when >> let me tell you what a pleasure it is to talk about the challenges that we have had. we will describe everything in need to know about the future, the world economy, climate change, urbanization, global health threats. we will leave it to the next panel to deal with the solutions.

and would argue that we are entering on a new age of unprecedented global threats. in this century, i would argue that the threats we have been focused on. there is a financial crisis and a response in developing a new economic order are not to the ones that we will be principally judge john from the perspective of 2050 or 2100.

-- we will be principally judged on thfrom the perspective of 50 years ago o from now. these are not different in nature. there might be new threats that need new kinds of responses. we will find out what our panel thinks. there are also ecosystem's challenges.

if we talk about global health in the age of increasing protectiveness. we are in the middle of a pandemic. there are also of threats that come more silently. the chronic diseases that arise silently from a sicker, fatter, and older world and that kind of challenges that this poses to our health systems. the third challenge i would say is an organization. we are a primarily urban species primarily.

many of the challenges might be more difficult. there will be many challenges that will be judged on. there is an age of prosperity upon us. something bigger than we have seen in economic terms since the arrival of columbus and the european.

that climate is an area of your expectation, in copenhagen, they were offering the best chance to deal with the climate and ecosystems. >> be we need to be able to price carbon as well as understand what the risk of return is. business will be able to unleash this entire potential for a new low carbon economy. it is absolutely critical that we get this deal. whether we get in copenhagen, that is uncertain but we will

have a path forward. i think this is the best way forward in order to solve this problem. >> president obama has announced when he is going. he went with all the other leaders. what does this mean for the meeting? >> what we have seen over the past couple of weeks is certainly an increased expectation that we will get out of copenhagen. i think what obama has done recently by setting up a provisional target, by changing the arrival date towards the end of the session which is more important, also by offering some financial increased commitment to help developing countries. >> what do you think about the

prospects for a global approach for dealing with this most global of problems. this is a very attractive points? >> and surely, we need to have. >> we are in an age where president obama will be in a position of leadership. we will be thinking about what is necessary.

there is the mentality of people who are predisposed in a thinkig about near-term threats. that is physical harm. who is powerful in this equation? this is a really big factor. my concern is that a lot of the people with wealth, a lot of the people with resources are the ones who have inordinate control

both domestically and global lead. >> it is always that way? there has never been a utopian system? >> i think the differences aren't that the u.s. is in a position to want to confront these challenges. we are in a different era of leadership or the u.s. wants to solve these problems. the things that are hampering things are the domestic policies. we are looking at a $10 billion commitment for >> funding to help ordinations deal with adaptation and mitigation. this is a small amount of the cannot even get global powers to agree.

>> anna g. is a huge industry. i would argue that we need to do is to change the fundamental incentives facing investors, facing individuals including the behavior of all of us in this room so that we make different choices. how does one shift the balance of incentives? >> let me turn toif climate scio have a cloud on it, i am paraphrasing and little bit, are there no regrets policies that would make sense for us to do even if climate or not on board?

>> how much steel rubberize should i plan for as i am building a coastal facility? 52% of u.s. gdp is in coastal zones that would be affected by a 1 meter rise in sea level. why do we tell them that good science by its very nature has to have the talent built into it. once you meamove into certainty, you are not dealing with faith. the public is confused when there is not a simple answer.

a simple answer is not possible. they also have to function under the precautionary principle. at what point is there enough to information to make it cost- effective for them to act in a risk management tool? we seldom use the word sustainability anymore because we think that this is actually a decision-making framework that is the most robust of all possible risk management tools. what is the risk management approach to these issues of climate and ancillary issues that might be more important to actually get. >> have you seen the people making investments? sometimes it is sad that real estate groups are among the least progressive of groups when it comes to dealing with sustainability issues. in new york city, they have managed to beat back a proposal

by mayor bloomberg to retrofit existing buildings to become more green. they are a very real lobby. we have a very powerful mayor pressing an agenda of sustainability who is losing to industry. >> people are losing out on business because the people are not becoming green. there is a certain cachet to having a green building and it is more healthy for the people who work there. the customers are telling the developers it does not matter

whether you think it is a good idea or not, we will not lease. we have also seen histories in europe and in the u.s., when you have a vacancy, buildings that are greener lease back up again much more rapidly than those that aren't. >> this is an interesting idea. some tend to use a pace that don't have volatile organic compounds. people with children seem to like buildings that don't have these nasty compounds and them. you gespend a lot of time talkig about development issues. there is a link between climate and property. there are about 26 billion people on earth to have no access to modern energy.

