Let's Find Common Ground - Climate Policy and the Two Parties: The Search for Common Ground

Episode Date: April 14, 2025

CPF Director Bob Shrum joins former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and former U.S. Representative Garret Graves (R-LA) for a discussion on the state of climate policy under the Trump administration and how Democrats and Republicans can cooperate to tackle climate change issues. This conversation is part of the Climate Forward conference in partnership with the USC Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability.

Bob Shrum, Director of the Center, and I'm Republican Mike Murphy, co-director of the Center. Our podcast brings together America's leading politicians, strategists, journalists, and academics from across the political spectrum for in-depth discussions where we respect each other and we respect the truth. We hope you enjoy these conversations. I'm honored to introduce our two panelists for this session and I want to express our gratitude to them for joining us today.

In the Senate, Barbara Boxer chaired the Senate Environment Committee. It was an early and powerful voice on a range of issues from blocking oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. She became a prophetic and effective voice on the defining environmental challenges of our time. She's also been a fellow at the Center for the Political Future, and she's a member of our Board of Counselors.

For 10 years, Garrett Graves represented Louisiana's 6th congressional district in the House of Representatives. Before that, he was staff director for the Committee on Global Climate Change and Impacts. He chaired the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and was a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. In the House, he worked to build an environmental platform Republicans could rally around, and he made environmental issues and climate a major focus on the committees he both chaired and served on. So the three of us will have a conversation for about 45 minutes, and then open this up to questions from the audience.

So let me start with this. We have moved from an administration dedicated to addressing climate change to one that at least seems hostile to the effort. Garrett, do you agree with that assessment and the $64 question? Do you see a pathway for Democrats and Republicans to cooperate in tackling climate change? To answer your first question, no. I don't see a hostility toward it. As a matter of fact, I think if you actually take a step back and look at it and actually look at

math, look at science, you'll see that in many cases, Republican policies have resulted in better environmental outcomes. And I wanna be crystal clear, I will cite chapter and verse, I'll point you to statistics and studies on this, spent a lot of time studying it. And let me give you one last thing, Bob, I actually have a lot of hope. You can look over the last about 20 years.

And over the last 20 years the United States has led the world in reducing emissions. The United States has led the world in reducing emissions over about a 20 year period. As a matter of fact, we've reduced emissions more than about the next seven emissions reducing countries combined. 20 years, as you know, transcends both Republican and Democrat administrations, and it's been fairly consistent. So for those of you that are here that are very concerned about trajectory of the environment and how it's being treated, I think if you look back historically, there's actually some really good news and good trends that are there.

Barbara, what's your reaction to that? And then I have a follow up for you. I'm glad you answered it that way. I'm, I'm so happy. I agree and disagree with your analysis, which that's not bad. We agree on half the things. I think there are some red States that are doing an amazing job. For example, shockingly, we learned from Jennifer, uh, Granholm, uh, Texas leads the way in terms of the percentage of renewables, right? South Dakota, terrific. California's doing great. 60% of our energy is from renewables. We're

a very big state. That's a very big accomplishment. But I have to tell you, as someone who doesn't like to admit failure, I don't know any politician that does, I have two things people ask me, Bob, what are your biggest regrets? So one is I couldn't stop the war in Iraq. I kept trying for so many year after year after year. Was so hard. It took a new president and finally it was over. The other one is we lost our fabulous legislation,

which the House had passed, to put a price on carbon, which would have solved the whole problem all those years ago, 2009. And we did have a couple of Republicans. It is true. John McCain was with me, Olympia Snow was with me. Outside of that, no way, no. And I had a couple of Dems that were no, but the vast majority were yes.

That was a turning point. And I'd like to be a little more optimistic about national action, but that was the moment. But I do think, and I'll close with this, listening to all the voices before me, I think we need to change the way we talk about it. We need to find the common ground, which is the point of this whole exercise.

I'm not giving up, but I have to say, I don't feel that way about Trump. I don't see him running around saying anything but climate change is a phony hoax. So I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Let me put it that way. So do you think this is inevitably a partisan issue? No, because look out the window. Look what's happening.

You'd have to be completely blind to the window. Look what's happening. You'd have to be completely blind to the climate. I'm not talking about the weather. We know there's a difference between the weather and the climate. People are beginning to see as we sit here today, there are a lot of red states that are in deep, deep trouble. So I think once people connect the dots, So I think once people connect the dots, and we have Republicans like this, who are willing to say, yes, this is the truth, and let's find the best way, the least disruptive way to deal with it, I think we can do it. But I'm done, you know, lecturing people and trying to convince them that climate change is real. If you don't know it by now, you don't have a heartbeat or a pulse. That's how I feel. So I'll give the next question first to you. And it goes back to something that Secretary Granholm was saying. Reducing carbon emissions, as she suggested, is core to solving the climate crisis. At the same

time, there is a kind of bipartisan consensus that for the immediate future, the US has to produce more fossil fuels. In fact, the secretary said that there were more permits issued for drilling and natural gas exploration under President Biden than under the first Trump administration. How do we balance these two imperatives? Well, we got to move away. That's what we did here in California. You move away.

Why? Because guess what? We have a plug-in hybrid car. We love it. And we never go to the gas station and pay those ridiculous prices, except when we take a long trip, because we get 50 miles on that charge. So I think that the way you do it is slow but steady. And yeah, I don't object

if we've already approved of drilling, but as far as doing what Trump wants to do, which is to open up our magnificent parks, our beautiful wilderness areas, which is not really allowed to do, but he wants to do it. What did he say all through the campaign, everybody? Drill, baby, drill. Well, I say if you drill, baby, drill, you burn, baby, burn. And I don't, I don't, that's not a joke. That's a serious thing sitting here in Los Angeles. So I am very, very worried, but I do see you have to be willing. Like I don't even like nuclear energy. I'm scared of the waste. I'm scared of the waste. I'm scared of the waste.

