Current Program Spotlight
Utah's Political Leadership and Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change - Panel Discussion
Jan. 31, 2008. 6-7:30 pm. Utah Museum of Fine Arts Auditorium.
Co-hosted by the Hinckley Institute and the Office of Sustainability.
Opening Remarks: University of Utah President Michael K. Young
Moderator: Doug Fabrizio
Panelists include:
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker
Midvale Mayor Joanne Seghini
Moab Mayor Dave Sakrison
Governor Huntsman's Energy Advisor Dianne Nielson.
Doug: I think we're ready as to start.
We're waiting for one more panelist but think we're going to crack on.
Welcome. Thank you for being here tonight, my name is Doug Fabrizio, I'm a reporter with the national public radio affiliate KUER here on campus, I also host a program called radio west.
Tonight's conversation is the culmination of an extensive effort the office of sustainability at the University of Utah along with the coalition of students and staff and faculty and groups throughout the community have been gathering this month to talk about the challenges posed by global warming. It's one part of the program called focus the nation.
The idea of course is to make people throughout the country not just aware of the threats of climate change, because that's only one part of this.
The real idea is to get them engaged, to encourage them to do something about it themselves and urge their leaders, national and local leaders, to follow their example.
First tonight we'll hear from the president of the University of Utah, please welcome president Michael young.
(Applause)
Michael K. Young:
Okay, great. We're delighted to be here and about be one of the co‑hosts of this terrific event tonight, and Doug would particularly appreciate your being with us, KUER is one of the real jewels in the crown of the University of Utah, one of the most listened‑to radio stations, and for public radio, one of the most listened‑to public radio stations in the nation.
So we appreciate all that you do.
We're also particularly delighted to welcome our very distinguished panelists, these are all people, some of whom I've had the privilege of knowing more than others but all of whom have long histories of caring passionately about the environment and more importantly putting that care and that concern into some form of action. In each of the areas in which they have an opportunity to operate and influence.
And they serve, not only as intellectually about these issues, but practically active and engaged and helping us identify ways in which we can all be more attentive to the dramatic demands that are being placed on our planet, and how to live lives of the sort that we want to live, consistent with leaving to future generations an earth that is vibrant, dynamic, growing, and capable of sustaining us and sustaining our successors for many, many, many generations into the future. We're particularly delighted that the University of Utah is part of that same effort.
I have a particular interest and stake in the environment for many years, and I am not sure I may be one of the few people in the audience who's actually negotiated international environmental treaties, and the latest edition of my international environmental law case book has come out, there are copies available to be purchased in the lobby.
But all of that has taught me over time how complex and difficult these issues are and how important it is that we pay attention to doing this, not only doing the right thing, but doing the right thing well.
And it is often complicated, challenging, and difficult. But to find ways to create sustainable environments that do it in ways that are consistent with the many other goals that we have and should have as a society. Goals that require also the commission of considerable resources to address the issues of poverty, to address health care issues, to ensure that our children have adequate educational opportunities. Those things also deserve serious time and attention, and how we ensure that we also work to sustain our environment in a way that is consistent with these other goals, that we also have and should have as a society, it becomes complicated, becomes challenging, but tonight we have panelists who have in each of their respective areas risen to that challenge and help us understand better ways to do that.
As I say, the University of Utah, which historically has been known for its red hue all over campus, we are looking to ensure that the University of Utah is as identified with green as it has been identified with red over the years. In that regard, we have instituted a number of programs to be part of this as well. Since 2004 we instituted a program designed to help us Ed indicate our community and reduce energy consumption. That has not only reduced considerably our energy consumption, but saved considerable money for the University of Utah, which is always music to the ears of the university president. We've almost completed, and will have by this spring, completed a significant energy‑producing facility here on campus, a generation plant that will provide all of our high‑temperature water needs on the lower part of campus. But a very efficient one because it also will reduce our annual CO 2 emissions by 57,000 tons on an annual basis, and equally importantly we're going to be able to recapture enough heat from that co generation plant to provide like something like 20 percent of the electrical energy needs on this part of campus as well. That is a very exciting development for us.
Our plant operations staff works closely with students and faculty to offset carbon emissions as well. We're currently applied student fees and community donations to purchase wind power on behalf of the university, where in fact one of the largest purchasers of wind power for a higher education institution in the nation. We purchased more than 25,000 megawatt hours of wind power to minimize our use ofs for till fuels as well. In 2006 the university was recognized by the EPA as one of the top 10 college and university green power purchasers. That same year, recognized as one of the top 10 universities in terms of facilitating non‑use of automobiles, but use of commuter possibilities to our campus as well.
But we want to take all of those efforts to a much, much higher level, and in that regard we are delighted we have Craig Forster with us tonight who's the Interim Director of our newly‑created University Office of Sustainability which will work to enhance energy conservation on campus, expand the recycling program that was started this year at the urging of our students and it looks like we'll be able to recycle something on the order of 30 to 40 percent in our first year of our waste paper, and from that perspective, we look to build on that basis with in great Office and do the things that need to be done.
One of my first actions of my recently‑appoint the President's Sustainability Advisory Board will also be to review possible responses and approaches to climate, to becoming climate neutral here on our campus. In fact we've put initial information on our web site, we encourage you to go to the office of sustainability web site, look at our plans, our challenges, we seek your advice, we seek your counsel and your help. This is a collaborative joint effort, and one that we look to ensure that the University of Utah maintains a significant position as a leader in this area from now and well into the future.
Special thanks for those co‑hosting this, the office of sustainability and the Hinckley institute of politics, together with the Bennion center. They have guided and supported students instrumental in organizing our focus the nation events of which this is one. And special congratulations to graduate student Alexandra Parvaz who is the Director of Sustainable Environments and Ecological Design for her leading role in producing our Focus the Nation programs.
I'm very impressed by the number of student organizations engaged in this, including SEED, SEPA (Sustainability Education and Policy Advocates), SPACE which is service politics and civics engagement, business students have started a chapter of Net Impact which is a national organization that actually thinks sustainability cannot only work but can be profitable, all joined with our Associated Student Association to bring the focus the nation teaching to a fruition at the University of Utah.
From that perspective, we have now literally 80 faculty members who are Focus the Nation teaching faculty members, who expanded their course content this week to lead the topics in their classes to global climate change solutions.
So I'm convinced that our collective efforts from that perspective, as we install energy‑efficient lighting, drive energy‑efficient vehicles, recycle waste, heat, and find other ways to minimize our global impact, that working together we will be able to accomplish these incredibly important central goals essential to our survival on this planet.
