>> tonight is the annual radio and television correspondents dinner in washington. and c-span will bring you live coverage, including president obama's speech, beginning at 8:25 p.m. eastern time. >> people don't want to think of roosevelt's conservation as a policy as much as a passion. he put aside 214 million acres of wild america. so now as people are talking about environmentalism and the green movement, roosevelt is becoming the key figure to understand because he was the only politician of his day who absorbed darwin and understood biology, birds, migratory patterns, and the mating habits of deer and elk and antelope and

actually did something. >> sunday on a "q&a," the first of sonntag hours on douglas brick -- with douglas brinkley. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span or listen to axe and satellite radio or download the c-span podcast. >> there is still time to get your copy of c-span's 2009 congressional director repaired with information on house and senate members, the cabinet, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors, plus district maps and how to contact committees and caucuses. $16.95, online at c-span.org /products or call 1-877-on-c- span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by james hackett, president and ceo of anadarko petroleum corp. to talk about an injured reform, climate change, and economy. first let us talk about an injury reform going on on capitol hill. what is your take on a business

perspective on the reform bill and what it will do? guest: first, it is a very important topic. i am glad we are debating it. we tend to make policy based on where gasoline prices trade particularly in the summer or after a hurricane, so when people are worried -- in a period where we have lower prices, it is not as tight ends in everybody's mind, but the thing that is disturbing is we are wedding it with climate change, which is inextricably tied to but the climate change portion is actually a very disturbing model that is, of the house, at least out of committee, and that is the waxman-markey bill in a sense it is aimed at climate change reform and trying to control greenhouse gas emissions and yet the way the allowances were given away to garner state votes or effectively representative votes for some of the dirtier burning fuels, it seems to conspire against the objectives.

what we need to do all of us is move to a future where we are much more dependent on alternative fuels but we have to recognize there is a huge scale issue that has the plan out very carefully. while we are incentivizing those alternatives, to make sure we are science-based as opposed to politically based, which is what got us corn-based ethanol, which is a disaster, and, secondly, we recognize that we need all the answers for a while here. importantly if we have climate change and have a hubris to the weekend control god's world, elisse would and would honestly and straightforwardly the term -- instead of trying to manipulate. host: "the financial times" april 2009, you called the president's focus and carbon dioxide histrionic and maniacal. why? guest: up to the reason for that -- what was left out is there was no discussion about what appeared clean water is a much bigger issue to the world and co2 emissions, although i think mandates co2 emissions certainly

need to be controlled. my view is from my sense of science. i work in a world where we look at rocks better to hundred million years old. our scientists and engineers trying to find god's bounty of oil and gas for 100 years and we know that there have been periods of time in the earth where we had much higher magnitudes of co2, much warmer temperatures, much colder temperatures long before man ever walked the earth. so, to suggest that we can take what is 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and only a portion of that is man-made, the biggest in mission is water vapor, and to make that the world's most important issue is not compelling to me. i think it is a very important thing to talk about how we do things better, do things more efficiently efficiently and reduce the carbon footprint but also recognize that you have to do it in a paste way and not do it as suggested politically where overnight we tried to change the world when it is not realistic to do that, and more importantly, will do the wrong things which we approve in the

past. the minute they start talking about conservation is the minute i will start paying attention, instead of politically -- politically correct efficiency. you hear anyone say turn of lights when you leave the room, turn off your tv, turn off your computer when you leave the hotel room close the curtains and turned air-conditioning off. that is what i will start paying attention. because these of the same faults that told us to shut down nuclear 30 years ago and all we did is burn more coal -- shut down ddt, and the world health organization had reinstituted it because it was killing millions with malaria. it all has to be in balance and we need to get after it with science funding and give the big bucks when you actually can commercialize the technology and not just throw one of the decree did the billions of dollars. host: earlier this week there was a report under the auspices of the obama administration but it was the work of several dozen scientists and over 13 agencies by the u.s. global change

