Bulletin 5 of the Atomic Scientists · Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT Interview Jerry Brown: Climate change policy in CaliforniaÑand beyond Abstract

Bulletinof theAtomicScientists

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

fi

Interview

Jerry Brown: Climate changepolicy in California Ñandbeyond

AbstractIn this interview, California Gov. Jerry Brown talks with the BulletinÕs John Mecklin on the economics ofcontrolling greenhouse gas emissions, the difficulty of gaining Republican support for climate changeaction, the role of religious leaders in changing public opinion on global warming, the climate change impli-cations of CaliforniaÕs high-speed rail project, and the possibility that the climate could be a major issue in the2016 elections. The interview is part of a Bulletin special issue on CaliforniaÕs many-faceted policy approach toclimate change.

KeywordsCalifornia, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, high-speed rail, Jerry Brown

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists2014, Vol. 70(5) 1–7

! The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0096340214546824

http://thebulletin.sagepub.com

by John Mecklin on January 21, 2016bos.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jerry Brown is in his third term asgovernor of California and widelyviewed as a prohibitive favorite to

win a fourth in November. HeÕs alsobeen the California secretary of state,the state attorney general, chairman ofthe state Democratic Party, and mayorof Oakland. ThatÕs not to mention a runfor the Democratic nomination forpresident in 1992, or BrownÕs father,also a multiterm California governor.ItÕs an understatement to call Brown along-term political force in the state,and heÕs been an advocate for innovativeenvironmental initiativesÑincludingmany that influenced national pol-icyÑsince the 1970s.

As a way of introducing this specialissue on CaliforniaÕs approach to dealingwith climate change, Bulletin editor JohnMecklin asked Brown about the eco-nomics of controlling greenhouse gasemissions, the difficulty of gainingRepublican support for climate changeaction, the role of religious leaders inchanging public opinion on global warm-ing, the climate change implications ofCaliforniaÕs high-speed rail project, andthe possibility that the climate could bea major issue in the 2016 elections.The governorÕs answersÑdetailed, oftenerudite, sometimes quite lengthy, occa-sionally abruptÑmake it clear thatCaliforniaÕs innovative, many-facetedapproach to dealing with climate changeis meant to have impact far beyond thestateÕs border.

BAS: WeÕre running a special issueon CaliforniaÕs approach to climatechange, and so IÕll start off with the firstand obvious question: California is wayahead in a lot of ways. But a lot of peoplewonder: IsnÕt the state putting itself at aneconomic disadvantage by being so

early, so aggressive on climate change?I mean, if you ask TexasÑ

Brown: Is there some particular areaof the economy that you think mightbe affected?

BAS: I mean, in general; the level ofregulation. You know, in general; letÕssay power producers that have to havea certain percentage of alternatives intheir mix that in some other states theymight not have to.

Brown: Well, California startedencouraging renewable energy, as wellas building and appliance energy effi-ciency. The State Energy Commissionbegan when I was governor in 1975 andfinally . . . adopted tight building stand-ards I think in 1983. And they crankedthose down in the sense of making therules more demanding over the lastthree decades, so that California build-ings are much more efficient than build-ings generally made in the rest ofthe United States or, for that matter,most places in the world. So Californiahas been leading the pack for a long,long time.

Now, in terms of our 33 percent renew-able energy [standard], thatÕs some-thing that started with [former Gov.Arnold] Schwarzenegger; IÕve continuedit. WeÕll certainly go beyond that one-third as we attain it, which shouldhappen in the next few years, and wehave a very integrated program of regu-lation, cap and trade, building efficiency,and sophisticated integration of our[electric] grid. And weÕre working withNevada and other states to broaden ourelectrical base power load . . .

So yes, this comes at a cost, but ofcourse climate change is also a cost,and we feel that this is the right path.And of course we cannot just soldier on

2 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 70(5)


http://bos.sagepub.com/

alone; we need the rest of the world tocome along with us, and thatÕs why Isigned the MOU [memorandum of under-standing] with China, with Oregon andWashington and British Columbia, andIÕm going to Mexico in a month.

So my strategy is to keep California inthe forefront but do everything humanlypossible to bring other states and othernations into alignment with what properclimate change policy requires.

BAS: Can California have an effect onCongress somehow, though?

