(00:00:00) Today Minnesota meeting is honored to present Maurice strong secretary-general of the United Nations conference on the environment and development a man of world ranging interests and commitments. Mr. Strong has been much honored as a successful businessman a Canadian public servant and as one friend described him the liveliest wire in the International System. He has moved easily and often between the public and private sectors between National and international responsibilities. He is the former president of power Corporation in Canada. One of that country's principal investment and financial corporations. And as a public servant he headed to the Canadian national Oil Company petrol can adapt. He also served as head of Canada's International Development Agency for many years now, his global concerns have brought him significant. International responsibilities there is a very long list, but I will mention just a few he was for example Secretary General of the first Major meeting on International environmental issues, the 1972 72 Stockholm conference and currently he is organizing the 20th anniversary follow-up to the Stockholm meeting a gathering of some 25,000 representatives of government and non-governmental organizations, which will be held next year in Rio de Janeiro as the first executive director of the United Nations environment programme unep he established the foundation for what has become an increasingly influential arm of the UN in his spare time. He is president of the World Federation of United Nations associations and chairman of the world economic Forum in Geneva where he now resides and in recent days in reading an article on who was going to be the next Secretary General of the UN there was Long list, but his name was on the list of possible candidates for the position of UN secretary-general. And now it is my pleasure to turn this microphone over to Murray strong who will speak on sustainable development a partnership of environment and economics. Mr. Strong. (00:02:30) Thank you very much Ambassador, Joseph and distinguished. Minneapolis and Saint Paul Ian's is (00:02:37) that correct? Some simple. (00:02:39) I always know that in this part of the world, you have to join the two cities. They do TR Twin Cities, but even twins can have certain rivalries and I must say that I have had very fine experiences over the years in both of your cities. I'm very honored to be here. It's a very real privilege to have the opportunity of addressing what I know is many sodas most distinguished audience and I say that because it extends Beyond this room. I understand to you through your public radio to people throughout this state the Twin Cities have a very special place in my own life. I grew up in southern Manitoba just over the border from North Dakota and coming to Minneapolis. And st. Paul represented the height of my earlier missions. This was coming to the coming to the state's going south to the great metropolis, and I have very Vivid memories of how we thought just Was available. In fact choosing a few things that in my youth might might have been activities that that I shouldn't talk about it this point but nevertheless we thought everything was available here and it was and it still is and I'm delighted. I've not at all lost my sense of thrill and Delight it being here. And when I see that this these Twin Cities can attract such eminent Americans an internationalist is Harland Cleveland, not only attract him to a post of setting up the Hubert Humphrey Institute, but staying here afterwards and making it his home. It just confirms my early belief that this is one of the finest places anywhere to live and I've been hearing that from my Canadian friend our Consul General in Canada. Mr. Buckley who also tells me that my gosh. This is a great place and he knows he's been around the world having watched the development of your cities for almost half a century. Full of admiration for the example that you have set in creating in Minneapolis and st. Paul an urban environment which is unsurpassed in the quality of life. It makes available to its citizens and I'm greatly increase that your interest in environment extends to the major risks that now confront the world Community risks which none of us can escape at all of us must join in averting these risks arise from the gross and growing imbalances, which characterize our Global technological civilization. Such risks is those of climate change and ozone depletion arise primarily from the wasteful and indulgent patterns of production and consumption in the rich countries as an unintended consequence of the same processes that have produced our wealth. And yes, we're wealthy today despite the fact that I've never seen a period in which the rich felt more poor. We we who live in these societies and are addicted to the lifestyles that they provide and I say we because I'm I'm one of them are all security risks today. Because our lifestyles and the waves of life and economic behavior to which we have become addicted over the years are indeed the major threat now to the future of our planet in environmental and economic terms the same time unprecedented population growth primarily in developing countries is outstripping the capacity of many of them to meet the most immediate and basic needs of their people and compounding the problems of meeting their aspirations for a better life in the future. It is also locking them into the vicious circle of pervasive poverty, which forces them in order to meet their immediate survival needs to destroy the environment and the resources on which they depend for their Futures. Well at the same time adding to Global Environmental pressures and risk, thus the unconstrained appetites and disproportionate environmental impacts of the rich combined with the increasing populations and the continuing power. Give the poor as the primary sources of risk to the human future as we move into the 21st century in my remarks today. I addressed the question. Can we afford to save the environment? Let me