in the administration the apparent change of opinions on climate change we cannot help but wonder if this is what they will care about whether this is just politics or if there is a core national security issue to drive interest in the impact of climate change. a preliminary answer to that is president trump's secretary of defense by greed the effects of bakelite changing climate with maritime impact security situations. in to conduct operations today and in the future so that is of bottom-line there will adapt to changes in the climate led dod knows what they are doing but there was a lot so we have a group of experts with the board of the visors and each a uniquely qualified talk about why dod still cares about climate change and the ability to carry out the future i would introduce everybody to call on them for some opening comments and questions and answers they can talk about any facet that they which but one starting question is the essence of politics how would dod approach this issue? and their resistance to focus on a by president john. and i will go through and introduce ev

it needs to be done to protect us from climate change. host: change. host: should the obama administration have pushed for ratification of the deal's away future president could not withdraw? guest: not necessarily. we are building off of a previous framework. each country is making its own commitment and those will change over time. many countries will make bigger and deeper commitments over time. host: robert calling from augusta, georgia, a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. this is my first time on. i think c-span is doing a wonderful job. i watch it all the time. i would just like to say, this president we have, so-called president, he is trying to reverse anything that obama has done. anything obama has done or signed into law, he is trying to reverse. thing,is paris agreement america is headed down a bad road. the only thing i can say, we all need to say, god help america. that is all we can do. guest: appreciate that, robert, and we certainly agree. climate change is real, it is happening now, we have a chance to make progress in many stat

that's an important way climate change is changing our world and changing how we have to position oured forces. to address that, as well as other capabilities. important, extreme weather events. we have seen weather events of various types around the world. we now have to position our forces to be able to respond to increased typhoons, increased extreme weather events, storms, that are creating new risks, particularly in the asia-pacific, which some might call disaster alley of that region. where there are extreme risks and combined with the urbanization we see with the largest cities in the world and people living at very low lying areas come everywhere from anglo --to the philippines bangladesh to the philippines that are increasing risk when there is an extreme storm or sealevel rise. thirdly, and i want to leave some time here for my fellow panelists. we see that it is affecting our military posture at home, our installations are at risk along the atlantic coast due to a combination of sea rise in storm surge and coastal erosion. that is not a partisan issue. that is affecting us

how could the changes effect you? we'll take a look at that with a nonpartisan not for profit organization. joining us this morning is aaron turner pfeffer. he is director of government relations and your organization monitors the quality and best practices of health care organizations. things like health care plans and farm sis a organizations. just to establish what you do. you said that it's a mistake to assume if you're not enrolled on a health exchange or on medicaid that these changes being talked about wouldn't effect you. >> correct. that's some of the questions i get from family and friends but most folks aren't aware of is the affordable care act had a number of consumer protections that apply broadly to all health plans. there's a number of different things that the plan can do to help everyone that had insurance be it through medicaid or exchanges or your employer. >> so everyone should be paying attention. >> everyone should be paying attention. >> some of the parts of the affordable care act have been me

one of the things that we did is that we changed the chain of command process. so, the issue that she was speaking about is actually not what we have today. in addition to our having removed article 60 where a commander could actually overturn the decision for a connection we've also change the process by which these cases are reviewed in a recommendation for prosecution). some statistics that relate to the defense department annual report on his assault in fiscal year 16, commanders had sufficient evidence to take action against 64% of alleged offenders in sexual assault. military commanders used to court-martial process to adjudicate 59% of allegations involving servicemembers within their jurisdiction. these statistics indicate that prosecutions are moving forward and furthermore, it's been our understanding and others, that it's been higher than what is actually occurring in the civilian courts. we have conducted a number of decisions with respect including in a bipartisan basis to establish a response system panel that reviewed this issue for us for nearly

