Director of the Global Energy center here at the Atlantic Council. Thank you for joining us today for this discussion, assessing democratic president ial candidates climate and energy policies. I dont think this could be anymore timely given today is the first day that President Trump can formally begin withdrawal from the paris agreement. And a year ago a year ago yesterday is the election. So we have a whole another year of this. President trumps animosity towards Climate Policy is at least part of the reason Climate Change has become a top priority for Democratic Candidates in the president ial race. Its also the result of increased media coverage, climate induced flooding and wildfires, calls to action in the Green New Deal and the Global Climate strikes and voter demands for candidates to formalize demands for energy plans. The september townhall was unprecedented in the seriousness that candidates and at least part of the electorate had in addressing the issue. But the devil is in the details. And as the details emerge and various candidatess plan was be another questions have emerge. To frak or not. To nuke or not. To tax or not tax or capture carbon or not. And the list goes on. We have to and we have to ask ourselves what the implications of climate and Energy Policy is for the economy, for our healthy and for international recommendations. So fortunately we have gathered a group of speakers from across the political sprurm, holding different confiscates in the debates around climate and energy. Unfortunately we had lorin mannis from Sunrise Movement to speak today. She is she is a political and legislative coordinator for the Sunrise Movement. She lost her voice and cant be with us. So were sorry. That have been another interesting voice here. But with that, i want to remind everyone that todays discussion is on the record. Its streaming live and will be archived on the Atlantic Councils youtube channel. Dont say anything that your parents or children would be embarrassed about. Engaged on this topic but have different viewpoints. We hope some sparks will fly. But, and were going to make sure that theres a q a portion at the end. We want to make sure that those are actual questions, not statements, so please be sure to ask a question. With that, ill turn it over to our moderator, zach coleman of politico, to introduce the panelists and get the discussion started. Zach, please. The stage is yours. All right. Do i stand at this mic or im micced up already. So, anyway, so sit down . Getting stage direction live. So, yeah, im going to be moderating the panel here. We have christy goldfist from c. A. P. , center for american progress. Sarah hunt from the rainy center. Charles from citizens for responsible energy solutions. We have amos hockstei n from th Atlantic Council. So were going to get right into it. I know you all have a lot of questions i dont ask and youre all smart people so i want to give you a chance, too. So this is climate and energy in 2020. So im going to start with christy here to my left. The Green New Deal would require a massive buildout of energy infrastructure. Used to be the council on Environmental Quality so i think youre pretty game to answer this. President s from both parties have complained that permitting even for Clean Energy Projects takes too long. So can candidates reasonably accomplish the Green New Deals infrastructure roles with our current laws and which candidates have a viable plan for dealing with these realities . Great. Thank you, zack. I mean, first of all, i just want to say, when you say the Green New Deal, its sort of hard to know exactly what youre talking about. Theres the resolution in congress and then theres senator sanders plan. I think we should figure out which to be specific, when talking about plans, who has a Green New Deal on which of those proposals. Your question about permitting, how are we going to achieve the really extraordinary goals that pretty much every single one of the major candidates on the left have laid out, what is consistent across all of their plans, is an embrace of this concept of net zero by 2050 or Carbon Neutrality by the middle of the century which is an extraordinary fast timeline. If you think about what we were looking at during the Obama Administration and the midcentury strategy,by were ta talk bing about reducing Carbon Solution and overall Greenhouse Gases by 80 by 2050 and that 20 is very significant and especially looking at how do you get to the really difficult to de carbcarbonize sectors. So then how do we build all of this . Which i think is your question related to permitting and how quickly we need to go. I think that is a secondary question and something that will the president will certainly need to address if were going to achieve any of these goals, but it really is about funding the experts and funding the people who need to do this work and investing in the technology to make sure that the permitting process is as state of the art as it possibly can be. Theres a federal permitting council that was stood up under the fast 41 act several years ago that is staffed by the Trump Administration. And does have a budget and will be able to collect fees from project proponents in order to make sure that their Environmental Reviews go quickly. But if you look at whats happened to the staff in the agencies that are responsible for conducting these reviews, theyve pretty much been decimated. The folks are not there. The budget is not there to actual conduct the work. So when you place priorities as a president , you have to fund those priorities and that will be the key to how quickly they can go. With their current laws, though, youre talking about a massive buildout of energy infrastructure. Are the timelines and plans that are being proposed even realistic within our current framework . I would say depends on which one youre talking about. Theyre not i mean, theyre not universally the same, and every single one of them is going to require a full approach from an executive administrative standpoint and legislatively. What is the responsibility of congress to help change any of these laws, if we cant get there just through the existing structure we have right now. Were going to move on to amos here. Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris have said they would consider prosecuting fossil fuel companies for Climate Change. Joe biden and Elizabeth Warren have also called for a more aggressive doj. You know, as our lone representative from the Energy Industry here, im wond whaerg y wondering what you make of the calls, what effect it might have on producers and how are the pledges being received by industry . Thanks, zack. Before i get to that, i just wanted to continue what christy just talked about. You have to make a lot of assumptions. I think when people run for president , they dont run with plans that are they assume that they have the legislative authorities. They make the assumption that congress will be on their side and theyll be able to pass that. Thats not unique on Climate Change and not unique to this democratic primary versus a republican primary versus any assertion weve ever had. Thats an assumption that is baked in, which, of course, its fair to challenge, will i have the elective authorities, legal authorities to be able to do these things and to change. So i think your question is right as far as if you assume todays todays legislative reality or todays Legal Framework and Regulatory Framework, but then if youre doing that, youre going to be comparing apples and oranges because the youre assessing a plan that is based on a cha e changed Regulatory Environment and a changed Legal Authority with a reality that is not. So just i think its important to put that into that perspective. I think when it comes to your question, i should probably start exactly with, again, stating this is a democratic primary and i think people are articulating a vision rather than a detailed plan of how do you get from point a to point b, how do you get there. I think what christy just talked about, changing the vision of what does 2050 looks like, what the goal of 2050, is more radical than it sounds and a lot harder to get there. When when you talk about the fossil fuel industry, i think the Energy Sector as a whole is looking at the primary with a much more through a lens that understands that this is a primary, will be more interested in seeing what the ultimate nominee says in that debate with President Trump and i suspect that it will be a a nuanced approach compared to where the nominees are now and i think that that doesnt matter if its senators sanders or warren or former Vice President biden, i think that the conversation will be different because youre talking to different potential voters at that point. I think that the industry does not look at these plans right now as necessarily realistic. Weve gone through a change of how the industry views Climate Change from where it was just five years ago. It used to be youd go to a fossil fuel Energy Conference and they would talk about these climate, how nice it is they might grow from 1 to 5 , that would be huge, but at the end of the day it oosts 5 . Youd get the numbers, 1980, what was the ratio of oil in the energy mix and its exactly the same as it is, you know, nearly 40 years later. Those were the favorite kind of talking paint ining points youe conference. Go to the climate, renewables and clean energy, it would be, 2050, well be there 2030 if we just keep it in the ground, the price will go up, everything is going to be great. If you just had the right tax incentives, the technology will be there. That has changed a bit. I dont think its changed as much in the clean energy side. I think its changed a lot more in the in the Energy Sector. Where youre seeing fossil Energy Companies becoming huge investors in the clean energy space. Not not led by the americans, by european fossil Energy Companies. Think that theyre viewing this debate in the primary as too early to really take seriously. And to see what happens later. And with a heavy dose of skepticism of whether or not these goals are actually achievable or attainable and, therefore, lets wait and see and none of this is some of this is going to happen, most of this is not going to happen, in the meantime, i need to diversify my portfolio. They care more about where shareholder pressure is coming rather than where the Political Landscape in the democratic primary is. All right. Im going to move on to sarah here. Youve seen the numbers for Democratic Candidates climate pledges. Talking trillions of dollars in federal, state and private spending. What do you think of federal spending levels envisioned in the plans, what more can we do through the federal purse to address Climate Change . First of all, id like to thank randy and the Atlantic Council for having me here today. I was an ely fellow a few years ago. Ive been to a lot of these events. This is my first