say right now, but I'm confident that we can't afford to save the environment indeed we must do so and that this is primarily a question of our own priorities and of changes in our economic behavior. And in the manner in which we deploy our resources as individuals businesses and Nations the Stockholm conference in 1972, first, put the environment issue on the world agenda. And as has already been mentioned by Ambassador Joseph, I had the privilege of leading that conference 20 years ago and say it was with singular lack of imagination that the UN decided to recycle me back into this role, but I have to say that the success of the conference in 1972 old very much to us leadership. And I am confident that leadership will be asserted in respect of the 1992 conflicts. Although the times are different and more difficult. The 1992 conference will move the environment issue into the center of economic policy and decision-making in virtually every sector of our economic life. Again, the u.s. Position will be critical to the success of a conference and the US government and non-governmental Community are playing active parts today in preparations for the conference the relationship between economic development and the condition of the environment was the main theme of the world Commission on environment and development chaired by prime minister Gro Harlem brundtland of Norway in his Landmark report our common future issued in 1987. The brundtland commission made it clear that while a great deal of progress has been made towards environmental Improvement since 1992. It's visible in many places including here overall. The environment of our planet has nevertheless deteriorated and there's been a serious acceleration of such major environmental risks as ozone depletion and global warming. It is important to note that all of the environmental degradation experienced to date has taken place at levels of population and human activity much less than they will be in the period ahead. The brundtland commission documented in compelling terms the case for sustainable development the full integration of environment and development as the only sound and viable means of ensuring both our environmental and our economic Futures the transition to sustainability requires much more effective use of resources and accountability for the environmental as well as the economic impacts of such use this must depend primarily on the provision of the necessary incentives to change rather than over-reliance on regulatory measures as we tend often to do off operation of Market forces can and must be a powerful Ally in providing the incentives to change. It is after all fully consistent with market economy principles that every economic transaction transaction and product must absorb the full costs to which it gives rise including Environmental. Us the system of incentives and penalties through which governments create the conditions that motivate our economic life must be re-examined and reoriented to provide the necessary incentives for the transition to sustainability in both our industrial life and our individual Behavior. This is one of the most important issues that will be put before at the Rio conference. And as you well know there are literally billions of dollars today in this country. And in others that are some are being consumed in the system in subsidies and fiscal tax breaks and distortions to the market economy that in fact add up also to subsidies to unsustainable in economic behavior environmentally damaging economic behavior in all countries, the fiscal system has provided tax incentives and subsidies designed to meet a wide variety of political and public policy objectives. Usually unrelated to the environment some of these Become deeply entrenched and difficult to change agricultural subsidies. I don't have to remind you are a prime example. We now realize that many such measures in addition to their economic costs and the distortions they create in the market economy also provide incentives as I've said for environmentally unsound practices economic change then is the key to sustainable development in the past. We've exploited the Earth's natural resources taking for granted its capacity to assimilate without cost our waists and generally have paid scant regard to the costs of our cumulative impact on its ecosystems. We can no longer take for granted the environmental services that nature provides the unprecedented increase in human numbers and activities since the Industrial Revolution and particularly in this Century have given rise to a deterioration of the environment and depletion of natural resources that threaten the very life of our planet. We now need to Value the carrying Absorptive capacity of the earth Nat Earth's natural systems as economic resources As Natural Capital if we are going to maintain them in effect. We have to start managing Earth much as we do a business by providing for amortization depreciation depreciation depletion and maintenance Earth Incorporated has not been doing this and much of the increases in gross national product, which we have regarded as genuine wealth creation has in fact come from a running down of our natural capital a business that did this would be in the process of liquidation. And this is precisely what is happening to Earth Incorporated. We're living in a false Paradise where we're assuming that the capital we're generating the earnings were generating every year represent real additions to our wealth when they really to a very significant degree represent running down our of our capital and we Earth Incorporated is in a process of liquidation this counting the present worth is a good tool in day-by-day economic transactions, but it would be as foolish an imprudent to use it as a means of determining whether we can afford to save the environment as it would to apply it to determining the economic value of a newborn child a present at present worth calculations. I human baby at birth discounted at current interest rate factors would be less than 0 