on "our town's." book tv starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. on american history tv, a look at the presidency. the story and talks about the role of humor in the white house and presidential politics. from george washington to donald trump. mr. brent considers how funny american chief executives have been, and which have used humor to their vantage. american history tv tonight on c-span3 at 8:00 eastern. >> sunday on q&a, new york times columnist david brooks on his book "the second mountain." >> i have met some of the most amazing people that are not motivated by money, status or celebrity. there motivated with the desire to do good. life is hard for them. they have taken heavy burdens and don't have a lot of money

but they live in sparring lives. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. at our table this morning, timothy is a political reporter. man to talkl about environmental issues in campaign 2020. how big of an issue is the environment on the democratic side? >> it suggests that it is the most -- the second most important issue in iowa. there is a poll that said that 80% of likely caucus goers want to see something about climate change. it was the second highest issue. and monmouth university put out a poll that said second again, climate change. it is one of those things that has elevated up the platform for democrats. the question is, going forward, will it remain there. host: has this ever been number

two for voters? always beene has farther down number two for voters. this year is different than previous elections. president trump has been very divisive, his policies have been -- divisive in terms of the environment. rolling back regulations, stopping policies, things of that nature. in the last year we have seen a number of very big reports about climate change from the federal and raising the alarm bell, especially among young voters. that is a lot of what fueling did, increased attention for the issue. our viewerst to ask if this is important to you in campaign 2020. providing the lines, republicans, 202-748-8001.

democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. you can join us on twitter or put your comments on facebook.com/c-span. i want to show our viewers what the president has said on climate change. there is a movement in the atmosphere, there is no question. to whether or not it is man-made , i don't see it. do we want clean water, absolutely. do we want clean air to breathe, absolutely. fire in california, they did no forest management and it is a massive problem in california. thatere is no doubt americans value clean air and clean water. look at the polling on the democrat side and they want climate change too. the president thursday message made no mention of climate change. if you want clean air and clean water you have to clean up how you turn on the lights. a lot of the things that make our air and water dirty are also

what affects the climate. there is a disconnect. maybe you can get a climate, but policies don't get a climate change by this point. host: talk about, on the democratic side, the governors bid for the presidency. it seems to center on climate change. washingtonrnor of state has really made washington -- made climate change his major issue. practically a single issue on climate change. he thinks of this as the largest issue facing the country. he does not have many specific plans that he has rolled out yet. he has been teasing that going forward. really his number one issue. a lot of the other candidates on the democratic side are also making this a priority and making it the number one priority. itis talking about

constantly and national security in terms of health. in terms of the filibuster return in the senate. him it is all about climate change. on that.record clean electricity in the future. that is valuable to him in this campaign to have a victory like that. this is really issue number one for him. practically a single issue candidate. the new york times did a survey and asked all the candidates that are running to answer issues on climate change. what were the results? >> every single candidate said that they support getting back into the paris climate accord. the house is going to take up

next week. step to getnificant the world into a climate agreement. it had eluded the world for decades at this point. but it's also still a low bar and actually addressing climate change. so you will want to know how much farther will you go. a handles as they support new regulation. all of it said they would reinstate the clean power plant. which was president obama's rule to reduce carbon dioxide and omissions from power plants. and they support a carbon tax. there is different ways to do that. cory booker said he would support one. jay inslee said he was considerate because he knows in his state, they would put it on the ballot and it got defeated. it is a hard thing to do. it is politically difficult to justify sometimes. host: why? how would it work and why is it a hard thing to do? that yousic premise is

price the damage that is done from emitting carbon dioxide into the air. you're talking about future climate change affecting future generations and having public health problems, asthma from particular matters, from anything that goes into the air. these are things you can monetize. there is disagreement over the cost where you start and how quickly you wrap it up. you want to make it harder for emitters to put damaging pollution into the air. host: i wonder for our viewers if the result of this survey matters to you, specifically democratic callers. the new york times asked these candidates these questions and all of them say they think we should be in the paris agreement. 18 supported a carbon tax. does that matter to all of you? mike is of first who is a democrat in white plains new york. caller: mi on the air? host: you are.

caller: put it this way. the earth is about ready told run out of water. we are wasting fuel. we waste food. is not thend -- it election of 2020, it's what we do now. we need environmental laws, clean up the water, clean up the earth, preserve public lands. we have a lot of things to do and read are running out of time. in the words of winston churchill, it is too late and maybe too little. go to vote in 2020, where will the issue of climate change rank for you? in the top five? caller: what did you say? host: where will the issue of climate change rank for you when you vote in the next election? caller: i vote every year, i am a democrat. i believe we should protect the earth.

