the argument in his very clearly very often for people to say, that just shows you we could cut carbon emissions to help future victims in paris, france. but of course the real point here is to say is that actually the best way to help people. if you look, this is from studies in philadelphia on the heat deaths and cold gas in philadelphia. the afternoon temperature and what you see the vertical axis is how may people die. and you will see at the top, the black curve in the 1960s. we have a situation that's very typical. you have an optimal point around 80 degrees or night which is where people die at the least. and as it gets much colder people die and it gets much warmer, people die more. that's the typical situation, basically what we see everywhere although the optimal temperature depends on where you live in the planet. but what you ask lazy as we go

up, we see in the '70s, 80s and 90s. death generally declined. but also knows what happened to the heat and of the issue. dazedly it's gone away. we have very little extra deaths in the '90s. mainly because of air conditioning. we still have a fair amount of cold deaths because it is much harder to avoid and much more structural problem when we talk about cold deaths. but what is important of course is to say if we ask you want to help the people in paris, france, we have to ask ourselves do we help them best by investing in kyoto style project that would make sure we get slightly slower warming threats throughout the city so they will get more and more heart, but slightly less so coming into this century. or should we make sure they can have readily available air-conditioning, which will save lives. again i'm simply saying we need to be wary of a conversation of

a debate where the only answer to every question we come up with is to say let's cut carbon emission. sometimes that's a good answer, but not every time. in this situation is probably more likely to be air-conditioning. let me also give you one other situation we actually know that most cities have gotten much warmer over the last couple of centuries due to heat basically because of their lack of water. so we know more black services, lack of water does mean that l.a., london, nearest cities have nighttime temperatures of 4 degrees or 7 degrees fahrenheit higher at minimum. tokyo sees a situation where it's almost 20 degrees fahrenheit higher than surrounding countryside. so we have situation where cities have gotten much, much hotter. this is important that the passageway of humanity will be living in cities come the end of the century. again, we need to have a conversation about what is the best thing we can do for these people to cut emissions so we have a situation where we do the

kyoto protocol will we get slightly less in the end of the century. maybe not. we do know there is simple measures like getting more water features, more parks into cities. as one way we can degrees temperatures by about 14 degrees their night in london. we know that if we put in more white services, simply stop having as much black tarmac, paint our roads wider, not black or at least. we can decrease even more. again, studies in london so this could reach up to 18 degrees fahrenheit and cutting the temperature in london. i'm starting to engage ourselves in a conversation of saying cutting carbon emissions is not the only solution to those problems and we need to start thinking about can we do this smart. and we do this in a better way and assure that would actually help more people readily. of course, this does not mean we only have to do one and not the

other. we have to have that conversation about what should we do first. if we tried to take a look at sea level rise, yes c. levels will rise. bailey due to thermal expansion and basically as water and everything else gets warmer, we are likely to see it expand and we will see that sea level rise over the next 100 years. if we look at the total span half a foot to 2-foot of rise. that is definite problem is not the 20 feet that we have heard from al gore that has been shown very, very widely where we see florida disappear. this tract of florida or san francisco area or indeed, holland or new york or bangladesh or shanghai or beijing. we have to be realistic about saying what is going to happen, 1 foot is definitely a problem but we need to put it in context. let's take a look.

over the last 150 years sea level rose about 1 foot. yet did we worry? did we notice? asking a very old person has lived through the 20 century, and ask her what happened during the 20 century. she's likely to talk about the two world wars, the emancipation of women, maybe the i.t. revolution. but it's very, very unlikely she will say the sea levels rose. because we fixed them. it's important point to say it's not a say that we wouldn't rather not have sea level rise that it is going to be constant. but it's something we fix. that's of course an important point to say it's not the end of civilization. over the last 150 years that we saw sea level rise buy one for. it will rise faster because of global warming because it will take one century to rise about 1 foot. but still, it's a manageable problem. we need to get a sense. the second part is also to start getting a sense of what is this

actually going to mean for the world. right now about 10 million people get flooded each year. if we just look at a world where more people are going to be living and we'll also have situation with 1 foot of sea level rise. what will that mean? this is easy to look at. this is the typical answer, also the one you get from the un panel that means in 210,100,000,000 people will get flooded each year. this has of course very serious but what we have to remember is this assumes that nobody does anything. this basically assumes that people, and i cannot do this if i stand out here. this assumes that people are standing and saying all my gosh, sea levels are rising again. it's lapping over my feet. and if i stay here for 50 years i'm going to drown. of course we don't actually do that. we move over to something. way adapted to these kinds of situations. that's also what's likely to happen. the un climate panel estimates that you will be somewhere

