Podcast appearances and mentions of david victor

The American radio drama series "Let George Do It" aired from 1946 to 1954. It was the brainchild of Owen and Pauline Vinson. Bob Bailey was the star of the show, playing the role of George Valentine, a private investigator. In 1954, Olan Soule took over the voice role. David Victor and Jackson Gillis wrote the scripts, and Don Clark directed them.Initially, the episodes were more like sitcoms, with a live studio audience and laughs, but they eventually transformed into suspenseful private eye stories. The program was sponsored by Standard Oil of California, now known as Chevron. It aired on the West Coast Don Lee network of the Mutual Broadcasting System from 1946 to 1954. In its final season, it was also broadcast in New York on Wednesdays at 9:30 p.m.Clients would reach out to George Valentine after reading his classified ad in the newspaper, which said something like, "Danger's my thing. If you can't handle the job, I'm your guy. George Valentine. Give me all the details!" The ad would change from episode to episode, but it always started with "Danger's my thing" and ended with "Give me all the details!"George Valentine was a professional detective, and his secretary was Claire Brooks, also known as Brooksie. Frances Robinson, Virginia Gregg, and Lillian Buyeff voiced Brooksie at different times. As Valentine went about his detective work, he'd sometimes run into Brooksie's little brother, Sonny, played by Eddie Firestone, or the elevator man, Caleb, voiced by Joseph Kearns. Police Lieutenant Riley, played by Wally Maher, was a frequent guest. In the early episodes, Sonny was George's assistant, but later became a less regular character.The show's announcer was John Hiestand. The background music was initially provided by Eddie Dunstedter and his full orchestra, but as television took over as the main source of home entertainment, radio budgets got tighter, and Dunstedter's orchestra was replaced by an organ, which he also played.

The American radio drama series "Let George Do It" aired from 1946 to 1954. It was the brainchild of Owen and Pauline Vinson. Bob Bailey was the star of the show, playing the role of George Valentine, a private investigator. In 1954, Olan Soule took over the voice role. David Victor and Jackson Gillis wrote the scripts, and Don Clark directed them.Initially, the episodes were more like sitcoms, with a live studio audience and laughs, but they eventually transformed into suspenseful private eye stories. The program was sponsored by Standard Oil of California, now known as Chevron. It aired on the West Coast Don Lee network of the Mutual Broadcasting System from 1946 to 1954. In its final season, it was also broadcast in New York on Wednesdays at 9:30 p.m.Clients would reach out to George Valentine after reading his classified ad in the newspaper, which said something like, "Danger's my thing. If you can't handle the job, I'm your guy. George Valentine. Give me all the details!" The ad would change from episode to episode, but it always started with "Danger's my thing" and ended with "Give me all the details!"George Valentine was a professional detective, and his secretary was Claire Brooks, also known as Brooksie. Frances Robinson, Virginia Gregg, and Lillian Buyeff voiced Brooksie at different times. As Valentine went about his detective work, he'd sometimes run into Brooksie's little brother, Sonny, played by Eddie Firestone, or the elevator man, Caleb, voiced by Joseph Kearns. Police Lieutenant Riley, played by Wally Maher, was a frequent guest. In the early episodes, Sonny was George's assistant, but later became a less regular character.The show's announcer was John Hiestand. The background music was initially provided by Eddie Dunstedter and his full orchestra, but as television took over as the main source of home entertainment, radio budgets got tighter, and Dunstedter's orchestra was replaced by an organ, which he also played.

The American radio drama series "Let George Do It" aired from 1946 to 1954. It was the brainchild of Owen and Pauline Vinson. Bob Bailey was the star of the show, playing the role of George Valentine, a private investigator. In 1954, Olan Soule took over the voice role. David Victor and Jackson Gillis wrote the scripts, and Don Clark directed them. Initially, the episodes were more like sitcoms, with a live studio audience and laughs, but they eventually transformed into suspenseful private eye stories. The program was sponsored by Standard Oil of California, now known as Chevron. It aired on the West Coast Don Lee network of the Mutual Broadcasting System from 1946 to 1954. In its final season, it was also broadcast in New York on Wednesdays at 9:30 p.m. Clients would reach out to George Valentine after reading his classified ad in the newspaper, which said something like, "Danger's my thing. If you can't handle the job, I'm your guy. George Valentine. Give me all the details!" The ad would change from episode to episode, but it always started with "Danger's my thing" and ended with "Give me all the details!" George Valentine was a professional detective, and his secretary was Claire Brooks, also known as Brooksie. Frances Robinson, Virginia Gregg, and Lillian Buyeff voiced Brooksie at different times. As Valentine went about his detective work, he'd sometimes run into Brooksie's little brother, Sonny, played by Eddie Firestone, or the elevator man, Caleb, voiced by Joseph Kearns. Police Lieutenant Riley, played by Wally Maher, was a frequent guest. In the early episodes, Sonny was George's assistant, but later became a less regular character. The show's announcer was John Hiestand. The background music was initially provided by Eddie Dunstedter and his full orchestra, but as television took over as the main source of home entertainment, radio budgets got tighter, and Dunstedter's orchestra was replaced by an organ, which he also played.

The American radio drama series "Let George Do It" aired from 1946 to 1954. It was the brainchild of Owen and Pauline Vinson. Bob Bailey was the star of the show, playing the role of George Valentine, a private investigator. In 1954, Olan Soule took over the voice role. David Victor and Jackson Gillis wrote the scripts, and Don Clark directed them. Initially, the episodes were more like sitcoms, with a live studio audience and laughs, but they eventually transformed into suspenseful private eye stories. The program was sponsored by Standard Oil of California, now known as Chevron. It aired on the West Coast Don Lee network of the Mutual Broadcasting System from 1946 to 1954. In its final season, it was also broadcast in New York on Wednesdays at 9:30 p.m. Clients would reach out to George Valentine after reading his classified ad in the newspaper, which said something like, "Danger's my thing. If you can't handle the job, I'm your guy. George Valentine. Give me all the details!" The ad would change from episode to episode, but it always started with "Danger's my thing" and ended with "Give me all the details!" George Valentine was a professional detective, and his secretary was Claire Brooks, also known as Brooksie. Frances Robinson, Virginia Gregg, and Lillian Buyeff voiced Brooksie at different times. As Valentine went about his detective work, he'd sometimes run into Brooksie's little brother, Sonny, played by Eddie Firestone, or the elevator man, Caleb, voiced by Joseph Kearns. Police Lieutenant Riley, played by Wally Maher, was a frequent guest. In the early episodes, Sonny was George's assistant, but later became a less regular character. The show's announcer was John Hiestand. The background music was initially provided by Eddie Dunstedter and his full orchestra, but as television took over as the main source of home entertainment, radio budgets got tighter, and Dunstedter's orchestra was replaced by an organ, which he also played.

The OTRNow Radio Program- Thanksgiving SpecialTarzan. November 29, 1951. Mutual-Don Lee net origination, Commodore syndication. "African Thanksgiving". Commercials added locally. A beautiful French girl starts a battle of wills between Sheik Hazara and Tarzan. CBS rebroadcast date: November 22, 1952. Lamont Johnson, Walter White Jr. (producer), Bud Lesser (writer), Albert Glaser (original music)  The Lucky Strike Program Starring Jack Benny. November 30, 1947. NBC net. Lucky Strike. Phil Harris and The Sportsmen do a clever singing commercial to the tune of, "That's What I Like About The South." Jack dreams that he's being tried for murder for killing a Thanksgiving turkey. Fred Allen (imitated by Ollie O'Toole) appears as a turkey during the trial! A great show!. Artie Auerbach, Basil Ruysdael (commercial spokesman), Dennis Day, Don Wilson, Frank Nelson, Jack Benny, L. A. Speed Riggs (tobacco auctioneer), Mary Livingstone, Mel Blanc (quadruples, one part is a turkey), Phil Harris, Eddie Anderson, The Sportsmen, F. E. Boone (tobacco auctioneer), Bea Benaderet, John Laing (commercial spokesman), Ollie O'Toole, George Balzer (writer), John Tackaberry (writer), Milt Josefsberg (writer), Sam Perrin (writer), Mahlon Merrick (conductor). Doctor Christian. November 22, 1939. CBS net. "Prelude To Thanksgiving". Vaseline. Jean Hersholt, Art Gilmore (announcer), Rosemary De Camp.Speech Winston Churchill 1944-11-23 American Thanksgiving Vic and Sade. November 20, 1941. Red net. Crisco. Nicer Scott has been telling everyone that Rush Gook eats with a baby's knife and fork. Rush is humiliated and angry. Stuff happens! The organ themes, bridges and system cue have been deleted. Paul Rhymer (writer), Art Van Harvey, Bernardine Flynn, Billy Idelson, Ed Herlihy (announcer).Let George Do It. November 20, 1950. Mutual-Don Lee net. "Cause For Thanksgiving". Standard Oil. A Thanksgiving story about a tough ten-year-old boy who refuses to talk. Is it psychic shock?. Bob Bailey, Virginia Gregg, Jackson Gillis (writer), David Victor (writer), Eddie Dunstedter (composer, presenter), Don Clark (director), Bud Hiestand (announcer), Wally Maher, Carl Watson (commercial spokesman), Bob Burchill (commercial spokesman), Alan Reed, Dick Ryan, Tony Barrett, Jeffrey Silver, Steven Chase.Suspense. November 25, 1948. CBS net. "The Screaming Woman". Auto-Lite. A little girl hears a screaming woman who is buried alive. The script was subsequently used on "Suspense" on March 1, 1955 (see cat. #7264). Margaret O'Brien, Ray Bradbury (author), Sylvia Richards (adaptor), Ted de Corsia, John McIntire, Lurene Tuttle, Agnes Moorehead, Anton M. Leader (producer, director), Harlow Wilcox (commercial spokesman), William Johnstone (commercial spokesman), Lucien Moraweck (composer), Lud Gluskin (conductor), Paul Frees (announcer).

