In Part 2 of our 2-episode carbon footprint series, TPTM hosts Reem, Spencer, and Sarah reflect on the results of their two-week-long challenge to drastically reduce their personal carbon emissions through changes to their diets, commutes, consumption habits, and electricity use. But do individual emissions reductions matter when corporations and industries continue to pollute with impunity? We can’t achieve ambitious climate goals – like California’s pledge to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 – through individual actions. So what else will it take?  

Reem turns to Bob Epstein of Environmental Entrepreneurs, and then Professor Dan Kammen of the Goldman School, to learn about the transformations in technology, policy, and the environmental movement as a whole, that will facilitate success in climate mitigation. In this episode, we discuss the technological potential of carbon sequestration, China’s political advantages in climate progress, the benefits and pitfalls of market-based climate regulations, the future of the environmentalist movement, and what Bob eats for breakfast.

Transcript

Reem [00:00:00] OK. Picture this. Three graduate students who feel kind of smug about their relatively green lifestyles find out that they are actually emitting lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, much more than the global average of six tons per year. In a fit of guilt they commit to spending two weeks on extremely lean carbon diets. I'm Reem Rayef and this is Talk Policy to Me. My co-hosts Sara and  Spencer and I used a great online tool called the Cool Climate Calculator to figure out exactly how many tons of carbon dioxide each of us emits each year, and how we might go about shrinking those numbers. In Part 1 of this episode, we dug into our results. We found out we aren't actually living the virtuous environmentalist lifestyles we thought we were, with pretty substantial carbon footprints attributed to our diets, our travel and our consumption. My footprint for example was 16 tons of CO2 per year with pretty big portions attributed to cross-country flights to visit my family and the use of natural gas to heat my poorly insulated house. We each set some rules for ourselves which we lived by for about two weeks. At the end of the challenge I sat down with Sarah and Spencer to discuss some of the eye opening epiphanies, the triumphs, the sorrows and the occasional moments of shame we experienced while trying to aggressively reduce our carbon footprints and live our values.

Sarah [00:01:35] It is harder to do the things that you feel like you're saying you're going to do if  you're tired or you're feeling sick or whatever it is. I was going to try and reduce my single use containers, which I was moderately OK at, but I think I unexpectedly needed a second cup of coffee a couple times this week and didn't have my reusable mug with me–which is so silly because it's such an easy thing to do, but I just forgot it and still needed that cup coffee. Then the Cliff Bars and packaged snacks that I had intended to not consume, it's so hard when we're so busy to be like "yeah, I'll make an alternative to a Cliff bar instead of just grabbing one from my cupboard on my way out the door."

Reem [00:02:28] Totally, I experienced the same thing, wanting to cut down on packaged foods, but it's really hard to do on a budget and a time constraint. Okay Spencer: where did you struggle this week?

Spencer [00:02:39] I found the stuff at home to be the easiest. And by that I mean the short showers, unplugging things, not using heaters—that sort of stuff because I found out that after a day it all became part of the routine and became so baked in. I found the transportation a little harder this week. On Monday I kind of forgot that some plans changed where a friend of mine was going on a long trip and I was like "Oh I gotta go visit," and as you guys know I get home and like 7:30 on Monday. So I hopped in my car and went to their house, and used my car once in the two weeks which was, I know, shame. I had chicken once and a turkey sandwich as well so I definitely had some moments of weakness with the food and I find myself growing weak on legume centric meals. So on the whole I did very well but you know I'd be lying if I went 100 percent vegetarian.

Sarah [00:03:36] What about you Reem? How did you Feel?

Reem [00:03:39] Given the weather I took like 35 ubers. I feel really bad about a five ubers a day, I'm a baby about the rain, I also don't own an umbrella. Oh and then because the weather has been so cold, my gas bill is probably very high. We really pumped up our heat these past couple of days.

So we talked about this a little bit but which of these habits do you think that you could see yourself continuing past these two weeks?

Sarah [00:04:15] I think taking the stairs is literally the easiest thing. And as I'm trying to go at the gym more it feels like more of a healthy thing. Yet I think I do need to get like a collapsible cup. Every time I see Reem with hers I'm super jealous, and I also think the travel mug is such an easy thing.

Spencer [00:04:35] Habits that I will continue...Well despite all my complaining about the lack of eggs and meat in my diet, I really do think I'm can maintain a better tilt away from meat products. I feel pretty confident that I can do no red meat or pork or anything, which I've sort of already had going, but now it's so easy. There's so many good options out there, so I'm going to keep doing that. And then the stuff around the house has already become part of my routine.

