Like just an isolated place, off to where you can be around people of your kind. You know, that we can relate to each other. Im a disobedient child, youre a disobedient child, you do what you want to do, i do what i want to do, so we get together and were going to be even worse. It didnt help me in no kind of way. The one i went to, there wasnt no one trying to actually teach. All they were doing is just doing something with you at that point in time because youre a kid, they cant just kick you out of school or get rid of you. Thats for bad kids, like a babysitter or something. Do feel like anything that happened there helped you avoid ending up where you did . No, no. I think with me going there, i think that helped me end up where i am now. Its green versus green, green as in the environment and green as in money, with people all over the world marching over Climate Change. Ill look at capitalism and the economys part in this planets Climate Crisis. Also the first family of american oil takes a stand against fossil fuels, one of heirs to the rockefeller fortune talks to me. Plus ill talk to the head of the world bank about the cost of containing the Ebola Outbreak. Real money. This is real money. You are the most important part of the show. So tell me what is on your mind by tweeting me or hitting me on facebook. Com. Leaders from 120 countries are descending on the United Nations headquarters to try to agree on ways to reduce man made Greenhouse Gases which are blamed by most people for Global Temperatures that are 1. 3 higher than the previous centurys average. Joining them are Business Executives and environmental activists with agendas of their own to push. Meanwhile on the city streets, protesters calling themselves flood wall street attempted to blockade the downtown financial district to draw a link between economic policies and the environment. And todays protest came on the heels of a much bigger demonstration on sunday in which an estimated 310,000 people came out for a new york city climate march, the biggest protest of its kind. Now the momentum for combatting Climate Change is growing in unison with the amount of Greenhouse Gases getting released into the atmosphere. A new report shows worldwide Carbon Dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning rose to a record 9. 9 billion tons in 2013. Globally those emissions jump, but they are up a whopping 61 compared to previous levels. China remains the worlds biggest polluter. And thats fuelled in part by newly built coalburning power plants, but the United States still emits more carbon per person than any country in the world. Underupsecretary general ban kimoon is calling for a noble agreement by 2015 that limits the world to lease than 2 2 2 sellssus rise in temperature. He wants rich countries to contribute at least 15 billion this year to a Worldwide Green Climate Fund that helps poorer nations cope with the Climate Change. Already these kinds of schemes are being proposed at the local level rich and poor alike, including right here in new york city. Patricia sabga reports. Reporter mobilizing against Climate Change on the streets of new york, marching with demonstrators sunday, the mayor stakes new york citys claim at the vanguard of urban Climate Action unveiling plans to slash Greenhouse Gas emissions in the big apple. Nearly threequarters of the outbudget is to come from heating and cooling buildings. De blasio s plan calls for retrofitting buildings and getting private landlords to go greener through a mix of incentives and legal mandates. The up front price tag is estimated at 1 billion, but the plan claims the citys economy will benefit through new construction jobs and energyrelated cost savings of 1. 4 billion a year. New york has already suffered a heavy toll from rising sea levels. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy caused 44 deaths and 19 billion worth of damage. De blasio also claims the plan will lower utility plans for lowerincome new yorkers who tend to live in older buildings. An argument that is likely to be a cloud pleaser. Patricia sabga, al jazeera, new york. A new book argues that capitalism, not carbon is to blame for the Climate Crisis. In this changes everything, naomi cline argues that capitalism hasnt only widen the gap between rich and poor but is destabilizing our economys life support too. She is a board member for 350. Org a global grass roots move to solve the Climate Crisis and she joins us now. Us. Thank you for having me. Its interesting what mayor de blasio says, he says not being Energy Efficient exacerbates the divide the rich and poor. We live in buildings and have shared services, but this idea that its creating inequality, you are arguing that inkwee a inkwee inequality was created by capitalism. Explain that. We know we are having a really lively and longover due debate about unequality, but what im arguing is that that same quest for shortterm profits, growth above all else regardless of the costs is the reason not just why peoples homes are being foreclosed on, but why our collective home is being destabilized. Do you argue if not for capitalism we would have done better . We would also probably not be as far advanced as we are. What im arguing is this crisis hit us at the worst historical moment. It landed in the main stream in 1988. That was the year that james hanson testified and said im sure there is a connection between co2 and warming. Thats when governments set their first targets. So i look at, okay, what else was going on. And what was happening in 1988, the first free trade deals were being signed, and it was the moment of triumph for deregulated capitalism. What we just heard from the mayor, right, you need to invest in the public sphere and decide which parts