♪ announcer: tonight on q&a, senior fellow at the american enterprise and did you discusses the poor side of town, the look at the 100 year effort by the federal government, private developers and others to create low-cost housing in the united states. >> what happened was once your home is torn down you are directed to the projects would which seem nice at first but you can only rent. you can never own anything in republican subsidized housing. to this day this remains a problem. 47% of the residents of public housing to this day are african-american. those are all people not owning anything, not accumulating wealth. we should not be surprised having steered african-americans into public housing there is a gap between black and white wealth. announcer: author of "the poor side of town" tonight at 8:00

eastern on q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the new c-span now app. ♪ joining us next is author and scholar anatol lieven, helping us to take a look at the upcoming climate summit in glasgow, summit -- glascow, scotland. he is the author of "climate change and the nationstate." welcome to "washington journal." guest: hello. host: you make your case in your book and in a number of articles about climate change being the greatest national security threat, at least to the united states. how did writing your book further prove to you that climate change is indeed the world's greatest national security threat? host: -- guest: it was a conclusion at

came to fairly slowly, but i was convinced, looking at the evidence, that what climate change is already doing to the united states, and what risks doing in the future, really dwarves the threat on which our security establishments are concentrated. that is in three ways. first is what it is already doing to ordinary people in the united states. heat waves, wildfires, flooding. after all, in the end, national security is about defending the lives, the interests, the health of our citizens, right? american citizens, russians, chinese, english, too. it is not, ultimately, about theoretical interests on the world stage. they are present. but ultimately, it has to be about people and their lives, in this case american people. and these things are happening

already. unless we can act to limit climate change, every scientific prediction and analysis says that these erect effects will get worse. now, for generations to come, they will be containable within the united states itself because of the wealth and power of the united states and because the united states is in a relatively positive position compared to other countries in the world. but, already, within a generation from now, other very large, very important countries in the world, which are much more vulnerable to climate change, will be coming out of the kind of stress which may destroy states and organized societies, not just because they are more vulnerable to high temperatures, are already suffering from high temperatures, they are vulnerable to water shortages because they are underwater

stress, but also because you have a range of weak and dysfunctional states who are already suffering social and ethnic conflicts. if you add climate change to that, and the pentagon itself noted that climate change is a force multiplier in that view, you will see breakdowns, including in society, which will generate huge waves of migration to the united states and europe. we know what a reaction against that can do to our political system. host: and in the containable category -- you mentioned that word -- do you believe that is happening now, containable in terms of migration at the u.s. southern border to the wildfires and storms happening? speaking just about the united states. guest: they are containable in the sense they will not destroy america as a state. but we know -- we can see in front of our eyes how migration

and fears of migration contribute to polarization and political radicalization within america and europe. after all, another key point of national security is to defend the integrity of our liberal democratic political systems. host: there was a piece written a couple weeks ago in defense one. the name of the piece is "climate change: america's greatest security threat." he writes that the question is not whether climate change is a bigger or smaller national security threat than russia or china, it is how climate change amplifies the threats that the united states faces. would you agree? guest: only to an extent, because i think it does, as i said in terms of state failure, extremism, migration. but i do not think climate change increases the threat from china and russia. take the arctic. a lot of stuff coming out of the american and european security

establishments talked about the melting of the arctic as somehow increasing russian security threats. that is not what it is about. the melting of the arctic threatens tipping points and feedback loops. the melting of the arctic ice, sea levels rise, risking runaway climate change. if climate change goes from two degrees to three to four to five, then you have an existential threat to modern civilization in general and the united states in particular. if that happens over a relatively short space of time -- and are indications it has happened so quickly on such occasions in the distant pass, no organized state will be able to withstand the results are that would be the destruction of our society. for heaven sake, russian warships being able to move around more easily in the arctic is really not a threat that compares to that.

