enttv

f on-going mayhem and street battles as the country has descended into what the red cross has officially termed a civil war. yesterday in damascus, a bomb was set off inside a high security area where national security meetings were being held. three high-ranking officials were killed including syrian president bashar al-assad's brother-in-law. today images of assad appeared for the first time since the bombing. it was rumored assad had been injured in the blast and fled the capital. while he does not appear to be injured, there is no indication where the video was taken. despite this most recent violence in the abject failure of u.n. intervention, for the third time, china and russia vetoed sanctions against syria. although not expected, the move still upset many on the u.n. security council including u.n. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice. >> it is outrageous. what it does is confine the

people of syria to continue in intensified conflict. the russians and chinese decided yet again they woulder are protect assad to the bitter end even though the bitter end is coming. >> eliot: let's bring in michael with the brookings institution and co-author of bending history. barack obama's foreign policy. thank you for joining us. >> nice to be with you governor. >> eliot: susan rice just referred to the bitter end and said it is coming. do you agree assad's days are numbers? there are defections in significant number in his military and there are bombings in the capital. what does this mean? can he survive? >> you know, i think ambassador rice is probably correct but i don't think russia and china agree with her yet. it is not just that they like assad. they think he may survive. we're going to have to persuade them otherwise before we can get any kind of coorption cooperation from moscow or beijing. there is still a chance that this could go on for a long time and that assad's regime may wind up in part of the country.

it may wind up facing more and more contested areas in certain cities but it may hold on because the insurgency afterall is a fairly motley crue of divorce groups that right now are increasingly good at building car bombs but can't hold territory themselves. many in the army still see assad as the lesser of two evils because they fear of what could come about from a sunni insurgency which is what they're facing and many of them, of course are christian. i'm afraid this could get worse before it gets better. different people will come to different conclusions about whether assad's days are numbered. i don't think he can survive the way he has survived in the past. but he may be able to hold on to large chunks of the country and we've gotta persuade russia and china that we're prepared to help the insurgents enough that that will not be possible. >> eliot: an awful lot of questions to follow up in that answer packed full of information. first question do the bombings in damascus indicate that the insurgents have greater capacity

than had been attributed to them and are they changing their strategy in a way that will pose a greater threat? because as you pointed out they have been fighting outside the main cities in the past and now they've taken the battle to damascus itself. >> i would say yes and yes to both of your questions governor. clearly they have more capacity than i believed a couple of weeks ago. not just in terms of being able to build big bombs which we've seen coming now for a few weeks or months. but also in the quality of their technical intelligence, on the movement of the syrian officials. it is possible syrian officials were just careless and somehow assumed that damascus was safe. it will be interesting to see how well the regime now reacts and protects itself and whether it can avoid these sorts of attacks against other top-level officials in the future but even to be able to mount one of them is a fairly impressive display of tactical intelligence gathering by the insurgents so i would say yes they're more effective in that regard. as to where this is head and how many more of these kinds of attacks they can mount and also

whether they can really work together and hold ground, once they've seized it or begun to challenge it, i'm not yet sure. so the insurgency is better than it was. it still may not be as strong as the assad regime. >> eliot: which raises the question of the defections from within the military. people perhaps overinterpretting it seeing fissures in the military which of course had been the foundation of assad support are wonder building this is a precursor of what happened in egypt and in libya as well. once the military support crumbles, does assad have a more significant problem. are we overinterpretting the defections we've seen thus far? >> well, maybe. assad can't be happy obviously. this is really a weakening of his regime. he had hoped he could have squashed this long ago. every sign that he's seen the last few days and the last few months has been negative and suggested that he's on a much more brittle foundation than previously expected. having said that, i don't think we can say there is a mass exodus out of the military yet and i believe that on balance

you're seeing most of the military hold together. every time there is an attack like yesterday's also battle lines harden. those who have been with assad feel perhaps in many cases even more tendency to want to stay with assad because they are very worried about how they'll be treated by the other side or by a government run by the same insurgents. in other words, the more blood that gets spilled the more people sort of revert back to their own camps their own bastians and they may actually be even more reluctant to switch sides. you could see 10 pest of assad's military defect but the other 90% be more committed to the regime than it was before. i'm making the numbers up. you see the point. i don't necessarily believe this has a snowballing effect. it is going to weaken assad and weaken the army but it may stabilize at a certain point soon. >> eliot: these are horrific options. ambassador rice after the u.n. vote clearly upset. she said that the united states would work with a diverse coalition of countries outside the council meaning the u.n.