But show to me that there's a way to do it and say, I'll be open to it. So we just have to bring everybody along. Last point, I always say that as a US Senator because then you could go on all day as you saw Cory Booker do. You know, I think at this stage in our lives, we're going to lose the planet. We're going to lose it. What are we doing? I have my grandson have to be here sitting in the audience. I owe him a lot more. I couldn't do what I wanted to do. But this guy's younger. He's going to do it. He's going to help do it. And you're going to help do it. And the reason I'm optimistic is the younger people,

you don't have to give them a lecture. In 2008, when we had the first hearing on climate change in my committee, every single scientist, Republican, Democrat, independent, we didn't know who these folks were. They all agreed, they all predicted all this extreme weather. Now people know it. So I think there are ways that we can do it. A little all of the above, moving away gently, because too much is at stake, we can't lose the planet. So Garrett, as you do it it because you're younger how would you strike the balance between fossil fuels and the need to reduce carbon emissions? Yeah

Bob I got to tell you I'm gonna address your question but I've been sitting here for hours and I've been listening to everything going on. And it's crystal clear to me why this nation has such a divide on energy policy. There are fundamental disagreements and, quite frankly, fundamental misunderstandings of reality. What I said a little while ago about the United States leading the world in reducing emissions, I'm going to guess that was probably news to most of you in the room. Let me give you some other things that will perhaps shock you. And I encourage you to fact check me. Emissions went down more under the first Trump administration than the Biden administration. We're still waiting on the returns from 2024, but I'm pretty sure that that's going to remain accurate. Let me say that again.

Emissions went down more under the Trump administration than the Biden administration. So everybody here saying the guy's wrong. He's making up fact check me, please. Let me say again, let me say again, 2024 numbers were going down even before. Number one number. Yes, they were. The data is out there. The emissions went up in the first two years

of the Trump administration. The Biden administration, he did. Which COVID absolutely contributed to it, but what it also shows is there's a linkage between economic activity and energy utilization, which means you potentially gut the economy. So let's talk about a few other things. So here we are in California.

So California says, hey, model model your energy portfolio, your energy systems after us. California has the eighth worst emissions growth in America, most dependent state upon oil from the Amazon rainforest, least reliable grid in America, more than twice the electricity rates, my home state of Louisiana. I can go on and on. Why would we want to replicate or scale out these things?

So look, all day long, I can sit here and I can continue to divide this issue, continue to push people away, can continue to make this a more partisan issue. But what I think is really important is before we start talking about policy, then what's most important is that we agree on a set of facts. Let me throw out something else to you. During the Biden administration, we saw them increase their dependence upon Russian oil. We saw Russia supplying the majority of natural gas into the European Union. Back of the envelope numbers,

and you're welcome to fact check me on this too. Back of the envelope numbers, if we had simply replaced one year, one year of natural gas that was going from Russia to the European Union, instead replaced it with US, natural gas, was going from Russia to the European Union instead replaced it with US natural gas, we would have reduced emissions by about 218 million tons. Any of you involved in emissions reduction projects, 218 million tons. One of the reasons we need to continue producing oil and gas to some degree, and I want to be crystal clear. I am fully supportive of reducing emissions.

I think we have an obligation and responsibility to do so, but we need to make sure we're being thoughtful and using math and science in doing so. Because the Biden administration's own numbers say that you're going to have up to an 80% increase in natural gas demand in developing countries, up to 80% growth in natural gas demand. Guess where you have the lowest growth in natural gas demand.

Guess where you have the lowest carbon intensity natural gas in the world? Or one study says the lowest and others says the second lowest. In the Gulf of Mexico and the United States. So why would we not produce if we have that type of demand increase? Why would we not produce where you have the lowest carbon intensity? So we need to make sure we're doing things factually. Bob, I'm gonna answer your question right now. Look, one of the reasons we have such a big partisan divide

on this thing is because the way that we talk about it. I have three kids, I care about the environment. I was a wilderness instructor and spent months out in the woods teaching wilderness courses. I care about the environment. I've spent billions of dollars restoring the coast of Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. We've got to think about how we're talking about this.

Look, something that the senator and I were totally agree upon. But we're going to probably approach it or talk about it differently. If we're going to go into a community where we say, hey, I'm going to go into Republicans and say, hey, I've got a strategy to where I can reduce your your energy consumption. I can have lower utility bills and I can reduce the cost of building that widget in your factory. Republicans be like, Hey, lower costs and more

competitive globally saving money. Yeah, all day long. Well, that strategy is energy efficiency and conservation something that I'm confident center boxer is fully supportive of. It's something that I'm confident Center Boxer is fully supportive of. It's lowering energy consumption, which means you're going to have lower emissions. So there are ways that we can approach these things and talk about. And the last one is what I did after Hurricane Katrina, rebuilding levees and coastal wetlands after the hurricane. We came in and we built coastal resiliency projects using every tool in the

toolbox, including ecological restoration as well as structural. And in doing so, if I'm talking to Republicans, I'm talking about how the strategy of investing dollars in the right projects actually saves money because your communities are more resilient. I'm talking to Democrats, I may highlight the ecological productivity increases of what we're doing. So, look, words matter. They're things, and I know that Senator Boxer, in fact, worked on the water resources bill in her committee to make sure that some of this stuff happened.

So, there are ways we can work together, and I do think that you're seeing Republicans engage on this issue a good bit more. But I think, as I started, there are some facts that we need to talk about and some strategies that have actually been incredibly successful, including the use of natural gas that has resulted in some of the largest reductions in world history in energy emissions that need to be on the table for some period of time. Barbara, how do you react to all that? Okay.