This podcast features an engaging discussion between Dr. David Victor and his patient, with long-standing PBC, on the patient's insights and experiences with her disease and treatment. The activity will enable participants to understand the importance of listening to patient perspectives when designing individualized care pathways to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life.Launch Date: October 24, 2024Release Date: October 24, 2024Expiration Date: September 30, 2025FACULTYDavid W. Victor III, MDAssociate Professor of Clinical MedicineHouston Methodist Research InstituteAssociate Professor of Clinical MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineThis podcast provides accredited continuing education credits.  To receive your credit, please read the accreditation information provided at this link below prior to listening to this podcast.https://www.practicepointcme.com/CMEHome/patient-voices-in-primary-biliary-cholangitis-a-ce-podcast-series-to-recognize-challenges-reduce-disparities-and-improve-outcomes

Green industrial policy is the new tool to address climate change, stimulate domestic manufacturing, and counter China. Where did this new policy experiment come from and what is at stake? Allegra Dawes hosts this episode with Jane Flegal, the former Senior Director for Industrial Emissions at the White House; David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at UC San Diego; and Joanna Lewis, an associate Professor of Energy and Environment at Georgetown University.  

In today's episode I talk with the incredibly talented Cincinnati native - Erin Coburn. Erin known for her prolific songwriting and modern approach to the guitar in the Rock & Roll and Blues genres has performed with Grammy award winning artists in Nashville, was nominated for the 2017 Cincinnati Entertainment Awards in the Best Blues artist category, and the 2018 Josie Awards for "Young Adult Artist of the Year" award for independent artists. Some of Erin's noteworthy shows and festivals have been repeat performances at Buddy Guy's Legends and Rosa's Lounge in Chicago, the Slippery Noodle in Indianapolis, Knuckleheads in Missouri, Summerfest in Milwaukee, BlissFest in Michigan, and the main stage at the King Biscuit Blues Festival in Arkansas. She has also opened for Blackberry Smoke, The Marcus King Band, The Accidentals, David Victor (formerly of Boston), and Three Dog Night.   For more information on Erin Coburn, please visit www.erincoburn.com For more information on Travis Marc, please visit www.travismarc.com For more information on Musicians Mentor, please visit www.musicians-mentor.com Lastly, as usual, please do us a huge favor and like, review and subscribe, thank you... --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/musiciansmentor/support

David Victor Gospel artist and Vocal coach has experienced a lot in the music business and he talks with Shah Cypha during "On Grynd Live" about it all

