tv KQED Newsroom PBS August 16, 2019 7:00pm-7:31pm PDT
tonight, california is at odds, once again, with trump administration on key. s and conserving a mural george washington high school. 1adbwmore proof that facial recognition software is unreliable. wanting to ban it further in the state. hello, welcome. we begin our show over the battle of protecting the environment d climate change. >> this week the trump administration made new rules to weaken the end gered specit. it is a law signed in 1973 by pr
ident richard nixon. protects more than 1600 plant and animal species, californi)ññqóttorney general quickly vowed to fight the trump administration's move in court. the ve next day, california joined 29 states and cities in a lawsuit against another trump m8fyh:=-åoñenviro regu5+zhons, obama-era rnrestrictions on coal g power plants. kevin and dan who join o%+ welcome. >> thank you. q'dangered species act change. whais at stake for california when the federal government move s in like this. >>@ww)ñit is a huge deal. and gea deal for the state of california.
species alive, the condor, the grizzly bear, what it t is talked about is how it effects the osystems of california. we have more plants on the endangered lista han animals. huge deal. and california has more endangered species than any other state be sides hawaii. ourr is f land. even though california might have strong laws, you know, a lot of the places in the state are not covered under these ro ctions that we have. >> dan, one thing that bugs critics about these changes is that they will allow government officials to ignore threats to species from climate change. has climate changbeen an important factor in determining if a species needs tobe on this list? >> it has not historically been but nogthat climate chis very much with us in '+fñterms n
fires clout seasons and ;bodthe ranges of species havinto move up higher elevations it is now very central to the process. and there is a second feature which is as disturbing which is that this roba k would allow an economic assessment to be part of the assessment tbe part of the species. that has never happened before f because and humpback whales don't vote. what we are seeing is bringing in a criteria that is irrelevant to the way tomove in on lands and disrupt m ecosystee. >> i m@!ocnoticed the rolling o they said they want to make t more efficient.
is to of sease the regulatory burden on the american people end quote. at is it and who is feeling it? >> there is no burden. it is a way to make the endangered species act we have a clear set of rules at ranchers, landowners, local, state governments all look at to determine endangered species is and what are the ecological areas we need to conserve. there is a desire to givaway land for logging and for drilling for oil and gas and really to ow out one of the landmark pieces of legislation that is actually brought a number of species back. ironically madnumber of ecosystems more resilient and healthy, healthy for humans and animals. >> kevin let me ask you what california could do, is doing, clearly it is not afraid of going to court against the
trump administration. as you mentioned we have our own very, very strong laws with regard to environmental regulations. what is california p to aside from going to court? >> dan mentioned wolves don't hava vote, animals like that the same ntioned wolves don't state boundaries that we do. you know e wolf at is protected just came down from oregon, it can walk into another state, california protections do not extend there. the same thing ++ó4ñgoes r the clean power plan. we are part of a regional grid system. states around us might be burning coal, we know the power could come in the state. even hough we have strong protections it does not mean -- like these are big issues global issues it does not mean our protections are really going to protect the endangered species in addition alley climate change is a bag problem. this is something that isn't going to happen from sacramento or within the boundaries of
california. >> let's talk, abnow, ut the lawsuit that california, 21 other states and some cities filed this week against the trump administration regarding regulating coal plants. dan, help us #gqñunderstand the fference between how th obama administration was doing it and how the trump administration wants tdo it. >> so, the obama clean power plan sets each state to reduce its emissions by a third by 2025. a zcy+nparticularly brilliant ment is of that requi that it does not compete the states that made a lot of progress like california or new york against state that have not started. it says you reduce from your o baseline and that reduction, that one third by 2025 puts us right in about e path we would need to be "úy1ño meet the intergovernmental panels of climate changes goal. the an that now president trump is proposing would have ÷c emissions go down by roughly
1%. so it is night and day difference. the real irony of it s that states have launched a number of the measures that would be nded so some traditional coal states like kentucky have mixtures of natural as d renewablis they are ahead of schedule to get there from day 1. iwas a thoughtful, integrative plan and the trump one is literally just a mess. simply says do nothing. now what california ád6xhas do going further. our goal is to d 60% powe by ú@ó,u(s far above that level. what we have seen around the t country is tthe mixture of the low-cost of renewables, the eater job creation in the renewables. they are not buying not only oal but natural gas was an
economic win around bhidñthe country. so what the president is proposing is retrograde and environmentally d just frankly stupid economically. >> so the lawsuit that california and the other states have filed argues that under trump administration policy the environmental protection agency essentially fails its nte to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. kevin, are ?1"we really talkingx about +2ñan eventual clash, in courts í=)jkjuh,ótyrñ÷áo+8rmwha responsibility of the epa is? >> absolutely. and that is why we are ]fsy#eil of the lawsuits happen right now. it is because the trump admintration wants to ge this going in the courts. they want to get the in front of supreme courts that is friendly to them and before tt firm. it is is all executive action which means in there is a new president in 2021 they can come in and just roll it all back.
