tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 1, 2016 5:30pm-7:01pm EDT
a pan-american court of justice in mexico city. most americans would reject the idea that the u.s. should relinquish control of the borders or have their court overruled by foreign judges. this is exactly the scenario being faced by not only british people, but by people across europe. if britain doesn't vote to leave the eu on june 23, i'm sure this will just be the tip of the iceberg in terms of those in europe who will follow suit. i would expect to see a wave of referendums across many european countries. i would expect to see others following britain leaving the eu. without a doubt, the eu exposes an economic burden on great britain. as the former mayor of london noted in the telegraph a couple of days ago, it eu legislation costs british citizens 600
million pounds week. and great britain is no longer a truly sovereign nation. the british think tank has said the most expensive regulations costs -- figures on a host of british institutions have put out figures with regard to the tremendous burden and cost of the eu regulation. only 6% of british companies trade with the eu but 100% of them have to comply with eu laws and regulations. there is a sharp contrast between the large number of british business leaders, and especially the small businesses that have come out in favor of brexit, in contrast to the vast array of multinational banks.
they are campaigning for britain to stay inside the european union. there is a disconnect between the british grassroots and the international political elites who are warning the british people about their own future, if they dare step outside the european union. the eu is in economic decline, since 2008. u.s. gdp has increased by 13%, the eu gdp has increased by 3%. the eu is a graveyard of low growth. the only continent with lower growth is antarctica. at the same time, britain is not in a position to control its own borders. in 2015, 270,000 people
immigrated to the u.k. from the eu. that is the same size as a city such as oxford. that is a staggering level of integration into the u.k. and the british people are opposed to the idea that they have no say over levels of immigration from europe. there is a fundamental lack of democratic consent here with regard to immigration. i believe strongly that the united states, as victoria mentioned earlier, stands to benefit from brexit. a britain that is free, a great britain that is sovereign and can make its own decisions, will be a far stronger allied force of the united states. president obama was absolutely wrong to intervene in the british state. i would describe the
intervention as a slap in the face of the british people. he comes over to america's closest ally on the international stage and tells them that if they dare leave the european union, they will be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal. this is an extraordinary intervention by a u.s. president, not only giving the wrong advice, but also speaking in a condescending tone towards a very close friend and ally. needless to say, the intervention backfired. i think most british people rejected the idea that president obama should be lecturing the british people on how they should be voting in their own referendum. i have no doubt, that britain would be at the front of the queue for a u.s.-u.k. free trade deal post brexit.
if you look at the depth and size of the u.s.-u.k. financial relationship, it is the largest by investment relationships in the world. the united states has $5 trillion of assets in the united kingdom. that represents 22% of total u.s. corporate assets abroad. this is a huge amount at stake here for both the u.s. and u.k. economies. the u.s. has free trade agreements with 20 countries across the world. it even has agreements with nicaragua and morocco, and i would have thought that a free trade agreement signed with great britain would be a no-brainer. and i think the next president,
regardless of who it will be, is highly likely to support a free trade deal with america's closest friend and partner on the international stage. there will be momentum on capitol hill for that as well. no doubt that will be threatened. and the european union, with its attempts to create a superstate, has been damaging in many respects to the special relationship and to the bilateral relationship between the united states and great britain. we should be under no illusions that the eu commission is attempting to create a european union army. an excellent expose last week -- it would only be revealed after the referendum. around june 24, quite a coincidence.
i recommend that article to anyone who is interested. into the eu plans into build and eu army as a competitor to nato. it is nato and the broader transatlantic alliance that guarantees -- it does not quake in its booth at the thought of a european army. it is afraid of american power in europe, afraid of nato power, and i believe that nato will be significantly strengthened with great britain outside of the european union. without a doubt, the united states needs to reassess the entire approach. the u.s. has many decades backed in european projects, this is a
1950's -- a very outdated -- and the united states needs to support economic freedom in europe. all of the things that the american people cherish and hold dear in their hearts, what is good for america is good for europe, which is certainly the view of my former boss, margaret thatcher. there have been a number of mischievous articles suggesting that margaret thatcher would be opposed to brexit today. i can say, based on my own conversations with the iron lady over the years, that were she alive today, she would be fighting tooth and nail for british sovereignty and supporting the british exit from the european union.
she first wrote about this in her book, and always, she was years ahead of her time on this issue. i would like to conclude with a quote by margaret thatcher. which i think encapsulates the failure of the european project and why the british people need to reassert their sovereignty. to quote "such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a european superstate was ever embarked upon will see in future years to be the greatest folly." thank you. [applause] luke coffey: thank you for those remarks. we have some time for questions. we have a microphone, raise your hand and if i: you, identify yourself and any organizational affiliation. and please wait for the microphone. i will go over here first.
