How are you? I hope you’re managing to keep your head above water these last tumultuous hours and days. This week on Fresh Dialogues, I have some reassuring wisdom and some practical tips to bring you comfort and help you keep hope alive.
Like millions of us, I watched in disbelief last night as many of the swing states turned red. The “blue wall” that some pundits anticipated –– and said Trump would pay for –– just didn’t materialize. I found myself in such a state of anxiety that I could barely breathe.
Frankly, I’m stunned that so many people voted for Trump despite his many atrocities: the blatant lies, his anti-science stance, demolishing environmental protections and his gross mishandling of the pandemic. And with the resurgence in Covid around the world, it sometimes feels there’s no end in sight to our elevated stress levels.
As I write this, early afternoon on Wednesday November 4th, the Associated Press has yet to call several key states, but there doeslook like a path to victory for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I can but hope.
How do you find hope at times like these?
If you’re also feeling high anxiety, despair, or even depression right now, this advice from a wise man named Manfred will give you hope.
“It’s so important right now to take care of yourself, and in that act of self-love and compassion you may be able to reach out to another, and that person another still, until we collectively heal from these challenging times,” Manfred Melcher.
As you’ll hear soon, Manfred reminds us to “Mind your own light.” You’ll find out what he means below.
My latest report for the BBC explored the timely question: Is online connection as effective as face to face meetings?
I explored the surge in teletherapy, but I think there are important lessons to be gleaned for all of us, whether you’re seeking to connect to friends, family or a mental health expert. I was reminded of the importance of radical self care.
My report aired October 28th on the BBC World Service program, Health Check. The segment starts at 28:00 on the BBC podcast
You’ll even find some humor in the report, despite the heavy topic. After the transcript below, I’ll share some tips to help you get through these next few days and weeks. And please join me at the end of the Fresh Dialogues podcast as we do some deep cleansing breaths together. You’ll be surprised at how stress relieving that can be.
.
Here’s a transcript of the report (lengthened and edited for clarity). Names have been changed to protect people’s privacy.
The BBC’s Claudia Hammond: On the show last week, we were talking about the difficulty of patients and their relatives receiving bad news over the phone rather than in person due to restrictions in hospitals. Now something similar is happening in therapy sessions.
In the United States, a recent survey by the American Psychological Association found that due to the virus, three-quarters of therapists are now providing remote services, either on the phone, or through video conferencing software. But when people are pouring their hearts out and talking about their innermost thoughts, can a digital encounter ever be the same as a face to face session?
For Health Check, our reporter Alison van Diggelen reports from the west coast of the U.S. where, as well as the pandemic, people have been dealing with forest fires, choking smoke, and power cuts. The demand for mental health care is growing.
Alison van Diggelen: Kristin, lives alone in a beachside community in Southern California. She faced intense challenges before Covid struck. Recently divorced, she moved house and launched a new business last year. On top of her anxiety and panic attacks, there’s now another stress factor:
Kristin: Loneliness definitely has been an issue… not being able to see family: touching people, hugging people for four, five, six months. We weren’t built for that. Humans are built to connect. We have this innate need to connect with each other. Covid took that away. In order to protect each other, we had to disconnect. And find other ways to stay connected.
Alison van Diggelen: She saw an ad for the online therapy app Talk Space, featuring the Olympian swimmer, Michael Phelps.
Kristin: I did think: if he’s open to talking about it… I think people should talk about it more. We hire trainers to keep us physically fit all the time, and our mental health is just as important. That’s what a therapist is there for: to help us work on those issues which are just as hard, and if you don’t address them, it’s very dangerous. I said, there’s nothing to lose to try it.
Alison van Diggelen: Six hundred miles north, Arthur, a recent college grad, is adjusting to life back home with his parents and starting a new job in Northern California.
Arthur: All these feelings overwhelm you: mainly anxiety. depression, it’s been a tough time… especially family matters.
Alison van Diggelen: Even further north, Justin, a millennial, based in Washington State suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and depression. He obsesses about finding perfection and has regular compulsions to wash his hands.
