lawyer and lobbyist, and bob deans, the federal commission's director with the national resources defense council. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, it is "washington journal." a rule issued by the obama administration of fraud would require most employers to provide coverage for contraceptive. the national football league says it will not help promote the affordable care act. washington post reports that with the help of human services has to look a and various sports organizations for assistance but also republican leaders have weighed in, asking the sporting industry to stay out of the

issue. chief justice roberts will participate in a supreme court term review in the west virginia. if we plan on showing that bought at 9:00. you can watch it here on c-span. on the effect on our facebook page. to show will be dedicated examining president obama's action plan for climate change. the proposal was released earlier this week, causing regulations on coal and other industries, as well as other measures. we are interested in your thoughts on the plan -- if you want to reach out was on social media, you can do so this morning. "the hill" offers a summary of

what the president released on tuesday -- some of the highlights of the plan can be found on the white

house's website. here are some summary points --

climate changes are issue for our show today. if you want to comment on are more than you welcome to do so on the three lines we set aside for you. they are divided politically. a couple of opinion pieces came out in relation to the president's proposal. this is in "usa today" --

here is the commentary section from "washington times" --

again, our topic of our show this morning, the issue of climate change and president's proposal. if you choose the line that best represents you. we'll start with conn. this is lou on our independent line. thank you for holding. caller: this is getting frightening. we are living in a time of lie and scams. as far as global warming, it is a scam. global temperatures have been calling since 1998. we just finished having our second call this spring temperatures on record. as far as climate change, we know the iptc was trying to hide the decline in temperatures? the skid marks that give this global warming -- the climate always changes. it changes by the minute.

it changes by the hour. it changes by the season. it always has and always will. if enough of this chicken the tone nonsense. this has nothing to do with global warming. it has to do with global socialism. the hard left is using this to push the socialist agenda. we should impede all of them, including barack obama. host: greg from texas is up next. good morning. caller: the thing is about the it will not do anything until everybody else -- china, all the europeans are doing pretty good at it. i would like to really say that

you need to start respecting our troops. not you personally. i tell you what -- host: talk specifically about the president's proposal. i will stay on topic. host: go ahead. this cap and trade thing -- it does not work unless china and everybody else in the world works on that. with -- ihing to do guess it comes to jobs. [indiscernible] the thing is obama's thing on

cap and trade -- it does not do anything for anybody other than -- legislationd trade passed the house, it did not go anywhere in the senate. up until then, your thoughts on the president paused plan for climate change. the numbers will be on your screen. charles is from elizabeth, west virginia on the independent line. hello. caller: this is really not about climate change. i realize what is going on in this country is they are trying accepting their thought patterns on how to run our country.

climate has not changed that much. is all about a dictator dictating us and how we have to live our lives. he wants to do away with coal, which is a major supplier of energy in the state of west virginia. he is closing down power plants all over this part of the country. it is not about climate change. is about people trying to force us to lift their way of life instead of our way of life that we have had for hundreds of years. talk a little bit -- are you reaching out your senator politically? are you doing anything on that front? about: i am concerned senator joe mentioned. he says one thing but when it -- totime to the boating all of a sudden he is

not who he says he is. host: this is all of twitter -- it was earlier this week on tuesday the president announced his initiative. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> six years ago the supreme court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that seem -- covered by that same clean air act. required the epa to determine whether they are a threat to our health and welfare. to that the epa determined they are a threat to both our health and welfare.

in many different ways, from the air to more common heat waves, and therefore subject to regulation. today, about 40% of america's carbon pollution comes from our power plants. no federalhere are limits to the amount of carbon pollution those plans can pump into our air. a zero. eliminate toxic fuels like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air and water. but power plants can still talk of limited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. that is not right, that is not safe, and it needs to stop. host: we will show you more from the senate side is to go through the morning. jason from california, democrat line. caller: how are you doing?

host: well, thanks. caller: in general i am opposed to change to executive power, especially in the cases like national defense. necessary, given the absolute crucial nature of this issue. haveeople who think we done this automotive trajectory for years, we haven't. this has been for a little over 100 years. the auto culture has been great for america, economically. environmentally it has been a disaster. automobiles are a huge contributor to greenhouse gases. even worse.re as the president said, they are polluting our air for free. it is just ridiculous. we pay the marginal cost of that pollution through insurance,

particularly health insurance, also trying to clean up superfund sites. to say that industry should not pay its fair share of the environmental damage it is doing to our share -- to our air come -- ir water, to our future live in los angeles, i am 27 years old. i remember one summer it was really bad. it was 95 degrees. ,ow it is getting up there arizona is at 130 degrees. that is not applicable. -- that is not livable. mentioned cold -- there is a comment on twitter -- caller: i think america has

always seen itself as the moral compass of the free world. if we continue to keep tapping , it is ok toserves any -- it is ok to not take kind of accountability -- the demands of capitalism are infinite. you mentioned in the previous , clean energy is evolution. it is necessary. we need to get our energy supply cleaned up because we are becoming an electrified society. we are using our smart phones, tablets.

we need to rein in the coal power. we had about 40 comment on our facebook page. michael says -- we will take this discussion up for our first 45 minutes and we have a roundtable coming up. i will try to leave your questions to our guests drop the morning. --t to weave your questions to weave your questions to our

guests this morning. michael as next from long beach, california. i did not believe the president's plan solves the problem. it deals with carbon emissions. the problem is where photons are emitted from the sun and comes into our atmosphere and are absorbed by plant life, that was -- itffer for a long time kept the ice age in check. it changed potential energy to carbon change. problem with the kelp wars. are going in the oceans and covering up the kelp. the kelp cannot grow and it causes problems with heat over time, as well. i think the problem lies in

absorbing photons. the answer is to plant more solar emissions that have a wider spectrum of than photosynthesis. if we covered all of the earth with the this we could regulate temperatures to whatever degree wanted to. it would also give us the push in electrons to move things around. what aboutur point, renewable setbacks should they factor in? -- what about renewable energy? should they be factored in? i think so.

-energy otherwise would turn into infrared heat. katharine froms alabama. caller: i thought what he said was really good. i am astounded by the amount of people that do not believe global warming is happening. i live in alabama, which is always hot in the summertime. high eightiesthe or low 90's at the most. of juneow at the end and it is already 103 the other day. it was like that all summer. is that you're expected high today? caller: i do not know about today. i do know one day last week it was. we had a lot of days over 100 degrees. host: what you think about the approach the president is

taking? think it is good. i think capturing the carbons is good, especially the big overall sales. i think we all should watch what we are doing. i try to limit the amount of air conditioning and i try to limit the amount of lights and everything i have on. i think this is something the whole nation is going to have to come together on and not just the president. the: our topic is president's plan for climate change. : on the line that best represents you. as you do that we will hear from jerry. he lives in pennsylvania on the independent line. have a couple of things to say. guest today there was a report -- was telling everybody in the city to stay in doors

because of the terrible amount of pollution in the air. you may notice that the last olympics in china, they had to shut down factories everywhere so people could breed. that is the first thing. secondly, a number of years ago, probably six or seven years ago, senator mccain was talking about global warming. "there what he said -- are two possibilities, maybe carbon is warming the earth's or maybe it isn't. but one thing it will to, it will reduce pollution pico the burning of coal generates so much mercury that it is not good for anybody. waslly, this morning there a commercial in tennessee. what they were doing there is they had put in solar panels

that is generating 12% of the electricity that they need. people who think that the earth is not warming is -- are kidding themselves. wait until august comes. god help us. host: joseph riveras on twitter has this -- and joseph ramirez on twitter has this -- "the new york daily news" --

david is on our republican line from north carolina. it is breathtaking hypocrisy of liberals on executive power and the exercise of it. when george bush was doing it he was a fascist. they were trying hitler mustache is on him. , inthat obama is doing it what i believe is an unconstitutional way, they are all for it. it makes them hypocrites and it makes them hacks. theother thing is back in

