# Stanford Leadership Forum 2026: Environmental Sustainability, Real Progress Beyond the Hype

## Метаданные

- **Канал:** Stanford Graduate School of Business
- **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw0cAHQu9mY
- **Дата:** 06.05.2026
- **Длительность:** 1:04:26
- **Просмотры:** 958
- **Источник:** https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/51484

## Описание

This Stanford Leadership Forum breakout explores how amidst deep currents of global economic, social, and political change, business, government, and NGOs can address the real and mounting challenges and opportunities of environmental sustainability to change the world.

Speakers include Bill Barnett (moderator) the Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Business Leadership, Strategy, and Organizations, Stanford Graduate of Business; Maxine Burkett, the Emerson Collective Professor of Climate, Environment, and Society and Faculty Director, Center for Just Environmental Futures, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability; David Hochschild, Chair, California Energy Commission; and Bob Litterman, Chair, Climate-related Financial and Macroeconomic Risk Initiative.

Part of the 2026 Stanford Leadership Forum: Shaping the Future, hosted by the Stanford Leadership Institute at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

#stanfordgsb #environmentalsustainability #leadership #stanfordleadershipinstitute

## Транскрипт

### Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00) []

[BILL BARNETT] All right, well, good afternoon, everybody. So we have some empty chairs up here. If you're timid and in the sides, I'm not going to force you to come up, but it's a lot better if you're up here because you can interact with them and sort of see them. And we do have empty chairs, and they're just nice for you. So come on up if you want. It's good to see you all. I'm Bill Barnett, professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. And it's my pleasure to introduce our panelists today to talk about environmental sustainability. Let's begin with Maxine Burkett. Let me get your titles out here, Maxine. Maxine is the Emerson Collective Professor of Climate, Environment, and Society At the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, and she is the faculty director of the Center for Just Environmental Futures at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. Thank you very much for being here, Maxine. [MAXINE BURKETT] Sure. Thanks. [BILL BARNETT] And we're fortunate to have Bob Litterman, the chair of Climate-Related Financial and Macroeconomic Risk Initiative. So thank you, Bob. And David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission. And so thank you so much for coming, all three of you. It's hard to get on your calendars. And so we were really fortunate to have you come. So here's how we're gonna run this. We've got an hour total. I'm going to do everything I can to give the three of you an opportunity to really open up and then as soon as possible, turn it over to you for questions, because it's a great time for you to be able to interact directly with these three amazing people. Okay? So that's kind of my plan of action. And so, be formulating your questions. And when the question time comes, we have... I see a stand there. Is there another? Is that it? And there's another one here. And so the way- Any time comes. Okay, and so I'll try to- Question for... So there's a clock here, but it's not running. So if we could get the clock running, 'cause otherwise we will go forever. So you will wanna make the clock go. Okay, there you go. Okay, 'cause I knew we don't have infinite amount of time. So, uh- Look, everybody knows there's a hype cycle. Sometimes a topic is super popular, sometimes it's not. And in fact, I've been studying the hype cycle with respect to environmental sustainability. I was just telling the panelists on our prep call, we have now hit almost The all-time low in terms of the general perceptions of environmental sustainability and public discourse, the actual all-time low in the United States was in 1980, the Reagan administration era when James Watt was appointed as Secretary of the Interior. The all-time high, at least according to the analysis that I've just completed, was during the Biden administration. In fact, when, Maxine, you were playing a role in -- I'll never forget when I met Maxine. She walked into a conference we were having here and she said, "We just negotiated plastics. " And it was that plastics treaty, it was incredibly important. That was the all-time high, and if you look over time, there's an up and down in the hype cycle. Firms, and this is to Investments in the future. And that disjuncture between what we're hearing and the underlying economic reality, I wanted to first put out there. And then what I'd like to do now is turn to each of you and ask you to take turns talking about from where you sit: How is the picture for environmental sustainability? In 2026. And Maxine, since you're right here, I'm gonna start with you, please. [MAXINE BURKETT] Yes. Thank you. Happy to be here. Happy to have this conversation. Yeah, I always, I believe, to your hype cycle comment, the extent to which I'm in a breakout session versus a plenary is also a good indication of that. And I think what we're seeing here is that this core issue with respect to leadership and business is in a breakout session is also sort of an important flag. I'll just summarize my comments to this initial question with sort of three thoughts: disinformation, disservice, and global trends.

### Segment 2 (05:00 - 10:00) [5:00]

I don't know if any of you were here for this morning's panel, but there's an excellent one on media and disinformation. If you were to pull the disinformation conversation together with the climate conversation, you have a lot of how you might diagnose this moment. And we've seen climate move historically through these sort of impulses and movements of... move forward. And so At this moment, I think... biodiversity and the impacts of biodiversity, to think about the pollution crisis differently. But it's kind of gotten in the turn of disinformation. So I want to put that on the table as a really critical way of understanding why we are where we are, because the playing field's not level. And unfortunately some of my colleagues even at the sustainability schools and climate scientists sort of assume that information is the currency, when in fact it's other things, and we can talk about that as well. Disservice I think about in the context of as a professor. It seems to me that if we're graduating law students, business school students, um, medical school students, although they all say medical schools are doing this better, without understanding the state of the environment, without understanding the climate forecast, current and predicted We're not preparing our professionals for the world that they will be working in and navigating. If you don't understand the risk that your company that you're representing, whether it's in compliance or whether it's fire risk for a utility, say, you're in this situation of not being fully prepared to be an effective advocate. And similarly in medical schools as you see them offering more with respect to the health impacts of climate change, you're not going to be able to serve your constituencies, your populations effectively if you don't understand the circumstances that you're in. Now, global trends very quickly. Basically, what you've described, we see in the— We are seeing in the curves, you know, downward trends and pretty dramatic downward trends in ways that we are not fully integrating into our planning. But at the same time, as you've also referenced, there's so many opportunities. Not given or kind of quantified in a way that can be incorporated into balance sheets. And as those things become more evident and visible and legible, I think we're going to continue to see those business opportunities be undeniable and a part of the way of doing business. And then I can say a little bit more about this afterwards, but there is also a trend in which we all, even with this polluted sort of communications environment People still know something's up, right? And they're still wanting to do something about climate change, The polling suggests that. They want to do something about environmental justice, The polling suggests that. Even though those words and terms are no longer in sort of usable and acceptable company, and certainly for grant applications. So I'll say those three things now Does it open up the conversation? [BILL BARNETT] Wow. Great start, Maxine. Thank you very much. Bob? [BOB LITTERMAN] Yeah. Thank you, Bill, and it's a pleasure to be here. I think you raised the right question when you asked about investment, and you say, "Well, it's continuing. " The problem is that it's a small fraction of what it needs to be. And that's the essence of the problem. When you talk about climate change, we know where we're going, and we know what we've got to do. I think that's common knowledge now, but we're not moving. And we're not moving for a very simple reason. We don't have the right incentives in place. The fundamental problem is that we're not pricing the risk of climate. Now, my background, I'm an economist. By the way, I was in the inaugural class here at Stanford of the Human Biology Program, so I'm showing my age a little bit. That was 50 years ago. [BILL BARNETT] Now wait a minute, Bob. If you were in Human Biology, that meant your parents wanted you to be a doctor. [BOB LITTERMAN] That was about a third of the class then. And I think it's now. [BILL BARNETT] Okay. [BOB LITTERMAN] But in any case, no, I became an economist and then a risk manager on Wall Street. And so when I retired 15 years ago, it was very natural for me to focus on climate as a risk management problem, and it's a global problem. It's not just the U. S. But it's certainly true that in the U. S. today, the winds are strongly in our face and we're playing defense. But around the world, that's not the case. In fact, I was called to testify three years ago before the Senate Budget Committee with Mark Carney and a Republican economist. All three of us said, you know, what we need to do is put a price on emissions. There was no question about that, but we haven't done it in the U. S.

