Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  September 1, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT

4:00 pm
legitimate concern that many have about being overly prescriptive. and expectthe money them to do a little bit better. it left it up to them to follow the evidence, wouldn't that get us faster where we want to go? there were only three states in the country six years ago. washington was one of them, ohio was one of them. now there are 15 states. my projection in 10 years will be 40 or 45 states that will have their own performance funding. what you can do in providing incentives is providing incentives to graduate more low income students or incentives to get students through remediation in a more timely way or incentives to graduate students on time. as you pointed out, all the other federal grant programs you have as well as the health program would be very powerful.
4:01 pm
it doesn't take much money to put on the table -- no disrespect -- to get presidents interested in changing their ways. >> i'm impressed with the focus you have had bringing in low income students. is there a way to do it that does not discourage schools from reaching out and taking at risk students? that is often the critique -- you are going to make it less likely that you have low income, at risk students and you get punished for longer graduation times. is there a way that risk adjusts for schools reaching out to these populations? >>. absolutely. we should incentivize universities to do what is right and what works and we are not doing enough of that. idea that we would put great emphasis upon rating schools
4:02 pm
based on income levels after graduation is inherently problematic coming given the rest are dichter of a student income is their family income before they enroll in the first place. to do is find ways to reward institutions and reward students who are making a difference against the odds. currently we don't do that. there's a great incentive with regards to national rankings like u.s. news & world report to turn your back on low income and at risk students. one of the ironies with -- up 22n rates of percentage points as we have ine down over this time rankings because we are educating more students at lower cost. havegores -- s.a.t. scores declined because we are opening our doors to student to a previously succeeding and those
4:03 pm
are things that count against you in those national rankings. >> i think there's a way to take the billions of dollars we are using and incentivizing the kinds of programs in a way that is not descriptive and not overly punitive, suggesting that the outlier schools that have the worst retention rate may for a time have a portion of their federal aid compromised. hearings onseparate this topic, but i hope it is something we entertain as we move forward with the reconsideration of the authorization. this is very enlightening. is that variable model open source? any university access that online? is it proprietary? >> it is proprietary, but there are caveats to that.
4:04 pm
those kind of public-private partnerships are an important part of accelerating change. it enabled us to do things more quickly than if we developed it on our own. follows --eat is as there are ways to transfer these kinds of innovations more quickly. includesation alliance universities like georgia state, texas, michigan state. usinge this model predictive analytics and transfer to all of those universities. because of all the work that was done already, costs have introduced rightly and in one year, all 11 of those universities representing 400,000 students have predict the analytics-based tracking systems that are similar -- >> the community college system in louisiana or new york may already be doing it. if they wanted to take your open
4:05 pm
source bank, how much would it cost -- does it cost them -- is it like linen and i get it just by downloading or do they have to diet mark i'm sure there are costs to put in the data. involved in costs some institutions are developing systems on their own and some are developing their own. like georgiaution state, to have a tracking system like this would cost about $150,000 a year. that's difficult in a time of constrained budgets. >> how much is required in terms of data entry? work.is a good amount of you have to have clean and accurate data to put into the system, but that is not a major undertaking. at georgia state, it took about ask months. issomebody mentioned this particular for georgia state. if you have 800 aerials, you
4:06 pm
have a robust data set. other institutions are taking it on quickly, so you make me think it does have general applicability. >> i think so. these are indices -- indices that would transfer to other institutions. you were talking about why the doe does not publish hell grant graduation rates but it turns out they were required to. i spoke to the staff and a are not going to publish the rates until 2019 because once they were instructed to do so, they began collecting the data. proxyes me think there is data. let me complement you -- i've never had testimony with so many requisites. you are an academic in every sense of the word. atre must be some way to get this data as opposed to we were
4:07 pm
instructed to end six years later, we are going to give you a report. we can know the graduation rates now as opposed to waiting for a secure longitudinal study? >> many institutions calculate those rates on their own using their own internal research departments because they needed for institutional decision-making. demand those could studies come up, i don't think there is a way in terms of the short timeframe from a research perspective. data from 30 states including tennessee. they collect data on health student graduation rates. >> what about for-profits? x i don't know. >> is not available to the general public? >> i think a letter from this committee that the secretary of education --
4:08 pm
>> we have already requested that. andnstructed it in the bill six years from now, they are going to tell us and i find it incredible that we are blind to that which you generally know. >> i yield back. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to be a part of the discussion today. useof the things we still in the terminology is the phrase "nontraditional student." that we find the majority of students are what we used to call nontraditional students. we will ultimately have to change that human claytor. some reals us with
4:09 pm
challenges in terms of making we have the policies that increase the chance of these students completing their degrees or certificates on time with a lot less that but also avoid implementing unitive measures that would serve to impede their success. , i was of this year proud to into deuce with 13 of my colleagues in the senate and congressman bobby scott in the house a bill called the americas college promise act. it sees a new federal state partnership that would waive tuition and fees at community statess, with contributing one dollar for every three dollars of a federal investment. program,irst dollar meaning students can use pell grants and other financial aid to cover the many financial demands of the tainting and
4:10 pm
education. i'm very interested in the questions that have been imposed in the discussion we have been having today because when you start debate on a new idea, we don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. we can incorporate what seems to be working. america's college promise doesn't just require states to invest financially. it asks them to make reforms like we have been talking about -- expanding student supported services, improving remediation, stressing career pathways. these are reforms we will help this do -- we hope the student will -- we hope will help the student complete their course work and be prepared. what i want to ask you to weigh
4:11 pm
in a little further on his we have a choice of making this prescriptive and mandatory or providing a menu and requiring these reforms be a top did as a pro it so that it is not a one-size-fits-all. if we are going to get it right from the beginning as we initiate this debate on covering the first two years of community i want toal college, hear where you see that balance and i want to start -- i would welcome all of your comments on this. >> thank you. i grew up in a state and will reside another month in the state where the state constitution says higher education should be free as practicable. i think while we do not have free tuition, we have always had among the lowest tuition in the nation and i think that has made
4:12 pm
a difference for our state, for middle income kids like me, and i think that's why the emphasis on making higher education acceptable -- tuition is not the only costs and in ours, that the most challenging cost. that's why one-size-fits-all may not work everywhere, but the notion of making it acceptable for low income and middle-class students is important. you have to hold us accountable but we have told us accountable to create the structures that not just access because the open door then becomes a revolving door and we have to create structures and i would emphasize is important to look at structures that go across institutions. that's why i'm so proud of the work we have been doing around articulation agreements between all 58 colleges. students all where
4:13 pm
through the cracks. i think the federal government can do more to incentivize and encourage those kinds of statewide agreements, embracing the swirl that is the reality of students going across multiple institutions. >> thank you. >> i spent most of my life pushing affordability, but i would couple that with what you said before. we have a lot of people going to college -- the highest ever in a recession, but we don't have the reform necessary. whether it is the austan model or some of the models done at georgia state or the tennessee tech center that has an 80% placement rate, i would make models or menus where there is evidence that they actually succeed in delivery.