climate change is a fact. and when our children's children look u us the eye andnd ask ife didd all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world with new sources of energy, i want us to be able to o say yes, we did. [applause] >> as the obamama administstratn renews its s commitme t to ac the debate over climate change remains polarized. climate scientist michael mann is a central figure in that debate. he was one of the scientists behind the development of the controversial hockey stick chart, which showed how temperature in the late twentieth century was exceptionally warm compared to the previous 900 years. this triggered a tax on dr. mann and the science behind his work, all documented in his book "the hockey stick and the climate wars." michael mann, you write that in mid 1990s, scientisists were abe to begin to connenect the d dotn climate chchange. could d you elaborate? >> we underrstood the basic science of the greenhouse effect nearly two centuries ago. joseph fourier, the same e guy who discove

does the approach to brexit markedly change now? difficult to say. there isa change now?here is a lot of speculation about it thatis is a lot of speculation about it that is being recalibrated. we know the tories were asking for a mandate and have set out in the manifesto, leading to a customs union, leaving the single market, the threat to walk away from talks without a deal, no more vast eu payments. this is what critics describe as a hard brexit and there is lots of chat around now about that position being softened in some way. the reality is the negotiating team will then be faced with the reality of what the eu are prepared to talk about and in what order. they are pre— negotiation talks about the flavour brexit britain might want could suddenly hit reality quite hard and be in suddenly hit reality quite hard and beina suddenly hit reality quite hard and be in a different world altogether but it is certainly true there are demands for theresa may now to just ta ke demands for theresa may now to just take in more opinion from within her own party and even buy from wi

it's always changing. what's important here is what the president did on thursday is put america first and say to the united states and the world that we will remain engaged, where we are also going to make sure that we will put america first. >> chris: he pulled out of the deal largely on economic terms. curious. >> president trump: the american families will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a diminished quality of life. >> chris: the study that the president cited was funded by two groups that are dramatically opposed to environmental regulation and the study itself acknowledges -- this is a quote from the study "it does not take into account the potential benefits from emissions. the study results are not a benefit cost analysis of climate change. it's a worst-case scenario. >> administrator pruitt: if there were several studies that were actually published in response to paris. the heritage study. there were several. what we know from the paris agreement objectively is that it was a

your brain would then change, it would learn the error and change its representation of the apple so you would see the apple differently. this is -- we have a very fancy name for this in the science of psychology and neuro science. we call it learning. and then you can use it to predict better in the future. so then to maintain their or your brain can run experiments to imagine the world without any prediction error at all just as you did when you imagined the apple orare -- or are hearing the song you can't get out of your head. examples i have used here are about objects and events like apples and squares. but the important and wonderful thing is the same process happens about the senations inside your own body. you have to understand how emotions are made. i am at the wrong page. from your brain's perspective, your body is just another source of sensory input it has to make meaningful. sensations from your heart from changing temperature and so on are ambiguous and these purely physical sensations are no objective psychological meaning. if you feel an ache in your stomach while at

smart that global warming hoaxsters changed the name to climate change.hen he has lots and lots of dollar signs. he thought it was a hoax. he's on the record as saying it's a hoax. are you tried to convince him otherwise? >> i have said in committee that it's not a hoax but details -- you talk about agreement. the agreement says only you can accelerate. it doesn't say in the agreement that they can veto. this is an unusually bad agreement. if you read through it, it's about 20 pages, i invite you to read through it as i have done, it doesn't say voluntary for the united states. we give $3 billion up front. we lose jobs. everyone else takes a walk and it doesn't do anything at the end of the day. so i think the president was right in taking this position. if we're going to deal with climate change, let's deal with it on a fair basis and what makes sense for america. he's the president of the united states. he's not president of the world. >> so if you believe in climate change and the president thinks it's a hoax, and you feel that the u.s. should do somet

in france every year we can see the consequences of climate change. if we do nothing, our children will face a world full of migration, wars, and shortages, the disappearance of coastal towns and this has already begun. this is not the future that we want for our children. it's not the future. france's calling is to lead for humanity. that's the reason why france is at the forefront of the fight against climate change. france has committed itself in all international negotiations and december, 2015, france managed to get 195 countries to sign an agreement, a commitment, the paris agreement for the climate. yes, i say it very strongly. we will not renegotiate a less ambitious agreement in no case. france, this evening, calls on all the countries that have signed the agreement to remain within the framework of the paris agreement, to live up to responsibilities that we have, and to give up nothing. this evening i would like to say to the united states of america that france believes in you, the world believes in you, i know that you are a very great nat

