it is not impossible and does not imply sacrifice. the expanding per capita went up. that is an important thing. >> that's a great way of framing the question. i wrote a book two years ago called last chance, preserving on earth. if we had an enemy nation at our shores with ships ready to launch an invasion, would we sit around and ask if the economics were such that we should prepare. this is that kind of time. it is that kind of time and i think it's a good frame for thinking about this. i want to add a comment about the notion of change. i think that's an important issue. we don't know if we are going to experience abrupt change, but the stream is called slippery rock creek. there were boulders as big as

this room. the stream itself was a tiny stream. it turns out that when the last glarier melted, it melted so abrupt abruptly, the change at 11,000 years ago was so abrupt, it tossed big bolders and flooded this value. i think the in evidence our history is in the evidence of how these systems have shifted. we should anticipate the notion of an abrupt change. it happened before and it's t certainly can happen again. >> we have students in the back. >> if greenland was to melt and water levels rose, would that create another ice age? >> repeat the question.

>> would that create another ice age if greenland were to melt and the water would freeze? they would be separated by quite a long period because the water is generally conserved. it's either in ice or in liquid water or vapor. my sense is that we are most low concerned about the future that we can imagine. it's the warming and the melting followed by increased water levels. later, ice ages can be driven. historically they were not driven by human behavior. now we have to think how it interacts with the natural world. out into the future, we could enter one of those periods and probably that water would refreeze and the water levels would come back down should that

freezing occur. >> so what i don't know if you have seen the movie the day after tomorrow, but that scenario of a very rapid shift into an ice age is in a matter of days is unrealistic, but a scenario of regional climate change, particularly in europe getting colder, that might happen, possibly, the science is not settled. it's possible that that could happen because of shifts in ocean currents. the gulfstream warns that it comes across and warms ireland and that area of europe. it could get a lot colder in that part of the world. that's not global. the science says it's not settled as far as whether that can happen or not.

>> a question in the balcony. speak loud and in that direction. >> i don't know if we can get the hike up here. >> one of the big blocks we can do something about climate change is all the deniers out there and many people who are not active climate deniers do not believe c02 causes climate change or there is no climate change going on. one of the most effective ways to get around that is by pointing out what larry pointed out earlier. that's the ocean acidification problem cause by c02 and even if c02 did nothing to change the climate, ocean acidification would be a major disaster in the making and something that would require limitations on the amount of c02 we are putting in the atmosphere.

my question is, those of you that are more involved in this than those of us in the audience, are people making that point to our elected leaders in congress? >> let me respond to that. i had a conversation with john kerry from massachusetts and senator kerry is preparing to hold hearings on that very subject. in fact i suspect it will happen in the next month or month and a half. his effort is being made because as people understand, they may connect at a deeper level. we are overfishing the oceans and acidifying them and heating them up. we are raising the sea levels and damaging all the coastal ecosystems. we are trashing our oceans. that's going to have enormous consequence supplies and

this thing called oxygen. it's important that this hearing be held and senator kerry's problem will be what you are talking about. >> we were talking about rio plus 20. this next week is stockholm plus 40. the first science-driven talk about global sustainability is getting in stockholm. their predictions of what would happen 40 years before 1972, if nothing was done to help the environment or the current state of the world. what's new now and where are we

moving in stockholm plus 40 conference next week? >> who wants to tackle this one? >> their predictions 40 years ago, it's worse now than they predicted. i have been focusing on rio plus 20 because the united nations focused on that. you are right. that's where it began. we are worse off than the predictions 40 years ago. time to take action and time for sacrifice by the way. i know people think that perhaps we shouldn't ask the american people to sacrifice very much from just about anything these days, but we have to sacrifice. we have to sacrifice our old ideas. i was involved in the first day in 1970 for stockholm plus 40

conversations. the really important thing that is missing right now that was available in 1970. when the first earth day occurred. we created such a stir and my hometown, we carried coffins down the street to point out the threat of air pollution. in 1970 the congress and the senate passed the clean air act, 100-0. can you imagine that happening today? the american public is asleep. we need to wake up. we need to drive -- this is a democratic system after all. thomas jefferson was right. we have the government we deserve. we need to step forward and challenge these people and look beyond citizens united and put back into the conversation the important role of citizens in

this electoral process. until we do that, we will not make progress. >> i wanted the one quick point. correct me if i'm wrong on this, but in 10 americans were out at an earth day event. in ten. can you imagine those numbers today? that kind of activism is not happening right now. this was a mass movement. >> okay. >> how do we turn that conversation around. there is occupy wall street, but it's about jobs and big money and stuff. not about how that relates to environment. the science is out there and the data is out there. what is missing to put the puzzle together for our

citizens? >> everybody hear that? the question is how do we basically -- what's the call to arms and how do we engage our citizens? >> in my mind a couple of things need to happen. i want to start with my generation, the generation after the second world war. we were there on the first earth day, but we lost our way and have gone from being activists on the first earth day to being couch potatoes and it's time for us to get back into the fight. it would put the focus first and foremost on those who are passing on this torch. those who are -- i don't want to leave this planet until i see a climate policy in the world that would protect my which were's future. i could die peacefully if i saw that happen. every one of us can feel the same way. i would put the focus first on the adults who were now having grandchildren that were part of that original earth day.

