Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Q&A at the Google Founders Climate Change Conversation

Difficulty: 0

>>I want to open the floor. We have so many smart and interesting people here and Michael

Elliott was out there somewhere. Michael, yeah you had a question I wanted to make sure

I got it. And just identify, please identify yourself - back there.

MICHAEL: Hi, Mike Elliott from Time Magazine. One of the unexpected, at least, to me, themes

of the first day of Davos, yesterday, was the crisis of expensive food that was mentioned

by delegates from India, from Africa, and from China. And rightly or wrongly, in many

parts of the developing world that's associated with the increasing amount of available corn

that's devoted to the production of Ethanol. Similarly, Bono just earlier this morning

pointed out that in landlocked parts of Africa and other parts of the world, air transport

is an essential tool of economic development. I'd just like to ask all of you, how in practical

terms do you convince people in the developing world that these two great goals [ INAUDIBLE

] reduction and climate change are not in conflict. I mean how do you convince people

that climate change will not be a policy adopted on the back of people who just recently have

moved from one meal a day to two?

Larry: Can I say I feel like, one of the biggest problems we have in the world is people don't

realize that technology is the way we solve these problems so I was giving a talk recently

and we have this great economist who helps us out, Hal Varian, and I was saying, he's

saying basically all the growth in GDP per capita has been due to technology and you

can graph it as like an exponential - you know starts with basically farm improvements

machinization and and mass manufacturing and so on. And the way we're going to get out

of problems like that is by having better technology. And if you look at, you know the

U.S. has something like, you have 10,000 people, the equivalent of 10,000 people helping you

every day with the energy use. They're pushing your car, they're carrying your water up to

you. If you work out the number of calories you have to use as a person to do all the

things that you do is something like 10,000 people. In Africa, that number is like one

or two or zero. Right. And really, it's really not fun to have to carry your water. It'd

be really nice to have somebody carry your water for you. And the way we're going to

solve those problems is by having more energy not less, and by having it not hurt our environment,

the world that we live in. And by having it be a lot cheaper, right. Having more, having

it be cheaper, those things are related. The way we're going to do that is with technology,

we're not, there's no other magic that's going to do it. And that's the way it's always been

done and, if you look at the trends, there's been huge, huge advances in all those things.

So I think the way you're going to solve the poverty is by having helpers and energy is

a great way to have helpers. The food cost is probably largely based on transportation.

The cost of transportation is largely based on the cost of energy. And so you know you

solve, you'll solve both those problems at once. You'll solve food and you'll solve energy

and that'll help with poverty and starvation and all those things. And the way we're going

to do that is we're going to make it cheap and prevalent and you know you can dig a whole

anywhere in the world and get tons of energy. That would be a great thing, right? Let's,

let's go build that.


>>What you just heard from Larry was what I think forced me to change my mind about

how you deal with climate change because the logical extension of this faith, I think,

in technology and engineering, not just faith in the historical record of it. When we started

doing out energy work, we were very interested in renewables, we were interested in government

policies. And Larry really challenged us. He said you can't do it out of a feeling of

scarcity. You can't react just out of conservation, because then you won't have economic development

and you will hurt so many people by any kind of an abrupt slow down or any kind of trade

off. You're absolutely right about the ethanol issue. They're called chapote wars now or

tortilla wars, because people are really rising up against ethanol for that reason. But Larry

says don't make it into a competition. He says find a way to make electricity, not that

you have to cut back on it, but that you have more than you ever dreamed of and that you

do it at prices less than you ever thought of and gird your loins. Get the engineers

LARRY: Wait. The corn issue is largely a policy issue.


LARRY: I mean the reason corn as expensive as it is because we're making ethanol out

of it, which we should'nt be doing.


LARRY: And something I already mentioned we have 50%, we have a 50 cent tariff in the

U.S. on imported ethanol and a 50%, 50 cent subsidy on corn ethanol. So it's a dollar

a gallon, and that's why corn is expensive. It's not, because people would otherwise be

making ethanol out of corn.

>>Right, right.

>>It is a travesty that it there's a 54 cent per gallon tariff if you want to import sugar

ethanol from Brazil. But if you want to actually import a gallon of refined gasoline from Saudi

Arabia, it's only a penny and a half. So from a country in our hemisphere that's a democracy,

we have a 54 cent tariff and from the people who brought us 911, we have a one cent and

a half tariff. Al, please.