I'm also pleased to announce a partnership with Kennecott, sponsoring a 2‑day workshop on fostering sustainable behavior in late March. I'm excited about the cooperation, I'm excited about the energy at the university, and I'm excited about these great civic leaders that we have with us today to help us think how we can all work together to expand and deepen these efforts as we move forward. So with that, let me welcome you and tell you how pleased we are to have all of you here with us today, and how much we look forward to cooperating with all of you as we move these efforts forward.
Thank you.
(Applause).
Doug: Okay before we begin the panel we're going to hear a few words from Utah governor Jon Huntsman, brief remarks that the governor recorded earlier.
Jon Huntsman video:
>> Good evening everyone.
I want to thank President Young for inspiring the University of Utah students to organize this outstanding panel discussion.
Tonight you join campuses across the nation in exploring how political leaders and citizens can help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change.
I'm grateful for the mayors and my energy visor, Dianne Nielson for taking their time to be here tonight, bringing these leaders together is a unique opportunity to share ideas across the political spectrum and cement the partnerships needed to move forward in finding solutions for our future.
By participating in the focus the nation teaching, you're helping the voice of Utah to be heard in the national search for solutions to global climate change.
I look forward to learning about the results, so good luck, everyone.
Doug: The interim director of the office of sustainability Craig forester has said this, that the key is linking the local to the global, and recognizing that solutions have to be found at all levels, because like it or not, in the end the passion and the energy that those of you here tonight have will be directed to politicians and public leaders.
So we've gathered some tonight to give us their sense of how to respond to the ideas and obstacles that are part of the American political and social culture as it relates to global warming, and to turn the threat into an opportunity for action.
Let me introduce our panel, and as I say your names, just come on up and I'll say something about you.
Dr. Dianne Nielson is with us, the energy advisor for Governor Huntsman. The energy office projects investments of a port for the folio of efficiency recommendations to enable the state to reduce energy use some 20 percent by 2005, below 2005 levels by 2015, while realizing significant cost savings.
Dr. Nielson, thank you for being with us.
(Applause).
Doug: Welcome mayor Dave Sakrison of Moab, he's led Moab to become the first EPA green power community partner with more than 14 percent of that city's residents and businesses purchasing greenhouse gas‑free wind power, almost 4 percent of the area's electricity demand is being met with wind power, and mayor Sakrison, welcome.
Thanks for being with us tonight.
(Applause).
Let's see if I can find my other part.
I don't think mayor Joanne Seghini is with us. There she is. May or Joanne Seghini of Midvale welcome to you.
As mayor she has been one of the first to form the community building, building community task forces that focus on health and safety for all the while overseeing the Jordan bluffs brown fields redevelopment effort. Mayor Seghini is also a strong advocate for improving the region's air quality, smart growth, and multi‑modal transportation plan.
Mayor Seghini, welcome.
(Applause).
Salt Lake County mayor Peter Corroon is with us. His energy efficiency initiatives include using Salt Lake convention center roof tops to generate 20 kilowatts of power from solar panels installed on the roof. Much more solar power can be generated. Current state law limits that capacity to 25 kilowatts. He is working closely with senator van takes sell and senator BARRUS to pass legislation that will allow them to sponsor legislation to allow them to increase. Please welcome Salt Lake City mayor Ralph becker he has been outlining a number of initiatives aimed at mitigating climate change and improving air quality. Salt Lake has joined the county as a member of the climate registry, energy efficiency and climate‑related issues are going to be a part of the agenda in his newly‑formed Salt Lake solutions steering committee.
And Mayor Becker, welcome to you.
(Applause).
Okay, first things first.
I wanted to ask this question, I want to get a sense of your constituencies because I want to sort of establish a base line for the people that you represent.
In this country there are a lot of differing views on global climate change, and I want to get a sense of where we are, and so I want to go down the list of this was provided by Craig Forster, one of the organizers of course of the panel tonight.
Raise your hands, first‑ ‑
Doug: (Laughter).
To say whether or not this particular person is among the people you represent.
One of the views this person believes that finding ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change is the challenge (a lot of static).
It's that cord.
Finding ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change is the challenge of the millennium this person believes. Energy, security, and cost containment are a valuable by‑product of overcoming this challenge.
How many of you have that sort of person?
How many have this person?
A person who believes that climate change is an important issue but is best addressed bifocals using on energy security and cost containment?
(All raised their hands).
How about this person?
Climate change is a hoax but energy security and cost containment are important goals to strive for.
And finally this. Climate changes is a hoax, and we will never run out of affordable fossil fuels.
Okay.
Let me get you to respond, Mayor Becker, why not you?
Has the reality of climate change come to be widely accepted, do you think, among your constituents or is this still an obstacle?
>> Well, I think it's become‑ ‑
I think there has been an increasing proportion of my constituency that recognize climate change as an enormous challenge and undertaking for our world.
And I think, among my constituency, which I'm glad to say, it probably reflects a fairly good majority.
And I think that has changed just in the last year or two. I remember, in August of '06 being part of a discussion down at the Gallivan center and I was preparing for that, and it was reflected in the number of people who were there that seemed to be attentive to climate change issues, that I was most concerned that this was not an issue that was at the forefront of people's attention. That what we face with climate change is a crisis, but it is a crisis that is felt in small increments by us in terms of our individual lives, and that the nature of a democracy is we respond to crises with significant action.
And with significant change. And climate change just was not on enough people's minds. That has changed, I think, dramatically just in the last year or two
Doug: Why?
>> I think it's due to a number of things. If we're going to single out a person, certainly the work of Al Gore, the movie "An Inconvenient Truth," his efforts I think have elevated the discussion.
I place a lot of credit with the media. The media has focused an enormous amount of attention on this issue, and I think it has helped educate all of us, and it is ongoing.
This isn't something that is just a blip on the screen, or a blip in the airwaves.
I think the ability and willingness of the media to recognize this issue and treat it as a topic that deserves daily coverage in the media has made an enormous difference.
And then I think it is, it's come, I think, from just, within our community, and I think within society in general, an increasing awareness and sensitivity to environmental matters in general.
I think that's always been true in Salt Lake City, certainly for as long as I've been around, that environmental matters have been of real importance and attention.
But I think seeing those issues elevated in the public consciousness has just helped provide a much greater forum for discussion about climate change.