Justin: One of my biggest triggers is unstructured time so when I started working remotely after Covid, it just really messed up my productivity and work habits. It became challenging to focus. I need a good separation of work and life…
Alison van Diggelen: When he visits his extended family, he faces even more triggers:
Justin: One of my family members triggers my intrusive thoughts, makes me feel invalidated.
Alison van Diggelen: Kristin, Arthur and Justin are some of the 50 million Americans with mental health issues. A 2017 study from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration revealed that only 43% received treatment.
Of those who’ve managed to get help, since Covid struck, most are unable to meet with therapists in person and have begun using online platforms like zoom or similar technology to connect via video or audio.
But how does it compare to traditional, in-person therapy? Leslie Moreland is director of the Regional TeleMental Health Program at the San Diego Veterans Administration Health Care System. She cites peer-reviewed studies showing that video conferencing can be just as effective as face-to-face therapy for treating post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. She says telehealth can help close the gaping needs gap.
Leslie Moreland: The studies have shown repeatedly that in terms of clinical efficacy, meaning symptom reduction, that the video conferencing modality is comparable, so you can achieve the same clinical outcomes, in terms of clinical effectiveness, feasibility and safety.
Alison van Diggelen: Moreland also examined what researchers call “therapeutic alliance” – which is when you feel comfortable with a therapist, that you can trust them, and that they attune to and validate your experience. Is it possible to establish all of that, when the patient and client aren’t even in the same room?
Leslie Moreland: The research has found that the therapeutic alliance is quite comparable, and is comparable enough that the benefit of the treatment still stays intact. Research has shown that patients do like to get therapy this way. More times than not, if you have the option to sit in the same room as someone, that’s often better, it feels more comfortable for folks.
Alison van Diggelen: Moreland believes that even before Covid, busy schedules, and juggling a family and a career, made teletherapy the only practical solution for many people, especially those living in remote areas.
For Kristin, saving time driving to and from therapy sessions was a huge advantage of moving from traditional therapy to teletherapy.
Kristin: Right away I felt connected, well taken care of. It was very professional. I liked the therapist I was matched with.
Alison van Diggelen: After a couple of video conferencing sessions with her new therapist, she used the texting feature exclusively.
Kristin: The technology of just having it on my phone. I liked that so much better than seeing a therapist at a certain time, and having all that stuff bottled up, writing it down in a journal. It was easier, if I was dealing with an issue or triggered by something, I could just take out the app and text her. I would get a response within two hours. I just LOVED that. It felt like having my own personal mental health trainer in my pocket.
Alison van Diggelen: Justin also likes the flexibility that teletherapy offers:
Justin: The best thing about teletherapy is the freedom to do it wherever I feel comfortable doing it. I like to pace a lot, move around when I do therapy. I like doing it outside. It’s nice to have fresh air. I get stuck in thought loops easily and therapy helps me parse out everything I’m thinking of sequentially. That helps me feel able to move forward.
Alison van Diggelen: But Leslie Moreland warns against treating therapy too casually – and has learned to set boundaries with clients. She’s even had to ask some to save that glass of wine or beer for after their session.
Leslie Moreland: There’s an informality that can influence the process… People get very casual, we have to remind them you need to wear a shirt … people are in the drive-through ordering food! If you don’t have anywhere in your room that’s safe, you can sit in the bathroom but we prefer otherwise.
Alison van Diggelen: Andrew finds technology glitches, rough connections and lagged responses can make the challenge of communicating with his male therapist harder.
Andrew: Some things are tougher to explain on Zoom. If he asks me a question, I have to find more words to convey the message. In a sense that facial expressions, body language and being able to read the tone of voice: It’s better in-person than on a call.
Alison van Diggelen: But he has learned some valuable life lessons from teletherapy:
Andrew: I used to feel I had to climb the whole mountain, it was just overwhelming. I realize the problem can be broken up into smaller chunks. You take each one by one….You don’t need to find the one answer to deal with the whole problem. It’s a process.