California, we are doing great. I don't know what that all was about. I respect you. I'll check your facts. But we are way ahead of where we're supposed to be. AB 32, remember, passed a long time ago. By 2050, we want to be zero emissions. We are doing better than we thought we could do,

despite the fact that on the national level, we go up, we go down, and we go out. And I do want to point out, whether it's Trump as president or Biden as president, many states are taking the lead on this. You know that. Some of the states are, a lot of them are red states. I told you before I if you look

at the list of 10 states that have the most renewables I think you'd be a bit surprised so it isn't that's despite the lack of national leadership on certain years so I think that's good. Now California is a perfect state to talk about because we have the best GDP in this country by far. The best GDP because there are so, yes, thank you for that, there are so many jobs in the renewable area that I think we can agree are good paying jobs that have to be done here. Tariffs tariff away. I can't stand what's happening when I'm talking about that. But you can't have somebody in China standing there and making sure that they're putting solar panels on the roofs.

Okay. So it's so good for jobs. So I would just say in summary, the fact is that California is doing just fine, thank you. We're way ahead of where we're going to be. Are we perfect? No, we are not. And we are doing all of the above. And a lot of people love natural gas. They love natural gas. I had somebody call me and say, will you help me? I want to get natural gas.

So I said, no, because they say it's a transition fuel. And it is. But why go there if you can go to the beautiful solar, to the beautiful wind like Texas is doing? They lead on wind energy. So I feel like I don't get why you would attack California. I don't agree with your facts on that. Are we perfect? No. Could we do more? Yes. But I'm pretty proud of where we are. Fifth largest economy in the world. In the world. Right behind Germany.

Garrett, I saw you taking notes. Go ahead. Yeah. You better clean that up from what you wrote. Just kidding. Just kidding. Look, one thing that I think is really important for us to be thinking about is we're talking about, Senator Boxer said, energy transition, I believe, is the term she used. Let me say it again. I'm fully supportive of every energy technology of small modular reactors and nuclear, of hydro and wind and solar and title. I mean, everything we can use, we're going to need all of it because here's what's happened

over about the last 40 years. We haven't had a growth or an increase in energy demand or the increase in the growth of energy demand. We are projected to see the numbers go like this because of electrification of cars. My refrigerator now talks to the internet for some reason. The AI data centers, we're gonna see this surge in energy demand. And so we're not in a situation

where we're used to building out all this new generation capacity and transmission and distribution, but we're gonna have to be. So look, everything needs to be on the table. One of the things we're doing as Americans the If you're looking and the senator knows this, I just hit my steps, look at that. The senator knows this, but we're talking about investing tens, hundreds of billions of dollars. And you're telling people you're getting four years

of certainty and then four years of certainty. People are gonna do that, they want a 30 year timeframe on predictability and certainty. What are the rules of the game? And so we're shooting ourselves in the foot by having these wild pendulum swings by allowing this issue to be a polarizing or divisive issue. We need to build upon the energy conservation, energy efficiency story that I talked about. We need to be building upon the fiscal conservative argument for being, building, investing in

resiliency as well as the ecological productivity improvements that result there. It's really important, but we also need to be looking at this from a global perspective, because I mentioned at the beginning, the whole 20 year thing, let me give you another stat. During that 20 year period, for every one ton of emissions that we reduced in the United States, guess what?

China increased five, for every one we decreased. And so look, this is really important. This is a global issue. We can't put California in a bubble and say, Hey, look what we did. It is a global issue. So we got to be paying close attention to what's happening globally. And if we're putting too many restrictions or driving up costs in the United States, guess what happens? The production goes elsewhere. But it goes to Mexico, Brazil, India, China. And they have a less efficient energy economy than we do, meaning, said very bluntly, for every ton,

for every megawatt of electricity, they have higher emissions than we do in the United States. So that's a major problem. I'll just give one other reason why I think that in some cases, Republican President Trump policies can actually result in better outcomes. There was something called the Clean Power Plan that was put in place by President Obama. And it was intended to reduce emissions by 32% off a 2000 baseline by 2030. I'll say that again. Reduce emissions 32% off a 2005 baseline by 2030.

President Trump came in and it was an Obama policy. He yanked it and said, yeah, we're not doing this, all kinds of legal fights, everything else. But you know what happened? That target of reducing emissions by 32% by 2030, We actually exceeded it by 2019, exceeded it. And one of the reasons why is because President Trump took the handcuffs off of the technologies that could be used to help achieve that target. So we exceeded in 2019, not in 2030.

And so look, let me just say again, don't go into this administration all prejudice, you know, climate doom and gloom, energy doom and gloom. I think that looking back at history that some of these numbers actually prove that we could actually be on a good trajectory, but I think it's going to take depolitization of this issue and I think it's going to take Republicans and Democrats working together and trying to talk to one another in a way that actually resonates with both. I do want to go to the global context in a minute, but I think Senator Boxer is quite anxious to comment.

I agree with 97.5% of what you said. But when you say no doom and gloom, You've got to be kidding. But Trump and Vance pulling out of the Paris Accords after you say this is a global imperative, it's a horrible message to send. It is ridiculous. And who do we pal around with now? Putin. I never heard him say climate change. I don't know if he knows what it is. He's too busy at war. So, you know, I love your optimism. Sure. I want to share it. I think you're totally right. It's a yo-yo. This one has this plan for four years. That's why we have to make sure, as Jennifer Granholm said, that the Congress does not repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which has given so many incentives and seed money to so many good

projects. Oh, I thought you were going to say that's what we need, Trump for a third term. I'm sorry. Oh, God. If you had said that, I would have committed you to a memory care facility, as we call them these days, immediately. By the way, I won't talk about that, Trump for a third term. Immediately. By the way, I won't talk about that Trump for a third term. It's called the US Constitution. So I'm not even giving that air, but I know it was a good joke on your part. But in any case, I think you're right to say this going up, going down is ridiculous.

