Home | Live Now! | Try it Now
Elizabeth Kolbert on SuperFreakonomics
 
2:59
The New Yorker -  Hello, and welcome to Ask the Author Live. Elizabeth Kolbert is here with us to discuss Steven D. Levitt's and Stephen J. Dubner's new book "SuperFreakonomics." We’ll do our best to address as many questions as possible. Enjoy!
3:00
elizabeth kolbert -  Hi everyone -- Elizabeth Kolbert here.
3:01
[Comment From Daniel Boese ]
What do you think of 350.org? How realistic is the goal of 350 ppm and how effective is the political movement around it?
3:03
elizabeth kolbert -  

Well, obviously 350 ppm is incredibly ambitious target, because we're already at around 390 ppm now and rising fast. Most people who work on this issue would say we'd be incredibly lucky to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450-500 ppm.
That being said, I think it's a good idea to let people know where we should aim, rather than just let us drift along. There are many scientists who would say that 350 ppm is the only really safe goal for the long term, and perhaps it should even be lower.  

3:04
[Comment From Yon Lew ]
You dismiss plans for geoengineering as science fiction but in the past the technologies you submit as solutions to global warming, such as solar power, could also have been described as fantasy or escapism. Technological progress makes the fantastic feasible. Humanity will need to tinker with global climate sooner or later. Even if human beings were to vanish completely the Earth would still go through its cycle of glaciation and warming, and that natural cycle will prove to be disastrous for civilization unless steps are taken to moderate its effect. I don't believe future generations will be comfortable with the idea of ice sheets in Kansas.
3:07
elizabeth kolbert -  

You make a good point that things that seem science-fictiony in one era can become reality in another. And I don't think geoengineering is out of the question, or technologically impossible, even perhaps today. The point I was trying to make is that it will have serious repercussions -- it's very difficult to change the earth without that. So I guess I would say we should proceed very cautiously.  
In terms of forestalling an ice age, I think most climate scientists would say we certainly don't have to worry about that now, with CO2 levels so high. Maybe in a few thousand years, though...  

3:07
[Comment From Peter Murkett ]
In the Berkshires, where we both live, a sharp debate on the merits of wind turbines continues among local green-thinking residents. How does it sound to you?
3:11
elizabeth kolbert -  

I understand that people are opposed to putting up wind turbines in some of the last unspoiled places in New England. And I think they are right to point out, as many do, that we haven't really made any effort to conserve energy, so these turbines won't necessarily lead to the retirement of any of our coal or natural gas plants. But New England doesn't have a lot of sun, as you know, so if we're going to make a contribution to a cleaner electrical grid, we're going to have to start with wind. Bill McKibben makes the point that it's good that people have to see where their power is coming from -- maybe then they'll use less of it. So maybe it's good in a way that people find the turbines annoying.
BTW there are several going up right near where I live, at Brodie.

3:12
[Comment From Fritz Beshar ]
Only wanted to tell Ms. Kolbert how very much I admire her, and how eagerly I read her articles. I am utterly disheartened by the likes of Levitt and Dubner - so egotistical, lazy, and dangerous. You rally and fight back. Please know that you are a hero for those who like me hang out the laundry, but wonder if we'll die from discouragement (long before the climate disruptions get us). I think you might do well to repeat and update the wedges article from Scientific American. Where are we on each of the wedges, after these fews years? Everyone who is serious about carbon reductions takes that article as their basis, but it could use a progress report maybe, especially in light of the recession (which it seems has made people more serious about reducing oil dependence and improving efficiencies). Thank you so much for your courage, hard work and fantastic writing.
3:15
elizabeth kolbert -  Many thanks for the first part of your comment.
On the second, that's a good question. The "wedges" that Fritz Beshar refers to were developed by two scientists at Princeton as a way to think about how we could stabilize atmospheric CO2. Basically each wedge equals a gigaton of CO2 avoided annually. I haven't spoken to the two recently, but I suspect we are pretty much nowhere on every single one of the possible wedges, and I think there were about 14. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions have risen so much that we would need to implement more wedges than they originally thought. So I guess the bottom line is we have not made much progress since they published that paper.
 
