tv Washington Journal Timothy Cama Zack Colman CSPAN April 24, 2019 3:32am-4:29am EDT
the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contacted by a information about every senator and representative. plus information about congressional committees. state governors in the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. , a look at thext impact environmental issues will have on the 2020 presidential election. abouto president talks collective bargaining and trade policy. the maryland governor talks about a potential 2020 presidential run. at our table this morning,
timothy cama. a political reporter with any news. e&e news and zack colman with about campaignk issues in 2020. how big of an issue is the environment on the democratic side? guest: there is pulling that suggests it is the second most important issue in iowa. the des moines register suggests 80% of caucus-goers want to see something about climate change. monmouth university put out another full that said second again climate change. it has elevated up the platform for democrats. the question is whether it will remain there. host: has this ever been number two for voters? guest: this issue has always been further down for voters.
different than a lot of previous elections. president trump has been very divisive. his policies have been very divisive in terms of the environment, rolling back regulations, stopping policies, things of that nature. seen alast year, we have number of reports about climate change from the federal government, from the united nations and otherwise. they are raising the alarm bell, especially among young voters. that is fueling this increased attention. host: we want to ask our viewers this morning if this is an important issue to you in campaign 2020. dividing the lines from republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002.
let's show our viewers what the president has said on climate change. there is movement in the atmosphere, no question. as to whether or not it is man-made or whether the effects are there, i don't see it? do we want clean water? absolutely. the fire in california, they did no forest management, and it is a massive problem. zack colman? guest: there is no doubt that americans value clean air and clean water. if you look at the democrat side, they want climate change. yesterday made no mention of climate change. if you want clean air and clean water, you have to clean up how you produce energy, how you turn on the lights. a lot of the things that make our air dirty and water dirty affect the climate. there is a disconnect. maybe you can get at the problem by addressing both, but his policies do not get at climate
change at this point. host: on the democratic side, talk about governor inslee's b id. it seems to center on climate change. guest: jay inslee of washington his campaigntered on climate change, practically a single issue. he thinks this is the largest issue facing the country. he does not have many specific plans he has rolled out yet. he has been teasing that going forward. this is his number one issue. a lot of the other candidates on the democratic side are also making this a priority. apartets governor inslee is he is talking about this constantly in terms of national security, in terms of health, in terms of the filibuster reform in the senate.
all of these things. host: he says it all comes back to climate change? guest: for him it is all about climate change. he has a record of trying repeatedly in the state to get real policies forward on that. he had a victory in recent weeks with the state committing to 100% clean electricity in the future. that is valuable to him in this campaign to have a victory like that. this is issue number one for him, practically a single issue candidate. host: zack colman, the new york times asked all the candidates to answer issues on climate change. what were the results? guest: every single candidate said they support getting back into the paris climate accord, which the house is going to take up next week. that was a significant step to get the world into a climate agreement.
