Pathways to a Sustainable Future | Law & Nature S1E3 | EarthX - video Dailymotion

EarthX Media

EarthX Website: https://earthxmedia.com/   As the nation shifts from a focus on politics to efforts on developing policy, this session explores options for new initiatives related to energy, environment, and other sustainability issues.   About Law & Nature:  Discussions of Environmental Law & Policy developed by the EarthxLaw Advisory Council   Law & Nature promises lively discussions by environmental thought leaders on legal and policy issues of critical importance to environmental protection.  This series is developed by the EarthxLaw Advisory Council, a blue ribbon board of prominent environmental law practitioners brought together by EarthX to assist in developing programs and facilitating dialog on environmental law and policy.   EarthX  Love Our Planet.  The Official Network of Earth Day.    About Us:  At EarthX, we believe our planet is a pretty special place. The people, landscapes, and critters are likely unique to the entire universe, so we consider ourselves lucky to be here. We are committed to protecting the environment by inspiring conservation and sustainability, and our programming along with our range of expert hosts support this mission. We’re glad you’re with us.     EarthX is a media company dedicated to inspiring people to care about the planet. We take an omni channel approach to reach audiences of every age through its robust 24/7 linear channel distributed across cable and FAST outlets, along with dynamic, solution oriented short form content on social and digital platforms. EarthX is home to original series, documentaries and snackable content that offer sustainable solutions to environmental challenges. EarthX is the only network that delivers entertaining and inspiring topics that impact and inspire our lives on climate and sustainability.       EarthX Website: https://earthxmedia.com/    Follow Us:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/earthxmedia/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/earthxmedia  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EarthXMedia/  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@earthxmedia  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EarthXMedia      How to watch:   United States:   - Spectrum  - AT&T U-verse (1267)  - DIRECTV (267)  - Philo  - FuboTV  - Plex  - Fire TV    #EarthDay #Environment #Sustainability #EcoFriendly #Conservation #EarthX

Transcript

00:00I'd like to welcome you to the second in EarthXTV's new series pertaining to law and policy, which

00:07we've branded Law and Nature. Our first program on election 2020 and the future of environmental

00:13law was originally aired on October 27th and is available on demand. These law and nature

00:19programs are being developed by a blue ribbon council of prominent environmental lawyers

00:25from coast to coast and seek to provide a platform for environmental thought leaders

00:30to discuss legal and policy issues critical to environmental protection. As chair of our

00:37advisory council, I'm privileged to welcome to today's program one of our council members,

00:43Professor Dan Esty, the Hill House Professor of Environmental Law and Policy at Yale Law

00:48School and Yale School of the Environment. At Yale, Dan also serves as its director of

00:55its Center for Environmental Law and Policy and co-director of its Initiative on Sustainable

01:01Finance. From 2011 to 2014, Dan served as commissioner of Connecticut's Department of

01:09Energy Environmental Protection, where he earned a reputation for fresh thinking and

01:14practical results. Prior to taking up his Yale professorship in 1994, Dan served in

01:21a variety of senior positions at EPA, where he helped manage the agency's regulatory programs

01:28and negotiated the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. He also worked as a senior

01:35fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, where he did

01:41breakthrough work on the links between trade and environmental issues and the broader challenges

01:47of globalization. Professor Esty is the author or editor of 12 books and dozens of articles on

01:56environmental protection, regulatory reform, energy policy, and sustainability metrics,

02:03and their connections to corporate strategy, competitiveness, trade, and economic success.

02:09Today's topic is Pathways to a Sustainable Future, lessons from Professor Esty's recent and very

02:16intriguing book, A Better Planet, 40 Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future. This session will explore

02:24options for new initiatives and progress across the country related to energy, environment,

02:30conservation, land use, and other sustainability issues. Dan, welcome.

02:36Thank you very much, Jeff. Really a pleasure to be with you.

02:39And let's talk about your new book. What was the genesis? It's got an intriguing title.

02:46And who were some of the authors?

02:49So, Jeff, this is a book that grew out of an effort at Yale to really begin to lay out an agenda for

02:55progress on sustainability. It gets beyond the usual political breakdowns and party divides and

03:01geographic concerns. And it really takes a step back and asks, what do we need from a scientific

03:07point of view, from a societal point of view, from a sustainability point of view? And with that,

03:12we developed this agenda with lots of ideas and really wanted to put forward. It's a team effort

03:19from a big group that begins at Yale, but includes folks from across the country and around the world

03:24on the idea that there is actually more common ground than people have sometimes given credit

03:30for in the environment or sustainability domain. And so this is an attempt to think about air

03:36pollution, water pollution, land use, conservation strategies. Climate change, of course, is one of

03:41the big issues, but the future of natural resource management, of climate change action

03:46in many different contexts, all of which we see as part of a pathway to a sustainable future.

03:52So it's a desire to really be broad gauge, to think about a menu of interesting prospects,

03:58recognizing that some will work in one part of the United States, some might work in another,

04:02some can work nationally, some can work globally. And some of the ideas are best taken up at the

04:06local or the state scale. So it really is an attempt to build a menu of interesting thoughts

04:11that various thought leaders can pick up and run with, that public officials can work with,

04:16that all of us can debate and perhaps push forward in our own way.

04:20I'm intrigued by the notion of common grounds. How do you determine what are the issues on which

04:28people can agree before we decide how we move forward?

