with it. i actually agree with that. i am not sure china totally signed on to the paris accord totally for climate reasons. i think it partly, if not mostly, signed on because they really see clean energy as a new high-tech industry in which they want to be the global leaders. they want to reap the benefits of economic growth from leading in that industry. others, including india, face issues with pollution, with energy security. again, the activities that we undertook under the bush administration and under the obama administration in those two areas really are almost the same as what we did for climate. so u.s. companies, i think, will want to be part of that global market. and if the u.s. government and

others don't stand up and really support that, i worry about long-term u.s. competitiveness. but with that said, i think states, we've all seen the various things that governor brown has said in the last -- from california has said in the last couple of weeks. we all want to be part of that $285.9 billion renewables market that we see coming this year. another point that we have to keep in mind there are estimates that i've seen that there will be 145 million refugees in the world with a one-meter sea rise. i think as a major power in the world, you know, the u.s. will be forced to do something with that. the emphasis might be on resilience, energy, disaster mitigation. but again, it all sort of feeds

back into building a low carbon economy. so the biggest question really is, is there enough momentum in the world without the united states to keep the process after paris moving along. i would argue that there, hopefully, is. we heard perhaps, you know, whether it's merkel or xi or abe, you know, will hopefully pick up this leadership mantle and push with it. i think there are a lot of people like governor brown at the state level who, for the u.s., will keep pushing for a lot of the low carbon advances that we see. and i think just realistically in terms of economic growth, in terms of technological competitiveness it's very difficult or it would be very difficult for the u.s. to really

maintain our edge and that lead in the race, in a race or a friendly competition with china, japan and others if we don't invest. and lastly, i think -- again, as we heard earlier -- there are some things in the u.s. energy market, some processes underway that will keep going. i don't think we're going to see coal make a major comeback. gas is too cheap. one could argue that at least through the u.s. market solar and wind are now market competitive and are getting even more so. we have a much bigger understanding among companies, universities and others that energy efficiency isn't just about cutting energy, but it's about increasing the productivity of your company. saving money. making money. less momentum, i think what we

need to watch out for is that i don't want see a total replacement for u.s. technological innovation. japan can pick up to some degree, the e.u. to some degree. our national lab systems, i'm sure their scientists will keep doing what they can. but i think that investment that we've made, we need to keep an eye on and encourage the incoming administration to keep those investments going. again, for economic growth, for environmental reasons. not just, it's not just a climate issue. coal is going to be used in asia. we've heard a lot about coal during the u.s. election. and perhaps there's a hope that maybe some of that -- >> we're going to leave this program very briefly and bring you live coverage of today's senate pro forma session here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington,d.c., december 27, 2016. to the senate, under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben sasse, a senator from the state of nebraska, to perform the duties of the chair. signed orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, december 10:00 a.m. on friday, december >> that wraps up today's short senate session here on c-span2. senators return for another pro forma on friday at 10 a.m.

eastern and gavel in for the start of the 115th congress next tuesday. but right now, back to that discussion on the future of the paris climate agreement held by the brookings institution. >> electricity and other systems actually often means renewables, distributed energy, etc., many of the things that we look for in low carbon growth. finish and lastly, i think there is a lot of room for us to cooperate together in cybersecurity for the energy system. cybersecurity for smart grids, etc. that's something that we all have to do a lot better at, because if we are going to have this huge transformation in energy technology and in our energy economies, while we look at the internet of things, etc., for taking off, we need to be able to make sure that we can

protect that environment. so technology, capacity building and cybersecurity smart grid are areas that i see we can work on, work together. thank you. [applause] [background sounds] >> while uploading, i just want to introduce myself. i'm from new climate institute

located in cologne, germany. first, i would like to thank the brookings institution for having me here together with the distinguished experts sitting here today. today i'm going present the implications of the paris agreement on japan's climate policy more from a technical perspective compared to the previous presenters. so firstly, i would like to just go quickly through japan's current climate mitigation policies. so japan has placed the contributions to reduce its emissions by 26% from 2013 levels which is around 25% from 2005. and that's now enshrined legally under the plan for global warming countermeasures. it's a legally binding document for the implementation. and with regard to recent energy and climate policy developments, while i would touch upon the

tariff and other clauses later, but in the last two years japan has developed the new basic energy plan and the related long-term energy demand and supply outlook which became the basis for the ndc formulation. and also on non-energy related emissions, japan has introduced a law on the f-gas control which is relatively stringent. and under the paris agreement, countries are encouraged to submit long-term decarbonization strategy. the u.s. has submitted during the marrakesh summit, japan hasn't done it yet, but the two ministries have set up independent advisory councils, and now they're developing their own drafts, and then they will combine it and then develop some documents sometime in the next

year. i guess you're all interested in what's happening with japan's power sector before and after fukushima, so i'm here presenting what has happened. together with the 2030 plan described in the indc document. so since fukushima, demand has continually been decreasing compared to 2010, 2015 total power generation is about 10% lower, and it seems like this trend continue for the next several years at least. and when you look at the breakdown of the power generation, obviously nuclear power has reduced from around 25% before fukushima to almost zero. and that gap has mostly been filled by fossils, and when it comes to coal power post-fukushima, they used sort

of existing hibernating coal power plants to fill in the gap, but now they have about 18 gigawatts of new construction plans. and if they all come into the grid, then in 2030 the coal power share will be above 30% or so. and at the same time, nuclear power, nuclear -- existing nuclear reactors have applied for restarts, and now amounts up to 25. currently at this moment i think three reactors are in operation. and in all 25 would restart -- if all 25 would restart, then by 2030 these plant, these reactors would supply about 16-17% of total power generation in 2030 to. and you can also see that renewable energy growth has been quite strong after fukushima. probably thanks to the feed and tariff scheme, particularly for the solar technology.