, the-- back in the 1970's environmentalists were talking about the new ice age. everybody was worried about new being under 3 feet of snow in april. now they are talking in the about -- talking about it being 110 degrees. the climate is always changing. greenland was called greenland centuries ago because it was green. it is not anymore. man has nothing to do with that. it is breathtaking hypocrisy of liberals on this regarding executive power. host: we will weave in other stories as to continue on your

thoughts on climate change. about reenactments and the things that are going on there. that is the story in "the wall street journal pleased " -- in the wall street journal" -- i use that as is a quick to talk about a special program that is taking place on the american history this weekend. dedicated at looking at defense from gettysburg. that is going to take place starting at 9:30 tomorrow morning. experts andr from

joined during the evening hours by historian and writers. you will have the opportunity to give your phone calls and tweets as well. startingee it tomorrow at 9:30. look for more on our c-span page. c-span.org/history. the battle of gettysburg, the civil war, 150 years. we go back to our calls, daniel from south carolina. hello. caller: i was calling about climate change. i believe in the climate change. i was listening to some of the callers say it was pretty much a hoax. 97% of scientists believe is true. stopping polluting, they spent $65 billion last year to combat climate change

when we only spent and $30 billion. but theylutes a lot are not trying to do anything like americans have been doing. china is out buying us on solar panels. risinghen you see nations such as china and india, their demands increase for energy, that has to factor into a global approach, do you think? caller: definitely a global approach. we all live on earth. if earth turns away, that is everybody. that is not as people in china or india or america. that is everywhere. host: do you think the united states can influence other nations on this issue? caller: we are america, we influence other nations on all kinds of things. sometimes good, sometimes bad. host: people look at the treaty

as far as issues on a measures we have taken compared to the rest of the world. caller: yes, sir. in, denyingalling climate change, last week it got to 115 here. it is very unusual. you can deny it all you want but you can see it happening. winner said you can deny it all you want but the effects are in-your-face. it is not something you see going on when the trustee and new york -- when new jersey and new york get hit by super storm sandy. it was such an unusual place to get hit by the storm. the wildfires are getting a lot

further than they used to. you. thank luis from connecticut, independent line. caller: i do not believe in a climate change. was first called global warming. this caller that called, he does not remember gloria. he must be 18 years old. gloria came all the way up to connecticut in the 1980's. climate change is a form of taxation agenda. thingectric bills -- same with calls. our electric bills, is that going to $100 per month is going to go to $500 per month. scientists for years ago, there were over 20,000 scientists that came together with global

warming data. change is another agenda and a form of taxation to the american people. under this administration billions of dollars have been wasted to corporations and companies that have not done anything. they have gone from batteries, for cars, and places like that. truthd rather know the instead of creating evolution -- to me it is enough. page ofis is the front "the new york times" --

calls on climate change and the president's plan, los angeles, california. caller: i just wanted to go over the so-called scientific scare with a history. first it was eugenics' as far back as the 20th century. eugenics,believed in woodrow wilson believed in eugenics. death camps that not seize built were eugenic camps -- that nazis built were eugenic camps. destroying thes

environment. what happened? malaria, a disease that was virtually wiped out on planet earth in the early '60s came back roaring. late '70s a million africans die per year due to malaria. host: this is a result of climate change? caller: this is people who talk about the science. host: bring it to climate change. caller: it is the latest fairy tale. there was the china syndrome for nuclear power plant, now we have climate change. look what science says before hand. during the carter -- nistration

chernobyl was really bad. 170 people died but not millions like it said was going to happen. host: democrats' line, georgia. caller: i just wanted to say thank you for c-span. i just wanted to make a short comment about a lot of assumptions people are making about climate change. a guy called in earlier and referred to greenland and said it had been called agreement because it was green. this is totally untrue. a lot people try to do more research before they make up their minds with assumptions about climate change before they come to conclusions that are totally untrue. host: your thoughts on the president cost proposal -- on the president's proposal? do you believes climate change is the larger issue? caller: i believe in the climate

change and i think we should do something about the car and admissions. the president's cost the president's proposal, that is ok with you? caller: something needs to be done and the president should do all that he can do. host: how did you reach your conclusions, considering we are talking about how other people reached their stack? caller: a lot of the major scientists have changed their minds on climate change over the last several years. they used to not agree with it and actually agree with it now. make theirople who assumptions that there is no climate change, that is the republican my view. if you do a little research on the people who are actually

behind it you would know who they are actually supported by. host: thank you very much. there is a story in the business section of "washington post" --

john is up next from connecticut. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. at thesolutely amazed state of denial that so many people still seem to be in on this climate change. as we have heard by many of the collins here -- of the call-ins here. eyes in down in the 1967 to five samples of ice that ice in 1967into the to find samples of ice.

they had a sort of ceremony, which was a religious thing. the scientists noticed that the ice at the top of the wasmple cut significantly darker than the ice below. i travel a lot and i looked down from the plane window and i almost never see clear ground or clear see below. below. see clear ground as i used to when i started traveling. it is amazing that the pollution that has been caused by the automobile industry, the emissions from numerous sources,

particularly the coal industry, is simply denied by so many people. it is extraordinary. i suggest to the people who do not believe, get up on a plane, look down at the globe and count the number of minutes you see clear air below you. host: thank you very much. aaron is up next from michigan on the republican line. caller: thank you. i was kind as to a question and see what your take was on this. the president has product using more -- has brought up using more natural gas. we raise more methane in the atmosphere, which is twice as worse. any thoughts? host: i am not a scientist. caller: we are still releasing

more the beer cartons to the atmosphere, which would increase global warming and climate change. as far as the coming from the other gentleman that was just on not too long ago, i am assuming gas prices are raised to prevent americans from traveling lost distance. when we drive our ground we see differences in that atmosphere. we can take notice and see something in large groups. that is pretty much my point. host: a couple of stories mentioned, this is from "the wall street journal" --

that is from "the wall street journal." this is the business section of "the baltimore sun" this morning --

from "at the new york times" -- from open " the new york times -- from "the new york times" --

pam, thank you for holding on. democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple of people talked about the issues i was calling to talk about. when you talk about the methane for fracking, it is more than twice as powerful than carbon dioxide. it is more like 100 times more powerful. about naturalks -- iting the solution

