The program is about an hour. Was it a chicken in a and that a type of thing . It starts with an interest to look back at the 1970s and arriving at the Environmental Movement what were these successes and accomplishments of that era of Environmental Activism . And what were some of the limitations and constraints . And the backlash against it within the country in terms of clash between liberals and conservatives i thought it was the right story to be told. Host when you look at what is happening currently in congress or out of the Obama Administration what lessons do you think the story of paul erlich and julian simon hold for this generation in today . Fiftyseven. Guest there are one number that may be i should say that first. Paul erlich author of the books the population bomb in 1968 that famously predicted we were in danger of global famine and ecological disaster and warfare and then to question then is that human ingenuity and creativity in markets would allow us to avert these bets and more people bringing more mines to bear but in 1980 dave made a bet whether the prices would go up or down and it was a proxy for those two visions of the future whether population growth would bring new disaster or humans could adapt. What makes it interesting for me is the environmental background part of what makes it interesting is what are the lessons of the bat . In the relationships between environmental change are not that simple. And that they are adaptable for changing circumstances. Rising prices for instance and Energy Resources dont necessarily lead to our running out of oil but to the different kinds of adjustments or fuels or exploration, a conservation measures that is one important issue for the adaptability of people and to understand at this juncture between the environmental changes happening that scientists like paul erlich had documented and Human Welfare they are related but not not, just moving in lockstep. That is one set of conclusions and a second important point is what has become over the last few decades since it was resolved, the current debates over Climate Change sort of traveling that was established by the previous debates by population growth and resource scarcity you can only understand the gulf that exists between environmentalists and conservative critics if you go back to attend to the earlier battles over population growth and scarcity. Host but to go back to the bet it was the wrong bet to make because the prices of these metals really did not do anything to solve the divide between paul erlich and did julian simon they view the world and measure progress and changes in very different ways. If they were going to do the bet again, reducing there would be any kind of measure that would at least respecting each others opinion . They are so far apart. Host from the bet itself how misleading it was. They chose chromium, copper chromium, copper, tin, nickel and tungsten metals a better very important in our economy if the prices would go up or down and then a hundred Million People were added to the World Population and whether the population grows would lead to price increases because of more demand on the resources. One of the lessons of the bet these simplistic measures dont count for the broader changes within the economy or the environment. Then there is another complicated aspect that many people who like to talk about the bet dont take into account that julian simon really did get lucky with the dates that they chose and when the economist have run the numbers over the last century, they found that paul erlich would have won more than he would have lost. So taking this one example from the that that they made does not really proved that prices will always go down. Host reminds me if you bet on oil prices. Weeks before as the president talks about expanding offshore drilling then you have a major disaster to throw off any kind of wager they would have on commodities. Guest that is the lesson or one of the important things to understand that how the markets work for commodities and resources so during the 1980s there are economic factors relating to oil prices and Economic Growth and a slowdown and every day market factors like the growth sam production of tin the International Tin agreement in danger than that cartel agreement fell apart prices also collapsed or new substitutions for copper like fiberoptic cables, satellites, this then led in addition to increased production that responded to the higher prices leading to copper prices going down. Host isnt there a better way to measure . You get into this in the book but explain to the audience that they try to strike a better measure of the point that they try to make. So to comment, if there was the ideal that to be had between paul erlich and julian simon what would it have been . In 1995 after simon won the bet in 1990 it was very proud that and went out to california and wrote the hotbed for the San Francisco chronicle rubbing paul erlich knows declaring that all indicators were Getting Better challenging him to another but then paul erlich and his colleagues schneider who has passed away recently. Came up with some other metrics that i be better on to prove that it was wrong so they chose 15 different metrics in concentration of carbon dioxide, the states of the ozone there and a variety of environmental indicators we thought would get worse over a period of time. And simon refused to take the bet to say these indicators what do they show . Just that the world is changing and it doesnt necessarily mean that humans are going to suffer. And so to adapt to the changing planet what needs to be measured is human Life Expectancy rather than the size of the ozone hole or measures in cancer rates if people were adapting. That really captures the gap between the two ways to look to these problems because simon was focused on human wife will fare in paul erlich the environmental and the two ways to establish between the two