And then I think just seeing the effects. I mean ten years ago it was more a theory than a reality in most people's minds, but the science just has reinforced and strengthened and observations have reinforced and strengthened what was viewed more as a hypothesis ten years ago into a reality we can see across the word
Doug: I wonder, mayor Seghini, do you think the reality, people are seeing it as a reality?
>> I think that the people in Salt Lake City are more sophisticated. I really do. I think when you get to a capital city, an area, you get a feeling like you are on the cutting edge of what's happening. What I find more often when you get off of the Wasatch Front, or further away from your capital city, people are still saying, well it doesn't matter if I drive my car, it doesn't matter if I burn wood, I do not want to change my community from a single‑family home on a quarter acre lot to some other kind of a community that has a variety of housing options.
Sustainability in our state is going to depend significantly upon our use of space, the way we build things, the way we tie public transportation to personal transportation, and that's a tough row to hoe for some folks.
Doug: You're going to have to convince‑ ‑ Well, just don't change things.
If you're going to do a transit‑oriented development next to a Trax stop, it's not going to look like the rest of the neighborhoods and don't make them two stories high because they might be looking over our back fence. I mean there's a lot of this territorial, without talking about the impact that it has to sprawl, which creates more transportation problems, more pollution, and so it's one thing to say we have global warming, it's another thing to say "and I can do something about it." I see too many people saying, "it's not my problem."
Doug: Mayor Sakrison, what do you think?
>> At least I've got 15 percent of the population that believes there's a problem. You know the city's kind of a different tack. We've tried to leave by demonstration, by setting an example. We took a 1933 middle school building, which was the original school in grand county, and remodeled that, and made it green certified, silver lead certification. We incorporated energy efficiency lighting, water usage, and geothermal heating and cooling.
So the awareness within Moab, I think, is pretty high, you know? I think we're right up there with some of the folks here.
Doug: May or Peter Corroon, how about you?
Is that working?
>> Yes, it's working.
Salt Lake County is, our demographics and our population is probably a little more conservative than Salt Lake City, but probably a little less conservative than the state as a whole.
So we have the combination of the believers and non‑believers. But I'm seeing more and more of the believers, people who finally agree, let's do something. And I think it has a lot to do with the air quality we have in this valley. People are seeing more and more red burn days, they're seeing more and more pollution. I had somebody came up to me and said I can't take it any more living here, I have asthma and I need to go somewhere else.
So I think people are saying, enough is enough, let's do something. And as we grow more and more in this valley I think people want to preserve that quality of life we have.
And they want to see the political leaders do something about it.
Doug: Dr. Nielson, I wonder if, I'm wondering, I want to ask you I'm not going to ask you to speak for all the constituents in the state, but let me ask you about the legislature.
Do you sense a kind of skepticism among legislators about this matter?
Is this kind of an obstacle that you have to deal with?
Or are you seeing a bit of an awakening there with state lawmakers?
>> Well first of all I think the legislature represents and expresses the full range of opinions that you voiced, and more.
Because they're representing from the communities where constituents are concerned about those same positions, and trying to sort things out.
Obstacle, no. I think it's an opportunity, actually. And what I'm seeing happen is the people are saying, "and I can do something about it."
And more and more that's starting to happen, in Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake County, throughout the state. The governors in the western region are saying, if congress won't act, we will.
Citizens are saying, if there isn't a solution that the politicians will bring forward, we can define our own solution. And with greenhouse gas reductions, as with air pollution, a lot of the actions that can be taken to reduce emissions and improve the environment actually are choices and actions that can only be taken by individuals. We can write all the laws we want to, we can enact all the policies we want to, but if you as an individual don't decide you're going to make a difference, it's a waste of paper.
Doug: So the focus is, the focus isn't just supposed to be on leaders.
I mean where is that balance?
Where should the focus be in terms of these efforts?
On the electorate? The community? Or the leaders? Surely both, but what‑ ‑
Dianne Nielson:
>>Well, surely the leadership, and many times that facilitates policies and the actions, and the funding.
And regulation, or law from the legislature that enables us to move forward.
But what I'm saying is,that's not the excuse for not taking action. This isn't an issue where you can just say, "it's someone else's problem, or the legislature or EPA will have to act before we can solve the problem." More and more individuals are realizing that if those institutions don't act, they can.
I think it's a joint responsibility, it's a collaboration, and the optimism comes when you can put all those individuals around a table and come up with solutions as the governor's blue ribbon advisory council on climate change did. And then be able to move forward with those constituent groups and begin to implement those.
Doug: Mayor Sakrison‑ ‑
Let me invite you all to just jump in.
>> I get back to the people. I think the people have to right the ship. They really need to inform the governing bodies, and the people that are serving you. I've got to demand, you've got to demand change. I mean we've got to come up with a new way of thinking and a new way of looking at the world that we live in. And if you're not engaged, then politicians will be a little more reluctant to engage. So you guys are driving the ship, so that's where the impetus should come from.
Doug: Anyone else?
Mayor Seghini:
>> In Midvale we have the distinction of having two cleaned‑up superfund sites, almost 700 acres.
And as those superfund sites, or former superfund sites are now being developed, all of the developers coming in are looking at lead certification, platinum‑level lead certification.
That's very significant. And I think as new things happen, the innovators will be there and will show others a direction to go.
And I think that's very important, as you've done. You start out with a little bit. But more than that, you can have a sustainable community if you do careful planning.
One of the things that I've discovered is that people don't want a street cutting through their neighborhood because people will discover it's a faster way to get to work, and they want cul de sacs. Well that's not a walkable neighborhood. We've got to start changing that whole philosophy of how we join together so that we can walk and do things the way you do that is through planning and zoning in your city. Nobody shows up to talk about what we expect from our planning and zoning to do to help us to solve these problems.
Doug:‑ ‑ And I really would like to see students know they can make a difference with that.
Doug: I wanted to ask you about, do you think this is going to be a bottom‑up effort?
Which is to say that if change is going to happen, it's going to have to happen on a smaller level than congress, for example?
>> Oh, absolutely.
Yeah
Doug: Let me get your perspective.
Is this going to have to happen in municipalities and state levels before, and that's going to be the effort that moves federal law?
Mayor Becker?
>> Well certainly I agree that the personal commitment, the way we operate in our communities makes a huge difference, and maybe in some respects the biggest difference.
