Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
JIM ANGLE: Welcome to the University of Virginia and another of our debates on
issues of national importance. Iʹm Jim Angle, Chief Washington correspondent of FOX
News.
President Obama has made transforming energy policy one of the key goals of his
Administration. Central to that is an effort to end our dependence on carbon‐based
fuels and that is the subject of our debate tonight.
Joining us tonight are four people with wide experience and knowledge of the topic at
hand. First we have Jim Woolsey, former director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton. Mr. Woolsey is a currently partner in a California‐based venture capital firm
that focuses on clean tech investments. He also serves on the National Commission on
Energy Policy.
He will be arguing on the side to end our dependency on carbon‐based fuels as will his
partner, John Podesta, head of President Obamaʹs transition team and former Chief of
Staff to President Clinton. He now heads up a progressive think tank in Washington.
Arguing against the resolution is Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New
Jersey and former head of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency under
President George W. Bush. She now serves as the president of a consulting firm that
specializes in energy and environmental issues.
Her teammate is Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerceʹs
Institute for 21st Century Energy. Previously she was Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Welcome everyone, before we begin our debate, a little background on the issues.
(START VIDEO)
NARRATOR: The urgency and visibility of cutting the nationʹs dependency on carbon‐
based fuels ebbs and flows with the price of oil. But energy independence is about
more than keeping gasoline prices low.
Currently, 80 percent of U.S. energy needs are met by carbon‐based fuels. That has
direct implications for national security, environmental sustainability and economic
viability. The U.S. spent $460 billion to import oil in 2008; thatʹs two‐thirds of Americaʹs
trade deficit, which may be a serious drag on long‐term growth.
The United States imports 60 percent of its petroleum, much from OPEC countries. The
reliance on imported petroleum, especially from unstable and potentially hostile parts
of the world could undermine security and economic interests.
That point was driven home last December. Europe receives 80 percent of its natural
gas from Russia via Ukraine pipelines. But a pricing dispute between those two
countries resulted in Russia cutting off supplies to the Ukraine and left Europe partially
in the dark and cold.One strategy, lifting restrictions on domestic drilling in places such as Alaska, may ease
the reliance on foreign oil, but slow the nationʹs conversion from carbon‐based energy,
and in the long run, contribute to climate change.
Worldwide energy consumption accounts for 75 percent of human CO2 emissions – the
main contributor to global climate change. The IPCC and Intergovernmental Panel
notes that changes in climate now affect physical and biological systems on every
continent, from disease to extremes in weather, famine, even species extinction.
But how does the nation end its reliance on carbon‐based fuels, and should it? Most
people point to alternative sources of energy as the answer, including nuclear power. It
is a relatively cheap and clean fuel source.
However, no new nuclear facilities have been built since the Three Mile Island accident
in 1978. Issues of safety, radioactive waste disposal and the fear of nuclear proliferation
have stymied its development.
Renewable energy sources, wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal and biomass have
their own drawbacks and tradeoffs, including how to get solar power from the desert
and wind power from the plains to the urban areas that need them.
President Obama has allocated more than $70 billion in spending and tax credits for
renewable, but none of them alone is the silver bullet. With this patchwork of energy
sources, many people have advocated for a national energy policy in which the
government would provide a comprehensive plan, including fuel standards, green
building legislation and subsidies for renewable energy sources.
Others want to see as little government intervention as possible, setting a carbon tax
and then stepping out of the way. Or a cap‐and‐trade program, in which the
government sets emissions caps that can be traded on an open market.
Still others say just let the free markets sort out the winners and losers. And finally
there is our individual energy consumption, the cheapest, cleanest energy is the energy
not used. A point highlighted by environmental activists and former Vice President Al
Gore and through public awareness campaigns led by the younger generations.
But the bottom is line is that those efforts alone are unlikely to provide change at the
scale thatʹs needed.
(END VIDEO)ANGLE: And now to our debate. Each participant will have a three‐minute opening
statement, starting with John Podesta and alternating between teams. Try not to go
over three minutes. I wonʹt say anything to you, but you might arrive home and find an
oil derrick going up in your backyard.
After your opening statements, weʹll move to rebuttals and a wider discussion, which I
will moderate. The debate will conclude with two minute closing statements from each
team. Again, our debate resolution, the United States must end its dependency on
carbon‐based fuels.
Up first, already wondering whatʹs happening in his backyard and arguing in favor of
the resolution, is John Podesta.
JOHN PODESTA: Well thank you, Jim. And I think I speak on behalf of all four of us
when I say itʹs a pleasure to be here at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia.
Let me start by saying that our national security, our economic security and our
environmental stability demand that we capture the enormous opportunity that is
offered by the swift and dramatic changes in the way we produce and use energy.
First, we need to be more efficient in the use of energy. And we need to move from
polluting fossil fuels to get off that dependence that the introduction talked about to
clean, renewable energy.
We know what the status quo brings: higher energy costs, stagnating job growth,
hundreds of billions of dollars a year going from Americans’ pocketbooks to the axis of
oil. Billions more on defense spending to protect our sources, catastrophic climate
change, drought, crop loss, extreme weather events and climate refugees.
But it doesnʹt have to be that way. We can cut carbon pollution from dirty energy like
coal and oil, and jumpstart Americaʹs clean energy industry while creating millions of
high‐paying jobs that canʹt move overseas by investing in energy efficiency and clean,
renewable fuels like wind and solar.
In fact, every dollar invested in clean energy development not only slows climate
change, but it creates four times as many jobs in the United States as the production of
oil. The Landmark Recovery bill that President Obama signed into law in February
started us down this path by tripling our investments in clean and renewable energy.The investment is already helping American entrepreneurs create good jobs. A wind
turbine company for example in Michigan, Dowding Machining, plans to hire several
hundred laid‐off autoworkers.
Why? Because theyʹre the people who have the skills to do the job of manufacturing
perfectly calibrated 20‐ton turbine carts. There are similar success stories all across the
country. A recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute find significant and economic
benefits from pursuing robust strategies to reduce carbon pollution, and quite simply,
we canʹt afford to fall behind the rest of the world.
China today is spending $12.6 million an hour on clean energy technologies. Theyʹve
set a goal within three years to be a leader in hybrid and electric vehicles.
Japan and Europe are already well ahead of us. Germany – not known for being a
sunshine country – is one of the leading countries on solar installments. So weʹve got to
get on with it. The promise of the future in these technologies is there.
We need to be first in the game and be first with production of American jobs. Thank
you.
ANGLE: John Podesta, thank you very much. Up next and arguing against the
resolution is Karen Harbert. Karen.
KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT: Thank you, Jim, and thank you to the Miller Center
at U.Va. for hosting this timely debate on one of our nationʹs most pressing issues.
I think we all agree in order to have strong nation we need a strong economy, and that
depends on having a strong energy foundation. The question before this group is: is
that foundation with or without carbon‐based fuels? Itʹs a commendable ambition, but
as with any complex issue, the devilʹs in the details – and the details on this are not
inconsequential.
In what timeframe are we talking about? At what cost? And do we have the real
options on the table that we need right now. I want to be clear; I am a staunch
supporter of clean and renewable energy.
But letʹs take solar and wind, for example. Currently they comprise less than 2 percent
of our nationʹs electricity supply, so even if we tripled them overnight, we still need to
find sources for that other 95 percent of our electricity demand and for our
transportation needs. We are 96 percent dependent on oil to fuel our 200 million cars. So to make a dramatic change it takes time, it takes money and it takes technology. You
know, us Americans – weʹre practical people, so letʹs be realistic. The decisions we
make on energy over the next few years will largely determine what our nation will
look like for decades to come.
So I think we need a very thoughtful approach. We need to be crystal clear about the
cost and the time frame and whatʹs going to happen to the American economy. After
all, fossil fuels became central to our nationʹs economy for a very good reason.
They were abundant. They were cheap, and they came packaged very small and very
powerful. Do we have a substitute readily available today that is comparable? In these
economic times, we need practical solutions and we need more, not fewer options. Let
me be specific.
First, if we want to reduce our dependence on imported oil, then letʹs open up the 85
percent of Americaʹs oil and gas reserves that have been off‐limits for 30 years. That
could power our homes. It could fuel our cars, and it could create American jobs here
at home.
Second, electricity is going to go up by 20 percent in this country. And if we want clean
and reliable energy, weʹre going to have to have more nuclear energy. Why? Itʹs safe,
itʹs emissions free, itʹs cheap and it creates high‐paying jobs.
Third, we have 250 years’ worth of coal in this country and we need to be able to use it
and use it wisely and create the technology to allow us to do so. Because if we donʹt,
other countries will buy that coal from us and use it anyway.
