the most pressing issue is public funding right now whether it's for infrastructure programs or public employees such as teachers and retirement funds. like a lot of states right now funding is really tight in our state. ♪ >> voices from the states. part of c-span's 50 capitals tour and our stop in north dakota and south dakota. next on skrshc-span3, a discussn climate change policy. we will hear from todd stern former u.s. special envoy for climate change under president obama and the barbados ambassador to the u.s. and officials from maryland and virginia. they talked about the impact of climate change policy at the state and local level says. this is 90 minutes. >> good afternoon and thank you all for joining us this afternoon. i am paola caballero, and i'm the director for the climate program at wri, and it is my

honor to welcome you to the wri event one year later. has the world moved on since president trump's announcement on the paris agreement? i would like to start off, though, that my own personal reflection actually kicks off on the 9th of november of 2016. i was in marrakesh at the climate conference and what i witnessed was a renewed commitment to delivering on paris. i've been cop one if that tells you something and marrakesh stood out with purpose and commitment and what was memorable, what i remember was the steady uptick of countries that continue to ratify the agreement that day and the following weeks with signaling a very steely determination to carry on, and that's what i remember from that moment and now 18 months later, that same decisiveness is very much evident. trump can announce what he will,

but the reality on the ground in the u.s. and around the world is that effort to tackle climate continue regardless and unabated. and to someone who has been involved in the climate regime several decades, i can bear witness to the fact that there has been steady progress forward. if you ask me s it fast, decisive and transform tiff enough? not at all, but it has been relentless, so we're deeply honored today to have so many distinguished leaders from government, finance and international relations to join us to reflect on where we are and on how the american people have responded and indeed how the world has responded and before i turn over the floor to the fellow, andrew light who will introduce the distinguished speakers and moderate the conversation, and i would like to share two brief thoughts. firstly is that whether trump wants to ignore it or not,

climate change is real and it's happening now and the impacts are being felt around the world. 2017 was the second hottest year on record worldde. you all remembered what happened in california and the pictures of the wildfires are very much with us and in australia they broke 260 records on heat and rainfall. puerto rico is still recovering from hurricane maria and new numbers are coming up about what that deaf stagd really looked like and as always, i t poorest and most vulnerable that face the greatest, most irreversible impacts and i won't go into numbers on africa, but let me tell you they're daunting and sobering. the second thing that is important is even though the trump administration is adha advocating and he is witness to the historic leadership of the u.s. if they're advocating that response believity toledo climate, u.s. states and u.s. cities and businesses are

pushing forward with actions that will help to bend the needle on emissio in .s they know that if they don't keep up they risk being left behind in a new future powered by clean energy and a sustainable future regardless of what action takes place at federal level. to date, as an indicator of this, for example, 74 businesses have committed to set science-based targets for emission reduction which align their businesses with the paris targets. so businesses are talking the walk and walking the talk. last december as you well know, california governor jerry brown and former new york city mayor michael bloomberg launched america's pledge. it was an effort to federal non-federal climate action and it was kicked off with the release authored by w. wright together with partners, rocky mountain institute which found

that states, cities and businesses representing more than half of the u.s. economy and population have adopted targets and very importantly, a similar proportion have declared their support for the paris agreement. think about it, if they were a country, these u.s. states and cities alone would be the third largest economy in the world. that matters. that speaks. there september, wri, together with our partner, the institute and the university of maryland are helping to author the next america's pledge report which will determine how much these non-federal efforts can help to drive emissions downward to achieve the u.s.' 2025 climate goal. and that's for the u.s. my third point is what about the rest of the world? as i said in the beginning, the momentum continues to grow internationally, for example, since last june, over 20 countries committed to facing coal power, france, u, can, china, ireland and israel and

costa rica all came forward with announcements or plan to ban the sale of fossil fuel-powered vehicles by 2024, or sooner. new zealand for its part committed renewing sessions and china announced it would restore 6.6 million hectares in 2014 and that's an area equivalent to the size of ireland and the last two countries that have not ratified the paris agree. syria and nicaragua have done so. in parallel to all of this, the negotiations are continuing a pace. the country negotiators have continued to work to finalize and will continue to work to finalize the implementation guidelines of the paris agreement. so i think all of this points very clearly to the progress that is being made in the u.s. around the world and it's doubtless, encouraging, but if we're honest we need a lot more

ambition a we need to do much more and we'll stay under 2 degrees that we committed to in 2015. that means companies and businesses all have to step up and there is no time to waste. what is really daunting and accelerating at the wrong time is if we act today or don't act today it will determine what the world would look like, and what kind of economies ands issities will be viable. we don't only need to avoid locking out people, and they like to have sustainablin and collusive trajectories impeach thinking about this incredible moment that we're at today, i have the privilege to turn the panel to andrew light and he will be monitoring what i'm sure will be a lively and timely conversation. thank you. [ applause ]

>> will the speakers join me here at the fro >> so well come, everyone. welcome, everyone and welcome to those of you watching either on c-span or facebook orny other platform today. let me explain how we'll run the panel today with brief introductions and then i will lead a conversation here for 35, 40 minutes with our panelists who represent a range of positions and views and experiences both on domestic and international climate and green energy policy and then after that we'll open itp to you for about 25 minutes or so, and then close. let me start with the

introductions and immediately to my left issed todd stern who sd as the chief executive netior and strengthened relations with china and a number of other countries on as paul jt said correctly, oneas of the key architects of the paris agreement on climate change. >> next to him is ambassador hart who served as lead negotiator for small island and developing states in negotiations through paris. he was also director of that of the u.n. secretary-general's climate support team and is now ambassador of barbados to the united states. next to ambassador hart, we have val smith who is the managing director who is the managing director at citi. she sustains the $100 billion finance goal instituting their commitment last fall to source 100% of city's energy needs from

renewable resources by 2020. next to val we have secretary ben grumbles who is secretary of the environment for the state of maryland. he leads the protection in climate change there with governor hogan. he isntlylso chair of the regional greenhouse gas initiative which we hear a lot about rge as it's called. remember reggie. the first program to produce emissions among northeastern and mid atlantic states and we hope soon to be expanded to the south. so next to ben, we've got angela navarro who is deputy secretary of commerce and trade for the state of virginia. she was previously deputy of natural resources and she works through expanding the energy sector through clean energy technologies and utility scale solar power and then at the end of the row here we have my colleague david wasco, director of wri's climate initiative

which works to advance the paris agreement and other international policy arenas. the ultimate aim of strengthening climate change, in key sectors. he's been a long member of the -- of the climate community in wasn and elsewhere. previously he worked with oxfam and friends of the earth. so, today, we'll start with you. how would you assess president trump's announcement a year ago this week for his intention to withdraw from it. where are you seeing signs of leadership? where do you think we still need some more progress? >> thanks very much, andrew. thanks for everybody at wri for putting this event on and a pleasure to be up on the stage with all of my fellow panelists. look, andrew, i think it's a mixed bag. i think the first and most important piece of good news is