>>Yeah, I wanted to briefly comment on Michael Elliott's question. First of all I wanted

to compliment the three of you for the equation RE<C. I think it's a brilliant and simple

clarification of the key moving part in all of this debate. But, there is actually a rich

and growing literature on the connection between food and security in the developing world

and climate. And the price of tortillas and the price of other staples has actually gone

up more because of the thousand year drought and what many are calling the thousand year

drought in Australia and the effect on yields on the supply side then on the very marginal

extra pressure that comes from renewable [ INAUDIBLE ]. I happen to agree that corn-based

ethanol is just a transition dead end towards cellulosic ethanol and the use of enzymes,

enzymatic hydrolysis is what I think above my pay grade but it's I think one of the winners

on this. But if you look at the map of where the food is to be grown in the developing

world, the impact of the climate on this is by far the most important issue. The United

Nations Development Program has put out two reports now, Kevin Watkins, the principle

author says that climate is the principle development challenge. And the program for

fighting against food insecurity has to take account of climate in order to succeed. And

by the way, the trends in agriculture in developing the poorest of the poor countries, has been

mono-culture. The reason why as Larry Brilliant said the highest percentage of jobs is with

the large multi-nationals is because they're replacing the kind of subsistence agriculture

with locally grown appropriate crops, with these huge plantations of mono-culture that

depend upon lots of petroleum, lots of transportation. Wangari Maathai's Green Belt program got it's

notice for tree planting, but she uses that to educate women primarily to go back to the

traditional crops that are, and you know Alice Waters in the United States has been among

those who's generated this movement. Food and security is one of the principle cutting

edges of the climate crisis in the developing world and solving it is yet another reason

why we have to intertwine this with solutions of the climate crisis. One final point. Back

to the Re<C. Innovators bringing renewable energy down in cost represents the left-hand

side of that equation. The right-hand side of the equation is equally important. The

extraordnalities that are not presently reflected in the price of coal and fossil fuels, have

to be priced into this equation but in order to reflect reality. And rather than seeing

that as a tax, it should be seen as a revenue swap. That all ought to come back on the left-hand

side of the equation and in the form of adaptation, not only in the poorest of the poor countries,

but among the poorest of the poor in the rich countries.

>>Thank you.


>>Can I just make a very quick comment? Judy Rodin is here who runs the Rockerfeller Foundation

and she's sort of been our inspiration and mentor. They have $150,000,000 program, the

AGRA Program, which is to try to deal with new seeds, Gates puts them, most, two thirds

of the money in. That is because Africa never really had a green revolution, not in the

way we think of India having had one, and because of climate change you will see intercurrent

drought and floods and salinity as salt is brought from the rising seas over the shores

and the agricultural land. The situation is so dire that for the first time in known history,

farmers in Andhra Pradesh and in parts of India are committing suicide, because their

lands will no longer produce enough calories per actor to feed their family. So Al, in

my experience is actually right. These are twins of the same problem climate change makes

poverty worse. Poverty, if it does economic development the wrong way makes climate change

worse. We can't choose sides. We have to be both and.

>>Yes there.

>>Yeah, thanks I want to add one other thing to this both and. I don't know whether to

challenge Larry Brilliant or to ask a leading question of Sergey and Larry, but none of

this, if you think the U.S. government is short-sighted, the other governments are so

much worse that there is a huge amount of corruption in many of these countries and

it forestalls things. You can have business plans up the wazoo, but now your guy gets

his $50,000 and the next thing you know the tax inspector comes calling. Or he tries to

open an office, but it gets closed down because some rich land owner who's related to the

nephew of the governor wants to start a shopping mall or something like that. And so, in order

for the top down stuff to happen, you just need to go talk to the governments, but for

most of the bottom up stuff to happen, the stuff that's going to create the diversity

and the props and the entrepreneurs and all this economic growth. One way or another you

do have to take on these governments. Please comment.

