we have carbon capture, something called -- we are pulling carbon out of the air. these technologies exist. they are not perfected on a mass scale. let me tell you why they must be part of the equation. so much carbon is coming out of china, india. we have one billion people without electricity who are burning wood. we will not reach our carbon objectives unless some of our technology on carbon capture is actually perfected. i think it has to be part of the equation. we have to be incentivizing and investing in that. i will touch on nuclear. at the same time president biden wants to cut our emissions in half, we will cut our nuclear energy supply in half. we will go from 20% of our overall energy to 10% because we are shutting down nuclear plants. i think that is the wrong direction. we need generation nuclear, we need to innovate nuclear, as well, but we need to talk about nuclear, as well, if we are going to solve this problem. host: it was in an interview with another publication that the president's advisors said the white house would demand congressional democ

companies that allow their carbon outfit fumes to escape. and that is a place where combination of these measures has. 4 no, we introduce a jackson position 30 years ago, which is now incentivized a number of large companies to capture that carbon, setting them on a quick boss to us carbon neutrality. sequence solution has also been carried out in monitored in iceland for over 20 years, allowing explodes to conclude that the process is safe for all practical purposes. and the space available underground is virtually limit to this other companies in europe as well as canada and the u. s are catching up, but it's early days and this brings us to the not so climate friendly consequences of sequestration. in the absence of large incentives from government, all capture and sequence ration companies are collaborating with paradox. big oil companies. what do you need to see frustration? you need someone that you can store the cars and one of the best places to store that is owed oil. and i'm aware the asset can be oil and gas companies. well, that'

this is considered carbon negative as it actively remove the carbon from the atmosphere. and this also has pretty ironic consequences. but more on that later, we know from the arithmetic of climate, because we need all of these things and we need as much of them all as we can get to the next 30 years, have to start removing about 10000000000 tons of c o 2. every year. cool, you friedman is one of the foremost experts on carbon capture who served in the u. s. department of energy. he says masses, c o 2 remove will needs to start now. and the leading climate body, the ip cc agrees, in the latest report, they declared that the world will not meet its climate target without active carbon capture and remove it. and the original carbon suckers can play a role. but considering the space and water needed and the fact that they are always the risk of being cut down anyways, excellent can leave the can only a fractional. so the focus is now on the deck version of direct capture. machines that are spinning up around the develop was canadian company carbon engineering plans to launch

if you have the carbon component, steel has to be a certain quality.my personal view is that over the next several years it's more likely to land on the product standard side but because the us doesn't have a carbon price and doesn't seem like they are likely to have one in the foreseeable future despite all of those economic benefits. >> that this deal was made in a way of carbon emissions. >> it's the ability to measure this is the ability to map that and in this dealmaking process and the carbon to deliver the steel to the ports. >> what about china and india? you can't fix this problem without them they say you used up all this carbon capacity and now you want to restrain our growth they talk a good game but still building coldplay so when you talk to them how do you explain to them or how do you read them? are they serious? >> it's easier to answer the second. it's incredibly important and then 195 countries and that the chinese that they are explicitly taking the view low carbon and those carbon industries and there is a day economic motivation t

the race to reduce carbon emissions is setting up.ter major investors are piling in. diana olick has more as part of her series on the rising risks of climate change. >> reporter: just outside zurich, switzerland, more than a dozen massive fans are fast at work cleaning the air of carbon dioxide. it is the leading edge of what could become the largest industry aimed at saving the planet >> what's behind me is a drop in the bucket this moves about 900 tons of co2 per year globally we emit 40 billion ton. >> reporter: but the bucket is getting bigger quickly climateworks and governments are seeking to monumentally expand what is called direct carbon capture. here's how it works. it's a box with a huge fan on one end and a filter inside that only attracts carbon dioxide the fan sucks the air through the filter once the filter is saturated, the box is closed. it is heated to 100 degrees celsius and pure carbon dioxide is released and collected. climbworks is one of a few companies doing the capture. it installed the system in 2017, by 202

