The Whole Truth with David Eisenhower

NARRATOR: THE EARTH IS WARMING.

THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING.

IN THE WAKE OF THE GROWTH OF HUMAN POPULATION AND HUMAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CARBON LEVELS IN THE ATMOSPHERE WITH ITS GREENHOUSE EFFECTS HAVE RISEN TO A LEVEL NOT BELIEVED TO HAVE EXISTED FOR PERHAPS 3 MILLION YEARS.

SCENARIOS ABOUT WHAT ALL THIS WILL MEAN FOR HUMANITY FOR THE REST OF THE 21ST CENTURY VARY, BUT THE RANGE OF PREDICTIONS GO FROM MERELY BAD TO TERRIBLY WORSE.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

WHAT'S NEEDED?

WHAT'S FEASIBLE?

WHAT'S ACHIEVABLE?

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION... AMETEK... CNX RESOURCES... BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY... AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

IN THIS EPISODE, WE DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGE.

FOR MUCH OF MY LIFE, WHEN PEOPLE IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPOKE OF AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO CIVILIZATION, THEY WERE THINKING AND SPEAKING ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR.

AS RECENTLY AS THE 1980s, BOTH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICYMAKERS AND AMERICAN POPULAR CULTURE WERE FOCUSED ON PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN END TO CIVILIZATION AS WE KNEW IT THROUGH A NEW ICE AGE ON EARTH-- A NUCLEAR WINTER BROUGHT ABOUT BY WAR.

SINCE THE 1990s, HOWEVER, AND CERTAINLY IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE IMAGINATION OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS OF THOSE IN PROFESSIONAL CIRCLES HAVE BEEN INCREASINGLY FILLED WITH FEAR OF AN OPPOSITE EXISTENTIAL THREAT-- RAPIDLY RISING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

WITH ALL SORTS OF PREDICTED ACCOMPANYING NEGATIVE EFFECTS CAUSED BY WHAT MANY WOULD DESCRIBE AS A GLOBAL WAR ON THE EARTH ITSELF IN THE FORM OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM OUR CIVILIZATIONS-- PRIMARY WAYS OF POWERING, TRANSPORTING, AND FEEDING ITSELF.

WHAT CAN TRULY BE DONE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?

WHAT IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND POLITICALLY ACHIEVABLE?

WHAT ARE THE TRADE-OFFS OF COSTS VERSUS BENEFITS?

AND IS IT A QUESTION OF OUR CURRENT GENERATION VERSUS FUTURE ONES?

HERE WITH US TODAY TO DISCUSS THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE JOHN RIE, FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE STABLE CLIMATE GROUP; FRED KRUPP, PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; MICHAEL MANN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES AND DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER AT PENN STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE CO-AUTHOR OF "THE MADHOUSE EFFECT: "HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL IS THREATENING OUR PLANET, DESTROYING OUR POLITICS, AND DRIVING US CRAZY"; AND TED HALSTEAD CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL.

THE UN SCIENTIFIC PANEL ON CLIMATE HAS UPENDED POLITICAL DEBATE ABOUT CLIMATE POLICY BY MAKING 2030 A CRITICAL DATE BY WHICH RESULTS MUST BE ACHIEVED TOWARDS MITIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

WHY DO WE POINT TO 2030?

WHAT IS--THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT.

IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.

WELL, FOR MANY YEARS, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT NEEDING TO GET TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY BY 2050.

BUT IT TURNS OUT, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 2050, IT DOESN'T GIVE FOLKS THE SENSE OF URGENCY THAT WE NEED.

AND SO, A 10-YEAR GOAL, NEEDING TO GET THERE, YOU KNOW, BY 2030 GIVES US THE SENSE OF URGENCY.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS, WE NOW HAVE MANY OF THE TOOLS WE NEED TO GET THERE-- SOLAR POWER IS, YOU KNOW, IS DOWN BY 90% IN COST IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, WIND POWER DOWN 70%.

BATTERY STORAGE IS COMING DOWN, TOO.

WE STILL NEED POLICIES, THOUGH, THAT WILL GUARANTEE WE GET THE REDUCTIONS WE NEED BY BOTH 2030 AND BEYOND.

DAVID: YES, TED.

