Sunday Funday: John Oliver & Bill Nye on Climate Change Debate

Last weekend, on John Oliver’s new HBO show, Last Week Tonight, the former Daily Show correspondent hosted a “mathematically representative climate change debate” with Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Here is a description of the segment from the Huffington Post:

Twenty-five percent of Americans don’t believe in climate change, according to a recent poll, but in the words of John Oliver, “who gives a sh-t?”

A new government report issued last week warned that climate change is already here. The host stressed on Sunday night that regardless of the remaining skeptics out there, climate change is just not up for debate anymore.

“You don’t need people’s opinion on a fact,” Oliver said. “You might as well have a poll asking: ‘Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?’ or ‘Do owls exist?’ or ‘Are there hats?'”

“The debate on climate change ought not to be whether or not it exists,” he added. “It’s what we should do about. There is a mountain of research on this topic.”

Oliver then brought on Bill Nye the Science Guy to show what climate change debates on television should actually look lik

This post was originally published on the SLACE Archive.  For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive for daily podcast recommendations.

The implementation of “clean energy” sources is an important component of the government’s plan to mitigate climate change, but what makes an energy source “clean” is a contentious topic. The Senate’s Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 defines a clean energy source based on carbon emissions (with unclear thresholds) and focuses only on electricity generation. The EPA is more broad in its definition, and includes energy efficiency and combined heat and power, as well as renewable energy sources, as clean energy sources. In a recent presentation I attended by Jose Zayes, the Program Manager for Wind & Water Power Program (a part of the DOE), he said that “clean energy” is often stretched to include nuclear energy, fossil fuel combustion with carbon capture and sequestration, and natural gas, since these sources have lower carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuel energy sources.

If defined this broadly, what are the implications for energy policy? With the focus on clean energy in the face of climate change, rather than sustainable energy for the purpose of long-term energy security, it is easy to overlook the broader impacts of our energy sources. Nuclear energy is “clean” in terms of emissions, but what about the radioactive waste produced? Natural gas burns cleaner than coal at the plant, but methane leaks from pipelines and drilling operations can have a large impact on short-term global warming potential. Combustion with carbon capture and sequestration is not well developed and introduces the problem of finding somewhere underground to store the carbon, with the risk of the carbon making its way to the surface and atmosphere after ground-shifting.

Even renewable fuels can have large carbon footprints in the production stage, despite having low or no emissions during actual energy production. Energy efficiency, in some cases, has been shown to backfire as people use the technology more and negate the savings. For example, more efficient vehicles are cheaper to drive, so people are may begin to drive more and cancel out the savings. This phenomenon is termed the “Jevons Paradox”, and while it certainly does not hold true in all situations it is important to keep in mind when creating policy to encourage energy efficiency.
If we are to effectively address climate change in the near future, we need to be sure that we are judging energy sources based on the impact of the entire system. We also need to give priority to energy sources that are not only clean, but sustainable over the long term.

The situation in Russia is still a point of great tension in the international community. Only a few weeks ago, Russia was removed from the G8, a prestigious group of developed countries, which promptly renamed itself the G7 to highlight Russia’s departure.

According to CNN, Secretary of State Kerry has recently concluded talks with the Russian Foreign Minister aimed at finding a “diplomatic” resolution to the tensions between Russia and its neighbor Ukraine. According to Kerry, Russia’s allegations that it is in support of Ukrainian independence is undermined by an increase of Russian troops at the border. The Secretary of State pointed out the contradiction in his talks with Foreign Minister Lavrov.

According to the article, “Kerry said Russia and the United States agreed to work with Ukraine on several issues: the rights of national minorities; language rights; the demobilization and disarmament of provocateurs; a constitutional reform process; and free and fair elections monitored by the international community.” National minorities may play a key role in determining how this conflict is resolved. The primary rhetoric coming from Russia prior to the “annexation” of Crimea was that Russia was intervening on behalf of the Russian minority in that region. As we have covered previously, the situation within Ukraine is not much better than the trouble waiting on its border.

Kerry also stressed the importance of including Ukraine in any further conversations between Russia and the United States regarding that nation. While Lavrov was on record recommending a “federal” structure for the new government in Ukraine, Secretary of State Kerry insisted any decisions about Ukraine’s government should be made by the people of Ukraine rather than outside forces.

CNN summed up the recent history by writing that “[t]he United States and the European Union have already imposed two rounds of sanctions on Russia, including visa bans and asset freezes for some of Putin’s inner circle. The West has threatened tougher sanctions targeting Russia’s economy if Moscow sends more troops to Ukraine. Russia has drawn up countersanctions, barring senior U.S. officials from entering Russia.”