(00:00:06) Mix today giving back some of yesterday's gains the advanced yesterday was prompted in part by a monthly report from a group of purchasing Executives that pointed to a Slowdown in economic growth in February, but analysts say some Traders are fearful the market get might get some contradictory evidence later this week when the Labor Department issues its employment report for the month of February Advanced estimates call for the report to show an increase of about 250,000 jobs as of 11:30 Central Time. The Dow Industrial Average is very close to 2322 90 7.32. That's up two and a half points. The transportation index is down 7.28 and the utilities are down Point 83. This is midday over Minnesota Public Radio a member supported service. This Is ksjn 1330 Minneapolis-Saint Paul 20 degrees and partly sunny in the Twin Cities right now the high today should be in the mid 30s 12 o'clock is the time live coverage of current issues and events on Minnesota Public Radio is made possible by the public affairs fund contributors to the fund include the Norwest foundation on behalf of the Norwest Bank in your community. The greenhouse effect were global warming is the subject of growing attention by scientists and policymakers all around the world an increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere could have a dramatic impact on virtually all human activity stopping or preventing the increased may require some dramatic lifestyle adjustments. Minnesota is fortunate to have in its midst one of the world's experts on this topic. Dr. Dean abrahamson is Professor of public affairs and director of the Global Environmental Policy project at the Humphrey Institute, and he has both a PhD and a medical degree. Dr. Welcome says have you on the air today? Thank you. You just got back from a conference. I believe in India on this topic. Did you not That's right. There's a series of of international conferences now looking at first the general picture, but also what it means for local and and Regional activities. The other one week before last was in New Delhi sponsored by some of the Indian energy and environmental policy institute's they were maybe a hundred and fifty people from India Bangladesh Pakistan southeast Asia China and the the topic was the greenhouse effect a climatic change in the implications for the developing countries. We have heard just today that the prime minister of Britain is calling for a worldwide ban on the use or the production and export of these CFC chemicals, which apparently attack the ozone layer which Waltz in the warming of the earth. Do you see that as a tremendously significant development or just one in a series of steps that must be dealt with well, it's both that depends on I suppose how you look at it the the International Convention on the CFCs sets a precedent that will be very useful in dealing with with other things. For example, the global warming issue. It's really quite remarkable that the countries have responded as quickly as they have to the threat of ozone depletion and this Machinery that's been set up this International Machinery to get the CFC convention will have to be built upon to deal with the global warming question. So from a process standpoint and from a from a precedent standpoint, it's a it's a very significant very significant effort. It's only one. In fact, it's only the first step that would have to be taken to deal with these issues. The CFC is a chlorofluorocarbons were first implicated as because they destroy the ozone in the upper atmosphere in the stratosphere. And that was the motivation behind the convention in the first place. And of course, it still is the CFCs also turn out to be very powerful greenhouse gases. So the CFCs have got two roles one is they they contribute to Global heating through their Greenhouse Effect and also they destroy the stratospheric ozone. And eliminating the CFCs or at least the most noxious of them will help deal with the global warming question, but it's only a small part. Well how serious is the global warming problem? It seems that the experts are not in complete agreement on this we hear reports that such and such maybe happening but the evidence is not absolutely clear. What is the most current status of this? Well, there is a scientific consensus and has been for a number of years that the greenhouse effect is real that it's coming now that were that were that we're reaching a very critical stage and that unless something is done. There will be climatic changes within the next few decades greater than the earth is experience for hundreds of thousands of years where there is uncertainty. Is on detail that is we know the general pattern of climatic change for example in a place like Minnesota. We don't know it in sufficient detail to be able to do engineering plans for the next damn or for the next hydrological project and so forth that is that kind of detailed specificity that you would need for Investments of substantial amount of capital is often not there. There's another controversy. I shouldn't say controversy. It's just a normal operation of Science and that has to do with whether or not the signal has been unambiguously scene. Climate changes or I should I should say weather changes the average temperature of the globe goes up and down from year to year and other other parameters rainfall differs from year to year and so forth. Well, there's a natural range in which these changes have been within which these changes have been occurring over the last several hundred years several thousand years on temperature the if you if you look at the temperature record, the global average temperature say over the last several hundred years. It's it hasn't changed by more than about six or seven tenths of a degree celsius as a somewhat more than one degree F has been the has been the noise in the system. Well, the measured increase in global average temperature is now just about that level that is there and there is a debate as whether as to whether or not the average. Which temperatures now are greater than they ever have been I shouldn't say ever but over the last several thousand years or whether it's going to take another couple of years before that's unambiguously seen and that's you know, it's interesting and it's the stuff of which science is made but it's really quite a minor point in