and when you compare all these recent developments with the 2030 plan electricity makes, it's really uncertain whether the country's really going towards the direction that the, you know, that is planned. it's very uncertain. however, you can see -- say that under current policies the fossil fuel power generation will remain the major electricity generation source. at new climate institute together with other research organizations, we're running a climate action tracker project. we've been tracking national level mitigation efforts since 2009. and we just recently updated analysis for marrakesh. and here you can see for japan the ndc target for 2030. compared to the global two degree goal, the ambition level

is not sufficient. meaning that japan should set targets that are more ambitious than 26%. and also when you look at the currently implemented climate and energy policies, the set of policies would not take japan to the 26% reduction. so japan would also have to implement more policies or strength pen existing policies -- strengthen existing policies to meet the current ndc target. but japan's not the only one country. obviously, most of the countries around the world are not doing enough. this is a figure from the 2016 emissions gap report. so when you look at the indc scenario in comparison with two degree compatible pathway or 1.5 degree pathway, the mission gap in 2030 is above 12 gigatons

which is more than the total emissions from china today. so you can understand the magnitude of that gap. a lot has to be done. so what are the implications of well below 2 degrees which is the word used in the paris agreement on developed countries? there aren't that many studies especially on, like, modeling studies, scenario studies on well below 2 degree to 1.5 degree, but based on a number of literature, we made an estimate of more or less at which time frame the oecd countries would have to reach zero emissions for different emission categories. so for energy industry co2 emissions, the net're emission has to be achieved around 2050, and the full decarbonization of electricity has to be achieved earlier, around 2040 or so. and before that, coal power has to phase out.

that's what the models indicate. and this is an enormous challenge. i'm not going to discuss here whether it's possible or not, but it's an enormous challenge, for sure. and you want to achieve -- if you want to achieve, if we want to stay on the paris agreement compatible emission pathway, we need to implement strong policies well beyond energy efficiency improvement and addressing the low hanging fruit or low cost mitigation measures. and that would include not only negative emission technologies, but also the policy has to look into maximization of resource efficiency and also reducing the energy service demand. so if we really are to be on track on the paris agreement goals, probably i won't be able to travel from cologne to washington, d.c. just for a one-day event. that will not be -- [laughter] acceptable.

here i'm showing an example of sector transformation that will be required under, to achieve paris goals. this is an example of adoption of electric vehicles. we did an analysis for the netherlands, and we looked into, basically, all oecd countries. and as you can see, almost all new passenger vehicle sales have to be electric vehicles or other sort of zero emission vehicles before 2040. and in case of the netherlands, none of the advance scenarios that the governments and other organizations have offered are anywhere close to that. and reaching, achieving 100% lower mission vehicles requires unprecedented speed. it's way faster than how much the diesel vehicles were adopted

in the e.u. in the late 1990s, and it's way beyond the japan's current target on next generation vehicles for 2030. so, again, it's an enormous challenge that we're facing. however, when you look at, well, this is a particular case for the transfer sector or the passenger vehicles, there are signs that changes are already starting to happen. so when you look at norway, almost 30% of the new car registrations this year are electric vehicles. it's a small country, and or it's a special case, but nonetheless, it's quite interesting. and also in the netherlands and germany, there were political actions to phase out conventional combustion engine cars with by 2030 or 2035. of course, it's not always the binding targets or policy, but nonetheless, the development is quite interesting. and also for japan, the

government hasn't set any new target beyond what's written in the 2014 basic energy plan, but toyota just recently announced that they mass produce electric vehicles, and i think this is a new development since toyota has always focused more on the fuel cell vehicles. so this is also something interesting to see. itthis is my last slide of the presentation. so to summarize, basically we are facing enormous challenge to stay on track for paris agreement goals, for energy and industry co2 emissions. we have to reach net zero by, before 2050. and if you really want to achieve that, conventional energy policies and the conventional analysis to marginal abatement costs, you know, these economic assessments are just not enough. we have to go well beyond that, and we have to look into

resource efficiency, we have to look into the changes of a way of our life, lifestyle. all these, you know, different aspects of our economy has to be to taken into account. and lastly, well n some sectors like i showed with the transport sector, changes are already happening. and as a high-tech powerhouse, japan can potentially lead that change together with the u.s. thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible] [background sounds]

>> okay. so we're going to move on to a discussion, a conversation among the panelists and also to bring the audience with questions. and, you know, i appreciate very much all the presentations. they were really on target and excellent, and it's a challenging time to be talking about energy and climate policy because, you know, i'm sure that you've all attended a number of panels in town, and there's one word that keeps repeating u.s., and that is uncertainly -- itself, and that is uncertainty. i have to say despite the fact that there's a lot of uncertainty, the fundamental question as to what will the united states do vis-a-vis paris, will it be disengagement? we don't even know exactly how that would work out. i came out of these presentations with some level of optimism, underline emphasis on -- [inaudible] was discussing. optimism why? because i think that we heard from the presentations that many other countries remain up

deterred -- undeterred and are prepared to continue to reducing emissions, continue with a commitment to the paris agreement. but also because we heard that, you know, market trends, private sector investment strategies are all, already taking many of these industries towards the path of clean energy. but i would still like to probe on this question and to ask you -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> and to ask you to go deeper and to interact with one another. and first at the international level as to what may be the reaction from other countries even if there is an exit from the united states. the united states abdicates leadership. and on two specific issues. i thought it was very interesting what you mentioned about the paris agreement or the climate change regime as under construction. we have not yet put all the pieces together. we had the pledge part, but we

don't have the review part, and that's actually fundamental to ultimate success. so who is going to deliver on the viewpoint of the united states if they do not play traditional leadership role. we also heard about the importance of a dcf, how it was the focal point of the negotiation, making sure that the funding was there so developing countries could also make progress in their emission reduction targets. what happens if the united states is not there to provide the funds that i assume you all had assumed would be there. so if you could sort of address one another in what are your expect takes of the international response and the future of the climate change regime if the united states abdicates its leadership. so whoever wants to go first. >> well, i can't think of a situation where united states disappears. but -- >> i'm grateful that we're not going to disappear. [laughter]