host: in your book, "climate change and the nation state," you argue that nationalism is a way for countries to address climate change. you write that successful state action to limit carbon emissions needs not just state action but consistent action over a long period of time. this is something that democracies find hard to achieve. the united states is the worst offender, with efforts being halted by elections of 2000 and 2016. looking ahead, how important is it for the united states to take a world leadership role in this issue? guest: i think it is very important. i think the prestige of countries, the influence of countries in the decade and generations to come will depend heavily on their performance in

this. if the united states is seen to fail, despite the fact that it is so much richer on a per capita basis than china or india, then that will be a real blow to american moral leadership in the world. host: is it part of your belief that the united states has not fully graphs, at least won the political argument, broadly amongst the population? is that part of the reason we have not been able to act in this country? guest: i think that is right. that is one reason why i tried to make this appeal to civic nationalism -- or patriotism. for me, that is the same thing. not ethnic nationalism here that would be disastrous. because, somehow, those of us who really believe that climate change is a mortal threat need to be able to appeal not just to people already more or less convinced but to the unconvinced among conservative, moderate

conservative voters. it seems to me that showing them how climate change -- of course it is a threat to humanity in general, but it is also a threat to the future of the united states itself. that is one way to do that. the other reason i advocate this appeal to nationalism or patriotism is, of course, a key problem with climate change is you are asking present generations to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations. the worst effects of climate change will not kick in within our lifetimes. and of course, if you are really concerned with the future of your nation, then the question of generations is not important. i always point out the motto of the great seal of the united states is let's -- for a foreseeable timetable

will not be able to do that if we fail to control climate change. host: the american president, joe biden, will be in the u.k. for the glascow summit -- glasgo w some beginning tomorrow. what does the world need to hear, what do american citizens need to hear from that summit regarding climate change? guest: they need to hear that it is a threat to humanity, that it is a threat to the united states, which will become worse and worse, and if we fail to control it, it will eventually become existential. they need to hear that america has to take the lead on this and cooperate with other countries. i think what they also need to hear is that, as i've said -- you cannot send your president out into the world on this critical issue with, behind him, he paralyzed political party, a

paralyzed establishment. if you recognize it is an important issue, then the american government needs your support. host: but notably absent at the glasgow summa is china and russia. xi jinping will not be there. vladimir putin will not be there either. guest: neither will modi. in a sense, why should they? biden was hoping to go there with his climate change and reconstruction package agreed, but as we have seen, there has been no agreement. clearly, if america cannot agree with this at home, that it is very difficult for america to encourage other countries, which of course are facing as much or even bigger economic problems than the united states. it is very hard to persuade them that they should turn up and make what are, in the end, much bigger sacrifices per capita.

host: author and scholar anatol lieven with us. we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents and all others (202) 748-8002. just a brief bullet points of the $555 billion bill back better plan, some of the climate provisions in the plan include extending tax credits to boost renewable power, expanding credits for the purchase of electric vehicles, adding rebates to encourage investments in home efficiency, and helping to find communities building resilience to climate change impacts. also finding and creating a civilian climate corps. all of this, this summit, happening at a time when the west, and the rest of the world, are seemingly in an energy --

not crisis, if you will, but increasingly needing more energy and more fossil fuel energy. guest: yes, well, i must say, as an interim measure, and interim could well be two or three generations to come, a strong advocate of nuclear power. not because i like it in itself and not because i think it is a long-term solution, but i think it is crazy, as german greens and others have advocated and indicated, to get rid of nuclear power before renewables are fully in place and fully developed. and, you know, we have seen, in part, the results of this in the energy shortage in europe and also in california. so we need to adopt every measure, every available technology in the struggle to limit climate change. host: talk to us about the parameters of this summit, what the plan is in trying to reduce

global temperatures and the reality of where we are now. guest: sorry, the plan is -- host: what is the glasgow summa trying to accomplish in terms of reducing global temperatures? guest: well, the original purpose of it was to try to nail down governments to specific, more specific policies, what they are actually going to implement, in order to fulfill the promises they made at the paris agreement five years ago, because i'm afraid all too many governments, in whole or in part, made these promises. like the germans, amongst others, they have failed to adequately live up to them. like the australians, who very belatedly -- the australian government has signed up to a program to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, i think, but

that plan is totally without detail. i hope glasgow -- and certainly the british government is making a fairly determined push for this -- will lead to some more concrete measures. but, of course, they have been great disappointments. india and china refused to make more commitments. biden's plan is still up in the air. i have a nasty feeling that, in the end, most of the progress will come in europe and will not really be sufficient even there, because one has laggards, like the germans, let alone the pols. host: so this goes back to your argument about a nationalism approach, that states solve their global warming, climate change issues as much as they can themselves, correct? guest: yes.

