President Petro, an economist by training who specializes in environmental and population development, said, “We have an economic system that links cheap labor, carbon-based fuels, and profits” and “we’re facing a very serious global political problem — the problems of World War II, the Cold War are nothing compared to what we’re facing now.”

Humankind, Petro said, must “join together in a revolution against capital.” He called for more “power to the people” and that all states around the world operate in a multilateral approach to address ways to alleviate the climate crisis.

“The markets will not fix the climate crisis and save humanity,” and a new type of economy, one that’s not driven by carbon-based profits but by the general welfare of all people, must emerge to ensure the survival of future generations.

He said the origins of the crisis began with the current Anthropocene Era, which describes the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems. The “greedy and never-ending consumption of products related to fossil fuel energy” has landed humanity in its current predicament.

“We, the consumers, are the guilty and the ones to blame,” Petro said.

The Colombian president said that fossil fuels are used to maximize profits and that the climate crisis is the logical result of the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few.

And on top of this, he added, the political and economic establishments haven’t historically listened to the science about what happens when carbon is issued into the atmosphere and the social imbalance that follows. He expressed doubt that the current system of capitalism can achieve environmental progress based on the current data he observes.

“To leave markets with free reign will not lead to the maximum well-being of all, but virtually to extinction,” he said.

He concluded, “We are running out of time.”

On April 20, President Joe Biden will host President Petro for a bilateral meeting at the White House to discuss topics such as climate change, and economic and security cooperation.

Petro won Colombia’s presidential election in June 2022 with the support of voters frustrated by rising poverty and violence. He has vowed to bring peace to his nation of 50 million after decades of conflict. Time magazine recently named him one of the “100 Most Influential People of 2023.”

Under Petro, Colombia earlier this year announced that it will not approve any new oil and gas exploration projects as it seeks to shift away from fossil fuels and toward a new sustainable economy.

Student-driven event

Alberto Díaz-Cayeros, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), affiliated faculty at CDDRL, and director of Stanford’s Center for Latin American Studies, participated in a questions-and-answers session with the audience and Petro after the president’s address. Michael McFaul, director of FSI, and Kathyrn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, both introduced Petro before his remarks.

In an email interview, Díaz-Cayeros explained that Colombia has weathered a four-decades-long civil war. Now, Petro will manage various high-stakes issues in his country, including an ambitious overhaul of the health system, a restart of the peace process, and the role of the mining and oil industries, among others.

“This visit is important as Stanford considers its engagement with Latin America and our hemisphere,” said Díaz-Cayeros, adding that it can refocus attention to a region of the world that is fundamentally important for California, the U.S.,  Stanford, and even Silicon Valley.

Héctor Hoyos, Professor and Director of Iberian and Latin American Cultures, and Professor of Comparative Literature (by courtesy), added that “it was great to see Stanford students come together to engage with an influential figure for hemispheric politics." Hoyos went on to note that civility and openness to different points of view were hallmarks of the event, which also included Bay Area community members.

Tara Hein, ‘23, CDDRL honors student and co-founder & co-president of the Stanford Society for Latin American Politics, led the student-driven effort to host the Colombian president.

Born and raised in Costa Rica, Hein was inspired to host Petro due to her goals of strengthening democracy, realizing the promise of political equality in Latin America, and connecting Stanford's expertise to the world beyond campus. “This can make life better for millions,” she said.

Highlighting the need to bridge academia and policy, Hein explained, “At Stanford, we’re tremendously privileged to have leading scholars and abundant resources to tackle the world’s most pressing issues. But if these learnings stay here on campus, or within intellectual circles, the impact will remain limited. We must not forget that there are real people being affected by the very events that we research and study.”

By inviting Colombia’s president to Stanford, her student community hopes to spark a larger dialogue between academic spaces such as CDDRL and democratic world leaders like Petro, she said.

Were you surprised by the results you saw?

