Thanks very much Chris.

Pleasure to be here and
to be part of your series on.

The impact of C O two on
global climate change.

I understand from some of
the previous seminars speakers

that many of the questions that
rose after the climatologist

spoke about what the magnitude of
global climate change is after they

spoke there are many questions about well
what do we do about it and you know what.

What is the best response to
this climate change threat and

so I'm here to speak more to the
technologies available to try to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions then to the
science of global climate change because I

am not a climatologist but I have been
surrounded by climatologists for decades.

So I've absorbed quite a lot and I wanted
to also know that the title of my talk is

transitioning to a climate Smart Energy
Economy technologies barriers and

effective policies I think that maybe the
advertisement said technologies basics or

something like that in case you
were beef old what that meant.

Typically the way that I've been
approaching an assessment of technology

opportunities for mitigating climate
change is to look at the characteristics

of the technologies look at
the marketplace look at the barriers that

are preventing widespread deployment
of those technologies and

then address the policy fixes that might
be able to tackle those barriers so

that's kind of the transition in the back
of the technologies the barriers and and

then try to identify smart policies.

So my one and
only sort of climate slaw it.

Starts by saying well we've got a problem.

It is now in dispute in this beautiful or
unequivocal that.

The glow.
Of a climate is warming.

This is some of the terminology
from the I.P.C.C. two thousand and

seven report which I was a co-author
on the mitigation report and

they concluded that most of the observed
increasing globally average

temperatures system mid twentieth century
is very likely due to the observed

increase in anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions or concentrations and

that very likely in
quotes is a very precise.

Term it means ninety percent
probability and believe me that

probabilistic assessment
took years to arrive at and

ratcheted up over each of the three
year intervals when the I.P.C.C.

report reports were published.

So increasing certainty of
the impact of bridge and

a greenhouse gases and course.

Greenhouse gas emissions are intimately
linked to the combustion of fossil fuels

and then another set of quotes is that.

One of our goals is to avoid dangerous
interference with the climate system

that comes out of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change that

was signed by the United States
in one thousand nine hundred two.

By George Bush which says we
are going to try to avoid dangerous

anthropogenic interference
with the climate system.

We saw in that at the time we had
no idea where we were relative to

being in a position of
jeopardizing the climate.

And it turns out here we are and
many think we are here indeed already.

And in order to avoid further
interest in her Ference

we are going to have to
reduce greenhouse gases.

Significantly and over a long period
of time and I would like to say and

early action is critical sort of

being hotly debated as to how
much time we have I believe.

Early Action is critical
because every moment that

we delay opportunities are lost and
new infrastructure is put in place.

It has a long life.

A new power plant fifty years so
you're stuck with it.

Want to spilt if it's billed
as a polarized coal plant.

You know you've made that commitment and
it's hard to reverse it.

So I'd like to start by showing
where the United States

stands in terms of the productivity
with which we use energy to

drive our economy and I know we
have a delegation from France here.

So I was pleased to see that my chart
does have France on it as well and

I gave this talk actually to a group from
Sweden last week in Savannah Georgia and

we kind of make a little cluster
there the French this the U.S.

we're all fairly inefficient in
terms of powering our economy

relative to say the Japanese comparable.

Style of living standard of living but the
Japanese use half the energy per G.D.P.

relative to the United States or
Sweden or France.

We have improved so you can see in
one nine hundred eighty six the blue

numbers tend to be larger than the gold
numbers two thousand and four numbers.

So we are using less energy for

our domestic product but
it's still relatively high and Georgia.

In fact within the United States is more
energy efficient than the average state.

So to me.

This is actually a cause for optimism.

Because we have a lot that we can do
to improve the energy efficiency of our

economy because other countries
have already done it.

And if you look at our carbon footprint
per capita C O two emissions.

You can see that the United States and
along the top with twenty metric tons

per person over time what these
thoughts are are yours as our G.D.P.

has grown in general our carbon
emissions have also grown and

in fact that pattern of
economic growth and.

Carbon intensity carbon
footprints is a pattern for

which there are very few exceptions there
are a couple of exceptions and in fact

the French have offered an exception with
their significant use of nuclear power and

the English have the carbonized
by moving off coal and

a highly efficient building stock.

So there have been instances where
countries have been able to grow their

economy and shrink their carbon
footprint but in general.