The other last point is, again, the good news is regardless of who's president, the states are doing this, they are doing it because of all the reasons you stated. It makes sense for consumers to save money. It makes sense to have good renewable jobs. It makes sense for people to finally say, you know, there's a lot of hurricanes, there's a lot of, maybe it's a good thing to change. So we're getting to that place, thank goodness, but it has been a long, tough climb. And as I said, you know, it sounds funny to say this, but when you get of a certain age and you think back, if I only had four more votes, it would have been different. Because if we had put a price on carbon, that would be the whole thing. That's when you move. It's the easiest way to do it. It's not going to happen in the near future.

I do think we have to move to the global context because you both referred to it. And Garrett, despite the reduction in emissions in the US, we're the fourth most populous country on the earth and the second largest emitter of carbon pollution, accounting for nearly 13% of global emissions in 2022. And you can fact check me on that. China and India, the two most populous countries respectively, account for nearly 33% and 7% of global carbon emissions. How much do American efforts to reduce our emissions matter when those two countries are not only responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution, but it seems to be growing. Can the US bring them fully into the effort to deal with the climate crisis,

especially in the midst of a trade war, no matter what you think of the tariffs, whether you think they're good or bad, and after we've withdrawn from the Paris climate accords. You want to start? So look, let me go back and restate what I said earlier. As the United States has led the world in reducing emissions, China has increased five tons for every one ton of emissions we've reduced. It's a global issue. I can't say it enough.

This is the wrong direction. Paris Climate Accords, let me split the baby on this one a little bit. One, I believe the United States needs to be in an international venue for climate. OK, I believe the United States must be in an, China right now, they emit more than the United States, the European Union, I think South Korea and Japan combined, and they're going to increase another 50% by 2030 or something. The numbers were outrageous. And for China and India to come in and say, oh, hey, we're developing countries, we shouldn't

be held to any type of strict standard. I just, I don't think it's appropriate. China's out there spending trillions of dollars in defense and in Belt and Road initiative, initiatives around the globe. That doesn't resemble a developing country to me. And so, and how much sense does it make for us to sit here and continue putting additional restrictions and

quite frankly, costing our own citizens and allow this what I'll call leakage where you tighten up regulations and cost so much in the United States. Again, they say I'm going to Mexico, I'm going wherever else. So Bob, tying it back to this

tariff thing, I actually think and President Trump even said yesterday how other countries that he's putting tariffs on, that they're emitting much more pollution in the globe than the United States does. If you care about the environment, if you care about American workers and our values, then believe it or not, there's actually some background to the tariff strategy that makes sense. Do I think this is going to be in place forever?

No. Read the art of the deal. Trump's doing this to create leverage. He wants to negotiate with these countries and do something that makes sense. I think that the United States and California has been a leader on some R&D technologies, but the United States is going to be the country. Actually Secretary Granholm was talking about the national labs Our national labs are gems. They're incredible treasures that we have here in this country, but we're gonna be the ones area

Yeah, go We're gonna be the ones that are gonna pioneer these technologies we are I'm confident in American ingenuity and American innovation We're gonna we're gonna pioneer these technologies That are going to be life-changing, whether it was fusion, as she was talking about before, whether it's a proliferation of SMRs, the small modular reactors, or combinations of other technologies. I'm confident we're going to build a pioneer of this stuff, but we've got to make sure that what we're doing, that our strategy is looked at in a global sense to where we're not shooting ourselves in the

foot and we're not giving a competitive advantage to these other countries because you can actually make an argument that by not taking on the tariff situation that what we're doing is we're actually incentivizing more global pollution. You could make a good argument for that. Think about what Secretary Granholm said about the, it was a green field, Michigan, I think, the car manufacturing facility. If they're paying workers a dollar or something in Mexico, do you really think that they care about the environment as much as we do here in Mexico?

No. And so we really need to be thoughtful. I don't think that these approaches are, the tariff approaches are exclusive or or or I think that they actually benefit some of the global environmental objectives that we have in the United States. Barbara what do we do to get China, India and other countries to... I will tell you but I love this was so interesting can I respond? Yeah. Thank you. So you said, which is so intriguing, that Trump is doing the tariffs to put pressure on other countries.

And so he's putting pressure on China. So the reason he's doing this is to get China to do more on climate change. I don't think so.. I don't think so. I honestly don't think so. That's not what I intended to think. It came out that way, I apologize. No, you don't have to apologize. It was a novel thought. But I do wanna be clear that that will be an outcome.

That will be an outcome of a tariff strategy. We'll see. We'll see if China, we'll see what happens. I don't think what Trump did had one ounce of anything to do with climate change, but maybe you're right. Maybe it's going to help us in some way. I can read you exactly what he said. Did he say that?

I looked at it. I'd love to hear it. All right. I won't read it all to you because you'll start throwing stuff at me. No. I don't know. I think some people will. No, they're not.

He said they manipulated their currency subsidized their exports stolen intellectual property, imposed exorbitant VAT value added taxes to disadvantage our product, adopted unfair trade rules and technical standards and created filthy pollution havens. They were absolutely filthy, but they always they came to us. They said we were violating and we should pay for it. Okay. By the way, we're not here about tariffs, but I don't understand the VAT argument because

value added taxes, for example, in Europe are equally applied to their own products and to American products. So there's no differential disadvantage for the US, I think. What President Trump announced was effectively tariff reciprocity. There's not tariff equality around the globe. For example, the United States, what is our tariff on China? It's like 3.3% and theirs on us is 7.7% or something. Ours on them is now gonna be 56%.