here it is mostly women and girls who walk miles a day to catch count down and burned 8 in these stoves that leads to horrible pollution. -- walk miles a day to deal to get a fuel to burn in stoves. . .

we do know that the orders of magnitude of change are very big. for example, agriculture productivity has a very drastic projections. if the weather's going to become a regular belittle, the people -- if the weather is going to become a regular or volatile, it is a risk for agriculture. because the policy response to climate change is likely to create shifts in the revenue stream, poor people might actually benefit from the climate regime. that is where we have been trying to focus our energies. first, prevent the problem and get a good greenhouse gas regime

in place. second, prepare for the change windowwe know will happen. >> one of the key themes of copenhagen is thinking how to adapt. you can look at siberia or north dakota and said that a bit of warming could be good. people in the north could be most at risk because they tend to live in areas that are more volatile. they also tend to have societies that have the least capacity to adapt. if you switched were looking at this from the anti-view, what are the bottom-up solutions? i am sure there will be people running off with the money and

lots of scandals and other mechanisms. is going to be an imperfect and messy process. how do we counterbalance that with a reality check from the bottom-up. i know you spent a lot of time thinking about the world of technology in governance and how it might empower? from that perspective, while the big poobahs are working on this, how did you change behavior, including in developing countries? >> one of my roles is to be the editor in chief of our blog for progress. we have a staff of 15 people. you are changing the course of politics by altering the balance of power in politics with new information. those who are in positions of great wealth, and they are

constantly demeaning and putting down statistics with which they disagree. when the congressional budget office comes up with a report they do not like, the trash that. whatever it might be, whoever the independent exports are, they are constantly being trashed. we need to put back on the table things we can agree on. in their current course of politics and into the future, we can come to an agreement on a basic set of facts. the political discourse is that you do not disagree with approaches and solutions. you disagree with the fundamental facts. we cannot even agree if climate change is occurring. the speaker of the denmark's parliament says that climate change is not a real threat to and it is dangerous to talk

about it. the president of south africa says that hiv does not cause aids. >> if democracy is so messy, are you suggesting an alternative? here is the microphone. here's your podium >> going forward, i think that is the role of people -- here's your podium. >> going for, i think that is the role. the balance of power is greater than it has ever been. you can take advantage of those pools to give poor nations a greater voice. you can understand the effects of climate change next year. that is the role of these new forms of communication. we're not going to get it from the coal energy giants. we're not going to get it from the people of concentrated

wealth. >> if they could get their act together, they could do it. what about putting little people on it, individual responsibility, a change in behavior? there is a popular school of thought known as nudge. it is a big brother who encourages you to encourage you -- who encourages you to do the right thing. is there something from the bottom up that could lead people to put down the cheeseburger and switch out to their inefficient lives for efficient ones? is there something that could change behavior that comes from this school of thought from innovation technology, rather than having a traditional big brother regulating or banning behavior? >> people think they're being

misled or lied to. to get people's attention to this, the uncovering of the golden nugget, that people feel like it is being held from them, the potential of changing human behavior is so ordered because of powerful actors -- that is what we have been concerned about for the past eight years, domestically, and what is preventing released peace. those are the types of powerful forces covering up, lying, d.the seatin, deceiving. >> collect your thoughts and, when i turn to questions, please make yourself known with

an animated waiting of the arms or whistle or catcalls. whenever you like. >> i would like to pick up on that. i think all of us are doing that. given the time scale of climate change, it is the business and government that needs to leave here. business is doing that already. this is an economic opportunity. it is an economic problem, first and foremost. the longer we wait, theof the more this will cost. >> is that true? assuming we make the investments so that we have scaled up renewable energy your carbon capture -- or carbon capture, is this the only way necessarily to think about it? >> it will be harder to bring

them down. 70% of the emission reductions that are needed by 2020, we have the technology to do it. it is increasing energy efficiency. it is increasing our use of low- carb and energy -- low-carb and on energy. we could put building codes in place. we could put in a plant codes. -- we could put in appliance) china is doing it for -- we could put in applianced code co. >> is this a great green business opportunity?

