>> doesn't matter what california does about curbing global warming. what if it only matters what china does? coming up, we'll talk to one of the most provocative figures in climate science today in a climate watch conversation. good evening. i'm valerie coleman-norris, in for belva davis. welcome to "this week in northern california." joining me are will reisman, tom vacar and marisa lagos, political writer for "the san francisco chronicle." you know, marisa, the state budget being passed, some people saying, my goodness. >> and on time. >> and on time. but were there still sticking points? the governor and the legislature weren't necessarily walking step by step. >> no, and this is, you know, the big sort of appropriations bill was passed today. we still have about 20 trailer bills that are going to need to be taken up. and the big sticking points that the governor and the legislator have been negotiating throughout this week really haven't been resolved. as late as friday, the governor's office was saying, we're not there yet. the biggest issue is cal works, there's question, the governor really wants to cut it by almost a billion dollars. and he would like to see the sort of grant levels be reduced. the amount of time people can stay on this program. democrats are saying no way. this is, after years of cuts and we don't want to leave people homeless. we saw $92 billion spending plan passed on friday. there's $8 billion in cuts. they are depending a lot on the governor's tax increases, which will be on the november ballot. it's not an easy budget. we're talking about deep cuts to child care, to things like the state's courtrooms, which have already seen, again, years of cuts. cal grants, which is the student aid program, if you go to a for profit of private university and you start in a year from now, you are going to see much smaller grant levels. >> when we think about the $8 billion in cuts this year, but collective, so much more than that. >> oh, yeah. this has been five, six years of just, you know, smaller and smaller. a few years ago, the legislative analyst office predicted by this point, we'd have $130 billion budget. we're down to $92 billion. you have to assume every year, thegrowing if anything happens or not. so, this is definitely a painful place. it's not a place the democrats -- happy to have it done on time, not so happy to have it done the way it was. >> a lot of up there are saying, they did this so they would. lose their pay. >> i don't think that's entirely fair. i do think because the legislature now has a simple majority requirement to pass the budget, they are able to do this. we've seen them drag this out into the summer and fall, and that was because they were trying to get one or two republican minority members to sign on, for whatever they were holding them hostage for. of course, they want to get paid. but i think more so, the legislature is very conscious about how terrible their approval ratings are and how much they need the public to feel things are functional up there. >> a good point that you make, tom, because people said, oh, that was convenient, it satisfied their need. but talk about the process, because, we're not there yet. >> no, and, i mean, so, like every -- the governor comes out in january and presents a budget. but we don't really know what he's looking at until may. they only have a month from may until now. what they did in the past month, and really through the year, meeting after meeting, hearing after hearing, but the nitty-gritty details got handled behind closed doors. let's not forget, they don't need the republicans now, they have the majority. we saw republicans sort of boycott a budget meeting this week. a lot of criticism this is a closed door, sort of no sunshine deal. i don't, you know, this was happening when schwarzenegger was governor, too. there was two republicans in the m radio, not just the three democr democrats. it's going to be interesting to see how the minority party deals with this. >> and what are people saying? i mean, where is the sentiment with regard to that? is there going to be cooperation? >> i don't think in that realm, i mean, what people are saying, what we are hearing mostly is the sort of criticism from the people who depend on these services. we've seen rallies, protests all the capital, home care folks, welfare, students, and those concerns aren't going to go away. if voters turn down these tax increases, there's trigger cuts that would take $5.5 billion from k through 12 schools and $500 million from higher education, so, there's certainly hope that voters feel that pain and want to keep the numbers up. >> if you had to give a bottom line, what should people take away from this, yes, it was approved on time, quote on quote -- >> ten hours early. it's not over yet. we won't know exactly what this all looks like until july 1. >> we know what a lot of things look like, often times, because of the conversations among our reporters. will, for example, there's been so much news this week about transportation, bay area mass transit. let's start with the thing that stopped people in their tracks yesterday, because of b.a.r.t. >> yeah, at about 2:15, early thursday morning, there was a major fire at a senior housing center right next to the west oakland b.a.r.t. station. it warped some tracks. and that's the station that's the last one you pass through from the east bay to san francisco. they had to shut down their service, stranding hundreds of thousands of commuters. lines, lines of cars for miles and miles, meeting into the bay bridge. lots of people to board buses, ferry service