taking into account all the expenditures that must be made on it's bringing up an education before it starts to produce an economic return. Now, even the most hard-nosed business people don't use don't use economic parameters to make those decisions. A similar a similar calculation would reveal that the future of planet Earth in economic terms is worst less than zero today in purely economic terms applying the tools. We use to measure the economic transactions. We engage in planet earth has a less 0 - worth surely that's not realistic yet. There are some positive signs the recent experience of the Gulf War reinforces a truth that is evident from the lessons of history that all nations have always been prepared to meet the costs of combating what they regard as threats to their security the question of meeting the cost of invading major environmental risks is largely a matter of priorities. We must begin to regard the cost of such measures as essential to our security for in the final analysis the risk to the global environment constitutes the greatest security threat we have ever faced as the environment emerged only in recent years as a Major public concern there is a tendency to regard the cost of protecting it as an additional cost that we can ill afford. But much of what we often term is cost should really be regarded as investment which will produce a good return in economic as well as environmental terms environmental or energy as in efficiency is a prime example, Japan uses only about half the energy to produce a unit of GDP that the u.s. Does and it is estimated that this gives Japan Japanese products a competitive advantage of some five percent at least in the US market against us made (00:15:28) products (00:15:29) the application of the polluter pays principle to at the international level will require that the Nations that are the sources of environmental damage to the global comments must be responsible for the costs of preventing it and dealing with its consequences of polluter pays principle is well accepted at least at a level of generality in our countries it now has to become integrated into the relations amongst Nations. (00:15:57) Now one (00:15:57) means of doing this would be to apply taxes or levies and I know that's a very odd word here to particular goods are activities that are environmentally damaging such as the carbon tax that Norway has already adopted and the European Community is now very seriously considering other such Innovative measures might include tradable emission permits taxes on the use of the international Commons for Air transport and shipping the debt for nature swaps that have been carried out up to now while marginal in their overall impact nevertheless apply a principle which might well be invoked on a broader scale to reduce developing country debt under conditions that would provide support for their transition to sustainable development. Now all of these measures have in common the fact that they lend themselves to producing the additional Financial Resources required without adding two national budgets. They really involve redeployment of existing funding. Governments may find this an attractive political alternative given them any other budgetary pressures they're facing but if they do it will be breaking new ground as governments have always been resistant up to now to the notion of any such taxation particularly with an international Dimension the time may now be near when such resistance gives way to the overriding imperative of meeting the needs for investment in the future of our planet these changes. I submit will have an effect on the structure of industry and relations between industry and society as profound as anything that has taken place since the Industrial Revolution indeed. They add up to a veritable Echo Industrial Revolution in which environmental considerations will more and more Drive economic policy and Industrial transformation. It's always more difficult to appreciate fundamental changes when one is caught up in them and there's a great deal of evidence today that the echo Industrial Revolution is already well under way take for example, the experience of industrialized countries in reducing the energy and materials content of industrial production. We've made a good deal of progress in recent years. None more though than Japan Japan's experience has demonstrated that environmental Improvement is fully compatible with high rates of economic performance and can indeed make a positive contribution to that performance at the Other Extreme the experience of the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Is it some of the worst examples of environmental neglect and deterioration have been the byproducts of equally disastrous economic management and performance? There's no question that the kind of transition that we are making to an environmentally driven economy will create significant problems and disruptions from any hence the defensive attitude of many who feel threatened by these changes, but I believe that the experience of Japan and others has demonstrated convincingly that such changes can produce at least as many new opportunities as new problems for business. There's further evidence for this and the fact that such environment related Industries as waste management and Pollution Control are now amongst the most important and best performing growth industries. Now the world that would result from the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy will in my view not only be more secure it will be eminently livable. There's no way in which we have to go back to some primitive previous form of life. It's just not viable. It's not the way we must head. Lifestyles will need to change but not regress so many of the Technologies which enhance our lives and enlarge our options like audio/video computer and Telecommunications as well as the intellectual cultural and many of the recreational activities through which we express our interests and aspirations are indeed environmentally friendly, especially