tv Supreme Court in the Digital Age CSPAN November 29, 2013 9:20pm-10:16pm EST
this was an extremely polarized issue before barack obama moved to the white house. democratsissue where and republicans had parted company's active the elite level and bed the left -- and then the level of average voters. the data international opinion surveys from pew. stood inwhere things 1987 in terms of a split between parties and where they stood in 2012. you can see environment as one of the issues where polarization had the, much more extreme -- become much more extreme , by the timeine this campaign was launched in the first two years of obama's presidency, it was virtually
impossible for elected office holders in the republican party to consider joining the bipartisan coalition that would've been necessary to pass the legislation. question, whyg did the people who were supporting it think it would work? i'm going to leave that question talk about.or us to i do believe many of the business people and environment was who supported cap and trade were so focused on working out the details of a bargain inside of washington, d.c. trying to figure out how many allowances to give to which andons and how to reach out rope in more business leaders to support the legislation. the just operate on assumption that if they could get business support, that would deliver republican votes to congress. meanwhile, the republican party was changing.
by 2009, that change had a label. tea party movement. which i did face to face interviews with the tea party people in several parts of the country and found for them, the threat of environmental protection agency regulating and cap and trade were right up there with obamacare as things they considered likely to lead the end of western civilization and the american way of life. [laughter] another one that they were very upset about. big-money funders. , altra works and others eeee markets -- ultra-fr markets were ramping up their running of ads criticizing cap environmental
regulation trying to suggest to americans across the board these forlaws would raise prices the average family. that message was being delivered in lurid detail in the midst of a big economic downturn in which american embassies -- families and businesses were worried. tradeoponents of cap a bringing up against that of the pretty much, nothing. they do not make very much cap ando explain what trade was. national opinion polls, most americans said they didn't know what it was and it became increasingly suspicious if they did not what it was and congress was about to page -- passed a bill, it probably was not good. a suspicion that all americans have about big efforts in congress and these days. proponents rane
were things like, a picture of children and a suggestion we might need to work together to improve the environment for them in the future. that kind of thing is not one to carry much weight when the other side is carried at that said your energy bill will go up by $350 a year. if it passes. , part of my conclusion in the report was the alliance of environmentalists and business people in support of cap and d the ms. red -- misrea political environment they were in and misjudged and brought a knife to a nuclear war. say,e move on quickly and what might happen next? nothing is happening
in the u.s. congress. i am sure you have all noticed, there's a standoff, a question of whether that will pass things they have to pass. to keep the country from going into an economic meltdown. i am not talking about now. efforts toclear that use regulatory power or taxes to change the price of various types of energy and i'm sure there's not a popular idea in oklahoma. proposals to do that are dead in the water right now. they probably cannot get the majority of votes from the democrats in the senate and they certainly will go nowhere in the house of representatives under republican leadership. things could change in a few years. our congress might pass the end of democratic control and that
would be the prerequisite for anything coming up for debate in the congress. president barack obama has made it clear at this juncture that he plans to use executive authority and act through the epa for the remainder of his presidency. uncommitted on the part -- a commitment on the part of the u.s. to change would require congressional action for some kind of legislation. ben epa regulation can undermined if congress is determined to do that. my final question that i asked in the research exercise is, what can you imagine for another opening for action and what should happen if you happen to be someone who supports the idea there should be an increase
price of carbon sources of sentence for families to transfer to cleaner sources? that is what we are talking about here. i am agnostic about whether that happens through a permit system and trading on the market or whether it would happen to a carbon tax of some kind. i am not going to take a position. either way would require legislation. it is impossible to imagine that coming up again unless the democrats take control of both houses. wouldf that happens, what happen if the proponents tried the same game plan against? out, one ofort came the people who was a supporter ,f the cap and trade efforts said the arrest nothing wrong
