Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Many of you in the room know Stephen Heintz, the President of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. You know that he is tall, white, handsome and articulate and so you know that I am not him. I am Ken Colburn, I am pleased to be here in his stead. Stephen has being working on another effort this one with Bill Clinton concerning Kosovo and Stephen and and the President had a meeting today and they tossed the coin and in order for Bill Clinton to be with us tomorrow Stephen had do attend the meeting this afternoon on the East Coast. So having worked so hard to get climate change on this plenary venue Stephen unfortunately can't be with us in order to have the President with us tomorrow. So the good news is we get Bill Clinton, the bad news is we we lose Stephen. But I am pleased to be with you, Ken Colburn from the Center for Climate Strategies and to stand in his shoes however inadequately. In terms of introduction, you all know that the breadth and scale of climate change makes it if you will the mother of all concerns. Now certainly all environmental, certainly all quality of life concerns. Basically there is nothing that you care about. That climate change can't and indeed won't make worse and unfortunately climate change is becoming less and less of a generational challenge. You know I've always marveled that we could we could look back 16 years and say things like my ancestors came over on the Mayflower 16 years, 16 generations. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower but we couldn't look three or four generations ahead to see what was going to happen in terms of our climate. Well, we've solved that problem now, its only one or two generations ahead. Jim Hansen tells us we have 10 years and we maintain a fantasy that that's a rolling 10 years. In fact he said that about two and a half years ago so we have used about 30 percent of that time. Tragically as you know the United States have shirked it's global and indeed moral responsibility to address this threat but thankfully this federal policy void is being filled at the state and city level by institutions, by businesses, by organizations and individuals basically unusual alliances for advocating for action and we are at a critical movement. The IPCC indicates that we are already seeing changes in our world and that those changes will impact the poor disproportionately. As they said on market place the other day the greatest market failure of all time where the beneficiaries don't pay the cost and the cost are borne by those who weren't the beneficiaries. China will soon surpass our green house gas emissions and without US leadership on climate change there is almost no hope that they will pursue a different path or develop any more sustainable than we have. People are waking up to the threat of global climate change. We have the Oscar winning award, Oscar winning film Inconvenient Truth, US climate action partnership. There is a TXU deal, there is a Supreme Court decision, so it's now in the public consciousness and at long last Washington is taking climate change seriously. We need to make sure that when something does arrive on the President's desk that it's up to the task. So it's a perfect time for this group of global philanthropist to engage on climate change and indeed engage even more forcefully on this issue. Stephen Heintz isn't here but under his leadership Rockefeller Brothers Foundation has navigated the climate change through a triangulation of three key elements that will come through clearly in our panel. The first is the urgency, which I have already spoken of. The second is the fact that solutions are here today. This isn't tomorrow, it isn't rocket science. More invention and innovation is evident every day and one of the major impediments to action the myth of economic harm is increasingly being shown to be set aside. As Michael Northrop also of RBF says nobody has actually lost money undertaking climate action. Our panel demonstrated that climate action in fact poses far less economic risk than climate inaction as a Stern report indicated and that when it comes to climate change we are already seeing winners go to market and losers go to Washington. Thank you. And the third thing is a broad array of unusual alliances is rapidly coalescing on climate as you know and as you see. Its not just the usual suspects anymore but a wide ranging array of constituencies that encompasses students evangelicals, farmers, investors, energy entrepreneurs, hunters and fishermen, the hook and bullet crowd, builders, governors, executives even leaders of our military forces now understand this threat. So I am very pleased to introduce this panel which together reflects the variety of Americans that are now pushing for a political tipping point on climate change before we see a physical tipping point on our climate. Over the last two years farmers have come to understand they have a big role to play in America's energy future not just in its food supply. Lead by highly respected and well connected agricultural leaders an ambitious initiative is building in Washington to that will enhance energy efficiency, strengthen national security, revitalize rural economies and protect the environment called 25 by 25 because of its aim to source 25 percent of Americas energy need through renewable agricultural sources by 2025. Its project coordinator Ernest Shea is with us today. The world's best managed businesses have leaders who understand the risk of climate change and the opportunity it presents. A number of these leaders have stepped outside their board rooms and to express their concern and publicize their actions. Much of this actions already happened due to the tremendous leadership of early movers like DuPont which recognized over a 15 years ago the threat and opportunity posed by climate change and that action could be good for the bottom line. Now dozens of Fortune 100 companies are following suit. Tom Jacob is here to tell us DuPont's story. Today's youth represent the first generation that will suffer serious direct climate impacts. They will raise their children in a markedly different future. As a group they will be the most directly affected and they can be expected to care the most passionately. Energy Action, a group that organizes its work among youth through the campus climate challenge, is focused on mobilizing 18 to 35-year-olds to build a generation wide movement