we have carbon capture, something called -- we are pulling carbon out of the air. these technologies exist. they are not perfected on a mass scale. let me tell you why they must be part of the equation. so much carbon is coming out of china, india. we have one billion people without electricity who are burning wood. we will not reach our carbon objectives unless some of our technology on carbon capture is actually perfected. i think it has to be part of the equation. we have to be incentivizing and investing in that. i will touch on nuclear. at the same time president biden wants to cut our emissions in half, we will cut our nuclear energy supply in half. we will go from 20% of our overall energy to 10% because we are shutting down nuclear plants. i think that is the wrong direction. we need generation nuclear, we need to innovate nuclear, as well, but we need to talk about nuclear, as well, if we are going to solve this problem. host: it was in an interview with another publication that the president's advisors said the white house would demand congressional democ

. >> reporter: the race to reduce carbon emissions. >> this means about 926 a year globally, we emit 40 billiont ton. the massive passport backlog, disaster death toll rises in china. >>> and another country pulls out of the olympics. >> live from cnbc. the facts, the truth, the news with shepard smith >> good evening, covid delta is spreading rapidly, some hospitals are now full today a sobering assessment from the cdc that we'll hear shortly. tonight, the debate over masking up is once again front and center the washington post reporting the top white house officials are now discussion whether to urge vaccinated americans to wear masks in more settings. the cdc director says the agency is not changing its guidance at least not now she did stop short of ruling it out in the future. this afternoon, reporters asked president biden about the possibility. >> we follow the science it's happening now there is all the major scientific operations in this country in a 25-person group we put together are looking at all the possibilities of what's happening now. >> well, at the local level, go

emission. beacon towards a lower carbon emission-— beacon towards a lower carbon emission. t . ., .,are some of the practical things? how— emission. what are some of the practical things? how will i emission. what are some of the practical things? how will you . practical things? how will you try and achieve that? the keyword _ try and achieve that? the keyword is _ try and achieve that? tue: keyword is anticipation. try and achieve that? tte: keyword is anticipation. we try and achieve that? "tt2 keyword is anticipation. we are drastically reducing emissions since the games were conceived. paris 2024 games were conceived to be lower carbon, we are building much less because we are using 95% of existing or temporary infrastructure, so very little construction, and whatever we build is low carbon technology. then, all the venues are chosen to be accessible by public transportation, we are using 100% renewable energy to power the games, the food will be served in low carbon packaging, so we're to avoid and reduce emissions as much as possible for the whole scope of the games. that incl

. country, this plant does emit carbon, ., country, this plant does emit carbon. , carbon.arbon. some local politicians, though, are concerned. - carbon. some local politicians, though, are concerned. do - carbon. some local politicians, j though, are concerned. do you want greenwich to close down? personally, it absolutely should, it should not use fossil fuel to should, it should not use fossilfuel to run should, it should not use fossil fuel to run these computer processes to benefit a few people on wall street and leaving us for what —— greenidge. leaving us for what -- greenidge.— leaving us for what -- greenidie. ,, . �*, leaving us for what -- greenidie. ,, . 2 ., greenidge. for what? it's not worth it- _ greenidge. for what? it's not worth it. politicians _ greenidge. for what? it's not worth it. politicians around i worth it. politicians around the world are still trying to work out how to deal with bitcoin�*s greedy energy consumption. companies like greenidge think they are the future but plenty of others think that reopening plants like this is a step in the wro

if we are not - warming up the planet through carbon pollution, _ warming up the planet through carbonnot see this more than 100,000 years but climate change _ more than 100,000 years but climate change has _ more than 100,000 years but climate change has made this a much more probable _ change has made this a much more probable event.— probable event. science is used to bein: probable event. science is used to being more _ probable event. science is used to being more reticent _ probable event. science is used to being more reticent about - probable event. science is used to being more reticent about making| probable event. science is used to i being more reticent about making an explicit link between a weather event and climate change. but increased computing powers means increased computing powers means increased confidence in the accuracy of climate mounted —— climate modelling. -- climate modelling. without emissions _ -- climate modelling. without emissions of _ -- climate modelling. without emissions of greenhouse i -- climate modelling. withoutl emissions of greenhouse gases --

