host: joining us is scott news.n for e&e key is here to talk about the release of the trump administration. good morning to you. it is called the fourth national climate assessment. how did we get to the point where he got the document produced in the first place? guest: it is congressionally mandated. it is a sweeping survey of the

latest in climate science. is fairly comprehensive. it looks at all sectors of society and the economy. just a broad-based survey of where we are in terms of what we know about climate change. host: how much of the trump administration scientists or people assigned were done? was it started earlier than that? guest: i think the actual writing took place under the trump administration. one of the lead authors pointed that out yesterday. she started in 2017. she is from texas tech university. this is career staff largely from 13 different federal agencies. some of the best scientists in the world. i think it is more than 300 scientists contributed to this report. it is fairly broad-based in terms of the input from all across the administration.

host: when it comes to the findings, what were the main pieces of information that made the most impact? guest: it shows an alarming climate situation in the u.s. -- the information is nothing new necessarily in terms of what we have known for years. it builds upon that. it takes it further by showing and emphasizing this report compared to previous iteration that climate change is here now. we are seeing the effects right now. it is not just something happening in the future. one example is in miami where there is nuisance flooding where parts of the city are flooded without any sort of storm moving in. there is climate gentrification where parts of the city that are slightly higher above sea level, those are worth far more. there are pockets around the u.s. for you can see living,

breathing examples of climate change. it is not something that is abstract. from wildfires in california, you can see the fingerprints of human-caused climate change as well. what are the connections to the economy? guest: it is saying it will cost tens of billions of dollars every year. problems likeh severe heat waves that can cause premature deaths. that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year. you will see a huge hit to infrastructure. not just roads and bridges near coastal areas, of places that have been experiencing more extreme storms inland. areas that might see pipes, sewer pipes destroyed by the storms. we will see more and more of that in the future. host: scott waldman joining us to talk about the report and the reaction from me trump

administration. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 from republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. he said this was written largely by members of the trump administration. guest: career staff in the federal government. host: the president's reaction, was that surprising? guest: no. he rejects the science. he does not believe this report. he said similar things like that in the past. he pointed out it was called on thanksgiving, and asked where was global warming. weatherflates conditions over a short period of time where climate is conditions over a long period of time. a single day does not equal the

absence of climate change. all brand-new research or depend on other research? how does that possibly skew the results? guest: there is plenty of new research in this. one of the most intriguing areas basicallyearch looking at how we can attribute human-caused climate change to some phenomenon like hurricanes, individual hurricanes we have seen. the way we can study that is improving. you can look at hurricane irma and any other hurricane that has caused devastation and say this is the fingerprints of human-cost climate change. is easier with heat waves to determine the role. there is a growing body of science that shows we can track our human-cost climate change contributes to any individual

heatwave. host: giving a specific example. -- give me a specific example. guest: one of the first they studied was in europe in the early 2000's. they found -- i don't remember the number but it was 30% or 40% of the heat wave was directly related to human activity. host: part of the section, actions to reduce risks. what are some of the recommendations from the report? guest: we have known that for quite some time. we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide. the primary ways we believed with carbon dioxide in the u.s. is through the transportation sector, through vehicles and power plants that make electricity. those are the primary sources of pollution. the report next to clear we have to cut those levels fairly drastically or we will not be able to stop the worst effects

of climate change. looking at climate modeling in the past has been fairly accurate. some of the temperature increases, the worst effects we past they werehe in the higher end of the modeling. some of the worst effects have already started to come true. host: the integration of climate and if a decision-making of adaptation activities have significantly increased since the third national climate assessment in 2014. development of engineering to --ders best engineering development of engineering standards. banks are starting to factor this into their equations that we need to recognize we sure ansure that -- in bunch of homes in southern florida, we need to account for climate change.