Okay, wait. And talk about putting pressure on, anybody here got a 401k? Yes. Barbara. Okay. This is turning out to be fun. Um, creating pressure, creating pressure on these countries,

that doesn't make sense. Why would you create hostile pressure on Canada? you create hostile pressure on Canada, our best friend ever? And these aren't reciprocal. If you believe that, I have a lot to sell you down the street. The fact is, that is simply not true. The fact is, the Senate voted to take off the tariffs on Canada and four Republicans came with us. Yes, thank you. That feeds into your point. Maybe there's a little more bipartisanship here or there. But I want to get to your first question, which was, why would we do this when China is doing all the, you know, how do we get them? How do we get them? And how could we do this and all?

Let me just say this. I'm a believer in leading by example. I tried it. Yeah. Right. A one person likes it, but she's my sister. So you got to discount that. You lead by example.

You do that as a Congressman, you do that as a senator. You do that as the leader of this center. You lead by example. America's always done that. We've not always done it, I have to correct, Sagan has often done that. Especially in the environmental arena. We're the ones who said air pollution is killing people right here in Los Angeles all those years ago. We can do this. And guess what they showed? Cleaning up the air, cleaning up the water, you create good jobs, you get a healthier population, people feel better, they live longer, all of those things. And so for me, just saying, and this is not what the congressman said at all, but there are those who say, forget it. You know, China, India, it doesn't matter what we do. It matters what we do. It matters what we do.

And again, taking it to our state. If you look at our GDP, if you look at the progress we've made, if you look at the renewable jobs we our state, if you look at our GDP, if you look at the progress we've made, if you look at the renewable jobs we've created, if you look at some of the improvements in air quality that we've made, we are showing by example. And that's why it makes me really sad when some say, give it all up because China is doing the wrong thing. And when China sees that, yeah, you can be very, very, very, you know, prosperous by doing this, they'll follow our lead. That's what I think. Otherwise, we're doomed.

Otherwise, we're doomed. So let me, let's move back to the attempt to get some bipartisan action here. This is back to you. Garrett, what's the most persuasive case you can make to your fellow Republicans to convince them that we have to act decisively to solve this crisis and that to do that, they probably have to work with Democrats. So, Senator... That's just a question. Excuse me, Secretary Granholm mentioned earlier that Republicans have a climate caucus.

If I remember right, I think it's the second largest Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. And it is a Republican climate caucus. There's a Senator, now Senator, from Utah, John Curtis that we worked with. There's a Congresswoman from Iowa we refer to as 3M, Mary Marinette Miller-Mee, excuse me, who's the leader of it now. And, and so it's showing that there is growing interest on the Republican side to address the issue. Bob, I think that what makes the most sense is to go back and identify those areas where, as I mentioned, I apologize for triple tapping on this, but where there's common ground, even though we may approach it, you know, Center Boxer may be at the table for a different reason than I'm at the table,

but it achieves the same outcome, efficiency conservation, lower emissions, improving the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, lowering the cost of being a household in the United States. Those are all win-wins. There's nothing partisan about that. There's nothing we'd fight over. And so how do we identify more opportunities for those win-wins? And I think it's very doable. But I do think, as Senator, Secretary Granholm said earlier, I do think that we have to recognize based on math and science that actually producing more natural gas and exporting it actually is going to result in lower global emissions for a period. And I think that math and science, it indicates that's the case. That doesn't mean we do it to the detriment of some of these other energy alternatives. I think we continue working. I think one of the things that we need to be doing, and I think Senator Boxer probably would agree here. I think I've spoken for you more in this than I ever have in my

life. But I like it. But but but I mentioned earlier, we have these national energy labs. And I mean, these things really are national treasures, the people there, the things that they do. It's remarkable. Senator Boxer, and I'm a former member of the house, I can't answer this question. What is our national energy research and development strategy? What is our strategy? I'd argue we don't have one. If you were a business, if our country were a business, you would look at your assets and resources, you would develop a research and development plan, you would identify where

you have obstacles and impediments to things like achieving a faster net zero trajectory. And you would use our national labs to help to bridge those gaps, to help to figure out technical solutions. Even if it's working with private companies to figure this out. I think it's something else that we need

to be doing moving forward. And so, look, I believe that if we can put our swords and daggers and guns and other things down as Republicans and Democrats, not just on this issue, I'll tell you across the board, I think we've got to do it and realize that the other party is not the enemy. They're not. The enemy is off our shores and that we need to be working together for what's in the best interest of Americans. And I think that this is an area where we absolutely can make a lot of bipartisan progress

if we can start talking to one another, with one another and listening, not talking at one another. Barbara, how did you make the case for bipartisan action? And do we have to do more? Do we have to cast it in different terms? We have to find a new way to talk about it? Well, I look at the whole issue as a win-win, and I don't look at it ideologically at all.

I think we know what we've got to do, and we also know who doesn't want to do it. The big oil, the fossil fuel companies, we got to work with them a little bit too. You know what I mean? Some of them are diversifying. I think Jennifer Granholm talked about that. And that's a good thing. If we could get that, that and that alone, right? Because the money that they put into politics, don't ask and I won't tell. But there's so much money that they give to certain people

in very important positions in the House and in the Senate. So I do think we have to pose this as a win-win. And I agree so much with you. I come to the table for a certain reason, you may come for a different. It doesn't matter. We don't have to yell at each other about that. But if we say we come to the table and consumers get a break, and maybe that drives me tremendously to the table, and you say, you know, start up business is going to get a break. I like that too. You like the consumer. We can do this thing. And the problem we have is that there are a hundred people in the Senate, each one of them.

