Hello and welcome to the session in which we will explain the price elasticity of the demand. Well, the price elasticity of the demand measures the responsiveness of quantity demanded due to changes in the price of a product or service. Let me give you a simple example. My current subscription for forehead lectures is $29.99 per month. What is the price elasticity for my demand? How do I measure this? Well, I want to find out what happened if I raise my prices to $35. What would happen to my subscription? Will I have more subscribers or less? Or let's assume I drop my subscription from $29.99 to $25. What will be the effect on my revenue? What will be the effect on my total subscribers? Will I have more or less? So the price elasticity of demand is to quantify how sensitive consumers are to price changes. How sensitive are you? Am I going to have more or less subscribers as I change my prices? In accounting, this is called the term that we use sensitivity analysis and we do sensitivity analysis or in Excel, we do there's a function called what if basically we're doing what if analysis, but in economics, we call it price elasticity of demand. We're going to go ahead and look at the formulas at the factor that affect price elasticity. We're going to look at a few examples. Let's go ahead and get started. Before we proceed any further, I have a public announcement about my company, foreheadlectures.com. forehead accounting lectures is a supplemental educational tool that's going to help you with your CPA exam preparation as well as your accounting courses. My CPA material is aligned with your CPA review course such as Becker, Roger, Wiley, Gleam, Miles. My accounting courses are aligned with your accounting courses broken down by chapter and topics. My resources consist of lectures, multiple choice questions, true false questions as well as exercises. Go ahead, start your free trial today. First is the formula. How do we compute the price elasticity of demand? Well, the formula takes the following factors. It's the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in price.  Find the percentage change in the quantity demanded, divide that by the percentage of change in price. Now, if we don't know how to compute, they calculate the price change, the percentage change, not the price change, the percentage change, here are the steps. Subtract the initial value or the old value from the final value or the new value. Take the result and divide by the initial value or the new value. Then multiply the answer by 100. Let me show you real quick just in case you don't know how to compute this. What happened? What's the percentage change if you have a price of a product that increased from 50 to 60 dollars? Well, find the difference between the increase and the decrease. Well, 50 minus 60 equal to negative 10, it doesn't matter. We can say negative 10, then we'll divide it by the initial value of 50. Negative 50 divided by 50, which is the 50, is the initial value. It's negative 20. Now, what we say is the percentage is 20 percent, negative two or the percentage is 20 percent. Now, it might be negative. You're looking for the absolute value. Now, this is not the same thing as if we went from 60 to 50. If the price drops from 60 to 50, it's not 20 percent. Again, find the difference between, find the difference, the difference is 10. Now you'll take the difference and you divide the difference by the initial, by the initial value, which is 60. Well, if we take 10 divided by 60, 10 divided by 60, that's 16.66, 16.67 percent. So notice, when the price goes from 50 to 60, it's not the same percentage as if the price went dropped from 60 to 50. So make sure you're aware of this. So this is how you compute your percentage change and same thing for quantity. You will take the difference and you will divide the difference by the initial value, what you started with, and you'll find your percentage, your percentage change. The result of this formula is typically a negative number since price and quantity usually move in the opposite direction. However, for simplicity, we consider the absolute value of the result, making it a positive value, then we'll make a decision whether it's elastic or an elastic. But this is the formula itself. Now, the best way to do what is to look at an example using the formula to see how it works. Let's assume we are selling chocolate bars and the current price is $2 and the quantity demanded for $2 is 100 units per day. Let's assume we decided to reduce the price from $2 to a dollar. Well if that happened and the quantity demanded increased to 200 unit, this is per day. Let's compute the price elasticity of demand. First, we want to compute the price percentage change. We went from 2 to 1. So 1 minus 2 divided by the initial value of 2 equal to 0.5 or 50%. It means we dropped the price by 50%. That's the price dropped by 50%. Let's compute the change in quantity. The quantity went from 100 to 200. So the difference is 100 divided by the initial value of 100 will give us 1 or 100%. So the change in quantity is 100%. Now we compute the price elasticity. And if we take 1 or 100%, changes in quantity demanded, 1 or 100%, divided by the percentage change in price, which is 50%, the answer is negative 2. As I said, we say it is 2. We use the absolute value 2. So in this example, the answer is 2. What does 2 mean? Indicating that the demand is elastic. What does that mean? What does elastic mean? Well, before we kind of explain elasticity, could you tell me what happened? In your opinion, just using simple logic, what I did is this. I dropped my prices by 50%. I dropped my prices by 50%. Notice the price change, the percentage price and change in 50%. My demand increased by 100%. Do you think dropping the price positively affected influence my demand? And the answer is yes, because a small change, a 50% change in the price increase my quantity demanded by 100%. Forget about positive, scratch out positive. So a small increase in the price led to a larger change in quantity. Because if that's the case, we say that demand is elastic. The demand is sensitive. The demand is sensitive. So a 50% decrease in price leads to a doubling in quantity demanded. This means that a consumer are highly responsive to price changes. So simply put, what we can say is, when it comes to chocolate bar, people are sensitive to price. If you reduce the price, they will buy more. But the opposite is true, too. If you increase the price because it's elastic, your quantity demanded will go down. So if you increase your price from 2 to 3 or from 2 to 250, the quantity demanded, it's going to decrease as well. And you will measure that and you will find out, whether it's elastic or an elastic. But if this holds true for increase and decrease, then we say it's elastic. And most likely, unless you have a really, really loyal following and if you're selling chocolate bars, the chocolate bar is an elastic item. And we're going to see why later. Because there are many substitutes for buying chocolate. This means that the consumer are highly responsive to price changes for chocolate bar. And a decrease in price result in an increase in quantity demanded. Let's take a look at another example to illustrate now the inelasticity of demand. So let's assume we're selling medication and the price of the medication is $200 per month. And based on this price, the demand is 1,000 unit per month. Let's assume we decided to increase the prices from 200 to 220, which is increasing the price by real quick, 10%. We're increasing 20 divided by 200 is 10%. And the quantity demanded because we increased the price went to 9.50. Now we could also compute the increase in the change in quantity, which is 50. The change is 50 divided by 1,000 equal to 5%. So notice what happened real quick, without even making any further computation. I increase my price by 10%. The quantity only decreased by 5%. It seems my increase in price did not really affect things. So let's compute this. So first, the percentage change in price. I increase my price by 10%. The quantity demanded is reduced by only 5%. Let's compute the elasticity. If we take the change, the percentage change in quantity divided by the percentage change in price will get 0.5, negative 0.5. As I said, we'll take the absolute value. And the absolute value is 0.5. We put less than 1, because it's less than 1. Less than 1. The price elasticity of demand indicating the demand is inelastic. What does it mean inelastic? It means an increase in 10% led to a 5% decrease in quantity demanded. Now as a business, let me ask you this. Do you want your product to be elastic or inelastic? I want it to be inelastic. Inelastic means I can increase my price by a percentage, and the drop in demand will be less than that percentage. This means that the consumer are not very responsive to price changes for this prescription medication. And usually that's the case for a prescription medication. Even if you increase the price, people need their medication. Some people might cut back, find an alternative, or just go without medication. But the majority of people would react and they will adopt. And that's why things like medication, you have government involvement, because by its nature, the product is inelastic. So if you let the market run it, some companies might try to take advantage. So the percentage change in quantity demanded is smaller than the percentage change in price. The quantity demanded is 5%. The price change is 10%, indicating inelastic demand. It suggests that even an increase in price, the quantity for this medication would not drop proportionally, will drop less. So the demand for this particular product is relatively inelastic, insensitive. Well, same thing, inelastic or insensitive, the price changes, as it is an essential for managing a chronic condition. And consumer are less likely to adjust their consumption significantly, giving the price fluctuation. So hopefully you're getting the picture. And think about chocolate bar. Well, you know, there's so many options, okay? Versus prescription drugs, okay? And there's, you know, you can take this in between. Now we need to interpret, to interpret the elasticity. If the answer is greater than one, it means the product that we're selling is sensitive. Sensitive to what? It means elastic, the price, any price changes will make a difference to the demand, okay? Elastic demand, the elasticity is greater than one. When the price elasticity of demand is greater than one, it indicated the quantity demanded is highly responsive to changes in prices. A small change, a small percentage change in price leads to a relatively larger percentage change in quantity. Going back to the chocolate bar, we increase the price by 50%, the increase in quantity by 100%. So it's greater, the demand, the quantity demanded was greater. For example, if the price of a product increase by 10, and as a result, the quantity demanded decrease by 20, the price elasticity would be two, and total revenue would drop. Now, bear in mind, the opposite is true. If a price of a product decrease by 10, and the result, the quantity demanded increase because the price increase by 20, the price elasticity of demand will be two, and the total revenue will increase. So it's basically sensitive. This is what we're trying to say, it is sensitive. Okay, sensitive means elastic, the product is elastic. So if it's a greater than one, the product is elastic, whether it's only going up or going down. In this case, the demand is considered elastic for this product. So the price, any changes in price will affect the demand disproportionately, up or down, not proportionally, disproportionately. Let's take a look at when elasticity is less than one. Again, here, we're looking at the drug or prescription medication. It means elasticity is, there is no elasticity, inelasticity. So the price changes is inelastic. When the price elasticity of demand is less than one, it implies that the quantity demanded is not very responsive to price changes. So when you make the price changes, the demand is not in proportion less. Okay, a percentage change in price leads to a relatively smaller percentage in quantity demanded. For instance, if the price of a product increase by 10%, and as a result, the quantity demanded decrease by five, it's the same example that I showed you, the price elasticity of the demand is 0.5.  