CALLISON: Okay. Um, can you talk about what are the most pressing environmental threats, and if you know of any technical, or technological solutions that would help alleviate them, I guess.

RENNER: Well, certainly among the key environmental problems that we’re facing almost anywhere on the globe that you’re looking really, among these issues are certainly water scarcity, um, the issues of soil erosion, or the maintenance of good soil quality, deforestation.

And then, of course, if you look a little further down the road, I mean, we are more and more facing up to the challenge of climate change. Which is really not so much of a separate issue as, as really one that will exacerbate many of the existing problems.

For example, it’s quite likely that the climate change would cause um, prolonged periods of drought in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, which are the very same areas that are already hard pressed with regard to water availability - adequate water availability, um, of course for water drinking purposes, but perhaps even more importantly for agricultural purposes. And, particularly in Africa, but also parts of the Middle East, parts of Asia, um, agriculture of course does play an overall much more important role for the overall economies of those countries, than it does, perhaps, for some of the Western countries.

So those are very important issues that are more and more going to be inescapable almost anywhere around the globe that you live, so...

CALLISON: Okay. You used, um, Africa as an example there, but what about... do you see the same trends popping up here in the United States and are there areas that you can point to and say “see, that’s an example here in the U.S.?"

Because it seems a lot of times when you’re talking about environmental problems it’s easy, very easy, to point to other places that have it worse than us. It seems like American viewers go... it’s over there. It doesn’t effect us. So, I mean, how does that, how does it affect the American people?

RENNER: Well certainly, in effect, the same environmental challenges that, perhaps at this time, seem more pronounced in some of the far away regions, are ones that are of equal concern within the United States itself. Take water availability issues. Um, you look at the mid-West, all the wheat, all the corn, all the agricultural production is going on, or parts of California for that matter, um, and what we’re seeing in certain areas is that year after year we’re pumping way more ground water to use for irrigation purposes than really would be advisable if we were planning to do this on a really long term basis. If we really wanted to leave something for our children and grandchildren and so on.

So yes, right now this doesn’t seem to be a problem. We can just go on depleting the aquifers, pumping them, um, above the rate of rain fall, and leave a problem to a future generation. That of course, is not a wise policy. The challenge would become much more larger the more we postpone a decision that could change the way we do this.

Soil erosion, the same thing. Um, anywhere where you run an agricultural system, you have to be concerned about the quality, and in a sense, the quantity of your top soil.

So yes, you can postpone the real critical point for a while, and in an economy that doesn’t, in terms of GNP contribution and so, depend so heavily on agriculture as perhaps, African or Asians society do, it doesn’t look as large as a problem as it really is because the economic statistics, in a way, deceive us. They make it seem like it’s a very minor issue because we get so much out of the electronics industry, the car industry, um, the stock market is booming. And so people really get drawn to look at the wrong issues. We really take the wrong indicators of how well or how bad we are doing. And so yes, there is more of a challenge within the United States itself, than often seems to be the case.

CALLISON: What do you see as solutions to address these problems?

RENNER: The good news really is that there are solutions. There are many things that can be done. Again, to take agriculture, take irrigation, uh, we can be much more water efficient in the ways that we use the water than is the case right now. Israel, actually world wide, is really one of the leaders in terms of developing water efficiency technologies.

So, um, although currently there are some of these technologies in use in this country and are being developed, we could do better. And we could do better, just basically by emphasizing and encouraging farmers, or farming corporations, to pay much more attention to these issues.

What it really comes down to in the end is how cheap or how expensive is water. If it’s very cheap you won’t really pay much attention to it because it seems limitless, it seems so cheap that it’s not worth paying attention to. Um, if water prices get increased, at least gradually over time, so there’s time, obviously, to adjust, then that will provide a signal to farmers and others that this is a resource that is not limitless. This is something that you have to pay attention to.