So thanks for getting us in this two week cycle, Reem. But that stuff is really easy and I will certainly keep doing that.  Reem, what are you going to continue doing?

Reem [00:05:15] Similar to you, I liked the unplugging. But actually, when I talking to Chris Jones, he said that in California, because of how green our grid is, something like 2 percent of emissions from the Bay Area are due to electricity use. So it really doesn't matter what you do with your electronics here.

Sarah [00:05:38] So you're saying that I totally could take the elevator and that wouldn't matter? If your electricity use doesn't actually affect your footprint that much, what does?

Reem [00:05:51] The stuff that you buy and the food that you eat, particularly dairy. I think somehow dairy more so than meat because of the keeping of things.

Spencer [00:06:15]  The processing of dairy products from the cow into something consumable and then how often they have to be refrigerated or packaged is super impactful.

Reem [00:06:24] Yes, precisely.

What is the first thing that you're going to do as a carbon indulgence, now that the challenge is over?

Sarah [00:06:37] I feel like I can't answer because I've failed so many times. So I  don't have an answer because I've already done nothing.

Spencer [00:06:59] I know what mine is: I'm going to eat eggs for breakfast.

Reem [00:07:02] How many?

Spencer [00:07:04] Between two and twenty five. So many, it's bad. I've had a nice little break and will not rush towards high cholesterol later in life, but I will get back on the train tomorrow morning.

Reem [00:07:21] Despite some slip ups, I'm really proud of how we did and am excited that we each came out of the challenge with some habits we might maintain. Sarah might not force herself to take the stairs so much anymore but maybe Spencer will cut back on the eggs a little bit and I will finally consider buying an umbrella so I don't have to call an Uber every time it drizzles. But the big question here is so what? Maybe we've reduced our individual footprints in incremental ways. We saved a few disposable coffee cups and utensils this week, saved a couple bucks on our electricity bills and annoyed our friends and family with our dietary restrictions. In Part 1 of this episode series I spoke with Chris Jones, one of the brilliant people behind the Cool Climate Calculator, about the impact of personal carbon accounting. He told me there are two schools of thought. Some people believe that getting too wrapped up in an eco-friendly lifestyle can dissuade us from doing what matters, which is taking collective action that pushes for progressive climate policy. I'll speak more on that later. Others, Chris included, believe that personal carbon accounting represents an entry way into the climate change conversation. After two weeks of carbon dieting, I wanted to hear Sarah and Spencer's thoughts. Do they feel complacent or energized?

Sarah [00:08:34] You know, I wonder. All of the energy and the money and effort that goes into trying to be a better individual when it comes to this stuff...Are we better served trying to advocate for political change? Because if our electricity use is only 2 percent of the footprint then how much can you as an individual actually do? I came out of it, seeing it that way. But I also am still not out here trying to get people to sign petitions or like advocating to Congress, so...

Spencer [00:09:05] I think we should... I don't know. As positive policymakers, we need to have that hopeful mentality that it does spill over and that it does work, even if there isn't  conclusive evidence, one way or the other, because I think we need to approach problems where the small things leads to the bigger things. Also the tangible things that makes sense to someone's life, I think it's so hard for someone watching the news to be like, "the beef industry does all this," and they are like "What? How does this touch me? I just have a burger every once in a while. I can't be part of the problem." But if you can connect the thread, even if it's not tangible, and you're not really making a difference, if you connect the thread to someone's personal life...I think this is what that we're gonna see with all these presidential candidates, right? It's like, who can tell the most effective story between like a personal action and this emergency that is pressing for the globe in the next 30 years?

 I think it's fascinating and I think we have to approach it in that way, and we can be creative about telling that story that way, because there's no other way to change people's practices.

Reem [00:10:18] I think Spencer put it perfectly. We can think about personal carbon accounting and decarbonisation as a valuable exercise in constantly reminding us of the impact of the things that we drive, we eat, and we buy. That reminder is crucial to maintaining a sense of urgency around climate change. But what does an environmentalist veteran, someone who has been thinking about his carbon footprint for decades, do to reduce his impact?

Bob Epstein [00:10:40] I have lentils for breakfast, I try to do vegan for breakfast and lunch and then do whatever I want for dinner.

Reem [00:10:56] Interesting, is that a carbon footprint allowance?

Bob Epstein [00:10:59] It's Mark Bittman recommendation called VB6. So semi-completely vegan: never cheat for breakfast and lunch and then for dinner do whatever you want.

