president and ceo of the annie e. foundation. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. have a great day. ♪ the one-year anniversary of the supreme court decision eliminating the constitutional ght to abortion is coming this saturday. i chair of the republican house up congress will talk about the impact of the decision on the pro-life movement and public -- and reproductive life.

you can see that in about an hour live on c-span. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by the television companies and more including while --wow. the world has changed. a fast internet connection is something no one can live without so wow is there for our customers. now more than ever, it starts with great interne >> wow support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front roweat to democracy. >> congress retus later today for legislative busiss and vote. this is thr last week of work before the four f july holiday. the house gavels at noon eastern. they will consider bills including legislatio authorizing funding to describe -- to construct or renovate v.a.

facilities a the boots to business program thaprovides training to veterans. the senate is back -- there is work on president biden judicial nomination including julie recommend --rickleman. watclive coverage on the house c-span in the sate on c-span two and you can watch all our congressional coverage on a free video app see send now -- c-span now or online at c-span.org. host: now i want to show you some of the front pages from newspapers in california this morning about president biden strip -- president biden's trip to the bay area to talk about his record on climate change. i went to read a little bit about what was reported in "the mercury news." under the headlines, biden touts

record at stops in the bay area. it says "there was the greeting from the democratic governor and local congresswoman at the steps of air force one in mountain view. there was the son's last speeech to tout $600 million in funding for climate projects. there were two fundraisers with some of silicon valley's wealthiest donors for his reelection campaign. president joe biden was everywhere in silicon valley on monday. " that is a little bit from the -- "the san jose mercury news." this has made front pages in many of the papers in california. president biden promoted a $600 million new investment in climate change. i want to show you these are

some recent pollings from cbs news and yougov about climate -- yougov have some new polling out about climate change. under the headline, who prioritizes climate change and who does not? here is what this article says. "as has been the case for years, views on climate change are marked by stark political division. democrats and liberals continue to see the issue as more urgent , while republicans and conservatives do not. " here is a chart i want to show you. it says, " republicans also view addressing climate change as having a negative impact economically. by nearly 2-to-1, more republicans see efforts to reduce climate change as something that would hurt the economy rather than help it." the question is, climate change should be addressed right now or the next few years?

91% of democrats agree. 64% of independents agree. but again, as you see, only 44% of republicans agree with the statement "climate change should be addressed right now or in the next few years." but again, we want to hear from you this morning. what are your views on climate change? republicans (202)-748-8001, democrats (202)-748-8000, and independents (202)-748-8002. before we get to some of your calls, let's look at president biden's remarks from california yesterday, where he addresses what he says is the extent of damage caused by climate change. [video clip] pres. biden: i have toured many sites across the country that clearly show climate change is

the existential threat to humanity. the existential threat to humanity. here in california, you and i stood together with first responders near monterey bay after touring the damage that was done by the devastating storms that caused historic flooding and killed 21 people. that comes on the heels of the worst droughts in california and -- in more than a millennium. in the high sea level rise in more than a century. wildfire devastation has burned more acres on the ground than square mileage in the state of maryland. just flying over, it is devastating. there has been historic tornadoes and flooding in the midwest and southeast. just last week across the east coast and midwest we saw what you have already seen here in california -- millions of americans sheltering indoors. the air not safe to breathe. orange haze covering the sky.

it is incredible. by the way, to address those wildfire smokes coming from canada, we are sharing cutting edge technology that is already used here in california to detect early fires and helping -- help them and sending in addition to help -- that tinkers. --tankers. the impacts we are seeing in climate change are only going to get more frequent and ferocious and costly. last year alone natural disasters in america cost $165 billion in damage. just last year alone. $165 billion in damage. but the worst of the impacts are not inevitable. building on our incredible effort locally, my administration is doing all we can to recover and build so we can be prepared and adapt. host: that was president biden yesterday in california talking about what he says is the impact of climate change.

we want to hear from you this morning. first up, alan in brooklyn, new york on the democratic line. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. thanks very much for the opportunity. i think the major problem we have is basic words are not understood properly to grasp the meaning of climate change. it is not a matter of complex regulations. by hundreds of pages. simple words like "person" and "economy" are misunderstood. economy is generally used by the media in a way that is code for what is the best interest for current voters in the next few months or years? it is not a term that generally encompasses the welfare of the country over the lifetime of the country, including grandchildren. i think that distorts things because people are willing to say things that are good for the economy are valuable and we should do them, but when they are hiding the fact the economy is used as a surrogate for

short-term interests of the living and leaving out the interests of the unborn and children, there's a big problem. another thing is the constitution guaranteeing under the due process clause the --no taking of life, liberty, or property without due process from any person. "person" did not include the interest of future voters. until we have something like a generational rights amendment that recognizes the rights of future persons when they are affected by current voters , destroying or damaging fundamental resources, like the atmosphere, then voters are always going to vote for the short term quote "economic interests" before they do something that will require present sacrifice to the benefit of people who are going to be here in decades or centuries from now.

