>> good morning. i am matthew continetti director of policy. thedo american in the price incidents might pleasure to welcome me to this event. 35 years of governmental progress. in 1968 pollen and ehrlich published a the population bomb bomb. repurpose the idea of 18th century economist to argue that population growth would soon outpace agricultural growth leading tomi widespread famine and

other social and ecologicall crises. these ideas to to cold of the embraer american environmental movement on their planet's future. the predictions did not come to pass alarmism over the effect of population growth on the environment as well as a resource scarcity endure at on the left and in recent years the notion that american should stop having children to protect me and environment and was promoted widely by academics journalists and other public figures. according to analysts at morgan stanley peers over climate change was growing and fertility decline. the environmental and -- the data on the trend shows we have made progress in nine states and around the world. we are here this earth day to

explore what that progress looks like how environmental data should shape future public policy decisions and how we should ask and answer why we should be optimistic about america's environmental future. our speakers are stephen hayward and roger pielke. from 2002 to 2012 he was a fellow at aei where he authored an environmental report titled the index of leading environmental indicators but the index analyzed and summarized overlooked it on the environment that demonstrate substantial environmental progress over the last generation.st in 2010 stephen published the biblical perspective on human to natural world on suppositions of the modern and bar metal movement. this morning's discussionwo will expand on many ofnt stephen's themes and evidence contained in that work. today stephen hayward is a

resident scholar at the university of southern california berkeley institute of government study and a fellow of berkeley law and t a professor at pepperdine university. he has written a number of books on the history of the american movement including the aid of breaking excellent but can patriotism is not enough the arguments that reshaped american conservatism. dr. pielke is a nonresident fellow at aei and a professor of college and are of arts and sciences at the university of colorado at boulder. his work on policy with a particular focus on energy climate and the politicization of climate. he wrote the honest broker which we are happy to post on the homepage in addition to the subset platform and has authored several books including disasters and climate change in the climate that's what they

won't tell you about global warming. stephen hayward will begin with thell y presentation on leading environmental educators. roger will offer remarks on climate change in particular which tends to overshadow other issues in public discourse and stephen and roger will discuss what we have learned about the environment and how the environmental movement has taken place. we'll open the florida audience q&a and if you are watching on line in many of you are please submit questions you may have two aei.org that's guy denton at aei.org or send a question by x/twitter using #environmental progress. without please join me in welcoming stephen hayward back to aei? [applause]

>> happy earth day everybody. it used to be a big deal. there often was lot of media coverage for it and significant public events. i think the rally on the mall or festival of american cities on college campuses and now it passes quietly in there and i apthink lies the tale with a very which comes at the very end as you may be able to guess. the my point is we now have a moment for environmental optimism not just in the united states and wealthy industrial countries increasingly around the world i think. if you cast your mind back to 35 or 40 years ago you may remember every january the state of the world report. it always got a lot of press and

of course last year was the chief instigator of this and he was one a of the bakers of environmentalism in the 70s, 80s and 90s. this i is is one report it appointed that got a lot of press and everything is for the world is doomed and mary malfusianer in its outlook and this was reflected in public opinion. back in those days wortham used to do an annual poll every other year in the environment and found large majority of americans thought environmental quality in america was getting worse. the roper poll doesn't exist anymore. the next 10 years will be the last decade. we only have 10 years left to do something on environmental discourse which started 54 years ago and we were still here with the tenure countdown.