to halt global warming. We thank Billy Parish for joining us from Energy Action. And Evangelicals have been perhaps the most visible new constituency on climate change, many of you have seen even Evangelicals climate change statement and call to action, that was released a few months ago is arguably the most powerful sign today to the impact of new voices calling for Federal action on climate change. It was not without its critics as you no doubt also know and Richard Cizik is here from the National Association of Evangelicals complete with scars from the lashings and he is with us to talk about the challenges and opportunities in engaging this critical community. And then finally I will book end the panel and close myself discussing climate action at the state level, from this the Center for Climate Strategies where we engineer politically safe and analytically sound ways for Governors to come out on climate change. I should note that there is a growing number of cities also taking action through the ICLEI Program the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives over 250 US cities have committed to and are taking action to reduce their emissions. So with that I appreciate our panels joining us today three of us, have Power-Points and leading off will be the the basically the order I read. So Ernie Shea, please, please welcome Ernie. Thank you very much Ken for that kind introduction and good morning everyone. I want to thank Stephen Heintz for the opportunity to participate in this panel and I think it really does speak volumes to the fact that although we may be a diverse group we are all same general goal. My job this morning is to visit with you briefly maybe somewhat of an unusual alliance that is growing out of the agricultural and forestry sectors and about three years ago at the invitation of Tim Worth with the United Nations Foundation we brought together a group of agricultural leaders and began to think through how big of a role the ag-sector could play in the new energy economy and a new energy future that was emerging. And that essentially is the origins of the 25 by 25 project. We began through the support of the UN Foundation and the Energy Future Coalition with a group of about 15 leaders and our objective really was to think through and explore this new energy future particularly focusing around the economic, environmental and national security outcomes and benefits that a new energy future could provide. And we did so very deliberately through the lens of production agriculture. This was certainly not the first time that a group of leaders came together to talk about what role agricultural and forestry can play in helping to create new energy future. But what was unique and I think this goes back to some of Tim Worth's insight and brilliance, in terms of bringing coalitions together, is that he stepped back and said, let's listen to what agricultural leaders themselves think. Previous to that there have been any number of initiatives where leaders that perhaps were interested in agriculture but not part of agriculture came together to explore this new energy future question. But they ended up coming from a different place. They didn't have the same experience base that core production agriculture leaders had. So this was a fresh start to take a fresh look. We ended up in our early stages of discussions spending about six months asking some very basic questions of this leadership team. We asked them to take a look at what's happening today and try to get their arms around what they see. We also asked them to look into the future and to reach out perhaps as much as 17 18 years to the time period 2025 and take a look at what it might look like at that point of time going forward, in terms of energy production and systems. We then asked them to explore what role they can play? How big might it be? And what would have to happen for them to get to that point? Well the group very quickly concluded, as most other constituencies have, that we are in a very good place right now, that the current fossil based energy systems that we have grown to depend on are not sustainable. Costs are rising, supplies are limited, supplies are located in very volatile parts of the world. Costs are escalating and not the least of which, this leadership team also observed that we are experiencing serious and significant environmental challenges resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, from the emissions that come from them. So it has created a back drop for them to say we don't like where we are today and provided a bridge to talk about where they thought they could fit in. And what came out of this amazed me as their facilitator. Because this leadership team in small group discussions and then in subsequent follow up meetings with any number of folks around the country that represent the heart and soul of production agricultural forestry, came back and said we are part of this future. This isn't a challenge, this is an enormous opportunity. And they described it as one of historic proportions that they thought that they could participate in and capitalize on. As a result of their dialogue they constructed a vision of the future. And their vision has now become known as the 25x'25 Vision. Simply stated, they believe that by the year 2025 Americas farms, ranches and forests will be producing 25 percent of the total energy that's consumed in the United States. And they will be doing that while producing food, feed and fiber. Our leaders were very deliberate in constructing this vision statement. It was not taken lightly. They firmly believed that they have the capacity, thanks to advances and technology, thanks to changing economics, to not just to be defined as the sector that produces food and fiber, but increasingly going forward, the sector that's known as the 4F food, feed, fuel and fiber. So this vision came to light in early 2005. It was then further tested with any number of organizations in the AG community. And we continued to have this dialogue around a new energy future and the benefits that could flow out of it and have agriculture and forestry fit in. Obviously it's mostly about renewable energy, but it's also about climate change. Today we have grown and evolved to the point where there are over 400 organizations that are participating and endorsing, we have 18 state alliances. The vision has been picked up on and endorsed by over a 100 members of Congress, by 23 governors, by