Thats going to be necessary. What do we say to people like the guy last night i was debating. He said free market, everything. Free market everything. The fact is the market cant handle this problem. So lets say we just love markets but if we also love planet earth continuing there has to be Government Action. It has to be done well, it has to be done judiciously. There will be massive business opportunities. I myself, my friend are in the business together trying to profit from opportunities for building a clean energy economy. And, of course, that will become the abuses like there always are but theres also a lot of government success, and against the fossil fuel companies that are a massive barrier. If you want to say just leave it to the private market, well then the fossil fuel companies are just going to dominate and we will destroy the planet. My good friend brockton and i discussed this particular question many times and i will answer it as a physicist rather than an economist which means im going to jump to the editor is. We know what the future is. The future where we dont solve the problem is a future where the government is doing everything. Its telling you where to live. I you where to live. I just wanted to do triage on all the major cities because they are all going to be flooded out. We are not going to be safe able to say the florida keys. Can you save miami . It turns out you cant, its on porous limestone see cant build sequels. Can you save galveston . Know. Can you say houston . Maybe. Can you save new orleans . That will be a big question. Someone will have to make a decision as to where that money gets spent, where you can live, where you cant live. The only reason that people are afraid of the Government Action needs to solve the problem is because they dont believe there is a problem. If they believe that the world was suffering from a progressive and fatal disease, if, for instance, their daughter were diagnosed with an utterly treatable but otherwise progressive and fatal disease, and 99 doctors told them if you do these straightforward, not simple but straightforward steps, your daughter will be cured, and if you dont shes going to live in terrible agony, gets worse and worse decade after decade, none of them would go searching for the last doctor to convince them, this is fun, happens to everybody. So it is the denial of the reality of the science that drives all of the of the politics. Thank you. I broke it. [laughter] okay, perfect. First, i would just like to thank the three of you for putting on this very informative talk, and ive heard a lot of talk tonight about how to slow Climate Change and what we can do now. In light of this u. N. Climate meetings and talks happening, are we starting to look at the other side, or all these countries come together and starting to think about whats going to happen 25 years from now, 50 years from now, when hundred years from now . Whats happening with the Pacific Islands who dont have the big governments that can get bailed out again and again and again . Have the start to be any talks . You mean about are taking people against impact as opposed to solving the problem . Right. Just thinking realistically. Obviously both things are going on but, its certainly not going to come if which is going to protect against the impacts, its almost an impossible task, or if virtue is in a possible if virtue is an impossible task. Focusing on yes, we want to great protection against the impacts. There is still enough time, as joe was just saying, there is still enough time to transform our Energy System starting now. And so i would say of course we want to create modes of production. But thats a limited. So the investments needed take place now to begin bringing the global economy, which happens to be the title of my book so i hope you all take it, too. I just got back from india a week and half ago and i was giving lectures on the subject, and a level of recognition of the problem in india, even among university intellectual types, is a very low. Its not like they were disagreeing with me. Its like they just havent given it much thought, if you think about a lot of other things that affect human well being. But what we need to be able to convince people in india, in india, happens to be a very important case because were looking at a billion and a half people. And india grows at five, 6 a year theyre going to increase their emissions fivefold in the next 20 years. What we need to do is tell people everywhere, india, the United States, e. G. Islands, we have a solution, we need to seize that opportunity now. So thanks for your ideas. Ive learned a few new ways to think about this and to talk to people about her i want to push back a little bit on the concept that every building should be zero energy. Theres a conference taking place a few blocks away on greenfield. Greenfield. For the reason she talked about demolition and comfort conditioning, buildings that are intense occupancy with people or that certain uses like laboratories, very intensive, and whenever the 20 energy. Theyre going to need some kind of Exterior Energy source. Some of them to buy buying green energy credits, thats maybe one let me just say, net energy. Net zero. Some of the area you could buy energy. By the way it could be renewable. Will have that argument another time. The real question i want to ask about is i think you made the case on the economic, more of the economic basis theres a big upside. But i hear a lot of people, what id say the crotchety view, gee, im going to to live in a smaller house, im going to drive a smaller car, i wont be able to have as big a long. So have some thoughts about what the person, on the personal level with the upside far but im interested in your ideas about the response to that. Or im going to have to wear sweaters, more sweaters. Like jimmy carter. So whats the that is a very strong position that a lot of people have that i respect, i disagree with that generalize this from your point. Its called, you know, no