>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose."

>> george osborne is here. he is britain's chancellor of the exchequer. they are currently the fastest-growing economy of g7. in a "wall street journal" op-ed on monday, the chancellor said that research showed his deficit reduction plan is working. budget cuts have been a political issue. the next parliament elections are in may of 2015. surveys suggest that neither party will achieve a majority. i am pleased to have george osborne back at this table. why are you here? >> i am here are saying to both the americans and the brits that we do not have to accept, as countries, secular stagnation, long-term decline. if we have clear long-term plans to get on top of our debts, our best days can be ahead of us. i am taking on the same pessimists who said we have to spend our way out of crisis who now say we have to spend our way out of stagnation. i think their argument is that growth rate is too low, that you

need more government spending. my argument is, both in the states, particularly in the u.k., we have a budget deficit in the u.k. that has gone down by half. our debt to gdp is at 90.6%. we want to be at the front rank of economic nations, not just because it raises living standards for our populations, but because you are not going to be able to promote your values around the world if you are not backed by strong economies and countries that have put the houses in order. >> so you're promoting that idea. you had an op-ed in the "wall street journal" about economic pessimism. you made a speech today. >> the economic club of new york. i am making the argument that, if you get all the cylinders of

your economic policy firing at the same time, have a supportive monetary policy, credible fiscal policy, making difficult decisions, and you are backing innovation and doing the supply-side things that are required. for example, the shared economy on the internet, the loan business, is a tremendously powerful force to change. some countries are banning it in various forms. we are saying we want to see more of that innovation and creativity. so it is a challenge for all western democracies. are we prepared to make difficult decisions and lead from the front in order to go on having the economic strength to see our values of democracy and freedom promoted around the world backed by economic strength? >> is it sustainable? >> i think so. of course, you do not know when the next crisis is going to come. but that is more reason to get your public finances in order and make sure you can deal with whatever the world is going to throw at you. we know how the rest of europe is very weak. and we have geopolitical issues,

whether it is terrible diseases in west africa or terrorism in the middle east. there are also some things going on. >> how do you deal with the deficit between now and five years from now? >> britain is still carrying a 5% deficit. it was double digits. so we have to eliminate the deficit. >> how are you going to do that? >> principally, by reducing government spending. dealing with costly welfare entitlements. you have to make sure that wealthy people pay their taxes when they are due. what i do not think you want to be doing is putting up some of our big taxes, some of our businesses or people's incomes that would hit people's cost of living and make our country uncompetitive. britain thrives by being an open place that is attracting a huge amount of investment from around the world.

>> wise or deficit nearly 5%? >> more so than the united states, it was a structural deficit builds up in the years before the financial crash. we began the financial crash with a higher deficit and the other g7 nations. it is half what it was. we have done a lot of hard work in reducing our deficit. and we are seen by institutions like the imf to have had the most sustained deficit reduction program. my message in the forthcoming elections is you have to stay the course. you have to deal with the deficit and bring debt down as part of a program that says to the world, britain has its act together.

there's a place to create your business. it is a place to create jobs. at the moment, we are creating jobs at a faster rate than any other major economy in the world. and unlike the u.s., the participation in the u.k. is at an almost record high. we do not have people dropping out of the labor force. i think the u.s. is a strong begin in the world economy at the moment as well. what a think both of us have managed to achieve is this combination of central banks, this goal consolidation, although in the u.s., more unintentional been intentional. and we have to get our supply-side reforms. our finance the economies have not been able to get those three components working together. >> others argue that we should be spending more money on infrastructure. spending more money on crucial projects for the future, and you are not because you're going to

balance your budget by 2018. >> surplus by 2018. >> balancing plus. and therefore, you are cutting things that might create jobs and create demand. >> but this is the argument that i have faced for the last five years. the argument that, good times or bad, the answer is to spend more government money. my argument is spend government money on roads -- the u.k. has the biggest roadbuilding program in 40 years. in the u.s., some great republican presidents like eisenhower built the interstate network. there's nothing wrong about investing in infrastructure. but find the money from savings elsewhere in government. do not think you can borrow more. >> by saying this is an easy political argument to make, are

you taking off the backs of the poor and those least able to afford it, in terms of benefits for them, in order to support whatever it is you want to do, to reduce the deficit by 2018? >> we have gone out of our way to protect the poorest and most vulnerable. >> but there is a debate about that. >> of course there is a debate, but the debate is, who are the people that suffer most when the economy fails, when the debt is out of control? it is the poorest in our society. they are the least protected. >> then why are they the one that you turn to -- >> we do not. i made a controversial decision to reduce middle-class welfare and entitlements. >> you call entitlements middle-class welfare?