between six and 12 times richer come the end of this century. that means that most of the countries in the world, the average person in the developing world will be richer than we are today. of course, we will be even richer than. but it's unlikely we would not use increasing funds to deal with the problems that we see as increasing and significance that if we just assume we would use the same proportion, the same sense of our income in the future as we do today, which seems like a reasonable or low incentive. then if you do the same simulation and acts as a people are going to be richer as the un climate panel does. will see a set of 100 gay people getting flooded, we are going to see one that you people getting flooded. that's still a problem, but that 1 million we can easily do something about it. because that's a poverty issue much more than a climate issue. this goes for the. let's take a look at multis being a great place to go but

more important countries like bangladesh or did not. affected by increasing sea level. if we just measure what it is like. and say what's going to happen with 1 foot sea level rise. were going to likely see a flooding of 77%. this will have a huge cost. about 111 percent of their gdp. but it's also important to note for 0.04 percent of their gdp they can pretty much safeguard all dry land. no people over the next century stand 0.04 percent of their gdp to avoid a loss of their gdp? they will. as the most nations, as will most nations on this planet. if you look at it, it's very likely will lose very much drive and. is like we didn't lose much driving and regain public a climate in most countries simply

because we have economic incentives to do so. the really curious point is to ask ourselves is very high numbers of 77% are assuming ours and we don't do so. but we do over a century. especially if it is economically advantageous to do so. they tell us what would happen instead of let's say the standard work which is what the un climate panel called scenario air, let's assume the standard world would see about a foot sea level rise. which is a different future. if we choose one much more environmentally conscious. one we really cared about the environment where we did a lot of things. with climate change. the un climate panel showed us what that would be, they call that scenario b. let's assume we go down that path. at the past were we looking at much less carbon dioxide. it will give much less global warming, much less see rise.

but of course it's also a center where we'll will be less richer in the future. we will still be much richer but instead of $73000 per person and 2100, we will only on average have about $50000. that's still a great number. it's not like we're going to be poor house or anything. let's try to take a look at what that would actually mean. we would live the future, yes, with slightly less richness that would also leave with slightly less see rise. yes, with lower emissions we would see the lowest sea level rise. the curious outcome is at least for the multis. and some of these other countries, they would action in the lose very those other because it pays so well to protect much of their driving. by the curious point is even in our goodwill of trying to help

by choosing as an arrow will get less richer also have less emissions and therefore have less of sea level rise we actually ended up flooding the more than they would otherwise have done their kinds and saying we should have this conversation and make sure that we don't just in our goodness of our hearts into doing stuff that don't work, even under very specific parameter that we talked about, namely sea level rise, did something to. we did less good for them than we otherwise could have been. we have to remember again cutting carbon emissions is not the only way to help. it's one of many. but we need to have a conversation about how effective or different issues. let me take the third one, the hurricane thing. the idea that hurricanes are going to get ever costly. we will see them sliming everhard in the u.s. and costing ever more damage. it's absolutely true that we're going to see more and more damage in the u.s.

this is the damage over the last 105 years for the u.s. what you see out there on the very site is to train and the many other ones that hit in 2005. vastly out dating the last, the last what you call, record in 2004 which again outlasted the 1992 hurricane andrew. do you remember? now of course it looks like a small leap almost. so basically what you see, rapidly increasing. this is true that we're going to see more and more damage. points out is that the vast majority of this was not caused by climate change. most people believe we still have actual confirmation of the record but we believe that we're going to see more violent hurricanes. more violent hurricanes in the light of global warming. but this is not by any standard the main impact of global

warming. this is due to social factors. this is due to the fact that many more people live much closer to harm's way with much more stuff. to give you a sense of caution of last 100 is, florida -- start, the u.s. populism quadrupled. over the last 100 years the population of florida increased 64. it sadly much, much nicer to live to the sea as people here in seattle no. and of course we also have gotten much richer which means we have much more stuff to get damage. some researchers actually said okay, let's try and take a look at what would happen if all hurricanes that hit the u.s. over the last 105 years had hit the u.s. as it looks today. with today's issue beaten of wealth. and today's distribution of humans. and then they said let's try to run all the hurricanes again and see how much damage we would have seen. notice how the picture will change. suddenly we get a very different

picture than what's actually happening. the most damaging hurricane of the great miami storm, hurricane from 1926 that tour right through downtown miami and cost a huge amount of destruction and actually killed 2000 people, which were more than ivan and katrina. but basically just ripped through downtown. it gives the impression. there was not much to damage here that's why it was so costly back in 1926. that's because the social factors, not because hurricanes have gotten much more violent. actually, the second largest hurricane, second most destructive hurricane would be the galveston hurricane of 1900 that was the most telling hurricane in the u.s. history, killing 18000 people, more than 10 times as much as what katrina did. katrina only a third in that ranking. the point is also, notice how hurricane andrew got much more expensive if it had hit today.