These two go in lockstep.

And so the real question is
can we break the link between

economic growth and growth in carbon.

Consumption.

So again grounds for optimism we have a
terribly inefficient energy system really

worldwide lots of opportunity for
improvement carbon emissions

are only just beginning to
take on a price or a value.

So we have.

Still the promise of
the market place responding to

carbon prices once they are set and
made more significant.

And also if you're looking to
a significant decline in the missions

by two thousand and fifty.

You can think about the fact that well.

Majority of the energy infrastructure
that will be in place and

twenty fifty has yet to be built.

So we have a lot of control
over our mid century fate.

The theme of my talk then really
is what we can do in terms of

using energy more wisely I'm going to
touch on other technology responses

as well but in my opinion energy
efficiency is a low hanging fruit.

It's the one response that we can
take that actually will pay us.

To do a better job.

Whenever you adopt a cost effective
energy efficient technology.

You are saving money.

There's a lot of money to be saved.

This is a chart by the National Resources
Defense Council which builds on

a fairly famous curves
that they make Kinsey.

Company published in December of
two thousand and seven their chart.

It's a supply curve carbon
mitigation options and

I didn't put it on here because it
has about seventy five technologies

in the tiny print in this hard to see and

that's what Resources Defense Council
has been generalizing from that

analysis and
presents here I think a clearer vision of

what the generic kind of lessons
are from the McKinsey study.

So you order the technology options
from left to right according to

their cost everything that has a bar.

That's below the line.

Has a negative cost.

That is offers a savings.

And you get to the.

Two The zero point zero carbon fuels

these are a breakeven technology and
then everything to the right.

Cost you something like renewables

concrete or
alternatives other greenhouse gases high.

Global warming industrial gases for

instance would fit into that category
carbon capture and storage cost you

something other innovations so
going from left to right.

You see a line up of a total
of about eleven billion.

Tons of C O two that can be saved.

Here at a.

At a cost of forty at
a savings of forty dollars per

dollar ton of C O two abated.

And that category is energy
efficiency in buildings.

And then you move to energy efficient
transportation and industry.

So the three sectors of the economy for
which energy can be used more wisely and

then you go to those options
that cost you something

now what's interesting is
if you were to integrate

across the left or
right you would get a total that's just

positive by a little bit in other words
we can get all the way to that ten or

eleven gigatons of C O two reduction and
hardly see any impact on the.

On the U.S. G.D.P.
because what is on the left

just about equals the benefits just
about equal the costs on the right.

So all of this is a very
nice strategy to cut us.

Greenhouse.
Yes the missions.

So when you think about energy efficiency.

You need to first consider how
energy is used in the economy.

So in the United States.

The bulk of the energy.

Actually this is placed in terms
of million tons of carbon.

So the both of the energy generated

tons of carbon come from a heating
cooling in lighting buildings.

And the next largest segment is
transportation at thirty two percent and

then industry at only twenty
five percent and shrinking.

Every time I update the chart.

You add something to buildings and

use attracted from industry and
transportation is that about the same.

And that's partly because we're offshoring
so much of our energy intensive industry

it's not because we're
doing such a magnificent.

Of producing.

More sustainable products.

And you can then further dig deep into

characterizing the nature of
the energy that's used in each.

Sector and you can get a nice
simplistic diagram is worse

formulating strategies around.

What is that industry is responsible for
for

almost half of the natural gas consumption
else side of the production of power.

So you're looking to figure out
how to use natural gas more.

Anomic Lee.

You would turn to industry and
this also includes the amount

of natural gas used as a feedstock
in history which is so important.

Many people have argued.

How can we waste natural gas
by burning it we need it.

For production of industry and
just your material.

One of elegy is like using natural gas.

To burn electricity is like
washing your dishes and champagne.

And we need it for better uses.

Buildings on the other hand
are responsible for the bulk of

the electricity consumption seventy three
and percent and actually rising there

as well it's going on the past two
years from seventy one to two to three.

And transportation is largely
responsible for petroleum use and

of course a more compelling number for
transportation is that about

ninety seven percent of transportation
is powered by petroleum.

But the flipside is seventy percent of
our petroleum is used in transportation

petroleum transportation see that kind
of three different wedges here around

which you can try to
figure out a domestic.

Energy climate strategy.

This is a diagram that Carson or

presented at one of the conference
of parties to climate change.

