d to shift and not do a panel. we don't have enough time in 30 minutes for discussions so i'll make a little bit of a presentation. let me see if i can get this here. yep. there we go. i'm going to give a bit of a presentation on how do we -- how can we transform our food system to one that can truly nourish 9 billion people by 2050 while mitigating and adapting to climate change and restoring the world's ecosystem. and that's going to be the focus of my presentation. and then these two folks that are here with me, we have kate mcbride, who has a local farm here. she is going to speak to us a little bit about the beneficial role of live stock in providing nutrition for local communities. and we also have brook le van here from sustainable settings to talk about some of the exciting things happening here on the farms. i'll start out with a presentation and then we'll shift. we would like to discuss with you all these issues a lot more especially this role of live stock in sustainability. i think we saw in that trailer

some of the major problems that we're dealing with and then a lot of people see live stock as part of the solution to climate change. that is a really healthy discussion. we'd like to invite you all to have it with us over lunch. we're not going to get into the debate too much during this panel. we're not going to have a panel. so can we transform our food system? can we solve for this food water, and climate nexus with these intersecting issues? i believe we can but we have to

talk about something that makes us all very uncomfortable. that is meat. so we're in a consumption crisis right? i don't want to villainize the animals themselves and say they're inherently evil as many maybe who advocate for plant based diets might share that perspective. they certainly play an integrated role in lots of farming systems that have been really critical to development of our agriculture over time. but we are in a consumption crisis at this point where live stock are a core driver of climate change, deforestation, fresh water and ocean water pollution, biodiversity laws causing water stress and a real threat to food security. to put this in perspective we are raising 70 billion land based animals a year that have a tremendous environmental cost. while we hear a lot about cattle which are a high carbon emitter i'd like to just point out this scale of chicken, pig and poultry production because those animals are eating an enormous amount of grain. they take and enormous amount of land and produce an enormous amount of waste. about 70 billion animals a year

that we're raising and slaughtering are -- the demand is actually skyrocketing. by 2050 we're trying to figure out right now how to produce twice the number of animals for consumption. this is actually driven by population growth but more by rising affluence. so we wouldn't have a problem with feeding 9 billion people if everybody ate a little bit less meat and less resource intense i ever food. but because the desire of all of these countries that are wonderfully joining us with rising affluence, they're wanting to have the same choices that we have to eat luxurious, high resource intensive food. so if we want to provide that, right now, the assumption is everyone should have the right to eat these resource intensive foods. everyone should have choice. and so we're ramping up animal food production to give people those choices. the problem is live stock already dominates human land use globally. about 30% of the ice free surface of this earth is covered with live stock or for food we're growing for live stock. they occupy 75% of our agricultural land. we've got about 842 million

people that are suffering from hunger and a large percentage of the calories we're growing on the land that could be fed to humans are fed to animals. we heard just about water just to put this in perspective actually got this from the oceanographic institute over here. this is all the water on the earth. that is ocean water, ice water everything. this is the fresh water available to us and the available drinking water. 70% of the middle dot here is used by agriculture. and animal foods are way more water intense i ever than plant based foods. 32 times more fresh water to produce one calorie of beef than water. sometimes people say it's six months of six-minute showers is the water it takes to produce one hamburger. that's a lot. i'll get a little more -- there is enormous variability there and i'll get into that a little more in the presentation. but basically already 2.5 billion people already live in areas that are subject to water stress and by 2025 it's going to be half of humanity. it's just really how -- is this

really how we want to use our precious water resources? while we're depleting the earth's water we're also polluting it. live stock are the largest polluters of fresh and salt water systems. right now there's 404 ocean dead zones. this shows the flow of all the nutrients down into the ocean. that dead zone is an area where no aquatic life can live and the rate of dead zones have been doubling every 10 years.

while we're depleting the world's water we're also polluting it. livestock are the largest polluteers. 404 ocean dead zones that shows the flows of all the nutrients and fertilizeers down into the ocean. and the rate of dead zones have been doubling. it's hard to tell. there are 15,000 feed lots in the u.s. and some of them have over 100,000 animals in them. this is an affluent pool draining the waste. this is in texas near amarillo where my mother is from. basically the pool is surrounded by cow farm. that's draining the okay kwa for

while it's polluting this is an area that's formally the mont tow gross sew forest in brazil. while we tend to think this is directly caused by cows a lot of the grain will feed pigs and chickens from china. the white meats are also a major problem when it comes to feed. when you have an acre of that land in the rain forest it might have 3,000 or more species living on it and it gets replaced by cattle or feed. 30% -- it's not clicking through. 30% of bio diversity. that's not the case and it is not the leading cause of climate change but a major cause and it's completely unregulated and not modeling itering our ecosystems. we hear a lot about climate change and it's always a joke but actually the process includes sheeps and goats and all animals with multiple stomach that's digest the grass

they emeet this 14.5 number 40% comes from that digestive process. we need to understand the whole system and the story behind this. it starts with the clearing of land of forest and grasslands to produce the land to graze the animals and the land to grow the field and then there's the energy production of the fertilizer and the my treusoxide of the tpurt liesers and the waste left on the grasses of the grazing land globally. all the way through the transportation. if you see the post farm transportation is only 3%. so as much as we talk about want to reduce our emissions and eat locally this is a rolely small percentage of the whole greenhouse gas pie that is from local foods or from livestock, sorry.

0 to put this in perspective 14.5% is equivalent to the direct emissions from all of transportation in the world combined, all boats, trains, planes, cars. so that's a lot of emissions but actually the leading source of non co2 emissions. so nitrousoxide and methane are the leading cause. and it reduces consumption of animal source foods. if we reduce non-co2 emissions we don't hit our targets. the only way to hit our targets is to cut both co2 and non-co2 emissions. it's an incredible economically efficient opportunity. and this study here showed that what about took a look at what if we were able to increase productivity and bio gas and kp cherred those phaeutsdz thaeupb emissions and the only scenario that enables to read our target cuts is by swapping out a significant amount of our animal based calories with plant based calories and they modeled the

flex tearian diet. meat is an untouchable and we all have our nutritional philosophies and these ideology that's are divisive. what we need to do is set our philosophies and our ideologies aside so that we can actually talk really honestly about this huge problem. this is a topic that i think we could talk about quite a bit. but grass fed beef produces phaeutsdz thaeupb per gram of protein which is why the world is ramming and to produce a lot more factory farmed meat. the scale of the production is really scary. the emissions this is aqua culture and this some is of the white meats and see foods ask then you see how much significantly less plant based foods emit. but water is an important issue and not just greenhouse gases and the pigs don't come out so well per gram of protein that's because 1.5 billion pigs a year -- this is considered a success story.