Reem [00:11:11] Is it Mark Bittman of New York Times Cooking?

Bob Epstein [00:11:13] Yes he was out at Cal for two years. We had him out as a guest, not a guest lecturer.

Reem [00:11:19] That's amazing.

Bob Epstein [00:11:20] Yeah. So I have lentils and rice. Different types of lentils for breakfast breakfasts.

Reem [00:11:25] Sounds very nutritious.

Bob Epstein [00:11:27] Quite a while ago I put solar panels and also solar thermal heating on my house. Those panels are now so old, they're about half the usefulness of new panels, so I've turned to my vehicle and bought an electric vehicle. Originally I bought it to understand what they're like, but now I would never use a gasoline again for town traffic. They are just great.

Reem [00:11:59] That was Bob Epstein. He has an electrical engineering Ph.D  from Berkeley, he's a trustee of the Goldman School, member of the Executive Committee of the Berkeley Food Institute, he's worked on various startups for 20 years, he's an active environmental advocate and most notably, he's a co-founder of an organization called Environmental Entrepreneurs. Separate from eating lentils for breakfast and driving an electric vehicle, this is really where Bob's personal climate consciousness becomes his work.

Bob Epstein [00:12:27] So if you're a lawyer and you want to do pro-bono environmental work, there's a whole structure. You can pick different issues in the law and there's always somebody who can use an extra hand. But if you're a business person and you want to help out on environmental policy, there is no structure. So the goal of environmental entrepeneurs is to make it really easy for people with business experience or market experience to be able to contribute to public policy.

Reem [00:12:52] That's awesome. Giving your leadership E2, you kind of see a lot of the innovation that comes out of the business world for new ideas and clean energy and energy efficiency and kind of the technology aspect of that. So how has entrepreneurship in the sector responded to state and city government efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

Bob Epstein [00:13:14] Well it's responded incredibly well. There's a huge amount of investment in this area. You know when you do a new software company, you would attract people and they'd be interested but you say what's the public good that we're doing? Well you have to scratch your head. And to be able to do something that's both interesting, technically, financially rewarding, and contributes to the welfare of your neighbors, kids and the whole planet, it makes it really powerful for attracting employees.

Reem [00:13:48] What are your criteria when you evaluate the ideas an enterprises that come across your desk? What kind of are the makings of a good idea for you?

Bob Epstein [00:13:59] Well, an idea specific for impacting climate is something that will scale and really matter. It has to be a marketplace that's going to grow and at least be 1 percent of the solution. So that's kind of that's kind of what I look for. And so there's some ideas that are interesting and there could be a useful company but won't really move the needle on and there are some that are huge.

Reem [00:14:21] Are there any particular ideas that you're excited about right now.

Bob Epstein [00:14:24] The parts that really interests me now are taking carbon out of the atmosphere and converting it into a useful product. Could be carbon nanotubes that are used for construction of aircraft or anything or anything else, they want to be strong and light. It could be various way of taking CO2 combined with various types of biological things and converting it into proteins that could be food. It's a carbon-based world and  CO2 is kind of locked in the structure, but the microbes seem to know how to do it. I mean a termite gut can chew wood and turn it in the energy. And we'd like to think we're smarter than termites, so maybe they can teach us something.

Reem [00:15:09] So through his work on environmental entrepreneurs, Bob is at this really exciting intersection of business and policy. Many of the enterprises that he's working with depend on a predictable policy regime that gives dollar value to carbon capture and sequestration. California is particularly good about providing that stable policy climate that supports the development of this technology.

Bob Epstein [00:15:30] So with the reinforcement of the carbon trading market that happened two years ago, it's now clear that there will be a price on carbon in California. It's going to grow slowly, but it's guaranteed to be there. Guaranteed as much as anything is in life. So that will start to attract things that are almost financially viable. It moves it moves them from almost there to there with the idea that they're very profitable five years later after that. So those are the things that are really going to matter that California's leading on.

Reem [00:16:03] Bob is really knowledgeable about California climate policies. Through his lifetime of advocacy. He's been involved in their formation recently the state set a goal to reduce carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and then 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. I asked Bob how he thinks we might achieve those benchmarks.

Bob Epstein [00:16:24] Oh there's plenty of people involved in getting us there. But if you had to say today "tell me exactly what reductions are going to occur where by 2030" you could you could identify 60 or 70 percent of it at that last 30 percent is going to require some new policies and some new invention for example there's gonna be an assumption that there's gonna be some important improvements in batteries. We need a factor for improvement in batteries to make them commonplace.