But a failure at the national level, a failure at the state level makes a huge difference. We look at what's been happening around the country in cities. Last week I spent with mayors across the country, and 750 cities have signed on to the protocol. Now that's a wonderful happening. And the number of things that are happening in cities is terrific.
But if we don't make a commitment at the national level with things like renewable portfolio standard, the commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by a significant percentage over the next 10 or 20 years and have leadership at that level, we're not going to succeed in this. It is going to take both work from individuals, from communities, from states, from the federal level, internationally, or we're not going to, I think, be successful in addressing this enormous challenge that we have in the next 10‑20 years.
So while I certainly agree that we need an engage the citizenry, we need people in their own lives doing things, we need us as communities looking at sustainable futures and everything we do within our cities to accomplish that. If we aren't adopting strong national standards and establishing efforts that show the rest of the world that we, as the largest producer of greenhouse gases, are doing something about it, then I don't think we will be able to succeed.
Doug: Anyone else?
>> I would echo that.
But I think more and more we're seeing the local level of government, which is closest to the citizens, taking the initial action.
I want to compliment Mayor Rocky Anderson for what he did with the Sundance summits where he brought many local leaders together.
The one thing that I got out of that summit that I attended was that change was going to have to start on the local level, because it wasn't happening on the national level.
So I think we are seeing that swell from our citizens, and it's the cities who are reacting and starting to make the changes.
Doug: How do you, as mayors, how do you, and Dr. Nielson with the governor's energy office, how do you work together to adapt to climate change?
How do you work together to deal with this?
County, city, and state?
Dr. Nielson?
>> Well, first of all, in terms of coming together to identify the problem and look at what options that we can apply, and making sure that we have technical staff, individuals who are familiar with the science and the technology we need to be implementing are there at the table helping to define options and solutions.
But then take that work out, identify a community, as Moab has, where they want to take the initiative to make that improvement, or Salt Lake County, where they'll be recovering methane from their landfill, where they're looking at placing solar panels on top of county buildings, and figure out what support we can provide. Is it making sure that the permitting process is well understood so it can move forward and be effective in accomplishing that goal? Is it providing additional technical expertise? In terms of the best way to implement the objective, or to put the plan on the ground and make it work.
A lot of times it's a matter of holding a meeting like this one, just to make sure that people are informed and understand what's happening, and have an opportunity up front to be able to provide their feedback and suggestions to improve a project. It's encouraging people to be involved, as mayor Seghini indicated in the planning and zoning process. So that they're not faced with the results of the decision, feeling that it doesn't meet their needs, they understand how they can be involved up front and how they can shape the final solution.
Doug: Mayor Sakrison?
>> You know one of the most important processes that we had this last year was the BRAC, governor's blue rib on advise advisory committee on climate change, and that was a citizen‑elected official, these three people here were on that board, and it was a collaborative effort that I think set some guidelines for the governor to, and the legislature to take a look at, and hopefully something is, some of those things are going to come out of that.
>> It's interesting to note that we have more environmental bills, more bills dealing with issues of climate change and environment this year than we have had in the past in the legislature.
Doug: Does that surprise you?
>> And many of them are bills that have come forward as a result of the types of discussions we've had over the last year, and I think it is a good sign. It's what I'd expect out of the process, and I'm pleasantly surprised that that's what's happening.
Doug: I wonder, what are you hearing from national leaders? Congress in particular.
We're seeing a few bills in the legislature now emerging. What are you seeing in congress? And the president? What kind of conversation are you hearing nationally?
Mayor Becker?
>> Well, from the president, finally an acknowledgement that there may be an issue to address here.
(Laughter). Beyond that, I think it's been fairly small in terms of things we can applaud at the federal level dealing with climate change.
Although I will say that I'm seeing some encouraging things coming out of the EPA and the department of energy that we haven't seen, and certainly until very, very recently. Congress, many, many members of congress seem to be ready to take strong action. I mean we've seen it in the most energy policy act, which includes a number of very strong measures, some of them directed as us locally, setting up a community development bloc grant program that is specifically towards use of energy and efficiency, and achieving better use of energy.
Looking towards alternative fuels. There are proposals there for renewable portfolio standard, there's been a lot of discussion on the campaign trail as well as congress on the carbon trace system, all are encouraging in terms of what's happening at the congressional level. And that's only happened in the last few years with a change in the makeup of congress.
So I'm encouraged that within the next year we may see sufficient political changes that will allow us to move forward much more aggressively nationally.
>> I was in Congressman Matheson's office just about a year ago after the Democrats took charge of the congress, and he sat there and said, our new speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she wants to make the environment one of the focuses of her administration, and something's going to be happening within the next year and I think we've started to see things happening.
Probably not as fast as we hoped but the one thing our federal government does well is spend money. And since they run the only legal printing presses for money they can use that money to help spur initiatives, the energy efficiency bloc grants which Mayor Becker mentioned, solar tax credits they can provide monetary incentives to industry to make these changes
>> I'm a little disappointed, though, that our people that are running for president haven't really come out on any of these issues in any real strong positions.
Doug: It doesn't seem to be part of the stump speech.
>> No, it doesn't, and I'm really disappointed in that because I think that there needs to be a national dialogue on this. And the sooner the better. And it's really disappointing to see that nobody's really talking about it. I mean around, about it, but not really specifically talking about issues.
Doug: Anyone else?
I one, so I don't mean to keep coming back to this, but is there a sense that this issue finally is starting to TRANSCEND politics?
Or is that still a question?
>> I think it's transcending politics, and I realized that when I went to the international shopping center convention in Las Vegas last year.
It's a convention of about 50,000 attendees and these are the folks who build shopping centers and they had a green pavilion when you walked in there. So somebody has realized that you can make money being green, and so I think we're seeing a lot of that. And you know, it's just like what we saw with natural foods, you see industry all of the sudden picking up, that there's a trend going on, trying to take that and work that to make money doing it.
Doug: Is that the thing that's driving it?
It's not‑ ‑ Well, no‑ ‑ From the citizens, it's certainly social consciousness and wanting to preserve their quality of life.
Along the Wasatch Front there was a study done just last year of what is important to our citizens, and quality of life and environment came up at the top of the list one way or another.
The economy was down there. But you know on the business side, businesses will start reacting when they can make money being involved with it.
And I see that happening. And I remember hearing president Clinton speak at this same convention I was talking about and he said the next group of entrepreneurs, the next people who are going to be in the forefront in the business community will be related to the environment. So I think president Clinton saw it, after he left office, and I think we're seeing it in industry, and it's happening all over the place.
