0:03

Welcome to Let's Find Common

0:05

Ground from the Center for the

0:07

Political Future at the University

0:09

of Southern California's Dornsite College

0:12

of Letters, Arts, and Sciences.

0:14

I'm Bob Shrum, Director of

0:16

the Center. And I'm Republican

0:18

Mike Murphy, co-director of the

0:21

Center. Our podcast brings together

0:23

America's leading politicians, journalists, and

0:26

academics from across the political

0:28

spectrum for in-depth discussions where

0:30

we respect each other. and

0:33

we respect the truth. We

0:35

hope you enjoy these conversations.

0:37

I'm honored to introduce our two

0:40

panels for this session and

0:42

I want to express our

0:44

gratitude to them for joining us

0:46

today. In the Senate Barbara

0:48

Boxer chaired the Senate Environment

0:51

Committee. It was an

0:53

early and powerful voice on a

0:55

range of issues from blocking

0:57

oil drilling in the Arctic

0:59

National Wildlife Refuge. to Northern

1:02

California, Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness

1:04

Act, which was signed into

1:07

law by President George

1:09

W. Bush. She became a

1:11

prophetic and effective voice on

1:13

the defining environmental

1:16

challenges of our time. She's also

1:18

been a fellow at the Center

1:20

for the Political Future, and

1:22

she's a member of our

1:24

board of counselors. For 10

1:26

years, Garrett Graves represented Louisiana's

1:29

six congressional district in the

1:31

House of Representatives. Before that,

1:33

he was staff director for the Committee

1:35

on Global Climate Change and Impacts.

1:38

He chaired the House Committee on

1:40

Transportation and Infrastructure. It was a

1:42

member of the Subcommittee on Energy and

1:44

Mineral Resources. In the House,

1:46

he worked to build an environmental

1:49

platform Republicans could rally around.

1:51

And he made environmental issues in

1:53

climate. a major focus on the

1:55

committees he both chaired and served

1:57

on. So the three of us will

2:00

have a conversation for about 45

2:02

minutes and then open this up

2:04

to questions from the audience. So

2:06

let me start with this. We

2:09

have moved from an administration dedicated

2:11

to addressing climate change to one

2:13

that at least seems hostile to

2:15

the effort. Garrett do you agree

2:18

with that assessment in the $64

2:20

question? Do you see a pathway

2:22

for Democrats and Republicans to cooperate

2:25

in tackling climate change? To answer

2:27

your first question, no. I don't

2:29

see a hostility toward it. As

2:31

a matter of fact, I think

2:34

if you actually take a step

2:36

back and look at it and

2:38

actually look at math, look at

2:40

science, you'll see that in many

2:43

cases, Republican policies have resulted in

2:45

better environmental outcomes. And I want

2:47

to be crystal clear. I will

2:50

cite chapter and verse. I'll point

2:52

you to statistics and studies on

2:54

this. I spent a lot of

2:56

time studying it. And let me

2:59

give you one last thing. Bob,

3:01

I actually have a lot of

3:03

hope. You can look over the

3:05

last about 20 years. And over

3:08

the last 20 years, the United

3:10

States has led the world in

3:12

reducing emissions over about a 20-year

3:15

period. And as a matter of

3:17

fact, we've reduced emissions more than

3:19

about the next seven emissions reducing

3:21

countries combined. 20 years, as you

3:24

know, transcends both Republican and Democrat

3:26

administrations. And it's been fairly consistent.

3:28

So for those of you that

3:30

are here that are very concerned

3:33

about trajectory of the environment and

3:35

how it's being treated, I think

3:37

if you look back historically, there's

3:40

actually some really good news and

3:42

good trends that are there. Barbara,

3:44

what's your reaction to that? And

3:46

then I have a follow-up for

3:49

you. I'm glad you answered it

3:51

that way. I'm so happy. I

3:53

agree and disagree with your analysis,

3:55

which that's not bad. We agree

3:58

on half the things. I think

4:00

there are some red states that

4:02

are doing an amazing job. For

4:05

example, shockingly, we learned from Jennifer.

4:07

grand home, Texas leads the way

4:09

in terms of the percentage of

4:11

renewables, right? South Dakota. Terrific. California

4:14

is doing great. 60% of our

4:16

energy is from renewables. We're a

4:18

very big state. That's a very

4:20

big accomplishment. But I have to

4:23

tell you as someone who doesn't

4:25

like to admit failure. I don't

4:27

know any politician that does. I

4:30

have two things people ask me

4:32

Bob. What are your biggest regrets?

4:34

So one is I couldn't stop

4:36

the war in Iraq. I kept

4:39

trying for so many years after

4:41

year after year was so hard.

4:43

It took a new president and

4:45

finally was over. The other one

4:48

is we lost our fabulous legislation

4:50

which the House had passed to

4:52

put a price on carbon. which

4:55

would have solved the whole problem

4:57

all those years ago, 2009. And

4:59

we did have a couple of

5:01

Republicans. It is true. John McCain

5:04

was with me. Olympia Snow was

5:06

with me. Outside of that, no

5:08

way. New. And I had a

5:10

couple of Dems that were no,

5:13

but the vast majority were yes.

5:15

That was a turning point. And

5:17

I'd like to be a little

5:20

more optimistic about national, you know,

5:22

action. But that was the moment.

5:24

But I do think, and I'll

5:26

close with this, listening to all

5:29

the voices before me, I think

5:31

we need to change the way

5:33

we talk about it. We need

5:35

to find the common ground, which

5:38

is the point of this whole

5:40

exercise. I'm not giving up, but

5:42

I have to say, I don't

5:45

feel that way about Trump. I

5:47

don't see him running around saying

5:49

anything, but climate change or some

5:51

phony hoax. So I hope you're

5:54

right and I'm wrong. And I'm

5:56

wrong. Let me put it that

5:58

way. So do you think this

6:00

is inevitably a partisan issue? No.

6:03

because look out the window. Look

6:05

what's happening. You'd have to be

6:07

completely blind to the climate. I'm

6:10

not talking about the weather. We

6:12

know there's a difference between the

6:14

weather and the climate. People are

6:16

beginning to see as we sit

6:19

here today, there are a lot

6:21

of red states that are in

6:23

deep, deep trouble. So I think

6:25

once people connect the dots and

6:28

we have Republicans like this. who

6:30

are willing to say yes, this

6:32

is the truth, and let's find

6:35

the best way, the least disruptive

6:37

way to do it, I think

6:39

we can do it. But I'm

6:41

done lecturing people and trying to

6:44

convince them that climate change is

6:46

real. If you don't know it

6:48

by now, you don't have a

6:50

heartbeat or a pulse. That's how

6:53

I feel. So I'll give the

6:55

next question first to you. And

6:57

it goes back to something that

7:00

Secretary Granholm was saying. Reducing carbon

7:02

emissions, as she suggested, his core

7:04

to solving the climate crisis. At

7:06

the same time, there is a

7:09

kind of bipartisan consensus that for

7:11

the immediate future, the US has

7:13

to produce more fossil fuels. In

7:15

fact, the Secretary said that there

7:18

were more permits issued for drilling.

7:20

and natural gas exploration under President

7:22

Biden than under the first Trump

7:25

administration. How do we balance these

7:27

two imperatives? Well, we got to

7:29

move away. That's what we did

7:31

here in California. You move away.

7:34

Why? Because guess what? We have

7:36

a plug-in hybrid car. We love

7:38

it. And we never go to

7:40

the gas station. and pay those

7:43

ridiculous prices, except when we take

7:45

a long trip, because we get

7:47

50 miles on that charge. So

7:50

I think that the way you

7:52

do it is slow, but steady.

7:54

And yeah, I don't object if

7:56

we've already approved of drilling, but

7:59

as far as doing what Trump

8:01

wants to do, which is to

8:03

open up our magnificent parks, our

8:05

beautiful wilderness areas, which is not

8:08

really allowed to do, but he

8:10

wants to do it, what did

8:12

he say all through the campaign?