that the the general pattern the general Trends are very very well-known doctor Dean abrahamson is with us today as we talk about global warming and its consequences and what possibly can be done about it. If you have a question for him. Our phone lines are open in the Twin Cities. The number is two two seven six thousand 2276 thousand in the Twin Cities area elsewhere within the state of Minnesota. The toll-free number is 1-800-695-1418 hundreds six, five two nine seven zero zero and if you're listening outside the Minneapolis st. Paul or rather outside the state of Minnesota. I should say you can call us directly at six one two, two two seven six. And okay. Why is this problem occurring? Why is the earth heating up more quickly the chlorofluorocarbons are part of it, but they're not the whole story now. They're not the whole story. It has to do with gases that are being released into the atmosphere that changed the Ability of the atmosphere to trap and retain heat the Earth has to stay in in energy balance with its environment which means that so much so much energy is received on the earth and the atmosphere from the Sun and the Earth has to re-radiate that same amount of energy into space the way it works is that the solar radiation comes in heats the atmosphere heats the surface of the Earth and the Earth has to re-radiate heat in order to to to stay in thermal equilibrium and energy equilibrium. Well, we're releasing a number of gases carbon dioxide being the most important one that act to trap heat in the atmosphere that is they act of prevent the Earth from radiating heat into space and by trapping it in the atmosphere. The only way the Earth can accommodate two that is to increase its temperature and that's what's happening the major Greenhouse. Gases are carbon dioxide methane, which is natural gas or the car at least natural gas is primarily methane the chlorofluorocarbons particularly two of them CFC eleven and twelve which are the most common ones and nitrous oxide. Now these gases arise from a from a number of sources. The carbon dioxide is mostly coming from the burning of fossil fuels last year fossil fuel use on earth. That is the global use released about 6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The second largest term is the destruction of tropical forests when the forests are destroyed the carbon that's contained in the tree trunks and The Roots and the soil carbon is released into the atmosphere. That number isn't terribly well known but it's thought to be someplace between 1 and 3 billion tons of carbon. The next largest term is is manufacturer cement and that's only a tenth of a billion tons. I mean, that's a very small term the the methane is a more complicated situation and that most of the methane comes from the the the decay of organic material in peat bogs in rice paddies and waterlogged soils in landfills and from the intestines of animals. It's called anaerobic respiration that is digestion that takes place in the absence of oxygen produces methane. Maybe 30 percent or so of the methane comes in association with energy production when a coal mine is opened in the coal is mined the methane that's trapped in the coal is released into the atmosphere and there's a certain amount of leakage associated with oil production gas production leaks in pipelines. I heard the other day. I'm trying to check the number out. Now that about 5% of the natural gas leaks from the distribution and transmission system and and methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. So carbon dioxide scales almost directly with energy use and industrialization methane those scales more with the number of people is that's more population related. All those are a couple of big issues to deal with energy and population. We have some folks on the line with questions and I think we ought to get to them Dean abrahamson is with us professor of public affairs from the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota. Our topic the greenhouse effect. You're on the air. Go ahead. What's your (00:12:38) question? I have a question about the polar ice caps sort of twofold one where they're always in all the warmest periods of the earth polar ice caps and could it be conceived that we would warm the globe up so much that polar ice caps would totally disappear or what would be left of them. (00:12:56) The well the answer to your first is there have been periods when there was no or not. No at least much less Arctic Ice. The general understanding is that if the there would be a warming of four degrees Celsius that is about 8 degrees Fahrenheit that the Arctic would become ice-free is that the floating ice in the Arctic Basin would would essentially be gone not completely gone but for practical purposes that however wouldn't raise for example Global sea level because that ice is already floating and it'll change a lot of other things. For example, you could pretty much say goodbye to Arctic ecosystems and many plant and animal species that that depend on it. It will change weather patterns the location of the jet stream and things of that kind the broader question though is the melting of the Of the ice not the floating ice, but the ice that's on on Greenland and Antarctica primarily. the the the increase the increase in sea level associated with global warming is a very very major concern and the present models the present evidence shows that we can expect a sea level rise of someplace between one and a half and maybe two and a half meters over the next roughly a hundred years. That's about five to maybe eight feet rise in sea level that comes from melting marginal melting of ice on land ice in the mountains less snow cover in the land in the in the winter and the summer and also just plain expansion of the water when the water is in the oceans heat water expands. And so the sea level comes up. So one is it's pretty pretty good agreement that there will be rise sea level rise on the order of as I said five eight feet. the next hundred years But there is a much more serious problem. And that is that that it's it's there's concern that warming of about 4 degrees. Celsius will lead to really massive destruction of the ice particularly in Antarctica, which could lead to a sea level rise of 30 40 feet that however would take place slowly probably over two or three hundred years the