ch a smarter approach that's good for farmers and i think good for taxpayers. another thing that this legislation focuses on is nutrition. and how we can encourage farmers to grow and people to seat more -- eat more healthful foods as part of their daily diets. we live in a country where sadly a third of the american people are overweight are on their way to being overweight; really maybe on their way to be obese. about a third of us. and the trend is not good. in terms of costs for health care, it is killing us. medicaid medicaid costs dialysis diabetes, hospitalization, loss of limbs loss of eyesight. and for our ability to fund medicare again same kind of challenges and hardships in the ability to compete with the rest of the world when we are so much heavier than they are. we know the four major cost

drivers in health care are one weight; two tobacco use; three high blood pressure; four, high cholesterol. if we could do a better job on those four fronts we be wee would be off to the races. we're making some progress in bringing health care costs down. but believe it or not this agricultural legislation is part of the solution because it, among other things, encourages us to eat a diet that is more healthy for us. it still doesn't mandate what people eat but it helps to encourage and to find ways to make healthier foods available nutritious foods available in places like health deserts where some communities some cities around the country where the only grocery store they have in their community is like the convenience store. there's nothing wrong with convenience stores but when that's the only place you have to buy fruits and vegetables and

they don't have them -- maybe bananas if you're lucky that ain't good. this effort along with the first lady michelle obama will reduce food deserts. in our state we grow not just corn and soybeans, we raise a lot of fruits and vegetables. most notable water melon but we do lima beans and other things as well. we grow those in the summer, fall and spring. we'll be able to bring them to markets in ways that benefits markets and consumers and also support programs like farm to school where we actually bring fresh fruits and vegetables from our farms and bring them actually to schools to feed our students. we also talk a lot around here, as my colleagues know, about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. as i said earlier mr. president, dependence on foreign oil in this country has dropped about six years ago

where 60% of our oil was from foreign oil now we're turning down towards 40%. we'll hopefully be there in another year or two. the a agriculture bill helps moves us in that direction. i joined senator stabenow in introducing earlier this year that would support the legislation for the expansion of biobased materials plant material which can be used to replace petroleum in our plastics. the dupont country, one of the major employers in our state and one of the great employers in this country for the last 200 years and around the world does great work, skpaoeugt work not -- exciting work not only to figure out how to use corn, as much as 300 bushels of corn over an acre of land. 30 years ago a farmer was doing good to get 50 bushels.

dupont is conducting an experiment showing we can feed ourselves and fuel ourselves. not only to take the corn holderrers, corn stalks, leaves, corn cobs and turn that into cellulosic ethanol. but also to take the by-product of some of the vegetables and some of the plants we're raising to create carpeting. as attractive as the carpeting here in this chamber. to create clothing. one of the great growth businesses for dupont at least is using plant life to create carpets. not to have to depend on petroleum to be able to do that. it's very exciting. it reduces our dependence on oil, particularly on foreign oil. but -- and it also creates new jobs in communities across our country, including my state and i suspect including minnesota where our presiding officer is from. another key investment this bill

continues, although at a somewhat reduce the federal level from what we saw in the 2008 farm bill is the bill's agriculture bill investment in conservation. conservation and the preservation of agriculture lands are key to the future in every state but especially important to a little state like delaware. these conservation investments are particularly critical to regions like the chesapeake bay to our west which delawareans marylanders and virginians are working hard to restore and protect. i might mention here, if i could, mr. president in terms of conservation, we had a big problem in our state. people like to come to delaware. we have great beaches in lewis and rehoboth and dewey and

betting -- bethany. people have a beach house and want to retire and maybe want to come to delaware. and it crowds out some of our ag land with concern what does it do for our open spaces and ag land. we wrote a program to preserve ag land and we've invested a fair amount of tax dollars with a lot of support for people who live in suburbs and cities as well as on farms to preserve farm lands. for a little place we've preserved a lot of it. i'm very proud of it. one of the best ways to preserve farmland is to make sure farmers can make money off of the land they're farming. if they're able to make a good income good years and bad years, if they have ways to get extra sources of income from the farms which include raising

corn, that can be turned into cellulosic biofuel and help fuel our country or provide the materials that are needed to create carpeting or clothing or to be a place that we can build maybe windmill farms or solar energy and deploy those and harvest that as well as the crops, those are ways to supplement the income of or farmers to promote conservation. but beyond that, the bill that we're looking at does focus some good attention appropriate attention on encouraging and nurturing conservation. i mentioned earlier in delaware we have about a million people for every person in delaware, we've got about 300 chickens. about 60% of the cost, i'm told, of raising a chicken is the cost of feed. in recent years the cost of feed including the cost of corn has risen dramatically. our new pages here, who are here for a three-week period, or

anxious to know how much it costs to feed a chicken. you can actually take a chicken from the time it comes out of an egg in about seven weeks or so it's ready to actually go to market. what do we feed them in the meantime? we feed them a lot of corn and we feed them a lot of soybeans. we've seen the cost of corn go maybe a couple of bucks for a bushel of corn to rise to as much as $7 or $8 per bushel. it's hard to pay that kind of money for corn and soybeans and -- to feed chickens and raise chickens and make money in the end. we've lost poultry in our state and other places because of the difficulty feeding the chickens with the high cost of soybeans. about 60% of the cost of raising a chicken is corn and about another 20% is soybeans. it is a tough business when

those prices have doubled and tripled. they have come down. we're work to go bring them down further. these strains have made a very profitable business in some cases unprofitable. that is why senator john boozman of arkansas and i have introduced an amendment to the bill. we hope it will be offered and adopted, folded into the bill, that makes it a priority at the u.s. department of agriculture research operation to kpwraouft efficiency -- improve the efficiency digestability for feed for livestock including corn soybean meal, and grains by-products. including the feed used to raise our chickens. other livestock hogs and cattle and so forth, we can provide the poultry and the livestock industries with a greater variety of feed choices to use in their operation which i hope will ultimately help provide some relief to these producers who rely heavily on these

commodities in their operation and still provide healthy food for us to eat. so let me go back, mr. president, where i started from and that is to ask this question: how do we get better results for less money in everything that we do? how do we get better results in just about everything we do for less money or maybe for the same amount of money? i think about that every day that i'm here, and i know many of my colleagues do as well. the bill before us, the agriculture bill, seeks to answer that question in a number of ways. they do help us get a better result for less money. not just a better result for the taxpayers but i think a better health care outcome result in reducing the upward trend toward obesity by making sure people who aren't eating the healthy foods they need, particularly fruits and vegetables, that they have access to those fruits and vegetables. on both of those counts, this legislation helps not just our farmers who are literally the lifeblood of this country but the rest of us too including

taxpayers. so i'll just wrap up where i started and ask the question, sort of rhetorical question of how is the economy doing? and we're still struggling, to some extent. it's better than was. but we know folks are having, in some parts of the country including some parts of my state are having a tough time finding a job keep a job make sure their kids go to college and make sure they have health care. we know there are challenges and we need to be ever mindful of that. i would say though, in terms of moving out of recession, i think the underlying fundamentals to the economy are not all bad and we should keep that in mind. one of the surest ways to talk ourselves into another recession having come out of the worst recession since the great depression -- we can talk our way into recession. we don't need to do that. we've seen consistent job growth in the private-sector side for over 24 months. manufacturing jobs for over 30

months. we need to keep a balanced view, knowing that there's still work to be done. ini was talking to this guy up here who follows the minnesota twins as the presiding officer pretty much, my guess is we're joined by the former governor now, the senator from north dakota my guess is he might be a twins fan too. i'm not sure. we vote for the phillies. i pull for the tigers as well for some reason i won't bore you with here today. but we need to hit a home run to really get the economy moving. in my view, the home run is a comprehensive bipartisan balanced deficit-reduction plan not unlike the bowles-simpson commission recommendation. when the vote is over we can pass something along those lines before the end of the year. for me that is a home run. in the meantime there is a bunch of things we can do to hit singles, maybe doubles to get the economy moving to create

that nurturing environment. among the ones that need to be done and finished with are transportation legislation to keep two or three million people working. we pass it here; the house has been less willing to help us find a good compromise. they need to. and postal legislation which really supports an industry of seven or eight million people. we passed bipartisan legislation here two months ago. we're still waiting for the house to move a bill eight months after they reported the bill out of committee. they need to get on with that. they did that, we get a good compromise on a bipartisan bill, on transportation, we preserve those two to three million jobs, free up a lot of money for transportation projects all over the country. that would be great and on the postal side help the postal service rein in its deficits, move towards self-sufficiency and make sure those seven or eight million jobs remain there and the industry strengthens. the last thing we need to do is find ways to focus every day on how do we get better results in everything that we do. how do we do that?

not just in defense spending, defense projects, not just education, not just transportation not just environment, not just agriculture. but all the above. and this bill doesn't help us rein in the growth of costs in some of those other areas but it sure does with respect to agriculture. it saves us about $24 billion -- billion dollars about what we would otherwise spend over the next ten years. and i think it moves us in the right direction in terms of healthy americans. it moves us to be a trimmer less obese population and a healthier population by virtue of eating our spinach and our broccoli and a lot of other vegetables and fruits that are going to make us healthier and maybe just a little bit leaner than we would otherwise be. mr. president, i think that pretty well wraps up what i wanted to say today. thanks for allowing me to do that. i think maybe i should yield the floor to my friend from north

dakota a recovering governor and a good man. i'm happy to yield the floor to him at this time. thank you mr. president. mr. inhofe: i'd like to thank my esteemed colleague not only senator but former governor as well. i think we have real opportunity here a real opportunity to pass a farm bill that will not only reduce the deficit but provide strong support as well for our farmers and ranchers. mr. hoeven: right now at this point, i think there's something like 250 amendments that have been filed on the farm bill. some are good and others probably not so good and certainly many amendments filed by both parties. some of them are germane meaning they actually relate to the farm bill, and many of them are not. but that means if we are going to get a farm bill, we've got to

find a way to work through these amendments and come to agreement on the amendments as far as the amendments that will be voted on and that's going to take some compromise on the part of both parties. and i mean that. we have to come together in a bipartisan way work together and come up with an agreement so that we can have a reasonable number of amendments brought forward and we can vote on those amendments and pass a farm bill. and we should be able to do it. we absolutely should be able to get that done because this bill accomplishes some very important things for our country. first, as i said, it saves money, $23.billion to help with the deficit -- $23.6 billion to help with the deficit and the debt. but also because it provides a very strong farm program and that's important not only for our farmers and ranchers but for every american.

