good afternoon ladies and gentlemen good morning thank you very much for being with us here at the festival of economics today we have the great honor and pleasure to hold a conversation and hear the important contribution from dr who's listening to us from the other side of the ocean from new york so uh most welcome to you dr chilninsky the subject of our conversation today is how to revert the trend of climate change co to direct capture may indeed solve the problem of climate change and relaunch the economy a short introduction before giving the floor to dr chichilinski the effects of global warming isn't that a bit too late to act and prevent the climate catastrophe in the interview that uh graciela chichelnisky on september 20th last she answered as follows time set me plays a very important role we do have technology available we do have the financing available we know what to do and we do have some time now but i'm not sure whether we can be in time well and i believe this is an all-important issue so time is an important issue over the last few years we saw uh raising awareness on the part of the public worldwide are the risks that of our planet given by the global warming but the time available to avoid a catastrophe may not be enough so without any further ado we'd like to welcome dr childiski co-founder and ceo of global thermostat and co-inventor of technology for co2 removal and capture to revert climate change altogether our technology this technology has been chosen by the technology review of the mit as one of the 10 technologies of 2019 of mathematical statistics at the columbia university now i'd like diva the floor and at the end of our presentation i'm going to present her with the questions that are going to be raised by the audience as professor chizilnisky probably knows and because of the caveat we are having an online conference so uh those of us who are listening and following the conference are going to send us the questions online so while giving her the floor like to highlight that dr cichalinsky certainly appreciates the steps forward made by europa thanks to the ets the european trading system which is based on the most advanced system to assess uh co2 impact on atmosphere and air in the eu this system was adopted in 20 15 in 20 in 2005 and this is the first international trading system of emissions of co2 the situation in the u.s is certainly uh dramatic differently the u.s assigned the kyodo protocol but hasn't ratified it dr cichalinsky will explain to us the details of the innovative technology for co2 removal that may revert climate change and i would like to invite her to dwell she may on the potential impact of the forthcoming elections of the president of the us when it comes to the strategy to counter global warming all together we have a now available so dr christine has some 30 minutes for her presentation and then we're going to take questions from the floor having said as much i'd like to give the floor straight away so over to you dr childeski and most of your most welcome again thank you thank you very much for all of you for being here this is a particularly important moment and what we are discussing now is imperative for for all of us in fact for humankind um by way of introduction my name is graciela chittinsky and i am the co-founder and ceo of global thermostat and i am the person who designed created and wrote into the kyoto protocol the carbon market that became the european union emission trading system which is very important for what we're talking about here let me tell you briefly about global thermostat it was created in 2010 2010 and is a pioneer in the use the creation of a leading technology called direct air capture that removes co2 directly from the atmosphere and converts it into commercially useful goods and services that improve the and can lead to economic progress so the mission of this company is to reverse climate change while encouraging economic progress particularly on issues of inequality but of the whole the that means that the removal of co2 the technology that we use for that which is unique and as was mentioned has been designated by bill gates and the mit technology review as among the top 10 technologies of 2019 um is imperative that that technology should be cost effective so that after removing the co2 you can sell it for commercial uses what mackenzie states is a one trillion dollar market for co2 in the world what do you use the co2 for you use it for bio of biofertilizers you use it for food and beverages you use it for creating or for synthesizing fuels that are clean so they don't emit co2 as you use it you can produce gasoline from water and co2 and you use it also for desalinating water from the ocean and all of the above we are doing for example with companies such as the coca-cola company for carbonated beverages with uh aqua which is the largest desalinating company from for desalination of water in the world and for the production of clean gasoline synthetic gasoline together with amy and and siemens so this is uh in some sense is essentially what you really want to do and what is directly related to this presentation here today however it's more than that because the ipcc the intergovernmental panel of climate change what i used to represent as a lead author the united states has stated in a 19 2018 report that removing co2 directly from the atmosphere is now necessary in order to prevent catastrophic climate change in the united states the national academy of sciences has also published a report saying exactly the same so what we're doing is not just good to have it's essential if we're going to prevent catastrophic climate change so what is direct their structure essentially is a mechanism that used to exist before but not in the