### Segment 3 (10:00 - 15:00) [10:00]

Now, at that time, one of the questions I got was John Kennedy from Louisiana. He says, "Bob, do you really think China is going to reduce its emissions, is going to face climate change? " I said, "Yeah, because they're going to realize the reality of it. " Well, here we are just three years later, and China has taken over this entire space. They've got like 90% of the investment in clean energy right now. And the U. S. is falling behind. So that's where we're at. And we know what we have to do. We have to put a price. But until we do that, we're not even getting started. And so time is a scarce resource when you're managing risk. [BILL BARNETT] Yeah. [BOB LITTERMAN] And I feel very badly for the next generations because, frankly, the world hasn't started. It's just getting started. And I guess the final thing I'll say is there are some very good signs outside the U. S. You know, Mark Carney gave what was a very well-received and I think important speech at the World Economic Forum this year. He said, you know, the global system has ruptured. [BILL BARNETT] Mm-hmm. [BOB LITTERMAN] And now countries are going to get together around specific issues where they have commonalities. Well, he didn't mention climate, but that's clearly what he was talking about. [BILL BARNETT] Sure, sure. [BOB LITTERMAN] And we now have such a coalition. It was announced at the COP. It's called the Open Coalition on- Compliance carbon markets. It's got 18 members, and it's a very positive sign. It includes Europe, it includes China, includes Brazil, which of course led it, Mexico, Canada, Singapore, Norway. So these are the countries that are recognizing reality. They're moving forward on their own, and the US is going to be left behind, especially in terms of business if we don't change course soon. [BILL BARNETT] Well put, Bob. You know, it's interesting, Maxine, you kicked us off with just a set of observations. Around both the technical reality of climate change and issues of sustainability and the deep moral implication of them in your reference to environmental justice. And that third lens though, the behavioral lens, is right where you're going on this, Bob. And you know, and you need all three, right? We need to understand the technical reality, the moral reality, but also behaviorally, how do we get there? I see over there one of my colleagues, Bård Harstad from the Sustainability School, and there may be some others here. And you know, Bård and his research looks at exactly what you're talking about, Bob. But with models that apply to contexts other than the United States, because that's often where we're seeing some of the best innovation with respect to policy. And so, a little bit of plug for the social scientists in the room. David, thank you for your patience. One of the things about being a policymaker Is that you have all three lenses going on at once. You have to think about technical reality, moral issues of justice, and the behavioral reality. What's your view of sustainability 2026? [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] Yeah. Well, thank you. Good to be here. Thanks for having me, and good to be with Maxine and Bob. Agree with all their points. I want to strike a more optimistic note, actually, which is that I think we underestimate the power of states. To lead the energy transition. So I want to just kick it off with a little bit of a kind of a success tour about what's happening in clean energy in the state of California today, because we're kicking ass. We're at 67% of our electricity on the grid in California, which is the fourth largest economy in the world, is coming from clean energy sources. Alternative energy is the wrong word to use to describe renewables. Fossil is the alternative on our grid. We have more EV charging plugs in California than we have gasoline nozzles. We're adding 1,200 EVs a day. It's up to one quarter of vehicle sales. In new construction 10 years ago, only 1% of homes in California, we build about a hundred and- 20,000 homes a year in our state, only 1% were being built all electric. Today it's over 80%. And we're seeing just some absolutely landmark projects get done. We just started construction on the Darden project, which is the largest battery storage project in the world, five and a half billion dollars in West Fresno County Um, and one of the things that's happening is we're adding storage. Actually, it's a real highlight of why clean energy is so exciting, which is you can add this capacity so quickly. So we only have 105 gigawatts of utility-scale capacity on the grid in California since electricity came to our state in 1850, okay? So 176 years, 105 gigs. Okay, 30 of that came on since Gavin Newsom was

