sustainable neighbor to r@@@@@@r >> they reported that in seven years they would be out of oil to export from that field, and since then the level of production has declined even more rapidly. as all of this is happening, there is a tendency for us to think that the oil crisis must just be a conspiracy, this must just be the cartel that is playing us again. there is certainly some part of all of that going on. but if you look at focusing on the facts, at a time when we were looking at $140, it was just at that time that we had more oil rigs and deployed across the face of the planet

than ever before in history. nobody was hiding the ball. is it a good prediction to say that we may be out of cheap oil? that is looking increasingly likely. if that is the situation with oil, many of you have coal reserves and your state certainly pennsylvania still the fourth leading producer of coal in the united states, and there we have had the sense that colas and leslie abundant and endlessly cheap. now that was a good bet for many, many years until something happened. the something was the government of china announcing that they had become a net importer of coal. coal. building of new generating capacity very substantially driving up demand, especially for a high btu,

number appalachian coal, so that $40 a ton you can always bet on in terms of the price of coal overnight became $140 a ton and companies were paying $140,000 a day in the port of baltimore, in order to reserve a barge space to move that call into increasingly lucrative and pricey markets. so, cold too, some very substantial upward pressure on prices. natural gas has been mentioned here too and there, we do have a substantial new opportunity especially in the unconventional gas formations, the marcellus, the barnett, the haynesville formations. these gas formations are proving much more robust than even had been anticipated and potentially

developable at a cheaper cost than had been anticipated. but, he writes think a note of caution is in order. gas can and should especially these new formations, be put to work in our economy but it shouldn't be about putting all of our energy eggs in any single basket and specifically natural gas, we did that before. in the early 90's the prediction was we had a tremendous oversupply of gas, the price of gas would be two bucks in mcf forever and ever, so there was a rush to focus singularly on natural gas powered electricity generation, a tremendous buildout in natural gas plants but then as the governor said, that two bucks and mcf became high double dits and then was $13 in mcf and now we have a lot of stranded gas assets. so, in terms of diversifying our

energy resources and expecting that as economic growth returns and returns in a robust way, while we can't give the precise prediction, the better odds are that that price of energy doesn't look like a smooth slope. it looks like a hockey stick with those prices shooting back up. so one, we need to stick with an energy agenda. second, it is in our interest. this is about offense, not just defense. why is it in our interest? you know the statistics on transportation fuels. we are exporting a whole stimulus package worth of dollars every year, $700 billion in order to buy those transportation fuels from overseas. those dollars better invested in our own economy. but what is the story with electricity? there we potentially have the makings of a perfect storm. free things.

first, very substantial increase in demand for electricity. as we are living in bigger houses, as all of our gadgets are ever fancier and as all of us are always plug in, so a huge increase in the demand for electricity at a time when two things are true. our fleet of power plants is on average old and getting older. in pennsylvania for example, we are the second biggest generator of electrical energy in the country. much of our fleet is 562 even 70 years old. there and with that, our regional transmission operators, the guys and gals who dropped the transmission and distribution system are reporting a tremendous strain on the grid, declining reserve margins were for reliability purposes, we like to have 30%

reserve margin. those numbers now are down 210, 12, 13%. add those three things together and again, investment in the energy space is a must for our economy, our security and for avoiding what we are seeing today, which is every year a billion dollars plus of economic loss because of poor power quality, because of black out, because of brownouts in because of the loss of productive activity in the economy. fair and finally, if we stick with this energy agenda, there is a tremendous upside for our economy and our security. one, the answer on the flip side of the problems i have just identified, but in three ways, the building out and diversifying our energy resources will be a boon to our

economy. first and foremost, i think americans agree and all of you have been leading, we need to make things in this country again. we can make things in this country again. steel, we can make in this country. of this stuff we can make, there are few things that are more vital to our security and our economy than our energy infrastructure, so let's put people to work in building that out. second, if we do build up that diversity of the energy resources, what we see this is the cost curbs on those technologies coming down substantially. and so, as you look at the renewable and the conventional energy resources that we can build today, you see prices levelling out like for example, ira will speak to