Lastly, we do need to use our energy more wisely. We need to be more efficient in the
way we use energy and not waste energy. Do more with less, not less with less. Iʹll say
Iʹm an energy optimist. I know we can reduce our dependence on imported oil and also
reduce the emissions from carbon‐based fuels.
To solve our nationʹs serious energy challenges, we need a thoughtful and realistic
transition to a low carbon‐based future, but we need to do it in a way that doesnʹt
impose unmanageable burdens on Americanʹs families and Americaʹs businesses, both
large and small.
We need to tap all of Americanʹs resources and we need to harness our deep well of
innovation that has helped our country through so many crises that will provide
America long‐term energy security and an achievable, affordable path.And last, let me say I hope that more dialogues like this happen. We need more people
involved in this debate across this country to be informed and involved. Not just let it
be in the halls of Congress and White House, but to engage the whole country in our
pressing issues. Thanks, Jim.
ANGLE: Karen Harbert, thank you. Now we hear from Jim Woolsey.
R. JAMES WOOLSEY: Thanks, Jim. Itʹs an honor to be here with these distinguished
fellow debaters and with this group. We have two basic energy problems in the United
States – two basic energy systems.
One is transportation, which is 96 percent, as Karen said, oil, fire, fuel. The other is
electricity, which is about 51 percent coal, and the rest a mixture of gas, hydro, and
nuclear and a little bit of renewables. Today these are not really connected because we
only use – about 2 percent of our electricity comes from oil. So oil isnʹt a player in the
electricity market.
These problems today are very different, and we need to approach the oil problem and
the coal problem with different tools and with different ideas. Oil is a problem for us,
both because it emits about 40 percent of the carbon dioxide that our system emits, and
also because itʹs a serious national security problem.
Tom Friedman, in his new book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, has a chapter called ʺFill Her Up
With Dictators.ʺ Itʹs a good line, because eight of the nine top exporters of oil in the
world are autocratic kingdoms or dictatorships. Only nice Norway, a democracy, is in
there among odd company.
We, by shipping well over a billion dollars a day at last yearʹs rates overseas, are
funding such things as certain types of madrassas – schools, letʹs say – in the West Bank
of Palestine and in Pakistan, little 8‐year‐old boys are being taught to hate, who want to
be suicide bombers.
If you wonder who is paying for that, whoʹs responsible for that, whoʹs paying for those
things to run? Next time youʹre in a filling station, before you get out to get your credit
card, turn the rearview mirror just a couple of inches so youʹre looking into your own
eyes. Now you know who is paying for those little 8‐year‐old Pakistani and Palestinian
boys to become suicide bombers.We have to move away decisively from oil. We have to do to oil what my sometime
writing colleague, Anne Corn, calls turning it into salt. Salt was a strategic commodity
until the late 1890s, early part of the 20thcentury. When salt finally was replaced by
electricity for freezing meat, it was no longer the only way to preserve the meat, and its
strategic importance was destroyed. Salt is still around, probably had it on the dinner
table tonight.
Are we salt independent? Do you care where it came from? Of course not – just a
useful commodity thatʹs used in international trade. But nobody knuckles under to his
neighbor anymore because he has a salt mine.
That world ended at the beginning of the 20th century. We need to end oilʹs strategic
importance as quickly and as decisively as we can. Electricity and producing it cleanly
is also important. Weʹll get to that at a later point in the discussion.
ANGLE: Jim Woolsey, thank you. And finally, opening remarks from Christine Todd
Whitman.
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Thank you very much. And I, too, want to thank
our host for this evening and the Miller Center, U.Va., and MacNeil/Lehrer for allowing
this opportunity to have what I hope is going to be a very thorough and complete
discussion on an enormously complex topic.
We heard in the opening that we are better than 80 – Iʹd say 85 percent, actually,
dependent on fossil fuels, mostly for – cars are totally dependent on it, and for
electricity itʹs about two thirds.
So to pose a question that says that we can be totally carbon neutral, or get away from
fossil fuels entirely, I think is setting up the wrong dynamic. And itʹs a frustration that I
have had for a long time with the way many of these issues are posed, which is theyʹre
zero‐sum games. You know, itʹs all one way or all the other way.
The thing thatʹs difficult for us as Americans to accept as a concept is, thereʹs no silver
bullet. There are going to have to be a variety of different sources of energy that we use
over time. To hear someone say, and Al Gore has said this, that we could be a totally
fossil fuel‐free economy in 10 years, just isnʹt supported by the facts. We have heard it.
I actually think that renewables are a little bit stronger, depending how you count your
renewables. You can put hydropower in there and you can get up to almost 7 percentof the total mix today, but thatʹs not enough. If youʹre having a 21 percent increase in
electricity demand by 2030, even tripling thatʹs not going to do it.
Weʹre going to have to look at some things that we havenʹt wanted to talk about. In
fact, an EPA analysis of the current – well, I donʹt know, the Waxman bill of yesterday –
itʹs changed today and it keeps changing. Of yesterday, [it] was based in order to reach
the targets theyʹd set – was based on 150 percent increase in nuclear production and
nuclear energy.
Nuclear is 20 percent of our energy today. That is a subject that has been taboo for so
long we havenʹt been willing to think about it, but weʹre going to have to. Weʹre going
to have to look at all of these sources because unfortunately, much as weʹd like to have
it, there is no one silver bullet.
And thatʹs what I certainly hope we will get to tonight in a little more depth when we
look at the pros and cons, because everything, even the renewables, have problems with
them, and we have a lot of technology weʹve got to continue to develop. Thereʹs a long
way to go, but thereʹs a lot we can do with what we have got on our fossil fuels. We
need to improve those.
I donʹt think anybodyʹs against the idea or the commitment to reducing our dependence
on foreign oil, and to reducing our emission of greenhouse gasses. I certainly am very
much in favor in all of those things. I just donʹt want to mislead people into thinking
that we can become wholly independent or that we can totally get away from fossil fuel.
Letʹs frame this discussion in a reasonable, sensible way so we can start to reach some of
the conclusions that might actually work and set us on the right path in the future.
Thank you.
ANGLE: Thank you. Now weʹll get rebuttals from these teams starting with the team
in favor of the resolution and Jim Woolsey.
WOOLSEY: Well, both Ms. Harbert and Governor Whitman have talked about nuclear.
Let me say a word about nuclear power. Nuclear power is, in fact, clean to operate and
relatively today, inexpensive to operate, but it is very expensive to build.
The reason we havenʹt built any new nuclear power plants since 1979 is because of the
publicʹs concern about Three Mile Island, and in the aftermath the market will not build
nuclear power plants. It requires huge subsidies – subsidies first of all, with respect to
loan guarantee. Secondly, with respect to insurance, all paid for by the taxpayers. Ifyou add up all of those nuclear is considerably more expensive than natural gas at
todayʹs prices.
And a good natural gas plant, although itʹs a fossil fuel, I think John and I both believe
that it will play an important transitional role much more so than we hope coal in to a
non‐carbon future because it can be turned on and off easily, itʹs a good companion for
renewables.
At night when the sun is not shining you can turn on the natural gas plant. So there is a
real role I think for gas but less of one for nuclear, partially because of the cost but
mainly because of the proliferation risk. We could deploy nuclear in this country
without worrying about this.
We have a problem with where to put the spent fuel, but we could solve that. The real
problem is that if you have a nuclear power plant under the existing treaties you can get
into the fuel cycle. You know, whatever country in the world you are in you can enrich
uranium, reprocess plutonium and get very, very close to having a nuclear weapon.
North Korea has shown that. Iran has shown that. We do not want the United States
with pro‐nuclear policy, particularly one that extends to exports to become the Johnny
Appleseed of nuclear proliferation by traveling around the world putting in light water
reactors, nuclear power plants, selling them and having people get into the business of
nuclear weapons.
Thatʹs a very bad idea and nuclear Iʹm afraid leans us that way.
ANGLE: And the rebuttal from the other team, Karen Harbert.
HARBERT: Thank you. Both Jim and John have made the point that energy security is
national security and national security depends on economic competitiveness. And I
fear that some of the proposals weʹre talking about will pose unnecessary and
burdensome costs on American business, which will drive our businesses overseas, our
jobs overseas, and we will not be a competitive economy.
John mentioned the status quo. Well, the status quo has gotten us where we are today –
and you said that jobs would go down and prices would go up. Well, if we were to
develop more resources here at home, the laws of supply and demand dictate that
actually we would have more supply and prices would go down. At the same time you said that we would have less jobs, that the oil and gas industry
employs six million Americans. If you build a new nuclear plant youʹre creating 2,400
jobs in local rural communities.