04:32So what I would tell you is that I think there actually is at the highest level,

04:36sort of the level of principle, a lot of agreement. People want breathable air,

04:40they want drinkable water, they want swimmable rivers and lakes, they want an ocean that's

04:46protected from plastic, and they want an energy future that is going to ensure that we've got

04:52a way to deliver on society's needs, whether that's heating or cooling or cooking or

04:57transportation, but also in a way that doesn't damage the planet in a fashion that might mean

05:03our children, grandchildren and their children beyond don't live as well. So I think at the

05:07highest levels of principle, there actually is a lot of agreement. And what we've found at Yale

05:12is that when you get beyond the partisan battles and the political bickering, you can often get

05:16people to think together and find ways to move forward. And we see it on tough issues like

05:22climate change, where on a few issues, the Democrats and Republicans in the Congress have

05:27come together. But even more at the state level, you're finding strategies where people can agree

05:33on an agenda for clean energy, on new ways to finance solar arrays or wind turbines,

05:40and really trying to bring people together across some of those divides that have seemed

05:44impossible. Well, that's a very heartening notion of where we might head in the future.

05:51Why do you think we haven't made more progress on sustainability and climate change cleaning up

05:58the environment in the past? You know, I think the environment issue broadly became a partisan

06:05wedge issue a decade or 15 years ago. And so each of the parties found themselves in a place where

06:11they could rev up their base by talking about a certain perspective on these issues, blaming

06:16the other side for all kinds of horrors that it wanted to put forward, economic disaster on the

06:22one side, environmental disaster on the other. And I think as the nation moves beyond the election

06:29and into a mode of policy focus beyond politics, but into sort of what's the agenda,

06:35I think there's a big opportunity for a book like this one. And again, we're bringing forward

06:3940 different ideas from a whole range of perspectives on a wide variety of issues.

06:44And you don't have to agree with all of them to find some set that you might find exciting and

06:49attractive. So that's our goal is to really start the policy engines firing and really gear us up

06:55for what I hope will be a robust debate in the months ahead about where we move as a nation,

07:00where some of our states will go with their sustainability agendas. And then beyond that,

07:04what the whole planet might do together, recognizing that on some of these issues,

07:09nothing short of action collaboratively at the global scale will suffice.

07:16So we can think about how we move forward in terms of environmental protection,

07:20sustainability, and climate change. And on the one hand, we've got command and control.

07:25And then the other hand, we've got the marketplace, but your book talks about

07:31other ideas and other ways of moving things forward.

07:35Well, I do think there's a place for command and control in some circumstances.

07:40I think there's a growing opportunity for market mechanisms. I do think, and this is one of the

07:45core ideas of the Better Planet book, that we should move toward an end to externalities. At

07:51least that's what economists call them. The idea that you can put smoke up a smokestack or pollution

07:56out an effluent pipe and not pay for it. And our traditional model of environmental law gave you

08:01a limit. You can pollute up to this amount, but not above. And my view is you should not get any

08:07amount of pollution for free. There should be a limit above which you can't go because it's a

08:10public health threat, but you should pay for all of your emissions up to that point. So I do think

08:16the idea of getting a market mechanism in place, a price on harm, is consistent with not only good

08:22policy, but it sharpens the incentives for care. And frankly, beyond for care, it sharpens the

08:28incentives for innovation. So every company that has got a pollution issue and is going to end up

08:33paying for it will be eager to think about new ways to do their production processes, new ways

08:38to think about how to imagine their products, all of which might reduce emissions, reduce the

08:43charges they're going to pay. And beyond every company thinking about their own issues, there

08:47will be lots of folks, entrepreneurial folks, inspired creative talents across the country,

08:53who are saying, well, if I can solve somebody's problem, I'll be able to sell them the solution.

08:58So it could be a big spur to innovation. And the finding of my own research, and it's the centerpiece

09:03of my chapter in this book called Red Lights to Green Lights, is the focus on needing to shift our

09:10environmental law and policy framework towards more of a focus on innovation. My own research

09:16suggests that it is innovators that bring us to the ways around some of the intractable problems.

09:23It's how you get to a solution that is perhaps cheaper and better than the status quo. So I'm a

09:28big believer in innovation as a key to policy progress. And by the way, my own definition of

09:34innovation is not simply new technologies of the sort that people talk about, you know, solar arrays

09:39or wind turbines. I'm a big believer in all kinds of innovation. So from an environmental point of

09:45view, we need not just new clean energy technologies, we need new supporting structures, better

09:51batteries, better storage, a smart grid, smart homes, smart appliances. And beyond that, we do need

09:58new government policies, innovation, and how government does its part of the story, how it

10:02engages people, what incentives it puts out to the marketplace. And I would argue we need new finance.

10:08We need ways to get more capital flowing to sustainability solutions. Of course, we need that

10:13nationally, but we need it at the state and local level. And beyond that, we need it around the world,

10:18especially in the developing nations. We need, furthermore, ways to engage the public, to get

10:24all of us involved and recognize that each of us has part of the answer in our own homes, in our

10:29own lives, as to how we get to this sustainable future. So I am convinced, and I think the evidence

10:35is strong, that institutions that thrive, companies that move forward, governments that succeed,

10:41policy processes that deliver new and better solutions, almost always are innovation-focused.

10:47And it needs to be a much more central part of our law and policy framework.