carbon-captured coal. caused her carbon-captured coal are on the order of about $6,000 a kilowatt. well, how was swindon solar comparing do coal from that perspective? when today installed cost of 1500 to $2,500 of kw. solar is a bit higher at 5,000 to $8,000 a kilowatt depending on where you are in the country. but even that is in league with new nuclear plants that we can build, which are coming in at about 7,000 to $8,000 a kilowatt, so what we see is with the investments we have made to improve these technologies already, the cost curves are coming down and the availability of energy options is increasing for us. last point in terms of why it makes sense to diversify energy resources and to bring those

resources on line, we have an idea that renewable energy is expensive and no energy is free and there is the capital costs in building any and every kind of energy and i just shared with you some of those numbers. the up-front cost is one piece of the equation, but what about the cost or the price realized by the customer? here, looking at electricity markets and how they are structured is key and in particular, wholesale energy prices are governed by costs on the margin. those costs in turn are governed almost exclusively by fuel costs. when you bring wind, solar and hydro resources for example into the generation mix, you have resources with his hero fuel

cost, then driving into the wholesale price of power and what effect does that have? it brings the cost of electricity down. not just in theory, but in fact what we are seeing for example in texas, where there has been a very substantial investment in wind energy. in west texas now, 11% of the time, the spot market price for electricity is his hero or negative. a pretty good deal if you can get it. that is not an argument to say all eggs should be wind or solar. it is to say though that these resources, all of them have an important role to play and if we are smart about putting dollars across the spectrum in our energy resources, yes there is an up-front cost, but there is a

payout in employment, in affordability and in driving our economy forward. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you katie for a wonderful presentation and we have time for "a questioner to from any of the governors. >> let me just follow up. governor culver from iowa. >> thank you very much for the presentation. utahans about our opportunity to make things, and i think there is a lot of low-hanging fruit right now, certainly in the midwest and in other parts of the country related to renewables. for example in iowa, we have created in the last two and a half to three years, 2300 green-collar jobs, all brand new jobs. we are making towers, at

turbines and blades. and that is all new, economic development, new investment. we have nine when the energy companies that have come to iowa. the supply chain is following them. but, my concern is that we need the federal government to set a renewable electricity standard, so that we encourage more use of alternatives. i agree we have to have a diversified portfolio. we need it all. but, we have a window right now, certainly in the next couple of months in washington where we have got, we can have this debate about climate change and cap-and-trade and all of that but i think we need to go aggressively for something i think all of us can agree on, is a minimum standard for renewable

electricity. and iowa we have had a codified, renewable electricity standard since the early 80s. we are now producing 15% in part because of that standard, a 15% in 2009 just from wind alone. we have 20-- 2900 turbines operating in our state. every state could do that. i mean, it might be solar, it might be geothermal, it might be wind but we have to, have not heard any discussion about the urgency related to what i think is the easiest way in america to create a green-collar job. if we are serious about creating one more green-collar job is to pass that renewable electricity standard that i think, and i don't know exactly what it is that we have to certainly raise the bar. otherwise we risk losing what we

have, and so i hear all of this talk about making things and creating these new jobs of the future and here it is. we have got an amazing workforce ready to do it. they are talented. they are ready, they are excited, they are capable. we have community college graduates with an associate's degree making $50,000 a year coming out of these programs and i was and they can go anywhere in the world to work but if we don't have the parallel state and federal policies, we are going to miss this opportunity of the 21st century. >> governor i think your points are right on the market, and i share our own experience in pennsylvania. we very similar story, when he stepped out and put a priority on clean energy, we have now grown a manufacturing sector that is not a new economy versus old economy. it is giving a productive economic opportunity to the

skill sets we have always said. we know how to build things. but 3,000 jobs is what we have@, in terms of labor knowable portfolios standard, what we are talking about is working with the market. in earlier days in the 1990's for example, the idea was if you build it, they will come. that was not true i then and investors are not buying it now. the portfolio standard takes the market risk away. if you build it, there will be a market. especially where we find ourselves right now, where we have some bit of liquidity coming back in the financial sector, but certainly not enough, if there is an overhang of risk and uncertainty, those dollars will not be invested, and the reverse true. if we can pvide that strong

market signal, the investment will follow. thank you. >> thank you katie. thank you katie so much. let's give her our appreciation there. [applause] at this time i would like to ask your host governor, haley barbour to come forward and introduce our next speaker. >> i'm glad to introduce one of my citizens. nucor steel, god bless them as a great facility in suburban jackson mrs. bee and another facility in our state. >> and tamika is the ceo of newt core which was mentioned earlier, is the largest manufacturer of steel in the united states as well as the largest recycler in north america. he has got a little different view on energy policy. he is one of the country's biggest energy consumers in the private sector. deanne. [applause]

