commemorating 30 years of the u.s. senate on c-span 2. now a conversation on urbanization around the world and what it means for geopolitics, the global economy, climate change, and other issues. among those we'll hear from, chicago mayor rahm emanuel, former treasury secretary ankh paulson and the governor of bangkok. [ applause ] thank you very much, indeed

for that lovely welcome and on behalf of the "financial times," as the u.s. managing editor, i should say we are absolutely delighted to be partnering with the chicago global council on this very, very important event. that's not just because we love chicago here at the ft, although swernly do, particularly when the weather is like this. and it's not just because we love smart conversation with intelligent people. and looking around at you at the audience, i know there are a lot of people who have a lot of ideas to offer on the future of cities and i look forward to hearing what you all have to say. but we're particularly pleased to be partnering on this event because we know cities matter. we are in the business of stories, news stories, and cities are at the center of almost every single story that the "financial times" writes

today. good stories about amazing economic dynamism, cultural collisions, technological change, exciting political participation. but also very bad stories about terrorism, about pollution, about rising income inequality, about many problems with corporate and political governance. but either way, these stories affect most of our two million strong readers around the world and i should mention that 30% of those are actually in america. america is our biggest market. and they're very important stories. so important that in fact we have a special report coming out tomorrow looking at the future of cities and we've also made the ft.com web site accessible freely to all of you here during the next couple of days. soy look forward to some fantastic conversations in the next couple of days.

we have several leading ft journalist swlos come in from around the world to moderate these conversations, i look forward to hearing what this amazing array of delegates have to say about these very, very important issues. and finding ways to turn bad stories about cities into good stories in the future. but most importantly i would like to first of all say a very big welcome to a man who's probably best placed to start off the whole event, mayor rahm emanuel who will say a few words of welcome to kick us off. thank you. [ applause ] >> thanks, jillian. i want to thank all of you for being here, especially the guests. as a mayor of the city of chicago you'd make me happy if you'd just go out and spend some money and buy some things. we've got a budget you we need

to meet so you would be very helpful. this is our second year of having a forum because one of the most dynamic and and exciting things happening around the world is the renaissance of our cities, as the intellectual, cultural and economic center of either a metro area or global area and the good news for the city of chicago in the last three years, there have been three distinct studies of 100 cities. ibm, "economist magazine" carney. in each of the magazines, each of the studies of 100 global cities, chicago was ranked in the top ten cities, either ninth, eighth, or seventh as most economically competitive. as a mayor i agree with the one that said we were the seventh most competitive in the world. [ applause ] a fellow chicagoan competitive middle child right there.

[ laughter [ laughter ] it fell in line with something we did in my first year of my first term. i had asked brookings institute and mckinzie to do a study to look at chicago, what are our strengths, challenges, opportunities and to lay out a business plan for the next ten years. all three of the former studies in the brookings institute and mckinzie study came back with the same conclusion about the city of chicago and we have an economic plan that focuses on talent, transportation and technology and by investing in those three things and continuing to invest in those three things and continuing to keep chicago at the competitive edge that it has as it competes around the globe, in the first three studies, what is also interesting for city, while we were in the top-ten ranking, we were the only city on that top-ten ranking that was not either the representative country's financial or political

capital. new york was on the list, berlin, london, tokyo, all of them are near political or financial capitals of the country. chicago, thank god, is neither the political or financial capital but we are the heartland of the united states. i happen to think of the city as the most american of american cities. and so the conference we're having today and i have had some meetings with my colleagues from around the globe, all of us face the same challenges, how to find the resources to invest in the future and make sure our city continues to be a high-quality living experience for people of diverse backgrounds to continue to call that home. and we approach this and i learn aloss from my colleagues from around the globe who are looking for answers. the decisions we make in the next four years will determine what chicago will look like in the next 30 or 40 years, the other thing that is more important to have this meeting, to have a shared set of ideas

and i welcome you to the city and thank those who have helped make this possible. it's a continue well effort for us to keep a dialogue going and learn from each other as we make the decisions about investing in the future. thank you. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage, ambassador hang chi chen, secretary henry paulson, dame tessa jao, and our panel moderator jillian tet. [ applause ] . well, good evening, everybody, and welcome once again. welcome to the opening panel of this conversation looking at the future of the powers and limitations of global cities in many ways this picks up where mayor emanuel just left off because as he says, chicago

recently has been doing an audit of what its strengths and weaknesses are and what it can do to invest to make a more vibrant and successful city in the future. what we're going to be doing in this panel is taking that a step further and saying well, if you look at global cities around the world as a whole what doesn't audit look like today? are cities working or not working? which cities would we hold up as being top of the class, what would we put as the most effective global city, which ones are the disaster zone this is which ones are going to be worthy of praise? which ones are the problems? and we have as you just heard a fantastically diverse collection of people to talk about this. i won't present them all again now but we have essentially at one end ambassador chan who is representing the city state of singapore, arguably one of the most successful cities in the

world. we have secretary henry paulson who has been working with chicago in looking at the issue of urban innovation p particularly in relation to the u.s. and china for many years. we have dame tessa jao who has been working as a british member of parliament for many years but has been involved in the role of london on the global stage and we have the governor of the city of bangkok and thailand, a former academic political scientist who spent years analyzing problems and has been trying to fix them as governor of thailand recently. i would like to start by asking ambassador chan. you spent many years as ambassador to washington, 14 years as singapore's ambassador to washington looking at sing more to a global contest.