six state legislatures and it's continuing to grow and build. I think what makes us unique though, and this gets back to the focus of the these talk this morning is the fact that we are somewhat of an unusual alliance. We are a collection if we could go back one slide I think we have advanced one too many. We are a diverse alliance made up of any number of sectors and organizations, groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation ranging all the way over to NRDC, to Worldwatch; to the big three auto manufacturers; to the organizations that represent labor, religious and business sectors and communities. These organizations have come together and have bought into this vision and are actually making the vision come to life. We are now working to go to the next level, to strengthen our presence at the state level. Thanks to Rockefeller Brothers Fund we have now have a presence in 18 states and we are looking to expand that to at least another dozen by the end of this year. We have preceded forward and developed an action plan that will actually carry this forward and bring the vision to life. And I can share more details with you on that later or during the Q and A session. But this is the harder part, of not just agreeing on a vision but an action plan to get there. Let me wrap up and close just with a couple of observations what I think represent the keys to success of new partnerships, of unusual alliances. And there are five quick points that I would mention that I think represent why 25x'25 has preceded to where we are today. And there are guiding principles. We begin with relationships first. We work with people; we establish trust relationships that allow for productive dialogue to occur. It's not an easy thing to do but it's critical it's a critical first step to go forward. We then begin a dialogue around what's in it for you, not what's in it for me, but what might you as in your community, constituencies get out of a new energy future. We probe it from with them stand point because that's what motivates people to get involved. It's not what I want, it's what you want. The third key point we work towards is creating ownership. So the 25x'25 Vision is not our initiative, it's the collective our initiative. So we work hard to build ownership and it's grounded in the guiding principle that what you are in on, you are not down on. So we work very hard to create ownership. Fourth we work first and foremost on creating consensus around the goal, the destination. We call that "the what?" We then move to the "how do we get there?" But if you don't have a clear sense of destination such as the 25x'25 goal you are drifting and you don't really know where you are heading. So for us 25x'25 is the common goal that defines a new energy future for the nation and it defines what unites us. And every time we get stuck we go back and we refer to what unites us that goal. Fifth and this is the perhaps the most difficult part is when you get into the tough dialogue, we approach it from the stand point of the "yes if" principle. Not the "no because". When we brought this very diverse group of stake holders together everybody had different ideas. We asked them to be respectful of each other and to begin with the assumption that, yes I can agree with you, but follow it with, if these things happen. That is fundamentally different than what typically takes place where you begin defending your position and approach it from the standpoint of no I don't buy into that because. So those five guiding principles I believe are what formed the foundation of this 25x'25 alliance that we are working getting it to grow. And we will look forward to working with any of you to continue to build this movement so that together we can create a healthy, clean, new energy future for the nation. Thank you. Thank you Ernie. Yes if is good advice for all us, isn't it? Tom Jacob from DuPont. Thanks again and thank you to the forum for including us. What I would like to do is describe for you the journey that DuPont has been on. And I would like you to consider that journey in the context of the journey that the larger social community that we are part of is currently on as well. Let me begin with climate change, the topic of this conference. That the science around climate change evolved out of the science around ozone depletion. As the number one producer of CFCs is on the globe we were deeply involved with that and as a result our science was deeply involved in understanding that problem, coming to terms with it and delivering a solution. But as the attention of the global scientific community shifted from ozone depletion to larger concerns around impacts of man made chemicals on the atmosphere our science was right there. Our scientists were there. And they delivered the message back to our management in 1991 that the science was becoming very strong and argued very strongly for prudent action. We began reducing our green house gas emissions at that time. Since that time we have reduced our emissions from our global operations by over 72 percent. Now that's a very large figure. We had a unique mix of both energy intensive industries and a number of chemical processes which delivered mounts of greenhouse gases that were not CO2, not energy based. But we set about systematically reducing those and accomplish some very significant results. Along the way we also reduced our energy consumption to the point where we saved ourselves about $3 billion. This is not inconsequential activity. That early action position does to be very much a part of the global dialogue that evolved during the 90s and its position does to be part of some unusual alliances as the US has awakened to this problem more recently. Earlier this year the US Climate Action Partnership, of which we were a founding member, urged Congress to take action to bring greenhouse gases under mandatory control in the US. That partnership between ourselves and a number of other major corporations, Environmental Defense, The World Resources Institute, NRDC, is an example of the constructive engagement that is increasingly characterizing industry. We have also been involved in the series network. We believe that government will occupy space here, they will have to. We think part of the agenda there has to be credit for the early actions so that we encourage more and more in the community to take action in advance of those regulatory environments. We think use of market mechanisms to minimize