4:14 pm
menus where there's evidence of success and there is the of evidence out there for colleges like georgia state and austan who have done this very successfully. >> the one caution i was at is that we have run lots of data and analytics at georgia state and we found there is a sweet spot where if students have their cost covered, their completion rates are lower than those who have a little skin in the game. i think the proposal overall is a and what the between 7% and 15 to 20% of the total cost, if that's what the student has to pay, they have more motivation and persistence. thatwould just add programs need to be targeted. it's unlikely anyone of the programs we talked about today that are evidence-based will be
4:15 pm
applicable to all institutions and students. it is important to give the time and resources in order to develop programs that will work. georgia state university is a great example. it took them a decade to get where they are and it's in wharton to remember that. these changes do not happen immediately and overnight. mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing and reminding us to be cautious about one-size-fits-all . as i listened to the testimony today, i'm reminded that policy is one thing and implementation is something else. you can have the best policy in the world and terrible implementation and you don't get the results you need. i think we compound that problem by measuring the wrong thing. this gainful employment stuff has made it difficult for a number of our institutions because the correlation on income is what your family's
4:16 pm
income looked like, not what the institution looked like, but we decided that would be a good way to measure outcomes. there's a lot to pay attention to in the field, but i want to spend my time -- georgia state has done some incredible things and amazing accomplishments. i'm wondering if you can describe what the gps program looks like from the students perspective. how do i know i'm at georgia state in it of some lace else? that my experience would be different? top 30,000 students, 800 factors, but from the student's perspective, what does that look like us to mark x from the students perspective, we have supported program paths for all students. challenge is we were not
4:17 pm
enforcing it before. now students who are following their maps and doing every thing right will hear very little from a cousin no alerts are going off. students who are making mistakes will hear from us almost immediately. we are concentrating the precious resources we haven't and more, advisers among those who need them most. they are getting together a divisors more quickly and we've made a move to bring the advisers to the classroom the first fall weeks of the semester get to knownts their advisors on a one to one basis. but the interactions are much more personalized. it's not just come in and see me and we will shoot the breeze. it's i saw you registered for your spring class. you are in the wrong sequence. as a result, the students are more responsive and get to know the staff on a more personal level. if the student is struggling, the system can be annoying
4:18 pm
because they are going to have lots of interventions. so we've been pulling our students since we went live and not a single one has complained. >> tell me what would be away from the map at you reach out to the students. >> one simple example of verdict of analytics is we found the first grade a student gets in what becomes his or her major is predictive of their graduation rate. their firsta c in course, they are graduating at a 25% clip. in the past, we would do nothing with that c student to upper level work that more demanding and whatever weaknesses were revealed become exacerbated. , across the whole curriculum is we trace those markers and have an immediate intervention. we bring them in, they go to
4:19 pm
tutoring, whatever we diagnose is the problem. the idea is correct the issue before they waste money and time and themselves at risk. how we measure i success for institutions and student. before we passed the reauthorization of what used to be called no child left behind, which measured the wrong thing. it said these are successful schools because these kids are at a high status of these are ailing and these kids were actually growing while we are there. we are telling the world where these teachers are driving success are failures and one thing you said was we are to reward students and institutions who are making a difference against the odds. how do we do that? >> weed to incentivize in lots
4:20 pm
of ways from federal grant programs which are often this note upon institutions meeting those markers in the most traditional sense it has the highest graduation rates but maybe not the greatest struggles. be much more flexible about the way we assign financial aid. it is in many cases a one-size-fits-all model where students who are not meeting progress markers are denied aid and others are denied -- others are granted it. aree could show students doing what they need to do with the knee context of their ability and resources and making significant progress. >> if you don't mind a follow-up after the panel to get your list. chairman and mr. thank you all for being here. know helping students should be a high priority and i know you see this. i've read your testimony and
4:21 pm
provided a lot of good information about programs colleges can adopt to improve outcomes. but only a few colleges are showing real leadership in this area. to focus on federal policies that can push schools harder in that direction. mr. jones, your organization works with golden state's to help improve outcomes for students. do colleges have enough incentive to improve student success? >> they do not. wascally, the old incentive what we call the 10 day or 14 day count. based on if money you were there on the 10th day and the 11th day did make a difference. states have moved rapidly to change that in the federal in theent is powerful money you provide both in the hell money and other grant programs. incentives to graduate
4:22 pm
more students and graduate them in a more timely way because they will incur less that, get them through remediation, those are incentives you could easily do and put in programs. this --t to underline putting financial incentives in place so schools have a reason to invest, not just getting the students in the door but having them succeed. when we talk about improving student success, we are not just talking about getting students .hrough a graduation ceremony we are talking about making sure students leave college with an education that helps them succeed. so i want to turn to you on this -- which colleges are doing a better or worse job at making sure students are paired for good jobs after they graduate? themat is an increasingly orton topic in my world.
4:23 pm
where i think the scalable growth is is in using ada and analytics to help us advise and promote with career and post-graduation knowledge with our students. ,e have now as part of our warm and alliance with a vendor tracking data for job listings across the country every day. as students come in at georgia state and pick majors, they can offer, the major we 25 to 30 careers that are most likely to result from empirical basis from entering. they can see with the starting salary is like -- aboutnderstand your point helping students find what career paths may be most important, but i heard you say earlier or know that you referred to predatory institutions.
4:24 pm
we are not just talking about how we got more students to study things that are going to whereful, it's about institutions are focus. would you like to say a word about that? x absolutely. theee at georgia state backend of some of these predatory practices because our student population is largely at risk. two students arriving this fall is transfer students who already have 100 house and dollars of debt. we hear the stories and ask what happens when they get to campus and it's usually a trail of rogan promises and misleading claims, often times the students have very little usable credit. approached byts lenders who say not to fill out the fast one because it's complicated but fill out this sheet of paper and get the money and never explain the difference. >> 100,000 dollars of debt and very little credit that will transfer.
4:25 pm
for-profit colleges seem more ink -- see more interested shareholder success. four students who go to a for-profit college default. that means they are failing at least one in five of their students. let me see if i can wrap this up with a note. policies would give for-profit colleges and incentive to improve outcomes for their students? >> you should look at the creditors. right now it's all about resources for college, but it -- it ought to be about outcomes. do they get jobs? what kind of debt ratios do they serve and the creditors have been very lax looking at any of those factors in terms of free accrediting schools. i can't imagine they just have not met those standards.
4:26 pm
i would look at the creditors and how they do it and rewrite it. private and public. i will put this in as a question for the record for everyone here. we just have to go back to the fact that the federal government is shoveling out 150,000 dollars every year to help students attend college. some schools are doing their part to make sure those dollars are well spent, but some are not. we work on the higher education act, it is critical to focus on whether all colleges $150 billiono that has the right incentives to invest in the success of their students. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank our panelists today for a really important discussion. as we work to reauthorize the higher education act, you've given us a lot to ponder and think about.
4:27 pm
we want to make sure all young people today and adults from all walks of life have access and this has been an important part of that discussion. >> this has been a very helpful hearing and a reminder of how big, complex and diverse our system of higher education is. it makes me think with all these really good ideas, 75, 70 6% of our students go to public two-year schools were four years , 76% of our5% students go to public two-year school or for your will. the board of trustees all rushing around street with one another to find out what north carolina is doing. billw i used to go see friday and would try to learn everything i could about north carolina plus higher education system. renick has seen a
4:28 pm
great many of our other institutions work to adopt is progress. we spend a lot of money here. we have a chance in the next few months to make sure we spend it , to create an environment in which you can do more of what you are doing without imposing on you what might be a very good idea and works here but what does not necessarily work here. you with predatory practices that might exist in other places, as you follow up , would you like to suggest ways for financial aid
4:29 pm
so that we can encourage the ways that have been adopt thing on their own. if there's an appropriate way to do that, we ought to consider it. there are things should definitely not do that would get in the way of letting that happen, i would like to hear that as well. >> i've got a final speech here, but i don't see it. the hearing record will remain open for 10 days to submit additional comments. we plan to hold the next hearing in september. thank you for being here today. the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,
4:30 pm
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the higher education act was signed in to law by president johnson in 1965. it increases the federal money given to universities and scholarships, low interest loans and created the americorps, the national teachers more. it is a law that has been renewed nine times and the law lapsed in 2013. the labor and pensions committee is considering the reauthorization of the higher education act. that is one of the hearings we just showed you. enough toes doing ensure students graduate. -- forare a student, college administrators -- we also have
4:31 pm
comments to read rum they spoke. if you want to tweet us, that is at c-span. ronnie on our. others line. caller: we have eight kids and my seventh child just enrolled at a school here in new orleans. his senior year quite seriously with the ac t and scored a 17. he got accepted and is going to take one read mediation course. but if it wasn't for the grants and right now, we have to take out a loan -- the tuition is a nominal. i went to a three-day orientation to let him know how serious --
4:32 pm
host: what do you expect of that college to help your son graduate? caller: the name of the university is xavier university of new orleans. he's going to major in computer science, he will take up mandarin at the university and they are ensuring a lot of support with different support they hadd programs and mentors on campus that met with us and they have been in contact with him since school has started. asked what is the opportunity of job placement after this and a insured some serious job placement for him in his degree field. studentt's hear from a asked in augusta, georgia. where are you going to school? [indiscernible]
4:33 pm
host: what do you think of our question about the role of colleges in ensuring that you graduate? caller: they have to look out for themselves comes to at the end of the day, i don't feel like they are doing enough. andthere were discussions low income students such as myself -- my mother makes below $30,000 a year and we are the ones being exploited. i started at a historically low incomege, but households are being taken advantage of because the people who are looking out -- they are getting in all of this debt -- you go to school so much and
4:34 pm
, you he do get a job cannot get your degree if you still oh the school money. predominantly white institutions .o have better resources son was able to take mandarin and that's great. deterioration of education -- host: what is your degree and what field do you hope to work in? caller: i'm a history major and i want to get into secondary education. my interests are broad and i want to get my foot in the door with education. host: thank you for being part of the conversation. let's hear from jan and scituate -- in cincinnati. i'm a senior and i'm
4:35 pm
really concerned about a vague worldwide war, so i don't know how in the world their fees are 2013, it wasuntil all ofthen it plunged on them, the higher interest rates, and they are trying to pay that off and are not in jobs or anything. i don't know how you can continue to educate and charge them a big fee for the college when they cannot afford to pay it back, especially with war hitting us in a year or two. host: and those outstanding or $1.3 to 1.2 trillion trillion. at what administrator are you a
4:36 pm
school? at a community college. my issue is not so much related my wife is aollege teacher at a chinese school and all of her students have graduated and all have these ambitions of going to the best of the colleges. but they are it ating between 280,000 $530,000 for their college education. expenses.he my interest is as a community college person.