>> they are interchangeable words in the u.s. and u.k. debate. but we make difficult decisions like that. i have said to some of the richest in our country, people in the top 15%, you cannot get the automatic universal child benefit. that is an example. i have done this in a way which independent observers say has fallen harder on those on higher incomes than those on lower incomes. but what motivates me is to create an economy where people who were previously unemployed or did not have great opportunities now have jobs, now have opportunities. where i do challenge my critics is over the issue of whether it is better to pay people to be out of work on generous entitlement, better to reform those entitlements -- >> you have to go through a number of years of severe pain. >> the truth is that we have

seen a rapid fall in the number of workless households. a rapid rise in the number of young people getting work. youth unemployment is down in the u.k. compare what is happening in britain to what is happening on the continent of europe, where you have unemployment rates of 20% or 30% for young people. this is the price, where economic policy fails. it is the poorest and most vulnerable who pay that price. >> do you feel like you are picking up the economic legacy of prime minister thatcher? >> i try to do my own thing, which is tackle the problems of my age, to confront the entrenched interests standing in the way of economic progress. to get our public finances in good shape. >> to get it where you want it to be in 2018, assuming you win

reelection in 2015, what do you have to do, and where are you going to find the continued source of reducing cost to fuel the balanced budget? >> find those savings in government departments, which we have to get more efficient at what they do. probably make savings in entitlements. here's a decision we are prepared to take. we say instead of operating working-age entitlements with inflation, we are going to freeze them for two years. that is a difficult decision, but it's the government money and allows us to invest in the infrastructure we have been talking about. it brings about public finances. it is part of a job-creating economy that is creating opportunities. >> help me understand what it is

that makes you and david cameron different in putting the economic house in order. >> in the end, i think politics follows from good economies. politicians want to get reelected. i want to get reelected in a few months' time. but the public rewards people who clearly have a long-term plan, an idea of where they want to take the country. do not bend with every single pressure group or opinion poll that comes our way. you have to be prepared to take difficult decisions and politics. one thing i have learned is that some of the most economically essential things are the most politically difficult things. but partly because the public are not stupid and they can see you have taken a risk with your reputation, with your party's prospects. you made a decision unpopular at the time. >> your popularity had decreased, yes?

the party. >> i think we are in reasonably good shape for an election. people clearly see david cameron as the best person to be the prime minister. when it comes to our economic competence, people see us as ahead of our opponents. it is ultimately going to be a hard-fought election. i feel confidence as we come into the christmas spirit, the new year, we are well placed to earn the trust of the public. >> the irony of this is that two of the principal advisers to obama are now involved on both sides of the political spectrum -- jim messina on one side, david axelrod on the other. >> we have jim messina. he is helping us. >> understand what?

>> he is a very smart guy. he is helping us understand how the internet and modern communication can help us reach voters. he has been very successful here. he is not running the overall campaign. but he spoke recently to the caucus of conservative mp's. i think everyone was impressed by the approach. >> are you worried about extreme parties? >> if you mean not the mainstream, in our political system, there are some populist forces. and i think we have to force people, as the election approaches, to say you are choosing your government to your prime minister. your economic plan for the future.

