>> is asking why didn't they join the concurrent on first amendment grounds? i think he is asking about the dissenters. >> why didn't they find common ground on the first amendment>>. >> sort of. it is part of the confusion. let's take a call. caller: it is a pleasure to listen to all of you. i have seen a few of these programs and i think the decisions by the supreme court should be carefully protected. this case and others demonstrate weakened byns are subsequent courts. this does not in a fit the citizens of the country. -- benefit the citizens of the

country. guest: i agree. look at thesting to different outcomes. the decisions were pro -defendant. and, of the search and seizure berger and william rehnquist, they favor the libertyt the cost of , personal and individual. host: we have more cases and we produced a book that is available to you and outlines the cases. it is available on the website. theng the next few months,

this series will re-air and you can watch this on television. this will archive on the website. will hitilable and we it to you quickly. we have a few minutes left. we will take a few calls. next is pete. >> thank you for this. i enjoy this and try to catch it whenever. about the fourth amendment jurisprudence and the exclusionary rule being considered with a lot of exceptions. what do you think about the warrant preference going forward? there is that tension in the

fourth amendment with a preference for the warrant and a ness requirement. guest: you see a orange reference construction -- warrant preference construction. without aonducted warrant are considered to be unreasonable, with a few exceptions, hot pursuit, and things like that. embracing acourt generalized reasonableness construction and focusing on whether or not the police officers are doing actions

considered reasonable. this does damage to the amendment. if you have to show it is reasonable, that is a low threshold and what the court has embraced today. renit started with the war court. t: i apologize to the final caller. we will deal with the miranda decision and we will spend the final half-hour of the program talking about the court and the approach to these reviews. and, what it did to the judicial process. to talkose, we want about what people should take case.from the attack

>> there will always be a story involving people with real challenges. a lot ofse of mapp, personal strength to see a situation and go to the courts for relief. she fought her way to the supreme court. there are individuals who have lasting impacts on all americans. host: what are your final thoughts? >> with half to stand and give a voice to the constitution. thanks to our guest tonight and thanks to you. makequestions and comments

the program interesting.

>> we continue with the supreme justicesision and the established issues that were political questions outside of the court jurisdiction. the tennessee case paved the way for representative democracy. find out more. can learn about the cases on the website and you can order the landmark cases look. it is written by c-span in corporation with the press.

>> we speak with the judiciary committee chairman about some cases and relevancy, as well as the relationship. this is 30 minutes. it deals with issues and the thing i love is the constitution and the amendments. to amendments are referred

the judiciary committee. constantly trying to refer back to the constitution on appropriate legislation. when i became the chairman, we instituted a rule that required citing the constitutional authority for the legislation and it continues. billver they introduce the , they have two points to a of course, every member gets to look at it.

i suggested to leadership it would be good to read the constitution. we did that for the very first time in the beginning of the congress in 2011. we have done it twice more since then. very strong bipartisan support. dozens, over 100 members usually come down and read pieces of the constitution. i asked my staff when we started doing it to check and see when the last time the united states constitution was read on the floor of the house of representatives in its entirety by anybody. just by anyone. it turns out that it was 1800 and never. it had never been read before. we are trying to promote interest in the constitution. and we welcome c-span's effort to do that as well. host: in regard to how the constitution lays out responsibilities of the court, what is your understanding of what the framers had in mind for the judicial system, specifically the supreme court? rep. goodlatte: the framers had in mind that the supreme court would resolve specific disputes that the congress designated to them and the constitution designated to them.

the original jurisdiction is set forth in article three. then anything else that congress might add or take away. one of the earliest decisions was marbury versus madison, which involved john marshall deciding a rather small case that involved a maryland federalist appointed in the closing days of the adams administration to a justice of the peace position. a lot of them were done just as adams was leaving office. and thomas jefferson was coming in. and the responsibility of getting the actual appointments delivered to the people so it was official they were a justice of the peace was running behind time. they did not get them all done.

and so the outgoing secretary of state, who interestingly also happened to be john marshall, he said the new secretary of state will have to finish delivering them. the jefferson administration did not like these people getting these justice of the peace decisions and did not deliberate anymore after they took office. marbury sued james madison for compelling of the delivery of that appointment. that is what came to the supreme court. with the new chief justice to appointed by the previous administration to decide. he decided it in an interesting way that has had ramifications all through the last 200-plus years. they determined he was entitled to the appointment. that madison had an obligation to deliver it. but then he decided that the supreme court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the congress had -- the suit was based upon original jurisdiction, and congress had given them no authority to

decide. so it is an interesting decision. it actually, in the small perspective, limited the court's power. they essentially said, you are entitled to this, but we are not the ones to get it to you. he wound up not getting his justice of the peace appointment.

many people have taken that as a key case for the u.s. supreme court being able to decide the ultimate constitutionality of any issue that comes before the court. i would argue that is not the case. i think that decision was based upon the supreme court determining what the powers were that congress had under the constitution and what the court had under the constitution in that narrow decision. nonetheless, it caused a furor at the time. jefferson was hugely critical of this. one of the issues was, should the chief justice have recused himself? he was a party to the underlying action that decided the case. he was secretary of state responsible for delivering these. today, the modern supreme court might well have that justice recuse himself from the case. but he decided the case, and it has stood for different things to different people down through the last 200 years. host: marbury is taught in virtually every high school civics book as a pivotal case for the court establishing judicial review. some of the historians we have been talking to suggest that further the next 50 years or so, the court did very little but began to assert itself more.

what do you think of his role today in terms of judicial review? rep. goodlatte: i think the court has been mistakenly relying on marbury for something that goes beyond the actual decision made and gone too far in a number of decisions in regard to getting involved in constitutional decisions or other decisions that are not to be found in the constitution and yet they found something there, or not finding something that most people looking back suggest would have found that it should have been there. one of the worst decisions the supreme court ever ruled upon was the well-known dred scott decision, where a slave in missouri moved to illinois. established his freedom in illinois and went back to missouri to sue for declaration that he was a united states citizen. the court found he was not a united states citizen.

most people would truly scratch their head. it necessitated after the civil war having the 13th amendment to the constitution, making it clear that having been born in the united states, he was a united states citizen. the other issue was that they took a compromise legislation passed by the congress and signed into law by the president, the missouri compromise, and ruled it unconstitutional. how that changed the course of history is an interesting historic discussion. but the underlying decision about that was, in my opinion, very wrongheaded. that is an example of where the court, i think, stepped in where it should not have. and exceeded its authority under the law.

host: can you take a line from that to some of the review of legislation that the court has taken upon itself today? and see the antecedents of that? rep. goodlatte: i think you can look at several decisions. certainly, the marbury decision, and look at recent decisions that would, i think, not be found to be the correct position. i personally believe that the decision in roe versus wade is not founded in constitutional language. the court stepped in and interfered with the laws of 46 states in that case. that has caused a tremendous amount of difficulty and anguish over that period of time. i hope that someday, as people saw with dred scott, that the rights of unborn children are deserving of constitutional protection that can be found in the document. host: roe v. wade is the final of 12 cases we have selected.

that 1973 decision. congress right now is tied up in knots over abortion and funding for planned parenthood. so it seems as though that 1973 decision settled nothing with regard to this. rep. goodlatte: it did. it certainly established, overturned the laws of a number of states. those states have been very busy over the years trying to figure out what the law means and passing new legislation, which has come back to the supreme court many times over the last, now, 30 -- over 40 years ago. that, i think, would be better left to the states determining in the first place. but that is the decision we are faced with now.

and we legislate in the congress. if we pass a law, it can be challenged and taken to see if it meets the supreme court's standards or not. i frankly think this is an area where the supreme court has found something in the constitution that does not exist in the constitution and usurped the legislative powers of the state and congress. host: the supreme court generally has the last word in cases like this. when society continues to roil over topics like abortion, what redress is there to a supreme court decision? is it congressional legislation would be the only arbiter to change the law? rep. goodlatte: the supreme court renders a decision. and it is very interesting because technology has changed dramatically in 42 years. i think that has played a role

in people's attitude about the issue changing. mothers and fathers have much more information about the baby, what stage of growth it is in the womb. the ability to keep children alive after they are born prematurely has changed dramatically since that time. the ability to know more about everything about a pregnancy has changed significantly. if you look at some of the technology people use in that time and look at what we use in other aspects of our life today, you would understand it has changed dramatically. that increased information has given more understanding of the life that more and more people want to see protected. we are faced with an old supreme court decision that inhibits that. but states have passed laws, and the congress has, too, and when we do that, they can be challenged. the other thing that can happen is simply overturning the law and simply saying, you know what, that is just an old perspective of what life means. so you can compare them to the plessy versus ferguson case. not one on your list, but one

that very dramatically changed later on. plessy versus ferguson was a decision in the 1890's that said it was ok with the 14th amendment to the constitution to offer african-americans and other people of races other than the white race separate but equal facilities. in that case, it was, i think, accommodations on railroads. but it was applied to virtually every aspect of life, from schools to drinking fountains. it met the equal protection of the law as provided in the 14th amendment to the constitution, that it could be separate as long as it was equal. they were not equal, number one,

and in and of itself, the "separate" part was not in the spirit of the 14th amendment. it took until brown versus board of education in the early 1950's, a 9-0 decision, that said that is not what the 14th amendment said. that does not happen often. some people believe that when times change, it should happen more often. there is a doctrine, a principle, called stare decisis, that causes the court to base all of its decisions on prior precedent. if the precedent is built on a weak foundation, in my opinion,

it should not stand. and so that is what the court struggles with when they have to deal with the fact that people's minds change, technology changes. what we know becomes more perfected and refined. host: plessy did not make the list, painfully, because we could only do 12, but brown v. board did. i'm wondering, with the michael brown shooting, charleston shootings, the black lives matter movement, what do you think about how that has established race relations in society?

rep. goodlatte: this is a long transition from the horrific start we got. the great people who wrote the constitution, many of them owned slaves at the time. they struggled with it, if you look at the debates and discussions. they struggled with it but they didn't resolve it. it has taken a number of different important events in our history to move forward on that, including the civil war, which involved this issue of slavery.

there were other issues involved in the civil war, but there was no doubt slavery was a part as well. after the civil war, these constitutional amendments were adopted to ensure certain rights. but you had a bad case like plessy versus ferguson, which said we do have the 14th amendment but you can do everything separately over here, keep them segregated from other people over here. as long as it is equal. that is a very bad decision. we were making progress, but i view the case as a setback. then you move forward to brown versus board of education, which is a hugely important step in the right direction in finding that the 14th amendment does not mean separate but equal. but it largely leaves to the state and federal government to work through making sure that laws are enacted that respect the 14th amendment. you have the civil rights act of 1964. the voting rights act. this is where i think these issues need to be addressed by the people's elected representatives. the more that is done rather than relying on court cases, the more you will have a growing respect for the rule of law. the court should step in, as they properly did in brown versus board, but they should

step in only when there is a clear inpingment on the constitution by federal government or state legislature that does not comply with the constitution. host: in the post-9/11 world, an area of particular interest for you is the war against terrorism. i want to get the case or two here that has antecedents in that. we are going to be looking at the japanese internment case in world war ii. korematsu, who is eventually awarded the medal of honor by the president and the conviction

was overturned, he stayed an activist on this issue all the way until the end of his life at 86. he filed friend of the court briefs in the guantanamo bay cases. jose padilla case. i wonder what you think about the court's review of policy with regard to the war on terror and some of the antecedents to that. rep. goodlatte: this is an issue that is very important to respect the rights, again, under the bill of rights and the 14th amendment to the constitution. and we need to make sure that our laws are respectful of that. but this is also a place where there has been an evolution in thinking. the idea of interning people of one race because they may be somehow a threat to the security of the united states when we also had german-americans and italian americans and we do not intern them, was really an

example more of racism than it was of a coherent military policy. either way, that policy was very flawed. when you look at some of the issues today with regard to foreign nationals who have committed terrorist acts or are a member of terrorist organizations, i think that gets a different treatment. i view, for example, the prisoners at guantanamo as being enemy combatants. we do not have a declaration of war like world war ii or a country to declare war against when you are talking about al qaeda, as we were in that case.

and you could be with regard to other terrorist organizations today, like isis. these people are engaged in war against the united states. detaining them while there is an ongoing, coordinated effort to threaten the united states is, i think, a legitimate thing that the administration did to detain them in guantanamo. there are questions to be resolved. basically, the way they are being resolved is one prisoner at a time. the population has been reduced by other countries' agreement to take some of them. some people being released for a variety of different reasons. but when you have an undeclared war on terrorism, what is -- when does the justification for holding somebody end? one way would be if people were of the opinion that there is no longer a threat from the organization where it was essentially military actors for. another way would be if the process had simply exhausted

itself over a period of time. i believe there are certain actions taken by people who are a threat to the united states that simply cannot be handled as a normal criminal prosecution. a threat to the united states as a quasi-military terrorist organization, not because they had committed a specific crime. you detain them like prisoners of war. the prisoners of war have not violated any american law. they have simply been engaged as enemy combatants for their country. these people were enemy combatants for a terrorist organization. that is the parallel. it is not like the case of taking law-abiding american citizens who are not involved in anything and saying you

collectively could potentially be a threat to our security during the war with japan. therefore, we will take you from your homes and put you in a separate facility as a result of that. there is not, in my opinion, any comparison between guantanamo detainees and the japanese internments of world war ii. host: one of the things we are looking at in our series was world war i, the first amendment case. court historians look at that as a turning point for the evaluation of the first amendment and how broad our rights are.

again, kind of thinking about the war on terror, the incitement for people to join terror organizations, do you see the first amendment right as appropriately guarded in society today? are they being threatened by people's concerns about the kinds of messages that might be expressed? rep. goodlatte: i think it is so important we defend first amendment rights. our constitution and our freedoms do not guarantee people that they will not be insulted by somebody else. and i think that there are lots of things that people talk about in a free society that somebody else may be offended by. so there are limited areas for free speech. you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. you cannot threaten someone verbally. verbal assault, if you will. there are other types of cases like that where freedom of speech is limited. child pornography would be another example of that.

but i think, overall, our society is served. just recently, i wrote to 162 public universities around the country who had speech codes that simply say here is what you say, here is what you cannot say. there is an organization called fire that basically looks at every public university, private ones, too, and rates them based on whether they are promoting free speech. there has been too much effort to try to control people's attitudes and feelings and so on by telling them what they can and cannot say. that is very concerning with regard to promoting free speech under the first amendment of the constitution. and we have gotten some positive responses back from schools who have said -- and school systems around the country, that have said we are concerned about making sure free speech is to be

protected and we are looking at our policies today to see if we can make changes to them. host: we only have five minutes left with you, and so many issues to talk about. i wanted to get one of the cases, youngstown, on the record. this congress has had some trouble with executive power. that case and the korean war was about truman's seizure of steel mills. the supreme court said, you have gone too far. what is the status of the separation of powers and the limits on executive power? representative goodlatte: the youngstown case was important because it narrowly ruled that the president says he's going to

seize steel mills and have the government operate them. the steel mills challenged that and said, where in the laws of our country does the president have this authority? it is not to be found in the constitution and not to be found in any law passed by congress giving the president that authority. the president had taken the authority under what he claimed was executive powers and was simply turned back by the court in a very decisive and important decision. i would love to see the court step up more and make decisions like that when the congress or private sector challenges the power of the executive branch. we have a president today who

came to the congress with a long list of things. every president does that. that they would like the congress to enact. but he did something different that i had never seen before. at the end, he said, and if you do not do it, i will. i was so disappointed when members of his own party gave him a standing ovation for saying "if you do not exercise your constitutional authority, i will exercise it for you." he does not have the authority to do that. so when we recently got a district court decision giving the congress standing when we challenge the president taking money to spend on an aspect of the affordable care act that the congress had not appropriated for that purpose, and the judge found the house of representatives had voted to take this up, she found we had standing to make the challenge. that is a very important decision. it will be going through the appeals process here in the coming months and perhaps years. but making that clear, that the congress has the article one power to write the laws also has the authority to challenge the executive branch in court when the president usurps that power, is an absolutely important one.

that is what youngstown stood for with the private sector challenge. but i think the people of the country and our constitution is harmed when the congress passes a law, the president does something different, and congress says, the president has usurped powers under the constitution. the court should take those those cases and decide them. host: on dred scott, if you had to choose as an example of the court functioning well, what would you choose? representative goodlatte: something going on in the 1950's, but youngstown was very important in terms of determining that the president cannot exceed his powers under the constitution. just a short time thereafter, brown vs. board of education, which said that separate but equal was repugnant to the constitution.

host: happily, they made it on to our short list of 12 landmark cases. thank you for your time in talking about the supreme court and its history. representative goodlatte: thank you.

