tv Washington Journal Nick Loris Erich Pica CSPAN November 7, 2019 6:59pm-8:01pm EST
intelligence committee holds its rst public impeachment hearings. starting on c-span 3. top diplomat william taylor and george kent will testify. and then on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, former u.s. -- sador to ukraine maurn marine will follow. follow and listen live with the free c-span radio app. >> joining us this morning our nick lars, the deputy director with the heritage foundation and friends of the earth eric pickett to talk about the decision by the trump administration to fwrall the paris climate agreement. accord. the process will take one year,
potentially wrapping up just one day before they 2020 election. remind us again what is the paris climate agreement. nick: the paris climate agreement as p it is an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the notion we need to do something about climate change. this paris accord is different than its predecessors and that each country submitted its own contribution to reduce greenhouse gases. the obama administration set forth a plan predicated on regulations we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 2000 five levels by 2025. and follow-up continuing to ratchet down emissions through additional regulations. camence president trump into office, he campaigned on
withdrawing from the paris climate agreement. it is really not news we are doing this. but this is a whole process. this takes time. >> the process is a three year process. camethe paris agreement into effect each country could not decide whether to sign onto it. that is what president obama did. once that occurred there was a three year waiting period for countries to get out of it if they wanted to. this is something trump has been saying over and over again. they filed the paperwork where they give notification. said, it will occur almost the day before the election next year. the official withdrawal. there are 97 countries signed on. will be the only country to withdraw from the paris agreement, turning us into
a rogue state and rogue actor when it comes to climate conversations. host: which countries are the biggest emitters? erich: china of course, but look at it in a historical context. the u.s. has been the largest historical emitter. that means the u.s. has an inordinate amount of leadership we have to show in our own domestic reductions in global leadership. what trump has done by withdrawing us from the paris is turnings that he the country's back on the world. of americans agree we should stay in this agreement and 60% of those are republicans. host: why has the administration said we need to be out of the climate agreement? mostly because of cost and lack of climate benefit. if you look at regulations that would have been imposed by the
obama ministration as well as consequent regulations, they would have direct impact on family and businesses electricity bills. energy is such a critical component of everything we make and do. we pay for all the goods and services. that has a huge negative ripple effect throughout the economy, disproportionately hurting low income americans who spend a larger part of their budget on energy bills. from a climate energy standpoint, this protocol is meaningless. there are no real reasons north other iran, venezuela and countries are part of the climate accord because they want to do something about climate change. they are there and it is meaningless. when they were negotiating the accord they said even if developing countries do what they do now, what the u.s. does
and what the rest of the developed world does is not going to make a difference in terms of averting global warming or sea level rise. stance on climate policy, this does not provide meaningful climate benefit. your comments and calls are welcome. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. paris climate agreement could create $26 trillion in new investment. energy stored, solar, across the globe. by the u.s. withdrawing from that agreement, we are withdrawing from the global conversation about what those
investments look like for the u.s. and the rest of the world. we know germany and china are leaders in solar development. they have a market that will grow because of our lack of leadership. the paris agreement is not just about economics. it is about what is happening globally when it comes to climate change. in the u.s., california, houston, texas, north carolina, florida, hurricanes, fires, floods. that is the direct fingerprint of climate change. the paris agreement was not perfect. friends of the earth was critical because of the voluntary nature, but it was the first global structure created to bring all countries together. announcedhe news was monday, it was tweeted, a -- experienced the hottest october on the planet. of fire anddrop
flood, the elite wanted to pull out of the paris accord. what is the administration's plan on climate? nicolas: a number of things can be done reducing greenhouse gas emissions. there should be policies we can both agree on to drive the economy and environment in the right direction. i agree with erich. the cost of renewables are coming down. allownot need paris to companies to invest in other countries. we have more free trade and energy sources and technology. hydraulic technology and getting countries like china, india and indonesia off small modular reactor technologies that provide low-cost emissions, free sources of energy, combined that
with renewables and you have a robust energy market driving growth, providing energy for the nearly billion people who do not have access to affordable, reliable power, and doing so in a cleaner fashion. what are yourst: responses to how the administration has approached climate? erich: they have been not only ignoring climate, but proactively trying to eliminate regulations that protect clean air, clean water. their solution to climate change is to figure out how to subsidize coal producers and the oil gas industry and just let more carbon dioxide flow through the system. they have no plan other than to ramp up as much pollution as possible. host: 1200 scientists announced monday what is happening worldwide with the climate an emergency. would you agree with that? it wasit was not 1200,