Fishkin: I was gratified to see so many significant changes of opinion, mostly in the direction of people arriving at shared solutions once they discussed the issues and became more informed.

Diamond: I was surprised at the extent of movement among Republicans in two directions: toward greater recognition that climate change is an urgent and transcendent problem, and toward support for policies to accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources. I was also intrigued to find so much support, and then increased support, for a new generation of nuclear power plants. I don’t think we can get off our addiction to fossil fuels rapidly enough without nuclear power in the mix, and I was surprised that so many Democrats and in the end Republicans, too, understood that.

Siu: Indeed, there were some quite dramatic shifts in opinions. On top of the changes in survey results, the small group discussions themselves were extremely rich, with many people learning from those very different from themselves. Many participants came out of the event understanding that listening to each other is necessary to make any changes happen.

What is the path forward? How can this information be used at a policymaking level to create actionable change?

Fishkin: As in other Deliberative Polls around the world, these results need to be shared in detail with policy makers and with the media. They provide a route to responsible advocacy. They represent the considered judgments of the public once they really discuss and get their questions answered. In a democracy that helps contribute to the “will of the people.”

Diamond: Yes, I agree with Jim. It is vital that the results get publicized and considered in the policy debate. This is the only indication we have of what the American public as a whole would favor doing to combat climate change and transform our energy mix if everyone had access to objective and balanced information and the chance to weigh it together with one another.

Siu: In a webinar last week, Senators Lindsey Graham and Jeanne Shaheen spoke about the importance of this Deliberative Polling event and shared some ideas for paths forward to have actionable change. With everyone’s help, we can further amplify the results from this event and make it known that Americans believe that change can happen.

The COP26 climate change summit is currently underway in Glasgow, Scotland. Are policymakers and the public reaching a tipping point where we might see more substantive support for actions on climate change at the international level?

Diamond: Unfortunately, I don’t see signs of the necessary resolve to act with the urgency that is imperative.  We are moving in the right direction, toward publics around the world understanding that climate change is a threat to the well-being of all societies, and to the survival of some countries, and toward understanding that we must transition away from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy, while also ending other practices that contribute to the problem, such as deforestation.  But we aren’t moving nearly fast enough. I am not a climate scientist, but I feel like we are at least ten years behind where we need to be, and a decade of difference in meeting goals could well be the difference between effective adaptation and calamity.  The one truly hopeful sign is that a growing number of conservatives in the U.S. are beginning to publicly acknowledge the magnitude of the danger and the urgent need for an energy transition. I hope they can mobilize their Congressional colleagues around an ambitious policy agenda, because we are running out of time to avert a global catastrophe, and the U.S. won’t get to where we need to be without a bipartisan approach.

Can the model of deliberative polling exercises be scaled to enable similar conversations with broader audiences?

Fishkin: These deliberations were conducted with the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform—a joint effort of the Crowdsourced Democracy Team here at Stanford (led by Professor Ashish Goel in Management Science and Engineering) and the Center for Deliberative Democracy (CDD). In theory, any number of these small groups can be convened, and we hope to use it for deliberative scaling to much larger numbers just as we have used it for Deliberative Polling with scientific samples. So, the answer is yes, and that is a direction we want to move in.

Diamond: I agree with Jim.  There are very exciting frontiers ahead for this. I also think there is room to implement deliberation in person in the schools and between schools in different neighborhoods. The lesson we are finding over and over is that there is great value for democracy, societal health, and policy effectiveness when people of diverse backgrounds engage one another in thoughtful, moderated, mutually respectful conversations. And we have growing evidence that the automated moderator—developed through this amazing partnership of engineers and social scientists at Stanford—can effectively moderate a small group discussion, even on very polarized issues.

Siu: Yes, absolutely. Our platform is designed with this in mind. We want to scale deliberation to the masses, so that anyone who wants to can experience deliberation for themselves. When people engage in deliberations with diverse others, they understand in a firsthand way that being in a democracy means listening to each other.