american people are smart. once they get the facts, they will get it right every time. that's our mission. >> please join me in thanking congressman olson for his remarks today. we are going to take a short break now, about 20 minutes. the next panel will start at 11:00 a.m. thank you all. ladies and gentlemen, how is the day going so far? pretty cool, huh? cool. that's a great word. okay. well, it is my distinct honor to introduce your next speaker.

my notes hearsay that our next speaker is the most accomplished pilot in the senate and has flown all over the world. >> all around the world. >> and over it too. he is chairman of the epw committee, 12 years total as ranking member, chairman, married for 57 years with 21 kids and grandkids. that's all really great and important stuff but let me tell you when you are a political leader in the united states of america seeking truth, standing for truth, speaking out for truth, writing about truth, is a wonderful attribute. so i would like to bring to the podium one of the great champions for truth in our country today, senator jim inhofe.

>> just for a second, there is going to be a drawing later on. olympia, don't you have a bunch of my books? if you want one, put your card in some place. i don't know where. i can't tell you how exciting this is. i just found out today when i looked at it, all of my heroes are on the program. i'm going to come back at 3:30. i wouldn't miss that panel. my gosh, people i haven't seen for a long time. first of all, let me just tell you, when i see a group like this -- there is a book you ought to go down to the library and check out, "american political patterns" by danny . nemo. in this book, you would be convinced that the decisions are made by one half of one% perce of the people, those that he

defines as activists. someone that will come in and listen to a bunch of politicians on a whole day on a given subject that is important to america. i look at each one of you as being an army of 200. you are voices out there in the wilderness with me and i love all of you for it. on this thing we are going to be talking about, there is just one thing i would like to put across. you guys in your capacity as being each one an army of 200 people are going to be talking about these controversial things. you know, one of the smartest things the other side did is when they got rid of it. they quit talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. don't get caught in that trap. i have had to say this on the senate floor. climate has changed, arc key logically, spiritually, scientifically. climate always changes. don't put yourself in a category to be disqualified for that reason. i am going to quickly run through this thing.

where are you? there you are. this route here is kind of interesting. it tells a story. you can't read it from there. over here, that is 12:30 a.m. it is right after midnight, eastern time on election night. that's "the new york times." then at 2:30, what happens at 2:30, reluctantly, those lines crossed. they actually crossed way back here and then, of course, you know the outcome. it kind of gives you an indication of what happened and the significance of that. you stop and think about it. what is happening, the things that are going to change in this country, the repeal and replacement of obamacare, the balancing of our budget. a lot of you folks may have forgotten. with all the things that have happened recently, you may have forgotten about the fact that when this administration took office, our debt was $10.6 trillion. today, it is $20 trillion. it has doubled in the last eight

years. that's an extremely significant thing. with all of the things that have happened, people have forgotten about it. don't forget about the fact that we are going to rebuild the military. i got a phone call way back in october, the 7th. i see my friend richard lenden down here. i was so excited. it was from trump inviting me up there to talk to him. i have been kind of advising him, gary, on things of military nature. we have to do it. why should defending america be a partisan issue? it shouldn't but it is, because the administration has a policy. with what's happened to the military, the disarming of america in the last eight years, you can't put any more money into the military unless, this is obama talking, unless you put an equal amount in the social programs. what does that tell you? what's the message there? i have to say this about democrats. they are smarter than we are in some ways. they are disciplined. they do what they say. there is not one democrat that

will back down from that. you can't do anything in the military unless you do it to the social programs. that's not what the constitution says our priorities should be. that's where it is. they all go along with it. that's going to change. by the way, to put it in a longer perspective, up until 1960s and 71970s, we were spending up to 50% on defending country and now it is 15%. the fourth thing, the killing of regulation we are going to have. we had an experience yesterday that some have you may have seen on television. you may be still a little upset with me, because i actually like barbara boxer. she and i have been traded back and forth every time we are a m jort. i'm the chairman of the public works committee. every time she is a majority, she is. i always remember that up until

