The Exchanges

Q two square with each other, and so a lot of I think what I'm trying to figure out is, is, you know, who's going to win that battle, right? Is it the delegitimization of the government? Is it, you know, figuring out how to not provide the certainty that investors want, or is it going to be the folks who actually want energy abundance and, you know, low energy costs?

A Skipping ahead a bit to the freeze, I think that the characterization, certainly the Trump administration was prepared with all their executive orders, but I, I, Don't think we can ascribe a whole lot of strategy to this approach, because to your point, Jigar, if you're going to freeze these contracts, if you cannot trust the government to live up to its end of the bargain, how are people going to make investments in next generation nuclear or carbon removal, like all these things that the administration has said it wants to support? It's completely It's contradictory to this idea of energy abundance, and so there's, like, very little strategic thought to these actions, and I think it could be extremely detrimental to bringing in investment for the set of technologies that this administration does want.

AI assessment note: “It's completely It's contradictory to this idea of energy abundance”

Q you have a bunch of people out there doing this, you could start changing our planet, uh, without any controls, and so there's sort of a couple different levels. One is the scientific level of both benefits and risk, and then there's also the political level of How do we have some sort of agreement, almost like an arms agreement to figure out how do we manage something like this?

A Yeah, for sure, and I want to talk more about some of those risks. I have my own list of things that potentially worry me. Those two solutions that you talked about, the stratospheric aerosol injection, which again is using sulfur dioxide or something else to reflect sunlight away from Earth, or the marine cloud brightening to improve the reflectivity of clouds, those are being considered by the White House. The White House recently issued a report, I think it was last summer, saying that we need to consider Studying those two methods that at least the questions around the research are important enough that the government should embark on a much bigger research effort. How big of a deal is that, Catherine, that the White House weighed in on this? I know it was congressionally mandated, but they did sort of have a positive reaction to doing more research.

AI assessment note: “The White House recently issued a report... saying that we need to consider Studying those”

Q that, you know, isn't necessarily as much in the public interest as their own? I, you know, I think these are big issues that, um, we have to grapple with, but it feels like it's here to stay, though, right? It might just, we might just be talking about it, but I don't think we're going to be, be in a position to take it off the table anytime soon.

A I think that's a great parallel. Um, there are a few things that worry me. One is that this is just a big distraction. As you both said, we need to deploy, and we need to deploy fast, and almost nobody would disagree that we have about 80% of the technologies today across the electricity sector, industry, and transportation to decarbonize and decarbonize fast, um, if we were really putting our shoulders into it. And so, Whatever conversation that we have about geoengineering has to recognize that, like, we have most of the technologies and solutions here right now that are deployable and being deployed to fix this problem. I, I just, I also worry that this is a distraction because you have high profile billionaires who like to throw around money and get press coverage, um, who are interested in some of these solutions. And, you know, they can start to back startups that are moving way too quickly. Also, there's a big question of like, what happens if you're just masking warming? You know, if you, if you, if you stop the geoengineering experiment, and suddenly warming comes roaring back, what happens then? We're also creating a new atmosphere, right? Like this is, we are already playing with one of the most consequential science experiments in history, and now we're just adding new elements to it. And so, You could potentially damage the ozone layer. You could shift weather patt…

AI assessment note: “there are a few things that worry me. One is that this is just”

Q But it really points out that the grid is the gift that keeps giving, right? You build it out, it's hard, and then you can electrify other, other sectors.

A And, and this is another one where you don't see electric vehicles on, really reflected in the numbers until about 20 14. And then it starts gaining an increasing share of the total investment. And then in 2022 and 20 23, it expands rapidly. And we saw An almost 40% increase in, you know, investments in electrified transport last year, and so I think that there's no turning back now. Um, if you think about how big the battery and EV market is, um, it, it certainly will be the dominant force in the energy transition. So that has been a decade-long trend, and it was really the last two years when we saw the most, uh, momentum. Um, I'll mention just one other number that jumped out to me, and that was that the U.S. was second in overall funding, you know, government debt, uh, uh, total project finance, et cetera, when you sort of bring everything together, but we were a leader in venture capital and private equity, and I think it shows that although, you know, we saw a significant dip in the last year because of financial headwinds, America is still very much A leader in supporting the front edge of the energy transition, particularly through venture capital. And, um, we just have a really rich tapestry of companies and entrepreneurs and investors in this country that sets us apart. Um, the big question is how, how do we compete on a commercial level when China's throwing far more…

AI assessment note: “you don't see electric vehicles on, really reflected in the numbers until about 20 14.”