ok -- host: ok. alan, got your point. we are going to move on to joseph. joseph is in mechanicsville, virginia, republican line. caller: how are you doing? love your show. i want to say kamala harris, the vice president, everything is a joke to her. she cannot stop laughing, like she is smoking weed. host: we are talking about climate change. any thoughts on that? caller: oh, well, i have a few things on time change. -- climate change. i have been to antarctica and the penguins there are doing fine. i think climate change will do well by itself. host: ted is calling from connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to know how many cars, trucks, factories were on earth during the ice age? what melted all of the ice?

i think we are on the wrong path. [indiscernible] better than what we have been using. thank you. host: ok. let's go to iowa where diane is calling on the democrat line. caller: hello. i do believe we need to change the climate. we are sweltering. i do not care if you are rich or poor, we are all sweltering. i went to the grocery store yesterday. inflation has skyrocketed and i am diabetic. what do i do with my plastic? -- with all my plastic? i cannot take it to the recycling. they tell me to put it into, you know, your laundry container.

better still plastic and -- that is still plastic and this plastic stuff we get around our 25 bottles of water. i feel bad this is going to go into a landfill somewhere. it is the little things i should be doing, and i do not know how to do it, you know? even our little city does not really know what to do with it when we take it to the local recycling the first and third saturdays. it was a pleasure to talk to you and have a good day. host: our next caller is tim in -- is tim in grand forks, north dakota, republican line. --is jim

in grand forks in north dakota, republican line. caller: it is sweltering here now. that blazing western sun coming down on my skin and a couple of months ago it was -25 below zero. in desolation row from fargo. i have always loved this topic. i grew up in pennsylvania in the topography of a little town called rock hill. you can see these giant boulders that the early farmers had to deal with that were pushed back and forth through the glacial periods. the last glacial period ended about 9000, 10,000 years ago and i do not know what caused that warming. it caused the oceans to rise hundreds of feet over a period of several hundred years. and then we had the little optimum from 900 b.c. to 1200 a.d. which is optimum weather. it was a good time for the development of europe and everything and then there was the little ice age that started 1200 a.d. that caused desolation and the -- desolation across europe and china. deaths of millions because of weather patterns that were

endless cold rain, warfare, migration. climate has always caused migration, warfare throughout even history. but i get a kick out of people make these sweeping generalizations -- like the last lady from iowa. we have to do something about this. nobody ever tells me the formulae or the mechanics behind bending the earth's temperature to our will. how do we make it cool down? just drive a few million more electric cars and the earth will behave. weather patterns will begin to becalmed down. there is no evidence of that. it is the same kind of medieval thinking like throwing a virgin into the volcano to make the volcanoes stop or the american indians dancing to bring about the rains. you cannot alter the earth's weather patterns. it is insane. we are a people who cannot secure the border, we cannot balance a checkbook, we cannot

win a war. it is a way of feeling that you have some kind of power when you do not. host: jim, appreciate your call. we are going to move on to gregory in sherman oaks, california, democratic line. caller: hello. it is just amazing the contortions that some people are going through trying to explain away the simple fact that the continued burning of fossil fuels in the intense number that -- number that we are burning them is filling the atmosphere with heat trapping gases. it is fairly simple physics figured out in the 19th century. and what we are going to do is make it harder to grow food, harder to stay well, harder to make our electrical systems keep running. just look at texas. we have got extreme weather like we never had before in multiple places around the world. the people that are making the kind of ridiculous -- talk about

pseudo-religion. that kind just -- the guy just before me from north dakota, that is pseudo-religion. these people are avoiding the fact that the current generation of people in the rich countries that have the most impact on the world and on all sorts of things, including how fast we heat the atmosphere, this generation has a power few -- that very few generations ever had. if we can figure out a way to rein in our appetites for all sorts of things that are destroying the environment -- and they really are, you can see it, you can feel it -- if we can -- feel it, the science really supported. if we can reframe our appetites and start the change in the way we generate energy and pursue our precious objective in life. what we are doing now is basically trying to quote unquote avoid the worst possible

outcomes of climate change and global heating. enough of this global warming. we need to talk about it as it is. it is climate destabilization , global heating and the effects were billions of people potentially for decades or centuries to come are going to be horrific. we the people of this time in the rich nations have the power to bend this keeling curve back, keeling curve of increasing carbon concentrations back. in the atmosphere. we can do it. host: all right. let's go to amsterdam, new york. john is on the republican line. caller: good morning. i signed up for a solar farm and i have been trying to keep up with what is going on. i think it is a good thing. but if new york state can have the same type of weather as , say, florida, i am all for it. i think we are way behind the government. as far as say, 2030. we are not going to be able to afford these electric vehicles.

