days of december, 1777 at valley forge, his ability to improvise, to be on was like a guerrilla ,ighter, to live off the land to be able to do what we need to do to get the job done. >> at the beginning not all folks were included in what un-american is. not,inly minorities were certain religious groups or not, and women were not really considered citizens, at least. that changes over time. over time more and more people are brought into the american family. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. coming up in an hour, e&e news reporter scott waldman discusses the findings and reaction to the climate assessment and congressional reaction to the climate assessment by the trump administration. and 9:00 a.m., we hear from suzanne bonamici.

thomas massie, a member of the climate solutions caucus and we talked to the climate solutions caucus cofounder and cochair of florida. ♪ host: this is the "washington 29.nal" for november the program focuses on the trump administration's treatment of climate change. especially with the release of a climate assessment report last week. guestin the program, a will be along to do a deep dive into the report. members of congress will stop by to offer comments on it and the larger issue of climate change. this first hour of the program, your opinion of the trump administration's response

and treatment of the topic of climate change and if you approve of the administration's handling and the way they have gone about it, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. if you disapprove of that, it is 202-748-8001. if you want to post on our social media sites and participate in polls, twitter, @cspanwj is how you reach us. on our facebook page, it is facebook.com/cspan. it was last week this report was released by the trump administration although it started in the previous administration, the fourth national climate assessment breed a lot of findings. one of the key findings that was highlighted and reported on from it goes about saying this, a couple of comments saying the continued warming projected to occur without substantial and sedate reduction in global damage to the

economy throughout the century, increased and adaption efforts. annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach 100 billion -- hundreds of billions of dollars by the e&e end ofcentury, -- by the the century. president and other members of the administration upon its release went to comment about it. of president trump before heading off made comments about the report, particularly the science behind it. [video clip] >> i have seen it. i have read some of it and it is fine. i don't believe it. no, i don't believe it. here is the other thing. you are going to have to have china and japan and all of asia and all these other countries -- it addresses our country. we are the cleanest we have ever been right now and it is

important to me. if we are clean, but every other place on earth is dirty, that is not so good. i want clean air and clean water, very important. host: those were the initial findings from president trump on this report and the larger issue of climate change making comments. if you want to talk about the trump administration's approach to climate change issues and position take on the of it, two numbers. if you approve of how the administration traits this topic, 202-748-8000. -- treats this topic, 202-748-8000. if you disapprove, 202-748-8001. you can participate via twitter at @cspanwj. you can also participate on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. is toesident's response give up and do nothing.

the wrong answer. one of the other findings that came out from the report reads as such about sea level changes saying it is high temperature extremes and heavy participation events and high tide flooding coastline.g the and ice cover snowpack and soil moisture expected to decline in the coming decades. these and other changes are resources, impact air quality, health, energy and transportation, the severity of these projected impacts and the risk of a prevent to society is greater under futures with higher greenhouse gas emissions, especially of limited or no adaption occurs. that is some of the findings from the fourth national climate assessment.

.t is available at our website later in the program we will have a reporter on to talk about the findings and put them in context. we start in illinois. tony starts us off, someone who disapproves of the stance on the issue. you are first, go ahead. caller: good morning. the problem seems to me many people dokai this whole issue through a political --tl view -- many people view this through a political issue. they have to support everything, from says and not just donald trump, republicans in general have been denying this issue for a while. their argument seems to be it is a financial burden on business and other people would say they don't like government regulations. the truth about climate change is it affects republicans and democrats.

hurricanes, wild fires, etc., that affects everybody. the truth is either businesses are going to pay by climate change or the taxpayer will pay for the cleanup. people die, homes are lost. i would suggest they stop listening to politicians and start listening to the science. host: speaking of businesses, gary off of facebook asked if the private sector will fix the problem, not some democrat who thinks democrats will solve the problem. dan in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. i worked for 30 years in one of my functions was to analyze a barely -- fairly sophisticated models-- mathematical for that supposedly replicate reality and i have looked at

some of these climate models and what is behind them and one of the things that is difficult is for anybody -- even myself, without really digging into all the numbers to figure out whether these are valid or not read i am very skeptical because the sophistication of making a climate -- especially something, you can tell in two days the weather forecasts are not that accurate for two days. in 20 years, it gets to be ridiculous. i just think most of this stuff has to do with ones political position. if you want to redistribute money as the united nations does to the rest of the world from such as america, and we have reduced more than any of the other countries who signed onto the paris treaty. we have reduced our admissions more than any of those countries .

never of them made what they said and promised in the paris treaty. this is a political thing and it basically has to do with -- as most political things, redistribution of money and how you use it and what kind of things you can sell to a public that doesn't have time to become an expert in looking at these models. by the way, the models do not predict the future. if you look in the past and go not -- have they do not done what they are supposed to have done in terms of predictions. host: from illinois, this is ken. caller: good morning. the previous caller saying predictability is the function of climate science or the nation nation -- analyst zation --

particulates are in the air stretching back hundreds of years, thousands of years. predicting matter of what kind of magnitude of storminess there is going to be. that is not what the climate china -- climate science is about. it's about how much what is now andy transpiring a prediction not of whether it is going to rain , but what -- how much

heat there is going to be in the oceans and it is the oceans that drive the weather. host: with all that said, the administration's treatment of this topic. what do you think? caller: i think the republicans have built their political corporate devotion to wants and desires and as long as the chemical companies and the oil companies are involved in perpetuating a republican agenda , you are not going to have real change. get big money on both sides out scienced let logic and desirestical needs and drive the system the way it is supposed to. host: ok, that is ken who

disapproves of the approach. john in hawaii approves of it. hello. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: why is it that the united states is always the one that is responsible for cleaning up the climate? china, japan, the rest of the world. i have been all over the world. the united states is the cleanest country in the world next to switzerland. why is it the united states is always the one to blame about the environment? why don't the rest of the country's start cleaning up the environment also? i am so thick and tired about we are the ones responsible for

global warming. host: do you think that is the case or no? caller: i don't think it is the case. general motors, the car industry, the trucking industry put restrictions on automobiles. what volkswagen did. they put a special chip in their car to bring it over here to it to where you think it is not going to pollute. you have cars all over the world polluting and everything else. the united states is not to blame. host: that is john. you have had it -- heard a mix of opinion this morning when i comes to climate change overall and the administration's

treatment of it. you can add your thoughts to the mix. 202-748-8000 if you approve of the administration's approach to climate change. if you disapprove, 202-748-8001. one of those disapproving was the senate minority leader, chuck schumer, took to the floor shortly after the -- the release of the report and comment on it. [video clip] >> last week, the trump administration released an important warning on climate change warning of devastating storms, hundreds of billions of dollars of damage, a massive drain on the economy. the fact this administration released the report on black friday is wrong. it is an obvious attempt to bury the findings. guess what, mr. president and the administration? those findings, even though you released them on the friday after thanksgiving are not buried. they are on the front page of .very newspaper

while his own administration issued a very strong report on , his ownhange administration, he says, i don't believe it. and i will it before say it again. president trump and the republican party are like when it comes to climate change, burying their heads in the sand as the world changes and as more and more americans and american workers are put in danger. the trump administration reported on how devastating the cost of their policies will be for future generations of americans and this report is going to live day after day, month after month, year after year. this is not a one day story, this is conclusive evidence by the president's own administration on how bad i'm a change will be for income,

families, workers, farmers, cities. anymore.n away from it it is about time they faced reality and work with us, to do something before it is too late. host: the washington times in a story this morning by valerie richardson says one of the people responsible for putting it together in the previous administration was andrew light. he worked on the 2015 paris accord under the secretary of state john kerry and served as a review editor for the assessment overseeing the pivotal final thater that concluded global warming could wipe out as much as 10% of the economy by 2100. --is a senior fellow at the the story continues on saying mr. light directed questions about his role to the u.s.

programlimate change required by congress to repair a new assessment no less than every four years. .e earned his phd in philosophy i believe i was selected as a review editor because over 15 years i have been working on domestic international and energy policy. you can find that at the washington times. if you want to read sections of that report the administration put out last week, go to our website at c-span.org. we have offered a link where you can read this national assessment and make your own conclusions and the administration's approach to climate change. approve -- disapprove line, maryland, hello. caller: i believe -- i disagree with -- what i disapprove of is

the politicization. let me please make several salient points. for 10 years, i operated three facilities.hysical at three different angles on the axis of the earth. during 10 years, we did not find a single, not one man-made .nfluence on climate the greatest effect we are getting right now is from solar flares. the problem is all of this hoax is covering upge the real problems that we could down, things like cutting rain forest without ray for

station. estation. politics is crowding what can be done. host: let's go to terry in texas. caller: like the previous caller, i am cutting -- coming science point of view. the science was coming in that the 30 year sunspot studies came in that showed there is a direct tie between the sunspot and the earth's core samples. heating and cooling is related to the sun, not anything human beings do. studyas taken the sunspot down, but it shows and the government needs to put it back up.

george w bush took that down and i don't know why. host: when you hear this president talking about the report and questioning the findings, what do you think? caller: the president is not articulate on things like this. basically, what we need to do is reforrest the planet. i agree with the previous caller, we need to do some serious things and take the politics out of it. host: that is terry in texas. a couple of comments off facebook. if you go to our facebook page, you can participate in the poll. off of facebook says when it comes to climate change, climate change is for suckers. we have a president who does not believe in science and patricia says you cannot have america first without an earth first.

in new york, hello. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. iller: yes, climate change, it isrove of it because really going on and really happening and we really destroyed the planet with overconsumption of everything, our own greed and the windmills and everything are killing the bugs. nuclear waste is killing everything. they are just throwing everything away. we are not considering anything. just today in our own greed and consumption. host: what do you think about the trump administration's treatment of this topic? caller: it is the same way they have always been treating it. they just care about themselves,

making sure they have hors d'oeuvres and champagne and little parties and looking so proud and comfortable in front of everybody else sort of like they are the king and queen and that is how it is. daryl in's go to michigan, approves of the administration's treatment of this. caller: i would like to say the problem with trump is i approve of his message. he is not a very good teacher. lastnited states for the 80, 100 years has dropped pollution into the air by 80%. we got rid of coal in the homes, we got rid of pure dirt smoke coming out of chimneys, we got 80% of who is in control is cheap to do. the next 10% is more expensive

and the last 10% is very, very expensive. there are some of the countries around this world that haven't even touched the first 80 inexpensive percentage of pollution control. we can set up copartnership senate would be the most economical way for the entire world to cut down our pollution. we have done our part already. we can do so much to help other countries. host: he talks about other countries. in the atlantic, it is not just america, climate policies are stumbling worldwide. they make this assessment. a global shift on climate change seems to be occurring. the president has undone several major programs to limit pardon solution. prime minister malcolm turnbull failed to pass a reform bill that include goals and properly ousted for his party for

proposing it. strip the rain forest of protections, possibly clearing the way to logging on such skill to ensure climate change. -- protest emmanuel macron's climate friendly tax on gasoline and diesel. france, brazil, australia and the united states all members of the g20. it goes on to talk about the issues and the impact worldwide. the president is set to travel to the g20 this week. when it comes to brazil, the united nations was supposed to home -- host a climate change meeting for the united nations in the future and that has been -- brazil backed out of that meeting and they say it comes

about a month before the inauguration of the president-elect -- his incoming foreign minister, a career diplomat called the movement to -- ce global warming that is in the new york times this morning. bob in ohio on the administration's treatment of climate change. caller: i disapprove because everything that is going on has happened in the past and it will continue to live nobody does anything about it. also one who disapproves is lisa in new york. caller: good morning. this may sound a little crazy. trumpt think president cares about the climate because he is not going to be around that much longer. number two, my concern is what

is with this space force? are they planning to live on mars? are they planning to find ways -- the rich i am talking about. host: back to climate specifically, why do you think he does not care. i don't think he or his family plans to be on this planet, which is why they have the space force being pushed so strongly. host: in a recent editorial after the release of the climate change report, they offered this editorial, global warming, fake science serves a far left lyrical addenda and the editors write and forgive me because i lost the section of it. the editors write saying the fourth national climate assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions. that was the president of the science and environmental policy project.

