United Earth, Save the Earth, Elect a United Earth Government.


United Earth, Save the Earth, Elect a United
Earth Government. www.ueog.org Join United Earth, Elect a United Earth Government. Save the Earth with the People, Animals, Environment,
Plants, Natural Habitat, Natural Resources, Education, Act against; Disasters, Deceases,
Poverty, Conflicts and War, Cruelty, Population Explosion, Gangs, Terrorists, Drugs, Bad;
Political and Economic Systems, Governments, Leaders, Misinformation and Establish Justice,
the Critical Global Issues facing the Earth. Democracy and Capitalism, Communism with One
Party Rule and Dictatorships with National Borders, Do Not Represent All the People,
the Animals and the Natural Habitat, as per Past and Recent Performance History of World
Governments, as in the Evidence of Poverty with Widening Unfair Distribution of Wealth,
Security, Conflicts, Torture and Slaughter of Animals, Non Sustainable Development with
Deforestation, Loss of Habitat, Species and Depletion of Non Renewable Resources. These Systems of Governing have Failed. In order to Save the Earth, we need to find
a new and Sensible Political and Economic System to Govern the Earth, capable of addressing
the Critical Issues identified above. We need to Tame both Capitalism and Communism,
Find a Good Balance between Financial Security, Material Needs, Environment, People`s and
Animal`s Rights. It is absolutely a must that we do not leave
a Scorched Earth to our Children, the Animals and the Natural Habitat. United Nation`s Hands being Tied by the World
Governments It Represents, Unable to Pass Resolutions and Take Actions on the Critical
Issues. Therefore Establish a New World Order, a United
Earth Government (UEGOV), Common to the Whole Earth, the Candidates being Elected from a
Pool of Proven NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) and Activists Working on the above Critical
Issues, UEGOV being at the Top of Power and Authority Hierarchy, Sharing Some Powers and
Jurisdictions with the UN and Elected World Governments, Covering the Critical Issues,
United Earth Court, United Earth Security and Peace Keeping Force, Ratify and Implement
Earth Law. Assure Safe, Secure, Peaceful, Healthy, Happy
life for all the People and Animals and a Healthy Environment on Earth Now and in the
Future. This is to Request the UN and the World Governments
to Recognize United Earth Government (UEGOV), Once Elected as Stated Above. Follow us in Twitter. Follow @ThuraiMoorthy
These Critical Issues Facing the Earth are Tied to each other. If We Do Not Address these Issues and Act
Now, We Face Chaos Leading to Annihilation of this Earth. This Earth with the Animals, Trees, Air, Waters,
Land and other Resources are Not Only Just Ours, to Eat, Cut, Use, Take, Pollute and
Destroy, but Belongs to all Living Breathing Things on Earth. We need to Change our Selfish Attitude to
Sharing this Earth with other People, Animals, Plants and Save Mother Earth. Realizing that Earth Government Founders;
Proven NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) and other Earth Activists working on the Critical
Issues, have Volunteered to Undertake the Tasks Which Should Have Been Done by the World
Governments in the First Place, Representing the whole Earth with Real Concerns for all
the People, the Animals, the Plants, the Natural Habitat and the Environment, World Governments
should Grant and Recognize United Earth Government (UEGOV) when Elected, as the Earth’s Highest
Power and Authority in Charge, Sharing Some Powers and Jurisdictions with the UN and Elected
World Governments, Covering the Critical Issues, , admitting they Have Not Done Enough to the
Required Level or at the Needed Pace, to Solve the Earth’s Life Threatening Critical Issues. Besides Letting Violence Against Innocent
People Take Place in Recent Times is Not Acceptable at all. It is Sad to Say that the World Powers Have
Had their Chances for More than Several Decades to Rectify these Matters. Now it is Time to Help Establish a United
Earth Government or Stand Aside and Do Not Obstruct the One and Only Chance for the Earth’s
Survival Before it is Too Late. It is absolutely a must that all the good
nonprofit organizations, working on people, animal, and environmental issues and concerned
deeply about the future of our planet, Corporate, be United, Create a Common Organization, become
One Entity and Act Jointly. Being United will Make us Very Strong, Strong
Enough to succeed in achieving our goals and address the Critical Issues facing us. We need to Elect a United Earth Government,
with the Candidates being selected from a pool with Proven History of Love and Care
towards People, Animals, Environment and Natural Habitat etc. One may ask that which candidates qualify. The author believes that, in the beginning
it should consist of candidates from Proven Non Profit i.e. Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and
Activists Working on the Critical Issues. People, Animal, Environment, Natural Habitat,
Natural Resources, Peace and Justice Loving Activists and NGOs, Join United Earth and
Create a New World Order, a United Earth Government (UEGOV). Powerful Companies, Billionaires, CEOs and
Bad Politicians who put Them ahead of everything else, Some of them, Not All, being Enemies
of the Earth, are Not Going to Lay Down or share their Power and Wealth for the good
of People, Animals, Environment, and the Future of our Planet. This brings us to the question of Revolting
Against the System to achieve our goals. But Do Not Practice Violence or use of Guns
or Bombs, since such actions result in Death, Injury, Property Damage and Chaos, which Hurts
Everyone. Nevertheless, Mother Earth with the People,
the Animals and the Environment, Needs to be Defended Against Poverty, Violence, Environmental
Damage, Deforestation, Loss of Natural Habitat, Loss of Species and all the Injustices forced
upon them, from the Enemies of the Earth. The Sad Fact is, based on past history, it
will take a Revolution with Conflict and Confrontation with the Enemies of the Earth, who want to
keep their Short Term Self Interests, which may Force some Bloodshed to Save the People,
the Animals, and the Environment. This Revolution has to be Led by Earth Lovers,
who Care Deeply about the Future of our Planet. Yet we have to be Noble and Wise, Understand
that the Violators are doing this out of their Greed and Ignorance, Forgive Them, Enlighten
them, Win them over to Our side, so that the Earth Functions as One Body and Soul in Peace
and Harmony. We have to Try our Very Best to Avoid Violence,
Injury and Blood Shed. With Wide Support from All the People, Animal,
Environment, Natural Habitat, Natural Resources, Peace and Justice Lovers, we can Avoid Violence. The Revolution I Foresee could be Non Violent
and could be as though it is just Changing of the Guards in which the Old Guards Leave
and the New Guards, the United Earth Government, Takes Over. We should Remind Ourselves of Past History
of the Liberation Struggle Led by Gandhi in a Non Violent Revolution Against British Rule
in India. To Save the Earth, in addition to acting as
an organization, at the individual and family level, we have to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle,
Sacrifice our Luxuries, be Sensible Consumers, Conscious about Our Planet, Live a Relatively
Humble Life. Stop Runaway Development with Oil Drilling,
Mining, Highways, Malls, Over Fishing, Deforestation, CO2 Generating Energy and Products Manufacture
and Consumption with Sensible and Sustainable Development. Capitalism Liberated modern societies from
Feudalism, But Led to Sweat Shops with Economic Slavery, Poverty and Unemployment for Some. Capitalism Concentrates and Grows the Wealth
and Control of the Banks, Finance Companies, Businesses, Farms and Lands Owned and Run
by a Few, the top 1% Owning 50% of Wealth, Money Trickling Down from the Top, with Those
at the Bottom Getting Poorer. Eliminate this Huge Unfair Financial Inequality
between the Rich and Poor and Cyclic Recessions with Loss of Income and Home Leading to Social
Upheaval and Unrest Under Capitalism. Therefore Replace Capitalism with United Earth
Government Socialism in which Everything from Banks to Lands are Collectively Owned and
Run by the Workers, the People and the United Earth Government, with the Flexibility of
Independent Businesses, Farms and Fishing, etc. to Function, with a Fair Share of Profits,
Incomes and Ownerships to the Workers. Eliminate Loss of Home due to Loss of Income
and Reduction of Value of Home due to Housing Market Collapse. Replace Owning Homes, Furniture and Appliances
with Affordable and Easily Paid Off Furnished Living Space which they Own wherever they
Move. Address Climate Change due to Transportation
and avoid having a Car Loan, Stress of Driving and Commute Delays in Rush Hour. Replace Owning Vehicles with On Demand Renewable
Energy Powered Rapid Door to Door Transportation. Stop Torture and Slaughter of Animals, Birds
and Fish in the Meat, Fish, Egg and Dairy Industries. Become Vegetarians, even better Vegans and
keep Meat, Fish, Eggs and Dairy Off your Diet. In Addition There will the Benefit of Surplus
of Grain Fed to the Animals in the Meet Industry, Left Over to Feed the Whole World Right Now
and Eliminate Hunger, and Drastically Reduces the Risks of Strokes and Heart Attacks Caused
by Growth Hormones, Fat and Cholesterol in the Meat, resulting in Weight Gain for Some. Every Year Millions of Children Die of Hunger. In the Asian, African and Latin American countries,
well over 500 million people are living in “Absolute Poverty”. World Bank. Nearly One Billion – a Majority of Humanity
– Live on Less than $2 Per Day, while the Rich are Still Getting Richer. The World Health Organization estimates that
one-third of the world is Well-Fed, one-third is Under-Fed one-third is Starving. There are Racial, Ethnic, Religious and Dictatorship
Conflicts Raging in Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria
and other Countries with Deaths and injuries of Tens of Thousands and Loss of Development
where it is Needed Most. The Rwandan Genocide was the Mass Murder of
Nearly a Million Rwanda’s minority Tutsis by the Hutu Majority from April to July of
1994, while the World Governments and the UN watched and Did Nothing About it. Not Much Difference between Auschwitz Poland
in the 40s to Rwanda in the 90s. Level of Concern and Ability of the World
Community, Governments and the UN is in Question. Question is are we Civilized and Acting as
a Responsible World Community, Willing and Ready to Respond to such Inhumane Acts of
Violence Against People, Animals and Natural Habitat? Definitely Not! This Stresses the Need for a New World Order. A United Earth Government, a Court and a United
Earth Government Security and Peace Keeping Force (UEGOVSPKF) to Intervene Immediately
in such Incidents with Quick Response. Animals are Subject to Unimaginable Cruelty,
Torture and Slaughter, Experiencing Extreme Pain in the Meat, Fishing, Entertainment,
Fur Industries and Research Labs using Animals. 10 Billion Animals are Slaughtered for Consumption
Annually, after Spending their Whole Life in Small Cages, Castrated, Organs Cut Off,
Hung from One Leg, Bled to Death, Immersed in Boiling Water for hair removal, all with
No Pain Killers, Unable even to Walk to the Slaughter House, being Lame by having been
Injected Growth Hormones to Gain Weight Rapidly to Increase Profit, Dragged by a String Tied
to One Leg Screaming in Pain. Every Year 500,000 Cows and Goats were Walked
in Hot Weather without Adequate Water, 70% of them from India and Slaughtered in a Hindu
Religious Sacrifice in Nepal. With Wide Spread Protests by Animal Rights
Activists it was Banned. In China Dogs, some Stolen from Pet Owners,
Caged and Transported with No Water and Slaughtered in the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, in Spite of
Worldwide online Protests. Loss of Natural Habitat by Clear-Cut Logging,
Pollution of Lakes, Rivers, the Ocean, Air and Land, Out of Control Runaway Unsustainable
Development with Urban Sprawl, Highways, Mining, Oil Drilling, Overfishing and Lavish and Wasteful
Life Style in Developed Countries is Threatening Migration of Animals, Birds and Fish, Leading
towards More Loss of Species and very Survival of Planet Earth. Rapid depletion of Natural Resources such
as Oil, Gas and Mining Products due to Out of Control Runaway Development in already
Developed Countries is threatening the Future of Our Children. Out of Control Population Explosion is Causing
Great Stress on Food, Land, Housing, Energy, Water, Natural Habitat and other Natural Resources. Global Warming due to Excessive generation
of Carbon-di-oxide (CO2) with the use of Coal, Oil and Gas by Motor Vehicles, Factories and
for Energy Generation, particularly in North America, Europe, Japan, Russia, China, India
and other Countries is Threatening the Very Survival of our Planet Earth. This is Melting the Polar Ice Cap Threatening
Coastal Areas, Causing Hurricanes, Droughts, Forest Fires and Flooding with Ever Increasing,
Strength, Frequency of Occurrence, Setting Records in Recent Months, while Widening the
Natural Disaster Regions and Periods. Most Businesses and Individuals are focused
on Short Term, Self Centered Goals based on Selfish Needs of Themselves, while Most Governments
implement laws which has No or Little Consideration for the future of our Children, the Animals,
the Environment, Natural Habitat and Natural Resources. The Earth is locked into a Vicious Cycle of
Mismanaged Runaway Economy with Wasteful Consumption in Developed countries, Under Development
and Poverty in Developing Countries, being Unfair to many, Cruelty to Some Caught in
War, Torture and Slaughter of Animals, Destruction of Natural Habitat, Rapid Depletion
of Non Renewable Natural Resources, Pollution of the Earth with Harmful Substances, Out
of Control Population Explosion and Global Warming Leading to Annihilation of this Earth
in the Not too Distant Future. All of this is simply to have a Lavish Life
and Power for Those in Control of Power and a Lion’s Share of the Earth’s Wealth, which
makes the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer, leading to a Hand to Mouth Living for the
Average Person and a Miserable Life for the Poor. Unfortunately we do Not Have Twenty Years
to Stop this Runaway Madness and to Restore Sanity to the lives of people and the animals. Instead we Have Only a Few Years. Major World Governments are Not doing Enough
About it to the Required Level or at the Needed Pace. Time to Start the Correction Process is Right
Now Before It Is Too Late. With Not Enough Agreements between the World
Governments or No Effective Plan of Action in Sight, We have No other Choice but to Elect
and Form a United Earth Government (UEGOV) to address these Life Threatening Issues Facing
the Earth in Time. United Earth is Determined to Unlock and Reverse
this Cycle, to Protect the People, the Animals, the Plants, the Natural Habitat, the Environment,
setting Target Levels and a Time Line to Achieve these Levels, forming the United Earth Government
(UEGOV), a Court and United Earth Government Security and Peace Keeping Force (UEGOVSPKF). In any case we have to Enjoy Life, be Wise,
Friendly, Love the Earth with all the Living Things, the Habitat and be Happy, Enjoying
Sustainable Activities. While Keeping in Mind; Not Living a Lavish
Life Style, Owning Mansions or Heavy Gas Guzzling Vehicles, Consuming Too Much, Using Motorized
Leisure’s or Traveling too Far, powered by CO2 Generating Energy Sources or Causing
any Pain to Humans, Large and Small Animals, Fish, Birds, Trees or Natural Habitat,
Love them, Stay within our CO2 Limits per person per year for Sustainability of Earth
so that Life Continues on Earth in Peace and Harmony. All the Issues identified above are Tied to
Each Other, Inseparable and Needs to be addressed as One Huge Issue. Our Course of Action and the Earth Law given
below is the Bitter Medicine for the Earth’s Survival. Earth Law
http://www.ueog.org/earth-law/ Adopt Pets from Local Animal Shelters, Not
Buy from Pet Stores as Millions of Dogs and Cats are Euthanized every year with Not Enough
People to Adopt. Spay or Neuter your Pets for the Same Reason. Keep the Earth’s Population under Strict Control. Follow Birth Control. Change your Lavish and Luxury Life Style to
a Simple and Humble Life to Address (i) Global Warming, (ii) Loss of Natural Habitat, (iii)
Stop Rapid depletion of Non Renewable Natural Resources. Join United Earth’s Effort to Get rid of
Cars as the Main mode of Transportation, which Generates the Global Warming Gas CO2 and other
harmful substances directly when it runs, Indirectly in the Process of Mining to generate
the Raw Materials and Manufacture and Takes a lot of our key Non Renewable Natural Resources. Promote the New CO2 Free, On Demand and Energy
Source Flexible High Speed Door to Door Transportation. Based on Past History of World Governments,
and since the Issues Facing us are Huge Well Beyond the Governments or the UN Made of these
Governments with each one Driving in a Different Direction, for example CO2 Level, Ownership
and Control of Territories, Conflicts and Nuclear Disarmament. Therefore Join United Earth and Campaign to
Create a United Earth Government (UEGOV) to Take Prompt and Just Action. When Established, Join the
United Earth Security and Peace Keeping Force. Volunteer, Donate and Inform Everyone about
United Earth. Follow Earth Law. United Earth. Save the Earth, Elect a United Earth Government. www.ueog.org

The New Economy of the Warming Arctic


This video was made possible by Skillshare. Learn for free for two months by being one
of the first 500 to sign up at skl.sh/wendover4. The Arctic is warming. That is not an assumption, a belief, a theory,
or a political stance. That is an empirical fact based on empirical
data. Just in 2018, based off the average between
1958 and 2002 the yearly average temperature in the Arctic should have been this, but in
reality it was this. One year is not a trend but here was 2017,
here was 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013. In 2017, overall annual Arctic air temperatures
were 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit or 1.6 degrees Celsius above average. That may not seem like much but that small
difference is like if Paris’ climate changed to that of Istanbul. Humans have lived in the Arctic for tens of
thousands of years, it’s far from impossible, but it is difficult. We’re no strangers to living in difficult
places—humans survive on islands days away from civilization; in deserts nearly completely
devoid of natural resources; and in places like the Arctic where cold and darkness create
some of the most rugged conditions on earth. At least some of us seem to enjoy living in
tough conditions. Where humans are lazy, in a sense, though,
is economically. When there’s an option to get the same for
less, we’ll almost always take it. The Arctic is an enormous area with plenty
of natural and human resources but it’s also a harsh and isolated place meaning there’s
always been the same options for less, at least until now. Traditionally, the Arctic has been far from
a center of economic activity. For example, the Canadian territory of Nunavut
has a gross domestic product of just $2 billion USD. That means that, despite being the largest
province or territory composing 21% of Canada’s land area, Nunavut only makes up 0.13% of
the national economy. The same is true elsewhere in the Arctic. Alaska makes up 16% of the US’ land but
only 0.27% of its economy. The Finnish region of Lapland makes up 27%
of the country’s land but only 2.5% of its economy. In perhaps the most staggering example, Greenland
has a physical size larger than that of Mexico and yet its economy is smaller than that of
the tiny island country of Aruba. However, its this very desolation, both physically
and economically, that’s spurring new Arctic industries. Emptiness is an asset. This space is being filled by those seeking
isolation. Tourism has established itself as the first
of two major sectors growing in the Arctic. For example, Finland’s Lapland region has
seen double digit tourism growth over recent years. This area has particularly benefited from
the attention it receives from Europe’s package holiday industry. Particularly in the month leading up to Christmas,
charter flights by companies like Thomas Cook and TUI will leave from nearly every UK airport
to far north Lapland airports like Kittilä, Rovaniemi, and Ivalo. Tourists come to visit destinations like Santa
Claus Village, an amusement park that bills itself as the home of Santa, as well as engaging
in outdoors activities such as snowmobiling, dogsledding, and skiing. With the relative ease of visiting these destinations
via direct flights from destinations around Europe and especially the UK, package tour
companies even sell day-trips to the Arctic. One flies out from somewhere like London in
the morning, visits Santa Claus Village, and flies back in the evening. Of course, this tourism industry, despite
its rapid growth, has its shortcomings. About 44% of all yearly arrivals happen in
December and January making it highly seasonal so the region has put efforts into attracting
more spring, summer, and fall visitors. Lapland has nonetheless decided that tourism
is likely its most promising driver of growth so it has placed this industry at the forefront
of its economic development efforts. This promise of tourism has been identified
by other Arctic areas, as well. Visits are increasing steadily in Alaska,
the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Svalbard, it’s tough to find an Arctic region
where tourism isn’t growing. While at a much smaller scale than places
like Alaska or Lapland, Greenland has made moderately successful efforts to expand tourism
as well. It has seen healthy growth rates from 181,000
nights stayed by tourists 20 years ago to 263,000 today. Like many places in the Arctic, though, it
suffers from accessibility issues. It’s just hard to get to Greenland. There are really only two ways to travel there
from the outside world—via the three hour turboprop flight from Reykjavik or the four
hour jet flight from Copenhagen. Both options are expensive with the flight
from Reykjavik or Copenhagen to Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, costing around, at best, $800. There are no day trips to Greenland. This is part of the reason why much of the
growth in tourism both in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic uses another means of transport—cruise
ships. In another video we’ve covered how the warming
of the arctic is melting sea-ice and opening up new maritime routes. This is making it far easier for large cruise
ships to sail through Arctic waters into small northern towns. Now, Arctic cruises have happened for decades
to a certain extent but in the past they were always done by ships like this—small expedition
style vessels with strengthened hulls to withstand ice. In 2016, though, the beast of Arctic cruises—the
northwest passage route through the Canadian archipelago from the Pacific to the Atlantic—was
completed by this ship—the Crystal Serenity. Thanks to the lower ice levels, it’s now
possible to sail large, traditional ships through this route. The Crystal Serenity is a regular cruise ship
built with a regular hull just like every other cruise ship. Unlike the smaller ships of before, this one
carried 1,000 passengers through the high Arctic in comfort with onboard restaurants,
a spa, theatre, casino, and more. When making voyages like this, ships typically
make stops in some of the tiny Alaskan, Canadian, and Greenlandic towns along the route. One of the most popular stops is the town
of Pond Inlet. Normally the only way in here is via the three
hour flight from Iqaluit that costs well over $1,000 roundtrip but a few times a year tourists
just wake up a couple hundred feet off its shore. Only 1,600 people live in Pond Inlet and yet
in 2018 eighteen cruise ships stopped in the town carrying over 3,200 passengers. That’s up from ten ships in 2015, nine in
2016, and thirteen in 2017. For a small town of 1,600, especially one
like Pond Inlet with a 22% unemployment rate, the significance of thousands of the kind
of tourists willing to pay tens of thousands for an Arctic cruise visiting is enormous. The local governments runs programs to help
develop businesses to cater to cruise guests, stores stock up on products to sell to visitors,
and dozens gain temporary employment to help coordinate the tourist’s shore visits. Then, on a rapid-fire basis in August and
early September, the only time period when the northwest passage is navigable, ships
show up just off the coast of Pond Inlet and dozens of other northern Canadian and Alaskan
towns every few days. The economic benefit of these visits is indisputable—Pond
Inlet earned $250,000 in docking fees in 2018 in addition to the benefit local businesses
and employees received. It’s not all good news, though. Due to the enormous price of shipping goods
to Arctic towns like Pond Inlet, most of the indigenous residents hunt whale, seal, caribou,
and other indigenous animals to feed their families. There’s little hard research on its effect
yet, but many are concerned about these large ships driving away animals and changing hunting
grounds. This is in addition to the effect climate
change itself is already having. There are also some concerned about poorer
air quality from ship exhaust, pollution from ship discharge, for the safety of passengers
in an emergency considering the limited search and rescue capability, and with the preservation
of these local cultures. Just like the nature around them, the isolation
of these towns has kept the traditions and customs of these communities alive in the
modern era and one can imagine what it’s like to have 1,000 tourists suddenly show
up in a town of 1,600 that’s used to having, at most, a few dozen outsiders there at a
time. The Arctic wants economic development, but
they don’t want these towns to turn into tourist destinations. Most want the cruise ships to come, but they
also want to keep the surroundings unspoiled. One comes at the cost of the other so it’s
all just a balancing act of interests. There are, though, more heavily weighted scales
balancing the economy and the environment. According to estimates, this area, the Arctic,
holds 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil. That represents 90 billion barrels which,
at current prices, are worth more than $4 trillion. The thing is, it doesn’t really make sense
to drill in the Arctic right now. That’s because, in the Arctic, to drill
that barrel of oil which, in January, 2019, is selling for $46, it costs about $78. That’s compared to costs as low as $29 per
barrel with onshore drilling in the Middle East. Whereas in the Middle East all you have to
do is build an oil rig, in the Arctic, where there’s limited infrastructure, for offshore
drilling, one has to build a rig, get icebreaker ships, establish a port, set up a transportation
and supply network, and more. In some ways, therefore, Arctic ice melt is
helping reduce these costs as it’s easier for ships to move around both to explore for
oil and serve rigs. In other ways, though, this is adding difficulties
as less ice leads to larger waves which require bigger, more expensive boats to navigate which
sometimes require dredging in the shallow waters of some oil-rich locations. Right now, Arctic oil drilling is sort-of
in a holding pattern until oil prices increase or drilling costs decrease enough for it to
become economically viable. As a whole, though, in the long-term, Arctic
warming decreases cost for the oil and gas industry as it makes the area look and act
more like the cheaper and warmer south. The economic impact for other industries is
more of a mixed bag, though. For example, fishing represents a large proportion
of the current Arctic economy and, while some species of fish will grow in number due to
warmer waters others will slowly disappear. In mining, the opening of sea routes will
make transportation cheaper but the industry actually benefits from having the frozen,
permafrost land which is disappearing since it gives a stable platform for equipment and
therefore makes set-up less expensive. In fact, land transportation infrastructure
in general, including airports, is expected to deteriorate rapidly as permafrost melts
and land becomes less stable. The tourism industry, which does benefit from
the easier access and increased activity in the Arctic, suffers too from Arctic warming. In November, 2018, Lapland lacked any snow
due to unseasonably high temperatures which led to mass trip cancellations by tourists
who booked their trips to see the traditionally snowy Arctic. Tourists come for the winter weather so a
future without snow in the region is potentially a future without tourism in Lapland. In addition, the pristine natural environment
is the asset of the Arctic tourism industry so an Arctic without that pristine natural
environment is one without its tourism industry. Even ignoring the irreversible, disastrous
consequences the warming of the Arctic is already having on polar bears and caribou
and fish and walruses and reindeer and all the other native Arctic species, this circle
is home to four million people. The Arctic plus a few more degrees is an Arctic
that has fundamentally changed the way these four million people live and work and that’s
an Arctic that may no longer be truly home to them. The people, animals, and environment of the
Arctic, in a metaphorical sense, are situated between two, massive, slow-moving icebergs. One is the power of climate change and the
other is the the power of the economy. Climate change could possibly be slowed or
stopped or reversed but only with great effort by more than just the people of the Arctic. On the other side, the power of economic pushes
and pulls is perhaps just as difficult to stop. If it makes economic sense for industries
to be in the Arctic, they’re almost certainly going to be in the Arctic even if it means
environmental ruin. These two massive, slow-moving icebergs are
on their collision course with the Arctic already and, it might just be too late to
stop them. The physical, economic, and social landscape
of the Arctic is going to change. This might be a story without a happy ending. The only positive note to end on is that,
while riding the sinking ship, there’s at least a chance to make money on the way down. If you ever get the chance to visit the Arctic,
which, as someone who’s been there, I highly recommend if you have the opportunity, the
number one thing you should bring is a camera to capture the stunning landscapes and distinctive
towns. Before heading off, though, you should brush
up on your photography skills with Skillshare’s landscape photography class. Using their iOS or Android apps, you can even
download the classes offline for the flight. Of course, to go the Arctic you first need
the time so, in order to streamline your work processes and improve your productivity, you
should also take their “Productivity Masterclass” course by fellow YouTuber and all-around nice
guy Thomas Frank. In addition to these two, Skillshare has about
22,000 courses so it’s the perfect place to go for those with varied interests. Best of all, you can take either and all of
these courses for free for two months by being one of the first 500 to go to skl.sh/wendover4. Also, one last note, I recently got an Instagram
to post personal updates and behind-the-scenes photos of all the travels I do to make these
videos so if that sounds interesting to you, you can go follow it at instragram.com/sam.from.wendover. Thanks for watching and I’ll see you again
in two weeks for another Wendover Productions video.