many europeans would look at singapore today and say not only are you perhaps one of the most potent city states in the world but in some ways you are a success story as a city, what do you think are the key lessons for why singapore works today? >> how much time do sniff. [ laughter ] >> three minutes. >> well, jill iian i would say looking at singapore, it has two advantages, it's a global city and city state. we can be small and nimble but we can also have the authority, the sovereignty and the financial resources to do things and that has helped us enormously. singapore has taken advantage first of what is original role has been which is as a maritime and trading center. then we piled on other functions seeking to be relevant and that's very important for global

cities. are you relevant? can you remain relevant? and from a maritime and trading sender we are become a petrochemical center. we're the third largest petrochemical refining center in the world and we're an aviation hub and i think there's a power law about cities. the more you do, the more you will have. and more will come. people will come, talent will come, investments will come, et cetera. so i think we've capitalized on that. but the second point about singapore is that we were fortunate to start off with an excellent leadership, a leadership which knowing we have no resources, absolutely no resources, no oil, not even water chose to be strategic and to develop the human resource, people. and by being strategic, i think

my -- the founding father and his ministers really found a role and constantly tried to define a role for singapore. and to build an excellent bureaucracy. an honest bureaucracy, a disciplined bureaucracy and we work adds a whole of government. every agency is coordinated, when you are small, city state size, you can have rapid policy response so it comes together, i say all this but there are times when we are not so well coordinated. >> remind us how many people live in singapore today? >> 5.5 million. >> 5.5 million. that makes you a tta tiddler compared to india. how many in bangkok? >> 5.7 registered but i think at least 10 to 12 million.

>> when you as governor of bangkok look at singapore and see the extraordinary success, what strikes me most about sing mortar is not just that you are flexible and many some ways homogenous, you're very wholistic. when you look at a story like singapore. can you be singapore? or is that just to difficult given the history? >> we are always very jealous of singapore. [ laughter ] >> well, you win prizes for honesty straight up. >> there's a unity of national and local governance and this makes ones task much easier, while in thailand things are much, much more complex, different legal, political, social and financial settings. >> and yet bangkok does have this amazing sense of cultural history. no one is going to stand up and

sing "one night in singapore" are they? >> i'm not sure whether that's a compliment. [ laughter ] >> well i think we can take it as a compliment. are you going to tell me people are going to sing "one night in singapore". >> but jillian can i add this point? i pointed out what is good about singapore and all the reasons why singapore is successful but our position is not unassailable. a city state, a global city, can lose its position. think. when connectivity changes, you change. and technology. so for singapore i think it has become our task and role to always define a new relevant and that is what we are obsessed with. to constantly reinvent ourselves. >> right. >> so far i think we've done okay. >> i want to go back to the question about being creative and cool and certainly bangkok

in many people's eyes is seen as creative and cool, whether that makes it harder to be organized, too, whether you need to have the messy collisions to be cool or not. when you're talking about innovation. that's a key issue. but on the issue of venice, i'd like to bring in dame jowell and ask you. we add the ft ran a series of advertisements about our brexit coverage which for those of you who haven't read it, it's super. you should read it. but we have a picture of venice and london and asking essentially "is london destined to become the new venice if brexit happens?" i'm not necessarily going to ask you to talk about brexit though i'm sure everyone here would love to know whether you think it will happen but how do you look at london as a quasi city state? >> i don't think that london is a city state and i don't think it would be a good thing for london to become a city state.

london is the foremost city in the united kingdom. contributes to the economy and the strength of the economy in the united kingdom but is clearly distinctive and i think that when i was in the plane flying over here today i was thinking about this illusive definition of what is a global city and a global city is not a world city, it's not just a city. it sort of describes a special kind of personality, of self-confers which london certainly has, connectedness to the rest of the world which london certainly has woven in to the rest of the world. immigration over generations has created that for london. and london is as defined during and after the olympics a

creative and cool city but the ambassador is right about this. there are threats to london's position, as we would say, as londoners, the greatest city in the world. you can be creative and cool but there's a limit to your creativity and coolness if there are problems with visas and you restrict talent coming in, if you don't have universal broadband coverage and if young creative people can't afford to live in the city, can't afford to send their children to school there. so the threats facing london are actually rather prosaic. it's the lack of affordable housing, it's the level of congestion, if creaking structure. desperately in need of updating with plans to do so.

