videos and making questions they can design intern into their own bellringer's. >> probably my favorite is the deliberation stage. it's a perfectly set up, ready to go classroom deliberation on a variety of topics that are current and relevant today. >> if you are middle or high school teacher join thousands of your fellow teachers as a member of c-span classroom. it's free and easy to register at c-span.org. if you register now you can request a classroom size american presidents timeline poster. find out more about it c-span.org/classroom. >> on "washington journal" we discussed the trump administrations agenda on climate change in the environment with bob deans of the natural resources defense council and myron of the

competitive enterprise institute. this is one hour.mp admin >> joining us for a discussion on the climate agenda, were meeting bob dean who seat serves as the director of strategic. and the director of the center for energy and environment. good morning. >> we talk about the larger issues of the agenda. talk about specifically called the paris climate agreement as we speak right now the trump administration is debating whether to stay in it. if you get what it is in your perspective should we stay in it or not?ting sure this is a triumph of american leadership. were doing what's important for our country at home so our children to not inherit dangerous climate change tomorrow. we have 195 countries agreed with the united states. let's cut the use and shift to better ways for our children.akr

so why would we walk away from that? why would we break our promise to the rest of the world? we need to stay with it. >> the paris climate treaty is exactly the opposite of what he said. it is not a triumph. is taking the world in the wrong direction. it's incredibly expensive for this country and for other countries including developing countries. it would have no perceptible effect on global temperatures. so it's all pain and no game. president trump campaigned on the promise to withdraw the united states from the treaty.up >> this took place and i'm going to shoot it into the opposite of the point being made. the editors are saying that reneging on this would damage america's credibility at a road

diplomatic relationship.t to mee >> other countries are not taking their promises seriously. there is a study out last week that said only three european union countries on target to meet their commitments. the united states also is [inaudible] target. the commitment made by the obama administration only gets us to about 55% of our commitment. president trump is saying we are going to remove major piecesre that are part of that commitment and we are not going to add more to it. we will never fulfill our commitment. that is really why we must withdraw. >> i will reach a statement who is a colleague, he says climate catastrophe no computer models has a reduction of temperature from paris. the ultimate aim is to their

increased fleet costly. >> that's ridiculous. we know from the national oceanic and atmospheric what is happening here. we just wrapped up the hottest year sense of global record-keeping began in 1880 for the third year in the row we broke the record of the 17 hottest years 16 have occurred in this century. we know rising seas, croplands turning to desert, mass extinction, the worst since the dinosaurs died. we know what's happening in the reasons. were burning too much fossil fuels. we put so much pollution in the atmosphere we have put more than 43% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. that has thrown a heat blanket over the globe. it's causing climate chaos worldwide. 195 countries are in agreement with moving forward. >> we want to hear from you as well about the agenda for

climate in the trump administration. you can ask questions aside from specific paris agreement, what happens whether a decision is made, there is a meeting was supposed to take place at the white house about whether to consider joining. that meeting was canceled. to that send a message about what the administration might be doing in this case?ep >> i think it was reported that some people were traveling who wanted to be in the meeting so senior people were traveling with president trump. i think there are two factions in the administration, i would call them the promise keepers in the promise breakers.the pr there fairly evenly balanced. the president made a strong m commitment during the campaign and said it's part of the whole

energy and environmental package, to pull out of theac paris climate agreement agreement. the president is for pulling out but the administration is divided. do you think the president will go forward? >> i think he will keep his commitment and withdraw.si >> we think the president will recognize that were making progress.he we've cut the carbon footprint e 14% since 2005. the economy has grown 17%. we are doubling down on efficiencies so we do more with less waste. we're building some of the most all electric and hybrid cars in the world and were getting more clean power from the wind and sun. that is created jobs. this is only the beginning. because of the global nature of the shift away from dirty fossil fuels we'll see $7 trillion in global investment.d th we need workers to succeed. worker success for americansns h

began here in our own countries. the first calls from michael from illinois. you are on with the gas go ahe ahead. >> caller: i have two points, number one i've been noticing and objecting to the fact that when you have on someone is acknowledging the science that climate change is taking place, you always bring out somebody who is going to counter the arguments and confuse the issue. that is my first point. the question is this, the u.s. military has been planning for a climate change and social implications of the for more than 20 years. t if the military believes this is happening, why do we still haver these naysayers? and i voted for trump but he's not getting my boat the second time around. he doesn't know what he's doing,

