House Speaker Kevin McCarthy wants you to know that the Republican Party, for
once, is taking the climate emergency very seriously and they have a proposal.
What's the proposal?
Well, they want to plant 1 trillion trees.
There are some issues with that plan.
Number one, it's not really the comprehensive and
robust answer to fighting climate change.
There's also some issues know space in America.
And I'll tell you what I mean in just a moment.
So McCarthy said this, he said we need to manage our force better so
our environment can be stronger.
Let's replace Russia's natural gas or Russian natural gas with American natural
gas, and let's not only have a cleaner world, let's have a safer world.
So he said that to elaborate on his plan to plant the 1 trillion trees.
And then he spouts this nonsense about energy independence in America when
he fully knows that the fossil fuel industry is owned by corporations that get
to sell the fossil fuels wherever they please, including to other countries.
We could have control over that, but the federal government chooses not to.
Either way, a trillion trees would be impossible to actually plant because we
don't have enough space.
Planting 1 trillion trees would require a massive amount of space,
roughly the size of the continental United States.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, so, look,
I'm a little less skeptical about the tree planting than you are.
And as we're gonna show you, 2019 study says,
there might be enough space on the planet to be able to plant that many trees.
>> Speaker 1: Sure, but we're not gonna invade other countries to plant
trees, right?
[LAUGH] >> Speaker 2: No, I know.
>> And by the way, >> There's different ways
to incentivize them.
>> Speaker 1: And let me be clear, planting trees is lovely, and it does help
the environment, but it is not enough to mitigate what we are currently doing and
what we've been doing to the environment.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's what I'm getting to, which is,
I think the planting trees is great.
And if I thought, for example, that if we planted a trillion trees and
that we could and we did, and it solved climate change.
>> I'd be so happy.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah.
>> Speaker 2: And then, by the way,
then go drive as much as you like to blast air conditioning.
Let's all go nuts, right?
And then people reflect through you be like, well, oil is still bad.
No, if you cure, I mean, you'd have to assume you're curing the pollution, too.
But if you cure the pollution and the climate change, have at it hos, right.
So if I thought planting a trillion trees was enough, I'd be like, great,
let's do it, right?
But it's not enough, guys, it's not even close to enough.
It's good, it's good, do it.
Let's plant as many trees as we can, but you've got to do a lot more to cut
emissions, otherwise we're not gonna make it.
And so now that leads to the most important point, which is that this is,
>> Speaker 1: It's a smokescreen.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, they're trying to distract you cuz they're not
even proposing it.
They're not actually gonna pass it, they're not gonna finance it,
they're not gonna do any of it.
>> Speaker 1: So let me just explain what I personally think is happening, okay,
my analysis of this whole situation.
I think Republican voters are honestly smarter than some people on
the left would believe, especially when it comes to climate change.
I think a lot of Republican voters know that climate change is happening,
they know it's man made, and they do wanna do something about it.
And I think that some Republican politicians clearly are feeling some
pressure to respond to them.
Because, remember, Republican voters are a little better organized than the left is.
So our politicians on the left don't care about us, they're not afraid of us.
They don't listen to us, okay?
Even if we get them elected, okay, even if we create literal pacts to support their
candidacy and get them elected into Congress, they then refuse to
listen to us, they don't care cuz we're not as organized as the right.
So when the the voters decide, no, I'm concerned about this, and
I want my elected lawmakers to do something about it, they end up listening.
So I think that this is the Republican Party's attempt to make it
appear as though they're taking the climate emergency somewhat seriously, but
in reality, this is smokescreen.
Just to go back to the point that Cenk made about how planting the trees isn't
enough, I wanna go to that study that he referenced.
So it's a 2019 study that suggested that planting trees to suck up heat
trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere could be one of
the most effective ways to fight climate change.
But the authors of the original study have also clarified that planting trees does
not eliminate the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So again, it's a smokescreen.
Obviously, we need to do more.
I've been talking more and more about nuclear energy on the show to kind of
close the gap that's left behind by stopping our reliance on fossil fuels.
>> Speaker 2: There's four reasons why they're doing this.
First of all, it's a talking point so that when climate change comes up, it's okay,
we're in favor of planting trees.
Trillion trees, I'm done with it, I'm moving on.
But wait, what about curbing emissions?
No, I'm planting trees.
And so this is the same thing that Republicans do with mass shootings and
mental health.
Don't worry about the guns, it's just about mental health.
And then you know what happens afterwards?
The Democrats propose ability to increase funding for
mental health, especially at the schools, and they vote no, they're liars.
And to be fair, that applies to most politicians, right?
