 The key point is that we're not just chasing renewable energy in the form of solar collectors and wind machines. We are devising ever more effective ways of reducing carbon emissions with the goal of getting to net zero. When I say net zero, I mean zero with sequestration making up for whatever residual carbon may be in the environment. We're talking about a radically changed economy technology world, and it has to be the world. This is a world economic forum, and we also need a world environmental forum, a world investment forum where we all work together. And I might say in that respect, as you brought up California and the summit, that sovereignty has a role, but climate change does not recognize sovereignty. It occurs globally, and California has been subject to horrible fires that are among the worst the state has ever had, and they are a forerunner of worst fires to come through global warming, drought, and extreme weather. We saw what happened in the Carolinas. We've seen what happened in Puerto Rico. We see what's happened in Texas and in the Philippines and other places in the world. Climate is going to insert itself all over the globe, and sovereignty is no barrier to the climate. So in that sense, the world has to collaborate, and our climate summit was a collaboration of subnational governments, states, provinces, regions, and some national governments, together with cities, corporation executives, nonprofit representatives. So these are the people that, while the national governments fiddle around with their quantum political excitements, we came together in San Francisco to confront the global threat of warming and drought and mass migrations and starvation and all the other outcomes that we want to forestall. And there was a lot of commitment, increased ambition, and now we have to move that to the next level. And that next level will be fought out in America during the November elections and then afterwards in 2020, and will be also fought out in every country of the world and expressed at the various conference of the parties, at various other interim meetings, but I would say it's time for all hands on deck to recognize the perilous position that citizens of the world are now in and to take the scientifically-based solutions that are available and can be implemented if there is the political will, and that we must generate by climate summits, by meetings such as this, in all other ways that we can mobilize the political will to start getting on the side of nature instead of trying to fight with it because it will ultimately win. Let's delve a little bit deeper into those actions. What are some of the recommendations that have come out of the summit and for local governments or businesses can take to really do their part? As you've said, some nations have pulled back and others have come forward trying to tackle this issue. So what can they do? That's very simple. First, you have to monitor where are you. Each company should know its carbon emissions, what it's doing, and then take steps to reach a zero carbon emission. Of course, that's going to be hard in the case of oil companies, since that carbon is their business. But they too will join with everyone else to forestall the horrific damages that continued climate warming will create. So it's first, understand your emissions, to develop a strategy of reducing them, and number three, make the investments and the decisions to get to the zero emission. You've also talked about, or California has been a first mover. It's been an early adopter. How can we persuade others to join that movement? How can we incentivize them? Well, a lot of people are doing climate action all over the world. It just so happens that carbon emissions are still rising. And they're rising in China, they're rising in India, a lot of other places. And in fact, I think they're rising in California. So we have work to do locally, globally. So it's the same thing. The scientists do the research, they tell us what's happening. The investors and the researchers develop the technologies that we can use to reduce our emissions. And then number three, the academics, the social entrepreneurs, the politicians, the educators all pull together to generate the agreement, the understanding, and the collaboration to get it done. And that's something that's happening all over the world. And this World Economic Forum is a part of that global process. Can you share with us some of the examples of some of the good work that you've seen being done? Well, I just showed California's example that we've set a goal. Not of low carbon, but zero carbon. That's, we gotta get it straight. That's where we have to go. There were many companies that made commitments to reduce their emissions. It's simple to conceptualize. Whatever your emissions are, lower them and aim toward zero emissions. Now in some places that's virtually impossible, but there are technologies. There are alternative practices. And the people that came there made hundreds of commitments that are on the web page that will indicate what those are. You talked about the power of technology. Here at the World Economic Forum, we talk about the fourth industrial revolution. How drones, AI, artificial intelligence are gonna revolutionize the way that we live and we work. What impact will that have on climate change? And what do you see the solution that we can also harness from there? Well, first of all, revolutionize through AI and all the other technologies. The revolution could also be extinction. Never before has humanity had the power to destroy at such a global level. And we ought to recognize that. It's not just nuclear warheads of which Russia and the US have over 7,000 each that can deliver mass destruction in a matter of hours. And we have eight other countries that are in various other positions of destruction. But bio-error or bioterrorism, bio-experimentation, that's a big risk. And all the industrial means of progress have as their negative corollary emissions. So we have to transform our technologies from destruction to construction, to construct a viable, benign path instead of the malign descent into greater climate disruption. So yeah, AI is just speeding everything up. And the problem is technology is moving faster than human insight or human wisdom. It's not enough to build a more powerful toy or a more powerful set of algorithms. We have to develop and reward the human wisdom to exercise restraint and proper balancing of what we deploy. And that really makes the whole question of human survival an open question. So nothing is more important than to deal with this topic. You talked about how technology can