>>> WE TURN NEXT TO AN INNOVATIVE WAY TO PROTECT OUR PLANET, FROM WILDFIRES TO RECORD BREAKING HEAT WAVES, THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS HAVING A REAL COST BOTH TO HUMANS AND WILDLIFE.

GROWING CARBON EMISSIONS ARE LARGELY TO BLAME, SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

WRITER PAULA DiPERNA ARGUES IN HER NEW BOOK "PRICING THE PRICELESS" THAT THE NATURAL WORLD IS AN INVALUABLE ASSET AND WE NEED TO START VIEWING IT THAT WAY IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER POLLUTION.

SHE JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS WHY THIS COULD BE THE KEY TO SPURRING ACTION.

>> THANKS FOR BEING WITH US.

FIRST, WHAT'S IT HEEN?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO PRICE THE PRICELESS?

>> WELL, IT'S KIND OF TO WALK A MET PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL LINE REALLY TO ACCEPT THAT WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON INVALUABLE PRICELESS THINGS.

WE ALL KNOW LOVE IS PRICELESS, HEALTH IS PRICELESS BUT SO THE ATMOSPHERE AND SO ARE THE WILDLIFE AND SO ARE THE WETLANDS, AND THAT IF WE DON'T COME AROUND FIGURING OUT HOW TO PRICE THOSE PRICELESS THINGS, WE WILL ABUSE THEM AND AS WE HAVE SEEN THROUGH HISTORY.

WHAT YOU DON'T PAY FOR, YOU TEND TO ABUSE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REVERSE THE ABUSE AND MOVE NATURAL ASSETS FROM, YOU KNOW, BEING CONSTANTLY A COST CENTER TO BEING AN ASSET YOU HAVE TO PROTECT.

>> WE HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO PRICE LOTS OF ABSTRACT THINGS.

SORT OF THE ENTIRE DOT COMBOOM, BUT EVEN TODAY HOW WE LOOK AT A VALUE OF A COMPANY TECHNICALLY NOT SELLING ANYTHING AND NOT MAKING A PROFIT.

>> YEAH, THE QUESTION CAME TO MY MIND.

I LOVE UBER, IT'S VERY CONVENIENT BUT HOW CAN SOMETHING LIKE UBER OR ANY OF THESE CHAIRING ECONOMY BUSINESSES BASICALLY SOFTWARE, THE MARKETS VALUE THEM AND THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND OUR ATMOSPHERE IS VALUED AT ZERO.

THAT SORT OF DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS IDEA CAME FROM.

AND WE ALSO VALUE ART.

WE VALUE A LOT OF THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE VALUE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, SO THE ABSTRACT NATURE OF IT SHOULDN'T BE HOLDING US BACK PARTICULARLY FROM A REASONABLE SYSTEM OF PRICING.

>> SO, YOU KNOW, LET'S WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU HAVE.

I THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THERE IS VALUE IN ART, BUT USUALLY THEY SAY, WELL, IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

YOU HAVE A WHOLE CHAPTER ON THE DETROIT MUSEUM AND THE ART THAT WAS IN DETROIT AND WHAT KIND OF VALUE THAT WE ULTIMATELY HAD TO PLACE ON IT.

SO WHAT DO WE TAKE AS A LESSON FROM THE VALUATION OF ART THAT WE CAN APPLY TO THE CLIMATE?

>> WELL, SO IF YOU THINK OF THE ART COLLECTION IN THE DETROIT MUSEUM -- THE ART MUSEUM, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WAS PRICELESS, HAD ALL KIND OF PHENOMENAL WORKS AND THE FAMOUS MURALS WHEN THE CITY OF DETROIT WAS CONFRONTING BANKRUPTCY PEOPLE THERE THOUGHT, WELL, WE'LL JUST SELL THE ART AND WE'LL USE THAT MONEY TO PAY OFF THE DEBTS.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT APPRAISERS CAME IN AND THEY ALL HAD DIFFERENT VALUATIONS FOR THAT COLLECTION.