is quote, signed of education and confronting climate change. this one-hour portion of the debate includes remarks from several leaders from the european union, including a climate change minister and european party leaders. [speaking foreign language] >> dear colleagues. the paris agreement has been a historical achievement of the international community. the first ever global commitment to address climate change and its consequences. while we regret the decision by the united states of america, administration, to withdraw from this agreement -- our long-standing commitment and determination for global action on climate change must not relent. we europeans, we will not miss the opportunity that the paris agreement represents for our citizens, our planet, our economy. taking this global challenge, working with industries for new investments and technologies and more sustainable growth and jobs. european parliament has been at the forefront of climate action within the european union. today, there is an important vote on this. our growth -- certi

for change -- >> change is good, you go first. you can take the back. it is a theme that has emerged, leadership matters. if we are going to make the change we are talking about it doesn't happen by accident, leadership matters. >> the back of the shirt, the future is bright. we have to remember in a democracy there is great and passionate debate, pendulum swings different directions over time. a fantastic country that can solve problems, and how healthcare should work, their job is to provide guardrails, to help us innovate and develop solutions that are focused on patients, people, employers and healthcare organizations and that is where the solutions lie. i am confident, we talked about genomics, fourth industrial revolution, digitalization, incredible new cancer therapies using immunotherapies, bright future in healthcare over the next we 10 years that were going to realize and there will be a lot of white noise in the middle, let's work together and figure out how to get the job done and i look forward with great confidence. .. in looking at the fu

climate change is a hoax? >> well what president trump believes is he was elected to grow the u.s. economy. >> but with all due respect you're not answering the question. >> i'm answering what the president is committed to a you're going to have to ask him you're actually going to have to ask him. >> does he believer global warming is a hoax. >> he believes a cheen environment. >> i'll ask you one more time does he believer it's a hoax. >> you'll have to ask him that. >> that brings us to the this afternoon's white house briefing. >> now it's been 48, 72 hours what does the president actually believe about climate change does he still believe it's a hoax? could you clarify that because apparently nobody else in the white house can. >> i have not had an opportunity to have that discussion. >> you're the epa a administrator shouldn't you be able to tell the american people whether or not the president still believes climate change is a hoax where does he stand. >> as i indicatesed several times through the proce

, the corbyn change. would be blocked... completely because brexit would be the chosen vehicle of change, this ill—defined idyll. when it became clear that theresa may, as well as delivering this ill—defined idyll, would also be putting up taxes, would work out ways of paying for elderly care, all of these things in the real world, and she was brave to say some of these things, some of that sort of fa nta sy of these things, some of that sort of fantasy of brexit being a painless route of change changed in the minds of some voters. and then they look at the corbyn version. i am not saying he is going to win or anything, but that was one of the other changes, so brexit has played a part in this campaign, but a very ambiguous and confused one, i think. maria? what happened with the brexit vote is that we saw how badly we had been reading the landscape of british politics, have chopped up and churned up and unrepresented by the parties as they were it was. and i think that, instead of, as you said, instead o

is a change. she said that the president believes it's changing. well, if it's changing at a very small problem, is at any time a problem. we know thats is changing at a much faster rate. oceans for example. >> and she also added throupollutants are a part of t equation. and the president has said that it's not manmade. >> i don't think that here say from the u.s. ambassador to the united nations is what we need to hear from the president of the united states. >> she's not giving him the credibility? >> since when does our president need somebody be else to tell us what is on his mind? he has committed to being transparent. he has ample opportunity to tell us exactly what he takes and whether he does view it a as problem. he doesn't need surrogates. >> is it your analysis then that -- or maybe i should ask what is your animalysis of this preside relying on others to convey a message on his behalf? >> let me tell you how we as historians look at it because i can't tell you what president trump is t