12,000. they said we are reaching and surpassing the tipping point of what climate change will do. we are in a climate emergency. in a climate emergency, to say government finding have a role in solutions in finding solutions and setting policies that not only guide the unit -- the u.s. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but help the world, that is failing to understand the crisis we are in. host: how should the trump administration respond to this? nicolas: part of it is understanding what we know and do not know about climate change. i read that study and there is not much compelling in its. a lot of what it indicated as that because of human flourishing and increases in economic growth, airplane travel, access to technology, you will get more greenhouse gas emissions. out of the negative things projected, it said in a tiny
foot know, this is in part driven by climate change. which is true. there are things in part driven by climate change and man-made activities that will have benefits and cost. we should focus on areas we know there will be costs and invest in more robust and resilient infrastructure to help people adapt to a changing climate, to make targeted investment that makes an impact whether payment changes driven by man-made emissions are not. host: talking about the u.s. withdrawal from the paris climate agreement. we go first to boston, massachusetts. joe is on our republican line. er: my question is directed to erich. life, we areo my trying to bring in renewable energy, lower cost. each time they try to bring in hydroelectric power from canada, it seems to stop. the transmission line trying to go through vermont or new hampshire is always blocked.
we pay some of the highest rates in this part of the country just because we cannot get clean energy from canada. we also have no nuclear, which is carbon free, and we cannot build new power plants. they ran nuclear submarines for 20 years on that power. why can't we do something similar? the other thing about global warming, i live in boston. how are always telling us the sea level is rising, but if you live here as long as i have, you would see the expressway has been sinking, because we are all built on silt. if they are measuring the height of land going down it is because we are all on silt. i feel it is an inaccurate measurement of what is going on here. i do not believe a lot of the stuff. you tell me 12,000 scientists.
antarctica, the ice is growing down there. i am not sure if it is true or not but i heard it on the news. host: response? sciencereponderance of on climate change, they are scientists around the world, 12,000 that signed onto the emergency document, intergovernmental panel on climate change. it is documented we are in the midst of climate change. you can look at studies that go back 20 years and you see the fingerprints of the impacts of climate change currently in the u.s. and globally. u.s. --ook across the mozambique had two cyclones hit it in one season. that never happens in mozambique. southeast asia, people displaced because of sea level rise. the capital of one country
lifted up and moved to someplace on higher ground. we are not disputing the fact that this is happening because it is. we see this on a daily basis. what we are now talking about is, how should the u.s. government intervene and help the u.s. and set the standard to reduce these emissions? host: let's go toward democrats line. good morning. maryland, you are on the air. caller: i worked in fossil fuels, power houses, for 35 years. without the regulations, they cheated. youou worked at nighttime would see them blasting out the stacks. peoplerea in maryland got together and forced these powerhouses to do the right thing. powerhouse that we
completely made it clean and emissions are clean. it can be done, but it has to be forced. if they are not forced to do it, they will not do it. that is all i have to say. we can make them do it right. but if you take regulations off, they won't. they will shoot it right off the stack. power companies have to be forced to change to alternative fuels, or are they going there already? nicolas: it is a combination of both. thatee with the caller regulation is important because we do not want adverse effects on human health or the environment. that is a violation of property rights and opposes societal harm. we need regulations to correct it. it is trickier when you talk about carbon dioxide. but you are seeing the market
shift anyway because the cost of renewables are coming down. when i started working on energy policy, cole provided 50% of our electricity mix. it is down to a 1/4 because of cheaper, natural gas. if we had a regulatory system that allowed for new transmission lines and environmental views to come online, places like the northeast would not have to rely on dirtier home heating oil. they could have natural gas. instead they are importing it from russia, which is insane. coal, you talked about cheaper natural gas per the isline of the coal industry that largely due to natural gas or government regulation? erich: a combination of both. also declining renewable costs driven by subsidies like the wind tax credit and solar tax
credit. there were some regulations from the obama administration that exacerbated economic problems that the coal industry was facing because of market pressure. i agree. what we have to remember about the coal industry, there are a lot of workers losing their jobs. government can help out. we have to make sure that is the coal industry and fossil fuel industry is phased out, because that is where we have to go to address climate change, those communities and workers have done a great service to this country, which is provide electricity. we cannot leave them behind. we have to help communities transition and the workers themselves into either retirement, but we have to be forward-looking in these policies.
