Return to Transcripts main page

NEWS STREAM

Live Coverage of COP21. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired December 1, 2015 - 8:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[08:00:52] KRISTIE LU STOUT, HOST: I'm Kristie Lu Stout in Hong Kong. And welcome to News Stream.

Now, tiny island nations make their plea to world leaders trying to halt rising sea levels the scientists say could wipe some areas off the map.

Now, President Obama is at the summit and he is expected to speak this hour. And we'll bring that to you live when it happens.

Now, the state of the planet is our top focus this hour. It is crunch time for world leaders to take action to stop global warming. At climate talks

in Paris, they have less than two weeks to work out a universal agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. And, as UN climate chief tells CNN, they

have incentives to act now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANA FIGUERES, EXECUTIVE SECRTETARY UNPCCC: Why are 183 countries, from whom we already have an actionable climate change plan, why are they

doing this? Frankly, none of them are doing it to save the planet. Let us be very clear. They're doing it for what I think is a much more powerful

political driving force, which is for the benefit of their own economy.

And I think that is a really the story here. They have understood that this is actually in their own interests. There is nothing more powerful

than you, me or any country working in their own interest. And that is what we have here, which is fundamentally different from where we were

three or four years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LU STOUT: Now, scientists say one of the more serious consequences of global warming is rising sea levels. And at the front lines of that are

the Pacific Islands.

Now this is the president of the Marshall Islands making a passionate plea for action. Experts say his tiny nation would be literally wiped off the

map if temperatures continue to rise.

Now, that is an extreme example, but it doesn't mean other places are not immune to the problem.

Now this is what Hong Kong looks like today. And according to the advocacy group Climate Central, if global temperatures rise by just 2 degrees

Celsius, this is how the city would look. Large parts of the coastline completely submerged.

Now, for a look at today's meetings in Paris, CNN's digital columnist John Sutter joins me live from Paris. And John, on the agenda today we have

meetings between some of the world's most vulnerable nations, most vulnerable to climate change. What can you tell us about what will happen

later today?

JOHN SUTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, you highlighted the Marshall Islands. And I think that that is a really good example to talk about actually went

out to that country earlier this year. It is sort of tiny specks of islands out in the enormous Pacific.

I talked to someone there who told me that we're a big ocean country, not a small island country. These islands just peak up above sea level. And if

temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius, which is the goal that everyone is trying to stop us from doing, then those islands likely won't exist. And,

you know, you have an entire group of people, an entire language put at risk. And it's harder to -- you can't like really understate the feeling

of being in a place like that looking people in the eyes and hearing their fear as they know the predictions that their country may not exist by the

end of the century, because of all the pollution that people are putting into the atmosphere.

So, I think you'll hear a strong moral call from these countries that are really on the front lines of this crisis.

I think what's becoming increasingly clear is that we all are on the front lines of these crises. You showed, you know, the images of Hong Kong. 15

percent of Bangladesh could go underwater if we hit that 2 degree point.

So, this really is a global crisis. I think that the islands in the Pacific are sort of the clarion call for a moral voice. And they're

speaking up and saying, look, we're out here. We're people too, we matter. And we haven't really caused this. They haven't contributed to the problem

and so the rest of us know the industrialized world needs to step up and look at the effects that our actions are having all around the world.

LU STOUT: In just a few moments from now, in a couple of minutes, we're expecting U.S. President Barack Obama to give a speech there in Paris. Of

course, the United States is the world's largest economy. It's the world's second largest emitter. When President Obama speaks, what are you going to

be looking out for?

[08:05:07] SUTTER: I think we'll look for him to continue to say that it is in the U.S. interests and in the interests of future generations to act

on climate change. I think he'll specifically reference the situation with the islands. He actually has been saying, you know, that he is an islander,

too, from Hawaii. So he can relate to this feeling of being such, you know, a small piece of land out of the enormity of the Pacific. You feel

incredibly vulnerable being in these places.