security council to bring pressure to bear on the syrian regime. what are the options with whom can we work and what can we actually do that we are not already doing? >> well, one thing we can do is just stick with it. i know that's a prescription for a lot more people dying but the syrian regime is running out of money. and they don't have secret stashes of money that are going to last forever. i think that the estimates i've seen suggest that 2012 could be a pretty important year for running down their reserves and once they've done that, i don't think they're going to have easy access to a lot of smuggling of oil. they may get a little bit of money shipped in through iran, for example or even moscow for awhile. but on balance, i think that assad is going to have a harder time paying off his military. and that's one thing we've got going for us with time. but unfortunately, that's a fairly slow-acting lever. so we could tighten the sanctions even further to make it even harder for cash to be sent in to prop up assad. but i already think that we've

got that one working for us. that issue is already going to increasingly bite at the strength of the assad regime in the next few months. on the other hand, you know, if people are fighting for survival and assad cronies feel they have no choice but to stick with him because the alternative is to surrender to a group of insurgents that they think of as terrorists, they may not need to get paid in order to keep at it. and this just may deteriorate to more like -- you know, a bosnia or somalia-like kind of conflict after awhile. but we do have some tools that, over time, should become more effective. and even though it sounds very discouraging the ethnic cleansing scenario that i just painted out a minute ago does actually improve our prospects for useful military intervention down the road because as the populations start to separate from each other, it is easier for us to align with one side against the other and protect only certain battle lines rather than every single neighborhood inside of syria. >> eliot: sounds like a horrific weather forecast. but as you say, perhaps in the

long run things will clarify and the opportunities will improve. switch gears entirely. you mentioned iran. the allegation from israel that iran is behind the bombing in bulgaria of the bus where eight people were killed. an absolutely horrific incident seems like a bizarre place for iran to demonstrate its capacity to mount terrorist attacks. what is happening there? what motivates iran if you believe iran is behind it? >> well, my guess is they probably are although there are a couple of things worth pointing out, as you suggest governor, it is a little bit unusual choice of location for iran. they have operated a long ways away from the middle east before. the bombings in argentina. attempted bombing in southeast asia, the same plot apparently that was going to go after the saudi ambassador in washington was also envisioning going after some israeli diplomats i believe in southeast asia. so the fact that this was bulgaria does not by any means stretch credit you onulit.

the fact it was a suicide bomber is more of a sunni muslim phenomenon. suicide bombing. so it is hard to know who carried thought attack. what their background was what their ties were with hezbollah or iran. what their religious affiliation was. i would like to understand more about that. as for motivation, i think this is an on-going, you know, tit for tat. and the israelis assassinate iranian scientists and iran returns the favor. i don't think it is any more complicated than that. i think it is the way that organizations like the force within iran tend to think and operate and it may not serve any great strategy but it is sort of in their dna. and i tink it may be as simple as that. the mayhem of what goes on initiated in the least. michael o'hanlon, senior fellow of the brookings institution co-author of bending history. thank you for your time tonight.

>> thank you. >> eliot: a meeting of great minds, newt gingrich and snooki. the viewfinder is next. in your jeep grand cherokee. and when you do, you'll be grateful for the adaptive cruise control that automatically adjusts your speed when approaching slower traffic. and for the blind spot monitoring that helps remind you that the highway might not be as desolate... ...as you thought. ♪ ♪

[ man ] ever year, sophia and i use the points we earn with our citi thankyou card for a relaxing vacation. sometimes, we go for a ride in the park. maybe do a little sightseeing. or, get some fresh air. but this summer, we used our thankyou points to just hang out with a few friends in london. [ male announcer ] the citi thankyou visa card. redeem the points you've earned to travel with no restrictions. rewarding you, every step of the way. so... [ gasps ] these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? maybe. rich chocolate chips... i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and, and...and then the awards started coming in, and i became addicted to the fame. topped with chocolaty drizzle... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. fiber beyond recognition.

unwrap your paradise. soft, sweet coconut covered in rich, creamy chocolate. almond joy and mounds. unwrap paradise.

but thanks to them... and her... and especially this guy, all those years were just a prologue to this. ♪ ♪ it's amazing how far you can go with a little help along the way. td ameritrade. proud sponsor of the 2012 u.s. olympic team. >> eliot: coming up, the g.o.p. says they want to bring jobs back to the u.s. but when it came time to act they refused. but first, bush endorses romney. cone hen agrees with rush and the liberal voice of reason, jay leno, when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder.