we are not going to be able to have these geothermal heat pumps. that they are talking about. they do away with the natural gas and other things -- we are not ready for that. you really got to have more of a choice. i went to some meetings on this, of climate change and i would like to say i think some people were going over and they were mad because of solar panels being put on people's homes. a lot of people -- i think they don't understand but i think that is going to be a good thing. we have got to start using the sun and the wind power. i feel sorry for the birds with the wind turbines, but maybe they can make them a little bit differently but we rely too much on china which is not a good thing. we have got to start doing things ourselves and we have got to start building things ourselves and get ready for this. i do not see any problem out in

washington when they turn around and worry about climate change. they are not going to the winters that we have had over the years. it is not so bad in new york state anymore as far as the winters are concerned. you know? host: all right, john. let's go to the independent line. ted is calling from boston. caller: good morning. i don't know where to begin. it is bad in new york, to that last caller, when there is no real winter. um -- [phone ringing] host: ted, did we lose you? all right. ted? all right. we lost ted. i want to bring up the comments we are receiving on facebook in response to our question, what are your thoughts about climate change?

albert writes, "i think president biden is doing an amazing job listen to the scientists. but i don't think you have to be a scientist to know our climate is in big trouble." richard reid writes, "it is the government's new religion -- anything to fool the people." "climate has always been changing. the earth revolves around the sun on an axis. the sun has gravitational pull on the earth. the earth will someday be close to the sun and everything on earth will die. man has nothing to do with that fact." we will do one more. "if you do not believe the world's climate is changing due to human misuse you have been living under a rock. i do not know if we can turn it around, but we must try for the sake of future generations."

that is some of the conversations we are receiving from facebook. let's listen to a little bit more from president biden in california yesterday discussing new initiatives to combat climate change. [video clip] pres. biden: i am here today to announce that we are putting our critical climate investment to work. starting tomorrow the department of commerce will launch the first and largest competitive climate resilience regional challenge to provide $600 to coastal and great lakes billion communities to protect against the impacts of climate change from sea level rise, flooding, and storm surge. we are investing in people and places that have been hit the hardest but are also on the front lines of leading us forward. folks, the second thing we are doing, the department of energy is going to announce it is investing more than $2 billion to modernize our electric grid to be more climate resilient, including over $67 million in california.

that funding can help ensure our electric grid is stronger, that the lights and air conditioning and internet stay on during heat waves and storms and so the lights can stay on in hospitals and nursing facilities. and so many other critical care facilities. and third, later this year we are hosting the first ever white house summit that convenes local, state, tribal, and territory leaders focused on climate resilience. it will include a roadmap for how these historic climate actions will build more climate resilient communities across america. saving lives and homes and providing peace of mind. this is how we are going to meet the moment. host: again, that was president biden yesterday in california talking about initiatives to address climate change. but we want to hear more from you. what are your views of climate change? republicans, we want you to call us at (202)-748-8001. democrats, your line is

(202)-748-8000. and independents, call us at (202)-748-8002. before we get to more of your calls, i want to go back to this cbs news survey about opinions on climate change. it says that the top reasons selected regarding why addressing -- this is, again, there are a lot of people who felt that it does not need to be addressed right away. cvs write to the top reason selected regarding why the top reasons selected regarding climate change including there are more pressing issues right now and the effects of climate change is exaggerated. for most americans, we know that pocketbook issues like the economy and inflation rank as top priorities ahead of climate change. a smaller majority say, "there

is nothing we can do about climate change." the reason that is cited among older people in particular. again, when you go down to the chart with the top reasons 79% of people had responded that climate change does not have to be addressed right away. 79% said it was because of more pressing issues. 74% says it was the effect of -- it was because the effect of climate change is exaggerated. 56% responded "nothing we can do about it right now." i will read a little bit more about this. it says this group does not see an economic benefit in reducing climate change. most of them see such efforts as something that would hurt rather than help the economy. in response to the questions about the economy, 41% said addressing climate change would help the economy.