in a high technology Civilization knowledge and its application through Innovation through technology and design is changing our patterns of production and consumption It is also the main source of added value and Economic Opportunity as we move towards a sustainable economy. The industrialized countries must take the lead in effecting this transformation for the unparalleled economic growth that has produced their wealth and power has also given rise to most of the major Global Environmental risks that we Face developing countries, of course share these risks, but they're only at the early stages of the economic development to which they Aspire and their right to grow cannot be denied, but their growth will clearly add immensely to Global Environmental pressures and risks unless they too can make the transition to more sustainable modes of development. They can either afford norick be expected to do this unless they have access to the additional Financial Resources the technologies that they will require to integrate the environmental Dimension into their development. And it is clearly in our interest to help them do this. We simply can't take care of our future environmental security without bringing them into it indeed many of the most essential and cost-effective vest Investments. We could make in our Global Environmental future will be in developing countries. The tragic Paradox today is that more money is being drained out of developing countries to the industrialized world that is flowing back to them by way of assistance and investment. This clear situation is clearly intolerable. The outflow of reverses resources must be reversed and developing countries must be given access to the new and additional resources that they will require to revitalize their development on an environmentally sound and sustainable basis and a very special importance is a massive attack on the vicious circle of poverty. There is no greater moral blight our commentary on the nature of our civilization. The existence of pervasive poverty not only in the third world today growing poverty at least in relative terms in our own societies, but in the developing country millions of people are caught up in this Vicious Circle which drives them to meet their immediate survival needs by destroying the environment and resource based on which their future survival depends and in the process adding to Global Environmental pressures and it economic and environmental as well as humanitarian terms. It will be far less costly and more effective to act now than to postpone action and I would submit that the infra economic enfranchisement of the poor of the world, which is necessary. Now for Environmental Protection will also be a source of tremendous impetus to the world economy. Now this all calls for much more than a mere extension of existing concepts of foreign aid. It will require new and Innovative means of reducing the drain on the resources of developing countries as a result of Intolerable debt burdens and capital outflows. And it can only be done within the framework of a wholly new Global partnership based on common interests Mutual needs and shared responsibilities one in which developing countries will have the incentive and the means to cooperate fully in protecting the global environment while meeting their needs and aspirations for economic growth in this area. We simply cannot go it all as well as defining the means to meet environmental costs. The 1992 Earth Summit will also address the non economic factors the human the cultural social and ethical values which are after all the prime underlying sources of motivation for the behavior of people Nations. now all of this provides the context in which the Earth Summit will be held it will be preceded by more than two years of intensive Preparatory work in negotiations, which are already underway to prepare the proposals that we be put in front of the leaders of the World when they meet in Rio Now it would be unrealistic to consider that anyone conference could do it all. But this conference represents an absolutely unique opportunity to break out of the current inertia, which which continues to trap us in the same unsustainable patterns of economic behavior that have created our present dilemma, even while we talk more and more is this meeting today evidence is about the need for change. We must establish a new momentum a basic change in Direction, which will give sound and substantive foundations to the hopes and aspirations of people everywhere for a more secure and sustainable future as we move into the 21st century now fortunately, we do not start our our journey to Rio in 1992 from zero in preparing the proposals that will be put in front of the leaders of the world. Are we are drawing upon a wide range of the experience the knowledge and capacity not only of governments and international organizations, but if scientists Leaders of business and industry trade unions Educators religious and cultural leaders as well as such special constituencies is women youth indigenous people and others special Arrangements have been made to facilitate their contributions to the conference and preparations for it. And of course, they will all have a very key role in implementing its results. I am pleased to say that the u.s. Nongovernmental organizations, which have been in the Vanguard of the environmental movement are playing an especially constructive an active role and u.s. Foundations have been and businesses have been highly supportive. I'm particularly encouraged that the American Indian and inward leaders are actively engaged this ensures that the special insights experience and values of traditional peoples who are the repositories of so much of humankind's evolutionary knowledge and experience will be available to the conference which as you know coincides with the Verse 3 of the beginnings of European colonization of America now the response of business and industry has also been especially encouraging and one of the things I've always admired by this