clearly it was reflected in public consciousness and everyone knows the headlines about everything is and we are all going to die. one of the first markers they think of the beginning of the slow change can be traced back to and i like to start with this, this is an ad from "the new york times" from david braugher one of the great figures of environmentalism in the 50s to the 90s. he was a long time head of the sierra club when it changed from being a conservation organization to a politically active organization but but this is a full-page ad in the near time to make it to the headlines economics in the form of brain damage. it has a happy and by the way. what it said was it was a letter to the clinton administration please don't use this cost-benefit analysis of the reagan and bush administration to use to stop all environmental

regulation. not only did the clinton administration not take that advice and kept using the cost-benefit formula developed during the reagan years when barack obama came in to office in 2009 as head of the radio tori analysis the omb a unit that had been started by aei's previous president back in the reagan years he appointed cass sunstein to run a. cass sunstein is a smart thinker with the idea of the cost-benefit analysis. there were some grumbling from environmental groups about that appointment but it got nowhere and then the idea of cost-benefit analysis went mainstream. in particular in 2009 they had centerleft and prior mental thinkers. the very serious book saying and

i will paraphrase it this way let's not leave costs benefit analysis to those right-wing fanatics. the point is i don't think very many and meyer many and myra meyer once -- environmentalists today would use that environmentalists and is a form of brain damage. environmentalism is mainstream. i'm tempted to use the doctor johnson lined that famous quote from same toth johnson. it was around that time in the early 90s we woke up one day and saww that william bennett had made this a great public sensation with an index of indicators produce about 35 pages long simple charts and graphs in time. about all kinds of stuff happening.g. teenaged pregnancies and welfare

dependency and crime rates in rush limbaugh picked up on it and it became aru book. that's when the lightbulb went off in my head. knowing a bit about statistics in california where he grew up with smog in l.a. i got to thinking the same kind of treatment at the westwood show mostly improvement not on everything a lot of big things. so i thought i'm just going to copy that format and then for several years as matt mentioned that put out an annual report newbury between 60 and 70 pages. you wanted to have enough substance to ask the say something. he did very well with the media. he was never quite the sensation of bill bennett's report because his report was about drugs and rock 'n roll in mind was about polychlorinated biphenyls. about that same time i was the only person thinking this.

in 1995 he came out with this monumentally large book and the subtitle is the coming age of environmental populism. i think greg was 15 years too early. his book got savaged by environmentalists but for some reason the environmental defense fund took such a disliking to debate set up an early web site in the early days of the internet. factual claims and statistics that could be contested in an error here and there but the sweeping point was the entire book should be discredited. environmental commentary is so low that few people realize measurable improvements have already been made in almost every area. he just couldn't say that back then are not without attracting widespread -- it's beyond the

pale of perspective discourse. another few years you begin to see the media taking notice and i remember in 2000 after i talked the editorial board at "usa today" they were hidden in plain sight. you can look up the data but of course usa today's format was to have a point and a counterpoint. so they could save things improve that things are still. lot of them by her take yes for an answer. the other thing at the time that i didn't really think about but the united states still does not have the bureau of environmental statistics to go along with the bureau of statistics the bureau of labor statistics of the bureau of education statistics. meanwhile almost all of our european nations have the bureau of environmental statistics and

reports on trends andd conditions. we have changed the epa round 2006. they now have on their web site and it's hard to find things that they ever report on the environmentth that pulls together the data on environmental problems not just the ones under epa jurisdiction other cabinet agencies and other regulatory agencies in the government and the one-stop shopping. nowadays you can download the datasets and analyze them. when i started out 30 years ago i had to go to the epa library in san francisco and look up reports and numbers in excel spreadsheets the old-fashioned way by hand it now all the data is available for anyone to look at. we still don't have a bureau of environmental statistics are any consistent reporting format.

a little story about that for several years a long time present of -- recommending we ought to have the bureau of environmental statistics and we testified a couple times before on theor house committee and government administration and environmentalists would show up with a new policy idea. i can be about it but one of the persons when they said well we don't trust the administration to do it fairly and straightforwardly. that wasni because it was bush that put out a big report about how massive the health benefits of the clean air act were. apparently this was lost on environmentalism and you can trust the bush omb. he was a tough unrated tree analysis person but that's where we are. the epa started putting out this

