(00:00:00) During this hour. The topic is global warming and we have two speakers for you first governor Madeleine kunin from Vermont. And then dr. Dean abrahamson from the University of Minnesota. They spoke recently at a conference on global warming sponsored by the Humphrey Institute of public affairs. Madeleine kunin is the Democratic governor of Vermont and the chair of various Committees of the national Governors Association on energy the environment and global climate change here to begin is Governor coonan. (00:00:30) What I would like to spend my time with you about is in three areas one is to share with you what the governors of this country have concluded on this subject to some initiatives that we've taken in the state of Vermont that may be helpful to other states and finally three what I believe that we must do in the future and that is to develop a local state and Global strategy of sustainable Economic Development. Element and sustainable Economic Development will Encompass global climate change as part of a larger larger environmental agenda. I believe we are at a particularly critical time in shaping our environmental future both in this country and worldwide because we are at a point where there's been a greater and a heightened height environmental awareness, which is obviously to our benefit and I think Flags real change in thinking but simultaneously we are experiencing economic Jitters and are threatened by a national recession just in your paper this morning. There's an article that says how bad is it looking for signs in the changing economy here in Minnesota and in this region and during such a time of economic uncertainty I fear that there will be a great pressure to either postponed or jettison much of our environmental agenda because of the traditional fear of loss of jobs because of the reluctance and difficulty of making major public Investments to change some of our environmental priorities and the belief that you have to choose that you either have jobs economic growth or a clean and healthy and sustainable environment is such a commonly held belief that we really have a great challenge before us to prove why such a policy of trade-offs would be short-sighted even disastrous not only for the environment but equally so for the economy now, I believe that our best global warming strategy for the 1990s is to pursue a policy of Sustainable Economic Development wonder that does not place the environment and the economy in conflict with one another but rather integrates the to from the start such a policy maintains that conservation of environmental resources is a precondition of long-term economic growth. And this is a particularly useful idea today. I will get back to that in a few minutes, but first a word about the nation's Governors and where we stamp now the national Governors Association doesn't make a lot of headlines, but what is interesting about this Association is that when the governor's do agree and we work very much by consensus. We don't get into hot conflicting issues like the Congress does because I like to say we get a lot more done to that when the governor's do reach consensus it carries some weight. Ashley and can be looked at as a barometer sorts of national changing opinions and a few years ago. When I first became a member of this group, I would say that there was very little agreement on environmental issues such as acid rain related to global warming. In fact, Governor's really had very testy arguments with one another about exactly what position the national Governors association should take on acid rain and it was the world was clearly divided into the energy producing states coal producing states. We read sometimes pollution producing states and energy importing States like Vermont who because the way the winds travel across this continent often are on the receiving end the pollution that we did not produce the fact that a governor from a coal producing. State like Illinois governor Jim Thompson with whom I co-chaired this committee and myself as a governor of Vermont has been battling with he and his neighbor's fact that we could both stand before the president of the United States the smiles on our faces and hand him the report on global climate change. I think indicates that a new level of National Environmental consensus the task force came to the conclusion that is time to stop debating the impacts of global warming and start taking actions. That's probably its most major and most relevant contribution take actions, which are effective cost effective and beneficial regardless because of the pace or extent of change in the White House. They call this the No Regrets policy. I'd like to think it's a little Beyond no regrets, but it's basically that's what it is. Let's not be sorry. We didn't do the things that make a lot of sense. It's to do or is one of Vermont's prize-winning sugar makers told the committee when they held a hearing in Vermont. I inherited this farm for my parents and I'm going to pass it on to my children. I know there are uncertainties, but no scientist as yet told me that pollution is good for my trees. So it's on that fundamental basis that the recommendations were formed One records recommendation was to develop an international agreement to protect the atmosphere and I think you've heard some discussion about that and I won't go into it in any further detail. The figure I have is that the United States is responsible for roughly 20 percent of the global greenhouse effect. So clearly we should take a lead in a very strong lead on the international Arena. It's interesting that a group of Governors put that as the first recommendation which again shows you the new global view of stately. It's other recommendations will sound familiar to you to utilize cost-effective energy conservation and efficiency. Mesh measures to stabilize u.s. Emissions of carbon dioxide three stop production and recycle chloroform or carbons and stabilize or reduce other greenhouse gases for develop and commercialize Alternative Energy Systems, including clean