Larry: Well I actually, Larry and I have been talking about this issue a lot. I spent some

time actually in Ethiopia in the elections actually with the Carter Center just monitoring

the elections, which was really interesting I recommend that to people, and they have

really good systems, I mean you can debate the election there but they have really good

systems now for they have series of like 10 rules before they'll go in

>>It was all Larry's fault, he miscounted.


Larry: [ INAUDIBLE ] like they have for example 10 things they have to have before they go

into a country to monitor elections. And, for example the U.S. meets none of them, by

the way, whereas many, most of the countries [ INAUDIBLE ] countries during elections

do meet those. And, you know, it's just about accountability, you know they, everybody watches

the ballot box getting filled, the ballot box expands, once they have the ballots they

write the numbers down on the building so anyone can see them and you know if you want

to make sure that all the tabulations are right you can just visit all the buildings


>>help them,

Larry: yeah, to count the ballots.



Larry: Oh sorry, I was going to transition to that, sorry. I think that I think elections

are an area we can learn from because there's been so much work done by a lot of great people

that there are actually procedures in place now that we know if we have the following

10 things, than we have an election that's probably mostly fair or we know whether we

did or not. And I think we need those set of 10 things for other parts of the government.

So you know there's great organizations that are trying to do things like just measure

you know if you're putting money into a school does it actually get built? You know, can

you see the school, does it walls, does it have books and those kind of things. How do

you measure that, that scale? And so what are the 10 things that you need to do to make

sure that when you gave the money for the school that they really appear and they have

teachers and students and all those things. And I think if we got some of those procedures

and the rules right for these governments and we got the accountability and the understanding

of what's going on I think we'll make a lot of progress in, around the corruption side

and so on. My brother really likes, he has a phrase ISO 9000 for governments. You know

if you go around in these developing countries you see a factory. They alway have an ISO

9000 banner, which is basically you know this burocratic stuff about how you make sure the

stuff you make is really what you claim it is and it's safe the and the bolts don't break

if you build a building out of the nails they don't, you know your building doesn't fall

down. And we don't have the equivalent for governments, if we did, maybe that would help

a lot. And I think we're talking about that and Larry alluded to it.

>>This organization that Larry's talking about Parthown, we've given them some money and

they're actually doing surveys of not the input or the output but the throughput of

education to see whether kids are actually literate, not whether the government says

they are or whether the school teachers say they are, because parents who are not literate

can't gauge the literacy and the education that the kids are getting. So there's really

three parts to this. First, I want to say a nice thing about the government of India,

you know they've got three one hundred billion dollar programs to address issues of intractable

extreme poverty. And one of them a program called the Right to Information Act. You know

we have one of those in the United States? But this one has teeth in it. If you don't

get your grain allotment that you are entitled to, you go to any magistrate and you say,

I didn't get my grain allotment. They have 30 days to tell you who touched that grain

allotment at every single weigh-in in the chain and if any one of those guys doesn't

tell you what they did with it, they go to jail. And they actually make people go to

jail. It's an amazing piece of legislation. Likewise, they have a Right to Work Act, where

the government is allocated 100 billion dollars for people in India who, you know, on average

can 300 million people earn less than a dollar a day? So they have offered anyone a dollar

a day of work for two hundred days. Two hundred dollars a year. But the problem is corruption.

The problem is it's the leakiest pipe in the world when you start off with 100 billion

dollars in Dali and you've got to get it to any other place in India. So they've built

the best program evaluation system I've ever seen. It's called the social audit. Forget

about where the money started or how it gets there at the end of the day they bring all

of the landless peasants together who are entitled to get this work and get paid and

they pull out the roster. And they check the thumb prints on the roster in front of 2,000

village. I attended some of these myself where corrupt individuals were just put in jail

immediately in front of everybody and thousands of people cheered because they've never felt

so empowered. I think these are some of the things that we need to be looking at. There

are lots of solutions out there. The other part of it is that I don't think that people

in Ganna know what the people in India are doing. I don't think there's much of what

the UA used to call TCDC, Technical Cooperation Amongst Developing Countries. We with our

technology and others should be able to spot those things which work in one place and share

it with everybody. You can be very optimistic if you go to a social audit in India, I'll

tell you.

>>Sergey, did you want to jump in on any of this.