way it is done now it removes co2 by moving a lot of air over monoliths that are embedded in a solvent that traps the co2 and then separates those and what is resulting out of this is a 98 98 pure co2 that can be used as i mentioned before for commercial purposes this is what needs to be done now and the issue of time is critical because we have the technology as already pointed out the money is there but what's missing is time we're going to discuss about that i just wanted to say i'm very optimistic about being able to do it but regretfully i am pessimistic about the time the time in which we're going to do it how did we get here well in 1997 i understood the importance of the economy which is really what's causing climate change this is not a physical problem it's an economic problem in the use of energy that was generated by fossil fuels most of the power plants in the world there are they represent almost 50 percent of the human emissions of co2 and most of them over 90 percent are using fossil fuels and the burning of fossil fuels is what generates climate change is what generates co2 into the atmosphere so in 1997 working with the united nations i designed the carbon market of the kyoto protocol then i helped negotiate it and then i helped write it i actually wrote it into the kyoto protocol and much of that is presented in this book that is just appeared called reversing climate change if essentially everything i'm talking about appears in my 2020 book that i have with me this was revolutionary work and many people were not creatures but actually in the year 2020 the magazine physics today that is read by physicists all over the world documented that in the year 2020 the countries that voted for and participated into the carbon market particularly the european union nations decreased their emissions from 1997 by over 20 percent of what they were emitting in 1997 which is 23 years ago this is called success and the european union nations are have been critical to that particularly because the united states signed the kyoto protocol but did not ratify it right now the question is more complicated because even though 25 of human kind is using the carbon market that i designed and growed and negotiated into the kyoto protocol which is a great success the other 75 that didn't ratify didn't participate have increased their emissions so what we need to do now is to resolve climate change for the second time the first time was done as i mentioned before with the use of the carbon market that puts an economic value negative value to the emissions of co2 and therefore creates a positive value for clean technologies and for reducing co2 that market the carbon market has a clean development mechanism that was used to transfer funding to developing nations for the purposes of clean new clean technology over 200 billion dollars were transferred by the clean development mechanism to china china used that money and their own resources built tens of thousands affordable take solar plants and the great news and it is news is that this year 2020 for the first time in human history solar energy is more efficient and lower cost than fossil fuels even coal in producing electricity so that's going to transform the entire power uh power plant structure which is approximately 60 trillion dollars globally and as i said it's about 50 of the human emissions if we can do that we have the problem solved so now we have clean technology solar photovoltaic is lower cost is about two to three cents per kilowatt hour lower cost than even coal the technology also exists for doing those needed now which is to remove what's already there the legacy co2 that we are really putting the atmosphere because co2 doesn't decay it can take a hundred or more years until it decays after a minute so we know how to remove it and that's what direct air capture is doing so the european union emission trading system has played a critical role but now it has to adapt to the fact that we need not just to limit emissions as we did with the kyoto protocol and as was suggested by the paris agreement although it was just voluntary but we need to remove the co2 that is already there do we have enough time to do it that is the question and that's what i wanted to talk about now as i said uh china has played a critical role here the same thing has to be done for removable co2 technologies that was done for the uh creation of photovoltaic of low cost for photovoltaic energy it took the chinese tens of thousands of plants and almost 10 years to reduce by 80 percent the cost of photovoltaic solar energy so the energy part now has to be implemented and it has an economic advantage it is less expensive to produce electricity with solar energy in the year 2020 for the first time than it is using gold but now that doesn't suffice we now have to remove co2 from the atmosphere we also have to do it in a way that is commercially feasible because that is going to hurt the economy and then everybody will be in favor and because that was the main objection that the united states placed to the kyoto protocol that it was going to hurt the economy we are saying is going to be the opposite so now we are working with a consortium of firms some of them are oil firms like exxon sodium sodium has aqua is a part of the conglomerate of firms where they actually take water from the ocean they are the biggest water desalination company in the world and they are our client in in that they need co2 to do the water dissemination and we provide it so the economic system is prepared now everything is ready the question is time we now need we already solved climate change that was done with the kyoto protocol as i said documented by physics today in 2019 the emissions of cl2 were reduced by the kyoto nations