In this episode, environmental social scientist Holly Jean Buck discusses the critique of emissions-focused climate policy that she laid out in her book Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsOver the course of the 2010s, the term “net-zero carbon emissions” migrated from climate science to climate modeling to climate politics. Today, it is ubiquitous in the climate world — hundreds upon hundreds of nations, cities, institutions, businesses, and individuals have pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. No one ever formally decided to make net zero the common target of global climate efforts — it just happened.The term has become so common that we barely hear it anymore, which is a shame, because there are lots of buried assumptions and value judgments in the net-zero narrative that we are, perhaps unwittingly, accepting when we adopt it.Holly Jean Buck has a lot to say about that. An environmental social scientist who teaches at the University at Buffalo, Buck has spent years exploring the nuances and limitations of the net-zero framework, leading to a 2021 book — Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough — and more recently some new research in Nature Climate Change on residual emissions.Buck is a perceptive commentator on the social dynamics of climate change and a sharp critic of emissions-focused climate policy, so I'm eager to talk to her about the limitations of net zero, what we know and don't know about how to get there, and what a more satisfying climate narrative might include.So with no further ado, Holly Jean Buck. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Holly Jean BuckThanks so much for having me.David RobertsIt's funny. Reading your book really brought it home to me how much net zero had kind of gone from nowhere to worming its way completely into my sort of thinking and dialogue without the middle step of me ever really thinking about it that hard or ever really sort of like exploring it. So let's start with a definition. First of all, a technical definition of what net zero means. And then maybe a little history. Like, where did this come from? It came from nowhere and became ubiquitous, it seemed like, almost overnight. So maybe a little capsule history would be helpful.Holly Jean BuckWell, most simply, net zero is a balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere. So we're all living in a giant accounting problem, which is what we always dreamed of, right? So how did we get there? I think that there's been a few more recent moments. The Paris agreement obviously one of them, because the Paris agreement talks about a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks. So that's kind of part of the moment that it had. The other thing was the Special Report on 1.5 degrees by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which further showed that this target is only feasible with some negative emissions.And so I think that was another driver. But the idea of balancing sources and sinks goes back away towards the Kyoto Protocol, towards the inclusion of carbon sinks, and thinking about that sink capacity.David RobertsSo you say, and we're going to get into the kind of the details of your critique in a minute. But the broad thing you say about net zero is that it's not working. We're not on track for it. And I guess intuitively, people might think, well, you set an ambitious target and if you don't meet that target, it's not the target's fault, right. It's not the target's reason you're failing. So what do you mean exactly when you say net zero is not working?Holly Jean BuckWell, I think that people might understandably say, "Hey, we've just started on this journey. It's a mid-century target, let's give it some time, right?" But I do think there's some reasons why it's not going to work. Several reasons. I mean, we have this idea of balancing sources and sinks, but we're not really doing much to specify what those sources are. Are they truly hard to abate or not? We're not pushing the scale up of carbon removal to enhance those sinks, and we don't have a way of matching these emissions and removals yet. Credibly all we have really is the voluntary carbon market.But I think the main problem here is the frame doesn't specify whether or not we're going to phase out fossil fuels. I think that that's the biggest drawback to this frame.David RobertsWell, let's go through those. Let's go through those one at a time, because I think all of those have some interesting nuances and ins and outs. So when we talk about balancing sources and sinks, the way this translates, or I think is supposed to translate the idea, is a country tallies up all of the emissions that it is able to remove and then adds them all up. And then what remains? This kind of stuff, it either can't reduce or is prohibitively expensive to reduce the so called difficult to abate or hard to abate emissions. Those are called its residual emissions, the emissions that it doesn't think it can eliminate.And the theory here is then you come in with negative emissions, carbon reduction, and you compensate for those residual emissions. So to begin with, the first problem you identify is that it's not super clear what those residual emissions are or where they're coming from, and they're not very well measured. So maybe just explain sort of like, what would you like to see people or countries doing on residual emissions and what are they doing, what's a state of knowledge and measurement of these things?Holly Jean BuckSo the state right now is extremely fuzzy. And so I'll just back up and say that my colleagues and I looked at these long term strategies that are submitted to the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement. Basically, each country is invited to submit what its long term strategy is for reaching its climate goals. And so we've read 50 of those.David RobertsGoodness.Holly Jean BuckYeah, lots of fun. And they don't have a standard definition of what these residual emissions are, although they refer to them implicitly in many cases. You can see the residual emissions on these graphs that are in these reports.But we don't have a really clear understanding in most cases where these residual emissions are coming from, how the country is thinking about defining them, what their understanding of what's truly hard to abate is. And I emphasize with this being a challenge, because what's hard to abate changes over time because new technologies come online. So it's hard to say what's going to be hard to abate in 10 or 20 years.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckBut we could get a lot better at specifying this.David RobertsAnd this would just tell us basically without a good sense of residual emissions across the range of countries, we don't have a good sense of how much carbon removal we need. So is there something easy to say about how we could make this better? Is there a standardized framework that you would recommend? I mean, are any countries doing it well and precisely sort of identifying where those emissions are and explaining why and how they came to that conclusion?Holly Jean BuckSo there's 14 countries that do break down residual emissions by sector, which is like the first, most obvious place to start.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckSo, number one, everybody should be doing that and understanding what assumptions there are about what sectors. And generally a lot of this is non-CO2 emissions and emissions from agriculture. There's some emissions left over from industry, too, but having clarity in that is the most obvious thing. And then I think that we do need a consistent definition as well as processes that are going to standardize our expectations around this. That's something that's going to evolve kind of, I think, from the climate advocacy community, hopefully, and a norm will evolve about what's actually hard to abate versus what's just expensive to abateDavid RobertsKind of a small sample size. But of the 14 countries that actually do this, are there trends that emerge? Like, what do these 14 countries currently believe will be the most difficult emissions to eliminate? Is there agreement among those 14 countries?Holly Jean BuckWell, it's pretty consistent that agriculture is number one, followed by industry, and that in many cases, transport, at least short transport, light duty transport is considered to be fully electrified. In many cases, the power sector is imagined to be zero carbon. But I will also say that the United Kingdom is the only one that even included international aviation and shipping in its projection. So a long way to go there.David RobertsAnd this is not really our subject here. But just out of curiosity, what is the simple explanation for why agriculture is such a mystery? What are these emissions in agriculture that no one can think of a way to abate?Holly Jean BuckI mean, I think it varies by country, but a lot of it is nitrous oxide. A lot of it has to do with fertilizer and fertilizer production, fertilizer over application and I think obviously some of it is methane too from the land sector, from cows. So I think maybe that is considered a more challenging policy problem than industry.David RobertsYeah, this is always something that's puzzled me about this entire framework and this entire debate is you look at a problem like that and you think, well, if we put our minds to it, could we solve that in the next 30 years? I mean, probably. You know what I mean? It doesn't seem versus standing up this giant carbon dioxide removal industry which is just a gargantuan undertaking. This has never been clear to me why people are so confident that carbon dioxide removal is going to be easier than just solving these allegedly difficult to solve problems over the next several decades.I've never really understood that calculation.Holly Jean BuckI think it just hasn't been thought through all the way yet. But I expect in the next five years most people will realize that we need a much smaller carbon removal infrastructure than is indicated in many of the integrated assessment models.David RobertsYeah, thank you for saying that. This is my intuition, but I just don't feel sort of like technically briefed or technically adept enough to make a good argument for it. But I look at this and I'm like which of these problems are going to be easier to solve? Finding some non-polluting fertilizer or building a carbon dioxide removal industry three times the size of the oil industry? It's crazy to view the latter as like, oh, we got to do that because we can't do the first thing. It just seems crazy. Okay, so for the first problem here with net zero is we don't have a clear sense of what these residual emissions are, where they come from, exactly how we define them, et cetera.So without that, we don't have a clear sense of the needed size of the carbon dioxide removal industry. That said, problem number two here is that even based on what we are currently expecting CDR to do, there doesn't appear to be a coordinated push to make it happen. Like we're just sort of like waving our hands at massive amounts of CDR but you're not seeing around you the kinds of mobilization that would be necessary to get there. Is that roughly accurate?Holly Jean BuckYeah, and I think it follows from the residual emissions analysis because unless a country has really looked at that, they probably don't realize the scale of CDR that they're implicitly relying on.David RobertsRight, so they're implicitly relying on CDR for a couple of things you list in your presentation I saw and residual emissions is only one of those things we're expecting CDR to do.Holly Jean BuckThere's the idea that CDR will also be compensating for legacy emissions or helping to draw down greenhouse gas concentrations after an overshoot. I don't think anybody is saying that exactly because we're not at that point yet, but it's kind of floating around on the horizon as another use case for carbon removal.David RobertsYeah. So it does seem like even the amount of CDR that we are currently expecting, even if most countries haven't thought it through, just the amount that's already on paper that we're expecting it to do, we're not seeing the kind of investment that you would want to get there. What does that tell you? What should we learn from that weird disjunct?Holly Jean BuckFor me, it tells me that all the climate professionals are not really doing their jobs. Maybe that sounds mean, but we have so many people that are devoted to climate action professionally and so it's very weird to not see more thinking about this. But maybe the more nice way to think about it is saying oh well, people are really focused on mitigation. They're really focused on scaling up clean energy which is where they should be focused. Maybe that's reasonable.David RobertsYeah, maybe this is cynical, but some part of me thinks, like if people and countries really believed that we need the amount of CDR they're saying we're going to need, that the models show we're going to need, by mid century they would be losing their minds and flipping out and pouring billions of dollars into this. And the fact that they're not to me sort of like I guess it feels like no one's really taking this seriously. Like everyone still somewhat sees it as an artifact of the models.Holly Jean BuckI don't know, I think the tech sector is acting on it, which is interesting. I mean, you've seen people like Frontier mobilize all these different tech companies together to do these advanced market commitments. I think they're trying to incubate a CDR ecosystem. And so why does interest come there versus other places? Not exactly sure. I have some theories but I do wonder about the governments because in our analysis we looked at the most ambitious projections offered in these long term strategies and the average amount of residual emissions was around 18% of current emissions. So all these countries have put forward these strategies where they're seeing these levels of residual emissions.Why are they not acting on it more in policy? I think maybe it's just the short termism problem of governments not being accountable for things that happen in 30 years.David RobertsYeah, this is a truly strange phenomenon to me and I don't even know that I do have any theories about it, but it's like of all the areas of climate policy there are tons and tons of areas where business could get involved and eventually build self-sustaining profitable industries out of them. But CDR is not that there will never be a self-sustaining profitable CDR industry. It's insofar as it exists, it's going to exist based on government subsidies. So it's just bizarre for business to be moving first in that space and for government to be trailing.It just seems upside down world. I can't totally figure out government's motivations for not doing more and I can't totally figure out businesses motivations for doing so much.Holly Jean BuckWell, I think businesses acting in this R&D space to try to kind of claim some of the tech breakthroughs in the assumption that if we're serious about climate action we're going to have a price on carbon. We're going to have much more stringent climate policy in a decade or two. And when that happens, the price of carbon will be essentially set by the price of removing carbon. And so if they have the innovation that magically removes the most carbon, they're going to be really well set up for an extremely lucrative industry. This is all of course hinging on the idea that we're going to be willing to pay to clean up emissions just like we're willing to pay for trash service or wastewater disposal or these other kind of pollution removal services.Which is still an open question, but I sure hope we will be.David RobertsYeah, it's totally open. And this is another area where this weird disjunct between this sort of expansive talk and no walk. It's almost politically impossible to send money to this greenhouse gas international fund that's supposed to help developing countries decarbonize, right? Like even that it's very difficult for us to drag enough tax money out of taxpayers hands to fund that and we're going to be sending like a gazillion times more than that on something that has no visible short term benefit for taxpayers. We're all just assuming we're going to do that someday. It seems like a crazy assumption.And if you're a business and you're looking to make money, it just seems like even if you're just looking to make money on clean energy, it seems like there's a million faster, easier ways than this sort of like multidecade bank shot effort. I feel like I don't have my head wrapped around all those dynamics. So the first problem is residual emissions. They're opaque to us, we don't totally get them. Second problem is there's no evident push remotely to scale of the kind of CDR we claim we're going to need. And then the third you mentioned is there's no regime for matching emissions and removals.Explain that a little bit. What sort of architecture would be required for that kind of regime?Holly Jean BuckWell, you can think of this as a market or as a platform, basically as a system for connecting emissions and removals. And obviously this has been like a dream of technocratic climate policy for a long time, but I think it's frustrated by our knowledge capabilities and maybe that'll change in the future if we really do get better models, better remote sensing capacities. Obviously, both of those have been improving dramatically and machine learning accelerates it. But it assumes that you really have good knowledge of the emissions, good knowledge of the removals, that it's credible. And I think for some of the carbon removal technologies we're looking at this what's called MRV: monitoring, reporting, and verification.Is really challenging, especially with open systems like enhanced rock weathering or some of the ocean carbon removal ideas. So we need some improvement there. And then once you've made this into a measurable commodity, you need to be able to exchange it. That's been really frustrated because of all the problems that you've probably talked about on this podcast with carbon markets, and scams, bad actors. It's all of these problems and the expense of having people in the middle that are taking a cut off of the transactions.David RobertsYeah. So you have to match your residual emissions with removals in a way that is verifiable, in a way that, you know, the removals are additional. Right. You get back to all these carbon market problems and as I talked with Danny Cullenword and David Victor about on the pod long ago, in carbon offset markets, basically everyone has incentive to keep prices low and to make things look easy and tidy. And virtually no one, except maybe the lonely regulators has the incentive to make sure that it's all legit right there's just like there's overwhelming incentive to goof around and cheat and almost no one with the incentive to make sure it's valid.And all those problems that face the carbon offset market just seem to me like ten times as difficult. When you're talking about global difficult to measure residual emissions coupled with global difficult to measure carbon dioxide removals in a way where there's no double counting and there's no shenanigans. Like, is that even a gleam in our eye yet? Do we even have proposals for something like that on the table?Holly Jean BuckI mean, there's been a lot of best principles and practices and obviously a lot of the conversation around Article Six and the Paris agreement and those negotiations are towards working out better markets. I think a lot of people are focused on this, but there's definitely reason to be skeptical of our ability to execute it in the timescales that we need.David RobertsYeah, I mean, if you're offsetting residual emissions that you can't reduce, you need that pretty quick. Like, this is supposed to be massively scaling up in the next 30 years and I don't see the institutional efforts that would be required to build something like this, especially making something like this bulletproof. So we don't have a good sense of residual emissions. We're not pushing very hard to scale CDR up even to what we think we need. And we don't have the sort of institutional architecture that would be required to formally match removals with residual emissions. These are all kind of, I guess, what you'd call technical problems.Like, even if you accepted the goal of doing this or this framework, these are just technical problems that we're not solving yet. The fourth problem, as you say, is the bigger one, perhaps the biggest one, which is net zero says nothing about fossil fuels. Basically. It says nothing about the socioeconomics of fossil fuels or the social dynamics of fossil fuels. It says nothing about the presence of fossil fuels in a net-zero world, how big that might be, et cetera. So what do you mean when you say it's silent on fossil fuels?Holly Jean BuckYeah, so this was a desirable design feature of net zero because it has this constructive ambiguity around whether there's just like a little bit of residual emissions and you've almost phased out fossil fuels, or if there's still a pretty significant role for the fossil fuel industry in a net-zero world. And that's what a lot of fossil fuel producers and companies are debating.David RobertsYes, I've been thinking about this recently in the context of the struggle to get Joe Manchin to sign decent legislation. Like, if you hear Joe Manchin when he goes on rambling on about climate change, it's very clear that he views carbon dioxide removal as basically technological license for fossil fuels to just keep on keeping on. Like, in his mind, that's what CDR means. Whereas if you hear like, someone from NRDC talking about it, it's much more like we eliminated almost everything. And here's like, the paper towel that we're going to use to wipe up these last little stains.And that's a wide gulf.Holly Jean BuckI don't want to seem like the biggest net-zero hater in the world. I understand why it came up as a goal. I think it was a lot more