### Segment 4 (15:00 - 20:00) [15:00]

governor, and half of that, 17 gigs, is energy storage. And so it has allowed us to hit these incredible milestones. Last year we got to 100% clean energy on the grid for a portion of the day on 279 days. That's never happened before. So the majority of days we're getting to 100% clean energy. You know, we're averaging like five hours a day at 100%. These are milestones that people, you know, would've considered mythology even a few years ago. And some very promising templates are being created. You know, just across the bay in Oakland, that city became the first city in the United States to achieve 100% of their school bus fleet being electric, 74 buses, 74 chargers. 100% of the kids going to school on a public bus are going electric. We know that diesel fumes get into the cab of the bus. It's a health issue as well. And those buses are now collectively, when they come back, they feed surplus power back in the grid. It's the largest Vehicle-to-grid project in North America. We're building five battery electric ferries for the San Francisco Bay, the first battery electric ferry fleet in the country. And so I think I just want to invite everybody to see what's happening in this state as a sort of postcard from the future. And not in large measure because our governor is now... Very much on a path to be the next president if things go the way they're going. I think what we got to do better together is tell some of these success stories. I'm really struck by how much of this, I think, really significant milestones are totally unknown, right? And I think we got to get better about lifting up those success stories. And I think the biggest one of all is that doing this stuff, addressing the climate crisis, the sustainability Maxine talked about, this is good for our economy, okay? 12 years ago, we were the 10th largest economy in the world. All right? The critique we took as a state when we did the 33% RPS in 2011. This is going to devastate your economy. I was there, actually. I was in the gallery. One of the members of the legislature who was violently opposed to the thing took the bill and threw it up in the air, and so there's this sort of snowflakes coming down. He's saying, "This will never happen. " It's going to be a calamity for our state," and so on. We went from the 10th largest economy in the world, and as we have cleaned up the grid and advanced all these clean technologies, we passed Russia, we passed Italy, we passed Brazil, we passed France. We passed the UK, we just passed Japan, and we're the fourth largest economy in the world, right? And so the argument that climate solutions, clean energy, investments, innovation are somehow bad for the economies is just the opposite. And so I think we gotta do a better job about messaging all that. And I just would close with talking to young people, I do think this whole sector offers hope. These are fields that people are excited to get into. And so there's a real... Marriage with California industrial policy. I look at something like offshore wind and what we can do with port upgrades and construction of the nacelles and the towers and the blades, and how many new jobs that can create. These things come together beautifully, and I think they're career paths that a lot of young folks are excited about. So we gotta hunker down and make it through this storm, but I think we will. And oddly enough, I think Trump's war- On Iran is going to undermine his war on EVs and renewables. And actually, we're seeing that now in the market. I mean, uptake of these clean technologies is high. And I think even if prices go back down in fossil fuels, we know the volatility is always going to be a threat. And so, and I'll just close with this. I just came a month ago, I was at the Tesla electric semi-truck factory in Sparks, Nevada. Okay, so for almost a $4 billion factory, they're making an electric truck that goes 500 miles on a single charge, recharges in 35 minutes, and they're gonna make 1,000 of those a week, right? And by the way, these trucks don't have to slow down going up because of the electric drivetrain, you can pass a car. So I think we're going to see a real transformation of all these sectors that we had thought were impossible even a few years ago. And I think all the instability in the fossil fuel markets we're seeing today are just gonna accelerate that. So a lot of challenges to get through and certainly a very hostile Federal government, but a lot we can still do to move the ball forward at the state level. [BILL BARNETT] Wow. So what I'm going to do is ask both you, Maxine, and you, Bob, to respond to what you've just heard. But only after I give my response, okay? Because I just... was that awesome? I would love, first of all, I'd love to have you come speak to the freshmen. The climate scientist, Chris Field, and I teach sustainability to the freshmen. And Just think about teaching sustainability to

### Segment 5 (20:00 - 25:00) [20:00]

the 21st century. That's right, because there are all these babies in the room, right? They actually come to class in pajamas. So, whatever. But it is, you give them the sobering reality, right? We teach the truth. But you also talk about the actions that are happening because that's what's uplifting. Doesn't mean we're doing enough Right? Someday we will remember that we weren't doing enough. We understand this problem of time-inconsistent discounting. It comes out a lot of the literature but action is happening, and it's so empowering to hear you speak, David, about that. Maxine, what's your reaction to what you hear David saying? [MAXINE BURKETT] Yeah, I mean, I think that there again, this has been a story of a lot of missed opportunities and beautiful moments. So when Carter installed the solar panels on the White House, he said this, and by 2000 this could be a curiosity or the greatest adventure we would have ever embarked upon. That was in 1979. [BILL BARNETT] Wow. [MAXINE BURKETT] And so I do think there's so much beauty in understanding this as a moment of possibility. And that's in fact what this Future Center is about, understanding that we have to repair the past, and we have some very present challenges to face. But what are the futures, the preferred futures that we'd like to build? And that's the conversation we had actually in this very room, in partnership with the business school. And so I think that there is something to be said about the opportunities that are present. Of course, there's also something- Very clear that the inverse is true as well, which is that if we continue down this path, it's really bad for the economy, human beings in the moment, and then of course the next generations. And so those are my thoughts, and it's really exciting to see that the sort of stated hypothesis about the benefit of doing and making these changes in energy landscape, for example, is actually bearing out in a state that's, you know, undeniable and is a leader for other states across the country and the world. [BILL BARNETT] Oh, thank you. Bob? [BOB LITTERMAN] Yeah, I guess I have mixed feelings because on the one hand, it's great that California is the fourth biggest economy in the world, and it's moving quickly. On the other hand, you know, where we're at today is we haven't really gotten started. So let's be honest. The right price, the right incentive to reduce emissions is on the order of $100 a ton, maybe $200 a ton. And in the United States right now, on average, it's essentially zero. We actually have more subsidies for fossil fuels than we do for clean energy. So we have to be realistic. Now, I think we're going to move quickly. This is an emergency. This is an absolute crisis that we should have addressed 30 years ago. And had we addressed it, it wouldn't be a problem. We would be on the road to solution. But we're not there. [BILL BARNETT] Bob, let me come back in on this. So my research is on the evolution of industries. [BOB LITTERMAN] Okay. [BILL BARNETT] And so when you look back over the last 200 years, change has rarely happened because governments soberly and rationally orchestrated the transition. Typically, change happens despite governments. And only later does government policy at best retrospectively rationalize what came out of the creative, destructive process of entrepreneurship, displacement, and a replacement of the status quo by visionaries who have what looks at the time A rational and irrational view of the future. And so I hear everything you're saying, but that could have been said at the beginning of the digital revolution. It mechanization revolution of the 1800s. So in a way, from my view, I think you're both right, or all three of you are right. The government policies are not what they should be if you look at the design that would come out of a Bård Harstad paper or a Bob Litterman paper. [BOB LITTERMAN] But not even close. [BILL BARNETT] Not even close. And nonetheless, we're seeing change happen. [BOB LITTERMAN] Well, what do you want me to say? It's not, you know, these are only going to happen together. Without government, you're not going to be able to do it. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] To your point, though, I just want... You know, when Trump ran for office in 2016, coal, right? That was the main, bring coal back, right? More coal got retired under Donald Trump from 2016 to 2020 than under Barack Obama because renewables, you know, were cheaper. And now, in the first year of the Trump administration, you know, part two, in 2025, I just got this data yesterday, you know, 91% of the capacity additions on the U. S. electric grid were clean energy. You know, why is that? That is because we have been winning on cost reduction. You know, in