most estimates, the reinsurance organization estimated that it would have been twice as costly had hit just 10 years later in 2002 rather than in 1982. the general issue is really one of social factor. we come back to thank if we actually want to help future victims of katrina and and and all the others, are the best things we can do to cut carbon emissions? let's take a look. if we look at the models, will happen in the mid- century, we know if we just assume that nothing changed in the social side of issues, that we only see an increase in climate change as we're likely to see, and therefore an increase in violence of hurricanes, we're going to see an increase in the damage comes from climate change. the first part you see over there, it's going to increase damages by about 10%. by mid century. on the other hand if we didn't have any climate change, and we

have social change, that is more and more people with more and more stuff moves closer to harm's way as we have seen over the past, we are likely to see almost a 500% increase in the damage costs work the question here again i would like us to start thinking about is to say if you are going to help people in 2050, which of these two bars would you start adjusting first? which one of the more important to make sure that we have a better situation in 2050? in climate change we can cut a little. we can avoid about half a percentage point extra coming century. that's good, but that's not very much. on the other hand, very, very simple approaches can probably cut this somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of the increase in the damage cost estimate of 2050, and 400% we could cut by

very simple measures that most of us don't have a sense of what that is because we don't have that conversation. everybody focuses on cutting carbon emissions but if we care about these victims, maybe it's about some of these other things like florida we subsidized insurance, which means we are encouraging people to build more responsibly. lets get better building codes where we have better structured homes. lets have better enforcement of those building codes. perhaps we should have more wetlands in louisiana which would have helped louisiana being better able to deal with hurricane katrina. and of course, also having better levees around new orleans that if we wanted to have helped new orleans, should we have increased their levees or should we had done the kyoto protocol? is obvious we should have increased their levees that we should do and we'll get back to that, do something about climate change and the long run. if one could have a sensible conversation we need to ask

which of these two should we first change. should we do something very hard with a slight bit of climate change are sure we do some things that are actually very cheap about the huge social impact. again, it's about starting to think not about not just what feels good on what is the general consensus of the discussion right now. it's about making sure that we do the things that would do the most good into the future. that may just take the last one, the malaria issue. and also say yes, with climate change we're likely to see increases in military around the world. because molly is weekly related to temperature increase. but we also have got to remember that mueller is by far the more importantly related to wealth. basically malaria is a disease of poverty. if you're poor you get malaria and you die from malaria. if you're rich you don't get malaria that ended to get malaria, you can treat it with rather expensive medicine, but

certainly to you and i not expensive medicine. we seem to forget that malaria was endemic in much of europe and the u.s. and even endemic in the arctic circle in finland in the 18th and 19th hundreds. we still have a lawyer. the last big malaria endemic in holland ended in 1946. italy was only declared mulligan free in 1970. we have forgotten that we had huge of our developed world under molly appeared as we got rich, and as temperatures increase out of all of this, we thought mallya disappeared because we got richer. that's an important message to say just malaria is related to climate but it is strongly related to wealth. again the question is if we were at about people with malaya should reverse focus on doing something about climate change or should we perhaps were about

getting mosquito nets and treatments to many of these people. lets take a look at what we can do. again, the picture is a very, very clear that if we do the kyoto protocol can probably avoid 1400 people dying every year. from malaria. i would like to be part of a civilization that cares about 1400 people and make sure they don't die every year. but i would also like us to consider that with simple malaria policies could avoid 850,000 people dying every year. much cheaper. i would just like us to consider if we have to make a choice about which one of these things we worry about first, maybe we should be more worried about the second parameter. actually making sure we get rid of malaria bigotries thing is, if we do the kyoto protocol, we can probably have a 0.2% malaria by the end of the city. why is it that we care and seem to forget that there is 100% right now that we can do something about very cheaply.

