washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, the latest on aca roman and how health care is playing out. and then a look at student debt and college employment. and the center for public integrity discusses campaign finance laws as they relate to humanscalled hush michael cohen made and questions of alleged illegal donations to president trump's inaugural committee. and a reporter looks at the trump's proposal to alter clean water act protections for waterways. at 7:00on journal live eastern saturday morning. join the discussion.

at our table, former congressman of south carolina, a republican, resulting -- representing from 1994 to 2008. now you are the executive director of republicen. what is this group? guest: conservatives reaching conservatives on climate change, showing a free enterprise solution to the challenge. it is republicen.org. host: what is your mission? guest: to help conservatives see it is a challenge, but it is a challenge free enterprise can answer. ande put of the costs leveled the playing field, then watch competition within their free enterprise is them drive itn costs to future fuels, will probably display some income and fuels, but that is the way the free enterprise system works. it is a call to conservatives to really believe in the power of

free enterprise. host: here is what you said about your previous view on climate change was. it was pretty easy to decide, you said about yourself. if al gore is for it, i am against it. i admit that it sort of ignorant, but that is who i was for six years. guest: really all i knew was al gore was for it. since i represented a very red district in a very red state, that was the end of the inquiry. i admit that was ignorant. i was in for six years, came out, then went back in for another six. my son was telling me into thousand four, voting for the first time, he said dad, i will vote for you, but you got to clean up your act on the environment. motherr sisters and his agreed. the second step for me -- that was the first step in a

three-step metamorphosis. the second step was going to an article with the science community and seeing the evidence there. the third step was another science committee trip, and something of a spiritual awakening. there was a scientist who inspired me by his love of faith and love of god and people that we need to do something about climate change. so i came home and introduced the raise wages cut carbon act in 2009 as an alternative to trade. it did not go well for me in the republican primary. those were the darkest days of the great recession. so i get tossed out. but ever since, i've been out on the streets saying it is not a heresy. this is exactly what conservatives believe, that you illuminate all of the subsidies, then watch the free enterprise system drive costs down as it innovates. it is quite different now than

it was when i got tossed out. the economy is better. we have all had more experience with climate change. now there are groups like ours on the eco-right that balance the environmental left. host: what specifically do you think republicans can agree to? revenue neutrality and to border adjustment and a price on carbon dioxide. those are the key things. very revenue neutral. as conservatives at republicen. org do not want to grow the government. we are not looking to add new money to the system. negativeo internalize externalities -- attach hidden costs to the burning of fossil fuels. then, be the cause of the interviews -- innovation that will come. so it has to be revenue neutral. that is what conservatives can get behind. it has to be border adjustable, which means you have to get a

way of collecting the taxes on imports that were made here. china and the wto will change that. but we think they will lose based on precedence in oil. later,re right, 24 hours they would have the same price in carbon dioxide. the whole world would follow. america would be leading the world to a solution. we have 7 billion people, not just 205 million people plus demanding future fuels, asking their free enterprise system to supply clean fuels. so it is an exciting opportunity. it is not just doom and gloom. it is an incredible opportunity for free enterprise. host: a republican viewer said carbon tax will impact the middle-class class more than anyone else. guest: that is not correct. the people who would be most impacted, for example, if you reach revenue neutrality by

cutting the payroll tax, which is what my bill would have done in 2009, it is the bottom 70 percentile that do better in that system then in the current system. that wouldop 30% pay, according to the congressional budget office. because they have heated pools and large houses, and they fly orbit jets. those are the ones who would pay more. but if you cut payroll taxes, the bottom 70% would do better. it is an incredible opportunity to actually improve people's lives and take-home. host: do you agree with john kerry, former secretary of state, writing forget trump, act on climate. he says give the president a choice. send him legislation that would make him a choice, whether or not he would say no to deploying solar technology that would turn the american west into the saudi arabia of solar, no to turning the midwest to the middle east

of wind power, no to a manufacturing revolution that would put west virginia back to work in a way his beloved coal never will. he has a good point. it can be summarized by our suggestion -- my suggestion r.p.e.e to increase funding, the innovation program from the department of energy. we all live in the show me state, not just folks in missouri. if you can show me innovation will work. r.p.e. isat r. p. -- about. that is essentially what don kerry is saying. that is something house democrats could do. .e.reased dramatically r.p funding. that hold constructive hearings with conservatives about how do you solve this?