>> I think there's another component of it in terms of business, which is pretty important, and that's the certainty of essential consideration in being able to develop a sustainable approach to our environment. But business looks for a certainty in terms of its operations.It certainly looks for opportunities to develop technology and to transfer that technology to improve the business environment.
But there hasn't bench certainty in the area of environment and greenhouse gas emissions, and management of those emissions until businesses become involved with more efficient and available technologies and solar and wind. Production of that equipment to bring the price down, to make it more affordable, and easier to implement within our communities.
Certainty that the improvements that are made are going to be recognized, and that businesses, as well as communities, will receive credit for or recognition for the reductions that they've made in greenhouse gases.
So I think in order to be able to solve the problem, what we're doing is providing an opportunity for technology for business to come forward with solutions, we're also providing some certainty in terms of the environment and the playing field for making those improvements. And to be able to see solutions on the ground, making a difference in Utah, that's exactly the type of structure we need to be encouraging.
Doug: Do you think this is going to take a reworking of the sort of economic structure of society? Or can we work within the structures that are already in place? That is do we have to start thinking about, you know, infrastructure and the very systems themselves differently?
>> Well, let me just toss one out that's not at all controversial‑‑funding of roads.
We already realize that if you drive a vehicle where you don't purchase the fuel, or all of the fuel that you drive on at the gas station, you're not fully paying your load, or your cost share in terms of roads. In other words if you're driving a hybrid vehicle right now, you're paying for the fossil fuel in that vehicle but you're not paying gas taxes on the electricity that you're using in that vehicle. And when you go to a plug‑in hybrid society at some point in the future, or perhaps a hydrogen fuel cell society, not only will you have changed the way you fuel your vehicle, and hence the way you collector don't collect highway taxes, if we don't change the system, so there's one. But you've also changed the way you're providing that fuel. Because no longer is the fuel coming out of a gas pump. The fuel's coming out of an electric socket, or maybe a compressor, at your home. So the power plant, potentially, is charging your vehicle.
What does that mean in terms of power generation in the future? What does that mean in terms of sources of generation? I think there's some major considerations in terms of how our infrastructure works and how we pay for it. And we probably have about 15 years to figure this out before we'll start to see the impacts of that.
Doug: Mayor Sakrison?
>> Gee, put me on the spot.
How many people out there have read the long emergency? By KUNTZLER.
You know I think we've got a lot of things going on in this country that I think are going to have to change. One thing being oil. And I really believe that we've reached peak oil and we're now in a state of decline. Let's face it, it's a finite resource. So being a fossil fuel‑based global economy, you know, and with the demand increasing, the cost is going to go up.
And we've got to start rethinking the whole system, I think. You know we're going to be able to‑ ‑ Is it all about driving our cars? Or is it about eating? What's going to be important to us?
So you take global climate change, and peak oil, and the financial market that's happening in this country right now, and weigh all these things, and I think we're in for a huge paradigm shift in the way that we look at this whole thing globally. So you know, I think there's some drastic changes coming.
Doug: Mayor Becker, did you have something?
>> I certainly agree that we, there are going to be some dramatic changes coming. But I'm not sure it's going to take a change in our basic approach.I mean right now we are in an economy and governmental structure where we have a mix of governmental mandates and governmental incentives, with a capitalist orientation to our economies. And that is, I think that's quite healthy. I mean we get a lot of creativity through the way our basic economy works. And I think it's going to continue to take that basic mix.
It may shift. Maybe there'll be more or less government as there has been kind of throughout the last century or so. But I'm not sure that's where the change is.
I think it is going to be with trying, as leaders, to try to make sure that we're providing a mix of incentives and removing obstacles so that these changes happen as quickly and easily in terms of impact on our individual lives, as possible. I mean you know it's nice of us to think about, well, peak oil, climate change, enormous quick change in the economy through some sort of a fossil fuel cutoff for whatever reason, will result in a very quick change.
And I think that's probably true that could happen, but think how much easier it'll be in terms of our society and our lives if, knowing these changes are coming at the governmental level, we're providing the foundation for the creativity and economics to work towards accomplishing that. And we've got a long ways to go I think in terms of what we're doing, those of us who are involved in the governmental level to try to ease that transformation.
>> One other aside of the things that we're noticing, those of us who are with affordable housing through a variety of federal funding sources primarily had you had and the tax credits are being given more and more for housing that is lead certified. Because there's a concern that if you are building affordable housing and they can't afford the utilities it doesn't make any difference. So more and more of what is being done with those federal funds, the federal tax credits, are going to ensure that lead certification will allow people to live without huge utility bills.
Doug: Mayor Sakrison, let me direct this question to you, talking about the difference of alternative sources of energy.
What role should nuclear energy play as a solution? That's going to be something that could affect your community
>> Well, gee. Coming from uranium capital of the world, the former uranium capital of the world.
You know, there's been a lot of exploration going on, again, back in our neck of the woods down in san Juan county and grand county.
I, you know, you've got to look at all the alternatives. And as we go from‑ ‑
If we're going to demand clean‑burning coal plants, you know, and that whole problem has to be solved as of yet, and if we're going to start eliminating, or limiting those types of operations, what are we going to replace it with?
I mean there's natural gas, that's another fossil fuel‑based deal, we're running out of cheap coal in the state of Utah. There is coal reserves, but getting it out's going to be a little bit more expensive. France, I think, runs about 60 or 70 percent of their total energy is generated from nuclear energy. I would hope, if the United States takes a position and decides to go this route, that we standardize the plants much like they do in Europe, like they do in Germany or France, and so the guy in brownsville, Texas, can come to Washington state and run the same plant without any worry about varying monstrosities of infrastructure. So I think, you know, if we take a look around‑ ‑ I don't know. I think it's got to come to play at some point in time.
As much as I hate to say that, I really do think that there's probably a place for nuclear energy. But boy, it's got to be well thought out and well planned and what with the waste.
That's the critical issue. What are we going to do with the waste? If we can't dispose of it in a safe manner, then you know, we might be opening up PANDORA's box.
By the way uranium and nuclear energy, that's another finite resource, as well. So I've seen some studies that there maybe, if we converted that we could probably get a 30 or 40‑year supply.
So we've got to take a look at all the options
Doug: Dr. Nielson what do you think about that question?