Reem [00:16:56] So it seems like that's kind of heavy reliance on development of technology and deployment of certain technologies. Getting to 40 percent required major changes in behavior and the way that we think about our resources or major policy changes.

Bob Epstein [00:17:13] It's a really great question to say "what's the role of behavioral changes?" So some are generational, just like how it's more common for young people to live in cities and not necessarily need to own a car. Some of that is financial and some of it is a social change. So there are certain things about behavior that you can count on because there are generational changes in behavior. I don't meet too many people in their 20s who say "I really want to live in a ranch house in the suburbs." So behavioral changes that are generational, you can count on by getting somebody to change for some other reason. I think it's very dangerous policy to assume that you have to make it more convenient or better, or cheaper.

Reem [00:17:55] How is the state incentivizing Californians to change their individual behavior?

Bob Epstein [00:18:01] The main way the State addresses personal behavior is through data. It's done a lot of work and funded a lot of research to figure out what your carbon footprint is. And just like the carbon footprint calculators that you're using, a lot of those were state grants initially to figure data out. So I think the State believes that the best way to change behavior is to inform citizens of their choices and then help them help them make decisions that fit within what they need.

Reem [00:18:30] So do you feel optimistic that, just by virtue of knowing your carbon footprint and maybe having a few ideas about strategies that small changes that you can make in your life, that that's kind of enough?

Bob Epstein [00:18:41] No it's not enough but it's certainly part of the solution. I mean people have to want to see this all happen. And just like in the history of the environmental movement, recycling became an important symbol, saying "it's something I can do... and it's a sign that I feel better about my life by doing this" I think those are important things to be able to find. This is a hard problem and we're only going to solve it with a society that's determined to do it.

Reem [00:19:18] Another call for collective action around climate change. Hopefully you're seeing a trend here.

 [00:19:27] Don't miss the ninth annual race and policy symposium presented by the Goldman School of Public Policies. Students of color in Public Policy or SCiPP. The SCiPP Symposium is a week-long event running from April 8th to April 12th. With a keynote speaker panels, workshops and debates all focused around this year's theme: Timely and Timeless: The Pace of Progress in Public Policy. This year's keynote speaker is Fred Blackwell, the CEO of the San Francisco Foundation. The keynote event is on Tuesday April 9th at 6p.m. in GSPP 150. For more information and check out the schedule of events visit scippsymposium.squarespace.com.

Reem [00:20:28] My final interview took me back to my initial introduction to the Cool Climate Calculator. It was part of a problem set assigned to me in a course called Energy and Society taught by Dan Kammen. Dan wears about 20 hats here at Berkeley. He's a professor and chair of the Energy and Resources Group, a professor in the Department of Nuclear Engineering, and the director of the Center for Environmental Policy. He's also one of the makers of the calculator along with Chris Jones. In the problems that students were asked to calculate our own carbon footprints and think critically about what we might do to reduce our impact.

Reem [00:21:01] Why do you teach personal carbon accounting?

Dan Kammen [00:21:03] Well there's a couple different reasons. One is that we know from basic theory around technology and economics that we not only need a technology push or a policy push to get changes happen, but we need a demand pull and as much as would be nice if we did this all with upstream efforts and a few big companies to really build that market. We know that we need the end users to play a big role. And what's interesting is that the more you really dig into where carbon is in your daily diet and by diet I mean food as well as travel and energy, we actually find that the lower carbon diets not only save you carbon but they save you money too. And so this is truly a win win but it's a win win where a lot of the information as to how to be a kind of a globally carbon Smart Citizen is not very clear to people.

Reem [00:21:56] While doing research for this epi sode, I came across an article in The Guardian from 2017 by environmental journalist Martin Lukacs titled "Neoliberalism has Conned Us into Fighting Climate Change as Individuals". Lukacs' basic argument is that neo-liberalism as the dominant political framework has saddled individuals with the costs and impacts of climate change while corporations continue to pollute the environment through their irresponsible practices, collect enormous profits, and direct those profits toward lobbying for limited regulation of their business, which exacerbates the problem. In his critique of the current environmentalist movement he calls for people to stop thinking like individuals and unite against corporate power. I find this to be really compelling. Clearly, Dan sees the value of understanding your carbon footprint. So I wanted to hear his thoughts on Lukacs' critique of neo-liberal environmentalism.

