conference. that's live at 11:40 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> state allegiance went as far back in june elections and i think one has to keep that in mind. slavery is without question that -- of the war but you can explain the actions of good decent men like robert a. lee and stonewall jackson. they fight because virginia needs them, not that they supported it. neither one did. >> booktv continues next with stephen moore and kathleen white

this book, "fueling freedom" makes the case for using fossil fuels as an energy resource. after that a look at the energy crisis that occurred in the 1970s. meg jacobs writes about it in panic at the pump. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, look under the heritage foundation. we welcome those who join us ond our heritage.org web site as well as those joining us on

booktv at a future occasion. we would ask everyone in-house to be courteous and check that your mobile devices have been silenced or turn off as we prepare to begin.k for those on line or in the future you are welcome to send questions or comments to us at any time. simply e-mail speaker@heritage.org and with coors will post the day's program on the heritage homepage for everyone to future reference.yo we are pleased today to be cohosting this program at their college and allies at the texas public hold the foundation,n, which kathleen is a fellow. introducing our raymond hosting our guest today is peggy norton dunlop the distinguished fellow at the heritage foundation as the conservative movement leadea she's the chairman of the conservative action project, the restore america project and the case for american conservative conservation ethic and energy and natural resources policy in general.

she also serves on numerous, support member for numerous public policy organizations and associations. prior to this she was heritage executive vice president for external relations. prior to joining us at heritage he served in that governor george powell and as secretary of natural resources. natural resources. she has also held significant roles in the reagan administration as deputy assistant to the president for presidential personnel and later as special assistant to the president director of cabinet affairs. she also served as senior specialist to attorney general edwin meese and in particular today's program as deputy undersecretary of the of the department of the interior as was the assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. please join me in welcoming my colleague peggy norton dunlop. [applause] mac >> thank you so much john and it's a pleasure to see all of

you here today. this is an exciting day. it saw as exciting when good friend and great people turn out for great books and we have got one today that we are going to be introducing to you. it's my pleasure to introduce both of our co-authors for today and i'm going to introduce them both and then asked them to come to the podium and make their remarks and we will have plenty of time for questions. our first co-author is kathleen white. she is a distinguished senior fellow and resident and director of the armstrong center for energy and the environment at the texas public policy foundation. prior to this foundation sees served a six-year term as chairman and commissioner of the commission on the environment so quality. the writer troy jurisdiction over air quality, water quality water rights in utilities, storage and disposal of waste,

staff of 3000 with an annual budget of over $600 million inan 16 regional offices makes it the second-largest environment so rarely. agency in the world after the u.s. environmental protection agency. sour goal in the not-too-distant to make it the first largest in the world. .. george bushes appointed to the texas water development board where she sat until appointed to the ceq. she also served on the texas economic development commission and the environmental flows study commission. she recently completed her term has an officer and director of the lower colorado river authority. she now sits on the editorial board of the journal of revelatory science, the texas emission reduction advisory board in the texas water foundation.

her writing has appeared in numerous publications including national review investors business daily, washington examiner, and major texas newspapers. i might say parenthetically she is also a contributor contributor to the heritage foundation study, the eight principles of the american conservation ethic which i hope you all have a copy of, it's good good reading before today's book's release. she most recently testified before the u.s. senate environment and public works committee. perhaps most important lead to me, she is a dear friend, long-standing we met when we are children in washington d.c. fighting for liberty, she continues to be a great warrior for liberty. our other co-author mr. stephen moore, everyone knows steve moore, he is a television star, we we see him a lot on television these days on the

radio we like to listen to him, he formally wrote on the economy and public policy for the wall street journal and he is now a distinguished visiting fellow for the projects of economic growth here at the heritage foundation. it was a member of the journals editorial board and he returned to heritage in 2004 about 25 years after he first served here. >> 2014. >> it was 2014. about 25 years after his tenure with grover m herman fellow and budgetary fairs from 1984 until four until 1987. he also founded and served as president as the club for growth which raises money for political candidates who favor free market economic policies. he also founded the free enterprise fund before joining the wall street journal. over the years he has served as the senior economist at the congressional joint

economic committee and as a senior economics fellow at the cato institute where he published dozens of studies on federal and state fiscal policy. it was also a consultant to the national economic commission in 1987 and research director for president direct reagan's commission on privatization. he is a fax news contributor along with writing regularly for national review, forbes investor ms. business daily, the washington times and the orange county register. he holds a master of arts in economics from george mason university. he has offered numerous books including who is the fairest of them all, it's getting better all the time, still an open door and an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of state. and today of course he releases a book which he is co-authored with kathleen white, "fueling freedom". exposing the mad war on energy.