lovely chart every year which could be summarized under the e heading showing you can have lots of economic growth, population growth vehicle miles traveled and follow conventional air pollution and falling carbon monoxide emissions at the same time. we'll come to that point because it's an important one. i'm going to go quickly over few highlights. today we see the air pollution come to conventional air pollutants of the clean air act era have all fallen well below the national standard and it sinks lower every so often. that's not uniform of course for there are pockets like a couple areas of los angeles but when i was a kid growing up in the 70s in the l.a. area l.a. and i'm in the san gabriel valley two miles from the mountains most of which i can never see. they can see them all the time. in those days we violated the

ozone standard. most of the l.a. basin doesn't violate the one hour standard even day year again except for a couple of pockets of riverside san bernardino miss and creative valley. even on their worst day their peak level of ozone is less than half of what an average day was in los angeles in 1970s. a lot of this is the story of automobiles. total organic compounds and that's a decline that occurred from the 1970s until now. i'd like to point out it's really an automobile story. i'd like to say the real hero of the clean air act are not so much environmental lawyers and judges or the epa issued mandates although they'll play a role but the real heroes were the engineers who are pocket protectors have figured out how to design a compression system

for the autos among other things within the same story is true of nitrous and -- nitrogen oxides emissions and then i can say alive about i could say lot more about the whole conventional air pollution story and power plants in all that stuff but it is true not everything isth improved or things that have improved have stalled out for a long time for the 50s and 70s wewe were in losing a lot of the wetlands and we reverse that by the beginning of the new century and the last two years we backslide it a bit and not all wet lawn -- wetlands are created equal so there was a subcategory. another area where we have made no progress at all would be hypoxia in the gulf of which is the story of runoff in the huge mississippi river basin. here you can implicate conflicting environmental policies and you'd likely get

the area of hypoxia and nature run off and we are also saying let's have a ton of corn ethanol which is the wrong thing to do if you are trying to control runoff in the mississippi basin. i have some old data showing the general trend of nitrate loading has been going up. a lot of that variation depends on how much rainfall there is a light rainfall year will have less and more we'll have more nonetheless we are having great progress there. i'll skip over that and shows you the transit than flat on nitrous in the gulf for. other areas have shown better performance like the chesapeake they long island sound puget sound. haven't looked at puget sound data for quite a wild. see page two here. another interesting serious

environmental analysis happened in 2006 when the ice ice center did the state of the nation's ecosystem. this was an extraordinary project involving over 100 scientists of various specialties and of course one problem is what is in ecosystem? we w work hard to define different ecosystems in different scales. they have developed 120 indicators of ecosystems condition and what they found was we only have decent data for about half. the others there were some data but they were so they could only draw conclusions about if you up the conditions they thought were important. and of that 25% of them showed improvement. others too much uncertainty above all the process of doing this took several years. we hosted robin o'malley the director from the project at aei

along with tom lovejoy from princeton and the other leaders. it was soo labor-intensive that they couldn't keep the project open for chile. it an intensive investigation using more of his this environmental studies have matured in the last 20 to 30 years. other people are starting to get into the game and i think the turning point started with br and lombard's book in 2000 i think it came out in 2001 but he was very controversial and you may remember some danish scientific committee charged lombard with scientific dishonesty but i read the report and i couldn't find a single factual claimm to disputed but they were claims he could uldispute. and he ended up retracting the finding but it shows you how politicized the matter still was. that was just the beginning. by 2005 jack hollander and

emeritus from uc berkeley who was a bobby kennedy liberal. this began to be a sign that environmental optimism was not only growing that was more bipartisan and wasn't limited to contrary and like ben lautenberg. to talk about environmental progress during his many years here. the one that jumped out at me was seymour guard. the professor public health at the university of pittsburgh and he told the story of how he was a conference one-day public health experts and the speaker said well air pollution is his falling almost everywhere and look around. none of us had ever heard this. we didn't believe it. we had never seen it reported anywhere and that's when he decided i'm going to look into this and similar trends and that's where he came out with a

look at the real state of our planet and we had seymour here it aip talk about this book. whenever a book came out from some ex-unexpected author would save this book needs attention. other notable figures a good friend rob who died of years ago to early a good friend here and he is a demographer and covers a lot of the waterfront environment was one of the issues you like to talk about. if you've never seen his gap finder web site he was one a day does designers of mitre this wonderfully interactive site where you can plug into databases from individual countries and countless variables and generate these wonderful animated graphics. whenever i case the subject and make certain it's living -- students learn how to use gap finder.

