 Well, thank you. What a beautiful segue into some of the things that I'll be saying. A couple of things about this wonderful presentation struck me. One is something that I'll keep in mind when I'm lecturing to the Brazilians next week about environmental law is the differences in the legal systems in our country. What Professor Camacho was talking about early this day earlier today may resonate with some of you, but may not. We put considerable emphasis on the role of administrative agencies in the American legal system. And much of environmental law does not come from our Congress or parliament articulating specifics about how much land should go into forest and what parts per million of particulates should be allowed. That is all delegated to administrative agencies, which are guided by very careful procedures. And one does not want to talk in terms of superior legal systems, but American environmental law has worked, in many cases, very well, in part because of this approach. If one relies on the parliament and lets these decisions be made by the parliament or the diet or the Congress, there is great opportunity for many of the specific questions regard to implementation never to be raised. I also thought that the presentation was a pretty nice segue into what I'm going to be talking about on international environmental law. I was going to speak for three hours, and now I'm speaking for 23 minutes. So we will have to do some triage. As I said before, the talk on the regional seas and the great seas for our friends from the Barbados who want to know about the Caribbean and our friends who want to know about the Caspian, I will talk to you about that over the week. And our new book on the regional seas will be out. So I'll put that off the table about what I'm talking about today and talk about climate change. So I'm going to have to jump forward, and that will just take me a second. That's not about climate change. What is that about? And why is your hair looking like that? Yes. This is a success in international environmental law, the Montreal Protocol. And as Mr. Brasi has told you today, the original work on the ozone layer and the chemistry associated with the destruction of the ozone layer through ozone-depleting substances was done here at UC Irvine by a giant of environmental science like Ceri Rowland, who won the Nobel Prize working with our Mexican colleague, Modine, Professor Molina. But I always start this topic on ozone-depleting substances with Ms. Simpson, whose hair had to be up on the basis of sprays that contain ozone-depleting substances. And now I don't know how she keeps her hair up, but it's not with ozone-depleting substances. But I still have to go farther in jumping ahead. I'll do it this way. It's more. You see what the three hours was going to be. And you're pleased that it's not. I will cut out some of it, though. It's way too detailed. OK, how many would say that they have a fairly good understanding of climate change challenges? Decent? None. So what did the rest of you say? I guess my scale wasn't complete. I'm going to assume that those of you who know a whole lot about climate change and the international law with regard to climate change will now go to Twitter or Facebook or do whatever you want to do. This is geared toward the rest of us. The background is here. Greenhouse gases, which account for less than 3% of our atmosphere, are very effective at absorbing infrared radiation expelled from the Earth's surface. These slides I will send you. I won't get into the details of this now. The knowledge about climate change is not as recent as some naysayers would suggest. Some of the work on climate change did not reflect it here. It goes back, indeed, to Benjamin Franklin, who recognized in his early scientific observations that the weather was getting much warmer in the colonies. And he attributed it to fossil fuel burning. And he said, but that's a good thing, because it was too cold in those regions anyway. And to be fair, some people say, this is good news for us. I'm sure there are parts of the Soviet Union that think that this may provide some benefits for us with the warming of the climate. So there are some benefits associated with climate change. Of course, there are immense problems and challenges and damages of some of those reflected here, some of them becoming much more in the forefront in the last few years, including glacial melt, greater sea level rise than we had been concerned with, and temperature rises that are beyond some of the predictions that were made just a few years ago. These are major concerns of anyone whose concern focuses on sustainability. The surface temperature increases are not everywhere. There is some blue on these slides, but they are significant. And they are the certainty with which science links this to the burning of fossil fuels is increasing all the time. The associated problems, we focus on this in California, but this is true worldwide. Fish populations drop, precipitation shifts. The last one, of course, is good for some of us. But there will be in superior California wines associated with climate change. When I first started lecturing about climate change, this notion of abrupt climate change, the second bullet here, was considered science fiction with movies like The Day After Tomorrow, being associated with just crazy ideas that make for Hollywood movies. But now the notion of extreme climate change and abrupt climate change is considered a serious outcome by many respectable scientists associated with the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, where sea levels could rise 20 feet. And this doesn't only affect Bangladesh. We'll hear some about