there is only going to be one of two in our system. the labour party is clearly not up to it. david cameron continues to deliver. if we force that choice at the election, i am confident that some of those supporters of other parties -- by the way, those supporters may have very legitimate concerns about welfare issues, about immigration. about our relationship with the european union. we say those concerns are best addressed through a conservative government and david as prime minister. >> what is going to happen in regards your membership in the eu? >> we wanted reform, partly so europe is -- >> but you're not going to get out? >> we are aiming to achieve reform and referendum on britain's membership where we can recommend that the country stays in the union. >> what you have to achieve

before you can recommend that? >> you have to say to our colleagues in europe -- we have to be creating more jobs through a there is too much going on in the european union which is anti-enterprise. the united kingdom is not part of the eurozone. we are a big non-euro member. our interest me to be protected in the eu. there are concerns about entitlements that newly arrived immigrants have. these are the sorts of issues that the public want addressed. not just the british public, but other member states. i am confident that we can achieve that negotiation. the ultimate judges will be the british people. >> we have had much controversy in the last week or so about the release of a report about torture during the iraq war.

and cia detention places. what did the british government do? >> this happened under previous administration. >> at the time. >> we have looked carefully at what happened, and british intelligence works very closely with u.s. intelligence offices. there have been traditional inquiries in our country, parliamentary inquiries, the police were considered. in all cases, they have not found wrongdoing. there is a debate in the u.s. i would make a broader observation. the security of the british and american people depends on brave and courageous people in our intelligence forces who do not get much public recognition. they have to operate within the law, uphold the values that we share. but do not forget that they are doing a difficult job on our behalf. >> how worried are you about the so-called local terrorist,

people that go to fight in syria and come back more radicalized and have a passport when they come back to great britain? >> the public in britain have been deeply shocked by the presence of videotapes of british citizens murdering fellow british citizens and, indeed, american citizens. we know there are significant numbers of people who have traveled to syria from countries like france as well. syria is not so far away from europe. we have to make sure we keep our task on that. we have to prevent him from traveling where we can. and if they try to return, we either stop them or keep them under close supervision when they return. in the last few weeks, we had successful prosecutions and our judicial system of people who had been at terrorist training facilities in the middle east, in syria. >> that is a significant

deterrent as well. we have to figure out why they are attracted. i think they are misled into believing this is some way to address grievances. >> a crusade? >> there is nothing romantic about killing people and being barbaric. of course, the treatment of civilians, the treatment of women, is absolutely barbaric. if ever there was -- this reminds us of why we defend the values we defend. and there is good and bad in this world. >> the scottish referendum. if you and david cameron had not awakened to realize you were in peril, might the vote have gone the other way?

>> it is the decision of the scottish people. whatever we said. >> but both of you went there and argued strongly. it was said that it was trending faster than comprehended, a vote against you for independence. >> it is a great tribute to mature democracy that you can have a referendum on the separation of part of the country and it can be conducted in an open and democratic way. on television shows. everyone respects the results. it was a great exercise in democracy. we had an incredibly high turnout, close to nine out of 10 voters. much higher than the general election. second, it comes back to an

earlier point we were making. it was a difficult decision to say we are going to have the referendum. in front the issue. all my adult life, separatism had been on the rise. david cameron, the labour party, it was a cross-party effort, we said we are going to confront this and make a decision for our generation. of course, it is a risk when you do that. you risk getting a result you do not want. but when people heard the economic issues, the patriotic issues, the people of scotland, and i am grateful and simple, decided they wanted to stay in the u.k.. what is interesting is there are people in places like england and wales that wanted scotland tuesday as well. i think we emerged stronger from it. in my lifetime, the march of separatism has been checked. it is a great example of political courage, confronting the issue rather than running away. >> let me take this time to talk

about that, because you're close to the prime minister. not only as a political person with him, you are an advisor to him. where do you stand in the coalition and efforts against isis. what is britain prepared to do? >> we are in iraq, fighting alongside the u.s. in airstrikes against isis targets. training the kurdish military, supporting the government of iraq. it is very different from a decade ago. we have been invited in by the people of iraq. we are helping train the opposition in syria. that is a helpful exercise. our parliament did not want us to take military action in syria a year ago, despite the recommendation of myself and

david cameron. that is the reality of living in a democracy. >> why was that? >> ultimately, you would have to ask those who voted against it. i thought it was the wrong decision myself. too much of the debate was what happened in 2003, not what was happening in 2013 or 2014. the iraq war, which i supported 10 years ago, cast a long shadow over the british political debate. people felt, and i felt it was a different case, that getting involved in a military way in terms of airstrike and the like in syria was the same as getting involved in iraq in 2003. i did not agree. i felt strongly if, you leave a vacuum and are not prepared to stand up for your values, problems emerge. we all know the cost of intervention. many brave american and british serviceman have paid with their lives in iraq and afghanistan. but we do not focus on the cost of nonintervention.

