Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour and Company. Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: She’s probably a better negotiator than I am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Day two of Trump’s state visit to Britain, the politics after the pomp. As protesters take to the streets and the president enters talks
with the British prime minister, we’re joined by Trump confidante, Chris Ruddy, as well as Vince Cable, leader of the U.K.’s Liberal Democrats.
Then, as the climate crisis deepens, why is the White House trying to tamper with the science? Award-winning climate scientist, Katharine
Hayhoe, and Republican climate ally, Bob Inglis, are on the program.
Plus —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WYATT CENAC, HOST, HBO’S “PROBLEM AREAS”: If you could remake public education in this country, how would you do it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The comic diving into America’s problem areas, Daily Show alumnus talks to our Michel Martin.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
It is day two of the Trump state visit to Britain, and after the opulent state dinner at the palace, focus shifted to politics and some protests.
The day kicked off with a rare breakfast meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May and key British and American business leaders, then a press
conference where both leaders made clear the special relationship is strong and secure. With Prime Minister May citing the 75th anniversary of the D-
Day landings that are going to be commemorated this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: And as we look to the future, in the years and in the generations ahead, we will continue to work together to
preserve the alliance that is the bedrock of our shared prosperity and security. Just as it was on the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
President Trump echoed those sentiments and he also will attend to commemorations in Normandy. He also made news at that press conference for
people at home and in Mexico when he doubled down on threats to slap Mexico with tariffs over immigration. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mexico shouldn’t allow millions of people to try and enter our country, and they could stop it very quickly. And I think they will. And
if they won’t, we’re going to put tariffs on. And every month those tariffs go from 5 percent to 10 percent to 15 percent to 20 percent and
then to 25 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there is a lot to discuss and joining me now is the trusted Trump confidante, Chris Ruddy, who is CEO of the conservative Newsmax
Media. He was at the state dinner last night and he joins me now to talk about this and other things.
CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEWSMAX MEDIA INC.: Great to be here with you.
AMANPOUR: And it’s good to have you back on the program because you are our Trump whisperer. You are a confidante and you can tell us what is
going through, not just his mind but how he’s coping, dealing, enjoying or not this state visit. So, the state visit.
RUDDY: I don’t have to speak for him. He’ll let you know. Believe me, this guy — I was watching some of the B-roll here in the film and he’s a
tough guy the but he’s also honest and candid.
People forget, especially in this country, I have to keep reminding them, we’ve never had a president that was not an elected politician or a
general. So, this man did it his own way, became very successful in all sorts of things, not just business, the entertainment field and then
politics, he went into that two or three years ago, nobody thought he would win, he’s president of the United States.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, what was the banquet like? And I’m going to play a few soundbites, because they were meaningful from the queen obviously and from
Trump in response. But what was the atmosphere like? I mean, you were seated there.
RUDDY: Well, I think it was felt historic. It felt regal. Everybody was just overawed. I was sitting next to Sarah Sanders. I was sitting next to
the police commissioner here from —
AMANPOUR: Cressida Dick. Yes, she’s amazing.
RUDDY: Yes. And she’s a tremendous lady and I think keeps our city safe here. But I was — I just — the crowd, I think, was in awe. I think the
president is not easily awed. I’ve seen him in circumstances over 20 years and he and Melania, I think, were blown away by the spectacular pomp and
circumstance, but I think what I really saw was the respect he had for the queen. I talked to them both as I was coming in and I could see the
president was very deferential to her and thinks very highly of him.
So, I think the relationship between Britain and the United States remains very strong. You know, people say the president’s upset the queen made
this reference about alliances. The truth is, the president has a beef with Germany. That’s (INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: OK. But before he has a beef and before we talk about beef —
RUDDY: Sure.
AMANPOUR: — let us play this little bit of the —
RUDDY: Sure.
AMANPOUR: queen’s speech when she gave her toast welcoming him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUEEN ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF BRITAIN: After the shared sacrifices of the Second World War, Britain and the United States worked with other allies to
build an assembly of international institutions, to ensure that the horrors of conflict would never be repeated. While the world has changed, we are
forever mindful of the original purpose of these structures. Nations [13:05:00] working together to safeguard a hard-won peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And in that picture, we see Jared Kushner, the president’s son- in-law, sitting next to Princess Anne, the queen’s only daughter. But so, describe, have you talked to the president since that? Did he take
exception to this obvious thing that the queen said?
RUDDY: I didn’t talk to him since the speech, but I did talk to him and I spoke to him a couple of times last week. I think he agrees with
everything the queen says. You know, he’s really not against NATO, he’s not against the structures. He really wants to have a special relationship
of all the countries in the world with Britain. His mother is from here. He loves this place. I think he feels an emotional tie that very few
presidents have felt.
But when he looks at Germany and he sees them only spending 1 percent of GDP on the military and when the U.S. is spending 4 percent, Britain’s
living up to its commitment at 2 percent, that really irks him.
When he thinks back, and I know people of his generation, his dad was of that generation, World War II, they look at the D-Day situation and the war
against the Nazis, and they felt that war started, Hitler rose because we were weak, because we didn’t spend the military.