but the concern is that a warming of about 4 degrees might trigger that and the and once it started it would be irreversible and the frightening thing is that at present if the science is even remotely, correct. And at present rates of release of these greenhouse gases, we will be committed to a warming of something between 3 and 5 degrees Celsius by about the year 2030 or 2040. That is it's happening. Very very quickly. Let us take another question here. It's a quarter past the hour and you're on now with Dean (00:16:18) abrahamson. Thank you. I'm curious to know if would would the moisture that's in the atmosphere also increase and would that eventually maybe lead to a to something like well the jungles that that existed millions of dollars and years of years ago when the dinosaurs existed would we would we have out? What do we have a moisture Planet as well as a warmer planet? (00:16:41) We would have a moisture Planet a warmer Earth means a wetter Earth in the sense that there's more evaporation. And of course what goes up must come down and when the like this is one of the so-called positive feedbacks associated with with global warming that is as the Earth warms. There will be more water vapor. There will be more water in the form of vapor and clouds in the in the atmosphere and the total Global precipitation will increase of substantial concern. However, is that the distribution of that precipitation will change very very markedly because of other climatic effects associated with the warming for example, the most recent evidence suggests that with a with a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is the Baseline that's usually used in that would occur in about 20-30 at present at under present conditions some our soil moisture in Minnesota could be reduced by 40 or 50 percent. That is a a moisture regime of water regime such as we experienced last summer could become the typical summer rather than the then the anomalous summer. So where does the moisture go? If not in Minnesota? Where does it move to? Well, there are reason if you just think roughly of places that are now used to grow rice wet rice production those places in general would expect more precipitation. I just saw some I just saw a report actually last night that that suggests a hundred percent increase in precipitation in India and the Indian subcontinent there. They'll be more precipitation in the tropics and subtropics and also probably more precipitation in the far north that is north. About 60 degrees north latitude a would expect more precipitation, but in the mid-latitudes what the general expectation is reduced precipitation, and of course because it's warmer, there'll also be increased evaporation and lost through plants and the general result of that is these large decreases in soil moisture as soil moisture goes down of course runoff goes down. And so you expect to see drying of wetlands Lower Lake Levels substantially reduce river flows and the like particularly admit continents. The neighbor hampson is with us as we continue talking about the impact of the Greenhouse Effect and maybe what can be done about it moving on to your question, please (00:19:25) hi. I don't dispute what you're saying about the greenhouse effect, you know for me, I'm very concerned about it. But I have a question last summer. We experienced one of the hottest Summers on record and now we have just finished experiencing one of the coldest February on record and I'm wondering why you know, how do you explain within the whole greenhouse effect the fact that this February has been I think what they said was the fourth coldest on (00:19:56) record. one of the one of the real concerns is the unpredictability of weather and climate when you begin to change it change the conditions in such a major way as we are just to back up a little bit. As I said carbon dioxide is the single most important greenhouse gas human activities in the last roughly a hundred years have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly 30% That's a major change in an important Global parameter. One of the things that generally is expected is an increased frequency of what have been regarded as extreme weather events. I don't have the complete list in front of me. But within the last few years we've seen the highest recorded barometric pressures and in North America, the lowest recorded barometric pressure is the most intense hurricane at least in Sometimes we have the drought of last summer. We're having strings of what have been regarded as excessively hot days in cities and this this this variability this unpredictability is is is one of the characteristics that would be expected some parts of the some parts of the world in general may get colder for example much of the heat in the North Atlantic that that is in places like Iceland and Scotland and the Faroe Islands in Norway to certain extent all of the United Kingdom is carried into the region by the Gulf Stream by the ocean currents. One of the things that's expected is decreased intensity of of ocean circulation, and it could well be that you will see Cooling in some places. Okay, we'll move on now to your question, please for Dean abrahamson. Thanks for waiting. You're on the air (00:22:02) now. Hi, thank you. Dr. Abramson you and others have been talking about the problem of global warming resource depletion and such things as ozone layer Destruction for 20 years or more recently while reading Jeremy rifkin's book on entropy. I was reminded of the extent of the several major and Global issues that you have been discussing and through that book came face-to-face with the Stark realization that the problems are indeed immense and real and the solutions would require radical Lifestyle Changes. Now, I realize this is a large issue but perhaps you could give us a glimpse of the kind of change that's needed and maybe kind of respond to the query. Is there cause for Hope in your view. Thank you. (00:22:48) I'll leave the cause for Hope to the end of the of the comments if Society decides. To stabilize Global temperature that is to to modify its activities so that so that the amount of greenhouse Heating and climate change eventually stabilizes. It's going to require something like the following a reduction of at least half in the amount of fossil fuels that are used probably more than half. But at