All of our troops home, to strengthening our security through tough and principled diplomacy. But i consider no challenge poses a greater threat to our future, to future generations, than a changing climate. Charlie joining me is Gina Mccarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection agency, which proposed this regulation. I am very pleased to have you at the table. Ms. Mccarthy good to be here. Charlie tell me what this means to this president , because you have a sense of what he hoped to achieve becoming president , and as it winds down in the last quarter, there were certain things that he wanted to make sure he got done. This is not complete yet. Ms. Mccarthy we did finalize it. Charlie but it is not complete in terms of the opposition. Ms. Mccarthy that is for sure. Charlie talk about how he feels, because he talks about the unimaginability. Ms. Mccarthy we have had conversations about it, and, in fact, the day he asked the if i would become the next administration of the da, i asked if he would do something on climate, because that was the next unfinished business, and he has been eloquent in talking about climate. He talks about his own two daughters. He talks about the science he is seeing, and he puts this in a different way than anyone i have heard. He talks about it as a moral responsibility, and he means that. He is constantly looking at the science and worried about where the world is heading, and to him, it is just unconscionable that we would not recognize this and take action, because he recognizes what we are doing to the world and what the future might look like if we do not act now. One of the most interesting things he said this week, i think, is that we are the first generation to feel the effects of climate and the last generation to do something about it. Charlie why is it so difficult . Why are there so many people opposed . Ms. Mccarthy well, charlie, i have been asking that question a lot. And i am looking at public health. That is what i do. And i was looking at the data. 20 years ago, more than that, 30 years ago, you started to get a sense of what was going on and the trends you were seeing, with literally no solution that we could talk about, and that is not going to work. People need to know there is a hopefulness. If you give them a problem that there is no solution, they pretend it does not happen, as they are too afraid of it, and we have been doing that for 25 or 30 years. We can stand up and say in 2012, we spent 120 billion that nobody budgeted for because of the impact of climate. We are getting hammered already. The president announced an entire Climate Action plan, and that was a crossadministration effort, and it started with the work he did on cars. That was another area where we had some Real Solutions to put on the table. We had highly efficient cars. We have electric cars that are being produced, and we wanted to reduce Carbon Emissions from vehicles, and the automobile industry, they were selling cars that people wanted to buy, and that was a bingo. That was a good one. We did it with heavyduty vehicles, and we are doing a second round of heavyduty vehicles, and we are replacing the ozonedepleting substances and we are looking at how we phase out those that are highly warming, and we moved to others, because as time moves on, the United States innovates. Other products come up. We have solutions. That is the difference today than before. People did not know there were solutions. And the reason why we can move forward in the power sector is because the power sector, the electricity industry is transforming already. We are not looking at renewables today. It is happening because the market is demanding it. There is a transition from really heavy, carbonproducing fossil to natural gas, which is much cleaner, and now, we are seeing a growth in renewables. Between last year when we proposed this and when we finalized it, it is beginning to take off. Charlie the president , if i understand what he has said, he wants to say to the world, this is our model. We are not just preaching. We cannot urge anyone to do it without doing it ourselves, and here is our program. Ms. Mccarthy absolutely. There are three parts. The first is mitigation, which is what we are talking about. The second is adaptation, and the third was a Global Solution, so basically what he said was the one thing we know for sure is we will not have a Global Solution unless the United States takes action domestically. The largest World Economy needs to step up, and the rest of the world noticed. We had china stepping up and doing a joint announcement where china for the first time got away from the Carbon Intensity goals and said we are going to cap and also look at renewables, and then we had brazil. We have had good conversations with india. Charlie and then you see people like Mitch Mcconnell from the senate saying, over my dead body. It will kill the jobs of the people who elected me. Ms. Mccarthy i do feel for the coal industry and the jobs that they have and the people who rely on those jobs, but the truth is since the 1980s, a lot of those industries have been losing jobs significantly. We are not in the 1980s anymore. It is many years later. We actually have to work with those communities to find out how in a changing world they transition themselves, and that is why the president put together a proposal called the power plus proposal to really start investing in those communities, rather than letting the fear of those communities drive the entire energy and environmental world, but there is no question they will need help. But that has been happening already. It has been happening for years. Charlie a friend of the president , taught him in law school, raised the constitutional questions about this, the violation of the states rights. Ms. Mccarthy well, i am not a lawyer, and certainly, even if i were, i would not argue with the man. We have operated on cooperative