chair blog choco. we are pleased to have with us a good friend and an old friend, the dean of the school who we regard as a brookings alumnus because he participated in our center is visiting fellows program as did several of our guest today. this event is in the category of what is often called track two diplomacy since it brings together scholars and experts who are intimately knowledgeable of their government's policies and you can therefore supplement the exchanges of diplomats and officials. i'm sure today's conference, which we call a trial lug because it's a three age

dialogue can contribute and not fashion to peace and prosperity in a very important region of the world. and they can also stimulate and form and other faith public debate on the risks and opportunities that policymakers in washington, seoul and beijing are dealing with. to get us started, we have a distinguished american official who was very much involved in policymaking here in washington and also in the stewardship of u.s. relations with the republic of korea, people's republic of china and other important nations in that region. danny russell, whom i've had the honor of knowing and working with for many years as assistant secretary of state for east asia and pacific affairs.

he recently within the last couple of weeks returned from travels with president obama to china, burma and australia. he is going to provide us with an overview of u.s. interests and policies in the region. so danny, welcome back to brookings and thanks for giving us the view from washington and the view from track one diplomacy. [applause] >> well, thank you very much for the introduction. i have had the honor of working for you at the state department. in fact, i vividly remember as the young officer getting the bad news that after 10 years of serving overseas i had to come back to washington. but the good news that i was being brought back to work for then undersecretary of state,

peter and later tom pickering. so thank you very much for all you've done as a diplomat, as a journalist and as a thinker, particularly in this great institution. it is an honor to be a brookings , an iconic forum in the u.s. foreign policy arena development and thanks to jonathan pollack and other safety richard burks. i also want to say thank you to ambassador park that i know well and underscored the importance that we place, the administration places on the role of think tanks, scholars, very important contributors to the policy dialogue to our formation in the implementation

of our policy, not only in washington but in the republic of korea in people's republic of china and also i am pleased to participate with the peking school of international studies. many years ago, when i worked for first senator and then ambassador, mike mansfield, i frequently heard him pronounce that the next century, the 21st century will be the century of the pacific. i remember thinking at the time that it sounded a little hyperbolic here fortunately, i kept my mouth shut the case now we all accept how prescient those remarks were. i mansfield i know was

profoundly good thing the affairs of northeast asia because he believed as president obama and secretary kerry believe that america's well-being, security, economic future and prosperity are all deeply affected by developments in the region. and the obama administration has placed tremendous importance on northeast asia on our relations with china, our relations with the public and korea and we to understand the tremendous impact that the relationships and the policies in northeast asia have on the united states and have on the world. since 1977, when mansfield left the senate and took up his ambassadorial post in tokyo and certainly since january 2009, president obama came into

office, the pace of change in northeast asia has been extraordinary. while a disabled militant to certain other parts of the world, as the invitation of this conference mentioned, that cannot and must not be cost for complacency. the state for the global economy, for regional and world stability are simply much too high for that. said the individual and the collective challenge for chinese, koreans, americans, others face to help told an inclusive, stable and sustainable regional order. the question is in northeast asia, what will be the tenants of that order and how can we build from not to build the base from which we can help preserve the peace, advance human

dignity, promote prosperity and opportunity and the wider region and ultimately in the world. that's the question. let me know what you come up with. the fact is our countries has a tremendous ability. we are home to some of the world's most innovative companies. we are home to great thinkers. we are home to efficient manufacturers thanks in part to our investment in each other, thanks in part to our tight financial and supply chain links. just think apple iphone. just think samsung galaxy. but we are not only linked by investment capital. we are linked by human capital. over 40% of international students in the united states come from northeast asia. likewise, china has reason to be

the fifth most popular destination for students overseas and last year saw significant increases in american students in japan in korea. the blending of cultures and sharing of knowledge seen from everything from food to film to sports to music to the spirit conference. i know international relations isn't quite style, a bit this conference is not going to break youtube even though you've clearly got a good audience. i do hope and i do believe that working together you will be just as creative. you will be able to create a thought waves that will help drive the kind of future that we are trying to build. i know i'm setting the bar pretty high. i know jonathan organizes the

conference. so given our commonalities, it is natural that we seek opportunities to collaborate. we call this a trial lug. well, trilateral or lower lateral groups of nations working together increasingly are an important force in global policymaking. by definition, they are more inclusive than bilateral partnerships and in part as i can attest they are much more nimble than large membership international organizations. for example, the u.s., australia, japan trilateral security log, which is more than a decade old is an arrangement that just last month in prison cell president obama whose trilateral meeting with prime minister added showed that the

three niche and start moving beyond regional issues to jointly confront global challenges to kickstarting the world economy to battling isil and ebola to humanitarian and disaster assistance two strategies on development that can transform societies. and the trilateral collective republic of korea and japan in the u.s. is another grouping that is extremely important work. president obama hosted a trilateral meeting in march in the heat, where he and president park, prime minister oppy focused on the korean threat another concern. those groupings are based on shared values like democracy, human rights and respect for international law. they are based also on shared interests in the pacific and across the globe. the group that i will be joining

tomorrow i head to new delhi is a periodic u.s.-india japan trilateral. these are a few examples that attest to the possibility of lower lateral multilateral engagement. they tested the utility of a flexible geometry involving northeast asian countries but the united states. some in that vein, we welcomed president parks call on the resumption of the trilateral foreign ministers meeting from china and the republic of korea and japan and i think there is a widespread hope and expectation that after the meeting of the foreign ministers, a meeting of the leaders would be a very good sign for peace and stability in northeast asia. regardless of format, i think we

can all see the critical importance of communications among the major players in northeast asia, china, republic of korea, japan as well as the united states because the need to build on areas where interests converge and manage the issues and the areas where our interests may conflict. our collaboration to counter ebola as i mentioned is a good example. so is the crisis management mechanism in china and japan agreed to in principle last month in beijing, which we hope will become operational soon. conversely, last year the declaration of an air defense identification zone in the east china sea with an object lesson in how not to handle a sensitive issue pertaining to overlapping national interest. the coming year, 2015 presents

us with a particularly sensitive set of issues. the anniversary is for mark. the 70th anniversary of the end of world war ii. the 50th anniversary of normalization between seoul and tokyo. 1945 saw the creation of the u.n., the dropping of the atomic on and hiroshima and not the sake. the united states occupation in japan, korea's independence and also at division and nationalist china's decision to recognize mongolia as an independent country, a country note that next year also celebrates 25 years of democracy. navigating all of these anniversaries, working through these remembrances, this is going to require restraint. it's going to require good judgment, political and diplomatic skill.

and frankly, i welcome your advice and your counsel from this conference on, not just how to handle the anniversaries, but how to build as well. because the record of the past 70 years north east asia has been one of extraordinary progress. as i've said before, progress in 2015, particularly in the relationship between tokyo and seoul and the relationship between tokyo and beijing intern with our historical millstones into historical milestones. this is not a theoretical proposition . china, south korea, japan are major players in the security and all three are increasingly active and influential players on the global stage. far from asia for the asian, it is not a show for the world. we can't afford to have the three major countries in

northeast asia operating in anything less than a fully cooperative manner with themselves and with us, let alone work and purposes. one important way to support good relations among neighbors to support for the well-established regional border that includes you know i think aipac, east asia, another for an of course that regional order is built on the strong u.s. alliances and security partnerships that kept the reasons save and stable. the u.s. has championed and a testament economic and political linkages, educational and technical exchanges.