least at least a 50% reduction globally and it must be kept that low and we'll have to stop deforestation and we'll have to Institute large reforestation programs and we'll have to stop using the long-lived industrial chemicals that have been implicated in greenhouse warming and ozone depletion such as the CFCs, but there's about 20 others and we'll have to do a great deal to reduce those activities. Producing methane. Methane is very very Troublesome. And the reason is that it's not by and large. It's not Point sources. It's coming from a very large number of small sources. It's a very powerful greenhouse gas. And as I said, it's scales more with population just to bring it to Minnesota or at least the Midwest one of the one of the bad methane producers is is beef that is it takes a tremendous amount of land to raise the the grain to feed the beef as a factor of about 10 the there that's lost at is over. If you'd eat the grains what directly and of course beef cattle produce a fantastic amount of methane in their guts as as they metabolize the Grain and I just say that is as an as an example. As we have to really start looking at those activities that are giving rise to the greenhouse gases beef consumption has another component to the to the global warming and that a fair amount of the tropical deforestation is being driven by the demands for cheap beef in the industrialized in the industrialized countries. And and the the Amazonian forests are being cut in part to provide grazed provide grazing land for beef which in turn is shipped and eaten here and in Europe and and elsewhere, but the thing that's the easiest to deal with probably and the single most important activity contributing to the global warming and climate change is the combustion of fossil fuels and that is where the first activity will almost certainly Focus their bills pending now in the Congress in both the house and the Senate calling Or reductions of 20% or more in the use of fossil fuels in this country by the year 2000 that is over the next 15 years. And that's the sort of places that I think will see the most that is most of us in our everyday activities will see the well the policy affect. Well, it sounds like a lot less electricity and a lot less use of the automobile. Those are not things that people are going to give up readily. Well, that's not up. Don't frame it quite that way. Most of us don't care at all about energy. I mean a few a few people get a kick out of putting their fingers in light bulb sockets and so forth. And of course, the energy companies are interested in energy as a commodity most of us don't care at all what we care about are the services that energy provides that is we're interested in light and heat and transportation and the like, yeah, and and it is it's been known for decades now. That for example in the u.s. We could we could reduce our energy consumption by more than half and save money without any lifestyle changes and with the same level of Services of Energy Services that are provided just take for example lighting if I look around the studio I see. About eight incandescent bulbs, you could provide with bulbs that you can buy right now at your local retailer or wholesaler, wherever you buy bulbs here bulbs that provide the same quality of light the same intensity of light and use only one-fifth the amount of electricity and it's cheaper to do it. That is every time you'd replace what I've got a I've got an energy policy course in last night. Wheats of night unfortunately, but but but last night I went through as an example in the class the lightbulb the lightbulb case and replacing 175 watt bulb in typical usage with one of these bulbs in the first place would reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the life of the bulb by about a thousand pounds and secondly, it would save because of the because of the the you have to buy less energy that you'd save between 20 and 25 dollars for the for the person or the household or the firm that will it has to pay for the Energy pay for the electricity so we can do a tremendous amount just by eliminating the sheer waste in the system by using energy more efficiently without any Lifestyle Changes without any decrease in the quality of Energy Services. It gets a little bit Any comments, you might might make about whether you are hopeful for this situation. The last part of our previous callers question. Well, it is a The National Academy of Sciences did a rather unexpected thing that's a very conservative body of people. They said Bush as he was being inaugurated at the time. He was becoming the president a summary statement on this and they characterized it as the most serious challenge of The Next Century that is that the dealing with this problem is is incredibly difficult and Incredibly important it would be easy to say that the changes required are so are so large and the policy process so slow. That there's very little hope but there's just enough hope so that one keeps plugging away at it instead of just you know, just just throw up your hands and go fishing while they're still fish Dean abrahamson is with us professor of public affairs at the Humphrey Institute. We talk about global warming the greenhouse effect. It is about half past the hour now in the Twin Cities, the telephone number is two two seven six thousand elsewhere around the state of Minnesota toll-free at 1-866-553-2368 the state of Minnesota Dallas directly area code 612 2276 thousand those Twin City numbers are pretty busy. But if you get a if you get a signal a busy single try again in a little bit. Maybe we'll get you on the air. All right. Thank you for waiting. You're on now with Dean abrahamson. (00:30:23) Is that right? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I have two questions first. I think it's fairly well accepted that in the in the past too many cycles. The concentrations of many of these gases has in fact been much higher with methane CO2 and whatever and that in some way the environment has responded to that and concentrations have been reduced. It was a book published about a year ago, which I think dealt with this something called the Gaia hypothesis. I just wonder if you could respond to that more in terms of whether you think that the feedback mechanisms and the environment are such that in some way this will correct or at least limit some of your adverse effects simply on its own and then secondly may be related to that how confident are you of the science, especially given that within certainly the last 15 years and probably even the last 10 years. He was uncertain. And whether the increase in CO2 was going to cause a global warming or global (00:31:29) cooling. Well, those are straightforward questions and I appreciate them. Excuse me, the well, the first one is it self-limiting and the answer to that is in a macro scale. It may be in that in that the Earth getting into a runaway greenhouse effect. Like Venus Venus has a greenhouse effect of about 800 degrees Celsius or what about 800 degrees Fahrenheit clearly incompatible with life and in the sense of as does it look like the Earth could get into that kind of a runaway. The answer is no but more of more practical importance there doesn't seem to be any any negative feedbacks that that would keep us from going into a temperature regime of 10 20 30 degrees Celsius warmer, that is clearly unacceptable. It is true as you point out that in geologic time. Creations of of carbon dioxide and other gases have gone up and down those changes have occurred over millions of years at very slow rates of change what's happening now is that we're moving that we're changing climate and changing temperature very rapidly with respect to for example, the life of an individual or the life of a tree or the investment with a life of invested capital and when you're making changes that are that large and that rapid it is it is necessarily very disruptive. That is you can't make a case. You simply cannot make a case that it would be self-limiting in any practical sense or that one can accommodate without major. Disruption your second point is how confidence on the science? Well, the first papers the first analyses of the greenhouse warming associated with carbon dioxide appeared in the literature in the 1860s and the numbers weren't too too much different than they are now to my knowledge there has never been the suggestion that increased greenhouse effect was going to lead to two cooling. I simply don't know where that notion comes from. There is extremely high confidence as I indicated earlier in the program in the general characteristics of global warming the general pattern of of of the climate change that would result where the uncertainty is. It's on detail. It's will a soil moisture in Minnesota be reduced by 30% or will it be reduced by 50% what'll happen exactly in the Red River Basin what extent will the deserts encroach into the high plains? In the decode in the in Colorado and so forth will sea level rise by a meter or will it rise by 2 meters? That's the kind of uncertainty there is it's not an uncertainty in any kind of a in in the theory or in the general response. Apparently our switchboard is getting a number of calls Professor from based on the comments you made earlier regarding the lightbulb situation you pointed out there are eight incandescent light bulbs burning away merrily in the studio, which you said could be replaced by some that would provide equal light at about a third the cost and people want to know more about these light bulbs you talking about. What are they? Where can you get them? And so on X I just counted their 9 and the and there's a number of of efficient light bulbs Technologies around the one I'm going to refer to as are those that can replace an ordinary incandescent light bulb as you by one screw it in the same fixture and And when use it those typically use one fifth of the energy that is if you've got a situation where you got a hundred watt light bulb, you can replace it with a bulb that gives the same amount of light and and it only uses 20 watts and the same fixture same fixture now, there are some there are some there are some problems we've got in our house. For example, some some fairly fancy light fixtures that are very shallow and they won't quite fit but it I would guess 90 percent 90 plus percent of applications. You can simply replace them. Now these well, these are called compact fluorescent light bulbs. They're made by a number of Manufacturers both in Europe and here and in Japan osram Philips GE a whole bunch of companies make these things. Typically they cost between 10 and $10 a piece ouch. That is well. Basically, this is the Brew bark. I mean if you your sent off to the grocery store and told the by six light bulbs and you come back with six bulbs in the cost $90 you'd better have an explanation. But if you do the calculation in the first place, they last about eight thousand hours. The conventional bulb is rated at a thousand hours. That's the industry standard in the first place. They last about eight times as long and secondly, if you do the if you if you compute the amount of what's called a life cycle cost that is the cost of the bulb plus the cost of the energy the life cycle cost of these bulbs is less than half of the conventional light bulb in a typical situation with electricity rates a residential rates that you have in Minneapolis and a typical usage of these bulbs. That is about 6 or 7 hours a day. It turns out that you would save about $25. Buying one of those bulbs instead of buying a conventional incandescent bulb that cost 50 cents. So the so the the conventional bulbs are cheap. They cost $0.50 70 cents something like that apiece, but they use a tremendous amount of energy. And if you add up the electricity costs plus the bulb costs these compact bulbs these efficient bulbs win hands down. It isn't even close and they're called compact fluorescents as right and they are fairly widely available. Well, they are I went out shopping this fall in Minneapolis. And st. Paul and I found them in several places not as many as I would have liked I was in San Francisco not long ago in there in every hardware store every discount store that is places that have an awareness of household economics and of the energy implications of these things you find them all over the place. We also have a house in Iceland where I live at. Which part of the year and and they're available in virtually every outlet that sells that sells bulbs there as well. Well, they'll be here eventually that seems to be the trend we eventually get things in the midwest that start out elsewhere. Let's move on to the smart questions from folks as we