10:51Let me dive down, if I might, into the distinction between law and policy. To what extent do you think

10:58we need legislation on the federal, state, or local level to implement these policies? And to what

11:04extent might we encourage, or how might we encourage, these policies to be implemented

11:11independent of law? My own view is that there are good reasons to want this framed out in law,

11:19because it is law that is our structure of incentives, that guides behavior in our own

11:24lives, in the marketplace, in all of the places that behavior needs to be shaped. So a legal

11:30framework is valuable, but it need not be a regulatory framework. So it doesn't have to

11:35always be old-style, particularly command and control regulation, where the government is

11:41telling the regulated community, the business community, the industries, exactly what to do.

11:46Or even telling them that they have to go out and adopt best available technology, which is the

11:51frame of so much environmental law. Instead, I think what we can do is begin to put information

11:57in the marketplace. So I'm a big believer, for example, in having a more robust structure of

12:03sustainability metrics about corporate performance, environmental performance, social performance,

12:09governance structures. And if we had a reporting framework, perhaps backed up by law to the extent

12:16that it's put forward by our Securities and Exchange Commission as part of financial reporting

12:21for all publicly traded companies, I think we could get a much better picture of which companies

12:26are moving us toward a sustainable future. And frankly, that would inspire those who are

12:32interested in putting their money into a stock portfolio of sustainability leaders to shift their

12:38funds towards these enterprises that are seen as moving the nation and the world forward,

12:44moving us toward that innovation future. So I do think if we can put information out there,

12:49we can engage people on their own terms. And it's not only investors that might get excited,

12:54it's consumers. If the public were to know that certain companies were offering a more sustainable

13:00approach to X, Y, or Z issue, and they could buy products that supported that move towards

13:05a sustainable future, I think there's a growing percent of our public that would like to be part

13:10of that change and would like to be investing in and buying from companies that are moving us

13:16toward a sustainable day where a number of these problems are addressed. And I take it you would

13:23say that there is movement even now without this statutory framework towards a market-driven

13:31sustainability. Is that correct? Yes, Jeff, you're absolutely right. There are already lots of folks

13:37out there, especially in this world of sustainable investing. And that is one of the chapters in this

13:43Better Planet book, by the way, a very interesting piece by my colleague, Todd Court, about the need

13:48to put more information into the marketplace. But there's already a growing percent of the investing

13:54public that has basically told their investment advisors that they want better alignment between

13:59their values and their stock portfolios. And those folks care about different things. There's no

14:04single view of what sustainability is. Some care a lot about environment issues broadly.

14:09Some care about climate change in particular. Others care about the social agenda, about whether

14:14there's diversity in the workplace, about whether there's gender equity in pay scales, whether

14:20senior management has minority representation or women on its board, for example. So all of these

14:26issues relate to some part of that investing world. And there's a growing number of those investors

14:32saying, I want to see the data. Tell me about which companies are doing well on these issues

14:36and which not so well. And so even before there's a legal obligation where before the SEC is weighed

14:42in, I think you're seeing some number of companies responding and putting more information out.

14:48And there's a growing number of investment advisors that are trying to really get their

14:52hands on sustainability performance metrics and make it part of their portfolio analysis.

14:59So you talked about the metrics and you talked about internalizing externalities so that

15:07the costs of adversely impacting the environment are incorporated into the cost of doing business.

15:15Question for you, how would you go about quantifying what the costs are? Somebody makes

15:22a pair of shoes. Do you start with the cow and the emissions associated with it

15:28and work your way through? Do you look at the entire life cycle of the products? And is there

15:35a system for doing these types of evaluations that's generally accepted?

15:41So Jeff, it's a great question and it reflects the opportunity to take advantage of the enormous

15:47progress we've made as a society in the now, let's call it 50 years since we launched the

15:53modern environmental law program. Roughly about 1970, we just celebrated in the past year,

16:02the 50th anniversary of the original Earth Day from 1970. We've also celebrated the 50th

16:08anniversary of our Environmental Protection Agency. And in those five decades, we've gotten

16:13much better at some of the things you've talked about. Life cycle analysis in particular,

16:18we're much better at understanding where environmental impacts come from, how big they

16:22are, what the flow of those pollutants are, what a scientist would call the fate and transport of

16:29emissions. And we're much better at tracking that. And we simply have a much greater depth

16:34of epidemiological and ecological science on which to build in putting a price on those harms.

16:41So we couldn't have done this 50 years ago. We had to start out as we did with a Clean Water Act

16:46and a Clean Air Act that was a much simpler structure that actually put a lot of the weight

16:51on the US government, on the Environmental Protection Agency to figure out what to do

16:56and how to move forward. Today, I think we can shift the gears of that environmental regulatory

17:02framework broadly and of our EPA in particular, and move towards an agency that's much more centered

17:08on the kinds of questions you were asking me. Where are the harms coming from? Who do they

17:13affect? How big are they? How much risk do they pose? And then we put a value on that and send

17:19people out the bill and say, here's what it costs to do the kind of pollution you're doing right now.

