tv Corporate Campaign Financing CSPAN October 2, 2011 2:00am-4:20am EDT
longer -- people will drive their cars less because they cannot afford it. for long-term change, and by this i mean, 2100 and beyond, not just 2050, for this to be working in parallel, we need a shift in attitude. people want to not turn on their heating. they want to drive their cars less. an essential part of doing this is incentives and achievable targets. it is not good to be excessive on targets, but lacking in realism. correct the honorable colleague on the second bench. realism. >> the second bench there. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is justine from uganda. reduction of carbon emissions by
2050 and i'm proud to report that us in uganda we are already trying to do so. we are talkingbo a 2050. because it will give the government time to educate the commonwealth population about the negative effects of carbon emissions, and also give us time to research and develop and also encourage -- carbon and renewable sources. two about proposition of taxes. would discourage yashon emission. and also help us invest more in the renewable energy resources. i support the motion. >> very much indeed. gentleman, athe end of the row here, yes, yes, thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker.
progressive youth ash lines. can i start by thinking the government. i think a fantastic initiative and it does have my support. i'm particularly pleased that have suggested a carbon tax but most surprised that it is the party opposite suggesting this. the party of antispend and antitax but i must say i'm very glad they've momentarily adopted my party's center left values and may that continue. i'm also very pleased that in earlier proceedings my parent's amenent was accepted to determine whether revenues from this tax will go. this is really good news. economic case against the carb tax is actually a strong one. companies can just compensate themselves by raising their prices which would affect the poorest now in society st and also reduce economic growth. so our proposition which has been accepted will use these revenues to provide increased welfare support and will address this issue and also ensure that there will be invest in the renewable energy to help us reach this taget. it's all on that basis that i
will be supporting this motion and would urge all my commonaries on all sides of the house to support this motion as well. and what i would say is why it may not be as ambitious as my party would like i would say a target is better than no target at all and so we should all vote here in motion and also say that it is legitimate to concern some the concerns raised from my honorable friend from jersey an also say it is not good to go down his rate of pessimism and not my problem attitude. i think we should be ignoring that. these initiatives are very positive and i do welcome them, we must acknowledge that they will count for absolutely nothing they're only unilateral measures. it doesn't matter what we do if countri countries like china and india continue to increase their carbon emissions. we could reduce them by 100%, even 200%, let's say we do d it it would matter for nothing if china indiaa increase their's by
5% so what i'm asking government to do is to put forward their foreign affairs minister to make a statement on what exactly he's going to do internationally to encourage other countries to adopt the same things that we've done, but i must say i'm very glad that i believe that commonwealthland is going to be an example to the rest of the world so thank you for putting forward this tion. >> gentleman there with the ominous -- >> good afternoon, my name is nate. i'm representing the cdp. i just wanted to raise some notes from earlier. you say you want to bng a carbon tax, but yet you haven't really looked at the little man in the picture, the man that has a small business, who runsne fan which is very old. it does create carbon but he's struggling. >> n these difficult times. show this tax gog to help him survive his business if he's going to have to -- more money
for another tax to pay for a van that he can barely afford and not have enough customers. you've also got look at also the youth. you are say you want the youth to help but where is the government's support? again you've got take out of climate change and look at the things like raising the university fees the unemployment for youths as well and also the rising cost in travel. prably looking at buying a car because they find it's cheaper and again their carbon footprint will be increased. what is the government doing to help them with their travel costs? >>. >> from the common youth. reducing carbon emission by 100% in 2050 is feasible.
my lord speaker, samoa is a pacific island. they already invested a lot in renewable energy to reduce carbon emission. if the small islands in the pacific can do it why not common weltland. my fellow young parliamentaries on opposition side say if you do talk about reducing carbon emission by 100% in 2040 why don't you explain how. how, then? 250 reducing carbon emission by 100% is realistic. reduci it in 20 by 100% is unrealist unrealistic. let us then forechange, let us lead by examples. let us be the one that can actually, our young generation can, look at and say, that was my mother, that was my father, that was my great-grandmother that actually stand up for a change. thank you, lord speaker. >> i think that we're back to this side, are we not? the gentleman there and then the lady behind. yeah.