>> good morning. everybody going to stick around for not only mind but ira's? we are going to be here as long as we have an audience or as least as long as the cameras are rolling. two things i would like to start off with. number one, karen, thank you for setting a realistic tone. appreciate it. is a manufacturer in this country in 2000, hard-working men and women. katie, what can i say? number one message that i heard and that we have been preaching since the 90's and before, since the '70s is we have to have an energy policy, an energy agenda that is organized, well thought out balance and includes everything.

and reason the '90s didn't materialize anything is because we do not have that. and natural gas, the reason we did not have that developed was because of the access issues that came about. as we know it today there is beaucoup natural gas around, beaucoup 1,000. we have to access it properly but it is there. what a great resource to have providing great hope for our country's energy situation, but the key has always been, we have not had a natural energy the agenda. the leaders of this country have let every american down since that first oil crisis and energy crisis back in the 70's. let the american people down and the american people also have a responsibility in that because they hold the leaders accountable for putting something together that is going to stick around. we would not have had the to 1 dollar oil we were having in the last year or so, we would not have those issues if we had a

pollitz type program for national energy strategy. believe me these encompass everything. so, i commend you very, very much for making that point in driving it home. one other point, i also said on the energy board of directors. jim rogers was here speaking earlier this week. gemina i don't agree on everything. one thing i can tell you about duke, is that between now and 2050, we have to replace, they have to replace every power plant they have today. every power plant between now and 2050. so how is our energy strategy as a country going to be put together to make sure that is done in the best possible way for america, for americans and for our environment? now that is not in my prepared remarks. that is just a reaction to what i have heard so far.

a plus for both of you. now, there we go. this slide, you need to focus on because no business leader can get up here, no american who was not concerned about what is going on with our economy can get up here and not talk about the number one priority in front of all of us for some period of time. and that is creating jobs. this slide, if you carefully look at it, will show you the reasons why it is so important. this slide here is showing you the number of job losses cumulatively since the peak, and what you see not counting the 500,000 more jobs that will be announced probably friday, will be over 7 million jobs lost at that announcement since the beginning of the recession. this economic crisis. what you need to focus on is

that this shows the plot of every recession going back to the 1970's. and as you watch this curve go from 72 eighties to the '90s, 2000 recessions, what you see is a flattening of that curve. yu 40 month out after the peak, the job recoveries are becoming flatter and flatter and tougher and tougher to come by. that is one thing you should look at. you should likud the time at the bottom. you should look at when we got to the bottom and you should look at how far down it is when we reached bottom. if you look at that and you look today and what we are seeing today, which is the lower curve unfortunately, what we have here is a crisis that is going to be with us for the rest of, for the

next ten years, not just the next couple of years. what people don't understand is how many jobs we have to create. every month 150,000 new entrants come into the workforce from colleges, from high schools, your children, my children, grandchildren, immigrants come to the workforce. these numbers don't include those. so you ledbetter motes apply every month 150,004 hour burn long it takes us to get back up deposited jobs. if you really want to know the magnitude of the job problem that we have in this country, the job creation problem. we are not talking about creating 6 million jobs. we are not talking about creating 7 million jobs. we are talking about having to create 13 are 14 million jobs over the next years.

