Animosity toward Climate Policy is part of the reason Climate Change has become a top priority for democratic candidate in the president ial race. It is also the result of increased media coverage, wildfires, a call to action on the Green New Deal, Global Climate strikes, and demands for candidates to formalize their climate and energy plants. The september climate town hall was unprecedented in the seriousness that the candidates and part of the electorate had been addressing the issue. As details emerge on the candidatesplans, a number of questions have emerged. To frack or not to frack . To nuke or not to nuke . To attacks carbon are not to tax carbon or not . The list goes on and on. We have to ask ourselves what the implications of Climate Energy policy is for the economy, for our health and international relations. We gathered a group of speakers from across the political spectrum who have different stakes in this debate on climate and energy. From the Sunrise Movement is lauren, political and legislative coordinator for the Sunrise Movement. She lost her voice and cannot do with us. We are sorry, that would have in another interesting voice here. With that, i want to remind everyone that, todays discussion is on the record streaming live, and it will be archived, so dont say anything your parents or your children would be embarrassed about. You can join the conversation on twitter. You can use the hash tag acenergy. We are hoping for a serious debate between people who are seriously engaged on this topic but do have different viewpoints. We hope some sparks will fly. We will make sure there is a q a portion at the end. We want to make sure those are actual questions and not statements. With that, i turn it over to our moderator at politico to introduce the panelists and get the discussion started. Are right alright. Getting stage direction live. Are you going to be moderating the panel. We have sarah hunt from the rainy center. And a guest on the Atlantic Council. We are just going to get into it. We are just going to get into it because i know that you all have a lot of questions i dont ask. You are all smart people and i want to give you a chance. This is climate and energy in 2020. I will start with christie here to my left. The Green New Deal would require Massive Energy infrastructure. Used to be on the council of environmental quality. So i know that you are game to answer this. Both parties have complained that permitting for Energy Projects takes too long. Can candidates accomplish the Green New Deal infrastructure goals with our current laws . Which clients have a viable plan for dealing with these realities . Thank you. I want to say when you say the Green New Deal, its hard to know what you were talking about. There is a resolution in congress. There is senator sanderss plan. We should be specific and we are talking about plans who has a Green New Deal and which proposal. Your question about permitting and how we will achieve the extraordinary goal every one of the major candidates has laid out, what is consistent across their plans is an embrace of this concept of net zero by the 2050, on by the middle of the century, which is an extraordinarily fast timeline. If you think about what we were looking at during the Obama Administration, we were talking about reducing Carbon Pollution and overall Greenhouse Gases by 20 by thats very significant. 2050. Especially when you look at how to get to the difficult carbonized sectors. How do we build all of this . I believe that is your question regarding permitting. That is a secondary question and something the president will certainly need to address if we are going to achieve any of these goals. It really is about funding the experts and the people who are going to do this work, investing in technology to make sure the permitting process is as stateoftheart as it can possibly be. There is a federal permitting council that is staffed by the trump administration. It has a budget and will be able to collect fees from projects to make sure the Environmental Reviews go quickly. But if you look at what happened to the staff in the agencies that are responsible for conducting these reviews, they have pretty much been decimated. The folks are not there. The budget is not there to actually conduct the work. When you place priorities as a president , you have to find those priorities. If you look at what is happened to the staff and the agencies responsible for conducting these reviews, they have been decimated. The budget is not there to conduct the work. When you place priorities as a president , you have to fund those priorities. That will be the key to how quickly they can go. You are talking about a massive buildout of energy infrastructure. The timelines are realistic . It depends on which one you were talking about. They are not universally the same. Every one of them will require a full approach from an executive and administrative standpoint. What is the responsibility of congress to help change the laws if we cant get there through the existing structure we have right now . Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris would prosecute fossil fuel companies for Climate Change. As a representative from the energy industry, what do you make of these calls . What effect might that have on domestic producers, and how are these changes being perceived by the domestic industry . Before i get to that, i want to continue what christie just talked about. We have to make a lot of assumptions. When people run for president , they dont wrong with plans that are they assume that they have legislative a majorities. They make the assumption that congress will be on their side. That is not unique on Climate Change and it is not unique on this democratic primary versus any republican primary or any election we have ever had. It is fair to challenge and say i have the authority to do these things. I think your question is right as far as, if u. S. You todays ledges if you assume todays legislative reality and Legal Framework and regulatory framework. If you did that, you would be comparing apples and oranges. You are assessing a plan that is based on a changed Regulatory Environment and a changed Legal Authority with a reality that is not. So i think it is important to put that into perspective. When it comes to your question, i should start with stating, this is a democratic primary, and a think people are articulating a vision rather than a detailed plan on how do you get from point a to point b . What christie just talked about, changing the vision of 2020, what the goal of 2050 is, is more radical than it sounds an a lot harder to get there. 