Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Zack Colman Discusses Trump Environmental Policies  CSPAN  March 31, 2017 8:33am-9:05am EDT

8:33 am
and climate. and they really used rancho early s one of their experimental farms before they ran their ned and own. anouncer: on sunday at 2:00 p.m. history tv merican we visit the california state farm. > it's the number 1 state in california and the number 1 tate in the nation in terms of agriculture. only four campuses have agriculture and chico ssentially represents the northern part of the state but we draw students from all over in fornia to get experience agriculture itself. anouncer: and we'll go inside he chico museum to see the historic chinese museum altar. tour of pan city's chico, california, saturday at oon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span 3. with our cable a filliates, and visiting cities
8:34 am
across the country. anouncer: washington journal continues. host: joining us now is nvironmental and energy reporter zach colman. he's here to discuss president recent executive order, undoing obama e ra climate what we can expect in the administration. hanks for joining me today, zach. guest: thanks for having me. host: this week, president trump signed an executive order taking president obama's clean power plant. can you tell us exactly what this order does and how it is? ant point, it this directed the environmental protection agency to start dismantling the clean power plan. the clean power plan was a regulation to reduce carbon plants, 32%rom power below 2005 levels by 2030. there's a lot else in this order that was signed.
8:35 am
halt ent obama had put a to federal coal leasing so coal coal that ould mine the government owns and so now president trump wants to restart that process. here's also going to be the beginning of unwinding some emissions on ane oil and gas drillers so president trump is trying to burden on those drillers. and there's also a retraction of agencies e of federal to consider climate change when they're writing regulations and projects. host: okay. and part of that executive order, as you mentioned, moratorium on leasing, coal mining leasing, on lands. how big of an impact will this have have? and will this lead to the return of some coal-mining jobs that fallen to the way side? guest: there definitely will be some sort of impact but there huge one. there's still a pretty big glut
8:36 am
of coal in the u.s. ou might see some applications come forward but for the most part, it's natural gas that's in the driver's seat in the sector. ty so i wouldn't expect to see a huge bump in federal coal leasing. host: okay. we are talking with zack colman. e is an environment and energy reporter about president trump's policies. energy democrats can call 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002. the new york times was writing a little bit about this executive order, talked about what impact abroad. ave it said with his order to move forward with the roll back, the te diplomats around world maneuvered to fill the vacuum left by the exit of the globe's second biggest climate polluter. nd then there's also the
8:37 am
implications on the paris deal entered, the paris climate pact. the president didn't really talk about that. we impact do you think should look out for looking forward? uest: it's interesting that there wasn't anything about the paris deal in the executive order. there's some internal discord at to whether use as they should stay in or leave that. effect of this is that it's going to be extremely the goals that president obama had put on the table in 2015. now you're going to see possibly ess carbon emission reductions from the electricity sector if the attempt to unwind the clean is successful. you're also not going to see president trump add on any new policies that are going to make a real substantive, you know, attempt emissions. and that was already needed no matter who came in after president obama. goal. lready a lofty so the question is: will the
8:38 am
u.s. continue to be a leader? who say lot of people this is just going to push action down to the state and local level. businesses, you've had mike bloomberg write columns saying means the hinks this u.s. is bowing out, they don't know the u.s., but there is going to be federal policy it doesn't sary and have to be a top-down regulation that republicans don't but congress ke, hasn't put much on the table either at this point. desiree on the emocratic line from buffalo, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you're on with zack colman. yes. : hi, zack. i was calling regarding the reversal. i don't understand why president trump would do such a thing. it's like he don't care about the environment. he do have grandchildren. he would want this world around, you know, the eautifulness, so his family -- his future generations
8:39 am
this world. he just don't care. i don't understand. in his family ne should pull his ear or something. guy needs somebody to tell him the right thing to do, don't know. host: let's let zack colman respond. guest: so president trump really campaigned on helping people in placia and the interior of the u.s. that really fell on hard times. a lot of those regions, coal decades ago, had been a prosperous energy. capitalizing i believe on a campaign promise to those voters, the people who supported him. people in his white house who wanted the paris agreement. there have been reports even his ivanka trump has had an influence on his willingness to stay in the paris but we really don't know if it's going to last in
8:40 am
the long term. him, it appears that he thinks getting these of the way will help appalacia reverse their fortunes. you look at energy markets and what analysts say, that is is, l a long shot, but this to him, is more about the people who voted for him than about generations in climate change. and the question about whether the u.s. stays part of the paris accord, which is to the planet from warming more than 3.6 degrees, the point here scientists say would be irrevocably locked into drought, floodings, and rising sea levels. what the impact might be should the u.s. pull out? new york times piece, it says, quote, harvard economics experts says one of the greatest concerns is what other key china, es, including india, and brazil will do when