possible, fossil renewable energy sources and safe nuclear power 5 Implement forestry programs to reduce the effects of global climate change six plan and act now to adapt to a changing climate seven pursue an aggressive research program to reduce key uncertainties about global climate change in President. Bush's put that in his message last year now sound is these recommendations are and significant because they do represent the views of the nation's Avenues in my view they do not go far enough. What is missing is not tougher words, but round numbers numbers that will spell out quantities and timetables. That is the way change will occur when States commit themselves and the federal government to specifics and as many of you know, this applies to all policy debates. That's where the action is or a some Sage put at the Devil is in the details and then you leave out the details it's harder to make progress and 10 wise political hand ones cautioned me with this advice never put a date in a number in the same sentence that is precisely what we have to do if we are to make timely and significant progress and that's why the Montreal in London Protocols are so important now that's also why some of the Steps we've taken in Vermont may serve as a useful blueprint for Action in some other parts of the country. I'll just share a few of these for example a year ago. I signed an executive order which direct state government to develop a comprehensive energy plan to reduce per capita energy consumption by 20% by the year 2000. Now you may say I'm safe there too because I won't be governor in the year 2000 but nevertheless it sets a goal and it sets a date recently. We convened a collaborative process between environmental and consumer groups utilities and state officials to design an aggressive Energy Efficiency program for power companies. And one major power companies actually invited the environmental groups who had been regularly attacking it over the last several years to come in and join them and help them devise energy conservation strategies. Is an interesting example of sustainable development it rather than being on the outside raising the Consciousness raising the lawsuits raising the ire which I believe is a necessary stage. I don't when wanted to go away entirely but this is a testing of what happens when you are in the inside what happens when you're inside is negotiator mediator sitting at the table helping to create change in addition I think is important to for state government to serve as a model for industry and that's why I directed state agencies to renew reduce energy consumption and state buildings by 20% per square foot by 1995 and to evaluate all new purchases based on life cycle costs and environmental impact and regards to CFCs. I'm happy to say that Vermont was the first state to ban the use of CFC in automobile air conditioning units by 1993. And probably one of the most broad impact memos ever wrote which I wrote in about five minutes was to ban styrofoam containers and all state government and it worked in other areas of doing it as well. Now I confess that when we did the CFC ban a tongue-in-cheek columnist from Florida wrote. Sure Berman can bear ban air conditioners and Florida will just ban snow tires. So you might get that same clip from Florida. I suspect if you follow suit in regard to the nga's recommendation on developing alternative fuels. I do have to take exception because I have some reservations about nuclear power and I won't be ready to sign on to promoting nuclear power until two conditions are met tougher and safer standards for all nuclear. Excuse me, hmm plants and a solution to the Problem of disposal the safe disposal of nuclear waste and as you know, we have not gotten there yet. But in Vermont, we are moving forward on this front in regards to energy conservation and we're recently cited by Ralph Nader's group as the third most energy responsible State and I understand that you're close behind us in that same report based on that report was based on per capita energy consumption petroleum consumption and the percentage of energy derived from renewable energy sources and we're doing some other interesting things were engaged in a small but noble experiment which will either make energy history or will be considered a bizarre and brief digression from traditional energy paths. And that is Vermont a small state of Vermont is working with Brazil. Yes, Brazil and the state of Iowa to develop a super high efficiency biomass gasification. So a tea that's going to produce energy without increasing carbon dioxide emissions. This is all Based on very simple sounding technology which is using an airplane jet engine which has recently been made more efficient and using scrap wood and heating it to the level of gasification using the scrap wood will also mean better Forest managers management and obviously a cheap and benign source of energy and the one of the additional benefits of these units if they work is that they can be small 20 megawatt units Iowa is going to use corn and Brazil will use sugar cane is the biomass and we have received a grant from the US Department of energy and we'll be having a demonstration facility in Bennington Vermont. If any of you want to come see it next year, but most significantly in Vermont and other states public utility commission's are making much tougher energy conservation demands of our utilities and you know the test of when you went to ask for new Energy sources new plants new purchases was basically, what's the cheapest? How do (00:14:12) we get Mont Governor Madeleine kunin (00:14:15) reduced cost energy for our citizens. Now the test is twofold. What is the cheapest and what has the least damaging environmental impact and it is both tests that have to be have equal weight in this process. Obviously. It is much easier to evaluate the cost in terms of dollars than it is to evaluate the cost in terms of environmental impact is these are still going to be hotly debated but it's on the table and it has to remain on the table before we consider new