the editors saying as we said, the scientific malpractice of end. exercises has to this is an fake news, it is fake science. the last report served as pretext for president obama to create both the clean power plan and sign on to the paris accords. president trump dumped the power plan and removed the u.s. from the deal. this report is one area president trump did not move people fast enough to get them in place. the obama white house, -- instead of having reliable honest science about global warming, we get a bogus propaganda document. businessrom investors haley and that is the editorial they offer after -- investor's business daily. caller: i agree with the white house. control a climate

folks. scientists,d expert -- only on the basis that they agree with global warming. we only get one side. secondly, you have these other countries in asia and the eastern part of the world, there is no practice on global warming. these policies are only reflected against our climate. in other words, it is nothing but another tax, and other democrat fail policy. host: from baltimore, maryland, next to comment on this is mark. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. when it comes to the climate change argument, we have been seeing the same issue for a couple decades now and the science proves at least on paper significantly worse and worse. nearly so is we are

far gone that it is only up to mother nature to and of figuring it out. spending more dollars and more dollars on technology to battle climate change will ultimately prove unnecessary because like i said, we are too far gone. i believe that. host: even small steps should be taken to at least mitigate the damage? caller: the small steps can only be taken by the person. the average consumer and from shear normalcy, that is not going to happen. -- straw the raw thing thing for the turtles. a small step for climate change is always a fad in the average person never stays consistent enough with their energy footprint to do any real damage.

private companies like the ocean one company that cleans up the plastic in the oceans and all withrent endeavors, but private dollars is perfect. i think that is the avenue that needs to be done. i don't think the government and american dollars should be substantially driven toward those small steps because at the end of the day, it is up to the individual person and we don't show any resilience as americans to stay consistent in this endeavor. host: when the president makes statements about not relieving the report released under the white house, do you think that is an appropriate response? no, but that is how trump is. it is always black and white. there is no gray area with him. he is probably still stuck on global warming and now he sees the cold thanksgiving and says, how can there be global warming

when it is the coldest ever. exist,warming does not climate change is the real kicker. like i said before, watch out for mother nature because whether it is solar fair -- solar flare decrease activity that might lead to atmospheric minimums or the increased earthquake activity around the globe, mother nature will find a way to get back at us somehow. host: that is mark from baltimore, maryland. this is brian in washington state, i believe. good morning. caller: good morning. i was curious if you had any coverage about a decade ago the insurance industry was in the news about this issue that they were addressing with the climate change and how they would have to adjust their billing to accommodate for the additional

pay for the claims of the few -- this was a decade ago. now we are being followed by the pentagon, backing that up 25 years ago. they are on record that they are taking into account what they have to do for rising sea level's just in their ports. if you go back and look at the insurance industry, these are not conspiracies. these are people that have to count their beans and make sure the budget is going to get their paycheck to them and be there for the next 20 years for them -- host: how does that apply to the --rent's administration current administration's treatment of this issue?

caller: they are ambassadors. whether it is health insurance, catastrophe insurance, they don't even bring it out front, distraction.ake a if they really wanted to discuss it, they could talk about the dollar amounts, don't even talk about the science factor, just what the customer has to pay to have insurance whether it is for , we don'tcatastrophe get notice in our mailbox that we are getting a discount for not making a claim on our health or homeowners, do we? host: that is brian in washington state. we are spending this program talking about the issue of climate change from different fronts. of this first hour, your thoughts or at least what you think about the administration's treatment of this issue, especially with the release of

this fourth national assessment when it comes to climate change. you can find that report at c-span.org. you can call us and tell us if you approve of the administration's stance. 202-748-8000 is the number to call if you disapprove. 202-748-8001 and our social media sites, you can put your thoughts there. sarah huckabee sanders talk to is thers and this response. [video clip] >> the president certainly leading on what matters most in this process, having clean air and clean water. the united states continues to be a leader. even obama's under secretary for science did not believe the radical conclusions of the report released and it is based .n the extreme model scenario

modeling the climate is a complicated science that is never exact. the biggest thing we can do is focus on how to make sure we have the cleanest air and the cleanest water and the president is doing that and leading on that front. meet with all the leaders of the industrialized nations, isn't this a great opportunity for him to get to the table and say this is what my -- worked ton has prevent what my administration forecast? >> we think this is the extreme version not based on facts read it is not data-driven. we would like to see something based on modeling, which is extremely hard to do. our focus is on making sure we have the safest, cleanest air and water and the president will do that. host: that complete statement you can find at our website -- on our website at c-span.org.

in about a half-hour, a reporter will join us and talk about the findings and the research that was done. we are getting your thinking on the administration's treatment of climate change. herbert from wisconsin, good morning, go ahead. if all the freshwater in the world was put in a five water bucket -- all the in the five gallon bucket, a teaspoon would be drinkable water. these people talking about an individual responsibility. we live in a collective society where we have obligations to each other. in wisconsin, we have seen deterioration of our environment . we live on the great lakes where 40 million people depend on great lakes freshwater. -- the fact that

dnr under walker had a standard that you could not talk about climate change in any of the language. where are these people coming from? host: what do you think about the administration's treatment of it? caller: my goodness. we jump out of the paris climate accord, we are the only nation in the world. we and china are the two largest polluters. they are the major panel developer because our industry hasn't responded. we go around posing for holy pictures when the whole world virginia and some of

the oil industry is driving our agencies of3 of the the federal government came out with this report and the president denies its own agency scientists. host: that is herbert in wisconsin. we go to mickey in connecticut. hello. caller: good morning. change,on the climate that last caller, i agree with him. even as we speak, they are opening power plants across the nation, new power plants generated by coal. on president trump's disapproval, even if america got back into climate change -- if we got in it today, it will not make a difference in mother nature. what is going to happen will happen. i think all of this is fueled by

money. in the paris climate accord, we were paying the highest amount of money. other countries benefiting from that. i am pretty sure they were taking their fair share. today -- inck in order for it to make a difference on climate change, it would take 50 to 100 years or difference. a big i think all of this is money. host: new york is next where mike is. got some people that call. i disapprove. one of the first regulations they overturned was to allow coal companies to deposit their waste in lakes and streams penalty.ny fear of we used to have acid rain and they stopped that.

you can stop a lot. evidence there is no at all. let's say it is all a crock. why wouldn't you want cleaner air? why wouldn't you want cars that cars.- go with electric why wouldn't you want cleaner air? i think it is a conservative issue. i think it is the most conservative thing you can do is air.t emit stuff in the host: let's go to ed in michigan. hello. caller: there is a lot of misinformation and ignorance. if you look at the ice court data accumulated about 10 years ago, we are in a cyclical period that has been ongoing for 500,000 years.

in addition, the effect of co2 -- it isature increasing the atmosphere for 400 parts per million beyond. the effects are significantly diminished. infant mortality has gone down. living standards have gone up. gross domestic product has gone up. and is just nonsense scaring from the left. in michigan. ed we are taking your calls on the trump administration's response to climate change. 202-748-8000 if you approve of the administration's handling and treatment of the issue. if you disapprove of it, 202-748-8001. we will continue on with those

calls. most of the program will take up this topic of the issue of climate change. if you indulge a little bit about the leadership elections that took lace in the house as the washington post highlights in other papers as well, it was nancy pelosi getting that speaker nomination. the second round coming in january. , just follow craig caplan for information that takes place on capitol hill saying it was 238 democrat to voted for the speaker. three ballots were blank, one member was absent. that was sean patrick maloney. another reporter saying it was nancy pelosi after that issue saying this, pelosi's math, she got 203 votes quiet -- four of them likely from delegates who don't vote on the house floor

january 3. theneeds to peel off 18 of remaining 35. what is going on within the party, especially for those who did not support her. [video clip] you have any questions about our plans and how we go forward? >> she met with you and you dismissed her concerns out right. >> i am talking about scores of members of congress who just gave me a vote, giving me a vote of confidence. that is where our focus is. i expect to have a powerful vote as we go forward. host: kathleen rice going to nancy pelosi about the issues of leadership transition, especially as democrats want to

see more leadership put in place. that was some context of the discussion she had with nancy pelosi. this is what kathleen rice had to say. [video clip] >> what i was speaking of for -- two years, that we need we knew she was going to get the majority of the votes, but established very clearly what we have been saying all along. nobody wants to take this to a floor fight, but voters need to be heard. we need to protect new leaders. people need to know when

-- the most diverse group of members ever elected to the house. know when theo leadership is going to change. took place elections as well, not only for the speakership, hakeem jeffries will become the incoming democratic caucus chair. steny hoyer will serve as the majority leader when the new house takes place. jim clyburn of south carolina will become the incoming majority whip and ben ray lujan of new mexico becoming the incoming assistant democratic leader. thise is next in discussion we are having about the white house's treatment of the topic of climate change. hagerstown, maryland, is where she lives. morning, pedro.

christmas blessings to you. this is the first time calling for me and i will be brief. you really don't have to be a to understand what is happening to our environment and the skies. the weather is being manipulated with a lot of toxins, chemical toxins and it is a global thing. i agree with your last caller. you have to look up to the skies and i recommend anybody to go out to www.jailengineeringwatch.org. there are all the documents starting from 1976 explaining the process by year of how our weather is being manipulated. host: aside from that because we

want to get your thoughts and other people's thoughts on the administration's handling of this topic, what do you think about that? caller: this is specific is this because you just have to look to the sky. climate engineering is being manipulated. host: you already made those points print specifically the administration's actions, you said you approve of them. caller: there is no climate change, it is being manipulated. some of the weather is natural, but it is being manipulated to ,ause a lot of these disasters heavy rains and everything else. host: you made those points. in alabama, go ahead, you are next up. caller: all right, thank you for taking my call. i approve of president trump because everybody is hollering the sky is falling. hello? host: you are on, go ahead.