Why Greta Thunberg is Super Cringe – My Views on Climate Change!


[Instrumental music] Choir: Here is the news~ The latest news~ [Instrumental music] Wow, it’s on my bucket list to get on Daily
Mail, yay! [Censor beep] If you guys follow me on Instagram, I’ve recently
had a lot of heat there because I said that Greta Thunberg’s speech
is cringe-y and one dimensional. For some reason people got REALLY pissed off. So I’ve decided to do this video to talk about
my views on climate change. This topic is complicated and quite controversial so be warned that it is gonna be a pretty long video. Many of you probably don’t understand what
the fight is about right? I mean, it’s pretty simple. The climate is fucked and why are we fighting instead of working
together to fix it? Is there a crisis and how urgent is it? What really gets me is that if you even dare
to ask this question people get really offended and term you an
ignorant climate change denier. 97% of scientists agree, they yell. Are you an idiot? You don’t listen to science? Um, excuse me just because I ask questions
doesn’t mean that you are morally better than me. Just because you being alive and using the
internet is proof that you are contributing to humanity’s demise as much as I am okay? But I will get to that part in a little bit. So back to climate change “deniers”. Nobody is really denying the climate is changing because it has actually changed since the start of
time. We have had warm periods and Ice ages. But the questions that the climate change skeptics are asking are At what rate is this change happening? How long do we have? Do humans thrive in warmer or cooler climates? How much of this climate change is actually
caused by human industrialisation because if a lot of it is just nature doing
its own thing then we can’t really stop it no more than
we can stop a volcano from erupting, right? What are your plans to combat this upcoming
doomsday? Is it really gonna work and at what cost? And I don’t mean just monetary cost, I mean
at what cost to humanity as well. Googling about climate change, its severity
and its cause yields thousands and thousands of diverse results and if it’s science, which is always irrevocable
and true then why are there so many people all saying
different things? To make things worse, a lot of money and power
is actually involved in this because different industries in the Energy
sector all want you to vote for Politicians who will give them trillions
of dollars in subsidies because their solution will help save mankind
right? So it’s at all cost. And it’s not just about the money either….
the Politicians want you to vote for them because they want Power. So, how much of the information that we’re
reading are actually skewed? We don’t really know. You may say that scientific results don’t
lie but scientists are humans as well and they
have their own bias. You don’t even need to be a dishonest scientist
to try to sway your argument either way. You can simply omit information and talk about
the parts that fit your own narrative. For example, if I show you this chart of rising
CO2 levels and global temperatures for the past few decades it’s actually scientifically accurate but what I am doing is that I am omitting
the CO2 and global temperatures for the thousands of years before our times. This current chart doesn’t look so scary anymore because there doesn’t seem to be a direct
correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. In fact, we have had much more CO2 in the
past and also lower temperatures. So, I don’t know what’s up with that? I’m not trying to show you guys which chart
you should believe. My point is that you can present truthful
information but by omitting parts that you don’t want
people to see you can sway things to your narrative. As it is we are bombarded with way too much
information. Add that to the fact that people telling you
these information often have an agenda both ways so you really have to wonder if
they are telling you the truth and it gets even more confusing. If someone tells you that they are 100% sure about
the murky waters that is Climate science – both the Alarmists and the Deniers just ignore them. They are brainwashed, okay. Climate science is so complicated, and if
even the scientists and experts are arguing then who are we to say that we know anything
for sure? So let’s go back to the questions that the climate change skeptics have First, let’s talk about what we DO know about. We know for a fact that CO2 absorbs infrared
radiation which causes the air to get warmer. We know that the amount of CO2 in the air
is increasing by quite an alarming bit after the Industrial revolution. We know burning fossil fuels cause CO2. We know that temperatures have been having
an upwards warming trend although in the past few years the global
temperature actually decreased. And yup, that’s about the extent of what
science can definitively prove. So, is there a crisis? For this, scientists look to climate change
models, which will predict climate trends based on past statistics. Unfortunately, not one scientist is able to
point to a climate change model that has been able to predict the future accurately. Again and again, we were given doomsday prophecies
that didn’t actually happen. For example, Al Gore told us in the early
2000s that the Arctic ice will be all gone within 7 years. Well, it has been melting, but it has also
grown and it is still there. We know that CO2 levels are rising and so
is the average global temperature trend. Climate change alarmists love to use NASA’s warning video which looks really scary and convincing because
it’s like blue and then it turns really red right? However, here’s the argument from the other
side. We know that correlation doesn’t necessarily
mean causation. Just for example, we know that humans tend
to thrive better in warmer temperatures. When we thrive we build more industry, which
emits higher CO2 levels. Rising temperatures causing more CO2 instead
of the other way around is just one way the correlation could be wrong. How much of global warming is actually caused
by CO2? The air is actually only 0.04% CO2. Can such a small account cause such a huge
difference in our climate? After all, when you look at the Milankovitch
cycles over thousands of years you can see the Earth’s temperature keeps
rising and falling with or without human industrialisation. Could this spike that we are having simply
be part of nature? The counter argument is of course that we
cannot possibly emit such high and increasing levels of CO2 without
some consequences. Alright then, but for that to be convincingly
frightening for the skeptics we need to know what will happen if the temperature
rises, which it has been. They say that the sea levels will rise, entire
islands will be flooded we won’t have Maldives anymore. And Greta Thunberg says that entire ecosystems
are collapsing. Okay while the sea levels didn’t seem to
have risen to a catastrophic level since then. And the Arctic ice caps are melting, but the
ice in Antarctica is also growing. And since CO2 is plant food, the abundance
of it means that the Earth today is greener than it has ever been. According to NASA, a drop of even 1 degree
in global temperature can plunge us all into an Ice age. In the 70s, the scientists were fearing that
we were about to hit another Ice Age soon. What if global warming is actually preventing
that? Again, I’m not saying that I’m on either
side. My official stance is that I don’t know,
because I’m not a Scientist and I’m not an Economist. I’m just trying to give both sides of the
picture here since most people have only heard the argument from one side. Alright, let’s just say that you now believe
that Earth is in a dire state. And something really really needs to be done. We now come to the second part of the climate
change debate, which is: So, what is the solution? The most liberal among us all seem to agree:
No more fossil fuels. People still need electricity, so let’s
harness the power of the wind and the sun they say install wind turbines and solar panels everywhere. That sounds really romantic doesn’t it, we’re using
nature to heal nature. Small problem. Renewable energy is erratic, which means that
you can’t get energy when there is no sun or no wind. Solar and wind only generate Energy about
30% of the year which means that they are just taking up space when they are not doing
anything. They are also weak, and barely enough to power
a city. Solar panels also cost a lot to make, and
it’s great that the cost keeps decreasing as more and more solar panels are being produced, but keep in mind that
using metal also requires mining which isn’t good for Mother Earth. Wind turbines kill loads of birds all the
time, and many of these birds are actually endangered species like Eagles or Condors. When saving the climate is it worth it to
destroy the environment at the same time? Not to mention, Solar farms and Wind farms
take up a lot of space, which isn’t even possible for small countries like Singapore. Another alternative is Nuclear power. For some reason, Greenies really seem to hate
Nuclear power. Nuclear energy is really dense, which means
you only need a very small amount of Uranium less than the size of a Rubik’s cube, to create
enough electricity for you to use your entire life. Now Engineers are sure that the Nuclear accidents
like the ones in Chernobyl or Fukushima will not be repeated
again because those were old plant designs. I don’t know whether that’s true. But how about Nuclear waste? Well, the good news is, Nuclear power produces
very little Nuclear waste. Actually all the nuclear waste in the world
that has ever been produced cannot even fill up a Football field. Bill Gates is also developing technology to
get power out of Nuclear waste, so we can use them again. However, people are really terrified of Nuclear,
understandably so. Nuclear power plants are also pretty expensive,
but they don’t cost nearly as much as Wind and Solar. So all these are the more popular alternatives
to burning Fossil fuel and Natural gas but they all come with their own pros and
cons. Another good news is that as this video plays
on, many new technologies are being innovated to help our Climate crisis. For example, do you know that there are now
machines that can literally suck the Carbon out of the air and transform it into Oxygen? That’s pretty cool huh? Alright, let’s talk about Externality. One of the reasons why Carbon emissions keep
rising, is because of Externality. It means that since nobody owns the atmosphere,
people are free to dump whatever shit they want into it. If a restaurant, for example, wants to cook
food and while doing so emit loads and loads of Carbon into the air it costs nothing to their business, right? So they don’t really care. Since nobody really “owns” the air, it means
that even if you do take good care of it, it doesn’t mean everyone else will. I’m looking at you China and India. So to solve this problem of Externality, people
have came up with some solutions. How about a Carbon tax? Since most of the Carbon is emitted by industries,
let’s tax businesses for the Carbon that they produce. This should discourage businesses from using
Fossil fuels and finding alternatives plus the money that you taxed can be put to
good use by investing in alternative forms of Energy for
the country. Not every country will agree to do this, but
each country can do their own part by having their own Carbon tax. That will help right? Sounds good. But, there is a problem. With a Carbon tax, companies will then pass
down the extra cost to the consumers. A Carbon tax actually affects the poor the
most because the poor spends a larger proportion
of their income on necessities. Just imagine now petrol if more expensive
because of a Carbon tax. The bus fares will then have to increase so
that businesses can continue to survive. In fact, everything would be more expensive
because to create anything at all, you need Energy, right. If businesses continue to use Fossil fuels,
they are now charged a tax. If they use alternative Energy sources it is
also more expensive for them. Regardless, their cost goes up. You think a rich guy cares if his petrol is
a little bit more expensive? No, he will continue to drive his Lamborghini okay? It is the poor people who will have to suffer. If, for example, USA starts a high Carbon
tax what will actually happen? American companies will then start doing their
manufacturing in countries like China or India where there is a lower Carbon tax or no Carbon
tax at all. What will happen is that Americans will then
lose jobs. And what is worse, is that the net amount
of Carbon in the air is still exactly the same. Alright, so what if we force all countries
to enforce a Carbon tax? Firstly, I don’t think that all countries
will want to do that because which poor country will actually want slower economic growth? They don’t. And also, you can’t just force people to have
laws, the citizens need to agree to it. And, you want to try to convince citizens
to vote for a government that intends to increase the cost of
living? Good luck with that. We see first world countries like America
or Europe getting all upset about the increasing amount of Carbon in the air but most of the Carbon that’s already in our
atmosphere was produced by these countries precisely because they used cheap and effective Fossil fuels to build their advanced nations. Just imagine if you built yourself a nice
wooden home and when a homeless guy is cutting down trees to build his house you tell him that he needs to stop cutting
down trees because he is destroying the environment. He will tell you to fuck off. It is patently selfish of these first world
countries to tell people after they abused the atmosphere for decades that we should all stop now together. Well, how about you stop? And poorer countries only stop when they emit
the same amount of Carbon that you already have? After all, alternative energy costs a lot
of money. And when your people are barely surviving,
you don’t give a shit about some day in the future 50 years from now, where the sea levels might or might not rise. You only care about surviving the next week. Until this Externality problem is resolved I don’t really see how we can solve the Climate crisis. See, now you understand right? Everything comes at a cost. Things are not so simple. This is why when I hear people like Greta
talking angrily about Climate change, I immediately dismiss them
as naive and One-dimensional. And yes, very cringe. I should be back in school, on the other side
of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for Hope! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood
with your empty words. Okay we get it, you care that the environment
and the climate is in shambles. So? Your immediate reaction is to blame people
for it. Blaming governments and blaming Capitalism. How do you think you have such a comfortable
life? Your cheap goods, your cheap food, the nice
building that you are staying in, the medicine you take when you
get ill… How do you think all of that was created?
By Capitalism and Economic growth, that’s what. Sure, we can all go back to our caveman lives,
where we get flesh-eating diseases, Dysentery and dying
in the cold without heaters or proper houses and therefore returning to “nature”, but let’s
see how many of these angry climate protestors actually want
to do that. I don’t think that many. Climate change has not been caused by the
greed of the corporate elite for their “Fairytales of eternal Economic
growth”. The truth is that companies produce the goods
and services that people want and carbon emissions are sadly, a by-product of that. We happily buy all these goods and services,
all while condemning the companies that’s supplying them for
destroying the planet with their greed. A little hypocritical, huh? Economic growth is not a dirty, cold word
meant to line the pockets of the rich while fucking up the planet, it actually does make
people’s lives better. We are living in the most peaceful and prosperous
times in human history with global poverty rates going from 28% in
1999 to only 11% in 2003 and infant mortality rates actually dropped
more than 50% since 1990. Yet privileged children around the world are
skipping school and saying that the generations before theirs are greedy and self serving. Now you know why many adults are so triggered
by Greta’s insolent, ill-informed, ungrateful and accusatory speech. Don’t forget, it’s only with wealth that we
are able to develop better technology for saving the Climate. Climate change is nothing to be ANGRY about. You can be worried about it, sure but this
righteous rage that people are experiencing is entirely misplaced. There are trade offs to everything and yes
perhaps the climate is currently fucked but the people who did it did it because they
wanted a more comfortable safe life for the next generation. And by people I mean everyone. Because I doubt anyone living in a First world
country didn’t contribute to the state that we are in right now. You can postulate all you want by traveling
in a sailboat for 2 weeks instead of flying but don’t pretend that you don’t also enjoy
having air-conditioning in your home, okay? Now i know this video is really long but can
we talk just a little bit more about fucking plastic bags and straws? I know these two things have little to do
with climate change, it’s more about conservation and
bio-diversity which means we try not to make animals extinct
lah. So that day I was at a petrol kiosk and I
went inside the shop to buy something. The lady at the cashier asked if I wanted
a plastic bag. I said ‘Yes.’ And then she said ‘Okay, it’s 10 cents.’ I said ‘Urgh, no thanks.’ And I tried to pick up all my 5 items from
the counter. She then gave me this look and said
‘Um, yeah it’s because we are going Green.’ As if she was very disgusted that I refused
to save planet Earth. So I said ‘Oh yeah? So where does that 10
cents go to?’ She pointed to the signboard that was beside
her and said the 10 cents goes to charity while giving me this smug face like ‘Whatchu got to say to that now, Bitch?’ I couldn’t be bothered to argue with her okay
because obviously she’s very stupid but let this just sink in for a second. She was working at a fucking petrol kiosk. Does she know how much Carbon her company
emits? And okay, let’s just say that the 10 cents
goes to charity to save the turtles or whatever. How much of the 10 cents goes to your administration
fees huh? And the money that the company saves from
not giving us free plastic bags? Where did that cost saving go to? Do you think that your company is being so noble
by “going Green”? I don’t think so. If she had given me that free plastic bag I would have used it to bring my groceries home. I would then use it to line my rubbish bin because what else can i use to line my rubbish bin right? I can’t use paper bags. And if I didn’t have free plastic bags to
line my bins I would then have to buy plastic bags to do
that. Now, this bin lining bag that I bought is only
used once and dumped okay? Instead of the free plastic bag which would
have been reused twice. Anyway, it doesn’t fucking matter. Because in Singapore, most of our trash is
incinerated. Plastic is only bad if it ends up in the oceans
or in landfills and this isn’t even relevant in Singapore. So can you tell me, what the fuck is she so
smug for? I don’t mind if companies want to do their
part to go Green or whatever, great! Good for you okay? But what pisses me off is that they act so
bloody sanctimonious about it when this plastic bag crap only serves
to benefit them. And don’t even get me started about straws
okay? If you don’t want to use straws, you don’t
need straws that’s fine, that’s great. But if I am using a straw, please don’t think
that you are fucking better than me or harass me about
it okay. Because I can just dispose of my straw properly
and the straws all get incinerated anyway. Better yet, I can recycle the straw. The problem isn’t about plastic. The problem is irresponsible garbage disposal
methods. We don’t have that problem in Singapore. Dumbest of all are people who use paper straws
or metal straws as substitutes because hello? Paper don’t need to cut down trees to make
is it? And how do you think they make metal straws? By mining the Earth and burning fuel to melt
the metal. I’m so triggered. Anyway, back to Climate change. People who support Greta are really confused
as to why there are people who are reacting so adversely to her. They say that it’s admirable that teenagers
care so much and what is wrong with telling the world to save our planet right? Well, besides the fact that rude teenagers
who think that they can talk down to adults ought to be smacked
in the face what she is spreading is Alarmism and the
false narrative that Capitalism and Greed are somehow to blame for the Climate change
crisis, which is both dangerous and wrong. Urging the world to go into mass panic mode
makes people extremely emotional so they resort to drastic measures without considering trade
offs and this also stops any kind of logical discussion
on solutions. And she’s wrong because it is only with wealth
that we can build better technology. It is wealth that protects us against natural
disasters. Think about it, if a hurricane hits Japan
versus a poor village, the city dwellers can afford to hide
in their safe buildings and get medical care if they are injured. It is actually the poor who die and suffer
the most. Pulling the poor out of poverty is the way
to go to ensure they can fight natural disasters but how can they get out of poverty without
cheap means to build basic infrastructure? To me this just really reeks of privilege
that people like Greta living in safe and developed Sweden, can lecture others on how we should all do more for the environment. It is so easy to look at rich people and blame
their greed for fucking up the Earth, but in my opinion the super rich are a byproduct of making the
average person’s lives better just as carbon emissions are. The billionaires didn’t cause this. We all
did. And it’s only with more wealth that we can
solve this together. Environmentalism has really become a cult
of sorts. I don’t know why people are getting really
pissed off if you don’t join them in their mass panic and frustration and anger. Well you know that you writing a comment on
my Instagram telling me to kill myself isn’t going to stop
Carbon emissions right? I mean, it is technically gonna stop a little
bit lah because I stop breathing. Yeah, neither is yelling about how we need
to ACT NOW and “Spreading the word” about Climate change. Doesn’t help anything. It is really childish to keep talking about
how selfish humans are because that resolves nothing. You protest for what? Protest that you have such a cushy life that
you don’t need to fight to survive everyday so you have time to do lame things like protesting? What do you want the government to do? Ban petrol cars? Increase carbon taxes? Ban
aeroplanes? Ban people from breathing? Kill all cows? It is so laughable to me when people who have
no knowledge of economics at all say all these things and assume that their
shallow suggestions can resolve it all without fucking up the economy or actually
adversely affecting everyone’s lives. By all means drive your electric car stop using straws or take sailboats instead
of aeroplanes if you want. But if you assume you are better than everyone
else who isn’t as loud or annoying as you are about Climate change just remember you are a hypocrite because
you want to enjoy your comforts but also berate
others for wanting theirs too. Just fuck off. Alright, so that’s my two cents. What do you guys think? If you agree with
me, give this video a Like and if you don’t agree with me… I’m very tempted to ask you to fuck off. But no, leave a comment down below and tell
me why! And of course if you have any suggestions for future videos leave a comment down below as well. And don’t forget to subscribe guys! Bye! Oh yah and PS: I’m not sponsored by the oil and
gas industry okay?

Carl Bildt on European trade & politics in 2020 | Europe in :60 | GZERO Media


Carl Bildt here in sunny Italy. Europe In 60 Seconds. Two questions: Well, I think decisive will be the independent security and conclusions that the European countries are sort of jointly doing. And the preliminary assessments that have been made is that one has to be careful really on who is let into the core infrastructure of the five key systems. And that, I think will have implications for the future. Huawei and other similar companies in Europe, in the future. Well, that remains to be seen. But clearly to transform the Green New Deal, or whatever you call it, into practical policies prior to the big conference coming up in Glasgow in November of next year, that will be a key task. Then you will have the Croatian presidency during the first half of the year dominated by the Balkan issues. And you will have a German presidency during the second half of the year where I think the relationship with China will be in focus. So that’s for this time. Happy New Year from Italy.

