portfolio. i think a third would be improving the efficiency of internal combustion engines, including anything you could give an incentive that can be fit onto existing vehicles. electronic valves, for example. they can shut off when you are cruising. we already have that on some oem cars. a v-8, cruising on only four of those senators, we can save. and then biofuels. hot region on only four of those valves -- cruising on only four of those valves, we can save. ethanol from biomass, cellulosic by a mass, it is about 80%

better. -- cellulosic biomass. i do think that biofuels have a place, as does electrification, as does greater efficiency, as does natural gas. if you do all of those at once instead of what usually happens, the usually form their firing squads in a circle. [laughter] if you do that all at once and agree that even if something is not perfect, if it helps a big problem, oil or coal, let's move that way, i think we can begin to make some serious progress. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] faith you both for your thoughtful remarks and for

laying out what we all see is an immensely complex situation of global proportions that is before us. so what we would like to do a this point is take a few minutes in order to unpack some of the issues we are dealing with, perhaps to benefit from jim woolsey's expertise and think about how we can go back to our communities and mobilize their attention in their energies to have a real impact, and also, to call upon david saperstein and your thoughts so that we can deal with the issue is. there are those that we are better able to address that we all want to work towards, so let's open up for questions,

please. comments from the floor. yes, hi, thank you. >> mike stern from san antonio. i did not hear any mention of biodiesel. i have heard roughly one-third of the transportation sector is diesel, and you can actually substitute biodiesel for conventional diesel boat, i think, with minimal and perhaps no retrofitting, so why is this not more on the table? it looks like there is a lot of potential there? >> there is a lot of potential, especially in a lot of plants that, along, especially things that grow in desert and do not grow on other types of land. basically, if you have got a so you be in, at.-- a soybean, it

is either going to go for de enane or something else -- edemame or something else. the oil go through the plants, and the cattle will eat it just fine on the other side. what does not go through, what gets turned into white lightning or 200 proof vodka or ethanol, whichever you prefer, and you drive on it, wrote -- on it, and that is cornstarch. by the way, we do not use corn for all practical purposes for food. almost all of it is for animals. cattle does not normally a naturally eat corn starch. you have got to take them to these big combined animal

feeding operations and jam it down their throats, and it makes it sick, so you have to add a lot of antibiotics to the feed, and that in turn degrade the effectiveness of the antibiotics for you and me. there is only one thing that feeding the cornstarch does. it makes it fatter. that adds to your and my cholesterol. the other thing that you can do if you do not want to drive on the corn-based ethanol is that you can turn it into cheaper fructose, and that is why those otherwise known as the job from lobby was such a powerful voice opposed to driving on corn-based ethanol. i think the junk food manufacturers know that about one-third of american children are obese, so they think there is plenty of room for double digit growth there. [laughter]

and finally, you have to use aromatics, benzene and others that are highly carcinogenic. since it does not have ethanol in it to raise octane, it has gotten benzine and xylene, and you are putting carcinogen's out of your tailpipe, so do not drive on ethanol if you care about diabetes, the degrading of antibiotics, and cholesterol. on the other hand, you can turn into ethanol, if it is not that bad, but it is only a certain small percentage. >> thank you. next question. >> i am from southern new jersey. penn i continue to be astonished and disheartened by the fact that for many of our political leaders and a significant portion of the population that

listens to them, global warming is an ideological invention, that it is somehow something conjured up by the left, and therefore, it is one of those myths that we do not have to do anything about. of course, the effect of that campaign means that it is very hard to get bipartisan support for any program that makes an impact. do you have any suggestions for addressing this unfortunate situation? >> i will take your challenge and deepen it a little bit in terms of some of the struggles we are facing in making decisions that the senator talked about at a very, very challenging time. there was a long period of time in the last two generations

where we kind of worked out some working rules about how politics was done here in the nation's capital. the congressional budget office was established, and both parties relied on their analyses of economic issues as a nonpartisan reliable source of data that we could all work with. that is now under attack. a lot of tea party folks are coming in. without a common base to be able to make intelligent decisions, unpegged it becomes almost -- decisions, it becomes almost impossible at a very deep structural level, beyond the ideology. things have happened in the last decade in the science research that has gone on.