pricing that if you _ pop problem with carbon pricing that if you l00k— pop problem with carbon pricingou look at what economists have said any— if you look at what economists have said any price high enough, so some economists— said any price high enough, so some economists have talked about pulling alon- economists have talked about pulling along the _ economists have talked about pulling along the lines of $100 a tonne as a sustainable price for carbon is going — sustainable price for carbon is going to — sustainable price for carbon is going to be really regressive because _ going to be really regressive because it's going to hit those people — because it's going to hit those people who spend more of their income — people who spend more of their income on — people who spend more of their income on transport and on carbon intensive _ income on transport and on carbon intensive goods and services that will go _ intensive goods and services that will go to— intensive goods and services that will go to lower portions of the incomes— will go to lower portions of the incomes on services a

emily has a huge carbon footprint.tually think about industrial ecology. so i went and i looked for it and tried to figure out what are the tools you use? there are no tools. it's just like concepts. it's just a way to make money off climate change. >>> all right, here we go. up next a man takes a woman's disguise to hide his covid lies. ♪♪ i order my groceries online now. shingles doesn't care. i keep my social distance. shingles doesn't care. i stay within my family bubble. shingles doesn't care. because if you've had chicken pox, you're already carrying the virus that causes shingles. in fact, about 1 in 3 people will develop shingles, and the risk only increases as you age. so what can protect you against shingles? shingrix protects. now you can protect yourself from shingles with a vaccine proven to be over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a prev

so when it comes to environmental stewardship as an example, we look at the carbon emissions and carbon intensity of our portfolio relative to the broad market our benchmark is the s&p 500 on social issues, we have third-party data that we're able to scrape from sources like glass door we also look at the corporate equality index, which is a very robust measure of lbgtq equity practices. and if you look at the board of directors, we have a lot of data on the composition of the board. 23 different indicators that we have used to create our own board effectiveness index which looks at everything from the independence of the board overall and the various committees to the diversity on the board. and so there are a range of different data sources available. some are disclosed by the company, but others are data sources that you have to go out and find in order to create a mosaic >> so, john, i know we're going to talk a lot about this throughout the program the g in esg investing refers to governance and valerie just talked about board composition and so forth i want to talk about the compo

also coming up tonight, europe's carbon free future. the european union lays out and ambitious plan to pivot away from fossil fuels by the end of the decade. and really from the wrong, it's in south africa, a week of unrest has hospital is running short on medicine and stores low on food. ah, ah, i bring it up. it's good to have you with us. we start tonight with striking remarks made by former us president george w bush in an exclusive interview with the w news. he says that he believes the withdrawal of us and nato troops from afghanistan is a mistake, or says he is also worried that the pull out of troops will lead to women and girls suffering at the hands of the tale bought. the former president also spoke of his relationship with german chancellor under the miracle praising her for her support of the military mission in afghanistan. alex, very plain, she was supportive of troops in afghanistan by the way. and one of the reasons why is because she saw the progress that could be made for young girls and women in afghanistan is unbeli

i mean, why should we start with carbon? let's say, i mean, and carbon is the most immediate energy source for many, the disadvantage populations around the world. why should we start? smith, demonizing, a fossil fuels rather than let's say, asking the most privileged ones to give up on some of that luxury. well, isn't a one size fits all solution. you need all, you need people to be more energy efficient. they've got lots of energy, consuming, lots of energy, you need them to be responsible about how you make them to be responsible. governments can make people be responsible for people, a name government, the most privileged and they are. and they're the ones who leave the, the biggest footprint, carbon footprint, they're talking about those issues, but they're not changing the behaviors. they want the other somebody else to do that. well, i think we can all change all, but we can all adopt better behaviors. i mean, the different states, if you live in a country where you have no energy, then you get a different conversatio