as a public hundreds of million of people out of poverty and if each country in northeast asia has developed and founded social and economic and political footing, first japan and the republic of korea has paid back the system, work to further strengthen the system edit pics and benefits. no it's china's turn to look at the. from richard nixon's historic visit to the normalization of relations dirty five years ago to china's accession to the wto to the achievements of sunny lands, to the publishing of the president obama's visit in beijing just last month. for decades, the united states has supported china's peaceful rise. we have worked to avoid strategic rivalries into narrow

or at a minimum to manage our differences. china's rise is by no means the only significant development. the entire asia pacific is changing. india is not just looking. india is now acting. ossie on is becoming more integrated. indonesia's democracy is flourishing. earnest reformers are pushing, pushing ahead. america's rebalances continuing and our alliance is our modernizing, growing stronger, growing more capable. this is all to the good. but the shifting regional dynamics generate tensions as well, tensions that pose potentially serious risk to stability and prosperity to all of us. let me ask, is the construction of man-made outposts and the

continual encroachment of playing for an oil rig, is that going to be the way that asian steel with maritime boundary disputes? with a long-standing affair to negotiate the basic code of conduct in south china sea require another decade of diplomacy? the sharpening of tensions over the maritime boundaries in the region underscored the importance of main tanning a regional system de son adherence to rules, not adhesion to rocks, a system where claims are based on international law and not a sense of entitlement or muscle, a system based on interdependence and peaceful dispute, management and resolution. but while changing dynamics drive some of the tensions, the greatest threat to the region is

a chronic one. north korea, the dangerous outlier in asia. the good news is north korea is an area where the arrests of the rest of northeast asia cooperate closely. we do so because the risks posed to all of us like the dpr case pursued of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. we do so because of the risk posed by north korea's rejection of the international obligations , its broken promises and its sudden provocations. i just gave a speech last week at an institution that will go unmentioned addressing north korea's illegal programs, its nuclear program and its abominable human rights record. i won't reprise the whole policy laid down. you are familiar with it. but i would mention sent in that

happen, namely the very first question i got from the ideas was basically hey, china is a problem here. isn't the problem that china is presenting on north korea. i gave an eloquent answer that can be boiled down to simply know. the fact is china has said unmistakable signals of its concern and indeed its displeasure with north korea's policies. prison issues decision to visit seoul before he gone to pyongyang that would kim jong-un. the u.s. and some of our partners believe there is much more china can do to apply pressure and i can attest that china believes there's a lot more that the u.s. can do to engage diplomatically. overall i see a very broad

alignment in strategic interests and strategy and a strong commitment to cooperation, washington, tokyo united and russia as well on the korean peninsula. at the same time, we pursue a free and whole nuclear weapons free korean peninsula working with northeast asian partners in many other ways because each of us has a significant role to play in addressing the myriad and significant ongoing challenges in the still sluggish global economy, we are the actions of growth, working within aipac and the g20, we oppose to do even more, implementing the korea u.s. free trade agreement, negotiating a bilateral investment treaty with china, finishing the transpacific partnership, the

tpp with japan and others, all of these will provide a huge list to the global economy. china fta's, korea fta's, trade proposals, these are all an important part of the conversation as well. now the u.s. and china as well known are the world's greatest emitters of greenhouse gas, but our recent action on climate change on targets show we are determined to address it. so did president obama and prime minister abbé's decision to host the global green climates under $3 billion in $1.5 billion respectively. countries are in c. and manufacturing capabilities will keep us at the forefront of the clean energy economy, we each have put out an infectious

disease expert to send tremendous experience from the bird flu and sars experience and that helps ensure that our nations are key contributors to dealing with people of response. it is certain that we'll need to do more in the future. mr major providers of humanitarian assistance and disaster with friends area to iraq to the philippines. we are also tackling the closely interrelated issues of food security, water security, energy security, challenges in the mekong river base, challenges and the pacific islands, challenges in africa. our expertise are capital, after i did to meet all of these challenges. i want to save some time for questions so i'll stop here. my basic point is this. whether it is poor lateral or

trilateral or multilateral, the fact is we have entered the age of networks, essentially we have no choice but to interact and to collaborate. the major northeast asian powers and the united states need each other as much as the rest of the world needs and is thus to work together, needs is to jumpstart the global economy, to preserve stability, enhance global security and protect global environment. so if i can channel by former abbas, mike mansfield ,-com,-com ma u.s., northeast asia relations at the most of port poor lateral relations in the world are none. you know that. that is why you're having this conference. keep up the good work and i very much look forward to hearing not just your questions, but in due course your conclusions. thank you very much.

[applause] >> on behalf of all of us, thank you very commit very much for your wide-ranging remarks. i am that your appeal for flexible geometry. it is what we know at two wickedly, but you have to practice it every day. assistant secretary russell has volunteered to take some questions. so i will recognize them as hands go up. please keep them brief and identify yourself as well. beginning in the back. >> joe bosco formally with the defense department to as the person is the question last week about china's north korea, i wonder if you could elaborate on what seems to be a suggestion of moral equivalence that china thinks that we need to do more.

we think china needs to do more. in the same speech last week you say we bent over backwards to solve the north korea issue. do you think china has spent over backwards anywhere near what the u.s. has done? >> well, i consider myself blessed to give to questions from you and two consecutive speeches. thank you very much. it is roughly the same question. i think the constructive and useful way to look at this is in terms of common objectives and an iterative process to back in style are strategies for getting there. the u.s. with the republic of korea is cooperating with china on the challenge of the korean peninsula.

we are cooperating as well with other partners, including japan. we the united states have experimented with bilateral negotiations, with north korea. i myself was part of the negotiating team led by bob baluchi that ultimately reached an agreed framework. as is well known, north korea cheated on that deal. they watched him that deal. we have distinguished bob einhorn in the room. up is the archetype of an important agreement with the north koreans on missiles that fell apart because the north koreans will not honor their obligations. we have tried quadrilateral toxins certainly we have tried six party talks and i just heard my friend and former boston

predecessor, chris hill talk on his new book in which he describes the efforts and frustration of reaching an agreement with the north koreans only to see it unravel as they start negotiating from scratch and consider commitments the way that famously italians considered red lights, merely a suggestion. we are not giving up because our object is an adventure diplomats are supposed to do this, to speak for the chinese insane this is a shared object to is to find a peaceful path to halt, rollback and ultimately eliminate north korea's nuclear missile program and ambition. of course we want to do this peacefully. the fact is simple.