31% of respondents said it would hurt the economy. 28% said not much impact. but if you break it down by the 57% who said efforts to reduce climate change -- if they want climate change addressed soon, 57% said it would help the economy. if they do not want climate change addressed soon, 55% said addressing climate change would hurt the economy. again, this is more polling on climate change from cbs news. but we want to hear from you so let's go back to the phone lines. mike is calling from florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. i hope everybody has a wonderful day. i think climate change is critical. however, i think we are not addressing the majority of the sources.

it is an extremely complex problem. my concern is when china is building two coal power plants on a weekly basis and the third world countries are pumping pollution into the air. that is the situation. we just don't have to address it in the united states. we have to address it where we are getting the majority of our products, and that is china. what really scares me is i was all in for the greenhouse back in flight, you know, 2012 when portals -- were about to go to war in vice president gore made 2012. $1 billion flying around in jets. if you look at it, just like our secretary of transportation on climate change, he is flying around on private jets. if we talk the talk, let's get

together and walk the walk. picking up a little plastic bottle, put it into the recycle, we can all do this. but like i mentioned before, my main concern, if you have a fire in the front in the backyard, the backyard will eventually get to the front yard. i think we can do it. i hope for the next generations. that is all my comments and i hope everybody has a great day. host: all right, mike. let's go to brooklyn, new york, now. alexander on the democrat line. caller: yes, good morning. i am hearing everybody talk about the penguins being ok and -- in our -- antarctica the lady calling about the frustration that we have plastic everywhere, including the bottles we drink. yes, it is very difficult, like the last caller just said. you have coal power plants in china.

but the reality is the latest report from the ipcc said we are going to be above 1.5 degrees celsius by 2027. that means catastrophe across the world, and we are projected to go above that by like 2.5 degrees celsius. two maybe five degrees celsius. all i am telling everybody who is listening is to forget the fact you are republican or democrat or independent. when the climate starts to deteriorate to the point, we have the worst air quality in new york city in the world because we have smoke coming in from wildfires that cannot be contained in canada. when we have california going from atmospheric rivers that are basically just drowning people out in mud and you have non-stop snow, the environment is going

to be so out of whack there is going to be no place to hide. when everybody starts to really feel the impact it is going to be too late for a lot of things, that we could have done decades ago. just be mindful there is research out there. you can go to the ipcc and read the reports yourself. there is scientific evidence that isn't biased toward the left or the right. the reality is we have got to -- we have to stop using energy from dead dinosaurs. we have ai. we can look through satellites at pins in the moon. we can look across the universe and we cannot get out of technology that was invented in the 1800s? it is just absurd. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. alexander was referencing ipcc. that is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. it is the united nations body -- united nations' body for

assessing the science related to climate change. their website is ipcc.ch and they do have reports about the the international impacts of climate change. eileen is calling from growton, connecticut on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call and thank you for the comments of the previous two callers. i think when we talk about it and it is not even climate change anymore, it is climate destruction. that is what it is and most of it is human caused. we don't talk a lot about our need to reduce our consumption. i am not talking about freezing in the wintertime time and only eating bread. i am not talking about that but, eating -- i mean, in western

society, our consumption is over the top. whether it is what we eat or what we wear or what we do for entertainment or leisure or whatever. i mean, so long as we are going to live in excess this is what is going to happen. i think it is kind of a change we all have to make individually in our minds that we do not need to be so excessive. we do not need to be so gluttonous. thank you very much for the topic and i hope we keep talking about it. thanks a lot. host: let's go to lovettsville, virginia now. jim is calling on the republican line. caller: hi. thank you so much for this form of electronic democracy. i really appreciate the chance to share my opinions. and they are contrary to a lot of your callers' because i have read the ipcc. it is not a scientific

organization. primarily. it is a government organization. there are studies on there, but, in fact, there is no scientific evidence based on any quantitative assessment that man is behind any of this climate change. it is like a poet said, the lame and the past are swift to wander from it. if you are running the wrong direction, you will increase your aberration. biden, i praise him. we need to take measures to prevent the effects of climate change for the cause of it is what is in question. there is no real scientific evidence to document that. i would warn you do not say that in a room full of people because they will cancel you. but read the ipcc reports carefully. they are not based on scientific -- quantitative scientific studies of the environment. it is just fear. and there is no scientific

documentation connecting man with this increase of climate. host: all right. our next caller is kathy in ohio, democratic line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. eileen from connecticut was very eloquent and getting to the heart of how people have to change how they view climate change. because i think that people have to use imagery and science and compassion to be on the same page. for example, when we think about floods and terrible weather are we also thinking -- host: oh, we lost our caller. let's go to jamie. jamie is in los angeles, independent line.