or to put generally come with your remember that the kyoto protocol will cause a $180 million. to put it differently, for every time we save one human being from malaria, the climate change policy, the same amount of money could have saved 36000 people through specific malaria policies. i want us to have that conversation about saying are we worried about the right thing first. this does not mean, and so my general point here about the second point, we came to the vastly exaggerated stories about what climate change lupica doesn't climate change is not the. it is real. it is a problem. it is one of the many problems we need to fix in the 21st century but we need to have a conversation about how we do with that. that lead us to start talking about what should we do about it? my argument is right now we seem to be staring down

possibilities, policy options that have high costs and virtually no games. that's a bad way to do with climate change but let me give you a sense of the situation here. if we look at the kyoto protocol, this is assuming that everybody did the kyoto protocol. that is u.s. not an austrian not only lived up to, but all the nations have signed it like canada, japan. not only signed it but actually also did what they promise, and a lot of other countries including my own country of denmark are a lot of these countries are promising that are not likely to live up to and also not only that we lived up to it by 2010, but stuck to this agreement throughout the rest of this entry. this is an ascension of saying if everybody is done this, instead of seeing a black temperature curve that we would have seen a slightly lower temperature increase of the red graft leading up to a little more than 2.4 degrees centigrade by the end of this century but

this is entirely controversial but this is what the model shows that it is best hosted by saying the temperature that we would have seen in 2095 would be postponed until 2100. basically what the kyoto protocol does come if everybody lived up to it, was that postponed global warming by about five years but noticed if the kyoto runs for five years, it will do much less than that. it will actually only by the world seven days at the end of this century. i'm not sure that this is doing very much good for the world. this is not the way that we are going to get to solving the problem. both by making radical proposals, that had huge cost that make a lot of people, and other countries i do not set up a winning winning side of not live up to it. and yet, it has fragile impact in the longer-term future. it's important same that you had just come out and said we will solve the world problem as the

e.u. likes to say, they say they're going to cut their emissions by 20 percent by 24 and but that will do no good but has a cost of about $90 million a year. what this basically indicates it is we have a situation where let's do very, very hard policy. that has huge cost and very little impact in the long run. i would like us to start thinking in a getaway. this comes from the fact that most economic studies indicate that what we're trying to do actually has very little impact. most of a show that we should only do a very small reduction right now. because it is very cost and does very little good. the only say that it show that was the review from the u.k. government which was ordered. it was not peer-reviewed. it was ordered by the british government. basically i would argue that the

peer-reviewed studies are right for very, very specific reason. this is a stereotypical of cost-benefit dissipation that we see of the next 250 years. the cost come up front and a pretty massive war as the benefits only come far down the line. and eventually fairly massive four or 5 percent of gdp. if you look at the blackbird, the cost comes up first. it crosses the benefit way into the 22nd century that by then of course we'll have a big deficit that we will have account for. so only around 20 to 50 are we starting to me a good deal out of even with climate change. this is just a one civilization center. but there is a general trend for all of these issues. off all the different policies. what it tells us is we're going to pay a lot of money now to do very little good, very, very far out in the future. the question here is, is that the best that we can do?

i think what we need to get back to it to start having conversation about what our smart strategies, what are smart ways to start thinking about climate change. i would like to take a brief moment to look at the polar bears there we are barking up the wrong tree. arctic ice is going to be fewer polar bears pic it's important that we have seen dramatic increase of polar bears but it's likely to see we will see an increase in polar bears, although the very harsh as that we're seeing now from 2050 are probably unlikely to happen if we know the reason is simply we care so much about polar bears. but let's go with the fact that yes, we will lose and probably a substantial part of polar bears due to climate change. but the curious thing is we don't seem to think about the what can we act to do about it if we do the tragically know we can probably save about one polar bear each year.

that would be great. i would want to do that. but why is it we have such little consideration about the fact that every year, we shoot about 1000 polar bears. it seems to me that if we're going to be smart about this, maybe we should first stop shooting 1000 polar bears before we worry about intimating actually an dollar policy to save one polar bear. the point is not meant to be flip. it really is a question about saying, why is it we are so focused on one policy option on the win if we really care about polar bears, we can do much more good, actually stopping shooting them, which quite frankly would be or why is it we want to help people in paris, france, with policies that will make it worse instead of making it better. why is that we keep focusing on doing things for london that would do very little good instead of talking about how we can green london, how we can implement more water features

and light services? why is it we talked about doing something about climate change for new orleans that will quite frankly only mean they will get much more flood instead of talking about how we can make them much less fled at the idea is to say we need to start thinking about smart policies. this does not mean that we shouldn't think about how we deal with climate change in the long run, but we should start being much more smart about this. that's what i'd say we need to find a different way. cutting costs, cutting the cost of co2 is perhaps $20 per ton. that's fairly expensive. the rich countries, rich people in rich countries will do some mainly to polish their own halos and feel good about themselves. but it's not ashur going to do very much good. the problem is most of the economic studies show the benefit of cutting a ton of carbon dioxide versus the damage cost of one extra ton of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is

