Climate One

Biotechnology promises weed-resistant crops, bigger yields, more food for a growing population. But are genetically modified fruits and vegetables safe? Are they healthy? “Man has been improving crops from the beginning of time, whether it’s the tomato or the corn or all of our fresh fruits and vegetables,” says Robert Fraley of Monsanto. “There’s a whole set of tools that we’re going to need to be able to meet the challenge of food production for the future.” “This is about chemical companies selling chemicals,” says Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety. “It’s not about feeding the earth. We have yet to see a GMO crop that has greater yield, that does anything about malnutrition, about a better taste, a lower cost.” In the face of climate change and its agricultural challenges, is biotechnology the answer? Should we be working to strengthen the world’s rural farming communities? Or is there a sustainable balance between Big Ag and the family farm? This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on June 11, 2014. Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto Company Nathanael Johnson, Food Writer, Grist; Author, All Natural: A Skeptic’s Quest to Discover If the Natural Approach to Diet, Childbirth, Healing, and the Environment Really Keeps Us Healthier and Happier (Rodale, 2013) Andrew Kimbrell, Founder and Executive Director, Center for Food Safety Jessica Lundberg, Seed Nursery Manager, Lundberg Family Farms Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today’s two billion middle class consumers will more than double globally over the next two decades. But while cities in China, India and other developing countries will be teeming with citizens in need of housing, cars and electronic gadgets, natural resources are dwindling. The silver lining? Consumer demand has sparked a third industrial revolution - one that is driving massive innovation, from Teslas to smart meters to less wasteful building methods. How are companies adapting to meet the demands of a changing world? Matt Rogers co-authored “Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century.” “If you see two and a half billion new people entering the middle class, you say, my goodness, we are going to run out of resources,” says Rogers. But in researching the book, he says, they found enormous potential instead. Changing the way we both produce and use resources, Rogers adds, will avert the economic and environmental disasters that seem to threaten us. “Companies and technologies are in fact changing fast enough,” concludes Rogers. “It’s going to be one crazy ride for the next 20 years, but…we’re going to end up in a very good place.” John Hofmeister, Former President, Shell Oil Company Amy Myers Jaffe, Executive Director, Energy and Sustainability, UC Davis Graduate School of Management Matt Rogers, Director, McKinsey & Co.; Co-Author (with Stefan Heck), Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century (New Harvest, 2014) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Climate change is risky business – but how risky is it for business? With temperatures predicted to rise anywhere from one to four degrees this century, droughts, floods and extreme weather present risks that will impact American families, businesses and habitats. Rebecca Shaw of the Environmental Defense Fund sees a global attitude shift towards adaptation. One example is the wine industry. “As climate shifts, there will be some places where wine grapes are grown today that won’t be suitable in the future,” she says. A move north may be imminent, and some growers are already doing that. But as competition for resources heats up between agribusiness, communities and wildlife, sacrifices may be in order. “We’re really going to have to think about what we’re going to grow here,” cautions Shaw. “Some crops are going to be less viable because water will be more scarce in the future.” Later in the program, financial industry experts discuss shifts on Wall Street wrought by climate change. As Lisa Goldberg of Aperio notes, climate change awareness is nothing new. “But in terms of its impact on economic markets, I think that it’s just really now coming to the consciousness of mainstream investors.” Recent high-profile divestments have put large-cap fossil fuel companies under Wall Street’s microscope. But is shareholder pressure an effective tool for change? “Just having that conversation publicly is a huge step,” says shareholder advocate Andrew Behar. “I think it’s a real milestone.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on June 3, 2014. Guests - Part I: Stephen Bennett, Senior Vice President, Verisk Climate Noah Diffenbaugh, Associate Professor, School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University Rebecca Shaw, Associate Vice President and Lead Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund Guests - Part II: Andrew Behar, CEO, As You Sow Lisa Goldberg, Director of Research, Aperio Group; former Director of Research, MSCI Josh Schein, Senior Portfolio Manager, Morgan Stanley Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tim Koopman is a fourth-generation rancher; his family has been raising cattle on their ranch in Alameda County since 1918 and he now heads the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA). David Robinson Simon is the author of a book that lambasts industrialized meat production. What did these two advocates from “opposite sides of the steer” have to say to each other when they sat down to debate the ethical, nutritional and environmental costs of animal agriculture? Host Greg Dalton started things off on the hot-button topic of animal cruelty. According to Simon, large factory farms have lobbied heavily to eliminate anti-cruelty protections for their industry. “So what we’ve seen the last several decades is that literally, anti-cruelty protections that once protected farm animals from abusive