they need a factor that into our economic calculations. these are potentially profound economic hits to some of the companies. is not just insurance. is international companies. if you are making computer parts in thailand and there are floods that are devastating factories, that can cause disruption to the whole computer supply chain. this report points out an example where the happened -- where that happened. host: dana from los angeles, republican line. caller: you were talking about the wildfires in california. by an electrical company. they are the ones that started the fire. have been as it was if

somebody didn't start the fire. you guys talk about people causing pollution, driving cars, using all kinds of machinery, running refrigerators. why are you letting so many people into this country? all these people are coming in like crazy. not because would any co2 activity. as soon as they come here they start causing pollution. the more people we bring into this country, the more pollution it will cause. host: thank you. guest: if we look at the wildfires as an example, a --ort is not saying humans the wildfire had a number of conditions related to climate change that fueled it that made it worse. in the trees in

california are a result of the beatles moving northward and devastating more forests. hot conditions dries out the ground, which kills the brush and fuels the fire and makes it worse. when the president stood in the smoldering ruins, he was actually standing on the front lines of climate change. that's exactly what this report says, expect more in the future. and wildfires in particular. we can expect an increase in devastating wildfires. this report is not saying climate change sparked. the wildfire it creates -- sparked the wildfires. it creates conditions to make them worse. host: can you highlight why this is included in the report? guest: i spent time in the arctic, in alaska. the northernmost city in the united states with whale hunters who had been for a millennia

harvesting bowhead whales. because the ice is breaking up, they can't get to where they slam and harvest. -- swim and harvest. traditions that have persisted in the modern day for be disrupted and potentially shifted. godelle in michigan. caller: good morning, gentlemen. harpir force has the antenna which changes the winds over north america. thes experimental but government is trying to manipulate the weather over north america. they showed it on tru tv. the government is not trying to manipulate the weather. we are trying to mitigate climate change so we can have a

safer future. host: from new york, david, go ahead. caller: hello. i was in a discussion with friends of mine. does the annual agriculture contribute at all to climate change? guest: that is a great question. yes, it does, significantly. nothing omissions, flatulence from cows is an example. we eat a lot of red meat in this country and that certainly adds to greenhouse gases. methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. yes, it does. to make plans for cattle pastures we are cutting down trees that produce or absorb co2. host: part of this report can be found at our website at c-span.org.

we have included a link to it. a series of maps and charts looking at the findings. we can't show them individually. what do they tell us what kind of information does it present? guest: it is full of charts. one of the administration's critiques is that it did not have data. sarah sanders said the other day -- said that the of the day. it has plenty of data. over time global warming has increased dramatically. we have heated up the planet at an unprecedented rate. carbonunt of atmosphere, dioxide is a level not seen in millions of years. we are still grappling with how that will affect us and modern civilization. this is one of our most the roadways of grappling with that. host: one of the maps takes a look at a section of the united states, charting out how climate change impacts us.

what stands out to you? guest: that's a great question. one think it makes this report unique and why it is worth this canand u live, show you exactly how climate change will affect your region. you can see how it will affect your backyard. if you live in the southeast, expect to see rising sea levels. if you live in the northeast, expect he will see increased extreme storms in the summer. the type that can cause inland flooding, devastation for farmers. you can take your region and look at the midwest, a cut and i are cultural yields. these are things we can better plan for and adapt to if we grapple with the science in a realistic way. host: it highlights flooding in louisiana increasing from extreme rainfall. pulling hazardous

reduction funds. that is one of the pieces of information in the report. the next call is from louisiana. daniel, go ahead. caller: hello. how are you doing? my question is for over 10 years i have been photographing cam trails and i backyard -- chem trails in my backyard. to say they are not manipulating the weather is a joke. climate engineering, geo-engineering. do some research. that should be headlined research. weather warfare. i have been watching chem trails for over 10 years. host: you may have to expand on that. guest: chem trails are not actually happening. i would suggest you look at where you get your resources from. one great places from nasa or

noaa. some of the best scientific agencies in the world. this is a great example of the type of product they produced backed up by plenty of data and echoing research of other science agencies around the world. host: from the republican line, terry, you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions and i would like you to answer them for me. stateshe way the united measures climate change not very accurate? the one you should be using is the one in russia, which is more accurate? number two, if it wasn't for all the millions of trees in california that should have been cleared out, what a california just pass two bills that they will start clearing that out? thank you. guest: our science is the best