just to be able to take care of what we have lost, and the new entrants into the workplace. every month that goes by there are 150,000 in the numbers to get from the government do not include those people and the numbers to get in the government, in the unemployment rates don't include the people who have given up looking for work which is that a record high and don't include the part-timers which is that the record high. dig has 23,000 employees. we don't like anybody africa we are incurring over $100 million of additional cost not to lay people off and in our 40 plus history have never laid anybody off. it costs money to do that. [applause] the reason i emphasize that is today those people are working 50% of their normal hours. they are not laid off, but they are working half the time. they earn that new record total number of part-time workers and

when you start to look at the real unemployment rate today based upon those who have given up looking for work and those who are on part-time, it is more like 15 or 16% and i am not the one who put those numbers together although we have our own. you can't pick up a paper when they are talking about this and not now start to see another paragraph that talks about that group and the real unemployment rate. that is that, that is not fiction. this is reality. hard reality. we have got our priorities messed up here. we are not focusing. where are you going to create 13, 14 million jobs over the next five years? there is no one solution to it. it is that to be a broad based one. we are going to talk a little bit about that. but the number one priority in washington, the number one priority for our businessmen and business leaders in this country, has got to be jobs,

jobs, jobs, jobs. and we have got to be able to get our economy back to the point where we can do all of the other things we want to do including the things debated hotly in washington today but we should not be doing those things until we have treated the kind of economy that gives us the money to pay for it. and we are not doing that. when you think about 13, 14, 15 million jobs that can be treated, we are not looking at the right targets. we are not looking at the severity of this problem. don't kid yourself. it is that serious. this is not something that somebody made up. this is real. lets get how deep the drop-off is. it is going to go down another 400, 500,000. imagine if that trend continues, how long it is going to take for us to get back to zero cumulative job losses.

you are talking way past 40 months. this is serious. it should be job priority number one for every leader in this country, everyone including the governors in this room. we have had serious economic crises created by serious structural problems in our economy. we have a financial crisis created by too much of something for nothing. well, we had to much easy money created by a lot of different things, not the least of which was the fact that somebody kept buying all of gardett which kept the treasury rates down, which kept money rates down which allowed for this fiasco of borrowing to drive consumption instead of what we all grew up with, and need to go back to, and that is you don't buy until you have saved. we need to go back to that model

that my parents had to live with, which was called layaway. want a new refrigerator, you say four. you don't run up a dead end and the effect of the matter is that that is going to be easily attainable going forward. the rules of change. the credit rules of change for individuals, to buy homes, by cars, by refrigerators and for businesses. if you don't think this is a big issue facing businesses, think again. think about where all those job losses are coming from, manufacturing and construction. and what are we doing in this country to support the regrowth of manufacturing and construction? nothing, or just above nothing. $60 billion of the 600 plus billion dollars stimulus package? who are we kidding? want to get success? look at the chinese. what did they do? i don't agree with a lot of what

the chinese do and their reasons why, right? the governor from arkansas knows that, so does haley. what do they do? they don't spend 60 billion. they spent 600 billion on reconstruction. we have got $2.2 trillion in infrastructure failing us as we speak. society of civil engineers, that is what we have to spend to get back to where we can compete and keep our dams from breaking, improve our power grid, get better air traffic control systems, sewer, water systems said they are not blowing up in new york or dance not busting. watch the history channel infrastructure program. it is downright scary. all things that we have neglected. we have got world war ii, pre-world war two infrastructure in this country. you want to put people back to work, create the jobs people are prepared for. don't give me thisretraining stuff and everything else. there is no reason why we shouldn't be investing here in

america and creating a return on that investment and the only way you are going to do that over the next five to ten years, we need to create those 13 million jobs and build things, rebuild our infrastructure, get on trade deficits straightened out. free trade, yeah is critical but only if you enforce the rules. guess what we don't do and haven't done since ronald reagan? bush one, the clintons, boys to, we have not held our trading partners accountable for the agreements they made to have access to our markets. whether it be our free trade agreements, whether it be-- which china agreed to when they made certain rules the weathered the the favorite nation trading status we have given shine in other countries to have access to our markets. we don't do it. a free trade does not exist, what we have is a global trading

world based upon mercantilism. china is doing its like no f@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ er it is ok to a certain degree. when things get to an extreme, you have to say it's time to play by the rules, ayou are no longer a developing country. china produces a lot of steel. in 2000 if they did 200 million tons of steel it was a lot. in this country we make a hundred million tons. they are over five times as big as us since the year 2000. i have a problem with china growing. they have a lot of people. god bless them. get a currency to where it is fairly valued in the market so your consumers can actually consume. because there's no safety net.