i am not in any way against international agreements or movements, greta thunberg and company, but the agreement is going to achieve nothing. the united nations, the inter-mental government -- it has played a vital role in trying to get states to act to the whole covid pandemic has also been an example of that. of course, it would be far better if we had more international cooperation and aid, but there have been so many things -- closing borders, lockdowns, vaccination contains -- campaigns that only states can do in the end. that is true with climate change as well. taxes, limits, incentives -- these are all the business of states. host: one of the effects of issues like migration, cross-border especially, water issues that affect more than one

country, will be exacerbated with climate change in the future, and how countries, while they may try to solve their own issue, they have to rely on other countries to solve theirs as well. guest: yes, absolutely. one of the arguments in my book as far as america is concerned is america should put far more money into helping central america, including to build resilience against climate change. i find it, actually, quite bizarre and scandalous that america spent so much more money on countries thousands of miles away while, in its own backyard, it has really neglected these countries. apart from mexico, there is not a single central american country in the top 10 recipients of u.s. aid. we in the wealthy countries of the world have to help other countries, but very much in our own interests. one of our interests is to limit

migration. as i've said, there is simply no excuse for ignoring the fact that migration is a key factor in driving political extremism and polarization in the west. one sees this in france now. we thought the national front was bad enough. now you have somebody who really is a fascist, eric zemmour, gaining astonishing levels of support. if we have to push liberal democracies for ourselves in the world, we have to help limit migration, and climate change in future, and already, to some extent, will be the key driver of that. perhaps, if we failed to limit migration, this will be at a scale unimaginable, a scale which will make it simply impossible to manage by democratic means.

host: we have calls waiting, but want to get your reaction to some pushback from the copenhagen consensus, this piece in the wall street journal, in which it is written that reading that 0-would mean little for global temperature. if the whole country went carbon neutral tomorrow, the standard climate change model shows that the reduction would be barely noticeable. that is because the u.s. will make up an ever larger share of omissions as the populations of india, china, and africa grow and get bigger. guest: first of all, i am not sure that is true of africa unless africa expenses levels of economic growth that we have not seen, alas, in recent decades. at the moment, africa contribute

very little to global emissions. china and india, yes. a,

caller: i am not a climate disbeliever i am a political scientist. there was a fact that came out of noaa that this past winter, which is our summer in the northern hemisphere, was the coldest ever recorded on record since we had been keeping records in 1957. also, the abrupt discontinuance of america being energy

independent and having gasoline and food distribution everything else go up at a far higher inflation than in the economy overall is a regressive tax on the individuals who have to pay it. and the people who are not in the wealthy category are paying a much higher percentage of their income to necessities and it is exceeding the growth in wages. regardless of any growth in wages people's purchasing power is still falling behind. natural gas was supposed to be a bridge energy source that would reduce the carbon emissions and

transition us with enough energy to remain competitive in manufacturing. i am just wondering, the mainstream media completely ignored this report from what i have seen about antarctica having a record cold winter season that was 4.8 degrees fahrenheit colder than ever recorded previously. host: john, thank you. anatol? guest: as with all the scientific analyses and predictions but also the recorded facts of the past 20 years show, global warming is not uniform across the planet. it has been suggested, for example, and thank god it has

not happened yet, if climate change shut down the gulfstream, far from getting hotter europe will develop the climate of canada. but, if you look at the arctic over the past 20 years, you see on the contrary temperatures which are not just rising but rising between two to three times the global average. whatever happens in the antarctic you have a massive threat to humanity coming out of the arctic in terms of the disappearance of ice and therefore the rise of sea levels and above all release of me thane. one year statistic from the antarctic does not categorize everything else that is happening, including the opposite pole of the world. concerning energy and energy

independence, look, this cannot be abrupt and that is why i criticized the naive greens who say we must abolish carbons by 2030. that is not going to happen. and also why i decipher the need for nuclear energy. gas will undoubtably remain. what we need to do for a considerable time, so this will not be abrupt -- it will be the next 30, 40 years not overnight -- is poor money into research and development -- pour money into research and development. not just of renewable energy but of carbon capture and geo-engineering. it is less than 1/10 of that going into military research and

development. that is misapplied sense of priorities. i mean, ideally we will develop cheap, universal carbon capture and we could go on burning fossil fuels but we don't know at the moment whether that is possible. we have got to work on it but work on them simultaneously. as far as the sacrifices by ordinary people are concerned, i agree. but that is why the biden administration and more figures like senator elizabeth warren have emphasized so strongly, or tried to, the need for higher taxes on the rich and corporations. so that is the greatest burden of this transition. falls not on the poor but on those who can afford it and, frankly, for many years, got away with, as warren buffett and