research program that concluded that global climate change is affecting the globe, the world, and the changes are already affecting human health from agricultural, coastal areas, transportation, water supplies, and it will intensify even with significant actions to limit greenhouse gas from human activities. do you just disagree? guest: i do not disagree with the notion that we could of global warming, i disagree that it is manmade emissions causing the pit as a mentioned before, we have periods of global warming and cooling long before man walked the earth and i think sunspots and the world's oceans have a helluva lot more to do with it quite frankly. on the other hand, i think we should control man-made emissions in a very paced way what science leading the way instead of someone deciding for all of us a virtual reality. if that is what they conclude, what they're doing in congress is absolutely the opposite of what they want to do. importantly, the targets being shot are unrealistic and it did not actually fix the problem.

by the way, most people who atlas that it is, i think, if they are honest, actually believe that warming is sometimes better than it being too cold. you actually kill more people in the cold than the war appeared to suggest we are in the world where we are having massive flooding because of global climate change, it is a fiction in my mind appeared on the other hand, we need to do more with alternative fuels, we need to consistently funded from a federal level, which we do not do. we need to actually have an energy policy that consists of more than aircraft carriers and the middle east, which is exactly what it has been for my whole career. host: let us hear from our viewers. our first caller is from randy on the independent line from illinois. are you there? caller: yes, i'm. good morning. my question -- first, a comment for your guest is that i agree

with much of what he says, but he did say that we must control carbon emissions. i am and applied science as an engineer, and as i study this issue, i found that only 3 percent of the co2 that goes into the atmosphere is man-made and 97 percent comes from the oceans, the ground, and so forth, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and co2 than only plays a very small part. if we eliminated all of our nc 02, man-made, it would only reduce by 0.2% this co2 in the atmosphere. another thing that ipcc says the life span of the co2 is 100 years and other studies have shown only five years. what does our guests have to comment about that? a quick one is about biogenic

oil -- russia has become the no. 1 oil supplier and the world by drilling 4,000 foot deep wells, and there was no forest or vegetable matter down there, and that is why many believe or some scientists now believe that oil does not come from became vegetables but comes from but carbon down and the earth under pressure and heat and so forth. guest: i think on your first point, i think i may have suggested that i agree with the numbers you just quoted, is that this is not a problem caused by man-made emissions primarily but actually got a wonderful world of work, which has climate change independent of mankind. on the other hand, i don't think manmade initials nest -- emissions necessarily a good things if we have alternative technologies that are reasonably priced. i think there is a which create that. one thing that we need as we do that is to be realistic about

what we are doing. if you read the popular press and you listen to the political pundits, they would suggest that somehow solar and wind are a substitute for foreign oil. nothing further than the truth. it simply substitutes for domestic fuels because it is for electric generation. it all needs to be backed up by natural gas been no let or gas that can substitute for natural gas as a backup. so we have to be very intelligent about how we use hydrocarbons, but we will have to use a lot more of the world will grow gdp. it has to grow gdp to get people out of poverty. tisza malaria and to have clean water is to have gdp growth in places like sub-saharan africa, and what we -- what they need to get that is energy and you will not get it from wind and solar but you will get from other sources, including nuclear, for political reasons this country has not decided to pursue and it is only because senator pat -- senator harry reid controlled the senate and even a democratic administration will not take him

on. i think you are right is we have to be very careful and paste and make sure we understand the science behind that. the second question about -- do you recall? host: more about oil at in russia. guest: 40,000 feet, i am not aware it is the source of much oil in the world. we do not drill in it for it -- 40,000 feet anywhere in a world that i think russia. we still believe that it is biogenic for the most part. you may be right, but there are plenty of sources of energy that we have proven in very remote areas. it just takes a lot of money to get it out and we have to realize that as well. host: explain to the viewers, you are president and ceo of anadarko. what is an adorable and where are your interests? guest: you probably never heard of us because we do not have reached out stations, we do not refine. we explore -- there are not many countries doing that anymore because we have not incentivize them. we spend about $1 billion a year