>> thank you. i'd like to bring all of my -- friends, fellow parliamentarians. i have a question to propose to the house today and the question is simple. the question is, how realistic are our aims to reduce carbon emissions if all it takes to stop the procedure from happening is one head of state of a big economic country who does not agree? what if the next american president a climate skeptic and does not agree? do we go on without america? how will we -- how do we proceed when we have nations that we, let's face it, depend on hob part of our goals? we all know the effect that individual administration, prime ministerships can have on the world, how do we do it if all that it takes is one prime minister or a leader of a nation of a big economy that says, no, i'm not interested in that. i'd rather look at education, or i'd rather look at health.
how do we reduce carbon emissions to zero if we do that? thank you. >> i'm against the motion. we should be hopeful and we should be welcoming toward the italian youth and we should be realistic and we should be are very practical. our factoes, our industries are running on nonrenewable researches. commonwealthland renewable resources of economy. we're struggling to find a renewable source for that. >> it's the people who are paying for all of these
mutations. commonwealthland includes those countries where people -- where a large popation live on the poverty line and do not even manage average 20 pounds per month making this ambitious goal imactexam thank you. >> take one more from this side. gentleman with glasses there. thru. >> thank you, lord speer. this house, so far, we all recognize there's a problem with unemployment. we recognize there's a problem that we have -- that we need to compromise with the nature that we have to have green energy. while i think, lord speaker, this is the first time. with the government n puttin forward the commitment of putting money forward in providing a greener and a better life in the commonwealthland. therefore, i urge that the
government, to call back, all these skilled workers because now we're still face the migration of those -- workers who are going outside and we're having the problem of unskilled workers in our own country. and we need to have solved that problem to begin with. now, the whole 2040 target, i think it's not realistic. but whole idea of reduce -- of the reduction gradually 30%, 20%, 40% i think is good. because we need to adapt. because we at end of our day, we're still a developing nation. and we need that leeway to provide ourselves the growth for our country. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. >> thank you, lord speaker. let's all -- i start like this let's all of the commonwealthland unite in the
fight for a realistic figure, that is 100% by 2050. it is a fight, so we y do we insthaft we're such targets in 2040? it's thyme we -- ou future generation living in a healthy and sustainable environment. coming from a small country, we are already affected by the carbon emission. i believe that commonwealthland shall be the leader to be the first who reaches emission by 100% by 2050. by saving our country, we will be saving our world. thank you. >> the gentleman -- you haven't spoken before? >> no. lord speaker, i represent the ruling party. i'm standi up in support of
this motion because i believe that the people from the smaller island nations and the people from the nations that are under the direct threat of climate change, also has a right to call -- to dmi our planet. lordspeaker, the pessimists will rush to stand up and say what we are discussing is ridiculous. but th realistic truth is is this is happening. this is real. climate change is real. it is time to act up, ladies and gentlemen. climate change is something that is going to happen if we ignore it. you do a lot of global temperatures rise by 2 degrees, just 2 degrees, it could mean disaster. it could mean countries like the maldives like samoa to day, pier fromhe map. we neeto act now. we need to act now because we are not in the potion to cut a deal with mother nature.
we are not in the position to negotiate with the laws of physics. we need to act now. lord speaker, to the world, commonwealthland may be just one single country, we may be just one, but we need to become leaders rather than followers. we need to lead by example. and we need to show the world that we do care about tose people who are under direct threat and who are -- w and while i mention refugees. so let us all join together and let us set out our differences and let us think mutually and let us agree together that we need to pass this motion. we need to achieve 10 in 2050. who are with me?