was packed for once. it was -- commuters had few options. either, you kind of sweated it out in line at ac transit and crowded in with people or you tried to make your way through the bay bridge and tons of traffic that was in there. the regional transit agency stepped up as much as they could. ac transit had 20 extra buses they plucked from existing routes they use for trans-bay and the bay ferry system increased service, they carried four times as many people. mtc, which is the trance it agency, they used buses, as well. but there was limited options. >> the thing, though, that i think was quite amazing is, everybody handled it fairly well. >> i mean, i went down and talked to folks at the trans-bay terminal bay in san francisco and they were going in the opposite direction of most people. but lines were moving quickly. ac transit officials were really helpful in telling people what bus to go onto. i think there was -- people were upset but there wasn't this outrage that you might have expected. they were kind of just, you know -- >> well, it seems like this really dhon straits how much we rely on b.a.r.t. you see the lines and assume that so many people are driving, but so many people are relying on b.a.r.t. >> 60,000 people travel through the trans-bay tube. 1 100,000 people on the day. we live at the tip of a peninsula and b.a.r.t. is essential to get people there. >> the other thing that's interesting about it is, you look at the highway system, you take a look at the bus system, you take a look at the train system, you look at b.a.r.t., and these things are all at capacity and proves one thing. if you don't have robust, really robust, overcapable transit, what happens is, any one thing goes wrong, everything falls. and, don't you think at some point in time people are going to start making the connection that if we don't pay for this robustness, every time something like this happens, we're likely to end up in the same scenario, which damages the economy, no question about it. >> one of the things is, when you talk about transit agencies and their budgets, preventative maintenance and kind of core system funding, that's not very sexy. people don't want to talk about putting money into making sure the trains are, you know, serviced regularly. there's a lot of talk about making extension projects and kind of the flashy things. but really, it's hard to get people to realize, if these systems aren't funded properly, they break down, the options are scary. >> well, one of the options that people immediately thought about was, get in the car, get into that line, get ready to cross the bridge. and that brings us to the bridge. and the controversy, t"the sacramento bee" story. they're not going to retract this story. let's talk about that. >> there's been duel stories, really, going around. today, the cal trans they are calling it a once in a lifetime webinar, i don't know if you -- i don't know if it gets the people too excited about hearing webinar, but they basically, in detailed description, went over all their testing for the foundation of the suspension span on the bay bridge, that "sacramento bee" reported inspector back in 2007, falsified reports, said the concrete was set when it went, this is what "sacramento bee" is alleging, and there is data gaps and some other questions about the reporting. and the bay bridge has been adamant, they are furious. they want "sacramento bee" to retract the information. they gave the bullet points or where the accusations are false. and today, "sacramento bee" said we stand by their story. >> they said they have their experts. >> dueling experts. >> exactly. >> what's the bottom line? >> one of the real problems with that is, many of the experts who would like to talk about this and probably more qualified to talk about this, can't talk about this, because they either have ongoing relationship or they don't want to harm a relationship, which is one of the big hander outers of contracts. >> and it's a small pool, too. there's not a lot of people that can talk. >> it really becomes, for all the stories that i've done, there's a real problem here with just openness. it's not anybody's specific fault. people are afraid their livelihoods will be endangered if we sit out, lay the cards on the table. the cards are going to be laid out on the table anyhow. after all of this stuff gets churned and mashed through, we are going to know what the true story, and it seems to be this thing will be okay anyhow. >> it has been a busy week, indeed. the central subway. construction started this week. but controversy over it has been going on for a very long time. >> yeah, there's two pretty stark parties when it comes to the central subway. those that want it and those that think it's essential. the construction started today and, this week, and it's going to be the tunnel that starts this 1.7 mile extension of metro service. one of the big question marks about this project is, $942 million grant application that has been submitted to the mta, the agency that runs it to the federal government, they were supposed to hear back from this huge grant that accounts for 60% of the project cost, they are supposed to hear back in december, february, now we hear june and there's still been no word when the money is going to release and the city is investing all this money, they are ripping up, but we don't know if it's going to get funded yet. >> it's one of those, show me the money, but the federal government hasn't shown it yet. >> the city has to show they are making progress, that reassures the feds that we're making progress. but like, the feds are