stop trying to export your way into wealth and start giving people an opportunity to become consumers because the united states, guess what? where going to be absent for the fight for some time. all of those consumers created in that big bubble that we saw in housing and everything else are gone. not only are we going to find a crisis in the great recession, but those consumers are gone because of credit issues, because they lots $15 trillion of their wealth. all that talk back in the earlier part of this decade about how people work refinancing in taking the money out and spending it on things, how great that was for the economy. that was a short-term fix in a long-term disaster. created by lack of leadership. short-term fix, long-term disaster. people living on stuff that they had no right to and in this country, you don't have a right to own a home.

you have the opportunity to own a home. this is the land of opportunity. yes, we have rights but when it comes to this stuff, we have the opportunity for a job. that is what my grandfather came here for in 1906 as a 6-year-old boy. he came here to live the american dream, and because of what was in place with the manufacturing society, his grandson got to move up to be ceo of fortune 200 company, making seven to $10 million a year. by the way the six most efficiently paid ceo in the united states, okay, so that is not outrageous if anybody thinks so. i am still trying to get our defensive ends in charlotte getting $60 million for one year. it does not work out that way. it is not the way our company is set up. if we do well we get paid well and if we don't we get the salary, 800,000. that is the way it goes. that is the way it should go for everybody. including those guys on wall

street that are handing out billions of dollars in bonuses today. we have got failed trade policy. we have got to revamp it. we have got to hold people accountable. we still have the market to do it and we need to do it. energy, what is this got to do with what i am talking about so far? the there should not be one conference on energy where you were not buying it back to the economy. katie did a great job of it. think about all the revenues that will be generated if we truly develop a broad based plan that uses all forms of energy. by the way, added to a board meeting to put things in perspective to go along with your barbara boxer or dianne feinstein story, it in the mojave desert and how 500 acres could not be used for solar because there was an environmental group that said there was something special about the mojave desert there,

solar power, which everybody wants could not be put into place because of that. there is another story. board meeting two years ago, i am sitting there. question after question for poor jim rogers bonn green this and green that, your coal-fired plants in what you build and at one point, it wasn't obvious jamaz going to jump in there and say nuclear powers the grannis form of energy and there was this young lady 23 years old who just graduated from college who said, you are wrong. you are absolutely wrong. the grannis form of energy is wind. wind power, windmills and jim, being the eloquent speaker and handler that he is, said why is that? and, she says because all those materials that go into building nuclear power plants, you have to generate co2 to produce them but not for wan's.

i am sitting there, a manufacturer of steel and i am going jim, look over here jim, i can't speak up. i tried to get his attention. every windmill is made with what? governor? steel? or fiberglas. how much co2 is generated during the production of those raw materials? >> want to build a foundation for windmill? how tulloch these things getting? do you know how much concrete and reinforcing bar is annette futzing? there is nothing green about the products that go into from the standpoint this young lady was talking about but she had it in her head she had been indoctrinated, and that is the problem we have. we cannot be using phony logic to deal with real-world problems. this is not talking down to windchills and i hope the bill botts of them. we put a lot of steel into them. but there is a lot of problems with every form of energy we have. there is no form of energy i

don't care how green you think it is, that doesn't have a significant co2 in print and footprint. nothing. at least none that we know about today. we have got to have an energy policy that creates jobs, number one and give us energy independence number two. i have got to find my q- here. i'm going to jump through the slides. visit our u.s. manufacturing jobs since 98. you can see where they have gone. loss 5.8 manufacturing jobs in this country. maybe a third of it due to productivity due to a failed trade policy. here is how to manufacturing jobs cordate with the trade deficit real quick. let's talk energy. you want to have an impact on the trade deficit? you want to have an impact on our ballooning debt weathered the budgetary, fiscal that or trade debt?