Now, again, the opposite is true as well, the opposite is true as well. So here, the demand is inelastic. We could also have E equal to one, and kind of, you know what this is. When the price elasticity is exactly one, it implies that percentage change in quantity is equal to the percentage change in price. For example, if the price of a product increase by 10%, and the quantity demanded decrease by 10%, the price elasticity of demand will be one, and total revenue will be the same, because you increased your price by 10%, but the quantity demanded decrease by 10% over all your revenue is the same. We say the demand is considered unitary elastic in this case. Now, what factors could influence this elasticity of demand? There are many factors, let's go over some of them. First is the availability of substitute. If there are many substitute for the product that you are pricing, consumer have more options and can easily switch to alternative when prices change. So what does that mean? The most classic example is Pepsi and Coke. Well, if the Pepsi increased their prices, or Coke, the red, if Coke increased their prices, consumer can easily switch to Pepsi. So the product is price sensitive, because if there's an easy substitute, what's gonna happen, the quantity demanded, it's gonna go down. For example, if the price of a particular brand of coffee increased, consumer may switch to a different brand, or even tea. In this case, the demand for the original brand is more likely to be elastic. Elastic means sensitivity in prices is dangerous. In other words, if you increase your prices, your quantity demanded might go down if there's a substitute. Another factor will be, is this product necessity versus luxury? The nature of the product itself could also impact its price elasticity. Necessities like food, water, and basic health care tend to have less elastic demand. Why? Because the consumer are less likely to change their consumption pattern in response to changes, okay? So if the prices of food goes up a little, you may not cut your budget. But if it went up a lot, you may cut your budget a little bit. On other hand, if you are buying luxury goods or non-essential item, those have more elastic demand. Why? Because the consumer can either postpone or forget about the purchase because it's not necessary. But with food, with water, with basic health care, even if they increase the price a little bit by 5%, you may not cut exactly by five. You may cut by one or two. But for luxury items, you'd say, for instance, if a price of high-end phones increased significantly, you would say, okay, I may either delay my consumption, upgrading, or opt for cheaper alternative, because it's a luxury item. So luxury items, well, also it depends for luxury items. We're gonna see later that sometime you might have a brand loyalty. But generally speaking, necessity versus luxury, if it's a necessity, you can increase the prices and the demand will not change a lot. For luxury item, if you increase your prices, unless there is loyalty, we'll look at that later. Also what could influence elasticity of demand is how much time you have to switch from one product to the other. So the time available for consumer to adjust their price behavior can affect price elasticity. For some product in the short run, demand will be relatively inelastic because the consumer, they cannot switch quickly. They have limited time to respond to price changes. However, in the long run, if you give the consumer more time, they will adjust and they will find another alternative. So over the long run, consumers can adjust their consumption pattern, search for alternative, or change their preferences, leading to your product to be more elastic demand. An example will be if the price of gasoline jumped, okay? Consumer may initially continue to purchase the same amount because they cannot find alternative solution immediately. However, in the long run, they may switch maybe to a fuel efficient vehicles, but you're not gonna buy a fuel efficient vehicle the following day, or you might start to use public transportation. Maybe a week or two later, you can say this is way too much. Let me try to see if I can find public transportation. Then it will make your product more elastic. But in the short run, it did not change, but you give consumer more time, they will find alternative. Also, how much of your income is being spent on that item will affect the elasticity of the item. So the proportion of income spent on a particular product or services can impact its price sensitivity. For example, if a product represent a significant, a large portion of your consumer income, a large portion, the demand tend to be more elastic, okay? For example, if the price of houses increases substantially, it may significantly affect consumers budget leading to a more elastic demand for housing.  Therefore, it's elastic, it's elastic. You cannot just spend more because the prices went up. You just kind of have to slow down because that's a large portion of your budget. Let's go back to the Pepsi versus Coke and also the iPhone luxury. Factor influencing elasticity could be brand loyalty and habit. If the consumer are loyal to a particular brand and have a strong preference for it, they may be less responsive to price changes and exhibit less elastic demand. If we go back to the iPhone to the phone, some people they're willing to pay for the iPhone extra because they have brand loyalty. Same thing, you might have a brand loyalty for Coke versus Pepsi and even if the price goes up, you may stick with it. So brand loyalty will matters as well. Also habitual purchases where the consumer buy certain product out of habit without much consideration. For example, you always buy Pepsi Coke. So even if the price is a little bit higher, you don't care, okay? Every day you buy a bagel. Now the bagel prices went up by 25% by 25 cent or 50 cent or a dollar. Just because you have that habit, you don't care, okay? For example, I buy a cup of coffee from Wawa every day. Most likely if they increase the price, I'm not going to switch, okay? Just it's a habit that I have and it's a brand loyalty as well. For example, if a consumer is highly loyal to a specific brand of soft drink, they may be less likely to switch even if the price increases.  Even if the price change a little, I'm not going to switch. Although again, it's one of the cheapest. I mean, I can find maybe a cheaper coffee if I shop a little. For one thing, it's not worth my time too. I like my Wawa coffee and I enjoy going to the store and I enjoy looking at the headlines of the newspaper every day. New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer because they have all of them. So I just like to look at the, see what the newspaper headline is for the day and the local paper as well. Yeah, I avoid local papers. I don't want to know what's going on in my area. Anyway, what should you do now? Go to Farhat Lectures, work MCQs, multiple choice questions. That's going to help you understand this topic better. The economic section of the CPA exam is our easy points. Just invest the time in it. That's all you have to know. Certain items, master it, perfect it, get those points, good luck and invest in yourself.


Just a century ago, entrepreneurship was a strange idea. Nobody even dreamt of being an entrepreneur. Except the few crazy ones who didn't want to be entrepreneurs. But just wanted to build stuff and accidentally ended up building great businesses. Even 50 years ago, entrepreneurship was not mainstream. The job was. Today, everyone wants to be an entrepreneur and something is wrong with that. As for me, the world needs more entrepreneurs. But at the same time, everyone who really wants to be an entrepreneur should think twice. Because you are far more likely to fail in business than to succeed. And this video contains some of the reasons why most people fail. If you are one of the thousands of people who have been asking to know who owns this channel. Now that we are about to have a million subscribers, I am ready to show you who I am. More about that soon. Let's get into this video. 1. Self-reliance Stephen Covey makes a good case and has famous book. Seven habits of highly effective people. When he preached that neither dependence nor independence is a good idea but interdependence. The number one attribute of most people who want to be entrepreneurs is confidence and high self-esteem. Somehow, many of these people believe so much in themselves that they overdo it by going it alone. Truly successful businesses are those who depend not on the owner of the business. But on other people to make progress. Sick and help, partnership, collaboration, building a team. These are all the things that make businesses successful. As an entrepreneur, you have to believe so much in your ability.  There are things you don't know and there are things you won't ever know. You have just 24 hours in a day and God won't give you a minute after that. What can you do with such limited resources you have? Nothing much except you learn how to work with other people. There is an entire book Michael Gubber wrote on this subject. It's titled The E. Mith Revisited. This book teaches that businesses that succeed are those that were built in such a way that other people can run it. Unfortunately, most entrepreneurs are so important to their business that they have to be in their business for their business to work. Your goal is to build a business that can run itself. Your goal is to build a team that can come up with ideas and insights you can never come up with. Your goal is to do the work of a thousand humans and you can only do that if you're not extremely self-reliant. Instead of depending on yourself, seek help, look for partnership and depend on others. 2.  It's often because these people eat beer cake too early. I read about a young man who used his first major profit to buy an iPhone saying, I deserve it. Well, you don't deserve anything. As an entrepreneur, the greatest joy you can ever have is the joy of seeing your fruit growing and contributing to the world. The greatest joy you can ever have is seeing people love what you create. The greatest joy you can ever have is seeing your business employ tens, hundreds and thousands of people and serve in the world. That's what you deserve. The joy that comes from seeing your deeds growing. Not the Rolex watches you cannot afford. Study the lives of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time and see how they live. Warren Buffett can buy some automobile companies but he still drives used cars. Bill Gates at some point saved up so much money that if his business had a problem, he could still pay his employees for the entire year. Steve Jobs was a minimalist. Yes, Elon Musk once bought a lot of luxurious cars and homes but here is the same guy who made over $160 million from PayPal and reinvested every dollar in the new business. SpaceX, Tesla and Boring Company. The message here is simple. Entrepreneurship isn't a hundred meter race. It's a marathon. You don't have to win after five months. You might not even win in five years. You win and can lavish your money after a long period. 3. Starting a business you have no passion for. I know, follow your passion has become a cliche but it's still a good message for three reasons. First, people who do what they love are happy to get to work.  I don't use an alarm and yet waking up at 4 a.m. isn't a big deal for me. In fact, last night I felt the night should be short because I couldn't wait to sit at my desk. Now, if you think this doesn't mean anything, listen to my next point. Happy people win. There is a book titled The Happiness Advantage. It was written by Sean Acar. This book is about a study that shows that people are not happy because they succeed. The opposite is the truth. People succeed because they are happy. A happy salesman sells more. A happy doctor has more clients. Happy researchers invest all their brain power into what they are doing. People who are happy about what they are doing do it far better than people who aren't. And that should be a simple thing to understand because you can never be happy with your business if you're not passionate about it.  That you may not be successful doing things you're not passionate about. The third important thing here is people who derive joy from their labor don't need much entertainment or material things. If you derive great joy in your work or business all your life will be about that work and its progress. Nothing much will be important to you. You'll only buy things you need and even if you want to waste some money on luxuries you'll have less temptation to do it when your business is small. Now, let me make something clear here. You can still do what you hate for money. Temporarily. For example, I had a job I hated for 17 months. I knew I hated it even before I started it. But that was the only option I had. In fact, my first successful business wasn't what I was passionate about. So, there is no crime in doing what you don't like temporarily. However, you must be on the lookout for your real calling. If today you are into a business you don't honestly like you're not committing a crime as long as you see it as a stepping stone. Don't expect that business to give you true success because it won't. Expect that business or job to give you money and probably the leverage to be able to do what you truly love. Because your true and lasting success will only come from what keeps you awake while others are sleeping. What makes you high and what makes you feel like you're fulfilling your destiny. I hope this video helps someone. If you are interested in knowing who I am and have some time in my world you can join my personal channel in the description below. I love you.