economic drag, to maximize efficiency across, not only our economy but the global economies are going to be important parts to that long term solution. But the attention the climate by our company is just one manifestation of a larger change. Today DuPont describes itself as applying science to deliver sustainable solutions. We are a very different company today than we were 20 years ago. That difference really began about the time that we committed to greenhouse gas reductions in the early 90s. The greenhouse gas targets we put before ourselves were one of a number of environmental targets that we set before the company globally. At that time we were oriented largely to reducing our footprint on the environment. We have accomplished a lot by setting those goals, measuring our progress and systematically chipping away at them. We had always been a leader in health and safety in the work place. We have reduced our major incidences that are chemical manufacturing operations by over 90 percent. We have reduced air toxics, we have reduced air carcinogens, hazardous waste, TRI releases and of course our greenhouse gas reductions. But the important point is that while all that was going on our company was transforming itself in a much more fundamental way. Our business portfolio was transformed radically. It's the third transformation in our company 200 years of existence. We started out as an explosives company, black powder; we applied science to the development of that industry. That evolved into a focus on chemistry which carried us through the last century and for which many people probably around this audience recognize DuPont. But in the past 15 years we have become much more of a biologic company, of a company focusing its science and expertise and innovation in the realm at the interface of biology and chemistry. And our business portfolio reflects that. Science and technology innovation are at the center of all of our business. We are deeply involved in the agriculture enterprises that Ernie was alluding to. We own Pioneer Hi Bred, the largest, one of the largest and the most forward thinking seed producing companies in the globe. We are also deeply involved in areas of industrial biotechnology, bio fuels substituting renewable factors of factors of the enterprise for petroleum based factors of production. We have a leadership position in the development of cellulosic conversion. Bio-butanol isn't a fuel that we think will greatly enhance bio fuels generally. And they are placed under this new environment. Where are we are taking this? Well we are continuing to reduce our foot print in greenhouse gases, water conservation, fuel efficiency of our on road fleet, air carcinogens, but importantly we are also driving our businesses to be part of the solution down their value chains. We set 2015 goals last year for our company and they include environmentally smart market opportunities for our research and development. We have a $1.3 billion R&D Budget. And we have committed to double the investment in R&D that will directly, quantifiably impact environmental performance for our customers and their value chains. We have committed to grow revenue by $2 billion from products that reduce energy consumption, reduce greenhouse gases. We have committed to double the revenue we received from non depletable resources to over $8 billion. We believe the global community is on an evolutionary path, toward a more sustainable future broadly, not just in climate change. And we see enormous business opportunity in harnessing our science and innovation to help enable that transformation. To the point of this conference and the investments of your enterprises, we believe that orienting those investments to more consistently deliver more sustainable solutions, not just in climate change but more broadly will also enable that evolutionary transformation. It will help create an environment in which science and technology can truly be liberated to take on and make a meaningful difference in challenges such as climate change. Thank you, very much. Thank you Tom, please welcome Billy Parish from the Energy Action. Good morning everyone, good morning. It's an honor to be here with all of you and I want to thank Steven Haines for inviting me to be on this panel to bring the youth voice to this critical issue for our future. I am here as the Coordinator of the Energy Action Coalition, I am here representing the Energy Action Coalition. And since I couldn't actually bring our coalition here with me I wanted to show a picture that's in the most recent Vanity Fair of our coalition. Behind each of these faces is a few things. One, very excites family that has cleaned out their local neighborhood, new stand of all of the Vanity fairs and is telling everyone they know about their kid being in Vanity Fair, mine included. But also is a story of a young person who, against all odds, has chosen to make has chosen to make climate the work of their lives and has chosen to sort of give themselves to this work. And behind all of these individual stories is a larger story of a generation that is beginning to discover its great work and this generation which is quite literally the future. Each of these people also represents one of the 24 organizations that has come together to work on the Campus Climate Challenge. Three years ago all of these organizations came together to create a more unified youth climate movement and as Ernie's coalition it's a very diverse coalition of groups all across the US and Canada that are working with young people. And we have come together sort of recognizing the scale of the problem that we face and realizing that we need to work together and collaborate to build the kind of movement, to the scale that we need to solve this problem. Not getting to the list of our coalition partners but hopefully it will come up in a second, there it is. So Steven gave some quick advice for this panel. He said to focus on three messages that I wanted to convey so, the first is that schools should be a critical part of this transformation that we want to see. And schools are beginning to change very, very rapidly. Some of the reasons why schools are important I think are obvious, but I am going to go into them quickly. For one thing schools are a training ground for all of the future leaders in our country and around the world, across every discipline, in every area. Colleges alone have over 18 million young people that they are training