other countries stayed in and sort of doubled down in their general determination not to walk away and not to let the united states, to use the word of the president, not to let the united states cancel the agreement. president xi from china showed up in davos in january of, i guess, 2017 and said right away, china is committed and staying in and everybody else has stayed in. to that extent, that's very good news and we shouldn't look past that. by the way, i'll confine my comments to the international side and we is several people up here to talk about the domestic side and the less positive part of it is that it's really damaging for the united states to be on the way out. you probably know if you're in this room that we're not actually out yet under the agreement of we can't literally

be withdrawn until november 4th of 2020 which by pure coincince is the day after the 2020 election. so we can submit a formal notice of withdrawal in november 2019 that has to lay over for a year. so it's 2020 before the u.s. can get out and the president in principle, left the door open to coming back, as he said, but in any event, we have this announcement that the president hasn't cleared his intention to withdraw. the whole sense of things from the senior levels of the trump administration is to be not interested in climate chang and not intending to stay in paris and that has a very damaging impact and i've seen it. in a couple of ways i went to the cop in several days in november and i went again to the

meeting just a few weeks ago in bonn and for three days there probably met with 25 countries and the ldcs and theg- and a whole slew of people from every part of the spectrum. so i think there are two things that i think -- two ways that i see the u.s. posture as being undermining and difficult right now in terms of the negotiations. number one is there is in the negotiations themselves, and the second is broadly speaking and ambition side. on the negotiation's side there are a whole number of follow-on steps that are being negotiated this year, and meant to be finished this year in poland in november at the cobb. this is sometimes referred in the press as the rule book, but

it's a bunch of different guidelines and measures meant to implent provisions of paris an it is really important. there are guidelines for transparency transparency, discussions about the kind of information you have to submit when you submit your target, accounting, compliance, all sorts of things that have to get dealt with. i think that in the absence of the united states, you have a phenomenon of a fair number of countries i think tried to pull back a little bit from some of the things that were agreed to, some of the xroe misz that were reached in paris. i think that there is generally a sense among many countries that, you know, countries in many cases extended themselves maybe past even the point where they were entirely comfortable but they saw where this was a big moment, they saw that united states was walking arm in arm with china, with, you know, at

the presidential level, they understood that there were elements of this thing that needed to be done in such a way that united states could actually join the agreement, never a foregone cosion, and people extended themselves. so having done that, turn around in the united states never mind we're gone. that is a very difficult, dynamic and i think it is both in my observation and in many times, in many comments of people again from across the spectrum made to me, damaging in terms of finding a way forward on some of these points. with respect to the other thing i was going to say is, that paris, look, remember the targets in paris, the ndcs, are not binding. there's a binding transparency and accountability system, but not the target themselves. it had to be in my judgment done that way in order to get broad

agreement, but it is a feature of paris and so if you think well how are we going to get the kind of ambition we need to get over time, there has to be a growing development of norms and expectations within countries of the world, not just within the negotiating community, but in the countries, to keep ramping up and ramp up more and more and faster and faster. you see the united states, the biggest historic emitter now, and the country which for so many years has beeiewed in all sorts of areas well belonds climate change, to use madeleine albright's phrase, indispensable power, never mind, what's the impact of that on that sense of developing norms and expectations. obviously not good. i think countries are still in, determined to go forward, want to implement the agreement, that's all great but don't underestimate the negative side of the u.s.'s position. >> thanks very much.

i want to bring in ambassador hart and david now to sort of launch from this platform that todd has set for us. so where do you think the coalitions, right, that really got us the ambition out of paris, i mean full disclosure i was working for todd during paris and we all came together in the high ambition coalition d iniatives fair t say got a much stronger agreement than many of us thought we were really going to get leading into those negotiations which is unusual in these kinds of forms. very difficult. over 190 countries, they've all got to agree on the same thing to move forward. 60 out of 100, in this forum you need everyone to agree to move forward in terms of ambition. where do you think we are in terms of holding that ambition together ambassador hart and where do you think we are in terms of, you know, the coalition,right, that is really going to move forward in this

time when the -- as todd said, the u.s. is pretty much on the sidelines, at least in the formal negotiations? >> thanks a lot. thanks a lot, andrew. first let me thank wri and my other colleagues and especially my good friend todd stern. we sat across each other many long days and nights. usually opposing each other, but we nevertheless became friends. and i say that to lead into the paris, to what occurred in paris a couple years ago where, despite enormous differences around legal form, around the intricacies of the agreement and the necessary approaches to solve this global problem, countries coalesced around a very ambitious agreement. no one got everything they

wanted. we wanted those targets that todd spoke about to be very ambitious and be legally binding. we did not gett. butone decided that it was in the best interest not only of their individual countries and future generations, but the world in general. if we could craft an ambitious global agreement that responded to the defining global challenge of our time. and despite the decision u.s. administrationrent u.s. administration to withdraw or announce this withdraw from the paris agreement, i nevertheless believe that the coalition that delivered the paris agreement remains strong. it was not only a coalition of countries, it was also a coalition of civil society actors and real economy actors.

and we're seeing an amazing amount of mobilization in the real economy around the goals and aspirns of the paris agreement. that's a very positive sign. certnly in my o region, because for us climate change is not some esoteric, scientific debate or discussion, it's a realty, right, and in 2017, we saw some of the most devastating and destructive hurricanes that we've ever seen in our entire history. therefore, when we have these discussions on the paris agreement and take action on climate change, it carries life -- loss of life implications or it has loss of life implications. so in my own region, governments have decided to be even more ambitious than they were going into paris.

just last thursday we had a general election in my country where we elected the first female prime minister in our history, and she has already announced a promise that by 2030, barbadosil move towards -- will transition towards being 100% carbon neutral. the first 100% carbon neutral island in the world. if anyone who knows her, knows that she will keep that promise. so throughout the crib yaribbea other regions you are seeing countries recognize that there are opportunities, real economy opportunities, for taking action on climate change. so my response to your question the coalition remains strong and we want the u.s. to be back at the table and engaging in a constructive however countries

are not going to wait until the u.s. resumes its position of leadership. countries are already taking actions to implement or even exceed their paris commitment. however, we neehe.s.ack at the table. it is absolutely imperative to have the u.s. at the table. were it not for the leadership of the united states, were it not for the leadership of todd, although i disagreed with him sometimes, we would not have had a paris agreement. i can say that unashamedly we would not have had this ambitious global agreement were it not for the leadership of the united states. so we absolutely need the u.s. back at the table. >> david, same question. how are we in terms of holding together the coalitions of ambition? are you seeing new signs of