sources and so does serious conservation not the conservation of the 1960s or 70s, but real infrastructure kind of conservation of the 1990s now proud as I am of what Vermont is doing and I could tell you more but I'll restrain myself. I know that the steps that we provide are still a partial answer to the larger environmental questions. Yes, we can act locally and we should we should act locally because it does make a difference and we should act locally because it makes us feel better and we should act locally because this will set a trend, you know, Vermont such a small state, but we're trend-setting state so we can have an impact larger than our size and we should think locally globally as we act locally that thank you very much again. That makes great sense, but I think we have to go beyond that slogan now and I can't put it into slogan form, but I think we have to begin to think differently. We have to think differently about global issues. We have to think differently about local issues. We have to think differently about our places umin beings in the world, which is a large order, but if we are to make the changes necessary to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce overall environmental pollution and the distinction between the two is blurred. We have to begin to think differently about the relationship of the environment to economic growth and I gather from what I heard at the end of the last speaker that he touched on that but the concept that I referred to earlier of sustainable economic development is enormously attractive because at first glance it solves the problem of choice doesn't solve it completely but it really is a new way of looking at the issues rather than having To choose between the environment and economic benefits sustainable development permits you to have both if you do it right enticing as this concept is I believe it will require creativity flexibility and long-term thinking to apply the principles to daily decision making and while I have some models and some examples we need many more in order to really make it a part of the fabric of our decision-making but first, let's better try to Define it because attractive as it is it also can easily mean all things to all people and that's probably one reason why it is attractive the concept began and many of you may know this with the United Nations World Commission on energy on environment and development headed by Gro Harlem brundtland the prime minister of Norway and the result was a book called our common future published in 1987 and just lately it's getting more. More circulation this group defined it as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That's an interesting statement worth some thought but others said they this is too confusing. What does it really mean and recently a new commission was appointed and I just got ahold of their their draft statement as they're trying to clarify and expand upon the recommendations of this 1987 commission. And one of the draft statement said improving the sustainable development is defined as improving the capacity to convert a constant level of physical resources to the increased satisfaction of human needs. Improve the capacity to convert a constant level of physical resources and use it to the increased satisfaction of human needs which raises all kinds of questions, which we had time we could discuss but it seems to be a counter statement to more traditional kind of imperialistic view towards the environment that it really the resources belong to the few and it was those who had the power to control them who could distribute them quite simply what I take from. This is that it means using resources carefully Distributing them equitably so that both the economy and the environment will be sustained for a long time a very obvious example is the use of the rainforest now the choice is as has been in the past and in some places still continues is to cut it down have a one-time short-term economic benefit for the wealthy ranchers are landowners who control that situation or you can Is that rain forest cutting trees selectively maintaining it as a constant source of sustenance both economic and environmental and having the benefits accrue to a more diverse and Indigenous population and there have been studies that actually indicate that the economic benefits may be as great. If you go that course then if you go the slash-and-burn course, I must also put in a plug for Ben and Jerry's is it so that here they had rain forest crunch why you got it. I don't even have to say it. I don't know if rainforest crunch will single-handedly save the rain forest, but it's a an interesting example of a company actually putting their environmental ethic into into action. And the rainforest brunch is based on Brazil nuts and they went through a long process of getting Growers and someday you can have been the Ben and Jerry's come up and tell you about but it's an interesting model. Anyway, even if it is not yet Universal. Looking at a resource differently using it differently and getting different economic and environmental returns now going back to the draft report again to elaborate on the definition. I'll just share this language because I think it is appropriate. They say development is how people meet their needs and improve their lives. Very basic conservation is how people maintain the natural Capital with which development can draw the income both are essential but they are being pursued separately separation of conservation and development brings them into conflict with each other resulting in insufficient conservation and unsustainable development. I find that right on target the report continues the human species has gone through the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions now to spacing the need for sustainability Revolution unlike the Positions from hunting Gathering to Agriculture and from agriculture to Industry the transition to sustainability requires an explicit strategy. It requires people to behave as a global Society acting together learning from each