17:25Cut it back. And of course, your bill goes down. And I think there is just ample evidence from

17:30many fields, not just the environmental arena, that when people have to pay for things, they're

17:35much more careful about it. And when they can get their bills cut by being more cautious and

17:40more appropriate, reducing the harm, they do so. And again, it spurs not only the company or the

17:46polluter, it spurs on the many others that might be able to provide a pathway to reduce emissions

17:52for all those companies. So I'm excited about that. And it does, I think, argue for bringing

17:57to bear good science, the kind of tools that have been developed in recent decades, and then really

18:03shifting the gears of what our Environmental Protection Agency looks like, who the people

18:07are that are there, what kinds of talents and skills and underlying disciplines need to be part

18:12of the structure. And it probably means moving away from the old EPA that was a lot of engineers

18:20trying to understand industry by industry where pollution improvements could come from, toward

18:25more epidemiologists, ecologists, risk analysts, who can give us a new set of frameworks to build

18:32our policies around. That raises a question in my mind, too, and how do we go from media to media,

18:42risk to risk, so we get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of the investments we make?

18:48So for example, if we could spend a certain amount of money on air pollution control,

18:53versus the same amount of money in cleaning up the contaminant in our water, how do we

19:01compare apples and oranges to figure out what's the best way to proceed?

19:06Well, I would be looking to put a price on the various harms. So I would put a price on

19:10air pollution, depending on how many people it affected, how much disease it was causing,

19:15how much mortality was being created. And by the way, not just actual deaths, but risk of death.

19:20You have to be able to steer people away from doing risky things. And with that, I don't think

19:26the EPA or the government has to be the line drawer. I think you're going to put a price on

19:31these harms, and now companies are going to have an incentive to invest to the greatest extent

19:36possible, where they can cost-effectively reduce their harms in taking down their emissions,

19:41whether it's air pollution or water pollution or greenhouse gases. And I think if there's a

19:47proper harm price on these different emissions, there will be a very strong incentive for

19:52companies to think about how to reduce them. What do you see as the relative role of federal

19:58versus state versus local government versus companies, the marketplace versus NGOs versus

20:06individuals? What is the role of each and how do they work together to achieve some of these

20:11objectives? Well, another of the conclusions that my own research has led me to in the Better Planet

20:16book spells out in some detail is that we were way too dependent in our original structure of

20:22environmental law and policy, the framework built in the 1970s and 80s on federal government as

20:28the actor from an environmental point of view. We now know that there's a big country out there,

20:34a lot of geographic diversity, and some problems are more serious in one part of the country than

20:38another. So there are a certain number of issues that we want state-level leadership on, and in

20:43some cases even local level. So I do think that we want a more federal structure, and that's the

20:49great strength of America going back for 200 years, that we do have these layers of government.

20:54We are able to manage as a very big country across a diverse geography, a continental geography,

21:02because we don't try to do it all on a centralized basis and with uniform rules. So I think there's

21:07a big opportunity for that kind of diverse structure, and some would view it as complicating.

21:13I view that as tailoring, making sure that we've got appropriate standards in different places

21:20and different problems. Now, of course, there are some issues where the harm is national or global,

21:27in which case you want a more nationally structured response strategy. I think greenhouse gases are

21:32well documented to cause the same amount of harm no matter where they're released from,

21:36so we should have a common price on those harms. But where the issue is local water pollution,

21:43and there's different kinds of rivers and streams, we might want to have a different pathway to

21:49setting the price and a different structure on those emissions. So I do think there's some

21:54flexibility here, there can be some diversity of approaches, and the idea is to make the response

22:01strategies more tightly tailored to the problems at hand. And in doing so, I think you're going to

22:07end up with a more effective and a more efficient environmental law and policy framework.

22:14Do you see a role for fossil fuels in a carbon neutral future?

22:21So my view is, and you know, I in a prior life was the Commissioner of Connecticut's Department

22:26of Energy and Environmental Protection, and one of the questions that people love to ask me, I would

22:32say the second most popular question, the first of which was, why are my electric rates so high? People

22:37always wanted that answer to that. The second one people would often ask me at public forums is,

22:42what is our energy future? Where are we going to be in 20 or 30 or 40 years? Will it be solar power

22:48or wind power? And I would say, let's not guess, let's not have even the smartest people try to guess,

22:56rather let's run a clean energy race. And I would try to explain to people that no pathway forward

23:04was without challenges. Every clean energy opportunity had some difficulties to overcome.

23:10Solar and wind power have the issue of intermittency. What do you do when the wind's not

23:14blowing? What do you do when the sun's not shining? And the answer they have to address is to come up

23:19with better storage technologies, better batteries or something similar. If you're looking at some of

23:26the other options, like wave power or tidal power, they have to figure out how to become cost

23:33effective to actually capture more of the energy and to really be able to bring it ashore and

23:38transmit it in a way that can be cost competitive. So there are all different challenges and almost

23:44everybody needs to bring their cost curves down. And I would say, in answer to the question, should

23:50nuclear power be in the mix? Of course they should, but with their own challenges. How do you manage

23:55the waste? How do you build a new plant that's cost effective? How do you prevent risk of terrorism?

24:01So there's real issues for nuclear. And the answer to your question is, fossil fuels should also be

24:07in the race. And they have several layers of challenge. First of all, they have to make sure

24:12they're not creating a local air pollution of the kind that is challenging in the America of the past

24:19and now in the India and China of the present, where they're burning lots of coal in cities and

24:23they have terrible air quality. So there's got to be the local air pollution addressed. And then,

24:29frankly, the greenhouse gas emissions need to be captured and, as the science calls it, sequestered,

24:34stored away. And I do think that there is a lot of progress being made on carbon capture

24:40and storage. And so the answer would be, if that can be done cost effectively, and there are many

24:46people investing in that as a prospect, I think there is a role for the fossil fuels if they can

24:53address their local air pollution and their greenhouse gas emissions issues cost effectively.