try to keep population under control, and try to preserve the future and technologies in food and protect our water supply. host: ok. mike in new york, democrat. where does this issue fall for republican voters? we heard from carlos, republic in florida saying, gop millennial voters are asking for legislation action to combat climate change. >> it is stratified by age at this point. younger voters in both parties demand some sort of response to climate change. but you are not seeing that across the republican party as a whole. it is near the bottom of issues care about.cans it is not adequate them more it justdoes democrat -- does not register in the same way for a lot of republicans. host: are there any potential

challengers to president trump that believe, or would put climate change on their agenda? >> bill well, the former governor of massachusetts just entered the race last week as a primary challenger against president trump. he is widely considered to be a longshot candidate. has a highrump popularity in the republican party. he is very vocal about caring about climate change. he says he even wants to keep the united states and the paris -- in the paris agreement. there are a few republicans in power agree with that i want to keep the united states in the paris agreement. was the governor of massachusetts in the 1990's. at the time he was very progressive among republican governors, protected a lot of land, a lot of water. really made this a very big issue.

this is part of how he is china differentia himself -- -- tryingate himself to differentiate himself from president trump. theith respect to environment and climate change, the approach of the current administration is antithetical to every principle of conservation and conservatism, and every tenant of theodore roosevelt's grand old party. whether it's as protection of a fragile ecosystem, or a stewardship of god's creation, there is a pressing need to act on climate change. the united states must rejoin the paris climate accords and adopt targets consonant with those of other industrialized nations. must protect our economy, yes, but we must also recognize that increased natural disasters

and unfamiliar weather patterns actually threatened to strip the snow from our white mountains. mountainlt all the glaciers worldwide upon which hundreds of millions of people defend depends for their only water supply. europe has its cathedrals and monuments. mountains, canyons, valleys, rivers and streams, and we had damn well better take care of them. host: our caller who is a inublican, ui in -- eli michigan. what do you think about this? caller: with respect to the we did soty, significantly. [indiscernible] that does not -- last time i checked,

will be mammoth ncb to -- and sabertooth tigers marketable --] a am going toogize, i let you go because you are breaking up and it's difficult to hear. a republican voter who says that paris climate agreement was lowering their admissions and no one else was. >> that is true that the united states has committed to curbing their in mission a lot faster than india and china. but it also does not take into account the historical perspectives of where the u.s., china and india have contributed to our current problem of climate change. the u.s. is a postindustrial nation at this point with per

capita income that is much greater than india and china. penalizeht is, why countries that are now modernizing and gaining wealth when we built our economies on the back of cheap energy that has contributed to this problem? that has always been a sticking point in the skies -- in this india andbate because china are our economic competitors. it does not line up with the economic goals of republicans and democrats. it is a sticky issue. it is not just for the u.s., but countries having to deal with india and china. at the same time, yes the world has been hotter, but based on where we are and our position relative to the sun, it should be much cooler than it is. correlation with the industrial revolution and man's

impact on where our adversary concentration of co2 is. that, hean jump in on is completely right on that. it is notable that, in terms of per capita emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, the united states is far above the other countries of the world of the paris agreement. that is another way to look at it. per capita the united states should emit less. it is also worth noting that in 2018, the united states greenhouse gas emissions likely increased just over 3%. for the last two decades that have been on a downward trend , ando coal plants retiring other reductions and use of fossil fuels. has estimated it that the united states increased admissions by 3.4% over the previous year. an independent and boston,

massachusetts. is this an important issue to you? caller: absolutely. days at the first earth event and washington, d.c. in 1970. there was like 100,000 -- over 100,000 people there on the mall. day goes by with no fanfare. hardly anybody really knows about it. people spend the day smoking pot. it's just crazy. i believe is changing. you can see it. dirtynd the glaciers are -- the snow caps and the glaciers are dirty.