I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED TO ACT AND WE NEED TO ACT SOON.

I THINK THE BIG QUESTION IS HOW DO WE GET THERE?

AND THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF SOLUTIONS, BUT AMERICA'S BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITY IS INCREASINGLY AGREEING THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS PUT A PRICE ON CARBON.

AND THAT WOULD OFFER US THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS BY THE TIMELINES THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON.

DAVID: JUST CURIOUS, TECHNICALLY.

"PRICE ON CARBON."

DOES THAT MEAN A CEILING ON CARBON?

NO.

IT ACTUALLY MEANS THAT ECONOMISTS HAVE TOLD US FOR A LONG TIME THAT WHATEVER YOU TAX YOU GET LESS OF.

AND IF YOU PUT-- RIGHT NOW, WE ARE NOT INTERNALIZING THE COST OF CARBON EMISSIONS.

IF YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT, PUT IT IN THE PRICE, IT WILL DRIVE REDUCTIONS OF CARBON EMISSIONS.

FRED: I WOULD SAY, DAVID, THOUGH, THAT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, YOU NEED THE PRICE ABSOLUTELY.

THAT GIVES THE INCENTIVE.

YOU ALIGN THE PROFIT MOTIVE WITH WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE PLANET, BUT YOU ALSO NEED THE CEILING.

DAVID: RIGHT.

BECAUSE IF YOU SET A PRICE AND IT ENDS UP IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS BEING SET TOO LOW, IT'S JUST A LICENSE TO POLLUTE.

DAVID: RIGHT.

SO WE TALK ABOUT BOTH PRICE AND LIMITS TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE JOB DONE.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT 2030's A REAL DATE, OR IS THIS URGENCY?

WELL, I WOULD SAY WE NEED A SENSE OF URGENCY, BUT WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS ACTIONS AND THE PRACTICAL PLANS TO BEGIN REDUCING EMISSIONS NOW, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED BOTH THOSE--THE PRICE AND THE LIMITS THAT GUARANTEE WE GET THE REDUCTIONS WE NEED.

YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY WE'VE ACTUALLY REDUCED POLLUTION AROUND THE WORLD-- ANY POLLUTION PROBLEM-- IS BY SAYING, "THIS IS HOW MUCH WE CAN PUT."

WE'VE GOT TO GET-- CERTAINLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND REALLY AROUND THE WORLD-- WE'VE GOT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANY MORE CARBON POLLUTION IN THE SKY.

WE'RE ONLY PUTTING AS MUCH AS WE'RE MOVING AT THE SAME TIME.

MICHAEL: YEAH, I MEAN, THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT YOU NEED TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE DAMAGE THAT'S DONE BY THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE SORT OF THE ECONOMICS.

AND SO, WE--THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THAT.

YOU CAN PUT A PRICE ON CARBON.

THAT'S ONE WAY TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.

HELP RENEWABLES COMPETE FAIRLY IN THE ENERGY MARKETPLACE.

YOU ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION THAT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS TOWARDS RENEWABLE.

YOU CAN PUT IN PLACE SPECIFIC INCENTIVES AND SUBSIDIES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.

THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS OF DOING THAT.

AND THERE'S A WORTHY POLITICAL DEBATE TO BE HAD ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

JOHN: OTHER INTERESTING-- OTHER INTERESTING THING IS THAT-- WELL, THE WORLD BANK HAS A NUMBER OF $5 TRILLION ANNUAL SUBSIDY TO THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY BY THE WORLD.

AND OUR GROUP AT ONE POINT HAD LOOKED AT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE REALLY MAXED OUT OUR EFFORTS, AND IT CAME OUT TO BE ABOUT $5 TRILLION A YEAR.

SO IF YOU REMOVE THE SUBSIDY FROM THE FOSSIL FUELS, YOU COULD PROBABLY PAY FOR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO.

MICHAEL: THAT'S WHAT'S SO-- I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, THAT'S WHAT'S SO PERVERSE ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION.

WE'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR THE FORMS OF ENERGY-- FOSSIL FUELS THAT ARE DOING DAMAGE TO THE PLANET.

WE NEED TO REVERSE THAT.

FIRST IS THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE HERE.