everything becomes an ideological debate. there is a divide, and you have to have both sides. this is challenging and a time when we have to make crucial decisions. the center has called on us. it becomes really hard to do if

there is not information we can all rely on. there is an idea to push back against this idea of a 2%, 3% of the experts disagreeing. it is all up in the air. .we have to address this if we want to make improvements. >> coal and oil, oil has now passed coal and is now in first place in terms of co2. one thing that is crucial for coal is getting important carbon sequestration. if we can find a way of a doubly to sequester, sequester it, once

we can do that, we can probably make a lot of progress with whatever we quickly -- progress relatively quickly. oil is different. think of best al capone. the residues produce cancer when they come up of the tailpipe. i went to a press conference a couple, three years ago, and a friend of mine worked for the evangelicals, and he and been fired -- had been fired. they had a press conference with

huge organizations, all saying that we are not taking good care of god's garden. ok? i talk about the coalition between the tree huggers, the do-gooders', the evangelicals, and willie nelson. if you cannot get them for climate change for now, until the debate changes, go after but oil. we go after the oil. -- go after oil. oil is al capone. on the senate side, it would make it against the law appears -- unlock -- against the law.

they are going after the epa, the coal plants, the oil refineries, and that is a good place to start. this is something that i hope that the different groups will weigh in on. >> thank you. we have a few minutes left. i assume the tapes of the session will be available, and i would like to note -- to mull it over. >> they can go on a website, and everybody can look at it as they

want. let me suggest that one very good one is by a friend of mine, called "turning oil into salzberg." -- into salt." the electric grids came at the beginning of the 20th century and a freezing possible. within a few years, electricity effectively destroyed salt. it is still used, but nobody held over their neighbors had because they had a salt mine and others did not. -- held over their neighbors --

held it over their neighbor's head because they had a salt mine and others did not. someone came to me and said, "someone has stolen your idea." many people have written about that. including me. the woman is the creative one. she gets to write what she wants to with her colleague. it is a very fine book, and on the oil side of things, it really pulls things together. >> sherry, from portland oregon. i have to choose between two questions. one concerns me a great deal. how are we going to safely store nuclear waste, because we still

have no solutions. we lived not that far from the nuclear reservation. it has already been found to be volatile by scientists on several occasions, and there is always some kind of quick fix for it, but it is not a good fix. that is one of my questions, and i am hoping that someone will talk about ending our reliance on the automobile system. >> quickly, i think we cannot do it quickly, and so, some of the longer-term things, about towns and being able to walk places and mass transit, all of that is great. it is just that you cannot do it fast. we have an emergency with respect to oil. i think climate change is certainly a national security issue. that is why talking about things that will change existing vehicles, not even new ones. we need to move as fast as we

can. i think as far as the nuclear waste is concerned, there are probably technical solutions that are not bad, encasing it in things. it has become such a political football that it has become very hard for the government to deal with. i am concerned more about the proliferation than the waste. the proliferation problem does not exist. a lot of countries are going to want to get into nuclear power for electricity, and once you're in there, the nature of the nonproliferation treaty is such that it lets you get into it, and they cannot keep you from doing it.

there is an imaginary schema. they will have control. it is imaginary. i think if you have a number of these countries getting into nuclear energy, our waste storage problem is going to seem simple by comparison, because in some of them are north koreas and irans, they are going to teach. -- if some of them are. -- are north koreas and irans, they are going to cheat. >> montana, wyoming, they are doing a lot of it, and they need to be able to turn on their water, and the water goes on

fire, because i guess there might be methane or something coming up, and are we being proactive at all, trying to figure out a safeway -- safe way and not cause a lot of environmental problems? >> as a way of forcing the gas out, using water. it is a relatively new technology. it is less expensive to get the gas out that way, which is why it is very tempting to do. people predicted some of these problems. did it turn out that some of the problems were pollution and some are destabilization? there is work being done, but the whole content of technology