to find new resources. we have the deepest performing platform in gulf of mexico, cleaner-burning natural gas and a footprint about the size of this building environmentally. to create that kind of supply, 1.5 percent of all natural gas demand in the country, would require a solar panels over all of washington, d.c., and more and two states work of windfarms. it tells you about the scale and intensity of the hydrocarbon fuels we have use for 50 or 100 years. we have to be careful as we transition that we understand the environmental footprint are alternatives. what disturbs me a bit is forcing people to be proposing solar power, the same people who shot down putting solar power and the mojave desert. if we cannot put in the mojave desert, we are in trouble because no one i know wanted in the back yard. how will we get this wonderful answer if people who are fighting traditional fuels are also fighting the citing of the alternative fuels? host: kathleen on the democratic

line from dayton, ohio. caller: you said we don't need to pick -- we can't change the world. if we would just start with u.s. habits, as you described, i believe we are 4% of the world's population using a 35% of the world energy resources. then you also said that if you had heard congress saying anything about turning off the lights and computers -- former president jimmy carter 35 years ago put a sweater on in front of the national public and said, turn down your thermostat. he started talking about saving energy, and the oil companies, they slapped him down. the other thing, i personally believe -- then have a question. i believe alternative technologies for our energy sources -- we could have tapped it 35 years ago and we have not done so because of the strength of good -- stranglehold of oil companies. but how can you explain to the american public and lay terms

wide -- was it two years ago gas prices were four bucks a gallon and now they are two bucks a gallon? i just feel that when alternatives were being talked about, when the prices were high, people started driving last and then all of the seven oil prices went down. how do you explain it and lay terms to the american public why the prices go up and down, and down? guest: supply and demand. you and i did not disagree with jimmy carter's appearance. i am not aware the oil companies leptin down -- but you may have a different memory as i did. i was working in 1976, i started with amoco. i thought jimmy carter had it right, but nobody had done it cents. i would like to see more people doing that. jimmy carter did a lot of other things that were not exactly right for the country so i am not holding him as a beacon of hope, except in that regard. i do think about alternative fuels are good. i do think we need to proceed. by personally invested and

biomass conversion did i was doing it back in 1979 when i got out of business school, to convert biomass and a very and garments with friendly way. i personally invested and hydrogen and technology conversions. the problem that i know for a fact as opposed to making it up is that what you need is money to fund it to get it to a bench scale from the original science and then you need to have a ton of money waiting to commercialize it. our government is getting exactly wrong. they want to throw a ton of money into r&d and then none left to add to fund the commercialization. we are getting it wrong because of the politics. you have to be very careful how you approach the scale dynamics of this business, but i think there is tremendous scope for it and i think we need to continue to pursue it. with regard to oil price volatility, it is applied and the man and a sense that if you argue against or dollar gasoline when it was $4, you are arguing against the fact that we've leased from submission millions

and millions of people from china and russia that drove worldwide demand up. with the economic collapse, that is what drove oil prices back down again, and therefore gasoline. crude oil makes up 77% of the gasoline price. it is very much about supply and demand. we have to make a choice from the one central government to control everything and went to the wishes of a few or let the market mechanisms dry things generally while you tend to do the right things with regard to government money and science- based answers for the energy equation, which i am very much in favor of, instead of volatile funding of the r&d, we should have very consistent inclining funding for r&d and we have to save big bucks, so unlike a carbon tax, instead of tax and trade, which is being corrupted just like europe did come and get real answers and science and a fund that all of those when they become viable. host: on the republican line,

jack from san antonio, texas. caller: have you heard discussion about the need for storage batteries? if they are going to experiment with wind and solar, it seems like you need to have a huge scale of the ability to store this energy when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. also talking about thousands and thousands of miles of additional power lines to hook up the wind turbines. have you seen discussion along those lines at all? and the use of -- instead of uranium for nuclear energy. i & -- understand it is not as hazardous to dispose of. guest: i am not aware of the thoreum issue. but they're definitely needs upgrades. the administration recognizes that. they call a smart grid. it will take tremendous

