Test test test test test. Test test testi99wn4u tau test test test test testtfd[ test te n, si0 test test test tesk8bla[z; test test test test test test they believe they could have liable, the latest in Greenhouse Gas emissions. You could pay in by a level set by actuaries, have a panel decide you know when damages related to Climate Changes occur, removing because of Climate Change. What percentage of pg e fired can we attribute to exacerbated by Climate Change. The idea would be that fund will pay out and the actor, too, might be liability, would have their tort liability capped. Thats a different kind of a price on carbon. A different kind of market signal that acknowledges the potential liability for harm and but also acknowledges the fact that were all carbon emitters, that these companies, frankly responded to consumer demand for their product, software energy and allows us to move forward and address the cost of dealing with Climate Change without bailing out these big, you know, major Greenhouse Gas emitters. I think that for me is missing from the Green New Deal and some of the conversations that democrats are having. Im a conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in accountability. I certainly have been held to it in my own life and i dont really want to see a carbon bailout. Some of these major emitters have been, you know, polluting the atmosphere, putting trash in all our yards, essentially, for a long time and they knew better. We need to find a pathway that allows them to decrease their liability, to help pay for testimony sea wall, for example. And make the rest of us whole. Let me since healthcare was mentioned, you know, we know that was a very big, big lift and you know you get to a point where if you have a new president come in, you only have so much time to push gamechanging legislation. A lot of the proposals democrats have pushed are huge on climate environment. But the question is, will that be the first thing out of the gate . Let fe get a sense of the panel here, does anyone think any of the 2020 democrats running, this is going to be their top priority . Their obamacare type push, . If you only got one shot kind of thing are they going to use it on Climate Change . The question, do we are you putting us in the positive or the negative you think theyre not . Do you think they are going to . Do i think they are going to . I think based on what amos was talking about just a little bit ago, we have been doing a lot of polling in early states and in those battleground states and for the first time in all the polling that weve ever done, we see Climate Change right there with healthcare and then in some cases even being more important to democrats. So, i think its impossible to imagine, especially given the plans that they put forward that any of them would not make their part of their original 100 day out of the gate plan. Now, theres 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, do you set up a commission or a few part of the white house . What does it mean to use every single lever of your power from the very beginning when your Political Capital is highest . And i think thats where folks are trying to push for, a, commitments around, will this be a top priority for you . B, how does it fit with the overall narrative that were hearing from these candidates and social change that theyre really trying to push . You know, i agree with every word. It will depend on what congress looks like in this election. If you have the congress that we have today, democrats controlling the house or republicans controlling the senate, that will change what the agenda is, it is a legislative agenda, i think will be diminished if were in the reality we are in today. Is it more of putting together, what can i do as president in the first 100 days that doesnt get me bogged down in a sort of quagmire on the hill between the house and senate. Ill try still to get something done there, but i think there will be a bigger effort on what do i do with the executive powers that i have to make as big an impact as i can in those first 100 days. I think the next president , whether it is democrat or a republican, who succeeds trump, is going to be facing a very big Foreign Affairs and National Security problem. Weve got in the energy context, for example, this blows my mind. I havent fully processed it, yet. But apparently, the United States of america, the bee cons of the world on human rights is now willing to send u. S. Troops to protect oil fields in saudi arabia and syria, but not to prevent genocidal aggression against the kurds. Its, or simply look if we want to talk about about moving ahead in the international space, our credibility after kyoto, after paris, copenhagen, those those are good ness grey, even burisma is a natural gas company, so i think the next president whomever they are, whomever it is that exceeds trump from either party is going to have to spend a lot of their time, energy and capital on addressing that situation. You know as a conservative, as someone whos worked for many republicans, thats what im most concerned about. And im very concerned about the fact that you know the Democratic Party nor trump are talking about how climate and energy really are playing into all of these headlines on energy that we are seeing right now. Were going open it up to q a now. One right here. Im with the Atlantic Council. Okay, you just mentioned. Chris, you mentioned a poll back in february of this year, the puig trust issued their Public Policies priorities poll and Climate Change was number 17 out of 18. Deferred to economy, health, education, terrorism and Social Security the top five. Has anything changed since february . You know, is it the california