We are pleased to host the conversation tonight. Also lucky to have michael here tonight in conversation. Welcome. Some of you may remember this. Twenty years ago will be three this november and are pleased to be a part of the upper left side and a place to celebrate great important, new work. To keep us here i encourage you to pick up a copy of the book and we can continue to be a stronghold for important work. You may have noticed that cspans book tv is here, during q a please wait for me to come to with the microphone. That way will have the recording of your questions. A few last things, after the talks will open the table for robert to sign. Please pay for your book on the way out. The new press has been a great partner for us in terms of bookselling and a great launchpad especially in recent times books like our lease for the new jim crow and now this new addition to their catalog on mine, hope, and survival. That has been widely hailed as and booksellers alike have praised this and we can vouch for that. I think thats, not for me. Robert is a psychiatrist with more than 20 books and edited many others including his National Book award, nazi doctors and psychology genocide. This with the. Witness to an extreme century. He is professor of professional practice at Columbia Law School teaches courses on environmental law, and Energy Regulation and the structure of the center for Climate Change log. Thank you for coming. [applause] thank you for coming. Its an honor to be here. I like to launch straight into my first question,. Before the will answer your question anyhow, my book is a book about Climate Change but not about the science or politics of it, its really about a mindset and a change in mindset in relation to Climate Change. Thats where this this world comes in. The term is loose but persistent that begins with the ancient roman poet who use it to talk about on disk expected changes in the movement of particles which he thought he thought made up all of matter. Many writers have embraced a, most recently stephen green, the humanist who wrote a book called the swerve, talking about this word. My argument in the book is we are undergoing this work, a change in collective consciousness in relation to climate. More and more, and this is confirmed by various polls and studies, mormor we are becoming aware of the true narrative of Climate Change. That is six existence, the human contribution to and in that way we see ourselves even if we dont express it this way as members of a single species in deep trouble. The major expression was the paris accord in 2015. So briefly thats a beginning answer to your question. I want to tell a brief story that will lead to with robert. I was in the republic of the national islands. He said some decade, we will be underwater and that brings up the good issues if a country is underwater, does it still have a seat at the United Nations . What is the citizenship of people from a country that no longer exists . To have legal remedies against the countries that did this to us . I did not have those answers. We convened and that led to a book and many other things but another aspects is the Marshall Islands is the side of 79 nuclear debt detonations. In the late 1970s when the u. S. Was ready to pack up and give the Marshall Islands their independence, they a lot of the Radioactive Material they bulldozed into the lagoon. One of the Nuclear Weapons had been a dud will said the plutonium fragmented into about 450 chunks. So they sent the serviceman out to collect the chunks of plastic fakes. Went to a crater that was left and put an 18inch thick dome over this crater in 2010 my First Business i had occasion to go there and walk on top of the dome. Its unfenced it on garden. U. S. Government acknowledges a good typhoon would blow it off. Eventually itll be underwater but the u. S. Government says its not so bad because the radiation outside the dome is as high as the radiation inside it. So if its release, no harm, no foul. You and i converge in relation to the Marshall Islands because the people of the Marshall Islands may be the most unfortunate people in the world, in the sense of being victimized but what i call the apocalyptic twins, both nuclear and climate effects and threats and their more than threats, theyve experienced both of them in the most extraordinary way. Some 20 years or so ago i was asked to do a report and returns to the nuclear effects. You cannot separate them from climate effects. Only wrote the report the two converge on everything they experienced or did, what they ate, was on the island, then going back and forth and being evacuated and having no sense of the future of any different or better promise for them. So the marshals represent the convergence of the apocalyptic twins. The convergence of the two greatest threats that we human beings face and what i have found in writing my book is that its rather hard to look at one without looking at the other. Since the end of the cold war most of us have not thought about the prospect of nuclear war. We now have two Nuclear Powers, the United States and north korea the are run by irrational men. Can you discuss the psychological relationship between fear of nuclear war in fear of Climate Change . First let me say that there is always a struggle to have some connection between mindsets and threat. Its usually said wrongly that all anxiety and