25:00Is that a high probability? I don't know. But I think there are people who are betting on it.

25:05And in my mind, that's fantastic. I want all of these different clean energy pathways to the

25:10future to be invested in by somebody, the partisans who see that their own technology is the best way

25:17forward. Because I, again, don't want to be the one to guess whether it's going to be

25:21a transformed fossil fuel world or a world that's gone all solar or all wind or, for that matter,

25:28geothermal power or advanced biofuels. All of this should be in the debate and all of which I

25:34think should be in the competitiveness race to see who can come down in cost and solve their

25:41problems for being the best path forward. So, for example, we might have carbon capture and

25:49sequestration, but perhaps someone might develop a technology for extracting CO2 from the air,

25:54I suppose. If you were, in fact, that is one of the big opportunities. Some people believe in

26:00this so-called direct air capture as the best path forward. I would be thrilled. By the way,

26:06there should be everyone cheering if that were to actually be done cost effectively,

26:10because it would mean we'd take our technology out across the world. And those Indians and Chinese,

26:17who I was mentioning, continue to burn coal, would have a solution to their greenhouse gas

26:22emissions. And climate change is the classic issue where it doesn't help for any one country

26:28to fix its own problem. You've got to get everybody in the world to move together.

26:32So, it would be a great boon to our own economy if we were the ones to develop that technology,

26:38but to the global response to climate change more broadly.

26:42So, let's talk a little bit about the interrelationship among energy, water, and

26:48food, because it's great to be sustainable and to protect the climate, but people who need the

26:58energy for food, for water, how do we balance all those competing needs and make sure we provide for

27:06those who are in third world countries who don't have access to energy, which is critically

27:11important to quality of life, at the same time we protect the climate?

27:16Well, you asked a very interesting multidimensional question there. Let me unpack for a moment if I

27:21can. First of all, you're absolutely right that we are going to have societies continue to need

27:28energy, because it provides us with many things that define modern life. The ability to heat our

27:35homes on a cold winter day, to cool our homes on a warm summer day, to get food, to move to our jobs,

27:42to have transportation more broadly, and the mobility that provides. So, I think we all know

27:47that energy is foundational to the quality of life, and we are not going to succeed in a strategy

27:53that deprives others of it, and of their aspiration to move towards the American quality of life,

27:58which is the envy of the world all over. So, we're going to continue to have people want to have

28:04energy, and societies that are in what we now call energy poverty are the most likely to focus on

28:10needing new sources of energy. So, I think there is a critical goal here of finding ways to break

28:17the link between energy and pollution, and that's why innovation has been such a focus. And it could

28:23be done, as I've just suggested, in any number of ways, but it is absolutely essential. And I think

28:29that as well, you correctly point out that a good bit of water supply has an energy component to it.

28:37So, if we're going to take seriously the need to get to a more energy efficient future,

28:41the water dimension of the problem, the amount of energy spent pumping water, moving water,

28:46cleaning water, has got to be part of the equation. And likewise, food is a very significant part

28:53of our lives. It's essential to our well-being, and yet it's also got a lot of pollution issues

28:58associated with it. Local pollution, as the farmer is growing the food, and there's runoff going into

29:04local streams, all the way to global emissions, as some of the fertilizers that are put down

29:11are also greenhouse gas emitters when they break down. So, there's a lot of opportunity here to

29:17bring to bear fresh thinking, new ideas, and again, innovation to help us achieve our multiple

29:24goals, our simultaneous interest in having safe drinking water, healthy food, and a habitable

29:31planet. And I think nothing less than all of that taken as a package is going to be satisfactory to

29:37most people. Let me go back to your book for a second and talk about the categories of ideas.

29:43You touched on this earlier, but let me ask you to expand a bit the categories of ideas that

29:50constitute the 40 big ideas for a sustainable future. Sure. So, you know, we have an array

29:58of things here. Some books focus only on technology, and we have some technologies. We've

30:04talked about the importance already of new technologies for energy, but we also look at

30:10artificial intelligence and machine learning and a whole array of technologies that might actually

30:15allow us to do our environmental work, our environmental protection efforts more effectively

30:21and at lower cost. So, we think technology is a whole category. And then there's concepts. There's

30:26ways to think about problems. And we see big opportunities there as well. There's ideas like

30:32industrial ecology, the idea that you can bring things together in a more integrated way. There's

30:38the importance of systems thinking, of systems design, and of making sure products are designed

30:44at their outset for good recyclability at the end of their life. So, again, there's a conceptual

30:50framework. And then there are approaches. There are policy strategies. And so, we think all of

30:55these need to be part of the mix. And the fresh thinking should come in all those categories

31:00across the board. Can you talk a little bit about the role of big data and artificial intelligence

31:06in terms of environmental protection and sustainability? Well, one of the interesting

31:12things, Jeff, and you know this, and I suspect all of the listeners know this, is that our world has

31:17been completely transformed by information technology and big data in almost every domain

31:23in the last 20 or 30 years. No business today markets the way it did 20 or 30 years ago.