Brown: Well eventually, eventually.Right now thereÕs only a handful ofRepublicans at most who can even utterthe words Òclimate changeÓ in anythingbut negative terms. TheyÕre all under ser-ious discipline to keep mum on climatechange or to attack it. Now, I donÕt thinkthat can withstand the scientific evi-dence as it rolls out over the next fiveto 10 years. So the Republicans willfold, just as they will on evolutionand other topics that can only be resistedby a rather small fraction of the Ameri-can public.

BAS: There is a brand of CaliforniaRepublican. You know, GovernorSchwarzenegger was enthusiastic aboutgreen initiatives and climate change. Isthere any way to enlist those relativelyfew Republicans to help?

Brown: Well, I think in general theRepublicans are under orders, and Isay that not lightly. They will behounded and harassed and even polit-ically opposed at the next election ifthey dare to take climate science ser-iously, so theyÕre in the clutch of theHeartland InstituteÕs course of denial.What it will take to dislodge most ofthose Republicans, either by replacingthem with other candidates or by their

changing their mindsÑhard to say.But I would suspect that the politicalclimate surrounding climate changewill continue to evolve, and certainlywithin the next five to 10 years Amer-ica will be in a much stronger positionthan it is today.

BAS: I just bring this up becauseI know you were once a Jesuit seminar-ian. Recently the Pope has come outsupporting action on climate change. Isthere any role for religion in turningpublic opinion?

Brown: Certainly religion had a roleto play in the evolution of slavery and thecivil rights movement. ThereÕs a role tobe played by religious leaders in terms ofclimate stewardship, and given the cata-strophic consequences that are cer-tain . . . the urgency is certainly there. Icertainly would expect and hope thatreligious leaders of all backgroundswould bring to bear their message as anapproach to life that is mandatoryÑcer-tainly in the message of Christianity,Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, great reli-gions are premised not on destructionor just, you know, trashing the creation,but rather in preserving and respectingnature and the living systems that weÕre apart of.

So I also think that religions have amore holistic view and therefore aremuch more likely to see the error of pit-ting individual technologies and nationsagainst the environment that sustains allnations and all individuals.

BAS: Interesting. IÕm going to switchback to more earthbound things hereright now with a question about trans-portation. I mean, thatÕs the biggestchunk of greenhouse gases producedin . . .

Brown: Yes.

Interview 3



BAS: . . . California, and I know thestate has an aggressive clean cars pro-gram, and a bunch of other states havesigned on to it. Does this haveÑbyitself, does this have the possibility ofcreating national transportation emis-sions standards, or does Congress haveto jump in here?

Brown: Well, those two statementsare inconsistent. California ultimatelyled the way on vehicle emission stand-ards by using the waiver [from federalstandards] that was first created by Rich-ard Nixon and continues to be used inCalifornia by Republicans and Demo-crats alike.

So, yeah, California has 12 percent ofthe [US vehicle] market, is a trendsetter,and IÕm hoping that our zero-emissionprogram will spread and will ultimatelybe adopted. We just have to persist. Imean, itÕs the Zero-Emission Vehicle,itÕs land use, itÕs the use of other formsof transportation, so that we lower thecarbon footprint. ThatÕs the goal, and Idefinitely think California can have animpact . . . . I think we are [having animpact]. But, you know, is it fast enoughremains a big question.

BAS: In terms of transportation, Iknow that youÕre a big proponent of ahigh-speed rail system. How much ofyour support of that has to do with cli-mate change?

Brown: High-speed rail will carrymillions of passengers, and our goal isto provide a significant part of the elec-tricity from renewable energy, and thatÕscertainly a better carbon alternative thanadding millions more cars that use pet-roleum. And it will also cluster moredense housing and therefore less vehi-cle-dependent housing at each of thestops along the way.

BAS: Is there some quantificationyou can point to, in terms of, ÒOK, webuild a high-speed rail; it will do this interms of greenhouse gas emissions?ÓI assume there is.

Brown: Well, itÕs in the report; itÕswrittenÑthereÕs a huge amount on theenvironmental analysis. ThatÕs all inthere. But between the alternative ofbuilding more roads, more runways,and using more cars and planes, asopposed to an electrified trainÑto theextent that the substitution is made, asit has been made in other countriesÑthatwill be a pro-rata reduction in green-house gases.

