t,tonighcalifornia is at odds, once again, with trump administration on key. s d anconserving a mural at george washington high school. 1adbwmore proof hatfacial recognition software is unreliable. wanting to ban it further in the state. hello, welcome. we begin our show over the battle of protecting the environment and climate change. >> this week the trump ti administra made new rules to weaken the endangered species act. it is a law signed in 1973 by

president richard nixon. protects more than 1600 plant and animal species, californi)ññqóttorney general quickly vowed to fight the trump administration's move in court. the very next day, california joined 29 states and cities in a lawsuit against anothetrump m8fyh:=-åoñenviro regu5+zhons, obama-era restrictions onpocoal burning r plants. kevin and dan who join o%+ welcome. >> thank you. q'dangered species act change. what is at stake for california when the federal government move s in like this. >>@ww)ñit is a huge deal. and a huge deal for the state of california. species alive, the condor, the

grizzly bear, what it is not talked about is how it effects the ecosystems of california. we have more plants onthe endangered list than animals. a huge deal. and california has more endangered species than any other statbe sides hawaii. our is even though california might have strong laws, you know, a lot of the places in the state are not covered undthese protections that we have. >> dan, one thing that bugs critics about these changes is that they will allow government officials to ignore threats species from climate change. has climate change been an important factor in determining if a species needs to beon this list? >> it has not historically been but now that climate change is very much with usin '+fñterms o fires and clout seasons and

;bodthranges of species having to move up higher elevations it is now very central to the process. and there is a second fture which is as disturbing which is that this roll back would allow an economic assessment to be part of the assessment to be part of the atspecies. has never happened before cause wolfs and humpbac whales don't vote. what we are seeing is bringing in a criteria that is irrelevant to the way to move in on lands and disrupt osystems more. >> i m@!ocnoticed the rolling o they said they want to make it more efficient. is to of sease the regulatory

burden on the american people end quote. what is it and who is feeling it? >> there is no burden. it is a way to make the endangered species act endangered itsel we have a clear set of rules that ranchers, landowners, local, state governments ala look to determine how endangered species and what re the ecological areas we need to conserve. there is a desire to give away land for logging and for drilling for oil and gas and really to throw out one of the landmark pieces of legislation that is actually brought a number of species back. ironically made a number of ecosystems moreresilient and healthy, healthy for humans and animals. o> kevin t me ask you what california couldis doing, clearly it is not afraid of going to thcourt agains trump administration.

as you mentioned we have our own very, very strong laws with regard to environmental regulations. what is california up to aside from going court? >> dan mentioned wolves don't have a vote, animals like that the same ntioned wolves don't state boundaries that we do. you know the islf that protected just came down from oregon, it can walk into , another statlifornia protections do not extend there. the same thing ++ó4ñgoes for the power plan. we are part of a regional grid system. states around us might be burning coal, know the power could come in the state. even though we have strong protections it ds not mean - like these are big issues global issues it does not mea our protections are really going to protect ter enda species in addition alley climate change is a global problem. this is something that isn't going to happen from sacramento or within the boundaries of california. >> let's talk, now, about the

lawit that california, 2 other states and some cities filed this week against the trump administration regarding regulating coal plants. dan, help us #gqñunderstand the difference between ow the obadministration was doing it and how the trump administration wants to do it. >> so, the obama clean power pl n sets each state to reduce its emissions by a third by 2025.cu a zcy+nparrly brilliant feature of that requirement is that it does not compete the at states tade a lot of progress like california or new york against state that have . not start it says you reduce from your thatbaseline and reduction, that one third by about the us right in path we would need to be "úy1ño meet the intergovernmental panels of climate changes goal. the plan that now president si trump is pro would have ÷la0c emissions go down by roughly 1%. so it is night and day

difference. the real irony of it is that ta s have launched a number of the measures that would be needed so me traditional coal states like kentucky have mixtures of natural gas and renewablis they are ahead of schedule to get there om d 1. it was a thoughtful, integrativplan and the trump one is literally just a mess. simply says do thing. now what california ád6xhas do going further. our goal is to be 60% powered by ú@ó,u(s far above that level. what we have seen around the count is that the mixture of the low-cost of renewables, the greater job creation in the renewables. they are not buying not only l coal but natugas was an economic win around bhidñthe country. so what the president is

proposing is retrograde and environmentally and just frankly stupid economically. >> so the lawsuit caat fornia and the other states have filed argues that under trump administration policy the environmental protection agency essentially fails its mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. kevin, are e ?1"really talking x about +2ñan eventual clash, in the ts í=)jkjuh,ótyrñ÷áo+8rmwha responsibility of the epa is? >> absolutely. and that is why we are ]fsy#ein all f the lawsuits happen right now. it is because the trump administration wantsto get this going in the courts. they want to get the in front of supreme courts is friendly to them and before the first term. it is is all executive actichn wmeans in there is a new president in 2021they can come in and just roll it all back. solved, get this legal debate