it is important for every single american. good farm policy certainly benefits farmers and ranchers, but it benefits all americans. first, we have the highest quality, lowest-cost food supply in the world bar none. highest-quality, lowest-cost food supply in the history of the world. every american benefits from that. second, it is a jobs bill. you're talking about millions of jobs both on a direct basis and on an indirect basis -- millions of jobs. and if you want to talk about small businesses, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of small businesses across this country in every state -- farmers, ranchers, and all of the businesses that go with farming and ranching, hundreds of thousands of businesses. so it really is a jobs bill at a time when we need to get our economy going and we need to get people back to worth and its also about national security. think how important it is that we're able to rely on our own

farmers and ranchers across this country for our food supply. we're not beholden to other countries or relying on other countries, particularly countries that may have very different interests than we have for our food supply. so it really is an issue of national security as well. so for all these reasons and more, we need to move forward on this farm bill. we're talking about legislation that affects every single american. now, in addition to that, this is a cost-effective bill. it provides strong support to our farmers and ranchers, but as i said, it also provides real savings to help with our deficit and debt. agriculture is doing its part to help reduce the deficit and i'd like to go through the numbers for just a minute to demonstrate that. on an annual basis the farm bill ^+s about is about $100 billion

out of a $3.7 trillion budget. but the portion that goes to farm programs, that really goes to agriculture to maintain this network -- to maintain this network of farms and rages across the country is only about $20 billion actually less than $20 billion out of an annual budget of $3.7 trillion. 80% of the farm bill, per se, 80% is nutrition payments. so let's go through these numbers. how is the farm bill scored? how do we get to what's really spent and where it's spent and the savings that we generate with this new legislation? the farm bill is scored of course over ten years by the c.b.o. total cost -- $960 billion. 80% of that plus is nutrition primarily snap, which is supplemental nutrition

assistance payments, and the school lunch program. so approximately $800 billion of that score is nutrition less than $200 billion of the score relates to the farm program portion of the farm bill. but as we know, the farm bill is actually a five-year bill, five-year legislation not ten-year. so the actual cost is half that. it's $408 billion in total -- $480 billion in total approximately $400 billion to the nutrition programs i talked about, less than $100 billion over five years -- less than $is 00 billion or less than $20 billion a year is actually the farm program portion of the bill. well then back to the savings. $23.6 billion saved out of the portion that's less than -- or mostly out of the portion that is about $200 billion. in fact, out of what are truly farm program the commodity title and crop insurance you're talking about $15 billion in reductions another $6 billion in reductions out of the

conservation programs. so again, you can see we're taking about $23 -- those two programs alone is $21 billion of the $23 billion. only about $4 b.l.m. billion comes out of nutrition programs. on a five-year basis cut that in a but you can see we are reducing by 10% the funding that goes to support the farm program. that's a significant reduction. so now let's go back to my point about all these amendments that we have. on the order of 250 amendments, and we've got to get through them and have some agreement -- again on a bipartisan basis -- as to the amendments that will be brought forward and voted on as part of this package. we have the core bill that came out of the ag committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 16-5, strong bipartisan vote. that's the underlying legislation. we've got these 250 amendments. we've got to figure out somehow we're going to come together,

get agreement have votes on these amendments, some will pass some will not and move this legislation forward. well many of the amendments, as i say relate to the farm program portion of the farm bill. they either seek to further reduce the cost of the bill or seek to improve the bill. regarding the cost of the bill, the farm program portion of the bill is less than $20 billion a year. and we've already saved 10%. we're already reducing 10%. so no amount of amending for additional savings is going to make a large difference on the $3.7 trillion budget. further, as i said, since we've already reduced the 10% agriculture is doing its part to help with the deficit. think, for example if we bentence with through the rest of the -- if we went through the rest of the budget and were able to secure a 10% reduction out of

all the other portions of the budget. right? again, my point being, of course we have to find savings but we're doing it in agriculture. we're doing it in a big way. it truly is a cost-effective measure. now, there's also amendments that seek to improve the bill. okay and here i go back to the old saying, "perfect is the enemy of good." i get that there's a lot of amendmentsamendments. everybody wants their amendment passed. what this bill does is it already builds on the strengths of the existing farm program and makes the program stronger. the heart of this bill is enhanced crop insurance. that's what producers across this country told us over and over again they want, and it's what they need to continue to do the very best job possible producing the food supply that

we rely on throughout this country and many other countries throughout the world. enhangsed -- enhanced crop insurance is the tool they want. it is a market-based approach and it is cost-effective. in fact, we enhance crop insurance with what we call the supplemental coverage option. essential what i we do in this farm bill is we say okay, we're going to build on the core, on the strength of the existing farm program because that's what you the farmers the ranchers of this country have told us you want. as you do now the farmer goes out and buys his crop insurance and insures up to the level he thinks is appropriate makes the best decision he can and buying crop insurance on a cost-effective basis. but the higher level that you ensure the more costly it becomes to insure. so we add a new element called

the supplemental coverage appears. what it does is it says, once the farmers purchase their crop insurance at whatever level they feel is cost-effective, then they can come in and buy a secondary policy on top of that to insure at a higher level on a cost-effective basis. it is not farm level coverage. it is countywide consequently. that makes it more cost effective and makes sure that that farmer can continue in business. so they are able to buy crop insurance in a way that affords them better coverage. in addition, the legislation provides help with shallow or repetitive losses which farmers sometimes face due to weather. that coverage is called a.r.c. or the ag risk coverage program. these are voluntary programs, an effort to make sure that farmers and ranchers can ensure like other -- insure like other types of businesses and particular when weather conditions -- and continue

when weather conditions make it hard for them. i know some of our southern friends, some of our -- some of the senators from the southern states that feel that this bill for their farmers particularly for peanuts and for rice, some extent cotton, although there is a stacks program in this bill for cotton, they feel that there needs to be more price protection. and in fact we are working with them to do just thatment we have offered amendments, which i think we're making real progress on, that will help them with some of the price protection they want for the southern crops, particularly peanuts and rice and like i say they do have a product that i think they feel works for cotton but this would provide additional price protection for cotton as well. so again i think we're reaching out and doing the things we need to do with southern producers.

i hope to get their support on this bill as part of getting an amendment package that we can agree to and move forward on the bill. the other point that i think is very important to keep in mind relative to southern growers is that they will have additional opportunity in the house for some of the improvements that they may feel they need in the bill even though, as i say i think the underlying bill itself is very strong and we have, i believe, come to some agreement or gotten very close to some amendments that will afford them the further price protection that they feel is needed in the legislation. so that's where we are and i want to return to where i started. we have to come together in a bipartisan way both sides of the aisle have to come to

reasonable agreement on these amendments so that we can move forward with votes on this bill. i absolutely believe we can do it but i want to be very clear that it is incumbent on all of us -- it is incumbent on all of us to make it happen. this bill is not just about our farmers and ranchers. this is a bill that affects every single american, and it is time we come together on an amendment package and find a way to move forward and we gret this bill -- and we get it bill done for the good of farm country and for the good of the american people. thank you mr. president. with that, i note the absence of a quorum. and -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. hoeven: i yield the floor. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mrs. stab mao: thank you. i would ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, as we wrap up today and the week, i want to take a few moments to give a status report as we're moving forward in our negotiations on the farm bill. we've actually had some very good progress today and overcome

some obstacles and are putting together what will be something for the senate for the beginning of the week that will allow us to move forward. and i want to also thank the junior senator from north dakota, who i heard on the floor a little while ago senator hoeven, talking about the 250 different amendments that we have. and, of course, the great thing about the senate is that we can all offer amendments, whether they're relevant or not. the challenge for someone managing a bill is that anyone can offer amendments. and so we have worked our way from the 250 and -- and, you know, are working our way down from 50 down to 40 and -- and putting together an approach that will be fair and balanced and allow us to move forward and have the input of everyone on both sides of the aisle. so i want to thank senator roberts again for being truly a partner with me all the way

through this process and a terrific committee. and you heard from one of those members in the junior senator from north dakota in laying out what are really positive and important -- what a really positive and important bill this is for us. and i want to thank him as our newest member of our committee for all of his contributions as well. just to briefly recap as we bring the discussion to a close this week is the fact that we have 16 million people that work because of agriculture. they may be working in the fields. they may be packaging processing making machinery for agriculture. could be doing a number of things but 16 million people work because of agriculture. i'm not sure we can say any other individual bill that has been brought to the floor of the senate impacts that many people. 16 million people.