about $2. so we're asking people to say spent a lot of money to do a little good 100 years from now. that's very hard to do. what i want to have us start thinking about is should we rather think about cutting the cost of cutting co2. right now it costs a lot and only rich people in rich countries will do this. for people in rich countries will not do. certainly china and india will not give because they have much more important issues like, i don't know, theater population, cure diseases, make sure their kids get an education that they have much more important and immediate issues. what we need to make sure that we're actually going to deal with climate change in the long run, is to say we want to make sure that we leave our next generation, our kids and grandkids, but also the chinese and indians with much cheaper ways of fixing climate change. much cheaper ways of cutting co2. so i would argue what we really need is long-term solutions to a long-term problem. we need to say, and this is one example, one suggestion of what

we should do. i propose we should invest 0.04 percent into technology to the point is we have seen a dramatic decline in virtually all kind of research and develop and both of renewables of energy efficiency since the '80s, 80s that's been dropping and dropping. the kyoto protocol does not actually reversed that. because we are so focused on cutting emissions now, which we will do very build it at high, that we forget to invest in stuff that will long-term help us dramatically deal with climate change. i'm suggesting is your .05 percent of gdp, it would be much less almost 10 times less than what the kyoto protocol will be. yet it would be a 10 time increase in the research and development. this would be the way to get the world both energize about how we can solve this problem long term

by coming up with smart new opportunities. et to get people to do stuff it is cheap it is hard to get people to do stuff that is expensive. it is more competent, and we should focus much more on making sure we have renewable options and other options like carbon capture by midcentury. because then a lot of people will want to do it because it's cheap. rather than saying we have got to do while it is expensive now while two people do which will be two a lot political discourse. unlikely to a lot of failure in the future of treaties. so again the idea is to say let's make sure we solve climate change in the long run. but let's also remember there may be other issues. i've gone through and give you three different issues of saying yes, climate change is real, it's happening, it's exaggerated but we also need to get better policy. that lead into the fourth and last, the idea we need to get a sense that there are many other problems that we have to fix.

al gore talks very incessantly about this as our generational mission but it's true, it we should think about this. we should think about what will the future think of is that he talks about he would like us to be remembered by future as the guys who spent $180 million virtually doing no good 100 years from now. but the argument of course is if we spend even more, and do even less. because it becomes more expensive. we are cutting into the more normal degrees in temperature. i'm assuming that's not necessarily the best thing to be remembered for. we could solve all major basic problems in the world. we can get clean drinking water, basic health and education to every single human being on the planet. the question is, which one of these two are better? i think it's obvious answer. that we would much rather be remembered as a guide to fix all major basic problems that at

half the price. and the guys who did very little to solve very little at very high costs 100 years from now. this does not mean we should not focus on climate change but we should focus on a smart way. that's why i've been lucky to be involved in where we gather some of the world's top economists as the word you get the most bang for the buck? were due to the most good for the world's biggest problems that they actually came out and said there's lots of different things we can do for the world, but these are some of the best things you can do. you can actually invest in the prevention of hiv aids. it's not ashur and its prevention. incher free trade and prevent malaria. the acetone is also how much good you do for every dollar you spend. what they showed us was for every dollar you spent in preventing hiv-aids, you get about $40 worth of good. for every dollar on mount

attrition, you do about $30 good. but we would do really well because we still would do the world a favor about $15 for every dollar we spend. to prevent malaria is $10. the totals at the other end that implement the kyoto protocol will do very little. but only about $0.30 which is why they called it a bad investment. again the point is not to say that this is not a good thing to do. climate change is doing some good. it's just not doing very much good. that's what i want us to start being much smarter about what we need to do. we need to realize that climate change is not a hoax. it is not a catastrophe. it is a problem. there are many others which we need to fix what we also need to get back to saying it was going to fix climate change, we need much smarter strategy. global warming is real. it is not our top arty but it doesn't mean it's not a

provocative. we need to have a co2 tax. but we should also realize that's not what's going to cut it. we need to focus on smart solutions that and we also have to ask ourselves what do we want to be our generational mission? i would assume most of us actually want to leave this world a much better place. there are many other ways we can do that as well. we need to remember that. and the only way to get to the point is if we call our conversation and had a rational conversation discussion about what should we do first. i hope i helped provoke some of that argument that i'm looking forward to your questions. thank you. [applause] >> if you have a question, i would ask you to go to that microphone over there and have a little line from that