8:41 am
on the reneges agreement, says professor economicsnvironmental at harvard. is that sort of ripple or domino effect possible? host: right. of the things the u.s. has had for decades is its soft them and you're looking at acquiescing this and relinquishing it in the paris back. ulling ea even if they don't pull back, paris n stay in the agreement and do nothing and be abiding by the paris agreement. still move forward with what president obama put on the table. there's a question of being an partner here and we all have to do our part. there's people in canada and china looking to take up the the fact of the matter is u.s. and china alone account for 45% of the world's emissions. if the u.s. isn't doing its part, it sends a signal to other countries that, well, if they're getting off the hook, why capacican't we? we're not nearly as prosperous,
8:42 am
so there's a concern about that. from thee secalling in republican line. you're on with zack colman. hi. r: i just wanted to say that i deplorable that my parents came from coal country in pennsylvania, and now in aleigh, north carolina, and this region of raleigh, there coal-mining e been plants that dumped coal refuge nto our waters and that are still not being cleaned up by that ate by the companies caused it. feel for people that were once in the coal-mining but we need to find a cleaner way. we don't need more people going into coal mines and getting
8:43 am
lack lungs and having their families having to deal without them being in their lives. purposes. we need to find new ways to have find jobs and do it with a new way. not with coal. destructing our native lands. okay. all right. let's let zack colman respond. guest: sure, you know, at this point, for coal miners in mean, i've spent time there and my grandfather himself was a coal miner in southern west virginia. it's not about coal, essentially. it's about having the lifestyle coal afforded. where else could you get a job high 0,000 a year with a school education? there are a lot of groups that
8:44 am
are working on some sort of diversification in appalacia and other parts of the ountry where coal mining is predominant. but you're looking at a lack of logistics and, you know, hilly at all,f you have roads you know, there are no major it's tion centers, so tough to produce a product and have it sold somewhere. some real e constraints here, not to mention broadband. internet access is pretty shoddy. and i think there are people who re really focusing on these efforts of how do we give coal life, but w way of they're slow and it's a cultural shift as well and it will just time. ong host: okay. wrote a piece er in the daily caller calling a boomtrump's presidency to america and the executive save on independence will the american people hundreds of billions of dollars every year
8:45 am
that would have been wasted on symbolic effort under president obama's former clean power plan and other regulations. know how effective the obama administration policies have been? is it important to look at cost saving as the president is doing? cost: well, at this point, saving is kind of tough to prove, because the regulations hadn't necessarily gone into especially if you look at the clean power plant. there's a lot of industries who this would ou know, raise our power rates, because we rely on coal and, therefore, we're going to have to pass this off to consumers and that will raise prices, and you can follow but, you al trend know, what president obama had evensed wasn't necessarily the driving reason that states were reducing their carbon emissions from their power sector. most states that complained about it or that filed a lawsuit about it were already meeting targets, e near-term even without taking a concerted step forward. natural rgely due to gas. that has become the predominant
8:46 am
in electricity and has become much cheaper with the hydraulic fracturing revolution in ernest in the late 2000s. host: this action doesn't reverse all of president obama's policy, as cnn its report. the executive order while sweeping, does not do everything thinks.p administration it is unlikely to bring a restoration of the coal industry. certain to be caught up in court for years and on its own u.s. out of the paris accord. so let's talk for a moment about the litigation that's going to ongoing. it was already -- the clean-power plan was already in the courts d and the supreme court halted it challenges went on. what lies ahead with this change in policy? guest: it's going to be a few years to figure out what's here. you're going to have to go through a process of not only -- if this is the route -- asking the federal
8:47 am
appellate court where the rule rule tly sits to take the back. basically, if the trump administration wanted to go down road, they could say we're the new sheriff in town, we have a different way of thinking bout this, can we should the our proposal? sure. y but along the way, they're going to have to go through a formal to underline that rule. you'd have to have public say they get and through that. they're going to have to write a rule, meanwhile, with a staff hat is not very happy right now, and they'd be asked to rewrite what they had spent years doing. a tough sell o be to the staff. and then they're going to do it, but it would be a tough sell. and then they're going to have to go through a formal process again once that rule is finished to complete it. then there's also opportunity for public comments and lawsuits. looking at a couple of places where it gets snagged up against the courts. from rick is calling alabama on the democratic line.