fighters or is it possible if Climate Change will not be a major issue between the republican and democrat candidate in the major election . So, a couple of things, our poll was also earlier this year so i think it was either february or march and it was democratic primary voters, which are very different tan obviously the overall general electorate, which puig looks at. And then the second part i just lost, has anything changed . I think were seeing the intensity around Climate Change and the need to act because of, you think about where we were a year ago, we had california fires again. We had an election. We had the ipc report that came out and the National Climate assessment report that came out on the friday after thanksgiving, when the administration tried to bury it. Then we had sitins in soon to be speaker pelosis office that launched the Green New Deal. That was just a year ago. So the speed at which we are seeing this change happen in the publics mind i think is quite swift. But it is still a challenge. When we get into the general election, this will be an issue. Politics is about friction. The fact that President Trump has already stated, hey, folks, we will not wait until the Green New Deal. We will wait until the general election, so we can scare everybody about this. He said the quiet parts on the general election on climate. We know whats coming. We saw in australia, where language there was about scaring people and scaring them about their pocketbook. On the other side we have this new found intensity on the democratic voter side that really feels like we have to address this issue. And if you think suburban women of different stripes are what will be in player hoo. Climate issue isnt going to move them. This will be a fight because the differences between the likely candidates, whoever they end up being on the left is so big, barack obama had plans not entirely different, so i expect this to be a big part of the fight. You want an example of why democrats want this fight . Look at this state. I mean, what you hear from sarah just now is why democrats want this debate. Because they believe the independence and traditionally republican voting, who are open minded about voting Something Else for the first time on this issue agree more with democrats than republicans, depending on who ultimately the nominee is and all those things. Look back over here. Yeah. Murders row over here. Hi, my name is joel im high road strategies and u. S. Economics, i should add. The im not finding this particularly lum nateing yet, because i think nobody has, none of this is crystallized. I think my im a leaning on labor, so ive worked a lot in this space relating especially to how this might affect the hard land kind of communities and so on. I think im flood my republican friends there seem to be open meebded about the open minded about the the climate. I think its an existential issue and therefore needs an across the board government private sector, civil sector, states you know commitment to this thing and not worry about whether the federal government will come in and you knowened la black helicopters and take over. Because i think thats absurd. Anyway, i wanted to point this to christy, to what extent to do the democrats. I worked on issues, inthink dems are a mile wide. To what extent are they more realistic. If they want to move the heart happened. I dont think if they face this, they will win the heart land. So i wanted to get more a accepts of your cap. I know you are looking a lot at this stuff. Yes, the icc report talked about oh, we can do the transition, but if we do it, it will be at the scale that has never been seen in human history. So i think the discussion around just transition. I know there is lots of folks who dont like that term. So however we talk about this, i think we have to look to the north, canada has put together an actual proposal where they will be going to communities to talk about what does it mean to help you as you transition away from fossil fuel . Were not going to be able to, i think i agree with amos, put all the details in without working with the communities that are going to be most impacted by the transition. So i think there is a serious ataengs e tension on it, but as you said, the details are not there. It is going to require whatever Big Government wide effort to work with those communities to figure out how we address this appropriately. I dont think there are a ton of places to point to. We can look at brack realignment, other places where we successfully close down Large Nuclear plants and put people into jobs. We have to start picking up those full government wide approaches doing right and what works and go to the people that are impacted and learn from t m them. We have a whoelt platform on the solidarity. A little, though, when it comes to just transition. We have very few successful federal models and i think, in fact, the evidence indicates the federal government is lousy at transition. Thats why donald trump is president , balls he hammered hard on nafta being one where the economists agreed, this was going to lead to overall improvement from most americans. There werent enough to compensate the losers. So we ended up in a situation where i as a free trader hated that part of the president s platform that needed to renegotiate nafta. But at the end of the day, those modest improvements to focus on labor have been improvements that i have to accept and thats one where the question and the accuracy of the federal government in that position raises a lot of questions in my mind. We think its partly in congress prefers these things. We will move on to another question. We have. Over here. You mention itseed carbon tax, whether its polluters