before. it seems unlikely it will survive in the court. it is pretty interesting that in both on party platforms that internet freedom was mentioned. it has become a hot topic in the last few months, especially with the piracy protests. everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon of internet freedom, but nobody has a clear definition of what that means. on netrepublicans point to net neutrality that this is this horrible invasion, the government regulating. democrats say we need that neutrality or it will be corporation-dominated. >> the origin of the internet freedom term came during the arab spring, when the government and the middle east shutdown the internet so protesters could not use social media to organize. but it is interesting how in our own country the definitions have

evolved. >> last word? >> i think annette freedom may be the issue of next year, especially if used -- internet freedom may be the issue of next year. suppression of communication is fundamentally opposed to what the constitution and what a lot of americans believe. that is why things touch a nerve. net neutrality can become a very divisive issue. i would like to see congress or the president tried to define what they mean when they talk about internet neutrality. >> elizabeth wasserman with politico. thank you for being on "the communicators" this week. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> congress returns next week from recess at 2:00 p.m. eastern on monday. the house will turn to 2013

scuttle spending and reauthorization of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. they will consider the nomination of stephanie rose to be a u.s. district court judge in iowa. watch live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span-2. >> so how do students cheat? let me count the ways. researchers conducted a 1993 study that tallied the cheating activities reported by students in various surveys. the laundry list includes copying from another student exam, taking an exam for someone else, purchasing term papers, copying material without footnotes, faking illness to avoid an exam, using notes or books during an exam when permitted, reviewing a stolen

copy of an exam, given test questions to students in another class, developing a personal relationship with the instructor for the purpose of getting test information, bribery and blackmail, hiring a ghost writer, altering or forging official university documents, and collaborating on homework or take-home exams when instructions required independent work. >> it is hard to maintain the amateur focus because everybody wants to make a buck off these students. the trouble is -- the big time student athletes are a very tiny fraction of our franchise. 155 people go out into the pros and are drafted every year. tiny. 430 student athletes in the franchise.

430,000 student athletes playing in a franchise. >> a student who plays sports in college at a high level, our students and athletes. they should, if they are functioning well in both spheres, the university is responsible for making them notified at least. the n.c.a.a. performs well in that regard on the academic side. they are also athletes. they work 40-60 hours per week. they have to work as students. a lot of them are not that well- endowed academic. so for the ones that perform as students and athletes, they deserve an enormous respect beyond even the accolades they get on the field. what we give them is boos and whispers and a little condescensions. shut up, you are lucky to get a scholarship. >> watch for more of this discussion on student athletes and the role of the n.c.a.a.

we will show you more of uva president's speech on cheating. it starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. host: we are talking about the energy issue when it comes to campaign 2012 and taking a look specifically at what both canada its have to offer. -- candidates have to offer. our first guest is david kreutzer of the heritage foundation. then we have gene karpinski. welcome. can we start off with philosophy of what both men bring to the table when it comes to energy policy? in a broad sense, what they are thinking? how would you define both men, starting with president obama? guest: the election is about choices. in less than 60 days, it is a choice of who will lead the country. when it comes to energy policy,

it is an incredibly stark choice. president obama has been a leader in moving us towards a new, clean energy future. jobs of the future. we need to reduce our dependence on oil and move to new, clean sources -- renewables, wind, solar. he has done a lot of that. we need to keep moving forward. unfortunately, mr. romney'a energy policy was written by big oil and it takes us backwards. that is not the path to the future. that is the path to more climate change pollution and more subsidies. it takes is a backward. our energy policy is important. we need to go forward to the future that is clean, renewable, built on the kinds of policies president obama has put in place. romney trust the markets more.

if he looks like he wants energy sources, which ever ones can be cost-effective so that we can have reliable, affordable energy. obama's attempt to shift as to a clean energy future is almost laughable when you look at the green jobs report were refined more green jobs in septic tank cleaning then in solar utilities. we see solandra. you try to force technologies to go for it. has not worked in spain or germany. we see people backing off worldwide on these attempts with subsidies that are too expensive to force energy sources that are not competitive. we may get solar. we may get renewals. but the attempt to force us through the billions of dollars of subsidies, were the companies go bankrupt, is not helping the economy.