an unfortunate fact is that it's not what north korea wants. north korea's laboring under the delusion that can simultaneously verse two economic growth and assistance from the international assistance with ongoing programs. it can't be done. i venture to say that not only do leaders in seoul and tokyo share that view, the leaders in beijing as well. so we are embarked on it to bring out her too sharp in the faced by north korea's leaders. the only path to security and prosperity that north korea claims to seek is the path of denuclearization beginning with a freeze in that pathway must

run negotiations. remake on the basis of experienced the distinction between talk and negotiations. negotiations have to begin from an agreed premise that we are putting the issue of concern on the table, that we are entering into an effort to reach outcomes. that is chronically bad north korea's problem. the willingness to put forward significant and if it's to north korea for honoring its obligations is not in question. that has not been a problem for us. now the chinese in their recipes may use more dialogue and less pressure, but fundamentally we

are both pollack make the same cake. it is the peacefully denuclearized korean peninsula. >> thanks so much, secretary russell. if i could follow on joe's question, are we hearing a hint at least of the possibility that the u.s. is thinking or rethinking what seems to be a possibility of no bilaterals with the north koreans unless denuclearization is agreed-upon outcome. just a second ago, you said that talks have to agree that whatever the outcome desire will be binding. is that a nuance? in my reading too much into that? are we trying to look for a way

to break in a sense this deadlock on bilaterals as long as denuclearization is the only poll that we will agree to talk with them about. thanks. >> no. i don't think that is a mac or recharacterize nation of what i said or what i meant to say at least. the united states has never had groupies in most administrations we have been willing to speak directly to north korea, thirdly the obama administration has never hesitated to talk directly to the dprk. we believe so that give a mistake that the republic of korea, first and foremost has in the future of the korean peninsula, that any process with the dprk must have clued the republic of korea. i believe that relations between washington and seoul are better

than at any time certainly in my professional lifetime and i have served in seoul and worked the issue for going on 30 years. that is something that we are all very proud of. we place tremendous importance on synchronizing and consulting with the republic of korea. the initiatives coming out of bluenose. we also recognize that china for a variety of reasons as a tremendous influence and a significant role to play as does japan, as does russia. and so, the short answer is no, we are not of the view that the pathway to a denuclearized

peninsula is through bilateral u.s. dprk negotiations that we seek must be i believe based on the significant agreements already reached and captured in the 2005 joint statement of the six party talks. >> thank you very, very much for the clarifications. yes, in the back of the room over there. the >> server, let me play a little double-sided kids since nobody from peking university wants to stand out.

send me see if i can play the devil's advocate on that. the united states negotiation of the united states is often like a world wide web said the big gangster who goes around armed to the teeth and shoots that whoever shows up to oppose them. i saw them a long time ago and i'm really amazed that the united states still seems to behave like that. so isn't there a need for the united states to also reduce is warmongering but it does all over the world by negotiating and saying we want peace. yes, the military option is there if you don't step our proposal we are going to kill you. in that situation, wouldn't you want to change some of their positions? >> first of all, let me make clear that i came to this event unarmed. secondly, as the child of

peaceniks going up, agitating for world peace, i share your objective in a peaceful and deciphering world. the good news is that the military presence of the united states in the asia-pacific region has been an extraordinary and inessential force for growth, for stability and for peace. that is something for which we can all be proud and some names for which we must all continue to work. with respect to china, i am also proud to point to the very significant strides the obama administration has made with the prc, particularly under xi shin

pain and establishing a new level of military to military engagement, dialogue and even cooperation. the pla navy participated in the pacific rim exercise this year for the very first time. general dempsey, secretary of defense visited beijing and elsewhere in china, very successful, very important business and chinese military leaders have reciprocated. just last month when we read in beijing, president obama and president xi announced two very significant agreements with regard to the notification of

major military exercises and standards of conduct for naval ships at sea. this is very meaningful because as china's military capability continues to grow dramatically if not exponentially, as china's interest continued to grow dramatically if not exponentially and as china finds itself a budding is sometimes bumping up against the interests of its neighbors in the interest of the united states throughout the in the pacific region, this kind of military to military communication, often in the form of hotlines and codes of conduct and confidence building measures represent essential ingredients to maintaining stability in

maintaining security in the 21st century. so i will stay away from wild west movies and leave it there. thank you. >> yes, forever. on the imac >> from peking university. he wanted to play the devils advocate. first of all, peking university advocates are not devils. secondly, you don't need to advocate. i have just one question for you. that is you know, there are many people who talk about china

supporting the u.s. in the efforts to fight 79. what exactly does the administration hoped china can play a role on? >> well, thank you very much. i am appreciative of all of the work you personally in the institute does. this is a topic of course with conversation between our leaders and certainly between our two systems. i have joined secretary kerry and foreign minister want on this topic and there's different ways of parsing and. but i think that the issue goes the lung isil or 79 and it

pertains to the common injuries that both china and the united states have in preventing the spread of radical jihad is some, the interest and protect in the global infrastructure of finance and transportation from being utilized and hijacked by terrorist groups. it is our interest in preventing violent extremists from particularly those returning from conflict zones in the middle east, from conducting operations for attacking us or our neighbors. and it also pertains to the objectives that we share on the necessity of sharing information

and not board meeting. so the chinese government has indicated more than once that it is not in the business of joining somebody else's coalition. but in the areas where we have a common interest in specifically in the region such as afghanistan or pakistan, where we share an interest in helping to maintain security and helping create the indigenous capacity to defend again that throughout the terrorism. we can, should and are expanding our cooperation. now, china is very well is increasingly faced with the large expansion of overseas

citizens throughout the middle east. that is china a new type of steak in the affairs of regions that perhaps 10 years ago or 20 years ago were a little concerned to policymaker is. china and its western province and its western borders faces the threat from organizations like the east turkmenistan in a jet. so this is not a theoretical proposition for china and it remains an area in, which we want to cooperate. so the formula for looking up this issue is not asked montour and china aiding us. the correct formula is the

object to identification of common interest, the pooling of information and resources and the identification of areas were coordinated and in some cases join a collective action will prove to be most effective. >> there is a gentleman in the front row with a question. >> d&e, you mentioned you're going to new delhi. would you be good enough to say what you see as the role of the major south asian country in east asia and since you emphasize the importance of regional structures now that india is more participatory in the acm, what you see further opportunities for india to play a role in east asia? >> thank you. without a doubt, there is

abundant space for india to play a greater constructive role in the affairs of all of east asia, particularly southeast asia. in the five years now that the u.s. has been participating in the east asia summit, i have worked as the senior official involved in participated at both the foreign ministers level and the leaders meeting discussions that have included the indian leader, including in november. and i can attest that india brings an important event an important contribution to the discussion among the asia-pacific countries. my consultations are part of an ongoing dialogue that my

colleague, the assistant secretary for south asia and i have with senior indian foreign-policy makers about what and how india can do and do more in terms of east asia. first and foremost, india as the world's largest democracy, as an extraordinary pluralistic society that has an important tradition of tolerance and very strong institutions is a voice that needs to be heard in east asia. india has sent you to say and something to say based on its own experience. and whether the issue is democratization in burma, bmr in cambodia and vietnam was a

peaceful and handling of border disputes. we want india's voice to be heard. secondly, india has extraordinary economic capacity, extraordinary unfulfilled economic capacity both as a producer and as a market. so developing, whether it is the silk road for a new silk road for a new silk road maritime band, their abundant names for it. so developing birders for trade, expanding trade, removing carriers to trade, this is a project in which we very much want and need india's full participation. india has an impressive record in terms of international peacekeeping, in terms of

