would incentivize the creation of clean energy and renewable. i'd like to have a renewable energy standard within the clean energy standard. something i would incentivize these industries. does anyone disagree with that, dr. scissors? >> why did you think it would be me? you actually touched on where i would disagree with it. we move from clean to renewable and i'm going to say that i would want -- if you impose a standard like that, to invent incentivize, the broader it is, the more chance you have for the industry to pick the right technology path not to be bound to what we think today is the good renewable energy and the productive renewable energy and the one that we're using ten years from now. >> but there are a lot of renewable energy. >> right. and i agree there are clean energies that some people would not count as renewable. if the goal is purely to be clean, then let's just be clean. we are not in danger -- if the goal, we're worried about running out of something, then we have to change the standards. without -- my advice to the congr

the ultimate result, a manufacturing boom and leading clean energy companies. it should be noted that a number of european and american clean tech companies have benefited from this boom. advanced components of wind turbines were applied by european firms and often comes from american companies. however, china's clean energy boom is not without its promise. the rapid growth of the energy bubble, there are far too many wind and solar manufacturing companies and many face intense

as government has encouraged the clean energy industry to do this. chinese solar companies have exploited their equipment to germany, the united states, and elsewhere for years. the chinese wind turbine and other clean tech investors have remained confined to the domestic market. in coming months, we anticipate chinese power companies and banks developing and clean energy problems abroad. not only in the united states but in europe and in emerging markets, particularly in latin america. at the same time, american and european clean companies continue to sell their products and technology to china and partner with chinese companies as they go overseas. the trade flow and clean energy between the united states and china only increase in the future and it will be a two-way street. however, unlike the break neck pace, it's been slow and cautious, a trickle and not a flood. thank you for your time and attention. i welcome your comments questions and comments. >> thank you very much. mr. wolff, go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, murkowski, members

he moved from clean energy to renewable energy. if you impose a standard like that to incentivize industries, the definition of "clean" to be as broad as possible. >> there are lots of renewable energy. >> right. i agree with that. -- there are also some clean energy that some people would not count as renewable energy. if the goal is to be clean, let's just be cleaned. if we are worried about running out of something, we have to change the standards. be as broad as possible. >> your issue is be renewable part, not the clean part. >> my issue is speak -- my issue is the definition. we will be pushing people towards a smaller range of choices. >> in this -- in minnesota, it has worked out well in many ways. we have manufacturers in minnesota creating solar panels. we have very good things happening. it promotes diversity, which is what you're talking about. not tying ourselves -- if you call nuclear clean energy and you call natural-gas clean energy and you call clean coal clean energy, we can get a clean energy standard without gone

>> first of all, let me note that the clean energy standard is not just about wind and solar. it's about nuclear energy. it's about fossil fuel energy with improved emission control technologies. it's the view of this admission we need all of those in increased measure in order to provide the reliable and affordable energy the country needs while addressing the need to reduce emissions, including emissions that are threatening to change global climate, which itself impacts on the economy. >> that doesn't answer the question. do you agree that the solar and wind aspects of obama's clean energy standards will increase energy costs for american consumers as has been determined by the department of energy in their studies? >> congressman, i have not personally read that study, so i don't want to endorse or criticize its findings without having done so. we're talking about a portfolio of energy sources that would fall under the clean energy roux brick, and my assumption is that portfolio will be pursued in a way to minimize impacts on energy prices and skurls. >> do you have a judgm

also in your testimony you talk about clean energy, but whether the president talked about clean energy in the last state of the union he used natural gas as clean energy. you left it out of your testimony. do you consider natural gas a clean energy source? >> yes. >> is there a reason why you left it out of your testimony? >> no. natural gas is the clean eest o the fossil fuel resources. >> you should have development into it as a clean energy source. >> i think the natural gas business is so well-developed that the private sector does further r and d needed in that domain. we do need federal r and d to ensure that hydrofracturing can be done in a way that protects drinking water and protects other environmental values. you're a scientist. is there a doulted case of contamination of drinking water from hydrofracturing. >> there is not. >> as an scientists with 1.2 million applications of hydrofracturing. despite 1.2 million applications with no case of drinking water contamination we should expend monies in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrof

yet house republicans wanted to defund investment in wind, solar and other forms of clean energy. their budget protects the billions of dollars in subsidies that the oil industry receives, a well established, very profitable industry, which will crush competition if the government doesn't stand up to allow these new enterprises to take their place. the house republican position is based on science denial. if you deny the existence of climate, an overwhelming republican majority denies that science, the need for clean energy may not be apparent. but if you live in reality, you know the world cannot continue its dependence on fossil fuels. you know without government involvement we're in danger of losing the booming clean energy industry and millions of jobs to competitors such a china and germany. we can outcompete china. we can grow a stronger and better america with jobs and opportunities for everyone to work hard and play by the rules, but to do so we have to reject the defeatist anti-science, anti-progress, anti-jobs view of those who oppose investment in clean energy, who want

