Chu's extended riff on climate change in California

[bananas]

Chu: 'economic disaster' from warming

Posted February 7, 2009 9:10 AM
The Swamp
by Jim Tankersley

Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu caused a stir in the Golden State - and many circles across the country - with his warnings that global warming could spell the demise of California agriculture by century's end.

Chu isn't a climate scientist - he's a Nobel-winning physicist - but he's served on several climate-change commissions, and in his position, will be one of President Obama's point men on the climate issue. His comments came in a 40-minute interview, his first since being confirmed as secretary.

"This is a real economic disaster in the making for our children, for your children," he said, near the end of an extended riff on the topic.

Here, for the first time, is that riff, only slightly edited for length. For all sides of the climate debate, it makes for fascinating reading.

<snip>

more: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/chu_economic_disaster_from_war.html

[Kolesar]

1. And will there be a cost in trying to control carbon emissions?

Great analogy by Energy Secretary Professor Steven Chu

So ... we certainly are seeing some of the consequences of a changing climate. More and more, it's coming down very hard on the fact that, it's caused by humans. And will there be a cost in trying to control carbon emissions? Well yes, like there's a cost in trying to clean up our sewage. But overall, the benefit to the world will be better. You know, if there's only five people on the earth, you don't have to worry about this. But the fact, with the population we have today, the fact is we don't want to go backward in terms of the prosperity of developed countries, and we see developing countries wanting to do . We've got to figure out a way to use the energy we have more efficiently, and the get newer, cleaner sources. And to get better technical solutions, better technical options...

edit: The Swamp is part of the Chicago Tribune, is it not?