believe.hem do you if you have a hearing about do you believe, what you are asking , some conservatives to say, is you are right, i am the dumb kid in the class, the last one to get it, i am so much your lesser. that is such a heart set up. better to say let's forget all of that silliness -- and really, it is getting silly, let's just forget all of that and move on to the discussion of solutions. those would be constructive hearings. our viewersget involved. we want to know your thoughts on climate change. richard is in springdale, arkansas, you are first. caller: hello, c-span. an mr. inglis. wo ave two fax i have -- t facts i have come across. all you talk about is carbon.

one is from the national arboretum -- national audubon society. wobble thatear affects the climate. it causes ice ages and warming. in the second point is the magnetic field of the earth. izzy's the only thing that protects us from the sun's radiation. -- it is the only thing that protects us from the sun's radiation. it is shifting towards siberia and has diminished 10%. if you have some magical way of increasing the magnetic field of the earth, then fine. but this "carbon, carbon, carbon" is nothing more than a money ploy. these forces that are working on us, we must learn to live with them. these are forces we cannot control. thank you. i would like to hear your answer off the air. host: all right. guest: what i was adjusted goat

two is skepticalscience.com. you will see discussion of those points. myths onthe top ten climate change. i know you have one of them. if you look at skeptical science, the top left corner of the homepage, you will see the answer to your question. briefly, if you wanted, but also in great detail, if you want it. briefly, why do we search for alternative explanations when this is something we can solve? i would understand it if we felt we could not solve it. it is sort of like we all delay going to the dock or if we think the diagnosis is going to be doctor if -- to the we think the diagnosis is going to be really bad. but we go to the doctor if we think the doctor can fix it. we can fix climate change, so let's go to the doctor. let's not go searching for

magnetic field nations, which you will see are just not indicated. the deeper question is why search so hard for alternative explanations, when the one at hand is pretty clear. we are increasing the temperature of the earth by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. host: sam is in rochester, new york. a republican. caller: i do not buy one second of you. first of all, global warming, they couldn't solve that, so it goes to -- they couldn't sell that, so they go to climate change. when you can explain that atmosphere,in the -- carbon actually helps plants grow. i do not buy one second of global warming, or climate change.

most of these studies are based on financing from globalists paying scientists to come up with this story. i buy not one second of you or this. thank you. guest: it is hard to reach you, then. it is also hard to reach -- i hope people listening know that the chemtrail thing, for example, is really a bunch of nonsense. it is not like why do we go searching for these things? it makes a good novella, if you want to write a good novella with a good plot. it would be a fun book to read. but we have to deal with facts and data. i am a member of a party that used to be characterized by facts. we seem to be departing from that. republicans were the ones who said let's talk about facts and data.

what you have just done is gone into some space way beyond data and facts. for other listeners, please, do not go searching for chemtrail's. you put in a search for chemtrail's and some word that indicates harm or conspiracy, google will return to you all kinds of results that say it is real. you will be convinced, based on those results that there is some chemtrail thing going on, when in fact, there is a whole other body of data that says note -- total nonsense. search is thegle idea. host: you can also read the national climate assessment, the latest one that was released under the trump administration. it reads the continue warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas submissions is expected to cause substantial

damage through the economy, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. with continued growth in omissions at historic rates, annual losses and some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century. more than the current gross domestic product of many u.s. states. guest: it is incredible. host: what is the economic impact? guest: if you read the study, we could lose 10% of gdp by the end of the century. that is a massive hit. some people say end of the century, i am not sure i will be here. but that is where we need to gry's to a better level of concern for people after us. some people say this is such a devilish problem of climate change, because in a darwinian sense, a species can only care about the current generation of