>> the center of principles and politics, i am an intern. a question for nile gardiner. why, if, as you said, margaret thatcher would be opposed -- or would be in favor of brexit, why is the current conservative effort for them saying in the union? how did they get so off-track? [laughter] luke coffey: putting it lightly. nile gardiner: an excellent question. i should point out that david cameron was interviewed soon after she passed away and he was asked whether he was a thatcherite. and he said no. and david cameron doesn't see
himself as someone in the thatcher vein. he represents a very different vision to that of architecture. within the british government, there is a deep divide. several cabinet ministers are campaigning for brexit and you have a number of jr. ministers as well. roughly half of conservative mps have indicated they support a brexit. two thirds or 70% of the conservative party members support brexit. i would argue that david cameron is out of touch with his own party, and whatever the outcome of the referendum, i would expect the next prime minister or leader of the conservative party, and by default, that person will become the prime minister after david cameron has promised to step down before the 2020 election, the next leader
will undoubtedly be a brexit supporter. it that is the mood of the party. it is very hard to see someone taking the reins of the conservative party and believing we should stay in the european union. because such a cabinet would not be voted for by the grassroots of the party. but certainly, the conservative party remains very divided over this, but you have david cameron basically uniting with the left, siding with the labour party. siding with brussels and president obama, and every single entity on the face of the earth and all of britain, a very large chunk of the people, going against him. and i think they will prevail on
june 23. sending a very clear message. luke coffey: the gentleman over here to my left. in a white shirt? >> good morning. michael, i was the president of the european-american business unit. after dealing with the eu for a decade, i understand some of what you are saying. it is very difficult to get a transatlantic cooperation on commercial issues. my question is, if the u.k. leaves the eu, will the scottish nationalist party have a reason to stay in the eu and have anotr referendum, which would divide against the u.k.? luke coffey: actually, if i may, at on this one even though i am the moderator -- it is important to note that the scottish nationalists published a political manifesto this year.
they had local elections this year in scotland and in the manifesto there was no commitment or pledge to have another referendum. and the idea -- another independence referendum. and the idea of the brexit referendum was well known. so if they wanted to go down this road, they could have snuck this into the party manifesto and they would have had a mandate from the people to have a referendum in the event of brexit. but they chose not to go down that road. in my opinion, this is part of the "project fear," clear if the british people vote to leave, the nations of the united kingdom, great britain and northern ireland, they will want to leave and join the eu -- i
think it is smoke and mirrors. nile gardiner: briefly, and that is a very good question, if these are scottish people who decided to leave the kingdom, they would have to apply to join the european union. they would also have to apply to join nato, if they wish to join. and the spanish have indicated -- so be scots would be completely out of the eu and nato if they decided to vote to leave the united kingdom. you raise a good point about how 90% of scots in opinion polls wish to remain part of the european union and euro skepticism is more powerful in england than in scotland. but i think that for the scots, a departure from the united kingdom would have far-reaching
ramifications for them on a whole host of issues. and if there was another scottish referendum, even if britain votes to leave, i would think that based on current projections, the scots would choose to remain part of the united kingdom. ted bromund: let me offer a few comments. i agree with nile gardiner. there was a good book written explaining how scotland sovereignty disappeared and the european union euro filed scotland appeared. something very fundamental has changed there. and those people who are looking
for a good subject might think about that one. there is an a salient point that no one has mentioned -- the scottish independence at the time of the scottish referendum were 100 percent based on the idea that oil was going to have a permanently high and stable price in the world market. that has proven to be untrue. right now, north sea oil is not making a lot of money. and it is a declining asset. scotland, the independence at this point will have to hike taxes a lot or it will have to cut spending rapidly. i know which option i would prefer that it will have to go down one of the roads after the sizable and permanent increase in the world price of oil. so how do you make this work, economically? that is a question which the snp didn't have a convincing answer to at the time of the scottish referendum, and any answer they did have is less convincing at this point.