simple and intuitive than talking about 80% of emissions reduction over 2005 levels or like the kind of things that it replaced. But ultimately, this is a killer aspect to the whole idea, is not being clear about the phase out of fossil fuels.David RobertsAnd you say you can envision very different worlds fitting under net zero. What do you mean by that?Holly Jean BuckWell, I mean, one axis is the temporality of it. So is net zero, like, just one moment on the road to something else? Is it a temporary state or is it a permanent state where we're continuing to produce some fossil fuels and we're just living in that net zero without any dedicated phase out? I think that right now there's ambiguity where you could see either one.David RobertsThat is a good question. In your research on this, have you found an answer to that question of how people view it? Like, I'd love to see a poll or something. I mean, this is a tiny subset of people who even know what we're talking about here. But among the people who talk about net zero, do you have any sense of whether they view it as like a mile marker on the way to zero-zero or as sort of like the desired endstate?Holly Jean BuckYou know, it's funny because I haven't done a real poll, but I've done when I'm giving a talk at a conference of scientists and climate experts twice I've asked this question, do you think it's temporary or do you think it's like a permanent desired state? And it's split half and half each time, which I find really interesting. Like, within these climate expert communities, we don't have a clear idea ourselves.David RobertsAnd that's such a huge difference. And if you're going to have CDR do this accounting for past emissions, for your past emissions debt, if you're going to do that, you have to go negative, right. You can't stay at net zero, you have to go net negative. So it would be odd to view net zero as the end state. And yet that seems like, what's giving fossil fuel companies permission to be involved in all this.Holly Jean BuckYeah. No, we do need to go net negative. And I think one challenge with the residual emissions is that carbon removal capacity is going to be finite. It's going to be limited by geography, carbon sequestration capacity, ecosystems and renewable energy, all of these things. And so if you understand it as finite, then carbon removal to compensate for residual emissions is going to be in competition with carbon removal to draw down greenhouse gas concentrations. And so we never get to this really net negative state if we have these large residual emissions, because all that capacity is using to compensate rather than to get net negative, if that makes sense.David RobertsYeah. Given how sort of fundamental those questions are and how fundamental those differences are, it's a little this is what I mean when I sort of the revelation of reading your book. Like, those are very, very different visions. If you work backwards from those different visions, you get a very, very different dynamic around fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies and the social and political valence of fossil fuels, just very fundamentally different. It's weird that it's gone on this long with that ambiguity, which, I guess, as you say, it was fruitful to begin with, but you kind of think it's time to de-ambiguize this.Holly Jean BuckYeah. Because there's huge implications for the infrastructure planning that we do right now.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckIt's going to be a massive transformation to phase out fossil fuels. There's a million different planning tasks that need to have started yesterday and should start today.David RobertsYeah. And I guess also, and this is a complaint, maybe we'll touch on more later, but there's long been, I think, from some quarters of the environmental movement, a criticism of climate people in their sort of emissions or carbon greenhouse gas emissions obsession. And when you contemplate fossil fuels, it's not just greenhouse gases. There's like all these proximate harms air pollution and water pollution, et cetera, et cetera, geopolitical stuff. And I think the idea behind net zero was, let's just isolate greenhouse gas emissions and not get into those fights. But I wonder, as you say, we have to make decisions now, which in some sense hinge on which we were going to go on that question.Holly Jean BuckYeah, I mean, it was a huge trick to get us to focus on what happens after the point of combustion rather than the extraction itself.David RobertsYeah, it says nothing about extraction, too. So your final critique of net zero fifth and final critique is that it is not particularly compelling to ordinary people, which I think is kind of obvious. Like, I really doubt that the average Joe or Jane off the street would even know what you mean by net zero or would particularly know what you mean by negative carbon emissions and if you could explain it to them, would be particularly moved by that story. So what do you mean by the meta narrative? Like, why do you think this falls short?Holly Jean BuckI mean, accounting is fundamentally kind of boring. I think a lot of us avoid it, right? And so if I try to talk to my students about this, it's really work to keep them engaged and to see that actually all this stuff around net zero impacts life and death for a lot of people. But we don't feel that when we just look at the math or we look at the curve and we talk about bending the curve and this and that, we have this governance by curve mode. It's just not working in terms of inspiring people to change anything about their lives.David RobertsYeah, bending the curve didn't seem to work great during the pandemic either. This gets back to something you said before about what used to be a desirable design feature when you are thinking about other things that you might want to bring into a meta narrative about climate change. Most of what people talk about and what people think about is sort of social and political stuff. Like, we need to talk about who's going to win and who's going to lose, and the substantial social changes and changes in our culture and practices that we need. We need to bring all these things in.But then the other counterargument is those are what produce resistance and those are what produce backlash. And so as far as you can get on an accounting framework, like if the accounting framework can sort of trick various and sundry participants and institutions into thinking they're in a value neutral technical discussion, if you can make progress that way, why not do it? Because any richer meta narrative is destined to be more controversial and more produce more political backlash. What do you think about that?Holly Jean BuckNo, I think that the problem is we haven't invested at all in figuring out how to create desire and demand for lower carbon things. I mean, maybe the car industry has tried a little bit with some of the electric trucks or that kind of thing, but we have all this philanthropy, government focus, all the stuff on both the tech and on the carbon accounting pieces of it. We don't have very much funding going out and talking to people. About why are you nervous about transitioning to gas in your home? What would make you feel more comfortable about that?Those sorts of relational things, the conversations, the engagement has been gendered, frankly. Lots of times it falls to women to do this kind of relational work and hasn't been invested in. So I think there's a whole piece we could be doing about understanding what would create demand for these new infrastructures, new practices, not just consumer goods but really adoption of lifestyle changes because you need that demand to translate to votes to the real supportive policies that will really make a difference in this problem.David RobertsYeah, I very much doubt if you go to talk to people about those things they're going to say, well, I want to get the appliance that's most closely going to zero out my positive conditions. You're not going to run into a lot of accounting if you ask people about their concerns about these things. So these are the problems. We're not measuring it well. We're not doing what we need to do to remove the amount of CDR we say we need. We don't have the architecture or the institutional structures to create some sort of system where we're matching residual emissions and removals.And as a narrative it's fatally ambiguous about the role of fossil fuels in the future and plus ordinary people don't seem to give much of a shit about it. So in this presentation you sort of raise the prospect that the whole thing could collapse, that the net-zero thing could collapse. What do you mean by that and how could that happen?Holly Jean BuckSo I think this looks more like quiet quitting than anything else because I do think it is too big to fail in terms of official policy. There's been a lot of political capital spent.David RobertsYeah, a lot of institutions now have that on paper, like are saying on paper that they want to hit net zero. So it seems to me like it would take a big backlash to get rid of it.Holly Jean BuckYeah. So I don't think some companies may back away from targets. There'll be more reports of targets not being on track. And I think what happens is that it becomes something like the Sustainable Development Goals or dealing with the US national debt where everybody kind of knows you're not really going to get there, but you can still talk about it aspirationally but without confidence. Because it did feel like at least a few years ago that people were really trying to get to net zero. And I think that sensation will shift and it'll become empty like a lot of other things, unfortunately.But I think that creates an opportunity for something new to come in and be the mainframe for climate policy.David RobertsNet zero just seems like a species of a larger thing that happens. I don't know if it happens in other domains, but in climate and clean energy it happens a lot, which is just sort of like a technical term from the expert dialogue, worms its way over into popular usage and is just awful and doesn't mean anything to anyone. I think about net metering and all these kind of terminological disputes. So it doesn't really I'm not sure who's in charge of metanarratives, but it doesn't seem like they're very thoughtfully constructed. So let's talk a little bit about what characteristics you think a better metanarrative about climate change would include.Holly Jean BuckFirst, I think it is important that we are measuring progress towards a goal for accountability reasons. But I think there needs to be more than just the metric. I think we have an obsession with metrics in our society that sometimes becomes unhealthy or distracts us from the real focus. But I do think there should be some amount of measuring specific progress towards a goal. I think that the broader story also has to have some affect or emotional language. There has to be some kind of emotional connection. I also think we have to get beyond carbon to talk about what's going on with ecosystems more broadly and how to maintain them and have an intact habitable planet and then just pragmatically.This has to be a narrative that enables broad political coalitions. It can't be just for one camp and it has to work on different scales. I mean, part of the genius of net zero is that it is this multi-scalar planetary, but also national, also municipal, corporate, even individual does all of that. So those are some of the most important qualities that a new frame or a new narrative would have to have.David RobertsThat sounds easier said than done. I can imagine measuring other things you mentioned in your book several sort of submeasurements other than just this one overarching metric. You could measure how fast fossil fuels are going away. You could measure how fast clean energy is scaling up. There are adaptation you can measure to some extent. So I definitely can see the benefit in having a wider array of goals, if only just because some of those just get buried under net zero and are never really visible at all. That makes sense to me. But the minute you start talking about a metanarrative with affect, with emotion, the way to get that is to appeal to people's values and things that they cherish and feel strongly about.But then we're back to the problem we talked about earlier, which is it seems like especially in the US these days, we're just living in a country with two separate tribes that have very, very different values. And so the minute you step beyond the sort of technocratic metric, which in a sense is like clean and clinical and value free and start evoking values, trying to create emotion, you get greater investment and passion in some faction and alienate some other faction. Do you just think that that's like unavoidable and you have to deal with that or how do you think about that dilemma?Holly Jean BuckI actually think people do have the same values, but they're manipulated by a media ecosystem that profits from dividing them, which makes it impossible for them to see that they do have aligned values. And I base that just on my experience, like as a rural sociologist and geographer talking to people in rural America. People are upset about the same exact things that the leftists in the cities I visit are upset about too. They really do value justice. They think it's unfair that big companies are taking advantage of them. There are some registers of agreement about fairness, about caring for nature, about having equal opportunities to a good and healthy life that I think we could build on if we weren't so divided by this predatory media ecology.David RobertsI don't suppose you have a solution for that, in your back pocket?Holly Jean BuckI have a chapter on this in a forthcoming book which you might be interested. It's edited by David Orr. It's about democracy in hotter times, looking at the democratic crisis and the climate crisis at the same time. And so I've thought a little bit about media reform, but it's definitely not my expertise. We should have somebody on your podcast to talk about that too.David RobertsWell, let me tell you, as someone who's been obsessed with that subject for years and has looked and looked and looked around, I don't know that there is such thing as an expert. I've yet to encounter anyone who has a solution to that problem that sounds remotely feasible to me, including the alleged experts. And it kind of does seem like every problem runs aground on that, right? Like it would be nice if people had a different story to tell about climate change that had these features you identify that brought people in with values and drew on a broader sense of balance with the earth and ecosystems.But even if they did, you have to have the mechanics of media to get that message out to tell that story. You know what I mean? And so you got one whole side of the media working against you and one at best begrudgingly working with you. It just doesn't seem possible. So I don't know why I'm talking to you about this problem. No one knows a solution to this problem. But it just seems like this is the -er problem that every other problem depends on.Holly Jean BuckYeah, I mean, we should talk about it because it's the central obstacle in climate action, from my point of view, is this broken media ecosystem and if we could unlock that or revise it, we could make a lot of progress on other stuff.David RobertsYes, on poverty, you name it. Almost anything that seems like the main problem you talk about. The narrative must be able to enable broad political coalitions, but you are working against ... I guess I'd like to hear a little bit about what role you think fossil fuels are playing in this? It seems to me pretty obvious that fossil fuels do not want any such broad political coalition about anything more specific than net zero in 2050, right. Which, as you point out, leaves room for vastly different worlds, specifically regarding fossil fuels. It seems like they don't want that and they're working against that and they have power.So who are the agents of this new narrative? Like, who should be telling it and who has the power to tell it?Holly Jean BuckSo I think sometimes in the climate movement we grant too much power to the fossil fuel industry. It's obviously powerful in this country and in many others, but we have a lot of other industries that are also relevant and powerful too. So you can picture agriculture and the tech industry and insurance and some of these other forms of capital standing up to the fossil fuel industry because they have a lot to lose as renewables continue to become cheaper. We should have energy companies that will also have capital and power. So I do think that we need to think about those other coalitions.Obviously, I don't think it needs to be all grounded in forms of capital. I think there's a lot of work to be done in just democratic political power from civil society too. What I'd love to see is philanthropy, spending more money on building up that social infrastructure alongside funding some of this tech stuff.David RobertsYeah, I've talked to a lot of funders about that and what I often hear is like, "Yeah, I'd love that too, but what exactly be specific, David, what do you want me to spend money on?" And I'm always like, "Well, you know, stuff, social infrastructure, media, something." I get very hand wavy very quick because I'm not clear on exactly what it would be. So final subject, which I found really interesting at the tail end, I think it's fair to say your sympathies are with phasing out fossil fuels as fast as possible. And there's this critique you hear from the left-left about climate change that just goes, this is just capitalism, this is what capitalism does.This is the inevitable result of capitalism. And if you want a real solution to climate change on a mass scale, you have to be talking about getting past capitalism or destroying capitalism or alternatives to capitalism, something like that. Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but I feel like you have some sympathy with that. But also then we're back to narratives that can build a broad political coalition, right? Narratives that can include everyone. So how do you think about the tension between kind of the radical rethinking of economics and social arrangements versus the proximate need to keep everybody on board?How is a metanarrative supposed to dance that line?Holly Jean BuckYeah, unfortunately, I think in this media ecosystem we can't lead with smashing capitalism or with socialism. It's just not going to work, unfortunately. So then what do you do? I think you have to work on things that would make an opening for that. Having more political power, more power grounded in local communities. It's not going to be easy.David RobertsEven if you let the anti-capitalist cat out of the bag at all, you have a bunch of enemies that would love to seize on that, to use it to divide. So I don't know, what does that mean? Openings, just reforms of capitalism at the local level? I mean, I'm asking you to solve these giant global problems. I don't know why, but how do you solve capitalism? What's your solution to capitalism? What does that mean, to leave an opening for post-capitalism without directly taking on capitalism? I guess I'd just like to hear a little bit more about that.Holly Jean BuckSo I think that there's a lot of things that seem unconnected to climate at first, like making sure we have the integrity of our elections, dealing with redistricting and gerrymandering and those sorts of things that are one part of it. Reforming the media system is another part of it. Just having that basic civil society infrastructure, I think, will enable different ideas to form and grow.David RobertsDo you have any predictions about the future of net zero? Sort of as a concept, as a guiding light, as a goal? Because you identify these kind of ambiguities and tensions within it that seem like it doesn't seem like it can go on forever without resolving some of those. But as you also say, it's become so ubiquitous and now plays such a central role in the dialogue and in the Paris plans and et cetera, et cetera. It's also difficult to see it going away. So it's like can't go on forever, but it can't go away. So do you have any predictions how it evolves over the coming decade?Holly Jean BuckWell, it could just become one of these zombie concepts and so that really is an opportunity for people to get together and think about what other thing they would like to see. Is it going to be measuring phase out of fossil fuels and having a dashboard where we can track the interconnection queue and hold people accountable for improving that? Are we going to be measuring adaptation and focusing on that? Are we going to be thinking more about the resources that are going to countries to plan and direct a transition and trying to stand up agencies that are really focused on energy transition or land use transition?I mean, we could start making those demands now and we could also be evolving these broader languages to talk about and understand the motion. So we have some concepts that have been floated and already sort of lost some amount of credibility, like sustainability, arguably just transition. We have Green New Deal. Will that be the frame? Is that already lost? What new stuff could we come up with? Is it regeneration or universal basic energy. I think there's a lot of languages to explore and so I would be thrilled to see the Climate Movement work with other movements in society, with antiracist movements, with labor movements and more to explore the languages and the specific things we could measure and then take advantage of the slipperiness of net zero to get in there and talk about something else we might want to see.David RobertsOkay, that sounds like a great note to wrap up on. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the super fascinating book and for all your work, Holly Jean Buck. Thanks so much.Holly Jean BuckThank you.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