thank you very much. >> lady at the back there. i'm a member the cdp. we cause the co2 emissions to rise and obviously we can reverse that. resources in the green industry to find new ways to generate power. we should educate our citizens in climate control so that they know the importance of reversing it and also to equip them in sufficient ways to survive when the carbon tax does come in, or if it does come in. that way we have secured the future for our children and samoa and maldives. this lazy attitude of waiting for more developed countries to start this change and that we should be the ones to take it's to change first, to lead. so we should ask ourselves whether why they're more developed than us? is it because they use more
carbon than us? why is it? and also how also we support the small man. i think that shuremember the small man in this. and how our ways it changing the carbon emissions will affect him. thank you very much. >> you have spoken before. >> yes. >> cdp. i would like to thank the lord speaker for giving me this chance to speak. after hearing all of the commons i would like to give my own -- to you to this debate. i would like t say that i think we need a balance between renewable and nonrenewable energy. since if one fails, we can always rely on the other. and as we've seen in libya a fuel-procing country which is now war-torn and especial loo in the uk, prices have definitely soared if a nonrenewable, in here in the uk, fueled cars and when disasters like libya strike and fuel prices do go up, we've
got that backup. and i think that's what we need to have. a balance between renewable and nonrenewable energy. i think this house needs to come to some kind of agreement to say that we need more -- more renewable -- or more unrenewable balance. if one fails we can use the other. this is to preserve the nation and the earth. but until the end of time itself. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. the gentleman there with the red tie, yes. >> -- of this humanity and high morality. i'm from the commonwealth -- fr from sierra leone. [ unintelligible ] i'm not sure we are here here in. we hve to accept.
the facts are there. it is clear. we do not need to ask questions. but my point is why do we need a bill? why do we need to tell people how to live our life? climate change is about us. take to prison. so responsibility to us young people. we need to act. we need to shot world that we are serious about reducing carbon emission. in is simple. it's a simple process. we just need change our attitude. and it's not just as pligzs. i know that we are good at delivering good speeches. very nice talks. but fact of the matter is it is about action. the people in the kmurnt let's take it to the politicians and get it done and let's make it better please for ourselves and our children and our children's children. >> hi. my name is judith.
i'm from the cdp. i'm against the motion because in order for us to do this we're going to have to put money into it. when the money can go somewhere else, we are common welt but we're all different countries and we all have different problems. so for the uk to put money into reducing carbon dioxide when we have other problems, like ununemployment,iate emissions might reduce but then we might have the advisories as the other day so no poi. if certain countries have undergreater threat then they should be putting their own sbhoin their own country for reducing their emissions and we n deal with our own issues. we do recycle. we can do other things to progress and help it but we don't need to center as a target and put pressure on ourselves which we can't deal with. >> one more from this side. >> yeah thank you, lord speaker.
i'm from the british virgin islands. lord speaker, in a world of dr. annan, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens and care for them. lord speaker, most arguments in favor of climate kmanc atclimat. we deponed ourselves. however, on the contrary, many scientists believe -- and this is in the american policy around the table -- there is no convincing scientific evidence that anyone who believes in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the foreseeable future cause -- a catastrophic events on the world's atmosphere and distribution of the earth's climate. therefore, lord speaker, i maintain that in commonwealthland at that time
climate change is not a priority. we have other matters of concern. we need to concentrate on the environment and instant implementation of measures of how to preserve and how to protect it. we need to focus on health and how to improve our health care system. lastly we need to focus on education for the betterment of our citizens. the environment is one of our gre greatest resource. everyone wants to reduce pollution however pollution is complicated and we focus a lot of our pollution efforts on pollution from cars. however, if you look around, you will realize that we have a higher degree of garbage litter. sewage that's running into the rivers and the seas and definitely take these measures into conseration. commonwealthland has begun to degrade and my colleagues may be able to climate change i maintain that pollution in this cotry is a major contributing
factor to the degradation of the land. lord speaker, the biggest asset we have is our health. how can we forecast or limiting greenhouse gas emissions when our universal health care system is in poor shape. we need monitor our health. we need to look at our mortality rate and that's why i stand in opposition of this bill. thank you, lord speaker. >> the lady from the cross benches please. >> thank you, lord speaker. the targets proposed are indeed aspirational and i'm not convinced that commonwealthland will be able to achieve them. and some -- may not come with us if we speak follow these targets. but this cannot be an excuse for inaction. if we use this as a big excuse for inaction, other countries will ollow.