And so I think he'll try to hit that point and also underscore this moral message behind action on climate change. It's just something we're hearing

not just from Obama, but from the pope and from other world leaders as well.

LU STOUT: Earlier we heard from Barack Obama. He said that he recognizes America's role in helping to create the problem of global warming and also

embracing, quote, our responsibility to do something about it.

Just how much is the United States offering up there at COP21 in terms of making that commitment to cut emissions and also offering assistance to

developing countries, assistance that could be in the form of financial aid or technology and innovation?

SUTTER: So, all of the countries here at COP21, most of them have brought forward emissions reductions plans. I heard it described as sort of a pot

luck, everyone bringing their own dish. The U.S. has committed to 26 of 28 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by, I think it's around 2030. It's seen

as ambitious, especially compared to what the United States has committed, or rather not committed in the past. So, you know, there are signs that

the U.S. is taking this very seriously.

The Obama administration has done quite a lot in the last year. You know, they rejected the Keystone Pipeline, which was a huge symbolic victory for

environmentalists. You know, putting rules on the efficiency of cars, trying to clean up coal-fired power plants. Critics would say that he's

not doing enough and that Congress has really failed to act to create like an emissions trading scheme or some sort of tax on carbon. They would push

the U.S. further towards a clean economy.

But the narrative really has changed. You have the big polluters, the two biggest in the world, the U.S. and China, who are pledging significant

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And as we heard earlier who were saying that this is in our economic interest, that we want to be a cleaner,

more technologically advanced country in the era of fossil fuels and pollution is unhealthy and that it's increasingly coming to an end.

LU STOUT: You know, it's only day two of the COP21 climate change summit. Already we have heard from U.S. President Barack Obama. We're expecting to

hear again from him momentarily. We've already heard from the Chinese President Xi Jinping as well as the leader of India, Narendra Modi.

We've talked about this before in the hours here in CNN, John, I want to get your thoughts on this again. To what degree are the top three emitters

of greenhouse gases -- the U.S., China and India on the same page and really committed to reaching an agreement at the end of this conference?

SUTTER: I think they're more on the same page than they ever have been, that there have been, you know, agreements between the U.S. and China the

proceeded these meetings to sort of, you know, laying out the strategy. A lot of that work has been done in advance of these talks.

You mentioned assistance for developing countries, both to adapt to climate change and to develop greener economies. How much money actually gets put

forward into that green climate fund, as its called, will be one sticking point in negotiations.

But I do think we see the big polluters, you know, really talking seriously about moving away from fossil fuels in a way they haven't before. There

have been some questions about, you know, whether this agreement will be legally binding. That's what people are shooting for in terms of -- that

it will be ratified politically around the world -- you know, we're hoping...

LU STOUT: All right, John, thank you very much indeed for that -- unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut you off there.

U.S. President Barack Obama is speaking now at the conference. We'll check in with John a little bit later. Let's listen to Mr. Obama now.

[08:08:45]

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

OBAMA: -- extraordinary hospitality. Hosting nearly 200 nations is an enormous task for anybody, but to do so just two weeks after the terrorist

attacks here is a remarkable display of resolve.

And that's why the first place I visited when I arrived on Sunday night was the Bataclan, so that I could pay my respects on behalf of the American

people who share the French people's resolve. It was a powerful reminder of the awful human toll of those attacks. Our hearts continue to go out to the

victims' families.

But here in Paris, we also see the resilience of the universal values that we share: liberte, egalite, fraternite.

And based on my discussions with President Hollande and other leaders, I am confident that we can continue building momentum and adding resources to

our effort to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, to disrupt plots against America and our allies and to bring about the political resolution

necessary to resolve the situation in Syria and relieve the hardships on the Syrian people.

OBAMA: Now, this has been a quick visit. Of course, all visits to Paris seem quick. You always want to stay a little bit longer, but we have

accomplished a lot here and I have high hopes that over the next two weeks, we'll accomplish even more.