These are real jobs that we need to be creating. I donʹt think in our economic times we
have the luxury of picking and choosing what types of jobs that we can create. We
should create all jobs and long‐term jobs.
You brought up the fact about money and how much weʹre sending overseas. Letʹs
remember that the status quo of taking off the table those 85percent of Americaʹs oil and
gas reserves has forced us to buy it overseas, that $460 million. Wouldnʹt we want to
spend some of that money here at home and develop those resources here at home?
You mentioned China. Chinaʹs building one coal fire plant a week, if not two. Theyʹre
building 40 new nuclear plants. So people are moving beyond us and we need to have
more options on the table, not less.
ANGLE: Thank you. Now weʹll move to a broader discussion. In general only one
member of each team needs to answer each question but everyone is welcome to jump
into the fray whenever you feel so moved.
Let me ask first to start off the discussion on nuclear which I thought was an interesting
exchange here. Jim Woolsey, let me ask you first. France depends on nuclear for more
than 80 percent of its power. It was the one country in Europe that didnʹt have to worry
about what the Russians did with natural gas.
How can the French do it without creating the problems that you worry about?
WOOLSEY: Well, that is a problem, natural gas imports for them – but for Europe; itʹs
not for us. We import about 15 percent of our natural gas and it is essentially all from
Canada. Now we went to war with Canada twice in the late 1770s and the year 1812
and they whipped us both times, and theyʹre not that mean and they donʹt cut off our
gas.
Theyʹre not ruled by a Putin. So I think that our electricity set of issues is a set of issues
about cost and about cleanliness and cleaning up the grid both in terms of carbon and
also making the grid more survivable. The control systems of the grid are really very fragile now and hackers can get into it
and the rest. Weʹve got to fix that. But we donʹt have an import problem with respect
to what we use to produce electricity. We have that problem with oil for transportation
but not with respect to electricity.
ANGLE: Others? Yes.
WHITMAN: Well I just – I have to get back to the security issue on nuclear, because I
hear it quite a bit. Itʹs a concern that people have, and an understandable concern. But I
would just point to some of our major international challenges today on security.
Pakistan with a nuclear weapon, North Korea moving toward a nuclear weapon, other
states, our not having built a nuclear plant since 1978 hasnʹt stopped that and when
you look at the way spent rods are contained and held in this country, they are in a very
secure place. The nuclear regulatory commission makes sure of that.
Now, what France has done and what Japan is doing, because there are a lot of
countries that are going nuclear more and more and a lot of countries that already are.
Theyʹre reprocessing.
Youʹre able to reduce the spent – the fissionable material in those nuclear rods from 97
percent which is whatʹs left in the now to 2 to 3 percent, which vastly reduces the
amount of material you have to worry about, and by the way, if we took all the spent
nuclear rods we have in this country from the 104 nuclear plants that we have, they
would fill up one football field to the height of the goal post – which is different than
most peopleʹs conception.
But itʹs a real concern except that I would say that I think itʹs a red herring in this case in
the sense that we have very, very high standards. Are they perfect? No. Nothingʹs ever
perfect on anything, but when the 9/11 Commission did its look of threat matrix – and
you know this better than I, but certainly you can relate to this.
Chemical plants rated above nuclear plants as likely targets for terrorists because they
were less secure and more able to create the kind of explosion that they wanted to see,
rather than try to get a rod out in order to be able to use it. Because if you breach those
holding tanks or the cement reinforced concrete that are holding the rods today, youʹre
not going to get very far.
So I donʹt think thatʹs the place, frankly to my mind, thatʹs the issue that ought to make
us determine whether to go forward or not with nuclear. And Iʹm just very interested inthe Waxman bill, with the kinds of targets weʹre setting for ourselves by 2050 in
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
If EPA, this Administrationʹs EPA, in looking at the bill says it anticipates it can only be
done with 150 percent reduce in nuclear, I donʹt think weʹre going to get there. And I
am not advocating for that. Iʹd like to keep it at 20 percent.
ANGLE: John Podesta.
PODESTA: Jim we could probably all get deep and technical on reprocessing and
whatʹs left and, you know, the heat load of the actinides left in reprocessing but I donʹt
think the audience will be that interested in it. Jim really said I think what the
fundamental issue is around nuclear, which is it is very expensive to build.
Once youʹve built it, it runs very cheaply. So the 20 percent of nuclear thatʹs in our fleet
right now that we get from pre‐existing plants runs. Itʹs profitable. Itʹs easy, you know,
and we need to maintain that and maintain the safety of those plants moving forward.
But the reason no oneʹs built a new nuclear plant and even with the generous subsidies
that were given in the 2005 energy bill that President Bush supported, no one still has
really got a plant on the drawing board, although thereʹs some new permits being
requested, is that itʹs really expensive to build.
Itʹs a lot more expensive than putting gas online, as Jim suggested. Youʹd have to put a
high price on carbon pollution from coal fire power plants.
Now, I think Jim and I are both in favor of that because carbon is putting a burden in
other ways on our economy and certainly on our planet. But youʹd have to begin by
putting a very high price on carbon, and I wonder whether Christine and Karen would
agree that thatʹs the path we ought to go down.
I think thatʹs what we see as the path thatʹs coming in the future, but would you agree
that in order to bring the promise of nuclear on stream youʹre prepared to put a high
price on carbon from polluting power plants – particularly from coal plants?
HARBERT: I think itʹs important to get the facts on the table. There are a number of
companies, 20 to be exact, that have put forward applications to the nuclear regulatory
commission to build new nuclear plants. There is an appetite. The loan application process with the Department of Energy to
reduce the cost of capital has been oversubscribed and the Congress is contemplating
adding more. And I think they should, because we have a demonstrated expertise and
we would recreate a manufacturing base in this country that we let go to Korea and to
Japan, and that would create great jobs here at home.
So I want to be clear that thereʹs industry appetite and that there is capital out there and
we need to match those two things up and move ahead. On the point on France, letʹs
also remember that France was the only country in the European Union that was able to
reduce its CO2 emissions greatly.
And why? Because 80 percent of their electricity came from nuclear power, so if you
want to reduce CO2 emissions you have to have nuclear power. Particularly with the
ambition targets that Christine mentioned that are being considered in Congress today.
PODESTA: I didnʹt get a yes, I donʹt think.
HARBERT: Well I think youʹre going to see it. If we have a carbon‐constrained
economy – and I have been arguing that this is going to happen – no matter, frankly,
who won …
PODESTA: Well, would you support it?
HARBERT: … the last election. Yes, Iʹm in favor of a cap‐and‐trade program. The
devil is in the details, and how fast you do it and how deep the cuts are. We saw with
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on S02 that if you structure the program correctly
and give the private sector some incentive to do the right thing, as well as having some
punishment at the end of the day if they didnʹt, that they can do incredible things.
They reduced S02 below what was called for in the regulation. They did it in half the
time and they did it at half the cost that was estimated. Thatʹs going to be the key and
to think though. What I worry [about] is if the thinking behind where we put these caps
is 10 years? In 10 years, we want to be carbon free, thatʹs going to really put our
economy into a tailspin.
Iʹm not against [it], and I think the price will go up, and right now you can see that
Chicago climate exchange is trading carbon. And, of course, Europe is trading carbon
because they have a cap, and thatʹs created the price. Weʹre going to see that. There are
ways to make it so it doesnʹt put our economy, doesnʹt set it back, and doesnʹt put us on
the skids.PODESTA: Well, the President …
HARBERT: ... the devil’s in the details.
PODESTA: The Presidentʹs called for 20‐percent reduction below 2005 levels in a bill
that you referred to, Governor, reduces now 17 percent below 2005 levels. So I donʹt
think anyone in the political arena is suggesting that you can get completely carbon free
in 10 years.
I know that Vice President Gore has put that out as a goal and I think thereʹs great
promise for renewables in the system to get us pretty far toward that goal, but I think
that in the practical politics, weʹre going to move down this track in a way thatʹs
sensible, thatʹs going to create jobs, and itʹs going to create new industries and new
investment, particularly on the efficiency and renewable side.
ANGLE: John, let me ask you question. You talked about putting a high price on
carbon emissions from coal fired plants. We get half of our electricity from coal. In the
Midwest there are states that get 75, 80, 85, 90, even 95 percent of their electricity from
coal. How do you put a high price on emissions from coal fired plants without putting
a burden on both consumers and energy intensive industries in those areas?
PODESTA: Well, thatʹs the debate thatʹs going on on Capitol Hill today. And I think
that the people on Capitol Hill have found a solution to that, which is to take that
money, the cost of pollution, make the polluters pay and return that to customers
through rebates on their electricity bills – through support for high carbon intensive
industries like steel and aluminum, etc.