Alison van Diggelen: And how is teletherapy working for therapists? Manfred Melcher is a California based therapist with over 20 years of experience. He conducts about 70% of his therapy sessions online, but has mixed feelings about teletherapy.
Manfred Melcher: I notice if I do too many in a row, I get fatigued more than I do in in-person sessions. So much takes place in person with a client, the nuances of connection… While a video is quite good, it’s not the same. ..I try to do two in a row, then schedule someone who wants to come in in-person, or I’ll take a break. I try to do not more than 5 a day, that’s my limit.
Alison van Diggelen: He also cautions against the “app-ificaton” of mental health: the spike in online apps like Talk Space that offer text based therapy.
Manfred Melcher: We interact with technology with a lot of casualness….That could hurt people. I’d advise people to see apps in a realm of entertainment. They could contribute to your knowledge of psychology, understanding yourself emotionally, but the treatment… If you’re going to technology for treatment for a psychological issue, a medical issue: Woah! I’d be very cautious.
Alison van Diggelen: Experts predict that teletherapy is here to stay, except for severe cases of mental illness (like psychosis), where in-person therapy is vital. Most therapists and patients expect they’ll adopt a hybrid approach to therapy after the pandemic.
Therapist Manfred Melcher anticipates that the mental health crisis has yet to peak. Even he admits to moments of despair and finds the mantra “Mind your own light” sustains him.
Manfred Melcher: It’s so important right now to take care of yourself, and in that act of self-love and compassion you may be able to reach out to another, and that person another still, until we collectively heal from these challenging times.
That is my greatest hope… that we realize how connected the world is, and how dependent we are on each other. We are one human family in a deep relationship.
Our survival depends on each of us minding to our own light, and honoring the light of the other. And in lifting up the other, we lift up ourselves.
Alison van Diggelen: Justin, the young millennial dealing with depression in Washington gets a lot of the support he needs from teletherapy – but hopes to see his therapist regularly, in person, soon…..
Justin: I think everyone can benefit from therapy… it’s incredibly helpful and very grounding. For me it’s important to be face to face with someone. It makes me more comfortable and helps me focus better.
END of report
Simply put, we all need each other, and deep connection more than ever right now. But we must remember to first, mind our own light.
If there’s ever a time for radical self care, this is it dear friends. Do whatever nourishes you this week:
Finally, I hope this breathing exercise will help you get through the next few challenging days. Here’s a handy video that helped me cope with last night. Many thanks to the team at The School of Self for making it.
If you’d like to try this breathing exercise, please turn off your phone, close your eyes and put one hand on your heart and one on your belly. Are sitting comfortably? Then we’ll begin…(Take three long, deep breaths: in for five…out for five, in for six…out for six, in for seven…out for seven).
Remember: Mind your own light, and then share it with others who need it right now…
Thanks again for reading and listening to Fresh Dialogues. I sincerely hope the next time we connect, we’ll all be breathing more easily.
Find out more about radical self care at Fresh Dialogues:
Here is a transcript of my interview with David Axelrod on January 27, 2012 re. Solyndra, 2012 Energy Policy and President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Video here
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: Hello and welcome to Fresh Dialogues. Today I’ll be talking with David Axelrod. President Obama’s Chief Political Strategist. David, thank you for joining me today on Fresh Dialogues
DAVID AXELROD: Happy to be here.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: Good. Now Obama has started his first (2012) Campaign ad with a defense of his clean energy policy. Why did Obama choose to start with green?
DAVID AXELROD: The ad that it was responding to was an ad sponsored by a SuperPAC… sponsored by the Koch brothers… two oil billionaires … and it was an attack particularly on the Solyndra issue but it was really an attack on the whole green energy initiative of the president’s. And we’re proud of that initiative…we’re proud that we’re on par to double renewable energy during the course of his first term. He believes very strongly that we need to command the clean energy technology of the future and that as a country we need to be encouraging the development of clean energy technology or we’re going to see that go to other parts of the world.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: You mention Solyndra specifically. Solyndra seems to be a thorn in the side of Obama. It keeps coming up. How does he intend to remove the thorn?