there is a price to pay for that as well. thankfully, the u.s. are involved integrating isis operations. and we are helping the americans check their advance. this horrific terrorist organization. >> what is it about them that has created this worldwide attention, in many cases, surprising support? and has the tide been turned against them? many people in the islamic world waking up, especially sunni muslims, to say enough. you cannot advance like this with the ideas you have and the tactics you have in the name of islam.

>> of course, their form of horrific brutality has gained support. but that does not mean we should treat them different. we should confront. i think we have to confront islamic extremism. it is not just the violence. it is the climate in which that violence is allowed to take place. in our schools and universities, we have not been strong enough in saying these values of banning women from attending a college lecture are not values we share. they are not acceptable in our country. so confronting that extremism, as well as confronting the

violence that flows from it, is the way forward. >> great to have you here. george osborne, chancellor of the exchequer. back in a moment. ♪

>> naomi klein is here. she is a writer and activist and has taken on the global impact of economics in previous books. her new book, "this changes everything," is a sweeping take on climate change. she does not think carbon is the main problem, but capitalism as we know it. time magazine says this may be the first truly honest book ever written about climate change. welcome. >> good to see you. >> you said this the hardest book you ever had to write? >> anyone who really dives deep into climate science and the state of this threat, it is easy to get overwhelmed by the scale of it. because the book is not just looking at climate science but

looking at tension between our economic model, which is built to pursue short-term growth, and our planetary system, which needs us to contract our use of finite resources, particularly fossil fuels, it was overwhelming. it became easier to write as their started to be more of a grassroots response, more of a climate movement, that emerged. the book came out the same week as the huge protests in new york happened during the u.n. climate summit. for a few years, it took five years to write, the first couple of years i struggled with the sense of helplessness. but that has changed. >> the problem was so obvious and no one was doing anything about it. >> the problem is clear. since our governments have been negotiating to lower emissions, a process that began in the early 1990's, global emissions have gone up by 61%. our climate scientists, also our

most established institutions, like the world bank, tell us if we stay on the road we are on, that takes us for to six degrees celsius of warming. that is catastrophic. we are talking about 14 degrees fahrenheit. they described this as business as usual. i think anybody who really looks hard at these numbers knows that we are in trouble. and the longer that we wait, the longer the response challenges our economic system. >> what was the question you asked yourself as you set off to write this book? >> it came out of my last book. "the shock doctrine" was about the way in which we are responding to disasters, whether economic crises or natural

disasters like katrina, is increasingly building a highly on equal society. these crises are hard to push through. very divisive policies. so the question i started with was, how can we prevent climate change from being another opportunity to use the shock doctrine? that is how i and in that book. it was new orleans, hurricane katrina, it was a glimpse into the future that we are creating as we see more and more heavy weather. that heavy weather collides with weak infrastructure, segregated societies. unequal societies. when i was covering katrina, i have this feeling of this is a glimpse into the future if we do not change our course. it is not just about the weather getting hotter. it is about building a society more brutal.