other's experience and sharing the planet's resources. Well, I agree with that statement but to understand this Global concept we must begin at home and construct useful examples of how it can be done. Now the most obvious of these is energy conservation, which I've touched upon others touched upon but is not yet fully appreciated because it is truly a win-win situation the more we can serve the more we protect our resources and simultaneously the more we save money score a point for the economy score a point for the environment and the United States today uses more energy per unit of gross national product than most of our competitors if not all It's only twice as much even as Japan so reduced energy usage will have the added advantage of making us more competitive with our Global neighbors. So it's on that basis alone that it makes great economic sense to heavily invest in energy conservation. Now the silver lining of the dark clouds hovering over the Persian Gulf and over the national economy is that we are now seeing a window of opportunity for a renewed effort towards serious conservation Rising oil prices Supply uncertainties economic weaknesses all will increase pressure on us to use energy more efficient Lee now ideas that have been Gathering dust on the Shelf from Jimmy Carter's days such as solar energy biomass projects that I describe different kinds of automobiles. All these ideas will be dusted off new ones would be created and hopefully put in place and what we must insist upon Is that real? Investments be made in these areas and that we move Beyond rhetoric and tokenism but I am optimistic enough to believe that these are precisely the pressures which will force significant energy Innovations to take shape and energy prices and shortages may also have other effects such as inspiring us to plan our communities differently now before the private automobile and cheap energy people lived in clusters and Villages, you know, very obvious observation. Now, we're going back and trying to promote cluster development trying to go back to kind of the fundamental principles of early man and early woman and then if you stop and think about it was only the accessibility of cheap energy which led to this great personal Mobility, which meant you could build anywhere anywhere and it did not have to be in the Twin Cities area and stripped development took over today. I believe we will be forced. Back into those development patterns Town Center's clustering and housing and the added benefit will be that we will retain some of the distinction between Countryside and urban areas which for a state like Vermont is vital and I suspect it is vital for parts of Minnesota where we want to maintain your natural resources and that and natural beauty. I'm Vermont. We enacted a law called act 200 to encourage precisely such planning to take place and it's being hotly debated but I believe economic and energy necessity will provide a powerful incentive to make that happen to make the planners plan according to the economic pressures the dream of a house in 10 acres in the middle of nowheres a nice dream and it's a Vermont dream but is a dreadful dream in terms of the use of land and we have found that by applying the concept of sustainable development. It is also often people don't know they're playing this concept, but it's like Didn't know you were speaking Pros, but it is often possible to mediate the conflict between saving land for agriculture and developing it. We've had many battles in Vermont as I'm sure you have had here were prized Open Spaces dairy farms and the public hearing is held and there's a real battle line between those who want to say that land and those who want to develop it. One of the things that we did in Vermont was established a land conservation and Housing Trust Fund combining both housing needs and conservation needs and we are often able to develop a solution that allows you to do both with the same piece of land instead of saying it's All or Nothing developer save you can take a farm and I'm sure you've done this here and use a corner of it for development have cluster housing keep a key three quarters of the acreage or nine-tenths of the acreage in perpetual. We'll use or purchase the development rights and you really have often the same if not greater economic benefit for those families who live in those clustered units and have the marvelous luxury of looking out on Open Spaces as you would if they lived in separate 10-acre lots and only had to look at the back of somebody else's house. Even it was in the distance the very often we have found that you can have win-win situations if you look at land use differently and if you look at the long-term economic benefits and the long-term environmental benefits, another example is the S&L crisis and the real estate slump. I believe also have some Silver Linings. That's probably the first person to have told you so Rather than rushing into development. This is a time for more careful and thoughtful development in an opportune time for land purchases for future Generations. When prices are relatively lower never Mont has had another law on the books for about 20 years called act 250 which has some tough criteria for large-scale developments. It has never been the developers friend. But today rather than be called the land preservation act. It may more accurately be called the bank preservation act active 50 now is praised by the banking Community for having saved some of them from lousy Investments. Now, I confess I never thought I would see this day when the bankers would praise our act 250. But time and time again, it has been our experience that environmental initiative has had economic benefits for the long-term. This was our experience with a bottle and can deposit law. Do you have one? Go for it. It's wonderful. And with our billboard law we say, you know millions of dollars with our Cannon deposit law on not having to pick up that trash and it visually it is a dramatic impact. So I would urge you to do that. But when both these laws were debated