federalism. We are setting a standard that everyone in the world has been telling epa to do. That is exactly what this is. Charlie 2032 . Ms. Mccarthy we are actually going to reduce Carbon Pollution from the power sector by 30 , 32 from the 2005 level. Charlie that is doable. Ms. Mccarthy yes, it is. It was not a goal when we started. It was the finish line when we did the rule. The goal for us at epa is how we capture the best, and they all have to achieve it, and then we count of those reductions. We do it bottomup, and this is what we came up with, and i think it is a significant reduction, but i think it is an indication the energy world is changing, and so we are riding that wave and pushing it along to make sure it happens. Charlie what about states that say no to clean power . Ms. Mccarthy i think they will be few. I think they want to do their own thing and customize their own plan. We are telling them you can do this in a way that is suitable to you. You can look at energy efficiency. You can look at switches to natural gas. You can look at renewables. Do what makes sense for your own economies and your own regions and if they choose not to, epa will do a plan for them, and we also proposed what that will look like yesterday, so they will know. It is not that we will punish them when they come in. It will still be viable and reasonable and affordable for them to do it, but why not do your own . We have great relationships with the state during the outreach, and i think they will step up. Charlie marco rubio, running for president , said if youre a single mom in tampa, florida and your bill goes up 30 a month, that is catastrophic. Will your bill go up . Ms. Mccarthy no. This is one of the arguments i am seeing, because it is the most vulnerable and low income communities that we are acting for. They are the ones most damaged by a changing climate. We see it over and over again. We are not going to hurt the very people we are trying to help, so this plan does a couple of things. It provides clean air for our kids, and it provides carbonpollution reductions. We are talking about a net gain in 2030, every year, about 45 billion in savings, because the energy world always costs money. The energy world in 2030 with this plan will cost less, and it will save lives. Charlie so you say this is simply not true. Ms. Mccarthy net benefits, and the cost to consumers by 2030 will actually be an 85 per year savings, because the world we are looking at is cheaper. It is easier. It is. The first year of compliance, it will be about one gallon of milk, about three dollars. By 2025, that will go down to one dollar, and then the savings accrue, so there is no way we are actually imposing an unaffordable plan on the very people we are trying to save. Charlie what about a carbon tax . There are some who believe in it. Ms. Mccarthy i do, too, and the president has always said they are free to do it. The president had to use the authority that his administration has, and the Clean Air Act is not a tax policy. The Clean Air Act is a pollutionreduction policy, and that is what we are going to have. Is the price very high . No. Charlie there are forces against you. They see the stakes are high, as well. What do you think their interest is . Ms. Mccarthy well, i can understand the folks who are worried about the coal industry, but i think there are solutions to that. I think we can work with those when the economy shifts and changes, because that is really what this is all about. But i think, for the most part we have just failed to engage the broader stakeholder community, the people who really need to speak for themselves and we have been doing that. This rule did not come from people in a room thinking big thoughts. We have spent two years of engagement on this. Our response to comment is going to be 15,000 pages. So we have heard it all, charlie, but we are doing this in the community. You know, when people realize this, this is about their own kids, whether they can breathe this is about asthma, and this is what will get us over the finish line. Charlie some believe you are not going far enough. There was an argument that the previous models for Climate Change are too conservative, and the sealevel rise might swallow up our coast in this century. Is that alarmist . Or is that saying we had better get real . Ms. Mccarthy it frustrates me just as much when they say you have not solved the problem when you put something out. The president did not say he was going to solve it. What he said was he was going to get moving and do something to clean and do it in a way that is achievable so people see that action does not hurt. That first step is most important. We will say it has been successful, but only if we have already achieved a Global Solution, because i think we cannot wait until 2030. Charlie what about in paris . Ms. Mccarthy i think it bodes well, the conversations we have already had, and i think the Global Community will begin to embrace this . I have no idea. I will leave it up to my International Folks and secretary kerry, my good friend, but i do think this will change the dynamic, but you can only do what you can do, and i think this is it. Charlie thank you. My pleasure. Gina mccarthy is the administrator of the epa, the Environmental Protection agency. Back in a moment, and we will hear more voices on this very important issue. Charlie we continue our look at Climate Change with coral davenport from the New York Times and Steven Mufson from the washington post. It clearly is a circumstance in which a lot of people are gearing for a battle, or not. We see organizations coming together and have probably already in together, but tell me what you see the president doing. Is he cementing what he has done . Or is it more than that . Mr. Mufson he wants a deal. It helps us as the United States meet the target of cutting emissions by 26 , 28 . That is a goal that we are trying to get other countries to