regional organizations, regional architecture. this is a voice that needs to be heard. what is appealing to me and my colleagues is prime minister modise has undertaken to build from what has been a vote east policy. he has shown indeed his interest in involving india and the thinking of the affairs of the broader region, and gauging in political terms, engaging in future security arrangements. that is very much to be welcomed

as something that i am going to hear more about. >> we have time for one last question. if it is brief, the gentleman. yes. >> cpi tv of taiwan. mr. secretary, congress has voted to authorize the sale to taiwan and the president expected to sign it into now. what is the significance of this? do you buy to concerned that this may have any impact on u.s.-china relations, particularly built a mill exchanges? thank you very much. >> i am not going to speak to any legislative issue, other to say the united states under the obama administration followed the same policy as the preceding

administrations than normalizations between beijing and washington. we have a one china policy. we have a one china policy based on our three joint communiqués. we also have important unofficial regulations with taiwan and enough regard, our policy is guided i not only to one china policy, but the taiwan relations act. in that context, we remain committed to helping to ensure that taiwan retains the ability to prevent coercion and defend itself and that is a commitment that we take very seriously. it is an ongoing effort. that said, the significant

progress that the world has witnessed over the last five years, dialogue and cross streets agreement is something that we all value. so our policy and our goals and matt enhancing the stability across the street in the region. the quality of the dialogue that we maintain with the mainland, the quality between the defense establishment and the pla for example and particularly the quality of dialogue between our leaders is a critical element in ensuring and on that basis i am

confident that the u.s. and prc will continue on a very steady path. >> on behalf of everyone, all of us are deeply appreciative of the time you've given to us this morning and the candor and openness with which it addressed a number of questions when we never know exactly what questions will be forthright. thank you. [applause] >> later on c-span to continue our look at tenures of q&a with their 2009 interview featuring conservative commentator asked the cop who talked about are

writing an work as a television pundit. >> what then are we to make of the six great crisis before this? it is most important to note that it's not a speeding asteroid, but rather it is us marching inexorably in this direction in the most powerful way to do one thing, domesticate the planet. that is what is driving this crisis as we speak today. what does this have to do with renewable energy? well, the crisis above all else is a clarion call for change in our relationship with one another in the planet earth.

why is the extinction because it's loud and clear as he must be. for those who are willing to listen its almost deafening. i can imagine with each passing nurses left novell that rings and the flea in the habit of marking the passage of another miracle. and it's certainly clear. it provides clear evidence unequivocal evidence that something is amiss. be mindful, over the long sweep, a billion years there have been five events that rivaled the extinction crisis that we are in today. if that is not evidence that something is amiss, then i don't know what amiss. we understand the cause of the extinction crisis. it is human induced habitat declaration, loss, modification,

invasive species overexploitation and over the last few decades climate change.

>> next, look at the future of coal as an energy resource. this is part of a conference voted at a center for strategic and international studies. aquino speakers deputy assistant secretary for clean coal, julio friedman who talked about technology being used to reduce carbon emissions. this is an hour. >> i think it's completely crazy that we are doing work on the 17th of december. i can't imagine we are holding real conferences here the week before christmas, but we are. that's because there's so much to talk about and i'm so glad to have you all come. thank you for being here. my name is john hanley, president of the sis. i want to say a special names to julio friedman. we've known each other for many years, fortunately in town

serving a government more directly. we are so pleased that he could be here at a crucial time when we need to be thinking through a lot of important issues. recently i've been doing some personal reading on the history of philosophy. recently reading about tomas mathis was a british cleric who in the early 18th century, who was a very provocative philosopher because he had very dark views about the future of humanity. you now know him as an adjective. people talk about the masons and problem. he had this very dark view that the population was growing much

faster than the capacity of the world to feed the population and people were doomed to die of starvation. he took it over the edge by saying therefore we shouldn't help poor people because they are going to die anyway, so let's not give them anything to help them through this. pretty bleak and i bleak and i are sort of a philosophy, which is why he is now known by the adjective, not known himself. i thought about coming up, relevant for the conversation that maltose was wrong because he didn't understand one crucial thing. and that is that where the supply and demand curve intersects is not static. the supply curve changes with technology. back in his day in the 1820s. today we've got 7 million people

in the world here three times as many people, probably a lot less base devoted to agriculture. we still have hungry people. i am not minimizing your technology has allowed us to address them off easy and problem find a solution. and i thought you know, it's a little bit of good context for today. you know, we've got a lot of people in the world talking about a very, very smart future because of climate change. that may be true. i am not commenting one way or the other on climate change. what i am saying is you have to understand technology is giving us new alternatives all the time. and so, we are going to spend some time together today to really explore that. you know, what is technology giving us in terms of clean

coal? ..

in the clean coal deployment. we are very, very pleased to have leo here today to talk about the role of coal in role of coal in the administration followed above energy strategy. i believe you got a presentation and we'll take your questions. thank you very much.

>> thank you, sarah. thank you, dr. henry. i'm delighted to be here. for those of you don't know me, i am julio friedman. there is one other who lives in chile. weirdly she works at austin. go figure. last night i feel compelled given the introduction to mention not only philosophically, but also scientifically how often people are wrong. not only a very sturdy figure this time, lord kelvin was also widely wrong. lord kelvin, was by any measure a dynamic physicist, calculated the age of the earth they said on the definitively laid that could not be older than 10,000 years based on this. very things he didn't quite know

at the time and as we learned, things change. in that context, we answer the space of a certain amount of humility, a certain amount of object could be as we get into this. we like to read from a basis of facts and that's what i'm going to talk about today in the context of work: and were cool is that we see not only the global role, but the u.s. were continuing into the future. one of the things that most people sort of instinctively understand that don't explicitly understand our state is that we are in an era of fossil energy of bus is right now. that was not obvious 10 years ago at all. there is a lot of discussion around oil. 10 years ago we imagined a nation in natural gas declined, it's kind of not that way anymore. the united states is having record oil and gas production for both. in fact, natural gas is now about 60% unconventional

production. we are now the number two oil producer in the world. we'll catch up with saudi arabia sometime next year. that is all different. from any of and is welcome news. not so much in terms of the atmosphere. not so much in terms of the global climate system, but from a number of perspectives to economics and the geopolitical stability, this era of fossil energy abundant is not only import and to recognize, but to sort of internalize as we go thinking about our business. we see coelho on the cover of the magazine but it is. it gives a sense of the fact it is starting to enter a bed. the presence and abundance of coal, the rule that it plays, its persistence is one of those names that said recognized in some contexts managed.

because in fact the future of u.s. fossil energy demand in global demand sees an awful lot of false leads in poll you specifically. under most scenarios, certainly within the eia, the default scenario, 75% of global primary energy is still fossil. the majority of that is cool, but to surpass oil is the number one energy fuel worldwide. even with robust natural gas growth, cool remains the major fuel. in the u.s., everywhere. in the context of the united states, even given sort of robust scenarios of low-price natural gas in high abundance, we selected 25% coal use of the indefinite future. that's a lot of cool and admissions with that. fossil energy is the dominant power supply. always up to about 70% in the united states. again, it is expected that way for a very long time.