BAS: ThereÕs been a lot of criticism,much coming from the Republican Partybased on the Solyndra failure and someother failures, in specific businesses.And I just want to hear you talk aboutwhat the effect of the California climateapproach has been on California busi-ness, particularly the green sector.

Brown: Well, obviously Californiansin geothermal and solar and wind, effi-ciency, the attraction of electriccarsÑitÕs certainly been a positive. Youknow, [the green sector is] still only apart of our larger economy. But so toowas the computer industry, when Hew-lett-Packard first started, Steve Jobs backin 1976; so these things start small. Butgiven the science of climate and whatwe know to be the impacts of CO2buildup, every year that we go furtherdown the path of more heat-trappinggases the more people will be persuadedto make the necessary investments,whether as a consumer or as a manufac-turer or as an investor.

So, if you just look at the arc of historyhere: Given what we know about wherewe areÑthe climate impacts at 395 parts




per million [of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere]Ñas we get to 410 to 420parts per million, there will be moreeffects, and as there is more impact thecase for more green investments willbecome stronger and stronger, so thatto me says California is right.

I mean, when they started the Inter-net, and Xerox PARC was operatingtheir research center in Palo Alto, noone could envision Google or Apple or,you know, Oracle, and all these thingsthat happened. So thereÕs no questionthat, far more than communication, weneed an energy system thatÕs compatiblewith human civilization as we know it,and itÕs just a matter of time before thatbecomes the absolute majority senti-ment. WeÕre not there yet, but unlessall these climate scientists got it wrongitÕs going to become clearer and clearerthat we both have to mitigate and adapt.And in that respect, California is inthe forefront.

BAS: I guess at this point IÕd just liketo hear you talk about your view andyour vision on solar energy. Where doyou think thatÕs going in California;you know, big centralized installationsor justÑ

Brown: Well, your scientists willhave a better handle thanÑIÕm an electedofficial, so I very much look to technol-ogy professionals, scientists, investors,you know, companies to lay out whatÕspossible [in order] to exceed our currentrenewable energy standards, includingsolar. I laid out 20,000 megawatts ofrenewable energy in my 2010 campaign,and we thought weÑyou know, I laid outsome numbers of megawatts in both thedecentralized portable, and then themore base-power solar. As you know,California has set a rule telling the

[investor-owned utility] community tocome up with 1,200 megawatts of storage,so when we get that and our grid integra-tion, IÕd sayÑand I wouldnÕt limit it tosolarÑbut solar has a very bright futurein California and the whole southwest, ifnot, you know, the rest of the world.

BAS: What about nuclear power?I mean, thereÕs been sort of a war inthe environmental community aboutnuclear power versus . . .

Brown: IÕd say nuclear is not on thefront burner but certainly as a base-loadpower, and I think people will have totake a very hard look at that, particularlyif technology can make it, you know,more efficient, more reliable goingforward.

BAS: So youÕre not firmly againstÑyouÕre not an anti-nuker, necessarily.

Brown: No, IÕm a pro-greenhouse-gas-reduction person. We have toreduce our climate change, and anythingthat can workÑyou know, is efficientand compatible with our way of life andgovernmentÑwe definitely have to thinkabout it.

Now, there are issues regardingnuclear theyÕve got to look at, but cer-tainly climate change is a huge andright now an uncontrolled, mountingchallenge. So without anybody minimiz-ing the problems of proliferation or ter-rorist attack or accident or cost ordisposal and storage, you know, I thinkwe have to be open to anything that canget the world off the path to destructionthat weÕre now on.

BAS: In addition to limiting green-house gases, obviously thereÕs going toneed to be adaptation, and I know Cali-fornia has begun a program to adapt tothe climate change thatÕs already bakedinto the system. What is California going

Interview 5



to do about water, and does that have anylessons for the rest of the country?

Brown: Well, certainly weÕre dealingwith a drought now. WeÕre going to makeour water system as efficient as possible.We have a whole program, a whole statewater plan on recycling and conserva-tion, on water management and storage,on water transfers. We have lots to do,and weÕre in the beginning stages, butas far as adapting to climate, respectingour . . . low-lying facilities, I mean, weÕrenotÑweÕre in the discussion stage.

BAS: A lot of people have noticedthat thereÕs a disinformation campaignunderway, a program to sow doubtabout the reality of climate change.