and as i've said so many times i don't believe we have a middle class in this country unless we make things and grow things. i'm proud in michigan we do that we make things and grow things. and the presiding officer's state of minnesota as well makes things and grows things. and that's the they think strength of our economy -- and that's the strength of our economy. and one of the bright spots for us, even during the deepest toughest times in the country and certainly in michigan, has been and continues to be agriculture. our major source of a trade surplus having seen the trade expand 270% just over a short period of time. we have jobs -- over 8,000 jobs created for every $1 billion we spend in -- we do in trade exports. so there are multiple ways in which this is a job bill, from production agriculture alternative energy, biomanufacturing whether it's

support for the critical needs of families under nutrition whether it's conservation where we have the largest investment in land and water conservation in our country on working lands made through the farm bill. this is important and it covers many many important subjects that touch every single person in rural america and every person across this country as consumers of the safest, most affordable food supply in the world. and so we have an obligation to get this right and to take the time to do it and that's exactly what we're doing. i'm so proud that had came out of committee with a broad bipartisan vote and that we had such a very strong vote to proceed to the bill. and now we are moving through the process of bringing us to the path to final conclusion. as we do that, i want to just stress again a few points. we could talk a long time

because this is -- this has got many many pieces to it. and i'm not going to do that this evening. but i do want to say one more time that to my knowledge this is the one piece of real deficit reduction done in a bipartisan basis. in fact, house-senate basis back in the fall that we've had before the united states senate. $23 billion in deficit reduction. so we all have an opportunity to vote to reduce the deficit something we all care about and we can do that while passing the farm bill. this repeals direct payments. four different subsidies are repealed. in its place we put a risk management system. so if there are losses, if there is a disaster on weather like we have seen in michigan, if there are other disasters on price declines world actions that create a challenge for our farmers or ranchers, we will be

there to make sure that nobody loses the farm because there are a few days of bad weather or any other risk that's beyond their control. however, if things are going well we're not going to be giving a government payment. we're going to cover farmers for what they plant and when there are losses. we're strengthening payment limits so we, again are focusing precious dollars to those who need it. and we end more than 100 different programs and authorizations that as we have scoured every single page of the farm bill and the usda responsibilities, we have found areas where there is duplication, redundancy, things that are no longer needed, and we have solidified, made things more flexible, cut duplication and in the process of that, we have actually eliminated 100 different programs and authorizations put $23 billion.

at the same time continued our commitment to families in this nation and children in this nation who have their own personal disasters and need food assistance help. we continue a strong commitment on conservation. we have over 643 different conservation and environmental groups who have come together to support our approach. 125 different agricultural and hunger groups and other organizations that say yes to this bill, and we are anxious to get it done. and so, mr. president i would just say as we conclude a very busy week and i have to say that it has been a very productive week, we began a process, we have had some votes we have had a number of folks come together. i want to thank people on both sides of the aisle for their willingness to work with this as we move forward on our path to completion of this very, very

important five-year bill, and i want to indicate to everyone that we will look forward to having the opportunity next week to present something to the body. so thank you very much. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: as if in executive session, i ask unanimous consent that the action of reporting the nomination of

erica lynn groshen be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i ask unanimous consent that on monday, june 18 2012, at 5:00 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination cal number 612 that there be 30 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of

h. con. res. 128. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk:. the clerk: authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitors' center to allowed a gold medal collectively to the montford point marines. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. franken: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be grood agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements be placed in the record in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today the senate he adjourn until 3:00 p.m. on monday, june 18, that the following -- that following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, the morning business deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day that the majority leader be recognized and that at

5:00 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: we continue to work on an agreement on amendments to the farm bill. we hope such an agreement can be reached at 5:30 monday there will be a roll call vote on the confirmation of the lewis nomination. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until monday, june 18 at

>> this is part of the world affairs and is 1.5 hours. >> good morning, bulger. welcome to living in a new climate paradigm. this is an old main chapel. this is an issue that we are all wrestling with. everything we do this morning is

being filmed by c-span, and it is especially important everything that we do get captured on a microphone. especially when we get to the q&a, we will ask you to speak into a microphone, not because we can't otherwise hear you, but because it can be recorded. we are going to start off by hearing from larry schweiger. he is the president of the national wildlife federation. in addition to his long and impressive resume on climate change issues, one of his other claim to fame is that he is an inspiring mentor to all generations. second, we will hear from doug. he is an associate lab director for the department energies in

the pacific northwest. he deals with all things having to do with energy and climate change. doug, if you're looking for a job, we would love to have you in boulder, colorado. third, we will hear from dan ferber. he has a knack for taking scientific issues and making them understandable to the reading public. in other words, a science geek that can communicate. that is a rare breed coming we are happy to have them with us. he also just published a book called changing climate, changing health. hopefully we will hear some of the insights from that book. my name is john. this deals with all things complex. she applies complex, adaptive systems, to complex problems in

different parts of the globe. this woman likes a challenge. we will start off with larry. we will hear from each speaker for about 10 to 12 minutes, and then we will open it up to all of you. >> thank you, susan committee's great to be here this morning. >> we are about 200 and 10 -- we have moved that number to 200 393 by the time of year the year is up. which is about a 3% of carbon dioxide. even though it is a minor constituent in the atmosphere, it is a major player in trapping heat and carbon dioxide has been trapping heat for some time.

rachel carson wrote a book called the sea around us. it she laid this out and quite good detail. fish and wildlife were moving further north in the northern hemisphere. in her book, at this very moment we are witnessing a startling alteration of climate in 1950. that happens to be the year that i was born. she was very perceptive in her observations about nature. nature has been the front line of our warning systems in our planetary conditions. this period that we have

enjoyed, it is really the period that all things -- all the great things we have accomplished has occurred. the scientists, more recently there have now been a couple of papers and published that we are moving into a new period, a new climatic period called the [inaudible name]. there has been a lot of discussion in the scientific community about the fact that we are on a course to this. what it looks like depends largely on what we do over the next few years to curb our carbon emissions. clearly, we are moving out of the paradigm that we have enjoyed for 11,000 years into a new time. a new condition on the planet. what does that look like? on to become anonymous know for certain. there are some things we can say about that. for example, there was a recent paper published that suggested a 2-degree rise in temperature it

would trigger, and is already triggering a melt. it is largely unstoppable. it will be a predictable slow melt of greenland. if you think about greenland being this massive hunk of ice sitting on an island currently it is something about 100 billion tons of ice into the ocean. if you go back a couple of decades, greenland produced no water flow to the ocean. we are ready seeing a very dramatic shift coming out of greenland. it cools the surface temperatures of the gulf stream. it tends to run on top of the warmer salt water. it has some potential, and has

been warned about in the past to change conditions in europe and elsewhere. nonetheless, greenland will be locked into a steady melt if we go into those degrees. i should tell you that a scientific team is working on taking all of the promises of all the governments to address crime and change and put this into the itc model. it looks like we are going to tip over the 2-degree mark with all of our promises. even though we are not going to live up to our promises, if you assume that we are, we are still headed towards a great impact on greenland. as greenland melts, we will add a 1 meter rise in sea level which will shift situations and displays 100 million people on the planet, who were living in

these mega-deltas living on islands, living in coastal areas. these people will be pushed out of their place. they will have to find a new place to live and produce their food and that is particularly critical in places like egypt where the delta is already in serious trouble. as sea level rises, there are going to be places like that. coastal louisiana is another place like that where we will see very severe shifts as a result of these melting conditions. storms will increase as well. i will leave others to talk about that. what we will see as we raise the temperature about 1 degree celsius, we see the percentage increase of moisture. that additional moisture causes an impact. it has already today, if you step back and look at the data. even already, while we are at

entering into this changing period, we have about 2% less veritable land today as a result of climate change. if you add to that the fact that we are going to 7 billion people to 9 billion people you can see that we have a climate that is shifting quite dramatically. part of the brain is carbonic acid. achy legs in the ocean. it interferes with how the update. the oceans have seen an increase in carbonic acid. >> it makes life a lot more difficult because you're going to have a harder time collecting

the calcium they need because the creates a calcium deficiency. we are seeing that already. plankton is down 40%. that may not matter to some but it is actually one of the great engines of our oxygen production. about 50 to 70% is derived from the oceans primarily from phytoplankton. we are messing with systems of the planet as we shift our behavior in the direction of more carbon. i would want to add this to the conversation, and that is if you add up everything that everyone is doing to deal with climate change, we are actually turning the temperature up. if you have a pot boiling over on the stove, who would run over and turn off the temperature? that is not what politicians are doing. they are turning it up. we have to change the nature of our energy policy today in order

to protect our children tomorrow. there are things we could do in terms of adaptation but clearly we are headed for trouble. the model suggests that we will lose somewhere between 17 and 37% of the species if the temperature goes up over 2 degrees. if it goes much higher than that, we are going to see 40 to 70% die off in the planet. the notion that we can throw species off the planet and still survive ourselves is purely humorous. that is what we are doing as we continue to put carbon in the sky. a couple of years ago my daughter asked me to come into the delivery room and watch her brand-new baby into the room. and she said that i want you to cut the umbilical cord.

i watch my daughter deliver her child. and the little guy came out and the doctor handed me the scissors, and i have to admit, i was deeply moved by the movement and seeing my new red child. i was also deeply concerned for my grandchild's future. i wanted to rededicate myself to that future. i made a promise that i would continue to fight this battle for his future. i must've been taking too much time, because the doctor said that well, are you going to do this or what? [laughter] i really believe this is a moral issue. it is no longer an issue of science. as we move down the road, we are seeing the signs signs that the scientists have warned us about. we are seeing the changes in our forests as trees die off. we are seeing very dramatic shifts in nature. it is up to us to change the

outcome for our children's future. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> it is great that i get to follow and i will spend a little bit of time talking to you about what i think the scholarly community refers to as impact of vulnerability referred to with science and climate change. i'm not going to mitigate climate change. i think there is lots we need to do, we are not doing everything we could be doing.