I know some have asked why the world would dedicate some of our focus right now to combating climate change even as we work to protect our people and

go after terrorist networks.

The reason is because this one trend, climate change, affects all trends. If we let the world keep warming as fast as it is and sea levels rising as

fast as they are, and weather patterns keep shifting in more unexpected ways, then before long we are going to have to devote more and more and

more of our economic and military resources not to growing opportunity for our people, but to adapting to the various consequences of a changing

planet.

This is an economic and security imperative that we have to tackle now. And great nations can handle a lot at once. America's already leading on many

issues and climate is no different. We've made significant progress at home, increasing production of clean energy, working to reduce emissions

while our businesses have kept creating jobs for 68 straight months. And we've been able to lower our unemployment rate to 5 percent in the process.

And since we worked with China last year to show that the two largest economies and two largest emitters can cooperate on climate, more than 180

countries have followed our lead in announcing their own targets. The task that remains here in Paris is to turn these achievements into an enduring

framework for progress that gives the world confidence in a low carbon future.

As I said yesterday, what we seek is an agreement where progress paves the way for countries to update their emissions targets on a regular basis. And

each nation has the confidence that other nations are meeting their commitments. We seek an agreement that makes sure developing nations have

the resources they need to skip the dirty phase of development if they're willing to do their part and then make sure the nation's most vulnerable to

climate change have resources to adapt to the impacts we can no longer avoid.

We seek an agreement that gives businesses and investors the certainty that the global economy is on a firm path towards a low carbon future because

that will spur the kind of investment that will be vital to combine reduced emissions with economic growth. And that's the goal. Not just an agreement

to roll back the pollution that threatens our planet but an agreement that helps our economies grow and our people to thrive without condemning the

next generation to a planet that's beyond its capacity to repair.

Now, all of this will be hard. Getting 200 nations to agree on anything is hard. And I'm sure there will be moments over the next two weeks where

progress seems stymied and everyone rushes to write that we are doomed.

But I am convinced that we are going to get big things done here. Keep in mind nobody expected that 180 countries would show up in Paris with serious

climate targets in hand. Nobody expected that the price of clean energy would fall as fast as it has or that back in the United States the solar

industry would be creating jobs ten times faster than the rest of the economy.

Nobody expected that more than 150 of America's biggest companies would pledge their support to an ambitious Paris outcome or that a couple of

dozen of the world's wealthiest private citizens would join us here to pledge to invest unprecedented resources to bring clean energy technologies

to market faster.

What gives me confidence that progress is possible is somebody like Bill Gates, who I was with yesterday, understands that tackling climate change

is not just a moral imperative. It's an opportunity. Without batting an eye he said, we're just going to have to go ahead and invent some new

technologies to tackle this challenge. That kind of optimism, that kind of sense that we can do what is necessary, is infectious.

And you tend to believe somebody like Bill when he says that we're going to get it done, since he's done remarkable things. And I believe a successful

two weeks here can give the world that same kind optimism that the future is ours to shape.

So with that, I'm going to take a few questions. We'll start with Jerome Gartillia of AP.

OBAMA: Where's Jerome?

QUESTION: Good morning, sir, and thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Yes.

QUESTION: For months now you've been asking Mr. Putin to play basically a more constructive role in Syria, basically shifting from defending Assad to

attacking ISIL. It appears your calls have not been heard.

What's your strategy going forward?

OBAMA: Well, I'm not sure that's true. The fact that the Vienna process is moving forward steadily -- not conclusively but steadily -- I think is an

indication that Mr. Putin recognizes there is not going to be a military resolution to the situation in Syria.

The Russians now have been there now for several weeks, over a month. And I think fair-minded reporters, who have looked at the situation, would say

that the situation hasn't changed significantly.

In the interim, Russia's lost a commercial passenger jet. You've seen another jet shot down. There have been losses in terms of Russian

personnel. And I think Mr. Putin understands that, with Afghanistan fresh in the memory, for him to simply get bogged down in a inconclusive and

paralyzing civil conflict is not the outcome that he's looking for.