8:15

Everybody? Drill, baby, drill. Well, I

8:17

say if you drill, baby, drill,

8:19

you burn, baby, burn. And I

8:21

don't, that's not a joke. That's

8:24

a serious thing sitting here in

8:26

Los Angeles. So I am very

8:28

very worried, but I do see

8:30

You have to be willing like

8:33

I don't even like nuclear energy

8:35

I'm scared of the waste I'm

8:37

scared of the waste But show

8:40

to me that there's a way

8:42

to do it and say but

8:44

I'll be open to it. So

8:46

we just have to bring everybody

8:49

along last point I always say

8:51

that as a U.S. Senator, because

8:53

then you could go on all

8:55

day as you saw Corey Booker

8:58

did. You know, I think at

9:00

this stage in our lives, we're

9:02

going to lose the planet. We're

9:05

going to lose it. What are

9:07

we doing? I have my grandson

9:09

have to be here sitting in

9:11

the audience. I owe him a

9:14

lot more. I couldn't do what

9:16

I wanted to do. But this

9:18

guy's younger. He's going to do

9:20

it. He's going to help do

9:23

it. And you're going to help

9:25

do it. And the reason I'm

9:27

optimistic is the younger people, you

9:30

don't have to give him a

9:32

lecture. In 2008, when we had

9:34

the first hearing on climate change

9:36

in my committee, every single scientist,

9:39

Republican, Democrat, independent, we didn't know

9:41

who these folks were. They all

9:43

agreed. They all predicted all this

9:45

extreme weather. Now people know it.

9:48

So I think there are ways

9:50

that we can do it a

9:52

little all of the above moving

9:55

away gently because too much at

9:57

stake, we can't lose the planet.

9:59

So Garrett, as you do it,

10:01

because you're younger, how would you

10:04

strike? Just had a lot of

10:06

cosmetic surgery. How would you strike

10:08

the balance between fossil fuels and

10:10

the need to reduce carbon emissions?

10:13

Yeah, Bob, I gotta tell you,

10:15

I'm gonna address your question, but

10:17

I've been sitting here for hours

10:20

and I've been listening to everything

10:22

going on, and it's crystal clear

10:24

to me why this nation has

10:26

such a divide. on energy policy.

10:29

They're fundamental disagreements and quite frankly

10:31

fundamental misunderstandings of reality. What I

10:33

said a little while ago about

10:35

the United States leading the world

10:38

and reducing emissions, I'm going to

10:40

guess that was probably news to

10:42

most of you in the room.

10:45

Let me give you some other

10:47

things that will perhaps shock you

10:49

and I encourage you to fact-check

10:51

me. Emissions went down more

10:54

under the first Trump administration than the

10:56

Biden administration. We're still waiting on the

10:58

returns from 2024, but I'm pretty sure

11:00

that that's going to remain accurate. Let

11:02

me say that again. Emissions went down

11:05

more under the Trump administration than the

11:07

Biden administration. So everybody here saying the

11:09

guy's wrong, he's making up fact-check me,

11:11

please. Let me say again, let me

11:14

say again, 2024 numbers were going down

11:16

even before, number one. Yes, they were.

11:18

That is out there. The emissions went

11:20

up in the first two years of

11:22

the Trump administration. The Biden demonstrated that

11:25

he did, which COVID absolutely contributed to

11:27

it. But what it also shows is

11:29

there's a linkage between economic activity and

11:31

energy utilization, which means you potentially got

11:33

the economy. So let's let's talk about

11:36

a few other things. So here we

11:38

are in California. So California says, hey,

11:40

model your energy portfolio energy systems after

11:42

us. California has the eighth worst emissions

11:44

growth in America, most dependent state upon

11:47

oil from the Amazon rainforest, least reliable

11:49

grid in America, more than twice the

11:51

electricity rates my home state of Louisiana.

11:53

go on and on. Why would we

11:56

want to replicate or scale out these

11:58

things? So look, all day long I

12:00

can sit here and I can continue

12:02

to divide this issue, continue to push

12:04

people away, and continue to make this

12:07

a more partisan issue. But what I

12:09

think is really important is before we

12:11

start talking about policy, that what's most

12:13

important is that we agree on a

12:15

set of facts. Let me throw out

12:18

something else to it. During the Biden

12:20

administration we saw them increase their dependence

12:22

upon Russian oil. We saw Russia supplying

12:24

the majority of natural gas into the

12:26

European Union. Back at the envelope numbers,

12:29

and you're welcome to fact check me

12:31

on this too, back in the envelope

12:33

numbers, if we had simply replaced one

12:35

year, one year of natural gas that

12:37

was going from Russia to the European

12:40

Union, instead replaced it with US, natural

12:42

gas, we would have reduced emissions by

12:44

about 218 million tons. Any of you

12:46

involved in emissions reduction projects? 218 million

12:49

tons. One of the reasons we need

12:51

to continue producing oil and gas to

12:53

some degree, and I want to be

12:55

crystal clear, I am fully supportive of

12:57

reducing emissions. I think we have an

13:00

obligation and responsibility to do so, but

13:02

we need to make sure we're being

13:04

thoughtful in using math and science in

13:06

doing so, because the Biden administration's own

13:08

numbers say that you're going to have

13:11

up to an 80% increase in natural

13:13

gas demand in developing countries, up to

13:15

80% growth in natural gas demand. Guess

13:17

where you have the lowest carbon intensity

13:19

in natural gas in the world, or

13:22

one study says the lowest and the

13:24

other says the second lowest, then the

13:26

Gulf of Mexico and the United States.

13:28

So why would we not produce if

13:30

we have that type of demand increase?

13:33

Why would we not produce, why would

13:35

we not produce where you have the

13:37

lowest carbon intensity? So we need to

13:39

make sure we're doing things factually. Bob,

13:42

I'm going to answer your question right

13:44

now. Look, one of the reasons we

13:46

have such a big partisan divide on

13:48

this thing is because the way that

13:50

we talk about it. I

13:53

have three kids. I care about

13:55

the environment. I was a wilderness

13:57

instructor and spent months out in

13:59

the woods. teaching wilderness courses. I care

14:01

about the environment. I've spent billions

14:04

of dollars restoring the coast

14:06

of Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

14:08

We've got to think about how we're talking

14:10

about this. Look, something that the Senator

14:12

and I will totally agree upon. But we're

14:14

going to probably approach it or talk

14:17

about it differently. If we're going to go

14:19

into a community and we're going to say,

14:21

hey, I'm going to go into Republicans and

14:23

I'm going to say, hey, I've got a

14:26

strategy to where I can reduce your

14:28

energy consumption. I can have lower utility bills

14:30

and I can reduce the cost of

14:32

building that widget in your factory. Republicans

14:34

will be like, yeah, pay a lower

14:36

cost, a more competitive globally, saving money,

14:39

yeah, all day long. Well, that strategy

14:41

is energy efficiency and controversy.

14:43

It's something that I'm confident

14:45

Senator Boxer is fully supportive

14:47

of. It's lowering energy consumption, which means

14:49

you're going to have lower emissions. So

14:51

there are ways that we can approach

14:53

these things and talk about it. is what

14:56

I did after Hurricane Katrina,

14:58

rebuilding levies and coastal wetlands

15:00

after the hurricane. We came in and we

15:02

built coastal resiliency projects

15:04

using every tool and toolbox,

15:06

including ecological restoration as well

15:09

as structural. And in doing

15:11

so, if I'm talking to Republicans, I'm

15:13

talking about how the strategy

15:15

of investing dollars in the

15:17

right projects actually saves money

15:19

because your communities are more

15:21

resilient. I'm talking to Democrats,

15:23

I may highlight the ecological

15:26

productivity increases of what we're doing. So

15:28

look, words matter. There are things, and I

15:30

know that Senator Boxer, in fact, worked

15:32

on the Water Resources Bill and her

15:34

committee to make sure that some of the

15:36

stuff happened. So there are ways we can

15:39

work together, and I do think that

15:41

you're seeing Republicans engage on this issue

15:43

a good bit more. But I think,

15:45

as I started, there's some facts that we

15:47

need to talk about. and some strategies that

15:49

have actually been incredibly successful including the

15:51

use of natural gas that has resulted

15:53

in some of the largest reductions in

15:55

world history and energy emissions that need

15:58

to be on the table for some period of time.

16:00

Barbara, how do you react to

16:02

all that? Okay. California. We

16:04

are doing great. I don't

16:06

know what that all was

16:08

about. I respect you. We'll

16:10

check your facts. Please. But

16:12

we are way ahead of

16:14

where we're supposed to be.

