public radio branding. i looked at it from a different perspective, obviously a very rich website to have with breaking news and to catch newscasts you might not have been able to get as they aired. what is your vision for that website for anticipating technological changes? is there anything you were trying not to do on the website, like staying away from a large offering of video packages? how you want to identify the website, going forward? >> the npr.org website this is one piece of our digital strategy. our goal is very simple. provide more news and information to more people in more ways. the second pieces of that, more people in more ways, speaks much

to the fact that we must be available wherever the audiences. even though they are listening to radio in record numbers, broadcast radio, we know that our audience is on other devices. they are on the iphone and the ipad, they are listening to pipe gas, so we aim to provide a very rich experience across all platforms. you will hear us rolling out plans to provide and make sure it that we create an entire package of tools and services and best practices, provide that to all of our member stations, so that every member station can be as relevant and robust one digital platforms as they are on the radio. our heart and soul as a network -- we're not trying to try everything, but that is our

broad strategy. >> television has experienced tension by view of the time shifting, where people watch programs on tv are -- on dvr after the fact. is there is significant downside risk for you and the way that a younger generation does not care about catching things live? >> the only risk is if we ignore what the audience wants. the audience wants to listen to live radio and the audience wants to, and some of the same people, sometimes different people, also want to be able to pick and choose stores and listen to it on their schedule. our job is not to influence their behavior but make sure that however they want, wherever they want, whenever they want,

we are there. that is the only risk, that we are not there however that the audience wants to consume public radio content. >> we talked about the tensions in the economy when you first to cover. that involve laying off staffers. have all those positions, numerically speaking, then restored? and has the reporting suffered at all throughout the down cycle? >> those positions have not all been restored. right before our joint, it was the exit -- executive team there when i was arrived, i think they made exactly the right decision, which is, instead of cutting around in every department can get every unit, we're going to cut to% from everyone, the decision they made twowe're going to eliminate

shows from the schedule. there were very good but they were underperforming in terms of audience. by cutting those shows and unfortunately having to lay off many of their staff, there rest of the news gathering operation , there were not only spare but we began to modestly invest in those programs and to invest in the hour news gathering. they have now reached the level of people that were laid off from those two shows. we are not in a financially viable position to do that. but where we invest, it will be in those areas, more foreign correspondents, reporters on the beat, more programs with stations. and based on the pew report that showed that people trust us more than any -- a greater growth in

trust and any news organization, and that our audience is growing across platforms, it would seem our audience has not been disappointed. >> almost out of time. before we ask a last question, a couple of important matters to take care of. i want to remind you about upcoming speakers and trying to engage in more conversation about journalism. with the milk -- all little more laughter, harry shearer, a voice of "the simpsons," and others, will focus on media myths. then the commissioner of the irs right ahead of the tax deadline. then something in between, it on 19, when ted turner and t. boone pickens, now ceo of bp capital

management, they will discuss issues related to energy consumption in our country. we might get to a question about cnn will for all of that is completed. with that, what i want to do is do something that i think you are vaguely familiar with. as a token of our thank you, we like to present you with yet another, perhaps her husband who turned you want to npr, the coffee mug.npc [applause] our last question has to do with your academic background. people may not know that you are a scholar in russian studies. i am wondering, warrior studies at all instructive in helping you to cut through rat -- were

your studies at all instructed and helping you to cut through red tape? >> i do not know about my studies, but my first job, this is why i was not in the country listening to npr, i was at tour guide taking americans of broad and all over the world, but because i spoke russian, i took quite a few groups to what was then the soviet union, and i learned not so much as academics, but everything i've learned about management and leadership, i learned as a tour guide, taking a group of 180 cranky americans to places where there were no hot water. a great learning experience. >> been, thank you very much. -- vivian, thank you for a much.

a lot like to thank our national press club staff, including our library staffers to help organize today's event. for more affirmation on how to join, please go to our website at www.press.org. thank you and we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> up next on c-span, former cia director james woolsey talks about climate change in global security. after that, of forum from a file with republicans who may run for president in 2012. later, california congressman henry waxman on u.s. energy policy. >> with congressional chronicle, if you can follow every word from the house and senate floor on one, track daily time lines, read transcripts, and find an archive on every member. on this schedule, a joint

meeting of congress with the julia delauro. gillard.a >> former cia director james woolsey talks about environmental issues and how they impact national security. he spoke at the jewish council for public affairs. >> thank you, rabbi sapper sting. we have had very inspiring and compelling presentations from senator klobuchar, and now we turn to jim woolsey. we're so pleased that you will share your expertise. we will turn this to you now. >> i was quite honored to be asked to be with you today. i spent 22 years as a washington lawyer and some time out at the cia in the clinton

administration. i am honored to be invited into any polite company. [laughter] two years ago, when eugene mccarthy was working on the nomination, we have been involved in some of these things of one kind or another for a long time. that me start by -- let me start by calling attention to key distinctions. it gets blurred a lot, not by our speakers today, but i want to make it explicit. we have two the energy systems in the country. one is transportation, and it is 95% oil. we do not use anything but petroleum products, natural gas, and as such. basically, it is all oil.