Now, where we continue to have an ongoing difference is not on the need for a political settlement; it's the issue of whether Mr. Assad can continue to

serve as president while still bringing that civil war to an end. It's been my estimation for five years now that that's not possible.

Regardless of how you feel about Mr. Assad -- and I consider somebody who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people illegitimate -- but

regardless of the moral equation, as a practical matter, it is impossible for Mr. Assad to bring that country together and to bring all the parties

into an inclusive government.

It is possible, however, to preserve the Syrian state, to have an inclusive government where the interests of the various groups inside of Syria are

represented.

And so as part of the Vienna process, you're going to see the opposition groups, the moderate opposition groups that exist within Syria -- some of

which, frankly, you know, we don't have a lot in common with, but do represent significant factions inside of Syria -- they'll be coming

together in order for them to form at least a negotiating unit or process that can move Vienna forward.

And we're going to just keep on working at this. And my hope and expectation is that that political track will move at the same time as we

continue to apply greater and greater pressure on ISIL.

And, with the contributions that the French have made, the Germans have recently announced additional resources to the fight, the Brits have been

steady partners in Iraq and I think are now very interested in how they can expand their efforts to help deal with ISIL inside of Syria.

With not just the cohesion of the coalition that the United States put together but also the increasing intensity of our actions in the air and

progressively on the ground, you know, I think it is possible, over the next several months, that we both see a shift in calculation in the

Russians and a recognition that it's time to bring the civil war in Syria to a close.

It's not going to be easy. Too much blood has been shed. Too much infrastructure has been destroyed. Too many people have been displaced for

us to anticipate that it will be a smooth transition.

OBAMA: And ISIL is going to continue to be a deadly organization because of its social media, the resources that it has and the networks of experienced

fighters that it possesses. It's going to continue to be a serious threat for some time to come.

But I'm confident that we are on the winning side of this and that ultimately, Russia's going to recognize the threat that ISIL poses to its

country, to its people, is the most significant and that they need to align themselves with those of us who are fighting ISIL.

Justin Sink?

QUESTION: Thanks, Mr. President. I guess I wanted to follow on that shift in calculation that you discussed with -- in terms of President Putin. Did

you receive assurances from either him or President Hollande, who said earlier this week that President Putin had told him he would only target

jihadis and ISIS, that that would be the focus of Russia's military campaign going forward?

And then separately, I just wanted to ask about climate. The outstanding issue seems to be whether Republicans who have kind of voiced opposition to

your agenda could somehow submarine (ph) funding for the Green Climate Fund, it's a pretty crucial part here. So I'm wondering both how you

prevent that in the upcoming appropriations process and if you're at all concerned about what Senator McConnell said earlier today or yesterday,

that a future Republican could undo what you're trying to accomplish here in Paris?

OBAMA: First of all, on Mr. Putin, I don't expect that you're going to see a 180 turn on their strategy over the next several weeks. They have

invested, for years now, in keeping Assad in power. Their presence there is predicated on propping him up, and so that's going to take some time for

them to change how they think about the issue.

And so long as they are aligned with the regime, a lot of Russian resources are still going to be targeted at opposition groups that ultimately are

going to end up being part of an inclusive government, that we support or other members of the coalition support and are fighting the regime and

fighting ISIL at the same time.

So I don't think we should be under any illusions that somehow Russia starts hitting only ISIL targets. That's not happening now. It was never

happening. It's not going to be happening in the next several weeks. What can happen is if the political process that John Kerry has so meticulously

stitched together, in concert with Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia. If that works in Vienna, then it's possible, given the existing accord that

the parties have already agreed to, that we start seeing at least pockets of cease-fires in and around Syria.

That may mean then that certain opposition groups no longer find themselves subject to either Syrian or Russian bombing. They are then in a

conversation about politics. And slowly, we then are able to get everybody's attention diverted to where it needs to be, and that is going

after ISIL in a systematic way.