Where he presents a vision of hell

through more efficient energy consumption.

We could actually level the energy demand
growth in the country in other words we

should not ever need to consume
more energy than we are today

just no excuse for in fact we really
ought to be moving to reductions.

But there are a lot of ways
in which we can quite easily

manage our energy the growth of our
energy consumption and again he looks at.

Buildings industry and transportation and

talks about the quads of savings and
the technologies available.

And I'm going to talk.

A little bit about transportation
efficiency and in buildings efficiency.

I'm not going to talk about
industry industrial efficiency for

no particular reason.

Limited Time.

There's been much less effort at
analyzing industrial energy use.

Actually I chaired.

America's energy future.

Study Group on energy efficiency and
industry where we wrote a sixty page

chapter in the efficiency report
that's about to be released.

And what I was struck in
the energy in the use

of energy in industry is that any
acing Craddick way in which it's used

in each of the industrial processes
it's very hard to talk about for

instance in buildings you
can talk about lighting.

In the transportation you talk about
engines or lightweight materials and

and astri there's just so
many different unique technologies.

There are a couple of fundamental
utilities that are used in common.

Like steam systems and motors and

drives compressed air but
they don't really amount to a lot.

It's the big industrial processes
making steel and aluminum and

pulp and paper that are so good.

Contributes so much to energy and
industry so it's really hard.

I haven't yet boiled.

That.

Material down into something
I can communicate easily.

So that's my pitch.

Or Scotto Marx's that's my pitch and
if you know like it.

I have another pitch.

If they don't like my jokes you.

OK so.

Efficiency in transportation.

Well.

Energy consumption in
transportation per car and

S.U.V. and
light truck has not changed since

almost since the Arab oil embargo.

We insist we instituted
corporate average fuel economy

standards following the seventy
three seventy four crisis and

once those goals were met in the early
eighty's eighty's we just coasted and

that's where we've been for
several decades.

Fortunately with the energy X.
of the last several years.

We have now committed to
increasing our corporate average

fuel economy standards up to.

Forty miles per gallon
in twenty twenty five.

I think is the number.

Some say we could go higher and in the
America's energy future study we modeled

fifty miles per gallon by twenty
twenty five because I mean really.

We could do it today.

We could do fifty mpg today
with a plug in hybrid.

It wouldn't be particularly carbon
free because we'd be plugging in.

To our coal plant generated electricity.

But actually I was I was
talking with our president but

Peterson and when he was at the inner city
of Colorado he had a plug in Ford Escape.

I have a Ford Escape I want his so he.

He plugged in at home and
he they what they did was to.

Replacing the traditional battery
with one that would give him twenty

miles to a charge.

And of course you know he's
lugging around a heavy battery so

you do have a penalty fuel economy when
you're especially when you're running

on the gas engine but it was
an experiment and quite successful and

very it was never you know
found stranded anywhere.

So there are a whole slew

of energy efficiency improvements that
can be made to our common car and

sports utility vehicle and in fact we
have over the past twenty five years

improved the energy efficiency
of our cars and our S.U.V.s.

We have lighter weight.

Materials and we have more efficient
engines this just that we translated

that into larger cars more
power more acceleration and so

all together we haven't improved our
mileage but we have more efficient cars.

So if we could find
a way as with regulation

to require that the efficiency
improvements result in.

Fuel Economy savings then

all of this are indeed much of which takes
place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and

here Georgia Tech and
universities will pay off.

So this is.

Motors and inverters and converters for
electric hybrid vehicles lightweight light

weighting of materials and
different combustion regimes to penalize.

Penalty penalize efficiency but
can improve emissions.

And this is a vision of the future if
we could move our plug in vehicles.

And it's a re power stations that
are using solar photovoltaic cells and

we have a nearly carbon
free transport option.

And there's a great system
being developed in Israel

which some of you may have
heard of her this is really.

So a couple of auto manufacturers
have agreed to redesign their cars so

that the battery is in the bottom and.

Tween the chassis and when the batteries.

Need to be recharged the driver
pulls into a retarding station and

gets onto a lift and
the battery packs dropped out and

replaced robotically and
within ten minutes.

It's back on the road.

So how's that for innovation and
it's that's here today.

Electricity use in in buildings
offers tremendous opportunity and

more efficient electricity
generation is also needed.

But today's energy.