with that continued use, we will continue to see greenhouse gas emissions grow as well and that is in fact the heart part. coal has come a very long way. the first use of the phrase clean coal was in the 1830s, people talking about the fact that clean coal is about getting your abundant sturdy. because it was dumped into peoples houses, you wouldn't get all over your apron. i think the industry has moved quite a bit since then. we've had in the past couple of decades something on the order of 90% reduction. we been able to figure out a whole facet technologies to manage mercury out. carbon is the hard one and it is the central issue in terms of what will the role of colby in the united states and how to rethink about the carbon profile in how we manage it. for the rest of the world, coal use is still there, continues to grow in china, europe and japan.

europe may have been a surprise for sun. it is in fact the fastest growing coal market in part because germany shutting down the nuclear power plants and gas wasn't what it used to be in europe for a number of these reasons. so they find themselves using more coal. same thing in japan with the closure of the nuclear power plant, japan is building gas plants and coal plants and using them for a while. there is increased trade and ask for: new energy security concerns. this is a central issue in the way that china thinks about his work. for them, domestic security is a big issue in coal is a big part of how they see their robust energy infrastructure. same thing in eastern europe. it is not just poland. poland, romania, ukraine, hungary, a number of eastern european countries and adjacent countries really rely heavily on coal for energy supplies.

with all that dramatic increase in carbon dioxide emissions. in that context, if we are in an era of fossil energy abundant, and carbon capture utilization, this is the key technology for an era of fossil energy abundance. if you want to stabilize that with the concentration, is one of those rings you need to do. this has been recognized formally in the present climate action plan. it is central if you open the middle of the document, that is where the pieces. there's a number of things that flow from not. a certain amount of controversy writing epa draft regulations. one 11-b and 111 t. existing sources. ccs is listed as compliance option for both of those and people are going about trying to figure whether that makes sense for their state or region. in addition to that, there's important technical findings.

the most important is the climate change is real and continues to be a persistent issue. the climate change recent report has doubled down on that and said we really, really understand this and it's very, very dire. in addition to that, we start to recognize the challenges associated with insight zillions. some of that is resilient in the face of whether threats or climate threats, but some of that has to do with renewable loading. that is a good challenge to have to be benign renewables to the grid and we've learned a series of things from that and in doing so are you actually maintain resilient as part of the next faces a new and important question. department of energy is not an idle about this. my program is the expelling dollars into the efforts of president obama took office. and massive investment in keeping whole private clean energy future. central to that is carbon capture and storage. for those of you who aren't necessarily familiar with it, it is not that hard.

two parts of carbon capture and carbon storage. carbon capture is basically carbon dioxide from dilute streams, 12%, 14%, three to 7% from a natural gas plant in the concentrate to 95%. the reason why for the second part is storage. even checked carbon dioxide deep underground and the has to be heavily concentrated to work properly. once it goes down, it stays down. the earth's crust is well configured to carbon dioxide. big huge body of knowledge to demonstrate that. it's not rocket science. it is rock science. there's a lot we know about that. to first at the united states is not just the saudi arabia of coal. it's everything these days for oil, gas and also co2 storage volume. we have got somewhere between 163,200,000,000,000 tons of storage.

we have a huge natural resource for storing carbon dioxide in the united states and that is really great news because it means we have an option they want to consider as part of what we do under and all of the above scenario and i can't state this enough. i am not here for coal. coal has an awful lot of benefits to it and those are manifest in terms of low-cost, diversified, is a transfer, domestic destruction and the whole number of things. if you're really serious about climate change committee need to do all of the above it all of the above includes coal, but it's not just cool. a robust fighting from these general equilibrium models itc here could just as easily be the iaea or stanford or any other group. if you look at their team different vintages and bases for these kinds of equilibrium around the world, you get a similar result, which is you always to efficiency, or soon will bolster nuclear and always carbon capture and storage in

yours you feel switching. you have all those things. the numbers are surprisingly robust. this analysis has about 14%, but that's a robust result typically between 12% in 20% of the solution set as ecs. one of the things the iaea made a point of been there 2014 outlook was to save his come along way come along winnable bunch of other things. we could go even further in fact there's grounds for it. one of their ways of thinking about it is based. if you look at the equilibrium models and say what does it take to get a 450 target for atmosphere stabilization? if he takes ecs off the table, half the models don't converge. they don't solve the problem at all. a typical estimate for this kind of thing is if he takes ecs off the table, the cost of hitting the target goes up about 150%. if more than doubles. the international panel on

climate change is actually put more emphasis on this and this is from david victor san diego. if you had a 550 target, take it off the table in the cost goes up about 50%. umbilicus of between 30% and 80%. if you had a 450 target coster pulls. does that between 200% and 400%. that is a lot of money and it's just because in some markets, cool and ccs is a cheap option. not everywhere. and a whole bunch of market and a whole bunch of places in the country and around the world, and ccs with cool is the cheapest option for deep abatement. if you give them the cheapest option you have to replace it with something more costly or less efficient. the good news is we made a lot of progress. basically the lower two bars are built and operating or will be operating soon because it's being built.

right now we're here at 2015. we put about 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year underground. that is a decent volume, real abatement. going into the atmosphere and not any more. by the end of the decade, we should be 100 million pounds, roughly twice that. 20 large projects worldwide and are on track to another 20 or so by the end of the decade. that's awesome. we want that knowledge. we want that demonstration. we want a technical findings that comes from that kind of an undertaking and advises the makers very well. this is an important one. this is the birth of a new species and i was happy enough to witness this october 1st. boundary 10 in canada became the first place where someone's retrofitted coal plant to capture the admissions using basically off-the-shelf technology. this is canadian technology can solve fully in subsidiary but

similar to mitsubishi's technologies and the norwegian technologies for u.s. companies. basically the steam coming up top means it's operating. that was nt 1.1 million tons a year. it is not anymore. going underground now and we really like the idea of doing a number one of these in a very large enough in the first project to cut the cost by 30% on the second. that is a very important finding in and then we find robust across the portfolio. as people deploy these things, they come and say we know how to cut the cost gabriel just to the second project instead because second project is always cheaper than the first by a lot. 20% to 30% of a typical number. i want to dwell on this for a moment because it helps make the point i made earlier. an environmental group approached at the beginning of the project and said he will spend $1.4 billion on this project. that's a lot of money.