let's welcome to our podium our guest authors. [applause]. >> thank you becky. thank you you for the kind introduction and thank you for all the years you have been a mentor. i also want to think a very patient man and he is the editor of our book, tom spence who is in the back, [applause]. his skill was extraordinary to see how you transformed and helps me find my voice was excellent. but his patients is to be a hallmark. the book many of you in this room know much about these issues, the book we hope is really for a general audience

that i find dismally unaware of the magnitude of the issues we have going on right now. i call them forces not issues because we have two forces going on, occurring at the very same time in history, worth all are unprecedented. one is the shale revolution some people call it the unconventional oil and gas revolution. i think many remain unaware of the magnitude of it and giving their precipitous and plunging prices that began in 2014 it got off the radar other than true reports of how many people are unemployed or how many rigs lost. but the opportunity that the shale revolution offers and the kind of revolution in the dynamic of the revolution is unprecedented. much of the book tries to reveal that. just an example, the revolution was not just another economic

boom, it was on the basis of technological animation, access to what they just called the mother load of all hydrocarbons, they knew they were there when they were drilling and conventional vertical wells that allow them to extract maybe only 1% or maybe only 10% of the actual resource trapped in shale. that is what what is accessible, whatever the price of oil is. that is what is now accessible. it was not a result of government plans or programs, or subsidy, and it was not the result of the global major oil companies, exxon duke nothing wrong with them, but this was an achievement of risk taking energy entrepreneurs, be a geologist or financiers that operated in competitive markets. enormous risk, enormous gains, thankfully we, thankfully we don't have a minister of oil in this country but i think for the first time in history we have a

truly market generated energy revolution. its future remains uncertain, but the opportunities it provides is amazing. the book goes on in detail living in texas where the technology was first developed and utilized and is still the state that was able to cut costs of hydraulic fracturing and increasing outputs. it's still going on, but i think were unaware of the opportunity that allows us, that is occurring because at the same time that a very powerful global crowd is determined to eliminate fossil fuels and natural gas. as fast as possible. they have done most regrettably a tragically good taste with coal. when has our government eliminated and i went out and go

as far say eliminate but almost killed an entire industry. i am taken having been 30 years and more dealing with environmental issues that again, those that make decisions, the policymakers, the policymakers, those that get the public's attention in the media have dismally unaware of the magnitude of climate policies. a lot of talk in the last couple of years about the greatest civilizational threat today which are pretty lofty terms of our president would enthusiastically conclude that it is so-called the man-made global warning. i would submit in the book tries to explain why in great detail that climate policies themselves would be the greatest threat to western civilization as we know it. we are a fossil fueled civilization. we use perhaps 200 more times energy that flow

through our life and all kinds of goods and services than people did in 1800. some changes occurred since then lifespan is three times longer. average income per capita is ten - 30 times higher. the population of the world is now about seven and half billion instead of 1 billion. things literally have gotten better in those indeed are at risk. some people call the great fact of history, we kinda forget the somewhat dreary economic time in which we live is the unprecedented scale of modern economic growth. our book summits that energy do not cost that, fossil fuels were first methodically applied in the industrial revolution, colby in the first hydrocarbon resource to be so widely used and converted and it seems like

in a countless number of created technologies. but never before had a middle-class emerge, the productivity made possible by fossil fuel energies, just change the dynamic. productivity productivity increase of much that the price a good spell, those who made the goods could in fact a for them. but most and partly a middle-class simultaneously was the emergence of liberal democracies and i hope this group knows i don't mean left leaning. that combination of property rights of the inalienable rights that our declaration of independence attributes to each human being the emergence of our more competitive markets than had emerge before buttressed by the incredible val a fossil fuel change the world. a couple examples and i think

it's worthy reminding of how far we have come. in 19 hundreds the average workweek was 72 hours. can you imagine, can you imagine, and you did not come home to a meal ready in your house, you began just trying to provide basic assistance. 12 hours a day six days a week. we all know what it is now it's a 40 or weak. but that's amazing. the u.s. amazing. the u.s. has long been known for having by far the high standard of living but what does that mean, in 1875 the average family in the world to include in the united states spent 74% of its income for just basic needs, food, clothing, shelter. in 1995 they spent 13 percent. 95 they spent 13%. those are precious achievements. we have indicators in the book gets into this and see me talk about it we have a flagging