and there were 166 nations that signed the kyoto protocol they succeeded in reducing by 2020 by 20 percent immediately the emissions in 2020 of their two donations are 20 lower than they were in 1997 when the kyoto protocol was first signed it's a reduction of 20 20 of emissions in a 23-year period is a great success but that doesn't suffice we now have to resolve climate change twice because the other nations that did not participate in the kyoto protocol continued and increased their emissions so can we now solve climate change for the second time the answer is yes i'm very optimistic we have the technology to remove co2 and to make that co2 into variable goods and services actually we can replace petroleum now obtained from the ground by co2 obtained from air this is the transformation that is coming even the economist which is a reasonably state magazine acknowledges that this transformation is coming and it's revolutionary but the question is time i am not optimistic about time pope francis uh has written extensively particularly recently about the need for example by the oil uh companies in the world the main oil companies to join into this struggle they have to transform themselves so we're working with a number of oil companies as i mentioned and also other large industrial companies as i mentioned with the help of large engineering firms such as siemens that can want to transform energy into clean energy as i mentioned before the only way that i can see of doing all this on time because that stationary time is through support by all of you you are critical here but also finance because finance can bring enough uh liquidity so that everybody can join this new industrial revolution in which we are no longer using petroleum like rockefeller so but we're using co2 i mean using co2 we're cleaning the atmosphere while we foster economic growth time is of the essence so that's what we're working on we're working on creating a consortium of firms that will show the world how this can be achieved in all these areas fossil fuels food and beverage um desalinating water bio fertilizers even enhance recovery which i don't favor because you end up extracting more petroleum end so the question is can this be done and make no mistake is not just an interesting question it's not a question about technology is not a question about money it's not the question about economics it is a question about the survival of the species can we resolve climate change for a second time with the technology we have with the economy that we have with your help can we do it and the answer to that is the answer about the potential for extinction of our species and to transform it in an enormous engine of economic growth that is needed after the terrible pandemic that is all around us now all over the world that means liquidity means economic growth we can all we can do it for a second time thank you so much thank you so much so let's start with the questions they are coming very numerous and i will try to summarize them for you i will ask one question at a time if you agree so you can answer each question the first question we received the issue of time available and one which you mentioned many times the question considering that time is limited to reduce the emissions don't you think that we would rather concentrate to change our consumption habits while consuming less and producing less because if we produce too much we have to dispose of the goods so consuming less and producing this can that be a solution this is the first question you can answer and then we'll move to the second question yes well i was the person who invented the concept of basic needs and that was many years ago and it became the cornerstone of efforts to define sustainable development yes basic needs is what we should be focused on and basic needs are focused on consuming what we need while the current economic system is focused on increasing gdp which is already twerted because the price system in markets is very confused we're trying to change that therefore as you saw when consumption decreased unfortunately due to the pandemic the consumption of fossil fuels decreased so you could say that was a solution you can say anything that decreases rapidly consumption the way we're doing now succeeds in reducing emissions of co2 is it true yes it is true but wait a second the way our economies are organized unfortunately the people that are most hurt in this process are the people that need more consumption they are the lowest income groups so we are not satisfying basic needs by reducing consumption at present the people that are most hurt are the low income groups and that is not something we want to do so we have to find a way to reduce the unusual incredibly high level of consumption without hurting the people in the low income brackets that is my answer to you is it possible of course it's possible but that requires better and more intelligent economic organization under a system of freedom democracy but you need to reduce consumption over consumption and that's possible but as i said make sure you don't kill the patient by trying to reduce consumption in order to avert the catastrophic effects of climate change and you end up hurting more than anything the people in the lower income groups that need consumption desperately to support to survive 1.3 billion people in this planet right now have little access or none to electricity but more importantly are below the level of basic needs this is not acceptable this is just not acceptable for human beings so that's my response and i summarize in it also a question i wanted to ask you you said also in the interview to uh solivente cuatro that public action is not enough we also need the support and aid of the public sec sorry the