31:29No baseball team picks players the way it used to with the old scouts chewing tobacco and saying,

31:36yeah, that guy's got it. No, he doesn't have it. They look at data. We've all learned the

31:40lesson of Moneyball and Billy Bean. You've got to watch the numbers. And if you systematically pay

31:46attention, you're going to end up with better results than somebody who thinks they can get

31:50it all from intuition. So, we know that big data has provided breakthroughs in almost every domain

31:56of society. And yet, I would argue, the environmental arena is curiously unaffected.

32:02And I would argue it's because, this is my own analysis, again reflected in the book in a number

32:07of chapters, that we've been stuck in a certain gear. We have had a political breakdown, a bitter

32:14partisan divide about how to move forward on the environment. So, we're stuck with our approaches

32:19from two and three and four decades ago, unlike almost every other field of work. So, it's time for

32:25the environmental community, the environmental world that's been developed to step up and bring

32:31on board machine learning, artificial intelligence, big data, information technology, the information

32:38and communications technology that allow us to instantaneously connect questions and answers,

32:44build markets, all of that that's been so transformative in every other aspect of life.

32:49Let's bring that to bear. Let's marry those technologies to our environmental challenges

32:54and really drive that as an agenda for improved results for a sustainable future.

33:00Let me switch gears a little bit. I mean, a major issue facing all of us is COVID-19.

33:09What effect has COVID-19 had on the way we do business and prospects for environmentalism

33:17presently and in the future? Has it taught us things that we didn't know that we now know that

33:22we should address? Well, I think, Jeff, it's reminded us of some things we knew or should have known

33:28and perhaps need to pay more attention to, such as the fact you need to have good science underpinnings

33:34for your policy frameworks. And I think we've long known that science matters,

33:38good data matters, good analysis matters, good risk-benefit calculations matter.

33:44And that's become ever more clear with the COVID-19 pandemic. So I hope that what we will

33:49see coming out of this challenging time is a recommitment to good science and good analysis

33:55to underpin policy choices. But I think it's also reminded us that we can't put all of our effort,

34:02all of our money into any one direction. We are going to see an increased competition for

34:07limited public resources in the years ahead, because we're going to need to rebuild our

34:12public health system, rebuild our economy, put people back to work. And there's a lot of emphasis,

34:18a lot of priority rightfully put on getting people jobs, getting people's lives back together.

34:24So environmental opportunities are going to have to either align themselves with some of those

34:29other agendas or compete for limited resources. And it's also going to mean, I think, that we're

34:34going to look more carefully at where programs might do double duty, address more than one issue

34:42at a time. And I think in that regard, we should be looking at investments in environmental

34:48infrastructure, whether that's drinking water systems, sewage treatment plants, new kinds of

34:54power plants. All of that could be part of a jobs program that builds us a clean energy and

35:01clean technology infrastructure for the next generation, but also helps us address our

35:06sustainability crisis. So if we can address public health issues, economic imperatives,

35:12and our environmental challenges all at once, you're going to have a lot more political support

35:17swinging behind that agenda. So let me build on that because COVID certainly creates the example

35:26in terms of going forward. How do we reduce, two questions, how do we reduce the level of

35:32contentiousness over science so that we can have a dialogue that's not partisan in nature?

35:39And the second related question is the role of the international community in dealing with

35:47environmental challenges. We've heard COVID referred to as the China virus.

35:55How do we work internationally to assure that everybody is tuned in with the latest developments,

36:02be they positive or negative, so that we can address them? So two questions, contentiousness

36:08and internationalism. So my own view, based on now 30 plus years of working on climate change

36:16and sustainability issues more broadly, is that it's actually not so much a dispute over science

36:22as it is over the policy implications of the science. And the thought that, and this is where

36:28I think both parties are going to need to step up to an opportunity now that we're moving forward

36:34past our recent election, to really think about what we can do together. And I think it means that

36:41the answer that is all going to be more command and control, commands from government, mandates

36:47from the federal government, is not a good path forward. And I think we're going to see at least

36:52one party needing to give on that. And there is going to need to be, in the alternative,

36:57a recognition that the science here is real, not without uncertainty, but real enough that

37:04something needs to be done. And I always teach my students at Yale, let's not say that the science

37:09of climate change is finished. It's never finished. Science is in fact, a project of

37:14ongoing discovery and refinement of theory. So it's not all done and there will be new discoveries

37:20and we'll get certain questions answered more clearly in the years ahead. But it doesn't mean

37:26that there are some ongoing uncertainties that we don't know enough to know we have a problem

37:30and that we should take action. So I think if the policy pathway forward were more attractive to

37:36the Republicans, there would be less in the way of worry about the science and the uncertainties.

37:42And I think from the democratic side, if there was more focus on delivering

37:47an economically vibrant future, as well as a sustainable and environmentally sound one,

37:53and one that took seriously the risk that environmental investments could come at too

37:58high a price and therefore tried to make them as cost effective and as far reaching as possible,

38:04you would find more Republicans say, yeah, that's the kind of policy I can sign up to.

38:09So I'm a believer, and perhaps I'm overly optimistic, that there is that kind of an

38:13up the middle path waiting to be achieved. Everybody's going to have to give a little bit,

38:17move off some of the kind of lock in of the last decade or two on climate change in particular.

38:24But I do see us with some pathways forward that I hope will have leadership to move us toward

38:30and really deliver us on a new trajectory towards a sustainable future in ways that take

38:36seriously the foundational concerns of both parties so that no one feels like they're

38:41having to give too much to join a consensus on what I call the up the middle strategy.