wake up and become a part of this fight. i don't know of a single parent that would knowingly trash their kids's future and that's what we are all doing. every one of us are doing that. the second thing is i think on college campuses, they need to get fired up. this is your future. the opportunity is here for green jobs. i think we can see an explosion of jobs. it infuriates me that they say where are the green jobs or the same people that block the passage of a climate bill that would have created it by pussing a price on carbon. let's get back to the conversation. i think that will require young people whose future hangs in the balance to stand up and give way to this important matter. this is a democracy and ours to keep and make happen. >> that was a great question and this is my first time being invited to the conference.

they asked us to suggest topics and i suggested a topic called when does a movement become a revolution? there is going to be a panel on that. so this was a great question. we did lose, one in ten lost earth day somehow. we understand that. what happened? we had a really important social movement going and then look where we are today. i have occupy wall street on my mind and the second phase of occupy, the strategic thinking has been going on during the winter. we will be more connected to the more systemic issues. certainly that's my hope. there is a lot of meetings about that in the assemblies in the working groups. how do we make sure that this new movement, occupy wall street and perhaps what comes out in terms of this issue.

it becomes social revolution and that's a great question. >> we have time for one more question. any students want to ask a question? we are going with the student in the back. your generation is the one at stake. >> so do you think it is possible to change our current status of global warming in the position of this under separate governments or do you think we would have to have some sort of a unity? >> you can change the global paradigm country by country or

is it going to take some kind of united global multinational effort. was that the question? >> yeah. >> that's a great question. >> doug's got an answer. >> i will take a stab. there have been attempts and there attempts at the efforts. this is what the rio and copenhagen are. they stall. and the reason is fundamental. the problem is caused by the developed world. that's the average time. the stuff up there now that is causing climate change now that cause it in the near term has been put up by developed nations.

the developing nation is doing their fair share and it's a contribution to the overall concentration. we in the developed world and in particular we in the united states in my view have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead that global multinational group forward if we were to step forward. i think it's our responsibility to step forward for two reasons. one is that we are largely responsible for much of the stuff up there, but also because i think we are capable of leading by example. we have to get on with it. we are not leading by example. it doesn't require radical changes in the structure and i think it takes a nation such as ours to step forward and lead. we have not been willing to do. i think we can. i think if we did, the world might come along with us.

we have the ability to influence that as citizens of this country. >> my answer to your either or question is yes. we need international efforts and u.s. leadership, but i used to be more optimistic about the prospects of a kyoto-like treaty and the international in fighting is just stalled progress. i think there is possibilities there, but i don't think can wait for the world to getting to and cooperate. we get to back to the issue of a complex system. the world is complex. with that many countries and cultures and that many agendas, everybody has to -- they can pursue their own agendas and there will be different solutions. we need multiple solutions.

yes for international cooperation effective and effective leadership and yes for it's in everyone's self interest. >> last word. >> i would like to add a word that has not been spoken of much, that is the notion of leadership. this is a matter of a leadership vacuum when you dress it down. my childhood friend fought through europe and was one of the first troops to liberate the internment camps and ralph came back from that experience and talked about the need for us to be stubborn leaders and he believed it was not a vice as some suggest, but a virtue. you just need to be careful what you are stubborn about, but you just might make it happen. that's the leadership we need in america.

first america needs to be a leader in the world and by us leading individually and working together, i agree with everything that has been shared here about us taking that bigger view and being contemplative about what we are doing. beyond all of that, we need to draw leaders up for the future and those leaders wherever they emerged from will help this nation go to a better place and this nation has a duty to take the world to a better place. it needs to be a part of our future. thank you. . >> with that, let's thank our panel for a provocative morning. thanks for showing up and let's take this as a call to arm.