the world ford decades. but it is also a low bar in terms of addressing climate change. how much farther would you go? a handful have said they would support new regulations. pretty much all of them have said they would reinstate the clean power plan, which was obama's plan to reduce carbon dioxide emission from power plants. cory booker said he would support a carbon tax, pete buttigieg said he would. jay inslee says from his state where they put it on the ballot twice, it got defeated. it is a hard thing to do. it is politically difficult to justify sometimes. host: how would a carbon tax work? what would it do? guest: the basic premise is that you price the damage that is done from emitting carbon
dioxide in the air. you're talking about future climate change, future generations having public health problems, asthma from particulate matter in the air. these are things that you can monetize. there is disagreement over the cost and how quickly you rip it up. p it up. -- ram you want to make it harder to put pollution in the air. askinghe new york times candidates this question, all of them say they think we should be in the paris agreement. seven out of 18 supported carbon tax. does that matter to all of you? let's go to mike in white plains, new york. good morning. caller: mi on the air? host: you are. caller: put it this way, the earth is about ready to run out
of water. we are wasting fuel. we waste food. 2020, it is what we do now. we need to have tough environment laws, clean up the water, clean up our earth, preserve public lands. we have a lot of things to do, and we are running out of time. in the words of winston churchill, it is too late, and it may be too little. host: when you go to vote in 2020, where will climate change rank for you? will it be in the top five? caller: what did you say? host: when you go to vote, where will the issue of climate change be for you? caller: i vote every year. i'm a democrat. i think we should protect the threat to keep population under control -- protect the air. keep population under
control. protect our food and water. host: where does this issue fall for republican voters? from a congressman in florida yesterday saying gop millennial voters are asking for legislation, action to combat climate change. it is stratified by age. younger voters in both parties demand some sort of response to climate change, you are not seeing that across the republican party as a whole. it is near the bottom of issues that republicans care about. does not animate them in the same way that it does democrats were they have connected it to social inequality, national security, food insecurity. host: are there any potential challengers to president trump that would put climate change on their agenda? guest: bill weld, the former
governor of massachusetts, just enter the race last week as a primary challenger against president trump. he is widely considered to be a long shot candidate. president trump enjoys very high popularity in the republican party. governor weld is very vocal about caring about climate change. he says he even wants to keep the u.s. in the paris agreement, which is notable as a republican because very few republicans in power agree with that. wasknow, governor weld governor of massachusetts in the 1990's. at the time he was very progressive among republican governors, protected a lot of land and water. he made this a big issue. this is part of how he is trying to differentiate himself from president trump, on the environment. host: let's listen to the former
massachusetts governor at an event in new hampshire in february. [video clip] >> with respect to climate change, the approach of the current administration is antithetical to every principle of conservation and conservatism and every tenet of theodore roosevelt's grand old party. whether it is stewardship of god's creation can take your choice. the u.s. must rejoin the paris climate accords and adopt ofgets consonant with those other industrialized nations. we must protect our economy, yes, but we must also recognize that increased natural disasters and unfamiliar weather patterns threaten to strip the snow from our white mountains and to melt the mountain glaciers worldwide
upon which hundreds of millions of people depend for their only water supply. europe has its cathedrals and monuments. we have our mountains, canyons, valleys, rivers, and streams, and we had better take care of them. host: let's go to our next caller, a republican. he lives in michigan. what did you think listening to the former governor? caller: i think it is insanity. with respect to the paris treaty, the u.s. was the only large nation to reduce emissions. we did so significantly. the rest of the world, including european union nations, increased emissions. co2 is not a poison. the last time i checked, the woolly mammoths and sabertooth tigers did not drive suvs.
[inaudible] host: i am going to apologize because it is difficult to hear you. you are breaking up. i am going to let you go. u.s.ys that it was the that lowered emissions, and no one else was. guest: first of all, i love hearing from fellow michiganders. it is true the u.s. has committed to curbing their emissions a lot faster than india and china, that it does not take into account the historical perspectives of where the u.s., china, and india have contributed to the current problem of climate change. the u.s. is an almost postindustrial nation at this point with a per capita income that is much greater than india and china. why penalize countries that are now modernizing and gaining
wealth when we built our economy on the back of cheap energy that has contributed to this problem? that has always been a sticking point in this climate debate. india and china are powerful economies. they are our economic competitors in many ways. that is not line up with the economic goals of republicans and democrats. it is a sticky issue. it is not just for the u.s., it is a lot of countries that are in that same position. yes, the world has been hotter, in hered on where we are position relative to the sun, it should be much cooler than it is. our parts per million in the atmosphere should be much lower. there is very much a correlation with the industrial revolution on man's impact concentration of co2. guest: zach is absolutely right on that.
it is notable that in terms of per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in greenhouse gas emissions, the u.s. is far and away above the other countries of the world, and the paris agreement is another way to look at it, maybe per capita the u.s. should be emitting less. it is worth noting that in 2018 the u.s. greenhouse gas emissions likely increased just over 3%. for the last two decades, they have been on a downward trend, largely due to coal plants retiring and other reductions in the use of fossil fuels. last year, it is estimated that the u.s. increased emissions by about 3.4% over the previous year. host: we will go to bob next in massachusetts, independent. is this an important issue to you? caller: absolutely.
