>> "washington journal" continues. host: myron ebell joins us via zoom and he led the environmental protection agency, served as the director for competitive institute for energy and environment. remind viewers first what you do and what your mission is, especially on this issue of a changing climate. guest: cei, competitive enterprise institute, is a fairly small public policy

institute that specializes in regulation, all kinds of regulation, not just energy and environment. from a free-market perspective. host: how long have you been around? guest: 1984, fred smith started cei with his wife, fran. host: what is the center street -- center for energy and environment there? guest: we have a very small team. your average environmental group is over $100 million per year and cei is $7 million per year and we have maybe a third of our work is energy environment, so we have a small team and we try to hit the highlights on virtually every type of energy policy, chemical risk, plastics, climates, energy, transportation , and all kinds of federal lands, property rights, and

others. host: it is cei.org if you want to check it out. as day two of the climate summit gets underway, president biden announcing a goal of cutting u.s. greenhouse gas emissions in half 2030. is that achievable and what would it take to reach that goal? guest: i suppose it is achievable if we have a commanding control economy or we have a commanding control economy, so people were told what they had to do. the fact is we have a huge energy system, and huge energy resources. when you want to change things, it is hard to do anything except incrementally. that is because we have got over 330 million people values a lot of electricity, most of them drive a lot. the idea we should cut our

greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in nine years is preposterous. unless you want to devastate the economy and make -- especially make poor people poor. people -- poorer. people in the lower income bracket spend much higher percentage of incomes on energy then better off people. if you want to really devastate the economy, you could do it. given our current situation, assuming we will not have a command and control economy is just preposterous. host: this is president biden yesterday from the summit, his pitch on doing it, and how to do it. pres. biden: engineers and construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants, to ford's cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. i see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil

of our heartland, the next frontier in carbon innovation. by maintaining those investments, and putting these people to work, the united states sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half, and half by the end of this decade. that is where we are headed as a nation. that is what we can do if we take action, to build an economy that is not only more prosperous but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. these steps will set america on a path of net zero missions economy by no later than 2050. host: the pitch that it is an economy that is more prosperous, fairer, cleaner. guest: well no, sorry. you can't create a sort of fantasy economy. this is going to destroy huge

massive economic activity because energy prices are going to go up. when energy prices go up, the price of everything goes up. the whole biden package, when you look at it, every piece of it will take economic activity out of the economy. it creates a lot of jobs when you build a wind factory or solar factory, but it also destroys a lot of jobs from the plants closing prematurely, that have a big investment that is stranded. it will create huge economic devastation, and the idea -- president biden, i'm sorry to say, his understanding of economics is at a fairly low level. it's about the same level as trump's understanding of science . this attempt to paint a rosy picture will soon come to grief. let me give you one practical reason.

it takes years and years to build these plants. one of the reasons is because of our regulatory process of permitting them. it allows for long delays in getting the permit done, and long delays from litigation, because people will file lawsuits. so the empire state building back in the 1920's was built in a little over a year. today, to build anything takes five to 215 -- five to 15 years and they are taking? -- talking nine years we will be emission cut -- talking nine years we will be emission cut? host: folks already calling in. one of the first actions that president biden took was rejoining the paris climate

agreement. to these big, global agreements work in getting worldwide emissions lower? guest: the underlying treaty, the u.n. framework convention on climate change, was signed by president bush, the elder, in 1992 and ratified by the senate. so we have almost had almost 30 years of -- so we have had almost 30 years of climate action. on climate change, conferences have been held around around the world. i have been able to go to some of those. if you look at the graph of greenhouse gas emissions, we have done nothing to bend the curve down. emissions keep going up, and that is because the world is not energy rich. it is energy poor.

china is the big actor here, going from going way behind the united states and energy used to being way ahead, so china now has emissions from their mostly coal-fired power plants. there emissions are now longer -- larger than the united states and europe combined. india is starting down that road area you see at the summit yesterday, the chinese communist leaders, be -- xi jinping saying they will continue to go up. they are really playing us for fools. i think a lot of people in the media go along with that, it is like they are part of the team, they are a party to the paris climate treaty, so they are doing their part. there emissions keep going up and economy goes rooming and we are putting off on our economy by making these promises.

host: if you charge on the new york times demonstrating what you're talking about, emissions by country in the united states here on the left. declining emissions as you can see. european union is the same. then there is india, and on the far right and large increase there is china. during his remarks in the climate summit yesterday, president xi jinping of china had this to say about emissions. >> we will continue to prioritize clout -- economical -- china will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. china has committed to move from carbon peak to carbon neutrality in a much shorter time span than what's might take many developed countries, and that requires hard effort from china. support has been given to encourage peeking pioneers from

localities, sectors, and companies. we will strict lick control coffaro -- coal-fired power generation projects. we will limit the increase in coal consumption over the land. and face it down in the 15 five year. -- five-year period. host: for those that don't spend their days understanding this, what did that mean? >> he is making big promises. this is quite a ways into the future. i forget who wrote this one in the newspaper a few weeks ago, china will have to close 600 coal power power plants. they have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in these, so there's not -- these are not old plants, these are new plants. we know a lot of coal plants that can be closed down because there at the end of their life expectancy. china put huge bouts of money into these power plants because it is the cheapest form of electricity.

