>> final question? >> em man has a question. >> i want to say how much i appreciate the book, i appreciate you, i appreciate your commitment to bring in your expertise to bear. there is a lot of anxiety, ambivalence about this to me as indicative of the deeply rooted myths that operate in our society. they have been destructive in society that have nothing to do with knowledge or facts and everything to do with prejudice and fear. much of the continent of actor got -- africa are under painful misapprehensions about sex and the transmission of aids and millions of people die because they refuse to understand what is necessary to treat or prevent the transmission of hiv and i hate to think that in this day we want to not appreciate, at

least information. everyone will respond accordingly as individuals, but to somehow suggest the transference of that information is not appropriate or because it makes us uncomfortable to me reminds us of much of the world around sex up until quite recently as a reproductive tool to gain pleasure from sex was to make a woman is immoral. we craft entire societies around binding women's ability to operate in the world because sex was not about pleasure. there's a lot in this space and i want to applaud you. i also want to say someone asked a question about appropriate drug use. if we want to save lives like we want young people to use condoms properly, thank you very much. >>

this event was part of the saw h annual harlem book fair. visit qbr.com. >> next, michael levi argues that instead of viewing our energy future as a fight between clean, renewable energy and traditional fuel sources, americans should figure out a way to develop both and use the rising prices of the latter as a funding source for the former. he spoke at an event hosted by the world affairs council of houston. this is about an hour. >> okay. a couple of weeks ago i did something that hocked my friends -- shocked my friends and family. i actually read a book. [laughter] not a financial statement report, not a printout of a stack of e-mails, not an industry magazine, an actual book with a hard cover and nice pages. it's actually quite an enjoyable

experience. i suggest you all try it sometime. this is the book i read. it's entitled the power surge by dr. michael levi. and i've had the pleasure of reading a number of pieces about the energy policy debate, and so what i found inside this book was a real surprise. admittedly, i'd expected to find kleopferly-worded -- cleverly-worded propaganda. but instead i found nuance and the understanding of complexity. i expected to find a tax and hand picked ant dotes, trying to prove the correctness of one side of the argument at the expense of another. instead, i found an appreciation that both sides of an argument can have validity. and nowhere, not in one place in this book did i detect any type of hinten agenda. i didn't see any cause except to identify what the true nature of the problem is and propose a

workable solution. in the world of any highly politically-charged debate, i think you'll agree this is exceedingly rare. i applaud his approach. dr. michael levi is the david m. rubenstein senior fellow for energy and environment on the council of foreign relations and the director of the energy security and climate change. he's an expert on climate change, energy security, arms control and nuclear terrorism. project director for the independent task force on climate change. cochaired by former governors tom vilsack and george pataki. his essays have been published in foreign affairs, foreign policy, nature, scientific american, among others. his op-eds have appeared in new york times, washington post be, "wall street journal," financial times and his book is reviewed in this week's "economist." he served as technical consultant to the drama "24." we could probably spend an hour

asking questions about that, actually. he holds a bs in mathematical physics, an ma in physics and and a ph.d. in war studies. so let's not hold him against him that he currently lives in new york city. please join me in offering a very warm welcome to our distinguished speaker, michael levi. [applause] >> thank you for the very kind introduction. it's fantastic to see, fantastic to see such a big crowd here. apparently, there are some folks in houston who are interested in energy. [laughter] i was telling someone earlier, i had difficulty choosing exactly what to wear today. i picked up some interesting items of clothing while i was writing this book. i have now a 50th anniversary opec tie that i still can't find occasion to wear. [laughter] i have a beautiful light blue

don't frack ohio bandanna that i also decided against wearing in houston. [laughter] at some point i'll try to wear them, maybe not at the same time. [laughter] but i'll find some occasion. i want you all to imagine for a moment that this is june 1973, not june 2013. it's been a little more than two years since u.s. oil production peaked, and you're starting to see gas lines pop up around the country as regulators try to ration supplies. it's been barely three years since the first earth day marked the beginning of the modern environmental movement. and be even though most of you probably aren't thinking about the middle east, you will be in a few months when a group of arab oil producers quadruple their prices and set off the 1973 oil crisis. in the next few years, you'll see the united states start to respond. part of that will come from markets, higher prices for new

