Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl Daniel Moody. Pre recording from the Long
Speaker 1: Island Bunker, Folks. As you know, I have taken a
Speaker 1: little respite as we prepare for what is going to
Speaker 1: be just fast paced, NonStop as we head into convention
Speaker 1: and get closer and closer to the election. But I
Speaker 1: am leaving you with some really thoughtful, insightful episodes with
Speaker 1: some of our favorites and some new voices. And today
Speaker 1: is a new voice, Doctor John J. Berger, who's an
Speaker 1: environmental scientist and policy expert, joins WOKF to talk about
Speaker 1: his book Solving the Climate Crisis Frontline reports from the
Speaker 1: Race to Save Earth, and we get into a really
Speaker 1: in depth, the detailed conversation about the crisis that we
Speaker 1: are in, and he offers up some very clear solutions,
Speaker 1: clear ways that our politicians need to act now from
Speaker 1: a place of urgency because the situation is becoming dire
Speaker 1: and is existential to our ability to, oh, I don't know,
Speaker 1: continue on this planet. So coming up next my conversation
Speaker 1: with doctor John Jay Berger. Folks. I am very excited
Speaker 1: to welcome to OOKF Daily, author of the book solving
Speaker 1: the climate crisis. Frontline reports from the Race to Save Earth.
Speaker 1: Doctor John J. Berger, who is an expert on the issue,
Speaker 1: is an environmental science and policy specialist as well as
Speaker 1: a prize winning author. Doctor Burger, talk to us about
Speaker 1: where you see the world right now. For years, for
Speaker 1: decades now, we have been warned about our warming climate.
Speaker 1: We've been warned about rising sea levels and intense storms,
Speaker 1: and it seems like every single day there is another
Speaker 1: devastating headline. Have we reached the point of no return?
Speaker 2: No? I don't believe that we have, Danielle, I think
Speaker 2: that the science is pretty clear that if we are
Speaker 2: able to reduce our carbon emissions down to zero, which
Speaker 2: is a decadal challenge, then the climate will begin to
Speaker 2: cool in two to three years. And the climate is
Speaker 2: responsive only to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Speaker 2: It doesn't care what political party we are, it doesn't
Speaker 2: care what we say, and it doesn't care about the
Speaker 2: policies that we nominally introduce. It's only interested in the
Speaker 2: carbon dioxide concentration and the methane concentration and the nitros
Speaker 2: oxide concentration in the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the things that I find that
Speaker 1: is the most frustrating about where we are with the
Speaker 1: climate crisis is that I still feel like we're in
Speaker 1: a place of defense where we're trying to defend against
Speaker 1: attacks around fake science and this is in truthful that
Speaker 1: you know, the globe always warms and it's always hot
Speaker 1: in the summer, that we're still in a place of
Speaker 1: trying to tell people that this is real. And if
Speaker 1: we're in a position of trying to convince people that
Speaker 1: climate change is real, then we're not really able to
Speaker 1: focus on the work. Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 2: I think that there's a tremendous amount of misinformation, and
Speaker 2: there have been studies that show that half of the
Speaker 2: American public at times has basically thought that the change
Speaker 2: that we're seeing in the climate is just a natural
Speaker 2: climate change. But we have seen the myths that have
Speaker 2: been purveyed by the fossil fuel industry change over time.
Speaker 2: First they told us that the climate wasn't warming, it
Speaker 2: was actually cooling, and then they said, well, maybe it
Speaker 2: is warming, but it's natural and it's good for us.
Speaker 2: And so they've kind of evolved, and former President Trump
Speaker 2: now acknowledges that the climate is changing at times, although
Speaker 2: he also thinks that climate change is a Chinese hoax,
Speaker 2: and when he does sound off and appear to be
Speaker 2: agreeing with the idea that climate change is real, he says, well,
Speaker 2: humans probably don't have anything to do with it, so
Speaker 2: that's just a total bit of it has no scientific support.
Speaker 2: We have scientific results from thousands of scientists and literally
Speaker 2: billions of scientific observations over decades to show that the
Speaker 2: climate is warming as a result of the waste industrial
Speaker 2: gases that humans are spewing into the atmosphere, and there's
Speaker 2: a direct correlation if you look at the graph of
Speaker 2: how temperature responds, there is a direct correlation between concentration
Speaker 2: and temperature. And we've been ignoring these facts, and we've
Speaker 2: been ignoring the underlying science in our policy for decades now.