others have pointed out, paying scandalously low levels of taxation compared to what they paid in the past or what people are paying anywhere else in the developed world. host: michael in morris, illinois. caller: thank you and i want the guest to know that i agree with almost everything you have said word for word. i do try on this microlevel to do what i can. i recycle everything that i can possibly do and so forth. i don't even know if they actually recycle the things we throw in the special garbage cans but that is beside the point. my specific question, and it is two parts, i wonder -- i would like your opinion as to the likelihood that mass migrations

because of some climatic problem, drought, whatever, would trigger a war between the superpowers or some blocks of nations and where do you think the most likely slash point would be? that is what i would like you to comment on. host: ok. guest: i am not sure in the medium-term migration will lead to wars between nations. i think it will likely lead to the collapse of nations or political systems. although, in the longer-term, if enormous populations try to move quickly, wars between nations or possible. i think that it is worth pointing out from this point of

view in the west, we are focused on migration to us and both those hostile to migration and those not always talk about the west. but the most ferociously militarized anti-immigrant order in the world is the fence the indians have put up to stop migration from bangladesh. over 1100 have been shot dead on that border over the past 10 years or so. and india is determined to prevent further migration by every means, however ruthless. look at the reaction of neighboring countries to the rohinian exodus in myanmar. whether or not it leads to conflict between state it will

certainly, if climate is exacerbated, it will lead to much more violent, local conflict, clashes, massacres, genocides, god for bid, in the future. that is why we have to act quickly to limit climate culture. host: the wall street journal has the story on china's need of coal. it clashes with the global climate goals and yet, you write in your book about their alternative fuel efforts. you write another truly radical development that china is already engaged in the plan to make 50% of vehicles electric by 2025 and 100% by the 20 30's through subsidies and sanctions. if they manage this, and there are enormous obstacles in the way, it would be an important contribution to limiting carbon

gas emissions and a convincing testimony to the ruthless efficiency of the chinese system. on the one hand the chinese are making progress on that front, yet on the other hand, the reliance on china on coal-fired power plant for example. guest: yes, and one must recognize electric vehicles are great and reduce carbon emissions from the vehicles, but they have to be produced somehow. and if they produce the electricity from the cars for the cars by code, that will -- coal that will be a step backward, not forward. the one advantage the chinese have is that they can produce programs, you know, with lifespans of 10 years, 20 years. the american democratic system has lack of consensus on climate change makes that difficult for the united states.

but the chinese are basing their program on the belief, on the hope one should say, over the next generation they will be able to develop, you know, means of carbon capture which will allow them to transition to clean coal. the problem is this is a gamble. it is like a nuclear fusion energy. we don't know. all the attempts to develop were efficient and larger scale batteries to store renewable energy, all of these are hopeful lines of research and development and deserve massive investment. but of course, we cannot know they will work. we will only know that somewhere down the line. host: let's hear from steve in san jose, california, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i would like to make three quick points. we are getting mixed signals. when biden after trump stopped the russia to germany pipeline, biden allowed the russian-germany pipeline when we would provide -- we were offering to provide germany with the gas that is 42% cleaner than russia. two, trump got out of the paris climate accord because they never met their goals. three, i would like to see world debate on the issue but it is not allowed and the other side, those that believe in it,

climate change, do not show up and they will not allow it. what are they afraid of? goodbye. host: any thoughts on those points? guest: if you want people to do things for you, you have to agree to things they want. the germans poured so much money already into the nordstrom pipeline they were very unwilling to throw it down the drain. and of course, forgive me, but the united states is not as

necessarily always a reliable ally when it comes to helping allies. they reckoned the russian gas, once the pipeline was built, would be reliable and central support for the german economy. the united states has to try to compromise. second thing, as i said, most countries have failed to meet their full commitment from the paris agreement. but they have plans in place, they are meeting them in part, they are doing something, some more than others. that cannot be a reason for the united states to do nothing at all on climate change unless you don't believe that there is climate change. i'm sorry but the scientific evidence, the evidence from our data is not a rational decision.