that can only be done with the federal government. they have cut and run out of these communities, trying to help health care for minors, retirement and health care and leaving these communities decimated. interventionnment to help ensure there is a managed and just transition as we shut down these coal plants. in theou had a piece heritage published. staying in the paris agreement would have cost families $20,000. includes that figure and is there a cost to families for not being in that? are there environmental or economic cost for not being part of that agreement. at heritage we use the national energy model system as
part of the energy administration. we enacted taxes and regulations on the energy industry to achieve with the obama administration aimed to achieve. that is how we got the figures, $20,000. earlier, mentioned higher prices for all the goods and services we pay for. it really shrinks the economic production and consumption side where we predicted about 400,000 jobs lost, half in energy intensive manufacturing sectors. with regard to the environmental cost, i do not think paris was the right mechanism to change anything because there were no repercussions if countries failed to meet their targets. then you have countries like .hina wellproject they will peak before 2030.
india submitted a target less than their business as usual standpoint. they continue down the path of business as usual and pretend like they are actually making progress. that is why in terms of climate benefit from temperature mitigation to sea level rise. paris is meaningless. >> mentioned new delhi. as seasons change, the air and india's capital turns to poison. we will go with regional georgia tour next caller. wayne is on our republican line. good morning. myyou basically answered question. it was former president obama trillionus into the $3 debt for the paris accord with no accountability as to where or how the money would have been spent.
as a taxpayer i found that highly objectionable. as a taxpayer i want to know where my money goes and what it pays for. you answer his concerns over the potential cost that the obama administration committed to? erich: i think what the caller is referring to is the green climate fund. within the paris agreement and international negotiations there was an understanding there are a lot of countries in the world that are not responsible for climate change. the poorest countries in the world. yet they are being hit the hardest by emissions from the united states and other countries. , it was not $3d trillion. more like $100 billion, that was put together to help these countries mitigate disasters occurring to them even though it was not their fault.
it was also put together to help them leapfrog technology. there is no reason why countries should be investing in fossil renewable is know working better. that is part of the genesis. the overall cost of climate change we are seeing hundreds of billions of dollars of cost in the u.s. alone for climate impacts. 2014 $400 billion in costs. cities burning down like we saw in paradise. cities flooding in houston. puerto rico being destroyed. there seeing the impact and costs are gumming on to the taxpayers. vultureeeing a form of capitalism, going into those communities and trying to take over land, prevent rebuilding, pushing these folks out. we need government intervention both on the side of how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
communitiese help rebuild after disaster. these are occurring to the taxpayer. jim from's hear from rockland, maine. we lost him. we will go to steve in north carolina. >> good morning, gentlemen. i live near the coast and i am 72 years old. to deny climate change is reckless. what can be done about it, i don't know i am not a scientist. i think that is what people disagree on. is it just nature or are we really contributing to it ? a gentleman was talking about phil and bill. if you pave paradise and put up a parking lot and it rains on the parking lot, the water is going to go next door, and we know that. i am talking something else,
there is a documentary called sea change. to turn a blind eye not to see it. we have something down here we deal with and it use the -- used to be during the tide. three rivers dumped into the harbor. -- it high tide pushes used to happen eight times a year. you cannot deny that our get away from it. the fishermen who have no political ax to grind, those fish migrate from temperature. those fish are north now. andnow that the inuit arctic villages are having to relocate their villages. the ice is melting. i do not see why people cannot accept it. it is hard to deny. georgia arranger goes in and
on the road for pickup schoolchildren from the barrier islands. he said the road is closed several times a year. they cannot get their. host: appreciate your input. -- nos: there is denying sea levels have been increasing, they have been for 160 years. i would not argue they are catastrophically rising, but we need to do something about it. there are two pragmatic approaches. making sure we have resilient infrastructure to adapt, whether building better infrastructure on the coast or higher sea level , that is much more cost-effective than something that would not do anything like paris to mitigate global temperatures or avert sea level rise even if you are concerned about rising sea levels.
