A、Being conscious of the field invested in. B、Cutting down on their C02 emissions. C、Being wise about where to build facilities.

W: Well, let’s talk about that. I mean, one of the things you specifically have said you think should be done is a tax on carbon, a tax on companies that emit carbon dioxide. You have already acknowledged that members of your own party aren’t going to like this idea, so how do you persuade them that it’s the right thing to do?
M: Judy, just to step back for one minute and make a huge point about this study, this study is bipartisan, Republicans, Democrats...
W: Right.
M: So what we do is, we don’t focus on solutions in the study, but we’re starting in the middle here. What we want to do is just understand the risks, start a fact-based discussion on the science and on the economics. And I think that many members of Republicans, CEOs of companies, political leaders are ready for a fact-based discussion. Now, in terms of the carbon tax, which is a fee on companies that emit carbon, I think this is the most efficient way to change the behavior and create incentives for new clean energy technologies.
W: But in terms of the carbon tax, there’s already pushback from the conservatives. You’re not surprised to hear that. They are saying, first of all, they don’t believe the climate change threat is as serious as you say it is. And, secondarily, they say a tax is the last thing Americans need, another levy on business owners.
M: Right. And that was why the tax proposal was one I made in an opposite editorial page I wrote. In terms of this study, it is going to be the one that’s a lot harder to attack. And I think that people are going to welcome it, because it’s very rigorous. We look at best cases. We look at worst cases. We use very standard business risk analysis methodology. And we’re focused on business here. And there’re three things that I think businesses need to do. Firstly, when they make investment, I think they need to be very conscious of the climate risks, in terms of the kinds of facilities they build, where they build them, because these are long-term investment and it makes a big difference. Secondly, I think businesses, in my judgment, need to start making disclosures of the CO₂ emissions. And then, thirdly, they should work on policies that will help us avoid these really adverse risks. So, when I say to people, and they say, well, why should we do something so dramatically? We want more facts. And I’m saying that if you wait until you have all the facts, it will be too late.
W: But if a group like yours that believes that climate change is coming and is very serious can’t come together on a set of solutions, how do you expect policy-makers and others to come together on solutions?
M: Well, we didn’t try to come together on solutions. The idea was, let’s come together and really put facts out there. I bet you would find everybody in this group would like to see strong action. I’m not saying this is going to bring everybody to the table, but business executives play a significant role.
And if you get  leadership  from  them,  and they’re  talking  seriously  about it,  this  will  advance  the discussion. And I think that will make it easier for federal government to do some of the things they need to do, and harder not to.
W: Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, getting the debate started, thank you very much.
M: Thank you.
6. In Henry’s opinion, what’s the most efficient way to deal with the issue?
7. How does Henry persuade his own party to vote for carbon tax?
8. What does the conservatives think of carbon tax?
9. What should the businesses do to help solve the problem?
10. According to Henry, what is the best way to urge the government to take action?