and i want to put in place a new clean energy stand art that would make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for every business in america. with growing competition from countries like china and india, now is not the time for america to walk away frommy is search and development. now is the time to invest even more so that the great innovations of this century take place in the united states of america so that the next time thomas edison, the next wright brothers is happening here in ohio or california. my plan to encourage innovation isn't about throwing money or any project or new idea. it is about supporting the work of the most promising scientists and promising entrepreneurs. my plan would make the rnd tax credit permanent, but the private sector can't do it alone especially when it comes to basic research. it's not always profitable in the short term, and in the last century, research that we funded together through our tax dollars helped lay the foundation for the internet and gps and google and the countless companies and jobs that followed. the private sector came in and c

problem now is customers are getting another choice besides pg&e. >> dawn wise is the ceo of marin clean energynd says it's a public agency created by the county and it's 11 cities. the goal is to use more green energy, wind, solar i-dough, and keeping prices down. >> it's a nonprofit organization and the fund go right back into keeping rates as low as we can. >> although the new agency will buy the power, pg&e will still trbt it. in 2010 the legislature created a new law allowing these government energy programs. marin's clean energy is the first to set up and now san francisco is developing its own, and the city of richmond may join marin. >> you're saving 50%. but am i really? >> the clean energy must prove to the california public utilities that indeed at least half of its energy comes from renewable sources or is violating its certification. jason is also concerned with the cost. the agency notice said nothing about prices. >> but -- what we had to do in the letter is make it understandable and not bombard people with too much information. >> information like this is going to cost consumer

a bit about the new bad clean energy does he. see investment in clean energy as a priority for european and the g sector in general. while there is something in the european energy sector that worries me a lot and that's what i can see at this moment there is a lot of coal coming to or to europe and a lot of coal is being used to generate electricity instead of gas that's one run of our concerns the other thing is if we really want to have a greener and cleaner energy environment we have to do two things well we have. a number of things but let me mention two one is to see to it that we'll develop a market for a new a bull's eye and that they are cost effective and that's where technology comes in and at the same time that be used gas as a back up because all these renewables intermittent the sun isn't all the shining and the wind isn't always blowing so that's where gas comes in again as well and i think europe but other parts of the world this will have to step in on this. there was a release by the i.a.e.a. recently and i will

not just clean energy. goods. it's exploited its advantage, which is to manage solar in a very large scale and has done so in a cost-effective manner which we can argue if it's good or bad and for who and whom. one benefit of that is it needs to reduce it for domestic consumption. >> mr. prestowitz, i know that you do not think it's acceptable for china's industrial policy to shape the u.s. economy. what do you think our country should do in a proactive way to combat it? >> well, i think we have to use our heads. i don't think that it's acceptable and i don't think that everything china does is not necessarily right. so i think what is required is for us to spend some time thinking hard about what is it that is really important to us. and then take the measures that are necessary to counter the negative impact on us achieving, for example, an element policy tends to be excess investment and typically in the u.s. we wait for an effective company or an entity to file and dump a complaint before we know anything abou

marin's clean energy is the first to set up and now san francisco is developing its own, and the city of richmond may join marin. >> you're saving 50%. ally?lean energy must prove to the california public utilities that indeed at least half of its energyhalf of comesm renewable sources or is violating its certification. jason is also concerned with the cost. the agency notice said nothing >> but >> but -- what we had to do in the letter is make it understandable and not bombard people with too much information. >> information like this is going to cost consumers more. marin clean energy charges slightly less than pg&e will charge come july. the pg&e rate hikes go through as expected. however, pg&e charges an exit fee to departing customers so py residents will pay an average of 2.50 more per month if they go with marin clean energy. pg&e says it supports the change because it doesn't profit from generating power. just from its delivery, and pg&e says the exit fees are to reimburse pg&e for electricity it has already purchased to serve marin customers. eventually that fee will be phase