luke coffey: on a final point, a few years ago there was an economist issue which had two articles in it which i thought was lovely. the first one was on scottish independence. and they said if people wanted independence and governing themselves, you can't say no. then you turn the page and you read the column on written and europe, and they say britain must actually stay in the european union. it is unthinkable, under any conditions. and you are like, well, ok. if you are in favor of scottish independence -- personally, i am skeptical, but if that is the way you went intellectually, that argument does not apply to the brexit vote? i don't get a good answer for that one. luke coffey: the gentleman in the black shirt? poor choice of words. [laughter]
>> incidentally, i am from scotland. i have to mention that during the last general election referendum, party leaders had a debate. they happened to blunder into that thing. they were talking, the leaders were being asked question about the eu, and she rattled off -- she is very patronizing -- she went on autopilot trying to lecture and in the middle of her answer, she realize what she was saying. she actually said, well, just because you don't like the european union, it isn't appropriate to behave like a perpetual child. better together was the campaign slogan for staying in the u.k. and she suddenly realized that she had used those words and she had this stumble and then
started talking -- i digress. on an entirely different point, there is one word that creates a lot of discussion with the brexit issue for a large number of people in england. and turkey doesn't only represent a failure of the eu to deal with a serious threat, or a bully, or somebody that is prepared to do whatever they want to do to further their agenda, and the eu is incapable of doing anything on the southern borders by turkey. not only does it present that, but at present a serious imminence in the jump of immigration numbers and resources if turkey were to receive membership to the eu. so it is less said, then it
should be, but it is something that informs a lot of people thinking as to why brexit possibly has to happen. because i count myself as somebody who was -- my question is, your analysis said we should go back to a prior state but unfortunately, the three pillars don't address the problem of turkey. and turkey would be in the third one, and would be part of the solution, it is a beautiful country and it is working towards prosperity for its own population, by spreading them across the rest of europe. but revisiting those three pillars don't help with the fact that almost literally, the trojan horse is being rolled into europe.
so i'm wondering, is that -- is that intentional on your part? or do you not see the turkish issue as being that big? or is it because the united states doesn't have a good answer to that? ted bromund: there are larger questions there which we can't address about the nature of the u.s. policy towards the regime. i share all of your skepticism and maybe, even more, of the nature of the experiment in turkey, which i think is severely damaged, if not destroyed. one of the very few states in the middle east that was based on the model of the western state system.
i'm not here to apologize for ataturk buddy set up a state that offer the possibility of moving for the western model and that was a good thing. the reason i did not mention turkey is i have no more desire to see turkey secede from the european union then russia a seating to the european union. this strikes me as something that is very far off, it should be very far off, and i have no desire to bring it closer in the near future. the erdowan government is repressive and intolerant in the extreme. i see no favorable political trends in turkey that would cause me to reassess that point of view. i see no genuine desire among the nations of europe and certainly not the peoples of europe for turkey to join the european union and for that matter, i'm not sure even the turks are all that enthusiastic
at this point about joining the european union. what i know is that david cameron says he is very enthusiastic for turkey to join the european union. if you really stretch, you can make the argument -- which the british prime minister's have made for a long time -- the more people we have in european union, the less effectively it will work and the more effectively we can muck it up by having a lot of people involved. i don't think that has been terribly ineffective and i have no desire whatsoever to try it with turkey which is far too large and significant a country to play a game with. i don't think turkey is a fit member of the european union. maybe i am ill-suited to say that because i don't really like the european union much anyhow. [laughter]
if i work a proud turk, why would i want to be ruled from brussels? it does not have any appeal to me at any level whatsoever. i can understand why it's an unattractive prospect for people in the u.k. or for that matter in france, germany, italy, lots of other places. >> just a follow-up, turkey has roughly 80 million population. it turkey joins the european union, this is a massive development. i think that's another reason why the british should be keen to exit the eu. at the moment, angela merkel is operating with an appeasement policy toward the erdowan regime and bribing the turks to take back refugees. this deal is not going to last forever with turkey.
i think europe is playing a dangerous game with the turks at the moment. if turkey does enter the european union eventually, that would be a huge game changer within europe and you will see large-scale migration from turkey to points west in europe including the united kingdom. you also need to bear in mind that with the large refugee influx, the germans took in 1.2 million refugees last year. they took in 200,000 refugees in february-march alone this year. i would expect that more refugees will find their way -- migrants will find their way to germany eventually. within a number of years, the
migrants or refugees will get german passports and that will give them the right to travel anywhere inside the european union including the united kingdom. then germany's problem becomes a british problem. you raise a good point about mass immigration and long-term consequences and these are big factors in shaping the debate in britain over brexit. >> i just had an observation i think goes to your point about what has happened to the policy toward europe which is the day that our current resident made a decision to send back the winston churchill edict and he said which would be the first foreign leader he would call and it was erdogan. those two choices on january 20, 2009, really set the united states on a trajectory that has pursued a counterproductive policy.