the skill mismatch. the fact that the constraint on instruct at the pace that london needs is the shortage of skilled labor and so on. so i think that you can see this and the ambitious poetic part of the identity, which is a creative city but also the risks if it becomes disconnected from the means by which that creativity. that leadership is actually sustained. >> but when you, as someone who has looked at the governance of london in some detail, actually ran to be mayor. when you were considering your mayoral bid, did you feel jealous when you looked at singapore and said if only i had a small cohesive bureaucracy that i could actually control, get to do things, that would be the answer? >> i think there are -- i think

there are two things. one is if you are the mayor of a great city you've transcending traditional tribal politics. that's the first thing. second, you have to be able to plan for the long term. i mean, if i look -- you know, the transformation of singapore has been over, what? 20 years? 30 years? >> 50 years. >> 50 years. there you are. and actually meeting the challenges of modernization that london requires will take 20 years. so i think that that is -- you know, i think it's a mistake to look at other cities and envy because london is a city of and for londoners, distinct and therefore the way in which london is run and projected to the world has to be true to that and there are aspects of, you

know, the city state of singapore that would never work in london. i mean, london is kind of irreverent, self-confident, rather arsearsey as one might s >> not sure how you translate arsey into american. >> that's right, young city, a city with fragility. and looking at that means you can begin to understand the challenges facing london over the next ten years. >> secretary paulson, i'd like to bring you in because you've never actually run a city but you have run goldman sachs which probably is as wealthy as your average city and you've also run the u.s. treasury. i'm curious. from your experience having traveled all over the world, which cities do you think are most successful today? >> wow. so i happen to -- first of all, i love my city. i've lived in new york, i've

lived in washington, i came back to live in chicago so i'm a big fan of chicago. number one. number two, i would say that the -- that i agree with the comments that have been made here how important management is to a city. and we've all watched, i've watched chicago go up and down based upon the mayors here you can have -- it's harder to screw up a national government than a city so it takes -- it really is management intensive. i'm going to look at it from a -- start of an unusual perspective because i think basically cities don't work unless there's a strong economic base. if you don't have -- and governments don't create jobs but they create the conditions for business to create jobs.

and it's very competitive because business and capital are ultimately going to go where it's most attractive to invest and so, again, i look at it through that focus. and i think singapore has done a magnificent job. i think london has done a magnificent job. to me they both really stand out. i have, though -- my focus, as you say i can comment having traveled around those places but because my focus is u.s./china relation, and on u.s./china relations my focus is on economic sustainability and the environment i look at urbanization through that route and so one of the biggest things on my mind, huge, is i look at what's going to happen, what was said at the beginning, this population explosion, the fwhoex

to three billion people, where are they going? they're going the cities. so ithe reason i think london ad singapore and bangkok are so important is because we're going to need models. most of those, their growth, is going to be in the developing world. and i'll tell you, there there are huge issues. and so as china figures out what the urbanization model is going to look with the next 300 million people going to the city and as they look to models elsewhere and help create models to the developing world, it will be very important. and we're talking about all the -- you know the arts and what makes difference cities special, i think in the developing world it's going to

be management capacity. the plans, if you don't get the plan right, you're really in problems and then finance. because many parts of the world don't have municipal finance and when you look at what needs to be done to bring clean technologies -- i'm focused on the environment and i'll tell you, we can argue about what roles city plays and where the national government plays a bigger role and the city plays a bigger role but when you look at dealing with waste material management, you look at dealing with transportation, you look at dealing with buildings, that's at the city and i'll tell you. if you are as concerned as i am about climate change and the economic risks from that it's going to be all about what happened in the cities and so therefore that's why i think new york is so important and i will somewhere u.s. tell you, i've

got to say a few words about new york. i think new york compares very favorably with london, very favorably with most major -- >> with anything? >> well, just in terms of overall in terms of the energy, in terms of the dynamism, in terms of the environment for business i just look at singapore in a different way. when the ambassador talked about management, i love -- i heard someone the other day ask me and i didn't -- they said listen, in 1960 there were two island nations that started off each run by a 30-year-old lawyer and they described one of which was singapore as this is a swamp and nothing there and the other, of course, was cuba which has this vibrant economy and of course castro 30 years old and i will kwan you. look what happened to one and look what happened to the other. and a lot of that is through

really good management. >> right, right. well i know the environmental issues are crucial. i mean one of the things that secretary paulson is involved with is trying to bring green technologies to china and one of the facts that leapt out at me from our resent conversations is an astoningnishingly high proportion comes from creation of places like china. i'll turn to the governor in a minute but do you want to jump in here for a second? >> i just wanted to throw into the ring this thought. peter schwartz, in scenario builder, says by 2065, 80% of the world will be urban and professor michael bati, this well-known british geography said by the end of the century the hold world will be urban.