commit to in various different ways, and that is one reason why when they moved from the initial rules last year to this year they did not want to weaken the targets. Charlie coral, do you think these are attainable . Ms. Davenport they say these targets are reachable, and the overall target is a cut in emissions from existing power plants, 32 from 2005 levels by 2030, and electric utilities have said pretty consistently they probably can meet these regulations, and they do anticipate there could be a struggle on the path to get there. There may be some struggles with reliability and keeping the lights on along the way, but ultimately, that goal is reachable, is within the realm of capability for electric utilities. Charlie and both of you have written, i think, and mentioning what is happening in paris, part of this is an effort with developing nations on leadership and creating a plan to reach goals. Ms. Davenport every nation. The objective of the paris accord, which was forged in december, is that every single country in the world will put forth a plan to cut its own carbon emission. Until now, the United States did not have any kind of policy in place, and with the announcement of this final regulation, the announcement that the United States is proposing, not just putting out a draft or an idea but actually moving forward with pretty aggressive regulations, the hope of the president is to set an example and try to get, again, all Major Economies to do something similar. Charlie steven, is there enough here to persuade them to do something similar . Mr. Mufson in a pretty methodical way, he was in china last year and got china for the first time to commit by doing something by 2030. These of course were some things that china was thinking about doing anyway, he moved on to india, getting a huge commitment on renewable power, and a percentage cut, and they actually follow through with commitments to build these vast new amounts, they will be in the ballpark. Most recently in brazil, where they committed to increasing protections for rain forests that absorb carbon dioxide, so he is slowly working his way or not so slowly working his way through some of the leaders, some of the countries that have been the most difficult to bring to the table, and he is going to keep doing this for the next six months, i think. Charlie co. Charlie co. in both of your judgments, one more effort in how he sees the last two years to make sure he finishes work on things that he considers to be a legacy . He seems to be aware of what most people would look to. Ms. Davenport in the room yesterday in the east room, he used the word legacy, and there was very sweeping rhetoric. He came into the second term trying to set this up as a legacy issue. It was a major part of his second inaugural address. He sees this as something that he is following through on the initial campaign commitment, and he does see this as a cornerstone of the legacy that will play out over the coming decades. And the big question is will he it stand up to legal challenges . Charlie both democrat and republican . Mr. Mufson Mitch Mcconnell is encouraging this rebellion, and there are several ironies about this. Senator mcconnell talked about president obama trying to suck the life blood, the lifeblood is the word he used, out of the kentucky economy, and less than 1 work in the mining and logging industries in kentucky. In addition, the way this plan works is that the epa had certain targets, and he gives states flexibilities to try to reach those targets to see most suitable, and if they refuse to come up with their own plan, that will result in the federal government coming in with its own plan. In a strange way, by resisting the federal government on the whole whole question of authority, these states may lose the opportunity to fashion a plan. Charlie jeb bush, for example who opposes this, they say it will throw countless people out of work, and it increases everyones energy prices. There is the argument. Mr. Mufson well, that is the argument, but one of the interesting things about all of this, charlie, Technology May make this a lot easier. To some extent, solar, the cost of solar energy, plummeting fast because the storage is going down, and one of the things that epa has done is they have delayed it by two years to allow people to get on a Better Technology path, so it might not be quite as hard as it looks because a lot of the big utilities, because on the one hand, there are some republican efforts to stop the plan, they are busy trying to figure out how to meet these targets, and some say it is doable. I have even seen a couple of them say the plan is actually more modest than what they are already planning to do. That is an important dynamic i think, going forward. Charlie there have been editorials, i think in your paper, that say it should have gone further, but this will clearly be a battleground in the 2016 president ial contest, will it not, coral . Ms. Davenport similar as when we saw the Health Care Law become a major issue in the 2010 midterms, and as soon as that law was passed, it sort of set up a concrete policy platform that candidates had to acknowledge. They had to say, if elected, i would support the Health Care Law, and if elected i would work to undo it. That is the same thing those Climate Change regulations set up, and i talked to political strategist that say this is the first serious Climate Change policy in history that is now actually in place, and the candidates will have to immediately project it into the 2016 campaign in a way that we probably have never seen Climate Change in a campaign before, because it is not a fight over whether it is real or broad proposals about what to do about it. These regulations and see them through, or are you going to work to undo them, one or the other, and that makes it more of a policy issue rather than a broad, sweeping ideological issue. Mr. Mufson charlie, another thing.