this is called sustainable intense indication. 50,000 pigs will produce half a million pounds of urine and feces every day. so we don't of the space -- if we're interested in feeding all the people who are joining us on the planet we did not feed them all grass fed meat. it's not an option. actually when when he lock at mitigation opportunities and agriculture this is a new report that came out in january which modeled all the different po tensions and what came out is the number one is shifting dietary trends. if we can shift our eating patterns it's the greatest potential available to us to mitigate through agriculture and forestry. switching to a plant based diet cuts it in half. meeting our goals is a huge challenge but there is a lot of room for reduced consumption while getting calories to people who know it. the benefit is to individuals and society in reducing animal sourced foods and i'm going to move quickly through these. but there's problems -- there are challenges to it because of all the enormous subsidies, all pay out of your tax dollars and pock tote keep this machine going and keep meat so cheap we actually throw it away.

we throw away a third of the calories that we produce which then most of that happens at the consumption stage. it's enormous opportunity and probably one of the biggest challenge that's we have in the 21st century. and not just about individual diet. there's a whole spectrum of sew sew sitel level.

-- societal level intervention. bill gates lunched future of foods. so there is an enormous opportunity. he says food is ripe for disruption so. this isn't something left outside the industry and something we can invite industry into. and reducing meat consumption globally is an untapped opportunity for climate mitigation and choosing to eat mostly plants is an enormous way for individuals to make a difference. it should be devoted to friends who are doing integratable sustainable stems.

local food is very, very importants importantsvery, but we need to look at solutions on a global scale. that's a little bit of the context that i wanted to set and now i'd like to shift the stage and share with someone who has a video to share with us as some of the solutions that he's enacting right here in our local community. [applause] >> where is the time keeper? god put animals on the planet for a reason. we just don't know how to use them or work with them very well and we lost touch with who they are and who we are and how they work in the system. is meat bad? are cows bad? are pigs bad? look what we do with them. before 1945 or so the world was

>> where is the time keeper? god put animals on the planet for a reason. we just don't know how to use them or work with them very well and we lost touch with who they are and who we are and how they work in the system. is meat bad? are cows bad? are pigs bad? look what we do with them. before 1945 or so the world was organic. this country was covered with small scale farms but

distributed network of production and distribution and consumption. as soon as we started shipping things all over the planet from the cheapest source, we started to mess with the knew trent cycle that keeps us alive. i got a little video. i'm not going to show my slides. can you cue up that little short. it's about a minute. we've been -- we got a little gem about 35 miles from here. you can hear me okay? and -- can this go longer? my neck is being bent. we've got about a little gem, about 240 acres south of here but down obviously and outside of carbondale and it's really only 90 irrigated. and about 150 wild which is an important part of it too. but on that we have a working ranch and a learning center and we are building soil and we are growing grass and we are

creating an island of health in a satisfy otocks sins. one of the things we're doing is trying to listen to the animals and to the microkroebs to the fungi and plants and opening up our hearts as an oregon of perception and create an environment or an arena for them to do what they need to do best. so, let's run this video it's only a minute. i've become a nozzlehead by the way. i'm spraying. if you drive by our place, we're spraying. we're spraying this stuff. and it's compost and this is at 1800 magnification. these are the farmers, the cultivateor cultivators. these are what we need to protect.

i don't have the long scientific names for these things like she

did but i'll find out what they are and i'll make t-shirts for them and they're going to become the next panda and whale or whatever else we need to fall in love with. [laughter] there is life waiting for us to encourage to do the right thing and if we do it again in a small scale local system of production, distribution and consumption, we can feed the world. look at those. they look like sharks cruising around. can you run it again? i like to see them.

looking at the whole situation systeml systemically, there isn't just one issue. agricultural isn't just stainsable. it's a 10,000-year-old sperplt but at 7 billion we're stuck with it. so we need to do the best we can do with it. maybe we need a good pandemic. nobody wants to talk about that. we're part of the problem. so, i love my cows and pigs and chickens and mike kroebs and fungi and i love all of you and we can do it. thanks. [applause] >> you can guys all hear me?

>> yeah. >> i'm kate mcbride and i come to you from a different situation with a different hat. last year i spoke at our day and i spoke about my raw dairy and why i got into my raw dairy. the reason was my daughter. i have a special needs doubt here has lung disease and no immune system and suddenly life became all about pro biotics and anti-biotics and enzyme properties and oxygen and now my life, thanks to my heros that i'm humbling sitting on the opposite side of the podium and

reading all of his works and various people like courtney white who wrote a book that impressed upon me greatly, grass, soils and hope, and now my life is changed. it's all about oxygen, yes, the raw dairy, but also to add to that factor carbon. now i'm oxygen and carbon di dieoxide and i find myself in the right place i hope. i think think oh my gosh what should do i. but then again maybe i should be. i'm raising -- i run a raw dairy and raise pigs and lambs. whenever i have an ornery bull he becomes part of the meat. i think what can i do to change the carbon situation? what can i personally do? should i sell all my cows. that's not going do any good because maybe they'll be

slaughtered and they'll die and go back in the ground or they'll be somewhere else. so i started thinking about it. what seems important to me is it's not carbon is bad, it's where is your carbon. that's how i look at it. grand i'm just a mom that tried to help my daughter and i found myself on a dairy farm, raw dairy farm which is doing miraculous things to my daughter.

she's no longer in the hospital and not on house arrest. i had to raise clean food. well, going back to the cows if you will just because that seems to be a more common scenario, i started thinking about well, what kind of nutrition am i giving my daughter. first of all, i had to be clean so i had organically raised she's no longer in the hospital animals and i cannot give them any chemicals because my daughter can't handle it same with the pigs and sheep. i started looking at beef cow. it gives you about a thousand pounds of meat. a dairy cow gives you 300,000 pounds of my protein in their lifetime. and i think there's two situations here. one if you look at the big farm, industrial farms, that's what is causing a lot of your statements that come, say, oh, we should reduce beef in our diet.