now the rural countryside will be urban and you have second-tier city, third-tier cities, fourth-tier cities. you are bringing urban functions to the rural areas, does that help or does it not help in green house gas, etc. >> whether it helps or hurt, it's a fact and so -- and a big part of this is going to be having cities be livable, cities that are livable for people, made for people and not just cars but my own view is that we're just taking china as an example and building on what jillian said, that roughly 40% of carbon emission come from buildings over the last five years, perhaps half of all new buildings going up have gone up in china so you say where will

the big benefits from? they'll come from, a lot of them, from energy efficiency. i think if it's done right and you're talking about transportation, you're talking about energy efficient buildings, you're talking about industrial processes, there's -- that's where a lot of the low-hanging fruit is. but so much of this is about rolling out new clean technologies in scale on a cost-effective bases any the developing world and where is the money going to come from? it's not going to come from government, government has to create the conditions to bring that private capital there so there's a lot to be learned from what we see, experiments and things going noncities all around the world and for instance in china the reason -- my institute is a think and do tank and we're focused right now, i'm focused on two things in particular, one of which is

this region, beijing, tan general and aby a which is the political center of china. it's huge in terms of the populati population so it's a big population center, big, big industrialization very dirty air but yet china is focusing on this as to the pilot for rolling out their transformation to a lower carbon economy and to a new economy and so the work that they're doing there, part of it is energy efficiency, part of it is transportation. part of it is getting renewables on the grid and then another thing i'm working on, we're working on is green finance because that -- china is president of the g20 this year and they're working on models for green finance. and the reason i think it's so

important is those models might be not only very, very important in china but could be used throughout the developing world. >> so we need innovative technology and innovative finance as well. but i'm curious -- okay. >> but what i think we're at risk of forgetting here is the dynamic that drives this because we certainly -- we all agree that strong and directed management is fundamental to change but that certainly in the uk, most of europe, most of the u.s. is cut across by the messy business of politics which so often means that decisions on big infrastructure projects are crying out to be taken but they've become paralyzed by the inability to broker a political agreement. a political consensus.

so i think we can be highly prescriptive about what cities need but don't let's forget that you're having to broker two things, drive the management process to secure change but also look after the politics at the same time. >> so how do we cope with democracy in a city? >> oh, well, there you are. >> it's an issue chicago is grappling with. i'd like to bring in the governor right now. new many ways emblematic of the problem in the emerging markets in that you say you officially have five million people, probably nearer to 10 million, that reflects a boom in urbanization which is quite d w dramat dramatic. two-thirds of the world's population will live in cities by 2050 and you end up with everyone living in cities soon. how on earth do you in bangkok

cope with this sudden expansion? do you have the ability to execute decisions quickly or are you upended by messy politics to? could you dl what secretary paulson is talking about with green technology. >> for a long, long time bangkok flourished despite itself. for a long time we expanded, our economy expanded without proper city planning with very little legal power given to the city but 30 years ago, exactly 30 years ago a new law was passed and i think we began to put things right and yes, in many ways we have been able to address many of the challenges that have arisen over the last 30 years and the challenges

which we inherited from the period before that. we perhaps have benefitted from relative continuity in the 30 years since that law was passed there have been only six governors while there have been over 20 changes of government so. >> so you've had 20 national leaders -- 14 different -- but -- >> they've changed 20 times and you've only changed seven times? >> yes. >> well, you're certainly more stable. that makes italian politics look positively stable. [ laughter ] >> still we need to amend the law because the world has changed. we need more capacity, legal capacity to deal with more problems and introducing green technology is difficult if we require great investment but

that we're trying our best but budgetary constraint is a big skon strant. bangkok pays 70% of the nation's taxes but we get from the government less than .7 of the national budget. >> .7? >> .7. >> that sounds like a very, very bad deal. >> in the last 20 years, the national budget has gone up probably four times, nearly four times while in absolute terms the money we get from the government remains exactly the same. >> so my question is imagine tomorrow you said okay, i'm governor of bangkok, i want to deal with the environmental problem. could you in theory talk to secretary paulson or other people and just develop a scheme to get green finance and implement it?