>> Well, first of all I think the mayor hit the nail on the head in terms of the critical issue before us, and that's the waste. We're not in an energy emergency, and an energy emergency should never cause us to set aside the environmental protections that make for safe energy and safe waste management. So it is essential that we solve the waste problem, if we're going to invest or depend on nuclear in the future. And we have not done that at this point.
But beyond that, it's also important, as you study various sources of energy and decide what sort of energy mix you want in the portfolio, that you make the decisions in terms of the value of resources. There was discussion a minute ago about whether you use crops to make ethanol, or reference to making ethanol, as opposed to feeding live stock. Do you want to use your water to cool a nuclear power plant or do you want to use your water for other uses, particularly when you're severely limited in the desert environment? There ought to be a debate on those considerations.
There's a process for allowing that to happen, and whether the resource is a coal‑fired power plant or a nuclear power plant, or Frankly, an array of solar‑thermal facilities or panels, we ought to be having the discussion of the public that are going to be impacted ought to have an opportunity to weigh in, and the leadership that we've all talked about as being important in framing energy future and the impacts on global climate. That leadership needs to pay attention to the people.
>> I'd like to add one other thing. I think before we go down the nuclear road I think I would like to explore every avenue of renewable prior to going in that direction.I think that makes more sense to me. I mean just the cost of a nuclear power plant and the waste and the issues that are involved, we can do a heck of a lot more with renewable energy than that.
Doug: We have a microphone, maybe two, in the hall. So we inite you to join us with questions. Just raise your hand. Let's take a question.
>> Yeah, this question is for the Dianne Nelson.
In terms of concentrated solar power as an option, in terms of alternative resources, I don't hear a lot talked about it. I've heard suggestions from the alternative energy community that that is a potential crucial aspect as a way to go. But I've always wondered that I don't see it getting a lot of play if there's some fly in the ointment with that technology in terms of cost or scale-ability or getting it to work right. In other words, I see alotted more attention on wind power when, to me, it seems like there's a lot more opportunity with solar, just from, you know, given the sun and so forth. So I'm wondering if you just, from a technological standpoint are aware of things where they talk about that type of technology as to where that might play in this mix of, you know, if we are going to be 25 percent by 2025, is that an option in terms of the utilities using that as a way to get it there?
>> It certainly is. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower. You mentioned costs in terms of solar, and that's a factor, and it's a factor for other renewables, too. And as the technology improves, as the demand for solar, concentrated solar improves, I think you'll see those costs come down too, as we have an opportunity to bring that technology and enhancements in the technology, and produce the turbines for instance for wind power, design and produce some of the newer designs for wind power that are perhaps more acceptable in the viewscape.
I think you'll also see acceptance and costs coming down in the energy, in the range of energy production. We're still pretty new in the renewable sector and I think you're seeing the types of reactions in the market that are common in new technologies, and bringing those on and sizing them. And I think the ability to establish targets or requirements in terms of the mix of renewables in our energy portfolio, as well as the ability to encourage and make it easier to bring those resources on for individuals, businesses, and communities will be a good way to address some of the concerns you're identifying.
Doug: Mayor Corroon.
>> Well I'm a big fan of the sun. We live in a state with the second most sunny days in the nation and we should put it back to work. We actually are involved right now, we did a study of all the hot zones in Utah, and the Southwest. Arizona and New Mexico have some great locations where you can do concentrated solar projects, southern Utah seems to be a few spots where we could do some concentrated solar. I think it makes a lot of sense.
We just announced today in Salt Lake county we're going to look at 28 of our buildings, we did a partnership with GSBS architects we're going to look at 28 of our buildings to see how we can put solar panels on our buildings. We put solar panels on the Salt Palace, the expansion to the Salt Palace, our garage now is lit during the day with those solar panels. We're going to put solar panels on the planetarium, and we think that will help make a difference. If you go to other countries, like Israel, for example, every house has a water heater on it that's heated by the sun. We can be doing the same here in Utah. So we're going to look at, we have 17 REC centers and some pools in Salt Lake County. We're going to start looking at putting hot water from the sun into those facilities. So sun is a great asset and we need to use it.
>> I just, my‑ ‑
Mayor Corroon has really taken the lead here I think in our valley, and we have started some discussions about things we might do together, just for economies of scale.
And what we can do in terms of applying our resources and it goes back to a question you asked earlier, Doug, in terms of the way we can cooperate together to get more accomplished.
You know, solar energy is such an incredible resource, and it isn't new in terms of where we know it's cost effective. I mean it's been cost effective for decades for hot water heating.
And we have to look at our zoning codes and our, how we orient buildings so buildings can take advantage of solar panels for hot water heating.
That is a very simple technology that is cost effective today in terms of its pay‑back. We can make a difference from the governmental side, and there are businesses out there that are anxious to do this, so that the capital up‑front costs are more easily amortized over a period of time for the pay‑back.
And photovoltaics. The cost is coming down every year for those. We're seeing on the private side some really encouraging developments.
There's a development on Second East and Second South where they have a very strong system of solar panels on the roof, and they are powering the apartment units in that building, and have a net meter so they're selling excess power back. The cost of energy in those units is $4.50 a month. Now that's taken some governmental support, it's taken an incredible amount of work by the developer of that project to combine a lot of resources, but we just have to be continually, I think, helping from our side, the private sector achieve success, to help kick‑start the use of solar much more
Doug:
Student question:
>> Thank you all for being here I studied climate science and I'm really glad we have all these people in attendance.
One of the challenges of individuals running the ship is individuals are thinking locally and on shorter time scales.
Saying what are your priorities, maybe keeping my job, you know, what's going on, when am I going to get home for dinner?
Kind of local things. And one of the challenges of climate change is that it's a global problem. And it comes out in a longer time scale. So if we want people to be running the ship, how is that ship going to be maintained? Because government officials often get re‑elected on shorter time scales as well. So sort of thinking longer term, how can we make our government make sure that these changes are going to happen, and people are going to be building on what happened before?
Doug: Good question.
>> I think you've got to take a politically active stance and demand change.
You've got to be able to articulate that.
This is going to be a long process.
I mean we don't even have, the federal government hasn't even really "recognized" that there's a problem yet. So you know you've got local people, you know, your city councils and your mayors, and your state representatives, and just work up the chain. Your voice is going to be heard. And collective voices even better than, you know, just one voice.
Doug: Who else?
>> Let me just suggest a couple of approaches that I think go to that issue.