>> it's interesting how quickly things can change. when i worked for the conservative party a decade ago, before all this nonsense with erdowan, there was the thinking that because of the historical relationship between britain and the turks and specifically the british conservative party and the turks and because voting in the council is based on population, getting turkey in the european union was away there could be an anglo-turkish access of control and influence inside the institution. we know now this is a bunch of nonsense and erdowan is someone you cannot work with our trust. the gentle man in the front. this will probably be the last question. >> eyman in turn with family research council. with the turkey issue, if turkey is not allowed to be more influential in the eu or join, with a start straying toward the middle eastern side with opec nations and is that concerning?
the other question is if the eu breaks away and britain breaks away from the eu and other countries would do the same, how would that affect greece or even the eastern block like romania and hungary where they have weak economies? how would it affect them? >> let me say a few words on the first point. my concern is not that turkey will stray for the middle east. my concern is that the erdowan regime has already pushed turkey to stray toward the middle east if i can put it that way. erdogan's regime recommends a deliberate rejection of kamal attaturks'believe that they had to lie in turkey and the idea of a new ottoman empire was a dangerous delusion which had
caused turkey in world war i and pre-world war i years lots of lives and lots of treasure, turkish lives and treasure. the answer to that was to have a to this was tohat was forand, r have a turkish state for the turks and not for a middle eastern empire. the governing ideology of the regime was new ottomanism. the expansion of the ottoman role. the european union did nothing to dissuade him from any of this. these are internal developments that are highly undesirable. the european union is not an answer to this question. on economics, greece has undergone contraction bigger th
an our great depression. it is part of a currency zone. if you cannot devalue your currency externally, you must devalue your economy, internally. it is a polite way of saying, "you need to have high unemployment." getting out is not a sure-all -- cure-all. if you cannot recover financial freedom, you devalue. that is how it works. problems that these places have are that they are in the euro. greece isblems experiencing our greek.
when you say that you are going to the united kingdom to solve the problems, it is counterproductive and you are just undermining the united kingdom's ability to act as a financial partner with the united states. from self-interest, it does not help us. if being in the euro is the fundamental cause, you will never solve it by making the prime directive staying in the euro. >> a question on the economics brexit on the rest of europe. as mentioned earlier, undoubtably, the greeks are better outside of the currency. is a political project, more than anything else. it is not an official construct. you are seeing the construct
crumbling. whether brexit takes place or will crumble and, eventually, fall apart. ce is givingnt, greev orders. it is not a sovereign nation. they can barely run the government. that is not sustainable. ll, tois a limit, as we the generosity of german taxpayers. undoubtedly, the germans have benefited significantly from the euro. but, i think the idea of bailing out countries, the patients will ience will runt out. you are seeing the landscape change across europe.
it is momentum towards sovereignty and self-determination across the continent. countries, like greece, are better off unshackled. i think greece is better outside of the european union. wouldeve that brexit encourage other countries to hold popular referenda. the europeanthat dominated the continent could be taken by surprise -- the european elites that dominated the continent could be taken by surprise, when the european project is
challenged all over europe, not just britain. anything that advances the drive andrds democracy self-determination, taking powers away from centralized bureaucracies and putting it back in the hands of people, that is positive. >> great. citizens, youh still have a few day to register to vote. every vote will count. hopefully, you learned something today. for everyone else, thank you for coming and please join me in thanking our panel. or less, youurs could watch this on heritage.org. thank you. >> sure.
sure. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, >> washington journal visited t a national who traveled to find a new life in the united states. >> how long was your journey to the united states? saturday, until today, cancun to monterey. >> why come in at laredo? >> laredo, because it is mentioned back home. >> what documents you have? >> my passport. >> just a cuban passport? what other documents do you fill out and what do they ask? me.oney, things i have with
>> you came alone? >> alone. >> do you have family here or anywhere else? >> in dallas. >> are you heading to dallas? >> yes. >> you plan on staying in the united states? >> yes. >> why? it is better than cuba, financial reasons. >> too expensive? >> everything is too expensive there. the salary is low. >> do you leave behind a job or family in cuba? --i lay behind my family, leave behind my family, my daughter, my wife, and brother. >> if you can establish in the
united states, would you bring your family? >> if god allows that. >> washington journal was live mexicohe u.s.- border town of laredo. we will have that program at 9:00. tomorrow, more coverage from laredo. to discussedlynn trade. henry from texas will talk about benefits. and i critical look at the impact of jobs. c-span.rts at 7:00 on >> citizens have got to feel
that their vote and voice r they can spare a cent for the person running for office. my baldwinnight, tam talks about her career. helped shepherd the where senators were not appointed by the legislatures. they demanded elections. idea that it would not be the party bosses who made the smoke-filled rooms.
that people would get a chance to vote in free and fair elections. >> sunday night. lukman at hear from 7:00 here on c-span. a look at the ways that communities can manage climate change. representatives talked about the issues. this was hosted by the new of public and -- the new republic and the center for american progress.