is the amount of water that it injected in the ground. that water doesn't recycle like water does on our planet naturally. it is lost forever. it is trillions of gallons of water that goes into the of ground to force that gas back up. part so it should not be of a solution. caller: fracking is not part of the solution. natural gas may burn cleaner but getting it is 20 times dirtier than what we have already done. there is no solution other than to change over to renewals. ice goes down hundreds of years. it has shown that there has never been as much carbon dioxide in our air for millions

of years. what we're doing is unique to this planet, since life has been on it. of those carbon fuels got put into the ground in order to make this planet livable. what we are doing now is reversing evolution. we're putting it back into the air. host: the next call comes from billy in texas, independent line. caller: i think this is all part socialist -- part of agenda 21, a socialist agenda of the united nations. george walker bush signed as us on toritics find it. it is being pushed for common course in our public schools. it takes away your freedoms to

private property, to private transportation. they talk about cleaning up the air and saving the planet but it is about global governance to the united nations. this is what it all ties down to. is a modest global list or a socialist noblest. -- globalist. they are trying to put it under the radar for our local communities so that we can -- so that people would not even notice it. you find it through the city councils, homeowners association, your county governments -- they are all pushing the stuff through them. there is a lot of push back against it. they are and dr. reading -- they are indoctrinating the kids.

democrats' line, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say in 1980, when hisident reagan nominated secretary of interior, one of the center's -- one of the senators asked him if he intended to achieve the future generations. the secretary he responded he did not expected to be any future generation. be any futuree to generation. maybe he was right. we mayeep up his policy, not have future generations. next fory is up

maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. read my lips, no carbon taxes. these calls saying that google change -- harrp. it. stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed with what you see on tv. haarp. [indiscernible] it does not have anything to do with this carbon tax agenda that they are pushing. the only thing destroying the planet is nuclear waste and nuclear materials. number one is talking about --

that is what is destroying the planet as of people that eat gmo foods. three? number cracking theing is crust. host: more from president obama's speech on tuesday. abouts clip he talks americans -- he is asking americans to speak up about climate change and talks about the need to push back on this information. [video clip] >> this is not just a job for politicians. i am going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. tell them what is at stake. meetings,ups, pta push back on this information. speak up about the fax.

thosethe circle of willing to invest in this future. toh your own communities adopt smarter practices. remind folks there is no contradiction between a sound environment and economic growth. we ride everyone that represents you -- we remind everyone that represents you in government -- to make herself heard on this issue. [applause] i understand the politics will be tough. the challenge we must accept will not true board as with a clear moment of victory. there is no peace street sign. kennedy saidt is

we would go to the moon we build a space station and made the goal. our progress here will be different and crises everted. our planet preserved. can we imagine a more worthy goal? see the fullve to realization of our ambition. we will have the satisfaction of knowing the world that we leave to our children will be better off for what we do. here is kerrey off of twitter. he says -- you can add your comment on the twitter page. this is from the york post to this morning. you may have heard that a

chinese company wanted to buy smithsfield foods.

we are taking your calls now. we will have two guests join me in a bid to continue the conversation on this topic. here is baltimore maryland, democrats' line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on your show. i would like to make a couple of comments. what's your last two callers said is exactly right, this is the most evil corporation ever in the history of this world. they are trying to take over the production of food with their genetically modified foods. president obama just signed a

bill that give them complete immunity from prosecution. host: on the topic of climate change? .aller: on co2 co2 is not a greenhouse gas. you cannot have life without co2 gas in. global warming thing is a scam, like a financial crisis. they just want to trade them on at the stock exchange. it is not. host: the president's plan is what to you? caller: his plan is to destroy america. --s facist host: we are going to leave it there. independent line.

aller: i want to say they are bad corporation. that is not what i called about. they sayackin debate, it is a good way to get natural gas and help the environment. if you look at the way they do that and put all of the chemicals into the ground, people should see a movie called "gasland." five ororiginally on hbo six years ago. all of these chemicals get into the water supply and it gets into people's drinking water. infinitely worse for the environment than any kind of burning coal. warming is very real. natural gas is not a way to go. host: what is the right approach? amount of renewable energy amounts of the amount we can get with gas and coal. i think the best way we can do it is get a group of scientists

together. host: people have certain perspectives of science as far as this issue is concerned. science is -- if you do not believe in science -- science is science, indisputable. host: here is johnson -- here's jonathan from georgia. i have been looking at this issue of climate change and global warming for 25 years. there are volumes of information on both sides of the issue. people whot of believe that co2 is causing global warming. i have been watching c-span for an average of two hours a day for 20 years. never once seen an open

debate with many people on both sides of the argument actually debating. i do not know if you are going to have people on both sides of the issue debate this topic. i have not seen a debate on global warming. engaged in the past. if you want to look at it you can go to our video library. go ahead with your thought. caller: i have debated people over this issue. i would tell them to read the robert w.ate change," felix is the author. host: i think he has left us. one more call, democrat line from wyoming. caller: hello.

y shouldn't be making fun of the coal mines. we have a coal-powered power plant. they leave our coal mines alone, please. frackt know much about ing. eifferentt to get kinds ofdifferent chemicals. it is deep down inside the earth where it will not into your water. host: that is from mary from wyoming.

in our next segment we will have two people representing both sides of the issue talking about elements of the plan. zive and bob deans. just a engage that in few minutes. before that we want to talk to you about our "newsmakers" program on sunday. mccaul.t is michael in this segment he talks about the immigration bill that passed this week. he compares it to things that the house likes to do. [video clip] >> without a national strategy or a plan, i do not see how you could possibly get some arbitrary number of work full agents and dollars and technology to throw down together.

i think our plan is a more responsible way to do this. the $30 billion, i do not know where they come up with that. we do not want to waste taxpayer dollars. i thinkso i think our approach e with allonsible and democrats on my committee voting for it, that is a very powerful statement that we're going to hold the department of the feed to the fire to come up with a plan. what they're doing to the senate is putting the cart before the horse. they're putting the cart before the horse before they know what assets are really needed down there, and you cannot establish that factor until you know what the plan is. >> do you think border security could be had for less than the $30 billion that the senate is putting into it? >> it possibly could. we call for the national strategy. 90 days later, they have to come forward with their implementation plan. once they come to the plan, they come to the congress, we look at it, we have the national defense looking at the metrics,

we also have the gao certifying this plan. from there, we can determine which dod assets from afghanistan and iraq can we put down there, what in the great towers can we there, surveillance towers, and what about border patrol agent? how many more do we need? you cannot make those assessments until you know what the plan have been that is put forward. that is a more commonsense approach. with respect to any triggers, i would submit that we cannot trigger reform until it has been certified by the government accountability office that we do finally have operation control over the border. our plan calls for a two-year period after the plan is submitted to get that control -- operation control. "> "washington journal continues. host: as promised, we're going

to continue on our conversation about the president's action plan for crop -- for climate change that was released this week. you are think bobby is with the natural resources defense council, their communications director. also joining us, joshua zive withey electric reliability coordinating council. he is a lawyer and lobbyist for that organization. thank you for joining us. a couple of minutes to set up your organization and what you are about. mr. zive, what is the electric reliability coordinating council? guest: is a coalition of interests that are involved in public policy discussion, both communications and capitol hill discussions about crafting environmental and energy policies. host: you represent these energy companies rectally. guest: that is correct. host: what kind of companies? guest: utility companies, energy users, largely coal-fire production. host: bob deans withey natural , aources defense council