PBS NewsHour Weekend Full Episode January 4, 2020


>>Sreenivasan: ON THIS EDITION FOR SATURDAY, JANUARY 4: FOREIGN POLICY FALLOUT OVER THE KILLING OF IRANIAN MILITARY LEADER QASSEM SULEIMANI; WILDFIRES RAGE OUT OF CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA; AND A SPECIAL SERIES THIS WEEKEND EXPLORING CLIMATE CHANGE ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. NEXT ON PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND.>>PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND IS MADEPOSSIBLE BY:BERNARD AND IRENE SCHWARTZ.SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III.THE CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEINFAMILY.ROSALIND P. WALTER.BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.CHARLES ROSENBLUM.WE TRY TO LIVE IN THE MOMENT,TO NOT MISS WHAT’S RIGHT INFRONT OF US.AT MUTUAL OF AMERICA, WEBELIEVE TAKING CARE OF TOMORROWCAN HELP YOU MAKE THE MOST OFTODAY.MUTUAL OF AMERICA FINANCIALGROUP, RETIREMENT SERVICES ANDINVESTMENTS.>>WHEN IT COMES TO WIRELESS, CONSUMER CELLULAR GIVES ITS CUSTOMERS THE CHOICE. OUR NO-CONTACT PLANS GIVE YOU AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE TALK, TEXT AND DATA AS YOU WANT. AND OUR U.S.-BASED CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IS ON-HAND TO HELP. TO LEARN MORE, GO TOwww.consumercellular.tv.ADDITIONAL SUPPORT HAS BEENPROVIDED BY:AND BY THE CORPORATION FORPUBLIC BROADCASTING, A PRIVATECORPORATION FUNDED BY THEAMERICAN PEOPLE.AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOURPBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKEYOU.THANK YOU.FROM THE TISCH WNET STUDIOS ATLINCOLN CENTER IN NEW YORK,HARI SREENIVASAN.>>Sreenivasan: GOOD EVENING, AND THANKS FOR JOINING US. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MARCHED THROUGH THE STREETS OF BAGHDAD TODAY IN A FUNERAL PROCESSION FOR IRAN’S TOP GENERAL, QASSEM SOLEIMANI, AND AN IRAQI MILITARY COMMANDER, ABU MAHDI-AL- MUHANDIS, WHO WERE KILLED IN A U.S. AIR STRIKE EARLY YESTERDAY. THERE WERE CHANTS OF “VENGEANCE IS COMING” AND “DEATH TO AMERICA” AS MOURNERS, INCLUDING IRAQ’S PRIME MINISTER, FOLLOWED THE COFFINS OF THE TWO MILITARY LEADERS THROUGH IRAQ’S CAPITAL. THE COFFINS WERE LATER MOVED TO THE SHIITE HOLY CITY OF KARBALA. IN TEHRAN, IRANIAN PRESIDENT HASSAN ROUHANI VISITED SOLEIMANI’S FAMILY TO PAY RESPECTS AND SAID HIS KILLING WOULD “NOT BE FORGOTTEN IN THE HISTORY OF U.S. CRIMES.”>>(translated): AMERICANS DO NOT REALIZE WHAT A BIG MISTAKE THEY HAVE MADE. THEY WILL SEE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR MISTAKE NOT ONLY TODAY BUT IN THE YEARS TO COME.>>Sreenivasan: SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO DEFENDED PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECISION TO KILL THE IRANIAN GENERAL.>>THEY WERE AIMING TO TAKE DOWN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF AMERICANS. IT WOULD HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY KILLED LOCALS, TOO– IRAQIS, LEBANESE, SYRIANS, PERHAPS– PEOPLE ALL THROUGHOUT THE REGION. THIS WAS AN ATTACK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AT SOME SCALE. WE CAN’T TALK MUCH ABOUT THE DETAILS, BUT, SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN KNOW THAT THE DECISION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE TO TAKE QASSEM SOLEIMANI DOWN SAVED AMERICAN LIVES.>>Sreenivasan: IRAQ’S PARLIAMENT IS EXPECTED TO CONVENE AN EMERGENCY SESSION TOMORROW TO DISCUSS THE PRESENCE OF THE NEARLY 5,000 U.S. MILITARY TROOPS IN THE COUNTRY. FOR ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE ON THE U.S. STRIKES AND IRAN’S REACTION, WE TURN TO DOUGLAS OLLIVANT, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR IRAQ AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN THE BUSHANDOBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS. HE JOINS US NOW FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. SO, WE’RE AT SOME POINT EXPECTING MAYBE A LAYOUT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE SMOKING GUN ON WHAT WAS THE PREEMPTIVE MOVE THAT WE DID? WHAT JUSTIFIED IT? I MEAN, HE’S BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE. WHY NOW?>>I’M NOT EXPECTING ANY EVIDENCE TO BE LAID OUT. I SUSPECT THAT THIS WAS LARGELY JUST ABOUT WHAT QASSEM SOLEIMANI’S BEEN DOING FOREVER. HE IS THE… THE HEAD OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT RUNS IRAN’S PROXY NETWORK THROUGHOUT THE REGION– HEZBOLLAH IN LEBANON, MOST NOTABLY, BUT ALSO ASSISTANCE IN SYRIA, IN YEMEN, IN IRAQ. THAT’S BEEN HIS PORTFOLIO. AND, OH, WE DECIDED TO PUT A DENT IN THAT.>>Sreenivasan: MOST AMERICANS DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW INTEGRATED IRAN’S INFLUENCE IS IN IRAQ AT THE MOMENT, AND THAT IT’S ALREADY COMPROMISED SOME OF THE U.S. MILITARY’S ABILITY TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. KIND OF BREAK THAT DOWN FOR US. HOW DID IRAN GAIN ALL THIS INFLUENCE?>>FIRST, IRAN’S RIGHT NEXT DOOR. YOU KNOW, IRAN AND IRAQ HAVE BEEN NEIGHBORS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. THAT SAID, SOME OF US THINK THAT WE’RE IN THIS ESCALATORY PERIOD BECAUSE THEIR INFLUENCE WAS STARTING TO BE PUSHED BACK, THAT THE PROTESTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON– NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE PROTESTERS AT THE U.S. EMBASSY WHO WERE JUST DISGUISED MILITIA MEN– BUT THE PROTESTS THAT ARE REALLY GOING ON IN DOWNTOWN BAGHDAD– WHICH ARE PRO-DEMOCRACY, PRO- ACCOUNTABILITY, ANTI-CORRUPTION AND LARGELY ANTI-IRANIAN– HAD SHIFTED THE POLITICAL WINDS IN BAGHDAD ENOUGH THAT THE IRANIANS WERE ABOUT TO LOSE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE SELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER. AND WE THINK THAT MAY BE WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE ESCALATORY CYCLE, STARTING WITH THE KILLING OF THE U.S. CONTRACTOR ON THE BASE NEAR KIRKUK, AND THEN THE TIT-FOR-TAT THAT FOLLOWED FROM THAT.>>Sreenivasan: OKAY, SO THE U.S. IS SENDING MORE TROOPS INTO THE REGION. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE IRAQ NOW, WHO ARE TRYING THIS BALANCING ACT? THEY WANT TO BE NICE TO THEIR NEIGHBOR OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS– TEHRAN– AND ALSO WASHINGTON.>>WELL, THE TROOPS ARE GOING FORWARD TO KUWAIT. WE DON’T KNOW THAT ANY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO GO FORWARD IN IRAQ, I THINK, EXCEPT FOR A FEW THAT ARE GOING TO RELIEVE THE MARINES AT THE U.S. EMBASSY AND HAVE A SLIGHTLY LARGER PRESENCE INSIDE WHAT IS, BY DIPLOMATIC AGREEMENT, U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL. SO, WE SHOULD HAVE A… A STATUS QUO. THE THING TO WATCH IN THE COMING WEEKS IS, WILL THERE BE POLITICAL WILL IN IRAQ TO REJECT THE U.S. TROOP PRESENCE– THE TRAINING MISSION, THE ANTI-ISIS FIGHT– THAT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THEY WERE INVITED BACK IN THE LATE SUMMER OF 2014? BUT IF THAT GOES AWAY, IF THOSE TROOPS ARE ASKED BY THE IRAQIS TO LEAVE, THEN WE’RE IN A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION. SO, THAT’S THE INDICATOR TO WATCH MOST CLOSELY.>>Sreenivasan: DOES IRAN HAVE TO RESPOND? YOU CAN’T JUST LET THE… SUCH A HIGH-PROFILE LEADER BE ASSASSINATED OR KILLED WITHOUT PUSHING BACK IN SOME WAY.>>ONE WOULD THINK THAT FOR THEIR OWN DOMESTIC POLITICAL PURPOSES, IF NOTHING ELSE, THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME TYPE OF FACE-SAVING MEASURE. I MEAN, THE MOST ESCALATORY WOULD BE ATTACKING U.S. TROOPS INSIDE IRAQ. WE’RE PREPARED FOR THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE ESCALATORY. BUT THEY HAVE OPTIONS INSIDE SYRIA. THEY COULD, IN THEORY, LAUNCH ROCKETS AT ISRAEL FROM LEBANON. THEY COULD USE THEIR CYBER WEAPONS. THEY COULD ATTACK SAUDI ARAMCO. THEY COULD PUT MINES IN THE GULF AGAIN. THEY’VE GOT A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF OPTIONS, AND WE’LL JUST SEE WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO AND WHETHER THAT IS SEEN BY THE UNITED STATES AS A ROUTINE FACE- SAVING MEASURE THAT CAN BE ABSORBED OR WHETHER THAT IS, IN TURN, GOING TO REQUIRE ANOTHER RESPONSE.>>Sreenivasan: ALL RIGHT, DOUGLAS OLLIVANT, A PARTNER AT MANTID INTERNATIONAL AND FORMER N.S.C. DIRECTOR FOR IRAQ, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.>>THANK YOU, HARI.>>Sreenivasan: TEMPERATURES ROSE TO RECORD LEVELS ACROSS AUSTRALIA TODAY AS WILDFIRES THAT HAVE KILLED 23 PEOPLE CONTINUE TO RAGE. THE GOVERNMENT WARNED THE PUBLIC THAT IT IS “NOT SAFE TO MOVE” WHILE 3,600 FIREFIGHTERS REMAINED ON DUTY ACROSS THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES. SPEAKING TO REPORTERS, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER SCOTT MORRISON ANNOUNCED THAT 3,000 RESERVISTS ARE BEING CALLED UP TO BATTLE THE WILDFIRES.>>THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL SIGNED OFF ON THE CALL-OUT OF THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENSE FORCE RESERVE TO SURGE AND BRING EVERY POSSIBLE CAPABILITY TO THE BEAR BY DEPLOYING ARMY RESERVE BRIGADES TO FIRE-AFFECTED COMMUNITIES ACROSS AUSTRALIA.>>Sreenivasan: THE WILDFIRES HAVE SCORCHED AT LEAST 12 MILLION ACRES, DESTROYED MORE THAN 1,500 HOMES AND HAVE DEVASTATED COUNTLESS ANIMAL POPULATIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER. FOR THE LATEST ON THE AFTERMATH OF QASSEM SULEIMANI’S DEATH, VISIT www.pbs.org/newshour.>>Sreenivasan: THIS WEEKEND, WE ARE BRINGING YOU A SPECIAL SERIES OF STORIES EXAMINING HOW THE CHANGING CLIMATE IS IMPACTING STATES ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. OUR REPORTERS AND PRODUCERS SPENT THE LAST MONTH TRAVELLING TO SEVERAL STATES THAT BORDER THE MISSISSIPPI, TO EXPLORE NOT ONLY THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE BUT SOLUTIONS FOR COMBATING RISING WATERS, ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND DISRUPTION OF COMMERCE. WE BEGAN WHERE THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DOES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, WHERE BUSINESSES IN THE NORTH THAT RELY ON THE COLD ARE FACING WARMER WINTERS. ONE SUCH BUSINESS IS DOG SLEDDING. KAOMI GOETZ, A REPORTER FOR ONE GREATER MINNESOTA, BRINGS US THE STORY FROM TWIN CITIES PBS. THE SERIES IS PART OF OUR ONGOING SERIES, “PERIL AND PROMISE: THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE,” AND IS PRODUCED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH NEXUS MEDIA NEWS, A NONPROFIT NEWS ORGANIZATION.>>WELCOME TO THE STARTING LINE!WEARING BIB NUMBER EIGHT, FROMDULUTH…>>Reporter: TEMPERATURES DIPPED TO MINUS DIGITS FOR THE 35th ANNUAL JOHN BEARGREASE DOG SLED MARATHON. AT 300 MILES, IT’S THE LONGEST DOG SLED RACE IN THE LOWER 48 STATES. PETER McCLELLAND RUNS A DOG SLED ADVENTURE BUSINESS IN ELY. HE WAS ONE OF THE 11 MARATHON COMPETITORS. HE SAID IT’S A CHALLENGING COURSE.>>THE MAIN THING YOU’RE GOING TO THINK ABOUT IS, JUST TAKE IT EASY AT THE BEGINNING. YOU COULD LOSE THIS RACE IN THE FIRST RUN. YOU CANNOT WIN THIS RACE IN THE FIRST RUN.>>ONE OF THE MENTORS OF THEJOHN BEARGREASE SLED DOGMARATHON, PLEASE WELCOME PETERMcCLELLAND!(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)>>Reporter: AFTER CONNECTING WITH HIS DOGS, IT WAS McCLELLAND’S TURNED TO START.>>5-4-3-2-1, THE MENTOR IS NOWTHE COMPETITOR!>>Reporter: IT SEEMED LIKE A PICTURE PERFECT WINTRY POSTCARD, BUT THE BEARGREASE IS CHANGING. ORGANIZERS HAD TO SHAVE OFF MORE THAN 70 MILES FROM LAST YEAR’S COURSE. IT WAS ALSO REROUTED, ALL BECAUSE OF A CONTINUAL TREND: LACK OF SNOW.>>HE’S OUT OF HERE!(CHEERS)>>CLIMATE CHANGE, I… I THINK IT’S COMING. I MEAN, IT’S HERE, PROBABLY. I’M NOT AN OFFICIAL, BUT I THINK IT’S HERE, AND IT’S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT’S GOING TO AFFECT OUR INDUSTRY.>>Reporter: THE CHANGES ARE ALREADY BEING FELT BY THOSE WHO MAKE THEIR LIVING OFF WINTER. (DOGS BARKING) PAUL SCHURKE CAME UP TO ELY DECADES AGO AND RUNS A DOG SLEDDING BUSINESS.>>WE’VE KEPT OUR OWN LITTLE NOTES ON OPERATING A SEASON SINCE WE STARTED HERE 40 YEARS AGO, AND WE’VE SEEN OUR DOGS AT OPERATING SEASON DIMINISH BY SOMETHING IN THE ORDER OF 20%. IN OUR FIRST SEVERAL YEARS, WE WERE ABLE TO CONSISTENTLY… OUR FIRST DECADE, WE CONSISTENTLY DOG SLEDDED FOR ABOUT 116, 120 DAYS OF WINTER. NOW, MAYBE JUST OVER 90 IF WE’RE LUCKY.>>Reporter: LOSING A MONTH OR MORE IS DISASTER FOR A FOUR- MONTH SEASONAL BUSINESS. MANY OF THE STATE’S DOG SLEDDERS ARE CONCENTRATED AROUND ELY. SCHURKE ESTIMATES, IF THEY ALL GO UNDER, IT’LL BE A LOSS OF $1.5 MILLION A YEAR TO THE AREA ECONOMY, AND THAT’S A LOT FOR A COMMUNITY THAT CAN’T SURVIVE ON SUMMER TOURISM ALONE.>>FOR THOSE OF US WHO’VE BEEN HERE NOW FOR SOME DECADES AND WHOSE BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN DEPENDENT ON IT, WE’VE GOT A MICROSCOPIC VIEW OF WHAT’S GOING DOWN BECAUSE WE DEAL WITH DAILY.>>Reporter: THE WINTRY BEAUTY IS SOMETHING TO SEE, BUT THE SCIENTISTS AGREE WINTER IN MINNESOTA IS UNDER SIEGE.>>THE SUMMERTIME TEMPERATURE IS GOING UP, BUT MOSTLY BECAUSE IT’S GOING UP AT NIGHT. IT’S NOT GOING UP DURING THE DAY. WHEN WE LOOK AT WINTER, THE WINTERTIME TEMPERATURE IS GOING UP BOTH DURING THE DAY AND ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT. AND WINTER IN GENERAL IS WARMING ABOUT TEN TIMES FASTER THAN SUMMER IN MINNESOTA OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES OR SO.>>Reporter: HE SAYS IT AMOUNTS TO A WARMING OF ABOUT ONE DEGREE PER DECADE, AND THAT CONTRIBUTES TO MILDER WINTERS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RECENT POLAR VORTEX OF 2019? BLUMFIELD SAYS WE USED TO GET A LOT MORE OF THEM, AND THEY STUCK AROUND FOR WEEKS.>>THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN 23 YEARS SINCE ONE LIKE THIS HAPPENED IS PROBABLY REALLY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED AND IS CHANGING.>>WE’RE SEEING THIS SORT OF AS ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRESS OR AN EMOTIONAL ANXIETY.>>Reporter: RESEARCHERS ARE LOOKING AT HOW PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE. IN DULUTH, CROSS COUNTRY SKIERS ARE OFTEN CHALLENGED WITH LESS SNOW.>>ONE CREATIVE ADAPTATION WE’VE SEEN PEOPLE DO IS TURNING TO WINTER HIKING, TURNING TO FAT- TIRE BICYCLE RIDING. THERE’S FAT-TIRE BIKE TRACKS ALL OVER THE PLACE HERE WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING OUT ON A BIKE.>>Reporter: BERRY SAYS, WITH THE CHANGES, THERE ALSO COMES A NEW ANXIETY– LOSS OF IDENTITY AND EVEN LIVELIHOOD. (DOG BARKS) PETER McCLELLAND FINISHED 7th IN THE BEARGREASE. NOW, IT’S BACK TO WORK, GIVING PEOPLE A TASTE OF WINTER’S MAGIC. BUT HE SAYS, SOME YEARS, IT’S BEEN A SCRAMBLE.>>ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS WHOLE CLIMATE CHANGE IN TOURISM: WHEN YOU GET A GOOD WINTER, IT’S OFF EVERYONE’S RADAR SCREEN. AND THEN, WE’LL HAVE TWO OR THREE MARGINAL WINTERS IN A ROW, AND IT’S ALL ANYONE’S TALKING ABOUT.>>Reporter: McCLELLAND LOVES WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING. YOU HAVE TO SINCE THERE’S LITTLE MONEY IN IT. BUT IT’S A PASSION HE KNOWS HE WON’T BE ABLE TO PASS ON TO HIS KIDS.>>I’D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP HAVING WINTERS. SO… BUT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH WEEKS OF WINTER THAT YOU CAN HAVE A BUSINESS THAT’S VIABLE?>>Sreenivasan: YOU DON’T THINK OF IT AS A KIND OF WINTER TOURISM INDUSTRY. TO WATCH OUR INTERVIEW WITH THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S JOE FARGIONE ABOUT THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, VISIT www.facebook.com/newshour.>>Sreenivasan: WE CONTINUE OUR SERIES, “FURTHER DOWN THE MISSISSIPPI,” WHERE, THIS PAST MAY, THE RIVER CRESTED IN DAVENPORT, IOWA, AT RECORD LEVELS, OVERTOPPING FLOOD WALLS AND INUNDATING PARTS OF DOWNTOWN. DAVENPORT, THE LARGEST OF THE QUAD CITIES WITH ABOUT 100,000 PEOPLE, IS NO STRANGER TO FLOODING. THE LATEST ROUND HAS RE-IGNITED THE DEBATE ABOUT HOW THIS CITY, THE LARGEST ON THE MISSISSIPPI WITHOUT A PERMANENT FLOOD WALL OR LEVEE SYSTEM, SHOULD PROTECT ITSELF FROM FUTURE RISING WATERS. NEWSHOUR WEEKEND’S CHRISTOPHER BOOKER HAS THE STORY.>>Reporter: FRONT STREET BREWERY FIRST OPENED ITS DOORS IN 1992.>>DID YOU LIKE THE “RAGING RIVER”?>>Reporter: A YEAR LATER, IT INTRODUCED ITS RAGING RIVER I.P.A., A FERMENTED REMINDER OF THE HISTORIC MIDWESTERN FLOODS OF 1993. BUT TONIGHT, THIS BEER IS BEING POURED IN RECOGNITION OF A MORE RECENT BATTLE WITH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.>>INSIDE THE MAIN FLOOR OF THE RESTAURANT BUILDING, WE HAD ABOUT 18 INCHES TO TWO FEET OF WATER.>>Reporter: SO, IN HERE, THERE WAS TWO FEET?>>YEAH, WHERE WE’RE SITTING RIGHT NOW, THERE WAS ABOUT TWO FEET OF WATER.>>Reporter: FRONT STREET’S CO-OWNER, TIM BALDWIN, SAYS THE WATER CAME IN, IN A MATTER OF MINUTES WHEN A SECTION OF THE TEMPORARY FLOOD WALL ASSEMBLED TO HOLD BACK A SWOLLEN MISSISSIPPI RIVER SLIPPED. THE EXACT MOMENT IN LATE APRIL WAS CAPTURED ON A SECURITY CAMERA.>>WE RAN, OF COURSE, GOT SOME THINGS WE… WE DEEMED IMPORTANT. AND BY THE TIME WE WERE DONE ROUNDING ALL THAT UP, WE FOUND OURSELVES IN THE BACK OF OUR BUILDING, IN OUR PARKING LOT, STANDING IN NEARLY CROTCH-DEEP WATER.>>Reporter: IT WAS THAT FAST?>>IT WAS… IT WAS THAT FAST, YEAH.>>Reporter: BY THE TIME THE MISSISSIPPI CRESTED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE BREACH, THE RIVER IN DAVENPORT WAS 22.7 FEET, THE HIGHEST LEVEL EVER RECORDED AND MORE THAN FOUR FEETABOVEWHATIS CONSIDERED THE LEVEL OF A MAJOR FLOOD. AND FRONT STREET BREWERY AND MORE THAN 30 OTHER BUSINESSES IN DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT WERE DIRECTLY AFFECTED. WERE YOU THINKING, “IT’S DONE”? “THE RESTAURANT’S FINISHED?”>>NO, I DIDN’T THINK THAT THE RESTAURANT WAS FINISHED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THE HISTORY OF THIS PLACE, AND WE KNOW THAT, IN 1993, THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED. SO, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, “OKAY, WE’LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT TOMORROW.”>>Reporter: FLOODING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF DAVENPORT, BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED. OF THE CITY’S 15 LARGEST FLOODS, SEVEN HAVE BEEN SINCE 2008. THE INCREASED FREQUENCY OF FLOODS, INCLUDING THIS SPRING’S BREACH, HAS RE-IGNITED A DEBATE ABOUT HOW DAVENPORT SHOULD PROTECT ITSELF FROM THE RIVER.>>THERE ARE PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY WHEN IT HAPPENED SAID, “PUT UP A WALL.”>>Reporter: FRANK KLIPSCH IS THE MAYOR OF DAVENPORT.>>WE’VE HAD A LONG-TERM POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE WANT TO EMBRACE THE RIVER AND NOT TRY TO FIGHT IT.>>Reporter: DAVENPORT IS THE LARGEST CITY ON THE MISSISSIPPI WITHOUT A PERMANENT FLOOD WALL OR LEVEE SYSTEM. RATHER THAN BUILD A PERMANENT BARRIER, THE CITY INVESTED IN A TEMPORARY FLOODWALL BUILT FROM METAL MESH CONTAINERS FILLED WITH SAND, CALLED HESCOS. THE CITY HAS ALSO EXPANDED GREEN SPACE BY BUYING OUT LOW-LYING PROPERTIES, CREATING A BUFFER ZONE THAT IS DESIGNED TO FLOOD AND HOLD WATER AS THE RIVER RISES. MAYOR KLIPSCH SAYS IT’S A MODEL THAT HAS SERVED DAVENPORT WELL.>>WHEN YOU HAVE A RECORD FLOOD, IT CHALLENGES YOU. AND NOW, IT’S A MATTER OF TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT. AND HOW DO WE, IN FACT, CONTINUE TO DO A BETTER AND BETTER JOB DEALING WITH THAT TEMPORARY NATURE, BUT EMBRACING THE RIVER OVERALL.>>Reporter: IN JULY, MAYOR KLIPSCH FORMED A TASK FORCE TO STUDY HOW THE CITY SHOULD UPDATE ITS FLOOD PLAN. IT HAD REPRESENTATIVES FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, PLUS LOCAL OFFICIALS AND BUSINESS OWNERS, INCLUDING TIM BALDWIN.>>THIS IS DAVENPORT’S PROBLEM.>>Reporter: YEAH.>>THIS IS BETTENDORF’S PROBLEM. THEIR PROBLEM IS MITIGATED WITH THAT WALL.>>Reporter: DRIVING AROUND THE REGION, BALDWIN SHOWED ME WHAT SOME OF DAVENPORT’S OPTIONS MAY BE.>>YOU THINK ABOUT WHERE OUR BUSINESS IS LOCATED ON THE RIVER, THIS WOULD BE OUR VIEW.>>Reporter: THE TOWN OF BETTENDORF SITS RIGHT NEXT TO DAVENPORT. IT COMPLETED THIS PERMANENT LEVEE IN 1987. IT’S ESTIMATED THAT A SIMILAR WALL IN DAVENPORT, WHICH IS A MUCH BIGGER CITY, WOULD COST AT LEAST $175 MILLION. BUT, REGARDLESS OF THE COST, BALDWIN DOESN’T WANT TO SEE ONE IN DAVENPORT.>>I CERTAINLY WOULDN’T WANT MY CUSTOMERS TO CLIMB UP ON A LEVEE TO… TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE… OF THE RIVER VIEWS. SO, SITTING BEHIND A WALL LIKE THIS JUST DOESN’T HAVE THE SAME APPEAL.>>Reporter: BUT DAVENPORT WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY IF IT WANTS TO PROTECT ITS LOW-LYING DOWNTOWN. AND IT’S NOT ALONE. INCREASED FLOODING IS AN ISSUE THAT COMMUNITIES UP AND DOWN THE MISSISSIPPI ARE DEALING WITH. IS CLIMATE CHANGE CONTRIBUTING TO AN INCREASED NUMBER OF FLOODS?>>ABSOLUTELY.>>Reporter: DEFINITIVELY?>>DEFINITIVELY.>>Reporter: LARRY WEBER IS AN ENGINEERING PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA AND THE CO-FOUNDER OF THE IOWA FLOOD CENTER. IT’S AN ACADEMIC CENTER CREATED TO HELP THE STATE PREPARE AND PROTECT ITSELF FROM FLOODS.>>WE GET A LOT OF RAINFALL IN IOWA. AS CLIMATE CHANGE HAS IMPACTED OUR WEATHER IN IOWA, WE DON’T GET THE RIGHT AMOUNT AT THE RIGHT TIME AS MUCH ANYMORE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS INTENSIFICATION OF RAINFALL. YOU KNOW, IT’S THE RAINFALL EVENT WHERE WE HAD EIGHT INCHES OF RAIN, AND THEN WE GET ANOTHER SIX-INCH RAIN, AND THEN ANOTHER TEN-INCH RAIN, AND THEN NO RAIN FOR SEVERAL WEEKS OR MONTHS.>>Reporter: SO, FLOOD, DROUGHT, FLOOD, FLOOD, DROUGHT.>>YEAH, YEAH, THAT’S RIGHT.>>Reporter: HE SAYS THE INCREASE HAS BEEN NOTICEABLE FOR IOWANS OVER THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY.>>IN 1993, THE GENERAL SENSE AMONGST MANY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WAS, WE HAD JUST EXPERIENCED THE FLOOD OF A LIFETIME. YOU KNOW, WE EXPERIENCED THE “500-YEAR FLOOD.” AND SO, WE WOULDN’T EXPECT TO SEE AN EVENT LIKE THAT AGAIN.>>Reporter: LO AND BEHOLD, THOUGH, WE’VE SEEN MANY MORE 500-YEAR FLOODS.>>YEAH. IN 2008, PEOPLE WERE SURPRISED WHEN THE IOWA AND CEDAR RIVER BASINS FLOODED AGAIN AT LEVELS THAT WERE EQUAL TO OR MUCH GREATER THAN 1993.>>Reporter: IN JUNE OF 2008, IOWA EXPERIENCED THE LARGEST NATURAL DISASTER IN ITS HISTORY WHEN THE CEDAR RIVER FLOODED CEDAR RAPIDS, CAUSING AN ESTIMATED $5.4 BILLION IN DAMAGES. MORE THAN 11 YEARS LATER, THE CITY IS STILL RECOVERING AS IT IMPLEMENTS A $550 MILLION FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN. FUNDED WITH FEDERAL, STATE, CITY AND PRIVATE MONEY, THE PLAN INCLUDES LEVEES, WALLS AND ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE BOUGHT OUT AND RETURNED TO GREEN SPACE. THE COST AND TIMELINE OF CEDAR RAPIDS’ RECOVERY IS NOT LOST ON OFFICIALS IN DAVENPORT.>>IT TAKES THAT LONG TO PLAN, AND IT TAKES THAT LONG TO GET THE PROPER FUNDING IN PLACE. SO, IT’S NOT A… A QUICK PROPOSITION, UNFORTUNATELY.>>Reporter: NICOLE GLEASON IS DAVENPORT’S DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. SHE’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CITY’S FLOOD PLAN, INCLUDING THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY BARRIERS. IS IT POSSIBLE TO BALANCE THESE TWO IDEAS, THE IDEA THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ACCESSIBLE RIVERFRONT AND YOU ALSO WANT TO HAVE A DRY DAVENPORT?>>I THINK IT IS, BUT I THINK THAT IT’S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A BALANCE OF FIGURING OUT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, CRITICAL ASSETS AND MAYBE LOOKING AT PROTECTING THOSE SPECIFICALLY; AND THEN LOOKING AT OTHER WAYS TO TURN THOSE AREAS THAT ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO PROTECT OR DON’T MAKE AS MUCH SENSE AND TO PROTECT INTO MORE… MORE PARKLAND, MORE WETLANDS, THINGS LIKE THAT.>>Reporter: BUT FIGURING OUT HOW TO BALANCE PROTECTING DIFFERENT PARTS OF DAVENPORT’S NINE-MILE RIVERFRONT, AND WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COST, COULD BE A CONTENTIOUS PROCESS WITH SO MANY STAKEHOLDERS.>>YOU START THIS BATTLE BETWEEN DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNERS OR THOSE THAT LIVE ALONG THE RIVER, AND THE REST OF THE TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY OF DAVENPORT SAYING, “YOU’RE THE DUMMIES THAT BUILT DOWN THERE, OR OPERATE BUSINESSES DOWN THERE, OR LIVE DOWN THERE, WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR THIS?” AND ON THE SURFACE, YOU KNOW, THAT’S PROBABLY A NATURAL REACTION, AND PROBABLY WITH SOME ACCURACY THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PEOPLE DON’T THINK ABOUT IS THAT THIS FLOOD MITIGATION IS A PROBLEM FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.>>Reporter: AND BALDWIN CONCEDES THAT PERMANENT FLOOD PROTECTION FOR DAVENPORT MIGHT MEAN RETREATING FROM THE RIVER.>>YOU KNOW, IF… IF THE CITY AND FEMA CAME IN AND SAID, “THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO,” WE WOULDN’T HAVE HAD A LOT OF PUSHBACK.>>Reporter: IF THEY SAID, “WE NEED TO BUY YOUR BUILDINGS AND TEAR THEM DOWN”?>>TO TEAR THEM DOWN. I MEAN, CERTAINLY, WE’D WANT TO BE COMPENSATED APPROPRIATELY, BUT, NO, WE WOULDN’T HAVE PUSHED BACK ON THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THERE’S OTHER PLACES WE CAN OPERATE FROM, RIGHT?>>Reporter: BUT, FOR NOW, THIS PUB REMAINS ON THE RIVERFRONT, CELEBRATING A GRAND-REOPENING SEVEN MONTHS AFTER IT WAS FLOODED. (GAVEL BANGS)>>I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING…>>Reporter: MEANWHILE, FRANK KLIPSCH’S TERM AS MAYOR JUST ENDED, BUT HE SAYS THAT THE CITY’S FLOOD TASK FORCE HAS IDENTIFIED SEVERAL SHORT-TERM PRIORITIES, INCLUDING COMMISSIONING A COMPREHENSIVE ENGINEERING STUDY. HAS THIS CHANGED THE WAY THAT YOU THINK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?>>I THINK THE REALITY OF IT IS THERE’S STILL… I HAVE FOUND THERE’S SOME PEOPLE THAT WANT NO TALK OF… OF HOW IT’S HAPPENING, BUT EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THERE’S A NEW NORMAL NOW, AND WE’VE GOT TO DEAL WITH IT.>>Reporter: AND OFFICIALS NOTE THAT THIS PAST FALL WAS WETTER THAN 2018, NOT A GOOD SIGN FOR KEEPING DAVENPORT DRY THIS YEAR AS THE WINTER SNOW MELTS AND THE SPRING RAINS COME.>>THIS IS PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND,SATURDAY.>>Sreenivasan: THE END OF THE YEAR IS TRADITIONALLY A TIME FOR CHARITABLE DONATIONS. IN FRANCE, ORGANIZERS OF A CHARITY RAFFLE HOPE THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING AN ORIGINAL PICASSO WILL RAISE MILLIONS FOR CLEAN DRINKING WATER PROJECTS IN AFRICA. THE FRENCH NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION “HELP THE OTHERS” IS SELLING UP TO 200,000 TICKETS FOR A CHANCE TO WIN THIS 1921 PICASSO STILL LIFE. A 100-EURO TICKET– ABOUT $110– IS ALL IT WILL TAKE TO CLAIM THE PAINTING, VALUED AT MORE THAN $1 MILLION.>>THE IDEA WAS TO HAVE A RAFFLE BECAUSE EVERYONE ALL OVER THE WORLD COULD PARTICIPATE, AND WE WANTED TO GET MONEY FROM EVERYBODY TO RAISE MONEY FOR A GOOD CAUSE. SO, I THOUGHT OF A PAINTING, AND, OBVIOUSLY, PICASSO IS THE MOST FAMOUS ARTIST EVER, SO I THOUGHT PICASSO COULD BE A GOOD CHOICE.>>Sreenivasan: ON DISPLAY IN THE PARIS PICASSO MUSEUM, THE ABSTRACT OIL ON CANVAS SHOWS A TABLE, NEWSPAPERS AND A GLASS OF ABSINTHE. THE SMALL PAINTING MEASURES ABOUT 12×18 INCHES.>>(translated): “NATURE MORTE,” FROM 1921, IS NOT A PAINTING WITH A GROUNDBREAKING FORMAT, BUT IT’S MAGIC BECAUSE IT’S A PAINTING OF SYNTHESIS. AND WE HAVE ALL THIS PICASSO GENIUS REVEALED IN A VERY SMALL SIZE.>>Sreenivasan: THIS YEAR’S PICASSO COMES FROM THE COLLECTION OF A MONACO BILLIONAIRE. IN A 2013 PICASSO RAFFLE, THE GROUP RAISED MORE THAN $4 MILLION FOR CHARITY.>>YOU DON’T FIND A LOT OF PAINTINGS OF PICASSO AT ONE MILLION EUROS. IT’S QUITE RARE. USUALLY, THE PRICES ARE MUCH HIGHER.>>Sreenivasan: THE RAFFLE PROCEEDS WILL GO TO THE INTERNATIONAL CHARITY “CARE” FOR A PROJECT PROVIDING CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION FACILITIES TO SCHOOLS AND VILLAGES IN CAMEROON, MADAGASCAR AND MOROCCO. THE WINNER WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN PARIS ON MONDAY.>>Sreenivasan: WE’LL HAVE MORE ON THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGING CLIMATE ON STATES ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TOMORROW. AS PART OF OUR SPECIAL SERIES, WE’LL LOOK AT CHANGES IN SHIPPING TRAFFIC AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS FROM INCREASED FLOODING. THAT’S ALL FOR THIS EDITION OF PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND. I’M HARI SREENIVASAN. THANKS FOR WATCHING. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.>>PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND IS MADEPOSSIBLE BY:BERNARD AND IRENE SCHWARTZ.SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III.THE CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEINFAMILY.ROSALIND P. WALTER.BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.CHARLES ROSENBLUM.WE TRY TO LIVE IN THE MOMENT,TO NOT MISS WHAT’S RIGHT INFRONT OF US.AT MUTUAL OF AMERICA, WEBELIEVE TAKING CARE OF TOMORROWCAN HELP YOU MAKE THE MOST OFTODAY.MUTUAL OF AMERICA FINANCIALGROUP, RETIREMENT SERVICES ANDINVESTMENTS.ADDITIONAL SUPPORT HAS BEENPROVIDED BY:AND BY THE CORPORATION FORPUBLIC BROADCASTING, A PRIVATECORPORATION FUNDED BY THEAMERICAN PEOPLE.AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOURPBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKEYOU.THANK YOU.