this shows global carbon emissions — they go up and up.ions in history was 2019. emissions are having consequences now, which brings us right back to the heat waves in north america, and why they matter so much. because the individual experiences of those caught up in this make real the dangers of changing our climate. they make real why cop26 is receiving so much attention and offer another reason why, just a few months ago, david attenborough made this demand of the world's leaders. never before has it been so important that there a level playing field, a debate where we can come to an agreement. because unless we all agree, we are lost. the big story was in northern ireland, where you can see it was beach weather in county down and temperatures at the beach got all the way up to 31.2 degrees, and that is northern ireland's highest temperature on record. plenty of other places not too far behind, but in shetland, it only got up to 13 degrees this afternoon, a lot of cloud around. you can see this on the satellite picture and a lot of clo

it also calls for higher energy efficiency standards and a carbon tax. they're both the united states and china oppose. critics say the plan places too high of a burden on citizens, especially in poor european countries. environmental activist say the proposal doesn't go far enough. quite a good moon landing in 1969, a historic day. and an event that europe's leaders have compared to another historic challenge, the fight against climate change. we do not have all of the answers yet. today's the start of a journey. but this is your man on the moon moment. the you aims to make europe the 1st climate neutral continent by 2050. that means no more carbons should be admitted into the atmosphere than what's absorbed. for example, by forests. as a 1st step on this journey, you leaders have pledged to cut emissions by 55 percent by 2030. but critics say these cards are nowhere near enough to meet the goals of the 2015 parents agreement. others hear less wealthy you countries and many of its poor citizens won't be able to afford the measures. the e. u, though, has

where we can look at the growth, but you still have tried in giving carbon neutral targets. but when, if it be 2060 despite the fact that it was only less than 2 decades ago, that we had a chance at, at reaching the growth. but i mean having said that, i'd also, i also think that it's not capitalism or climate. and i think it's sort of, you know, working hand in hand because to be able to address the climate issues, we need money. and we have the fossil industries which has the money, so we cannot be working toward solutions by putting them down and, you know, be like, we need the, we need the oil under the ground. and believe it or yes we need, but we can't isolate them in our fight, and i think it has to be sort of, you know, a play together and how to best find a solution to be able to see harness. if it's, if it's renewable energy, if it's alternate or the pricing, if it's carbon pricing, we need the other players on board as well. so we're hearing things nice. the dirty things need to be growth. the good things need to grow and that's, that's the mental issue here. i co

it used to be known as a carbon sink, and soaking up all. a carbon sink, and soaking up all the emissionsly— that's no longer happening. it's incredibly worrying. apparently part of it is— incredibly worrying. apparently part of it is being caused by fires, land clearance — of it is being caused by fires, land clearance fires by people wanting to .row clearance fires by people wanting to grow soy _ clearance fires by people wanting to grow soy and also farm cattle. so obviously — grow soy and also farm cattle. so obviously this political leadership needs— obviously this political leadership needs to — obviously this political leadership needs to be taken to resolve that but it's_ needs to be taken to resolve that but it's a — needs to be taken to resolve that but it's a very difficult issue, and finally— but it's a very difficult issue, and finally balanced but it's pretty urgent — finally balanced but it's pretty urgent and something needs to happen pretty soon. find urgent and something needs to happen re soon. �* ., urgent and something needs to happen re soon. . ., . ., pretty soon. an

smith. gov on i don't have to pay a carbon tax for every ton of carbon dioxide and that i am made with this heater, but it costs me 125 years a year. gets kids with germany and now has a carbon tax. so we're hitting people's pocket books. why aren't businesses and the super wrench mean furnace instead of the little guy? glad it's unfair. it's s my get a, this was a hi. first of all, it's fair that those who inflict more climate damage pay for that i had high earning household have a bigger carbon footprint. they drive more cars, live in bigger apartments, and use more fossil and heating fuels. so they have to pay a higher price on this affair. it would be unfair if low income households had to pay disproportionately more without getting relief targeted and for it's like a climate bonus or other program would be best failure. even more important is the promotion of energy saving measures. for unfortunately, a little is being done there and last lie. this will be an issue. worldwide, we need more focus on saving energy. of every kilowatt hour that isn't produced is what helps to climate