Today's electricity use.

Is highly inefficient.

It's really embarrassingly
inefficient this is they.

Drawing that I did that was replicated and
read and

energy booklet that the National Academies
published last year and

it takes this to to Stix from
the Energy Information Administration on

the efficiency of a typical U.S.
coal plant supposed rust.

Coal plant and
thirty three percent efficient.

And then you move that power across the
transmission lines in the substations and

distribution system and you've lost seven
to nine percent more of that electricity

and you bring it down from a higher
to a lower voltage new music in.

Your energy management system and
say to light your building

with an incandescent lamp and
in the end you're putting two or

three percent of the energy in that
lump of coal to productive use.

Pretty said.

I can multiply that by three immediately
by replacing that incandescent with.

With.

A fluorescent.

OK.

OK.

I missed one zero zero OK I'm going
to talk you through that chart.

OK Take your household refrigerator.

OK.

In one nine hundred seventy the typical
twenty two cubic foot house

the refrigerator used one thousand eight
hundred kilowatt hours of electricity.

You don't even get defrost
automatic defrost or.

Any of the extras right.

So through a series of improvements
to the technology better cabinet

insulation better motors better
compressor systems especially the.

And combined with is still

California state appliance standards
requiring that in California

the average refrigerator be more efficient
than the typical one on the marketplace.

And then add federal standards
in the late eighty's

they ratcheted down and
there been one in two thousand and one and

one in two thousand and
four five so that today.

You cannot buy a refrigerator

that consumes more than
about four hundred thirty.

Kilowatt hours.

That's the latest.

That's about the latest standard.

So using less than a third

of the energy that we used to use
through improved technology and

you don't pay any more for
your refrigerator that when the.

Standards were being debated.

Both and the state legislature
in California and in the U.S.

Congress the manufacturers were in
an uproar how are they going to you know

how do you make a profit.

Their prices are going to go up and

no people are going to
buy fewer refrigerators.

Because cyclists the said story is some
of those old refrigerator still alive.

You know they're cool
your beer in the garage.

If they are.

Unplug it.

But.

Where was they going so.

This chart shows if we just consider

how much electricity we've saved in
the average household refrigerator.

How much electricity we say.

And put a price tag on
that in terms of it like.

Bill savings.

The average bill savings.

Per year from that improved future
rater is something like seventeen and

a half billion dollars.

And the value of that electricity.

This is a couple of years old.

The chart from a few years ago exceeds
the total value of all of the hydro power.

Of the entire US hydropower
system would exceed

all of Anwar were to be opened up for
oil all over almost as much

as the entire nuclear fleet in the United
States and that's just one appliance.

This is a drawing that our Rosenfeld
developed and I really ought to go and

probably change a few of the numbers
because he's a bit optimistic he

gives you the retail price for when you're
saving energy and wholesale play price for

when you're producing as a little
bit unfair but you get the point

that Helsel refrigerators been
a really big power plant for us and

we have many other appliances
that could offer the same way

of displacing our electricity consumption
but the problem is often if you want to

buy that more efficient appliance
you've got to pay a premium upfront and

that sticker shock is what
the consumer often can't get past.

So you go to Home Depot or
Lowes or Walmart and

you are looking to replace your bulb and
you ask.

Well two dollars fifty cents.

They're both the equivalent of
sixty watt seventy five watts What

should I do you know.

Still today in the state of Georgia.

Less than thirty percent of new bulbs
purchased are compact fluorescents.

There's no reason anybody in
the state of Georgia should buy

incandescent bulbs today
because look at the payback.

This is if you just assume that
the bulb is used four hours a day.

And you're assuming Actually this is a bit
of a low rate seven cents per kilowatt

hour you pay a bit more than that now.

The little bit it say a five percent
discount rate Well the first year

of energy costs that incandescent bulb
the seven dollars and seventy cents.

And for the compact is dollar eighty.

So I mean what better
place to put your money.

Much better than having
it in the stock market.

I can tell you that.

So take a look at a more recent set of

electronic options that you can buy for
instance how about the plasma T.V.

when they finally in December
of two thousand and seven E.P.A.

added Energy Star rating to
the plasma T.V. So when you go and

you go to compare plasma or
L.C.D. or traditional

television you now have
a label that you can go and

you know that you'll pay a penalty if you
buy that plasma compared to the L.C.D..