$13 trillion in the world today and growing. look at this chart here and it shows you what percentage of our trade deficit is due to energy. there is no reason that couldn't be zero in ten years, none. we have got to have an energy policy that is real world and balanced. there is no way, we are the innovators by recognition of around the world for changing this deal energy. we of revolutionize the way steel is made. our carbon for prentis one quarter what it is for prevention all steelmaking. we recycle over 20 million tons of scrap metal of the year that does not going to landfills a uses one-third to one-quarter the amount of energy to produce a ton of steel. will serve our the nation's largest purchaser individual customer of electricity. coal-fired and what have you, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, you name it. this doesn't need to be this

way. what we have in 2008 was the trade deficit of roughly $800 billion of which 390 billion percentage and there is no reason why we can't take that to zero. we don't have to take it to zero. we adjust that to have an energy policy that recognizes we need to drill for natural gas and oil sometimes. we need to use nuclear. we need to use when power. we need to use solar. we need to use hydro. we need to use everything to make that number go down by 400 billion. we don't have a choice as to what we use. we have to use it all and we have to use it in a well thought out orchestrated way. we have led the world and innovation but i will tell you right now it takes decades to get from conception to develop the technology and then to

implement it, you better put another decade and there. so, where is this magical technology that is going to make this carbon free overnight. it isn't there but in time it will be there if we have a national energy policy led by our leaders in washington by business leaders in this country. we will get to the point where we are drilling everywhere we can drill in an environmentally friendly way and if we can't we want real but we have to be realistic. we are going to use all of our resources today to get that to zeroth in as possible and while we are doing it we are going to take some of the revenues being generated from that can set them aside to develop the technologies for clean coal and whatever else we need to do to make wind power more cost-effective, to get nuclear power plants built and the government is going to have to heft a big role in this. they cannot be an asset partner. they have to be a leader in this country got to where it is today not because the government stayed out of things. it is because there was a

realistic partnership over the decades between government and free enterprise, between government and business leaders to focus on a goal and made it happen. like the apollo program. if we can go to the moon, we can take care of these problems but it won't happen overnight. we have to have a multistate energy policy that says get that is the road now because we are paying interest on that every year and our trade deficit is going, the amount of money we are borrowing is growing by trillions of dollars, no longer billions of dollars. we have got to get that down now and until we have to use the money we save from that and the revenues that come from that to build the green future, to build the carpan free future or to minimize our carbon footprint if we truly believe that co2 is a major culprit of man-made global warming. that is what we have to do and we are not doing it. we do not have a national energy

policy to deal with this type of thing. and we don't have they national manufacturing policy to get people back to work and rebuild our prominence in global manufacturing. weathered the windmills or weathered the steel plants or weathered the power plants or whether it be next generation battery plants and by the way, china, i know i have the to get going so ira has the second year. i will stick around for 45 minutes just for you, ira. china is building coal-fired power plants quicker than you can say jump in jehosephat. they are building nuclear power plants quicker than you can say the same thing. and their entry into battery technology with all due respect governor, is sais bit in the ocean compared to what they are doing to build nuclear power plants in full flower power

plants for good they are going to get into this, no doubt about it. i agree with the governor. we are not doing enough but don't mistake that that is what they are doing and that is like coal prices are going up and as you mentioned earlier there building more coal-fired plants. we are not doing battery, we are not doing any of and it needs to be a governmental effort in hand with business and free enterprise to make it work. it has to be a world war to kind of effort where everybody gets into the act and we are not doing it and we need a leadership in this country to do it and i pray president obama provides that leadership. i'm going to be told not to get off and i'm not halfway to my talk, so thank you. [applause] >> at wanted thanked dan for that encouraging presentation. and we appreciate it very much. with that i want to introduce our next speaker, the final speaker this morning is ira magaziner. we serves as the chairman of the kleiman initiative and the

clinton foundation, hiv/aids initiative. is also on the board of alliance for health the regeneration in the clinton hunter development initiative. from 1993 to 1998 he served as senior adviser to president clinton for policy development at the white house and in this capacity he supervised the department of the implementation of the administrations, policy for commercialization of the internet and worked with first lady hillary rodham clinton on the development of the president's health reform initiative. prior to his white house appointment mr. magaziner built to successful consulting firms that assist major corporations in developing their business strategies. the clinton kleiman initiative has been working on energy related initiatives worldwide including a project to retrofit buildings and reduce energy use. please welcome, ira magaziner. [applause]