Sergey: Yeah I do have, I think that the U.S. even today remains a leader in many ways and

I do think that if the U.S. transitions to clean, I think a lot of these other countries

will follow, corruption aside. Now today I do think, unfortunately, the other countries

are leaving the U.S. and that if you look at, you know there may be small examples but

Buton that I mentioned, or Costa Rica or any number of others. I mean these countries are

using renewables they are preserving their environment, they're actually the leaders

today it's a minority. But I think we need to get the United States in the loop and I

think then the majority countries'll follow.

>> Could I, I'm Paul Berkile from Boies, Schiller

>>Stand up

>>Boies, Schiller and Flexner law firm in New York. Regulatory policy, Al Gore mentioned

the externalities issue and really, this is what we need to focus on in the U.S. You were

talking why, how does it happen? How can we be optimistic? Well lawyers, as you know,

are designed to make things slow down or potentially speed them up on the right side. Let me give

you some positives. Tom Friedman was pessimistic about where we are here in the U.S. about

shifting over, internalizing the costs of coal and oil and gas. But some good examples,

tobacco - it did happen, it took 30 years from the time we learned the problem until

we solved it. This was the Gore administration, may I say with your friend Clinton. The FDA

did it by regulation, by regulation ultimately did it. Also, seat belts, it took 30 years

to get seat belts to internalize those costs. But it happened. And it can happen here in

less than 30 years. Especially if you have regulatory policy that shifts a big harbinger

here is the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA, telling the EPA indeed you have the

power and you may, you must regulate for gases in the environment.

>>You have a question?

Paul: And my question is why don't we get Exxon, Mobil and all these guys to spend more

time with them, win them over to the alternative fuels argument and get a better lobby than

we have now?

>>Larry you want to take it?

>>Well I think some of those oil and gas companies you can have that conversation with and some

of them you cannot. And I have actually been very impressed with BP Oil. Whatever it's

other problems have been there is inside of that organization a genuine search for alternatives.

You know, I laughed because it's so easy to be cynical when they say BP beyond petroleum,

but I actually have been very impressed with them and that and I you know we have other

oil and gas companies that produce deep hydro, deep hydro, deep thermo energy in the U.S.

I don't think that's an impossible quest. There are some people here today [ INAUDIBLE

] and other who have been trying to get that conversation going and keep it going. But

I do believe that you're better going around these companies, going to their customers.

Letting their customers know that if you go down this road you're endangering your children's

lives in the future. I think that's a better role for people who are trying to advocate

change than, you need help and customers are a really good group to help you.

>>Van Jones, Van you had a question?

Van Jones, Green [ INAUDIBLE ], Oakland, California. I wanted to just make and observation. You

know we are thinking about how do we expand this coalition? How do we get more people

to care about buying the good clean stuff and actually more people who want to put the

right price on the dirty stuff. And, often these conversations become what's wrong with

everybody? Why doesn't everybody get this? Well I spent the past year, the past three

months I talked to 30,000 people about climate change. In places like Oakland, Watts, Newark.

We talked about poor people in other countries, you never talked about poor people in the

developing countries. This is what gets people's attention. If you tell peopel who already

live in crisis about another crisis, they get depressed. Okay? You're poor, you don't

have a house, you don't have a job, you're scared and you say here's global warming,

it's going to kill everybody.


Van: They don't want to join your group. They just don't. And they say it's the end times,

that Jesus is going to come back and they give up.


Van: Okay? But if you tell people who live in crisis about the opportunity, they get

very excited. So we started telling people about the idea of green collar jobs for their

kids. That we could put low-income, urban youth to work, cutting up those solar panels.

The President signs a law, the President's not going to put up one solar panel. The President's

not going to weatherize one building. Your kid could do that. And we got instant cooperation

and support across the board. So I think what we've got to do is stick to the positive.

I do think we're going to have to get the govenment to help the markets and help the

technologies work because the government has to be involved. We need a political movement

that includes everybody. But if we go to people who have crisis and tell them about the opportunity,

we can expand this coalition to include the people who need this green wave to lift all


>>Now let me ask you a question.

>>Van. Yeah.

>>If you could ask one thing of the Google founders and that would help the

green collar movement, what, you know, what could they do?