talk with Professor Dean abrahamson from the Humphrey Institute on the topic of global warming. Thank you for waiting now and you're on the air. (00:38:47) Yeah, two things first. It was must about a month ago that this program had a lecture talking about the light bulbs and code generation and all kinds of things. I don't know if you want to replay something one time. That was really interesting second. How about in the in the mid 70s or early 70s when the EPA came online? They basically took the strategy that we're going to allow ux micrograms of this pollutant or that pollutant per machine that you have or per plant that you have and Ten fifteen years later some economists like Milton Friedman are advocating instead of setting a limit. They're taxing. The polluters are the emitters of carbon monoxide or whatever as wondering about what the professor thinks of the efficacy of such taxes and the practicality of it and whether we will get better results. (00:39:48) Not a backtrack a little before I address your question. Maybe we talked a little bit more than I expected about light bulbs. But I like to talk about light bulbs we can do this. The point I want to make is that this only one example and it's it's it's such a clean example because it's familiar everyone that there's absolutely no loss of Energy Services and you can reduce energy use and of course save money if you look at refrigerators, if you look at automobiles, if you look at water heaters that is virtually every energy consuming product in our society has a similar set of Replacements and a similar potential for Energy savings gets a little more complicated with things that last a long time because you've got to worry about discount rates and and and and things but but the lightbulb case is only one example of literally hundreds of Technologies. They are the lecture you refer to was on a month or so ago. It was Amory Lovins giving a chatauqua lecture and it was it was in my view an absolutely brilliant lecture. I he will he laid it out in a in just a marvelous way and I don't want to interfere with programming but I wouldn't mind hearing that again fact, I wouldn't mind a tape of that lecture all your question about about the about the about using the market to affect these changes or not. It is it is it is a certainty that measures will be taken soon to reduce fossil fuel consumption in particular in this country and elsewhere. That cannot be accomplished really only in three ways one is just plain altruism as a people will feel good about it and feel feel responsible Etc. That that only gets you so far the basic tools available either regulation or or by or by tax policy or other things. The probably both will be used that is there are some things for example automobiles highly centralized markets only a few suppliers and the like and regulations on auto efficiency and and so forth will probably be used similar things with building codes perhaps but it's also quite clear that there's going to have to be higher energy prices and that will be used as a policy tool to affect these changes. I it's dangerous, of course to talk about how much it is. But my guess is that we'll be seeing two three hundred percent increases in Energy prices within the next few years. That is it's going to take changes of that kind to affect the consumption patterns to the extent that are that are necessary. Now that shouldn't be too alarming. If you go to Europe and you buy a gallon of gasoline, you're going to pay three four dollars a gallon for that guess some places. It's only two that is of course because of national tax policy. That's a matter of National Economic Policy taking into account the environmental implications that external security implications of importing the fuels and and and all of these things as one reason that for example, the German economy uses much less energy per unit gross national product is we do is because they have built in Energy Efficiency in the beginning. Same with Japan same with a lot of other places, but but but I would certainly expect it to or 300% increase in fossil fuel prices part of that will be just plain the results of scarcity as the oil and gas becomes progressively scarce. But a large part of it is going to be carbon taxes and there's and the and carbon taxes are being discussed now virtually at all levels. I was at the world bank before Christmas with a meeting with a group and again within the staff. They're trying to formulate a carbon tax proposal you're seeing that is that is this is being discussed now very widely both at the State national and international levels if the US Congress goes into contortions to deny itself a pay increase. How is it ever going to double or triple the price of energy for the American Consumer? Don't ask me the I can I'm very confident in knowing what has to be accomplished in order to stabilize Global temperature and I can say and if you'd give me enough time, I think I could convince virtually everyone that that's going to require reducing energy use by at least half. They which political buttons to push next week is not my is not my is not by business. And of course you're confronting immediately all of the vested interests associated with the present Energy System plus what you have to say is really massive ignorance both at the consumer level and at the policy-making level and those are major obstacles to overcome. It's about 15 minutes before the hour as we continue talking with Professor Dean abrahamson from the University of Minnesota. The topic is global warming and we turn to you next for question. (00:45:08) Hello. Yeah. My question is when did in history of mankind the percentage of CO2 starting trees. I think we better use parts per million. It's about 300 parts per million now, isn't it? But isn't it in Antiquity about 2000 BC are in Mediterranean Basin that was all Forest that we now the terms like Cedar of Lebanon they don't exist. Anymore or the expression Montenegro in Yugoslavia, I guess which is now Monte the Bronco in that so that for Mediterranean Basin was DeForest much the same way that Amazonian region is now the forest that wasn't there a kink in Increase of CO2 at that (00:45:51) time. Well, there wasn't much of an instrumental record at that time and the the the past hundred years or so. There's been a good instrumental record. That is