because most people don't have the opportunity to raise small animals and have small farms. i think of, hey, if you put hay on the field and it's eaten by a cow and comes out methane gas that's going to be producing the same amount as if it's eaten by a rabbit as if it's left in the field to rot. i feel that the best process is to return all these farms to small ranches because the small rancher, what they do is they make did viable for the cow to survive and then the milk or the meet, et cetera it's all very clean. if you don't take care of the animal you can't return the cycle full saoeurbgl. let me start again. if you don't take care of what the animal is eating that brings us down to the grass. if we don't take care of the grass, then we're all going to find ourselves with emissions that are produced by cards. everything -- it just goes into the atmosphere. so if we look at other ways to return the carbon from the air back in the soil, one of the number one things you can come upon -- as a cow or rabbit eats

grasses this is a root shoot ratio. when they eat a grass the root the shoot is shorter. all the carbons that comes from the air, they take the carbon dioxide and turn it into liquid carbon and then an animal eats it and knocks off their part of their roots and becomes in the soil and feeds the my kroebs and you return carbon to the soil. if it goes deeper into the ground you sequester it for long periods of time, carbon storage. but the first way to get there the same with memory, you can't remember something long term if it doesn't go into short ter-term memor memory. if we can get into the short cycle of of getting carbon back into the soil and get it further then we're starting to help the picture. so, i'm being told i need to close up here. my take home message is i strongly feel if we can look to other farmers that have done the same thing, not just providing the mete meat but by taking small farms you and distribute their poop or ma manure over large lots of land

you're increasing the soil's viability and helping with the plants, the more plants you get the bigger and the more roots and the more carbon you put back in the soil. they did a wonderful project out in california. they took great plots of land and returned dry grasslands back to viable land and they in turn found that by putting one year of commercial dairy maneuver spreading it out over the field, they increased by 40% their carbon return to the soil.

if you find the big industrial plants i think that the da you -- the dairies etc., you find waste is a huge problem. if it's all confined it's waste. if it's all spread out if becomes a fertilizer and a good fertilizer, not one that kills i'm told i am over. [applause] >> we would love to continue this discussion if you would like to join us later at lunch and also perhaps with the panelist from this next panel

would like to join us and talk about that transformation of agriculture. see you there. >> can we have another round for this panel? >> up next, the final discussion from the american renewable energy summit in aspen colorado. speakers discussed biodiversity, population growth, corporate polluters and other issues will stop this is a little over an hour and a half.

>> the comments have largely been focusing on the domesticated world. this is important because there are 7 million, 8 million, 9 million people that need attended to. everybody buys food cover water space and we ensure those things by domesticating the planet. but this is going to drift back into the direction of thoughts about wild self-willed nature, diversity, islands -- that has to be part of the great transition, that we continue to value wild self-willed nature, that we make a place on this planet for wild, self willed nature as we imagine a great transition. that is the overarching tea -- overarching theme for this morning.

the director of development for the carbon war room will speak first and will be followed by the executive director of foundation earth. randy will be followed by the cofounder and executive director of women's earth and climate action network. they have some prepared comment and then we are going to discuss involving you because the minds in this room are more powerful than those sitting up here. >> may i have the slides please? i want to thank the gentleman doing the i.t. today because i challenged some of it, i'm afraid. very briefly, i want to thank chip and sally for the invitation.

[applause] the forum from that last panel was extorted. we are part of a company founded by richard branson and we work with business to find market-driven solutions to a low carbon economy. you see we have our five operations up there. you see renewable jet fuel -- my colleague, the operation director will be here tomorrow. i like to briefly touch about what we do in the carbon world. biodiversity both in terms of what we are doing as far as contra -- as far as conservation but what we are doing as far as stopping degradation from happening. that is where we are focused, getting business to focus in one area and not the other.

that will become clear when i visit with you on the islands. when you look at retrofits of buildings or shipping efficiency, the shipping owners and building owners do not pay for the fuel. they are not motivated to give you one that is more energy efficient. ships alone are the worst common provider between germany and japan. basic retrofits to a ship, to do -- to make it more efficient can save 20% of fuel costs and save 20% of fuel in missions. more importantly, they can stop the degradation of the market tips. the owner is not motivated, so how do we motivate the owner of a ship or building to make it more fuel or energy-efficient?

we find a private tanker willing to do the retrofitting. you will see that as the theme we are talking about right now and we are able to develop private capital and philip lower carbon emissions to really move the needle to take several gigatons of carbon out of the atmosphere. you have probably heard a little bit about the 10 island challenge. in 2011, we realized there was a lot of degradation happening that islands were having to import 100% of their fuel. besides just did degradation and negativity of fossil fuel, think of what a ship has to come to an island and drop off the fuel. the first thing we did -- i want to make sure i give this to you in the right order -- we realize we started with aruba.

you have a motivated prime minister who wanted to take his island off of fossil fuel. you see the current president of costa rica. then the troublemaker of the group runs the u.n. triple c. we thought we were taking one island off of fossil fuels but christina said how about 10 islands and how about 2015? the 10 island challenge was born because richard branson said we are in. that is how we started. when stanley, if there are any real coincidences, tn see in the tiffany foundation convened half a dozen heads of state in may of 2013 to get them to commit to

addressing the energy issues on their islands. we combined our efforts and determined to move forward. we then determined we would only do 10 islands in the caribbean. that would be our first 10 islands and then we would start moving across the globe, if you will. we also started the process of weaning richard's island. recently, and most successfully, we started a strategic alliance with rocky mountain institute. we put on a creating climate wealth where we brought the islands together from the caribbean and brought ceos of witnesses who would he interested in doing the work on these islands and we also were able to launch the 10 island challenge and identify specific islands to work with.

these islands are largely dependent on imported fossil fuel. one island is 100 $.10 a kilowatt hour. you have the added burden of a man don television. aruba has 100,000 people but three month out of the year, they have a million. just think about the towels of the intercontinental and the strain on tourism, water, and transportation. so we are looking at innovative solutions. our job is to accelerate the commercial opportunities to get these pioneering islands. we work with a herd of buffalo's. we only want to work with the buffaloes on the pack that are leading. those are the ones that will be

successful and everyone else will follow. it is to enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being. the notion of the island is to do this. you have heard of other successful -- you've heard of money disappearing. what we are very careful about is to be certain the islands are engaged that it is a transparent process. we won a process that is completely open and that's the most important thing for us. the services we are going to offer are fairly straightforward starting with the marketing. reaching out to the community so they can understand that hearing what is important to them.