2006, republicans were a majority in the senate. that was kind of neat. then, when that changed, she said, you are not making the rules. you used to when you were a majority. elections have consequences. well, let me tell you, it is very consequential, what is happening in america now. when we had our first meeting after the election, i presented her with a t-shirt that, yes, elections have consequences. anyway, the things that are happening are just very, very exciting. the first person i saw when i came in was richard linzen. he has been my hero for a long time. i didn't know until right before i came down here, don't worry about staying here for my thing. come back at 3:30, you have all of my heroes from the old days back there, spencer, dr. spencer, david gate, all but

one of these have been a witness in the committee that i chair. so you've got them all in one room. i have never seen this before. you guys are all here. i'm really excited about it. i am going to come back and be with you. remember some of the things that happened in the very beginning. i think it is important to get that perspective. i was the bad guy in the turn of the century. i was. after we studied this thing, i assumed like everybody else way back when everyone was talking about global warming, i assumed that was right until i found out what it was going to koflt. this is interesting, whether it is through regulation or legislation. the cost is going to remain the same, between $300 billion, $400 billion a year. if we were to give into that, that would be the largest tax increase in the history of america. i started looking at it and talking to some of these

scientists that you are going to be seeing tonight. that's when i used the nasty word, hoax. anyway, the first thing that came up was the mccain/lieberman bill. each time it has come for a vote in the united states senate, they have lost. so our trend lines are good. we are winning this thing very clearly. that's what is happening. i always use my favorite quote of richard linzen. controlling carbon is a bureaucrats dream. if you control carbon, then you control life. that's what they want. we have gone through this thing. we have rejected it legislatively. you might be reminded also of what happened in 1997. we had the byrd/hagel rule.

these treaties have to be ratified by the united states senate. we passed a provision that said, if you come back with any treaty that either is a financial hardship on america or treats developing countries differently than developed countries, we north going to ratify. that passed, 95-0. here came clinton and gore and they never even submitted it for ratification. they knew it wasn't going to happen. i thought and it was kind of interesting. in a minute, i'm going to talk about these big parties the united nations have every december. one of them, i had a hearing and we had an administrator of the epa. i said, you know, i know you guys, once i leave town, are going to have an endangerment hear org determination. if you do that, you are going to go and start passing

regulations. that has to be based on science. what science are you going to use? >> they said the ipc krchl. >> keep in mind, the ipcc is the united nations power, planment that's where it all started. it is very important that people understand that. all of the sudden, right after she made the declaration, this was kind of poetic justice. she talked about, yes, it is all based on the ipcc. it was right that have hours after that that climate gate came in. it didn't get the attention here in the united states that it got all over the world. the financial times said the stink of intellectual stink is overwhelming. they said it is the worst. talking about ipcc. the worst scientific scandal of

our generation. all of that, people realized. i thought that should make -- with the media, they were able to do good. things that came out, the 97% consensus, which is a joke and has been pretty much disproven. along comes the united nations. i want to say something about that they have been behind the global warming movement since the 1970s. you remember what happened when al gore came dancing back in and said, we're going to be doing all this stuff. you have to keep in mind the reason for it. this is a short version. if you end up taking my book, just forget about the rest of it and read the last chapter. it talks about the real history, how this started.

it was the united nations. i lead a little group in the united states senate. this goes back to the time john beau ton was the ambassador to the united nations from the united states. every time, most of the time, the u.n. comes out with something that is not in the best interest of the united states, we would sent a communications up and john beau ton would take it to him saying we in the united states are going to withhold our funding of the united nations. this infewer yaturiates them. they don't like to be accountable to anyone. what was their plan. come with their only source of funding. that source of funding, all in detail in the last chapter in my book. you need to look at that. that's a thing people don't really understand. so they came up with this thing. if they are able to come up with a co2 tax or something like that, they don't have to then be accountable to anyone. that's really what it was all about. you remember some of the early