europe ramps up its fight with carbon. reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 and neutral continent by 2050. one of the architects of the plan, frans timmermans, outlined that tough road ahead. >> we still have a lot of convincing to do of member states. if we can get them to agree with us, we can meet the goals. alix: joining us now is our green reporter. lots of stuff in this plan. what is the most significant part to you? >> the biggest difference you'll see is in carbon prices. the european trading emissions system was laughed at when it launched. it has really come into its own. prices are at 55 euros a ton now. they are going to rise rapidly. the eu will expand that, not just cover the industries it covers now but also include airlines, shipping, which should make a dent in the emissions and lead to a higher carbon price. alix: within the actual borders of the eu, what was most significant? akshat: one thing we need to realize, this plan comes with a mechanism called a carbon mechanism, a carbon tariff. if you are exporti

many natural solutions like tree planting and other forms of natural carbon capture or carbon removalke. we need it. especially to deal with parts of the carbon economy that are going to be hard to get all the way to zero emissions. but a big study that came out a year ago suggested that just to deal with the hardest to decarbonize sectors, the heaviest industries, the airline fuels, if we wanted to do that through natural solutions, we would have to plant trees two to three times the size of texas and if we wanted to do it using machines, we would have to use half of today's global electricity to power those machines. it's a hugely important part of the puzzle and we should be investing in it and making it cheaper. but we can't let that be a reason to move any more slowly on the decarbonization of the power sector which we know how to do right now. >> that's a great point. i saw some interesting stuff about carbon-free cement start-ups. there's some interesting, promising tech there. david talked about the grid. that's where in some ways the most promising stuff is happening. we real

tax for every ton of carbon dioxide that i am made with this heater. but it cost me 125 years a year gets, gets germany now has a carbon tax. so we're hitting people's pocketbooks. why aren't businesses and the super wrench mean? first, instead of the little guy that unfair, it's f my get a to see if it was a high. first of all it's there that those who inflict more climate damage pay for the high earning households have a bigger carbon footprint. they drive more cars live in bigger apartments and use more fossil and heating fuels. so they have to pay a higher price on this affair because it would be unfair if low income household had to pay disproportionately more without getting relief targeted. and for it's like a climate bonus or the relief program would be best failure. even more important is the promotion of energy saving measures. for unfortunately, a little is being done. their last positive light us will be in is worldwide. we need more focus on saving energy. of every kilowatt hour that isn't produced is what helps to climate most. and that n

and it also calls for a carbon tax that both the u. s. and china oppose. critic say the plan place is too much of a burden on consumers, especially in poor european countries. environmental activists say the plan doesn't go far enough. quite a good moon landing in 1969, a historic day. and an event that europe's leaders have compared to another historic challenge, the fight against climate change. we do not have all of the answers yet. today's the start of a journey. but this is europe. man on the moon moment. the you aims to make europe the 1st climate neutral continent by 2050. that means no more carbon should be admitted into the atmosphere than what's absorb. for example, by forests. as a 1st step on this journey, you leaders have pledged to cut emissions by 55 percent by 2030. but critics say these cuts are nowhere near enough to meet the goals of the 2015 paris agreement. others hear less wealthy you countries and many of its poor citizens won't be able to afford the measures. the e. u, though, has promised to help lower income hous

it also call for a carbon tax and both the u. s. and china opposed. critics say the plan places are too much of a burden on consumers, especially in poor european countries. environmental activist say the planet doesn't go far enough. good. the moon landing in 1969 a historic day and an event that europe's leaders have compared to another historic challenge, the fight against climate change. we do not have all the answers yet. today's the start of the journey. but this is your man on the morn moment. the you aims to make europe's the 1st climate neutral continent by 2050. that means no more carbons should be admitted into the atmosphere than what's absorbed, for example, by forests. as a 1st step on this journey, you leaders have pledged to cut emissions by 55 percent by 2030. but critics say these cuts are nowhere near enough to meet the goals of the 2015 parents agreement. others hear less wealthy you countries and many of its poor citizens won't be able to afford the measures. the e. u, though, has promised to help lower income h