>> former president of the united states, two-term president, george w. bush has endorsed mitt romney. boy, could things get any worse for mitt romney? >> i was shocked by could you how quickly they made his romney endorsement into a campaign ad. this was fast. take a look. >> you know, i'm interested in politics. i'm a supporter of mitt romney. i hope he does well. >> i'm barack obama and i approve this message. >> most of the media wants to get obama re-elected -- >> the elite media the regular media? >> what does batman have to do with the presidential race? rush limbaugh says it could affect the election. >> rush is having trouble with the name of the villain in the movie. the name of the villain is bane. >> bain. and there's now discussion out there as to whether or not this was purposeful. >> i think rush may have a point.

>> i want to send every job in gotham overseas! there will be blood before i release my tax returns. >> frank sounds like most republican candidates. >> i'm a fiscal and social conservative. ronald reagan is my political idol. >> but it is not his position sparking controversy on the right. he is openly redheaded. >> take a look at the soviet union. venezuela is an economic basket case. is anyone moving to the island paradise of cuba. >> you're surely not suggesting that the idea and the concept behind solyndra and other green energies like solyndra is comparable to the soviet union and cuba, right? >> well, no. i am suggesting that. >> it is washington that has to change. not the color of my hair. >> newt, snooki. snooki newt. >> what a deal. what up!

>> eliot: there is, in fact, an about how to keep jobs in america. but surprise, surprise, republicans blocked it. senator bernie sanders joins me next. the natural energy of peanuts and delicious, soft caramel. to fill you up and keep you moving,

whatever your moves. payday. fill up and go! experience this in your home with resolve deep clean powder. its moist powder penetrates deep, removing three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while also neutralizing odors at their source. it's a clean you can see smell, and really enjoy. resolve deep clean powder. don't just vacuum clean, resolve clean.

>> eliot: when did the words "made in america" become a partisan issue? today senate republicans blocked the bring jobs home act a bill that sounds simple because it is. the bill would eliminate a tax deduction that exists for the cost a company incurs moving jobs overseas and instead give it a tax break to companies that return jobs to america. yet the republican superminority would not even allow a vote on the bill. this prompted an incredulous response from the bill's sponsor, senator debbie stabenow.

>> what in the world is going on when we can't come together on the simple premise that americans should not be paying for jobs shipped overseas? >> eliot: a simple explanation from senate majority leader harry reid. >> easy to see why republicans are blocking our bill to stop outsourcing. they're obviously defending the presidential nominee. >> eliot: joining us now to shed light if possible on the center of republicans action, senator bernie sanders independent from vermont. thank you for joining us senator. explain this to me. i just don't get it! this seems like plain vanilla apple pie. what are the republicans objecting to? >> well, eliot i'm the wrong guy to ask on that. i have no idea. i think what most americans perceive eliot and it goes far deeper than just this legislation or this particular tax break is that we are

hemorrhaging decent-paying manufacturing jobs in this country. in fact, people don't know this. in the last ten years eliot we have lost 60,000 factories. last ten years. millions of decent-paying jobs and anyone who goes shopping knows how difficult it is to find a product manufactured in the united states of america. in my view, the real culprit here are disastrous trade policies such as nafta permanent normal trade relations with china which have asked american workers to compete against people around the world who make pennies an hour. but be that as it may what today's proposal was was very, very modest. what it says is that right now you can get a business tax deduction if you shut down a plant and you send your machinery to china or to mexico or someplace else. that's an expensive proposition. and you can deduct that from your taxable income. and so what the bill did today says you can't do that. in fact, however if you want to