statements, even people that were not our friends were honest about the evaluations of the whole global warming thing. joshua rock, he said, quote, international global warming regulations represent the first component of an authentic global governance. the prime minister of canada called it a socialist scheme. here is a good one. the e.u minister, she came out and she sid, quote, kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field worldwide. so they are pretty honest about it back during that time. the u.n. came along with the strategy, let's have a big party, a party to end all parties every december and we will bring in 192 nations. all they have to do is say, yes, we're going to put some kind of a policy in place to reduce co2

emissions. they came in. they started having these parties. the first one i went to was in milan, italy. i always remember that. there were three people in this room there with me. we went to milan, italy. when i arrived, i saw on every telephone pole in milan, italy, they had a poster. it was my picture. they said, the most dangerous man on the planet. when that thing was over, i went back to where they were distributing these and got all the leftover ones and came back and used them for fund-raisers back here. very effective. the next one we went to was in copenhagen in 2009. this was a good one. if you remember, the ones that went over on the same boat were obama, hillary, pel plosi, john kerry. they told all 192 nations that we were going to pass a cap and

trade to encourage them to do the same thing. we weren't going to do that. i went over right after they left and the same 192 nations were all in the same room, just like you guys. i had them all to myself. they all had one thing in common. they all hated me. they thought i was going to louse up their one big party of the year. i saw a guy that was there. he was from west africa. i have had kind of a jesus thing in west africa for the past 20 years. this guy's name was a minister or something. i said, luke wharks a, what areg here? >> i don't believe all this garbage. he said, of course not. this is the biggest party of the year. it really is. that's what has been on there for a long period of time. then, of course, we have on the same -- we had michael kreit. it was 2004 that he wrote his

book, "state of fear." if you want a perspective, in my book, i have a whole chapter describing how he describes how they manipulated the press to get on their side. i had him as a witness also. he came in. he was not just an author but a medical doctor and a scientist. not many of us are intellectual enough to understand exactly what he said but when adhering to the scientific method, the other may be true. it is often because the privacy of independent verification has been abandoned. in the short version, it is phoney, a hoax. that's what we did. that's a book i strongly

recommend. let's fast forward to current, because i'm running out of time here. when the president came back and he said, the kleen power plant is going to be all of you in this room remember. because you were involved or you wouldn't be here today. he said, we're going to reduce our co2 emissions somewhere between 26% and 28% by 2025. we knew it couldn't be done. we in that committee have jurisdiction over the epa. this is the first time in my memory that the party that the committee that overseas and has the jurisdiction of a bureaucracy where they have refused to come and testify. they did. they wouldn't come in. they knew, there is no way you can have that kind of a reduction. everybody else knew it. of course, we had during that time, ten hearings, three oversights and the regulation is kind of funny. the liberals love regulations. now, what they don't want to do is have people at home know.

they love regulations, because they can be as liberal as they want and nobody knows it back home. so what they don't like or what they like about regulations is they don't have to cast a vote. so they can go back to wherever they come from and the people are bleeding, saying, we're going to have to do something about the overregulation we're having from the epa and the other bureaucracies. their response is, don't tell us. don't blame me. this is the bureaucracy of doing this. this is the unelected bureau kratz. i think most of you know this. you have to use this. you are going to see this coming up in the first part of january. it is going to be a real winner. a cra is the vehicle that can be used if you have a regulation and you want to do away with it legislatively. it is a congressional review act. all it takes is 51 in the senate to do this. we passed cras on all these

overregulations. the problem is the president vetoed it and we didn't have the votes to override a veto because of the discipline of the democrats. it did a wonderful thing, anyway. it forced them to get on record. they have never been on record before on these regulations. now, they have to cast a vote. that was the good thing. of course, we passed out two cras. they passed by a good margin. we did it on several of the issues there. one was the clekleen power plan. is everyone aware that scott pruitt is now going to be the epa director. she mentioned in the introduce i have been flying an airplane for a long time. i flew scott pruitt all over oklahoma to get him in there, never dreaming he will be the director of the epa. you will love this guy. the demise was already setting