in the world. the way we measure the effects of climate change are through our satellite system, put in nasa and data that comes in through noaa. we know exactly how climate change is affecting certain parts of the world. there are pieces of it that maybe less certain. this makes it clear. look on the internet and you can basically find any sort of claim about climate that you would like. certainly there is a whole range of climate denial blogs doubled sherry picked from around the world and make claims that are wild or untrue. really there is plenty of accurate information produced by our government that has been put out there. the president rejected this report. i have not seen any alternative body of science put forward to

negate its finding. host: when you say high confidence and low confidence, give us examples of each. guest: it will depend on the amount of emissions that come out and where we will stand by 2100. they are looking at hurricanes. you can say there is evidence that hurricanes will worsen over time because warmer ocean uel worsef hurricanes. --have a high confidence unless sure if it's high or medium that hurricanes will worsen. we do not have high confidence that the number of hurricanes will increase over that time. the science is not clear on that. again, worse hurricanes are not necessarily more hurricanes. host: one of the topics is the overall warming of the earth and

by how many degrees. what are we looking at? guest: it depends on what we admit. the paris climate agreement is it to 2 degrees celsius of warming. fahrenheit outside, does not make so much for difference to your day. in the atmosphere over time that can mean entire cities in the u.s. that are largely underwater. miami will have an increasingly difficult future existing as it currently does if we moved to a -- toed warmer world egreee warmer world -- 2-d one world. if you look at 2100 and the severe effects, we are fighting against the science and what it's showing us.

just like the science around gravity, it is fairly clear for the picture continues to emerge it is getting worse. that is not in dispute. whatever he going to do is the political conversation. science is increasingly clear. if you look at people who claim climate change is not happening, it is basically a relatively small handful of researchers. many affiliated with washington-based ink tanks -- think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry. you have all the world's top science agencies saying this is a serious problem and it's getting worse. it is caused us in increasing at a rapid rate. host: how much are other countries doing to mitigate this problem or reverse the problem compared to the united states? guest: that is where the president has been critical of what other countries are doing. the u.n. put out a report

showing countries are not doing enough to meet their targets for the paris climate agreements. china is still going heavily into coal. that's a way to drive up emissions more efficiently than almost anything else. other countries are sort of nibbling around the edges, but the actual policy, the sacrifice it will take to cut greenhouse gas emissions have not been made. host: you are seeing that with the paris itself with the president trying to have a new tax and there are protests over that. guest: there is no one solution. there is a carbon tax. a lot of groups believe in climate scientists, that accept climate science -- it is not religion. it is simply science. the conservative groups that

except the reality of climate science have pushed forward a pretty aggressive plan to reduce our emissions with a carbon tax. there was a bipartisan bill introduced in the house that would put a price on carbon emissions and give refunds back to individual families to offset the costs in your electric bill. there are a number of approaches. there is in washington increasingly some republicans willing to move on this issue. host: scott waldman of e&e news joining us. lorenzo, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. he said thethat effect humans are doing, that it is causing the climate to change. in houston, they built a lot of homes in the swamps over there. theyu look in california, are trying to detour the

waterfront different states to them. they are using up a lot of the water. if you look at where all the fires -- people building homes -- you have where all these cars with gasoline catching on fire and increasing the fires. i remember in california one that the smog bill. -- when they had the smog bill. if you made it more simple, what we are doing today, the way we are living is causing climate change, he may understand that. guest: that's a really great point. one of the ways to think about climate change is a threat multiplier. that is how our military thinks about it. our military is preparing for climate change. if you look at california and houston, great points on both of those. human development in the areas

in houston that her f that are flood prone to or california that are fire prone to, that is causing the level of devastation. this was the most instructive fire in california history. more than 80 people tragically died. if you look at that case, it is a three-pronged stool. conditions make the fire worse, and then you have human development that makes people more vulnerable. those are equally devastating factors in that fire. toce management, according -- forest management, is a role. it is nearly impossible to clear the forests at the extent the president is suggesting. we can control or mitigate our effect on climate change. host: the military's role? guest: they have been planning

for it. nor full, virginia -- mortal, virginia --normal, they have been adjusting the cks to helphe do keep the nuclear fleet and are naval installation safe. they are not debating if it is real, they are simply preparing for it outside of the washington infighting. host: hassan, hello. isler: my question for you lighthizer is there so much opposition to your research in certain quarters of this country? are there economic reasons or political or philosophical reasons? do any of those reasons hold merit? guest: that's a great question.

