tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 30, 2015 7:00am-7:21am EST
kurt volker, and alberto fernandez. lankford joins us to talk about excessive spending from the federal government. ♪ host: good morning, it is monday, november 30, 2015. thomas returns -- congress returns today. the senate is scheduled to hold a vote today at 5:30 p.m. paris forobama is in a united nations summit, whose goal is to reduce a global treaty to reduce climate change. putting the spotlight on the u.s. and its role in the world when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas omissions. for the first 45 minutes this morning on the "washington journal," we open our phones to hear your message for the
president at the outset of this highly anticipated u.n. climate change gathering. democrats call call (202) 748-8000. republicans, call (202) 748-8001 . independents, call (202) 748-8002. if you're outside the u.s., it is (202) 748-8003. catch up with us on social media , on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org. we begin with newspapers from around the world. here's the china daily's front page this morning. toys for crucial push on omissions. poised for crucial push on omissions. that's the front page of the indian express this morning. over to the front page, of the irish times this morning.
ireland faces pressure over omissions is the headline. and also the front page of the vancouver sun this morning, thousands demand climate action as world leaders gather in paris for a march in vancouver and elsewhere for change. those are a few of the newspapers around the world this morning. your message to the president and world leaders as they begin this two week discussion on climate change. the front page of the "new york times," going from papers in the united states. talks in paris set stage for action. thandent obama and more 100 world leaders will convene with thousands of diplomats monday on the outskirts of paris to open two weeks of intense negotiation's aimed at forging a cordon they could begin to over the most upsetting effects of global warming and redefined the economy of the 21st century.
if you think you have seen this before, negotiators have aimed at drafting a global climate change treaty. they came close. showing some pictures from the gathering in paris. for more on this, we turn to jean shamrock, joining us by phone. good morning. guest: good morning. host: why is this being viewed as such a key moment in climate change negotiation? what is on the table today? year is anevery actual deal looked for out of these talks. the last time that it was was 2009 in copenhagen. when world leaders really hoped it would produce a deal on omissions that would cover everyone. those talks ended without that goal.
negotiators feel there's a better chance of reaching a deal, in part because the deal would be built on commitments the countries have put up themselves, rather than on some kind of requirement handed down from the united nations. host: for viewers looking to follow this, what are going to be the most contentious issues will be tackled? guest: they're probably three there are the most contentious at this point. what kind of commitments countries would be asked to make, whether it will be a legally binding treaty as relates to its actual emissions commitments, or whether will be mainly a political agreement with some legal components. aid that willthe be due from which countries -- rich countries to poor countries. whether climate finance will ramp up compared to prior years, and whether there will be more
clarity, or whether it will stay static. and then there's the issue of loss and damage. actually want rich countries to be liable for the carbon emissions that are already in the atmosphere that are damaging them. and that's a really contentious issue. there's a lot of debate over that. host: i know you are set to head to paris for the second half of these talks. what are you hearing from colleagues who are already there, specifically with the security situation in paris and how that is impacting these negotiations? guest: security is extremely strong. seen by yesterday's attempted march, the police really crackdown very hard on demonstrators. police have brought in from all over france to make ine these talks are secure
the face of the terrorist attack couple of weeks ago. host: has security change the schedule for anything yet, as far as when negotiators will be meeting or where they are meeting? guest: not as far as negotiators go. there was a massive demonstration that was supposed to have happened yesterday. it was canceled. the marches weren't really sanctioned yesterday. there are some events as well outside of that. side events that have been canceled. , 150ll the heads of state heads of state coming to address the conference, now that has changed. meetings, thee negotiators are not different. host: we asked viewers to call in to get their message to the president, and the other world leaders.
can you talk a little bit about the history of these kinds of negotiations? and what has come of them before? in the role of congress has for anything that comes out of these types of negotiations? guest: better than to prior attempts to get a major treaty on climate change. one was the kyoto protocols, where the u.s. under the clinton administration played a very active role in negotiating the treaty. but then, it couldn't be ratified by the senate. ratification in the senate takes a two thirds majority of the vote, which is a high hurdle, even for a fairly and contentious treaty. contentious treaty. the senate voted it wouldn't approve a treaty. and then six years ago, the talks broke down without even having that form of an agreement in place.
they say that they have learned from the past and have made adjustments in the process. actually will have an agreement at the end of these talks. the part of what is lurking in the background of these talks is the fact that republicans control the senate, and that isway, two thirds majority extremely difficult for obama to get. any kind of an agreement that would have to be accepted by the senate is not the kind of agreement that the u.s. would be able to participate in. with the u.s. is pushing for in these talks is an agreement where the omissions and finance components are politically binding, but are not legally binding. where's the only legal components are things the u.s. already thinks it has authority to do under existing law.
pledges andmissions review and transparency. host: she has been covering at eeissues for years news.net. twitter at eeon publishing. we appreciate your time, safe travels. we are asking viewers to call in and give us your message to the president and world leaders as this climate change summit begins today on the outskirts of paris amid a change security situation in the past several weeks. democrats, call (202) 748-8000, republicans, call (202) 748-8001 . independents, call (202) 748-8002. outside the u.s., (202) 748-8003 . we should note that president obama spoke this morning for about 10 minutes or so to help open the summit that's happening right now in the outskirts of paris.