the speed of light, a cloud of dust, and the ha-hey-hay-oh silver, the lone ranger. With his faithful Indian companion, Toto, the daring and resourceful mask-rider of the planes led the fight for law and order in the early western United States. Nowhere in the pages of history can one find a greater champion of justice. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. From out of the past come the thundering hoofbeats of the great horse Silver. The lone ranger rides again! This is the lone ranger. If you want to be a champion at anything, remember, others have done it in spite of obstacles. Take radio champion Bob Maynard. He did it the hard way. He proved champions are made, not born. Bob didn't even have the advantage of growing up on a western ranch. As a boy, he lived in Chicago. But Bob started riding when he was 8 years old. At 14 in California, he became a stable hand. Today, Bob Maynard is one of the top money winners in rodeo competition. He sure is, lone ranger, and like many champions in all sports, Bob still chooses Wheaties for his favorite training dish. There's no question about it. Champions are made, not born. And there's no question why champions choose Wheaties for their training diet. They want that famous wheat energy. They get it with Wheaties, because there's a whole kernel of wheat in every Wheaties flake. Champions are made, not born. Get on your way with Wheaties. Breakfast of champions. Dan Reed, the nephew of the lone ranger, rode into Eagle City and dismounted in front of the local office of the Hendricks Freight Line. As Dan entered the office, a mild-mannered man looked up from the desk. He was the Eagle City manager named Sam Slater. Mr. Slater? That's right. My name's Dan Reed. Have you a message for me? Message for you? Well, no, I haven't. Is there supposed to be a message here for you? Well, I expected to meet friends here in Eagle City, but I haven't seen them. I thought they might have left a note for me. Not that I know of. I guess I'll be along soon. You're welcome to sit down and wait, son. It's cooler in here than outside in the sun. Thanks, Mr. Slater. Looks like there might be trouble. Jake Ronson's heading this way with a couple of friends. Huh? Jake owns a small gold claim. He's mad because of what it cost to ship his ore. You said it! Hello, Joe! What do you think, because the Hendricks Line is the only freight-mount fit you can rob? People like me, eh? Jake, I don't set the prices. They're the same on all the Hendricks Line. They're too high! That ore shipment of mine. I told you not to ship the ore. You should have had it refined in the stabbing mill. Freighted the refined gold. Same as everyone else.  All right, Jake. And don't get the idea that the other mine owners and I can't do without the Hendricks Line. We're through with your outfit. Well, that's up to you, Jake. To me and the others. That boys. All right. I'm serving notice, lady. I'm gonna start a freight line with honest prices. And I'll take away your business. I'm gonna bust you with the Hendricks outfit. Are you, Jake? Yeah. I've already talked to some of the men. They promised me their business. You learn a costly lesson, Jake. So you're threatening me, eh? No, no, no, Jake. I own this. You figured that teach me a lesson, eh? I expect you'll send gunmen to attack my wagons. None. You just try it, Slater. I'll be ready for your gunslingers. I'll have my wagons guarded. There'll be no gunplay as far as I'm concerned. You don't fool me with me and my talks. I'll be ready for your attacks, you fevering crook. Jake, that's about enough. You're free to complain all you want about the Hendricks rates. But don't you call me a crook. Another threat, eh? You hear that voice? Oh, kiddo. Yes, I'm gone.  You're out. Tonto arrived in town a few minutes after Jake Ronson and his friends had left the office. Dan Reid met his Indian friend and rode with him to the Lone Rangers camp on Eagle Mountain. There he told the masked man about the incident he had witnessed. The masked man was keenly interested. And then, about ten minutes after Jake Ronson left with his friends, Tonto rode into town and we left right away. Dan, how did Slater take it when Ronson called him a crook? Golly, he was awfully mad. He said Ronson was mighty unfair.  Pay freight and ore. Well, that's what Mr. Slater said. All the other mine operators get them ore refined, and then they pay freight on just the gold ingots. But Ronson insisted on shipping the ore just as it came from the ground. It was all packed in burlap sacks. Why him do thing like that? That's what I'm wondering. Mr. Slater said he tried to tell Ronson the freight bill to be more than the ore was worth. Ronson told him to mine his own business. He must have been. Yes.  As far as I know, Tonto, the company's very fair. Mr. Slater said Ronson and gold broke if he tried to carry freight at reduced rates. I'd like to know what Ronson has in mind. Oh, he must have been. Yes. He scouted around town for a few days. Maybe find out. Good idea, Tonto. Dan Reed and Tonto went into town the following day and returned to the camp after dark with a report. Jake Ronson wasn't fooling, sir. He really intends to start a freight line. Today he bought a heavy wagon. That's right, and him talked to miners. Him promised to cut freight rate. He can't do it without losing money. It's behind his plan. The following night, when Dan and Tonto returned from Eagle City, they brought further news of Jake Ronson's activities. Today he bought six horses. And plenty good horses. An empire driver and good shotgun guard. Then he has one wagon ready to go. The next day, Jake Ronson spread word that he would make a special announcement that evening in the cafe. So instead of returning to camp as usual at sundown, Dan Reed and Tonto remained in town to hear the announcement. Soon after dark, the cafe was crowded with mine operators and others. But wanted to hear what Jake had to say. Sam Slater was not among those present. But the sheriff was there, and so were Dan and Tonto. Presently, Dan nudged his Indian friend. Kind of. Ronson's climbing up on a chair. Maybe now, he'll make an announcement. Hey, James! Quiet down over here! Quiet! Let's hear what Ronson has to say. Quiet, Ken! You waiters, hold up the chair. Quiet down! Hey, James, hey. I reckon you've all heard about my new freight line.  What are you talking about? Oh, your stance. I've had a couple of letters that threaten trouble for me and my wagons if I tried to compete with a hand-picked outfit.  I didn't mention the letters, sheriff, because they were unsigned. I couldn't prove that Sam Slater wrote them. Well, that doesn't sound like Sam Slater. Where are the letters? I burned them. That shows how little I think of Slater's threats. Boys, I say this is a free country. No one has the right to stand in the path of progress or to stifle competition. Of course, if you mind, operators are afraid to use my freight and service. I'll go broke. Then the hand-picked line will have things its own way. And be free to keep on running. No, wait, James. My wedding starts with St. Joe one week from the day. My rate for carrying gold bullion is just half of what the Hendricks people charge. Well, you'll have my business, too. Yeah, mine, too. Count on me, Jake. I'm all for you. Well, first-hand, you're welcome. All right, boys, thanks. I knew I could count on you. I'll have my office open to receive your shipments later in the week. Right now, I'm going home to do some paperwork, but take. I want to show my appreciation to you. The refreshments are all me. As Jake Ronson left the cafe, Dan Lee returned to Toronto and said... Do you think we should start for camp right away? You want to start now, Dan? Well, I'm mighty hungry. Well, half hour make no difference. Loan range are not mined if we stay. Jake Ronson will pay for the meal. No, Dan, no. We pay for supper. All right, as long as we eat, I'm starving. Because of the decision to eat before starting the trip to the Loan Rangers camp, Dan and Toronto were in the cafe a half hour later, when a man rushed through the back-wing doors and shouted excitedly... Hey, Jeff! Oh, I'm glad you're still here. I ran all the way. What's the trouble, Sandy? I was passing Doc Smith's house. I'm away home. Doc was standing in the open door. He asked me to hurry back here and tell you. But tell me what? Is Doc in trouble? No, no, no. Not Doc. It's Jake Ronson. What about Jake Ronson? He's in Doc's house. Someone shot him. The clip falls on the first act of our Loan Ranger adventure. Before the next exciting themes, please permit us to pause for just a few moments. Did you ever wonder who'd replace present-day Fweeties champions like Mickey Mantle or Roy Campanella when they finally retire? You know, as a sports announcer, I'm Mel Allen. I bet it's just an average guy, maybe the boy next door. Sure, maybe he can't run or hit like Mantle or Campanella as of now, but don't forget champions are made, not born. Mickey Mantle wasn't born a champion. Gosh, when he was only 12, he practiced hitting for hours and started training with Fweeties. Roy Campanella, a Fweetie's eater since he was 13 years old, spent years learning enough baseball to make the grade with the Dodgers. Roy and Mickey started with no more raw ability than hundreds of other baseball hopefuls, but they got on their way with hard practice and the right food. You'll notice they both chose Fweeties and they still choose Fweeties. Why Fweeties? I can tell you the big energy reason. There's a whole kernel of Fweeties in every Fweetie's plate. I'd like to see you a champion someday and just remember, champions are made, not born. Get on your way with Fweeties Breakfast of Champions. Now to continue. The sheriff left the cafe and hurried to the doctor's house a quarter mile away. He was followed by Dan and Tonto and half a dozen men whose curiosity outweighed the desire for further refreshments. The group crowded Doc Smith's living room where