community about this community is it is a site of some of the most enlightened and socially and environmentally responsible corporations as the primary agents of economic change business and industry must be on the leading end Edge on the Leading Edge of the transition to sustainability and I am greatly encouraged by the fact that Business Leaders are now beginning to see these changes more as opportunities that is threats my own experience in Industry combined with the involvement. I've been privileged to have in respect of these issues convinces me that environmentally sound and sustainable development is the wave of the future both environmentally and economically. And far better to be out in front of that wave then to be swept along in his backwash. Can we afford to save the environment? The answer Shirley is self-evident we can and we must he's primarily a matter of reordering our priorities redeploying our energies and resources and Transforming Our economic behavior. The changes that this will require will be fundamental and pervasive. Yes, they will create problems and difficulties but to an even greater extent they will produce a whole new generation of exciting opportunities for people and for business for creativity and Innovation and cooperation and most of all they produce the prospect of a more secure more Equitable and more promising world as we move into the 21st century. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro provides an absolutely unique opportunity to establish the foundations for this world. If we don't do it in real I ask you when will we do it in our times if (00:28:23) ever? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Strong reminder to our radio audience. You are listening to Maurice strong the secretary-general of the United Nations conference on environment and development who was speaking today to the Minnesota meeting. We have our first question from Tom mask on (00:28:59) mr. Strong. Senator u.s. Senator. Tim Wirth was recently in town. And I think by most accounts he'd be viewed as an environmentalist and he noted as a view of the fundamental role the Earth's population plays in the in the environment and its potential degradation and he called for further examination of population control to address this issue. What are your what are your thoughts on more specifically addressing the earth's population in the context of saving the environment? Well, as I have said the principal threats to the global environment come from the economic practices of wasteful economic practices of we rich on the one hand and the poverty and increasing population. since of the poor obviously we got to do something about both sides of that equation. We're not in the North very credible. When we upfront say to the poor of the world you stop reproducing your you're threatening us when we're doing showing any very little evidence of our own willingness to reduce our impacts on the environment because every one of us, you know, create something like 40 or 50 times the environment fell impact of a poor person having said all that we must stabilize world population one of the goals that I've proposed to governments. It's a heaven yet agreed on is that this the there should be an absolute goal to stabilize global population levels at by mid-century Kent. It's not something you'd accomplish overnight. So the best incentive also to reduce populations is to enfranchise economically those who Are the big reproducers largely the poor of the world that economic enfranchisement is a very real Ultimate key to reducing population levels. So I and this is a very important element in our conference population issue is pervasive in virtually every issue. It has to be it's (00:31:05) just wrong. Our next question is from Don are (00:31:07) nasty. Thank you. Mr. Strong. You mentioned the present value of a baby is less than 0 under traditional economic analysis. I wonder if you could tell us what the state of the art in developing economic methods to realistically value non-market natural resources, whether it's a human baby or endangered species and aesthetic experience like a Walkman old-growth forest or a clean River. Well, we the tools for such evaluation are not very well developed but we do have some presents for example, it is always been considered by Society even humans that by most of them. Anyway that human life was a sacred thing. And therefore you look at the economics of human life on the basis of what does it cost to ensure that human life can preserve and and that cost is certainly the minimum economic value the same was security, you know, that's what what what value do you attached to being secure from your enemies? That also adds up because it's an absolute value for most people the value of it is the cost of doing it. Now the the same with the Earth, we all realize that all of our economic aspirations are personal aspirations for our children and grandchildren will really become to not if they don't have a vet viable plant on which to live and therefore that has to become an absolute value and the costs of doing that therefore have got to be the minimum value that we place on saving the planet now having said that a great as I've already indicated a great many. If not, most of the actual activities required to ensure the future secure environmental security of our planet either are or can be made economically attractive to businesses. And in some sense to Consumers that needs the reshaping of the system of incentives and All these that governments use to manipulate and our economic life. We don't have an absolute free market system here. That's system is largely can be harnessed to do the things you wanted to do by the manner in which governments deploy their power to create the incentives and penalties to which business response. So I would say there are certain absolute values in some cases people may have different view of them a piece of music a beautiful piece of forest a painting some people's absolute values may differ but I think most of us have