that from Professor Matthew later in the week. It doesn't just affect low-lying areas of India. It affects Miami. It affects Manhattan. It affects Los Angeles. So the question that, again, many of you are familiar with, that international environmental law addressed is, how can we come to grips with this problem? Here's Brazil trying to come to grips with its deforestation problem, although parenthetically, and this is part of the link to international law, is it only Brazil's problem? Why are they allowed with their, you use the term, not the corrupt legal system, to destroy the world resource of the Great Forest? Isn't there some international authority that can force them to behave in a less corrupt way? No, answer, generally no. It's a sovereign nation. It enters into agreements about deforestation, about climate change, about biodiversity, about ozone depleting substances, about fisheries, as an equal member to the United States and to Burma and to Spain and to China as equal members. So there is no world organization that is telling Brazil that it needs to protect its forests. There is no world organization that is telling the United States it has to decrease its climate change gases. So how, as a society, do we come together to do something about problems, global problems, common problems, like Marge Simpson's issue and like this one of global climate change? And I start my teaching on this, and I will do it today because of time with a thought exercise. If you were an advisor to our United Nations representative, if you were an advisor to the delegation from Spain that's going to the next international meeting, what would you suggest as a way of having society come to grips with these problems? And so there's a wide range of alternatives. The international environmental law response is now 30 years old. We started out with the notion that through the world climate conferences in 1979 and 1990 that this is not just Brazil's problem or solution or the United States at that time, the Soviet Union, but a common concern of humankind. It's all of our problems. It's Israel's problem. It's Bangladesh's problem. You don't solve climate change in the Western provinces of Canada. It certainly would help if they behaved, though, those Western provinces of Canada. And so that was one of the general principles that would be the building blocks of this international environmental framework. The second one is common but differentiated responsibilities. And we see this with our delegates from India and from China, the notion that, yes, we're responsible up to a point, but the responsibilities for what happens in whatever regime we build must be differentiated. The United States at this time was the primary contributor of greenhouse gases. We were the problem. So we should take a different orientation toward the solution than Bangladesh or India or China, both of which India and China are massive producers of greenhouse gases now. But look at it at a per capita basis and see who is responsible. The third major principle, which was a principle that was evolving in what is called soft law of the environment, was the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is saying that in areas of scientific uncertainty, where there are risk to environmental resources, the nation or the world, in our case, should act on the side of caution, taking precautions, even if the specific outcomes are not scientifically established. I said there is no international organization that tells the United States what it needs to do, Brazil or China. Of course, there is the United Nations, and it does tell us what we need to do if we are members of the United Nations and we all are. And the next major step was the United Nations General Assembly, which is one of the primary arms of the United Nations, creating the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Framework Convention on Climate Change. By the way, if you get interested in international law, you have to say a whole lot of words. Some of these documents are just numbingly detailed. And I try to teach my students, don't use acronyms. And I try, but I always fail too. So this action led, continued to the notion that this would be a common concern of humankind. It said other principles that we would be underscoring are equity. There should be fairness to the countries and among the countries. Again, the common but differentiated responsibilities. And that was the time in which the notion of sustainability came into the picture. When I first started teaching environmental law, we didn't use that term. And I've, in fact, been a little uncomfortable with it. I'm starting to buy on. But sustainability from the perspective of environmental protection seemed to open the door, in my view, to too much of an acceptance of economic exploitation. Now, we could have long conversations about that. Then the precautionary principle and the leadership principle that certain nations should take the lead in this area. Then the first framework treaty was established in 1990. The Framework Convention on Climate Change, these principles, people like the United States, we should reduce our gases to 1990 levels. People like Bangladesh, I mean, people like the United States and Great Britain and Germany should provide the cost of compliance in moving to the 1990 numbers to developing countries. People like India, nations like India and China at the time. Gee, we'd really like if you got on board, but it's only voluntary. And responding to the concern that this is immensely complicated, that it could have huge economic disruptions on developing economies, that we should do so in a cost-effective way in recognizing the role of