And thatʹs exactly the debate thatʹs happening in the Congress as we speak. And they
seem to be working it out, because I think a billʹs likely to pass through committee and
through the House over the course of the summer.
ANGLE: Jim Woolsey, you see natural gas as sort of a transition fuel. It has about half
the carbon footprint of coal and petroleum. I know there is a worry among some that if
we start moving quickly into natural gas it will drive up the price there as well.
WOOLSEY: Well, it could. Thereʹs a debate about this. Matt Simmons, who talks
about peak oil, is concerned that we may not have nearly as much gas as people think.
But most observers have pointed to a lot of recent gas discovery in shale formations
distributed around the United States.Not just together with oil, which was the way gas historically was thought of, and if we
have adequate gas to help tide us over, we can help move – it can help us move toward
solar and wind and geothermal and the renewables and even cleaner fuels. It will take
some time. But the two things that we need to focus on really hard in the short run that
have the biggest payoffs are first of all, energy efficiency.
I mean, 70 percent of the electricity in the United States goes into buildings, and a huge
share of that is used for lighting. By going to LEDs – right now, theyʹre kind of
expensive. But as they get cheaper, going to LEDs and cutting your electricity use 90
percent to produce light, youʹd do a huge amount.
Wal‐Mart is getting huge savings by just making those kinds of changes in existing
buildings and sometimes over 50 percent savings in new buildings with the right kind
of sky lights and so forth.
And the other is whatʹs called combined heat and power or co‐generation, which is
using the waste heat from some heat generating processes and some electricity
producing processes to warm buildings so you are – and warm industrial processes – so
youʹre doing the two together.
Denmark gets a third of its electricity from combined heat and power. We get a few
tiny percent because our utilities and public utility commissions kind of donʹt like it and
havenʹt supported it. There are a lot of things like that we can do and ease the need for
fossil fuels as weʹre transitioning to renewables.
ANGLE: Letʹs talk about renewables for a moment. Weʹve talked about wind and
solar. They tend to be gathered in areas that are far from the cities that consume them
in large amounts. How do we get wind and solar from the deserts and the plains to the
big cities without more transmission lines, which happens to be one of the most
controversial issues you can raise in any jurisdiction. Governor Whitman.
WHITMAN: Thatʹs absolutely true. And thatʹs one of our biggest challenges, because
unfortunately where the sun tends to shine the most reliably is in the middle of a desert
not near anybody and where you have the biggest opportunity because wind power
requires a big geographic footprint.
That tends, again, to be in places where you donʹt have a lot of people and thereʹs no
transmission line near it. Our infrastructure, our energy infrastructure, is badly in needof repair, no matter what. Even if we didnʹt add another kilowatt of power weʹve got to
do something about is because itʹs really getting to be at the crisis point.
But you even talk to environmentalists and they will tell you that, well, weʹve seen it.
When there was an attempt to put a wind farm off Nantucket and it was in some
peopleʹs view, who were big environmentalists, they were able to stop it.
I wonʹt name the names but I think everybody knows who they were. They were able
to stop it and they do tend to be in flyways and birds donʹt look the same when they
come through a windmill on one side that they did going into it.
Thatʹs not to say we donʹt need wind power, we do and we can and we must. But I
think we have to be careful not to get overly enthusiastic about being able to solve all
our problems with these. It will be a mix.
But transmission – having been a governor during the time when they were trying to
site a transmission line and natural gas, NIMBY is alive and well everywhere and
people will fight these things.
So again, it doesnʹt mean you donʹt do it and with a national energy policy. It may help
us to get some of this done because it may get people to understand that this is not a
problem of one community. Itʹs a problem for the entire region, the state and the
nation.
ANGLE: Jim?
WOOLSEY: NIMBY, let me just tell people, NIMBY is Not In My Back Yard. Thereʹs
someone else who has offered another version of that which is BANANA – Build
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
WHITMAN: I was going to contribute that and let everybody know that we just stood
a review of what energy projects have been proposed over the last two years. Two
hundred and forty‐four energy projects have been stopped because of litigation, and 65
of those were renewable.
And so weʹve got a plague in our country of bananaism, which we really need to get
beyond to have any new builds, whether it be renewables or conventional. And that
really is an important thing that I think we could coalesce around and find a way to
move forward, because otherwise we canʹt run a 21st century economy on a 20th‐century
energy infrastructure.ANGLE: Jim.
WOOLSEY: Partial answer here, which is Germany, has something called a feed‐in
tariff and another 40 countries have followed it. It has a strange name because itʹs a
translation from the German.
But what it is is a guarantee that individuals and companies will be able to sell up to
about 20 megawatts, a small‐ to medium‐sized facility worth of renewable power to
utilities for a lengthy period of time, usually 20 years.
What that has done is produced a situation where Germany, about a quarter of the size
of the U.S., has six times the solar of the United States. Thereʹs more solar power on one
building, a big building, two megawatts in Germany, than in the entire state of Florida
or the entire state of Texas.
The Germans are doing this right. And they are building small‐ to medium‐sized
facilities that work. It would in the United States – feed into the distribution grid,
which is basically the wooden poles outside your house.
Itʹs not the big steel system which is the transmission grid. And these are small local
facilities on farmers’ roofs, that kind of thing. And the Germans have it right. We
ought to pay attention.
PODESTA: Jim, I think weʹve got to look at both ends of the grid. One is what we
make – maybe we have one agreement here, which is that there really is a need to get
high performance transmission built and particularly to bring renewables, the wind in
the Midwest, solar power in the Southwest to market, to the big cities of our country.
And thatʹs a project that needs capital. It needs financing and it needs reform so that we
have a better planning process to cut through some of the local obstacles to that.
We also have to work at the other side of the grid, and thatʹs what Jim was talking
about, which is to put smart metering in peopleʹs houses – to use the cheapest way that
we can reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to save
the energy, never to use it in the first place.
But thatʹs going to require investments in information technology, in smart metering, so
that people know how they can lower their price to link that to web‐based applications.
Weʹve seen that happen and revolution in telecommunications. We can see that happenin energy so that people can actually lower the amount that there using, lower their bills
and lower the dependence on fossil fuels.
WHITMAN: At the risk of throwing in another thing that might make this even more
complicated and controversial, there was a NASA‐funded study thatʹs now about eight
years old that said for the past 300 years, including the Industrial Revolution, we would
have had to have doubled the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere to have
the same impact on climate change as has been had from land use changes, from
deforestation, from building and from farming practices.
Now, if we want to talk about we want a carbon‐free economy because – for national
security, thatʹs one thing. But a part of it is to address the issue of climate change, and
we canʹt get there unless we start to do the kind of thing that really looks at – how do
we build and where do we build?
And I donʹt think we want – I certainly donʹt want the federal government to be the
national land use planner, or my local authority through whom I have to go to make
any changes to the house.
But we can do a lot better and being a lot smarter on your points about using green
building standards, lead building, leadership and energy and environmental design,
doing the little things. Purchases of Energy Star products – Energy Star is a program
run by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
And itʹs purely voluntary and it benchmarks the energy efficiency of various appliances
– everything from a light bulb to a television set to buildings. Last year removed or
prevented the emission of carbon equivalent to taking 24 million cars off the road. So
when people think that, I, individually, canʹt do anything, you forget that if I do it and
you do it and you do it and you do it, all of the sudden weʹre making a difference.
ANGLE: Let me ask you a broader question because, obviously, weʹre trying to, as you
said, raise the price on carbon emissions to make other things more competitive in part.
Can we make this transition in a way that doesnʹt hurt consumers and energy‐intensive
industries, and if so, how long will it take?
PODESTA: Well, again, I think that the marks that are being considered on Capitol
Hill are trying to do a lot in the next 10 years, even more in the 10 years following that,
ultimately trying to get really to a carbon – almost nearly a carbon‐free energy system
by 2050. And thatʹs going to require the kinds of policies and investments that have been resisted
during the last eight years, and I think have been embraced by the new Administration:
to try to have a renewable electricity standard so weʹre building in more wind and solar
across the country.
The states that have done that have found it to be cost‐effective. The public supports it
and we see itʹs one of the few bright spots in the economy. Last year, the wind industry
created 35,000 jobs. There arenʹt that many industries in 2008 who maybe can claim
that. And I think that as we move forward weʹve got to have common‐sense policies
that push us toward these clean technologies.
And Iʹll come back to it, and maybe, again, itʹs a point of agreement. The easiest place
to pick this up is on efficiency. Building efficiency, the way we light and heat our
buildings – thereʹs tremendous gains to be made there, there are jobs to be had there at
the high end and the low end, engineering down to going in and, you know, putting
more insulation into buildings, putting new windows into buildings, putting more
LEDs and compact fluorescent light bulbs into buildings.