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. We 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 nuanced approach compared to where the nominees are now. That doesnt matter if it is senators sanders or warren or former Vice President biden, i think the conversation will be different because you are talking to potential voters at that point. I think the industry does not look at these plans right now as necessarily realistic. We have gone through a change of how the industry views Climate Change from where was just five years ago. It used to be you would go to a fossil fuel energy conference, and they would talk about this silly people talking about Climate Change and how nice it is. At the end of the day, it is 5 . You would get the numbers from 121980, what was the ratio of oil in the energy mix, and it is exactly the same as it is 40 years later those were the favorite talking points you would find at the conference. He would go to renewables and energy, and it would be 2050, we will be there by 2030. If we just had the right tax incentives, the technology will be there. That has changed a bit. I dont think it has changed much on the clean energy side, but i think it has changed more on the Energy Sector where you are seeing fossil Energy Companies becoming huge investors in the clean energy space. Not led by americans, led by europeans. I think there are viewing this debate in the primary as too early to take seriously, and well see what happens later. It will be a heavy dose of skepticism on whether or not these goals are actually attainable. Therefore, lets wait and see and some of this is going to happen, most of this is not going to happen and in the meantime, i need to diversify my portfolio. I think they care more about where shareholder pressure is coming rather than where the Political Landscape in the primary is. I will move on to sarah. You have seen trillions of dollars in federal state and private spending. What do you think about the spending levels envisioned in these plans, and what can we do with the federal first of all, i would like to thank randy for having me here today. Ive been to a lot of these events. This is my first time speaking. Im very excited. In terms of the numbers, i would echo what christie said. There is not a lot of specifics did many of the plans. Its a stab in the dark. I do think its concerning to see these plans that are written as though they were written by no one involved in the process. They have never sat around the Kitchen Table thinking about how were going to make ends meet. A lot of families will still need to afford gas to put in their car. In the democratic primary, we are having these conversations around climate plans that will strike at the heart of the voters they are trying to reach. What i would like to see and i agree, this is a primary contest. We are seeing democrats develop these plans. I dont begrudge them the chance to do that. I hope they are careful. Eventually, they will be smacked with general election politics. If they politicize the issue even more, you see it being wrapped around these conversations in terms of big spending and socialism, legitimate or not, the criticism strikes a fear in certain parts of the electorate. I would hate to see the nominee paint themselves into a corner in the primary and have to walk back a bunch of this later. I care about Climate Change. I have been a climate advocate for three years. I have three nieces and nephew. We need to have a Serious National Conversation about Climate Policy. We have got to be realistic that no matter who is president in 2021, wed to be moving ahead in the energy space in a smart way. Whether its looking at the plans charles has worked on, the Green New Deal. Looking at some of the things that can be done that appealed to people on both sides of the aisle. Regardless of elect oral politics, we need a plan that can win republican votes in the house and senate, even if you have a trifecta for the democrats. We had a democratic house, senate, president , we couldnt pass the big climate bill. I hope the candidates and the party will speak carefully about the low hanging fruit we can go after. Senator Elizabeth Warren talks about her plan. That would be very expensive. Not every middle american in the rust belt was trying to make ends meet can afford a new car. She doesnt talk about the electrifying industry. Very soon, this will be a large part of the tracking industry. We can make sure amazon is running those nice little cranes in their distribution warehouses on electric powered vehicles. Those are things we can do that are low hanging fruit that are easier and more affordable that could be appropriately incentivized through policy. I hope both democrats and republicans will continue to talk about that. There are different investment approaches that range from 1 trillion to 16. 3 trillion. There is a wide range. What has happened with the Green New Deal coming onto the scene the way it has in the past year is the shift in how people think about direct federal spending. Who benefits as result of that spending . There are lots of ways if you look at california who will invest in infrastructure. That is something people can see in their communities now. When we talk about appropriate incentives, each sector is going to be different. When it comes to the Elizabeth Warren plan, she has a green manufacturing plant. She is looking at the appropriate incentives. Some are in favor of carbon taxes, others are not. There are a combination of approaches. Spending is part of the conversation away that it wasnt. I have looked at some of the industrial plans from senator warren. There is a lot of focus on individual people versus the things we can do on a private sector level. What i would say as a conservative, this is my big concern, aside from the money and how we are going to afford it. Someone is going to play for it and its going to be the middle class. They always pay for everything. I dont understand why in this age we are having conversations about expanding the power of the centralized federal government and the executive. There is a phrase you all know. It speaks for itself. In terms of looking at who may or may not win the next election, what that means for Climate Policy, even democrats should be talking about what the states can do and what can be done in the private sector in partnership. I am very concerned about continuing to expand federal power and the power of the president. Let me jump to charles on that. I think he would like to address this as well. Bernie sanders has proposed a green pba to expand Renewable Power. Senator warren has proposed an industrial policy, for mobilization. We are starting to see interest in these big programs. How did these ideas sound outside of the context . The proposals i am seeing from the democratic side are big proposals, ambitious, these are the avenues Many Democrats have been successful talking about and want to work on in the near term. Thank you for the question. Thank you for including me in this panel. This is a timely conversation. One thing that concerns me is its a primary mantra. We have the Green New Deal because an establishment democrat was challenged in the primary and that congresswoman introduced the resolution. We live in an era where candidates are being held to those Campaign Promises in an unprecedented way, to the point that donald trump i dont understand how it is surprising people. All of his promises he made to win the republican primary and soundly defeat a dozen wellestablished mainstream republicans. It should be taken with a grain of sand. The politics have changed. When information can move so quickly. The spending is a big issue. The other thing that observers he is the way that of the Democratic Candidates are talking about Climate Solutions upends the way business has been done for over 100 years in the united state as it relates to the delivery and