4:37 pm
sinai andw, mount some other top medical schools have made an arrangement where they accept into edible school with out demanding any science people because they say in social sciences become better doctors because they know how to handle people. now, they are taking them at the end of their sophomore year him adjust six years for medical school, just what it is in europe right now. if therey question -- are ways out of two years of college to get into top ethical think inhow can we terms of asking these kids to pay between $200,000 and
4:38 pm
$500,000 just for the right to go to medical school when the situation with the medical -- students graduate from our schools who go there. at this time when the programs are changing, it seems three,ionable to ask to, five years from now, you won't need college anymore. >> one of the views from administrators -- our colleges doing enough to ensure students graduate? we welcome your comments on a spoke. lots of comments there -- this one says colleges should have programs for students struggling with their studies or finances. these are two main reasons for dropping out. our colleges doing
4:39 pm
enough to make sure students graduate. our caller now from georgia. caller: good afternoon. previous caller with regards to the enormous cost of higher education. i have a son that made it into 27,000 tech, out of applicants, i was extremely proud of him. but it is ridiculous what many of these colleges allow. his roommate was a valedictorian but guess what? they went and joined a fraternity and he was hazed and i held my son in my arms in a mental health tuition based on the stupidity of hazing and greek life -- it is not what it used to be.
4:40 pm
it is disgusting. whenther thing i think is colleges allow such things and i went and spoke to arne duncan and that part of it. number two, i put my son in a private institution. i have to deplete my own retirement funds to put my son through college. they do not have remedial and enough assistance in the private colleges. our government is putting more money in armaments -- i'm a translator and it is pathetic. they allow people who flunk the exam to get a license to be an interpreter in the court. they don't put enough weight on the quality of work a person should perform to have the
4:41 pm
qualifications to perform a job. we don't put enough weight on languages. we don't care if they speak redneck english. our educational systems are failing our students. provost also heard the from the university of georgia system testifying before the senate committee and the headline from the chattanooga chancellorabout the -- the georgia chancellor focused on increasing college graduation rates. the chancellor said it's estimated there is 1.2 million people in georgia who had some level of college and we want them to come back to school and finish their degree and get training with a different career. view from the chancellor of the georgia university system. jeff is next from elizabethtown
4:42 pm
hockey. an administrator there. what school? i was an administrator in broward county, florida for many years. host: what is your take? but on this is related, point. there's relation between for-profit and predatory colleges entering high schools to speak with students who are captive in classes without in question by school officials. usually, when a college rep comes to a high school campus, they come to the titans office or advisors office, where there is at least some kind of questioning of the items that have mentioned here. the way they are getting around it now is they form relationships with teachers, art teachers, industrial arts teachers, journalism teachers, and they get themselves invited
4:43 pm
by means of lots of lavish gifts to the teacher. they get themselves invited directly into the classroom is not able orer not willing to question their presentation, so the students captive in that classroom are faced with hearing without contradiction anything the for-profit people have to say. they don't hear about job basement rates, graduation rates , the tuition factor is not even mentioned by these people because they know it is a non-cell. administrators are not doing enough to keep these people at of the classrooms. host: on the high school level? caller: yes. it is related, but when these comments without fear of contradiction, they are
4:44 pm
subject to all kinds of at the school system i were again, one of the school board members was a shareholder in one of these or profit colleges. host: let's look at what some people are saying on twitter. $60,000 in debt -- my son graduated but there's no effective job placement. they need jobs. let's hear from a student as we wrap up. ,nna is in corpus christi texas. in the school you are going to? caller: i attend texas a&m university. i'm a graduate student, that my comment is more about job placement and extremely large tuition rates students have to pay. as a high school student, everybody wanted to attend an ivy league school and a lot are
4:45 pm
just prohibited from attending school because of the tuition. i went off to get my masters at columbia, which is a very prestigious school. i'm currently in massive debt. i feel if you attend a school like that and place so much of your own finances at stake, job basement should the the number one priority after two years of intense education and getting their masters degree. i was unable to find a job or a year, but not for lack of trying. -- lack of applying. i had to go back to get my phd and again, as a graduate student, i'm being paid a very miniscule amount to be paying tuition, which if you think about it, for a student to live on $1600 a month while also paying their own tuition is
4:46 pm
ridiculous. host: what would you have the schools do? from the school you went to and your graduate degree? what was missing that you had to do all the heavy lifting yourself? where were they in the process? at my school, there was no talk of job placement. the career fair is what you had. an ivy league school like columbia, there is no talk of career placement. any kind of outreach or internships were missing. problematic and i'm worried about what would happen after i graduate in december. looking for jobs currently, it is hard. host: if you had to do it all over again and the debt you have
4:47 pm
incurred, would you do it again? it'sr: i would, but partially because i love my career. host: thank you for being with us. thanks for all your calls and comments. coming up tonight on the c-span networks, we will start rings off with a look at the aurora nuclear agreement as congress returns next week. we will show you a speech from august as president obama lays out his vision for the iranian nuclear agreement and testimony from negotiators. it's x and authors on the american civil war. and we visit events related to the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of rashida and not a sake. and notngs of hiroshima a sake -- nagasaki. news kaiser health
4:48 pm
correspondent julie appleby looks at the so-called cadillac tax scheduled to take up that -- scheduled to take effect and what it means for employers and employees. after that, peter grier of the christian science monitor, a spotlight on the magazines series and he talks about how voters really choose a presidential candidate in a campaign. that's washington journal, tomorrow morning, live every morning at evan :00 a.m. eastern. president obama continues his three-day trip to alaska and above the arctic circle. yesterday afternoon, he laid out a vision of climate change for the state and the country. we talked about that on this morning off "washington journal." le leadern weiss, he is a of campaigns.