move from china back into the united states, we will allow you to deduct those expenses. we will encourage you to come home. so i think it is pretty much of a no-brainer. we've got three republican votes but once aga filibustered this important piece of legislation. >> eliot: it is, in my view, the hidden hand of the u.s. commerce of chamber behind the republican opposition. the chamber of commerce opposing this under the pretextual ridiculous absurd argument we don't want to make the tax code complicated. [ laughter ] >> look, eliot we should be very clear about this. outsourcing is, you know, i think harry reid appropriately said about mitt romney, that has been the business model for major corporations for the last many many years. it is no great secret. what they have understood is if you shut down in maker, you can do business in china. pay people pennies an hour. bring your products back into the united states.

my own view is the democrats have not been as strong as they should be in changing trade policy but this particular tax proposal is really a no-brainer. you should not give a tax break to somebody who is shutting down in this country and aiding and abetting them to move abroad. >> eliot: i agree with you with the prem premise on the trade policy. this was just eliminated in the tax code. in there the republicans wouldn't let it come to a vote because the chamber of commerce said if you vote against it, we'll include this in our annual tally. the chamber of commerce spends more money than the dnc in advertising about people's votes so this was a damocles hanging over the republican party and they david as they always do. >> absolutely. the chamber of commerce spends a whole lot of money on campaigns on lobbying. they have enormous influence in the congress, especially on the republicans. >> eliot: this is one in a series of issues where the republicans don't even permit a vote on the floor on the

substantive matter, the disclose act a few days ago. now this. we really are living in a moment of tyranny of the minority in the senate. we've gotta end this filibuster crisis. >> i think that's absolutely right. look, you know, the senate is supposed to be as opposed to the house, the deliberative body. things are supposed to move more slowly. i can accept that. we all respect minority rights. you don't want to shove things through without minority having the opportunity to make their case. but there is something wrong when the minority can time after time after time stop majority will. on this issue, i believe the overwhelming majority of the american people think it is absurd to give a tax break to help a company shut down and move abroad. we had 53 people in the democratic caucus voting yes. all of the democrats and you had three republicans. 56 votes. that's a pretty good majority. couldn't get it passed because the republicans filibustered. we with needed 60 votes.

>> eliot: you had the two senators from maine and also scott brown saying we're not going to toe the line with the rabid republican chamber of commerce arguments here. i think that's important and hopefully the public will appreciate that. fiscal cliff issues, a lot of chatter. we're approaching the cliff, no parachute, no compromise, hostages being taken. what's going on in your view and what should we do? >> well, this is, eliot, an enormous issue. i hope you and i and the american people just have the time we need to really discuss this hugely important issue. here's the point. the united states has a $16 trillion national debt. $1.2 trillion deficit. serious business. but we have to understand how we got to where we are. we have to understand that when bush became president, we had over a $200 billion surplus and we're on our way to significantly reducing the national debt. what happened is our friend in the white house, george w. bush and his republican deficit hawk

friends went into two wars and the great deficit hawks eliot you know what? they forgot to pay for the wars. then they give huge tax breaks to billionaires. and then wall street brought about this recession which significantly lowered the revenue coming into the treasury. you add all of that up, we have a serious deficit crisis. our republican friends are saying well, be that as it may the solution is to cut social security which, by the way had nothing to do with the deficit. medicare medicaid, education infrastructure et cetera and that's how we're going to balance the budget. but, say the republicans we're not going to ask the millionaires and billionaires who are doing phenomenally well whose effective tax rate is the lowest in decades to pay a nickel more in taxes. that, in a condensed way is the issue that we're debating. >> eliot: senator you made the accurate persuasive factual argument.