quite frankly. so the military prepares for this and these naysayers just keep going on. thank you very much. >> what i will say is i think you are one of many americans who did not vote, whatever we voted for in november they did not vote for dirty air and dirty water. or to take our environmental guardian off the beat. we certainly do not vote to walk away from american climate and clean energy leadership. millions of jobs and leave our kids to pay the price. we have the president will see the rationale and that. certainly the military has been preparing, we've seen croplands turn to deserts in somalia. it is a national security issueo this is a serious issue and we

need to deal that by cutting our fossil fuel and shifting to the smarter options. >> u.s. military like all government agencies is looking to expand their portfolio and funding. i would like to know what they have actually done to plan for catastrophic climate change. contrary to bob, global food o production continues to go up. part of the reason is because the planet is greening because of higher diet carbon dioxide levels. these disasters predicted for the future are speculative. the data we have suggest that the things that we depend upon like food are in good shape. what the thread is from this entire agenda is the threat to affordable and abundant energy. there are over a billion people in the world who do not have

electricity.nergy. they're not going to get it very quickly if they're going to get the most expensive forms of energy. g they're gonna get it from fossil fuels, power plants, that is what people in india southeast asia are dreaming dreaming up. l to look at our standard of living and benefit from modern technology and energy. >> and a soda, democrats line. >> caller: hello bob. i'm so on your side. living in minnesota and groin appear for 61 years coming you would not believe the streams we have such a beautiful state. you can see what all the chemicals and pollutions are doing to it. i think the only reason we don't go further in protecting our environment is because of thend big industries. it's all about the bottom dollar. the pipeline coming through in the dakotas next door to me and

through here is very upsetting. i was in science, biology and chemistry and they said will get smart and study and you don't listen to us, we need to stop the pollution.llution. >> i'm against pollution, but i'm against limiting the world's ability to deal with pollution by making us poor. carbon dioxide is not the pollutant. the data is not the model predictions, bob talks a lot about things going up but the rate of warming is so much lower than the models predicted. we have seen is about one third to one half of what was predicted by even the lowest models.ental pr

i think there's confusion between environmental protection and limited pollution in this global warming regime.e. i agree with the caller. global warming agenda is really about empowering or enriching industrial complex. those who are making billions of dollars off the backs of taxpayers and consumers around the world.n, >> your viewers are watching something historic. nowhere else in the world with this conversation be taken place then on capitol hill. they are not arguing about climate change in beijing, london, los angeles. everybody understands the. problem. everybody understands the difference and i know myron does to between the co2 that i breathe and the industrial carbon pollution that has changed the chemistry of the global atmosphere.

everybody understands that i put out heat but i'm not a furnace. everybody understands the opportunity we have to shift tos smarter ways to power our future.t the and these remarks about the lakes in minnesota, under the plan the administration is putmi forward, the proposed budget would end a program that is cleaning up the great lakes, the largest surface of freshwater system. l those great lakes are dying for industrial contamination. this administration wants to put an end to the program that is putting up the great lakes. 86% of the people who live inopn the region in ohio, michigan, support the program. g that's a mistake. >> what about the potential cuts to the budget that could exist or in the president's early t release of his budget?

>> i think the epa budget cut suggestion will be debated in congress. we are not going to get all the president has requested but the epa is an agency that is overstaffed and overregulated economy. one of the reasons president trump on the election is that he made that he talks about e economic growth. cle economic growth has been the managerial class, the bicoastal urban really with pennsylvania, indiana, those states are hurting and president trump said, i think that one of the reasons is because of the regulatory rampage that epa has been conducting. that resonated because they havf seen it.

