 Welcome to Think Tech on Spectrum OC16, Hawaii's weekly newscast on things that matter to tech, and to Hawaii. I'm Arby Kelly. And I'm David Vogel. In our show this time, we'll get together with David, who is a trustee of Volo Foundation, to compare notes on global climate change. I'm a data scientist, and I've looked at the data and made some evidence-based and very disturbing findings about climate change. So David, why has Volo Foundation become so interested in climate change? Well, Arby, shortly after the inception of Volo Foundation in 2014, we began to expand our philanthropy efforts to include science-based climate solution projects. At that time, I met with climate scientists, and they were presenting climate change as this major threat to our planet and to our way of life. The things they believed from the data they researched inspired David to dig into the data himself. He realized that by using published data and simple mathematics, he could derive how global warming is happening, as well as the profound effects it is having and will continue to have on our planet. In the world of philanthropy, only a small percentage of funds go to climate science, so we were really compelled to help. I knew that I could help personally, not just financially, but also by sharing the findings with other people in a way that is easy to understand. I used data published by the energy companies, as well as publicly available data, such as measurements from buoys, meteorologists, and other reliable sources. It is all public knowledge and verifiable. On the website for Volo Foundation, that is VoloFoundation.org, there is a menu tab called Research, where people can easily find the research materials Volo is studying. It includes the step-by-step mathematics that show how human-related activities are mainly responsible for the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. It's called Mathematical Equation of Climate Change. Yes, and from there, it's an easy calculation to see how a higher carbon rate traps the sun and warms the planet. And any meteorologist can tell you that a warmer planet means warmer oceans, which will in turn produce increasingly intense storms. So we felt we had no choice, really, but to move forward toward finding a solution to our changing climate, which is very much what we are focusing on right now. You were on Howard Wigg's ThinkTech show, Code Green, in July. What's changed since then? The timing of that show last July was really interesting. On that show, I shared data predicting stronger hurricane seasons due to warmer waters. Just two or three months after that show, we had a record-breaking hurricane season. This is New Orleans, I presume? Yes, and of course, being a resident of Florida, I know hurricanes all too well. And having studied hurricanes for a bit, I know how they weaken when the water is a few degrees cooler and it's a few degrees warmer. So a few degrees is a very big deal, but if a hurricane keeps strengthening and strengthening, we're going to be, say, in category five hurricanes. That's the category five there. I don't recall which one that's the hurricane. Hurricane five is the worst. I don't think you can get any worse than that. Right. Yeah, I don't think that one was even a five. And the cost to New Orleans alone must be billions and billions and billions and billions. Yeah. Yeah. September broke all-time records for the number of storm days, hurricane days, and major hurricane days. September also broke the record for most accumulated cyclone energy in a month. In fact, September 8th was a single day in history with the most accumulated cyclone energy from hurricanes Irma, Jose, and Cadia. Yes, I understand Irma produced 185 mile per hour winds for 37 hours, which is longer than any hurricane or cyclone around the globe. To give you an idea of the intensity of the energy Irma contained, we can compare it to an atomic bomb. We know that one atomic bomb releases 63 trillion joules of energy. Wow. Incredible. In 2017, hurricane expert and MIT professor Dr. Kerry Emanuel calculated that Irma's wind energy value was 7 trillion joules per second, or 420 trillion joules per minute. That means one average minute of hurricane Irma is equal to the energy released by more than six atomic bombs. Whoa. Another analogy that really paints a picture came from climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, who said the warming globe is the equivalent of exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year. That's how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. And other records were broken too. Hurricane Harvey broke the rainfall record from a tropical cyclone in the U.S. 2017 was also the first year on record when two Category 4 storms made landfall in the continental U.S. Those were Irma and Harvey. And Maria was the first Category 5 storm to hit the Dominican Republic, and the strongest storm to hit Puerto Rico since 1928. And finally, the 2017 U.S. Hurricane season cost the American people more than $280 billion, making it the most expensive hurricane season in U.S. history. Hurricanes weren't the only record-breaking natural disasters in 2017. The Western U.S. wildfires broke records too, and in many ways this accelerated global warming. Trees consume carbon to make their tissue fibers and to grow. They act