bit about your ordovician. >guest: we tell the truth about what is happening with the environment, we use our laws, and we advocate for the policy solutions that the country needs. host: both of you know about the president's plan. bob deans, what is the message behind the plan? guest: the messages we need to do something about the most serious environmental crisis of our time -- climate change. we need to reduce the carbon pollution, from our nation's power plants. that is 40% of our carbon footprint. that is what is driving this climate change, this climate chaos, this extreme weather it is costing our country money, 100 $40 billion last year in flood losses and crop losses and wildfires, these kinds of things. it is threatening our future. new york city has invested what he billion dollars right now to try to ensure itself against rising sea level, that is climate change. it is a serious problem for the

country. it is a question of what kind of future we're are going to leave for our children. , your message. guest: the solutions are more complex than many people have been led to believe. and what the american people would be best served by is by a complete and thorough escutcheon that includes all of the varieties to which they are involved in these policies. a regulatory mechanism is perhaps the least suited for the types of complex and holistic approaches that would be needed to address these problems that could minimize unintended compromises. host: the president said the congress will act, so he had to act through the environ apart action agency. guest: the actual tools under the clean air act are more narrow than what are open legislatively. when you're dealing with a global phenomenon like climate emissions, the epa is not rail -- well-suited to deal with the

devil medic issues that come into play, which is why congress did attempt to grapple with these range of issues. what everyone understood is that there were a range of issues implicated that required all branches of the government to be involved. host: bob deans, the range of issues, the role of the epa in this matter. guest: i think the president laid out a very broad-based approach. he said we need to cut down on waste. we have got to use more cream it -- clean industry sources. we have doubled our wind and solar in the past five years. that is important. but we do have to go after the problem, know where this pollution is going from. we do control pollution like ootcury, arsenic, lead, so i from these powerplants. but we we have never controlled carbon solution. host: is the epa the best agency to do it? agency thats the

congress and forced to pass the clean air act. they gave them the obligation to go after this. it is the right tool for the job. the president's actual proposal, what does it mean for the end result of those producers of energy, particularly coal and those you targeted? guest: it is far more complex than it has been laid out. one can look as far as the proposal that the -- released in december, which many believe may be the background template for what is referred to as the 111 d, the provision of the lean air act.- the clean it would more than simply restrict particular admissions from particular powerplants, which is a more pretense -- traditional role of the clean air act, but it does not have the epa as tablet and one of her 50 different states, complex regulatory programs that reach everywhere from emissions down to direct load efficiency

measures, which means when people can use appliances in their homes. this is a very, located program. there is no analog for the epa administering anything of this complexity in its history. anto say that this was intended result, you cannot point to anything in the history of the clean air act that would mask what the nrdc has imposed. guest: sure you can't hear it we got rid of acid rain with the clean air act. this helped us clean up our air, our soot, stop smog in los angeles. this is a commonsense approach we have delivered for the last 40 years. that was the night it was signed while ronald reagan. republicans and democrats alike, it passed 335-one in the house of representatives. there is a consensus about this. this is the way to go. host: the template for the president's plan. guest: the epa starts by going

to the states and says let's talk about your individual energy, let's talk what the opportunities that you have, let's talk about your challenges, that is where the process begins. then you get the utilities the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to hit the targets. that is the best way to do this. one of the best ways, a great way to cut carbon is to cut waste. utilities can help consumers to invest in more efficient appliances, more efficient lighting systems and our businesses. that is a great way to save money and cut our carbon footprint. ,uest: efficiency measures there is a lot of consensus on those are ideas that can be dealt with. the problem is we force them all together with a broad regulatory regime. a complicated for medicine. even groups that support carbon relation under the clean air act, like the duke policy analysis group that reviewed

this, said that at this time we simply do not have the a value to tools -- the evaluative tools to link the efficiency measures to a carbon restriction regime. saying it is simple to keep track of how people use appliances or whether they have weatherize to their home, and that utilities, people who generate electricity are in a place to measure how that individual home measured, is far more complicated in terms of working with the state, i think it is fair to say while there is always a promise of state for, states have not practice, found that it is a more frustrating process, and something -- and certainly nothing of this scope. stateast week, 21 attorney generals wrote a letter to the eba -- the epa talking about the lack of their circumstances, which deals with new power plants. to say that this will go smoothly and we will talk the states and they will give their plans, i think of a little bit

atingenuous when you look the actual proposal which makes it clear that the epa does not like what the states proposed. they want to propose the federal plan on top of that, which is how the process works. it is not a consultative process with the states. host: so you have got the condors of our conversation could we invite you to join us with your questions or comments. if you want to reach out to us on the phone, it is republicans , democrats,3881 (202) 585-3880, independents, (202) 585-3882. if you want to send us a tweet, it is journal@c-span.org -- @cspanwj. our e-mail is journal@c- span.org. this is john on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning to you gentlemen. the air is not bad up here in michigan. thank god there is the epa, right?

it seems to me we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing. we know pollution is bad. i don't know if you guys to remember years ago when a chattahoochee river caught on fire because there was so much contaminants in it. even to this day, the mercury in the fish, you are only supposed to eat, not too much of the fish out of the great lakes. i don't know that the fracking an answer, because once the aquifer -- i do not know if it gets intimidated or not. or not.contaminated they say they have these infallible things. it seems to come out after the fact that everything does not seem as it is, you know what i mean? host: your question or, specifically for our guests would be -- caller: both seem to be concerned about the environment. i'm just saying we've got to do something, even if they can come up through technology, because i'm not a set -- a scientist, witty smokestack to put that in the air, do something, clean it up like

they have been doing so does not go up in the air. guest: john, thank you for the call. one of the things the president has done is to work with the automakers to double the mileage we're going to get from our cars per gallon of ethylene by 2025. the big benefits. -- the big benefits. of that is the automakers. we have hybrids like the chevy cruise that will get 40 miles to the gallon on the highway. we have a ford focus now i can get the equivalent of a hundred -- 105 miles now on the highway. these are cars made in america. if i got a car that is getting a 20 mile to the gallon, and i trade off in a car that is going to give me 50 miles a gallon, it is going to save me 1400 hundred dollars a year at the pump. that is real money. aries are theits automakers.

it is good progress. he said we have got to do something in the role of doing something. there is no option that is doing nothing. things are happening right now. if you look at the statistics, images from u.s. powerplants have consistently dropped. that is a function unfortunately on 11 side of a decrease in economic growth, but also because power plants themselves are all more regulated and are operating more efficiently than ever. -- u.s. coal burning clout powerplants are the best in the world is getting the most energy out of the least fuel, which is the definition of efficiency. it is the path for cleaner generation. we are doing it better than anyone in no small part because of the economic consensus that is built into doing appeared in terms of regulation of pollution, no industry knows .egulation of their activities just last year, the epa finalized what is referred to

as the mercury and toxics rule, which epa itself identified as the most costly rule in the history of the agency in terms of what it meant for the sector. as a result, how the industry operates is substantially changing under that rule. availing proposal already in the process for new powerplants -- they have a proposal already in the process for new powerplants. so to say that nothing will change is simply not a fair description. what we're asking for is a fair and open a discussion of the choices that are inherently involved in these procedures, and also that we recognize the limitations for the regulatory approach, and even as a domestic only approach, which epa itself in their analysis referred to as a social cost of congress -- cost of carbon, recognize that even if u.s. carbon emissions were dropped to zero, that we cannot avoid what they described as the most significant carbon impacts.