good good thermometers in the like the CO2 concentrations. Well beyond that that is back several thousand years come from indirect sources. One of them is for example, the ice cores from from from Greenland and and at and Antarctica we drill down through the ice and you pull up the core you've got layers of snow and ice that were laid down last year your before a hundred years ago two thousand years ago and and a certain amount of of are was is entrained in those samples and can be and can be pulled out and analyzed and we know now the the natural systems the atmosphere can accommodate a certain amount of carbon dioxide releases. And basically it goes into the atmosphere and it's taken up by the oceans and is deposited in the Deep oceans and in limestone's and and things of that kind where we saw an increase in atmospheric CO2 at the time of the Industrial Revolution. That's not to say that these deforestation measures to which you refer were aware insignificant. They certainly they certainly had a major impact but it was with the Advent of large use of fossil fuels that the CO2 began to increase measurably as I'm talking about the last few thousand years. The Baseline is usually taken as 1860 which was the point that we really took off on fossil fuel use and at that time the concentration was 200 and about 270 parts per million in the atmosphere last year. It passed 350 parts per million. That is the Plot the increase in fossil fuel scales directly with the use of fossil fuels that began with industrialization is the rate increasing as well rate is increasing now it a prior to the OPEC activities in the 70s. The growth rate was between 4 and 5% per year and had been since essentially the second world war. There was a little Hiatus at that point when the price increased and the concern with Supply reliability in the like after OPEC the the the the growth rates fell to about 2% for several years now, they're back up around 3:00 at is they're coming back up to about 3% per year. And what we're talking about of course is making those negative large negative growth rates instead of large positive growth rings. Okay onto some more folks with questions. Thank you for waiting. And you're on the air. (00:48:47) Yes. I have a question about trees and forests, and I'm wondering what The difference from a climatic standpoint between the tropical rainforest in Brazil or anywhere in the tropics compared to the forests and the temperate regions and then within the temperate regions, you've got the deciduous trees which are bare half the year in the conduct of coniferous trees and beyond that I'm wondering about the there's a lot of acreage in the industrial world and I think of the interstate highway system and all the land all the acreage that gets taken up in the highways between for next to entrance ramps exit ramps Clover Leafs and look at i, 94 between Minneapolis. And st. Paul. There's probably probably room for another 10,000 trees and I'm just wondering if some of that Little used Urban Land could be given over to forests and I'll hang up and (00:49:47) listen. Well, there's an hour lecture and responding to that question it again was a very nice question the difference between the Amazonian and the other tropical forests. And of course what we're seeing in the temperate regions is there is their magnitude mean there's the basic principles are the same but the sheer size of these of the of the forests in in the Amazon in Central America and in Indonesia parts of West Africa that are being destroyed are just truly extraordinary mean those forests are being reduced to carbon dioxide at an extraordinary High rate. The issue with reforestation is is the amount of carbon tied up in the wood. That is it's not the rate of growth. It's the amount of carbon sequestered in the Trunks and roots and so forth and any reforestation is a step. In the right direction just I'm I'm sorry. I don't know these numbers in in in acres but the scaling factor is that you have to reforest about 2 million square kilometers of land that is take plant New Forest in a couple of million square kilometers in order to remove 1 billion tons of carbon per year from the atmosphere and tied up in the trees. If you play that out it means that to to take up the carbon that's now reduced being being produced by the fossil fuels you'd have to reforest an area the size of continental United States or Europe or Brazil each of those are nine or ten million square kilometers. So reforestation alone is simply not practical. I mean the numbers just don't mesh on the other hand as you point out. There are there's a lot of potential for reforestation and it would have other Desirable effects as well. It's environmentalist and a lot of other people people like forests. And so the reforestation option is attractive to people and there's a lot that's been done about that lately. You'll have no trouble finding all sorts of all sorts of the of descriptions and proposals and that includes such things as as planting trees and urban areas taking these agricultural lands that have been taken out of production and turning them into forests and a whole and a whole bunch of other measures reforestation is a step in the right way. It's beneficial for other reasons as well, but it's not by itself going to be enough. All right. We have a question. Now from you. Go ahead please Dean abrahamson is listening. (00:52:32) Yes Professor. I wanted to ask a couple policy type question, but just to follow up quickly on the previous caller meant talking about reforestation in the tropics the whole issue of the participation of the less developed countries of the world assuming that it is as it is a truly Global problem. It would require Global participation what sorts of resistance would you envision their being on the part of less developed the so-called less developed Nations, which would you know, which may who may regard these types of measures as as just a hindrance to their Economic Development. So that's maybe one one item follow up on any other would be from a policy point of view or or just this is I guess this would more address the greenhouse effect status as a public issue. What progress do you see toward a policy consensus of some type One key decision makers in order to get enough momentum going to get this thing solved and then and kind of a two tail onto