but it's not about changing just the leader, it's changing the policy.g to stop brexit. like the tories, labour has committed to leaving the eu. but how is the question. let's be clear. we are respecting the decision of the referendum. we are democrats. we are respecting the decision. i think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum. others in labour say it's time to get the whole of parliament behind a brexit strategy. now there should be a sort of cross party commission or group set up to try and take forward those negotiations in a way that is open, thoughtful, consensual, that accepts that not everybody is going to get the deal that they want. all this confusion comes two months after britain formally handed in its notice to leave the eu. brussels is waiting to negotiate. the two—year clock is ticking. ben wright, bbc news, westminster. police have released new images of the manchester arena bomber, saying they now fully understand the movements of salman abedi almost hour—by—hour, in the weeks leading u

way climateportant change is changing our world and changing how we have to position our armed forces. second is important -- an extreme weather events. we have seen weather events of various types around the world. we want to position our forces to be able to respond to typhoons, increased extreme weather events, storms, risks,e creating new particularly in the asia-pacific, which some might call disaster alley of that region. there are extreme risks and combined with the urbanization we see with the largest cities in the world and people living at very low lying areas everywhere from anglo -- to the philippines that are increasing is an extremee storm or sealevel rise. thirdly and i want to leave some time here for my fellow panelists. we see that it is affecting our military posture at home, our at risk alongare the atlantic coast due to a combination of sea rise in storm surge and coastal erosion. at risk along the atlanticthat is not a parti. that is affecting us wherever our coastal military installations are located. if we want to continue to operate, we need to address the and

and climate change in general. i'm trained as an engineer, but one of the best classes labor took was a philosophy class. ,egarding the socratic method this question that came to my mind would be what is the earth's optimal temperature. you can't find it. anything i would say is i think people in the paris agreement are unserious, if they really were concerned about carbon in the atmosphere, they would have had a manhattan like project for nuclear energy and not the nuclear energy that we currently have, all you have to do is look in the sky and see that the sun actually has clean fusion energy and there are number of projects around the world, even here at home, look at a company like lockheed martin that has some projects trying to develop fusion. that is the ultimate solution and if they were really serious about it, they would a worldwide effort into getting towards fusion energy. host: so why not agree with the president to leave this paris accord? is nothing binding, it's an agreement, volunteering basically

power under the paris agreement to change the u.s. greenhouse gas emission targets to make them less onerous on american businesses. why renegotiate? the united states has the authority to simply reduce the targets. why not just do that? >> because the president believes that it is in our country's best interest to renegotiate the deal. >> reporter: secretary of state rex tillerson seemed to downplay the president's decision today. he said he believes the u.s. will not diminish its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas anthony. >> mason: chip reid. thanks, chip. around the country, governors and mayors are saying that if the president won't lead the way on protecting the environment, they will. carter evans is in san francisco. >> reporter: you go into china today, what message does that send to washington? >> wake up. >> reporter: we caught up with governor jerry brown as he was boarding a flight to beijing to attend a clean energy summit. he's going as the leader of the sixth richest economy in the world-- the state of california. >> whe

american industry is changing.s of california, it increasingly looks like this. california was driven to embrace the power of the wind and the sun by necessity. for years, los angeles look like this. to defeat the deadly small, the state drafted the deadly small, the state drafted the toughest emission standards in america, standards now embraced by a dozen other us states. california is ona dozen other us states. california is on a different path from where president trump wants to take the country. we are not alone in this regard. most states now in the country are working hard to do things which, whether they call it climate change or not, are aimed at reducing emissions and ringing around cleaner fuels and reducing emissions and ringing around cleanerfuels and cleaner ways of moving ourselves around. and that includes china, which is now turning to california for advice on how to tackle its own pollution problem. the two up partners but also competitors in developing renewable technology. this is, i think, the