because both assertions could be true. The ozone layer could be diminishing at the same time we might have come up with various ways to adapt to prevent skin cancer rates from going up. There were unable to agree on a metric with their inability to have a conversation with each other in which they talk about the same terms to find a mutual agreement. What would be a better measure . You have to figure on how to first aside the one to measure environmental changes or the welfare of Human Society . Those can be related. Host some of the things that keep coming up here in washington is obviously you hear all lot what the simons of the world say in presentday epa regulations will kill jobs, this will be horrendous for the economy and the response by the administration is if you look at all the things hed done with air pollution, i gdp has steadily gone up even as we curved air pollution. With simon have said i agree with that . What is the response for the counter argument . Said is used over and over again that gdp has gone up as we work on our Environmental Issues. Guest simon died 1988 id want to put words in his mouth but the other is counterfactual what would gdp be if those regulations were in place . Those assertions are not very well substantiated coming back to the 1970s part of that has to do with the point simon made of human adaptability not only adapting to changing environments but regulatory scheme so the assertion that the change of the regulatory structure leading to cascading disasters and growth that assumes that people cannot adapt that runs counter to the evidence of the last 40 years. Host i will not say this eloquently but i will do my best that. Host was concerned reaching are limits that population would reach a level to have their but then it seems that seidman said as you get closer to the limit, the people get smart that extend the limit out farther. There are so many examples of that. And natural gas and hydraulic fracturing now talking about exporting natural gas because we have so much of it. But i guess from a policy standpoint i guess the question is whether you believe that will always have been a and if the yardstick will keep moving basically . And weighing you have to say do we really want to risk this to pushing for word . Guest those are exactly the questions he should be asking and the implications for the current debate about climate and Energy Development but one of which is we cannot assume just because we have success in the past we will house success in the future because we could adapt to a growing population does that mean it is not a problem they are very Different Things Climate Change is not population growth that is a more diffuse occurrence that leads to ramifications from society. Host then there is a huge gap there. That is the assumption as well. Guest with the dangers of population growth it is more than the ability to adapt and adjust as simon argue but Climate Change is a much different question and it involves a very specific phenomenon to put more gas into the atmosphere that has consequences for the planet and science has documented this is happening and people caused this to happen in is and it is quite different in this gets to his own argument that he made the claim problems led people to lew devise solutions that will leave Society Better off but one of the unnecessary things that has to happen for problemsolving to occur is a willingness to recognize it exist that is a problem with todays climate that many people are unwilling to accept the existence of the problem. So going against the very idea is of people that were advocating we should apply the ingenuity to adapt and adjust to the planet around us but if we dont recognize that we cannot apply our ideas are innovations. Host you mentioned in the rat that is great around the issue but paul erlich is still living but who are they of today . You mention en out for but even in al gore seems to not have been out there as he has in the past. Is there a contemporary counterpart tod3 is there a contemporary counterpart today representing their respective arguments . Guest with specific people . Host i thought of he and sen on the paul erlich side as a scientist with this portion of the book that paul erlich says you need to call people out. Guest . Host. Guest does take on some of his role as the process but he does differ and has made assertions i guess the paul erlich of todays says the nation will collapse in billions of people are about to die a and this is imminent and to house civilization will adapt a and change but on the other side one of the more prominent people like that but hansel and i think has come out in favor of Nuclear Power with various adaptations people should take to adjust to the climate problem. Host manchin at the outset the initial interest was of the 70s i am a child of the 70s. [laughter] will space get the Environmental Movement of today and the big battle going on keystone excel is way up there in terms of the line being set in the sand sand, what difference is or similarities do you see from the 70s . There is a passage in the book that is mindboggling amount thursday and that epa is almost unanimously in we cannot get people to talk about light bulbs . With the mandate to tell us what label to play in our house. Where do you put the health of the Environmental Movement today instead of the heyday of the 1970s . They are quite different in this is a big topic. [laughter] host i know. Guest first the Environmental Movement today is really split between a set of larger more abstract claims of civilization and the Keystone Pipeline is part of the symbolic issue a and the more pragmatic aspects at the local level, the state level with the creation of green businesses and the penetration of Environmental Concern every aspect of our society so on the one hand the country is divided and what to do at the inability National Level to find Common Ground to pass legislation