Jake Ronson sat with one leg braced by splints and heavily bandaged. The doctor said, There's not much I can tell you, Sheriff. I heard a shot and went out the front door to investigate. I saw Jake Ronson lying in the street. Did you see who fired the shot? No. Looks like the bullet hit Jake in the leg. Yes, the tibia was broken. The what? The bone between the knee and the ankle. I carried Jake in here for treatment. I sent for you because I thought you should know about it. It may have been an attempted murder. Sam Slater's workout best. Jake, what have you got to say? Nothing. Jake, I've got to arrest the man who shot you. Well, forget it, Sheriff. I'll handle things my own way when I get back in my feet. You know who shot you? I wouldn't name anyone unless I had proof. Did you see him? Sure, if I'm not going to say anything about the shooting. But I'll tell you this. It's not going to scare me out of starting my freight line. My wagon will start on schedule. Good for you, Jake. That's the talk, and we'll stick with you. Sure, Sheriff. I'll tell you this much. If anything happens to my freight wagon with a gold cargo, it's because of Sam Slater. Remember that. I'll remember it, Jake. Is Slater the one who shot you? I'm not talking about that. All right, Jake. I can't make you talk. But I'm going to call on Slater and see what he has to say. Later that night, Dan Reed and Tahoe told the Lone Ranger all that had happened in town. Seated on the ground close to the campfire, the masked man listened with interest. So when the sheriff went to talk to Sam Slater, several of the townsmen tagged along, and Tahoe and I went with him. Slater was alone in his house. How did he react when he heard that Ronson had been shot? Well, he seemed surprised. He said he knew nothing about the shooting. Tahoe and I stayed and talked to him for a few minutes after the others left. He's mighty worried, sir. Why? Well, he figures he'll be blamed if anything happens to Ronson's first wagon. Now, him offered Dan job. He did? Yes, sir. He said he needs someone to help him with a bookkeeping. Besides, he'd like to have someone who could swear to an alibi in case he does need it. Dan, that might be a good idea. Well, you mean you want me to take the job? Yes. But Slater will want me to live at his house. That's all right. It'll be for only a week or so. And I will see you every day to receive a report. We'll know a lot more about Slater by the time the Ronson line starts operations next week. He moved into town the next morning and went to work for Slater. During the following week, Jake Ronson conducted business from his home, or he was confined with his leg in a heavy cast. On the appointed day, the freighter was supposed to start at noon, but Ronson found last-minute details that needed attention. It was late afternoon when everything was ready. With the aid of crutches and friends, Ronson made his way to the center of town where his freighter was ready to start. Tonto and Dan were in the crowd that gathered. Did you get a copy of the route, Tonto? Let me get it. You and the Lone Ranger going to follow the wagon to make sure nothing happens? Well, that's right. After wagons start, they ride to camp until Lone Ranger. Then we follow. I wish I could go with you. Kimosabi say, you stay on time. I know. Are you going to follow the gold wall the way to St. Joe's? I mean, not now. Hey, look! Now you have the best guide in the town. You should get through all that. There we'll make it, Mr. Ronson. You're the guy to keep your eyes open. He sure will. There you go. Get out of there! The Lone Ranger threw the rugged mountains to avoid steep slopes. Because of this, the freighter had to travel over five times the beeline distance between Eagle City and the landmark known as Blue Spring. The wagon was halfway to Blue Spring when darkness gathered. Get up there! Come on! You want to keep driving all night? Pen's on the moonlight shotgun. I'll keep going as long as I can see the trail. I want to make up the time we lost at the start. Get up there! Come on! At midnight, the moon was high and bright, and Blue Spring was just ahead. There a man waited in ambush. Though the ambusher had left town after dark, he had reached Blue Spring ahead of the freighter by riding over the mountains in a relatively straight line instead of following the meandering wagon trail. He waited behind a rock. When he heard the approaching wagon, he gripped his carbine and levered a cartridge into position. I'll get the guard first and the driver. But when they heard the gunfire, some distance ahead. Guns mean trouble. Let's go, Tunnel. Oops! The last man and the Indian raced ahead on the rough road, guiding their horses around dangerous turns at breakneck speed. Jake Ronson had already started to remove the gold from the wagon. He was holding a heavy ingot of bullion when he heard the approaching hoof beats. As he glanced at the back trail, he saw two horsemen ride into view. His carbine had been left beside the trail, so he dropped the gold and drew his six guns. In a frenzy of fear, he opened fire without realizing that the range was too great for accurate shooting. Ronson was gripped by panic when his gun was empty, thinking only of escape. He leaped to the roadside, raced through the underbrush and mounted his waiting horse. Despite the gunfire, the Lone Ranger and Toto did not slacken their speed. They saw the gunman holster his empty weapon and ride away. A moment later, the masked man and his friend grew rain beside the halted wagon. The Lone Ranger turned off the trail and started an uphill pursuit. Toto climbed aboard the freighter. He found that the guard and driver, though wounded, were still alive. Both were unconscious. The driver opened his eyes, while the Indian was dressing his wound. Oh, you'll be all right. Wound, not killed. Dry gut. Shot without water. You and the guard both lived. The meat turned wagon, tied scout behind, then dragged to town. Ticket adopted. Gold. Gold safe. Do not worry. While the Lone Ranger pursued the fugitive to the top of the mountain and down the other side, on the comparatively level floor of the valley, he called on Silver for greater speed. Come on, Silver. Faster, big fella. Silver seemed to know that he was expected to overtake the horse ahead. With every stride, the powerful stallion gained on the man ahead. Come on, Silver. Silver closed the gap. The Lone Ranger was riding alongside the gunman. He held his rope. Yes, maybe along your way. Rain in your own rope, you. You'll never get me alive. I want you. A rope snaked through the air. The noose dropped over the fugitive. Hold your rope back. He was pulled from the saddle. He hit the ground in row, then wailed in pain. Oh, my leg. My leg. Hey, fella. You should have stopped your horse. Oh, this time my leg is really broke. Help me. Help me. I can't stand the pain. Jake Ronson. So you're the gunman. He'd and Sam Slater were on their way from Slater's house to the Hendricks office when a crowd of men approached. The garden driver was shot. Mr. Slater didn't do it. He heard it done. Oh, no chance. I swear I didn't. The agent brought the wagon into town a few minutes ago. Doc is working on the garden driver right now. Jake Ronson said you'd do something like that. No, I swear. This is the first I knew of it. Grandpa, the Ronson freighter. The agent told us about the ambush. You let Dan and Slater go. They didn't do it.  Look over yonder, boys. God deputies are carrying a man into my office. You see who he is? He took the man who caught him all night to bring him through the hills from the place where he ambushed his own freighter. He seemed to get a lot of gold on a freighter. He planned to drive out to the garden driver and take the gold for himself. And he planned that Slater here would be blamed for it. But Ronson had a broken leg. That was a fake. I got the whole story from Doc Smith while he was working on the garden driver, the freighter. Ronson persuaded Doc to help him fake the story of a broken leg. So he'd all think Slater had taken a shot at Ronson. That's right. Doc didn't know that Ronson planned to use the broken leg as an alibi while he went out and tried to murder his own garden driver. Well, Doc wouldn't have any part in an attempted murder. So he told the whole story. Then Ronson started the freight line thinking he'd get rich with one good haul by stealing all the gold. That's right. And he'd have gotten away with it. That masked man hadn't come along. We ought to lynch Jake Ronson. Come on, deal with him, boys. Now you let this be a lesson to you men. You can't get something for nothing. Any right-thinking man would look for something underhanded when Ronson offered to freight gold at half price. Slater. I reckon we owe you an apology. That's all right, gents. I'm glad the truth came out. Oh, uh, you, Dan. Yes, sir. Masked man said he'd meet you in town or in camp. Yes, sir. I reckon he started for camp already. Dan, is that masked man a friend of yours? He sure is. Well, I'm deeply indebted to him. Aren't we all? Who is he? Why, you should know that later. He's the Lone Ranger. Like little letters. You know, Cheerios is made from oats and every delicious spoonful of Cheerios and milk is a real muscle-building food. Each spoonful contains vitamins, minerals and proteins your body needs. Yes, the good things in a Cheerios breakfast do good things for your body. Help you have healthy nerves, good red blood, strong bones and muscles. Have Cheerios every morning. Then you'll hear people say... He's still... ...a copyrighted feature of the Lone Ranger Incorporated is created by George W. Crandall, produced by Crandall Campbell Muir Incorporated, directed by Charles D. Livingston and edited by Fran Stryker. The part of the Lone Ranger is played by Brace Beamer, your announcer Fred Boyd. The Lone Ranger is brought to you by General Mills every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at this same time. Be sure to listen. This...