to the extent we want to address this problem, it has to be a global approach. it is not a situation we are just -- were just doing anything makes things better. we can make things worse if we approach this in a way that is not delivered as an underlined our inner national demo attic -- our international double mattock -- diplomatic. host: talking about technology, particularly that of the coal plants. here is what he had to say. [video clip] on coal, not given up if it is used responsibly. this administration has infected -- has invested in clean coal project. it is called future gentoo. a project to capture the emissions coming out of smokestack from coal-fired to electric power plants and buried in deep beneath the earth, a mile be neath the earth. -- beneath the earth. it is an energy research experiment, which we are

engaged in right now in central illinois, which i believe holds promise for the use of coal in the future in a much more responsible way. how much can you store below the h in a central illinois? 50can store the emissions of electric power plants fueled by coal for 50 years. let's engage in that research. let's find response will ways to use coal. host: mr. zive, is that a response will way to use coal? guest: though the technologies that are underdeveloped. even people who make those recognize there are not commercially ready yet. second, to the extent we want to use those technologies, the environmental community has to assist in getting those deployed. in our experience, even plants that would use the highest and best generation technology are citingpposed in terms of and construction by environment al groups such as the nrdc.

when plants are retired, nothing government to replace them. to be fair, that is consistent with their plan, which which calls for 59% of existing coal fire burning generation to be retired by 2020. so while we certainly think there is a future for america's most abundant energy resource, which is cleanburning coal, we don't think it is fair or completely honest with the public to say that ccs, which is carbon captured sequestration, is fully ready for deployment or the willonmental community allow coal plants to be built and operated even with that technology. host: is there way for environmentalists like yourself to keep coal plants going? guest: absolutely. coal is not the target, pollution is the target. the new technology we are talking about, the president included $8 billion in assistance to try to promote that technology. his secretary of defense just said last week the technology

will be ready by the end of the decade. we are moving forward. the idea that american business cannot innovate, we reject that, we think we can do this. , sondra, gooda morning. you are on. caller: when did the national weather service raise the height of the instruments that take the temperature? ,f you raise the instruments it's going to be be warmer. do you know when they did that? guest: there has been consistent measurements globally of these temperatures for more than a century now. what we have found out last year was 2012 was the hottest year on record for the continental united states. 3.2 degrees above our national average. what the scientists are telling us is we're going to see another four degrees increase over the coming decades. last year we had the worst drought in 80 years. we lost 25% of our corn crop not crop -- crop nationally.

we had ranchers liquidating their herds because they cannot afford to feed their cattle anymore. we are paying the price in the grocery store it in terms of higher food prices. this is the problem -- we are seeing wildfires that burned 9.3 million acres of american force and field last year. that is part of the problem to peer it we're seeing superstorm's like sandy. who is picking up the cap? most of that is coming out of taxpayers pockets. $1100 per taxpayer last year. the price we paid for crop losses for wildfires, storm damage shared we cannot afford these to happen. we had to turn this around and take action. guest: i think it is important for people to recognize that there are questions in science, and i am far from a scientist myself. questions in science whether warming is happening, and those questions may very well be resolved in a manner that bob says they are.

however, questions of policy are not questions of science. those are about choices we make about costs and opportunities as we move forward. simply identifying the problem does not make the solution is self-evident. if we end driving industries overseas where they may operate regulatory regimes and emit more carbon, we can make the problem worse, even if you believe everything that bob just said. so there are risks simply acting out of the safke of acting. host: dan, republican line. caller: climate change has been going on for millions of years, and there's nothing we can do. the air is not going -- the air is going to clean itself like it has always uncured we are going to spend money foolishly and lose jobs for no reason because climate is going to clean itself. we're going through this political thing here for no reason.

it is just a political thing is all it is. going say, the earth is to clean itself eventually. it has been doing that for millions of years. it is going to get warmer, but it is a natural thing that is going on here. there is nothing we can do about it. mother nature. host: bob? guest: i wish you were right. the fact is, we have radically changed mother nature. we are dumping in this country right now 5 billion tons of carbon pollution every single year. our power plants are responsible for 2 billion tons of that a year. this had an enormous impact on our climate and the bulls lives. we need to do something about it. guest: even if the president gets everything he wants, it is still a few years before everything rolls in, and how long before it impacts things you want to cfr the numbers going down?

before we see the numbers going down? guest: we do not want to do this overnight, but we need to begin the process now. situation.ecade-long it is going to take time to turnaround, but it is important that we get started right now, the first most important thing we can do is reduce its pollution from our power plants. the industry will have a huge amount of input. ,ublic comment, public hearings consultation, they will have an enormous amount to deal with the shaping of this. host: and for you industry folks -- guest: we will participate in the rulemaking, but we will point out, to say that we will have input is one thing. to say that that input would be fully unfettered or we will achieve a rule that is part -- that is practical, our express with epa has not been entirely positive.

we would point out that while globally there are ways to impact this, groups like the world resources institute, which supports climate change, has pointed out that only legislation can have the impact necessary on carbon emissions to affect temperatures. the -- epa said that if our admissions drops to zero in the united states, that we would not be able to avoid significant climate impacts. we need to move forward, as the president said, on things like adapting and accounting for the risks associated with climate change, and also an international agendas. but focusing on costly regulations in the short term could trade off with those other paths, which may deliver more results to people. it was the harvard school of public poverty -- public policy -- public policy this it every time you were shouldn't -- pursue relations, you may be forsaking benefits up to 100 times the value you could

achieve through and tramadol relations. it may seem like an obvious tool, but it is entirely possible that that approach will our way the benefits within that realm. me to safe -- that is not how were spared the white house reviews every single rule, standard, safe car that comes out of the epa for cost effectiveness. that is the benefit where the benefit exceeds the cost. white houseo, the office put a stop to a new rule that would reduce our ozone layers. .zone is a serious health risk asthma, bronchitis, heart disease. the white house put a stop to a rollout would reduce our ozone after this industry weighed in and said it would be too costly. the omb took a look at it and agreed your we think it is a mistake. we oppose that. but that is the power of this industry and a cost-benefit analysis has on the process. host: so there are concessions made? guest: there is a process peer

however, and our expense, they often make mistakes and that. that is the rare instance that you can point to where they made a mistake that did not result in coal-fired generation being the tyrants. host: we are having a discussion on looking at the president's climate action plan. two guests joining us for this conversation. joshua zive electric reliability coordinating council withey electric reliability coordinating council as a lawyer and lobbyist, the national resources defense council, he served as the federal vacations director. michael is up next. good morning. i agree with president obama proposed a plan for climate change, what you need to realize is climate change has always been in existence on this planet. and every other planet there is. they are known as the seasons. you may know them as winter,,

spring, and fall. whether it is 10, 15 degrees hotter or colder, it is normal, it is natural, it will run its course. so do as you may, it is still going to run its course. thank you. guest: you are right about what is called natural variability and the seasons you're here, you all some seasons warmer and cooler than others. we understand that. what we are talking about goes beyond appeared science -- scientists -- goes beyond that. scientists understand appeared we have had 12 of the 15 hottest years on record globally. , seven ofted states the hottest 10 years on record have all, since 1998. this is a trend, a serious problem, and it is costing us. host: mick, independent line. caller: let me first say that i do believe in global warning.