growth, or antigrowth meaning that we are simply consuming too much and that the solution is to consume less. I just dont find that to be true. Theres a lot of reasons may be that we should consume less. I probably consume way more than i have to. On the other hand, if you think about a 100 Renewable Energy economy, we can keep consuming a lot of energy, and maybe we should have big cars for other reasons or so much airconditioning for other reasons, or we shouldnt go to so many conferences in airplanes for other reasons, but in nations shouldnt be the problem. Like emissions shouldnt be the problem. Antigrowth position suggest we have to, like where the hair shirt and to with less. I dont think that thats really, its not going to solve the climate problem now. I dont really think its necessary. And also when i think about it, again in the global picture, yeah, theres a lot of people like me to consume too much but most of the people in the world i dont think consume too much. Are not about to lecture them and say, by the way, youre never going to be able to racial level of standard of living through energy. Could i just sorry. Just to say, you know, i tend to believe that were going to go through two phases. Theres a phase where we can do tremendous Emissions Reductions with technology, Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and thats going to get us very far. We could do that for 10, 20, maybe 30 years. At some point though we are going to recognize that we do have to go to zero, and thats a great challenge. That will, i think, necessity people changing their behavior. I dont usually go around telling people to change their behavior because it doesnt have any impact at all. Only desperation is going to get people to change their behavior and were going to get desperate. I would think were probably going to get desperate around the 2030 at all things are possible just as they were during world war ii where, you know, people did remarkable things, things that we dont even contemplate today. I think, however, what i would say to a crotchety friend of yours, things ive written on the website is, right now weve cleared the most perfect and most immoral ponzi scheme in history of the universe, which is to say that we are living beyond our means. We are robbing our children and our grandchildren of soils, fisheries, freshwater, arable land and a livable atmosphere. We are doing that because no one is stopping us because the only people who could stop us is us. So this is a classic ponzi scheme. We are hoping that theres another 10 to 20 years that we can enjoy this unsustainable lifestyle, and then thats the mentality that the entire world is living under, and the rich countries particularly. So your crotchety friend is simply in a massive amount of denial, and i can understand. He can want to say let other people do with it. The problem is when everybody says let other people do with it, then the people have to do with it are our children and our grandchildren, and people who contributed to this problem not at all. I think we move into the realm of morality here, and it is just staggeringly immoral for us to continue to rob future generations of the ability to live the way we live simply because we are so greedy and myopic, we want to keep doing it for another 10 to 20 us despite what the overwhelming Scientific Evidence says. Just ask you to follow up. Is all sacrificed so . I think we talked about research and development and technology, our lives, things that our lives have become much more energyefficient, use Much Less Energy and for the most part people dont even notice. I cant remember the statistic about refrigerators with her sister this out of their how to become vasimr energy if they are still huge energy hogs but have become vastly more Energy Efficient and its not as the peoples that is less cold than it was 20 years ago. So is it all bad or is there also a good story to tell about how changes that are beneficial and people will not necessarily notice . Whats bad is doing nothing. I realize thats an abstract concept for people who havent internalized whats to come. But again as i say, as a physicist its very hard for me to say that the actions we need to take to undo the mess that we are creating is somehow sacrifice. And i can certainly say as the parent of an eight and a half year old, sacrifice is a very awkward. Obviously, i could blow all my money on vacations and stuff and not save any money for education or for her health care, but it would never dominate to do that and i would never call to sacrifice to do that. I will say that people, you know, its easy for us to say its the sacrifice we in what were doing is imposing unbelievable sacrifice on future generations. We are going to have 10 Million People by mid century. If we take away a third of the arable land and the freshwater beneficiaries and the coral reefs, we take all those things away, were just imposing on them a hunger games type situation. So they dont even get the choice. It is a force sacrifice we are imposing on them so that we can continue to live in a way that a think by the way most people would say yes, the changes between what it takes to be sustainable and what were doing now would hardly be noticeable for most people. I use an example, how much of your travel is actually necessary versus discretionary . Its a simple question. We do a lot of things we take for granted that if we went into the world war ii wartime footing, which we will and probably a couple decades, we wont take for granted at all. If i could just disagree a little bit at least an answer. [laughter] you know, we have models, you know, germany. Germany is a country where the average Living Standard is more or less the same as here, but there in missions level at present are about half the u. S. They operate at twice the level of Energy Efficiency and we do. And moreover, germany with her energy plan you know, the plant because their missions passionate in missions in africa Nicolas Weill going to be near zoo. Thats