host: when it comes to the subsidy portion come up with these types of energy is exist without subsidy help? guest: we have been subsidizing the oil company for 100 years. tens of billions of dollars. we have been subsidizing the nuclear industry for about 50 years. tens of billions of dollars of subsidies. in the last dozen years or so, we have begun to say, we need a new energy future, a path to the future. that is why there are tax credits for solar and wind. that is why in the united states congress earlier this year, a bipartisan majority said we need to extend those tax credits. the oil industry, the gas industry, but coal industry and the nuclear industry have benefited from tens of billions of dollars of subsidies for many years. it is time to get a level playing field. in the meantime, we are playing catch up for the energy of the future. we will not run out of wind or solar.

eventually, we will run out of oil and coal. the others will get cheaper. if you go to california or nevada or colorado, those are the energy future -- that is why there is bipartisan support for the clean energy credit. host: gene clearly did not answer your question, which was could the solar and wind sources work without subsidies? guest: we do not find them working without subsidies anywhere purified natural gas and petroleum working fine without subsidies. that is the oil companies get tens of billions of dollars of subsidies per year. that is not right. even to get the $4 billion the president talks about, you get all that from section 199 tax credit. that goes through "the wall street journal", "the new york times", the wind will manufactures and solar panel manufacturers.

all of those industries get a 9 % tax credit, were as gas and oil only get 6%. so it is not a subsidy of gas and oil. all of the huge subsidies are going to wind and solar. evidence they will not work without it is how hard they say they'll lose if you do not subsidize it. host: let's bring the callers in. if you want to talk about energy policy, here is your chance to do so. it is 202-737-0002 for democrats, 202-737-0001 for republicans. you can send tweets at cspanwj. to run down the high points of s energy plan, it starts out with in all of the above strategy. what does that mean? guest: we need to rely upon all

sources of oil. -- of energy. we will continue to have oil, cola and natural gas. if you look at where the future is, it is about a cleaner, n.y., energy future. that is more jobs, more secure. let me give you one example. the president last month announced an historic new proposal built around the erpa that says we need to make cars go twice as far on a gallon of gas by 2025. it saves consumers money. it reduces our dependence on oil. it creates new energy jobs, supported by all the manufacturers and reduces our dependence on climate coalition --climate pollution. it is a win for the planet. mitt romney oppose that plan. that makes no sense. he is backwards. he is by and for big oil.

we need to go forward. host: the president's plan also includes developing natural gas, better efficiency areas, it would open a new oil and gas exploration, there'd be clean energy research and development. when it comes to mr. romney's ideas, part of that would include fast tracking the approval process these. it would amend the clean air act, open reserves to exploration. it would extract shale gas and utilize darp-like funding mechanisms. gene karpinski, as far as deep as you can respond to mr. romney plan. guest: the president says he is a for all of the above, which is not include patrolling, cola, natural gas. the first in his administration was rescind the existing five-

year plan that would open up the continental shelf to oil production. cancel 77 oral and gas leases in utah. they blocked the ycuca mountain. nuclear, he is anti-oral and gas. as a secretary of an issue that does not even the own a car. if i did not own a car, maybe i would not care what the gasoline prices are, either. we see an anti-fossil fuel agenda on the part of this administration. we see wasteful subsidies going to technologies that have proven they don't work. hundreds of millions of dollars. we have seen him giving loan guarantees to funds that do not need a loan guarantees. ge was a partner in a program that receives over $1 billion in loan guarantees. $47 million to a subsidiary of

goldman sachs. they cannot get their own funding? that is unbelievable. host: before god, we will hear from both candidates, starting with present -- before we go on, we will hear from both candidates. mr. obama brought up the topic of mr. romney. >> on energy, governor romney has said that he wants to get rid of the tax credit for wind energy. does not believe in it. he says these sources of energy are imaginary. congressman ryan calls them a fad. he needs to come to iowa. there are 7000 jobs in this state that depend on the wind industry. these jobs are the future. we should stop giving $4 billion of tpayer subsidies to oil companies that are making money every time you go to the pump. let's start investing in clean energy that will create jobs and secure our future.