I remember when I — the president came in office, he was talking nonstop about he was going to dramatically increase military spending. He did. I
mean, it was — it’s been way, way up. And he sees this as a way of keeping peace. He is not a man that wants war. If there’s anything
anybody that knows him on a personal level knows he frets about the idea that someday men will die or women under him.
AMANPOUR: Well, it’s interesting you should say that because before I go from this soundbite from the president to the queen in response to her
toast, you say he doesn’t want war. So, can we assume that there won’t be a war between the United States and Iran?
RUDDY: Well, I think the president would view that war as a last resort. I have spoken to him about Iran a number of times and he believes that
regime is out of control, not just with the nuclear weapons but their regionally wreaking havoc with terrorists undermining the situation in
Libya and Syria and so forth. So, he would like to rein them in and he’s making a very tough negotiating tactic, he ripped up the agreement.
I personally think they should have set deadlines in fixing that agreement. But they didn’t and —
AMANPOUR: But is he on site, on page with John Bolton and the whole sort of bellicose rhetoric that comes out of his, you know, his —
RUDDY: I’m not totally privy to all of the internal discussions. You know, I think we have to be careful there’s not a miscalculation because
we’re basically suffocating the Iranians. And when people are suffocated, they do two things, they either die or they lash out.
And so, I think there was a feeling maybe that if we did these sanctions the Iran regime would fold pretty quickly, but they’re not. So, I think
it’s a very delicate, dangerous situation. I think the president has become acutely aware of that recently.
AMANPOUR: It’s really interesting to hear you say that because that is quite sharp analysis of the current state of play. So, let us play what
Trump said about the queen and we’ll discuss more about the special relationship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: From the Second World War to today, her majesty has stood as a constant symbol of these priceless traditions. She has embodied the spirit
of dignity, duty, and patriotism that beats proudly in every British heart.
On behalf of all Americans, I offer a toast to the eternal friendship of our people, the vitality of our nations, and to the long cherished and
truly remarkable reign of her majesty, the queen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it was really very respectful, the whole thing, and very dignified and regal, as you said. Then comes today and in the press
conference, the president was somewhat goaded into talking about the mayor of London with whom he’s had a very rocky relationship for a long time.
They’ve both fired tweets salvos at each other. And of course, he also talked to the people, you know, he’s kind of intervened in domestic
politics because he talked to Boris Johnson and apparently Nigel Farage, he even saw, and these are people who are directly responsible for the fall of
the current prime minister.
So, let’s play what he said about Nigel Farage.
RUDDY: Sure.
AMANPOUR: Sorry, about Sadiq Khan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I think he’s been a not very good mayor from what I understand. He’s done a poor job, crime is up, lot of problems, and I
don’t think he should be criticizing a representative of the United States that can do so much good for the United Kingdom. We talked about it
before. He should be positive, not negative. He’s a negative force, not a positive force, and if you look at what he said, he hurts the people of
this great country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, really, does he need to get down into that level?
RUDDY: His play book is if [13:10:00] somebody hits him, he hits back and harder. But I’ve known him for 20 years. I have never known him to
gratuitously attack somebody without being attacked first. So, the etymology of this dispute with your mayor here, I think if you go back to
previous tweets, it all started with the mayor attacking the president and he responded.
AMANPOUR: I think the mayor was very upset, of course, during the Muslim ban, the first thing the president did.
RUDDY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, you’re right, it goes all the way back to then.
RUDDY: And this is a president who likes to fight back, maybe sometimes punch down. I personally think turning the other cheek and ignoring some
of this riffraff is probably better serving him and the United States.
AMANPOUR: I’m not sure the people of London will appreciate you calling their elected mayor riffraff, nonetheless.
RUDDY: Well, the — let’s say people attacking each other and the name calling and things like that. I didn’t mean to be disrespectful to the
mayor. I don’t want to cast a judgment. But I do think that the president does get into these things. He comes from the mean streets of Queens, New
York. You’re familiar with that. He grew up in an area that was very privileged but it was surrounded by a tough neighborhood, and I think he
learned to survive as a young person that way.
And then the real estate business is very cut throat business. He did very well in casinos. So, he’s a tough guy, he likes to fight back. But you
know what, at the end of the day, we saw it with Kim, he’s moved the needle in North Korea. They’ve stopped the advanced nuclear weapons development.
They’ve stopped the testing of the advanced long-range missiles. This is an achievement he’s not given credit for.
So, — and he played that game really hard and did a lot of nasty, you know, rocket man —
AMANPOUR: That’s right.
RUDDY: — and all sorts of things —
AMANPOUR: That’s right.
RUDDY: — where he would always say to me, he said he’s a different type of guy, I had to act about him differently. Treat him differently.
AMANPOUR: We will have to talk about North Korea another time because that is slightly on the edge. I mean, it’s not a match made in heaven.
RUDDY: Everything with Donald Trump’s on the edge and he loves it that way.
AMANPOUR: All right, Chris Ruddy, well, in that case, thank you very much. We’ll discuss that with our next guest, Vince Cable.