So remember that we can collapse AND inequalities, provided the middle parts are the same. So if I have the inequality A less than or equal to B, and also B strictly less than C, since the middle part is the same, I can merge the two inequalities into a single three-part inequality. Now remember in order to do so, the inequalities have to run in the same direction, so I might have to switch them around. But as long as the middle is the same, I can merge the inequalities. It's important to remember we can never collapse an OR inequality this way. And here's a nice way to remember that OR is also a type of rock, at least if you add an E. So these two inequalities have a rock in between them that will keep you from joining them. Now the other side of this is we can expand a three-part inequality as an AND inequality. So this A less than or equal to B strictly less than C becomes A less than or equal to B, and also B strictly less than C. And similarly for the other joint inequality. What this means is that if we have a three-part inequality, we can solve it as a compound inequality. So let's take the inequality 25 less than or equal to 8x plus 1 strictly less than 65. So first we'll rewrite this as an AND inequality, 25 less than or equal to 8x plus 1, and also 8x plus 1 strictly less than 65. Now we have two inequalities to solve, so let's solve this first inequality. Our first step will be subtracting 1, then we'll divide by 8. Now if we want to solve the second inequality, we subtract 1, and then divide by 8. And here's the thing to notice. We did the same things to the equations. Remember we were able to write the original three-part inequality because the middle parts were the same and we merged them. Well here the middle parts are the same, so we can merge them. And this leads to a very useful simplification. Suppose you have a three-part inequality where the variable expression is in the middle. If you apply the same operations to all three parts and respect the rules about dividing or multiplying by a negative, you can solve both inequalities simultaneously. So let's solve the inequality, 35 less than or equal to 12 minus 4x less than or equal to 55. Now remember if you multiply or divide an inequality by a negative number, the direction of the inequality changes. So if we look ahead we see that the coefficient of x is going to be negative 4, and so we will in this current form have to divide by negative 4 unless we can make that into a positive. So let's add 4x to both, wait no, all three sides. And let's simplify where we don't change our inequalities. And now if I want to isolate the x, I need to subtract 35 from all three sides. And I get, oh wait, now I have to subtract 20 from all three sides. Oh wait, I haven't isolated the x yet so now I have to add 20. And you can kind of see how this is going to go. And this leads to an important idea, to solve the three-part inequality this way, you must keep the variables in the middle part, otherwise you won't be able to isolate them. Alright, so let's keep the variables in the middle part. The first thing we have to do is subtract 12 from all three sides. Now we do have that coefficient of negative 4, so now we need to divide all three sides by negative 4 And remember if you multiply or divide an inequality by a negative number, the direction of the inequality changes. So what we have here is wrong, we need to fix it. So let's clean this up a little bit. Now while this is a perfectly good way to leave our answer, one of the things we like to do is to read our inequalities so that they increase as we go from left to right. So let's rearrange this where we've reversed our inequality so it reads negative 43 fourths less than or equal to x, which must also be less than or equal to negative 23 fourths.


Welcome, everybody. I'm Sharon Burke. I'm the president of Ecospherics and a long time associate at New America. So I'm just thrilled to be here today with my New America colleagues to bring you this very important conversation about climate change and national security and what it means at the Department of Defense specifically. We have wonderful speakers with you. I'm going to introduce them to you. We're gonna hear from them and then we'll have time for your questions. So let me get started. I'm first going to talk about Colin Kahl who is the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. I know many of you who are joining us today probably have been in the Pentagon and have experienced there, but I can tell you it's really a small city. Like it even has its own stores and its own banks and its own DMV.  And one day a long time ago when I was working there, I ran into a former boss of mine who was at the time the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michelle Flournoy. And we were chatting in the shop and I asked her, she had just hired a former colleague of both of ours, Colin Kahl at the time. And I asked her how Colin was doing. Now I knew him as a scholar who had written pathbreaking work on the roots of instability and the role that environment plays in that. And I was curious how he was doing now that he was in the Pentagon. And she just smiled in this sort of serene Michelle Flournoy way and said, it's amazing how much work you can get done when you don't care about who gets credit for your work. Now I don't think Colin would mind my saying that that's not necessarily what I was expecting her to say, but he did go on to have a really respected career or a tenure at the Department of Defense as a leader there. And then he went to be the National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States who of course was Joe Biden at the time. Colin is now the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy which is the number three position in the department, number three civilian position in the department. And it's a very important job for setting the strategy, the plans, the way the department functions. It's hard to overstate how important this is as a leadership role. So it's great to have him here with us today. And we also are joined by UC on your screen, Mr. Joe Bryan. I think the first time I met Joe he was a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think that first conversation with him he was actually really, really worried about the security of the nation's electric grid system. Well, he took those concerns right into the Department of Defense working for the Navy where he took actions to build energy resilience for the Navy. And then did that again in the private sector. So it's no surprise at all that the Secretary of Defense would ask him to come back to the department as the first Senior Advisor for Climate Change. So I'm just thrilled to have both of them here today to have this conversation with us. And I wanna start with the Undersecretary. So Undersecretary Call, my opening question for you is just can you talk to us about why climate change at the Department of Defense? What does it mean for the Defense mission? And for all the other things that you're worried about that you're working on all the time? Thanks, Sharon. It's great to be with you again, a dear friend and I wish we could be in person but maybe there's always next year. It's great to also be with all of you who are sharing us in this discussion online.  It is producing heat waves, droughts, floods, more frequent and extreme weather events but it's also changing the underlying operating environment that the Department of Defense is going to have to conduct its operations and missions for the foreseeable future. In some places like the Arctic, for example, accelerated climate change is opening up the Arctic and its valuable natural resources for greater competition in the international arena. And this is really kind of a place where kind of geopolitical and geostrategic competition is smashing into climate change. In other parts of the globe, the stresses that climate change is creating on food systems in terms of water scarcity, the pressures it's putting in terms of human migration is destabilizing countries, especially already fragile states or creating a push factor that is driving people to leave their countries and head for other places, whether that be from Central America towards our borders or from the Sahel in Africa toward Europe. And there are examples in the Middle East and elsewhere. And so at the Department of Defense, we can envision a proliferation of missions in the future in which climate change will directly impact what we get called upon to do. So that could be disaster relief and humanitarian response overseas. It could be interventions in an increasingly unstable landscapes. It could also be frankly, the degree to which the department is called upon to assist civilian authorities here in the United States. And just to give you one data point, Sharon, so five years ago, I think the National Guard in the United States was called on to do about 14,000 person hours of firefighting in the United States. This year, it has been more than 170,000 person hours of firefighting by the National Guard. That is just an extraordinary burden on our National Guard, but it's reflective of the fact that, we oftentimes, every year, it seems like it's the worst fire season of the century so far. But one way to think about it is, unfortunately, this year is probably the best fire season for the rest of this century because climate change is just getting worse and worse. Before coming back to the Pentagon, I was living in Northern California and my kids didn't have snow days after all it's California, they had smoke days. Couple of weeks, every year, they couldn't go to school because the smoke was so bad from wildfires burning throughout California. So this is impacting all of us and it's gonna impact the way the department does its business. Let me give you one other example and that really relates to the pressure it's putting on U.S. installations and infrastructure around the world and how these things can come together. So in March of 2019, Mozambique experienced the most significant cyclone in the country's history. It flooded such a wide expanse of Mozambique that it was flooding the size of Luxembourg. You could see the flooding from outer space and on the exact same day, Omaha, Nebraska was hammered with extreme weather and off at Air Force Base, which happens to be the headquarters of DoD's nuclear strategic command found itself seven feet underwater. And just six months prior to that, in late 2018, we had bases in North Carolina and Florida hammered by hurricanes. People having to leave bases, aircraft having to flee to higher ground, it generated billions of dollars of damage to U.S. installations. And if you saw the wreckage on these bases, I mean, frankly, no terrorist organization has done that amount of damage in the past few years to American installations in the United States, but climate change has. So if we do not take this issue seriously as a department, we are not tackling the current security environment. Okay, so it's about the mission, it's about the security environment. It's about IHADR and DISCA, it's about the built infrastructure. So the next question, natural question is what are you doing about it? You have a brand new document that just came out, the Defense Climate Risk Analysis. Can you talk to us about that and what the significance of that document is? Sure, and I think really, I think one way to think of the DCRA, which was released last week alongside a number of other documents put out by other government agencies and departments is really the department's effort to kind of paint the landscape of the strategic risk that climate change is causing across the board to use the best data, the best science to basically map out the types of challenges that the United States is gonna have to face in the security arena as a consequence of climate change and what types of missions that will produce for the department, all the ones Sharon that you mentioned in terms of defense support to civilian authority, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, crisis response, but also things like the department having to operate in harsher climates. Now that could be in places like the Arctic where the climate will remain harsh but access to the Arctic will increase and our infrastructure will be eroded or it could be facilities in the Indo-Pacific that become more difficult to operate around at the very same time that we're trying to compete with China in the Indo-Pacific. So really the DCRA is really meant to kind of map out the risk factors that are likely to drive missions for the Department of Defense. And we do that because to show the urgency of getting after this problem, adapting to it, mitigating it, but also planning around it. And one of the things that I have to do in my job is to make sure that the department's strategic documents and policy documents represent the real security challenges that we face. You know, the Secretary of Defense has said, you know, first and foremost, China is our pacing challenge and that is absolutely right.  