a brand-new book not the end of the world and this is the kind of optimism that was simply not allowed and now you see more and more quote unquote mainstream books like this t and it's part of aec project that oxford called our world and data. if you don't know did haven't seen it you must. he says a whole lot of things to and environmental issues on a global scale extremely well and our friends at the cato institute have their project in human progress covering energy and environment prominent among them and then i want to mention michael sohn's book from 20 miyears ago a breakthrough. ted is going to be here tonight along with roger to talk about another aspect of climate change. but this began a self-conscious new movement called

eco-modernismak. to make a long story short lookup eco-modernist manifesto on line. it's exquisitely anti-malfusian and protect knowledge he and optimistic about the future. and i think it's something i never would have expected even 10 years ago and the body of serious opinion behind it. one other book that i think is a turning point. matt mentioned the population bomb in 1968 which curiously corresponded with the peak of fertility rates around the world interesting bit of timing for that book. a historian at columbia university published this book around 2010 i think and it is the last criticism not just of the ehrlich outlook on population but it's very critical in particular of the planned i parenthood international

and their birth control efforts around the world which are often quite corsets and in some cases v violent. you can't read that book without looking at the title fatal misconception. an unthinkable book from harvardrd university press recently as 1990 but there you have it. finally the old malfusian -- malfusianto is some dies hard. there's now a self-styled movement. ime haven't got my hands around because when you asked some people on twitter and all important conversations these days what they mean it's often confusing and contradictory. they will say we don't actually mean negative but just different kinds. we are back at sustainable development which was a big phrase 20 years ago but it's fallen out of fashion because it was so watery.

so that's going to go on. they never quite go away. the old malfusian environmentalists are the alcoholic szubin to a 12 step programs determined to get sober and then they walked by a well-written malfusian tavern. that's always going to be around. where are we now if public opinion? i began showing you this 30 years ago the majority of americans thinking conditions are getting worse and that we were running out of time. it's a latest series from gallup. by the way more and more posters are even asking about the environment much anymore. he used to be people who did the exit poll consortium for elections would offer you seven or eight issues on the economy crime terrorism whatever. i think they quit asking that question after 2002 because the number of voters who selected

the environment at the top issue was 2% below the margin of error.ow but this one was kind of fun because what you'll see is a large majorities here we think things are getting worse and suddenly in 2009 that gap narrows the number of people who think the environment is getting better took a conspicuous jump. barack obama was elected and i to be about the people took literally that grandiose pronouncements that this will be the moment when sea levels stop rising. i think it's not new but a partisan division on the environment has opened up that has been around for a very long time but i didn't want to do that just yet. it stayed that way through the obama years and it bounces up when trump comes in and ostentatiously takes us through

the paris climate accord and biden arrived three years ago. they keep doing that wrong. you will see the number of people goes down and gallup's supposition in the latest poll it reflects the democrat republican divide and democratsts and people on the environment aborts are suspicious when there's a republican president less so when there's a democrat except at the end here. while biden is still in office what's going on here? gallup speculates that increase you are seeing their is coming from republicans. they don't explain why or what and i have a lot of thoughts about what it means. it may not mean what you think it means but it's not expected and it might be a reason for optimism in a long-term for ways that would take me while to explain to you what i want to do

is get to to a course climate change. my proposition is climate changes eaten environmentalism alive. the reason i say that if you bring up any of the problems that observation water quality of every kind of loss of habitat toxic exposure and so forth what you often hear is it doesn't matter things have gotten better climate change will full stop all that and make everything worse. therefore the solution to habitat destruction air pollution is we have to get rid of fossil fuels and we solve climate change and will solve everything else which seems quite to me that i cover that part in the waterfront. thank you. [applause]