PBS NewsHour full episode, Jan 2, 2020


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: Wildfires darken
the skies in Southeast Australia, burning millions of acres and forcing thousands to
flee. Then: the money trail — how Democratic presidential
candidates’ fund-raising stacks up one month before the Iowa caucuses. And losing their religion — why young Americans
are turning away from faith, and how religious leaders are trying to win them back. CORY MARQUEZ, Pastor, New Abbey: People want
something that actually matters for their lives. So, if the content is literally not
healing you, connecting you to something bigger, then you’re wasting your time. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Vast swathes of Australia are
still burning tonight, with forecasts of worse to come, and thousands of people ordered to
evacuate. A record summer fire season has charred 12 million acres, destroyed 1,400
homes, and left 17 people dead. New South Wales and Victoria states are hardest
hit, but fires are also burning across the rest of the country. Dan Rivers of Independent Television News
reports from New South Wales, where whole communities are in ashes. MAN: Look at that burn. DAN RIVERS: In Conjola Park on New Year’s
Eve, it felt like the world was ending, not just the year. The wildfire swept through
in minutes. Here, local resident Peter Ruetman films as
the fire approached his neighbor’s house. This is all that’s left. And Peter’s home
didn’t survive either. PETER RUETMAN, Fire Victim: I jumped in the
car. It was so hot. The heat — I can’t describe how hot it was, and the ferocity and the speed
of this fire. Anyone that thought they were going to beat this fire were really taking
life into their own hands. DAN RIVERS: Pascale Hegarty hasn’t experienced
fear like this since she escaped the war in Lebanon. PASCALE HEGARTY, Fire Victim: Unbelievable.
You could hear trees, gas bottles exploding. It was like a war zone. I have lived in war
zone, and that’s what it reminded me of, yes. DAN RIVERS: For those who have lost everything
they own, the only comfort is knowing family and friends survived. This is what happens when one of these firestorms
collides with a community. This is all that’s left of Conjola Park, where at least 89 homes
have been destroyed and one person killed. You can see it was literally hot enough to
melt cars. And what’s so worrying is, just a few miles
down the coast, there are other placing facing exactly the same prospect. The Princes Highway is the only way out, and,
right now, it’s closed, a 200-mile traffic jam as the clock ticks down to more searing
heat and fire risk this weekend. LUCY VU NGUYEN, Australia: I would like to
get home. I would like to not have to sleep in my car tonight. But I know there are probably
others who — who, sort of, don’t have food in the car and water with them. And the night
will be quite tough for them, I think. DAN RIVERS: The Australian navy have been
evacuating people from Mallacoota, where 4,000 people were stranded on the beach, exposed
to choking smoke, and doing what they can to protect vulnerable lungs as they leave. The town may be cut off for weeks. With water
supplies out, they’re being brought in by boat, as the smoke means it’s too dangerous
to fly. A state of emergency has been declared, as Australia’s prime minister fends off accusations
of failing to grip this crisis. In Cobargo, residents refused to shake his
hand, heckling him as he visited the devastated town. WOMAN: How come we only had four trucks to
defend our town? Because our town doesn’t have a lot of money. But we have hearts of
gold, Mr. Prime Minister. SCOTT MORRISON, Australian Prime Minister:
I think that the strength of the individuals, as we have just seen on display here, I think
that says everything about Australia, and the spirit that will get them through this
weekend, and the spirit will help them rebuild. DAN RIVERS: Some are already blaming climate
change for the three-year drought which has preceded this crisis, reeling from what they
have lost, but they know there may be more to come this weekend. JUDY WOODRUFF: That report from Dan Rivers
of Independent Television News. In the day’s other news: The Democratic presidential
primary field narrowed again, with Julian Castro dropping out. The former Obama housing
secretary had failed to make headway in the polls or in raising money. He was the only
Latino still in the race. We will return to the presidential campaign
with the latest fund-raising reports after the news summary. Top Democrats are stepping up demands for
full disclosure at a Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. They said today that claims
by the online forum Just Security prove he is hiding something. The site reported that unredacted White House
e-mails show Mr. Trump directly ordered a hold on security funds to Ukraine and later
ordered their release. U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper is threatening
preemptive military strikes against Iran to prevent further attacks on Americans in the
Middle East. He pointed today to incidents, including Iraqi militiamen, backed by Iran,
storming the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. Esper predicted that Iran will try something
else, and said the U.S. cannot wait. MARK ESPER, U.S. Defense Secretary: We have
all the capabilities inherent in the United States military to either respond to further
attacks or to take preemptive action if additional attacks are being prepared. JUDY WOODRUFF: The Pentagon has already sent
more troops to the Middle East. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan raised
the alarm today about a new rush of Syrian refugees. He said thousands are fleeing from
Idlib province, the last rebel stronghold in Syria. The exodus began when Syrian and
Russian forces intensified their assault on Idlib. In Ankara today, Erdogan said Turkey is struggling
to manage. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): Right now, 200,000 to 250,000 people are moving towards our borders. Right
now, we are trying to prevent them with some reciprocal measures, but it’s not easy. It’s
difficult. They are humans, too. We cannot put barriers and barbed wire against humans,
like the West does. JUDY WOODRUFF: In Washington, the White House
said President Trump spoke with Erdogan today and joined in calling for the fighting to
de-escalate in Idlib province. The Trump administration today announced a
ban on most of the flavored e-cigarettes used by teenagers. The ban applies to cartridge-based
products, but it does exempt menthol and tobacco flavors. It also exempts large tank-type devices
that mostly cater to adult smokers. Thirty-nine of the 52 Republican U.S. senators
asked the Supreme Court today to overturn Roe v. Wade. That’s the decision that legalized
abortion. More than 160 House Republicans also signed the brief supporting a Louisiana
law. It requires that doctors performing abortions have hospital admitting privileges within
30 miles. The court will hear arguments in March. North Carolina will have the largest coal
ash cleanup in U.S. history. The state said today that Duke Energy will dig up nearly
80 million tons of toxic ash at six sites and move it to lined landfills to prevent
leaking. A 2014 leak contaminated 70 miles of the Dan River. On Wall Street, major indexes surged to new
record closes after China’s Central Bank announced economic stimulus measures. The Dow Jones
industrial average gained 330 points to close at 28868. The Nasdaq rose 119 points, and
the S&P 500 added 27. 2019 was a year of dramatic changes and new
trends in campaign finance. Some presidential candidates spent big money wooing donors in
order to meet new Democratic Party debate criteria. Two billionaires bankrolled their own campaigns,
while other candidates struggled to raise enough money to keep their campaigns running. To talk about all this and more, I’m joined
by The Washington Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who covers money in politics. Michelle, good to see you. Thank you for joining
us again on the “NewsHour.” So, first of all, how does this year in fund-raising
generally compare to other election years? MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, The Washington Post:
There were some major new trends in the past year in political fund-raising, one of which
is the rise of small-dollar donors and the power of online giving that really had to
be harnessed by the Democratic candidates, especially because the Democratic National
Committee made a donor threshold one of the qualifications for making it onto a debate
stage. So we saw Democratic candidates, to varying
degrees of success, be able to build online donation programs, reaching out to donors,
grassroot supporters, just to even ask for a dollar or $5 at a time to help show momentum
for their candidacy. It’s been especially important because it
was such a wide field to begin with, and still is quite large, with so many competitive candidates,
that one or two or a handful, really, rise to the top by being able to tap into that
online donor momentum. JUDY WOODRUFF: Interesting, because we have
seen in the past some candidates raising big amounts of money through political action
committees, so-called super PACs, super political action committees. Those are still around, but they just don’t
function the way they used to. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: They’re still around. But we have seen in the Democratic presidential
primary that there is almost a vilification of the participation of such donors and people
who have ties to special interests. Increasingly, Democrats have begun to distance themselves
from corporate PAC donations, fossil fuel money, you know, saying they won’t take money
from pharmaceutical executives. And so there have been almost these purity
tests that have been set on each other in terms of the type of money that you should
and can raise from. Some candidates still continue to raise money in these high-dollar
fund-raisers, private events that cater to more wealthy donors. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: But others are still
raising lots of money from a healthy small-dollar base. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s look at sum of the numbers. We had the reporting period for the last quarter
just end. And look at these numbers. Of course, leading off, President Trump raised $46 million,
overshadowing any one of the other Democrats, but not so far behind him, Bernie Sanders,
34.5, Pete Buttigieg, 34.7. Joe Biden, just today, we learned he’s come
in third among the Democrats at 22.7. What do we learn about these numbers, Michelle? MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: Well, of course, these
are early looks at some of the most flattering figures. So, once the public filings are revealed,
we will get to see exactly how much money they have to spend going into the early states. But what these figures released now shows
is that there is a lot of donor energy that is forming on the left that a lot of strategists
hope will eventually coalesce around the nominee. Meanwhile, President Trump is just rolling
on forward with a very, very powerful reelection machine that raises a lot of money from both
small donors and wealthy donors. The top fund-raisers so far have pretty much
stayed in that place over the past — over the previous quarter too. And they’re the
top-polling candidates as well going into the early states. So, they really reflect
just how unsettled the Democratic primary field still is and could be for another few
weeks. JUDY WOODRUFF: But money has been something
that eliminated — that has eliminated some of these candidates. I mean, as we said, just today, Julian Castro
announced he is dropping out. He hasn’t been able to raise money, get his numbers up in
the polls. So, on the one hand, money matters. We know
it’s not the only thing that matters, but it clearly makes a difference for these candidates
at this point. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: It can drive up a lot
of momentum. For example, the Sanders campaign, when they
came out with $34.5 million today, that was eye-popping. That’s not only the biggest quarterly
haul this year. It’s one of the top quarterly hauls in an off-year in a presidential election. And that was especially remarkable compared
to the previous quarter, when he was kind of stagnating in the polls. And then on the
first day of the fourth-quarter fund-raising period, he had a heart attack, and people
were asking how viable his candidacy was going to be, how this was going to affect him. But he really had a great revival and raised
a ton of money. And going into the next few weeks, especially before the nitty-gritty
details are made public about the money itself, this is going to help him generate a lot of
new donors and donations. JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot of interest in these
numbers. Still waiting to hear from Elizabeth Warren. Michelle Ye Hee Lee, thank you very much. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: There are signs emerging of
a deepening rift among one of President Trump’s strongest voting blocs, white evangelical
Christians. As the president continues his reelection
effort, he will be in Miami tomorrow to kick off the Evangelicals for Trump Coalition. Correspondent Lisa Desjardins picks it up
from there. LISA DESJARDINS: A recent editorial published
in “Christianity Today,” an evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham, started a debate
during the height of the impeachment vote. It called for Trump to be removed from office,
saying the president’s actions in Ukraine were profoundly immoral. It added: “President
Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath.” To explore how the president’s support may
be shifting or not with evangelicals, I’m joined by Richard Land, president of the Southern
Evangelical Seminary and executive editor of “The Christian Post,” and Collin Hansen,
the editorial director for The Gospel Coalition, a network of evangelical churches. Thank you both for joining us. Dr. Land, let’s start with you. You wrote a response to the call for impeachment
in another publication, your “Christian Post,” defending the president and also his Christian
supporters. Tell us how you see this. RICHARD LAND, Executive Editor, “The Christian
Post”: Well, first of all, I think we’re this close to an election. We ought to let the
American people decide, through the next election, whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office. I think most evangelicals feel that the president,
despite misgivings they have about his language or some of his behavior, believe that he’s
the most pro-life president in the modern era, that he’s done more for religious liberty
through the appointment of conservative judges and through speaking out for religious liberty
around the world, for Muslims, for Christians, for Jews, his statements against anti-Semitism
and his actions against anti-Semitism, that he is, at the very least, at the very least,
the lesser of two evils against Mrs. Clinton and also against the current crop of Democratic
candidates. And so I find that most evangelicals still
support him. They don’t condone everything he does. He was my last choice in the primaries.
I know a lot of evangelicals that he was either their second, third, fourth, fifth or last
choice in the primaries, but once it became a binary choice between Mrs. Clinton and Mr.
Trump, we decided that Mr. Trump was the better choice. And most of us have been pleasantly surprised
that he’s done better than we thought he would. LISA DESJARDINS: Collin, why didn’t you vote
for President Trump? And why do you think he shouldn’t be president? Does he represent
Christian values? COLLIN HANSEN, The Gospel Coalition: Well,
he is our president, and I haven’t taken any position on the impeachment proceedings. I
think a number of people — I don’t think I’m really qualified to be able to speak into
that. What I have seen with President Trump is actually
something similar to what Dr. Land had just talked about. Many evangelicals, like myself,
who had been skeptical of him, actually saw — he’s actually turned out to be, in some
ways, better than we expected. And, at the same time, many of the things
that we’re discouraged by, some of his racially charged comments and some of his — well,
basically his constant Twitter presence, are things that were well known to everybody who
voted for him last time around. So, in that sense, things haven’t changed. So, I don’t oppose him in that regard. I think
the Bible very clearly calls us to vote — or excuse me — not to vote, but to pray for
those people in office, whoever they might be, and ultimately to trust them for the outcome. My main concern is the perception of what
evangelicals as a sort of partisan part of the Republican Party, essentially the Republican
Party at prayer. I think that’s a problem for the church going forward. LISA DESJARDINS: This is a president who doesn’t
talk about asking God for forgiveness. He’s not known as a churchgoer in general, hadn’t
been before this. And he’s someone who right now is accused
of using his political power for his own personal gain, which clearly is something that Jesus
was against. Jesus was the opposite. Use your power to help people. Richard, I want to ask you, then, how do you
justify this president, who some people question how he reflects Christian values or not? RICHARD LAND: Well, first of all, I would
share some of those concerns. And that’s why he was my last choice in the primaries. But when it comes to trying to save the lives
of the 1,150 babies a day that are being aborted in the United States, which I think is a moral
issue, Mr. Trump is on the right side of that moral issue. The Democratic Party is trying
to make abortion a sacrament. In public life, you have to make prudential
choices. And I believe that most evangelicals made a prudential choice, the vast majority
of them, and will again to vote for someone who is going to seek to protect them from
having their own government weaponized against them through the courts, and is going to continue
to put conservative, strict constructionist judges on the courts that are going to give
the American people the freedom to make their own choices, instead of having them imposed
by a judicial imperium, and to protect the unborn in this country. LISA DESJARDINS: Collin, is this the end justifying
the means here? Is that what evangelicals for Trump are accepting? COLLIN HANSEN: I was fairly surprised at the
outcome in 2016, not only, like everybody else, about President Trump winning, but by
the overwhelming support of evangelicals. I do think those — that 81 percent doesn’t
accurately count how many evangelicals sat home and didn’t make that same moral calculus
described right there. But I think I also underestimated the way
evangelicals, as basically all Americans do, see our elections, our presidential elections,
as a binary choice, as Dr. Land has said. We are not in a parliamentary system. If we
were, we would probably see many different options in terms of voting for parties and
voting according to their beliefs. But, ultimately, I think both political sides
make a number of compromises when it comes to the kind of person that they want to be
able to carry forward their views. And that’s kind of the nature of our two-party system,
for better or worse. LISA DESJARDINS: Why is it that so evangelical
leaders are talking about politics right now, not the ministry? How do you know that politicians
are not manipulating you and your voters for their gain? RICHARD LAND: Well, let me say, first of all,
that most evangelicals I know spend most of their time preaching, most of their time spreading
the Gospel, not talking about politics. They talk about politics more when they get
asked by the media about politics. They do talk about being pro-life. They do talk about
being pro-freedom. They do talk about the persecuted Christians and persecuted Muslims
overseas and those who are being persecuted by China and those who are being persecuted
by India. They talk about freedom of conscience. LISA DESJARDINS: Collin, I want to ask you,
is there a political risk on the other side of this? Some evangelicals might see their
goals forwarded by President Trump, but is it possible that politicians could be manipulated
by evangelicals or not? I don’t have an opinion. I’m just wondering. COLLIN HANSEN: Yes, there’s always that concern
that, ultimately, evangelicals may win temporary political battles, but ultimately lose the
culture war. I don’t — I have been very surprised the
last number of years just to see how eager both sides are for a cultural war, and how,
for as much as we want to talk about foreign policy or talk about economic policy, really,
so many of our issues really come down to, are you on this side or that side of this
sort of big political game? And I do think, insofar as evangelicals are
drawn into that kind of game, it does present a major problem in terms of our proclamation
of the Gospel long run. But I do agree with Dr. Land as well, though,
that there’s a lot of things that are happening all the time with evangelicals, caring for
their neighbors, even suffering, but giving God glory, and loving their neighbors with
joy, but those things don’t make the news. What makes the news is the 25 percent of evangelicals
who throw their weight around in politics every four years. LISA DESJARDINS: Well, thank you for this
conversation, not just about politics, but about faith. Richard Land and Collin Hansen. RICHARD LAND: God bless you. COLLIN HANSEN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: While evangelicals remain an
important demographic group for politicians, the percent of Americans who identify with
any religion has been on the decline for decades. And a recent Pew Research Center study has
found the biggest generational drop-off is with millennials, young adults born between
1981 and 1996. Cat Wise reports from Southern California
on the young people who are changing their beliefs and the efforts by some faith communities
to bring them back. And a note: The Pew Research Center is a “NewsHour”
funder. MAN: We’re all together in this thing. CAT WISE: A Sunday service that is part therapy
session… MAN: Imagine how that would change the trajectory
of your life. CAT WISE: … part stand-up comedy routine,
and part live concert, all followed by a round of beers with your pastor in a rented CrossFit
gym? This is not your grandmother’s idea of church. BRITTANY BARRON, Co-Pastor, New Abbey: So,
we wanted everyone to be able to hear the good news. So, we had something right in the
back. Do you have good news? CAT WISE: Welcome to New Abbey, a Christian,
LGBTQ-affirming, progressive, family friendly church in Pasadena, California. It was started six years ago in the living
room of this guy: CORY MARQUEZ, Pastor, New Abbey: For all the
ways that we don’t believe that we’re human enough or good enough. CAT WISE: Cory Marquez is a 34-year-old ordained
pastor who left a larger evangelical congregation after he saw many of his own friends were
no longer interested in attending church. When you were talking to your friends about
why they didn’t go to church, what were you hearing from them? CORY MARQUEZ: This isn’t relevant for me.
Sexuality, that’s a big one, that the church is not honestly talking about sexuality. BRITTANY BARRON: You can ask my wife. CAT WISE: Sexuality is not a taboo topic here.
Marquez’s fellow pastor, Brittany Barron, speaks openly with the congregation about
being a lesbian, and many of those who attend are from the LGBTQ community. The congregation has grown from 20 to 400
over the last several years. CORY MARQUEZ: It’s less about form and more
about content, that people want something that actually matters for their lives. So, if the content is literally not healing
you, connecting you to something bigger, then you’re wasting your time. CAT WISE: New Abbey is one of a number of
new religious organizations popping up across the country trying to appeal to young people,
who are increasingly leaving the religions of their ancestors. According to an October report from the Pew
Research Center, 76 percent of the baby boomer generation describe themselves as Christians.
In contrast, only half of millennials identify as Christians. Four in 10 say they are religiously
unaffiliated, and one in 10 identify with non-Christian faiths. DIANE WINSTON, University of Southern California:
This is what interests me, like, if people say they feel nothing. CAT WISE: Diane Winston is a professor of
religion and media at the University of Southern California who has been studying religious
trends among young adults. DIANE WINSTON: Many religions just don’t feel
relevant to a lot of these young people. They don’t speak their language. And now there
are other ways you can make those connections. You can make them online. You can make them
at an interest group or an affinity group. CAT WISE: She also says many young people
have lost trust in religious institutions. DIANE WINSTON: Their scandals, the sexuality
improprieties, these problems of, you know, pedophilia, of sexism, of misogyny. Why would
you want to give your time and money to an institution that countenances or protects
people who do these kinds of things? CAT WISE: Some of those turned off by traditional
religions continue to seek fulfillment in other ways. According to Pew, three in 10 adults ages
18 to 49 now identify as spiritual, but not religious. One of those who has made the switch is Jaison
Perez. The 32-year-old from Los Angeles was raised Catholic and attended weekly services
with his family, but he says he never felt truly connected to the church and left in
his early 20s. JAISON PEREZ, Mostly Angels: As a queer person,