that is what powers their economy. india is doing the same thing. i think they play us for fools, and they make these big promises that they don't do anything. it's the promises in the future, americans will have a new president by then, the european union will have a bunch of new prime minister's, so our leaders come and go and there's tend to stay around for a long time. they play the long game, so i would not put much faith in any promise from the chinese communist leader. host: china commissioned 38.5 gigawatts of power plants in 2020, more than three times the nearly 12 gigawatts commissioned by the rest of the world according to a report from the global energy monitor and senator for research on energy and clean air. myron evils --myron ebell is our guest. plenty of calls for you.

we start in ohio, line for democrats. in morning. caller: good morning -- good morning. caller: good morning. i wonder what his plan would be and how he wants to move into the future, how he would like to make things different and better, have a better economy. guest: yes, i believe societies are very able to handle challenges when they have good institutions, political institutions, premarket technological capability well. and a lot of energy. when i look at the future, i see a prosperous, resilient america that uses all kinds of energy and has an abundance of it that is not put on an energy poverty diet. the idea is that global warming is an existential crisis or

threat, or emergency is blind by the fact. the fact is, and i should say this, the global warming debate is run by the modelers. if you look at the data, we have a modest rate of warming far below the model projections, and we have impacts that are mild and mostly, on average, beneficial. so yes, there may be challenges in the distant future, but we should not hamstring ourselves and make ourselves poorer and less able to handle environmental challenges, less resilient, by putting ourselves on an energy poverty diet. host: he say climate change impacts our total un-beneficial. what are you referring to? guest: if you look at all of the impacts of the u.n. reports, you will see global food production continues to go up, virtually every year. there is no record set.

why is that? one of the reasons is because co2 is necessary for plants to photosynthesize. geologically speaking, we are at a low point at co2 levels in the atmosphere. if we have higher levels, plants grow more. this is well demonstrated in the literature, and that is why the earth's screen and you can go to the nasa website on this and you will see the satellite photography since 1979. you will see the earth has greened up substantially. that is the main benefits. there are a lot of other benefits. growing seasons are longer, the green belts are widening as the growing seasons expand a little bit, because we are not having more hot weather around the world, we are having less cold weather, so summertime highs, we don't have -- in this country, we have many fewer days over 90

and a hundred than we did in the 1930's, but in the winter, we don't have as many really cold days in the fall and spring, so it -- so in general, i think the stress has been manufactured out of scary models by people who have less interest in the facts and more interest in an agenda. host: from kentucky, roberts, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the guest on basically everything he is saying right now, saying china is playing us for fools. i wondered if you knew anything about in the past, china coming to the toe fields and actually went underground with their employees for numbers of years. looking at their equipment, and it seems like, if china, in the future, wants to be a world

superpower, president biden would be tougher on them and wouldn't have to cut their emissions if they are going to be flexing all of their muscles towards us in the u.s.. i was wondering if you could comment on the chinese desire for equipment in the past. guest: i am not an expert on this. you probably know more about this than i do. i have a dog that has had some surgery so he decided to move around. in this world of zoom television, it happens. guest: i am not an expert on this but clearly every country in the world is trying to use the best technology, so it is natural a country like china, which is way behind us technologically, would try to come for the united states and use our technology. the question i think that has to be asked, are they doing it in a

legal way where they pay for it or get a license to produce their technology, or are they stealing it? i'm not an expert on that, so i want to ask that. host: is there any country in your mind handling climate change correctly right now? guest: i think, yes. countries that make promises under the paris climate treaty and have no intention of implementing them are -- their hypocrisy is better than what we are doing, which is trying to -- what we are trying to do is make big promises and then force the political system, congress, and the states, to go along. that is what president biden is doing. he does not have the support for it, and it will show that. most people are willing to spend something on climate change, but it is around $10 per month, per family. you can get it up to $20 per

month for family, but the fact is that these policies are going to cost thousands of dollars per year, hundreds of dollars per month. that is just getting partway there. as we get further and further along, they will become more expensive if people believe the goal is getting all of the coal, oil, and natural gas out of the world's energy system. coal, oil, and natural gas provide 80% of our energy, 80% 30 years ago, 80% of the world's energy, and world energy consumption is going up. demand is going up. the united states is pretty flat, but there is a lot of countries that do not have much electricity yet. a lot of people have no electricity, india in particular is in bad shape. people have it for a few hours per day or week. they cannot live the kinds of lives we take for granted without electricity.

world energy demand is going to go up. how do you take out 80% of the world's energy and keep that curve of energy consumption going up? it is insane. host: from california, this is lori, democrats. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i just, you know, i am listening to the guest and i'm not trying to be like opinionated, but in my opinion, i can tell you you are a republican, but as far as the climate record and everything, biden is trying to get back into it after we ended up getting out of it, and as far as, where do you live as far as everything changing? i have lived in california 25 years now, but i can tell we have more wildfires.