>> is not so much that you're present new evidence about the threat of climate change. you are asking why we have not responded if we clearly understand the consequences. >> exactly. in fact, i really wanted to write a book about climate change for people who do not read books about climate change. my previous book seven about our economic system, our labor system. and i have really been struck that this issue, which affects all of us, and existential crisis for humanity, we leave it to this very small segment of environmentalists and say, you deal with it. it is a human rights issue. an economic development issue. and yet, we barely talk about it. so i wanted to write a book that was not just about the science. actually, there are just a few pages that's a this is where we

are at. and then ask why we have failed to respond. i looked at the various rationales for that interaction. it is human nature. we think short-term. we hear that a lot. or we are told it is too collocated and the u.n. is too unwieldy and institution. testing these various theories, they did not hold up for me because we know that human beings have responded to other crises with tremendous solidarity and sacrifice. if we think about the responses to both world wars or how this country came together in the aftermath of the market crash in 1929. we have responded to crises before. why not this one? >> did we come together in response to 9/11? >> well -- >> we were talking about that today in the news. >> the way in which you had this

very divisive government response to 9/11, certainly people did come together. they also came apart. it was not monolithic. but there was a sense at the top that this is a crisis and we are going to respond as such. it meant a huge marshaling of resources. what i say at the start of the book is climate change has never received crisis treatment from our leaders. we hear words about climate change being equivalent to weapons of mass destruction. >> there is no action plan? >> not in the sense of mobilizing resources. the amounts that have been marshall to assist developing countries to leapfrog over fossil fuels are piddly in comparison to resources

marshaled to bail out the banks. so we know it is a crisis. but so many people turn away because it is hard to reconcile these very alarming scientific reports that we get. >> are your arguments different from the well-known arguments of al gore? >> yeah, because when i try to answer the question of why we haven't responded, we ask if it is a lack of political will, my diagnosis is different. >> is it that it is part of the economic system? the same political system that you have been writing about in themes of early books? >> yes, and having done that research earlier definitely informed, when i turned my attention to climate change, how i saw the unfolding of events.

the central argument of the book is that the reason why we have not responded is because climate change struck us at the worst possible moment in human history. that moment was the late 1980's. this crisis has suffered from epic bad timing. >> late 1980's was bad timing because? >> that was the moment we lost all plausible deniability. this was when james hansen testifies on capitol hill. >> a canary in the mine. >> that is when governments again negotiating to lower emissions. it was the first intergovernmental panel, conference, on climate change. it was the year the intergovernmental panel on climate change was formed as a scientific writing. so what else was happening?

it was the year before the berlin wall collapsed. it was this triumphant moment for what joseph stiglitz has called "market fundamentals," and the idea that we need to remove all boundaries to national corporations. crack the world market wide open. >> 1988 was the second term of the reagan administration. he ran first in 1980 and again in 1984. it was in and to the regular ministration and beginning of bush. he came in in 1992. >> this has been bipartisan in a response. >> or lack of response. >> lack a response. we have this collective crisis that crosses all borders, requires cooperation, and it hits us at this moment that we are being told that there is something wrong with collective action and regulated corporations. the way we should have responded, by regulating polluters, putting strict rules in place and having them be

legally binding, was unthinkable. >> if it had passed in the beginning, how would you have characterized that? a weak response or a good step forward? >> i think it would have been a profoundly inadequate response. we know this because the european union went down that road. they did pass legislation that introduced in mission trading. they created a market in carbon rather than strict regulations and penalties. it became a bubble. it became a boondoggle. i think capping trade was not the right way to respond. >> for carbon tax be the right way? >> is certainly a more direct way. it depends on how fairly it is implemented. part of why people turn away from this crisis is because there is a sense, and we hear this from republicans all the time, that this is about your bills going up, your utility

bills going up, higher prices at the pump. there is a huge sense of injustice. all are under economic stress. the model proposed has mainly passed the bill on to consumers as opposed to going after polluters. for instance, increasing royalty rate for fossil fuel extraction and making sure that it was actually the oil, gas, and coal companies that paid the price and not consumers. i think attacks would have been more direct, but it has to be a progressive carbon tax you people are under tremendous economic stress. when you think about moments where people have come together, i mentioned the second world war, it was enormously working that you felt that everybody was being asked to sacrifice. it was not just the poor. even the rich, celebrities, had to make do with less.

when you think about the california drought, people are told to take shorter showers. they look at the golf courses, the private swimming pools, and they say something does not add up. or fracking, which takes a huge amount of water. this is been a political truism since carter's infamous speech where he says we are all going to have to or sweaters. ever since, you have not had politicians are willing to say there are going to have to be sacrificed. so i talk about that speech in the book. it is interesting because his numbers did not go down immediately. people liked each other first. then there was a campaign against him. i quote christopher latch, one of the people who advised the president on that speech. he said carter did not take my advice.