if we have a shrinking of the epa will have less capability ii the apa to over regulate thes tn economy. >> you are part of the transition team, we are part of the choice for him to becomeer director of what you think of the performance so far? >> i was head of the transition team for the agency. is a go i am pleased with scott pruitt, think is a good choice but ing. tabl't have anything to do with picking him. >> what you bring to the table? >> the environmental protection agency was created by president richard nixon to be our national guard in of environment and health. they've wanted a career to try to prevent it from doing its job.s going that's what he's doing from the inside. and today he was going out tos visit one of the dirtiest power

plants in the country. it puts out between two and three times as much sulfur dioxide as the national average for coal plants. these are dangerous pollutants. they cause heart attacks, bronchitis, stroke, acid rain the fact that there is showcase one of the putting big profits first and the rest of us at risk. we need to turn it around. sarah new hampshire,. >> caller: i appreciate your guest topic and i grew what they say about their needs my bottom line question is this if they

take resources to be committed and you have to have agreement from the top. sometimes it comes from middle range and sometimes it's the other way around. we turned off all the mainframes my family is in medicine i only have a phd, eight doctors, five nurses, what we have made a difference. this is what i would love your guest to respond to. we had a total commitment peopln think and we should do all kinds of things. down to 15 minutes of time of managing money to people. to get the mainframes off into a new system we did that, we did

that in three years. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for calling on that. first of all, i tell you who is committed is the fossil fuel industry. they're committed to making sure we don't to anything to protect our children against the growino dangers. they spent $260 million last year promoting their agenda and allies on capitol hill. they have an army of 700o protec lobbyists who go up there, twist arms and protect their shareholders. they have the right to do that the rest need to stand up and talk about was good for the goit country. we will take that agenda on and in the court of law. we will have a chance to do it on april 29, week from saturday.

we will come out here and show this president that we mean thio and we believe in this will stand up for clean air and water and stand up for children's future. >> this is really not a debate about big bed industry and the environmental pressure groups, bob's group, the nrdc as well and that -- some have a budget of three and half billion. they are working with big corporations including the fossil fuel industry. exxon mobil supports the paris climate treaty. we can go through the list of those that supported. w this is a battle between working people who need affordable energy and big corporations and their allies who hope to getd

rich off the backs of consumersl that is why were seeing more of a convergence between the fuel industry when the big corporations like exxon mobil. >> will emmys say what the firmu said. moody's put out a report last month saying wind turbines in america are now 30% cheaper than existing coal-fired power plants. the cautions its investors there may be 100 coal fire plants that are going to be shut down as wind turbines or 30% cheaper. the price of wind and solar has plummeted. it has fallen 70% in the past seven years. consumers are getting a break on their electricity rates. investors are getting more

energy. that's why folks -- >> if that were true then we do not need all the government programs to support and mandatee if they are cheaper they will dominate the market. so we can get rid of the federal subsidies for wind and solar. we can get rid of the state mandates and the ethanol mandate. if they are cheaper, they will win. they might be cheaper if theyed get state mandates, yes. >> what he is talking about is a 2-penny per kilowatt hour tax incentive to help promote clean, renewable, homegrown american energy right here in thene millions of jobs that come witha it. but since my friend is offended by federal subsidies i assume

he's ready to dispense with the 5 billion-dollar per yeargas taxpayer handout in the oil and gas industry in the 1 billion-dollar giveaway to the coal company and the scores projecting military power to subject our access to deliver globally. >> we post all mandates and subsidies. we think free markets is what benefits consumers. think courage innovation and they find the lowest cost to what consumers want. we are against all mandates this idea that we put all this moneye into the military protection in the middle east, what it is that wind and solar.

is the fact that we are now the world's largest oil and gas producer in the sky's the limit because we have the largest resources in the world. >> -- is joining us to talk about the trump administration, and agenda. thanks for waiting. >> thank you. and thank you to c-span, a couple of points for your gas from the national council. you just mentioned us protecting those overseas, we don't use much of that oil, if we weren't there the chinese and the russians would be there and have a somewhat less benign attitude toward interest if we mature influence from that area. you spoke earlier today show global temperature rise. in all of the news coverage of

that nobody promoting that bothered to mention that the total global global temperature rise was less than .01% comingll in under the management of air. in fact almost six times less. in fact, the last three years were all within the margin of error from the study three yea e years ago. you cannot be sure there has been much of anything. secondly there is a major issue of data collection for since they collected the data even though there's a known measurement error on the c beliefs. if you remove that you remove

almost all warming for the data for the last 15 years. >> thank you so much. while we looked at was the aggregate temperature increase. last year is 1.7 degrees fahrenheit warmer globally than the 20th century average. we go double that we are going to see the worst impacts of global climate change around the world. it will hit virginia and that's why if you been to largest abc base in the world is under threat from global climate change. 3 feet of sea level rise would inundate the first settlement in america, rising temperatures are in the shenandoah valley and they were ready extended the mosquito season in richmond by 20 days. we are seeing the effects right there. i'm grateful for you to bring this up. we have to redo sorry use.