is that your sense of this? >> there is a lot of money to be made. there was also a lot of money made at the last carbon trading. it was made by the financial houses, not by the parties making the exchange. big is an imperfect model. -- it is an imperfect model. i have had major professional disasters in my life. they were all rooted in the same problem. that was me trying to convince people that they ought to care about something other than they were caring about when they walk in the door. i do not see yes making progress, making people care about climate change. what we do with our clients, both public and private, is ask them what keeps them awake at night and what is the most clement responsible way to address their problems?

we make much more progress in doing that then hammering them over the head over mitigation and modification. >> those are in such from the school of hard knocks. we will turn to the audience. do we have any questions? we have some microphones. let me see. while you collect your thoughts -- there is a gentleman there. excellent. identify yourself and make events short and sweet question rather than a grab bag comment. >> from north dakota -- i am from north dakota it is cold, but not too bad. you mentioned that the government will look to establish a change in infrastructure. what changes do you think we will be able to do?

the will to go for roads and dams, what would focus on green? how will the government able to provide something that will help the employment as well as the infrastructure within the united states? >> can you address the gentleman's question? this sounds like a link between the green economy and bring jobs and the stimulus as well. >> the infrastructure side, going back to the fact that the population is moving into the cities, what we will see is that there will be a lot of i.t. and telecommunications along the value change for design and infrastructure within the built environment. i think that is where there's going to be a lot of pickup coming in the future. if we just work on -- in new york city, we haven't believe the pilot program -- we have an lled pilot program just to show

that it can work. it is there to help decrease traffic accidents. you can come up with the policies necessary to drive the investments and then we can scale that kind of technology and the pace of change that we need. >> the stimulus passed by president obama included $80 billion in new energy technology. it focuses on wheeatherization, building technology that emmy was talking about, and building the smart grid. those are what we call green collar jobs. you get people other who were formally blue-collar workers. you can see employment over the next year building up dramatically in these new

technologies. >> i was on a stage recently interviewing carol browner. one thing she did it knowledge is that the green stimulus will hopefully be green, hopefully will create these jobs, but it may be less stimulating than one might think thus far. the nature of some of these investments will take time to play out. thus far, this year, perhaps not. but perhaps next year or the next year-and-a-half. just to put it in perspective, is spreading in 10 times as much in real terms -- china is putting in 10 times as much general terms. it could crowd out private investment or if there will be a cliff in a year and have, what comes next when the green stimulus runs out, do you still have a windmill that is still not quite economic?

there are difficult challenges that the history of energy subsidies and energy investment says that you need to workout. but there's no question that this kind of investment is a huge part of infrastructure. according to the national energy agency, because of the collapse of the credit markets, investment in renewable energy dropped 20% this year. it would have been a 30% drop had governments not in stilled stimulus packages. >> those were counterproductive to the discussion of climate. the plans had to be completed and in the drawer. you have a two-year window to roll them out. houston, one of the great examples in the world of failed urban policy, they used to their stimulus money to start construction of a third ring road around houston to open up

more squall. there was a portion that tried to do good. because there have not been a policy in the u.s. saying that there had to be a relationship between infrastructure and agreed outcomes, we were not prepared. >> i know what you're talking about. when people say "shovel-ready," i always say, "what are your shoveling? >> no matter what we do in terms of conservation and energy efficiency, all efforts eventually are overwhelmed by simple population growth forecasts. we can all and we should tried to do everything we can, but

what do -- you have to say about the absence of population control -- but what do each of you have to say about the absence of population control? >> that is an excellent question. our people the problem? >> people are the problem and people are the solution. it is as simple as that. the problem as population is far too simple. people consume in various ways around the world. the energy and pollution produced by a single american is it [unintelligible] will to [unintelligible] i think we have to look ourselves and see that we have a much larger impact on the environment than several billion people on this earth. it is true that we want to empower people to control their fertility, to make sure says about their families, and, when they have the access and ability, they do. but when we see people as a

resourced, as people to empower and support, not as the problem. >> 1 counterintuitive thing i have learned from scientists is that smaller numbers of families correspond with higher life expectancy. therefore, you have lower birthrates. you're not expect if you were living longer you have smaller families. people make their decisions about how large their families will be based on how many they think will survive. in afghanistan, 13% of women over the age of 15 are illiterate. giving them the power to be educated and to make decisions about family decisions is hopefully going to be a solution, but not the solution