sorry. ok, i am i will not look at my tv. everybody is talking about the sky is falling. there can be some climate change, but no one ever says what we should do to stop it. even on this program, all the programs, oh my goodness, this is happening, the ice is melting. now that we have told you this, like it or not, this is what we have to do. we never discuss what is expected of us. the rich jet set all over the world and they have yachts and limos. hollywood, politicians, what is expected of them? why do they not set an example? this isxample and say, what i am doing to make a difference and this is what we would like you to do. see what we can come together

on. that is an elephant in the room and nobody talks about it. i have seen many programs. host: washington state, we will hear from arlen. caller: i disapprove of president trump's climate policy for one major reason, his own army corps of engineers gave a plan to water pipelines out of the missouri water basin. we have the dakota oil pipeline that runs through. he could make money making those pipelines prayed he could take another step and talk about a home study when that terraforming is done in nevada helping the agricultural space in california and reforming that. as the army corps of engineers does and cut off outside funding from japan, canada, greece that is funding this oil pipeline to america's largest --

that to increase awareness and stepping forward for climate change and protecting our water. step.so would be another a -- mindsadness of that doesn't see these next tops and at least speak them, at least open them up because there is money when there is a water pipeline at terraforming and potential new homesteading. from the wall street journal, this is from yesterday, the business world section talking about the release of this report under the headline climate change is affordable. the authors of the new u.s. assessment arrive at a billion in an0

estimated cost by 2090 due to lost labor hours and higher mortality from extreme temperatures which may not be estimated with much reliability. -- vegetation with longer fire return interval. paying this bill would be a nuisance, not armageddon. we would be three times as rich by 2090 with a gdp of $61 trillion. saying the u.s. report as well as united nations report -- ed in october maybe it is because voters are skeptical of doom mongering. gotten a message

acting on greenhouse gases prosperity.ing up their ownrk times -- survival was more important. in the find more of that column from yesterday. climate change is affordable, the title of that column. wisconsin,lwaukee hello, go ahead. caller: i have lived in my house for over 50 years and the amount of traffic that increased just two blocks from me, they made a two lane highway into a four lane highway. of the dirt in my air quality has gone downhill. go inland and it is 10 degrees cooler than it is here.

they cut down the largest band of oak trees in wisconsin and we are talking, this should not be political, this is for the people. years back when we were having a ozone alerts constantly, they finally cleaned it up and you could walk outside and breathe. now i cannot breathe again. we keep changing our environmental laws worse than they were back then. host: what does that mean for the administration? caller: the administration, he is a fool. you have to start thinking about not only all those asthmatic children, which is growing constantly, you have to think about the world in general you are leaving for your descendents. host: that is chris in milwaukee, wisconsin. she being from wisconsin, another famous wisconsinite's

paul ryan. he is retiring and at about noon, he will give his farewell address. you can look for that around noon today. those final thoughts of paul ryan. . resource tobest state up on events going on -- day up on events going on. all about -- all of that available in c-span.org. this is steven frederick, maryland. caller: first-time caller to c-span. i am usually calling at this time. i strongly disapprove of what the administration is saying about climate change. first of all, i am a physicist with a phd. i worked 40 years in science and research and i am really disturbed at how this

administration and others in the lobbying industry, etc. have distorted comments made by science and basically discarded them for their own purposes. not only is the administration destroying the social fabric of the country and its legal institutions, it is destroying science, which is very well thought of by the public until fairly recently windy administration has been coming up with these ludicrous statements. one comment i tell people about climate change is you are entitled to your opinion about what to do about climate change when the scientific community works in this area and come to the conclusion that this is a real problem. the public doesn't have the knowledge base to make an assessment on climate change at all. they just don't.

science reputation depends on giving out good information. the administration just discards it completely, calling it whatever. it is very disturbing. host: that is steve in maryland giving his thoughts on the treatment of the administration, the issue of climate change. in the new york times from tuesday when it comes to specific acts by the administration regarding pollution generally, highlighted by carol davenport and lisa friedman saying the obama administration -- taking multiple steps to make it easier for oil and gas companies to release methane into the atmosphere. it's about 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and its ability to track heat -- trap heat in the atmosphere. it is routinely leaked into the atmosphere from faulty oil and gas wells.

under president trump the epa and interior proposed weakening obama era requirements. new rules would loosen restrictions on "flaring," the burning of methane from coal operations. florida, that is where harry is. you are next. caller: it is interesting. i also have a graduate degrees in mathematics, physics, and computer science and i disagree with the previous caller. i agree with what the president is doing and i think this idea of climate change due to man scamis co2 is the biggest that has ever been perpetrated on the earth. i will tell you, co2 is the lifeblood of everything green

and the more co2 we have, the more green things will grow such as trees and grass and shrubs. we are going through a screening of the earth by five percent a year. co2 is used by hot houses or greenhouse is to enhance the growth of the green things in -- they are growing. drinks.lso used in soft we consume co2 every day. gas exhaled by our bodies everyday. it is not a pollutant. the model the government is change waslimate sdvised by many climatologist

that know what they were doing, but that was the wrong type of model to use and they used it anyhow. host: we will go to sharon in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, thank you. boggled by mind is the number of deniers calling in prey to last man, i don't know where he got his degree, we don't want to know. the lady who called in about children and future generations, most of the men who called in never even mentioned that. would takenk you your children and tell them, sorry, there is nothing we can do, your future is doomed. who would want to say that to their children? i livesee around where that we can do is at least get rid of your speedboat, jet skis,

, absurd toyobiles cars that run on batteries for children and teach your children natural exercise, not ride, ride, ride. host: one more call. this is jim in florida. you are the last call. caller: i am a climate change denier because i have done my own study. organizationrimary in the world behind the studies. they predicted global warming in the year 2100. my study shows that organization is wrong.

next day forecast, one time out of three they predict and there are more than 33,000 next days until 2100. therefore, the bogus. it is not really science. jim in florida, the last caller for this portion. we devoted this program to the topic of climate change. we spent the first hour getting the administration's take on it from a report released last week highlighting -- it started under the obama organization. joining us next to talk about the report and what was found in it is scott waldman of e&e news to answer your questions. later we will hear from legislators that -- and their thoughts on the topic of climate change.

last night the president participated in the 96 annual national christmas tree lighting ceremony. [video] president trump: the christmas season reflects all that is best in the american spirit. is a time of the year for rejoicing with our family and friends, for spreading charity and goodwill and our commitment all over this country, and all of our communities, and for giving thanks for all the blessings in our lives. forre especially thankful the countless americans who have given their time to help those in need. here in the audience today are a number of extraordinary families and guardians joined by their beautiful children they have welcomed into their homes and beautiful children they are. your devotion inspires us all.

you are the precious loved one and gift of god. thank you. thank you. very, very special. wethis time of the year renew the bonds of affection between our fellow citizens and awaken the faith in our hearts that calls each of us to action. as we gather loved ones our thoughts turn to those who are rebuilding their lives after devastating wildfires, destructive hurricanes, and terrible tragedy. we are one american family. we hurt together. we heal together. we will always pull through together. this is the united states of america. we are the best in the world and there is nobody close. [cheers] president trump: tonight we honor the first responders who risk their lives to save the

lives of others, and all of america sent our profound gratitude to the incredible men and women of the united states military. [cheers] proud to trump: i am say our military for right now is stronger than ever before. [cheers] president trump: their families are all our families. we thank them so much for their greatness and for the incredible job they do. thank you to the united states military. thank you very much. god to watch over this nation's heroes, and the shed his almighty grace upon our nation. we pray america's light will shine more brightly and stronger than ever, and it will. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is scott news.n for e&e

key is here to talk about the release of the trump administration. good morning to you. it is called the fourth national climate assessment. how did we get to the point where he got the document produced in the first place? guest: it is congressionally mandated. it is a sweeping survey of the latest in climate science. is fairly comprehensive. it looks at all sectors of society and the economy. just a broad-based survey of where we are in terms of what we know about climate change. host: how much of the trump administration scientists or people assigned were done? was it started earlier than that? guest: i think the actual writing took place under the trump administration. one of the lead authors pointed that out yesterday. she started in 2017.

she is from texas tech university. this is career staff largely from 13 different federal agencies. some of the best scientists in the world. i think it is more than 300 scientists contributed to this report. it is fairly broad-based in terms of the input from all across the administration. host: when it comes to the findings, what were the main pieces of information that made the most impact? guest: it shows an alarming climate situation in the u.s. -- the information is nothing new necessarily in terms of what we have known for years. it builds upon that. it takes it further by showing and emphasizing this report compared to previous iteration that climate change is here now. we are seeing the effects right now. it is not just something happening in the future. one example is in miami where

there is nuisance flooding where parts of the city are flooded without any sort of storm moving in. there is climate gentrification where parts of the city that are slightly higher above sea level, those are worth far more. there are pockets around the u.s. for you can see living, breathing examples of climate change. it is not something that is abstract. from wildfires in california, you can see the fingerprints of human-caused climate change as well. what are the connections to the economy? guest: it is saying it will cost tens of billions of dollars every year. problems likeh severe heat waves that can cause premature deaths. that will cost tens of billions of dollars a year. you will see a huge hit to infrastructure.

not just roads and bridges near coastal areas, of places that have been experiencing more extreme storms inland. areas that might see pipes, sewer pipes destroyed by the storms. we will see more and more of that in the future. host: scott waldman joining us to talk about the report and the reaction from me trump administration. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 from republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. he said this was written largely by members of the trump administration. guest: career staff in the federal government. host: the president's reaction, was that surprising? guest: no. he rejects the science. he does not believe this report. he said similar things like that in the past. he pointed out it was called on

thanksgiving, and asked where was global warming. weatherflates conditions over a short period of time where climate is conditions over a long period of time. a single day does not equal the absence of climate change. all brand-new research or depend on other research? how does that possibly skew the results? guest: there is plenty of new research in this. one of the most intriguing areas basicallyearch looking at how we can attribute human-caused climate change to some phenomenon like hurricanes, individual hurricanes we have seen. the way we can study that is improving. you can look at hurricane irma

and any other hurricane that has caused devastation and say this is the fingerprints of human-cost climate change. is easier with heat waves to determine the role. there is a growing body of science that shows we can track our human-cost climate change contributes to any individual heatwave. host: giving a specific example. -- give me a specific example. guest: one of the first they studied was in europe in the early 2000's. they found -- i don't remember the number but it was 30% or 40% of the heat wave was directly related to human activity. host: part of the section, actions to reduce risks. what are some of the recommendations from the report? guest: we have known that for quite some time. we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide.

the primary ways we believed with carbon dioxide in the u.s. is through the transportation sector, through vehicles and power plants that make electricity. those are the primary sources of pollution. the report next to clear we have to cut those levels fairly drastically or we will not be able to stop the worst effects of climate change. looking at climate modeling in the past has been fairly accurate. some of the temperature increases, the worst effects we past they werehe in the higher end of the modeling. some of the worst effects have already started to come true. host: the integration of climate and if a decision-making of adaptation activities have significantly increased since the third national climate assessment in 2014. development of engineering to --ders best engineering

development of engineering standards. banks are starting to factor this into their equations that we need to recognize we sure ansure that -- in bunch of homes in southern florida, we need to account for climate change. they need a factor that into our economic calculations. these are potentially profound economic hits to some of the companies. is not just insurance. is international companies. if you are making computer parts in thailand and there are floods that are devastating factories, that can cause disruption to the whole computer supply chain. this report points out an example where the happened -- where that happened. host: dana from los angeles,

republican line. caller: you were talking about the wildfires in california. by an electrical company. they are the ones that started the fire. have been as it was if somebody didn't start the fire. you guys talk about people causing pollution, driving cars, using all kinds of machinery, running refrigerators. why are you letting so many people into this country? all these people are coming in like crazy. not because would any co2 activity. as soon as they come here they start causing pollution. the more people we bring into this country, the more pollution it will cause.