as for the other side not showing up, i don't know what you mean. i am here. as far as i know most of the senior and distinguished figures talking about this are always willing to turn up and talk about it. [laughs] you could say we do nothing but talk but we do talk. and listen and debate. host: headline from the guardian, biden plans largest effort to combat climate change in u.s. history. what was the effect of the u.s. withdrawal from the paris agreement under president trump? guest: well, it very badly damaged u.s. prestige in europe because in most of europe you do have a political consensus across the conservative political spectrum on the

existence of climate change and the need to do something about it. i myself am going to glasgow to talk to the conservative environment network. i am a small speaker to that. so, this does damage the united states' leadership and, as i say, the u.s. is seeking close partnership with india. the united states withdrawal from climate change agreement -- democrats are coming back and demanding india fulfill them. that does not go down well. host: in the u.k. you mentioned the conservative climate group. is the difference between views, the political difference between the conservative group, you mentioned the prime minister, he the leader of the conservative party. is the difference as wide as it is in the united states on the

view on climate change? guest: no. i mean, at least in western europe it is far smaller. the great majority of the conservative party in britain, conservatives in france, germany, everywhere really, recognize climate change and the need to do something about it. now, of course, there are differences in terms of, you know, how much reliance you put on free-market solutions, how much you put on state leadership. but in britain, we have had a conservative government for how long now? 10 years? conservative governments have vastly boosted renewable energy in britain and committed themselves to more radical action in the future. speaking from a british or

western european perspective there is really no contradiction and i mean no contradiction between a conservative political position and a belief in the need to act against climate change. on the contrary, and here is the point about my appeal to patriotism or nationalism, a conservative who is dedicated to his or her country and the future of the country, the future of the nation, conservatives who believe this is a contract between the living, the dead, and those to be born is more or less, i would say, naturally committed to trying to prevent radical climate change from getting out of hand. it threatens generations yet to be born. host: let's hear from new jersey. mark on the democrat line. welcome.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you very much for this. it is very important and your guest is very impressive. i have questions for your guest and one for fellow listeners. to the guest, i would like to, you know, hear what you think about the messaging surrounding climate change. the people with brains who are aware of what is happening, you are doing people a disservice because you talking about the sacrifices and hardships. as you suggested, why are we not messaging this as, this is going to create jobs?

this is going to be a major infrastructure project similar to when the western world tried to fight nazi germany. and imperial japan and that created jobs. that is why it was so popular. people got back to work. i don't understand why the messaging is not similar. host: you are breaking up a little bit but i wanted to read a bit about your book. you said, the green new deal is winning over the -- the massive reconstruction effort necessary to overcome the economic effects of the pandemic is a magnificent opportunity. however, when they promised to create well-paid and secure jobs such programs are incompatible with the advocacy of open immigration by many of the people advocating the green new deal. expand on that issue and what

the caller is suggesting as well. guest: yes, responding to the caller, on one side i completely agree with you. the book is indeed strong written, strongly in support of the green new deal and the need and possibility of creating many new jobs. however, you mentioned the war against nazi germany and imperial japan. of course, it created many jobs. it also required enormous sacrifices, greater sacrifices than the struggle against climate change. it is wrong. i think it is democratically wrong and politically unwise simply to talk about opportunities and not to

acknowledge that will be difficulties. there will have to be sacrifices, there will have to be damage to communities which have to be compensated for by state policy. but if we put out too optimistic a view of how this is going to be a wonderful transition, well, i think we risk being accused of bad faith or utopianism. as i said, we need to shift as many sacrifices as possible onto those who can afford to make those sacrifices. certainly it is politically and morally impossible to demand additional sacrifices from ordinary people while maintaining grossly inequitable levels of tax for the rich. by the way, i don't regard this

as a left-wing position. president theodore roosevelt, president eisenhower, even president nixon and president ford i think would agree with me. on migration, yes, i mean, the point is we know that while mass migration may boost the economy as a whole, we know that it is bad for the wages and the living standards and the unionization of the more skilled sections of the working classes. one of the reasons we know this is because a number of american corporations have been frank about it. about how migrant labor and illegal migrant labor, which

cannot be unionized, cannot force wages down. this is in no way a racist position or condemnation of the migrant themselves. god, if i lived in honduras, i would do the same myself. but i think those who are deeply interested in the future of social solidarity and of green new deals do have to recognize the degree to which uncontrolled migration is a threat to these things. host: our guest is a senior research fellow at the quincy institute for responsible state graft. what is that organization what is your role? guest: [laughs] my role is that of a senior research fellow which means i talk and talk and write and then

do some more talking, often including a range of global security issues. the quincy institute, you probably ultimately grew out of opposition to the vietnam war although most of us were not consciously around. but more immediately out of opposition to the invasion of iraq in 2003. its core philosophy is, i suppose you would say of moderate realism, is as deeply opposed to american military adventurism and intervention elsewhere in the world. it believes it in attempts, as far as possible, of reasonable compromise with other great powers in order that america should concentrate more strongly on domestic issues in the united states. of which i would say climate change is one.