the biggest piece is the technical. they don't really have the expertise -- we have teams and hospitals, etc. -- you have to move forward. there is project management and staff that will be involved. global partnerships make sense. we are starting from the outside but we also want to work with groups like the consortium of utility owners. one thing we have been good at is identifying existing technologies that are scalable and that you can get funded. we want to know where they want to start. locally driven, it all very much

makes sense. i'm not going to go into any specifics but i'm certainly happy to answer -- the ones we are working with, they are pretty self-explanatory. we are happy to visit any of the partnerships as appropriate and we have some wonderful folks from the rocky mountain institute i will be relying on as well. this is a bit of a quote. we want to take these islands off of fossil fuels and take the lessons learned. the notion is we can scale it not just in the caribbean but across the globe. >> and it should be apparent from the comments that in his human eyes world, islands are

vulnerable, but they always have been. you go back to the 1970's -- there was the notion that fourth that the theory of island of i/o geography -- islands are difficult places to make a living. if you are an organism that find yourself on an island, fate works against you. the world is increasingly defined by islands. our great forests have been extensively fragmented. essentially becoming terrestrial islands. if you could speak about forests , carbon and climate change, please. >> when i graduated college, i left ohio and started heading west. i realized nature was my colleague, particularly biological diversity. i decided to go to graduate school and i spent the next 10

years being secretary and chauffeur to the hopi elders. that was my graduate school training and systems training and long term thinking. i decided to start the rain forest action network and jump into the forest big-time. i needed to go out and see a tropical rain forests. the was a research station in costa rica. to make a long story short they invited me to come out to the research station. i was was to land on this grass runway and it crashed. i had to take a bus to a remote town and hitchhike on logging

roads as far as that would get me and then walk with another friend of mine, an australian, south african friend of mine and walk across the peninsula to get out into the rain forest. long story short the howler monkeys were going off. they are scary sounding creatures. they sound like they are this tall. you are out there and i had a sprained ankle and i just realize we are out of food, out of treated water. we just did not know how far along the half we were. we realized we were going to have to walk all night through the rain forest. my friend sloshes across the

little river we had to walk across many times and i did not want to walk through the night, so i'm taking off one of my shoes and i look over my shoulder and there was an illegal gold miner with a raised machete. we had stumbled on the illegal old mine up there. and i'm thinking "my friend's spanish was better than mine. he's not saying anything. this raised machete could come down on me in just a second. i don't know what to do, so i start with my hand over here and as i move it an inch this direction, i noticed the machete

drops an inch. a certain point, his machete was below the waist line and he reaches out and we shake hands. my friend comes across the river and says we are lost. you better come in camp with me for the night. then it turns into tropical paradise and it was my first trip into a tropical rain forests, to understand the cathedral like quality and why we need to protect the rain forest. there are only for grade rain forests left on the planet. you've got the mighty amazon, got the pacific northwest, the siberian boreal forest and the mighty congo. there are many other forests that are of great consequence and you need biological diversity but we have to save the world's forests if we are going to stay under two degrees

centigrade average temperature wide -- temperature wise. that is a scary scenario. it is often defined as a fossil fuel problem. 15 to 18% of the annual admissions come from deforestation. must -- much of the tropical rain forest deforestation. they are vitally important. i want to encourage you to bring up that we have to halt before station worldwide. it was one of the major goals lester brown has been talking about. he is not forgotten that vital connection. we are creatures of the florist -- creatures of the forest. that is part of our affinity for

these cathedrals. >> i was intrigued that he made reference to violence. the machete was a manifestation of potential violence and the world -- men have run the shop. let's not be shy about violence, directed toward one another and directed toward nature. that is the pattern that has defined the human existence for entirely too long. if you imagine a vital planet that is part of this great transition, it has to involve a larger role for women. [applause] you need to talk to us about what it would mean for a more peaceful just and prosperous planet with more women involved. >> thank you. i want to reflect to the words

randy said. the protection of the forest is one of the most important things we can do a far as averting the worst effects of climate change. we gathered 100 women leaders from around the world western one of the questions we asked is what's an area where you think we can have the most impact in protecting rain forests and the forest of the world. one of the top things people were interested in. we embarked upon a journey to work around the rain forest. we are working in the amazon rain forest and the oriole forest as well as the congo. i'm going to focus on the congo so that we can go in deeper. i want to bring up a few points and i have a short film i want to show. the points i want to bring up --

the congo basin is the second-largest rain forest in the world after the amazon. then there are the boreal forests and indonesia. it is important to mention that these forests need to be kept intact. when there are continuous forests, those landscapes provide a huge amount of carbon sink material and we want to make sure we protect that. as we were talking a little bit about indigenous people, it's important to bring up the fact that indigenous people comprise 4% of the world's population and live in about 20% of the world's land surface. they maintain 80% of the planets biodiversity. when we are talking about protecting the forest, we are talking about indigenous people.

the way into working the amazon is through indigenous people who are the natural custodians of the land and when they have lived there in an attacked way have done a great job protecting these forests to amount. the group we are working with in the congo region is in the forest region and we have a wonderful partner there. she is a force of nature. we worked with her on a shoestring budget. it is amazing what we can do on very little. this is not something highly funded but a group of women deciding what are we going to do to have the most impact we can with our resources? we put together a training and

we started out with an online webinar training with women, congo area who would go and work with the pygmy women. there were lots of men involved but it started with a women's network and we found out some of the most difficult things in that region are mining and deforestation. that is what we have focused on. one of the things pygmy people are facing is that they have to cut down the forest because they have been placed -- they have been displaced from their land. one other point i want to make because i don't think we can talk about this issue of biodiversity without talking about economics and the fact that so much of our economy is based on an endless economic growth model and these economies are devastating biodiversity.

we don't have time to go into that topic, but i think it's essential we talk about the models of economy we have and how they are impacting our biodiversity. this is a film they produced. there are lots of words misspelled. this is raw and it just came to me two days ago. it's good to see what people on the ground are doing without our influence. please go ahead.

[applause] >> we had a cancellation, but i

understand suzanne taylor is in the room and she might be able to say a few words on this topic as well. perhaps she would be willing to stand, grab a mike -- grab oa mic. i can't see because of the lights. i hate to put you on the spot. >> my name is sue and taylor and i have had the privilege to serve on a bonobo conservation board since the late 90's. right after 9/11 in 2001, i had the opportunity to meet with the person who became the elected

president of the congo. leadership is what it really takes. he was 29 years old when he took over the country. his father had been assassinated. we met him right after those events. sally had been working in the congo deep in this region where the bonobos live. they are the last primate species, last april species to be discovered. they are the most like humans in every way and they are a flagship species that when we lose their habitat, we will lose them. they may be the last apes discovered in the first to go extinct. the two species only found in the congo, the bonobo and the a copy.

we were able to make it this young president's priority to carve out this huge second long of the world and say we're going to preserve this. this is in the face of the war just coming down and the logging concessions were coming up and money was on the table. the congo was totally broke. this is a bold decision and i think it's a great leadership -- i'm not saying everything he has done has been perfect but it's the first bold environmental thing and it gets no credit whatsoever. through sally's work with the indigenous people, setting up a wonderful model where they listen first. the creative models going on -- if we lose the congo, we lose a lot.