i guess i will just sit down over here. >> good morning hello everybody in mind. it's great to be here with steven. a decade ago steve was on -- a colorado boulder and he at the lab due to choose what department he got and so he chose the environmental studies department. i remember him wrapping up his ear and he told me when i first came i was worried that i'd come to thehe environmental studies department boulder colorado it is politics as in politics that any set i went went to the faculty meetings and who has what teaching load assignment and we are academics. it's not like that everywhere. my talk will be shorter and narrower and deeper than steve's. i'm going to talk about climate

change. this is me marching on earth day parade. as far as i can tell as 1973 and you can see by my smile i was in environmental optimists back then also. let me start with john kerry and as everyone knows john kerry has been a long time advocate on climate change. i'm going to posit these two statements that he made two years apart almost to the day. he said in 2021 as we are talking where were credibly on course to hit somewhere between three to four degrees at the current rate talking about projected average temperature rise to 2100. two years later obviously the same speech there was a change made. certainly was heading toward something like 2.42.5 degrees of warming on w the planet for global

average temperature. that's a change of a significant amount from three or four degrees 2.4 degrees. so would be fair to ask what change let me say all profits to john kerry he's accurately reflecting signs when many people still have not. if you ask mr. kerry what changed he said recently we are at 2.5 degrees and when i took this job when we were headed for four degrees. that's not exactly correct so i they would do is tell you why the perspective has changed as reflected by mr. kerry. iel call it the best kept secret in climate science. everyone in and around climate science knows everything am going to tell you right now. most people do not. this is a spaghetti diagram and let me take a moment to explain it to you.

these are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. the line is history and all all of this spaghetti the colorful spaghetti are projections thatol were developed really starting 20 years ago for how the future might play out under different scenarios. climate scientists based on scenario for the future. it was super complicated math aspects of economics population growth energy energyen consumption and a shoe production land use and on and on. this figure shows about 1200 scenarios. obviously the world's scientists cannot deal with 1200 scenarios. at the time in 2005 it's a scenario and that's the focus of our research. they have a name they are called rcp. they said let's have a high one. we have got to have a high one and let's have a low one that's a blue one to 2..6 and let's have two in the middle.

they didn't want one in the middle because they said everyone will focus on that once a look at two in the middle. o turns out at that time the high ones are cpa .5 per a lot of reasons was designated business as usual. this is where the world is heading. you can see her maybe you can't see temperaturere rise of 2103.2 to 5.4 degrees celsius. this is where john kerry got that three four degrees celsius he was repeating again in 2021. so what has changed? what i'm doing here on this graph is i have taken every one of these spaghetti scenarios and this is with my college matt burgess and justin richie and recently published for anyone who wants a copy. these are both scenarios and we plotted them on this graph.

this is total carbon dioxide emissions added up to 2100 then on the vertical axis is temperature changera of 2100. it's pretty much everyone understands that increase carbon dioxide the increased temperature it's pretty darn close. you have extreme scenarios that here less extreme down here. the intergovernmental panel on climate change in doing its job says when we use emissions scenarios they have to be plausible. they have to be capable of occurring in the real world. i drew a circle around all of these the 2005 to 2010 scenarios. because the ipcc put it into their database you can conclude they thought they were all plausible. what we did was we set all right a lot of time has passed since

2005. we know what happened with emissions. we can compare the real world with what the emissions scenarios put forward. the everything we can do is the energy system models like the international energy agency and fuel companies in the information agency short-term energy outlook's. these are updated every year. about every couple decades so there's a best view into what's going to happen next year they are after the next five years in the next 10 years. we asked the question of this big latte of 1200 scenarios which ones survived the test a reality in b where we think we are headed today rather than 2005. here is the answer. the all of the scenarios that survived the test of reality and