supplies encourage people to curb demand and persuade innovators to invest in new technologies. another part of it comes from policy. barely a month after the crisis begins, congress moves forward on a long pipeline across alaska, and within a couple years it passes the first-ever fuel economy standards requiring more efficient cars and trucks. but if you look a few more years into the future, you'll find the country consumed by paralyzing battles. one camp is focused on growing supplies of traditional fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas and increasingly nuclear power. another is focused on alternatives and on promoting conservation and efficiency. and the one thing that the two largely agree on is that the country now has to choose. energy becomes a focal point in the years that come and peaks in the 1980s elections. it becomes so intensely enmeshed in ideological battles that it's

pretty much impossible to focus on the underlying substance. i did a lot of historical research for this book in the early days of the last presidential election campaign, and the parallels were eerie. if you look at the 1980 campaign, ted kinty is in the democratic -- kennedy describes his opponent's energy platform as creating a scale of unequal sacrifice based on unfair prices that would bring hardship to ordinary people. david stockman, who is less remembered as the chief architect of ronald reagan's energy plan that year, calls jimmy carter's plan a front for state control of resources in the economy and describes its proponents as prosecuting their views with a determination befitting the smallness of their minds. [laughter] it shouldn't be a surprise that with energy turned into such a prominent ideological battlefield, while the united states makes some progress, the result is mostly gridlock. by the end of the 1980s, oil production has plummeted, access to new resources is becoming

more difficult, congress has given up on new fuel economy standards and gun to starve klein energy of funds. the country largely stumbles through the 1980s and '90s, but for the most part we largely coast. but over the last dozen years, energy has reemerged and become central to some of this country's biggest debate. just like in the 1970s, the transformation begins we events in the world; the september 11th attacks lead people to reconnect energy and national security, the emergence of china leads to fears of rising prices and increasing scarcity, hurricane katrina and that's followed a few years later by skyrocketing gas prices that make energy a pocketbook issue once again. the second thing that happens has echoes of the 1970s too. driven by markets and policy, american energy begins to transform in a way that we haven't seen for 40 years. a lot of you know the basic

trends, but let me recap them for a moment. natural gas propelled by fracking, passes coal as the top domestic source of energy in 2011. last year we see oil production rise by the largest amount, one-year amount in history capping off a four-year run of increasing production. over that same four-year period, renewable energy from wind and solar doubles while prices, particularly for solar, fall. and u.s. oil consumption peaks in 2005 driven in part by a weak economy, but also by less driving and by improving technologies for cars and trucks. so the echoes of the 1970s don't end with changes in the world or changes in energy. we're also starting to relive some of the paralyzing battles of 1972. you don't need to go that far back to see a time when we could agree, at least in places, on energy. we had bipartisan energy legislation in 2005 and 2007.

in 2008 john mccain and barack obama fought over whose cap and trade program was better. in 2010 president obama moved against the interests of some of his allies to expand leasing in order to increase production of offshore oil and gas. you don't hear much about these sorts of things to do. instead, you hear about how the keystone xl pipeline will be game over for the planet or how blocking it would be a body blow to national security. you hear about how fracking will poise be son our water and corrupt or politics or slash emissions and provide a replacement for oil. you hear about how government support for clean energy innovation will propel the united states to leadership in the 212s schedulely or how government spending on losers like solyndra and fisker show how badly washington is adrift. now, this is a hugely frustrating state of affairs. here you have, in a span of barely five years, changes in

american energy that are more radical than at any time in almost half a century. in ways that have big consequences for everything from the future of our economy to the health of our environment to our position in the world. and instead of using this as an opportunity to rethink how we approach energy and take advantage of the changes that are underway, we're mostly grasping at old ways of thinking and settling lack into destructive debates over what to do. it's that mixed sense of opportunity and increasing frustration together, to be quite honest, with great fascination about what's happening and its cop sequences -- consequences that motivated me to write this book. i've tried to do three things with the book. the first thing i wanted to do is tell the story of what's happening in american energy. many of you focus on international issues like i do, so when you want to understand something, you end up in moscow, beijing or london. and i did that, but i also spent time in pennsylvania and colorado and ohio and detroit

trying to understand what's happening on the ground. i want to tell you about one encounter that stuck with me. people in houston are intimately familiar with the oil and gas industries, but a lot of places where the country is being transformed are not so familiar. and one of those places that i visited while i was writing the book was in southern ohio. i went to talk to people in athens county about fracking. the first potential i met was -- person i met was warren taylor. he owned a creamery. i'd watched him speak a day earlier at the anti-fracking rally in columbus where i picked up that bandanna. and warren told me a story. he said my parents bought woodland property down here in the 1960s. a damaged world war ii vet had moved onto the property and hadn't allowed any logging since. so by the 18960s, unlike most

