♪ hello again everyone, i'm tony harris, here is the latest from al jazeera. in egypt, mohammed badie was arrested on charges of inciting violence. this comes as the u.s. is still deciding whether to give millions of dollars in military aid to egypt. >> what i said yesterday is true today. which is that in early july, the president of the united states directed his security team to conduct a review of the assistance and aid that reprovide to egypt. this is part of a complex and brood relationship we have with the egyptians. that review has not completed.

parents are beginning to gather their children after shots were fired at a georgia elementary school this afternoon. the school was evacuated after a man dressed in all black opened fire with an assault rifle. the suspect is in custody and no one hurt. and over 50 wildfires are spreading across the west. i'm tony harris, stay tuned for more news and log on to aljazeera.com. ♪ from wildfires to rising waters, we look at the risk of climate change on the united states, and what can be done to limit the damage. from washington, you are

watching "inside story." ♪ welcome. hotter drier, windier conditions are the new formal for the western united states, and that means wildfires that are more intense and last longer. the risks are also on the rise for coastal regions. some of america's biggest cities could end up below sea level by the end of this century. but scientists say there is still time to take action and reverse some of the impact of climate change. ♪ joining me in the stewudio,

michael mann, and from new york claus jacob. a recent study painted a grim picture for many american cities and towns. more than 1700 cities are at a greatest risk from rising city levels. even if all carbon emissions stopped right now, it's already too late for some cities that are locked in to a future below sea level. but scientists say 1,000 cities and towns could still be saved if there are dramatic cuts in emissions. michael we'll start with you. what does the future look like for cities like new york and miami? >> we can take actions to try to

stablelize greenhouse gases, through reducing fossil fuel emissions, in such a case that we could avoid the worst-case scenarios. the best estimates are that we could avoid global sea level rise of more than a meter or three feet. a three-foot sea level rise is going to be damaging to many of the coastal cities of the u.s. low-lying island nations, but there are probably steps we can take to adapt to that level of change. on the other hand if we continue to pursue business as usual, if we continue with our escalating fossil fuel burning, and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, then we could ultimately be committing ourselves to 10, 15, 20 feet of global sale level rise.

and that would be catastrophic. >> when we hear news about anies like new york at a risk regardless of what earn ins and people across the world do, what does that look like? >> well, first on a sunny day only gradual innone a decision, but what concerns us is the combination of sea level rise and storms, where six, eight, maybe ten feet are super imposed on a normal sea level, and as we have seen on sandy and other storms, that can be devastating if we are not prepared, if we are not changing our cities, and that will be expensive. >> heidi what do we know about how fast or slow carbon dioxide has an impact. >> that's one of the big things that we need to help people understand when it comes to

climate change. carbon dioxide is a long-lived greenhouse gas. co 2 when we turn it, via fossil fuels, it hangs out for centuries. so we are only seeing a fraction of what is going to happen in the future, so that's why we can say we are locking ourselves into a specific future where the weather is much more extreme. >> and claus what is being done towards reacting? and we'll talk about prevention later. >> there have been plans put forward in particular by the city of new york to deal at least in the short-term with periodic storm-related innone a decision. these are temporary measures that go from temporary sea walls to more permanent levies, even some local barriers that can be

open and closed for local waterways, but what we are really lacking is the long-term vision. if we have to face sea level rise amounts that professor mann just quoted, 10, 15 feet or more, then we have at the moment no means to deal with that. >> michael mann when you think about the infrastructure and the money that it takes to adapt, what do you see as the big priorities? >> well, the first point in the discussion is that the cost of adapting to -- to these kinds of climate changes, these potential amounts of sea level rise and the other potentially devastating impacts of climate change, the costs of inaction, of not doing something to

mitigate, by reducing fossil fuel consumption, those costs far outweigh any costs of taking action. the greater the changes we need to adapt to, the more expensive those adaptations are. and there is a certain amount of sea level rise where we can't adapt. we literally have to retreat from the coasts, and literally need to move entire cities, naval fleets, and that's hugely expensive, so by most credible estimates, the cost of not taking action to reduce fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions is far greater than any cost of take action. time for a short break. coming up next, why fewer americans view climate change as a major threat then other people around the world do.