With respect to climate and what's taking place here, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. We still need a Paris agreement. So my main focus is

making sure that the United States is a leader in bringing a successful agreement home here in Paris, and there are a number of components to it.

So I just want to repeat, so that everybody understands what we will consider success several weeks from now.

OBAMA: Number one, that it is an ambitious target that seeks low carbon, global economy over the course of this century. That means that countries

have put forward specific targets and although those are self-generating, there is a mechanism in which they are presenting to the world confirmation

that they are working on those targets, meeting on those targets, so there's a single transparency mechanism that all countries are adhering to.

And that those are legally binding, that there's periodic reviews, so that as the science changes and as technology changes, five years from now, 10

years from now, 15 years from now, in each successive cycle, countries can update the pledges that they make.

And that we've got a climate fund that helps developing countries to not only adapt and mitigate but also leap frog over dirty power generation in

favor of clean energy.

And if we hit those targets, then we will have been successful, not because, by the way, the pledges alone will meet the necessary targets for

us to prevent catastrophic climate change, but because we will have built the architecture that's needed.

We will have established a global consensus of how we're going to approach the problem and then we can successfully turn up the dials as new sources

of energy become available, as the unit cost for something like solar or improvements in battery technology make it easier for us to meet even

higher targets and systematically we can drive down carbon emissions and the pace of climate change over the course of several decades.

So I want to emphasize this because I know that in some of the reporting, if you add up all the pledges and they were all met right now, we would be

at an estimated 2.7 centigrade increase in temperature. That's too high.

We wanted to get 2 centigrade or even lower than that. But if we have these periodic reviews built in, what I believe will happen is that by sending

that signal to researchers and scientists and investors and entrepreneurs and venture funds, we'll actually start hitting these targets faster than

we expected and we can be even more ambitious.

And so, when you look at the cumulative targets that may exist ten years from now, we may well be within the 2 percent centigrade increase. And by

the way, that's not just foolish optimism. When you look at the experience of the United States, for example, I came into office. I prioritized clean

energy.

I said we're going to double our clean energy production through the Recovery Act. We recognized that making these big investments were also

good for the economy and helping us get out of recession and could create jobs, so we made a big investment. And it turned out that we met our goals

a lot quicker than we expected.

If you had asked me when I first came into office my expectations for the price of solar generated power versus traditional coal or other fossil fuel

generated power, I would say we would make some progress but that solar would still require substantial subsidies in order to be economical.

The cost of solar has gone down much faster than any of us would have predicted even five years ago. So the key here is to set up the structure

so that we're sending signals all around the world. This is happening. We're not turning back.

And the thing about human ingenuity, I was going to say American ingenuity, but there are other smart folks around too. Don't want to be too parochial

about this. The thing about human ingenuity is that it responds when it gets a strong signal of what needs to be done.

OBAMA: The old expression that necessity is the mother of invention. Well this is necessary. And us getting a strong, high ambition agreement in

place, even if it doesn't meet all the goals that we ultimately need to meet, sends a signal that it's necessary. And that will spur on the

innovation that is going to ultimately meet our goals.

Nancy Bening (ph).

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. One follow-up on the climate change issue.

Are you confident that you can hold the U.S. to its commitments under the - - under existing treaties with no new vote needed?

And, separately, on Planned Parenthood, I wondered if you could share your thoughts on that shooting and any thoughts in the context of the sharp

political rhetoric in the country at this time.

OBAMA: I apologize, Jess (ph), I didn't address that but fortunately Nancy was batting cleanup after you. On the issue of the climate fund, we already

engage in assistance to countries for adaptation, mitigation, sharing technology that can help them meet their energy needs in a clean way.

And so this is not just one slug of funding that happens in one year. This is multiyear commitments that, in many cases, are already embedded in a

whole range of programs that we have around the world. And my expectation is that we will absolutely be able to meet our commitments.

This is part of American leadership, by the way. And this is part of the debate that we have to have in the United States more frequently.