unless it comes up in the q&a i'm not going to talk about that, but i care about that as well. i have a lot to say. what i do want to talk about again, is what is likely to happen. the temperature going up. we have argued that enough carbon in the atmosphere to cause that temperature rise to recur. as larry indicated. i think what we are going to have to do is think about what that means and what we could do to reduce the vulnerability of the planet and the human beings on the planet. the take home for me is given that change is going to happen, and we have some idea of what those changes are going to be, but there is certainly uncertainty in what those changes will be. the most important thing to realize that's the most significant impacts are going to

happen in the developed world. as we seek to help underdeveloped nations attain the quality that we have in galatians, it is our aim to help them it is our aim to help them get there in a sustainable way. the other sustainable mechanism, it will actually build and strengthen their adaptive capacity to respond to the changes in the climate that are undoubtably coming. some of them are coming, and some of them will be very serious. let me go through a brief outline of some of those changes to give you a flavor. i will amplify a couple of them. we can expect to mitigate changes in river flows all over the globe. ten, 20 30 40% changes in river flows. increased river flows in the northern areas and tropical,

temperate latitudes that get plenty of rain. in areas that are typically dry like here, in the western united states -- probably reduced brain -- river flows. many ecosystems are likely to be experiencing change. if there is an external change, the ecosystem can ecosystem can purely evil to evacuate. some changes occur. they are significant to particular species but in aggregate, the ecosystem is fine if the change is moderate. it is almost certain this century, the adaptive capacity and resilience of many systems will be exceeded. that's that is probably what you would call a tipping point as you see in the popular

literature. and the popular press. we will suffer very significant disaster is consequences for those ecosystems. carbon uptake by ecosystems, not necessarily the ocean, but by those on the land, are likely to increase in peak by the midcentury. then they will turn around. that is what the best science tells us. that means after mid century those ecosystems will start reducing their uptake of carbon. this will amplify the change that we are driving going forward. we will see by the midcentury frankly fairly, relative to what we are going to see in the latter half of the century, what we are going to see in the first half is going to be fairly moderate. the bad stuff comes later. that is really what the point says.

that is the best likelihood. interestingly enough, the potential for food production is projected to increase globally. that is probably a good thing. there are a lot of people that don't have enough. but in my mind, i always try to search for a positive, because i don't like to be a downer. it pales in comparison to the negatives. there is one little positive and that is food production. coastal areas and islands will be exposed to increased risks. africa and the asia pacific is especially vulnerable. this is to my point that we, in the united states and canada, we in the developed world, are not going to be impacted directly that much. real impact on the most significant impact is going to happen in these areas in asia and africa, exacerbated by the

fact that those societies don't have much capacity. we can contemplate -- contemplation in europe in the netherlands and europe to build bigger dams and sites. they can, indeed, that is a great mitigation strategy, i guess it is an adaptation strategy, and that nation and others like it, including ours have the capacity to actually execute a plan like that if we choose to. well, you know, bangladesh doesn't have that anymore. they lack that adaptive capacity. they are in a deep -- the future looks much bleaker for those that lack that adaptive capacity. building a capacity is very important. health impacts will vary from location to another, and you will hear from my fellow subsequent speaker so i'm not going to say anything more about that. but let me emphasize, the final

commons, the future and vulnerability depends on not just how much the climate changes, because i guess at this point, you know, it's going to change the question of how much. that is in our hands. especially be at risk people of the world. we can have a big role in that as well. there is a very important connection between sustainable development and climate change. that is the final thing i want to leave you with and with that, i will take your questions and pass this on to my fellow panelists. thank you very much. i'm not. [applause] >> thank you, doug. next up is dan ferber. >> thank you for coming out this morning. thank you for hearing about this critical issue. larry and doug have both

sketched out a clear view of the bigger picture. and i want to give you the specifics of the new climate paradigm. and this is boulder colorado and i thought about throwing in some aspects that are not familiar to a lot of people. so talking about projections going forward, we just heard about some of these projections. i worked extensively over the last few years with the associate director of the center for global health and environment. one of the things that he did, one of the projects he and his center did a few years back it's put together a large multidisciplinary team of experts and make projections

about scenario planning which the military uses. you can't have the mathematical work computer model figure out what exactly happens, but you can still create scenarios and use an educated guess from the top experts. that is what they did. they came up with two possible scenarios. what happens if climate changes move forward based on information from the itc and others. in the milder summer when -- sea levels rise things that we have heard about, water supplies on the coast and on islands become donated so fresh water is hard to come by. it is hard to grow food in those areas. coral reefs are damage to the point of the extension of the ecosystem. perhaps not, because they have lost a long time.

the more severe scenario is the sort of thing that doug is talking about, which is tipping points. some of the things we are seeing, like drought and dying forests. we are seeing that with bark beetles and of course, new trees will grow, but we are talking about major changes in the ecosystem. and also changes from carbon sinks and sources in some areas. some of this will collapse in some of the more severe scenarios. more severe storms challenging our nations, such as hurricane katrina. more disease, and i will talk more about that in a minute. that actually is not the worst

possible scenario. the worst possible scenario is something that most people don't think about, which is the possibility of an abrupt climate change. we know how climate has behaved over 800,000 years or so from analysis of basically air bubbles trapped in greenland, you can look at every layer. if you look at the air using the ratio of isotopes come you can figure out what the temperature was when the iceland. what that analysis has shown over the past 15 or 20 years is that climate has -- we are in a very unusual period right now because it is stable. more typical is up and down and up and down and a little bit of stability. we are talking about changes could be on the order of 10 or 20 degrees fahrenheit average global temperature -- they could be as quickly as a decade or as quickly as three years.

these things have happened. they have been -- the last one was about 12,500 years ago as we were coming out of the last ice age. what happens if we do get something like that? in our book, we talked about an analysis that was done by some consultants for the pentagon. this is a very detailed analysis based on extensive interviews with scientists a few years back. this is what they came up with. they worked out a scenario of more fresh water off a of greenland, changes in the ocean current, changing of the climate regionally, particularly europe, the east coast, and north america. here's what they found. the scenario was warming, then sudden chilling of north america, europe, and asia. the southwest is drier. the southwestern u.s. was drier. europe got a lot colder. the climate in northern areas

was like siberia. people start moving south from scandinavia because it was too cool to live there. crop yields globally about 10 to 25%. they couldn't beat all those people in china because of increased crop yields. in this scenario -- whenever this is for the planet, so this is the pentagon's best guess. u.s. has to secure borders because we have to keep out immigrants. aggressive wars will be fought over resources. this is the worst-case scenario. the global economy suffers on the realm of 1930s depression or worse. basically, the world becomes resource have and have-nots. that is what the world would become under abrupt climate change scenario. now, is that going to happen? nobody knows. science is not dare to predict whether the climate will shift abruptly. in complex systems they can

undergo tipping point. if you are riding a bicycle, it wobbles a lot more before you call. what are the signs that are climate system is wobbling? extreme weather. extreme weather is happening. last year, for example, 60% of the united states experienced extreme weather, the drought in texas, wet conditions from indiana to vermont terrible flooding in vermont and on and on. that is 60% -- that is the highest area ever in any given year of areas that experienced extreme weather. how does that play out? well the number of billion dollar insurance disasters has skyrocketed since 1980 from too 14.

global interest of these are really feeling the pain. just move on so we don't know if climate is going to flip, but there is some pretty scary things happening. climates are stable, but the good news is that we don't want to be pushing the system any further. in our book, we use an analogy by a scientist named [inaudible name], and what he said is what we are doing for the climate is basically like poking an angry beast with a stick. this is primarily about the human health effects.

he believes are the most dangerous type of natural disaster. even though we do have ways of dealing with it the 2003 european heat wave killed many people. it killed about 50,000 people and it also affected agriculture in the area. what the climate model and national climate model says is that if we don't cut back on greenhouse gas emissions think back to chicago in 1995, which is one of the most infamous heat waves -- that kind of heat wave could have an every other year or every year. and a heat wave like your could happen every other year. that's what the climate model predicts. you are expanding the range where insects can carry infectious diseases like malaria and ticks that carry lyme disease. you have asthma and allergies,

the higher the carbon dioxide levels have triggered more pollen twice upon according to some science. the pollen is more pointed. i the pollen is more potent. we also talked about ecosystem going over the edge. it trees crops the agriculture scenario. i love the good news but there is also some complications that go along with the signs there, too. in terms of rising temperatures and more heat wave and shout and extreme weather affecting crop yields. there is a lot of concern for how this will affect us. this is not about polar bears. this is about people.

i will talk more during the questions. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. our last panelist meryl. she's one of the delegates at the conference just on the road. >> thank you, that is because i have been around a long time. [applause] >> i had a feeling i was going to be listening to wonderful experts on a very dystopian future. i would like to respond with the

potential for some good news. we have to balance what we know is happening scientifically. that is what i want to talk about. i made some notes as the guys were talking. i do want to pick up on some of the important things that my sting which panel have to say. in regards to a germanic shift in nature he mentioned, also we have to change our energy policy. our organization, which is an organization that applies complex adaptive system science, which is very hard science which is how to transform the diplomacy and issues around the world that are completely stuck and at impasse.