So, the president did, in fact, speak to one of the prime ministerial hopefuls, as I mentioned, the Brexiteer, Boris Johnson. He also did meet
with the Brexit party leader, Nigel Farage, at the U.S. ambassador’s residence where he is staying after again saying that Brexit would be good
for Britain. This is what he said in that press conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Yes, I would think that it will happen and it probably should happen. This is a great, great country and it wants its own identity. It
wants to have its own borders. It wants to run its own affairs. This is a very, very special place, and I think it deserves a special place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, while a large chunk of British society, of course, agrees with the president on this, another part of the country doesn’t. It was a
point proven by an outpouring of pro-E.U. support in Britain’s European elections last month, which saw the strongly anti-Brexit Liberal Democrat
party surge into second place behind Farage’s Brexit party.
And Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, joins me now from outside the Houses of Parliament to give us his view of this visit.
So, Vince Cable, welcome to the program.
I guess what I first want to ask you is you must have heard some of that Chris Ruddy was saying, talking about the president’s deep respect for this
country, for the queen, for the special relationship. You chose not to go to the state banquet last night. You and also the leader of the opposition
labor party, Jeremy Corbyn. Why not?
VINCE CABLE, LEADER, BRITISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: Well, I have no problem with having businesslike conversations with this American president or any
other and what I thought was completely inappropriate, unnecessary, was rolling out the red carpet with this massive amount of pageantry for
somebody who is acting in a way that is very often contrary to British interests and that you had mentioned him openly intervening in our affairs,
taking sides not just on the Brexit dispute but on who should be leader of the governing party, taking the side of an extreme pro-Brexit party.
I mean, this — you know, we’re not a satellite, you know, we’re not a vassal state and I think the best way of showing some respect is if Mr.
Trump didn’t lead with those issues in those ways. I felt there was no justification for attending the banquet. I’ve been to others. It is an
honor. But on this occasion, I thought it was not an appropriate event.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you because you just criticized and many have a U.S. President or any other foreign leader here on a state visit, directly
intervening into the domestic politics. What effect do you think that will have on Brexit, on the kind of way Britain exits the E.U., if, in fact, it
does, I know you believe in a second referendum, and what do you think of Boris Johnson, you know, what kind of effect would he have on Britain going
forward?
CABLE: Well, the basic point about intervening in British politics, I mean, he’s not the first president to do that. President Obama did
[13:15:00], wasn’t a great success. It was counterproductive.
But on the basic question of our relationships with the United States, I mean, the one issue of substance, which is being debated at the present, is
this so-called bilateral trade agreement.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
CABLE: As a British politician, I think this is potentially very bad news. The United States is an important trading partner. I certainly welcome
that. But it cannot remotely compensate for the loss of the much bigger market in Europe. And we’re fooling ourselves if we believe that.
I was also involved in the trans transatlantic discussions with America and the European Union, the so-called TTIP, and it was clear that the
conditions the United States is demanding, there were things like food standards, access to our public services for procurement purposes,
bypassing the courts, I mean, are things that we couldn’t accept.
And indeed, when the European Union was negotiating on our behalf, it was strong enough to say no. And I’m afraid that the British government is in
such a weak position, it’s in danger of capitulating. Trump was very honest about what America would demand.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
CABLE: And I think it’s potentially very damaging, not beneficial to the U.K. at all.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me play that little bit of what he did talk about in terms of what, from his point of view, would be on the table in any
negotiation, including Britain’s much vaunted and, you know, much loved national health system. Let’s play.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Look, I think everything with the trade deal is on the table. When you — when you’re dealing in trade, everything’s on the table. So, NHS or
anything else or a lot more than that. But everything will be on the table, absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, I mean, Vince Cable, you said it, he was very honest, he laid it right out there. Is that something that the British people could
accept? Is it something British leaders could accept? Is it something that a future leader of the Conservative Party should accept?
CABLE: Well, the answers are no, no, and no. No, it’s a red line. It’s absolutely toxic. It won’t happen. And if that is the American
negotiating position, this bilateral agreement will never happen. Probably not a bad thing given all the other baggage associated with it. And I
suspect that even if it were ever negotiated it probably wouldn’t get past Congress because we know the House of Representative has a different
position on the president on a whole lot of issues. So, I think this much vaunted trade agreement is pretty much a dead duck. And it’s the only
issue of substance which is coming out of this visit.
AMANPOUR: And of course, as former business secretary, you obviously have sat around in business negotiations and trade deals. I mean, just for the
heck of it, how would this one go? How long would it take? Is it true what the Brexiteers tell the British people, that — and what Trump said
today, that there is a phenomenal trade deal to be done, we want to do it. How long do these things take?
CABLE: Well, all trade deals take a long time, years, rather than months. It’s not a tremendous deal. The deal we have with the European Union at
the moment is of a very deep relationship. It’s, you know, basic industrial standards are aligned in a way that isn’t and isn’t the case
with the kind of bilateral tariff cutting which is proposed with the United States. It’s a much more substantial relationship.
And we’ve been offered, by comparison, a very weak and relatively unfavorable arrangement. But that isn’t my own concern about the
president’s visit, and the new talk about the common heritage and — during the war, which is something we absolutely respect, the Americans are
traditional allies of the U.K., I am a great believer, I’m pro-American, I value NATO.
