Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson was online Tuesday, Oct. 23 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his recent columns and the latest news.

Latest Column: Forecast: Heavy Weather (Post, Oct. 22) | Discussion Group: Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood

The transcript follows.

Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Hi, everybody. I'll be here for an hour to talk about whatever comes up. Today's column was about fire, rain and global warming. But of course there's tons of other stuff in the news. Let's roll!

_______________________

Glen Arm, Md.: Since there is near zero chance that global warming will be slowed down to any extent for the next twenty years (even if there were a real will to do so) much less stopped, don't you think that our first step should be finding ways to assist those who will be most hurt by the climate changes? Then, of course, we need to answer two critical questions: What to do for these people, and where will the money to do it come from? Until these issues are addressed, don't you think that we all really are missing the most important issue that can be addressed here and now?

Eugene Robinson: Sorry for the delay -- a technical glitch. Basically, I agree. I understand why there's so much focus on mitigating climate change, since that's such a huge project and is going to require so much effort from nations and individuals. But meanwhile, we've already set decades of future warming in motion, and we don't talk enough about how the world will adapt to the inevitable changes.

_______________________

Rain is one thing, environment is another!: At some point we as a nation need to get in tune with environmental issues -- then we will see that one of the biggest culprits is our very own U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Though they have created some engineering marvels, a number are coming back to bite us now. Atlanta, for instance, never had a water supply worthy of its population. Lake Lanier is a man-made reservoir fed by a river that looks like a creek even compared to the Anacostia River. Who is out there looking at the man-made impacts to environment?

washingtonpost.com: No Backup if Atlanta's Faucets Run Dry (AP, Oct. 20)

Eugene Robinson: Let's throw in growth, too -- Atlanta's water supply wouldn't be a problem if fewer people lived there. But I agree that it's way past time to take a serious look at the water supply for a number of metropolitan areas. In the West, in particular, water has always been a huge issue and is going to become even more important. I think it's seven states that depend on the Colorado River.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Don't you find it a bit odd that some super-large companies are both supporting interest groups and politicians that scoff at the global warming reality -- while, at the very same time, are buying up water supplies in various U.S. localities and other spots around the world? What a bright idea! Let's take the most important scarce resource on the planet and privatize it, handing it to the wealthy ... why don't we just create monarchies while we are at it!?

Eugene Robinson: As was pointed out earlier, we have to be clear when we're talking about water and when we're talking about climate change. Not that the two aren't related, but they're not necessarily ALWAYS related.

And actually, what's surprising me these days is the number of big companies that are at least paying lip service to the climate change issue, as opposed to dismissing it out of hand. Too early to tell whether this is just PR, or a real change.

_______________________

Sherman, Texas: Today you talked about the threat to the poor, low-lying areas of the world from global warming. The genocide in Darfur has been attributed by U.N. head Ban Ki-moon largely to the growing scarcity of resources there. What do you expect to see happen in this country in the face of our increasingly disappearing resources?

Eugene Robinson: You could make the argument that in a fundamental sense, a lot of conflicts and atrocities, both modern and ancient, have been about competition over scarce resources. That said, I don't expect armed conflict in the western United States over water. I think that eventually we'll see some new, potentially damaging (to the environment)water projects to serve those fast-growing cities in the West. And then, maybe, when water becomes too expensive, those cities will stop growing so fast.

A lot of water, of course, goes to agriculture. I suppose we should wonder whether scarcity of water -- and sharp rise in price -- will really hit the agriculture industry in states like California and Arizona.

_______________________

Dorchester, Mass.: Speaking of rain and drought ... my hometown New Orleans still is weakened by the 2005 flood experienced heavy rains that shut down businesses and schools. My family there, which is putting the finishing touches on storm-damaged houses, now is worrying if the shoddy work by the Corps of Engineers will come back to haunt them soon destroy what they have left. An additional $43 billion has been requested for an endless war, but we cannot save our own cities. How valuable are American citizens to this country?

Eugene Robinson: I heard about the recent flooding in New Orleans and it worries me. I think the Corps of Engineers has done a decent job of fighting the last war -- shoring up the flood walls and levees so that if an exact replica of Katrina were to hit, there would be less damage. (Maybe less damage -- some of those new flood walls look pretty flimsy to me, especially the one alongside the notorious Industrial Canal.) But of course the next hurricane won't be an exact replica. Some of the fundamental engineering mistakes, like the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet canal, are uncorrected; and a lot of the levees that didn't fail -- but that never were truly up to specs -- are just as they were in 2005.