Brown: Right.BAS: And it hasnÕt been as successful

in California as it has been in the rest ofthe country. But do public officials likeyou have some duty or some role to playin terms of countering that kind of disin-formation? Or is your job just to dowhatÕs good for California?

Brown: No, we understand weÕre onepercent of the greenhouse gas problem inthe world; one percent. Whatever we do,in and of itself, does not have any signifi-cant impact, so what we have to do isbuild allies and help get countries likeChina and India, Brazil, on board for ser-ious action on climate change. CertainlyPresident Obama, with restricting coal[power plant emissions], can take agiant leap forward. I would just have tosay that, given the magnitude of the shiftrequired, that weÕre at the very earlystage of doing what is needed. I mean,the odds are not favorable toward ourfuture until or unless we can change alot of minds and get some very concretesteps [taken] by powerful forces.

BAS: Speaking of powerful forces,this isnÕt per se under your direct control,

but, you know, CalPERS [the CaliforniaPublic Employees Retirement System]and the teachersÕ retirement fund, theycontrol a lot of investment money.

Brown: Right.BAS: Are you in favor of them using

that in climate change-related matters, Imean, divesting from fossil fuels? Invest-ing in alternative energy?

Brown: Well, the only problem withthat is, with fossil fuelsÑIÕm right now ina car, and IÕm looking at a lot of other carson the road. And I donÕt see too manyelectric cars. And even the cars that areelectric have a lot of fossil fuel product inthem. So oil is part of our future, so isour past; and what is needed is tomake the investments for the transition.ThatÕsÑand weÕve got a long way to go toget that process at the beginning stages.

BAS: How about this? YouÕve been sogood to talk to me for so long, IÕm goingto make this a final question. ItÕll throwyou . . .

Brown: Okay.BAS: . . . into the national mix.

Should Democrats make climate changea really major issue in 2016?

Brown: Well, thatÕsÑlook, climatechange is a major issue. The only ques-tion is: Can the political process absorbor entertain the truth about climatechange? In some places that seems verydifficult, very difficult. So I think weÕvegot to take whateverÑgo as far as we canas quickly as we can in the necessaryeducation and in the discussion and thedebate about how best to realign human-ity with the natural systems on whichhumanity depends. So as far as a majorissue in politics, as kind of a side effect tothe enterprise, itÕs a matter of strategicmessaging between competing candi-dates. And I would hope thatÑand Iwould urge that climate change be part




of the civic dialogue of America and ofthe world. I canÕt speak to every forumfrom Alabama to Alaska as to how orwhen and what individual candidatescan say about renewables or buildingefficiency or reduced impact in transpor-tation. All those are very importantissues, and IÕve got to focus here in Cali-fornia on doing what I can to make ourclear policies work.

BAS: Well, I really appreciate youtalking about this at such length, gov-ernor. I know I said the last questionwas the last question, but hereÕs a reallast question.

Brown: Okay.BAS: I run into climate-change den-

iers all the time. You know, even peoplewho are friends who I think are reason-ably intelligent, and they just think itÕs aliberal conspiracy. How do you changethat? How do you get people out of thatthinking?

Brown: You knowÑI donÕt know.Eventually the facts should win out, butnot always. Opinions are not necessarilygrounded in truth. People have their ownsubjective experience that shapes their

perceptions, and itÕs true, there are mil-lions of people who firmly believe thatthere is no such thing as climatechange. And there are hundreds of mil-lions of others who are not even thinkingabout it. And then there are companiesand individuals and propaganda organsthat have a specific interest, either finan-cial or doctrinal, in delaying as long aspossible the governmental measuresneeded to reduce our carbon footprinton Earth.

So this is one of the tragedies of ourtime, that very sincere people and verypowerful people and very rich people areconvinced that the scientists for theintergovernmental panel [on climatechange] and others are engaged in ameretricious effort to feather their nestand fool people.

So you have the people whoÑthereare some that are manipulating it fortheir profit, and it just takes morepeople of goodwill to do what they can,whoever they are, in an attempt to turn itaround before itÕs too late. And itÕs cer-tainly an open question as to how thatmight unfold.

Interview 7


Documents

Bulletin 5 of the Atomic Scientists · Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT Interview Jerry Brown: Climate change policy in CaliforniaÑand beyond Abstract