as storage facilities for that carbon. So two things happen every time they burn down. One, we lose a vital area of future carbon storage, and two, the carbon they have been storing returns back into the atmosphere. So my hope is that having seen this show in 2017, then seeing the prediction of a record-breaking hurricane season come true, people will listen to the data, research, and pay attention to the warning signs. What we call natural disasters are now man-made disasters. So what have you and the Foundation been doing? We are working on some really great and exciting projects that aim to mitigate the changing climate. For example, one of our programs involves an agreement with the government of Columbia to protect 49 million acres of natural areas. Storage to date on the effectiveness of this project suggests that approximately 230 million fewer tons of carbon will be emitted into the atmosphere due to fewer industrialized factories and the preservation of a greater number of carbon-consuming trees. That's a significant difference. Another hopeful project we are involved with deals with the phase-downs of hydrofluorocarbons, commonly known as HFCs. Lots of common household appliances, like your air conditioner and refrigerator, produce these greenhouse gases, and we will need to switch to sustainable solutions to deal with the climate crisis. But there are, in fact, those who continue to deny climate change. What's that based on? Some say climate science is new and disputed, but it's really interesting because it's not new and the physics is undisputed. It goes right back to when scientists tried to figure out why the Earth and the Moon had different average temperatures, even though they're located the same distance from the Sun. We want to understand why the Earth over here averages 59 degrees and the Moon at minus 3 degrees. The main difference, they figured out, is that Earth's atmosphere has a greenhouse gas effect. The science is 200 years old and is undisputed. The naturally occurring amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 2 trillion tons, and this is what keeps us from freezing to death. We constantly measure the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but fossil fuel emissions have increased this to 3 trillion tons. But some people think the extra 1 trillion tons could be natural. Well, looking at published energy reports, we can see that 5.5 trillion tons of coal is burned per year, and 35 billion barrels of oil is used per year at an average weight of 275 pounds per barrel. Just multiply and add it up, and you can account for the extra 1 trillion tons 100 percent through published fossil fuel consumption. This is simply undisputable. So it sounds like all of that extra trillion energy can be accounted for with your math. Is that right? That's correct. All right. So if my dad, for example, was sitting and was listening to this, he is hardcore on the idea that all of this extra carbon dioxide is natural instead of man-made. So how could he verify this? You can just Google the BP energy report. So this is energy accepted and published by the energy industry, oil and gas industry. Look it up and add it up, add up the weight of all that carbon dioxide. Hope you're listening, dad. Climate change is an enormous issue, and data science is very complex. Either you are a climate scientist and you study the data and believe what you research and know it is true, or you're not a climate scientist, and then you have to believe someone else that it is true. Then once you realize there's a problem, you can't revert to not knowing. There becomes no choice but to follow it with action. If you think about every car, every air conditioner, every home, these things are all powered by carbon emitting machines. Reducing carbon emissions will require that every individual change some part of how he or she lives in a way that is not yet the cheapest or the social standard. You also have some of the richest companies and families in the world who have made their fortunes running businesses that produce carbon emissions. Think of the fuel industry, the auto industry, the utilities, and airline industries to name a few. Corporations have financial motive not to make a change. So in a sense you have two parties, consumers and corporations, and there just isn't enough motivation yet on either side to demand accountability or a new form of energy. Well, one option is to impose a carbon tax on fossil fuels. That will be charged to the fossil fuel dominant corporations who will ultimately pass a portion of those costs onto the end user. In this case, consumers and corporations pay a surcharge on the fossil fuel dependent services they use. That will get the economy back on track while they phase down and ultimately a switch to renewable energy takes place. Some consumers may balk at this suggestion, but what they need to realize is that doing nothing and continuing to emit fossil fuels will lead to the demise of our resources, increased risk and cost from extreme weather, and the end of the lifestyles we have become so accustomed to. I recently had a conversation with John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil, and he explained that the larger oil and gas trade unions, whose members include big oil companies, are supportive of various forms of