-- global warming. it is not man-made. we had to former ice ages before we had one factory on this planet, one car, one bus, etc. those melted. what melted those? s,is one person, mr. dean's keeps bringing up weather records. they only go back to hundred years. can you show me how big the tornadoes or hurricanes were 1000 years ago? i believe it is a natural phenomenon, and man is not going to be a will to do anything about it. yethank you. 97% of scientists say climate is changing and we are part of it. it isof the reason we'r accelerating at the huge amount of carbon pollution we've put in the atmosphere, and primarily over the last 50 years when we have been burning huge amounts of oil, gas, and coal. there is no question about it. guest: there may be no question about that, but there is

certainly a larger scientific consensus about that. there is a significant question about the backside of this in terms of policy discussion, which is how do you deliver reductions in emissions, how to those omissions translate to reductions in temperatures, how do any of those reductions, incremental reductions in temperatures that result in decreased frequency or severity of any particular event? wen the president recognized are incapable of determining a specific weather events to carbon omissions or to climate change. when you get to that part of the process, it is very complicated. it is very unsure. 97% ofough saying scientists -- from the beginning, when you get to trying to determine specific impact sources of its, it is much more uncertain. but one thing we do know is that increasingly our admissions are a smaller part of the global picture. so that is further, located the policy analysis. host: the "financial times"

included this -- the chair of u.s. electricity generating 2012, itsed 37% in lowest since the 1970's, having typically been about 50% since the 1980's as power generators switched to gas. so is there a natural progression going down than? guest: with the abundance of natural resource is going down as a result of new technologies and the increasingly strict regulatory regime, more coal land switch to burning gas over the last few years. recent indications are that most of the kind of easy targets for switching to gas have been so filled. it is going to be a slower transition to move forward. in terms of plan second switch over. this does point out one of the kind of tension points in terms of how you make this policy. you cannot -- it is very difficult in the short term to simultaneously be opposed to production of natural gas and

opposed to burning coal to generate electricity. natural gas, if there is a transition point, is probably your transition point in the short term. to oppose both natural gas production and distribution and placeslere generation, the were electricity reliability of the unite states and severe jeopardy because between those two sources coming of the majority of electricity electricity generated in the united states. host: the idea of natural gas replacing coal, or at least a transition point. guest: what we have is the north american electric reliability corporation, which every year assesses how much capacity do we have and what is our demand. our demand right now going into the summer as a few weeks ago, you are looking at 700 gigawatts, and the passing of almost 1000. gap in there, so there are liability that the issue. what is happened is the

industry itself has been transitioning for market reasons to different generating operating opportunities apart from coal. in the last two years, we have put in more than 200 national -- natural gas generators. we've put in more than 300 wind turbines am a two new or expanded hole facilities. there are simply better ways to produce electricity going forward. we had a long history with coal. it has been an important part of our history for two centuries in this country. going forward, there are better ways to do it. ,ost: baton rouge, louisiana john. hello, republican line. caller: good morning. it all boils down to the same thing -- follow the money. they are always trying to get , and there isx one reason. the money. it seems to me like they had a

bank in illinois a few years ago, and they shut it down. .elieve me it is the money it is not the climate change, it is not anything but the money. if they get this carbon tax all the coal companies are going to go under, and that is what obama was campaigning on. he said in one of his campaign ,peeches that if i am elected i'm going to bankrupt every coal company in the united states. and he has just about got it done. got to report -- i've got to respond to that -- host: first of all, that is

something he wants to see, but does not have, great? guest: first of all, it is great to hear from louisiana fared no state in this country has contributed more to the energy mix, and no state has paid a higher price for it. so does great to hear from summary from louisiana. coal export has doubled under this president. to say that this president has something about coal is just nonsense. coal exports from this country last year were 127 million tons. the highest in history. natural gas, 30 trillion cubic feet more than at any time in our country both the history, more than any country in the history of the world. so the idea that -- with the target here is the pollution, the target is the carbon pollution that is choking our atmosphere, driving time and change, driving extreme weather, and of course you cannot blame some specific storm on climate change, but think of it like

this -- if the new orleans saints go to green bay to play a football game and you get a slippery field, and the saints dropver drop people -- the ball in the end zone, that because the field was wet? is it possible he could have bought that -- drop the ball at the field was dry? we will never know. climate change is the field our weather is playing it out on. warmer temperatures are driving more energy, putting more laces and storms -- laces and storms. -- places in storms. guest: i agree there is a degree of honesty the american people deserve on this issue. there have been significant amounts of exports of coal, and there is a significant market for x worth of u.s. natural gas. however, environmental groups such as the nrdc and other groups have been doing everything they can to limit those opportunities, particularly in the upper northwest at the ports were those exports would go through.

is going todc support a vibrant and growing export market, that would be news to coal producers in the united states and it would place them out of line with many of their colleagues in the activist community. in terms of campaign issues and following the money, i am not sure i agree with the caller, but one thing interesting to note is that the president did not campaign this last summer as an enemy of coal. in fact, you did quite the opposite. in the upper midwest, he ran ads actually attacking mitt romney, claiming that meant romney was an enemy of coal, and that he was a supporter of clean coal generation. there was no discussions in the campaign than any major speeches, any of the debates and does -- endorsing a regulatory approach that would shut down 59% of coal generation. part of what may be president of the speech this week significant was that there is no analog for that speech in any of his campaign rhetoric.