in fact, i was at the first earth day event in washington, d.c., in 1970. there was like over 100,000 people there on the mall. now birthday goes by with no fanfare -- earth day goes by with no fanfare. 4/20 is a bigger day, smoking pot. it is crazy. the climate, i believe, is changing. you can see it. the -- the -- thus in he snowcaps are dirty.
water is getting dirty. host: when you are looking at the field so far as an independent, is there a democratic candidate that you like the most because of their agenda on climate change? believe all the candidates, their agenda on climate change is wrong. we have to be preparing. that means one world government, one people. we have to change with it. host: we need to do something now to adapt? caller: yes, we have to prepare ourselves like the people who built the pyramid's of egypt and in central america. climate change came upon them, and they chose to become nomadic hunters all over again. host: i will leave it there. have any of these candidates laid out specifics of how they
want the u.s. to adjust to climate change? guest: all of these candidates want to reenter the paris climate agreement. they overwhelmingly also want to reinstate the climate change regulations that president obama had put in place, almost all of which president trump is working to repeal or significantly weaken. a lot of them want to go much further than that. for example, elizabeth warren from massachusetts came out with a comprehensive plan for dealing with the federal land the u.s. owns. that would include, she has promised on her first day in ,ffice if she becomes president to stop all new leases for drilling for oil or natural gas or mining for coal on federal land. that is significant because federal land fossil fuels and
offshore is responsible for about one quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions in an annual basis from the u.s. that would put a significant dent in the u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. host: let's go to john from pennsylvania, republican. caller: how are you doing? host: morning. caller: pardon? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i would like to know if our gentlemen have ever heard of photosynthesis. we have the forest it 30 billion trees in the world 2018. and grasso have trees to have oxygen. that is called photosynthesis. that is part of the world leading. thank you. guest: he is right. this is where a lot of republicans, at climate change -- republicans come at climate
a conservation perspective. one way to stop climate change is to plant trees. you can use markets to encourage that kind of conservation. it is an effective way to help. caller,ilip, democratic oklahoma. good morning. is it that thee u.s. is the only one that has to cut their gas? china and russia and them have dirtier air then we have. they have to walk around with masks to breathe in china. the u.s. is the one who has to pay for china's smog pollution. host: is this an issue for you, climate change?
it does not sound like you agree that the u.s. should be taking action? caller: find that big oil democrat. as far as i'm concerned, they can deport all the communist democrats down to the countries they support. host: who do you support? caller: none of them. they are all communist democrats as far as i'm concerned. i have no use for either. we want to show what mayor in indianaieg said during his presidential announcement speech. he brought up climate change. [video clip] >> we saw it right here in the city where we had to fire up the emergency operations center in the city twice in two years, first game a 1000 year rainfall,
and then a 500 year flood, 12 months apart. thaty math, the chance of happening is about 125,000 to one. either we should all be heading down to four wins later to try to re-create those odds on the slots, or something is changing around us. a contesteven having about his private plane is better is only one side brought forth any plans at all. [cheers and applause] if you don't like our plans on climate, show us yours. [cheers and applause] 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 new economy, especially low
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
douglas brinkley and others discussed c-span's new book, the president's. live washington journal, at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> here's a look at live coverage wednesday, on c-span at 10 a.m. eastern, brookings institution looks at nuclear deterrence with david trachtenberg, who serves as deputy defense undersecretary
for policy, followed by a discussion on u.s. policy toward iran from the hudson institute. moulton visitsh bedford, new hampshire. after announcing his candidacy. later, the military and public service holds a set of hearings on registration requirements for the selective service system. after that, a discussion on the effect of china's trade conflicts on the international system. on c-span3, politico looks at how extreme weather impacts disaster relief efforts, at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, book tv has live um,erage from the newse talking about c-span's new book, the presidents.
historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. >> next, a discussion on nationalism and the republican party. this is 30 minutes. [applause] >> all right. everybody hear me ok? those of you by the door, let's hurry it up. everyone feeling invigorated? make sure your testosterone level is high enough. i am jim garrity, senior political correspondent of the national review.