at the same time the country is moving forward were more environmental than ever before. Businesses have embraced the environmental aspects of their brand it to be a strategic advantage. I dont want to misrepresent the movement to just be one thing or climate that is just one component or the struggle related to Environmental Issues that is 1. Dive with make the secondary point with all the other activities the successor the movement the way it has penetrated to so many different aspects of society. Host talk about keystone with my private previous question the of their name was mcfadyen leading the charge on keystone and do sees similarities there of paul erlich . They have different backgrounds but are there any . Guest there are similarities. Concerned about population and of very strong concern of mckibben man speaks eloquently about, the end of nature was his first book of the transformation of civilization so in that aspect he is a modern day paul erlich type of person that there is one difference that i admire about teethirteen mckibben the way he shifts the conversation to be about how were values about the future and what we care about a and the idea to build a Climate Movement that is more of a Cultural Movement and social priorities. That is the conclusion of this book for me to move away fat biology tells us what to do or what to economics tells us what to do or rather we need to learn then figure out how to weigh the risks and uncertainties and the kind of world we want to live in. That is to the conclusion that people like mckibben can shift to to be about our values and choices i think the Environmental Movement will be on a Stronger Foundation that is why i wrote the book can but i hope for is to establish a Stronger Foundation for these issues. Host you make the point and it is interesting that all the data in the world on the biology side as we have seen currently currently, people dont believe that but despite numerous bodies saying this is happening will convince those people to get out of their rut. But i go another step forward that science doesnt tell us what to do. It tells us what we think will happen one of the implications of simons line of argument years as a voice changing and societies can adapt and change in many ways. And if you take that it leaves with the question, even if we can is this the kind of world we want to live and . Said drought, a Sea Level Rise they are in danger by the team tuesday and we do have a choice. It is the fundamental question that we face today. If we look at the inability of paul erlich and julian simon with the second that they dont bring these two ideas together to make them whole. That ultimately is around the question of social values and joyce joyce. Host is anybody bridging that gap as the observer of obama and his policies it seems that he is trying to make that case. His rhetoric on climate has not changed and he is talking a little bit about lorals and the responsibility to future generations personal conviction because of his daughters. What really but it will take to get something happening. In to persuade of the nature of Climate Change with growing Economic Opportunities in new businesses wine in new in setting the framework of values is a good way. Host i wanted to ask this question so badly where does he sit on the spectrum . Because he doesnt seem in fashion not in either camp but a combination of both in Climate Policy it is about mitigation and reducing emissions. Pushing all of the above strategy on energy or to do Carter Reagan that you do in the book and mold of the two halves together. Added another element of the program is admirable is separation of shortterm from the long term which he has taken on a number of issues but to still be developing we dont know what will work out to explore a many avenues but in the long term to reduce Carbon Emissions through capping trade or a variety of different mechanisms or to regulate power plants to have a longerterm goal in to approach the deficit you have a longterm objective and a shortterm. That is the right way to think about it. At the outset did that. He is widely quoted as they have to skyrocket and it backfired politically. So, how do you kind of get what blood ehrlich have stated like that because it seems that you pull everybody and they want a better planet. They dont want people limiting the planet and then they talk about what you have to do to solve the problem people are going to start dropping like flies and dont want to kind of deal with high gasoline prices, job losses if coal plants have to shut down if they dont fuel those kind of things. Guest this is one of the interesting limitations. I was interested in going back to study the inside of the limitations of the earlier environment and i think one of the limitations of ehrlich and people like him was maybe the unwillingness to recognize there were costs to the actions they were calling for and so he wrote at the end of the population, for instance that if im right then he essentially i will save the planet in all these good things and if im wrong we will still be better off. That is the sense of the word cost. And that is a little misleading and where the competition gets interesting and where i think we want to be moving the conversation about energy and claim it is to the area of the trade off and the priorities short term versus longterm. If we were going to put a carbon tax on that now how big should it be as opposed to later. This is and where a more pragmatic approach to addressing the problem is where its not satisfying to people on either side ideologically but its where i guess the United States has accomplished things in this area. Host that is a perfect segue because one of the things i came away with on the book is how do you get past this and i think everybody listening to the program in washington and beyond who watches how the town has worked and kind of how entrenched the camps are. It offers