, perhaps it ist a pivot to some position to do prior to being elected president, but it is certainly not consistent with his election rhetoric on these issues. guest: look, we had a very clear choice in the president. we had one president who's a climate change is a threat. we another who said it is a joke. overwhelmingly the american people went with the man who said it is a problem, we have got to do something about it. that is what we said in virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, florida, colorado, and every swing state across this country. 65% of the american people according to a pupil last month said climate change is a serious serious problem. we've got to do something about it eric -- about it. guest: you can have a discussion about the problem. having a discussion about the solution is entirely different. we did not have a presidential candidate who supported during the campaign because of proposals that are under discussion, pahe

clean air act proposals being proposed by the nrdc. simply anly not omission by these candidates when they were visiting states like west virginia, and ohio, where they are facing realities that's when coal plants close, communities lose important tax basis. had testimony last year where local hospitals were having to cut their ambulance service by half. schools are having to cut back services because when these plants close, there are real quant the quizzes on real people. on realconsequences people. there are costs and benefits. when we engage in discussions of significant public policy like war come and we talk about how we have to understand the sacrifices that go into making effective policies, there are sacrifices involved in this. sacrifices for communities and families in different places in

this country. discussion toight say we should refuse those voices of we move forward. host: let's hear from cooper inver vermont on the democrats line. .aller: good morning thank you for having me. i've a question for mr. zive. you began this discussion by suggesting that the climate change problem is really complex, too complex for the environmentalthe protection agency might not be well-suited to regulate carbon emissions. thanks toave known, some good studies from stanford university, that carbon dioxide is not distributed evenly throughout the atmosphere, but it it chelates, especially over urban areas, creating these carbon domes. if they can be sewn -- shown that emissions, such as from power plants, that they can be

shown that they cause localized impacts by mixing with volatile organic chemicals in the air, the epa has a pretty good record of regular dubious kinds of criteria pollutants in the past. the epa does have a history of regulating in a manner, but what is important is kind fromuish that the type of proposals like the nrdc's 111d plan. simply kind than of regulating particular emissions, even of co2 in missions. there we are talking about establishing a tradable permit at a statewide level, coordinating 50 different state programs on that. moving forward to regulate actual smokestack emissions, the epa is already moving

forward on that for new plants, and there are a range of existing regulations, like the role i already reference, and 16 other roles that will come into effect by 2015 related to power plants, that's all will have effects on that. none of those speaks to the ability to solve any of these climate issues, which is a different phenomenon and is truly global. guest: the epa has a 40 year track record of implementing commonsense safeguards that help our environment and health. by the way, the economy has continued to grow for those -- for all of that time. everything will time a standard is proposed that will help make our children safer healthier, some industry stands up and going to fall.s they have been wrong every time, and they are wrong now. the reality is, we are creating jobs in the clean energy sector. get uplion americans every morning, roll up their sleeves, and go to work helping to cut up wind turbines, solar

facilities, and weatherize homes, drive this country forward into a clean energy economy. ..4 million americans her we have 84,000 coal miners. it is about the same number as when the president took office, give or take. those jobs are important. every single one of those jobs is important. we have 200,000 people putting up wind and solar. those are important to. host: the topic of mitch mcconnell on the senate floor, particularly leading up to the speech that took place on tuesday. he talked about not only the climate land, but the end result for jobs. here is what he had to say. [video clip] a planans will call it to ship jobs overseas. -- he may as well call it a plan to ship jobs over seas. and to what end. many experts agree that a climate policy that does not include massive -- like china

and india is essentially meaningless. but the damage to our economy would be anything but meaningless. and ironically, those are the very types of countries that stands to benefit economically from our loss. summations missions like these will probably just take our jobs, keep pumping more carbon into the air, and what will we have to show for it? what will we have to show for it? host: do is point, what will we have to show for its? hast: this industry provided him with $2.7 million to support his political career. $2.7 million. josh here is a good guy, but believe me, he strikes fear in the hearts of a senate minority leader because this industry are present $2.7 million for mitch mcconnell. so he has that right to standup and defend the shareholders of that industry. the rest has to stand up and say what is good for our country, what is good for our children and our our future.

that is what this is about. common sense. improve our energy efficiency so we reduce our waste. go to renewable fuels like wind, solar, other sources. let's reduce its carbon pollution coming out of our power plants 32 billion tons a year. let's reduce that. host: what about the potential loss of jobs? guest: no, we are creating jobs. we are creating jobs, producing the most efficient automobiles in the world. by improving the efficiency in our building, by investing in wind and solar. 200,000 americans get up everything with a to put up wind and solar facilities. wind turbines have accounted for 36% of the increase in our electric generating capacity in the past two years, three times as much as the coal industry. that is the future. those are decisions the industry itself is making based on market common sense. thet: first, i appreciate compliment to my ability to strike fear, although it is the first time i've heard that i

have struck fear into anyone outside of the property of an all-you-can-eat buffet. [laughter] but i think it cheapens the policy discussion a little bit to sibley claim that people like senator mcconnell are taking their positions as a result of contributions from a particular industry critic of the snow supplies -- it comes as no surprise that there are a lot of jobs that he represents that depend upon us and have a stake in this discussion. these communities, while there are jobs created as a result, environmental consultants in some of these producers of these two technologies, those are not necessarily the jobs that will be filled by the people that are losing jobs in this scenario. it is more than coal miners. when a coal plant closes, even though they did not mind the coal, that plant employs people in jobs that have benefits, it pays taxes that support those communities, it has a footprint and provides a reliability to the communities, and it is

tough to replace. we do not have evidence right now that wind turbines, solar development will be sufficient or distributed in a manner that serves all of these communities. it is not mean that you cannot have a discussion on everything, how everything that's out. we want to have that discussion. but to simply say that there are and to raise the issue that he was part of the president of the speech. it does a disservice to the policy discussion. there are choices you have to make a semi that significant policy discussions. some people pay those prices. their voices need to be part of this discussion. guest: there is no question those voices need to be part. this industry has spent more than $400 million, fossil fuel industry, lobbying in washington over just the past three years to try to make sure that we are not doing anything

to reduce our carbon footprints, to protect the health of our children. $400 billion. voices being heard, but leave me. the rest of us need to stand up and say what is good for the rest of the country, and, and that is where we need to do. there is no rest of the country and us. we are part of this discussion together. every time i spend time with my son or my family, i value the health of the environment, i generations ase much as anyone in this policy discussion. and that is true at the members of the erc see, the members of this industry. they can be a good faith agreement on these policy that has to work through these complex it is. that is what we're doing. . this is a vibrant discussion that has been joined by participants on all parts. i know that i received from -- theoretically from the president -- from an e-mail account the board as name, minutes his speech, a fundraising effort from its

advocacy group that was formed after his campaign, ofa, asking for contributions to engage in lobbying and advertising relating to this very efforts. there is no shortage of money involved in this discussion on either side. but that is not going to give the answers for the american public. the answer is going to be working through the tough issues, not attacking the messengers of those policies. host: as far as you are willing to have a conversation then, is very weighty president could modify what modify what he is proposing to at least satisfy those he represents? there is all sorts of range of discussions, and our industry has been involved in a variety of ways. you can look at the, suitemate. there are ways to engage conversations. we were full participants in industries across the board, different facilities in the discussion, the last effort to bridge let -- to legislate this. with legislation, you can take

into account energy intensive industries that would be uniquely impacted by these regulations. didrnational climate that not undermine competitiveness with our industry so we did not have industries fleeing overseas. those are tools, i think, when we have that full discussion, and it was not complete by the time the majority leader reid pullback legislation from consideration. we were not done with that, but they give you more indications of the types that could be pursued. host: one more thought before go to a call. guest: it was president george h w bush who recognized climate change as a threat to this country. he said we do not have to choose an america between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. it was president bush who said polluters must help us solve this problem. the congress has had time since then to work this out. the reason it did not happen was because the fossil fuel industry use its clout to put a size 12