behavior have simply been eliminated in virtually every state in this country.” Koopman said that the demonization of his industry is based on inaccuracies; ranchers, he says, care about their animals. “It’s disturbing for us as livestock producers to have this perception that production basically lives on the backs of animals that are abused from the time they’re born until the time they’re slaughtered.” He was quick to point out that his 200-some head of cattle are treated with respect, nurtured and allowed to roam freely. And he adds that the 3,000 members of the CCA are equally vigilant. “Our membership is very cognizant of and very aware of… animal treatment, all the good things that go along with the nurturing of these animals. We will fight against the mistreatment of animals just as much as David or anybody else would.” Dalton next brought up the connection between livestock, methane emissions and climate change. According to the UN publication Livestock’s Long Shadow, nearly twenty percent of all greenhouse gases can be attributed to the livestock industry. Koopman challenged that figure, saying it was closer to three percent; Simon, not surprisingly, contends that the UN figures are conservative. Both men agree, however, that methane emission is a problem that needs to be addressed. Ironically, grass-fed cattle may be making things worse, not better, says Simon: “The unfortunate result is that they produce four times as much methane as grain-fed animals and so we get this very bizarre result that organically-fed cattle are not necessarily more eco-friendly than inorganically raised animals.” One solution, says Koopman, is genetic improvement, which has led to an overall reduction in the number of cows nationwide. Fewer cows, he points out, means less gas. But there are other reasons to believe ranching is straining our resources. “It takes on average, five times as much land to produce animal protein as it does plant protein,” says Simon. “It takes 11 times the fossil fuels and it takes 40 times or more water to produce animal protein than plant protein… that’s a major sustainability problem.” Koopman disagrees. With two-thirds of the land in the U.S. not farmable, he sees cattle ranching as a necessary part of global food sourcing. “We’ve got an increasing world population with huge demand for protein as a part of their diet. And on the absence of grazing livestock and having that land available to produce food, I think we would be in a lot worse shape than we are.” David Robinson Simon, Author, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much – and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter Tim Koopman, President, California Cattlemen’s Association This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 24, 2014 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An emerging area of economics aims to put a price on nature as a way of justifying preserving it in societies dominated by the wisdom of markets. A mountain stream, for example, provides many economic benefits beyond people who own property near it or drink water from it. The same is said of bees that pollinate our food, wetlands that cleans water, and trees that drink up carbon dioxide. If nature were a corporation it would be a large cap stock. Putting a precise tag on something long seen as free is a conceptual leap. However many large companies are starting to realize the extent to which their profits rely on well operating ecosystems. Larry Goulder, Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, Stanford Tony Juniper, Associate Professor, University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership; Special Advisor to The Prince of Wales International Sustainability Unit This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on July 25, 2013 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Who should take responsibility for reducing the amount of plastic debris that litters our cities, waterways and oceans? While many consumers have given up their plastic grocery bags, most still rely on the convenience of plastic water bottles, liquid soap and fast food in styrofoam containers. “Many of our companies are looking at bio-based materials and other kinds of plastics,” says Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council. “High density polyethylene, made from sugarcane, is one of the largest uses today of bioplastics.” But is plant-based plastic the answer? As Molly Morse of Mango Materials points out, without oxygen to break them down, bioplastics can last as long as or longer than conventional plastic. Her company is working to create plastic out of methane gas harvested from wastewater treatment plants. “It can break down in the ocean,” she says. Bridgett Luther, President of Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, helps steer companies toward more responsible solutions for design, manufacturing and packaging their products. She points out that this approach led to market success for one company that eschewed the use of non-recyclable foam in their chairs. “ [Herman Miller] developed one of the fastest selling office chairs ever, the Aeron Chair. The end of use of that Herman Miller chair was a lot of super valuable materials that can be easily recycled.” The household cleaning company Method Products has been harvesting discarded plastic from beaches in Hawaii to produce their Ocean Plastic bottle. “Using the plastic that’s already on the planet is a solution that we have today,” says co-founder Adam Lowry. “So I tend to favor solutions that we can employ right now rather than saying, “Yes. The technology is coming.” Despite these promising steps, all agree that it’s going to take a village — manufacturers, consumers and legislators — to work together if we’re going to rid our world of plastic waste. Keith Christman, Managing Director for Plastics Markets, American Chemistry Council; Co-chair, Global Action