write about. if you break that exchange down, miami by moment, you see multiple failures of understanding of, of empathy of course a million things. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> this is ted, he's the chair and c.e.o. of the climate leadership council here to talk about a proposal they have. a pt carbon tax. good morning. who backs your organization? guest: we were founded by who's who of business as well as opinion leaders from across the spectrum. it is an odd bedfellow coalition looking for bipartisan solution. host: how much of that backing comes from oil and gas companies? guest: this shows the founding members of the council, and it

says -- it has leaders from almost all sectors of industry as well as opinion leaders across the spectrum. oil companies and others are broadf it, but it is a coalition. all of these parties are converging around a consensus bipartisan climate solution. companyy would a oil consent to this tax? guest: because there are a number of options to solve climate change. there are regulatory approaches which democrats and left-wing voices are pushing. what we need is a climate solution that is proenvironment, pro-business, and that is what we have offered. our plan would cut carbon emissions i 50% by 2035. -- by 50% by 2035. it would get -- give every american family carbon

dividends. host: so the tax itself, how does it work? would pay amissions fee starting at $40 a ton. it would be economy wide. it would increase energy costs, but all the money raised goes directly back to american citizens, and a family of four people would get about $2000 a year. that means 70% of americans including the most vulnerable help to solve this climate change. we actually come out ahead receiving they receive -- meaning they receive more in carbon dividends. this aligns the economic incentives of americans with climate progress. to?: what is this applied all sectors of industry,

all carbon emissions. no exceptions. everything, there will be a price to reduce emissions across the economy. we've done this to help american workers, and is pro-business. the dip bait is to partisan. there are proposals on the left that are antibusiness. they will never get bipartisan support we need a solution where we can come together and get behind this. regulation,s became does it say it let us impose this tax, but don't impose these regulations? guest: exactly. it is a meaningful -- meaningful example,carbon's, for this will get you a deal that is bipartisan, that businesses and environmental leaders can get behind. att: you can ask our guest

202-748-8000 for democrats, independence, 202-748-8002, and you can text us at 202-748-8003. he is with the climate leadership council. we have a call for you from jim from texas, the democrats line. go ahead. he talks about taxing people. automobiles are the biggest criminal of all, and everybody in the public has got automobiles, and they don't have the electric ones. will there ever be help for buying an electric car so we can get rid of these carbon producing auto meal -- automobiles that we have? createwe went to

economic incentives for all americans to reduce the carbon emissions. economists have said the most cost-effective solution is to put a price on carbon. that would change activity all across the country. it's not to do it through regulation, but rather to do it through a price and give every dividends. that empowers people to make choices about how they want to reduce emissions. the more you reduce, the more you come out ahead under the plan. this, whenwer adds it comes to this tax, it will only be paid by the poorest consumers. guest: the u.s. department of treasury found that 70% of american families would win a commendably -- economically under this plan. the lower you are on the income scale, the more you get. it is not a tax on the wealthy. it's simply because low income

americans have a lower carbon footprint. michael talking about this, this program creates a new arrangement that collects his taxes and sends dollars in a political game, and this quickly becomes entitlements, and the program simply adds new taxes to our existing code. guest: there are three ways to solve the problem could many of the proposals put forth by democrats have very high price tags. what that means is your taxes would go up or the deficits would go up. our plan is revenue neutral. it would know go to the side of the government. it would shrink the size of the government because it does away with regulations unnecessary

once you have a meaningful carbon price. that's why this is a conservative solution and the original co-authors are a who's who of republicans, for example, james baker and george schultz, and our plan is named after them. proves it is republican credentials. our: we are hearing from color from virginia. -- caller from virginia. guest: it looks like some of what we are doing is causing a loop to occur in the northern parts of the planet. if you look at methane leaks from the tundra and the amount of absorption by the ocean. we are urging a critical point where we may not be able to turn the ship around. you act like we can solve the climate crisis, that was like 15 years ago. we need to sue the oil and gas

industries are hiding research into this that they knew 30 years ago trade maybe we could use some of that money like we used with the tobacco companies to fix some of the lives by building better flood zone infrastructure, allowing solar panel use to increase energy renewable energy, and also just use it to build electric vehicle for us so we can get the carbon out. much of disagree with that. we need to solve the climate i amem going forward, and more optimistic. our plan reduces in missions by 50% by 2035 in a manner that is pro-business and in the way that economists say is most cost-effective. in the scientist will tell you the number one objective is reducing emissions. our plan would do so in a manner