time speaking, so im very excited. In terms of the numbers, i would, you know, echo what christy said. Theres not a lot of specifics in many of the plans, so its a stab in the dark best guess. I do think its concerning to see these plans that are written as though written, no one involved in the process has ever had payroll, sat around the Kitchen Table thinking about how are we going to make ends meet, you know, a tank of gas is a tank of gas, and for a long time, a lot of middleclass, lowincome American Families are still going to need to afford to put gas in their cars. So i do find it interesting in the democratic primary were having these conversations around climate plans that will strike at the heart of the very voters that theyre trying to reach. And their pocketbooks. And what id like to see, and i agree with what amos said, this is a primary context. We are seeing democrats who developed these plans casting visions to appeal to their base. I dont begrudge them the chance to do that, but i hope that theyre careful because eventually theyre going to be smacked with the reality of general election politics and if they go too far, if they politicize the issue even more, you see it being wrapped around these conversations in terms of big spending, in terms of socialism, which, you know, legitimate or not, those criticisms do strike a certain fear in a certain part of the electorate and id hate to see a democratic nominee paint themselves into a corner in the primary and then have them have to walk back a bunch of it later because i care about Climate Change. I, as a conservative, ive been a Climate Policy advocate for five years. I have three nieces and a nep w nephew. I dont want the world to be mad max for them. We need to have a Serious National Conversation about Climate Policy. I think weve also got to be realistic that no matter who is president in 2021, we need to be moving ahead in the energy space in a smart way. Whether its Technology Neutral tax credits for rnd, whether its looking at some of the plans that, you know, charles has worked on it more than i did, but we the green real deal with representative gaetzs office looking at systome of th things that can be done that appeal to people on both sides of the aisle. Because regardless of electorala plan that can win republican votes in the house and senate, even if you have, once again, as we did, a trifecta for the democrats. I havent forgotten that. We had a democratic house, a democratic senate, and a democratic president and we couldnt pass a big climate bill, so i hope that Democratic Candidates and the party will start thinking very carefully about some of the lowhanging fruit we can go after. For one clear example of this, from a plan, speaking of costing a lot of money, is senator warren talked about electrifying the fleet in her plan i think by 2035. That will be very expensive. Not every middle american, you know, mom in the rust belt whos trying to make ends meet, can afford a new car. Something that her plan doesnt really talk about is electrifying industry or industrial facilities. We could electrify ports. We very soon could electrify a large portion of the trucking industry. We can electrify manufacturing. You know, we can make sure that amazon is running all of those nice little cranes in their distribution warehouses on, you know, electricpowered vehicle. So those are things we can do that are lowhanging fruit that are easier, that are more affordable, that could be appropriately incentivized through federal policy. I hope that both democrats and republicans will continue to talk about that. Can i build off of what sarah i mean, there are different investment numbers that range anywhere from 1 trillion to 16. 3 trillion. So theres a wide range. I think whats happened with the Green New Deal coming on to the scene the way it has in the past year is a shift in how people think about direct federal spending and who benefits as a result of that direct federal spending. And there are lots of ways, if you look at california or other states that have stepped up here that were going to have to invest in our infrastructure for this transition. And thats something that people can see in their communities now. Incentives, what that looks like, i think in each sector its going to be a little different. When it comes to Elizabeth Warrens plan, she has a green manufacturing plan thats all about industry. So, i think she is very much looking at what are the appropriate incentives, some of them are in favor of carbon taxes, others are not. Some are more heavy on regulation, some are a combination of approaches. But direct federal spending is now a part of the conversation in a way it certainly was not in 2016. You know, i were always going to have direct federal spending on some of these issues. Ive looked at some of the industrial plan from senator warren. Its not as robust as i would hope. You know, theres a lot of focus on individual people versus the easier things that we can do on a private Sector Industrial side. But what i would say, as a conservative, when this is my big concern, aside from the money, aside from how were going afford it, because someones going to pay for it, its going to be its going to be the middle class, frankly, because they always end up paying for things. I dont understand why, in this age, we are having conversations about expanding the power of a centralized government and its executive. In law school, there was a phrase im sure you all kn