UH...PEOPLE WHO QUARREL WITH THIS CLAIM THAT-- CLAIMS THAT THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, A ROCK-HARD CONSENSUS, IS NOT TRUE.

DO YOU HEAR DEBATES ABOUT THIS, OR IS THIS A SUBTLE SCIENCE-- JOHN: I WAS ONE OF THOSE SKEPTICS.

DAVID: YOU WERE A SKEPTIC?

AND BECAME VERY MUCH IN FAVOR--IN FAVOR OF-- VERY MUCH ATTUNED TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

DAVID: WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?

AND THAT WAS PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST 5 OR 6 YEARS.

DAVID: 5 OR 6 YEARS.

OK.

BUT--AND MOST PEOPLE I TALK TO NOW, AND IF I TALK TO THE SO-CALLED DENIERS, A LOT OF THEM ARE BEGIN--I'M SEEING A CHANGE IN THAT SEA.

AND I'M SEEING PEOPLE START GETTING-- STARTING TO TALK-- ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE TALKED INTO IT OR ALLOW THEMSELVES TO NOTICE IT... IS A BETTER WAY TO PUT IT.

DAVID: FRED?

FRED: YEAH, MICHAEL IS THE EXPERT, BUT I WOULD JUST SAY BRIEFLY THE-- YOU KNOW, WE'VE KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME THAT PUTTING GREENHOUSE GASES, CARBON DIOXIDE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE IS WHAT MAKES OUR PLANET INHABITABLE.

LOOK AT MARS, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE REVERSE.

SO THE CONSENSUS IS VERY STRONG.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE CAN PREDICT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ON THIS DAY-- DAVID: SURE.

IN 100 YEARS EXACTLY, BUT THE CONSENSUS IS EXTREMELY STRONG, AND THE FUTURE ISN'T ONE THAT I WOULD WANT TO LEAVE FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE HORRIBLE FOR PEOPLE-- YOU KNOW, LEAVING ASIDE NATURE, WHICH WE DEPEND ON-- THE NUMBER OF HIGH, HOT DAYS WHERE MORE PEOPLE DIE, THE INTENSITY OF STORMS AND HURRICANES, WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY GETS STRONGER AS THE OCEANS GET WARMER, THE MORE INTENSE RAINFALL EVENTS THAT WE'RE ALREADY EXPERIENCING TODAY-- THE FLOODS-- THIS IS A WORLD WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PREVENT THE WORST FROM HAPPENING.

DAVID: WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE 2030 YEAR, WHICH THE SCIENTIFIC-- UN SCIENTIFIC PANEL CAME UP WITH, A CHANGE IN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ADVANCE OF GLOBAL WARMING, THAT KIND OF THING?

IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THIS REPRESENT SOME SORT OF SHIFT IN THE CONSENSUS?

I THINK IT'S ADDED TO, UM...

THE STATEMENT ADDS TO THE REALIZATION THAT WE HAVE TO START ACTING TODAY.

MICHAEL: THE SCIENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE IS, YOU KNOW, CONSTITUTES A CONSENSUS THAT'S ABOUT AS STRONG AS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON THE THEORY OF GRAVITY.

THERE IS NO SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER GREENHOUSE GASES WARM THE PLANET.

WE'RE INCREASING THE CONCENTRATION OF THESE GREENHOUSE GASES BY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, THAT THE PLANET IS WARMING UP.

AND THAT BAD THINGS ARE ALREADY HAPPENING.

TED, HOW DOES IT LOOK FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, THE CONSENSUS?

TED: WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, WHICH, AS EVERYBODY SAID, IS VERY STRONG.

BUT ANOTHER KEY POINT IS THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO MORE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE INCREASINGLY CONCERNED.

WE RECENTLY DID A POLL ON THIS AND FOUND THAT OVER THE LAST YEAR, AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAVE BECOME MORE CONCERNED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND THE TONE IN WASHINGTON ON THIS HAS REALLY CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.

THERE'S--MY FAVORITE SAYING RECENTLY IS A REPUBLICAN, A HOUSE MEMBER, WHO SAID, "I DID NOT COME TO CONGRESS TO ARGUE WITH A THERMOMETER," RIGHT?

I MEAN, THE CONSENSUS IS GETTING STRONGER AND STRONGER.

