Tucker: CNN’s climate change town hall was an act of wanton cruelty


STAY TUNED, SHE IS UP IN JUST A MINUTE. THE FIRST NIGHT, AND IT WAS AN ACT REALLY OF WANT AND CRUELTY COMMITTED AGAINST DEFENSELESS TELEVISION VIEWERS. LAST NIGHT, SEEN AND SUBJECTED TO TINY AUDIENCE TO WHAT IT DESCRIBED AS A CLIMATE CHANGE TOWN HALL. THE THING WENT ON FOR SEVEN HOURS. THAT’S A LONG TIME. IN FACT, THAT SO LONG THAT CLIMATE PRODUCTIONS MADE THAT THE START OF THE EVENING COULD HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG BY THE END. AN ENTIRE SPECIES OF POLAR BEAR MIGHT HAVE BECOME EXTINCT BY THE THIRD COMMERCIAL BREAK. THAT’S A LONG TIME. AND YET IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE, HUGH HARDY SOULS CENTER TO WATCH THE ENTIRE THING. WE CAN’T SAY WITH CERTAINTY WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM BUT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM LAPSED INTO TOTAL UNCONSCIOUSNESS. WATCH THIS.>>ENOUGH OF HAVING THE OIL INDUSTRY AND FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IT RIGHT ALL OF OUR LAWS IN THIS AREA. NO MORE.>>Tucker: HE WAS THE LUCKY ONE. IF HE WAS SLEEPING DEEPLY ENOUGH, HE MIGHT’VE MISSED CNN ASKING JULIAN CASTRO WHAT HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD DO TO FIGHT QUOTE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM. WE ARE NOT MAKING THAT OUT. BUT THAT’S JUST THE TIP OF THE RAPIDLY MELTING ICEBERG. LAST IT WAS REALLY AN EXERCISE IN SWEATY MORAL POSTURING. AT TIMES, THE EVENING BECAME SO STRIDENT THAT EVEN THE CANDIDATES ON STAGE CAN KEEP UP WITH IT ALL. CORY BOOKER FOR EXAMPLE, HE TRIED TO REASSURE VIEWERS THAT DEMOCRATS DON’T REALLY WANT TO TAKE PEOPLES MEET AWAY, APPARENTLY THEY HAD FORGOTTEN THAT KAMALA HARRIS HAD JUST CALLED FOR THAT.>>I HEAR ABOUT ALL THE TIME. BOOKER WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HAMBURGER. WELL, THAT IS THE KIND OF WHY AND FEARMONGERING THAT THEY SPREAD OUT THERE THAT SOMEHOW THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET RID OF HAMBURGER.>>Tucker: BUT WOULDN’T YOU SUPPORT CHANGING THE DIETARY GUIDELINES? REDUCE RED MEAT SPECIFICALLY?>>YES, I WOULD.>>Tucker: .>>Tucker: SO KAMALA HARRIS HAS BEEN TO GET ABOUT WHAT YOU EAT AND SHE THINKS YOU EAT TOO MUCH RED MEAT AND SHE CLAIMS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT WHEN SHE IS ELECTED GOD. THAT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. IN QUIET FACT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW THINGS IN AMERICA THAT KAMALA HARRIS CLAIMS TO BAN IMMEDIATELY.>>WOULD YOU COMMIT TO IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL BAN ON TRACKING YOUR FIRST DAY IN OFFICE? ADDING THE UNITED STATES TO THE LIST OF COUNTRIES THAT BANS THIS DEVASTATING PRACTICE?>>THERE IS NO QUESTION.>>SO WOULD YOU BAN ON OFFSHORE DRILLING?>>YES. AND AGAIN I’VE WORKED ON.>>DO YOU BAN PLASTIC STRAWS QUESTION MARKS TO GO I THINK SHOULD, YEAH.>>Tucker: BANNING DRINKING STRAWS. MINDLESS AND ANNOYING. IF YOU ACTUALLY GET ABOUT PLASTIC POLLUTION AND YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT PLASTIC POLLUTION, BECAUSE IT’S HORRIFYING, YOU WOULD PUNISH CHINA FOR JUMPING PLASTICS INTO THE OCEAN BUT OF COURSE NO ONE ON THE LEFT WANTS TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE BUSY IS SUCKING UP TO CHINA. LOOK BANNING FRACKING IS JUST DEMENTED. OUR ENERGY SECTOR IS THE SINGLE MOST SUCCESSFUL PART OF THE ENTIRE AMERICAN ECONOMY. IT’S ONE OF THE ONLY THING PROPPING UP OUR TRADE BALANCE RIGHT NOW. IT’S BEEN A SAVER OF LAST RESORT FOR RURAL AREAS DEVASTATED BY GLOBALIZATION. KAMAN HAS DIDN’T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT AND SHE REALLY DOESN’T EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMG EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEME EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMB EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMN EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMS EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMO EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMN EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMA EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMQ EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMI EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMG EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMA EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMT ALL COSTS, DETAILS ARE NOT RELEVANT. ALL YOU SEE IS YOURSELF AT THE FINISH LINE ARMS IN THE AIR. THIS IS A POWERFUL DRUG. ANAND IF WE ARE BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, HARRIS WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE LEAST APPEALING CANDIDATE ON THE STAGE LAST NIGHT. THAT AWARD GOES WITHOUT QUESTION TO FATHER PETE BUTTIGIEG, THE PATRON SAINT OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. FATHER BUT A JUDGE WASH INTO A SERMON LAST MAY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE JOHN ANNA’S JONATHAN EDWARDS PROUD.>>IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS WATCHING AS POISON IS BEING BELCHED INTO THE AIR OF CREATIO CREATION, AND PEOPLE ARE BEING HARMED BY, COUNTRIES ARE AT RISK OF VANISHING AND LOW-LYING AREA AREAS, WOODY’S EXPLICIT SUPPOSE GOD THINKS OF THAT? I BET HE THINKS IT’S MESSED UP. AT LEAST ONE WAY OF TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT’S A KIND OF SIN.>>Tucker: YOU STARTED TO THINK OF THE TORMENTS WAITING FOR YOU IN FATHER PETE’S EPISCOPALIAN VERSION OF HELL. IMAGINE HIM LECTURING YOU FOR ETERNITY WAGGING HIS LITTLE FINGERS IN YOUR FACE AND BRAGGING ABOUT HIS VIRTUE. THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU WANT TO OBEY. FATHER PETE THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH JUDGMENT BECAUSE AT THE VERY SAME TIME HE IS LECTURING YOU FATHER PETE HIMSELF IS LIKELY TO BE SIPPING PERRIER IN THE GULF STREAM. ACCORDING TO AN ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT, HE FLIES ON CLIMATE DESTROYING PRIVATE JETS MORE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN THE RACE RIGHT NOW. HOW CAN THAT BE? WE ASKED THE BUTTIGIEG CAMPAIGN THAT QUESTION TODAY AND HERE’S OUR RESPONSE.>>WE FLY COMMERCIAL AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE AND ONLY FLY NONCOMMERCIAL WHEN THE SCHEDULE DICTATES.>>Tucker: NONCOMMERCIAL. OH, THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WHEN IT’S CONVENIENT, FATHER BUT A JUDGE FOLLOWS HIS OWN COMMANDMENTS BUT THE REST OF THE TIME WHEN IT THE SCHEDULE DICTATES, HE IS HAPPY TO BELCH POISON INTO THE AIR OF CREATION. SO WHAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRINK FROM A PLASTIC STRAW, THAT’S IMMORAL, BUT FATHER PETE GETS TO KEEP HIS PRIVATE PLANE. NO WONDER PEOPLE LOVE THE CLIMATE ACTIVISM. FOR THEM, IT’S ALL UPSIDE. IT’S NOT SO GREAT FOR EVERYONE ELSE UNFORTUNATELY BEARD FOR POOR PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD, IT’S GOING TO BE ESPECIALLY TOUGH. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AS MANY CHILDREN AS THEY WOULD LIKE. WATCH BERNIE SANDERS THIS MONEY PAID>>WENT ON AND EDUCATING EVERYONE ON THE NEED TO CURB POPULATION SEEMS A REASONABLE CAMPAIGN TO ENACT. WOULD YOU BE COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AND MAKE IT A KEY FEATURE OF A PLAN TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CATASTROPHES?>>THE ANSWER IS YES AND THE ANSWER HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE WAY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES AND THEY CAN MAKE PRODUCTIVE DECISIONS. AND THE MEXICO CITY AGREEMENT WHICH DENIES AMERICAN AID TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD THAT ARE — THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS OR EVEN GET INVOLVED IN BIRTH CONTROL TO ME IS TOTALLY ABSURD.>>Tucker: A GO. SANDERS SAYS IT RIGHT OUT LOUD. THE AFRICANS ARE HAVING TOO MANY BABIES. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE AFRICANS HAVE MORE ABORTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR AFRICAN ABORTIONS. ALSO BY THE WAY WE’RE GOING HAVE TO CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE EAT, HOW THEY TRAVEL, AND WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING, WE’RE GOING TO