solved, get this legal debate done before the end of the term. >> i want to ask both of you what your sense is of if é> the key issue in the epa under obama was the )vr7yfindin that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. even with this more conservative court ?á?;uy think most of the stices are also fairly sensible human beings and will not take this trump move. that does not mean all of them rçcertainly a few that voted ne6tcbuservative the mixture of the action wards cleaner economy, the
sense that we are now the only country that is n finding greenhouse gases as a pollutant i think this would still stay where we are. as the court shifts, all bets c be off. >> yes. yes. >> absolutely right. i would say that bend that, that obama clean power plan says carbon emissions public health. that is something that the smog hurts people that are living in this country. ipeople thaare income, living around coal plants and industrial. that is a piece of this. also, sorof two places that the lawsuit could end up. supreme court or a panel f judges in the dc circuit court. the panel of judges in the dc court might be more sympathetic to arguments that states like g.lifornia are maki >> science reporter kevin stark k you very en, th much both of you. >> thank you. there has been national outcry äçthis week over the s
francisco's school board nvoti to hide and not destroy he controversial mural at george washington high school. the ]k,mural was painted by an artist in 1930s. depicts washington slaves and white settlers stepping over a dead native american man. back in june the board was leaning over painting over the mural. those against the mural say t images are offensive and depressive and students should not be faced with seeg them every day. historians and mural supporters counter with the tance of preserving history and art. now, the decision has left both sides disappointed. joining me now from pasadena is arts and cultural reporter chloe veltman and here in jstud , board member of indian center hello to you both. >> hello. >>etello. >> me start with you, chloe, lot of people think the mural should not be seen
every day but a lot of people don't think it should be destroyed, either. can we start by going back to othe original intentionthe artial who painted the mu >> first of all we have to talk about the fact that that it is challenges to talk about io artistic inte. a lot of people who are saying that it is more important to thinabout the facts that we experience art each of us subjectively in the moment and our experience of art (ñis alwa closely connected to our time and placethat we are living in, today, and of course it is being considered decades after it was created. to get back to your questions we know a little of his intentions by h biography. a case that he says the artist
neñkgur'tend is mural as a racist work. he was not g intendto celebrate the achievements of white settlers. his aim was richly violen frescos was to show the dark and disturing side of colonial rule in this country. >> so was this mural controversial from the beginning? from when it was painted and presented there at the school? >> not really from the very start. for decades the school board and he board of education have been receiving complaints from students, teachers, talking out how disturbing the mural are. the response has ebbed nd flowed over the years. back in the 1960s the black panthers got involved when the school union wanted to have the
mural removed. and the c4presponse to that was that they commissioned an artist, in the bay area dewy crumpler, to create a response mural. ceacbrating the evements of minority communities and that mural is still around today and is somebody who has spoken out in favor of keeping the mural. seemed, at the time, to sway the negative feelings hi7tthat community felat least to a degree. >>en and now -- andnow we have the more recent time where thags flared up as of last year with students, teachers and omother nity members coming forth and ramirez, on the board of the american indian cultural cent but an alum of the ls
public schoo were students complaining about this mural when you were in high school? >> yes. and i remember myself being mupset by thal when i saw it at washington high school. just because i did not go to washington, i graduated in 1916 never means i saw itin person. i went there for sports. i have been to the school and remember thinking why does one of my ancestors look like a decoratiowhile here and dead in this mural. to me dothat not look like decoration. i have been an tive participate in the education program since -- forever. for a very long time. part of my life. we had students coming to us saying we don't want this here. we have students here telling us that they don't want that there because don't feel it is empowering them. hurts them to see it deve in their school. at the end of the day it is in a lobby as a coration. it is art that is decorating the lobby of washington rehi:<
school. i r"vdon't think my genocide is decoration. >> does anyone -- is there ever a moment that a student passes by this mural, is fded but then learns that, in fact, the mural in fact wants to attack slavery even sorofcall out the fact that native amererans, was a genocide that sort of led to a destruction of a culture to build america up? does that help at all? does that ever do anything to chan a mind set for students who pass by the mural? >> well, what i think people have to understand it is not being talked about right now with context, with historical context, that is t brought up. it is just there, no context, ot no plaque,ng telling what the artist is trying to do. no talking about it. like people are saying it is a great teaching tool but it to the used to teach. so if that is th intent put
ányin a museum. does not need to be decoration. >> this mural is in a school d so people will make the case for it being in educational tool, clearly you don't think it is explicit enough in sort aof stating with the presentation of the mural. but chloe who is in favor of keeping the mural? what are they saying about why they want to keep the mural? >> a range of people who came out and said -- including some n studentother members of the school community, not everyone from the school mmunity wants to see it removed. also prominent members of the african-american community includes the president of the naacp here in san cofrancand the actor, danny glover, who wants to keep it. they are sayinit should not be whitewashed over that thi