production of energy. States have primary authority over their energy mixes. Any proposal that asks to do Something Different is likely to see challenges by attorney generals across the United States. When we look at policies that have all of the eggs in one federal basket, we are going to spend our way out, we are concerned on whether the lever of federal investing will crowd in investment or crowd out investment in the Energy Sector. Will these federal policies get tied up in lawsuits . In which case the climate solution is not that actionable that quick because we are taking away power from state and taking away one of the primary avenues we have been for Emissions Reductions in the u. S. Because of federal tax credits and because of state action. Renewable portfolio standards, subsidies, however you want to look at it and we can achieve these midcentury five goals but only we are playing with the. Federal and state. If it is all up to federal we have challenges. I dont think relaxed its a primary policy goal area the is more about how is industry look at it. Industry does not looking at you carefully as far as vision for investments so on. From that perspective i do believe that we will not see much change in talking points, once one of these candidates becomes the nominee i dont think they will walk back any of the proposals that they are presenting today. I want to make sure that was not misunderstood. Whenever they are proposing today will be there position in the general election, maybe even becoming more progressive. There is a way of prioritization that the nuance will change in how this is addressed. That is normal for our policy. I believe the Democratic Party, Climate Change has risen to be the top two, maybe three, in many places number one issue, defining issue in how you evaluate a candidate, not just for president but for any office. The difference is the nuance of what that means in different parts of the country. You allude to that that these are largely state decisions. We have a number of issues that these candidates in the opening we talked about fracking or no fracking and some of these issues are you this goes to the heart of how we will have to balance as a party and the next president will have to balance. Some of these things can be done on executive order. You can ban fracking on public lands. There is very little fracking on federal land. The Obama Administration banned drilling on federal land and it had almost no impact if we are looking today at moving if we would make any kind of executive order that would discuss these issues on federal land, the impact on the actual fossil fuel industry would relatively be mute. If you look at where most of the drilling is happening it would have some impact. It will have i think a greater impact on exports, people willing to trust whether you are going to van lng exports, reinstate the embargo on crude oil exports that was removed during the Obama Administration. These are questions that some are discussing in the context of a Green New Deal, i have seen many versions of what people believe a Green New Deal is. These are where i think they will be much more contentious issues. I think there will be a lot of democrats that have issues with some of these ideas and how they are discussed and how we move toward on those will have a great impact. When you talk about electrifying the fleet, the automobile fleet, i think there is less argument if that could be achieved it would be great. There are issues in getting to that point and i have not seen a roadmap of how you get to a fully electrified fleet in such a short period of time. I dont think anybody is opposed to it, especially in the Democratic Party, opposed to it as a policy matter. When you get to these other questions i think you will see some broad disagreements on what this means and whether it actually has a positive or negative impact on emissions and Climate Change and how fast we can get to the goals we want to get to. Even on fracking you have some division, you have senator warren and sanders saying they want a national ban on fracking. You have joe biden saying i dont think that is politically possible. What are the political implications of making a Statement Like that if you are a democrat . We are talking about moving to the general election. Is that even warranted, wanted . Is that a good idea to state this . Democratic president ial candidates probably dont take a lot of advice from a republican like me on how to win an election. Speaker pelosi over the weekend was specific and clear about this. Remember the Electoral College. Fracking and oil and gas are Big Industries in must win state like pennsylvania, ohio, michigan. I dont know how you win the Electoral College by promising to eliminate industries that have been major sources of personal income and tax revenue for municipalities. Dont take my word for it. Speaker pelosi has been out on this issue and trying to advise candidates to take a different approach to solving the Climate Change problem in terms of something that is actionable. You cannot govern if you dont have the presidency to enact these plans. The democratic nominee needs to be able to say to a rust belt mom, my Climate Policy will not take away your job, your husbands job. My Climate Policy will not make your life more expensive. It is also going to help make a Clean Environment for your kids. If you ban fracking the analysis is all over the place. My concern would be we get a coal zombie. We can only build new utility scale wind farms so fast and frankly we dont have commercially Scalable Technology that is affordable to get us to 100 renewables by 2035 or 2050 even if we wanted to. We will have to do something in the meantime and natural gas is part of that. The other thing the fracking ban would do i think it is irresponsible in the context of pressing National Security concerns. Even in the Energy Sector because of the perspective and conduct of this president and this administration. If they dont think Climate Change is a serious problem, yet Climate Change and energy are inherent to any discussion of our National Security in this day and age. Fracking and American Natural Gas has arguably upended energy geopolitics. It has placed the u. S. In a much better position. I dont think we can forget that. What do you think about the pledges the candidates are making with regards to fracking . I want to talk about the states for a second because that has been an extraordinary bright spot over the past several years. What we have seen with nine states plus dc and puerto rico have made some sort of binding target they have passed legislatively. People had to vote, these were not just executive orders to put in place plans to get to 100 clean, carbon neutral, however they put it. Unlike where there was a lot of angst and problems over how we would address this, this will be front and center of any democratic conversation because the states have come so far ahead and that needs to be protected area that is where Technology Advancements will be made and we can see what is possible at the state level. That is an exciting story and i would like to hear the candidates talk about it more. In terms of commitments, this is about a vision. A vision of what you want the country to look like. There are