Van. Well I think that the most important thing is that these, we tend to have these

conversations like at a lot of these meetings and it's all about the technology. It's all

about the entrepreneurs and that's great. But what about the workers? If you go to your,

if you have this standard that says we want three cents, that's the outcome, and we also

want X number of jobs. Tell us how we're going to be able to get X number of jobs out of

your innovation and we'll make that a part of what we celebrate. Because people aren't

just saying oh, it's good for the Polar Bears, they're saying maybe it's good for me and

my child.

>>Thank you. Thank you.


>>Yeah, I'll get to everybody. Over here.

>>Hi, I'm Jeff Jarvis and I just blog at I'm hearing a cultural shift here which goes

right after what Van just said and what you said a little earlier Larry. That so much

of the movement tells us what we should not be doing. You're talking about what we can

and should do and will do. And I think that's essentially different in the message. It goes

back to what you said in the beginning Larry about how good a job we're doing at getting

the message out. So if you take that essential message of saying okay there's things we shouldn't

do, fine. But, there's all these things we can do and should do that technology will

bring us. That I think requires lobbying for investment, it requires PR to get the people

to understand the need for investment, it requires education. How much does that fit

into, is that your job or are you going to [ INAUDIBLE ] for technology, where does

the lobby and the information and the education come in?

>>Can I just add one thing to that Jeff, which is a really important point, because Al Gore

and I were talking about this on the way over. I don't think people fully appreciate what

a number Exxon Mobil did on this debate. Because basically what they did is that they made

the debate between, no climate change and Al Gore. So Al was out here, one extreme and

no climate change was here. But in fact Al was actually at the center and the real debate

is between kinda Al and Al, which is Al in the center or actually much worse climate

change, which is what we're now seeing. And that's why I keep coming back to this issue.

No name something is to own it. They own that debate still. And what are we going to do

to rename it?

>>Well you, it's not just Exxon Mobile. It's not just that issue. The coal industry in

the U.S. has just launched a 50 million dollar television campaign, The Coalition for Fair


>>Yeah I've seen them all.


>>They're running now.

>>Well they don't have a name CLEANCO, the have a name which sounds like Peace, Motherhood,

God and Apple Pie. That's what the name of it. The debut, but that's not what they're

doing. They're trying to persuade people that, just keep using dirty coal for a little while

we'll clean it up. That's really what they're trying to say. And we don't want to, I think

that the issues become far more manageable when we deal with issues of getting the information

out there. Everybody's got to play a different role. Ann can play one role, John Doerr, on

of our leaders plays one role, All plays one role. I mean our role is best played by getting

all of the information out there in any way that we possibly can, because when one has

that same amount of information, not everybody, most people are going to make the right decision.

And that's what I believe in.

>>But what happens when you're up against people who's motto is do harm?


>>You, those people have customs

[ TAPE JUMPS 26:22 ]

>>you have the gigawatts for example, goals say we could buy a data center at roughly

the same cost as we can get it from coal we would go do it and you know we can invest

the capital to do it. You don't have those alternatives and if you did everybody would

go do it.

>>Sort of if you build it they will come.


>>Al go ahead.

Al: I wanted to gently take issue with something you said Larry. Getting all the information

out there and letting people see all the facts and make up their minds, that generally works.

I think that's the way the world used to work. I don't think it works that way any more.

And the reason why the tobacco industry was able to continue killing people for 40 years

after the Surgeon General's report of 1964 is that they understood that as against the

enlightenment model of, putting the facts on the table, seeking the best evidence, have

a reasonable debate, appealing to the rule of reason and letting people make their minds

up, they understood the power of strategic persuasion. And, they went about it in a very

careful, organized and well-funded way. And the memoranda that have come out on these

law suits that go back 40 or 50 years now make it very very clear that they knew exactly

what they were doing. Now the information ecology of of modern society, especially in

the United States, makes us vulnerable to strategic persuasion campaigns if the other

side assumes that all we need to do is put the facts out there, let people make up their

own minds, let's have an open debate. That's not, it just doesn't work that way. Just yesterday

there was a report on the run up to the invasion of Iraq. We've identified 975 false statements

in a concentrated period of time with the same means used intentionally by the administration,

again I'll give the same disclaimer I did in the earlier session. I've lost my objectivity

so take it with a grain of salt. But this was a strategic campaign. Now, on global warming,