we need to stop subsidizing people from living in these areas. the national flood insurance programs allows people to rebuild and it does not truly show the price point and the risk of what living in these areas does. if you want to bear that risk it should be the market that determines what that risk looks not artificially incentivizing people to live in these risk prone areas. theh: what we heard from caller our personal impacts of climate change and how it impacts communities across the world. we need a global solution. co2 is being emitted by every country in the world. it is not a problem the u.s. is trying to solve, but it is something we can demonstrate leadership with. the paris agreement was the first framework that tried to unite the globe together and put us on the pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. i agree with nick that we have to build better infrastructure.
the problem is states in this country have barred the use of climate change when it comes to processes that would help build infrastructure in coastal cities. this problem of climate change, yes we have to -- i think the science is clear that it is occurring. it is a global problem. unless we reduce fossil fuel strongns, led by government intervention -- this is where we fundamentally disagree. greedot believe the same that got us into this problem over the last 100 years is going to be the solution that gets us out of it. we need strong government regulations, safeguards in place, to make sure -- the market may work, but that the reductions are occurring to keep us below the thresholds we need to to make sure we do not just
spiral out of control. that is the pathway we are on. business as usual globally, we are on a pathway where we will have uncontrolled climate change and climate emergency 50 years from now. it requires government intervention to do that both in the u.s. and global. erich pica and nicolas loris here with us until 9:30 eastern. the line for0, democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. president trump celebrated the news at a rally earlier this week when the announcement was made. pres. trump: we/job killing regulations. war on american energy. we are now the largest producer of energy anywhere in the world
by far. on beautiful,ar clean coal. announce to the withdrawal of the u.s. from the horrible, costly, one-sided paris climate accord. ask them how they are doing in paris with it. not too good. i canceled the so-called clean power plan and revealed obama's federal coal moratorium. minersputting our great back to work. host: president trump at the rally in kentucky. we mentioned the accord, but the clean power plan and of withdrawing
on-call regulations from the obama administrations. what impacted they have so far? nicolas: an m -- an economic lifeline to coal that is facing market pressures. it was constitutionally objectionable, that is why it stayed in the supreme court. it would have essentially forced states to reengineer their energy mixes which is not authorized under the clean air act and so both from an economic standpoint, but also a constitutional standpoint, the clean power plan was problematic and so if you replace it with the affordable clean energy role that still places emissions reductions on power plants, it is something that is more sensible and aligns with what the environmental protection agency is legally authorized to do. host: one of the fallouts in the coal industry is the pensions of coal miners, news from cq that a
trio of coal country senators have introduced draft legislation that will rescue the pension plan of some 92,000 coal miners and protect the health care benefits of some 13,000 miners, similar to a measure introduced by joe mansion. to pasadena, california. on our democrats line. caller: what i want to say is the guy from back east talking abut the tides rising, we have the same problem in california. i've been surfing since 1958 and i haven't seen more extreme tides and coastal erosion. i also teach a surf class for caltech. my students in 2004 had me listen to a lecture at beckman auditorium by the top chemical engineer in the united states who had chemical engineering at caltech. he gave the planet till 2052, that is when bush had a gag order on all climatologists and
in 2008 obama got in. nasa did a reevaluation of nate lewis's timeframe and deducted 20 to 25 to 30 years off the 2052 timeframe. that means that when alexandria ocasio-cortez says we have 10 years to do something, she is correct. we shouldn't be messing around anymore. anybody that is being funded by koch brothers to disinform the public is criminal. thank you guys. >> we are seeing the tipping points that scientists had predicted, we are hitting them earlier than what we thought. so the caller is absolutely right. the scientific report that came out recently says we have 12 years, globally to reverse course and set policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
i will say, the caller mentioned ocasio-epresentative cortez. we have been campaigning on climate crisis and emergency, we believe we have to have massive government programs that help shift and reduce our fossil fuel emissions. and we've seen the green new deal, but as a realistic way of moving off of fossil fuels will keeping the economy whole. nicolas: how do you pay for it? erich: i think in some context there is a carbon tax involved and i think senator sanders presidential plan, he is doing something interesting, creating community power that recycles revenue back into governments and the local state and federal government so there our interesting ways. getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies, which are tens of billions of dollars a year. that is how you start paying for the green new deal and those other types of investments. host: any of those measures ring
a bell with you? there's been some bipartisan support in terms of a carbon tax. i think we can both agree we should be getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies. for coal. i would like to get rid of energy subsidies for a lot of sources and technologies and let the market determine what provides our energy of the future. with regard to the carbon tax, it falls to the same problem paris. it is all the economic cost and no meaningful climate benefit because it's not compelling other countries to act even if you do have a border adjustment as part of that plan because you are essentially going to shift a lot of manufacturing and energy production away from the u.s. and the countries that have far less environmental standards than the u.s. compromising the , environment and the safety of the workers. host: let's hear from paul in indianapolis, independent line. caller: good morning.