december 21 for the programs featuring the cases series. >> coming up, a discussion of russia under vladimir putin. after that, international energy agency out what. now, a discussion of domestic politics and form policy under vladimir putin, hosted by george

washington university. it is 90 minutes stop >> welcome everyone. my name is henry hale, i am the director of political science at the european of asian studies. i'm also codirector of the program on new approaches to research and security in eurasia. together with my colleague corey welk. we are happy to welcome you today to an event on putin and putin -ism. exactly what putin is a ms., are a steam panelist will be to discuss with you today. we are pleased to have, in particular brian taylor who will

lead off, he is professor of political science at maxwell school at their qc university. his research focuses on the domestic political role of state course of organization such as military police. he is the author of two books, and another in progress. the first one was politics in the russian army which came out in 2003. his more recent book, state building and putin's russia came out with the same press in 2011. our next speaker who where fortunate to have all the way from moscow, one of russia's top political analysts and scholars working on russian politics today. nikolai petrov, he is the head of the center of political geographic research. he was previously a chair, as many of you know of the carnegie moscow society and in regions program. before before that he worked for

the institute of geography and is authored of many publications. most recently to books, the state of russia, what comes next. just out in 2015, then a few years ago russia, 2025. scenarios for the russian future. it should be an interesting discussion. we'll start off with brian and turn it over to nikolai and then open for questions and answers. please take it away brian. >> i will also mention that we are refill for c-span is covering us today. thank you for that. >> great, thank you henry it is a real privilege to be here with two old friends and colleagues to talk about putin and putin -ism, two years after my don. we are not going to be talking a

lot about ukraine, we'll mainly talk about russia and we can talk about your crane if people like. nikolai and i last i decided that i should go first which will give him the opportunity to critique everything i have said in my talks. since i'm going first i also get to say that any questions about the syria situation in turkey is planes, shooting down russian planes will be held by nikolai. so a brief outline, i will talk briefly about putin -ism. it will be brief because of the time constraints. i will give an overview of the system generally and then i'll say a bit about how it was evolving before you're my don, before 2013, 2014. then we'll talk about how it has changed in the last few years after the ukrainian event. we'll talk briefly about the implication and changes it has gone through since 2014. nikolai will say more about that in his presentation. the big claim i'm going to make is that over the last two years

russia has moved into a mobilization role in response to the quote, unquote emergency situation they find themselves in. this is a short-term temptation and a medium-term trap. the temptation is it is easier to rule them to govern and what i mean by that distinction, i hope will will become clear during the talk. the trap is that when you rely on ruling rather than governing you often are prone to make mistakes. state policy becomes an effective and ultimately you take steps that we can the system in the country. so what is putin is him? first thing, i will call for his super presidential is in. this is the formal institutional structure of the political system which in 1993 in the new

constitution was already super presidential. it was designed to be super presidential and to make the president the most powerful person in the particle system. the constitution also sets out a series of what made my call checks and balances, separation of power, so there's a parliamentary system with the federation council, there is a constitutional court with judicial review, there's formally a system of federalism with some powers evolve to regional government and there is a series of guarantees and the constitution both for civil society and individuals in terms of right to free press, right to organize, write to demonstrate and so on. what i'm going to claim is under putin -ism we seen a super presidential system he inherited becoming more super, super presidential by weakening these other powers. weakening parliament, taking control of the media, constructing what they call a vertical of power

which weakens the power of leaders. at the same time, and parallel to the system is the informer political system which is made up of a series of competing plans that were networked together. they compete across institutional lines, cross the lines of politics and economics, for resources and for influence come in for power. i would say the combination of these two factors the sort of electoral authoritarian if you have a formal system is what political scientist with phase one of the key quote, unquote findings of post russian politics. this is a widely a widely accepted point a post-soviet russian politics that have many names. richard who was here last night called it a dual date. nikolai has a part in the book about the network state. henry hale has a book on something about the same thing. the formal size is the informal

side. some people call it the system even pawlowski the former putin advisor. he said something in one of his books that is quite apt, he says putin is simultaneously the president of the formal state and the boss of the informal network state. that is the importance of his role in the system. so far on the institutional side it formal and informal i will suggest briefly there is a third element that is not institutional. it is more more what i call a mentality and elsewhere i have called a code of putin is him. for those that want to hear more about it there is a memo that just came out called the code of putin -ism. terry briefly the idea here is we should not think of putin as a rational actor pursuing power at will but he is motivated, not

only by a set of ideas, i don't think he is an ideologue but there are some ideas undermine his behavior. he is also like any other human being, someone who who has a motion, habits, tendencies to influence the types of decision he makes. i can't call attention to all the things i outline in the memo but they include things that status him as a guiding principle that he articulated early on in terms of how the russian state should be structured domestically and how should be powered domestically and how russia should become a great power again in the international system. it is conservative in its essence. maybe a bit of controversy here, in general i see putin as being somewhat illiberal, distrustful person in action and that he is pursuing unity is much as possible. he fears and in that sense he is more of a conservative at heart. i think has habits that he developed in his career prior to becoming president ten towards a

feeling of his need to establish control in order. a feeling that the disorder allowed under gorbachev was debilitating for russia and he needs to establish order, he needs to be the strong man to establish a stronger state system. i think an emotional level there is an element of resentment about the way he feels, this is not just putin but other members of the elite field russia has been treated in the post- cold war environment that they were not adequate later respected by the west and they do not get their due in international politics. these are some of the things that go into the mentality of putin and those people around him that influences the way they react to various legal challenges. so, i want to move to the period

between 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, what i call as a putin-ism bc which is before crimea. already, and i think it is important to remember this casting our minds back to it is important to remember this casting our minds back to 2012 if you can remember this, there was a crackdown launch when putin returned to the presidency in 2012. we saw this in many different realms, the crackdown came as a response to a series of proteins that broke out in moscow and other cities in 2011, 2012, after the 2011 parliamentary election. this came in many different responses. it came in terms of a new political strategy i would argue that targeted what the regime saw as a conservative majority in the country, russian orthodox voters, rural voters, working-class voters, state employees, people who worked in the power structures like law enforcement and the military. the alliance was put on those actors and there is a subconscious disdain the small and medium business, etc. this

came in many different guises. increase fines for participating in protests, a series of trials that we could perhaps call show trials designed to communicate to the opposition the danger of engaging in protests. you see some of these events affected in the slide the may 2012 product test a mask cow that turned violent. twenty people were arrested and charged with crimes as a result of that disorder. there is the infamous case which was designed to show opposition is some kind of alien, bizarre, anti-russian, anti- russian cultural force. there were a series of trials in involving opposition is who is pictured there, his first trial in the summer 2013. there are series of laws cracking down on what were called ngos, the gay propaganda, etc. there is a there is a conservative, more conservative, more anti- american

authoritarian before crimea happened. putin -ism a/d, which is after has gone more in the direction they were already in 2012 and 2013. in terms of what i describe as the code of the mentality of putin -ism we see the notion of russia as a besieged fortress. by external enemies working with internal enemies trying to destabilize the country. one person who has been out in front in of articulating this vision is nikolai who is the secretary of security council and longtime ally of putin from st. petersburg. he used to work at the kgb and had an organization the fsb, and he articulated in an interview this summer his idea that the americans are trying to drag russia into an interstate military conflict using the ukrainian events to bring about a change in power in russia and in the final analysis dismember our country.

controversy all others would like to point to an entirely fictional quote they attribute to madeleine albright while she let it release said that this is what the americans hope to do. what about putin-ism in terms of informal politics and network? i think early on under putin -ism is especially 2000, 2003, 2004, putin played the role four, putin played the role of the first among equals, arbitrating between different clans. some inherited from the earlier. and some that came with him from st. petersburg and other business interests that were circulating around the kremlin. he has managed to concentrate more and more authorities at the boss of different plans and put himself at the center of the system so he is more as are like figure than a first among equals figure. he is the one that makes the

important decision and he is the one who rules over the system as much as he governed the political system. the russian political analysts in an interview this summer said there is a new group and the different networks at the top. and not a new group but a reformulated group that has an idea that we are not a mafia, we, we are punto. what does he mean by where not a mafia we are who you talk? his basic with some of the networks run putin were some obsessed with finding their own pockets. there is is another group who are true patriots, who are pursuing their political interest as a great power and those are the people that are coming to prominence now in this post ukraine environment. so he is attacking certain actors around putin say there is a group of loyalists that really

have russia's true interest at heart. rogoff refers to the decision in february 2014 to annex crimea to a coup. his logic is a q because there is overnight a huge shift in the balance of power among the elite, the pro-western more economically elites lost power instantaneously in the so-called others, the people who put background in the parliament industry like the fsb or the military or similar security organization instantly gained a lot of power. there has been a shift. some of the people who talk about you can see along the bottom of the slide here the defense administer, the head of the fsb, the head of the foreign intelligence service, the security council, and the chief of the presidential staff also longtime kgb ally from st. petersburg of vladimir

putin. i'm not suggesting this is a single unified team. perhaps nikolai will have more to say about this. for example, there are rumors that the defense administer may not have been consulted about the crimea decision when it was taken. there are also rumors he was reluctant to actually take the military option in crimea. again these are rumors, i'm not sure how much truth there is to them. putin himself suggested in an interview that the military, at one point during the annexation of crimea actually stop the operation. he had to call and get it restarted. there is a suggestion that there is some disagreement among this root group, in general i think it is fair to say that since february 2014, those elements in the policy elite have been more powerful than the economic and liberal block within the government. i think that remains true today. maybe that will change but i do i do not think it has changed yet.

one thing that is interesting about this elite is there fairly nationalize, meaning if we looked at the career tracks of the children of all of these people blow here, they all work for a state affiliated banks or corporations. they're not abroad, they were not educated abroad, they are not living in london or switzerland at some of the children of other close putin are. they are different political profile. in that sense they are more nationalized which has been a priority of putin since even before 2014. final thing i want to talk about briefly, the notion that ruling rather than governing and what it implies for decision-making. the guy at the top you may recognize, you probably would not have recognized before last week, that is the administer sports for russia. the russian ministry of sports was it in the media last week

because of the doping scandal. he is an interesting figure, give you one guess from where his rent. from st. petersburg. he is the minister sports. the second person pictured is -- and nikolai will say more about him, he comes from st. petersburg and has a background in the kgb. the last picture there, i'll give you one guess where he's from, st. petersburg and he worked in the police previously and under yelton he headed the federal security service. so the issue i want to talk about that brings these three actors together is a meeting with the russian football association, the executive board board of the russian football association and summer 2014. football of course mean soccer in this context. someone leak the transcript of the executive board meeting in an opposition newspaper. medco has sent a request to the board to bring three crimea

football clubs into the russian association, the executive committee was supposed to rule on this decision. you might think this was an easy decision but the people who are on the board, some of them were billionaires, the rest are multimillionaires and they all own football clubs the various cities around russia. there instantly nervous about this proposal. one of them instantly sort of set, we might get sanctioned if we take this decision, who is going to guarantee we are not sanctioned? and another spokes once said who is going to compensate me for losses if where sanction question where sanction? a third one says, what happens if they decide after the decision to take away the 2018 world cup which is supposed to be held in moscow question marks all of these various elite economic actors are pushing back with this idea thinking it may harm their interests. why putin after a while has had enough of this. he breaks in and says, what is

the matter with you people? you are crawling on your bellies before the west, putin is standing alone, he is alone, he is under attack, and we need to as citizens, support his stance. the club owners then decide that her tact was network team and we will approach it differently. he will say of course of the country says i have to suffer some losses for the good of the state i will do so. so. we are willing to do that. if there is an order will do this, no question. but what are putin himself does not really want this? maybe this will maybe this will be against what putin himself wants. maybe we should ask him. and then he said it would be unethical to approach the president about this decision. and the other one says i can imagine this meeting if i go to puna say while we're having this discussion about the football clubs and he said putin with say buzz off. he would be right to do so.

one of the owners say if we take the decision without consulting him and we lose the world cup, you are responsible for the president for this decision taken place. another one speaks up and say i have been building my company for 25 years, i am play 250,000 employ 250,000 people, it is worth $30 billion, if i have to, for the bid on trinket of the country fight, i will go fight. i'm prepared to discard everything if necessary but only if it is what the first person wants. so we better check with the first person and decide before we do this. so they decided to wait a few days and someone was to check with putin whether this was the right decision. then they adopted adopted this decision to bring the three football clubs into the football association. so what is the point of the story? the point of the story is imagine 100 decisions around

russia every day, every one of them is wondering what is the first person think about what we are about to decide. you can imagine how this would make the decision making process rather inefficient the people at lower levels in the system are wondering all the time well maybe putin doesn't want us to do this. or maybe he wants us to go further so we have to consult with him. another interesting thing of this episode was that you can and has an lotta status in this not because of the time he was head of russian railways but because he is considered someone who is in the putin inner circle, had direct access and had to be listened to and respected. the third thing, despite the feeling they had to defer to the first person, these group of elites were still willing to push back to try to protect their interests within the constraints they saw themselves operating under. even as i described earlier that you really still try to have

their interest to pursue. the problem with russia is that if you have a decision-making system that is this concentrated and this much focused on the rule of the boss rather than the governing of the president than medium and long-term challenges tend to get neglected. that is is the trap and that is why think we're seen an inability of the system to come up with a coherent economic response to the current economic crisis they find themselves under due to lower oil prices and partially due to international sanctions. so it was an easy decision to make in some sense that ruling is easier than governor he, but is also a trap that is leading to mistakes and policy that i think in the median term are not going to be healthy for russia or the political system. thank you. [applause]. our next speaker is nikolai.

>> will thanks to brian who who did a brief about his brilliant book. i can just add several points to look at what will happen next. my first point is that the reason for all these changes in russia and those changes could go in a different way, perhaps without crimea, perhaps they would take place later but preparations for those changes were taken place since may 2012. from then the confrontation switched with a confrontation with the west. then for understandable reasons why it has been done, one is connected with the police development and

the crisis which cannot fix when it started to go down by paying for loyalty and that is way the kremlin switch to different kinds of legitimacy. due to the fact that choosing the and the expanse of losing political economic fear and other option of economic growth choosing shows a way to keep their monopoly. so where russia is now, regime in terms of relationship, the leader and brian did show this

pretty well. political elites and citizens, the leader is much less dependent from political elites and political elites are much more dependent on their political geometry. some experts are saying there is no place for domestic politics in russia. there is foreign-policy everywhere. in my view it is quite opposite. what we see now an international stage is driven by the domestic clinical consideration and there has been new legitimacy, there is a kind of realizing legitimacy which is very important because in order to keep it you should not wait for elections. you should invest in the crime or in victories, and sports, or

military or military victories, that is why all the scandals connected with sports are so important for the regime. you can develop where you should develop, exploiting the image of the fix portrait or, and you should use oppressions. this this is exactly what we see now in russia. so too formulated in short i would say that all of this move made in 2014 did make the regime, the regime the cross stitch of the leader and the the leader of the decisions he made. how russia looks now and how it will grow in 2025 and will describe some different opportunities and now it looks like most of them are cut off and there is only one line.

so the leader being extremely powerful cannot change this trajectory so what he can do is to regulate speech. make the movement faster or's lower, this trajectory would appear to the trajectory of lean in tailspin. there is no way to go out. there are are three possible outcomes. number one the plane meets the ground. regime is over unfortunately there are no hopes that the new one will be better due to almost absence of political institutions. the second option is the team that grew is able to replace the leader which is hardly possible now not only due to the fact that there are no that existed during the soviet union when

people could meet and decide something. putin is doing it on a bilateral basis so it is hardly possible to think about any replacement of the leader if he himself does not want that. the third option and this is what boone has in his mind is the miracle. the miracle can happen. to lead the plane out of the tailspin in this can be either increasing or something which will make ukraine what has happened in 2014 not that important and it would lead the plane on the putin leadership and out of the tailspin. so what is important, first of all the dynamic. it is not just like keeping

motionless. it is sliding down and it cannot last forever. it makes the regime and its present shape transition everyone. so it is transition so there are limits to its existence. so i can and either with financial resources which are pretty much limited. you know the new budget which should be accepted pretty soon plans to use two thirds of the reserve fund meaning the next year it is impossible to keep all this precaution, so. second, it is elite. brian did show us and in my view they can see what is going on is profitable in the sense yes they did lose one fifth of their

fortune but they kept the monopoly. another problem is connected with medium level elites. they lost their usual way of life, they lost opportunities to go somewhere else to keep their children abroad. to spend money they're earning in russia and more comfortable countries. so they do feel that it will not last for long. they're eager to get back. another reason to think this movement of the plane will not last for long this connected with the concept of multiply funnels.

so not only is it going out but it can see several important funnels, the first one is shrinking time. this is a vicious circle. at the time of growing stability is absolutely irrational to make investments not only financial investment but political investment as well for longer periods. these a bank horizon is extremely's shut now that's becoming shorter and shorter because of the inability and lack of desire of elites to make long investments. the second funnel this connected what they call the crimean syndrome. so not only to have supports of the leader after the crimean

annexation but we brought approximately the same downgrade in the way how the society looks at different problems. like say corruption is 20 points, less important than it used to be, problems with caucuses are less serious so it looks like society is drunk and it is easy to think that there are no other problems in your life is good. but it is not that easy to keep a person from being drunk for long. so we have certain investment and they should increase all of the time. third, there is control and clearly described by brian. the problem is being exercise for long manual control is making it impossible to switch

back to another regime because there are no institutions and there is selection of personnel which cannot make any decision at all if only the first person will not tell them what exactly they should decide. the fourth and final i would like to tell about is in the elite five. in decision-making and present-day russia we can see that more elites do act on their own without any show or consult tatian of any major plans. so if these elite clans add more and more on their own and there no mechanism linking to reach a compromise or agreement. there is a danger of making

decision which are of interest for certain clans but not in interest of the whole system or the danger of not making the right decision in time is increasing all the time. so let me think there is about one year of life expectancy of the regime and its present shape, not to speak about different. we have seen one of these black swans today and will continue and unfortunately the probability of is to almost zero. what can be exit strategy? what i have seen now and what we have seen with russia come to us syria's exit strategy a. it is to demonstrate the constructive role russia can

play in it the international stage and so the goal first syria is already achieved. that goal was to change something in syria itself and to keep aside in place. it is to demonstrate putin is a leader who can bring military victories and his role inside the country is already achieved. this is by the way so we had our in line with what we tell about the need to keep legitimacy. no more was to keep it military legitimacy that is why russia switch to syria. due to propaganda machine the goal inside the country was already achieved which puts

putin into the position of a strong leader. this makes it possible for him to claim for a switch in the west. to change these confrontation to cooperation and he will be seen not from the position of a weak leader but as a demonstration of his strength. if not accepted then i think the exit strategy be connected with the replacement of putin by someone else. but it will be done by putin. so we'll see not necessarily putin in the -- he can keep being in power in the name of

this position is putin. he does not need to be the president or prime minister he can keep in power by himself. what is important i think is the country is coming to new election and new electoral cycle which should be held next september. i would wait almost immediately after this election so he could explain why election are early to address the nation and for putin to address the nation and declare the new scores because the elite understood that china cannot replace the west. in terms of money, in terms of keeping to the russian economy and he reserves to keep the course without credible changes

coming to the end. thank you. [applause]. >> thank you. i think we can go ahead and open up discussion to members of the audience. to have microphones? identify yourself if you have a comment or question we can bring you a microphone. >> please identify yourself. >> i work for u.s. a id for five years. i certainly certainly have an interest in that situation. i was intrigued about your same that the general head of the armed services wasn't involved in the initial decision in crimea.