the species, it cannot care about the future generation. but that is a very low view of humanity. i think we have to rise to a higher view and say we are doing this for our prosperity. even if you do not have kids or grandchildren, rise to the occasion and care about people coming after us. host: let's go to georgia, independent. caller: thanks for taking the call. you are a very nice man. i am from the south. you remind me of so many people i know who are kind and trying to do the best they can. listening tojust the two calls before, i think that is so much evidence that this country is never going to get on this climate step -- get rid of this climate skepticism. it is not going to happen. as a christian nation, i do not think we are going to put that much faith in that sort of unknown science and i would also like to say some of these things

you are talking about in terms of knology -- and i have extensive background in the systems, there is a bit of a perpetual motion machine and what you are talking about it there is only so much that can be gotten out of the system by putting in the inputs you are be gotten out of the system by putting in the inputs you are talking about. some of the gas engines i am around are extremely efficient, and i see no reason from any updence that we should give the gas combustible engine. thank you. finished reading david mccullough's book, "the wright brothers." substitute "climate change" for "flight," in the conversation you are having is the same facedsation the wright's through their early career. people cannot fly.

that was a consensus. and the wright brothers said, "oh no, we can." thank goodness they persevered. it is analogous -- analogous to where we are now with climate change. it can be done. why do we have to rely just on what we have got? are we not creative enough to break through to something better? we relied on whale oil. then we moved to cole. then we figured out that petroleum was better and more transportable than coal. what is next? let's be the wright brothers. those were great americans, believed you could do something with innovation. the christian nation,, i think it is very important not to see a contest between faith and science. my faith is affirmed by science. it is backed up by data.

archaeology backed up a lot of the claims of the bible. why get into this fight between faith and science? faith is affirmed by science. science is part of the search for truth. host: the peer research center said the majority of adults say climate change affects their area. 31% say it affects them personally. marsha and wyoming, a democrat. caller: hi there. my favorite subject. morning. i am a second time caller, both on the same subject. son works in -- my gas and oil. aware oflely -- freely what the needs are out there. what i would like you to talk about, when you talk about facts pleasea, could someone

start inspiring other people to of theto the problem death and dying of entire species of animals due to heat and drought? it is getting to be more difficult to relocate. they are running out of space. and it is too slow, dirty, lousy death, whether you die of thirst or hunger. there are millions of people out there who care about endangered species and other species. host: we will leave it there and get a response from that. guest: you are right. it is something we should be concerned about. you are a steward of the creation, why did you make it so corals% of the earth's may be gone by 2050? to richard's point about how he

does not see the evidence, the reality is it is not like the coming of the ice age, which did eliminate a lot of species. this is happening extremely fast, at warp speed, when it comes to geological time. in our time, it seems slowly coming, but in geological terms, this is warp speed that this is happening. the corals have a relationship with an algae -- you increase the temperature by one degree celsius, and coral kicks the algae out of bed, and they both die. it is too hot for them. if this were happening slowly, the coral and algae relationship change and they would adapt. but this is happening so fast that they will both die. so what a tragedy, by 2050, 90% of the earth's coral is gone. host: scott is watching, a

republican. caller: i would like to bring up the scandal of angola university, the hack that it was proven that scientists were fudging data to get funds. and number two, the biggest climate change that ever occurred was 700 million years ago, when there were no suv's, no man-made co2 emissions. the earth naturally changes. this is a way for politicians to create a new tax and take money. host: i will have you respond to drew after hearing from anthony, an independent. caller: i happen to live where they had an earthquake the other morning, in tennessee. it was an earthquake i had never had. i had been here since 1999. it shook my house so bad.