4:49 pm
who focuseseutzer on energy economics and climate change. thank you for joining us. the president prepares to travel to alaska to focus on climate change and global warming. he will be the first president to travel to the arctic circle. what can we expect? guest: i think the president is going to talk a lot about the need to make our communities more resilience to the impact of climate change. in alaska, for example, there are dozens of cities that are threatened from either erosion or softening tundra. they either have to be rebuilt or relocated, and that is going to cost millions and millions and millions of dollars. 85% of the communities in alaska face this. guest: i don't know. there has been warming for decades in a lot of places. what i know is that this is something the president has also
4:50 pm
been shilling for. it is not a climate ban. it will do nothing for global warming. the administrator of the epa admitted that as a -- at a hearing. he says this is doing essentially nothing to worldwide global temperatures. it is washington taking control of energy. it is not about climate. host: is global warming for real? guest: global warming is real and we have had global warming since the end of the last ice age. apertures have been going up. they have been going up in the 1979 to the end of the 90's, they went up faster than they had been going up. they have slowed down dramatically depending on which endpoint to pick and whether you look at satellite or service temperatures. they are either totally flattened or they have shipped -- slowed down a lot. is warming, what we
4:51 pm
don't know is how dramatic and is and how bad is going to be if it is bad at all. host: moving forward what do you think is the best remedy? guest: the best remedy is that we don't know what is going to be the challenge. if we have the most vibrant, robust economy we will best be able to handle whatever those challenges are. we want a strong economy to respond, whether it is relocating villages, being prepared for madmen with nuclear weapons, it is just depressing to see the huge poverty problems in the world. we want to see strong economic growth. the bestfortunately scientists we have just released this earlier this year, showing a steady increase in worldwide in temperature over the next 25 years contrary to what you said. and in fact, as a matter of
4:52 pm
fact, the world's best scientists, including from the national academy of sciences, from noaa, from nasa, all agree that climate change is real. it is here. nasa is the agency that can shoot off a rocket and have it .ome right by pluto they are the ones that are warning us about climate change. there is some uncertainty about climate, which is to say, just like smoking, i can't tell you how many cigarettes you have to smoke before you get lung disease. doubt, smoking cigarettes will lead to lung disease. not in everybody, but it will. how many cigarettes? we don't know. same with climate change. pump carbonue to dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, mobile sector is warming. some of the best scientific
4:53 pm
institutions across the world have all said this and we have seen the impact. for example in the last 20 years know what came out and said -- noaa came out and said the level has risen. we are seeing flooding in miami now. climate change is real and it is caused by humans. host: i will give you both credit because you both came prepared with your charts. the you have a different chart? guest: i have a different chart. i would like to show mine. dan got to show his. nasa putting people on the moon and doing all these wonderful things, however if you look at the nasa generated temperature from their satellites, which cover the whole world, and not just this study which used the from old engine input on ships, for some reason that is the only way they the last 10rming in years. if you look at the satellite data it is very clear.
4:54 pm
it goes up and down and up and down. it has been static for the last 10 or 15 years. that is the nasa data that i handed you. then --plain to me guest: explain to me then, why have nine of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the past 10 years? now we are on track in 2015 to have an even hotter your? the reality is -- guest: can i answer your question? guest: no. atmosphererer, scientists at university of california at berkeley, he was a skeptic. he got money from the koch brothers. he concluded not only is the planet warming, but it is caused by humans. you would be hard-pressed to find a climate scientist who has your -- guest: he did not say anything to contradict what i said.
4:55 pm
he simply found that it is -- there is warming and some of it is caused by humans. you said can i find credible scientists? started this data, they have found that there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years. that is pretty straightforward. we get two different perspectives on the issue of global warming and climate change. the white house releasing this youtube video in advance of the president's trip to alaska. [video clip] hi everybody.a: later this month i going to alaska and i am going because alaskans are on the frontline of one of the greatest challenges we face the century. climate change. climate change once seemed like a problem for future generations, but for most americans it is already a reality. droughts, longer wildfire
4:56 pm
seasons. some of our cities even flood at high tide. in alaska the hunting and way of that has been a life and jobs for generations are threatened. as alaskan permafrost melts, some towns are sinking into the ground. naturalonal -- treasures are at risk. while i am there i will meet with americans were dealing with climate change every day and i will talk with other nations about how we can tackle this challenge together. i hope you will follow along at ouse.cov/alaska. this is not just a preview of what will happen if we don't take action, the alarm bells are ringing. as long as i am president we believe world to meet this threat before it is too late. host: your reaction, your
4:57 pm
response? guest: the president has been saying things that are's simply not true. -- are simply not true. the glaciers are retreating but they have been the last ice age. this is nothing new. sometimes they speed up, sometimes they slow down. we are not heading to a catastrophe. a chartance, here is from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. it is something called the palmer hydraulic. -- on that there is no the upper part that is where it is wet. on the lower part that is the drought. the worst drop by far, the dust bowl the 1930's. the governmental panel on climate change says the same thing. no trends droughts, no transit hurricanes, no trend in tornadoes.
4:58 pm
host: one other issue involving the president. he allowed drilling off the coast of alaska. guest: we are very disappointed. we believe the ecosystem off the coast of alaska is far too fragile. there is not the onshore recovery facilities. facilities inse the gulf coast when we had the bp horrible oil spill five years ago. there is nothing like that on the short in northern alaska, none of the infrastructure to help recovery should there be a blowout. we are very disappointed. and if you look at his overall record, he has been one of the greatest leaders trying to address climate change and we have ever seen. occasionally he strikes out. host: we appreciate your passion for the issues.
4:59 pm
we know our viewers want to weigh in as well. let's keep our answers brief so we can get as many as possible. we begin with mike joining us from florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple quick things i wanted to get over. i have seen mr. weiss on television speaking be the untruths. agome or you, not too long medical doctors prescribed or endorsed cigarette smoking. just because someone says they are scientist, you really have to look and see where they are coming from. the majority of scientists, there is the 97 percent figure that is often pulled out, that is a lie. anyone who wants to get involved at looking at the numbers rather than reading the rhetoric or propaganda can find that. understand, there was a global warming. during the last ice age. if iwere correctly --
5:00 pm
remember correctly there were no co2 emissions about time. there is also across the solar system right now the same trends in atmospheric temperature increases that you are addressing. i am pretty sure there is no one driving cars on jupiter. the theory is, and it is not a consistent concept throughout the scientific community, that andossibly is sunspots solar flares and those sort of things. when you look at the solution the extreme environmentalists are offering, they are pushing -- and trade that are from host: i will stop you there. we'll get a response. guest: first of all the caller mentioned the ice age. in fact there are is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than
5:01 pm
there has been in the last 800,000 years. second, he mentioned that 97% of scientists who have written. reviewed studies about climate change over the last 20 years, included -- concluded that climate change is real. 97% of those studies that were peer-reviewed concluded that. you 97 doctors tell me better have that funny love on your lung checked out, and three say don't worry about, who are you going to listen to? and 97, not the three. the caller talked about cap and trade. you would be surprised to learn that cap and trade was invented by the ronald reagan administration. there the first ones to ever use cap and traded to reduce lead in our gasoline. it worked. it got as gasoline but at a much cheaper cost. that it was used to reduce
5:02 pm
sulfide dioxide pollution from power plants. atin, the reduction occurred one third of the cost that was predicted and 1/10 of the cost that the industry said. cap and trade was introduced by reagan and use more about bush. that is not the only way that people have to get reductions. there are efficiency manager -- measures, fuel switches. we need to reduce the carbon pollution now before levels in our atmosphere is sore beyond anything we have seen in the last several thousand years. host: you can get more information by logging onto the league of conservation voters website. it is lcv.org. of course there is also the heritage foundation, heritage.or g. this is don. don, good morning. carle will move on to joining us from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning.