that's almost all in the delta. various china has launched a national carbon trading scheme as part of its plan to reduce emissions. beijing has come under pressure to cut its carbon emission levels since it overtook the united states as the world's biggest pollutant under the scheme, more than 2000 power companies have signed up to bid for pollution credits or an allowance to release carbon dockside into the atmosphere companies that do not use all their credits can then trade with others as part of the strategy to encourage the use of clean energy technology. kind of one of the 1st trades on friday morning . company paid $1200000.00 to pump out more than 176000 tons of emissions. that is about $8.00 a ton. alex brill as a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute, he's joining us live from washington dc. it's good, happy with us is always alex on al jazeera. let me ask you about this system 1st of all, because i find this incredibly complicated to understand. but it seems as though this is a way of people paying cash to avoid doing anything about reducing that emissions. is

imagine this grain of rice is one kind of carbon dioxide each year. the average passing in nigeria less than one grain into the atmosphere you ever spent in in india. 2 grand in china, 7 grains, jeremy, 10 grains in the us. 17 grain in one year. the average american troops 20 times more than the average in area. but the problem with carbon is that it stays trapped in the atmosphere for centuries. so it's not just about how much we added here. it's about how much of piled up over time. since 850, but it's up to about 1500 giga. okay, so we want it to pull load these rice bags on the table to show you how big that really is. but after doing the math, we realize we need 3000000 of them. historical emissions matter today because countries are arguing about how soon they have to cut the emissions down to their big polluted like china, india and brazil. look a lot less guilty when you consider that you recently become part of the problems. ah, is to court the annual emissions, but that doesn't tell us anything about you know, why or why we are in decrease i

imagine this grain of rice is one ton of carbon dioxide. each year. the average person in nigeria less than one grain into the atmosphere ever spent in india to grand and china, 7 grains. jeremy, 10 grand in the us, 17 grain. and one year the average american police 20 times more than the average in that area. but the problem with carbon is that it stays trapped to be atmosphere for centuries. so that's not just about how much we added yet. it's about how much is piled up over time since $850.00 about us up to about $1500.00 giga. okay, so we want to pull loads of these rice bags on the table to show you how big that really is. but after doing the math, we realize we need 3000000 of them. historical emissions matter today because countries are arguing about how soon they have to cut the met emissions down to their big, polluted like china, india and brazil. look a lot less guilty when you consider that you recently become part of the problems ah emergencies to court. the annual emissions, but that doesn't tell us anything about why or why we are in th

all of that carbon becomes vulnerable to being released back into the atmosphere either as carbon dioxidelocal scales and local catastrophes for people living in the area of these fires right on up to a global scale climate consequence we need to be concerned about these fire conditions.— concerned about these fire conditions. ., ., , conditions. how does something localised impact _ conditions. how does something localised impact the _ conditions. how does something localised impact the globe? - conditions. how does something - localised impact the globe? because many people don't really care about things like this because it's happening far away, why should we care? taste happening far away, why should we care? ~ , ., happening far away, why should we care? ,., ,, , care? we should care because these fires are going _ care? we should care because these fires are going to — care? we should care because these fires are going to destroy _ care? we should care because these fires are going to destroy our - fires are going to destroy our earth's freezer for ancient carbon. so permafrost has

jack: duke energy one of the largest utilities in the nation aims to have net-zero carbon emissions byis that possible and what sacrifices are necessary lynn good is here to explain. thank you for coming on the show. >> it is my pleasure. jack: i want to ask you big picture questions about duke's future, economic activity get the early indicators from energy usage, what are you seeing about the rebound post condemning. >> it is hard to say how close we are to normal times until we have more of a track record on the opening of the economy but residential has been strong throughout the pandemic as people have been working at home and now the economies opening up we see greater growth in our commercial industrial segment. jack: that makes sense, elliott management activist firm recently took a stake in duke the researchers the wall street researchers are little bit skeptical of this but what are your plans will change anything you're doing? >> we remain open to our shareholders is important to listen in our engagement with elliott we have not identified an idea that we believe creates lon