be harnessed. But also how can you ensure or what are the tools that we can use to make sure that this transformation that's happening is inclusive? You talked about a lot of people coming at the table and the fact that you're trying to leverage this engagement that's happening. But how can we ensure while we're building these new infrastructure that they're diverse? Well, one thing, the army is very inclusive and it's a killing machine. That's what it's, so inclusion is good. But we want to get the goal in the right direction. So we want everyone on board, but we want the ship sailing in the right direction. Right now the ship is sailing in the wrong direction. And sometimes it's not diverse, sometimes it is. But what is most important is that we control our technology. And we recognize the perils and start pulling back from the abyss. And as we do that, greater equality, greater inclusion has to be part of our educational, business, and whole social policy. But the key point, there's social inequality. But then there's moving to destruction. So we've got to keep our eye on the main threat as we open up our social roles and opportunities to the widest array of human beings. That is a very stark reality that you've painted for us. Well, that is the reality. Most of the people want to lull you. Want you to feel that you just had a nice cookie or you'll have a nice little dinner tonight, so it's okay. But I'm here to tell you it's not okay. We're on a path that is ultimately destructive. That will lead to mass famines, agricultural decline in productivity, and migrations like you've never seen before. That is, if we don't listen to the lessons of the scientists of the Paris Agreement of the San Francisco Climate Action Summit. We are being given the information to pull back from the brink and go in a more positive direction. So that, my message is not one of fear, but one of awakening and clarity. Seeing where we are and seeing that we have the tools, the technology to move in a sustainable direction and getting all of our institutions moving in that direction. That's the goal and because it involves everything, it does get, it's hard to talk about it. It's also hard to execute on it. So what do you believe is preventing leaders from hearing that call or taking action on it? The world works because of fossil fuel. The prosperity, the population, the technology, all that came out of coal, oil, and gas. And now we're being asked to ultimately eliminate all three of those. That's not something we get too easily. Our habits are based on fossil fuel. We have to transform to renewable, sustainable kind of economy and technology. So that's just not easy. And because it's a sophisticated idea, it's not one that is easily presented in the world of political discussion. So it challenges the creativity of leaders and educators and scientists to put the truth out there again and again and again. And that's what we're doing and that's what we have to do. Yesterday, Al Gore said that the maximum political will falls kind of short of the minimum that's necessary for us to reach 21. That's another way of saying what I've been saying. Exactly. So there is a lot of people who agree with you. Then what is your call to action then for the citizens, people like myself? What can we do to help you? Vote out all the climate deniers at the first possible opportunity. Anybody who says climate change is unreal or a hoax, vote for their opponent. That's the first thing to do. State, local, national. Secondly, inform yourself as best you can of what the current science is telling us. And then look for positive opportunities in your own life. Because we can live more sustainably in what we do, what we buy, and how we live. So we can all be a part of the solution. You also said that there's some solutions that we can do. And then you've presented us with this urgent call for action. What are some of the exponential solutions that you want others to take on? You've talked about what California is doing. What are the others, like in civil society, that they can do also to be part of that? Well, unfortunately, a lot of this is dependent on government leadership. You or I can't do anything about the buildup of nuclear weapons and their use. That ultimately decides, that's Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump, Mr. Chi, and all the other seven countries that have nuclear weapons. Well, with climate change, we need, for example, a price on carbon. Only the government can do that. But business can help, and business are in the private sector. So we're in a situation where it's not your local school board. It's not your local recycling center. We are talking about a all-inclusive globalized threat. So we do have to look to our leaders, in the churches, in the schools and universities, in politics, in the military. Those people at the top are going to have to lead the way. And we, munchkins at the bottom, are going to have to do what we can. But we're very dependent on the big shots. I'm sorry to say, as a minor big shot myself, I can tell you, we got to do it. We have to do everything we can, and we're not. So we're setting a very bad example for the non-big shots. You're coming to the term of your limit on January 7th. What are your, I mean, the world is your oyster. What's next for you? The world is not my oyster, or anyone else's oyster. It's a big, damn problem, and a great opportunity. So what am I going to do? Ask me on January 7th. I got a lot to do. I have 174 proposed pieces of legislation. So the work is not done. What? So the work is not done. It's not done? No. Tomorrow afternoon I'll be signing or vetoing bills into the wee hours of the night. So California, there's a lot to do. And I've got about 100 days to do it. So I'm going to use every, but there'll be a lot of things. There'll be many, I'll have a few surprises before we're finished. So on that note, I'd like to open up the floor for any questions we might have in the room. Just please state your name and the organization you're with. Thank you. Thank you for your time. So I'm Catherine Chaney and I work for DevX. We're a media platform focused on international development. And my question for you is what message you have for donors and NGOs working on climate finance? Because despite growing recognition as was the focus of your summit, national actors can really drive change on climate. A lot of the funding is still going to the national governments. So I'm just curious what message you have on financing for climate change and how can it actually start to go to the subnational actors? Well, all the subnational leaders, political leaders, have to