mission. >> there's more to america, more

stories, more voices, more points of view. now there's are news channel with more of what americans want to know. >> i'm ali velshi and this is "real money." this is "america tonight." sglovrjs our -- >> our news coverage reveal more of america's stories. ♪ welcome back to "inside story." for more than 20 years 97% of scientific research has said that climate change is happening and it is caused by people. but americans remain divided on the issue, and they are more skeptical than others around the world. 40% of americans see the change in climate as a major global

threat. that's in comparison to 54% of europeans, and 65% of those surveyed in latin america. to continue this discussion, we're joined by michael mann the director of penn state's earth system science center, heidi coen, and claus jacob. why the reluctance of some americans to trust the science. >> in 2002 there was an internal memo leaked from frank luntz. and he was advising his clienting that the public was becoming convinced that there was a scientific consensus s surrounding the issue of climate change. but based on his focus grouping and polling, there was still a narrow window of opportunity left to insert doubt, to

manufacture doubt and uncertainty, to cloud the public discourse over this issue, and that's exactly what vested interests have done over the past ten years. they have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars in a major disinformation campaign. a campaign aimed at confusing the public. and that's why we see this gulf between where the scientists stand, whereas you said 97% of scientists in this field concur with the accepted fact that climate -- that climate is changing, the global is warming, it's due to human activity, and if we continue on this course we'll see devastating impacts. so there is a gulf between where scientists are and where the public is. depending on the poll anywhere from 50 to 65% of the public accept that climate change is a

problem. that gulf was created through a disinformation campaign involving hundreds of millions of dollars spent on confusing advertisements. >> heidi how firm of a time line can you give people about when things could and will happen and then if people in washington, d.c. walk outside in august and it's a breezy 65 degree day, how do you convince them that that's not the way to judge the overall picture of climate change? >> well, i think when it comes to talking about the time line, and the president just did this very well in his speech he gave at georgetown is to say climate change is happening now, and these heat trapping gases are in the atmosphere for so long. so first of all the warming is going on right now. we can measure it across many

different variables, and there's tremendous consensus within the scientific community, because a lot of investment was made in making the public think the scientists were decided on this issue, so i think it's really important to hammer hone this point to make sure everyone knows it is really and it is happening right now. and i think after sandy, a lot of people are really beginning to think that it's time for washington to step up and take leadership on this issue. and more and more americans take climate change seriously, and they want their elected officials to take it seriously as well. >> younger americans have a different perspective than their parents. 66% said climate change is a problem and needs to be addressed. about a quarter of them believe

climate change is a natural event that humans cannot impact. only 3% think climate change isn't happening at all. claus jacob when you hear those numbers what does that make you think about? >> well, as dr. mann had said this is a fabricated story that climate change doubters see around the country. we're seeing sea level rising in accelerated fashion already. we see the temperatures rising, so to go on the floor in congress and to promote untruth is irresponsible, and if those that do it are aware that each day that we fall behind in adapting to climate change will

cost not only lives, but dollars and our livelihoods, then they should look into the mirror and ask themselves how long do i maintain to propagate this untruth? >> even among democrats and republicans who agree that climate change is happening, michael mann there is a big gulf between what should be done. where should the debate go? >> that's a great question. there's a legitimate political debate to be had about what actions we should take to try to reduce carbon emissions, to incentivize non-carbon-based entry, so we transition away from the very behavior that is warming the climate and costing us hugely already. there is a legitimate debate to

be had, and it's appropriate to have conservatives and progressives at the table debating what sort of policies we should put in place. there has been arguments made by conservatives that we should use something like a revenue neutral carbon tax. a free market driven conservative solution to the problem. and i think it's great that we're having that discussion. what isn't okay is for us to continue to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. >> but is there a danger in not doing anything because the two sides can't agree? >> what we have seen because there is intransigeance right now in our congress, we have a house science committee -- the science committee of the u.s. house of representatives, the republicans on that committee don't even accept the reality of climate change. so it's difficult to see