[indiscernible] >> this is the second part. the first panel was focused on defining "climate justice." rhetoric about what we can do to address the many issues that were raised. i would like this conversation to go down to the street and community level. we have people from the government here. i am not worried about it getting wonky or specific. i think that that is the point of this conversation. let me briefly introduce everyone here. i am ryan. bios down to your
a few sentences. it would take a long time to read them all. is the to my right deputy administrator of fema. buildingponsible for resilience. he was in emergency management and was a homeland security advisor to bill richardson. he is a former firefighter and emt. we have bernice. bernice is a senior associate and specializes in revitalization and community sustainability. she serves on the environmental justice counsel and is a vice chair on environmental justice. she was on the national
resources defense council. e have the project manager at the resource defense council. projects inludes the affordable multifamily housing sector and promoting green equity. he worked in urban and rural community investments in his hometown of new orleans. finally, sandra is a health thesor and works at department of health and human services. there are a lot of capitalized words. on works at the hhs inter-agency working groups and
cochairs the presidential task force on environmental health and safety risks to children. previously, she was a senior policy analyst. i think the best way to begin get a better sense of what you all really do in your work, as it relates to this topic. minutes, soouple of that this audience can get a sense. >> good morning. i would like to make a point of noting that it is the beginning of hurricane season. now is the opportunity to get ready. download the app. i get paid every time you download. i appreciate that and i appreciate the center for american progress and the new
together.ulling this it is an important topic and i am happy to see more attention focused. clearly, we need editors at federal agencies, as well. we are responsible for building this community preparedness across the nation and what we mean by that is what we are talking about today. we are looking at local, state, federal governance, which is good at preparing for the intersection of natural disasters and the context of what we are capable of doing. is, what this usually means very myopic. there are few government employees sitting in an office and writing a document on how the government will react in a
vacuum. ago, wember of years are learning the hard lessons of tragedies over the years and this is where the notion of community preparedness came from. it is the idea that we cannot just sit in a room with a door closed and that it needs to be grassroots and it needs to start with pulling together the groups we have easy access to and the people who really live in the communities and are most truly affected by the communities, which tend to be the disadvantage and the horrible communities. we must start their and with the needs of the places that we live, all across america. of disasterroot
preparedness. it is how we build stronger and more resilient communities to withstan the shock. so, that is, at the core of everything we do, from grants t-makingakin and public policy. it is all that how we empower horrible populations and communities and support their activities. that is at the core of what i do every day and what brings me back to work every day to help the people that sent me here. morning, i am glad to be part of this conversation. i do so many things. i have to narrow down what we talk about.
i work for an environmental consulting firm in virginia and we do a lot of policy work and advocacy, planning, and design with the environmental protection agency, particularly vulnerable communities and low income and disadvantaged communities. that is the core set of constituencies i work with and we work to plan for a variety of eventualities. most of these are committees that are besieged by environmental threats of enormous magnitude and how do you work with those communities to plan for the usage of land ,nd space, after it is cleaned and make sure the communities do not continue to be vulnerable, as we go about cleaning them up. we have to make sure that we do
not go over the people who have suffered the longest from the environmental threats. how do you revitalize communities that address the long-standing in equities, many equities, many of which are built on race and class. you cannot talk about a new reality. you have to create plans to make community safer and dismantled the things that made people vulnerable. at policies,g practices, histories of segregation and that is still with us, especially here in the capital, and in maryland, which perfected race-based zoning. ,t is fairly-illegal
since the passing of the housing act. people like to not take knowledge that this is still with us and it still drives the inequity. we are looking at the vulnerabilities. many of them are environmental and public health, in nature. we can address them through policy instruments and building the capacity of local communities to be able to drive their own revitalization's. -- revitalizations. we are part of an organization that acts for environmental justice. we have a history of doing the work for the community. everywhere i am, whether working for the environmental state commission , i try to be cognizant of working for a vulnerable place.