that is faster and greater than any other proposal out there. host: how do you conclude that? has there been studies done on this? guest: lets put up the second chart. our plan is underpinned by credible modeling. what this shows is that if our plan were implemented by 2021, it would exceed the u.s. paris contrast, one line shows if all obama era regulations had remained in place, we would only get to about 18% reduction by 2025, below the paris target. this concertedat inspired plan backed by industry would exceed the u.s. paris commitment which is something no regulatory approach accomplishes. host: would you depend on

enforcement of these taxes for this approach? guest: the federal government is good at enforcement taxes -- of taxes. we prefer to call it a fee instead of a tax. economists are not worried about that. fees countries have tried successfully. in british columbia, when they imposed a carbon price, emissions went down. that is the model. in our plan all the money goes back to the american people. that is what is unique. it creates a positive feedback loop for the more we protect the environment, the more americans come out ahead. plan you launch this yesterday what has been your reception so far? something big happened yesterday, and that is after two years of meanings, we added a lot more details to the plant

yesterday and we specify for the first time the goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2035. that is backed up by modeling and by what we call this mechanism meaning that it is ensured that we meet those reductions per we also detailed divisions --siness provisions which is important to republicans because of the americathat why should lean on climate policy if china and india you not do their part. this plan compels other countries to follow suit. we would put in place a border carbon adjustment, meaning that all energy intensive imports from other countries charge the fee at the border. and we would credit the carbon fee for exporters of energy intensive goods which levels the

field. the rules of global trade currently subsist size -- subsidize dirty manufacture. this would reverse that. it would also put america in the driver's seat of global climate privacy -- policy. have a caller on the republican line from connecticut. i am originally from florida, but i'm going to school in connecticut. one of the things i hear a lot is that the left offers is that we need to sacrifice giving up meat, sacrificing our way of light, that it seems like with this plan have a solution that allows that to keep the things that we love in our lives. is it really the case that we

don't have to make sacrifices and can come out financial winners? guest: there are a lot of false trade-offs in the debate suggesting that we can have either environment a progress or we need to trade that for decrease in our quality of life or our living standards. you see that if you have just a straight up new price on carbon, it doesn't go well with voters. that's what we saw in france when there was an increase in energy prices leading to that yellow vests protests. what is revolution he is that all the money raised would be returned directly to the american people. and americans would be empowered with both resources and choices to decide how they want to reduce their own carbon emissions. that makes all the difference. the vast majority of americans would be economic winners from solving climate change. host: jack is next from the

independent line from connecticut. my name is jack. a little more about the interplay of climate and national security and what this carbon dividends planned would do to protect security interests. guest: good question. the military leadership talks about how climate change is a threat will to player because it creates instability throughout the world. for example, the rising sea levels and droughts which creates pressures for mass migration. that gets worse going forwards. leaders are saying we need to solve climate chains. weekend jimy last mattis spoke specifically about the national security implications of climate change,

and we were pleased to see that he says that our plan makes sense. host: does the proposal offer shielding from oil or gas companies they son climate change? guest: the plan does not include that. what it focuses on is a forward looking solution that is proenvironment and pro-business and pro-middle-class. meaning that we can have all of those things at the same time. this is a climate solution for all sites can win. pro-business.ly the problem so often is any policy, on the one hand liberals against the industry. that typically doesn't work out well. what we need is a solution for all of these stakeholders can win something and get behind it at the same time. that is what is unique about the coalition we have built. there are major oil companies in our coalition, companies from a

sectors.e of tableare also at the same with four leading environmental organization and top economists. earlier this year we issued the largest public statement in the , allry of the profession four former fed chairs, 26 nobel , and theyconomists all came out saying that a carbon dividends plan is the best way to go forth because it's based on economic principles. host: from marilyn, greg is next. d, greg is next. this is just not enough for me. will the taxes be placed on corporations emissions or people

or both? assessede tax would be upstream, so on companies costs would pass on to american consumers because we want to change corporate behavior also individual behavior read all of the money would go back to the american citizens. in terms of emissions reductions, the goal of environmentalists is zero i-20 50. reducing emissions by 50% by 2035 puts us on that path, far exceeding the u.s. paris commitment. i don't think there's any other plant out there including the green new deal that has credible modeling behind it showing how it would achieve emissions reductions. ours has strong modeling and backup mechanisms supporting it. byhave a plan that is backed large sectors of industry including oil companies that would far exceed the u.s. paris

commitment. that's a big deal. host: on the website, this highlights this technology, why not that approach versus the tax? directif you think about camp sure, essential to any long-term solution, you need economic incentives to make that interesting. our plan interacts perfectly with capture and direct air capture. the price that we would put in place would be credited anytime that emissions are taken out of the atmosphere. missions,axes carbon would nottted carbon be subject to the fee. our plan would put in place the most powerful economic incentives to enable those technologies to thrive and further reduce emissions. host: on the republican line

