>> As we talked about in the last segment in relation to race and corporate power, in
a lot of ways, we're at our nadir here, with Trump in office and corporate power being
at its, I hope, if it gets any more powerful than this, I don't know what we're gonna do.
Let's go to the heart of the topic, what's your sense of what the future looks like?
Is there a chance that we could reign in the power of the fossil fuel industry enough to
actually get real action on climate change?
Or are you worried that we're not gonna be able to do it in enough time?
>> I think in this line of work, it will be a hazard for me to be unsure.
But one thing I can tell you is that I think what I have seen in the streets, what I have
seen in the eyes of our youth, what I have seen in the eyes of our elders who've been
at this for a long time, banging the pans and letting people know this was coming.
It feels like for those folks, it's a do or die moment.
And so if I were to believe that what we're seeing is the height of power for folks who
would not see fossil fuels go down willingly, I think it's our duty to fight them and make
them go down in a way that doesn't displace any more people than were already on that
list.
So it feels to me like the vision of the future is a broader movement where we put a lot of
the stuff we've been holding in our back pocket aside and run in the same direction.
So I do feel like we have an opportunity to make change because we have no other choice
and that's the best motivator I know of.
>> So Tamara, when we talk about these issues, there's no choice but to talk about politics.
So if for example, Trump wins re-election we know what we're gonna get, absolutely.
Not only no action but going in the wrong direction for four straight years.
Four years, we cannot afford to lose on this issue, let alone other ones, but this one
we're literally running out of time.
But so that's clear.
If Biden wins though, he says no Green New Deal, we're gonna go back into the Paris Climate
accord, but we're really not gonna do much more than that.
How do you react to that?
And if you think that's not good enough, what do you do about it?
>> I'm gonna choke back my actual thoughts about going back into the Paris Climate accords.
I think that it would have been an okay idea in 2009.
I think it's such a waste of energy in this current moment that it's laughable to say
out loud.
Kind of like people saying we were gonna end fossil fuels or make that a public demand
10 years ago.
But I do think that it's Biden's right to say what he will and won't do with our job
to force him to do better.
So those of us who care about what the future is gonna look like who are here on behalf
of communities that never had a seat at the table are just as happy undoing the president
we support as undoing the president we don't.
And so a Biden presidency offers us an opportunity to live another day, to fight another fight,
and that is the thing we're pushing for.
Opening up space through mobilization and dialogue and really clear thinking is our
job to force him to rethink it, and to push Congress to do its job in enabling all of
the pieces of that that would have to come together.
So we have a whole suite of climate demands that don't change regardless of what the outcome
is.
The difference is probably the amount of force that we use to get it.
>> Okay, I want to come back to that idea of force in a second.
But anyone who watches the show knows I agree.
Okay, so Ti-Hua, you write about the connection of the votes on the environment with perhaps
the donations they might be getting from corporate interests to motivate that.
So have you read about that for some time now?
What's your sense of how deeply connected those two things are?
If we did not have a system where politicians were funded by campaign contributions, would
we have already taken much more dramatic action on climate change?
>> I'm not sure, actually because it's so ingrained and the connections are so deeply
set between the corporate power and the political power.
But clearly citizens united does alter the landscape in a sense that money buys campaigns,
in many cases, buys elections.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez withstanding, so I think even if so regardless of what would
have happened, there will still be that connection between the wealthiest people in the fossil
fuel companies and somewhere in the banks, etc.
And one financial analysts said to me, it's very simple why all those banks invested in
fossil fuel cuz it gave them the most return in the last few years.
And that's all they're concerned about is the concept of the quarterly return.
As long as we think in those terms that every quarter CEOs and managers live and die and
whatever the profit is on the quarter, instead of thinking on the long term, I think we won't
see that kind of change.
But one thing I would say though, with the difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden,
at least with Joe Biden, there'll be a discussion.
There is no discussion with Donald Trump.
And it is, I like to say, Bernie Sanders, Green New Deal, 16 trillion, which I think
is close to the reality.
Joe Biden is two trillion, but to me, Donald Trump is minus 16 trillion.