>> yeah. whatever happens, i do think the paris agreement, as i said earlier, paris agreement is full comprehensive. i think we are past the point of no return. so even if united states withdraws this time around, this is not going to lead to the demise of the entire structure of paris agreement. that will be there. who is going to lead the process? in terms of political leadership, unless, unless the elections next year prove to be otherwise, european countries, e.u. will continue its initiative, and we will, of course, be a part of it. people are talking about china. china has their own reasons why they need to keep this agreement alive. so i think they will be there. india is very much for the technical, the technological innovation, so i'm sure they

will be. collectively, countries will provide leadership. that's what i think. >> okay. >> first, let me apologize. i'm not just trying to strike a relaxed, california attitude about our conversation, but i threw out my back on saturday morning, and there's no amount of vicodin in the world that would make it possible to sit upright, so i apologize. [laughter] the -- i agree with that assessment. i think it really depends on how they exit. if they exit birdies engaging a bit -- by disengaging a bit, spending some money on bilateral programs and calling it their contribution and doing other things in small groups, that that's actually not going to be so togetherric to the paris process and might actually be helpful in some regards by creating other ideas. we don't know what work withs, we have lots of countries that in various ways are trying to do things, but they don't know

which mechanisms are going to function. i don't know if that's the most likely scenario w i think the -- but i think the trump administration is going to learn or very quickly that other countries want this thing to work. so really it depends a lot on how we lead, in a different context what clinton might have said decades earlier, it depends on what you mean by the word leave. but i guess the other thing i would say is i appreciate the scenarios about what might happen on japanese energy policy. when we take a ten back from this -- a step back from this, the whole world not on track to meet 2 degrees. we're well below 2 degrees. there's essentially no scenario on this planet by which we meet those ambitious goals. so i think the entire world community needs to gram, will start to need to grapple with the fact that some things that were crucial to get some countries to agree in paris are, in fact, not going to be feasible. and one of them is going to be the long-term target. and so there's a really

difficult conversation that's going to have to happen about what are realistic goals. that doesn't need to happen immediately, but that's, i think, overdue. and that's regardless of what the trump administration does. >> great. other comments? >> just to build upon what you just said, i really like the word momentum. and i think there is momentum to keep a lot of these pieces going, especially at the ngo, city-to-city, state-to-state, etc., level. with but i worry a little bit when we come to that five-year point where we're supposed to come up with perhaps what was thought to be stronger indcs and change, you know, make our commitments stronger so that we could actually reach, perhaps, these goals that we're not on target to reach now. if the u.s. isn't there, i am not sure quite how that happens. and certainly on the technology

side, we played a very big role in working with other countries on their indcs and on clean energy. and if that goes down too much, i also would worry not just about u.s. competitiveness in those very high-tech, increasingly high-tech technologies, but also just, again, putting something forward to keep the momentum going for those countries who maybe quite don't have the resources to do it even if they want to. >> [inaudible] >> yes. i -- yeah, i agree that the world has already gone beyond the point of no return, so even if the u.s. pulls out of the paris agreement, i think the world will move forward. however, there will be some countries or certain sectors in certain countries that would think, okay, well, the u.s. is not taking action, so why should we.

and that can also happen in japan. >> well, i was talking about the optimistic message that i heard from your presentations, but i also want to address the pessimistic messaging that was also part of the -- message that was also part of the conversation. and, you know, it has to do with how unrealistic the target goals are, and i think we were shown what a tremendous effort we would need to do, not only japan and the united states, but all other countries in order to get us on track to meet the emission targets. and i was struck by an ons observation, david, and i wonder if you can flesh it out, that instead of looking at numbers, we should look at the level of effort. so how would that become a u.s./japan dialogue? if you can walk us through some of the discussions that that would open. >> well, this is precisely why leadership is needed on the review process. so when we look closely at the review process, first review process after five years, there actually won't already be enough data to be able to know whether

countries are implementing their policies, so there's going to be -- the first round is going to be kind of like a fake review process, if you like, where it's going to be more procedural than actually substantive. but this is precisely why we need countries to go out and show how it's done, because there's no scenario by which 190 countries are going to agree under consensus decision-making rules, you know this having been in the room -- [laughter] you know, you're not going to get con seven us around things that are very complicated and difficult where there are going to be some significant number of countries that don't want the mechanism to work, to be intrusive. can you imagine saudi arabia or russia or others agreeing to a formal intrusive review system. that might happen eventually, but it needs to start with demonstration. and i think this is a pledge and review system where countries are pledging right now to make their best efforts, and i'm just -- i'm worried that if we don't have leadership around the review mechanism, we're actually not going to know very much about the actual level of

effort. and i would think that's in our interest. i think it might even be to a greater degree in japan's interest. at the margin, the japanese program with the feed-in tariffs and optimistic assumptions about the nuclear restart is a very, very expensive program. and if you're worried about industrial competitiveness, you've got to really focus on how do we make our emission reductions in a way that's cost effective and start to link together the different economies. unless you have a mechanism that reveals that information, you won't be able to get it there. >> other comments? >> i would just totally agree. under the g20 you mentioned, i think it was you, who mentioned that the u.s. and china are looking at, are in the process of reviewing, getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies. well, the negotiation process to get that underway and up and running took over a year or more. and it's still not as robust as