MICHAEL: THE CONGRESSMAN YOU QUOTED WAS MATT GAETZ OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN, ONE OF DONALD TRUMP'S BIGGEST SUPPORTERS.

DAVID: YEAH.

AND YET, HE IS NOW OUT THERE SAYING, "LOOK, WE CAN'T PRETEND THAT THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM.

LET'S HAVE A WORTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.

WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF CLIMATE POLICY NOW?

WHAT CAN BE ATTAINED AND WHAT KIND OF WORLD ARE WE GONNA BE LOOKING AT IF WE ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES THAT ARE ATTAINABLE?

WHAT KINDS OF ALTERNATIVES DO YOU FEEL ARE HERE THAT ARE FEASIBLE?

AN AWFUL LOT OF SOLUTIONS ARE RIGHT BEFORE US AND JUST NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

THERE'S VAST SAVINGS TO BE HAD IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

SOLAR--THE PRICE DOWN 90%.

IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, WIND'S DOWN 70% IN THE LAST 10 YEARS.

WE NEED A RESILIENT GRID.

THERE'S ROOM FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES.

I'M ONE, DAVID, WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND WOULDN'T SAY THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANDATE THIS OR THAT.

WE SHOULD DEVELOP A ROBUST INCENTIVE IN THE MARKETPLACE AND LET WHATEVER'S CHEAPEST COME TO THE FORE.

I'M FOR WHATEVER POLICY GETS US THERE FAST AND CHEAP THAT CAN GET THE VOTES WE NEED TO HAVE A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS BECAUSE THE TEST IS CAN WE GET THE BIG REDUCTIONS BY 2030 AND GET TO NO MORE CARBON POLLUTION INTO THE SKY BY 2050.

THIS IS A MANMADE PROBLEM?

CAN WE UNMAKE IT?

FRED: YEAH, THE INTERESTING-- ARE THERE AGENTS THAT WE CAN PUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAT WOULD IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BREAK IT DOWN OR... FRED: THE NATIONAL ECONOMY OF SCIENCES HAS JUST ISSUED-- RECENTLY ISSUED A STUDY ON WHAT THEY CALL NET-- NEGATIVE EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES-- AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GRINDING UP THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS AND USING THAT MINERAL TO SOAK CARBON FROM THE SKY.

ALL OF THESE SOLUTIONS RIGHT NOW ARE FAR TOO EXPENSIVE, BUT WHY NOT MAKE THE NEXT CROP OF BILLIONAIRES THE ONES WHO FIGURES OUT HOW TO BRING THE COST DOWN.

SO WE SHOULD--JUST LIKE WE SHOULD PUT A PRICE ON CARBON, WE SHOULD BE PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON REMOVAL.

AND SO IF SOMEONE DOES FIGURE OUT A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO IT, THEY SUCCEED.

LET'S USE THE CAPITALISM TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY TRIED IT YET.

TED: THERE'S ACTUALLY-- DAVID: SOMETHING BEYOND CAPITALISM.

WOULD YOU GO BEYOND CAPITALISM?

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'VE COME UP WITH YOU KNOW, THE CARBON... TED: DIVIDEND.

CARBON DIVIDEND AND SO FORTH.

WOULD YOU GO BEYOND THAT?

I THINK THE MARKET IS WONDROUS AND THE MARKET CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

I THINK ON THE TECHNOLOGY QUESTION, WE SHOULD LET THE MARKET DECIDE.

BUT BUILDING ON TWO THINGS THAT FRED HAS SAID-- ONE, I COULDN'T AGREE MORE THAT ANY CLIMATE SOLUTION HAS TO BE BIPARTISAN.

FOR FAR TOO LONG, WE'VE HAD INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS PITTED AGAINST ONE ANOTHER.

WE'VE HAD DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS PITTED AGAINST ONE ANOTHER.

WHAT WE NEED IS A BIPARTISAN WAY FOR IT.

WE ALSO NEED TO SOLVE THE COST PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, HALF OF AMERICAN FAMILIES, ROUGHLY, DON'T HAVE $500 TO THEIR NAME IN CASE OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

SO IF YOU TELL THEM, "WE'RE GONNA PUT A COSTLY NEW SOLUTION" OR "YOUR FUEL PRICES WILL GO UP," BY ITSELF, THAT'S NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE.