on the climate crisis, Exxon Mobil was only one of those involved. The southern company,

there are a bunch of them. They spend a lot of money. This current 50-million-dollar-advertising-campaign,

they're sponsoring the debates among the candidates. Okay? And Exxon Mobil has funded 40 different

front groups that have all been a part of a strategic persuasion campaign to, in their

own words, reposition global warming as theory rather than fact. Now we can bemoan this and

we can continue to assume that all we have to do is to get the facts out there and people

are capable of making up their own minds or we can counter it with a strategic persuasion

campaign that is based on the truth and get that out there. I have long since come to

the conclusion that that's what's needed. And that's why I formed this alliance for

climate protection, bipartisan not endorsing any candidates or any political party, but

to take them on Goddammit.


>>I am [ INAUDIBLE ] from Zimbabwi. I always try to make sure when we debate poverty we

include poor people in the debates. I want to push a couple of paragram shifts that are

required for there to be no attention between the public debate and the climate debate.

The first one is to say there must be and there is a business case to address the climate

change debate. Second paragram shift, Africans, poor people must take the responsibility for

own inconsistencies. In Africa we're moving away from the blame game. We are responsible

for the cares in Africa, we must take charge of our lives. Paragram shift number three,

move away from aid [ INAUDIBLE ] to investment. We want investment in Africa. Teach us how

to fish, don't give us fish. Paragram shift number four, move away from commodity based

in [ INAUDIBLE ] to processing to value addition, that's what we want so that there's no tension

between the eradication of poverty and the climate change. Paragram shift number 5 [

INAUDIBLE ] the bottom of the pyramid. [ INAUDIBLE ] to be the same. You need to be

creative and innovative around the bottom of the pyramid, technology, volume-driven

strategies how you service [ INAUDIBLE ], how you service Zimbabwi. How you service

poor communities requires innovation around volume, innovation around technology. Clean

technologys, clean fuels so that we can [ INAUDIBLE ] to this dire economy. We need

to also make a shift. I think that we are so much obsessed about national sovereignty

and I want to tell you and I've already said my views to Al, Vice President Gore, you can't

address what you're trying to do if you're obsessed with national sovereignty. We need

a strategic shift from national sovereignty to global sovereignty to collective humanity.

What are we doing to move ourselves towards global sovereignty and collective sovereignty.

Thank you.

[ TAPE SKIPS 32:12]

>>You guys want to say anything on that?

>>I would just say one thing about what Al Gore said. First, it's under any circumstances

it's wonderful having a conversation with you whether we agree or not. But we do agree

and you know that. We attended a meeting together in Aspen, in fact John was there as well.

And, it was a very depressing meeting. We'd just seen the latest results of the IPCC.

We'd just seen some of the devastating increasing acceleration of the climate change. That meeting,

probably if it concluded on two things was one, we needed a tax on carbon, the other,

we needed total change in human consciousness. Now one of those things is easier to accomplish

than the other, but I'm not sure which one of them.


>>And in this debate, and I think your analysis was exactly on and I so much appreciate your

passion, that the question though is that each one of has has got to find a role that

we can uniquely play. You have to look where you stand. I mean what Peggy's got is 100

years of moral credability to bring to the battle with the Rockerfeller family. Somebody

else may have analytical capability. Others might really have political power. Some might

have scientific excellence or technological competence. I ask each one of us to look at

our own assets. Don't to a net worth statement, do a self-worth statement and see how you

can contribute what fits you and what you do may not fit somebody else.

>>Oh I'm sorry John.

>>This'll turn the conversation around a little bit, but if the equation is RE<C and we say

that raising C can help accelerate that, and that raising C is, this is the thesis of the

question, is policy and politics, I'd like your permission to pose a question to Tom

Friedman, who's writing a book about this an is a world expert on politics, policy globally.

What's your prescription? How the hell are we going to get the policy to be heart-attack

serious and to be done quickly and effectively before as Al has warned us and led us run.

I think I know about the RE<, the innovation on the technology. It's the policy that,

Tom: Well you know I think this, I don't want [ INAUDIBLE ]

>>You talked about politics and policy

Tom: I just would say that I think, and Al and I were talking about this in the car over,

this is a, [ INAUDIBLE ] this is a really unique problem.