it probably could be. so having leadership still pushing on that review process is very important. >> great. >> i just want to make three individual points. the first point is our problems essentially i think is in the area of nuclear power generation. we have to -- we used to have 54 reactors, and then we lost 16 in fukushima. that's 48. but we have restarted operations only in three. so it takes time. it's not very easy. so the component is perhaps the biggest challenge we have to face. that's number one. the second thing is the cooperation between u.s. and japan should be technological innovation, as many others have said. this is an area where we can work together regardless of what happens to the paris agreement itself. but on the other hand, technological investment has to

come with some kind of science. the beauty of paris agreement is that we have china and india onboard. they are -- to this agreement mainly because of the technological elements. so we have to keep that. for that, we need some time. so u.s., possible withdrawal from the climate fund is very damaging. i'm more concerned about the symbolic elements coming from the u.s. withdrawal from international climate. >> great. so let me then bring the audience. there's going to be a microphone. please wait for me to identify you and then the microphone will come to you, and if you can say who you are and ask a concise question. we'll start with this gentleman. >> hi. excuse me. alan loeb, attorney in washington. so one of the things i see here, it reminds me of the clean air act which i worked on in the u.s. at one time.

and there's momentum until the day that there isn't. so at the point you get bogged down, you ask yourself what do you do then. well, the clean air act was designed intentionally to have backstop mechanisms so that if there was some sort of obstacle at one point, there was some other provision in there to drive thingses forward despite the resistance that might have appeared. and so one of the things that makes me wonder is, you know, if you've -- well, there's a quote by mark twain. if you put all your eggs in one basket, guard that basket. so in this case, we can guard the basket, but the clean air act example says that might not be good enough. so one suggestion would be to have as a backstop mechanism a universal carbon tax that all countries agree to, and so if somebody is a recalcitrant country and doesn't meet their

obligations and starts tempting people with, you know, with, with -- i'm bogging down myself actually. [laughter] that people can gather together and say, okay, well, everybody else adopted a tax, and this is a trade advantage. we're going to pose a tax on them that they haven't imposed on themselves. what about that as a backstop mechanism in. >> thank you. go ahead. >> there are, i mean, it's just a blunt statement of life in international politics, there are very few real backstop mechanisms in foreign affairs the way there are in domestic law, so i think that's a reality. ..

>> >> there has been allied of four can be in the community to design the traneight countermeasures' said no way that is did buteo compatible for the countries to do something that'll think we're anywhere near there yet but that looks intriguing lead requires enough countries that are required to implement that measure and those are not easy measures one and it is potentially ugly so actually took a lot of risks in this process.

>> i am the member of the national task force were with the one objective of the local communities whether the developing countries so my first question is saw quickly are they reinforcing each other. >> it did not appear when clearly that with sustainable as a goal but everybody is talking about the connection as a sustained mental.

second the government cannot do that much because the state in charge of regulation and so on so with those many technologies so suggestion, what you have a new project number to offer a unique contribution from japan and try to address these issues and the european union lost to those member countries the same so in and the u.s. to get too long -- to get together with

the not too much about global agreement. thank-you. >>. >> but the relations and sustainable development goals redo have climate change. so after all for the sustainable development on the second issue but if that doesn't change then we continue the initiatives. so of that mechanism with the financial institution in

this very flexible so i think that best methodology to set was the member of the board but there are new ways to find this. >> between the paris agreement goals larry is one chapter and other research organizations and they're not always compatible reinforce each other so you have to have this biomass or bioenergy component when

that can compete with food production can. >> that requires magical thinking. yes. >> shinri take more questions? >> no more questions thanks to the panelists did is a fascinating discussion thanks for sharing. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

. >> seriously wonder

divisions had 2 million fake accounts with thousands of employees for improper behavior and cheated thousands of their own customers and not once did you consider firing her ahead of her retirement? vladimir putin discuss the serious aboard nuclear weapon and the obama administration accusation that they interfered in the presidential election. this portion runs about three hours.

translator: with the old sports publication in the country, 92 years old come andrea are very concerned and seems sometimes that we are more concerned. so that some officials were fired or transferred. so after all these decisions and measures, mchenry's they the situation is improving? and then another question

comedy think it could be before brother organization would be substituted? we see a political aspect producing their is one quick. >> first of all, we have never had a doping problem is in russia this is unthinkable we would never think that. there is no government support program for doping in russia. number two, like any other country we have problems of coping with and we should do our best to fight it. we should work very closely with the international olympic in committee and other bodies against doping and b will do that and i hope unwound and it isn't

just a personnel decision but there are structural changes as well. i hope those will help us address the situation and the prosecution service is investigating everything relating to doping and this will be carried out to the end. you mentioned one other countries and a report titled seem to remember the name of this person who was chief of the anti-doping agency. but he used to working in canada he came to russia and was appointed to the high position and he used it to bring bad things into russia i think when he crossed the border he brought those

substances into russia. many of you travel and you know, there is very strict control but somehow he was able to bring those bad substances into russia. i don't believe the authorities there were unaware and he forced our athletes to take those. with debris fused comedy would punish them to penalize them. even from other countries and now complains about russia will be able provide nice conditions for him there but then they will forget him and can mount -- kick him out. then they waited for the right time. but we don't -- not to say

that we don't we do. we should take care of our athletes but it is not up to meet for their in performance it is up to the ioc to do that any anti- doping agency should be transparent and clear and verifiable and we should know about the results of their work. what i mean is these communities should although what the results were and what action was taken to punish those. what what have been done to prevent this from happening in the future?