>> i think i have got about two minutes and 32nd so i will do the best i can and i realize i'm the only thing standing between you and lunch which is not a good place to be. the only good news for me is i'm not here to talk about health care. [laughter] let me just try to be practical on a couple of matters. what we are dealing with the clinton climate initiative is to try to implement real large scale projects around the world that will demonstrate the business government models about how to get new technologies moving and new investment moving towards a clean energy future. and i am going to get specific in mentioning a couple of the areas. first, we haven't talked much about energy efficiency today and energy efficiency is the fastest way to get to energy independence and any country. we are part during with 40 of the largest cities in the world

on projects to cut energy use and create clean energy in those cities, and there are a couple of major ways and lazy wallace governors can also engaged in this and i know some of you are already. one is that in retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency you typically can get 30 to 40% improvement in the energy used in most established buildings in this country, and you can get paybacks that are three, four, five years on that investment. we have been pioneering a number of different models that allow building owners not to have to put up any money initially but rather than finance to the energy savings in through other means to do this, and agreeing with-- when you retrofitted building it is a huge job reader because if you are going to put a green roof on the building, somebody has to be standing on the building. is not something you cannot

outsourced to rania even if you want to, so it is a huge job creator. we recently initiated 500 million square feet of buildings are around the world that we are retrofitting this year career programs including the empire state building in new york and merchandise building in chicago and the largest shopping center in india and one of the largest commercial buildings and shanghai and we are also doing all the public housing in new york and toronto, schools in 15 different cities around the world. and then actual municipal and state buildings in places ranging from johannesburg to london to houston, to bangkok to melbourne all taking their city and state buildings for a retrofit and savings significant amounts of energy. it is a good economic case as well as one that saves energy. integrated waste management, a place like your spends $130 a ton to ship its waste to pennsylvania to bury it. it is crazy. you can do integrated waste

management now where you recycle and you take the biological waste and you turn either into composted or energy itself, and these integrated waste management projects now, we are doing them in developed countries, where we are doing the whole system in london. we have got a project in houston, taking building waste and turning it into compost in partnership with walmart and a lot of the supermarkets and others there in the city, and then we are also in places like delhi and so on introducing integrated waste management there were you have these huge megacities growing by 1 million people a year and a waste disposal systems, street lighting. we just announced tamir villarosa in los angeles where we are replacing all the street lights with led streetlights. it is about a six year paige-- payback project. right now when you have traffic

lights 80 to 90% of the energy used goes into heat, not into light. with led lights you can change the ground and no we are in ten cities around the world based on a los angeles model implementing led street lighting in places as diverse as bogota, colombia and melbourne, australia. projects on clean fuel vehicles that had been talked about, hybrid diesel buses, garbage trucks and also eventually infrastructure for electric cars. these are all things were implementing and projects around the world. water systems, go to a place like long than. 5000-year-old infrastructure, the same is true in many cities in the united states. the pumps for that water are the biggest energy users that that most cities have, and he can use smart meeting, you can install more energy-efficient palms, repair the leaks, and whether things that we use much, much less energy in the water systems all run the country.

these are practical things that mayors and governors have control over. we started in urban areas because urban areas use 75% of all the energy in the world and therefore if you are going to get energy efficient you want to start their but it can be done in small towns as well as large cities. we are and kasem projects in clean energy that has been talked about today. we believe that fossil fuels are going to continue to be a fundamental source of energy in the world whether people like it or not, for many years to come but you can develop clean coal technologies and technology that to carbon capture and storage. veering cason large-scale projects in pennsylvania, in victoria and australia and rotterdam, to mention a few, to implement efficient carbon capture and storage. were also involved in projects with new technology that will essentially combine co2 emissions with ryan or sea water and create cements do you can actually imbed the co2 and the

only material that can be used in either as concrete aggregate or cement, which would solve to co2 problems, one accretion of cement and concrete which is co2 and sense of by being able to take the flu strains from power plants and imbed the co2 in the solid so you don't have to transport it and bury it. on solar, were involved in supplying the first large-scale solar deployments in the world, three to 5,000-megawatt solar parks in two states in india, in australia, in south africa and hopefully in southwest united states and one thing that i will agree with in the earlier presentation

we do need to reestablish the manufacturing base in the ninth day spirit something i have written about since the early 1980's. our economy will not flourish unless we reestablished ourselves as a producer of real things. and to use our innovation to do that. we should have national government policies that foster the industrialization of the country again. using that, associated with our energy policy, is just natural. one of the things when i was in washington at the white house, in the beginning i was in health care reform, when then the health care reform died, my friends and then walked to the other side of the soccer field when we were playing and they used to come over and mob may.