host: thank you. guest: if we look at the wildfires as an example, a --ort is not saying humans the wildfire had a number of conditions related to climate change that fueled it that made it worse. in the trees in california are a result of the beatles moving northward and devastating more forests. hot conditions dries out the ground, which kills the brush and fuels the fire and makes it worse. when the president stood in the smoldering ruins, he was actually standing on the front lines of climate change. that's exactly what this report says, expect more in the future. and wildfires in particular. we can expect an increase in devastating wildfires. this report is not saying climate change sparked.

the wildfire it creates -- sparked the wildfires. it creates conditions to make them worse. host: can you highlight why this is included in the report? guest: i spent time in the arctic, in alaska. the northernmost city in the united states with whale hunters who had been for a millennia harvesting bowhead whales. because the ice is breaking up, they can't get to where they slam and harvest. -- swim and harvest. traditions that have persisted in the modern day for be disrupted and potentially shifted. godelle in michigan. caller: good morning, gentlemen. harpir force has the antenna which changes the winds

over north america. thes experimental but government is trying to manipulate the weather over north america. they showed it on tru tv. the government is not trying to manipulate the weather. we are trying to mitigate climate change so we can have a safer future. host: from new york, david, go ahead. caller: hello. i was in a discussion with friends of mine. does the annual agriculture contribute at all to climate change? guest: that is a great question. yes, it does, significantly. nothing omissions, flatulence from cows is an example. we eat a lot of red meat in this country and that certainly adds

to greenhouse gases. methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. yes, it does. to make plans for cattle pastures we are cutting down trees that produce or absorb co2. host: part of this report can be found at our website at c-span.org. we have included a link to it. a series of maps and charts looking at the findings. we can't show them individually. what do they tell us what kind of information does it present? guest: it is full of charts. one of the administration's critiques is that it did not have data. sarah sanders said the other day -- said that the of the day. it has plenty of data. over time global warming has increased dramatically. we have heated up the planet at an unprecedented rate.

carbonunt of atmosphere, dioxide is a level not seen in millions of years. we are still grappling with how that will affect us and modern civilization. this is one of our most the roadways of grappling with that. host: one of the maps takes a look at a section of the united states, charting out how climate change impacts us. what stands out to you? guest: that's a great question. one think it makes this report unique and why it is worth this canand u live, show you exactly how climate change will affect your region. you can see how it will affect your backyard. if you live in the southeast, expect to see rising sea levels. if you live in the northeast, expect he will see increased extreme storms in the summer. the type that can cause inland flooding, devastation for farmers.

you can take your region and look at the midwest, a cut and i are cultural yields. these are things we can better plan for and adapt to if we grapple with the science in a realistic way. host: it highlights flooding in louisiana increasing from extreme rainfall. pulling hazardous reduction funds. that is one of the pieces of information in the report. the next call is from louisiana. daniel, go ahead. caller: hello. how are you doing? my question is for over 10 years i have been photographing cam trails and i backyard -- chem trails in my backyard. to say they are not manipulating the weather is a joke. climate engineering, geo-engineering. do some research. that should be headlined

research. weather warfare. i have been watching chem trails for over 10 years. host: you may have to expand on that. guest: chem trails are not actually happening. i would suggest you look at where you get your resources from. one great places from nasa or noaa. some of the best scientific agencies in the world. this is a great example of the type of product they produced backed up by plenty of data and echoing research of other science agencies around the world. host: from the republican line, terry, you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions and i would like you to answer them for me. stateshe way the united measures climate change not very accurate?

the one you should be using is the one in russia, which is more accurate? number two, if it wasn't for all the millions of trees in california that should have been cleared out, what a california just pass two bills that they will start clearing that out? thank you. guest: our science is the best in the world. the way we measure the effects of climate change are through our satellite system, put in nasa and data that comes in through noaa. we know exactly how climate change is affecting certain parts of the world. there are pieces of it that maybe less certain. this makes it clear. look on the internet and you can basically find any sort of claim about climate that you would like. certainly there is a whole range

of climate denial blogs doubled sherry picked from around the world and make claims that are wild or untrue. really there is plenty of accurate information produced by our government that has been put out there. the president rejected this report. i have not seen any alternative body of science put forward to negate its finding. host: when you say high confidence and low confidence, give us examples of each. guest: it will depend on the amount of emissions that come out and where we will stand by 2100. they are looking at hurricanes. you can say there is evidence that hurricanes will worsen over time because warmer ocean uel worsef hurricanes. --have a high confidence

unless sure if it's high or medium that hurricanes will worsen. we do not have high confidence that the number of hurricanes will increase over that time. the science is not clear on that. again, worse hurricanes are not necessarily more hurricanes. host: one of the topics is the overall warming of the earth and by how many degrees. what are we looking at? guest: it depends on what we admit. the paris climate agreement is it to 2 degrees celsius of warming. fahrenheit outside, does not make so much for difference to your day. in the atmosphere over time that can mean entire cities in the u.s. that are largely underwater. miami will have an increasingly difficult future existing as it

currently does if we moved to a -- toed warmer world egreee warmer world -- 2-d one world. if you look at 2100 and the severe effects, we are fighting against the science and what it's showing us. just like the science around gravity, it is fairly clear for the picture continues to emerge it is getting worse. that is not in dispute. whatever he going to do is the political conversation. science is increasingly clear. if you look at people who claim climate change is not happening, it is basically a relatively small handful of researchers. many affiliated with washington-based ink tanks -- think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry. you have all the world's top

science agencies saying this is a serious problem and it's getting worse. it is caused us in increasing at a rapid rate. host: how much are other countries doing to mitigate this problem or reverse the problem compared to the united states? guest: that is where the president has been critical of what other countries are doing. the u.n. put out a report showing countries are not doing enough to meet their targets for the paris climate agreements. china is still going heavily into coal. that's a way to drive up emissions more efficiently than almost anything else. other countries are sort of nibbling around the edges, but the actual policy, the sacrifice it will take to cut greenhouse gas emissions have not been made. host: you are seeing that with the paris itself with the president trying to have a new

tax and there are protests over that. guest: there is no one solution. there is a carbon tax. a lot of groups believe in climate scientists, that accept climate science -- it is not religion. it is simply science. the conservative groups that except the reality of climate science have pushed forward a pretty aggressive plan to reduce our emissions with a carbon tax. there was a bipartisan bill introduced in the house that would put a price on carbon emissions and give refunds back to individual families to offset the costs in your electric bill. there are a number of approaches. there is in washington increasingly some republicans willing to move on this issue. host: scott waldman of e&e news joining us. lorenzo, go ahead.

caller: yes, sir. he said thethat effect humans are doing, that it is causing the climate to change. in houston, they built a lot of homes in the swamps over there. theyu look in california, are trying to detour the waterfront different states to them. they are using up a lot of the water. if you look at where all the fires -- people building homes -- you have where all these cars with gasoline catching on fire and increasing the fires. i remember in california one that the smog bill. -- when they had the smog bill. if you made it more simple, what we are doing today, the way we

are living is causing climate change, he may understand that. guest: that's a really great point. one of the ways to think about climate change is a threat multiplier. that is how our military thinks about it. our military is preparing for climate change. if you look at california and houston, great points on both of those. human development in the areas in houston that her f that are flood prone to or california that are fire prone to, that is causing the level of devastation. this was the most instructive fire in california history. more than 80 people tragically died. if you look at that case, it is a three-pronged stool. conditions make the fire worse, and then you have human development that makes people more vulnerable. those are equally devastating factors in that fire. toce management, according

-- forest management, is a role. it is nearly impossible to clear the forests at the extent the president is suggesting. we can control or mitigate our effect on climate change. host: the military's role? guest: they have been planning for it. nor full, virginia -- mortal, virginia --normal, they have been adjusting the cks to helphe do keep the nuclear fleet and are naval installation safe. they are not debating if it is real, they are simply preparing for it outside of the washington infighting. host: hassan, hello. isler: my question for you

lighthizer is there so much opposition to your research in certain quarters of this country? are there economic reasons or political or philosophical reasons? do any of those reasons hold merit? guest: that's a great question. ago, john mccain and other republicans were on board with trying to grapple with climate change by creating policy that would help mitigate climate change. andmber of political groups washington-based think tanks got involved. theyeartland institute, have been tremendously successful. there is no reason you can't come up with a climate policy that is created by democrats and republicans alike. just like tobacco companies

funded all kinds of research to tan down the harmful nature of smoking cigarettes, energy companies did the same thing. some of them still do. exxon has since backed away. that has created a ripple effect that we see today still playing out unfortunately. and a lot of other countries, conservatives are completely on board with climate policy. in the u.s. we have a number of politicians, and certainly this is not all republicans. a lot of them want to move more aggressively on climate change, but many are rejecting this report without any science to disprove what it says. host: you also say the conservative media physical today. guest: the daily caller is funded by the koch brothers, a primary funder of some of these climate denial groups.

the daily caller exists to pick up on some of the uncertainties in science and highlight them as if they disprove the great amount of certainty in this 1700-page report. the president picks up on some talking points in the conservative media about how something is fabricated in this report, which it is not, can i create a circular affect. host: stated in new york. york.avid in new caller: i finishing reading "in the hurricane's eye." at one point they talk about a hurricane that's what through the caribbean in 1780. storms swept to the caribbean, destroying a lot of the ships that ultimately were not able to participate in defending britain were the

french -- or the french getting involved. the storms were massive. they estimate 20,000 people died. they were definitely category four or five hurricanes. one of my problems with the way climate change advocates discuss weather versus climate change, to me there is a tremendous confusion between the two. they try to compare the two and say they are the same thing. is other question i have, that any ideal temperature we should have? no one is saying bad hurricanes have not happened in the past. is saying the conditions create more extreme hurricanes and they are caused by climate change.

that includes warmer ocean currents and more moisture in the atmosphere. that does make the hurricanes worse that we will see in the future. that will go forward. this is what the latest science says. is not saying we are going to just moreurricanes, devastating hurricanes. they will increasingly be likely as a result of this. the existence of devastating hurricanes in the past does not disprove anything in this report. host: gary in kentucky. caller: hello. i have been listening for quite a while. understandsristan what is going on in america today, america has been hit by some kind of disaster. jesus is getting ready to come back. is not about global warming. it is about jesus coming back.

he is trying to wake people of. -- up. guest: the last caller asked about the ideal temperature. it is what we have right now. we don't want to increase anymore and it will get harder to live here. host: with the trump administration denied the report, doesn't get filed and not used? -- does it get filed and not used? guest: we will see some democrats in the house double pick up on this and move forward. to california attorney general we use the information to file lawsuits he deems necessary to fight back against the trump administration's deregulatory efforts to roll back greenhouse gas emissions. i think one of the most best ways it could be used is for local governments to look at what this says about their area and prepare the people that

lived there for safer conditions. to save money in the future by investing now and learn how climate change will affect your infrastructure. you can save your community a lot of money and unpleasantness in the future. there is plenty to digest for years. have theernments ability to do that almost more efficiently than the federal government. host: scott waldman reports for e&e news. policy.e cover energy we have more than 60 reporters looking at climate change and natural gas infrastructure, pipelines. we look at a broad range of coverage. clear based in dcf report is all of the country. have reporters all over the country. host: we will talk about the

climate of climate change. we will hear from legislators other thinking about not only the topic but the release of this report. we're asking you specifically about if you believe in climate change were not. you can tell us why or why not. for the eastern essential time zones, (202) 748-8000. for mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. we will take those calls when we come back. ♪ coming up this weekend on book tv, sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, senator bernie sanders talks about his book, "where do we go from here." >> you can watch. you can watch television from morning to night for years. that question will not come up. is it appropriate that the top 1/10 of 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%?