In the 1980s and 90s, the world came together to successfully address a major environmental problem: a growing hole in the ozone layer. So why hasn't that success translated to global collaboration to make a dent in climate change? For Earth Day, David Victor, professor at UC San Diego, talks with Stephanie Desmon about the unique problem of climate change, and some optimistic and realistic signs of progress.

This week the ESG Insider podcast is on the ground in Houston, Texas for a special episode covering key themes from one of the world's largest energy conferences — the annual CERAWeek event hosted by S&P Global. The event brings together big names from across the oil and gas, finance, government and technology sectors, and provides an opportunity to take the pulse of the global energy industry on the low-carbon transition.  In this episode we cover key themes that emerged throughout the week, from balancing sustainability goals with energy security needs, to emerging energy technologies, to the just transition.  Guests on today's episode include:   Jigar Shah, Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office  Lance Uggla, CEO of BeyondNetZero, a venture targeting growth equity investments related to climate change, and the founder and former CEO of IHS Markit before it merged with S&P Global  Alok Sinha, Global Head of Oil & Gas and Chemicals at international bank Standard Chartered  Ben Wilson, Chief Strategy and External Affairs Officer at National Grid and Interim President of National Grid Ventures  Dr. Mike Howard, Chair of the World Energy Council  Allyson Anderson Book, Chief Sustainability Officer at Baker Hughes, an energy and industrial technology company  Amanda Eversole, Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer at the trade association American Petroleum Institute  Jessica Monserrate, Head of Sustainability North America at BASF, the world's largest chemical company  David Victor, professor of innovation and public policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego in California  Shannon O'Neil, Vice President, Deputy Director of Studies, and Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank  You can find more coverage of CERAWeek from S&P Global here: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/topics/ceraweek   And you can listen here: https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/podcasts/essential-podcast/the-essential-podcast-episode-81-ceraweek-day-5   Listen to our previous episode on the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act here: https://www.spglobal.com/esg/podcasts/what-landmark-new-us-climate-law-means-for-emissions  You can listen to our Women in Leadership podcast series here: https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/featured/special-editorial/women-in-leadership    Photo source: Getty Images  Copyright ©2023 by S&P Global   DISCLAIMER   This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1, a part of S&P Global.   By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.   

Presenters: Mark P. Mills, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute; and David Victor, professor of innovation and public policy, University of California–San Diego. Chair: Neil Chatterjee, senior advisor, Hogan Lovells, and former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Mark Mills argued that ambitious goals to achieve zero carbon emissions in the coming decades are delusional. He said that over the past 20 years, after $5 trillion spent worldwide, there hasn't been any significant movement toward transitions to renewables. Today, global energy derived from wood exceeds that of solar and wind power combined (which make up just 3 percent of all fuels).  Moreover, a rapid transition to these other renewable sources, including batteries, would require a level of mineral extraction never seen in history. In his first of four points, David Victor described the fragmented policy action in countering various pollutants. In replacing carbon, some alternative energies are farther along than others. Meanwhile, some industries face bigger challenges from other pollutants, such as aviation through the emission of contrail clouds from jet engines. These and other segments of the economy have different features that will determine if a market-driven or a mandate-based approach is more effective at mitigating environmental damage. Niall Ferguson examined the rhetoric of proponents of drastic action against climate change, many of whom believe that if the policies they favor aren't adopted, the world will experience a catastrophe involving extraordinarily high temperatures, precipitation, and sea levels. _______________________ Click the following link for more information https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-institution-hosts-conference-evaluating-market-driven-versus-regulatory-approaches

2023.02.27 OA Life in Fukuoka "English" #152 LOVE FM 76.1MHz http://lovefm.co.jp/

In the 1980s, the world came together to ban CFCs, commonly used chemicals that were destroying the atmosphere's ozone layer. Are there lessons we can apply to tackling climate change? Paul Newman and David Victor join Meghna Chakrabarti.