of the private sector and i agree the question is this how comes and why should the financial word intervene to fund a green industrial revolution at a time when they can still make a lot of profits from the ceo to capitalism do you think that global politics can be involved to promote the strategy to involve the financial world to this route so when i mentioned private sector i refer to finance maybe you have a wider approach the idea of the private sector can you expand on that yes that is the most important question in practical terms we need in glasgow in the convention of the parties 26 next fall we need to expand all the provisions of the carbon market so that it can realign economic prices and therefore the private sector will have the right incentives to invest what is needed that can be done by the creation of an expansion of the uh carbon market to include carbon negative technologies carbon negative technologies and technologies that remove co2 from the atmosphere and that's what's exactly what's needed now without doing that the ipcc the national academy are saying we're not going to resolve climate change how do you include into the carbon market which is so successful in europe how do you include carbon negative technologies that's what we have to do how do you do that it's easy essentially what you want is to transform um you have to work with negative numbers in other words instead of putting limits on emissions which is what the carbon market of the kyoto protocol does and when the european union emission trading system does you have to have targets for carbon removal positive targets you have to say nations have to invest into or however they do it they have to reach a target of carbon negative technologies or carbon negative business in other words each nation instead of limiting their emissions has to increase has to lead to a minimum level of carbon removal this is a matter of investment now it's not any longer a matter of reducing the co2 that we emit it's a matter of increasing and leading to minimum levels of production of carbon negative technology we need to remove so much co2 from the atmosphere each nation has to reach a removal target and then out of the removal target exactly the same as i did we did in the carbon market will arise a number that's the price which is the positive price now for carbon removal and with a positive price carbon removal becomes profitable so it's the same thing as the carbon market but now it's no longer possible to limit what we emit now we have to actively positively remove the co2 that is there and have those targets for removal and the target for removal becomes a target for investment because the only way you're going to remove using technology the co2 that you need to remove and use it for commercial purposes making money so you can remove co2 and make money this is economics okay so the that new carbon market which is for turbo negative technology does not exist it's not in the provisions of the european union emission trading system i'm telling you it must be done and it can be done and it's very similar and it rewards all the investors around the world that emit in carbon negative technologies carbon negative projects carbon negative firms how much carbon negative according to the ipcc and the national academy within this century sorry within this decade decade we have to remove gigatons of co2 a gigaton of co2 is a billion tons we need to remove billion tons of co2 but as we remove that that becomes synthetic fuels that becomes desalinated water that becomes drinks that becomes you know carbonated beverages and it becomes even proteins that can be produced with co2 because co2 is carbon carbon is the molecule of life so what we're talking about here is rewriting the carbon market of the kyoto protocol so that it has positive targets of investment and then the investors around the world have an incentive to invest in carbon negative technologies that is finance and there are ways to do it which are so well distributed and so producing so much liquidity as the mortgages market or the uh all securities that are asset-backed securities like those in mortgage markets which are in the trillions of dollars the world is looking for that because now after the uh pandemium sorry after the virus the covet the global problem with the covey the world needs liquidity and the world needs to improve economic performance needs growth needs jobs needs production all of which can be done with carbon negative technologies in a way that cleans the atmosphere while we grow the economy and it can be done but we need help of the convention of the parties we need help from the european union emission trading system because as you know there is at present no limits and they should be on investment there should be a minimum level of investment a minimum level of carbon removal production is now instead of a negative saying don't emit more than this you're saying produce at least that carbon negative plans economic plans firms and all the finance that comes along with that and there is a price there what i'm talking about doesn't exist but it's very easy to do within the structure of the carbon market i know i rode the capo market in 1997 into the theater plotted this can be written equally and i will be willing to go anywhere to get this done and to have any simple explanations may be needed about how this can be achieved while making money thank you very much for your reply now we are receiving many questions so i'm trying to summarize a few of these questions in the interest of time so i'd like to join two questions that i just received the first issue the first question has to do with what we just witnessed over the past few years indeed we've seen an increase in the involvement in