and K-12 Schools have many times that number. Schools are also centers of innovation in our society, in technology policy and behavior. And they are important economic actors, they are models for other for their cities, for their communities that they are in and the $330 billion in endowments that they have and annual operating expenses are significant. They are also vulnerable institutions in a sense that good student organizing can change these institutions. As any good campus organizer knows, if you run a good campaign at a school you really can transform that institution. And so as we are thinking about making our broader society a sustainable society a key part of that strategy I think will be looking at what are the institutions that we can change to get there. And schools I think are one of the institutions that can most easily be moved in that direction. Some of the things that have already happened in this movement so far, just this school year hundreds of schools have passed climate and sustainability policies, have hired sustainability coordinators, designed new courses in climate. Two years ago the most aggressive climate policy that had been passed was passed by Cornell and was a seven percent reduction below 1990 levels in their greenhouse gas emissions. And now a 150 College Presidents have committed to making their schools "climate neutral". That is having no net carbon emissions. So in, just this year a 150 College Presidents committing to making their schools climate neutral is a major change has happened already this year that that includes the whole UC system, has made this commitment. Many of the largest state institutions around the country, the LA Community College district and our coalition has created a campaign to coordinate and support all of this student organizing, the campaign is called the Campus Climate Challenge and this is our logo. Already 554 student groups all around the country have joined this campaign; we have over 64 full time staff supporting students in doing this work and transforming their schools into models of sustainability. The second point I wanted to make is that I believe now this country is ready for a mass movement on global warming. We need to pass policies that will make emissions peak in decline in the next 10 years and be reduced by 80 percent by 2050 as we heard on the panel yesterday. But our politicians aren't there yet. One of my favorite quotes is by David Brower, one of the founders of the Modern Environmental Movement and he said, "Politicians are like weather vanes and our job is to make the wind blow". For the past 20 years I think we have done a very good job prepping the policy and the science and technology, the legal pieces of this movement. In the last couple of years we have seen a number of new constituencies get involved, but what the movement hasn't really had is the movement piece of at all. The largest climate rally in this country so far is a 1000 people. What does the mass movement on climate look like? What are the tactics that it will use? These are the important questions that I hope many of us in this room will begin to engage and I think this movement will look different than past social movements. But there are couple of things that I think are going to be key. One is investing in an infrastructure for building this movement. I think college campuses are an incredibly important part of that infrastructure. But also looking at what other organizations and institution can be engines of this transformation, looking at cities, churches, community groups and investing in the organizations that are working with those institutions to make them engines of this transformation. A second key piece will be I think engaging citizens in meaningful action on this issue. We need to more than ask people to write a check to our organizations or write an email to their member of Congress but we need to ask them to actually do something, to be involved in some meaningful action. We need a sort of citizen's movement. One of the most recent examples I think of this beginning to happen is this effort called "Step it up" which is happening on April 14th, this coming Saturday. And the idea is that at iconic places all around the country that are threatened by global warming, places like the coral reeves of the coast of Florida or Glacier National Park, people are coming together and calling on Congress to reduce the emissions by 80 percent by 2050. There are over 1500 actions and events all around the country right now. And it's really you know, a call that people have accepted. The third piece of that I I would say is to take leadership from young people and the communities that are already being impacted by this issue, that are disproportionately people of color and low income communities. I think movements are driven by the people have who have the most at stake with that issue. And young people on the communities that are already feeling this are those communities and constituencies in this case and we need to be bringing them to the table when we are making decisions about our future and we need to be equipping them with the resources to defend themselves and to build the kind of future that they want to build. The last the last point I want to make is that we need to invest now in people. We heard yesterday about the need to invest one percent of GDP now to put off 20 percent of potential GDP loss in the future that came out of this Stern Report. As a society we are leaving our children with a huge economic debt. Nation wide average of $20,000 in college loans upon graduation and insecure job market for our young people, ballooning national debt, crashing entitlement programs but even more significantly we are on the verge of leaving our young people with an ecological debt that may be devastating and irreversible. We can stop that but we need an immediate investment now in clean technologies, we need to put a price on carbon. But even more importantly I believe, we need to invest in people and put them to work. There is a whole lot of work that needs to be done. There are 30 million low income homes that need to be weatherized or retrofitted. We have crumbling schools that need to be rebuilt in a sustainable way. We have an inefficient and vulnerable transmission grid system. Previous generations have been called to service in times of national crisis. To military service in times of war, to public works projects like the Civilian Conservation