as the snow melt down, the surrounding water is getting colder. when you i ask you, are looking at the field so far there adependent, is democratic candidate that you like the most because of their agenda on climate change? caller: i believe all the candidates out there, their agenda on climate change is wrong. we have to be prepared. one people. we have to change with it. host: so we need to do something now? we need to adapt? caller: yes. we have to prepare ourselves. like the people who built the pyramids of egypt. -- and they chose

to become nomadic hunters and cave dwellers all over again. host: i believe it there. have any of these candidates laid out specifics of how they want the united states to adjust to climate change? >> all of these candidates, as we said before, want to reenter the paris climate agreement. they overwhelmingly also want to reinstate the climate change regulations that president obama put in place. almost all of which president trump was working to either repeal were significantly weaken. but a lot of them want to go further than that. elizabeth warren, the senator from massachusetts, came out last week with a comprehensive plan for dealing with the federal land that the united states owns. she has promised that if she becomes president she will stop all new leases for drilling for

oil, natural gas, mining for coal on federal land. that is significant because federal land fossil fuels, in isition to offshore, responsible to a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in the annual basis from the united states. that would put a significant dent in the united states greenhouse gas emissions. host: let's go to john from pennsylvania, republican. good morning. caller: pardon. host: go ahead with your question or comment. ifler: i would like to know our gentlemen here ever heard of photosynthesis? deforested 30 billion trees in this world in 2018. you have to have trees and grass to have oxygen. that's called photosynthesis. that is a big part of the world. thank you. is absolutely right.

this is where a lot of republicans come at climate change, from a conservation perspective. there is no doubt that one of the most effective ways to curb climate change is simply to stop cutting down trees and start planning them. there are a lot of countries that have committed to do this. there are ways in which you can use market. you encourage that kind of conservation. it is really an effective way to help. host: democratic caller from oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. light is it always the united states that has to cut their gas -- china, india, russia have bigger things that we had. a walk around with masks on in china. but the united states pays for china's smog and pollution.

host: is this an issue for you, climate change? it does not sell my queue agree that the united states should be taking action because the other countries don't? concerned far as i am they can deport all of the progressive democrats down to the communist tents they belong in. host: who do you like on the democratic side of candidates running? caller: they are all communist democrats as far as i am concerned. that was philip in oklahoma. i want to show our viewers what the indiana mayor said during his presidential announcement. this is what he had to say about climate change. >> we saw it right here in this city, as mayor we had the fire of the operation center, the

emergency operation center twice in two years. first came thousand year rainfall. then came a 500 your river flood. 18 months apart. by my math. [laughter] the chance of that happening is about 125,000 to one. [laughter] either we should be headed down to fort wins to re-create those on the slots, or something is changing around us. contestot even having a over whose climate plan is better, because only one side brought forth any plans at all. [cheering] [applause] if you don't like our economy is on the line. our future is on the line. lives are on the line. line.onomy is on the

our future is on the line. lives are on the line. let's call it what it is, climate security, a life-and-death issue for our generation. host: do you think that issue at the end plays well with potential independent voters, blue-collar or blue dog democrats? if you frame it in the way of visiting national security? being national security? guest: a number of other candidates also focus on the security aspect. seth moulton, congressman from massachusetts, enter the race yesterday. , in addition to mayor pete. he puts it in security terms. this is a big theme among some of the democrats that this is a national security problem. mayor pete also mentioned the extreme weather issues.

that is another thing a lot of candidates are talking about a lot, especially out in the midwest, wildfires in california. they seem to think this is something voters will care about more if they see it, they know that it happened to them or somebody else today. host: this is costing taxpayers a lot of money, this extreme weather. in the washington post, taxpayers spending on the u.s. disasters fund is exploding. as global temperatures rise, the federal government has faced far more billion dollars disasters. from 1980 to 2018, the u.s. faced on average only six in a given year. in the five most recent years, 13 u.s. has seen on average billion dollar disasters per year. is the argument a

lot of advocates make. you are paying for this. reason to stop committing out because there is damage, there is a cost. host: welcome to the conversation, jerry. caller: thank you. my question is, are people willing to give up their automobiles and go back to horses? you are talking modernization where steel is involved, electricity was made. you look at the time. .hat was all done are we willing to go back in time to the conditions, the inventions that we have? are we going to give up our cell phones and electricity?

how are we going to heat homes? are we going to go back to bring trees? host: we heard the point. let me ask zack colman to , if changes were made to address climate change, what would our life look like? guest: that is a false choice at this point. there has been a lot of technology advancement. you're talking electric cars. there are real problems with how do you get the energy input to produce that kind of material, produce steel, how are you going to replace that? those are questions that can be answered down the line. right now, there are very low hanging fruit in terms of how you do better. it is not about cutting off electricity and ending the missions tomorrow or even 12 years. that line that the world is going to end in 12 years is not

what people are saying. it has been convoluted and distorted. we need to get on a path which is significantly reducing emissions in the next 12 years in order to keep to this 1.5 degrees celsius goal, which most scientists don't believe we will meet anyway. left any candidate on the appeal to that color? -- caller? are trying. of them a lot of people are concerned we are going to try to cut off fossil fuels immediately. nobody is talking about cutting off all fossil feel use or production immediately. that is a significant concern among a lot of people and more centrist or conservative people. john hickenlooper, for example, former governor of colorado, who is one of the candidates, he is seen as one of the most friendly to fossil fuels among the candidates.