i wondered do you know whether that means also the case on the more extreme factor of the invasion of eastern ukraine, which i think has been less rewarding action? >> go ahead and take them as they come. >> okay, thank you very much for the question. i should reiterate the claim that the defense ministry was not initially consulted when the first crimea decision was taken this moscow rumor. no one has said publicly on the record officially who exactly where the four people that putin said he consulted with that night. he officially or unofficially said in an interview there were four of us and at the end of the night i turned to them and said we will have to crimea back to russia. there is a list of names that are banded about, his name is often not on that list.

that does not mean he was not one of the four but at least many people think he was not. later there for the decisions about implementation he would've been involved in. his close deputies played an important role. the claimed the initial decision was made without the defense administers participation. there are quite a few rumors to the fact that many people in the elite were quite a post this decision & the potential consequences, but putin has the one and only important for this respect. in terms of the military action in eastern ukraine by that point the defense ministry is clearly involved. there involved in those decisions although, it's hard to see exactly how the russian side of the operation is managed quite frankly. it looks like the fsp, the federal security service was running a game game there. a member of the presidential administrations that had various political connections to the

rebels or whoever you want to call them and the military also had its action. it is not seem to me, looking from an outside at least that it was particularly well correlated all of the time. there are rumors that the clashing between the presidential administration and lines of authority for the operations there. >> i would focus on the fact that two to bloomberg and some other newsagency there are myths about how decisions are made in russia and who exactly is making the decision. i would look at decision i crimea and ukraine in general as consisted of three different

decisions. the first first one, the major one about confrontation with the west should be taken by shareholders not by managers. shareholders are those guys like [inaudible] the second decision about in case ukraine would sign these agreements with the ua should be made not only by certain guys by secret services and that their decision about concrete aid and mauling crimea could be made by these guys by generals. in the interest in that in the recent, one of the informed

russian generalist is trying to explain the decision and he reminds us how decision has been made on the invasion of afghanistan when the heads of the general did try to oppose at a meeting and he was stalled. so it would make you pay less about but to take our opinion and realize this. so this perhaps could happen with crimea as well. >> thank you very much for next line presentation. but i would talk about the own financing of the reserve fund is a minor thing. but the deficit for next year will be $4 billion as planned. total national reserve is 365,000,000,000 dollars. so that

is a lot of rope to hang themselves with. then to question, first has the stance been replaced by the security counsel,. [inaudible] their meeting quite regular about a day, are these mediating bodies, the second question mainly to brian, you talk about any leads and security elites against the others. among the others we have two distinctively different elites, the north america, the other part is the state and the price managers, it would be interesting if you could discuss if this is really happening. we can see it clearly on state

allocations over funding. then third, could you look up on that ukraine on the situation, they have not talked on it it is making a factor in how much we receive after ukraine is not being played down. i'm struck and four days putin has not mentioned and instantly complained about the turkey involved with russia today. >> if you do control everything including the central bank,

including the administer finances and so on you can or at least it looks like you can easily fix this problem. and you can bring a new one in. this is exactly what is going on to cover this deficit. i would like to mention a funny story about the fact that just on the eve of the draft of the budget to the state, the government which plans to cut off the elite military spending was forced to refuse from this idea that perhaps they did consult him they should consult. how they managed to do this, they did just change expected oil prices to increase them and to plan additional several billion dollars to demonstrate

there is no additional deficit connected with this wise decision. the consulting agency and moscow which counsel with schemes of putin's political, and my view it is a little misleading due to the fact that at the time of the civic union, the central bureau was a formal institution where all major clans represented which should be to decide to make important decisions. no more it works and only when it does meet in real life as security council. security council sounds just like security council here in this country. but this is a very different body, it is not so much the

institute, it is more safe substitute. the security council is consulting counsel chaired by the president who can either make decision of their discussion or who cannot make this decision. the the security decision cannot make any decision by itself. it combines certain institutions like the houses of russian parliament who chairs and place in the central role in decision-making. several servants, managers like heads of security agencies and so there are no putin's people there. which means if you look at

within putin the elite side you completely agree at the time it for, military and secret service guys could play much more important role. although we see the same liberal economists and government, their role now is to minimize damage which is the result of decisions made by someone else, not by them. so, this is very dangerous i think change for putin because he has to keep the balance between major elite. he he cannot allow any of this major elite clan to win against others because it will make his position not that influential and make him ugly. in order to restore this balance in the elites. speaking about ukraine, i am afraid that both moscow are not

interested in any kinds of radical solution for eastern ukraine. they are more interested to keep its elite shape of the controlled conflict. i don't think there is anything positive that they can get out of the ukraine. but it can avoid at least negative consequences connected with many different things. connected with the the fact that they should find money to keep it afloat or they should get pretty big number -- which can come back to russia so i could come back to their subordinate role. it is much more effective to keep certain control, to

demonstrate something is moving on, to avoid sanctions and make them easy, but not look for any kinds of final solution. >> thank you. there are couple couple of responses. in terms of specific question about a split perhaps between the cronin's, koonin versus the manager of the state enterprises , it has been very interesting the way that efforts to gain access to reserve funds have been a block. there seems to be indication that putin is looking more closely at how state enterprises have been managed or should we say mismanaged, in a situation of declining economic resources there's closer attention attention to what is going on.

whether that entails a forthcoming shift, does by leaving the former position of the railways i don't naturally see it because it's unclear exactly where peart would tune. i find find it hard to believe that he would opt for a manager type and that is not the way he hasn't russian railways. the person russian rail rises connected to one of the craney. on the crony side, some people think he has lost favor because of his unwillingness to get involved in this difficult and expensive project to build a bridge. and romberg therefore raised his influence. i don't know if we can protect that out a long time. i think historically he was much more powerful. >> ..

>> one question. i like very much think rolling governing. i have one comment or reflection about this. another issue dividing or

making a difference between two of them. it is logic. i mean,, grueling, governing is about keeping the power. can you comment? what is the logic? and i have a question for nikolai. he used terms. >> brian. >> i would not put it quite the same way that you did in terms of ruling being about keeping power and governing being about the state. it is the nature of the institutions within the state. we have seen a steady but fairly one directional move weakening any formal

institutional constraints and the role those playplan decision-making and increasing the importance on informal structures. so in that sense i think it reflects a general tendency that has been expressed openly that he isdoes not believe pressure is currently capable of ruling on automatic institutional procedures and that russian news manual steering. he said that quite clearly. they're coming out of a huge crisis, not able to work in the automatic regime. until we get the institutions in place, legal, institutional,place, legal, institutional, regulatory and someone who will have to work in a manual regime. from the time he said that though put us 20 27.

if he serves another six years that puts usthe puts us in the middle of that 16 to 20 year timeframe. within the logic he laid out earlier when things are going better he was indispensable to keeping things running. >> very different motives. and in our studies we used four of them. one was already mentioned, politburo, and the other to be called the powers of the kremlin. there are many powers of the kremlin.

the 3rd model of the solar system, everybody rotates around, so your influence is defined by the distance. when repeating the conciliation is not how long all of these claims and groups. in the 4th model of the board were put in is considered to be chair of the board and ceo. until recently we were saying that putin is chair of the board and should do what the board decides. unfortunately now he is more like azar and is much less dependent from the board and perhaps it is not deciding a lot, and there is a new model according to which they're are some experts for

those trusted by prudent in different spheres, and there are a few strategies. the problem is connected to the fact that the political geometry does not let anyone else except prudent overuse or sustain the results of this or that. different parts of this machine do back in its own interest, not the interest of the whole system, and no one can do this in the interest of the whole system except for himself. those guys who are different between loyal servants, managers, and strategists are saying that it could be definitely seen as strategists from the sides of liberal economists. and the chief of staff can be seen as strategists from the opposite side.

>> thank you. a question in the back row. yes? one is coming. >> thank you very much. forgive me if you touched on this. my name is mindy riser. the 1st part of my question is what do you see in terms of recruitment from the caucasus and the future leverage of prudent on central asia? he certainly made it clear he wants to exert some interest, but given the economic challenges how realistic is that into the future? >> do you want to take that? >> first of all, published a wonderful book on regimes. these are regimes in post-soviet and the problem

is that they are aging. i would speak about aging putin is him and look at crimea as viagra for this aging regime which cannot work for long. the problem is what exactly will happen if and when they are coming out of power and nobody can predict. that is the problem. if there are no institutions, strong, then anything can happen. central asia is a very dangerous place where there is huge pressure put on to islamists, not necessarily radical the different islamists can react which can have very negative consequences and who is ruling since soviet times.

so i don't think -- well, this is the real problem. russian authorities to try to do something. as i did tell, there is a short time horizon. meaning that they are not in a position to make some fruitful efforts in order to be more ready to deal with bloody conflict or even civil war in central asia at a time when it will appear. caucus is another problem. russian caucasus in very bad shape. when the government is coming out of money these that it cannot keep expanding in the way the

last decade but it means it cannot play regional elite for their loyalty and negative consequences in terms of northern caucasus. another problem connected with the fact that in my view the turn which took place in 2014 was about closing putin's integration, and it was more about the nationstate and the danger. there are manythere are many nations and not only russian nationalism was can develop but there are anti- russian nationalism as well. so i would say that in my view one of the most dangerous -- two most dangerous of the shift made in 2014, one is connected with society and is

underestimated usually. i would use the image of moses who was leading his nation in the desert 25 years and then came back to egypt meaning that we lost the generation to change society which not only while experiencing, well, a huge shock for young generation. the 2nd problem is connected with the risk of growing nationalism and i can say that nobody can guarantee that explosion at the northern caucasus will not take place. not only chechnya -- well, under the control of another

dictator, but pakistan as well where they are trying a very different approach, and it makes the biggest on i pretty dangerous place in terms of stability in the near future. >> just a couple brief additions. it is probably useful to a certain extent to remind us that all of this started because of the issue of the association agreement with the eu and put was pushing for ukraine. and just as the online logically the eurasian economic union makes less sense. so than russia, belarus, kazakhstan and a few other countries.

it didn't work out well for him in the long run. even now in central asia they are signed up, and russia in the medium-term is destined to lose more influence to china and central asia given just the economic power that the two countries werevealed. in terms of the caucuses and recruitment in the region, i'm not a specialist. the numbers run from the hundreds to the thousands in terms of recruits from russia who may have gone to fight. there are even a conspiracy versions. they go fight in syria rather than stay and fight in the north caucasus. you hear that in various places, but it is interesting and potentially problematic for russia that it has aligned itself so

clearly with iran and the syrian regime dominated by shia islam when most muslims inside russia are sunni. this could be creating a source of additional instability in the country not immediately put in the coming years. >> okay. thank you. >> hi. political geographer at virginia tech interested in the relationship between the decision on crimea and the decision on southeast ukraine. i -- you mentioned the february 23 meeting, and that is the official version there is also an argument that the decision was made in november or december at

least to prepare something. so what is the relationship outside sort of policy entrepreneurs like what -- orthodox oligarchs who have ideological agendas and think in terms of things to the actual decision-making process, and is it your opinion that because there is a debate on the one hand a certain strategic vision versus the other which is prudent as an improviser and just content to the constant tactics? how tactical was it? that particular decision, maybe it was just a decision to go in, not necessarily to annex. no response byno response by the ukrainians, they sort of made it up further and further.

then is that a speculative thing for something that was larger and strategic? >> ii suspect you know at least as much as i do. i will give you my own interpretation. i see both the crimea decision in the eastern ukraine decision as being a short-term, and practical, and not part of a larger strategic vision. the crimea decision comes on the heels of what is believed to be a great success of the sochi olympics, and the americans were so dastardly to engineer a coup and ukraine right on the eve of this great sochi triumph. my sensemy sense is that this is something that is believed among prudent and others in his inner circle

that it happened because of western instigation and plotting. i don't see the evidence but think it is believed.believed. in that context there was a sense of humiliation about this process and the tactical decision was made that if the americans are willing to give this far we need to do something to secure our interest and our most important interest in the ukraine is the black sea fleet. i think that's completely out of the question but how it was perceived. once you have made that move and reflect upon it. crimea was always a reliable pro-western force within the country.

this know what theynow what they hope to accomplish, to when this territory that puts ukraine closer. i see the operation as being improvised in response to understanding the negative consequences of the 1st decision. sure, there were entrepreneurs who have been working with single for a while, but i see important decisions taking place. >> crimean fifth-generation. chechnya or modern caucuses

in general. so this move did position as they guy who represents the society. although among russian political elites plans to take crimea back. they are almostthey are almost absent for 20 years or something. moscow mileage gulf is all the time playing this card but that is all. it came in line with expectations of majority of russians and it is very salient, not only old guys who can remember the soviet union were young generations who cannot remember the soviet union that everyone, not only communists but even some liberals do support

this move, and it is realistically supported in crimea itself. a pretty long story about crimea which was inhabited most of all by ethnic russians were crimea ter., scott has been played andin which used to be in a pretty bad economic shape during the last 25 years. now it creates very serious problems in the fact that russia has directly confronted turkey is very negative in terms of what we will go on in crimea and will go on with crimean tartar. very different estimates how many live now in turkey, and it is impossible to count them precisely. but starting from two to

5 million. this is very important thing. >> i actually have a couple questions i would like to raise. the terms are as, a couple of times. to what extent do you think that this is a useful analogy or term? is it just something that might note that the leader has a certain prominence relative to others, or is there something that absent to some notion of zahra's him? do the elites see him in these terms? my 2nd question is more specific to brian. the concept of ms. ms. interesting. is this something that could transcend himself and leave a legacy?

and then structuring politics in a way that politics has been conducted. is there a future even beyond? >> sure, it is not a perfect analogy and i do not expect people trust -- try to pass on. i don't see a dynastic monarchy, but i think that it is more than simply saying that he is the top guy, the 1st person that everyone has to contend with it is also a reflection of some of what people have called the mystique with a cult of personality that treats him not just as an ordinary politician or an ordinary president but someone who has kind of charismatic qualities that

transcend the office. so described him as a gift from god in that sense the analogy is somewhat useful. can it transcend? that is an interesting question. just to fill in something the nikolai said earlier, there is no new book, just a manuscript that i'm working on than one of the things we discussed was how much we can think of it as being connected to society and how much it simply a phenomenon. the argument that it is connected to society, there

was a collective trauma, suffered with the collapse of the empire, communism to capitalism and a feeling of vulnerability and disorder that is shared by a wide segment of the russian population. so popular not only because they control the media but that he responds and reflects what the average person in russian society was sort of looking for. it's overused in russia but is a more commonly held view , a feeling among the population. in that sense it transcends in terms of who is a part of it, but that does not mean

it can transcend them chronologically. only so long can they claim. the moscow commentator said a couple of weeks ago, everyone is talking about how he restored order, but that is wrong. if you have order an official can't run over pregnant woman on the street with his car and not suffer consequences. if there is order of police been can't take away a business private businessman and transfer it to someone else. that is notthat is not order, but the people who work for the state do not understand that that is a source of disorder. this is more a myth that a reality and cannot persist.