the raise awareness raising of the public when it comes to global warming and so the first question reads as follows what do you think that the awareness raising of the public worldwide may contribute to make sure that governments promote strategies economic strategies to counter climate change or do you think that this is the right way ahead and then there's a second question if i may okay of course of course um only people will decide and that's what the pope uh pope francis is also saying but he's also saying and i agree you have to bring into this equation the companies that have been the leaders in emissions in the production of co2 emissions so that they can undergo this transformation together with the new regulation the new carbon market which is going to be about carbon removal not about carbon limits so the companies that i'm mentioning that include some of the worst uh culprits in the emission uh society such as the oil companies are very interested in doing that because they realize that due to people the investment in their companies is now in peril and therefore they have to change and they want to change they would like to make money in a way that helps resolve climate change they want to be part of the solution not just part of the problem is that easy no no no it's not easy we know that but as i said it is possible it is desirable and it is what has to be done now and i by that i mean that there are groups in the public you you people here and there are financial companies and they are investors and they are all companies and they are producers of materials etc who have this objective and we all know that innovation can only lead to economic growth and innovation translate the economy of this century therefore we can do it what we need is to understand and i think it starts as he did in the kyoto protocol in 1997. with global or in this case european union agreements about how to incorporate carbon negative emissions into the european union etfs which can be done and will be done it's already being considered but there is no clarity about what to do but it's not complicated i can explain how to do it at a higher level and the personnel of the european union emission trading system are unbelievably good and they can transform that into a reality like that this can be done in the year 2021 and start becoming law in 2022 how do i know because in the united states i wrote a proposal for a law that goes in this direction it's called 45 q it became a bipartisan law and he gives 35 dollars award for any company that removes co2 from here in the form of carbon of tax credits that law 45 q can be adopted right now in europe immediately but i think on top of that we need to have a part of the global agreement not just the paris agreement which is full of good intentions but it's totally voluntary so it has no no teeth but now that we have carbon removal technologies we can create a carbon removal market that is more advanced than the carbon market and brings the funding and the economics that is needed so that we can remove the carbon as we need to do for otherwise there is no solution to climate change uh i talk a bit of italian but definitely not as much as i need to answer your question can somebody translate do you think that we can impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with a no emission legislation do you think that there is a way to impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with the co2 emissions reductions that's what the internal market does that's how the european emission trading system succeeded that's how the clean development mechanism managed to send hundreds of billions of dollars to china who then proceeded to create the most efficient solar energy uh system the solar photovoltaic in history of humankind that's how it was done but at this point what we need is not to put um so much to put those sanctions what we need is to demand investment this could be a combination of private and public mechanisms instead of putting sanctions or in addition to allow the sanctions to be paid by investment achieved so if the private sector invests in carbon removal technologies that can be considered in in a nation within the nation as a achieving the target of carbon removal so we can replace the removal of carbon by investment financial investment in carbon removal which the ipcc can then uh sort out and control so yes it can be done but it has to be done the way i'm telling you in other words it has to be done so that we transform the sanctions into positive profitable investment am i clear thank you very much we did understand perfectly there's another interesting question that relate to voice you talked about the technology being available the resources being available but time being the issue now when it comes to the technology that you were referring to there's a question that is raised by our followers online could use for the reduction of co2 another solution that of curbing deforestation so to use our natural resources for the absorption of co2 so there's a government liability that are not acting when it comes to stopping deforestation for example we have heard about what is happening um in terms of uh state liability doing away with all the forests in south america and amazonia what do you think would you think that this is would be viable first of all the problem of the forests is extraordinary important not just for climate change of course because that's the role of the vegetation of the planet to absorb co2 part of the carbon cycle but for biodiversity because most of the biodiversity in our planet resides in in forests in jungles and we are in the sixth largest incident of massive extinction in the history of our planet over four million years this is number six in