places around here, this was a beautiful woods. taylor had mauved away and then -- moved away and then moved back and bought property next door. and he says to me, that property had won a blue ribbon at the megs county fairs. two years later the neighbors stripe mined his police station and destroyed the -- field. a guy did his ph.d. in geology from ohio state university examining that exact place and concluded that it would be a thousand years before it would return to what it had been before. now, you do the economic analysis for me, he says, on a thousand years of corn versus one year of coal. now, while i was talking to warren taylor, bill dicks drove up. bill is a dairy farmer. he rents snow village property and sells the creamery its milk. both are friends. but one of the big differences between them is that dicks owns

land and taylor doesn't. and bill dicks says to me, the opponents are hypocrites. they're happy to profit when their pension funds invest in exxonmobil and chesapeake but unwilling to accept gas development in their backyard. i'm going sensor his remarks -- censor husband remarks, but he says they're worried about the way of life when the barbarians are at the door. the kids don't have fathers. there's heroin, the barbarians are at the f-ing gate, and you're worrying about having to see oil rigs when you're taking your sunday night drive? again, i've left out a few words, but you get the idea. and again and again as you visit places being newly transformed by changes in american industry, you see this mix of excitement and fear. ..

how much stock should we put on promises of millions of jobs come away from oil and gas and one of the teams that comes through again and again is that we really are stuck in the past. i want to take just one example, energy independence. for 40 years, presidents promised to deliver energy independence had failed. now come you can't go without a new report claiming at least with america will be energy

self-sufficient than a decade or so. but i argue in the book that this one actually make us independent in a meaningful sense of the word geared in the last 40 years, we developed little markets for orioles that is made where we get our energy from far less important than it used to be. when civil war broke out in libya two years ago, the price of oil produced in the united states increased by as much as the price of oil produced in the middle east and economic damage to american summers was the same. i would not have been the case 40 years ago, but it is the case today will be in the future. so while rising oil production is good for the economy and benefits national security, all areas explore one deliver energy independence because the world has changed. that's the second reason i wrote the book, to explore and explain how it bellemont the fact anything from the economy to security environment given the way the world is today. energy independence is one piece of a larger puzzle.

the third reason i wrote the book and every author has his motivation as i wanted to make a point. i argue in the book at the claims you hear about how we need to decisively pick side, that the real opportunity but only oil and gas are in clean energy and the other side is mostly downsized on a stronger dangerous. and make the case for what i call the approach to american energy that doesn't gladly embrace everything but also weeding out the bad and dangerous investments. i'm not going to take you step-by-step to the argument now, but i want to flex three big reasons why i'm afraid we'll fail for many opportunities we have. the first is that worry we will get fracture in right. they're smart ways to development. if we do it the wrong way, we will they have local problems, but we could see a backlash that prevents us from taking advantage of some of the

opportunities we now have. when i was writing a book but the mayor of youngstown ohio. the ordinance's support increase oil and gas development. long in decline for the industry. he also told me about what happened when one company did a sloppy job of wastewater disposal and injection while this set off a 4.0 magnitude. he told me two things that stuck with me. he said he get a pot of gold, but if you've got earthquakes, people don't want a pot of gold in the earthquake. if they wanted earthquakes, they would've moved to california. the second thing he said to me was i used to be a teacher. i used to tell the kids, you know the answer, good. if you don't know the answer, just say i don't know it. nobody knows everything.

that's a really good message for people who want to see the development succeed and i myself am among that group. it's a good story to tell about how oil gas development can be done well with the right practices and rules to make sure they are followed. we see a bit too much confidence in too much certainty and not enough humility and too many occasions. the second thing i worry about is that we get lazy. it's tempting to say climate change, really tough problem. natural gas authority cutting emissions. can we focus on something else? it's really easy to say people don't love fuel economy rules. they don't like it when government spends money trying to promote an oil production will end dependence on foreign oil anyhow. so why don't we spend our time dealing with the e-mails? that would be a real shame because as i argue in the book, cheap natural gas and falling prices for renewable energy have

made it less expensive than it's ever been to curb u.s. staff missions. transformations have made it drastically cheaper to pursue policies to make us more secure and the world. these things will not transform our system themselves. their opportunities to make changes, but we need to make decisions and pursue policies that will take full advantage of what's happening. while it's running about, i know what secretary general for opec. one of his colleagues also gave me a handful to get to my colleagues. and if you have good corporate i.t. policies know that is not a good interview. you do not put that in your computer. i'm still curious what would've happened. but after i recovered myself come i ask about what do you think about what is going on in america and energy and particularly oil? the first thing he said he needed to soften it the straight