middle-class, reduced income, we do not have good signals about the continued growth of a robust middle-class. climate policy, i feel and when the media ever talks about something other than the candidates personalities are the most recent insult, we really need to lift up the really major issues, the major policy decisions that the next president next congress will make, there is no mention, the candidates all have their written energy policies you can find on their websites and perhaps have given a few speeches in the issue goes to the background. where economic growth is talked about there's always a missing factor which often has to do with what kind of energy availability would we have. renewables have been aside a job

they cannot complete. all climate policies assume that we can fairly well replace all fossil fuels with current technologies of renewable energy. if if you want the book goes on in this in great detail but there's a section where number of headlines for european papers that talk about the fatal blunder with ugly consequences, how electricity electricity became in a luxury good, and germany the retail electric rates are three times higher than they are in the united states. the economic impact studies of these policies are met all the really big variables, what it would cost to replace the infrastructure from extraction to production to delivery or distribution, highly regarded number cruncher say may be eight --dash $10 trillion just so you

could possibly replace significant shares of fossil fuels is also in the trillions. this, the global economy would take on, this is what our country would take on when we have such a need a more vibrant economic growth. there is so much opportunity. i will close by saying being an environmental regulator glad like to call myself a reagan republican from a very early age, my parents give me no choice. but it's also missing an agreement and energy policy, for an environmental policy, it's not about the climate policies are not about genuine protection of the environment there about energy. appear propaganda that comes out of epa now is unbelievable.

citizens deserve to rely on some basic assessment of health risk and things like that, epa is so far out of the way, we have learned and in the last 20 or or 30 years we have had dramatic reduction of what i call genuine pollutants, those listed in the clean air act that can genuinely impact human health. we've had falls of 60 or 80%, the aggregate omissions that come out of our tailpipes is now 90% less than it was a 1960. i'm old enough to know that you could always see the exhaust of your tailpipe, if you, if you notice even concentrated cities like this you don't see it. we have learned how to operate and produce with great environmental sensitivity. we have been prosperous enough to absorb the extra costs. environmental enhancement should go on by carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

it is a gas of life. we're educating whole generations now that think and evidently agree with former secretary of state john kerry that carbon is among the worst weapons of mass destruction. were in trouble because our bones and blood are made out of carbon. but that i think is an important insight. there is a very dark side to climate policy and you need to look no further than the words of global and national leaders that it's as if we are reformulating this really pessimistic, people use the word anti-humanity people, people who believe that the enemy of humanity is man rather than people with taste and the creativity of the human mind and in what the dynamic of freedom means, you do not find breakthrough innovations in highly authoritarian countries.

so i think this is in many ways a moral issue. billions in the world live without electricity, i mean we cannot imagine what it is to live without. any hope for economic growth for health, education, of those that still lack access of electricity, they they don't need solar panel, they need energy, efficient sources that are controlled by incredibly effective technology. so it's an odd collision, our candidates if you'd like to go to their websites and read their energy policies, they offer dramatic alternatives, but it's a pleasure to be here, get i think becky, i think tom and thank you steve. we you steve. we really hope that we can get this book out to many, many

people. i think people have an open mind who are unaware of the magnitude of the risk we are taking on with climate policies and the magnitude of the opportunities that it gives to this united states is the largest producer of oil, natural gas, and coal. thank you [applause]. >> i think i'm going to sit because i have slides i want to show too. becky thank you very much for the nice introduction. i see a lot of friends here, and many of the scholars at heritage and elsewhere, thank you for coming. images start by saying that when kathleen really was the inspiration for this book she had written a long paper for the texas public policy foundation

on the moral case for fossil fuels. as soon as i saw this as thought this is really the essence of the argument that we always make the economic argument and sometimes a strategic argument that this idea that using fossil fuels is a moral thing to do not in a moral thing to do. let me give you a couple of examples of what were talking about. we open up the book with a story about something that happened to me personally which is about four or five years ago a single is almost exactly four or five years ago today that we have one of these huge storms in virginia, big summer storm that came on with massive winds, not down thousands of trees in the area. we live in an area where we just had huge power outage. the power outages lasted for about three or four days before they could restore the power. i tell tell the story about how at that time my sons were teenagers and i have three sons, two teenagers who i don't like very much an 11-year-old from still very fond of. at the time this was, cool this was, cool we had flashlights and use candles and so on.