is it appropriate and the wealthiest country in the history of the world we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any other major country on earth? are we concerned a handful of media conglomerates control what we see, hear and read? >> on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, national review is a editor discusses "nothing pot or civil war." by the formerwed commissioner of the u.s. immigration and naturalization service. >> when you think about the next several decades, falling birth rates among native americans, immigration is a big driver. important not just as a discrete matter, but in terms of human capital policy. the future workforce.

it really is a very important issue touching on many different sectors. >> watch this weekend on c-span2's book tv. join american history tv this weekend for live all-day coverage of the international conference on world war ii. from the national world war ii museum in new orleans. saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, office and historians discussing , the war withay japan, and lessons learned from the war. international conference on world war ii live saturday starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. washington journal continues. host: we want to get your thinking on what you believe or not about climate change. call us.

if you live in the eastern and central time zones, it is (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. do you believe in climate change? you can make those calls. pew researchit was that put out a poll. some of the response said sayhly six in 10 americans climate change is currently affecting their local community either a great deal or some. 31% of those say the effects of climate change are affecting them personally. 28% said it affected the local community but not attacking them in a personal way. the research shows perceptions changeher and climate are tied to political party. roughly one third of republicans

say that, 35%. pew research center put up a poll. you can find it online. do you believe in climate change ? from connecticut, roy starts us off. caller: climate change is definitely real. especially when the military, except, every country the u.s. and guatemala believe in it. republicans'nd the gut feeling. the republicans and trump take too much money from the koch brothers. they will never listen. they have to take coal money out of their years. it may almost be too late now. the ocean is rising nine inches in 100 years. and mongolia.

the cleanest place to go is mongolia. the capital, one million people, they all burn coal. a few of them burn rubber tires. worse thane of coal los angeles. host: let's go to steve in florida. good morning. caller: thanks for the opportunity to talk to the nation on c-span. i believe it is human-caused in many ways. what somebody said earlier about the situation with animals grazing, what happens with the methane they produce helping to lead to climate change. i think the numbers are so clear. you talk about parts for million. i believe in the pictures of the arctic and the opening of the

waves from russia from the arctic area, the ice areas that have been covered for as long as we can see for recorded history. all of a sudden in the last 10 years, is opening set all of a sudden happened. could it be maybe man has a responsibility to the planet? we don't want to depend upon jesus coming back to save us? host: joe off twitter says we are taking great care of the earth. things are much less polluted today than they were in the past. there is nothing to believe. this is not about a leap of faith. this is some of the things you can respond to if you believe in climate change. (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. errol in los angeles.

complained caller that the carbon dioxide is increasing. i'm sorry. .0 years ago, it was .03 now it is .04. we carbon dioxide for the trees to produce oxygen. this is nonsense. carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary. host: do you believe in climate change? guest: the climate is always changing. we need to be careful and not be hysterical about it. host: where is the fine line in your opinion? the fires in california, he made that statement saying the authorities here do not recognize the fact that forest

management is important. forest management is the way to go. askingarry in tennessee, about your belief or not in climate change. says --well, the bible global warming, everything i have researched shows it is not the way you gentlemen set a violent go. we pump co2 into the greenhouses. everything was just like the jerry brownifornia, in 1995 would not let them open up and start cutting timber again.

the bad trees need to be taken out. the undergrowth needs to be taken out. the very people that are wanting to stop using plastic bags now are the ones that one of these plastic bags 30 years ago. trees are renewable.they are a crop . whenever something is clear-cut or burned, the trees will come back within 10 to 15 years. host: ok. larry in tennessee. we will continue with this question about your belief in climate change. you can let us know on our facebook page and twitter. you can participate a poll. both those sites are available to you we will continue on through the course of the program. some members and former members of congress are joining us through this program together

thinking, not only on the recent release of information from the report on climate change but their own personal thinking on that. a republican from south carolina from 1994 to 2010. and 2004 to t representative, good morning. can you hear us, sir? i think we will try about that connection and get him back on skype. kyl from clear spring, maryland. caller: good morning. did seems toaller, me the bible thumpers -- this was the same mindset before copernicus and galileo when they thought they were the center of the universe. you are making great points

about the military studying this for several years, along with exxon. exxon has invested a lot of time and energy. global warming is definitely happening. we need to do something to mitigate the effects. host: what do you base your beliefs on? guest: my degree is in cell anatomy and physiology. there is a great book. there was a component of it talking about the earth basically being like an organism . is fighting off an infection and raising its temperature. host: carla in missouri. hello. caller: hello. butlieve in climate change it's been going on since the earth was created. i wonder sometimes about the ice

age. what caused the ice age? yes, i believe humans do something to exacerbate the problem, but i think climate change is a normal cycle. yes, we are wasteful. one of the former callers talked about plastic bags, which i'm totally opposed to. i think it is a cycle. host: what led the to that belief specifically? guest: -- caller: we have not kept records of the climate for very long in our history. i know we had an ice age. i read about it in school. humans are very vain in their thinking that they can

change the climate. we can change the way we behave and not be wasteful. i think climate change is going to happen whether we do anything or not. host: carla in missouri and thoughts on her belief in climate change. us. us a call and tell we will take those calls throughout the course of this program today. , a formers representative from south carolina. guest: good to be with you. host: a little about your organization? republickeye in.org. we're talking about free undersized -- free enterprise solutions to climate change. we hear a lot about government regulation. we have not heard the have the free enterprise system can solve it.

host: when it comes to your personal believes, what are they and how did they evolve? guest: for six years i said climate change was nonsense. i did not know anything about it except al gore was for it. since i represented a very red district, at the end of the inquiry. i admit that is fairly ignorant today to do it that way. i had not looked into it at all. i just knew that al gore was for it and i was against it. either doing commercial real estate login, and then i ran for congress again in 2004. my sun came to me -- son came to me. he said, dad, i will vote for you but you will have to clean up your act on the environment. his mother agreed, agreed in a new constituency was born.

that was the first of a three-step metamorphosis. the second was going to the antarctic and seeing the evidence in the ice core drillings. the third was i was inspired by aussieth of an climate scientists who cares about the creation. the cut carbon act of 2009, a carbon tax. host: what was the reaction from other members? guest:one of the republican cosponsor, senator jeff flake, who was a house member, and a democrat dan lipinski from chicago. the reactions at home was not so good. i lost my reelection in a

republican primary in the midst of the darkest days of the great recession. it is exciting to see some carbon tax bills being introduced. it is completely different than it was back then. back and they were the darkest days of the great recession. now the economy is better. we have all had more experience with climate change, and there are more organizations like ours o-right, a palestinian firemen to left. we can talk about -- a balance to the environmental left. we can balance it with the free market. host: the think republicans have a hard time dealing with this issue and wine? why? mr. ingliss? former member of congress and

also republicen executive director talking about his experience when it comes to the climate change issue. we will get him back and continue our conversation. arizona, steve, hello. caller: how are you? i was just listening to mr. ingl iss. here is a book he has probably already read. ne forest." this should be required reading. the thing about climate change is the are accelerating the rate. natural rates are all well and good, but you can look back in time, say 55 million years ago. that was a time when we exceeded 400 parts per million by a longshot.

that led to essentially incredible changes in the climate. kobach 700,000 years with -- we can go back 700,000 years with ta to see howda things have changed. we have been clearing large areas. starting to burn a lot of coal. we caused this problem. it is extremely rapid. you cannot cool the planet at the rate we can heat it up. there is a big price to pay for this. how far it is going to go? i don't know. to theempts to hold onto old things, these are natural and humans. we have got to go ahead and do as much as we can in photovoltaics. we have to have nuclear

somewhere to give us enough power to keep us going until we have enough with photovoltaics and wind power. host: stephen arizona giving his thoughts. , i was asking about the republicans in congress. for those who have issues with the topic of climate change, why do you think that is? guest: mostly because they have not heard a solution that fits with their values yet. is a big have heard government solution of regulations. when we don't think we have a solution that fits with their values, we doubt the existence of a problem. that sounds irrational until i for your back problem, we will take your head off, work on your spine and then put her head back on. you will say thanks, i'm feeling a lot better. i don't have a back problem.

you will not take my hat off. for conservatives so far have heard is a nutty solution. that will regulate your very breath. i must not have a problem then. what we live to do at republicen.org is show there is an exciting free enterprise solution. you should basically tax pollution. on the phil donahue show, dr. father ofthe modern -- he says you tax it. be tax pollution. -- you tax pollution. host: in canada they are passing a proposal and not putting taxes into play. in france they are marching in the streets because of a proposed tax. how do you think that will play out in the united states?

guest: it really is quite an educational effort. ant is why we are educational outlet. the alternatives are regulatory. that was a clean power plan. another alternative is thecap -- is the cap in trade. or there is the pricing at of the negative effects of burning. -- fx of bring burning fossil fuels and bringing accountability to all of us. climate change is the havoc that comes of the lack of accountability. we are used to this idea of paying for what we take, aren't we? if you're a trash haul are going to the city dump, they will

charge you for the space you take up in the city dump. you will back the charge up to all of your customers on your route where you pick up their trash. is that appropriate? otherwise the trash hauler and the customers are taking up space in the city dump. the city has to use tax money to build a new dump. charge them. make them accountable. we have a trash dump in the sky. there is only so much space. we need to charge for the space we use. if we do, accountability will result in blessings. host: when it comes to the recently released report by the white house, with you think the value of these reports are? guest: the report shows what we have been seeing. terms this will

happen sooner than we thought. when i was talking about this in the great recession, i got tossed out of a republican primary. it seemed a long way away. now we are experiencing climate change. that is with the fourth assessment really shows. it is right here and right now. about the white house's reaction, i think president trump is becoming a caricature of climate disputation. all, all experiencing it it is silly to have somebody saying we are not. us could stand on the top of my roof in a single file line and divide into who believes in gravity and who doesn't. have some of those who don't to

start stepping off the edge of the roof and see what happens. after a while i think we will figure out it does not matter what you believe. you are going down if you step off this roof. oddly, the president is the guy in the line no gravity. i do not believe in it. i don't believe in climate change. it does not matter where you believe. it is happening. , if you want to find out more, it is republice n.org. 2010, a4 through representative. guest: great to be with you. host: we will be joined by other members of congress in this last hour of our program. we have been focused on climate change with the release of the report by the white house, by the trump administration, adding

your thinking on the report, but also your belief if you have one on climate change. you can continue to call us. you can call us in the mountain 202-7488001.zone tellfree to call us and us. joining us now is another member of congress, representative oregon,von amici, committee of science, space, and technology ranking member. guest: good to be with you. host: from the assessment that came out, what were the main points of interest for you from that report? guest: there were many points of interest in the report, but i want to note that the released then climate assessment on the day after thanksgiving -- not a big news day. they thought we might not notice, but this is an alarming

assessment that calls attention to the need to take action now on climate change, because this is going to be affecting our communities in northwest oregon and across the country, and especially important to note the economic impact. if we do not take action -- we are going to call attention. we are doing that every day until the democrats take a majority in january. in the science committee, we will be holding this administration accountable, but also having hearings about the steps we need to take, we must take, to address climate change. once the democrats take power in the house, what do you think some of those steps will be? guest: at this point, everything needs to be on the table. there are multiple committees that will be addressing this issue, the seriousness of climate change, and human-caused climate change.