he still wants to greatly reduce emissions. he has said greg pence about the green new deal. he wrote an opinion piece recently in the washington post criticizing the green new deal for unreasonable goals. he is seen as the candidate who to peopleto appeal who do not want to see the cut off of fossil fuels. host: beto o'rourke, is he in that same vein? guest: he is from texas, and oil heavy state. he has not completely endorsed the green new deal or complete decarbonization of the energy sector. he also wants to greatly reduce emissions pretty quickly. still faster than what president trump is doing or what our current trajectory would be

under current policy. the former listen to congressman in his own words. [video clip] years, after the limit, we can still listen to and believe the scientists, and i do, who tell us that thanks to our own emissions and our own inaction, this planet has warmed one degree celsius since 1980, and the fires and floods and droughts in man-made natural disasters will only get worse if this planet warms another degree celsius, and this is our moment to do everything in our power to free this economy from a dependence on fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and to ensure as we made the investment in new technologies and renewable energy that everyone

has the chance to benefit from this newlow income and communities of color that have borne the brunt of climate change so far. host: that is what the texas lawmaker has said about climate change so far. take a look at senator sanders, who is also running as a democrat in 2020. this is his platform, past the green new deal invest in infrastructure and them is to protect vulnerable communities, endce carbon emissions, exports of coal, natural gas, and oil, do any of those ideas appeal to you? let's go to tom, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i consider myself a true earth lover. it is a special day to me.

i want to give a couple big suggestions that each of us can do. number one, by american food grown in america, grown locally, that way you are not polluting the earth by bringing tomatoes from mexico. grow american, buy american. one thing that disturbs me about the movement is all the hypocrisy. i called them ecopigs. they have the platform. they talk about saving the world, and we are supposed to turn our thermometers down, but they don't do it. for example, bernie sanders. he owns almost three homes. he just bought a home with 500 feet of beachfront. can you believe that? you have al gore, whose home uses 20 times more electricity than the average home. then you have people like opera, the biggest hypocrite of all,

these hollywood elitists that have to say turn down the thermostats, use less gas. oprah winfrey has six huge mega-mansions she flies around with her jets to. all you democrats out there, get real. tell these people to be quite good host: what about that argument? guest: this is a frequent argument that people make when they look at activists or politicians who want to take dramatic action on climate change. there is something to be said about setting an example, be it bernie sanders, al gore, what have you. , thed setting the example more important thing, the more dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions come from more wide-ranging action,

be that government action, policies, things of that nature that can bring about economy wide reductions. in the 1990's, for example, people were big on the individual actions people could take, recycling or turning down your thermostat or what have you. since then, it has shifted a lot to what people can do collectively as a country, as a world to put a dent in emissions. host: everett, ohio, republican. caller: good morning. how are you? i usually call in on tax issues, but i could not resist this morning. good morning to everybody. host: good morning. caller: it is a complicated issue, the environment is. i have been an environmentalist.

snowfallhas had great this year. i worked in a lumber know when i was young. i have been to mount saint helens to see what happened after that happened. first of all, if these guys would look at is carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide heavier than air? it is heavier than air. photosynthesis, the fellow is right about that, rain absorbs some of the carbon in the air. or first fires, .hey contribute i watch a lot of nature shows and science shows, how the universe works. cycles,goes through every 14 years or so.

have carbonat deterioration have a landslide that disrupts the basis of that late, carbon comes up as bubbles. there have been two incidents that i am aware of, and it killed 2000 people because they were close to the ground. it was ground moving fog of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. it goes on. host: what is your point? understandpoint is i the fellow on the side saying replant trees. if you would go to mount saint helens, they replanted trees after mount saint helens blew up and destroyed all those trees. colorado, kill in when i was working as young man

