Jerry Brown is in his third term as governor of California and widely viewed as a prohibitive favorite to win a fourth in November. He’s also been the California secretary of state, the state attorney general, chairman of the state Democratic Party, and mayor of Oakland. That’s not to mention a run for the Democratic nomination for president in 1992, or Brown’s father, also a multiterm California governor. It’s an understatement to call Brown a long-term political force in the state, and he’s been an advocate for innovative environmental initiatives—including many that influenced national policy—since the 1970s.
As a way of introducing this special issue on California’s approach to dealing with climate change, Bulletin editor John Mecklin asked Brown about the economics of controlling greenhouse gas emissions, the difficulty of gaining Republican support for climate change action, the role of religious leaders in changing public opinion on global warming, the climate change implications of California’s high-speed rail project, and the possibility that the climate could be a major issue in the 2016 elections. The governor’s answers—detailed, often erudite, sometimes quite lengthy, occasionally abrupt—make it clear that California’s innovative, many-faceted approach to dealing with climate change is meant to have impact far beyond the state’s border.
BAS: We’re running a special issue on California’s approach to climate change, and so I’ll start off with the first and obvious question: California is way ahead in a lot of ways. But a lot of people wonder: Isn’t the state putting itself at an economic disadvantage by being so early, so aggressive on climate change? I mean, if you ask Texas—
Brown: Is there some particular area of the economy that you think might be affected?
BAS: I mean, in general; the level of regulation. You know, in general; let’s say power producers that have to have a certain percentage of alternatives in their mix that in some other states they might not have to.
Brown: Well, California started encouraging renewable energy, as well as building and appliance energy efficiency. The State Energy Commission began when I was governor in 1975 and finally … adopted tight building standards I think in 1983. And they cranked those down in the sense of making the rules more demanding over the last three decades, so that California buildings are much more efficient than buildings generally made in the rest of the United States or, for that matter, most places in the world. So California has been leading the pack for a long, long time.
Now, in terms of our 33 percent renewable energy [standard], that’s something that started with [former Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger; I’ve continued it. We’ll certainly go beyond that one-third as we attain it, which should happen in the next few years, and we have a very integrated program of regulation, cap and trade, building efficiency, and sophisticated integration of our [electric] grid. And we’re working with Nevada and other states to broaden our electrical base power load …
So yes, this comes at a cost, but of course climate change is also a cost, and we feel that this is the right path. And of course we cannot just soldier on alone; we need the rest of the world to come along with us, and that’s why I signed the MOU [memorandum of understanding] with China, with Oregon and Washington and British Columbia, and I’m going to Mexico in a month.
So my strategy is to keep California in the forefront but do everything humanly possible to bring other states and other nations into alignment with what proper climate change policy requires.
BAS: Can California have an effect on Congress somehow, though?
Brown: Well eventually, eventually. Right now there’s only a handful of Republicans at most who can even utter the words “climate change” in anything but negative terms. They’re all under serious discipline to keep mum on climate change or to attack it. Now, I don’t think that can withstand the scientific evidence as it rolls out over the next five to 10 years. So the Republicans will fold, just as they will on evolution and other topics that can only be resisted by a rather small fraction of the American public.
BAS: There is a brand of California Republican. You know, Governor Schwarzenegger was enthusiastic about green initiatives and climate change. Is there any way to enlist those relatively few Republicans to help?
Brown: Well, I think in general the Republicans are under orders, and I say that not lightly. They will be hounded and harassed and even politically opposed at the next election if they dare to take climate science seriously, so they’re in the clutch of the Heartland Institute’s course of denial. What it will take to dislodge most of those Republicans, either by replacing them with other candidates or by their changing their minds—hard to say. But I would suspect that the political climate surrounding climate change will continue to evolve, and certainly within the next five to 10 years America will be in a much stronger position than it is today.
BAS: I just bring this up because I know you were once a Jesuit seminarian. Recently the Pope has come out supporting action on climate change. Is there any role for religion in turning public opinion?
Brown: Certainly religion had a role to play in the evolution of slavery and the civil rights movement. There’s a role to be played by religious leaders in terms of climate stewardship, and given the catastrophic consequences that are certain … the urgency is certainly there. I certainly would expect and hope that religious leaders of all backgrounds would bring to bear their message as an approach to life that is mandatory—certainly in the message of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, great religions are premised not on destruction or just, you know, trashing the creation, but rather in preserving and respecting nature and the living systems that we’re a part of.
So I also think that religions have a more holistic view and therefore are much more likely to see the error of pitting individual technologies and nations against the environment that sustains all nations and all individuals.