leadership and response to what's happened in the last year? also, what are the accelerating moments we should look forward to in terms of what are the signs we should look forward to, in the next year, right after that, until we get a potentially realignment in the global politics on this issue? >> thanks. so i think one of the most remarkable things about what's happened during the trump administration or tru era and the response to the -- to the withdraw announcement or the intent to withdraw announcement by president trump has been the reaction and palo alluded to this earlier i think. when the election happened, many of us were in marakesh for 22 in what was happening at the time and the sense of determination that one felt throughout the halls there was quite remarkable. the sense that countries, and beyond countries, it included

cities, states, businesses that were there and civil society, the determination to carry on was palpable. i think that came through as well in the wake a year ago of the announcement by president trump that he intended -- intends to withdraw from the agreement. we saw the upwelling of literally hundreds of companies and cities and states saying that they are still in in the lingo of one of the alliances built in response and i think that has carried on. that then brings us forward to those next moments that really can carry forward the flag. i don't want to suggest that we be naive or poly anna about the situation. the reality of this administration is something that many are keenly aware of around the world. and yet, there is this clear determination to carry on.

some of the things coming down the pike that i think are those moments that will test that determination are both within negotiations and outside them, the global climate action summit coming up in september in california which is in large part meant to highlight the actions that cities and states and businesses and other actors are taking, but i think will bring a surprising number of countries to the mix as well and show the ways in which those, quote, nonstate actors can work collaboratively with governments. that then will carry us forward, i think, and i think we will see a quite potent showing there. that will carry us forward to this year in poland which todd mentioned and there we are really on the cusp of two major decision points i think. one has to do with the set of

rules or guidelines for the paris agreement, and this really should be seen as the mobilizing ingredient, the catalytic agreement for the paris agreement, so not a set of scriptures per se, but the builng that will allow the paris agreement to come into full life and really have traction on the ground. and countries are very determined to get the foundational elements of that set of guidelines and rule book in place by this. there's a lot of work left to be done. there will have to be stepped up pace to get there. but that is the goal that's been established. the second piece has to do with ambition and here, we're really in the midst of the first five-year cycle under paris. paris established a series of five-year cycles to increase ambition and strengthen action. this one is perhaps less

definitively spelled out in the agreement than some that come after starting in 2025, but nonetheless many countries and we saw this at the intercessional negotiations severaks ago, have made clear that they see this as an important milestone. so driving toward that objective and more importantly having a clear sense of direction for increasing action by 2020 is another one of those milestones. next year the u.n. secretary general has announced that the u.n. will be holding a major climate summit in new york on the sidelines or during, better to say, the u.n. general assembly and while plans for that are still being laid, i think it does become an important moment, especially heading toward 2020 and that increased ambition. and then the last thing i'll say very quickly is that one of the things that we're witnessing is a real change in some of the

dynamics internationally around how action is being taken and what the allianceshat taking action. we're seeing that in part outside of government action with the cities and states a businesses who have banded together not only in the u.s. but across countries to a remarkable degree. and then we're also seeing it with governments. india, for example, has generated the creation of the international solar alliance which has over 60 countries as members. it's an intergovernmental organization in the formal sense and it is mostly in tropical countries going to drive forward renebl ergy options. we're seeing in africa the africa renewable energy initiative which has a goal of 300 gigawatts of renewables in africa by 2030. all of that together shows the degree we're witnessing a change globally in the types of

leadership that we have. it's a distributed leadership model asot one although clearly we need the u.s. in the game at the end of the day, it's not one that depends just on major parties. it's one that has many more actors in the mix and driving forward action. >> excellent. great segue. going to turn to secretary grumbles, angela and navarro smith now. the pictures of this and people keep using this term cop. if you're not an unrecoverable climate geek like us this is conference of the u.n. framework on climate change. conference of the parties, the annual meetings, we're all terribly impressed. you were all there with a show of leadership from your industries, from your states. within a week jerry brown going to china, a week after president

trump makes this rose garden a noumts, goes to china, in the great hall of the people with xi jinping and talks climate change. there has been a tremendous upwelling of this. america's pledge. we are still in the u.s. climate alliance. it goes on and on, the different organizati organizations of businesses and states that have come together and citys. where do we go from here? say a little bit about your particular insights into the process of building those alliances, the process of creating them, creating momentum around them. letting the american people know they exist in a way they probably never did before, right, and then what do you -- how do you see that leadership unfolding over the next couple years? so let's just go down the line. val, start with you and then to ben and then angela. >> sure. first of all -- yes. there it is. i want to join everybody in thanking wri for pulling us

together for i think as much as anything what is a celebra of t place over the past year and it's really an honor to be here with the state and national and international leaders in this space. citigroup has been quite active in this space both in terms of our support of the paris agreement leading up to cop '21 in paris as well as our financing of climateolut sdrea, little bit about sort of how we've joined together with other institutions. th citi is the most global ay bank in the world. we have people on the ground in 98 countries and we do business in 160 countries. so we really come to this issue partly out of o efforts to live our mission and value

proposition to enable growth and progress. it's partly because of our role as a global citizen. and it's partly because of the business opportunity in the climate solution space. when paula w doing her opening remarks she said, you know, one of the things about having sound climate policy is that you want to make sure that you're not locking out all the good stuff. i think the good stuff is really what you see as such a huge motivator for so many companies in the climate solution space. for citi we have a $1 blion environmental finance goal we announced in 2015 and we've made -- we've supported our clients in $57 billion worth of climate environmental solutions in four years since that goal was announced. and, you know, i think what we've been very pleased to see and we're one voice within thousands of voices that through either their statements or their

business actions have said we are still in the paris agreement, we really see this a sortf this inevitable notion progress from our clients that is pulling all ofs in th rightirection in terms of climate solutions. specifically focusing on how we've been able to join together, we -- i think we have been quite pleased to partner wi cpetitors and our clients and other companies to make a couple -- a few different statements leading up to paris. we joined together with the other major u.s. banks to state our support for a global climate agreement. after there was talk about whether or not the united states would stayn the paris agreement, our ceo joined with many other ceos in an open letter published in the wall

street journal to say the paris agreement is important to our business and after trump announced that he intended for the u.s. to withdraw from the united states or the paris emt,e issued statent saying that we were disappointed but through our statements and our actions, we are still in. so, you know, i think that for companies we really want to focus on what is possible today, what is possible torw, bringing solutions to our clients and i think that's what 've sn. that's been a an incredible mobilizer for companies. we understand the importance of this issue. we understand the importance of the paris agreement and we understand the importance of policy certainty and our hope through we aretill in and otr coalitions is that we can help to sort of create the

