President richard nixon. Protects more than 1600 lant and animal species, necaliforni nnqottorney ral quickly vowed to fight the Trump Administrations move in court. The very next day, california joined 29 states and cities in a lawsuit against another ru m8fyh aonenviro regu5 zhons, obamaera restrictions on coal burning power plants. Kevin and dan who join e. welc thank you. Qdangered species act ange. Veat is at stake for california when the federal ment move s in like this. ww nit is a huge deal. And a huge deal or the state of california. Species alive, the condor, the z y bear, what it is not talked about is hoit effects the ecosystems of california. The ave more plants on endangered list than animals. A huge and california has more endangered species than any other state be ides hawaii. Our is federal land. Even though california might have strong laws, you know, a lot of the laces in the state are not covered under these protections that we have. Dan, one thing that bu critics about these changes is that they will allow government officials to ignore threats to species from Climate Change. Has Climate Change been an important factor in determining if a species needs to be on this list . It has not historically been but now that Climate Change is very much with us in fnterms fires and clout seasons and ;bodthe rangeof species having to move up Higher Elevations it is now envery al to the process. And there is a second feature wh h is as disturbing which is that this roll back would allow an Economic Assessment to be r of the assessment to be part of the species. That hanever happened before because wolfs and humpback whales dont vote. What we are seeing is bringing in a criteria that is irrelevant to the way to move in on lands and disrupt ecosystems more. i noticed the rolling out they said they want to make it more efficient. Is to of sulase the rory burden on the american end quote. What is it and who is feeling it . There is no burden. It is a way to make the endangered species act endangered itself. We have a clear set of rules that ranchers, landowners, local, state governments all look at to determine how endangered scies is and what are the ecological areas we need to conserve. There is a desire to give away o landlogging and for drilling for oil and gas and really to throw out oneof the landmark pieces of legislation that is actually brought a number of species back. Ironically made a number of ecosystems more resilient and healthy, healthy for humans and animals. Vin let me ask you what california could do, is doing, clearly it is not afraid of going to court against the Trump Administration. As you mentioned we have our own very, very strong laws with regard to environmental regulations. What is california up to asi from going to court . Dan mentioned wolves dont have a ote, animals like that the same ntioned wolves dont state boundaries that you know the wolf that is protected just came down from oregon, it can walk into another state, california ot tions do not extend there. The same thing o4ngoes for th clean power pn. We are part of a regional grid system. States around us migh burning coal, we know the power could come in the state. Even though we hae strong protections it does not mean like these are big issues global issues it does not mean our protections are really going to protect the endangered species in addition alley Climate Change is a global this is something that isnt going to happen from sacramento or within the boundaries of california. Lets talk, now, about the lawsuit that california, 21 other states and some cities filed this week against the Trump Administration regarding egulating coal plants. Dan, help us gqnunderstand the difference between how the obama administratn was doing it and how the Trump Administration wants to do it. So, the oba lean power plan sets each state to reduce its emissions by a third by 2025. A zcy nparticularly brilliant feature of that requirement is that it does etnot cothe states that made a lot of progress like california or new york against state that have not started. It says you reduce from your own baseline and that reduction, that one third by t 2025 us right in about the path we would need to be uy1no meet the intergovernmental panels of anclimate s goal. The plan that now President Trump is proposing would have ÷c emissions go down by roughly . So it is night and day difference. The re irony of it is that states have launched a number of the measures that would be needed so some traditional coal states like kentucky have mixtures of natural gas and renewablis they are ahead of schedule to get there from day 1. It was thoughtful, integrative plan and the trump messis literally just a simply says do nothing. Now what california d6xhas don going further. Our goal is to be 60 powered by u o,u s far above that level. What we have seen aroundthe country is that the mixture of the lowcost of renewables, the greater job creation in the renewables. They are not buying not only coal but natural gas was an economic win around bhidnthe country. So what the predent is proposing is retrograde and environmentally and just id frankly stconomically. So the lawsuit that california and the her stat have filed argues that under st trump admiation policy the Environmental Protection agency essentially fails its mandate to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. Kevin, are . 1we really talkin x about 2nan eventual clash, in courts 8r jkjuh,otyrn÷awhat th responsibility of the epa is . Absolutely. And that is why we are ]fsy ein all of the lawsuits happen right now. It is because e Trump Administration wants to get this going in the courts. They want to get the in front of supreme courts that is friendly to them and before the first term. It is s all executive action which means in there is a new president in 2021 they can come in and just roll it all eback. , get this legal debate done before the end of the term. I want toask bothof you what your sense is of ife the key issue in the epa under waobamthe vr7yfinding that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Even with this more conservative court . a . ;uy think most of the justices are also fairly sensible human beings and wilnot take this trump move. That does not mean all of them y rccertaia few that voted ne6tconservative but the mixture of the action towards cleaner economy, the sense that we are now the only country that is not finding Greenhouse Gases as a pollutant i think this