terms of size it's enormous it is of the proportion of the extinction caused by an asteroid that led to the destruction of the dinosaurs and the remaining dinosaurs are now flying dinosaurs that became the the birds the chicken so the question is at this point are we preparing ourselves to become human beings we now control the planet like the dinosaurs did then are we going to be the chicken of the future are we going to be eaten are we going to play the role of the chicken that were the descendants of those dinosaurs but even though everything i said is true there isn't enough time to rely on trees for removing the co2 in the time scale that is necessary there isn't the united nations has done exhaustive research about that the ipcc and the answer is clear and absolute if we just plant a tree for example on every square yard available in the planet at the end of the century we will have removed only 10 of the co2 that we are emitting during this period so natural means do not suffice to combat and to redress and to solve an unnatural problem we created by burning fossil fuels at this extraordinary rate for the industrial society doesn't suffice i didn't say it's not important it's extremely important it doesn't suffice so what can be done with respect to the remaining forests is to create again what i call the clean investment mechanism which is the investment alternative that corresponds to the clean development mechanism there is a lot of liquidity in the world and a lot of investment capital does it is interested in finding new places to inve to invest and this is a very profitable way to invest and this is how we should link the sanctions to terminate the burning and the destruction of the forests the jungles that we need for the survival of biodiversity and for climate change but to do it in a way that is profitable through what i call the clean investment mechanism can this be written yes i'm prepared to write it we are now talking of course we are extremely important party in the european union i am prepared i'm offering myself to work for italy for the italian delegation in the glasgow convention of the parties number 26 in the drafting of these two two agreements that are needed one transform the carbon market into a carbon removal market and two transform the clean development mechanism into the clean investment mechanism transforming negative into positive can this be done yes will it be done i don't know time is very short we have a couple of questions which can be combined you talked about investments in clean energy as a strategy one of the questions is this do you think that the uh new strategies by the european commission guided by ursula van der vellain communicated months ago concerning the green economy i.e investments which are made with respect to the environment is that the right direction or is it simply wishful thinking which has to be confirmed and strengthened by the choices of individual countries then a second question you know that there are many expectations in the world on the outcome of the u.s election i'm sure that there will be an impact depending on the winner in terms of the adoption of strategies to counter the uh global warm warming what's your opinion on these two things first on the european union commission is president ursula i'm just going to call jerusalem for short is absolutely right but it's not sufficient she doesn't seem to know that we have to develop a whole new industry of carbon removal she's like you talking more about clean technologies but they're clean technologies and clean technologies i want to be totally clear we need to transform the power industry to use photovoltaic solar energy and clean energy like wind we do but it is not enough it's no longer enough we need to do more we need to remove the co2 that is already there that's called carbon removal as far as i know ursula doesn't contemplate in her green no deal the strategy the strategies involved in carbon remote and that's what needs to be done because carbon renewal is positively producing investment opportunities and funding and jobs etcetera which simply clean energy will not do so that that's my response about the european commission strategy and while i'm at it i'm going to applaud the european commission because if the whole world was doing what the european union is doing now we wouldn't have climate change this is a fact so we had to upload first of all and after we applaud we had to say the effort is not enough we now have to go for carbon removal not just clean technology in other words solar photovoltaic is extremely important is not enough there is no time to let that work because it's a 60 trillion dollars a year power plant industry that has to be transformed it's going to take decades decades so the way to do it is use finance use liquidity create new financial instruments as such as mentioned can this be done yes and what about the elections in the united states well along with everybody else i find the problem of the elections in the united states something to be worried about because of the way people are behaving and it is unfortunate for the united states to be in such a situation in the global economy however i have to say the 45 q legislation that we passed was bipartisan and it's now law and it rewards carbon removal from the atmosphere is the most advanced in the world it is possible i don't know how likely that either of the two parties that are the main contenders will support the liquidity increase as well as the uh infrastructure investment in the which is approximately investment is approximately 1.3 trillion dollars needed in order to put this plan into action but you don't need to spend the trillion dollars you need investment which means that investment is going to produce