of the economy do you want to grow and what parts need to contract. Obviously we need to contract the parts that are pal looting and expand the parts that will get us off of fossil fuels. Youll create more jobs this way, but you need to plan. And this crisis hit us when all of these words became dirty, planning, no, regulating, we cant do that. So thats the argument, and now we have waited so long that we need to act with such decisiveness that it does challenge this core logic of indiscriminate growth. We are doing very well with fracing in this country. Lots of people accept that it creates earthquakes, because it creates prosperity, but people wonder why fracing companies are allowed to put xhem calls in the ground and not tell us what it is. Why do these things even exist . Because fossil fuel companies dont just have enough money to burn, they also have enough money to bribe even if that bribery is legal. We know this is the wealthiest sector in the economy, exxon mobil made 45 billion in profits a couple of years which is more money than anybody has ever made in history in profits, and they have an enormous impact over the political sphere. We know there are all of these knockon benefits to climate protection. We have healthier bodies, better designed cities. I mean like the greenest cities in the world we know are some of the happiest cities, the problem is its not all winwin, and i think thats the biggest barrier, is that ever since the 80s, its been were not allowed to talk about pal looter pays environmental itch, it is polluter pays. And the logic is, because they are the problem, they will come up with the solution. Right. But if we were to apply that logic to banking regulation, like do you really think if you were to get all of the big banks together to fix the financial right . 73 countries and a thousand companies coming together to device a way to put a price on carbon. That seems to work in the capitalist fuel. If i want to pollute, then i have really got to know what the price of doing so is. That seems to have logic. Putting a price on carbon is going to get us part of the way there. The thing is what michael mann calls the procrastination penalty. We have known about this for decades, and all the while our emissions have been going up. The world has a finite carbon budget before we lose our chance of staying below 2 celsius warming, which our governments have decided we dont want to do, so within that budget we need to move faster than just a carb carbon tax can do. Were willing to talk about these easy gentle market mechanisms, but were not talking about the fact that we have to say no to the companies arctic. We are both canadians, and canada is a disproportion at it sands. It is. Wealthy. Well, its interesting, because merrill lynch, banc of america just issued a report that was incredibly damaging to the canadian government, because thats what Stephen Harper has been telling canadians, this makes us rich. In fact it only accounts for 2 , the tar sands. And it says now it is destroying jobs because it has become so expensive to manufacture. On the other hand lots of studies show, if you were to invest that money in renewable energy, and public transit, you would create seven to eight more jobs. So it just involves saying no to some very powerful actors, in canada we have basically a merger between oil and state, and thats been a huge barrier to action. Thats why our Prime Minister tomorrow. Thats a good point. Naomi cline thank you for being here. The rockefellers vast wealth flowed from oil. Now the heirs are turning away from that key to their oh, i love pet day. You guys are just two big softies. Cut it out. Look at these guys. Oh, you. [laughter] ohhh they just unlocked our channels for a week ohhh. And. They just made it free. Ahh. Looks like its xfinity free channel week weve unlocked a collection of channels on tv and xfinity on demand, like encore, nick jr. And disney xd. Totally free for a week learn more at xfinity. Com freechannelweek. Thats why im a cat guy. Here is some irony for you on the day when the world is up in arms about Climate Change. An American Family whos fortune was built on oil is joining the month to divest from fossil fuels. The rockefeller Investment Fund said it would cut investments tied to coal and oil sands to less than 1 by the end of this year. Rockefeller will sell other investments in fossil rules as quickly as possible. About 6 is invested in a variety of energy companies. And im talking about money controlled by the heirs of John D Rockefeller who cofounded standard oil and become the First American worth more than a billion dollars. The man who created a refiner and oil producer with such monopolistic power that the Supreme Court ordered it broken up into 34 accept ray companies all the way back in 1911. He gave away more than half a billion dollars to support various educational, scientific and religious causes. And in 1940, the sons created the Charitable Fund that today announced it will slash investments in Companies Involved in coal and oil sands. The rockefellers are joining a movement to divert from fossil fuels that has attracted 181 institutions and local governments. One of the great great granddaughters is a trustee and the chairman of the rockefeller fund. She marched in new york yesterday that attracted hundreds of thousands of people, and she said the funds moved to cut investments in fossil fuels is, quote, part of a natural progression. She joins me now. Pleasure to have you here. Thank you. Thank you so much. I was out of town yesterday, i came back just as all of this was ending, and i have seen a lot in new york and a lot of demonstrations and gatherings, but i had the sense that this was a Tipping Point in new york, that i