like, okay, you are making progress, but we still haven't given you the money yet. >> is there concern that the presidential election could affect this? do they think that a different administration might not be as friendly as to -- >> oh, i'm sure -- right now, the fact that the house is controlled by republicans who don't want to invest heavily in this project, that is already a bit of concern for local officials. i think a new administration, one that would -- a new administration that doesn't want to spend a lot of money, small government era, would definitely concern them. for the first time, "the bay citizen" put a report out today about e-mails that were accessed through public records requests and showcased local planners who were concerned that this money wasn't going to come through. really the first time you saw local officials were uneasy about this. >> right. it is an uneasy time for a lot of reasons, but another reason it's been such an uneasy time is, it's fire season. >> it sure is. >> there are, what, 19 major fires burning now across the country? we're concerned about fire season right here. >> we are, in fact, i was, last week, talking to a guy by the name of bob villet, he is a tanker pilot and he's been doing these tanker piloting of the fire retardants for 38 years. he knows what california looks like when it is wet, kind of wet, when it is dry. and he told me last week, in 38 years, i have never seen california as dry as it is right now. that's a big statement. we've already had in california, twice as many wild fires as we had last year. in fact, the noaa, have basically said that one-fifth of the united states right now is either in extreme or severe drought situation. the south bay, for example, has received 50% of its normal rainfall, the peninsula, 65%, oakland, which is right there on the bay, 72%, so -- what we have is this scenario set up for a really bad fire season and, of course, this weekend, we will have a red flag warning. at least in the north bay, if not in other parts, so there could be real problems. >> now, tom, predicting fire season and how it's going to go, there are some factors that we need to remember. we haven't had a lot of rain. >> right. >> winds are a factor. >> big factor and especially when you have winds that are going offshore, when the hot winds, when it gets so holt in the interior, it blows the winds, it fans the flames and makes the fires even worse. >> and it might sound really basic, but a lot of times people forget what causes fires. it's not necessarily someone who has been malicious. it can be basic things like using equipment, creating a spark. >> sure, yeah. and the overwhelming majority of fires are caused by lightning. >> right. >> so, you know, and we have this other problem in california, which is true in a lot of states now and that is this, what we call the urban wild land interfashion, where we build houses right into the fore forest. and wed allow, i tell you, look at marine county. you look at sausalito, mill valley, and they are the urban forest, because the forest has grown up around them after they built the houses, and the oakland hills was a perfectly good example of how the urban forest can become a very dangerous thing. so, we have to be very, very careful. one point, i was talking to a guy that directs the tankers, and he said, when we tell people how dangerous things are, this is red flag, be careful, most people are careful. it's on those days when it isn't all that threatening, that people pay less attention to that. when they pay less attention, that's when we get the big fires. >> last year's huge amount of snow isn't helping? >> well, the problem was, we had huge you a mounts of snow, but so little rain for so long, the plants have gotten dried out. we've been in a really dry scenario. we said, the amount of rain that came in. so, now, what you have, in places, you have a lot of, not a lot of growth, but what you have is a lot of dryness. year after year after year of dry growth, that's the bad scenario. >> people hear the term global warming and sometimes people don't understand that everything that we have been talking about now is part of it. >> well, here's the thing. we're about, in the last 100 years, we are about one degree higher than we were 100 years ago. what difference does that make, when it can sometimes be 65 degrees or 105? a consistent one degree elevation in temperature is bad news for fires, because what it does is, it creates a drier environment and sometimes less humid environment. and that results in these big fires. what's really interesting is, while we are up about a degree over the last 100 years, three states you would never imagine, new jersey, massachusetts and rhode island, are up about three dee agrees and they have problems now with big fires. >> the good news is that people are listening. and when they get the warning, thankfully, they are listening. you know, there is a lot of uncertainty that remains about the ongoing effects of global warming. the basic premise has finally won over a former skeptic. senior editor craig miller talks with uc-berkeley's richard mueller in a climate watch conversation. >> richard mueller is one of the most talked about figures in climate science. he's a physicist as uc-berkeley and lawrence berkeley national laboratory, who has raised controversy with a sturdy skepticism towards some aspects of global warming, like the link to severe weather. last year, after he led a major independent audit of temperature data, mueller became known as a high profite convert to climate change. but when weapon sat down with him