carbon tax. This is because big companies generate enough revenue to bear the cost. I understand that the smaller companies are resistant to supporting a carbon tax because the numbers just don't add up for them. But haven't some countries around the world already established carbon tax policies? Yes. Norway and Sweden, for example, have had carbon tax policies in place for 20 years. Equinor, formerly known as Statt Oil ASA, Norway's largest oil company, is an example that not only supports, but also speaks to raising awareness about the benefits of carbon tax. The company underwent an enormous rebrand to remove the word oil from their name. Equinor's CEO admittedly prioritizes investments and decision making based on this tax. In the chart here, you can see the status of carbon tax policies in different countries. Areas shaded in the line pattern have an established carbon cost policy. Areas in green also have a newly established carbon policy. Areas in blue have their carbon policy scheduled, and areas in red are considering a carbon tax policy. All the areas in gray, which are some of the most heavy emitters, haven't made it clear as to which way they will go yet. So just how do we go about taking action on such a monumental issue? Well, once a carbon tax is established and the economics are taken care of, we will be able to make the switch to renewable energy, which is going to benefit the entire planet in the long run. Very quickly, it will become more cost effective to do all the things that need to be done to make the switch. Building codes will need to be revised, city planning will need to incorporate many other types of transportation. Those sound like big changes, David. Yes, they are big changes, and investors will need to be more decisive about which companies they are investing in. The list really goes on. A great way for people to get involved now is to look into scientific, governmental, and non-profit groups around town. Come educated on the topic and see how you can use your knowledge and your voice to mitigate climate change in your town. After climate change begins to affect your town's economic policies, we'll need to be established to bring the U.S. as a whole in the direction of economic sustainability. People need to push politicians right now. But as you know, David, Congress and the federal government seem less concerned, even to the point of incentivizing oil, gas, and coal, and in fact changing the word in government documents. What should we make of that? People really need to push their politicians at the town and state level. The policymakers understand that carbon emissions is a very large issue, but they are afraid to take actions that their constituents are not asking for. David, it seems like the general public just isn't aware enough about the legitimacy and severity of climate change to want the issue addressed. Most congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, are aware of the importance, but won't initiate policy change because the public doesn't think it's a priority. To support what you are saying, this slide shows the 2016 presidential election voting issues in order of importance. Environment sits way down the list, third from the bottom, and only 52% of voters even care about it. 52% doesn't seem too bad. Well, other polls show that only 18% of people believe that this is a top priority issue. But the environment affects nearly all the most important issues, especially economy, on the order of tens of trillions of dollars over the next 50 years. It also affects national security as refugees lose their homes and food sources. Yes, and immigration and foreign policy are affected for the same reason. It affects health care as climate related infections and viruses become more rampant. If people understood the truth of how carbon emissions affects the top issues, then environment would sit right at the very top of the list. Who do we blame for this? Is it just the oil companies? Well, John Hopmeister, former CEO of Shell Corporation, wrote an entire book about how we as a society could and should move away from carbon emitted sources of energy. I personally spoke with him on the topic and carbon capture, for example, is highly economical. But the government policies aren't in place to facilitate that move. So should we be blaming the politicians for lack of policy? Well, look at the polls. We the people are telling the politicians that global warming is not important. Hence, our democratic system actually works and our politicians are ignoring the issue. We are our own enemy due to lack of understanding of the severity of our situation on the earth warming. It strikes me that we the American citizens need to understand that continuing to burn fossil fuels will substantially hurt the economy and adversely affect our quality of life and society. Immigration and refugees are trending topics in the media right now, but at the same time there are large populated areas sinking into the ocean like parts of Indonesia, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands and several other insular and coastal regions. And even here in the U.S., parts of Miami and New York are having serious issues with flooding due to sea level rise. Many of the people who inhabit those regions are losing their homes. They have to live somewhere and