Obama administration adviser Jonathan Pershing praises climate-change initiatives

Jonathan Pershing is a top climate adviser for the U.S. government. He has helped write and edit the major reports on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also advises the U.S. energy secretary and leads an Energy Department office on policy and analysis, and has been a key participant in international climate negotiations. He said it's a "deep global concern" that greenhouse gas emissions are climbing again — after dropping during the recession. "Ultimately, to really forestall a significant rise in global temperature, we have to see a very sharp decline in emissions," he said. Pershing earned his doctorate at the University of Minnesota and returned to the state recently for a conference. He stopped by the Star Tribune to discuss energy, climate and the challenge of addressing the problem across the world.

Q: In broad terms, how far along is the U.S. toward the level of carbon reduction needed to address climate change?

A: In order to get to the numbers that we ultimately want, by 2050 the U.S. should reduce emissions about 80 percent. We are currently on a trajectory to get down by a little less than 20 percent in 2020 and about 25 percent by 2025. That is very good, but it is not even half of what we need to do. If we can get the technologies in place at a reasonable price, we can be on the right trajectory. But it requires more innovation and a significant additional set of actions.

Q: The DOE national labs are constantly looking at energy innovation. What are the possibly beneficial things that are on the horizon?

A: They're amazing. They're everything from a really cheap light bulb that uses a watt of power to give you what used to require a 60-watt bulb, to a 3-D printed car made of lightweight composite plastics, to new technologies that let you use hydrogen in your power system, to a programmable thermostat that lets you control your entire building from your smartphone. Across the board, we have new discoveries from the basic sciences, new technologies from the applied sciences — just a host of new things coming online.

Q: At the global climate change meeting in Paris later this year, what are the prospects of an agreement to keep warming below the goal of +2 degrees Celsius [3.6 degrees Fahrenheit]?

A: You have to think about the agreement not as defining a comprehensive and detailed pathway to meeting the goal of 2 degrees, but as a next step on our collective global effort to reduce emissions. I don't believe the agreement will tell us, "Here are all the things countries have to do." Instead what it will do is put us on a trajectory that could be consistent with a 2-degree path. What you want to do is agree to take a series of steps in the next five years, 10 years, 15 years that put you on the right path.

Q: What is the outlook for additional U.S. climate action given the discord in Washington and Congress?

A: I think it's good, notwithstanding the discord in Congress. States are moving. The executive branch is moving. And perhaps most significantly, the private sector is moving. The investment in new technologies, in clean transportation, in alternative fuels is driving a change that is really independent of congressional action.

Q: In your opinion, what if any benefits have come from past global agreements on climate?

A: I think they've changed investment patterns globally. I think we now are in a position where corporate boardrooms include climate impacts in their assessment of their bottom line and their assessment of what investment they will make going forward. That's really big.

Q: Lately, the Energy Department has talked about the economics of "energy productivity." What is that?

A: Energy productivity is essentially how much of an economic benefit you can get from any unit of energy. And the idea behind it is not to think just about how you constrain your energy use, but also how you grow your economic output. The president has called for a doubling of productivity. That concept is predicated on the conviction that you can do twice as much, growing your outcomes and outputs, while at the same time being more efficient in your energy use.

Q: What sectors of the business world might benefit?

A: Certainly manufacturing, but pretty much every sector.

Q: Are low prices for oil and natural gas working against these efforts?

A: They are, but people have both a long-term and short-term view. People like the idea of using things efficiently. People like the idea of growth in our economy. They also see energy prices as not being constant — and in the long term as rising. Individuals, state and local governments and the private sector will take actions accordingly.

Q: One of the federal energy activities is setting appliance energy standards. How is that going?

A: Very well. We are on track to get 3 billion tons of collective carbon emissions reductions between now and 2030 with the standards we will put into place during the Obama administration. That is a big number. It is the equivalent of the power produced from multiple large-scale power plants — and we'll cut these just from emissions reductions from end use. It also plays out globally. The U.S. standards are often taken up by other nations around the world seeking to improve things. And it also creates an incentive for new technology investment.

David Shaffer • 612-673-7090 • @ShafferStrib