and why are they so secretive why is that under wraps? we all want transparency so it is absolutely necessary to be transparent in these matters and i fully agree with the athletes who commented on the recent position to move international competitions. do they really mean they did not know about this before? of course, there is a political aspect. sports should be separated from politics because bourse should bring people together instead of dividing them. >> translator: mr. putin, i

want to rescue how the problem of original loan that and also may second question whether the provinces are going to have more power over finances? our problem is in debt 6% so are you going to support the provinces of financial policy and not take loans? >> translator: we support all the different provinces with the donor regions like moscow and we do all lot and

invest alloted the infrastructure in moscow and in the eerie and transport for example, and redo the same with the other places like st. petersburg. just recently relaunched a new road that will be very helpful for the entire northwestern part of russia and there are other parts. you asked about public debt in different provinces in this is a very serious issue. according to us as a certain province should not exceed 50% of the internal revenue. so the nongovernment has a

proper balance of monetary financial policy. actually there only five provinces and russia that have violated this rule. and of course, have required special attention. but on all have to say it is a serious issue. public debt in the different parts of russia or 2 trillion rubles even though the government takes necessary steps maybe even in this year we have allocated 380 billion rubles to provide and refinance the debt with bellows through commercial banks and government and finance ministry with lower interest

rates. o interest-rate. henry will continue this work and the future. by the of way we have allocated sufficient funds for this issue. >> translator: . >>, but to ask the question in english of that is okay. mr. president your country has spent accused of hacking affecting the results of the u.s. presidential election of president obama has said very strongly he thinks that you are behind it am president obama revealed

that he told you personally to cut it out so what did you tell him in response pdf and that can you confirm that you were warned by washington not to interfere with the election with the red phone or the crisis line ? so just coming back to that point to trump's speech yesterday are you concerned when there is a danger as america's talking about boosting the nuclear arsenal? >> translator: a new arms race. conditions for a new arms race was created when the u.s. withdrew from the treaty this is obvious. one unilateral withdrawing from the treaty and they say

they will create a nuclear umbrella that the other parties have to agree to the similar umbrella and we're not sure everyone to do that but at this point we don't think this program can be acceptable. the other option is to create capabilities with the missile defense to improve our nuclear strike capability is and this is well be have been doing. we have to respond to this challenge and we have made progress with that yes. this is true we have been doing that. ended is quite effective but we still see within the framework, we are still in m line with all of our

obligations, just recently going to uh nuclear sites looking at the way we produce nuclear warheads do you remember that? and keeping the relationship like that the united states withdrew from the adm treaty. that was not us. yes we have improved the triad and defense penetration capabilities but this system is much more effective than a missile defense system. that is true end perhaps this is why they are so inches to enhance their nuclear capabilities as well . we are aware of that and they have been doing that anyway. with the tactical nuclear weapons including the united

kingdom. and i really hope that your audience are aware of that. turkey, you keep -- uk, netherlands, they are of operating nuclear weapons. so with somebody in stimulating new arms race that is not us but this is for more internal domestic cavelike to say we will never john wayne in arms race and use those resources that we cannot afford at the beginning earlier unanswered other questions i said in 2011 we spent 2.7% of gdp on defense men 4.seven then

3.three and we will keep them like that because we have done everything we need to take care of basic needs to modernize of weaponry. and by 202150 percent of of what turns -- weapons will be modern. so be are happy with the situation. we just proceed according. dahlia mention tampering and by a conversation with president obama. notice that i never reveal the contents of our conversations one on one. i already mentioned to the recall race of the united

states that there is always the way to accuse somebody else they should look at themselves first. they forget the most important thing. so if hackers were hacking the democratic party e-mail's, and the president-elect said bluenose? maybe they were n other countries may we was a guy lying on his sofa on the couch. noted is easy for them to blame it on another country. but the most important thing is what was revealed.

it is a like they invented something. no. true information was revealed and a truth we came out by the fact that after they be field house the democratic party was manipulating public opinion one candidate against the other candidate, head of the democratic party should reside and it indicates this was true and instead of apologizing never to do that again, they started to look for people who would have 10 to their e-mail's. and as far as my a private conversation one on one

never reveal the content of those conversations. and i know there were reports that his advisers and is helper's reviewed the content of the conversations you can talk to my helper about that. now when questioned about environment that is important so we will go to this person now. >> translator: mr. putin, thank you for this opportunity i would like to wish you a happy new year. to you and everyone in this room and in the country. money question is about environment 2017 will become the key here of the environment and and there

will be anything concerning bad environmental development of russia for the future generations. the officials or do you think the reason it is it is ruined? in 2013 it was also announced the year of the environment but it was ruined and it was a failure and you would mitt that. -- you admitted that. so do you have specific suggestions you have a lot

of experience for this meeting that takes place so maybe the russian embassies from other countries should have some environmental departments that would deal with environmental policies in the world? because it is not taking care of environmental problems right now. but brushoff the contrary is paying more and more attention to the environment these days. , that is the most important thing. we need to change of the media of policies though it

talks that environment is at the forefront so even with those entertainment shows if we change the mindset then we won't have to deal with corruption rather problems or people's mental health will be much better. that is my question. >> translator: right berger you said the failed 2013 bid at the same time you say we have done a lot to preserve nature. and you also criticized the western partners for what they do. i don't quite agree with what you say about the western countries. credit don't think they care less about environment now i can just give you this example the french president

what he did for the paris treaty with the emission reductions was tremendous and they were quite successful it was not easy but we have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and russia made serious condition -- commitments. i don't know about other countries it is hard to tell what this point because we need to consider how to implement those agreements. but we are ready and need to consider that technological aspect of those agreements shall they will be implemented but certainly we will do that. as for domestic policies policies, environment protection is we will

continue to care about environment we what to pass on to future generations our environment properly. i care lot about pollution and of landfills and just recently we have a large meeting and we discussed this issue in much detail i will not go into details right now but there is a special government program for that. then there is forest preservation this is a serious issue as well. and we will certainly have to change some of the regulations to address this problem. of course, with the processing industry we have to consider that as equally important to preserve them.