But one of the things which the president is threatening is to end the intelligence sharing that has been the centerpiece of our security
relationship and it’s because of a quarrel which he’s chosen to pick with China. Now, you can have different views about that, but the British have
taken an independent assessment about the risks of dealing with Huawei, for example, and we want — we’re an independent country and we want to do
things in our own way and we will not be bullied out of an intelligence sharing arrangement by that kind of politics. It’s very dangerous.
AMANPOUR: So, just to be fair, he was asked about that at the press conference and he said, “I’m sure we’ll work this out.” He would not go
there in terms of cutting intelligence, bilateral intelligence sharing, he paid great tribute to the British intelligence.
CABLE: Well, I hope. Yes.
AMANPOUR: So anyway —
CABLE: Well, I sincerely hope so because it is a very valuable area and he had been threatening or his advisors have been threatening to cut this off,
and [13:20:00] that is just a no-go area.
AMANPOUR: And just on another issue, you did tweet and basically saying, you know, describing this as a nightmare for the U.K., no friend of
Britain, enemy of our values and interests. You talked about climate emergency, destroying WTA trade system, war mongering with China and Iran,
end of special relationship.
Let us talk about the climate energy because a whole group of British scientists urged Theresa May, the prime minister, to bring that up with the
president. You saw your very healthy second place win in the European elections based not only on your Brexit position, which is to remain and
have a second referendum, but also young people wanting action on the climate. That seems to be spreading all over the place. In fact,
including in the United States. Are we at a tipping point, politically, to get some action done on climate, and do we need the U.S. to be behind it?
CABLE: Well, certainly the science suggests we’re at a tipping point. In terms of the politics, it is absolutely crucial that the science is
recognized and acted upon and there are some countries which are taking action. Europe is, I think, leading the way. Britain has a very good
record under both Conservative and Labour and coalition governments, and the United States is absolutely critical.
I mean, I just find it incomprehensible that we have this level of climate change denial when the science is so clear. And if Trump wants to do
something for his legacy, doing a U-turn on this issue and being constructive and supporting the international agreement on climate change
would be a very positive thing for him to do, and I would hope that’s one thing he’s taken away from the U.K.
AMANPOUR: Sir Vince cable, thanks so much for joining us from Parliament – –
CABLE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: — on this day. Thank you for your perspective.
As we just said, Mr. Cable’s party did very well in the European elections because of its anti-Brexit campaign but also because of the party’s stance
on climate change, as we just discussed. That strong message rippled across the E.U. in those elections as the Greens got their best results in
30 years thanks to tireless scientists, alarmed young people and campaigners and activists across the world, like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg
of Sweden who last week was at a climate summit in Austria. She made a powerful plea yet again for urgent action from the grown-ups.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRETA THUNBERG, CLIMATE ACTIVIST: For too long, the people in power have gotten away with basically not doing anything to stop the climate and
ecological breakdown. They have gotten away with stealing our future and selling it for profit. But we young people are waking up and we promise we
will not let you get away with it anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, she is really one of the great activists who’s caused millions of people around the world to do school strikes. And as I said,
Prime Minister May was asked to bring this up with Trump today because if the United States goes backward on climate, it takes the whole world with
it.
So, joining me to discuss, from Texas, is the award-winning atmospheric scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, who was the lead author on the last damning
U.S. National climate assessment, which was released last year, and from South Carolina, we’re joined by the former congressman, Bob Inglis, a
Republican who’s a believer in action that needs to be taken to stop climate change.
So, both of you, welcome to this program.
And we really do want to talk to you from your Conservative perspectives, because this comes at a time when it is the Conservatives in your country
and around the world who need to be convinced of all of this. So, let me first ask you, Bob Inglis, because you’re a politician, what will it take,
do you think, to convince people like Trump, the Trump administration, to listen to what ordinary people are saying with their votes at the ballot
box?
BOB INGLIS (R-SC), FORMER U.S. HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE: I’m not sure what would convince Trump. He’s somebody that doesn’t have many subtle
opinions, I think, on many things. So, perhaps he would be persuaded by just his base becoming aware of the challenge. And for them, though,
there’s a real message and that message is, if you’re a Conservative, it makes sense to address climate change. In fact, the most unconservative
thing to do is to proceed pell-mell in the face of this risk. And so, what we need to do is invite them into this conversation and have them become
the indispensable partners and the indispensable nation to addressing climate change.
AMANPOUR: Congressman, before I turn to Katharine Hayhoe, I just want to ask you, how did you get to this position as a Republican congressman from
South Carolina and what kind of political blowback have you faced?
INGLIS: Well, for six years, my first six [13:25:00] years in Congress, I said climate change was nonsense. I didn’t know anything about it except
that Al Gore was for it. And since I represented a very Conservative district, that was the end of the inquiry.
I admit that’s fairly ignorant now, but then I was out for six years doing commercial real estate law, came back to Congress in ’04. And because of
the love of my son and his sisters, my wife who were encouraging me to act and a trip to Antarctica with the science committee and being inspired by
the faith of an Aussie climate scientist who was living this action of climate change in front of me, those things caused me to see it as real and
to get engaged.
My timing wasn’t good because the tea party was coming on and I got specifically uninvited to the tea party in part because of this climate
heresy that’s not really a heresy.