everyone who works on the congo -- even though we don't see it and is not part of our daily life or part of our daily news anymore, it is part of our daily breathing. >> thank you so much. [applause] you did well with that impromptu challenge. i want to briefly go back to the film we just watched before opening this up to questions and discussions. i was intrigued at the one officer who said tell our government -- i need to tell our government to make the right decisions or bowl forest will be destroyed. government certainly matters and it was said by a gentleman here

-- i know you have to abide by some level of objectivism, but what about politics? it made reference to the going to toil campaign in colorado. i hope you understand that politicians don't have to be anything less than objective. i spent a career as a restoration ecologist and i'm also a politician. you guys don't have to be on objective to be passionate and determined as you fight for the great transition. knowledge is on our side. i've promise you all the issues being considered, the facts are on our side. that's not being an objective to insist governor hickenlooper recognizes the importance of reliable knowledge. don't think elected officials

somehow should be let off the hook. the facts ought to matter to everybody. that is the setup. we are here. ask questions and we can discuss as we go as well. thank you. i think she needs the microphone. >> thank you. thank you for your incredible and important work. i have been hearing throughout the course of this conversation today and yesterday allusions to the fact we'd to better value the resources that are not currently being accounted for in our economic system. i think that already central to the conversation. speaking of elephants in the room -- what is it going to take

to bring that discussion? it's a design question. once we accept that, everything else starts to fall into place. >> i know you spent time with senator gore when he was looking. >> i think that is rachel sitting next to you, isn't it? i would like to start -- rachel and i two years ago were in botswana at a conference put on where a half-dozen leaders of exotic nations came together to look at just this issue of how to put an economic value on forests and other natural resources.

the dialogue is starting to move forward. my sense is a lot of it is in our political leadership, we are pushing ourselves from here -- what we really need to be doing is figuring out the pieces we can fight off. from my perspective, this is one of the pieces we should be addressing more. i think we're at the educational stage right now where we need to be educating our legislators about how to actually do this and how to move it forward. it has in something we have been visiting on for a long time and if we can put real figures find

it, and i think that's what we are trying to do, we would have more capacity to bring it forward. >> the word value doesn't automatically mean financial value. increasingly larger and larger -- do you value your bleeding -- you're being heart? i think we have to make that distinction and be clear with our language when we are talking about financial valuation as opposed to just valuing. does the horse value his ancestral land? payments for ecosystem services

is another way to express the general concept. i think it has a role. it is a potential tool in the tool chest but it behooves the people champion that tool that it is getting the job done. monetizing nature and creating markets around nature, if it buys a lot of time and is getting the job done, it's not my favorite strategy. to those who really want to go that direction show some examples you can show success with that lets continue to explore it. i ask a lot of people and there are few and far between examples where it's really doing heroic things to protect nature.

the last point is let's make a clear distinction between putting a price on it equal logical -- ecological bad as opposed to putting a price on ecological good. the carbon market is a kind of paying for ecoservices arena of activity. and that's different than the polluter pay principle. the polluter pay principle is really trying to employ responsibility. the free market likes freedom. but we don't want irresponsible freedom. we want responsible freedom. and the polluter pay principle to me, it's still a market mechanism. it's a market tool but it's one the carbon tax is a polluter pay principle and it's a market mechanism to solve a problem.

there are few of us in this room that want to throw carbon tax out the door as a tool. so let's be clear on our distinctions between a payment for ecosystem services which i still hold as a suspect strategy but let's continue to explore it vs. the polluter payment principle which is a very powerful strategy that we can employ and we know how to. >> anything else? >> we have two or three minutes of a question or two and i see a hand. >> i'm sorry. >> sally cox is here. she just has, you know, altitude sickness. if you want to see her around, you'll see her. she did make it from d.c. >> there was a hand up. there's a hand over there. >> you have a hard time. ok. we've got a mic, thank you, go ahead. my question is is -- what are

dwhash can we do as individuals to help this problem and do you think that animals can adapt how they've adapted in eating the farmland blow instead of living in the jungle? and what can we do as individuals to help this problem? >> would you like to take a run at that good question? >> i think that's a great question. and i think one of the most important things especially for young people is around education and to really learn how our earth works and what the animals need, what the plants need to learn about the ecosystem and the cycles of the water, the cycles of the ocean and have anna really intimate time with nature and to learn from nature. first and most important thing

that we can all do because it's really hard to tell what a solution is when you don't really know what you're talking about. and i think that's one of the most important things that many of us need to take more time in nature to understand the cycles of nature to understand the science. i think this conference is a really good way to get educated. i really am an advocate for school system having a lot more education programs in college. there's so many answers to your wonderful question but it's hard to care for things that we don't know anything about. what we're really missing many times is that love and care for the natural world because we're not connected to it, not in our modern day world. over half the world's population lives in an urban environment. i think one of the things we can do very personally is to get educated. right now people know there are some statistics that you can ask children or adults about all the different commercial products and you just show them the icon or the low go from a commercial product and they know what it is. but if you ask them to go out to

the front door whether you're in the country or the city and ask them to identify 10 animal species, they can't do it. so i think there's a lot to offer in education. >> the sign reads "please end" so i will end. no, some species will not adapt. some species will disappear forever. it's not a bright future for most species unless we add very quickly very certainly now. thank you, folks. \[applause] \[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.visit ncicap.org]

>> ok. the remaining elephant in the room is our final panel between now and lunch. and the organizers of this conference hrks in fact, don't want to avoid the elephants in the room and so set up this explicit panel on the subject. we've heard illusions to a couple of the elephants in the room in some of the earlier panels. one was addressed around lifestyle choices through our diet and consumerism in that sense what kind of food do we consume and what are the ecological ramification and the climate change ramification those food choices and they are of great consequence but there are other consumer issues. and while -- please, please, come up. and our own sally rainy is going

to commandeer this panel. and i'm going to turn this conference to her as people get miced up. sally? >> i think that this is probably one of the most important conversations that we're having during this conference, the reason being is that both excessive consumption in population can undo everything that you've heard about thus far and will hear about. and these two subjects are often not addressed because they're sensitive, they're touchy. populations being more so than consumption but both of them because they fly in the face of the status quo and also some really serious idologies that are prevailing -- ideologies

that are prevailing in the world today. i want to briefly introduce and i mean briefly because in your program, everybody's bio but lester brown, you know who he is. so i'm not going to -- policy institute. but i will say lester is probably the mind, the one mind on the planet who has been looking at climate change, sustainability, the vital signs of the planet from a comprehensive viewpoint perspective for decades and he's written over 55 books. the new one which is coming out in october, november, it's called "the great transition" actually. mark ezaroff is a pioneer in

ecofashion which is driving fashion forward and co-founder of the institute of integrative nutrition and i am enlightened creations. she's on the board of the trade association, fair trade u.s.a. and she has received a plethora of awards including right here in aspen from the aspen institute the henry crown fellowship. marilyn pam she has a variety of credentials really applied to this conversation today is she was the c.e.o. of aveda. she was president of reebok apparel and retail group and vice president of nike. and she was awarded the reebok human rights award from 2004 and 2008 and she also as you learned

the other day she was advisor to the bhutanese government from their transition from royalty to a parliamentary system. eric snow is the founder and c.e.o. of medibrand. he pioneered the usda organic stamp soda, ice tea energy drink markets in this country. he also received the socially responsible business award from the natural products industry in 2007. marcy. so with that we'll start. i -- i've got to get mic'ed here. so as we -- you know, this is a huge conversation, population and consumption.