that is the difference in this election. host: jacksonville, north carolina. david, a republican line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. all of these renewable -- solar and all of these, they are not functional in the sense that we are losing money. solyndra, we are subsidizing them and giving them money. as soon as we give them money, they go broke. we are talking multiple billions of dollars. i do not think you get the idea that we are broke. we are $16 trillion in debt. consequently, if we we we did we get jobs, if we would have the oil pipeline. -- consequently we would get jobs if we would have the oil pipeline. the president by fiat eliminated drilling and the gulf. that eliminated thousands of jobs. yet, or subsidizing brazil to be

drilling in the gulf. this is totally ridiculous. we need leadership, and obama is not doing any leadership. he is basically taking the country down, and we are the ones that are paying for its. host: guestgene karpinski talked about functionality when it comes to wind and the solar industry. guest: not every company makes it. the auto industry was about to go in broke as well. president obama created a rescue plan. they are treating tens of thousands of jobs. part of that is because they are building the cars of the future, the clean cars that have less pollution and are less dependent on oil and save you money at the pump. so if you drive around in a state like colorado or nevada, there are growing renewable industries. you see them as you drive by the road. that is why there is bipartisan support to continue this. not every single business will

make it. there is a growing industry, and the solar and the wind industry, and the energy efficiency to make our buildings and our cars, those are the jobs of the teacher. we are still going to do it some drilling, of course -- those are the jobs of the future. the one thing i agree with david on, by the way, they are mirror opposites. it is a clear choice. that is why this is an important conversation. the opposite directions. president obama takes us for. mr. romney takes us back. guest: i disagree. the cars of the future has been knocking volt. they shut-- has been the volt. they just shut down. the problem is that automobile countries went through bankruptcy. a different group of people got bailed out one way than they would have the other. the caller made a good point. that is, if you have to

subsidize the production, if it dies without subsidies, it is contracting the economy. you are taking resources that are more valuable than the output you are producing. we need to get away from that. we need to let people make their own choices, provide products that consumers want to buy. that is the stark choice. guest: increase mile per cars.n on is that a good idea? guest: what we have is not increasing any choices for consumers. it is forcing consumers to buy cars that cost more, that are less safe, and are smaller so they can claim, you are saving money on gasoline. people do not want to do everything to save money on gasoline. they want to do some things. this new batch of cafe regulations is a different thing that we had before. there was all sorts of sausage- making that went on. there were different sized cars. it is not clear there will be

any efficiency increase we can talk about. we might have bigger cars instead of smaller cars. guest: that is one of the examples of the sharp difference between me and david and between mitt romney and president obama. president obama says the way of the future is to make our cars more efficient which creates more jobs, reduce our dependence on oil, save consumers money at the pump and cuts the carbon pollution that causes global warming. win for our economy, win for security, when for consumers. that is the way forward. let's not forget. the oil industry has a subsidies. they have had them for 100 years. they do not disagree with that. that is why they oppose the effort. almost every month in congress, they opposed to cut the subsidies. guest: that is not a subsidy. cutting this tax break only for one industry.

the windmill, the solar panel manufacturers -- "the new york times". let's get back to the fundamental question, are we in favor of efficiency? sure. have seen it. in the absence of government mandates, we get efficiency improvements. people want to save money. they do want want to be forced to save -- if it costs them money or if it reduces their comfort or if it makes convenience-wise. host: let's take a call. riverdale, georgia. daniel, independents line. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask a question. back when jimmy carter put solar panels and the white house. it was an experiment. in 1980, president reagan came in and they dropped it.