it felt 50 foot. hurt in the morning. here has changed phenomenally from the time i moved here in 1999 to yesterday. a little over 16 degrees on the ago,or, and three days that's a little over 60 degrees on the back port -- a little over 60 degrees on the back porch. three days ago, it was 19. guest: i think you are showing something that is really happening for all of us. we are all experiencing climate change. we are seeing it. if you live at the coast in north carolina, you have 50% more rain out of lawrence than what it would have otherwise been. that is an impact.

so we are experiencing climate it is just some of us apparently do not think we can innovate and do anything better, so therefore, we are sort of like saying earlier we do not want to go to the doctor, because we think we will get a bag diagnosis. the reality is we can fix this. i think if you scratch a climate skeptic, like drew was evidencing, you find they just do not think we can do it. that is more of the reason they are a climate skeptic. it is not that they have looked into the data. they have relied on may be a few sources at fox and friends or something6 they have not looked -- or something. if you look at the east anglia thing -- careful how you search it. if you search it with any word that dictates conspiracy, you will have returned to you a whole bunch of articles that are not the main body of the matter. the main body of the matter, i

look search you -- -- you anglia.y emmanuel, east you will find people like kerry, a credible scientist, to look into the matter. there you will find that it was not what was reported in some of those sources that want to dispute it. the question is why do they want to dispute it so hard? it is because there innovation pessimists. they do not think humans can do any better. they do not think another wright brothers are out there, ready to fly. host: steve in west virginia, democrat. caller: yes, thank you. three things i would like to talk about. but i would like to go right to a solution. they have figured out a way to create carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel.

fromhave a way to take co2 the atmosphere using solar energy. they can break down water, get the hydrogen, using solar energy. they can combine that to make a carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel. in other words, you burn that, but the co2 back, take it back out. what is incredible about these co2 outs they can take of the atmosphere and store it in the ground. they do not have to make fuel that day or night, they can also use it to extract fuel from the atmosphere. i think bill gates heard about this, and he is getting involved, too. host: we have got to run, so i just want to have mr. inglis respond to you. guest: i am with you on innovation. ion not familiar with that particular concept, but you are onto the right kind of people -- i am not familiar with that

particle concept, but you are onto the right kind of people. i would not bet against bill gates comes to technological innovation. thank goodness there are people like that who really see the opportunity at hand, and they want to deliver that kind of innovation. and you are into a key aspect, which is probably if you are doing that creation -- doing that, creation of hydrogen would be in off hours, when you otherwise would not need that power, because it is very energy intensive to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. host: what are you watching for next? you have the united states pulling out of the paris climate deal, but other nations moving forward. what are you watching for? .e.st: an increase of r.p funding. another thing is these hearings that can get beyond this question of you believe and into how can we solve this?

of conversation. the question i am grateful for, for all the mayors and governors that are continuing in the commitment -- the challenge of all of those things is getting it nationwide our constitution says you cannot do that border adjustment i was mentioning anywhere but here in washington from here in the federal government. that is the challenge, when you are dealing with state and local efforts. thank goodness they are engaged in those efforts. it causes people to say we can fix this, let's go to the doctor. this can be fixed. it is like melanoma -- a deadly kind of cancer. unless you catch it early. if you catch it early, it is no big deal. but if you wait, it gets to be a very big problem. climate change is just like that. let's go to the doctor and get it fixed. host: sam in minnesota, an

independent watching this. what is your question or comment? caller: hi. i wanted to respond to the guy in georgia, because he made the comment i do not see the reason why -- and he seemed so authoritative and i like your response. you talked about people as being innovative. see -- all the politics aside, i see this as the natural step for the human race is to come up with new ways to make power. new ways to live in harmony with our environment. could -- thatit is about it. host: let me go to robert in california. i am a nonvoter.