continued momentum to fill the gap with states, with cities, with t other countries to sort of bridge the gap and get us to a place where we are again looking at a successful and fulse implementation of the >> well, very quickly, you know, governor larry hoeplican governor of maryland, directed me his environment secretary to go to bond to be part of cop '23 to learn and to share and to underscore that there is nothing more practical than the preservation of health and beauty, and keyes to preserving our health, our environment, our economy in maryland, all of you are not just in the nation's capital right now, you're in the heart of the chesapeake bay watershed and the prese of our beauty, the natural resources, means we need to find

bipartisan solutions. the opportunity to learn from so many other countries and to be with states that were united in the effort to reduce greenhouse gasses and increase resiliency and learn and work with the business community and the ngos, made us very excited in maryland and looking forward to take next steps and follow through with policies and actions in maryland. think globally, act locally, and invest locally in maryland. all of you. >> or in virginia. >> yeah. in the watershed, that's right. well -- >> going on here. >> exactly. it's not unusual. so i think, you know, ben, viously, set u a really great conversation about the things that the states are doing. i think a lot of people would recognize that most of the climate action or a lot of the

climate action that was taking place in the united states was happening at the state level preparis agreement and, you know, the work that we're doing through a variety of collaborations, whether it be we are still in, the u.s. climate alliance, the commonwealth is moving forward with the regulatory program where we would for the first time a southeastern state will place a limit on carbon pollution for power plants and link to the regional greenhouse gas initiative, yes, so we're very excited about all of these actions and a lot of these activities were occurring before president trump's announcement. but i think the importance of the work that the states are doing has only been amplified since the announcemen from president trump a year ago. the coalitions, the u.s. climate alliance, we are still in, virtually assigns under 2 mou, i think a lot of this work would have occurred naturally but it gave us a point, and there's so

much excitement at the state level in terms of investing in our clean energy economy, growing businesses around resiliency. for states like virginia and maryland, water resiliency is i thinking about every single day. there are a lot of opportunities for the states to step forward and to take a more leadership role in, you know, in the absence of the federal government doing so. that's not to say that we wouldn't like to see more federal action. i think consistent regulatory programs nationwide are at the preference, are businesses in the commonwealth and i'm sure all across the state, all across the nation, would appreciate that the consistency of a strong regulatory program, rather than piecemeal state approaches. the states are close to the ground. we have to live in reality and have tremendous problems associated with impacts of climate change that we're dealing with on a daily basis and we have to take action.

we have to be beholden to our constituents and the people that elected my boss into office and a significant factor in that is addressing the impacts of climate change, whether it be reducing carbon pollution from the energy sector through our regulatory program, looking at advanced transportation, bringing in new businesses, expanding our clean energy economy, and addressing the resiliency of our communities with the particular focus on our coastal communities. >> thank you. let's drill down a little layer, another layer here. here at the world resources institute we are very much in favor of a good, solid, conservative idea that one of the ways that you attack this problem is you price the pollution. ben, you're chair now of the regional greenhouse gas initiative, the oldest carbon trading system in the united states, prices the pollution, virginia's poised now to join,

can you say more about the role of these regl tra systems? are they inherently limited? we don't have a national system. you'regrlly. what's the future of them? do you see a way in which we can imagi imagine reggie taking a step california has taken, linked to provinces of ontario and quebec? what's the current status of that and what's the future? >> we certainly enjoy along with maryland, several other states who are current participants and members of reggie, sharing ideas and thoughts aut our experiences and it's a tremendous track record over the last almost the last decade, these nine states have slashed carbon emissions from the power plant sector and generated in addition to that, that's all focused on environmental progress, generating $2.9

billion in revenue divided among the states for investing in clean energy and energy efficiency and rate payer assistance and resiliency and the key to us was that 83 days after the president announced the withdraw from -- of the u.s. from the paris climate agreement, the nine states were extremely diverse geographically and politically from new england to maryland and delaware, agreed, reached consensus, to strengthen and extend the program beyond 2030 and the price question is key for us all to ensure that there are mechanisms like a cost containment reserve and different safety valves that are involved in the auction process which is critically important so

that each of the states in the power sector and our constituencies within those states and reggie, the regional greenhouse gas initiative, understand the strategy for environmental and economic security into the future is consistent with the theme of not just clean energy but affordable and reliable energy. it's an option system based on the market price, the quarterly auctions. but we also have mechanisms such as a cost containment reserve. if the prices get too high or i think a really important breakthrough that wri and others in the environmental and academic community were involved in, we announced we would be including an emissions containment reserve as well to ensure that cap on overall emissions for the regional effort would continue to decrease and that we would.

to see environmental progress. so our effort as we reach out to the commonwealth of virginia and new jersey, which is also a very excited and focused on rejoining reggie, is that we find the right mix of autonomy and flexibility among the states and use price mechanisms to ensure that there won't be unaffordable or unreliable energy supplies among the states. it's i think one of the most powerful and uplifting messages in the country and around the world that this reggie, when we become 11 states, if that is the case and i hope it will be, will have somewhere between the fourth and fifth largest economy in the world. when you take those states into account. even though it's focused just on the power sector right now, that's still a very powerful and uplifting message to others that in a totally bipartisan manner,

states in the united states are moving forward and reducing emissions and benefiting their state economies. >> so angela, can you tell us, walk us through what it's like to be on the side of trying to emerge into one of these markets? th's clearly in the, for now, i mean that really is the future. >> sure. >> of a pricing system. you've just finished recently your public comment period on this. i mean you're with us from the beginning from the last administration into this administration, the new gubernatorial administration. there's been some tension there with the state legislature already, so how are you growing support for this, how does the process look from the inside being one of those states on the cusp of making a big step like this? >> it's a really great question, obviously. the collaborative effort with the states has been key. i will say virginia started down this pathway a number of years ago, it didn't happen overnight, and it started with our stake

holder engagement around the clean power plant and epa's federal emissions and our stakeholder engagement in talking to industry and ennmta groups, science based groups, everyone across the board recognized the power of a market and the power of establishing a program that was trading ready, which was the beauty of the clean power plant is that there was the flexibility for states to embark upon that type of regulatory program. so as we were moving through the process of working through our own state regulatory approach to comply with the power plan, the key power plan stayed at the federal level by the supreme court and we've actually -- we can ask them do you want to continue and everyone unanimously said yes. we want to continue working through this because our utilities are pricing carbon and our long-range plan.