both the deposit law and I think we're the only state that does not have Billboards and that's because we won by the skin of our teeth a court case on it, but both of these laws when they were debated they said oh this will be an economic disaster, you know, everybody's going to buy their beer in New Hampshire and you have to know the map Vermont to realize we're in New Hampshire is you also have to know John sununu to understand what that really means. That's it. They also said without Billboards, you know, you won't be able to get there from here. Well today, you know, the first thing people notice when they come to Vermont has Taurus is how beautiful the state looks how clean it is and that you can actually see the scenery and both of these environmental laws are great economic advantages to the state of Vermont. Most recently two weeks ago. I was at a groundbreaking ceremony for a 8 million dollar fish hatchery in Vermont on Lake Champlain another example of sustainable development that can renew our the Vitality of our tourism and Recreation Center not as controversial only in terms of the money. I understand that your embarked on a similar course in Minnesota through Rim reinvest in Minnesota Marlene to improve outdoor recreation, and they're all kinds of connections. You can make once you think in Of sustainable development the relation of Tourism to the environment and agriculture is so obvious in Vermont. We formed a very powerful Coalition on this are issue in the legislature and the farmers and the tourist industry and the environmentalist joined forces to support a program to help fairly expensive program Our Family Farms. As one Motel owner told me he put it as clearly as I have ever heard. It said I know if my guests don't have that red barn and those cows to look at across the road. They're not going to come to my motel and it's it's as simple as that. So today there are policies. These are the policies which make Vermont a mecca for tourists. And if you make your reservation right now, you can still catch a bit of the foliage season, but the assumption that one has to choose between Environmental Protection and economic growth. In my view is simply outmoded. There is one set of Vermont statistics that is interesting to defy that old-fashioned idea. Vermont was recently named the number one state for environmental policies by The Institute of Southern studies. We were also named the state of the second-best manufacturing climate by Grant Thornton a national firm, which makes Governor shaking their shoes. Sometimes when you get good news, you really love it. I believe our policy of fierce protection for the environment is paying off and I'm fully convinced that this is the right National and Global course to take when in doubt look at the disastrous consequences of Full Speed Ahead Economic Development, which those consequences which are just beginning to unfold in Eastern and Central Europe the price in health costs and environmental degradation is too high to calculate and the thought of children going 600 feet below the ground in To salt mines in order to breathe is certainly poignant. The ultimate irony is that the Vistula River in Eastern Europe is so polluted that it is to corrosive to even cool machinery. Both in Europe and in the United States, I believe our governments are going to be increasingly tested by broader criteria. Not only on how well we can create jobs but also by how successful we are in providing breathable air and drinkable water in that sense global warming is only one part of a larger challenge to forge a new ethic and new value system, which will give us a different perspective on our places umin beings in the cosmos. No longer can we view ourselves as omnipotent on this Earth shaping the Contours of the land to our liking seeing ourselves at the apex of the great chain of being I found it interesting that I personally was invited to speak at Harvard at the Theological Seminary and at the school of Public Health and recently the Dalai Lama was in Vermont and spoke about Mother Earth. I realize it's dangerous for politicians to get into these areas, but I do believe that There is something spiritual going on out there and it is related and we've got to think about it and deal with it and give us time to really absorb it once we see our human lives as being interdependent with all living things. I think it does bestow a new humility on us now perhaps Vermont's in the Vanguard in the area of sustainable development because we've always held onto the vestiges of a relationship to the land and that's undoubtedly true in your state in the rural areas. We never felt weak white conquered it and chained it knowing about your 20 below Winters. You may have some of that humility as well. And our agricultural tradition, even if you of us are farmers today, give us a certain respect and awe for The rhythms and powers of nature easy access to the mountains to the Lakes has reminded us of the stability of nature providing a contrast that the tumult of our daily lives and just as you have your landmarks which seemed Timeless we have ours the Green Mountains Lake Champlain. These are the anchors we need to connect with even those of us who live in urban settings and at no time has this carbon more urgent than now just as we're experiencing the fears of economic recession just as the political stability of the world is less certain than it was even a few months ago. We must staunchly resist the pressure to put our environmental concerns aside, the greatest environmental today danger today is that we will return to the old fashioned ways wage, which seemed to That you have to think of the economy first and any of time and money tack on some environmental agenda as an afterthought. Nothing could be more disastrous to prevent such a relapse which could be fatal to human life on this planet. We have to expand the debate. We have to be inclusive and I think we have to go one further step that hasn't been talked about as much in environmental circles, but the time is ripe to do so and that is to