jeff mason is a white house reporter, among the things he tweeted out -- president obama says the u.s. embraces its responsibility to curb the problem, along with the picture of the president at the podium with the united nations flag in the flag of france. patrick is first on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. it is virtually impossible to establish a viable climatological model when the disinformation campaign about the utilization of geo-engineering technologies which are being used 24 hours a day, and incorporating three separate chemical components. -- a moleculele of nano polymers which actually a sandwich and holder up the artificial clouds which are being sprayed, along with nano
aluminum and a barium components. host: take us to what's happening over the next two weeks. if you had a chance to meet with the president now, what would you push him to push for molly was there in paris? -- while he paris?re in i would tell him to stop you engineering of our climate. we are spending $10 million a year on geo-engineering or whether. it's interfering with so little synthesis -- photosynthesis. trees are not being able to put out leaves. what they are doing is all of our forests are losing their foliage because we are interfering with the very foundation of life, which is interfering with the ability of trees to put out leaves. it's getting so bad with this aluminum component that the trees are actually dying because they are trying to facilitate these -- this chemistry, this unfounded chemistry with zero
discourse among american scientific community. host: that is patrick in pennsylvania. dave is in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. if i had a message to tell the president today, to go over there and at least cut a little uslution down, and not leave with a big bundle of money that we are responsible for us taxpayers, to take care of this hopefully,nge and the tops will be able to make an of things we have to do globally, we all have to come together as a planet. it, atleast think about
least try to get the message out , andwe have grandchildren their grandchildren afterwards, in other people to be responsible for it, other than just ourselves. we have made big changes here in the united states. but the thing is, the air is a little cleaner now. the days are a lot clearer you look at the sun. and stuff like that. not to spend a ton of money and make proposals and bargains to where it's going to make it economically impossible for us to be able to reach. money issue you mentioned, the new york times story i noted at the top of the show talked about that. pay is aat who would big obstacle heading into these inotiations, and copenhagen these previous talks, hillary by 2020,inton co, said
the developed world will send developing countries 100 billion dollars annually to help them make the transition to cleaner energy and pay for the effects of climate change, including floods and droughts. host: so certainly cost is a factor in the next two weeks of these negotiations. levi is next in montana on the line for independents. good morning. isler: i think the president fear mongering the wrong way. last few hundred years,
the ice in the arctic has been melting. how much of the ocean risen in the last 200 years? if all the ice were to melt at the north pole, do you know what would happen? the day after tomorrow, it would start drying up. the oceans aren't going to rise, they're going to dry up, if there is such a thing as global warming. that's about all i got to say. host: frank is up next in west virginia. the line for republicans. good morning. before the president speaks, i would like to remind him that over the last 15 years, the temperatures have leveled off. the left has had to quit saying global warming, and change it to climate change. in the 1970's, scientists were predicting an ice age. as he talks to these people, i wish you would tell them if he letly is a problem here, china, russia, india, indonesia get their pollution levels to
the levels the united states has already gotten itself to. and then maybe it will be solved, if there is a problem. were gettingn we our levels down, who sent us money to do it? i wish we would start from some of those premises. thank you. host: that's frank from west virginia. in today's "washington post," a few graphics. this one noting record-breaking temperatures so far in 2015, is the hottest year on record. one spot in the north atlantic had recorded cold for several months, probably the results of greenland's- melting ice sheet, the rest of the world is experiencing unprecedented heat. you can see the more red, the warmer, according to records. the dark red color is the warmest on record. the chart also showing greenhouse gas emissions for
human activity. below that a talks about the current trajectory we are on in this world would probably result in a greater than for celsius -- 4 celsius. it would limit carbon emissions to more moderate model levels by 2040. that's more than what's a two celsiustop rise. many say that has to be hit. "washington journal," takes on that two degrees celsius number. in a guided climate treaty discussions for decades. many researchers have argued that arise in the global air temperature of two degrees or more above the industrial levels
would usher in catastrophic line change. host: taking your calls this morning, your message to president obama and world leaders at this climate change summit. debris all is in north carolina, the line for independents. caller: good morning. i basically want to lay out two things that are not addressed, a lot of people have to understand the denying the fact that you have a simple mathematical equation, you have more and more and more people on this earth, there are finite resources. you're going to have increasing impact on everything that is
ecological around you. right,n call left or there is neither of that that is really important. when it comes down to it, political pundits the is nothing in the way of what's really going on. and that is the tremendous impact on multiple scales of ecosystems around. and people don't technology. the don't even like knowledge the number one thing that actually is not to do with fossil fuels, you can look this up. i swear to you. the number one producer of methane gas, which is the most caustic and free radical that gets into and causes our system to warm up and be encapsulated is methane gas that comes from animals. animal production is overabundant, the methane gas ,hat's produced from rudiments which is town, or any of the livestock.
and then the land that is cleared away to feed the livestock -- this is what propels this. more than fossil fuels. they don't even talk about it. they don't even talk about it. those who are following along on the facebook page are talking about this too. arthur rochester says his message is to create legislation to limit carbon output from fossil fuels and greenhouse gases created in the process of raising livestock. caller: yeah. livestock. the thing is, you can't even put the two on the same scale. the livestock outlet -- outweighs -- if you look at the oneamental issue, it's what cow produces in terms of methane gas come it's tenfold what comes out of the fossil fuel industry. i'm not saying fossil fuels are good, that needs to be regulated as well. but there is more