how do you put solar panels, religion windfarms, do a bunch of efficiency measures and those be a better use of your company and better for customers. present impassioned pitch. the president said you do know we are in canada, right? it is dark here half of the year. when it is dark as when we need the energy. solar is that the really great solution for us. also, we can't put a windfarms because we have should not succumb to the territory. they rip apart windfarms. so we lose our capital and wouldn't have the energy. canada's arctic put through efficiency measures. so for our customers, this is the right solution. i want to underscore that for our customers, this is the right solution. not for everybody, not everywhere, but for some part of the world, this is what clean code looks like. virtually no socks, virtually no

particulars, virtually no mercury arsenic in the 90% reduction with emissions. we have not been idle about this in the united states. canada got there first, but it's been a good run. we've put a lot of money into it. the investment into this fire was a commitment of about $4.5 billion. substantial commitment to see these up and running is because it all comes down to projects. projects are the source of innovation. not just in technology. not just engineering design, but business and policy, financial models, financing, all of the things that comes as a project because we put the money on the table of folks is the money people get serious about how to figure out how to make the thing work. a couple of examples here this is one of our favorite projects. this is a success in many ways

your partner you're part of that is clearly not the useful technology. it took us 25 years to develop that. as we tested now scale, that's 582-megawatt power plant in the thing you want to draw your attention to is really two things. one is the black pile in the corner. they are minding at $10 a ton. they've got an 80 year supply. it is an incredibly cheap source of fuel for this plan. in this part of the country, and where they need to maintain resilience, the southern company thought this was an important component of their portfolio. another thing that's not obvious but is the fact is a meltwater positive power plant. powerplant produces water as its function. part of the reason why is they have to dry but cool to make it work. they return the water should the environment. we don't often think of fossil energy plants as sources of

water, but in fact they put water into the environment. as one of those things we can consider in the d.o.e. is thinking in terms of its r&d portfolio. he may be familiar with this project. this is a huge active powerplant. a total output is sent in the 4400-megawatt, these guys went in we gave them some money to do a 60-megawatt retrofitted. they said it isn't going to cut it. let's make it four times as big. they did a 240-watt richer for with government money. they innovated their business model. the first vertically integrated powerplant. so these guys on the powerplant. they are powerplant. they're also going to capture facility, all those blue things being built right now. off to the races. they poured the concrete, but they also own the co2 pipeline in the own a quarter of the show that subject did too.

in fact, they are able to make finance to the project by china new business model. it's important to note that this is also a model of what the future looks like international partnerships. japanese banks and in fact has japanese technology. as is mitsubishi's technology for retrofits. we think there's a lot more projects with international financing and other projects and ones in which other governments are looking to play a role as well. this is a utilization project, one i am fond of. it is small by her standards. 750,000 tons a year. these guys are making baking soda. there's not a huge market, but they are capturing co2. the feedstock assaults, which is very cheap and they saw the baking soda and hcl. these guys are doing okay.

they are turning a profit on this and looking forward to the second and third for his plan. important to understand once they saturate the market, which though basically do on their next plan, they will celebrate aggregate. basically 11 bucks a ton. it's a cheap product, but its favor to make and make it with their feedstocks and there's a market for. these guys are straightforward about what they're going to do. another stimulus project outside of san antonio. encourage you to look at the cement plant and put this into the market. so when it comes to at the department of energy and particularly what my program is doing, our top priority are projects like this. just getting the commercial demonstration into operation. one of them started working in texas, a refinery. we birdie putt 1.6 million tons of co2 underground on the project, operating very, very well. part of what we have to do is

deliver a deep rich set of public earnings from these projects because this is what they are for. they are to advise the public. we have pre-compression, post-combustion ought to fire products injected into oil fields. we are doing new builds and retrofits come industrial projects of power projects, carbonates and classics covering as much as we can to deliver the risk that sat of public learning back to the nation. we take that mission very, very seriously. second priority we have to reimagine our r&d portfolio. i'm going to only talk about that for a minute too. if you want the nine-hour version let me know i'm happy to get it. or program conceived in 1997. we are busily trying to think what is actually important, how do we make the ccs in clean coal portfolio but it needs to be for the modern world. the third priorities international partnerships.

our research program was conceived in 1987 in which a unilateral united states seemed obvious to all. not so obvious these days. many international players and many partners were the world has become more integrated, were complicated, more old to notional inactions and we feel that's an important part of make the situation work. i do want to take a moment and talk about the financing of these plans. the primary reason why is because if the focus of this project is the issue of projects is financing. a lot of people come to me and see the issue of carbon capture and storage is about cost. my reminders the issue is about financing on all a pack that in the next couple of fires. it is fair to say the cost of the plant is my expensive than the plant without it. we are not talking about that.

we talk about something different. but clean alternatives there out there and how do we then not in an important way. it's also not just about the technology. a lot of people say to me this is an untested basket of technology, hogwash. we've been capturing since 1938. we've been storing underground since 1932. right two. right now there's maybe a dozen vendors worldwide have a cellular capture technology in a project to cellular capture technology, have the equipment at a price of a performance guarantee. so the potential to improve is also very, very large and i will speak briefly. we will talk about it more. right now we do the separation that about 50% of the efficiency. we leave 80% on the table. there's a lot of room to improve from an engineering basis, integration business, material

science bases, just a lot of room to improve and that means a lot of room to ratchet down the cost. with respect to finance, that is the issue. have you finance these things? many options open to clean energy technologies are not open to carbon capture storage and these include things like investment tax credits, renewable portfolio standards, which allow you recovery, tax-exempt financing, but will provide this service. i absolutely want to declare on this, i do not have a dog in that hunt. i do not make a recommended policy. not what i do. but if you want to get the financing done, it is worth asking what policy choices are available to us and that is a conversation which we are very happy to have been eager to discuss.

and other countries are actually pursuing not. there's a mechanism and they have every projects. white rose's first off the block. the european union has feed and terrorists. he didn't terras have not been applied yet. that is a question the europeans are considering. so this question is how do you get these things built. one of the things we're trying to do which have approved a billion dollars of long authorities for fossil energy projects and bring much at the top of the list. ..

the reason i mention this is the shows very nicely what all of the above action look like if you look at the cost of this is cold without ccs, natural gas without ccs and with ccs and arrange of nuclear geothermal solar dense solar thermal all of these technologies and to a first cut in some of these markets is the cheapest. in other markets they are now. you can see that here. one of the other things i wanted to draw your attention to is we don't have a lot of data points.

one of the things we need to do is figure out what the ranges around that. at this point you are talking about a few cents per kilowatt additive and how much capture are you going to do, 50% or 90%? this question terms of what technology you use in all these things. when we start looking at the range of these costs one story emerges switches on all of the above. there isn't a silver bullet that you can point to the market. and you will do efficiency and you can do all these things. one of the things that comes out of this analysis is the recognition that the policy option for any mirroring deployment option capture and storage is a very important one.