near-term projections sit between two andf three degrees. and in our study the possible scenario centered on 2.2 degrees celsius changed by 2100. this narrowing of expectations is perfectly normal. it happens in research. yet long-term scenarios as time goes on some of them will stay and some will fall up the economist know this and anyone who deals with date and projections it's a difficult thing to predict. so let me go back to the spaghetti diagram. if we applied this test of plausibility we find these various scenarios are implausible and in fact this is an rcp 8.5 is already falsified. just to give a sense of how it is itis assumes that the world is going to build something like 30,000 new coal-fired power

plants by 2500 there are about 6000 in the world. some companies are born building more india and china in particular and the european unit and the united states we are on track to be out of the cold business and they 2030s. once we look at the plausible scenarios based on where we sit today the world looks a lot different. let me say this is not a unique view just between me and my colleagues. we happen to be one of many researchers around the world that was put together by c. cal and it's in time order. a publication but you can't see it but it hurts and 2019. here is our study the gray bar between two and three degrees and different publications have different projections with temperature up to 2100 assuming

different policy path and so on but one of the things you can see is that by degrees his way up here. four degrees is here. there were no more studies so what john kerry was saying it looks like the world is heading for 2.42.5 degrees by 2100 he's actively reflecting the state of scientific understanding. if you go to the major media and the bike demonstration projections on the cost of climatef change and the cost of carbon you are going to find that old extreme scenario rcp 8.5 dominates public discussion. there is a normative descendents out there. the whole outdated scenario the climate apocalypse scenario still has a firm hold on public discourse and has a firm hold in the media and it appears almost all the time in policy. john kerry is interesting because he's kind of alone out there among policymakers and k

politicians and actively reflecting it. the ie came out in 2023 and i'm pretty sure this is where john carries 2.4 degrees came from and a from and it sliced through all the studies. this is the consensus on climate change. everybody knows about this the last summer in redding england about 50 of the world scenario experts that create the scenarios they gathered at a workshop to create abstract art, no they didn't. they gathered up their workshop to develop the next generation of scenarios. this is a big palm for climate research in and climate policy because most scenarios are created in may last for 20 years for the seared 20 years but but this feared marios we created this year will be outdated in a couple of years. we need to be more like the remodelers and update every

year. they came up with a proposal for a new set of scenarios. they took the extreme scenarios and they put them in this pass protection. they call it the emissions world avoided. we can make the argument whether it's world avoided or just plain wrong but i take this graphic and tried to turn it less and abstract art and more and do something consistent with what i just showed you.. appear there's that rcp 8.5 between four and five degrees but but this is where we thought we are headed. the abstract art scenario doesn't even come close to it. the climate science community is well aware of this. there's going to be a profound reckoning in public discourse and discussions when the world realizes that where we are headed is lower than just if you

years ago we called a success story on climate change. so let me just conclude this discussion with their grandpa climate change is real in recent years our understanding of how future emissions are going to evolve have changed. the goodd news is a become a much less extreme and that's good news and we should be able to comment on that good news while at the same time recognizing there's a lot of work left to do. here's how you can buy me for questions and comments i look forward to chatting with you. thank you. [applause] do we want to take questions? what do you want to do? >> with good we will let the microphone handle

>> my name is jill and i have to questions. in the 50s when we burn in the so question number one when d l.a. s [inaudible] in questionanyone had any long-range studies grew up inn "smallville" >> great question for the l.a. happened very slowly. i used to hav peaked but it was early 70s but things didn't stop dropping substantd the 90s and then it started going down fast. one of the things about the clea act generally it was well understood as early as the problem with carbon. timezone photo chemicals wasn't that will lead us to believe you're not? that's a long story but then once the clean air act passed we

started monitor the whole country and looking at milwaukee andco other places that were never as as l.a. also had elevated levels of carbon m studies that the last one ona in around 2002 that i thought was mixed in study and i can't remember theguess what i would say, i certainly remember as kid you couldn't play outside in the afternoons in the summer as your lungs woul her. i grew up in a wealthy suburb withri and you couldn't go swimming. within 15 minutes he be gasping in pain. and the track athlete in the 70s. i can't believe i was a runner. unev that now. that's an interesting question. i think there's a range of opinion on that. i've seen o studies about the health aspects that were people are more resilient than we and smokers quit smoking in their help improve. especially getting lead out of