what if we move forward on that technology? be a lot further and china would not be the only ones making all solar panels in the world? guest: the solar panels you were talking about, those were water heater solar panels. my brother is a plumber. he told me almost every house he went to a few years after it they had these panels on the roof, they leak. lots of people pulled them out. it was an example of technology forth before its time. maybe they are worthwhile out, but it is not that president reagan was against saving money. the things are inefficient. so, we are going to move toward. we have been moving forward. energy efficiency has approved by 30% not from mandates but from people wanting to save money, from investors finding things that will help them save money at a cost that is less than the money they saved. guest: when it comes to oil and

natural gas-type products -- guest: cars have gotten more efficient. industries have gotten more efficient because they do not want to waste money. they do not need people in d.c. to tell them, here is how to save money. when you have mandates, you force technologies that may not be the best choices for them to save energies. guest: on the auto industry, about 15 years the fuel economy standards state the same. the law did not change occurred when the law changed, -- the requirement from the government to make our cars go further than a gallon of gas is what made the future. the president -- had it right and energy. for 20 years, that industry stopped growing. what we have seen in the last half-dozen years, 100,000 new jobs in solar, because the new technologies are being

developed. you are right. most of the growth and solar is in china. china is investing in everything. they are cleaning our clocks when it comes to the new energy sources. it is time for our country to use the gold old american ingenuity. and be a leader in auto efficiency -- at a time for this country to use the good old american ingenuity, be a leader in the energy of the future, the clean energy of the future -- solar, wind, geothermal. we should be a leader. host: michigan, brian, democrats line. hi . caller: this is joe out of tennessee. host: go ahead. caller: i think that had we noticed that the early pioneers when they made the windmills to draw water out of the ground, had we stuck with that, we probably would have had the electric windmill long before we did get them started.

and i think any kind of renewable energy, let's do it right now while we got the chance. let's not go back to oil for the simple reason is that everything under the ground is going to run out. just that simple. we have to start getting energy on what is natural on this earth, because it is going to last just as long as the earth. thank you. host: you basically want to take advantage now. guest: the sun is going to burn out. white don't we give up on agriculture? it matters -- the fact that it may not -- that it may run out is it not a reason to give up on it immediately. new technologies are adding decades and centuries to the amount of natural gas and oil we have. we already have centuries' worth of coal. to get back to the point of efficiency -- yes, the car standards were the same. that is a great point.

car efficiencies a very. people want to save money. it is almost like they matched the rise and fall. let me show you a diagram that somebody else made cleared another example -- the efficiency, how to save money. my dishwasher that i have no is the same model that i had in 1994. the difference is that this one saves me two gallons of hot water for every load and run through that is 8 cents total for two gallons, but it takes three hours to run her the old one took an hour and 15 minutes. people in d.c. have decided that an hour and 15 minutes is only worth 8 cents. if we have a dinner priority, -- party, we have to watch a half the dishes by hand. they are ignoring the inconvenience over and over. host: you talk about wind and

solar being part of the future, what conditions have to be in place in the united states where we can depend more on wind and solar rather than the natural resources we do? guest: i do not know about your dishwasher, but maybe the sun burned out but it will last a heck of a lot longer than oil, coal and gas. on oil andt give up gas right now because it will run out in three centuries. guest: now, you get wind power. in many places in the country, it is highly competitive. it turns the electricity. solar is not yet there across the board. in some places -- here is the key, from the state of michigan today, 29 states have renewal electricity standards. that tells utilities you need to have a certain percentage of your energy from clean energy sources -- wind, solar. those states are leading the

nation. california has 1/3 of its energy from clean energy. why? because they are putting in place policies that do it. china is cleaning our clock because they are investing in putting the money in. when you have the requirements to say, let's have wind, solar, they get developed. that is the story in california, nevada, colorado. that is why the president goes to those states and talks about -- that is why there is bipartisan support for the policies that promote them, requirements to get more wind and solar for utilities. and yes, to try at some point to get a level playing field with all the subsidies they have given for 100 years to the oil industry, let's get some tax breaks for renewable energy. host: tampa, fla., robert, republican line. lo. caller: i would love to be energy independent. i live in tampa, florida. we have 300 days a year of

sunshine. i looked at putting solar panels on my house. it would cost $17,000-$30,000. the payback would be it somewhat in excess of 20 years. most of the equipment is good for 7-10 years. i cannot see however it would be economically feasible. if i have to wait until it is, it is going to be 10, 20, 30 years to get it done. i do not want to get into the commercial and everything else, but i do not ever see how solar is ever going to be efficient. i could use solar a lot more times than they could use it in ohio, or montana and it would never pay back. i would have to buy a new system before i paid off the one i got. host: gene is going to tell you how wrong door. unfortunately, his story is inconsistent. guest: he tells us wind is competitive. denny's is the only places they