it's known as the mother of all extra naltys. it's a huge risk for our manufacturers and industry and so they wanted to continue to have these conversations. that's not to say they all love table and part of the discussion and in a state le virginia that certainly is a purple state where you've got a majority republican legislature but two consecutive democratic governors, that was key t get those stakeholders in the room and have those conversations. we knew we needed to move forward via an executive action rather than through legislation because we did not have the votes in our general assembly to have a more comprehensive approach that would let us fully take advantage of the benefits of reggie, so, for example, virginia is not directly auctioning the allowances and we do not get the revenue. so ben mentioned the significant investment that states have made from the auction revenue that comes via the reggie auction. virginia does not have the

ability to do that. the revenue will go back to the utilities and will be essentially refunded back to customers on their electric utility bills. certainly bringing all of those groups together, recognizing that we need a consistent ac we saw there was uncertainty at the federal level, there was i think political momentum f us to move in this direction and then with the elections so the draft rule went out right after the election at the state election where governor northham was elecd and he continued on the path of moving forward with the regulatory program established under governor mcauliffe. >> thas. ian more question and then we're going to start opening it up. i think part of the way that i think that we think about these kinds of programs really is that you're building a coherent and consistent overall economic

system which is going to create a growth model that lives up to the realities of climate change and one of the other things that citigroup is involved in, has been the task force on climate related financial sclore. so that companies are really -- this is big like bloomberg and england did just recently on this, trying to come up with recommendations on how to move forward on a system of climate risk disclosures, help inform investors, create long-term stability in terms of your investments, can you tell us something about citi's support for that program, how you thing that's going, are we going to get -- do you feel momentum merging on that in the same way we do with the other programs we've been talking about? >> sure. so earlier i talked about our financing of climate solutions and this is really the other side of that coin, how do financial institutions, how do companies assess climate risk

and risk to their business from climate change. so andrew was referring to something called the financial stability boards, task force on climate-related financial disclosures, tcfd, and the tcfd recommendations were released by the task force in june of 2017 so a year ago,noer anniversary. these recommendations ask financial institutions as well as provide guidance to other more carbon intensive sectors to provide disclosure across a whole host of different climate related risks. they ask companies to provide climate change governance to the companies responsible for assessing climate change. they ask companies to provide

climate change metrics, your targets, and there's a particular piece of this that really stumped a lot of companies and it's around to consider doi scenario analysis to see how your company would perform in different warming scenarios. so we've been reporting on climate-related issues and trics since 2002. we started reporting on our environmental footprint in 2002 including our energy use and greeouse gas emissions associated. we have a long history of continually ramping up our disclosure in this area on the opportunity side with our $100 billion environmental finance goal as well as on the risk side and our approach to environmental and social risk management with our client transactions. the one piece of this around climate scenario analysis is a different way of thinking for a lot of companies. so we actually banded together

with 15 other banks. we're the only u.s. bank. so it's 15 other banks from across the world through the -- or under the guidance of the united nations finance initiative, and we banded together, we hired two consultants to help us build methodologies and models for looking at physical risk from climate change and what that would do to our businesses and our loan ports as well as transition risks. if we are so fortunate to, you know, to be able to keep warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees scenario, what does that look like? what kind -- what is the global economy look like and what does our business look like? we're still in process of developing that. all of this work, because it's being done with the support of the u.n., is going to be a public good. so we really feel like it's going to contribute to the overall dialog. i think there's been a lot of

focus on this, a lot of attention to how both financial stutns and other companies are going to like understand their risk and report on their risk. for a bank it might be your risk from loan portfolio impacts to asset managers it would be a different kind of impact, but i think what this is really helping us with because it's involving our bankers and risk managers from different sectors -- we started with the energy sector and are now looking at the transportation sector -- is it makes a company more climate aware because you're pulling in so many different units to talk about how climate risk affects your business from an opportunity side and from a risk side. so this is something that i've been talking about a lot to really demystify what it is and what it isn't. i think all of us, whether we're in companies or states or city governments or responsible on the international scale, that

becoming more climate aware and looking at how different warming scenarios aect us, is a really important step to take. >> ius-- i have to disclose something about financial risk that has been honestly a key, a magic ingredient to the bipartisan success on climate action in the state of maryland. the climate change condition that our state has is a 26-member body, one of the most active members of the commission is the state elettinged treasurer and democrat elected treasurer and the state recommended the 40 by 30 green house reduction plan for the state, 40% reduction based on 2006 benchmark by 2030, but the key is, is that the department of the environment needs to track our progress and document to the governo and the general assembly whether we are leading

to a net positive impact on jobs and the economy as we go forward with the 40y0oal. finaial risk is a a major reason why the state of maryland i think is the first in the country to ever launch a state supported climate leadership academy which we did last week which is focused on providing training and tools to local governments and businesses to deal with and to help prevent flooding and storm surge and other adverse financial impacts to property and people. the risk that climate change present. so it's all stemming from an awareness that financial impacts are an integral part of a broad collaborative and bipartisan approach to real action on

reducing emissions and increasing resiliency throughout the state. >> great. thank you. and i'm going to want to come back to angela on that question and talk about what virginia has been doing on adaptation as well. we'll work that in. let's first open it up, get se questions from the audience. we've got someone with microphones. yeah. anay. just take one over here and then here and then there and there. and let's do two, three questions and then we'll get some answers. please identify yourself. >> sure. thanks very much. i'm tim mcdonald, a journalist for npr and other publications. i'm wondering if mr. stern can talk a little bit more about what the impact of the u.s. walking away from the agreement is on the parts of the agreement that deal with adaptation, loss and damage and the kind of not like the kind of emissions mitigation parts of things but more on that side and -- we've

talked a little bit about how these coalitions of states and businesses are kind of doing their own action towards reducing emissions but i'm wondering if that's enough to fill the gap when it comes to things like the green climate fund or other kinds of financial mechanisms or that kind of thing? >> what i would like to know is, you've got [ inaudible ] all in because the federal government is not and how are the commitments you're making of state companies and ngos, how did [ inaudible ] it enforced? >> i'm a grad student at arizona state. we have a number of civil organizations, you have so many entities reporting, when we look at data standards, when we look

at infrastructure, financing standards, what do we see as the process for adoption of standards so that data can be shared? where is that coming from? what are the strands you would like to speak about? do you see investment standards for what kinds of infrastructure ought to be financed and taken up? >> one more. >> oh. this question -- the name is amy schmitt, represent climate change of maryland. i'm concerned that reggie does not include the transportation sector and your thoughts being the chair whether you think -- what the probability would be that reggie could expand into the transportation sector or

whether you believe that another program putting a price on carbon through a fee or maybe increasing the rps, could help bridge that gap? >> todd, why don't we start wit? >> thanks. well i've got a couple things to say. first on the first question, i think obviously with the u.s. not playing in the world of providing any kind of financial support, that puts something of a damper on overall financing. hopefully other countries will be able to step up and do things like help fill the first replenishment round for the green climate fund. that's the -- that is part of the kinds of funding that is -- that goes into adaptation.

