>>> WE’RE BACK HERE WITH ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
TECHNICAL FEESABILITY OF ZEROING
OUT EMISSIONS.
OUT EMISSIONS. SO WE HAVE TO HIT THOSE HEAD ON
AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT
WITH HEATHER McGREE WHO IS A
DISTINGUISHED SENIOR FELLOW.
WORKED ABOUT MOVING POLICY AND
AN MSNBC ANALYST AND HE HAS
SCARS TO SHOW.
HE PRIMARIED IN 2010 AND
DEFEATED LARGELY BECAUSE YOU
SAID YOU BELIEVED IN CLIMATE
CHANGE.
CHANGE. HAVE THINGS GOTTEN BETTER OR
WORSE POLITICALLY ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE
SINCE 2010?
SINCE 2010? >> MUCH BETTER.
INCREDIBLY BETTER.
INCREDIBLY BETTER. >> IS THAT TRUE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> REALLY?
>> REALLY? >> PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT NUMBER
ONE, IF YOU WILL.
HEADLINE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF OF
THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY
THE 6th, REPUBLICANS ARE
FOCUSSED ON PRAGMATIC DECISIONS
TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
NEXT DAY FRED UPTON, GREG WALTON
AND JOHN -- PINNED AN OP-ED.
SAID CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND
WE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP ARE
READY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
MITCH McCONNELL JUST THIS WEEK
SAID HE DOES BELIEVE IN -- OFF
THE FLOOR.
THE FLOOR. IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE.
TO THE PRESS HE SAID HE DOES
BELIEVE THAT HUMANS CAUSE
CLIMATE CHANGE.
CLIMATE CHANGE. THIS IS MITCH McCONNELL.
>> AND I THINK THAT’S A RESULT
OF THE MILLIONS OF PARTICULARLY
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
MOBILIZING ON THIS ISSUE.
[ APPLAUSE ]
AND I DON’T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE
ALEXANDER AND McCONNELL FOR THE
FIRST TIME THIS MONTH SAY HUMAN
BEINGER ARE CAUSING IT AND IT’S
REAL IF IT WEREN’T FOR A
SOLUTION ROOTED IN ONE OF THE
MOST POPULAR PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
LEGISLATION. IT’S POPULAR IN COLORADO, NORTH
CAROLINA, IOWA, MAINE.
PLACES WHERE REPUBLICAN SENATORS
ARE LOOKING AT THEIR PROSPECTS
AND SAYING WHY DO WE WANT TO BE
THE PARTY OF NO ON MILLIONS OF
NEW JOBS?
NEW JOBS? >> LET’S SAY THERE’S A
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN 2021 AND
A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN THE
HOUSE AND THROUGH REMARKABLE
INSIDE STRAIGHT, THERE’S
DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE
SENATE, LIKE THERE’S NOT THE
VOTES FOR THIS, RIGHT?
IT
IT >> BECAUSE I’M NOT THERE
CONVINCE MY COLLEAGUES.
I’M HERE TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE
ELECTORATE.
ELECTORATE. BECAUSE -- AND THAT’S WHY I
FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS IS NOT A
PARTISAN ISSUE BECAUSE FRANKLY
THERE ARE DEMOCRATS WHO WILL GET
IN OUR WAY FROM SAVING OURSELVES
TOO.
TOO. BUT --
BUT -- >> DO YOU WANT TO NAME THEM?
>> YOU PROBABLIALL REDY ALREADY
BUT THE THING IS IS THAT YOU
DON’T NECESSARILY HAVE TO
REPLACE EVERYBODY.
REPLACE EVERYBODY. YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO.
YOU DON’T NECESSARILY HAVE TO
REPLACE EVERYONE.
REPLACE EVERYONE. IF THE ELECTORATE PRIORITIZES IT
AND OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTS IT,
THEN WE CREATE THE POLITICAL
ROOM TO PASS IT.
>> I GUESS TO ASK YOU, BOB.
THERE’S TWO WAYS OF LOOKING AT
THE GREEN NEW DEAL.
THEY HATE ALL THE SOCIALISM
STUFF.