in common the absolute value we would attach to preserving the planet and to the sanctity of human (00:33:50) life. Thank you. We have a question now from Jay calls. Mr. Strong. Does the IMF or the World Bank require environmental goals or reforms as part of the economic reforms that they negotiate with the ldcs. And if not, is that something that you see coming up (00:34:10) the World Bank increasingly does There is a problem with developing countries. However, who reject the idea of imposing on them new conditions in respect of develop development assistance that they're receiving from existing amounts. They're willing to consider conditions attaching to new funds and there are some new funds available small amount of billion and a half. That's not all that small I suppose but in global terms it is through the newly created Global Environmental facility of the World Bank, but the world bank now does require environmental assessments and I think responds on the whole quite well to them the IMF because it's it's it's it would argue it's shorter term. It's got a different function, but nevertheless it recognizes that it's functions to have an important influence on the ability of developing countries to move towards sustainability. They've formed an environmental group within the IMF recently, but they're still not not at the point where they're actually requiring good environmental performance as a condition of their their funding operation. (00:35:25) Thank you. Our next question is from David Andreas. How much do you think it would take (00:35:31) us to invest of our G&P to accomplish the kind of goals that you're suggesting we that we would take on and how long would it take to get the pay back to where we would have a positive movement and economic responsibility. Well, there is a lot of evidence from the oecd and from Japan's experience again that in fact so much of what we have done environmentally in the past 15-20 years has in fact had a net payoff in economic terms and in terms of job creation and in terms of creating new industrial opportunities now, I believe that that this is really a matter of internal of priorities of redeployment of internal resources. That's why place so much emphasis on the need to have government's review and rethink their existing fiscal and economic policies. And that is the way in which they deploy their budgets. Don't think you can say that saving the Earth is as a cost that sits out there on the side something separate and distinct from everything else. There are certain costs of that nature that that that we need to props put in that category to start with but the real they'll soon be integrated with the with with the totality of our economic life. This is the thing we've got to get through our heads and I think through our policy processes is that the saving of the of the earth is not something separate and distinct from everything we do it is a product of our existing Behavior our existing way of life and that's integrated into everything. We do including the acts of governments in the budgets of governments and their ex their policies and the way to deal with it is by reshaping those policies reshaping the resort the the deployment of resources. Now, I have seen estimates of what it would cost and it's something up to five percent of GNP, but That shouldn't be looked at as a cost. It's a cost but a benefit all kinds of studies that I've been party to show that the costs of non-action in virtually all cases in economic as well as environmental terms are greater than the costs of action. So we've got to stop looking at it at this differently than we look at everything else is something extra that we will it's nice to do if you can afford it. You've got it we've got to start looking at is something we have to do its intrinsic to our own interests in economic social environmental and human terms and therefore and it's quite possible to they're literally billions of dollars of wasteful or low priority expenditures being made within existing budgets. Now, I'm not saying that all of the subsidies that are now being being being offered by governments are wrong or bad but environmental environmental terms. Most of them are are are are actually creating incentives for On sustainability and at the very least they need to be reviewed and and and re-examined in terms of the continued validity of their original purposes and better ways of accomplishing those purposes Market this us, you know, we who are great exponents of the market Society are really amongst the most greatest Defenders against her. We don't you know, when you take a look at the agricultural subsidies the some of the water subsidies in the suburbs with West the reason the way we tax coal or and I'm sorry, we subsidize coal and we tax oil and gas heavily. I happen to be his it all gasp man. I believe it we should go for even further in texting on gas. So but relative to Coal it is a bit anomalous that you subsidize the most environmentally unsound fossil fuel coal and you you overtake your taxi relative to Coal your taxi the oil and gas even more so there's a whole series of things. Been built up over the years never even been examined from an environment from the point of view of sustainability or environmental impacts and they need to be examined. I think you will find vast amounts of resources within that system the redeployment of which can meet economic and environmental needs. (00:39:46) Thank you. Our next question is from John Cowles. (00:39:50) Mr. Strong more than a fifth of the world's population is in China how vigorously have you been wooing the Chinese and the Chinese government to participate in Rio and what's their response has been so far? Well, the Chinese are remarkably well attuned to these issues at the national level. They have created an apparatus which is which every single major Ministry is involved in environmental Improvement. They're doing this because they have recently come to realize that the environment is now impinging environmental constraints are now