16:16

AB 32. We've never passed

16:19

a long time ago. By

16:21

2050, we want to be

16:23

zero emissions. We are doing

16:25

better. then we thought we

16:27

could do despite the fact

16:29

that on the national level

16:31

we go up we go

16:33

down we go in we

16:35

go out and I do

16:37

want to point out whether

16:39

it's Trump is president or

16:41

Biden is president many states

16:43

are taking the lead on

16:45

this you know that some

16:47

of the states are true

16:49

a lot of red states

16:51

I told you before I

16:53

if you look at the

16:55

list of 10 states that

16:57

have the most renewables I

16:59

think you'll be a bit

17:01

surprised so it isn't That's

17:03

despite the lack of national

17:05

leadership on certain years. So

17:07

I think that's good. Now

17:09

California is a perfect state

17:11

to talk about because we

17:13

have the best GDP in

17:15

this country by far. The

17:17

best GDP because there are

17:19

so, yes, thank you for

17:21

that. There are so many

17:23

jobs in the renewable area

17:25

that we talk, I think

17:27

we can agree, are good

17:29

paying jobs that have to

17:31

be done here. Tariffs, tariff

17:33

away. I can't stand what's

17:35

happening when I'm talking about

17:38

that. But you can't have

17:40

somebody in China standing there

17:42

and making sure that they're

17:44

putting solar panels on the

17:46

roofs, okay? So it's so

17:48

good for jobs. So I

17:50

would just say. In summary,

17:52

the fact is that California

17:54

is doing just fine. Thank

17:56

you. We're way ahead of

17:58

where we're going to be.

18:00

Are we perfect and oh?

18:02

We are not. And we

18:04

are doing all of the

18:06

above. And a lot of

18:08

people love natural gas. They

18:10

love natural gas. I had

18:12

somebody call me and said,

18:14

will you help me? I

18:16

want to get natural gas.

18:18

Well, I said, no. Because

18:20

they say it's a transition

18:22

fuel. And it is. But

18:24

why go there if you

18:26

can go to the beautiful

18:28

solar, to the beautiful wind

18:30

like Texas? is doing. They

18:32

lead on wind energy. So

18:34

I feel like I don't

18:36

get why you would attack

18:38

California. I don't agree with

18:40

your facts on that. Are

18:42

we perfect? No. Could we

18:44

do more? Yes. But I'm

18:46

pretty proud of where we

18:48

are. Fifth largest economy in

18:50

the world, right behind Germany.

18:53

Garrett, I saw you taking notes.

18:56

Go ahead. Yeah. You better clean

18:58

that up from what you wrote.

19:00

Just kidding. Look, one thing that

19:02

I think is really important for

19:04

us to be thinking about is

19:07

We're talking about, Senator Boxer said,

19:09

energy transition, I believe, is the

19:11

term she used. Let me say

19:13

it again. I'm fully supportive of

19:15

every energy technology, of small modular

19:18

reactors and nuclear, of hydro and

19:20

wind and solar and title, I

19:22

mean, everything we can use. We're

19:24

going to need all of it,

19:27

because here's what's happened. Over about

19:29

the last 40 years, we haven't

19:31

had a growth or an increase

19:33

in the growth of energy demand.

19:35

We are projected to see the

19:38

numbers go like this because of

19:40

electrification of cars. My refrigerator now

19:42

talks to the internet for some

19:44

reason. The AI data centers, we're

19:46

going to see this surge in

19:49

energy demand. And so we're not

19:51

in a situation where we're used

19:53

to building out all this new

19:55

generation capacity and trade. and distribution,

19:58

but we're going to have to

20:00

be. So look, everything needs to

20:02

be on the table. One of

20:04

the things we're doing as Americans

20:06

shooting ourselves in the flood is

20:09

one, having energy policy widely swing

20:11

pendulums where Obama was here and

20:13

then Trump goes here and then

20:15

Biden goes here and Trump goes

20:18

here and Trump goes here. If

20:20

you're looking and, you know, the

20:22

senator knows this, and I just

20:24

hit my steps, look at that.

20:26

They said or knows this, but

20:29

we're talking about investing tens, hundreds

20:31

of billions of dollars. And you're

20:33

telling people, you're getting four years

20:35

of certainty, and then four years

20:37

of certainty, people are going to

20:40

do that. They want a 30-year

20:42

time frame on predictability and certainty.

20:44

What are the rules of the

20:46

game? And so we're shooting ourselves

20:49

in the foot by having these

20:51

wild pendulum swings, by allowing this

20:53

issue to be a polarizing or

20:55

divisive issue. We need to build

20:57

upon the energy conservation, energy efficiency

21:00

story that I talked about. We

21:02

need to be building upon the

21:04

fiscal conservative argument for being, building,

21:06

investing in resiliency, as well as

21:08

the ecological productivity improvements that result

21:11

there. It's really important, but we

21:13

also need to be looking at

21:15

this from a global perspective. Because

21:17

I mentioned at the beginning, the

21:20

whole 20-year... Let me give you

21:22

another stat. During that 20-year period

21:24

for every one ton of emissions

21:26

that we reduce in the United

21:28

States, guess what? China increased five.

21:31

For every one, we decreased. And

21:33

so, look, this is really important.

21:35

This is really important. This is

21:37

a global issue. We can't put

21:39

California in a bubble and say,

21:42

hey, look what we did. It

21:44

is a global issue. So we've

21:46

got to be paying close attention

21:48

to what's happening globally. And if

21:51

we're putting too many restrictions or

21:53

driving up costs in the United

21:55

States, guess what happens. The production

21:57

goes elsewhere. Whether it goes to

21:59

Mexico, Brazil, India, China, and they

22:02

have a less efficient energy economy

22:04

than we do. Meaning, said very

22:06

bluntly, for every ton, for every

22:08

megawatt of electricity, they have higher

22:11

emissions than we do in the

22:13

United States. So that's a major

22:15

problem. I'll just give one other

22:17

reason why I think that in

22:19

some cases, Republican, President Trump policies

22:22

can actually result in better outcomes.

22:24

There was something called the Clean

22:26

Power Plan that was put in

22:28

place by President Obama. And it

22:30

was intended to reduce emissions by

22:33

32% off a 2000 baseline by

22:35

2030. I'll say that again. reduce

22:37

emissions 32% up in 2005 baseline

22:39

by 2030. President Trump came in

22:42

and it was an Obama policy,

22:44

he yanked it and said, yeah

22:46

we're not doing this, all kinds

22:48

of legal fights, everything else, but

22:50

you know what happened? That target

22:53

of reducing emissions by 32% by

22:55

2030? We actually exceeded it by

22:57

2019. Exceeded it. And one of

22:59

the reasons why is because President

23:01

Trump took the handcuffs off of

23:04

the technologies that could be used

23:06

to help achieve that target that

23:08

target. So we exceeded in 2019,

23:10

not in 2030. And so look,

23:13

let me just say again, don't

23:15

go into this administration all prejudice,

23:17

you know, climate doom and gloom,

23:19

energy doom and gloom. I think

23:21

that looking back at history, that

23:24

some of these numbers actually prove

23:26

that we could actually be in

23:28

a good trajectory, but I think

23:30

it's going to take depolitization of

23:32

this issue, and I think it's

23:35

going to take Republicans and Democrats

23:37

working together and trying to talk

23:39

to one another in a way

23:41

that actually resonates with both. I

23:44

do want to go to the

23:46

global context in a minute, but

23:48

I think Senator Boxer is quite

23:50

anxious to comment. I agree with

23:52

97.5% of what you said. But

23:55

when you say no doom and

23:57

gloom, you've got to be kidding

23:59

with Trump and Vance pulling out

24:01

of the Paris Accords after you

24:04

say this is a global imperative.

24:06

It's a horrible message to send.

24:08

It is ridiculous. And who do

24:10

we pal around with now? Putin,

24:12

I never heard a mistake climb.

24:15

change I don't know if he

24:17

knows what it is he's too

24:19

busy at war so you know

24:21

I love your optimism sure I

24:23

want to share it I think

24:26

you're totally right it's a yo-yo

24:28

this one has this plan for

24:30

four years that's why we have

24:32

to make sure as Jennifer Granholm

24:35

said that the Congress does not

24:37

repeal the inflation reduction act which

24:39

has given so many incentives and

24:41

seed money to so many good

24:43

projects. Oh, I thought you were

24:46

going to say that's why we

24:48

need Trump for a third term.