sinks like forests and oceans that absorb greenhouse gases. So the next major step in the whole process was Kyoto. The Framework Convention on Climate Change did not force anyone to impose any standards that would bring those numbers down. So our science was telling us, you're dawdling. You're playing the fiddle. Things are getting worse. The parts per million of greenhouse gases was increasing in a very measurable way. A lot of the effects that I described earlier were becoming more and more obvious. So the nation states came together to enter a different kind of international agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. And here, the international community was able to quantify at some level what we all should be doing. So reduce overall emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the post, in the period 2008 to 2012. And I think it's obvious that you don't say by September 11, 2008, it's such a gigantic global commons that we're working with that you can't be that specific. Turns out that no matter how specific you were, because we're at 2012, it's not even close. We have not done that. The approach that was used to guide and govern this orientation toward climate change management was something that goes to the fact that Brazil is sovereign and China is sovereign. Conference of the parties. So who makes the rules with regard to climate change? The Committee of the Whole. All of the nations that voluntarily decide to enter the Treaty of Kyoto are part of the decision-making body. So I was going to say the Vatican, but the Vatican, although in the UN, is not a voting member of the UN. It's an observer. But Burma and the US and China are all part of Burma and China. The United States didn't sign the Treaty of Kyoto. We signed it. We never ratified it. And that has been a major weakness in the overall international approach. So the Conference of the Parties was established. And because of the concern with resistance, economic resistance, political resistance, to top-down approaches, you don't order Brazil to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions without providing some ways of assisting them. And so these flexibility approaches were introduced, which allowed nations to trade greenhouse gas emissions activities. Then there were a whole series of conferences of the parties where the hundreds of nations come together, 190, I think, something like that, and try to go the next step in articulating how we can implement the overall notion of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the specifics of the Kyoto Protocol. And there were very, very many meetings. I'm not going to jump to the next slide show because it would be disruptive. But there have been many other meetings after the 16th Conference of the Parties. There was one in Copenhagen, one in Mexico, and others in which the countries are struggling to come up with an approach that will make more acceptable to the international community the notion that specific restrictions must be accepted by each member of the international community. That has included agreements by China to start thinking about restrictions that it would accept, a little bit more resistance from India at this point. The United States indicating that it may be interested in future post-Kyoto activity, but not at this time, despite the fact that we thought there would be a major change when Barack Obama became president. So we're at this point in the development of the international law of climate that we are at a turning point again. What do we do? How can we, as an international community, work together to go the next steps? Kyoto did not work. Does the framework, should the framework be maintained, emissions trading, joint implementation, a clean development mechanism, a fund? The international community now is talking about a major climate change fund that nation states contribute to, as we have done with the Montreal Protocol, to create a bank of money that polluters contribute to, and from which withdrawals can be made to assist developing countries in decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions. I won't move into this now. But I think this lays out the overall background for the nature of the problem. We're all contributing at differential levels. The nature of the effects put aside the people who say we can mitigate our way out of this. Obviously, we're going to have to mitigate certain things. Climate change is moving train, and there is nothing we can do now that will decrease greenhouse gas emissions at a rate that will preclude the negative effects associated with climate change. So there's now movement toward mitigation activity, and that has to do with some of the funding for these greenhouse climate change funds is associated with mitigation, not just adaptation, not just mitigation. So what do we do next? We know the nature of the problem. We know the nature of the effects. We know the resistance, increasing political resistance in some countries, including my own, where, parenthetically, no one in running for a national public office is, I could say no one, is taking the position that climate change is real, and it should be a major focus of what we're doing as a society. So with that background, I open it to some comments or questions about what might be the next steps. Is it hopeless? Should we keep the framework of Kyoto? Should we start thinking in new ways? What should be next steps as your generation tries to come to grips with us? We cannot leave this week with the depression that might be caused by recognizing corruption and the role of large economic interests. We have to get in the mode of thinking in a positive, creative new way.