do you have that power or are messy local politics getting in your way? is democracy the problem or is it a problem that the national government is impeding what you want to do? >> we are allowed to talk to different people. we are allowed to engage in agreeme agreements. i don't engage in tribal politics as was mentioned. i have had to work with three different governments in the last seven years and i think on the whole there have been pretty reasonable over the years so, yes, we can go our own way in these sort of things. indeed, we were more progressive than the government because we introduced the first carbon emission reduction plan by a government agency. we -- the first plan started in

kevin and now we are starting the second plan which is a 20-year plan so we can go ahead. >> that's probably a model in london as well. >> and you see some of these policies will have their -- will be initiated and have their origin at a very local level. you know a sort of community level. some will be determined by the national government and the city government then becomes the mediator and the implementer. it seems to me that the important thing is to be pretty focused on the small number of policies that can be transformational and that you as a city government have the power to deliver. >> i would just echo what has

just been said in that i think the issues everywhere i look are political and it's not just in democracie democracies. the u.s. -- -- i'll make two comments. first of all, your comment about infrastructure in the u.s. we all know we need massive investment in infrastructure and again it's not -- the government i don't think has got the noun do everything that needs to be done and how do you attract private capital? and the issues we have are all the multiple regulations and delays and political risk that makes it an unattractive investment so it's very hard, you talk about building high speed rail, you talk about building the kind of power grid we should have in the united states and you look at the right of ways and environmental laws. now i'm going go to china because some people say well,

they're an authoritarian government, they will say to me i -- i call it ask the emperor syndrome. and people will say the president, xi jinping, ask him, you can get something done. and you look at the diffuse decision making in china and you look at the power that has been devolved to cities on the one hand but on the other cities don't really have a sustainable system of money finance in china and mayors don't have real budget authority. they have to take one's land and use it to finance investment in infrastructure and that's not sustainable and they need massive tax reform. major tax reform. and that's very difficult to get done politically in china so there are all sorts of issues that they don't have the national government bureaucracy

they need. so the president is trying to modernize the government and grow that. they don't a legal system to enforce the environmental laws so they need to start using environmental measures to assess mayors in terms of their job performance. so there's -- everywhere i look i think these issues are issues of management capacity but also political issues and unfortunately a lot of the things that are -- need to be drone politically unpopular. >> except, of course, in singapore which has its very holistic model where essentially it is small enough to be run as a single bureaucracy. >> and there's something to be said for continuity of government. i would like to pick up the point also about everything being political and mayors don't

have enough resourcings, they may not have the power. and i'm not sure the answer is to give mayors that much more power. it's a problem there are ten cities doing very well and you -- enhance the power of every may mayor you're going to have ten more lords before you know it. so i can see the center jealously guarding some of that power but i have to say that mayors have demonstrated. they learn from each other and the c-40 mayors have done a good job of learning from each other, inspiring each other. >> and mayors in the u.s. have a lot of power. >> yes. >> and they get things done. and you can -- it's really i think one of the strongest parts about the u.s. system with the exception the way some of the fiscal fears have been run in

some of our cities which is a big other than. [ laughter ] >> as someone who's been around the country quite a bit i can say spinding time in washington usually leaves me feeling like i want to jump off the nearest small building. spending time in what's happening in local areas is wildly inspiring because you have these petri dish experiments all over america showing different ways of having governance. i'm going to turn the audience for questions in just a minute but before i do. the question that rises in my mind from hearing you talk and the fact that mayors can get things done sometimes more national governments or more stable than national governments is should we be asking cities to play a bigger role on the global stage? should cities be involved in setting foreign policy or trying to circumvent national governments to create connections? in london right through there

are a lot of people to succeed, if there was brexit and create their own city state. is it time to be talking about cities as an agent of foreign policy. >> i say make one view as someone not carrying water on one side or the other. they're different systems and some -- there's different forms of federalism, there's different political systems and to me the point that is overwhelming is cities are where the action is going to take place so whether -- so there's a huge role whether mayors like it or not there's a huge role just in managing cities. and in almost every city i can think of there's a huge role in terms of the environment and there's no doubt that they do that. there's a huge role in terms of making the city competitive and

open for business. so we could argue about whether we should give cities more power or not. i'm really much more focused on how do you create the models because that's where so much of the action is going to take place and even if the policies are set at the national level they'll be implemented in many cases at the city and that's the coal face. whether you're dealing with crime, preventing terrorism, whether you're dealing with education which is just almost -- you know, education, the training, businesses working with cities to train. so i just see this as being huge and come back to cities needing to create models. >> right. i think this question about should cities be free to develop a foreign policy really -- it kind of forgets the order which

is that there are certain furngss that a national government has to discharge and i think that the -- you know, i'm sure london, the city i know best in the world, you could certainly argue the case and describe london's foreign policy which is by and large pro-european, outward looking, pro immigration. and in favor of utilizing the links with countries like india, like parts of south america, china, the city having a large diaspora, apart from anything else. so i think that's fine but i think it's very important not to forget that the electorate -- and mayors are elected, the electorate will judge the success of the mayor by his or

her ability to do what they need for their city so you can have very grandiose foreign policy and lose an election. if you haven't built the homes that people need and improve the quality of the infrastructure. so, again, you come back to this. it's a slightly mar lly mario c isn't it, in you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose. and there has to be that underpinning of practical and very clearly managed change. >> on that note, do you think somebody like saddiq kahn, the new mayor of london, was correct to say we should stay in the european union? is that the role of the mayor of london? >> absolutely. it's in london's interest to remain as part of the european union and look at the businesses in london who speak with virtually one voice on the importance of european investment in london.