turn about water quality would like us to pay more attention to the second thing was maybe this is good news for us. maybe you guys won't blame opec for your problems anymore. they gave a speech in washington a month or so ago where he put a finer point. he said maybe you guys full text heating oil so much. what he meant in part was maybe they'll stop trying to use less of the stuff. the last thing i worry about is we are too often unable to see we not only can but should pursue more than one thing at a time. we can pursue oil and gas production in clean energy efficiency at the same time with economic security and environmental payoff. instead what you see is people focusing on taking down the other side. that's part of why we see a steady focus on the keystone excel pipeline. carter for you saw last week a

bill passed in washington to slash funding for the department of energy financed research project efforts. this was an effort not only by their president, but governor romney in the last campaign. this is not the conversation we need to be having. i make an extended argument in the book of the substance for why we should pursue different opportunities. for one person i met while i was writing the book captured that combination for me. the ceo of a company makes batteries for electric cars in silicon valley. any of you who met someone who runs an electric car or battery company can confirm those people drive electric cars brag about the gas mileage they get. he bragged to me about natural gas field vehicle. he said i want to look at at it and i did the math and it was a no-brainer. i'm lucky he tells me because one of the five filling stations

in the silicon valley area are between my home and work so not everyone will take advantage of this with the existing infrastructure. so at the same time he uses his natural gas car is pursuing a fully electric vehicle. what i argue in the book is this isn't just something an individual can do it the same time. it's not just some companies can pursue at the same time as a country we can be pursuing multiple opportunities at the same time. what i worry us as we fallen back an increasingly fall back into the side of the 1970s, people do the exact opposite. instead of clean energy and oil and gas will have to set to do a great job of tearing each other down in a poor job of building themselves up in the ultimate result would be that we failed to seize the new opportunities. thank you also much for coming out tonight and for your attention.

[applause] is very protocol for questions? >> people are filling out little blue cards. we are going to compile them. probably do that, let me just get started with the question. would you be so kind as to just talk a little more about the geopolitical implications of what increasing in production here means for relations with china, iran, russia and anyone else you want to talk about? >> the entire q&a session answering that. then they say a few things. first community bank separate about oil and gas. because natural gas are more vulcanize, changes in one part of the world have bigger geopolitical consequences. they seen some of those consequences and natural gas. will be seen is because the united states has failed to emerge as an importer, suppliers that were planning to send natural gas to the united states have more gas into europe creating more competition and

together with existing infrastructure in europe, weakening russia and give them more leverage. we are not seeing the same new year's day of the tree city gas cutoffs that we did not very long ago. of course the united states is not worrying as much about gas market developments overseas. when we had hostagetaking at a gas production facility energy at this year, we didn't have nearly the same kind of alarm said the united states been depending on import of liquefied natural gas. we can speculate as to what the future holds for the geopolitical impacts of natural gas around the world, particularly the united states emerges as an exporter. consequences of that are smaller than the consequences of what's happened in part because with europe shaken up, the question what they showed us that the physical infrastructure in place

to transform into a transparent, open market despite what role the united states plays piano on the oil side, and too much of the discussion focuses whether we will be energy independent. as i said in my remarks come i don't think it's the right thing to focus on. the bigger consequences are less stress and more the country that supplied all the middle east. in order to keep prices high, countries have to produce glass in the face of increasing u.s. output or they will have to accept lower prices. either way a threat to their revenues. i also think there is the potential for a couple years of a price climb in the not-too-distant future and not have broad ramifications. some good, but mostly destabilizing in the region. the last piece on the geopolitical consequences if it's important to focus not only on underlying economic fundamentals and trade fundamentals, but have readers

perceived them. the president has spoken, the national security advisor has spoken for energy, all same we remain committed to global markets. we are part of a global system. we remain committed to trying to provide stability in providing safe travel for energy. but when you travel in the middle east, people are not fully convinced that will be the case. when he talked to people in china, they are not fully convinced that will be the case. they will take measures to educate the possibility that the united states will retrench, regardless of what analysts and policymakers say about our intention down the road. those perceptions and decisions made based on them have big real-world consequences. >> questions on policy and a lot of questions on compliance. let's start with policy.