the Catholic Church is unsafe. I go to church, and I’m immediately sinful. It’s this feeling
of not being able to show up fully myself. CAT WISE: Now he works as a healer at Mostly
Angels, a store specializing in mystical services and products in Culver City. Perez says there’s
been a significant uptick in business over the last three to five years. JAISON PEREZ: We’re not sold on old fantasy
of what the church can provide you, what spirituality, structural spirituality can provide. CAT WISE: While New Age practices and beliefs
have been growing since the 1960s and ’70s, the Internet and social media have played
a big role in the spread among the younger generations. More than 60 percent of adults ages 18 to
49 have at least one New Age belief, according to Pew. And many are turning to new horoscope
apps and online astrologers for guidance. But some favor much more intimate ways to
spread the word. RABBI LORI SHAPIRO, Open Temple: In what ways
do we take on the challenge of wrestling with our shadow? CAT WISE: At the Open Temple in Venice, California,
Rabbi Lori Shapiro incorporates a variety of New Age practices, even a colorful bus,
to reach new people in the community. RABBI LORI SHAPIRO: There are a lot of reasons
why people have fallen away, I think the least of which is ideology. People are hungry for
these ideas. We just need to make them accessible again. CAT WISE: But many faith leaders aren’t rushing
to change long-held practices and beliefs in order to keep young people in the pews. Reverend Mary Minor is the pastor of Brookins-Kirkland
Community Church in Los Angeles’ Inglewood neighborhood. The church once had about 10,000
members. Today, there are about 300, and many are older adults. Do you feel that, in an effort to reach younger
people, that the church might need to change its views on certain issues, like gay marriage,
for example? REV. MARY MINOR, PASTOR, Brookins-Kirkland
Community AME Church: I don’t think the church needs to change that. My denomination doesn’t
believe in gay marriage. However, my denomination embraces those that are of the LGBTQ community. CAT WISE: According to Pew, black millennials
nationally tend to be less religious than older black adults, but they are considerably
more religious than their peers. Reverend Minor says she is concerned about
losing so many young people in her church, and worries they are missing out on an important
aspect of religion: community. REV. MARY MINOR: When you’re not assembled
with believers, then you feel like you’re on an island all by yourself. CAT WISE: Back at New Abbey, Pastor Cory Marquez
says a sense of community is what’s bringing people back Sunday after Sunday. And their
approach isn’t all that radical. CORY MARQUEZ: I have never opened a door in
Christian tradition where I found that I was the first person there. There have always
been people, monks and priests and nuns and theologians and philosophers, who have been
asking these questions for thousands of years. CAT WISE: Once the congregation finishes pondering
life’s most ancient and enduring questions, they get to celebrate with pizza and cold
beverages. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Cat Wise in Pasadena,
California. JUDY WOODRUFF: As the new year begins, Washington
is in a much different place than a year ago, when the government was in the middle of the
longest shutdown in history and Congress was crippled by disagreements on spending. Before leaving town for the holidays, lawmakers
came together on a huge spending bill. Nick Schifrin sat down with Lisa Desjardins
yesterday to learn where your tax dollars are going. NICK SCHIFRIN: Judy, this was a massive bill,
$1.4 trillion, money to research gun violence, money for the military. And it raised the
age to purchase tobacco to 21. But there’s a lot more, a whole lot more. And our Capitol Hill correspondent, Lisa Desjardins,
and the “NewsHour” team have been combing through 2,400 pages. And Lisa joins me now to examine the government’s
2020 priorities. Lisa, let’s start with a major issue, immigration,
the issue that shut down the government last year. This bill has huge immigration changes. LISA DESJARDINS: It actually does. And not
a lot of it is being talked about. We have talked before about the fact the president
got $1.3 billion to build new border barriers. That’s something that he wanted, a little
less than he wanted. But he got something else too. This bill has
fewer restrictions in where he can build it. And it also gives him more leeway in taking
money from other accounts to do that. There is something that remains the same,
however. It still limits the kind of barrier that can be built. Still can be only fencing,
steel slat fencing, no concrete wall, examples like you see right now, what’s already on
the border. Overall, though, Democrats, in exchange for
that border money, what did they get for the border barrier? Two new things that are notable.
A new ombudsman in charge of immigration detention to oversee the conditions for detainees, and
also millions of dollars to help detainees navigate the legal system and court work. Now, that’s interesting, because that legal
program for detainees is something that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted to stop
altogether. But, here, Democrats were able to expand that program. Thousands of more
detainees in the coming year will have the ability to get some counseling to try and
figure out their situation legally. NICK SCHIFRIN: So give and take, but some
fallout, especially on the Democratic side? LISA DESJARDINS: That’s the thing. In truth, the members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus and many Democrats were not happy with this deal. Many of them voted against
it for this reason. They wanted this to cap the number of detention beds. They feel like
now the administration still has the ability to detain as many people as it wants. And there are no new requirements on exactly
what conditions the detainees will be under. I want to take you back to earlier this summer,
when members were touring those facilities. And here’s the chairperson of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, Joaquin Castro, speaking at one of those facilities, talking about
how important changing those conditions was for them. REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX): We came today,
and we saw that the system is still broken, that people’s human rights are still being
abused. We remain very concerned about the conditions
in which people are being kept. LISA DESJARDINS: For members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, this is a moral issue. And they’re concerned that this sort of detente
right now that we’re not talking about over immigration may actually be a normalization
of things that they find unacceptable. For Republicans, however, they want that normalization.
They want this wall to be a normal part of policy. NICK SCHIFRIN: All right, topic number two,
these spending bills do something new and headline-worthy on education. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. This is something we hear people want to talk
about all the time. And here is a major change. Let’s start with the background, a big rift
over this. President Trump would like to cut education spending. In fact, he proposed a
10 percent cut this year. I want to take you back. Here’s what his education
secretary, Betsy DeVos, said to Congress earlier this year about why it should be cut. She
said there’s just not enough money. BETSY DEVOS, U.S. Education Secretary: That
it’s easier to keep spending, to keep saying yes, to keep saddling tomorrow’s generations
with today’s growing debt. But, as it’s been said, the government will run out of other
people’s money. LISA DESJARDINS: Now, so, she was proposing
a cut in her education funding. Democrats wanted an increase. Democrats won. And they
won very big. In fact, this bill has a record amount of
funding for education in it from the federal government. It includes more than $2 billion
of an increase, especially for early education and for K-12. And it’s interesting, Nick. Those K-12 dollars,
all of these dollars, specifically go to low-income communities. They’re through block grants
in part. And, also, we will see tens of thousands more openings for Head Starts, especially
in those low-income communities. Now, people know, education is still mainly
funded by the states, but, here, the federal government is adding more of its own role
to that. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa, this isn’t only about
dollars and dollars and a whole lot of dollars, right? This is about some policy shifts in
this bill as well, especially on coal miners. LISA DESJARDINS: It’s really a big shift.
This is something the federal government has never done before, permanently making up for
the gap in a private pension system, in this case of coal miners. Now, specifically, we have to tell the bigger
story here, which is we know coal mining has been on the decline overall. In fact, if you
look at the numbers, Nick, it’s rather astounding. Since 2008, between then and 2018, the coal
industry lost 32,000 jobs, or 37 percent of its jobs, largely to bankruptcies. Those companies could not pay the pensions,
including pensions of this man, Daymond Tucker, who we talked to in 2017, longtime coal miner,
depends on his pension. And here’s what he said at the time then,
when the pension was running out. DAYMOND TUCKER, Longtime Coal Miner: And it’s
not like we’re asking for a handout or anything either. It was hard sweat work that — benefits
that we negotiated. And all we want to is just what was promised to us. LISA DESJARDINS: Daymond Tucker is one of
100,000 miners in that same position, worried about his pension, running out, could have
been last week, could have been next year. Instead, the federal government is permanently
paying for his pension. I talked to him this week. He just retired last year. And he said,
without that pension, he and his wife would have been devastated. He said it was an enormous
relief to see this bill extend his pension. However, Nick, this is the only time the federal
government has ever done this, extending federal money to pay for private pensions for one
industry, the coal mining industry. NICK SCHIFRIN: So, let’s zoom out. How much spending is this? How much spending
are we actually talking about? And what does it do to the U.S.’ bottom line? LISA DESJARDINS: This is an ocean of red ink. All together, between this spending bill and
the bill that — the budget that was set earlier this year, $2.2 trillion of red ink has been
passed by this Congress and signed by this president this year. To give you some bigger perspective, the kind
of spending that Congress governs is called discretionary spending. Since 2017, under
President Trump, that kind of spending has seen an increase of about 15 percent in just
a couple of years, this from a president who has said he wants to actually rein in government
spanning. This has been one of the more dramatic increases
that we have seen really in generations. NICK SCHIFRIN: And remind us, Lisa, what’s
the takeaway here? Why does all this matter? LISA DESJARDINS: This matters, Nick, because,
honestly, especially in an age of gridlock, like we’re in right now, this is what government
does. Government spends money. It’s thing they can
agree on. This was a compromise from both sides to help each other by spending a vast
array of money. And we have hit some priorities here, but there are a lot of other big policies
in here. For example, this bill says the government will help Somalia restructure its debt. There’s
tremendous policy implications here. This really is what government does. Even
though it may not be the most dramatic headline, it may be one of the most important. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa Desjardins, following
the important headlines, thank you very much. LISA DESJARDINS: My pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: A man named Carlos Ghosn was
once in the driver’s seat of two of the world’s most iconic automakers, and was credited for
both — for saving both from insolvency. But he went from the heights of the corporate
world to criminal allegations, a record bail, and now his mysterious escape from Japan to
Lebanon. John Yang reports. JOHN YANG: Reporters huddled outside a Beirut
house this morning, hoping to catch a glimpse of ousted Nissan Motors chief Carlos Ghosn,
once a CEO, now an international fugitive. In Tokyo, prosecutors raided his home there,
searching for clues to how the high-profile businessman, facing trial for alleged financial
misconduct, mysteriously escaped house arrest and embarked on a flight to freedom. Ghosn was reportedly smuggled out of Japan
on his private jet. He stopped in Istanbul, before arriving on New Year’s Eve in Lebanon,
where he is a citizen. Today, Turkish officials arrested seven people, including pilots, for
allegedly taking part in the escape. And Lebanon received a notice from Interpol,
the international policing organization, calling for Ghosn’s arrest. Lebanon’s justice minister
said, even though Ghosn had entered the country legally, they would comply with the request. ALBERT SERHAN, Lebanese Justice Minister (through
translator): I suppose the general prosecution will fully implement the notice, and that
includes summoning him and listening to his testimony. And then, if there are measures
to be taken, then they will be taken. JOHN YANG: But Lebanon has no extradition
treaty with Japan. What’s more, Ghosn also holds Brazilian and French citizenship. French
officials have said, if Ghosn arrived in France, he would receive support. AGNES PANNIER-RUNACHER, French Secretary of
State for Economy and Finance (through translator): If a foreign citizen was fleeing the French
judicial system, we would be very angry. On the other hand, he is a Lebanese, Brazilian
and French citizen, and he benefits from consular support, like all French citizens. JOHN YANG: Before his ouster in November 2018,
the automotive titan oversaw both Nissan and the French carmaker Renault. He was credited
with rescuing both from near bankruptcy by closing plants and cutting thousands of jobs. But Japanese prosecutors say he also lavishly
enriched himself by under-reporting his income and funneling payments to car dealerships
he controlled in the Middle East. Ghosn posted a record $14 million bail last April, and
was confined to house arrest, under 24-hour surveillance. He reportedly decided to leave Japan after
learning that his trial would be delayed until April 2021. In a statement, Ghosn said he
had jumped bail to escape injustice and political persecution in Japan. Today, he discredited theories that his wife
had engineered his escape as inaccurate and false. Ghosn said he will speak to reporters
next week. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang. JUDY WOODRUFF: Young people some have labeled
Generation Z, those born from the mid-1990s to around 2010, are growing up in an increasingly
cashless society, which raises the question, how does that affect their relationship to
money and to finance? Our economics correspondent Paul Solman took
a group of kids on a field trip last winter to find out. This encore report is part of our weekly series
Making Sense. PAUL SOLMAN: So, anybody want some ice cream?
All right, it’s right over here. A chilly day in Manhattan, but for 10- and
11-year-olds, there are no unseasonable treats. But the excitement for the grownups, myself
and personal finance expert Beth Kobliner, this was a transaction with an unfamiliar
twist. This store doesn’t take cash, ever. Like a growing number of retail shops, it’s
plastic or mobile payment only. But cashless was no problem for the kids,
who, of course, weren’t paying. What are you going with? STUDENT: Cookies and cream. PAUL SOLMAN: Cookies and cream. STUDENT: With a sugar cone. BETH KOBLINER, Personal Finance Expert: Sugar
cone. PAUL SOLMAN: But they’re also growing up at
a time when only one in three purchases is made with cash. So, we wanted to know, does
an increasingly cashless economy keep kids from grasping the basics of price and value? How much do you think these things cost? STUDENT: It tastes so good, I think it would
be like anywhere from $3 to $7. PAUL SOLMAN: But the kids say expensive compared
to the ice cream truck. STUDENT: They only charge you $2.75. PAUL SOLMAN: OK, so they’re familiar with
relative prices. But can they calibrate value? If I said to you, I will give you $5.50, instead
of the ice cream cone, which would you choose, the cone or the money? STUDENT: The money. PAUL SOLMAN: You would? Why? STUDENT: Because I could get something else,
and I could maybe get a cheaper ice cream. STUDENT: You can get the same amount, a bigger
amount of ice cream, for $2.75 at Trader Joe’s, or $3.99 at Trader Joe’s, and then you can
have ice cream for a whole week. PAUL SOLMAN: All right, I know what I’m going
to do. I will offer $2. Who will still give me their ice cream for $2? What about a dollar?
A dollar. But, in the end, two of the kids actually
took my lowball $1 cash offer for half-eaten ice cream, whose allure was apparently melting
as fast as the foodstuff itself. This suggested not only the economic concept
of diminishing returns, but also that hard currency has the same cachet, or more, than
it did when Beth Kobliner and I were first lured into the sugar market. BETH KOBLINER: When I was little kid, about
10 or 11… PAUL SOLMAN: Yes. BETH KOBLINER: … I remember going to the
ice cream store, and my dad would give me a dollar. And ice cream then was 50 cents,
and the sprinkles were 5 cents. PAUL SOLMAN: In my day, a quarter, by the
way. An ice cream cone was a quarter. (LAUGHTER) BETH KOBLINER: And I would get change. And
the whole transaction was really about learning addition, subtraction, numeracy. Today, 70
percent of all our purchases are done online or with cards. PAUL SOLMAN: How many of you have smartphones?
Every one of you. Now about half of 10-to-12-year-olds have
smartphones, and 40 percent of teenagers have debit cards. So, is cash arithmetic a lost
art? How many quarters in $3? STUDENT: Twelve. STUDENT: Twelve. PAUL SOLMAN: How many quarters in $3.75? STUDENT: Fifteen. PAUL SOLMAN: Fifteen. Very good. So, kids can still count without burning much
cash. But aren’t they being suckered into spending by switching to a credit card? ISAAC SMITH LEWIS, Student: I don’t think
I would be responsible with one, because I would just want to go around spending, spending
it. And then all your money is wasted on stupid stuff sometimes. PAUL SOLMAN: Isaac Smith Lewis’ reluctance
was echoed by the others. ALICE RICHELSON, Student: I’m going to be
going on, like, shopping sprees and be, like, OK, everything is on me. DAWOOD ALSELMI, Student: I can’t use credit
cards, because then I will be, like, ooh, I will buy that, I’m going to buy that, I’m
going to buy that. AKEELAH STROY, STUDENT: Money doesn’t grow
off of trees. PAUL SOLMAN: When it comes to credit cards,
in fact, Gen Zers may be more penny-wise than their parents. Dawood’s mom, Huda Qatabi, for example. HUDA QATABI, Mother: Credit cards, especially
me, I just swipe, swipe, swipe. And then, at the end of the week, it’s like $500, $600,
and I don’t know what I did with it. Personally… PAUL SOLMAN: Really? So, you’re as bad as
they are? HUDA QATABI: I’m worse. (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: Worse? So, are these Gen Zers safe with their or
their parents’ money? No. Take it one further removed, and to tech savvy marketers, they’re
sitting ducks. That’s because kids this age spend about six hours a day online, on average,
much of it playing video games, and spending on them. The industry’s new business model, selling
items within the game, like the outfits the characters wear, also known as skins, in the
game sensation “Fortnite.” ALICE RICHELSON: In-game purchases, I feel
like it’s just like, click, click. It’s just not real money. ISAAC SMITH LEWIS: Inside the game, it’s just
feels like you’re just using, like, game money. PAUL SOLMAN: These kids aren’t alone. Facebook
came under scrutiny earlier this year when documents revealed it made than $34 million
from in-app purchases made by minors. And, as Alice Richelson told us, these aren’t
always one-time charges. ALICE RICHELSON: I got a subscription on a
coloring app, and it just kept taking money from every month, and, finally, my dad found
out, and I got in trouble. JASON RICHELSON, Father: Yes. She somehow
signed up on iTunes for a bunch of — some games that kept charging over — every month.
And I didn’t get the receipts. It went to her e-mail. But I changed that now. And so
I didn’t know that was happening. So, I shut that off, yes. PAUL SOLMAN: But when it comes to other in-game
purchases, Jason Richelson said… JASON RICHELSON: I give in sometimes. PAUL SOLMAN: Why do you give in? JASON RICHELSON: Because they keep bothering
me. (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: Impulsive kids, pestered parents,
all overmatched by online credit, cash-free, card-free. And that’s why the actual way we
finally purchased our ice cream gave me pause. You don’t accept cash? MAN: No, we do not, sir, card or Apple Pay. PAUL SOLMAN: Well, Apple Pay, I don’t have. A card… BETH KOBLINER: I could do it. I have Apple
Pay. PAUL SOLMAN: Kobliner uses mobile pay apps,
but she does have concerns about them. BETH KOBLINER: There is a study that looked
at mobile pay, and it turns out when you use your phone to buy things, you are more likely
to feel that you have got a good deal at that store, because it’s like that magic wand.
You’re getting something for nothing. You’re not giving up dollars. PAUL SOLMAN: Really? BETH KOBLINER: Yes. So, stores really have an incentive to not
let us use cash. PAUL SOLMAN: Even friendly cash-free stores
like this one, as if the magic spell of ice cream wasn’t troublesome enough. For the “PBS NewsHour,” economics correspondent
Paul Solman, reporting from Manhattan’s Lower East Side. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight’s Brief But Spectacular
essay features psycholinguist Jean Berko Gleason. She’s a professor emeritus at Boston University,
and is best known as the creator of a test that helped to transform what we know about
children’s language. JEAN BERKO GLEASON, Psycholinguist, Boston
University: I have an intolerance for certain things, yes, intolerance for rudeness, actually. I don’t like it when people make noises eating
things, and I never stay in the house if anybody is eating soft boiled eggs, because soft boiled
eggs are an abomination. Anybody who knows me knows that I really love
technology. I have streaming cameras in my house that I set up. I installed my own video
doorbell. I do all of those things. So I’m in my kitchen one day, and a woman rang the
doorbell, and she said she wanted to get ahold of the neighbor next door, if she could send
him a message. So I pulled my Pixel out of my pocket. And
this young woman turned to me and said: “Look at you with your smartphone.” And I was just appalled. I was just appalled
that she would talk to me that way. And I said: “What?” And she said: “Well, well, well, my mother
wouldn’t know how to use a smartphone.” And I said: “Well, I do have a Ph.D. from
Harvard.” And that shut her up. I was fascinated by language as a child, because
I was under the impression that whatever you said meant something in some language. My
brother Marty was 6 years older than me, and he had cerebral palsy. He was so smart that,
ultimately, he got a Ph.D. From Cornell. But when he was little, and even when he wasn’t
little, he had trouble speaking such that other people could understand him. I was the
person who always understood what he said. So I felt some closeness with language, as
well as with my brother. Other people didn’t appreciate the fact that
he was a sensitive, intelligent person. In fact, a lot of people with disabilities have
this problem. People see that they have trouble walking or talking, and they assume that they
have no intellectual capacity. He wasn’t treated with the respect he deserved,
and he felt that acutely. I didn’t start out to study psycholinguistics.
I started out to study a million languages, because I loved them. I do speak Norwegian,
French, Russian, bits and pieces of Arabic, German, enough Spanish to get dinner. OK, if we’re going to talk about this little
creature that’s on me, it’s called a Wug. It comes from a study I did a very long time
ago, called The Wug Test. Steve, why don’t you come over here, and we
will practice on you and see if you can pass The Wug Test? This is a man who knows how to bing, OK? He
is binging. He did the same thing yesterday. What did he do yesterday? Yesterday, he… MAN: Binged. JEAN BERKO GLEASON: That is a perfect child
answer, OK? Four-year-olds will say that. MAN: Great. JEAN BERKO GLEASON: I created The Wug Test
to try to find out if even young children have internal systems of grammar that allow
them to deal with words they have never heard before. I think that it’s very important that children
acquire language in a loving atmosphere. Kids need to have some kind of one-on-one relationship
with other people, so that they care. If we care to communicate with them, we want
them to care to communicate with us. My name is Jean Berko Gleason, and this is
my Brief But Spectacular take on language. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you, Jean Berko Gleason. And you can find more Brief But Spectacular
essays on our Web site at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m
Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening
with analysis of the week’s political news with Mark Shields and David Brooks. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we will see you soon.