done befe the end of the term. >> i want to ask both of you what your sense is of if é> the keyissue in the epa under obama was the )vr7yfindin that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. even with this conservative court ?á?;uy think most of the justices are also fairly sensible human gs beand will not take this trump move. that does not mean all of them rçcertainly a few that voted ne6tconservative but the mixture of the action towards cleaner ecnomy, th sense that we are now the only

country that is not finding greenhouse gases as a i think this would still stay where we are. as the court shifts, all bets can be off. >> yes. yes. >> absolutely right. i would say that beyond at that obama clean power plan says carbon emissions are th public he that is something that the smog hurts people that are livng in this country. ipeople that ar income, living around coal plants and inisstrial. thata piece of this. also, sort of two places that the lawsuit could eneup. su court or a panel of judges in the dc circuit cou. the panel of judges in the dc court might be more sympathetic ttthe argumthat states like california e making. science reporter kevin stark and dan caven, thank you very much both of you. >> thank you. there has been national outcry äçthis week over the s francisco's school board voting

to hide and not destroy cothe roversial mural at george washington high school. the ]k,mural was painted by an artist in 1930s. depicts washington sles and white settlers stepping over a dead native american man. back in june the ard was leaning over painting over the mural. the against the mural say the images are offensive and depressive and studes should not be faced with seeing them every day. historians and mural supporters counter with the importance of preserving history and art. . w, the decision has left both sides disappoint joining me now from pasadena is arts and cultural reporter beloe veltman and here in study joe, board mof indian center hello to you both. >> hello. >> hello. >> let mestart with you, chloe, a lot of people think the mural should not be seen every day but a lot of people

don't think it should yebe dest, either. can we start by going back to the original itentions of artist who painte the mural? rst of all we have to talk about the fact that that it is challenges to talk about artistic intentions. a lot of people who are saying orthat it isimportant to think about the facts that ar experienceach of us subjectively in the moment and our experience of art (ñis alwa closely connected to our time and place that we are living in, today, and of course it is being considered decades after it was created. gto back to your questions we know a little of his intentions by his biography. a case that he says the artist neñkgur'tended this mural as a

racist work. he was not intending to celebrate the achievements of white settlers. his aim was richly reolent os was to show the dark and disturbing side of colonial rule in this country. >> so was this murnt oversial from the beginning? from when it was painted and presented there at the school? >> not really from the very start. for decades the school board and the board of education have been receiving incomps from students, teachers, talking about how disturbing the mural ar the response has ebbed and flowed over t years. back in the 1960s the black panthers got involved when the school union wanted to have the mural removed. and tns c4pvresto that was

that they commissioned an is ar, in the bay area dewy crumpler, to create a response mural. celebrating the achievements of that ity communities and mural is still around today and he is somebody who has spoken out in favor of keeping the mural. the creation of the mural seemed, atthe time, to sway the negative feelings hi7tthat communy felt, at least to a degree. >>en and now -- and now we have the more recent time where things flared up again as of last year with students, teachers and other community members coming forth and have it rem ramirez, on the board of the american indian cultural center but an umof the publicweschools. re students complaining about

this mural when you were in high school? >> yes. ani remember myself being upset by this mural when i saw it at washingt just because i did not go to washington, i graduated in 1916 never means i saw it in person. i went there for sports. i have been to the school and member thinking why does one of my ancestors look like a decration while here and dead in this mural. to me that does not look like decorion. i havebeen an active participate in the education program siree -- r. for a very long time. part of my life. we hastudents coming to us saying we don't want this here. we have students here telling us that they don't want that there becae they don't feel it is empowering them. hurts them to see it every day in their school. at the end of the dait is in a lobby as a decoration. it is art that is decy ating the loof washington rehif:

decoration. >> does anyone -- is there evert a mohat a student passes by this mural, is offended but then learns that, in fact, e mural in fact wants to attack slavery even sort of call out tt fact that e americans, there was a genocide that sort of led to a destruction of a culture to build america up? doep that heat all? does that ever do anything to change a mind set forstudents who pass by the mural? >> well, what i think people have to understand it is not being talked about right now with context, with historical context, that is not brought up. it is just er no context, no plaque, nothing telling what the artist is trying to g . no talkabout it. like people are saying it is a great teaching tool but it into e used to teach. so if that is the intent put ányin a museum.

does not need to be decoration. >> this mural is in a school and so people will make the case for it being in educational tool, clearly you don't thinkit is explicit enough in sort of stating that with the presentation of the mural. but chloe who is in favor o eping the mural? what are they saying about why they want to keep the mural? >> a range of people who came out and said -- including some students and other members of the school mmunity, not everyone from the school community wants to see it removed. prominent members of the african-american community includes the president of the naacp here in san francisco and the actor, danny glover, who wants to keep it. they are saying it should not be whitewashed over that this is an ugly truth about this

country and it eshould be and it should be a teaching tool. then there are the art ti preserists and art critics talking about its a storic value that it is beautiful and very vibrant work and to destroy it would be a terrible thing, they say, in terms of art history. >> so, it will be covered but not destroyed. let me , k yoariana first, does that satisfy you? it being covered but ot destroyed? >> it does not satisfy our community because we e pret sure in 20 years or some point down-the-line we will come back and have issame fight all over again, another school board can vote to take panels down, panels are not a permanent solution, those can come down. it has been covered in the past before. the scol board talked abitt clearly it happened already and i would not be surprised if the panels are coming down. >> i do t imagine, chloe,