BUT IF YOU TELL THEM, "WE'RE GONNA INCREASE THE COST OF ENERGY "FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS, AND YOU'RE GONNA GET ALL THE MONEY BACK," THEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CAN ACTUALLY WIN FROM SOLVING CLIMATE CHANGE, YOU'RE ALIGNING PEOPLE'S PERSONAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS WITH CLIMATE POLICY, AND THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE NEW DYNAM-- AND TO FINISH ONE POINT, THE SECOND POINT I WANTED TO BUILD ON FRED'S, IMAGINE THAT YOU HAVE A CARBON PRICE THAT GETS UP TO $100 PER TON.

AND IMAGINE THAT THE COST OF, SAY, DIRECT AIR CAPTURE, ONE OF THE MOST PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES OF THE FUTURE, COMES DOWN TO $100 PER TON.

WELL, THEN, YOU HAVE THIS MAGICAL MOMENT WHERE YOU HAVE THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES IN PLACE TO ACTUALLY GET US TO NET ZERO EMISSIONS.

I THINK THE ROOT OF THIS IS THIS QUESTION OF COSTS.

AND THE FEAR THAT, AS YOU PUT IT, REORGANIZING THE WAY WE POWER OUR ECONOMY, IS GONNA RESULT IN VERY UNFAVORABLE TRADEOFFS THAT WE ARE GONNA SACRIFICE A GREAT DEAL OF OUR STANDARD OF LIVING AND SO FORTH.

WOULD YOU--DO YOU SEE A TRADEOFF HERE?

AND WHAT THEN IS GOING TO BE A WAY OF RAMPING DOWN, I WOULD SAY, THE TEMPERATURE ON THIS DEBATE IN REACHING PEOPLE?

THERE'S A FALLACY THAT EXISTS OUT THERE THAT SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE HEALTH OF OUR ECONOMY AND THE HEALTH OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

AND THAT FALLACY HAS SOMETIMES BEEN USED TO UNDERMINE THE ARGUMENT FOR ACTING ON CLIMATE.

THERE ARE GONNA BE LOSERS.

THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST ONE OF THEM.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, CERTAIN FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES AND FRONT GROUPS THAT THEY HAVE FUNDED HAVE SPENT TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE YEARS ON A MASSIVE MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC AND POLICYMAKERS ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY DID DECADES AGO.

IT'S THE SAME PLAYBOOK.

AND SO, WE DO NEED A BIPARTISAN COALITION FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE, AND WE NEED INDUSTRY TO BE ONBOARD.

HOW DO THINGS LOOK INTERNATIONALLY, FIRST, AND SECOND, WHERE IS THE-- WHERE IS THE GOALPOST?

WHAT IS SUCCESS, AND WHERE WILL SUCCESS LEAVE US?

STARTING WITH YOU, JOHN.

OH, I THINK INTERNATIONALLY, I THINK CHINA AND INDIA ARE BOTH WORKING HEAVILY TOWARDS DECARBONIZATION WITH NUCLEAR POWER AND WIND AND SOLAR.

DAVID: SO YOU THINK THEY ARE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION?

I THINK THEY ARE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.

GERMANY, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS DOING THE OPPOSITE.

IT CLOSED ALL ITS NUCLEAR PLANTS, AND IT'S BURNING COAL BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ENERGY NEEDS.

SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH GOING ON, BUT IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, IT WOULD REALLY APPEAR THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST IN MOVING TOWARDS CARBON-FREE.

DAVID: FIRST GREEN PARTY THAT I'M AWARE OF IS GERMAN.

MM-HMM.

SO HOW THE HECK IS THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT GETTING AWAY WITH THAT?

HA!

I HAVE NO IDEA.

MICHAEL: NOW, THEY HAVE A LOWER CARBON FOOTPRINT PER CAPITA THAN WE DO.

I MEAN, GERMANY AND EUROPE IN GENERAL IS WAY AHEAD OF WHERE THE U.S. IS.

DAVID: OK. FRED: AND YOU KNOW, CHINA HAS BEEN LEADING.

THEY'RE SAVING MILLIONS OF LIVES BY CLEANING UP THEIR AIR POLLUTION, WHICH THEY NEED TO CONTINUE AND WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO.