fears bad, a certain amount is appropriate in relation to both nuclear and climate. During the protest especially the early 80s against Nuclear Weapons which was a protest against nuclear is some exaggerated against things we really cant do. Prevent war, sustain life, even a kind of worship of them and that was express by some people that brought an appropriate mindset to the actual danger for at least that time. Little was thought about in connection with climate in those days, the early to mid 80s. Quite possible this nuclear swerve which we could call it was at least partly responsible in preventing the use of Nuclear Weapons since nagasaki, you cant know that but i believe that is part of the story you cannot look at one of these threats without looking at the other. When you go back to examine was going on at the time of nuclear test ever since world war ii you would find that we are doing studies of environmental effects, what they did to the soil and trees, geological studies, Earth Sciences so the Climate Nuclear threats were connected from the very beginning. Whats happened psychologically as they pass each other in the night and our mindset as you said since and of the cold war had little place for nuclear fear. We thought the cold war was over and things were fine. Its not the case. She looked at it closely people thought it was maybe even worse because the weapons would be miniaturized. There is little awareness of nuclear danger. Increasing awareness of climate danger. Then in peoples minds, they became interchanged. I did a study with a colleague some years ago we interviewed people about nuclear fear. They interchanged in the same paragraph or sentence nuclear fear and climate of fear because they both had to deal with the fear of the end of everything. Those are some thoughts in relation. In the meantime, Climate Change has occupied more in nuclear fear, little less. Thats not a stable situation. Nuclear fears and assent stimulated when danger of the use emerges like now. Those are some thoughts in relation cheer question. One difference is that no one tonight Nuclear Weapons were dangerous. Some said a Nuclear War May be survivable but nobody denied their dangerous. The most recent poll found that 78 of democrats believe the climate is warm and humans are largely responsible, but only 24 of republicans. The people who dont believe in Climate Change are characterized as a tribe. Is there some way to change the views of the try or move people out of the tribe . Whats the future . There was denial about Nuclear Weapons being dangerous in a way. If you read edward terror the projections of fighting, surviving, even winning the nuclear war and rebuilding one society. They did this with advocating, theres policies that could lead to nuclear war with the assurance we could survive it. This is been quoted in many places by saying we should never restrict the size or amount of the weapons. If you dont keep up with it, you fall behind. Whats most interesting is that it turns out Herman Robert keller were climate tonight years. A similar mindset that has to do with anticommunist and obsessively anticommunist position. A sense that there is danger coming from our enemies which we must always deal with by creating better and bigger Nuclear Weapons. In the complete faith in science and technology. I was surprised to find some of same people i had examined in relation to Nuclear Weapons were early climate deniers. And then i would say that i speak less of client to layers, moral climate retractors now. So much has this swerve of consciousness taken place that its virtually impossible to live in our world and not have some part of our mind aware of global warming, Climate Change and its relationship to carbon emissions. One can reject that knowledge, suppress it in another part of ones mind and reject it because its inconsistent with ones Anti Government point of view as we see with trump and many of his cohorts right now. And also with ones worldview and identity. One must rejected even though one knows it does exist. This process goes on, my argument in the book is that not even trump, no person or group is larger than this climate swerve which is a massive shift in awareness and sense of climate danger. So even they have difficulty sustaining a rejection of Climate Change. We can talk about this if you like. To what extent, we look at changing the views of the tribe. I do think that one can assert a truth about Climate Change and i wrote an oped ten days ago about this in the New York Times in which i claim these major hurricanes in rapid succession which really devastated full islands and cities that were beautiful and active one moment then in ruins one hour later that this created that imagery we have not had before. And i think that there is a larger number of people who use that terminology of retractors who will never change but there is a Larger Population of people who are on the fence and waver between some sort of scattered idea of climate images are we contributing to them . And a more formed awareness of cause and effect and the contribution to Climate Change. By advocating for them, it takes activism above and below, one has to take to the streets and elect the right people to seek knowledge from below and above to bring them together to achieve something as much as paris demonstrated in relation to the climate. So where there continues