we know the science is there, even though the president tends to be in denial. i have been working on issues like ocean acidification, harmful algal blooms. we are seeing right now the effect of global warming, and we need to do everything we can to make sure we are reducing greenhouse gas emissions. and we can do that in a way that puts the u.s. in a leadership role, in building an economy based on clean energy. that is something we can and should be doing and i will be working on, along with many of my colleagues who are committed to this issue, because if we do not take action, we are going to continue to see warming temperatures. we are seeing -- look at the fires that happened out west. we are seeing more extreme weather events. it's is affecting life, affecting property, affecting our economy, and affecting our national security. host: we heard from a former

representative who said regulation -- one thing to consider is taxation. would that be in line with your thinking? guest: everything needs to be on the table. we are looking for solutions that can get broad support, helping to get the message out about why this is important for everyone in the united states, everyone here in congress. it is affecting their constituents. look at the dollars we are spending now, cleaning up after extreme weather events. get the life that has been lost and the property that has been damaged. industries -- just yesterday, the shellfish industry in the west coast filed a lawsuit, because they are seeing severe impacts to their industry because of warming temperatures and ocean acidification, and the administration has not been taking action. so we are already paying. we will end up paying more if we do not take action. everything needs to be on the table. we need conversations about the

best way to transition to 100% renewable economy, and we can do that with growing jobs and growing the economy, and have u.s. leadership. host: representative bonamici, the u.n. put out a report saying other countries are not meeting the responsibility. if that is the case, why should the burden be on the united states? guest: the united states needs to be a player. i was disappointed this president wants to withdraw from the paris climate accord. do other nations need to act? absolutely. we should be the model. we could be a leader. we have the talent, the creativity, could develop the technology, and have the workforce programs who could transition people currently working in fields that are contribute in to greenhouse gas emissions, and get them into good-paying renewable energy jobs. yes, it needs to be an international effort, but the united states can and should be leading those efforts. host: our guest serves as the

ranking committee of the subcommittee on science, space, and technology. suzanne bonamici talking about climate change issues. representative, i wanted to get your thinking about yesterday's leadership elections. what did you think of the result? guest: i think it is great. we will have more votes today, and the speaker vote will be at the beginning of january. we have a lot of great, enthusiastic new members joining us, and i am excited to start in january. host: were you concerned about the number of votes, 30 plus, that did not support nancy pelosi? guest: i am not. nancy pelosi will be able to get the votes. host: do you think that indicates a larger issue as far as cohesiveness within the democratic party, some expressing concerns about transitions in leadership, and putting younger people in leadership positions? guest: i know we will be able to come together and work. we have fabulous new members joining us from across the country, all different perspectives, looking out for

the good of their districts in the country. i know we will be able to work together and address this issue that is seriously affecting our people, our economy -- address climate change, protect health infrastructure -- i have confidence in our leadership and the new class of members coming in. a democratuest is who serves the state of oregon, representative suzanne bonamici. then q4 to -- thank you for your time today. he will continue with your calls about climate change. in indiana, this is john. they q4 waiting period go ahead. caller: -- thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: i believe in climate change. . looked at the data from noaa but i heard a democratic politician claimed there was going to be a 10 degree increase in 12 years. and i have -- here similar claims all the time on the news. those are gross examined --

exaggerations. i do not think democratic politicians are going to do much about it. look at the riots in paris over just the suggestion of a tax increase. look at the closure of the gm plant because people were not buying fuel-efficient cars. politicians are not being straight with us about the impact that will happen. when the american people find out the real impact, they will go bananas. what we need is a real solution, and it is going to take several decades. my local utility country increased our rates to invest in cleaner energy, but they are going to take 10 years to do with area -- to do it. host: how much of an increase in rate and are you ok with it? caller: i think it is a good

investment. but i have to point out that the solution is a long-term problem. anythingt going to get -- we are not going to get anything done by exaggerating the problem and proposing things that are not politically possible. in indiana.s john the canadian broadcasting corporation, their website this morning highlights the fact that in canada, the ontario government unveiling a climate change plan -- it does not include the prime minister's call for a climate tax. you can read more at the db -- cbc.ca website. joe from florida, you are next. caller: everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that our sun has gone nova over the last 4 billion years. millionout three or 4 miles bigger than it used to be,

and it is causing not only warming to the earth, but to every planet in our solar system, and everybody is ignoring that fact. there used to be 93 million miles away from the sun, and we did not have to worry about the solar things, because they were not reach us. now they can and we could be scratched out in eight minutes if one does. solutions about taxes or global warming -- yes, it is happening, but it is happening because the sun itself has gotten larger. everybody seems to ignore this. the democrats, the republicans -- they serve their own agendas. that is joe in vero beach. you heard representative bonamici talk about when democrats take power in january, the issue of climate change. "usa today" says the quandary for party leaders when they take

back power is how aggressively to pursue an issue i contributed to the tea party wave that fueled the republican takeover of the house in 2010. they have to prepare for arguments that climate change policies would reduce consumer choice. how willing are they to take on a president elected to years ago on america first platform that promised to bring back hole? and across our content to build a case on oversight and the .ower to subpoena any major legislation that could pass would be vetoed by the president even if it got past the gop have been controlled senate. from rusty in colorado, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: we have a beautiful covering of snow in colorado. to my lifetime, i have seen the forest service, our forest service, do several things that are just amazing to me.

we have several different buildings that are full of people, all day long. and our forest service is very high management and low in the field. i do not see them out there planting trees at all. and it is funny how everybody talks about money. tos is -- if they are going raise money for planting trees or so forth, why do we have so many people in a building, in an office building, pushing papers around, which are trees? host: so, the goal of this hour is about climate change and if you believe in it. tell us why and why not. caller: i absolutely believe in it. i definitely think the politics of it are -- there is something fishy. host: when it comes to your personal belief, what do you base that on? caller: i base that on my lifetime, with differences in

the winters appear. -- up here. host: we will hear from charles next, in millville, new jersey. caller: i do believe in climate change to the point where i have put solar panels on my roof. my thing is, the government wants to tax everything. it is all about the money. when the solar panels first come out, they were affordable to the average guy, and you would get money back from the power companies. now, it is total turnaround. they are priced where you cannot -- you cannot afford to buy them, so you have to release them. them.lease they put more money into renewable energy and less talk about taxing every problem this country has, i think we would all be better off. host: before you go, how much is it going to cost you to install solar panels? caller: it costs me absolutely

nothing, but the way it works in my state is, you can have solar panels put on your roof through another company, and you pay panels.lease the solar the cost is nothing out of your pocket. the cost comes, you have to lease the panels, but in the long run, you save money anyway, ,ecause by leasing the panels my electric bill remains the same for the whole contract. host: how much is the least, if you'd -- the lease, if you don't mind sharing? caller: $92 a month. host: what is your electric bill? caller: once you get your electric bill caught up from where it was -- i was on a budget and i had to pay the difference that was left on my electrical account. i have come to find out they put enough panels on my roof that it -- i got myast electric bill this month, and it was a zero.

i did not owe them anything. the panels took care of the electric area -- the electric. host: that was charles talking about climate change and his solar panels on his home. one of the many people, if you call in this last hour -- talk about whether you believe in climate change or not. you can call on the phone lines. or can post on twitter facebook. across capitol hill, one of the things that will happen at noon today will be the current house speaker, paul ryan, addressing the house during a farewell address, talking about his time serving as speaker of the house, and his time in congress, as he is retiring. you can see that on c-span around noon this afternoon, and find out more if you want to see it later on, if you go to our website at c-span.org. chris in tucson, arizona, hello. caller: hello. my background is in chemical engineering. i work in mining.

one thing that is never discussed is the carbon that is released into the atmosphere, that ends up being absorbed back into the ocean, then absorbed by plants, trees, animals, as well as in call, in different ways. when pulling oil out of the ground, pulling coal out of the ground, we release it back to the atmosphere, which is disrupting the carbon cycle. this is never discussed, never shown to the american people. the reason americans do not believe in this is, i do not learn basic science in school. this is not explained very well. they go back and forth talking about why i believe or i don't. if you get to the raw science of it and talk about the carbon cycle, it is very obvious. host: that is chris in arizona. this tweet from abc news about michael: saying that he is expected to plead guilty to lying to a congressional committee. part of the investigation of the alleged collusion of the resident.

that is according to sources out of abc news. more will develop to the course of the morning. market in pennsylvania -- mark in pennsylvania. caller: i agree with climate change but disagree about taxing people, solar panels, etc. host: you still there? caller: yes, i am sorry. can you hear me? host: you cut off a little earlier, but go ahead. caller: i disagree with al gore on a lot of politics, but when it comes to find a change, i agree. he pointed out that our population growth is exceeding the planets ability to handle it. you pull out a chart, you can show the american people have dramatic it has been. or people, more cars, more paper, more garbage -- taxing is not going to fix it. you have to limit the population growth. if it continues, it will continue to rise. ,eople are almost 100 degrees and they are causing global warming. everything they use is creating

carbon footprint. if you look at the roads, how packed they are -- since i was a kid, the roads are twice as packed, and everyone is driving big suv's. you have rich people flying ed-upd in guest-up -- gass planes and boats. if we do not limit population, this planet is doomed. that is all i have to say. host: more about that story from "the new york times," sing the president's -- saying the president's lawyer made a surprise appearance to plead guilty to a new criminal charge. the development comes at the latest turn of the special counsel's investigation of mr. forp, at a perilous time mr. trump, whose presidency has been threatened by mr. co hen's statements to investigators, increasing pressure on the office. marks theilty plea first time the office of special

counsel robert mueller has charged mr. cohen. by hoping to cooperate, he might receive a lighter sentence than he otherwise would. robert next up in michigan. hello. caller: something i read in "scientific american" a few years back says the sun is going to just continue to get hotter and bigger as it grows older. i guess everybody has to believe in climate change and global warming. what degree that happens, i don't know. there is noy, conversation or need to talk about it. it is going to happen. host: the president, in a recent interview he did with the washington -- "the washington post" talked about the report and his own thinking on climate change. it reads saying, one of the problems that people like myself , we are not such believers. the article -- they talked about at some point the climate is going to freeze to death and

going to die of heat exhaustion. there is movement in the atmosphere. there is no question as to whether or not it is man-made and whether the effects you are talking about are there. i don't see it. again, that is part of the interview in "the washington post," which you can find online. kerry in texas. caller: how are you? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: the climate change question -- the question that asks whether people believe it or not indicates to me it is not really a scientific question, but a political one. the polling you stated kind of backs that up. generalthe believer in wants government to have control of the economy, and vice versa. i suggest that you research the internet for a quote by the former head of the framework convention on climate change. she says that the climate change