>> i would look at putin's him. and this leads me to the problem of russian constitution which has been adopted and 93. at the time he felt that he wonpeople in his fight against the parliament command it was clearly the presidential constitution. yeltsin was not that able to exercise all powers given to him by the constitution, although some experts used the image of the elect monarchy with regard to the regime. now the 1st person can enjoy almost all this power. pretty much the same which does not balance the power

of the 1st person by any institution, and institutions are weak and became weaker after 2014 and the political regime. and 1st of all i would say that in my view buddhism cannot survive. i hope he will survive. >> isn't this the eternal cycle of russian history? arbitrary centralized power followed by a time of trouble in the starship, whether it's stalin. a great ivan the terrible in and and people forgetting the injustices of the arbitrary regime and then this power is arbitrary,

institutions are undeveloped cycle repeats itself without end. >> it can be seen as a vicious circle. i would look at federalism or lack of federalism. pressure is huge country by its size. should the tyranny. so federalism is absent, and due to the fact that none of russian rule including present-day are here to exercise federalism, especially those who came from paramilitary structures and for whom it is not imaginable that somebody, their subordinate could be in the right to decide

without the permission. i would look at what is going on with the russian political regime now. very understandable and rational result connected with the fact that russia is centralized state, perhaps over centralized and being such a centralized state russia should be fully state. there is no other way to keep such a huge state if there is no federalism. ..

if a russian society it is in many sped respects, not all respects quite modern and very well-educated society. it's quite a wealthy country although the distribution of wealth is not particularly equal , but it is a place that has a lot of the tools i think in a society for more liberal political order. in that sense i see it putinism moors a problem preventing a development towards a more political economic order than a

return to some kind of national tradition of closed economics. >> nicolay. >> i would stress one important difference in the present state of russian stages. i think the regime cannot reproduce itself and while there is no way for putinism to survive putin comments this is unlike what you mentioned and we can include stalin there's so there are systems which could reproduce themselves and now it's different. i can use such an image. you know russia is a hybrid regime. it's not so much hybrid now. it's more like authority regime

but it can seem as the result of well, the children of two parents like say -- the only problem is more cannot reproduce so you should once again in order to come to a new stage of this regime. >> i think maybe that's a certain kind of notes and don. so please join me in thanking our speakers for a very good discussion. [applause] >> today, a house hearing on the russia'sonse to violation of the u.s.-russia nuclear arms agreement. house foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism and

nonproliferation host hearing live on c-span3. the chair of the white house's council of economic advisers on the health of the u.s. economy and the housing market. the urban institute hosted the event. [applause] morning, everybody. thank you all for being here. i feel a little bit like a proud parent what i come to these things. i want to say thank you to faith and her team. i especially want to say thank you to the extraordinary team that lori has assembled with jim's-- with ellen and hi

leadership. they have elevated the debate. really bringing, at the time and the moment, one policy regulators are thinking of hard russians and bringing new and additional analysis to bear, and helping explain those issues to the broader public and the policymakers. i could not be more proud of what they have accomplished in a short time. start our dayo hearing from no one better that we could find to give us a larger picture of warehousing fits in the larger economy -- of where housing fits in the larger economy. in 2013, which he took after serving as the deputy director of the national economic council during second obama -- president obama's first

term. bringing an economic lens to an extraordinary range of issues . . it always astounds me. health, economics, social security, domestic, international trade issues. he brings to those conversations a grounding in the data and analysis. in two his positions administrations, along with various academic credentials, some would say his greatest claim to fame is having once been the college roommate of matt damon. [laughter] i am also told, a colleague of mine did some googling and told me, if you happen to spend time in washington square park in the 1980's, you might have seen him performing as a master juggler of burning torches. at the talent i never knew that you had and i look forward to you demonstrating.

perhaps not here. jason has been described as the ultimate -- he has brought evidence to bear inside and outside the nation on this huge range of issues from the safety net, the effect of stimulus, the a formal care act, and much more -- the affordable care act, and much more. he brings the policy context and what is doable. and the people we are describing and their lives, which makes it powerful. we could not start this off better than by greeting warmly, my good friend jason.

[applause] you for that great introduction and you left out the fact that we had worked together in the clinton administration which was a real highlight. thank you so much for having me here today. as sarah said, i will talk to a broader set of issues that a lot of the pacific's -- specifics. ultimately, what we are interested in is how much productivity growth we have, and how that productivity growth is shared. roleng place an important in how it affects the mobility and dynamism of the economy.

plays in the it economics that i will be talking about today. a backdrop of this is the cyclical recovery of housing that has continued to be quite strong. residential investment is .elping to lead gdp growth for the last two years. housing construction continues to rise comfortably above one million units per year. which haves are up cut number of households underwater in half, relative to five years ago. the rising housing wealth has also played an important role in what has been one of the bright spots that is driven the u.s. economy forward, which is consumer spending. financial and mortgage reforms

have improved the sustainability of the housing market. though we continue to see credit growing more slowly than we would like. that has been a big focus and push of the administration that i'm happy to talk more about later. as we have seen this cyclical recovery, it has wrought into relief some of the bigger challenges we have in terms of affordability that urban has led in the analysis and pointing out there is no country that has affordable rentals for the lower income citizens than it has. issue thattructural i will be talking about is excessive or unnecessary land-use or zoning restrictions which have reduced mobility and dynamism slowing mobility growth

and raising inequality. of course, there are many benefits. the conservator legitimate purpose in terms of health safety or the environment. but the growth of them has been excessive and has created what economists call economic rent. to one factorrn of production above and beyond its cost. and economic rent in turn leased to the economic problems but also create an opportunity that if you can introduce more cup barriers,nd reduce you can actually improve efficiency and growth while reducing inequality at the same time. that is in some sense the holy grail of economic policy.

as well as the rise of occupational licensing creating a barrier to people getting jobs in moving between jobs. the discussion that i will have with you is one that has a long history and goes back at least to jane jacobs and the life of the great american cities published over 50 years ago and one that economic research has increasingly filled in the picture. >> i will start with a backdrop to all of this outside the housing area which are a familiar set of facts. the first is the rise in inequality. in 1973 more than two thirds of the income went to the bottom 90% and by now that has fallen to about 50% of the income going to the bottom 90% of households. time the pie has

been distributed an equally it is grown more slowly. productivity growth was growing decadesper year in the up to 1973 and the decades since then productivity growth has slowed to 1.8% per year. that over time accumulates to a dramatic difference. time you've seen a variety of measures of dynamism of the economy decline. move in at which people the state and across state move between jobs. the rate that people change industry or occupation. businesses create or destroy jobs and new businesses are created and all of those have gone down steadily for many decades. we do not fully understand all

of those trends in inequality or productivity. and in dynamism. i'm going to try to argue today is that land-use restrictions, and their growth have played a role in all of those. about the talk first growth of land-use restrictions. we don't have detailed nationwide data on this question but long period's of time, we have a range of observations, circumstantial evidence and particular case studies, all of which tell a consistent story. i will start that story by looking at the difference between real construction costs and real house prices.

in tandem roughly growing at the same rate for several decades and even prior to the housing bubble started a substantial to virgin's even after the bursting of the housing double the diversions remains. within the last three years, housing prices were 56% above construction costs which is 23 percentage points above the 1990's cap. that is one piece of evidence which is can sell something for more than it costs to build it. withcarcity of land natural features of the topography, or man made in terms of zoning playing a role. acrosso see if you look a set of cities, this shows how

much higher your house prices are relative to your construction costs. you see places like anaheim, san francisco and los angeles with very high costs relative to how much it costs to build their and at the other end, kansas city detroit and bill walkie. 1989 andares 1999 to the fact that there are more dots in the lower right-hand part of that graph indicating there are more places that have seen this ratio rise over this period time. atearchers who have looked these types of diversions is have found that in the 50's and 60's, the main thing driving house prices were construction costs and since then land-use restrictions have played an important role. when you look at particular places you see those. for example some have looked at boston and carefully constructed

the measures of land-use restrictions and have observed them over time and you can see it in places like new york with the rise of historic preservation districts and at least some of this is potentially grounded in following much of the turmoil in the 1960's. you saw the white flight to the suburbs and a set of zoning restrictions that were consciously or unconsciously attempting to reinforce and block in the increased segregation that one saw in some dimension. zoning, as everyone knows, reduces the supply of housing. when you have more land-use regulations, you will have less construction. fewer permits.

drivesduced construction up house prices and higher house prices in turn lead to more segregation which leads to a greater desire on the part of the people living in those communities to protect values and establish more land-use restrictions themselves. what is this cycle of rent inking behavior blocking these things. >> supply restrictions also in turn reduce affordability. here, we're looking at the ward act.and-use regulatory in places like boston that have a lot of constraints on the use of land with very low

affordability and some of the cities i mentioned like st. louis and kansas city are the of the in terms substantial ability to build more housing and thus greater affordability. this affordability dispersion that we are seeing is for a point in time. in 2013. what is important to understand evenly,n't distributed that over time as well it appears to have grown. the land-use restrictions have grown more in some places than others. the dispersion and affordability has grown more and some places. this trend toward greater land-use restriction is

especially of concern right now, given some of the demographic and structural changes that are going on in the housing market. you can see some of those changes in this next figure, startshows multifamily have now fully recovered, and exceed the level they were at prior to the housing bubble. aree single-family starts on the way up, but have not got back anywhere near their precrisis levels. there has been a range of research and debate around this set of questions. including important contributions by the urban institute earlier this year in a report on homeownership and

headship. but all of it finds a consistent trend with a range of cultural shifts, a changing demographic structure leading to a greater demand for multifamily housing as well as the baby boom turns into the retirement boom, a greater demand for modifying andes, for shared housing the millennial's moving out of their basement and into rentals. shift inis structural the housing market runs right up against land-use restrictions that i have been discussing. those land-use restrictions disproportionately apply to multifamily housing, to housing

modifications to shared living and all of the types of things we're already seeing more of and are likely to see more of going forward. as a result those types of restrictions on supply could when they come up against this other trend be even more consequential going forward. now about whytalk this matters for the economy. and why, as somebody who is focused covering the range of economic issues that i am so focused on this and why the administration has made this increasing focus of policy as well in terms of not just specific goals of affordability broadering, but the

goal of raising the incomes of middle-class families and working families which depends on greater productivity. and reduced inequality. important economic observation is the place really matters. an iguana ration really matters. you can have cities like san francisco and boston that are really productive. and when people move to those cities they can get higher wages for the same set of skills by virtue of living in a more productive city. they can make the other people more productive as you have these agglomerations of skills and ideas and talent spilling over. into each other.

when you have the type of mobility that lets people move, you have greater productivity, you can see greaterwage increases wage increases for the people that didn't because with less labor supply their supply and demand can raise wages and places that left behind. improved job matches. and ultimately, competing away some of the rent and economic sense of the term rent which is the extra money that you get. by erecting barriers. to competition. facts these economic about the importance of placeeration mobility and make evidence like what i'm

showing you hear particularly scary. this shows the migration rates by distance and you can see within counties and within states but very dramatic decline. in people moving. that is not is one easily explained. it is something you see and abroad based way not just driven by one particular group or one particular demographic change. you see it within demographic groups. less ofthis leads to is an ability for that agglomeration sorting of people to work out effectively for growth and for inequality.

i want to show you two papers which of tried to look at some of the consequences of this. effectst simulated the of 1% higher labor demand. something happens in your place that leads you to want to hire more people. then you compare the places in blue with low housing regulations to the places in orange with high housing regulations. what you see is when the labor demand goes up housing stocks respond and places with low regulation to a greater degree than a dozen places with higher regulation. house prices are the inverse of that. low regulation -- less of an increase in prices when they

have an increase in labor demand. ultimately long-term employment. if you are not pricing people out of the market, you are able to attract more people and increase employment ,pre/ more. recent paper looked at a similar type of economic question, but here it looked at it from the perspective of. convergence. in economic growth, we expect low income places will grow more highly and catch up with income places because they can take advantage of the differences in technology, they can take advantage of the fact that maybe they have less capital so they get more return at the margin. and this is something that you see across countries that are institutionally similar, and historically, you have seen across states as well. now let's look at this

conversion story. in the 1960's and 1970's, you saw a lot of convergence and you saw it across different types of states. in general, each year on average, a lower income state would close 2% of the gap between it and the higher income states. use restrictions have grown, that convergence mechanism has continued for states that have less constrained supplies or less land use restriction, but that convergence mechanism has broken down and even stopped for states with more constrained supply. because of that inability to move. is something that can be

quantitatively quite important for our overall economy. paper, whorecent to documentlot the issues i am talking about today, observed from 1964 to 2009, the wage dispersion across cities increased by a factor of two. so, remember, we would expect it people can move freely, you would not see a lot of wage dispersion because people would move and that wage dispersion would end up getting competed away. so, that is another suggestion freelyople can't move is as you would have in certain economic models. they did a counterfactual experiment to look at what would've happened if from 1964

to 2009, workers in capital and moved so that wage dispersion had stayed at the same level that it was in 1964. and it hadn't increase. and that counterfactual extremity, they found out what would've been more than 10% higher in 2009 than it actually was. there is a whole bunch of details one could look at it in this paper. it has very large employment effects relative to what one might imagine but it gives you a theseof just how large effects are. when i was talking about the productivity slowdown before, it was 2.8% to 1.8%. here we're talking about something over similar period magnitudemeaningful

relative to the overall that we are trying to explain. the level of output, but also mobility and opportunity. have documented that even as inequality has risen mobility hasn't. and that mobility varies anonymously across counties. there is some arbitrage opportunities. some counties with high mobility actually have affordable housing and relatively low rents and people can move to them and advance. igh many of the places with h mobility don't. expensiveuch more partly because of the demand for living in the middle part because of artificial constraint on the supply of housing. but when you look at that

geography of mobility and how much that varies, getting people to be able to move across places is going to be an important part of the solution to increasing incomes and increasing incomes across generations, and that is something that this is getting away from. naand it's getting away from it because a zoning is not distributed randomly across the country. it is actually correlated with those places that have higher any quality which are also the places that tend to have lower mobility. so you got that cycle of greater inequality, more constraints on mobility, and that in turn locking in inequality in the next generation. a broadn focusing on set of economic issues. land use restriction also have

other impacts on the economy. there is a range of evidence that they lead to more whichsion in living, leads to more travel, which leads to more climate emissions and thus worsens our environment. there's evidence that they lead to more housing bubbles and more volatility in not just the housing markets but as a result of that, in the macro economy as well. and that they can also lead to the reduced provision of public spread across economy. so, this has been an issue that we have been concerned about in the administration. something the president has first -- is personally concerned about, something that hud and

treasury and others have been focused on. a lot of it, of course, plays out at the state and local level. s within the policy purview of states and localities. there is not one piece of major federal legislation that will or should change everything that i've been talking about this morning. is,what we think we can do first of all, help shine a spotlight on the issue, give more tools to help empower communities to make changes, and make some policy changes that would help in that regard as well. describee just briefly three of those. past summer,this

affirmativelyits furthering for housing rule. what is exciting about this rule is it will give communities the tools in a much more granular the a fewi've done in minutes i have been speaking with you this morning, document where these restrictions are the consequences they have in communities, and help create a better understanding of what they mean and what tools you have to deal with them. administration would like to put money into helping to create incentives to solve this problem. in our fy 2016 budget, the president proposed a $300 million initiative that would

provide grants, both as an incentive to local communities to encourage them to create more fluid, affordable opportunities for mobility, as well as to help deal with some of the costs of making those transitions. third effort that i anted to highlight is that comes fromis issue the intersection of land-use restrictions and the structural changes that have led to more demand for multifamily housing. and so, addressing some of the issues in the multifamily market in particular are important in relieving some of the stresses. and the multifamily risksharing

mortgage program which is joint between hud and treasury is designed to help unlock underserved communities. seeing theeady first transaction with new york city on to that program. and we expect to see more. wherent to conclude with i began, which is housing is really important in its own right. it is a necessity for people. the most important asset that most households have. but it also has a broader effect on the ovell economy. broader cyclical effect, and it played a disproportionate role in creating the recession that we just went through. and in the last two years, last several years, it is playing in different role in helping us get out of that

recession, growing faster than the economy. but it also plays a broader structural role in the economy. and it is something that we'll be looking hard at along with all the other things that are creating these economic -- imp eding competition, impeding mobility, impeding dynamism because we cannot afford to inve any stone untrurned trying to improve the productivity of the economy and reduce inequality, expand opportunity and mobility. so, thank you for your attention on this topic. [applause] yeah? i'm happy to take a few questions. there's a mic right next you. >> bernie -- economic

consultant. going back to your price construction cost price chart, i'm wondering where that cost comes from. and what is captured in their, because certainly during the downturn, a lot of builders were argue they were losing money. that suggests they were still making pretty good money. and today, a lot of them would call their very thin margins for making money. how does this chart address those issues? it is so, first of all, real, adjusted for inflation. that is why it is flat. same rate up at the as everything else. second of all, the difference between the construction cost and the real house prices not profit to the people building the houses. they had to acquire the land. if the land was more expensive

because of the type of land-use restrictions than the previous owner of the land got the difference between those two. so, if you want to think about the returns to the construction industry and what you have been talking about, that is not met debt -- not measured between the blue and red lines. i do not think this story is inconsistent. you also do see their construction costs are increasing faster than inflation in the last couple years. not a lot faster. i hear supply constraints all the time from people in terms of labor. don't see them so much in the data in terms of the unemployment rates on the wages, but maybe they are a little bent. yes? >> i'm jim gray. , but in to work at fhfa am not asking a question in my work capacity. land regulation as sort of a monolith.

i'm wondering about some land regulation like conclusion very zoning is designed to address affordability. could you differentiate between maybe land regulation that you see as more damaging and land regulation may be like an ordinary zoning that is not? jason: that is a good point. if you look at that $300 million grant program i described that is proposed, that is not just t alsong barriers but i is designed to create an incentive in funding for measures like inclusionary zoning. i agree this is not just a matter of reducing various. -- barriers. it is a matter of taking active steps so that you can undo a lot of the trends that you have seen over many decades and done right, land-use regulation can play a good role in that. that is a good point. yes? there's a microphone coming your way. >> nancy marshall -- with

marketplace. we were just mentioning that housing had a role in -- in the recession, but i think that you said after that that housing can play a role in getting us out. i wondered what you meant by that. if you can expand on it? relativelyant a simple point, that if you look at the last two years, housing is growing at 4.2% a year. and everything else in gdp that is not housing is growing at about 2%. so, housing is disproportionately bringing gdp growth up. that's something that we did not see right away. normally what gets you out of a recession is a really steep rise in housing. if you look in the 1980's, there was a rapid recovery and housing just grew more than 10%, annually but i could be wrong about that.

