Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Scaroni, do you think that you have a role in these talks ...and companies like yours?
Well yes, of course we do
since we are in the US and I'm very strongly opinionated on one point,
that is that we should not even start debating climate change
if we do not embrace energy saving as the major issue.
From time to time, I read articles
or I hear people speaking, particularly in the US,
about "climate change"
and they are advocating reactions to climate change
and so they believe in it,
and we still live in a country which is the biggest energy-consumer in the world,
in which the waste is unbelievable,
in which transportation is using much more oil than it should,
air conditioning is the highest in the world,
heating is the highest in the world,
and I find it ridiculous that people speak about climate change
if they don't start with energy saving.
Really ridiculous,
because energy saving can be convincing even for people
who do not believe in climate change.
Because you can say,
"ok you don't believe it, but still,
energy saving is avoiding pollution,
energy saving is helping your wallet,
energy saving is helping the life of hydrocarbons to be extended"
because we really don't know how to do without hydrocarbons today.
So, energy saving is a key issue
that should be at the top of the agenda of every meeting around energy,
in my view.
And let me just add some data which I find quite interesting:
if the Americans, the US citizens, replaced their cars
with the same cars that Europeans have,
this would save the US 4 million barrels of oil a day,
which is, oddly enough, equal to the whole production of Iran.
So, let's say, how can we not embrace this phenomenal way
of helping the environment,
helping the climate change,
helping our finances,
and extending the life of hydrocarbons?
Would you agree, Professor Sachs?
Is that the answerůenergy savings?
Well, I think energy savings clearly is a significant part of it,
and I think new energy systems, alternative energy sources,
different kinds of transport as wellů
all of it's going to play a role.
What we've had in the United States,
which has been so devastating for us,
is relentless corporate lobbying actually,
that has said "don't do anything."
The big automobile producers lobbied themselves nearly to extinction actually.
They said " we don't want to hear about thisů
we just want to produce these big SUVs."
And then when the market went down,
they nearly went bankrupt
they've been salvaged and taken through bankruptcy.
But they lobbied themselves into crisis
the same way that the financial sector lobbied itself into our shared catastrophe.
And I have to be frank that some companies here played a role
of supporting so-called "think tanks",
but they weren't thinking very hard,
propounding phony science or just mischiefů
"oh, it's all uncertain, we can't do anything we don't know anythingů"
and that's been a hugely negative effect here.
It's really easy to confuse people.
And when you go out to put a lot of doubt
and disinformation and misinformation, especially in American society,
because there's not so much trust - there's a lot of confusion;
there's a lot of diversity;
everyone thinks they're getting gamed by somebody elseů
There's been a very bad, mischievous role of Exxon Mobil in the past;
I hope they've cleaned up their act on that.
They say they haveůthat would be great.
But a lot of bad information that got out there
and confused the public and led us to waste 20 years almost,
since we signed the treaty on climate change.
That was signed in 1992, we're 18 years now.
The US Senate has done almost zero for 18 years on this,
and the public is more confused than ever!
That's a huge part of the problem.
We haven't gotten practical.
If we get practical - how to save, what it means,
what kind of technologies, what we should do,
then the American public would say
"oh, I could go for that."
But we never got to that stage.
I want to thank you both very much
for taking all the time to be here
and discuss these issues today.
Thank you.
Pleasure.