DAVID AXELROD: All you can do is be open and candid about it. We knew when made investments in clean energy technology that some would do well and others would not. That’s the nature of this…these are speculative investments. And that’s the reason why they needed some nudging from the government in order to blossom…You can look at Solyndra or you can look at the fact that when we started, the US had about 2% of the advanced battery manufacturing for electric cars. We’re on course to get to 40% by the middle of this decade.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: That’s impressive.
DAVID AXELROD: That wouldn’t have happened without the investments we’ve made. We’ve seen real growth in solar and in wind energy and so these are investments that are paying off for the country. I’m very certain that we’re going to look back at the seeds that were planted during this period and we will say that it has made a big difference for the country in a positive way.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: What percentage of the program’s investment went to Solyndra?
DAVID AXELROD: There were forty under this specific program, so it was a small percentage of the entire program. It was a program… that was begun under the Bush Administration and we accelerated that program because we do believe that we are in a real competition for the clean energy technology of the future and we as a country have a great interest in developing alternative energy and home grown domestic energy and renewable energy. These were investments that made sense. Some will pay great dividends, others unfortunately will not.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: Yes.
DAVID AXELROD: Plainly, we have to have our eye on the future and really encourage and develop renewable sources of energy. It’s good for the planet, it’s good for the economy, it’ll create great jobs…high end manufacturing jobs. This is going to continue being a thrust for us. We’re not going to back off.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: Thanks for joining us.
The interview took place backstage at Foothill College’s Celebrity Forum on January 27, 2012. Check back soon for more with David Axelrod:
On Michelle Obama’s influence on green policy
Read transcripts, see photos and check out our ARCHIVES featuring exclusive interviews with Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, Vinod Khosla and many more green experts and visionaries…
and join the conversation at our Fresh Dialogues Facebook Page
Fresh Dialogues(TM) is an interview series with a green focus: Fresh Questions, Fresh Answers. This video interview took place at Foothill College Celebrity Forum on April 1, 2010, just one week before Justice Stevens announced his retirement. Check out the new Fresh Dialogues YouTube Channelmore exclusive interviews.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN:Hello and welcome. Today on Fresh Dialogues: Jeffrey Toobin.
Jeffrey – thank you so much for joining me on Fresh Dialogues. Let’s go on to your specialty: The Supreme Court. In 2009, they decided against environmentalists in a lot of cases…
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Six out of six.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: Yes. What are your thoughts on that, moving forward? Is this going to continue…this anti-environmental stance of the Supreme Court?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: I think that the court as currently constituted will likely continue in that direction. I don’t think it’s a particular hostility to the environment per se. I think it is a general sympathy for corporate defendants in all cases, environmental cases being one category of cases where the corporations are the defendants. They are also generally – the conservative majority – fairly hostile to government regulatory efforts…and the environment is one area, not the only area. So if the court stays as it currently is, I think you’ll see a lot more cases like that.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: So would you say, it’s moving more pro-business?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Clearly
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: And the environment losing out as a result?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: That’s certainly how the environmentalists see it.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: And how do you see it?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Again, not a field of great expertise of mine, but I see who wins the cases and who loses them. And it’s the polluters who keep winning.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: And what about the future? Justice Stevens is due to retire shortly…
JEFFREY TOOBIN: He hasn’t said so officially but I think he will retire this Spring.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: So how is that going to change things? What are your predictions?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: I think he is a key member of the liberal four on the court, he will likely be replaced by another liberal. So in terms of the outcome of cases in the next few years, probably not a huge impact, but I often like to quote Byron Whitethe late Justice,who said if you change one Justice, you don’t just change one Justice, you change the whole court. If you start to have an energized liberal group of young – by Supreme Court standards -Justices like Sonia Sotomayor, like the next Obama appointee, the wind could start to be at their back. And if Obama gets re-elected, you could see more appointments…so it’s a big deal.
