The program is about an hour. Was it a chicken in a and that a type of thing . It starts with an interest to look back at the 1970s and arriving at the Environmental Movement what were these successes and accomplishments of that era of Environmental Activism . And what were some of the limitations and constraints . And the backlash against it within the country in terms of clash between liberals and conservatives i thought it was the right story to be told. Host when you look at what is happening currently in congress or out of the Obama Administration what lessons do you think the story of paul erlich and julian simon hold for this generation in today . Fiftyseven. Guest there are one number that may be i should say that first. Paul erlich author of the books the population bomb in 1968 that famously predicted we were in danger of global famine and ecological disaster and warfare and then to question then is that human ingenuity and creativity in markets would allow us to avert these bets and more people bringing more mines to bear but in 1980 dave made a bet whether the prices would go up or down and it was a proxy for those two visions of the future whether population growth would bring new disaster or humans could adapt. What makes it interesting for me is the environmental background part of what makes it interesting is what are the lessons of the bat . In the relationships between environmental change are not that simple. And that they are adaptable for changing circumstances. Rising prices for instance and Energy Resources dont necessarily lead to our running out of oil but to the different kinds of adjustments or fuels or exploration, a conservation measures that is one important issue for the adaptability of people and to understand at this juncture between the environmental changes happening that scientists like paul erlich had documented and Human Welfare they are related but not not, just moving in lockstep. That is one set of conclusions and a second important point is what has become over the last few decades since it was resolved, the current debates over Climate Change sort of traveling that was established by the previous debates by population growth and resource scarcity you can only understand the gulf that exists between environmentalists and conservative critics if you go back to attend to the earlier battles over population growth and scarcity. Host but to go back to the bet it was the wrong bet to make because the prices of these metals really did not do anything to solve the divide between paul erlich and did julian simon they view the world and measure progress and changes in very different ways. If they were going to do the bet again, reducing there would be any kind of measure that would at least respecting each others opinion . They are so far apart. Host from the bet itself how misleading it was. They chose chromium, copper chromium, copper, tin, nickel and tungsten metals a better very important in our economy if the prices would go up or down and then a hundred Million People were added to the World Population and whether the population grows would lead to price increases because of more demand on the resources. One of the lessons of the bet these simplistic measures dont count for the broader changes within the economy or the environment. Then there is another complicated aspect that many people who like to talk about the bet dont take into account that julian simon really did get lucky with the dates that they chose and when the economist have run the numbers over the last century, they found that paul erlich would have won more than he would have lost. So taking this one example from the that that they made does not really proved that prices will always go down. Host reminds me if you bet on oil prices. Weeks before as the president talks about expanding offshore drilling then you have a major disaster to throw off any kind of wager they would have on commodities. Guest that is the lesson or one of the important things to understand that how the markets work for commodities and resources so during the 1980s there are economic factors relating to oil prices and Economic Growth and a slowdown and every day market factors like the growth sam production of tin the International Tin agreement in danger than that cartel agreement fell apart prices also collapsed or new substitutions for copper like fiberoptic cables, satellites, this then led in addition to increased production that responded to the higher prices leading to copper prices going down. Host isnt there a better way to measure . You get into this in the book but explain to the audience that they try to strike a better measure of the point that they try to make. So to comment, if there was the ideal that to be had between paul erlich and julian simon what would it have been . In 1995 after simon won the bet in 1990 it was very proud that and went out to california and wrote the hotbed for the San Francisco chronicle rubbing paul erlich knows declaring that all indicators were Getting Better challenging him to another but then paul erlich and his colleagues schneider who has passed away recently. Came up with some other metrics that i be better on to prove that it was wrong so they chose 15 different metrics in concentration of carbon dioxide, the states of the ozone there and a variety of environmental indicators we thought would get worse over a period of time. And simon refused to take the bet to say these indicators what do they show . Just that the world is changing and it doesnt necessarily mean that humans are going to suffer. And so to adapt to the changing planet what needs to be measured is human Life Expectancy rather than the size of the ozone hole or measures in cancer rates if people were adapting. That really captures the gap between the two ways to look to these problems