8:48 am
hi, rick. caller: how you doing. morning. you're on with zack colman. caller: yeah, i just wanted to west m originally from virginia, and i was just going -- the order is that they signed for the coal not going to do nothing -- uh, it's going to rape the mountains of west virginia. they're going to strip the virginia. f west that's what this order is about. when yeah, and you know, you go down there, i talked to people in west virginia and there's an interesting way of looking at it. lot of people who are willing to take some level of environmental disturbance to more coal mining, because that's what they know and that's what pays the bills. in general, hat, that does create a lot of
8:49 am
oncern amongst people who live in this surrounding area. there are people who are concerned about their water being affected and their waterways being affected, and there's also a lot of analysts who say that repealing these regulations, they aren't really going to bring the coal industry ack, especially in appalacia which, for decades, has declined including anization, coal from wyoming and that logical advancements allow them to scrub western coal. you're on with zack colman. things,yes, a couple of i'm out on the extremeness of going to non-regulations. regulations hese had stayed in place as obama had with -- we have to
8:50 am
in a miles per hour vehicle by 2025. do that, you would have had to use such light cars would be the so flimsy of vehicles, that our afety would have been extremely, extremely dangerous for us. thing is this agreement that we have signed, our tax dollars would most other r countries to clean up theirs. and when they say that we are cannot say a u countries is prosperous when debt over rillion in 60,000 for every woman and child in the united states. another thing, on the energy the energy, because it goes through so many steps of prepared, transported, and employeescilities and
8:51 am
would have been so expensive under the obama regulations, that there would and millions ions die every winter in the cold weather because they couldn't electric. host: okay. let's let zack colman address those. guest: i'll try to take them in order. so on the gas mileage, you're referring to president trump is review of fuel presidentandards that obama signed in 2012, and then last year. late mean, there's a lot of auto makers who said this might not be possible. right now ispening he trump administration is reviewing, going to take more data, and the obama administration originally had to finish that up. obviously, it wasn't going to be
8:52 am
the obama administration at that point but the criticism was that closed it too early. so now, the trump administration is oing to take another look, and there are some claims that will come out, and we'll see what those. ith as far as payments to other countries and whether we are prospero a sperous, this is all in relative sense, of course, if americans what earned compared to your that ast asian countries, there's a big disparity, but that is one of the reasons the is ng for other people another -- is a reason that a lot of people in the u.s. have the climate agreement to begin with. that is what president trump says, we shouldn't be paying for problems. 's the argument for the emerging getting aid t are is that, well, you, the u.s., have already achieved we didn'tization, and have or didn't recognize this global warming problem while you your economy up and your wealth, and we want to
8:53 am
get to that point too. should be el like we penalized for wanting to have what you have. so that's the argument and tension the he big 20-plus ocess, over the years that climate negotiations have been ongoing at the u.n. and lastly, on energy prices, yeah, there's big concern amongst some republicans that the regulations would raise osts on people with less disposable income, and that they would have to make hard choices about their electricity bill. concern people had, plan, the clean-power obama administration had said, yes, industry rates will time, you willer be using less of it because of fficiency improvements so your bill will not increase. but that was an out-term kind of projection. recognition in some parts of the country that increase. es would host: all right, phil from iowa
8:54 am
is on the independent line. hi, phil. caller: hello. you're on with zack colman. go ahead. caller: my comment is when you're talking about clean course, you're talking about wind and solar, and they're error expensive. said, it evious caller would make poor people even poorer. but the other thing is my to build a wind urbine and solar plaza takes almost as much energy to make them as you ever get out of them so you make no impact on the at all. as a matter of fact, you litter the country with solar panels windature -- wind turbines all have to be taken down one day. uest: yeah, with solar energy, they're energy sources that are not necessarily running all the ime, but once they're up, there's no independent. you know, the sun is shining or blowing, so it's actually not an energy-intensive process for producing energy at all. of course, it does take energy
8:55 am
turbine blades and to make the solar panels, but the same would be said of power play plant or natural gas power plant. for one, mparison one solar and wind use far less creation process than natural gas and coal. in fromthony is calling miller place, new york, on our independent line. good morning, anthony. and thank d morning, you so much very much for the opportunity, c-span, and thank ou so much to mr. colman for spending time with us this morning. mr. colman, my topic is for both you, actually, for the moderator and the guest. would ask the c-span to perhaps do some sort of, you know, a discussion on this topic. but the nuclear power and the law, disposal problem, by it was required that the waste from nuclear reactors be disposed safely
8:56 am
n a reserve in yuca mountain and then it was deemed unsafe to dispose of the waste there. we'veunderstanding is now reached twice f not three times the capacity of nuclear waste, radio active waste that's sitting on the water fronts in containment that was actually supposed to be a midway they've refueled all the reactors. most of the old --i mean, if point of e beyond the they were supposed to be shut down in 30 years, and they've the licensings on most of these power plants, and it's very dangerous. old rusty car, nuclear plants are no different function, sms that here the metals degrade, and electrolysis occurs, and we have reactors in ear stuff in the environment that was never supposed to be there.