, the between school years beetle kill was just starting. host: what should be done? you are giving us examples. what should be done? caller: i believe everybody ought to take care of the environment the best weekend, but i think the issue is bigger than that. a lot of it is natural. ok. we heard the point. let me go to jim, new york, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your time. i am wondering if anyone has thought of the exponential effect of global warming, you turn off the air conditioning, you have to burn more fossil fuel, then it is going to happen a lot faster than 12 years. that is what i am trying to get at. host: go ahead. take that.

guest: one thing for the first caller, there is no doubt that there is carbon in our world. that is a fact. what is also a fact is the concentration of carbon dioxide can which is a thin that -- dioxide, which is a thing that triggers climate change. this layer of carbon dioxide is increasing. the fact that there have been trees that have been burned by mount saint helens corrupting, irrelevant in the larger picture. we know we are out of whack with where we should be. that is what is causing these changes. to the most recent caller, there is a chance that our emissions could increase. they already are. there is a study that showed by8 co2 emissions increased 22%. when you take the eye off the policies, and the

economy is growing more. do inis a lot you can your own backyard. you could buy local. that will reduce the carbon footprint of the food that arise in your kitchen, but there is a need for policy. it is more than what you can do in your own backyard. it is setting expectations and goals and living up to them. host: ray in texas, republican. caller: i sit here and i love the program. i am enjoying it. i have to laugh because i hear your guests and callers saying pretty much the same thing. this is a redistribution of wealth. run back to the paris climate accord, all it is going to take money from the population and redistributed it across the world instead of just the democrats here in the u.s. absolutely nothing in the paris

climate deal is going to do anything to reduce these parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere. none of that is going to change except for here in the u.s. the rest of the world, the majority of the population of the world will continue to after we hadorld been taxed. host: i'm going to have timothy cama respond. caller: -- guest: one thing he touched on is what the u.s. does when the rest of the world cuts emissions. the u.s. did have more stringent emissions goals then a lot of the other nations. china only pledged to peak its emissions in 2030, not increase emissions after 2030, but not

necessarily decrease. the paris agreement was the first time that all the countries of the world, nearly 200 countries made some commitment to reduce emissions or put a ceiling on their emissions, which is something the u.s. has wanted and has been seeking for decades, to get other countries to make pledges and not just the u.s. to make pledges. a lot of countries committed to reducing emissions and to putting a ceiling on their emissions. it is harder to enforce that. it is much harder to enforce that when the u.s. exits and says it is not going to meet its own goals that we laid out in that agreement. robert, independent. question or comment? caller: comment.

climate change, as vital as it is, is essentially a symptom of overpopulation. the carbon footprint of the u.s. or china or the human species as a whole equals the carbon footprint per capita times the population. technology can help reduce the carbon footprint per capita, but as long as you have a continually increasing population, it is going to be shoveling against the tide. we have to address the population question if we're ever going to address the pollution question of climate change. thank you. host: zack colman. a line oft was argument that was popular in the 1970's. it stems from an influential book called the population bomb. some debunked theories.

we have grown in population, and we have figured out how to feed people. there are more efficient ways to do things. is true that if we have more people, there is a chance to add more emissions. but now you can have solar, wind, battery storage. these are things that are expensive on the front end, but we know how to do it. the idea that we can not grow anymore, there is debate about that. there are ways to do it if we are willing to pay for it. host: we will go next to michigan, democratic caller. help you with your name. caller: hello, greta. you're such a wonderful, beautiful woman. hello, c-span. alternative suppressed technology. do you know they can make hydrogen and oxygen out of water? we get a lot of technologies from other worlds. i worked in area 54.

we have technology you would not believe. you should look into alternative energy like hydrogen. thank you. host: ok. increasing federal funding for technology research is something that has wide bipartisan support. all of the democratic residential candidates have said something about that. republicans in congress usually go on board with that with increasing research funding. it has had a lot of very concrete results in terms of reducing emissions and improving the environment. for example, hydraulic fracking for natural gas had a lot of help from the federal government at one point. the cost of solar power has reduced a lot in the last 10 to theargely been

investments from the federal government. that can have real results. host: jerry, texas, republican. you are on the air. caller: i would like to say that i think it would be great for the nation if they start burning more natural gas and propane gas in cars. gas puts out almost zero hydrocarbons as fuel. assetk that would be an to this country. we have just about an unlimited supply of natural gas in this country. host: zack colman. guest: he is right that we converted our transportation sector to natural gas, it would be better than running on gasoline and oil. there are questions on how you do that. we do not have the fueling infrastructure in most of the country to do that. the same reason we don't have a lot of electric cars.