with the game plan. it was just that execution. -- stated there was nothing wrong with a game plan. there is chance let's improve. up because i am in a felt fan. -- nfl fan. i know if you do not make the into the super bowl in the nfl, you do not go into the next season with the same game plan. do not even go to the next season with the same team. -- maybe ifp-rated you top-rated, you state the same quarterback. y, to stay withd the same quarterback. another attempt to pass a carbon surelyl fail just as into the united states congress ixt time as it did last time
left the supporters of that effort turned from inside her bargaining policy -- insider bargaining politics to broader in which they are supported at policy and that the majority of the public can understand, and build a broad coalition culpable to the coalition that house reform is billed it to thousand nine that is able to reach down into the states and community -- in 2009 that is able to reach down into the states and communities. good luck trying to build that kind of public movement or coalition if you rerun cap in trade. it is almost impossible to explain to people what cap and trade is. it requires a great deal of trust that if you give pay off to certain industries, they will somehow keep prices down for
consumers. you're not convinced american citizens and here we are talking about people not tea party opponents, you will not convince the rest to trust any kind of collocated scheme and government and business has to be trusted. in a policy that you can hardly figure out, to protect consumers. that is a serious problem. 2009 isthe recession in be, 4/5ad as it used to of american -- let me said again, 4/5 of all americans have experienced stagnation or decline for the last 40 years. there is no tolerance out there in the general public, in any
state, for the idea that average families as ordinary small businesses should be stocked with paying a lot of higher prices for electricity, gas lake, and other sources of of energy. -- gasoline, and other sources of energy. it is not just me saying that. my colleagues have done some people where they asked how much more would they be willing to pay for electricity. , thee time they did average monthly bill was $100. income washousehold $50,000. probably not that in oklahoma. more people were
willing to pay and how steep the income gradient was. understandably, people not willing to pay more. even the people who could well afford, would not pay as much to have a mexican tax -- a significant tax. if you asked people, how many people would support electricity tax of $25 a month? you did not get to a among the rich people. the conclusion is, antics ble, any-- inescapa broad movement that would have a chance of convincing the democrats, tojust enact a trade system for carbon
tax to have any kind of effect of greenhouse emissions driving in part global warming, that policy has to be simple and understandable at popular. to hold mosty people for paying more out-of- pocket during the transition. argument here is one set the policy approaches that have probabilities. i underline the word possibility. there are ideas out there that are sometimes called cap and it didn't -- dividend way every system that limit greenhouse gas emissions where they are taxed. the money collected is most returned to the citizenry.
without spending much time in congress at all. 75% or more of the revenues raised from tax or cap with , could be returned in the form of checks. i prefer every september equal sized check to every american citizen. a family of four would get somewhere in the hundreds of dollars. the research that has been done suggests that in most place of the country, most lower at it middle, -- and middle income would come out ahead. this system already exists for a different purpose in the state of alaska. do any of you know that the state of alaska is the most generous welfare system?
yes, did you know that? every september, every alaskan citizen gets a check out of the oil royalties. jacked uparah palin the taxes on the oil companies to make sure that checks were big enough. very popular in alaska. alaska has less income inequality or redistribution than any other state in the united states. ewen when not know that from listening -- you would not know that from listening to governor palin. have ad conceivably social movement in support of a green dividend that would do something very similar for the
energy transition of the united states. incomething that middle is lower income people across the country that is simple and clear. most politicians will not get their hands on all of that money. it has a nice advantage of creating an incentive for green matter, oilfor that companies that diversify into green businesses and a lot of them are. to go out and sell another product to measure sure your house is what christ -- weatherized. the long and short, my analysis shows that -- suggests that i want to flag for you in this analysis, policies are not some ideal blueprint, worked out
harvard laboratory and imposed on the country. mobilizeddeas that it coalitions and build understanding. that is what is going to take to polarizationreme that has taken firm hold of the country on issues of global , at allregulation regulations. if we do not find a way to get the majority to come together in terms of values and economic interests, that collation will remain -- coalition will remain -- although the united states cannot deal with global warming emissions alone, the world cannot deal with it without the united states.