24:50

I'm sorry. Oh, God. If you

24:52

had said that, I would have

24:54

committed you to a memory care

24:57

facility, is that as we call

24:59

them these days, immediately. By the

25:01

way, I won't talk about that

25:03

Trump for a third term. It's

25:06

called the US Constitution. So I'm

25:08

not even giving that air. But

25:10

I know it was a good

25:12

joke on your part. But in

25:14

any case, I think you're right

25:17

to say this. Going up, going

25:19

down is ridiculous. The other last

25:21

point is, again, the good news

25:23

is, regardless of who's president, the

25:25

states are doing this. They are

25:28

doing it because of all the

25:30

reasons you stated. It makes sense

25:32

for consumers to save money. It

25:34

makes sense to have good, renewable

25:37

jobs. It makes sense for people

25:39

to finally say, you know, there's

25:41

a lot of hurricanes that's a

25:43

lot of, maybe it's a good

25:45

thing to... to change. So we're

25:48

getting to that place, thank goodness,

25:50

but it has been a long,

25:52

tough climb. And as I said,

25:54

you know, it sounds funny to

25:57

say this, but when you get

25:59

of a certain age, you'd think

26:01

back, if I only had four

26:03

more votes, it would have been

26:05

different. Because if we had put

26:08

a price on carbon, that would

26:10

be the whole thing. That's when

26:12

you move. It's the easiest way

26:14

to do it's not going to

26:16

happen in the near future. I

26:19

do think we have to move

26:21

to the global context because you

26:23

both referred to it. And, Garrett,

26:25

despite the reduction in emissions in

26:28

the U.S., were the fourth most

26:30

populous country on the Earth and

26:32

the second largest emitter of carbon

26:34

pollution, accounting for nearly 13 percent

26:36

of global emissions in 2022. And

26:39

you can fact check me on

26:41

that. China and India, the two

26:43

most populous countries, respectively. account for

26:45

nearly 33% and 7% of global

26:47

carbon emissions. How much do American

26:50

efforts to reduce our emissions matter

26:52

when those two countries are not

26:54

only responsible for 40% of the

26:56

carbon pollution, but it seems to

26:59

be growing? Can the US bring

27:01

them fully into the effort to

27:03

deal with the climate crisis, especially

27:05

in the midst of a trade

27:07

war, no matter what you think

27:10

of? of the tariffs, whether you

27:12

think they're good or bad, and

27:14

after we've withdrawn from the Paris

27:16

Climate Accords. You want to start?

27:18

So look, let me go back

27:21

and restate what I said earlier.

27:23

The United States has led the

27:25

world reducing emissions. China's increased five

27:27

tons for every one ton of

27:30

emissions we've reduced. It's a global

27:32

issue. I can't say that enough.

27:34

This is the wrong direction. Paris

27:36

Climate Accords, let me split the

27:38

baby on this one a little

27:41

bit. One, I believe the United

27:43

States needs needs to be in

27:45

an international venue for climate. Okay,

27:47

I believe the United States must

27:50

be in an international venue, whether

27:52

it's the UN framework convention for

27:54

climate change or it's something else,

27:56

I don't know, but we need

27:58

to be in something. However, in

28:01

the Paris Accord, China, let's see

28:03

if I can remember this right,

28:05

they... China right now they emit

28:07

more than the United States the

28:09

European Union I think South Korea

28:12

and Japan combined and they're gonna

28:14

increase another 50% by 2030 or

28:16

something I mean they could just

28:18

that the numbers were outrageous And

28:21

for China and India to come

28:23

in and say, oh, hey, we're

28:25

developing countries, we shouldn't be held

28:27

to any type of strict standard.

28:29

I just, I don't think it's

28:32

appropriate. China's out there spending trillions

28:34

of dollars in defense and in

28:36

belt and road initiatives around the

28:38

globe. That doesn't resemble a developing

28:40

country to me. And so, and

28:43

how much sense does it make

28:45

for us to sit here and

28:47

continue? putting additional restrictions and quite

28:49

frankly costing our own citizens and

28:52

allow this what I'll call leakage

28:54

where you tighten up regulations and

28:56

cost so much in the United

28:58

States again they say I'm going

29:00

to Mexico I'm going wherever else.

29:03

So Bob tying it back to

29:05

this tariff thing I actually think

29:07

and President Trump even said yesterday

29:09

how other countries that he's putting

29:11

tariffs on that they're admitting much

29:14

more pollution in the globe than

29:16

the United States does. If you

29:18

care about the environment, if you

29:20

care about American workers and our

29:23

values, then believe it or not,

29:25

there's actually some... background to the

29:27

tariff strategy that makes sense. Do

29:29

I think this is going to

29:31

be in place forever? No. Read

29:34

the art of the deal. Trump's

29:36

doing this to create leverage. He

29:38

wants to negotiate with these countries

29:40

and do something that makes sense.

29:43

I think that the United States

29:45

and California has been a leader

29:47

on some R&D technologies, but the

29:49

United States is going to be

29:51

the country. Actually, Secretary of Granholm

29:54

was talking about the national labs.

29:56

Our national labs are gems. They're

29:58

gems. Keeps great. We're going to

30:00

be the ones that are going

30:02

to pioneer these technologies. We are.

30:05

I'm confident in American ingenuity and

30:07

American innovation. We're going to pioneer

30:09

these technologies that are going to

30:11

be life-changing, whether it was fusion,

30:14

as she was talking about before,

30:16

whether it's a proliferation of SMRs,

30:18

a small modular reactors, or combinations

30:20

of other technologies. I'm confident we're

30:22

going to build a pioneer of

30:25

stuff, but we've got to make

30:27

sure that what we're doing that

30:29

Our strategy is looked at in

30:31

a global sense to where we're

30:33

not. We're not shooting ourselves in

30:36

the foot. And we're not giving

30:38

a competitive advantage to these other

30:40

countries. Because you could actually make

30:42

an argument that by not taking

30:45

on the tariff situation, that what

30:47

we're doing is we're actually incentivizing

30:49

more global pollution. You could make

30:51

a good argument for that. Think

30:53

about what Secretary Granholm said about

30:56

the, was a Greenfield, Michigan, I

30:58

think, the car manufacturing facility. If

31:00

they're paying workers a dollar or

31:02

something in Mexico, do you really

31:04

think that they care about the

31:07

environment as much as we do

31:09

here in Mexico? No. And so

31:11

we really need to be thoughtful.

31:13

I don't think that these approaches

31:16

are, the tariff approaches are exclusive

31:18

or I think that they actually

31:20

benefit some of the global environmental

31:22

objectives that we have in the

31:24

United States. Barbara, what do we

31:27

do to get China, India, and

31:29

other countries? I will tell you,

31:31

but I love this was so

31:33

interesting. Can I respond? Yeah. Thank

31:35

you. So you said, which is

31:38

so intriguing, that Trump is doing

31:40

the tariffs to put pressure on

31:42

other countries. And so he's putting

31:44

pressure on China. So the reason

31:47

he's doing this is to get

31:49

China to do more on climate

31:51

change. I don't think so. I

31:53

don't think what Trump did had

31:55

one ounce of anything to do

31:58

with climate change. But I do

32:00

want to be clear that that

32:02

will be an outcome. That will

32:04

be an outcome. That will be

32:07

an outcome of a tariff strategy.

32:09

We'll see. We'll see if China,

32:11

we'll see what happens. I don't

32:13

think what Trump did had one

32:15

ounce of anything to do with

32:18

climate change, but maybe you're right.

32:20

It's going to help us in

32:22

some way. I can read you

32:24

exactly what you said. I left

32:26

to hear. All right, I won't

32:29

read it all to you because

32:31

you all will start throwing stuff

32:33

at me. I don't know. I

32:35

think some people will. He said

32:38

they manipulated their currency, subsidized their

32:40

export, stolen intellectual property, imposed exorbitant

32:42

VAT value-added taxes to disadvantage our

32:44

product, adopted unfair trade rules and

32:46

technical standards, and created filthy pollution

32:49

havens. They were absolutely filthy. But

32:51

they always, they came to us,

32:53

they said we were violating and

32:55

we should pay for it. Okay.

32:57

By the way, we're not here

33:00

about terrorists, but I don't understand

33:02

the VAT argument, because value-added taxes,

33:04

for example, in Europe, are equally

33:06

applied to their own products and

33:09

to American products, so there's no

33:11

differential disadvantage for the US, I

33:13

think. But what President Trump announced

33:15

was effectively terrorist reciprocity. I mean,

33:17

there's not equality in... There's not

33:20

tariff equality around the globe. I

33:22

mean, for example, the United States,

33:24

what is our tariff on China,

33:26

is like 3.3% and theirs on

33:28

us is 7.7% or something. Ours

33:31

on them is now going to

33:33

be 56%. Okay, wait. And talk

33:35

about putting pressure on, anybody here

33:37

got a 401k? Yes. Barbara. Okay.