one of the things that makes it work in the united states may be harder in other parts of the world. i can't overstate this enough. the low-end estimates are tens of billions of barrels of production that can come from co2 injection underground. that in itself would provide tremendous revenues. if you look at the difference in costs associated with some of these projects the tax revenues that come from dor breakeven which means they are in net revenue positive after that. it's an important finding. in terms of storage potential when you enhance recovery do restore carbon dioxide. more than $25 billion of storage and eor. that's a large volume of carbon dioxide. i would be half the u.s. cole for 20 years. it's a whole lot of carbon dioxide and in fact we are short about 100 million tons a year right now in terms of what the

market would buy if we could supply it. so there are grounds to think this would be helpful and it helps with financing. the financing is the issue giving at the clt eor is a good thing to do. in that context this is something that is being considered in the context of the epa's draft regulations. what's interesting about this and i don't want to dwell on this, is that ccs mcc u.s. with eor is a compliance option especially in a 111d. that's pretty straightforward and explicit but also how this is flexible. the ways this is accounted for is something that's still being sorted. we are talking with epa and trying to figure out how to make the best recommendations we can do what it is they do. they are regulatory body and they take their job seriously and we provide input to data we input to that arena but to receive what we think having these successes with eor getting these projects built is going to

be important in thinking about the opportunities in the power sector around compliance. something that is usually not spoken about but i want to draw your attention to his residual oil sounds. for those economists you don't think about these because they are not resources and they are not reserves. if you inject water into rigid -- residual oil zone you get nothing. it only works when you inject carbon dioxide so what you might not know his people have been doing this around the country for six years now. they're eight fields in states producing from residual oil zones. a recent study done by it bans resources international looked at just four counties in texas. that's the yellow box, the blown up boxes one county in texas. their conservative estimate for how much oil can be produced from out is 109 billion barrels in those four counties. one of the things i'm glad to say is actually we have negotiated a way for them to

continue to expand their studies to look to develop a methodology to be applied to other parts of the country. one of the things that i care about in this is that those residual oil zones would store between 60 and 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide. it's an enormous opportunity. also important and this is in fact that would be net carbon negative oil. let me say that again. net carbon negative oil production. today when you do in enhanced oil recovery if you inject between six and 7000 cubic feet of co2 that's close to breakeven at 7500, a thousand per barrel. on a molecular basis on a mass basis on an energetic basis that's the carbon eyes if you are using anthropogenic co2 critic to use natural seau to its mark carbonell the ground. i have had the great pleasure meeting with an oil company in chaparral the other day which

only uses anthropogenic co2 for theirs in an enhanced oil recovery. these guys are producing negative carbon oil today. they're taking carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere and putting it on the ground on the oil it produces has a lower carbon volume. it's an important finding. one of the things the department of energy wants to be more clear about in more demonstrable about in the coming years. in thinking about these residual oil sounds they are almost always going to be net carbon negative. i want to close with a discussion on international partnerships. also this is where a lot of the action is. these are required. the global environment is shared and one of the things that came out of lima is every country has a job. we are trying to figure out what this looks like. my program we have things like this sequestration leadership forum actively supporting not just information sharing but the development of new policies and projects. we have been very excited about

the build leadership the secretary is shown and other ministers have shown in response. the next ministerial watch would be in the kingdom of saudi arabia in november. watch this space. they will be interesting things to come. international partnerships are required from congress. the end of the day what will help climate negotiations is good trade. if we can figure out ways to support commercial engagement through ccs project production that will help everybody. showcase projects for example in this country or in others. international partnerships can accelerate the learning sharing and accelerate deployment here we don't have to build five kinds of plants if we can just build one plant in one country and share those results it saves money and saves time and a very usable way. the international landscape is changing dramatically. i'm sure many of you here watched the u.s. china court announced in november.

we were all very pleased with it and it includes among other things a large ccs project in china and a science project with the joint international project shared by the united states and china and other nations. we are thrilled with this outcome. there's also a new kind of project the chinese are going to pilot with an enhanced water recovery project. you use the pressure you are using an injection to drive the reverse osmosis process at the surface. the project has been worked by the d.o.e. and we are seeking a pilot in the united states. i'm happy to say many countries have come to us and said that sounds like fun. we would like to do a pilot too. there is a new european accord october 23. the european union reached a deal. it was a very ambitious climate target, 40% reduction. they call for policy. he was ccs with nuclear invasive

these are clean energy options that should be considered in the context of what we do. about the same time the united nations economic council, the unc amended statutes to include carbon capture and storage and ccs with eor -- vor is part of clean energy technology under the u.n. framework convention. these policy shifts are materially important and want to see more from it. in addition to that they put forward an innovation fund. how that works nobody quite knows it but so far so good. it looks like that can be used to not only support the development of technology but to support projects as well and we are currently discussing this with their european counterparts. their new actors on the scene. the u.k. is putting forward the project. we are very excited about that. they are pursuing a new business model and a new technology.

the kingdom of saudi arabia and the united arab emirates are in the process of building projects. saudi arabia's will be on line next year. the capturing from refineries in steel plants. this will be the first industrial steel plant capture project and they will use the co2 for recovery. it's important to note saudi arabia's building two, 500-megawatt plant in uae announced between 3,005,000 megawatts of new coal construction. they are also looking at cole as part of their future which is an interesting development i think. finally with the energy reforms in mexico we are seeing some interest in ccs and eor that is welcomed. we just hosted a trilateral with canada and mexico in this is one of the things discussed. we are eager to continue to work with all countries to try to figure out how we can further this kind of deployment. in many ways china is the main

event. china is the number one global emitter, uses half the world's coal and they have to every once a while shut down freeways because people can't see the cars in front of them. they are serious about trying to figure out how to manage pollution in general but ccs is part of the conversation now. a lot of that is going forward under the climate change working group. i'm delighted to be part of that discussion and to help support that with the state department treasury. we are seeing them continue to invest in increased investments in carbon capture and storage. they are serious about this that they seek coal even with the cold tap is going to be a big part of their future. they're they are currently using 4 billion tons a year of coal. they will be doing now for a long time. so they acknowledge this as is part of the thing they have to do it some point and we are pleased that they are interested in doing this sooner rather than later. we continue to meet with them

and talked with them. i will go to china next month in part to identify opportunities to discuss what can be done together. one example of this is the fact that we signed what we call counter basin projects. what identifies a series of projects some of the united states and some in china which would serve as an opportunity to accelerate learning and share employment. this is what success to a lot of people look give john podesta vice chairman of and drc and a commercial deal being gains by administrators back with us by government and supported by government. that's among the outcomes and what we are trying to get more of. the last thing i want to say and trust me i can do this all day but it rather have your questions. part of the reason we are so committed to the technology, the research development and demonstration piece is that

technology often pre-stages and does inform policy decisions. just as an example in 2010 the epa put forward the first class 6 regulatory framework that was built in part on a set of technical findings which came out of the d.o.e. program. as we build these projects, as we develop technologies and demonstrate their efficiency, as we ratchet down the cost of things like advanced manufacturing technologies and development of new materials are using supercomputers these things are all going to result in technical findings which decision-makers can look at and think about. ultimately we have to build and deploy large projects. that is what is required. there are learning opportunities in doing that trade we there are opportunities to share that information to build engineering prototypes and models which can be picked up the industry for industry to lead the development of these projects and to tackle financing through the many potential path to get these

things across the finish line. there's a lot of second and third generation technology and mobile to talk about those. we are to partner with many in the united states at the state level in the local level for industry and internationally. because coal will be used. the first part of my talk was that, coal will be used in the united states everywhere in co2 must be controlled. we have to take the climate issue seriously while we acknowledge that first part. as a consequence now is the time to build. now is the time to get on with the work which we know we have to do. i thank you for the opportunity to talk and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> julio that was a fantastic and wonderful conversation not only about the work you are doing but over the course of your presentation i recall being

there many years ago where they put forward their idea for the plan that was right for their customers and it's an important part of their message. there was a lot of criticism on whether it was possible or whether was the right choice and they said if we are to want to do it they will see cost reduction. we have got about 10 minutes for questions. if you do have questions please raise your hand. we have a couple of ground rules. we have a number of cameras in the room for people watching on the web. we appreciate you using the microphone so we can hear your question. state your question the former question. please raise your hand if you've got one. what i would like to start with really quickly is there is often a component between these demonstration projects and creating a market for coal and for ccs and those broader