he did not see that this time because the recession was caused by a huge bubble and there was not a huge need to build houses in 2009 and 2010. but as we have worked off that access, you have seen the growth rise. ad think there's still lot of potential. we are building 1.2 million houses per year. that will be one of the components of gdp that will drag the overall average, continue to drag the overall average up. yes? >> yes, national association of hispanic real estate professionals. going back to your chart on migration, you stressed the importance of mobility. i wonder if you have that data available by race and ethnic and also by age distribution and perhaps regionally. jason: that is a good question. people have broken down the sorts of data, and some of the

other mobility i reference like reduced movement across occupations, across industries , have broken it down by demographic groups. and have tended to see similar trends. but i'm not sure if this one was done by race. no, that is a really interesting question. and i will look into it. thank you. sarah? to that sameed mobility data, one of the other hypotheses people of pad for the lack of mobility has to do with earnerse of two households. do you have the ability to disentangle the causation? jason: i was alluding to that when i said that these trends in mobility, not just these cut the others i have shown, are broad-based enough and you see them across a variety of

demographic groups. so, while something like the rise of two earner couples may have conservative, it cannot explain the broad-based changes we have seen. this reallynd interesting. an official in a democratic administration because, of course, there is the whole question about well, quality-of-life, and the land-use regulations are there because people, san francisco and boston are wonderful because they have the land-use regulations. no this is a little bit of a extension of jim's question. can you talk a little bit more about, i mean, are we talking about five acre zoning or other kinds of regulations? in both sanlived francisco and boston. i think they are completely wonderful. and i think that is the argument

for everything i'm talking about, that if more people want to live there, that's terrific. and we should not be trying to get in the way of it. i guess i don't think -- i'm not sure i agree about how surprising it is. to the first point you made. but because we are very concerned about mobility, very concerned about opportunity, very concerned about a formal housing. and this hits every one of those. some ofdegree, this is, these are justified. some of these are choices communities can make, but yeah, when you are talking about lot sizes or how tall you can build or things that make it harder to set up and get permits and construct more, all of these types of restrictions can play a i amin phenomenon

talking about. yes? i'm debbie goldberg. i have two questions. can you tell us the name of that $300 million grant program you are talking about. because i'm familiar -- good to know. the second is just living ina city where there's been a lt of multifamily construction so the supply have increased dramatically and rents have gone up dramatically. and i know it is even more extreme in some of the other cities who have been talking about. to make mobility possible for people, particular people who are not well established in their careers ior eaor earning high incomes. i wonder if kind of there is a rental side parallel to the point that jim was making. we all like jim's questions

rent controls that ought to be a tool in the toolkit of municipalities that are trying to make sure people at different income levels can actually live there. jason: those are great questions. the $300 million is a proposal in the fy 2016 budget. if i told you the name of it right now it would be enacted instantly because it has a great name. i will get back to. terms of affordability, absolutely. i'm focusing on one issue today. this is not the whole housing agenda. this is not the only thing you want to do on affordability. i've been on the supply side. the demand side is an important side, too. expanding access to credit for homeowners is an important part of that. expanding affordable rentals is another part of that. agenda.r set of housing

in terms of -- i guess it do not want to wade into the bigger debate that you raised at the end there. ok, great. thanks so much and have a terrific day. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal," congressman chris stewart of utah, a member of the select intelligence committee on the u.s. strategy for combating isis. then vermont representative re to talkh is he about the house democrats legislative agenda. liveington journal" is every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter spread >> over 150 world leaders are in france for the paris climate change conference. next, the director of the

international energy agency on the world energy outlook, climate change, and the impact of low oil prices. the event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies is just over an hour. >> thank you all for being here today for the world energy outlook presentation. i'm the director of the energy and national security program here at csis. we are very pleased to have atih birol who i know is stranger to none of you here today, as the executive director of the international energy agency to do the presentation. today is a really important day for a number of reasons.

we find ourselves in an interesting place and the oil price cycle. we have got the kickoff of the paris climate negotiations. and certainly, all of us have securityerns for the situation in paris that we have experienced over the last several weeks. for those of us who have been in the energy world for a while, we is one of theh world's preeminent experts. in just about every aspect of the energy industry. and during a time in which we are going through such amazing and transformative changes in that industry, it is really wonderful to have somebody like fatih at the helm of the international energy agency which is so quickly important. a lot of the international frameworks and systems we have got for dealing and thinking about the ever dynamic field of energy. so, i would like to welcome fatih to make some remarks, give a presentation of this year's world energy outlook. then we will have a discussion about how he sees some of the trends he is going to lay out before us.

on behalf of john has, who is a member of our board at csis, who caruso,today, guy charlie curtis and the rest of the energy team as well as jon hamm rate, i want to say thank you again for coming. thank you. [applause] fatih: good afternoon. it is a great pleasure to come back to csis. it is such an honor to come to csis regularly and try to share our views about the global energy markets. with the colleagues here and learn from their questions and comments.

thank you very much once again for giving us this opportunity. so,the next half an hour or i will try to share with you our are today inwe energy markets. and where we think we will be heading, and hwat are -- what are the implications of those. look at this year, where we are, we see the lower oil prices throughout t fossil fuels, one important note to therline here is that estimate in 2015, the oil investments were 20% lower than the previous year. and more importantly, we expect this decline in investment will continue 2016.

this in thenot seen last 30 years, a decline in investments two years in a row. when there was a decline, which was very rare, then there was next year, there was a rebound. two years in a row we are seeing a decline in investments. andalso for coal, like oil gas, we see coal prices very low, about $50. mainly is it is out of what is happening in china and in some oecd countries. u.s. and europe. we see a decline in demand. lots of coal in the market. so, $50. again, since long time, we have

not seen this happen. natural gas prices and only 18 months ago, the lng price was about $20 to $7.00. and the coal price is low. this is one of the major preoccupations of the energy community today. the second preoccupation is paris. we are seeing some important signals before paris meeting. theexample, in terms of country's more than 150 pledges, now made commitments to united nations that they are going to reduce emissions in the year 2030 by this much.

it has never been the case that so many countries are making such commitments. or countries, rich countries, north, south. energy exporting, energy importing countries. this is a basis, hopefully, of an agreement coming from paris. renewables. a major growth coming from renewable energies. i will tell you in a few minutes our projections for the future, but what happened last year is a very important fact. can expect more from paris. what happened last year is that e new 50%, half of th e power capacity addition was renewables. other 50%, all other fuels put together. gascoal, plus oil plluus

plus nuclear, 50%. renewables alone 50%. as such, i believe, renewables are not anymore a niche fuel. they are becoming a mainstream fuel when you look at the numbers. beo er encouraging news fore the paris hopefully comes out is what is happening in the fossil fuel subsidies. u.s., we have about $500 dollars of subsidies for fossil pricewhich puts their artificially low. to this is very unfair renewables or efficiency measures. if you, the competing fuel, if you make the price artificially low, how they can compete with

renewable energy? you have to think about 100 meter race. and fossil fuels starts from 50 meters to reach the finish the race and renewable start from scratch. so they can, therefore, subsidies are definitely anin fossil fuels are in my view public enemy number one for sustainable development for renewables but also, more important, for energy efficiency. now, these are the two major preoccupations today. low energy price environment and what is going to come from paris and the question is to understand which one of them are cyclical, which one of them are structural changes and we try to answer this. question

when we look at demand growth. energy demand growth. where does it come from? when we look at so-called advanced economies, the energy demand, total energy demand is in decline, mainly as a result of lower economic growth, population growth, and using energy more and more efficiently. from emerging countries, especially, i would like to asia, ae southeast major demand growth center. indonesia, the philippines. is growing very strongly. and adding to the global energy demand growth. asna is very important usual, but i will come to china in a moment. but the main driver, engine of the global energy demand growth, will go to india. we expect india in 2040

will consume as much as the united states, even though per capita energy consumption will thebout 40% lower than global averages. a very important country. and it is a country every year, we focus on one country. and this year it was india. i will talk to you about this. in a few minutes. one important, again, issue i want to highlight is that the energy trade will mbe more and more taking place in asia. coao they ar-- coal, they are all moving to asia. 3/4 of oil trade in asia and 2/3 of the gas trade in asia.

destination asia , all of these fuse. -- all of these fuels. the economies of different fuels and technologies, just to give you an idea. we expect the course of solar efficiente wind and refrigerators, efficient cars, efficient lighting, they are becoming cheaper is a result of learning by doing. let me give you an example on the solar part. meantpushing the solar and the last years the solar p.v. costs declined by a factor of four. so, they are becoming competitive in many cases. and efficient products are also becoming competitive. there are many people who work

in the oil business. gas,e see, and the oil and the efficiency gains -- more and more oil, come from the complex areas. in average, the cost of oil and gas production will go up. and it is one of the reasons why we expect oil prices may gradually increase in the next years to come. oils.- and we have seen major growth of oil production in the united states. when i had the privilege to present in 2009, at that time,

we said here that there is a silent revolution taking place in north america with all its implications. and we are seeing this as a result of shale gas. huge applications for energy, for geopolitics. but while it adds a lot to oil security, we also know that the price is a very important factor for the profitability of many projects there. and our expectation is if the prices remain at these levels, we may lose significant amount of oil in the united states. for example, the price remains about $50, we may lose from today about 2 million barrels a day. and it is the very reason putting together with all other factors such as what we see

today, what is happening in iraq. our production expectation of to. is revised another major driver of lots of oil. and oil demand growing higher than 1 million barrels pretty, -- per day, we expect that the oil prices will gradually increase. $80 is the 2020 and price where the market can rebalance in order to bring profits to t investorsh and definitely it is our expectation that the oil prices will gradually increase looking at what will happen in the united states with the current prices and aloso the investment loss. and what is happening in canada, brazil, and other parts of the world. ourour expectation of

central scenarios oil prices will gradually towards 2020 go to $80 price levels. but we also know that there is another school of thought, which, with all respect to that, is theays $50 10 years new normal. and this is something that one should not exclude. and we also look, what would it world? a $50 and what will it mean, $50 world, for the next 10 years? good news or bad news? 0 worlde able to see a $5 10 years or beyond, we should be

able to see that the previous picture i show is completely wrong. about $50. canada, brazil, will continue to increase its production number. the second condition is we will see a stable middle east and with production growth from the middle east, iraq and other countries will increase production. this is needed in order to see a $50 world, we believe. a $50 world, of course, will bring a lot of benefits to oil importers, because they are going to pay less money. and oil import will go down. but another way of thinking is applications on oil security.

the globalt half of oil exports go from the middle east. world, we would see globale 50% exports, exports, will jump for middle east, will jump to 75%. areas will lose ground because they will not be able to produce that much. and given, and we have not seen since 1970's, that the oil exports from the middle east is such a high share, 75%. this will have implications for oil security, especially even the -- in some of the countries in the region. libya, syria, yemen and other countries. so, therefore, low oil prices

many, many years may not necessarily be all good news. this is one other point. in the one is that the recent years, i imagine renewable energy and also energy efficiency. there are many policies to push energy efficiency. i will mention more in a minute. and energy efficiency policies may not be very strong if the oil prices are really low. drive for therong governments and for the industry to use energy more efficiently if the price of energy is rather low. the old cliche of the lower the prices, the better it is for consumers may not come automatically anymore. it is a message.

the other message we want to give is that in a $50 world, the revenues of the many key producers will be substantially reduced, number one. number two, lower prices mean demand will be much stronger than it otherwise would be. therefore, putting pressure on the energy markets. and therefore, we believe the $50 world is not a likely scenario for a very long time. and it may not be a scenario which is desirable looking at a broader picture. markets to asia, which is the bulk of the growth, it will come from. today, when you look at the asian markets, the demand and the production is more or less similar to each other.

but we are seeing that demand will grow steadily coming from and southeast asia and countries. and the production growth will be rather modest. so, between production and the demand, there is a 400 bcm of a gap that many companies in the u.s.,-- this is the australia, african countries, russia to get to market there. and this, of course, very important. but there are two answers the shares, there are many companies around in this room, i wanted to answer this. one on the demand side. one on the production side. on the demand side, while gas is a flexible fuel, emits much less

carbon than coal, in many muchies coal is much, cheaper than natural gas today. for example, if you want to build a power plant in thailand, you want a coal fired power plant and one gas-fired power plant. to produce electricity from coal n producingper tha through gas. and in the absence of any regulation, which is in the case in most of the asian countries, they go for coal. so, therefore, there is a pressure on gas from coal. and the second pressure comes from levels. -- renewables. they are becoming more and more competitive. on the other hand, they are supported through different

mechanisms by the governments. so, on the demand side, there is unanswered to how gas will - the re is an answer of how gas will be squeezed by coal. on the production side, the growth you see here, the big chunk of that growth is coming fromshale gas and the -- china. it is much lower than the chinese government estimates. but even this may not happen or it may be higher. there is a big uncertainty, shale gas future of china. therefore this 400 bcm may be changing as a result of the success or the failure of the shale gas coming from china in the next years to come. one of theut china,

most impressive stories in the g,story of energy now is comin approaching to an end. which is the chinese energy demand growth story. energy stamp on all departments in the last years to come. if you look at the last years, the energy demand growth and gdp -- economic growth was more or less similar to each other. when you look at the future -- other one. we see while this economy continues to grow, at a slower pace. --rgy demand growth is this, sorry.

this does not look anymore, i guess. ok. this doesn't look. ok. energy demand growth. so, energy demand growth, much lower pace. i will explain you what it is. so, first of all, we saw the first signs of decoupling 2014 and 2015. and it is happening mainly for two reasons. one, chinese government is putting a lot of efforts on energy efficiency. this is number one. second, and more important than colleagues doergy not follow closely, chinese economy is changing its character, its structure, moving from a heavy industry-based economy to a service-based

economy. slowly but surely. so what you see is a divorce between the economic growth and energy demand growth in china. this is especially the case for coal. in a will come to it moment. so, this is the first change in china -- energy demand growth and economic growth is decoupling. the second change is the following. while you look at the past years, you saw only two colors. coal land oil -- and oil. and we are now seeing many new colors coming in the picture, especially coal is losing market share significantly. 2015 chinese coal slow

down and it is in decline. don't forget the china consumes half of the world's coal alone. this is a decline. oil will continue to grow but you will see gas, nuclear power, and more and more renewables, hydropower, solar, wind, being a part of the energy. in china, we see two things happen. one, the economy grows and energy demand growth is decoupling. mixnd, more the energy is much more diverse compared to today. now, as i mentioned to you, every year we focus on one country, and this year we worked on india. indiar message is th center stage of

world energy affairs. coal, oil and solar, if you look at them in terms of coal, number one importer of coal is today india. 250 than, of course, the million people, they have no electricity. and to generate electricity from coal is the cheapest option for india. my view verye in unfair to say the indians don't do that. while the 250 people have no access to electricity. of course, they are doing it, but -- this is one issue. second, oil. india will be the main driver, of the global oil

demand if you look at even 2015 numbers, very strong growth coming from india. it is very obvious why. carne hand, india is the ownership levels is very low. in the united states, 750 people out of 1000 people own a car. 1000. 500 out of in india, 20 out of 1000 people own a car. with increasing income levels, they buy cars, as many other people did, and infused oil demand growth. second, india is pushing -- like china, they are pushing -- about 90% of new production coming from india, demand coming from india is trucks. an important role. as a result of that, india is playing a very important role in the oil market in the years

to come. we will omit the china numbers. we need to look more and more india numbers as well. solar pv also in terms of solar pv, the modi government pushed solar very strongly. about 20% of all new global solar pv will come from india alone. so, therefore, india will be a new emerging country in terms of determining the global energy markets in the next years to come. -- markets, which is the most important markets here. when we look at the power markets we see that the oil production to generate electricity is declining. nuclear is increasing somewhat mainly from asia. china is the leader here,

followed by india, korea and also japan. starting the nuclear generation slowly but surely. that is growing strongly. a generator of electricity, but also components renewables. and coal is losing significant market share. today it is about more than 40% share of coal and number one field. there are some increase coming mainly from india and the southeast asian countries. is much lowere than the global energy demand growth. so coal is losing market shares. as the number one fuel because renewables are becoming the number one fuel in the electrical generation. when i say renewables -- two things.

important to note and they are different issues. e growth of past, th renewables came mainly from hydropower. in the future, we expect the biggest growth will come from wind and solar power. the one change. second change, in the past, the bulk of the growth in renewables came from the oecd countries, from the rich countries. but now we are seeing the growth is coming mainly from emerging countries of renewables. let me give you one number. in4, renewable investments china were bigger than u.s. plus all european countries plus japan put together. only in china. so, therefore, in the power system, we see a major change. and following what i told you before, that renewable is the

fuel of choice, and in the next $10ars, out of every invested in new power capacity, $6.00 go to renewable investments. energy efficiency. isis is an issue, as our cs colleagues know very well, that we highlight all the time, because it is changing the picture. everybody has to understand in order to understand the demand growth what is happening in energy efficiency. and i can tell you that in the year 2005, 10 years ago, only about 15% of the global energy consumption was covered by the energy efficiency, mandatory energy efficiency measures, only 15%. today, it is almost double.