So that's the talking point smokescreen that we've been talking about.
But there's a couple of others.
One is, this is a solution where they don't have to take from fossil fuel
companies, because remember, all these guys donate to them so they're never ever,
ever going to touch them, right, those are their bosses.
But this solution goes, so we give to big oil,
they still give $20 billion of subsidies to fossil fuel companies every year,
which is insane, that's our money, right?
But we can now also give to big lumber, and so
I solved it by giving more of the American taxpayer money to those two industries and
getting even more donations from them.
So that's why they structure it that way even though they're
not even gonna do it, right?
And then finally, to the points that Ana was making, politically,
the younger voters have turned on them completely.
And I don't mean just generally, I mean on this issue, young Republicans are saying,
no, guys, climate change is definitely real, it's definitely man-made and
we definitely have to do something about it.
Not Democrats, Democrats already agree with that.
But young Republican voters in overwhelming numbers.
But there's a last reason why they've got in this direction.
Cuz some of the rich donors both on the Democratic and Republican sides have
started to notice that we don't have a second planet and that their billions of
dollars isn't gonna make any goddamn difference when the planet heats up.
And so tons of rich donors are now saying to both parties, and by the way,
that's why one of the few things we got passed
in the Inflation Reduction Act was some climate change legislation.
Why was it in there?
Cuz the rich donors are going, do that, do that, I need this planet,
my money doesn't do me any good if we're all dead.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, great point.
So while they're proposing this smokescreen of planting the trees,
what they're also doing simultaneously is carrying out the biding
of their corporate donors, right?
So they have also proposed something known as the Real Emergencies Act.
Wow, great name, it makes it seem as though they're taking this very seriously,
they're calling it a real emergency.
Last month, a group of Republicans in the House and
the Senate introduced the Real Emergencies Act, which would prevent Joe Biden from
doing something that he's actually not even interested in doing anyway.
But just to preemptively put a stop to it, just in case,
they wanna stop Joe Biden from declaring a climate emergency.
And when a president declares a state of emergency,
that kind of cuts through some of the red tape, some of the checks and balances and
it allows the executive branch to act unilaterally in some cases.
And they're concerned that if Biden were to do that, were to claim or
declare that there is a climate emergency, then he would actually
ensure that fossil fuel companies were reined in a little bit.
But here's what the Biden administration could do, okay,
specifically, if he were to declare the emergency.
Reimpose the ban on crude oil exports, freeze oil and gas leasing, invest in
public transportation, and require private companies to manufacture renewable energy.
Those are some of the things that he could do unilaterally should he declare
an emergency.
The fossil fuel companies that fund the politicians, in this case,
the Republican lawmakers, do not want that to happen.
So think about how they think ahead.
They don't just think about short term wins, they think about and
strategize ways to prevent any regulation from cutting into their bottom line.
And they have the Republican Party helping them out with that, with this proposal,
the Real Emergencies Act.
And so the bill is being led by Representative August Pfluger and
also Senator Shelley Moore Capito.
Pfluger is the House's second-highest recipient of oil and
gas donations, only after Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
And is a Director at Gentry Creek Energy LLC, an energy company engaged in
pipelines and infrastructure, according to his personal financial disclosure.
How is that conflict of interest allowed?
>> Speaker 2: No, no, guys, it's crazy.
Now the politicians are cutting out the middlemen because Capito
is from West Virginia and she's invested into the Mountain Valley pipeline.
Manchin is from West Virginia, he has his own coal mine.
And they are passing laws,
they're making sure that Biden passes laws that help their mines and their pipelines.
How is this not a conflict of interest?
And the corruption is so gigantic, nobody's even bothering to deny it.
So in this article, great job by the Lever, as usual,
in exposing that the Republicans are blocking Biden from doing this and
talking about the money in politics angle and how much money they're getting.
And they have all the different stats for the different politicians.
And in my book,
I explain that the people who are fighting climate change in Congress,
on average are getting over $450,000 in donations, each one of them, okay?
Now, if you're getting half a million dollars in bribes, gee,
I wonder why they don't wanna do anything about climate change.
Because the minute you sign onto a climate change bill, that half a million
dollars goes away like that, and that's what controls all of these politicians.
>> Speaker 1: In fact, the bill's seven sponsors have received a combined $3.1
million in contributions from the fossil fuel industry, and its executives,
and its political action committees between 2017 and 2022.
3.1 million to just seven lawmakers.
>> Speaker 2: So, look, I wrote about that, too in my book Justice Is Coming,
because, look, everyone watching this knows it doesn't matter if you're right
wing or left wing, that the $3.1 million buys these politicians.
