CNN "Campbell Brown" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BROWN: I'm joined now by Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee.

Appreciate both of you joining us tonight.

Congressman Issa, let me start with you.

I know you want the Obama administration to hold off on changing environmental policy in the wake of these e-mails. But, yesterday, you said that you have always believed the science that says global warming is happening. So, why hold off, then?

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, the important thing is that depending upon the speed and how much of what is happening in the way of cyclical warming depends on whether or not we have a 150-year or a 300-year problem or a two-year problem.

If we have, let's say, a slightly slower warming and less of it is coming from the human element, we might very well be able to transition out of fossil fuel, get to a sustainable environment with all positive investments.

On the other hand, if we need to do it immediately to stop a cataclysmic event which we could stop, then the president's initiative would probably fit. The important question is, what is the honest science, so that we can use the best solution at the best value with the least loss of jobs, perhaps even no loss of jobs? The difference is creating jobs or losing jobs.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: OK.

Let me bring Congressman Inslee in here.

Congressman, clearly, people have questions about these e-mails. Our latest CNN poll shows that more people now doubt the global warming science. Do you think the controversy, fairly or unfairly, could ultimately derail any legislation?

REP. JAY INSLEE (D), WASHINGTON: No, because inaction is deadly here.

It's deadly for our health and it's deadly for our economy. And the world really is revolved in here into a couple groups that deny facts. There's the birthers, who deny that President Obama is a legitimate president. And there's the deniers that deny that global warming and ocean acidification are in fact threats to our health and our economy.

And the simple facts -- and these are not opinions -- these are facts. We have now found, talking to NASA and the National Oceanographic group and scientists across the globe, that the rate of global warming has accelerated in the last few years. We have lost 1.5 trillion tons of ice in Greenland.

The rate of melting of the Arctic has increased by 40 percent. The rate of acidification of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans is now 30 percent more acidic than in preindustrial times. The scientists have told us that delay is deadly. And we have recently had a health report from the United States government about the health impacts in this regard.

BROWN: Let me just stop you there, because the problem is, you keep say, the scientists say, the scientists say, but can't you see that what's happened with these e-mails, again, fairly or unfairly, has caused a lot of people to doubt what the scientists are saying?

INSLEE: Of course.

BROWN: Their credibility was damaged by this, you know, whether, again, it deserved to be, or not. So, how do you address that problem going forward?

INSLEE: Look, we have seen this movie before.

The tobacco industry tried to discredit the science, the huge scientific consensus about lung cancer and tobacco connection. We're seeing the same movie play out here today. And we have the same degree of scientific consensus, regardless of what happened in England. Those scientists may have sent untoward e-mails with language that's not in the King's English, but the scientists, John Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, NASA, NOAA, the people who put the man on the moon have told us that the climate is changing in deadly ways.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: OK, let me go back to Congressman Issa.

Congressman, just explain to me -- you are going to Copenhagen now, as I understand it.

ISSA: Yes, I am.

BROWN: Explain why. What's the point of your trip? What are you trying to say?

ISSA: Well, first of all, although Jay's assumptions, I have some questions about, and I would be glad to meet with him offline, the fact is, we do have some real questions about the underlying facts.

"An Inconvenient Truth" was based on these studies which now are in doubt. It's a question of not, do we need to deal with our environment? And, certainly, Jay and I would both say that we have got to get off of coal and the acid rain coming from it. There are a lot of pollutants we have to deal with that we're not even denying.

When it comes to CO2, it's a question of, do we have to take the draconian measure of getting rid of CO2 immediately, having offsets? Is that the most important place to put trillions of dollars? Or should we be working simultaneously, getting off coal and other fossil fuels, reducing pollutants, and finding sustainable energy?

And do we have enough time to spend the money in a proactive way? I will not buy into the hysteria that the world is going to end tomorrow if we fly to Copenhagen on a 747 that consumes fossil fuel. At the same time, I certainly want to make sure that we're looking and listening to all science, that we get accurate science to replace the corrupted information we now know exists, and that we reach a good -- a good conclusion, and, oh, by the way, in the case of Copenhagen, make sure that any treaty that is agreed to covers China, Brazil, India, so that we're not reducing CO2 and jobs in America while China and India are increasing.

We've got to make sure that if this is the right course of action, that we do it in a way that holds all of us responsible to reduce CO2 gases. I don't want to save half the world because that doesn't work in climate. You have to save the whole world or nobody.

BROWN: All right. Congressman Inslee, in our attempts, as we do here many nights to find a little common ground...

INSLEE: ... what in what Congressman Issa just said, you know, can you agree with going forward?

INSLEE: Well, I think it's important to pay attention to China. It is very important. Because if Darrell goes to Copenhagen, I hope to go as well, what we're going to learn is what I learned in China last month. They are spending $11 billion a month on clean energy. And the question is, which country is going to dominate the production of electric cars and lithium batteries? Us or China? Are we going to generate the jobs here or in China on solar panels and wind turbines?

It is real clear that there is going to be a huge market for clean energy. We want to make sure that those jobs and those products are created in America. Now, if we do what Darrell wants to do, which is to not act for another 10 or 20 years, China is going to eat our lunch. Good jobs are going to go China.

ISSA: Jay, Jay, Jay --

INSLEE: Let me finish my thought.

ISSA: We agreed on not what --

(CROSSTALK)

INSLEE: What we agreed on --

ISSA: You're saying I don't want to do something for 10 or 20 years. That's not fair.

BROWN: In fairness, that's not what he said. I mean, he did say he wanted to look closer at the science. He didn't lay out a timeframe, so let's try to keep it in the realm of what he actually said.

INSLEE: Well, Darrell, but tell you how long it's going to be. But I will tell you China is not waiting to move forward to create jobs in China. We should not be waiting to create jobs in America. Now when we do these policies and the energy bill is passed in the house --

ISSA: That we agree on.

INSLEE: When we do this, we are going to jump-start the creation of millions of jobs, green-colored jobs in this country. Building solar cells, building electric cars, building lithium ion batteries.

Now, if this energy bill does not pass the U.S. Congress this year, those jobs are going to China. That's one of the reasons we cannot wait.

BROWN: I got end to end it there.

Congressman Jay Inslee and Congressman Darrell Issa, appreciate your time tonight, gentlemen.

ISSA: Thank you, Campbell.

BROWN: Thanks to both of you.

INSLEE: You bet.

ISSA: Of course.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source