completely separate, electricity. it is a mixture of coal hydro, nuclear, except for. -- etc. 15% of our natural gas comes from canada, unless you he share the views of cartman's mother and think we should invade canada -- [laughter] we tried that lies. we invaded in 1775 and 1812, and they with our butts both times. we do not have a farm supply problem with energy -- foreign supply problem with energy but with oil. these things have nothing to do with one another. yes, if we electrify

transportation, he will ultimately need some changes to the electric grid. 75% of our electric grid goes on news that night. three studies by the national laboratories, by utilities, they all say the same thing. you could have 70% of the cars on the road be electric before you need a single new power plant. all you have to do is charged at night, and that means that you need pricing the way that businesses get it. electricity and oil are separate systems for all practical courses. -- purposes. the problem with electricity is cold. but during more% and 2% of our electricity comes from oil. the big problem -- and natural

class -- natural gas is cleaner, and ultimately we want to move away from natural gas to some extent. reasons. for some time if you're substituting natural gas for coal you're doing a good thing from the point of view of climate change. coal is the problem with respect to electricity generation. oil is 96% of the problem with respect to transportation and those two systems are separate. now, why is this important? it's important because those who have led much of our public discussion have tried to pull -- either they don't understand those two simple things themselves or they have done everything they possibly can to pull the wool over people's eyes because they know foreign oil is unpopular. none of us likes the idea of shipping large amounts of money off to saudi arabia.

we borrow a billion dollars a day when oil is $80. when it gets up closer to 150, which it nearly hit two years ago we borrow $2 billion a day just to import oil. and it goes for some pretty ugly purposes. for example tom friedman has a great chapter in his book called fill er up with dictator. a number of academics, sometimes called the oil curse. why is it the case that eight out of nine of the leading oil -- largest oil exporters in the world are dictatorships or autocratic kingdoms. countries th get two-thirds or more of their income from oil are all dictatorships or

autocratic kingdoms. what's going on? economic. if your country discovers a great deal of a commodity that has a huge economic rent attached to it, since it costs the saudis, according to their own terms, $1.50 to lift a barrel of oil and they are selling it now for $104, they are getting, to put it mildly, a fairmount of economic rent. your heart does go out to them. so what happens when you have a dictatorship or autocratic kingdom that gets access to a commodity like that? the huge economic rent goes to the power structure. it goes to the elites that run things and own everything. if a nice country like norway or apologies, canada gets a huge slug of oil, what happens? it already has a democracy. it already has a reasonably broad-based economy, it just gets richer. it doesn't become a

dictatorship. already probably a dictatorship state. second thing we have problems with oil on, security terms, is the fact lawrence wright in the looming tower, which is i think the best book on 9/ and al qaeda, it says that with -- between one and two percent of the world's muslims saudis control % of the world's islamic institutions including schools. why is that important? i knew slightly had dinner with him, a marvelous man, the former late president of indesia. marvelous advocate of religious liberty. going back generations in his family. after he left office as president formed an organization

called le for all, religious liberty for all, got together with indonesia's leading young rock star who also was a strong supporter of this indonesian tradition, and they went around the country putting on rock concerts as soccer stadiums, the rock star would write songs about religious liberty, teach them to kids, the kids would sing, the rock star would entertain and he would talk about the importance of freedom and liberty, including religious liberty. to put it mildly, that is not the saudi tradition. they teach their doctrine. indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world, so it's certainly not everybody. a big chunk. this doctrine effectively teaches death to homosexuals and apostates, all kinds of brutality is fine, beating your

wife, killing your daughter as she strolls down a neighborhood street with a neighborhood boy talking. it goes on and on. a worldwide caliphate, theocratic dictatorship. all over the world google to saudi schools are eight, ne-year-old boys who are bein taught to dream someday, perhaps, of being able to be a suicide bomber. so if the next time you're driving into a filling station to fill up you happen to think -- try to do this. i always try to do it. before you get out to get your credit card and charge your gas, stop for just a second. turn the rearview mirror just a few inches until you're looking into your own eyes and ask the question, i wonder who is paying for those eight and nine-year-old boys all over the world to be suicide bombers.