i think where i sort of took a pascal's wager on climate change and started doing some research and i think maybe we are panicking a little too early. we have a bit more of a timeline. it's an archaeological fact that scandinavian settlers were growing row crops on the south edge of greenland in 1100. so it's obvious the world has been warmer than it is now. nobody grows barley and wheat on the south edge of greenland right now. so i think what we need and after all, 12,000 years ago with now the great barrier reef was dry land. the oceans have been rising since the end of the last glacier period. we need to do is to concentrate on getting rid of emissions from fossil fuels, not just carbon
emissions. we need to concentrate on the long-term solution to not using fossil fuels. so real solutions like hydrogen power cells and biomass are much more likely to do some good and also we need to point out that according to the united nations, 10 times more people suffer from n theyfects from cold tha do from heat. >> i agree. we have to start setting policies in place right now that begin the long transformation of our infrastructure. this is not something you can just turn a light switch on and we can be producing renewable energies tomorrow. this requires massive investment by private companies, by the federal government to switch our economy from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that is based on renewable energy and clean energies. we have to start now and that's
2050 timeline. by the time you start acting and the time the market incentives, the rules and regulations and safeguards get put in place, it could take a decade to actually begin shifting how we produce energy away from fossil fuels. i will point out one thing that nick has been saying. nick has been saying a carbon tax won't work because we don't have a global agreement. then he says we do not have a global agreement because countries couldn't agree, so therefore we can't do a carbon tax or regulation. this is been the kind of roundabout that many folks have been saying from the conservative movement is that we can't act because nobody is acting. we have a climate crisis right now, it is showing up across the united states, the world. to me leadership means that , the united states has to, the federal government and state
government, we have 25 governors that of pledge to stay in the paris agreement or abide by the emission targets, you've got companies lining up that have trillions of dollars of assets like walmart saying they will stay in the paris agreement and abide by the targets. things are happening, people are committing to this. but we get stuck with this president trump doubletalk run around which is we can't do anything because nobody else is doing it. that is a recipe for disaster. host: is the u.s. behind the leadership curve? if governors are taking the lead and walmart?ustry nicolas: if the private sector wants to take the lead that is great but even with the u.s. , leads with stringent federal policy, the rest of the world isn't going to follow suit. if you look at any survey for the united nations, action on climate change ranks dead last or near dead last on what of the
policy priority for those citizens, access to affordable and reliable power is much higher on that list. we see countries like china lie about their co2 emissions in the past. other countries like pakistan who in their nationally determined contributions in the paris accord said we need economic growth and we need more human flourishing it will increase our greenhouse gas emissions exponentially and then maybe we will do something about that. that's what paris is right now. so whatever the united states does, it won't change the minds of places like china and india and the rest of the developing world. they will represent 90% of future greenhouse gas emissions. host: in the paris agreement who would be in charge of monitoring compliance? erich: it could have been the environmental protection agency. host: so it is not the united nations. erich: each country monitors its own. there has been a long conversation about measurable
and verifiable greenhouse gas reductions and that would be both domestically, it will be international standards that were created. so that we are comparing apples to apples. there has been a robust conversation about who and how the emissions would be monitored. host: but that is not stated in the document. guest: those documents, that agreement is a part of the paris agreement. that is something the obama administration started focusing on way back in the copenhagen climate accords. how do you set a process up, a global process that allows you to monitor and verify the reductions that each country is pledging to make. host: gloucester, massachusetts on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all that would like to know who all the scientists are,
these 12,000 scientists per they from countries mostly like russia, china, india that produce more pollution than the u.s.? also the green new deal, i don't believe in the green new deal. to me it's more about green money, not anything to do with the environment. i have a question for both of your guests. if we eliminate all of the fossil fuel, gas, oil, etc., country ofr up this over 330 million people with just wind turbines? wind and solar? i believe it's only going to weaken us and other countries like iran, russia and china will gain more power because they will have -- i don't believe they will go with complete wind and solar power in their countries. that's not gonna happen. they have a lot of oil and they will use it and they will gain more power and we will be