>> your caller is remarkably well-informed. he could've also pointed out that if every country in the world fulfilled every commitment made under the paris climate treaty the net reduction in the global temperature will be far within the margin of error, somewhere like 51 hundredths of a degree centigrade. that is a much wider variation, it's not measurable. so what we are being asked to do at the paris climate treat treas all painted no game. to spend tens of trillions of dollars and get no benefit. that is assuming every country keeps its promises and they do it in the most cost-effective way.

we know government typically doesn't find the most cost-effective way because there's so many things to pay off. >> i want to get the same answer to the same question, this why can't we see the truth to what it is it's really hard for me to sort out which one of them is the truth. it's difficult i want to breathe clean air to so i'm hoping to sum up the points of view and hope to get some clarity. >> i think one of the things that's difficult in this debate

is what scott adams who does the gilbert cartoon recently said. t i can't really evaluate it the same way that hooks sought they promoted the way, and promote wy something because the alarm w aside is convinced that the only way to do it is to exaggerate we had about 7 inches of sea level rise in the last century and

some of the 21st century. when you're exaggerated think people tend to turn off after a while and say this cannot possibly be the case. >> rex tillerson them so they said climate change is still a concern, doesn't that -- that they would say that at the time? exxon mobil what a very large natural gas company. that natural gas company was bart for the -- was apparent. they paid a high price for the price of gas collapsed. they had been doing everything they can under rex tillerson to play up anything, including supporting a carbon tax.the only x fon exxon mobil supports attas on theirs.

they're looking at a special interest spelling the same kind of game. the is that a surprise? every industry plays theseab that's why we need free markets and to get government out of the way. and letting oil, gas, wind, solar compete. >> i appreciate the question, here's how we know it's a problem. the national oceanic and and national academy of science told us the bedrock truth of what's happening in the world.l aerona the national aeronautics and space administration, the people put a man on the moon. these are people told us it's a problem. if you want to know what scientists are saying about it, talk to james powell who is nominated to the nationalann science board by presidentto

ronald reagan went through, 201 at 2014 and looked at 24000 peer-reviewed scholastic scientific articles aboutin climate change to find out how much debate is there of theve 70000 authors of those papers, how many do you think disagree with the idea that climate change is being driven by fossil fuel use? four. 99.99% of all of these climate scientists globally agree with the concept. they understand the fossil fuel uses driving global climate chaos. now i put it too, if i went to 999 doctors and they told me i had a broken ankle, one dr. said i'm not too sure about that, i think it i'm going home in ad tt cast. when 99.99% of the scientist global tell me that fossil fuel

consumption is driving and i think it's time for a change. >> but there's a problem. you from the consensus which is that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are being added to the atmosphere and that is causing some warming too, is causing climate chaos. that's not what 99.9% of scientists believe. there is a consensus about what greenhouse gases do, there isn't a consensus, it slides we all agreed that were creating climate chaos. all a it's hard to evaluate their claims because they are presented as a hoax. >> let me try -- goat talk to robert, and who founded live octopus in a parking garage in miami at high tide.e.