Reem [00:22:48] At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neo-liberal ideology stands in the way which is why if we want to bring down emissions fast we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras. Take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control, regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels, and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy so that solar panels can go on everyone's roof, not just on those who can afford it. And I know that's actually a subject that you write on pretty often. Reactions?

Dan Kammen [00:23:22] So I agree with a number of the individual pieces but I think the author has really got it wrong and doesn't actually understand some of the lifecycle implications of decisions. It's very popular right now to say that a capitalist economy cannot decarbonise because at the same time we say we want to decarbonise everything is about consuming more and increasing GDP and we look somewhat longingly at China and look at the idea well totalitarian government can get these things done and these ideas go in and out of phase in a way that I fear the author hasn't really captured all of. It is certainly true that at a moment when we need to make massive action, that it looks very seductive to look for a centrally planned economy to say "well that's the easy way to do it. China can build new transmission lines without looking at the right of access of people in the way they don't have to do environmental impact assessments," and so it looks like a seductive model. And there are times when we need to do large scale actions. This is one of them. However, we also know that many of the steps we need to get to a low carbon economy we have not thought through or figured out, and centrally planned economies are not very innovative.

Reem [00:24:40] So Dan's getting at two crucial points here. The first are lifecycle emissions which I discussed a little bit with Chris Jones and in Part 1. Lifecycle emissions refer to carbon emissions that come from every part of the process of bringing a product to the end consumer that includes the extraction of the materials, the manufacturing, the shipping, the emissions that come from the store where it's sold, and then what happens to it when it's been discarded. Dan brings up lifecycle emissions here because there's still innovation to be found in trying to reduce emissions from the processing of the foods that we eat, the fuels we consume, and the goods we buy. And that innovation is a byproduct of a competitive market that adequately values carbon. So with markets that incorporate lifecycle emissions into the costs of the goods, we incentivize continued research and innovation in finding ways to decarbonise our economy. The second point is the need for flexibility. The model of utility markets and transportation systems that Lukacs describes puts the reins in the hands of the government which would prevent private interests from exploiting public goods, such as the atmosphere through unsustainable practices. However, Dan again points out that we are still learning about how best to manage our grids and our transit systems in sustainable ways through experimentation and different the country. Centralizing those infrastructures makes them inherently less flexible.

Dan Kammen [00:25:59] And there's massive amounts of data that show that if you know ahead of time that your idea is foolproof, it's a great way to go. But we almost never know big if large scale transformations are foolproof. We know we're going to make errors, we need a much more adaptive system. And that's where a mixture of some centrally planned efforts, for example, around clean infrastructure if we think large scale grids are the way to go, which is a big if at this point, there is a benefit there. But at the same time we need the balance which in my view is why the moment we had in 2015 when President Obama and Premier Xi in China got together and signed a historic deal a year ahead of the Paris climate accords to say they will work togetherU.S. and China to come up with aggressive strategies was really the kind of balance that I see because that essentially took the G2 of pollution in the U.S. and China and said that we're going to use our own internal mechanisms, we're going to battle each other for who is cleaner and we're going to make that the new path to go. And of course theU.S. has taken the unfortunate step away from that, but the idea of a mixture of a much more experimentalist-capitalist economy with all of its failings and a large centrally planned economy with all of its failings battling each other for the green leadership. That's actually a strategy that works.

Reem [00:27:27] This isn't to say that markets will allow us to innovate our way out of climate change. There is definitely a role for the government to play in strictly regulating carbon emissions. In fact Dan, attributes climate success in California to smart regulation.

Dan Kammen [00:27:39] And in fact the experience from California is that while the carbon price is a good thing, almost all of California's exceptional climate gains so far have not been through market mechanisms They've been through regulation. So, finding a way to keep that balance going is a really critical one. At the same time California or Europe or China should have a carbon price, we also should have some of the really strong mandates. China has joined France and Ireland and others and saying they will phase out the use of internal combustion cars. And China is not only the largest producer of cars but also the fastest growing market. They've said that we'll phase out the use of cars and the production of cars to use gasoline. That's the sort of message you get if we get lots of users moving to them in capitalist economies and strong statements by centrally planned economies that that's the way to go.

Reem [00:28:39] So if complete centralization isn't the solution to accelerating Climate progress, then what is? Dan believes a big part of it stems from the democratization of the environmentalist movement. I asked him about a recent study that showed that home ownership and income held equal communities of color still don't install solar panels at the same rate as white communities. Why the discrepancy?