And I could speak from experience once be president. That's that's true. It's hard, It's hard to get everybody to just sit down and work as a group. In the House, they're so ideological over there. Both, there's a lot of problems in the House right now. It's hard to do. So I think that's why I keep coming back to the States as a laboratory. Because this is one area where you have states red as bright ruby red

and blue as bright blue, that both have decided it's in the best interest of their people for all kinds of these differing reasons. For business, for consumers, for cleaning air, for all these things, for saving the planet. Some of them even think that, that they can come together. So look, I am optimistic on the point. I have to be optimistic because if we don't do this, time will run out. That's the issue. You know, when you talk about exporting natural gas, I get it.

It's so much better than oil, for sure, in terms of the emissions. How many years do we have though? We gotta move a little quicker to the cleanest of the clean. And last point that I really agree with, I love the idea of a plan. A plan that could, it would be great, whatever president or whatever,

I don't care who would initiate it, where we have the Department of Energy sit down with, I was gonna say HHS, Health and Human Services, but I think I'll take that off the table for the moment. And just say, Department of Energy come up with a really excellent plan to move us to the cleanest of energies and how we do it and be very honest about it.

Who will get disrupted? And if they get disrupted, can they get job training? That would be a wonderful thing to do. So maybe it's gonna take some outside think tanks that are bipartisan to come up with this. I would love to see that, you know, this wonderful place here, this wonderful campus here, this whole idea of this mission of the center

could come up with these plans where Republicans and Democrats sit across the table, make, get mad at each other, laugh, cry, hit each other, whatever it takes. And then at the end of the day, here are 10 things we agree on. I think that's what we have to do at this point in our history. It really does. We hear about violence all the time in the news, Yet we rarely hear stories about peace. There are

so many people who are working hard to promote solutions to violence, toxic polarization, and authoritarianism, often at great personal risk. We never hear about these stories, but at what cost? On Making Peace Visible, we speak with journalists, storytellers, and peace builders who are on the front lines of both peace and conflict. You can find Making Peace Visible wherever you listen to podcasts. In a minute, we're going to turn to Q&A. Quick final question for me to both of you. Where do you think America and the world will be on the climate issue 10 years from now? And are there reasons to be hopeful? You're here because you'll be here in 10 years. Look, I'll sort of reiterate one thing that I said before. I have so much faith in Americans and our national labs and

innovation and ingenuity that I'm really confident that we're going to have a diverse bucket of solutions that are going to be deployed for energy. And when I say deployed, I want to be clear. In our office, we used to have five things on energy that we thought were important, five criteria It was all about reliability and affordability. It was about cleanliness. It was about Exportability and I want to talk on that one for just a minute. It's really important that whatever our energy solutions are the things that can be exportable And and we can't just develop solutions that are that are just native or dependent upon one country And the last one is the security of the supply chain.

I think some major mistakes were made in energy policy in recent years that forced all roads to China that had the critical mineral market corner that had battery manufacturing, solar panel manufacturing. We saw that country weaponize gloves and mask during COVID. Gloves and mask, weaponizing mask during COVID, gloves and mask, weaponizing those during COVID. You think they're not gonna weaponize an energy supply chain

if things go south between our countries. It's really important that we have a secure supply chain behind these energy technologies as we move forward. So I think that you're gonna see some leaps and bounds in innovation. I think that AI're going to see some leaps and bounds in innovation. I think that AI is going to be incredibly helpful in helping us to resolve some of this uncertainty and some of these impediments that we have in energy development and new technology development.

And I think that you're going to see massive improvements in energy efficiency moving forward to where we will be able to run the same cities and neighborhoods and homes on a fraction of the energy that's used today. And so again, those five things I think are really, really important as we move forward. And I think that innovation is going to be the absolute problems over here. Barbara, looking ahead 10 years, are you hopeful? Well, I hope I'll be here. That's the first thing. But that's a joke on my age guys

Okay, here's the situation in 10 years would be 2035, right? That's literally 15 years from the ground zero year. Everybody says 2050 we better get it together folks. We don't have a choice. We have to do this we have to do what we're choice. We have to do this. We have to do what we're talking about. We have to do this. And yes, I'm the eternal optimist. I have a relative who says I have toxic positivity.

Think about that. And the fact is, there's a little truth to that. That's why I stayed in Congress in politics for 40 years. Very positive. I can always see there's light. And I do. So I do agree, technology is something we didn't get a chance to talk about.

AI is interesting because it's going to be able to predict some of these extreme weather events so we can adapt better than we're adapting. Adaptation is important. I don't have to say that here in Los Angeles. We cannot keep on going. As I said, sitting here now, there's some horrible things happening. So I think the more people see the results of unchecked climate change,

the more we'll have, you know, perhaps and hopefully, you know, the support to move forward. And carbon capture, I always believe there's going to be a way. Stu and I, my husband who's here, he's, we've been together, married for 63 years. Can you give him a round of applause? Oh my God. It's really kind of amazing. But we went, we went, was it in Norway or, Stu, was it Denmark or Norway where we saw that rock, they turned the carbon into this beautiful marble rock. We were in, you don't remember? Uh oh, trouble in River City. But we, you

may not have been with me on that on that particular trip But we went we did we did see what they were doing in one of the Nordic countries. I just Iceland it was Iceland. Thank God you're here in Iceland. So what they did was listen to this They had this carbon capture program where they captured the carbon and then it turned into this beautiful marble you know sort of stone and I don't know whatever became of it maybe it was too expensive to duplicate but somebody is definitely going to come up whether it's in you know I've seen in my lifetime so many wonderful things, so many cures, so many, you know, unexpected advances.