THE GOVERNMENT'S BEEN VERY COMMITTED, AND THEY'RE WORKING ON AND HAVE MADE VERY SUBSTANTIAL COMMITMENTS ON CLIMATE.

SO INDIA IS HARDER, BUT THEY ARE A SMALLER PART OF THE PROBLEM.

EUROPE HAS MADE COMMITMENTS.

SO, REALLY, IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE U.S. HAS GONE BACKWARDS ON ITS COMMITMENTS, BUT THE REST OF THE WORLD IS MOVING AHEAD.

DAVID: BUT EVEN AS THE UNITED STATES, AT LEAST OFFICIALLY RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AND PULLS OUT OF ACCORDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU SEE STATES TAKING ACTION.

YOU SEE PRIVATE SECTOR TAKING ACTION.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

WELL, CALIFORNIA IS AN EXAMPLE OF A STATE THAT HAS CONTINUED TO GROW ITS ECONOMY DRAMATICALLY WHILE LOWERING ITS EMISSIONS.

NEW MEXICO IS MOVING NOW TO LIMIT EMISSIONS FROM METHANE POLLUTION.

AND BY THE WAY, OIL COMPANIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE MAKING BOLD COMMITMENTS TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE THEIR METHANE POLLUTION.

BUT I REMEMBER A PRESIDENT WE HAD NAMED RONALD REAGAN WHO SAID "TRUST, BUT VERIFY."

DAVID: RIGHT.

EXACTLY.

SO WHILE THERE'S A ROLE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR BEYOND POLICY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND IS LAUNCHING A SATELLITE WHICH IS GONNA INSPECT ALL THE MAJOR OIL FACILITIES MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THESE CORPORATE COMMITMENTS ARE OBSERVED.

HOW--JUST GOING AROUND THE TABLE-- HOW OPTIMISTIC ARE YOU ABOUT THE FUTURE?

DO YOU FORESEE THE NEED FOR DRACONIAN STEPS?

THAT'S ALWAYS IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE DISCUSSIONS THAT WHEN YOU'RE STARING AT A 2030 DEADLINE, WE'RE FACING AN EMERGENCY, ULTIMATELY AN EMERGENCY IS GONNA REQUIRE SOME SORT OF DRACONIAN STEP OR PERHAPS-- YES, I AM VERY OPTIMISTIC.

B--NO, I DON'T THINK IT WILL REQUIRE DRACONIAN STEPS.

SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT MAKE ME MOST OPTIMISTIC ABOUT U.S.

CLIMATE POLICY.

NUMBER ONE--CORPORATE AMERICA IS UNIFIED IN CALLING FOR A NATIONAL SOLUTION AND INCREASINGLY FOR PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON.

THE OTHER MOST ENCOURAGING TREND IS THAT YOUNG AMERICANS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OF CLIMATE ACTION.

THEY ARE CLEARLY THE FUTURE.

NOW YOU ASKED ABOUT "DOES IT NEED TO BE DRACONIAN?"

NO.

ECONOMISTS HAVE TOLD US FOR A VERY LONG TIME THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION IS TO PUT A PRICE ON CARBON AND LET THE MARKET GET US THERE.

I WANT TO GIVE A VERY CONCRETE EXAMPLE.

THE PLAN THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD, WHICH IS A CARBON TAX STARTING AT $40 A TON, WOULD-- IF THIS WERE IMPLEMENTED, SAY, IN 2021, IT WOULD FAR EXCEED THE U.S.-PARIS COMMITMENT BY 2025.

IT WOULD ACHIEVE FAR MORE THAN ALL PRIOR CARBON REGULATIONS COMBINED.

THE MARKET IS A VERY POWERFUL TOOL.

WE SHOULD PUT IT ON THE SIDE OF CLIMATE.

DAVID: MIKE, YOU'RE NODDING YES.

MICHAEL: YEAH, SO THERE IS URGENCY, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT THERE IS AGENCY.

WE CAN ACT IN TIME TO AVERT A TRUE CLIMATE CRISIS.

NOW, THE REASONS FOR OPTIMISM, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THEM.