that if you had a wish list of your own, what would be the measures that you would like to see implemented in terms of encouraging public awareness and generally communicating this issue is widely and with as much impact as you think it needs to have thank you. (00:53:49) Now, we only have the clock says only seven minutes left in the program. It is a global problem and all countries will be affected by the climate change that's inevitable, which is rather substantial and have to accommodate 222 limiting climate change. That should not though be taken as an excuse for the US and the other industrialized countries not to act unilaterally with the United States now is reduced is is producing about 27 or 28 percent of all of the CO2 being released in the world as the u.s. Is got over a quarter of it. And it should assume that burden and the implications of that of that right away plus a lot of for example, the deforestation is being driven by the industrial countries. It's being driven by the consumption of wood products of paper of beef and the like so that even though some of this deforestation is driven by local population pressures and local development concerns. A lot of it is the direct result of policies of the industrialized countries the approach by the ldcs. The is is is is as you've outlined that is they are well aware that they're going to be extremely heavily impacted because of the activities of the industrial North are very sensitive to that and and you can imagine what the rhetoric is like and how it plays out as far as progress goes. There's been unbelievable. At least I wouldn't have dreamed that there would have been Much progress as they have in the last couple of years. It is the level of awareness the political the political awareness is increasing very very rapidly. I won't go into any of the details but there have been a number of of policy meetings. Now, you may recall it that that one of the first actions actions that that Secretary of State Baker took was a public call for for for action on the global warming question Congressional. It's going on in the Congress what's going on with programs like this. It's coming very very quickly. That is the realization that something has to be done and that there is to say that there be catastrophic consequences. If it's if it's not is not a is not an overstatement the realization of what that really means is just slowly sinking in as what does it really mean to structure our means of production so that you reduce fossil fuel use by half and that has to be done over a pretty short time that is just a few decades that sort of realization is sinking in more slowly but it's coming and it's coming fast. I don't I don't have time for my wish list but a few minutes ago, I went through the list of the things that had to be done. To stabilize climate that is reduce fossil fuel use by half stop deforestation start reforestation and so forth and basically one constructs a wish list out of that and you have to add to it the hope that the world doesn't get into a very unstable political situation in its attempts to cope with the impacts of global warming and the real or perceived inequities that are associated with the response the the risk of very disruptive political events happening is non-consequential. I mean it is excuse me as major consequence just for example, I'm just I heard I heard Paul are like give a speech a couple of weeks ago and and he said that last year there's 1988 that the that the that the u.s. Consume more feed grains than it grew. Now Paul's pretty careful and I suspect that's true. If he if he said it he's probably checked the numbers. I haven't checked the numbers but look at the implications the implications of this that the u.s. Is going to become that is all things if things play out like it suggested that the US will become a net importer of foods. I mean that's that is just part of the implications part of the consequences of changing the whole world's climate and and all the systems that will it depend on it. Now that's going to lead to a few political and economic instabilities that sort of issue. Well, they're the sorts of things that are going to be really interesting to see played out in the in the years ahead. That's for sure. We've got about a minute left. Should we take one more real quick question. Let's try it. Go ahead. You're on with the neighbor hampson for just a second or so (00:58:51) just a quick one here. I came in late, but was there any any mention at all of the effect of population (00:58:58) growth? Okay, we got about a minute on that that gets back to methane. Doesn't it? Well, it gets back to a lot of things that is the the the impact on the environment. For example, or on natural resources is a function of population the per capita consumption of that population and the means of and and and and the technology being used a the US and a per capita basis has an enormously greater impact than any then well then it will than any other country and and tens or hundreds of times more per capita than for example an individual born In a village in India, but but the population pressures are clearly part of what's going on here part of what's driving not only this but a lot of the other stresses that we're seeing in society and in my my personal view is that there is no way that we're going to see stable stable Global populations of 6789 a billion people. That is the conventional projections. I don't think can they just plain can't happen and they're almost ends here. Thank you very much for coming in and talking with us about global warming today Professor Dean abrahamson from the University of Minnesota briefly the weather outlook for the state of Minnesota partly to mostly sunny windy a little warmer today high temperatures mid 20s in the North to the mid 30s in the South tonight lows will be in the 20s. Generally tomorrow cloudy skies in the north partly cloudy in the South and Mild once again, today's broadcast of midday. Was made possible with financial assistance from the James are Thorpe Foundation. This is Bob Potter speaking. You're tuned to ksjn 1330 Minneapolis-Saint Paul in the Twin Cities sunny windy and warmer with a high in the mid 30s this afternoon. You're tuned to ksjn 1330 Minneapolis-Saint Paul in the Twin Cities sunny windy and warmer with a high in the mid 30s this afternoon.