ofexperienced a lot redevelopment of communities. people are thinking about vulnerabilities. people were not that focused on this phone or ability. -- on this vulnerability. how do you address the historic inequity and give people the environments they can thrive in? that is the work i touch on. >> yes. again, thank you for having us and this opportunity to speak. i am with the natural resources and defense counsel and the urban solutions program. we are in our third year now with nrdc. we are a large organization. nationalur work is on
and state policy initiatives. we are taking solutions and policy victories, at a state level, and looking at the local, with implementation in communities. much of our work is with partners in the coalition and we are looking at affordable multi-family housing and working with communities for retrofits to bring these policy victories in the environmental sphere and looking at them in communities on the ground. disasterhe context of resiliency and emergency management, a term i like to use. tosometimes limit ourselves preparation. is most important
mitigation, stopping this from happening. with climate change, we still have a window of opportunity to stop the worst of this. mitigation is important for the communities that are vulnerable and marginalized. they are likely going to suffer these consequences. plan,less of how well we mitigation and avoidance are the most important. then, you get to planning and preparation. when you think about planning, we like to romanticize this as holistic and in broader terms. they tends to mean protecting -- it tends to mean protecting infrastructure, property, and moving people out of the way.
the third step is adaptation to the new norms. we know that, because of our late to undos too some of the changes. we will have to adapt to the new locally and around the globe. finally, the aspect of recovery. again, we think of recovery in romantic terms. we think of it as restoration to communities and making communities all. -- whole. when we talk about disaster recovery and the function of these operations, much of this is handled by local jurisdictions. you can have 22,000 various ways of dealing with disaster recovery. what most of us like to think about with disaster recovery is,
all too often, local communities and administrations thinking about this as an opportunity with a lot of new money coming in. when we are talking about , there arelue communities that create value and some communities get devalued. how your local municipality frames this is important for the outcome of the process. , if there get there is not a push for equity going in. >> good morning.
thank you for having me here. i am sandra howard and i am a senior advisor. i will try not to go overboard on the little boxes in the family tree. provide policy advice to the department of health and human services and i picked the two that were the closest to the heart of this audience. i, and a small team of people in my office, in order to accomplish our mission, to protect vulnerable populations edom environmental risks, ne
to depend on a larger group of people throughout the department . there are names that you would recognize, like the centers for disease control and nih. i tried to promote this perspective and i have counterparts in federal departments. i workshem, he and together with other members of the federal family to promote justice at the federal level. perspective tog that and the environmental justice respective to agency activity with climate change . it did not always think about health. the profile has been raised a bit, as people begin to ignore
knowledge the effect of climate change, which have been happening for a while. this is specific to a group of people. climate change happens locally. not what experience is is experience in the southwest. >> can you give an example? >> say the hampton roads area of virginia was at sea level. s a vibrant community there and military installations. it is important for that area to preserved from the effects. there is work going on. it is not the same as the people who experience droughts. , that could happen at the same
time -- that could happen, at the same time, thousands of miles apart. what happens here could be different than there. occupational concerns. if you work outside, you will be concerned. this is what we expect of climate change. people who work in agriculture, there may be risk. people who are responders to disasters, you need to make sure they are safe. it is a huge agency. in order to get a lot of people, used in a few. -- you skim a few. to have people in
agencies who are working on this. this localerested in issue. protests are mobilized at a grassroots level. governmental, political, legal, other forces how you address these issues. this is a question for everybody mobilize the the when there arey so many overlapping agencies, nonprofits, it makes my brain hurt to think groupsow many different are overlapping, whether it is est or ana levels out w
issue, like what happened in flint. mobilize in a way that is actually effective between all of them? can i clarify that climate change is international and global? the effects are felt locally. >> climate justice, specifically, is local. that is where the impacts are felt. >> so, the impacts our local. the issue is not. right? there are federal and state aspects to this. in tribal communities, there are tribal aspects. there are multiple levels of response and there are vulnerable populations. your question about that is a good question and we do not have
a good answer to it. different jurisdictions respond differently. i live in maryland and two thirds of the population are climate vulnerable. we do not live near the chesapeake bay. bay. -- wethe the live in the bay. if you do not live here, this is one of the first weeks we have not had rain every day. this creates more vulnerability, with that infrastructure. -- bad infrastructure. that whoto make sure , most localo this jurisdictions do not recognize and prioritize those populations.