Flat screen.

So what about the set top
boxes the set top box.

Turns out that it's something you
need to pay attention to also

thirty watts each path
one of those light bulbs.

Two of those make up a refrigerator.

And made a lot of progress with a
refrigerator we haven't made any progress

with the set top box because it's uses so
much standby electricity

that is it's going to pay for
seven whether the television is on or not.

And so in the class that I teach.

Here we use kilowatt meters.

And we measure standby use use
when the appliances on and

you can see how much electricity is being
draw on your telephone recharger or

even after you've finished the recharging
and you learn really interesting things

like the electricity consumption
goes up when you turn up the volume.

Or if you're not getting a very
good reception on your television.

You're using more energy.

And I don't know what you do
with that information but.

You know we need to be wiser and
one way to be more.

More effective consumer
is to really understand.

How much energy you're using it and
how much each of those purchases will

will use so this is the kilowatt
meter that we use in my classes.

For each device you just plug it in and
you plug your device into it or

you can use programmable
community Kading thermostats

which in some states are part
of the smart meter programs.

But of course not in Georgia and

Georgia are smart meters are really
smart readers right there.

Replacing.

The truck driving by and the guy
getting out and reading your meter with

a meter that automatically dispatches the
information and turns it back to Georgia

power but the consumer is not getting any
information which is really what's needed.

That's really a smart meter.

That's the sort of thing we need are these
thermostats was real time information

keyed into time of use rates and

then you would have a motivation
to use electricity more wisely.

So the states of California and New York.

Have done so well in.

Managing the electricity especially in
their buildings the electricity per

person in those states has not increased.

Since the seventy's.

Since the mid seventy's.

Well California since the mid
seventy's and New York's catching up.

At first.

This was Art Rosenfeld
graph draw as a graph.

It's just that California.

But then Paul Dakotas came along.

It's the New York State Energy Office and

he said look I've been on the twenty
years and look what I've done and

no increase in electricity and
we could do that too but

actually George's electricity as per
capita is consuming more rapidly than

that of the United States we're offsetting
you know we're on the top of the chart.

So to speak.

And they have not done this at
the expense of their state.

Economies.

It's not been something they've done and
they have to pay the price.

Right.

They've done while their economies
have been growing rapidly.

Until lately.

So there are a whole set of other
technology options that I'm not going to

be able to go through one by one but
just in general we call them.

Low carbon fuels and
electricity options abundance of them.

So as shown by this mosaic.

Lots of them coming on
strong especially when.

Fully offshore GA wind
sometime in the future.

But I

am going to talk you see that
one too darn I P.D.F. this.

That was my mistake.

This is a chart on carbon.

Capture and sequestration three different
ways that you can capture carbon

tress real ocean and geologic.

So putting it down and
aquifers planting more trees.

Phytoplankton growth through iron.

Nutrients in the ocean laying
C O two on the bed floor a bit

of the ocean all those options are being
worked as an enormous amount of effort

trying to figure out how permanent those
different Seaquest ration options are and

they look very viable no

real breakthrough
technologies are required.

We just need massive pilot tests to
see what the leakage rates are and.

What is going to cost.

I didn't want to fail to

mention to mention nuclear
even without Yucca Mountain.

We've got nuclear as an option and

it's certainly possible that we'll see
a renaissance of nuclear in the southeast

which is going to be significant come
contributor to low carbon electricity.

So.

Turning now to the policies
that can help to drive

these technologies into the marketplace.

One of the big ones getting attention
in Congress today is the cap and

trade system carbon cap and trade this tie
crim from the World Resources Institute.

This is a really great Web site to turn to
if you ever want to see what's happening

with the latest legislation but
these for the initial proposals for

cap and trade being an inspector
being one of the very first.

And some of these others coming on later.

I worked on the big human specter
a bit because it's based on the work.

As the National Commission
on energy policy.

I'm a commissioner.

On that and we did that work for
Jeff Bingaman largely.

Sculpted the whole design of cap and
trade systems.

Back in our report that was
published in two thousand and four.

And that led to this proposal.

If you see the dash we weren't thinking
twenty fifty in two thousand and

four we were thinking
let's get it in place and.

Let's try to first level
C O two emissions and

then think about turning them
down sometime in the future when

the American public was
ready to take a deeper cut.

But these other.