, and hopefully eventually reversing climate change as we know it. deny that humankind is having an effect on our climate is utterly ridiculous. these are the same folks who will argue dinosaurs and early man roamed the world at the same time. they are science deniers. if they could go back and declare a flat earth, they would probably do it. what i want is the rest of the world to understand that americans, not our president, but americans understand our international obligations to clean our environment, to save our climate, to make a difference. one of the other things i said the other day, if the president has his way, there's going to be a lot more waterfront property in america, because the tides are going to rise. it's going to change what we look like, where we live, and how we live if he has his way. i'm trying to help save our environment. and save our world. >> the president said he wants to save the environment as well. and we heard from nikki haley, the u.n. ambassador from the u.s. today talking about the fact that she believes the pres

number and it will still say that it's warming. - and politics changes and politicians change, but science remains constant. the principles remain constant, the conclusions remain constant. - yes. - right. so talk to me about your origins. talk to us about the origins of your interest in this. you grew up in canada. originally when you went to university, you actually intended to be an astrophysicist, right? - [katharine] yes. - talk a little bit about how you got from one to the other. - so my dad is a science educator. he grew up with six sisters and three daughters. he used to say the only male around the house was the cat and he was really not quite male. (laughing) if you know what i mean. so i almost feel like i didn't have a choice. i went to university and science to me was the coolest thing, the most important thing, the truest thing that you could study i felt like. so, of course, i studied science. i fell in love with astrophysics because the idea that we can understand the distant reaches of the universe with nothing more than the brains and the limited instruments that we have

>> sustainable energy to climate change to global warming and the weather. people believe that something is happening to our planet and that elephant in the room is in great jeopardy. we have a panel of experts to bring to you the truth, nothing but the truth, so help me god. that's up next on the right side. >> do you take climate change seriously? >> you take everything life seriously that has element that could affect human welfare. i think one of the issues is how we debate the issue. for example we have an existing executive agreement that promiss to lower greenhouse gas emissios by 26 percent in the united states and over the next many years. but this isn't an executive agreement. we all know the obama administration has their particular perspective. this is a treaty. it's international obligation. and the way in which we ought to be debating this is through different viewpoints. the american people can watch te debates. it's not protected by executive privilege and then we can have real illumination. some deny there's any change at all and it's merely

i didn't agree to all these changes. now you're just gonna change everything.his is gonna be a dictatorship, this ain't gonna be no partnership. i didn't agree to this [bleep]. the deal's off. >> pete, if you're not gonna put your pride away, then i'm not gonna do the deal. >> you don't need to raise your voice at me. >> well, i'm raising my voice because you keep repeating the same thing and you don't seem to understand what i'm telling you. >> are you okay? >> i just need a break. >> i came here to help you. you asked me to come help you. i gave you a very fair offer. it's $3 1/2 million from me to liquidate and clear these debts, to set up a brand-new entity, to bring in new assets and some fresh inventory. >> i will be working for free like i am now? >> just like i will be. it's a yes or a no. >> yes. >> i'm writing a check for $3 1/2 million. >> maybe for the first time i'll have a good night's sleep. >> with this check, you know that i'm 100% in charge. >> correct. >> we have a deal? >> we have a deal. >> okay. >> thank you. everybody meet in the showroom

been climate change but there's been climate change for thousands of years.otton said today that there's no doubt that that has accelerated dramatically in the last 200 years and that man has something to do with. it look, the president has never landed in a good place hon this issue. he's clearly not comfortable with it, so i -- i'm not i've gone probing trying to predict what donald trump will say or do and i can't do it now. >> the let me go back to laura jarrett. you have an important ruling by the department of justice which potentially could affect a lot of congressional investigations. tell us more. >> that's right, wolf. this is an opinion issued from the office of legal counsel which essentially functions as the main law firm for the federal government and the president and what this directive does is it says to federal agencies all across the trump administration that they don't have to respond to inquiries from individual members of congress. oversight committees, subpoenas, that's a different ball game, but when it comes to individual inquiries or

what needs to change that? and there is an idea that maybe this shouldn't be a republicans versus democrats game. i know that is an odd question. i'm hearing it out there. >> well, i think we ought to continue -- both mike and i, you know, we requested, suggested that game continue tomorrow. we left it obviously to the speaker and mrs. pelosi and the capitol hill police to make the final decision. but he and i thought that game should go on. and, again, you can be a liberal democratic conservative republican or somewhere in between and discuss your issues on the floor and not go out in the lobby and get in a fistfight. this gentleman apparently drove 800 miles. now whether he came with intent, who knows? we'll never know since he passed away. but we need to take a step back and i think at our level we should be a part of it. >> i think the internet and twitter and all the instantaneous of the news cycle made it more personal and members flying back to their districts every weekend. very few members live up here