_______________________

Denver: I know you didn't speak to this yet, but I'm wondering if you have thoughts on the situation in California. My heart goes out to those who are losing houses, but from today's Post:

The scene inside the stadium was not much like the wretched scene in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Many evacuees arrived in RVs and family cars at the parking lot. In spots it resembled a tailgating party. When local radio put out calls for dog food, sunscreen and sandwich meat (bread was not a problem), residents responded by turning the stadium floor into a smorgasbord. Volunteers laden with grocery bags heaped tables with grilled chicken, chips and dog food poured into paper bags for individual portions. Evacuees gathered in the shaded sections of the lower deck, watching news coverage and munching sandwiches.

Why is it less devastating this time? Is it just that these people are wealthier? (I assume they are wealthier because San Diego is fairly wealthy.) Does race play into this? Any comments you have would be valued. Thanks.

Eugene Robinson: There can be no comparison between the two events. In New Orleans, the whole city (80 percent of it) was flooded. Nobody could drive up to the Superdome in an RV and have a tailgating party; people had to wade there, through miles of treacherous water, and were lucky to arrive with their lives. Volunteers? Dog food? There was no way for volunteers to reach the Superdome or the Convention Center in New Orleans, and the National Guardsmen who finally arrived had more urgent concerns, like bringing in fresh water for people to drink.

_______________________

John Stossel: Did you happen to catch his report on Friday? Sadly I did and was treated to exactly the cherry-picked knee-jerkcon argument that I expected from him. In this day and age, when the (vast) majority of scientists are in agreement about global warming and that we humans play a significant role in it, why are we still having to argue the point? What purpose does that serve? Even if we leave aside blaming anyone for it, don't the issues of water scarcity and health threats because of environmental pollutants demand that we start finding ways to mitigate the effects? Or are the anti-environmentalists just saying that we should accept that people will die in large numbers?

Eugene Robinson: I didn't catch that report, but I share your impatience. If you read the three latest IPCC reports, available on the IPCC Web site (the executive summaries of the reports are accessible to non-scientists), you see that there's not really an argument anymore about the basic fact that human-generated carbon emissions are contributing to global climate change. You could go out and find a physicist or two who thinks Einstein got it all wrong, but that doesn't mean there's a real "debate" about relativity.

What we shouldn't do, though, is blame all of the world's ills on climate change. (At least, not yet.) And we really should talk not only about mitigation, but also about adaptation.

_______________________

Eden, N.C.: So, Mr. Robinson, let's cut to the chase -- what can we individuals out here in the hinterland actually do to fight global warming?

Eugene Robinson: Of course we can conserve, and I believe that has an impact. (Economists say that if I don't use a gallon of gasoline, somebody in China will just use it, so there's no net effect. But economists say all kinds of things.) The most important thing to do, I think, is elect leaders who will put in place policies to help us deal with the climate change we've already set in motion, and limit future damage. None of this is easy. The fact is that when you flick the switch on the wall, you want the lights to come on. Some hard choices are going to have to be made. I never, ever thought that I would suggest that we may have to take another look at nuclear power, for example, but there, I just said it.

_______________________

Washington: I enjoyed your essay, but as I read it, I felt certain you were leading up to what is, in my view, the critical problem in the world today -- over-population. It is accelerating climate change and the production of greenhouse gases. It is the reason why coastal cities, as you point out, have become mega-cities. The vast majority of our populations live near the world's coasts because we all need water. Upland areas are short of it, because rivers flow to the sea. That's why we build dams, but irrigation can only do so much. The sea can sustain us even in times of drought, yet we're over-fishing our oceans, effectively removing the natural safety net for a people who, evolutionists contend, rose up out of the sea. John F. Kennedy wrote it's why humans feel compelled to return to the sea.

We can talk all we want about corn for ethanol or nuclear power or electric cars, but nothing would be more effective in curbing human impact on the natural environment than curbing population growth. This inconvenient truth must become part of the dialogue. I agree the poor will suffer disproportionately if global warming continues, but it is the poor third-world countries that are experiencing the greatest population growth. Those who can, move to the second world, or to the first, where they quickly learn from those around them how to consume natural resources for pleasure or mere convenience, rather than for sustenance. The world needs to come to grips with the population problem. Earth's natural resources can only sustain so many humans. Eventually Mother Nature will effect an adjustment, and we won't like it.

Eugene Robinson: You know, I have to confess that I've never been big on population as an issue. Population tends to limit itself already, in my view. As societies become richer and more developed, birth rates fall; the biggest correlation, in fact, is with women's education. Africa is the least developed continent and it's hardly overpopulated (although people are crowded into the wrong places, such as urban slums). I don't worry about the Earth being overrun with people. But we all need to use energy and other resources in more efficient, less damaging ways.