It's the distinction between conservation, or conserving, and being energy efficient. And those of you who know Sarah Wright with the Utah clean energy have perhaps heard this distinction before. Conservation means saving it. For instance it means if we have not much water some year, you cut back on watering your lawn. Next year it rains, the reservoirs are full, and you say, that problem's gone and you ratchet the faucet up and you're back to full flow again. That was conservation, but it didn't sustain an ethic or a reduction in the use of water.
It didn't get you to that longer term. With energy efficiency, you put strategies, or technologies, or approaches, or construction, lead certification in buildings, that last.
You're not just changing the behavior for a period of time, it's not just "turn out the lights." It's change the light bulb, it's change the construction of the building, add insulation, more insulation. So that when you go to a year when there is more energy, or it costs less, you don't automatically slip back to the bad behavior, because the system doesn't allow you to.
The system is taking you to a new plateau. As long as we can continue to build and improve with technology, incorporate that efficiency and sustainability into our community, we won't back slide, or at least not back slide to the extent that you might otherwise. And we will be able to sustain behavior in energy efficiency for a longer time period.
Doug: But how much of an acknowledgement is there among your constituencies that there's going to be some sacrifice involved?
Do‑ ‑ And how do you convince them of that?
Mayor Becker?
>> Well, politicians never like to talk about their constituents sacrificing. And you know, I don't personally, I don't think of the changes as sacrificing. I think of them as a healthier lifestyle, and a healthier result. Short term and long term. I mean if we have good bike ways in Salt Lake City, more people are going to be able to ride their bikes and we're going to have less air pollution, people that are healthier because they're creating their own mobility.
And so some of it is providing options. I think if we talk in terms of sacrifice it'll scare people away. If we talk in terms of different choices that they have that make their lives better and everybody healthier then I think we have a different result.
>> I was going to say, again, it's not sacrifice. I would say it's more of habit. People get into the habit of doing things.
Let's take recycling for example. 25, 30 years ago how many people recycled? Now it's become common place. In Salt Lake County, this is the past year we required everybody to have a recycling bin, which Salt Lake City has done for many years. And I had people calling up yelling and screaming at me, why are you raising my rates because I have to get a recycling bin?
Now those same people are calling me up and saying can we he have the pickup every week instead of every other week because we use it so much? It really is habit and once people get used to it and acknowledge it is a benefit they'll continue to do it .
Student question:
>> This question is about costs.
You talk about the market and efficiency, and you talked about greenhouse gases, but how do we get the market to give us the right signals on costs?
Take coal, for example, where we produce most all of our electricity in this state from coal. The production of coal does not include in its cost the cost of air pollution, acid rain, mercury, devastated ecosystems, much less including the cost of global warming. How, then, do we get the market to include these costs so that we make the right decisions and move away from coal, which we all know we have to do?
>> Sorry to hog the Mike but we're actually going through this right now.
We're working on legislation to change the allowable net metering where you can put energy back into the grid from renewable projects, from 25 kilowatts to 2 megawatts.
And one of the considerations in the bill that we'd like to see is when rates are set by the state's Public Service Commission, the PSC, the Public Service Commission, that they include EXTERNALITIES, that they include environmental costs as well. That's something the Public Service Commission is technically allowed to do but it's not written in the law and we'd love to see it written in the law. It may not happen but it's certainly something that I think should be considered.
>> I want to thank you all for being here tonight.
What I'm wondering is, it seems to me we have a very large, giant Goliath in the name of coil and oil and gas and nuclear that has a huge influence over our government and political process.
And we have a very small individual called David and that's the renewable energy community that wants to stop Goliath. Goliath is so strong his influence over our politics is that we don't seem to get a handle on it. For example, one thing I think would be a very awesome thing to do would be to tax gasoline, put taxes on fossil fuels, a quarter a gallon or 50 cents a gallon, we take that money and directly put it into a subsidy to fund renewable energy. And to do something like that is politically very difficult.
What are you, being in leadership positions, what do you all think it would take to actually make something like that happen? Because it seems to me, 15‑20 years isn't very long and if we're going to get the kind of change we want in the next 20 years we're going to need to do drastic things like tax fossil fuels and put that money into renewable resources.
We need to make major shifts in our way of subsidizing and taxing. I think we need an active political government involved in that as well as the public.
Doug: Is this partly a question about the strangle hold special interests, powerful interests like oil and gas?
>> Yes‑ ‑
Doug: Have on the pros.
>> Yes, I know the recent bill they tried to pass in congress at one point they had a renewable portfolio in it and they wanted to take a subsidy away from the oil industry and they blocked that in congress, the Republicans blocked that. They threatened filibuster unless that was taken out. So that bill ended up passing without that item in that bill. And so I see that continually happening, that process. And I see that Republicans and Democrats are both basically both sides of big business. And I see it's going to take a very active public and political system from the grassroots up or something, from my perspective.
But from your guys perspective I guess my question is what is your guys' perspectives?
What is it going to really take to make this happen?
Because putting a few cells on buildings here and there and changing efficiency trying to conserve here and there that's helpful but it's not enough. We need major change and we need it fast from my perspective.
Doug: What do you do?
Mayor Seghini:
>> There's one of the things that has happened in our valley in terms of water, water conserving. Most cities have now changed their water rates. If you use too much water it costs a lot of money. And one city has even said, you have a limit beyond which you can't reasonably go. If you go beyond that limit, we will, at the cost of the city, send somebody in to redo your irrigation system, or give you recommendations.
If you do not follow those recommendations, you go over your limit the next month, you must call in an irrigation company and we will charge you $200 a month over your water bill until it comes into line. People respond to the drastic fines. How you do that with other kinds of energy, I don't know. But basically I think when you hit people in the pocket book and say we no longer can afford to let you do things this way, sometimes they listen.
>> Yeah, there is no question in my mind that the power of the established energy interests dominate our legislative process.
You look at what's going on this year in the legislature and I'm hopeful that there are other things that Dianne has talked about here that will be achieved and passed.
We have two bills that are related to a renewable portfolio standard and one is senator Mccoy's bill that would establish and require 25 percent use of renewables by the year 2025.
Pretty ambitious but consistent with what we're seeing around the country. 25 states have passed comparable pieces of legislation. We have another bill, I think it's Senator Bramble's bill Bramble's bill for a renewable portfolio that has virtually no requirements. It's being presented on behalf of Rocky Mountain power and reflects their proposal. That makes an enormous difference in what we do in the state going forward in terms of our commitment. We'll see which one passes, or which variation of those passes.
Doug: Do you want to guess?