33:40

This is turning out to be

33:42

fun. Creating pressure on these countries.

33:44

That doesn't make sense. Why would

33:46

you create hostile pressure on Canada?

33:48

Our best friend ever. And these

33:51

aren't reciprocal. If you believe that.

33:53

I have a lot to sell

33:55

you. The fact

33:57

is, that is simply.

33:59

not true. The fact is the

34:02

Senate voted to take off the

34:04

tariffs on Canada and for

34:06

Republicans getting with us. Yes,

34:08

thank you. That feeds into

34:10

your point. Maybe there's a

34:12

little more bipartisanship here or there.

34:15

But I want to get to

34:17

your first question, which was why

34:19

would we do this when China

34:21

is doing all the You know, how

34:24

do we get them? How do we

34:26

get them? And how could we do

34:28

this and all? Let me just say

34:30

this. I'm a believer in leading

34:32

by example. I tried it. Yeah,

34:35

right? One person likes it, but

34:37

she's my sister. So you

34:39

got a discount. You lead

34:41

by example. You do that as a

34:43

congressman. You do that as a

34:45

senator. You do that as the

34:47

leader of this center. You lead

34:50

by example. America's

34:52

always done that. We've not always

34:54

done it. I have to correct.

34:56

Sega has often done that.

34:58

Especially in the environmental

35:01

arena. We're the ones who said air

35:03

pollution is killing people right

35:05

here in Los Angeles all

35:07

those years ago. We can do this.

35:09

And guess what they showed? Cleaning

35:12

up the air. Cleaning up the

35:14

water. You create good jobs. You

35:16

get a healthier population. People feel

35:19

better. They live longer, all of

35:21

those things. And so for me,

35:23

just saying, and this is not

35:25

what the Congressman said at all,

35:28

but there are those who say,

35:30

forget it. You know, China, India,

35:33

it doesn't matter what we do.

35:35

It matters what we do. It

35:37

matters what we do. And again,

35:39

taking it to our state. If

35:41

you look at our GDP. If

35:43

you look at the progress we've

35:46

made, if you look at the

35:48

renewable jobs we've created, if you

35:50

look at some of the improvements

35:52

in air quality that we've made,

35:54

we are showing by example, and that's

35:57

why it makes me really sad when

35:59

some say Give it all

36:01

up because China's doing the wrong

36:03

thing and when China sees That

36:05

yeah, you can be very very

36:08

very you know prosperous by doing

36:10

this They'll follow our lead. That's

36:12

that's what I think otherwise we're

36:14

doomed Otherwise, we're doomed So let

36:16

me let's move back to the

36:19

attempt to get some bipartisan action

36:21

here Garrett, what's the most persuasive

36:23

case you can make to your

36:25

fellow Republicans, to convince them that

36:28

we have to act decisively to

36:30

solve this crisis, and that to

36:32

do that, they probably have to

36:34

work with Democrats? No. So, Senator...

36:36

That's just a question excuse me

36:39

secretary Granholm mentioned earlier that Republicans

36:41

have a climate caucus that if

36:43

I remember right I think it's

36:45

the second largest Republican caucus in

36:47

the in the House of Representatives

36:50

and it is a Republican climate

36:52

caucus There's a senator now senator

36:54

from Utah John Curtis that we

36:56

worked with there's a Congresswoman from

36:59

Iowa, we refer to as 3M,

37:01

Mary Millenet, Mary, Marynet Miller, Miller,

37:03

me, excuse me, who's the leader

37:05

of it now. And so it's

37:07

showing that there is a growing

37:10

interest on the Republican side to

37:12

address the issue. Bob, I think

37:14

that what makes the most sense

37:16

is to go back and identify

37:18

those areas. where, as I mentioned,

37:21

I apologize for triple tapping on

37:23

this, but where there's common ground,

37:25

even though we may approach it,

37:27

you know, Center Boxer may be

37:29

at the table for a different

37:32

reason than I'm at the table,

37:34

but it achieves the same outcome,

37:36

efficiency conservation, lower emissions, improving the

37:38

competitiveness of U.S. businesses, lowering the

37:41

cost of being a household in

37:43

the United States. Those are all...

37:45

win-wins. There's nothing partisan about that.

37:47

There's nothing we'd fight over. And

37:49

so how do we identify more

37:52

opportunities for those win-wins? And I

37:54

think it's very doable. But I

37:56

do think, as I keep saying,

37:58

Senator, Secretary Granholm said earlier, I

38:00

do think that we have to

38:03

recognize, based on math and science,

38:05

that that actually producing more natural

38:07

gas and exporting it actually is

38:09

going to result in lower global

38:12

emissions for a period. And I

38:14

think that math and science, we

38:16

can, it indicates that's the case.

38:18

That doesn't mean we do it

38:20

to the detriment of some of

38:23

these other energy alternatives. I think

38:25

we continue working. I think one

38:27

of the things that we need

38:29

to be doing, and I think

38:31

Center Boxer probably would agree here.

38:34

I think I've spoken for you

38:36

more in this than I ever

38:38

have in my life, but, but,

38:40

but, but I mentioned earlier we

38:43

have these national energy labs and

38:45

I mean these things really are

38:47

national treasures. The people there, the

38:49

things that they do, it's remarkable.

38:51

I asked Senator Boxer and I'm

38:54

a former member of the House,

38:56

I can't answer this question. What

38:58

is our national energy research and

39:00

development strategy? What is our strategy?

39:02

I don't argue we don't have

39:05

one. If you were a business,

39:07

if our country were a business,

39:09

you would look at your assets

39:11

and resources, you would develop a

39:13

research and development plan, you would

39:16

identify where you have obstacles and

39:18

impediments to things like achieving a

39:20

faster net-zero trajectory, and you would

39:22

use our national labs to help

39:25

to bridge those gaps, to help

39:27

to figure out technical solutions, even

39:29

if it's working with private companies

39:31

to figure this out. I think

39:33

it's something else that we need

39:36

to be doing moving forward. And

39:38

so, look, I believe that if

39:40

we can put our swords and

39:42

daggers and guns and other things

39:44

down as Republicans and Democrats, not

39:47

just on this issue, I'll tell

39:49

you across the board, I think

39:51

we've got to do it, and

39:53

realize that the other party is

39:56

not the enemy. is off our

39:58

shores. And that we need to

40:00

be working together for what's in

40:02

the best interest of Americans. And

40:04

I think that this is an

40:07

area where we absolutely can make

40:09

a lot of bipartisan progress if

40:11

we can start talking to one

40:13

another with one another and listening,

40:15

not talking at one another. Barbara,

40:18

how did you make the case

40:20

for bipartisan action? And do we

40:22

have to do more? Do we

40:24

have to cast it? in different

40:26

terms? We have to find a

40:29

new way to talk about it?

40:31

Well, I look at the whole

40:33

issue as a win-win, and I

40:35

don't look at it ideologically. At

40:38

all. I think we know what

40:40

we've got to do, and we

40:42

also know who doesn't want to

40:44

do it. The big oil, the

40:46

fossil fuel companies, we've got to

40:49

work with them a little bit,

40:51

too. You know what I mean?

40:53

Some of them are... are diversifying.

40:55

I think Jennifer Granholm talked about

40:57

that. And that's a good thing.

41:00

If we could get that, that

41:02

and that alone, right? Because the

41:04

money that they put into politics,

41:06

don't ask and I won't tell.

41:09

But there's so much money that

41:11

they give to certain people in

41:13

very important positions in the House

41:15

and in the Senate. So I

41:17

do think we have to pose

41:20

this as a win-win. And I

41:22

agree so much with you. I

41:24

come to the table for a

41:26

certain reason. You may come for

41:28

a different. It doesn't matter. We

41:31

don't have to yell each other

41:33

about that. But if we say

41:35

we come to the table and

41:37

consumers get a break, and maybe

41:39

that drives me tremendously to the

41:42

table, and you say, you know,

41:44

start up business is going to

41:46

get a break. I like that

41:48

too. When you like the consumer,

41:51

we can do this thing. The

41:53

problem we have is that there

41:55

are 100 people in the Senate,

41:57

each one of them, and I

41:59

could speak from experience. once be

42:02

president. That's true. It's hard to

42:04

get everybody to just sit down

42:06

and work as a group. In

42:08

the house, they're so ideological over

42:10

there. There's a lot of problems

42:13

in the house right now. It's

42:15

hard to do. So I think

42:17

that's why I keep coming back

42:19

to the states as a laboratory.