### Segment 6 (25:00 - 30:00) [25:00]

2004, it took a year to install a gigawatt of solar globally. In 2010, it took a month. In 2016, it took a week. In 2023, it took a day. In 2024, half a day to install a gig. And now it's over half a trillion dollars a year. It's the single biggest investment on the global electric grid. And we've seen just since I got into the field in 2000, solar panel prices were $5 a watt. I just did a project for a friend of mine's hospital in East Africa. 12 cents a watt. It's cheaper to buy a solar panel than a piece of wood that size, okay? So we're at this point where you can't put the genie back in the bottle. And even the elimination of the tax credits, which is a big deal, it's a 30% tax rate, is not enough to stop the growth of solar. And I think a really telling indication of that, you know, Google just Acquired Intersect, which is the largest developer of large-scale solar and storage. And that's really a statement: how are we going to get power for data centers and so on? And they spent three times more on that acquisition than they did on YouTube, right? So some of these forces are just larger than what a Trump administration can stop. They absolutely can impede, and they are doing that, and they will slow this transition, but they cannot stop it, in my view. [BILL BARNETT] All right. Well, so you've heard the opening salvos from our three panelists. I'm now going to open it up to anyone who wants questions and who wants to ask a question. And I know the way these things go. What you do is you step up to one of the mic stands, and then we'll let you ask a question. And what's going to happen is people are timid at first, and then later when we run out of time, there are going to be people who are looking at me like, "Well, why didn't you call on me? " So if you have a question, get up to the mic stand early. And you panelists, feel free to ask each other questions as well and to jump in on the conversation. So it looks like we have our first question coming over here. And when you ask a question, please begin by clearly stating your first and last name. That way folks can come up to you later and talk with you about your question. Go ahead, please. [NELA RICHARDSON] Hi. Thank you for the comments. I'm Nela Richardson. I'm chief economist at\u2014 [BILL BARNETT] Okay, let's... we're going to try it again because the mic's not on. [NELA RICHARDSON] Can do this. [BILL BARNETT] Okay, there you go. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] We can hear you. Just speak up. [NELA RICHARDSON] Hi, I'm Neela Richardson. I'm Chief Economist and ESG Officer for ADP, which is a tech and HR company. And I guess I really appreciate your comments, especially what's going on in the state of California. I was wondering if you could give me your perspective on the scorecard for corporate America. My read is that a lot of companies, both manufacturers and service sector firms, are very focused on- Reducing emissions by a certain date, both their scope one, their scope two, sometimes even scope three. There's a market for VPPAs and trying to offset those emissions. And yet, there's a lot of resource-intensive AI development going on at companies. So I just wonder if you have a perspective on what corporate America could do to continue to meet these emissions goals, and how are they doing, especially in the face of AI? [BILL BARNETT] Wow. Great, great question. Thank you. Who wants to take that? [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] So, mixed bag. I think I give a lot of credit to a number of the companies that have set these 100% clean energy goals, and to some of them, like Apple, that are going, not just making the commitment to do 100% clean energy for their facilities, but going upstream and requiring that other suppliers as well. But, you know, hugely disappointed with the American automaker sector, those OEMs backing off of EVs. I think it's industrial suicide. China is now, this year, 60% of new vehicle sales in China are electric. You know, countries like Norway have 97%. And I do think we're ceding the future to countries like China when we do that. So I have been disappointed with the automakers. There are some that are stepping up in some ways. But I think it's a mixed bag. I'd be curious what Bob and Maxine think. [BOB LITTERMAN] Yeah, it's a mixed bag, all right. And I'll just say, you know, all these companies that made lots of promises, voluntary, they're pulling back on them, you know? And it's not surprising. People react to incentives. If they have a price on carbon, they're going to create, you know, low-carbon goods. If they don't, like we don't, then they're going to, you know, produce what they do

### Segment 7 (30:00 - 35:00) [30:00]

and make the biggest profit they can. So I can't blame corporations. What we need is we need a price, and then corporations will move. Very quickly. But again, the big picture here, the IMF did an estimate a couple of years ago about what's the subsidy to fossil fuels in the United States. It's a trillion dollars a year. Well, they said 700 billion, but then they had a lower social cost of carbon than I would put on. But in any case, it's on that order. A trillion dollars a year. Compare that to the Biden Inflation Reduction Act. That was going to be $400 billion over 10 years, or $40 billion per year, versus $700 billion the other side. It's just, you know, there's no comparison. And business is not gonna move until they have the right incentives. That's just the way the world works. [BILL BARNETT] You wanna jump in, Becky? [MAXINE BURKETT] Yeah, I do. I mean, I think—I don't know that it's a mixed bag. I think it's pretty poor corporate activity. And I mean, you know, sort of my experience historically in various spaces I've been in, and then of course in this current moment, it seems to me that the fact that we saw this kind of, you know, rapid flight away from these promises was sort of expected. And it can be incentives, but it also is the—so the anti-regulatory push also. Allows for the bottom to be, rock bottom to continue to be very far below us. Yeah, or above us, depending on your perspective. And so we are in a situation where you are incentivized. There is an incentive. The incentive is to maximize profit without any consideration for any other element of your business. And so you find that again, there is a bit of a race to the bottom in terms of the way business is done. And we have evidence of that. Even in the previous administration, and we're at sort of the height at least of the promises and the pledges, that more money was being invested, for example, in oil and gas in the greenwashing and the statements about what they are doing versus the actual move from the business as usual to other sources of clean energy. And so I think that there's a systemic kind of rot there, to be perfectly frank. And it is one where there could be an agreement to higher standards that may include regulation that is. is necessary for a level playing field that's not happening. I'll also say that, I mean, we have this opportunity to understand the vulnerability again of these companies themselves. I mean, this is sort of in some ways a very short-sighted set of decisions that are being made. And we are not looking as well or thinking a lot about the climate crisis, but of course there's the biodiversity crisis, which I cannot underscore enough, is also we're hitting a really significant cliff here. And if you are, if you enjoyed a cup of coffee this morning, I urge you to think about the biodiversity crisis, what's happening to the bees. And we get sort of pilloried as tree huggers when we talk about it, but just the pure business prospects of this are significant. There is no economy without an environment. And a degraded environment gives you only so much for so long before we hit those cliffs as well. [BILL BARNETT] Yeah, well put, Maxine. I'm glad you bring that in. You know, when you go back to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, back in, was it 1962, I think? She doesn't talk about climate. [MAXINE BURKETT] Yeah. [BILL BARNETT] It's about biodiversity, [MAXINE BURKETT] pollution. [BILL BARNETT] The Silent Spring refers to a possible future without the sound of birds in the morning. And so the sustainability challenge is multifaceted. Now, for those of you who think, "Oh my gosh, I knew coming to this session was going to be a buzzkill," I mean, my gosh, I could have gone to some other... Let me tell you. The beauty of this new institute. Yes, I'm gonna plug the new institute, okay? So the beauty of this is that we will hold the line on speaking the truth regardless of what is popular. And that's why you three are here. We have quite a line of people wanting to ask questions. Please, go ahead. [CHAD SORAYO] Hi there. First of all, I want to thank the panel for being here. Appreciate your time today. [BILL BARNETT] And your full name. [CHAD SORAYO] Yes. My name is Chad Sorayo. I'm a fourth year PhD candidate in material science and engineering. When I started my PhD here, it was in 2022, so there was some tailwind after the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act. Felt really energizing to be here, especially at Stanford at that time and being in this like innovative ecosystem. I've also now been here long enough to see then a lot of the IRA stuff be pulled back. I'm really curious what the panel thinks about this idea of how we build durable legislation