let me stop with that. [applause] i would love it if people would come up with questions or arguments. i realize not everybody may agree it is a good idea to do anything. i hope you understand i didn't from a political analysis at a political scientist a you could -- and you could accept it even if you need it is a bad idea. in any event, let's have a discussion as please identify yourself. >> i am an astronomer. pollution like because you cannot see the stars. that as electricity
that is being wasted. if we replace all those lights was something that has -- [indiscernible] see a big improvement. other things that need to be done, that will be an improvement. i am think about writing the president about it. >> may i ask you why? >> if you speak about the role of government. thank you. >> regional context among the states may be that actual turnout. it is quite likely that congress remained deadlocked for the theseeable future, then
community-based movement, the green businesses emerging in lots of places are probably going to get together and do what they are doing in california and the northwest -- supported action at the state level. in one sense, that action probably to address the issue but they can change the calculus or business. my reading of the big oil companies, many of them understand energy transition is coming. a lot of those companies are diversifying. it is that is easy for them to do that. address whatelieve happens which could be a great
concern for everyone. thing if theyod move jobs. regionsas states and and even seabees began to take action -- cities began to take action, what will happen if you see some businesses saying will rather have predictability. at that is the reason some the big oil companies are supporting a carbon tax. it does not hand, deter what happens in our democracy. believesle on the left -- i do not think that is correct. i think public opinion doesn't matter. and what the voters think matters. -- i think public opinion does matter. there has to be a reaching out
to people to ask them to participate in providing the certainly we take and the two major political parties. that will take broad public opinion as interest. >> you mentioned briefly that this did not work out for the affordable care act did and it was also facing very difficult changes -- challenges. he taught the difference -- can you talk about the difference? >> thank you for that stop i wrote a comparison about the two efforts. if you take the camera back to and democratsbama
took control. that's a rare occurrence. it does not happen very often that a party controls all three -- were not told by the supreme court. both houses and the presidency. -- we are not talking about the supreme court. when it does happen, social movements -- one happened for 15 years or so gear up and place their wish list for the party in power. issues, forot of his of health reform -- comprehensive health reform, even someroups, doctors and nurses associations. -- one was fort
cap and trade. i compared the issues. --y have something in common the policy ideas at the center were market friendly regulatory. isealized that obamacare announced as the second coming of adolf hitler. it is really a very moderate that was first known as romney care. it was in massachusetts and his base class system to kind of regulate -- and is basically a system to kind of regulate. system forlic medicaid. a lot of democrats were very
keen, it should come up again. there america clinton 50 years ago -- and they remembered clinton 15 years ago. with hillary clinton supported the policy that the barack obama adopted. that was all geared up. it was market friendly. the big difference between these two approaches are from the fact that health care passed with only democratic vote. where as cap the trade had to have some republicans to replace democrats. difference is 2009, affordable care act supported by a wide range
coalition centered in health care for america now. they played a big role in putting together a coalition that outside the beltway. consumer groups and community groups and church groups. pushed. included in the legislation. after scott brown was elected in massachusetts, senator edward , the pressureded from the state at the local important aas very keeping democrats from dropping
health care legislation which they were about to do. instead they figured out a way to get it done. what kind of broad coalition rigid to the states and localities including community inups was completely missing the cap a trade fight? groups,issing because do not like cap and trade. there was deep distrust stop when i interviewed environmentalists, people were pooh-poohing and activists saying the people in washington were sellouts. it was falling apart.
very -- a new policy approach is needed which could be supported by a coalition that stretches beyond washington, d.c. and energizes environmental operate are also allow to not think of themselves as environmentalists. >> i am jc moore. another factor is the weather. scientists are making links between the events at carbon emissions like global warming. i took surveys that said young people are becoming concerned because the timeline for the
next 30 years or so, are those servers accurate a debate it will be a significant factor in climate change? >> i think there's very little question and that americans in general. you are right there is a generational gradient in opinion of whether something should happen. to fight global warming and/or carless a political -- and regardless of political party, people will a greater sense of urgency that the old-timers do. the hopeful news if you are hoping that whether alone -- weather alone, at the risk of leave you discouraged, i want reports on some of the best research.
one of the big problems with tracking public opinion about climate change and what to do about it has been the pollsters asked different questions and at very different wide intervals. usually once a year. ago, 18 of analysts -- a team of analysts differed on a way to get around a used a method well-established to combine all of the surveys, every single different poster. method that i will not produce for you here and i cannot produce it for you here. asis well-established weighing all the different polls and find a way to get a finer range. once they did that, they were
able to measure, concern for the 2000's, thatnd -- is very helpful. they were able to test hypotheses about what rules public opinions. does the deterioration of economy affect? movee weather events opinion? scientific articles? does what politicians say move public opinion? with all of the analyses were done, whether events did not have much effect. that is because severe weather has been interpreted. think about it. humanity has been dealing with other problems sit humanity
appeared on -- sets humanity appeared on the earth. , severe weather has been a problem. people have learned to a depth to whenever it happened. that is what is happening now. -- people have learned to adapt to whenever it happened. they are not sure how to interpret it. and when it means. has toans somebody interpret as in these studies, they found the economic conditions matter. start,ployment were to that has any fact. the thing that has the biggest effect is what politicians say. --t is can discourage it discouraging when you go back to my first picture and realize what the politicians have been saying.
