Liveblog: Environment at The Texas Tribune Festival

Bristol: "People like their parks. ... They're willing to pay for them. They're even willing to have higher fees and taxes," if they know where the money's going. $2 billion has been raised by sporting goods tax since it began in 1993, Bristol says. Only $661 million of that has gone to parks.

Larson: Everyone needs to be on board with ending diversion for parks and other programs. Texas House speaker is on board; Larson urges audience to push candidates for lieutenant governor and governor to advocate for the issue as well.

Larson: The condition of parks — old buildings and infrastructure, inadequate hours, etc. — is not their fault. The Legislature did that with budget cuts and diversions. "A lot of folks don't own land. Their only outlet is to go to the parks."

Vega: Many of the parks he manages are in poor, rural areas in the colonias. So kids that would have been out playing on the streets, and opportunities to get in trouble, have a place to go. "Now you have a place to have family gatherings ... a place to walk and exercise." Those local parks rely on funding from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Bristol: Local parks are "the first line of defense." But it's unfair for local parks money to be earmarked by the legislature at the last minute, catching park directors by surprise all over the state, whether they're recipients of those earmarks or not. Smith: "We did not have those earmarks" during this legislative session.

Smith: There was an 11 percent bump in hunters last year, though in general, hunting and fishing participation has stayed relatively flat for the last three decades even during an explosion in population. Yet the sporting goods tax is growing. So there needs to be a place for those consumers to go.

First question goes to Andrew Dobbs, of Texas Campaign for the Environment: "Why are parks so important?" Bristol: "We ought to have a reverence for what nature put here and what people died for on battlefields." Larson: People want to live near parks. Local referendums for parks are always successful. Vega: "Just drive by our parks any given day. ... You'll know what the value is." Smith: "Parks tell the life history and story of our state," and they're important for public health.

Question from a parks enthusiast who has trouble getting reservations for camping spots. "Y'all are very very popular." Can the department increase camping capacity? Smith: We need more funding. He is looking at opportunities to create more "primitive" campsites that don't have to be on parks that were established in the 1930s and 1940s. In addition, the department is working with private landowners looking at opportunities to allow camping on their land as a new revenue stream. 

Question from another park lover who has wanted to work for the parks system, and now finds that departments often expect prospective employees to be able to use a gun — more so than in the past. Why? Is there a security issue? Smith's answer: "They're safe." But "we have an obligation to make sure that you're safe when you're there."

UT graduate student asks about the consequences of relatively high fees for state parks, compared with other places in the U.S. Smith: Fees average as much as $5/person/day. Annual pass for $68 gives unfettered access to all state parks. "Candidly, we're criticized more frequently for not charging more." The department gets half of its funding from fees.

Question from UT senior: Does it make sense to privatize the parks? Bristol: An emphatic "no." Larson: It can happen it certain circumstances, but the fees will go up. The problem in Texas is not that the funding isn't there; it's not being used for its intended purpose.

In response to a question about aging infrastructure in Texas Parks, Smith points out lack of funding and that every year maintenance is deferred, fixing problems becomes even more costly.

Vega: On the local level, communities should encourage their local governments to pass resolutions supporting parks and opposing diversion of sporting goods tax. "That's power right there. That's a big voice."

And that's a wrap! Great discussion from all on the future of Texas state and local parks.

Climate change panel about to start. Room filling up. Great group of panelists moderated by former Trib reporter Kate Galbraith!

Kate reads from the latest report on climate change from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Quotes say that further global warming is likely and significant action required to prevent further consequences. 

Shaw: "What we see is greater and greater uncertainty" in the climate models. We don't yet have a good understanding of what's happening with glaciers and in the ocean, Shaw says, and we need a better understanding of those before we figure out what's happening with global temperatures. "There's huge opportunities for research," and it is necessary "to make sure we actually do the right thing." In fact, CO2 may not be as much of a culprit as a helper in the process, Shaw says.

Kate asks: Do you believe climate change is happening and that it's human-caused? Shaw: Yes, climate change is happening. But, he asks, will it continue or are we entering a period of cooling? And is CO2 making it worse? That is not yet clear, Shaw says.

White: IPCC report acknowledges that they cannot explain sudden temperature drops in the data. "It's hard to imagine that the science is settled" with the conclusion that humans induce global warming via carbon dioxide emissions.

Sassoon: "The report said that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. That's what the report said ... and it is an impressive piece of science." He adds that IPCC report created a carbon budget for the earth "that any fifth grader could understand." Going beyond that budget means "all hell could break loose."

Alvarez and Sassoon both emphatically say climate change is happening and human-caused. That's two out of four who say yes to those two questions. Remaining two panelists, Shaw and White, say it is not clear climate change is human-caused or that it is continuing to happen today.