caller: hello. host: jamie? caller: yes? host: go ahead with your comments. caller: well, as far as joe -- [indiscernible] -- i spend a lot of time researching. [indiscernible] host: all right, jamie. mary is our next caller in madil, oklahoma, republican

line. caller: yes, i am calling about the climate change on the wind turbines. i have a friend. she lives by one of these fields. they are not windblown, they are motorized. and when they turn these on, she has no tv, she has no cell phone. so people need to think about this. and another thing, these electric lawnmowers. they are not worth a crap. ok? so if we do not get him out of there as president, we are all going to be in trouble. so, thank you very much. host: already -- all righty. tony in massachusetts, independent line. caller: hi. i feel like climate change is being underemphasized and

overemphasized at the same point or maybe the the wrong reasons. climate change can be a less immediate problem that a lot of things because there are things that can change within even less than a year of legislation that could have drastic consequences for an ordinary person anywhere in the world. whereas the actual effects of global warming on the economy immediately -- production, consumption, and just pollution and stuff, that affects nearby areas immediately and do not get talked about enough. and yet, if the problem is as existential in 10 years, there could have been more -- could have much more damaging consequences that we are not talking about and we should be in less than that time. the immediate issues with consumption of renewable goods are not talked about enough because they are inconvenient.

because it is -- host: once again, we have lost our caller. let's try mike in chesapeake, virginia, democratic line. caller: hello. how are you doing? good morning to you. you know, a few callers back , i was listening and they were like, there is no climate change. i almost fell off the bed. i have been here 64 years and i have witnessed climate change. i can't remember being a young boy. i used to ride my bike in the ditch which is full of ice. i just can't believe these people. we have damaged the atmosphere. think about it. we have been polluting the atmosphere for 200 years. steam engines, gas engines, nuclear weapons, we have damaged

our atmosphere. it does not take a rocket scientist to see it. i am hoping we can can fix it. -- we can fix it. thank you for listening to me. host: alrighty. we have been talking about your views on climate change but also some of the partisan divides between republicans and democrats, those who lean liberal and conservative, when it comes to views on climate change. i want to bring up an opinion piece in politico that was written by two republicans. it was written by ryan costello, who is a republican from pennsylvania who served in the house from 2015 to 2019, and -- as well as francis rooney who also is a republican serving from florida from 2017 to 2021. both of them were members of the bipartisan climate solutions caucus. here is an excerpt from their

opinion piece in politico. stt is in red states whereace to climate organizing, especially by trusted mers,as paled in comparison to the bigger -- to the bigger energy in atnd othe day, lawmakers are responsive to tersn their own state and districts. only we grter mandate to lead in repu and democratic districts alike can we create the conditions necessary for bipartisan action on capitol hill. while climate change is a unique and paramount challeng laws of political gravity remain the same. legislative outcomes are born from theical infrastructure supporting them. if bipartisan climate solutions are our goal, we must build for them."

again, that is former reps costello and rooney, talking -- two former republicans talking about how to create bipartisan agreement in congress when it comes to climate change. we want to hear from you. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. and independents, (202)-748-8002. next up is robert in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that a lot of people do not know exactly what is going on here. the requirements have been changed. i am a former federal employee of noaa. the national association atmospheric administration. i have seen what climate change -- i have done research up in the arctic and i have seen what

climate change actually is and this was in 1981. the biggest elephant in the room is none other than this was man-made. america is the only country on this planet that we have had over 210 aboveground nuclear tests. anytime you explode an atomic bomb, it ionizes the air around -- and the atmosphere around it and it will immediately change the atmosphere in and of itself. most people refer to it as what is called nuclear winter and then you have what is called fallout summer. when i was doing the research in the arctic we were exposed to non-ionized radiation. but they also have ionized radiation which cost an -- cost

an --caused an explosion. this is what is changing our atmosphere. every time we have over 200 aboveground nuclear tests. some more full-scale, like the canary islands and various other places where aboveground nuclear tests are being done. this is what is changing our atmosphere, and this is the biggest elephant in the room. it is not smog and this, that, and the other. when you have ozone, ozone helps to clear because it is a sanitizer of the work. it is a natural sanitizer so it will, in a sense, get rid of a lot of pollution that might be in the air. an nav atmosphere so -- and in the atmosphere so ozone is not really a negative component. it is a positive because it is

an exchange between oxygen and rays from the sun. the oxygen coming from the trees. host: let's go next to thomas in texas, democratic line. caller: this heat is not just started. in 1955, me and my dad were picking cotton. before we left the scales to go back and pick more time, she said, i want to show you something. it was 105 degrees. she said it is 105 degrees today. she was showing us on the thermometer. hot weather has been here. the problem is refrigerated air. i am one of it to because i like it too.

that is all i have got to say. host: let's hear from steve in san jose, california, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would have liked to have seen at the start or like to have heard at the start of your show the number of predictions by the so-called experts, starting with al gore, that have utterly failed. starting with the first one that i can remember that the world , was cooling, when, in fact, it was warming. fox news, recently, i would say about two months ago, went through the number of predictions that have totally failed.