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: And who is your No. 1 candidate for that appointment?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General, former Dean of Harvard Law School. Very much an Obama type person – moderate Democrat, a consensus builder…
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: Do you know if she’s an environmentalist?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: I don’t… I just don’t know. My sense is, it’s just not an issue that has come across her plate a lot…she is someone who has written on administration law, which tends to mean she’s a believer in the power of the Federal Government to regulate. But I wouldn’t…
A – I don’t know what she thinks…and B – I don’t…
A is enough. I don’t know what she thinks about these issues…(laughter)
ALISON VAN DIGGELEN: (laughter) OK. Jeffrey Toobin I really appreciate your taking the time for Fresh Dialogues.
JEFFREY TOOBIN: My pleasure. Nice to see you.
For more Fresh Dialogues Video interviews click here
Alison van Diggelen: Hello and welcome to Fresh Dialogues. Today I’m interviewing Robert Ballard, ocean explorer and discoverer of the Titanic. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Ballard, I want to thank you very much for being on Fresh Dialogues today.
Robert Ballard: Pleasure to be here.
Alison: A question came up last night about global warming and you had a two-prong answer…Can you explain what you meant by that… you’re not worried about the planet…
Robert: I’m not worried about the earth. There have been times in earth’s history, in the Cretaceous (period) for example, 90 million years ago, when it was a lot warmer than it is now. There were no glaciers, there wasn’t an ice-cube on the planet, sea-level was much higher. We’re just the latest bad thing, maybe, that’s happening to the earth. So, I’m not really worried about the earth’s survival.
Alison: What about mankind?
Robert: I worry about mankind. Sometimes I see this tombstone that says, “the human race came and went but it was politically correct.” As a scientist I am not politically correct. My job is not to be politically correct. My job is to call it as I see it.
And I see that the biggest problem the human race has is that there are too many of us. You can’t have uncontrolled population growth. And then to take that population growth and multiply it times our footprint. Everyone wants to be an American and that would be the worst thing in the world… if everyone emulated us, because we’re so consumptive. An important thing for Americans to do is to drop their footprint.
Alison: Are you talking specifically about their carbon footprint?
Robert: Exactly.
Alison: Are you saying there is a human element to global warming?
Robert: Absolutely. I mean, we’re in a natural cycle. The real argument is: how much of this is a natural cycle and how much is it human additive? Hey folks: it’s both. Whenever you have a tremendous controversy both sides tend to be right and wrong. You do have the natural interglacial warming that we’re experiencing, but you are increasing the severity of it with the human footprint. The concern most people have is that we can’t do much about the natural cycle, but we can do a lot about the human cycle. What people are worried about is if you steepen it too much, evolution can’t keep up and you get extinction. You don’t have adaptation to change…you have extinction and I think that’s what people are really worried about; they do see extinction.
Alison: Do you agree with Al Gore that there’s an urgent impetus for us as Americans to do something?
Robert: If you want to know the truth: it’s too late. Okay. All the ice is going to melt.
There’s a lag and it’s already in the system. In fact people don’t want to say that because they still want people to change their ways. But when it comes to glaciers and Polar Regions: it’s going to melt. Sea level is going to come up.
Alison: Are you saying we should do nothing?
Robert: No I’m not. I was taught, when it doubt, try the truth. It’s never too late to change your ways. I’m not so worried about warming, because that’s going to happen and it’s happening. I’m more worried about disease; I’m more worried about pandemics. I’m more worried about that than the sea level rising. At least we can walk inland. But I’m more worried about the spread of disease. That’s a bigger threat.
Alison: What are your views on alternative energy? The ocean is over 70% of the earth, what about harnessing the power of waves?
Robert: As an American, I’m more pro alternative energy because it so affects our relationships with other countries than it does economic impact. I don’t like being dependent upon oil that’s controlled by countries that don’t like us. So, I’m more concerned about that than I am moving away from fossil fuel to wind energy or solar energy. I’m more worried about how it affects our foreign policy. So I come down more on that concern than reducing our carbon footprint.