weakened. nicolas: we do not know who the 11,000 scientists are because they weren't disclosed in the paper. they could be researchers who don't even work in the field of climate science for all we know. but i believe they came from over 150 different countries. with regard to wind and solar powering all of america, it would not only be immensely huge taxpayert expense, but you have to back wind and solar with battery technology because you are getting all the way off conventional fuels so their huge cost because the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time. that's not to say those things can't happen, and we can't see growth, but to shift so massively away from fossil fuels, would provide 80% of our energy needs because they are affordable and reliable, would be hugely expensive to the taxpayer and the consumer, not to mention they have their own environmental costs.
it is not that these technologies magically appeared. there are costs to battery storage, cost to crushing and storing and transporting wind turbines, which local landfills are having a lot of problems with. there is also a massive land use change necessary to switch us to 100% renewables to wind and solar and so you are talking about that land-use requirement, talking about 115 million acres which is 15% greater than the size of california to do this. so there are huge costs, not to mention reliability factors, if the market takes us in the direction of more wind and solar, that's great. but if you have it forced through with the government you will get a lot of cronyism and corporate welfare and a lot of cost to the economy. we have to transform the energy sector. we have a few decades to do it. it won't be as costly as nick says.
nick says they create these create scare in the little studies to create scare in the little system. we are seeing that across the country california is a great example. we both agree california is one of the more heavily regulated states in the country and they are making the transition to renewable energy. they are making investments in battery storage and we are seeing that what's going on in renewable energy in california is that it is disrupting the traditional power model. you have companies like pg&e that are now becoming these big monolithic companies that are uncompetitive in the market. so what we are seeing about we will see as we will see technology evolve, nobody thought 20 years ago that cell phone and mobile phone would be cost competitive cheap substitute of the entire telephone system. i think what nick is arguing is we should've kept the telephone system there and not have the innovation of the mobile company
which was backed by government regulation and backed by investment. we shouldn't be afraid of this transformation that needs to occur. there are trillions of dollars of new growth and new investments that will happen in this country. sure, we will be transferring off of and moving off of fossil fuels, but there is plenty of opportunity. are otherdoreen and listeners and viewers interested in reporting on the view of scientists 11,000 scientists around , the world declaring climate emergency. 150 threeport in countries from a broad range of disciplines warns the planet "clearly and unequivocally faces a climate emergency create six policy goals that must be met to address it." back to a call in mississippi, democrats line, hello there. caller: good morning.
this is the return of the sun. before the ice age was hot on earth, they were growing wheat and stuff in greenland. the solar power as the sun gets is the thing as the sun gets closer and closer to the earth, all the , dinosaur age stuff. we have to prepare with solar panels. the world is turning to a degree where there will come a time you will not be able to recognize the seasons. it will be hot all the time. we have to get ready for it. the scientists can make all the predictions they want. host: we will go to tony on the independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen.
i've got to say, it's really frustrating. it's 2019 and all the evidence is stacked up and we are debating whether climate change is real and if man is contributing and this is leaving us way behind the curve. obama put in place kind of an all of the above energy policy to try and increase investment into alternative energy and this administration with the president with the great wisdom and unmatched wisdom decides we have to roll back the clocks on all of it. we really can't afford to keep doing this every four years. i guess i'm really specifically speaking about one issue with china. in their 50 year plan, they look by 2050, they are investing so much money in alternative energy, that they intend on being the world's supplier of battery technology, solar panels, all kinds of alternative
energy. they are predicting they will employ more people in that industry than the auto industry and the steel industry worldwide so for the 21st century, like we had the auto industry in the 20th century, they will have the alternative energy technology of the 21st. and then on the other side i hear it's already cost competitive to conventional fuels.