in at that time as far as the clean power plan. we knew it wasn't going to work because we had 29 states filing lawsuits including scott pruitt, i might add, as our attorney general in oklahoma, against this. the supreme court came in and put a stay. we all know that. the courts have been our friends. they also had a stay on the lotus bill. anyway, that's part of the joy that we're basking in right now. over half the states disagreeing with it. i wanted to say this about the paris agreement. john kerry is still looking for something he can do that is right. by the way, during his confirmation, there are only two of us that voted against his confirmation. i was one of the two. the other 98, not all of them but some of them said, what did you know that we didn't know at that time. you have seen john kerry talking about how great all of his things are. this disaster over in iran is

something we could talk about for a long period of time. he came back from paris thinking, we have never been successful. let's come back and try to paint this, with the help of the media, as if something important happened in paris. it didn't. it happened that the president came out with this thing we are going to have this reduction in co2, which we know we can't do. look at some of the others. china, china, the big victory that john kerry had with china was china agreed they would continue to increase their co2 emissions until 2025. they are now today building every ten days a new coal-fired power plant. necessary a success? nonetheless, that's the thing that is happening right now. you just need to be aware of it, which i'm pretty sure you already are. anyway, that was another one of the failures and another thing that's working in our favor.

next, to demonstrate that we are actually winning this. be real careful. i don't want people to think it is over. it is never over. you stop and think about these. the american people know better. in 2002, the polls showed the number one concern in america was global warming. that's why when i took on the mccain lieberman bill in 2003, there were only two senators, kip bonner and jeff sessions who spent a lot of time on the floor with me. we did defeat it. mccain lieberman came back. the oppose at that time. in march of 2015, the climate change came in dead last for a national problem. the same thing happened two weeks later, gallup poll.

the fox news poll said 97% of americans don't care about global warming when they put it up against terrorism and the real issues. the cbs and "new york times" poll, it was in last place again. the american people are smarter than those people down on the floor trying to keep this issue going. one of the nings things that really concerned me, on the morning of election day, november 8th, i was concerned and i built a speech around all of the in the last four years, the 5-4 decisions of the united states supreme court and everything we hold dear was in that 5-4 thing. we know if hillary had bonwon, don't care if it is abortion or second amendment rights or anything else, america would have changed just from that, in a way we wouldn't even recognize

it. that's why i said in the morning, it is kind of funny, richard, you scientists like to base things on science. this was not on science. this was something that i thought, is god really going to let america complaining that much. i thought, no, that's not going to happen. so i came up with this thing in an interview. he is going to win, not based on anything scientific, i thought, god is not going to let that happen to america. that night when the votes came in, waist great prognosticator. if you look at the decisions, i won't go over them but i have a list of them here that's very significant. the next one, this was my favorite weekly standard cover. by the way, don't think that al gore is resurrected, he is not. just because he showed up. it shows we have a guy coming in

as president who will talk to anybody. in "the new york times," identifying him as the first environmental billionaire in america. there he is. for commencement speeches, if any of you guys have to have a commencement speech, talk about the fact that there is a direct relationship with the amount of wealth they have and similar per version ns th versions in this country. he is a good example. the gore if he can, we had fun with that back when gore was doing all these things. every one of his events he had ended up being snowed out. there was a global warming cr cruise across the northwest passage but the passage was frozen. february, '07, he was at a house hearing on global warming that was canceled after the snow and ice storm. march of 2009, pelosi and gore

had to cancel their thing. that has been going on for a long time. it shows that mother nature does have a accepts of humor. along came tom steyer. i have a life size poster of tom steyer. he said, trying to resurrect the failed issue of global warming, he said, he is going to put $100 million in there, in the campaigns of 2014. i assume that money went in. one of the things they had to do was, in order to do justice to him, she is telling me two minutes. this is going to be difficult. let me just finish this thought. all you had to do was go down to the senate floor for an all night thing. i was the only republican on the senate floor. i had this big poster of tom steyer. i said, tom steyer has put up