So that, that’s certainly on of the key things that needs to happen. To come to a more, in a sense, environmentally rational pricing policy. Not just of water, of course, but any other resource that we’re using. I mean, take oil, take any form of energy and it’s really the same picture. If the resource is too cheap it will be used, um, more likely than not, in very inefficient ways.

CALLISON: Okay. Great. Can you talk a little bit about how environmental issues link to national security issues? I mean, what’s going on there?

RENNER: There certainly are a number of linkages. One is, again that may concern more immediately some other countries in the world more than seems to be the case in the U.S. But these cases, I think, are again, instructive in general for this relationship.

And we do now see more and more understanding that environmental degradation, environmental break down, can actually be a factor in causing conflicts. Certainly the conflict over access to water resources, say the border to the River Nile, the Euphrades in the Middle East, which is shared by Turkey, Serbia and Iraq, or the River Ganges that is shared by India and Bangladesh, those are some of the cases where it’s quite clear that the various countries that share these resources, water resources, all make larger claims, or very soon will make larger claims, um, on this river, or on an aquifer for that matter, than really can be sustained for a long time. So the question is “who, how much and together do we withdraw too much water for long term environmental sustainability?”

So far it seems that we have managed to avoid any real international water wars, although there’s on-going concern, particularly in the Middle East, that whatever arrangements and understanding that are in place, may not be strong enough to be able to _____ a challenge because as societies develop, as the populations grow, the demand for water grows. As they more and more adopt Western lifestyles, the relative amount of water that gets put into, well, producing food, producing almost anything, into how water much people use in their households, in their homes. All of that gets ratchetted up all the time. So, that_____ water resources really rises all the time. And again, water efficiency become much more of a critical issue.

Um, I think aside form the issue of international water wars, whether they ever come to pass or not, already we also see that within countries, basically the same issue arises. Um, you know, does one city or rural area, does one province or another get, you know, more of the same shared water resource? And very often these issues have not been resolved.

These questions are very much something that politicians, communities’ leaders, um, people in the grassroots, you know, everybody in the population needs to grapple with. Um, to give you example, um, there are ongoing struggles within Mexico, um, also some within the United States in the west, um, within Spain, within India, those are just some countries as examples, where it’s not clear at all how these contests over access to water really resolve. There will be some policy we put in place that will hep resolve this peacefully, and so everybody is happy with the solution. Or that might actually help to lead to internal conflict.

CALLISON: Okay. What happens if, you know, the United States has some, I don’t know what they call them, security issue, or some sort of, what’s the word I’m looking for? An interest. I guess like a national interest, in like the Persian Gulf with the oil, and, you know, maybe some other areas that are prone to, not necessarily.... I’m not making myself clear. I’m sorry. I’m all over the map here.

RENNER: Actually, I think I hear what you’re saying...

CALLISON: If these are countries that are prone to conflict, and the United States has some sort of interest in that area, how does that affect us? I’ve heard people say, well, energy efficiency is a national security issue because we’re dependent on outside sources for oil in areas that are prone to conflict. So...

RENNER: The issues of say access to oil and access to water, are actually really very good example because, let me take oil as the first one:

Clearly, at this point the United States is importing about half, I think slightly more than half, of its total oil consumption, um, from, of course to a large extent, the Middle East, but also from other sources. And the argument has been made, and I think rightly so, that if the way we, um, we run our automobiles, run our industries, heat our homes, if that can be done more efficiently, and certainly can be done far more efficiently than we do at this point, then of course, the demand for oil would be far lower. Considerable lower than it is at this point. And there would be less concern about ‘will we have continued, reliable access to the flow of oil from the Middle East or from other regions to this country?’ The same of course goes for the Europeans and the Japanese and anybody else who really is a large importer of oil. So yes, energy efficiency is a very important point in this regard.