he did not take my entire advice. i told him if you wanted to ask americans to sacrifice, he would have to be in it is just and not going to be passed on to the poorest people. the people most responsible will also have to sacrifice. that was missing from the speech. >> why wasn't he prepared to do that? >> just comes down to an old story about the fact that it is hard to take on the most powerful forces in society. if we are talking about fossil fuel companies, the richest company in the history of money. exxon mobil eight $45 billion in a single year. more than any company has ever made. it is easier to ask individuals to take shorter showers and put on sweaters that it is to gain control over a company that can run attack ads against you. make your life really hard. it has been the theory of low hanging fruit. the skull after the easy stuff. the easy stuff is passing on the

bill to the people who can least afford to pay and letting powerful forces off the hook. that's what has to change. >> passing it on to them in what way? >> higher costs. i think even more than the economic stresses is a real sense that inequality is out of control. >> clearly. there is a sense of that among people whose solution to inequality you would not like. there is a sense that it is out of control on the right and of that. the difference is, what is the answer to eliminated? >> the argument i am making is that, if we respond to climate change through a justice land, climate justice, we have a chance to tackle inequality and climate change at the same time. there is a logjam when it comes to responding to this crisis. that has to do with the fact

that, you have on one side of the issue forces with a tremendous amount to lose if we get serious about climate change. we have to be cutting emissions so quickly that it threatens the business model of the fossil fuel sector, which always needs to have as much in reserve as it has in production. they are very afraid of climate talks. >> force them to make alternative decisions. >> they fight like they mean it. they fight hard against climate progress. we have seen a series of reports, the new york times had an investigation recently about how attorney general's at the state level are working closely with energy companies and acting as their lobbyists, sending letters to the epa, to the president, complaining about regulations written by coal companies and oil and gas companies and putting it on their letterhead. this is what the latest

documents have revealed. they are fighting really hard. on the other side of this issue, you have a lot of liberals that care about climate change but not that much. what is starting to happen is that a climate movement is emerging that is made up of communities directly impacted by fossil fuel extraction and combustion. people who have refineries in their backyard. kids with high rates of asthma, who are concerned about their water. it is a very different kind of movement. it is a movement of impacted communities. i think that can tip the balance. >> if you're looking for a perfect model for a good model where they have made the effort in climate change, a country, how have they done it? >> the model that seems to work in terms of rolling out renewable energy quickly, we can see it in germany and denmark,

which had a feeding terror of that encourages communities to feed into the grid. if they produce more energy than they need, they get that paid back to them. the reason this has been popular in europe, which is dealing with economic crises and austerity, what has worked is policies that do not just bring clean energy. people want clean energy. but they also want money to pay for services and schools and libraries and all of that. the german recipe has encouraged hundreds of cities and towns to take back control of their energy grids and keep those profits within their communities to pay for other services you germany now has 25% of its

electricity coming from renewable energy, much of it wind and solar. much of it decentralized. there are 900 new energy cooperatives. so that model works. they're moving away from nuclear. the flipside is that germany has not done a good enough job saying no to very powerful coal lobbies. it is not enough to put good incentives in place to encourage renewable energy. germany shows is that you put the incentives in place, you can move really quickly. this has happened over a decade and a half. if you compare that 25% over to the u.s., which is around 4%. so it is important to look to a highly industrialized economy like germany and they, if they can do it, a country that does not have nearly as good condition for energy, then this can happen in the united states. there is research from stamford that says we can get to 100%

renewable energy in the u.s. by 2030. the technology is there. germany also says you have to say no at the fossil fuel companies at the same time you say yes to will energy. in germany, they are digging up dirty coal, brown coal, and as demand drops in germany, they can exported. this happening in the u.s. >> what is happening in china, where they have known pollution problems? at the same time, they are saying to the world community, you had a chance to march into industrialization. we need to do that now. at the same time, because of their economic wealth, it seems they are making a significant investment into looking for alternatives. but right now, they are building coal plants. >> their building both. it is quite extraordinary. we made a documentary to go along with this book that comes out in a couple months.