somewhat of a solution as a value in this different type of conversation but in terms of the practical way. How do you get out of the rut thats been happening now this wasnt happening since the days of carter and ronald reagan. It seems like we are on this mary ground in the same rhetoric that is coming back whenever we talk about the environmental regulation were trying to solve this problem so how do we get off the merry go round and get people out of their camps and start even talking about these things . Guest thats where there are many factors in play and no one is going to solve that problem in washington, but the goal of my book was to try to help both sides to understand each other and to see that there are merits. There were significant in sites on both sides that were worth listening to and to try to that what we needed to do was to have a conversation instead of yelling at each other and that if we try to understand what are the insights, what were ehrlichs in sites that were important for the role of the ecosystem in the economy and our human dependence on nature, the ways in which things are changing and that its being depleted. Economists like simon that people can adapt and regulations can impose a burden. Ive seen a variety of things on both sides that if we can try to understand and have more of a conversation i think that the what perhaps lead people back to the middle ground. I dont want to be too optimistic this is going to happen in the 24 hour news cycle and all the pressures of the political structure but i do think that is a key element of it and so part of it i guess is really both sides in this the side tend to say that its the other ones fault and what im arguing in this book is that the gulf between the two parties has been mutually created over time and we have to find our way back into the conversation. How do you think the popular press covered these runs and this divide . And how can they do a better job . We talk about this all the time as reporters especially when we are talking about Climate Policy where we are trying to be fair and balanced and they arent even speaking the same language at the end of the day. You dont want my job obviously. Guest thats a challenge. Thats a challenge. I dont think that balance necessarily means trust taking both sides at face value particularly related to the science. I do think that its for instance about whether Climate Change is happening and it is time for the press to move on as many of the outlets have done accepting the consensus that the world is changing and the climate is changing and so now we need to move on to the conversation about what we are going to do about that and what that means. So that is the extent the press can move last words in that conversation. The questions and the stories theyre right that is great to be what it is going to be important. That should be the goal. Host moving us back to the Common Ground question for of it. One not sign ins people that he admired is a person that talks about the commodity and obviously capandtrade is a marketbased system. I know he isnt living but does he have a position on that in terms of basically be a price on the pollution . That seems like something that conservatives back in the day would have supported trading of republican idea. I know that people on the hill would say the Waxman Markey bill corrupted the market in ways and that is why they opposed that legislation. But what this line in the kind of see any merits to pricing carbon as a solution to this problem . Guest i think that sign and if he were alive today would have a different view even in the early 90s when he i think was skeptical of the science and the uncertain about the level of alarm that many environmental scientists were expressing. Shall he like some others may have evolved in his attitude towards the science because he was a man focused on the data and interesting in the facts and he might have changed the tebeau say that were the case i cant say whether he would have involved or not, but he might have been quite skeptical of the capandtrade bill as a structure for addressing the cost of carbon. But he like many other economists may have been favorable to the idea of taxation which is where most economists would lead. Attacks on the carbon even with the sort of rebate and the returning of that money to the American People through lower payroll taxes or other types of kind of sending it back. So i think the many economists, the more conservative and liberal see that that is a place to start, which would then lead to the types of adaptation simon advocated on the price signals and people what a just and there would be an evolution in the economy in this direction. Host obviously simon was a proponent of ingenuity and technology, trying to solve these issues. To kind of put that in the present a context, you know, you hear the president speak and talk about we have to kind of be in charge of that technology and the alternative energies like solar and wind and geothermal and getting fuel from algae and you name it. But theyve kind of helped those things along. With that kind of be where they are on that or would he support kind of basically a way to kind of jump start that ingenuity orders that have to be for lack of a better word, organic . Guest he would have been skeptical of the idea of the state driven Investment Strategy that led choose winners as critics of winners and losers. It to the extent he would have been more interested in the funding for basic Scientific Research and that type of support for the government for research that might lead ultimately the new technologies but the specific technology is the kind of thing that he would have support i think that he would have been more in favor of say that he were to increase the idea of social cost of garbage to be incorporated through the carbon tax and then allow the marketplace to work its way out. That would have been the type of