Committee on Marine Litter Adam Lowry, Co-founder and Chief Greenskeeper, Method Products PBC Bridgett Luther, President, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute Molly Morse, CEO, Mango Materials This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on January 30, 2014 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Swelling sea levels used to be a concern associated with future generations and faraway lands. Then Superstorm Sandy poured the Atlantic Ocean into the New York subway. Here on the west coast, we’re no less vulnerable to the rising tide, and it’s not only our coastal communities that will be affected. From shoreline to bay to Delta and beyond, California’s economy is bound together by highways, railways and airports. Cities and states are beginning to realize they need to start planning now for tides heading their way. The citizens of Redwood City have already made the issue of rising sea levels a priority. But as Alicia Aguirre, that city’s former mayor, points out, the problem is not limited to one community. “It's not just fixing what's happening in Redwood City, it's fixing what's happening all along the bay and along the coast as well. How do you work with developers and politicians and county government…and say, "This is what we can do?” Larry Goltzband, Executive Director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, agrees that for Californians, focusing on one area is short-sighted. “Those ships you see…docking at the port of Oakland, many times carry product that employs people in Redding or employs people in Tulare County…. So, it is in the best interest of all of California, whether you touch the bay, whether you see the bay on a daily basis, to actually invest in the bay for economic and environmental reasons.” Adding to the big picture, Julian Potter of San Francisco International Airport points out the ripple effect that damage to the region’s airports would cause worldwide. “The economic impact is not singular to any one side -- everybody gets impacted by it, whether or not you’re near water. Chicago will be impacted by it, any of these hub cities.” Goltzband says retreating from the shoreline is not an option. “People will always want to build near the water,” he says. “I think that's probably just part of our DNA after thousands of years. The question that we…have to figure out is, how do we ensure that as the water rises, economic vitality and our community's vitality continues to grow?” Whether it’s due to a hurricane, tsunami or just the slowly rising tide, it’s inevitable that our coastline will be changing dramatically in the coming decades, and with it our economy, our environment and our way of life. Sandbags and levees aren’t enough – Californians must come together to create and enact real solutions, or we’ll all be in over our head. Laura Tam, Sustainable Development Policy Director, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association Larry Goldzband, Executive Director, Bay Conservation and Development Commission Alicia Aguirre, member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, former Mayor, Redwood City Julian Potter, Chief of Staff, San Francisco International Airport This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club of California on February 11, 2014 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What’s really preventing us from enacting environmental change? Blame our brains, says Daniel Goleman, author of Ecological Intelligence. As he explains it, “The problem comes down to a design flaw in the human brain.” Evolution fine-tuned our brains to protect us from immediate survival threats – lions, tigers and bears. But long-term dangers, such as those that threaten our planet today, don’t register. “The problem is that we don’t perceive, nor are we alarmed by, these changes,” says Goleman. “And so we’re in this dilemma where we can show people, “Well, you know, your carbon footprint is this,” but it doesn’t really register in the same way as “there’s a tiger around the block.” Facts alone aren’t enough, he adds, “We need to find a more powerful way of framing them…a way which will activate the right set of emotions and get us moving.” George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at U.C. Berkeley, sees the issue as a moral, rather than environmental, crisis: “…the greatest moral crisis we have ever been in. It is the moral issue of our times and it’s seen just as an environmental issue.” But morality can mean different things to different people. This sets up a debate that quickly goes from the political to the personal, as Josh Freedman, author of Inside Change, points out. “When we start saying, “okay, they’re good, and they’re bad,” what happens is we’re actually fueling this threat system that is what’s in the way of us actually solving these problems.” So what is the solution? How do we retune our primitive brains – and those of our political and business leaders — to focus on a less than clear, less than present danger? Throughout the discussion, several key avenues rose to the top: economics, education and emotional appeal. If major institutions can be persuaded to divest from environmentally unsound companies, says Lakoff, “then what will happen is that the prices of the stocks will go down for those energy companies. When they go down that way, they stay down…you have an opportunity to shift investment away in a way that has an exponential feedback loop.” Educating today’s youth was a powerful and recurring theme for all the speakers. “What kids learn and tell their parents is important,” Goleman said. “Schools are a big counterforce that we can do a much better job of deploying in this battle for minds and heart.” Despite our primitive wiring, the speakers concluded, we humans do have the capacity for the ecological intelligence – and the morality – to effect global change. “Your morality is what defines who you are as a