Greta Thunberg: “We want politicians to listen to the scientists”


Tens of thousands of children are school striking
for the climate on the streets of Brussels. Hundreds of thousands are
doing the same all over the world. We are school striking because
we have done our homework. And some of us are here today. People always tell us that they are so hopeful. They are hopeful that the young
people are going to save the world. But we are not. There is simply not enough time to wait for
us to grow up and become the ones in charge. Because by the year 2020, we need to have
bended the emissions curve steep downwards. That is next year. We know that most politicians
don’t want to talk to us. Good. We don’t want to talk to them either. [Applause] We want them to talk to the scientists instead. Listen to them. Because we are just repeating what they are
saying and have been saying for decades. We want you to follow the Paris
Agreement and the IPCC reports. We don’t have any other manifests or demands. Just unite behind the science.
That is our demand. When many politicians talk about
the school strikes for climate they talk about almost anything
except for the climate crisis. Many people are trying to make the school strikes a question of whether we are promoting truancy or whether we should go back to school or not. They make up all sorts of conspiracies and
call us puppets who can’t think for themselves. They are desperate to remove the focus from
the climate crisis and change the subject. They don’t want to talk about it because
they know they can’t win this fight. Because they know they haven’t done their homework. But we have. Once you have done your homework,
you realise that we need new politics. We need new economics where everything
is based on our rapidly declining and extremely limited remaining carbon budget. But that is not enough. We need a whole new way of thinking. The political system that you have
created is all about competition. You cheat when you can because all
that matters is to win to get power. That must come to an end. We must stop competing with each other. We need to cooperate, and work together to share the resources of the planet in a fair way. We need to start living within the
planetary boundaries, focus on equity and take a few steps back, for
the sake of all living species. We need to protect the biospehere,
the air, the oceans, the soil, the forests. This may sound very naïve but if
you have done your homework then you know that we don’t have any other choice. We need to focus every inch of
our being on climate change. Because if we fail to do so, then all of our
achievements and progress will be for nothing. And all that will remain of our political leaders’ legacy will be the greatest failure of human history. And they will be remembered as
the greatest villains of all time because they have chosen
not to listen and not to act. But this does not have to be. There is still time. According to the IPCC report, we’re about
11 years away from being in a position where we set off an irreversible
chain reaction beyond human control. To avoid that, unprecedented changes have
to take place within this coming decade. Including a reduction of our CO2
emissions by at least 50% by year 2030. And please note that those numbers
don’t include the aspect of equity which is absolutely necessary to make
the Paris Agreement work on a global scale. Nor do they include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas
released from the thawing arctic permafrost. They do however include
negative emission techniques on a huge planetary scale
that is yet to be invented and that many scientists fear
will never be ready in time and will anyway be impossible
to deliver at the scale assumed. We have been told that the EU need intends
to improve its emissions reduction target. In the new target, the EU is proposing to
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 45% below 1990 levels by 2030. Some people say that is good or ambitious. But this new target is still not enough
to keep global warming below 1.5°C. This target is not sufficient to protect the
future of children growing up today. If the EU is to make its fair contribution to stay within the carbon budget for the 2°C limit then it needs a minimum of 80% reduction by 2030. And that includes aviation and shipping. So about twice as ambitious as the current proposal. The actions required are beyond
manifestos or party politics. Once again, they sweep their mess under the
carpet for our generation to clean up and solve. Some people say that we are fighting for our future. But that is not true.
We are not fighting for our future. We are fighting for everyone’s future. [Applause] And if you think that we should be in school instead then we suggest you take our place in
the streets, striking from your work. Or better yet, join us so we can speed up the process. And I’m sorry, but saying everything will be alright while continue doing nothing
at all is just not hopeful to us. In fact, it is the opposite of hope. And yet, this is exactly what you keep doing. You can’t just sit around waiting for hope to come. Then you are acting like spoiled irresponsible children. You don’t seem to understand that hope
is something that you have to earn. And if you still say that we are
wasting valuable lesson time then let me remind you that our
political leaders have wasted decades through denial and inaction. And since our time is running out
we have decided to take action. We have started to clean up your mess
and we will not stop until we are done. Thank you. [Applause]