we will get nowhere and our earth will not be what we need it to be for future enerations. this global journey can start with smaller countries, small steps. commonwealthland is already a leader in climate change. we've been signed up to the u.n. framework conventional climate change from the outset and we've succeeded in reaching our targets to date. we have a commitment to transferring to renewable energy sources and citizenslready have an awareness about climate change and recycling is common around households. there's foundations upon which we can build a very strong strategy. i'm not convinced that we have a strong strategy at the moment. we need a strategy that has depth. and we need clear, tangible support from all sectors and partners at home and abroad. without this to follow these aspirational targets, we risk becoming a laggard rather than a leader. we risk becoming uncompetitive
with our neighbors which would be to the detriment of our quality life and of our citizens and we'd be failing as a government if that were to happen. thank you. >> lady at the back. and then the gentleman next to her. >> thank you, lord speaker. representing the commonwealth. i think that we cannot ignore the fact that -- are going to be runng out andintually finished. it's very ambitious. it's vital and very practical and realistic. i say realistic because whether we reduce the carbon emissions by 100% by 2050 or not, there will be by -- by 100%. so we need to act now. we need to act quickly. we need to stop being so dependent on them and look for greener alternates because we need to be able to function without them. thank you. >> yes.
>> thank you, lord speaker. my name is raphael. part of the cdp. i don't oppose the bill. however, both the government and as it's clear the parliament haven't met the answers -- sorry, haven't answered all of my questions. firstly, we're a nation that has free edution up to the age of 16 yet it's not compulsory. we're a nation that does not have a univers immunized program. this parliament's relationship with the media is not a positive one. the media is what the people think of us. how do we then expect to actually create this motivation to change behavior? and if we do not, iwe do not, and we have not created this relationship with our own people. i'd also like explanatns as
to, in the bill it states that we want for each target year 80% of the net reduction to come from domestic productions. where does this end? are we simply talking transportati andelectric, or do we actually mean the industries that are creating and polluting in order to give our people all othe amenities that they're used to. also we as a nation have a higher import to export ratio. we favor import. meaning we are not actually reducing any of the carbon emissions caused by other countries which we still contribute to. many of our rogue twork are major arteries for those companies. if those companies do not have a base in our country yet they still pass, create incredible,
incredible emissions. if improve our roads they are still our responsibility due to our contribution. are they taxed also? many -- i want to state very clearly that i do not oppose the bill. however i do oppose it if we're entering into a false -- if our research is not full enough and if our research and insight into commonwealthland's entire contribution does not completely show and explain our contribution to emissions. >> gentleman here, thank you. >> lord saker, my fellow youth parliamentarians. framemalawi. i've been living to all the points that my fellow parliamentarians are presenting. and i have realized that much of their issues has been -- in two
minutes but issues have just been no, no, no to what the government hasproposed. my take on the climate change bill is that i have seen that the opposition is drilling the agenda of the day for their political ambitions to get -- into government. much as they agree on our proposal they -- to constructively help the got achieve its goals for the benefiof all of us. lord speaker, 2050 reduction of carbon emission by 50% is an issue that is supported. we'll have the future generation, that issue of natural disasters will be a thing of the past. as we are in an economic crisis already, which resources that are there will be used for development activities? lord speaker, my government believes in working with, which as a government in pourns that
the input that the opposition may add will greater help. 2040 puts pressure on government as this alone incorporates other social, political, and economic elements. i support motion. thank you. >> we're coming to the last question. and i think i'm going to give it to the cross benches. >> tnk you, lord speaker. ben. independe independent. once again we see the scare mongering from the government and the opposition. as a nation we have far more important issues to worry about. high unemployment, health and education well-being, being some many. these targets proposed by the government are ludicrous and absolute farce. if this government wants to be taken seriously, propose something that's realistic. thank you. >> honorable friends and colleagues, i'm afraid that we've come to the end of the