Mayor Becker:
>> After eleven years in the legislature, I would love to see senator McCoy's bill pass. I think its chances are probably very slim.
So it comes back on the rest of us, really, it comes back on those of us who are elected officials and maybe have a different orientation.
It comes back to people paying attention to who's being elected, and demanding change, and mayor Sakrison's commented on that extensively tonight.
And change is going to happen when people are fed up with the way the status quo is, and demand change.
I think we're seeing indications of that in the presidential election this year, that may produce some different results at the national level.
We're a little further away, I suspect, at the state level.
But one of the things actually I've thought about and we have a number of mayors here who have a more proactive approach on the issues, on renewables and on energy efficiency and energy use, is that you know, we may be able to form a coalition, I was really thinking about this today as one of the benefits of preparing for something like this, if we get together and create a common voice as local elected officials on this issue, and be presenting that at the state level. Now that's riskier for some of the other elected officials up here than maybe me given my constituency. But I think it's going to take a strong grassroots based effort.
And my sense is that the community, the residents of Utah and this nation are way ahead of where the politicians are, and will welcome some clear thinking and strong action, as long as they understand what the outcomes are going to be and what the benefits are going to be as opposed to the costs long term. And I think that can come upon all of us including all of you to be vocal.
Doug: I think we have time for one more.
Yeah.
>> Cost seems to be one of the largest obstacles when we talk about solving climate change.
And my question is, why are we allowing cost to affect stopping the most deadly problem that this planet, life on this planet has ever witnessed or ever will witness, when in the whole scheme of things it doesn't seem like those pros and cons weigh out when you talk about the ethical decision of whether or not you're going to allow life on this planet to cease
Doug: It's a good question. Is he being unrealistic?
Mayors?
Mayor Corroon:
>> I don't think he's being realistic but unfortunately as human beings we tend not to do anything until the bull's staring us in the face, until we've got four breaths left is when we're going to figure out that maybe cost didn't make a difference. But cost does make a difference in many people's lives, for better or worse. And you still see solar projects which may cost ten times more than what it costs to get coal out of the ground. So I think there's different ways to make, or to bring the cost equation closer together. One of them is where governments can set the example. For example, you know in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and I think the state as well, now require all buildings to be LEED certified, or at least environmentally friendly buildings.
By setting that example, and driving the marketplace, now these environmental initiatives will become more and more common and the costs will come down and we can make it cost efficient and make it work.
Doug: Anyone else?
>> You know I mean cost‑ ‑ It's a reality in terms of the way people react, and their willingness to do things. Look at what's happened to gas prices here in the last year, year and a half. Okay just about doubled in cost, right? Gone up $1.50 a gallon in the last couple of years. And yet when we talk about a gas tax to help put in the infrastructure we need for transportation, and they poll residents in our community about whether or not they would accept a 2 or 3 or 4‑cent gas tax increase, people say no. I mean overwhelmingly say no.
And so there's a disconnect, while I may not disagree with you at all in terms of cost and the big picture and long‑term thinking an a factor in this, it's going to take people who are in elected office making decisions about whether or not we impose additional costs to get the kind of future we want to feel comfortable making those decisions. Or two years from now, or a year from now when they're up for election they're not going to be there and they get replaced by someone who doesn't have the same sensitivity or sensibility. So I mean it's a reality in a democracy, unfortunately we're in a democracy but it goes back into an earlier question it takes we have to treat it as a crisis today. And I think that society has come a long way in about a year, year and a half longer than I ever would have guessed a couple of years ago.
But that kind of change in terms of people's understanding of this issue and how we have to address it has to continue if we're going to make the progress we need to make
Doug: Let me ask one more thing, Craig forester, why don't you start making your way up here. What is it that young people, not just young people in the crowd, but students, those here, I guess, I'll expand that, what can they do to make a difference?
Go Plant a tree.Clean up the Jordan river, recycle, ride mass transit, walk to work.
You know there's no silver bullet it's just a lot of little things that people can do.
>> And make sure you vote for those people who say they'll support you.
(Applause).
>> I'd say take charge of your future. You've got to get engaged.
>> Turn off the lights, open the blinds, realize that energy efficiency is a big thing.
If we're talking about a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency, that's actually a reduction in use of about 16, almost 17 percent, that starts to look pretty sizeable when you're talking about 20 or 25 percent for a renewable component in your energy portfolio. So before you spend money, before you look at the costs of other various options, look at and invest in the cost of energy efficiency and delay the need to build a power plant.
Doug: Mayor Becker, final word.
>> Yeah, I think it's everything from our own personal lives. If we all reduce and everyone in our society reduced their energy consumption by 25 percent, which we could do without really feeling a difference in the quality of our life, at least in this country we would be accomplishing what we need to do. So it comes about in our personal lives and sharing personal experiences and knowledge and discussion with others, and then it really does come to a political process.
Because if we don't elect people who are going to put this issue at the forefront of their attention, it's not going to happen very quickly.
So I think it's both within our personal lives, it's what happens in terms of people we elect, it's what happens in terms of doing what we can internationally to help move the world to a place where a century from now we won't be here, but others will be enjoying the planet as we have.
Doug: Mayors, Dr. Nielson, thank you very much.
(Applause).
Craig Forster:
>> I really want to take this opportunity to thank the panel for their forth right comments this is an interesting process to be able to bring an audience that's been asking really I think penetrating questions and this group has thoughtfully responded to them and really I think shown that there is a role to play, whether you're going to make personal lifestyle changes, or get active in the political process, and our group of panelists is already involved in that, I think pointing the way to the future.
This is just the beginning of the conversation, we can look forward to over the next few months and the next few years, I'm hopeful that we will be interacting with this group again, and with more of your peers from this institution in and the community. So tomorrow night those who wanted to see the 2 percent solution web cast that will be shown again with a discussion opportunity at the first Unitarian church at 7:00 p.m.
On February 27th there will be a conversation with climate scientist David Chapman from the University of Utah, and then two communications professors, Yaros and Corbett, who will explore issues of how do you communicate climate change in the public arena.
We've been doing that quite well here tonight. But as you remember when people were putting up their hands in the panel, their constituents range the whole spectrum those who think climate change is a hoax. The people who helped sponsor this really are the student groups that president young mentioned who put all of the energy in to make this happen, and keep people like me awake late at night figuring out how to guide them through the process.
I would like to really thank them and the panelists and you all for coming and asking questions.
(Applause).