encourage the business leaders, the financial leaders, to make the appropriate investments in renewable energy and lower polluting technologies and low carbon activities of one kind or another. So you have to go where the money is, which are in the hedge funds, the banks, pension funds. And we can do something. California has some pension funds. We have hundreds of billions of dollars. I think there's an area there where we can encourage the investment priorities to include resiliency and finance in the lesser developed worlds where they're very short of the capital. Unfortunately, the world spending a trillion on weapons and military, we wouldn't have to divert too much of that to get the necessary investment and meet the $100 billion goal that we need for fulfilling the Paris Agreement. But there's just a certain amount of diversion from where we ought to go. And I think our pension funds and our companies can play an important role. Thank you and one follow-up to that. I wonder if you could expand on the under two coalition that you co-founded. And I think one of the things that could help drive progress in terms of funding going to subnational actors is when those subnational actors come together in networks. So can you just talk about the under two coalition and lessons learned, what worked, what didn't, and if you think that's a good model moving forward? Well, under two is probably not good. Well, to the extent that under two includes private sector people, companies, they can certainly invest in sustainable programs that can affect through our countries. As far as its states and cities, many of the political leaders have influence on their pension funds. So there's massive sums of money there that could focus more on necessary sustainable investments. So that's something we can do. And the third thing is that cities and states can be isolated. And by being part of the under two coalition, they come together to see the progress that their colleagues are making and that they're part of a much larger movement committed to under two degrees centigrade. That is the movement of the under two. Our grand national leaders are not making that commitment operational as of this moment. There's a stall, a slackening of effort. So the under two groups can in their own nations build the political will and the support and take the action that they're allowed legally in their own states and cities. Building regulations, electric chargers in cities. There's a lot of things that recycling, better use of water. So individual cities and states can take their own effort and take their own action and then by becoming more aware of what others are doing can keep committed. Because it's very easy to get discouraged. If you look at what's happening, you could say, well, we're never going to get it done. So that's why it's so important for a climate action summit to demonstrate. Yes, there are very serious people doing serious things to come to terms and to minimize carbon emissions. So that solidarity aspect is critical as part of the mission of the under two coalition. Hi, Governor. Mattie Stanislaus, World Resources Institute, Circle Economy Fellow. In addressing the gap in NDC's optimizing circle economy, which essentially means to reduce the tremendous explosion of raw materials, as viewed as one of the top levers of addressing the gap. Can you tell me whether that came up at all in the summit and whether there's any possibility of building that into carbon trading schemes? Well, first of all, the carbon trading schemes are themselves subject to controversy. California has a cap and trade along with Quebec, and the other carbon trading schemes are rather minimal, except for the EU, which is now raising their carbon price, I'm told, to 20, 25 euros a ton. So that's good. In terms of the circular economy, while I just banned plastic straws, that's a very little step, but we're moving in the direction of recognizing that once use is not acceptable. And I think that is really a product of government regulation. The government's saying no, they'll shall not do that, and they'll shall recycle. So I think that's a matter of government authority following political belief and consensus, adopting rules to bring us closer to a circular economy and to avoid the massive waste. I mean, if you walk down the street here, you see all these big trucks and all the cookies and cups and chairs and plastic and all the rest of it. I wonder, how in the world can we ever make this a circular economy? How can we ever get to zero emission? I think that's a topic that's worth reflecting on, but it's quite daunting just right where we are to get this in a zero carbon position. And the recycling effort is very important. And all we can do is adopt goals, 2030, zero waste or 70% waste, whatever it is. Each jurisdiction has to set a goal. Then they've got to count, they've got to measure what's going on, and they have to set a goal to make things better. This is the goal. The trouble is, even as you talk about world economic forum, it's about economics. We had a president named Bill Clinton, who got elected president on the theme, it's the economy, stupid. And I have to say, it's the ecology. It's the ecology. I won't say stupid. I'll say, wise, interdependent human being, it's the ecology. And by that, I mean, it's the interactive pattern of all the species and materials in circulation that we have to make work. And the economy is a more linear subset of the overall ecology. And it's narrow and destructive, if not tamed and structured within the rules of nature, the rules of habitat, the rules of multiple species diversity, as well as human diversity. So we have a big job to go from the world economic forum to the world human forum, to the world nature human forum. So even our language is very biased and oriented toward money, toward return on investment. You even meet people, young people who say, what's my R, what is it, REI? ROI. What's the ROI? So they're brainwashed already that maybe learning, I said to somebody, why don't you study English or literature? So what's the ROI in that? So we have a lot of discovery and learning and dissemination of clearer ideas about what it takes to survive, to sustain, to create true prosperity. And there's a superficial prosperity and we got a lot of it, but it is not a sustainable prosperity and therefore it's actually false unless we move it into a sustainable frame. On that note, this call for a higher purpose. I'd like to thank you, Governor Brown, for joining us. Thank you. And I'd like to thank our audience online for joining us. Thank you. Good. Remember, it's the ecology, not just the economy.