Subsequent proposals have taken
emissions and their cap and

trade proposals all the way down to
what people are now thinking is the.

Stabilisation goal we need eighty percent
below nine hundred ninety levels.

Down to one point two billion
metric tons by mid century and

that's the goal of many of these
legislative proposals today.

That's the goal of the current cap and

trade proposal being debated
the Waxman Marky bill.

So Congressman Waxman from
California took over position this

head of the House Senate and
energy the House Energy and

Commerce Committee and
he proposed a couple of months ago.

For the first time the house
demonstrated leadership.

Well you'll notice when you go through
the previous graph it's all senators

names of senators.

And that we have the health stepping
up and Waxman Markey in particular.

Democrats and they're proposing.

To deviate from the business
as usual forecast.

Along this green line with a cap and
trade.

But their bill calls for

a portfolio of supplemental
complimentary policies.

And that's what's drawn in
the blue mark here it is in

order to get to one point
two billion tons of C O two

the thinking is a cap and trade systems
prop by itself probably not enough

thinking seems to be necessary but
not sufficient.

And one of the reasons is if you go
through the calculations of the carbon

content of transportation fuels.

Carbon tax does not move
the price of gasoline very much.

Relative to the price of electricity.

So if for

instance you add about twenty percent of
the price of electricity through say a.

Fifty dollars or

so carbon price take that same price and

add it to gasoline and
you're adding like eight percent.

And we all know about the price
elasticity of demand for gasoline right.

We still a little bit of it for
the first time ever.

Last year late last year when
we were experiencing this

very high gasoline prices but
I think the public's already forgotten.

And they're back to vehicle miles traveled
just about where they were before.

So you can't move the entire market all

sectors sufficiently with just putting
across the board price on carbon.

You need to do much more and there are
some who would argue that in any event.

You need to regulate performance
standards because we need the certainty

of a performance standard to
complement the uncertainty of a cap and

trade where you can always buy your
way out of a limit by purchasing

allowances or offsets right and then you
don't know what you're going to get so

by having performance standards you have
a little bit more control and then there

are all sorts of other things that we can
do that we need to do like education.

And labeling and information and
sent to us and you know more and

more gas guzzler taxes and more
incentives for plug in hybrids that sort

of thing to incentivize the market and
also we need things like.

Manufacturers incentives to try
to get the production of these

green technologies stimulated in the U.S.
markets.

So that's the nature of those
complimentary a lot of that

is Clute included in
the Waxman Marky bill.

So just got about two more slides.

This shows you when you
put a price on C O two.

What that means for the price of
different types of electricity so

polarized coal P C integrated
gasification combined cycle

kind of really get hit hard it will
drive them out of the market and

possibly won't cause the existing

really inefficient power plants to shut
down that probably has to be done.

In a different different kind of policy
mood because they're so cost effective.

Even when you add a big C O two
price because they're all written

off you know they're really cheap to run.

But look at the impact on efficiency.

Stays really cheap.

As does nuclear and
as do many of the renewables.

So this is what's going to be moved into
the marketplace with a cap and trade.

But less if you walk away
thinking we have a solution.

Cap and trade complimentary measures
to get the picture all solved.

Think about the order of
magnitude that we're facing.

IS MY LAST FEW graph.

You might remember that you and
I are responsible for

emitting about twenty
tons of C O two a year.

The average for the U..

The world is four.

That's now where China is twenty used to
be one the average for India is that one

where we need to be in the long run
by two thousand and fifty is at one.

One ton per person to stabilize.

The level of concentrations
in the atmosphere.

At levels

that prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with a global climate.

So today we have the world.

Affluence rising and
as the affluence rises were that picture

more G.D.P. more C O two.

So we have the African and

Indian nations there their
movement marchin up and

we're kind of leveled off what
we need to do is actually

step down all the way to the point where.

The future rich are at the same
level of emissions as today's poor.

So that kind of.

Magnitude of the challenge
is why you are all.

Needed to help provide
new technologies and

transformational solutions
because we don't have those yet.

Thank you very much.

Well I think a year ago I
might have agreed with you but

I mean we have seen a transformation
of our policy environment here

for the first time a significant
increase in our fuel economy standards.

Just yesterday E.P.A. announced

they were going to require sixteen billion
gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be.

We blended in gasoline by
the year twenty sixteen while

sixteen billion of cellulosic
we don't even have one gallon.