get it is where they mandated. predict then he says the only places they get it is where they mandate it. well, if it is competitive, you do not need to subsidize it. you do not need to bring in oil and gas cut subsidies and then you tell a story that is not true. look around the world. oil and gas are competitive without subsidies. wind and solar are not -- on scale. some places, isolated from the grill, some solar cells, they make sense. great. eventually they may make sense. if you have to subsidize it, that tells it is not competitive. guest: you make a good point, because florida has a lot sun. the biggest utility company in florida supports the effort to make sure utilities provide more energy from wind and solar. what happens, david, is when utilities begin to say, let's get more of our powers from wind and solar, then they become

competitive. that is exactly what happens, and that is ok. we have been successes -- subsidizing oil companies for $4 billion per year. they have record-breaking profits and gasoline prices are through the roof and a proposed every day on capitol hill -- they oppose those subsidies because they want them. it helps their profits. let's be clear. the future or weakened state let's take that leap. president obama has a vision to bring us forward. he supports more oil, more gas, more kohl. we will not eliminate them tomorrow but he says let's look carmenita be in the future. the future is renewable. guest: you make a great point. industry that sell products people want our break -- making record-breaking products.

that is the problem. that is the defense we have here. somebody says we need to have the government direct resources to sell products and people are not willing to pay the vote -- the full cost for. another person is saying we will let people implement their own choices on what they want. the efficiencies, the trade-off they're willing to make. not from here or capitol hill. host: steve from new jersey is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: mr. karpinski stated general electric and goldman sachs got a subsidy from the government. can he tell me who supported that? can he name names? guest: i did not say that. guest: i did. the department of energy gave the loan guarantee.

you can go on there website. they are proud of it. they have a list of places they loaned money to. you can google the company and find out is a wholly owned subsidiary of goldman sachs. this is not a tinfoil hot conspiracy theory. this is on the department of energy website. host: governor romney as a plan for energy policy. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i know how to get the private sector to create 12 million new jobs. i know what it will take to do that. [applause] let me tell you what they are. number one, i am going to take full advantage of our energy resources, coal, oil, nuclear, renewables. [applause] by doing that, we become energy independent by 2020.

let me tell you something to do. you take full advantage of oil in tight formations. they pump in fluid to get more oil out. it means taking advantage of the pipeline from canada. [cheers and applause] it means turning the gulf of mexico back on so we get oil out of the gulf. over the last four years, the president has cut the number of permits and licenses on federal land and waters in half. i will double the number of licenses and permits so we get more oil and energy. host: several times, he used the term "full advantage." guest: that means allowing industries to get it. if we're running out of it, it does not fit with what we have seen recently.

we should allow industry. when they are allowed, they are getting lots of it. on state and private leases, we see a phenomenal increase. when you look on federal lands, the leases are going down. production is going down. why would we not want lower gas prices? why would we not want to produce more petroleum here? host: if the resources are here, why not open them up? guest: we will keep drilling and a lot of places. there are millions of acres where the oil companies have permits they're not even using. there are places we should not go. off the coast of florida, the arctic national wildlife refuge. it is a gorgeous place. i did not hear the word efficiency from mr. romney.

that is the cheapest, safest way. it can reduce our demand but up to half. sadly, he opposes the fuel economy standards. he says the word renewables as part of his mixed, but if you look at his policies, and good luck in finding it promoted. wind, solar, geothermal is the wave of the future. that is where we need to get to. mr. romney's policy was by and for the oil companies. it will take us backwards. it will not help us. the sun and wind are the future. that is where we need to go. guest: to allow companies to get petroleum to turn into gasoline to sell to consumers, if they do more of that, that helps the consumers. that is a pro-oil consumer program.