THERE IS A LOT OF MOVEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT NOW ON THIS ISSUE IN THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK WE'RE NEARING A TIPPING POINT, WHERE CONSERVATIVES ARE WILLING TO COME TO THE TABLE AND HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

WE'VE GOT YOUNG FOLKS, WHO ARE MARCHING IN THE STREETS, DEMONSTRATING TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND THEY SPEAK WITH A MORAL CLARITY THAT I THINK HAS REALLY RECENTERED THIS CONVERSATION WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.

THIS IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS PLANET, WHAT SORT OF PLANET WE WANT TO LEAVE BEHIND FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.

THERE IS STILL TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LEAVE BEHIND A DEGRADED PLANET FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BUT IT REQUIRES US TO ACT IMMEDIATELY AND WITH GREAT URGENCY.

PROFESSOR DAVID ORR FROM OBERLIN COLLEGE EXPLAINED TO ME ONCE, "THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTIMISM AND HOPE.

"OPTIMISM IS A PREDICTION.

IT'S ALL GONNA BE OK.

RELAX.

"HOPE IS A VERB WITH ITS SLEEVES ROLLED UP.

WE ALL NEED TO BE HOPEFUL AND GET WORKING AT IT."

YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK ABOUT MY TWO NEW YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN, AND I THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT AND VOTE AND MAKE THEIR CHOICES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT CANDIDATES HAVE A REAL AND PRACTICAL PLAN.

THAT MAKES ME HOPEFUL, AND IF VIEWERS WATCHING DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GONNA GET INVOLVED AS CITIZENS, WE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

DAVID: JOHN?

I THINK PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A WAY TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE TO REDUCE CARBON, AND I SEE A LOT OF EFFORT IN THAT.

YOU HAD ONE, NuSCALE, WHO MAKES SMALL MODULAR REACTORS ON YOUR SHOW ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO.

AND THEY'RE COMING UP WITH A NEW SMALL MODULAR REACTOR, WHICH WOULD GO A LONG WAYS TOWARDS AT LEAST MITIGATING THE PROBLEM AT A COST THAT'S ALMOST REASONABLE.

SO I THINK PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR THAT PROFIT MOTIVE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED, 'CAUSE AFTER ALL, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE IN BUSINESS FOR.

WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S VIEWS ON THIS.

THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER, AND WE TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SPEAK ON "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF HAVING MORE THAN A FEW YEARS UNDER ONE'S BELT AND EVEN MORE SO OF BEING A STUDENT OF HISTORY IS THAT ONE SEES HOW MANY TIMES GRAVE WARNINGS ABOUT THE END OF DAYS HAVE PROVEN WRONG.

I CAN VIVIDLY RECALL THE GLOBAL PHENOMENON IN THE 1970s OF THE WORK BY A GROUP CALLED THE CLUB OF ROME, WHICH, USING THE THEN NEW TECHNOLOGY OF COMPUTER SIMULATIONS, CONFIDENTLY PREDICTED THAT THE WORLD WOULD REACH THE LIMITS OF POPULATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH LONG BEFORE THE YEAR 2000, HAVING EXHAUSTED FUEL AND OTHER ESSENTIAL RESOURCES AND REQUIRING A HUGE LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE IN ORDER TO REBALANCE THE EQUATION OF GLOBAL NEED.

I ALSO REMEMBER SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC AND POLITICAL CONCERN ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING-- FEARS OF A NEW ICE AGE BROUGHT ON EITHER BY THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN WAR OR BY THE ACCUMULATION OF SUN-BLOCKING PARTICULATES FROM THE WORLD'S FACTORIES AND CITIES.

I SAY NONE OF THIS TO DIMINISH THE REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE OR THE NEED FOR IT TO BE ADDRESSED AS A SERIOUS MATTER OF POLICY, BUT I SAY IT AS A WAY TO BREATHE HOPE INTO THOSE POLICY CONVERSATIONS, A WAY TO REMIND ALL OF US THAT THE ULTIMATE NATURAL RESOURCE ON EARTH IS HUMAN INGENUITY AND ADAPTABILITY, INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO FORESTALL FUTURE DANGERS, WHICH WE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SEE COMING AT US.

FOR "THE WHOLE TRUTH," I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION... AMETEK... CNX RESOURCES... BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY.

AND BY...