one of the things we did is we changed the command structure. in addition to removing article 60 where commander could have overturned the decision for conviction, we've also change the process by which these cases are reviewed and a recommendation goes forward. commanders had sufficient evidence to take action against 64% of alleged offenders in sexual assault. they use the court marshal process. these indicate that they are moving forward and furthermore it's been our understanding and others who have reviewed this that it's actually higher than what is actually occurring in this civilian court. we have adopted a number of provisions with respect to this including, on a bipartisan basin, having established a risk bonds system panel that reviewed the issue for us for nearly a year. they found no evidence of removing the commander would increase prosecution. they did however recommend changes that we have undertaken, which again, this congress did and it totally revamped the process but a sexual assault claim goes forward. if it's reported they

we see his statements changing. i would say there is a calculation here to read a certain kind of voter, and they will be very happy to hear what he said today. he spoke directly to them. there are people who work in places in the middle of the united states that do mining. he spoke specifically about opening mines. he really meant this a sovereignty issue. this wasn't an issue conservative republicans had brought up, they had resisted the negotiation of putting the united states in a position where it had accountability to other countries. that is how it was sold on that side of the aisle, that this agreement does not have a lot of enforcement, it was a nationally determined contribution, each individual country came up with them and was agreeing to abide by them and they can be changed. i want to note for you, you are talking about renegotiation, and there is a mechanism in the climate agreement to renegotiate. what he is leading himself in terms of options to change, to start all over or start a new agreement com

climate change is driven by greenhouse gases. co2 simply stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. every emsi -- every emission -- climate change that you have today is caused by emissions in the past. it's already occurring today. there is no country in the world with a bigger responsibility to the u.s.. eventually, fighting climate change in a fair and equitable fashion means that countries that have a big historic burden need to go ahead, move ahead, and basically achieve strong reductions. he is simply neglecting the very nature of the problem we have with climate change by putting other countries which have much less emissions in the u.s. have, particularly much lower per capita emissions, and the support for these companies not just for mitigation, but for the most vulnerable countries that need money for adapting. by putting this as being basically a deprivation of the american workers, which it is not. it is support for countries which are suffering from climate change and haven't caused it. it's basically, on a globa

it is not climate change, it is global warming. don't let the dollar sucking wise guys change names midstream because the first name didn't work. in november, 2012, let's continue to destroy the competitiveness of factories and manufacturing so we can fight mythical global warming. china is so happy. interestingly back in 2009, donald trump did sign a letter with dozens of business leaders calling for meanful, effective measures to combat climate change. it sounded like he is on the fence. >> i am open minded, nobody really knows. look, i'm somebody that gets it. and nobody really knows. it is not something that's so hard and fast. >> reporter: overall, his blizzard of tweets and almost allt all televised comments have the sentiment. donald trump has never been shy about expressing that, at least until now. gary tuckman, cnn, atlanta. >> gary, thank you. >>> former mayor of new york michael bloomberg is among u.s. business leaders vowing to stay the course on the paris climate agreement. >> the billionaire philanthropist knows a lo

he wants to change that.ybe he is a frustrated with the fact that the president doesn't have the same power of the chairman of the trump organization does, but i think he has handled it and he has reminded us that the president is just one part of three. host: we asked our viewers, what suggestion to washington? you joined us for that. one of the things they said it loud and clear is that the in transparency and the echo chamber that the national security adviser admitted to that we heard about during obamacare, a certain amount of your benefit.s to it is the reason why donald trump is the president-elect because he heard, he didn't lecture, and the people are trying of thinking there is a elected class that rules over the country. they are not about that. host: joe thomas, do you think the president has, in his actions and in his words, stay true to why he was elected? standpoint,that here is a guy that is getting incinerated because he tweets in .he middle of the night i am amazed at the mail -- at nfeve.lk