for about the first three or four hours it was a neat experience to live without electricity but then was so interesting to see how things to do with them because guess what, they couldn't use their ipods and they could use their ipads and their game boys and watch tv and they can get netflix and all of these things that millennial's have become accustomed to. after about literally 48 hours alike oh my oh my god people live lives without electricity. it is something we take for granted because we have eyes lived with electric power. it was just a given in our lives. it hasn't been for many centuries before the advent of fossil fuels. i give a lot of talks on high school and college campuses and i talk about energy a lot. one question i always ask his what your generation i see a lot of millennial's your generation thinks it's cool to be green. it's a cultural thing. let's go green let's get our

electricity from windmills and solar power. so i always asked these kids where do you get your electricity from and i always get the same answer, will the that outlet there comes out of the outlet in the wall, most americans have no idea where they get electricity from. most of them dough. was number the number one source of electricity in america today? actually natural gas and coal are about even. about 35% or so, 35 and 4040% comes from : 35 or 40% come from natural gas and coal. kathleen was entered inspiration for the book and what she wrote

was so great was about the industrial revolution and how it's not understood that the industrial revolution, we all know the industrial revolution was the first leap forward in terms of living standards is the age of machinery, automobiles, steam engines, modern manufacturing and so on but when kathleen points out is what is not told in the history book is a story of the industrial revolution is a story of fossil fuels that we stopped using things like would and windmills and we started really using really efficient forms of power production which came from coal. when when people say we should shut down the coal industry just one sentence which you are saying, this country was built on coal. and we have 500 years of it and we should be using it. but i'm an economist, i'm not an energy expert way kathleen is. however talk about the economic opportunity we have as a nation with this issue because of the

fossil fuel revolution in the shale oil and gas which is change the world in a dramatic way. let me show you a couple of charts. we'll start this. if you want to start and see why electricity matters i just love this photograph. what you're looking at is the black areas north korea at night in the bottom area south korea at night. you can see the lights. north korea lacks many thing but what they lack fundamentally as without economic freedom is no electric power. there is no lights in north korea at night south korea is lit up. south korea has a living standard that is six times higher than north korea and electric power as a springboard to economic improvement. now this is an interesting one. this deals with the issue of emissions that you're talking about. i love this one.

if you look at the natural gas revolution as we look to the future to me the future as natural gas. it's a true wonder fuel. it's made in america, is cheap, it's abundant and is cleanburning. why would we want to use it we should use as much of it as we can is by far the most clean source of electric power we can have. . .

they are just against industrialization. they do want to slow down the economy in the pay some kind of premise. this just shows we are an incredibly energy efficient of left keeps talking but making america more energy-efficient and the distress of the true progress. less we produce more goods and services. we don't need the government to mandate fetishes the course of history. this is one of the charges the left is making that the emissions are out of control we have to stop fracking. even as we have used a more natural gas. ten to what he was

saying through his first term in office, he said we have to move to green energy because we are running out of fossil fuels. i remember one of the famous quotes said we are running out of it so fast pretty soon we have to throw down the washington monument because then seal the place place. it's doubled and tripled overnight. one technology has doubled and tripled the amount we have so we are not running out of oil or gas and certainly not running out of cool. one of the themes of the book is promoting energy resources that we have such a super abundance of and i make the case we have more audio from the gas and coal

than any other place in the world that we can create a sanctuary of the united states or saudi arabia of the 21st century and that has profound impacts for the economy i will get to that in a moment. the will spill is another example how we are cleaning up even as we use more energy. this is kind of an interesting one of what happened. i made the point how he doubled and tripled the amount of oil that we have. by the way, these come right from the book. look at what happened around 2005 or 06, 07. we more than doubled overnight the amount of energy reserves we have. by the way, they keep going up over time. again, we are not running out of this stuff. this is kind of a fun one. you just look at the state law has a big impact in terms of where we produce energy. so i'm using california and

texas in terms of the way they view energy. the amount was estimated to have enough oil and gas as the whole state of texas. it's the most oil-rich place as well. look at the difference between the production of oil and gas in texas versus california and i would submit this is almost attributable to the environmental regulations where california has the resources they just decided as a matter of course not to use them. when i did these people on the left they say they have all this oil. by the way, north dakota just recently passed california as a producer of oil so they are going the wrong direction. if you follow the crisis in california, the same kind of water policies that are in place

are the same kind of policies they have with respect to oil. this made the point about the fact that we are cleaning up the environment. the amount of emissions from coal plants in terms of the major pollutants that we look at, whether it is led or sulfur or carbon monoxide i think people get mixed up. carbon monoxide is a pollution. you can die from carbon and oxide, carbon dioxide is not a pollution. in some cases i thin think why s that 70 or 90% from what it was in the -- it's certainly attributable that there is a difference between smart regulations and not smart regulations. we have hundreds and hundreds of years with existing technologies and the technology is getting better all the time so let me summarize by saying it's an economic strategy.