Alison: What about wave energy?
Robert: Wave energy is a lot harder. I’m actually very pro nuclear. I thought the Three Mile Island calamity was an absolute disaster. A disaster for our country, because I’m very pro nuclear energy. I think it’s safe if done wisely. I envy what France has done. I think they’re up to 90%. But because of that horrible tragedy and how it frightened people…and the media added to that fear. I was a little upset with that…of hyping it…which media has a wonderful capability of doing…that we lost a generation of bringing more and more nuclear power online.
Alison: Well Dr. Ballard, I really appreciate your taking the time.
Robert: Pleasure, pleasure.
This interview was recorded at the Flint Center in Cupertino, California. Dr. Ballard was in Silicon Valley as part of the Foothill College Celebrity Forum Series, hosted by Dr. Richard Henning. To see and read more interview segments with Dr. Ballard, on how he inspires education in science, gets funding for his expeditions and what his next adventure will be, check back soon.
For the young or young at heart, in answer to my Barbara Walters’s inspired question, if you were a sea creature, what sea creature would you be? Ballard answered: A killer whale.
For more exclusive interviews with Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, Martin Sheen, Maureen Dowd and many others, check out Fresh Dialogues interview schedule
This exclusive interview with Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman was recorded in Silicon Valley. Dr. Krugman was in town to deliver a lecture as part of the Foothill College Celebrity Forum Series. This segment is titled: Will Climate Legislation Kill the Economy? Click here for video
Alison van Diggelen: Paul thank you very much for joining me today on Fresh Dialogues.
Paul Krugman: OK. Good to be doing this.
Alison: Now some people are saying, climate legislation is going to kill the economy. What do you say to that Paul?
Paul: Well, a lot of people have done serious work in trying to figure this out. Now, to some extent it will be unknown territory: we don’t know what happens when you set the price of carbon significantly higher than it is now, but the economy has got a lot of flexibility. We have precedent. We had the problem of acid rain and we introduced a cap and trade system – SO2 permits – and a lot of people said it was going to kill the economy…terrible stuff. In fact it turned out that dealing with it was cheaper than most estimates had suggested before hand. Given the incentives, the private sector found ways to generate a whole lot less acid rain.
So current estimates are that if we did something like the legislation that the House has already passed, that ten years from now it would be maybe one third of a percentage point off GDP. And 40 years from now, when the constraints would be much stiffer, it would be something like 2% off GDP, relative to what it would otherwise have been. So if you think about what it would do to the growth rate, it’s minimal. We don ‘t know if these numbers are right, but if history is any guide, they’re probably too pessimistic. It’s just not a big deal.
Alison: Let’s talk about your column, Paul… Now you didn’t pull any punches with the Bush administration. You talked last night about the Bush White House being evil and stupid. What is your characterization of the Obama White House?
Paul: Oh, they’re good guys and they’re smart but just not as forceful as I’d like. It’s a world of difference. When I argue with them in my column this is a serious discussion. We really are in effect speaking across the transom here…
Alison: Is it really a dialogue, are you hearing back from them?
.
Paul: Ben Bernanke doesn’t call me up but is aware of what I’m writing… people in the administration do call me. I’m never going to be an insider type but at this point I do have genuine contact with both the White House and with congressional leadership. It’s no longer this sort of Cold War as it was during the Bush Years.
Alison: Some people describe your writing as having a missionary zeal. Where does that come from Paul. Can you trace that back?
Paul: Oh. Gosh…I have to say that during the Bush Years, if you didn’t feel passionate that we had to change things, there was something wrong with you…
Alison: You didn’t have a pulse?
Paul: Right. So..before that, I was in fact a pretty cool…uh…
Alison: A cool dude…?
Paul: A pretty cool technocratic sort of writer. I had some fun but I wasn’t crusading. So that is what changed it. And now, I’m trying to make this progressive moment in American history a success. So that’s where I’m pushing.
Alison: So you feel the missionary zeal is gone now, or is it just redirected?