So at least with Joe Biden, there's a possibility of some discussion, debate on some bills.
Because right now there is none for the longest time.
I think I quoted you on this Tamara in that article why no Green New Deal, not even a
bill when I wrote that article a couple of months ago.
So now I think we'll see that there is a chance to, yes, put pressure on Joe Biden.
Before, you couldn't put pressure.
I mean, just this week, Donald Trump's EPA said they're now going to start reducing the
regulations on methane, which is a key contributor to the carbonization of the atmosphere.
So it's one thing after the other, with Donald Trump, it's just like there's no discussion
there.
>> Yeah, so look, you both put it so great.
I want people to just be clear on what you just said.
It's not that there's going to be checking on methane.
It's gonna be a check on regulations of methane.
>> Right.
>> We're going backwards, we're going massively backwards under Trump.
I love what Tamara said where under Biden, you live to fight another day, and to Ti-Hua's
point about how with Trump, you're just talking to a brick wall.
And just yesterday, he says the 1917 flu.
Now, look, it's known as the 1918 flu, but that's not the relevant part.
The relevant part is that he has made that same mistake half a dozen times.
Presumably people told him hey, Mr. President, it's embarrassing.
It's not just the flu that happened in 1918, it's known as the 1918 flu.
He's like, nope 1917, so there's just no talking to the guy.
>> I don't wanna insult people who are mentally challenged, but there is a term that was used
before called idiot savant.
And I think in some ways, to me, Donald Trump is an idiot savant in the sense that he's
a brilliant marketer in common, but he is so stupid on other things.
I mean, he genuinely is so anti science and anti intellectual and he seems really genuinely
dumb.
There were reports about he doesn't even read reports.
The CIA said they have to do these big charts like you do at a big press conference with
nice graphics and big pictures.
And those are the only things he can actually understand, anyway.
>> I feel like I agree with you on at least half of that term.
>> Idiot savant.
>> It's not my sense that every person's penchant towards some form of genius shouldn't be rewarded.
But my sense is that we're not dealing with regressive politics, we're dealing with regressive
thinking and a regressive structure inside a degraded shell of a human.
So all of those things being on the table, we're not up against ideologues, that would
be great cuz it was suggested their ideas.
Well, so what we're fighting is not the contest of ideas for whose truth about the future
is true.
We're fighting about whose pockets can be lined by continuing to avoid that question.
>> Yeah, 100%, so look, that's easy, that's relatively easy.
But now let's talk about things that are hard, the Democrats.
So Tamara, let me ask you, if they got the Senate and the House and the White House,
do you think Democrats are actually gonna do anything substantive on climate change?
>> Yes, and the reason I believe so is because there are so many of us.
There have been a lot of contests for climate champions who've been measured by it, which
hasn't happened.
The environmental lobby has been slow behind getting into the driver's seat for so long
that it has a lot to make up for.
So in terms of providing the right information, recognizing the pressure points, combining
that with targeted campaigning and really talking to people in that kitchen table organizing
way that really challenges people's preconceived notions.
I think that we will give no choice.
We're not giving any quarter to a conversation that isn't about climate because all of us
are already paying the price for that.
So I think between conservatives who wanna secretly be supportive of this stuff, and
thank us behind closed doors for creating a mobilization space big enough for them to
make a suggestion that keeps them from being organized by their own colleagues out of a
good idea.
We have some space for Democrats who recognize that the difference between divestment and
defund as a question of who you're talking to, and when the conversation is happening.
I think there's so many levers.
We have done a solid job of connecting climate to everything else.
So there are very few things that could be raised in a functioning Congress that we can't
connect to climate.
>> Cenk, if I could add a point to that, I have teenage kids.
And I think the mobilization of young people in particular, people who are gonna be alive
in 2050 is also gonna be a key as well once there is a vaccine and people can demonstrate
again.
And even now on the Internet, I know a lot of these teenagers are organizing.
And they're very, very serious about dealing with climate change much more so than anyone
who's older.
And including millennials, and I see among teenagers now, a very, very deep understanding
and real commitment to make sure that this planet's still around when they become adults