or over regulation and taxes passes on to consumer. Isnt this going to affect basically the middle class or even poor people to have to pay for their energy . And also the call for having these electric cars, what generates electricity . Isnt that fossil fuel . And why is it always developed nations . The u. S. We try to make our Energy Production cleaner. Nobody talks about china or india, which pollutes the out of the atmosphere . There is a lot in there. Isnt it . Where to start . Expand a little on the carbon tax component. So lets say im wrong and a carbon tax passes with flying colors. Right away in the next session. What happens when the economy slows down . Shows subsidies, tax cuts that money, that will be popular that cash bonn tax increase that affects everyone at the pump will not. And there is no talk about historical precedence, there is no precedence that folks increase transportation costs look at chili, where they had to move the conference of parties because of a boost. Americans are historically thats why the gas tax hasnt increased in well over a decade. So i think thats something where there is no substitution and people are sensitive to gas prices, even if im dead wrong im concerned that as a Climate Policy wont be recession proof. Is there anybody in the cent center . Lets go back here in the red. Hi, im bondering what you all think about a National Performance standard and also sector specific standards . I think this is one of the places were seeing more emerging consensus around the Clean Energy Standard and some way to focus on where we need to go with the good types of technology, which is why weve seen so much success at the state level. There is a lot of back and forth about it here in d. C. Because it has to be 60 votes, versus a carbon tax which you could easily see getting through any reconciliation package. Is with our perspective at cap, a korean Energy Standard is one of the ways we think we can get a lot more buy in and weve seen at the state level people focus on the good news rather than the bad news and how much more you have to pay. I think from my er specttive, if you are going to have a National Performance standard, making a Technology Neutral is very important to getting that republican buyin. There are several republican senators i can think might be opened to that conversation and from a regulatory perspective. Im a bit of an actioner. One of the problems that women so had breaking into the market early on is the cleaner act was Technology Based rather than standard and performance based. So then you have to go in and clang the law or the reg to bring your new merge innovation to market. I think its important in terms of incentivizing clean tech r d, that if we do something, if we say, hey, we want to get to 100 zero or whatever standard that we set, that it allows for innovators to look and say, all right, i might have a market. I wont have to change the wall after millions of dollars in investments and even permitting to be able to bring this product, this energy and Innovative Technology to market. I think probably the solutions that were looking for, you know, they might not have been incent invented yet. There might be a 782 elder in colorado or minnesota who is going to stay with whatever they come up with. We need to have policies in place that dont necessarily favor technology or outcome. Another question up here. Fourth row. Thank you. Hi, im n from the canadian embassy. Two questions related. Have any of the candidates expressed renewable ever being ahead or behind the meter . And the second, as the u. S. Continues to enhance and rom out its transmission grids, a i louing for the electrification and refinement of natural gas, sit still on the table to export natural gas to developing nations because of its afford ability or its not viable to wild i build that large scale infrastructure to your point we need to tackle this as a global issue, not just a domestic issue . On natural gas, i think that we are i dont see a move to change the environment as far as licenses that have already been given. What you could have theoretically speaking is someone that comes in and tries to slow down or not permit new export facilities. If once we get out of a Campaign Mode and into a governing mode and you look at the role that l g plays in the rest of the world, forget about the United States for a second enroll the gas plays and the transition, i dont see the u. S. Moving away from that, both for National Security implications, Foreign Policy reasons, because thats where you get to this mix of some of this Climate Policy, some is Foreign Policy, were not going to take that off the table. If we did the price of natural gas in the United States will be somewhere 25 of the l g market. You will have a huge spike in natural gas processes. All that will translate is moving peak coal much further away into the future so from the Foreign Policy and climate perspective, i dont see that changing, it could mean you will see permits through ferc that have not been permitted. On specific questions, i think it shows up in individual choice on how you access your energy and the specifics i cant think of any of the spefx specific elements of a plan right this second. But i think that will continue to be whats driving in new mexico or salt lake city, you saw, they are allowing customers to choose. You have to opt in to getting coal. You are going to get 100 renewables. If you want coal, you have to on your utility bill say you want your electricity bill through coal. So i think we will see unique ways to address this and give them a voice. You dont make that decision now a days . Thats the entire natural gas conversation. I mean, yes. Yes. And thats all we