3:16
[Comment From Billy Carlson ]
Hi Elizabeth, even though Mr. Levitt seems way off base with his assumptions that greed will solve global warming. Isn't it just proving by your introductory anecdote? People won't change unless something is made to easily replace it. Is that a form of greed?
3:19
elizabeth kolbert -  

A lot of people would argue that people won't change until it's made easy for them to do so. I'm not sure I agree with that: there's also the possibility of making it hard for them to continue on as before. That's the idea behind imposing a carbon tax, or putting in place a "cap and trade" system. It makes it difficult, or at least expensive, just to go on as before. The hope is that this would also spur innovation, which would then make change easier. And so on. Of course, if we don't try it, we'll never know.  

3:19
[Comment From Fred Drucker ]
Why is it that so few of these "contributions to a cleaner electrical grid" involve planning for nuclear power? I understand our current generating needs are more concerned with peak power, which nicely matches the availability of solar power, but for people seriously concerned with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, is there some other viable replacement for baseline coal plants?
3:24
elizabeth kolbert -  I think most people who have really looked at this issue, even those who are not against nuclear power, believe that it has only limited potential to help solve the problem. I am not an expert on this, but there are several reasons that I know of.  
First, it's very expensive these days to build a nuclear plant.
Second, the world's supply of easily accessible uranium is limited. Unless you go to breeder reactors, you are going to run into shortages if the world turns heavily to nuclear.
Third, we don't particularly want nuclear technology in the hands of a lot of countries (see Iran). This makes it tough for the US to promote nuclear as a solution to climate change.  
Fourth, many of the nuclear plants in the US are reaching the end of their useful life. Just to stay even, we would have to start building new plants pretty much right away.
This is not to say that nuclear should not be considered. But it is to say that it is no easy fix.
   
3:25
[Comment From William Brent ]
I spent 15 years in China (many as a correspondent), and it seems that the positioning of the debate here in the US is doomed to fail... morality will not move DC, but fear of falling behind other economies will. Is this your view as well? Also, what is your point of view on policy as change agent vs. technology? Thanks and keep up the great work!
3:28
elizabeth kolbert -  I think that you are making a good point. And you will hear that argument made a lot these days -- that if we don't start developing the "green" technologies of the future, the Chinese will do it instead. I suspect there's a lot truth to that -- the problem is that a lot of the opposition to changing our energy systems is coming from precisely those industries that are doing quite fine under the status quo. So you don't really remove their opposition with that argument.
Hope that makes sense...  
3:29
[Comment From David Roberts ]
Hi Elizabeth -- great piece on Superfreakonomics. Seems to me part of the attraction of the Just Build a Big Widget "solution" to global warming is that people don't really take it seriously -- the problem itself, I mean. People don't fear it in their guts. It's abstract to them so these discussions of solutions tend to take on a glib, clever tone. Nobody would be talking this way if an army was advancing on our shores, right?
3:29
[Comment From David Roberts ]
Didn't finish: my question is, with environmentalists constantly being told to dial down the doom and gloom, to focus on the happy jobs and economics arguments, how can we ever create that visceral sense of seriousness that the problem warrants?
3:33
elizabeth kolbert -  Yes, I think you are absolutely right. People who are seriously worried about climate change -- and I include most climate scientists in this -- talk about how we need a "war mentality" to mobilize people to deal with the problem -- create a new energy infrastructure, etc. But people don't feel like it's a war -- and in fact the only enemy is really ourselves. How could the real seriousness of the problem be imparted (before, that is, it's too late)? I wish I knew. In Australia, which is suffering a devastating -- and probably climate-change related -- drought, you still hear a lot of politicians mouthing nonsense about global warming not being proved, blah blah blan. So even when the consequences are right there before people, they seem to find a way to avoid confronting reality. It's really pretty impressive, when you think about it.
 
3:34
[Comment From Sam ]
Why do you think the media is so enamored with contrarians? Bjorn Lomborg, Schellenberger & Nordhaus & now the SuperFreaks have all received much more publicity than they deserved.
    Page 1  Next >
 
Powered by: CoveritLive  Reader Information