>> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 43 years of covering congress -- years of covering congress 45 like no other. since 1979, we been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. we take it to where the policies are debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. ♪ continues. host: bob inglis served in congress as a representative of south carolina from 1993 to 1999, again in 2005 to 2011, now executive director of a group called republicen. great to have you on the program. tell us about your organization, what are your main goals? guest: energy, entre nous or,

and the environment. obvious misspelling of the word republican, and we are trying to get into the conversation because we think conservatives know that free enterprise can solve this if we fix the economics. we think what we have is a problem of economics that has environmental consequence. we are conservatives who care about climate change, think there is a solution in free enterprise, one that is actually acceptable to many progressives. host: those conservatives you talk about, how many do you think go along with your line of thinking? guest: we have over 10,000 members online, with us in various ways, taking actions. but we think there are way more than that out there. it's a matter of making that visible and audible to their members of congress and senators.

here is the thing that i hope doesn't burst any bubbles. politicians typically follow, they don't lead. if we establish that constituency, they will follow it and actually provide some direction toward solving climate change. that is what we are working on. host: you formally served in congress. how did you come about your view of climate change? guest: my first six years in congress, i set climate change was nonsense. i didn't know anything about it except that al gore was for it. pretty ignorant but that is how i was in my first six years. then i was out of congress doing commercial real estate in south carolina, had the opportunity to run for the same seat again in. 2004 very conservative district in south carolina. that was the year that our eldest son just turned 18, voting for the first time,, came

to me and said i will go to for you but you have to clean up your act on the environment. sisters and mother agreed, that is a new constituency. that was step one of the metamorphosis. step two was going to antarctica and seeing the effects of drilling. step three was something of a spiritual awakening at the great barrier reef. seems improbable on a godless science trip, this climate scientist named scott was showing me in the glorious great beer reef --. reef. i could see that he was worshiping god and what he showed me. we had the opportunity to talk and add words to that observation. st. francis of assisi said

preach the gospel all the time, and if necessary use words. that is what scott was doing. he was talking about conservation changes he was making to love god and people. people that come after us. i got inspired, wanted to be like my friend scott, who has now become a dear friend. was not a very good political move because the tea party was on. i thought i was nice enough to got invited but i was specifically uninvited. for that and other heresies. my most enduring against the tea party orthodoxy was saying that climate change was real. ever since i been out to convince conservatives that it

is really conservative to act on climate change. host: this is bob inglis from the group republicen, executive director, formally served in congress. the numbers, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000, democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to send us a text, (202) 748-8003. people hear carbon tax, how would it work, how does it combat climate change? guest: actually the thing that most are medically reduces emissions, and the evidence of that is some modeling that you can see with an outfit called inroads. they saw the same thing. en roads.

it's in mit's sloan school of business model that you can play with, make several assumptions. the result is you will see carbon tax most are medically reduces emissions. how would it work? since we are conservatives, you can be sure we don't want to grow the government in solving climate change. the way that we do it, we reduce payroll taxes and then switch the tax to carbon dioxide. the bottom 70 percent of americans do better when you do that kind of tax swap. here is the key thing, apply it at the borders. so that it becomes something

that goes worldwide. that is a crucial element here. we do that and it makes it in the interest of our trading partners to do the same thing back home. then you have the whole world following american leadership with 8 billion people seeing the true cost of the burning of fossil fuels. it is built into the price of everything. at that point, the cleaner, greener stuff appears cheaper then the dirty stuff made accountable. that is what i was mentioning out the outset, the problem of economics and fixing that. the air gets better and we stop dumping so much trash. it cost something to put it there. then people look for ways to avoid that and by the cleaner, greener stuff. host: are there other countries,

organizations that apply that kind of philosophy, what is the end result? guest: great question because we are about to be taught about this by the european union. starting october last year, a company in south carolina makes steel, perhaps export some to europe. in october, they had to start saying much emissions they had in the making of that steel. starting in 2026, they have to pay a carbon tariff essentially on those schools -- goods they are sending to europe. at that point, members of congress will start getting a call from companies like nucor saying we are paying a tax, essentially a tax or tariff, we are paying that to europe. you could have collected it

here. it makes no difference to us. it makes no difference to our customers because it has to be paid one way or the other. the lights will go on in the congress. why don't we collect that money? why do we let these companies keep on forking over to the europeans? then people will realize we can do that to china. then we will be moving onan american carbon tax that is paired with the reduction in payroll taxes so

there is no growth in government that comes from fossil fuels. but i truly would like us to focus on the word conservation versus climate. >> i realize our last period in 20,000 years ago, our seas were almost 400 feet lower, florida was three times the size it is today. it was due to axial precession. i cannot get into the physics but we are really focusing on conservation and we need to be focused on our solar winds because everything we do today is electronic. that is the real threat, whether or not our systems are hard and