Today and we have sixteen billion.

So we're kind of creating
stretch goals I would say

and I'm pretty optimistic that
we're going to make progress like

we've never made in the past with
the new new policies in place.

I hope this case you know.

It's like.

It was a moment.

When.

Well you know all of the credential
is that Georgia Tech

has some life cycle analysis new city
applied to answering these questions so

that policymakers don't get
snookered by these simple answers

because often you can jump
to the wrong conclusion.

Like you like you said we need to prevent

those kinds of mistakes from being
made through good analysis and

to show what the what the impacts are so
there are a lot of advantages to plug in

electric hybrids above and
beyond carbon and efficiency.

And of stabilizing bigger.

Rid using We only use
half of our electricity.

If you look at low duration curves.

So you get one hundred percent of capacity
use like for five seconds in a year.

And it just marches down
there using half the.

Capacity half the time or have to go.

Bessie almost all the time so.

Yeah but so I guess.

So what I'm saying is that.

As we bring us our electricity production.

We can be getting a plug
in electric created and

the infrastructure in place and
gradually it will all

converge right now the reason that
Epperly and Edison Electric consider so

excited about plug ins is not
because see to tell you but

it's because they can sell more
electricity and they can set but

their existing plants to use
more effectively and there's

something to be said for that using your
energy infrastructure more economically.

And then gradually I mean I
made the same argument for

corn ethanol I'm kind of left myself
because it's really going wild.

You know let's get the eighty five
refueling stations in place and.

And then they'll be there.

So when we have cellulosic ethanol and

we don't have to go through that whole
infrastructure we get the pipelines and

everything built even if it's corn ethanol
bad you know for a lot of reasons.

So we have to think about the fact that
you can't replace your infrastructure or

mediately And so sometimes you
have to go through bad stages.

To get to hopefully a good in some kind
of a rather unrewarding logic but.

Every store

his eyes.

Says.

One is.

So right now and for instance
a traditionally regulated southeast.

There is no motivation for

electric utilities to do anything
different because the people you see

provides a reward structure that
rewards the sale of electricity.

Whatever from whatever source.

If you generate it yourself you get
a certain return on investment if you buy

renewables or
you purchase any energy credits.

Your profit is less.

If you help customers use electricity
more wisely and you sell less

you profit less so
there's a couple ling of sales and

profits that has got to be changed and

I mean that is just such
an obvious is true with water too.

You know we can see.

Less water and the rates went up because
they the water utilities get their profits

from sale of water and electric utilities
get profits from sale of electricity.

So all of the hall reward system
has got to be changed and

the Philippines should be paid to provide
energy services which are lighting and

cooling and heating not to not to
sell electricity or sell natural gas.

I know you know that argument.

I think that's in my opinion that
is the single most important

barrier in policy today and
it was addressed by the stimulus act.

You probably know this but every governor.

In the state before receiving stimulus
funds had to write a letter to Steven Chu.

Stating that in their state.

Efficiency received the same
return on investment for

utilities as the sale of electricity and
Sonny Perdue signed that letter.

And it may be challenged
because it's not true.

But every governor signed that letter and
there are only about eight states that

have decoupled sales and
profits in the electricity industry.

So you know that Obama.

Understood the problem but now we're
down to the point of enforcement and

that particular policy supposed
to be fixed but you know.

If the fundamental premise
of greenhouse gas.

Impacts on Global.

What is then.

There's no point in going to
a university and studying science.

I mean I just so preposterous.

But what if.

Well you know I have wasted some money and
that's a argument for doing nothing.

You know.

THIEF.

Of time the argument is this wait and
see and then if it's really bad.

We'll just build the seawall so
that much higher but

that's a pretty expensive
price tag too and the so

I think you know there's a lot of thinking
along the lines of as you said and

it's a really good way to
think that is the risk risks

of different outcomes I just think
that the idea that we're not impacting

the climate in the general way
is that we think we are such a.

Well

that's because the answer for genic impact
on water vapor is not as great and so

is the anthropogenic impact of
solar this solar radiation is.

It is also a important.

Contributor to

global warming but and I know.

The answer but genic forces are ten times

the force of changes in
the solar radiation.

Since the Industrial Revolution.

You can see that in the I.P.C.C. report.