i don't know -- david or someone may be able to fill me in, i don't know that therere tough sort of negotiation questions right now with respect to adaptation. it's more adaptation is more importantly kind of based on the flow of funds to help poor countries do what they need to do. loss in damage is a perennial difficult question. i think a lot of progress was made first in 2013 in warsaw and then another step in paris. it's a delicate issue because there are places where countries like the united states to whoever is the president and other developed countries can't quite go, but on the other hand it's super important. i've thought this is an issue that needs to seize the attention not just of the unfcc but the larger u.n. family because you have existential

challenges that many countries face andwe have to not take it outside the unfcc in the sense of sort of shuffling it off but to broaden the family of institutions thaare focused on it. just one comment on the standards issue, which mostly i don't have much to say about, but with respect to investment standards, i did have -- i was in china all last week having lots of interesting meetings, some on negotiations and some on other things and i had one with a fascinating guy who is the key person in china working on green finance across the board trying to build an entire ecosystem of green finance from green lending to bonds. i think that he is also focused on the issue of a green investment whether it's standard

per se, i'm not sure, but a lot of interesting work that he is doing in any event and beyond that i will pass the baton. >> i'm betting you have something to say on the first question. >> certainly. >> yes. on the adaptation question, i agree with todd that in the acal negotiations, it's not -- there are very few little difficulties around the negotiations on adaptation. the question or the major concern from the vulnerable developing countries has been two fold -- the political profile that adaptation gets globally and secondly the -- and also linked to the support that adaptation receives. traditionally it's been around an 80/20 split. 80% of all climate finance has gone to emission reductions, critically important, and only

20% has gone to support adaptation. many -- the green climate fund, one of the major decisions that was taken by the green climate fund, during the process of the operation of the green climate fund, was to ensure that there was a balance 50/50 split between adaptation and mitigation finance. this is motivated many of the international financial institutions todopt a similar approach. the green climate fund has been trying really hard to do this, but i believe many of the international financial institutions like the world bank, the american development bank, they need to work a lot harder in terms of ensure that there's a greater distribution of financing to support adaptation and resilience building, especially in the vulnerable countries.

one of the key milestones that we'll see over the course of the next few months, is the recapitalization of the green climate fund and whether that coalition that i spoke of earlil truly step up to the plate and help to fill the void created by the u.s. the current president of the united states has made it clear they will not play with the climate fund however let's see how europe and other countries who have been fully supportive behind the climate agenda, let's see how they step up in terms of the recapitalization of the green climate fund. the green climate fund has been a truly game changing institution. you know, it is focused on promoting transformational change. it has been a long and difficult learning experience. on a global level it has really made a difference, especially in

the small island developed in states and african countries and some of the most vulnerable countries in latin american countries as well. and final point that i want to make on theadaptati agenda is that, you know, i was in south carolina two weeks ago, charlton, it has a very close historical link to barbados, and i met with the mayor as well as the chief resilience officer in south carolina. many of the challenges -- i'm sure this pertains to maryland and the great state of virginia, many of the challenges that small city of charleston faces are challenges that we face in the caribbean. i challenge my colleagues and ep friends in the sister cities international alliance, why can't we island states who face many of the same challenges from

extreme weather events, hurricane storms, coastal inundation, flooding, et cetera, why don't we form a coalition to exchange best practice and collaborate on resilience building. i put that out to you, to the wris an the sister city internationals and many of you in the great states of maryland and virginia, we're willing to partner with you on adaptation and resilience building in the absence of any leadership from the federal government. >> great. secretary grumbles, let's go on reggie. and i -- i want you to answer the question on transportation but go broader than that and talk about what would it take to expand reggie to other sectors as well. clearly it's working on the power sector. maryland's emissions have gone down by half from the -- in the power sector since 2007. what would be the prospects of expanding the program to other sectors. >> sure. >> if you're going to hit your

big 2030 target, that's clearly got to be there, whether it's you use reggie or other mechanism to get there. >> right. well, i want to say that one of the organizations that maryland and virginia are proud to be members of are the u.s. climate alliance which is absolutely 17 states bipartisan, bicoastal, tracking progress on our states living up to the terms of tth the paris climate agreement if we're still in and are we exceeding that. on the reggie question, specifically with the transportation sector, i would say a couple things. one is, our state is proud to be part of a very active organization called the transportation and climate initiative. there are dozen states that are part of that effort looking, recognizing that in many states, including maryland, increasingly the transportation sector needs to be the focus of attention and

collaboration. it's not, obviously, everyone knows this, it's not just the energy sector or the building and housing sector or the agricultural sector. on transportation, honestly one of our top priorities right now is having regional meetings among those dozen states that are part of the transportation and climate initiative and hearing about how do you in the transportation sector reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do it in a coordinated way thinking regionally, but honestly one of our priorities right now, and i say this as a state that has a republican governor is to push back real hard on epa proposed roll back of clean carb rules under the clean air act. that is an important strategy on transportation sector progress for greenhouse gas emissions and it's also a lot of local

meetings, citizens, stakeholders, businesses are going to be part of these discussions about do you put in play some type of a cap on carbon emissions and the transportation sector? how would it work? it clearly needs time and discussion among all the different stakeholder groups and in terms of reggie, our focus has -- our success has been to be focused on one sector and make sure we get it right and that these auctions and the way that the reggie progr is carried out, the cap and invest program and power sector, is run well and successful. we are -- each of our states are looking at other strategies to put a price on carbon, to come up with collaborative mechanisms. it's the power of collaboration

is, as everyone knows, is enormous and when you look beyond your own border, to deal with transboundary pollution or a moving sector, that's a good start. and we're focused on that, but i know it's going to take some time to consider either in an individual state or in a regional approach broadening the reggie model to other sectors. it is worth discussion. it's worth scientific grout scrutiny and analysis as well. >> great. on that second question, angela, anything to say on the reliability of these commitments ate're getting at the nonfederal level, counting them, accounting for them, making sure that we can actually measure progress these different actors as we, you know, are working in

almost exclusively a non-federal arena for the time being and making sure that the rest of the world can actually rely on these commitments as aeal -- something reat the united states is contributing right now? >> so, ben mentioned, obviously, we're both members of the u.s. climate alliance and that's something that we're doing in a coordinated fashion, but as i mentioned earlier, the bulk of the regulatory work happens at the state level anyway and so our regulatory programs, for example, virginia's program to move forward with linking to reggie is a regulatory program that is established under virginia's administrative procedure act, it has targets and commitments and enforcement and enforceable under our state law or virginia air pollution control law, so there are requirements built into our regulatory programs when it comes to transportation sector, mobile source emissions, states also have the ability to regulate emissions and to do it

again, under the more tangible administrative procedure act. when you're talking about things like emissions reductions associated with reducing the loss of forced habitat, that's a bie difficult. we're working with a coalition of non-profit partners on developing mechanisms to understand the value of our natural lands. the same thing with our agricultural sector. there's a carbon footprint associated with that and understanding what that means is important. but for our baseline regory programs, our energy sector programs, those that are governed under state or federal law, those have a traditional regulatory backing with monitoring and compliance and enforcement protocols that are very similar to what you see at the federal level. >> yeah. i'll just add quickly to that