impinging on their own economic growth, whereas up until recently They Were Expendable to expand the amount of cultivatable land. That is now depreciate reducing and the quality of the land is deteriorating water quality is deteriorating. They're now facing the impacts of long-term deforestation. They've mounted the largest for afforestation project in the world the great green wall a band of seven thousand kilometers across northern China up to 400 kilometers in depth it varies from place to place. They're really moving and they're taking a very serious interest in this country. Now in energy-wise they have to rely on for their energy needs to the extent of 75% on coal. They want to double their GNP they'll do it. But if they could achieve a level of Energy Efficiency that was something like half of that of the United States which isn't at the top they could do that without adding to Global Environmental to emissions to CO2 emissions and the key to that would be the ability to transform 750,000. She'll buy dollars to the state of the art. No new technologies just to existing state of the art technology that and their constraint there is simply investment and yet these are long investment Cycles one of the best investments that we could make in our own environmental Security is to try and make it possible for them to make investments of this kind in their energy economy where it'll pay off more in in cost-effective and environmental terms and many of the Investments we can make here so they are on the move but they they're caught up in some very special circumstances that we need to understand their investment choices are going to make a big difference in terms of our own prospects for environmental security. So we've got to take an interest in (00:42:21) those Thank you. Mr. Strong. Our next question is from John Coleman. Mr. Strong I am (00:42:31) your optimism and your energies (00:42:35) expended are very heartening, but This is my question considering the rate of world population increase. Do you think it realistic to expect that artificial means of population control and resource conservation late as it is (00:42:58) will ever come into balance. If you examine the hard evidence. It's easy to be intellectually pessimistic. You can build a strong case for pessimism. Yes, however in my view and I think I'm as realistic as anyone on these issues. Why do I sound optimistic because operationally in my view that's the only option the minute we start to act on the basis of the pessimistic scenarios. They will become self-fulfilling and I do believe or I wouldn't be here. I do believe that it is possible to make these changes. It's getting very late. And I died. I wonder when the leaders of the world will ever gather again in our times if ever, you know, Summit conference like real if we fail there but I think it is possible to change and I think history does give us some degree of optimism about the possibility of change for example in this Century. We've had two of the the greatest wars in history and today the to cut two of the key antagonists in those Wars Germany and France couldn't fight a war the the they simply couldn't unless they chose to use rifles and and bayonets again. Japan is so integrated in the world economy. It literally couldn't mount a world where anyone could start it in terms of a missile launch, but no, you know, they're even the US has capacity to sustain a world type war is very much diminished today. So and you know a banker friend of mine in Switzerland where I now live reminded me that Century ago there was someone proposed that there were 50 currencies in Switzerland. Somebody proposed that they unite them all into one the Practical people who they said that's not feasible. It's to they've been you know, there's just too much antagonism. They've never do that. Well, it's done. What's today's what's today's political unreal reality becomes tomorrow's inevitability the same with idli Garibaldi when he started to try to unify Italy everybody said he was a wild-eyed idealist at that just wasn't possible. Well some may argue that it really wasn't fully and I'd even yet but but who is as a Canadian I say who is so so so so what I'm saying is history does tell us that that that is that today's seemingly impossible propositions become tomorrow's inevitability because events compel them and I believe we Face an imperative for change not an option and I believe that imperative will ultimately Dictate that we will move in areas that do seem very very immutable at the moment. (00:45:43) Thank you. We have a question now from Jim Campbell. (00:45:47) You've touched that several points in your talk and answers on the importance of energy. I was wondering what comments you might have or what changes you might see them wrestling with and real in terms of our sources and perhaps taxes on various energy sources. Well as one who spent a lot of my life in the energy business in hydroelectric power and oil and gas aye aye. I believe a number of things about energy one. We do have to move to Greater Energy Efficiency and many are and I think this country is behind and so is Catherine this area and it's an area where our economic interests quite apart from our environmental interests dictate that we move now. We also need overall on a global basis to change the Energy Mix to move away from fossil fuels. No, but I'm also believe that's going to take a long time. I think I don't write off oil and gas or even Cole they're going to With us for a long time, but they're going to have to we're going to have to improve their efficiency of use we can do that. We're also going to have reduced have to reduce them as a percentage particularly coal as a percentage of the total energy mix but I was addressing OPEC countries the other day and said, well, you know, nevertheless despite the fact that we must reduce the the the components of oil and gas in the energy mix and that's more to of coal nevertheless. There's still good future for all gasp. It's a very precious resource. It isn't fully valued