So it puts it into perspective
the change in a water vapor is so

minor relative to the change and forcing

the climate forcing of
greenhouse gas emission.

Concentrations constant
concentration increases.

And we're really grateful for
the water vapor being there.

Otherwise we wouldn't be alive on
the planet Earth but if you were

it's your fault

and

the variation.

Really there's

a

real regulation to that we're live

from that three percent

make their twenty dollars a barrel

rate I think yes

program that you want
to run if you want to

that you're going to jail for that and

they will tell you your
comment percentage of

average rate versus taxes that average
what you think is the best way to go.

The best way to go is to
put a price on carbon

tax or cap and trade I prefer many
of the features of the cap and

trade but what I'm most concerned about
is that we implement a price signal.

So that the consumer.

Well internalize the costs of global
warming into their decision making.

Well the best thing would be done it.

Yeah and the best example is that
the Clean Air Act and the market for

sulfur dioxide which has been very
successful and quite mature but

you know right now we have very
a mature markets for C O two and

the prices are low and
hard to make a business you know but

that's because it's all chopped up and
regional and unpredictable that stat.

Certainty you talked about is what
we need before people really commit

sizable amounts of
capital to to make these

low carbon products as

well

a lot of the cost related.

Well that's a little less

because there are some
estimates emerging and

there's there's not much volume of
work going into the cost of inaction.

Stern Report is one example.

And there's been a couple of others and
there's a review article I can point you

to an energy policy but
really the bulk of the work in

that area has not been sufficient
partly because well first the U.S.

doesn't even have a program on climate
adaptation climate change adaptation.

We have.

The Europeans are way ahead of us they.

I had a chance to go to the conference
of the party six in the Hague.

That was the year two thousand and
it was full of all of these illust these

exhibits on how to minimize the cost of
global climate change and how to adapt.

We have not begun that's what you need
you need all of this costs lined up.

So how do you save species from extinction
and and how do you manage your water and

the droughts and you know level rise and
now there are some.

There is a group the.

Legislative group that's been doing
state studies they're putting

together existing literature for
their state legislators.

Conference of State Legislators National
Conference of State Legislators and

they did one for Georgia.

And they talked about the costs of
protecting our barrier islands.

And the cost of the savannah.

Port activities were there to be
a rise of some foot or something.

Sea level rise.

So we're beginning to see some
cool price tags being put on but

it will cost to prevent the flooding

of barrier islands for
instance Carlos you had your hand up.

Can I call on you.

What do you see.

You should see.

A vision to see that that's true.

It's a little bit like population control.

You know and
it's just seen as not something that.

The government is supposed to constrain.

You know it's supposed to change
your your cultural norms or.

Value system.

Which is what you do when you can
appreciate the materialization there.

I know that's been a theme of yours.

I really like your work on how
much a person really could

get by with in terms of
C O two per year for

survival and a reasonable lifestyle.

I think your number was like four or
five times a C O two whatever it was I've

seen you march through that and that's
I think it's good to do those and to.

Kind of assessments and to show.

That.

Cultures across the world are living
at that level reasonably well but

if the government.

You know doesn't have policies doesn't.

Condone policies like that.

Yeah yeah well I think that air
conditioning is the next really

big appliance that we should
tackle cooling is the.

Well and home space heating
still prevails in energy and

in commercial buildings it's lighting.

But in both cases cooling is
the next highest use for energy.

So it is really an important and
it's also one of those ways that

we can adapt to climate change because
we're going to need more cooling and so

we better find efficient ways to
cool kind of a double digit in.

Concept.

But we're going to do better
campus is going to do better.

There you know.

Another big ticket item for
appliances is a gas furnace.

The current current standards
are eighty percent and you

have witnessed a condensing gas furnace
is it can go up to ninety nine percent.

I know I had one when I bought one myself
and then I bought a house and I had to.

Eighty percent model.

So if so much it can be done.

I did want to say that I've
got a group of students here.

They came from public policy.

Thank you very much.

And they're working with me getting
up a national energy modeling system

out over in the D.M.
Smith building we have got up and

running two computers
with a modeling system.

We are one of as far as I know in
the university for the capability others.

So we're really trying to gear up to be
able to help answer these questions of

what can a cap and trade do versus what
can these other policies do and together.

How do they operate so stay tuned.

We should be spinning out good
stuff in the next few months.

But we're all

going to recycle all right OK Thank you.