that is for people who drive cars and leave the house. we want to keep those prices lower. to call that a pro-industry program is silly. why would prices go up so much? if it were easy to economize and cheap, people would be doing that already. guest: the fuel efficiency standards for cars are incredibly popular. they say consumers money. i have been driving a hybrid for more than 10 years. i have saved hundreds of dollars each year as we go forward because that was an investment in the future. efficiency saves money. it is quickest, cleanest, cheapest way to do things.

to make our buildings more energy efficient, that is an example. you are creating new jobs to retrofit buildings. you are saving money on utility bills. i am shocked, david, that you think efficiency is a bad idea. guest: the efficiency standards do not give consumers additional choices. you have a hybrid. that was there before this. i think you made a wrong calculation. if people are using it, we do not need subsidies. let people make their own choices. host: let's take a call. flint, mich., democrats line. caller: i think the elephant in the room is, why are we giving subsidies to big oil corporations that massively profitable?

they are sitting on all this money. i do not think it is a coincidence that these heads of corporations are generally republican. they are holding this money to make president obama look bad. i really wish your speaker would refer to our president not as obama but as president obama. host: thank you. guest: when companies make money, they are bad, we want to tax them so they do not make it. when they're losing money, we want to subsidize. the $4 billion is not a subsidy to gas and oil. it is a tax feature. if you want to do the tax structure, great. it is a tax break that goes to the solar and wind manufacturers. auto manufacturers. it is very broadly defined. it is not an oil and gas subsidy. they are making money because they're selling something people want. guest: you had it right on. the oil companies are making record-breaking profits. $4 billion in subsidies. they oppose the efforts to

repeal them. we need a new energy future. that is why we support president obama. thank you very much. host: naples, fla., are you there? caller: both are right. they are talking about different time frames. we need energy independence now. if we were we did have our own energy independence, it would create thousands of jobs instead of purchasing offshore oil. gene is right in that we need energy sources of the future. these gentlemen are present what we have in congress today. we're arguing instead of working on a common solution. host: is their common ground? guest: do not know. i am not against new energy sources. it does not make sense to get rid of the ones that were now. subsidize the ones that do not work now.

we will give new energy sources over the next centuries. it does not make sense to get rid of what works for something that you think might eventually work. let it come forward. we have all kinds of technologies that come forward. you do not give them a century ahead of time. guest: elections are about choices. we do not agree. one set of policy choices takes us forward to clean energy future. one set of policy choices takes us back to polluting energies by big oil. there's a choice on november 6. energy policy is the clear choice. we are for president obama because he wants to move toward a clean energy future. host: americans want to buy american energy and the energy independent. we do not want to be at the mercy of saudi government. the only way to increase u.s. oil production to help us is if the oil companies are nationalized.

tell me how i am wrong. let me go back to the first point. how much outside oil are we taking in? guest: about 25% of our total. it has shifted. guest: we are at our lowest level of using imported oil in more than 20 years. that is thanks to policies put in place. guest: it is not. guest: fuel economy standards will continue that trend. we will keep drilling for oil and gas. there is no doubt about that for a while. eventually, we have got to get beyond it. reducing dependence on oil is critically important. we have done that. that is the wave of the future. guest: the reduction of imports has come from two places. the economy is weak. there has been a dramatic increase on private and state leases in north dakota, texas, and other places. there's a huge increase in oil production where the oil companies are allowed to do it. unfortunately, that is not on

all of the federal land. that is why we're having these imports. host: i should not have to subsidize rich people's gas guzzlers. the independent line. caller: we know the future is modernized buildings. we will graft onto those things. that is the future. people want that. they know that solar works because mit, harvard, smart grids are trying to fight the fortune 500, but they cannot. they have no money. host: illinois, unless one of you wanted to respond. dixon, ill., terry, democrats line.

caller: i am going to talk to the gentleman from the heritage foundation. i remember paying $4 in 2006. a barrel of oil was going for $145. oil hit a high last summer at $110. we were paying $4. why do we have to pay subsidies to oil companies? through history, a lot of oil companies went bankrupt that.gov money. i think we should pull the subsidy. there's plenty of oil. you cannot say otherwise. we're paying $145 a barrel. today we're paying $95 a barrel. but the gas prices are still high. we are exporting gas every month. the man from heritage, this is the same place that ran articles

about troopergate. host: we will keep it to the point of the conversation. guest: oil prices spiked at $145. the gas prices did not reflect the full price. the spike did not last long. weeks later, it collapsed. the the $95 price now is the domestic price. it is not the full price. gas consumers are paying the world price of petroleum. that is what we see. what was interesting was how the markets responded despite more drilling and production. we see the price come back down. that is what happens over and over. guest: your point on subsidies is right on. i appreciate you making it. there's a clear choice on november 6.