that is out of two major facts. takeshinese government this very, very seriously for saving sons, from cost to energy security. if you use energy less, your import dependency will be also less. ste second reason is in the la four or five years, we have had high energy prices. this was an important driver of the energy efficiency measures put in place. and when we look at the future, more energyre and efficiency measures will be put in place. but i can tell you, in a $50 world, i believe the energy efficiency -- will be much lower

than this, just to see the other part of the coin. i expect on the other side, good result from paris, some strong signals from paris, with energy efficiency improvement. time for our discussion, let me finish by the discussion on climate change in paris. is somethingseen unique when it comes to climate change. some of you may remember two other cities. kyoto and copenhagen. i believe paris may be much different than copenhagen and itso will all of consequences. first of all, we have never seen, ladies and gentlemen, that camethan 150 countries

together and said, climate change is a serious issue. and i am going to reduce my emissions that much by 2030. pledges. course, some of those pledges are less ambitious than others. and as they stand now, nobody willlaim those governments fulfill their commitments as they are not mandatory pledges. but still, there is a strong intention there. and there is a political momentum which is getting stronger and stronger. today, more than 100 world leaders are in paris, which messed up the traffic in paris,

i heard from my colleagues. nobody can take their cars. and they hopefully come up with suggestions, which i, agreements, which i will elaborate in a moment. but just wanted to tell you what happens if those pledges are fulfilled. what happens if it is fulfilled is that some of them may be less ambitious. first implication for the climate change. the scientific community, the overwhelming -- scientists in the united nations told us that we want to have a world in the future, which is more or less similar to the existing one easey, temperature incrase should be maximum 2 degrees celsius. these pledges or

implement it, temperature increase will be 2.7 degrees celsius. and the difference between not something that you just take your jacket off. it has tremendous implications for the fragile quill ib rum of our planet. this is the first implication. 2/3 of the emissions causing climate change come from the -- sector. if you want to solve the problem, you have to solve the problem in the energy sector. what does it mean for the energy ector?

one sector. generation. it continued to increase. there would be a substantial amount of emissions coming there. we look at the future and it will grow. e problem is we don't have a problem with it growing. the problem is not with energy ut with emissions. emission recess main stable. unlike in the past. they don't grow. mainly the result of two things. ne, -- inning. second share of coal is declining, the share of gas is

ncreasing. they say i will do this by doing this and this and this. policies the government choose to reach their targets really as an energy first quarter si. -- first quarter si. -- can change the picture significantly. now before finishing our presentation, i wanted to tell you something about the international energy agency, if i may. some of you may know i started my job as executive director some three months ago.

shared by the secretary with all of our administers, from china, thailand, brazil, many other countries. came up with the new strategy, modernization. i wanted to share with you this -- what does it mean? first of all, in addition to our mexico deciding to be a member, which is very ood news for us and chile. many others are -- we have had discussions with them. e will definitely -- our first pillar of our new strategy. opening the doors of the i.e.a.

to emerging countries. the rich man's energy club, being a truly international organization, opening our doors to emerging countries. the second pillar is the putting more emphasis on the organization. we want to put more emphasis on the gas supply working on that and third why we continue our position in the traditional fields of technologies, we would like to be putting more and more emphasis on the new energy technologies and aim to be the, f i may say so, essential bank of energy efficiency. so these are three pillars which have been endorsed and i want to take this opportunity and finish our presentation that the low

it isices, 10 more years, likely and on the other hand, not necessarily very good news for the consumers if you look at the big picture ranging from energy security to the sustainability issues. india growing very strong and the choices that india will make will affect everybody. just let me give you one number. india in the next 20 years, there will be more than 300 million people added to their population. and the buildings that they are going live have not been built yet. what kind of buildings they will have? the installation standards. the mandatory efficiency

olicies. --na, as i said, is going to their growth trajectory now and iso the choices that u china aking is in line with global con assumption and more diversification will paint different picture than we had in the past. we think that the transition, as mentioned, is underway. whether or not this will be a big move, will depend on the results from paris. without getting a clear signal from paris, there will not be a major change in the flow of investments in the energy sector

and as we all know, the energy therefore the signal, a clear signal from paris therefore will e of vital importance. finally, both in terms of oil and gas, when we look at the -- environmental challenges. climate change and local pollution, we think the corporation on energy is and therefore, we are aiming to be -- which is truly international and the entire spectrum of energy issues. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] sarah: thank you very much, fatih, for that wonderful presentation.

we are going to open it up for questions. we are on the record as you can tell by the huge number of cameras. please wait for a microphone and state your name and affiliation. please ask your question in the form of a question. hile you think of your hottest questions, i did want to start with a couple of -- fatih, before you arrived today, picking up where you left off, we were watching the world leaders that you mentioned gathered in paris, already talking about what needs to happen in paris, but also what needs to happen after paris and that is one of those unique features you talked about in these climate negotiations is that there is a focus while there is a lot that has been achieved in the run-up to paris, there is a lot more that still needs to be done. one of the themes that you bring up, in your conclusion slides, is the transition from china being a growing major consumer to being a traditioning major consumer. clearly because of its size and

power of being such a large consumer and then india really being the emerging consumer of the next several decades. part of the challenge in these paris climate talks is to prove to a lot of these emerging developing economies that we ande figured out how to grow decarbonize at the same time. you were just in india. how well are we sending that message -- selling that message? fatih: i think you have to reconcile the economic rowth. the consideration is a challenge. i think we have to be fair here. if you want to be credible, we have to be fair. you look at the u.s., europe, japan, china. the economic growth has been mainly using a lot of coal. they use a lot of coal and put it in the atmosphere. it is still there.

a big chunk of it. but we cannot afford worldwide o have the same pattern to continue because we will not be able to reach our climate targets. so therefore, one of the things that we suggest is that either the countries should not build any more inefficient coal-fired power plants and the ones who are building it should have some legitimate grounds such as africa, such as india, or there should be some mechanisms to provide them cheaper, sustainable energy sources. other than that, we cannot oblige african countries, india, other poor countries, to choose

for the more expensive options in the absence of providing any incentives for them. therefore, i believe there will be an agreement, hopefully in paris and hopefully there will e an agreement where all important, if not all countries are signing, but how this agreement is put together, will be very important in the context of having all major emerging countries onboard. and this means that one should look at the economic development prospects together and once again, i would be urging the countries to come up with some pragmatic solutions here rather than dogmatic policies that will go across the board to all the countries, the same policies.

i think it wouldn't work. i hope and i'm confident that we will come up with some solution which will get the different sensitivities of different parties in paris. sarah: and sticking with the theme of decarbonization for a minute, many folks recognize the organization as one of sound energy policy. energy analysis. but you also do a lot of work on technology as well. we have seen already at the start to have negotiations and announcement from 19 of the world's largest r & d investors and some of the world's most forward-leaning billionaires, this commitment to invest in clean energy, r & d. i've never seen a decarbonization pathway that doesn't include a boat load of nuclear. and a lot of c.c.s. what is it we need to be doing along those fronts to achieve eep carbonization?

-- deep decarbonizeation? fatih: i think, especially in the power generation, we need to increase the number of options we have in hand. we need to bring the costs down. how we can bring the costs down is a result of making more research, more development and this would bring the costs down. people, if they don't use enough renewables, not because they don't like renewables, but they're not in line with coal because it is cheaper. so therefore, research and evelopment bring the cost of technologies down and definitely different types of nuclear parbgs carbon capture and storage. i think doubles the efforts of these countries as you mentioned, recover all the clean energy technologies including

the nuclear and c.c.s., i.e.a., we are very keen to be the coordinating body of this effort. sarah: and finally before we open it up to the audience, you have been a long time voice in arguing for not being complacent when oil prices are low. this is yet another one of those periods in time and yet we hear in the united states seem to be sightly seized y the idea of lower, longer we have several committees looking to sell portion of our reserve and we have a burgeoning movement of people who believe that you should invest in fossil fuel energy resources because the resources are so abundant. and beshed doing something about climate change the we need to be taking a new and different approach and you said you don't think $50 oil is likely nor is it necessarily desirable for a

lot of our energy policies and goals and objectives. what message would you have for u.s. policy makers and how they are treating not only oil supply security in the united states but for the cultivation in the resource base that resulted from is that quiet revolution that you talked about in 2009? fatih: thank you very much. first of all, i should say that it would be an extremely wrong mistake, a grave mistake, if our attention to oil security is indexed to changes in the oil prices. namely, price goes down, therefore everything is ok. no need for prices to go up, this is the panic. this is not approaching the issues. it is a very important issue. look at iraq, syria, libya, yemen, algeria, many countries

and dwhrong problem in the middle east will be solved tomorrow. therefore i would think that the oil security, at least san so in .e.a., i may say the i.e.a. will be the guiding principal at least for the next four years to come. the second on the investment, one thing is important to understand. out of economic problem weakening. the oil demand growth, if n the next 10 years. no oil demand growth. t stays as it is -- we still

have to produce new oil amount of four million barrels per day the decline ofnd the existing fields. so we have to find new fields, produce new -- just to compensate those declines. t is the main story. four million barrels each year, e have to bring -- investments are in a decline. 15 and most likely 16 and if it comes together, the increase in the demand, which i believe it will come, we may have some strong challenges in the markets. so therefore, from the investment points of view, i am worried, whatever the demand

growth is, but if the demand growth is strong, 1 million barrels per day higher, we may see a challenge tied to the markets in the years to come. soich ok. let's bring in some of our friends from the audience. we'll take tom over here. we'll take three questions at a time and then you next? >> thank you. my name is tom cutler. i'm an independent consultant. thank you for your excellent presentation. my question is about india. you mentioned that the recent i.e.a. meeting in paris that, china, indonesia and thailand have become associate members of however you describe it. so i was struck by the fact that india was not on that list. you expect india to reach agreement on associate status, if not why, stand so, what are the issues that are holding -- and if so, what are the issues

that are holding that up? thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm retired from the world bank. thank you for an excellent presentation. you did not mention the words carbon tags in your presentation or carbon pricing, if you would like. i'm asuing all of your projections are assuming no such happens. >> i wanted to ask you about the plication s of the low price environment on the shale gas boom. thank you. fatih: so excellent question about india.

we are working with india a very long time. it was just friday, as sarah mentioned, i was in new delhi, meetings with all three ministers. an excellent corporation. i think there are some challenges and i hope they will be very soon sold and we will have india as a part of the greater family, but we are working really closely with india. there is no doubt about it. good ll be definitely news not to work with india. making major efforts in the -- efficient si and other parts of the energy.

we can also share with the indian colleagues. in my view, carbon press is the best solution to our climate problem. excellent. it will be the economic and most efficient one. have the carbon tax in some countries and not in some others, there may be some imbalances in terms of the competitiveness of those countries. political he current environment in paris and before ris, after paris, to have an

agreement on an international carbon -- in price for me, would be a very bad -- price. i should put it this way. it would be very difficult knowing different countries -- but i fully agree with you. the best way to adjust the climate change problem would be utting your price on carbon. the role of oil prices also has implications for the shale gas in the u.s. and elsewhere, putting pressure on the shale gas production even though it will not affect directly as much as in oil, i would say. -- f current price levels

current price level s of gas in the united states i expect need to go up sometime soon in order to make production growth more sustainable. sarah: ok. let's take another round. one question there. we have another here and one there. so right here. go ahead and stand up so we can see you. >> adam siegel. i'm trying to deal with a con none drum i have with i.e.a. in to casting without exception as we go back, it has been pessimistics. -- mist pessimistic. we passed that in january, 2015. your slide said 50% reduction in

olar prices. wan year we'll be bleel 50%. why consideration the advocacy of renewable energy, why the continued repeated pessimism when it comes to renewable nergy in the forecast? >> my question is about your comments regarding changing culture of i.e.a. and moving it from being less of a rich man's club and bringing in new countries. so my question is what changes within the organization would you expect to come with that change, bringing in several new countries that have a different economic and development perspective. thank you.

sarah: thanks. one more over here. no? other side. -- of -- how do you look at africa now producing oil and do you think of africa being a member of the i.e.a. and if so, looking at the oil production what do you advise? what oil be exports or -- do you think between now and 2030? thank you. fatih: thank you very much for those very good questions. now about our renewable projections. make scenarios

on the base of the policies. the numbers i showed you existing policies of the governments. we will see what kind of -- we also have projections which we think government change their policies and have very strong climate policies. ery strong climate policies. what our renewable projections are so conservative. we went back and looked. hey are on the spot. solar projections. governments changed their policies and supported the solar much more stronger and solar

showed a strong increase. increased their projections. i will be very happy if what you say is true the next year. he cost of solar will go up. 50% down. i would be very happy next year if i come here, to revise advise our solar projections upwards. i would be the happiest man. but the projests, life doesn't change with my projections. with these policies you go here. if you want to see most solar or more anything, you have to change your policies and we can push it more. just for the knowledge -- solar, very important. sole n.r.a. the global energy mix is not 10%, not 5%. it is -- -- solar in the global

nergy mix is not 10%, no 5%. india, china and other countries are pushing it. i hope to see more solar next year. what are we going to change in our organization to be in the rich man's energy club? i would like to be truly international. we will open our doors to emerging companies. the mexican appy government decided to be part of it. we are changing our culture, for example, to give you an idea, on anear, we work -- work environment which is specific to the -- local pollution of the cities.

this is the issue for our -- the issue for as i yarks latin america, african countries, what ind of energy policy is needed in order to get this policies to reduce emissions, flution the cities. -- pollution in the cities. girthing more and more -- from those countries within the i.e.a. to work with us on different levels and different subjects. we are organize r organizing ore. energy first quarter si to the oil policies. is a -- oil and gas potential in addition to the established produce such as igeria and angola.

of course some of them need to be exported. the revenues are very important -- those governments, budgets. but the main problem in africa today in my view is two out of three africans have not -- electricity. that is a shame. africa has a lot of oil, gas, renewable energies. strong ou have very solar, radiation. even more than washington, d.c. lots of solar coming there. therefore you need to see that africa makes the most out of it. as i said, many people have not -- money is coming to africa.

energy is coming to africa. mainly to export african oil and gas to other countries. two out of three dollars is for oil and gas and core projects to be exported, which brings noun the government but still the energy infrastructure is very poor and we work with african countries that would like to be art of the i.e.a.. several from nigeria working, and others. sarah: we promised you we would get youft here on time, fannie. -- fatih. i know you have a train to catch. please keep us posted on all the great things that you're doing at the international energy

agency. thank you. [applause] >> today defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs of staff update congress on the u.s. military strategy in syria and iraq to combat isis, will testify before the house armed sferses committee live at 10:00 .m. eastern on c-span 3. president obama is joining more than 150 world leeds leaders at the paris climate change conference. in his remarks, he highlighted u.s. investments in clean energy, solar power and reductions in carbon emissions. francois hol presided over the morning session which included speeches by angela merkel and vladimir putin . this is 90 minutes.