microphone. >> do you have a pen and paper lacks update. please only asked one question. or i will not be able to remember it. >> with this camera in my face i don't know if i'll ask even one. i'm an old man. i may not look it but i have been around a longtime. the first president i remember seeing was john kennedy as a young man in high school, i would suspect even in europe, the first one you remember is ronald reagan. john kennedy came in, more or less, a man of the people, for the people, ronald reagan came in as a man of the rich, for the rich and eventually for the corporations. the same people that may or may not be a part of your consensus on the part of the problem. they brought this problem to us. this is not an individual problem by us because maybe we use too many cans or we use too

much toilet paper. this is a problem of large-scale industrial production. my first one. second of all, i think you clearly cherry-picked the four most important things that you think global warming -- i shall. would you like to microphone? >> yes. spirit i think -- they are both point that the first president i remember is jimmie carter. then again, i think most people in europe, but the main point to get back -- i think we sort of have to live with the fact that we have this outside and i'm not going to lecture how you will make the u.s. a better place. but the u.s. is not the only place that has problems. look at britain which arguably the most advanced, we had tony blair arguing for 10 years that britain should get behind climate change policies.

and when they came into power in 1997, the labour party labour party, and he affirmed that britain was going to cut their emissions by another 50%. and they have, we have seen an increase of about 3%. it is a very, very hard thing to do. the second part, the cherry-picking, i would definitely say these are not the only four problems. [inaudible] >> i didn't get to my second part. the one question i'll frame it into one. it seems it is not the fact that climate change has caused a greater destruction of the food cycle, and the water cycle, both of which are much more dire concern for humanity and animal survival then before that you chose. are those not being disrupted on a grander scale? >> well, i'm very happy i get the chance for those two things. the food cycle actually, no, it

is true, and i'm sorry, i'm just going to point to the slight. there's a lot of things i don't show in this particular talk, but if you take a look at the food production here for agriculture. these are the assumptions we have for a wide variety of models of the coming 85 years or 2085. what you see is all the models estimate that we're going to see a reduction in production up to 1.4% reduction. i think the vast majority models we will show a decrease in production. it's important to remember, it is a fairly little decrease that we're talking about one year of production increased. so it's a problem for agriculture but i would also remind, this production serials for the globe of the next 85

years. this asserting not one of catastrophe. it is a problem and that's absolutely, that is a problem. the water cycle is a different issue. it's true we will see disruption of water cycle. i'm not sure where you are on that, but okay. basically we are going to see, for instance, a much lessening of himalayan glaciers which act as water towers. so the act is distribution of water so you will get more segregation so it looks like they'll have to build more capacity. it doesn't mean you get the same amount of water, that you will get it differently. dan from what you did before. that's an important point that you have to remember this is a boom right now. that basically mine as we for instant mind much of our force in 18 early 1900s. because we got rich in the process. they are basically mining their

glaciers. overall, if you look at the number of people who will get water stress, about 2 billion people are water stress right now. and we didn't have global warming and just had more and more people coming to the planet as we are likely to have by the end of the century, we'll have about 3 million people water stress. but with climate change, we are going to have a more active hydrological cycle. will have about 5% more precipitation in general. we will see only 1.8 million people being water stress by the end of the center pixel on the water cycle issue we have a net benefit for the planet but it's important to say it doesn't come without a distributional impact. we will see more people water stress in southern europe, and the western u.s. but we'll see many, many more people not water stress and southeast asia and in the northwest pacific. so we'll have a distribution impact. that's why this is a hard sell. southern europe or western u.s.

that's what i think it is important to talk about numbers. there we see a net benefit. again, the story isn't the one where you can't just take global warming is bad for good things and good for bed. that's unlikely to be true. it will have a bad impact but we have to have all the information. >> what would be your response to the argument that the debate over global warming has actually distracted us from what is a very real potential catastrophe, and by that i mean the collapse of the global ecological system? for example, china, with a population of over 1 billion people is growing at nine, 10, 11% rate for your. india at a rate of 8%. the united states, from 30 million at about 34%.