. >> when did clean energy become a dirty word? what is wrong with clean energy? you can believe what you want about our existing energy sources, but why couldn't you also believe there's an opportunity for clean energy? >> we need to create demand the next five to 10 years to offset all the advantages that fossil fuels have had. i think it is clearly happening on a state-by-state basis. >> roughly to the below times as much energy is consumed in mobility as it is heating our homes and offices. again, north america is the only continent where we do not have widespread vehicles off of the assembly line. there is still a ton of people out there who honestly believe cars or trucks are more likely to burst into flames in a trucker crashed. >> this was all part of a next- generation energy forum. watch their conversations online at the c-span video library. >> also on thursday, president obama called on congress again to extend a low interest rates on student loans. current rates are set to

one of the secretary chu's flagship initiatives is a set of clean energy ministerials. ne of the very important areas of activity under that that was spearheaded by undersecretary christina johnson at the time is women in energy. my good friend, minister of energy of south africa, she's all over this. so it's like anything else. i will give you the same answer. let's not curse the darkness, but let's light a candle. we've got a long way to go. we're making progress, and we'll keep at it. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to take you live in many just a moment to the national housing conference where a series of p

automobiles and numerous other industries that ultimately raise energy prices for all americans, and a clean energy standard that would mandate americans buy electricity from more expensive and less reliable energy sources such as wind and power, which are both good, but not as reliable. how does a regulated any cost approach to any policy benefit the middle class and the overall american community, not just the middle class, but all of us. explain that to us, if you would, sir. >> well, first of all, mr. chairman, the president and the administration have what the president has described as an all of the above energy strategy in which development of our domestic resources of oil and gas and coal play an important part. nuclear energy plays an important part. renewable energy which you have mentioned plays an important part and increasing energy efficiency plays an important part. we recognize we need all of these energy options to secure our energy future. and we are working to enable all of them and lift all of them to their highest potential. we do not have a policy of regulation, no matter what

now's the time to invest more in the clean energy that we can make right here in america. my plan for energy doesn't ignore the vast resources we already have in this country. we're producing more oil than we had in over a decade. but if we truly want to gain control of our energy future, we've got to recognize that pumping more oil isn't enough. we have to encourage unprecedented boom in american natural gas. we have to provide safe nuclear energy and technology to help coal burn cleaner than before. we have to become the global leader in renewable energy, wind and solar and the next generation of biofuels, in electric cars and energy efficient buildings. so my plan would end the government's subsidies to all companies that have rarely been more profitly. let's double down on a clean energy industry that has never been more promising. and i want to put in place a new clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation and an approach that would make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for every business in america. with growing competition from countries like

now is the time to invest more in the clean energy that we can make right here in america. [applause] my plan for energy doesn't ignore the vast resources we already have in this country. we're producing more oil than we have in over a decade. but if we truly want to gain control of our energy future, we've got to recognize that pumping more oil isn't enough. we have to encourage the unprecedented boom in american natural gas. we have to provide safe nuclear energy and the technology to help coal burn cleaner than before. we have to become the global leader in renewable energy -- wind and solar, and the next generation of biofuels, in electric cars and energy- efficient buildings. [applause] so my plan would end the government subsidies to oil companies that have rarely been more profitable -- let's double down on a clean energy industry that has never been more promising. [applause] and i want to put in place a new clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation -- an approach that would make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for every business in americ

one of secretary chu's flagship initiatives is the clean energy initiatives. one of these key initiatives is women in energy. like anything else, i would to be the same answer. let's not kurt -- curse the darkness, but like a camel. we have got a long way to go. thank you. [applause] >> tomorrow, a lack at the obama of political campaign, and a look with david axelrod. they will talk about operation vote, the efforts to target key voters in a battleground states. bill also talk about day-to-day political operations, and we will take a look inside chicago headquarters. tomorrow at 6:00 27:30 eastern on c-span. -- 6:00 27:30 on c-span. >> how you approach book interviews and news interviews differently? >> book interviews is collecting history. in june for news time is gathering contemporary information. >> how difficult is it not to get caught up in the campaign of -- high of one campaign or another? >> i tried to give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it is not that difficult to put your biases to the side. >> how has social

. >> invested of the union address the president called the congress to pass a clean energy standards would require utilities to produce and sell electricity from expensive sources such as wind and solar. you may also be aware of the department of energy has undertaken numerous analysis of the impact of obama's clean energy standard on electricity prices including one requested by our own chairman hall and another requested by senator bingaman. both department of energy studies found that obama's keen energy standard would significantly increase in electricity prices and result in heavy economic cost to the people of america. dr. holdren, do you agree that president obama's clean energy standard will result in increased electricity costs to american consumers? >> welcome a first of all, let me note that the queen energy standard is not about wind and solar. it's about nuclear energy, it's about fossil fuel energy with improved emission control technologies come and it is the view of this administration that we are going to need all of those in increased measure in order to provide a r