Speaker 2: And we have made some very gentle policy measures that
Speaker 2: have moved us in the right direction, but we are
Speaker 2: nowhere near doing what needs to be done in order
Speaker 2: to really climate change. Bring our emissions down initially to
Speaker 2: net zero and ultimately to zero, and then we are
Speaker 2: actually going to have to be drawing down excess greenhouse
Speaker 2: gas from the atmosphere because we're at such a high
Speaker 2: concentration due to decades of abusing the atmosphere that we
Speaker 2: now need to remedy that situation with specific policy. But
Speaker 2: to the point that I think you raise, we are
Speaker 2: now kind of going hell bent for leather in terms
Speaker 2: of releasing these gases. The world is at the highest
Speaker 2: discharge rate of greenhouse gases ever and the rate is increasing,
Speaker 2: not decreasing. Meanwhile, the United States is the number one
Speaker 2: producer and consumer of oil and natural gas, and the
Speaker 2: world's third largest producer of coal, and we are basically
Speaker 2: not regulating the major financial institutions, the multinational banks that
Speaker 2: are providing trillions of dollars of capital to expand fossil
Speaker 2: fuel production and make this problem even worse. Meanwhile, we
Speaker 2: are spending as a nation hundreds of billions of dollars
Speaker 2: in explicit and implicit subsidies to the maturer multi trillion
Speaker 2: dollar fossil fuel industry, where we are thereby buying more
Speaker 2: severe hurricanes, more drought, and more destabilization and environmental damage
Speaker 2: and public health damage.
Speaker 1: One of the things I find, also with regard to
Speaker 1: where we find ourselves is that I think it was
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago that we had had three
Speaker 1: consecutive days of the hottest days that the planet had
Speaker 1: ever seen. And we're seeing temperatures in areas like India
Speaker 1: that are reaching one hundred and twenty some odd degree
Speaker 1: fahrenheit right and places in the Middle East, And it's
Speaker 1: happening in areas that are not the key contributors to
Speaker 1: climate change, but they are the ones that are dealing
Speaker 1: with the brunt and the effects of climate change. And
Speaker 1: so how do we reconcile the fact that while the
Speaker 1: United States is one of the biggest polluters, that because
Speaker 1: we're not the ones that are feeling the effects in
Speaker 1: this moment in relation to these other poorer countries, that
Speaker 1: it's like we're doing these kind of suggestions with regard
Speaker 1: to policy, but it is there's not a sense of urgency.
Speaker 2: This is a very complicated question that you've raised, and
Speaker 2: I want to quibble with the premise of the question. First,
Speaker 2: because although it was one hundred and twenty four twenty
Speaker 2: seven degrees in India, it was one hundred twenty four
Speaker 2: degrees in Palm Springs recently during one of the current
Speaker 2: heat waves, and there's a giant heat dome that has
Speaker 2: been sitting over the midwest of the United States, so
Speaker 2: we are feeling these impacts. And in California, where I live,
Speaker 2: we're suffering from an epidemic of extreme wildfire. There's a
Speaker 2: huge wildfire, the fifth largest in the state's history, that's
Speaker 2: raging right now in northern California, and that has already
Speaker 2: consumed six hundred square miles and that incinerates, of course,
Speaker 2: the wildlife and everything in that area, along with hundreds
Speaker 2: of homes. And it's only partially contained. A very small
Speaker 2: portion is contained, and there are one hundred wildfires going
Speaker 2: on in California. Now. This has a very big human
Speaker 2: climate fingerprint on it. So we are definitely suffering these impacts.