The Climate Bill Biden Signed Into Law Today is a Major Victory | The US Fought Two Wars To Protect the Saudi Regime, Now They Are Allied With Russia and China | An Update on the COP 27 Climate Talks Underway and an Alternative Approach to the Fight Against Climate Change backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

In this episode, Michael speaks with Danny Cullenward. Danny is a lawyer and climate economist working on the design and implementation of scientifically grounded climate policy. He is the Policy Director at CarbonPlan and a Research Fellow at American University's Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy. He holds a PhD and a JD from Stanford University. Danny talks with Michael about his book, Making Climate Policy Work , which he co-authored with David Victor. In this book, Danny and David critique the dominance of carbon markets in the climate change policy space. They argue that such markets are layered onto existing regulations that are doing most of the work to mitigate carbon emissions. A central challenge that markets face is that their implementation is highly political and often coopted by those who are regulated. Danny and David also discuss carbon offset policies, which is essentially a payment for ecosystem services scheme that is often added to carbon market policies to provide regulated actors with an option to pay for carbon sequestration elsewhere to enable them to keep polluting where they are, with the presumption that the carbon budget can balance out. Danny and David are also critical of these, in particular due to their lack of additionality, or the lack of credible proof that the carbon sequestration being paid for is occurring because of the offset program and wouldn't have happened without it. Danny and Michael conclude the conversation by talking about the future of voluntary carbon markets and the promise of carbon removal technologies.   Carbon Plan website: https://carbonplan.org/   References: Cullenward, Danny, and David G. Victor. 2020. Making Climate Policy Work. Polity Press. Badgley, Grayson, Jeremy Freeman, Joseph J. Hamman, Barbara Haya, Anna T. Trugman, William R. L. Anderegg, and Danny Cullenward. 2022. “Systematic over-Crediting in California's Forest Carbon Offsets Program.” Global Change Biology 28 (4): 1433–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15943 (open access) Propublica reporting on Badgley et al. (2022) article: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere https://www.propublica.org/article/a-nonprofit-promised-to-preserve-wildlife-then-it-made-millions-claiming-it-could-cut-down-trees

Can Persuasion Overcome Delusion in American Politics? | An Update on the COP 27 Climate Talks Underway and an Alternative Approach to the Fight Against Climate Change | Prigozhin Epitomizes the Takeover of Russia by Thugs and Gangsters backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

While rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate might make us feel better, diplomacy is not enough to fix our growing problems. On this podcast, David Victor of the University of California, San Diego joins us.  He, along with Charles Sabel, of Columbia Law School, have written the book, “Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain … Continue reading EP 601 Climate Change Requires a Totally Different Strategy to Combat →

This week Joseph Majkut talks with David Victor, professor with the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego and author, with Charles Sabel, of Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain World.  David and Joseph look at how the process of global climate governance has shaped the climate community, providing examples for where leaders in government, civil society and the private sector can craft practices to move faster on global climate action.   David Victor is a professor of innovation and public policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego. Victor is the co-director of the campus-wide Deep Decarbonization Initiative, which focuses on real world strategies for bringing the world to nearly zero emissions of warming gases. He is also an adjunct professor in Climate, Atmospheric Science & Physical Oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Learn More: Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain World A Cleaner Future for Flight — aviation needs a radical redesign

Hear from Prof. David Victor and Dr. Danny Cullenward, as we dive into the political forces that mould the climate policy landscape. Designing climate policies that are effective in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation is a major challenge. Most economists argue for a carbon tax, which helps align incentives appropriately. But the costs can be all too visible to consumers, prompting protests and undermining their political acceptability.  Indeed, when it comes to climate policy, you will often find that there is a trade-off between what is effective, and what is realistic. Today's discussion is all about how politics shapes the plausibility and effectiveness of different climate policies. We discuss how the interests of consumers, firms, and political parties play a major role in determining not only what climate policies work best, but which ones are even possible. In this episode, we explore: Why policies with highly visible costs tend to be avoided by politicians; How politically organized groups can resist the implementation of market-based policies; And the surprizing difference in mitigatory power between market-based and regulatory policies. Links from today's discussion: David and Danny's 2020 book, Making Climate Policy Work The historical, political, and economic phenomenon of Potemkin villages Severin Borenstein et al.'s research paper on the relative mitigatory efficacies of market-based and non-market-based climate policies Martin Weitzman's research paper on price-based vs. quantity-based policies in the context of emissions uncertainty

California Will Ban Gasoline Cars Aiming to be 100% All-Electric by 2035 | An Update Six Months Into a War Russia is Waging Against An Embattled Ukraine | With The Revival of the Iran Nuclear Deal Near, Could MBS Drive up the Price of Oil to Hurt Biden in November? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego and nonresident senior fellow at Brookings, joins David Dollar to discuss “Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain World,” a new book he coauthored with Charles Sabel. Victor explains why global climate diplomacy and treaties that prescribe top-down solutions to climate change are not working. He argues solving the climate crisis will require local experimentation and cooperation between governments and the private sector to push the technological frontier and identify innovative solutions.  Dollar & Sense is part of the Brookings Podcast Network. Learn more at brookings.edu/podcasts, and send feedback to podcasts@brookings.edu.

We had the good fortune of visiting with Dr. David Victor today for an engaging discussion on climate, policy, and in particular, problem-solving structures that feature "experimentalist governance." Dr. Victor is a Professor of Innovation and Public Policy at UC San Diego and Co-Director of the UC San Diego Deep Decarbonization Initiative. He has published over 200 articles and books on climate change and the "transition from a high emissions energy world to a low emissions energy world." Today is the release date of his latest book which he Co-Authored with Charles Sabel, "Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain World." We thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, Dr. Victor's pragmaticism, as well as his upbeat demeanor. Fixing the Climate explains why effective climate policy requires government and business collaboration and an emphasis on experimentalism. The book features examples of successful environmental policy, with a particularly deep and illuminating dive into the Montreal Protocol, the world's successful answer to attacking the CFC/ozone problems. In our conversation, we look at the balance and symbiosis between vision and leadership at the Federal level and problem solving in local communities, the key factors Dr. Victor thinks will determine natural gas's future, how to improve education, the need for more focus on climate impact, as well as a range of other issues. As you will hear, Dr. Victor is spending more and more time with energy and other industries, learning and helping from the inside out how incumbent players can meaningfully and profitably contribute to the way forward. To kick off the show,  Mike Bradley highlighted his two key focus items for the week including his expectations for the OPEC+ meeting this Wednesday as well as for more energy earnings.  Colin Fenton commented on recovering markets, and some recent potentially positive policy moves, but cautioned there are considerable challenges in front of us, just one example of which is the agitated swirl around Speaker Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. 

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by David Victor, author of Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain World. David G. Victor is professor of international relations and industrial policy at the University of California, San Diego. His books include Global Warming Gridlock. He lives in La Jolla, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Celebrating Earth Day With Sustainable Action Today is Earth Day, when many people around the world are taking time to think about their relationship with the planet and to focus on activities helping to mitigate the existential problems our environment faces. And we will be doing the same: devoting our program to Earth Day stories, ideas, and issues. Sara Kiley Watson, assistant editor at Popular Science in charge of their sustainability coverage, joins Ira to talk about some challenges facing our planet—from air pollution in megacities to the tension between ethanol biofuels and food supplies. She also offers some tips for actions individuals can take to make a small difference on their own, such as improving home energy efficiency even if you're a renter, reducing the impact of your takeout order, or considering a neighborhood microgrid.   Can The Latest IPCC Report Pave The Way To Better Climate Policy? One of the best resources to understand the state of our climate crisis is the report developed by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), every six to seven years. The most recent installment of the IPCC report, compiled by Working Group III, was released earlier this month. It outlined ambitious steps needed to mitigate some of the worst possible climate futures. It's increasingly unlikely that we'll be able to keep the planet from warming by an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Yet, the report optimistically focuses on achieving that 1.5 degree benchmark. The report's recommendations include things like phasing out coal entirely, slashing methane emissions by a third, reducing our carbon output among all sectors of the global economy, and developing new technologies to help us do it. But how do governments make laws to reach these goals? That's not addressed in the IPCC report. Ira is joined by David Victor, professor of innovation and public policy in the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego to discuss the difficulty in developing climate policy solutions and some that seem promising.   Can Carbon Removal Actually Make A Difference In Reducing Emissions? One of the technologies highlighted in the latest IPCC report is carbon removal. Not to be confused with carbon capture, CO2 removal is a process that absorbs CO2 already in the atmosphere and stores it elsewhere. Carbon capture, on the other hand, is removing CO2 from smokestacks, for example, before it gets into the air. CO2 removal technology has some climate scientists worried about pouring money into this new technology, in lieu of cutting back on our reliance on fossil fuels. Joining Ira is Amar Bhardwaj, energy technology policy fellow at the International Energy Agency, to talk about the pros and cons of carbon removal.   Composing A Sound Map Of An Ever-Changing River Annea Lockwood thinks of rivers as “live phenomena” that are constantly changing and shifting. She's been drawn to the energy that rivers create, and the sound that energy makes, since she first started working with environmental recordings in the 1960s. One of her projects has been to create detailed “river maps” of the Hudson, Danube, and Housatonic rivers. Using stereo microphones and underwater hydrophones, she captures the gentle, powerful sounds of the water, along with the noises of insects, birds, and occasional humans she finds along the way. Lockwood's composition, “A Sound Map of the Housatonic River”—a decade old, this year—takes listeners on a 150-mile tour, from the headwaters in the Berkshire Mountains of Massachusetts, past sites of toxic PCB contamination, to the Connecticut Audubon sanctuary, where the river spills into Long Island Sound.   Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.      

This week, Victor continued our newest series, where we are walking through the lives of people in the Bible. We looked at the life of King David and how even though he made critical mistakes, he got to experience God's grace. Through humbling ourselves, we have the opportunity to accept God's grace as well.

As the war in Ukraine continues, sanctions on Russian energy exports have led to a rise in global oil and gas prices. How might the supply disruptions, rising prices, and the growing political urgency in Europe to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas shape our energy future? Are we likely to see environmentally harmful short-run effects as countries scramble for additional sources of hydrocarbons? Could the current crisis accelerate efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? David Victor at UC San Diego joins EconoFact Chats for a discussion of these issues. David is Professor and the Center for Global Transformation Endowed Chair in Innovation and Public Policy at UC San Diego. He is also co-Director of the University's Deep Decarbonization Initiative.  