nothing has changed.he principles that we set out in the manifesto. understandably voters were still confused. it is your mum you're caring for? she has dementia. we don't know if she'll have to go into a home, but do i have to sell her house? they were saying in one thing, you know what i mean, you've got £100,000, you don't have to sell your house. the next day they are putting cap on it. but they are not telling us what the cap is. theresa may wanted the policy in her manifesto to make sure parliament couldn't block it. if the public vote for this, then you can get it through the house of commons and the house of lords, because politician cannot vote what the public have voted for in a manifesto. that is the way to make things happen. then came an event which would stop the campaign in its tracks. greater manchester police said they believed one man carried out the bombing at a pop concert in the city. killing 22, some of them children. when the campaign resumed four days later, it brought renewed focu

we have two changes. first anthony scaramucci who was close to president trump phone willed to say he has been summoned to a meeting in washington. ambassador nina [ inaudible ] who was in china when she accepted this conference put the date and time into her phone there, and so she showed up yesterday, primed and ready for the conference. but we're ready today and we have an outstanding array of panelists. our aim is to proceed, as in all of these conferences, in the president of president kennedy who called on americans to disenthrall themselves also from truism and stereotype and never enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. or as president reagan said the ultimate determinative in the struggle will be a test of ideas. let me introduce my friend and colleague in this venture to moderate the first panel, professor dennis trunk. >> good morning. i would like to add my welcome to all of you at the usc 100 days conference on the trump administration and trump presidency. bob and i h

don't we have to think about regime change? i want to know if i intercepted you right because i don't want to put those words in your mouth. second, if you do think that, do you believe that any country, u.s., rok or even china has the capacity to affect regime change? do we have a candidate? do you know what you'd get? normally when you get a regime change, you hope for a replacement. >> that was great. i don't know if you coordinated those questions but -- so brian from ohio state university, these questions are both to sue terry. you said kim jong un is likely undeterrable in his quest to get nuclear capability, but you said that the best policy is sanctions. that's not quite what you said but did he understood you right, what are the sanctions -- what is the purpose then? is it for regime change? and what are the risks in this? do we look like a paper tiger if it fails? stanley also asked the question about regime change, stanley roth. do we have the ability to pursue regime change? do you believe any of the country's unite

and the third is climate change. climate change is that serious over the long-term.nd this decision -- charlie: over 200 nations agreed with you. mike: absolutely. and this decision almost ensures, if this goes through and the next president does not change it, this decision is going to make the climate worse and therefore have national security implications from that very significant prospective. the other national security issue here is that there are specific national security implications of climate change. for example, water shortages and fights, conflicts between nations overwater. -- nations over water. instability caused by the increasing size of deserts. food problems in the instability that causes. there is a whole bunch of stuff we in the intelligence community study, the national security fallout of climate change. instability caused by the those are going to get worse as the climate gets worse. two huge national security implications. then there are two other implications that i think about. one is i think this is going to significantly impact u.s. leade

foxconn built a factory, but very little changed.ng lots of high-level manufacturing in brazil foxconn continued to do , most of the work in china, where the supply chain was nearby and parts could be preassembled. this meant most of the iphone was made in china and shipped to brazil for local workers to slop together, like legos. in the end the brazil project , failed on two levels. it hired a fraction of the workers the government expected and did not attract suppliers. if an iphone is to be made in the u.s., it is more likely to follow the brazil model, not that shenzhen model. the brazil model means far fewer jobs, and making an apple would be like picking apples. while the u.s. could when they boast an iphone assembled in america, the question is, does it really want to? don't be full by tim cook's reported 2016 pay, which ranked him in the bottom third of all ceos in the s&p 500. cook actually took home 100 $45 million, almost all from awards granted in he is not the only 2011. ceo of a publicly traded u.s. company to cross the

specifications change and buildings incorporate changes as the design develops. yea rs must remember, it takes up to two years to design a building and during those processes, many different people are involved. that is self certification, that means that effectively building inspectors from local authorities no longer necessarily go out and do inspections themselves? it is difficult to say without knowing the particulars of any given incident in that. one would expect that there is a process where an inspector will go out. whether that is from the local authority or from another approved inspectorate, one would expect that checks do happen and is they are in place. the real cause of concern is whether that regulation is then enforced and whether the processes where people surf certified and the description of items that they are making are out of the ones that are finally placed on that building. let me ask you finally, briefly if you can, what do you make of the interim measures that are being taken at the moment? i think, and measures that are being taken at t