had never seen this many people from all walks of life deciding were going to talk a standing about something, and i just said with naomi cline, i wonder whether there is a Tipping Point, where people feel like they can influence this. I think we have reached it. It is such a diversity of people working and coming together, and there are a lot of people who have been working on this issue for a long time. And im proud to say our family we embrace this irony, but we think that puts us maybe even under greater moral obligation, using that wealth through our philanthropic means, professional and personal means, any way we can in working to stop Climate Change. Exxon mobil is a descendant of the original companies. Obviously there are people in the family who own stock in that company. How do you reconcile that. We filed for the 2003, Shareholders Meeting filed a petition for them to be more forthcoming. We have also met a few times with the company, so the dialogue is happening. Were hoping to see faster change. Which is why we have gotten together now with there are 70 organizations that are part of this divest, invest movement. It is not massive compared to all of the Energy Investments out there, but we will do anything we can to encourage everyone who was was at that climate march can Work Together to move us toward the future. What do you think is it your great great great grandfather two greats. I am the fifth generation. What would he think . He would be looking at efficiency, which he always did. He was very forward looking, and very attentive to details, and i think he would be looking again at the true cost of the details. He was a deeply moral person, deeply religious and tithed his entire life. He would see this as part of the mission to preserve our environment for generations, the families have cared deeply about the environment, and he would say this was the smart thing to do. He was an innovator. A lot of the money to be made, which is important, we are a granthmaking foundation, and business as philanthropy, so we are certainly not willing to risk our endowment, so i think senior would be right in there with us. Until now it hasnt been obvious that your return can be as good or better in in alternative energy than it is in traditional energy. One of the best reasons to not divest from energy for the last couple of decades has been it really returns a lot of money. Uhhuh. How do you make up for that. Anybody who has a kid in college or a college kid will know most have had this discussion not to invest in fossil fuels, and the ones who have decided not so, have said we have a responsibility. I think this is why we have undertaken this very carefully. We have been looking at this for a long time, and reached out and found the smartest strongest partners we can, because we want to do this in a way that will encourage owes to join us, and if we lose money it undermines our own philanthropic purpose. The stands assets that they have right now, and when governments come to their senses and start to regulate this more just as you were talking with naomi earlier, that is going to divest these investments. Looking at the cost, and the increasing numbers of opportunities, solar and wind are already doing very, very well. So we are going through this very, very carefully, and were going to find those investments that are going to preserve our endowment and those investments that sustain our grant making. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Coming up the trillion dollars price tag for a new generation of Nuclear Weapons in america. Audiences are intelligent and they know that their needs are not being met by american tv news today. Entire media culture is driven by something thats very very fast. There has been a lack of fact based, in depth, serious journalism, and we fill that void. There is a huge opportunity for Al Jazeera America to change the way people look at news. We just dont parachute in on a story. Quickly talk to a couple of experts and leave. One producer may spend 3 or 4 months, digging into a single story. At al jazeera, there are resources to alow us as journalists to go in depth and produce the kind of films. The people that you dont see anywhere else on television. We intend to reach out to the people who arent being heard. We wanna see the people who are actually effected by the news of the day. Its Digging Deeper its asking that second, that third question, finding that person no one spoken to yet. You cant tell the stories of the people if you dont get their voices out there, and Al Jazeera America is doing just that. President obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 in large part for his commitment to rid the world of nuclear arms. And he came out of the gate strong. But to get a deal through congress, he had to agree to spend billions to renovate many of the countrys Nuclear Weapons sites. And now the cost of maintaining the weapons is skyrocketing. The price tag is 350 billion over the next decade, with longterm estimates reaching more than a trillion dollars. Daryle says these costs are simply not sustainable. What are the options, daryle . Well, the administration right now is approaching some key decisions on how and whether and at what cost to modernize our Cold War Nuclear stockpile. The president can and we think should make some choices now to revise those earlier plans that you outlined your described that could cost the taxpayer over 350 billion over the next decade. There are ways that he could decide to scale back the schedules and the number and even cancel some systems that are redundant Going Forward in the future. Hell need congressional support and theres not a lot of time to do this as many of the decisions are coming do on now and why to