Paul: It’s not the same. There was the sheer.. OMG what a horrible thing…we need to alert people as to what’s going on…I’m still trying to get stuff to happen…it’s less doom laden maybe than it was in the Bush years. But stuff has to happen….I’m still pretty passionate about the column.
Alison: And do you feel you’re more effective as a columnist than inside the government?
Paul: Oh yeah! That’s a personal….you have to know who you are…know what you’re good at. I’m not a…being an effective government official, you have to do bureaucratic maneuvering, be pretty good at being polite at the appropriate moment… you have to be reasonably organized…I’m none of those things.
Alison: An honest man.
Paul: I can move into a pristine office and within three days it will look like a grenade went off.
Alison: [laughter]
Paul: You really don’t want me doing that sort of thing.
Alison: Right. Paul Krugman, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate it.
Paul: Thank you so much.
For more exclusive interviews with leaders, such as Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd and Charlie Roseclick here
This exclusive interview with Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman was recorded on November 12, 2009 in Silicon Valley. Dr. Krugman was in town to deliver a lecture as part of the Foothill College Celebrity Forum Series. Here is the transcript of Part Two: On China and Climate Change. To listen to this interview click hereand or watchvideo (coming soon)
Alison van Diggelen: Paul thank you very much for joining me today on Fresh Dialogues.
Paul Krugman: OK. Good to be doing this.
Alison: Talking about other countries, Spain took the lead… Denmark is taking the lead… China is now way ahead of us in certain clean energy technologies. Do you feel that we’ve lost eight years and we have at least eight years to catch up? Is it feasible we can catch up?
Paul: It’s always feasible. You don’t want to get too hung up on the specific sexy technologies. I guess the Danes are ahead of us in building wind turbines. But a lot of what we’re going to be doing on the environment is going to be… insulation, clever urban design to minimize energy loss. That’s all stuff that’s coming along and look – the history of information technology has said very clearly that nobody gets a monopoly for very long… I don’t get anxiety about it. I’m just more concerned that we won’t do what we need to do to protect the environment.
Alison: How big is the role of government? Ultimately it’s the private sector investment that’s going to make the substantial investment…
Paul: But the government has to provide the incentives…what we have now is the economic concept of an externality…if you have something where you impose costs on other people but you don’t have any incentive to reduce those costs, bad stuff happens. And climate change is the mother of all externalities. It’s a gigantic thing and the private sector by itself is not going to deal with it. Left without any government intervention, we’re just going to basically par-boil the planet, right?
So what you have to do is have a set of rules in place. Now the idea is for it to be market oriented. Yes, there can be some public research, some public investment, some things will have to be done directly by government… but mainly put in a cap and trade system – put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and then let the private sector do its stuff.
Alison: Right. Why is it you favor a cap and trade system over a straight carbon tax?
Paul: Oh, there are a couple of reasons. One is, right now, cap and trade looks like it might pass Congress and a direct tax will not. Partly that’s because cap and trade is relatively well suited to paying off the industry groups, right? We live in the real world. By handing out some of the licenses, at least in the first decade or so, you make it easier to swallow.
International coordination is easier with cap and trade. If we say to the Chinese – well we want you to have a carbon tax – how can we really tell it’s enforced? But if we negotiate with the Chinese that they will have total CO2 emissions of so much, we can monitor pretty well whether that’s actually happening. So that’s a lot easier to envision an international agreement with cap and trade.
So, I would take a carbon tax if…
Alison: If it were politically feasible?
Paul: It’s not clear to me that it’s even superior. But it would be OK, certainly. The fact is, cap and trade could be a bill by this time next year. A carbon tax is like single payer health care. It’s not going to happen this decade and I want something to actually happen now.
Alison: Paul Krugman, thank you very much I really appreciate your taking the time.
Paul: Thank you so much.
Check back soon for more interview segments on the stimulus package, what gave him that “missionary zeal” to write such fervent columns in the New York Times, and whether the green economy can be our salvation.
To check out more exclusive Fresh Dialogues interviews, click here
Alison: Do you agree with 