>> if we actually look at population forecasts over the last 30 years, back when you have the limits to growth thinkers arguing that there was a population bomb, fundamentally, they identified a serious problem. as often happens, when one looks at strickland projections and says that the line is good to keep going, -- when one looks at straight line projections and says that the line is going to keep going, it does not. price signals, a policy response, and positive solutions -- apart from being a population embalm, every forecast -- population bomb, every forecast shows that we have modified the population growth. it because -- it happens because of the impairment of girls and a number of other things that we

have done in response to those warnings that have helped to mitigate that. it helps to live in a world of globalization and googlization. before, it was more of an elite process in the past. the more people that can apply their energies to solve these problems, people can be the solution to the problem. >> i think the population problem is a taboo in public policy. i think back to when i was the co-author of president clinton's council of sustainability report, the sustainable communities chapter, there was a section about a population that went to -- vice president gore was all for that conversation. it went right to the president's desk and got ripped out and sent back.

it was politically impossible to talk about population. it is an issue that has positive and negative sides to it. we have -- we are more comfortable to talk about population when it is growth in the developing world. population growth in the developed world is not. we want to talk about. -- is not something we want to talk about. >> to recognize that some people are not consuming enough for now, even now, we have 1 billion people who do not get enough food to eat. we had to have a convergence of consumption the people at the bottom need to increase consumption and the people at the top need to monitor consumption without affecting our standard of living. >> some would characterize the

u.s. position on climate change as not as closely participatory as our partners in other countries might like. what is the value proposition for the american electorate to be a full participant in a global climate change solution going forward? >> speaking as an american voter, where it is in it for me? >> from a business point of view, you want the certainty. we are in the middle of the road. you see it in a bid with health care, too. you do not see where it is going. they want to know direction. if you give them the cab emissions, then they know with certainty what they can do. they can invest their money without concern that they will be stranded assets. then they can start creating

jobs. we have, as americans, we have a huge stake in this. it is absolutely critical for a spirit we have generational issues, whether it is kids or grandkids. it is important that we get it right in the most flexible mechanism as possible. >> you run a progress of blog. perhaps your audience is already starting to think positively about action. but the question remains that we are asking politicians to act on behalf of voters who, in some cases, have not been born yet or who may never vote in this country. how do surmount that problem? >> of the political process is already moving. peoplwe could see a collapse or success in this next year. it depends on whether the senate will take action. we have some powerful actors who are trying to do this, both

inside and outside, and -- people to get involved isn't that a rupture. -- and trying to get people involved is at that juncture. western states, some states that stand to benefit, are starting to change their minds. other places like the midwest and west virginia, they need a little more convincing. >> i working lot with the chinese academy of science. they straight forward say that we're using your debt to invest and create a green technology and service marketplace that will run the world. the longer the u.s. fritters away at this question, is it or is it not, they are getting huge

competitive advantage and we will never catch up. >> there's one more question i want to take. >> my question is about nuclear energy. it seems to me that you have a huge problem with ultimate disposal with radioactive waste, the potential for an accent, or a terrorist attack. i wonder if anyone has a strong opinion over whether we are confident of this being a good choice or in necessary evil. >> no clear, clearly there are issues with it.