out of the landmark harris agreement on climate change. the u.s.resident notoriously once called climate change a hoax and made a promise to cancel the paris accord within his first 100 days. he has passed the 100 day mark already. links from the white house say he could carry out that promise starting today. donald trump has long been vocal about his climate change skepticism. repeatedly: global warming a made up byconcept the chinese to make u.s. manufacturing noncompetitive. tothe campaign he promised put american interests in the coal industry first and pull out of the legally binding global deal to fight climate change. the paris agreement. he wasted little time on taking office. surrounded by legislators from coal mining state. rules aimed at reducing pollution standards and signed an executive order to dismantle obama's clean power plan aimed at replacing polluting coal plants with renewable energy sources. >> my administration is putting an end to the war on coal. we are going to have clean coal. i'm taking historic steps to lift the restri

has to change? election at the disarray in the uk. and they believe this chaos in british politics makes a deal harder to reach. one of the best-known champions of brexit works right here in brussels. he dismisses all the negative talk. you can't be a self—governing nation if you're part of the european union. you can't control your borders or immigration numbers. so it is the biggest constitutional change in our country since the 17th century. it is that getting that control of our laws. but will we? at the close of day one of eu— but will we? at the close of day one of eu- uk but will we? at the close of day one of eu— uk negotiations, brussels remained unclear about the kind of brexit britain was after. secretary of state, can be eu trust that what you are for today or tomorrow will be what you asked for any few days' time, given the political confusion in the uk? would deliver the single market. we will be seeking to set up a free trade arrangement. —— we believe in the single market. the circum

changing?e economic scenario changing to the degree that maybe what people thought would happen down the road is changing as well? in the case of reserve bank of australia, they will hold key rates steady at 1.5% after a long series of rate hikes, starting with the great recession. on the plus side, jobs has picked up, the latest detailed report was stronger than expected. first quarter gdp is supposed to come in at plus .3. it was above 1% in the fourth quarter. wii.net export numbers suggesting the rejection to first-quarter gdp from the report will be even bigger than expected. even with stronger job growth, wages are stagnant, the quality of jobs are not quite as good.proportionately , fewer full-time jobs being created, more part-time jobs. another announcement from the rba is that there is big focus on rising household debt. this is a condition in a lot of countries in the world. that would be a reason to be more inclined to be hiking rates at some point. on the other hand, they might jus

crisis in europe since world war two there are profound political ramifications caused by climate change extremist right wing parties here and in europe conflate migrants with terrorism they twist the ecological crisis into a clash of civilizations xenophobia and hate crimes are on the rise borders are militarized walls are built police the border police and the immigration and customs enforcement carry out reigns of terror against those who lack legal documents r t correspondent on your profile looks at how climate change is increasing tensions between the global north and the global sell. and climate change to be an issue of national security even according to our military the answer is yes of course never mind the fact the pentagon itself is actually the largest polluter in the united states that's because wherever our military and multinational corporations go environmental devastation follows what have we pushed the global underclass too far the nine hundred ninety nine protest against the world trade organization in seattle shocks the press when americans from around the country ga

now take a look at how it's changed.he images taken last weekend a week after the landslide show two million cubic meters of earth collapsed. that is the equivalent of 200,000 dump trucks filled with rubble. caltrans says it could take more than a year to re-open the stretch of highway 1 buried by the slide. >>> getting details on a new lawsuit to block the city of gilroy from chopping down more than 200 trees. kpix reporter len ramirez on the neighbor who taking the city to court. len. >> reporter: no doubt about it, allen. the city of gilroy has a big fight on its hands not only in court but out here where the trees actually are. the mystery over exactly which trees are due to be cut down. >> it's a california quail. >> reporter: members of this gilroy high school class are some of a growing number of people in town upset with the city's decision to cut down 235 trees spread throughout the city and here near christmas hill park where the class studies birds. >> for the first time we saw a wood duck nest right on the tr