they put them on -- via video where you could actually see the predictor's lips moving. if i recall, it was a roundabout -- it was around about at least a dozen. i would have liked to have seen the start of c-span putting those predictions on. now, what concerns me the most is not climate change but deforestation and how that is related to oxygen production. as we know, oxygen is produced by trees and plants and that is what concerns me most. what concerns me second is this

climate change is, by the united states, the concern about climate change is going to be taken too far. we are actually considering and this is my last point, we are considering u.s. army tanks being electric and trades -- and trains being run by batteries. this is illogical and it will not work. can you imagine a tank having to log in a tank -- 2:00 in -- to plug in a tank at the end of the day after it has moved into enemy territory 100 miles? host: all right, steve. we appreciate your call. this is president joe biden's invoice --envoy for climate.

former secretary of state john kerry spoke at an event on climate change in march. he is talking about the environmental effects seen around the world due to climate change. here is a portion of his talk. [video clip] mr. kerry: what drives this is the reality of what is happening to the planet. so you, i have spent, now, 30 years or so taking this in and -- so i have to tell you, i have to -- spent, now, 30 years or so taking this in and giving some back. but as scientist at that chairman of the berlin institute, -- but a scientist at -- a chairman at the berlin institute, said to me the other day there is a real possibility, and i worry, that we have passed five tipping points.

those are the bering sea, the coral reef, the permafrost, the arctic, and antarctic. it is 70 degrees above normal in the arctic a few months ago. 100 degrees burn hideout above normal in -- degrees fahrenheit above normal in the antarctic. you look at "the new york times" and other papers showing record low ice at this point in time in the antarctic. everything that happens there, it is going to happen somewhere else in a different way or similarly around the planet and it is, look at california. because 90% of the warming of the earth goes into the ocean because -- and because it goes in the ocean, that he that rises raises the moisture in the moisture travels around the world, falls in the form of rainfall. the acidification comes from the burning of fossil fuels. that acidification is changing the chemistry of the ocean more than it has been in millions of years. we are seeing the consequences of that too. what we are facing is a choice for humankind.

i hate to put it that way. i don't want to sound grandiose, i don't want to sound highfalutin. i do not want to sound out of touch with anybody. i do not think i am -- i hope i am not -- but the reality is that we face human choices. host: that was john kerry on -- he serves as president joe biden's envoy on climate change. let's go back to the phone lines. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. and independents, (202)-748-8002. next up is tom in long island, new york on the independent line. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i am watching this for the last 20 minutes and i have to tell you my opinion. the world is living much better with fossil fuel than it has in

the history of going back. before fossil fuel, people only lived to be 25, 30-years-old. because of fossil fuel, we have machines that feed the planet in agriculture instead of picking cotton or digging for potatoes. there are machines that are fossil fuel machines that can -- take care of all of this. america is probably the breadbasket of the world because of that. also, when it comes to technology, like medical, people have more free time. instead of trying to wash clothes without a machine or , like i said, there is more free time. they have a better education, and they invent vaccines and band-aids and iodine, etc. as far as medicine goes and then look at the technology with electronics. we are watching your show here

and, of course, the computers. they handle all kinds of problems and solve different things. life in the world now for 8 billion people is more and more -- is just more and more comfortable. yeah, there is poor and there is rich but generally, people can do a better job with fossil fuel. and if you get rid of fossil fuel, what are we going to go back to? the case again? -- caves again? host: let's hear from alana in albany, new york, democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to bring up a point i'm sure most people watching would know. a lot of people believe that they can understand all of this, but i wanted to say that there are people who spend their lives

dedicated to science and they go up to the arctic and they do the science. there is a consensus around the world of the scientists who are coming to these conclusions. but i do not think it should be up to each individual person to say, "ok, i need to understand everything going on." we need to listen to the scientific consensus and stop trying -- because when you try to come up with all of the information yourself and come to the conclusion, you do not have the education and you end up falling into the conspiracy traps. one of my inspirations is a vegan who goes by the nickname tofu. but they say it is not up to individual choices. we can't all make little sacrifices and that is going to make the difference. in has to be a governmental thing and the corporations and

the military that does most of the polluting. and at this point, it has already started. we need to start preparing for the mass migrations and the effects of climate change that are already happening. it is not just little weather events, either. it is not this hurricane or that fire. it is an accumulation of things. i meant is years and years. it is best climate is years and years, it is not just it is cold this year. it is the bigger picture. i just wanted to say that. i think i have talked enough. host: all right. let's go to the republican line. freddie is calling from burlington, north carolina. caller: yeah, this climate change, all it is is a hoax. because noaa research center