8:57 am
and it was said back in the day about inl of this came the 1940s and 1950s that should a nuclear reactor go critical, burn 600 times hotter than the sun. of them off the coast of california and japan, which is not very far. zack colman to give a chance to react to this issue of nuclear waste and containment. go ahead. guest: nuclear waste has been a bugaboo in congress for quite some time. with president trump in office, that there is towards be momentum using yuca mountain. president obama had halted reviews on whether that was the appropriate place to put nuclear waste. however, that has restarted. right now, most tilities keep their used fuel on site. it's possible that some of the containers that you're referring waterways are -- you
8:58 am
might be referring to the nuclear plant, which is out in washington state, where a high level of defense waste. and that's a very different see at most at you nuclear power plants that supply our electricity. issue that has dogged the congress for a while. they are looking for a solution. legislation in the past. like that without senator harry reed in the stop to who had put a anything yuca related, that way to get be some back rolling through the senate. ut any nevada senator, even dean heller, who's a republican, would oppose that pleasure put se they believe it was on them and without their input. host: all right. our republican line from gray, louisiana. ronald. caller: hey. hi, how are y'all doing this
8:59 am
morning? comment on the coal output. as being in louisiana, i can relate to the gas output. the control of the drilling has and we ot of jobs here, are -- especially in the -- particularly depend on majority obs and the of jobs, i would say, high-paying jobs. as, you know, the people over virginia, around that area with the coal, so i complaint. nd their trump's got and high deficit, trillions of he needs to pay back. t seems to me that if they
9:00 am
would stop with the nuclear building of these things is so if they do nd so have allowed that, it would be a loss of agedy and life as it was in japan and back ago. and russia area. lots of loss of life. we only have a few seconds so i want to give zack colman a to your point.nd guest: natural gas has been louisiana. there's a lot of energy sources of he u.s. that have come age in the past 10 or so years. solar, which has come down tremendously in cost. there's technological advancements every year where that can onger blades
9:01 am
roduce more electricity and energy. formerly of the christian science monitor, energy nvironment and washington examiner. thank you so much for joining us
9:02 am
today. guest: thank you. we'll be ng up, talking to tom nichols, contributor to foreign affairs, in the ng his piece arch/april issue of how americans have lost faith in experts and why this could be a problem moving forward. be taking your cal calls. tuned, we'll be right back. >> this weekend on american history t.v. on c-span3. 6:45 p.m. eastern, james haley, author of "captive history of hawaii," talked about the life the liliuokalani. newhe had been working on a
9:03 am
constitution to give her royal owers, from this procession, she went back to the liliuani alace and that was the beginning of the overthrow. luctemburg n william on the legacy of 20th century presidents. >> how weak the american 19th ency was in the late century and how powerful an when theodore in evelt surrenders power order to shoot lions in africa. sunday, 4 p.m. eastern, real america, 1961 herbert hoover. > these delegates were determined not to let idealism way. in their not one that conflicted with
9:04 am
their own purposes and desires. american history t.v. schedule, go to >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a america's vice by cable television companies and is brought to you today by your satellite provider. >> and we are joined now by tom to ols, he is a contributor foreign affairs and also a u.s. war national security affairs professor. he is here to talk about his march/april 2017 issue of foreign affairs on how mericans have lost faith in experts and why thico


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on