if you can share any views on best practices, whether it's cap-and-trade or any other policy you think is particularly effective. >> that's also a very big question. i may say a couple of basic things about policy. it's useful to think about how we pursue policy for energy supplies and how we pursue policy to deal with energy. on the supply side we should be focused on increasing opportunities and creating new options. that means making sure we have access, land for development, both for energy supplies and for the power lines and pipelines it to transport them. nbc should have good environmental rules to make sure the development of sustainable and it means that we should provide some government support and innovation so we maximize the options we have pure butter that's to improve our economic

growth, climate change make ourselves less vulnerable to the market. i think the main efforts that involve constrained should be focused on the demand side of the equation. we should penalize greenhouse gas emissions. we know they cause damage. we know we are only piece of the global puzzle, so what we do has to be part of an international effort. but we can take cost effective steps. whether you do that through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system or clean energy standard is less important than making sure you have flexible and ambitious policies that allowed the economy to discover the most effective ways to cut emissions. i also think similarly we need policies that deter oil consumption because we know our individual decisions that together make us more vulnerable to volatility and disruptions for security consequences and we need to be. again, whether that is through taxes on oil consumption for

fuel economy standards or other measures, i am less interested in the specific policy than making sure we choose one's for the benefits exceed the cost. again, where flexible. one of the big lessons of the last two years as they are bad at predicting our energy future. just think about what the discussion would've been five years ago. we need to pick policies that are resilient and that energy world and the world more broadly. >> now onto the compliance site. everyone agrees we should do fracturing or anything down. if you can go into more detail about that means, if you think about a national framework for a stay framework, what are some of the best practices? >> i'd think most regulation should be done at the state level. we have idiosyncrasies from place to place on how

communities handle development. i do think minimum standards at the national level makes sense with the states doing a lot of implementation and a lot of detail. the bad news is a marketing professional travel seven times and if something goes badly wrong of one part of the country, it will have an impact on developments another part of the country. as far as the actual threats we should be addressing, i tend to focus on three basic areas. the first is water. what happens now with what is and as much as i comes out. i think it's interesting to look at the new rules passed in illinois signed into law yesterday. you can disagree about details, but what interesting things that's happened is the rules require aboveground storage of waste water. what's interesting about that? was interesting if a few years ago with people believe it was put underground as a primary

water concerned, they'd say yes to both the wastewater storage tanks would've solved anything. because we have a better understanding and are more focused on wastewater, you can identify solutions. so that's number one. number two is air missions. the bottom line is even if individual bricks, the combined impact of development can be pretty bad, particularly if people do not adopt the right technologies to minimize compound and other ozone precursor. that's very important. the third piece is has to do with community integration. this is something that the challenge everywhere. it's particularly a challenge that are used to development. which are basically doing and a lot of these towns is creating a lottery where a lot of people

get very rich. some people get a little bit which another's see increasing prices to face the consequences. figuring out two in two great development places by maintaining those are providing community college courses for people to get jobs in the industry, that piece, which is a lot tougher to nail down is an extraordinarily important. people get upset about transformations that they start focusing more on the traditional environmental challenges. >> thank you. a number of questions on the debate of gas versus cole. you know they haven't read your book because you talk a lot about that. if you could talk about how much will be displaced by gas and the reality of carbon capture and sequestration is theoretical. >> so last april or may, we had

extremely though natural gas prices. you saw gas generations put about 40% of u.s. the two city into the grad. in the last six months, you have much higher natural gas prices and generation has pulled back substantially. if you look at projections giving her regulation, people tend to perceive natural gas not coming back on a sustained a fist to the level it had last year, for perhaps 10 years. so i think we will see increasing natural gas penetration driven by relatively low natural gas prices and increasing regulation on pollutants that 30 put in place with increasing impact on coal-fired generation. but i don't think you see natural gas backup: a fundamental way unless they are bigger steps on public policy.

the big one to watch this clean air act regulation of existing coal-fired power plants. there is a story in "the new york times" this afternoon about the president's plans to pursue regulation on existing power plants. the big question remains, what those focused on making coal plants more efficient between coal and gas. there remains an open question. for those of us on the outside trying guests on the inside, but i expect on the inside as well. you had a second question about coal and gas. so first basic point, ccs does not have been pascal unless you have carbon policy. the more efficient less costly. you're going to do that.