STUFF. JUST FOCUS ON THE CARBON TAX AND
YOU CAN MAKE GRAND COALITION.
AND I SEE OTHER PEOPLE SAYING WE
TRIED THAT FOR 20 YEARS AND
HAVEN’T DONE ANYTHING.
>> I THINK WE’VE SEEN THE
FORMATION OF A TEA PARTY TO THE
LEFT.
LEFT. THE TEA PARTY THAT TOSSED ME OUT
TEN YEARS AGO AND WENT INTO A
DECADE OF DISASTROUS
DISPEWITATION.
DISPEWITATION. I THINK WE’RE AT RISK OF THAT
HAPPENING NOW ON THE LEFT.
BECAUSE LAST NIGHT DONALD TRUMP
WAS IN MICHIGAN.
THERE WAS A CROWD THAT WAS
REALLY CHEERING FOR HIM.
>> THEY WERE ALSO CHANTING "AOC
SUCKS" AT ONE POINT.
>> WHAUTSZT’S THE DIFFERENCE BET
LAST NIGHT AND TONIGHT?
THIS IS THE MIRROR IMAGE.
THIS IS THE FLIP SIDE.
>> YOU GUYS ARE MAKING FUN --
>> SO HERE’S WHAT I THINK IS
THAT WE’RE COMMITTED TO POLICIES
THAT MAKE AMERICAN LIVES BETTER
AND WE’RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT
SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE.
SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE. WE’RE NOT CALLING ANYONE NAMES.
PEOPLE SAY TEA PARTY OF THE
LEFT.
LEFT. AND I FIND THIS PHRASE
INTERESTING.
INTERESTING. THE PHRASING VERY INTERESTING
BECAUSE THE GROUNDING OF THE TEA
PARTY WAS XENOPHOBIA, THE
UNDERPINNINGS OF WHITE
SUPREMACY.
SUPREMACY. BUT YOU KNOW I UNDERSTAND
POLITICALLY PEOPLE SAY TEA PARTY
TO THE LEFT BECAUSIUM RARE I’M A
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT THAT WON IN
A PRIMARY ELECTION AND OUSTED
THE FOURTH MOST POWERFUL PERSON
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD
SAY TEA PARTY OF THE LEFRT.
THE EXCEPTION IS THAT MY
DISTRICT IS OVERWHELMINGLY
PROGRESSIVE AND OUR
REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT
REPRESENTING OUR ACTUAL
POSITION.
POSITION. SO THIS IS NOT A TEA PARTY OF
THE LEFT.
THE LEFT. THIS IS A RETURN TO AMERICAN
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. [ APPLAUSE ]
AND HERE’S A REALLY BIG
DIFFERENCE.
DIFFERENCE. THE KOCH BROTHERS FOUNDED THE
TEA PARTY AND EVERY DAY PEOPLE
FUNDED MY CAMPAIGN.
>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS
POINT.
POINT. WHEN PEOPLE SAY -- I MEAN
THERE’S TWO WAYS TO INTERPRET
THE TEA PARTY.
ONE IS AS A SORT OF THEY CANLESS
AND NIHILISTIC ENTERPRISE THAT
HAS LED TO THIS BAD SITUATION.
THE OTHER IS A VERY EFFECTIVE
POLITICAL MOVE.
POLITICAL MOVE. FOR INSTANCE IF YOU ARE
ORGANIZING A POLITICAL MOVEMENT
BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT ACTION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE, THE TEA PARTY
WAS AN EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT.
THEY LITERALLY PRIMARIED YOU AND
GOT YOU OUT AND DELAYED ACTION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
WHEN YOU THINK, HEATHER, OF TEA
PARTY TO THE LEFT, DO YOU THINK
OF THAT AS A GOOD OR BAD THING?
>> JUST THE GREEN NEW DEAL, THIS
IDEA, EVEN WHEN PRESSURE TESTED
AND TALKING ABOUT HIGHER TAXES
AND SAYING DEMOCRATS ARE
PROPOSING IT, IT’S MORE POPULAR
THAN THE REPUBLICAN TAX CUTS,
THE $1.5 TRILLION WE FOUND TO
GIVE AWAY TO CORPORATIONS AND
THE WEALTHY.
