from Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine
“Iâ€™m at a surprise session with Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and the Google Foundationâ€™s Larry Brilliant, moderated by Tom Friedman. Liveblogging:
The key difference between this and the Gore-Bono panel prior to this is that Gore concentrated on the things we must stop doing â€” as the movement does â€” while the Google team concentrates on what we can start doing, thanks to technology.
Brilliant says after the Bono and Gore session earlier: â€œItâ€™s true that climate change takes the oxygen out of the room.â€ In other words, it takes attention and effort away from poverty and development. He says we have to get over our cultural ADD and handle more than one crisis at a time.
He outlines the Google Foundationâ€™s priorities. They believe that people donâ€™t know what services their governments offer and so they help inform them and help governments get that message out. Another priority is job creation. Less than 15 percent of jobs in the developing world are from small and medium enterprises and they are targeting growth there. In health, they are concentrating on diseases that jump from animal to human, such as AIDS, and become pandemics. They are funding early-warning systems. They concentrate on climate change: making ecological power cheaper than coal-fired power. And they believe electric cars plugged into a green grid will take care of much of our problems.
Larry Page talks about the renewable-power-cheaper-than-coal initiative. Buying a lot of electricity, Google knows that the cheapest came from coal. The cost of electricity as a percentage is going up, he says, and is approaching the cost of the computers themselves. So they want to get it cheaply and get it green. Startups can work selling green energy at 10 cents per kilowatt hour because there is a demand for renewable energy, he says, but that does not bring real change. â€œOur primary goal is not to fix the world,â€ he says, but they do have the power to drive things forward, to get to three cents.
Sergey Brin says the are concentrating on three energy sources: solar-thermal, deep geothermal, and high-altitude wind; if he had to add one, it would be photovoltaic. He says that windmills are on a par with coal but are intermittent and they think it can be even cheaper by using high-altitude wind, through kites, which are cheaper to make that metal windmills. Theyâ€™ve invested in this and solar-thermal. Deep geothermal is a bit farther off because it requires more fundamental research to get to scale.
Whatâ€™s the reaction of the energy companies? â€œTheyâ€™re pretty good at pushing things into the future and you guys want to claim the future now,â€ Friedman says. Brin says some of these companies such as BP are invested but Google has an advantage because it does not have a legacy business to cannibalize. Indeed, Google can benefit its core business. â€œThereâ€™s a big bet at some point that you need to make thatâ€™s going to take capital.â€ And Google, he says, in a good position to take that risk.
Asked about the reaction of shareholders, Page says the investment is moderate and there is potential for payoff.
Friedman asks whether they can succeed in this space without taking more of a political position. Brilliant says very few of the people fighting against the climate change movement are bad people: â€œthe have children, they have grandchildren.â€ He says that the movement has not done a good enough job to communicate. â€œYou canâ€™t separate the quest for dignity and fight poverty from climate changeâ€¦. We have failed to get that degree of awareness in Congress.â€
Friedman quotes Al Goreâ€™s complaint that 3,000 questions asked in Sunday morning programs during the campaign included just three on global warming â€” equal to the three on UFOs. (Anyone have a citation for that?) â€œWhat are we doing, what is Google doing, to reframe the debate?â€ Friedman asks. Brilliant likens this to the second-hand smoking debate in achieving awareness.
Asked what the next president should do to help their cause, Page responds as an engineer and complains that there has been no research on transmission â€” which adds to costs â€” and so he wants a priority on that work from government â€” an interstate highway system for power, Friedman says. Brinâ€™s answer: Renewable energy is not on a level playing field because of the costs of old energy: health and coal, politics and oil, tariffs on commodities for ethanol, regulation on electric-care development. Brin says they are generating 1.6 megawatts of solar power on their campus. â€œItâ€™s been great. It produced shade. It reduced cost.â€ But he says that regulation, federal to local, adds cost. â€œThereâ€™s just all these barriers to clean energy that donâ€™t exist for dirty energy.â€
Dirty energy. Thatâ€™s a nice phrase. As good as death tax.
Page says they are spreading the idea of holding business-plan contests: having events, giving out a little bit of money, helping winners get funding. â€œIn Silicon Valley, they do that for breakfast.â€ To do that in Ghana, he says, would establish a community to keep this going.
Asked from the floor, by Timeâ€™s Michael Elliott, about the theme of the day â€” environment versus poverty, emphasis on versus â€” Page says that he gets irritated when people do not realize that the way out of these problems is technology.
I think heâ€™s right: the discussion is too much about what we should not do rather than what we can do.
â€œYou canâ€™t succeed just out of conservation because then you wonâ€™t have economic development,â€ Brilliant explains. â€œFind a way to make electricity â€” not to cut back on it but to have more of it than you ever dreamed of.â€
I say from the floor that I see a cultural difference between the movement and Google on this. Google has the positive message of the potential for change through technology. I ask about how they are going to get this message out to encourage investment from government and the public. Are they using lobbying, PR, education? Friedman adds that Exxon Mobil has â€œdone a numberâ€ on the debate with PR. Brilliant says that their role is to get information to people, as much information as they can. Page says that success is the best message â€” that is, if they had three-cent power, everyone would come.
Gore, from the audience, takes issue with Brilliant, saying that getting information out is no longer sufficient. â€œThatâ€™s the way the world used to work. The world doesnâ€™t work that way anymore. The reason that the tobacco industry was able to continue killing people for 40 years ater the surger Generalâ€™s reportâ€¦. they understood the power of strategic persuasion. They went about it in a very careful, organized, and well-funded way.â€ He says we are â€œvulnerable to strategic persuasion campaigns if the other side assumes that we should just get the information out there.â€ He says Exxon Mobil has funded 40 front groups to â€œin their own words position global warming as theory rather than fact.â€ He concludes: â€œWe need to take them on, Goddamnit.â€
Brilliant responds, saying he agrees with Gore but adds: â€œEach of us needs to play the role we are uniquely positioned to play.â€
The other unspoken divide is about economics: Gore and Friedman favor raising the cost of carbon. Page and Brin see a victory in reducing the price of the clean energy. Tax versus investment.”