38:47So that's very helpful and very optimistic. In terms of our country's role in the international

38:55community, how can we work with other countries to achieve these objectives and, you know,

39:01take advantage of the ideas they may come up with? We don't have the answer to everything

39:05here in this country. So you're absolutely right. And as I mentioned earlier, climate change is

39:10inescapably a global problem because the emissions from anywhere affect everywhere.

39:16So even if we were in our own nation to do an incredible job to move ourselves to

39:21a zero emissions future or a net zero, taking advantage, Jeff, of the opportunity you mentioned,

39:28which might be some ongoing emissions, but carbon capture to take those emissions out of our

39:32atmosphere, it would not be enough to do that in America alone. We need to make sure that China

39:39comes along on this agenda. India is along. Brazil is along. Frankly, the entire world has a role to

39:45play. Some have a bigger challenge, some smaller, but everybody has a role. And that was one of the

39:51major breakthroughs of the 2015 Paris Agreement. That climate change agreement got everyone on the

39:58field after the failed and, frankly, structurally defective original 1992 Framework Convention on

40:06climate change that I was one of the negotiators of. We at the time were unable to get the

40:10developing countries enough money to make them feel like they were incentivized to be part of

40:15the solution. So the answer was to give them a permission to sit on the sidelines. It turns out,

40:21in retrospect, that was a terrible mistake, dividing the world into a so-called Annex 1 list

40:26of countries that took on real obligations and an everybody else list of developing countries

40:31who were literally invited to observe but not to take action. So I think the Paris Agreement,

40:38by encouraging everyone to do what they can, got 190 plus countries to sign up, 185 of

40:45which have now produced their own nationally determined contributions, their own climate action

40:50plans. So I think we do have a spirit now that everybody's involved, everybody needs to play a

40:55role. But I do think, and it's again my own experience as a negotiator, as a government

41:01official, and as a scholar looking back over what's worked and what hasn't in recent decades,

41:07over 50 years, the world does better when America leads. We are a nation of enormous capacity.

41:15With America not playing a role, people feel like they don't need to play a role. When America leads,

41:20we bring to bear enormous innovation capacity, entrepreneurial capacity, a willingness to try

41:28new things, a spirit of can-do results that is frankly an inspiration to the world and critical

41:36to global success. So I do think there is a leadership opportunity for the United States to

41:41get back out on the field of climate change in a big way to signal that we're committed. And frankly,

41:49as I think everybody knows, there are economic opportunities here as well as environmental gains

41:54to be had. We are going to see over time a transition to more electric vehicles,

42:02more high-efficiency industry, perhaps even the development of new fuels like hydrogen.

42:08And I think the folks that can bring those breakthroughs to the marketplace and to

42:14deliver them up in a cost-effective and attractive way are going to win lots of new customers. And I

42:20very much want the U.S. to be out there competing for that job opportunity set, those profits,

42:26those corporate leadership opportunities. And my own view is that when the United States

42:32drives towards a goal and crosses divides and brings people together, we are unmatched in our

42:37ability to deliver. And I'm very much hoping, and that's the spirit of the Better Planet book,

42:42that we can get that creative flow going that brings our full force of national capacity to bear

42:50in delivering a sustainable future. And presumably encouraging international

42:56leaders in the field of environmental law to have a dialogue and perhaps some to want to

43:02come to the States to help us develop our own programs and international programs as well,

43:08I would assume. Well, I do think we have to continue to have a global conversation. We

43:13need to have ongoing refinement of our international agreements, of the strategies

43:18beneath those agreements. And the U.S. always has been good about learning from others.

43:24We recognize that there's interesting ideas developed all over the world. One of our great

43:29strengths has been to quickly take up new ideas, to put them into practice, and to be willing to

43:36shift gears and move into a higher gear at any time there's an opportunity to do so. And so I

43:41think we want to be part of that global flow of ideas, the dissemination of best practices,

43:46the capturing of new technologies and the moving them into practice, all of which, again,

43:52the U.S. is historically been very good at. And I think the world is waiting for us to help

43:57gear that process up across all countries and recognize that there will be breakthroughs coming

44:03from lots of different directions. And the goal here isn't to hold them close, but rather to

44:08spread them wide across the world and ensure everyone's got access to those best practices.

44:13So your book talks about 40 big ideas, and we've talked about some that might require

44:19legislation to at least be facilitated. What are some of the ideas discussed in your book that you

44:27think business might be interested in adopting that they could go forward with in the absence

44:34of legislation that might be beneficial to them? So I think the real answer is that many businesses

44:43have come to believe that they can be sustainability solutions providers. And by

44:49not only solving their own energy or environment or greenhouse gas emissions challenges, they can

44:56actually solve their customers' challenges and in doing so step ahead of the competition. So I think

45:02there's a growing recognition in the business world. And by the way, lots of the essays address

45:07this. My own essay, to some extent, Carter Roberts from the World Wildlife Fund is calling

45:11on business to step up in new and better ways. There's a whole series of essays that reflect

45:17this. And I think that's the reality, that there are big ideas for the business community to be

45:24part of the solutions here, and that companies that are already doing that are finding themselves

45:29advantaged in the marketplace. And then there's challenging concepts that are overarching that

45:34are going to require us to do more as a society. Lots of questions around equity, around structural

45:42inequality, around how we ensure that we bring to bear all of the talent of society and don't

45:47leave anyone behind. Don't leave any gender behind. Don't leave any race behind. Don't

45:53leave disadvantaged people of any sort and really capture all of the talent. And I think that's a

45:58part of the business challenge as well. Businesses are finding that companies that really do the most

46:04to advance all of their talent are seeing themselves move to the front of the pack.