5:03 pm
the great moral philosopher yogi berra once said it is hard to make production, especially about the future. i oftenhe things that have an conversation with people who believe in climate science is i say to them, you think that earth is going to warm don't you? and i say prove it. science is climate not really science. it's modeling. you build a model and you protect the future. but of course it is impossible to prove. science is really about testing hypotheses which you are able to prove or disprove. these aren't really science and to say that the science is settled is completely preposterous. it is not science, it is model building. host: thank you. david kreutzer your response. guest: yes. state --ok at the icc iccc, the doom and gloom
5:04 pm
productions are from modeling projections. ccc,, they have an ensemble of models. they can't even narrowed down to 10. if you plug those models in and from aboutng them 1990 and compare them to actual temperatures, right now the projections are so out of range that with 5% certainty you can say the models are not describing what is going on. the temperatures are less than half of what the projection was. that there is no impact from co2, which i think is wrong, are actually making more accurate production than models. guest: it's interesting. just like we don't know how many cigarettes europe to smoke before you get lung disease, we don't know how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will
5:05 pm
lead to how much temperature rise. but we are already seeing the impact of climate change which is, for example, two inch sea level rise over the last 20 years. there are glaciers on lands that are melting and straining into the ocean. quick --ls show slower glacial melts and we are actually were observing. the reality is, yes, we could wait until we have exact, 100% proof, but by that time it will be too late to act because there will be way too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. then we will be in a whole lot of trouble. invest iny we need to clean energy, create jobs, lower energy prices and buy insurance policies in case the 97% of the scientists are wrong and the 3% of scientists are right. host: 10 years ago we thought
5:06 pm
happened with hurricane katrina, one of the deadliest and most costly storms in the u.s. mainland. guest: we can look at the trends. i have a chart here -- excuse me, i do not have the one on hurricanes but if you go to noah's site and look with the latest report, over the last century, there has been no trend in hurricanes. yes, we are going to have a record-breaking hurricanes with without co2 emissions. they're not going to stop regardless of what we do, so we can have talks about we don't know how many cigarettes cause cancer, but right now, we are not seeing any increase in hurricane activity. we are not seeing any increase in strength, they go up and down, up and down and the 1970's were a more violent that gave them we have had lately and we currently have had the longest drought in the recorded history of the united states of category three or higher of a hurricane
5:07 pm
making landfall, over eight years, i think nine years. that will stop. when it does, dan is going to say, see, we have global warming. cornelia is next from idaho on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i probably have a little bit of a different take. i just would quickly mention that i have heard at least that iceland or greenland at one time was habitable and much more warmer than it is today back in the 1200s or 1300s, something in that neighborhood and that the earth was much warmer back in, so i do think there are trends that go up one way and they go down another way and it is all natural. i have also heard that i think canada, the actually added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any human pollution ever could or advertise at this time. i do think that so much as a is calledming, now it
5:08 pm
climate change because they realize global warming has slowed down. it is actually politically motivated. there is something called club of rome, a global ink tank. they have admitted to using global warming as an impetus to reduce the population of the world. host: thank you. dan weiss? caller: i don't know anything about the club of rome, but i do know that the caller is partially correct which is that in places with lots of organic land are like the peapod northern candidate or northern alaska or siberia where they are frozen tundra's, as the earth thaw, those areas will and release carbon pollution, and that will heat up the planet and they will fall even more. it is a self reinforcing cycle and that is a real danger. it has not happened yet, but it
5:09 pm
is in the process of happening which is why we need to reduce u.s. and world light and missions. first, we have to do if you. we are traditionally the largest polluter in the atmosphere and we have to reduce our emissions and we need to work with other countries to get them to reduce their pollution as well which is also underway. go to an underlying issue which is the cost of clean air rules. kelly trust the epa to give us an accurate estimate of what these costs are because the supreme court disagrees? caller: look at your tax, no ideas of radical, but they detected a study and found that the claim power plant that would require utilities for the first time to reduce the carbon pollution. right now, carbon pollution is completely uncontrolled and they can use as much of it and we will save the american homeowner about $45 billion in net electricity costs by 2030.
5:10 pm
$45 billion according to georgia tech. not according to the epa. i think that is a pretty credible idea that we are going to save, but the other thing is the market is not free if other people have to pay the cost of activity. right now, if you use utility that puts carbon pollution and that was becoming you do not pay the cost of that but other people do in terms of health early, immortality -- mortality or death, wildfires, another record wildfire season which is expected to get six times worse as the planet warms, all of these and other things are unpaid costs of climate change. society is hanging and it is keeping the price of the dirtiest electricity artificially low. caller: i've got to on -- guest: i got to weigh in on the bunch. first, you talk about georgia tech in their study. , energy information
5:11 pm
administration, has already modeled the impact -- this is the obama administration's department of energy, their modeling of the impact of the clean power plan shows that over the decade of the 20's, there will be lost income of one taurean dollars. they will be years in the 20's isn the employment shortfall 500,000 jobs, they will lose 500,000 jobs, and $1 trillion. this is not the denier scientist or the power companies, or the koch brothers. this is the department of energy's own estimate. second, dan constantly -- caller: what are my ills -- guest: one of my house? e myi ills? that's an insult. guest: ok, not your ills. thinking of carbon dioxide, a powerless and odorless gas say it is the same thing as said,
5:12 pm
why do they say that? people were getting a bit about global warming and the polls show that it comes in last in terms of environmental worries. what is first is clean air and clean water, so they have interesting carbon dioxide to look like soot because they know people do not care about the degree of warming but they do care about soot. he says andhat others say, we have had policies for decades and decades controlling soot emissions. producescoal plant less admissions than the plants we had decades ago. dan will probably jump in and say yes, because of the clean air act which counters what he said earlier that we do not control it. host: let's get to jim from indiana. another half-hour for a chance to weigh in. guest: my wife went to indiana university. host: jim, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you folks this morning?
5:13 pm
i have a couple points i would like to make. i am old enough to remember back in the 1970's and almost every publication like "time," "newsweek," that the ice age was coming, ok? so, i would like to know what the scientists were thinking back then. number two, i think the sun controls our weather here. i think we have nothing to do with it. number three, i think this is all just a money grab by a politicians who want to tax the people of america and the world because we all know what china is -- we all know that china is not going to go along with this. host: there was a number of thing that the -- guest: there is a number of things that the caller has misperceptions about. first about, it was study by several people and evolved in the early 1980's and "newsweek"
5:14 pm
retracted their story a couple of years later, so that was debunked. thatve never had a problem hasn't received more studies for more scientists than climate change. going to the clean power plan, epa has found and predicted that there will be net job growth. job growth of 100,000 jobs. annually, we would do's debt by 3600 dollars and prevent 90,000 asthma attacks a year. the next benefits are going to be 45 billion dollars annually. we were hit 25 years ago talking about controls on acid rain, opponents would have said the same thing that dave is saying that it will cost too much, it will cost jobs. in fact, none of those things happened. the cost came in about one quarter of what people predicted. we saved tens of thousands of lives and have had net benefits of about $30 for every dollar in none of the naysayers
5:15 pm
predictions have actually come true. go back just a few years ago, the administration -- the obama administration missed control on mercury pollution and neurotoxins from power plants for the first time ever. the chamber of commerce said they would cap rolling blackouts -- has that occurred? they said we will lose jobs in indiana, in fact, there are 100,000 more people working when we made the prediction. we have heard this song and dance before. it has always been wrong and it will be wrong again. host: dan weiss and david kreutzer. steve is next from ohio. the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. there are so many points here. let me start with a big one. several of the panelists and the questioners have pointed out the point of the ice age business. let me just say that we are in the ice age now, the
5:16 pm
interglacial period. let's just get that point going to start with. secondly, i think dave has brought up the point that he brings up some selected charts and makes a proclamation that there is no trend, there is no climate change. well, that is a fine prediction on his point but then he says the other side cannot make predictions with models, so dave, you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say others cannot -- notcan't say others can predict and then predict. they say, well, these scientists are model builders and are not really know, you're the barest the big guy here to give us r isght, well, --yogi bea the guy to give us insight, well, no, we knew that carbon dioxide was a key prepping gas and we have shown that from understanding the atmosphere of other planets. let's just saving us, ok?
5:17 pm
-- let's just say the mess, ok -- venus, ok? we know that carbon dioxide is increasing over time, so let's get with the program. we know that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas, we know that it is going into the atmosphere, so dave should get on his program. too.: i have ills, [laughter] can i answer? i'm not making predictions, i'm saying they do not make turns. that is first about. -- he, there have been no still keeps talking about asthma as if you get that with co2. asthma has no response to co2. he knows it is not, but he wants to make people think that co2 will be my particulate matter or it will make us sick because
5:18 pm
people respond to that. this is a power grab. whether we think there is global warming or not and the models, what is absolutely clear is that this clean power plan will have no discernible impact on global warming. it is a power grab. it is part of a bigger agenda. people just want to take control of busybodies. when of the most despicable things, in my mind, if you were to promote, like george soros does, a guy with $24 billion has been promoting policy successfully to kill the coal industry. this past month, he bought one million shares of peabody coal the twolf million of biggest coal companies in the world. drivemotes companies that them to bankruptcy and then by some. haserms of science, the epa
5:19 pm
the science advisory committee for the clean air act and they have reported. onse are specific to check whether the epa's science is good or not. since 2000, the members of these boards in these committees have been on grants totaling $140 million from the epa. the people that are supposed to be looking over their shoulder at apa are getting 100 relay dollars from the epa. theaises questions about intent of these people. i cannot say that they are dishonest or they are not trying to do good science, but it certainly talks about selected and selectivity bias when it comes to win scientists analyzed the epa's clients. i want to put another issue on the table. host: when you look at china, india, africa, and other third world countries and the pollutants that these countries commit in the air, how big of a problem is that in the overall global warming?