you're looking at 'em. a lot of us have very serious problems with oil for surity reasons. in one way or another those facts are more or less digested as the population as a whole so you say a good thing if you're a politician or anybody else when you say our problem is foreign oil. i think it's oil but say foreign oil. foreign oil. therefore yada, yada, the solution is nuclear power plants. no. because only 1 to 2% comes for oil. so it's only partly true you were substituting for oil when you built a nuclear plant. how about wind plants? wind farms don't substitute for oil. cap and trade? cap and trade is one way to

prevent co2. i prefer a carbon tax but cap and trade isn't crazy. it's one way to go. but cap and trade is all about stationary sources. a dollar a ton added to the price of co2 adds one penny at the pump to a gallon of gasoline. entire cap and trade $25 a ton co2 set up, that adds about $0.25 a gallon to the cost of gasoline. i would say perhaps not negligible, just tiny. how about drill baby drill? certainly we can fix the problem if we just produce more ourselves? no. because since opec has 80% of the world's reserves, conventional reserves of the world's petroleum and we have three, and they produce at $1.50 a barrel or say it's up to something huge like $4 or $5 a

barrel, they produce in single digits a barrel we produce tens of billions, we have no reserve, they have reserves. they are going to set the price of oil, they are a conspiracyn the rerestaurant of trade. they are a monopoly. they have 80% of the oil and pumping 40%. wh they are withholding oil to make you pay more. they will have that power n matter how much we drill baby drill, whether in the gulf or alaska. we will not be able to get control of the oil market. the days when that was true, up until the early '70s, and republic of texas had something called the texas railway commission, the texas railway commission was opec. set the price of west texas crude so set the price of oil

worldwide. when i was growing up in oklahoma learning to drive i drove on $0.25 a gallo gasoline. thanks, texas, perfectly reasonable folks at least compared to at least compared to wahabis. drill babe drill doesn't work. we import a small share from saudi arabia. canada is our numb one source. so we buy more from canada and less from saudi arabia. no? somebody else will buy more from saudi arabia and less from canada. we can't secede from the world oil market. that is except in the event of a world war. for all practical purposes, it's one pot of oil and we don't do a damn thing to resolve our problem by buyingmore from

canada and less from saudi arabia. so almost all of the solutions either do next to nothing like drill baby drill. drill baby drill helps with the balance of payments. we could maybe save a few days worth of imports by drilling a lot. but drill baby drill does almost nothing. the other solutions all have to do with electricity. so almost every speech th you get from piticians or people advocating a solution starts with foreign oil and ends up with something that deals with 1.5% of the problem. so what do we do? well, i tend to think that capturing co2 from coal-fired fire plants is affordable, 25 to

30% added cost. but sequestering carbon dioxide, have to be in saltwater aquifers, nationwide set of pipelines for co2 at least as complex as our oil and gas line network. so if we can get away from coal as the stink from cleaning up coal, at least co2, then i think we probably should. that's one of the reasons we want to work very hard on cleaning up hydrofracturing david was talking about to get natural gas out. if we can clean up the water satisfactorily we have hu reserves. he called and said, jim, what's the fastest way to get massive

improvement in co2 emissions. that's easy turn offoal-fired and turn on natural gas plants. they areot being used at night. they are for peaking. we can double or trouble what we get from natural gas even without drilling anymore. he said, that's right. he said y did the congress do the opposite? i said, well, that's easy. it's because the coal and railroad lobbyists, railroads are about two-thirds schlepping coal, coal and railroad lobbyists were a lot more organized than the natural gas lobbyists. hurting natural gas lobbyists, independents is not like herding cats it's like herding cheetahs. he said it's a shame. yeah, it's a shame. even though it's hard and we have to solve the hydrofracturing problem, moving torts renewables and natural gas, which is a nice partner

with renewables so you can turn it off, firming renewables is probably a good direction to go, at least one of the less bad directions. david's dilemmas by the way, the way i talk about them -- of course i teach at yale on energy -- energy in the 21st century could muir, patton and gandy agree. muir is secure patton, gandhi, bottom 2 billion, i even channel these 3 ghosts and have a discussion. [using irish accent]

but we do not have time for channeling and so forth today. on electricity, i think renewables did you away from the big grid, and the big rig has some terrible vulnerabilities, particularly for hacking into their control systems and for electromagnetic pulse and all sorts of other problems, and with respect to petroleum and transportation, i would say this. try to move in a direction of electrification. there is no real downside to that. there is some stuff you have to do, but you have got to get the oem's square away, and you will get a few hundreds of thousands of vehicles that do not move very fast. best of all it would be to provide tax credits or some kind of incentive is asian --

incentives. they do not need to be all electric. the average car in the u.s. goes less than 25 miles per day, and three-quarters go less than 40 miles. if you have a plug-in hybrid, and you go all electric for 30 miles, and in your liquid kicks in, three days out of four, you are in an electric car, so i think modify the vehicles' where you can, electrification. i think natural gas, i think t. boone pickens and had it about two-thirds right. natural gas pumps everywhere. for interstate trucking, all you need to do is put the pompez inn at gas truck stops. it is pretty easy for large vehicles. at least two members