we've seen a failure to a marriage in a big way because it requires government support to bring down cost and because the government support has to be very large chunks. a small number of projects because sequestration is very expensive. that is not a recipe for successful innovation. one of the things i find interesting about what is happening now is that natural gas prices, it becomes possible to think about natural gas and sequestration, not found another thought about a lot in the policy world until pretty recently. in the technology world for that matter. natural gas and sequestration highs as an adage the fact you can do it in smaller increments. that means you can use the same amount of support to pursue multiple experiments, which is why likely to lead to greater innovation. other interesting is that high oil price is create an

opportunity to use sequester, carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery. we can set up support. you could see technological captures at the same time of enhanced oil coverage. this is one place where it still hasn't quite taken root. the natural resources defense council is currently known as a portal group still promotes a plan to use carbon capture and sequestration technology and increase u.s. oil production by roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day. >> to topics that may or may not have anything to do. is the exporting of lng out of this country and domestic reduction in china. if you can talk about how significant the global impact

is. >> let me connect them and then talk about natural gas exports. i am skeptical that china will choose to become heavily dependent on imports of liquefied natural gas. gas is a discretionary choice for china. it has an alternative for power generation, even if they cared about environmental impact of mass coal. even more than that, the likelihood that china will engage in large-scale lng in the united states is low. if you are chinese or defense still feel worried about fighting a war with the united states. you're going to import liquefied natural gas and energy market. i think the potential is limited they are. but they say one more thing about china and then talk about lng experts. there's a separate question of how much china will produce

domestically. china is estimated to have the largest show of gas reserves in the world. it's easy to make adjustments when you don't know about what's underground. we will see over the next five or 10 years but can actually be produced as a reasonable cost. the chinese resources are in places that don't have great infrastructure. they don't have a lot of water, so you'll need to bring that in. it out of the pipeline infrastructure for taking gas into market. on top of that, i'm going disagreement about the exact geology and how productive the show resources will be. we talk a lot about the circumstances that allow development in the united states and how those might not be replicated in other parts of the world. one thing china has going for it, the united states benefited from flexible market for companies can sell gas forward and easy to finance investment. that doesn't exist in the same same degree in europe. china has an alternative financing model. it has state finance and that

can provide long patient capital. china has that one opportunity. liquefied natural gas exports, huge issue. ongoing debates in washington about how much to approve and a few basic points are worth keeping in mind. first, basic economic is hard to make a case that the cost of allowing exports outweigh the benefits. but the second point related to that is it's also difficult to make an argument that economic outfits are all that large. the price difference between u.s. and overseas natural gas looks very big but once you added liquefaction, it's not all that large. on top of that, experts will stimulate marginal production, so profits are fairly limited. i would not overestimate the economic nsa. to me, the biggest thing to keep in mind that we talk about liquefied natural gas exports is

that they made for the broader system of global trade, energy and jan mat. the united states prevailed over china and the world trade organization in getting it -- in pursuing its restrictions on raw material exports. we continue to pursue efforts to reduce chinese restrictions on rare earth exports. there are legal technicalities that might allow us to say we will restrictions even though you can't, but at a minimum political level that's a tough argument to kerry. if we said we were strict experts to help our economy manufacturing reduce environmental impacts, we basically take the chinese threesome of a copy paste inserting different materials into the equation. i think that would put us in a very bad position. it's worth remembering despite all the euphoria, we still remain dependent on global market for our economic security. >> you mentioned with some optimism that need for

additional infrastructure to make widespread use of natural gas vehicles commercial. do you think private industry can fund this or his government subsidy needed? >> i mentioned it with optimism? i wouldn't say that initially optimistic about natural gas vehicles for individual passengers. there's some on his optimistic about most things. what he said is one of five polling stations is a network for me. i get a special sticker that lets me the hov lane even if i'm driving by myself. you can't let everyone do that otherwise those lame is not that much value. he gets a tax credit to help them out. if i were looking for places for natural gas to penetrate the transport, i would be looking at lng for tracking them or the

chicken and egg infrastructure problem is less daunting. the other place where i am fairly interested to see what has happened is conversion of natural gas into liquid feel good in any ordinary car or truck. there are some big barriers to investors who might look at doing that. they would be taking a risk of natural gas prices, fuel prices, construction cost, maybe a regulatory piece. most bankers tommy there's four different risk they don't want to touch. so that's tough. there are countries that seem to be moving forward trying to do this and a lot of it will be decided on how successful they ultimately are. >> final question. ..

and i looked around a bit nervously and i said you've caught me at the airport. [laughter] maybe we will have this conversation another time. so we even chile had the conversation, not at the airport. some of the nsa recent advances apparently haven't been put in place at the time. they called th