For some reason, too often in Washington, American leadership is defined by whether or not we're sending troops somewhere. And that's the sole

definition of leadership.

And part of what I've been trying to describe during the course of my presidency is that where we make the most impact and where, by the way, we

strengthen our relationships and influence the most is when we are helping to organize the world around a particular problem.

Now. because we're the largest country, because we have the most powerful military, we should welcome the fact that we're going to do more -- and

oftentimes we're going to do it first.

So during the Ebola response, other countries could not respond until we had set up the infrastructure to allow other countries to respond and until

we had made the call and showed that we were going to make that investment.

You know, the same was true with respect to making sure that Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon. We had to lead the way.

But ultimately because we reached out and brought our allies and partners together, we were able to achieve goals that we could not have achieved by

ourselves. The same is true with climate.

You know, when I made the announcement in Beijing with President Xi I was able to do so, in part, because we had led domestically. So I could put my

money where my mouth was and I said, here are the tough political decisions we're making.

Now what are you going to do?

And once we were able to get China involved, that gave confidence to other countries that we're in a position to make a difference as well -- or --

and that they needed to be involved in the process as well.

So, you know, whether it's organizing the coalition that's fighting ISIL or dealing with climate change, our role is central.

But on large international issues like this, it's not going to be sufficient, at least not if we want it to take, if we want it to sustain

itself. We've got to have partners. And that's the kind of leadership that we should aspire to.

With respect to Planned Parenthood, obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted.

I mean, Nancy (ph), I say this every time we've got to -- one of these mass shootings. This just doesn't happen in other countries.

OBAMA: You know, we are rightly determined to prevent terrorist attacks wherever they occur, whether in the United States or with friends and

allies like France. And we devote enormous resources, and properly so, to rooting out networks and debilitating organizations like ISIL and

maintaining the intelligence and improving the information sharing that can identify those who would try to kill innocent people.

And yet, in the United States, we have the power to do more to prevent what is just a regular process of gun homicides. That is unequalled by multiples

of five, six, ten. And I think the American people understand that. So my hope is, is that once again, this spurs a conversation and action and I

will continue to present those things that I can do administratively, but in the end of the day, Congress, states, local governments, are going to

have to act in order to make sure that we're preventing people who are deranged or have violent tendencies from getting weapons that can magnify

the damage that they do.

And with respect to Planned Parenthood, I think it's clear, I've said it before, they provide health services to women all across the country. Have

for generations. In many cases, it's the only organization that provides health services to impoverished women.

I think it's fair to have a legitimate, honest debate about abortion. I don't think that's something that is beyond the pale of our political

discussion. That's a serious, legitimate issue. How we talk about it, making sure that we're talking about it factually, accurately and not

demonizing organizations like Planned Parenthood I think is important.

Jeb Mason (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe that Turkey is doing enough to strengthen its northwest border with Syria? How -- how is it that

a NATO country with a large a military as Turkey has has not sealed this border? And is that something that you raised today with President Erdogan?

And then to put a finer point on the climate change question, can leaders gathered here believe that the United States will keep its commitments even

after you've left office if a Republican succeeds you in the White House?

OBAMA: You know, just with respect to my successor, let me first of all say that I'm anticipating a Democrat succeeding me. (LAUGHTER)

I'm confident in the wisdom of the American people on that front. But even if somebody from a different party succeeded me, one of the things you find

is when you're in this job, you think about it differently than when you're just running for the job.

And what you realize is what I mentioned earlier, that American leadership involves not just playing to American constituency back home, but you now

are in fact at the center of what happens around the world. And that your credibility and America's ability to influence events depends on taking

seriously what other countries care about.

OBAMA: Now, the fact of the matter is there's a reason why you have the largest gathering of world leaders probably in human history here in Paris.

Everybody else is taking climate change really seriously. They think it's a really big problem. It spans political parties. You travel around Europe

and you talk to leaders of governments and the opposition and they are arguing about a whole bunch of things. One thing they're not arguing about

is whether the science of climate change is real and whether or not we have to do something about it.