to care about the forest and parks property we have nothing for our cities. because you have roads and infrastructure to consider the situation very carefully. and other environmental media and those that are not afraid of anything? i invite you and to join the meeting of the state council of environment and is an

extremely important question >> translator: good afternoon. might question is this. there are more and more cases of teachers having to go to court to protect the right over the retirement. for the pensioners to accept next year. >> just recently that level

of tension was not based on history for the recipients same amount of money and they pointed out it was not fair. and the pension system first with reliever history and a third your age and this is what the pension system is based on. and we have to continue with

those fundamental factors. now you escobar early-retirement this is one of the issues that require special attention. we have a lot of people who we tire early event with those reforms before anything we have to discuss this open the. soda to carefully consider the situation in the near future i can tell you that just like we planned earlier this year 5,000 rubles to all pensioners regardless regularly this includes

military pension and actually won 5,000 rubles is more than what they would permit the receive at the end of the year and next year we have enough funds in our budget for retirees for inflation in 2016 with the social tensions to be indexed as well. >> translator: my question is about ukraine. the ukrainian crisis is

frozen analysis seems that the parties and the conflicts from along time ago how do we change things? idea change what you have with those leaders to change anything? >> another question i'm ukraine in response to both of your questions. >> pet ukrainian journalist and not sure you can answer both of our questions but recently that russia has but

the problem is the cases if. [inaudible] of a bike to be more specific you often in say and monster you never concealed the fact so please tell me where is this in the minsk agreement? so when you retire thank you for your comments. >> translator: of the

ukrainian army but not be considered occupancy in their room country that is what they should focus on. the ukrainian army of a with releasing prisoners we do everything to be captured by both sides. so that they should be the overall exchange and it turned out that there are some details that they are not satisfied with so all of those who have been captured

are considered to be held illegally by a significant number of individuals and those authorities that could be legally held in they don't want to be held so fn is said to change you shed issue amnesty and find the consensus. the chairman and directors have to do with their profession tells them to do. as for the servicemen, of the ukraine are me that i word captured for the military intelligence nobody

tortured them or beat them up they confessed and it is very easy to check whether they are officers of the ukrainian military. not just full contact but they gave the name of their units and the rate of their commanders. the tasks that they were given, and the context of the territory of russia and crimea they'll released all that information and that all corroborates the other so this needs to be stopped. this practice needs to be stopped and if they do have the political will the disease year to resolve issues.

going back to the film directors nobody has the desire to keep journalist if they are really journalist but what do we do if a film director this has been proven in court was preparing to stage a a terror act? should read the lease -- we really san keep the military officers? if we release those then others will come tomorrow we just need to agree to put a tail did on it and it past to be stopped. and the question is as you rightly said it was

difficult to align these questions so that normandy group in -- and? >> translator: your opinion on the regime with the ukraine? translator: that is the number for a group. not extremely efficient and regrettably the activities have not been as intense or desirable but we have no other alternative and we need to continue working within this framework if we use this tool than the situation will degrade very quickly that is something we would like to avoid. i fully support it and

furthermore the remnants of the past of the cold war we need to get rid of it as soon as possible with those ukrainian citizens will be eligible. but from what i know. this will be an opportunity to increase the flow of migrant workers. according to unconfirmed data we have volunteers here did russia and a sign of the migrant workers will move to europe and the ukrainians

and certainly this will pose serious pressure on the labor market. if the right to work will not be given then they will face of what the of challenges and work illegally. they will be allowed to come for a few months and work again kovach to ukraine then go back to the e.u.. so they're not social the projected to enjoy those benefits. they would be exploited so if you allow that in the set free travel you need to allow the right to work turkey. >> channel one after turkey.

>> translator: mr. putin, russia and turkey managed to resolve those issues of the syrian conflict like aleppo so in undoes future will moscow be able to use this potential? will turkey and russia be able to stand against the games played in the middle east? so this alliance, will importation a key role in and the resolution of the syrian conflict? second question. october 2015, you made some

agreements and then they played was down to the normalization started then a coup attempt. so no that turkey and russia is focusing on aleppo, is this a coincidence? >> translator: most are with the tragedy that took place recently. the assassination of our ambassador. i think it was an attempt on russia and the turkish relations. i was skeptical of the idea that the russian aircraft was shot down without the

consent of the turkish leadership. as you remember they said it was done by individuals who wanted to interfere but right now i changed my opinion every day impossible you may have destructive elements with a deeper lovell of infiltration so they don't want to fine fine-- scapegoat but that is really happening. will that damage relations? no. because we are fully aware of the importance of relations and certainly to

keep in mind to take into account our own interest of the past year. we normalized our relations and reid could find compromises where needed so i hope we can continue to find consensus going for word. so the situation was resolved and certainly as you remember those villages were unblocked and were one populated by the shiite majority and the role played by iran and the president of turkey. certainly without russia, i

don't want to brag about that, but it is the truth. certainly this plays a critical role to resolve the aleppo crisis and also what is paramount is the final stage as they got the report of the defense minister that dozens of thousands of people were evacuated in aleppo not just to radical groups but women and children. we are talking about 100,000 people and also thousands of others to be evacuated in exchange for this operation.