these nations are growing in an extremely ecologically destructive fashion, and also in a way that, we're talking about the pollution of aquifers. talking about the death of the oceans. we're talking about farmland turning into desert. were talking about the world population increasing by 50% in the next 40 years. and i don't want to believe this, but the evidence and the judgment of scientists who look at this see that the overall systemic problem of over stewed and collapse at the global level is a potential catastrophe that needs to be addressed and will not be solved by a blasé fair capitalist. >> i think there's something to be said to that argument. if we talk about the ecological system it seems to me to be one of the obvious examples of how

we focus on just one issue, biofuels discussion where we basically say let's have more biofuels. there's a huge reason why biofuels has gone online. there are a lot of farmers that have seen opportunities because there is exercised the. but what we are doing is taking food and turning it into oil. and very inefficient way. that's not a very good idea. it means we are worsening the opportunity, we're increasing food prices globally which has a huge impact on a lot of poor people who have to buy, especially many third world countries have to support most of the production. and the rich world most of the man of the poor world. but also of course we have a situation in indonesia is slashing rain forest to plant palm plantation to supply europe with the biofuels. that is a bad idea. we're had more fertilizer. will see much more of the

marginal lands that we have left out a production that will be taken into production. what this points out is we again are so focused on to something about climate change in the short-term that we forget, this is a long-term problem. second generation biofuels that use the stuff that we don't need is probably a very, very ineffective economically right now but we should invest much more in research and develop and that actually deals with that. . .

>> they pollute dramatically, and local pollution. that is also some of the problems that you can solve locally. and probably as they start richer they will. but they will, it seems reasonable to assume that they will actually confronted today with that. global population growth is a challenge. it is definitely a challenge we seem to be up to dealing with. this graph shows that we are able to deal with much increasing population, and it is important to get the understanding that this is not a by population growth. the peak in population percentage growth actually took place in the 1960's.

the peak national numbers to place in the early '90's. what we are seeing now is mainly an issue of a very young planet still getting a lot of extra kids because there are a lot the young people who have not had their own kids. something we can do for the about unless you want to do authoritarian, sort of chinese policy, and i just don't see how that could happen. with signs climate change most of these gangs are things that national government could get around to solving. deal with many of the other problems like malaria and hiv and malnutrition. >> thank you. i disagree with you that we don't need to make radical changes with regards to global warming, but for different reasons. my focus is on oil because it lot of your assumptions, our ability to solve these problems,

you are assuming that we are going to have plenty of oil and it will remain the same price. that is just ridiculous. other experts have said for 40 years which means in 20 years world economies will collapse. when economies collapse, people get antsy and wars begin. so i do agree that you have the right conversation, but everything you said here tonight, to me, is totally irrelevant. when you're not talking about oil i can't hear you. everything else, we are floating on that the layer yer of oil. when that disappears everything collapses. some again, what are your numbers? i saw your numbers and graphs. i have not heard any solid numbers to tell us how much oil we have left, how much time we have left, and what we need to focus on seriously. >> i'm sorry you tune out entirely when i don't talk about oil, but i'll talk about oil

now. it is a typical argument to say we are going to run out of oil. peak oil argument. i think it is a solution second. first of all, we know there is huge amounts of nonconventional oil available at twice the amount that we have of conventional oil in reserves available at $40 per barrel which be easily get to now. so we definitely have enough. that would have huge environmental consequences, but clearly if we actually have a situation where we want to use that and we are running out of conventional oil, no doubt that every democracy will turn around and start using those. of course we also have huge amounts of coal, coal for hundreds of years and very likely we will use those both in terms of political crises in the middle east, also simply china it's a very obvious and easy choice for the development. it's very cheap and locally

available. some of would argue that we have definitely got enough. that is also -- i would say the standard scenario will be climate. definitely enough fossil fuels to pollute the atmosphere much more than we are going to run out of oil. so the main idea who's to say you're going to run out of oil if you don't make -- you're not going to stop using fossil fuels if you don't make it much cheaper to not use fossil fuels because we are a civilization that runs on fossil fuels. i have a hard time imagining when countries make modest steps the population's basically say, sure, if it doesn't cost a cent into ahead. if it starts costing as anything when it started talking about energy tax people suddenly went from green to saying, no way.