tradeoffs in how you talk about that vision. That is where the candidates are weighing their own politics and looking at the picture. In 2016 Hillary Clinton said, we want to put fossil fuel workers out of business. That was a gaffe. She admitted to that. I dont think it was phrased exactly like that. I am paraphrasing, i am not Hillary Clinton. Now democrats are talking about a Just Transition for fossil fuel workers. Bernie sanders has pledged to guarantee workers their current salary for five years and provide Housing Assistance and jobs retraining. Clinton had a plan but she did not win those votes. Can democrats be honest with workers in fossil fuel dependent communities and still win their votes . Be honest about the future and what they want and how can Democratic Candidates demonstrate to people in those communities they will be taken care of . This is a shift from 2016, that there is a serious conversation about where the transition happens and what it will look like. Colorado, new mexico, california, new york, all making very specific policy that points to working with people who lose their jobs as a result of this transition. There is a Just Transition office that was established in the colorado legislation that will work with workers at the transition happens. We can see at the state level how this policy plays out. We need to understand that we are addressing social and equity issues across this country in the entire political conversation we are having right now. When we have this climate debate and talk about investing in communities and workers and the future we want that means there would be money. Whether it is through carbon free or some combination of tax incentives or direct spending and how do you invest in the people who need that most and how you invest in the communities that are going to be impacted in this transition. We all agree the infrastructure in this country needs attention and needs to be funded in terms of rebuilding for the future. That has to be the key part of the discussion as we move forward. People get jobs when we do that. Where the real slam dunks are and the potential for bipartisanship could be as it relates to dealing with Climate Change. We do have a lot of infrastructure that is falling apart. There are 88,000 dams in the United States. Only 3 of them provide electric power. Only 3 . If we are really looking for all the possible options to produce Renewable Power, hydropower should be one of them. Do half of the dams need to be taken down to restore salmon core doors and provide local environmental benefits . Sure. Then we are down to 40 4000 dams that we could potentially be working from to generate jobs and electricity across the country. That is a big deal. There are bills focused on reducing some of that red tape to make that more possible. It has been introduced in the house and senate. You just need enough political momentum to get that passed. My organization, citizens for responsible energy solutions, is focused on that low hanging fruit. You can learn more online and check out some of these possible areas for bipartisanship. There are republicans leading on this issue. In terms of kicking open the door, we are writing an article that is focusing on kicking open what they are doing right now is although there was a delay with a wind project off of massachusetts they are doing a comprehensive Environmental Review totally great life some of the other projects that are in the pipeline and take advantage of that offshore federal land for federal waters. The opportunities are there but those are actions we need to move on, that we can move on from a federal standpoint. It does not give me a lot of confidence. Voters are concerned. They interface with their government. When you promise that uncle sam will take care of it and manage the Electricity Sector just as well, fast, and efficiently as we get through the tsa check point and as fast as i get through the dmv line, that is not super encouraging. We need to remember that the federal play that uncle sam will take care of all of it, just trust us, that will be met with a lot of skepticism. To christies point and what charles started this conversation with, we do have to have a different kind of conversation about the transition than we have had before. I think the candidates are. I hope we move away from guaranteeing jobs and money. I think a federal worker does not want to replace his job with a check, he wants to go to work. The idea that we will have construction jobs not every coal miner wants to do that. It is not a onetoone. I would urge candidates to be a little less on the specifics and that we take this transition seriously but dont say, dont worry, there will be construction jobs. Understand that certain towns if we dont have coal mining those towns will look very different. It does not mean this will be difficult for some. We cant paper over everything with money. Some of it will have to be built with attention to detail on how you get people back to work. A cautionary note. I think that charles represents most accurately the majority of Republican Voters potentially. I dont think it necessarily represents where republicans have been in washington, in congress. I believe if you look at the states they are not just blue states versus red states. There is a lot of great stuff happening on renewable Energy Policy and implementation in states run by republican governors. Somehow in the states it is doable but in washington it is not. We have to adjust our expectations to some gridlock on these issues in washington. There is reason for optimism. Just last week, minority leader mccarthy said in the examiner, we are going to start losing elections as republicans on Climate Change sooner rather than later. Representative matt gaetz i believe has a Climate Change bill very dan crenshaw, a conservative representative has a Climate Change bill. There is absolutely reason to think that we can have these conversations. This is a sophisticated audience. It was signed into law by this president. There are things that can happen. Maybe they are smaller things. Republicans and democrats can find things they can agree on to do about Climate Change. There is a growing conversation on the right. Being gainfully employed is representative of that. There is more reason for optimism than others might say. Im going to use the moderators discretion and be the skeptic. There was a mention of trumps legacy. You have Democratic Candidates talking about how they would want to make trade a way of doing things. Bernie sanders and Elizabeth Warren have talked about posing a fee on importing carbon intensive goods. Biden said he would take a hard line on china. What do you make of these plans to better incorporate climate into trade and how that might be done . One of the biggest gaps in most Democratic Candidates discussion on Climate Change is that this is international. This has been a very u. S. Centric, u. S. Focused discussion over the past few years. I think that is a mistake. We are the country that has the ability to make investments, change policy, to really bring about this transition and expedite the timelines that we had just talked about a few years ago. The International Picture is not the same. We have a very patchy outlook when you look