wingtip on the floats of these guys and say you are not going to do it, and they prevented it from happening for the country. the president is nothing i have the authority to act, and i'm going to do it for the good of our children. first.et's take a call tim in california. you are on. caller: thank you. i see mr. zive's point that this is complex. the regulatory approach is -- i see thensive point. on the other hand, mr. dean's, i agree with mr. dean's that we need to have a sense of urgency, and president obama is doing what he can. and the only thing he can to advance this. i do not think that president obama's plan goes far enough. i would like to ask the two guests to address this question. act on carbon-

emitting fuels at the source he the most efficient way by far to achieve the result of shifting our economies and our industry to a low carbon emission, solution?e guest: in terms of efficiency of administration, i think you can say that is the most efficient administrative tool. it is far less complex than what has been proposed. it raises a range of concerns from the industry side it and the activist community. also, in order to operate efficiently, a carbon tax could not simply be part of kind of a collage of other regulations, some existing, some proposing. you would have to almost stand alone terms of how it operated, pure operated effect and operate efficiently. it is a very public hated problem. it certainly raises a bevy of

political issues that are unique. it is certainly something that has been under consideration. there is a substantial amount of analysis that raises concerns. guest: we supported the copperheads of climate energy legislation the house passed in 2009. unfortunately, the senate bill to pass that. the president supported it, we supported it, it would have taken a conference of approach. i have not heard anybody talking seriously about moving forward on a carbon tax peer it what we focused on is what we can get done politically. of course, no regulatory structure is going to be perfect. we're talking about commonsense safeguards that build on a successful experience experience of 40 years of the clean air centralying it to the environmental crisis of our time so that we can -- our children will not be inheriting climate chaos. host: in less than 10 minutes, we will take you live to west virginia, a forum taking a look at the supreme court.

chief justice john roberts will sit down and take questions and give his analysis of what happened with the term. i will take place at 9:00. our discussion of climate change will continue to do so. i want to get a quick thought on the keystone pipeline. mr. deans? guest: terrible idea. it will take the dirtiest oil in america, pipe it through america's would be refined on the gulf coast and sent overseas. as i plan to help this country. as a profit scheme for big oil. it is a bad idea. host: does that suggest to you -- how the semester nation will act on it. guest: the president will not screen nine a project that is going to -- will not greenlight a project that will threaten our future. to examine this, they're going to listen to the public comments, they're evaluating more than one million of them right now the state department. they will assess if this is in our natural -- national interest. guest: the sooner the president

elucidated, fortunately for transcanada, the company who supported the president's statements, that standard has already been met. there is not a likely carbon impact of this because this fuel -- the oil is going to be developed. it is going to be transported. it might be transported by less iffy pipeline isesli not administrative, which means trucked trucked or shipped, which is a larger carbon footprint than the pipeline. even if you read the document that are in the public record right now, the environmental impacts they meant in the state department reference port -- department report, it meets the test that the department laid out. that 20 cap lane supporters were encouraged with the president's explains why the pipeline supporters were encouraged by the president's speech. guest: it is going to increase

the carbon pollution on the planet by the same factors if we added 4 million cars to the road. that is significant. that is an exacerbation of the problem and what josh is pointing out is that the state department didn't argue that the tar sands will be mined with or without the pipeline. that is not true. what is really happening is goldman sachs, the industry itself has been coming out saying without that pipeline, we cannot expand those tar sands. that is important. host: us go to parkville, maryland. henry, hello. caller: i want to say a couple things. first off, everyone is talking about how this is totally man- made global warming and stuff like that. we have had nine other periods that have been higher than the temperature we are at right now. right now, we're about even with another period. ming periodan warrin and several before that were all

much higher than we are at currently. we have an increasing need to mature, but we have been increasing since the ice age the ended in the 1800s's -- the 1800's. i think this is a really bad idea because again the coal is going to be burned. it is going to be shipped over to china where they have less regulations. they're going to burn it. that is going to be 10 times worse. green energy policy is not the best in the world. you're talking about green as -- green energy and stuff like that could we had lithium batteries, windmills, solar panels, all which run on earth minerals. china is almost the sole supplier of rare minerals. host: if i could expand a little bit, if we take these steps, the president referred to the fact that the global immunity is going to have to wait in as well on these issues. their willingness to do so, and our willingness to lead to help them to do so. guest: henry is right -- this is

a global problem. the president was clear about that. what we're going to do is what is right for our country, our future, number one. number two, when we lead, we know that our friends and partners around the world join us. they work with us. china is doing exactly that. a couple of weeks ago, the chinese and the president reached an agreement on another super climate changing gascon hydro flora carbon. the chinese are doing everything they can to reduce their carbon footprint by setting in place a limit by 2025. they're are working with all kinds of carbon caps, experiment thing in different provinces. they are leading the world in investment in wind and solar. china is doing something no country in history of the world has on. moving hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to a global middle class in the span of one generation. what china needs is to work closely with the united states so that our technology, our ideas, we can work together to stoolve this problem.

guest: there is zero evidence that taking unilateral regulatory action means other countries will fall in place behind us. there is evidence, however, that when we limit our leverage in its negotiations by locking ourselves in ahead of time, that we create an incentive for a friday of countries that would ,ove our production facilities have less incentive to engage in a good-faith manner in those discussions because we have already committed ourselves to a particular path forward. it is why diplomacy and policymaking need to happen hand-in-hand, not putting regulatory policymaking first because i can leave ourselves in a far worse position , meaning morey carbon emissions. there are risks here. and doing it globally requires an integrated global approach, not committing ourselves in sibley hoping that other countries will follow, or pointing to china as a model that we should follow. there is an approach your that

requires nuance. guest: let's give our diplomats at the state department more credit. they have been working on this for a long time. they were in copenhagen with other countries, we are going to reduce our emissions by 17% by 2020. every other country in the world, except five, jumped on that bandwagon. thathinese agreed to because the president went to copenhagen, sat down with the president of china in a closed room, and they agreed. there's no question question that when we lead, our runners work with us. that is the way to do it. but we're certainly not doing this in isolation. we are not going to -- we're going to do what is best for our country. host: we're coming up on a break. quick response. guest: i agree we need to do what is best for our countries, and that includes an approach, like i said, that takes into full consideration sacrifices that people around our country will be asked to make as part of this policy.

those sacrifices should not be made simply because we agree that there is a problem. those sacrifices should only be made if the policy that is being presented will solve that problem. right now, there is no evidence that it will solve it. it might actually make it worse. from silvers a land spring, maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you so much. we definitely have global warming and climate change. i think a lot of this may actually be a consequence of the geo engineering that is going on, maybe that. there is a website, ngeoengineering.com. this should go to our congress. we are the people, this is our country, we are not a dictatorship. that needs to stop. the other thing is to look at the renewables. a lot of these were nobles are not going to last. they are not manufactured to

last more than 15 years or so. to 20 year lifespan. we had new zoning relations for properties in my county. solar panels may only be used for 20% host: we will have to leave it there. guest: 20% is a pretty big part of the mix. we will have a diversified energy makes no matter what we do. coal will be an important part of our energy future for a long time. we have to increase the amount that areind and solar part -- the amount of wind and solar that are part of the mix. guest: we take this issue seriously. we hope everybody has a chance to participate in it.