there is not a lot of charging for structure. there are companies that are running on natural gas. its fleet toverted natural gas. it has half the carbon content of coal. there are some benefits. host: neil, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple things i have been thinking about is there is a lot of emphasis about individual responsibility, but we are not discussing how insignificant individual carbon footprint is when it comes to the broader picture and large national companies are responsible for of vast majority emissions. it is not negate the fact that individual responsibility plays a role in increasing awareness, but why is there no interest in holding corporations accountable?

it seems disappointing that the conversation always comes back to money as to the reason why we're not taking action. it seems shortsighted when considering the fact that in the projections in the next few decades is that on sustainability for human life is a very real reality. money will not be reserved in a situation like that. i'm interested in hearing why that is the situation. host: timothy? guest: a lot of the emphasis used to be more on individual orions, eating local food driving less. that a lotis right of productions happen through -- reductions can happen through large-scale policies, collective action and whatnot.

when you target industries and target companies that turns a lot of people off because it can increase costs, and that does go to the individuals, the consumers. as we have seen with a lot of these technologies and changes in the past, that does not have to be the case. thata lot of the policies the democrats are talking about forly, the green new deal example, they are not talking about it in terms of costs because a policy like that would be a large-scale rejiggering of the economy in a way that the u.s. has not seen before and in a way that people who support these policies say is the only way you can get the emissions that are necessary in the next few decades to avoid the most catastrophic results of climate change. host: this viewer on twitter

wants to know, explained the biggest issue of co2 emissions, and what do you think the state of ohio or any state can do to reduce emissions with policies like governor markell line? guest: the issue with co2 is it warms the planet. youe are other pollutants release into the world. co2 comes from hydrocarbons. there are pollutants like articulate matter, which get into your lungs and blood stream, and they can cost significant health effects. the trump administration has changed the way in which those are calculated, saying if you have a rule that goes after co2 emissions, you cannot also count the benefits from reducing particulate matter in justifying

that rule. when you burn coal, you get co2 and particulate matter, which affects the health and the planet. host: let's go to carlton, democratic caller. caller: i think it is an issue education of the individual. i live in a relatively conservative area, south carolina. barroominto the discussions, and it makes me cringe hearing people talk about, well, you are burning your campfire, you're adding carbon or co2. you are barbecuing, you are adding co2 i wish that they it and make itme simple for people to understand that hydrocarbons are buried way beneath the earth. they are under salt flats and rock.

thatre introducing carbon has not been in our ecosystem for millennia. the moment is we are burning here in ouras not ecosystem. hydrocarbons are from millennia ago that we are introducing. is inod, everything that our ecosystem burning is part of the stabilization. the disruption comes from bringing something millennia ago , introducing that. host: i want zack colman to pick up on that. guest: the caller is right. that is the issue. we are dredging up things that have been sequestered underground over millions of years. we are putting them in the atmosphere. we found a way to dig them up. where a lot of callers and people have said is, right, you are a hypocrite because you

drive a car. you have a campfire. these are facts that when you put your key in the ignition and turned it, if you don't have an electric car, you are contributing to climate change, but it is irrelevant. unique collective action to address climate change. this is a global problem. it is a collective action problem. host: larry, indiana, republican. .aller: i just have a statement i would like to read something to you. while the earth remaineth, summer and day and night shall not cease. climate change, god is in control of everything. you can talk climate change all

you want, but god is the final arbiter. , ok. larry there are republicans and democrats who talk about climate change in religious terms by saying what? caller: -- guest: a lot of people who are religious, such as that caller, believe the bible can debunk climate change or say that action is not necessary to stop it, but a lot of religious people also believe that curbing emissions, fighting climate change, trying to keep the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases low is part of taking care of your and living up to the charge that god gave to the people to take care of the earth that he created for

them. host: to take care of them. everybody.d morning, the u.s. constitution was originally made out of hemp,, a my correct on that? be made into clothing, plastics and anything? >i would appreciate your comment on how many states are trying to grow this plant. itt can we do, isn't recyclable, biodegradable? guest: yes, there are some states working on that. in kentucky, there are a lot of appalachian states looking into hamp is an industry. it can be made into clothing. it doesn't quite get us into the transportation emissions in terms of climate change. but it is a replacement input for other

inputs. host: if our viewers want to follow the reporters, you can go to eenews.net to announcer: >> noted historians rank the best and worst chief executives. c-span, we are alive from the george washington home in mount vernon. we are going to hear from several historians that contributed to the book. live coverage here on c-span. [crowd noise]