As the war in Ukraine continues, sanctions on Russian energy exports have led to a rise in global oil and gas prices. How might the supply disruptions, rising prices, and the growing political urgency in Europe to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas shape our energy future? Are we likely to see environmentally harmful short-run effects as countries scramble for additional sources of hydrocarbons? Could the current crisis accelerate efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? David Victor at UC San Diego joins EconoFact Chats for a discussion of these issues. David is Professor and the Center for Global Transformation Endowed Chair in Innovation and Public Policy at UC San Diego. He is also co-Director of the University's Deep Decarbonization Initiative.  

Horror, fashion, and the end of the world … In this episode, first aired in 2014, but maybe even more relevant today, things get weird as we explore the undercurrents of thought that link nihilists, beard-stroking philosophers, Jay-Z, and True Detective. Today on Radiolab, a puzzle. Jad's brother-in-law wrote a book called 'In The Dust of This Planet'. It's an academic treatise about the horror humanity feels as we realize that we are nothing but a speck in the universe. For a few years nobody read it. But then … It seemed to show up on True Detective.   Then in a fashion magazine.   And then on Jay-Z's back. How?  We talk nihilism with Eugene Thacker & Simon Critchley, leather jackets with June Ambrose, climate change with David Victor, and hope with the father of Transcendental Black Metal - Hunter Hunt Hendrix of the band Liturgy. Also, check out WNYC Studio's On the Media episode Staring into the Abyss, in it Brooke Gladstone and Jad Abumrad continue their discussion of nihilism and its place in history. You can find Eugene Thacker's 'In The Dust Of the Planet' at Zero Books Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab today.     Radiolab is on YouTube! Catch up with new episodes and hear classics from our archive. Plus, find other cool things we did in the past — like miniseries, music videos, short films and animations, behind-the-scenes features, Radiolab live shows, and more. Take a look, explore and subscribe!

Today's Hungarian Election as a Test Case For America's Democratic Future | The Russian Philosophers and Intellectuals Who Influence Putin's Thinking | Instead of Finding More And More Oil and Gas, We Should be Investing in More Clean Energy backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

"Music Heals Wounds that Medicine Cannot Touch"  - David Victor++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Harmony and Healing Website: https://www.harmonyandhealing.org/Surviving Breast Cancer Website: https://www.survivingbreastcancer.org/Surviving Breast Cancer upcoming Events: https://www.survivingbreastcancer.org/events

Listen in as host David Mandell chats with entrepreneur and experienced private investor David Victor.  They begin by discussing Victor's career path, leaving the practice of law to join his father in the startup that became American Education Institute (AEI), where Mandell lectures every year. They then explore AEI in more depth – what services it offers, why physicians might be interested in it, how COVID forced Victor to transform the business, and why the business may be stronger now than ever before. Next, Victor explains his approach to investing in private businesses, including a dive into a cannabis-focused real estate project he is excited about today. He concludes with some advice to others looking to invest significantly into private businesses. You can find show notes and more information by visiting www.physicianswealthpodcast.com. 

I was excited to invite back David Victor into the virtual studio to discuss the consequences of the COP26 Glasgow Summit on climate change and whether technology is the answer to our transition to a low carbon world. David was at Glasgow and he has been a voice for the importance of technologies in the effort to transition to a low carbon emission world. David G. Victor is a global thought leader on climate change policy and the energy-systems transformation that is required if we hope to create a low-carbon future. David is a professor of innovation and public policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego where he holds the Center for Global Transformation Endowed Chair in Innovation and Public Policy. He has published over 200 articles and books on climate change and the transition to a low carbon world. Come join David and I as we discuss COP26 and what comes after.

December 25, 1951. Let George Do It was an American radio drama series produced from 1946 to 1954 by Owen and Pauline Vinson. Bob Bailey starred as private investigator George Valentine. Don Clark directed the scripts by David Victor and Jackson Gillis. Clients came to Valentine's office after reading a newspaper that carried his classified ad which varied from show to show, but always opened with "Danger is my stock in trade" and closed with "Write full details!"

Mutual Radio, Don Lee Network December 25, 1950. Let George Do It was an American radio drama series produced from 1946 to 1954 by Owen and Pauline Vinson. Bob Bailey starred as private investigator George Valentine; Olan Soule voiced the role in 1954. Don Clark directed the scripts by David Victor and Jackson Gillis. George Valentine was a professional detective. Valentine's secretary was Claire Brooks, a.k.a. Brooksie (voiced by Frances Robinson, then by Virginia Gregg, and then by Lillian Buyeff). As Valentine made his rounds in search of perpetrators, he occasionally encountered Brooksie's kid brother, Sonny (Eddie Firestone) or elevator man Caleb (Joseph Kearns). Police Lieutenant Riley (Wally Maher) was a more regular guest. For the first few shows, Sonny was George's assistant, given to exclamations such as "Jeepers!" but he was soon relegated to an occasional character. John Hiestand was the program's announcer. (PHOTO: BAILEY and GREGG)

As the global climate change conference (COP26) continues in Glasgow, climate expert David Victor joins host David Dollar to talk about what's been happening in Scotland and whether it will be viewed as a success. Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at UC San Diego and co-director of the university's Deep Decarbonization Initiative, discusses a range of issues, including whether countries are meeting their Paris Agreement commitments to reduce emissions, the target of $100 billion per year in climate aid for developing counties, and where the U.S. and China might be able to cooperate on climate issues. Show notes and transcript: https://brook.gs/3bGu1QF  Dollar & Sense is part of the Brookings Podcast Network. Send feedback to podcasts@brookings.edu, and follow us on Twitter at @policypodcasts.

Tisha Schuller welcomes David Victor, professor of innovation and public policy at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), to the Energy Thinks Podcast.Tisha and David discuss:· The rapidly increasing political risk for oil and gas companies;· His Engine No. 1 report and its dismissal of “fast following” strategies;· His co-authored study on the success of carbon capture and storage projects and thoughts on policy;· Pragmatic consideration of the human element in decarbonization strategies and his co-authored paper on climate policy models;· The future of natural gas and his California climate-protecting technologies example; and,· Energy transition revolutions and decarbonization “workshops.”David Victor has been a professor of innovation and public policy at UCSD since 2009. He also serves as the Endowed Chair in Innovation and Public Policy for the Center for Global Transformation and the co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the university. Outside of UCSD, he serves as an adjunct professor in climate, atmospheric science, and physical oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the co-chair of the Initiative on Energy and Climate at The Brookings Institution. Prior to these roles, David was a professor of energy and environmental law and the director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. He is the author of many research articles regarding direct air capture, investors in the energy industry, reaching net-zero emissions, and more topics. David, who continues to serve as a consultant and policy adviser for companies and institutions, wrote a report for Engine No. 1 regarding the future of decarbonization efforts and oil and gas. He received an A.B. in history and science from Harvard University in 1987 and a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1997. David can be reached at david.victor@ucsd.edu.Subscribe here for Tisha's weekly "Both Things Are True" email newsletter. Follow all things Adamantine Energy at www.energythinks.com. Thanks to Lindsey Gage, Adán Rubio, and Michael Tanner who make the Energy Thinks podcast possible. [Interview recorded on July 29, 2021]

Tisha Schuller welcomes David Victor, professor of innovation and public policy at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), to the Energy Thinks Podcast.Tisha and David discuss:· The rapidly increasing political risk for oil and gas companies;· His Engine No. 1 report and its dismissal of “fast following” strategies;· His co-authored study on the success of carbon capture and storage projects and thoughts on policy;· Pragmatic consideration of the human element in decarbonization strategies and his co-authored paper on climate policy models;· The future of natural gas and his California climate-protecting technologies example; and,· Energy transition revolutions and decarbonization “workshops.”David Victor has been a professor of innovation and public policy at UCSD since 2009. He also serves as the Endowed Chair in Innovation and Public Policy for the Center for Global Transformation and the co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the university. Outside of UCSD, he serves as an adjunct professor in climate, atmospheric science, and physical oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the co-chair of the Initiative on Energy and Climate at The Brookings Institution. Prior to these roles, David was a professor of energy and environmental law and the director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. He is the author of many research articles regarding direct air capture, investors in the energy industry, reaching net-zero emissions, and more topics. David, who continues to serve as a consultant and policy adviser for companies and institutions, wrote a report for Engine No. 1 regarding the future of decarbonization efforts and oil and gas. He received an A.B. in history and science from Harvard University in 1987 and a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1997. David can be reached at david.victor@ucsd.edu.Subscribe here for Tisha's weekly "Both Things Are True" email newsletter. Follow all things Adamantine Energy at www.energythinks.com. Thanks to Lindsey Gage, Adán Rubio, and Michael Tanner who make the Energy Thinks podcast possible. [Interview recorded on July 29, 2021]