BAS: Interesting. I’m going to switch back to more earthbound things here right now with a question about transportation. I mean, that’s the biggest chunk of greenhouse gases produced in …
Brown: Yes.
BAS: … California, and I know the state has an aggressive clean cars program, and a bunch of other states have signed on to it. Does this have—by itself, does this have the possibility of creating national transportation emissions standards, or does Congress have to jump in here?
Brown: Well, those two statements are inconsistent. California ultimately led the way on vehicle emission standards by using the waiver [from federal standards] that was first created by Richard Nixon and continues to be used in California by Republicans and Democrats alike.
So, yeah, California has 12 percent of the [US vehicle] market, is a trendsetter, and I’m hoping that our zero-emission program will spread and will ultimately be adopted. We just have to persist. I mean, it’s the Zero-Emission Vehicle, it’s land use, it’s the use of other forms of transportation, so that we lower the carbon footprint. That’s the goal, and I definitely think California can have an impact … . I think we are [having an impact]. But, you know, is it fast enough remains a big question.
BAS: In terms of transportation, I know that you’re a big proponent of a high-speed rail system. How much of your support of that has to do with climate change?
Brown: High-speed rail will carry millions of passengers, and our goal is to provide a significant part of the electricity from renewable energy, and that’s certainly a better carbon alternative than adding millions more cars that use petroleum. And it will also cluster more dense housing and therefore less vehicle-dependent housing at each of the stops along the way.
BAS: Is there some quantification you can point to, in terms of, “OK, we build a high-speed rail; it will do this in terms of greenhouse gas emissions?” I assume there is.
Brown: Well, it’s in the report; it’s written—there’s a huge amount on the environmental analysis. That’s all in there. But between the alternative of building more roads, more runways, and using more cars and planes, as opposed to an electrified train—to the extent that the substitution is made, as it has been made in other countries—that will be a pro-rata reduction in greenhouse gases.
BAS: There’s been a lot of criticism, much coming from the Republican Party based on the Solyndra failure and some other failures, in specific businesses. And I just want to hear you talk about what the effect of the California climate approach has been on California business, particularly the green sector.
Brown: Well, obviously Californians in geothermal and solar and wind, efficiency, the attraction of electric cars—it’s certainly been a positive. You know, [the green sector is] still only a part of our larger economy. But so too was the computer industry, when Hewlett-Packard first started, Steve Jobs back in 1976; so these things start small. But given the science of climate and what we know to be the impacts of CO2 buildup, every year that we go further down the path of more heat-trapping gases the more people will be persuaded to make the necessary investments, whether as a consumer or as a manufacturer or as an investor.
So, if you just look at the arc of history here: Given what we know about where we are—the climate impacts at 395 parts per million [of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere]—as we get to 410 to 420 parts per million, there will be more effects, and as there is more impact the case for more green investments will become stronger and stronger, so that to me says California is right.
I mean, when they started the Internet, and Xerox PARC was operating their research center in Palo Alto, no one could envision Google or Apple or, you know, Oracle, and all these things that happened. So there’s no question that, far more than communication, we need an energy system that’s compatible with human civilization as we know it, and it’s just a matter of time before that becomes the absolute majority sentiment. We’re not there yet, but unless all these climate scientists got it wrong it’s going to become clearer and clearer that we both have to mitigate and adapt. And in that respect, California is in the forefront.
BAS: I guess at this point I’d just like to hear you talk about your view and your vision on solar energy. Where do you think that’s going in California; you know, big centralized installations or just—
Brown: Well, your scientists will have a better handle than—I’m an elected official, so I very much look to technology professionals, scientists, investors, you know, companies to lay out what’s possible [in order] to exceed our current renewable energy standards, including solar. I laid out 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy in my 2010 campaign, and we thought we—you know, I laid out some numbers of megawatts in both the decentralized portable, and then the more base-power solar. As you know, California has set a rule telling the [investor-owned utility] community to come up with 1,200 megawatts of storage, so when we get that and our grid integration, I’d say—and I wouldn’t limit it to solar—but solar has a very bright future in California and the whole southwest, if not, you know, the rest of the world.
BAS: What about nuclear power? I mean, there’s been sort of a war in the environmental community about nuclear power versus …
Brown: I’d say nuclear is not on the front burner but certainly as a base-load power, and I think people will have to take a very hard look at that, particularly if technology can make it, you know, more efficient, more reliable going forward.
BAS: So you’re not firmly against—you’re not an anti-nuker, necessarily.
Brown: No, I’m a pro-greenhouse-gas-reduction person. We have to reduce our climate change, and anything that can work—you know, is efficient and compatible with our way of life and government—we definitely have to think about it.