and he was absolutely right. to share a platform with the prime minister in doing that ch. this is a national concern not one of narrower party politics. >> would you go out and be an ambassador for thailand not just bangkok? >> there's a strong trend of them becoming national leaders or heads of government but while they remain city state, there is very little time to engage in international diplomacy most mayors or governors find it difficult to travel. as i'm sitting here in chicago, if there's a heavy downpour in bangkok people will start asking where's the governor, why isn't

he here trying to drain water from some streets. [ laughter ] >> so we're watching the weather forecast very closely in bangkok. >> that doesn't mean we don't engage in any diplomacy at all but we have built good relationships with cities but it's a different thing to engage on purpose international diplomacy on a sustained basis. >> right. i fully agree with everything that has been said but mayors do conduct some kind of diplomacy. they do it for trade missions and when bill clinton was governor i know he met with mayors to taiwan. jacques chirac when he was mayor of paris went to japan quite a

few times. so i think they tried to get investments. to some extent it's foreign policy but not foreign policy the way it touches on security and strategy but as an ambassador in washington i was quite intrigued to find tacoma park impose sanctions on myanmar way above what the united states was imposing and i think boston as well and i -- >> so national cities like boston were imposing more sanctions on myanmar than the government? >> and tacoma park in maryland. >> i'm not sure how the tacoma park -- how big it is. >> and myanmar is in asean so i was interested, i was intrigued how could this be but there you are. >> that's part of the federal spirit of america and diversity.

>> i'll tell you one thing. not only are you right but it's becoming much, much more intense with globalization and with capital being as noble as it is. it's amazing how competitive where businesses are looking that they're going to build. mayors and governors are -- that's a big part of their job and it's becoming i think more intense and more difficult. and so you'll find mayors fighting and promoting to bring business being big protectionists trying to protect dying industries. >> on that note i have to ask you tessa jowell before i turn the audience for questions. if the uk does vote for brexit, does london lose its global perch? >> well, let's hope that doesn't happen, jillian. [ laughter ] >> what's your betting -- >> i think brexit would be

damaging to london's economy. >> and what probability do you give brexit right now? what probability do you give to brexit right now? >> i think we'll vote to remain but the important something that we vote to remain conclusively so the issue is settled. certainly forcertainly, for the next generation. >> i think -- had a vote, i think we know which way he would be voting. >> business, london is a center for global business. it is a global financial center: to me a no vote would be devastating and i don't think it will happen. >> i hope you are right. i hope you are right. but many political predictions have been up ended this year. >> mine is worth absolutely nothing. i'm just an optimist. >> let's have some questions

from the audience. it will be courteous and not compulsory to not identify yourself before you ask your question. it would be courteous to keep your question very, very short. i believe we have micro phones roving in the audience. if you wish to direct it to an individual person do let me know. if not, i will direct it myself. so any questions for our panel? do you have a question back there? >> i'm from the international institute for strategic studies. i've heard very interesting things about global north, you know developed world cities. i'd lying to where do global cities from developing countries especially those cities that are facing profound violence and dysfunction such as rio de janiero -- i come from rio and i live in london and it's very different. they aspire to be global cities, and they are certainly seen as

global cities as the introductory video showed. can they be global cities even though they are facing high level violence, criminal violence, and several deep problems that don't affect cities like chicago and new york? >> you don't see violence in chicago? >> i was going to say. yeah, i think tragically, given what's happened so far this year, that's not -- mr. paulson, would you like to comment on the issue of how do you combat the violence and can you be a true global city if you are? >> i'm not -- i think -- my comment aside, i think people -- the violence in chicago which is -- which is, you know, very sad, it's not in the areas where business is operating, and it hasn't really affected yet the competitiveness here. but it's a huge problem.