recently, we found mule earl's skepticism still thriving toward much of the science and some of california's plans to tackle global warming. what are you convinced of in terms of what's going on, the big picture with the way the climate may be changing and what might be causing it, that you weren't a couple of years ago? what have you changed your mind about, if anything? >> well, i would like to say that i didn't change my mind, instead, i developed a conclusion that i wasn't sure of before. global warming is real. and over the last 50 years, that's the period when the ipcc says the human component is evident, over that period, it's gone up by about .9 degrees celsius. if you include the oceans, it's more like .6 degrees celsius, but i know believe that land measurement has -- warming has gone up. currently in the process of trying to determine how much of that is caused by humans. but i do agree that the global warming has gone up. >> do you agree with the u.n.'s climate panel that the majority of the warming going on is caused by human activity? >> we haven't yet finished our work on the human component of this. it looks to me like we will be in agreement with that. >> something you do remain skeptical about is what we can do about it. is california's cap and trade program that's forging ahead, doomed to failure? >> certainly california is far too small apart of the global warming problem that anything we do here cannot really help. even set egg ting an example is something we're going to do. if we can develop a industry that lowers the price of solar cells, of wind, that makes nuclear safe, if we can do those things, then that could have a real impact in the future. >> the point here is, and you've written about this, is that california can't safe the world. in terms of cutting emissions. no matter what we do, what matters is what china's doing. >> according to most projections, china will be producing most of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that will cause global warming. people don't like to say that, because they say the chinese has a right to produce as much pollution per person as the u.s. has already. unfortunately, global warming is not caused by pollution per person. it's caused by total pollution, and china, by the end of this year, will be emitting twice the greenhouse gases of the united states. it's growing very rapidly. >> you've calculated, i guess, that even if the entire u.s. reduced all of its greenhouse gas emissions to zero tomorrow, that china would erase that gain in -- >> in four and a half years. what that means is that what the u.s. does is becoming irrelevant, except to the extend that what we do can be followed by china. there's only one solution that has the order of magnitude of chance of working, and that is to get china to switch from its coal, it is building one new gigawatt of coal every week, it's been doing that for six years, have them switch to natural gas. the only way they do that is adopt our method of trafrac kin. that's far, far easier thaun coming up with inexpensive electric cars and solar cells. weapon need to switch china from coal to natural gas. >> you have some interesting views on renewables, the practicality of certain renewables. hydrogen, solar thermal, geo thermal, no future is what you are saying. >> that's right. >> let's start with geo thermal. a lot of money going into trying to tap the natural heat that's coming from the earth's core, percolating up -- >> compare geo thermal to solar. the energy coming from below is 3,000 times smaller than the energy coming from solar. i mean, it's competitive with solar, if you can make it 3,000 times cheaper. if the earth concentrates it as it does in certain volcanic regions, geysers in california is a great place, iceland is a great place, then, that natural concentration makes it cost effective. but geo thermal anywhere, no future. >> and solar thermal. as opposed to the panels that you put on your roof and elsewhere, these big arrays in the desert that use mirrors to concentrate the solar energy to heat up something, no? >> it's been working in california, in spain, elsewhere, only where it's been heavy subsidized. will not work in china, where we really need solar. the reason is, it's basically bricks and mortar. and where is price of solar cells is dropping, the price of big large-scale construction is not. i do not expect it to get cheap enough to be used without subsidies. >> nuclear power is on your list of things you think still do have a future. >> people react to energy catastrophes and too often, this overreaction determines policy. so, for example, the gulf oil spill, from which the gulf seems to have recovered quite well in under a year, is still effecting our policy towards offshore drill i drilling. the accident at fukushima, which is minuscule compared to the depth of the tsunami, is getting far more attention, even in japan than protection against tsunamis. 15,000 people kill ed by the tsunami, probably under 100 excess cancers from the nuclear release. so, people overreact to this. and they see them as icons, as examples. but if you look at them objectively, they should not be determining policy. >> richard mueller, thank you for taking the time. >> you're very welcome. >> for more of craig's conversation with richard, please visit your website at kqed.org/thisweek. thank you very much. i appreciate you being here, conversation always good. i'm valerie coleman morris. belva davis will be here next week to talk about governor pat brown's legacy. good night. funding for climate watch on "this week in northern california" is provided by the