president obama wants to eliminate the subsidies. mitt romney says no. that is why his policy is written by the oil companies that want to keep the subsidies. president obama wants to move to the future. host: houston, texas, steve? hello? caller: i am in the oil and gas industry. i have been for 30 years. my father was in it before me. most of my family is. i wonder if any of you have ever been out to a drilling rig. as far as subsidies, letting people keep more of their own money is not a subsidy. host: mr. karpinski. guest: i have visited oil fields. i have done manual labor. we're talking about where we go on energy policy. those are fossil fuels. there are limited supplies. we need to move to new energy future.

that is why we support president obama strongly. he has a vision for the future. he does not eliminate that. he says we need to be more efficient with more renewables. that is the path to the future. we should press the subsidies. host: do you both support building nuclear energy power plants? guest: i would say for building something that does not require subsidies. they can come forward in debt financing. if you have to subsidize it, i am not in favor of it. host: what about mr. romney? guest: as far as i know, he is not in favor of subsidizing. guest: we have a couple that have come forward. there is a new wave of subsidies

for nuclear. if nuclear power fails, it is up to wall street frankly. we have a challenge. no one is going to shut down the plant's we have. but we should not subsidize new plants. it seems like they cannot figure out what to do with the waste. it seems like they will not be built without subsidies. host: has mr. obama taken a position? guest: he posted on the question of supporting more subsidies. it is he opposed on the question of supporting more subsidies. guest: the federal government requires the waste to come to the federal government. that is a law. they cannot do something other with it. the federal government cannot take care of it. that is a problem and needs to be fixed. fix that, no subsidies, fine. host: texas, liz, independent line. caller: i am bothered that oil, gas, and power is an elastic

good with the markets can decide demand and supply. the markets can be open and free. i will choose what makes life better. when it comes to energy and medicine and things people need to survive and thrive in an economy. one must consider there is unlimited demand and limited supply. if i cannot get the ice-cream cone because it is too expensive, i do not get it. host: you major point. this e-mail says to use it as a bridge into renewable power is developed to replace fossil fuel.

guest: i do not want the government in charge of things most necessary to me. i do not think they do a good job of providing products. as far as using fossil fuels as a bridge, we will use them when they make sense. how do we know when they make sense? producers sell them at a price consumers are willing to pay without subsidy. we will move to a technologies when producers can produce them at a price consumers are willing to pay without subsidies. that makes sense. let's move forward. we do not have particular genius in washington not exhibited elsewhere in the country for making decisions as to which technologies. they mandate using solar or wind. that is from government telling producers and consumers what they have to use. you do not shine it up by saying clean energy future. it is not.

guest: clearly there is a choice in terms of where we want to go. there is no doubt we will keep doing some drilling. we will need some coal and gas in the short term. it is about a vision, the vision of going to a new clean energy future. let's take the issue of pollution. the epa is doing a tremendous job of cutting pollution from power plants, coal plants in particular. a 90% reduction in mercury pollution. you cannot let industries run amok and trust them to keep the air and water clean. that is not the way it works. the government does have a role to play to protect the air and water, to stop the subsidies and create a clear playing field. that is the clear choice in november about half board.