>> the president of paraguay has the floor. [applause]

>> president of the french republic, francois hollande, secretary general of the u.n., -- r. been a kentucky moon. -- ban ki moon. ladies and gentlemen, excellency. i would like to reiterate president hollande's his government and the french people. the most heartfelt condolences and our utmost solidarity. crimeght of the horrendous committed in paris on the 13th of this month. we and our generation are living t a critical juncture. we have the enormous and pressing responsibility of tackling the environmental

challenge that we are living through. this conference is an opportunity for nations to adopt urgent measures in order to curb the causes and consequences of limate change. his holiness, pope francis provides a stark warning. in order to face this crisis and protect forces of life, he says that never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we ave in the last 200 years. now, today, it is up to us to change history. beginning today, in order to reverse the failure of past climate conferences.

paraguay has great potential for sustainable development with valuable natural resources and bundant fresh water, fertile soil and wide-ranging biodiversity which is of global significance. it is the greatest per capita producer and exporter of clean, renewable power in the world. we have hydroelectric devices. paraguay is one of the few countries in the whole world that consumes almost 100% electric energy that is of a clean and renewable source. it has the world record for production of 2.3 billion megawatts per hour which avoids the use of 440,000 barrels of oil per day and with that, it avoids the admission of 88

million tons of carbon dioxide per year. furthermore, it protects more than 100,000 types of forest that according to the world wildlife fund, produce oxygen or over 20 million people. the other dam protects forests. and mitigates carbon dioxide to the tune of 20 million tons per year. we produce food for the world obtained through good agricultural practices with low emissions of greenhouse gases and are protective processes. paraguay has 18.5 million patches of forest, representing

5% of our territory and it gives a value of 2.9 -- of forest fer capita. -- per capita. 15% of our nations correspond to protected wildlife areas. and paraguay, we are renewing our public transport fleets and investing in new technology. that are efficient for reducing the use of fossil feels. we are carrying out historic investments and health nfrastructure to improve the quality of our water resources and the quality of life of our people. we are undertaking a national forest asian program to reduce the pressure on native forests, developing a sustainable energy framework.

although paraguay does not make significant contributions to global omissions, we do suffer from the consequences of climate change. undertaking the commitment as part of this convention, paraguay has presented its proposal for national contribution and actions for low carbon growth. presidents, we know that the agreement that will be adopted in this conference is very ambitious and it is a challenge. it is nothing less or more than the protection of our planet in the face of the devastating effects of unbridled consumerism. the success of this dialogue will pave the way for countries to improve the quality of life of their most vulnerable sectors. today, we have not only the opportunity but also the responsibility to draft objectives were a new agreement on the climate to preserve our national heritage for future generations. i will conclude my brief statement quoting, once again,

pope francis, who in his famous -- which is a landmark against indifference as often occurs in periods of crisis which require decisions, we are tended to think that what is happening is not entirely clear. superficially, apart from a few obvious signs of pollution and deterioration, things do not look that serious. the planet could continue as it is for sometime. such of a fitness serves as a license for carrying on with our present lifestyles and modes of production and consumption. let us change history, let's wake up. and hear the urgent call to look after our sources of life. let's not lose sight of the fact that the final goal of our efforts as governors is the well-being of our peoples with deep respect for human

dignity. thank you a much. [applause] >> thank you, president. >> morocco will host the ext. his majesty has done a great deal of work to combat climate change. he has lost his voice, said he will not be able to deliver his statement which will be read by her royal highness, who i give he floor to. >> mr. president, secretary general of the u.n., excellencies and ladies and

gentlemen, his majesty has given me the honor of making the royal statement at this 21st conference of the united nations framework convention on climate hange. blessings upon the profit. -- prophet. ladies and gentlemen, distinguished heads of states and government, secretary general of the u.n., expensies, ladies and gentlemen. our feeting today in paris is not and can no longer be one of the summits and conferences that the community of nations regularly puts on the agenda of international relations. allow me to say frankly that it will no longer be the case because the paris conference and the one that my country has offered to host any years time

in marrakesh will be instrumental in shaping the future which we are duty bound to bequeath to our children. our children, and we do not want to see deprived of forests, oceans, coastlines, and all of these natural resources which are the hallmarks of mankind's most valuable heritage. a heritage which is threatened today because the international community has been unable or unwilling to come together and time and muster the means needed to have better control over its own destiny. today, we are aware, all of us, of the devastating effects of global warming on the planet. and of the urgent need to match words with deeds. your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, what is at stake in our discussions is neither

ideological nor diplomatic nor economic and the traditional sense of our previous discussions and meetings. e all now realize that the threat is global. indeed, there is not a single country, region, or continent that will be spared the consequences of climate change. doubt and skepticism are no longer acceptable. nor will it be possible to continue using the alibi of rong priorities. the community of nations has for far too long turned its back on our children's destiny and future. for a long time, we chose to turn a blind eye for far too long, we have delayed the moment of awareness. we had been playing with hypotheses that have proved to be ways of evading the issue. but, the facts speak for themselves.

ice is melting and ocean levels are rising. shores are gradually being eroded. water resources are becoming scarce. agricultural output is threatened and increasingly, deadly floods are coming on the heels of drought that are just as distressing. that is why i have deliberately chosen to avoid technical analysis or academic discourse. instead, i want to pay tribute to the scientists and specialists who are experts in the field. we have to make sure that unanimity which is not easily and instantaneously obtainable in this area, does not become a deal breaker that would justify foot drag by some and the illusions arising from the inaction of others. in this respect, we must patiently, resolutely and determinedly build on what is possible and attainable. it is only through effective

action and tangible results that we can overcome reluctance and resistance. your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, in keeping with this perspective, that of realism and action, i should like to mention the strategy that the kingdom of morocco has been implement in for more than half a century. to begin with water, the source of life, and the crucial daily concerns for every moroccan. what would become of morocco, in this respect, had it not been for the dam building policy? recognizing the importance of this key accomplishment for morocco's future, we have sought to strengthen it which has llowed the kingdom to now have 140 large dams, nearly one third of which have been built during

the last 15 years. thanks to this policy, morocco is successfully dealing with the fx of drought while in some eveloped countries, rain gives rise to a warning that an exceptional severe drought is feared. the kingdom's commitment -- committed action is also illustrated by the development of watersheds which make it possible to channel water without disrupting cosystems. morocco has also developed ithout difficulty, a responsible fishery policy to protect its fish stocks. since the world became aware of the urgent need to address climate change and 1992, the kingdom of morocco has resolutely sought to ensure that

its proactive policy on sustainable development and environmental protection is in line with the global efforts of the international community. through a series of constitutional, legislative, reforms, the environment charter and the green morocco plan, the green investment plan, the ban on gmo's, and the recent law on plastic waste all clearly reflect our commitment and consistency. more recently, and in line with the same approach favoring long-term objectives, the kingdom of morocco has become one of the major actors in the global energy transition around the world and especially on the african continent. thus, the objective of securing 42% of the country's energy to be drawn from renewable resources by 2020 has recently been increased to 52% by

2030. orocco is ambitious, substantial and tended contribution under the u.n. framework convention on climate hange confirms the kingdoms of avant-garde proactive approach. building on the irreversible commitment, morocco is going to ost the event in 2016. that is why we made the appeal on september 20 with the french president. this reflects our commitment to work hand-in-hand for the success of these events that are rucial to our destiny. it is important that one stage leads to the next. the road ahead will be long.

habits will have to be changed and priorities will have to be set and new technologies will have to be invented. the climate change predicament is the ultimate injustice suffered by the most honorable. the consequences of climate change affect developing nations as much if not more than developed countries, especially the least advanced african and latin american states and small island states. alarm bells have been heard even by the deaf. there is broad awareness. developing countries are progressing using their own strategies and are moving orward, charting their own course amid constraints which can no longer be ignored. first, there is the need to make sure that their populations enjoy decent living conditions. is it fair to advocate for --

frugality when one already has everything? when one has little, is a crime against the planet to want more? does it make sense to describe development as sustainable when it leaves the majority of people living in poverty? is appropriate that rescriptions for climate protection are predicated by those who bear the greatest responsibility for global warming? the african continent deserves special attention. the whole of africa is waking up. africa is discovering itself and getting confidence. it is a continent of the future. in this context, promoting the transfer of technology and raising funds, particularly for the benefits of developing ountries is fundamental. be careful, because we need to guard against compelling these countries to choose between

developing countries commitment to combat the climate change must also take into account the respective development models and their customs. in the countries of the north, consumer habits regarding cosmetics and food produce large amounts of non-debatable waste. likewise, in developing countries, the fight against plastic bags, for example, is a genuine challenge. people do not think of getting rid of these, but rather filling them to meet their needs. this is a question of education. that is why, in both cases, binding regulations are needed. the fight against waste should not be synonymous with technophobia or a rejection of progress or return to the stone age. on the contrary, technological

advances should be used effectively so as to reduce the impact of global warming. presidents, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, a genuine, inclusive international consensus is imperative. it requires that we support the developing countries in their endeavor to fully embrace the climate action agenda. the paris conference gives us the opportunity to consolidate a comprehensive operational balance, universal legal instrument that will make it possible to keep global warming below two degrees celsius. and move them toward a low carbon economy. i would like to conclude by wishing this conference every success. i also want to thank president hollande and france for the commitment and dedication that they have shown to make this

event a successful meeting that makes history and fosters hope. maintaining this conference and ensuring its success is the most elegant tribute that we can pay to the french people. who have recently been affected by despicable terrorist attacks. this is the best response to the enemies of humanity. thank you. [applause] >> i thank his majesty and call upon president obama to approach. [applause] president obama: president hollande, secretary-general,

fellow leaders, we have come to paris to show our resolve. we offer our condolences to the people of france for the barbaric attacks on this beautiful city. we stand united in solidarity, not only to deliver justice to the terrorist network responsible for those attacks, but to protect our people and uphold the enduring values that keep us strong and keep us free. we salute the people of paris for insisting in this crucial onference go on. an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for ur children. what greater rejection of those who would tear down our world

than marshaling our best efforts o save it? nearly 200 nations have assembled here this week. a declaration that for all of the challenges we face, the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of the century more dramatically than any other. what should give us hope, that this is a turning point, that this is the moment that we finally determine we would save our planet, is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something bout it. our understanding of the ways human beings disrupt the climate, advances by the day.

14 of the 15 warmest years of record have occurred since the year 2000. 2015 is on pace to be the warmest year of all. no nation, large or small, wealthy or poor, is immune to what this means. this summer i saw the effects of climate change firsthand and our northernmost state, alaska. where the sea is already swallowing villages and eroding horelines. where permafrost falls and the tundra burns. where glaciers are melting at a pace unprecedented in modern times. it was a preview of one possible future, a glimpse of our children's fate of the climate keeps changing faster than our efforts to address it.

submerged countries. abandoned cities. fields that no longer grow. political disruptions that trigger new conflict. even more floods and desperate peoples seeking sanctuary of nations not their own. that future is not one of strong economies, nor is it one where fragile states can find their footing. that future is one that we have the power to change. right here. right now. but only if we rise to this moment. as one of america's governors have said, we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something bout it. i have come here personally as leader of the world's largest

economy and the second-largest emitter. to say that the u.s. not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something bout it. over the last seven years, we have made ambitious investments in clean energy. we have multiplied wind power threefold. solar power more than 20 fold. helping create parts of america where these clean power forces are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. we have invested in energy efficiency in every way imaginable. we have said no to

infrastructure that would pull high carbon fossil fuels in the ground and we said yes to the first ever set of national standards limiting the amount of carbon pollution that our power plants can release into the sky. the advances that we have made have helped drive our economic output to all-time highs. and drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels. this is not an american trend alone. last year, the global economy grew while global carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels stayed flat. what this means cannot be overstated. we have broken the old arguments for inaction and we have proved that strong economic growth and a safer environment no longer has to conflict with one another. they can work in concert with one another. that should give us hope.

we willhe enemies that be fighting at this conference is cynicism, the notion that we cannot do anything about climate change. our progress should give us hope during these two weeks. hope that is rooted in collective action. earlier this month in dubai, delay, the world agreed to work together to cut super pollutants. that is progress. prior to paris, more than 180 countries have put forward their own climate targets. that is progress. for our part, america is on track to reach the emissions

targets that we set six years ago in copenhagen. last year i set a new target, america will reduce emissions 2005 levels. our task here in paris is to turn these achievements into an enduring framework for human progress. not a stopgap solution. a long-term strategy that gives the world confidence in a low carbon future. here in paris, let's secure an agreement that builds in ambition. where progress paves the way for regularly updated targets. targets that are not set for each of us but by each of us. taking into account the

differences that each nation is facing. here in paris, let us agree to a strong system of transparency that gives each of us the confidence that all of us are meeting our commitments. let us make sure that those who don't have the capacity to report on their targets get the support that they need. here in paris, let's reaffirm our commitment that resources will be there to get through the dirty phase of development. this will not be easy. it will take innovation. and the capital to drive down the cost of clean energy. i'll announce an effort for

clean energy on a global scale. here in paris, let us make sure that these resources will flow to those countries that need help preparing for impacts of climate change we can no longer avoid. we know the truth that many nations have contributed little to climate change but will be the first to feel its most destructive effects. for some, particularly islands nations, whose leaders i will meet with tomorrow, climate change is a threat to their existence. today, in concert with other nations, we can affirm our commitment to the least developed countries. we will pledge new contributions

for initiatives that help vulnerable populations rebuild after climate related disasters. here in paris, let's show businesses and investors that the global economy is on a firm path to a low carbon future. if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the powers of our scientists and our engineers. new jobs and new opportunities will be created all around the world. there are hundreds of billions of dollars ready to deploy to countries around the world if they get the signal that we mean business. let's send that signal. that is what we seek in these next two weeks. not simply an agreement to roll back the pollution, but an agreement that helps people move up from poverty without condemning the next generation to a planet that is beyond repair.

we can show the world what is possible when we come together united in common effort and common purpose. let there be no doubt, the next generation is watching what we do. just over a week ago i was in malaysia, i held a town hall with young people. the first question i got was from a young indonesian woman. it wasn't about terrorism. it wasn't about the economy or human rights. it was about climate change. she asked if i was optimistic about what we can achieve in paris. do what young peolple can to help. i want our actions to show her that we are listening. we must be big enough to draw on the talents of all our people. i want to show her passionate idealistic people who care about their future.

in the words of martin luther king, there is such a thing as being too late. when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us. if we act here, if we act now, if we put our own short-term interests behind the air that our young people will breathe and the food they will eat and the water they will drink and the hopes and dreams that sustain their lives, we will not be too late for them. the moments of victory will not be too late or too quick. the suffering is averted and a planet that is preserved, that is what has always made this so hard. our generation may not live to see the full realization of what we do here. but the knowledge that the next generation will be better off, can we imagine a more worthy reward than that?

passing that on to our children and our grandchildren. when they look back, they see what we did here in paris, they can take pride. let that be the common purpose here in paris. a world that is worthy of our children. a world that is marked not by conflict but human progress. a world that is safer and more prosperous and more secure and more free than the one that we inherited. let us get to work. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i give the floor to the president of djibouti, mr. is

mail omar guelleh. president guelleh: mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, heads of state and governments? the iran,etary of madame secretary -- mr. secretary of the u.n., madame secretary of the convention on climate change, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to once again present to you and the french nation our most sincere condolences for the cowardly attack in paris. i would like to reiterate our

tireless support combating sustainably terrorism in all its forms. 53 years ago, the world was emerging from the worst humanitarian disaster in our modern history. out of this rubble, the international community, driven by urgency built ,its salvation through a consensus in the form of the universal declaration of human rights in paris on the 10th of december, 1948. today it is the same consensus that we have to create. the same courage that we have to draw upon. the same sense of responsibility, the same the duty to protect our planet.

and to leave to future generations a livable planet. for these reasons we must impose , constraints upon ourselves for posterity for humanity here in paris as was the case for the universal declaration of human rights. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, since the rio summit of 1992 in brazil, the threat of climate change has only worsened. and yet it is clear to everybody that the international community certainly has not lived up to the immense challenge represented by the global environmental challenge. -- crisis we find ourselves faced with. this is even though we now understand its periodical -- periodical --

understand its periodical underpinnings. we have increasingly effective tools that can guide us in our growth in ways that are more respectful of the environment. this is the paradox. a paradox which our fellow citizens find hard to understand. and which is unacceptable for the many countries which experience climate change as a countdown towards a hostile and uncertain future. it is certain that if nothing is , in less than half a century in east africa and the middle east, it will be impossible for human beings to survive due to extreme temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. desertification, soil degradation wells running , dry, floods. these climate phenomena are

already regular hazards that our populations are combating as best they can with their often meager resources. ladies and gentlemen, we will not be able to win the fight against climate change unless we take drastic steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, developed , we have toich recall, have historic responsibility for climate change and which have the necessary financial and technological capacities, these countries must set an example by substantially reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. equally developing countries , must take their share of responsibility. no economic argument can justify the jeopardizing of our planet.

because growth and material wealth that we are currently amassing will be worth nothing compared with the terrific costs of climate change. namely, human lives which will be lost. adaptation mechanisms have been developed in recent years. i believe that we are only at the beginning of tojects that will allow us protect a most honorable populations against climate hazards. our country's needs are such that it is vital to further develop them. in this sense, i fully endorse the statement made by the of south africa on

behalf of the group of 77 and china. and by the president of sudan on behalf of africa. africa is faced with climate challenges. it will they chiefly dependent on the ability of countries of the north to provide more consistent responses to two issues that africa has raised. on the one hand, that of adaptation to the effects of climate change and its financing and on the other hand, that of technology transfer. mr. president, like other african countries adaptation , remains the priority of the government of djibouti. indeed, we already find ourselves faced with a lack of water and low agricultural output, devastating floods, frequent droughts,

rising sea levels, health problems due to climate change, among others. all actions taken to address these extreme climate phenomena must be financed. for this reason, we ask that the international financing mobilized to combat climate change be equitably shared between mitigation actions and adaptation actions. here we are worried by the , current trend, as revealed by the oecd report resented lima, shows that only 17% of financing is devoted to adaptation. which is far from enough. neglecting adaptation would be to forget that climate change already affects many countries

and that its negative impact will only increase. this, regardless of the mitigation measures taken. newy we've met to adopt a universal agreement, one that i hope will be legally binding. we have learned from the experience of the kyoto protocol and from the failure of the copenhagen summit. we must make the necessary decisions to find an agreement which on the one hand does not exclude any country and which on the other is just and equitable. to do this, we will undoubtedly need to agree before it is too late to address the issue of national sovereignty. to embed the framework for an effective response to the most global threat that humanity has ever known. hope is once again there. it is strong and powerful enough

to help us to understand the most important thing. we need to act once and for all for the planet. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i give the floor to the president of china, president xi jinping. presidentxi: alarmed, ban ki-moon, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.