because simon was focused on human wife will fare in paul erlich the environmental and the two ways to establish between the two because both assertions could be true. The ozone layer could be diminishing at the same time we might have come up with various ways to adapt to prevent skin cancer rates from going up. There were unable to agree on a metric with their inability to have a conversation with each other in which they talk about the same terms to find a mutual agreement. What would be a better measure . You have to figure on how to first aside the one to measure environmental changes or the welfare of Human Society . Those can be related. Host some of the things that keep coming up here in washington is obviously you hear all lot what the simons of the world say in presentday epa regulations will kill jobs, this will be horrendous for the economy and the response by the administration is if you look at all the things hed done with air pollution, i gdp has steadily gone up even as we curved air pollution. With simon have said i agree with that . What is the response for the counter argument . Said is used over and over again that gdp has gone up as we work on our Environmental Issues. Guest simon died 1988 id want to put words in his mouth but the other is counterfactual what would gdp be if those regulations were in place . Those assertions are not very well substantiated coming back to the 1970s part of that has to do with the point simon made of human adaptability not only adapting to changing environments but regulatory scheme so the assertion that the change of the regulatory structure leading to cascading disasters and growth that assumes that people cannot adapt that runs counter to the evidence of the last 40 years. Host i will not say this eloquently but i will do my best that. Host was concerned reaching are limits that population would reach a level to have their but then it seems that seidman said as you get closer to the limit, the people get smart that extend the limit out farther. There are so many examples of that. And natural gas and hydraulic fracturing now talking about exporting natural gas because we have so much of it. But i guess from a policy standpoint i guess the question is whether you believe that will always have been a and if the yardstick will keep moving basically . And weighing you have to say do we really want to risk this to pushing for word . Guest those are exactly the questions he should be asking and the implications for the current debate about climate and Energy Development but one of which is we cannot assume just because we have success in the past we will house success in the future because we could adapt to a growing population does that mean it is not a problem they are very Different ThingsClimate Change is not population growth that is a more diffuse occurrence that leads to ramifications from society. Host then there is a huge gap there. That is the assumption as well. Guest with the dangers of population growth it is more than the ability to adapt and adjust as simon argue but Climate Change is a much different question and it involves a very specific phenomenon to put more gas into the atmosphere that has consequences for the planet and science has documented this is happening and people caused this to happen in is and it is quite different in this gets to his own argument that he made the claim problems led people to lew devise solutions that will leave Society Better off but one of the unnecessary things that has to happen for problemsolving to occur is a willingness to recognize it exist that is a problem with todays climate that many people are unwilling to accept the existence of the problem. So going against the very idea is of people that were advocating we should apply the ingenuity to adapt and adjust to the planet around us but if we dont recognize that we cannot apply our ideas are innovations. Host you mentioned in the rat that is great around the issue but paul erlich is still living but who are they of today . You mention en out for but even in al gore seems to not have been out there as he has in the past. Is there a contemporary counterpart tod3 is there a contemporary counterpart today representing their respective arguments . Guest with specific people . Host i thought of he and sen on the paul erlich side as a scientist with this portion of the book that paul erlich says you need to call people out. Guest . Host. Guest does take on some of his role as the process but he does differ and has made assertions i guess the paul erlich of todays says the nation will collapse in billions of people are about to die a and this is imminent and to house civilization will adapt a and change but on the other side one of the more prominent people like that but hansel and i think has come out in favor of Nuclear Power with various adaptations people should take to adjust to the climate problem. Host manchin at the outset the initial interest was of the 70s i am a child of the 70s. [laughter] will space get the Environmental Movement of today and the big battle going on keystone excel is way up there in terms of the line being set in the sand sand, what difference is or similarities do you see from the 70s . There is a passage in the book that is mindboggling amount thursday and that epa is almost unanimously in we cannot get people to talk about light bulbs . With the mandate to tell us what label to play in our house. Where do you put the health of the Environmental Movement today instead of the heyday of the 1970s . They are quite different in this is a big topic. [laughter] host i know. Guest first the Environmental Movement today is really split between a set of larger more abstract claims of civilization and the Keystone Pipeline is part of the symbolic issue a and the more pragmatic aspects at the local