why does this issue matters so much in terms of america's economic future and not just energy future? use all the jobs report that came out that it's growing at an abysmally small break. rate. i estimate over the next months it's growing at one to 1.5%. it's not going to provide enough jobs. you're not going to provide enough tax revenues or new businesses at 1.5%. we have to grow faster. economists are asking now how do we get back to the 4% with ronald reagan and george kenne kennedy. one of the big answers that i don'but idon't think enough of e politicians are paying attention to is this incredible opportunity with energy and to put it simply, this i used to say three or four years ago has become a conventional wisdom and

his true. we use everything w we got and within the united states of america the first time in a half-century will be energy independent. john f. kennedy said we are goinweregoing to make america ey independent. i'm not just talking about the united states but canada, new mexico could be producing more energy than we are buying the rest of the world. i estimate that if we were to produce the energy that we have come of the oil, gas and coal, nuclear power as well we are for whatever works and whatever is cost efficient. if we use those resources, we estimate that we are going to start selling those abroad. we should be selling the natural gas rates now. we are producing more than we use we just don't have the infrastructure in place to get it where it needs to be.

when hillary clinton and bernie sanders talked about infrastructure i say absolutely. what we really need a vitally needed pipelines and lng terminals and refineries and the kind of energy once we get that in place. think about who the losers are if we do this, think about the national security implications if we start selling energy rather than buying it. we spend in the neighborhood of $200 billion a year importing energy from other places and some of it comes from mexico and from countries that hate us and are trying to kill us and countries like iran and saudi arabia, venezuela and i know that isis is almost completely funded with petrodollars.

it'll make a game changer in the middle east politics. the other point is what this means for the economy i estimate we could increase the growth rate by one percentage point a year that's using the wailing and gas and by the way, 1% might not seem like a very big deal but that is an increase per year that's gigantic. by the way, we go from 2% growth to 3% growth and if we put on top of that three to four it's not that hard to get them back in a very rapid growth policy. all we have to do is use the resources and open up to questions. is this issue about global warming and not using fossil fuels because of the death of the planet and i could simply sesay this. it's clear in terms of an election issue but americans

have said the last two or three years. there's no outliers. what is the issue americans care most about the jobs, the economy and terrorism. what's interesting is if you actually look down at the polls that are done by gallup or fox or abc news they do these all-time. what are your major concerns usually there were 25. guess what global concern is, 23, 24, 25. as a matter of good politics republicans should be talking about developing the resources. we won't have any global warming policy very simple and this idea that we are going to agree to this treaty donald trump is

right about this. china and india, one last statistic, as we sit here in the next two years are expected to go 500. every time we shut down coal plants china and india build them. all we are doing is exporting jobs in the united states and making the planet dirtier because we are substituting clean cold in the united states with these other countries and china .-full-stodie .-full-stop. thank you for being here. [applause] thank you very much. we want to open up to questions. we have microphones in the room. one of the 3% of people who's concerned about the change

[inaudible] [laughter] we have a microphone here. if you wait for the microphone and then introduce your self we will start right back here in the center. >> [inaudible] reading the war against energy is none other than the environmental protection agency currently guided by political appointees of the obama administration. there has been some discussion some time about devolving that responsibility as carried out to the states abolishing the epa over the period of three years and involving the responsibilities to the states,

something which from the administrative standpoint is a lot easier than some people realize because it wasn't by congress that was in the 1970s but we could also be done away with. as someone who headed the state environmental agency, what would you think of this idea, is this something realistic? do you think it can be done, we appreciate your comments. >> most enthusiastically i think it is the best solution and can be done because i notice from texas to major job in the agency in the state is implementing the rules but with one deciding what

are the standards that drive the rules and try to dictate how we are supposed to do it is something that you would have the states think they didn't have the resources or all that but i think it's an excellent solution and you would be apt to get more robust science although some say we can't leave that to the states it has to be national because states closer to ground zero if you will to what is really going on in the state in terms of aer quality and water quality know the resources and the people involved in creating the pollution and trying to solve it. i think that's an excellent idea. a couple quick comments. how right you are about the unbelievable road to quality these days. i was just thinking it's been dying years now, how long?