unfortunately none of that matters in washington anymore. or certainly not to the republican party. not to mitt romney. i don't know what to say. i would like to take the clip, send it out to every voter and say listen to senator bernie sanders. he's the one who gets it right time and time again. senator sanders, as always, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: only one group doesn't seem worried about climate change. the fossil fuel industry, of course. more "viewpoint" coming up next. clean it up with orbit! [ orbit glint ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling. try new orbit micro packs. there she is ! hey, i got a leak ! yoo hoo ! wait a minute, come back ! um, miss ? up here! right. like 85% of us you have hard water stains and that cleaner's not gonna cut it. truth is, you need something powerful. you need lime-a-way. it's 4 times more effective at removing limescale than the leading bathroom cleaner. because lime-a-way is specially formulated

to conquer hard water stains. for lime, calcium and rust... lime-a-way is a must. if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you

down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. junk like it did at any an arby's in colorado. yikes. >> stephanie: i guess we do know where the beef is. [ buzzer ] >> that's wrong. >> eliot: coming up, i'll tell you about a government agency that's actually working and it has to do with what's in your wallet. but first let's go west "the war room" and check in with jennifer granholm. good evening governor. what have you got for us tonight? >> jennifer: you've been talking about the race for president. at least according to the national polls it is a dead heat. in the conventional wisdom lately that the president has been on a roll and is whacking mitt romney and his tax returns and his bain career. but the real issue, is that the case? are the progressive democrats getting complacent?

tweaf's got obama's super pac chief bill burton, we've got columnists pollsters this is what we're all about tonight. it is all about making sure that democrats know what the real deal is so they're not sitting home at the election. that's an important conversation you and i both know, we were in office, you get bad poll numbers, you want to say nah they're wrong. usually doesn't work that way. something's going on here. the chattering class including us didn't pick up on. going to be a fascinating conversation. >> jennifer: thanks. >> eliot: more "viewpoint" coming up next. >> eliot: capital one, famous for asking us "what's in your wallet" will have a little less

in its own wallet pretty soon because it is going to pay $150 million as a settlement for pressuring and deceiving its cardholder into buying products they could not use and did not want. or what they called standard wall street marketing practices. my guest capital one wanted to know what was in our wallets just so it could get its hands on it. this is no joking matter. credit card marketing fraud has long been a swampy mess and on top of the litany of finance-related scandals that have erupted over the past weeks from money laundering and mortgage fraud to libor conspiracies, the latest case once again shows the work we have to do to clean up that swamp. but there is another equally important case point here. the case against capital one is the first one to be brought by the new consumer financial protection bureau created by the dodd frank bill. remember how the financial sector railed against the creation of this bureau? we don't need it! it is a mere duplication of other agencies. well, here are the facts. none of those other agencies

have done a darn thing to protect consumers! the occ a wasteland. the fed, a disaster on these issues. so hats off to richard cordray the former attorney general of ohio and the first director of the agency. he has set out a bold agenda, refining the rules on mortgage marketing and issuance so sciewcials could actually understand what deals they were signing and wading into the swamp of credit card marketing as the top issues to be addressed. this first case shows what good law enforcement can do and should once again disprove the argument made by wall street that this agency, the brainchild of elizabeth warren, was unnecessary. that's my view. >>we talk a lot about the influence of money in politics. it is the defining issue of this era. the candidate with the most money, does win.

this is a national crisis.

>> eliot: it has been one sweltering summer. in fact, it is one for the record books. the month of june alone broke or tied 3,215 high temperature records across the country! but while one summer is statistically irrelevant to the issue of climate change, there is no doubt in the scientific community that climate change is happening. yet the world's largest oil and gas producers are dismissive to it. here's what exxon ceo rex tillerson said recently when he was asked what we could do to tackle everexpanding carbon emissions that are cooking the planet. >> we have spent our entire existence adapting so we will adapt to this. it is an engineering problem.

and it has engineering solutions. and so i don't -- the fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this. i do not accept. >> eliot: not quite clear who or what rex tillerson wants to reengineer but it is not an appealing prospect. in a new article for "rolling stone," bill mckibben crunches the numbers on the fossil fuel carbon stockpile and the threat it pose to the planet. mckibben writes and i quote what all of these climate numbers make painfully usefully clear that the planet does indeed have an enemy, one far more committed to action than governments and vits. given the hard math, we need to view the fossil fuel industry in a new light. it has become a rogue industry reckless like no other force on earth. it is public enemy number one to the survival of our planetary civilization. here to elaborate on his findings is bill mckibben, founder of 350.org. >> good to be with you