go talk to a third-generation rancher who told me they used to see drought every four or five years and now that's how often he gets a good rain season. go talk to the folks who had too pump out the new york subway system after hurricane sandy dropped 14 feet of water in lower manhattan. these things have never happened before. we can sit here and talk about models or we can talk to world people about how it's impacting their lives and take action. >> caller: this is more of a question for mr. dean's, i would like to hear both sides. for a while all i heard about was population control, now all i hear about is climate change.t i'm wondering what's your take w on immigration for climatentrol change and what is your take on nuclear power plant? >> thank you. certainly climate changes driving climate refugees run the world. we've seen reports that there may already be tens of millions of people on the moon because

the habitat has been destroyede by the things we been talking about today, croplands turning th desert, withering drought and blistering heat, ragingt wildfires storms and floods. nuclear power in our estimation needs to be a few things. needs to be safe, secure, it needs to be financially viable. we have problems in all three beas. safety we have a decent record in this country, security is another issue. we are not 60 years after a power we have to find a way to permanently dispose of the waste that's created and can be usedf by terrorist to make bombs that threaten our country. and affordability. no wall street company has been willing to finance a nuclear power plant in this country

since -- was built in the 80s. so westinghouse which has been working hard to create a new generation of nuclear reactor shows enormous profit we have financial insecurity issues, safety issues, they'll need to be addressed. these >> of the claim that there's these climate refugees let's go back to the fact, global reproduction is at all-time highs, global starvation, hunger is at all-time lows from the modern world that's probably a lot better at feeding an ever growing population that in the middle ages where they haveacts. agriculture they didn't have modern technology or energy. the kind of political unrest and instability that is created by hunger is still created in socialist societies like venezuela where people are starving. becauseli of this mismanagementf

the country bite socialist government even though they have huge oil reserves. the idea that you can point to b drought somewhere there's always a drought somewhere and always a flood somewhere. if you look at the climate change report and you read thewa chapter on severe weather events, there is no trende chan discernible in the intensity or the frequency of severe weather. >> paul from illinois.nsity or >> is fun to say, you have an administration run by manned by the business community, there's an old saying the business community knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. so they have a very narrow scope when they look at the world if it's not profitable it's

unnecessary, but throughout the conversation they've admitted that co2 levels are rising, that water levels are rising, but it's all within some questionable layer that we don't need to act on. to think that you can put 9 billion cubic tons of co2 into the atmosphere annually whichou industry does, to think that you can do that with no ramifications is irrational to think that would not have some type of effect. we have gone from hundred and 80 parts per million to now over 400 parts per million. to claim that nothing is happening is irrational.million i think the whole business

equation has to be set aside stating the price doesn't matter. we need to start focusing on the values of things. sometimes that's hard for the business community to do. >> your caller said that we've gone from 180 parts per million to 400 parts per million. i think there's a consensus that since the beginning of the industrial age we've got from 270 parts per million to 400. 40% of that increase in the total co2 produced by burning coal, oil, natural gas has come chnce the framework conditional

climate change was agreed to in rio 1992. we should have seen more warming by now than what we have. the fact is the rate of warming has been minimal. for about the last 20 years it has been much more modest than all of the scientist use computer models have predicted. it has been very much in the line with what scientist to concentrate on data have seen and predicted.d.ve i think what we have is a question not of denying reality, wht deciding whether the reality means this is a catastrophe or looming catastrophe or whether it's a problem that we need to deal with in a sensible way instead of trying to turn the economy upside down and make us all poor, particularly poor people in poor countries. >> i think the real question is will we anchor future in the dirty fuels of the past or invested in smarter ways to put our people to work and protect our children.in the answer is clear, there's a fellow out your way not too far from where you are in iowa. in

he is a veteran navy seal, his name is troy and when he came back from iraqi came back to small-town iowa with his wife amy and they built a solar company that is helping people and i will get more clean power from the sun. he believed that was a way to strengthen our country and economy and create a better energy portfolio for his children. and i will right now they're getting 30% of their power from wind turbines. there helping to keep the family ranch and farming tack. that's american enterprise and that's what we need to move forward with.americ >> caller: hello, greetings, thank you for having this conversation. my question has to, it's my understanding that obama took steps to block -- rex tillerson in this thing that exxon has

been trying to get sanctions lifted and now they -- what will the effects be in the ocean, the warming, the ocean life is dying, the coral, the plants, this plastic island we have in the middle of the ocean. what will happen with the poison from that? when you are talking about maybe the sales guy came back and started the company in iowa, that's also jobs and thank you for that. have a good day. >> thank you for the call. there's no question that president trump and his allies in congress have launched the single worst assaults in our history against our environment and health. a