we go immediately in these negotiations to what i call systems level -- the whole systems level. for example, it isn't enough just to change energy policy. if we just keep looking there we are going to miss the fact that we have to shift their way that we, as human beings identify ourselves in the universe. we have to start. we have to start acting like nature. i am a big fan of a book written about 12 years ago. but i'm sure you all know this word. tran-sixes about the the shift

in climate change. if there is a shift going on in nature the shift has not happened in our brain. and in our worldviews and in the way we think about this. lastly, i was at the united nations facilitating on behalf of the prime minister of bhutan. how many of you know where bhutan is? singled out on -- if we measure how humans developed, or how we progress, in a new way, then perhaps if we begin to change our world view and our mental models, and you can measure something, it becomes

real. we only measure in terms of economic development. that is how we measure progress. until we stop doing that and until we begin to think -- i hate to call it anti-growth, but we have got to stop this unlimited growth paradigm. this, perhaps come is a system level intervention. the reason that i was at the u.n. last week was bhutan has been playing for -- playing with this for about 25 years. we have talked about the failures of rio 20 years ago. a lot of things happened 20 years ago. we have negotiated agreements with so-called sustained development and nothing happens. here it is 20 years later we

are getting ready for the rio plus twenty, and we need something that will push people into action. we are trying this with the gross national happiness index which is a very sophisticated index of human progress and development. hopefully, we are going to be able to -- and i want all of you to help -- i'm going to be saying is that every panel i'm on this week -- hopefully we will be able to get this on every agenda at rio, which starts in just about eight weeks in june. i wanted to mention that. changing energy policy isn't enough. we have to change hearts and minds, and we are trying to figure out how to do this. in the panel i was on yesterday, i got a question from the floor about how we change health of

the mind? how you change habits of the mind, so that there is a possibility for some kind of profound change? i said to him, one of the things we are looking at, because i am a complex of the scientist, is meditation. this is not a question of religion. this is a question of the fact that we can look inside our brains with her new technologies , such as an mri and we can see parts of the brain that light up. when different activities are introduced, and what we know from the contemporary brain most people who meditate on a regular basis, which i now believe we should all be doing, is that there are changes in the brain that lead us to become not just more compassionate but more in touch with the whole that we are a part of.

which is one of the ways i know we can possibly come back to nature. i am going to be talking on my next panel later today. it is a nuclear weapons panel. our organization -- our organization brought in -- we do a lot of negotiations. we are testing new processes and how you transform diplomacy and tough issues. this is a natural -- we have the luxury and privilege of bringing and the iranians, the israelis, and koreans. one of the things that we did is put meditation cushions in the room without saying a word. there were delegates from many cultures in our meeting. we took a break and every lunch

break the cushions were filled. and we never said a word about it. the delegates would come back to negotiations and negotiations are a very open space that is one of the things we do differently. they would be renewed. even if they never sat and meditated for 20 minutes in their lives. and we never suggested that they do that. i have to mention that. one of the techniques that we are testing is futures planning. we are using scenario building as well. but i think we do it in a little bit different way. what we do is as those delegates -- we say please put the victimization that we are all going through -- the victimization of the present and pesticide, and the lets to see just see if we can come up with a future scenario. even at the time verizon, 10 years from now or 50 years from now. and force you to think about the positive of the future.

boy, let me tell you it took two meetings, the third meaning before it the guys could go there. it was very difficult for adults to be because we are so trapped in the present. but we want to see this possible there could be a better future. we have been testing now. once you go to the positive future, and you say well, i don't know if this could happen, but this is what we came up with -- then we asked them to say what steps happened? and we ask them to go back to the future and recollect what steps happened. that is something that creates breakthroughs. i wanted to mention that. i am hoping that developing countries get their futures aligned. once again, have to say -- there

is the flight in the world in terms of this tiny little country, because they are trying -- they are trying hard to do differently, and they are beginning to succeed. let me know when i'm out of time. [laughter] because i am not looking at my watch. we also talked about the multidisciplinary teams of top experts. i just got a book called here comes everybody. i'm a big fan of occupy wall street. the age of the so-called expert is over. we are all experts now. we all have to come to the table to solve this problem. and leadership emerges everywhere throughout complex systems. they are depressed by hierarchy, because that is still the way the world works.

there is leadership at every level. what complex scientists say is that [inaudible] if we can promote a broader leadership and then a lot of people, especially in the press, don't understand this idea of a leaderless, self organizing system, this is what is happening now, and what we need to do to solve these problems. the expert panel -- we mixed experts at her negotiation with people who don't know very much about the issue. artists, writers etc. psychologists could that makes a real difference in her negotiation. finally, i want to say how grateful i am that the pentagon has discovered that global climate change is a national security issue. it is about time.

where is all the money? it is right there. maybe they will start putting some new money into some new ideas for how to address these problems. and they are way ahead in terms of having the resources at looking at scenarios. thank you so much. i am just so grateful and pleased pay attention to rio plus twenty and urge the growth they are and national happiness to be on the agenda. thank you so much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you to our panel. they have given us a lot to work with this morning for a interesting and lively dialogue. i forgot to introduce myself. i am suzanne jones and i am a member of your boulder colorado, city council.

one of the prerogative of being a local elected official is that i get to ask the first question. let me just remind you whoever asks a question needs to get to the man with the microphone -- the man with a microphone will get to you when we get to the questions. i guess what we want to do as we start things off meryl just throughout some very provocative ideas. i just wanted to give you guys an opportunity to respond, if you would like come since we started off with some heavy-duty depressing science. and ended on a hopeful note that we cannot solve this together. i want to allow little interplay here. >> absolutely. i think that was tremendously encouraging because i have paid attention to what has been happening in the yukon. i have been doing this for a wild. the fact that this is now merging with the movement towards sustainability is a

tremendous development and incredibly encouraging. my personal belief is that people actually come despite all the depressing news i just gave you, people are actually motivated to a positive and i want people to actually move and change. there should be a positive goal. scare tactics don't work on people. they just shut down in general. having a positive goal and a vision of a healthier future which is what we, you know i will be talking about that during some panels later in the week, in terms of the vision we laid out and changing health. it is just tremendous to merge the school of happiness in having meditation to get there with the larger goals of a sustainable society. thank you for that. >> my observation would be that the expenses i had getting back to the notion that we are relying too much on experts --

the average person out there -- i have been struggling with the notion of [inaudible name]. on my facebook page i posted a question and sought advice from the various friends that i had on facebook. we had quite a lively discussion about what was a better name for it interposing. the one we ended up settling on is video singh -- idiosync. i like the term. i use it quite often. >> i just want to quickly, but i do think that we are somewhat

trapped with the index that we used to measure human progress. it is not just about money, i think we would all agree with that. i think figuring out how to replace the current metric with the gross national happiness index. it would be a spectacular thing thank you for bringing that up. >> all right. let's turn to the questions. you win the prize. [laughter] >> you talked about, i know you mentioned, mr. dan ferber, that the insurance industry, even in a conservative environment like that -- they can acknowledge and recognize that this is impossible economically. you can draw together from the 2011 history. there is a financial impact.

there is a tie together between the ramifications of this end business. and also economy. i worked in insurance and technology, and they are predicting analytics to stop late models that will allow them to determine what those economic costs will be. how can they change their underwriting methodology and get people in the field quicker to mitigate disaster. i know this happens in other industries too, energy and the supply chains, isn't there a way in which we can almost fight fire with fire a little bit? working towards using some of these new technologies and tools to extrapolate the economic impacts, and also talk in terms in the way our government sees things today. that paradigm moving towards happiness, the gross domestic good, in some way, a quantifiable positive versus negative ledger to look at.

using something like predictive analytics. couldn't you move that model a little further towards the present to be able to say, okay we can take these models and look at the economic long-term across all of these different impacts? and bring that to the table? >> let me try to respond to that, if i may. one of the things that happened in the climate debate is we kept talking about the cost of addressing pollution. but the opposition really constrained us from talking about the benefits. if you look at economics looking at the cost without the benefits doesn't make much sense. one of the things that we want to acknowledge, we are working with the reinsurance industry. our federal flood insurance policies are disastrous. i'm headed to florida this afternoon to talk more about this and how it impacts florida.

the state of florida has had such severe flooding and storms in recent years, that they can't just be insurance industry can't afford to play there anymore because of the expense. the state of florida decided in its wisdom, that it would take up the reinsurance business. it has been underwriting the insurance. the problem is they can't afford to do that. it is a terrible way of allocating risk and it is headed for a complete collapse at some point in time when they get a bad storm. we are going to try to make the point in florida. that they need to underpin their state insurance program with actuarial insurance standards, and actually private sector risk distribution. ..

to better predict the kind of extreme events and in insurance as you know it's all about predictable risk and pricing it properly and that is the business model so that is one thing i wanted to mention. another bigger picture in terms of having a puppet is -- positive you economically if i could boil down what you were saying i think that is what

you're asking, is her positive vision that we could move towards? it's a little bit dated now from six or seven years ago but the sterner review did that. if you're familiar with the sterner review he was chief economist for the world bank and put together a mage or economic report about 2005 that the punchline is by investing 1% of the global gnp, you end up preventing much more damage down the road and 1% is something that we as a world could afford them and can still afford so the investment that we need to make is not overwhelming. we can do it. that is sort of the bigger picture beyond the insurance industry. about the insurance industry i want to make one more point which is, and the more the insurance industry advocates the better. i think the reinsurance industry has really been fairly strong in advocating even though they are the conservative culture but

they know about this and they are working at this. but the association of insurance companies -- i don't get the impression that they are pushing for climate action as much as the reinsurers are. i could be wrong. they may have changed in the last few years, so correct me. one thing the insurance industry could do and has historically done is push for rules and regulations and laws that reduce risk. for example insurers are the reasons and we have fire safety codes and building codes -- you know is the reason for things like seat else. those are things that insurers have always been for because it's in their business interests to do so. so, if the insurance industry as a whole, which is one of the world's largest industries, i think the largest masses could take a more active role and

really advocate and look at the big picture and advocate for strong climate action. you are protecting our own interest going forward and if you want to have a business in 40 years, because like florida is a case in mine at some point things become uninsurable and the flood insurance example is a great example of that and if things become uninsurable, then the market shrinks. so insurers have a very strong interest in pushing for strong climate action and moving toward sustainability. so i would certainly encourage anyone in that industry and you people know a lot more about it than i do, but really push for that. >> all industries to sacred and other industries also use the predictive analytics to more quickly ascertain what their long-term costs are going to me -- be in making long-term suggestion because it seems like dogma. we are caught in this gridlock.

why don't other people look at economics like that? >> i think about the insurance industry also, but i also know that we are in a nonlinear future. i don't know about predictive analytics but i do know something about nonlinear mathematics because i -- not that i'm a mathematician but i worked with nonlinear math additions for four years. you cannot predict what is going to happen and if we continue to think that we can, because we have new patterns emerging now. i sometimes call the science of complexity for signs of emergence and sometimes i call it the science of surprised. and abrupt climate change would be one of those. this is a -- to the system that nobody can predict because the patterns are emerging now and we have never seen these patterns

before. so if we can let go a little bit about the need as human beings, once again change our mental model, arnita control and predict, we may come up with some new ideas if we keep focusing on that. i think we are going to lose the opportunity for some creative thinking. the other thing i want to say though is i agree with you, the insurance business worldwide can be a catalyst for other businesses in pushing ways to make ourselves safer and this new climate paradigm and that is one of the ways that people can change their habits. we talked about fastening seatbelts for example. that is a huge change for people, so that is the role i think of the insurance industry and could be a catalyst, a pioneer for the rest of businesses. trying to use analytic predictive methods i think is going to fail.