Which is that historically an environmental movement has really been about stopping things.

You know stopping pollution, stopping acid rain and and actually social [ INAUDIBLE

] movements historically have been about stopping discrimination against women, stopping discrimination

against blacks. This is a very different challenge. We actually, we have to have a mass social

movement that gets the government to put on a tax. To set a price on carbon. It's an unprecedented

thing. A social movement. But I like the way Al's really been talking about it, I think

again, language is so important, that this has to be a social movement for an investment

in our future. If it's a social movement for a tax, that going to be a really hard sell.

But if it's a social movement for an investment, that really what Larry and Sergey and Larry

have been saying. That if we can reframe this it's how to invest in our future, because

we can talk about everything here without a price signal you will not have a scale.

Without a scale, you have a green hobby. I like to build model airplanes for a hobby.

Not try to get a gigawatt of clean energy.

Larry: Can I add one thing to that, I mean I think it's well worth doing the getting

the C part up, but I do think that it's pretty obvious about getting the RE down a lot and

in order to solve some of the development issues we really need cheaper energy. And

so if you just increase C, you know if you could wave your hands today in increase C

a lot, you know you should do that, but that's actually not the only thing we need to do,

even if you accomplished it or not, you've really missed something important which is

that we really want everybody to have a lot of energy.


>>Larry: Okay well yeah I agree but I think if there was one thought I want to leave people

with is that I think the number of people in the world that are trying to make RE really

small is very very small. Like we could probably fit them all into this room. And that's a

really serious problem. You know if we make that, if we make it go from 100 to 10,000

people, we're going to make a lot more progress.

>>Sergey: Just to quickly add, I do think we need a policy work just to make RE smaller

or to not increase it. I mean the tariffs on the sugar [ INAUDIBLE ] the real issue.

The inability to put up windmills because you know five miles off Nantucket they don't

look so pretty, you know, all those things are real obstacles and we need to get rid

of those too.

>>Larry: I'm just, our buildings too, you know we have to attach the panels to the right

building or we can't meter it into the grid and they won't let us connect to the, this

stuff is garbage. So some of the, I think what Sergey is saying is to get real fast

action on some of these things and you've got to be able to connect them up to the grid

without it taking two years and stuff. That's a policy issue.

>>And one small thing, just to remind us but we already know, if you're looking at RE<C

it's all over the world. So you might be able to affect the price of coal by internalizing

it in the United States. If you don't the fact, that formula in China or India you're

really winning a [ INAUDIBLE ] victory. We have to have RE<C in those countries as well.


Peter: Just one data point, Al that suggests maybe you've been more successful than you

know. In San Fran, in California a recent public survey on concern about climate change.

Four out of 5 Californians are willing to support strong action on climate change. Not

broken down by party buy by level of knowledge. That is they, the four who are supporting

it know more than the one who doesn't. And so it really is in part a matter of knowledge.

Now, that is in part because of you, because of our Governator in California, who's done

a pretty decent job of education the people of California, so it does suggest that at

least some effort of informing the public may actually have some genuine political consequences

so that we have a real consensus in California on action. And so I think what you're doing

to bring the message to the people already is having that kind of impact.

Al: But here's a crucial distinction. What you say is absolutely right, It's the result

of a lot of hard work on the part of many many people. But even though the poles show

that increase in change depending - here's the bad part of that. When you give the American

people a list of 25 issues and you ask them to order them in rand priority order, climate

is still not above 23 on the list of 25. So, there's a difference between changing opinions

and changing the sense of urgency. And that's, we need a strategic mass persuasion campaign

focused on getting that to the top of the list. That happened in Australia and that's

why Kevin Rudd was elected. It needs to happen in the U.S. and elsewhere. And to make it

global, that's what Copenhagen is all about. In December of 2009 Copenhagen marks the culmination

of the global process where and that's the policy framework within which RE<C can be

locked in globally.

>>Please. The lady behind you. Please identify yourself.