we are opposed to american global agenda by military means. we are not against american leadership by political and cultural means and we are in favor of the concentration on the interests of american citizens. just ordinary americans at home. and the brits. host: ralph is in washington, d.c. on the independent line. caller: hi. great conversation. thank you for being there. thank you for being there. . there is a technology called molten salt reactors developed in the 1960's and 1970's at livermore laboratories which nixon killed and brought in the new reactor which was a nightmare that never worked. this technology can burn our nuclear waste. this technology has a 500 year half-life for the waste and a

10,000 year half-life. this cannot melt down because it is only melted. this is walk away safe. we are spending $13 billion to $15 billion on nuclear aircraft carriers. all we need to do is to fund some small companies trying to get it through in the first starter phase which is a multibillion-dollar phase. we could have three or five prototypes of the different designs out there. to start talking about this. this is something that is solid. it is not a scientific breakthrough that is needed. there are engineering hurdles that need to be overcome but most have been overcome and china is throwing huge money into this. it is not just energy. if this country falls behind and stuck in the horse and buggy days of energy and china walks away with this technology, they

are going to be able to produce cheaper goods and they are going to be able to dominate the industry in the future. this is imperative and it is being stopped by the oil and gas industry. i am shocked you have not mentioned it. one last point. i get tired of hearing the stupid argument that, well, these other guys are doing something wrong so we should too. he beats his wife, i beat mine. he beats his children -- if i he throws his trash out the window, i should be able to throw mine out the window. thank you -- host: on the last point what are you talking>> ralph, on that lat what are you talking about? caller: they say india is burning too much coal so we should be burning more cool.

host: you have spoken about nuclear energy mr. lee event. -- mr. leven respond to his comment. guest: i am not a nuclear scientist. but, i agree. we have to do everything possible to explore the -- explore and develop safer forms of nuclear energy. i find the prejudices of the environmental camp against nuclear energy, it is a miss assessment of risk. at most, at the absolute outside , indirect casualties of the chernobyl disaster were 60,000 or so. the actual figure could be less

than 25% of that. but between 7 million and 9 million people a year die from the effects of pollution by carbon. that is not even talking about the ongoing and future effects of climate change. absolutely. yes. people have talked about the sputnik moment. you are right. if the chinese are pouring money into this kind of research and development, then, if america wishes to compete with china as an economic model and as a world economic, moral, and political leader for the future, it is essential that america do the same. once again, for decades after the second world war what the two of us have just said would have met no resistance at all

from republicans as well. eisenhower regarded investment in civilian research and development as simply a natural task and beauty -- task and duty of the american steak -- state. it was not controversial. host: let's hear from craig in titusville, new jersey on the independent line. credit -- caller: the speaker seemed to dismiss the wall street journal article. the united states is $20 trillion in debt area to is essentially bankrupt. he says nothing about putting the financial burden on china. this is financially not reasonable to the west. it is totally favorable to china. really, it sounds like the

talking point are for president xi jinping. guest: britain is not bankrupt. i see no sign of that. we are in debt area a lot of countries are. america would not be so deeply in debt if it could only fix, and i quote warren buffett, who is hardly a communist, its ridiculously inequitable and inefficient tax system and get a grip on money laundering, a universal problem. as to xi jinping, have i not just said that in order to compete successfully with china america needs to put its money into research and development. in order to compete with china, not to help china. by the way, the development of a variety of renewable energy

including, once again, nuclear energy developed in the united states with american technology, that contributes vastly to america's energy independence and, therefore, national security. those are not chinese lines. if you want to look at policies which might be developed in china, look at american policy in the middle east over the past 20 years. as far as i can see, the only country in the world that has benefited in terms of the damages done to the united states and the american economy, american debt, and american interests, the only country in the world that has benefited from american policy in the middle east is indeed china. though, i am not suggesting it was designed there. it was, alas, designed in the united states. host: thank you for being with us this morning.

guest: thank you it was a pleasure. >> >> we are waiting for president biden to begin closing remarks at the g20 summit. he has been meeting with world leaders to discuss climate change and covid-19 vaccination efforts. after the summit in rome biden and other leaders will be heading to glasgow for a united nations climate conference. president biden is expected to begin his remarks shortly. here is another washington journal segment while we wait. >> joining us from the university of virginia is center of politics director larry sabato. welcome to washington journal. guest: it is nice to be with you on halloween. host: we talk about the upcoming virginia governor's election tuesday.