initiative is a plan to change the world economic model to replace capitalism with socialism. since wet to clarify, are asking -- do you believe this or not? caller: i don't believe that man is causing catastrophic damage. i believe it is possible to change slightly by managing urput, but co2 is only fo hundredths of 1% of the atmosphere. it is not man-made. host: what do you think is the change of? caller: there is variation over eons. what caused the ice to melt and the last ice age ending? it has changed forever. host: how did you come to those conclusions, by the way? caller: i have read a lot about it, all kinds of sources. host: go ahead. caller: i read the writings of a

lot of people that write on the subject. next, dave from pittsburgh. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you today? host: thanks, go ahead. caller: i wanted to say my opinion. i think a lot of people are missing the point that the earth actually spans, and it wobbles, and that spin goes around the sun. we have a lot of stuff going on that nobody ever talks about natural north's axis moving about two degrees in the last 40 years. could makehat small a significant difference in a lot of things. ocean levelith rise, temperatures, changing of the earth's atmosphere. something i back to saw in 2012, and i believe it was matt lauer on a morning

show. he told us if we do not change our ways by 2015, manhattan would be underwater. is manhattan underwater? we are in 2018 now, and i don't think it is. host: the spinning of the earth and the axis, what do you base that on, and what led you to make connections to climate? caller: just different sources i have read. we have got scientists who cannot agree whether the earth is 10,000 years old or 10 million years old. we have meteorologists who cannot redact the weather accurate seven days in advance. if you have scientists that are going to tell me what it is going to be like in 40 years, please, pedro. all this is is a way to move the masses in the general direction that the politicians want them to go. that is all it is. host: gary is next in georgia. gary, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to take a look at the facts, the facts we have in

front of us. believe,eport, i states that we are going to raise the temperature of the earth so many degrees over the next hundred years, if we do not do something about this. ok? that ifrt also states we follow this program that the environmentalists are wanting us to follow, that we will only 0.2 -- only change it two tenths of one degree in 100 years. that report tells you all of the change is coming from natural thets, natural causes, and only part that is coming from oneis the two tenths of degree over the next hundred years. that is telling you right there that man's cause of this is

miniscule. nothing in response, should be done as far as regulation or taxation, or whatever avenue you take? caller: well, when you figure out how you can stop the sun from getting hotter every year, you let me know about that, pedro, ok? host: washington, d.c., antonio -- go ahead. accept the i do science of climate change. i don't see -- you know, i don't see us having a choice on accepting reality. i'm horrified at the extent to which things that -- things like openlyenhouse effect are questioned by some who just do not understand any of the science. host: what science do you point to specifically in your beliefs? is the well, there optical activity of greenhouse gases, the far infrared.

there is the data from nasa and noaa that temperatures have been steadily increasing. that with is the fact amount -- with the output of mainly carbon dioxide, but also other greenhouse gases like methane, by a human population that is rapidly increasing in size, it would almost be -- it would almost be an conceivable -- inconceivable that we would not elevate the temperature of the earth a little bit. what is that? host: i just wanted to thank you for the call. lewis is next, newark, new jersey. caller: how are you doing? i just don't understand how believe thatt

something is happening in front of their faces. orange and i work in east orange. at the end of my building, we have a park. in this park, we have wonderful birds that come from all different types of places. and for the first time in eight years, i have seen birds that i never saw before, migrating. they lost their sense. they cannot find their way back. they cannot go where they want. sometimes, they are dying right there, and you see everything around us right now -- in alaska, all these beautiful places that are natural, that were never touched, and now they are being destroyed, the ice melting. the polar bears are dying. animals are becoming more extinct. you see our oceans now, our fish is eating plastic. our coral is dying because of the carbon. how ignorant really can you be,

when you are seeing a population that is growing, and we are just being ignorant? native americans told us if we don't care of our own mother nature, who is going to take care of us? host: in light of that, what is the appropriate response, do you think? caller: the appropriate response is, we have to start taking charge, being more carbon-affiliated, and trying to make sure that we have the right technologies that are being handed out into the right areas. you have india. you have greece. you have china. you have all these other populations that are going through all of these areas that they cannot even breathe. you are seeing that they have their own facemasks, and the populations are growing bigger and bigger, more pollution everywhere. what are we going to keep doing, just denying that, saying it is

politics? come on. host: john is in ohio. caller: i just want to say that i don't believe in climate ,hange, because i live in ohio and i wanted to get warmer, and it keeps getting colder. secondly, when the electric cars get charged, how are they going to be charged, with windmills? or with coal-powered electricity? in ohio, giving his thoughts on the topic of climate change. for the next half hour, not only will we talk to members of congress about this topic of climate change, but getting your thoughts on if you believe in climate change, why and why not. you have heard several people propose why they believe it, why they do not, and tell us why. you can do so at 202-748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones, and 202-748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones.

members of congress turning us throughout the morning to talk about the topic of climate change. one of those come a member of caucus, ae solutions representative joining us from capitol hill. good morning, sir. guest: good morning. host: with the release of the report from last friday, what was most impressive for you about that report? guest: that it was so comprehensive. this is a problem we are facing all over our nation, certainly in the world, from the flooding in the east coast to the floods down in texas, hurricane harvey. whether it is the forest fires out in the west we are seeing right now, out in california, the floods in iowa, losing the snowpack in the northwest. every part of -- flooding in florida. everywhere in the country is being impacted by dramatic changes. just heard john a few minutes earlier. they are having problems in ohio.

every state is being impacted by climate change. this is a real thing for everybody in our nation. host: if that is the problem, what is the solution, particularly as your party takes power next year in the house? guest: we have to have a green new deal for america. we need to see in the structure investment in america overall, but we need to do it for a green new deal as well. number one, we want to address climate change. we want to improve, preserve, and protect our environment. the jobsant to create that are necessary to do this work. that will help increase middle-class wages in america. number three, it will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, foreign energy supplies. we see these crazy relationships we have in the middle east. a lot have been driven historically by the fact that we had a strategic and economic made for oil from the middle east. if we had energy independence in america, we would not be affected by everything going on in the middle east. we could do things based upon what is the right policy, not

because we are beholden to energy needs. wet: representative suozzi, saw the last administration invest heavily in green jobs. did that pay off? guest: i do not want to talk about yesterday. i want to talk about tomorrow and how we a comp was all three of these objectives -- protect the environment, create jobs, foreignce dependence on oil. it will be good for the united states of america and the world. ast: we saw investment in previous administration. what is the connection? guest: a lot of things have been learned over the years as to how to make energy efficiency part of our everyday lives, how to use new technologies that have been discovered over the past five years, and past 10 years, to make solar more efficient and affordable, to make wind power more affordable and efficient, to find ways to use nuclear power, to use energy that is cleaner than the energy we are using.

look how dramatically different the natural gas industry is in america now than it was 10 years ago, because of technology. we have to constantly use new technology to address the future for our country. and do it in a way that makes our lives better, not worse. most of us recognize that climate change is a reality. let's use technology as a way to advance the environment, the economy, and our foreign relations. host: you belong to a caucus known as the climate solutions caucus. is this a, nation of democrats and republicans? combination of democrats and republicans? guest: yes. i'm concerned that some of the republicans lost seats this year. of theress, as part national defense authorization act in the armed services committee, which fell apart, we put in a provision that said you have to take into account climate change as part of our national defense strategy.

the republicans on the committee voted for that, and then they tried to take it off the agenda when it went before the full congress. enough republicans voted to keep that as part of the national defense authorization act. that was a positive, hopeful thing, more republicans recognizing this is a reality we face. it is usually republicans in coastal communities, or communities affected by severe storm events. events, sincetorm 2015, have cost the u.s. economy $400 billion to respond to. thatif we took money like instead and invested in the future of trying to improve our climate? the election will shift things as far as the caucus is concerned. how many republicans will go away because of the election? guest: i don't know the exact number. one of the leaders, carlos crivello, lost his race. we need more republicans willing to address climate change. host: why do you think there is

a resistance to do that? guest: i am not sure where it comes from. it could come from a natural inclination to have a deeper -- -- they for republican are with the business community. we could do things that are smart to regulate behavior and try to advance business interests. i try to talk about the jobs that could be created, and the business improvement in the economy that could be created with this new field of technology. you see other countries in the world that are taking advantage of these new technologies, and are trying to improve jobs, that also improve the bottom line for businesses and invest in them. we need to marry the interest of the environment with the economic improvement that could come. host: is that playing out in new york, the state you serve? guest: yes, we see more investment in clean technology and a move toward a greener economy in new york state. you always need to do more, and you need the national government to help.

couldabout how many jobs be created from transitioning to solar power or wind power. you cannot export those. think about the need to build transmission lines from places in the middle of the desert, where solar power may be, or wind in the middle of the mountains, or out in the waterways, and take the transmission line across the country to places that need the energy. talk about different parts of the country that do not have access to this technology. to mend us amounts of jobs could be created, and businesses related to those industries -- tremendous amounts of jobs could be created, and businesses. host: if you made legislation to address this issue, how do you deal with the republican senate, and the white house? guest: the bottom line is, this is a conversation where people in the united states -- democrats, republicans, independents, recognize we need to do something. everybody watches television or reads things on the internet about the fires going on in california.

sandy on longne island, where i am from. hurricane harvey down in texas. the flooding, the fires, the storms -- you would be blind not to recognize that something is happening and going on in our lives right now. we need to do things to address it. host: representative tom swazi -- suozzi is a member of the climate solutions caucus. your thoughts on the leadership collect -- election? the problempart of solvers caucus, democrats and republicans trying to solve problems in the country. we had a proposal we had a proposal he would not vote for any speaker candidate unless they changed some of the rules in the congress to make the congress more open and more transparent, and to encourage members to work together more across party lines. we had negotiations until the last moment, yesterday morning, and we got a lot of the things we were looking for. we did not get everything, but

we got a lot of the things we are looking for nancy pelosi. host: what did you get, and what didn't you? guest: if you can get 290 cosponsors, you will be able to get a bill on the floor. we could've gotten a lot done in the last congress, where the large majority of members, despite things you read and watch -- there are a lot more reasonable people who agree in congress. but you need to get it on the floor for a vote, things related to daca, or health care, or infrastructure. we have a provision that you can get something put on the floor that way. if you get 20 democrats and 20 republicans to agree on an amendment, you can get that added to a bill. we are making it more difficult to kick the speaker out. right now, one person can call for the astor of the speaker. a lot of people, especially under the freedom caucus, would hold the speaker hostage if they could not get their way. this small group would call for their ouster.