THE WEALTHY. IT’S MORE POPULAR THAN THE WALL.
SO WHEN WE HAVE THIS IDEA THAT
LEFT IDEAS ARE MOVING AND
SHAKING INSIDE THE POLITICAL
ATMOSPHERE RIGHT NOW, IT’S TRUE.
BUT THEY’RE LESS IN TERMS OF
INSIDE OF WASHINGTON.
THEY’RE LEFT IN TERMS OF THE SEN
TRES IDEA
TRES IDEA IDEAS BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT
TAKING BACK THE DEMOCRACY.
>> WHAT WE DO IS IF WE HAVE A
BASICALLY THE MIRROR IMAGE OF A
TRUMP RALLY ON CLIMATE CHANGE
THAT WE DRIVE ALL THE PEOPLE
AWAY THAT COULD COME OUR WAY AND
SOLVE THIS THING NOW AND THEN
COULD WE COME BACK TO THINGS
LIKE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME?
COULD WE COME BACK TO HEALTH
CARE?
CARE? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN TWO
CONGRESS THAT WERE TOTALLY
CONSUMED BY HEALTH CARE.
YOU CAN’T DO IT IN A SINGLE
CONGRESS THE ENTIRE GREEN NEW
DEAL.
DEAL. IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITH
THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE
REFERENCES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE
IN THE COURSE OF THAT.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE SAY
LISTEN, CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE
THING THAT WE’RE SEEING THE
WHITES OF ITS EYES.
WE GOT TO ACT NOW.
CAN WE COME BACK MAYBE TO
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME A LITTLE
BIT LATER?
BIT LATER? >> SO -- HEY, HEY, HEY.
THAT’S UNACCEPTABLE AND THAT’S
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND
TRUMP.
TRUMP. >> THAT’S GOOD.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> NOW, BACK TO THE ACTUAL
ISSUE.
ISSUE. BACK TO THE ACTUAL ISSUE.
WE, YOU DO NOT WAVE A WAND AND
PRESS IT ALL AT ONCE, BUT WE CAN
HAVE THESE PRIORITIES, AND I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU ON
THAT.
THAT. HOWEVER, THIS IS THE WAY
POLITICAL OPPOSITION WORKS.
THEY DON’T SAY NO.
THEY SAY MAYBE, UM, WHO, HA.
>> THE WALK.
>> HERE IS THE THING IS I GET
THAT IN OUR POLITICAL CONTEXT IN
THE HISTORY OF HEALTH CARE, IN
THE HISTORY OF LABOR RIGHTS, IN
THE HISTORY OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS,
THESE ARE LONG STRUGGLES AND
GENERATIONAL STRUGGLES AND THAT
IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR YOUNG
ACTIVISTS, AS WELL.
WE’RE NOT THE FIRST.
WE WILL NOT BE ON THE LAST.
WE STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF
GIANTS, BUT CLIMATE CHANGE IS
DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE HAVE AN
EXPIRATION DATE, AND THE IPPC
REPORT SAYS WE’VE GOT 12 YEARS
TO TURN IT AROUND.
12 YEARS.
12 YEARS. SO MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE
GOING TO BE THE FROG IN THE POT
OF BOILING WATER, AND WE ARE
GOING
GOING GOING TO DEBATE AND DEBATE AND
DEBATE AND DEBATE, AND WHEN WE
ACTUALLY FINALLY PASS SOMETHING,
IT’S A WIMPY CARBON TAX AND OUR
KIDS ARE DOOMED.
>> WE GOT 12 YEARS TO CUT
EMISSIONS IN HALF AND IF YOU
WANT TO JUMP INTO THAT DEBATE,
GREAT.
GREAT. THAT’S WHAT THE DEBATE IS.
YOU WANT TO GET IN THE POOL, GET
IN THE POOL AND WE’LL HAVE A
DEBATE BUT THAT’S HOW
EVERYBODY -- THAT’S THE
THRESHOLD TO GET PEOPLE IN, AND
I THINK ISTSELF IS A
REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE.
REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. THANK YOU FOR COMING THROUGH.
>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.