Core in times of economic depression, to the Peace Corps in times of threatening international tension. It's time to call this generation to service in meeting the great crisis of our time, the climate crisis. I think the young people in particular will heed this call. In 2005 over 70 percent of college freshmen reported having volunteered weekly during their high school senior year and college graduates are flocking in unprecedented numbers the public service jobs. If these service inclined to young people were given the chance to be front and center in a serious effort to stop global warming, they would jump at it. They are in fact the greenest generation. And at the same time there is a growing number of our elders from the Baby Boomers generation the greatest generations that want to get want to get involved in this work to build a more sustainable world for their children. So I say let's call this country to service, let's give them the tools that they need to make a difference, let's begin to heal this inter generational divide and build a more sustainable world together. Thanks. Thank you, Billy. What Billy didn't tell you is that this movement is being done overwhelmingly, digitally. We can all take a lesson from Billy and indeed no doubt will in the near future. He certainly wins the logo of the year award, doesn't he? Richard Cizik please welcome. Yeah. Good morning good morning everybody. I am so delighted to be here. I would like to say a few brief very brief things that I will keep under my time limit. Let me begin with a story. Let's say it's an American I institute the word evangelical when I tell this in churches, it goes like this. A man is in his jeep Cherokee going over hill and dale. In the midst of no where, he slams on his brakes, gets out his jeep Cherokee and walks over to the man standing there attending a sheep a shepherd and he says to the shepherd he says, if I can tell you how many sheep you have, can I have one? And the shepherd is totally dumbstruck; he doesn't know what to say well, of course. And so the American the evangelical whomever walks back, gets into his jeep Cherokee, gets on GPS, in our community we call like God's Positioning Satellite, and within a moment he has a ream of papers, he walks over the shepherd and he says, it's very simple sir, he says, you have 1638 sheep and this shepherd is just he says, that's amazing, how did you know? But go pick one out. So he goes the American goes over, picks one out, he gets back to leave and there is a knock on his window. And the shepherd just walked up and he says to him, sir, he says, if I can tell you what you do for a living can I have my sheep back? And the well the American says, well I guess so. One good turn deserves another and he says the shepherd says, you are consultant. And the American says, wow how did you know? He says, well the shepherd says, you came into my world out of nowhere, you answered questions that I have not asked or leave out charging me a lot of money for it, and he says you, by the way he says you don't know Diddly Squat, you took my sheep dog. Every good conference deserves one good story. Here is the problem how I understand it. I am a lobbyist in Washington D C for the National Association of Evangelicals, 64 years old, 45,000 churches, 30 million members of a community that is 100 million. 100 million Americans, according to the recent surveys 25 percent of all adult Americans are evangelicals, 100 million people who have a conundrum not on like other Americans. And this is the problem. And the problem is reflected you see, in this issue of climate change. Why? Because if you look at the opinion polls, I got them from Pew just yesterday, 37 percent of evangelicals believe climate change is human induced, 30 only 37 percent believe it is human induced. And if you compare that with the GOP Congress, 40 to 50 percent of Republicans in this country or the Republican base are composed of evangelicals 30 exactly 37 percent of the members of the members of Congress who are Republicans believe it is human induced. Now that my friends is a reflection you see of why climate change is the consequence of a religion and science debate that goes back to the Scopes Monkey trial. And yet things are changing and I would suggest to you that my strategy, that of the NAE along with interestingly enough, E. O. Wilson, arguably the most famous scientist in the world today, Harvard Emeritus, two Pulitzer Prizes and all the rest, the ant man, he prefers to be called, he has written a new book called Creation. We have come together on behalf of this issue that of religion and science, the two basic paradigms in this country that people think to do something about this issue. But if you go to Wilson's book and I would comment it to you, it's called Creation. Again he says do three things, there are exactly interestingly enough I found this fascinating, three years after the fact we began this movement it has three things. He says first of all have a vision. And you have to cast that vision. In the book he says to biology professors, he says us, teach from the top down, cast the vision. And that's what we have been doing it is to do something about this issue. We call it by reframing, I know that's just you know, lingua franca today for everybody but 5 6 7 8 years ago it wasn't, at least in our community - reframed this issue you see to creation care. It's a biblically stewardship responsibility that these 100 people have to have and you have to make the connection to climate change and what is occurring in and yes, that's exactly what we were doing. We moved in just a few short years since 2004 the percentages of evangelicals in this country who believe this is real and its going to impact them and their kids from approximately well less than 50 percent, over 80 percent in just 3 short years and so that is what you have to do. It's what I have we all have to do is to cast that vision. And we have to have a strategy. And the strategy that is cognitive liberation. You have to persuade people that they can do something about a problem. It's a cognitive switch that goes off in the head, it says, oh no I am not into a fatalistic vision and this is going to happen, climate change we can't do anything about. Cognitive liberation is turning that switch in their head, it says, absolutely, we can change this reality. And I believe we are and will and the Congress of the United States is reflection of that change that's occurring, even