-- about a path forward. guest: ever been to increase the government has a role to play. the question is -- everyone agrees the government has a role to play. co2 emissions have dropped below the targets set by cap-and- trade. that is because a guy in texas developed an existing technology to allow us to get natural gas more cheaply than anyone thought we could get it as recently as four or five years ago. we've had this explosion in natural gas production. it is pushing coal out. consumers want cheaper electricity. utilities can produce it cheaper with natural gas. that is what is happening. we've seen co2 emissions dropping because people are buying the cheaper fuel. host: this question is about climate change asking if you believe it is real. where has the romney campaign waged in?

guest: i do not speak for the romney campaign. i believe the climate is changing. i believe some of the warming is because of man-made emissions of co2. there is broad agreement on that. the question is whether we're heading to catastrophe. it does not look like it. the temperature trend for the last century has been consistent. it has warmed by about 0.8. for the past 20 years, it is warmed by about 0.8. the past 10 years, it has gone down. that is not a trajectory we need to get panicky about. that is where we are. i do not think co2 is the catastrophe other people would make it out to be. guest: mr. romney as governor, it was suggested it was real.

when he became a candidate, he reversed his position. he would be the only president in modern history to challenge the scientific consensus that climate change is real. you saw one of the biggest applause lines of the republican committee and when he mocked president obama's line about climate change. very strong support when president obama made clear that climate change is real. it is not a hoax. many people say climate change -- that is crazy. that is a leadership position in the republican party. mr. obama says climate change is not a hoax.

look at the record-breaking drought, forest fires, heat wave. this is a serious problem. anyone who thinks it is not has their head in the sand and does not care about the future of this country. guest: experts do not pin the current drought on climate change. mr. romney mockepresident obama on the statement we would reduce the levels of co2. the president was going to stop the oceans from rising. that is a funny line. he was not mocking him in general on climate change. host: michigan, democrats line. caller: unless mr. karpinski is going to come to lansing, mich., and hear what is going on with gm and the workers, you are absolutely lying about the auto industry and how it is accomplishing so many jobs.

i own a small business. i pay for gm to stay alive. who is going to pay for me to stay alive? gm had to take all of that money. they are not going to pay it back. host: when it comes to energy policy, what are you asking? caller: right now, the volt is shot down. they are not hiring. they are shutting it down because nobody can afford this immaculate car. guest: the auto industry is getting back on its feet. in part because of the plan president obama was in part of.

the volt, were generally favor building the cars of the future that are more fuel efficient. that is different our economy and for consumers at the pump. it is good for the planet. michigan has a chance to vote for a very effective policy which president obama supports to make power utilities bring more of their power from wind and solar. we are all for it. it is good for utilities. we need to take more of our power from wind and solar. we are supportive of the measure on the ballot in michigan this fall that will say we will make energy cleaner in michigan. i know that david disagrees with that. president obama supports that policy. mitt romney would not support it. guest: i do not think that collor will want to pay more for electricity if she is struggling with her business. if this were cheaper electricity, you would not need to mandate it.

it is as simple as that. utilities can pass the cost on to consumers. that is clear. if it makes regulators happy, they are happy. regulated utilities get to charge a price that give them a guaranteed profit. caller: it is easy and simple for both. the europeans were ahead of us by a decade with the green future. the economy contracted. they kept it where it was forever like in holland. they have tested here and there as a hobby horse. it collapsed without subsidies. if it is for real and they were behind it with an economy as big as ours, how come it cannot work after all that effort? why should we follow a failure? guest: i do not think you want to attribute what happened in greece and spain to clean energy.

that would not be correct. germany is leading the world in new technologies. germany is one of the strongest economies in europe. ask people in germany whether they made a bet on the future. they did. guest: maybe it did not cause the problems in spain. if they believe it worked, they would have doubled down on the subsidies. instead, they backed off. they have more subsidies on solar. when things get tough, they are not doubling down. they are backing off of subsidies. they dramatically reduced them. as a result, we see a dramatic reduction in the installation of solar panels in germany. we need to pay attention to that. we need to learn from mistakes of others. host: we covered a lot of

ground. are there topics we did not cover that you find interesting or of note? guest: i am glad we sharpen on the climate change issue. it is part of the future connotation. on efficiency, renewables, and climate, the choice is very clear. it is the president's vision for our future. i appreciate that. guest: the clean energy future gene keeps talking about is particular technologies being mandated. we see they're not working. solyndra goes bankrupt. we see people are not buying the volt. they're trying to prove this is helping something. it was humorous. if you look at where the green jobs were, 50% of jobs in the steel industry were counted as green. it is a joke the way they