it is getting hotter, and we are having to deal with it on a regular basis, yearly, monthly we are having less rain so you are saying it is not getting hotter or warmer and it is supposed to. i think you are purposefully trying to misinform people, because anybody living in the climate today knows with the wildfires, floods, and lack of rain, and you know this is not how it used to be 50 years ago. this is not how it used to be 30 years ago, not like it used to be 10 years ago. every year, it is getting worse, and we are having to deal with losing homes, losing every day, having just survived. guest: thank you. well i am also from the west.

i am one state up, from eastern oregon, where we have had tremendous welfare problems. similarly in california, they were a result of political mismanagement of our resources. if you close down timber production, if you not allow controlled burns in areas that are subject to wildfires, if you overbuild in areas that are susceptible to wildfires, you are going to have more problems. i think the problem you have in california is a political one, not an environmental one. you have a government, both parties, unwilling to take on this issues -- these issues in a responsible way, and you also have the federal government with the federal land, federal -- california is 40% federally

owned. the mismanagement of public lands is criminal. these droughts, california -- there is a long series of records and parts of california. california, the average is misleading, because california has seven years of draft typically in every 10 year period and three years of much more rain. that brings more average up, more precipitation brings average up. i think you ought to look into political change rather than saying the environment is getting worse. it is due to mismanagement. host: on twitter, america has the chance to be a world leader in the future of energy. listening to naysayers will not make as a leader. well-paying jobs will be in the new energy industries and infrastructure that will support the well-trained workers and

their families. guest: america is the world leader in energy production. we have the world's largest reserves of coal, which we are foolishly closing down, closing down coal-fired power plants and coal mines. we have traditionally been the leader in oil and gas production, but that went down for many decades as the conventional fields, but because of the shale oil and gas revolution, america is now the leading producer of energy. we are no longer the leader -- leading consumer, china is, but we are the world's biggest producer of energy, and the biden harris plan, and what is being proposed under in congress would essentially kill that. we would become an energy poor and needy country that would have to try to get by on less

and less energy. i think these are two very different worldviews, and i think, unfortunately, the worldview that seems dominant in washington, d.c. right now, not most of the country but washington dc, is based on a fundamental misconception that you can believe models more than scientific data. host: we go to lake city, tennessee. a republican. good morning. caller: we are down all of our coal-fired plants and our nuclear plants. jeff bezos is buying 100,000 of those electric trucks that are heavier than gas powered trucks. they run up and down our roads, these electric echoes, they don't pay any gas tax that keeps our roads repaired, and this bill that it is saying it builds

bridges and roads, only 6% of it is for that, we will not have any roads left. those trucks are huge, and what are they going to do with all of those batteries that emit fumes? where are they going to get the electricity when they shut down all of the coal-fired plants? guest: yes. you raised a good point, the fact that electric nichols, which the government is supposed to force people under the biden/harris plan to -- under green new deal as well, to buy electric vehicles, no more gas and diesel. that raises the question, how are we going to pay for the roads, because it is the federal gas tax, the people tax that pays for the roads. if you look at the biden so-called jobs plan or infrastructure plan, as your caller said, only 6% of it goes for roads. what they are doing is taking money out of the highway fund and using it for other things.

if we are going to be forced to buy electric vehicles, whether we want to or not, and some people will want to. they have advantages. but if we have to go to an all electric vehicle fleets, we will have to find a new way to pay for the roads. i think probably the easiest thing would be have a mileage vehicle, but we would have to talk about that. host: time to wonder ash time for one or two more phone calls. nicky in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i have seen you before and i know you are a well paid by the oil industry. there was a hearing i believe yesterday on c-span with katie porter, and a gentleman from the oil industry, and he is well-paid also.

the fact is proud forth that ppp, the oil industry has gotten over $50 billion in ppe, right? yet, at the same time, they furloughed or they lost 107,000 jobs. i thought that ppp was post to keep the jobs, but aside from the fact, 97, you are so's -- you are subsidized. my tax dollars are subsidizing your industry. host: i want to give him a chance to respond as we are running out of time. could you talk about the funding comes from for your organization? guest: as i said at the beginning, cei is about a 7 million per dollar per your organization, and the average, if we are funded by the oil industry, we are not funded

nearly well enough. the average of environmental groups all have budgets over $100 million per year and are really big business. i do not represent the oil industry, i am not paid by the oil industry, i am not a lobbyist for it. my view is somewhat contrary to what the oil industry or what any industry wants. i want low energy prices, low wind power prices, low oil prices. everybody in the energy, that is good for consumers and the economy. everybody in the industry once i prices, so the idea i am a lobbyist for the oil industry is absurd. host: myron ebell is with the competitive enterprise institute . may i add to the folks on twitter who say your dog was a good dog during the segment