Both are a threat to our security and we have to be able to address both. That was made clear in the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance that the Biden administration put out at the beginning of the administration. It'll be reflected in the national defense strategy that we publish early next year. And I just see the DCRA as the next step to making sure that the urgency of the climate crisis is integrated into our thinking in the building. Great, and I want to let all of our viewers know that they can read the report. I believe that we have a link on your screen in the lower right-hand corner by clicking on the button and I would encourage you to read it. It's a first time the department has put something like this out that pertains to strategy and mission. But of course, I want to come back to what you said about China, but before I do that, sticking with the DCRA, great words, it's a really good document, but what comes next? Like how do you implement it? How do you bring it to life? So a couple of things. So first, its findings will be integrated into the national defense strategy, which is the guiding document for how the department thinks about the world and organizes itself. I mean, the NDS is itself nested under the national security strategy and we will expect that the national security strategy will come out next year. It will surprise no one that climate will also be a prominent theme in that document. So the next turn of the crank will be in the national defense strategy, but we'll also see it operationalized in how our services are doing their planning and their investments. We'll see it in how the combatant commands are thinking about their campaign plans and their approach to the various parts of the world that they deal with. You'll also see in the coming months some organizational changes in my own office and OSD policy to make sure that we're dealing with issues like climate change and energy and the Arctic that we're taking these issues with the growing strategic seriousness of it. So, I'm not the budgets guy. I'm not the operations guy. I'm kind of the policy and strategy guy. And so my job is to make sure that the realities of the climate crisis are kind of a through line through our various strategic and policy documents. But I also know where the rubber hits the road is in what we're actually doing in a department to mitigate some of these challenges and adapt to them. And that's really where Joe comes in and I'm sure you'll have lots to talk to him about. Yes, that's a perfect TEP. And I think I'll take the cue and go over to you, Joe. So the DCRA was a fascinating document. It was a first time thing, but it was preceded by like a week by the climate adaptation plan, which was super ambitious.  Can you talk to us about what that document says and what it means for the department? Yeah, and thanks, Sharon. And thanks to New America for putting this together. It's a pleasure to be sitting next to Colin and I get to sit here and learn from all his experience. And I think Colin's team and the whole policy shop really did an amazing job of putting this DCRA together. And it's as Colin referred, I mean, this is really a foundational document. It's the first time we've done this sort of thing. So I think it's incredibly important. They did a great job putting it together and it complements the document that you refer to, which is the climate adaptation plan. But first, I think something that the concept that's really important is that, climate isn't just something that happens to us. It's the context within which everything we do sits.  It'll impact our military, but it also impacts our allies and partners and it impacts our adversaries and competitors. And I think an important thing to think about is is the country, the alliances that are best able to handle that that are most resilient to the challenges that climate change poses will have a strategic advantage. And so I think this isn't a competition between what's good for the climate and what's good for the mission in any respect. It is really that the country, the alliances that are best able to manage what we know is going to become an increasingly harsh reality of climate change is going to be best positioned to capture the future. So the climate adaptation plan as a compliment to the DCRA is really a roadmap to ensure that the Department of Defense can continue to operate under changing climate conditions and maintain operational capability and in fact, even enhance operational capability in the face of climate change. And it has five lines of effort. As you mentioned, it's incredibly ambitious. The acquisition and sustainment folks put that together. I think, you know, Richard Kidd and his team and they did a fabulous job of putting together a document that as you say, is quite ambitious and it's first of its kind for the department. Five lines of effort under the cap. One is climate informed decision making. So one, do we have the right science? Do we have the right intelligence? Do we have the right business processes to be able to manage what we know is going to be a challenge to our organization? And that's a big question for the department. As you know, it's a complicated place with lots of data centers and lots of people doing lots of different things. And we need to make sure that our decision processes that we're operating from a standard, that we're all looking at standard operating procedure, we're all looking at the same data, the same intelligence to make sure that we make good decisions around climate. Second is train, test and equip a climate ready for us. Are we putting in place the right kinds of material requirements? Do we have the right training? Are we integrating climate into our exercises in order to make sure that we're ready to face the kind of threats from climate that we're likely to face in the future? The third is a resilient climate, a resilient built in natural infrastructure. And this, Colin referred to, this gets a lot of attention, right?  It runs from anywhere from wildfires out west and we've had evacuations just in the past couple months on defense installation, setting aside the fact that we're spending tremendous amounts of National Guard resources and people time fighting fires in time that could be spent doing other things. We have huge costs that we're incurring from hurricanes. We have river and flooding that Colin referred to out in an office. So across the country and around the world we're seeing tremendous challenges associated with a changing climate, both for our infrastructure and to our training spaces.  So these things are all getting worse rather than getting better. And there are things we're gonna have to contend with in the climate adaptation plan is our roadmap to getting after that. The fourth line of effort is supply chain. And I think this is one that we've all become all too familiar with over the past couple of years. I think COVID really exposed for us some vulnerabilities and critical materials for the United States and supply chains and the Department of Defense and the rest of the country is gonna have challenges associated with climate change. Look, our defense industrial base exists around the country, our facilities exist around the country and around the world and they are not immune from the impacts of climate and we need to make sure that we're gonna be able to get what we need when we need it. And so we need to better understand where are those critical links in the chain that we need to improve the resilience of? I'll just mention one example. We have, there's a facility out in Missouri, Lake City Army Ammunition Plant which produces a huge amount of the small caliber ammunition for the department. It also happens to be on the Army's list of the base's most at risk from climate. So we need to think about that and understand what the implications of a climate event could be for our supply chain and critical materials at what Colin referred to as some of the most inopportune moments, right? And the last line of effort under the Climate Adaptation Plan is really about collaboration. This is not, the Department of Defense cannot solve this problem on its own. We need to work across the interagency to figure out what are our risks, how to mitigate those risks and then certainly we need to work with our allies and partners who obviously are gonna be impacted by the same challenges. And that is gonna be critical again to going back to the context. The alliances and the countries that are best able to manage what is now inevitable in the face of climate change are gonna be best positioned for strategic advantage in the future. So CAP and the DCRA together are foundational documents for the department setting a path forward to address what we all know as a growing threat. So people are lighting up the screens with questions. So I'm gonna get to those in just a second but I can't let you go Joe without geeking out on operational energy because you know how hard it is. So are there any major initiatives, any big programs coming down the line that we should know about when it comes to and operational energy for those who are, looks like we got a lot of experts in our audience but the energy that we need to achieve the mission, the training and all of that and that we need better technologies, better kinds of energy, anything that we should know in that space that's coming down the line. Well, to take a step back, first of all Sharon, your foundational work in the Department of Defense on operational energy is, in fact, some of the folks who used to work in your shop are now holding positions across the department. So your legacy is- Those people are the ones that did all the work. It's good to say. Yeah, all right, well anyway, they're here, they're here and they're doing great work. So thanks for that. What I think is really important is for us to take a step back even before you get to operational energy and acknowledge the fact that the world has fundamentally changed around energy in the past decade. We are in the middle of a major transformation in global energy systems. A couple of statistics. The International Energy Agency says that over the next two years, 90% of the capacity additions to electric grid globally will be renewables, 90%. If you look at the auto industry, I mean, anybody who's watching TV can tell that something's happening with electrification in the transportation sector. And the pace and scale of change in transportation with GM committing $35 billion to transformation forward, all the major auto companies moving that direction. That is serious implications for energy globally, for the US economy, but also for the Department of Defense. And I think that we need to recognize that the direction of travel on energy markets is clear and understand what that means for us economically, but also for defense capabilities. And what I'd say on, and this is something you know really well, Sharon, that is that there is not a competition between kind of advanced energy, clean energy and defense capability or doing the mission. In fact, they're quite complimentary. Things like, you know, we talked a little bit about the resilience of our installations. Our installations rely on the public electric grid for their power. What we know is that grid's at risk from things like climate, but also things like cyber attacks. Look at, we had the pioneer pipeline attack just a few months ago. And how do you get more resilient in the face of those kind of threats? Well, you get really efficient. You reduce your demand, so make sure you don't take pressure off the grid.  