at the rest of the world. Lets put europe aside for a moment. People underestimate the achievements of president obama being able to bring china and along and how hard that was. It was very hard it was before everyone else. It does not mean that it is easy to move forward. If you look at what is happening around the world, there are new coal plants being built. In the u. S. It is hard to imagine a coal powered power plant being built. You can visit the construction sites in Southeast Asia and china and other parts of the world. We have a real gap on climate and we have become so focused in the United States that we forget where we are going. I dont think it is only about putting penalties of tariffs, i think it is using the same tool, i dont like President Trump using and using it in the same way. We have to go back to seeing how do we change the what the requirements are to get to a transition internationally. The cost of finance and the cost of money for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology is not the same as in the u. S. Where it is available for relatively cheap. It is either expensive or entirely unavailable. There are a variety of factors there. We can work on these, but it will take a lot of work by the International Community of rechanging what some of the priorities, even the world bank and imf where we have already done this, it will help be different than what we did in 2014 and 2015. I think trade is a good tool to do that. We put everything into one bucket. It is going to be a lot more. The next president , if they want to tackle Climate Change seriously, will have to move from a u. S. Green new deal to look at this again from an international perspective, a global perspective of how we Work Together and what do we do with the United States in order to make it faster, cheaper, more available for countries to make those investments. I will end with one point. When you spend a few billion dollars on infrastructure in any country you are married to that for a very long time. It changes the economics of a computing infrastructure project. It just made it much more expensive. You have to now assume the loss on what you have invested in. Whether it is a pipeline or a power plant. The sooner we get to investing in the International Side and having that discussion the better we will be able to project a forecast for a cleaner environment in the future. The International Space can be billions not trillions when we are talking about how investment can have a real impact. Sometimes it is working to understand what is Holding Banks back from making an investment in Renewable Energy in a certain country. We did that. We had to Clean Energy Finance passports between the u. S. And india. There was a problem. No private institution in india was willing to finance any renewable project in india in 2015. It was all Multilateral International financial institutions. It was the aid types in multiple countries but no bank was willing to do it because the legal structures were not there. Sometimes it is not about spending. It is about thinking and prioritizing this issue and saying the u. S. Government will spend its efforts to bring in the expertise from the United States, the expertise from other countries and other in the two versions. What is holding back the investment . How do we bring some that will also require some reality of we are not going to have the same benchmarks and targets as we have in the u. S. It is ok to say that those will take longer because we are climbing uphill. The needs of the world are great in terms of energy. When we talk about equity in those transitions here, the needs of the world are great. There are people who will die and india because i dont have a window air conditioner. There are people who die in countries because their electricity turns off. Three or four in arizona within the last year. That is just a start. Before you look at the other externalities associated with the lack of energy. That is where we have to think of this as an opportunity. We do need to deliver power to save lives. If we, as the United States can step up and take a leadership role these coal plants, hundreds of them are going to be built. If we can see an opportunity to accelerate our research and development in clean fossil tact, that power is very close to locating a zero emissions coalfired demonstrations facility per electricity generation. Are there other externalities associated with coal mining that are concerning . Yes. If we say that our goal is to get to net zero as quickly as possible, we have to look at fossil cleantech and as a country there is a huge Economic Opportunity if we Prioritize Research and development in those areas. You mentioned externalities in research. Let me jump on to Nuclear Power. There is some interesting division on the democratic of the aisle in the 2020 race. You have biden and booker backing more Renewable Power and sanders and warren opposing it. The largest source of Carbon Free Energy in the u. S. Are there any good ideas that 2020 candidates have surfaced for expanding Nuclear Power . The openness to keeping nuclear as a nuclear option. Keeping nuclear as an option is of vital importance and cannot be understated. If we are going to solve the Climate Change problem it will be because we increased all of the possible options to implement and develop low emissions or zero Emissions Technology and we did everything that we could to reduce the cost. Not just in the United States but globally so that we can export and sell some of these technologies internationally. To stay on nuclear, the transaction costs associated with a new Nuclear Facility in the u. S. Is triumphant. A bill passed last year that will hopefully make it more readily available or easy to do experimental test pilots with a small reactor on department of energy land. That is a good step forward. It is far from being able to implement small modular reactors that would be the size of this room and something you can easily put on a cargo ship and deploy to another country to help respond to Natural Disaster scenarios. One thing we have seen over the past couple of years is the department of Energy Budget increasing by 25 on a bipartisan basis. That is something that really does matter in terms of planting seeds of innovation to see this launch in the long run. We need a regulatory rim work to be revived so we can develop these projects in our own country. Otherwise we have to travel to other countries like the united arab emirates, other places in the middle east to see this. The alternative is, if we walk away from the nuclear industry, we run the risk of foreclosing another important option and ceding valuable territory to the russians who are running around and signing contracts in africa to develop Nuclear Power plants. Because they need lots of power. Is there a democrat, anyone here who has actually proposed ideas that would help bring down those costs and make this more of a reality, more Nuclear Power . Senator booker has talked about it, i have not seen anything robust come out of his campaign. He is a cosponsor of the Nuclear Energy leadership act in the senate with another senator which looks at things like realignment to streamline permitting and other things we need to do to invest in Nuclear