in the present price system and and and and we're going to continue to use it for a long long time and in it absolute terms that will be for some years an increasing demand for oil and gas even while the total proportion in the Energy Mix shifts and must shift. If we were to spend anywhere near the amount of money if governments were to give anywhere near the amount of support to development of Renewables. That they had did for the nuclear industry. For example, the era of Renewables would be with us far more quickly. We've got to move to Renewables at some point, but we all know I think our most of us will recognize that at the moment renewable resources, even the most promising of them don't offer the short term Prospect of carrying the base load of our energy demands that we have to increase the amount that we rely on them for energy. But for it'll be some time before they will displace oil and gas as the principal components of the energy mix (00:48:21) Thank you. Our next question is from Daniel (00:48:23) maturing. As a middle school teacher, I'd like to know what two or three issues you would stress or focus on if you were teaching my 6th 7th and 8th grade students about saving the environment. I guess one of the things is very Elementary that every Global issue really has its roots in individual behavior. These big Global issues cannot be seen as abstract and far away and something you can't do anything about because the global warming issue the whole issue of toxicity the whole the the issues of ozone depletion. These are rooted in individual Behavior. And and I think that is very that's a key issue. Actually. My grandchild came home the other day and asked my asked his grandma said Grandma. Why do you kill whales? And she said well, I don't kill whales said. Well you use these these this lipstick which they have to kill whales to get it. So you must kill whales well, that's there's obviously an awareness developing amongst the young people of these linkages. Also, I think the recognition of their relationship with other people's around the world America is a great great place. I mean you get people your citizenry like Canada's is drawn from all over the world, but Frankie, there is a tendency when the world gets tough for America to retreat in word and say well somehow or other the international world isn't grateful enough. It isn't, you know, it isn't serving our purposes and I think that is that is a that's a losing Philosophy for America. It would be a losing Philosophy for the world if America adopted it, so I think that awareness of the relationship between other peoples in the world and other places in the world and what they do with the future of Young Americans is a very very key issue and then of course I also I was very impressed with what my own kids went to a Swiss school. They talk were taught first of all the history of that room the room they were at then they were taught the history of the building then of the block then of the village then of the Canton then of the whole country and then of Europe and then of the world, well, that's an interest. I thought that was kind of interesting because you know, it gave them an awareness of the importance of their local concerns, you know, I'm a globalist but I'm a great believer that there is this tremendous link between the individual and the local with the larger Global issues we face and I think to make that linkage if I had to do it. Yeah, I think I'd be a teacher like you Try to make that linkage at the level of the kids because that is very that is the key. I think to survival it when individuals start to understand that their behavior at is is is directly related to the future of the planet and that there that the behavior of others is also related to their Futures and that the need for cooperation is the key to both their Futures. (00:51:39) Thank you we have time now for one more question from Robert White. (00:51:43) Mr. Strong. You said that the key to sustainable development in developing countries was economic enfranchisement. I've been trying to think of how that could apply in individual cases, especially in a hard-pressed country. Let's say like Peru president fujimura comes back from real. Can he say to Andy and Highland farmer? I want you to quit growing coca, which gets you a hundred dollars a bushel and grow potatoes again instead at $2 the Americas want to send me a lot of military help, but that won't really do very much. For growing potatoes, but that's the way I can enfranchise you economically something isn't it? My mind making a connection? How do we how do we do that? Well, I guess illegal and activities have on sinful activities of always been very revenue-producing in any society. That is that's something we've all had to cope with there's no question that it is very difficult to say to the Peruvian farmer give up your cocoa crop and go broke and not not be able to look after children. So economic enfranchisement has got to include an answer for that problem. I can't give you an instant answer to every one of those things but putting the same money that you put into military to try and suppress that into credit schemes. For instance. This is one of the things that most of these people don't have is access to credit just simple access to credit and access to good extension services to help them pick something better than potatoes. Ratings are only two toddlers of are there other high-grade crops perhaps not as high Revenue crops as Coco, but there are other very good high high high price cops. So it is a problem and the can't it but the the basic I think the basic Pro to it is first of all the policy will that says this is going to Prior just think of what an exciting thing. It would be if the leaders of our nation's decided that the eradication of poverty was going to be one of the Prime objectives for the 21st century will be tremendously, you know, the the power of that be tremendously exciting and it would be economically advantageous to the rich as well as in franchising to the poor.