among Republicans. And just yesterday there was to be a debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich and it turned out be a love fest. Two of yesterday's but why? Because some Republicans who are smart and I believe Newt whether you agree with his politics or not, is smart and is forthcoming, I believe with a book called "Contract with the Earth", imagine that. That is going to move these Republicans over. Contract imagine Contract With Earth, you heard it from me first, he will probably deny it. Number 2, to strategy strategy we came forward with the Evangelical Climate Initiative, 86 leaders and boy did it prompt a backlash, Jerry Falwell says this is diversion you know, a diversion. That's ridiculous, a theological or a diversion from what? I say look this is the Civil Rights issue. The evangelical leaders in 40 50 60s they sat on their hands on Civil Rights and I and my generation and I am sure yours, Billy and others, we will not sit on our hands and allow this to happen to world because it's everybody's issue. We all breathe the same air, drink the same water, and its the same one so you have to have a strategy, it is for us, what Robert Putnam calls bridging outward and so in 10 years we passed eight major landmark bills. You have probably never heard of them because the media don't tell you about them, but the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the IRFA bill, International Religious Freedom Act IRFA, International Religious Freedom Act, The Sudan Peace Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the End Demand Act, the North Korea Human Rights Act, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PEPFAR, The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and on and on. These are all collaborative efforts you see, we have bridged outward as a community to solve the problem. That's true; solve problems, that's what we have to do. Cast the visions, solve the problems and lastly, because I have got about a minute left, the tactics. Our tactics have gone like this. Leader to leader, we believed you see that if we could get a hundred leaders who would cast the vision and adopt a strategy of collaborative, now this is not the old paradigm of zero sum game somebody else has to lose for us to win. No, no, no, this is a new common good strategy that says we are going to do it all for the betterment of everybody. The other speakers have intuitively said the same thing. It's not a zero sum game strategy in which the others have to lose for us to win, absolutely not we are all in this together, I heard it from Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday at Georgetown University. This is our strategy, we are winning and the tactics are working, going from leader to leader down to the very individual members of our society, one after another. And this is all part of probably the biggest change, lastly the biggest change that's going to encompass the 21st century. And it frankly is not just going to be climate change because it is irreversible. We can change those 37 percent into 100 percent to believe this is all human induced. But there is something else that is going on that will affect the change more than politics or anything else. It is the reshaping of religion and science today. And when you have theologians and scientists coming together as we did at Melhana Plantation, down at Georgia, that's were we first showed the movie Gone With The Wind. But if you have religion and science these two worlds working together you will change this reality. Last story a boy and girl come to their old man in the town square, they are fed up with his leadership, they wanted to end and they devise the following strategy. They say, we will go to him and we will say, with bird in hand, I like oh, this is interesting, they would use a bird but because I believe all creatures great and small San Francis's prayer really important, but they take the bird in the hand, they go to the man and they say, tell us old man, is the bird alive or dead? Is the bird alive or dead? And they have got a strategy. If the old man says that the bird is dead, they would reveal in their hands, the bird very much alive. If he says, the bird is alive they will pinch the bird's neck and kill it. And so thinking they had it all down path, they go into the square, they ask the question, is the bird alive or dead, you probably already thought this one through; the answer is when he said it that's for us too my sons and daughters, the answer is in your hands. And I happen to believe that the people in this room can if we have not already move that needle this far. We will move it the rest of the way because of the larger paradigms that are already changing America and the World. And it's my great, great pleasure to be with you here today, than you Ken. I yes, probably the first time an Evangelical has been here but I am so delighted, at least from this part. And I I hope I haven't preached too much. Thank you. We are too Rich. Wow. A fellow can stare into the face of the most profound problem that human kind has ever faced and leave you with optimism and hope. Richard, thank you for your faith. I am a consultant. But happily one that that grow up on a farm. So I can recognize a sheep dog. Let me try to move the power point forward and move get we will get under way and get to your question. You all know that that states are the laboratories of democracy, they it turns out that the laboratories of environmental action as well states it did acid rain five years before the Federal Clean Air Act. They did toxics and mercury three years before and so forth. So this isn't new ground at all. They are basically that's just environmental. They are they are basically the laboratories for what gets done in government. And we are seeing that certainly on climate change, let me try to advance this again . If you look back to the there we go, back to the late 90's there were lots of things called State Climate Action Plans. In fact they were perhaps more worthier than any State Action opportunity lists. They were basically lists of nice things to do. They weren't plans of how to do, how much it would cost, what it would accomplish and so forth. So we draw a line at about the year 2000 and look at who has actually done some work on this. No surprise, you will get the usual suspects, the bi-coastal brotherhood of states that take the environment seriously. Things are different today. We have several more states