i said in 2007, but it sounds to me that i would have been talking about distribution between clean energy technologies and dirty energy technologies and where we get our consumption, what the processes are more broadly by which we support our standard of living. let me note as well what the president has said and what i have said that we believe the country's natural gas resources can be developed safely. we have both been clear on that. the question that you're getting at is whether the government needs to pay any attention at all to the range of potential environmental impact. >> the specific question is whether you said there's going to have to be a redistribution of how much we consume e. and i'll pull the final quote as to whether we're talking about energy or whether we're talking about this perception that the government thinks that americans just consume too much and that maybe this is not fair somehow. i would suggest that if you think that what we ought to do is reduce our gdp, consume less and have a lower gdp, that's certainly consistent with the american policies. >> that's n

you are a big clean energy guy. romney inverted in a solar company in massachusetts and lo and behold, it had trouble. does itthat not undercut. >> he was a democrat and a republican, then he was a democrat and a republican. let's not judge the health of the clean energy in the country based upon what mitt romney did or didn't do. we are going to move this country to a more clean energy economy. it's what the american people want, and a lot of republican governors and democratic governors, including republican governor in your state in michigan who support a clean energy future, it's because the big oil owns the republican party in washington and because the republican political operatives think they are going to rile up the crazy right-wing tea party about talking about hippie environmentalists, not because the country is headed in the direction they want. >> donnie, cassandra, we will be back later, but up next a man who has been around a few little extra nights. dan rather enters the war room and he is bringing a

we would all recognize it is a must for our families and businesses i would probably define clean energy as a little bit differently than many of you and perhaps some of my colleagues in this area are essential. our nation has dramatically addressed our pollution overtime secure energy produced domestically will provide for the stronger hand on the in our national stage and ensure we are fewer and funeral dollars flow out of our economy. it will all take long. it will take patience and the federal but i think we need to be serious to of history i think our competitiveness are truly on the line. wanting a was a chest i will not tell you why resources, which renounces, which is that policy will enable us to meet some other will be laid the often the edge to catch a plan to release her markets and consumers will make the choice far better than anyone else. what policy makers need to do is focus on the outcome. we should not be open to a number of routes that could help us get there. let's focus on the first, the process out there, is there for a reason. the last two and energy bills to be s

i mean, the goal is to have the united states become the leader in clean energy the same bay we were and are in internet technology and have the future

. >>> when did clean energy become a dirty word? i mean, you know, what is wrong with clean energy? you can believe, you know, what you want about our existing energy resources but why couldn't you also believe there's an opportunity for clean energy? >> i think we need to create demand in the next five to ten years for renewables to offset all the advantages that fossil fuels have had and i think it's clearly happening on a state-by-state basis. it would be much more effective if it was a federal policy. >> roughly three times as much of our energy is consumed in mobility as it is in heating our homes and our offices. and natural gas, again, north america is the only continent where we don't have widespread vehicles coming off the assembly line that can use compressed natural gas. there are still a ton of people out there that honestly believe compressed natural vehicle -- cars, trucks, are more likely to burst into flames during a crash. >> developing alternative energy sources, including wind and biofuels, were all part of a next generation energy forum hosted by the "atlantic" ma

. >> when did clean energy become a dirty word? i mean, you know, what is wrong with clean energy? you can believe, you know, what you want about our existing energy resources, but why couldn't you also believe there's an opportunity for clean energy? >> i think we need to create demand in the next five to ten years for renewables to offset all the advantages that fossil fuels have had, and i think it's clearly happening on a state by state basis. it would be much more effective if it was a federal policy. >> roughly three times of our energy is consumed in mobility as it is in our homes and offices. and natural gas, again, north america's the only continent where we don't have widespread vehicles coming off the assembly line that can use compressed natural gas. there's still a lot of people out there that believe cars or trucks are more likely to burst into flames during a crash. >> developing alternative energy sources are all part of the next generation energy forum. watch conversations online at the c-span video library. >> this week on "the communicators," a look at the role of

for example, moving the state's goal to be 33% clean energy producing. it is my privilege to welcome governor brown to the panel. [applause] >> and to introduce our next panelist, i would like to welcome steve ballmer, senior bp -- vp. >> good morning and thank you. next up is governor hickel lipper -- hickenlooper. he is the serieaal a entreprener each of you have in your respective parts. he became very successful in the brew pub business. he never had a single election not even for stink -- a student council. governor? [applause] in keeping with the discussion, he is keen on innovation and things of that nature. i know that will come out. thank you, governor. >> are we all set? i am from the "mercury news," and we're here because we live in a global cloueconomy. it has altered local economies because so many manufacturing and technology jobs are moving, whether it is a matter of costs for going where the trained work force is. we're fortunate to have to governors here to talk about how that change affects their jobs and what they're doing to jump- sta