$100 million. anybody out there in america who is watching this now, has insomnia, you have come to the right place. all night long, we are going to be talk about this. someone said, are you saying we are here because we are getting paid to? i said, no, i'm not saying that at all. that's what tom steyer is saying. i'm sorry. i am going a little bit over my time. let me say this to wind up. this is great, the fact that you are all here and your panel is going to be so great this afternoon. i can tell you, i never want to say and be quoted that this is over and we have won but, let me tell you, the american people have pulled this thing out. there is damage still lingering out there. of my 21 kids and grand kid, maggie inhofe, who graduated from college, back when she was in the fifth grade or sixth

grade, she said, papi, why is it you don't understand global warming? i said, why do you ask that, maggie. she showed me the stuff that emanates from the epa and comes down through our system. i can assure you that hand in hand, scott pruitt and i are going to try to do something to save our next generation. you guys are doing the lord's work. you will richly bless you for it. thank you very much. >> what a gift to have senator inhofe with us. did becky say you have been mayor rid 57 years? did you get married when you were five or ten? >> no, seriously. although, it is oak objectiklah never know. i'm just saying. thank you, senator. one other important point. he mentioned today. how many of you were in austin

with us last year at this event? quite a few. what he said about our panel at 3:30 and most of them are sitting here in the front row was what was said last year that never before or at last year. any of us in the normal world had this collection of fire pow power gathered and i am so glad to have it here in dc. today it's pos skpbl the hope is extraordinary. i'm glad again senator inhofe

pointed it out to have it again one other quick thing before i -- two other quick things before i introduce our next speaker who i'm proud is here. many of you have seen the book by kathleen white and steve moore. kathleen is sitting in the back. i know we are all so excited about our incoming epa administrator scott pruitt. many of you probably also know that the other finalist for the job was our kathleen white who spent time in new york and talking to the transition team and while that job is not going to go to her, i think something extraordinary will. what an honor and privilege to have worked with you all these years. thank you. buy a book. you will hear more from her this evening. she will be doing an informal book signing there. steve will be there as well. we've got the books on sale outside. a great plug for our compatriot kathleen. the very quickly i wanted to note that you will hear and hopefully we will hear more and more that as this new administration and this new day there washington begins, that the power that will devolve oust washington, whether it's in this

arena or healthcare or education or whatever it may be, moves back to the states. certainly representing the largest conservative state and that provided job growth for the country over the last decade, it's a really exciting time to be in the states. on that note, i want to quickly note that we have representatives here from michigan, utah, colorado, washington, ohio, delaware and west virginia in from the state think tanks to work with all of you in washington to really move our country back where it needs to be. can i ask my friends from around the country to stand up? we're so glad you are here. [ music playing ] >> thank you and jennifer butler. now it's my great honor to introduce our next speaker. we of course really enjoy and it's so important to hear from our elected officials. they are the ones making the decisions for our country and making sure they are educated and have the opportunity to give their ideas like senator inhofe and the elections officials we heard from earlier, that's wonderful and a big part of what we do. we

also think it's extraordinarily important to hear from those who are actually in the field creating the jobs and building the businesses that create prosperity and lift people from poverty to a better life. we have one of the great entrepreneurs of our generation here with us, corbin robertson. you have probably read about him in his bio. let me note that he is one of the largest coal owners in the united states. he is a third generation oil, gas and coal man. i think you started the coal in your business. he has been and his family have been directly impacted, especially over the last eight years. it's a real honor to hear from someone like him. i think it's easy to forget all of us in policy world, we try not to every minute of every day, but what we're working on has real impact and real affect and absolutely changes for better or worse real people's

lives. so please help me welcome the great texas entrepreneur corbin robertson. just a little side note. he was an all american linebacker for the university of texas in 1968. thank you for being with us. >> i am guilty from providing goods and services and clean affordable energy for the growing population. now, they would convict me for my services to humanity.