to be partisan division is guncontrol we see those horrible images with the nightclub in florida now las vegas on and on but yet it has not had any effect on national policy. Do you think this will be different with the succession of hurricanes are now the fires in california will have an impact on the government . It is hard to predict anything in these areas but i do say that climate is different from gun control that climate envelops everything nothing that we do that is not related to the climate issue even nuclear is not as allconsuming as climate. In that sense climate is always with us and with those hurricanes and the fires which are devastating and worse than ever of any on record or any manifestations. We used to think and still do that that is a gradual sequence of more and more danger but that is the outmoded view. Climate danger is already with us. You know that in your work with the islands with the threat falling into the sea that countries that will no longer exist. And with these hurricanes that i mentioned. With hurricanes and storms all of this has become closer to what has developed our sense and i dont think we can rid ourselves of it. I think the climate politics has already been changing. There are several republican groups to connect with Climate Change. An economic approach that says the Carbon Economy is not reliable and you find more reliability and revolutionary growth at is renewable sources of energy and that is expected so there are indications that in my book i dont make any predictions. I am not optimistic i am hopeful but i am not pessimistic. I am modestly hopeful this change which has begun can be translated into political actio action. So pick up on your observation with your technological optimism with the deniers of the and survivability of the nuclear war that many who dont want to take action on Climate Change believe Nuclear Power is a major part of the solution. If we had Nuclear Power plants then everything would be fine. But they are wildly not economical and more expensive and others see if there is a problem then we can geo engineer and it is very serious work to be done on that. Do you have any observations . For what things there is a central figure to look at james hansen who is a hero early on he testified in the late 80s. To disseminate news about Climate Change. And with her own contribution to which. That he came a few years ago to the view that only Nuclear Energy can save us and because of his record he couldnt be dismissed. And a figure who represents this problem you are raising. I spent six months in hiroshima interviewing survivors of the atomic bomb. It is the same technology. It is dangerous of all technologies. So a new form of Nuclear Terrorism and to do all sorts of risk studies but the problem is there is little risk mathematically but once something happens like hiroshima can be devastating to harm or threaten with radiation affects hundreds of thousands of millions of people from one meltdown. So yes, the faith of technology with the technology is a Risk Technology you ask it to do what you dont want to do it humanly that human action takes care of the problem with the assumption technology can take the place of human action but it cant. The technology that spray aerosol into the upper atmosphere to keep out the sun are really chemotherapy for the planet. If you are very sick with no other alternative but if it is all that you have left then try it. So then they think it is a great solution. If i get lung cancer i will just take chemotherapy. Nobody says that. And we dont know about its dangers of geo engineering. After all trying to change the temperature and trying to load the longest lower the temperature. With that Environmental Impact statement. I hear talk about recycling and with mass transits. And with personal consumption do they help contribute to the swerve . With the Environmental Impact or do they divert attention from the major issues or make people think . They probably do all of those but in general it is fine for people to look at our own lives. And to consume a maximum amount of energy. To be consistent with the consciousness or awareness of climate issue. But it cannot be a replacement for the large universal adjustments that have to be made. So all of humankind to have a problem of Climate Change or global warming. And that needs action on the part of everyone. But what i think of one way to look at it is the evolutionary question of adaptation. The organizing principle is the species because because then we all go down. We used to have a toast in the doctors Anti Nuclear Movement made by and as a dominant group. And to always go this way. I drink to your health and to that of your leaders and your people if you survive we survive and if you die we die and that same toast applies to climate. So in that Southern Hemisphere in the geographical areas it is an allusion to think we are not all a part of it. And rather than the individual and i think that this raises the question what responsibility we have. It isnt so much to look at her own carbon imprint but as to use our professional knowledge to bring to bear Climate Change. And you go through the prism. And to be ethical professionals to have activism on the score. And so right now there is the malignant normality. With that normal nationals set of arrangements as professionals we have to recognize of the