all of that carbon becomes vulnerable to being released back into the atmosphere either as carbon dioxideatastrophes for people living in the area of these fires right on up to a global scale climate consequence we need to be concerned about these fire conditions. how does something localised impact the globe? because many people don't really care about things like this because it's happening far away, why should we care? we should care because these fires are going to destroy our earth's freezer for ancient carbon. so permafrost has been protecting our climate and keeping our climate cooler than it normally would be and that whole service is about to get disrupted as fires start to thaw out that permafrost, we are losing the capacity to keep permafrost and all of its ancient carbon stored safely in the ground. we don't want to permafrost carbon to end up in the atmosphere but that's what's happening as a result of these wildfires. it's going to be a vicious cycle adding on top of human emissions. let s get some of the day's other climate related news stories. in the us state of oregon, t

we are 10096 carbon neutral. this is a _ offset it. we are 10096 carbon neutral.. this is a gas plant. neutral. this is a gas plant and approximately 50% of the grid is powered by natural gas. whether it's in new york at the rest of the country, this plant does emit carbon. some local politicians are concerned. do you want greenwich to close down? personally, itabsolutely should. it should not be using fossil fuel to should. it should not be using fossilfuel to run should. it should not be using fossil fuel to run these computer processors to benefit of you people on wall street, for what? of you people on wall street, forwhat? it's of you people on wall street, for what? it's not worth it. politicians around the world are still trying to work out how to deal with the bitcoin plasma energy consumption. companies like greenwich think they are the future but others think reopening plants like this is a step in the wrong direction. james clayton, bbc news. more ups and downs for chinese ride—hailing company didi. its shares soared in pre—market trading on reports its

jack: you have very ambitious plans for carbon reduction, tell us about your thinking on that and willget harmed anyway them to make sacrifices in order to get there. jack: we believe pursuing a clean energy is good for customers and good for our investors and we really done a lot of homework we come from us drawn physician having lowered our carbon emissions by 40% we have a clear line on investments to double and triple renewables over the next decade and were advocating for the research and development that will be necessary for the technology we believe will need in the 30s and 40s, there is investment opportunity for our investors in a way to do this in an affordable reliable way driving on carbon emissions for customers. jack: one of the investments as batteries whether tesla power wall or a big utility old storage at your level where do we stand on batteries and where do we need to get to renewable energy be can be restored when it's needed. >> i believe battery technology represents a great opportunity and we are investing in the numbers on battery investment will be quite extr

you has an out how it plans for these carbon neutral by 2015. the a deal will affect almost every aspect of european life. but when it hit the wrong, people will take deeper and the fidget to your own is coming to the european central bank as formerly going to project to make sure its current the roofs. but the times just need to be business on robots in bell and welcome to the program. the army has been called in to protect businesses in south africa after several days of riots. over 1300 people have been arrested and at least 72 people have died in unrest since the jailing, the former president jacobs emer, but contempt of court violence and destruction on the streets of johannesburg. the economic capital of south africa. this shopkeeper is just one of thousands of petrified business owners caught up in the looting and vandalism now spreading across the country. does the most wonderful woman follow what initially started as a protest against the incarceration of former president jacob's zoom of her contempt of court has mushroomed into nationw

the cause of global warming is the same cause of ocean acidification, so rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also causes the ocean to fundamentally change in chemistry. in 2007, our research group formed, and there are a group of faculty who work together to try to understand the impacts of ocean acidification, and the reason why is that we know the ocean is a tremendous sponge for carbon. it just soaks it up, so about 20% to 30% of what we emit to the atmosphere through our activities ends up in the ocean, and that fundamentally changes the chemistry of the ocean water. it reduces the ph of the water, making it more acidic, shifting it enough that organisms absolutely notice and are impacted. we are asking really fundamental things about how animals in the sea work, how th make shells, how they live, and how these chemicalhanges might affect all of those things. i'm using a probe right now to measure the temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and ph of the seawater out here in the cove. we do things like this routinely both here, but all up and down the california coast to try