42:22

Because this is one area where

42:24

you have states red as bright

42:26

ruby red and blue as bright

42:28

blue. that both have decided it's

42:30

in the best interest of their

42:33

people for all kinds of these

42:35

differing reasons for business for consumers

42:37

for cleaning air for all these

42:39

things for saving the planet some

42:41

of them even think that that

42:44

they can come together so look

42:46

i am optimistic on the point

42:48

i have to be optimistic because

42:50

if we don't do this Time

42:52

will run out. That's the issue.

42:55

You know, when you talk about

42:57

exporting natural gas, I get it.

42:59

It's so much better than oil,

43:01

for sure, in terms of the

43:04

emissions. How many years do we

43:06

have, though? We got to move

43:08

a little quicker to the cleanest

43:10

of the clean. And last point

43:12

that I really agree with. I

43:15

love the idea of a plan.

43:17

A plan that could... It would

43:19

be great, whatever president or whatever,

43:21

I don't care who would initiate

43:23

it, where we have the Department

43:26

of Energy sit down with, you

43:28

know, I was going to say

43:30

HHS Health and Human Services, but

43:32

I think I'll take that off

43:35

the table for the moment, and

43:37

just say Department of Energy, come

43:39

up with a really excellent plan

43:41

to move us to the cleanest

43:43

of energies and how we do

43:46

it. And be very honest about

43:48

it, who will get disrupted? And

43:50

if they get disrupted, can they

43:52

get job training? That would be

43:54

a wonderful thing to do. So

43:57

maybe it's going to take some

43:59

outside think tanks. that are bipartisan

44:01

to come up with this. I

44:03

would love to see that, you

44:05

know, this wonderful place here, this

44:08

wonderful campus here, this whole idea

44:10

of this mission of the center,

44:12

could come up with these plans

44:14

where Republicans and Democrats sit across

44:17

the table, get mad at each

44:19

other, laugh, cry, hit each other,

44:21

whatever it takes. And then at

44:23

the end of the day. Here

44:25

are 10 things we agree on.

44:28

I think that's what we have

44:30

to do at this point in

44:32

our history. It really do. We

44:34

hear about violence all the time

44:37

in the news, yet we rarely

44:39

hear stories about peace. There are

44:41

so many people who are working

44:44

hard to promote solutions to violence,

44:46

toxic polarization, and authoritarianism. Often at

44:48

great personal risk. We never hear

44:51

about these stories, but at what

44:53

cost? On making peace visible, we

44:55

speak with journalists, storytellers, and peace

44:58

builders who are on the front

45:00

lines of both peace and conflict.

45:02

You can find making peace visible

45:05

wherever you listen to podcasts. final

45:07

question for me to both of

45:09

you. Where do you think America

45:12

and the world will be on

45:14

the climate issue 10 years from

45:16

now? And are the reasons to

45:19

be hopeful? Yours, because you'll be

45:21

here in 10 years. Yeah, look,

45:23

I'll sort of reiterate one thing

45:26

that I said before. I have

45:28

so much faith in Americans and

45:30

our national labs and in innovation

45:33

and ingenuity that I'm I'm really

45:35

confident that we're going to have

45:37

a diverse bucket of solutions that

45:40

are going to be deployed for

45:42

for energy and when I say

45:44

deploy I want to be clear,

45:47

in our office we used to

45:49

have five things on energy that

45:51

we thought were important, five criteria.

45:54

It was all about reliability and

45:56

affordability. It was about cleanliness. It

45:58

was about exportability. And I want

46:01

to talk on that one for

46:03

just a minute. It's really important

46:05

that whatever energy solutions are, the

46:08

things that can be exportable. And

46:10

we can't just develop solutions that

46:12

are just native or dependent upon

46:15

one country. And the last one

46:17

is the security of the supply

46:19

chain. I think some major mistakes

46:22

were made in energy policy in

46:24

recent years that forced all roads

46:26

to China, that had the critical

46:29

mineral market corner, that had battery

46:31

manufacturing, solar panel manufacturing. We saw

46:33

that country weaponized gloves and mask.

46:36

during COVID, loves and mask, weaponizing

46:38

those during COVID. You think they're

46:40

not going to weaponize an energy

46:43

supply chain if things go south

46:45

between our countries? It's really important

46:47

that we have a secure supply

46:50

chain behind these energy technologies as

46:52

we move forward. So. I think

46:54

that you're gonna see some leaps

46:57

and bounds in innovation. I think

46:59

that AI is gonna be incredibly

47:01

helpful in helping us to resolve

47:04

some of this uncertainty in some

47:06

of these impediments that we have

47:08

in energy development and new technology

47:11

development. And I think that you're

47:13

gonna see massive improvements in energy

47:15

efficiency moving forward to where we

47:17

will be able to run the

47:20

same cities. and neighborhoods and homes

47:22

on a fraction of the energy

47:24

that you use today. And so

47:27

again, those five things I think

47:29

are really, really important as we

47:31

move forward. And I think that

47:34

innovation is going to be the

47:36

absolute problems over here. Barbara, looking

47:38

ahead 10 years, are you hopeful?

47:41

Well, I hope I'll be here.

47:43

That's the first thing. But that's

47:45

a joke on my age, guys.

47:48

I'm going to get that. Okay,

47:50

here's the situation. In 10 years

47:52

would be 2035, right. That's literally

47:55

15 years from the ground zero

47:57

year. Everybody says 2050. We better

47:59

get it together folks. We don't

48:02

have a choice. We have to

48:04

do this. We have to do

48:06

what we're talking about. We have

48:09

to do this. And yes, I'm

48:11

the eternal optimist. I have a

48:13

relative who says I have toxic

48:16

positivity. Think about that. And the

48:18

fact is, there's a little truth

48:20

to that. That's why I stayed

48:23

in Congress in politics for 40

48:25

years. Very positive. I can always

48:27

see this light. And I do.

48:30

So I do agree, technology is

48:32

something we didn't get a chance

48:34

to talk about. AI is interesting

48:37

because it's going to be able

48:39

to predict some of these extreme

48:41

weather events so we can adapt

48:44

better than we're adapting. Adaptation is

48:46

important. I don't have to say

48:48

that here in Los Angeles. We

48:51

cannot keep ongoing. As I said,

48:53

sitting here now, there's some horrible

48:55

things happening. I think the more

48:58

people see the results of unchecked

49:00

climate change, the more we'll have,

49:02

you know, perhaps and hopefully, you

49:05

know, the support to move forward.

49:07

And carbon capture, I always believe

49:09

there's going to be a way.

49:12

Stu and I am a husband

49:14

who's here. He's, we've been together

49:16

married for 63 years. Can you

49:19

give him a ramble? Oh my

49:21

God. It's really kind of amazing.

49:23

But we went, we went, was

49:26

it in Norway or Stute, was

49:28

it Denmark or Norway where we

49:30

saw that rock, they turned the

49:33

carbon into this beautiful marble rock.

49:35

We were in, you don't remember,

49:37

uh-oh, trouble in River City. We,

49:40

we, you may not have been

49:42

with me on that, on that

49:44

particular trip. But we went, we

49:47

did, we did see what they

49:49

were doing in one of the

49:51

Nordic countries. I just, Iceland, it

49:54

was Iceland, thank God you're here,

49:56

in Iceland. So what they did

49:58

was, listen to this, they had

50:01

this carbon. program where they captured

50:03

the carbon and then it turned

50:05

into this beautiful marble you know

50:07

sort of stone and I don't

50:10

know whatever became of it

50:12

maybe it was too expensive

50:14

to duplicate but somebody is

50:17

definitely going to come up

50:19

whether it's in you know

50:21

I've seen in my lifetime.

50:23

So many wonderful things, so

50:26

many cures, so many, you

50:28

know, unexpected advances. Somebody's going

50:30

to do this. They're going

50:32

to figure out how to

50:35

capture the carbon because the

50:37

trees, the oceans, they're getting, you

50:39

know, how much can more can

50:41

they take? It's not good. So

50:44

we need to figure out a

50:46

way to capture that carbon. So

50:48

I think in 10 years, if

50:50

my positivity today is living on

50:52

will be in a place where

50:55

technology has given us some wonderful

50:57

exportable solutions, okay, and we have

50:59

come together as a nation, even

51:01

though we've still met each other

51:03

on this and that and the

51:06

other, that we have come together

51:08

to save our planet. And this is

51:10

my hope. Okay, let's turn this

51:12

over to questions, and I'll alternate

51:14

between mics. Yeah, so I don't

51:16

know. I haven't been to like

51:18

any of these events, and I don't.