Now, there are issues regarding nuclear they’ve got to look at, but certainly climate change is a huge and right now an uncontrolled, mounting challenge. So without anybody minimizing the problems of proliferation or terrorist attack or accident or cost or disposal and storage, you know, I think we have to be open to anything that can get the world off the path to destruction that we’re now on.
BAS: In addition to limiting greenhouse gases, obviously there’s going to need to be adaptation, and I know California has begun a program to adapt to the climate change that’s already baked into the system. What is California going to do about water, and does that have any lessons for the rest of the country?
Brown: Well, certainly we’re dealing with a drought now. We’re going to make our water system as efficient as possible. We have a whole program, a whole state water plan on recycling and conservation, on water management and storage, on water transfers. We have lots to do, and we’re in the beginning stages, but as far as adapting to climate, respecting our … low-lying facilities, I mean, we’re not—we’re in the discussion stage.
BAS: A lot of people have noticed that there’s a disinformation campaign underway, a program to sow doubt about the reality of climate change.
Brown: Right.
BAS: And it hasn’t been as successful in California as it has been in the rest of the country. But do public officials like you have some duty or some role to play in terms of countering that kind of disinformation? Or is your job just to do what’s good for California?
Brown: No, we understand we’re one percent of the greenhouse gas problem in the world; one percent. Whatever we do, in and of itself, does not have any significant impact, so what we have to do is build allies and help get countries like China and India, Brazil, on board for serious action on climate change. Certainly President Obama, with restricting coal [power plant emissions], can take a giant leap forward. I would just have to say that, given the magnitude of the shift required, that we’re at the very early stage of doing what is needed. I mean, the odds are not favorable toward our future until or unless we can change a lot of minds and get some very concrete steps [taken] by powerful forces.
BAS: Speaking of powerful forces, this isn’t per se under your direct control, but, you know, CalPERS [the California Public Employees Retirement System] and the teachers’ retirement fund, they control a lot of investment money.
Brown: Right.
BAS: Are you in favor of them using that in climate change-related matters, I mean, divesting from fossil fuels? Investing in alternative energy?
Brown: Well, the only problem with that is, with fossil fuels—I’m right now in a car, and I’m looking at a lot of other cars on the road. And I don’t see too many electric cars. And even the cars that are electric have a lot of fossil fuel product in them. So oil is part of our future, so is our past; and what is needed is to make the investments for the transition. That’s—and we’ve got a long way to go to get that process at the beginning stages.
BAS: How about this? You’ve been so good to talk to me for so long, I’m going to make this a final question. It’ll throw you …
Brown: Okay.
BAS: … into the national mix. Should Democrats make climate change a really major issue in 2016?
Brown: Well, that’s—look, climate change is a major issue. The only question is: Can the political process absorb or entertain the truth about climate change? In some places that seems very difficult, very difficult. So I think we’ve got to take whatever—go as far as we can as quickly as we can in the necessary education and in the discussion and the debate about how best to realign humanity with the natural systems on which humanity depends. So as far as a major issue in politics, as kind of a side effect to the enterprise, it’s a matter of strategic messaging between competing candidates. And I would hope that—and I would urge that climate change be part of the civic dialogue of America and of the world. I can’t speak to every forum from Alabama to Alaska as to how or when and what individual candidates can say about renewables or building efficiency or reduced impact in transportation. All those are very important issues, and I’ve got to focus here in California on doing what I can to make our clear policies work.
BAS: Well, I really appreciate you talking about this at such length, governor. I know I said the last question was the last question, but here’s a real last question.
Brown: Okay.
BAS: I run into climate-change deniers all the time. You know, even people who are friends who I think are reasonably intelligent, and they just think it’s a liberal conspiracy. How do you change that? How do you get people out of that thinking?
Brown: You know—I don’t know. Eventually the facts should win out, but not always. Opinions are not necessarily grounded in truth. People have their own subjective experience that shapes their perceptions, and it’s true, there are millions of people who firmly believe that there is no such thing as climate change. And there are hundreds of millions of others who are not even thinking about it. And then there are companies and individuals and propaganda organs that have a specific interest, either financial or doctrinal, in delaying as long as possible the governmental measures needed to reduce our carbon footprint on Earth.
So this is one of the tragedies of our time, that very sincere people and very powerful people and very rich people are convinced that the scientists for the intergovernmental panel [on climate change] and others are engaged in a meretricious effort to feather their nest and fool people.
So you have the people who—there are some that are manipulating it for their profit, and it just takes more people of goodwill to do what they can, whoever they are, in an attempt to turn it around before it’s too late. And it’s certainly an open question as to how that might unfold.