we've actually leapfrogged ahead of china in terms of investment in clean energy technology here in thestates. and i think what it speaks to, martha, is an example of the overall success that we've had on our energy strategy as a country over the last four years. much less of the energy we're using now in the united states is coming from overseas sources, we've seen a huge increase in domestic production, and we've seen a huge increase in the clean energy sector as well. i think one of the reasons republicans are banging on obama about this is because his strategy has worked. and i think that's why they're knocking him in this election. [laughter] martha: you know, i mean, you make valid points, simon, and i think a lot of people would feel good about those clean energy areas in this country. but i think everybody looks at that exchange and thinks it's just hogwash. i guess one of the questions is, why are those jobs categorized as green jobs? why not just do it in an up-front way? i think most people would say those jobs fall into that category whether they're in favor of it or not. so

only 10% of the electricity consumption is generated from renewable or clean energy resources. our country needs a diverse energy sector like we have in my home state of montana, let me brag a little bit. we are an energy state. we are one of a dozen states that produce more energy than we consume. in eastern montana, next to north dakota, my colleague to my right knows this all too well because there is greater formation in north dakota than it is in montana. our oil and gas fuels are going through a renaissance. technology has unleashed its own gas potential and created thousands of jobs. in central montana, wind turbine blades harness the power of the chinook winds. wind farms in montana power 100,000 homes and three new wind farms are being built and in western montana, it adds electricity to the grid. montana also produces 4 million to 5 million tons of sulfur and we're leading the way on carbon capture and sequestration. national energy policy should replicate a lot of this mix. if we don't develop u.s. energy policy we'll continue the subject to the whims of foreign dicta

your collie, senator bingaman, has proposed clean energy deployment. i don't know what your position is in terms of that. >> that is an initiative that senator bingaman and i have been working on. i'm a co-sponsor with him of the bill. i think it makes sense. let's figure out how we can, how we can help to facilitate the r&d, make sure that it is and d. you have the arm and can you have the d but let's meet sure they are together. i think feet is one way that we have explored that might offer us some possibilities and granted that is again, that is a legislative initiative that we took up some time ago, kind of pre-solyndra if you will. and i wish that i could tell you that it had some momentum behind it. we are not seeing that right now. i still think it's a good idea. >> over here. >> the corollary to all the prospects -- [inaudible] we are a nation of industry generating offshore wind energy. it is an expensive proposition. [inaudible] and the investors were not so comfortable doing that. i was wondering whether you think exceptions for offshore win

right now, congress needs to extend the tax credits for clean energy manufacturers. those tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year, nearly 40,000 good jobs are at stake, making solar panels and wind turbines and lowering our dependence on foreign oil. so instead of giving tax breaks, billions of tax breaks, to oil companies that are making a whole lot of money, and don't need help, let's double down on a clean energy industry that's rarely been more promising. and is you're seeing it right here in nevada. there's a lot of sunshine out here. we can turn that into electricity and put people back to work in the process. let's make that happen. and while we're at it, it's past time for congress, stop giving tax breaks that ship jobs overseas. give tax breaks to companies that are bringing jobs back to the united states of america. that are investing right here. all right. so these are auto things we're pushing congress to do. before they go on vacation. but the number-one thing congress should do for you, unlv, right now, is to stop interest rates on student

big push for what they think of as the industries of the future-- pharmaceuticals, info tech, clean energy, and aerospace. these are the areas where they say rich countries do these things. if we can do these things we'd be rich, it it to. >> rose: we conclude with "the atlantic." his documentary "shoah" is one of the great documentaries ever made. >> it's about the extermination camps. >> jim fallows, claude lanzmann when we continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: james fallows is here. he is a national correspondent for "the atlantic," and a longtime observer of china. in fact he has lived there. in his new book he explores that country's economic future through the lensave growing aviation industry. it is call "china airborne." i am pleased to have james fallows back at this table. the question is why aviation as a wray wayto look look at china? what is it about china you want us to understand? >> i happened upon this part of china as a development because i'm a pilot. i started seeing if i could fly around

we also have more renewable, clean energy sources, but we can do more. we are still, i think, too reliant on fossil-based energy sources. 94% of the energy used in the transportation sector comes from oil. only 10% of our electricity consumption is generated from renewable or clean energy resources. our country needs a diverse energy sector, like we have in my home state of montana. i'll just brag a little bit. we are an energy state. we are one of a dozen states that produce more energy than with we consume.