AMANPOUR: Well, I see Katharine Hayhoe, our scientist, who is smiling and nodding because she has been through a lot of the same.
Katharine Hayhoe, let me first ask you, on the science. You were one of the authors of this incredible national assessment which was released, I
believe, the day after Thanksgiving, what’s known as Black Friday, everyone was going shopping, very few people actually paid attention, but it could
not be sunk because it was so dramatic in its conclusions. Remind us of the science that you and your colleagues in the scientific community warned
about in that assessment.
KATHARINE HAYHOE, ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY: Well, the U.S. National Climate Assessment is currently still the most up to date
assessment of how climate is changing and what its impacts are on us, around the world and in the U.S. The National Climate Assessment
specifically concluded that climate change is already affecting every part of the U.S. and most of its major sectors as well and we’re not responding
fast enough. It documented specific examples in every part of the U.S., things that people could see with their own eyes of ways that we’re being
personally affected today.
AMANPOUR: And it also had a big impact, didn’t it, it calculated the impact on the American economy, not just on clean water and air and all the
other things that are vital but on the economy.
HAYHOE: It did. And actually, when you put it together with the second state of the carbon cycle report which was released also on Black Friday,
those two documents show that economically, if the U.S. Looks over time horizons of between 5 to 20 years, it actually makes sense for the U.S. to
be in the Paris Agreement, simply in terms of dollars and cents alone.
So, can I ask you both, because you’ll weigh in, Katharine Hayhoe, on a scientific — you know, on the scientific part of it and you perhaps, Bob
Inglis, on the political part and the sort of governance part of this, we now know that the administration wants to change the goal posts of how they
measure, how they benchmark this, you know, each four-year national assessment, the impact of the climate.
And we understand that for reasons which you’ll elaborate for us, they want to stop at 2040 and not give any more predictions beyond 2040. Firstly, on
the science, Katharine, why is that significant? Why do they want to stop on 2040?
HAYHOE: Well, the 2040 goal actually came from the director of the USGS. And as part of the National Climate Assessment, the act that made it law
specifically states that the authors of the National Climate Assessment are to look at impacts over 25 to 100 years in the future. So, it’s written
into the law that you can’t do that with the National Climate Assessment.
Why would somebody want to only look at the next 20 years? It’s because if we look at just the next 20 years, we don’t see the outcome of the
decisions we make today. The biggest uncertainty and the magnitude and the severity of the impacts that we will see over the rest of this century and
beyond are the choices that we humans make, especially regarding where we get our energy.
But because of the lag in our socioeconomic systems and the lag in the climate system, the decisions we make today will not be obvious until past
20 years in the future. So, if we cut that information out then we have no information on how our actions today make a huge difference in the future
that we will see ourselves.
AMANPOUR: So, Bob Inglis, what is the political point of this? I mean, this is — this seems to be a willful denial and a hiding and a distorting
of actual science.
INGLIS: Yes, it’s sort of a tantamount to being at the bridge that you know is out and signaling people to go ahead, full speed, go ahead. It’s
fine. Bridge is fine. No, it’s not fine. The bridge is out. And the good news, though, is that I think there are many Republicans and
Conservatives that are standing near that bridge and saying, “Hold up, Mr. Hopper and others at the White House, the bridge is out and we need to give
warning and figure out a way to turn around, turn this thing around.”
[13:30:00]
And so that’s happening, thankfully, because in part, you know, my party lost the House in November because of a climate position in significant
part and suburban districts where people said, we just can’t take this anymore, this denial, disputation of the science, it’s just nuts.
We should be the party of data. We should be the people who say, yes, we accept data and we’ve got policies to fix it and rise to the challenge,
rather than shrinking in science denial.
But it really is bad faith to stand at that bridge and say, full speed ahead.
AMANPOUR: So, congressman, former Congressman, how can you galvanize the people who are still in Congress, in the House, in the Senate on this
issue? Because as you rightly point out, a growing number of Americans, including, as you said, Republicans, believe that climate change is
happening.
It’s a shift in public opinion from what we knew about three years ago, even, and more than a third of millennial Republicans agree that the earth
is warming, mostly due to human activity and that’s compared to 18 percent of older Republicans.
So, look, the demographics are shifting, the votes are there. Is there a way to translate this into political action, Congressman?
INGLIS: Yes, I think so. It’s — basically, what’s happening is a good work of people like Katharine Hayhoe is getting through.
People are hearing it from people that they respect and who share their values. That’s the key for people like Katharine being able to speak to
folks that care. And so that’s one part of it.
The other part, I think, is that just experiences with climate change are teaching us that something’s up and so how that translates into political
action is that when people at home in districts start speaking to their members of Congress at, say, the member of Congress’ barbecue and say, you
know, we really want you to care about climate change, that’s happening.
And as a result, those Republicans, those Conservatives will enter the competition of ideas. And I think that this may be a chance where the
thing that’s going on at the White House is reevaluation could actually be the end, the official end of climate disputation.
AMANPOUR: OK, so that’s —
INGLIS: It’s going to look silly. It’s going to end up looking quite silly.
AMANPOUR: You see that’s really interesting because as our previous speaker, Vince Cable, who is the business secretary and is very pro-green
policies and did very well in the last elections as did many green parties across Europe because of climate, he was saying this could be President
Trump’s legacy to reverse the skepticism and get in at the, not ground floor, but get in on the data revolution, the political revolution, and the
economic revolution and possibilities that lie ahead.
I mean, a new report out today says, and it is incredible, world’s biggest firms say that climate change could cost a total loss of $1 trillion so it
even makes business sense. Again, I mean, you know, you’re in this political game, former Congressman. How do you shift and change the dial
on this?
INGLIS: Well, of course, we at Republicen.org would welcome Donald Trump to this effort because people can change. I disputed climate change for
six years in Congress and then had some experiences that taught me things, able to listen to people like Katharine Hayhoe now and learn more and as a
result get engaged.
And so if that happens for Donald Trump, that’s great. The key is to get his supporters, and that’s what we focus on at republicen.org is
politicians respond to their supporters.
AMANPOUR: That’s exactly right. Congressman, I know you have to fly. You’ve got another meeting. I want to continue the scientific discussion
with Katharine Hayhoe because I also know that both of you are religious, both of you are conservative.
And you, Katharine Hayhoe, and your husband who’s a pastor have already tried to take on the issue in terms of people and the constituents and
their interests and their, you know, their existential fears at the moment. How do you do it?
HAYHOE: Well, we often assume that people don’t care about climate change because they don’t have the right values. So our communication is aimed at
trying to instill the right values into people.
But if people are past the age of about 10 or 12, they already have their value system pretty much set up. And [13:35:00] what I have discovered is
really kind of revolutionary, although it sounds very simple.
Just about every single human already has the values they need to care about climate change, they just haven’t connected the dots. So the most
effective way to motivate people to care and to vote about climate change is to connect the dots between what they already hold dear and how that is
affected by a changing climate.
So, people who care about the economy would be affected by the business reports you just talked about. People who care about national security,
there’s so much to unpack there about how climate change affects national security.
But for those of us, the more than 80 percent around the world who identify with a specific faith tradition, a lot of our values, what’s in our heart,
is written by what we believe to be true. And as Christians, we believe that God gave us responsibility over this amazing planet that he gifted to
us.
We also believe that we are to care for those who are less fortunate than us. The poor and the vulnerable in this world who not coincidentally are
the very people who are most and disproportionately affected by the impacts of a changing climate.
AMANPOUR: So amongst that faith community, is the needle moving?
HAYHOE: It is, especially among younger people. There are evangelical leaders in the United States and around the world who are speaking out very
forcefully and boldly on this issue.
For example, there’s an organization called “Young Evangelicals for Climate Action” in the U.S. that has over 20,000 members under the age of 30,
around the U.S. And when I went to the Paris Agreement or the Paris Climate Conference, one of the people I met there was the secretary general
for the World Evangelical Alliance, Efraim Tendero, who was there as an official delegate for his country, the Philippines.
AMANPOUR: It is really fascinating but now, of course, when you get to a government level, you’ve got special interests and this administration is
very, very interested in the fossil fuel industry, in business, and in all the rest of it.
So, here is what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said about the melting of the Arctic Circle. and, of course, we know that that’s a lot due, if not
all due, to climate change and he saw business opportunities there. This is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade. This could potentially
slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic Sea lines could come the 21st Century Suez and Panama
Canals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, what do you say to that? How do you fight back against that kind of rationale from those who don’t want to, you know,
tackle this issue?
HAYHOE: I would say that that’s similar to saying, well, the benefits of lung cancer is that I lost a bit of weight.
AMANPOUR: OK.
HAYHOE: The reality is, is that — yes. There are five arguments that people use to delay climate action, and we often feel a little bit
encouraged when they transition from one to the other. But each one of them is aimed at the same goal.
So first of all, some of the same people would say, it isn’t real, you scientists are making it up, you’re lying. Then the second thing that we
say is, well, we don’t know that it’s humans, maybe it’s volcanos or a natural cycle as if we haven’t already looked at those and we know they
can’t be causing the warming.
Then they’ll say, number three, it isn’t bad, in fact, it’s probably good for us, CO2 is plant food, a warmer world is better.
What they don’t recognize is that our human civilization developed during a very narrow climatic window that was perfectly suited and we are perfectly
adapted to. Our agriculture, our water, our infrastructure is built for that climate.
When we’re looking at sea level rise of a meter or more this century, the reason we care is because two-thirds of the world’s biggest cities are
located within that meter. So, to say, oh, it would be great that we could travel faster in a warmer world.
Well, that warmer world will have lost, as you just said, more than $1 trillion worth of value, there will be hundreds of millions of people
potentially displaced due to rising seas, there will be incredible impacts on our health, our welfare, our food, our water, and more. Everything that
makes our life worthwhile is being affected by a changing climate.
AMANPOUR: And Katharine Hayhoe, thank you very much, and people are voting with their feet right now. Young people all over the Democratic world are
paying attention to this.
So while a growing number of Americans say they’re worried about climate change and do want to fix it, it’s issues like healthcare and poverty that
dominate their daily lives.
Wyatt Cenac is a comedian and a writer who made his name as a correspondent on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Now, he hosts “HBO’s” Problem Areas.