>> alright, another question. >> i have a couple of questions. the first one is about, i am wondering why the population predictions remain the same despite the protections for more disasters and more infectious diseases so that is my first question and my second question has to do with how do we overcome the barriers to contemplation when we have so much standing in the way such as the ear buds and cell phones and all these other distractions? so those are my two questions. >> i want to tackle the first one. >> come on you science people. >> this is totally from a non-science perspective but the idea that our population is going to go to $9 billion has

been a modeling done by the u.n. and others. you know i think getting back to this notion that we may not be fully aware of what is in store for us we may see that number change either up or down depending on perhaps catastrophic events are changing behavior. because we stabilize populations more aggressively in light of changing climatic and world conditions so you know, i have seen in my lifetime when i was born we had 3 billion people on the planet and now we are 7 billion people so in my lifetime i have seen more than the doubling of the population so there's this incredible engine out there that keeps pushing that number upward and because we are able to find food and improve the conditions of people around the world, we have seen an acceleration and also provide medical treatment throughout the world. we have seen a real change so i don't put a lot of weight in

that but i do believe that we are going to be seeing an increase on that and that is as much as i can say at this point. we will learn more as i go forward but i think there's a fundamental shift we also need to realize. this planet about 40% of the total energy from photosynthetic synthesis process is going into the human population so we are now gobbling up more and more of a natural reserves of this planet, less and less being left behind for other species. i think that is a more fundamental, high-level question to be asked. how far can we go before we start to collapse the entire system? how much land can we devote to agriculture and to aggressive force management and that sort of thing without disrupting the fundamental fibers of the ecosystems of the planet. >> let me take a stab at the second question.

>> there was a second question about howard going to get people to be contemplative and there are all kinds of ways to do this. you can do that here in boulder hiking. that is a form of meditation i believe. we have to get the ear buds out of our, out of our ears for a little while and get off of our computers for a little while. for me it's a part of daily life like rushing your teeth. so i think if it becomes habitual, it becomes something that is easier to do. harder for kids, harder for kids but in the neuroscience world, the fact that this helps kids down regulate is the term they use from all the, all the things that are coming at them all the time in their daily lives. it is very helpful for changing behavior. so we keep trying as gently as

the canon by the way i have six grandchildren in boulder. i don't live here. i was very touched by larry's story about the birth of his first grandchild and i think about my six grandchildren in boulder all the time and what their future is going to be like. i'm grateful that they live in a place where people meditate. >> that is sort of what i wanted to reflect on their question about. the ear buds and technology. i was reminded, certainly so much of what has happened in the arab spring has has been enabled and catalyzed by the use of those very technologies. i don't know if they use an air but to do that sort of stuff is certainly the portable technology has been a powerful catalyst for positive change so not always of course but just as tremendous potential for using those approaches to move beyond

the expert systems which in some cases have kept people down. but in that example, it was all about the nonexpert people younger people in many cases, picking up and relating to one another and really moving forward. a pretty powerful change and i don't know if it will apply in the space we are discussing now but it's been a great thing in this world. >> that is a great point and i just wanted to add one small point to that, which is that the idea of crowdsourcing solutions to problems has really caught on in science and in other fields. it is catching on. and it has had some pretty amazing successes. just one example i wrote about a few months ago scientists had tried to determine the structure of a protein from the hiv virus for a long time and hadn't been successful even using the fastest supercomputers and so

they ended up working with gaming scientists, made a game out of it put it out there and you have dozens and dozens of people around the world playing games and it became a three-dimensional puzzle. they solved the structure of the protein in three weeks and it had been years that they hadn't been able to do it. that is an example of not just gaming as well but what crowdsourcing can accomplish. in addition to communication, that is an important tool in dealing with complex systems. sustainability is complex. anything is complex so we need everybody on board and we need everybody's thinking too. we are all intelligent people here and we need all of you. >> alright, another question. down here in front. >> i used to study the economics of wartime mobilization and i

would like to ask the panel and everybody here to reflect on the question of whether the thread moves by climate change -- caused by climate change is a bigger or smaller threat than the threat adolf hitler imposed on civilization many decades ago? i would give you my answer climate change is the worst threat than adolf hitler was. if that were correct, then it would have enormous implications in the way we think about cost in the way we think about economics in response to the climate change problem. when the u.s. got involved in world war ii its way of thinking about economics turned over became arguably right side up again, namely starting to think about not the money and the financing but with the real system could do what can the real productive system do what it has to respond to an enormous

challenge? in my view we have to go to that kind of economics in order to cope with the climate change problem and it is not impossible to do so and it does not imply in any obvious way enormous sacrifice. the x. in the church or capital went up in world war ii and united states. >> that is a great way of framing the question. i actually wrote a book two years ago called last chance to reserve life on earth in one of the things i said in that book was if we had an enemy nation at our shores with ships ready to launch an invasion, would we sit around and ask if the economics were such that we should prepare for that as a nation? we certainly would and this is that kind of time. is that kind of time and i think it's a good frame for thinking about this. i want to add a comment about the notion of abrupt change because i think that's an important issue. we don't know if we are going to experience abrupt change but let

me take you to a place near my home in western pennsylvania. the stream is called slippery rock creek and in slippery rock creek there are boulders as big as this room yet the stream itself is a relatively tiny stream. turns out that when the last glacier melted it melted so abruptly that the change, shift away from the last glacial. not 11,000 years ago was so abrupt it tossed a big old versus the super glacial lakes broke loose and flooded this alley. so i think it's absolutely evidenced in our history and the evidence of how these systems has shifted is such that we should anticipate the notion of an abrupt change in the system because it has happened before and it certainly can happen again. >> we have some students in the back. >> greenland were to melt and the water levels rose could that

create another ice age? >> repeat the question. >> would that create another ice age? >> if greenberg were -- if greenland were to melt? well if those two events happened separate and quite a long period. because the water is generally conserved. it's either in the ice or in liquid water so my sense is that we are mostly concerned about in the future that we can imagine is the warming and the melting followed by increased water levels. later, ice ages can be driven and in fact horse there -- historically ice ages were not driven and we have to think about how human actions interact with the natural world so out into the future probably what

would happen is that water would refreeze and then the water levels would come back down should that freezing occurred. so i don't know if you've seen that movie the day after tomorrow, but that scenario of a very rapid shift into an ice age is in a matter of days and that is unrealistic, but a scenario of regional climate change like i mentioned particularly in europe getting europe getting colder that might happen possibly. the science is not settled that it's possible that could happen because of shifts in ocean currents. basically it comes across and warms ireland in that area of europe. it's a lot warmer than it would be otherwise so if you shift the ocean currents that could get a lot colder in that part of the world. that is not level. that is part of the world so that is --

the science says it's not settled as far as whether that would happen or not. >> i guess we have a question up in the balcony. just speak loudly and in that direction. >> one of the big locks that we have, doing something about climate change in this country is all the climate deniers are out there and many people who are not active climate deniers don't actually believe co2 causes climate change or that there is no climate change going on. i think one of the most effective ways to get around that is by pointing out as larry pointed out earlier is the ocean acidification problem which is completely separate. that is caused by co2 and even if co2 did nothing to change the climate, ocean acidification would still be a major disaster

in the making and something that would require limitations on the amount of co2 that we are putting in the atmosphere. my question is, those of you that are more involved in this than those of us in the audience, are people making out point to our elected leaders in congress? >> i recently had a conversation with senator john kerry from massachusetts and senator kerry is actually preparing to hold hearings on that very subject. in fact i suspect sometime in the next month or month and a half -- his effort is being made because he now believes what you just said is true. as people understand what we are doing to our oceans they may in fact connected level. we are overfishing our oceans and we are raising sea levels so we are damaging all these coastal ecosystems. we are trashing our oceans and that is going going to have

enormous consequence on food supply and on a number of other really important things like things called oxygen. it's really important at this hearing is held and i think senator kerry's purpose will be exactly what you are talking about. >> hi. you were talking about rio. next week is actually stockholm plus 40. the first big major science driven talk about global sustainability is again in stockholm and their predictions for what would happen 40 years from 1972, if nothing was done to help the environment or the current state of the world.

so, what is new now? where are we moving in the stockholm plus 40 conference next week? >> who wants to tackle this one? >> you know their predictions 40 years ago, it's worse now than they predicted actually. so you know i've been focused on rio plus 20 because the united nations focused on that but you're absolutely right. that is where it began. here we are, worse off than even the predictions 40 years ago. so it's time to take action and it's time for sacrifice by the way. i know people think that perhaps we shouldn't ask the american people to sacrifice very much for just about anything these days but we have to sacrifice. we have to sacrifice our old ideas.