against the will of congress carbon dioxide as a pollutant and that's where all of this has come from. it's appalling that wasn't a decision of the congress if it was most considered the senate declined and there were other locations where it's unbelievable they could change the country. >> in texas i remember rick. he was saying the statistics how much they reduced beyond the national standards so it felt like a good example. >> that generate a lot of revenues and becky achieved the same thing when she was in

virginia in the houston area it was the most ballooning city. we developed a plan while i was there we have t had to fight tod nail every day because you have to take a worst-case scenario to achieve the standard it's kind of sick when something like that gives you the chills. we did it. then of course immediately. i'm not an expert on the wall that i was doing some research and then the law says that the standards have to be indu something.

the clean power plant rules it appears intentional so the'' industry puts them out of business. >> has say:your as the gatt natural gas out of the 250-foot water well whenever we turned on the faucet with those economic pressures if

i am sitting on 290 acres but the politicians listenlisteg to them and then let that be developed. be and fracking would be allowed? >> ratify to make a prediction and not necessarily reflecting the preference in that concern about fracking. is sometimes it is nice to have the state fight taking of the entire federal government.

the net 250 feet those hydraulic fractured wells go down 1 mile. >> how many of you have seen that video with delight that six lighter near the water? in it looks like of blowtorch. when did that come out? four or five years ago? we went to west virginia in these people burst out laughing.een happening for 75 this has been happening for 75 years. the old truck guy comes back it is expose because there

is a much methane in the water so the point is that isn't fracking. it is a perfect a about told

the racer hands. how the event think is bad? thirty.how many think it's a bah that is like being against the cure for cancer with those technological breakthroughs how can anybody me against this occurs to me they have been indoctrinated in the high-school classrooms how bad is a bad thing this wacko propaganda campaign. >> their progress virginia

but indy 500 20 years ge geographically where do you foresee that taking place? >> one quick thing.oblems. two pro that natural gas is cheapheap and we believe as free marketeers creative destruction comes along then use it. so we should be using coal as a way to get electricity but that isn't the same there is a huge new technologies with nuclearr energy that is one of the cleanest sources of energy production. big nu that is the nuclear reactors but the smaller swans to

provide electricity for a small town or neighborhood. so we are for whatever works or make sense. right now is three 1/4 times more expensive per kilowatt so there are terrible inefficient ways to get electricity. >> the call issue it is anything our congress passed it was the epa division a series of directives fromhe the president as trying to kill in industry. and as i said about carbondecisf dioxide that type of consequence to eliminate all kinds of jobs has to be a decision of congress.

most people i don't think put environmental goals ahead of basic human welfare. >> the sierra club, i know c-span audience is here but if you give money to sierra club she minute they are doing a victory dance that they have shut down a coales they celebrate every time one is shut down. this is the flashing alarm that should be going off in this country. now they say they will do toin oil and gas what they have done to call and they mean it. right now we have 4%? it. >> it is less than that.

abou >> and to think with a physicist in the engineer's with the impossibilitiesurces lo from with intense solar gaudily to be timid and but, you know, how manye tons of concrete and steel and cement maker those the the google was going to get the best engineering minds with their resources.eaper

and after several years it would call themselves a stalwart to environmentalists that this will blind have been. doesn't the amount of materials used to put that much renewable infrastructure cost would have far more real environmental impact and bill gates invested heavilyar to increase wind and solar system installations he reached the same could quit -- conclusion because that will not work we needed energy miracle so now he is investing in breakthrough technologies which is the way to go.

>>. >> i lived in virginia is at coal producing state even as a political issue think of the states that produce coal pennsylvania ohio, this is why it is a very strong political issue for donald trump who is very pro fossil fuel development there is no state that is more reliant. >> but those same structures are affecting.