Negotiating for the Planet: Environmental & Climate Diplomacy


>>I’m Daniel Benjamin. I’m the Director of the John Sloan Dickey
Center for International Understanding. And I’m delighted to welcome today to this event
with Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, who is an old friend and one of the people I think who has probably
achieved a greater synthesis between science and policy in just about any one in the country. Certainly one of the very top
practitioners in that rarefied zone. Kerri-Ann Jones served as Assistant Secretary of
State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs from
August 2009 through April 2014. And having been there for a large part
of that time, I can tell you she was one of the absolutely essential part of
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s team. And in this, you know, it’s one of–
actually, let me back and just say it is one of the undying facts of life in Washington
that anyone at the assistant secretary, even the deputy assistant
secretary, level and above, that a core part of one’s identity
is being able to say to everyone else that your portfolio has more
issues, more impossible issues, more issues of presidential interest,
secretarial interest than anyone else’s. I know because I pulled this trick many times. But let me just tell you that in her position,
Kerri-Ann led a bureau that are just bilateral, regional, and multilateral engagement on
oceans environment science space and health, giving new meaning to the phrase ”She
had the whole world in her hands”. Among the issues that she handled was
sustainable fisheries, the Arctic, the Antarctic, climate change biodiversity,
wildlife trafficking, environmental assessments, water toxic chemicals, health
pandemic preparedness, international research partnerships,
innovation, and space. [ Laughter ] That was before lunch. [ Laughter ] No, she had an unbelievable portfolio. And what is most amazing
about this is that it’s– and I could go on, there’s so
many other issues she handled. But, you know, the average duration
of political appointees turn in Washington is usually about 18 months. And Kerri-Ann did for about five years, which
has to be some kind of record at least among, you know, people with– what do we have? Twenty-three pairs of chromosomes
and things like that. [ Inaudible Remark ] You’re the longest serving? That’s great. [ Inaudible Remark ] [ Laughter ] I was the longest serving in my job
but I didn’t make to five years. So, anyway, just to run through
some of the other things. You know, influenza virus international
partnerships, to deal with that, global innovation through
science and technology. It goes on and on. And before she did this, she held a
similar portfolio but with far fewer staff at the White House, which is where we came to meet each other during
the Clinton administration. As associate director at the office
of Science and Technology Policy for the second Clinton term, she was responsible
for policy development, budget analysis, international coordination of
security and international science and technology issues, nuclear nonproliferation. You had counter terrorism, too? [ Inaudible Remark ] Oh, OK. Emerge– I thought
it was because I worked on some speech that you had something to do. Anyway, and she was a senior director at
the NSC, the National Security Council, for science and technology affairs. She– you know, this is one of those
resumes you could spend the hour and a half reciting, ‘I won’t do that. I will say that she’s a woman of great wisdom and excellent taste during years
that her party was out of power. She moved to Maine. And so, you know, her affinity with
air climate here is noteworthy. She worked as the director for Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research in Maine and lives– has a house
in that beautiful town of Castine. She has a PhD from Yale in Molecular
Biophysics and Biochemistry, and an undergraduate degree from Barnard. I found it particularly interesting,
Kerri-Ann, that you are a– your doctoral work was on the effect of stress.>>Right.>>And if you could tell us
something about how to manage that while you’re here, too,
that would be wonderful. Anyway, I’m delighted that Kerri-Ann is here
because of the question of how the world of science and the world of policy
meet and interact and how we can make that interaction more effective is, I think,
one of the really pressing ones for those of us who are in the university today. You only have to pick up a newspaper on any
given day that seems that complex negotiations on climate are going on and on, and
everyone and his uncle is somehow involved. There are I think really interesting questions
of what we can do to make that whole area of human endeavor more effective but also how
we make more effective the voices of scientists in the policy process, and that’s something
we’re particularly interested in here at Dartmouth and at the Dickey
Center in particular. She’s brought her stamina and a remarkable
capacity for dealing with stress to this week at Dartmouth which I hope
is not really stressful. She’s teaching five classes this week, meeting
with innumerable members of the faculty, graduates, students, and undergrads, student
groups and the like, and I’m really grateful that she is treating us another
week at the state department. So, Kerri-Ann, thank you so much for coming
and we look forward to hearing on what you have to say about the Negotiating for the Planets.>>Certainly. [ Applause ] Thank you. [ Applause ] Thank you Dan. Can everybody hear me? I hope I’ve turned this on correctly. Well, thank you. And I’m so glad to be here to
have a chance to talk to you. And I’ve been here couple of
days now and already I’ve had so many interesting conversations,
and I’m sure there’ll be a lot more. So I thank Dan for inviting me and
the Dickey Center for hosting me. I also find out when I hear that list
of subjects that was in the portfolio, that I was involved in for
so long, I get very tired. But you have to realize that
this was– I had a staff– there was a staff in this
bureau of about 200 people. It was the foreign policy perspective
looking at on all of these issues. And so, it was quite a good team that we had. The title of this talk is out there
so we that can really sort of look at all the different things that are happening. And I think it’s quite obvious to say,
we all know that there are quite an array of environmental challenges we’re facing. And what I found in the portfolio that
I was leading at the state department, and that I want to talk to you about
today, is that they’re all connected. They’re all connected because of
the nature of environment itself. And they’re all increasingly
on the foreign policy agenda. And that’s because they’re not
only environmental issues which by that nature would be on the agenda, but
also because they’re economic issues, they’re trade issues, they’re health issues,
and they are security issues more and more. So I spent the last five years living
in this space with these issues, with these very many different dimensions,
but also which I’m going to talk about today, with the international engagements
that go with those. So, what I want to do is take you through
negotiating on a lot of different topics, because if I were just to talk about one topic and get into the gruesome
details, I would probably bore you. It’s not that they’re not important
but I would probably bore you. So what I want to do is give you this overview
and show you a little bit how they’re connected and look at what we were doing, and
sort of how are we doing, how are we– are we making any progress,
is it getting any better. The challenges we face environmentally,
as I mentioned, are huge and the way I often look
at them is so where are they? Well, we have them in the air. We have them in the oceans that
connect us, that provide food. They’re on the land. They’re in the animals and plant life. And of course, there is climate change. And that is the environmental issue of our age. It is in the news and it is one that we need
to address, and we need to do more about. But beyond the actual problems that I just
mentioned, you know, with air, and water, and land, there’s also just
the beauty of the planet. And that is under stress. And we need that. We need the open spaces and
we need to be able to deal with that beauty and the
awe that inspires in us. But it’s under stress because
of increasing population and expanding development,
and that’s just the facts. I mean, there’s nothing controversial
about that. Now, one thing I want to tell you upfront
is that I am not a gloom and doom person. I could not be and do this job. It’s just the nature of who I am
in trying to handle this portfolio. I’m also trained as a scientist, as Dan said. And I came to this portfolio by a way
of a number of positions that looked at how does science addressed
tough international problems. And certainly, you know, environment, are tough international problems
that need a lot of science. So, the details and the challenges
of these environmental issues that we face are complicated, and the
world is trying to step up to them. And I would say that we are making progress
but– and this not a trivial but it is very, very slow and it is very, very complicated. And I think it’s important to think
about why it’s so complicated, because many groups would say,
“Well, why don’t we just do X?” or “Why don’t we just do Y and fix this?” Well, it’s complicated because the way
that we look at the systems that we look at to address these problems are
dynamic in and off themselves. And the way I think about it is we look at
these problems through the lens of science. We look at it through the lens of development. We look at it through the lens of
politics, both national and international. And so, each one of those is a dynamic process, and so it’s not easy to sort
of come to solutions. Clearly, our policies must be science-based. And I’ve been lucky over the course of my career
to work in places where science is valued, it was difficult but we kept pushing on it. But the nature of science is that
it always is adding new information. And so as we are trying to solve these problems,
we are also getting real time information, and so it’s very much a back-and-forth process. We’re also working with a community of nations
that covers the entire development spectrum. And this comes into play in every
negotiation, every relationship we have. We’re dealing with countries who were
struggling, very poor, low education indices, low development indices– Can you still hear me? I think I lost it. Low development– And I think
that this is something that we’ve take into consideration all the time. We’re also looking at how
countries want to develop. They want to keep developing because it’s
important to them to keep their country on a very strong economic
and social development track. And also countries are politically
changing all the time. We know that they’re varying their each nation
has to different extents, national debates going on about these environmental issues. Surely we have them in the US and we can
certainly talk about those a little bit as we get further into this talk, but what
do we do and how do we do it and who pays, and are we really being effective? We’re trying to build international consensus,
as countries are changing governments at regular intervals and the urgency of
environmental problems whether we like it or not, often seem to pay out when viewed as– when viewed against short-term economic
concerns, possible health crisis, and in many countries outright conflict. And so, it’s a difficult
setting for these problems. What I want to say first about the
overall negotiating process is it’s not a singular process. It’s not one negotiation for one
topic, whatever that topic may be. But it’s also a range of programs and process. And these are all different kinds. There’re bilateral announcements that
come out and you hear them when visits– when leaders get together, their
regional initiatives and of course, they’re the ones that we often hear about
the large multilateral negotiations. We also see countries developing national
strategies and developing new programs. And each of these is important, because there’s
no single way that we’re going to solve these. And we also need continuity. We need continuity from the national
level to the international and back. And we need the information to be flowing
back and forth from these problems, from these different efforts and informing
how we go forward on these problems. Now, the US is very much engaged in, you know,
what I call this tapestry or web of agreements and programs and initiatives and engagements. And I’ve lived in this space and
it’s an interesting space to live in. But what I want to mention
is, so how are we viewed? How is the US viewed in the global
environmental science and policy community? Well, for my perspective, we are
still very much viewed as a leader. And we are viewed as an essential partner. Our environmental protection agency, the EPA,
is enormously respected around the world, which I find ironic because in our own
country, we don’t necessarily value its worth but it’s really very popular around
the world and I think they would love to be able to model something like it. We also have in place a system of domestic laws
that have been on the books for years and years that have shown our commitment
to the environment. We have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. We have the Lacey Act, which
deals with wildlife conservation. We have the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which deals
with fisheries and fish– marine conservation. So we have a very strong domestic system. And it’s been around for a long time. So, countries really respect
us from that perspective. They also greatly admire our
science and technology enterprise. They want to work with us. We were– When I was in my position, we
were constantly visited by scientists from around the world, administers of science
who wanted to do more cooperation with the US. And I know, here at Dartmouth that many of your faculty are involved
in international collaboration. And so we are a welcome partner when
it comes to science and technology. Now, moving to our policy processes
in our current national debates, my experience is that many
countries study us very closely, and they tried to understand exactly
how we do things to figure it out. They’re impressed with our interagency
processes that we try to bring to the table all the different expertise that
we have, from our Department of Agriculture, to EPA, to the National Institutes
of Health, to work on problems. They’re also impressed with our
efforts to bring in the NGO community, industry and to have this great debate. And they often asked us for advice on that. But they are, I would say, to put at my out
my old league, kind of bewildered and dismayed by our budget processes and
our policy processes. They often question the disconnects
between our rhetoric and our hard work to negotiate agreements and
often, our inability to join them. And I believe our contentious or
intense and contentious national debates and prolonged budget processes do have
a corrosive effect on our ability– our credibility in the international arena. And that’s not to detract from the
importance of our national debates. I think the fact that we have these
intense debates, that’s sort of who we are, and it’s important that everyone participates. But we seem to have gotten
stuck with always debating and it’s very hard for us to move forward. I spent a lot of time in my
meetings with international partners, trying to explain how our system worked, and trying to explain that
this is part of who we are. But the stuck part is a reality that we do
seem to be going in circles in many cases. Another point I want to make is about
these– the large multilateral negotiations and how they’re done and who actually does it. Because I think– I don’t know
that that’s well understood. I know many people here may understand or
may have participated in different types of negotiations, but it really
is a whole interagency process. The state department may lead a
team but it involves representatives from across the US government who
bring their technical expertise. So, when we were working on a mercury
convention, which we’ll talk more about, we have people for EPA and the
Food and Drug Administration. We had a number of representatives
from across the US government. And that’s a negotiation in
and of itself because each one of those agencies brings their interest
and their constituents to the table to sort of develop the US position. But in terms of who these people
are, they are civil servants, they are Foreign Service officers, they
are political appointees, they are fellows, they are contractors, they are students. It is really the collection of
whoever really can get the job done. And in terms of training, the teams that
we were– that I was very involved in, we had scientists, we had lawyers, we had
a lot of international affairs experts. And it was a whole mixture of expertise to sort
of move forward on these complicated areas. And these negotiations as you can
tell from climate, take many years. Now, climate has taken an
inordinate number of years, but typically, they do take multiple years. It doesn’t often happen quickly. And what happens is that you bring
to the table technical expertise, legal expertise because you are
working in the area of perhaps, binding legal requirements of a country. And it has to be coherent with
the rest of international– of your laws and then look at international law. And it also– you have to bring
your policy objectives to the table. In the Obama administration, the term of art
that was very popular was whole-of-government. And that’s sort of a given. The whole-of-government goes forward
to try to achieve it, but it was also, we use the term whole-of-society because we
had the NGO community very, very much in touch with everything we did, and we
would always consult with industry. Because if you’re going to start regulating
something, you’re going to start affecting that industry’s ability to use certain
chemicals we’re not to use them. So let me sort of start, having done
that sort of general description, talking about a few of these specific issues. So let me start with air. It’s clear that what we have done
over the course of years in developing and taking the human race further,
is to pollute the air with a lot of different interesting chemicals. And we learn about these through
science, because I always think that we have to talk about the science. And the most– the first really
major step we took on this when we look at ozone-depleting substances. We– A few scientists looked at this in the ’70s
and said, “We think chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, are depleting ozone and we need ozone
to protect us from UV radiation.” The scientists did the work in the ’70s
and they got the Nobel Prize in 1995. And that was Mario Molino and Sherry Rowland. So science can come right in, takes a long
time for the scientist to be recognized. The treaty regarding the control of CFCs
took a while to come around as well. That was finally completed in 1987. So, the science was out there in the ’70s,
the treaty was– it was completed in ’87. And we, the United States joined at 1988. And the US Senate provided advice
and consent with a vote of 83 to 0. Now, we haven’t seen a lot of votes
like that lately, but we have a history. We do have a history here of doing this. And the Montreal Protocol is now universal. In 2009, it was announced
that 196 countries joined it. Have to be revised in 2002, because
there was a new country, South Sudan. So now, 197 countries have signed on to this. And there’s a point about this treaty, and
the reason I start with it and it sounds old and it’s been out there for years. But it’s something that we worked
on every week and every year, because treaties have to be living documents. They have to be able to be amended and adjusted
based on science and based on the monitoring and based on what countries may
need help to get things done, and so we were constantly revisiting this. We also– There’s also a particular revisiting
I want to mention, which is very current. And that has to do with one of the chemicals
that was put out there to be a substitute for CFCs, and that was hydrofluorocarbons,
HFCs, great substitute. They’re used in refrigerants. They are not ozone-depleting. Great news. Bad news, they have a very, very
high global warming potential. So we were taking one chemical to fix a problem but we are causing– playing
into another problem. And they are very potent. They are 1,000 to 3,000 times more powerful
than CO2 in terms of global warming potential. So now, the US and a couple of other
countries have been proposing every year for the past four years that HFCs be
scaled down under the Montreal Protocol. This is going very slowly. But we had some breakthroughs recently. In 2013, we were able to announce that the US
would work with China to take on this problem. And then most recently, we were able to report
that India was going to work with the US. So that’s two bilateral arrangements
that have been worked at, that may be able to make a big difference in
this much bigger multilateral negotiation. And so, we’ll try to get– bring
this up every year after year. And I think there is momentum gaining,
but it’s not happening fast enough. I think it will get there but it’s
really not happening fast enough. I also, turning away from that old treaty,
I want to talk about a new convention, and one that I know many people here have
in someway been involved with the work. And that is the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Now, many of you in the audience who have
done research on mercury or in public health, know that mercury is a neurotoxin,
it bioaccumulates. Children are very sensitive to it and it
can very much affect their development, their attention spans and
result in learning disability. It also has more severe effects
in higher concentration. There are also other populations who are very
seriously at risk of exposure to mercury. And those are people whose diets include a lot– rely heavily on fish and
shellfish and marine mammals. And particularly, indigenous
groups are sensitive to this. And this is an issue in the Arctic. And I know the Institute of Arctic Studies
has looked at the concentration of this toxin in the Arctic and looked at how it’s traced
and how it is affecting indigenous populations. Now, I’m making an aside here more
just a historic interest point, and I don’t know if a lot of
you know it, probably you do. But treaties are named in odd ways. We always talk about the climate change treaty
because we don’t know what city it’s going to end up being finally completed in. Typically, the final treaty
takes the name of the city. And so, the convention for mercury
was called the Minamata Convention, because Minamata is a city in Japan where
there was horrific mercury pollution, environmental disaster. It’s such a disaster that there is now a sort
of disease known as the Minamata syndrome because so many lives were lost
and so much damage was done to the population of this small town. A chemical company was dumping this stuff
into the water, it accumulated in the fish that the people ate, and it was truly a
syndrome that was studied and identified as related directly to this poisoning. And because of that, Japan was highly
sensitive to wanting to make this happen and to doing everything they could, and they
played a leadership role and they wanted to host it and the world community
felt this is the right thing. This is to show what happens if you don’t
take care of these kinds of problems. Now, the US has been aware of
mercury problems for a long time. I mean, we have regulations, domestic
and state regulations on the books. We have advisories in different states in
terms of fish, but we were not the only one who was involved in this problem
and we couldn’t solve it alone. And the reason we couldn’t solve it alone is because science gave us a lot
of information about mercury. Number one, it was the public health piece. But number two, we learned
about mercury transport. And I know there were some work here
done on mercury transport as well. The issue with mercury transport is it stays
in the air and it travels in long distances. It concentrates in the Arctic as I mentioned. But also, we found that in the US, EPA
has estimated that 70% of the mercury in the US comes from outside our borders. And so, a global arrangement was needed. So this convention was completed in 2013. It took four years to get it done. And it identifies the sources
that need to be controlled. It puts out some targets to be hit. It talks about available
technology that can be used. It tries to help some of the less
well-known sources of mercury contaminate– or mercury pollution for instance
small-scale and Artisanal gold mining. A lot of poor countries, people
actually use mercury to extract gold, and communities have a big mercury problem. But it has moved forward. And now, 128 countries in the EU
have signed on to the agreement. We signed on to that agreement. The US signed on to it. And I must say, I personally signed on to it. And I also personally joined it, for the US. And that has to be one of the greatest
honors of my tenure at the state department, to sort of join that for our country. And I was able to do that because advice
and consent, senate advice and consent, was not needed for that agreement
because of the nature of it. It was deemed an executive
agreement and therefore, it is within the presidential
authority to move that forward. One thing and as I’ve mentioned to several
students, is that in the course of my job, I have learned a lot about the law and I
didn’t expect to when I first started this job. So, it’s really an amazing thing to watch
this go from beginning to end and for us to be able to join it, but it’s not done. Now, there are post convention meetings. There are guidelines that
have to be established. Countries have to get into the details of how
they are actually going to meet these targets. So, that’s look at air, but that’s
only one segment of the environment. The other– one or the other pieces that
Dan mentioned in my resume and of work, is we also dealt with biodiversity,
all the flora and fauna of the planet. And the tremendous threat it’s under in terms
of the different developmental expansions and also the pollution that’s out there. There are many treaties that address these. There is the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species, the CITES treaty. There is the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. And just to mention another one, there
is the Convention on Biodiversity. Now, the first two, CITES and Ramsar,
the US signed and we joined these. So we participate. We go to meetings. We try to live up to the goals that have been
set and all the processes that have been set. And it’s an important work that we do that way. But we are not members of the
Convention on Biodiversity. That convention has always been
somewhat difficult one for the US. In 1993, President Clinton
signed it but it was– it didn’t really gained momentum in
terms of the Senate moving on it. It was also the time when the new
biotech industry was coming out. And there were a lot of questions about
genetic resources and what does this mean. And so, there’s a sort of
pulling away from that. Now, I don’t think there is quite as
much opposition to that treaty however, we are in a space where it’s
very difficult to move treaties through our Senate and get advice and consent And so we go to the meetings of
the convention on biodiversity. And countries want us there because we bring a
lot of technical expertise, but we have to work through somebody who’s actually
sitting at the table because we have to sit in the back of the room. That’s a very difficult place to really try
to have a lot of affect if you really want to make an impact on how a treaty evolves and how things get measured
and what are the standards. It’s not the only treaty we’re not a member of,
there’s another one I’ll just mention briefly which is the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea, which is not only a conservation treaty but it’s also a treaty that involves or
extended continental shelf, mineral rights, and a whole number of things that
are very important to our country. But beyond these agreements, there are
a lot of other things we do in terms of conservation and biodiversity. We work on forests, we work in
regions such as the Congo Basin or the coral initiative in East Asia. So, there’s always an effort
to push forward and do more. And there’s just two things I
want to mention in biodiversity that I think you may be interested in. One is good news and one is not so
good news, actually it’s bad news. The good news is that there is
a new effort to bring science into biodiversity and ecosystem valuing. There’s an effort called the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. It’s called IPBES. It has to be the worst acronym ever
but that’s the way the system works, and that’s what’s going to be called. We worked very hard to help
shape that organization. And what we did was the interagency
process developed guidelines, those guidelines included
some very basic things. Number one, this was not going to be a brand new
research organization because we don’t need one. There’s a lot of good research
going on across the academic world, and that should be brought to bear. Secondly, everything used to sort of inform this
group should be based on peer review, research. And then the other two have to do with
using the best technology available because these are large databases and we
really have to stay up with the technology. And finally, that, it needs to be a very focused
organization, because one of the big challenges in all of these things is
to keep bureaucracy small. And it is not easy. They proliferate. They make more committees. They– Everybody has to have a committee. So trying to keep focused in keeping your eye
on the target, well, it sounds pretty trivial. It’s a major undertaking when new
organizations are being formed. The other development, as I said,
that is not positive is the fact that we are facing a crisis
in wildlife trafficking. I’m sure you’ve seen that in the news. There’s been a significant increase in
poaching and trading of wildlife products such as ivory or rhino horn or tiger skin. And it’s very lucrative. It’s one of the most lucrative types
of transnational organized crime now, where it has revenues totaling
over $10 billion a year. Over the past three years, it’s estimated
that 100,000 elephants have been killed. In some regions in Africa,
there’s been a decline of 60% of the elephant population in decades. And it’s a multidimensional
problem, because it is environmental. Certainly we do not want to see this iconic
species disappear, but it’s also economic for the communities that depend on this
wildlife, as an attraction for tourism. It is also a health problem and it is a
security problem, because we know some of this money is going to terrorist groups. So there’s a lot going on in
the world community on this. There’s a mobilization under CITES, that
treaty I mentioned that I’m sure many of you are familiar with, individual
countries like the US are trying to do new strategies and new programs. The UN has put it high on the agenda. And the NGO community is really, really out
there trying to make a difference in this, and engaging very much African leaders, because
this is a very tough issue in Africa with a lot of the challenges that some
of these countries face. This is down on the lists of
priorities, but it’s one of those that needs a lot of attention right now. Now, moving to oceans, again, it’s
not news that we’re putting the oceans under a tremendous amount of
stress with wants going on. To start with, overfishing is a
huge problem and it’s harmful. And there are harmful fishing practices that
threaten a lot of different species out there. It’s estimated that 29% of the world’s fish
stock are overexploited and that another 61 are under stress, 61% are under
stress and need management. We are also seeing that the ocean is
suffering from pollution and we hear about large collections of plastics
floating out there in the ocean. And we also know the ocean is warming, and
that has effects in so many different ways, obviously it’s interaction with climate, a
climate patterns, and also with how fish migrate and how that affects fishing industries. And we also have a problem that it’s often
referred to as new but I think it’s been there for a while, it’s just getting more
noticed and it’s also becoming more severe. And that is that the ocean
is becoming more acidic. The pH of the ocean is becoming
more acid as the CO2 is dissolving. And what this does is it will affect life
in the ocean, because there’s a feeling that the building of shells and metabolism
could all be affected by this acidification. Now, there’re some good news here, and
that good news is that all of the sudden, at least this is from where I
said in the state department. In the last three years or so, there’s been this
awakening about the oceans that the problems that we have been focusing on
in air traditionally and some of the wildlife on land is like, “Wait. What is happening in the oceans?” And there had been more and more things done. There had been a lot of international efforts, the state department hosted a very
large conference in this past June where many world leaders came to it and
industries, and they made a lot of pledges. And right now, I know that my
colleagues back in the state department because this is also another
challenge in many of these areas. Pledges are great but they
have to be carried out. And so there’s a real followthrough. And every pledge that you hear, somebody has
to pay attention that it really gets done, so they are trying to pay attention to that. The US also announced recently that
it’s going to greatly expand one of its marine protected areas
in the Central Pacific. And so, there are good things happening. The other good thing that has happened and
I don’t know if many of you had noticed it, but last April, very quietly,
the Senate provided advice and consent to four, four fish treaties. And this was– these were the
first environmental treaties that have come through in a very long time. And what these addressed, three of them
were addressed specific regional approaches to conservation and fishing
practices in the Pacific. I think it was the North Pacific and the South
Pacific, and then the Northwest Atlantic. And then the fourth treaty, looked at
measures that port cities need to take, so. It’s called the Port City State Measures. So in other words, if you’re a port and you’re
landing fish, you need to do certain things to make sure that those are not a
illegal or unregulated or pirated, so that you’re really cutting
down on this illegal fishing or piracy as some people call it. So that’s good news. And it’s very interesting that
these treaties went through. It was bipartisan and it was unanimous. And so, we can talk about this dichotomy that
we see between some things getting through and some things it doesn’t look like
they’ll ever get through because they’re so controversial, or perhaps
they’re just so complex that they need to be looked at differently. Now, I want to turn to climate change. One cannot talk about environment without
talking seriously about climate change. And all of those topics that I just
mentioned are tied to climate change. The oceans as I mentioned, the warming
and the acidification, the air, the HFCs, they all are connected. And so, we have negotiations
on these individual issues and then we have the major negotiation
that’s going on in onto the UN for the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Now, there’s a big meeting coming u. I’m sure
you’ve been following this in Paris in 2015, where we all anticipate that there will be an
agreement, that will address both the reduction or the mitigation of greenhouse gasses
as well as look at the adaptation, how do we react to the changes
that are already coming toward us. Each year– And the team that did
this negotiation was in my bureau. Each year, we send a large team to negotiate. And there are multiple committees
and multiple activities and they are political, legal, and technical. And in preparation for that annual meeting
which is called the Conference of the Parties or the COP, there are meetings all year long. So, this is a tremendous amount of
work for any country, and it’s not– and I’m not saying that because
I think we shouldn’t do it. I’m saying it because it is a reality that to
really engage in these, we have to be out there with the right people and very much
present at all the important meetings. So, this COP coming up in Paris is COP 21,
which means that we’ve had 21 of these before, where we have not come to a convention but
I think an agreement on the convention. But I think there is a lot
of optimism this time. There’s a lot of optimism because there’s