So whoever is the next president of the United States, if they come in and they suggest somehow that that global consensus, not just 99.5 percent of

scientists and experts, but 99 percent of world leaders, think this is really important

Nothing -- the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important. And that's why it's important for us to not

project what's being said on a campaign trail but to do what's right and make the case.

And I would note that the American people I think in a most recent survey, two-thirds of them said America should be a signatory to any agreement that

emerges that is actually addressing climate change in a serious way. So the good news is the politics inside the United States is changing as well.

You know, sometimes it may be hard for Republicans to support something that I'm doing but, you know, that's more a matter of the games Washington

plays. And that's why I think people should be confident that we'll meet our commitments on this. With respect to Turkey, I have had repeated

conversations with President Erdogan about the need to close the border between Turkey and Syria.

We've seen serious progress on that front but there's still some gaps. In particular, there's about 98 kilometers that are still used as a transit

point for foreign fighters, ISIL shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities. And so we have been having our

militaries work together to determine how a combination of air and Turkish ground forces on the Turkish side of the border, can do a much better job

of sealing the border than currently is.

And I think President Erdogan recognizes that. I'm also encouraged by the fact that President Erdogan and the E.U. had a series of meetings around --

or turkey and the E.U. had a series of meetings around the issue of the Turkish/Greek border. We have to remind ourselves, Turkey has taken on an

enormous humanitarian effort. There are millions of Syrians who are displaced and living inside of Turkey, not just refugee camps but they are

now moving into major cities throughout Turkey. That puts enormous strains on their infrastructure, on their housing, on employment.

And Turkey has continued to keep those borders open for people in real need. So I'm proud that the United States is the single largest contributor

of humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees. I'm glad that the E.U. is looking to do more to help Turkey manage those refugee flows.

But I also think the E.U. rightly wants to see the kind of orderly process along the Turkish Greek border that's necessary for Europe to be able to

regulate the amount of refugees that it's absorbing and to save of lives of refugees who are often times taking enormous risks because they're being

ferried back and forth by human traffickers who are now operating in the same ways that you see drug traffickers operating under: at enormous profit

and without regard for human life.

QUESTION: Did you raise the border issue in the meeting today?

OBAMA: We talked about it today. I guess what I'm saying, Jeff (ph), this has been an ongoing conversation. We recognized this is a central part of

our anti-ISIL strategy.

We've got to choke them off. We have to choke off how they make money. We've got to choke off their ability to bring in new fighters because, you

know, we've taken tens of thousands of their fighters off the battlefield.

But if new ones are still coming in, then they continue to maintain a stranglehold over certain population centers inside of Iraq or Syria. So

we've got to cut off their source of new fighters. That's also part of the great danger for Europe and ultimately the United States as well and

countries as far flung as Australia or Singapore.

If you've got foreign fighters coming in that are getting not only ideologically hardened but battle hardened and then they're returning to

their home countries, they're likely candidates for engaging in the kind of terrorist attacks that we saw here in Paris.

So this has been an ongoing concern and we're going to continue to push hard among all our allies to cut off the financing, cut off the foreign

fighters, improve our intelligence gathering which has allowed us to accelerate the strikes that we're taking against ISIL.

You know, a lot of the discussion over the last couple of weeks was the pace of airstrikes. The pace of airstrikes is not constrained by the amount

of planes or missiles that we have. The pace has been dictated by how many effective targets do we have. And our intelligence continues to improve.

And the better we get at that, the better we're going to be at going after them.

Scott Horsley?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

And in terms of sending that marked signal you talked about today and a couple times this week, I wonder if you see any political path back home

towards putting an explicit price on carbon.

OBAMA: I have -- I have long believed that the most elegant way to drive innovation and to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on it. This is

a classic market failure. All right? If you open up a Econ 101 textbook, it'll say, you know, the market's very good at -- about determining prices

and allocating capital towards its most productive use except there are certain externalities, there's certain things that the market just doesn't

count, it doesn't price, at least not on its own.