it works very well in france. it is a% of their energy surprise. it is not a cent -- it is 80% of their energy supply. it is not a silver bullet. >> it also costs a lot and takes a long time. >> is to be a campaigner for friends of the earth. >> would you like to leave day response? >> no, i left them behind. >> ok. >> i would turn to the panel before my perspective on 2010. as an old engineer from mit, about nuclear, what bothers me is not safety. and every scientist in the world has agreed that the geological disposal, digging a big hole in the ground and leaving something in the ground is safe and can be done so relatively safe with a

cost relative analysis. even with a carbon price, that would benefit nuclear. the investments for nuclear is so big and lumpy, it is much more expensive than the combined gas plant or distributing energy. it is from live -- it is from loaded. -- is front -- it is front loaded. i predicted that, except for some special cases of countries where the cost of capital does not matter, like china, or it eastern europe, where they have a bigger problem with russian gas and a brother trying to cut them off, you will not try to find unsubsidized plants being built. there it -- there are cheaper

and safer ways to attack the problem. let me turn to the real experts. gary, what is your forecast for 2010? >>please make it clear and short and witty. [laughter] >> by the end of 2010, there will be a new set of urban indicators focused on health, health equity, a social equity, and stability that will allow more of the world's population to enter into the conversations of climate. >> great. >> i will start with a facetious one that you will not have to write down. president obama will attend the world cup in south africa. the u.s. will lose and obama will be played. the realistic one is that 2010

will be the hottest year in history. >> as the economic recovery gathers strength around the world, especially in gathering countries, we will return to an economic scarcity with rapidly rising prices for resources, food, and energy. >> i predict that the u.s. population will rally around and we will get u.s. legislation around climate and energy and we will get a global deal by 2010. >> i think you'll agree with me that our panel has done their job in provoking and enlightening. please join me in thanking them. [applause] >> saturday, a look at the rise of al qaeda in yemen.

and then dr. david shern on a new law that takes effect today. a fellow at the center of education reform talks about the state of education in the united states. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> fox news contributor is our guest this weekend. she is the columnist and author of four books. she will take your calls coming in mills, and tweets. >> there is less than a month left to enter c-span's 2010 student cam contest. the top prize is $5,000. created five minutes to eight minutes of video on one of our

country's greatest strength or a challenge the country is facing. it must incorporate c-span programming. enter before midnight january 28. do not wait another minute. go to studentcam.org. >> in this segment, a political cartoonist talks about andros some of the most talked about political figures in the world -- talks about and draws some of the most talked about political figures in the world. >> please welcome cal calaher. [applause] >> this has been so much fun. i am really said to be here with you guys today. i want to talk to you about something that i find

extraordinarily decelerating. that is faces. i have been watching you guys during the coffee breaks, during the drains, eyeballing you from distances. consistent throughout the whole crowd, everybody here has a face. [laughter] some of you might even be to face. i am not sure about that. but u.s. -- some of you might even be two-faced. i'm not sure about that. if one can take that face apart and reassembled it under their control, that is a formidable character. that is what economists have been paying me to do for 33 years, if you can believe it. i want to look at a phase, in particular phase, and what may happen to it over the next year. but i think the best way for me

to inform you about the faces to talk to you about some of the faces of the past and of the present. i am literally going to give you a picture, several pictures to that effect. first, i want to stir with a slide show of some prominent characters. but that was important to start back with some of myerlee work to inform you a little bit of the work that abraham lincoln -- my first character from for for trade. i did start out my life in caricature, doing it in streets. this is in london. hundreds of faces overtime come and sit in front of you and you learn about the pattern of faces and shapes and what to look for that is distinct the u.s. and individual. when i started with "the economist," it was during the era of margaret thatcher. this is one of the early covers,

one of over 100 covers, that i have done for "the economist" over my career. there were full of characters, all of them interesting in their own way. some characters supplied you with more material than others. then, of course, you had the opportunity to cover historic events. caricatures often helped define the way public people remember important events throughout history. that is why cartoons are seen in history books. bush was a cartoon that just kept on giving and giving and giving. sometimes i get confused which one is bush and which one is the other. i am unsure. he was a character who, over time, his face got more and more exaggerated the more he was in office. he also had other characters

around, like tony blair. of course, his time in office also got him [unintelligible] in addition to doing cartoons, " i told my caricatures, when people sit down in front of me, when i am thinking about them is in 3d. i made a life-size sculpture of george bush. i also turned him into an animated moving character. these are characters from today that we know. you can see the characters to play big roles here in washington. lieberman has made a kind of resurrection of late. this looks like it is made of silly putty. he is kind of moving through all of those muscles there.