position that he would have favored and i think there are many conservatives today that might favor that as well and again this is where the conversation gets interesting because there are important insights on both sides of the question. Certainly going back in time and you can find miniet samples of the poor government investments in technology and there are merits on both sides of the debate and we have to figure out where we want to end up and that is where the conversation gets interesting. Host where is he today . It seems like ive covered things pretty closely. Where is he today and is he still kind of fighting the same fight and curious. Guest he has been consistent in his career and his convictions. He feels the society is on the pastora essentially some kind of collapse of civilization that humans are fundamentally undermined the natural system of support for society we are headed towards the disaster mostly sticking to his guns hes gotten very interested in the idea that there needs to be a kind of cultural evolution to help the society become more sensitive to its own peril i guess is his interest. Host does he equate this disaster that he talks about with Climate Change now . Guest is he thinks that it is the main factor for things like species extinction. Hes been interested in the toxics in the in the environment, but Climate Change i would say is one of the main focuses the increasing populations lead to increased gas emissions and the rising consumption has that kind of affect host is it seen as a population problem or does he have other ideas to resolving it . Guest he believes it is at the heart of it and in the last decade or so, which he has made to assert what would be the optimum population over the world and come up with numbers along the lines of 1. 5 billion people, obviously a very significant reduction of the numbers of people that we have today in terms of what would be eligible, and so i do think he thinks the population is the heart. I dont want to miss characterize. He is a complex figure in recognizing the consumption and a variety of different factors so he does of the basic idea that sheer numbers of people need to the environmental consequences. One of the things that goes back to his original research on butterflies and kind of the growth of the populations of butterflies leading to that a crash of the population and this is the thinking of translation from other types of species to the human population. Sieminski five counter insight was the idea that that is the natural cycle will fall of the populations and humans are no different. We are animals like other animals and this is a sort of fundamental question that i guess people say people are different from other animals pity we have the capacity to adapt in a way that butterflies and other types of things build. Host to of the members of the team are mengin in your book and one is john who is obviously a science adviser. John which i didnt know was to the big part of the book and obviously is very tight with ehrlich. Spending time in colorado together. Obviously, very in the sink from the viewpoint the population is a major problem that had to be addressed. Without going into specific policies, like me talking about the administration my question is are you surprised that he was picked to be part of obamas team and part of his Scientific Advisory people. And do you think that his view has evolved or does he hold that view and talk about as forcefully as his buddy ehrlich thus . Guest i think that both ehrlich and holdren evolves. They talk about the development that the economy had to develop and they came to realize that isnt going to get too many people were much attractions of the abandoned that idea. So with a half the of backed away from some of the predictions about exactly how the population is going to lead to the problems and trying not to talk about the population numbers as much. Its more of a discussion of Climate Change and being the central issue in our time. That is and some ways perhaps an evolution thinking that its more of a political evolution realizing what lessons worked and which ones are less salient. Host the reason i ask the question is to go back a little but obviously because holdren is a man in the administration that he seems to be increasing the not only solving the root causes of the problems when it comes to the climate which is the emissions but also talking about adaptation and the optimal fixes to the problems and it seems that the holdren that was a need out with ehrlich back in the day with and talk about the technological fixes such as solving the root problem which was a population and too much pressure on the planet. Guest this needs to occur more generally which is from the abstract argument about population and resources security to the more pragmatic approach is to figure out how to solve problems. So the evolution that occurs when one moves into the government and the position of the responsibility trying to bring together in the form of sexual policies and programs things that are going to work both politically and practically. So that may be one component of its. This is both an example of evolution and the idea that they think are still significant when he was up for his confirmation hearing. The past predictions and his relationship with ehrlich and still did he believe that clavet changes cui to lead to billions of people dying as a result in the last ten, 12, 15 years to the and he backed away from those specific predictions saying there was less conclusive and a little bit more on certain what was to happen. Host the other person that had a role in Obamas Administration as Larry Summers who is also on the short list. Obviously its mentioned today briefly but on the washington reporter he seems to be on assignments thing and talking about how the model for the projections were kind of bologna. Am i reading the right . Guest they talk about the relationship of Julian