today we are gathering here in , paris for the opening ceremony of the united nations conference on climate change. our presence shows that terrorism cannot hold back mankind's efforts to address climate change and pursuit a better future. let me take this opportunity to express sincere sympathy to the french people and my gratitude to president hollande for the french government's meticulous preparation for this conference. this paris conference is devoted -- convened to strengthen the implementation of the u.n. convention on climate change. comprehensive, a balanced, ambitious and binding agreement on climate change. the french writer victor hugo once observed that "strange resources spring from

extreme resolutions." i believe that with all parties making joint efforts with sincerity and confidence, the paris conference will yield satisfying results. dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the paris agreement should focus on strengthening ont 2020 global actions climate change and boost global efforts to pursue sustainable development. the paris agreement should help meet the goals of the united nations and chart a course for green development. in the principles set out in the cc and contribute to its full and effective implementation. the agreement should put

effective control on the increase of atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and encourage countries to low carbonn and development. the paris agreement should galvanize global efforts and encourage broad participation. the agreement should provide institutional ropelgements that p countries to make concerted efforts. besides governments, it should also mobilize businesses, nongovernment organizations, and all members of society to participate. raising public awareness of climate change the paris , agreement should have increased input of resources to ensure action on climate change. developed countries should honor their commitment of mobilizing 100 billion u.s. dollars each year before 2020 and provide

stronger financial support to developing countries afterwards. it is important that climate friendly technology be transferred to developing countries. the paris agreement should accommodate the national conditions of various countries and lay emphasis on practical results. respectperative to differences among countries, especially developing countries, in domestic policy capacity , building and economic structure. addressing climate change should not deny the legitimate needs of developing countries to reduce poverty and improve their people's living standards. dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the paris conference is not the finishing line but

a new starting point as an important part of global governance, the global effort on climate change can be taken as a mirror to reflect on what motives to have for future global governance and how to build a community of shared future for mankind. much valuable inspiration may thus be joined. we should create a future of win-win cooperation with each country making contributions to the best of its ability. the paris conference should reject the near minded mentality of the zero-sum game. and, on all countries, developed countries in particular, to assume shared responsibilities for win-win outcomes. we should create a future of the role of glaucoma fairness and justice. it is imperative to ensure effective observance and implementation of international rose, uphold democracy, equity

and builde international rule of law. at the same time, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility must continue to be adhered to. we must create a future of inclusiveness and common learning. countries need to increase dialogue, exchange best practices, and the chief common -- and achieve common development through mutual learning. at the same time countries , should be allowed to seek their own solutions that best suit their respective national conditions. dear colleagues, china has been actively engaged in a global campaign on climate change. china now tops the world in terms of energy conservation and

utilization of new and renewable energy. going forward, ecological endeavors will feature prominently in china's 13th five-year plan. tona will work hard implement the vision of innovative, coordinated and inclusive development. china will on the basis of , technological and institutional innovation, adopt new policy measures to improve industrial mix, developed low carbon transportation and develop a nationwide carbon emission trading market so as to foster a new pattern of modernization featuring harmony between man and nature. in its intended, nationally determined contributions, china co2 emissions by

around 2030 and strive to achieve it as soon as possible. and by 2030, reduce carbon tax a emissions per unit of gdp by 60%-60 5% over the 2005 level. raise the share of nonfossil fuels in primary energy consumption to about 20%. an increase forest stock by cubic metersllion over 2005. this requires strenuous efforts, but we have confidence and resolve to facilitate commitments. fulfill our commitments. the chinese government will earnestly implement its policy cooperation on climate change. in a show of greater support, china announced the

fund for climate in september. next year, china will set up 10 low carbon industrial parks and start 400 mitigation and annotation projects in other countries and provide them with 1000 training opportunities for tackling climate change. china will continue to advance international cooperation and clean energy, disaster response, climate smart agriculture and smart cities. china will also help developing countries enhance their financing capabilities. dear colleagues, tackling climate change is a shared mission for mankind. all eyes are now on paris.

let us join hands to contribute to the establishment of an equitable and effective global mechanism on climate change. work for global sustainable development at a high level. and bring about new international relations featuring win-win cooperation. [applause] >> i would like to thank president xi jinping for his statements. i give the floor to the president of lithuania, ms. dali a grybauskaite. followed by the president of egypt. : today,t grybauskaite for all of us, it is important to be in paris. to be together with the french people side-by-side and say that we support, we are with you, and

we will challenge together the challenges we face. today, we are talking about climate change. can climate change be more challenging, and more dangerous challenge than terrorism? partly yes, because changes of climate influences that people are starting to move, people are starving and people are in conflict even worse. why today? no country can insulate itself from the global challenge and no country is immune from climate change. this climate change is real and its impact is felt across the world. the expansion of deserts, the shortage of drinking water, increase in famine are among the reasons for the largest movement of people in the world. and even military conflicts. our failure to act now will

result in irreplaceable -- irreversible consequences which will affect all of us. what do we need to succeed in paris? political will. understanding we already have. countries big and small, developing and developed, should commit to ambitious and legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse emissions. union willuropean cut emissions by at least 40%. by 2030 compared to the 1990 level. our biggest emitters should show responsibility to achieve our goals, global warming limited to 2 degrees. even that is already a concession. the lithuanian experience proves there's no contradiction between economic growth and being green.

environmental protection. yearmissions levels last by 56%.5 years fell our gdp growth increased by 20%. there's no contradiction anybody , can do it. let's try. good, understanding and responsibility matters. secondly, we need to guarantee that climate change commitments are fully respected. robust accountability and transparent rules should build trust, fairness and incentives to implement our decisions. regular review of our targets will also help in responding to changing dynamics and emissions and technological developments. willly, financial support

reduce emissions in developing countries. and should be results-oriented. the european union and its member states are major providers of climate financing, delivering about 14.5 billion euros every year. quality, not only quantity of financial spending will be decisive tackling climate change. finally, agreement will increase our security. dependence on fossil fuels and lack of alternative energy sources makes us vulnerable from all points of view, social security, military security human security. we witness the situation or sometimes our energy demands finance terrorist networks. oil and gas money. that is unacceptable.

the time has come to make global decisions. we are globally here, we are all participating here. only way to guarantee our safe future is to approve universally binding agreements in paris, that is our responsibility and i wish all of us to take it in our hands. thank you. [applause] thank you, the president of lithuania. the floor now goes to the president of egypt. to be followed by ms. angela merkel. el-sisi: in the name of god the compassionate, the theiful, his excellency president of the french republic the heads of state and government, mr. secretary

general of the united nations, mrs. secretary-general of the u,.n. convention. at the outset i would like to , thank his excellency the french president for the kind invitation, hospitality and the organization of this conference. i also wish to express my condolences to the leadership and the people of france for the victims of the vicious terrorist attack in paris. we reiterate our strong condemnation of these attacks and the full solidarity of egypt with france in our common fight against all kinds of terrorism. we are facing a crucial juncture in our international endeavor as all of our peoples are watching and hoping that this conference will prove to be a achieving ourin

common goals to secure a better future for humanity and protect the rights of the next generations by reaching an , sustainable, balanced and international agreement to faced in the increasingly dangerous climate change related challenges. a few months ago, we all participated in adopting an international ambitious developmental agenda on sustainable development and poverty eradication. erted,fort has been ex leaving this effort -- it could fail of this agenda is not supported by an international agreement that addresses climate change challenges and achieves the balance between economic development, social development and environmental protection.

ladies and gentlemen, egypt has and will continue to play a constructive role in all of the climate change negotiations leading to this conference. in view of its responsibility to represent the african continent and defend african interests our , position has been based on the necessity that any new international agreement should not harm the african countries. the right to development or its efforts to eradicate poverty. africa is the least contributor to harmful emissions yet it is the most affected by climate change repercussions. therefore, it is imperative that any flexibility arrangements in the agreement should include the african countries, together with the least developed countries and small island developing countries. africa also calls for thatternational agreement

is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities between developed and developing countries. facing climate change challenges in accordance with the principles of the united nations convention and to achieve balance among the various components of this agreement. it is unacceptable that we get most of our attention to mitigation without attaching equal importance to the other components of the agreement, especially those related to developing the adaptation capabilities of the developing countries. it is also important that the agreement includes a global target on adaptation. the agreement should also be legally binding as long as it encompasses a clearly defined commitment for developed countries to provide the developing world with adequate support in terms of financing capacity building and advanced technology in order to enable

the african and other developing countries to adapt and transform our economies to achieve sustainable development in addition to a clear commitment in the agreement that the increase in temperature does not exceed 1.5 degrees and to avoid shifting the burden of medication from developed to developing countries. the issues of financing, capacity building and technology should not be viewed as merely negotiating positions but as a strong necessity. and a main indicator of the seriousness of the international community to face climate change challenges. recent reports by the united nations environment program indicate that africa needs between and $20 billion annually until 2024 adaptation and between 50 dollars and $100 billion

annually until 2050. the financing which are continent can provide would not exceed $3 billion annually. that means there will be a financing gap not less than $12 billion annually. after keep increasing 2020 by higher rates. therefore, if the agreement does not effectively and transparently address the financing issue it would be too weak and unsustainable. it is imperative that the agreement reflects a commitment to provide $100 billion annually to the developing countries by 2020. to be doubled beyond 2020. this is the framework in which the african states took the lead by developing initiatives. the first initiative aims at promoting renewable energy.

i, on international community and governments, the private sector and international organizations to lend full support to the african initiatives which contribute to our international efforts on addressing climate change challenges. despite the difficulty and severity of the challenges, i am confident that we have enough determination, wisdom and solidarity to overcome these challenges. thank you very much. angela merkel of germany to be followed by vladimir putin of the russian federation. merkel: president hollande, secretary-general, colleagues, we are meeting here in paris in turbulent times. times that fill us with great concern.

not far away from here, terrorists, only a few days ago, attacked the people of paris and in so doing attacked us all. we strongly condemn terror no matter where it goes on. our presence here today shows that we are stronger than the terrorists. today heads and state and governments of almost 150 countries to have the possibility to surmount controversies and differences of opinion and uphold one very strong message, a message that will be crucial for the survival of our planet. this is about creating the basis, the foundation of a possible existence and a possible life for future generations. we are more than aware of the need to act today. ambition ofbe the

this conference and characteristic of the result we need to come to an a few days' time. to thank all of the present here, particularly the french government and also the united nations, preparing for this conference for a very long time. this is the first time that we have an opportunity to attain this goal of an agreement. to put it in a more sober and businesslike manner, this means nothing less than reducing and keeping within the limits of global warming below a two degree increase. compared to the beginning of industrialization. it is a necessary target. we are more than aware of the fact that small island nations will feel this is not a sufficient goal. so we need a united nations framework agreement that is ambitious, competences, fair and binding. what does ambitious mean? first,for the first time, more

than 170 countries, industrialized countries, emerging economies and developing countries have submitted indc's that will hopefully enable us to attain this two degree goal. the good message is that is 95% of global emissions. the bad news is we will not be able yet to attain the goal. with all of these indc's. this message has to go out from this meeting here today. how we can credibly attain this goal in the next 10 years. this means nothing less than in the course of the 21st century, we have to achieve a far-reaching agreement. -- because edition our economies. secondly, -- we have to achieve a far-reaching de-colonization of our economies. secondly what is comprehensive , mean?

what we are talking about here is a profound transformation of the way we do business. cutting across the board to all different areas of production generating energy, energy , efficiency, and heating and efficiency. we have set a clear target for the european union. we are going to reduce our until 2020 emissions by 40%. we have an ambitious climate protection program already. with more than 100 measures. renewable energies are already one of the main pillars of our energy mix this year. we will have more than 27% of renewables in our energy mix. what does fair mean? industrialized countries, particularly as regards to development of technologies for decarbonization will have to , take the lead. the emissions of the past have been generated by us. we have to be in the vanguard of

technological advances in order to reduce emissions in the future and make it possible for developing countries to attain these targets. germany will participate in a number of targets. we will promote our research on clean energy. we want double the funding for this. the most vulnerable countries, the poorest countries have to be aven possibilities to attain sustainable development by giving them the necessary funds, financing. this is the day here in paris where we have to show that what we have promised in copenhagen will be delivered. $100 billion annually in a sustainable manner so others are also able to achieve. germany compared to 2014 will until 2020 double its public funding. fourth, what does binding mean?

we need to establish a framework for a u.n. convention that is binding. we also need a binding review mechanism. germany wishes that this would take place every five years starting in 2020. we know that the indc's of countries are voluntary contributions but it is most important first to live up to our commitments. none of these contributions can be reduced over the years. they have to be enhanced and strengthened. we need a clear transparency as to the measuring mechanism and methodologies so that we create credibility for all of us. ambitious, comprehensive, fair and binding. this is how a global climate agreement must be. this is a question of environmental necessity but it is also a question of economic common sense. it has something to do with generational fairness.

it has something to do with a human spirit and are very future of humankind hinges on this. germany is going to give its -- its contribution so we may all have a good future. billions of people are pinning their hopes on what we do here in paris during the next few days. let us do everything we can in order not to dash those hopes. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, ms. angela merkel. before i get the floor to vladimir putin, i would like to advise you that we are going to suspend our meeting at 1:45 p.m. and we will resume at 14:45 after lunch.

putin: thank you very much, your excellency secretary-general, president hollande. heads of state and ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to address such a representative conference. climate change has become one of the greatest challenges that humanity is facing. global warming, hurricanes, are as and other anomalies source of ever more tangible economic damage. they destroy well-established habitats of humanity. our ability to address this problem will determine the quality of life for all people on the planet, economic growth and sustainable development. russia has been contributing

actively to addressing the global warming problem. our country is taking the lead in terms of reducing energy intensive reduction of our economy. we've reduced it up to 2012. after the implementation of the thee program of energy and creation of the energy sector we , are going to reduce it by another 13.5% by 2020. we have gone beyond our commitments under the kyoto protocol. 991-2012,riod from 1 russia not only has prevented the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, it has significantly reduced these emissions. as a result of that, it prevented the emission of 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents into the atmosphere. as a matter of comparison, the emissions of greenhouse gases of

all the countries in 2012 amounted to 46 billion tons. russia's efforts have helped us slow down global warming. we have significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. at the same time, we have managed to double our gdp. we have demonstrated that we can ensure economic development and take care of our environment at the same time. it is of principal importance for the new climate agreement to build upon the principles of the climate change convention. it should be a legally binding agreement. in its implementation there , should be participation of developed and developing

countries. this agreement should be comprehensive, effective and marketable. we fully uphold the long-term goal of the new agreement to limit the growth of the global temperature by the end of the 21st century to 2 degrees. pressure will continue contributing to joint efforts preventing global warming. by 2030, we are planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels. we're going to achieve that with the use of breakthrough energy conservation technologies. and through the use of new nanotechnology. for example, russia has developed the technology of using carbon nanotube-based additives. according to some experts, these technologies could reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide

160-180 million tons only in russia. we are standing ready to exchange this technology solutions. agreement should reflect as a sourcet role of absorption for greenhouse gases. russia produces enormous forests, it is of utmost importance. of importance is to provide support to developing nations. russia's going to provide financial assistance to these countries through various u.n. mechanisms. in my speech at the session of the general assembly, i mentioned that we should develop a conference of approach -- a comprehensive-- a

approach to fighting climate change. in this forum let me reiterate our proposal to create a platform to discuss these problems, not just climate change but also depletion of natural resources and degradation of the human habitat. ladies and gentlemen, we hope that through concerted efforts, we will be able to develop a new woulde agreement that replace the kyoto protocol and serve the interests of all states and people after 2020. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> thank you very much, president of the russian federation. i cannot give the floor to the president of hungary -- i can now give the floor to the president of hungary.

mr. president, secretary-general esteemed , ladies and gentlemen. i have this recurring dream myin this dream, i talk with yet unborn grandchild. we are 20 years ahead in time. in human terms that is , significant. but from historic perspective it is insignificant. my grandchild says the following to me, "grandpa, i grew up to be period where the impacts of climate change are posing direct threats to human civilization.

i have this nagging question. could you, try five years ago, -- 25 years ago, have stopped everything that has happened? what is it you listen to scientists? why did you disregard scientific evidence? you were aware that the quantity of greenhouse gases already in 2015 was much higher than it ever was in the 800,000 years before that. you also knew that a similar amount of carbon dioxide had already accumulated in earth's atmosphere and you also do of -- knew the dire consequences this would have.

an increase of three degrees in temperature resulted in 90 meters of a sea level rise. why did you disregard the forecast of all those who at the end of the 20th century had predicted that if humanity refused to change its irresponsible behavior, it would have serious consequent is. there would be droughts, floods, ification, devastating natural disasters famines, , migration, and wars. after the millennium, you were already feeling the signals that nature was sending you firsthand. how come with all the scientific evidence, even this was not enough to convince you? why didn't you read all of the analysis or if you read them, , these provided that climate change would have dire consequences. why did you not draw the necessary conclusions?

why didn't you introduce climate friendly technologies? why didn't you provide more support for research into such technologies? why didn't you hear the warnings of the world's religious leaders who reminded you about your responsibilities for future generations? why did you sit idle and wait to see what would happen, what we are now all suffering from? grandpa, why did you let this happen? why didn't you act in time?" esteemed ladies and gentlemen, it is up to us to decide in the next coming days how we will answer these questions. as the head of state of hungary,

but also as the father of four children, my objective and i hope yours, is to ensure that 25 years from now my grandchildren, or your grandchildren, should not be forced to ask questions like this. thank you for listening to me. [applause] forhank you, mr. president , speaking on behalf of your children and grandchildren. we will now suspend work for one hour for lunch and then we will resume. respecting the speakers list and the order of the speakers list, i would ask that you would try to limit the time for your speeches so that all heads of state will have the time to take the floor this afternoon. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today, defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs of staff chair joseph dunford update congress on syria and iraq. they will testify before the armed services committee live at tenant can't a.m. eastern on c-span3. a.m. eastern on c-span3. "washington journal" is next. 00, the house returns for general speeches. a resolution by senator mcconnell that would disapprove the epa's emission rule for new power plants. in 45 minutes, congressman chris a member oftah,

the select intelligence committee, on the u.s. strategy for combating isis. 8:30, peter welch, chief deputy whip, here to talk about the house democrats' legislative agenda. ♪ usa today reports this morning that more special operations forces could head to syria. you can see that hearing on c-span3. of thell" reports that e-mails released from hillary clinton, 325 have information classified as confidential and one classified as secret. the oklahoma republican