This week we welcome Jordyn Foley.  Jordyn manager just happens to be her single mother who Jordyn calls her biggest fan.  Listen in as we hear Jordyn discuss her career, her momager and the effects of cyberbullying after appearing on the X-Factor.   Bio: Jordyn has performed extensively throughout the Bay Area and Southern California. At age 12, Jordyn competed on the television show the "X-Factor", and holds the title of the youngest contestant in the show's history. Performing in various plays and musical theatre productions since the age of 7, Jordyn has worked with many Bay Area theatre companies and has taken guitar and performance lessons from the Lead Singer of Boston, David Victor. Favorite roles include- Cinderella “Into the Woods”, Belle “Beauty and the Beast”, Dorothy Gale “Christmas in Oz”, Ariel & Rapunzel “Wish Upon a Star”, Helen Keller "The Miracle Worker" and Annie “Annie”. Jordyn started having a love for classic rock at a ver young age. Her mother, Deena, put her through her own version of the school of rock, and ever since then, it quickly became Jordyn's favorite genre. By professionals in the industry, Jordyn has been compared to being a mix of Ann Wilson and Stevie Nicks, which to Jordyn, in one of the biggest compliments she has ever gotten. In addition to music, Jordyn has also worked in TV/Film and on various cast albums and recording projects, the most recent being Avery Scanlon's Jazz album (Aurora), where Jordyn is the lead vocalist on several songs such as "Waiting Game" "Can't keep you off my mind" and "Mariana's Web". When she is not performing, Jordyn enjoys teaching voice and drama to underserved youth through the Aspire program. In addition to working with "The Cinderella Company, " Jordyn is also an active member of the volunteer performance troupe in the Peter Pan Foundation. Through PPF Jordyn works with groups such as the Make A Wish Foundation, where she helps grant wishes as several Disney face characters, and Children's Hospital Oakland, where she has the honor of bringing some Disney magic to the amazing little warriors who are patients there. Currently, Jordyn is in college working towards her BFA in Vocal Arts at California Institute of the Arts. Jordyn is an optimistic, joyful ball of energy and aspires to be a working recording artist and actress.   IG: @jordynsingz TikTok: @jordynfoley

“We need the State to help solve these problems... but we have not paid attention to what are the attributes of government we need.” David Victor, Professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego, a foremost expert on the policy of decarbonisation, joins Kopi Time to shed critical light on the challenge of our generation. He begins by highlighting the urgency of deep reduction of carbon from the atmosphere, and the track record of climate policies such as cap and trade, carbon tax, and carbon offset. David walks through the reasons why he is sceptical of traditional market-based solution to pricing carbon and constraining its emission. He then delves into promising policy options and technologies, and considers the state of decarbonisation in critical sectors like energy, road transportation, and aviation. David explains why the EU has made hard-earned gains in creating a carbon marketplace, and the incentives and nudges that can help implement smart, adaptive regulations worldwide. Given the myriad of uncertainties involved, he sees wisdom in running many small policy experiments, which can then be scaled up if found promising. David takes stock of the developments in the US, China, and India, three of the most critical jurisdictions that need to pursue net zero policy over the long run.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week’s episode, host Kristin Hayes talks with Karen Palmer, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF) and director of RFF’s Future of Power Initiative. Palmer has deep expertise in the US power sector and has authored numerous publications on electricity policy drivers and options in power market design and electrification of various sectors of the economy. This episode features two very capable and kind women in celebration of International Women’s Day on March 8. Hayes and Palmer discuss a new report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine entitled “The Future of Electric Power in the United States.” Karen and her coauthors on this study, including RFF Board of Directors Chair Susan Tierney, were tasked with framing a broad set of issues facing the US power sector over the next several decades and with providing recommendations to a range of decisionmakers on how to address those drivers. References and recommendations: “The Future of Electric Power in the United States” interactive site; https://www.nap.edu/resource/25968/interactive/ “The Future of Electric Power in the United States” from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, by Granger Morgan, Anuradha Annaswamy, Anjan Bose, Terry Boston, Jeffery Dagle, Deepakraj Divan, Michael Howard, Cynthia Hsu, Reiko A. Kerr, Karen Palmer, H. Vincent Poor, William H. Sanders, Susan Tierney, David Victor, and Elizabeth Wilson; https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-future-of-electric-power-in-the-us#sectionPublications “Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electricity System” from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, by M. Granger Morgan, Dionysios Aliprantis, Anjan Bose, W. Terry Boston, Allison Clements, Jeffery Dagle, Paul De Martini, Jeanne Fox, Elsa Garmire, Ronald E. Keys, Mark McGranaghan, Craig Miller, Thomas J. Overbye, William H. Sanders, Richard E. Schuler, Susan Tierney, and David G. Victor; https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24836/enhancing-the-resilience-of-the-nations-electricity-system Transmission episodes of the “Voltscast” podcast, with host David Roberts; https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/transmission-month-everything-in-one-place/id1548554104?i=1000509879797 “Lessons from the Texas mess” episode of the “Voltscast” podcast, with host David Roberts; https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/lessons-from-the-texas-mess/id1548554104?i=1000510532364 “A Shock to the System: Restructuring America’s Electricity Industry” by Timothy J. Brennan, Karen L. Palmer, Raymond J. Kopp, Alan J. Krupnick, Vito Stagliano, and Dallas Burtraw; https://www.routledge.com/A-Shock-to-the-System-Restructuring-Americas-Electricity-Industry/Brennan-Palmer-Kopp-Krupnick-Stagliano-Burtraw/p/book/9780915707805 “Alternating Currents” by Timothy J. Brennan, Karen L. Palmer, and Salvador A. Martinez; https://www.routledge.com/Alternating-Currents-Electricity-Markets-and-Public-Policy/Brennan-Palmer-Martinez/p/book/9781891853074

In Congressman Mike Levin's first episode of Listening with Levin, he discusses the latest happenings in Congress and talks all things climate in a virtual town hall event with Dr. David Victor, a climate change expert and professor of international relations at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego.

In 2009, a YouTube video featuring today’s guest David Victor performing the rock band Boston’s song “Smokin'” caught the attention of the band’s founder Tom Scholz. Tom contacted David and said hey, come join Boston for recording and touring on their 2012 and 2014 North American and Canadian tours.  In a world without a Freddie Mercury, there came Adam Lambert. For Journey without Steve Perry, there was Arnel Pineda. And like those other one-of-kind vocalists, the absence of Boston’s phenomenal singer Brad Delp left a role that no one else can replace...but there was Tommy DeCarlo and our guest David Victor. David is here to talk about that dream come true and how he spends his time making other less fortunate people and their families’ dreams come true or at least more comfortable with live music performances and these days, virtual visits. Harmony & Healing is the name of David’s organization. And you can help out too with donations. Just go to harmonyandhealing.org and visit the site and see if you can help out just a little. It’s a great cause and here’s a great man that’s spearheading Harmony & Healing, David Victor. The Harmony & Healing mission is to bring live music to the bedsides and community spaces of patients and their loved ones in hospitals, clinics, cancer support groups, Ronald McDonald Houses and other healthcare facilities. Harmony & Healing performances lift spirits and take patient’s and family’s minds off their challenges with music. Music lowers stress levels, brings about positive associations, speeds healing and brings happiness to patient’s lives and the lives of their loved ones. Harmony & Healing programs are tailored to each facility and patient. Interactions may include bedside performances, solo acoustic, duos and even full bands in larger common areas.  Support this podcast

In 2009, a YouTube video featuring today’s guest David Victor performing the rock band Boston’s song “Smokin'” caught the attention of the band’s founder Tom Scholz. Tom contacted David and said hey, come join Boston for recording and touring on their 2012 and 2014 North American and Canadian tours.  In a world without a Freddie Mercury, there came Adam Lambert. For Journey without Steve Perry, there was Arnel Pineda. And like those other one-of-kind vocalists, the absence of Boston’s phenomenal singer Brad Delp left a role that no one else can replace...but there was Tommy DeCarlo and our guest David Victor. David is here to talk about that dream come true and how he spends his time making other less fortunate people and their families’ dreams come true or at least more comfortable with live music performances and these days, virtual visits. Harmony & Healing is the name of David’s organization. And you can help out too with donations. Just go to harmonyandhealing.org and visit the site and see if you can help out just a little. It’s a great cause and here’s a great man that’s spearheading Harmony & Healing, David Victor. The Harmony & Healing mission is to bring live music to the bedsides and community spaces of patients and their loved ones in hospitals, clinics, cancer support groups, Ronald McDonald Houses and other healthcare facilities. Harmony & Healing performances lift spirits and take patient’s and family’s minds off their challenges with music. Music lowers stress levels, brings about positive associations, speeds healing and brings happiness to patient’s lives and the lives of their loved ones. Harmony & Healing programs are tailored to each facility and patient. Interactions may include bedside performances, solo acoustic, duos and even full bands in larger common areas.  Support this podcast

What happens when market-based climate policies meet real world politics? That's exactly what Danny Cullenward and David Victor wanted to explore in their new book Making Climate Policy Work. The authors join the show to discuss the shortcomings of cap-and-trade reforms and how better regulations can deliver solutions instead. Cullenward is Policy Director at CarbonPlan and a lecturer at Stanford Law School. Victor is Professor of International Relations at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego. He co-heads the initiative on energy and climate at the Brookings Institution. Subscribe to our new Substack newsletter "The Climate Weekly": https://theclimateweekly.substack.com/ As always, follow us @climatepod on Twitter and email us at theclimatepod@gmail.com. Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and more! Subscribe to our new YouTube channel! Join our Facebook group. Check out our updated website!  Further Reading: The Capitol Riot and Climate Disinformation

Carbon pricing systems have been celebrated as instruments for combatting climate change, but how effective are they really? David Victor, co-chair of the Cross-Brookings Initiative on Energy and Climate, joins David Dollar to explain why market-based solutions for addressing climate change have fallen short of their promise. Victor examines how politics have hampered the effectiveness of market policies in key sectors, like transportation and aviation, and the political barriers the Biden administration will need to overcome in order to make real progress on climate change.

David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, expressed his optimism for European leadership on climate policy in the newest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.

This week host Sarah Ladislaw talks with David Victor about the role of policy, climate science, and technology in crafting solutions to lowering GHG emissions. They look at past examples of multilateral climate policy, what we learned from them, and how we can apply those lessons to today's climate challenge. David Victor is a professor of international relations at the School of Global Policy and Strategy and the cofounder and director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation (ILAR) at the University of California at San Diego. Victor also is a leading contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His research focuses on regulated industries and how regulation affects the operation of major energy markets. David's recommendations for further reading: Accelerating The Low Carbon Transition http://www.energy-transitions.org/content/accelerating-low-carbon-transition ARPA-E -https://arpa-e.energy.gov/