caroline: world leaders and delegates from other countries are gathered here in paris for cop21. for the first time in more than 20 years, the aim is to achieve a universal agreement on climate change to keep global warming in check. president hollande: never, and i repeat never, have the stakes of an international meeting been so high. because this is about the future of our planet, the future of life. president obama: the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this

century more dramatically than any other. >> this is about creating the basis of existence for future generations. and we know we have to act today. >> there can be no room for failure. it is very simple. we must save our forests. >> cheap and dirty energy is not cheap for the planet or the health of our people. >> we should be absolutely clear that there is no possible development if we do not counter climate change. >> this is a pivotal issue of our time. it is a pivotal issue for developed nations. it is a pivotal issue for developing nations. we are one planet, and climate knows no bounds. >> global warming is

indivisible. so we have set ambitious targets. >> let us just imagine, for a moment, what we will have to say to our grandchildren if we failed. president obama: what should give us hope is that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we finally determine we would save our planet. caroline: to achieve this goal, both countries and companies must reduce their carbon footprint. on friday, a new task force was created for risk disclosure. companies provide information to lenders, investors, insurers, and stakeholders. chairman of the financial stability board, mark carney appointed mike bloomberg to be chairman of the task force on climate disclosure. in a discussion moderated by bloomberg editor-in-chief john micklethwait, they discussed how climate change is changing

business. >> if you're going to have a task force in the private sector, you want somebody who believes in transparency. who believes in the global provision of information, it is a global issue covering the , globe. you want somebody who has a track record of action -- not just on climate change, but across the board -- who gets results. we can think of no better person. we went to mike bloomberg and asked if he would serve as chair. and the announcement this morning, which i am making so he cannot back out, is that he has agreed to chair this climate disclosure task force, which gets launched officially today. >> can i come back -- can i come back first to you and push you on the idea that there are

already 400 organizations out there that have been -- all of these different ones. what's going to be different about this one? what is the selling point? >> the first is to recognize, and we did some work in terms of looking at the top 1000 companies around the world, what proportion of those companies disclose their footprint in some way, shape, or form? and the answer, want to go to that level, is a bit more than one third. if you go to the 100, there is a rule, so you have every company disclosed. once you get beyond those types of levels, you get down to about one third. that information itself, and there is a report that came out yesterday which underscores that information is not directly comparable, not consistent.

so the first thing is that this will be inclusive. it is well beyond the g-20. it covers the fsb membership. it is inclusive in terms of having people from the buy side, sell side, people who prepare the accounts, all of the relative players in the private sector. the second thing that is difficult about this is it is focused. it is focused on climate, naturally, i think, but the task force will determine that -- the actual footprint of the emission. but you also focus on strategy and opportunity that come with that. we can maybe come back to that, that is a different question. and the third thing, it will be efficient. there. so let me finish with just a comment on these other initiatives that are out there.

this is not to downplay any of those other initiatives. you take innovation such as integrated reporting in brazil and south africa, which looks at a huge range of stability metrics and a comprehensive look at sustainability. sadly, as mike knows well, much more comprehensive than what we are looking at here. but this ideally is going to be the one-stop shop for the right principles around climate, so that there can be a true market in transition towards low carbon economy. there is a wide range of views amongst investors and providers of capital about the urgency of the issue, about the right technology, about which companies are doing better, which are doing poor or less well. but they do not have the information to express those views. and the point is this, why it is different, to solve that market

failure by providing the right information to have a true market in transition to a low carbon economy. >> mike, is that the same definition of success? is that the way you look at it? mike: i think so. companies today recognize that they have liabilities. you look at general electric being required to clean up the entire hudson river. nobody ever thought down the road 20 years later that we would have an enormous hit to their income statement balance sheet. the companies get sued by employees for things that they never in the past thought about. companies recognize that to recruit young people out of college, your environmental activities are almost something every kid asks about. it has become very fashionable. the marketplace does try to price in the risk that companies run for environmental issues, not perfectly.

and one of the things that would benefit everybody is if you had comparable statistics that were easily accessible, so the marketplace could make its decisions. we always have a saying at bloomberg -- if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. even if it is a voluntary thing, but the collection of the data and the presentation of it on a comparable basis is a great service. it is called risky business. the idea there was to explain the risk to corporations. and if you think about it, the real progress that has been made in reducing the damage to the environment has come from the city level of government, because that is where the people are, that is where the pollution is, the solutions are. and the private sector, both individuals buying cars that are

more fuel-efficient, painting the roofs of their houses white. you know, trying to turn the shower off quicker. whatever the case may be. and corporations who have started to take advantage of being able to use green power to reduce their energy costs. and make products that appeal to the public, that is more environmentally friendly grade . so, there is an interest in the way there was not before. and it is that the private sector level. someone has to be, are you disappointed with what happened? it is not finished yet, i don't know how you can be disappointed. for me, what the federal and national government to make together the beginning of this week, the two weeks or whatever it takes for people your to work out the details, if you do nothing else but get the public's interest, and the public understanding of what the