i don't think we need big government programs to move these technologies so even if you don't believe in climate change, it seems like we don't want to hand that entire industry over to china and be importing from them when we should be making investments in this country to make sure that we are the leader in those technologies. maybe you can speak to that. host: nick, do you want to take that? guest: i hear people talking of the both sides of the mouth saying we need government investment in taxpayer subsidies to move this forward and big government programs and then on the other side i hear it's already cost competitive to conventional fuels. i don't think we need big government programs to move these technologies forward and to move innovation forward. when we do that, we either end up with a lot of corporate welfare or subsidizing economic and trapping resources and trapping resources in unproductive places. i've no problem if we import cheaper wind turbines and solar panels from china, if we want to point to a state like california and think it's the model for energy policy when they are dealing with the issues it is right now and can't even keep the lights on in homes and businesses, that is not the model for success in this is a regulated monopoly model that is not faced with any market pressures or competition. if you look at a state like texas where you have more
wholesale retail choice, that is where you are seeing more energy innovation because people are responding to consumer pressures and consumer demands where texas, if it were a country would be the fifth largest producer of wind in the world. >> to the caller's point about china, most of that investment i would assume comes from their government, not private sector investment. >> and that's fine, but we can be the beneficiaries of that as we receive low cost tech. that's not a problem to me. with regards to spending our taxpayer resources, we don't need to be doing that. if you look at the global energy for markets, it's a multitrillion dollar marketplace out there. to light and heat our homes had to get vehicles from point a to point b, we don't need taxpayer resources to devote specific technologies. when you get the political rates of return are higher than the economic ones and you end up wasting a lot of taxpayer. >> it's a solar company we wasted half $1 billion that went bankrupt. host: eric. guest: there will be $26 trillion of economic benefit -- host: where does that figure come from? erich: if you were to start
moving countries off of fossil fuels there would be $26 trillion of investment. we are at a crossroad. if you follow trump's withdrawal from paris we are isolating the u.s. from this multitrillion dollar marketplace that is being created and you are cutting off the united states from these markets. markets this leadership is going to create. i think we need to transfer -- we have to get off of fossil fuels. and we can choose to do that either, and we have to do it rapidly. so we do talk about the fact that renewable energies are no cost competitive with coal and natural gas. but the problem is will it ramp up fast enough to get us to the point where we are removing fossil fuels from the economy to avoid the tipping points. that is where you need
government intervention. that's where you need regulations and safeguards. and goals to make sure that we -- the only reason why renewable energies are as cost-effective as they are now is because you had 30 states across the country pass renewable energy standards over a decade ago which were saying we have to produce renewable energy to meet our climate goals. and so the reason why is because we've had smart regulation, smart government investment that has created this industry. including the american recovery act. we talk about solyndra, but there is hundreds of millions of dollars of investment made in renewable energy sector that have actually paid off and of -- are the reason why renewable energies are is the fastest growing jobs market in the country. that's because we made investments. host: the paris climate agreement adopted in 2015 -- nations agreed to limit the temperature increase to
no more than two degrees celsius above the levels from 1850 to 1900 in the preindustrial era. the agreement also states that a goal of limiting temperature increases to only 1.5 degrees celsius. let's hear from peter in new york on the republican line. go ahead. thank you for taking my call. i have one question. how can the president withdraw from an agreement the senate never agreed to? we have a constitution, no matter what other countries do. wentaris agreement never to the senate and got voted on. we are not in the paris agreement by the constitution. one of the comments was that we cannot change things every four years. people in the u.s. have a chance every four years to elect the president and what they decide on where the federal
policy is, so it's up to the people to decide, not some other government bureaucrat and my other comment is i will never believe in global warming or climate change when the advocates do everything they can -- they fly their jets and their private jets and they go to live in their mansions and they tell other people that you've got to, but not me, cut the energy. we see al gore one time was reported to have the highest private house use of energy in his state. host: peter, in new york. a question. said nick, i know what you said about india and the scenario put forth but would we , be better off trying to persuade and direct them instead of closing