>> i would like to add to that if i may. i was involved in the first earth day, 1970 around the stockholm plus 40 conversation and the really important thing that is missing right now that was available and 1970 when the first earth day occurred, we created such a stir. my tome -- hometown of pittsburgh we wore gas masks to point out the threat of air pollution. in 1970 the congress passed and the senate passed the clean air act. 100-0. can you imagine that happening today? and the reason is the american public is asleep. we need to wake up. and we need to drive -- this is a democratic system after all and thomas jefferson was right, we will get the government we deserve and guess what? we have the government we deserve and we need to step forward and challenge these people who have got the reins of this government and look beyond citizens united and all the

money that is going to be flowing into the elections this year and put back into the conversation the important role of citizens in this electoral process. i think until we do that we will not make progress. [applause] >> i just want to add one quick point. that original earth day according to what i have heard and correct me if i'm wrong on this, one in 10 americans were at an earth day event, one in 10. can you imagine those kinds of numbers today that kind of activism? it's not happening right now so this is a mass movement. >> on a related note, how do we turn that conversation around? beers occupy wall street but it's all about jobs in big honey and stuff and not about how that relates to the environment. the science is out there and the

data is out there. what is missing to put the puzzle together for our citizens? >> did everybody here that? the question is how do we basically call to arms? how do we engage our citizens on this? >> in my mind there are couple of things that need to happen. one, i want to start with my generation, the baby boom generation, the generation after the second world war. we were there in the first earth day that somehow or another we have lost their way. we have gone from being activists on the first earth day two being couch potatoes and i think it's time for us to get back into that fight. i would put the focus first and foremost on those who are passing on this torch, those who are -- i don't want to leave this planet until i see a kind of lima policy and our world that will protect my children's future. i could die peacefully fisa that happen and everyone of us should feel the same way about this matter. i would put the focus first on

the adults who are now having grandchildren and were part of that original earth day. wake up and become a part of the search and fight for your children's future. i don't know of a single parent who would knowingly trash their kids future and yet that is what we are all doing. everyone of us are doing that. the second thing is think kids on college campuses need to get fired up. this is your future. the opportunities here for green jobs. i think we can see an explosion of jobs are good infuriates me the very people that are saying where are these green jobs are the same people that lock the passage of the climate bill which would have created all these green jobs by putting a price on carbon. for goodness sakes let's get back to the conversation and i think that conversation is going to require young people he's future hangs in the balance to stand up and give voice to this important matter. this is a democracy and its hours and it's ours to keep and it's ours to make happen. [applause]

>> that was a great question and my first time being invited to the conference they asked us to suggest topics. i suggested a topic called, when does a the movement become a revolution? there is going to be a panel on that, so this was a great question, because we did lose one in 10. we lost a earth day somehow. we understand that. what happen? we had a really important social movement going and then look where we are today. so i have got occupy wall street on my mind and by the way the second phase of occupy, which is what has been going on the strategic think about that has been going on during the winter. i think we will be more connected to these more systemic issues. certainly that is my hope. there have been a lot of meetings about that in the general assemblies and the working groups. but how do we made sure that

this new movement occupy wall street and perhaps what comes out of it in terms of this issue, becomes a social revolution. i hope we can talk about that on that panel. that was a great question. >> we have time for one more question. do any students want to ask a question? we are going with a student in the back. >> you think it's possible to change our current status of global warming and the position of it under a separate government or do you think we would have to have some, some sort of vague unity? >> did everybody hear this question? let me make sure i got it right.

can you change the global climate change paradigm country by country, or is he going it going to take some kind of united global multinational effort? was that the question? >> yeah. >> that's a great question. >> i will take a stab. there have been attempts in their attempts of global multinational efforts and this is what rio copenhagen and all these conventions are about the kyoto convention. baseball and it might be the principle reason they stall is it's really fundamental and that is the problem it has largely been caused by the developed world. there is a scientific reason for that. when you put co2 in the atmosphere it lasts up there for several hundred years and that is an average lifetime.

that means the stuff that is up there now that is causing climate change now is going to cause it in the near term has all been put up thereby develop nations. today that developing nations are doing their fair share of pumping it out that these are fairly small contributions to the overall contribution. so we in the developed world and in particular we in the united states in my view, have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead that global multinational group forward if we were to step or were. but i do think it's our responsibility to step or were it for two reasons. one is that we are largely responsible for much of the stuff out there but also because i think we are capable of leading by example. we have to get on with and we are not actually leading by example today. i don't think it requires dramatic changes in the structure of local governance. i think it takes a nation such as ours to step forward and

lead, which we have not been willing to do but i think we can't and i think if we did the world might come along with us. we have the ability to influence that if citizens of this country. my answer to your either/or question is yes. i think is doug was saying we need international efforts. we need u.s. leadership. but i used to be more optimistic about the prospects of a kyoto like treaty by the international invite -- infighting has stalled progress. i think there are possibilities there but i don't think we can wait for the world to get together and cooperate and i think that getting back to the issue of a complex system the world is complex. with that many countries out there and that many cultures, that many agendas, everybody has to, they can pursue their own

agenda and find solutions and there will be different solution so solutions that we need multiple solutions. so yes for international cooperation and effective leadership and yes for hey it's in everyone's self-interest, you know. >> okay, last word. c. i'd like to add a word that was not spoken on much here and that is a matter of leadership. this is really an issue of leadership. my childhood mentor fog on the beaches of normandy and fought all the way through europe and actually was one of the first troops to liberate the internment camps. ralph came back from that experience and he was my scout leader and he talked about the need for us to be stubborn leaders. he believed that stubbornness was not a vice as some would suggest but actually a virtue. he said you just need to be careful what you are stubborn about because you just might

make it happen. and i think that is the kind of stubborn leadership we need in america. first america needs to be a leader in the world and by us leaving individually and working together and i agree with everything that has been shared here by s. taking that bigger view and being contemplative about what we are doing, but he on all that we need to get to the point where we are drawing leaders for the future and those leaders wherever they emerge from well help this nation go to a better place. this nation has a duty to take the world to a better place and that has been our history and it needs to be a part of our future. thank you. [applause] >> you with that let's thank our panel once again for a very provocative morning. [applause] thanks everybody for showing up and let's take this as a call to

arms. [inaudible conversations] outgoing republican senator dick lugar of indiana says he is concerned u.s. foreign aid money is going to climate change programs instead of traditional education our food assistance programs. the foreign relations committee with ranking member was speaking at a conference hosted by usaid. this is just under 30 minutes. [applause]

>> good morning, and thank you for that overly kind introduction and for not just hosting us for these next few days but for the deep and meaningful partnership that georgetown has displayed in partnering to produce frontiers of development. it really has been a team effort with the georgetown staff and the georgetown team and the thought leaders and incredibly experienced diplomats and development experts that are part of the georgetown family so thank you very much. i also want to take a moment to recognize that this really is an example of a wonderful public drive a partnership with partners like the bill and linda gates foundation, the roc-a-fella -- rockefeller foundation and the hewlett foundation all coming together to recognize the development is changing and we have a unique the unique opportunity at this point in time to craft a new approach as we come together and

listen carefully and we are more creative in and our efforts going forward. we didn't try this morning to set out to produce an opening panel with five female heads of state. that happened coincidently as a signal of the way the world is evolving and changing. we are thrilled to be in the presence of president joyce banda of malawi, president alan johnson's early of liberia, president of kosovo, president mary robinson former president of -- currently a global leader in so many regards and prime minister helen clark former prime minister of new zealand and currently the head of the u.n. development program. those are just again the next panel so this is going to be an amazing few days and if we all take the approach that we are here to listen and we are here to learn from experts from so

many different walks of life and we are here to celebrate the ideas they have to share with us, ideas that we know or hear from talented leaders. i want to take just a moment to thank steve ratliff. steve is there usaid chief economists in a weiland has helped us instill a culture of discipline around a more quantitative and economic growth oriented rich to development and his responsible really for pulling this together. when steve came to me about a year ago with the basic idea, it was rooted in a very simple concept and the concept is never before have we had the opportunity to achieve so much together in global development, in global health, and protecting the world's most vulnerable and in contributing to our own national security and economic disparity along the way. but that in order to live up to the promise we had, the promise articulated powerfully by

president obama and secretary clinton when they talk of him take actions to elevate development is part of our foreign policy, and orders take advantage of that we do have to do some things differently. we need a new partnership model where we recognize those abroad whether they are wealthy or less wealthy than our nation our partners with ideas that must and will lead the way to the future. a recognition that partnership required involving a much broader slice of american society, whether it's entrepreneurs or students who are tinkering with development projects and ideas in their garages or major corporate partners that can bring scale and impact in a fundamentally transformational way across the globe. it's a recognition that we need to innovate more in how we do our work. in an age when technology is literally transforming what is possible, we have to be on the

cutting-edge even if that means taking risks and trying some things that are new and different. it ultimately has president choi has articulated is about delivering results. the results today are profound. african growth rate of more than 6% nearly three times the growth rate experienced in many of the major industrialized economies, the spread of democracy and freedom and human rights embodied in the leaders that we have here this morning what the economist just two weeks ago called the largest success story in development recently which is a rapid decline in unnecessary child death around the world with a focus that has previously been unheard of and with an aspiration across their country of people who want to commit themselves to this mission including the students at georgetown and around this country. so our mission isn't necessarily to have all the answers over

these next few days. it's to start asking the question and we get u.s. aid on behalf of the community development experts are eager to listen and learn and change based on what we hear. and that leads me to an introduction of today, this morning's keynote speaker. everyone here knows senator lugar and what he has accomplished in his career. he has long been a champion of what is possible when we project america's leadership around the world in the right way when we tackle the tough problems whether it's nuclear threat food insecurity, stressed to health and human welfare or dealing with national security challenges in their broadest and most effective context. in 36 years of committed service in the senate he has helped focus the world's attention on these incredibly challenging problems, problems many people thought were not solvable.