It’s a series that explores the nation’s most pressing issues through a satirical lens.
This season, the show is tackling inequality in education and Cenac has traveled across the country to hear from everyday people about how the
current system impacts them. And he sat down with [13:40:00] our Michel Martin to discuss what he learned.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: I know what your show is called, but what do you call it? How do you think of it? Like — because it’s — I was
trying to figure out how to describe it for people who haven’t already seen it.
WYATT CENAC, HOST, HBO PROBLEM AREAS: If I were to describe the show, I would say that what we’re doing is trying to take one topic and really look
at it in a much more localized way across a season and take like a big thing that has been part of a national conversation of the first season, it
was policing in America.
This season, it’s been education. And how do you take something like that and actually give it, week to week, life and traveling around the country,
talking to people who are not just impacted by these things but also trying to create models or pathways that could be replicable and bring about some
kind of change?
MARTIN: Why education for the second season?
CENAC: A free public education has been a hallmark of this country. And what’s interesting about education is that it is — while it is a, you
know, while we think of it as a right, it isn’t a guaranteed thing.
There is no federal mandate that we must educate children in this country. And if there’s anything, there are state requirements that say, like, we
will adequately educate a child.
And what you see when you go into a city and even thinking about a city like New York where you are seeing these lotteries for these high
performing high schools in the same city where you see schools that are underfunded and under-resourced and crumbling.
And for me, there’s this question of, how do these two things both qualify as the definition of adequate? And why does education become some sort of
Scarlet letter lottery system that it becomes a lifeline for some people and it’s ostensibly teenage daycare for others?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was failing badly. I would skip school to smoke weed, hang out. The other thing was I got shot in both my legs in a drive-
by so I was out of school but the teachers supported me through.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was one of our IB students and he was one of the ones that really was talking about, man, is this going to be for us, Mr.
Chappell? Are you sure we going to be able to do this?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dajan was selected among nine other students to go to the IB World Student Conference and has students from all over the world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We went to Montreal, Canada and it was amazing. It was very life changing and stuff like that to be able to have experience and,
like, see what other people’s like.
I was actually scared to tell everybody my background story because I was like, I’m just a wannabe gang banger over here. But these really positive
people, it changed my life. They put a lot of sweat and tears into many and other kids.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: What was the story you wanted to tell with that segment?
CENAC: So to me, the story I wanted to tell was, looking at a school like that, that these parents worked incredibly hard to save this school, now
you see the students working incredibly hard to advocate for themselves and they actually advocated for free bus passes for all students so that they
could get to school.
And they did it not just for their school but for all the schools and you see them doing this and fighting for these things in a city like Seattle
that has so much wealth and a city that you see companies like Amazon and Microsoft and they have developed this city where you’re seeing skyscrapers
go up but you have a housing crisis.
And one of the teachers who is a Seattle teacher that we interviewed, talked about how he, at his high school, there were over a hundred kids
that were homeless. And it’s like, you have a city that has a housing crisis and what you see is companies like Amazon actually bristling against
taxes, raising taxes on them as a company to help create affordable housing that could be used by the families of these homeless kids so that they
would actually have a home and not have to bounce around or do whatever and miss out on educational opportunities.
And so if you’re not recognizing that, like, right, we need to make sure that there’s an equity that exists for all of the kids in this city, then
we are not as [13:45:00] progressive as we might hold ourselves up to be and we are not doing a true service to our city.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is my she shed. I love it out here.
I can think and I can create. And you know, if I’m mad, I can yell and scream and nobody’s going to hear me.
CENAC: Right. You prefer the she shed to the herage or the basewoment?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, yes. Out of high school, I got married and divorced and I became a single mom.
And I went to Maytag. I worked there for like 20 years. Most of our parents worked at Maytag and then it was just like if you don’t get a
degree and go somewhere else to do something different, you just go to Maytag.
You’re there for life. And then if you ask anybody in Newton, anybody, at that time that Maytag was going to shut down one day, they — we all said,
oh, you’re crazy, that’s never, ever going to happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CENAC: In that clip, we were interested in spending a season on education. One thing that kind of kept coming up over and over again was automation
and just how there are people who are currently in the eye of the storm of automation as their jobs that they depended on and that you were told were,
you know, a good middle-class job that you could have — you could work for 30, 40 years and cruise into a pension and buy a house.
For a lot of those workers, they’re not being displaced. And so I think in thinking about education, part of the conversation to me was, well, for
those workers, what — like, how do they then get educated for the next job and is the next job something that they can trust to have for the next 20
years? Or is it something that, in another three years, they’re going to be right back where they were?
MARTIN: I wonder if your goal in finding this guest is in part to say, you know what? I’m a black dude, but I can see you and I care about what — I
care about you too.
CENAC: I think on some level, yes. And then I think on some level, it’s that I’m curious.
I’m curious to know your story. And just to hear someone like her speak about, right, these were jobs that you felt like you could trust that these
jobs were going to be there forever.
And what — you know, to me, it feels like, oh, that’s interesting to hear you say that because, one, your story’s not that unique from, you know, the
many black and brown teachers who had jobs — who took teaching jobs in the ’60s and ’70s, thinking they would have these jobs for a long period of
time. And then sort of in the wake of desegregation, often times, they were the first people to lose jobs.