is an ugly truth about this country and it should be there and it should be a teaching tool. art there are the preservationists and art critics talking about its historic value that it is a beautiful and very vibrant work and to destroy it uld be a terrible thing, they say, in terms of hiarory. t so, it will be covered not destroyed. let me ask you, ariana first, does at satisfy you? it being covered but not destroyed? >> it does not satisfy our commity because we are pretty sure in 20 years or some point down-the-line we will come back and have this same fight all over again, another school board can vote to take both panels down, panels are not a permanent solution, those can come down. it has been covered in the past before. the school board talked about it, clearly it happened already and i would not be surprised if
the panels are ing down. >> i do not imagine, chloe, that the optionof covering it but not destroying it satisfies the people who want to preserve the mural either, am i correct? >> that is right. a lot of talk particularly in the art preservation community about how really the whole gecision of the board now is a bit of a lose/lose for everyone. there are various options, painting over it is tang away the possibility of it being a learning tool. >> covering it up is an expensive solution and again, does not really help at all because yes, the work could be years play again in 20 that would upset the students and then for the art people who want to see it, it dos not help either. there is another solution that would be probably very, very expensive and difficult to do
but i gather not impossible from talking to experts. it has been done at harvard iversity. a case of sort of surgically removing the mural. and then taking it away and possibly puttinit in a museum. any attempt to bring it up is met lywith it would prob cause structural damage to the sc ool itself. is expensive. not a cheap option. if a donor would step forward maybe a posalbility. >>right. >> thank you for joining us. thank you. this week some california lawmakers had to f a difficult reality. their faces look a lot çv
those 1xcyof suspectth criminal h8/]lawmakers learned this with the aclu of northern california tested a facial recognition technology by running the photos of 120 legislatures through a data base of thousands of mug shots. the product found the faces of 26 lawmakers among the mug shots. the aclu's message in running this experiment and publishing the results with errors like these facial recognition technology is y not refor its close-up. assembly member was among the wm ers falsely identified among the mug shots and he joins us now to discuss this. hello, welcome. having to talk about the legislatn that you are pushing on this but i have to ask, first, were you prepared to learn that your face looks like that of a criminal? >> óokabsolutely. the aclu did the same test with
members of congress and 28 of t thoued. it would be interested to do the same i . higher percentage of us got hit. 26 out of the 120. >> were all of the legislatures willing to participate? having their faces submited to this or is that part of it, too. >> our portraits are on public eweb sites. just took them and crossed them from the mug shots. >> gt. so what does your legislation are trying to get on this >> so ab-1215 sets it up perfectly where it bans facial recognition software from body cameras. i did body camera legislation last year to have more transparency, bodcameras as ey are deployed are built for building trust so we have a public record of what happened particular incident. so, by banning facial
recognition software it is ensuring the cameras continue to build trust rather than surveill the commuity. it would be like deploying thousands of camhras with 24- r surveillance. >> a lot of the knock facial recognition technology has bee that people of color seem to at a higher risk, maybe even gender issues, too, buare you finding that yçñ&ñthe 2l
we will not put it in j%i$oour m cas. microsoft refuseed to ll t to an unnamed california law enforcement agency. again, rarely do you see corporatio argue against eir best interests but they are americans, too, in america we have had typlof times where we debate between freedom and liberty vses public safety. more often than not we choose freedom and liberty. we icould live a safer society but chosen not to live n a police state. >> the player of beverly hills wrote q[v.÷you a respectful let opposing your legislation. he sae d thtechnologies help compare images of hundreds 7jso thousands of peple quickly. there is important. it saves time, it saves resources and particularly in a city like his where there are high profilrevents, celies passing through. this is helpful technology. what do you tell mors, law
enforcement officials who really want this as a tool? >> i think it is a great point. beçhave even d re high profile events. wa banmore types of facial recognition so deployed in different things much more than body cameras. my legislation is only regarding body cameras. if they wanted to use that data another purpose my legislation does not preclude that. that ç pwis how i would say th in beverly hills or anyother city, how many innocent people are going to accused or arrested? once you are false low arrested that stays onyour record unless you go through a number job, housing, impact your ability to o n.don't child re+jçjust that way a false arst
can stand by. >> amazon says when a human it can serv/eo% beneficial purposev day this technology could be used to good use? >> think it is possible. our legislation is pro active. no law y enforcement ageusing this software right now. like all legisp ation that is for debate at a later date. i welcome that en it is ready for prime time we can have the discussion how it can be ed. again, we see the downside of this. you saw all of the protest in hong kong that are going on. the chinese government is using facial recognition software to identprotesters. so, imagine if you are out >(i=e exercising your free speech rights at a protest here in the united states. do you want to be identified byc the pofor exercising your basic civil rights? e is ultimately aza civil rig question and if nt to
>> political and economic warfare. i'm robert costa. nlcome to "washingto week." >> you have no choice but to vote for me, because four 401(k)'s, down the tubes. everything is going to be down the tubes. whether you love me or hate ve, goote for me. >> after months of growth, the stock market is rattled. but the president sticks with his trade war. >> china, ou doing? they're not too happy. not too happy. losing millions of jobs. the tariffs are worki and they're eating the tariffs, by the way. there's no price increase. >> are there tensions inside the administration? and the president, once again, clashes with minorityn women i congress. this time on israel. next.