question, first of all, around whether you can trust companies' commitments i'm a big believer in disclosure and i think in general you can trust that companies are probably making more conservative commitments than they're going to be able to make. we certainly have made -- been able to reach our previous $50 billion climate finance initiative three years early. we're on track to hit our current $100 billion goal early. but we do disclose a lot of information about how we are tracking and counting and reporting that and we also disclose a lot of information about the impacts of this financing. as part of our $100 billion environmental finance goal commitment, we also committed to report on the environmental and social benefits of that financing because we thought it was helpful to begin to put

numbers to some of that as well. for example, i mentioned the $57 billion that we financed so far under that initiative, those financgs our clients, have under that initiative with our support, helped to avoid 4.5 million metric tons of co2 emissions andupport over 100,000 jobs. i want to just sort of put a plug in here for the world resources institute which has really been the leader in developing the standard called the greenhouse gas protocol for measuring co2 emissions. i lastly want to just address the question around international financing standards. this has been an area that the finance sector has been able to work pretty collaboratively in. we first started in 2003 with the development of the equator

prciples for project finance which really set out the gold standard for how banks should assess environmental and social risks associated with their project related lending, and more recently you've green bond principles city also helped to create those, which are a framework for disclosure around green bonds. what is the use of proceeds for the green bond that you've issued? what are the impacts of that green bond? so i think that standards and sort of coalescing at the appropriate time around common ways to measure and report is important. if you have a goal you want to know if you've fit it. i think also broad industry frame works that support -- that sort of give you comfort about the greenness or the sustainable -- you know, the sustainable benefits of a transaction while also allowing for innovation and exploration are equally important.

>> so let's take a couple more questions from the audience and with some quick answers. holden and there were people over here that had their hands up earlier. >> my name is fa yu from the asian development bank. i'm very interested in th climate financing aspect of this. we've provided $4.5 million last year for climate financing in the asia-pacific region, but that's very small compared to what private sector could do. i'm very encouraged to hear from both citi bank and the states that the private sector is finding it profitable or a good business deal to stay the course. is it given that the green climate change was originally supposed to be raising $100 billion per year by 2020 to help with the climate find and so far has raised a bit more than $10 billion. do you think by raising -- by

the transparency, improving transparency, providing the information for climate risks in terms of private investments would this have enough potential to fill the gap that's left by some of the recent developments? >> great. a nick one from alden. >> thanks for doing this. it's great that no other country has followed the.s. out of the agreement, but as i think we know, you all know, the paris agreement was a work in progress and the promise was that we would ratchet up ambition over time starting in 2020 to close the gap between the commitments and the under 2 degree temperature limb gags goals. i'm wondering if you can say -- two questions. what is the effect of the u.s. withdrawal or announced withdrawal on the political will of other countries to stick with that ratcheting up of ambition, maybe starting with the talanowa dialogue and going into the secretary general's summit next september. for the sub national representatives what are you

hoping for out of the global climate action summit to send a powerful message to national leaders, come on in, the water is dine, we can decarbonize for fun and profit? >> okay. got about three minutes here. so let's get some good quick answers. >> first i want to give a clarifying answer to the first question about climate financing. it's a very often made misconception. the $100 billion was never a pledge to raise that money for the green climate fund, per se. it's all climate funding both publicly delivered and mobilized by public action from the private sector and it includes the world bank and all of the regional development banks and all countries bilaterals. so the green climate fund is a key anchor, but it was never

intended to be $100 billion. is $10 billion a good amount? probably not, it's probably too low, but it's a start. it's not that it's $90 billion short. i just want to be clear about that. you know, with respect to ambiti ambition, i think that i an element of mobilization created by countries not wanting to give the united states their way, so on the one hand that's a good thing. there was certainly as people on this panel have talked about there has been a tremendous mobilization internally. the subnational level here. still when you get to the point of talking about ratcheting up what you're going to do, looking at the united states not acting, you know, i think some countries will say that we're going to do more and some countries will say we're going to do less. it will be country by country. >> in the agreement and i agree with todd's comme on the green climate fund, although from a developing country perspective we would hope that a green climate fund would mobilize $100

billion. but in the paris agreement there are a number of elements, a number of elements in the paris agreement were inserted to serve to help countries to incentivize countries to enhance ambition. the national determine contributions or national climate plans that were submitted in the lead up to paris, we all knew they would not be consistent with below 2 degree, 1.5 degree target. everyone knew that. the stated goal of holding the global temperature increase to below 2 degrees it was recognized that it will be a work in progress, but there were some key elements that countries now need to put in place to incentivize themselves and other partners to increase ambition.

one is the -- and this was something that -- a key element of the united states was a transparency system. if countries know what each other is doing, that helps to incentivize countries to be even the shorter commitment cycles, five years, so you go back -- you don't lock in ambition over a ten-year period, but over short periods, and before makg a new commitment you get an assessment, a review of the state of the science, the state of the economics to help inform a decision to increase or to submit a new number. so those were some of the key elements that were inserted into the paris agreement and, quite frankly, some of them are under threat in the ongoing negotiations. quite frankly, because of the u.s. is no longer displaying that level of leadership.

so on the ambition question, i believe countries can do more. we are going to do more as barbados as my new prime minister has announced, but we are 0.00000% of global emissions, however -- however, we are going to do more and many countries -- and i think as david said earlier, that leadership needs to come from around the globe. it needs to come from the small islands, it needs to come from the african countries, countries in latin america like colombia and costa rica are doing amazing things. that type of leadership needs to come from all over the world. >> okay. very quickly, how can we fill the climate financehile generating fun and profit? i just want to share with you what we see in the finance sector in terms of how quickly this space is changing and i think what should give us all hope. there are so many financial products that you now see being

bent to a sustainable or climate or green outcome. you have our energy bankers that are quite engaged in project finance of renewable energy projects, you have our commodities team that's doing power hedges for renewable energy projects to provide price certainty, you have our ability to securitize shots of small energy efficiency and solar loans into one aggregated security that we then consult to investors. then you have green bond and sustainability bonds, still new products, and you have the brand-new green loans area. so while i think the gap is significant, i do think that we are all leaning in on this problem and that there is real progress up ahead. >> question was about the global climate summit. san francisco later in the year the three goals for us, maryland willefitely be there and one of them is to continue to share

lessons learned and the model surrounding the regional greenhouse gas initiative to others throughout the country and throughout the world who are interested. the second would be to share ideas about our climate leadership academy for local governments and businesses and individuals on increasing resiliency due to risk of climate impacts, and the third is to put a real emphasis, a growing emphasis on healthy soils and regenerative agriculture in maryland and i'm sure this is the case in virginia as well. agriculture is the heart and soul of our heritage and economy and the solutions from the land are there. so we are real interested in sharing that with others, what maryland agriculture is doing to increase resiliency and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. >> so i will be brief because i think we're probably over time. you know, for us i think to your question telling the business case for decarbonization, one of