so this will escalate the refugee and immigration crisis and also diminish resources. We are starting to see lawsuits and the rise of discussion about a carbon tax. In 2017, a month after our last interview, two coastal communities in Northern California and one in Southern California initiated lawsuits against 37 carbon emitting corporations including Shell, Chevron, Statoil, Exxon and Total. They along with two additional California cities hope to recoup funds to repair coastal erosion from rising seas. As I understand it, a carbon tax or a carbon fee is a certain amount of money charged to users of carbon fuels for the climate damage caused by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is one way to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels because there is a powerful monetary disincentive. This could motivate the switch to clean energy simply by making it more economically rewarding to move to non-carbon fuels and energy efficiency. This is potentially a bipartisan solution because it allows the free market to decide how to adjust based on the new economics of now having an established dollar amount of liability for the cost of carbon emissions. Was COP23 successful without the U.S.? Well, the U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the world's emissions and hence the efforts to protect the planet can only be 75 percent effective without involvement from the U.S. Our government needs to step up and help the American people understand the importance of working with the rest of the world on this. The U.S. also needs to show some leadership, not only showing up but taking a leadership role in global climate-related agreements. We Are Still In is a great initiative created by a growing coalition of states, cities and organizations, including former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and California Governor Jerry Brown among so many others. It certainly seems that at some point, whether under this president or the next, we will get back in the agreement if for no other reason than to save our way of life. So it's great that these private-concerned citizens are holding that space for the country. I understand that over 100 leaders from state and local governments, private sector and academia set up a large pavilion at their U.S. Climate Action Center and their America's Pledge Report proves that they represent over half of the U.S. economy. I am looking ahead to the future and considering what it will mean if the U.S. doesn't rejoin the Paris Accord. The talks and negotiations in Bonn paved the way for the upcoming conference this December in Poland. The agenda for Poland is to look retrospectively at what has progressed, both good and bad, since the first meeting in Paris in 2015. Yes, then in 2020 there will be a really big meeting where all attendees will review their own commitments and contributions and discuss taking a more aggressive approach to reducing emissions. 2020 will be our next election year, so we'll see what transpires. Unfortunately, the U.S. didn't show up to tell its story about climate change this year, and that has spawned some resentment. If and when the U.S. does return, the president will have some significant fences to mend. How is the rest of the world doing on this issue? This slide gives a general idea of how the world is doing. The Climate Change Performance Index, CCPI, is an annual publication by the German Watch and Climate Action Network Europe. The CCPI rates countries based on a variety of factors and those countries that make the most advances toward keeping their emissions under 2 degrees Celsius get a higher rating versus those countries that continue to support emission-producing activities. I understand the latest report was published earlier this year, and it highlights the performance of the countries listed on how well they are protecting the climate. The top-ranked country is Sweden, and the U.S. is doing poorly. Sweden has managed to earn the top position because it has drastically reduced emissions and incorporated sustainable energy at a governmental level. Unfortunately, the U.S. sits at 56th place, only four away from Saudi Arabia, which is at the bottom in 60th place. Where can we learn more about the work Volo Foundation has been doing? Be my guest. It's important that everyone learn about this. You can go to volofoundation.org, and you'll see all this and more in even greater detail there. And now, let's check out our ThinkTech schedule of events going forward. ThinkTech broadcasts its talk shows live on the Internet from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. Then we broadcast our earlier shows all night long and on weekends. And some people listen to them all night long and on weekends. If you missed a show or if you want to replay or share any of our shows, throw our archive on demand on thinktecawaii.com and YouTube. For our audio stream, go to thinktecawaii.com slash audio. And we post all our shows as podcasts on iTunes. Visit thinktecawaii.com for our weekly calendar and live stream and YouTube links. Or better yet, sign up on our email list and get our daily email advisories. ThinkTech has a high-tech green screen studio at Pioneer Plaza. If you want to see it or be a part of our live audience, or if you want to participate in our shows, contact shows