5:20 pm
this anything that we do help spread these countries? guest: absolutely. first of all, historically, the united states is the number one polluter of the atmosphere carbon pollution. china in the last few years has overtaken us. however, they are also investing more money than we are in clean energy. i think $55d billion in clean energy in 2013 and we were about $40 billion. we were second. because of the korean power plant and other commitments that president obama has made and actions we have taken, china is capping its omissions and that is the first and they have agreed to do that. we need to get other countries to get involved like india and brazil. they are far smaller polluters than we are. i want to go back? host: what about these other countries? critical and this is the problem -- unless we have the developing world to sign on i an eternal poverty plan,
5:21 pm
apologize, but we do not have the green technology noel we will not have it likely for the next decade or two. guest: but that is something the u.s. needs to take the lead. guest: here's what is taking the lead -- look at what has happened in europe. they have demonstrated that great energy is not sustainable because it is too expensive. we with that same which used to be a model that the president touted for green energy -- they have retracted terribly on the green energy subsidies. they cannot afford them. german -- germany cannot afford and great britain announced they're cutting the subsidies by 90% for rooftop solar. we look at the countries of the biggest portion of green energy and europe, seven portions of green energy per capita, have the seventh highest cost of electricity, the top two are germany and denmark with cost of 2.5 to three times what we have. that instudy shows
5:22 pm
europe, these countries, the cost of electricity has grown three times than in the u.s.. we do not need to worry about making predictions. it has been a failure and it will be to greater energy poverty. guest: you should go talk to governor branstad the iowa and send the grassley of iowa, because in iowa, the get 29% of electricity from wind right now. 29%. south dakota, 20 5%, kansas, 22% of electricity comes from wind. in fact, we are already getting a great deal of electricity from cleaner sources. if you look at the top 10 states for wind energy, most of them are so-called red states. texas gets about 11%, idaho gets .bout 17% or 80% from wind it is happening. we need to do more pastor to reduce emissions. you know what? georgia tech says by 2030, we will be paying less money for electricity and we do today by $45 billion worth under the clean power plant.
5:23 pm
host: from riverton, bonnie is next. republican nine. thank you for waiting. caller: i do not believe we have a climate change. i believe that is somebody's pipedream that wants to take the money of the american people. i will always believe that and i do not believe that god would let this happen to us if we were not supposed to use cold, he would have made it so that we l.d not have coa i'm sorry, but i think this is one big joke. we have a lot of politicians who want our money and we do not have any left. nobody is working, so pretty soon they will realize that. that we have to be working. there are five generations of my family. we have been here forever. when we had pollution and back when i was a kid in the 1960's, we had it so deep you cannot
5:24 pm
even get out of your doors at time. now we do not have snow. we have the politicians that are telling us what we ought to do and they are all, the government -- all of them are crooked people. host: two are for the call. dan weiss? guest: you would possibly that god gave us tobacco and we ought not to smoke that, so the reality is that she said herself that the amount of snowfall that she is noticed in wyoming has declined dramatically since over the last 50 years. ink, dave's point is this -- an analogy -- we should not go on a diet because the first time we eat a low-fat anything, we are not going to lose all the weight we need to lose. we should not start walking every day because the first time we walk, we are not going to lose 10 pounds. the reality is, just like with you need toved when
5:25 pm
change lifestyle, eat healthier, get exercise, we need to change our energy lifestyle. we need to produce energy more healthily and we need to prepare for the impact of climate change that are already happening. like in alaska where there is 85% of the community will be affected by climate change. like in south florida where sea level rises and floods in neighborhoods that were not flooded before. we have to go on an energy healthy lifestyle which will take time, one step at a time, get other countries to join us, and we have to prepare for the climate change impact that is here already. host: i will go to michael from pittsburgh. guest: it is because dave and i are so good-looking and smart. host: you have support. go ahead, michael. caller: mr. weiss keeps talking about medicine with climate, and medicine is so much more reliable. guest: the human body is a lot
5:26 pm
smaller than our climate and atmospheric, but just like, as dave said, before the 1950's and early, doctors thought cigarette smoking was fine and they appeared in cigarette ads. 50 years ago, or actually, 51 years, came the first surgeon general's warning that cigarette smoking may be bad or you. what happened? over time, the warnings got stricter and stricter as they did more studies. the same thing is happening with climate change. are studies that occur, and have been thousands of them. in fact some of the 11,000 peer-reviewed climate phases, peer-reviewed means other scientists looked at the modeling and besides to see if it was right, 97% said climate change is real and caused humans. so the reality is, we can go --h the 97% and licked a and live healthier last out or go with the 3% and ignore warnings that we are seeing with
5:27 pm
sea level rising in florida, on the virginia coast, naval bases, in alaska, across the world. host: david kreutzer? guest: let's do sea level quickly -- sea level has been rising for the past century or two over seven inches or eight inches percent three. now, projections if you look at the past 30 years, 40 years, maybe a foot, so the two inches in miami or whatever it is, you get different levels around the world -- right now, the evidence is clear we are not headed to a catastrophe in sea level rise. nobody even thought to mention it when it rose eight inches in the past century, that is how unimportant it was. the main thing dan says, if you listen carefully, what they never answer is, what will be the impact of the policy they are proposing/ they say, this is the first step, it will be a long time and so on. i used my own analogy, he says, look, we sell you a car that
5:28 pm
cost $3000 and you have a license plate holder and a bumper and you say, wait a minute -- this is not a car. they say, yes, the other dealerships are going to give you the other parts. ,nd they said they would not what we have is a $100 billion fund that the un will administer and that we will probably fund to the tune of $25 billion per year, which is getting all of the leaders of the other countries, the third world countries that need to sign on to think this is really horrible. richard hall, the scientist who was lead author for all five of the intergovernmental panel of climate change processes reports resigned after the last one because it was in protest over the politicization of the report that came out. what was the straw that broke the camel's back? countries looking to get to share this $100 billion annual fund from the un, claiming that they would suffer in the future from sea level rise. these stories are a big
5:29 pm
mishmash. ask dan -- what will happen with this plan? look at the cost of the plan that will happen. the third world will not sign on to energy poverty. host: susan is next. good morning. republican line. caller: good morning to all of you. i have a question for both of the young men there. guest: yes, we are young men again. [laughter] myler: i am from arizona and bill, i have a small house, not two-story, small one, every year in august around the third of the month, our electricity gets turned off, the whole neighborhood. and it gets turned off for one hour and gets turned back on. every year this happens. we have been talking with the aps over here in arizona about why this happens. ok -- guest: why is it happening? caller: because they are saying that they higher our energy built during the summer because
5:30 pm
it is hot here are my electricity, i leave it at 78 every day and i do not touch it. you know the little lights back on the ceilings/ ? i do everything to protect my house so the heat will not come in with my blinds in accordance. my electric bill just the other day was $348, so i went to aps, i went to my home neighborhood block, they said that my record electric bill was the highest between my two houses that are next to me that are two stories and they have two heating cores, a pool, and i'm the one with the highest bill. it doesn't make sense. my question was climate because either you guys are busy, why can't we just -- by katrina, look what they did -- they alled a huge -- they built huge big energy law so that if there is another disaster, the water will not spill into the state. host: thank you, susan.