Speaker 2: But the other aspect of your question has to do
Speaker 2: with economic injustice and the fact that countries that have
Speaker 2: very little responsibility for having discharged the historic legacy of
Speaker 2: climate disturbing gases that are now in the atmosphere are
Speaker 2: feeling the brunt of it. Because many of these countries are,
Speaker 2: as you said, poor, they're trying to develop, they're in
Speaker 2: hot or arid regions, and these regions are going to
Speaker 2: be hit the hardest by the heat and the combined
Speaker 2: drought that is coming and that we're already experiencing. We
Speaker 2: have a very prolonged drought in California, which I believe
Speaker 2: we're still in the throes of, although we had a
Speaker 2: rainy year or two, but the overall trend has been
Speaker 2: one of drying in the American West, which is another
Speaker 2: clear fingerprint of climate change. So I think that in
Speaker 2: terms of economic justice, the developed countries need to provide
Speaker 2: a lot more assistance in the form of aid to
Speaker 2: developing countries so that they can leapfrog the fossil fuel
Speaker 2: era that we've become entangled in and go directly to
Speaker 2: clean solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, energy storage, so that these
Speaker 2: clean technologies can provide power twenty four hours a day,
Speaker 2: much like any of the traditional power sources. We have
Speaker 2: to accelerate this transition, and ideally the United States would
Speaker 2: become a model of environmental stewardship and climate responsibility and
Speaker 2: as quickly as possible reduce our fossil fuel consumption. We
Speaker 2: now use fossil fuels for seventy nine percent of all
Speaker 2: of our energy in the United States, and only about
Speaker 2: twenty one percent comes from renewable sources. These sources are
Speaker 2: growing rapidly. But we need to provide a great deal
Speaker 2: more capital in the form of public private partnerships that
Speaker 2: can be used to leverage the trillions of dollars of
Speaker 2: private money that's sitting on the sidelines looking for good
Speaker 2: economic opportunities. And the good news is that if we
Speaker 2: do this, and if we invest adequately in a rapid
Speaker 2: clean energy transition, then we're going to be harvesting millions
Speaker 2: of new jobs, will be enjoying better public health, environmental protection,
Speaker 2: and we will be saving trillions of dollars on our
Speaker 2: energy bill in contrast to that we're doing today, which
Speaker 2: is spending one point three trillion dollars every year in
Speaker 2: the United States on fossil fuels, and on top of
Speaker 2: this trillion dollars, there's also about a trillion dollars worth
Speaker 2: of public health damages that arise from this, and then
Speaker 2: globally this tremendous amount of subsidies that are going into it. Globally,
Speaker 2: we spend nine trillion dollars on fossil fuels every year
Speaker 2: and about seven trillion dollars in additional funding. Now, if
Speaker 2: we took that money and applied it to the green transition,
Speaker 2: we could have a spectacular and very rapid, clean transition
Speaker 2: that would protect the climate and protect public health because
Speaker 2: as a result of this fossil fuel burning, probably eleven
Speaker 2: million people die every year as a result of the
Speaker 2: air pollution that is ninety percent caused by fole ful
Speaker 2: fuel combustion. So we would improve public health, we would
Speaker 2: save twelve million lives plus hundreds of millions of illnesses,
Speaker 2: and we would avoid the catastrophe that's coming as we
Speaker 2: continue to heat the planet. We're at roughly one point
Speaker 2: four or one point five degrees centigrade of heating so far,
Speaker 2: but we're on this trajectory that is going to carry
Speaker 2: us to two and three degrees centigrade. Imagine doubling the
Speaker 2: amount of climate destabilization that we've already had, and the
Speaker 2: impacts that that will have on the oceans and on
Speaker 2: drought and on hurricanes and floods and all this. It's
Speaker 2: basically intolerable that we should be doing this to ourselves
Speaker 2: and not to mention the planet and other species, because
Speaker 2: other species are dying at the rate at one an hour,
Speaker 2: and we are losing the abundance of species. We've lost
Speaker 2: seventy percent of the abundance of vertebrate species since nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy and that's birds and mammals and anything else with
Speaker 2: a backbone. Meanwhile, we're damaging and acidifying the ocean because
Speaker 2: these toxic gases in the atmosphere react with the ocean
Speaker 2: water and make it more acidic. So as we're warming
Speaker 2: the ocean, it begins to expand, and we're melting the
Speaker 2: polar ice, which is adding fresh water to the ocean.
Speaker 2: It's destabilizing ocean circulation and currents, and could have dramatic
Speaker 2: and catastrophic impacts on the climate of Europe. For example,
Speaker 2: if we divert the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water
Speaker 2: to northern Europe. So the kinds of changes that we're
Speaker 2: talking about are existential changes that will produce hundreds of
Speaker 2: millions of climate refugees, which will be destabilizing to civilization
Speaker 2: as we know it. You can see what ten million
Speaker 2: refugees has done to Western Europe. Imagine two hundred million refugees.