that that before that banisters -- before the dinosaurs died, there was no ice on earth. it was an asteroid that caused the first one. and the second one, it is called the beginning of the ice age and the end of the ice age and now we are at the end. and the oceans rising, that comes from volcanoes growing in the oceans. it is hundreds of thousands of volcanoes in the oceans that is growing every day. and also, iceland, when all of -- the ice melted, they found fossils up under the ice. permafrost, when it melts, they find tusks from woolly mammoths. so, if you can stop deserts from growing on the earth, good luck. i guess -- if you can teach

people that amanda can be a woman and a woman can be a man, they stupid enough to believe in climate change. host: let's go to jay in deming, washington on the independent line. caller: hello. help those shiny people with their homes to -- homeschooling. anyway, i think people have a soul reckoning to deal with. unfortunately. we are all connected, unfortunately. even to the shiny, happy homeschooled people. we are connected to that and mercy, it is delivering. biases that operate around four-year terms are useless.

because climate change isn't really under the direction of four or two or six-year terms. so, dealing with the politically -- dealing with it politically has some issues. it is not a political animal and individuals should not be responsible, individually, bill --though we do have to do it collectively, but we've got to get on the same page with the shiny, happy homeschoolers. have a good day. host: let's go to the democratic line, now. david is calling from appleton, wisconsin. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? so happy to be here. host: thank you. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: i am one of those rare people that as i have gotten older, i have moved further to -- moved farther to the left.

i was a lifelong conservative and i think what really opened my eyes to climate change was if -- was that if you look at, before where my favorite presidents nixon created the epa, isn't that funny? a republican created the push for the epa. if you look at photos of the air-quality from photos from los angeles and new york, from the 1950's and 1940's, it was abysmal. there were rivers that regularly caught on fire in this country. what is showed me was we actually can make the environment better. we can make the air better. we can make the water better. it is better now than it was 50 years ago. that's an amazing thing. i have gotten this little vixen, adrianne, that i hang out with, and she is telling me the orcas are coming back.

we can do things that make the environment better. mbi dear about -- and the idea about, what about china? i like in america where we take on the big things. we don't do the whataboutism. we don't say "hey, in ghana they are not doing such and such so why should we?" that is so lazy. let's get back to taking on big problems and leading the world that way. i do not care what china is doing. i want to make our water and air better here. in the idea that -- think about all of the cars, all of the factories, all of the pollution. the idea that what we do has no effect on the planet, your brain has got to be broken. these people are calling the global mooring -- calling, "global warming is a hoax."

really? do you not see all of the pollution? host: david, got your point. let's go to the republican line. greenville, tennessee. dave is on the line. caller: good morning. i have no confidence in john kerry or the father of the internet. the gentleman with noaa talking , about above ground nuclear testing should have been allowed to speak longer. climate changes been around since noah and the ark, and this biden regime has us on a path of destruction. path of destruction. thank you. host: all right. rob is the next caller. safety harbor, florida. independent mind. >> i'm glad to have a chance to get on. i think that the answer to climate change and the issues that we have have been presented to congress recently and it was

in a press briefing june 12 in front of the national press club . all of the information was then open to the public and media to present for the energy sources that would stop pollution and allow us, third world countries, to not have to rely on primitive coal and other things like that. i would ask people to go look at the youtube video that was put on their, monday, june 12. dr. greer, national press club. all of the answers are in there. it will be up to congress to see if they will sit on their hands or if they will allow we the people to take over the new technology and the things going on and if they can nickel test that free energy. and if that's where it's headed. i would ask that pressure be put on. i haven't heard anything from the media regarding that.

where is their effort to spread the word and let people decide if it is real or not? thank you very much. host: brian in avon, democratic line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. yeah, we all have to be our own, right, we can't just waste our electricity, you know. common sense. we are supposed to be an educated country. a few callers chimed in when i wanted to. big words don't always mean big ideas. thank you. host: all right, brian. we are here with assistant professor of law, jamil jethro, at george mason university. good morning, thank you for joining us. we are going to be talking about the federal indictment of former

president donald trump and the legal issues that come up because the case involves classified documents. so let's start there. what do we know about what kind of documents former president trump is accused of mishandling? guest: we know there are 102 documents that were found by the fbi after the president and his lawyers certified all documents had been returned to the national archives and only 31 of those were in the indictment but amongst them there is about 10 classified as top secret. that is sort of what you call above top secret. top-secret requires that if the information was released it could cause major harm to the united states. extraordinarily grave harm to the national security of the united states. that could involve information

like human intelligence, drone imagery or the like. another eight are what are called special access. those programs are to protect the compartments that are even more sensitive with a specific human source or a specific highly technical or confidential collection capability or the like. those are so sensitive that even the names of the compartments are redacted. 18 of the 31 are highly sensitive information above the top secret level. host: ok. so there have been a lot of conversations about, and i want to go ahead and set the scene here. a lot of people say he's the president. they gave it to him. if he wants to keep them come he can. do you agree with that? why or why not?