5:31 pm
guest: first, i do not know the specifics of her bro, but it may be that your neighbors have much newer and more efficient equipment so their bills are lower. in addition, i do not know if she is a customer of the salt river project which is the biggest utility in arizona, but recently, they said that they were going to force people, even if they got solar panels, to pay extra to get those solar panels on their roofs even though it is their effort to reduce the reliance on coal or hydroelectricity there. one of the things we have to deal with this that we have to make sure that green energy, particularly like rooftop solar, is accessible for middle and low-income families, too, and not just higher income families. one of the things that has happened is that there has been a tremendous drop in the price of solar energy which is why they can get rid of some of the subsidies in germany because they are making panels much more efficient and cheaper than they
5:32 pm
used to. -- i: one of the problems do not know if this address is your problem specifically -- the problems with solar and wind and renewables like that is that they are intermittent. eia, theat the iaea -- department of energy says -- wind and solar is not operated control, but dependent on whether or solar cycles, sunrise and sunset, so it will not necessarily correspond to operator or dispatch duty cycles. as a result, their cost values are not directly comparable to those of other technologies. and they split them off in a different chart. why that matters is that with the wind and solar, you have to back them up. you still have to have the coal, nuclear, or natural gas capacity. the numbers of -- that dan talks about, that is an average. on some days, texas is particularly in the hot, still,
5:33 pm
summer afternoon, the wind produces as little as 1%, 2% or 3%, so you still have to have these other capacities and that is expensive and that is what makes electricity go up. you look at the space above renewables come electricity costs. you look at the countries, as i said in europe, germany, denmark, three times the cost here. guest: denmark pays higher in taxes, too, but they have health care provided by -- [indiscernible] to interrupting you. what is happening is that germany, the industry is going crazy. they are threatening to leave. we do not want that here. host: we will go to kathy from michigan. good morning. on the democrat line. caller: good morning, steve, dan, and david. would like to hear some people talk about getting people out of their cars onto sidewalks, onto bike trails that are even maintained during the wintertime.
5:34 pm
i live just off the main road and the go straight down to the hospital where i work. the sidewalks are not plowed in winter, but people tried to get these apartment complexes at the top of the hill. i think it is important that we really look at all the four wheelers and all these things that people use for their vacation whatever. that uses a lot of energy. i live in subsidized housing and i cannot hang my clothes outside. i had to use the washer and dryer there. i found it a egregious. reflect that when i was a young girl and we would stop outside in northern michigan on vacation. the snow was so sweet and the last time i smelled that was when i lived in traverse city about 1989 and i have never small but since then because the air is just not as clean as it used to be. i think that -- are you there?
5:35 pm
guest: star, there is definitely cleaner than it used to be and the evidence is crystal clear on that and dan would probably like to take credit for the clean air act and he is right. we have cleaned up their dramatically, so people think it is getting more polluted and it is not true. host: kathy, would you like to follow up? iller: well, i know when smelled, david, and it is a small you do not smell anymore. first, i am glad that kathy called for my home state of michigan. it is named after the state stone which is the petoskey stone. in fact, we have that impacts of climate change in michigan as recently as last summer when in the western end of lake erie, there was a horrible algae bloom that caused the city of toledo and some small spots of eastern michigan, to have a drinking water band because the water was contaminated with this algae
5:36 pm
group and one of the conditions for the all too bloom is warmer water. at that same time, there was a huge, huge flood in michigan and detroit area where i grew up rose toe floodwaters the bottom of the overpasses, and that is exactly what scientist predict will happen which is an increase in severe rainstorms and flooding in the upper midwest. there is already evident that occurring in these places. hearing froze over for the first time in a number of years because of severe cold. yes, but severe cultic, remember, we are on track for the warmest year ever in recorded history on planet y. in fact, july was the warmest july on record. again, planet y. parts of the country or other parts of the world may be having record cold here or there, but
5:37 pm
by and large, we are sitting from a record highs than we are record lows. according to nasa host:. nasa. host: welcome back to. guest: he gets to answer the question and i can only answer out, -- host: go ahead, please. guest: -- guest: are you in favor of controlling that? guest: i have been. the other thing is that we have had -- every time there is something warmer, it is due to climate change and when it is called the, its variability or natural variability in the system. or every adverse weather affect is due to climate change and nice weather -- who knows? no one talks about that. we had this approach were every bad thing in the world is exacerbated by co2 emissions. a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas.
5:38 pm
ok, it is simply not credible. that is all. host: mary, to arthur waiting from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good one. i went to know whatever happened to competition. i am looking at an imf report. says 5.3he imf report trillion in energy subsidies, handil is national michael up, possibly as received 5.3 trillion dollars in global subsidies each year. now, what i want to know is why the fossil fuel industry is getting so much of our tax dollars and why they are fighting against competition? isst: yeah, ok, that misleading, first of all, worldwide and not in the u.s. the first thing that is misleading is that they are looking at places like iran that subsidized gasoline dramatically
5:39 pm
and the same thing in china and india. india went china and they have skyrocketed back in 2007, 2008 because the government sells the oil and gasoline there and they do not adjust the prices to the market, so when prices go up, it looks like they are subsidizing it. the other major component and it is not taxpayer paid for, it the major component is that, here, here is the value of this damage of the co2 emissions and they use something called the social cost of carbon. we have run the models that the epa used to estimate social cost of carbon and slight changes in reasonable changes in the input dramatically change that number and the epa has shaded every one of those variables to make it look like that number is bigger. in the u.s., the fossil to companies pay lots of taxes. there subsidies are exaggerated. subsidies per unit
5:40 pm
of power produced solar and wind or so for orders of magnitude higher, that is where the subsidies are. we have competition in the oil and gas industry, we have competition to come up with new technologies like hydraulic and drilling which has made us the world's leading natural gas producer and that has made us posted, if we have not surpassed in violation, the leading oil producer. we will go to brian in san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. my question and comment is for dan weiss. he said that scientists agree about climate change when the charts by david seemed to show different, so it seems like you have not done your homework. on the contrary, it seems that what your project -- that what you are sharing our cherry picked -- host: well, i think you got -- guest: well, i think you got
5:41 pm
beeped there, but there have been studies over the past 20 years. studies that were peer-reviewed, 97% concluded that climate change is real and caused by human beings. going back to the question of subsidies, in fact, the nuclear did a study from 1950 102010 and to 2010, and50 they found that 40% of our subsidies and tax breaks went to oil and gas production and about 20% went to coal and 20% went to nuclear and about 10% went to clean energy. that wethe subsidies have had in the u.s. have gone to fossil fuels. host: let me get one last call and we will give you both a chance to respond. in all scars, wisconsin, good morning to you frank. caller: good morning.
5:42 pm
veteran of world war ii and dime 88 years young, and i went to war when i was 17. all of my best friends had already been killed. guest: we honor your service. caller: i'm no hero, but i want to try to simple five the top from these two gentlemen and i am going to ask each of them the same question and i would like to ask them to reply in one simple word. englandyou think new ashes bloom in the northern tier states of the united states of america all the way from vermont to northern michigan, to northern minnesota, on the way out to washington -- just one word -- wet season of the year do they normally bloom? of your, take a choice poor seasons, gentlemen, go ahead. guest: pastor's? caller: lovely fall flowers. one word. do not mumble, one word. guest: fall.