46:10And again, one more thing I want to mention in that regard, the sort of overarching story,

46:15is the importance of communications, of the dialogue around these issues. Jeff, you've raised

46:20that a couple of times, but let me put a finer point on it. A beautiful essay by Tony Leiserowitz

46:27points out that how engaged people are in wanting to take action on sustainability broadly, or

46:32climate change in particular, depends in part on the words that you talk to them about. You've got

46:38to make this connect to people on words they understand. Make them understand, you know, help

46:44them understand the science in a way that they can make sense of it. And perhaps, well, I guess I was

46:50going to say my favorite essay, but any editor of a book with 40 essays, like any parent, cannot have,

46:58a parent can't have a favorite child, an editor of a book with 40 essays can't have a favorite essay.

47:03But I will tell you that Thomas Easley's essay on hip-hop sustainability has gotten great interest out

47:10across the country as I've been talking about the Better Planet book. And Thomas Easley is a dean

47:17at Yale, but he's also a hip-hop artist. And what he has made clear is that when he sings about

47:24sustainability and raps about the importance of climate change, he is pulling an audience into the

47:30conversation that has not felt engaged. And it is critical that we do that with so many parts of our

47:37society that have not felt that this was their problem, their issue, and needed their action.

47:42Because in addition to work at the business scale, at the government scale, there is the individual

47:48scale. We all have a role to play. And I think Thomas Easley reminds us every community needs to

47:54be brought into the discussion, feel like this is their issue, and that the story was brought to them

48:00on terms that they can make sense of, that they can connect with, and are engaged and energized by.

48:06And so I think this communications part of the picture, which a number of our essays in the book

48:10talk about, is also essential for progress in delivering a sustainable future.

48:16You've talked about any number of different ideas and approaches for the future, many of which,

48:22or most of which, are pretty exciting. I take it, bottom line, you're pretty optimistic about the

48:28future. Is that correct? You know, Jeff, I have lived through enough in the way of ups and downs

48:35that I sometimes think of myself as a short-term pessimist, but a long-term optimist. And I do

48:42think the last year has been discouraging for any number of reasons. You know, a very tough

48:47public health situation, an economic collapse, the likes of which I have never seen in my

48:53lifetime. And I know people have lost jobs and are hurting. So I know we have a society that needs to

48:59be uplifted. And one could have been discouraged. I, in fact, have been at times about the sustainability

49:05picture over the last year. But I'm now looking forward, and I'm looking forward with a sense of

49:10optimism, and looking forward to the prospect that we are going to be able to pull forward

49:15across these multiple challenges, the pandemic challenge, the economic challenge,

49:20the societal transformation challenge, and the sustainability imperative,

49:26which is what I've called it. I think we must build a more sustainable society. And the book

49:32is about how to do it and recognize that there's lots of foundations on which to build. And we

49:38should unleash businesses and individuals and communities and non-governmental organizations

49:43and communities to take up whatever part of that agenda they're best positioned to move on and have

49:50lots of people play lots of different roles, all of which come together in a national program of

49:56progress. Well, that sounds like an exciting and very optimistic future for all of us. I hope that

50:04your long-term optimism is certainly realized. And I think you're right to be pessimistic in

50:12the short term, but I think maybe we are rounding a bend and moving forward in the area of

50:18environmentalism and sustainability driven by the marketplace, but with real opportunities for the

50:25government to step in and facilitate those developments. Anything else you'd like to add

50:32or talk to our audience about? You've really covered a lot of ground. And let me just say

50:39that you're quite right that there's important new roles for business. And as the role of

50:44government is changing, it doesn't mean government leaves the field of leadership on the environment.

50:49It means how it delivers that leadership can change. And I think we still need government

50:54to create the incentives, to spur the innovation, to inspire people to be part of the education

50:59process, sharing best practices and helping us all be that more sustainable person, that more

51:06sustainable community, that more sustainable company. So lots of roles for all of us in moving

51:12us to this sustainable future. So thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to talk about

51:18this book, A Better Planet, 40 Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future, available wherever you buy

51:24books or through Yale University Press. And again, it's got lots of ideas, something for everyone.

51:30And as we look out to the holidays, a great opportunity for that young person who's looking

51:35for inspiration or for that senior who's really wondering what are his or her grandchildren doing.

51:41So this is a great moment to get lots more people into the conversation that we've had,

51:47and I hope share thinking about what it's going to take to deliver that sustainable future.

51:53Well, Dan, I very much appreciate it. And I think, you know, your book, A Better Planet, 40

51:59Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future, helps us continue that dialogue and include more people

52:07in it. And I encourage everyone who is watching this program to pick up the book. It's fairly

52:15inexpensive and will open your eyes to a lot of ideas and concepts that perhaps we hadn't

52:20thought about before. I'd like to thank you, and I'd like to thank EarthX TV, Trammell Crow, for

52:27making all this possible. It's been my pleasure, and thank you for taking the time to visit with us.

52:34My pleasure. Thank you all very much.

Pathways to a Sustainable Future | Law & Nature S1E3 | EarthX

Category

Transcript

Recommended