the most significant drivers for renewable energy in virginia is facebo, amazon and microsoft. those three companies are responsible for over a gigawatt investment in solar energy alone. so we are seeing tremendous progress from the corporate side and those investments are driving policy changes at the state level. so we are seeing changes within our state legislature and we just this year the governor signed a piece of legislation that paved the way for 5,000 megawatts for solar in virginia. something that probably would not have happened had we not had the investment for the corporate giants who were saying this is what we want. when customers are demanding it you will see policy movement and i think that's one of the biggest drivers we are seeing in states like virginia. >> quickly, david, because our boss is next. >> first just a very quick comment on the finance piece. i think is helpful to think in terms of orders of magnitude. we need the $10 billion plus for

the green climate fund, we need the $100 billion that has tbe mobilized by public finance and we are actually over two-thirds of the way to that target according to our assessments. then we need the trillion or really trillio in finan from multiple sources that are shifted to climate ends. and in many cases that's a matter of shifting from brown, if you will, to green and making sure that we undertake that at the scale that's needed. just on the ambition question i wanted to add one quick comment to what selwin said. i think that it's absolutely already clear that the many smaller countries are ready to move like barbados is. in addition to that we have middle-sized countries and even larger ones that are also beginning to demonstrate their readiness. just two quick examples, one is the chile is already looking at its current nationally determined contribution, it's climate commitment under paris,

with a view to finding the ways that it can increase its action. and then mexico has recently passed a law that puts in place a five-year cycle of examination and strengthening action for itself. so i think this is a spreading movement inessence. >> great. thank you. thank you, everyone. now, i want to bringp manish bapna who is executive director at the world resources institute for a few final reflections. >> just what an event. just what -- first, huge round of applause for the panelists. that was an incredibly stimulating, motivating set of remarks. so i have the nonenviable task of 402 to sum up this event in three minutes. so i'm going to give that a

shot. seven very brief take a ways that i felt we heard today. first, urgency. i think we all recognize and can appreciate the urgency of the challenge. selwin, paula, so many people spoke about the climate impacts. we're seeing the impacts already today. what we know moving forward. the infrastructure stock in the world is going to double in the next 15 years, the gdp is going to double in 20 years, urban population is going to double in 40 years. the window of getting this right, of getting a low climate trajectory right is now. and i think we're moving as was said earlier in the right direction, we're making the right direction, but it's not decisive enough. so this point about urgency is absolutely central. second point, result. we heard following trump's announcement both todd and selwin spoke a little bit about the coalition around the paris agreement remains strong. we heard several people talk

about that we are still in movement. the real test will be how do we sustain and enhance that resolve. selwin spoke about what are the immediate tests will be the recapitalization of the green climate fund, will others step up. the third point i thought we heard was really around the economics, that the economics of the transition are becoming increasingly clear and compelling. why is citi putting in $100 billion into climate finance? why is three major technology companies investing a gigawatt in solar in the country? how is maryland assessing progress on climate? and the interesting thing about the economics is is it amazing wuickly this has shifted over the past five or seven years. seven years ago it was a voice, the dominant discourse was either you did something on climate or you thought about jobs and growth. three, four years ago we began to recognize that that was a false choice. you could potentially have both. increasingly the discourse is that they are mutually

reinforcing. you can't have growth without taking climate action, you can't take serious climate action without thinking about growth. that intellectual journey hug important. fothpoint, of ambition. shining points of light, we saw many examples here today, kind of these proof points about what's happening, but the real test is going to be what lies ahead. you know, barbados, the 100% renewable energy target but i think the real question will be as we go to 2020 david and others spoke about the ratchet mechanism. alden spoke a little bitbout will people step up. that's not just on mitigation, it's also on adaptation, it's on finance, it's on support. fifth poin policy matters. right? how we design policy matters. so we talked about reggie, we talked about tcfd, we talked about the importance of getting the design of those policies right, we talk about a big test

coming up and the cop around the rule book for the paris agreement. getting that right sends the right signals, builds political xtnt politics matters as . well. we saw, you know, really interesting examples of bipartisanship around state level climate action. most people may recall you think about the major national en he viermtel legislation of the united states, clean water act, overwhelmingly -- clean water act was i think 86-0 in the senate. so some of the big questions as we move to the midterms and to the elections will bipartisanship start to emerge in a more serious way at the national level. the seventh and lastpoint, undeniable importance of u.s. national government leadership. also important, we can't forget about the importance of that both domestically and internationally. and with that, you know, important to take a long-term

view around this and that gets back to something that paula said at the outset and something i would like to just say, paula ha bith us for aew f years, done a phenomenal job as our global climate dir as many of you may know, she's soon going to be leaving, quite unfortunately, but quite fortunately is going to stay within the community, she's going to rare to be the managing director of climate and water, an opportunity for her to focus quite a bit more on colombia, but she will still remain here in d.c. so she will be part of all this community but i did want in this forum to recognize her, her leadership at wri and in her career. for most of you who hay not know she was an ee legal architect of the sustainability development goals and a champion for thinking about long-term strategies, integrated strategies, bringing climate and development together. i want to recognize he ask you all to join me in a warm round of applause for paula.

>> to the speakers, andrew and all of you for giving us two hours of your time, we know how precious that is, we hope you enjoyed it and we hope you come back next time. thank you. gun rights attorney and author steven hallbrook has successfully argued thr gun cases before the supreme court. tonight we are showing a talk he gave on the second amendment at an event organized by the long island federalist society. that's at 8:30 eastern on c-span 2. >> tonight on "the communicators" american cable association president and ceo matthew polka and pds tell com

senior vice president of corporate affairs andrew peterson talk about the issues facing rural and suburban broadband providers. >> we serve so many areas, 35% of our customers don't have access toraal cable provider. very rural in scope. so in many instances tds is the only provider in those areas. we've worked very closely with the federal government, the fcc on programs that make partnership investments with private sector companies like tds through the federal universal service program to bring broadband to customers that didn't previously have it or have adequate broadband, bring them more rich, robust broadband in the future. >> i do think it's very important that as the administration, the fcc, congress considers infrastructure like the proceedings and other concepts that broadband is and has been determined to be a matter of important infrastructure to our country and to our national policy. and that's a change because typically we think of

infrastructure as roads, bridges, railways, et cetera, which are all very important and need to be -- need to be helped, but you cannot survive today as a business, as an individuas someone working from home in our economy without having a robust broadband experience. >> watch the communicators, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> coming up next on c-span 3, a hearing on defending against cyber attacks on private sector financial systems. a panel of banking and financial executives testify to the senate banking committee. >> the committee will come