level, the state level with the creation of green businesses and the penetration of Environmental Concern every aspect of our society so on the one hand the country is divided and what to do at the inability National Level to find Common Ground to pass legislation at the same time the country is moving forward were more environmental than ever before. Businesses have embraced the environmental aspects of their brand it to be a strategic advantage. I dont want to misrepresent the movement to just be one thing or climate that is just one component or the struggle related to Environmental Issues that is 1. Dive with make the secondary point with all the other activities the successor the movement the way it has penetrated to so many different aspects of society. Host talk about keystone with my private previous question the of their name was mcfadyen leading the charge on keystone and do sees similarities there of paul erlich . They have different backgrounds but are there any . Guest there are similarities. Concerned about population and of very strong concern of mckibben man speaks eloquently about, the end of nature was his first book of the transformation of civilization so in that aspect he is a modern day paul erlich type of person that there is one difference that i admire about teethirteen mckibben the way he shifts the conversation to be about how were values about the future and what we care about a and the idea to build a Climate Movement that is more of a Cultural Movement and social priorities. That is the conclusion of this book for me to move away fat biology tells us what to do or what to economics tells us what to do or rather we need to learn then figure out how to weigh the risks and uncertainties and the kind of world we want to live in. That is to the conclusion that people like mckibben can shift to to be about our values and choices i think the Environmental Movement will be on a Stronger Foundation that is why i wrote the book can but i hope for is to establish a Stronger Foundation for these issues. Host you make the point and it is interesting that all the data in the world on the biology side as we have seen currently currently, people dont believe that but despite numerous bodies saying this is happening will convince those people to get out of their rut. But i go another step forward that science doesnt tell us what to do. It tells us what we think will happen one of the implications of simons line of argument years as a voice changing and societies can adapt and change in many ways. And if you take that it leaves with the question, even if we can is this the kind of world we want to live and . Said drought, a Sea Level Rise they are in danger by the team tuesday and we do have a choice. It is the fundamental question that we face today. If we look at the inability of paul erlich and julian simon with the second that they dont bring these two ideas together to make them whole. That ultimately is around the question of social values and joyce joyce. Host is anybody bridging that gap as the observer of obama and his policies it seems that he is trying to make that case. His rhetoric on climate has not changed and he is talking a little bit about lorals and the responsibility to future generations personal conviction because of his daughters. What really but it will take to get something happening. In to persuade of the nature of Climate Change with growing Economic Opportunities in new businesses wine in new in setting the framework of values is a good way. Host i wanted to ask this question so badly where does he sit on the spectrum . Because he doesnt seem in fashion not in either camp but a combination of both in Climate Policy it is about mitigation and reducing emissions. Pushing all of the above strategy on energy or to do Carter Reagan that you do in the book and mold of the two halves together. Added another element of the program is admirable is separation of shortterm from the long term which he has taken on a number of issues but to still be developing we dont know what will work out to explore a many avenues but in the long term to reduce Carbon Emissions through capping trade or a variety of different mechanisms or to regulate power plants to have a longerterm goal in to approach the deficit you have a longterm objective and a shortterm. That is the right way to think about it. At the outset did that. He is widely quoted as they have to skyrocket and it backfired politically. So, how do you kind of get what blood ehrlich have stated like that because it seems that you pull everybody and they want a better planet. They dont want people limiting the planet and then they talk about what you have to do to solve the problem people are going to start dropping like flies and dont want to kind of deal with high gasoline prices, job losses if coal plants have to shut down if they dont fuel those kind of things. Guest this is one of the interesting limitations. I was interested in going back to study the inside of the limitations of the earlier environment and i think one of the limitations of ehrlich and people like him was maybe the unwillingness to recognize there were costs to the actions they were calling for and so he wrote at the end of the population, for instance that if im right then he essentially i will save the planet in all these good things and if im wrong we will still be better off. That is the sense of the word cost. And that is a little misleading and where the competition gets interesting and where i think we want to be moving the conversation about energy and claim it is to the area of the trade off and the priorities short term versus longterm. If we were going to put a carbon tax on that now how big should it be as opposed to later. This is and where a more pragmatic approach to addressing the problem is where its not satisfyi