Somebody's going to do this. They're going to figure out how to capture the carbon because the trees, the oceans, they're getting, you know, how much more can they take? It's not good. So we need to figure out a way to capture that carbon. So I think in 10 years, if my positivity today is living on, we'll be in a place where technology has given us some wonderful, exportable solutions, okay? And we have come together as a nation, even though we still met each other on this and that and the other, that we have come together as a nation, even though we still met each other on this and that and the other, that we have come together to save our planet. And this is my hope.

Okay. Let's turn this over to questions and I'll alternate between mics. Yeah. So I don't know, I haven't been to like any of these events and I don't, this is not, this is probably my first time speaking to any like current or former member of Congress, but I'm seeing how you guys, I don't want to be disrespectful on this question, it's a little to both of you, but it's also, I'm trying to try to make a point and hopefully it will help. I'm two thirds of this conversation has been like discussion of useful, good discussion and a third of it has been saying,

oh, my party, under my party was better, under your party was worse. And I, this is not even you view, this is not even, this is not on the floor of Senate or the House. This is just in a panel. And I'm just wondering if you, you as private citizens, you and all of us have one of millions vote of votes to, to select certain officials as Congress people, you have one of a hundred or one of 435. Yeah. So if that's not your vote, obviously your vote matters. Everyone's vote matters, but your one vote, the one vote of a Congress

person is so much, matters so much more. your vote matters, everyone's vote matters, but your one vote, the one vote of a congressperson is so much, matters so much more, has so much more effect. So how can you, can we get past that? If the people who want to, the people in both parties who do want to, who do want to help with climate, how can they work together? I think people get you. I get it. Why don't I try first, then I'll pass it off. So here's the thing. There are differences in the parties.

I don't think we have to run away from that big deal. So what? But the fact that we were talking two thirds, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, it should give you hope. it should give you hope. It should give you hope because in most conversations, it's the opposite. You know, it's two-thirds, wah, wah, wah.

So I think this should give you hope because we have found common ground in two-thirds of our conversation, but we're not gonna be phony and say the other party's perfect. That wouldn't be real. That's my answer. But we're not going to be phony and say the other party's perfect. That wouldn't be real. That's my answer.

Yeah, thanks. So I'm going to quote Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania. Congress has become only fan for politicians. Only fans is a porn online site. And he's right. And let me be clear. I believe that Congress has become this theatrical thing. And he's right. And let me be clear. I believe that Congress has become this theatrical thing.

And if I were to ask you to name members of Congress that you're aware of, you probably would say names like Matt Gaetz and AOC. So I ask you to look at the Center for Effective Lawmaking. Those are two of the least effective members of the entire Congress. And so the reason I say that is that my opinion is with social media and a lot of other changes, there's a perverse reward mechanism in place right now that actually rewards those that are more bombastic, provocative, viral, and it doesn't reward actual getting things done. It doesn't reward the problem solvers, the solution finders.

And, and I think, you know, you talked about the power of a vote of a member of Congress, but let me remind you, you know, who has the most powerful vote for president in the entire country? You do. Everyone's vote's worth the same. And so I just, I think it's really important that people when you whether you're electing a town council or president of the United States that you're looking at these people and it's not oh I recognize that name it's that oh I actually researched this person they delivered change

delivered results address priorities in our community. So over here yeah great yeah. Hey and real quick I see we got five minutes Bob Bob, I'm going to take over your job. If we can go speed around with quick questions and quick answers, we'll try to get through everybody. You got it. All right, cool. I'm actually going to go five minutes more than that. All right. Love it. All right. So yeah, my question is about the importance of messaging.

And I, you know, I work in media and I hear people in Silicon Valley talk about how they kind of rolled back their messaging on sustainability because of fear of criticism. And I guess my question is like if how do we expect our leaders to to resolve an issue that a lot of them are afraid to acknowledge and when you have a campaign or a president whose campaign on you know drill baby drill like how like how do we how does that give us hope? How you know how yeah I mean there's there's a couple questions there but yeah the question is mostly about messaging but but really about how do we move forward with, you know, with all that. Got it. Garrett? Sure. So real quick, look, I know you don't like the term drill baby drill.

Bottom line is natural gas has been probably the most effective tool in reducing emissions in the United States, transitioning from coal to natural gas. Largest attribution of emissions reduction, I think the IEA said, in world energy history. So I think we're making a mistake by putting a bull's eye on energy technologies. Instead, let's focus on emissions. If I can produce natural gas or even oil and pair it with carbon capture technology, it then therefore becomes indistinguishable from other renewable energy technologies in terms of its environmental profile. So look, I think we need to focus on outcomes, focus on emissions reduction.

Don't focus on which technologies actually get us there, I think is one thing. Secondly, look, I get it. It kind of goes back to the whole pendulum swing thing I was talking about earlier. I don't think it's helpful to have people take such entrenched positions and wildly polarized positions as we're seeing right now because it does chill investment business messaging strategies and others. Bottom line, messages like a clean planet are things that resonate in Republicans and Democrats.

Efficiency conservation, it resonates with Republicans and Democrats. And I think there are a lot of common messaging tools or themes that we can all agree upon. Barbara, you want to add to that? Just very quickly, I loved when Cory Booker said, it's not about right and wrong.

It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong. And I find that to be really, hey, let's just do the right thing. We'll do the right thing. We'll make sure this planet's around. We'll work with anybody from any political party who understands that there's value added when you take care of climate change, good jobs, the cleaner air. By the way, I asked a long time ago when I was in the Senate, what happens with the air quality when you get the carbon out of the air?

Because we always say, you know, climate change, but what about our lungs? And oh my gosh, it's enormous benefits. So I think if we can start messaging it as something that, yes, we can come together on because it's the right thing to do, rather than an ideological thing. I think we'll do well. Okay, I want to get two more questions in at least, but let's go fast. Let's have quick questions.