the plan, it may not happen but thats the plan. I see that as a good model for ioc why the u. S. Couldnt be come in 20 years, where germany is today without basically any sacrifice, you know . When i say more jobs, i mean the are going to be decent jobs with good incomes. So yes, there will be a chechen mission in the nature of consumption starting with the consumption of energy, but once we undertake that transformation i dont see that we would have to necessarily also undertake major changes in the level of consumption as it affects energy. We have been talking all about energy but joe mentioned agriculture. Thats a different story. Roughly 80 of Greenhouse Gas emissions are from energy sources. But that still leaves 20 from everything else. The biggest single additional source is agriculture. Its true we cannot keep running an agricultural system that first of all is eliminating the carbon sinks of force. So how do we maintain an agricultural system that enables people to be fed without destroying the forests as a resource speak with thats going to be a whole other panel probably. I see people san and i apologize for making you wait, i want to hear your questions. What went wrong and what went well . Of years ago United Arab Emirates announce this tremendous project of having account, the city of about 50,000 people with zero net, and they were planning on even having a zero net during construction which, as a civil engineer, i cant compliment how can have equipment building things without any emissions. But im just wondering up your failure to with either Lessons Learned what went well, what didnt go so well . Anything applied elsewhere . Can anything be applied elsewhere . There is a town in germany, its a rural town that has actually operating at zero in missions right now. So that when went well. I think, you know, i think it is indicative of an approach that frankly a lot of the arab countries that have come in all countries have been pursuing which is to try to invest very heavily in sort of big renewable project the other figures anything wrong with that. What all of us are going to ultimately have to do is that its going to be incremental. I think, and i just wanted to briefly say if i were committed people at the Green Building conference nearby here were two redesign the building to make it very low Energy Continues renewable to take advantage zero, you would actually much rather be working in that building and ended building you are working out because they would have more daylight, fresher air and so on and so on. What were going to have to do i think mostly it is prize, innovation and prize the move to do. I think its realizing were going to zero is the big paradigm shift. When she realized what the end state is, that all the things you have to do to get there are not sacrifices. They are just the things that have to do. And many of them will be very good that i think most people will be quite happier in 50 years if we were to pursue them that if, compared to not pursue the i think its very safe to say. Joe, you mentioned that Disinformation Campaign and thats, frankly, what i find most offensive about this topic, that anyone whos doing that but particularly politicians as well as the fossil fuel industry as you mentioned, to me its the opposite of the other side of the coin yelling fire in a crowded building, disabling the fire alarms when theres a fire. Given that new york is considering taking action against exxon for concealing past research that indicated that Climate Change was a reality, do either of you have thoughts on the future of Disinformation Campaigns both in the political arena and in the fossil fuels arena . I just think we have to just fight them, you know . Its great that this information has come out with respect to exxon and other companies, and its great legal action has been taken. As i said i was on a panel last night with someone who is not a climate deny but basically said, we dont have to worry about that, lets just keep building up all our fossil fuel resources in the United States. So are these people out of there. I was with one last night. So we just, i dont know what else to do other than just keep confronting them with the evidence and fighting against it. Just to exxon case, you know, people should read about if they happen. It been written about in the l. A. Times and said that exxon mobil has known literally since the 1970s in which with government scientists that carbon dioxide, the product, the output of burning the product can cause catastrophic impacts. Instead of joining the call for action which would could make a difference, they decided to launch what was for them, they were the largest funder of disinformation until david and charles koch came along. First of all, again, people who have the Financial Resources and understand this issue after the fund information. I dont think theres any question about that. I hope we get more the attorneys general who pursue the kind of case that the new York Attorney general is pursuing, very comparable to what happened with the tobacco case. We can at least learn that who knew what when, and perhaps people can be shamed into a certain behavior change. But, you know, money and profits drive behavior, and the Tobacco Companies havent gone away. And people do still smoke. I think again is just encumbered upon everybody to be part of the information campaign, and that requires everyday people who would rather not talk about the subject becoming better at learning how to talk about it and then going out and talking about it. So, robert joseph, your close both brilliant scholars, and every bit of this has been really informative. Ive just been a couple of days after greenbelt conference downtown and ive recently committed to changing my career path out of it into the green economy. And im looking at a lot of things. There are really cool commercial and residential and life change ideas at a conference. One thing im really surprised about is that a couple of people specifically asked