engage financial institutions and business and industry to be at the table with government and environmental groups. For example, the World Bank the international monetary fund and Regional development bank's have a profound impact on the environmental consequences of development. They in fact have often been cited as the villains now, they have the potential to become the savior's Barber conable head of the World Bank spoke at the opening of the new Environmental Center three weeks of Budapest where I was And declared a strong support for environmental criteria for development of the World Bank, but we must make sure it happens and that our Industries adhere to environmental standards in their decision-making in good times or bad polarisation sitting at opposite ends of the table confrontation has been effective to a point. It is heightened our awareness, but now we must develop the round table format and reason together because so much is at stake. It won't be easy. The stakes are high perhaps the most clear indicator of whether we win or lose is the Clean Air Act the single piece of practical legislation, which would have the greatest impact on global climate change. Now, it's languishing and cost concerns undoubtedly contribute to his neglect. Meanwhile, some other states are moving ahead and then is how we change the world town by town state-by-state until the new ethic emerges and becomes a part of the Fabric of our economic and environmental thinking framed within the concept of sustainable development. We may win the battle on global warming and much more. We may have a more life-giving environment. We may be able to distribute the world's resources more equitably and reduce the gap between rich and poor. That is our best. Hope I hope the young people who carry that forward with them so that we will be able to bequeath this planet with all its diversity with all its Vitality to Future Generations. Thank you. (00:38:05) You've been listening to Madeleine kunin the Democratic governor of the state of Vermont. She is by the way not seeking re-election this fall she spoke recently at a conference on global warning sponsored by the Humphrey Institute of public affairs at the University of Minnesota. Also at the conference was dr. Dean abrahamson from the University. He is a physicist and professor at the Humphrey Institute. He's been studying global. In the so-called greenhouse effect for many many years here is Professor abrahamson averting massive climatic changes, as a direct result of human economic activities is arguably the most serious challenge, which we now face the first International policy conference on on this issue called by the government of Canada held in 1988 characterized the potential impact of climatic changes being second only to those of nuclear war that conference concluded that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to stabilize their atmospheric concentrations is an imperative. That's that same conclusion has since been seconded again and again and again, At the same time that we're rearranging our Affairs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must be learning how to cope with the global Heating and climatic change, which is already unavoidable because of past greenhouse gas emissions and those which are certain to occur while we debate and Implement policies to reduce the production of these gases. So that's our agenda. That is we we've got a two-armed agenda reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a lot and adapting or coping to that climatic change, which we appear to be already committed to The data that I'll use later in the talk comes it all is going to come from the papers of the United Nations World Meteorological organization and the United Nations environmental program intergovernmental panel on on climate change. The ipcc ipcc process was started a couple years ago by the UN as Preparatory to a world climate conference, which is going to be held later this month in Switzerland. I've been privileged to take part in in a number of these these these meetings and conferences over the last couple of years. I won't be at the Geneva meeting though. We understood the basic science of the greenhouse effect. For more than a century the past 20 years have seen huge strides in understanding the details. Although there are still uncertainties comment on them later. There's now a consensus that enough is known to justify a policy response. Not a quote the (00:41:16) first (00:41:18) statement on the first page of the ipcc report of this summer. We are certain of the following there is a natural greenhouse effect, which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be and we are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect resulting on average in additional warming of the Earth's surface. There is no uncertainty about the basic Greenhouse Effect and the and the processes which lead from increased concentrations of these gases to Global heating. There is uncertainty about detail and will as I say, we'll come to that later, by the way. This ipcc process is in a way paralleling the activities that led to the Montreal protocol on the CFCs. And the expectation is that there will be a set of of recommendations protocols in the like which begin to set budgets Global budgets on greenhouse gases of which carbon dioxide is the most important Now it must be clearly understood that greenhouse gas induce climatic change is fundamentally different from what we've come to regard as conventional pollution issue is different for several reasons one is that if unchecked that is if we continue business as usual emissions for only a few more decades and if the science is even approximately correct, then we are risking really catastrophic impacts. Secondly. It's a global issue that is in a way we are all Hostage to the actions of other countries in their in their emission policies Etc as their Hostage to us. It's irreversible not irreversible in geologic times time scales, but in times of social or economic or political relevance is irreversible once these