would still stay where we are. As the court shif, all bets can be off. Yes. Yes. Absolutely right. I would say that beyond that, that obama Clean Power Plan says Carbon Emissions are public health. At is something that the smog hurts people that are living in this country. Ipeople that ar income, living around coal plants and industrial. That is a ofpiece this. Also, sort of two places that the lawsuit could end up. Supreme court a panel of judges in the dc circuit court. The panel of judges in the dc court might be more sympathetic to the arguments that states like california are making. Science reporter rkkevin and dan caven, thank you very much both of you. Thank you. E thehas been National Outcry acthis week over the s franciscos School Board Voting to hide and not destroy the controversial mural at George Washington high school. The ]k,mural was painted by an rtist in 1930s. Depicts washington slaves and white settlers stepping over a dead native american man. Back in june the board was ni lea over painting over the mural. Those against the mural say thee images ffensive and depressive and students should not be faced with seeing them every day. Historians and mural supporters counter with the importance of preserving history and art. Now, the decision has left both sides disappointed. Joining me now from sana is arts and cultural reporter Chloe Veltman and here in study joe, board member of Indian Center hello to you both. Hello. Hello. Let me start with you, chloe, a lot of people think the mural should not be seen every day but a lot of people dont think shouldbe destroyed, either. Can we start by going back to the original intentions of the artist who painted the mural . First of all have to talk about the fact that that isit challenges to talk about artistic intentions. A lot of people who re saying that it is more important to think about the facts at we experience art each of us subjectively in the moment and our experice of art nis always closely connected to our time and place that we arliving in, today, and of course it is onsidered decades after it was created. To get back to your questions we know a little of his intentions by his biography. A case that he says the artist nenkgurtended this muraas a racist work. He was not intending to celebrate the achievements of white settrs. His aim was richly violent frescos was to show the dark and disturbing side of colonial rule in this country. So was this mural controversial from the beginning . From when it s painted and presented there at the school . Not really from the very start. Board cades the school and the board of education have be receiving complaints from kiudents, teachers, ta about how disturbing the mural are. The response has ebbed and flowed er the years. Back in the 1960s the black panthers got involved when the school union wanted to have mural removed. And the c4pvresponse to that wa that they commsioned an artist, in bathe area dewy crumpler, to create a response mur. Celebrating the achievements of minority communities and that mural is still around today and he is whsomebody has spoken out in favor of keepg the mural. The creation of the mural seemed, at the time, to sway the nngative feehi7tthat the community felt, at least to a degree. Nen and and now we have the whre recent time e things flared up again as of last year with students, teachers and other Community Members ming forth and ramirez, on the board of the American Indian ltal center but an alum of the public schools. Were studts complaining abou this mural when you were in high school . Yes. And i remember myself being upset by this mural when i saw it at washington high school. Just because i did not go to washington, i graduated in 1916 never means i saw it in person. I went there for sports. I have been to thschool and remember thinking why does one of my cestors look like a decoration while here and dead in this mural. To me that does not look like decoration. I have been an active participate in the Education Program since forever. For a very long time. Rt of my life. We had students coming to us e sayingnt want this here. We have students here telling us at they dont want that there because they dont feel it is empowering em. Hurts th see it every day in their school. At the end of the day it is in a lobby as a decoration. It is art that is decorating the lobby of washington rehif i hool. Rvdont think my genocide is decoration. Does anyo is therever a moment that a student passes al this mis offended but then learns that, in fact, the mural in fact wants tattack slavery even sort of call out the fact that native americans, there was a genocide that sort of led to a destruction of a cultue to build america up . Does that help at all . Does that ever do anything to change a mind set for students who pass by the mural . Wl, what i think people have to understand it is not h ing talked about right now with context, wiistorical context, that is not brought up. It is just there, no context, no plaque, nothing telling what the artist is trying to do. No talking about it. Like people are saying it is ta greaching tool but it into the used to teach. So if that is the intent put anyin s museum. Donot need to be decoration. This mural is a school and so people will make the case for ibeing in educational tool, clearly you dont think it is explicit enough in sort of stating that with the presentatiof the mural. But chloe who is in favor of keeping the mural . What are they saying about why they want to keep the mural . A range of ople who came out and said including some students and other members of the School Community, not everyone from the School Community wants tsee it removed. Also prominent members of athe africrican community includes the president of the naacp here in San Francisco and the actor, danny glover, who keep it. They are saying it should not be whitewashed over that this is an ugly truth about this country and it should be there and it should be a teaching tool. Then there are the Art Preservationists and art critics talking about its historic value that it is a beautiful and very vibrant work rond to deit would be a terrible thing, they terms of art history. So, it will cobered but not destroyed. Let me ask you, ariana first, does that satisfy you . It being covered but not destroyed . It does not satisfy our community because we are pretty ure in years or some point downtheline we will come back and have this same fight all over again, another school board