And they — and so it’s like, oh yes, your story’s not that different from so many other working people who took a job thinking, I want to buy a
house, I want to be able to take care of my family and I want to trust that I have this job.
And right, as society, as any of these changes happen economically like we’ve put so much of our focus into how do we achieve economically that
we’ve not put it into how do we achieve humanely.
MARTIN: People know you as a comedian but it is a journalistic enterprise, right? I mean it’s about — well, comedy’s also about truth too in its own
way, isn’t it?
CENAC: Agreed. And I think that’s always been part of the DNA of comedy, that, you know, whether you’re talking about comedians like Dick Gregory or
Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, who got on stage and talked about the news of the day or social issues or talked about somebody like
Joan Rivers who was one of the first female comedians to enter into a world and just that as a political act of, like, you’re entertaining an audience
of primarily men and trying to get them to see and pay attention to issues that impact you as a woman and going then even further back and thinking
about, like, political cartoons.
And so there has always been this element of a truth that exists and using comedy to kind of get people to engage with those truths in different ways.
It’s just the next evolution of, right, how can — what new medium can we use to engage people with topics in a funny way?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve milked cows for eight years, day in through day out. It is exhausting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When Justin and I first met, sometimes that was the way to spend more time with him was to assist in the milking parlor.
CENAC: That was a date? Hey, you know —
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn’t consider it a date.
CENAC: I mean it’s a cheap date.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Being a small farm, that’s very challenging these days, just trying to survive, keep the generations going.
Because these big farms, the day-to-day cost are a lot cheaper for them than we are. So that’s very challenging. And it’s like if we’re
going to raise a family and milk cows, we have to figure out a different way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: I want you to talk about your first season. Your first season, you focused on — you were calling it restorative justice. I want to call
it policing, broadly defined if that’s —
CENAC: The whole season was policing.
MARTIN: Policing.
CENAC: But we had one episode that just focused on restorative justice.
MARTIN: Right. Well, it focused on kind of the whole ecosystem of policing. And I don’t want to glide past the fact that you are yourself a
person whose life was marked by a crime. Your dad was killed in a, I guess it was robbery, murder —
CENAC: Yes. He was a New York City cab driver.
MARTIN: He was a cab driver and he was murdered —
CENAC: Yes, a teenager.
MARTIN: — by a teenager, right? And that has to have had a profound effect on your life.
CENAC: It has. It has. I mean I think it’s what was interesting to me in my life was later in life I got to actually see my father’s police file and
I got to see the actual person who, like, I saw the name, I saw the face, I saw — OK, this guy was a teenager and now he is an adult who has been in
and out of the criminal justice system for — from his teenage years to his adult years.
And that — murdering my father was at least based on his record the most violent, terrible thing he did and he did it as a teenager. And that is
not to absolve him of it but what’s interesting is for me, everything else in his life that he was arrested for seemed like petty theft or it was,
like, intent to sell.
And for me, looking at that, what I find myself thinking is, like, here’s what’s so messed up about the criminal justice system. The criminal
justice system has said, OK, you have served your time and we say you’ve served your time and you’ve done your debt to society and to me and my
family.
And now you are free to go about your life in the world. But you’re not actually free because you can’t really get a job because most people aren’t
going to hire you.
You’re going to have trouble getting an apartment or trying to buy a home. You’re probably not going to be able to leave the city or state for
opportunities because that’s going to be a challenge.
You maybe didn’t get an education while you were in prison to now as an adult be able to even enter the job market. So what are you going to do?
You’re more than likely going to find yourself doing things like trying to sell drugs or — like it is sending you back into a sort of criminal world.
And to me, I think there was a part of it that’s like, look, this guy did something heinous and the hope would be, if he’s truly paying his debt to
society, that the rest of his life would be working towards making the world better than the moment he made it terrible.
MARTIN: I understand your point and I appreciate it. I was actually thinking more about the you in that and how that experience informs the way
you look at these things.
CENAC: Sure.
MARTIN: Because I could easily see where this happened to you, your father was taken from you, and you could be mad the rest of your life about it.
CENAC: Yes.
MARTIN: And you were — you could see yourself as the guy who wants to get the bad people off the streets or I want to — you know what I mean? So I
was just wondering how those experiences have informed the way you want us to talk about these things.
CENAC: Yes. When I was younger, there was definitely a part of me, like I loved Batman as a kid. And it was, like, I related to Batman because
Batman’s parents were murdered and all he wanted was revenge.
And I think there is a — at some point, it was like, OK, that’s really not a sustainable thing and that’s not really doing anything. But what it
feels like you want to do or at least what I would want to do is I just want to try the understand.
And maybe if I understand and maybe if we can sort of create bridges of understanding, we can then, like, start to move the needle in ways that
once I understand where you’re coming from, it’s kind of like, OK, I understand where you’re coming from, you understand where I’m coming from.
All right, now that we’re on the same page, maybe let’s go — let’s figure it out.
MARTIN: Wyatt Cenac, thank you so much for talking with us.
CENAC: Thank you, Michel. I really appreciated it.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
AMANPOUR: That is it for our program tonight.
Thank you for watching Amanpour and Company on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.
END