find -- they have found a powerful fox news threat. go watch fox news believe -- people who watch fox news believe it is a hoax. they name is dr. grant was -- >> my name is scott grant. was a president trying to address an issue or executive action -- through executive action? >> sure, one used in all of the time. the basic story is second term outidents rely much more international cues. here in theseeing second barack obama term is exaggerated her of what would
-- 80 82nd term resident -- any second term president. would've not had that many second term presidents. it's a fair question to ask it.e president have used a lot of important changes in domestic policy as well as global policy happened in the united states during wartime where a side effects. , the public-act sector was built after the union victories in world war ii and civil war.
people want executive action to take care of it, i do not think started another war is a good idea. -- let's wreck and the problem happened in the past. -- let's recognize the problem happened in the past. found during and after the civil war by republicans pushing through things they never could've pushed through if democrats were there. passed. bill which was in congress grew out of a war that was one the biggest warts this country has ever fought. if we leave the notes aside and asked if presidents are able to use action alone and to deal with the big issues having to do the economy, it is not just an
environmental issue anymore. it is the economy where are talking about, i think the answer is, no. even though i understand why groups are delighted, bpa can do more, thee epa can do backbone what be enough to encourage energy to transition and the united states. you have to happened from a lot of citizens. >> i very much like idea of trying a different approach and get to of getting a dividend check -- and the idea of getting a dividend check. where would the money come from?
to provide the money for the dividend check? >> the simplest way that actually think is a powerful argument for going simple in american politics rather than be tocated, would simply pay the tax on carbon energy production. raise theould prospect that energy and great a natural -- and create an incentive to use less. if such attacks would generate test such a tax would generate -- if such a tax would generate a lot of revenue. there are plenty of people who say it's not a good idea. not all republicans think that.
the simplest think would be a tax that is rebate almost all of the revenues very quickly that here. year by year to americans. another way would be to set up a system we have a gradually lowered cap where companies have to buy permits to keep greenhouse gases under that. also make a lot of revenue and you can do it that way. that is where the money comes from. >> my name is paul honor. i want toly truly say know what is true. i have read more and more within -- europe hasears
been cooling and co2 emissions have been climbing. that is one question. i have no idea what is true there. your views on heart attack set -- carbon dioxide. impractical it is and impossible to do. third question, would you talk wind alternate went -- energy to make a significant stance with both of those energies, how much land do you have to occupy to actually generate that amount of energy? i have read accident toculations where it takes
make significant energy. >> you're asking very important questions in a way that i am not the right person to ask. i am a political scientist and i analyze politics. i am a consumer of sites like everybody else. like everybody else. occurringsus is it is . is overwhelming. itself a where we all live in different ways. sometimes extra weather is colder not hotter or alternates in extreme ways like
electricity bills. can you talk about the cost of doing nothing? how can it affect people? spread out equally. will it affect people more. ust is there any research on this topic? >> yeah, there is. i'm not completely up to date on that. but i would say there are more and more sophisticated efforts to try to model who's going to be paying a price if we simply stay on course and do nothing and things get much more severe. course to we are on have things considerably more severe. it's irreversible to some degree. here's what i as a political scientist wonder. i wonder if the people who will ay the price for that aren't likely to be poor people already living on the margins. in other countries of the world as well as our own country. politicalhey have the power, even if they can connect
the dots to do anything about that? i'm not optimistic. scientists,er can powerless are he often made to pay more. that's not fair. power works.w the most privileged americans steps they need to butter themselves against many although a asters lot of privileged americans have homes, you know, on the ocean. i don't know how well that's going to work out. but it is mobilizing people around. say n't say it, i should it. t's easier to mobilize popular support to do something about universal health insurance.
ecause everybody knows a relative, friends, or neighbor that's been struck by an needed or cancer and help. in the case of global warming, future at is more oriented. more abtract for most people and weather that's not going make it seem like a uniform uniform cost to everybody. he country as a whole sympathizes when severe tornadoes occur here at oklahoma but i don't think it will mobilize a coalition for change. so that's part of the reason i like the dividend idea. it offers a way to make the whole thing concrete and also to empower people. because the dividend approach is hat you have to have a future-oriented politics. you have to make the case that an energy transition is going to be good for most people.