5:43 pm
caller: beautiful. guest: i guess i will say -- fall. [laughter] guest: i have to respond. i did not get a chance to talk about subsidies. solar lives on subsidies. let thewhen congress tax credit lapse and it shut as hise supply chain -- me, for wind, the supply chain for wind, they had a tax credit that gives them ready percent of the cost and about half of the wholesale price of electricity is how it works out, and the first six months of 2013, it was one windmill installed in the united states. congress retroactively put that production tax credit back in, but what dan is talking about without viable solar and wind are, the are only five bolt to produce where you have subsidies . oil and gas derived with or without subsidies. we are against subsidizing
5:44 pm
anything with it through subsidy, so we are perfectly willing, but we do not want to talk about regular tax credits that all manufacturers that, including windmill producers taking that away only from one industry or another. host: we will give you the last word. guest: we are subsidizing oil, gas, particularly coal with our health. we know that their predation -- that air pollution and smog is more likely to a current, dave has admitted this that the temperature is warming, and we know as the temperature warms, that is one of the conditions for forming smog and they will be more asthma attacks and premature deaths. thesoot. just we are subsidizing it with our help. thankfully, the obama administration is leaving efforts to internalize the cost to make the use of those products cleanup, so they are paying the cost of pollution rather than us, our grandchildren, or the farmer down the street, not down the street, but suffering from
5:45 pm
drought or the wearable forest fires. that is what we are trying to do. host: you continue to shake your head. guest: yet, again, daniel is talking about warming being a bad thing and that it is causing asthma, drought -- guest: i did not say asthma. is a precursor to asthma attacks. those are different things. guest: whatever. co2 is non-toxic and odorless gas and necessary for gas and smog is not a particular matter. guest: if i put you in a room and only put co2, how long would you live? guest: we're not talking about that. that is 41 hundredths of one -- of 100%. we have the highest amount of co2, over 400 parts per million in eight housing years. guest: we are not going to have any trouble breathing. host: thank you for a very interesting conversation. dan weiss of the league of conservation voters and david kreutzer on the heritage
5:46 pm
fromint congress returns its summer recess next week, members begin debate on a resolution of disapproval on the obama administration's iranian nuclear agreement. the president believes it is the only alternative to war. here is a look at part of this statement from last month. -- his statement from last month. [applause] pres. obama: now, because more sanctions won't produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. congressional rejection of this deal leaves any u.s. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option -- another war in the middle east. i say this not to be provocative. i am stating a fact. without this deal, iran will be
5:47 pm
in a position -- however tough our rhetoric may be -- to steadily advance its capabilities. its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? and as someone who does firmly believe that iran must not get a nuclear weapon, and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, i can tell you that alternatives to military action will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports. so, let's not mince words. the choice we face is ultimately
5:48 pm
between diplomacy or some form of war -- maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. that was just part of what president obama had to say last month about the administration's nuclear agreement with iran. you can see his entire remarks tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span2, it is book tv programming with authors and books on the u.s. civil war. on american history tv on c-span3, several events related to the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of hiroshima and makassar. -- and nagasaki. >> on the next "washington journal," bob colby, chief legal officer of the financial revelatory authority, talking role ass organization's
5:49 pm
a nongovernmental regulator of the securities industry. also, a look at the so-called cadillac tax, an excise tax on expensive health insurance plans. that goes into effect in 2018. we talk about it with julie appleby of kaiser health news. in our "spotlight on magazines" series, a "christian science monitor" reporter joins us to talk about how americans decide who to vote for in presidential elections. live with your phone calls and treats every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. book tvnature future of is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country, with top nonfiction authors. beginning this weekend, we are live from the 15th annual national book festival from the nation's capital. you'd end of september, we are in new york for the brooklyn book festival come celebrate 10th year.
5:50 pm
in october, the southern festival of books international. the weekend after that, live in austin for the texas book festival. at the end of the month, two book festivals the same weekend. from the heartland, the wisconsin book festival in medicine. on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november, portland, oregon for worstock, and the national book awards from new york city to and from florida, the miami book fair international. that is a few of the books and festivals -- book fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2 book tv. >> earlier today, afl-cio president richard trumka discussed of the labor movement and his organization's role in the 2016 presidential race. here is a 10-minute portion of what he had to say. knee-jerk, let me be
5:51 pm
as you say. >> so let me be knee-jerk, as you say. can you talk about what you are doing to change the path of membership? the latest labor department report showed that union slightly, was down .2%, from the previous year at 11.1%, and that the number of workers in union was little changed. are you expecting this new and wave and they -- people on the rise to impact your membership numbers, sir, what do you see it accomplishing -- or do you see accomplishing what you need to accomplish without growth in membership? richard: some of both, david. workers are finding innovative ways to come together to raise wages. a recordoing to be year for collective bargaining.
5:52 pm
5 million of our members are bargaining contract this year. so far, the average wage increase has been about 4.3%. we are starting to push wages up . if you look at places like walmart and target and ikea, all those places are coming together to push for wage increases. so you are seeing a lot of different forms, innovative forms of collective action. the other thing i would say is we workers notice, are now driving the debate about the economy. we drove the debate on trade. it was a different debate this time around. most of the time it is the neanderthals vs. free-trade, protectionists vs. free-trade. and it wasn't this time. trade about whether the agreement was good not, whether the rules work or not. we changed the debate. we changed the debate on
5:53 pm
inequality. presidential candidates are all starting to address that. in the meantime we have organized workers -- peanut workers in alabama, and there absme organized 149,000 members last year in the first few months of 2015. it is a combination of workers coming together collectively to demand a better deal and then the workers coming together to form unions. david: one last one for me. roleou talk about labor's in dyslexia of a democratic presidential candidate? selection of democratic presidential candidate? is joe biden a better fit for labor than hillary clinton given her wall street connection? richard: the vice president is a good friend and a great champion of working people to the next phase of his illustrious career in public service is a decision for him and for his family. i don't know whether he would
5:54 pm
run or not. but he has been a good friend and he has been a champion of working people. david: you are not going to do an endorsement here this morning, unfortunately. do you see bernie sanders as especially skilled in talking about the concerns of working people? richard: i think he is connecting. he has a very unique and genuine way of talking about the most pressing issues in politics and that is inequality in america. but let me explain our process before -- i don't endorse anybody. i announce what our members want to do, quite frankly. justwe have encouraged our what we have increased our affiliates to do, each and every one of them, is to -- what we have encouraged our affiliates to do, each and every one of them, is to talk to your members, and find out the ones out,hen you find that
5:55 pm
endorse a candidate in work that candidate to make sure they adhere to the policies that they have espoused. together, we have our affiliates come together after the process is done and we have a debate and eventually we endorse a candidate. when we endorse a candidate, it will be representative of what andmembership wants, needs, desires. david: rick? >> i like to ask you about last nlrb decision, the browning-faris case did do you see republicans in congress taking an aggressive approach to trying to block that? democrats backing the decision, democrats in congress? i think you will see an aggressive approach in congress to stop anything that gives
5:56 pm
workers a fair shake. they have done up repeatedly in the last several years and they will do that again. i would expect two things. i expect democrats, friends of workers, to stand up to defend -- decision. full it is a right and fair decision. two, i suspect if it ever did get through the president would veto it. up this morning released a poll showing that president obama's approval rating among union workers is one point off of its low, 69% -- nine richar : richard: can't hear you. >> sorry, gallup has released a new poll showing that president points rating is 52%, one off is low and down tremendously from when he was elected. richard: he is still represented by 52%.
5:57 pm
i think there are politicians that would love to have 52%. he has tried hard. he hasn't done everything we agree with. i think when you are seeing the residuals of tpp. our members understand the importance of a good free-trade agreement that really does help workers and changes the rules of the environment, because you have seen since nafta a group of rules that i've been designed to lower wages, to entitle -- give corporations more entitlement, and we want an end to that. you are seeing the residuals of that. he supports it firmly and we oppose it. >> do you agree with the "new york times" story this morning that argues that in his second term obama has taken a turn towards helping workers with various regulators? do you notice a change? richard: i would say he has been
5:58 pm
more overtly pro-worker in the second term. you have overtime rules we talked about. his appointments he has made it to various places. the wage increases yes given to federal employees. -- he has given to federal employees. he is starting to talk openly about how important collective bargaining is for workers to raise their standard of living. the fact that he is having a summit this year at the white house to talk about collective bargaining and increasing the ' voice.' all of those come together to say yeah, and the second term he has done. when you talk about relations, there is also health and safety regulations--regulations, there is also health and safety regulations. here is something that genuinely college me-- bothers me. every day in this country, 150 workers die from injuries
5:59 pm
received on-the-job or occupational health, diseases they take up. 150. i bet not one of you knew that and i bet not one of you has written about that, not one of you is concerned about it, because they die quietly. blacky dad, who died from lung, died at home after years of suffering from black lung, expired. seen the needed e with thes keep pac change in the environment of the workplace. we have been trying to get silicosis regulations passed. they are finally starting to move after years. mine health and safety regulations -- they start to move after every disaster and then they slow down.
6:00 pm
the spotlight leaves the mine that has smoke belching out of it, the regulations slow down. we kill 150 workers every day in this country. you?'t that bother any of shouldn't you this country. doesn't that bother any of you? shouldn't you write about that? shouldn't we demand a safe workplace? isn't that something that everyone is entitled to? in my opinion, yeah. regulations, about we haven't done anywhere near enough. when it comes to health and regulations. >> that was a 10 minute portion of what afl-cio president richard trumka had to say earlier today. you can see his entire comments tonight at 11:015

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on