And by the way, some of the politicians they're buying are Democrats, okay?
So the only people in the country who don't know it are the mainstream media
reporters.
When they're discussing, hey, should Biden do an executive action?
They don't mention that the senators who are pressuring him got paid $3.1 million
in bribes.
You don't think that's relevant?
That's crazy, of course it's relevant?
That's why we respect the levers so much cuz they actually talk about what
actually drives the legislation and the policies.
But I wanna make one more point.
So the Republicans are monsters that in the middle of the literally record
breaking heat on this planet ever since human beings have been around,
okay, they're going in the exact wrong direction.
But let's also acknowledge, Biden isn't doing it,
>> I know, totally.
>> They haven't passed the bill blocking his executive action yet,
he could take the executive action today.
He's choosing not to.
>> Speaker 1: How much does Biden love this?
Okay, look, I'm being a little unfair to him, I am speculating.
But there was no indication that Biden wanted to declare a climate emergency.
There was no indication that he was planning on engaging in any executive
action.
And now he doesn't have to worry about pressure to do so
should they pass this bill, right?
>> Speaker 2: He isn't fighting at 1%.
>> Speaker 1: And by the way, look, we talk about gridlock in Congress, but
even with the so called gridlock in Congress,
this is the kind of bill that I can see passing both the House and the Senate.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, because they're corrupt,
they're all getting paid by these guys.
This is all one giant joke on the American people.
And the number one people covering your eyes and making sure you don't see,
it is mainstream media.
They're, what money, my God, they are having a legitimate debate.
Is it trees or is it executive action Biden should take?
Well, golly gee, none of them took executive action.
Look, guys, you know Biden's disingenuous, they had all these progressive
proposals and they were like, he's gonna do them all.
I said, no, he's not going to do any of them that don't help corporations.
Now, the only thing that was progressive, that really progressive, that was in
the Inflation Reduction Act was fighting climate change a little bit, right?
So why did he do that?
Because of the giant donors that I told you about, they put enormous,
he doesn't care about public pressure he cares about donor pressure.
So he does that for them, but he doesn't do anything about health care prices,
he doesn't do anything about minimum wage,
he doesn't do anything else to hurt corporations, right.
But then he turns around and helps the fossil fuel donors by going
Mountain Valley pipeline, now you could drill in Alaska cuz he doesn't mean it.
He doesn't give a goddamn about policy.
Any mainstream media reporter telling you Biden cares about policy and
is progressive is on the left, is a joke.
He's been a conservative his entire career and his track record proves it.
And by the way, he could prove me wrong today, super easy to prove me wrong,
take executive action.
The Republicans have not blocked you yet, you could do it right now.
He's not gonna do it cuz he's in the pocket of the same
donors that the Republicans are.
>> Speaker 1: Finally, I have to add a few of the other details in this bill.
So the bill proposes taking an ax to the nation's largest environmental agencies,
including a whopping 39% cut to the EPA's budget.
Three agencies within the Interior Department, the Bureau of Land Management,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service would see 18%,
13%, and 13% reductions in funding, respectively.
The Forest Service would see an 11% cut, let's pause for a second.
The Forest Service under this bill would be cut by 11%.
Didn't Kevin McCarthy, who's, by the way, a sponsor of this legislation didn't
Kevin McCarthy argue that we need to do better forest management?
>> Speaker 1: Yeah.
>> Speaker 1: How do you propose to do that by cutting the very department that
would do that.
>> Speaker 2: No, look, guys,
that's why I said in the beginning all Republican politicians are liars.
I mean, almost all the politicians are liars to begin with, but
these Republicans just they're on a different level.
So, you remember when Trump blamed the fires on California cuz they didn't
earache the force enough?
>> Speaker 1: Look, he put it stupidly, honestly, he did.
But there is legitimacy to the point that California and
the federal land within California should do a better job in maintaining forests.
When Native Americans were here and they were taking care of the forests,
they would do controlled burns on a regular basis.
So there was legitimacy, it's just that he's an idiot, he didn't state it.
>> Speaker 2: But that's exactly where I'm going, because at least there was some
nugget in there where, you could do better forest management.
So what do the Republicans do?
Now they turn around and, don't worry about what Trump said,
we're gonna pay less for forest management, so
there's gonna be less raking in the forest, it's not raking, okay?
[LAUGH] So they just cut forest management.
They say mental health after the shootings and they cut mental health.
So when they say, we're gonna plant trees,
now they don't have any plan to plant trees.
I got news for you, 100% lie, they don't even mean one word of it.