i grew up in production and mid-stream and down stream and we ran an oil field service industry invested in the oil and gas

exploration and production, mid stream, down stream, we run an oil field service company, a coal royalty preparation, coal producer, power plants, gas to liquid conversion, we have done all kinds of other things. real estate, banking, financial services, timber, furniture store, mortgage company, title companies, even built the number one golf club in texas. so we have done business in 30 states. in about 18 foreign countries. in 1968, my college roommate and i started camp olympia. in 1978, camp olympia founded the hisd outdoor education program. for 50 years we have been taking kids to camp and 40 years we have been teaching them outdoor education. there have been 350,000 kids that have gone through camp olympia's programs. and we have helped them grow in body, mind and spirit. we think -- i think of myself as an environmental educator. we enable these kids to understand the outdoors where things are real. that's my history and background. since 1990s, when the ipcc started with its climate change propaganda, i took it upon myself to study their findings, read their proposals, read everything i could, read the massachusetts versus epa supreme court ruling, the big thick book to see what they did in 2007. the bush epa didn't provide any scientific evidence on the other side. they basically said that the reason

we think we should not regulate co2 is because we said so. that's not a very good argument. it didn't stand up in court, unfortunately. i think that's why they're saying that the science is settled. one of the major mistakes. i have read many books by the great authors and people that you have for your speakers here today. and they have been my guiding light in terms of trying to understand the science. the scientists have stood up to incredible government, academic, media pressure to -- and presented empirical data. they are the real heros. i'm here to honor you. that's the reason i came to this. i'm not running for

office. i'm just a business guy trying do my thing. but before we examine the international movement to eliminate fossil fuels, let's review u.s. energy policy. i understand the energy policy going forward, it helps to consider what we have experienced going backwards. my observation from looking at the past, that governments have always been hungry for power and money. after the 1973 embargo, the u.s. adopted the emergency allocation act to control energy production. it was written by someone who plays football for the university of texas a couple years ahead of me. he got a law degree. fast as he could write the law he quit so he could be a consultant to interpret a goofy set of laws. in addition to that, they wrote the entitlement program that would help send

money from refiners who had domestic sources of crude to refiners that had foreign sources of crude. every quarter, they send $60 million to someone else. go figure. they stopped the use of natural gas to generate electricity. what was i hearing about gas being important for electricity these days? in any case, in 1970s, we weren't supposed to use gas for that. it was too valuable. all these activities did was restrain u.s. industries production. when the arab nations demonstrated their hostility, which they have done again, it increased our balance page deficit and basically restrained restrained --restrained restrained -- made us more import dependent. when

oil hit -- in 1981, oil hit its peak. ronald reagan decontrolled the oil price. by 1986, we had a deep recession and an oil glut. the free market works. during the 1990s, they made predictions about climate. news bulletin, the world is warming. of course it's been warming since 1750. when the ice age ended. sea levels have been rising. of course, they have been rising for last 100 years. the government and media latched on to the cause. save the world from fossil fuels that produce co2. the ipcc claimed the fossil fwurlz responsible fuels were responsible for climate change. the computer models shows it will have a catastrophic affect on mother earth and its people. they love to sell bad news. those who got $170 billion in

federal subsidies in the last decade, the power hungry bureaucrats, the save the world citizens and chicken little reporters, after eight years of being shouted down by the obama administration, his political base. you have the opportunity to present your case for co2 and fossil fuels to the public. i must say the media has done a marvellous job of not presenting the facts. i just can't think of any more biased presentation. the educational community has not presented the facts. so it is now time in the next four years, if we don't present the facts, when are we going to get a chance to? we need understandable bullet points.

the science is hard to condense into ten second sound bites. the truth can be summarized. i got a call to action. i'm here on a call to action to you guys. it's time to go on offense. develop a series of newspaper foldouts with clear, concise bullet points that explain co2's role in life on earth and its beneficial affect on plant growth. co2 always was and always will be, manic sales, it takes in 390. something tell me how many parts per million you exhale? gentlemen? 5,000. you take in 390 parts per million. you exhale 5,000. what does that tell you about the carbon -- >> 14,000.