consequences of doing nothing are, then the marketplace itself, from the public, is going to change the people's behavior. i the greatest example is china, i think. there are nine chinese cities here, and a few years ago there were none. and none of those chinese cities are here without the knowledge and acquiescence of the federal government, i assume. you see pictures in china, you cannot see across the street. now, you cannot even see halfway across the street in some cities. the chinese government is going to be the most pro-environmentally active government in the world. why? they have taken the middle class, building an economy come and now the public is standing

up and saying we want clean air and up your water. governments only exist with the majority of the people consent. they put a smoking ban in beijing, the chinese government owns the cigarette company. that was not easy to do. there announced they will close four coal-powered plants. yes, but all the other big cities have the same problems. they are going to have to do this across china. >> in america, you have the republican race, i think it is fair to say there is not a vast enthusiasm for this. mike: i don't think it matters. if you say the same thing in a primary, does that mean you will say the same thing in a general election? does it have to do with getting -- with what you would say if you actually got elected? that is the first thing. this is theater. and it really is a serious issue, as to what a candidate would do if they ever got elected, but i do not know that you can find that out from the kabuki dance that we go through to select the candidates, maybe

even whoever wins. that is one thing. number two, you can say you want to do something. but the reality is that governments -- we do not have dictatorships. even the president -- and our president actually has tried to do something by executive action for the environment, he does deserve credit for it. when we say our government is not doing anything, it is the congress created you can then blame the president, saying he should be controlling congress. but he is trying to do something. and the end, the public demands things. but i don't even know if congress has a lot of say in this. i come back to it is what the cities are doing independent of state and federal governments in america. really, around the world. and what the private sector, whether it is the corporate world or the household level, where people are making changes to accommodate, reduce expenses, clean up their act.

and, you know, in new york city, we one-timed took a clean piece of paper and plotted on it the location of where kids were brought to the hospital with asthma attacks lived. and you get a map of the main highways through new york city. it is fascinating. it is so direct, where you live as to whether or not there is a lot of pollution. once the kid gets the asthma attack, the public sees that. they do something. in new york city, life expectancy is now three years greater than the national average. think about that, new york city -- a big city with pollution, crime, a pace that makes you have a heart attack. none of that turns out to be true. if you have friends who live outside of new york city, and you want them to live longer, they should move to new york city. [laughter] mike: and i cannot guarantee

that everyone will live three years longer, but i can guarantee on average they will. and so it shows you can do some things. what have we done? we put grades on restaurants. the number of deaths from salmonella fell overnight. we put smoke detectors in apartments come and the number of fire deaths collapsed. we put in strong measures to stop kids from carrying guns, and our murder rate went down dramatically. in fact, and new york city, it is still hard to get murdered. >> do you think information is key? mike: in the end, the public is a lot smarter than they are given credit for by the press and the government. in the end, john, i have always believed that we have incarcerated all of the irrational people. so when somebody does something that does not make any sense, it isn't that they are irrational. you just do not know what they are trying to do. the public cares about

themselves, and maybe their kids and grandkids. and they would do whatever is in those interests, no matter what the politics are. the elected officials will do whatever is in their interest to get reelected, which is the only thing they care about. and so, if the public says i want clean air and clean water, the government will do it. that is whether it is the government of china, and the congressmen and senators from the united states. you can go and take a look. there are some red states that so far, all of a sudden, are very pro-climate change legislation. so, stop it. you say, nobody can possibly do this in red states. the governors don't have any choice, because the public is demanding it. and the narrative in america, where we have all of these right-wing crazies that used to

say climate change is a commie plot, it does not exist. now, they say, yes, climate change exists. but it is not man-made. the farmers have to grow different crops, or nothing comes up. there are tornadoes. droughts were there used to be floods, floods were there used to be droughts. people are raising their houses on the coastline. there are real effects. >> you have this quite sort of techie task force looking at the numbers. how do you relate it to the broader picture, how does it actually get hold of people? >> the first thing, mike just spoke about kabuki theater. that is part of the issue right now in financial markets. you cannot see behind the veil, if you will, if i can mix my metaphor of it. this is just to bring that information out. as you have the information to make judgments about individuals, companies, sectors,

companies as a whole, their exposure to climate risk -- either direct or trying to transition to a low or even net zero world, ultimately -- in and their strategy is to take advantage of opportunity to address risk. once you have that information, absence progress, that transition gets pulled forward. this has the ability, if you are on the optimistic side of any of those measures on technology, government action, the need for government action, having that information out there will amplify any success. because it will mean the market can move more quickly. and the market will move very quickly on these issues. >> will that be the test, that investors actually take this as a starting point from when they invest in companies or not? >> whether it is one of the determinants of how they invest, well, i would say that sitting in the middle of the world's, all due respect, cross border

capital market, one of the leading financial centers, how is that? in the world, this is an issue. it is an issue that investors are unable to express a view on, . >> do you agree with mike saying that business has gradually moved ahead of government. ? >> i think that the combination of positive progress by government, the manifestations of some of these risks has meant that businesses and investors that have a longer horizon have now leapfrogged and are looking for ways to address. and i would emphasize as much, you know, as much as a central bank regulator, we look a lot at risk. but if i step back from my day job, there is a lot of companies out there that are looking at