gases are in the atmosphere they will persist for a few hundred years. That is the Decay time is on the order of a hundred hundred and fifty years, which is a long time in Social and economic terms and finally and perhaps one of the most important is that there are no scrubbers. Compare for example the situation with acid rain which in Minnesota has as been of some interest and we've got considerable experience in the case of acid rain. We know the causes. We know the impact. We have the technology in hand to reduce the acid rain level to any level we choose including virtually zero and we know the cost of the required scrubbers and they are small that is they add marginally to the cost of energy, but only marginally All That Remains there is a good old everyday political decision and it's like deciding how many folks were going to kill on the highways we've decided 40 50 thousand is about right? Okay, but it's that kind of issue that is dealing with something like acid rain cost a little bit but doesn't preclude any set of activities that we were engaged. Consider the greenhouse gases the most important of which is carbon dioxide most carbon dioxide emissions result directly from the burning of fossil fuels oil natural gas and coal. It is now known that bringing the rate of global warming down to levels which may be manageable will require a reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by at least 60 percent perhaps more the problem is of course, there are no scrubbers. There is no device that we can stick at the end of the smokestack for the exhaust pipe and remove the CO2 when the fossil fuels are burned the CO2 is reduced into the atmosphere. And that's the end of it. There are means of course. There are theoretical means to scrub CO2 from from from emissions just as it's theoretically possible to take care of our radioactive waste by putting them into orbit around the Sun. The problem is that these CO2 removal techniques require about as much energy as it took well as you got out of burning of fossil fuels in the first place, and so it's not of much practical practical interest. So the only way to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuels is to reduce our use of fossil fuels the same is true for most of the other major greenhouse gases. I will take the time to go through them possible exception is some of the industrial chemicals some of the industrial chemicals methyl chloroform CFCs Etc are amenable to fairly traditional Pollution Control techniques, but the major the other major greenhouse gases are not The ipcc is fairly specific about the actions required to reduce the rates of climate change to what might be acceptable levels and I'll just read a few of them. And these are essentially a direct quotes reducing the rate of growth of the world population is essential reducing Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel used to a small fraction of present Levels by shifting from oil and coal to natural gas in the very short run. And non-fossil primary energy sources early in the next Century improving the efficiency with which energy is used and converted management and behavioral changes. For example, increased working homes through information technology and structural changes in the economy. EG modal shift in transportation. Full implementation of the Montreal protocol phasing out the CFCs and other long-lived industrial gases limiting agricultural emissions through reducing methane emissions from livestock husbandry reducing the use of nitrogenous fertilizer shifting marginal lands to fodder forest and so forth and moving to sustainable agricultural practices and stopping the destruction of old growth forest, whether in the tropics or elsewhere and starting and sustaining large reforestation programs. Now, that's a short list, but it's a big order as those are activities to which we relate very intimately agriculture forestry energy use principal sources of the greenhouse gases. As I said, the scientific understanding is is has been judged to be more than sufficient to justify policies to greatly reduce the production of greenhouse gases and the consequent Global Heating. Adaptation is quite another matter. That is even though there is high confidence in the general Global Response to increasing the greenhouse gases. There is relatively low confidence in the predictions of climatic change at the local and Regional level. That is if somebody asks, What's going to be the temperature and precipitation in Morris Minnesota in the year 2020 you'll get a range and it'll be a fairly wide range, but we'll come to that. We'll come to that later. Unfortunately, of course, it's this local and Regional detail that you need in order to have a planned orderly response to the changing climate. I guess the conclusion is that one is going to have that we're going to have to learn to be very flexible much more so and much more adaptive than we have in the past. There are other things of course that we can do to to give an idea of what the climate change the which we probably will have to cope. Maybe I wouldn't want to read a couple of pages from the the ipcc reports. These are just little sentences. I pulled out here and there throughout the reports climate change pollution and ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion can interact reinforcing their damaging effect on materials and organisms irreversible changes in the climate could be detectable by the end of this Century climate changes will not be steady and surprises cannot be ruled out, etc. Etc. Projected changes in temperature and precipitation suggest the climate zones could shift by several hundred kilometers toward the poles over the next 50 years. Relatively small changes cause large Water Resource problems a 1 to 2 degree increase in temperature coupled with a 10% reduction in precipitation, which by the way is the Minnesota a scenario for 20-25 could result in a 40 to 60 percent reduction in annual runoff sea level rise 30 to 50 centimetres by 2050 one meter by 2100, etc. Mean it's big it's big doings now on