can vote to take both panels down, panels are not a on permanent soluthose can come down. It has been covered in the past before. The school board talked about it, clearly ihappened ready and i would not be surprised if the panels are coming down. I do not imagine, chlo that the option of covering it but not estroying it satis the people who want to preserve the ral either, am i correct . That is right. A lot of talk inparticularly the Art Preservation community about how really the whole decision of the board right now is a bit of a lose lose for everyone. There are various options, painting over it is taking away the possibility of ibeing a learning tool. Covering it up is an expensive solution and again, does not really help at all because yes, the work could be on display agaiin 20 years that would upset the students and then for the art people who want tsee it, it does not help either. There is another solution that would be probably very, very expensive and difficult to but i gather not impossible from talking to experts. It has been done at harvard university. It is a case of sort of surgically removing the mural. And then taking it away and possibly putting it in m mus any attempt to bring it up is met with it would probably cause structural e to the school itself. It is t expensive. Cheap option. If a donor would step forward maybe a possibility. All right. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. This week some California Lawmakers had to face a difficult reality. Their faces k llot cv the h8 ]lawmakers learned this the aclu of Northern California tested a facial recogngyion technoloby running the photos of 120 legislatures thrugh a data base of ousands of mug shots. The product found the faces of 26 lawmakers among the mug shots. The aclus message in running this experiment and publishing the results. With errors like these facial Recognition Technology is not ready for its loseup. Assembly member was among the lawmakers falsely identified among the mugshots and he joins us now to discuss this. Hello, welcome. Having me. To talk about the legislation that you are pushing on this bui have to ask, first, were you prepared to learn that your face looks like ookabsolutely. The aclu did the same test with members of congress and 28 of thought ed. It would be interested to do the same thing. Higher percent ge of us hit. 26 out of the 120. Were all of the legislatures willing to participate . Having their faces submited to this or is that part of it, too. Our portraits are on ublic web sites. They just took them and crossed m em fe mug shots. Got it. So what does your legislation are trying get through do on this . So ab1215 sets it up perfectly where it bans facial Recognition Software fcam body eras. I did body camera legislation last year to have more transparency, body cameras as they are deployed are built for Building Trust so we have a Public Record of what happened during a particular incident. So, by l banning fac Recognition Software it is ensuring the cameras continue to build trust rather than surveill the community. It would be like deploying thousands of cameras with 24 hour surveillance. A lot of the knock on facial Recognition Technology has bee that people of color seem to be at a higher risk, maybe even gender issues, too, but are you finding that n nthe 2l cameras. Microsoft retseed sell it to an unnamed California Law again, rarely do you see corporations argue against their best intereststhbut y are americans, too, in america we have had plenty of times where we debate between freedom and liberty vses public safety. More often than not we choose do frand liberty. We could live in a Safer Society but chosen not to live in a police state. The player of Beverly Hills wrote q[v. ÷you a respecul lette opposing your legislation. He said these technologies l compare images of hundreds 7jso thousands of people quickly. Theris important. It saves time, it saves resources and particularly in a ciy like his where there are high profile events, celebrities passing through. This is helpful technology. What do you tell mayors, Law Enforcement officials who really iswant as a tool . I think it is a great point. Bechave even more high profile events. We banned more types of facial Recognition Software deployed in Different Things much more than body cameras. My legislation is only regarding body cameras. If they wanted to use that data another purpose my legislation does not preclude that. Thac pwis how i would say that in Beverly Hills or any other city, how many innocent people are going to get falsely accused or . Arreste once you are false low arrested that stays on your record unless you gthrough a number job, housing, impact your ability to dont children. Re jcjust that way a false arre can stand by. Amazon says when a human it can serv eo beneficial purposes. Day this technology could be used to good use . 1i think it is possible. Our legislation is pro active. No Law Enforcement agency using this software right now. Like all legislation that is up for debate at a lati date. Lcome that when it is ready for prime time we can have the discussion how it can be used. Agai see the downside of this. You saw all of the protest in hong kong that are going on. The Chinese Government is using facial Recognition Software to identify protesters. , imagine if you are out i p there exercising your free speech rights at a protest here in the united states. Do you want to be identified by the police for exercising your basic civil rights . It is ultimately aza civil rig question and if we want to continue to be a free and open society or if we really want tov it much more closed and lose a significant amount of our privacy. Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you. Sdo it for us, as always, you can find more of our coverage at kged newsroom. Thank you for joing us ca ptioning sponsored by wnet sreenivasan on this editiony for suaugust 18 more than a million demonstrators take to the streets in hong kong samanding change. On the 400th anniv of the arrival of the first enslaved africans in the trginia colony, New York Times 1619 project aims to reframe american history. And in our signature segment, musician ben folds shares the stories behind his songs. Next on pbs newshour weekend. Pbs newshour weekend is made possible by bernard and irene schwartz. Sue and Edgar Wachenheim iii. The cheryl and Philip Milstein family. The j. P. B. Foundation. Rosalind p. Walter, in memory of george oneil