at thinktecawaii.com. If you want to pose a question or make a comment during a show, call 808-374-2014 and help us raise public awareness on ThinkTech. And we're always looking for new shows. Most recently, we've added Supporting Your Tech, hosted by Matt Darnell, which covers information technology, issues, and advice in Hawaii. It plays at 1 p.m. Thursdays and you can find the episodes on the Supporting Your Tech playlist. Go ahead, give us a thumbs up on YouTube or send us a tweet at thinktechhi. We'd like to know how you feel about the issues and events that affect our lives in these islands and in this country. We want to stay in touch with you and we'd like you to stay in touch with us. Let's think together. And now, here's this week's ThinkTech commentary. Aloha, I'm Kelea Akina, President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. The state of Honolulu's rail project has become so problematic that even a board member for Honolulu Area Rapid Transportation, Hart, is asking to press the pause button. But that's not all. The Grassroot Institute recently obtained a letter written by Hart board member John Henry Felix to Hart chairman Damien Kim, in which he also urged the board to call for a forensic audit. Now, this is something we have been saying for more than a year. It's an open secret that Hart is plagued by cost overruns, that there are major questions about where the money has gone, and that there's reason to question whether the rail will ever be self-sufficient. The public has long since lost faith in the rail. Greater transparency could help restore confidence in the project, but we have yet to see an audit that has not been compromised in some way. For example, on May 30th, state auditor Les Condo publicly complained that Hart managers were requiring the city agency's employees to record their meetings with his office and give those recordings to management. Not only does this practice run afoul of the state whistleblower statute, it also limits the ability of Condo's office to fulfill its mandate. Now, the city council has spoken about a follow-up audit, but won't commit to one that will delve into the red flags they've been warned about. What we need is an independent forensic audit looking for fraud, waste, and abuse. It may be the only way to allay suspicions that the project is being handled dishonestly, even though nobody is happy about the increased taxes and public debt. Now, Felix said he thinks the rising costs of the rail are affecting the city's ability to respond to other public needs, such as filling potholes, addressing homelessness, or improving police services. He suggested that the board not only reconsider the fixed rail plan, but also asks that they look into ending the rail at Middle Street. His most pressing concern was getting to the roots of the transparency issue at Hart. In his letter, he asked that the board members, quote, take a deep breath and allow time for our board to commission a forensic audit, end of quote. Now, Hawaii's taxpayers are in a difficult position. They aren't happy with the state of things at Hart, but aren't sure what other options are there, other than to continue pouring money into the project and hope for the best. Probably already classifiable as what may be called a boondoggle, what if the rail becomes an endless drain on the public purse? What if the continually increasing costs are due to avoidable fraud, waste, or abuse? We deserve answers to these questions. And the Hart board is starting to recognize that there is real concern. The board would do well to heed Felix's advice and take a leadership role in the push to audit the rail. I'm Kaylee Ihakina with the Grassroot Institute. Ehana Kako, let's work together. We'll be right back to wrap up this week's edition of Think Tech. But first, we want to thank our underwriters. The Atherton Family Foundation. The Center for Microbial Oceanography Research and Education. Collateral Analytics. The Cook Foundation. The Hawaii Council of Associations of Apartment Owners. Hawaii Energy. The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum. The Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology. Hawaiian Electric Companies. The High Tech Development Corporation. Galen Ho of BAE Systems. Integrated Security Technologies. Kameha Meha Schools. Dwayne Kurisu. Kalamon Lee and the Friends of Think Tech. MW Group Limited. The Scheidler Family Foundation. The Sydney Stern Memorial Trust. The Volo Foundation. Eureko J. Sugimura. OK, that wraps up this week's edition of Think Tech. Remember, you can watch Think Tech on Spectrum OC16 several times each week. Can't get enough of it, just like David does. For additional times, check out oc16.tv. For lots more Think Tech videos and for underwriting and sponsorship opportunities on Think Tech, visit thinktechhawaii.com, be a guest or host, a producer or an intern, and help us reach and have an impact on Hawaii. Thanks so much for being part of our Think Tech family and for supporting our open discussion of tech, energy, diversification, and global awareness in Hawaii. And of course, the ongoing search for innovation wherever we can find it. You can watch this show throughout the week and tune in next Sunday evening for our next important weekly episode. I'm RB Kelly. And I'm David Vogel. Aloha, everyone.