>> 14,000. >> 40. >> i heard 40,000. is that all verifiable? >> wait a minute. time-out. we have to back up our facts with science. they don't, but we do. i want to be accountable. i don't want to put our a bunch of bs. we're all part of the -- whether it was 5,000 or 40,000, we're part of the carbon cycle. this is all a part of living on life on earth as richard has said. in any case, we need to explain the ipc's false premises. you know them. there are plenty of them. the sun provides 99.9% of the world's warmth.

we don't know what's going on with clouds and winds ask water. there's thousand things that we need to know. it's 20 times as important and probably much msh complicated. there are 22 climate drivers. only one has singled out as a cause of climate change. that's the one they're blaming for is fossil fuels and how much co 2 is being admitted. they're not deal being the 94 percent approximate. it's a loss. we need to come pafr the computer models going back and forth and all of the claims of the bad things that app on skpeerth the storms and the droughts and fires and national defense. it's going to hurt national defense. it's going to cause malaria.

it's to have a support and the position and then the trace element in the atmosphere and not that raising the energy prize prices and there's a moral case and then the exception and that's par tick lated. public the fold outs and set up the scientists and you go to the scientists and then say please come and debate us and bring the facts. i have been to three of these things at the university of houston. there's not enough of you guys around. i went and the guy that represents england to the ip pc is the main scientist and i asked him what is your

scientific justification and all of the things in the course and rattled it off and said give me the scientific justification. that did not resinate with me to be honest. take the broadcast learn and get the snip its that you get the truth and there's plenty of that out there. my old football kaech said the only time that he worried about it is when he stepped in it. y'all got a lot more reason to worry than that. we have a hundred jeer supply of o oil and gas and then the technology released resources

and that's in the service and that could be mind and power to use for dollar per dollar and turned into 60 billion barrels. it's a stranded asset. what should the government be doing? they have a catalyst that turns co 2 missions into ethanal or 62 percent of ethanal and ought to be trying to do that. that's the kind of thing that the government needs to be funding. we have cleaned up the air and water and we should demand clean energy from the government every

shell is different and where can you dispose the water. you're going to have to find a solution and mitigate the kind f of problems. we're good citizen. so what is the market's role in this? well it's to compete and it's been to arctic at a time really well up here. i have to say that i'm, you know, coal and gas and wind and, you know, solar all have a nice playing field and compete. i am on the api board and am disgusted by those that do the carbon tax.

should they pay extra for the advantage? you look at aubrey and what the gas lobby has done for the state regulars and to give money to the club for the beyond coal campaign. i guess that they did not notice that there's a beyond gas campaign after the coal. they set the rules and to shutter the plants and then the stream laws for the air and the law that they just got knocked down by court. there are trying to stop all things coal. they have done a job to ripen the coal industry.

it's maded a huge difference. i guess the message that i have is that a carbon tax all assumes and is a tax on the poor. it's really bad policy and you guys are policy and won't do something about it. it does not make any sense and we get the europeans and the historic elections that we had can change the flight of the american workers. we came to the cross roads and we took a right. trump verses clinton was freedom verses burr rack harrah si. america needs to get the energy to go and not the strengths of no. my grandchildren have a chance. you i have nine of them and not many as the senator to have a better life than the parents.

not in a world of restraints. no reverse prosperity that needs to be shared with all workers. the fuels and can remembe inric. we have the society and it can re reinvept itself. the election picked the energy the to go verses the restraints. unless the power and you have political combines against you. when thegh