### Segment 8 (35:00 - 40:00) [35:00]

and policy, especially to signal to our allies abroad that we are serious about climate change. I hear from people saying that they're unsure if they want to work with the US if we keep on changing our policy on climate every four to eight years. But also, how do we signal for people in industry to invest long-term in these sort of areas of investment? Going back to what... David said, "Do states have to take up a larger mantle here, or is there a national thing that we could do? " Curious to hear your thoughts on this question. Thank you. [BILL BARNETT] Great question. Yeah. Durable policy. [MAXINE BURKETT] Well, I want to say first, the... Thank you for that question. But first, Bill, this is... I promise you I'm a lot of fun and super joyful. Even though this tends to be a downer conversation, it's true. [BILL BARNETT] She is, actually. We're in the same department. [MAXINE BURKETT] It's really important, and I think we don't have to be, you know, there doesn't have to be delusion in order for there to be joy. And in fact, the work is joyful because we understand the stakes and, again, the opportunity. Exactly. And so I just wanted to sort of suggest that, like, you know, we can... I'm happy to break out and dance afterwards to prove my point. But the idea here is that, you know, we're at an... you know, these are important moments. Choosing the future that we want, and I think it can be a joyful one still. Now, with respect to the question, I mean, it's a really important one. I think it's safe to say that credibility has been lost internationally, and credibility nationally is also an issue. And so, first things first is just really regaining trust and credibility in our own home, if you will. And I know that there's a panel that I'm certainly eager to see this afternoon, later this afternoon, that's going to talk about trust in our society, but I think this is really important to understand. When I got to the State Department after, in 2021, yes, we had to convince partners across the world that this— We were serious. And it was really difficult. And so now we are definitely in, I think, a multi-generational renewed effort that we'll have to engage in once we can to regain trust across the international community in this space. But, you know, there's nothing like doing the work to demonstrate that. And we, I think, can still rely on what is a very real— Desire in our country to do better in this way. And the polling suggests as much. Again, my colleague John Krosnick at the Doerr School, he's also in political science and other affiliations, he's excellent. He's done some really excellent polling around people's, Americans' support for environmental justice. I'm using that as an important example because we are in this time now, again, where it's, like, verboten to use words like justice and recognize that there is a history of racial hierarchy in the country and in the world. But here we are in this moment, and he does research and it suggests that 85% of Americans are supportive of environmental justice action by the government. There are definitely some questions around how it's done. But even in the context of a specific policy, 60%, two-thirds, are supportive of this kind of intentional action. And that suggests to me that the term is sociotropic considerations. But humans over and over again in this kind of polling suggest that they want to do the right thing. And given the right information, they will make those choices, even if it seems to be against their economic interest. Self-interest was actually negatively correlated with your reaction to that question or the possible implications there. So this is all just to say that I think we have to be very... And we have to rebuild trust. We have to have conversations and not shy away from these issues and concerns that are going to pull us back, I think, together. And durable policy oftentimes happens at the community grassroots level. And so not recognizing that power is also going to be to our detriment if we continue to look just at the top-down solutions. [BILL BARNETT] All right. Thank you, Maxi. Bob, David? [BOB LITTERMAN] Well, I would say one of the very positive things that's going on now is that Trump has destroyed the global system that was not moving forward. So the UN now is no longer really leading. On climate, and that creates an opening for a coalition of countries to move forward. You know, when we were in the UN context, you had to get unanimity to move forward. [BILL BARNETT] Yeah, interestingly. [BOB LITTERMAN] Well, there's plenty of petrostates for which it's not in their interest to move forward quickly. [BILL BARNETT] Yeah. [BOB LITTERMAN] So they were saying, "No, no, not so fast, not so fast. " So nothing was getting done. Well, we said, "All right, forget it. We're going to move forward together. " And that's most of the rest of the world. The US now is kinda caught as a petrostate. And I don't think that's gonna last for very long. But the sooner that ends and the sooner we join the

### Segment 9 (40:00 - 45:00) [40:00]

coalition of countries that are moving forward, they're gonna put a price on carbon, and tariff on countries that are not part of the coalition. And so that creates an incentive for countries that are not part of the coalition to join, and they've already got a significant part of the global GDP. So if you start getting countries like, I would watch India, I would watch Indonesia. If they start joining this open coalition, pretty soon it's gonna be a dominant coalition, and the whole world is gonna have to go. So I think that's a very positive Change. The other thing I would point to, and Stanford is very involved in this, is carbon accounting. [BILL BARNETT] Yes. Yeah. [BOB LITTERMAN] You know, when people talk about carbon accounting, they think you're talking about emissions scope one, scope two, scope three. That's not accounting. And there is a push now to create actual accounting where you follow the molecules through the economy, and that allows you to put a price on carbon. That's moving forward as well. And so I think those are two very positive signs. And hopefully they'll move forward quickly. [BILL BARNETT] Thank you, Bob. David? Okay. Yeah. Zen, you're right. Yeah, no, we have quite a queue. Thank you very much. And so here we have Isaac from my class. Thank you so much for coming. And not in your pajamas either. [ISAAC STREHLOW] Thank you. [BILL BARNETT] He's never come to class in pajamas. It's the other students who come to class in pajamas, so just- [ISAAC STREHLOW] Well, thank you very much, Professor Barnett. Like you just mentioned, I'm Isaac Strehlow. I am an undergraduate freshman about to start an internship this summer with the California Air Resources Board related to electrification of the Port of Oakland. And so one thing that they talked about in class was One of the key factors towards reducing our emissions is going to be greenify all electricity and electrify everything. In your guys' eyes, what would that look like? How realistic, how practical is that? And where do you think we are in achieving that? [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] Yeah, so I think that's exactly the strategy, and we're absolutely on a path to do that. So as I mentioned, we're basically about 70% clean electricity today on the grid. The law that Governor Newsom signed requires us to get to 90% by 2035 and then 100% by 2045. Countries like Denmark, I just came back from Copenhagen with my daughter last week. They just had the last month, the entire country ran 100% on clean electricity. Why is this possible? It's because energy storage has reached this point where it can be deployed really quickly at enormous scale. To build a new combined cycle natural gas plant in the United States takes seven years, okay? To do a new nuclear plant, we only built two new nuclear plants in the US this century. The last one, Vogtle 2 in Georgia, took 17 years, right? These storage projects are going in in, like, 12 months. And so the ability, because they're actually very simple technologies and very modular. And so it's very achievable. I think... so my view is basically we're winning on greening the grid. The real game right now is what you're working on, which is electrifying end uses. You go to the Port of Long Beach, they have electrified their key cranes, their gantry cranes, their vehicles, you know, all of these things that we didn't think were possible. I use a chainsaw when I'm doing yard work. I have an electric chainsaw. I didn't even know there was a thing. I love it. It works. There's like, you know, as I mentioned, the Tesla Semi, we have a company in LA called Harbinger doing the Class 4, 5, and 6 trucks, like for UPS and FedEx. They're at cost parity today with no incentives, and next year they're going to be lower cost than conventional. And companies like FedEx, because of that, have made a commitment to get to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2030. And so we just have to push in all of these areas. And as we do that, do a much better job of lifting up the success stories, because it's just not getting attention. And so we're doing that. We've started a bunch of public-private partnerships. One this week is actually Heat Pump Week. We put $8 million in this partnership with the heat pump industry to get people to adopt electric heat pumps, and we've got to just be doing a lot more of this to help get the word out, because I will say, you know, you can vote. Right? A second time that's not the ballot box. It's about how you live. What do you drive? How do you heat your water? There's a chance for sort of participatory clean energy democracy with these solutions that's not possible. You can't put a coal-fired power plant on your roof, right? And so that is one thing that's really exciting.

### Segment 10 (45:00 - 50:00) [45:00]

There's actually actions all of us can take in our homes and in our companies to adopt these technologies. Okay. Yeah. [MAXINE BURKETT] I just want to add a little bit here, because I know, especially in California, that the tech optimism is very significant, and for good reason. I mean, there's a lot that's going on that's right. I just want us to remember as we're rolling all of these very important new technical strategies out, that we're not forgetting nature and human dignity. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] Yes. [MAXINE BURKETT] And there are a couple of reasons. One is that the natural environment is going to be shifting and is continually shifting. So if you're in a circumstance of drought— And you need significant water resources for whatever it is that you're inputting. You have to be very mindful of what the state of your natural environment is, and I think be in harmony with that. But also human dignity becomes a really key part of this, not just because social movements can kill good ideas in terms of the technical outside of things. If you don't want—we've seen this happen in a number of circumstances where big wind projects or other renewable energy efforts have been in conflict with community needs or wants, and that becomes a significant hurdle to them being... Rolled out. So that becomes really important. But similarly, when human dignity becomes more compromised, you often see the same kinds of evolving or snowballing effect of environmental impact over time. And those two things, like sacrifice zones, which environmental justice communities have talked a lot about, really are coupled and have gotten us, in some cases, to a lot of the environmental degradation that we see that's gone beyond the typical EJ communities as well, whether it's in Appalachia or in parts of Cancer Alley in the South. So really important that we don't forget the importance of these elements of the work as well. [BILL BARNETT] You know, I'm so glad you bring that up again, Maxine, and it, of course, it's... It's something you do as a big part of your mission. And I always find it striking that we think of it in the context of inequality and environmental degradation here in the United States, but that's also true globally, Yeah, with massive differences, obviously, in the treatment and plight of populations that we can't leave out in order to get to that new future. [MAXINE BURKETT] That's right. Yeah. [BILL BARNETT] Well, thank you for that question, Isaac. And who do we have now? [MEGAN GUY] Hi, I'm Megan Guy. I was actually GSB and E-IPER 2010. And I've sat in a lot of these rooms for recent decades, and Maxine, you've maybe teed my question up a little bit. I think the conversation has very quickly Especially in the last decade or so, gone to climate, to energy, to putting a price on carbon, credits et cetera, et cetera. And I wonder a little bit if we've missed the plot and made a bit of a mistake by focusing too much on the economic story at the expense of talking about things like oceans, like biodiversity, indigenous knowledge, redistributive impacts, et cetera. And so I'd love to hear a little bit from you in this moment when companies are not speaking out on many things about what role do you think the business community has in talking about the environmental crisis that we're in beyond just the impact on their bottom line, their profitability, and kind of I guess what we've called the more economic lens of ESG to date? [BILL BARNETT] Thank you for that, John. [MAXINE BURKETT] That's been positive. I would love to hear what you all think, because I certainly do have thoughts on this, but let me give you space. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] I really appreciate that question. And I think, you know, one thing that I— probably the most rewarding part of my job as chair of the Energy Commission has been engagement with the Native American tribes in California. So we have 109 federally recognized Native American tribes. I've been with the tribes the last two days, up in the Paskenta tribe. And all these tribes, their identities are very tied with species, okay? And so... And there are some, by the way, really beautiful things that are happening. I'll just share, I think it's the single most inspiring restoration story in California. So on the North Coast, on the Klamath River, you know, the salmon run has been stopped for years by these four dams. And this is in the Yurok Tribe's territory, and they led a 20-year campaign To get Berkshire Hathaway to take down those dams. That finally happened last year. It's the largest dam removal project in the world, and the salmon run is restored. That's a sacred species for that tribe. And at the same time, the California condor, which is an incredible bird, lives to 75 years old, nine-and-a-half-foot wingspan. It's the highest.

### Segment 11 (50:00 - 55:00) [50:00]

Flying bird in California and in that region. They don't eat anything that is alive. They only eat carrion. And so 100 years ago, hunters came in, they shot with lead bullets. The condor would eat the carcass, get lead poisoning, and die. So condor went extinct in that region. The population condor went down to 22 birds. They did a really focused incubation program led by the tribe. And this bird is, to your point about how to talk about this stuff. The bird is seen as the medium for humanity's hopes to be expressed to the heavens, and also because it flies so high, to confer wisdom to the people. And so you can imagine the impact on the tribe of having this bird be absent. So They reintroduced the condor about five years ago, six chicks a year. They're up to, I think, 26 birds now. And last month, for the first time in a century, a pair of condors paired up and there's an egg incubating, right? It was beautiful. And so I think we don't talk about this stuff enough. And it is... You know, it is a core part of who we are and what we need to talk about. I think we can get a little bit too cerebral. I think we do need to make the economic case because that's the world we live in. But you're absolutely right, we need to elevate that dimension as well. [MAXINE BURKETT] I'll just share that. I mean, I think we, I've always struggled with this sort of, I think, false dichotomy between economy and environment. Again, because what do you need at the end of the day? Well, we need water for these data centers. We need, you know, what it comes down to, the elemental pieces of this are the same. And so I just want to, I think we need to sort of think carefully about how, whether it's business leaders or the business case can be made understanding that we live in the context of an environment. That's- Absolutely where it is happening. And to call in the Artemis astronauts, they all wanted to come home, right? And they had a very clear statement of, "This is home. " I love space and I love these kinds of notions, but what this is also, I think, asking us to do is to be in awe again, right? And that's a big part of what's missing. We know that that's what's missing. We can hear from the mental health conversations, the podcasts, et cetera, about what we need and what is important, and that's a big part of it. And it's also important because as we think about Indigenous communities and Native American communities, we understand and it's very clear what is sacred, But we also have a lot that is sacred in our culture and our society. And so I think being able to bridge that with our understandings of what thriving and what prosperity is, what's in our national interest, I would offer that a habitable planet is in our national interest. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] Mm-hmm. [MAXINE BURKETT] And our economic interest. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] Right. [BOB LITTERMAN] Yeah, I would just add that, you know, business is not a problem. Business will solve this problem, and it's just the problem is we're not moving fast enough. Yeah. And business is not moving fast enough because we're not telling it to move fast enough. It's, it's the fact that we don't have those incentives in place. Yeah. Businesses are there to make money. That's what they're gonna do. And as long as we're telling them we're gonna subsidize fossil fuels out the wazoo, that's where they're gonna make their money. That's, that's it. [MAXINE BURKETT] Can I- [BOB LITTERMAN] That's the beginning of the story and the end of the story. [MAXINE BURKETT] Could you say more about who the we is? [BOB LITTERMAN] Who, we? [MAXINE BURKETT] Yeah. [BOB LITTERMAN] Government. It's government that sets the incentives, and right now we're subsidizing fossil fuels by not recognizing the risk that they create. So we're subsidizing fossil fuels. What do we expect to have happen? Now, this government, you know, maybe Trump will be such a disaster over time that we'll shift and we'll start pricing emissions. Many other countries are doing it. Obviously Europe is doing it. China's moving in that direction. As I say, there's a whole coalition now around the world that's gonna move in this direction. The question is, will we be part of it or not? My guess is not. [BILL BARNETT] I'm sensing something is welling up in you, Maxine. [MAXINE BURKETT] Well, I have a lot of thoughts on this, because I think the "we" is easy to, it's easy to state, and I think it makes a lot of sense, especially if we assume that we're in a functioning, a well-functioning democracy. But if we're talking about a "we" being equal in government, and government presumably being formed by the people, then you have challenges like Citizens United. You have legal challenges that are making it harder to sort of participate in a democracy in a healthy fashion. And so I do think we should be more precise so that- At the very least, we're not all feeling guilty. How many people love coming to an environmental session and feeling like you are not recycling enough or whatever it is? Now you're not doing democracy well or telling business to do the right thing. Business is also, frankly, I do quibble with legal personhood for the business, but I certainly know there are a lot of people in there, and so they can make better decisions about how they engage with government as well, again, with respect to openness to sensible regulation. And the panel this morning in other spaces will talk about how

### Segment 12 (55:00 - 60:00) [55:00]

that's done very differently in other societies and other governance regimes like the EU. So we really need to, I think, push on the people that are involved in whether it's the private sector. Or in our judiciary and the conversations that we have about what it means to be a citizen these days and what that power confers to you truly to make change. [BILL BARNETT] Right. Well, a sign of a good question is one Yes, that really brings out the kind of deep, underlying logics that I think we're seeing here. I can't promise I'm gonna get to all four of you in the next six minutes and 50 seconds, but we'll try. [CLAIRE KILEY] I'll be quick. I'm Claire Kiley. I'm an alumni of the GSB. Spent time building in the climate mitigation and removal space for a long time, and I guess you could say I've been slightly radicalized more recently, in focusing more on the adaptation and extreme risk side of it, which has been... You know, very, very absent of the dialogue today, and so I'd love to talk about that a bit more. I think when you think about those climate risks, they sit upstream of food security, of migration, of economic stability, of national security, so many of the topics that this institute is here for. And preparedness for that, even if we take a micro example like San Francisco and Oakland Bay flooding, in a city, an area that is very, you could say, pro-climate and wanting to support that, is also still vastly underfunded 'cause there's not an ROI. It's like a, we hope this thing doesn't happen, and so we should prepare to hopefully make sure it doesn't happen. So in the spirit of what Mayor Lurie just said around the collaboration of philanthropy and government and business, how do we help unlock that? Because right now those are two places that are very underfunded and behind in the action we need there. [BILL BARNETT] Okay. That's good. I'm going to let one of you respond to this so that we can get to the last three questions. [MAXINE BURKETT] I don't know that I agree with. Adaptation, I think, is critically important. And I will say that I think there are a number of co-benefits in some of the efforts of mitigation that will address adaptation. I think both need to be done pretty significantly because there is a limit to adaptation, given the climate forecast. And there, I think, probably are numerous opportunities there that are hidden and- We need to be doing that work. But I'm not sure that we can think about this as a zero-sum. I think both things need to happen. We could spend a lot more time on adaptation. It's not that I don't want to, and I'm thinking about loss and damage. I'm thinking about the fact, frankly, that oftentimes we're not asked to. To address the risks until it's happened. And so we are in a very reactive mode, whether it's because of a disaster, like even the fires in Lahaina as an example of poor adaptation planning or, frankly, in the context of torts, which, you know, civil cases that actually put a price tag on the failure to act or the failure to adapt. So I do think we need to be doing it better. It's not zero-sum, and I think we look for co-benefits for communities. [BILL BARNETT] Well, we'll put Maxine. Thank you. So here's what we're gonna do for our... Well, wait, we had another questioner. I thought we had three more. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] All right. She's over here. [BILL BARNETT] Okay. Sorry. Because what I'm gonna do is have all... whoever still... So you two then, go ahead and both ask your questions. We'll do that old thing, right, where we get both questions out there, and then people can kind of address those questions. So let's start with you. [STEFAN SOJANSKI] Thanks so much for being here. I'm Stefan Sojanski, a first-year MBA and E-IPER. In recent years, there's been this debate between sort of the abundance folks and more traditional climate advocates about the need for permitting reform and how can we deploy at the speed we need to while still preserving our environment. And I just wanted to hear how sort of you folks were thinking through those trade-offs. [BILL BARNETT] Mm-hmm. Right. [STEFAN SOJANSKI] Yeah. [BILL BARNETT] Okay, great question, Stefan. [MARIA FAROUD] Hello. Thank you all for being here. I'm Maria Faroud. I'm also an MBA student. I think we were talking a lot about the carbon pricing element, and I'm sensing that there's skepticism about whether it can actually happen or not. So I just wanna confirm kind of what is the sentiment about this actually happening here in the US, and If the sentiment is that it's unlikely, then what is an alternative for us to think about when we want to actually put the true price of what is being sold or what is being produced on the products themselves? Thank you. [BILL BARNETT] Okay. Both really great questions. [DAVID HOCHSCHILD] Yeah, I can take a crack at the first one, if that's all right. So a lot of focus on technology innovation in our state. My agency, we do $150 million a year of research and development grants. I think process innovation is now just as, if not more, important. So We just implemented a new program. When you get solar on your roof or energy storage

### Segment 13 (60:00 - 64:00) [1:00:00]

home energy storage system, you typically would have to apply for a permit that sometimes takes 30 to 60 days. We've now done that, so it's all automated online, and we pushed out money for every county to adopt that. And then the state also adopted a new fast track permitting for large scale projects. So this Darden project, the largest battery project in the world I mentioned, which is now in construction, was done through that. There's a lot more to do in that arena. I read Abundance. I found it to be a really welcome kick in the pants to democratic governance. We have to deliver on these goals, and we sometimes just tie ourselves up in knots on making the perfect the enemy the good. And looking back at the Biden administration, there were so many amazing people in that administration, and that IRA was such a bold policy. I really regret that we didn't get the money out faster. At the end, looking back from what I know now, it should've just been pushed out as block grants to the states and get the money out and not try to check every single box because I think you end up having situations where it takes so long to fulfill those obligations, it doesn't happen. And so, unfortunately, a big chunk of the money that we hoped would be deployed got clawed back because of that. So I hope that is a lesson learned for the next administration. [BILL BARNETT] Okay, and then pricing is the other question out there. Oh, did you want to respond? [MAXINE BURKETT] I do. [BILL BARNETT] Yeah, go ahead. [MAXINE BURKETT] Simply because I found the abundance argument to be helpful in the sense that certainly working in federal government, coming from a public university prior to Stanford. Efficiency is really important, and you don't have to have a political ideological tilt for that to be really important. In fact, if you see injustice and want change, you're really thinking about how can we do this quickly and with as many positive returns as possible. So that sort of made sense to me. There are a lot of things that could be cut, but I actually think the diagnosis was a bit, just slightly off-center in the sense that The commitment and trust in the public good has been eroded in the United States for a very, very long time. Heather McGhee has written this book called The Sum of Us, which I think does an incredible job of providing, I think, a more three-dimensional diagnosis of why we're not investing in the public good. And with that, you have an opportunity to think more broadly beyond just whether or not there are too many boxes to check, or what permitting reform might look like. What does it mean for the general public to really be committed to better public infrastructure? Whether that's education, health resources, or physical infrastructure. So that, I think, seems really important for us to consider. And abundance can be this kind of mutual thriving. It's not just about more stuff, but it's about how we all kind of thrive together. [BILL BARNETT] Yeah, well put. And, Bob, I'm gonna give you the last word on pricing because that question was, I think, tailor-made for you. [BOB LITTERMAN] Well, as an economist, obviously we have to put price on carbon. If we do that, then the government can step out of the way. Yeah, you know? The Inflation Reduction Act, I guess, was the kind of a poster child for putting in too many other things, you know? It has to be union labor, this, it has to be that, it has to be... And in the end, it didn't get done. [BILL BARNETT] Right. [BOB LITTERMAN] So just get out of the way, put a price on carbon, and let business take care of it. [BILL BARNETT] All right. Well, thank you, Maxime, Bob, David. And before I ask you to give them a little round of applause, I want to put in a plug for the Stanford Initiative on Business and Environmental Sustainability. That's an initiative within this institute that links the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability with the Stanford Graduate School of Business. And I see my colleague Marissa Mendoza escape because this is where I always tell you to go over and tell her you were here because we keep a database of all the alumni and students and friends of Stanford. So she knew that was coming, so she escaped. So it's mmendoza@stanford. edu. That's how you get into our data because we want to be able to follow up with you. And thank you very much for coming. Let's hear it for our panelists. [SPEAKER 12] Thank you very much, Mr. President.