i'd like to start and what happened in the last -- or what was -- the discussion was in the last conversation about forests and impacts on forests extend beyond that locality because a lot of those products from around the world are for the rest of us. and i want to give you some statistics just to set the stage here. and before i do that also there is -- there are two groups of thoughts around these two subjects, one is that population is the number one issue that we have to address if we're going to be sustainable. there's another theory that overconsumption is the number one issue. so keep that in mind as we go through this panel.

so the world's richest 7% are responsible for 50% of all the co2. the ecological footprint of an american how much land you need for food, water, clothing, the essentials for one american is 9.5 hexars. for someone in africa it is way under a hexar. what's happening in their country particularly the rich countries one america's emissions equals four chinese. 20 people from india, 250

ethiopians. and the intergenerational legacy on america -- and i'm choosing america because we're the number one. we really are the number one consumers. the intergenerational legacy is -- i just read a study the other day is that down the line a child born today in america will have seven times the carbon footprint that an american has right now. so obviously this gets into a lot of different perspectives on what we're doing. trillions of dollars between 1900. that was about $1.2 trillion that was consumed. in 1928 it was 24 trillion and since then it's almost doubled.

so with that i'm going to start with lester because i asked lester to give us the profile of population and how that relates to consumption. >> can you hear me? >> keep talking. >> no. move it up. >> is it ok now in --? what i thought it would do is use the food economy to compare population growth and rising affluence. it's sort of the simple model but it gives us a sense. the world's population is growing by 80 billion a year.

that means there will be 216,000 people at the dinner table tonight who are not there last night. so this is a very substantial -- it's a couple of stadiums full of people we're adding each day an we've been doing it for not just years but decades now. so it begins to put pressure on water resources or forests as we were discussing earlier, land resources. the growth of the population the 1.1 per center each year is the $80 million. but we also have rising affluence and with the average person i would use the grain recurrence ladder. this measures animal protein.

the average person in india consumes about 400 pounds of grain per year. it's about a pound a day. in this country we consume about 1600 pounds of grain per year per person, four times as much. on that 1600 pounds, we consume maybe 150 pounds directly as breakfast searle. the great bulk of that will be consumed indirectly in the form of animal protein. the problem with that is to get another pound takes about seven pounds of grain. to get another pound of growth in the -- takes about three pounds of grain. chickens closer to two pounds of

grain per pound of live weight so they're depending on which meats we con assume -- consume which meets we choose to consume is where we are on the grain requirements ladder. in looking at the growth in world demand, 80 million people translates to about 24 million tons of grain against a global hard vet of two billion tons of grain. we were learning on constraints to keep up with population growth and the rising affluence at the same time. it becomes 2%. we have seen the situation where

the annual growth for grain to feed cattle, poultry has been somewhat larger in world demand from population growth. so this is kind of a historical shift that we've -- they're very close. we're producing -- we're using almost all the land in the world today that should be used for agriculture. and that doesn't include clearing the amazon rain forest. so we're pretty much against the limits on land. then with water -- i think water is submerging as the principle constraint on efforts to expand world food production. and then we drink four litters

of water a day. but the food we consume each day takes about 2,000 litters of water to produce or 500 times as much. stated simply, we eat 500 times as much water as we drink. so how much we drink is trivial. it gets lost in the rounding. it's embodied in the grain that we consume and the meat which is really the big factor. so we have land not expanding anymore. we have dwrover pumping the water in many places in the world. someone referred to texas and oklahoma and the aquifer. but that's pretty small for us. we don't have much irrigated grain production in the united states. most of our grain is produced in the corn belt. and just to give you sense of how important that agriculture real estate is, the state of iowa produces more grain than canada and more soy beans than canada at the same time.

this is high value real estate very, very productive. so we -- but as a general manager, land and water are emerging as constraints. we're overpumping in china under the north china plain. in india where farmers have invested, you don't have to have a license to dig an irrigation wells and as a result they have 260,000 irrigation wells. -- 26 million irrigation wells. this is serious overpumping but no one's in charge. you don't have to have a license so anyone can drill an irrigation well. but at some point, the world bank estimated that 175 million people in india are being fed with grain produced by overpumping water. you can overpump in the short run.

but by definition not in the long run. and that's where we're seeing some dramatic adjustments, probably the most dramatic in the world would be the arab country, syria, iraq. those four countries have all overpumped their aquifers. they've experienced water and have all experienced big grain. this is the first glare the -- first area in the world. first region where we have seen grain production declined and as a result translated into peak grain. we've been looking at rising -- let me mention one other thing -- one is climate change. it's very difficult. we know what the effects of water shortages are. climate change is very difficult to assess.

we know that a one degree rise in temperature, one degree celsius rise reduces grain yield 17%. the projected rise is up to six degrees celsius. try to run that arithmetic through. imagine the sort of problem we're going to face if we stay on the current path in terms of increasing carbon emissions so climate's a big issue. back when i was farming in the 1950's, we had fluctuations in weather. we might have a drought one year which would reduce the tomato crop, but we didn't worry too much because next year things would go back to normal. today there's no norm to go back to.

the whole climate system is in flux and farmers can't anticipate it. this is a very difficult time to be a farmer because you just don't know how it's going to happen, how fast and when. what are the consequences of these constraints to make it more difficult to expand production is will food prices -- world food prices doubled in the last decade or so? now, it doesn't reather bother us too much if world grain prices double. we buy a loaf of bread for $3. it has maybe 15 cents of wheat. the price if we double's -- wheat doubles he goes to three dollars and $.15. we're so isolated with tall processing and markets and so forth in between. but if you look at new delhi and you go to the market each day and you buy wheat each day to make chopati, the price of them double.