the biggest humanitarian operation in the of world answer to the it could not have been achieved by the turkish president and certainly we have the good will done by the syrian president and his government . so we showed that this type of cooperation would be helpful to think about jordan or saudi arabia and then that is why we will

work with every stakeholder. and we need to sign the agreement of us cease-fire and to stop of practical negotiations. we suggested that after the capital of cassocks dog - - clause six dog that that they said they would create the conditions and the really hope that this would happen. >> translator: this is

becoming a habit my question is about taxes there is income-tax the and property-tax that has increased over the years the apart from the tax is that we pay also the tariff like building renovations or health care. is supposed to be free but some services are not. or education. additional education that you have to pay money for. war parking -- did moscow. of course, in the center of it is used to paying for parking but now it will probably happen in the residential area.

so should we expect something new? >> translator: you have to differentiate between taxes and fees. first with the income-tax individually, uh transport tax these are free taxes for individuals remain below listed europe at 13% after a flat rate. you might remember it was introduced 20011 i feel the budget would lose a large share of income. but about social equality?

i mentioned that several times. after we introduced that flat rate of income-tax for individuals increasing seven times and of many that we receiving for the budget is then wander reid distributed so this insurers say quality can remove to a different tax rate? perhaps. want perhaps some day but at this point in time it does not make sense that we've

made being entangled then that differentiation to have less money in the budget or less money collected we could achieve in other ways such as increasing the tax in that system and increasing the taxes on expensive property. we have the tools. so getting back to the second part of the fis said the charges. emi aware? yes. taxes and tariffs and the fees that the level of municipalities we have thousands of them all of the region's it is difficult to

keep track of bowie have a solution. certainly the pressure has been growing and you need to have the big picture will. the government has been instructed to set up a registry so that we have a clear picture of what is happening in the country so that we can fine-tune it daybed wrote ray at the federal level in a way at the federal level. and certainly to have an impact. but the key tool but uh

decrease of inflation not the very beginning i already said previously this will be a record low in the history of russia if we continue to curb inflation and keep it down at four% bid we can settle the situation of a tariff. let's move on to other areas. >> translator: good afternoon mr. putin. i have a question that our people are very concerned with we have a lot of

problems and traffic james - - jams with the only city [inaudible] so our government wants to initiate a fund-raiser to build the road could be solved this that the federal level quick also the question about coal mining. so now we believe it then is the fact the environment and we need to stop using it. . .

they say they will try to support that. we will look at the proposal that has been coming out to the region and well certainly implement this project if we can , we know there has been a lot of impact and pressure in the environment. before such as coal. everyone has said we need to switch energy sources and russia is working on that including hydrogen.

just recently we went to a plant but at the same time european decreased subsidies because it's extremely expensive. today we need to modernize and improve those technologies but it comes at a cost and certainly ties to traditional types of whales, for minors and other workers. the world uses much more coal than oil and gas. paid more than oil and gas

combined. core remains a part of the world energy system, a considerable part. rightly said, we need to improve technology, decrease the impact on the environment. many enterprises are switching to technology. as we moved to that area, your region so that you have a promising bright future and they will be in demand. there will be a lot of workload in a positive way and that will help economies, the metal sector. the metal sector is going down,

but i'm sure we'll have a great future. >> i would like to ask about oil. what is going to be the economics of the oil crisis. is the russian budget ready to, when we decrease the oil production as we agreed with our pack. >> as far as i know crude is not 45, it's, it's $55 a barrel. i looked it up this morning.

our budget would be based on conservative forecast of $40. barrel. if we return to the first few questions we had on our agenda today, we can say that the results we have achieved were achieved because the real situation turned out to be more complex than we expected because our 2015 budget was based on the assessment of $50. barrel barrel and the actual price was $40 a barrel and still we saw a positive change with gdp and the inflation rate.

the result are better, which means that our economy adjusted for the situation. now, nobody knows what the price of war is going to be like. it's a complicated issue. there are many different dynamics and it's impossible to predict almost anything. the ministry guilt gave its forecast and we believe it will surpass and prices will stabilize. we expect oil to stabilize at the current level. now how our economy will respond to oil cuts, we considered the

situation before we took a step. our production levels were quite high and the commitment that we made was 300,000 barrels over the period of january until june , and this will not have a major affect pond our overall production but we expect prices will go up as a result and we see this happen, and if the situation stays this way, the effect for the country, for the budget will be like this. if the price goes up by $10, the budget will receive an

additional 1.75 in revenue and oil companies will get additional revenue of $750 billion so, as a a result we will all win. we will all benefit. i think this is the first time they have made a projection like that in eight years. the fact that we agreed to work with opec helped him and we will working with opec. of course we will fulfill our obligations, but we are not members of this cartel but we stay in contact with opec and we will honor our commitment, but at the same time we are free to act as we see fit, but we will only take action after we as

chief certain results and we have been achieving positive results so far. we think this is positive to opec members and nonmembers. perhaps go to their central sector. [speaking in native tongue] >> please don't interfere with the cameramen's work >> good afternoon mr. vladimir putin. i'm editor-in-chief of the newspaper. first of all, i would like to

thank you on behalf of of our readers for what you are doing, strengthening our national defense and our national sovereignty. we listen to what you say very carefully. when you say that someone wants to live under some i occupation, we are not going to, and we agree totally. we think there are some problems, domestic problems, in our country. we could characterize in the following manner. recently, mass media uses the

phrase that has adjectives such as cold, hybrid, informational, but the second word is war. our people have a good memory and remembers our history. we went through some wars that we came out as winners, so the first thing we remember is second world war making parallels to the current situation, i would like to ask you a question. our economy, our industry and our governmental bodies act in accordance with the decisions made by international organization and they ask for