Thatʹs where the future is. We need to invent those business models, we need to
finance them and we need to get on with it. And thatʹs the cost‐effective way to get the
job done.
ANGLE: Jim?
WOOLSEY: Stand back from this a little bit, there are two technologies at least that I
see that keep getting better, that keep getting cheaper and more effective and they
operate together. And I think together theyʹre going to have a revolutionary change on
electricity generation. Theyʹre energy storage, the cost of storing electricity and
batteries of different types, and photovoltaics or other solar systems.
The reason they are interesting from the point of view of working together, is that as the
solar gets better, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and University
of Delaware, a number of universities, are coming up now in the laboratory with solar
efficiencies that are double what is now on the market.
Thatʹs a game‐changing sort of change. As the solar is able to operate more effectively
even in cloudy areas and so forth, and the batteries can store it affordably, not
expensively like current lead‐acid batteries. But for just an added few cents of kilowatt‐hour you begin to have circumstances in which you can delegate some portion of your
electricity needs to the combination of solar and batteries.
I have photovoltaic cells on the roof of my farmhouse, I have batteries in the basement, I
have a plug‐in hybrid that has an extra battery in it if I want to go throw off switch and
off – get off the grid I can drive on sunlight from the day before.
Now, itʹs a little expensive today. Itʹs a little bit like the $2,000 cell phone that I got from
my wife in the 1980s. But I had a bunch of people tell me, you know, ʺWhy would you
want to get into that? Cell phones are always going to weigh seven pounds and theyʹre
always going to cost $2,000.ʺ
But, you know, they were wrong and the people who say that thereʹs no promise to
storage and solar today, I think, are equally wrong.
HARBERT: Iʹm hearing a big emphasis on efficiency, and who can be against
efficiency? Itʹs like being against mom and apple pie. But what Iʹm not hearing is
whereʹs our new energy supply coming from? Solar power today, itʹs a very good
technology, but itʹs between 33 cents and 60 cents a kilowatt hour, and how much is
coal or nuclear? Itʹs 10 cents or below.
So if we are in the economy in which we found ourselves, and we are going to recover,
we need an affordable supply of energy to fuel that recovery. Where is it coming from?
And so I think we need to be clear, all of these sources had a rightful place at the table,
difference in scale and difference in cost.
WHITMAN: The other thing that Iʹd just like to say is I get very nervous when I hear
that this is all going to be decided in this bill thatʹs coming through now, on the
Waxman bill, simply because what scares me is when Congress starts to pick the
winners.
If they will write this bill such that it is, ʺWe want clean energy,ʺ and let the market
figure out which clean energy is whatʹs going to work, then great, Iʹm for it. But as we
saw when we went to alternate fuels and we decided that corn‐based ethanol was the
answer to everything, we had enormous problems.
And for those of us who live on farms, it was sort of mindless not to have thought that
if youʹre using the car – if youʹre not putting the corn into the feedstock for your cattleand pigs, itʹs going to go somewhere else and youʹre going to have a problem feeding
them.
So itʹs one of those things where we need to be very careful that language is written to
allow what I think we do best in this country, which is to have our private sector, the
ingenuity of our private sector is second to none.
They need to have regulations. They need to know weʹre serious about making
improvement, but they need to have the flexibility to be able to figure out whatʹs really
going to work. And youʹre right, I mean thereʹs a real future for solar, but right now
nobodyʹs investing in it because it is so expensive.
ANGLE: John Podesta.
PODESTA: Look, the energy policy, particularly of the last eight years make no
mistake picked winners. The five big oil companies had $100 billion worth of profits.
And the question is, are we going to move to clean, renewable technologies?
Are we going to follow the example that happened in the telecommunications area,
where weʹre going to allow innovation to take place, price the pollution thatʹs being
piped into the atmosphere and let people discover, let people build new business
models, let people provide those resources to provide better building efficiency, better
efficiency on our automobile fleets?
You know, we can do this if we want to, but itʹs going to take some choices and itʹs
going to take some policy decisions. And I think, again, thatʹs what itʹs all about and
thatʹs why I think that President Obama led with this $70 billion of clean energy
investment in the recovery bill I mentioned in February.
HARBERT: Well, I mean …
WHITMAN: Well, the telephone industry was, I mean, one of the things that led to
those innovation was Judge Greene and the deregulation. I mean that was letting the
private sector do its thing. And whether you like what happened the last – weʹre
talking about going forward now.
I f you donʹt like what happened in the last eight years because you say that the
Administration picked winners, itʹs just because maybe your sideʹs in control now you
like those winners better. But I think the same basic underlying flaw is allowing the
federal government to be the one to pick the winners.PODESTA: Peopleʹs energy …
HARBERT: And Iʹm concerned that weʹre selecting industries out to penalize, now.
All of the sudden itʹs going to be attractive to now put taxes on oil companies because
they had revenues, and remove the same tax breaks that the rest of our manufacturers
around the country have.
So letʹs select out of the industry and tax them more so theyʹll have less money to invest
to provide resources for our economy. We donʹt want to pick winners and we donʹt
want to pick losers. And right now that is getting worse and worse in Washington.
ANGLE: John, did you have something?
PODESTA: Well, you know, as I said, I think that the investments that are taking place
on building efficiency, on renewable energy, on providing a production tax credit for
wind, the investment tax credit for solar on a bipartisan basis, is building an energy
future for our country thatʹs going to produce more jobs, a cleaner environment, more
national security.
And itʹs time to get on with that program because thatʹs where the future is. Thatʹs
where the Europeans are. Thatʹs even where the Chinese are going in terms of the kinds
of investments theyʹre making.
Theyʹre doubling their wind production year‐over‐year, you know, theyʹre making a big
commitment to this – to a future where they – where the carbon constraint, the carbon
pollution changes the balance.
And that we produce the industries that are going to be competitive, and weʹre either
going to be behind – and Iʹll just close with one more statistic. Ten years ago we had 44
percent of the solar market in the U.S. Today we have 10 percent.
WOOLSEY: Your – quickly, things are moving –
WHITMAN: We are the number wind producer.
WOOLSEY: Iʹm sorry.
WHITMAN: But we are the number one‐wind producer in the world. Thatʹs another
…WOOLSEY: And the U.S., China and Spain each added more wind power last year
than the world added nuclear. Windʹs starting to move.
ANGLE: OK, letʹs move to our closing statements now. We have one from one
member of each team. Speaking for the team arguing against the resolution, Governor
Christine Todd Whitman.
WHITMAN: Well, Iʹm not sure itʹs arguing against the resolution so much as trying to
redefine the resolution.
The important thing I hope that everyoneʹs gotten from this discussion tonight is that,
while there are differences and we have disagreements, there is still a lot of area where
there is overlap and positive things can be done if we can engage people in a reasoned
fact‐based discussion.
And to understand that the decisions that weʹre asking people to make, the decisions
that – however the bill comes out of Congress that is going to put a cap on carbon, is
going to have very real implications to all of us, in our everyday lives because it will
have real impacts on companies as they decide how to make investments.
Itʹll be to the good. I mean the long‐term benefit is going to be, I believe, good for us to
reduce our carbon footprint, but there are going to be some economic impacts right
away that are going to be detrimental to some people. There will be increases.
I know one company that struck out, went ahead – and this was in the air‐conditioning
segment – they adopted the most – the 13 SEER Standard itʹs called – they adopted the
most aggressive standard, they went out and they did it on their own and they were
killed. They would have gone under if they hadnʹt been part of a much bigger
company.
So there are real prices to be paid for being the good guy, for getting out front. It
doesnʹt mean you donʹt do it, it means we have to be thoughtful. We have to I think
understand that tax incentives are not bad things. I think theyʹre good things. That
loan guarantees, again, are not bad things, theyʹre good things, but everythingʹs going
to cost us more.
And if we also go into this discussion thinking that somehow we can get free air, wind
or water and itʹs not going to cost us anything because itʹs God made it or nature made
it, however you want to describe it, weʹre kidding ourselves. Itʹs going to cost more to do any – bring any kind of new power onto line and this is too
important a discussion to try to get it through fast just because you want check another
box and Iʹve accomplished this.
ANGLE: Governor Christine Todd Whitman, thank you very much. And the final
word goes to John Podesta arguing in favor of the resolution. John.
PODESTA: Well, thank you again, Jim. And I think we have to begin with the facts
and we have to begin with the science. And I think what scientists are telling us is that
the energy path weʹre on will be devastating to the planet, itʹll be devastating to our
economy and it will be devastating to our security.