Q number of years in laboratories talking to people who are looking at problems through the prism of how to solve them. And so I, I really feel compelled to spend whatever energy I have left as a reporter on this planet trying to show people what can be done, what are the options, how can we Address the problem. How can we diffuse the problem bomb in the public square?

A So what I see is an evolution in print outlets, more so in broadcast. I think a lot of print outlets are bringing in real estate reporters, business reporters, culture reporters into the climate story, and in some of the top outlets, some of that coverage is evolving. And I want to get your opinion on broadcast journalism and how this is evolving, because I call it Drive by climate journalism. You know, there, there is more to point the camera at now, but still I see a lot of people swooping in to cover a disaster and then swooping out. There's also still a problem with a lot of broadcast news coverage. I think Media Matters, which is a progressive media watchdog, says only a one percent of corporate broadcast news coverage was devoted to climate in 2022. And a lot of that coverage comes from Sunday Morning talk shows where it's still kind of framed as a political debate. So you have this problem, and this is not the way that you're talking about it on PBS NewsHour, but it still is a broadcast industry issue. What do you think the impact of that style of coverage is? And, and do you see any meaningful shifts across the broadcast landscape other than what you're specifically focused on?

AI assessment note: “So what I see is an evolution in print outlets, more so in broadcast.”

Q what Chief Justice John Roberts had said. Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible, quote, solution to the crisis. But a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself. And Carl, there's a lot of concern that with a decision like this, will this now go into other agencies?

A Now, before we get into what this case means, a bit of background. It's, it's an odd case involving an interpretation of a 19 seventies law that set the foundation for a climate regulation that doesn't even exist today. In 2015, the EPA under President Obama unveiled the Clean Power Plan. It was a big deal. It was the first time that carbon emission standards were set for power plants, and the agency said it had the authority to do it under the Clean Air Act. A law enacted in 1970 to clean up air pollution. But a group of attorneys general led by West Virginia disagreed. They sued in federal court. And then Trump came into office. His EPA ditched the plan and created a toothless replacement. That killed West Virginia's lawsuit. But then a bunch of states, cities, and environmental and public health groups sued the Trump EPA. And last year, a circuit court ruled the Trump administration's intentional slow walk was, quote, arbitrary and capricious.

AI assessment note: “Now, before we get into what this case means, a bit of background.”

Q power markets, so there's the market design, which we've been talking about, but there's also just how markets behave. Like, what do power markets look like when we're mostly renewable, especially given that they haven't been designed for this, right? They've been designed with a world of fossil fuels, Where you're really focused on, you know, the dispatch stack, and I think the dispatch stack could, could be quite different.

A Yeah, that does bring us to a question about the resource mix and resource availability, and the benefits and drawbacks of how this mix will be weighted. So solar is probably going to make up about two-thirds of the target here, and solar is just the least cost resource in many areas of the world, so it will continue to dominate. Um, solar and wind together will make up about 92% of this tripling target, but solar will really Will really dominate. Um, but there is this question about an overreliance on solar. Obviously, in key regions like in Northern Europe, you need to rely more on wind and hydropower. There's sort of a question about, um, how to balance, you know, appropriately balance resources and make sure you have a strong mix of wind and solar working together and hydropower and biomass also complementing. Um, and so, I guess the question is, what does this resource mix look like according to some of the analyses that are Out there. So Bloomberg and New Energy Finance, IEA, and Ember have all put together analysis, analyses on what this would look like. What is the optimal resource, or what, what, what, what will the market bring us, and what do we think the optimal resource mix will be?

AI assessment note: “that does bring us to a question about the resource mix and resource availability”