51:21

This is not. at this probably

51:23

my first time speaking to any

51:25

like current or former person member

51:28

of Congress, but I'm seeing how

51:30

you got I don't want to

51:32

be as successful on these questions

51:34

a little to both of you,

51:37

but it's also I'm trying to

51:39

try to make a point and hopefully

51:41

it will help. I'm two-thirds

51:43

of this conversation has been

51:46

like discussion, under my party

51:48

it was better, under your

51:50

party it was worse. And

51:52

I, this is not even, you

51:54

view, this is not even, this

51:56

is not on the floor

51:59

of Center. or the House. This

52:01

is just in a panel and I'm

52:03

just wondering if you as private

52:05

citizens you and all of us

52:07

have one of millions vote of

52:09

votes to choose to select certain

52:11

officials as Congress people you have

52:13

one of a hundred or one

52:16

of four hundred thirty five. Yeah.

52:18

So if that's not your vote

52:20

obviously your vote matters everyone's

52:22

vote matters but your one vote

52:24

the one vote of a Congress

52:26

person is so much matter so much

52:28

more effect. So how can you, can

52:31

we get past that if the people

52:33

who want to, the people in

52:35

both parties who do want to,

52:37

who do want to help with

52:39

climate, how can they, I get it,

52:41

I get it. I think people get it.

52:43

I get it. I get it. Why don't

52:46

I try first and I'll pass it

52:48

off. So here's the thing. There

52:50

are differences in the parties. I

52:53

don't think we have to. run

52:55

away from that big deal. So

52:57

what? But the fact that we

52:59

were talking two-thirds, not as Republicans

53:02

and Democrats, but as

53:04

Americans, it should give you

53:06

hope. It should give you hope because

53:08

in most conversations, it's the opposite.

53:11

You know, it's two-thirds. Wow,

53:13

wow, wow. So I think this should

53:15

give you hope because we have

53:17

found common ground in two-thirds of

53:19

our conversation, but we're not going

53:22

to be phony and say... The

53:24

other part is perfect. That wouldn't

53:26

be real. That's my answer.

53:29

Yeah, thanks. So I'm going to

53:31

quote Senator John Federman

53:33

from Pennsylvania. Congress has become only

53:35

fan for politicians. Only fans is

53:37

a porn online site. And he's

53:39

right. And let me be clear.

53:42

I believe that Congress has become

53:44

this theatrical thing. And if I

53:46

were to ask you to name

53:48

members of Congress that you're aware

53:50

of, you probably would say names

53:52

like Matt Gates and AOC. Also

53:55

ask you to look at the

53:57

Center for Effective Lawmaking. Those are

53:59

two. of the least effective members

54:01

of the entire Congress. And so

54:03

the reason I say that is

54:05

that my opinion is with social

54:08

media and a lot of other

54:10

changes, there's a perverse reward

54:12

mechanism in place right now

54:14

that actually rewards those that

54:16

are more bombastic, provocative, viral,

54:19

and it doesn't reward

54:21

actual getting things done. It

54:24

doesn't reward the problem solvers,

54:26

the solution finders. And I

54:28

think... You know, you talked about the power

54:30

of a vote of a member of Congress.

54:32

Well, let me remind you, you know, who

54:34

has the most powerful vote for

54:37

president in the entire country? You do.

54:39

Everyone's vote's worth the same. And so

54:41

I just, I think it's really important

54:43

that people, whether you're electing

54:46

a... town council or president of the United

54:48

States that you're looking at these people

54:50

and it's not oh I recognize that

54:52

name it's that oh I actually researched

54:54

this person they delivered change delivered results

54:56

address priorities in our community so over

54:58

here hey and real quick I see

55:00

we got five minutes problem I'm gonna take over

55:03

your job but if we can go speed

55:05

around with quick questions and quick answers we'll

55:07

try to get through everybody so I got

55:09

it all right cool I'm actually gonna go

55:11

five minutes more than that five I love

55:13

it So yeah, my question is about the

55:15

importance of messaging. And I, you know, I

55:17

work in media and I hear people in

55:19

Silicon Valley talk about how they kind of

55:22

roll back their messaging on sustainability because of

55:24

fear of criticism. And I guess my question

55:26

is, like, how do we expect our leaders

55:28

to resolve an issue that a lot of

55:30

them are afraid to acknowledge? And when

55:32

you have a campaign or a president

55:34

whose campaign on, you know, drill baby

55:36

drill, like how... Like how do we,

55:38

how does that give us hope? How,

55:41

yeah, I mean, there's, there's a couple

55:43

questions there, but yeah, the question's mostly

55:45

about messaging, but, but really about how do

55:47

we move forward with, with, you know, with,

55:49

all that. Got it. Garrett. Sure. So real

55:51

quick look. I know you don't like the

55:54

term drill, baby drill. Bottom line

55:56

is, natural gas has been probably

55:58

the most effective tool in reducing

56:00

emissions in the United States, transitioning

56:02

from coal to natural gas. Largest

56:05

attribution of emissions reduction, I think

56:07

the IEA said in world energy

56:09

history. So I think we're making

56:11

a mistake by putting a bullseye

56:14

on energy technologies. Instead, let's focus

56:16

on emissions. If I can produce

56:18

natural gas or even oil and

56:20

pair it with carbon capture technology,

56:22

it then therefore becomes indistinguishable. from

56:25

other renewable energy technologies in terms

56:27

of its environmental profile. So look,

56:29

I think we need to focus

56:31

on outcomes, focus on emissions reduction,

56:34

don't focus on which technologies actually

56:36

get us there. I think is

56:38

one thing. Secondly, look, I get

56:40

it, it kind of goes back

56:43

to the whole pendulum swing thing

56:45

I was talking about earlier. I

56:47

don't think it's helpful to have

56:49

people take such entrenched positions and

56:52

wildly polarized positions as we're seeing

56:54

right now because it does chill.

56:56

investment, business, messaging, strategies, and others.

56:58

Bottom line, messages like a clean

57:01

planet are things that resonate in

57:03

Republicans and Democrats. Efficiency conservation that

57:05

resonates with Republicans and Democrats. And

57:07

I think there are a lot

57:09

of common messaging tools or themes

57:12

that we can all agree upon. Barbara,

57:14

you want to add to that? Very quickly.

57:16

I loved when Corey Booker said it's

57:18

not about right and wrong. It's not

57:20

about right and wrong. And I find

57:22

that to be really, hey, let's just

57:24

do the right thing. We'll do the

57:27

right thing. We'll make sure

57:29

this planet's around, we'll work

57:31

with anybody from any political

57:33

party who understands that

57:36

there's value added when you

57:38

take care of climate change, the good

57:40

jobs, the cleaner air. By the way,

57:42

I asked a long time ago when

57:44

I was in the Senate, what

57:46

happens with the air quality when

57:49

you get the carbon out? of

57:51

the air because we always say you

57:53

know climate change but what about our

57:55

lungs and oh my gosh it's enormous

57:57

benefit so I think if we can

58:00

Start messaging it as something that,

58:02

yes, we can come together on

58:04

because it's the right thing to

58:06

do, rather than an ideological thing.

58:08

I think we'll do well. Okay,

58:10

I want to get two more

58:12

questions in at least, but let's

58:14

go fat, let's have quick questions.

58:17

Okay, thank you both for your

58:19

service. There's been some debate about

58:21

how much time we have left

58:23

for climate change, a tipping point.

58:25

Is it five years, ten years,

58:27

twenty years? I think if we

58:29

can get closer to a consensus

58:32

on how much time we have

58:34

left. that might get to the

58:36

urgency of the situation. So I

58:38

don't know if you guys have

58:40

talked to scientific experts about how

58:42

much time they think we have

58:44

left. Well, let me answer it

58:47

this way. I don't have the

58:49

exact years, but there was a

58:51

fantastic article in New York Times

58:53

a long time ago. It just

58:55

stuck with me. What we're up

58:57

against is we're either going to

58:59

have a planet that's unpleasant to

59:02

live on that has a lot

59:04

of these issues that we are

59:06

experiencing. We live in the Palm

59:08

Springs that summer was over 120.

59:10

you know, was, or we're going

59:12

to have a planet that's uninhabitable.