Minnesota. I've tried to extract from the ipcc stuff both the summary documents in the technical documents on which they are based what they say about Minnesota with of course the caveat of the uncertainty that I mentioned before and in fact there this the stuff that I'm going to read was prefaced with a statement that these values could be reduced by 30% or increased by 50% That is that Is deemed to be the range of uncertainty temperature increases in Central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied by on average reduced summer precipitation and soil moisture in Central North America the warming varies from 2 to 4 degrees Celsius. That's four to seven degrees Fahrenheit in Winter and 426 degrees Fahrenheit in summer precipitation increases may be zero to fifteen percent in the winter. Whereas a decrease of 5 to 10% in summer. Soil moisture decreases Etc. As I mentioned yield in the northern mid-latitude regions where summer drying May reduce agricultural productivity potential for example, the South and Central United States yield potential is estimated to Fall by 10 to 30 percent by the middle of the next Century toward the Northern end of current core producing regions. However, warming May enhance productive potential in climatic terms, although in actuality. It may be limited by soils terrain and land use Northern mid-latitude regions of the US will probably suffer adverse Water Resource impacts to some degree weather for generation of hydroelectric power municipal water supply shortages or agricultural irrigation. The Great Lakes are expected to incur net base and runoff decreases of 23 to 51 percent. Generation of hydroelectric power etc, etc, climatic change scenarios have shown a likely drop of u.s. And Canadian great lake levels of as much as 2.5 meters. That's eight point two feet resulting from an effective CO2 doubling and and it has at present friends. We would see an effective CO2 doubling by about the year 2030 and depending a little bit on what happens with the Montreal protocol. It could be put back another another another 20 years now. That's the that's the sort of changes. That we have to anticipate we all hope that the message isn't true. But you know, that only gets you so far now. I don't pretend to know how we're going to create the institutions capable of dealing with these matters, but create them we must and we must overcome the barriers that were Illustrated many of which were illustrated by some of the panel responses this morning. It's clearly a minimal response for Minnesota is energy conservation structural changes to reduce energy use and shifts to renewable energy sources now, Minnesota has great potential for biomass energy crops based on Forest Products some potential for wind some potential for hydro. It is plausible that Minnesota could become I'm not suggesting this will literally but the skit but these May scale like Minnesota's present total energy uses. That is we could perhaps produce as much energy here as we're now doing what are the advantages the advantages to that. Of course are you will do it go a long way to resolve the conventional pollution problems Urban Air Pollution acid rain Etc. You will isolate the state to a certain extent from tension such as the monkey business going on in the Middle East and these other geopolitical problems associated with fossil fuels employment would be retained in the state opportunity for regional development and so forth. I don't much like sending Minnesota money to Montana to buy coal. I'd rather keep it here and grow a few trees and convert it to either alcohols or or heat. We have to of course eliminate the Long Live CFCs. We're on the way for that to a certain extent. That's out of Minnesota's hand simply because of the international agreements and the Montreal protocol and the federal policy to eliminate these gases and finally pay attention to the Minnesota agricultural sources of greenhouse gases methane nitrogen. Others and the like as we can do a lot here if we choose to to both reduce the impact to reduce Minnesota's greenhouse gas emissions. Cushion other impacts associated with changes in energy supply and supply and provide employment economic growth Etc in the state. I want to just close with some comments on the on institutional some institutional questions a hundred years ago or so. There was a a beginning of what we now know is the kind of the traditional conservation movement Parks were created zoos monuments Etc Department of interior grew out of that that is the US Department of interior a grew out of that resource conservation move the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Etc. By the middle of the century what we now regard as the conventional approach pollution agenda was on us and we created a bunch of other institutions. We created the Minnesota Pollution Control agency in 1967 the legislature the US Environmental Protection Agency the United Nations environmental program, etc. Those folks have got a lot to do yet. But the question is whether or not these institutions are capable of dealing with the issues now on the table things like greenhouse effect ozone depletion Etc. These are not environmental problems. Either will allow they have the potential for devastating impact on our natural ecological systems. These issues strike at the very heart of our political economies. And it's the by no means clear that an agency like the pollution like our present agencies are able to cope with this sort of question. That is they have developed a lot of skills for making the kind of economic trade-offs that we just heard about but they don't have much skill at restructuring economies. And that's what we're dealing with here. We're talking about fundamentally restructuring the industrial economies not only in Minnesota but elsewhere and we don't have much time to do it as it might seem that 2020 2030 2040 is a long ways away. But the time it takes to change the systems that are involved the energy Supply system Etc are at least that low and we that is we had best we had best get on with it.