Clean air is an example. Clean water -- or the converse, dirty water, dirty air -- in this case, the carbons that are being sent up that originally we

didn't have the science to fully understand, we do now. And if that's the case, if you put a price on it, then the entire market would respond.

And the best investments and the smartest technologies would begin scrubbing effectively our entire economy. But it's difficult.

And so, you know, I think that as the science around climate change is more accepted, as people start realizing that even today you can put a price on

the damage that climate change is doing -- you know, you go down to Miami and when it's flooding at high tide on a sunny day and fish are swimming

through the middle of the streets, you know, that -- there's a cost to that.

Insurance companies are beginning to realize that in terms of how they price risk. And the more the market on its own starts putting a price on it

because of risk, it may be that the politics around setting up a cap-and- trade system, for example, shifts as well.

Obviously I'm not under any illusion that this Congress will impose something like that.

But it is worth remembering that it was conservatives and Republicans and center-right think tanks that originally figured out this was a smarter way

to deal with pollution than a command and control system.

OBAMA: And it was folks like George H.W. Bush and his EPA that effectively marshaled this approach to deal with acid rain. We ended up solving it a

lot faster, a lot of cheaper than anybody anticipated.

And I guess more than anything, that's the main message I want to send here, is climate change is a massive problem. It is a generational problem.

It's a problem that by definition is just about the hardest thing for any political system to absorb, because the effects are gradual, they're

diffuse, people don't feel it immediately, so there's not a lot of constituency pressure on politicians to do something about it right away.

It kind of creeps up on you.

You've got the problem of the commons and you've got to get everybody doing it because if just one nation is helping but the other nations aren't doing

it, then it doesn't do any good. You have this huge coordination problem and the danger of free riders.

So on -- on all these dimensions, it's hard to come up with a tougher problem than climate change or a more consequential problem. And yet

despite all that, the main message I've got is, I actually think we're going to solve this thing. If you had said to people as recently as two

years ago that we'd have 180 countries showing up in Paris with pretty ambitious targets for carbon reduction, most people would have said you're

crazy, that's a pipe dream. Yet here we are. That's already happened. Before the agreement is signed, that's already happened.

As I said earlier, if you told folks what the cost of generating solar energy would be today relative to what it was five years ago, people would

have said, not a chance. And with relatively modest inputs, that's already happening.

I mean, imagine if we're starting to put more R&D dollars into it, which is why the mission innovation announcement was so significant. The biggest

countries, the most prosperous countries doubling their R&D, but then you've also got Bill Gates and other extraordinarily wealthy individuals

saying we're going to put our money into this.

I'm optimistic. I think we're going to solve it. I think the issue is just going to be the pace and how much damage is done before we are able to

fully apply the brakes. And in some ways, it's akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL. In the immediate aftermath of a terrible attack like

happened here in Paris, sometimes it's natural for people to despair. But look at Paris. You can't tear down Paris because of the demented actions of

a handful of individuals. The beauty, the joy, the life, the culture, the people, the diversity. That's going to win out every time. But we have to

be steady in applying pressure to the problem. We have to keep on going at it. We have to see what works. When something doesn't work, we have to

change our approach.

But most of all, we have to push away fear and have confidence that human innovation, our values, our judgment, our solidarity, it will win out. And

I guess I've been at this long enough where I have some cause for confidence.

OBAMA: We went, what, a month, month and a half where people were pretty sure that Ebola was going to kill us all. Nobody asks me about it anymore.

And although, you know, we still see flickers of it in West Africa, wee set up an entire global health security agenda, part of American leadership, to

deal not only with Ebola, but deal with the possibility of future issues of future pandemics. It's not easy. It takes time and when you're in the midst

of it, it's frightening. But it's solvable.

All right?

With that I'm going to go home. Viva la France. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

(CNN AMERICA SIMULCAST)

END