce it by 70%. And that would be, you know, that would have a huge consequence. But, you know, airplanes are very complicated because people are traveling more and more, although it's more and more unpleasant. So maybe people will start traveling less and less. But, you know, we have to believe that we can get ahead on these issues. And to be an environmentalist, you have to be an optimist that you're going to figure out an answer. I don't know what the answer to air travel is. Some people think it's buying offsets. We're a little suspect of offsets at this point, because how you measure them, how you're sure they're there permanently, if it isn't just a way of buying your way out of the problem and not really instituting change. Those are all issues that have to be addressed. But it is a serious problem. We don't have an answer to. To it, but we've got to get one.

Hi. I was wondering if you guys have, like, a good way of dealing with the sort of the fear, uncertainty and doubt put forth by all the studies that say that it isn't a problem. I mean, I know that most people do acknowledge that it's a problem, but I think that there's still enough studies, like, backed by, like, ExxonMobil and such that say that it's not a problem. That, you know, there's a lot of convincing to do of the. Of the public in general.

You know, it's interesting. Well, first of all, we both do and are privy to lots and lots of polls that are sort of covering where's the public on this issue? Public is moving dramatically on this issue. I mean, just in the last 18 months, you know, it's moving from not being too sure about the science to being much more sure about the science. But it's a problem of the future. We don't really have to do anything now to. Well, maybe it's a problem right now. Maybe we should be doing something. So I think the public's moved also, if you look at the science and, you know, I have to say I fault the media on this for a little bit. Say the IPCC report comes out, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, it has 2,500 scientists. It's been working. This is its fourth report. It's been working for, you know, I don't know how many years, 15 years, something like that. And these are climate scientists. This is what they do, and this is 2500. And they come to a conclusion and they have a, you know, release and a big statement, okay, so, you know, maybe there are two dozen scientists on the other side. And, you know, science is about knowledge, developing knowledge and uncertainty. I mean, the, you know, the academic world, that's what it is to be in that world. Not everybody agrees, but in my view, the majority agree. But, you know, so IPCC report comes out, 2,500 scientists, you know, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, somebody says here the IPCC report, and then here's the other person countering it. Well, is that even 2,501 or 2,505? And I think that's something that we really have to explain, and I think the media has a burden to explain that, too. And I've actually been at meetings with representatives from the media sort of talking about what's their responsibility on the issue, too. I mean, if you believe this is the moral issue of our time, you have some responsibility to how you cover it. And they were acknowledging. Well, they have, you have to have on this side and on that side. But if it's totally weighted, you got to acknowledge that, too and not make it sound even. And I think that's beginning to happen. I mean, if you just look at the coverage, you know, over the last six months, I think it's dramatically different. And, you know, yes, ExxonMobil has put in a lot of money. It's interesting they put in a lot of money undermining the climate change science. But then they just put $100 million into Stanford to their climate work, which, you know, I don't personally believe they're trying to undermine science there. I think they're trying to rebuild their credibility. I'm not sure they should get away with it. That's a whole other issue. Well, thank you all very much. This is fun. It was great to be here. Thank you, Amy. Nice to see you, Michael. And you guys, too.

I just wanted to add that having worked in Washington, NRDC really is, as you can tell from Frances, knowledge, basically, really is one of the most effective organizations out there. A lot of us tap them regularly for talking points, facts, substance, to help push policy issues. When we were policymaking in the White House Department of Energy, I used to take their stuff and put it right in the mouth of the Secretary of Energy, right in the Vice President and the president's mouth, because I knew I could trust.

Can't do that now.

I knew it was very quality information. Certainly can't do that these days. But anyway, I just wanted to thank you so much for coming in, educating us. It was great.

Thank you. And go to our website. You're already there, but go to our website. There's a lot more detailed information there than I can provide.