THE DIEGO RIVERA THEY COULDN'T PRICE IT AT ALL BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY TRULY PRICELESS.

THEY COULDN'T AGREE TO A PRICE.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS ALL THIS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT OPINIONS KIND OF MELDED INTO A DECISION, WHICH WAS YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CAN'T VALUE THIS ART.

IT'S BEYOND VALUE.

IT'S SO IMPORTANT WE ACTUALLY CANNOT VALUE IT, SO LET'S JUST STIPULATE A BASE NUMBER AND SOME FOUNDATIONS CAME IN AND PUT THAT MONEY FORWARD.

AND THAT WAS USED TO PAY OFF PENSION FUNDS AND OTHER DEBTS.

AND THE ART WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE NEVER TO BE PUT ON -- POTENTIALLY ON THE AUCTION BLOCK EVER AGAIN.

A TRUST WAS CREATED.

SO THAT WAS A CASE WHERE ACTUALLY PRICELESSNESS SAVED A WHOLE CITY.

AND IT WAS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENTS THEN AND THE FOUNDATIONS AND EVENTUALLY THE MUSEUM ITSELF TO ASSIGN ITSELF A VALUE THAT COULD NEVER BE STIPULATED.

AND SO THE SUCCESS WAS THAT EVERYONE AGREED THAT THERE'S SO MUCH VALUE WE COULDN'T PUT A PRICE ON IT, THEREFORE WE BETTER NEVER SQUANDER IT.

IT'S TOO IMPORTANT.

AND THE ATMOSPHERE SHOULD BE IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

>> LET'S SAY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THERE'S VALUE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD WITHOUT OUR PROTECTION, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE COUNTRIES LOBBYING IN KIND OF DIFFERENT WAYS ON HOW TO PRICE THE ATMOSPHERE, SO HOW DO WE COME TO THAT COMPACT, THAT AGREEMENT THAT SAYS, OKAY, THIS IS IN FACT PRICELESS AND WE SHOULDN'T REALLY BE BARGAINING WITH IT?

>> WELL, YOU HAVE SOME AGREEMENTS NOW.

OBVIOUSLY THE MAIN WAY TO PRICE THE ATMOSPHERE IS THROUGH WHAT ARE KNOWN AS CARBON MARKETS AND CAPPING TRADE IN PARTICULAR, WHICH IS BASICALLY A DIET.

YOU KNOW, THE EMITTERS GO ON A DIET AND AGREE OR ARE REQUIRED TO LOSE CARBON WEIGHT, SO TO SPEAK, STOP EMITTING.

AND THE ATMOSPHERE IS OUR COSMIC PENTHOUSE REALLY.

IF YOU LOOK UP, IF YOU COULD SEE 60 MILES, YOU'D BE SEEING THE END OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

THAT'S ALL THE LITTLE BIT OF SPACE.

I DON'T KNOW THE LAST TIME YOU RUBBED YOUR FACE, BUT ONE OF THE ASTRONAUTS SAID THE ATMOSPHERE WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE EARTH AS PEACH FUZZ IS TO THE PEACH.

THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE HAIR ON YOUR FACE OR THE SKIN OF YOUR FACE.

AND SO INTO THAT COSMIC, THAT'S A SUPER SCARCE SUPPLY.

SO SUPPLY AND DEMAND SAYS YOU CAN'T WASTE THAT SUPPLY FOR A LOW PRICE.

YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THE PRICE GO UP.

AND SO THE CAP IN TRADE REALLY PUTS -- STIPULATES A -- IT STIPULATES A QUANTITY OF SPACE THAT MAY STILL BE USED TO POLLUTE.

AND AS THAT COST GOES HIGHER, THOSE STIPULATED USES WILL BECOME TOO EXPENSIVE, AND THEREFORE POLLUTION SHOULD DROP.

THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CAP IN TRADE AND CARBON MARKETS IN A WAY THE UNITED STATES GETS CLOSE AND IT CAN'T PULL THE TRIGGER.

THERE ARE ACTIVE LOBBIES ACROSS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS STATE GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE STILL VERY LOCKED INTO THEIR WAY OF PROFITS, WHICH IS THE FOSSIL FUELS AND THE MINERAL EXTRACTION THAT HAPPENS ON THEIR LANDS.

SO HOW CAN WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WITHOUT LARGE SCALE PARTICIPATION IN A CAP AND TRADE MARKET, IT BECOMES INEFFECTIVE?

>> BASICALLY WHAT PEOPLE FORGET THE CAP AND TRADE IS NOT JUST A PENALTY, IT'S ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY.

SO THE HIGHER THE PRICE TO POLLUTE, THE MORE INCENTIVE TO INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES.

SO IF YOU INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE LET'S SAY THE CAP ON THE PRICE ON THE ATMOSPHERE IS $30 A TON, WHEN IT GOES TO $60 A TON, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO INVEST IN AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE YOU'LL MAKE MONEY ON THAT.

IT'S THE SAME WITH WHAT IS CALLED GREEN INVESTING.

PEOPLE THINK THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY INVESTING, YOU KNOW, SHIFT IN CAPITAL FROM DETRIMENTAL USES TO PRODUCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

THAT'S A MONEYMAKER THESE DAYS.

IT'S AN OLD STORY YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT A CONCESSIONARY RETURN IF YOU INVEST IN THINGS THAT ARE MORE ORIENTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

YOU MAKE MONEY IN ESG.

IT IS NOT -- IN IS NO WAY -- SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO ESG HAS BEEN IT'S NOT PRUDENT, IT'S NOT IN THE BEST SHAREHOLDER INTEREST WHEN, IN FACT, ACTUALLY IT IS SUPREMELY IN THE SHAREHOLDERS INTEREST.

IT'S PROTECTING FROM RISK LIKE WILDFIRES AND FLOODS, AND SECONDLY IT'S A MONEYMAKER.

IF YOU EXCLUDE INVESTORS AND MONEY MANAGERS FROM LOOKING AT ESG FUNDS YOU'RE SAYING BASICALLY DON'T LOOK AT FUNDS THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE MONEY THAN OTHER FUNDS.

>> YOU PEPPER THE BOOK WITH TONS OF EXAMPLES.

ONE OF THE EXAMPLES SAY FOR EXAMPLE FORESTS IN MYANMAR, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT SHOWS THE REST OF THE WORLD.

>> SO MYANMAR NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THE DESTRUCTION TODAY WAS ONE OF THE FIRST COUNTRIES TO TRY TO VALUE ITS FORESTS, ITS ECOSYSTEM.

AND THEY DID WHAT'S CALLED AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICE ANALYSIS.

AND THAT BEGAN TO PRICE SAY FOR EXAMPLE THE VALUE OF THE MANGROVES, WHICH EVERYBODY THINKS WE CAN'T SWIM AT THE BEACH, THERE'S NO BEACH THERE, THERE'S JUST A BUNCH OF WASTELAND, TANGLED ROOTS.

MANGROVES KEEP THE OCEAN FROM BANGING INTO THE COASTS, SO THERE'S A VALUE TO THAT.

BUT SINCE WE DON'T VALUE THE MANGROVES BUT VALUE THE COASTAL PROPERTY, WE CUT THE MANGROVES DOWN THINKING, WELL, WE'LL MAKE THE HOTELS THERE WHEN ACTUALLY OVERTIME THOSE HOTELS GET SLAMMED BY TYPHOONS.

AND SO IN MYANMAR THIS GROUNDBREAKING STUDY WAS DONE, AND THEY WERE EVEN ABLE TO VALUE THE VALUE OF ELFBTS IN PULLING LOGS OUT OF THE FORESTS AND PUT A VALUE ON THE ELEPHANT AS A WORKER NOT JUST AS A COST CENTER, OH, AN ELEPHANT WE HAVE TO FEED IT.