governor. >> eliot: in your article which is persuasive and scary you focus on three numbers. tell us quickly what those numbers are and what they mean. >> sure. two degrees. that's how much the world's governments have agreed we can allow the temperature to rise and no more. it is actually probably far too high. but that's the one thing the planets agreed on. two degrees. second number, scientists tell us we can burn about 565 giga tons more carbon and have some hope of staying below 2 degrees. third number and this is the new one. a team of accountants and environmentalists in the u.k. managed to add up how much carbon all of the fossil fuel companies and the countries that operate like fossil fuel companies like venezuela have in their reserves. that number is about 2795 giga tons or five times more than we can burn and yet they're planning to burn it. that's what their share price is

based on. that's what they borrow money against. either we're going to have a healthy bottom line for the fossil fuel industry, the richest industry on earth or we're going to have a healthy planet but that math makes pretty clear we're not going to have both. >> eliot: this is a fascinating point. you say merely taking the known proven reserves, if they burn those, use those and wall street has lent them money based upon this, if we do this, we will be emitting five times the co2 that will get us to the 2 degrees and we're then cooked literally and figuratively. >> that's right. it is like knowing that the -- like the drink and driving level is .08 and maybe you can drink four beers in the evening and stay beneath it. now we find out that the fossil fuel industry has you know, three six-packs on the table tops already popped. >> eliot: and paid for and borrowed against anded ready to go. give us a sense of timeframe. what is this in terms of how many years does it take for us

to go through another 565 giga tons which is what we can do to hit the 2 degree margin that really begins to have cataclysmic effects? >> 16 years. so a kid who is in kindergarten now will be out of high school. that is how long that will take us. obviously if we were going to stop short of it, we would need to take really tough action, really soon. we know what those actions are. they involve putting a price on carbon. the reason we don't take them is because the political power of the fossil fuel industry has been sufficient so far to keep washington and pretty much every other government in the world on the sidelines. >> eliot: you make the fascinating point in your article that the fossil fuel industry unlike any other has been permitted to release is refuse, its garbage, junk into the atmosphere without paying any price. restaurant pays somebody to pick up its trash. we as ordinary citizens pay taxes to have the government do it. they simply emit this into the atmosphere and have never been

taxed to pay the cost or to absorb the cost of what the arm is they're doing -- the harm is they're doing. >> this is the great special break any industry got. it explains how exxon made more money than any company in the history of money last year. that's why they're so rich and it is why people like the koch brothers fight so hard to make sure that we never have a government that will stand up to them on it. >> eliot: you point out very logically and in fact, even conservative economists have accepted this notion what we should do therefore is create a carbon tax to force them to internalize the cost. i don't want to talk about the economics of it now. you say, this is what we with introduced the segment with. we with need to recognize their the enemy. enemy is a harsh word but you've said they are the ones whom we need to target and focus on. you come up with a strategy for that. what is that strategy? >> we're probably going to need something that looks like that divestment movement around apartheid, a generation ago when college campuses and state and local governments around the country played a really large

role in the overthrow of apartheid, at least nelson mandela said later by divesting their holdings in companies doing business in this. there's no reason, really for universities to hold stock in companies who by their very business model make sure that students at those universities won't have a planet on which to enact their education. there's no reason for pension funds to be making investments in things that will render the world a difficult place at best by the time people get around to retiring. >> eliot: you and i are dating ourselves by being able to recall the days of college campuses class of '81 that students would march and say to the university presidents, sell your stock in companies that are doing business in south africa. don't profit from apartheid the racist regime that existed back then. now you're saying college kids should pick up the same strategy of using stock ownership and market power as a way of

pressuring universities and other pension funds you mentioned to sell stock and put pressure on the companies to say to them stop this behavior. do you think this could work? >> we're going to find out. at 350.org, we're going to do all we can to try and get something going in these ways. i don't know whether it can work frankly, governor. we've waited very long to get started on this. and the science is really tough and the news that comes in every day, whether it is from the cornfieldless of iowa or the news yesterday and this was -- the last place you want to hear this from. that the weather stations in the top of the green ladd ice sheet had set four days straight of new all-time heat records. we've waited a long time to get started. if we manage to get through, it will be by the skin of our teeth and only by building a real movement strong enough to stand up to the financial power of this industry. >> eliot: we have to start now. bill mckibben, environmentalist, founder of