step one is to go after the commonsense safeguards we depend on to protect her air, water, land and force. number two is to undermine and cripple the end environmental protection agency to take our guardian off the beat number three to retreat from the progress were making in fighting climate change that threatens our children. that's a three-pronged attack a and we need to stand up to it. that's were first seen in congress and these things every day. on tuesday there is a talk about scott pruitt rolling back controls on the mercury we breathe.es they have rescinded the buffer roll that protects coal communities from the ravages of mountaintop demolition threatening 6000 miles of the oldest streams in the world. 54000 acres of appalachian force. that's absurd. an insult to the people of coal country. they moved to eliminate the clean water rule which protects

the wetlands and streams that feed's drinking water for one in every three americans. this is not making america great. it's a disaster. and we need to stand up and say so. >> i cannot address all of the misstatements of fact and exaggerations that have just been given, let me say there is a lot of oil in the arctic, thes ruited states started producing oil the north slope in the 1970s. all of the wild claims of environmental pressure groups have a proven to be false. the environmental impacts of that are minimal compared to the billions of dollars of wealth created that will continue to be created now that we have an administration that wants to undo the closures of prime oil territory. if we don't do it the russians are going to do it.terr

>> you talked about opposingnk s forces about the paris agreement. >> i would talk out about thee deplorable's versus the swan. president trump has picked people of different views on major issues for hisesident administration.s on on one side over the treaty you have the president, vice president and some of his keyis advisors in the white house. thethe other side your secretary tillerson, the head of the -- he's the head of the goldman sachs guy. and we see this going back to paulson who is treasury secretary and then reportedly the president's daughter and son-in-law, jerrod and ivanka kushner. we have two fairly evenly

balanced camps in the administration and at the end of the day the decision will be the presidents. president has made it clear over and over again that he plans to keep his commitments. the promises he made in the campaign not just comments but things he said over and over he prepares and plans to keep those commitments. at the end of the day think he'll decide to withdraw. >> i think what you're relying on. >> were not thinking of a handful of voices were thinking about what's best for the american people.house, we had apologists this month that said 76% of americans arere concerned about climate change. 72% said trump's proposal to cut scientific research on the environment climate was a bad idea. 60% said we know we can create jobs by addressing climate change. that's what the american people

believe. the american people understand this. no people anywhere are ever stuck with a bad habit that does more harm than good. were not stuck with oil gas and coal.fr their cleaner, smarter ways to power future and protect their children. that's what the president needs to stay focused on.eed >> a morning. i have a vision of a newen revolution or a for the coalionf industry, i believe they're going to be the ones that create water filter systems for the intake of our drinking water right at the point that they draw the water in at the water plant. the same system at the end,

sewage, same with the aaron smokestack, i don't think youu need smokestacks. i think if you build it correctly you can draw through filters asian as they call water and whatnot, but again with cold.. you will see some giant leaps in the coal industry. and they will be the ones thatie clean up this water and air. . . e role of technology. guest: well, the role of technology is huge. my vation in this country, goodness, look at the 10 most productive city necessary this of them are in california. half of the most productive cities are in one state, why? that state has most assertive clean energy policy anywhere in the country and some of the best

the world. when governor brown went to paris for the climate accord in 2015, world leaders were lining up to talk to him to emulate happened in california and create a more successful market. to this global let me just say this, you know, about the coal industry and i'm glad you brought it up. we have 50,000 coal miners in country, according to bureau of labor and statistics. this job is important, every one of them is important. we have homeless -- that people. 475,000 americans, those jobs are our future, what we need to in this country nwest virginia nkentucky and connect talent, skill and dedication of the workforce. are try in transition who clean energy opportunity of the future that, is happen community college system in west virginia and the advanced manufacturing programs and the universities of west virginia.

and it's happening in kentucky. we saw the article where the coal mining university switchede because it is cleaner and smarter.r, smart >> the relative number of the people that work in the industry is indicative because with h 50,000 produces ten times as much so it's much more efficient and they produce a lot more. the caller talked about technology. i don't know whether it will bea revolutionized or not i will say if you go with the obama climate plan, the whole goal is to clear the industry so there won't be a chance to have technological breakthroughs and the biggest breakthrough in the last techn generation is the shale oil and gas revolution that involved

combining technologies. it wasn't done by government is by private individuals who tinkered at it for years. george mitchell in texas, george wright and colorado and several other people. that has done more to change the energy future than any other thing and it's made the united states the superpower planned. everybody said we're running out of gas and now we have hundreds of years of it. hunost: independent find. >> caller: and the only nex explanation i can find for him to be on the show is greeted. i didn't catch the beginning [inaudible]] this is all about greed and gaining money and extracting.