NO, THIS ELEPHANT IS PROVIDING TREMENDOUS VALUE TO THE COUNTRY.

NATURE YOU COULD SAY IS THE MOST UNDERPAID AND UNPAID WORKER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

WE DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR ITS WORKER, SO NATURE IS SUBSIDIZING OUR ECONOMY VERY DIRECTLY, AND WE DON'T SEE THAT EITHER.

AND THE IRONY IS THAT SOME NUMBERS SAY THAT THE VALUE OF NATURE'S WORK IS LARGER THAN THE GDP OF THE WORLD.

>> WHAT WOULD THAT NUMBER BE?

>> WELL, GDP OF THE WORLD IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $100 TRILLION AND THE NUMBER STARTED IN TERMS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT ONE POINT WAS $120 TRILLION A YEAR WHICH MAKES THE ECONOMY A SUBSIDIARY OF NATURE.

EVEN IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE WILDLY OFF BY SAY 30, $40 TRILLION A YEAR, THAT'S STILL A VERY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY THAT NATURE IS PROVIDING THE ECONOMY.

AND WE'VE GOT TO GET IT NOT TO BE SUBSIDIZING NECESSARILY FOR FREE.

AND SO I THINK BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND YOU SEE, WELL, THERE'S A SWAMP OR THERE'S A TREE AND THE BRANCHES ARE JUST BEAUTIFULLY BLOWING IN THE WIND.

YOU DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PERFORMING A SERVICE FOR US.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK A LOT OF OUR MENTAL EFFORTS SHOULD GO IS TO RECONCEPTUALIZING OURSELVES AS LIVING IN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE'RE IN NATURE, NOT JUST A BEAUTIFUL PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT EVEN THOUGH AS MUCH AS WE LOVE THAT.

>> PAULA, ONE OF THE THINGS YOUR BOOK DOES IS LAY OUT THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT INSURERS PLAY IN HOW WE PRICE OUR RISK.

JUST LAST WEEK STATE FARM INSURANCE SAID THEY ARE NO LONGER GOING TO INSURE NEW HOME OWNERS IN CALIFORNIA.

THEY ARE CITING LET ME QUOTE HERE A RAPIDLY GROWING CATASTROPHE EXPOSURE BECAUSE 25,000 HOMES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY WILDFIRE THERE IN JUST THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING CALLED THE FOREST RESILIENCE BOND.

EXPLAIN THAT FOR US.

>> SO THE FOREST RESILIENCE BOND IS A FANTASTIC INVENTION, A FINANCIAL INVENTION.

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO SOME GRADUATE STUDENTS AT THE BUSINESS SCHOOL CAME UP WITH IT.

AND BASICALLY THE SHORTHAND IT'S A WAY TO VALUE, SECURITYIZE, AND INVEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT WILL BE REALIZED SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE.

YOU TAKE A FOREST AND THINK, OKAY, IT'S JUST TREES STANDING THERE.

WELL, FOREST TENDING, TAKING CARE OF A FOREST IS KIND OF LIKE GARDENING THE FOREST.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BRUSH OUT FROM THE GROUND.

YOU HAVE TO TRIM THE TREES.

YOU HAVE TO TRY TO SOMEHOW MAKE SURE A FIRE DOESN'T JUMP FROM ONE TREE TO THE OTHER, AND OF COURSE THAT REQUIRES WATER.

AND IF THERE'S NOT WATER AND NOT RAIN, THE TREES BECOME VERY DRY.

SO IT'S A TERRIBLY VICIOUS CYCLE, AND THE IN CASE OF CALIFORNIA THE GOVERNMENT, THE WILDLIFE SERVICE WAS SPENDING A FORTUNE PUTTING WILDFIRES OUT AND THEREFORE EELTING INTO ITS BUDGET FOR PREVENTING THE FIRES.