Itʹs just clear that we have to get on a path toward cleaner, low carbon energy. That in
itself provides, I think, opportunity for the American people to create a new future, to
create innovation, to create jobs, new industries, new investment.
Thatʹs not a job for the next group of leaders, for the next President, for the next
Congress. Thatʹs a job for this President, for this Congress and all of us in this room and
around the country to support changes in policies thatʹll push forward toward a system
of energy that eliminates the carbon pollution thatʹs choking our planet and that builds
on that innovation, that spirit.
We sit here – I guess we could call this the house that Thomas Jefferson built a couple of
hundred years ago – he understood that the American spirit and the American people
could tackle any problem, but they did it with innovation, with invention.
And thatʹs what we need to do to move forward with the technologies that are not
going to pollute the planet, that are going to create real jobs, that are going to make the
right investments and that are going to build the businesses of the future.
And if we stay stuck in the status quo and the past, weʹre going to miss that
opportunity. If we embrace it, change will happen, jobs will be created, and the
American people can once again be leaders in a new era of new technology. Thank you.
ANGLE: The panel covered a lot of complex and critical issues I think in an interesting
way and in a relatively short period of time. We want to thank you very much.
Thanks to our debaters on the pro side, James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA,
former Presidential Chief of Staff, John Podesta, and to the opposition, former New
Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and Karen Harbert of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerceʹs Institute for 21st Century Energy.For more information about our debates, go to the Miller Center web site and for our
broadcast on PBS, please consult your local listings. On behalf of the Miller center, Iʹm
Jim Angle, thanks for listening.
(AUDIO BREAK)
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
And now weʹre going to open it up for questions from our audience. I would ask
everyone to make your questions reasonably brief. No long speeches if you would and
we start with you, sir.
QUESTIONER: Iʹm Richard Brinley (ph) from the Darden Business School here at the
University of Virginia. I heard many things where you were in agreement this evening.
I wondered if each side might comment on what you see as maybe the two biggest
differences between you and your opponents?
WHITMAN: You all go first?
WOOLSEY: Go ahead. Take your best shot, John.
PODESTA: Well, look, in my view the rhetoric matches up. I think the reality is will –
I come back particularly to Karen and she represents the Chamber of Commerce, maybe
not tonight, maybe sheʹs here on her own behalf, but will you support policies that
ultimately put a price on carbon pollution?
And I think thatʹs a place where we have a fundamental disagreement. If you donʹt do
that, youʹre not going to move ultimately to a place where weʹre streaming in the most
productive renewable energy supplies in this country.
If coal can compete by sequestering the carbon dioxide and become a low carbon fuel,
fine, but let them compete on a level playing field against these other technologies. And
I think thatʹs probably the most fundamental disagreement between us.
HARBERT: Well, letʹs talk about that because if you look at the Presidentʹs proposal or
even whatʹs being proposed in Congress right now to reduce our CO2 emissions by
between 15 and 20 percent, depending on the proposal, that means reducing out of the
atmosphere, taking out of the atmosphere, one gigaton of CO2.And for those of you who donʹt have your pocket calculators handy, how big is a
gigaton of CO2? Itʹs the equivalent of 132 nuclear plants instead of a coal‐fired power
plant. Itʹs the same as 127,500 wind turbines, in place of a coal‐fired power plant.
So I donʹt think the question is, are you in favor of reducing the CO2 emissions at the
scale thatʹs being proposed, I think the question is do we have the policies in place to
actually do it? Do we have the technologies available to do it?
Itʹs a huge transformation, so are we going to support the type of permitting that needs
to happen, are we going to support the expansion of nuclear power? I think those are
the questions.
We need to have the building blocks that actually provide solutions, rather than
continue to talk about cap and trade, which according to the Pew Center, which
released a poll yesterday, 24 percent of the American public – only 24 percent of the
American public understand what that is; 75 percent donʹt.
So I hope weʹre doing the viewers a service by helping them to understand what some
of these options are.
PODESTA: Jim.
ANGLE: Quickly, Jim.
WOOLSEY: The essence of cap‐and‐trade is to internalize into the financial system
costs that are being imposed upon society but nobody is paying for now. Coal‐fired
power plants donʹt pay the world for adding CO2 to the environment and increasing
the risk of climate change. This would make them do that.
Now there are all sorts of transitional mechanisms that one can use by how many of the
permits you give away, how many you charge for, how quickly you transition from
giving away some to giving away fewer and so forth; there are ways you can ease the
transition.
But basically, if you are concerned about climate change and I am, John is, I know
Christine is, if you are worried about it, even if you donʹt think all climate change is
anthropogenic, I mean, you know, the earth is tilting on its axis, it does this every few
thousand years.We may be getting a bit warmer because itʹs tilting toward the sun, the northern
hemisphere, but at least doubling the amount CO2 in the atmosphere creates, in the
minds of virtually all prominent climatologists a serious, serious problem.
That means that weʹve got to have some incentive to stop putting carbon fuel‐based
material into the environment, and it doesnʹt help to say that itʹs going to cost people.
Of course it is. Thereʹs going to be a political compromise worked out on how quickly
those costs are imposed, but thatʹs the essence of cap and trade.
Or a carbon tax, whichever one youʹre in favor of, is to internalize in the financial
system costs that are now being not charged to anybody and are accruing for free,
essentially, the right to pollute. The right to pollute with CO2 is being given for free
now to people like coal companies.
WHITMAN: I donʹt think you have a real difference here actually in the concept of a
cap of some sort at some point in time, at least Iʹll speak for myself, itʹs – again, itʹs how
you put it together and how steep, how quickly.
How fast do you give the private sector time to adapt and time to make it happen so
that we donʹt pay the steepest price because we can come to a point where we can
literally put people out of business, and I donʹt think any of us want to do that.
ANGLE: Yes, sir.
QUESTIONER: Thank you, Iʹve learned something incredibly interesting tonight, that
we all now live in a banana republic.
Going along with the carbon cap and trade, you could almost do that down at a very
personal level by how much we want to change vehicle use. So we could change the
way technology is used in cars or we could add more taxes to gasoline, which would
certainly be the way to drive use down and efficiencies up.
Do you favor higher taxes on gasoline? How fast and how much?
WOOLSEY: You need the taxes on gasoline or oil if you donʹt go to electrification. If
you are going to compete with oil products by things like cellulosic ethanol, butanol,
algae‐based liquid fuels in the future, those are going to be in the same ballpark as oil.
Coming in at a number of tens of dollars per barrel and maybe headed down to a few
tens of dollars a barrel, but theyʹre in the same ballpark.Electricity even with the cap‐and‐trade system is sufficiently cheaper than oil‐based
products. I think itʹs going to have a major hand in moving us away from oil. Iʹd drive
a plug‐in hybrid now, cost about 2 cents a mile for the first 30 miles.
Some of thatʹs electricity, some of itʹs liquid fuel – some of itʹs gasoline. Gasoline at a 25‐
mile‐a‐gallon car at $2.50 a gallon is 10 cents a mile. So we are in a ballpark already
with prototype technology of being able to beat gasoline by 80 percent with plug‐in
hybrids.
We can do even better than that in electricity. Electrifying transportation is right at the
heart of not needing, I think, gasoline taxes.
ANGLE: Governor Whitman.
WHITMAN: Iʹd far prefer to see us, rather than a tax on gasoline put – raise the CAFE
standards which are the limits that are put on – the requirements that cars should meet.
And we can do that. Our companies can do that. We can do a much better job.
The Prius technology that Toyota uses today was developed by GM engineers working
with EPA scientists and General Motors sold it to Toyota. I mean, thatʹs how forward
thinking they were. Thatʹs what we have to get at rather than the kind of tax which
could be enormously burdensome on people who have to depend on their car to get
from one place to another where we donʹt have mass transit.
And thatʹs something else again. In the transportation bill, we need to have money in
there for light rail and mass transit. Thatʹs what we should be encouraging and we
have seen some people in the Congress who have made sure that doesnʹt happen in
some critical areas where the citizens actually want it. So donʹt tax. Innovate.
ANGLE: Yes sir.
QUESTIONER: Yes my name is Al Weed. Iʹm with Public Policy Virginia and itʹs
interesting that folks like yourself and our political leaders seem to be the only ones
who donʹt think this is going to cost us to make this transition. I think we all recognize
that. This side has said carbon pricing is a desirable thing. You all seem to accept it as
inevitable.
I wonder if you would reflect on how cap‐and‐trade versus carbon tax will both unleash
the innovation that you think is necessary and actually get the markets to solve these
problems. Whether youʹd compare the two and just tell us which you think is the most
efficient way to tax carbon?WOOLSEY: Virtually all economists support a carbon tax and virtually all politicians
support cap‐and‐trade, and itʹs because the economists donʹt have to get an election
certificate in order to keep their job.