more pressure, there’s more visibility. There has been some real progress,
I think, on some of the issues. And let me talk just very briefly about
the issues, because the issues that are on the table now and we’re going to have
to think about how they’re solved in Paris, have been on the table for a very long time. They can be stated very simply as questions and
that’s how I state them, but underneath each of these, they are flushed with
details, with old problems, with North-South debates,
with all kinds of things. So if you state these questions simply, what they are is how much will each
country reduce its greenhouse gasses? Pretty straightforward. Second is, how will these reductions
be measured, reported, and verified? Also pretty straightforward. The third one is how will
countries prepare for the current and future impact of climate change, adaptation. And the last one is what funds
and technology will be available to assist developing countries? Now when you think about it, those are all
pretty– if you’re worried about a problem, first of all, you have to stop what’s bad, you
have to make sure you’ve stopped what’s bad, you have to fix what damage you’ve
done, and you have to pay for it or get something that’s going to make it work. That’s what those are. But underneath that, is a whole range of
development issues as to who pays for what, who is to blame, how is it monitored, how is
the data collected, who does the measuring? It just becomes very much churning and
forth with a lot of difficult issues. But as I said, there’s been progress. In Lima just recently, countries agreed
that they’re going to submit information that will serve as the framework
for the Paris agreement, and the last few years has been a technology
mechanism that’s been set up that’s supposed to be helpful in how to move technology out. There is a new fund that was established
in terms of financing some of these. So there are– there was the beginning of
the architecture of addressing all of these. But, I think, we all have to realize
whatever agreement that comes out of this, there’s going to be a compromise. And so, it depends on where you sit, who
you are, what industry you’re interested in, what country you’re in whether
or not you love it or hate it. But I don’t think there will be– I think
there’ll be a lot of presses to what’s wrong with this agreement when it comes
out, because that’s just the nature of how these agreements are,
there are compromises. But it’s very important to realize. As I said before, when I start
in general about this world that we’re in, it’s not about one agreement. This multilateral agreement is very important, but there are many other things being
done many, many other things being done. And we need all of those. There are different forms being
set up in different projects and different partnerships,
and different investments. A few years ago, the US initiated a
group called the Major Economies Forum, where the 17 largest emitting
countries get together and try to talk about how they’re going to handle this problem. They’re now looking at initiative
to put money in to sort of looking at some of the big questions out there. This is good. There’s also a group called the
Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which is looking at not greenhouse gasses
but the short-lived climate forcers, things like black ash and methane, which may
be much easier to get out of the atmosphere but could have a large impact on
what’s happening with climate warming. So, I think, you know, to summarize the
piece on climate, we’re in a good place. We’re in a better place than we’ve every been. Is it an easy place? No. Are we sure we know what’s
going to be in that agreement? No, but I think we should
be cautiously optimistic, which is the term I’ve been
using some of the classes. But it’s going to be something that we’re
going to have to work on no matter what. It’s going to be a long term effort. And I think we have to recognize that
and move on, because no one solution is out there that’s going to make
it better, make it go away. So let me begin to close here and
summarize with just a few points. First of all, as I started out, which I think
all of you are quite– how can I put it– familiar with or deal with it everyday. We are facing an enormous number of
environmental challenges that’s just there. And climate changes top on the lists,
not only is it related to the others but it makes it worst or they make it
worst, and so there’s a convergence that we have to begin to understand. From my perspective, we are
taking some positive steps. And one positive is that increasingly,
the world is linking science to policy. Now, this is not easy to do for many
reasons but it is slowly happening. From my perspective, it would be
much easier if the scientific process and risks analysis was better understood. It would be easier if technical
discussions were much more easily integrated into policy and politics. Now, this raises questions of science
literacy and science education, which I could also talk about for a long time. But it’s a major issue for our country. And the problems we face are increasingly
complicated, and we need to be able to understand them and we need
our politicians and our leaders to be able to have these conversations. Another positive is that increasingly we’re
seeing all kinds of partnerships emerging. We’re not looking for one solution. And that’s a good thing, because you
cannot put all of your eggs in one basket on this complicated problems that
involve international collaborations, everything changes. So we need a whole collection of things. In climate we’re seeing, as I mentioned, some
of those examples of major economies form. Some people beginning to call
those plurinational activities, because it’s not everybody but it’s some. It’s a group of countries
who can be very influential, and they want to make things happen not
because they are saying that the multilateral, the large multilateral should not happen or is
not going to bring a benefit but they also know that that takes time, 197 countries coming to
agreement does not get to a quick conclusion. So, it’s good to have all of these
efforts because they interact and they put pressure on each other. So I think that’s a very good development, because it makes them both
try to push for progress. And beyond those partnerships,
there are also partnerships with industry and government and universities. There are all kinds of flourishing partnerships. And this is god news– very good news. But I also have a caveat here, and
this is more from personal experience. I think we need a little more selectivity and
focus, because we have to have enough noise in the system to go forward but
we have to have enough noise in the system to also make a signal. So I think we have to sort of look at these and
we have to think about one of the challenges is that in our political system and in our media,
everybody want something new all the time. And so, what is the announcement today? And everyone of those announcements are programs
or projects, whether it’s your community or your university or your agency in Washington,
every one of those requires somebody to work on it, afterwards it requires human
resources, financial resources, monitoring, we need to be able to look
at things that are working and say great let’s do more
or back away from them. We need to get much more nimble and agile
in terms of trying things in moving away. And I know this is, again, it’s very
straightforward, it’s really hard to do. I have personally tried to stop, I
think, two large multilateral efforts. And I have the bruises to show for it. We slowed down one but people
get so vested in something that they just want to keep going at it. But it’s like if it’s not working, let’s
move the resources some place else. So we have to really– we have
to really think about this. And let me just mention what I think are
out there as two really large challenges, now that I have mentioned
some of the positive things, just let me mention a couple
of the big challenges. I really see two of them. And one is related to rate constants
and the other is related to ideology. And what I see is that the policy process at the
national and international level, moves very, very, very slowly, painfully, so. And typically, the processes– policy
processes are built that way for a reason. They should be deliberative. They should be participatory, no
sudden changes, no jerking around. But our ability at the national and
international level to make fundamental changes in our energy profiles, in our development
choices, and in our investment choices, that’s moving at a much slower rate than the
environmental changes that we are causing. And so we need to pay attention
to this, and we need to think about how we can change our systems in some way. And it’s really a challenge of
learning how to built trust, so processes can go forward
a little more easily. In the course of my career, I have
seen an enormous growth of advocacy and special interest groups getting
narrower and narrower and narrower, as to what topic they’re trying to make,
you know, a point about and to push ahead. And this is very important. They’re really important to
have all those voices out there. But I think we also have to think about how
do we begin to build coalitions around topics? Some of this is happening. We’re seeing this internationally with those
groups of nations who are coming together. We also see in some of the NGO communities, we
need to do more of this because it’s a challenge of learning how to compromise, because
it’s not, as I’ve said in the couple of classes, it’s not black or white. There’s a middle ground we have
to find to go forward here. It’s also a challenge of maintaining
political will which, again, is something that said very easily but is really
quite difficult with the agenda that’s out there to sort of stay focused on something. The second large challenge is ideology. We often find ourselves. And I say, we– let me say, I often find myself
and my colleagues at the state department who work on this issue in
discussions where we hit up against ideas that are
presented as absolutes. For example, national sovereignty is weakened
by our joining any international agreement. Or, that somehow, there is a specific defined
amount of science that we need to tell us that climate change is really happening. Or, and this is the international
version of kind of hitting a wall, that once a country is a developing
country, it is always a developing country. Now, you know, dealing with ideology is a very
difficult thing to do, because it is presented with such certainty that there is a real
temptation to blast right back with certainty. And what I find is this usually
perpetuates a very nonproductive loop, because all you keep doing is
saying the same thing to each other. We must really continue to take on these ideas
with engagement at all levels, in neighborhoods, across the aisle in Congress
and around the world. And I think, with education and objective
data to better understand the complexity of the challenges we face, those
dialogues may be more productive. But we also must take it on this
discussion of these ideas that are difficult with something else that I
just want to put out there. We must take them on with enormous
fortitude, because we have to keep at this for the long run and it is not fast process. It is a chipping away process. So with that, let me thank
you for your attention. And I’m happy to take any of your questions. [ Applause ]>>Fortitude is a very good place to break. I just wanted to mention one thing that I–
or two things that I didn’t in the beginning. First is cards, if they have been already
been handed out, it will be handed out. We’re doing some survey work on our audience. So I hope that you will take a
moment to fill those out at the end. The other, well, which I’ve neglected to
mention at the outset which is another– a testament to Kerri-Ann’s fortitude, is let
me want to ask a question or two about this, is that one of her very favorite issues which
she was stuck with for five years was Keystone. So–>>As in the pipeline.>>And with that, I’ll give
you back to Kerri-Ann.>>Thank you. Thank you for that Dan. [ Laughter ] Yes, over here.>>I want to ask why the US is
not a member of the Biodiversity? Sorry.>>The Biodiversity Convention.>>Yeah, that the US isn’t a member of the–>>Right.>>– Biodiversity Convention. And I wondered what that convention says very
briefly and why we’re not signed on to it.>>OK. It talks about a whole range of species,
and what we should be doing to protect them. It talks about targets in terms of
setting aside conservation areas on land and marine protected areas. And those were the easy parts. It also talks a little bit about
access to genetic resources. And that has always been the sticking point,
you know, who owns what genetic resources. And that has always been a bit
of a North-South discussion. I mean, we with our biotechnology industry
always kind of think we can just go in and take things and then we extract the genes. And there is much more to it than that. So I think when that came up,
there’s been a lot of work done on this and it’s been clarified a lot. And I think the industries are
not so adamantly against it. I think they have been supportive,
more and more supportive. But, as that treaty got into a better
place, more treaties got on the list that we needed to get through the Senate. So it’s a question of where
is it in terms of priority and then sorting out some of the other issues. There’s also been a new protocol just recently
negotiated on that called the Nagoya Protocol, which is specifically targeted
at access and benefit-sharing. It has to do with, if you take something out
of a country and you get some benefit from it, how does that country get the benefit back? And that brings a lot of
nervousness into US industry as each country is going to have its own system. It’s also made some researchers very nervous
in terms of getting a permit to go in and then do research and
not anything commercial. So there’s a lot of static around this treaty. Back here.>>Recently in a conversation
with a scientist friend, we were talking about peer reviewed science.>>Yes.>>And, I suggest that what we really
need is a constitutional amendment that says all legislative action will
be based on peer reviewed science. And my friend said, “You know, this really won’t
work because it’s just too easy for opposition to find some new review that– in which
you can publish the views of the opposition with opposition peers whom
they carefully groomed.” And I just wondered what
your thought was on that?>>Well, it’s interesting. I was at the National Science
Foundation for a while. And the term peer review hasn’t
some places of all to merit review. And there’s a whole debate
in the science community about what’s the best term of– or to use there. But I think that it does sort of take on
different meanings in different places. And so, I don’t know that having
that as a piece of legislation to support all other legislation would
move or how it would be interpreted. I think it’s something that we have to
call any policy that we’re putting forward. We have to call that question
of where is the science on it. But the– my point about the science
literacy is once we call that question, we have to have people who understands the
science that they’re being told at some level. But I think it would be very difficult to
pass a law like that and very difficult to then somehow make sure that it was actually
not changing the terminology in some way that we just become a bigger mess.>>I was thinking of ALEC.>>Right.>>And how that place into–>>Right.>>– legislature’s views.>>Next, any other– right here.>>So you talked a lot–>>There’s a coming mike.>>You talked a lot about negotiation
between governments and organizations, NGOs. I’m also interested in hearing how the
role of corporations have evolved–>>Sure.>>– over time in this negotiation process. On the one hand, you have, you know,
companies that caused a lot of pollution. On the other, you have corporations that take
a lot of corporate social responsibility.>>Right.>>And recently, there’s also been new
financial instrument such as Green Bond, a carbon emission tax that,
you know, have increased ways which corporations can participate
in a more positive no. So, could you just kind of–>>Sure, sure.>>– talk more about that.>>I mean, you’ve said a lot of it. I mean, there’s just a range
of corporate behavior. And what we would try to do
whenever we’re negotiating, there’s this effort to work
with all stakeholders. So usually, there’s meetings with industry
or industry associations who will come in. That’s done before the climate negotiations. It was done before the mercury negotiations. And it gets very specific
depending on the industries. So some industries will come in and with
willingness to work towards alternatives, and others will come in and say, “We
can’t possibly shift away from X, Y or Z. In the Montreal Protocol,
there is actually room in there for countries requesting exemptions for certain
chemicals, so that it gives industry time. So there is this participation with industry. And on the corporate social responsibility,
I think that is very much increasing where you see corporations participating in a
number of projects to work on the environment. And the one I was most involved with was lot of
companies working on water trying to do more. But it has this whole– the landscape of
companies cover so many different behaviors and options that, you know, it’s just that
you have all different kinds of players. Some are adamantly against, some participate, and then some actually try to
bring solutions to the table. But we do very much try to work with industry. One of the things that’s tricky is, how
do you, you know, meet with all of them. And so, that’s why associations begin to become
important because you can’t just be going to the same ones all the time
because that’s unequal treatment. And so, it’s something that again has to be
thought through and managed in terms of access and often no beyond delegations, too. When we went to Rio recently, a couple of years
ago, we had some industry members on that team. Over here.>>Thanks for your part in the Minamata treaty. I’m one of the scientists that’s been
lucky enough to be participating–>>Great.>>– in some of that. But, one of the things I found when I went
to the last negotiating conference, I– it was just really interesting to me because
I turn to people around me and said, “Why now? We as scientists have known
about mercury and from–>>Right.>>– associating with this for 20 plus years.”>>Right.>>And, the person I asked that who
said, “It’s because Obama is president.”>>Well–>>And so, that’s one part of my question is that how much does it take a
particular political figure?>>Right.>>And then the second, was that because
the technology for mercury controls–>>Sure.>>– emissions has now gotten to be affordable.>>Right.>>And so, that was another case.>>Right, right.>>So, I’m thinking about that
in terms of the climate treaty. I’m wondering, is– do we need those things too?>>Well, I think, we certainly
need political will which is one of the points I sort of ended with. And if you’ve been involved with the Mercury
Convention, you know that the proposal to have such an international convention
was out there for a few years. And the US said, “No, we don’t want this. We don’t want this. We don’t want this. We don’t want this. We don’t want to have to negotiate anything. We have our laws in place.” But when President Obama
won, he changed that policy. So, you do have to, in some cases,
have that kind of leadership. We are still sometimes in a place
where we don’t want a treaty. So, I’m not trying to say that this is– there
are times, we don’t say yes to every treaty, but these seem like a very
important treaty and he wanted it. So first of all, that turned it around. Second, your point is very good that
we also– the technology has advanced. And so, that really made the case with a lot of
other country’s willingness in the negotiations because they felt emission levels could
be set that they could reach, right? So that was a second thing. The other thing for the US and why we were
able to not only sign it but joined it, was because we did not have to
do any domestic legislation to be in compliance with that agreement, OK? Because that also is always another hurdle,
because there’s a couple of treaties out there related to persistent
organic chemicals. And there is one related to
prior and formed a consent for moving different kinds
of toxins across borders. They’ve been stuck. And one of the reasons they’ve been stuck is because they need some domestic
legislation for us to be in compliance. And we’ve been unable to move
that domestic legislation. It’s EPA legislation. And, you know, sometimes, EPA’s
legislation is not well-met on the hill. And so, there are these multiple
pieces that have to fall into place. And so, it’s very– it’s a kind of dynamic
process both political and technical. Other questions? Oh, over here.>>I really appreciate your optimism.>>Thank you.>>However–>>I’m maybe foolish but I have it.>>– it seems to me that there’s
a big cog in the wheel of progress. And that’s centers around how money
influences decisions in our congress. And how do you– from your perspective,
how do you see solving that problem because we’re being choked
to death by inactivity–>>Right.>>– as far as climate is concerned.>>Right. Well, you know, that
question is outside of my former job. But I have a personal opinion on this. My personal opinion is more people have to vote. It’s to me and I’ve said this to a couple of
students, you know, I’ve heard people say, “Well, this is our congress so, you
know, the Congress is terrible.” I said, “Well, it’s our congress. Somebody is electing people. Somebody is voting for these people.” I mean, they’re elected. You know, the less turnout
that we had was terrible. It was embarrassing. I mean, I go to countries around the
world who just surpass us in turnout. And where we then say, we’re the best democracy. Wow, right? So, we have to get the vote out. We have to get people elected who
are not going to be that influence. Now, that’s a problem. And we also have to– I mean, I’m kind of an
education person, you know, down to my roots. It’s, you know, if somebody has
enough money to do a lot of ads, why should that change everything so much? I mean, why should that change how people
vote if you really know the issues? Because we know how bad those ads are. I mean, I look at those ads and I, you
know, some of them, they’re just garbage. I mean, they’re not true. But, I think that, we don’t have a population
that really engages politically or wants to be really well informed
about some of these issues. Now, to really get at the cog, we have to change
that legislation about who can contribute, why don’t we have to turn that back. But I don’t think these other elements
were part of solving that problem because somebody is electing these people. And, you know, I think that this last
election is– was very interesting. I don’t remember hearing environment
mentioned a lot in any of these races. And so, if there was a concern about it
and if voters were really complaining to people, maybe it would show up more. I think we need to think about how we do that. And I think, you know, I was talking
to one of the post docs earlier, it’s about outreach to the community. It’s about talking to the people who have
very different opinions from what you have. And I think that’s difficult but I
think that’s sort of where we are. It’s a very basic grassroots
change I think we have to work on. There was one over here. Yes?>>I’m interested in your
point about how they’re– if we have too many resources going to
things that aren’t working and that we need to nimble and move away from that. And I’m wondering if you can give some examples
of things that you’ve seen in your time or that are happening currently that you think
we should be diverting our attention away from that we’re putting too many
financial or human resources into now.>>There was a– I can give you
one example that I was involved in which was the Commission
on Sustainable Development. I don’t know if any of you know it. It was a commission that came out
of, I think, one of the Rio meeting or maybe the second meeting in that chain. And it was nations getting together,
and they were working on topics. And it was supposed to be
sort of a dynamic commission. And in my first few years at the
state department, the only thing I saw about it was a whole team would go to New York and they’re be totally deadlocked negotiating
something that nobody was really following. Not that they weren’t in some ways important,
but they were being negotiated at other places. They were deadlocked. And the feeling was, why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? Because it’s expensive to send a delegation. It’s expensive to do the preparatory meetings. We also, in many of the developed countries, helped pay for the developing
countries to attend somebody’s meeting. So there’s a lot of cost. And so, there was an effort to redesign that. And I think there’s a new– there’s a different
approach to dealing with sustainable development that has come out some of the last meetings. But I think they’re going
to have one more meeting. And I was like, “So why do
we need this last meeting?” And then, it was like, “OK, this–
I’ve taken this as far as I can.” But that’s the kind of thing where you get into
a process and either, there may be a process that overcomes it or it may just get
so bugged down that you have to say, “Maybe we should do this differently.” But it’s a very hard thing to do because
people get, as I said, they get vested in it. It’s becomes part of their identity. It becomes of their workload. And it just, you have to change them. Programmatically, I mean, I was
involved in something years ago with NSF where there was this effort to
give lots of little bits of money at an international activities, right? And, I guess, I had spent
sometime in some universities. And I thought, you know, “Why
don’t we do bigger grants? Why don’t we stop these small
grants and give out bigger grants?” And I wasn’t going to change– I was
a program, head of a program office, I wasn’t going to change the budget. I was going to change how the money went out. So it wasn’t cutting but I was affecting
some individual program officers. That took a long time to make that. We made it. We finally made it but it took
a long time to make that change. And so, I think we have to
get in terms of dealing with these big environmental
problems a little bit more nimble because we have technology
coming along at a rapid pace. And we should be able to try things and
move it and collect data and assess things. But often, I think we are all very excited
with the brand new thing that can be announced. And then, somebody moves away and
starts some other brand new thing. And there’s a team here who’s going
to have to carry this workload to really follow through on what they’re doing. So, it’s– I think it’s,
you know, it’s a real issue. It’s in the weeds but I think it’s
something that affects our resource space and our ability to cover a lot of things. Yes?>>During your tenure working– during your
tenure, what was your favorite part for a job? And what was– what do you consider to be
maybe the biggest challenge that you had?>>OK. Well, you know, I tried to
keep my job in little categories because there were some things
that I really hated. And I wanted to name them. [ Laughter ] I would say that I really enjoyed the
part of my job that brought the science into all the different pieces of the
portfolio, because it was something– in a bureaucracy, things tend to get stovepiped. I mean, universities know that about
department through disciplines. And that’s very true in government, you know. And so, it was very nice. I enjoyed trying to get the public– the
health people to talk to the environment people or the oceans people to talk
to the health people, you know. I enjoyed that sort of cross-fertilization. The issues– I liked most of the issues. I mean, most of the issues were important. You could make progress. They were important to both secretaries
I work for because I did stay on and work for year with Secretary Kerry. They were– So they– that when you’re
in Washington and if you have issues that everybody wants to make progress
on, that is a wonderful thing. And so, that was a very positive thing. Some of the negative things were and I
think, you probably get the sense of this. The bureaucracy does wear you down. I mean, I think as Dan was saying,
you work really, really long hours. You don’t see your family quite
as much as you would like to. And when you do see them, you’re
usually not in a good mood. And so, I think the personal cause is something
that a lot of people don’t get a sense of. The Keystone Pipeline which I’ll mention
was a very– is a very challenging issue. And it was a very challenging issue
for the state department to have. And, you know, the reason we
have it as an executive order and there’s a whole history there. But, you know, it was a great portfolio. I mean, I was a very lucky
person to have that job. And I learned a tremendous amount from it. So– And there’s a great team
there who were still working on it. So, I hope, they continue to
be able to do a lot of things. That’s tough. Anything else I can answer for you? Oh, one more.>>I was very curious about– can you explain
a little more this concept of equal treatment of different constituencies and stakeholders? I have some inclined appreciation for
a challenge that would be for somebody in the position that you were in, having attended some treaty negotiations
around the Cartagena Protocol–>>Right, sure.>>– on Biosafety. And when I think about the climate change issue, it seems like one of the really key
stakeholders is children and future generations.>>Right.>>And so, I just wonder, what could
somebody in the position you were in do to actually elevate explicit representation
of them, especially if there are also people such as industry leaders
being parts of delegations. And I recognized that, you know, there are many
different perspectives in industry and that some of them are actually seriously engaging
in trying to come up with a solution. But at the same time, we realized that, you
know, the elephant in the room is that we have to figure out actually how to really move
away from needing to use fossil fuels at all. And that is clearly a threat to some of the
most successful businesses in our society. So, it seems like a really big challenge,
is, well then, how do we really actually try to really honor the idea of equal treatment and
have those unheard voices also be represented. Perhaps, even at the level of delegations. How does somebody like you think about that
and what kind of leeway in the job you had which you have to actually
make that become more explicit.>>Well, I think the example that comes to mind
is when we were preparing for the Rio+20 meeting which was, you know, the 20th anniversary
of the Earth, the first Earth conference. And we very much try to involve the next
generation through programs, through activities. The US had a pavilion, had like the center
because now, a lot of these negotiations and this is true of many negotiations. You have the mainstream very formal negotiation. And then you have all the
side activity going on. And the side activity is important. And so, we had a lot of, I think,
we had a youth science group there. And we had other groups to
try to come in and speak. And so, that’s sort of how we engage them. But on the delegation, I am trying
to think if we ever had students. And I’m not sure that we did. I mean, we sort of had students who may
be interns at the department at that time but we hadn’t really, I think, had
a student on that delegation team. Some of it is because when you get down
to counting the actual delegation team, you sometimes have to have people who
have to be able to go into the chair. Not the main chair but some chair at the table. And so, that’s a little bit harder. I think there is an effort to
try to make sure that everyone who is affected is somehow involved either
through their groups or involved in some of this kind of side events that happen. It’s not a great answer to your question
in terms of are they there at the table. And I would say no. And from a different perspective, we
worked hard over the last few years to have women involved much more
in the climate negotiations. Not just– I mean, the US often have women
on a delegation but around the world. And that it was felt that women
were the ones who were going to deal with adaptation to a large extent. I mean, they are the ones who are going to
make a lot of changes and get things done. I’m biased. And so, I think that there was a sense
that they needed to be more involved. And we try to actually do that
programmatically in a number of different ways. But we have to think more about that
question that you raised with children. Yeah? [ Inaudible Remark ] Yeah, throw him around.>>So you’ve given us a great view
from the front lines and the diplomacy. And now, I’m going to take you out of your
comfort zone and then ask you, you know, the diplomacy is one source of public despair
that whoever get the agreements in the– that we need, but the other
is the domestic political–>>Right.>>– situation. You, I’m sure, spent an enormous
amount of time talking to people up on the hill about various agreements. And I’m curious, you know, the first big climate
agreement, I think, was preemptively killed 99 to 0 or something like that in the Senate. Is there ever going to be an agreement
that the US will sign on to that is going to get the advice and consent
of the United States Senate?>>Right.>>I mean, the political landscape
has changed tremendously–>>Right.>>– but maybe not tremendously enough?>>Well, I think first of all, the first– the actual UN framework convention on
climate, we signed on to and we joined. That’s why we are at the
table in all these caps. But that was the shell. That was, you know, let’s do good things. This is a problem. Let’s make things happen. The question you raised is a really hard one. And the answer really is it depends on the
nature of what comes out of this negotiation. There are a lot of interests,
concerned about the US might sign on to in terms of legally binding agreement. Will this be legally binding? Will this be voluntary? How will it all play out? And all of these plays into then what is the
nature of the agreement that goes forward. And will the Senate accept
or provide their advice and consent so the president can ratify it. I think it’s going to be very difficult. I think that there is hope that this may be able
to be some sort of flexible, creative document. But it’s a real challenge because you have
all these countries sitting around there. You have the way it’s been done before. And, you know, there’s an effort
to try to break new ground. So I don’t know. I don’t have an answer. I don’t see right now the Senate–
where the Senate is comprised, the way the Senate is talking about the
climate, that they would sort of vote on this. And, you know, they’ve put out there that
they’re not happy with a lot of things. Now, they did a while ago, one of the
big problems that came out of Kyoto, was that there were these two
classes of countries, you know, classes that had to follow things
and classes that really didn’t, the developed versus the developing. And that’s been one of the biggest issues that
has been worked on year after year after year. And that has really moved along. And it’s not that the language now doesn’t
recognize that there is different levels of development and different
level of capacities, but it’s really each country
needs to work from where they are. So there hasn’t– there’s an effort to
try to do a way with this bright line between developed and developing. And so there’s been motion on that. Is it completely solved? No, because this is again, in terms
of the ideology I was mentioning, this is an idealogy that’s in international
community that we’re still working on. But I don’t– I think it’s going to be tough. I think it would be very tough to get something
through the Senate, but at the same time, I don’t know what the nature of the
final agreement would look like. And maybe, there is some way that
will be something very different. Fingers crossed. But everything else still
has to keep going forward. All the other initiatives and all the
other efforts to turn things back, because this treaty, your convention or whatever
it is, it’s not going to solve the problem. It’s one step in all of the
different things that have to be done to change the behavior of many, many countries. Anything else before–>>Give her a break. [ Laughter ] [ Applause ]>>OK. Well, we’ve certainly
seen what stamina is about. And I want to thank you all, again, for coming. And above all, I want to thank Kerri-Ann
for a fantastic presentation that takes us into a world pretty far moved from
most of us but vitally important.