59:14

So are we going to have

59:17

a planet that's unpleasant? That's really

59:19

where we are right now, frankly,

59:21

in terms of in terms of

59:23

the temperature rise or uninhabitable. So

59:25

I'm pushing for a planet that's

59:27

unpleasant, not a planet that's uninhabitable,

59:29

but... To me, they keep saying

59:32

2050, but maybe you have some

59:34

more garret. reality is I don't

59:36

think that there's a model that

59:38

that gives us clarity on exactly

59:40

how much time you have left

59:42

in one of the deficiencies in

59:44

the models as I appreciate is

59:46

that the feedback meaning how the

59:49

biogenic environment responds to higher greenhouse

59:51

gas intensity they haven't been able

59:53

to properly mimic or model that

59:55

I think is where they've seen

59:57

some of the bigger discrepancies so

59:59

I don't know the answer but

1:00:01

but one thing that Senator Boxer

1:00:04

said earlier she talked about adaptation

1:00:06

I used the term resilience whatever

1:00:08

that as far as I'm concerned

1:00:10

they're largely interchangeable I think you

1:00:12

got to have a strategy does

1:00:14

both because there's a certain amount

1:00:16

of momentum that's in the system

1:00:19

right now that we can't avoid.

1:00:21

And so low-lying states like Louisiana

1:00:23

where, you know, you get a

1:00:25

photo sea rise, you're putting hundreds

1:00:27

of square miles underwater. And so

1:00:29

we're losing a football field every

1:00:31

90 minutes today in coastal land

1:00:34

loss. We've lost 2,000 square miles,

1:00:36

I'll stop. But bottom line is

1:00:38

that I think you've got to

1:00:40

have a strategy working on both,

1:00:42

working on emissions reduction strategies and

1:00:44

adaptation, and part of the reality.

1:00:46

is that we're not going to

1:00:49

be able to properly restrict or

1:00:51

predict what some of these developing

1:00:53

countries are going to be doing

1:00:55

moving forward in regard to emissions

1:00:57

trajectories. That's why I think you've

1:00:59

got to have both moving a

1:01:01

parallel path. We're going to do

1:01:04

one more question and I'm sorry

1:01:06

it's only going to be one

1:01:08

more because this is really interesting

1:01:10

at least to me. Go ahead.

1:01:12

Okay, I'm Neil Hurley. I'm a

1:01:14

USC grad and a neighbor. And

1:01:16

I had an empirical observation that

1:01:18

I would like to make that

1:01:21

will support both things that Garrett

1:01:23

said about reduced emissions and that

1:01:25

Barbara said about leading by example.

1:01:27

I went to USC from 1971

1:01:29

to 76, and the San Gabriel

1:01:31

Mountains are a short distance to

1:01:33

the north of us. And as

1:01:36

I recall, I could only see

1:01:38

them maybe one out of 100

1:01:40

days. And maybe it was one

1:01:42

out of 200 days. 50 years

1:01:44

later, my wife and I have

1:01:46

moved back to this neighborhood. And

1:01:48

now I would say, I can

1:01:51

see the San Gabriel Mountains 19

1:01:53

out of 20 days or more.

1:01:55

Love it. And so it's reduced

1:01:57

emissions. Okay, how did that happen?

1:01:59

I think the people of California

1:02:01

insisted on a cleaner environment. They

1:02:03

have emissions testing. We got rid

1:02:06

of lead in gasoline. Okay. I've

1:02:08

worked in Beijing. I've worked in

1:02:10

New Delhi. The smog and air

1:02:12

pollution there is horrible. Leading by

1:02:14

example, I'm just wondering how the

1:02:16

example that we have set here

1:02:18

and really I think it's a

1:02:21

state of California, how that can

1:02:23

be transferred to folks in different

1:02:25

countries and say, okay, if you

1:02:27

do this, then something good will

1:02:29

happen. Well, I'll start off since

1:02:31

I'm a Californian and I'm happy

1:02:33

that you asked this and it's

1:02:36

so nice that you could be

1:02:38

here today. I think leading by

1:02:40

example is the point. You're proving

1:02:42

what happens. And if you can

1:02:44

prove it to someone else, I

1:02:46

remember there was some big thing

1:02:48

in China and they couldn't actually

1:02:50

have the event because people couldn't

1:02:53

see, they couldn't breathe. I mean,

1:02:55

it's really incredible. There's so many

1:02:57

benefits from this endeavor. And again,

1:02:59

it's not just for people who

1:03:01

breathe, which is pretty important, but

1:03:03

also for the businesses that are

1:03:05

involved in cleaning up the air.

1:03:08

And that's where we come back

1:03:10

to this notion. It's a win-win

1:03:12

for us all. And I think

1:03:14

it's a wonderful place to end

1:03:16

this and why I have optimism.

1:03:18

Last point, diplomacy. How important is

1:03:20

that with these nations, you know?

1:03:23

So I hope Marco Rubio will...

1:03:25

take a portfolio like this to

1:03:27

these places and say, hey, we're

1:03:29

happy to share our technology. Garrett,

1:03:31

last word. Yeah, sure. David can

1:03:33

probably correct me, but I believe

1:03:35

I saw a poll, or a

1:03:38

number of polls that said that

1:03:40

Americans were willing to pay like

1:03:42

an 8 to 10% premium on

1:03:44

cleaner, cleaner, greener technology. So there's

1:03:46

some tolerance there. Look, my two

1:03:48

cents, and I feel very strongly

1:03:50

about this, and developing countries. there's

1:03:53

going to be zero tolerance. And

1:03:55

countries that are looking for an

1:03:57

economic advantage against the United States,

1:03:59

there's going to be zero tolerance,

1:04:01

meaning they're going to take the

1:04:03

cheapest alternative no matter what. And

1:04:05

so I think that what's really

1:04:08

important is that, you know, I

1:04:10

talked about that national energy strategy,

1:04:12

our research and development strategy in

1:04:14

our national labs, I think whatever

1:04:16

technologies we develop moving forward, whether

1:04:18

it's fusion, whether it's small modular

1:04:20

reactors or whatever other technologies, I

1:04:22

think it's really important. that they

1:04:25

be affordable because otherwise we're going

1:04:27

to continue to see a growing

1:04:29

trend of disparity between what's happening

1:04:31

in the United States with downward

1:04:33

trajectory versus what's happening in China

1:04:35

or other countries where we end

1:04:37

up having a global increase in

1:04:40

emissions. So really really important but

1:04:42

I got to tell you I

1:04:44

love to hear what you said

1:04:46

about the change in your visibility

1:04:48

and air quality here. That's great.

1:04:50

Yeah and I was in Beijing

1:04:52

once and you couldn't see 15

1:04:55

feet in front of you. That's

1:04:57

all the time we have left.

1:04:59

Let me thank Senator Boxer and

1:05:01

Congressman Graves for agreeing and disagreeing

1:05:03

in a civil manner on an

1:05:05

issue that too often evokes rancor

1:05:07

and recrimination. Let me thank the

1:05:10

Wrigley Institute for this terrific partnership,

1:05:12

which is now almost a decade

1:05:14

old. And let me thank all

1:05:16

of you in our audience. All

1:05:18

of you are watching on Facebook

1:05:20

live or Zoom. And everyone who

1:05:22

will listen to today's conference on

1:05:25

coming episodes of our podcast, let's

1:05:27

find common ground. I leave today

1:05:29

convinced that this is difficult, but

1:05:31

not impossible. And it's a place

1:05:33

where we have to find common

1:05:35

ground for the sake of our

1:05:37

planet, our security, and ultimately our

1:05:40

democracy. I invite you to see

1:05:42

how we're doing. by joining us

1:05:44

at next year's climate forward conference.

1:05:46

I promise I'll be there, God

1:05:48

willing, which will once again be

1:05:50

held in Earth Month. Thank you

1:05:52

all very much. Thank you. Thank

1:05:55

you for joining. us on

1:05:57

Let's Find Common

1:05:59

Ground. If you

1:06:01

enjoyed what you

1:06:03

heard, subscribe and

1:06:05

the show 5 stars on

1:06:07

or or wherever you get

1:06:10

your podcasts. Follow us

1:06:12

on social media at USCPOL Future. And

1:06:14

if you'd like to support the if

1:06:16

you'd like to support the

1:06:18

work of the a please

1:06:20

make a tax -deductible contribution

1:06:22

so that we can keep

1:06:25

bringing important voices together

1:06:27

across differences in respectful together

1:06:29

seek common ground. in

1:06:32

respectful conversations that seek common

1:06:34

ground. This podcast is part

1:06:37

podcast is

1:06:39

part of the

1:06:42

Democracy Group.