The same, I think, pretty much holds for the issue of water, access to water, although there the issue is less one of transporting water from one region of the world to the other, so unpractical because water is so heavy, and it’s just, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. But I think what’s important here is that if countries who already face water scarcity can find ways, develop ways to use their water more efficiently, if you make the water that they have go a longer way, and if perhaps the United States can help them with, with technologies or perhaps with credit to develop these kinds of technologies, then I think we could actually take a positive step helping these countries to say “okay, there’s a limited resource and we’re struggling to make ends meat.’ But the ways to stretch the resource, as it were, make it much less likely that there will be conflict over who gets how much of it, um, and therefor reduce the likelihood that water may become a source of conflict and perhaps a source of violent conflict.

So, in a... if you’re serious about preventing conflict, this is a very important tool.

CALLISON: Great. I’m shifting gears now. Can you talk a little bit about the difference between world wide military spending versus the level of investments related to global environmental issues? Whether that’s research and development or actually producing technologies.

RENNER: Yes. Well, when you look at what our military is spending, although the actual data are still quite limited, we don’t have a very good sense of exactly how much is being spent, we have a rough idea, and although it has come down somewhat from the, uh, period of the Cold War years, most of the estimates that are available suggest that we’re still spending anywhere from $700 billion to 800, $850 billion. Which of course is a tremendous amount of money. And, I would think that there is no disagreement in arguing that comparing this amount of money with what might be needed to push energy efficiency, water efficiency, perhaps put in place programs that will forestall the rapid rate of deforestation in various parts of the world, such as the Amazon and in South America and so on, or perhaps even back here, back home in the United States. Um, the amounts necessary for those kinds of programs, although again, we don’t really have, certainly not globally, how much is being spent, um. I think it’s a very safe prediction to say that only a fraction of the military spending would more than suffice to promote those kinds of policies, those kinds of technologies.

Um, most of what’s being done of course, in the technology sector, um, is being done by the private sector. So, the role that government could play is not even to say ‘Well, we are financing all of this,’ you know, all of the research and development that may be necessary to make head way on efficiency, but at least to put in place programs that provide incentives for companies or communities to further pursue these kinds of technologies, these kinds of opportunities, more than they would on their own. And also to make sure that we have in place, you know, the right tax structures, the right incentives, the right overall policy framework, that will help push ahead these technologies on a faster time frame than is the case now.

So I would think on the whole it’s not so much a matter of, of resources or the lack there of, I mean, that could easily be financed, but in order to make sure government policy, public policy sets the right signals and provides the right frame work. That is imminently do-able. There is no problem with that. I mean, if the political will was there, that is.

CALLISON: Right. That was great actually. You already kind of talked about this, just, I mean do you think the government should become more involved in environmental research and development, and environmental technologies in general? I mean you kind of touched on that in that last question, but...

RENNER: I could add a few thoughts there, certainly. Yes, um, well when we compare what the federal government has done, say, over the last 20 years or so, since really the time the energy crisis broke and made energy supplies and energy efficiency an issue. And also, really as a result, generally the whole environmental question, put the environmental question more up front, we have really seen a federal roller coaster in terms of federal government commitments to various energy alternatives, or environmental alternatives.

Under President Carter we had a sudden surge in spending, um, in favor of developing energy efficiency, in favor of developing solar technologies, wind energy, geothermal and so on. But then of course, as soon as the administrations changed, as soon as Ronald Reagan became President, that, that rapid build up in terms of funding support for, for research and development, was just as quickly and just as rapidly rolled back. So that many promising initiatives really languished for a number of years.

Now of course in the meantime, the private sector did pick up, to some extent, but still we lost time. In more recent years, we have seen a much more gradual, and I almost want to say hesitant, and slow build up, of again, federal build up of support for some of these programs.

So yes, the federal government can do more than it is now, at least build up to the Carter administration levels, and perhaps even a little bit beyond that. Because the opportunities are still out there. There’s no question that technologies can be developed, or perhaps on the drawing board to some extent, that would really help us get a major step ahead with regard to pursuing energy efficiency, materials efficiency, water efficiency, and other such questions. SO there is potential. There is room for improvement.