comprehensive legislation being passed. and yet the participate -- president of the united states has taken action at reducing co2 emissions, and various measures that will help deal with this problem. there are things being done already by the president of the united states to try to reduce our emissions and get us headed in the right direction, and maybe a couple of years from now we'll be at the point where we can have a serious discussion in congress. >> what about companies. heidi how do you incentivize companies to make changes? >> well, i think this is a big challenge for everyone is showing leadership in all of the different sectors that need to show leadership, and i think we're beginning to see some sectors step up, and at the local level, at the city and

state level, because these are the places that are getting really hard hit by extreme weather, 2012 cost over $100 billion in terms of disasters, and we're starting to see a lot of leadership at the local and city level. as claus mentioned when it comes to resilience and we have initiatives in new york, boston, and chicago, to focus on infrastructure, there's tremendous market opportunities there as well as with renewables. time for a short break. when we come back we'll ask how american cities can prepare for the impact of climate change. ç]

♪

welcome back to inside story. >> we have been talk about the impact of climate change in the united states, and what can be done to slow it down. still with us, michael mann, heidi cullen, and from new york, disaster risk management specialist, claus jacob. heidi what is the biggest punch in terms of renewables in changing the future. >> here in the united states we have so many natural assets, and i think solar and wind are great ways to move forward. and germany has done a lot of work with solar, and they get no more sunshine than seattle. so we need to aggressively go after those assets. >> and michael mann

companies -- why should they jump on board? >> it's an issue of competitiveness. right now the u.s. is falling behind the rest of the world. nations like china and india are spending more on renewable energy than we are here in the u.s. they recognize that the future is in renewables, and if we want to maintain our competitiveness, we need to move forward with our own renewable energy future. >> and we get back to adapting versus preventing, which is more important at this point? >> fundamentally, it's three ways of adapting. one is protecting with engineering so the ocean's barriers, levies pumps and the likes, the next thing is to accommodate the water into some parts of the city and preparing the lower floors to be resili t

resilient. and the last and politically most difficult for individuals and political process to accept is managed retreat. now, new york city and a few other cities like boston have the luxury of topography where they can retreat to higher ground. >> you are talking about moving people, major settlements and cities inland? >> absolutely, and miami does not have that option, because there is no natural high

-- [ technical difficulties ] >> and that's where the other alternatives, namely the mitigation, that means the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and switching to non-fossil fuel resources really is the long-term solution. >> heidi where does personal responsibility come in? what about individuals? what is their responsibility? >> i think this is where climate

change becomes complicated. it's not just about what the federal government does, or what your mayor does, but how we all as individuals respond as well. and part of this discussion is coming to terms with the fact that we're all part of the problem, but we're all part of the solution. and as claus said for every co2 molecule that we prevent from cutting into the atmosphere, that's the best decision we can make, and making smart decisions when it comes to what kind of cars we drive and applies, think about those choices. think about climate change when you make these decisions, because it matters. >> michael mann what about china and india, if they look at the big picture globally, how much

impact can americans make? >> i think it is a matter of moral leadership. the developing world that is now moving ahead of the u.s. in terms of their contribution toward a global carbon emission, but if we here can't pass comprehensive energy legislation that allows us to deal with the cost, the damaging of ongoing fossil fuel emissions, then when the rest of the world looks at us, they can rightfully say, well, you know, the u.s., you had two centuries of free access to cheap fossil fuel energy, don't we deserve our turn now? and if we're not displaying leadership in the way we are dealing with and confronting this issue, then the rest of the world may not feel compelled to do so themselves. >> claus we heard from heidi about energy efficiency, what is one thing you would like to see changed right away? >> that we built not more

assets, settlements, developments at low elevations at the waterfront at our shorelines. that is a very poor investment. we have to find means and ways to prevent this. this is calling for more losses in the future, and we cannot afford those losses. >> one thing, michael mann that you would do? >> i would just encourage people to -- to think about ways that they can -- you know, reduce their energy usage, be more energy efficient in the appliances they purchase, and in the way they conduct their lives. limit their carbon footprint as much as they can. >> thank you all so much for being with us. that's it for the team in washington, d.c., and for me libby casey. but you can keep the conversation going by logging on to our facebook page, it's

ajinsi ajinsidestory am.