question time. i must congratulate all of you for extremely well sustained research arguments but we must come to ouclosing speeches. so now i would like to call upon the sflkt state for the environment to speak. for or against the motion. for the motion. >> lord speaker, honorable prime minister, opposition and honorable youth parliaments. i'm a representative of trinidad and tob ago and i am also reprenting the young democrat party. today we have heard an extensive debate on the matters of climate change. we have collectively understood that there's a distinct difference between a climatic change as a natural process and a process that is occurring quickly because of human interference. we have all recognized as in
commonwealthland there's a huge raise the pollution along with degradation and the vulnerability to the effects of climate change. the opposition has suggested that the year 2040 should be the year in which -- should be the end in which we reduce our carbon emissions by 100%. this is a ten-year difference. a difference that would infringe upon our research and development and thus affecting our framework to achieve our 100% goal by the year 2050. some honorable parents of the whole have also suggested scientific projections of carbon emissions in the future. most of these scientific projections have been made on current trends that would alter the consideration of technological advancements and the expansion of greener technologies. with the fast pace of information and knowledge feasible growts the only way forward.
throughout our proceedings, i believe most of my honorable colleagues have used climate change very loosely. climate change is such a generic term and it deserves extreme attention to its many subdivisions. its use of global warming, emissions of greenhouse gases, sea temperatures, sea levels, increasing land and air temperatures, a disproportionate distribution of weather patterns leading to a very unstable climate must all be individually addressed. our government supports the development of a green economy through the private sector. we have been promoting the concept of corporate. in order to pleasetheir envinmentally sensitive customers. in exercising their corporate
social responsibility, these companies can open up employment opportunities while increasing -- while exercising their corporate responsibility by investing in environmental initiatives. do we believe that we can reduce our carbon emissions by 100% by 2050 through efficient communication with the private sector that is willing to act responsibly for the adversed environments through taxation and carbon trading? we believe 100% that it is a responsibility. insurance companies that lose millions after natural disasters are now willing to invest their money into environmental issues that mitigate the affects of climate change. our government has every intention of expand our technological sources a and implementing energy efficienty within these environment yamcompanies. we have kpresds interest in renewable energies. to invest in biofuels.
this would include into not limited to providing heat, lighting, and motor power. the changes that we must make would not happen overnight. it would definitely take some time. however with proper communication, education and implementation and working through the private sector, it can be a realistic goal with a collective and a democratic approach. i strongly recommend for the honorable youth parliamentarians to he some fate and set some feasible and yet stringent goals as a employ you to vote here in motion to reduce our carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050. thank you very much, lord speaker. >> i now call the opposition secretary of state for the environment. >> i'm from malawi and representing the progressive youth alliance. lord speaker and honorable
parliamentarians other you'd all agree with me that climate change is not negotiable. and in fact nobody gambles with their own life. it's an issue survival. also if this house would agree with me that climate changeo not only pose as a threat in obtaining the mggds but sustaining economic growth and development that is obtain during the years of our -- honorable parliamentarians, climate change has not since been given the credit that it deserves. it has effects on all leading sectors such as agrulture, trading industry, energy, in what leads in our economy. and also regard iing its implications. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, what we see here is a proposed motion that has little substance and does not deliver fully and respond to climate change in the
commonwealthland. therefore, i would condition curwith the leader of opposition in his opening speech to maintain -- but however in the year 2040 and not 2050. this will mean that have a target of 40% of 2040. and 20% again in 2040. in addition, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians it has to be -- that even if we cut our emissions today or even in 2040 by 100% carbon will still remain in the atmosphere for 2040 and this honorable house has to know that carbon has a lifetime of not less than 100 years. that means that still needs to have drastic measures even after 2040 and later 2050 as i suggest.