human being,” says Lakoff, “it’s who you are emotionally and morally as a human being that matters in your life, what you do every day. This isn’t a matter of compromise…we have, like, 35 years to turn this around, period. That’s not long.” “All change starts on the inside,” says Freedman, “If we can support children and adults to connect with that capability and to develop what’s already there, then things are going to get a lot better.” Daniel Goleman, Author, Ecological Intelligence: The Hidden Impacts of What We Buy (Crown Business, 2010) Joshua Freedman, CEO, Six Seconds; Author, Inside Change: Transforming Your Organization With Emotional Intelligence (Six Seconds, 2010) George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and author of many books, including The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics (Penguin Books, 2009) This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on May 1, 2014. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today’s teenagers, also known as Millenials or Generation Y, now have a new moniker: Greenagers. That’s because they are coming of age in an era plagued by the effects of climate change. Severe floods, storms and fires on the rise and are forecast to increase further as carbon pollution increases. What are high school students learning about the causes and consequences of climate volatility? And what steps can they take now to secure a more optimistic future for the earth’s ecology? In this episode of Climate One, panelists cite changing the planet for the better can come from “doing one thing,” sourcing cafeteria food locally, and fighting apathy. “We need a transformation of the way we teach these things because it’s not just a matter of getting the information out there about climate change and energy and food,” says Mark McCaffrey, Program and Policy Director at the National Center for Science Education. “We need to be able to get that information out in a way that is building knowledge and know-how…to be able to transform the world, to be able to minimize the impacts, and be able to be ready for whatever changes (are) in store for us.” This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Lick-Wilmerding High School in San Francisco on March 25, 2014. AshEl Eldridge, Education and Leadership Manager, Alliance for Climate Education Heather Frambach, Statewide Food Systems Coordinator, Community Alliance with Family Farmers Mark McCaffrey, Program and Policy Director, National Center for Science Education Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Three years after Fukushima is nuclear power dead in the water? Or is it poised for revival due to the world’s desperate need for carbon-free energy? Every day the Fukushima reactors dump 70,000 gallons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, and there is no end in sight. In the United States, the industry faces more systemic challenges - abundant and cheap natural gases are making new nukes uneconomic, despite the efforts of the Obama administration to jumpstart a nuclear renaissance. Per Peterson, a professor of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley and a former member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, says the Fukushima disaster has had a significant impact on how engineers design the nuclear power plants of the future, and their safety systems. He says it has led to the development of what is called “passive safety” – the ability for the plant to shut down without needing external sources of electrical power. Two new plants are currently being constructed in South Carolina and Georgia, but at a staggering cost - $10+ billion per project. Peterson says that cost is due in part to major improvements over previous designs. “One of them is the passive safety…but the other is the use of modular construction technology which now does the majority of the fabrication of the buildings and the equipment modules and factories.” Peterson says. “And the implementation of modular construction does have the potential to give you much better control over schedule and cost. This said, it’s still a puzzle why the construction prices are as high as they are…there must be some way to bring these numbers closer together.” Dozens of old plants are receiving a new lease on life from regulators who have approved letting them run another decade or two. But what happens when plants are run beyond their expected lifetimes? “We’ve had nuclear power plants in the United States get into trouble in far shorter than their lifetimes.” says Dave Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We’ve also had some nuclear power plants running longer than 40 years. So it’s not what the calendar says; it’s how well you maintain the plant and ensure that safety measures are maintained, whether it’s one year or 41 years.” Jon Koomey, a research fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford, and author of the book “Cold Cash, Cool Climate” says it’s important to recognize that all energy technologies have risks. “We need to figure out a way to innovate not just in technology but also in our institutional structures, in our incentives, in the ways that we encourage people to report problems,” Koomey says. “And if we don’t do institutional innovation as well as technological innovation, then we’re not going to be able to count on many of these technologies that we would like to count on to reduce climate risks.” Dave Lochbaum, Director, Nuclear Safety Project, Union of Concerned Scientists Jon Koomey, Research Fellow, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, Stanford University Per Peterson, Member, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future; Professor of Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley This program was recorded in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California on April 3, 2014. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices