Fireside Chat at IHS CERAWeek – News

John
Kerry,
Special
Presidential
Envoy
for
Climate

Ernest
J.
Moniz,
President
&
Chief
Executive
Officer,
Energy
Futures
Initiative


As
Delivered


Speakers
:
Ernest
J.
Moniz,
President
&
Chief
Executive
Officer,
Energy
Futures
Initiative;

John
Kerry,
Special
Presidential
Envoy
for
Climate


Moniz
:
I
would
like
to
add
to
Dan’s
welcome
my
own.
I
am
Ernie
Moniz,
CEO
of
the
Energy
Futures
Initiative
and
I
had
the
pleasure
of
serving
President
Obama
as
the
13th
Energy
Secretary
and
in
that
role,
as
Dan
already
said,
I
had
the
enormous
pleasure
of
working
very,
very
closely
with
the
68th
Secretary
of
State,
my
great
friend,
John
Kerry.
In
fact,
as
Dan
mentioned,
in
2015
we
lived
together
quite
a
bit,
both
on
the
road
to
Paris
and
on
the
negotiation
of
the
Iran
deal.
And
this
is
a
case
where
I
am
very
pleased
to
say
that
familiarity
bred
friendship,
and
I
think
one
that
will
continue
to
serve
as
well
as
John
serves
President
Biden,
and
maybe
I
can
help
kibitz
from
the
outside
with
the
great
team
that
the
President
has
put
together.
John
and
I
are
also
fellow
Boston
College
eagles,
fellow
Bostonians,
we
have
lots
and
lots
of
associations.
Again,
I
welcome
him
and
I
welcome
all
of
you
for
what
I
think
is
a
very
important
conversation,
as
John
can
elaborate
on
the
President’s
and
his
plans
as
Special
Envoy

Special
Presidential
Envoy
for
Climate.
In
fact,
John,
again
welcome,
great
to
see
you,
and
let’s
just
jump
right
into
it
with
telling
us
about
the
President’s
and
your
plans
for
the
international
climate
scene
in
2021.


Kerry
:
Well
thank
you,
Ernie.
It’s
great
to
be
with
you,
and
I’m
delighted
to
appear
during
this
week’s
important
gathering
of
folks
in
the
energy
field
and
every
aspect
of
the
energy
sector.
And
I
might
just
add,
it
bred
not
only
friendship,
Ernie

but
it
bred
respect
because
your
knowledge
was
essential
both
in
helping
us
with
the
Iran
nuclear
agreement
as
well
as
Paris.

President
Biden
has
set
out
the
most
ambitious
climate
agenda
not
as
a
matter
of
ideology,
not
as
a
matter
of
politics,
but
exclusively
as
a
matter
of
listening
to
the
scientists
and
watching
and
evaluating
the
evidence.
And
the
fact
is
that
from
rejoining
the
Paris
agreement
within
hours
of
being
sworn
in,
to
pulling
together
a
climate
team
that
I
certainly
have
great
respect
for
and
am
proud
to
be
a
part
of

this
is
very,
very
high
on
our
agenda.
The
climate
crisis

and
it
is
a
crisis,
and
I
think
the
International
Energy
Agency
will
be
releasing
data
today
that
will
document
this
even
further

is
a
national
security
threat.
It’s
a
health
threat,
it’s
an
economic
threat

we’ve
spent
billions
upon
billions
of
dollars
just
cleaning
up
after
now
much
more
intensive
hurricanes,
storms,
floods,
fires.
Science
is
completely
unified
around
the
reality
of
what
is
happening
to
the
planet
and
what
will
continue
to
happen.
With
great
threats
to
human
beings
in
terms
of
conflict
potential,
massive
numbers
of
refugees

we
already
have
climate
refugees.
We
are
seeing
dislocation
with
respect
to
crops,
growing
farmers
around
the
world,
food
disruption.
Our
own
military,
the
Pentagon,
has
long
said
that
the
climate
crisis
is
in
fact
a
threat
multiplier,
and
the
military
is
making
all
kinds
of
contingency
plans
accordingly.

So
our
plan,
the
President’s
plan,
is
to
have
the
United
States
step
back
in
and
help
lead
a
sensible,
thoughtful
approach
that
is
based
on
the
science
and
based
on
good
economics
and
seizing
the
prospects
of
the
future
which
is
filled
with
opportunity
for
new
jobs,
for
extraordinary
growth
in
our
economy,
but
to
do
so,
building
back
better
from

COVID-19

and
investing
in
the
energy
transition
that
is
just
an
enormous
marketplace
of
the
future.
Some
500
billion
dollars
was
invested
in
transportation,
in
new
energy
power,
in
reduction
of
emissions
over
the
course
of
the
last
year
alone.
And
the
prospects
are
that
there
will
be
about
10
trillion
invested
over
the
next
30
years
as
we
move
to
the
mid-century
measurement
of
net-zero.
So,
our
goal
is
to
in
Glasgow,
in
about
8
months,
we
will
meet
with
the
nations
that
met
in
Paris
to
hold
the
Earth’s
temperature
hopefully
to
no
larger
than
1.5
degrees
Celsius
increase.
Our
hope
is
that
by
keeping
1.5
degrees
alive
in
the
next
ten
years,
we
lay
the
groundwork
for
the
exciting
venture
of
transitioning
to
clean
energy,
new
energy,
hydrogen,
whatever
it’s
going
to
be,
and
hopefully
so
many
of
the
folks
joining
us
today
will
be
part
of
this
important
transition.


Moniz
:
Great
John,
and
you
mentioned
the
importance
of
the
President’s
rejoining
Paris
so
soon
after
inauguration,
but
I
would
also
add
it
was
a
big
signal
when
he
appointed
you
so
soon
after
the
election,
and
in
fact
that
also
raised
the
national
security
implications
you
mentioned
by
also
giving
you
that
seat
on
the
National
Security
Council
and
cabinet
running.
So
these
signals
are
really
important.

If
I
go
back
to
Paris,
and
the
road
to
Paris,
I
think
one
can
argue
that
in
late
2014
when
President
Obama
and
President
Xi
appeared
together
and
talked
about
the
road
to
Paris
together,
that
may
have
been
really
the
key
turning
point
for
the
nations
of
the
world
coming
together
and
accepting
responsibility.
I’m
assuming
that
work
with

China
,
with
you
today
is
going
to
be
critical
but
of
course,
the
geopolitical
situation
with
China
is
so
much
more
complicated
and
tense.
Can
you
just
say
a
little
bit
about
how
you
see
that
going
forward?


Kerry
:
Well
Ernie,
it’s
a
great
question
and
it’s
obviously
a
compelling
moment
with
respect
to
the
relationship
with
China.
Yes,
there
are
tensions
today
that
did
not
exist
back
then,
or
they
existed
but
they
were
a
little
more
sub
rosa.
Now
they
are
out
in
the
open
and
it
is
no
secret
that
there
is
strong
competition
with
China
with
respect
to
any
number
of
fields,
and
there
ought
to
be.
That’s
not
a
problem

I
think
the
United
States,
people
don’t
believe
us
when
we
say
that,
President
Obama
used
to
say
it

we
welcome
the
competition!
The
United
States
does
well
with
competition,
and
we’re
not
afraid
of
it.
What
we
don’t
want
is
an
unfair
playing
field.
What
we
don’t
want
is
our
companies
having
their
intellectual
property
stolen
or
exacted
from
them
as
a
price
for
being
able
to
do
business,
and
so
forth.
These
things
are
obviously
significant
issues,
and
they
will
exist.

But
climate

the
climate
crisis
is
not
something
that
can
fall
victim
to
those
other
concerns
and
contests.
Because
China
is
30%
of
all
the
world’s
emissions,
it
is
the
number
one
emitter
in
the
world,
we
are
the
number
two
emitter
in
the
world,
and
when
you
add
Europe,
the
EU
as
an
entity,
you
are
well
over
55%
of
all
the
emissions
of
the
world
with
three
entities.
So
there
is
no
solving
this
by
any
one
country
alone.
You
have
to
have
China
at
the
table.
And
just
as
Ronald
Reagan
was
able
to
go
to
Reykjavík
and
negotiate
with
Mikhail
Gorbachev
and
turn
around
50,000
warheads
pointed
at
each
other
and
reduce
them
to
some
1,500+
today,
so
we
can
deal
with
this
as
a
compartmentalized
issue.
There
will
be
no
other
choices
if
we
don’t
deal
with
this
one
correctly.

So
I
believe
the
relationship
that
we
built
with
China,
I
remember
going
there
and
meeting
with
President
Xi,
negotiating
a
change
in
the
Chinese
approach
because
until
we
negotiated
in
2015,
China
had
been
leading
the
G77
and
in
opposition
to
most
of
what
we
were
trying
to
do.
So
that
has
changed,
and
we
will
engage
with
China,
we
will
be
pursuing
a
track
on
climate
that
does
not
get
confused
by
the
other
items.
And
we’ve
made
it
very,
very
clear
that
that’s
the
way
we
have
to
proceed.
I
think
China
can
be
a
critical
partner
in
this,
as
they
were
before.

Hopefully
India
also,
and
other
countries.

Russia

is
7%
of
emissions,

Japan

is
about
5%.
We
have
to
get
the
major
emitting
nations
back
together.
And
to
that
end,
President
Biden
has
instructed
me
and
our
team
to
pull
together
a
Summit
in
April

April
22nd

of
all
of
the
major
emitting
nations
of
the
world.
We
are
already
talking
to
them
about
this,
they
will
be
there
virtually
and
we
will
specifically
be
asking
all
those
major
emitter
nations
to
raise
their
ambition
as
we
go
to
Glasgow.
We
are
way
behind,
Ernie,
and
you
know
this.

Even
if
we
did
everything
that
every
country
set
out
to
do
in
the
Paris
Agreement

and
we’re
not,
but
even
if
we
did

the
Earth’s
temperature
is
predicted
to
rise
to
something
like
3.7
degrees
Celsius.
That’s
obviously
catastrophic.
That
is
why
the
raising
ambition
as
we
go
to
Glasgow
is
so
critical.
We
are
working
now
on
designing
our
Nationally
Determined
Contribution

NDC.
We
are
hopefully
going
to
announce
our
NDC
at
this
summit
in
April.
It
will
have
to
be
aggressive
because
we
are
behind.
I
think
it
will
become
more
apparent
to
countries
and
corporations
around
the
world
how
far
behind
we
are
in
the
course
of
these
next
weeks.
So,
this
issue
of
raising
ambition
and
getting
more
done,
of
holding
alive
the
1.5
degree
limit
and
of
setting
the
pathway
clearly
defined,
with
real
roadmaps
for
how
we
get
to
net-zero
by
2050

that’s
the
key.
And
that’s
exactly
what
we
are
going
to
be
focused
on
with
China
and
with
a
lot
of
other
countries.


Moniz
:
John,
you
could
make
some
real
news
by
telling
us
what
you
think
the
NDC
will
be.


Kerry
:
*laughs*
Aggressive.
It’s
got
to
be
achievable.
It
also
has
to
be
real,
Ernie.
And
we
know
that.
It’s
got
to
be
real,
achievable.
Look,
exciting
things
are
happening.
I
think
people
need
to
be
more
upbeat
about
the
possibilities
here.
We
are
staring
at
the
opportunity
to
have
the
greatest
economic
transformation
since
the
Industrial
Revolution,
certainly
since
the
communications
and
technology
burst
of
the
1990s.
But
this
is
the
biggest
market
the
world
has
ever
known.
It’s
a
five
billion
user
market
today,
it’s
going
to
go
up
to
nine
billion
users
over
the
course
of
the
next
30
years
as
we
grow
the
population
of
the
planet.
There
are
a
billion
people
who
have
no
electricity
today,
they
need
it,
they
want
it.

This
effort
to
transition
to
clean
vehicles,
it’s
happening.
Ford
Motor
Company
put
22
billion
into
new
vehicles,
into
EVs.
You
have
GM,
which
has
announced
by
2035
it’s
only
going
to
produce
electric
cars.
You
have
Tesla,
the
highest-valued
capitalized
corporation
in
the
world
in
the
automotive
industry
producing
only
electric
vehicles,
so
that’s
going
to
happen.
The
effort
to
transition
into
clean
power
production
is
absolutely
going
to
happen.
Already
it
is
cheaper
to
produce
with
both
wind
and
solar
as
opposed
to
many
fossil
fuels,
most

certainly
coal.

And
the
result
is
that
that
transition
is
already
being
made
by
the
marketplace.
Not
government-ordered,
not
regulated,
but
the
marketplace
is
making
the
decision
for
people.
And
I
think
if
you
look
at
what
is
going
to
happen
in
terms
of
investment,
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
says
that
the
only
three
places
where
they
predict
more
than
50%
job
growth
in
the
next
year
(and
there
are
3.6
million
jobs
now
in
that
area)
which
is
in
retail.
And
then
you
have
about
double
that
number
of
jobs
being
predicted
for
and
being
held
by
hotels
and
triple
that
amount
of
jobs
of
currently
working
folks
in
oil
and
gas.
So
there’s
just
a
clear
direction
that
the
marketplace
is
moving
already.
We
think
in
the
administration
that
if
we
build
back
smart,
build
back
better,
put
the
right
incentives
in
place,
and
work
with
the
industry
(and
we
invite
the
industry),
there
are
huge
opportunities
here.
You
know
this
better
than
anybody,
Ernie,
that
oil
and
gas
has
incredible
infrastructure,
incredible
capacity
to
move
energy
from
one
place
to
another.
What
if
that
happened
for
hydrogen?
There’s
a
future
in
I
think
this
new
partnership
as
we
design
the
energy
modalities
of
the
future,
and
I
think
it’s
a
very,
very
exciting
transition
that
we
are
looking
at.


Moniz
:
John,
that’s
great.
Let
me
just
pull
the
thread
a
little
bit
more
on
the
Chinese
“compartmenting”
of
the
climate
and
other
issues
in
the
sense
that
we
are
seeing,
frankly
increasing
tension
on
supply
chain
questions,
China
supplying
most
of
the
rare-earth
minerals
that
are
so
critical
for
clean
technologies.
The
question
is,
do
you
really
see
being
able
to
untangle
that
kind
of
competition
from
climate
cooperation?


Kerry
:
I
think
you
can
disentangle
some
of
it,
Ernie,
perhaps
not
all
of
it.
The
fact
is
that
India,
for
instance,
is
extremely
focused
on
the
idea
of
creating
its
own
solar
capacity.
You
know
full
well
there
are
advances
being
made
in
solar
panels
that
create
panels
that
are
40%
more
efficient
and
don’t
rely
on
the
same
ingredients
as
the
panels
being
produced
by
China
in
a
market
they
have
cornered
at
this
moment.
So
there
are
future
possibilities
here
of
new
supply
chains,
of
new
powerhouse
production
entities,
as
the
technology
advances,
which
it
will

technology
always
does.
I
think
we
are
going
to
see
a
very
different
field
of
competition,
number
one.
Number
two,
I
think
China,
in
the
conversations
that
I
had
when
I
was
Secretary
and
even
more
recently
in
these
last
couple
of
years
at
various
conferences,
expresses
a
willingness
and
desire
to
work
with
other
countries
with
respect
to
some
of
those
and
I
think
you
have
to
put
that
to
the
test.
I
don’t
think
we
have
yet.
The
One
Belt,
One
Road
is
a
challenge
with
respect
to
their
funding
of
coal
in
various
parts
of
the
world.
About
70%
of
the
new
coal-fired
power
coming
online
in
various
parts
of
the
world
is
Chinese-funded,
and
we’ve
raised
that
issue
with
them
and
that
will
continue
to
be
a
bone
of
contention.
But
I
do
think
for
instance
on
hydrogen,
that’s
“jump
ball”
right
now.
We
need
to
get
much
more
involved
in
the
development
of
that.

I
know
India,
I’ve
talked
to
industrialists
in

India

and
government
leaders
who
are
focused
on
the
potential
of
creating
India
the
hydrogen
economy
as
a
future. 
I
think
if
we
can
make
that
happen
in
a
way
that
is
not
as
energy
intensive
as
it
is
today,
not
as
fossil
fuel-intensive
as
it
is
today,
or
as
CO2-intensive
I
should
say,
because
if
you
have

I
mean,
as
unabated
carbon
intensive.
That’s
the
key
here.
And
I
think
the
fossil
fuel
industry
could
clearly
do
a
lot
more
to
transition
into
being
a
full-fledged
energy
company
that
is
embracing
some
of
these
new
technologies.
It’s
not
that
people

I
don’t
object
per
se
to
fossil
fuel,
I
object
to
the
byproduct
of
fossil
fuel
which
is
the
carbon.
That’s
the
problem

and
the
methane,
that’s
another
major
problem
emerging.
So,
we
have
to
be
able
to
abate.
It’s
the
debate
between
unabated
and
abated
production.

In
addition,
I
think
we
have
to
pursue
every
other
form
of
energy
as
a
hedge
against
whatever
technology
can
or
can’t
produce.
Obviously
if
we
have
a
breakthrough
on
storage
that
is
going
to
be
a
game
changer
and
people
are
chasing
that
Grail.
In
addition,
if
we
can
find
a
breakthrough
on
the
next
generation
of
nuclear,
some
people
may
be
shocked
to
hear
me
say
that,
but
I
think
fourth
generation,
modular,
some
variation
thereon.
Bill
Gates
is
pursuing
that
now,
assiduously.
I
think
we
need
to
see
how
that
comes
out
in
the
event
that
something
else
doesn’t
produce.
As
Bill
Gates
has
said,
one
of
three
miracles:
either
the
miracle
of
storage,
the
miracle
of
fusion,
or
the
miracle
of
fission.
Some
people
object
to
that
but
I
believe
we
need
an
“all
of
the
above”
approach
because
it’s
urgent
that
we
reduce
the
emissions
at
a
much
faster
rate
than
we
are
today.


Moniz
:
John,
I
can
only
say
that
your
allusion
to
carbon
capture,
the
abatement
issue,
carbon
dioxide
removal,
hydrogen,
advanced
nuclear

I
can
only
say
that,
for
whatever
it’s
worth,
I
am
completely
aligned
with
you.
We
need
to
provide
as
many
options
to
everyone
to
go
to
low
carbon
as
we
can.
But
you
know,
you
have
also
raised
now
a
couple
of
times
India.
Of
course,
India
and
China
also
have
some
“tensions”,
shall
we
say!
And
India
continues
to
grow
enormously,
even
since
Paris.
Any
comments
on
that
triangular
relationship?
US,
China,
and
India?


Kerry
:
Yes,
well
as
you
know
Ernie,
you
worked
very
hard
with
us
in
the
development
of
Mission
Innovation,
and
Mission
Innovation
needs
to
come
back
in
full
force,
there
are
folks
working
on
that,
we
are
going
to
try
and
see
if
we
can
push
the
innovation
curve
with
India.
India
has
a
plan
to
produce
about
450
gigawatts
of
renewable
power
by
2030,
it’s
a
very
ambitious
goal.
It’s
a
great
goal
but
they
need
about
600
billion
dollars
in
order
to
be
able
to
help
make
that
kind
of
a
transition.
Their
finance
is
perhaps
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
with
respect
to
India.
But
they
are
determined
to
lead
and
to
be
an
important
player
here
and
we
think
that’s
very,
very
significant,
we
want
to
work
with
them.
I’ve
put
together
a
small
consortia
of
a
number
of
countries
that
are
prepared
to
help
India
with
some
of
the
finance
and
transition,
I’ve
been
working
with
major
investment
houses
and
asset
managers
in
our
country
to
try
to
determine
how
much
private
sector
capital
can
be
directed
in
the
right
place
here
so
that
we
can
make
this
transition
faster.
Many,
many
companies,
as
you
know,
are
dealing
with
ESG
as
well
as
SDG
commitments
and
in
addition
now
finding
that
it’s
very
attractive
to
focus
on
a
directly
climate-related
type
of
investment.
I
know
Hank
Paulson
is
working
on
the
development
of
a
new
SPAC
that
will
be
focused
on
some
of
this.

There
has
been
enormous
growth
in
investment,
in
longer-term
speculation
investment
and
I
think
it’s
a
clear
“why”.
Predictions
are
that
by
2050
you’re
going
to
have
about
6
trillion
dollars
a
year
of
economic
transfer
taking
place
in
the
clean
energy
technology
sector.
It’s
the
market
of
the
future.
You’re
already
seeing
massive
allocation,
last
year
that
500
billion
that
was
allocated
to
wind,
solar
power,
transportation

clean
transportation,
electric
vehicles

is
enormous
and
there
is
no
sign
that
that
is
suddenly
going
to
be
reduced.
Most
people
are
predicting
it’ll
be
significantly
more
this
year.
The
marketplace
is
making
a
critical
decision
here.
I
think
this
is
going
to
race
ahead,
personally.
That’s
just
a
personal
feeling
about
it,
watched
it
over
the
years.
This
is
an
unprecedented
level
of
interest
and
an
unprecedented
level
of
capacity
that’s
been
developed.


Moniz
:
And
you
mentioned
Mission
Innovation,
I
think
the
major
step
forward
taken
on
the
first
day
of
COP21.
I
feel
that
even
in
these
last
four
years,
we
have
seen
in
Congress
quite
a
bit
of
bipartisanship
on
the
innovation
agenda.
How
do
you
see
that
going
forward?
Do
you
think
the
United
States
going
back
into
Paris
is
going
to
really
elevate
Mission
Innovation
and
maybe
establish
some
new
directions?
How
do
you
see
that
playing
out?


Kerry
:
Well
I
do,
Ernie.
I
think
it
should,
put
it
that
way.
Congress

I
spent
26
years
in
the
Senate

is
more
unpredictable
today
than
at
any
time
historically.
Obviously,
the
partisanship
is
a
problem
when
it
comes
to
asserting
America’s
best
interests
because
we
are
just
not
doing
it
in
many
ways.
We
need
a
major
infrastructure
investment
in
the
United
States
of
America.
Texas
is
a
prime
example
of
what
we
need
to
build
out,
which
is
a
capacity
to
transmit
energy
all
around
our
country.
We
have
an
East
Coast
grid,
we
have
a
West
Coast
grid,
we
have
this
singular
Texas
grid,
and
then
we
have
a
line
that
goes
across
the
north
of
our
country
from
Chicago
into
the
Dakotas,
etc.
We
have
a
gaping
hole
in
the
middle
of
our
country,
and
you
can’t
send
energy
from
one
place
to
another.
You
bear
the
scars,
Ernie,
of
trying
to
get
transmission
that
would
bring
electrons
from
the
western
part
of
our
country
to
the
east,
and
you
ran
into
the
politics
that
resisted
that.
We
can’t
afford
that
anymore;
we
need
to
have
a
smart
grid.
We
need,
in
this
age
of
artificial
intelligence
and
quantum
computing,
to
be
able
to
use
that
facility
to
be
able
to
send
energy
and
to
predict
ahead
of
time
what’s
going
to
happen
and
to
create
literally,
a
smart
grid.
That
will
save
us
huge
amounts
of
money,
it
will
actually
reduce
emissions,
and
produce
a
capacity
to
have
the
baseload
challenges
met
without
necessarily
having
yet
developed
all
of
the
storage.
So
you
get
to
maybe
80
or
90%
of
a
virtuous
cycle
with
renewables
and
a
better
mix.
We
are
working
with

Canada

now
to
see
what
we
can
do
to
perhaps
augment
the
amount
of
energy
coming
from
Canada
that
is
clean
and
help
us
produce.
We
are
going
to
have
to
get
rid
of
some
of
our
chauvinism
and
our
parochial
components
that
resist
common
sense
and
the
need
to
move
very,
very
hastily
to
get
this
done.


Moniz
:
You
certainly
remind
me
of
the
scars
that
you
referred
to
in
terms
of
also
facing
in
some
sense,
the
conflict
between
federal
and
state
prerogatives,
and
I’ll
just
mention
John
that
I
have
had
a
chance
to
talk
with
Jennifer
Granholm,
now
confirmed
as
the
16th
Secretary
of
Energy,
and
we’ve
talked
about
the
opportunity
for
her
to
acquire
some
of
these
scars
as
well
as
a
major
focus
of
her
activities.
John,
you
mentioned
something
very
important
that
I
would
like
to
go
back
to,
you
mention
how
the
oil
and
gas
companies
in
particular
can
become
part
of

let’s
call
it
your
‘allies’
in
this
climate
adventure.
I
think
today
the
large
utilities
in
the
United
States
have
certainly
been
in
the
lead
in
decarbonization.
Can
you
be
a
little
more
specific
in
terms
of
what
you
see
the
oil
and
gas
companies
doing
to
become
energy
companies?
And
in
fact,
just
this
morning,
looking
at
the
newspaper, I
saw
that
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
is
talking
about
supporting
a
carbon
charge.


Kerry
:
Well,
you
know
I’m
reminded
of
the
Saudi
oil
minister
in
the
1970s.
I
was
going
to
law
school
and
sitting
in
a
traffic
jam
for
hours
just
to
get
gas
as
we
were
lined
up
during
the
crisis,
doing
my
contracts
and
my
criminal
law
sitting
there
in
the
car,
advancing
five
feet
every
three
minutes.
The
oil
minister
said
that
“the
Stone
Age
didn’t
end
because
we
ran
out
of
stones,
and
the
oil
age
is
not
going
to
end
because
we
run
out
of
oil”.
And
I
think
we
need
to
take
that
to
heart
here.

The
market
is
changing.
People
want
electric
vehicles.
People
are
buying
differently,
and
they
are
looking
for
solutions.
People
are
demanding
this.

One
of
the
reasons
China
joined
us
a
number
of
years
ago
was
not
just
what
I
hope
was
some
power
of
persuasion,
but
they
joined
us
because
their
citizens
were
rebelling
against
the
quality
of
their
air,
the
quality
of
their
water,
and
in
China
there
was
a
political
rationale
for
them
moving.
Here
we
are
now,
if
you’re
a
chieftain
of
an
oil
and
gas
company,
you
can’t
help,
I
would
think,
but
read
the
tea
leaves
of
the
spreadsheets
of
what’s
coming
in
front
of
you
as
you
look
at
where
the
market
is
going.
You
already
see
that
people
are
going
to
be
buying
less
gas
in
the
future,
they
are
going
to
be
moving
to
electric
vehicles.
President
Biden
is
going
to
be
building
out
500,000
charging
stations
across
the
country.
He
is
going
to
be
rolling
out

hopefully
fast

the
transformation
of
500,000
school
buses
to
electric
buses.

So
this
question
of
producing
clean
power
is
going
to
grow
as
there
is
more
demand
for
that
energy,
but
also
it’s
going
to
be
clear
that
there
are
going
to
be
less
users,
less
people
coming
into
a
gas
station.
And
that
will
accelerate,
I
believe,
with
time.
Where’s
the
revenue
going
to
come
from?
If
you’re
sitting
there
in
an
oil
and
gas
company,
you
don’t
want
to
be
sitting
there
with
a
lot
of
stranded
assets.
And
some
people
are
obviously
fighting
to
hold
off
that
inevitability,
but
that
fight,
I
think,
is
useless
and
you’re
going
to
wind
up
on
the
wrong
side
of
this
battle.
What
they
ought
to
be
doing
is
figuring
out
‘How
do
we
become
not
an
oil
and
gas
company,
but
how
do
we
become
an
energy
company?
How
do
we
produce
and
how
do
we
reduce
the
byproduct
of
oil
and
gas,
which
is
carbon
(which
is
the
problem)
and
the
methane
(which
is
a
problem)?’

So
that’s
the
challenge.
There
are
some
companies,
I’m
not
going
to
get
into
naming
individual
companies,
but
there
are
some
companies
you
are
all
familiar
with
which
are
moving
more
aggressively
to
make
that
transition.
And
there
are
others
which
continue
to
fight
to
hold
onto
whatever
the
market
share
is,
which
is
going
to
diminish.
I
think
you’re
gonna
have
long
haul
hydrogen
trucks
whether
it
is
Tesla
or
Daimler
or
Nikola
or
whoever
it’s
going
to
be-
I
don’t
know,
but
it’s
going
to
happen.
Europe
is
moving
more
rapidly
to
smaller
but
nevertheless
hydrogen
vehicles.
You
have
hydrogen
cars;
the
test
is
going
to
be
how
do
we
produce
the
hydrogen
in
a
way
that
is
not
damaging
and
so
energy
intensive?
We
will
get
there,
we
are
going
to
do
that,
I
have
no
doubt
about
it.
So,
if
you’re
involved
as
an
oil
and
gas
company
today,
you’ve
got
this
incredible
infrastructure,
you
have
the
ability
to
move
and
transport
hydrogen.
There
are
all
kinds
of
ways
to
transition

and
to
accelerate
this
transition,
which
we
need
to
do.
I
think
it’s
fairly
obvious,
Ernie,
I
don’t
think
there’s
any
rocket
science
in
it.
But
yes,
there
still
is
resistance
to
this
transformation
and
that’s
something
we
really
can’t
afford
very
much
anymore.


Moniz
:
Well
thanks
John,
I
think
this
has
been
very,
very
illuminating
for
everyone
to
understand
how
you’re
approaching
this
year
and
the
President’s
approaching
this
year.
You’ve
got
a
big
job
to
do,
an
important
job
to
do,
and
it’s
in
good
hands.
Thanks
for
sharing
this
time
with
us
here
and
the
CERAWeek
audience
and
thanks
for
all
of
you
for
listening
in.


Kerry
:
Thanks
for
your
leadership
too,
Ernie.
We
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.

Source: Sam News

More News