ago, john mccain and other republicans were on board with trying to grapple with climate change by creating policy that would help mitigate climate change. andmber of political groups washington-based think tanks got involved. theyeartland institute, have been tremendously successful. there is no reason you can't come up with a climate policy that is created by democrats and republicans alike. just like tobacco companies funded all kinds of research to tan down the harmful nature of smoking cigarettes, energy companies did the same thing. some of them still do. exxon has since backed away. that has created a ripple effect that we see today still playing out unfortunately. and a lot of other countries, conservatives are completely on

board with climate policy. in the u.s. we have a number of politicians, and certainly this is not all republicans. a lot of them want to move more aggressively on climate change, but many are rejecting this report without any science to disprove what it says. host: you also say the conservative media physical today. guest: the daily caller is funded by the koch brothers, a primary funder of some of these climate denial groups. the daily caller exists to pick up on some of the uncertainties in science and highlight them as if they disprove the great amount of certainty in this 1700-page report. the president picks up on some talking points in the conservative media about how something is fabricated in this report, which it is not, can i

create a circular affect. host: stated in new york. york.avid in new caller: i finishing reading "in the hurricane's eye." at one point they talk about a hurricane that's what through the caribbean in 1780. storms swept to the caribbean, destroying a lot of the ships that ultimately were not able to participate in defending britain were the french -- or the french getting involved. the storms were massive. they estimate 20,000 people died. they were definitely category four or five hurricanes. one of my problems with the way climate change advocates discuss

weather versus climate change, to me there is a tremendous confusion between the two. they try to compare the two and say they are the same thing. is other question i have, that any ideal temperature we should have? no one is saying bad hurricanes have not happened in the past. is saying the conditions create more extreme hurricanes and they are caused by climate change. that includes warmer ocean currents and more moisture in the atmosphere. that does make the hurricanes worse that we will see in the future. that will go forward. this is what the latest science says. is not saying we are going to just moreurricanes, devastating hurricanes.

they will increasingly be likely as a result of this. the existence of devastating hurricanes in the past does not disprove anything in this report. host: gary in kentucky. caller: hello. i have been listening for quite a while. understandsristan what is going on in america today, america has been hit by some kind of disaster. jesus is getting ready to come back. is not about global warming. it is about jesus coming back. he is trying to wake people of. -- up. guest: the last caller asked about the ideal temperature. it is what we have right now. we don't want to increase anymore and it will get harder to live here. host: with the trump administration denied the report, doesn't get filed and

not used? -- does it get filed and not used? guest: we will see some democrats in the house double pick up on this and move forward. to california attorney general we use the information to file lawsuits he deems necessary to fight back against the trump administration's deregulatory efforts to roll back greenhouse gas emissions. i think one of the most best ways it could be used is for local governments to look at what this says about their area and prepare the people that lived there for safer conditions. to save money in the future by investing now and learn how climate change will affect your infrastructure. you can save your community a lot of money and unpleasantness in the future. there is plenty to digest for years. have theernments

ability to do that almost more efficiently than the federal government. host: scott waldman reports for e&e news. policy.e cover energy we have more than 60 reporters looking at climate change and natural gas infrastructure, pipelines. we look at a broad range of coverage. clear based in dcf report is all of the country. --we will take those calls throughout the course of this program today. , a formers representative from south carolina. guest: good to be with you. host: a little about your organization? republickeye in.org. we're talking about free undersized -- free enterprise solutions to climate change.

h