that is the difference between us and the low income people in the world. we really don't feel it very much. they do. one of the consequences of this and this is my final point is we have -- during the time of i've been working of the agricultural trends. we've seen the one-meal a day in low income societies. now we're seeing something beyond that in a number of countries. nigeria for example. 22% of all families now plan foodless days. it's not are we going to eat once a day. but some days we're not going to eat. the same thing is true for ethiopia, indian, bangladesh peru. a large percentage of families

usually around 20% -- 24% now plan foodless days. they know they can't afford to eat every day. we should be able to eat five days a week. so we'll skip wednesday and saturday. this is new. we've not had this before where people realize they simply cannot eat every day and it becomes part of their lifestyle. it's been so recent that we don't really have much research on the consequences of what this means particularly for young people and their physical and mental development. but it is one of the most, i think one of the most serious issues that we face today but it is not yet been recognized as such. >> thank you. thank you, lester that sort of sets the -- the ground floor here because food and water are

the real two essentials. i'm going to go to marilyn next. and i'm going to put her a little bit on the hot spot. she was c.e.o. as i said of aveda. she's also been on the board of nike and reebok as well. nike is one of the seven companies that have been targeted not to buy from because not because of their human rights protocols or how far you come in that direction but because coca-cola is another one but because of overconsumption excessive consumption of various products is creating the situation that you're talking about. along with population. but as far as changes in temperature and changes in water are coming from carbon emissions. so i would like you to tell us a little bit about what you were on the inside of these companies. aveda is a little bit more

conscious, i would think than nike. but if you would just tell us a little bit from the consumption side of this. >> thank you. it's a great way to start by saying i've been in the hot seat. that's great. [laughter] because i have good answers and that's the relief. i was at nike less than two years. philosophically, we have differences. subsequent to that i had my own company, and i went to reebok. the thing i did with reebok which i could not get enacted is what salley is talking about. at reebok we were able to go back to something i'll show you in a little while on some slides i have from my own personal experience of understanding what lester was talking about, the whole consumption cycle because

i come from hong kong. i come from understanding and seeing what it's like to have nothing or very little and then how does a person like that come to running a major international corporation responsible for a lot of the consumption that is taking place? including and sally says we're using excessive resources. and what -- we were able to do at reebok was to go through the chain down through where we -- by the initial raw materials. it's a matter reviewing the whole supply chain, not just saying we are making this most efficiently. we also did with the beta. right down to the raw materials saying how is this produced? how is it being manufactured?

part of the reason that nike got into the situation was that reebok show the men example of how it could be done and still be relatively successful. so i guess that is a way of saying, it's not my fault but truly it's bigger than that it's about understanding it's all our fault because we are part of the consumerism that is happening right now. so some of my slides that i'll share with you if this works -- could somebody put up any slides, please? with this first picture is of tai po harbor in hong kong when i was a child in the 1960's. and these are fisher people mostly haka. and they live on the boats. they ate on the boats. they fished from the boats and the children took care of each other and of course they through everything that was excessive into the ocean.

so they are very low impact as far as into the environment. i was in that area for several years living in the area, so i really got a direct perspective on how people lived in a different way. also in the same area were a lot of fabric and garment factories. at the end of the processing of whatever it was there processing, the water with the dye stuff, all the water what we were doing, stone washing or garment washing all that went directly into the river and into the ocean. so it's not a perfect system. but it gave me an understanding of what happens. now several years later, maybe 15 years later in the 1980's, hong kong became much more affluent and those areas -- this is the same area -- so much of the land was refilled.

they claimed reclaimed land which is they bulldozed a mountain and those people were displaced obviously and they they moved into these areas. if you want to talk about per capita consumption, of course, it went up. the children went to school. they were more into the system. but garment manufactures still went on. and this is where i was working and dealing with this. it went into places with china where the dye stuff still went into the river. it went to places like bangladesh where they dye and the children were working on this. so the situation didn't get better, it just got moved. it just, the affluence goes up but our demands goes up. so it nufse whole production cycles to other place where is we are polluting.

it's us that we are polluting because we're demanding this. >> how do leaders determine what we produce and if they're sustainable? and that as manufactures have to think about. and consumers values to think about. what is a way to market our products? if there's no demand there's nothing that can be made. it's ultimately us as consumer bus also responsible for their marketers be it reebok, aveda, nike how it is that they tell you what you need. so go back to the source of raw material and i'm using aveda where we went back to the amazon, to brazil and to there -- where we worked with indigenous people to go back to growing indigenous plants so

that we can have what we in the western world want which is cosmetics, hair color but from plants and organically is not easy. these people have been displaced twice. once when runner tapping game in, rubber growing and then synthetics became much more important. so that became -- they got displaced on that again. and then more land got clear cut for calt growing for hamburgers. so going back and working these people to reclaim some identity, to grow back indigenous class takes education, takes patience, takes money and takes fortitude for us as manufactures and you can support that whole process if you get educated at who is doing this kind of work because ultimately it's not just for them.

it's for us. you also want or gaining and healthy products to put in your body and to ingest inside your body. so it's a win-win for everybody. another one is to reveal the whole supply chain. sustainability. we talk about organic being the gold standard. i want to question that. organic is not maybe the gold standard. maybe you don't need it at all. maybe you don't need to have that second or third or fourth whatever it is you're buying. and if you do, what other options are there that because cotton is a very thirsty plant. it demands a lot of water. we grow a lot in california. where will they are saying we are having water problems. do we need cotton? can we used recycled wool? i've been working with some manufactures on recycle petro chemicals. water bo bottles to be sbheed

cash to be made into clothing. yogurt cups. these are ways to look at the supply chain to get the foot prints. is it maybe organic may not be the gold standard. maybe we don't need it at all. and if we do what other option doss we have? -- do we have. what is the source of material. and another issue for manufactures as well as for us is packaging. and a lot of times now in california where i live a lot of places enacting the fact that you cannot get a bag from the grocery store. you to bring your own bag. you may think it's a small thing. my little store in my neighborhood, i asked them since this law just came into affect this year. they said how many bags have you saved? they said i'll be saving about a million and a half. if you get a bag from the store, they will sell you a paper bag

for $.10 cents. can we do that without charging ourselves 10 cents. shipping and packing. is it better to buy local or organic? is it better to buy local and inorganic? or is it something better to buy something from peru. it makes a big difference. we can be aware of that as well as the manufactures can be more aware of it. as a manufacture we think about that. but as consumers let's think about that too. consumerism is more really more. and that's something we to think about. what do we really need? there's a term that i read entitled and it's very interesting. hedonic adaptation.

first we need one whatever it is a day. and then we need well, that's not good enough. two and then we need one that's better afpblet then pretty soon we're replacing things just because we've been conditioned to think that new, bigger is better. we adapt to it. and the level of satisfaction is inner peace and happiness. that comes from inside. but the more stuff we get doesn't make us unhappier. it's temporary with the happiness. true happiness comes from inside. and that way we're going to receive as consumerism. i said that was 2006. i was wrong. that was 2004. at that time it was probably $420,000 a year per capita g.d.p. there's a coca-cola and fanta sign. they talked to these people into putting up their signs.