visions of having a significant enough scalable version of ccs that the cost reduction for any pathway. transportation of the co2 from consumption centers to places where it can ultimately be captured. i know a lot of what your program does is focus on the learning that can be had to form policies around those issues and we will speak about the transportation issue. >> thank you. this is actually one of my favorite topics. from a technology standpoint there is almost nothing to talk about. we have 3000 miles of oil pipeline. the issue is actually about infrastructure itself. if you want to take co2 for more timid it to where you wish to start a pipeline as part of what you want to do and almost always a large part of what you are going to do. even in cases where there are opportunities to plan a project trying to get a pipeline built

as a different issue. one of the questions i think we are asking ourselves at the department of energy and elsewhere is since we know we have to do this it's one of the options we have to get. what is the appropriate role for states? what is the appropriate role for banks? it's not actually obvious. the issue with pipelines is on a part-time basis over the lifetime of the project is pretty cheap. maybe one or two books a ton basalt capital up front. somebody has to build it on day one before you inject the co2. the upfront costs are high and people are reluctant to carry those costs. i think we as a nation need to think harder about that. the department of energy melody is interested in it and we are talking to her about this along with other topics associated with national structure in the energy sector.

>> right now -- the united nations in two weeks. [inaudible] how can we make sure we have coal in a country with a limited supply? >> you are correct. this is a constant frequent topic of conversation in our office. we do see the emergence of low-cost abundant natural gas. it's not just a real market phenomenon but the sign just as we are likely to have a lot of prolonged time. broadly speaking that serve the nation well. we have reduced emissions and

production price as well. doesn't solve the climate problem. we haven't figured out exactly what that is but even with the closure of some coal plants come even with abundant low-cost natural gas our analyses reveal that there remains a large fraction of coal in the power sector and our analysis suggests that in any number of scenarios he would deploy a ccs on some of those plants. we have looked at the plans from a permit perspective from space available perspective for an engineering design and vintage perspective than you do end up actually retrofitting some of those plans. i think we also learn from the polar vortex last year that gas prices can spike into even in abundance. a lot of utility partners are

building more gas but they are worried about those price shocks and they see keeping colon the mix is one of the ways that they can avoid those kinds of shocks as part of what they do. the last thing i will say is that the united states story in other countries colon is much more prevalent to the availability of gas is much more limited so from a global perspective we certainly see cole is an important player not just united states for not just in north america but many parts of the world. >> charles from brookings. julio seems to an outsider that the administration is a bit schizophrenic on ccs. and cold in general because on one hand we have the excellent work that you have highlighted that the d.o.e. is doing in on the other hand when we look at organizations like opec and so forth as well as some of our

international financial institutions we seem to take a negative attitude towards finding coal in other localities. can you make a comment of what you think there's any chance the administration might follow your lead and pursue these opportunities to help other countries with advanced coal? >> let me start by saying from the inside it doesn't seem schizophrenic. and i would reject that characterization outright. i think the administration even in casting its policies on the ex-im bank are interested in emission thresholds and that would include ccs. that seems to be consistent position. i would also say on that topic obviously changing in real time we are talking to the. we note the policy position is that which we don't want to finance and be locked in with large emissions.

that's a serious concern. beyond that we are trying to figure out what are the things we can do and what is rational and i would watch this space in the meantime. >> thank you so much for coming in and doing a great keynote. my question concerns, i can see how the ccs with eor feature is an economically viable for some of the economies with hydrocarbon resources including china. when we look at the develop -- less developed countries what are some of the ways that the ccs could be viable and also i wanted to see if you could please elaborate on the potential role that the enhanced water recovery benefit may have. i'm not sure, i haven't thought

about the different structures in africa or south asia but how that may be a potential game-changer? >> sure. let me start with the second part first. secretary moniz has repeatedly underscored his remittance to energy water progress and he sees that as a very important undertaking with the announcements coming out of the china agreement that the u.s. china program on energy water. that is very welcoming. we look at the enhanced water recovery technology and we are mindful of the fact that oil is between 1000 to $2000 a ton in terms of its value and water is on the order of half a dollar a ton. he can't actually finance these things that but we do think about this as a good news story.

it is in part about the social license to operate in water scarce area the value of the water can be very real. it wouldn't surprise you to know that some countries that are very water scarce are interested in these technologies. our estimate and part of the reason we demonstrate the pilot is half the cost of conventional desalinization. that can be an interesting option in terms of pairing carbon management with water treatment. in with respect to developing countries first of all i am simply not, i'm not the person to talk to about developing nations in their roles in this. what i would say though is that to sort of our school and thinking this through. if you are developing country

without enhanced recovery opportunities for ccs may not be the option for your country. this is not -- what we are not trying to make everybody do everything all the time. if you are in a country like south africa or my work but it might not in those countries have to determine on their own would make sense to their nations in terms of its emissions reduction strategy and its national means. i think a good rule for developing countries in particular industrialized countries like the united states and japan, like china and members of the e.u. is how can we ratchet down those costs for demonstration to create a wider option for more countries. begin to the cost down to a place where more countries want to adopt it that gives them an option they can consider that is rational for their lands. >> we have time for one last question.

>> following up on the state department, state department, is for ccs is concerned do you need to have specific properties to be able to push that so they would be restrictions on where it could be applied to not be applied? is that correct assumption? >> that is 100% correct. i didn't put that in this talk but i put it in many talks. it's something that a lot of people don't really internalize in their thinking. if you do not have a storage site you do not have the sequestration project, period. if you have no place to put the seau to your options are limited. in some countries like south korea they don't have a lot of storage option so even though they could develop excellent carbon capture technology they don't have the storage options. north america is blessed with opportunity in this way but not every country is. initial assessments of china are pretty good. and india i think the assessment

is -- and we know what the deployment in asia is. it's just like gold. you have it on her property and other natural resource and if you don't, you don't. it's a natural resource center really is a natural resource. it's one that if you have the consider and exploit. and thinking about the deployment of ccs in the united states states that have this option have an option that other states don't. they will put that into their calculus and figure out how to make it work and if that option is viable for them. but the gulf coast and the illinois basin are world-class co2 storage options. those states are more glad that they have that option than not. with that, i really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. thank you very much. >> thanks very much. [applause]

>> the myth of them liberal media may think the media is on their side. whereas republicans firmly believe in the myth of the liberal media so they kind of expect they are going to be there to me.

i kind of thing, i hope that over the last four years i have done enough back-and-forth and treated both parties with equal fervor that people have now calm tube gradually say okay you are someone we can do business with. i know that the senate majority pac which is affiliated with harry reid they stopped answering my questions midway through the campaign season because they felt they were not getting a fair shake from me.

next booktv in prime-time features books about african-american leaders. first, tavis smiley on his book "death of a king" examining the last year of martin luther king, jr.'s life. next tavis smiley focuses on the final year of martin luther king, jr.'s life. the talk-show host the king's final year was marked by condemnation by the black underclass and