the opportunities that come with this shift. >> mike, talk quickly about being a businessman and an investor, and a man. mike: the other day, i was sitting at my desk. i have four television screens -- bloomberg, cnbc, fox news, cnn. and fox went all day long -- i did not have the sound on -- all day long, they had talking heads brought in. they were talking about how outrageous it was that obama was focusing on climate change over here, while terrorism -- there are multiple problems in the world and you have to go after all of them. what struck me was there was no businessman on the show. why? because no ceo could survive if they try to say climate change

was not real. if you have a building near the water, you move the building, you strengthen the roof, you give people life-preservers, you buy an insurance policy, or something. but you address the problem. you do not sit there and say, well, i am not sure it is a real risk. in fact, if you think about it, anybody that wants to beat their insurance company is really stupid. you do not -- you want your insurance company to beat you. that is, i mean, think about it. the side you are on, companies are way ahead of it on issues like this. and the life expectancy of a ceo in amerco has got be down to four or five years, maybe even lower than that. they turn around with monotonous regularity. climate change is one of them, they have to do something.

and sometimes thought they are not simple answers. but the marketplace is merciless. the marketplace demands that you do things and address issues. and one of the big ones is climate change. and mark's idea of giving them information -- they are all addressed in different ways. but i can tell you, they will address it. if they have information that they can get that is reliable and comparable, than they can explain to their stockholders, their bosses, what they are doing. and justify their existence. >> there is a difference, though. in europe, you have business direction in the same direction. in america, you have quite a sharp divergence. mike: that assumes you think government really matters. and i think most visits people do not read most business people only care about government to the extent that there are regulations that directly impact their business. or if they sell products to the government. but, you know, you have these

different worlds. it is sort of what we say inside baseball, they deal with issues they think are important. yes, they are important and they should pay attention. businesses say the government tells us what the regulations are, and we will go and comply with them. and get on to structuring our organization to make money, return source stockholders, keep our employees happy death within the context of what the government gives them. they like to influence, they also they want less government, until they really realize what that means. and the united states, particularly europe, has suffered because we had -- i think it was really fair in bush 43 -- and sec they did not want to be active. what happened was the state attorneys general filled the void. and today -- excuse me. you have states suing and having

enormous -- billions and billions of dollars of penalties in foreign institutions that really have no defense come if , because if they get indicted, they are out of business. they propped up these enormous sums of money. and it all comes because i think there is no strong central regulation. be careful what you ask for what you might get it. >> do you think the two degree target is one that is bound to be missed? mike: number one, i don't know if that is the right target. the target should be zero or reducing -- a negative number. and i do not know why you have to assume it is going to be missed. new york city, we reduced our carbon footprint by 20%. in america, by 15%, with no action from the federal government. and the people saying it is bad for business, i can tell you new

york has one of the lowest on it when it rates the highest growth rate in all of america. one of the reasons is that people want to live with their lives are going to be better, healthier, longer. and when you recruit, you have to talk about the environment. it is fascinating. in america, people talk about we are going to lose jobs if we reduce the use of coal. number one, there are very few who work in the industry more. it is not the billy elliot days in london. it is done by stripmining, enormous machines. very few work in the industry. but there has been an enormous amount of jobs that have been created in solar and wind power. the net number of jobs because of environmental considerations has gone up, not down. number two, i cannot get -- maybe bloomberg news should do a story about this -- how do you compare jobs versus lives?

if we will lose one job and save five lives, we will keep that job and lose five lives, is that the right trade-off? nobody really wants to focus on the issue. we all talk about, oh, there are jobs at stake. there are jobs at stake in every industry. the world is changing. every industry has a disruptive technology coming along. they changed the processes. but we have been able to create more jobs in most parts of history as things change. we have not been a very good job recently. and hopefully, this is just a temporary thing. but nevertheless, you will always lose some jobs, you always create some other jobs in some ratio. the real question is, what is the impact on human lives? and life expectancy continues to go up, generally around the world. poverty goes down. in the last 40 years, the percentage of the world that

lives in poverty has gone down by 50% or 60%. nobody is willing to say that because the advocates say, there is still some poverty. therefore, you can still say -- advocates never want you to show progress. because then you devote less resources to what they are trying to do. all of this is designed to give us a planet that we will survive on. and in the meantime, to help those who cannot take care of themselves. and if you think about it, most places where climate change will really kill people and change their ability to survive are in poor places close to the water. caroline: the disclosure force announced here will have two stages. the first, expected by the end of march, will determine the scope and high-level objectives. the second, expected by the end of 2016, will incorporate 30 members focused on specific recommendations to disclosure

principles and best practices in business. from everyone here a bloomberg, from around the world, thank you for watching. ♪

♪ emily: he worked alongside steve jobs to revolutionize the way we listen to music and became known as the godfather of the ipod. he spent nearly a decade at apple, then hatched a company of his own. in 2010, he cofounded nest labs, where he promised to invent every unloved product in the home. a promise so thrilling, google, soon to the alphabet, snapped up nest and its star ceo for $3.2 billion. joining me today on "studio 1.0," nest ceo and cofounder, tony fadell.