and then there are some people who do not want to go away. thank goodness. cartoonists were cheering when mccain nominated her. then we come to president barack obama. when a politician first comes into the public limelight, the characters are very close to the photographs. over time, the fish gets more exaggerated. last year at this time, when we had the election and post- election, this was barack obama. he looks like he is smiling all the time. in fact, during the campaign, i had made a three-d model of him. i was on a six-city tour with " second city," the improv group. it looked like to talk to the

sky and he would talk back. it was very effective at the time. but when he got into office, things started to change. he became more sullen and serious. in dealing with iran, you can see the guy in the back. but here was, obama no longer the pearly whites showing. when it came time to deliver the stimulus, he had to take on a different position in the government. he did not look as exciting as he did during the campaign. more recently, when it came time to putting in his new orders for afghanistan, again, there was a more serious character. i want to leave the slide it there. i want to show you a little bit of what goes into the drawing of these characters. when i set out to draw some of

the first time, the first thing i am looking for is the shape of their head. it is so interesting that you can spot somebody it across a room or on the other side of a football field and you can recognize them without knowing their very subtleties of the face because the shape of their head is the distinguishing character. i want to start with a character whose face a really enjoyed drawing. hihis back in the news with copenhagen. that is al gore. he has the distinctive shape to his head that kind of goes one line like this and then the other line like this. that is where you start with outboard. -- that is where you start with al gore. he has the years. he has the use of spock from of a " star trek -- from "star trek."

he hasn't elvis-like smell of that goes like this. -- he has an elvis-like mouth that goes like this. he lost the 2000 election because of florida. i'm telling you that is not it. he lost the election because he has the eyes of death. that is al gore for you. what you think? am i right? [laughter] am i right? [applause] right. so we will sign this one here. there you go for you. let's draw another character with a distinctive face. john kerry -- long faced by.

his face starts to appear and it is a long face, long phase, long face. look at that, look at that. no. ok, this is better. it goes up like this and like this and his nose is like this and his hair is like this and there's hair and his use come here like this and we have a line here and in line here. ladies and gentlemen, what you think? john kerry? [applause] not to. -- not bad. not bad for a few strokes. who wants this one? can you pass this to the gentleman back there? that is a good way to start a riot. let's go with another democrat war. bill clinton. ok.

he has kind of a turned up nose like this. he has a little bit of it turned it up mouth. and then there are the bags under his eyes. poor guy. have you noticed that he has more and more bags under his eyes. that is really hard. he travels a lot and they charge for every extra bag. [laughter] and then he has the used car salesman hair cut. and then look at this. here is the bid. that is the bet that distinguishes the man. what you think? [laughter] bill clinton [applause] . all right. let's go to h.w. bush. know. let's go to h.w. bush -- let's

go to w. bush. the years can never be too big. but the interesting thing about his face is that, over time, i abbreviated him so fast that i can turn him out in six seconds. he has very strong flared nostrils, a set of parentheses, a civil like that, horizontal line, horizontal line, and a few lines like this. his chin as a w. then you have the strong growth like this. and you have tiny eyes, a tiny eyes. then the years. let's abbreviate the years a little bit like this and like this. then you have another parentheses here. then you have lines like this, which i called the perplex lloyoid. then you have george w. bush. what do you think?

[applause] not bad. not bad. let's get on to president barack obama. it is interesting watching him over the course of time. he had a very young taut face when he first ran for office. the the combination of gravity and gravitas have worked its toll on his face the way it does. you look on the picture of any present, over four years, their faces age at an exponential rate. -- of any president, over four years, their faces age at an exponential rate. you have a nice round top of the head. the years are a big portion of the balance of the head right now. but here is the important bit. he casts a heavy shadow in his eyes and you don't often see his

eyes at a distance. you can see somebody at a distance, but they tend to be small, like this. his nose is quite small. he has a strong upper lip like this. you can see his face start to appear in front of you like this. drawing him and seeing the style of his portrait from the site, i am beginning to think that, the more i looked at him, i do not think he was born in hawaii. i think he was born on easter island. [laughter] do you not think? that is more of what looks like right now so we have obama. ok. but now i am going to draw him from the front. i want you to look at this frame in the back.