i think most powerful image in the film is this image of a sea of solar panels like you would never see in this country. it seems to go on forever. but the sky is filled with so much smog that the sun can barely get through to the solar panels. so this is the contradiction of china. they are rolling out renewable energy rapidly. they spend more on renewable energy last year than the european union combined. but because it is a large economy, a fast-growing economy, they're going down these roads simultaneously. one cancels the other out. what gives me hope about what is happening in china is that the chinese government is facing enormous pressure from below, from political movements in china, despite the fact it is

not a democracy. >> social tension between urban and rural? >> for a long time, there has been social tension between urban and rural, where it has been the countryside that has paid the price for prosperity. the difference with air pollution is that it affects even the winners. there has always been a sense of, we can sacrifice the countryside for the city. they will be losers, but there will be these winners. but the winners are afraid to let their kids go to school without pollution masks. they are afraid to let their kids play outside because pollution levels are so high. that is what is creating a crisis for the chinese government. even the winners are saying, hold on a minute.

this system of uncontrolled economic growth, the price is too high. the pushback, that tension, is creating a situation where we can no longer just point the finger at china and say, why does it matter what you do? china is opening up a coal plant. china is changing and closing a lot of coal plants. >> would you make of the deal between china and the united states? the president was in china. >> we are in a really critical time for climate negotiations. after these talks in lima, the next negotiation in paris has to produce a deal. it is important that, going into this process, the u.s. and china are not pointing fingers at each other but shaking hands and being we are cooperating. that is a big difference from what happened the last time there was a high-stakes climate summit in copenhagen in 2009, which ended with the u.s. and china accusing each other of being the resulting class. from a scientific perspective, it is not enough. it keeps us on a remote of four to six degree warming. but from a political

perspective, it provides a framework where change is possible. but that will only be possible if there is a stronger push from below. >> if you were to change the american economic system, would you eliminate the impact of money on politics? or would you do something having to do with the fundamental structure of our economic and legal system? >> it is a chicken-and-egg situation. the argument about getting money out of politics is that it needs to happen before structural changes take place. we saw that so dramatically after the financial collapse of 2008. where it was so clear that there needed to be a strong reregulation of the banking sector. and not nearly enough happen because of the political influence of money in politics. that is happening in the context

of climate change with fossil fuel companies blocking systematically the kind of regulations that we need. i think we need to do it before we can get the structural changes that are necessary. >> suppose you could do that. waht would be the structural changes? >> the reason i talk about bad timing is that we are not going to do what we need to do to respond to this crisis unless we are willing to about the failures of the ideology of that market fundamentalist ideology, in delivering the policies we need. we need to regulate polluters. we cannot pass a bill for this crisis on to working people. we have to ask the polluters, demand polluters pay. we need those kinds of policies. we need to be closing off fossil fuel frontiers. it is madness that, in this moment, we are opening up whole new fossil fuel frontiers.

>> so shale oil is not our savior? >> it is a fossil fuel. we need to stop digging, stop making things worse. we need to roll out policies to make things better. we need to get over the idea that planning our economy is a dirty word. we are not going to do this without real planning. that means deciding the types of industries we want to encourage and actively discourage. i do think, at this late stage in the crisis, we have to talk about consumption. many people in this world have a right to consume more. there are many people in this world consuming way too much. in china, i do not think they

are sustainable with what we have to do to tackle this crisis. >> good to see you, as always. >> the book is called "this changes everything." naomi klein. the subtitle is "capitalism versus the climate." thank you for joining us. we will see you next time. ♪

>> from bloomberg world headquarters, welcome to "bloomberg west." where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of this mess. i am pimm fox in for emily chang. the federal reserve says it will be patient when it comes to raising interest rates. here is the fed chair. >> this new link, which does not represent a change in policy, is fully consistent with our previous guidelines, which stated that it will likely be appropriate to maintain the current target for the funds