there's this thing people talk t about a frog in a pan of water and he doesn't realize it is flailing and is already dead. now they will have to deal with the consequences of that. thank you. >> guest: my organization has an $8 million budget or less. fromave several hundred thousand donors. there's a lot more from the industry let's be clear aboutry? that.mental

greed is a motivator in the industry. i try t tried to promote the pot that i think are best and ihe wd think we are over regulated and have too much government. the fact is one of the things president trump said that resonated as we've had more than a decade of economic stagnation in the heartland states. i'm going to turn that around, he said, by freeing up the to tt economy bringing investments, back and i think we are already seeing that happen. we will get back to the 3% growth rate rather than the 1% we've had in the past decade. >> guest: we all want to see the economy grow but let me jusd

go back to the central point what we did say earlier in the show ishow and you may have mist is the fossil fuel industry spent $260 million in 2016 alone. you mentioned that the coke brothers. allisenate majority leader was caught on tape saying i don't know where we would be without them. the favorite in the playbook for this attack and we need to stand up to it. we didn't have to be this way. we do not see it as a partisans,

issue and that is what it's done since teddy roosevelt the greatest conservationists said it. it was dwight eisenhower that created the national wildlife t refuge and richard nixon created the environmental protection agency.as ronald reagan got lead out of gasoline and george w. bush inro his final address to the country said we have a problem, we are addicted to oil. something has happened since then over the past ten years that has radicalized and brought the republicans on the wrong road that's corrupted ourow politics we need to stand up for it and talk about what is besttr for the country. >> host: who do you get money from clicks f >> guest: individual funders..

we have no corporate funders. it's individual donations from the 2.4 million supporters around the country. >> host: one more call, cleveland ohio on the democrats line. 2.4 >> caller: i would like to know if they are saying there is no climate change then why are their child of the arctic the size of rhode island and since i've lived in cleveland all my life 55 years and the river no longer catches on fire because of the epa.s, and t you don't see the disgusting air we breathe in any mor it in anyo say that the epa is and doing a good job is idiotic and to put someone in that knows absolutely nothing about it is ridiculous.

>> guest: the river is one of the reasons richard nixon created the epa in the first place and our friends on the right said it was going to cripple the economy and american innovation was going to give up and go home but instead it's grown to 360% in realo home, inflation-adjusted terms. we have built the greatest economy in the history of the world while protecting our air and water and wildlife and land. that's what we need to be about as responsible public oversight is essential to the functioning of a modern economy and as a matter of fact the greatest job killer was a lack of responsibls of fsight and wall street that caused the financial collapse in 2008 that led to the decade of stagnation referenced earlier. when an independent congressional committee reviewed

the financial system in 2008, they came back and said the centuriethat thesentries were n. we don't want that to happen too the environment and health. >> guest: the extremism in thet movement is why so many americans have been turned off about the environmental movement and why they are now opposed to it. it. americans are not opposed to environmental protection and ofe courseme they epa has largely cleaned up the air and water and made the environment a much better more pleasant and safer place. i don't think that's the question though. contemplating the global warming agenda with environmentalt protection, and what the environmental movement decided years ago was to bet it all on essentially taking control of the global economy in the name

of global warming salvation and they are not consumers or citizens over poor people. they are the climate industrial complex and very wealthy people that support groups. the competitive institute serves at the center for energy and environment and the natural resource defense council, director of strategic engagement thanks for the conversation.

>> discusses her book the secret life of fact that the biggest ea signs behind body fat. through her research, she argues that there are some aspects that are necessary for the body which include its ability to strengthen our immune system, enable our reproductive system and help train spies. she's interviewed by the medical reporter for "the new york times." >> host: i really liked reading your book it was fun and fascinating because i think everybody has questions about why do some people get fat and not others and why don't people understand this? it seems it has been a problem for so long. one of the things i like about