investment to get to those thrilling and different directions. unique natural gas plants to support the wind and solar, assuming people let you place it. as you may know, living where you are, most people may not know some of the largest petroleum producing states texas has twice the winds capacity california and the biggest in the united states but we also lost the alleged system because the wind stopped blowing in western texas. we do have to come up with battery technologies, not just for wind and solar but also electric cars come a very important feature to how we get to where we want to get to with the carbon footprint. one thing we have to keep in mind -- and it's back to the previous question -- is it is wonderful to lead in the world and part of why we burned so much is because we are the largest economy. never forget that the answer it is not to make the economy one- tenth of what it is to get the greenhouse gas emissions there, because all you will do is substitute china taking away

that nine tense. it is wholly a program that we burn as much as our gdp generates, which is exactly what we do and no countries on earth that are more efficient in greenhouse gas emissions than western europe and the united states because we have money to invest in environmental improvements whereas developing majors do not. to not capture the developing nations in this dialogue would be crazy, we would give up jobs come export pollution to other places in the world and it would show up right back of our atmosphere. so doing something first in this regard is not necessarily the best thing unless you have the economy to support it, which is exactly what the u.s. and western europe have done. host: what is your position on nuclear power? guest: i think we need much more. it does not take -- what people are scared of is that they are scared of litigation, the regulations changing, and that think if we set a playing field that would give them confidence they can invest with some security that they can sell

their product and dispose of that waste, they would build the plants without government assistance. but today you cannot get it done. we are talking of tens of billions of dollars of loans to get a few of them done instead of just opening them up so they have security in their investments to their bondholders and their investors. if i was involved at duke energy for -- pin building but yucca mountain facility that senator harry reid is blocking -- it is below a former atomic testing site in nevada. it is 1 mile below the earth. that is where we should be storing nuclear waste instead of storing it in places in south carolina. a lot of what is hoisted upon us is virtual reality for people very narrow purposes. host: let us hear from michael on the independent line from chicago, eleanor. caller: good morning. i agree with mr. hackett -- about 90 percent of what he described. i will mention what i disagree

with. but to the point of global warming, the language has actually changed because it has been a lot colder. i think we are having historic lows in temperatures around the globe so now it is changed to global climate change. the sunspot activity that you talked about earlier, many scientists completely agree with that and we are at a historic low with respect to sunspots and obviously it is a lot colder. there is some concern, and i would like to ask you moving forward, there are programs out there to curtail global warming in the form of particulates brain. a lot of conversation around universities and actually some studies under way where they are spreading certain reflected chemicals into the atmosphere. that is one. the other is around a carbon tax credits. there may be some conflict of interest and that they will receive -- they set up some

organization that i believe pam obama -- will get some form of kickback when these carbon credits and these other mechanisms begin to take hold. the other really quick one is the absurdity and danger of declaring carbon dioxide and dangerous toxin or a dangerous gas. this is a life gas, this is what we expire from our mouths and they declared it a dangerous gas. meanwhile they are pushing these mercury light bulbs, energy- saving light bulbs that will an effective bill -- will be one of the largest proliferations of mercury around the world. this is absolutely crazy. i will leave it at that. guest: i am not sure there was a question in there, but i believe some of the points are good and some i am not as familiar with. on the mercury issue. i do think we need more efficient lighting in our buildings. i do think that is an area that we can make great strides in. we need more efficient

insulation and a lot of buildings. but i would like to have a lot more time on the conservation side and we are spending on trying to fix the world from a production source stand point. while we develop science-based solutions. host: on the democratic line, jessica from new york city. caller: semantic quick questions, but, you know, i appreciate your coming on c- span. it takes a lot of coverage, believe me. i did not know if i agree with you about the demonizing of the democrats -- obviously i am a democrat, but i like to have an open opinion and i have voted republican before, but the fact you are demonizing them and republicans -- i know you made a fortune. my two questions -- when you explore in an area, how do you get back to the people in that area? do you believe in endangered animals? and i feel that the fact that you don't believe in global

warming is absolutely insane. guest: again, we are having statements which is good, and i think it is good to have a debate. i actually don't think it is party specific. it happens to be today. i think we should be very disappointed for 30 years and every party for their approach to energy policy. i continue for a fact the bush administration was not a friend to the oil business. the republicans -- but the important thing is i said there is global warming, i didn't deny it. i did not think it is man-made, is my only point. and i think it is the height as -- of hubris to control when any narrow bands what god wants to do with the world and all the natural cycles of the world work. i think we all need to do a lot more. reading about the science of that before we conclude that it is man-made that we have global warming. in fact, as one caller mentioned, we may start to have another cooling trend. it is easy to say there is warming after a little ice age.