the door? nicolas: i think we could do that without paris. they are going to need a lot more energy well into the future, not just india, but around the world. these countries are building a coal fire plant a week, making investments in renewable power. if we have the technology to reduce pollution so the pictures in the newspaper of india and smog in china don't have to look like that. i think through free-trade and working with these countries, we can continue to meet their energy needs while protecting the environment. that is what the united states should be focused. paris is really a distraction from that. it doesn't achieve anything. host: one quick question to you. china and india together have eight more times the population of the u.s., do nothing to curb emissions yet the u.s. with , 4% of the world's population is expected to lead the way. erich: the united states has the highest per capita energy use globally. india is still a highly
impoverished country and so is china. the u.s. has to lead the way and that means part of leading the way is helping countries lead -- leapfrog over the fossil fuel development and deployments. workingia we should be with them to help them avoid coal as a power source or other fossil fuels. but i would say to me what's laughable in this conversation is is that we are assuming trump is the presidential diplomat that will lead this global discussion and we have seen what he's done with foreign policy across the united states and across the globe. again we can't have an argument that we are withdrawing from paris and will do something different whereas trump has done nothing different except try to ramp up fossil fuels as fast as possible. that is the global leadership this president is demonstrating. it's not that we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or help other countries do so, it's we are going to put the pedal to
the metal and exploit as many fossil fuels as possible both domestically as well as exporting to other countries so we get other countries addicted to fossil fuels just like we are. host: clearly we could spend more than our talking about this. s, thankca and nick lori you for being with us. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. friday morning, discussing efforts by the u.s. and mexico to battle mexican drug cartels. directoramilies maurice mitchell talks on political party roots and priorities. and recent endorsement of elizabeth warren in the democratic primary contests. president david mcintosh on his organization's strategy for campaign 2020 and its defense of president trump in the
impeachment inquiry. join the discussion. >> tomorrow secretary of veteran affairs discusses oversight issues that his department and what is being done to ensure the care of u.s. veterans. he will be speaking at the national press club live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. friday 2020 coverage continues with joe biden at a campaign rally in new hampshire. he plans to file candidacy paperwork in concorde. you can watch that at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. president trample visit atlanta where he wants to launch black voices for trump. watch friday at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> campaign 2020.
watch live come fridge -- watch live coverage and make up your own mind. campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. saturday marks the 30th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall, a symbol of the divide between east and west during the cold war. american history tv and c-span's washington journal are live from the museum in washington, d.c. beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern with our guest, head of georgetown university center for eurasian, russian and european studies, the author of after the authorwall, steve vogel, of betrayal in berlin, and from the museum, there berlin exhibit. we will take your phone calls, emails and tweets. watch the 30th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall on
american history tv on c-span3 and c-span's washington journal. sunday night on book tv at 9:00 eastern on afterwards, former speaker of the house newt gingrich with his latest book, trump versus china. >> i do not think the chinese have any great planning and the next 20 or 25 years to try to take on [indiscernible] in a conventional sense, but i believe they are building cyber capabilities. i is an part of why huawe extraordinary asset for them. they want capabilities in space, which has global indications. >> pamela newkirk talks about her new book, diversity inc. >> what i am not optimistic about is white america's ability fiction of the
african-americans, latin x people, the centuries old, demeaning images of people and how that has as much to do with the lack of diversity. >> watch book tv every weekend on c-span two. watch the c-span network live next week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by adam schiff will hear from three state department official starting wednesday on c-span3. the top diplomat in ukraine, william taylor, and george kent will testify. friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch.
follow the impeachment inquiry live online at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span 80 web vicenight on c-span, president pence speaking in new hampshire. that's followed by no labels, hosting 2020 residential candidates percy gabbert, john delaney, bill weld, and marianne williamson in new hampshire. and later, what to expect when public hearings begin as part of the house impeachment inquiry. trump,ehalf of president vice president mike pence traveled to the new hampshire state house today to file paperwork for the states presidential primary held in february. he met with supporters and took questions from reporters before heading to the politics and eggs event, where he talked about the trump administration's agenda.