from michigan. republicanm a student at the university of michigan. one of the things that i find most interesting about this proposal is the fact that you have environmental groups and business leaders come together to support this. i want to ask you, why do you think these groups are coming together, why is there so much agreement between these two sides which seem to be so opposed to each other in the past? guest: we have an odd bedfellow coalition, but the sensible parties in the climate debate understand we need a way forward that, wishes the three objectives at the same time. it has to be proenvironment, pro-business and pro-middle-class. the parties have set down and been meeting in private for the last two years to work out the details of a plan that is bipartisan. that's why we announced

yesterday the details of that plan. i think it is a testament to all the members that they have put in the effort in the trust to come up with a plan that is truly bipartisan. if we think about it, look at nothistory, this plan did pass because of lack of bipartisan support. if you think of the obama era executive orders, they did not have bipartisan support. for a lasting solution, we need one that can appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. we are seeing tectonic shifts on both sides good republicans have changed their tune recently acknowledging that climate change is a problem and emphasizing they need a republican solution. democrats, if you saw the recent presidential debate on the townhall debate, six out of the 12 participants emphasize we need a carbon price.

these sites can meet in the middle through a carbon price that is also pro-business. host: this is bob in kentucky, independent line. all i want to say is that after i was listening, the vanity of these people kill me. you're only on earth for a max of 100 years, and then we are all dust. this earth has been going on for millions of years without our endpoint. god is the one to decide the climate, not the dust people. that's really about it. human i believe in ingenuity, and i believe that as a society we can solve the climate problem going forward. it is our responsibility i think to find a consensus way forward.

we owe it toalive, future generations to leave the planet in as good shape or even better than we inherited it. host: who have you talked to on capitol hill about this? guest: leaders from both sides. we cannot talk about those because those are private meetings, but it's fair to say we met with top senators from both parties. there is significant interest in a bipartisan climate solution. we believe that a bipartisan bill based on our plan will be introduced in this congress in both chambers. that is our objective. because it is reachable both parties recognize we need a way forward. the group founded by the famed republican frank lentz recently did a study and found that this is the one issue where the american public wants a bipartisan solution.

thatroup also pointed out climate change is a major vulnerability and opportunity to republicans especially because the publicans under 40 place high importance on climate solution. almost they are indistinguishable from republicans in their views. either party needs a strong solution to appeal to the next generation. one thing that really encouraged us is that that pulling found by a 7-1 margin republican voters under 40 support us. who are that legislatures leading the charge? guest: do you really think i am going to answer that? conversations behind closed doors. to be clear, we do not think our plan can pass in this judge slade of cycle. we think it can in 2021.

the recent we want to introduce tee it up as the bipartisan alternative going into the 2020 20 election. earlynk it can pass in 2021. host: from norman on the independent line in massachusetts. according to forbes, that climate leadership council is here to scam people out of paying attention. it was started by oil companies. you should ask your guest about that. see has let down -- listening toare the segment we started off talking about the background, but go ahead for your comment. caller: anybody who wants to charge oil companies $40 per 10 of carbon dioxide should be

charged with attempted genocide. guest: i think we should base climate policy on sound economics, and the economic entirely aligned behind the premise that the most cost-effective climate solution is to put a price on carbon. that's why that is the basis of our plan for there's no question that will be the basis of any bipartisan climate solution. host: from massachusetts, the republican line, sheila. good morning. i hope you won't cut me off. what is the exact amount of co2 that should be allowed, and how long do you suppose it would take to change the entire atmosphere so that we are carbon free, and then what happens to agriculture and life and we totally eliminate and play games with carbon? this is like a pinprick in a

paper the size of a bedroom. this is a scam. we all know this is a scam. host: we will have to leave it there. guest: when we are looking at climate policy, many sites want to say, rather inflammatory statements, but bottom line, what matters is reduction. we have put at a plan that models show would our exceed u.s. paris commitment. that is the way that it should be. you asked about climate emissions. the goal is to get emissions by 2050 down by either 80% or 100%, depending on the point of view. we have a plan that by 2035 would reduce emissions by 50%. that dramatically raises the environmental ambitious. here's a plan backed by an odd bedfellow bipartisan coalition to far exceed the u.s. paris commitment. host: we have about 30 seconds,

but where are you now as far as this proposal? guest: we have out lined many of the details we need to introduce it legislatively in both chambers and have this be the person climate solution going into the 2020 election. host: our guest as with the climate leadership council, he serves as chair and ceo. >> we take you live now to baltimore, maryland. house republicans are meeting retreat. policy this was scheduled for january of this year. due to the government shutdown at that time. a news conference coming up minority th the leader, kevin mccarthy. live coverage on c-span. very pleased to welcome you to the 2019 house republican member retreat. the congressional it