>> more from the university of colorado's world affairs conference with a discussion on the effectiveness of foreign aid. we will hear from officials with the peace corps, interamerican development bank and a speech writer in the clinton administrati administration. >> she best known for being deputy director of the peace which he served since 2010. she worked in the field of public health specializing in hiv and aids and maternal and child health and a number of other philanthropic and altruistic endeavors. to her left is director of the national security network as a nonprofit organization. she also served as speech writer to president clinton and former secretaries of state madeline all bright and christopher warren.

to her left is judith morrison who is senior adviser in the genter and diversity division at interamerican development bank and works on development in latin america. she preefg served as regional director for south america and the caribbean at the interamerican foundation and worked at several think tanks including the interamerican dialogue. what will happen now is each will speak for about ten minutes starting with carrie and then heather and then judith and we will open it up to questions. c-span is here and so when you notice somebody with a big fish pole at the microphone attached to it trying to get your questions, don't be alarmed. that's part of the plan. without further adieu, we will start with carrie.

>> good morning, everyone. my apologies to the people in the balcony. it's hard to see because of the bright lights. i will mostly look down here, but you are all included. i am the deputy director of the peace corps, but i worked in public health for an organization called john snow incorporated. it's an international public health organization funded by your tax dollars at work and funning from the foundations and the nurun agencies. i am happy to answer questions about peace corps, but my conversations today will really focus on the foreign assistance budget. most americans are surprised by the amount of foreign aid we

have. most vastly the amount we spend on foreign assistance those on the right want to cut foreign 88, but not entirely. they want to increase or maintain foreign assistance. we have wall who want to and the center of the debate. just in terms of the facts, most of you know the faxes and most of our budget goes to humanitarian and development assistance. about 1/5 of 1% of our income goes to foreign assistance. research shows that most think we have the budget on foreign 88. when people asked what we wee should spent, most said about 5% on foreign assistance.

you can see that most think we should spent much more. they under estimate how much we currently spend. our budget, our budget is not a cure for the deficit. we spent about $30 billion and it's a tiny share of our federal budget. in terms of effectiveness, most has shown that in general, it does reduce poverty and increase equality in general. it led to growth and built institutional capacity and helped to achieve human develop success. there is huge variation within

countries even and the strend upward. the foreign assistance has been effective. the most personality question is as effectively as we can. we lived today at the time of history and the history of the world. the indicators most i think striking in terms of the reductions in global poverty rates and the people who live under $1 a day. since the beginning of history, that member has a population believes to be steady as a share of the percentage of the population. that was relatively stable. after the industrial revolution, the share or the portion of people living in poverty declined although with population growth, the number of people increased until about

1980. between 1980 and 1995, there was a huge reduction in poverty rates from 1.5 billion to to 800 million. that was a half of 27 years. that's incredible. think about that. the decline in the total number of people in extreme poverty from 1.5 billion to 800 million in a period of 27 years from the beginning of human history. that can't all be attributed to foreign assistance, but it coincides with the period of time when developing countries received foreign assistance from donor countries like the united states. other health statistics like infant mortality rates declined and as an example between 1960

and 1995, there were an average of about 30 countries that had greater than 2.2% global economic growth rates and 2.2% is the global economic average and also the economic growth rate for the united states, france, germ 18. it is considered an indicator of economic growth. between 1960 and 1995, there were 30 low income countries. between 1995 and now, the number doubled to 73. we have seen significant progress in economic development since 1995 in the last 15 or 16 years. the biggest question is, is the foreign assistance a portion wisely and are we using it and

investing in the country where is we should be investing? i think we learned from history the aid to corrupt states where there dictators and not leadership that cares about the people or invest in the people, that aid to the countries has not been successful. the investment in those countries that are committed and do invest and have strong and accountable leaders has been more successful. in my opinion, one of the greatest indicators of effectiveness is the places where we invest. there has been changing context in the play in the world around us. there has been a dramatic increase in foreign investment. we are familiar with the globalization and increased private investment in developing countries in 15 to 16 years. we have seen also increase in democracies and are accountable to the people.

there have been incredible cell phone technology. i tell you i get better coverage in liberia than in washington, d.c. the whole issue of technology not only internet technology or cell phones, but other technologies have really catapulted some developing countries into the modern world quickly. in liberia, they don't have land lines or faxes, but almost everybody has a cell phone. there is a plethora of new donors including china and the brick countries. brazil, russia, india and china. china especially in africa. we have seen increased funding in education, especially health and it has led to very important health outcomes.

there neutralities and growing population and migration and big concerns about resource use. of course climate change is very important and new consideration to us now. if terms of what we learned, what are the lessons over the years? first and foremost in terms of likely success and predicting outcomes for foreign assistance, the factors and the leadership of country where is we work. are the leaders and citizens committed to their future and development? i want to say something about the paris declaration of 2005, this was a big group of nations that met together to really look seriously at the factors associated with 88 effectiveness.