he goes out and creates both a political basis and the operational model to solve them. he has never been afraid of the world's greatest -- gravest threats and has led the charge on many of them. he has always realized that our nation's strength lies not just in its ability to wage war but in our capacity to create peace. for that reason, we are deeply honored to have senator lugar here. there is another reason as well. as many people perhaps in my generation would recognize that when you aspire to be in the field of contributing on the international stage and to international affairs, senator lugar has been one of the most powerful role models of success, and i know that this campus, and i know that our administration and administration administrations on both the sides of the aisle are packed with people who have come to this place of service looking to

senator richard lugar as a role model, a role model whose efforts will be deeply felt for decades and decades to come. senator we are personally grateful you are here this morning and we welcome you to address us. senator richard lugar. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> this is certainly a great pleasure and a great honor to join you here today in the frontiers development conference. i appreciate especially being on this magnificent campus this

morning with the president and with raj shah for whom i have such a very high regard. i want to thank especially raj shah for this kind invitation and his remarkable introduction. as we open the conference we must recognize economic challenges that cast a shadow over development opportunities. let me get my glasses. these economic challenges cast a shadow over development opportunities, investments about which you would liberate. the united states continues to struggle with anemic growth and unemployment rate of more than

8%. our national debt today is approaching $16 trillion. efforts to contain and reverse our budget spiral are complicated by financial pressures from an aging population lengthy military engagements and sometimes partisan politics. many other countries including some who have been important partners and local development face even more stringent economic circumstances. amid these financial threats, and budgetary realities it's inevitable that some will question the role of the united states in global development. a few members of congress argue that all foreign assistance should be eliminated. a larger number would reserve assistance to israel and some politically unpopular elements

that would sharply downsized most development aid. almost everyone expects that the united states foreign assistance funding will be constrained for the foreseeable future. this may be through and certainly planners at usaid must be engaged in efforts to squeeze the maximum value out of every dollar available. but i would assert this morning that development assistance when properly administered remains a bargain for the kennan national security. and for our own economic and moral standing in the world. even in the worst of times, the united states remains a wealthy nation with interests in every corner of the globe. foreign assistance is a key component of the united states national security strategy. is specially since the tragic

events of september 11, 2001 is evidence that poorly governed states with impoverished populations can pose grave threats to our national security. nations that struggle with severe poverty and corrupt governance are at greater risk of terrorism and instability. wars and extended military operations are enormously expensive in lives and in dollars. we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years fighting wars and preparing for a military scenario and other developed regions of the world. if properly targeted, foreign assistance programs mitigate national security risks and improve united states connections to peoples and governments. they may well save huge military expenditures down the road.

this is one of the reasons why the defense department has been a strong advocate of a robust foreign affairs budget in the united states. beyond the national security imperative, i strongly believe that no global superpower that claims to possess the moral high ground can afford to relinquish its leadership in addressing global disease, hunger and ignorance. more than any other nation the united states possesses a traditional moral identity and that identity is clearly associated with religious tolerance, democratic governance freedom of the individual, the promotion of economic opportunity and resistance to oppression. this set of ideals was espoused in our founding doctrines and reaffirmed to the sacrifice of our civil war.

it was amplified during two world wars in which the kent opposed the forces of aggression and conquest. and it it was reinvigorated through the struggle of our own civil rights movement. our moral identity has been illuminated by rhetorical traditions that flows from thomas jefferson and abraham lincoln through woodrow wilson and ronald reagan to the present day and rarely do we take a major foreign-policy initiative without some attempt to justify it on moral grounds. rarely are failed foreign policies spared morley-based criticism. in making this observation i'm not claiming the united states is the undisputed moral compass of the world. rather i am saying that no nation is more closely associated with a set of historic moral precepts and no nation is judged more meticulously according to its own articulated values.

as an observer of global affairs for many decades, believe this is a good thing and i believe our moral identity is an essential source of national power. despite missteps the united states has been and still is a force for good in the world. this is indisputable from any objective point of view. in most respects we have been an incredibly generous nation. former enemies like germany and japan, we have continued to help the former soviet union protect and destroy the very nuclear weapons that were once pointed at us. we have helped countries such as south korea and taiwan move from extreme poverty to impressive ross parity through our assistance and our protection. our democratic institutions and political and social freedoms

have been models for the world. and we have actively helps to nurture democracy in numerous nations. even americans themselves do not fully appreciate the international impact of the examples set by our transparent political debate and the extraordinary degree of self-examination that accompanies american policy decisions. our advocacy has been one of the prime influences for human rights improvements throughout the world. it is telling that china and other nations often cite their indifference to human rights issues relative to the united states when seeking to establish economic or security ties with a problematic nation. the united states makes sacrifices every day on behalf of human rights and our state department devotes enormous time and energy to producing reports

on human rights and religious freedoms that are studied around the world. i would assert that as a moral nation founded on moral principles, we diminish ourselves and our national reputation if we turn our backs on obvious plights of the hundreds of millions of people who are living on less than a dollar a day and facing severe risk from hunger and disease. this is not to say that every human being or every country in a desperate circumstance is our responsibility, but the united states must forge the global partnerships and develop the most extensive practices to achieve development goals. beyond their own probe and the efforts of other nations and any non-governmental groups depend on the united states for direction, support and even validation.

as we move forward it is critical for each of us to make these arguments. we should not be hesitant even in this budgetary environment in the united states to make the national security and moral cases for pure development assistance. further, we should be forthright in explaining that diplomacy and develop minds are two distinct disciplines. although diplomacy and development often can be mutually reinforcing at their core they might have different priorities, resource requirements and time horizons. most obviously diplomacy is far more concerned with solving immediate problems, usually associated with countries of strategic interest. although we hope that our development efforts will sometimes yield short term strategic benefits, this is not their primary purpose.

in a developed context, we are willing to take a much larger view of the world and devote resources to countries of less or even minimal strategic significance for the moment. we are willing to allow the diplomatic and national security benefits of development work to improve over time and we are willing to engage ambitions for purely altruistic reasons. these differences underscore why development must be a gold that is independent of diplomacy, not merely a service. to maximize our development efforts, we will need robust partnerships. while historically non-governmental organizations and contractors have been natural partners with usaid as

implementers, we must go beyond these traditional relationships. we should be expanding coordination with other governments, foundations corporations and small businesses inventors and others who can contribute value with partnerships built from the ground up at the earliest stages of program development and sound financial structures for sustaining them. we can leverage scarce resources for maximum results. we also must embrace transparency in foreign assistance programs. we should be forthcoming about where precious taxpayer dollars are spent. what goals they are meant to accomplish and whether these goals are achieved. secretary clinton and ambassador schaub made an important commitment to transparency with the development of the foreign assistance dashboard and the announcement of the u.s.

rejoining international aids transparency initiatives. but implementation of these efforts is lagging in my judgment and should be accelerated to demonstrate our full commitment to transparency. this is vital not only to provide taxpayers a clear picture of how the money is being used, but also to reinforce united states leadership and transparent economic development. transparency helps level the playing field for the united states companies, counters the propensity of resource rich developing countries toward wasteful spending and combats the corruption that the world bank has identified as quote the single biggest obstacle of economic and social development end of quote. toward this end, the united states government should be moving forward with full implementation of the 2010

cardin lugar amendment, which requires all companies listed on the new york stock exchange to publish their payments to foreign governments or -- for oil, natural gas and mineral elements. [applause] failure to fully implement the cardin lugar language would squander an opportunity to transform the development scenarios of resource rich countries that are now mired in poverty. while foreign assistance investments often require significant time before demonstrating the impact, funding should forward programs that demonstrate results. are programs can only produce results when they are developed with results in mind. i raise this point because the percentage of foreign assistance

funding to some countries is moving away from traditional purposes. including education, food security and disease prevention towards climate change. i have expressed concerns about individual usaid climate change projects and a growing share of these projects within our development budget. i voice these concerns as a friend of the usaid and the state department, not as someone who does not attempt to diminish the potential impact of climate change or the opinions of scientific research on the subject. my concern is simply that the climate change project are among the least likely to offer measurable development results and the most likely to be politically motivated. and i don't doubt that some of these projects will produce results and some may be top priorities in recipient countries or regions. i also understand that some

climate change projects are focused simply on food production or disease prevention but as we accept the development dollar should be going to projects that will produce the most potent and the most demonstrable results for impoverished people it is extremely high. $10 million is spent on climate change problems or in a country suffering from malnutrition and uncontrolled disease, we must be able to demonstrate that those dollars will produce a better result than what could be produced through alternative initiatives relative to agricultural development and disease prevention. my hope is simply if the usaid and the state department will be examining climate change projects under these exact parameters. the united states should maintain a unique leadership role and global food security. throughout our history as a nation we have developed fertile

cropland improved efficiency through technology and benefits from the green revolution and enormous increases in crop yields. i have seen these on my own farm in indiana. we have developed efficient systems toward distribution of agricultural products for trade and humanitarian purposes. are agriculture researchers and their land grant universities are the best in the world. and they continually improved seed production through genetic modified organisms. and address the impacts of death and disease. we know this sector and we can perform extremely well in it. we continue to lead the world and our shipments of humanitarian food assistance and have now begun to focus extending our agricultural knowledge through the administrations feed the future initiative which i strongly support. further, agricultural results are subject to the close

measurement and can be the basis on which other development sectors are built. i believe all of these factors translate into an american comparative advantage in global agricultural development and we should be leveraging them to maximum effect. i appreciate very much administrative shah's deep interest in this by usaid in the coming years. i applaud the commitment that each of you has made to global development. many of you have been engaged in development work under difficult circumstances. i admire your courage, your compassion, your skill as you continue to find new ways to develop results and as you come together to share that wisdom with each other. i look forward in every way to supporting your work during my remaining months