You put them on site to support critical missions. So those missions can stay up and running even if you take the public grid down. Now, that's critical to the mission. It also happens to be good for the climate. So credible alignment around that. And operationally, and this is I think what it read in your wheelhouse, you know, we have a joint warfighting concept and one of the key pillars, one of the four key pillars of that joint warfighting concept is contested logistics. And what we know is we're gonna have a fight getting logistics into theater when we need it and where we need it. And the fact is that one of the best ways to address contested logistics to require fewer logistics in the first place. So the more efficient we can be at the tactical edge, the more efficient we can be in our operations, the less we'll require of our logistics and the more we can mitigate the risk for contested logistics. Now, that is essential to the mission. It also happens to be quite good for the climate. So I think the thrust of our work in operational energy and the thrust, even of our work around resilience of our facilities is that what we're doing is good for the climate but it's absolutely essential for the mission. And we can get into specific programs but I think as a conceptual idea, we need to... Well, that's great. Yeah. No, that's great. And actually what you were just talking about with contested logistics reminded me something I wanted to come back to with undersecretary call, which is you talked about China. Not that those two things are connected but you talked about China. And I think there's been some concern that all this emphasis on climate change takes away the focus from China. Can you talk about that and whether or not there's an opportunity cost for a department that's talking about climate change when it should be laser focused on China? Yeah. I was smiling, because there's this sense that, oh, you're focusing on these issues. You won't be able to focus on China. Let me make one thing absolutely clear. And the secretary of defense says this a couple of times a week. China is the pacing challenge for the Department of Defense. China is the only country that can challenge us systemically across the board, militarily, technologically, economically, diplomatically. They have a very different system. They envision a very different global order and they are driving hard toward that future. We are in an intense competition with China. It has profound security implications. There is zero risk that the Department of Defense is not gonna take China seriously enough, zero. And there will be climate change in the NDS. There'll be a lot of China in the NDS. So there's no risk of that. But more of it is along the lines of what Joe talked about, which is actually these issues are more intertwined and I think sometimes the skeptics or the critics may think. So first of all, in places like the Arctic, climate change is actually accelerating competition with peers and New York peer competitors. Not just Russia, which is an Arctic nation, but also China, which has aspirations for commercial and resource endeavors in the Arctic and is kind of using scientific endeavors to plant the flag in various ways. There is a lot of ways in which climate change is gonna force countries around the world to adapt. Even if we take dramatic actions to slow the rate of carbon going into the atmosphere, more global warming is inevitable. It's only about the rate. Some degree of global warming is inevitable, which means there will be a race for resilience, a race for adaptation. And the countries that are able to roll with the punches and the militaries that are able to roll with the climate punches better will be in a better competitive position. That'll be true here in the homeland without vis-a-vis China. It will be true in the Indo-Pacific as we continue to project power forward into the Indo-Pacific. It's also true of the resilience of our allies and partners around the world. And frankly, our ace in the hole vis-a-vis China is the fact that we have a global network of allies and partners and they don't. And so there's a big piece of that. And then the last piece is that on issues like supply chain and logistics, the things we're doing to make our supply chains more resilient and to make those changes in operational energy to make us less vulnerable and more resilient. Frankly, we need to be doing all of those things even if climate change wasn't happening, largely because of the challenge that countries like China pose now to our critical infrastructure and to our logistics in the event of certain contingencies. So we don't see any trade-off between the investments that we need to make on the climate front and the challenges that we need to address on that front and making sure that we remain laser focused on China as our pacing challenge. You mentioned allies and partners and so did you, Joe. We have a number of questions coming in from Bob Barnes, Jeff DeBelko, a lot of people with a lot of expertise in this space about allies and partners and how, first of all, is what you're doing at the department something that you are doing as also with allies and partners about how this effort affects them or engages them. Is there anything on that that you can talk to both of you? I would just say as a general matter, a lot of the risk assessment tools that we are trying to develop to bring the best science and data to bear to identify those pieces, you know, parts of our infrastructure, our installations, they're at risk and some of the changes that we can make to make them more resilient. So the risk identification piece, but then the risk mitigation piece are all skill sets, technologies, data resources that can be done in collaboration with, in some cases transferred to help our allies and partners become more resilient too. And no NATO has made a big push on this. So, Joe, anything else on how we work with allies and partners on these issues? No, I think Colin said it well. We obviously are engaged with NATO and all the climate planning they're doing. I think it's really important work, engage regularly in bilateral conversations, not mostly me, it's mostly Colin and his team who do that, but climate is a prominent topic in that.  And one thing that I thought was really striking during that conversation, it was something that the Iraqi minister defense said. And he said that in his country, climate-induced drought contributes to unrest and quote, undermines our stability and poses an existential threat to national security in his country. And so I think the recognition that climate is a threat, that drought is a threat. I mean, the Iraqi minister of defense said that ISIS understands the risk to the government of drought and the lack of water and is targeting things like the Mosul Dam for the very purposes of impacting the government. So the idea that these changes we're seeing in the climate don't have impact on countries around the world and our security environment is just mistaken. This is a really good, the Iraqi example is a good one because whether it's Iraq or Syria or Yemen or countries in the Horn of Africa or in the Sahel, the places where we are seeing violent extremist organizations get the most traction, frankly, are in a lot of the countries that are at greatest risk for already experiencing climate stress and are at the greatest risk moving forward. I think that's a great point. And so not only is it important for understanding instability and where it comes from, which is again, something that you've been meeting the charge on it for a long time, it's also really necessary for constructing peace. And so a lot of the work that might come out of your risk analysis might be your civilian counterparts that will have to carry it out. That's just my editorial comment. One of the other really smart comments we got in here, I mean, the questions are amazing, but one of them is from David Titley who's a retired two-star Navy admiral, former meteorologist and oceanographer of the Navy. And he asked a very pointed question, which is who are your three and four-star and SES champions? In other words, how do you make it difficult to go backwards on this kind of work that you're talking about? I might actually ask Joe to start, since he has to interact day-to-day on these issues within the department. I do think as just a, I think we need to do more to build these champions that part of the effort is to build organizations and instill in our planning documents and in our service priorities and other things, a set of directives, but also a set of organizations and incentive structures, precisely so we generate champions over time. But Joe, you have to grapple with it on a daily basis. And just to throw in there that Andrea Cameron from the Naval Academy asked precisely that, Colin, which is how do you institutionalize at the combatant commands and elsewhere? So that's a great point. And if you want to elaborate on it, but Joe, what do you see as far as your champions and how do you actually make this something that sticks? Yeah, so I'll give a lot of credit to the services. I know they're all working on their own plans to integrate climate into how it impacts their operations to make sure that they can address the challenges that it poses to their forces. I mean, look, we have one of the things we've done, which I think has been quite useful is bringing people to the table for a conversation about why climate matters. And the secretary in one of the first things he did actually when I first came on board was to establish a climate working group. And the climate working group includes representation from all the Department of Defense OSD components, but it also includes the services and includes the military and includes the joint staff. And so everybody comes to the table and we have a common understanding or at least a common presentation and a way to engage on climate at a senior level. So people understand kind of some of the things that we've talked about today, some of the challenges that we are aware of and things that maybe they're not always exposed to. I think another thing that we've done and the way we talk about this is to talk about how climate aligns with operational requirements. You gotta take, we gotta be able to take away the view that there's a competition somehow here between what we're doing with respect to climate and advanced energy and what we do with respect to mission. And I think we need to educate across the department on why that's the case. But I mean, I think it's, we have the fundamental advantage of it being true. And so the persuasion case is one of just getting people around the table to listen. So we're working hard at that across the OSD components but also with each of the services. And as you know, Sharon, you come to work every day and you'll work at it. And so that's what we're doing. We show up, we're showing up and we're having this conversation. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's not so easy but that doesn't prevent us from having it. I'll just say a couple of things. And I think we've made some meaningful progress. I think we probably have more to go to identify an institutionalized champions for this but I'll just give you a couple of things. First, I think the service secretaries are seized with this issue because they understand the impact on training, readiness, our infrastructure, installations, all of that. And it frankly, there's a whole host of resiliency measures of which climate is only a piece that really have to be at the heart of a lot of what the services are doing. We also have, so the service secretaries will need to be champions. Our OSD component that focuses on acquisition and sustainment is where a lot of the climate and operational issues have traditionally lived. They continue to be active advocates for this inside the building to make sure we're prioritizing this right. I think one place where we haven't done enough frankly is my own organization where we have not had a designated point person in OSD policy. For those of you who don't know very much about the Pentagon, like what is this OSD policy thing? I mean, one way to think about it is that OSD policy is kind of like the National Security Council staff for the Secretary of Defense. And so if we're gonna say that this is a national priority and it's a priority for the department then it needs to be a priority for my organization too. So we're gonna be making some organizational changes in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we have an organization that champions these issues and that it is resourced to champion these issues to make sure that it gets integrated into all of the various documents that we oversee, national defense strategy, but also the contingency planning guidance, the combatant command campaign plans. There's a whole bunch of ways in which policy can drive prioritization. And then after a number of years as we keep ramping up, people will need to look at the scorecard and keep us accountable for the commitments we're making.  I assume that's what you were saying. Any more specific on when we might see that person emerge? I will let the criminal analogist read between the lines since I have not rolled out my reorganization yet, but we will have a senior person who deals with a whole range of these issues and we'll probably announce that in the coming in the next few weeks. I think you have criminology. We have two questions here, one from Andy Roberts at IDA and one that's an anonymous person who's foot stomping this question, which is you talked about Russia and China and about climate change as an exacerbating factor, but is there also the possibility that it gives us a way to cooperate with Russia and China? It's an interesting question. Any thoughts on that? Yeah, I think the answer is probably different for the two countries. I think that it's absolutely essential that both countries take steps to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. There's no doubt about that. Russia is economy is almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels. So they have a vested interest in in some cases slowing down a transition to a more renewable and energy efficient world. I think in the context of high oil and gas prices right now in Europe, for example, I think that puts Russia in the catbird seat geopolitically in a lot of ways. It gives it a lot of levers to pull. I think that Vladimir Putin likes that framework. So in the competitive scheme, I think Russia may have its own incentives to do some things on climate, but I also think they have some incentives to push in the other direction. China is a little different because I think first of all, the implications for climate change on China could be quite profound. They also have extraordinary energy needs that over the long term cannot be met if they continue to be reliant on fossil fuels. They also, frankly, they see a world in which China competes to be the leader in renewable energy technologies as a way in which they assert global leadership. So we need to compete with China so that we have a race to the top on renewable energy technology as opposed to a race to the bottom in prolonging a high carbon economy. I think that as it relates to the China relationship, we have an intensely competitive relationship with them. We may be able to compartmentalize areas of cooperation in things like climate change, but I actually think this is a place where competition and cooperation can work in tandem. Where China is willing to cooperate with us, we should be willing to cooperate with them on climate change issues, but we should also compete to put pressure on China to make a transition in its own economy and the way that it does business and the way that it finances projects through the Belt and Road Initiative, for example. So I think actually cooperation and competition can be mutually reinforcing in the climate domain as it relates to China. And of course, all eyes will be on China next week at the Conference of Parties where the climate negotiation. And I bring it up partly just because there was a Defense One article, I think yesterday or the day before about with a very alarmist headline that the DOD is not sending anybody to the COP26. Any comment on that? Is that something to be concerned about? No. Okay. I mean, we are seized with this issue. I mean, I hope at least some of our comments and some of the documents we've put out in recent weeks and months are, we are seized with this. It's just the fact that COP26 is not focused on the military and defense dimensions of this. And so you can expect the Department of Defense to be there when the agenda suits the topics where our expertise I think can be most brought to bear. And I think you can also expect that in our bilateral and multilateral defense engagements, that climate will be on the table in a way that it hasn't previously been. Great. And Joe, I'm gonna come back over to you before we ask one final big picture question, I guess. But we have from Kevin Johnson. He asked about at the installation level, what's DOD doing differently to accelerate the adoption of clean energy technologies? And Richard Moss asked a sort of related question about how the department looks at vulnerabilities at the communities where your assets are located. So both of those are kind of interesting questions about how we conduct, how DOD conducts itself at home especially. Sure. And Kevin, if you're out there, thanks for the question. So look, first of all, I wanna say the idea that the department is not leaning forward on climate is sort of evidence of even today's discussion where I'm not sure there's ever been an undersecretary defense for policy or maybe there has been, maybe I'm just missed it that's done this kind of thing and never your secretary has taken such a leadership role on climate. So I think that's pretty clear where we are on this. In terms of our installation, what we're doing to improve the resilience of our installations and deploy clean energy. I mean, first of all, one, it's absolutely necessary, right? It's, renewables can play a critical role in providing us power when the grid goes down. We already talked through that. The executive order that the president put out earlier this year, set some pretty clear objectives for the department and across the government on what he expects on clean energy. And that's moving towards 100% renewable energy. That's also moving towards clean zero mission electric vehicle fleet. And so we are doing a lot internally right now to plan for how you do that. Look, I mean, for some agencies that might not be that big of a deal but the department of defense is a pretty big complicated place. We, outside the postal service, we have the largest fleet of non-tactical vehicles in the country. I think it's about 180,000 vehicles. And what we all know is that you gotta plug those in somewhere and you gotta put an infrastructure on our basis to do that. So some of these questions similar to, you know the scale at which we buy power is just dwarfs every other federal agency. So we have to do a lot internally to get ready for that transition. And we're doing that now. We're engaged in really aggressive but deliberative planning to make sure that we can move out on the president's objectives. The other thing is, I mean, if you look at last year's budget request, one of the first things we did when we came into the department and this was led by Deputy Secretary Hicks is to take a look at the budget and see what do we need to do immediately on climate given even the constraints of a very short cycle and looking back at the fiscal year 22 budget. And we put in, you know the number is escaping me about a couple of hundred million dollars extra for energy resilience and conservation improvement program which is a program which is specifically designed to help improve the resilience of our installations and associated with that is certainly efficiency and clean energy. So there's a lot we got going on. We could spend a whole hour talking about it but I know we're, we got about a minute here Sharon. So we're Let me sneak in a really quick one more question which is industry and your defense partners in the private sector should they expect new requirements for them on their own emissions and on the emissions of the products that they produce? Yeah. So first of all I think we're sending a demand signal across the defense industrial base to look we want to improve the efficiency of our existing platforms and we want to make sure that we get efficient platforms in the future. And this is something the deputy has been really clear on and that's good for the climate again but it's also absolutely critical to contested logistics and so our requirements process should reflect that imperative and our conversations with the defense industrial base are there already in terms of requirements on their own supply chains as you know, we put out a federal register notice asking for folks to tell us in the defense industrial base what do you do as far as tracking your own your own, I don't want to get too technical scope one scope two scope three emissions what do you do to measure your own supply chain greenhouse gas emissions and are you disclosing that already and how can you work with us to make sure that we know as the Department of Defense what our defense industrial base is standing on greenhouse gas emissions and so I think you can expect more activity in that area not just from the Department of Defense but from the interagency I think you're gonna see it out of the White House for me that it should be a competitive advantage last question for you on secretary call and then we'll let you gentlemen go back to keeping the nation safe which is, we got a couple of questions about this do you think that this prioritization of climate change, particularly as a strategic driver as mission risk will continue after the next presidential election no matter what the outcome is? It's a great question, you know obviously there's no guarantees and we've been kind of whipsawed in the last to say the least over the last decade in American politics but I actually think if you look underneath the hood and Joe would know this even better there was a lot of stuff continuing at the Pentagon even in the last administration which was at the very top quite skeptical of climate change to say the least and in fact you couldn't, you know and so you might not always see the words climate change in documents but if you look at the Arctic strategies that the department put out that OSD and all the services put out climate change is all over those documents whether the words are used or not so I think there's some of it is it was built into and Sharon I give you some credit in the civilian space for helping a lot of these ideas kind of populate and proliferate among OSD staff but I think a lot of it will also depend on what gets done in the next couple of years and you know there was the question toward the beginning of our conversation about who the champions are and I think there are a bunch of places but the ultimate champions in our building are the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense and they have been laser focused on the climate issue since day one and so they are keen to make sure that other senior leaders in the department make this a priority and that we're putting our money where our mouth is and so I am confident that we can build something in the next few years that is not only good for our security and good for the nation but will outlast us as officials even if we have some changes in administration. That is a great place to wrap it up and I think you both very much for your time and all the work you're doing on this and for taking the time today to explain it to people and engage with an audience of very interested in forward leaning people. So we wish you well and take care. Thank you everybody for joining us today. Thanks everybody. Thanks Sharon.