now, i -- do i think global -- you know, in developing worlds that there will be true global cities there? and the answer is you betcha. when you look -- so step back a minute. and those of us who have been raised in the developing world, the world is changing in the sense when you look at where the economic growth is coming from and you look at the oecd countries and the percentage of the global economy they had ten or 20 years ago and what they have got now and what they are going to have in the future, it is -- the economic weight is going to be shifting to asia and to other parts of the developing world. and so the idea that people think that shanghai or the jing

jeije region -- aren't going to be right along with hong kong outstanding global cities i think don't understand what's happening. so i think they have got a real, if they get it right, they have got -- they will be important economic drivers. but for them to get it right, china is going to need a new economic model. >> right. >> and they are going to need -- they are not dealing with crime there. they are dealing with, you know, terrible pollution issues. and they are dealing with other really serious issues in terms of dealing with their own form of immigration in terms of the immigration from people from the countryside without something access to education and health care. but yes, i think that what --

and i think your question, though, when you look at latin america and you look at different places in africa, and you look at what's going to happen throughout the developing world, and cities springing up and becoming three, four, five million population cities overnight. this is something we all have to be very cognizant of. because if they don't deal with these issues it's going to impact not only them, but all of us in terms of what it does to our global ecosystem and what it does to our global economy. >> right. right. tessa? >> i think this is such a good and important question. i think my reaction is on three levels. first of all, cities don't become global cities simply by asserting that they are global cities. i think the second is that the

fear of crime, neighborhoods where crime is a fact of everyday life and i've represented in my years as a member of parliament some such neighborhoods, makes this self-confidence outward looking self-confidence that comes with being a global city almost impossible, which is why mayors that make tackling crime, bringing down crime their number one priority are likely to be successful in transforming their cities. i think the third thing i'd say with the rio olympics what in 35 days is that, you know, i greatly respected the ambition of the international olympic committee -- i know we are going to be talking about big events over the -- mega events over the

course of the conference and the part that they have to play. and i'm sure that the rio olympics will be a huge success. but obviously, they haven't come without a price in disruption, unrest, and so forth by the local community who are living with this uncertainty, crime, disruption, to lives day-by-day. so i think that you have absolutely, if you like, sort of registered a question at the heart of what we mean by global cities. and what we have to do, what leadership is required in order to create a global city. >> yes. we have a very different question from the electronic connection. there is a tweet.

what role does naturalization of immigrants play in singapore? that's a question which of course has implications in many cities around the world. mayor chen would you like to comment on what role the naturalization of immigrants plays in singapore? >> singapore is a very open society. in fact we were so open about, you know, increasing our population through immigration, and our immigration is not rural country. it's not migration from the rural country to the city. we actually give visas so you can control your immigration. and we've been very good about opening our doors because singaporeans are not repousing themselves. 1.2. that's our birth rate. so we -- in fact, in singapore today, one out of every four that you meet on the street is not a singaporean, is a

foreigner. in fact, it would be 1.3-something. now you can be naturalized to be a citizen. but like most cities elsewhere, we are also receiving some political backlash from too many immigrants. so whilst we remain open, we are staggering that openness. in other words we are controlling itful but it's hugely important. immigrants play a very productive role in our society. it helps bring -- helps singapore prosper. they play really constructive roles. >> it helps maintain the population, as you say n a world where many singaporans are not having babies. problem of much of western europe. en any more questions from the audience? we have a question down there in front. just got a few for minutes. >> steve clemens of the atlantic. thank you very much. my question is, none of you from the various cities you basically

represent are talking about the transforming aal power that we are seeing in things like data, sensors. rahm emanuel is one of the most famous data mayors in the world and while i know there is a panel that comes up on this later it just seems to me so core to talking about enframing the power and limit of future cities that i'm interested in how you think about data and how that is changing what's possible in the cities that you are representing. >> i think everyone here, steve, will stay that -- that's steve clemens from the atlantic. everyone on this panel will say that data of course plays a very major role. and how we use data in urban informatics to help in city management is going to be crucial in actually managing the problems of the city. but clearly not every city is at

that level. but at the very least, i would say n fact, when i think of connectivity and global cities, global cities thrive on connectivity because of the connectivity, you know, a city is a global city. and that connectivity must now move to sort of a digital connectivity. the digital footprint of influence is extremely important. i'm sorry we didn't mention it. >> i ask govern or paribatra, hw do you use data in bangkok? is that something you use? >> we are developing a database will which will assist us in tax collection and also assist us in other areas like provision of public health services and looking after the elderly.