Power in this country as the big sister of a Nuclear Engineer and someone being from mexico, the birthplace of the atomic era, i am on it. New mexico, the birthplace of the atomic era, i am on it. In terms of nonproliferation we have done some research looking at whether you can move them around, can we put them on u. S. Military bases abroad and use them to help provide power to people there so that we can do ploy zero carbon power with fewer nonproliferation concerns . I would much rather us be doing that then putin, frankly. I think the importance now is the question of whether or not the candidate are looking at a full portfolio approach of how we address Climate Change and whether or not there is a part of that. The center for American Progress put out a report that charts how we get to 100 clean future. So if a candidate is going to be supportive of these options they will have to make the case for the American Public and show that it is safe. Speaking of things that might or might not be popular, people like Pete Buttigieg and others have suggested a tax and some have said that maybe its too small to address Climate Change. Others have been skittish. Is there a world where you can see a carbon price becoming feasible at time . Not at the time you need to get to the scientific markets. The imf report that came out recently was getting at a two degrees target and they were still saying that 75 to 100 on tax which i dont think anyone on the hill, even with republicans open to it, and we have seen political challenges in australia and Washington State tried to pass it on about initiative and get it through the initiative was unsuccessful and governor in silly went through and got his past in one session. The carbon tax is still incredibly important because there is no way the American Public is not going to recognize that polluters are going to have to pay more for the pollution they put out in the money will be important for rebuilding infrastructure and investing in communities. It is just the size of it is going to be a big question and what comes along. It is no longer seen as the Silver Bullet. It is interesting to say is not a Silver Bullet in not saying that it is part of it. I think there is openness and the public has come a long way on the hill to being willing to vote on a carbon tax, it could be something that grows in the rate of the text could also rise as time goes by and it becomes an important piece of just changing the psyche in america for polluters. There are things that i think we can do right away that we are not talking about because you cant talk about the fuel industry as surviving at all and therefore you cant put any priorities or methods that will make it cleaner in the shorter run. On the right, what we are left with is the fact that we are flaring in the United States is growing so much. We went from number eight to number six to number five to number four. If you look at real data versus what is just reported, if you look at what companies are reporting, we are forth. With the sanctions on iran, we are probably already number three. One university did a study and believing that only 50 of flaring is being reported. Lip taken advancement on remissions and are reversing it because of flaring but nobody can talk about charging money for or banning it because if you address the flaring from the left they say you cant do that because production has to go away. On the right, you cant do it because you cannot touch production. In the meantime, a Million Barrels a day increase in production while we have this conversation. Oil is not going away anytime soon and the amount of flaring happening is beyond belief if you look at the google earth at night, it looks like a city and nobody lives there. It is all lit up. We have weird gaps. While we talk about the carbon tax, we have low hanging fruit that nobody wants to talk about or touch and it will have a greater impact and by the time the next president comes in, this problem is going to be far worse than where we are today. And that is where, in my mind, the juice isnt worth the squeeze for the political maneuvering that would have to be done for that. There is no consensus on what the federal tax or price for carbon should be. There is even greater disagreement within the left within the right on what to do with the revenue. Do we decrease taxes . Do we do Something Else . Do we invest in infrastructure . Or just give it back. Or just give it back in dividends. Both parties agree we need to fix the Health Care Problem and we see how easy that is. It is a similar process with a carbon tax. I think we can be smarter about it. What we are talking about was a carbon tax is talking about sending a signal to the marketplace. The federal government can do that in one way and states can do that in a different way. Carbon pricing does exist. We talked about a federal price that values and monetizes Carbon Dioxide if you put it underground and keep it there forever. That is worth something for longtime planners and folks who want to continue to produce gas. They are interested in the option where a customer who needs to fuel the gaspowered car can pick between the gas station on the left and right and if the gas station on the left offers net zero emission because they sequestered enough carbon dioxin on the front end because you burn of the tailpipe doesnt count in the positive, who are you going to pick . We have increasing opportunities to implement and make that technology real. Also the carbon price doesnt exist in the u. S. Isnt true. One third of the United States economy is governed under a carbon tax under a cap and trade system offered at the state level. California with the Greenhouse Gas initiative, looking to expand and get pennsylvania in and have new jersey come back in. Those are big states and meaningful policy plays in terms of what is happening at the state level. I would offer that is a better way to work the system, have the federal government work on reducing the cost at the pump and it is politically challenging. Let me transition. I think the carbon prices are like a unicorn. It is beautiful, but since when is politics beautiful . There is more than one way to skin a cat. Something we have been working on is putting together a framework for a program similar to the offshore Oil Spill Liability trust fund, where voluntarily companies are actors that believe they could have liability on Greenhouse Gas emissions, you could pay in at a level and that is why actuaries have a panel to decide were Climate Change occurs. What percentage of the pg e fires can we attribute to being exacerbated by Climate Change . With the idea being that fund would pay off in those who might be liability would have tort liability capped. That is a different kind of price on carbon and a different signal that acknowledges potential liability for harm. It also acknowledges the fact that we are all carbon emitters and that these companies frankly responded to consumer demand for their product, software energy. It allows us to afford and address the cost of dealing with Climate Change without bailing out these big major Greenhouse Gas emitters. That is a big thing missing from the Green New Deal and some of the conversations democrats are having. I am a conservative and i