revenues it's going to produce profits it's going to produce jobs and that is what ursula and the european commission should be doing too in some sense everybody should do that now can this be done i am an economist among other things and i feel that yes and i'm working with barclays bank in the creation of financial instruments that can bring this to reality because as i said the liquidity needed now by everybody everybody acknowledges we need a lot of liquidity and you know it's happening i'm not saying it it's just happening all governments are contributing to the liquidity needed and that's true in europe but it's also true in the united states so if we can recast the carbon market to produce the incentives for carbon removal investment and carbon removal market and carbon removal liquidity and carbon reward uh economic growth as i said before the solution is in our hands not only is in our hands but it will create an enormous panorama of economic uh growth of economic success and it will favor low-income people because the co2 that we're removing from the atmosphere is distributed uniformly on the planet which is not true for petroleum and therefore everybody will have access to that co2 as a source of jobs as is also goods as a source of services a resource of food beverages clean fuels etc all of that which i already explained several times and i'm not going to repeat here it's available to everybody because the air is available to air to everybody and the concentration of co2 in the air very unusual is uniformly distributed over the entire planet and that favors the lower income groups so we are perhaps at the beginning of a transformation which can lead to finally overcome some of the worst characteristics of human beings which is the destruction the destructive and equal form in which our economies have grown it's uh and the problem of satisfaction basic needs that i referred to before i hope this provides the answer you wanted me to say thank you very much our time is nearly over even though we have many many questions there is one which i think is very important to conclude our conversation do you think that in this moment in history people are aware the public opinion is it aware of the risks that we have sometimes we note or we have the impression that a part of the public opinion uh is not really concerned or aware of a global warming many think that some this is something that will be solved by future generations how can we what can we say it's a cultural problem rather than an economic or social one the attitude of people not just the cultural problem but there's also a social problem both and i became an economist that my first studies were in pure mathematics i became an economist because humans are very advanced in physics very advancing mathematics and very behind in cultural and social issues very much behind we solve our cultural and social problems by killing each other which is unbelievable at this stage of civilization can this be done again if you try to solve the problem by itself and change the culture no culture has its own culture is extremely important it is the air that we breathe it is the water in which we swim it is who we are and culture is not something that you're going to go and change like an engineer may think absolutely not but culture is us and the world is changing and it is possible that the culture can follow because for example unfortunately climate change is already producing catastrophes now and if you are in the united states and you see week after week what's happening in california which is similar to what happened in australia and it's going to happen all over the world you have this combination of these wildfires which are totally unprecedented and also floods and et cetera then you realize that people are starting to understand this is happening but there is a cultural issue here which is the following it is natural for humans not to want to think about the problem if they think it has no solution why would you think about it so it is critical to have solutions and to focus on solutions not to focus just on the problem because humans are structured so they can deal with solutions and then are attracted by solutions and this is what the evolution of our species is all about so if we just talk about climate change and how everything is being destroyed and catastrophically advancing then you're not going to get a lot of cultural support but if you find moves that we just discussed that incorporate everybody at this point the rich and the poor unfortunately everybody has to be included and we find a solution that is positive for the economy and that is real and it can be done with the companies that we all know they want that we love or we may not love but we know and we feel that we understand it is for us to make that feasible to make that accessible and to make people think so the culture which are the feelings our social feelings can follow we need more information in the direction for this reason this festival creates a very important tool which is it helps create the culture where the solution can emerge you are creating the culture you are the main element of the solution and i wanted to say thank you very much for allowing me to be here with you and thank you very much because you are going to create a solution thank you so much thank you we fully agree on the fact that we are here to lay the cultural conditions so that people become more and more aware of these issues thank you for the questions that shows that you followed us and they have understood your message thank you very much again from us all from the festival of the economics my personal thanks i hope i could meet you personally who knows at the end of the pandemic we'll manage bye-bye bye-bye thank you you