he will say more about the vulnerability of those in new orleans. there was a lot of planning in theory that went on. thousands were not incorporated into the plan. there was an article in the washington post last week that american 46% of the cannot respond to a $400 emergency. if you cannot do that, you cannot respond to climate threats. you cannot get out of the vulnerable way. state andrnments and federal need to work with communities. we say it and it rolls off of our tongue easily. class,u add race, national origins, and
akesgration status, this b into a process that some are going to get left out of the conversation and they will get out out insistently -- left consistently. many communities have mobilized themselves and driven the public policy conversation we are having about climate justice and vulnerability. it would not be happening if it was not for the work that local communities have done to bring this into the national forum. the only upside of hurricane katrina is that people recognized the vulnerable layer of people who were, otherwise, not being addressed. so, communities are mobilizing and there are very little resources for the mobilization to happen. yet, people are doing it
anyways. the climate equity conversation is one that has been largely-mobilized by an arena of people who are using their own resources and mobilizing their networks,ity, social and are able to inform folks to navigate the policy arena. there is a lot of money on the itle and very little of goes to vulnerable communities. importantuld add, an , i think i'm answering this question -- does it have to be local? the response to climate change justo be more than
about engineering, solar panels on the roof. it has to be about how we live, society. it is about the ability to live, the right to live, policing, wages, jobs, the way we structure and organize society in response to catastrophe and the ongoing and monday and crisies. and mundane ist these events do accentuate and heighten the undane oppression people feel every day. speak aboutack in
disaster planning, it is about protecting property and the environment. corrals people and moves them out of the way. after, it is up to them to survive. so, that is really what it is, in practice. even if it is not always that, in intent. >> it is great to hear communities mobilize themselves. in a more just world, it would not be up to these populations .o band together they have the least resources to action pull this off. how do you rectify this? there are committees that could use the help and are not mobilizing, because they do not have the resources to mobilize the community. who needs to step in and make
this happen? >> i would like to jump in on this. we talk about doing a emergency management and there are mechanisms on how the power andctures coordinate establish mechanisms across the protection and mitigation, as well as the response. there have been a lot of advancements in the last years on how we do that and it is an important point. there have been power structures that have not necessarily recognized what was required and needed and we needed to change the way we did that. from thethis stems capabilities at the
local, state, and governmental level. there is an amount of work that andto be done with people most large american cities have one or two people who do this full-time. as a moderately-sized agency, they are capable and fairly small. it is a lot of work to pull together the community. they tried. it is a lot of work. we come at it from both directions and shift the resources made available and the recognition of the
encouragelevel and and empower grantmaking to empower engagement. by customs and experiences, we're looking at katrina and the fatalities. we have management committees that are good and we need to build a better recognition. you look at katrina and many point to the fact that the most wasessful evacuation katrina. it still left 100,000 behind.
80% of which were the disadvantaged and minority communities. if you look at the for tallies, the demographics are 50%-50%, between the african-americans and the whites. you have vulnerable populations that we did not pay attention to. you look at the evacuated 80% were notnd bank and had no access to credit or cash reserves. did not own a car. >> exactly. we have been learning the hard lessons.
what this ends up with is government efforts towards economic drivers. there is an intersection with people and a tornado in a field is just a tornado. out of purduecame could be tornado magnets. they happen to be in vulnerable areas where land is cheap. shiftwing that, we can the way we plan and build capacity, where necessary.
>> i'm glad that you brought this up. obama was talking about that. >> president obama. it really bothers me. , "president obama ." >> just a habit. , i do not remember the exact quote, said something to the effect of, "it is the disasters that areot planned for the ones we are trying to plan for. " when hurricane sandy happened, a lot of people said, we have seen this before.
on the grassroots level or in between, what lessons have we katrina?rom we could have an other with-style storm this year different jurisdictions. what is being done to prevent this level of disaster? yesterday,ontext of i think it is an important point that a lot of people perceive on thingssion-making
that mislead people into a level of comfort. across florida, this was part of the conversation. florida says, "they wind andxperience the they got the storm surge in a different way." the perception is incorrect. this is something that has shifted. the national weather service past a certain point and it became tropical. and thee extra-tropical hurricane warning was dropped. it was not a hurricane anymore. an impact on the
it was communities and no longer a meteorological hurricane. say,ndition people to "hurricane, the prepared for this impact." people said, "this would just be a storm." exact same impact. new warnings, for warnings the first time. hurricane warnings are about wind speed. and does not talk about the storm surge, which kills 50% of the people of those who die. disconnected.