guest: unfortunately that's not the law. when he's in office he has full authority to classify and declassify information. how do you do that when president and then when it's not classified. that's separate or apart from keeping or not keeping. can he keep them or not keep them, classified or not classified? he claims to have declassified them by thinking about it. unfortunately that's not a real way of declassify. he could simply say that they are declassified to someone. he could write it down. but president trump himself, he could declassify it by tweeting it out? the president can do that. far as we know other than thinking about it there is no evidence yet that we aware of that he declassify the documents.

then on the question of keeping documents. if something is on a presidential record that reflects official activities of office, it's required to be turned over to the national archives, who maintain it for presidential records. agency records like the classified documents at issue here, they go back to the agency and they deal with them. any personal records, things that were his own, sometimes his own recollections of office, those he gets to take away and do what he wants with. there's a dispute about presidential or personal. there's very little argument or it will be a hard argument for the president to make that these were official documents, some at the top-secret above level, where at a minimum those are agency records or presidential records with notes about what he was thinking during the meeting, during official presidential business. host: we are setting the scene

by talking about the former president's indictment around how classified documents are related to the case. you can call in with your comment or your question for the professor. he is an assistant professor of law at george mason university. you can start calling in now. republicans, (202) 748-8000 --(202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. again, include your name and where you live. while we are waiting to receive some of your calls, you have talked about the degree of different classifications. do we know if there are classified documents that were in the possession of the former president that are not included in the indictment that were

perhaps too sensitive to be exposed? guest: it's possible. we don't have the details. at a general level we know that there are certain documents classified it top-secret, secret, confidential. we know there are a number of classified documents, a little over 102 documents, 31 charged in the indictment we don't have the details on what was in the 70 that were not charged in this indictment. host: how are classified and nonclassified documents and information treated differently in a trial? guest: there's the classified information procedure act passed by congress allowing the government to introduce classified material to a judge, allows the defense to have a look at it as well with appropriate clearances, allows the jury to look at it in a jury trial in order to protect it without it being exposed to the

public. often the government wants to introduce things that remain classified and every reason to think they will remain classified so that the judge, jury, defense can all see it but the public won't have the details. host: all right well we are starting to get some phone calls in, let's get to the phone lines now. henry in missouri, democratic line, you are on. caller: what was the question again? guest: -- host: we are talking about the trump indictment and involvement of classified documents. do you have a question or comment? caller: i would like to say that you know, it just, it's too bad that those documents were in his possession. i'm assuming that biden is still under investigation for his handling as well. my opinion on that is that if

there are documents like that, especially in a location like mar-a-lago where they found it, they shouldn't, they shouldn't be able to get that, however they did. what they should do next is find out if trump was going to have any further input in releasing any information from that and if he hasn't or they can't prove that he has, you know, at the time he was the president. then after they found the documents, he wasn't. he had no business having them. i don't know, it's a big mess, it seems like to me. at the same time it also kind of seems like maybe something that isn't all there and it's extraordinary. something that we don't know yet.

guest: the former president is obviously innocent until proven guilty. the justice department bears the burden of proof that beyond a reasonable doubt he had these documents unlawfully and failed to turn them over. that's what they need to do to prove up the counts in the espionage act. obstruction of justice, destroying or removing records. making false statements. and it's around the cover-up or what the government alleges is a cover-up, a tech -- attempt to hide and from his own attorneys. as if they had turned over. we will see if the government can prove all those charges.

innocent until proven guilty. henry's point, right, this is the first time that we have identified these classified documents. mike pence has documents that he turned over. president biden had a number of documents from his time as vice president here in the d.c. area as well as some in his house. the former u.s. attorney in maryland, we will see what happens with those. again, secretary of state hillary clinton carried classified information private mail server. david petraeus had classified information he gave to his biographer. there are a lot of officials who have had challenges with classified documents. the question is why his trump in charge here and not others.

the answer is he was asked for the documents, said he returned them, it appears that the facts were proven that he made an effort to avoid turning them over. host: our next caller is diana, florida. republican mine. caller: i believe this is a continuation of the constant witchhunt they are doing to president trump. more than half of america loves president trump. we would vote for him again. this is this of documents here and there, biden wasn't even supposed to have any documents. he was vice president, not president. trump was just -- >> it's always