honorable member -- honorable parliamentarians, i realize that this motion is narrow and does not consider other opons. when we look at climate change not only affecting the commonwealthland but also other countries. and needs to consider energy sectors. looking at ld use, land use change forestry. and cdms. which mechanisms. andforecasting and sustaining our livelihoods. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, climate change is not tackled now will have adverse effect and cost in the near future. demanding our support in advocating for sustainable development. honorable parliamentarians, with substantial investment and
renewable energy and favor into adaptation programs, we will ensure that we obtain emission reductions that's proposed by the progressive youthar lines. the commonwealth has its -- which is the agriculture already facing challenges brought by the issues of climate change. and surprised when the minster agriculture was calling for 60% reduction in 2040. i thought it was a little ridiculous. and we're a country -- and also agree with me that we're a country with nations that are in the -- such as maldives and we need to take drastic measures as threatened by sea levels. and yes, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, we are the leaders and yes we're ambitious and also looking at the long-term effects and we'll
do everything to ensure that we still survive after 2040 and probably have the chance to meet in here in 2050 because we might not be there after all. lord speake and honorable parliamentarians, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, the differences that we have with theovernment on the motion are however small, we are a constructive party and we vote from the motion and however we still stress and maintain should be done earlier if we're to really combat climate change and achieve economic growth. honorable speaker, what we have of course witnessed here is a ew that is popar with no one but the government. despite that goal, we also --
the position as taken by the -- as the opposite side. as if those measures are even worse. and not viable. in conclurkz lord speaker and honorable members, our party is to set radical reforms, policies and ambitious target that will ensure economic growth and in addition the government approach involving -- needs to be invest and also look at public participation. climate change also involves behavioral change. thank you, honorable. >> honorable friends and colleagues, we now come to the next part which is the voting. as i'm sure you've been briefed there will be two votes. one, content, and one not content and it will be by a show
of hands. the door keepers will count. so number one, i can ask you all of those who here in favor of the motion which is to reduce carbon emissions in commonwealthland by 100% by by o put up their hands. >> really high, please. so the not contents. so those of you who do not agree with the motion to reduce carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050, please put up your hand. >> bit higher please. the results of the voe, you can put your hands down now. will ha
augh lau [ laughter ] . the contents number 68. congratulations. [ applause ] . thank yo all so much for a really, really interesting series of arguments. i have to say, i was a ttle bit surprised by the outcome. but there you go. i thought most of you were trying to say that it wasn't realistic, though you do agree with the principal involved. it was wonderfully argued. i hope on the government side are well-satisfied with the results. what i'd like to do now very briefly if i may is to call upon your distinguished visitors here and please and indeed representative from the hospitals to just say a few words about who they are and whichreas they represent. and what they have done
particularly in their respective jobs. >> thank you very much. >> i'm co-- this is my first te in parliament. i came in last -- a year last may. my particular interest, which is why i came here, was international developmt. so i'm on the international development select committee which gives me the opportuni to visit many of the places that you've come from. so it's been very interesting to hear you, hear the passion that you've argued your case with and i hope that those of you who would like a parliamentary career will continue with it because it is the best job in the world. and i particularly hope that the women that are here today will take it forward. because we definitely need more women in all parliaments. and especially -- [ applause ]
especially in the british one. >> hello, my name is scotland. i'm baroness scotland of -- i was the former attorney general. i've been inthis house since 1997. i hope none of you can do math since i'm really only 21. [ laughter ] i was the first woman in 700 years to be appointed her majesty's attorney general because we do things very quickly in this country. we definitely need more parliamentarians. i have the privilege, to come in with other guests. there was the princess royal, royal highness, princess of malaysia. she came in as the laysian candidate spoke. i'm afraid your name has been taken. together with the first lady of the region in nigeria. they were blown away by the