>> i wanted clarification on the whitney graph. >> on the what? >> the whitney graph. >> yes. this one? >> yes. >> if i am not mistaken if this goes beyond just kyoto this is kyoto 2012 plus 1% compulsively after that. and the importance of that is, that is all the kyoto including the united states. the other point to be made is that currently everyone is talking about to achieve an 80% reduction, to achieve climate stability, that is the political number, and in fact, 80%

reduction in 2015 fits this graph. it is important to recognize that is not going to do anything either in terms of the p rojection. >> just to be clear, weekly actually had three different areas. one of them was a reduction of 1%. that is not the one i chose. this is the kyoto protocol forever. you stick to the same absolute number. this graph is the one that shows the calculation if we assume that everyone else just as by their standards. there is no carbon leakage, and that all the countries that do have restrictions stick to this restrictions for the rest of the century. >> the 1% additional reduction, the suggestion of this graph. >> it doesn't do very much different. the second point is, yes, as robert samuelson would love to point out in "newsweek," it is

true, though, a lot of countries and people have said they want to cut their emissions by 60 or 80%. just because of honest people want to cut 60 or 80% doesn't mean it's going to happen. had this conversation for the longest. the start of legislation that was going to save the -- great britain was going to cut their emissions by 60%. this is all just a grand gesture in because essentially the politicians are saying we will let the next generation or three generations down the line. a lot of the backbenchers cleverly said, it doesn't take a genius to say if you want to cut 50 to 60% by 2050 we should cut 3% every year. it's actually that much. there was a political bargaining. the main point is that everyone

got really, really worried because, no, no. we don't actually what this to happen. the whole government panicked and eventually they got it written into, we are going to do this in five years. the next five years really going to make an effort. and then another five years they will realize, this is going to be hard. revise the numbers, and they will find some way of dealing with the. basically this is just a very hard thing to actually achieve. that is why i think if we actually care about this when need to find things that are much, much more cost-effective, which is not going to happen with this problem. >> a quick question. everyone is being allowed to debate al gore? >> i don't know. that is al gore's decision.

i certainly think it is the conversation we should have. >> i found your work fascinating. i have what i think is a yes/no question. you spent ten pages arguing that ipc over reported climate sensitivity and the new report said that it actually went up. about to know if you will acknowledge you were wrong about that. >> i definitely argued that there was a tendency, and i still think that is true. there is a tendency to focus a few parameters. a ruling agrees that the general arguments of some of the very important things, for instance, not very well parametricized in the model. what i'd talk about here is simply much more valuable. if you want to extract an apology from me, it so much that i think our was wrong, but that did it is much more valuable to

have a conversation. i am much more able to talk a lot the red policies. that is what i'm simply saying about by to talk about that at all. and just calling to say let's take those that are given. i am not saying that deep in my heart i believe that everything that we could say about those models has been said, but i am simply, more making that in the 2001 book saying it seems like there is this tendency to look at some issues as we know in most modeling communities there are simply because that has become the way that we do things. i don't think it is a very interesting discussion. there are lots of people taking the discussion in the climate area. i would much rather talk about this in the social area of saying where can we do the best policies first. >> i guess my question isn't exactly in the social area. i was thinking about clouds, too. abbas just wondering if you

think there is any possibility at all global warming might ng t be due to manmade carbon dioxide that that it might be clouds, you know cosmic rays causing clouds of that thing ? >> i think that it is possible we might have got it all wrong. we need to act on the best knowledge we have today. clearly the best balance we are getting indications from, not a perfect approach, with the best we have, carbon emissions are a main driver. important to say it's not the only. clearly we came out of a little ice age which is definitely part of the cycle to be when people should these dramatic evidence is of glaciers we are sort of neglecting that is an overlay in the fact that we are coming out of the allies a jet at the glacier's probably have their absolute maximum ever on the planet. so it's not surprising vigor

that they are melting. we actually had a situation where there are virtually no glaciers on the planet. so the point is, we seem to fail to understand that there is also a huge amount of national variation. the point is we are overlaying this with the global warming that is happening within a very short time span. we are talking about hundreds of years, the kinds of years that we live in. that's why i think it's an important discussion to have. of blood like as to render that we have a hard time per and bring to said both sides of these argument. there i think it is instructive to look at earlier on. for instance, there was a fair amount of reasons about global cooling. we had seen temperatures started cooling. we have much better models. and not arguing they were equally right. notice will be worried about global cooling all weekend were about or all horrible things that global cooling her going to cause. rupert going to lose -- river

going to have less at the cultural production just like with st like al gore is about today. more tornadoes just like al gore talked about today. we were talking about the terrible prospect. perhaps the most interesting thing, malaria because of climate change is in isn't it cs that nobody said at least week are going to have malaria. i'm not saying that is an important point. it is not nearly as well backed up. it is also important to say that no matter whether temperatures go up or down the are likely to cause more damage than they do could simply because we are adjusted to where ever we are right now. it is important to say that recent have this binding globally been able to see the problems and not realizing that