Kate asks Shaw and White: How much more science do we need to be sure that climate change is happening and caused by humans? White responds, "For 16 years, though the models predicted it would warm, it has not warmed ... I just think that is significant." How can we use the word "unequivocal?" she asks. That's not usually a word used in science, she says.

Shaw: Models are never completely correct, but good models make predictions that generally come true. In science, he says, "you should invite continual testing." Models were flawed on when warming would occur, Shaw says, and were also incorrect on the exact effects of carbon emissions.

Shaw: As a regulator, "it's not my decision" to count votes on the science. The question for TCEQ is: Is it worth the regulations that could be "catastrophic" to the economy if the science isn't certain on climate change? Recently proposed rules for carbon capture on coal plants are one example, Shaw says, of a wrong-headed policy.

Alvarez: There's no absolute certainty. But scientists do say climate change that is human-caused is "extremely likely" to be happening. Sassoon adds: Climate change evidence is not based on models; it's based on paleo-climate record that goes far back into history. Holds up National Geographic cover on rising seas. "In the cost discussion, you do have to include the negative impacts of climate change."

Sassoon asks Shaw: Let's not "waste any more time" arguing about the science. He is responding to Shaw asking if the possibility inaccuracy of models should be looked at, especially some models that suggest warming may be less of an issue in the future. Alvarez jumps in: The cost of doing nothing is huge.

White: Let's distinguish between science and policy. If we just do what the scientists say, "well then we don't have democracy." She adds: There's not a lot of indication on what would be effective for reducing carbon emissions. European carbon trading system has not worked. Germany, a leader in renewable energy, has much higher energy prices than in U.S., White says, and Germans are returning to heating oil and wood chips as energy sources.

Kate mentions recent Yale poll in which 44 percent of Texans polled identified humans as the primary cause of climate change. Sassoon says, "I was actually pretty surprised." He thinks the public is responding to extreme weather events, and that "it doesn't take a scientist. ... The public will vote, will understand … maybe Texas is ready to start talking about it."

Alvarez points out that Germany just re-elected its prime minister for a third time. He was "encouraged" by the Yale poll. Thinks it indicates that Texas politicians and officials are "out of step" with the public.

White: Other polls don't reflect what the Yale poll indicated. Shaw: His agency needs to balance regulating greenhouse gases and protecting the public. And "if I don't use science to do that, I'm left with emotion." There are notable extreme weather events, but other trends on different types of extreme events may tell a different story, Shaw says. Wants to avoid what he calls "environmental opportunism."

Shaw: If you really want to make an impact on greenhouse gas emissions globally, don't do it by putting regulations on coal. Those proposed rules will harm the public, he says. Even wind reliance is a problem because it is "more volatile," Shaw says. "If you really want to have an impact globally, find ways to have greater energy efficiency."

Interesting question from the audience on why climate change is focused on, rather than other pressing environmental and other issues. Is it just put there as a divider? Let's address our environment "right here, right now." Not what might happen in the future.

Shaw: It's dominating the discussion because federal regulation is focusing on it. That's why no one's building coal plants.

Alvarez: That's not why coal plants are being built; they're not being built because natural gas prices are at historic lows. Texas can do things that are good for the environment AND good for the economy, like the state's wind energy standard.

Question on effects of methane, rather than the more well-known CO2, on climate change.

Alvarez: Methane is "much more potent" than CO2, because it increases the rate of warming. One way to address the problem is limit amount of methane leaked from the natural gas production pipeline. EDF has co-funded studies about this, but they have often come under fire because they are also funded by the oil and gas industry.

Question about what the inaccuracies in the model are. Shaw answers: Glaciers, oceans and temperatures have all not been acting the way the models suggested. Regulations must attack the right problem instead of just "making us feel good."

Interesting point from audience: If we price carbon, Texas might actually benefit because the state has a lot of renewable resources and our carbon efficiency is better relative to the rest of the world and country.

Two other questions: Doesn't Texas have a responsibility to act as one of the largest polluters and air polluters? And, reinsurers now accept that climate change is happening; what does that mean?

White: Texas produces the most CO2 because "we're the energy breadbasket of the country. ... We are providing those goods for all the country." Yet Clean Air Act punishes Texas, she says.

Alvarez: One opportunity for Texas is to do carbon capture not just for coal plants but other industries, and that's a money-making possibility. "We're leading the way in emissions; we need to take action." Responding to insurance question, reinsurers' action should be taken by policymakers as a kind of prudent insurance policy for the future.

And that's a wrap. Fascinating discussion on the fight over climate change today.