wonder of listening to all of you. our future will depend on the quality of the politicians that we are able to create in the next generation if our world is going to be a safe one. i can tell you from the old crones on this side that make up -- >> withdrawn. >> thank you. >> my name is -- i'm the recently elected conservative member in west. the reason that i wanted to be here this afternoon, the reason i haven't gone back to my constituency as i normally do on friday is i want to show the support of members ofhe house of commons for you and for what you're doing. in 1922, a man called j.m. barrier, play right and novel he's, the thor of peter pan, made hisne and only public speech as rector of st. andrews
university in the aftermath of the first world war. addressed those young people and told them that in his judgment, the time had come for young people to rise up and demand an equality in decision-making, a partnership with their elders and betters because the decisions that we take in these parliaments will more affect your lives in the years ahead than they will ours. you have that equal voice. you should have that equal voice. as you walk around this building as you leave today, you will see fingers immortalizedized in granite marble. in their day, they were confronting real decisions. as you leave through the hall, on the right-hand side, you will see a statue of edmond burke and edmond burke said that life was a partnership. a partnership in all science, in all art and in all things. because of the nature of that
partnership, it could never be achieved in one generation. it cld never even be achieved in many generations. it was in fact a partnership between those of us who are living, those of us who are dead and those yet to be born. you have shown today that your generation will be equal to the challenge of that partnership. well done. >> thank you very much. my name is -- i'm a labor and cooperative member of parliament for hamilton west which is just outside in the city of glasgow in scotland. it's a great honor to be here, not only high quality of debate and contributions this afternoon but i have to say probly on behalf of at least four of us in the front. probably the only one we'll get to sit on these benches. >> for some of the -- probably forever. [ ughter ] but it is great to be here and to hear the debate.
as conrad said, it's been impressive afternoon and doi join with -- imploring those interest in politics to keep interested in it. the are so very many issues that will affect people's lives into the future. it's very important that young people are involved and engaged and that we end this young people not being interested in politics. it's about what happens in your lives, your community and the society you live in. pay great tribute to all of you who have been here today and involved in this debate. [ applause ] my thanks to the parliamentarians who stayed the course. i really truly grateful that you did so. my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the organization of this amazing event. most of all, my profound thanks to all of you. i know that you've worked incredibly hard. it hasn't been -- you haven't had a shopping trip. it's not opinion a jurn i i know
you've been working very, very hard. it shows in the arguments you've produced. i learned a huge amount this afternoon. i thank you for that. i just would like to repeat what's been said by many of the parliamentarians. keep at it. just persist. go on. you've got lots to offer. the world is a difficult, complicated, troubled place. you've been offered something. you can do politics and we'd very much like you to come back again soon or indeed certainly for the youth parliament reconvenedn the not too distant future. i would like to meet you again. as i continue to meet you,you will be rising up and some of the parliamentarians have said, not 20 or 30 years' time, in ten years' time -- >> 20 minutes. >> 20 minutes. some people will be amongst the leaders of their countries and you will have an extremely important task to carry out.
which is to ensure governance and indeed you know the adherence to the millennium goals. but thank you again. i've had a very wonderful afternoon and i do hope that you have an enjoyable evening before you all return to your countries tomorrow. thank you. [ applause ] >> the government austerity plan is failing. you can sense the fear people have as we watch the economic crisis that stock that country in 2008 threatens to return. >> with the british house of commons still in recess, party conferences continue in the u.k.