WEED: But as Governor Whitman pointed out, I think we have experienced that cap‐
and‐trade can work, can be efficient and can lead to reductions in pollution at very cost‐
effective rates and I think thatʹs why the politicians, you know, have embraced that.
WOOLSEY: We can make it work.
WHITMAN: Plus, the cap‐and‐trade guarantees a reduction in the carbon emissions
whereas a tax doesnʹt. For those that who can still afford it, they will continue to
pollute at whatever levels they want.
But the question was about cost. Yes, it is going to cost. The President said when he
was a candidate that prices would escalate. He used the word skyrocket, but you know
prices are going to go up. Utility rates are going to go up. Gasoline is going to go up.
Goods are going to go up because all of these commodities actually go into different
things whether itʹs at hospitals or paper, etc. So things are going to go up and we need
to recognize that.
I think the question needs to be is what are we trying to achieve? Are we trying to
achieve reductions in CO2 and what is the smartest, least costly way to do it? And we
need to do it in a way that doesnʹt penalize American business and force them overseas
to places where there is no environmental regulation.
If our industry simply picks up and moves to China where there is no environmental
regulation, is not as stringent as ours, who is that benefiting? Itʹs not benefiting the
environment and itʹs not benefiting the American economy. We have to be very careful
of how we do this. It is not black and white.
PODESTA: This is what weʹve heard for eight years, and the truth is that while the cost
of the per unit of energy may go up, you can construct a system that returns that money
to consumers. The EPA just did a report on the so‐called Waxman‐Markey bill that said
for people at the middle to the bottom, they will actually benefit economically from the
policies that are included in that bill because most of the money is returned directly to
consumers.
The cost of doing nothing is enormous. And thatʹs what I think has to, you know,
people need to understand that. Weʹll be looking at $150 billion of insurable effects justfrom extreme weather events in the next couple of years. The cost of doing nothing is
enormous. And so if weʹre going to get on with the project we need to absorb the cost
of putting a price on pollution and use that money to spur innovation and to keep
consumer costs low.
WHITMAN: Two things if I could, quick.
ANGLE: Go ahead.
WHITMAN: First of all, I donʹt want us to slide into that one sideʹs saying do nothing
and the other sideʹs saying do everything. Thatʹs not what has been said here and the
alternative is not to do nothing. But you talked about EPA. The Office of Management
and Budget just did an analysis of EPAʹs finding relative to carbon, their finding of
impairment and that it was in fact human health and said they did not take into account
to the degree they should have the economic cost of that move.
Now there have been – now the Administrationʹs back and forth and it wasnʹt really
their people, but it was, come on. These are career people. I know the people at EPA
that did the work and OMB people are now the career or the Obama Administration
people, so clearly thereʹs a difference. I mean the point is itʹs not an either/or. There is a
difference here and I think we need to understand there are real consequences and
nobody has a total handle.
And I also think we do a disservice to the American people when we say that things are
– itʹs all black and white. The decisions have been made. Even in the sciences, an article
in Science magazine coming out this month that says it was vastly – the impact on
oceans rising from – the collapse of the arctic ice floes was vastly overrated, in fact, that
the sea levels will rise 10 feet and not 20 feet. Now, thatʹs still big and it means we want
to do something about it, believe me.
But thereʹs enough – my point only is that thereʹs enough real fact here that we donʹt
have to exaggerate to get our point across and we donʹt have to say the cost if we donʹt
do it this way itʹs doing nothing. Thatʹs not fair and thatʹs not a real reflection of what
weʹve been talking about.
ANGLE: Yes, sir?
QUESTIONER: My name is Fred Hitz. I teach at the law school here at Virginia and in
the Batten School. But in 1977 I worked on the Carter energy plan. So this is one of
those questions that goes to can we get it all done. We called it the moral equivalent of war. And the real issue is are the forces out there
that stand against this kind of change strong enough this time to throttle some of these
extraordinary comments youʹve made. We had the crude oil equalization tax. That was
our sort of carbon trade and began with these other things. I hope you can be more
optimistic about whatʹs coming this time.
ANGLE: Jim?
HARBERT: Letʹs talk about what happened with President Carter. And they put price
controls on oil to deal with what was happening in the oil markets. And what
happened? Oil companies picked up their toys and went home. They didnʹt invest and
when price – the price went through the roof. And so we need to be very careful that
we just donʹt find a single shot solution here.
We need a balanced portfolio. Thereʹs not one or the other. We need it all. And we
need to find a way to actually talk about that they can coexist. I think weʹre in very
dangerous territory. If you are pro‐energy youʹre anti‐environment. That simply is not
the case. If you are pro‐oil youʹre anti‐environment. Thatʹs not the case.
So I think we need a much better dialogue based on facts, based on science to move our
country forward because I donʹt see the forces of evil trying to stop progress. I think
what weʹre trying to do is trying to find a way to preserve our economy, grow our
economy, grow jobs in this country, do good things for the environment, have economic
and energy security at the same time play in an international arena that is increasingly
troublesome.
So I donʹt see it as bad versus good. I see it in terms of managing this transition over
time to the benefit of our economy.
WOOLSEY: What the Carter Administration did in part was something that Christieʹs
warned us about: pick winners. They picked the SIM Fuels Corporation, cold liquid.
And as soon as the Saudis drove the price of oil down in 1985 to near $5 a barrel they
bankrupted it which was reasonably predictable and thatʹs what happens when OPEC
can control the price of oil.
The government picked winners again when it picked hydrogen in – at the beginning of
this Administration, and that was just as bad a decision as the SIM Fuels Corporation.
Youʹre talking an infrastructure of hundreds of billions of dollars in order to be able to
pump hydrogen at the neighborhood filling station. And, you know, when I picked up
my plug‐in hybrid, I stopped by Wal‐Mart and picked up my infrastructure. It’s 25 feet long, costs $19.95. Itʹs orange and even a Washington lawyer can operate it.
You plug one end in the car and the other in the wall. You know, so weʹve got to pay
attention to existing infrastructure and how we can use it and not go inventing just bold
schemes to get heavily funded as hydrogen did that are kind of ideal but ignore things
like transition costs and the rest.
And that was only one of the things that the Carter Administration messed up on with
energy but I think their heart was in the right place. They were trying to get us away
from oil. They just made some bad decisions.
PODESTA: My recollection was it was the Arab oil embargo that spiked gas up.
WOOLSEY: Yes, yes, it was the heart of the matter.
ANGLE: Yes, sir.
QUESTIONER: Iʹm Bob Epstein (ph). Iʹm an emeritus professor of the medical school
but that has little connection to what Iʹm going to say. The energy issueʹs a big one for
our country and the world, and itʹs not our only problem at the moment.
Iʹll point out that last summer when gasoline was $4.50 a gallon, the public stopped
buying large automobiles. Now we have an automobile industry in crisis and we are
trying to get it going and the hope is that they will make more fuel efficient and
presumably somewhat smaller as well as hybrid automobiles.
This is not an original idea, but I really do wonder what your opinion is about a
minimum price for gasoline, which would not only encourage the sale of small cars,
which was not very effective in the ʹ70s and would simultaneously throw off surplus
revenues for the support of renewable energy sources and also the development of
mass transit.
ANGLE: Minimum price for gasoline.
HARBERT: I think Christy had it right when she said that we should be improving the
efficiency of cars and at the same time we are subsidizing alternative fuels at the
moment. I mean, ethanol enjoys a 51‐cent price advantage over traditional gasoline.So I think if we look at where we should be going, we should be improving the
efficiency of our cars. We should be expanding the types of fuels that are out there. We
should be advantaging those that are new to the market and the new market makers.
Ethanol that is not going to compete with food and like cellulosic ethanol, which would
come from wood chips and sawgrass and other things, so I think we need more fuel
options and we need more efficient cars.
WOOLSEY: Well, if you look at the history of the oil business in the United States and
things like the depletion allowance and intangible drilling costs and exemptions to the
clean – from the Clean Air Act and all the rest, itʹs pretty hard to argue that oil doesnʹt
have a lot of pretty big subsidies.
A number of our energy systems have subsidies of different types associated with them.
The trick is to try to manage this in such a way that the market makes the decisions
within the parameter of things like radically reducing carbon emissions.
ANGLE: I think the question though was a minimum price on gasoline would force
consumers to – would it at least make them more inclined to buy higher mileage cars?
WOOLSEY: I think the way that makes sense is the way Charles Krauthammer, the
columnist, has proposed it, which is add a dollar of the cost of gasoline and rebate every
penny to the public through Social Security tax, Social Security payments,
unemployment and so forth.
