Friedman & Lovins Gala Chat

Speakers:
   Thomas Friedman, Columnist, The New York Times
   Amory Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute

Date: August 10, 2007

Location: Basalt, Colorado

Description:
At RMI's RMI25 Gala event, Tom Friedman and Amory Lovins sat down for a casual discussion (in front of nearly 1,000 on-lookers) title "The Next 25 Years".

During the discussion Amory said one of the problems is that we are fatalists and that we need to build the world we want, not accept the inevitable. The problems we now face are the result of "billions of individual choices." "Whenever we chose to use energy in a particular way that shows up as part of as huge aggregate of energy demand, enormous carbon emissions," Amory said. "Well, it only takes a lot of little decisions, smarter decisions, of the same kind, better informed, to turn that right around."

Running Time: 19 minutes

On Friday night, RMI's Gala got underway at the Peace Ranch in Basalt (thanks, Tom and Molly Bedell!). It was a fabulous evening with a meal catered by Chef Ryan hardy and the Little Nell (www.thelittlenell.com) and music by RMI's own Ethel Lossing. While we ate, RMI handed out three special awards to Adam Lewis, Interface Carpet, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (www.hewlett.org). (The things weighed a ton. Couldn't we have gotten Fiberforge to make 'em?)

After dinner, Tom Friedman and Amory Lovins both gave speeches. Amory gave us a picture of what the future could be if we adopt the principles, technologies, and goals that were discussed during the past 36 hours. Tom spoke about why going green was so important. Rather than recount everything here, I'll run a few great quotes I pulled from Tom's speech:

• "We are not going to have a green revolution until we price carbon and we price its geopolitical and its climate externalities. There is no such thing as a free climate. But right now in the country we do not have energy policy. We have energy politics….[which] is the sum of all lobbyists. You could actually simply look at the total of our energy policy today and work backwards, and see which lobbyist gave the most money and that would add up to American energy policy."


• "You cannot solve the energy problem thinking about it in national terms. You need to think about it in species terms. This is a species problem, but the species, the species is us. This is not about the whales any more. Every time you look in the mirror in the morning you are looking at an endangered species. And until we approach the problem as a species and not purely, exclusively, country by country, I don't think we're going to get it down Main Street."


• "We need a shift in paradigm for utilities and car companies. For 50 years we've rewarded car companies for making bigger, faster, more powerful cars and our utilities for making bigger, more expensive power plants. We need a new paradigm."


• "Last thing is we need a galvanizing vision for energy…. There are a lot of bad things that happen in the world without the U.S. There aren't a lot of good things that happen at scale in the world without the United States. When we go green the world will truly go green."


• "If I thought this was a burden to my country, I might feel differently about it. Actually, I feel it's just the opposite: that you cannot make America stronger without making it greener. You cannot make America more innovative without making it greener. You cannot make America more healthy without making it greener. You cannot make America more secure without making it greener. You cannot make America more respected around the world without making it greener. That's why green is the new red, white, and blue."

Tom asked about the size and urgency of the problem.

Amory said one of the problems is that we are fatalists and that we need to build the world we want, not accept the inevitable. The problems we now face are the result of "billions of individual choices."

"Whenever we chose to use energy in a particular way that shows up as part of as huge aggregate of energy demand, enormous carbon emissions," Amory said. "Well, it only takes a lot of little decisions, smarter decisions, of the same kind, better informed, to turn that right around."

"Economic theorists normally assume that energy intensity, energy per dollar of GDP in the world, is going to decline only 1 percent per year because that's what it has done historically when no one paid attention," Amory added. "If it went down 2 percent a year that would balance the economy and population growth and carbon emissions would stabilize. If it went down about 3 percent per year carbon emissions would fall and the climate would stabilize pretty quickly to the extent irreversible changes aren't already entrenched. Well, could we do 3 percent per year? Certainly, we already do. The U.S. last year cut its energy intensity 4 percent a year, slightly reducing total energy use."

Amory gave examples of other nations and corporate entities cutting carbon emissions.

"To stabilize climate we need to reduce carbon emissions 2 or 3 times faster than attentive companies routinely do at a huge profit," he added. "What's so hard about that? We need to pay attention."

Tom mentioned that he's going to China soon and asked Amory how he should respond to questions he might get about the U.S. going green.

Amory described what he told a conference last year — that China has a five-millennia-old culture, five times as many brains as the United States, and that about 90 percent of the technologies that underlay the technological revolution in the U.S. were developed there.

China is the only nation with energy efficiency as part of its policy for development, Amory said, noting that, ultimately, China could lead the world out of the climate mess.

And what would Amory ask Presidential candidates if he could ask anything?

"How would you feel about de-subsidizing the entire energy sector so that everything could compete on merit and honest prices?" Amory asked. "Most of the foolish stuff we've got that has gotten us into this mess was bought because we leveraged private-sector money into stupid places it wouldn't have gone otherwise by subsidizing them more than other stuff. Energy policy is not based on rationality. It's based on lobbying and campaign contributions, basically corrupt practices."

Finally, Tom asked, "What kind of car will you drive in 25 years?"

Amory: "An ultralight, very aerodynamic hybrid, and my guess is it will be a fuel-cell car. Might be a battery-electric car. Failing those it would be a plug-in hybrid. And the fuel component, if it's a plug-in hybrid, would be sustainable biofuel so I will be using zero oil one way or another."

Tom called Amory an optimist, even though Amory, apparently, doesn't like that title. And then he finished up the Gala with: "All the great change in history was done by optimists."

I like happy endings…so I better get back to work.

—Cam Burns, RMI