-- mob me. what we or able to do during the white house years was established a policy toward commercialization of the internet, which helped launch the internet globally through a set of international agreements and domestic policy initiatives, and created millions of jobs in this country in the process. uighur leaders of internet technology. we need to do the same thing with energy. we have the opportunity with energy efficiency to do that. -- we need to be leaders of the internet technology. it is shocking to me as somebody who travels the world that infrastructure in places even in africa where we do aides worked

is superior to that in the united states. we have not revived our infrastructure. we need to do it in a way that uses all the technology that we have and with structures primarily manufactured in the united states. we should do this just as we did with internet technology. that should be the way we internet are in economic and energy policy. the u.s. mayors are on the frontlines. whatever policies are implemented globally, it is going to be the local level that tens of the programs in motion that will make sure the infrastructure gets built, makes sure building retrofits take place, majeure waste management facilities get updated, make sure water facilities get built. -- and make sure waste

management facilities get updated. that the government take the handcuffs off so that you can do that effectively. thank you very much. >> thank you, ira for your thoughtful comments. the governor haley barbour has a comment. >> in mississippi, like in ottawa, we will have the first commercial scale carbon capture coal-fired plant in mississippi in permitting right now. our other big utility is trying to build a second nuclear power plant. the local government, city and county, have both asked for it to be built there. but i was interested to see in a paper that yesterday the indians apparently told mrs. clinton, secretary clinton that they are not about to get involved. they are building about five coal-fired power plants a week in china.

if i remember your presentation earlier, that you did not get to today, it is five times more greenhouse gas emissions per ton of steel made in china than in the united states. i have heard -- i happened to be of the ring when the head of epa said, if we do something like that and china and india refused to participate, that in 100 years it would be no material regarding the climate compared to our doing it. >> what they would say is that right now the united states in its about 25 tons per person per year of co2. india is about 1 ton. china is about 5 tons per person -- two tons per person. they would also say the -- co2

accumulates and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. their argument is to say don't come lecture us until you look at your own house. i don't think the world is going to be a better place if we sort of point fingers at each other, each of us having good arguments and bad arguments. we have to all get on with it. in india they are moving ahead on solar. we have shown them -- there is not time to get into this, but the two key things when you're building infrastructure like solar, is solar has a high capital cost up front to build. once you have it build, it is cheap because you just have to clean mirrors and replace the mirrors when they break. but then it works okay. 80 or 90% of the tallcost of

building solar is up front. the other thing that's important about solar is scale. if you build 5,000 megawatts it would be 40% cheaper than building a 50 megawatt plant. in india we have shown them that within a few years we can make solar cheaper than coal fired power in india. so they have been building out coal-fired power plant every week and a half. they're interested in going solar to do that. on carbon capture and storage they don't have places to store like we do and the united states that can be saved. eventually we think over there the technology of converting co2 into concrete, then they will be interested in that because they're building a lot. if we can get concrete that has aggregate that comes from co2, that will be a technology i think they will adopt. the only thing i would urge is

first and foremost we should send to our own garden here and make sure we are doing the job and not use the fact that others are not, to give us an excuse not to do what we have to do, but the call i would make is i don't think politically and economically that we win this argument nor do we do the right thing in america if we tried to argue this just on the basis of climate change. i think climate change is real. we have to address it. first, this has to be about jobs and economic recovery. we need to marry that. because it is only when people understand that when we are creating jobs here and affecting economic transformation, then we will win the political arguments and get the big investment we need in infrastructure and energy. thank you very much. >> thank you.

thank you all the speakers and presenters. we appreciate it very much. there were very formative. we appreciate you being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008] .