Simon Degette when he went for the than other economists in the way that he talked about population growth we have more people that can be living and lives and that was the part of most economists would be willing to go. But his basic critique of the idea of the limits to growth is widely shared in the heart of the economics profession and the human activity, the role of markets to adjust to the problems and i think that there was a lot of criticism going back to the early 70s. Who can focus on the problems for the sulfur dioxide emission and legislation that around that if we are focused on the shopocalypse being declared by the computers making forecasts in the book led to growth. So i think summers fits within that school of thought. And its clearly skeptical of many environmental claims in terms of what they are going to how things are going to play out. But like many other economists like i dont know who the specific policy position but many economists favor the carbon taxes into the cost of doing business so in that sense again a more pragmatic half would be the path that many economists would like to take. Host there were interesting things that drew my attention in the one is that you have two men with very different views of the world but they had a sort of similar upbringing. Talk a little bit about this especially the case of ehrlich how moving to the suburbs which at one point he started getting butterflies and he kind of saw this massive development. Guest the process happening after world war i and world war ii and people moving out to the suburbs coming to be closer to nature, and so he would wander the fields around meter would and he can to be fascinated by butterflies and by aquariums triet host you said that they had bedrooms like smithsonians. Guest he was an eagle scout interested in nature but what happened with someone like ehrlich is a fascinating story of suburban people closer to nature but also threaten the very nature that they were becoming close to. So he was seeing his of the divisions go up where he was with us bringing the ddt to control mosquitoes and seeing this endanger the nature he was becoming passionate about for him and for many others including john hart, but his friends who was a third member that joining, that ehrlich made with simon and seeing what was happening in the movement and the was a part of the foundation of the environmental ideas. The passion for the environment. Host my thesis on the radical Environmental Movement in general and a lot of the people are involved in that, the kind of lock yourself on to things Movement Come from so were suburbia which is fascinating. The other thing that was interesting is you mentioned that he suffered from depression. Yet in this book, he is the optimist cut he is the glass is half full kind of guy. Ehrlich is the glass is half empty kind of guy. Suffering for 14 years or something and we are going to get out of this. Guest one is whether it is hard to probe the psychology of someone like simon from his past to what extent that his euphoric attitude towards the idea things were Getting Better to come of his own determination to see the world was better. Overcoming depression and things working so bad. So there may have been a link in terms of the passion that he brought to his euphoria. He would actually say that he is an optimistic person. And the reason why is because he believes that there is still hope and the whole reason why he is so passionate and has devoted his life to try to inform and to educate and mobilize people they think that there is still time to change. And that is true. Hes very pessimistic about the direction that we are going in but to still hold out hope that it can change. Host does he have a new deadline . Guest there were a series of deadlines when there would be Different Things and i think that he would push them back several decades but the idea that there is going to be one of a variety of things is going to happen with Worldwide Disease outbreaks and plebes and warfare and the collapse of ecosystems. Post we talk about Climate Change which is a kind of building issue where there is an accumulation of the atmosphere and it takes a long, long time frame. But ehrlich has always thought i was going to be sudden and would have been like big to be the guest that is the language of the biologist who studies the eruption of the population and then it is going to crash. They often talk about the crash part of that cycle. So he did about the human population as well. I mean, i think the idea of the Nuclear Warfare or the massive disease outbreak and more of the sudden response to overpopulation that he predicted, i think that it would say that on Climate Change he would focus on the idea of a Tipping Point that there is we did the moment things will spiral out of control. I guess that is the point i want to make about the idea. They made a little bit that we are now also involved in this larger bet about our own future and that is an important point i want to emphasize about this is that there are multiple bets in my book and one of them we dont know what is great to happen when there are a lot of risks and associated with it. Host we all gambling and we dont agree to happen. Guest we are gambling on the future of the planet. Host it was a wonderful read and i think that it would form to the car in for anybody about what would happen on these issues. Guest it was great talking with you. That was after words, book tv Signature Program and which authors of the latest lot of Fiction Books are interviewed by journalists, Public Policy makers and others familiar with their material. After words ayers said book tv 10 p. M. On saturday, 12 p. M. And 9 p. M. On sunday and 12 a. M. On monday. You can also watch after words online go to booktv. Org and click on the series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. Here is a look at upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.