normality to speak up and take a stand. That is our responsibility. So what should professionals do in various professions to effectuate that . We should think about what we know. That duty to warn movement of those who take the stand to have the obligation to tell the country what we know about Donald Trumps psychological patterns that render him unfit for the office. And there are legal issues there are medical issues in Public Health issues and ethical issues. And philosophical issues. Nobody with any profession who cannot connect with his or her professional knowledge and i think people that we are still and open society. And we dont use that possibilities. And that is what being a witnessing professional consist of. And many of us in the Legal Profession and the large number with the what they are trying to do. As professionals when i interviewed people from roche about it was scientific interview of those exposed to the atomic bomb that i was also bearing witness with that five present standards that had done to a people in the city. But that kind of witness. And with every profession that can deepen our knowledge. This also extends to the view of scholarship and activism. But we dont believe what scholarship and activism shall meet as certain forms of german and academic tradition as they insist upon. And that gives purpose to scholarship to debts and activism to feed each other. And with that witnessing professional must combine them. And in relation to Climate Change. So what they are constantly witnessing is that a few months ago new York Magazine that is called the uninhabitable earth. And that presented the apocalyptic view of the future leading to controversy. It was mostly scientifically accurate. But it leads to controversy of such a stark picture. And that is a positive step if it is positive movement or just paralyzes. We struggled with the same issue. For one thing and reading this literature about the article there was some question that if they were exaggerated but apart from that with the Doctors Movement we would go to major cities and then those cities in europe but the bomb would do if dropped in the center of the city, the number was the same as certain number of people would be killed, radiation affects and no medical facilities would remain. So in effect we would like to but there is no medical stuff around to help you. But we found depressed, we thought seriously that can tell people a hard truth and give them hope to indicate what they might do there are lots of things with those attitudes from above and below similar to what we think about in relation to climate. But i also think we should constantly looked toward what might be done with a lot of suffering to avoid the most. But there is always a balance and some indication of the possibility of action and hope. Similar to what you discussed, a group called do you know what it is stark but there is a lot of things that could be done. We are to have eight had removed toward clean and efficient. Having said that we have a few minutes left i would like to invite people in the audience. Just a quick reminder question. To pick up on the last comment. What about children with that ecological literature. Dont warn them but then recruit us but how . There is no single way but according to their age and readiness when we think about this but rather than anything from the kids but nowadays even more so because kids have access to so much information you could be five or six years old with lots to do for Climate Change. So the general principles tell it early and in a way indicate what you stand for as a parent in relationship to larger approaches like paris that is my general sense. I read your book. It is marvelous and youre off ed was very moving and inspiring. Who did you have in mind as your audience . What is your hope . I dont write books with a specific audience in mind. I try to say what i can in nontechnical language but i do that in other ways this book has the virtue of being very short and reads like a novel and like Danielle Steel left last yes i hope it does get around to supplement one thing about Climate Change nobody could cover all that it entails to approach it from a particular Vantage Point and that is being so immersed in a Nuclear Threat for so long but also looking at symbolic mortality or human interconnectedness. My hope is that people will respond to that to see some glimmer of hope in the achievement of new jersey now as much as we have to do. Can you explain that correlation for those that are antigovernment or vice versa . That is a terrible problem because there is antigovernment tradition and is embraced as rejecting Climate Change and antigovernment stand there is very little governing and that is the big problem because you must have very active participation in order to do anything in the direction of adaptation for the species and often that antigovernment attitude is consistent those people that come from texas but when houston was demolished by the hurricane for future recovery it is a continuing struggle to help people to understand governments do constructive things or they should for situations like this that threaten all of humankind so in general we shouldnt be blinded by radical antigovernment people with Climate Change. I dont believe any personal group is larger than this were that i am with human awareness. As we carry through our