Energy Of The 21st Century Explained in 25 Minutes |Global Energy Scenario


Approximately 2 lakh years ago Humans first
discovered the Fire. They may have witnessed fire even before that
in the form of wildfires caused by the sun or the lightning strike. But 2 lakh years ago Humans learned to control
and use fire for cooking and other stuff. Since then energy has been an integral part
of our lives. Now in twenty first century we are more dependent
on energy than ever. Energy is not only useful for you homes, offices
but today It also influences world politics and the world trade. It has become the most useful political weapon
of our century. Studying about energy teaches us more about
international relationships than anything else. So in this video we are going to take look
at the whole energy system of the 21 century. It’s pros cons, limitations and what would
be the future of energy. I have been working on this for past three
months – reading books, doing research and studying statistics and I have tried my best
to include all the aspects of our Energy needs, sources, consumption, production, politics
and trade. Everything about the energy coming up. Hi guys this is pratik and you are watching
eclectic. Here we talk about our past present and the
future. Right now, our world consumes 25 times more
energy than it used to consume just two centuries ago. Until 1800, more than 99 percent of world’s
energy was produced by burning wood and organic matter. All these 21st century sources of energy we
know are barely discovered within the last two centuries. Our Expansion into oil consumption did not
begin until around 1870. Two decades later it was followed by natural
gas and hydro-electricity. By 1900, coal consumption had increased significantly. Coal was being used to produce almost half
of the global energy. After World War II unleashed nuclear power,
the world governments tried to find peaceful ways of utilizing nuclear power. And we started using nuclear power to produce
electricity. Until 1965, North America, Europe and Eurasia
collectively consumed more than 80 percent of world’s energy. But now that trend is rapidly changing most
dramatically in the Asia Pacific where the total consumption has increased more than
12-fold over this period. We can tell a lot about a country by looking
at its energy consumption. This is the list of top 10 energy-consuming
countries. They consume 60 percent of the world’s energy. Among these 10 countries 4 are developing
countries and remaining 6 are the developed ones. Then there is energy per capita consumption
Do you ever think how much energy you consume all the time? Tv, laptop, smartphone, fan, ac, car, cooking
appliances and dozens of other stuff including watching this video on youtube right now. For almost everything, we need energy. In the last few decades china’s per capita
energy consumption has grown nearly by 250 percent, For India it increased by 50 percent
and for Brazil by 38%. Now some developing countries from Asia Pacific
may have started consuming more energy but their energy consumption per capita remains
relatively low. An average American still consumes 10 times
more energy than the average Indian, 4-5 times more that of Brazilian and three times more
than a Chinese person. This is how the Regional energy use a grew
from 1990 to 2008: the Middle East increased by 170%, China by 146%, India by 91%, Africa
by 70%, Latin America by 66%, the US by 20%, the EU-27 block by 7%, and world overall grew
by 39%. In 2015, the whole world consumed more than
1,50,000 terrawatt hours of energy. Many of the lightbulbs in our homes consume
100 watts of energy. One terawatt can power about 10 billion 100-watt
lightbulbs at the same time. So now you know how much energy we all are
consuming? Now the question is Where are we getting all
this energy from? Here is a short and quick introduction of
all the energy sources. From the oldest ones to the newest ones. Their origin – how they work , their pros,
cons limitation their future and everything. Solar and Wind Energy
These two renewable energy sources are the oldest forms of energy on the planet. Rays emitted from the sun are responsible
for sustaining all life forms on the planet. Whereas the use of wind power dates back to
5000 BCE. Ancient sailors used wind power for giving
desired directions to their boats. Wind is also a type of solar energy. We have wind flowing all around the earth
because of the sun. The sun warms up our planet, but because of
surface irregularities and its rotation, the Earth does not heat uniformly. These variances in temperature also cause
irregularities in air pressure, and air molecules migrate from areas of high air pressure to
areas of low air pressure. And that’s how we get the wind. In the year 1954, the first solar cell capable
of converting enough of sun’s energy into power to run every day electrical equipment
was invented in the United States. This invention made solar a mainstream energy
producing technology. Today there are over 75 solar thermal power
stations around the world. All of them combined have a capacity of generating
upto 5000 megawatts of energy which is enough to power 1.7 million homes during peak hours. Despite the extraordinary historic evolution
of solar technology, solar energy’s contribution in generating world’s electricity remains
very low. Because development of solar technology has
remained very slow and many people are still reluctant to use it. But why is that? We all are well aware of the advantages of
solar. But all is not well – there are some downsides
to the solar technology – which are limiting it’s potential. First and foremost – There are not enough
batteries to store solar energy for our cloudy days when we don’t get enough sunlight. Now you would ask why aren’t we manufacturing
more batteries. The problem is money. Manufacturing batteries is very expensive. In addition, battery life is very limited. So basically the cost of storage is too high. Hypothetically, if we want to meet 80 percent
of America’s electricity demand with solar and wind. Then it would require a battery storage system
which would cost more than 2.5 trillion dollars. Whoa, that amount is equivalent to the entire
gdp of a country like India. Second problem – It requires lots and lots
of space. Solar and Wind energy sources can take up
to 50 to 60 times more space than fossil fuels. It would take around 45 Square Miles of photovoltaic
panels to be able to produce the same amount of electricity as that of a single, multi-reactor
nuclear power plant. So do the math yourself. Last but not least- solar and wind have one
more major problem – portability. It is very difficult to transport large quantities
of electricity. But hey there is always a room for new ideas
and innovations. If you have, any in your mind feel free to
share in the comment section below. Despite this hurdles many countries are installing
significant solar power capacity into their electrical grids to produce clean energy. China is leading the world in solar PV generation,
with the total installed capacity exceeding 100 GW. China is the world’s largest market for both
photovoltaics and solar thermal energy. and in the last few years, more than half
of the total PV additions came from China. India is also making significant efforts to
promote solar power. India has the world’s third fastest expanding
solar power program (next only to China & USA). Still solar energy sector needs to increase
it’s pace of development to become a major energy source. Another old form of energy is the biomass
or bioenergy. What exactly is the biomass – in simple
words, it is energy that is developed from organic materials such as plants, woods, animals,
crop residues and many other byproducts from a variety of agriculture processes. Biomass has been used as a source of heat
energy since man first discovered fire. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century
biomass was the predominant fuel. Many people around the world still burn wood
as their primary source of heat during the winter. There are basically three prominent ways of
getting energy from biomass – First and the obvious one – by burning it. The second by extracting methane gas – When
biomass rots – it produces methane gas. Methane gas can be used to make natural gas
which is a common source of energy. This means that when garbage rots in landfills,
that stinky gas can be used for energy! The Third – Producing Biofuels – Some crops,
like corn, sugar cane and algae can be converted into a biofuel called ethanol. Ethanol can be used instead of gasoline in
many cars. Another type of biofuel is biodiesel. It can be made from vegetable oils and animal
fats. Biodiesel can be used as heating oil and also
to power cars and busses. The use of biofuels such as ethanol has been
around for some time as well. It was used as lamp fuel in the United States
in the 1800s. Even the first car Model-T Fords also used
ethanol for fuel until 1908. Recently, biomass and biofuels have become
popular as an alternative to fossil fuels such as gasoline. Biofuels, are fairly easy to transport. They have decent energy densities, and can
be used with some modifications to existing technology and infrastructure. So is the bioenergy the future of energy – hmm
not really – biomass energy has a drawback that everyone hates – Air Pollution if we
burn wood and other biomass materials and as far as biofuels are concerned they also
have some serious limitations. Plants which can be used to produce biofuels
require an ideal environment, good amount of water supply and a particular soil type. The problem is not every region has all this
facilities so the quantity and quality of biofuels can be different in different regions. Biofuels also require heavy use of fertilizers
which can lead to water pollution. Apart from all this there is also one major
technological problem – The engines we have today are designed for petroleum-based fuel. These engines perform better when we use petroleum-based
fuel. Using biofuels in such engines can affect
their performance. If we want to increase the use of biofuels
we first need to make them compatible with the existing infrastructure and technology. And for that some creative human beings have
up come with an idea of Drop-in Biofuels. They can be defined as “liquid bio-hydrocarbons
that are functionally equivalent to petroleum fuels and are fully compatible with existing
petroleum infrastructure. These drop in biofuels don’t require any
modification in the engines of our cars and other vehicles. Right in front of you are some examples of
drop in biofuels. { Some examples of drop-in biofuels include
biobutanol, biodiesel, synthetic paraffinic kerosine,[71][72] and other synthetic fuels.} Scientists are still working on various chemical
processes to make biofuels as efficient as the petroleum-based fuels. If you want to know more about those processes
visit the Wikipedia page of biofuels. Right now, many countries are actively participating
in the research on biofuels. {The UN International Biofuels Forum is formed
by Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, the United States and the European Commission.} The world leaders in biofuel development and
usage are Brazil, the United States, France, Sweden and Germany. Russia also has 22% of world’s forest, and
is a big biomass (solid biofuels) supplier. In the UK Biofuels currently make up 3.1%
of the total road transport fuel. UK has a goal for itself to produce 10% of
energy used in UK rail and road transport from the biofuels by 2025. If UK achieves this feat, it will be equivalent
of replacing 4.3 million tons of fossil fuel each year. While the progress in the bioenergy sector
is still ongoing, lets also have a look at two minor renewable energy sources of 21st
century. Geothermal and the Marine energy. Geothermal energy is the energy that is produced
from beneath the earth. It was used during ancient times for bathing
and space heating. It is clean, sustainable and environment friendly. Here is how it works – High temperatures are
produced continuously inside the earth’s crust by the slow decay of radioactive particles. So Hot rocks present below the earth heat
up the water and then it produces steam. The steam is then captured that helps to move
turbines. The rotating turbines then power the generators. Geothermal energy can be used by a residential
unit or on a large scale by an industrial application. Geothermal power does not require any type
of fuel (except for pumps), and is therefore immune to fuel cost fluctuations. Today geothermal energy is used commercially
in over 70 countries. However it’s contribution in the world energy
production is very insignificant. But some experts believe that geothermal has
the potential to meet 3-5% of global energy demand by 2050. With economic incentives, it is estimated
that by the end the 21st century it will be possible to meet 10% of global energy demand
with geothermal energy. If you are above 20 years of age. I don’t think you would be alive to see
the geothermal energy becoming the major energy source. The biggest disadvantage with geothermal energy
is that it can only be produced at selected sites throughout the world. The largest group of geothermal power plants
in the world is located at The Geysers, a geothermal field in California, United States. Now the another insignificant player of the
energy world – the marine energy also called as the ocean energy. This energy form is carried by ocean waves,
tides, salinity, and ocean temperature differences. The movement of water in the world’s oceans
creates a vast store of kinetic energy, or energy in motion. Some of this energy can be harnessed to generate
electricity to power homes, transport and industries. Marine energy is a relatively new sector of
renewable energy, with most of projects still in the initial phase of development. Only time will tell how it all plays out. So far, we have discussed renewable energy
sources like solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal and marine. All of them combined contribute less than
7 percent in the world’s electricity generation. And we cannot call it a success. So lets talk about the most successful renewable
energy source – The hydropower. Hydropower or hydroelectricity refers to the
conversion of energy from flowing water into electricity. It is considered a renewable energy source
because the sun constantly renews the water cycle. Historically, one of the first uses of hydro
power was for mechanical milling, such as grinding grains. Today, modern hydro plants produce electricity
using turbines and generators, where mechanical energy is created when moving water spins
rotors on a turbine. This turbine is connected to an electromagnetic
generator, which produces electricity when the turbine spins. Hydropower is an abundant, low cost source
of power, despite high upfront building costs. It is also a flexible and reliable source
of electricity compared to other renewable options, as it can be stored for later use. Dammed reservoirs can also help with flood
control, be a reliable water supply, and can be used for recreational purposes. However, there are some concerns with hydropower,
particularly large dam facilities. Damming a river has a significant impact on
the regional ecosystem, by flooding upstream landscapes, disrupting habitats for wildlife,
blocking fish passages, and often displacing local communities. In addition, dam failures can be catastrophic,
further disrupting landscapes and claiming the lives of those living downstream. Nonetheless, Hydropower is the largest contributor
of all renewable energy sources when it comes to electricity generation. Nine of the worlds top 10 renewable electricity
producers are primarily hydroelectric, one is wind. In 2015 hydropower generated 16.6% of the
world’s total electricity and 70% of all renewables and that is a significant contribution. Hydropower is produced in 150 countries, with
the Asia-Pacific region generating 32 percent of global hydropower according to survey done
in the year 2015. China is the largest hydroelectricity producer
as of now. One thing is pretty clear the future of hydroelectricity
is very bright. We have not yet used it’s full potential. The technical potential for hydropower development
around the world is much greater than the actual production: the percent of potential
hydropower capacity that has not been developed is as following. Due to the political realities of new reservoirs
in western countries, economic limitations in the third world and the lack of a transmission
system in undeveloped areas, in a rough calculation 25% of the remaining technically exploitable
potential can be developed before 2050. And majority of that development is going
to happen in the Asia-Pacific region. Now that being said- lets move on to the third
most important source of Energy. The nuclear power. In the world war two world witnessed the destruction
that can be done using nuclear power. Therefore, after world war two world governments
tried to find peaceful ways of utilizing Nuclear power and finally found out a way to generate
electricity by using nuclear fission reactions. Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions
that release nuclear energy to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in steam
turbines to produce electricity in a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power can be obtained from nuclear
fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion reactions. Presently, the vast majority of electricity
from nuclear power is produced by nuclear fission of uranium and plutonium. Nuclear power generates around 11 percent
of the world’s electricity. There are about 444 nuclear reactors in 35
countries and about 70 new reactors are under construction. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest, most
efficient and most available energy sources of power on earth. But still the growth of nuclear energy sector
has been stagnating in the last few decades. And that is because of two factors – Fear
and Risk. Lets talk about the fears first. There are two fears associated with the nuclear
technology – The first one is the development of nuclear weapons. After world war two nuclear technology has
slowly evolved as a means of generating electricity. But it has always been intimately connected
with nuclear weapons technology. It is impossible to develop nuclear weapons
without having access to reactor technology. The nuclear proliferation treaty that aims
to spread nuclear reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons has not been a success. Because it is very hard to distinguish a secret
nuclear weapons program, from the peaceful use of nuclear technology. In the last forty years five countries have
developed nuclear weapons with the help of nuclear technology. The second is the fear of possible disaster
– Two times in the history, nuclear power plants leaked significant amount of radiation
– in 1986 at Chernobyl Ukraine, and in 2011 at Fukushima japan. Nuclear radiation can cause immediate death
or lethal cancer due to radiation. Estimates conclude that somewhere between
5 and 10 thousand people lost their life in the Chernobyl aftermath and more than 2.5
million Ukrainians are still struggling with health problems related to nuclear waste. Now if this is not enough, it also has one
environmental risk. The nuclear waste – We have not yet found
a permanent solution or a way of dealing with the nuclear waste. Want to know more about it – watch the video
made by Wendover productions on nuclear waste. So How does the future look like for the Nuclear
energy? Well it is very much unpredictable and depends
on various countries and their government policies. Right now France is big fan of nuclear energy
– 75 percent of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power plants. France makes nuclear energy look very enticing
and profitable for the producers because France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity. Worldwide there are more than 100 nuclear
reactors planned including 50 under construction. But the investment in the nuclear energy sector
is declining. Some countries are favoring nuclear power
and some aren’t. Germany, have adopted policies of moving out
of nuclear power and focus on renewables. At the same time, some Asian countries, such
as China and India, have committed to rapid expansion of nuclear power. Many other countries, such as the United Kingdom
and the United States, have policies in between. Till now we have discussed 7 energy sources. But all of them combined cannot even satisfy
30% our energy needs as of now. We think that renewables are developing rapidly
because technologies like wind, solar and biofuel often make news headlines. But the facts is we are still heavily dependent
on the fossil fuels – Coal, Oil and Natural gas. Despite knowing harmful environmental effects
of fossil fuels – The twentieth century saw a rapid twenty-fold increase in the use of
fossil fuels. And they are here to stay probably till the
end of this century. Because replacing the entire existing energy-producing
infrastructure is not an easy job. Politicians and activists may love to talk
about renewable energy sources but in today’s world fossil fuels are still king. Just have look at these two data set to understand
how important they still are. For Electricity Generation fossil fuels contribution
is more than 60%. And in total energy supply where we add all
forms of energy – they supply around 80% of world’s energy. Like all other industries, Fossil fuel Industry
is also good at using 21st century technologies to reach previously unreachable oil and gas
reserves and also to extract shale gas. In addition, they are benefiting from incentives,
tax breaks and subsidies given by the government. United States spends around 20 billion dollars
on fossil fuels subsidies each year. USA literally ends up spending ten times more
on fossil fuel subsidies than education. Whereas European Union subsidies are estimated
to total 55 billion euros annually. Worldwide fossil fuels are subsidized at $14.5
billion dollars a day. Yepp that is how much we are spending each
day on fossil fuel subsidies. Imagine if we use all that money to subsidize
solar, which is cheaper than fossil fuels already in many places even without subsidies. If fossil fuels lose their subsidies, while
also being hit by a carbon tax which is expected, renewable energy progress would be fantastic. But it is a big IF, since the fossil fuel
industry is still strong because they have lobbyists who have good connections with any
government office that matters in this world. Energy has emerged as the most useful political
weapon of the 21st century. These are
the world’s top producer of energy – Most of these countries are very good at using
energy to dominate others. Russia supplies most of Europe with gas and
oil – it has a lot of influence over some European countries, as they are dependent
on Russia for these energy resources. In the Middle East, Arab countries are good
at using oil as a political weapon. Do you ever get this question – why Saudi
Arabia has so many American weapons? The answer is oil. US is the biggest arms dealer in the world
and Saudi Arabia is its number one customer. If the US somehow decides not to sell weapons
to Saudi Arabia then Saudi Arabia threatens to cut off oil supplies. And everyone knows how much important oil
is to the United States Economy. This whole strategy of dominating the world
by controlling energy deserves it’s own video as this video is already a lengthy one. after spending my three months on this research
here are my final conclusive thoughts about energy
Our current energy system emits too much greenhouse gases which is bad for the environment. Just 100 companies are responsible for 71
percent of world’s greenhouse gas emission in the last 30 years – all of these companies
are fossil fuel producers. If we want to meet our global climate targets
and avoid dangerous climate change, the world needs a significant and concerted transition
in its energy sources. This transition might take anything from 20
to 50 years for renewable energy to become the primary source of energy on this planet. There’s no question of “if this happens”,
only of “when this may happen”. We can only hope it won’t be too late. As Vaclav smil perfectly puts it – Shifts
in energy system have historically been a slow process, particularly when coupled with
long-term infrastructure. Thank You all very much see you soon.

2019, in 6 minutes


The Arab Spring blossomed across North
Africa and the Middle East. This award is for those forgotten children who want education. The British people have voted to leave the European Union. Fight for your lives before it’s someone else’s job. No. Well… Tik Tok: ADHD in app form. Old Town Road became the longest-running number-one
single in Billboard’s history. Avengers: Endgame, officially the
highest-grossing movie of all time. The Emmy goes to Phoebe Waller-Bridge. The United States of America, champions of the world. Liverpool goal. Trump is now ordering federal government workers to go back to work without getting paid. It’s official: the government shutdown is now the longest in US history. There’s no sense
that there’s any room for the two sides to really find a compromise. Both are digging in. We have Big Macs, we have Quarter Pounders with cheese. We have everything that I like, that you like. The reason we did this is because of the shutdown. We need border security. We have to have it. Despicable living conditions, migrants
left in standing room cells for a week. The United States is running
concentration camps on our southern border. Special counsel Robert Mueller has
delivered his final report. If we had had confidence that the president clearly
did not commit a crime we would have said so. We’re going to impeach the motherf***r President Trump is maintaining
that there was no wrongdoing on his part in his phone call with the president of Ukraine. A history-making headline, the third time in history a sitting US
president impeached. The 2020 presidential race is heating up. Hell yes, we’re gonna
take your AR-15, your AK-47, we’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore. Who can beat Donald Trump? I have not been able to deliver Brexit. India is counting votes for the world’s biggest democratic election. Narendra Modi has swept to a
crushing general election win. Tensions rising between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir. The long-planned Turkish military operation in Northeast Syria has been launched. Chaos in Venezuela. Both the opposition leader and
President Maduro are calling for supporters to protest. We are witnessing a wave of
demonstrations around the world. From the Middle East, to Latin American the Caribbean, from Europe, to Africa and Asia, it is clear that there is a growing deficit of trust between people and political establishments, and rising threats to the social contract. The young can see what’s in store, what’s lurking around the corner. It’s their future. They have every right to fight it. A teenager from
Sweden called the voice of the planet is ready to cross the Atlantic on a mission
to fight climate change. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. never forgive you This is the start of a day of global
climate strikes inspired by teen activist, Greta Thunberg. You are failing us, but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. A new United Nations report warns the
impacts of climate change are increasing and inevitable. An environmental disaster with global implications. The Amazon rainforest is burning at record rates. New Delhi, air pollution is putting the health of millions of people at risk there. …cyclone that has swept across Southern Africa Kerala for a second consecutive year is battling floods in some districts. Hurricane Dorian devastated the Bahamas. We have seen what we thought was unseeable. We can get married in Taiwan. Taiwan will be the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage. We are not immune to the
viruses of hate, of fear, of other. We never have been. But we can be the nation that discovers the cure. The answer lies in our humanity. The first man to run a marathon in
under two hours. We are here and we have to do something nurturing that we respect before we go. To love somebody. To take care of somebody. Exactly what I was thinking. To make one other person feel good. And that just seems to make life not just livable, but a gallant, gallant event.