we are making it where you have to have a majority of your caucus to call for a speaker's ouster. we will have the ratio of committees reflect the actual ratios of democrats and republicans in the overall congress, reflected closely in our committees. we will make sure you have notice before the bill goes on the floor for a vote, so you have three days, a chance to read it. host: when it comes to the transition of leadership, which is one of the issues as far as putting younger leadership into place, did you get any assurances on that? guest: you know, we have a new chair of the democratic caucus, hakeem jeffries. he is from new york, a personal friend, incredible talented. he is a hope for the future of the party. we have other races going on today where a lot of young people are involved in the future. we are going to see katherine clark is going to be the vice chair of the democratic party. another young, vibrant person in our party. we are seeing a lot of

up-and-coming leaders. ben ray lujan is going to be the assistant majority leader. we will see other races related to the d triple c -- more vibrant faces. host: the votes for nancy pelosi -- you think that indicates further problems, come january, and cohesiveness? guest: i think she will be the next speaker and will have support. the democrats will come together to lead this country, working together and working across party lines, to solve the problems our country faces. suozzi, democrat from long island, part of the climate solutions caucus. thank you for your time. back to your phone calls. we will hear from doug, nevada. thanks for waiting. people think man is causing climate change. they have to understand that since 1970, the population of the earth has doubled. there lies your problem. the population just keeps

growing, unbelievable. i think in 2050, there will be 10 billion. i think that is the problem. you have to reduce the amount of people on the earth. georgia, hello. climatei believe in change, but i believe it is more natural than it is manhattan manmade, the it is we seem to be adding to it. also, i don't believe in taxing our way out of it. only what happens is the politicians take the money and spend it on something else. it is kind of hard to believe they will take whatever revenues we give them, and not misplace it like they do other funding that is given to it. host: when you say you believe in climate change, what do you base that on? caller: here in georgia, i am seeing that we do have higher

temperatures, and that the hurricanes are more severe than that have been in the past. it does seem natural. and it seems to be a lot hotter as well. host: that is jerry in georgia. for the next 20 minutes, your speaking on your belief in climate change. let us know if you believe or don't believe it, and tell us why, 202-748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones and 202-748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. frank is next. right is in maryland, in aberdeen. hello. caller: good morning. in 1824, a guy in london was looking up, and he was wondering , what is all this coal burning going to do to our climate? he noticed some incremental changes. 1896, andrd to someone was wondering about past ice ages, and what caused it.

he speculated that it had to do co2, and he-- generated a model looking at how much co2 was in the atmosphere. he estimated that the a month of coal being burned at the time, that in a thousand years or so, we were going to double our co2, and he generated tables. they were not spot on with modern numbers, but it was in the right direction, and it was saying what it was. 1938,as confirmed in again in 1956, and in 1982. ever since then, the numbers have been more and more focusing and. -- focusing in. science is not just something you come up with. it is a dialogue back and forth. you come up with an observation, experiment, and a test, and you repeat.

you do it again and again, and eventually, you find the truth. int: that is frank, aberdeen, maryland, calling about his thinking on climate change. you can continue through the course of this program, less than 20 minutes or so. if you are calling in, continue to do so. if your currently online, stay on line. now, carlos crivello, curbello. what was your response to the climate report? guest: it was disappointing. this was a report produced by scientists across different agencies. there only agenda is to tell the truth, to alert the government and the public with regards to the risks associated with the changing climate, and of course changes, and these

you hear the president and the white house dismissed that is not relevant was a major disappointment. for florida, we are kind of the tip of the spear when it comes to climate change. see levels are rising. in south florida, most of us live near sea level, and near the sea. this is a real issue for us. this is not some debate in theory about what could be or not. it is about a challenge that we are facing locally in places like the florida keys, miami beach, and others. what we are interested in is solutions. we want to make this better. we want to make sure people can continue inhabiting south florida for many years to come. that includes me and my children. i do have a bit of a personal stake in this. is there a legislative effort going on to address the solutions? what is the response on capitol hill? guest: certainly there is.

the market choice act is a bill that would price carbon, recognize a cost to carbon dioxide emissions. it would put american consumers in control. it would trust american consumers to make the best choices and it comes to clean energy and energy efficiency. and the revenues this carbon when allould generate go to fund infrastructure in our country, something there is pretty barred -- broad bipartisan consensus on. we need to invest in infrastructure -- which means roads and bridges, but also seawalls, elevating roads, things we're already doing in parts of the country like south florida. recently this week, a bipartisan group of members introduced carbon and dividend plans. this would price carbon, but instead of investing the revenues in infrastructure, it would turn around and deliver the revenues back to the american people, every american citizen.

they would receive a dividend from this carbon pricing every year. what is it like for a republican like yourself to make those, especially among southern republicans? has been aink there lot of growth in the house republican conference when it comes to this issue. 2015,ved in congress in and there were only three or four republicans who were even willing to discuss climate change, to acknowledge it. today, 45 republicans are members of the climate solutions caucus. that means they are on the record, recognizing this is a real issue, and that it requires attention, and very likely action from the government. every day, more and more republicans are coming around to accept the science, which i have reviewed over and over again, to accept the facts, it are evident in south florida, and to embrace the idea that we should develop

some legislation to address this challenge. host: we heard one of your fellow members, representative tom suozzi, expressed concerns that republicans lost elections, including yourself, because of that. was this because of this issue? guest: not at all. this was a midterm election, and we all know how the pendulum swings in american politics. it is no prize that the opposition party gained seats. the good news is, a lot of good republicans will be in the 116th congress and are committed to this cause. cognition francis rooney of congressmanorida -- francis rooney of southwest florida sponsored legislation this week and cosponsored mine. a pennsylvanian is committed to this cause, and many others throughout the country. i look forward to seeing more florida republicans stepped up to the late, might francis

rooney house. embrace this issue. stepe problem solvers -- up to the plate, like francis rooney house. embrace this problem. become problem solvers on a federal level. host: you heard groups say there was a connection between your loss and this issue. guest: that is a baseless claim. no one in my district campaigned on carbon pricing. it was not a topic. dore were no ads that had to with that. that is just a dishonest claim that these groups are making, to further their agenda. i would like to see if they have any evidence of that, empirical evidence that they would like to show us. i would be interested in seeing it. otherwise, i think they are lying. host: with democrats taking control, how would you advise them? what do you expect with this issue of climate change and how they approach it? guest: my best advice is, if we

are ever going to get a meaningful solution for this issue, it has to be bipartisan. that is something that unfortunately a lot of members of congress do not understand. or a lot of people, it is my way or the highway. that approach usually yields nothing. when it comes to the environment and coastal resiliency, "nothing" is no longer an option. i would encourage the democratic majority to try to continue nurturing the bipartisan growth we have seen over the last four years on the issue of the environment, and climate change specifically, because we know we are going to need 60 votes in the senate. we are going to need a majority in the house. and the president's signature for anything meaningful to get done. that would be my best advice. if you really care about this issue, if you want to see meaningful action, try to continue growing the bipartisan

coalition. encourage republicans to sign up to this cause. and do not politicize this issue. do not use it as a political instrument. that will just make it harder for a solution to emerge. host: representative curbelo, what are your future plans? guest: i have a lot of ideas, but i will keep those to myself until after january 3. the most obvious thing is i will have time for family and friends home in miami. i look forward to that. serving in congress has been a great privilege and amazing honor, but it has been difficult on the family. it has meant a lot of time away. for now, that is what i am most looking forward to. host: "the miami herald" says a mayoral bid might be in store. guest: i have a passion for public service. these last four years, and the four years before that on the miami-dade county school board, have been fulfilling.

i feel i have been able to make meaningful contributions. certainly, returning to public service is something i am considering, but i am not ready to make any decision, and won't be anytime soon. host: carlos curbelo, republican of florida, cofounder and cochair of the climate solutions caucus, about issues on climate change. and you for joining us. guest: have a good day. host: john is next, in maryland. go ahead. caller: i want to say thank you, c-span. , yes, we areto say part of the problem when it comes to co2. but what i want to say is, if you go back to history, look at the dustbowl. people do not understand the human imprint on farming contributed to the big dustbowl that happened a long time ago. fortalk about solutions carbon, the big thing i want to talk about is man-made solutions, synthetic ways to

remove carbon from the atmosphere, carbon filters. we can create these using solar power, as well as when-powered turbines, to actually power the carbon reduction systems. i do not want to get cut off real quick. you talk about the ocean levels rising. there are ways to reduce that as well. ,ou can create man-made systems already designed, that can go into our ocean today, desalination -- take out salt and create icebergs. .e could set up oil rigs we could set up rigs to create ice to cool the ocean. when i hear people talk about how they want to talk about solutions, there are plenty of solutions out there. we have created problems. go ahead. host: thanks for calling. greg in florida, go ahead. thank you for the

opportunity, but your question is wrong. there is no question that the climate changes. the question is, how does man affect climate change? actually, the question is, do you believe it? ander: if you go outside look at the weather and go outside the next day, you will notice the climate has changed. we have cities underwater, pedro, from the previous changes in climates. , almostavenues, cities countries that are underwater now, because they used to be above the water. things change. i am a floridian. we fight invasive species here in florida that come from other places. guess what? that is natural. all of florida is the result of species invading. it is a natural progression. when we measure climate change, we look at 1% to 2%. nobody measures 90% of the volcanic occurrences underwater

that are impacting climate. we look at carbon. 800,000 years ago, we had more carbon in the air than we have today. look at the information that russia has on their drilling in the arctic. host: let's hear from another floridian. this is dan. go ahead. caller: this is dan in saint augustine, florida. i have been studying this for quite a long time, and the gentleman who just was speaking about carbon being much higher way in the past, before there was man doing much affecting it at all -- mostly, our climate is not the cause of mankind that has been going on. when we have cold weather, there is less oxygen and more carbon dioxide. when they checked during the ice ages, and they drilled down, ns,ng to those spams -- spa

that is when carbon was at its highest. when the earth was warmer, carbon was at its lowest. we had more plant activity converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. mostly, our indoctrination of our populations through public schools, we have the younger generations believing it is going to get warmer until polar bears are dropping dead, and everything else. the north and south poles have been getting larger each year, if you check them out in their winter on the same date. host: ok, that is dan in florida. "the wall street journal" reporting that some of the migrants in tijuana are turning back. santiago perez and others saying they have filed for voluntary repatriation. migrants from honduras departed on tuesday. another group of 98 migrants are

being deported to their own countries in buses, because they were among those who attempted to force their way through the border to the u.s. petitions for a silent in mexico have risen. there were 47 requests on monday, from an average of 15 in previous days, filing for asylum in mexico in the past week. the businesso section of "the washington post," google's chief executive is expected to testify to congress in december, facing lawmakers for the first time in a hearing that could subject the search giant to the same spotlight that has faced tech leaders all years. that is scheduled before the house judiciary committee. angel is next, in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i would like to see if you could set up a panel of the cerno talk about program, and the harp program,

to see if they have any effect -- if these programs have any effect on our planet. host: ok. shirley in the ben, california. -- in dobbins, california. caller: hello, i live about 40 miles south of paradise, which was wiped off the face of the earth in the last two weeks. i am not a scientist. change,ieve in climate that it is a natural thing that is going to happen, something we cannot control. but we can prepare. and i believe that our infrastructure has deteriorated to the point that it is affecting our planet. i -- i -- host: we will leave it there and

go to michael in for want. -- in vermont. caller: i do believe in climate change. after all, 12,000 years ago, there was a mile-thick glacier over new york city, which is not there anymore. i'm a change must have started 12,000 years ago. change must have started 12,000 years ago. host: ron in ohio, we are just about ready for the house, so jump right in. caller: hello. my name is ron. i am from ohio. climateiness about , i don't mean to sound too ecumenical -- my great-grandfather was a minister. these things are predicted in the bible, these natural disasters. you know, it was predicted prior to