_______________________

Washington:"The basic fact that human-generated carbon emissions are contributing to global climate change." Mr Robinson, nobody is denying this. What people like myself can't stand is how people are framing global warming as a man-made catastrophe. This just isn't true -- the heating and cooling of the Earth is a natural phenomenon. Man's contribution is so little that no matter what we do, the Earth still is going to heat and cool. But it's not about the science anymore, it's about the global business.

Eugene Robinson: Actually, you are denying what I said. The levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have skyrocketed since, well, since people started spewing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The IPCC finds it virtually impossible that this is mere coincidence.

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Robinson: The history channel recently broadcast their episode about the mini-ice-age that lasted from 300 to 400 years and appears to have ended in the early 1800s. It was enlightening, and frightening. As an example, the episode mentions that at the time of the revolutionary war, the Delaware river near Philadelphia was icy, dangerous and filled with floes at Christmas. (The painting shows George Washington standing in the bow of the boat surrounded by ice.) I'm not young anymore (I had a draft number) but I don't recall seeing ice in the Delaware River when I crossed the Delaware bridge.

Eugene Robinson: Yes, there have been mini "ice ages." There have also been abrupt, brief episodes of global cooling from events such as the eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia in 1815 (snow in Europe well into the following summer). A few scientists have even suggested that we deal with climate change by sending into the upper atmosphere huge quantities of particulate matter and droplets of sulfuric acid, as Tambora did; this stuff would reflect sunlight and cool the planet down. Doesn't sound like the most attractive idea to me...

_______________________

Washington: I for one, do not mind the "Carolina"-type weather now in these parts. I can understand the temp change; what I do not understand is absence of rain. Why is the upper atmosphere not collecting moisture to form rain clouds? How is the evaporation process changing? What ever happened to the summer thunder storm? We maybe had one all summer. I remember a good sweltering summer day would breed thunder storms that encompassed all the gods rage. As I got older you could even notice how those storms formed over the cemented and paved City and avoided less dense suburbs. What even happened to the summer thunder storm?

Eugene Robinson: Good question. Clearly, there was a weird weather pattern this summer -- the jet stream wasn't where it usually is, or something. But of course you can't generalize from one weird year. You need a lot of data points. Climate science is really, really hard.

_______________________

Ashland, Ore.: As you mentioned, a lot of water goes to agriculture -- it's up around 90 percent in a lot of Western states. Water is overused in Western agriculture because the farmers don't pay anything like cost for it. They've never paid off any of the big irrigation projects undertaken in the early 20th century, but they keep getting the water. I realize our country has agriculture at the root of our national image, but when push comes to shove, who is going to win, Phoenix or alfalfa?

Eugene Robinson: That's a really good question. I have to assume that ultimately, Phoenix will win. But we might end up paying a lot more for our alfalfa.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Gene, among the most important conditions for lifting people out poverty is the availability of low-cost energy. The lowest-cost energy comes from fossil fuels. There are more poor people on Earth than wealthy people. Therefore, the idea that we can just cut back carbon emissions to prevent climate change is naive. It stands to reason that if man can cause warming by certain actions, then man could cause cooling by other actions. That ideas for "geo-engineering" to reverse global warming are dismissed out of hand by the anti-carbon types reveals their true intentions. Realistically, is there any other alternative that still allows for the continued improvement in quality of life for the world's poor?

Eugene Robinson: I mentioned the idea of trying to mimic the cooling effect of a mega-volcano explosion. It's hard for me to really like geo-engineering ideas, primarily because, as I said, climate science is hard. We could screw things up worse than they already are.

That said, I agree on your basic point -- that people, as they emerge from poverty, are going to use energy. Look at China and India alone. I think there are already signs that these megacountries will ultimately use energy more efficiently than our society has, but that's still a lot of power. And it's not fair, or feasible, for the West to say to the developing world: Well, we have our SUVs and our suburbs and our well-watered green lawns, but sorry, friends, there aren't enough resources left for you to live as well as we do.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: Re Katrina, New Orleans, Superdome, Convention Center -- a big difference between these areas and Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego is that there was no electric power in New Orleans. See how well San Diego could cope if the power went off, the toilets didn't work and they couldn't go out to get provisions.

Eugene Robinson: An excellent point -- I neglected to mention the lack of power.

And with that, friends, I have to sign off. Thanks so much for joining me today, and see you again next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.