and they can participate and help in that transition to occur. for example, some people might decide to give their dividend church so the church can be weatherized. some people where i live would send the check directly to the environmental defense fund. people can afford that. here's lots of environmentalists in berkeley and cambridge. they'll send their checks somewhere else. i think people should have that choice. nd there are some libertarians who like this idea. because they see it as empowering individuals to make choices. might be ose choices to support social movement, to support institutions, others money for their own family. either way, they're empowered nd they become part of the transition rather than having
of the transition them.d upon >> my name is andrew. talking about the difference between this cap and trade and ransportation and the sulphur trade.e cap in why that one was more successful in passing? >> i've read about this. i've been told that the acid delimitedem was a more roblem of solving a smaller number of industries and the trading system made it easier adjust by putting on certain kinds of equipment that would clean emissions. not the same scale of problem as cap and trade is trying to deal with. so the analogy is important supported cap who in trade were thinking in terms
of that analogy. that's one of the really interesting difference between he health care battle and the cap and trade battle. the cap in trade people were trying to reproduce what they consider to be the success in 1990.ing acid rain in they were trying to relive the glory days of 1990. care people were spending all of their time trying to figure out how to avoid blowing it the way that clinton helped reform effort blew it in 1993-'94. and it's so interesting to interview people who are in those two different movements failure earning from turns out the be so much more productive. it causes you to think harder about what the conditions are and what you might need to do that would be new. hereas trying to reproduce a success is a little bit like a
0-year-old trying to relive their tennis victories in the '30s. it's not going to work. but you may not realize it until it's too late. >> my name is sheila. i would like for you to talk a little bit about the influence of the media. fox and only showed abc news and there's certainly media -- been other what can we do moving forward to make sure that we are chaining the power of the media and not just letting the hope side go for it. >> there's increasingly research facts.ia the study i used to put it about it, ead more read one to two page briefs on too.ebsite that link there at ame, fritz -- my -- he's
north carolina. he coded the stories on all of networks. i only reproduced abc because he story for nbc and cbs was the same for abc. and i was trying to come up with a figure that there weren't too lines to figure out what's going on there. snbc wasn't very interesting because they basically said they -- they argued with fox. effect of the reproducing fox's story. -- about 30% ird of americans watch fox. a waning 30%. because they are older, conservative. but they're very loyal to fox. whereas other people either tv as much or they bounce around.
there are targets of that ampaign there in 2007 to persuade rank and file conservatives they should not be ympathetic to the idea of action on this. i think there's a lot more and rch that is being done can be done on all of this. but the thing to remember is hat the american media system is really changed. it's a big block like ia that's operating 19th century america media did. n media was america frankly partisan. the democrats, republicans, bag when there were whigs, were the whigs. they just put the message out. like. what fox was it's not really hidden. i'm not saying something that's
statement. this is an open thing that fox people say themselves and established s been by research. but up against that, what you media a lot of other sources that have become fragmented, young people don't watch television anymore very kill daret they watch and john stewart and frankly those are important news sources. they have a lot of influence among young people. everybody else, they maybe watch a little bit of this or that or they don't watch news at all because it's all very discouraging. so you have a message being delivered in a very consistent one ful repetitive way on side and then you have mush for the rest. and that's where we're at for a while now. for not going to be easy anybody even if they had a lot of money, to change that. it is true that fox's viewership
is gradually waning because new re not bringing on viewers. but when we interviewed grassroots tea partiers, the seventh question in the interview is where are you getting your news. it and kept itat on all day. the national surveys show that's pretty much the story for -- for really ervative -- conservative-minded people right now. >> two more? okay. >> ray piercy. i want to thank you for shedding analytical matters. it hasn't been part of the
useful on and it's stuff. my question goes to what i guess theoretical l the that on the left decidedly revamped, reengineered uclear option has some potential. robert stone, the documentarian has a new ably know nd fascinating film i think called pandora's promise about that prospect. backing from michael shellenberg and stewart brand. o my question goes to public opinion and nuclear power. have you seen any volatility on that front in the course of the last two or three years?