>>My name is Toshiko Maury I'm an architect. I'm a chair with the Department of Architecture

at Harvard. And I have this issue about how to represent this information to make the

knowledge more accessible to the public, not only for this country. Because earth may be

flat but I think it's dynamic. It's very different world now thanks to all the issues brought

up by climate change, property issues. We have to come up with a different model to

inform the public. As an architect we see buildings as organic [ INAUDIBLE ] connecting

many different dots. Issues that are incredibly attomized. Issues of food to property to disaster

to climate. How the light bulb to polar bears - it's so diverse. And I think problem is

the people cannot see the whole picture and connecting millions of dots. And what I propose

what Google can do with the search engine capability us can you come up with a dynamic

model, simulation model, which may be more visual, so that everybody can see when they

actually understand. What about this one seed in Africa. How does it affect everything else.

And people can see immediately how everything is interrelated. It's a different, different

world and I think that's why we are suffering from this and that's why people don't understand.

If you show this model to persons they will get it immediately because it's all about

the quality of life, and that is common issue globally. And I think this job of how to

[ INAUDIBLE ] information is missing and I hope that Google can come up with a very powerful

engine and a very creative way to deliver dynamic world message.

Larry: I think it'd be great to have some of that capability in Google Earth, where

you can actually see simulations of what's likely to happen and how it affects different

people and all those things.

Sergey: Well we should mention there are already layers in Google Earth that do some of those

things. For example you can look at the effects of sea-level changes and you can simulate

you know one meter, three meter rise in sea levels and it's very dramatic obviously. You

can see renewable projects around the world so we do have some of those pieces already.


Sergey: No, that's true we don't have a global simulation that connects it all.

>>[ INAUDIBLE ] Oh I'm sorry, and then [ INAUDIBLE ] because you were next.

>>Very quickly, Michael Anderson from [ INAUDIBLE ] in the U.K. There's one opportunity that

I'd also like to add to the table and that is that each year marketers spend about three

quarters of a trillion dollars on advertising and marketing. That is a huge multiple of

50 million for coal and the chance to mobalize customer bases is huge. The crisis we have

from a consumer's perspective is lack of choice. Very hard to buy products that are exciting

that are cleaner. So I really think that particularly with your relationship with advertisers, which

is so important, and your relationship empowering consumers to make choice at that level you

have a wave that's in the trillion dollar scale. As a young global leader we've just

written a book that has 15 case studies of companies that have cut carbon, increased

profit and now are creating a multiplication factor through their customer base. And I

think this is a great new lever that I hope we also embrace if business has a role to

play. Not just on big scale things, not just on telling people to change their light bulbs,

but in really accelerating customer choice in the system.

Larry: Yeah we can have little ads that are green.

>>Lucen Marmicci from [ INAUDIBLE ] where I bring you [ INAUDIBLE ]. I just wanted to

add two points to this important debate about poverty and climate change and this is because

we know that to reduce poverty we need energy. And two other very important elements. One,

there is still 50% of the population in the world and probably more in poor population

in villages and the whole movement from their village to town to [ INAUDIBLE ] everybody

in the village for the same level of living needs much less energy than when he moves

to a slum in a town. So I think this is a point which is very important to address.

How do you do it by improving the standard of living in the village. You will need much

less energy. Two examples: one example is cooking is different [ INAUDIBLE ] introducing

a solid cooker which has been tried for at least 40 years. There is a social problem.

People in Africa cook at night in the villages, because this is for the women [ INAUDIBLE

] so you need anthropologists you need social workers to convince people to cook during

the day. It's not a questions of [ INAUDIBLE ] it's really not expensive. And the other

was mentioned of course, seeds. Because they have to cut more trees because they have

[ INAUDIBLE ]. Thank you.

>>We have to close it down, so I don't know if you want to answer that or if you want

guys what to say anything in closing.

>>Well I, first of all this was a wonderful conversation and the best part of is is not

the people up here it's the people down there. It's really wonderful from this perspective

to hear what you guys say and to feel the passion and commitment in the room. I don't

think that would have been the case 5 years ago. So thank you guys.

Sergey: And just one item I'd like to add, you know we're trying to do our [ INAUDIBLE

] in the investments so this is obviously a global challenge and there are so many people

here and other places doing really great and important work. You know, I don't think that,

I think we're really a drop in the bucket and I really appreciate what everyone's doing.

Larry: Thank you.

>>Thank you very much.


The Description of Q&A at the Google Founders Climate Change Conversation