SO THE FOREST RESILIENCE BOND BRINGS TOGETHER BENEFICIARIES -- THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CALLED -- OF A RESILIENT FOREST WHO, OF COURSE, OBVIOUSLY ARE THE WILDLIFE SERVICE.

EVERYBODY BENEFITS IF THEY CAN PROTECT THE FOREST BUT ALSO LOCAL INSURERS WHO DON'T WANT TO PAY AND CANNOT PAY INCREASINGLY HOME OWNERS WHO ARE BURNED OUT LET ALONE KILLED OR HURT.

AND TOURISM OPERATORS WHO REQUIRE FIRE TUESDAY BE HEALTHY SO THE TOURISTS WILL COME AND EVEN THE HYDRO POWER PLANTS.

THE BOND SECURES PRIVATE INVESTORS AS WELL AS PUBLIC INVESTORS WHO SAID, OKAY, QUANTITATIVELY A FOREST IS THIS GROUP OF TREES IN LAKE TAHOE AS AN EXAMPLE IS WORTH "X" AND WE'LL PUT "X" INTO IT, AND THEN THE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE THE BENEFITS LATER PAY THE BOND BACK.

SO IT'S KIND OF ADVANCING TIME IN A WAY, AND IT'S VERY EXCITING.

AND THEY'VE GONE FROM A COUPLE OF MILLION TO 25 TO 30 MILLION.

I THINK THERE'S EVEN TWO FUNDS NOW, ALMOST $50 MILLION WHERE PRIVATE INVESTORS HAVE PUT MONEY UP FRONT TO ENABLE THE FOREST TO BE TENDED PROPERLY TO POSTPONE WILDFIRES AND BRING THE BENEFITS OF RESILIENT FORESTS INTO THE BALANCE SHEET.

IT'S JUST THE WAY -- IT'S AN INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPT, AND SO THINKING OF FORESTS AS INFRASTRUCTURE IS A BREAKTHROUGH BECAUSE INFRASTRUCTURE YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN.

IT'S NOT JUST, LIKE, A COST.

>> TELL ME ABOUT WHAT COMPANIES, FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES OR OTHERWISE CAN DO ACTIVELY TO TRY TO START PRICING SOME OF THESE THINGS, TO TRY TO START PUTTING IT ON THE BOOKS.

YOU TALK A BIT ABOUT THE GLOBAL SHOE COMPANY PUMA AND THEIR KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL PNL.

>> THE PUMA ENVIRONMENTAL PNL WAS A FANTASTIC EXPERIMENT.

I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CALCULATED ALL THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT COSTS THEM TO BUY LEATHER.

NOT JUST THE PRICE OF THE LEATHER BUT THE PRICE OF THE LAND, IF THEY HAD TO PAY FOR THE LAND AND THE WATER VALUE OF THE LAND.

SO THEY HAD TWO COLUMNS.

THEY HAD REGULAR BOOKS THEY FILED FINANCIAL RETURNS AND THEN THEY DID THESE ENVIRONMENTAL RETURNS.

AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS IF THEY HAD HAD TO PAY FOR THEM WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY ERODED THEIR PROFITS.

AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT OF RED INK OWED TO NATURE.

SO THAT ILLUMINATED FOR THEM THIS POTENTIAL COST.

NOW, IS THAT COST EVER GOING TO COME TO BEAR ON THEM THROUGH REGULATION IS SCARCITY?

YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN NO LONGER COUNT ON BEING ABLE TO GRAZE ANIMALS THEREFORE BECAUSE OF DROUGHT AND BECAUSE OF OTHER CONDITIONS OR EVEN REGULATION, THEN YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, WELL, WHERE AM I GOING TO GET THOSE MATERIALS?

SO IT BEHOOVES A COMPANY LIKE PUMA TO THINK AHEAD.