you can have a fatal storm surge speed.w wind a tropical storm, for example, which we have seen. we idea is that underestimate the level of risk. there is a likelihood of things negatively impacting us. we have to continue to beat the drum the communities need to get a dispassionate look at the real risk across the full spectrum of things. so -- insured isequately something that requires resources and living in a place where you can get insurance. get certain kinds of flood insurance that is expensive. we had an earthquake here in the d.c. metro area in centerville
and i still have cracks in my foundation and house. i talked to my insurance agent and he laughed at me, saying that nobody in maryland has earthquake insurance. . said, "we have fracking maybe we should think about it." we have to think about how the policy instruments addressed the need. this notion of things being driven by property value and valuation, one of the things the climate justice conversation brings to this is that we know that lives are not equal. tables that actuarial talk about restoring committees andmaking people whole
certain people are at the bottom of that and we need to rethink that. the private sector takes a lot of information from the federal government and we need to challenge and read think thectures -- rea structures. we know that there is no community of color, even the one i live in, that is equal to the nearest white community. that is baked into our process. the formula around the restoration has to be taken apart and put back together to give equity. we do not have this now. when the storms come, and they will, what have we done to make people less portable? -- less
vulnerable? i do not know if i am comfortable that the people who were hurt in the past will not be hurt again. orleans andin new you have been working in this field ever since. what are your big fears? wofold.ig fears are too ful we have not learned the lessons. when you think about natural disasters, you could lose your home or you be forced -- you could be forced to leave your home. for many, these are common , having utility bills shut off, because they are in the red.
as her accentuates that. you have to have the resources to get yourself and your family out of the way. the obligations do not disappear. whether it is mortgage, utilities, the creditors are still coming, even as you are eating evacuated from a storm. -- even as you are being evacuated from a storm. we are not acknowledging the full cost of leaving home. unprotectedn an 'abor status, like new orleans restaurant. s, your demands change after a disaster and you could lose employment. these things should be part of the planning process.
you want to get people out the way and see where we are at when the water receides. that is a fear. what we saw after katrina and a communityto was thinking about restoration after reallyrm and the powerful interests in local administrations are thinking about the opportunity to redevelop and increase the value of the urban footprint through investments. it was spoken and unspoken after katrina. that his said administration would not determine the place and pace of recovery. the market would.
to be communities that were the least affected by the storm and not the ones who needed it the most. you had this issue again, if you thetalking about relying on urban footprint, property, the value of urban land to drive growth. black and latino communities, we cannot to match the property value of what identity in the markets. so, if you look at a city like washington, d.c., it created gogo music. it, becausehear there was no way to commercialize it. they push to that out. why cultural identity has a property value that color cannot emphasized, will be
when city's think about recovery and opportunity and have a chance to create new value and opportunity. the want to go back to first point. we have not done enough to address the social determinants of how people deal with the everyday opportunities we have, which may or may not be related to climate change. we have disasters and there are seene effects that will be over time, like increased air pollution. we know that a lot of people in our communities suffer from asthma and cardiovascular disease. address those risk factors, so that people will be able to remain healthy and resilient.
the population is changing. who is here in america now? different in 20 years. a younger population with a ix of the racial and ethnic. i think that we know some things, intuitively. operationalizing them, it is difficult. it is a challenge. >> let's open it up to questions. gote your hand, if you've one. >> hello. i am from baltimore. i had a question about planning.
this plan is not policy until it has been voted in by the city council. processthere is an open developing of the plan, if it does not get passed into law, it does not happen. how do you bridge the gap to make the policy the benefits the underserved? there is a robust conversation around sustainability plans and baltimore.- in i am not sure how many people the vulnerable there.ties serve on 30 years ago, i recognized the
vulnerability of the place i lived was driven by other forces to determine the opportunities would exist and the land usage that would exist. ofhave a preponderance vulnerabilities, none of which were voted on. it has cascaded the former abilities. -- the vulnerabilities. some of us need to get on a local land use and planning board to shape and drive the conversation. we did all of that and we mobilized people and we voted in the great people. the city still had a vision, particularly when the mayor changed and had a vision that was not about quality of life. the mobilization, and connecting
who to representatives understand what the nature of the problem is and will do the , time in and timeout, is where we have the problem. it was talked about the mayor who said that the market will determine what the restoration is going to be. others are making determinations about how new orleans comes back and the lower ninth ward is still not mobilized. like katrina and rita struck last year. making sure that the people are involved in the political process and driving it, that is where we get a disconnect.
we have to come up with ideas and be in a planning and zoning conversation with a zoning board. there is racial tension on the board. you have to do it. you have to step up and do the things that give you the reins of power. i do not see the conversations connecting in a substantial way. my name is emily eisenhower. i am from florida. my question is about the policy instruments that we are going to need to move forward with resilience that are going to have to be pretty complicated.
of adaptation varies so much between different local areas. >> we federal agencies are going to break away from this recorded program and go to the world affairs council where we will hear from the world affairs council. ambassador to the united states. >> we are an institution dedicated to global education. and global communications. it is our honor to host the last public appearance of the ambassador from iraq. i'm delighted to say that in congressman jim moran is here. [applause] hes