that the option of covering it but not destroying it satisfies the people who want to preserve the mural either, am i correct? >> that is right. a lot of talk particularly in the art preservation community about how really the whole decision of theboard right now is a bit of a lose/lose for everyone. there are various options, painting over it is taking awayy the possibiof it being a learning tool. >> covering it up is a expensive solution and again, does not really help at all because yes, the work could be on display again in 20 years that would upset the students and then for the art people who want to see it, it does not help either. the is another solution that would be probably very, very et ensive and difficuto do but i gather not impossible

from talking to experts. it has been done at harvard university. it is a case of sort surgically removing the mural. and then taking it away and possibly putting it in a museum. any attempt to bring it up is met with it woulprobably cause structural damage to the school itself. it is expensive. not a cheap option. if a donor would step forwd maybe a possibility. >> all right. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. this week some california lawmaks had to face a difficult eireality. faces look a lot çv

the h8/]lawmaklearned this with the aclu of northern california tested a facial recognition technology by running the photos of 120 legislatur through a data base of thousands of mug shots. the product found the faces of 26 lawmakers among the mug shots. the aclu's messa in running this experiment and publishing the results. withros like these facial recognition technology is not ready for its close-up. assembly member was among the lawmakers falsely identified among the mug shots and he joins us now to discuss this. hello, welcome. > ving me. to talk about the legislation that you are pushing onthis but i have t ask, first, were you prepared to learn that your face looks like that of a criminal? >> teokabso. the aclu did the same test with members of coress and 28 of

thought ed. it would be hnterested to do the same thing. her percentage of us got hit. 26 out of the 120. >> were all of the legislatures willing to participate? having their faces submited to this or is that part of it, rao. >> our pors are on public web sites. they st took them and crossed them from the mug shots. >> got it. so what does your legislation are trying to get through do n this? >> so ab-1215 sets it up ly perfewhere it bans facial recognition software from body cameras. i did body camerslleion last year to have more transparency, body cameras as they are deployed are built for building trust so we have a public record of what happened during a particular indent. so, by banning facial recognition software it is ensuring the camcoas inue

to build trust rather than surveill the community. it would be like deploying thousands of cameras with 24- hour surveillance. >> a lot of the knock on facial recognition technology has bee  that people color seem to be at a hier risk, maybe even gender issues, too, but are fou ding that yçñ&ñthe 2l

cameras. microsoft refuseed to sell it to an unnamed california law enforcement agency. again, rarely do you see corporations argue against their best interests but they are americans, too, in america we have had plenty f times where we debate between freedom lic safety. vses pu more often than not we choose freedom and liberty. we could live in a safer society but chon not to live in a police state. >> the ofayer beverly hills wrote q[v.÷you a respectful let opposing your legislation. he said s these technologihelp compare images of hundreds 7jso people quickly there is important. it saves time, it saes resources and particularly in a city like his where there are high profile events, celebrities passing through. this is helpful technology. what do you tell mayors, law

enforcemt officials who really want this as a tool? >> i think it is a great point. beçhave even more high profile events. we banned more types of facial recognition software deployed in different things much more bo tha cameras. my legislation is only regarding body cameras. if they wanted to usethat data another purpose my legislation does not preclude that. that ç pwis how i would say th in beverly hills or any other city, how many innocent people are going to get falsely accused or arrested? once you e false low arrested that stays on your record unless you go through a number job, housing, impact your ability to o don't children. re+jçjustthat way a false arres can stand by. >> amazon says when a human

it can serv/eo% beneficial purposes. day this technology could be used to good use? >> i1i think is possible. our legislation is pro active. no law enforcement agency using thgh software now. like all legislation that is up for debate at a later date. i welcome that when it is ready for prime time we can have the discussion how it can be used. again, we see the downside of this. you saw all of e protest n hong kong that are going on. the chinese government is using facial recognition software to identify protesters. so, imagine if you are out >(i=p there exercising your free speech rights at a in the united states. do you want to be identified by the police for exercising your basic civil rights? it is ultimately aza civil rig question d if we want to continue to be a free and open

society or if we ally want to have it much more closed and lose a significant amount riof ourcy. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> thank you. sdo it for us, as always, you can find more of our coverage at kgan/newsroom. you for joining us

>> political and economic warfare. i'm robert costa. welcome to "washington week.">> ou have no choice but to vote for me, because four 401(k)'s, down the tubes. everything is going to be down the tubes. whether you love me or hate me, gotta vote for me. >> after months of growth, thet stock mars rattled. but the president sticks with his trade war. >>hina, how you doing? they're not too happy. not too happy. long millions of jobs. the tariffs are working and they're eating the tariffs, by there's no price increase. >> are there tensions inside the administration? and the president, once again clashes with minority women in congress. this time on israel. next.