Speaker 2: And we're already seeing refugees on our border, desperate to
Speaker 2: come someplace where they can be safe not only from
Speaker 2: dictatorship and from crime, but also many of these refugees
Speaker 2: were basically small farmers that are unable to farm because
Speaker 2: of the drought that's hit Central America. So on many
Speaker 2: many fronts, in many ways, we need to deal with
Speaker 2: this crisis because it's going to deal with us if
Speaker 2: we don't. And I think you alluded to the fact
Speaker 2: that there is an ecological dimension to this, there's a
Speaker 2: technological dimension, and that there's a political dimension. And we
Speaker 2: have the technology that we need, and we have the
Speaker 2: money that we need. We're a very wealthy country. And
Speaker 2: if it's just a few percent of our GDP that
Speaker 2: and we divert some of this money that we're throwing
Speaker 2: at the fossil fuel industry and setting on fire because
Speaker 2: fuel has to be replenished every year. We're burning money
Speaker 2: to support the fossil fuel industry, giving them subsidies, and
Speaker 2: undermining our own economy as a result of that. This
Speaker 2: is not beneficial to us.
Speaker 1: It's not a long term strategy. I mean, everything that
Speaker 1: you have laid out it spells existential threat and crises
Speaker 1: because and I guess my other question for you is,
Speaker 1: I would assume, and let's talk about the political dimension,
Speaker 1: the policy dimension that you brought up, that people have
Speaker 1: this information, people in power know what we're being faced with,
Speaker 1: and I'm wondering, how do we convince these folks that
Speaker 1: are in bed with the fossil fuel industry that they're
Speaker 1: betting against themselves.
Speaker 2: It's a challenging question. The climate and environmental movement in
Speaker 2: this country tends to be somewhat islanded or fragmented, and
Speaker 2: my own personal belief is that this movement does not
Speaker 2: speak really simply and really clearly with one voice to
Speaker 2: the American public. So I am trying actually to see
Speaker 2: if I can't get together enough support to put on
Speaker 2: a national Climate roadblock Removal conference that would bring together
Speaker 2: political leaders, with leaders in clean climate technology, and also
Speaker 2: representatives of groups that are engaged now in trying to
Speaker 2: protect the climate, but are doing so in a way
Speaker 2: that's not really well coordinated. Because we have groups that
Speaker 2: are protecting a park, or groups that are protecting a
Speaker 2: particular species, or groups that are interested in conserving land,
Speaker 2: and all of these groups have common interests, but they
Speaker 2: also have different funders and they have different agendas, and
Speaker 2: we need to get everybody together really to have a
Speaker 2: coherent platform that can then be taken to the American
Speaker 2: people and made clear that we have everything to gain
Speaker 2: and little to lose, because the fossil fuel industry is
Speaker 2: really a relatively small sliver of our economy, whereas the
Speaker 2: clean energy economy offers millions of new, good paying jobs,
Speaker 2: and it offers a clean environment. So I think, in
Speaker 2: conjunction with getting a conference together, I would like to
Speaker 2: see a democratic administration take over in Washington that believes
Speaker 2: in the reality of climate change and that is committed
Speaker 2: to making it a very high national priority. I think
Speaker 2: personally this is the highest priority. It's the highest priority
Speaker 2: from all kinds of perspectives and including the perspectives of
Speaker 2: environmental and economic justice, because, as you pointed out, the
Speaker 2: impacts of climate change that are created more by the
Speaker 2: rich countries than the poor countries are disproportionate at least
Speaker 2: felt by the lower income countries. And we're also seeing
Speaker 2: that within the United States that lower income communities have
Speaker 2: hotter temperatures, they don't have as many parks, they don't
Speaker 2: have as many trees, the buildings aren't as well insulated.
Speaker 2: They may be near petrochemical facilities that are processing fossil fuels,
Speaker 2: so they're suffering from our commitment to the fossil fuel economy.
Speaker 2: We need a federal government that is deeply committed to this,
Speaker 2: but it has to be a multi layered approach, not
Speaker 2: just the federal government, but state government, local government, regional government,
Speaker 2: municipal government, and it has to be an all of
Speaker 2: society effort. We need a national mobilization to address climate change.
Speaker 2: We should have the White House first thing when they
Speaker 2: take over, issue a National Climate Emergency Declaration to bring
Speaker 2: this issue to the fore so the public will understand it.