double the states, 18 or so, that have actual profound plans either done or underway. CCS, my organization is helping with many actually most of those and you see by far; there are some unusual suspects and that makes some cold states. Some South East States, where you don't expect that kind of thing. Arizona and New Mexico have recently completed their plans. In September, in Arizona's case, these are comprehensive that all sectors, year long process that bring multiple stake holders from all walks of life within the state. They undertake policy selection, those policy options that are quantified pretty rigorously, and then aggregated into the plan. The policy options that are selected, you see, up on the top left, many of those have negative costs, that's what's known in vernacular, savings, some of them have positive cost, but when you roll them together you see that on the right that Arizona, the fastest growing state in the Union can save almost half a billion tones of Carbon Dioxide equivalent do so or saving $5.5 billion in the process over business as usual and can generate almost 300,000 jobs as well. Next slide the results against Arizona's business as usual, curving the fastest growing states show that Arizona can get back to 2000 levels by 2020 through this plan. And it can get down to half that amount by 2040. It had 49 recommendations in all, and the stake holder's processes 45 of them were unanimous. You can imagine the political support that comes from that kind of concensus from multiple stake holders. It's not just Arizona; New Mexico has undertaken a similar process, yielded some more results, 69 recommendations 67 unanimous. A smaller state they had only save $2 billion between now and 2020 in net present value. And the goals that the group established or the reductions the group established would exceed the Governors' goals. California, you know has all done that just a tone of work on this. There was an effort a year or two or go that Walter Reed was heavily involved with. And its current effort, AB32, analyzed by UC Berkley shows it will add $4 billion to California's economy. Not not just one time but to the size of the California's economy and 83,000 jobs. Similar results in in all the other states where there is underway. And it's not Rocket science, these strategies are are known technologies now. You can roll that there we go, there are clean cars, there are appliance efficiency standards, there are distributed generation and combining heating power, demand side management, building codes, any of this sound foreign, the renewable portfolio standards. This is stuff that's all here today. We just need to roll it up and do it. And happily there are even more states that are dipping their toes in the water and have partial efforts underway. They are doing greenhouse gas inventories and thinking about next steps or programs have been announced but not launched yet. Now when you add in those who were actually having conversations with and now there is a promise of getting these kinds of concrete planning efforts underway. 38 states is a critical mass isn't it? The issue is now resonating politically. I don't have to tell you that there is Governor Schwarzenegger and Pataki kibitzing before the election on Reggie. The UK Guardian did a list recently of the 100 top environmentalists what they call campaigners of all time. Buddha was on this list. Schwarzenegger beat Buddha on this list. And a whole raft of new governors were elected with climate planks in their platforms. The Supreme Court has now weighed in many of you saw this cartoon in the Economist last week. Supreme Court doing the old magnifying glass trick to our favorite ostrich. And the good news is as we build this critical mass and this confluence of forces is that when you look at what the scientists are telling us needs to be done. And it's reflected in some of the lunatic fringe bills that have been there in Congress the Waxman types of bills and so forth. That's where the leadership states plans have shake out. It's doable it's doable with the existing technologies and it leads to that kind of seven in 80 percent reduction by 2050. What's more as we saw illustrated in Arizona and New Mexico, if you take those wedges from where we are going to where we would like to get down or even as a start 90 level say and you look at the energy conservation and clean energy renewable, transportation measures and so forth those things each add up to close to a quarter or little over a quarter of of what it would take. And when you look at the states experience of what those cost come in at. You know, energy efficiency saves $10 to $30 dollars a tone. Renewables is going to cost a bit. That's without the externalities of public health and all the other stuff we have talked about yesterday and today. That's just the direct cost. Likewise transportation, land use efficiency the Pavley vehicles here in California will save $30 to $35 a ton. When you take those state's experience its eminently doable and admittedly this is only back of the envelop stuff, but take those shares if you will all those percents of the gap and ramp them up, gross them up to the national level and take those savings and assume they are representatives from those few states that we have done and apply them to the nations emissions. We are looking at saving, by 2020, two and a half billion tons of carbon and saving in the process $31 billion economically. When you ramp that back there are some time penetration so forth. That's the net present value back the envelop calculation of a $100 billion. Now we may be off a decimal point here. It's far more likely that we are off one positively than we are off one negatively, that it's more likely to be a trillion dollars than $10 billion. But the important thing is the sign. This is it's hugely doable we just need to get about it. One thing one last thing I would add is these state efforts, as I said, take a year, a lot of meetings, a lot of technical analysis, so the state comes out with not just what it can do, what it should do based on the stakeholders, what it will cost and what it will yield and how they should approach it, their expensive efforts and the states don't typically have the money or the political will to put the money that's necessary to do that four or $500,000 apart. So many of you in this room have actually made these efforts and this demonstration of progress possible. Thanks very much and please keep it up.