we need to do more research instead of taking what we read in " the new york times" or off of cnn as gospel truth because it becomes emotional. we all want to belong to something. it is a great instinct want to help the world, save the world, but the same guy who led this effort is the same guy who told us we would actually have an ice age that in the late 1970's. he has a little bit of a credibility issue with me. i think the point is you've got to make sure that you end up being very, very paced before the site is completely decided. put you may recall that galileo was the only scientist to actually thought that the sun was the center of the universe. the only one who would stand up and say it. and he was actually taken before a court for believing that. when the whole world thought he was wrong. that is one scientist. 40 percent of the scientists who are at great risk of getting their funding because of the current world and the media splash around this, are actually saying that it is not man-made. so when we conclude that this is

decided science, make real sure it is actually the answer. i do believe in global warming, it has occurred. i don't believe it is necessarily bad and i don't believe, first of all, it is greenhouse gas emissions because of man-made and yet we should still control those. i hope you did not go -- away thinking that i'm a pro- republican anti-democrat or anti-climate guy. when we go across the world, we do all sorts of good things. one of the great pleasures of my life is actually doing things in west africa where we actually take and provide water supplies, clean water to people, medical kits in angola, we provide social programs across the board with agriculture, with regards to livestock. we do a lot of work with conservation world here in the united states. we have the second largest carbon sequestration program in the world in wyoming. we are developing farms in partnership with mission energy and wyoming. we were a founding member of the

carbon registry. this is not a guy spending is like denying reality. i am actually trying to inject some reality into the discussion that seems all too one-sided and all to decide it, frankly, for a scientist like me. host: are there any legislative proposals you support regarding global climate change? host: -- guest: what we ought to agree on is we should fund more r&d to develop more renewable fuels. we also need to encourage nuclear energy, which if co2 is your maniacal focus, that is the best answer. i happen to think there are other issues that need to be on co2, which nuclear brings up as well, radioactive waste, so there is no silver bullet. having been in the energy sector for 30 years and understanding the scale worldwide, is not to pretend the scale doesn't exist. we could sit here and suggest we could change the world tomorrow, yet we are all driving cars -- those not being done by

wind and solar. let us get it, let us not pretend we are living in a world we are not living in. what you got to do is changing over time. it took 100 years to get here and it will take quite some time to get off. the last thing we want to do, quite frankly, is due corn-based ethanol and we are still paying billions of dollars as taxpayers four signs that this not work and it was all politically determined, to get votes and caucus states and now is to keep boats and agricultural states. we should not be putting a tariff on pain-based ethanol if that is what we want because we can get it cheaper and with less impact and more energy efficiency dawna bazell -- cane based ethanol. we still subsidized corn-based ethanol when it is going bankrupt. host: i want to switch gears for one second what have you here, because you are also chairman of the board of the federal reserve bank of dallas. midweek for the financial industry and president barack obama outlined his predatory overhaul of the financial

system. what are your thoughts on his proposal and what specifically do you like for this light? guest: i think we needed to do something. and i think the administration is trying to touch and go right things, whether health care, global warming issues, energy policy. the one thing i do like is they at least touch at the right kinds of priorities. i think some of the manifestation has gone are right in a big way because i think special interests have really taken over in a big way. one of the things i do like is you are trying to do something with regard to systemic risk. i think one of the good things the administration has done is the back off from kind of replacing the whole structure that existed before with the fdic, ot as, etcetera, and now try to collapse the ot as an office of comptroller -- i do not know what it means all of us. i think the community banking needs to weigh in did the fed is more on the federal side, as opposed to state registry banks. but t