Now some people who drive more will lose a bit, some people who drive less will gain
a bit. But if you give a 100 percent of it back, I think there is – a reasonable case could
be made. But because you can move to electrification, Iʹm not sure you need to.
ANGLE: Thank you, sir.
PODESTA: The other thing is that we have any kind of global recovery after this year,
weʹre going to see the price of oil go right back up. And so I think that, you know, for
people making consumer investments today, they ought to realize that thatʹs likely to
happen.
The history that Jim referenced, which is the Saudis in particular, ability to use OPEC to
drive the price down to strand investment in alternative fuels or more efficient vehicles,
I think those days are over.ANGLE: Yes, sir.
QUESTIONER: Hi. Iʹm Ed Miller (ph), WestWind Foundation. Mr. Woolsey, I think
you began to address the question I have. Thereʹs an alternative proposal to the
Waxman bill called, commonly called cap and dividend.
It would actually assign auction rights, it would auction everything. There would be no
particular beneficiary, no vested interest. It would take those proceeds over a long
period of time, which allows for redeployment of assets for companies to make good
decisions.
And give that money back through Social Security or another program, almost all of it
to the American consumer, which solves the economic issue. Can you give me a reason
why thatʹs not a good premise?
WOOLSEY: Well, Iʹve got to admit Iʹm torn on this. Iʹm an old Scoop Jackson, I guess
now Iʹd say Joe Lieberman, Democrat. And I tend to be kind of liberal on domestic
things and kind of conservative on foreign policy things.
So that side of the issue creates a dilemma for me because I would like to have a much
more comprehensive health arrangement for the country so poor people have health
insurance and I personally donʹt mind using some of the proceeds from a cap and trade
system to pay for it. But I understand the objection on behalf of a lot of people that they
donʹt want this to become just an engine for larger and larger government payments.
And I think itʹs a reasonable proposition to suggest that it ought to all go back, certainly
if we have something like a new gasoline tax. I would think giving it all back to the
public is very reasonable. With respect to cap and trade, frankly Iʹm torn.
WHITMAN: I think the likelihood of getting Congress to ever give anything all back is
slim to none. Unfortunately, every time they get more money in, they spend. It
happens at the state level, too, believe me.
And thatʹs going to be one of the biggest challenges that you face in something like that
is, is how do you actually lock it down to make sure – weʹve just seen the studies this
week that said Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid are in much bigger trouble than
we thought they were.And Social Security isnʹt going to be there, I never thought it was going to be there for
me but it doesnʹt look like my grandkids are going to get it either. So thatʹs going to be
one of the biggest challenges.
WOOLSEY: You wouldnʹt be getting it all back. Itʹd be subject to tax – 20 percent of the
…
WHITMAN: I think Iʹd like to see them lock it in so everything had to go back.
ANGLE: Thank you very much, sir. We have time for one more question. Yes, sir.
QUESTIONER: My name is Robert McGrath (ph). Iʹm a resident of Charlottesville. As
Iʹve listened to this very interesting debate, you all agree one way or another that we
should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. You talk about it for national security
and also for the environment. You all have expressed a need to reduce the amount of
CO2 that we put into the atmosphere.
But it seems to be to have any chance of an effective public policy that can actually
accomplish what we all I guess would like to see happen, is that we need to have some
sense from the science, from our understanding of the science, about how fast we need
to reduce our CO2 emissions and also how much we have to reduce them and I would
very much like to hear what each of you think about that.
WOOLSEY: The climatologists, the leading ones, are all very worried. Theyʹre more
worried than the public debate suggests. And one reason theyʹre worried is that the
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Itʹs not like sulfur dioxide. When we came up with the cap‐and‐trade system and began
to get – moving against acid rain by getting sulfur dioxide out, by radically reducing the
inputs you are radically reducing the amount in the atmosphere.
CO2 is more like having a – we have a rather full bathtub full of CO2 and the plug is
still in. And people, as youʹre adding to the bathtub, itʹs getting higher and higher and
if you turn that down or even off so youʹre not adding to the store, youʹve still got a
pretty full bathtub full of CO2 that in the analogy is helping cause climate change.
So the need to take decisive action and to do it soon is a lot more the case I think with
respect to CO2 than it is with the sort of thing, pollutions that we are used to dealing
with. That point is not commonly understood and I think it is one of the reasons behind
the urgency that a number of us, John and I and others, feel on this.ANGLE: Any comment?
WHITMAN: The overwhelming number of credible scientists believe that climate
change is real and climate is change is something about which we need to be concerned
and should start action today.
There is however still a disagreement, scientists just donʹt agree on everything, they
agree on very little actually, absolutely. As I said, thereʹs a study coming out this week
in – this month in Science magazine that cuts in half the anticipated impact from the
arctic melt.
And weʹre seeing that kind of thing back and forth so that to get to the answer to your
question, what you have to do is take the bulk of the science and see where itʹs going
and make your best decision based on that because youʹre not going to get unanimity.
And you are going to have scientists who are very credible scientists who are saying,
and you have them, who say this is all a bunch of baloney.
You know, I will say, I donʹt believe humans cause climate change. I think we so
exacerbate a natural phenomena that nature isnʹt able to absorb and adapt to it in the
way that she has in the past and we canʹt in the way we need to because we will see
more storms.
We will see more droughts. We will see more floods. We donʹt know where, we donʹt
know when but itʹs happening. So we need to take action today. And besides those six
climate – those are pollutants. Theyʹre all pollutants those, so we do better if we get
them out of our atmosphere anyway.
ANGLE: John?
PODESTA: Itʹs hard to know where to begin with that. But you know, the cost of this
is enormous. There are a billion people who live on the water that comes from glacier
melt. Those glaciers will be gone in 50 years.
Ten – 20 feet to 10 feet that the governor mentioned, thatʹs 50 million if itʹs at the low
end of that – thatʹs 50 million refugees from Bangladesh flooding into India. And the
most dangerous places in the world if you want to think about a security problem the
effects of climate change are going to be enormous in the Horn of Africa, Nigeria, in the
Middle East, in South Asia. All the places where we have either troops deployed or weʹre thinking about problem
spots that we need to contend with. Those are the people who probably contribute the
least to the problem who are going to be hit the most.
And what do the scientists say? They say the globe has to – the globe, not the United
States – has to peak within the next 10 years in terms of its CO2 emission in order to
have any ability to manage at what is referred to as the 2 degree C.
You know, thatʹs what 3 to 1.8, so you know 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit change in the global
average temperature. If we donʹt do that then the people here with children and
grandchildren are going to be looking at a future that this will define the future of the
economy, of our security and of the future of the country.
ANGLE: Karen, you get the last word.
HARBERT: Good. How long do I have? Let me encourage the Miller Center to maybe
consider having another one of these on this subject alone because it would take me at
least an hour to answer all of these things. And I think there might be some agreement
that would be surprising. But let me just also put some facts on the table.
The United States greenhouse gas emissions, net greenhouse gas emissions went down
by 3 percent last year. People forget that. Why did that happen? For a whole host of
reasons, but not least among them …
PODESTA: Eight point nine percent unemployment.
HARBERT: … were different policy things that have been in place. Does that mean
that we shouldnʹt do anything? Am I a climate denier?
The absolute answer to that is no and no. But I think we have to understand where we
are. The only country that did better than us was France for the reasons that we talked
about earlier.
PODESTA: Karen, we have recession.
HARBERT: But I want to be clear about something. I want to be clear about
something. If we go this alone without the international community we will not solve
the environmental problems that we are talking about. If all of the developed countries today shut down their emissions to zero the developing
world would still have to reduce their emissions by 70 percent to reduce CO2 50 percent
by 2050. Thatʹs a lot of numbers, but what it means if we go it alone weʹre not going to
do it. So I think we have to look at this more globally.
We canʹt just march a bill through Congress and think that weʹve done our duty. We
have to find a way to bring China and India and the developing world into this. We
have to find a way to break down the barriers for technology to actually cross into the
developing world so that it is an opportunity rather than a penalty to participate in this
process.
So I really do think we need more facts on the table. But most importantly rather than
continue to talk about degrees and how many parts per million, the more time we
spend on that the less time we spend on the solutions and investing in technology,
finding the policy frameworks that work.
Breaking down the regulatory hurdles so that we can get through transmission built a
new energy infrastructure built in this country, so letʹs be more about the solution than
continue to redefine the problem.
ANGLE: I want to thank you all for a fascinating discussion and thank the audience for
very thoughtful questions. I canʹt remember having been in something like this where
the questions were better or more to the point.
So thank you all for your participation and especially to our panelists. We are
extremely grateful. Thank you and thanks for watching.
(APPLAUSE)
END