the air is a national story. i think we are still waiting for long-term data about l.a.. t coming up with a lower incidence of asthma and other. i'm convinced the signs will positive. >> mark. >> mark mills within natural center for policy. would you speculate on what form and when reckoning will happen because i think this is your views. >> d >> i would be happy to. this is one of tho things change in in the understanding and it can take a long time for that to future. i go back to the population bomb. you don't hear people, you can find in that you don't hear it pronounced like it was an 1960s and 1970s about the population crisis. reckoning h never did. we just kind of movedn and

other issues like climate change took its place. i think it's conceivable thatange will still be there. it will be around as an lot like how we think about population population matters and it's important. population policies are population policies butalth care and education andut women's rights. theys do think my leading candidate is the old that. on 60 minutes talking about the samei have understanding does start to be to some degree the stor is we are being successfulisions we made the paris agreement have led us to bend theb -- then the curve. that's another talk in more detail. to the real story is we flawed

scenario and defeats the planning. we don't know the future we need wide range so we looked at one of politica convenient but not realistic. >> none of the scenarios became [inaudible] the spending program the usa we have these massive entitlements andnding mandates for have population control. >> i mean as matthew connolly says in also recommend there was a lot of thin done in policy for a lontime and i'm very much of the view that good or policy doesn't emerge from scientiso one of the things that i'm pretty sure that politics is self-correcting and some of faster scale than a science. people feel the consequences weather

and france nigeria or the united states they lash you could be farmers taking europe is in the most recent months but i do written about a book is peopleer pricedd energy.e put in place do not to accelerated economic grotandards of living obvious improvements better technology and so want is itt true those policies have absolutely.my answers substantially the same. i don't thank you get a reckoning on anything but you do see slows changes. the population one is a good comparison.r points to bin20 years ago pretty used to be the u.n. population agency would dr century long and low one in over the last 25 years or so the highest cases are lowest cases used to be so year-by-year that changes to see "the

new york times" saying it's a birthrth. they were on this 25 yearsblem is going to be too low fertility rat time sidaway i think of it oh i think what will happen is climate change fight many envirissue. it won't go away but it won't be this extra climate crisis is climate. the populatio one is different but i had a student asked about this recently and i thou unusual. that's like a question from my student days the. back and around 1970 or 71 the first earth day happen in need than all legislation on scene nelson rockefeller persuaded nixon he needed to have a count. nixon set up i think it might commission like the great commission others that have now then. should the united states have a population policy to limit growth and somebody raised their hand when they instead you that if we

have a population policy in this country it will disproportionately affect minorities. theyver heard from again. it just quietly you have to work hard to find it. so that's the echo of political current policies. an uptick gallup thinks it's actually a republican. it's a hopeful sign in the sense that i'm saying environmental issues including climate will sta reset and if something looks more normal like education and hike heck. the point is both parties to fight it in looking for solutions and playing the game last anecdote i remember almost 30 years ago now i provided the republican national are 100,000-dollar donors were today donors. i through these and people said it's intng about their issue? you get the point. when the two parties compete for an that's the policy of a

nobody's happy about >> jp hogan of few questions one the sign in 2060 eu deadlock of cutting up co2's is so we had the. we hadeu a flippingm one side of the northern hemisphere do the other thale climate change cuts. i wasn't sure if they weren't controlling air pollution and whether their solutions are part of on where that flipping has cause other changes first question.for now.he science of climate change and the effects of carbon cuts the answer is that if you take aon look at the historical record of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it is the whole it's been going up-and-up.

the data. >> we take you live to the u.s. senate on this friday for the chambers holding a brief pro form on thursday senators approved a five-year reauthorization of funding for the federal aviation administration by vote of 88-4. extend current funding for another seven days until the house can the full reauthorization. live coverage of the senate here n2. the presidin