consulting from international companies. so, we learned about the foreign agents and foreign influence, but the issue with consulting remains. our readers have been wondering, shouldn't we be doing this here as well and decide on our own what to do and which way to go. this is not only about the economy, this has to do with ideology as well and there are a lot of questions raised here so the influx of imports of various kind resulted in a lot of problems that we have mentioned today and it also affected traditional values, so we think

we need substitution in this area, so recently these questions have been becoming more and more urgent so what measures are being taken? >> you are talking about economic sovereignty and this is extremely important. we all know what people in that region think. traditionally it has always been this way from old times, i can remind everybody that during the 1812 war, they provided horses and cattle worry and all of

their male population joined the army. as far as economic sovereignty is concerned, this is not just about deport substitution. our financial institution should be stable as well. our credit cards, there there are many things we take as a given, and we thought they were separate from geopolitics, but it turned out this was not true. when they needed to use political pressure they used economic factors to put pressure on us. you mentioned consultant agencies and rating agencies but this is also very important. of course we should consider that as well and this is not a simple issue. we definitely need our own national rating agency.

we should develop consulting as well. we are actually doing that already, but it is important to make sure these companies are transparent and respected by the business community, otherwise there will be no sense to have such companies. if we get rid of those foreign companies that are respected in our country and internationally, our businesses will suffer because their assessments, we've been there before and we have

investments that will see a toll. we will certainly work on that. let's go to poland now. i guess you were going to ask about the difficulties and the strategies of the past or of the plane crash. what are you going to ask about >> good afternoon. i'm from poland and a few years ago in this very room, i asked you about the plane crash and you said you would talk to the investigative committee. what did they say? we know that the investigation continues, but it has been seven years and all the tests have been conducted so it's only the political decision that's left to make, but that's only up to you. recently some people say that

poland has been distancing itself from the eu and the same has been said about other countries. if europe is weaker, is this beneficial for russia? is russia going to use this in its own interest? >> let's start with your first question first. yes, investigation is underway and we need to be brief as long as the investigation continues. let's talk about the second issue. this was a terrible tragedy and i went to the transcript of the pilot and the guard. he went into the cockpit. i personally read through the transcript and this man who went into the cockpit, i don't

remember, there was a specific name and they said we want to land in the pilot said we can land here, it's impossible, and this person, this aide said do whatever you have to do but we have to land right here right here. there is no need to speculate any further. it's a terrible tragedy. we did everything necessary to make sure this was properly investigated. i wish we could use this to create pressure to create frictions between our two countries. it's crystal clear, and if there are certain matters that are not fully clear, let the investigators look into this matter. now you also asked about a week or year up and what we think about it. of course, we want to have a reliable, strong and equally important, independent partner in europe, but when we built our

relationship with europe, if they tell us we need to go to third country, then why talk to europe at all. recently a european politician said that all european nations are small nations, but not all of them have realized that. actually i don't agree with this idea because you have great nations in europe. i don't want to mention anybody last i offend anybody and we treat them as such. whatever europe does inside itself, how they build their relationships with each other, it's none of our business, but you know better than myself that they have sovereign nations with

a small structure or they have fettered states. there are two concepts for europe. like i said, elsewhere the number of decisions that are mandatory for all countries, they have more decisions made in brussels than the soviet union did produce a high level of federalization. i don't know if it's good or bad for europe. it's not up to us to decide that. it's up to you. yes there are differences about migrants and migrant cases, other things, again it's up to europeans to decide about that. there are certain countries in europe who object to the current migrant policy and they want to be involved in decision-making process more.

they don't want to be imposed. they think those decisions are unacceptable, countries like poland, hungary, they should discuss those issues, not with us of course but with brussels and other european capsules, but whatever the situation is like within europe, we are always interested in developing our relationship with europe and will always pursue that. of course we want europe to speak with one way spread we want to have a partner we can talk too. this is what matters to us, but if we don't have such a partner, we will talk bilaterally too each of the european nation separately and what is happening now, we take up some of the issues with the european commission's and we take up some other issues on the national

level with european countries individually. we are happy with this kind of arrangement and it's up to europeans to decide what they do internally. >> so it's like a dictatorship >> good afternoon we are cis channel and the topic we are interested in is the eu. for some countries it's universal and some it's not. like armenia managed to benefit from it, but it's the opposite in other areas where farmers went bankrupt. one more question but this is about russia.

you remember that there were girls who were tortured and animals so we have a human rights and other people so maybe we should have an animal rights representative and create a framework for that >> as far as animal rights are concerned, it sounds nice of course, but dog corners or pet owners, people have rights, humanitarian issues, humane treatment of animals, this is a separate issue. of course we need that as well but it's a separate matter and

there are proposals to introduce tougher punishment and tougher regulations and i would support that, but of course there should be some regulation. we shouldn't go to extremes. it has to be reasonable, and now to the first part of your question. i think all the members of the ea you benefit from what we do, as far as integration is concerned. they have their difficulties, yes, specifically because of certain issues they have with kazakhstan and russia on regulations. that's the problem there, but overall it has increased just

like some other countries, i won't mention specifically right now but there was a huge increase in belarus. their exports have increased dramatically so this is a very useful and beneficial project for all members of the ea you. yes there are certain problems because we need to comply with the regulations and there are certain unresolved issues with that >> will provide necessary assistance to our friends to help them set up a control system and we expect that our partners will also help with

that including financial and administrative and professional assistance so they have such a control system as well. we don't have any imports coming that would be hazardous or dangerous in any way to our people, and there are ways to do that and this can be taken care of quite quickly. >> russia today >> thank you, good afternoon mr. vladimir putin, putin, i would like to talk about democracy on the whole in the context of the presidential