believe in personal responsibility and accountability. I dont really want to see a carbon bailout. Some of the major emitters have been polluting the atmosphere, putting trash in all of our yards, essentially, for a long time and they knew better. We need to find a pathway that allows them to decrease liability, help pay, and make the rest of us whole. Since health care was mentioned, we know that was a very big lift. You get to a point where if you have a new president come in, you only have so much time to push Game Changing legislation. A lot of the proposals democrats have pushed been about environment, but the question is will that be the first thing out of the gate . How many of you think that the democrats that this will be there abouttype care push if they only have one shot . Will they use it on Climate Change . Is that a positive or a negative . Do you think they are going to . I think they saw what we were talking about a little bit ago. We have doing a lot in the battleground states and for the first time in all of the polling we have done, we see Climate Change with health care and in some ways being more important to democrats. I think it is impossible to imagine, especially the stance they put forward, that any of them would not make this part of their original 100day plan. There is a wide range of what that looks like and for those of us who have been in the administration, how does that translate into every bilateral conversation . What does it mean to you use every single level of your power from the beginning . I think that is where folks are trying to push for a, commitments around will this be a priority for you . B, how does it fit with the overall narrative we are hearing from the candidates in the social change they are trying to push . I agree with every word. It will depend on what congress looks like in this election. If we have the congress that we have today, that will change what the agenda is. Is it a legislative agenda which will be diminished or maybe it will be more what we do in the first hundred days that doesnt get me bogged down in a quagmire between the house and senate. It will be a bigger effort on what do i do with the executive powers i have two make as big an impact as i can in those first 100 days . I think the next president , whether democrat or republican, is going to be facing a very big Foreign Affairs and National Security problem. In the energy complex, for example, this blows my mind. I havent fully processed it. But apparently the United States of america is willing to send u. S. Troops to protect oil fields in saudi arabia and syria but not to prevent genocidal aggression against the kurds. If you want to talk about our credibility, after paris, copenhagen, those are, goodness gracious, whether it comes from either party will have to spend time, energy, and capital addressing that situation. I am a conservative and havworked for many republicans and that is what i am most concerned about and i am very concerned about the fact that the Democratic Party nor trump are talking about how climate and energy are playing into all of these headlines on energy we are seeing right now. We are going to open it up to q a. We have one right here. With the Atlantic Council, you just mentioned the coal. Back in february of this year, the pew trust issued their Public Policy priorities poll, and Climate Change was number 17 out of 18. The first was economy, health, education, terrorism, and social security, the top five has anything changed . Is it the california fires or is it possible Climate Change will not be a major issue between the republican and democratic candidate . Are paul was also this year and it was democratic primary voters, which is very different than the overall General Electric which pew did. The second part, has anything changed . I think we are seeing the intensity around Climate Change and the need to act because think about where we were a year ago. We had california fires again, we had an election, we had the ipcc report that came out and the National Climate assessment report that came out on the friday after thanksgiving where the administration tried to bury it, and then we had soon to see pelosis office that launched the Green New Deal. That was a year ago. The speed of which we are seeing this change happen in the publics mind is quite swift, that it is still a challenge. When we get into the general election, this will be an issue. Politics is about friction. Trump has already stated, hey, folks, we are not going to talk about the Green New Deal because we are going to wait to the general election so that we can scare everyone with this. He has always said some of the parts of his strategy out loud. We know what is coming. We saw what happened in australia where the language was about scaring people and their pocketbook. On the other side, Newfound Energy on the democratic side that feels like we have to address this issue. If you think suburban women is what will be in play, Climate Change is an issue that moves them. This will be a fight because the differences between the likely candidates, whoever they end up being on the left, are so big versus in 2008, barack obama and mccain had plans that were not entirely different. I expect this to be a big part of the fight. Do you want an example of why democrats want this fight . Look at the states. What you hear from sarah just now is like democrats want this debate because they believe that the independents and traditional democrats are open to voting on this issue agree more with democrats or republicans depending on who the nominee is and all of those things. It looks like over here. My name is joe. I am highroad strategies and the u. S. Association for economics. I am not finding this particularly illuminating yet because none of this is crystallized. I come out of labor. I worked a lot in the space relating especially to how this might affect the heartland kind of communities and so on. I am glad some republican friends seem to be at least open minded about climate. I wish the Republican Party would take seriously that the Climate Change is an existential issue and it therefore needs a acrosstheboard government private civil sector, states, commitment to this thing and not worry about whether the federal government can come in in black helicopters and take it over. Because i think that is absurd. I wanted to point this towards kristin because to what extent do democrats and candidates talk about Just Transition. I worked on that issue myself. It is a mile wide and deep on this stuff. To what extent do you think they are ready to be more realistic if they do want to win the heartland. I dont think unless they face us they will win the heartland. I want to kind of get more your sense and i know you are looking a lot at this stuff. The ippc report looked at this and said we can do the transition and we can do it in a scale that has never seen in human history. The discussion around Just Transition, i know there are lots of folks who dont even like that term. Workercentered transition, we talked about that. We have to look to the north. Canada has put together a proposal or they will be going to communities to talk about, what does it mean to help you in a transitional way from fossil fuel . I agree with amos that we wont