next sunday, british prime minister and conservative leader david cameron. >> next, a report on corporate contributions in the 2010 elections. then, a discussion on job opportunities for military veterans. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." maryland representative chris van holland, ranking member of the house budget committee, and member of the joint deficit reduction committee, talks about identifying $1.20 trillion in budget cuts, and other congressional and political issues. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> now get regular updates of what is on the c-span networks with c-span now on twitter. get quick programming
information, including which events are live. it is easy to sign up. just hit follow and get the most recent information of what to watch. >> according to the non-partisan campaign finance institute, corporations, nonprofits, and other groups spent an estimated $564 million to influence the 2010 congressional elections, 90% higher than the federal election commission couple. the figures were cited this month by the committee for economic development, which criticized the lack of transparency in where contributions came from or how money was used. the group unveiled its findings at an event in washington. this is 90 minutes. >> we are going to begin our program. i now have the pleasure, the fund, of introducing two rock
stars from the committee for economic development. you may not remember this, but i remember the first time we met, which goes back close to 14 years. we were trying to put together a subcommittee on campaign finance reform. we met with a ceo and the president of columbia and talked about politics. i was trying to pay them -- to persuade them to co-chair of our first effort. they said something similar. we know it is an important issue for the country. we have not thought it through, but this is important, and we would like to accept the offer to serve. ed has now been with this issue
close to 15 years, having shared our work in at least 3 iterations. publicly and privately, he has become the poster boy for our campaign finance reform work. he introduced the term shakedown to our effort some years ago. i cannot thank you enough for what you have done. your personal commitment to this issue, and your leadership around the country. landon has been a long-time trusty, and became involved in our work on judicial selection reform, particularly focusing on missouri, and going around
the corner, -- around the country, trying to explain what is going on in the 40 states that elect judges and allow campaign contributions to come from people who have interests before those judges. he has become the poster boy for our work on judicial selection reform around the country. as i said before, when we decided to respond to citizens united by combining our worked in campaigns -- campaign finance reform and judicial reform, it was natural to ask ed and landon to bring these strains of our work together in one subcommittee. i am also pleased to say that on october 25, at our annual dinner in new york, we will present both of them with trust
was in ohio, like theory. my cousin and i got arrested for flushing a cherry bomb down the toilets of the swimming pool. my aunt viola had to bail us out. his dad was the fire chief. she said, "you little bastard will never amount to anything." i wish she could have heard your last comment. i will tell you that i am worried and disgusted. our nation's political decision making capacity is broken. if you want to write a great, spell-binding novel that was a recipe for natural disaster -- national disaster, some of the major properties would be as follows. you would want to create a plot theme around the encouragement
of political extremism on the left and the right. you would want to instill a goal of reelection and staying in power at all costs. you would want to create an environment where the legislators paid off those who bought their votes, at the cost of the voters, because the goal would be to stay in power at all costs. on top of it, you would take the cost of campaigning, and raise it to hundred%, making politicians have to do whatever they can to get money. you will then create a court that would strike down campaign financing rules, like they did
on citizens united, which would result in a legalization of facilitating agreements, legalizing bribery, pay to play, pay to avoid negative consequences. you would do it with an amount of secret money that dwarfs what was spent during the watergate era. i think we would, in this novel u.s., end up with despair. the political system would be both broken and corrupt. the nation would be on the brink. sound familiar? the system now have takes good men and women that run for congress, and it corrupts them. it is bad for the nation, and it is bad for business. both of you know the ced is made
up of 100 trustees that are current or former ceo's and business leaders, and 10 or so university presidents. we are not the politically enlightened group, but we have a business perspective. today, we are calling on business to play a key role in starting to bring this system back from the brink. i will tell you that we as business leaders do know how to do this. in my time at deloitte and since then, i have come to the conclusion that american corporations offer a level of financial disclosure found nowhere else in the world. publicly held companies abide by stringent financial reporting, subjected to audit. disclosure and transparency are
essential to our financial markets. the same is true of our political system. what is required for us as business leaders should be required for the political process as well. effective disclosure and transparency of corporate finance starts with good policy setting and good oversight. the best companies today use the same process of approval, policy, and oversight for their political activities and political contributions.