raises serious problems here. using fossil fuels, in terms of global warming, it happens that, a, the united states is probably the saudi arabia in terms of natural gas in terms of having reserves. israel has now discovered natural gas resources. after all of these years. so trying to get a piece of this right is culturally important here. >> let me just add one thing. there is one problem with fracturing that can be avoided if you know what you're doing. i come from oklahoma, and there have been 4 million natural gas wells drilled, many in oklahoma. i grew up camping and fishing and hunting on land that had a

natural gas exploration going on at all of the time. the offer -- aqua for widgetaquif -- the aquifers, you can go at one or two miles, and this is what is revolutionary, and it takes about 3 million or 4 million gallons per well. they always treated with some added sand, fine grained sand, and that lets the natural gas out. there are at least two or three technologies for cleaning that water up, not completely but

enough that you can use it to frack another well. half the size of as ballroom, they might have 8 wells, one going down this way, one going down that way, so if you can clean up that water and used it again, clean it up and use it again, you may not have as much of a disposal problem. you have used it eight times, and then it can be cleaned up much better, but they have not got that all sorted out yet. i think it is doable. but they have not gotten it well sorted out yet. >> david, did you want to comment any further on that? >> no. >> unfortunately, clearly, we have much more to discuss, but we have run out of time. this was an outstanding panel. we thank senator klobuchar in

absentia. and we thank others. before you leave the hall, just to give one final thought, to return us to the jewish asset of what we are doing and what we are discussing, to remember and praised the work, not only of jcpa, but something reminds us of the effectiveness of the jewish people. this is how we come to a broad perspective around the country. and if there is one thing that this teaches to us and demonstrates to us is that the same principles that apply to our complex global society came from a quieter world, thousands of years ago, demonstrating an

interdependent community that knew that we had to take care of each other, care of our land, care of the animals, and care of our own sense of dignity and respect for our conduct, it is is from that that a vast tradition that brings us here today to seek a better, more peaceful, more just, more secure world and makes us able to pursue that goal. thanks to our panelists. >> that was a beautiful ending, but there is one thing that everyone can do. helping us build coal drilling. it requires your going back and actually doing something to recruit people to be part of this broad community. it is the single most important step to do to make us important in the debates that are going on now, so please make that a priority. >> thank you, thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," michael hayen. thenl,

ily eskelsen and education spending. after that, we will talk to a national security reporter for "the new york times," eric lichtblau. "washington journal," every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and testimony before the senate budget committee. it calls for $4 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years. live coverage, at 10:00 eastern. >> up next on c-span, a forum with potential gop candidates for 2012. after that, california congressman henry waxman on policy. and later, the president of npr, talks aboutller,

public funding. >> of a 1000 students entered this year's documentary competition. c-span will announce the 75 winners wednesday morning during our "washington journal" program, and we will stream of the videos -- all of the videos at cspan.org. >> newt gingrich, a former minnesota governor tim pawlenty, and former -- mr. santorum. >> thank you for reading the letter, and i wanted also to say thank you for the congressman presenting that message to us. there are so many here today,

and i forgot to mention another governor is here. please give him a big hand. [applause] to share our role in the first in the nation states, omaha, neb., to introduce all of the potential 2012 republican presidential candidates. there is the national committee man for nebraska, and he was a republican senator candidates in 2006. -- candidate in 2006. he got a degree from the university of chicago. he was president of a trading company after it went public. chief operating officer.

he is the founder of an asset management company in omaha, nebraska. he is a member of numerous boards and commissions. the family owns the chicago cubs baseball team and the associated businesses. please give and i knew i will welcome to him. -- give an iowa welcome to him. [applause] >> well, first of all, i would like to say what a privilege is to be here in iowa, and the important work that you do to lead the nation, and i cannot think of a better group of people to leave that worked to. you people are fantastic. i would also like to think some