protest and we never reach a moment working towards sensible policies from both below and above with hair collaboration. So rejecting versus denying the climate . Perhaps it is too painful emotionally to grasp the daily activities are the cause of Climate Change because it doesnt jive with my internal view i am a good person but in terms of getting out these hopeful messages what is the best way forward to get people to accept their responsibility toward this issue but also persuade them to change . I dont believe there is anyone best method. To do what we as individuals or as members of a discipline but you are right to say the way each of us lives though comfortably to heat or cool our houses or apartments even in our diet how that affects Climate Change all of these are difficult to accept we do well for truth this fight the opposition. And as we say before. And in a manner they consider to be constructive. With that species adaptation. So as that conservative who believes in Climate Change so to challenge your thinking. And in a way to make sense and what has occurred and those that have been presented to conservatives are extremely leftwing. And then that all sounds like conservative of more taxes and spending and bigger government. So coming up with new solutions on conservative ideas like tax cuts that you can persuade conservatives it is something worth doing. I want to point out, you mentioned texas it could be the biggest red state but also the leader with wind energy and has done very well. And with a handful of a more conservative approach. But i agree with what you said but maybe the primary issue is a matter that is not liberal or conservative or radical. Or the danger of civilization because Climate Changes so real and progressing at a more rapid pace. And this particular issue goes beyond any political issue. And with those aspects of it why those conservative thinkers are now speaking out to say that they want their group to recognize Climate Change but in relation to the economics and the better economics of Renewable Energy sources. It is an issue we should struggle to make and that is what we emphasize with the need to come together with the issue. Can i just ask you to elaborate on reading of the word hope in the subtitle of your book . What is the nature you are talking about . Pessimism is the certainty that things will turn out badly but optimism is the strong expectation it will turn out okay but hope involves the possibility of our achieving what we are talking about. So my book guarantees nothing but in that mindset and that earlier title was mind and habitat because it is about the mindset in relation to the habitat. Those that have taken over the evolutionary process but we only use a part of nature that we are destroying and hope involves our capacity in a revolutionary and political way to give a glimmer of renewal some measure of human survival. That is a reasonable hopeful way to and this dialogue. [applause] [inaudible conversations] what is this book about . Washington d. C. We have a back to the City Movement that want to be downtown but when they come downtown they all cannot afford downtown so they are moving to low income neighborhoods on the peripheries of these are areas and with public housing. And and with the city. And how they are increasing in gentrification has gone wild in washington d. C. So 52 of those but they try to understand the process and the waves in the nations capital. And then how do you benefit the lives of low income people . Looking at those who are able to stay in place and for many of them to be residentially displaced and with this mixedrace communities that are sustainable. But do they welcome gentrification . Because there were so Many Properties so they need to get revenues. And then they bring back the district . So with that comes the gentrification so now there is a 14 billiondollar annual budget can that be more equitable . To be more distributed. And that is what i hope and with that network so they can benefit. They have grown economically and now it is time for the city to put in that policy. And then how does that counteract . With residential displacement. With a 100 milliondollar trust fund but to have that capacity and then as the city start to gentrify they have to do with political replacement and in the neighborhood then they segregate. In those mixedrace communities. And then in the United States when we have integrated communities with those ethnic groups. And then those social bridges. And this is what we need to do. To make these communities work. Is washington d. C. Is unique how it has handled this . That they are unique of that magnitude it is pretty incredible. So over 52 of low Income Housing is gentrified. So if you look in the United States d. C. Is number two. There has been a tremendous amount and that is what seems very unique. So what is the take away . I hope they realize we dont want to replicate the normal in the 50s where we did redevelopment and in the 90s i hope we look at preventing residential displacement and doing things for low income people. We did mixed Income Housing. But that would benefit the lives of the people. We need to go beyond housing. And you see there is more similarities than differences. We really do focus how you go beyond that in the mixedrace to be sustainable and equitable okay hello everybody. Hello everybody. Welcome to the