#WashWeekPBS Extra: Discussing the intersection of politics and the environment


ROBERT COSTA: Fires in the Amazon rainforest to the receding white ice of the Arctic. Climate change confronts global leaders. This is the Washington Week Extra. Hello. I’m Robert Costa. Tonight we discuss the increasingly urgent intersection of politics and the environment. It was a week of promises, acrimony, and environmental upheaval. G-7 countries pledged 20 million (dollars) to help fight record fires raging in the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon, but President Bolsonaro of Brazil initially rejected the offer. Meanwhile, President Trump skipped the G-7’s climate meeting. It was the latest act of defiance by President Trump. In 2017 the president pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, and has made rolling back environmental regulations a priority. He opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, and The Washington Post reported this week the administration will open 17 million acres of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging and mining projects. And that news comes as Alaska is facing its hottest summer on record with very little rainfall and over 600 forest fires consuming millions of acres. Joining me tonight, Vivian Salama, White House reporter for The Wall Street Journal; from Anchorage, Nathaniel Herz, environment and politics reporter for Alaska Public Media; and from New York, Henry Fountain, climate reporter for The New York Times. Thanks so much for being with us today. Vivian, really appreciate having you here; and Nat; and Henry, it’s excellent to have you at the table as well. Nat, you’re up in Anchorage dealing with some real difficult issues. How are the forest fires up there, and how is it affecting Alaska? NATHANIEL HERZ: Well, you can see – you don’t have to look very far; you can just look over my shoulder and see the wildfire smoke that’s infiltrated the city. Normally you’d be able to look out and see, you know, pretty spectacular mountains just outside of town, but right now we’re pretty socked in. You know, the wildfires have burnt a few dozen homes north of the city in the Mat-Su, and then south of the city we have another wildfire that’s really gigantic burning in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge that’s been burning all summer. Both of those wildfires have basically snarled traffic on two of the state’s major highways. We’ve had major impacts on tourism – you know, tourists getting stranded, cruise ships almost having to make detours to go pick up stranded passengers, and then even things like groceries and shipments of freight getting blocked at various points. So it’s definitely been a pretty disrupted summer here by the wildfires. ROBERT COSTA: Beyond the fires, how is Alaska feeling the effect of climate change? NATHANIEL HERZ: Well, you know, I’ve traveled sort of from one end of the state to the other this summer. You know, I started, I was in Kaktovik, which is inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, earlier this summer, and they’ve got, you know, increased polar bears coming into town because there’s less sea ice. Out in the Bering Sea they’re seeing unprecedented warming and diminished sea ice, that people are worried that – there are really huge commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea. Like, if you go to McDonald’s and buy a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, that fish is probably coming out of the Bering Sea; it’s pollack, and they’re worried that those fish are basically starting to swim north to cooler waters. And then you go to the southern end of the state and they’re in a drought. And you know, I was paddling a river earlier this summer and there’s a glacial lake that used to be blocked by icebergs that now they’re able to run motorboats into because that ice has diminished. So really from one end of the state to the other it’s kind of hard to find a place that isn’t seeing pretty dramatic impacts, especially this summer. ROBERT COSTA: Henry, you’ve reported on ANWR – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – and the Trump administration’s exploration there. What would the environmental impact of more exploration be in that area? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, the initial exploration would be things like seismic studies, perhaps some exploratory wells, and that would all require infrastructure – roads, drill pads, room for crews, et cetera, et cetera. So the big fear is even a little bit of exploration activity could cause long-lasting damage, for instance damaging the tundra, leaving scars on the tundra that would last for decades. ROBERT COSTA: And when you think about the Trump administration more broadly, you’re seeing an administration that’s not focused on climate change. Beyond Alaska, how is that illustrated, in your eyes? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, as you mentioned, Mr. Trump pulling the United States out of the Paris Accord, not showing up to the meeting last week, all those – all those acts that sort of demonstrate that he’s just not interested in the subject. It’s interesting, when the subject of climate change comes up he tends to talk about – not about actual warming of the Earth, but about the quality of water and pollution – water pollution and air pollution in the United States, which are really not the same thing as climate change. So it starts at the top. He is not interested in the subject, he’s called it a hoax, and it’s trickled down throughout the administration. Obviously, we have reported – all of the news organizations report about all the rollback of policies and regulations, and that’s a big part of it as well. ROBERT COSTA: Vivian, you’ve reported on the Trump administration’s rollbacks of these regulations. What’s driving it inside the White House? Is it an ideology, is it an affiliation, an affinity for business? VIVIAN SALAMA: Both, actually. The Trump administration, one of its first orders of business was to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, President Trump describing it usually as a bad deal. But also he believed that it was impairing the rights of a lot of businesses, and we just saw this week where he decided to withdraw from an Obama-era rule that essentially curbed emission of methane and he said again it was something that was impairing oil and gas industry from being able to thrive. And so a lot of it is driven by business, but also there is – there is an ideology behind it in his mind where he has questioned whether or not global warming is real or a hoax. He has repeated – but then again he’ll come out like this week at the press conference at the G-7 and say I’m an environmentalist, a lot of people don’t know that. And so his view of what environmentalism is is really sort of different from a lot of people, but he insists that he’s doing this with the environment in mind, essentially, at the end of the day. ROBERT COSTA: And Nat, we’re looking at Alaska having a heatwave, one of the hottest summers on record. Is that part of a trend throughout the world, and how is it affecting Alaska? NATHANIEL HERZ: Yeah, I mean, I think we’ve seen – we’ve seen record temperatures like this – earlier this summer we set a record high temperature for Anchorage; the previous high ever recorded in Anchorage was 85 degrees and this summer we hit 90 degrees. You know, this month has been, I think, the driest August on record. So you know, I think it’s really – we want to be careful about sort of saying that any particular moment in time or sort of short-term period of weather is reflective of climate change. But certainly the long-term projections are calling for things like we’re seeing here in Alaska this summer. And, you know, I think we’ve had – we’ve had efforts by the government here to – the state government – to, you know, sort of prepare for climate change, set climate policy. That was under the previous governor’s administration. In the past year, that’s actually been reversed by the Republican governor who’s come in and disbanded a state climate commission. And right now there’s actually no state-level climate policy, but there are any number of local efforts working to adapt to climate impacts and figure out, you know, how are we going to deal with some of the major effects that we’re seeing around the state. ROBERT COSTA: Henry, when you look at the Amazon and how President Bolsonaro of Brazil is handling this crisis, what’s your big take-away? What matters, as a reporter? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, what matters is what’s going to come in the future. I think, you know, the Amazon’s gotten a lot of attention in the last couple of weeks. A lot of the activity, the clearing of land through fire, has been going on for a long, long time. And in some ways the number of fires, it’s much worse than last year. It’s not necessarily much worse than a couple years ago. But the big concern, and as a reporter what I am interested in is, what’s going to happen in the years ahead? And obviously Bolsonaro, he’s made it clear that he wants to develop the Amazon. He wants mining companies, farmers to have more or less free hand to do economic activity there. So that’s really – it’s not so much what’s been going on in the last couple of weeks, because that’s pretty similar to what’s been going on for the last 20 or 30 years in some ways. It’s what’s going to happen in the future. ROBERT COSTA: And, Henry, you’ve written about how rainforests, these tropical rainforests, have been endangered long before the fires began in the Amazon. HENRY FOUNTAIN: Yeah. I mean, forests disappear for a lot of reasons. In the Amazon, as I said, people have been clearing land through fire for centuries, essentially. They’ve been doing it around the world, in fact. So it’s not that this is a new thing. The issue is, is it going to get worse? And that’s the concern with the new administration in Brazil. ROBERT COSTA: Nat, I know you need to leave soon, but the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. What’s its future? We’re talking so much about the Amazon, but the Tongass is right there having its own issues. NATHANIEL HERZ: Yeah. This is, I think, a really interesting story regardless of sort of what side of it you’re on. I mean, the Tongass, you know, just to put it in perspective I believe it’s slightly larger in area than the state of West Virginia. So we’re talking about – it’s a huge archipelago of mountains and ocean. It’s a spectacular area. You know, in the past decades it was a really productive area for natural resource extraction, especially timber. But you know, the Clinton administration in the ’90s, though the Roadless Rule, really clamped down on that. You know, it’s really debatable whether the lack – the sort of decline of the timber industry in the Tongass more recently is because of regulation or because of market forces, and the fact that Alaska is distant from some of the markets in Asia. But in any case, there’s still a lot of political pressure by the shrinking logging industry to promote, you know, more loose timber regulation in the Tongass. The thing that’s happening at the same time is there’s a really robust tourism industry in southeast Alaska in the same area. And you know, you’ve got an exploding cruise ship industry and, you know, smaller scale people coming for glacier tours, and fishing, and things like that. And the owners of those businesses are saying, you know, we don’t want our customers coming in here and seeing clear cuts. And so you know, there’s a – while there’s a big political effort to open the Tongass more to timber, there’s also been a really robust pushback on the part of this new and growing industry of tourism in southeast Alaska, saying: This is our future. Our future is not cutting down old growth timber, which is a finite resource. I think, you know, that – the timber industry over the past couple years has definitely found a more sympathetic ear in this federal administration, and in Alaska’s congressional delegation. But I think that battle is not decided. And I think it’s going to continue to rage and could very likely get reversed under a Democratic administration, if the election goes a different way in 2020. ROBERT COSTA: Nathaniel Herz, environment and politics report for Alaska Public Media. Really appreciate you being here. And before Henry and Vivian go, big picture, step back. President Trump, 2020, Democrats running for president are talking about climate change. What’s next politically in this country when it comes to climate change? VIVIAN SALAMA: The president has doubled down and really believes that he is helping businesses, and that’s the priority, and is viewing a lot of these climate policies with skepticism. And so so long as he’s bringing in business obviously he’s going to get that sector – segment of the population on his side. But in the meantime, it’s been a major alienating factor among our – with our allies. And this is something that he’s getting pushback from everywhere that you look. In Europe, he was the one absent person from the climate session this week at the G-7. Allies really pressing him about the issue, even with regard to taking Brazil more seriously and pressing Bolsonaro. President Trump and Bolsonaro have a rapport together and they really wanted him to take the lead on this issue, as the United States has traditionally done. And so really down the line it’s a question of is the U.S. losing its position as that global leader in, you know, this effort to control climate and see if we can – we can regulate policies that are damaging to the environment. And President Trump has kind of stepped away and shied from that role. ROBERT COSTA: Henry, final word to you. When you look beyond the U.S., is climate change policy and politics taking hold in a different way in different countries? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, a lot of other countries are really leading on the issue, whereas the United States has stepped back from addressing the problem. And so it’s a very powerful political force in a lot of countries, particularly in Europe where they’re seeing a – you know, they’ve experienced disasters this summer with bad heatwaves. So it’s, I’d say, large – parts of elsewhere in the world maybe not so much, but certainly in Europe it’s a really front and center issue. I think in terms of the United States, a lot may depend on what happens over the next year or so. If there’s – for instance, this hurricane, Dorian, that’s approaching Florida, if that’s a really bad one, if there’s a couple of other really bad hurricanes, if there’s some bad flooding, all of which is somewhat linked to climate change, I think you might see the administration may have to start addressing the issue because of what the population is experiencing. ROBERT COSTA: I want to thank my guests, Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal and Henry Fountain of The New York Times, and of course Nat Herz. That’s it for this edition of the Washington Week Extra. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on the Washington Week website. While you’re online, check out the Washington Week-ly News Quiz. I’m Robert Costa. Thanks for joining us and see you next time.

Antarctica: As Far South as South Goes


“There is no probability, that any other
detached body of land, of nearly equal extent, will ever be found in a more southern latitude;
the name Terra Australis will, therefore, remain descriptive of the geographical importance
of this country, and of its situation on the globe”
That was written in 1814 by Matthew Flinders. He was talking about Australia. Whoops. So I said this in my Columbus video but it
bears repeating. People have known that the world was round,
or spherical, since the Ancient Greeks. But of course, since Europe, North Africa,
and bits of Asia were the only lands they knew about, people like Aristotle and Ptolemy
hypothesized that if these were the only lands, the globe would be too top heavy and wouldn’t
be in a stable rotation – but would wobble around like a top. So there must be some sort of land mass in
the southern hemisphere in order to balance things out. Just like America, names for this hypothesized
land switched around for a while. The first official depiction of it on a map
was by Shoner in 1523. I’d show you a picture, but this is one
of the few lost great works of geography. But in this drawing from 1483, which is just
an imagining of an Ancient Greek book by Cicero, the hypothesized continent is named Teperata
Antipodum Nobis Incognita – The Unknown Temperate Lands on the Opposite Side of the
World. Geez, look at you getting fancy with the latin. I know right? Would you believe it if I told you I didn’t
even have to google that… recently. Anyway, that’s a bit of a mouthful, so later,
in 1570, it was just named Terra Australis, for Southern Land. That one I straight up didn’t have to google. Although, side note for those of you who watched
my Columbus video, look at the name for America on this map. America Sive India Nova. Which means “America or… New India.” I told you, people didn’t settle on names
for places for a long time. So anyway, people went along calling the as
yet unknown, but hypothesized and yet somehow mapped southern continent “Terra Australis”
for about 250 years. In 1606, a new continent was discovered in
the southern hemisphere and named New Holland. But only the eastern half had been really
charted and settled, so even into the late 1700’s, it was thought that maybe it was
still connected to a larger southern landmass, the Terra Australis. Like in this map from 1744, literally called
“A Complete Map of the Southern Continent.” So like, I guess words just don’t have meaning
anymore if this counts as “complete.” Anyway, the British started taking the continent
over from the Dutch and started a colony in the west called New South Wales. I don’t understand why everyone just called
everything New this or New that. I stopped trying to figure that out decades
ago. But New South Wales was on the continent of
New Holland. And the British weren’t big fans of that
– just like how they renamed New Amsterdam into New York when they took it over, they
tried to come up with a different name again. The entire coast line had been charted by
Captain Cook in 1770, and in 1804, Matthew Flinders first suggested naming it Australia,
in honor of the fabled Terra Australis. In the quote from just a few minutes ago,
he asserted that nothing would ever be found of greater mass in a more southern latitude,
so this surely must be the most southern continent. Australia is just the female version of the
latin word for South, so you know, they stuck with the British tradition of coming up with
creative names for places. It took 20 years before the British government
officially adopted the name, and it took another 30 years before the rest of the world stopped
calling it New Holland. Alright already, this is a video about Antarctica,
when are you going to start talking about Antarctica? Right now. Inside where it’s warm. On January 28th, 1820, the Russian Captains
von Bellingshausen and Lazarev first sighted the coast of the continent and circumnavigated
it twice. They beat the British Captain Bransfield by
just three days. But does it really matter who found it first? *Yes, lol, Not Britain* I think what really
matters is the first person to set foot on it almost exactly a year later. – American John Davis America, F*ck Yeah! You’ll notice I didn’t call him a captain
there, because he wasn’t in the Navy, he was just a guy hunting seals who landed on
Western Antarctica. I’ll get to why the name for that place
is funny in a moment. But first, let’s talk about the name in
general. Ugh more about names? Yeah, this will be quick though. Nobody really knows who named it Antarctica. Antarctica just means the opposite of the
Arctic. In the 1500’s, France named its colony in
Brazil “France Antarctique” and I suppose I could make fun of them for that because
haha they were so wrong right? But at least the French in the 16th century
didn’t know better *roll credits*. Not like the British, who named Australia
Australia in 1824, because it is the most southern continent that ever was or ever will
be. Except… that was four years after the British
were the second to find Antarctica. So by the time they named Australia, they
knew there was a continent more south. But I guess since Australia was officially
taken, by 1890 people just sort of started calling it Antarctica. By the way if you learn nothing else from
this video, it’s Antarctica. Ant-arc-tica. There are two C’s in there. You are no longer allowed to ever forget that
first C. It was one of the very few place names I required to be spelled correctly in
my class. So now we know there’s a continent weirdly
positioned directly on the south pole. So the next big race was to find the south
pole. The famous Ross Expedition in 1841 went looking,
but all they found was the 100ft tall Ross Ice Shelf, and two volcanoes. Yes, there are volcanoes on Antarctica. Mount Erebus and Mount Terror – quite possibly
the coolest named volcano ever. Several expeditions tried and failed to get
to there over the decades but the first person to actually reach it was Roald Amundsen from
Norway on December 11, 1911. It was a race between Norway and the British,
which the Norwegians won by almost a month. The British coming in second in Antarctica
seems to be a theme. The British did find plant fossils on the
continent though, which confirmed that it was once connected to the other continents
– which provided further evidence of the plate tectonics and continental drift theories
which were speculated and being developed at the time. But what if I told you that there are actually
five south poles. There’s the obvious one. The geographic south pole, which lies at ninety
degrees south latitude and… actually no longitude. You could pick any number, it’s the same
place. For simplicity’s sake it’s either just
left off entirely or written as 0 degrees longitude. It’s the place where all the lines of longitude
come together – the place that everyone was racing to. It’s also referred to as “true south.” This is the true south pole, it isn’t much
to look at. So just 180 meters (590 feet) away is the
ceremonial south pole. This is pretty much just a tourist spot where
people can take pictures “of the south pole” without disturbing any scientific sites. The flags surrounding the pole are all of
the Antarctic Treaty countries, which I’ll talk about later. But if you’re standing on the south pole,
either the real one or the fake one, your compass won’t be spinning. It will still be pointing towards north. Which magnetically, no, is not all around
you. It’s 2860km (1777 miles) away. Wait, what? Yeah you heard that correctly. First of all, the magnetic south pole is not
located at the true south pole. Most people understand that part since it
works the same way for the north pole. And like I said, it’s 2860km away from the
geographic south pole. So why on Earth would your compass be telling
you north is where the magnetic south pole is? Well, since almost all of my audience lives
in America and Europe – except for the 2.3% of you who live in Australia – if you took
one of your compasses and went to the southern hemisphere, it would point to the south pole. They actually have to make southern hemisphere
compasses because of this problem. Which is just the opposite end of the magnet
painted, but still, super confusing. The earth doesn’t care or know the difference
between north and south, they are just the magnetic poles. So depending on which hemisphere you’re
in “north” will just point to the nearest one. So okay, enough with the tricky word play,
what happens if you’re actually standing on the magnetic south pole with a compass? Does it spin? No, depending on which hemisphere your magnet
was manufactured for, it will either be pointing straight up or straight down – the point
is will be lining up with the Earth’s magnetic field, which shoots out of the north and south
poles. The magnetic poles themselves are incredibly
wide, so before you even get to the center, your compass will start tilting up. The magnetic pole moves around and wobbles
around 10-15 km a year, so has to be constantly remeasured and plotted. But there’s another magnetic pole, which
can’t be found with a compass. The Geomagnetic south pole. This is the approximation of the center point
of the magnetic poles. Since the magnetic poles move around so much
year to year and are affected by the molten outer core and other layers of the Earth,
the people who are much smarter at this than I am came up with an antipodal model of where
they approximated a bar magnet through the center of the Earth, at the heart of the inner
core. This is where the magnetic poles wobble around
and if they could ever get their poop in a group, where they would theoretically sit
forever. It barely moves, you can’t measure it, and
for reasons I can’t explain, the north and south poles are reversed. I’m sure they have a good reason for that…
and I’m sure someone in the comments will tell it to me. The last south pole is called the “south
pole of inaccessibility” and is the centermost point of Antarctica; meaning it’s the furthest
inland from any coastline. It has no geographical significance and is
the type of thing only people like Gary Johnson would brag about climbing to. It’s not important, it’s stupid, so let’s
go back to the geographic south pole. If you’re standing on the geographic south
pole, which direction is north? Is it this way? Or is it this way? It’s actually both, you doofus. In fact, if you’re standing on the south
pole, every direction is north. But what about if you’re standing over here? Which direction is north? Nope. That’s actually west.. mostly. Nope. That’s east… mostly. That’s north. Confusing right? Moving towards the south pole is south. Away is north. Clockwise is east, and counter clockwise is
west. In almost every map you see of Antarctica,
it’s going to be oriented this way, with the line pointing up being the Prime Meridian,
or 0 degrees longitude. Not 0 degrees east or west. That doesn’t make sense. It’s just 0 degrees. And the line pointing down being 180 degrees. So this section is “Western Antarctica”
where John Davis landed. It’s named that because it’s in the western
hemisphere. But if you’re standing on the south pole,
Western Antarctica is to your north. Just like… Eastern Antarctica. Okay that’s enough, this is both confusing
and infuriating. Anyway, the Antarctic Treaty divides the continent
up into 8 territories, with 7 countries making territorial claims. Officially, the United Kingdom, New Zealand,
France, Norway, Australia, Chile, and Argentina all have territory under the treaty. They left this space conspicuously unclaimed. Why? Because both Russia and the United States
have official “we get to claim land in Antarctica whenever we want” cards according to the
treaty, and the other countries are hoping that if either of them ever does decide to
make a claim, they’ll take the currently “unclaimed” zone and not try to take theirs. Even though those territorial claims are recognized
under the treaty, the entirety of the continent is politically neutral. Nobody is allowed to test nuclear weapons
or station any military forces there. Nobody is allowed to mine or otherwise extract
resources on the continent either. It is specifically a scientific preserve. In fact, they basically copy pasted the Antarctic
Treaty in order to create the Outer Space Treaty, which says the exact same things about
heavenly bodies like the moon or Mars. Currently, 29 countries have research stations
there, with a total population of around 4000. It’s currently summertime there so the population
is at its annual high. You may have heard that 3 years ago, the super
shallow dating app Tinder successfully paired up 2 NSF researchers on the continent. They were 45 minutes away from each other
via helicopter. So really, you no longer have an excuse. So the next time you’re stranded in Antarctica
and you’re following your compass north, maybe you should double check where your compass
was made, also make sure that you never forget how to spell Antarctica, because now, you
know better. Hey guys if you enjoyed that video, or you
learned something, make sure to give that like button a click. If you’d like to see more from me I put out
new videos every weekend, so go ahead and circumnavigate that subscribe button. Also make sure to follow me on facebook and
twitter and join us on the reddit. But in the meantime if you’d like to watch
one of my older videos, how about this one?

Food waste is the world’s dumbest problem


MIT is known for developing a lot of impressive
technology. But hidden in the kitchen of MIT’s Media
Lab is, perhaps, my favorite MIT invention: the FoodCam. Okay, so it may not look like much but it’s
actually quite brilliant. Let’s say you have some leftover food. You put it under the camera and you hit the
button. FoodCam posts a photo to Twitter, Slack, and
a mailing list. All with a simple message: Come and get it! It looks like a pretty good box of donuts. Yes. It looks yummy under FoodCam. It does. Getting the food can actually be pretty competitive. By the time we got here, just 30 seconds after
it was placed, the whole building had swarmed and all the
pizza was gone. There’s a mad rush of people that come from,
like, every entryway in here to get the pizza. So you got to kind of move pretty quickly. Yeah, it’s a game — it’s like the Hunger
Games. Where… Will and Jon invented the FoodCam all the
way back in 1999. This was before Facebook. Before Gmail. Before social media as we know it. The idea came from a building-wide leftovers
problem. And in some ways, this simple invention gets
at the big problem of food waste. I mean that’s sort of the serious part of
what you have done, really, right? There is no doubt that this completely helped
reduce food waste at the lab. Almost all of the catering people know that
if they have spare food from their event, they can just hit the button and people will
consume that food. And those are not even Media Lab events that
are now fueling the FoodCam. When we picture the stuff that’s hurting
our planet, what do we think of? We think of, like, smokestacks, cars, oil
spills. We don’t really think about all the food
we throw away. In the US, roughly 40% of the food we produce
never gets eaten. That’s over 365 million pounds of food each
day. While that’s happening, about one in eight
Americans still don’t have a steady supply of food
to their tables. And all of this wasted food is a huge contributor
to climate change. If global food waste were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse
gases, just behind China and the United States. So it really is an enormous problem and one
of the easiest ways to address climate change. It takes a ton of resources to produce food. On top of that, you have all of the energy it takes to keep
it cold and transport it around the country. And when food decomposes, it isn’t just
stinky. It releases potent greenhouse gases. Basically, we’re trashing our planet to grow food that
no one eats.But here’s the thing: No one actually likes wasting food. It’s just something that we haven’t been
paying much attention to. Of all of the challenging problems out there,
reducing the amount of food we’re wasting is one of the easiest. In the US, consumers collectively make up
the largest portion of food waste. A family of four spends about $1,500 on food
that they never eat. Meat is less as a percentage of what we buy
but when you consider it in particular, as a greenhouse gas intensive product, meat
waste actually has the highest greenhouse gas impact. And you don’t have to be an expert to understand
why food is going to waste in our homes. We’re all busy and on the go. Sometimes I buy food without thinking, “Do I really need that?” There’s even been a little bit of research
to show that once something goes in the refrigerator it’s actually worth less
to us than before.   Researchers asked people how they would feel
if they got home from the grocery store and dropped a carton
of eggs. And then they asked, well if your eggs sat
in your refrigerator for six weeks and then you didn’t use them, how would you feel about
that? And people felt a lot less remorse. I think a lot of the waste in our society
does come down to choice and wanting to have the
option to eat something at any time, whether or not we use it. Part of the reason we over-buy food is that
we’ve got tons of space to store it in. Refrigerators have grown about 15% since the
1970s. One of the things we found in our research
is that people are uncomfortable with white space when it comes to food. So we love it in buildings, or in design, but when it comes to food, we do not want
to see empty space in our refrigerators, on our plates, and so I really believe that
in some subliminal way we’re just filling everything. And if we had smaller refrigerators, that
let us see everything that was in there, that in itself would lead to quite a bit less
waste in our homes. And it isn’t just our refrigerators that
have gotten bigger. The average dinner plate has grown by 36%
since 1960. When you have a big plate, you tend to put
a lot of food on it —  whether or not you can eat it all. This is something Jill Horst noticed at UC
Santa Barbara. You have a tray that’s 14-by-18 inches and
you feel you need to load it up with food. You would see students that had four glasses:
water, juice, soda, milk — and you’d go to the tray return and they would
still be full. In 2009, the dining halls stopped using trays. Students can take as much food as they want,
but there isn’t a tray to pile it onto. The food waste per person, per tray, reduced
by 50 percent. I mean so that was huge. Let’s say that the average student wastes
six ounces of food per meal. That may not seem like a lot — but UC Santa
Barbara serves 13,000 meals per day. So that’s nearly 5,000 pounds of wasted
food. It’s like throwing 350 Thanksgiving turkeys
into the garbage every single day. And when you take the trays away and it becomes
three ounces, that’s a significant impact to help with not only the food waste, but
food cost. So, it turns out that something very small
— like removing a tray or changing the size of a plate — can have this profound
impact on our behavior. And it doesn’t take much effort, because
the effect is subliminal. The other thing they’re paying attention
to at UC Santa Barbara is portion size. Each plate is portioned one portion for a
student. They can take as many portions as they like, but we are actually plating the right size,
the right amount that we should be eating. We’ve gotten used to these gigantic portion
sizes at restaurants. And in a subtle way, it encourages us to overeat
and throw away a lot of food. If you look around, there’s not a whole
lot of food waste on the plates because of the proper portioning. I mean that’s somebody’s meal. That’s all they have left. None of us are perfect. Wasting less food isn’t just going to happen
overnight. But just having it on our radar can really
help us waste a lot less.   And if we do have extra food, then let’s
at least try to get it to people who could use it. There is so much high-quality surplus that’s
wasted, that just needs to find the people that need
it the most. Komal is the founder of Copia, a startup that’s
trying to recover all of this perfectly good food. If you imagine the world’s largest football
stadium filled to its absolute brim that’s how much food goes wasted every single
day in America — and I’m not talking about last night’s pad
thai or this morning’s half-eaten pastries, but untouched, uneaten, perfectly edible food.   So we don’t need to purchase or make more
food. We just need to figure out how to get it to
the people who need it. MIT’s FoodCam is great at recovering food. But when you start scaling this up from one
building to an entire city or an entire country, it becomes much more difficult. Let’s say you’re a small company and have
200 sandwiches left over from an event. That’s a lot of food — but it takes time
and effort to figure out how and where to donate it. Most people really don’t want to deal with
all this. It shouldn’t be this hard to do a good thing. Like, how cool would it be if people who have
food could say, hey, we have food, and people who need food could say, hey we
need food, and we could connect these two people and
clear the marketplace? So Komal is trying to make food donation easy
and intuitive. If you have some food, you type your info
into the Copia app. A driver will then come pick up your food
and deliver it to shelters that need it. And during big events, like Super Bowl 50,
there’s a ton of extra food. The issue is that it has a short shelf life. Imagine four 16-foot refrigerated trucks filled
to their absolute brim — that’s how much food we recovered. We fed 23,000 people in two days. Nobody slept. And it’s not you know hot dogs and popcorn. It was lobster rolls and pulled pork sandwiches
and $300 cheeses. High-quality food. If we can get food that would otherwise be
wasted to people who need it, we’re not only fighting hunger, but we’re
actually slowing global warming. It really is a win-win. And Komal doesn’t want to solve hunger in
just California. She wants to solve world hunger — period. It’s not about optimism or pessimism. I think it’s just that we’re hell-bent on
making it happen. This isn’t going to be an overnight thing. It’s got to be policy change. It’s going to be other entrepreneurs. It’s going to be really big companies and
institutions also taking a stand and saying that you know what? We don’t tolerate perfectly great food being
wasted. Look, no one likes throwing out food. So we made a simple guide to help you waste
less. To find out more go to climate.universityofcalifornia.edu.

Eric Trump sounds off on 2020 Democrats’ climate calamity


“WATTERS’ WORLD.” A WAR ON MEAT, PLASTICS, GASOLINE. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE EXTREME IDEAS DEMOCRATS PROPOSED DURING CNN’S 7-HOUR TOWN HALL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.>>LIFE ON EARTH IS AT RISK.>>WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE PLANET EARTH.>>THIS U.N. REPORT SAYS I GUESS IT’S 11 YEARS WE HAVE LEFT.>>THIS IS ON PAR WITH WINNING WORLD WAR II, MAYBE MORE CHALLENGING THAN THAT.>>DO YOU BAN PLASTIC STRAWS IN.>>I THINK WE SHOULD YEAH.>>WHAT ABOUT OFFSHORE DRILLING FOR OIL, WOULD YOU BAN IT?>>ABSOLUTELY. WE NEED TO TAKE COMBUSTUP VEHICLES OFF THE ORDER AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.>>THEY FAILED TO ACT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I AM PREPARED TO GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER TO PASS A GREEN NEW DEAL. JESSE: DON’T NUKE THE FILIBUSTER IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN NUCLEAR ENERGY. JOINING ME, THE SON OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. ERIC TRUMP. ARE YOU HAPPY THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING ON THIS PLATFORM?>>THEY ARE GOING TO GET RID OF OIL, FRACK, THAT’S NATURAL GAS. COWS, PLANES, YOU CAN’T HAVE A CARNEYMORE. — A CAR ANY MORE. IF YOU GET AN ELECTRIC CAR YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CHARGE THE SELECT CAR. HOW DO YOU CHARGE AN ELECTRIC CAR IF YOU DON’T HAVE POWER PLANTS. JESSE: COAL POWERS 27% OF THE ENERGY IN THIS COWAN COUNTRY.>>ONE, IN THIS COUNTRY.>>HOW WOULD THE SENATORS GET FROM HAWAII TO WASHINGTON, D.C. IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE AIRPLANES. ARE THEY GOING TO ROW A BOAT? JESSE: I THINK THEY WILL DO HIGH SPEED RAIL UNDERNEATH THE OCEAN.>>THEY HAVE GOTTEN SO RADICAL PEOPLE CAN’T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. MY FATHER SAYS I WANT THE CLEANEST AIR AND WATER IN THE WORLD. AND THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO ACCOMPLISH THAT THAT ARE SMART. CHINA IS LITERALLY PULLING UP TRUCKS TO RIVERS AND DUMPING GARBAGE INTO RIVERS. THEY ARE DUMPING LOADS OF GARBAGE IN OUR OCEANS EVERY DAY. NOBODY IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. JESSE: THE TRUMP ORGANIZE IS A GREEN ORGANIZATION. YOU GUYS MUST RECYCLE, I’M SURE YOU HAVE ELECTRIC-POWERED GOLF CARTS.>>MANY OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GREEN ARE SMART FROM A COMMERCIAL STAND POINT. YOU HAVE GOOD INSULATION IN BUILDINGS. AND YOU SPENT LESS MONEY ON ENERGY AND THERE IS A RETURN ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF SMART THINGS PEOPLE CAN DO. BUT THIS IS RADICAL STUFF.>>SO RADICAL BERNIE WANTS TO BAN FACTORY FARMING. THEY ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THEIR PROPOSALS.>>HOW DO YOU WIN TEXAS IF YOU ARE AGAINST OIL AND GAS. NOT TO MENTION ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS CAUGHT 19 TRILLION DOLLARS. ONE OF THEM WAS MORE THAN THAT. ONE WAS $30 TRILLION. YOU INSTANTLY BANKRUPT THIS COUNTRY. JESSE: SOME OF THEM WANT TO DESTROY THE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY SO THEY CAN REBUILD IT IN A SOCIALIST IMAGE. THAT’S ANOTHER ISSUE FOR ANOTHER DAY. APPARENTLY THE RED MAGA HATS ARE SO UPSETTING THIS ONE AUTHOR, SHE SAYS THAT NOT ONLY SHOULD YOU NOT WEAR THE RED MAGA HATS, YOU SHOULDN’T WEAR ANY RED HAT IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE IT QUOTE SCARES PEOPLE. SO I CAN’T WEAR A PHILLY’S HAT.>>THE MIDDLE OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS OR EMBRACE IT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BANNING PLASTIC STRAWS AND PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO WEAR RED HATS WHEN MY FATHER IS TRYING TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY FROM CHINA AND TRYING TO REDUCE AFRICAN-AMERICAN UNEMPLOYMENT AND HISPANIC UNEMPLOYMENT AND FEMALE UNEMPLOYMENT. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT LET’S BAN RED HATS AND GET RID OF A PLASTIC STRAW. THESE AREN’T SERIOUS ISSUES. JESSE: HOW GOOD ARE THINGS THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PLASTIC STRAWS. VEGANISM, THE COVER YOUR HAT. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMY OR WAR.>>THEY NO LONGER TALK ABOUT ISIS OR DIED BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST ANYMORE BECAUSE MY FATHER GOT RID OF THEM BECAUSE HE TOOK THE HANDCUFFS OFF THE TROOPS. OUR COUNTRY IS DOING PHENOMENALLY WELL. THIS IS A DISTRACTION. AND THAT WON’T PICK UP A SINGLE VOTE. JESSE: YOU WILL LOSE VOTES.>>DEBLASIO COMES UP WITH CRAZY PROPOSITIONS ALL THE TIME. HE HASN’T HAD A SINGLE PERSON VOTE FOR HIM. SO THESE PROPOSALS AREN’T WORKING. THEY ARE NOT RESONATING WITH PEOPLE. PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES. PEOPLE CALL ABOUT PATRIOTISM. CAROLINAS. ALL RIGHT. CHANGING A LOT OF DIAPERS, ERIC TRUMP, THERE HE IS, DIAPER DUTY 24-7.

Why Humanity Destroyed Itself


One day, if human civilisation ever wipes itself out, aliens or one of our successors will cast an eye on our ruined planet, and ask themselves what ever happened to. Their answer might look a little like this. The root cause won’t be the specific catastrophe, conflict or devastation that eradicates us; the problem will begin with the architecture of the human brain. This tool will be remembered for being, in part, deeply impressive, containing a 100 billion neurons capable of extraordinary computations and combinations. As aliens will note, a particular part of the mind where our most dazzling thoughts unfolded was known to neuroscientists as the neocortex; a part that in humans was many times larger than that found in any other species. This is what helped the hugely clever ape to produce The Magic Flute, Anna Karenina, Concorde and civilisation. However, our alien friends will also note that the human mind contained another component, very influential but far less impressive, known as the reptilian brain (an aggressive lustful impulsive
section of machinery), with a great deal more in common with what might be found in a hyena or a small rodent. Because of this reptilian brainended up with three grave problems: Firstly, tribalism. Humans were always on the verge of developing violent hatreds of foreigners and manifested strong ongoing tendencies to slaughter strangers in vast numbers. They could never reliably see the humanity in all members of their own kind. Secondly,was fatefully prone to short-term thinking. Even when confronted by data, it could only imagine the near-term future, a few years at best, viewing the long-term as a chimerical and unreal state. Its immediate impulses were left uncontained and worked to destroy its individual and collective future. Lastly,had an especially keen fondness for wishful thinking. Though capable of immense intellectual achievement, its mind hated to reflect on itself, it couldn’t bear to submit its ideas to rational scrutiny, it preferred to act rather than think and daydream rather than plan. Having invented the scientific method, it preferred, in most cases, to not to use it. It had a narcotic desire for distraction and fantasy. It didn’t want to know itself. For many generations, these three flaws were more or less endured. Certain institutions were invented to attenuate them: the law, sound government, education, philosophy, science. It worked, sort of. Humans did keep wiping out swathes of their fellows, but they didn’t scupper the species as a whole. What caused the ultimate destruction was the increasing yet untrammelled power of the neocortex. This mighty tool eventually managed to capture fire, contain the elements, and givea godlike power over the planet, while the animal overall still operated with reflexes as serene and gentle as those of a hyena. The cost of its mistakes grew ever larger, its powers became uncontained while its wisdom remained intermittent and fragile. Eventually, its might outpaced its capacity for self-control; it became a nuclear armed rodent. There was one thing that might have saved humanity: love. And three varieties of love in particular: Firstly, the love of the stranger; the capacity to see the other as like oneself and worthy of the same mercy and charity. Secondly, the love of the unborn: the concern for those who do not yet exist and whom one will never know but whose lives one is shaping in the selfish present. Thirdly, the love of the truth: the strength to resist illusion and lies and square up to uncomfortable facts of all kinds. We don’t need to be aliens of the future to understand all this. We can see the disaster scenario only too well right now. The fate of civilisation lies ultimately not in the law courts, at the ballot box or in the corridors of governments. It lies in our ability to master the most short-term, selfish and violent of our impulses active in the dense folds of organic matter between our ears; it lies in learning how relentlessly to try to compensate for the flawed architecture of the human mind.

‘The Five’ breaks down 2020 Dems’ extreme climate agendas


♪ ♪>>Jesse: IT’S TIME FOR THE 2020 ROUND UP, IF YOU THOUGHT THAT DEMOCRATS EXTREME CLIMATE AGENDA COULD NOT GET ANY CRAZIER, THINK AGAIN. HERE IS A NEW ONE. IF YOU EAT MEAT OR USE PLASTIC STRAWS, YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR KILLING THE PLANET. SO SAYS MAYOR PETE.>>WE THINK ABOUT IT THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF GUILDS, FROM USING A STRAW TO EATING A BURGER, AM I PART OF THE PROBLEM? IN A CERTAIN WAY, YES, BUT THE MOST EXCITING THING IS WE CAN BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.>>Jesse: SO EXCITING, AND THERE IS NEW YORK CITY’S DISASTROUS MAYOR BILL de BLASIO GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH TUCKER OVER HIS CLIMATE HYPOCRISY.>>HOW CAN YOU TAKE AN SUV TO THE GYM AND BACK EVERY DAY AND SAY THAT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. I KNOW IT IS A PETTY QUESTION.>>IT IS A CHRYSLER PACIFICA. IT IS A PACIFICA. IT IS A HYBRID ELECTRIC, IT IS NOT A GOOD SUV.>>Jesse: BRIAN, IT IS A PACIFICA.>>Brian: BUT THE SUVs THAT FOLLOW HIM, UNBELIEVABLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS SO INTERESTING TO SEE MAYOR de BLASIO. ONE THING I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR IS GOING ON, MAYOR MACK TWO, HE WON SUPPORTERS. I THINK THAT NUMBER THREE WHEN I LOOK BACK AT THE TAPE, I THINK THAT –>>Jesse: YOU WATCH HER PERFORMANCE AFTERWARDS?>>Brian: YES, MOST OF THE TIME I GIVE MYSELF AN A+. AND I EVALUATE MY APPEARANCE. BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT, SEVEN HOURS THAT, THAT MARATHON WAS PROBABLY THE BEST THING THAT HAPPENED TO TRUMP 2020, BY FAR, AND THE PEOPLE THROW THINGS OUT, ALL OF THE CANDIDATES THROW THINGS OUT, AND THEY HAVE NO PLAN TO EXECUTE. WHEN HE WAS PUSHED ON HIS BUYBACK PLAN, THE SECOND THAT HE WAS ASKED HOW YOU WILL DO IT, HE SAID, WE DON’T KNOW HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, BASICALLY SAID THE SAME SIDE, I WALK INTO MY HOUSE AND GO GRAB THE AK-47.>>Jesse: NOT A GREAT PLAN.>>Dagen: I WANT THE LEFTIES TO GET CALLED OUT AS IMMORAL TO REDUCE THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR EVERY AMERICAN BY TRYING TO BAN FOSSIL FUELS IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.>>Jesse: OH, JUAN, THAT IS TOUGH TALK. ARE YOU GOING TO LET THAT STAND?>>Dagen: IT IS IMMORAL.>>Juan: I’M GOING TO GO TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY.>>Brian: MEHR BOOTED TO THE EDGE.>>Juan: IS HERE REVEREND?>>Jesse: HE TALKS TO GOD.>>Juan: IF WE CAN LIMIT CONSUMPTION, WE CAN LIMIT GENERATING THE CARBON DEATHS THAT GO INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. I DON’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, I JUST DON’T SEE ANY REELS ABOUT THAT FROM THE RIGHT, AND THEN THE LEFT SAYS, YOU ARE TRYING TO CONTROL ME, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RAISING ASTOUNDING AMOUNTS OF MONEY, BUY A TRUMP STRAW, THAT IS HIS IDEA?>>Jesse: IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS AN IDEA. SOMETIMES THEY ARE DUMB IDEAS. AND YOU ARE FULL OF DUMB IDEAS. MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY GOES VEGETARIAN.>>Juan: THE WORST IDEA IS NO IDEA.>>Emily: ALSO HALF OF IT IS THE DELIVERY, WHEN YOU HAND THINGS OVER, I’M GOING TO RETALIATE BY EATING TEN BURGERS. AND A POSTER CHILD FOR THE HOLLYWOOD ELITIST DOUBLE STANDARD, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY I WILL GIVE LIP SERVICE TO ALL OF THESE IDEAS BUT I WILL CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR ME AND EVERYTHING IN MY WORLD.>>Dagen: AND THE CO2 EMISSIONS, WE HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB THAN ANY NATION IN THE WORLD QUITE FRANKLY. WE ARE BACK TO THE ’85 LEVEL.>>Juan: WE ARE THE RICHEST –>>Dagen: SO STOP TALKING LIKE WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.>>Jesse: UP NEXT, WINNING A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, SOME DEMOCRATS ARE BEING FURIOUS AFTER BEING CUT FROM NEXT WEEK’S DEBATE AND RIPPING THE DNC OVER THE PROCESS.>>SETTING THIS REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO BE POPULAR OR FAMOUS IF YOU ARE QUALIFIED, TO ME THAT DOES A DISSERVICE TO VOTERS. SO, I THINK THAT WE CAN RAISE OUR VOICES TO CALL IN THE DNC TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND REASSESS HOW THEY ARE CHOOSING WHICH POLES THEY ARE USING.>>NO ONE HAS RUN A POLL OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMUNITY WOULD ACCEPT FOR FIVE WEEKS. I DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING.>>Jesse: SO JUAN, SORE LOSERS, COMPLAINERS?>>Juan: THEY HAVE NO POINT. THE DNC HAS BEEN TRANSPARENT. THE RULES WERE SET. YOU HAD TO GET THIS NUMBER, I THINK IT WAS 130,000 SMALL DONORS, YOU HAD TO REACH 2%, I DON’T GET IT. BUT MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT, THEY DON’T HAVE A COMPLAINT. AND THE PEOPLE WHO REMAIN, THEY ARE STILL IN LOOKING TO TRY TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO GET IN THE OCTOBER DEBATE. I THINK THAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING.>>Jesse: JUST LIKE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, DON’T COMPLAIN AFTER.>>Juan: LET’S CHANGE THE RULES. [LAUGHTER]>>Emily: IT IS IRONIC THAT THE BILLIONAIRE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS IS COMPLAINING THAT HE CAN’T BUY HIS WAY ONTO THE DNC DEBATE STAGE.>>Dagen: $320,000 A DAY, ON THE RETIREMENT. HE DOES NOT CONTROL POLITICS.>>Brian: WITH THE TIME THAT I HAVE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS, THE TOASTED GABBERT, SHE COULD’VE GOT IN A MUGGLE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE CRITERIA OF THE FINAL TWO WEEKS, AND SHE GOT STATIONED IN INDONESIA. I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD SAY, CLEARLY YOU ARE COMPETENT, YOU HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS. YOU WERE ON A ROLL, IF YOU HAVE TO SERVER TWO WEEKS, I WOULD SAY IF I WAS COMPETING WITH HER, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE BLOWING THIS.>>Jesse: THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE AN EXCEPTION.>>Juan: I DON’T KNOW, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CRANKY BABY.>>Jesse: WE ALL KNOW, BERNIE SANDERS, A LITTLE BIT OF A CROTCHETY SOCIALIST GUY, BUT HE IS TAKING THINGS TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL, WATCH.>>I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO CUT YOUR PILLS IN HALF YOURSELF? OKAY. WE CAN KEEP THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. [LAUGHTER]>>Jesse: HE IS 100% RIGHT.>>Brian: YOU CANNOT BRING A SCREAMING BABY TO A POLITICAL EVENT. HE IS TRYING TO BE PRESIDENT.>>Jesse: YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO KISS THAT BABY.>>Brian: QUITE DOWN, SHE HAS TO CUT HER PILLS IN HALF.>>Dagen: I WANT THAT DUDE TO BE MY SIDEKICK AT EVERY RESTAURANT I GO TO.>>Jesse: THE BABY OR BERNIE?>>Dagen: BERNIE.>>Juan: HE IS NOT A I FEEL YOUR PAIN TYPE OF GUY. THIS IS SO RUDE. I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT IT.>>Jesse: STICK A PACIFIER IN HIS MOUTH.>>Emily: HE IS SUCH AN EBENEZER, WHEN IS HE GOING TO STOP BEING THE FACE OF FORWARD PROGRESSION. IT WAS NOT EVEN 30 SECONDS, IT WAS INSTANT THAT HE WAS LIKE —

‘Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly’: Key moments from Obama’s Mandela lecture


And a politics of fear and resentment
and retrenchment began to appear, and that kind of politics
is now on the move. It’s on the move at a pace that
would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago.
I am not being alarmist, I am simply stating the facts. Look around. Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly,
whereby elections and some pretence of democracy are maintained – the form
of it – but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm
that gives democracy meaning. In the West, you’ve got far-right parties
that oftentimes are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders,
but also on barely hidden racial nationalism. The free press is under attack. Censorship
and state control of media is on the rise. Social media – once seen as a mechanism
to promote knowledge and understanding and solidarity – has proved to be
just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda
and conspiracy theories. In fact, it is in part because of the failures
of governments and powerful elites to squarely address the shortcomings and contradictions
of this international order that we now see much of the world threatening to return to
an older, a more dangerous, a more brutal way of doing business. But he believed, as I believe, that you can
be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage. In fact,
you dishonor your heritage. It would make me think that you’re
a little insecure about your heritage if you’ve got to put somebody else’s
heritage down. Yeah, that’s right. That these people who are so intent
on putting people down and puffing themselves up that they’re small-hearted,
that there’s something they’re just afraid of. We have to actually believe
in an objective reality. This is another one of these things
that I didn’t think I had to lecture about. You have to believe in facts. Without facts,
there is no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and
you say this is an elephant, it’s going to be hard
for us to cooperate. I can’t find common ground if somebody
says climate change is just not happening, when almost all of the
world’s scientists tell us it is. I don’t know where to start talking to you
about this. If you start saying it’s an elaborate hoax, I don’t know what to
– where do we start? Unfortunately, too much of politics today
seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up.
They just make stuff up. We see it in the growth of state-sponsored propaganda;
we see it in internet driven fabrications, we see it in the blurring of lines between
news and entertainment, we see the utter loss of shame
among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just
double down and they lie some more. Look, let me say … Politicians have always lied, but it
used to be if you caught them lying they’d be like, “Oh man.”
Now they just keep on lying. They just …

Al Gore On The Democratic Party And Money In Politics


WE TALKED WITH SOME OF THE
ISSUES ñ CLIMATE CHANGE, SINGLE-PAYER ñ I READ AN ARTICLE
THE OTHER DAY, THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS ARE BACK, AND THEY ARE
SAYING LET’S GO TO CENTER, AND THAT’S WHY THEY ARE LOSING. AND THEY ARE LOSING, THEY’VE
LOST THE WHITE HOUSE, THE SENATE, CONGRESS, THE SUPREME
COURT, AND A HOST OF LEGISLATURES. THEN THERE IS THE PROGRESSIVES
WHO ARE SAYING LET’S FIGHT FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN, AND GO
STRONGER IN THAT DIRECTION. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT? WHAT DIRECTION DO THEY GO IN? YOU KNOW, WHEN I RAN THE LAST
TIME FOR PRESIDENT, MY SLOGAN WAS, FOR THE PEOPLE NOT
THE POWERFUL. A LOT OF PEOPLE CRITICIZED THAT
AS LEANING TOO FAR TOWARD THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE, BUT IT JUST
SEEMS TO ME, WITH RISING INEQUALITY IN INCOMES, AND
NETWORKS, AND ALSO THE INEQUALITY OF POLITICAL POWER ñ
OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN HACKED BY BIG MONEY, LONG BEFORE THE
RUSSIANS HACKED IT ñ AND WE NEED TO WRITE THE SHIP. WE NEED TO RESTORE AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY, AND I THINK THE WAY TO DO IT IS TO REALLY GO TO THE
PEOPLE AND SAY, WE ARE FOR YOU, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BEND TO
THE WILL OF THESE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL POBAH’S. YOU KNOW, BERNIE SANDERS
CAMPAIGN, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HIS MESSAGE OR NOT, HIS
AGENDA, JUST LOOKING AT THE MECHANICS OF IT, HERE, SOMETHING
THAT IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT, BEYOND POLITICS AND IDEOLOGY. HE PROVED THAT IT NOW AS
POSSIBLE, IN 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, TO RUN A VERY
SUCCESSFUL, POTENTIALLY WINNING CAMPAIGN, WITHOUT TAKING ANY
SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY, ANY FATCAT CONTRIBUTIONS. JUST GOING OUT ON THE INTERNET
AND TRYING TO MOTIVATE THE AVERAGE CITIZENS OF THIS
COUNTRY TO FINANCE THE CAMPAIGN WITH SMALL DONATIONS. THAT’S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, AND
I THINK THAT THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE NOW EVOLVED TO
THE POINT WHERE THAT REALLY IS POSSIBLE, AND THAT POSSIBILITY
GIVES ME TREMENDOUS HOPE THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO REKINDLE THE
SPIRIT OF AMERICA, AND REINVIGORATE THE WAY OUR
DEMOCRACY IS INTENDED TO OPERATE. AND THAT’S BEST DONE BY GOING TO
THE PEOPLE WITH SOLUTIONS THAT SPEAK TO THEM, AND DON’T, YOU
KNOW, BEND OVER TO BE SO CAREFUL WITH ALL THESE POWERFUL
SPECIAL INTERESTS. CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, THE
FIRST BILL YOU EVER INTRODUCED WAS ABOUT GETTING
MONEY OUT OF POLITICS? YEAH. I MEAN, EVERY TIME I ñ
WHEN I WAS ñ ALLEGEDLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION TO HAVE 100% FEDERAL FUNDING OF ALL FEDERAL
ELECTIONS. WAS PART OF THE PLATFORM IN
EVERY CAMPAIGN I RAN IN THE HOUSE, AND THE SENATE, BOTH
TIMES I RAN FOR PRESIDENT. I WAS NEVER REALLY ATTACKED ON
IT, CENK, BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T GET PEOPLE TO BELIEVE
THAT I WOULD POSE SUCH A THING, BUT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT
THAT’S ONE OF THE SECRETS. NOW, IT’S HARD TO GET SOMETHING
LIKE THAT PASSED, I’M NOT NAœVE ABOUT IT, BUT I REALLY DO THINK
THAT GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS IS ABSOLUTELY
ESSENTIAL TO SAVE THE AMERICA THAT WE KNOW AND LOVE. I THOUGHT I WAS EARLY ON IT, BUT
YOU INTRODUCE THAT BILL WHEN? 1977. SO, YOU MIGHT HAVE FIGURED OUT
THINGS A LITTLE QUICKER, THEN NOT ONLY ME BUT THE REST OF THEM
ñ ON A LOT OLDER. SO, CLIMATE CHANGE, MONEY IN
POLITICS, ALL THESE ISSUES, YOU WERE WAY OUT AHEAD. I HOPE THAT PEOPLE LEARN FROM
THAT. AND ONE LAST THING, AS I WATCH
THE MOVIE, THIS IS FOR YOU GUYS, I KEPT THINKING, HOW MAY
TIMES DOES A GUY HAVE TO BE PROVED RIGHT BEFORE I LISTEN TO
HIM? DID I MENTION THE WEBSITE? INCONVENIENTSEQUEL.COM. YOU CAN BUY ADVANCED TICKETS. IT OPENS IN LOS ANGELES
TOMORROW, AND IN NEW YORK. AND A WEEK FROM TOMORROW IT
OPENS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND YOU’VE GOT VIEWERS ALL
ACROSS THE WORLD; THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO BE PLAYING IN COUNTRIES
ALL AROUND THE WORLD, AND USE YOUR VOICE, USE YOUR VOTE, USE
YOUR CHOICES IN LIFE, BE A PART OF THE SOLUTIONS, AND GO AND SEE
THIS MOVIE: AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL, TRUTH OF POWER. THE OTHER THING IS, GET
INVOLVED. CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT. AND THE FIRST THING IN GETTING
INVOLVED IS BEING AWARE IS ñ AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. IF YOU DIDN’T SEE INCONVENIENT
TRUTH, GOES THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH, AND THEN GO SEE
INCONVENIENT SEQUEL. IT IS STARK. PEOPLE COME AWAY HOPEFUL.