CALLISON: Okay. Can you talk a little bit about the link between environmental research and development, environmental stuff in general, to the job market?

RENNER: That is, of course the discussion has been going for some time under the heading ‘Jobs or Environment?’ Where the argument has, for some time, been that either you can protect the environment or you can go and maintain certain jobs that are apparently most in conflict with, with environmental protection issues. Um, I mean, particularly the jobs of loggers or coal miners have been, have been emphasized as being, sort of, on the, really in danger to some extent. Um, but I think by and large this is a trade off that, that really is a bit of a myth.

Um, it is true that in some communities that heavily depend on logging, or coal mining, and that may be geographically more removed, uh, from areas that have more diversified economies, yes, there will be more of a pronounced local impact. I think that much has to be acknowledged.

However, what we see on the whole is, even without environmental policy, the logging, the forestry industry, the coal mining industry, um, are reducing the number of jobs, even as they keep their output, the number of trees they cut down, or the poundage of coal that they mine, even if they keep that constant, or even really build it up.

To give you an example, in the U.S. coal mining industry since 1980, we have seen an increase in output of 63%. At the same time the number of jobs in that industry have declined by 35%. Um, so... actually, sorry. Can I go back to say that again because I changed, I switched a percentage figure. After I said it I realized I made a mistake.

Let me just start over than with that....

CALLISON: Okay. That’s fine.

RENNER: To take the U.S. coal mining industry as an example, since 1980, um, the output of coal has increased by 35%. During the same stretch of time the number of jobs in that industry has declined 63%. And that of course is due to automation and things like that. So apart from environmental policy and the impact that that may have, we already see a very massive job loss in some of these industries.

Um, and what’s even more important, even as that is happening, we now see at least a slow and gradual increase in alternative energy fields. Um, there are more and more jobs in pursuing solar electricity, in pursuing wind energy potential. And these now, these are jobs that now number in the tens of thousands within the United States, but very easily can number in the hundreds of thousands in a number of years, especially if there is some government support forthcoming to allow these technologies to enter into the traditional market. So the potential again is quite considerable.

CALLISON: It seems to me that the defense industry creates, like, um, will use military production as a business for their little district. You know, we have to have X amount of planes to keep these people in work. Do you foresee a time where the environmental technologies will be, kind of, replacing military weapons? Where Congressmen are saying, you know, we have to have that wind power plant in my place because we need the jobs. Do you see that happening any time soon?

RENNER: Well, I guess to be realistic I don’t see it happening any time soon because the existing pork barrel process, the existing military pork, is so strong and the pot of many is so, so large, that that is of course the first incentive, to go after that kind of money. It is an established process. It is a large resource. So there is no incentive, in a sense as it were, in Congress, to look for other opportunities that may be of help to the individual members of Congress own home district.

But, then again, I guess it does depend on how much can shift the frame work within policy is made? Can we change the signals? Can we change the priorities? That is of course, somewhat of a gradual process. I don’t expect that to happen over night. I think it will have to happen, I mean, we will have to shift the signals, and once we do that to a situation, where there is, um, where technologies get much farther developed than is the case now, than there is more commitment on the part of the federal government, and perhaps the state governments, of course, um, to pursue some of the energy and environmental alternatives, um, this will almost by default, over time, become a more, should I say, a more lucrative, um, account, or pot of money, that members of Congress will take great interest in.

But I would hope it’s not just a matter of going after where the money is, but also that members of Congress will, and more and more, and some of them already very well know that, but as more and more of them will realize, well, these technologies will be of great help because they will head off a lot of these environmental problems we are facing now. They will help if we go after energy efficiency. This will be a very good, a very easy way of dealing with the global climate change challenge. So that not only is it a pot of money that is available for the home district, and will create jobs, as important as that is, but it will actually have a double dividend as it were. It will also help us with the environmental challenge.