stores never had names before because they never knew anybody. but now -- now this came until and there's a whole level of demand for products that is really not necessary. now, we think what do we really need? we need water. now we think we need soft drinks. we need whatever it is that we need drinkingwise. and the body sp only asking for water. so i just want to show this, what's happening with marketing. this is coca-cola's motto marketing at arm's reach of desire. in other words there has to be a coke for every person that they can buy within arm's reach. think about this is the marketing concept that we are as manufactures perpetuating.

it's up to you to think about do you want to buy that? and you the vote. you are the ones who decide what gets made because you have the dollars. so i was saying the first thing is reduce your consumption reuse what you have, and the third is recycle. so with that, thank you. [applause] >> couple of points that i would like to pick up on. advertising. advertising, we have 450 shampoos in the super market, in the drugstore. do we really need that? the answer is no, we don't. i have a little place off the grid in argentina. i live on horseback. i have two little solar

panels. we live on the property. if you go to see your neighbor you get on your horse. you don't use any of this stuff. and guess what, you don't need it. you really don't need it. the other point i want to make is sustainability labeling which is something that's come up in political discussions is -- is would people change their behavior if there was sustainbility labeling on where did all the ingredients come from in a product? the answer is yes. people don't want to use palm oil that's in oreos and girl scout cookies at the expense of a forest and the orangutan. so to get on the radical side of that boy cothing is one of them. the more they demand through the advertising, through the promotion of these products, the more production.

the more production the more extraction. almost all my clothes i get them consignment. most of the furniture in my house is on consignment or really, really old. so we don't have to buy new. there is nothing -- enough in the world that we can recycle, recycle, recycle. the other point they want to make is i just want to share some really quick figures here because i want to get into ethical consumption. and marcy eric --- but there's luxury vs. necessity. in america we are luxury driven. and values. this gets into what our real values which they touched on in the last panel. we spend -- this is globally.

we spend almost $18 billion on makeup. reproductive health care for all women would be $12 billion. pet food $17. -- $17 billion. elimination of hunger and malnutrition, about the same. perfume $15 billion. universal literalry we spend a little over $5 million. ocean cruises $15 billion. clean drinking water for all under 10. ice cream in europe, $12 billion. immunizing every child less than $1 billion. and then you could do -- you could also look at this in relationship of what is the bequest value of forests and

rivers. what is the intergenerational value. and there are some economics that are looking at that and it far outstrips what the value is of a tree taken the at this moment in time to make a reproduction out of mahogany of an antique so that somebody can buy it in north carolina. so those are the kinds of things. so now ethical consumption and what is that. and what does that look like? you have been a pioneer in ecofashion. and sourcing at an organic level and promoting this and you've been very successful. please tell us about your work. >> i like to speak irblely. it's sort of inherent on what i do. -- i like to speak visually. it's sort of inherent on what i

do. i'm not going to go too deep on the topics. i'm going to give you appear sound bite or taste on why i have committed my life and my passion to revolutionizing the fashion industry. first of all i'm a dot connector and i came out of organi food industry. so when i start to learn about the interconnection between food and sishe, and i started looking at the connection and impacts and in the fashion and textile words, it became unbelievably overwhelming to me that this was an industry that we could not ignore any longer. it started for me in cotton coming out with real food. when i learned that less than 3% is cotton but 25% of the most harmful insecticides are used on the cotton industry. it became clear that, you know we had to look at a new paradigm for cot month. so in an ideal world no longer consume cotton but between bedding and bath and clothing, that's not very likely.

so it's now about shifting the paradigm of cotton and looking how do we address something. they have no idea when you pull the curtain back on the cot tane industry, you have all the chemicals but also have add for mall da hide and chlorine bleaches. so when you listen to some of the earlier panels about a more sustainable solution and one that is a solution climate change that would be certified organic cotton. >> and know we have the other impacts. the global text tile industry uses about 10% of the world's carbon impact. so over a trillion kilo watt hours a year are coming out of the industry. for production, finishing, you

know, when you look at waret. when you look at bass. social standards and as well, as car bon footprint. we have to create a new fashion sthri. so we started with whole foods with my economy just to connect those dows. you don't have to give up style. comfort. we leveraged the first one for target. so my mantra has been break every stigma of fashion. it's not about this or that. it's about this and that. so when we look at positive consumerism we have to look at good business and better product, ethical products. we have to vote with our dollars as consumers. and we no longer going to

support the companies that are depleeth and destroying but they're actually building a better tomorrow. even the hotel strip and everyone here who travels you can see tim packet on text tiles in that industry and then using organic cotton over can make a significant difference. we are very big on collaboration and education and inspiration and innovation. these are ways that question shift the paradigm. so educating the media about why organic and sustainable and ethical fashion matters is hugely important and a lot of pimenench this room and everyone on this planet relates to text tiles. on the planet on future generations so we have to think differently. you know, every product matters. >> and you know there is no compromise. that's the winning form. it's about one plus one equals 11. and one of the reasons i'm here today is we have to connect the

dots. all of us are throughout trying to create a better world and a more sustainable planet and humanity and product humanity. when you look at the textile industry as one of the world, we all can play a role in making a difference there. whether we're leveraging celebrities or what are they wearing. collaborating and co-creating with other educators so we can tell our stories together. and they are starting to shift this paradigm in fashion. one of the really encouraging things for me and i'm very optimistic is look at the next generation. i have two teenagers and they're growing up where natural foods organic foods are in their super market. they're growing up more consciously and when i used to say the concept of the ecofashion people thought i was crazy such as an paradox cal world.

and those who worlds use today be very dichotomist. if you are humanitarian and economically minded, that wouldn't fit with people who were looking at fashion as very material and all about the surface. that next generation, when you say eco-fashion, there's an instant get. i've seen the fashion industry as well as the fashioniness opportunities in this institute go from this small niche concept to entire tracks dedicated to social innovation, to sustainable fashion and i see it

because all of these designers , they want to incorporate and they want to have sustainbility embedded in their design. looking at innovation. the higg index and there's an sustainable apparel coalition the represents about 85% of the world's apparel manufacturers that are all coming together to join forces and look at how can we measure those impacts in the supply chain? as marilyn spoke to, we have to use -- look at the resources we're using. whether it's cradle to cradle launching their positive project to fair trade u.s.a. or eucalyptus. it's grown without water and all the bi-products we use efficiently.