Speaker 2: And then we should couple that with a National Climate
Speaker 2: Prosperity Plan, which should be produced by the national laboratories
Speaker 2: and the best science and engineering, technology and knowledge that
Speaker 2: we have, so that we can map out the scenario
Speaker 2: or the optimal path to a clean energy transition that
Speaker 2: is least cost and that is quickest and most effective
Speaker 2: and most efficient. And then we ought to have the
Speaker 2: president issue a national Climate report to the nation every year.
Speaker 2: Just as we have State of the Union address, we
Speaker 2: should have this state of a Climate address. Wow.
Speaker 1: That yeah, that's a great idea.
Speaker 2: And I think that we should couple this with a
Speaker 2: national atlas of climate risks so that people who may
Speaker 2: think that the climate is somebody else's problem will be
Speaker 2: able to look at this atlas and see that, oh,
Speaker 2: my area is like either hit by floods already or
Speaker 2: likely to be flooded again within the next few years,
Speaker 2: and my property along the coast is going to lose
Speaker 2: its value when sea level rises by two feet or
Speaker 2: whatever within whatever timeframe. This will help people visualize the
Speaker 2: impacts of climate change and the climate disruption within our
Speaker 2: own borders, so we'll realize this is not somebody else's problem.
Speaker 2: This is everybody's problem, and if we treat it that way,
Speaker 2: it could have a very beneficial effect in bringing people together,
Speaker 2: even people who think that they have disparate interests. We
Speaker 2: all have a very common interest in a healthy climate.
Speaker 2: Climate does not ask you what is your political affiliation
Speaker 2: before the flood floods your basement or the hurricane rips
Speaker 2: off your roof. We have to get together as a nation,
Speaker 2: and for political purposes, the fossil fuel industry and its
Speaker 2: allies in the Republican Party largely have tried to muddy
Speaker 2: the waters that obscure the true issues here, so that
Speaker 2: people have not clearly seen what is the cause of
Speaker 2: what's going on and what has to happen. And that's
Speaker 2: why public education is very important in dealing with this crisis.
Speaker 2: Along with all of the other specific roadmaps kind of
Speaker 2: ideas that I lay this out in Solving the Climate
Speaker 2: Crisis Frontline reports. I have fifteen pages of specific policy
Speaker 2: proposals which if we implemented, these proposals would really get
Speaker 2: us on the path to solving the climate crisis. It
Speaker 2: includes things like we stop all fossil fuel subsidies, we
Speaker 2: impose a moratorium on new fossil fuel development, we have
Speaker 2: the Climate Emergency Declaration that I mentioned, and we create
Speaker 2: a very well funded National Clean Energy Bank and the
Speaker 2: issue new clean energy Treasury bonds, and we make the
Speaker 2: capital available. These are not expenses that are going to
Speaker 2: drain our economy. These are very very profitable investments. They're
Speaker 2: a lot more profitable than putting your money into the
Speaker 2: stock market. They will pay off three, four or five
Speaker 2: times what you invest as a nation in this type
Speaker 2: of endeavor.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think to the points that you have
Speaker 1: laid out that we need to change the conversation and
Speaker 1: make it be one that does really get to people's
Speaker 1: pocketbooks and the way in which we're already paying for
Speaker 1: the climate crisis. When we're looking at our utility bills
Speaker 1: when we're looking at where to move and where to live.
Speaker 1: And it was just a year or so ago when
Speaker 1: the big insurers in Florida and California said, we're not
Speaker 1: ensuring your homes anymore, right, and we're going to see
Speaker 1: more and more of those things happen. We'll leave it
Speaker 1: here today, doctor John Berger. But I so appreciate you
Speaker 1: make in the time to join WOKF. This is incredibly insightful, my.
Speaker 2: Pleasure to talk with you. If people want to find
Speaker 2: out more, they could go to my website Johnjayberger dot
Speaker 2: com burger with an E, and they could also go
Speaker 2: to Solving the Climate Crisis dot us, where they can
Speaker 2: find out how to gets solving the climate crisis and
Speaker 2: also how to learn more about the work that I'm
Speaker 2: doing in order to contact me if they want me
Speaker 2: to speak or consult. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2: It's been a pleasure talking with you, Danielle.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today. Dear friends on WOKF.
Speaker 1: As always power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.