Okay, thank you both for your service. There's been some debate about how much time we have left for climate change, a tipping point. Is it five years, 10 years, 20 years? I think if we can get closer to a consensus on how much time we have left, that might get to the urgency of the situation. So I don't know if you guys have talked to scientific experts about how much time they think we have left. Well, let me answer it this way. I don't have the exact years,

but there was a fantastic article in the New York Times a long time ago, it just stuck with me. What we're up against is we're either gonna have a planet that's unpleasant to live on, that has a lot of these issues that we are experiencing. We live in Palm Springs, and the summer was over 120. Or we're gonna have a planet that's uninhabitable. So are we gonna have a planet that's unpleasant?

That's really where we are right now, frankly, in terms of the temperature rise or uninhabitable. So I'm pushing for a planet that's unpleasant, not a planet that's uninhabitable. But to me, they keep saying 2050, but maybe you have some more, Garrett. Yeah, look, reality is I don't think that there's a model that gives us clarity on exactly how much time you have left. And one of the deficiencies in the models, as I appreciate, is that the feedback, meaning how the biogenic environment responds to higher greenhouse gas intensity,

they haven't been able to properly mimic or model that, I think, is where they've seen some of the bigger discrepancies. So I don't know the answer. But one thing that Senator Boxer said earlier, she talked about adaptation. I use the term resilience, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, they're largely interchangeable. I think you've got to have a strategy that does both, because there's a certain amount of momentum that's in the system right now that we can't avoid.

And so low-lying states like Louisiana, where you get a foot of sea rise, you're putting hundreds of square miles underwater. And so we're losing a football field every 90 minutes today in coastal land loss. We've lost 2,000 square miles. I'll stop. But bottom line is that I think you've got to have a strategy working on both working on emissions reduction strategies and adaptation and and part of the reality is that we're not going to be able to properly Restrict or predict what some of these developing countries are going to be doing moving forward in regard to emissions trajectories

That's why I think you got to have both both Moving a parallel path. We're gonna do one more question and I'm sorry It's only going to be one more because this is really interesting, at least to me. Go ahead. Okay. I'm Neil Hurley. I'm a USC grad and a neighbor.

And I had an empirical observation that I would like to make that will support both things that Garrett said about reduced emissions and that Barbara said about leading by example. I went to USC from 1971 to 76 and the San Gabriel Mountains are a short distance to the north of us. And as I recall, I could only see them maybe one out of a hundred days and maybe it was one out of 200 days. Fifty years later, my wife and I have moved back to this neighborhood.

And now I would say I can see the San Gabriel Mountains 19 out of 20 days or more. And so it's reduced emissions. Okay. How did that happen? I think the people of California insisted on a cleaner environment. They have emissions testing. We got rid of lead in gasoline. Okay, I've worked in Beijing. I've worked in New Delhi. The smog and air pollution there is

horrible. Leading by example, I'm just wondering how the example that we have set here, and really I think it's the state of California, how that can be transferred to folks in different countries and say, okay, if you do this, then something good will happen. Well, I'll start off since I'm a Californian and I'm happy that you asked this and it's so nice that you could be here today. I think leading by example is the point. You're proving what happens and if you can prove it to someone else. I remember there was some big thing in China and they couldn't actually have the event because people couldn't see, they couldn't breathe. I mean it's really incredible. There's so many benefits from this endeavor. And again, it's not just just for people who breathe,

which is pretty important, but also for the businesses that are involved in cleaning up the air. And that's where we come back to this notion. It's a win-win for us all. And I think it's a wonderful place to end this and why I have optimism. Last point, diplomacy.

How important is that with these nations? So I hope Marco Rubio will take a portfolio like this to these places and say, hey, we're happy to share our technology. Garrett, last words. Yeah, sure. David can probably correct me, but I believe I saw a poll or a number of polls that said that Americans were willing to pay like an 8 to 10% premium on cleaner, greener technologies. So there's some tolerance there.

Look, my two cents, and I feel very strongly about this, in developing countries, there's going to be zero tolerance. In countries that are looking for an economic advantage against the United States, there's going to be zero tolerance, meaning they're going to take the cheapest alternative no matter what. And so I think that what's really important

is that I talked about that national energy strategy, our research and development strategy in our national labs. I think whatever technologies we develop moving forward, whether it's fusion, whether it's small modular reactors or whatever other technologies, I think it's really important that they be affordable because otherwise we're gonna continue to see a growing trend of disparity between what's

happening in the United States with downward trajectory versus what's happening in China or other countries where we end up having a global increase in emissions. So really, really important, but I got to tell you, I love to hear what you said about the change and your visibility and air quality here. That's great. Yeah. And I was in Beijing once and you couldn't see 15 feet in front of you. So that's all the time we have left. Let me thank Senator Boxer and Congressman Graves for agreeing and disagreeing in a civil manner on an issue that too often evokes rancor and recrimination. Let me thank the Wrigley Institute for this terrific partnership, which is now almost a decade old. And let me thank all of you in our audience.

All of you who are watching on Facebook Live or Zoom, and everyone who will listen to today's conference on coming episodes of our podcast, Let's Find Common Ground. I leave today convinced that this is difficult but not impossible. And it's a place where we have to find common ground for the sake of our planet, our security, and ultimately our democracy. I invite you to see how we're doing by joining us at next year's Climate Forward Conference. I promise I'll be there, God willing, which will once again be held in Earth Month. Thank you all very much.

Thank you for joining us on Let's Find Common Ground. If you enjoyed what you heard, subscribe and rate the show five stars on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Follow us on social media at USCPOLFuture. And if you'd like to support the work of the center, please make a tax deductible contribution so that we can keep bringing important voices together across differences in respectful conversations that seek common ground.