be able to put all of the details in without working with the communities that will be most impacted by this transition. I think there is a serious amount of attention but the details are not there. It will require whatever big governmentwide effort to work with those communities to figure out how we address this appropriately. I dont think there are a ton of places we can point to. We can look at other places where we have successfully closed down Large Nuclear plans and have been able to put people into jobs, that we have to start picking up those things governmentwhite approaches that have been done right and what have worked and go to the people impacted and figure out how to learn. We work very closely with them they have a whole platform on the solidarity for private action. When it comes to Just Transition, we have very few successful federal models and i think, in fact, the evidence indicates that the government has been pretty lousy at Just Transition. That is why donald trump is president because he hammered hard on nafta being one where the economists agreed this would lead to overall improvement in quality of life for most americans but there werent adequate mechanisms for the winners to compensate the losers. We ended up in a situation where i come as a free trader, hated that part of the president s platform that we needed to renegotiate nafta. But at the end of the day, those modest improvements to focus more on labor and environment and bring those into the fold have been improvements that i have to accept. That is one where the question in the efficacy of the federal government in that position raises a lot of questions. Congress has opposed these things. We are going to move on to another question. You mentioned carbon taxes and you are saying it is going after the polluters. But just like any business that suffers for overregulation for taxes and taxes on consumers, it will affect basically the middle class and poor people who have to pay for energy. This call for the electric cars, what generates electricity . Isnt that fossil fuel. Why is it always the u. S. . No one talks about china which pollutes the atmosphere. There is a lot in there. Expand a little on the carbon tax component. Lets say that im wrong and lets say the carbon tax passes with flying colors, right away in the next session. What happens when the economy slows down . Those subsidies and tax cuts and the money sprinkled in terms of dividends, that will be popular. That carbon tax increase that affects everyone at the pump will not. There is no, talking about historical precedents, there is no evidence that folks support an increase in transportation costs. Look at chile when they just had to of the United Nations conference of the parties because of a boost in transportation costs. Americans are historically nonresponsive to increases in gasoline costs and that is why the gas tax has increased in well over a decade. I think that is something where there is no substitution when it comes to gasoline and people are very sensitive to gasoline price changes. So that is why, even if im dead wrong, im concerned that as a Climate Policy wont be recession proof. Anyone in the center. Lets go back here in the red. I am wondering what you all think about inclusive and sector specific standards . I think this is one of the places we are seeing more emerging consensus around the Clean Energy Standard or some way to focus on where we need to go with the good types of technology, which is why we have seen so much success at the state level. There is a lot of back and forth here in d. C. Because it has to be 60 votes, versus a carbon tax which you could easily see getting through any kind of budget reconciliation package. From our perspective, at cap, Clean Energy Standard is one of the ways we think we can get a lot more bye in. People focus on the good news from my perspective, if you are going to have a National Performance standard, making it Technology Neutral is important to getting that republican buyin. From a regulatory perspective, from the clean air actioners, some of the proms breaking in the market early on is that it early on it was very Much Technology based versus standard and performancebased. Then you have to go in and change the law to bring the new Energy Innovation to market. It is very important in terms of incentivizing Energy Technology that if we do something, if we say we want to get 100 net zero or whatever standard we set, that it allows for innovators to look and say, i might have a market. Im not going to change the law after millions of dollars in investing in funding to be able to bring this product, this new Innovative Technology to market. I think the solutions we are looking for, they may not have been invented yet. There might be a sevenyearold out there in colorado or minnesota who is going to save the world with whatever they come up with. We need to have policies in place that dont arbitrarily favor technology versus outcome. Another question right up here, fourth row. From the canadian embassy, have any of the candidates expressed their vision for renewable infrastructure being ahead meet or behind the meter, and the second question is, as the u. S. Continues to enhance and roll out its transmission grids, allowing for refinement and extraction of natural gas, is it still on the table to export natural gas to developing nations or its not really viable to build a largescale electric infrastructure to your point that we need to tackle this as a global issue and not just a domestic issue . I dont see a move to change the environment as far as the export licenses already given. What you could have, theoretically speaking, someone who comes in and tries to slow down or not permit new export facilities. Once we get out of the Campaign Mode and get into a governing mode and you look at the role lng plays in the rest of the world, forget about the United States, but the role gas plays in transition, i dont see the u. S. Moving away from that, both for National Security, Foreign Policy reasons. That is where you get to the mix of the Foreign Policy and we are not going to take that off the table. If we did, the price of natural gas in the United States will be in the 25 to 28 of the elegy market and you will have a huge spike in Natural Gas Prices and that will all translate to moving people much further away into the future. From both the Foreign Policy perspective, i dont see that changing. The question around net metering and the candidates, it shows mostly in terms of community and individual choice and how you access your energy and the specifics, i cant think of any of those specific elements right this second. I think that will continue right this second. Salt lake city, utah is along customers to choose, you have to opt into getting coal. You will get 100 renewable. If you want coal, you have to say on your utility bills that you wanted from coal. We will see unique ways to address this and give communities the choice of what type of electricity. That is the entire natural gas conversation, yes. That is all we have time for today. We want to thank the Atlantic Council for hosting this into the panelists for being able to be here and give us their thoughts. So, thank you
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.