AND, YOU KNOW, ALL COMPANIES REALLY CAN START THINKING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROFIT AND LOSS.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BIT OF A LOBBYING POINT FOR ME, BUT I THINK ALL COMPANIES WOULD BE SERVED BY A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, A REGULATORY LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, AND THAT INCLUDES THE NATIONAL -- CERTAINLY THE UNITED STATES, A NATIONAL CARBON PRICE.

>> HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT A COMPANY THAT STARTS TAKING SOME STEPS IN THIS WAY ISN'T GREEN WASHING?

BY THAT I MEAN OKAY, I'M GOING TO PAY FOR THESE CARBON OUTSETS BUT IT'S BASICALLY A ROUNDING ERROR FOR US.

>> THAT'S A TRICKY ONE.

I THINK WHERE BASICALLY INSTEAD OF MAKING A REDUCTION AND PEOPLE INVEST IN SAY TREE PLANTING AND OTHER THINGS THAT CAPTURE CARBON, SEQUESTER CARBON IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I MEAN THOSE PROJECTS NEED TO BE TIED BACK TO THE DIET.

THEY NEED TO BE TIED BACK TO THE IDEA OF AN OVERALL REDUCTION.

IT'S ALSO TRUE, THOUGH, THAT CONSTANTLY REDUCING EMISSIONS EVERY YEAR ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A POWER PLANT, HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO THAT IF YOU FIX THE POWER PLANT AND IT'S GOING TO RUN FOR 20 YEARS?

WHAT OTHER FIXES CAN YOU MAKE?

SO THE OFFSET THING IS COMPLICATED BUT NOT AS CONTROVERSIAL AS SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK IT IS.

WE REALLY NEED TO BREAK OUT OF THESE THEMES THAT HAVE PLAGUED US FOR SO LONG THAT PREVENT PROGRESS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THE GOOD THING AND THEY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

AND THE ONES GREEN WASHING WILL GET CAUGHT SOONER OR LATER ESPECIALLY IF IT'S IN THEIR FINANCIAL FILING.

IF YOU LIE TO THE SEC IN THEIR FINANCIAL FILINGS IT'S A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, SO YOU GO TO JAIL FOR THAT.

THAT'S FRAUD.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS THAT WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE BEEN REALLY KIND OF ENGINEERED TO THINK ABOUT IDEAS LIKE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT AS WE HAVE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND OUR PERSONAL IMPACT COLLECTIVELY CAN ADD UP.

AND I WONDER WHETHER THAT TAKES OUR EYE OFF THE BALL IN SOME WAYS FROM THE LARGE SCALE AND INSTITUTIONAL POLLUTION THAT WE COLLECTIVELY ENABLE, WHERE WE'RE NOT ASKING MORE OF OUR REGULATORS OR OUR CORPORATIONS BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, HEY, I GET TO BUY I DON'T KNOW A RIVER AND ELECTRIC CAR AND I'M DOING MY PART.

>> THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PART.

WE DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM NOW IS SUCH THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE CAN WE GET THE BIGGEST IMPACT AND EFFECT FOR OUR EFFORTS.

AND I'VE CONCLUDED THAT THE LITTLE BIT WE DO INDIVIDUALLY CAN'T HURT, BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT BRINGS IT TOGETHER AND INSTITUTIONALIZES IT AS YOU HAD.

AND ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS IS HOW YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY, WHAT YOU DO BUY BUT ALSO INVEST.

TALK TO YOUR BANK EVEN IF IT'S JUST A LITTLE CHECKING ACCOUNT, ASK THE BANK WHERE THEY'RE INVESTING.

AND GRADUALLY BE NEED TO UP THE WHOLE THING SO IT BECOMES A MATTER OF ECONOMIC SECURITY AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

WE REALLY NEED TO BUMP IT UP TO, YOU KNOW, THE TOP OF THE LINE.

>> THE BOOK IS CALLED "PRICING THE PRICELESS.

AUTHOR PAULA DiPERNA, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.