Dan Kammen [00:29:01] Yeah this is a really disappointing feature, not of the communities but of our effort to green our economy. I had thought somewhat naively that if we controlled for income across communities, we wouldn't see massively different rates of adoption of solar in Latino and black communities largely because various efforts to seed entrepreneurs, to do training programs, would have at least gotten these technologies more or less accessible. But you don't have to be too savvy about politics to look at things like FICA scores and how the loans that are given to homeowners clearly discriminate against minority communities. And that alone probably accounts for a big chunk of our findings. But then if you look even deeper at the fact that the environmental movement United States is very very white at its leadership levels there are a couple nice exciting new leaders. The Ocasio Cortezes of the world that are hopefully trying to change, that but because the movement has been so white in the past, it's not surprising that the amount of seeding or information sharing in diverse communities has been far lower than in white communities. And if we're going to make this transformation, not just one where we green our energy mix but don't effectively save communities on the planet this has to be job one. So when I look at what has gone wrong with solar deployment, it's not that we haven't necessarily got solar to grow as rapidly as we would like. After all California is probably going to make its target of a million solar roofs by 2020, which is an amazing number because when it was passed no one thought that was possible. But we need to do in a way that's equitable so that people look at what's going on as a way to uplift people out of poverty and to make society more equal. And I've gotten pushback from colleagues who say, "well look the energy climate story is hard enough trying to make it also a mechanism for social transformation seems like you're really loading everything on to a weak horse," and I say the reverse. In my view, If you don't find a way to make more equal, you're guaranteeing its failure as opposed to finding ways to say "well look we have left out huge parts of the population from being truly engaged in this" and that's minorities that's women there's a whole variety of things that we're now seeing signs a turnaround. But that's the sort of green new deal conversation or equitable or just transition that actually make this into a movement. And until now, I would say the environmental movement has been a movement with at least one arm tied behind its back.

Reem [00:31:53] What what is kind of the role of policy in democratizing the eco movement?

Dan Kammen [00:32:00] So one of the most interesting features is that almost all of our good ideas collectively about the green energy the state ability movement were ones that we wanted to get new technologies out in the market. We want to get experience with them. And so if it's solar rooftops with a subsidy or a subsidy for electric vehicles or credits for greening your home, they almost always were subsidies for the rich that we all paid for. And I am convinced that the worst form of policy is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. So finding ways to reverse that is central to the policy designs. For example, instead of thinking about a flat carbon price or a carbon price with a dividend equally to every citizen there's no reason why we couldn't shave off a little bit from the rich who after all don't need that carbon savings and to give double or triple shares to low income people so that we really do redistribute and make the purchase of clean energy something that benefits the lowest income of Americans or Kenyans or Mozambicans or Chinese or anything else. And that's really the role of policy, that's the opportunity to take a transformation that we know must happen in our global energy system and make it one to at least partially redress the fact that our societies worldwide have become massively inequitable. And that has only accelerated over the past decades.

Reem [00:33:34] So thinking about distribution of income as well as the distribution of kind of reductions in carbon emissions.

Dan Kammen [00:33:41] Well that's right. In fact rich around the world generally spend one or two percent at most of their income on energy purchases. But poor can spend 30 40 or 50 percent of their income or their time on the same thing and whether it's buying electricity or fuel oil in the United States or Estonia or whether it's spending five hours a day collecting fuel wood in Nicaragua or Kenya. Those are incredible inequalities based on our energy choices. This is an opportunity to actually lift people out of poverty and to clean the energy system at the same time. And that's actually the sort of thing that I think once we get out of this really ugly moment of U.S. politics, we will see people embracing on all sides of the political aisles.

Reem [00:34:29] It's frustrating how simple this is. We have known about the urgency and emergency of climate change for years. So why are we just now realizing that enormous societal movement required to reverse climate change needs to involve all communities, not just wealthy white ones. Dan emphasizes that centering income inequality and racial justice in the climate conversation is paramount to the success of any environmentalist effort. And it's got to happen fast.

Dan Kammen [00:34:55] Yeah I think that Schultz was right in the Peanuts cartoons: the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the next best time is today.

 [00:35:12] Thanks for listening. Talk policy to me is a production of UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and the Berkeley Institute for the Future of Young Americans. Music heard on today's episode is by Pat Mesiti-Miller and Blue Dot Sessions. Talk Policy's executive producers are Bora Lee Reed and Sarah Swanbeck. Michael Quiroz is our sound engineer. I'm Reem Rayef. See you next time.