>> was asked about fracking issue their members in the senate and in the house that advocating more federal land to be fully funded by land how much of a the fracking is going on federal land? >> not much more of the best statistics is what would happen if we went all in with the strategy for waterthing we have got? all the federal lands withth federal bader we year on a treasure chest of $50 trillion of carbon assets oil and gas and coal. that is a big deal. $50 trillion is a huge.

and by the way obama recently suspended if we start allowing this to happen i'm not talking about yosemite your national treasures natalie could we get that increase of al platt we estimate between three and $4 trillion of income tax payments that is a lot of money. >>. >> then those prospects of what is publicly and to maintain taxpayer funds.indicatv

and states have indicated they would like to have more authority to manage said energy development. >> i noticed at great length capitalism and talking about the morality of fossil fuels alte for the alternative energy sector is through the roof and. day you have any insight to show us about that either?sa >> i will reiterate what i said yes we do hear the crony capitalism but the

guarantees and outrisidies and the outright grants in the guaranteed contracts to installations going on installations in the great contrast is that, how many people know that 95 percent of all oil and natural gas produced in this country comes from small and medium independent companies?ob to everybody know that?. but that is a very different economic dynamic and i find that refreshing that is so classically expressed in people that don't want any help from the government at all they want to make decisions will take on and they are remarkably generous

when they are successful but the magnitude of subsidies of as with all we need to do is look across the pond at germany in the u.k. to see how subsidies balloon if rubles now only provide less than 4% of energy, we will need unbelievable amounts more. just ballooned. >> even one of my favorite new yorker cartoons is a windmill farm and a guy has these giant fans better blowing to make the turbines turn. [laughter] and it is amazing to me $150 million is the statistic what we spent that almost all have gone to win

door solar son is renewable like ethanol $150 billion? we had a big debate last year think republicans made a big state in the spending bill the renewed the subsidies is a powerful industry you deal with them every day they are well funded and their livelihood truly depends on the when former association if youat don't renew the tax credits we will bader of business so what kind of business model is that if they can survive without a federal subsidy? but the oil and gas industry than maybe there is some giveaway i am not an expert but they pay more taxes virtually than any of their industry in the united states they are incredibly high pretax. what works,

we ought to use what works in my recommendation isn the det seriously a hundred $30 million shut it down. [laughter] >> i just wanted you to comment on the success of the fossil fuel industry inne this country you mention natural-gas that is enormous but now there is such a glut and texas is one of the prime places we report on this so those people are out of work in you say we will draw more? >> that is a really great question of glad we year ending on this is a new development with schaede oil

-- shale oil is a victim of their own success from 2007 through 2012 or so we doubled the amount of oil and gas production in a five-year period it was almost all shale oil and all the net new jobs and increase of gdp was attributable to the oil and gas industry. so i was in texas congratulations you are the people reelected. but it is true without that revolution barack obama would not have been reelected because the economy would have still been in recession so now that big boom is a blast and this is the whole history of

the oil industry echoes through the boom and bust cycle is in a bus cycle overallp mouth and kathleen is more of an expert but when i talk to them they say the price is 50 years 60 we can start making money in what is high as 110 but here is the cool thing about the story that horizontal drilling and fracking which are the two big ones are all made in the united states since this wasn't done by exxon or chevron the was smallal ontario businesses that figure our power to crack the code and wasn't of a sudden we just finally figured it out behalf, my point is over time this technology will just get better and better and right now they can make more money

at $60 into three years this will be 50 or 40 so oil and gas will keep getting cheaper and we will see these oil and gas companies able to make money by the way when you make this point why is it since we keep making these debts on renewable energy? g remember that subsidies and what they get wrong with the technological progress . .

effects. i was making light of people not having access to their game boys and so on. you can't operate anything if you have blackouts. i wish they would hit people on the head and say that what you're talking about this isn't a feasible alternative we ought to use it and we want this in schools. >> middle school, high school, grade school. >> the energy industry the biggest of the smallest independent in all the service industries and financial that surround have been apologetic about this for decades.

i think it's unbiased british petroleum decided to call themselves beyond petroleum because they were going to keep drilling for oil and get into the renewable business as well which didn't last long but i think it's important to get into the hands there are organizations and the international association that find themselves across the country on the local level first with people that know the energy business and their livelihoods surrounded i think they need and deserve that kind of information to tell their story. then in the localities people at the local level and city government the councils that don't understand what opportunity we have and also what propaganda we are feeding

our children and policymakers about the environmental energy threats. so the bottom line is if you love liberty and economic growth, people need to read this book to figure out how to have both. >> where is tom, the editor you have a plan, right? >> there's books for you to sign. thank you for joining