but it is very much still work in progress. but the importance of data is recognized. >> i think the use of data also allows an open conversation between the leadership of the city and the people of the city, which is why it is important that the data is trusted. the second thing is that transformational change doesn't come without inconvenience and asking people to behave differently. you know, to take their car less often, to take the bus more, the walk more, all these kinds of things. and i think that data can be a very powerful mediator in providing the evidence base on which that behavior change is carried. >> right. >> i tell, it's -- i tell you

what's been a huge eye opener for me. the institute sponsors a u.s./china ceo council on sustainable urbanization. so there we have really big companies like tim cook from apple, doug mcmillan from walmart. jenny rammetty from ibm. mary barra from general motors. and then on the chinese side, state grid, alley baba and so on. and the project's big data, like for instance, it has just blown me away in terms of looking at for instance what ibm is doing in china, helping them track and be able to predict the pollution and source where it's coming from and or what can be done in terms of transportation management. or the -- and all of these companies, it's -- the

technology they bring. if you are -- and the technology i see in china, and just in terms of even managing the power on the grid. so this is bringing all kinds of capabilities. and so i think that is a huge tool for mayors. but, still, i do think no matter how much of a tool that is, so much of the constraints come down to political constraints, getting support from the voters to do the things and to do really really difficult thing. but you are right on. but i think probably the reason we didn't address it is none of us -- i can look at it with awe, but in terms of getting me -- i am at a data experts. >> as paulson says, there is always the problem of those pesky politics, or those pesky politicians. it's been a terrific debate. thank you very much indeed. as steve just said over the next couple of days we'll be picking

up many of these themes and discussing them in a lot more detail, whether it's to do with data management, whether it's to do with the issue of the olympics or other big events and how they impact on economies. we have a session on violence, which is a very big issue, tragically, even in chicago. we have an issue on income inequality, on urban design, an event on income inequality and we've also got events looking at questions of culture. a whole range of these specific themes will be discussed. to me perhaps one of the most potent comments of this session which i think framed it all was from secretary paulson saying it's harder to screw up national government than to screw up a city, to which i would add it's probably easier to make your mark quickly and do something really dynamic for the future in a city than government, too. >> amen. >> and that is what we're all here to discuss. so thank you very much, indeed. >> thank you. [ applause ]

next up, we're all going to have a drink. [ laughter ] >> announcer: cspan's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, three members of congress will join us to discuss the mass shootings in orlando over the weekend. democratic california representative eric squallwell ranking member of the intelligence subcommittee on the cia talks about the role of u.s. intelligence today and in the future. then the chair of the homeland security subcommittee on oversight and efficiency commissioner scott perry on homeland security and domestic terrorism issues. and senator tom carper of

delaware, members of the homeland security and government affairs committee discusses threats to u.s. security. be sure to watch cspan's washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. join in the discussion. >> tuesday morning here on cspan 3, a hearing on people who stay in the u.s. longer than allowed by their visas and what that means for national security. that house homeland security subcommittee gavels in at 10:00 a.m. eastern live on cspan 3. industry leaders testified about proposed energy efficiency rules for household appliances at a house energy and commerce subcommittee hearing. they talked about the possible effect of regulations on consumer prices and efficiency of large appliances including dishwashers, refrigerators, and washing machines. this is two hours, ten minutes. >> i'd like the call the hearing

to order this morning and i want to thank our panel of witnesses for being with us. i'm going to introduce you right before we -- right before you give your opening statements so i'll just introduce you individually at that time. i would like to recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. today's hearing is entitled home appliance energy efficiency standards. since 1987, we've had energy efficiency standards for certain appliances. came about because back in 1975, there was a federal energy policy act that established that format. the reagan administration was sued because it was not being implemented. and as a result of that lawsuit, we now found ourselves in about the fifth or sixth gyration of these energy efficiency

standards which apply to almost anything that plugs into the wall in your home, whether it is an air conditioner, refrigerator, wash e dryer, furnace, oftenen, washer, dryer, lighting, whatever it might be. and the argument was initially that you would save energy bills over time because of the efficiency you would use less electricity in the small amount of additional cost, you would ends up saving money. now some people today are questioning that because we're as i said we're about the fifth sixth or seventh round of these efficiency standards, and some people say that you reach a point of diminishing returns. and some people say that the additional cost now is at such a rate that you really don't have any savings over the long term because the energy efficiencies are simply not that great. now, other people say that's not

the case. and of course additionally now, everybody is talking about global warming. and so there is additional emphasis being placed on this because of that. one of the problems that we have is in america we feel like we're doing more than any other country in the world on these types of issues. i was reading an article the other day that said there are 3 billion people in the world who use open flames to cook today. and in the developing world by 2040, they expect that 65% of energy consumption will come from the developing world. we also hear a lot today about people being concerned about the cost of living. and we know that in california and new york they are trying to raise the minimum wage. and many people are urging that

we raise the minimum wage. some people agree with that. and some people don't. but it's interesting that those strong advocates for raising the minimum wage, they don't want to consider the additional cost caused by regulations. it's one thing to say okay we need to raise the minimum wage. but to low income, middle class family, if these appliances are going to cost additional money, what does that mean to their pocketbook? and then, we're even hearing now from some of the appliance makers that some of these new appliances really don't work as well as the old ones. and so it's a situation where i think no one really expected that the department of energy in this administration would be as aggressive as they have been on so many different fronts.