there are 6 billion people in the world. all of us are 98.6 degrees. the average temperature is 58 degrees. i believe it is overpopulation. that is what is causing this climate change. yep more bathrooms, more underground structures. everything man creates is multiplied 6 billion times. host: let's take that. overpopulation. guest: there is some truth to that. we are putting a lot of pressure on the planet by the number of us. it is also true that if you increase economic prosperity, birth rates go down. it is not a matter of stopping people from having babies. it is a matter of giving them prosperity or giving them something else to do like buy a

tv. reality is that economic improvement usually results in a decline in birth rate. the reason people have a lot of children in poor places as they do not have any sense of security that they will make it to adulthood, those children. it is a strange thing. you are right, we are putting a lot of pressure because of the number of people, but if we were have better economic performance and better prosperity, we would have less of a birth rate. it is a rather complicated thing. i do not want to underestimate -- tim earlier was asking how big is the problem. i do not want to give the impression it is as simple as melanoma. and it a huge problem will take a massive amount of focus. innovation is going to deliver the best first steps and then we

will have to do some direct air capture of co2 in order to reduce the amount of co2 in our atmosphere. a lot of work needs to be done. let me not act like it is going to be easy and we will get this done by next tuesday. this is a huge challenge. it is one we can undertake together if we pull together. host: let's get involved in texas, republican. caller: thank you. when i was a graduate student in oceanography i worked with the father of global warming before he coined the term global warming. it is his contention that in the 4.5 billion years of earth's geological history there have been 10 climate cycles. my question is if man is causing this cycle, who caused those others that amounted to

thousands of feet of ice over many of our continents? guest: a great question. you can see it skepticalscience.com, is that those were naturally caused. we humans are now affecting the planet. before it was some of those things that richard mentioned. activity,ty -- as , things sun activity that would've explained massive changes in earth quiet -- in earth's climate. if you look at our website, you will see a great analysis and graph done by bloomberg that will show you interactively, sun spots, how much would be explained by that.

you can see for yourself as they plot it out whether it correlates with the temperature and the answer is it does not in the current situation. the thing that correlates as you'll see in the bloomberg graph is co2 levels. that is the correlation. it is rather tight. change wereods of caused by some of those things that of been mentioned, by people that are skeptical, but it pretty clearly is us doing this right now. host: a republican in lincoln hills, illinois. scott, if you could make it quick? caller: i do not see co2 is being the issue. co2 is heavier than air. it has a 44.1% milligram and that pulls it to earth. how is it in the atmosphere? it doesn't make sense.

host: let's take the point. guest: interesting. it is clearly in the atmosphere. i would suggest you go to skepticalscience.com. it is interesting. people that are afraid we do not have a solution are looking for other explanations so it goes off some other way. eventually we will realize this is the problem and we have to deal with it. better to engage with the data rather than run looking for other explanations. host: the group is called republicen.org. you can fi announcer: a look at student

debt and post--- and postcollege employment. the center for public integrity on campaign-finance laws as they relate to the so-called hush mate andmichael cohen questions of illegal foreign dacians to president trump's inauguration committee. also, we look at the trump administration's proposal to alter clean water act protections for some waterways. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal saturday morning. join the discussion. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, conversations with three retiring members of congress, claire mccaskill, mark

sanford, and dana rohrabacher, discussing losing their reelection bids and time in congress. joke in myo make the stump speech, imagine if they are weaving you into the operating room and the nurse as i have good news for you. the surgeon has never done this before. you would go, back to the gurney up. in governments now, that is what people want, people running for office who have never been around government because they had become so cynical that anyone who has chosen this for a career is not looking after them. thisat i would say is, and is part of the blessing of having a second chance at politics after 2009. i have seen and experienced

whichand, people's grace, is a reflection of god's grace. that is an incredibly humbling journey to walk. >> i had the bolshevik billionaires, and i have stepped on their toes, who decided i had to go, and i was outspent 10 to one. it might be more than that when we look into it. it is five people worth billions of dollars and you don't even live in california. conversationsch with retiring members of congress on c-span and c-span.org, and listen with the free c-span radio app. exclusive,book tv our cities tour visits memphis, tennessee to learn more about its unique history and literary life. for seven years, we have traveled to u.s. cities come of