JG: Weather Makers has received positive reviews from a wide variety of sources. Have you been surprised by its reception?

TF: I have been surprised by the positive reception the book has received, particularly from business leaders such as Paul Anderson, CEO of Duke Energy. His decision to write the foreword meant a very great deal to me.

JG: As you acknowledge, the U.S. and Australia are the only industrialized countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty dedicated to stabilizing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. As an Australian, did your country’s lack of response motivate you to write this book?

JG: Leadership in the U.S. Administration has asserted that it is spending more money on climate change research than any other country and that individual states are taking actions to mitigate climate change. Do you think the U.S. is receiving the proper recognition for these actions?

TF: It doesn’t matter how much any country is spending on programs. What really matters is how much it’s reducing its emissions. And here the American government and people are failing badly. Emissions are growing substantially just at the time most of the world is making genuine efforts to restrict them.

JG: You open the book by introducing John Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis: that the earth is a “single, planet-sized organism” and that the atmosphere could be thought of as fur or feathers that help regulate temperature. Do you think the Gaia metaphor helps people identify with the problems posed by climate change?

TF: The Gaia metaphor certainly helped me to understand how Earth’s incredibly complex climate system operates. It’s something most of us would struggle to understand were we to take the conventional scientific approach of studying its component parts.

JG: Michael Crichton’s book The State of Fear and the movie The Day After Tomorrow are probably the best known works of fiction relating to climate change. What impact have they had, and is there a role for popular media to play?

TF: State of Fear has had a profoundly negative impact. The fact that the American Society of Petroleum Geologists gave Crichton their journalism award (for a work of fiction!) and that he briefs President Bush on climate change, shows you how the book is being used. The impact of The Day After Tomorrow seems to have been substantially less. I think that most viewers would have enjoyed it as an environmental disaster movie.

JG: I have sat in on Senate Energy Committee hearings on climate change, and congressional leaders are constantly seeking advice on solutions. Should scientists provide policy answers? What role should scientists play in recommending policy?

TF: I believe that scientists should contribute to the policy debate. They may not have the whole answer, but any policy developed in the absence of a firm grasp of the science is bound to fail.

JG: Are there other spokespeople you would like to see become more vocal?

TF: In the US and Australia there has been a profound failure of leadership at the highest political level on climate change. This means that we need governors, mayors, business and church leaders and ordinary citizens to take up the challenge. The basic message can be carried by all of these people, but business people in particular need to become more vocal.

JG: Your book eloquently addresses the science behind climate change. In fact, it is some of the best science writing I have read. But some people would argue that continuing to debate the certainty of climate science distracts from pursuing the solutions. Do you feel we’re ready to move beyond debates around science to debates regarding policy?

TF: The science is now so solid that there is no significant scientific debate about the adverse nature of human impacts on the climate system. That means that the debate has shifted from being a scientific to being moral in nature. And moral issues concern us as individuals. In this case it prompts us to ask what we should and could do as individuals and members of society to reduce our emissions.

JG: You write about an array of solutions to the problem of global warming. Which seem to be the most promising?

TF: It is clear that no single technology will provide “the solution.” The easiest gains will be made through greater efficiency. Selling a Toyota SUV and buying a Toyota hybrid, for example, will cut your transport emissions by 70%—the amount we need to reduce overall to stabilize climate. On the technology side wind, solar, nuclear (especially the smaller, safer nuclear plants), and geothermal energy production will all contribute significantly. And of course biofuels will contribute greatly to abating emissions from transport.

JG: What are the opportunities for restructuring energy systems/use? Do you see a viable future for locally-generated or cooperatively-owned energy?

TF: I think there is a huge future for local energy generation. I run my house from solar panels. European cities burn biomass at small plants for energy. And in Denmark individuals and communities own wind generation, which contributes 20% of the nation’s electricity. If the big energy companies don’t move to act on this issue, they may well find their customer base evaporating.

JG: Economics has been called the “dismal science,” but certainly destruction of natural systems that sustain life on this planet is equally depressing to biologists and climatologists. Are you ever overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenges in your field? If so, what do you do to counter balance this?