enough pillion to deal with all of the specifics -- strong enough to deal with all of the physics. people do not understand the science of climate. host: thank you for the call. guest: you are correct, we need to focus on conservation and we think it is quite conservative to focus on conservation. those words may have something in common, the last syllable where they differ. we are aware that it is important to let people know that the science is pretty clear on this. sides is pretty clear on this. the chemistry and the physics are very clear, the modeling is complex you can doubt some of the modeling. you can pull apart some of the assumptions, but the chemistry,

adding co2 to the atmosphere and that causes an increase in the heat here, that is pretty much indisputable. physics isn't new. the chemistry, i can even understand that. i only had high school chemistry and i know there is an equal s ign there. if you add more carbon dioxide, you have to follow the chemistry. very important for us to get that word out. we have some merchants of doubt. a book turned into a movie by that same name. really shows how some people introduced doubt when there really was not any doubt. host: we have a view who asks via text should we be fighting climate change or developing strategies to cope with its effects?

some believe that we can eliminate it. guest: the viewer is correct we have some baked in damage. we cannot avoid all the consequences but if we act now and act particularly with the power and the speed in which free enterprise can deliver innovation at speed and scale i think we can avoid the worst of it. but it is true we have some adaptation we are going to have to do. essentially, we have been smoking for a while. no matter how old you are, you go to the doctor, they will tell you please stop. if you've been smoking a long time, probably some damage. we have been smoking. there is some baked in damage. but let's act now to avoid the worst of it. host: minnesota is next.

john, democrats line. caller: i want to respond to the republican woman who called in earlier. she quoted climate scientists regarding glacier ages in the past. it is good that we trust what our climate scientists have said about the past, but now the exact same climate scientists are saying the burning of fossil fuels is causing our earth to warm at an unusually rapid pace and that we need to act as quickly as possible to reduce the use of fossil fuels. i'm always surprised when i hear people quote scientists about the past but then do not believe what they say about the present. finally, my real question was, who do you think is really behind all of the false information that is being put

out about renewables? now they are saying solar panels are heating up the earth. who is behind all of this false information? guest: you can be sure that people have an interest, sometimes a financial interest. it depends on your portfolio. in congress they say where you sit determines where you stand. in other words, where your district is determines where you stand. in business, where your portfolio is is where you stand. some companies unfortunately are trapped in a spot where they don't think they can innovate. those are the ones that fight like heck to stop innovation. but innovation is coming. i think that is just the reality of the situation. if we do it right, we can innovate quickly. host: the biden administration has touted its effort on climate

and green energy through the inflation reduction act. what do you think of its record to date? guest: if i were still in congress when that was up, if it had been offered as a freestanding bill with elements that you could vote up or down on, rather than a reconciliation package, i might have voted for some of those things. there would have been a fair number of republicans as well. it was a reconciliation package, an inherently partisan move. when we as republicans did it, no democrat votes. when democrats did it, no republican votes. if it was a freestanding bill, i think they would have been a fair amount of republican support for those things. what conservative doesn't like a tax credit? that is essentially what they are.

very powerful tax credits for wind, solar, nuclear, and hydrogen. those are going to work. the proof of that is in the private sector estimates that exceed by two and three times the estimates of the tax cost of the biden administration. the biden administration things it is going to cost x for the treasury to give up that money because of the tax credits for wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, but the private sector estimates are two or three times that amount. that tells me, private sector folks know that this can work. powerful incentives. but the challenge, you are affecting the economics. i mentioned in the outset this is a problem of economics. you are changing the economics for those private sector firms because you are giving them a tax credit, and those are

powerful. but if you are a chinese company, you don't pay american taxes. so those tax credits are worthless to you. so you are not affecting the chinese company's economics, not getting the world in on it yet. that is why we have to keep on searching for an even more powerful solution that goes beyond just weaning up the air here in america, which is wonderful. fewer asthma cases, greater life expectancy, fewer hospitalizations. that would be great but you need to get the world in on it to solve climate change. that is why we need to focus on things like an effective carbon border mechanism. host: earlier this year, debate on the house of representatives over a carbon tax, republicans pushing back including ryan zinke, who served in the former

administration as interior secretary. i want to play you what he had to say about the carbon tax. [video clip] >> a carbon tax makes america less competitive. it forces families to pay more for groceries they are struggling in. and it also, on our allies, who now depend on a low cost american energy, now we are going to a transition to where, ev's in china land? does anyone realize 85% of the minerals that power ev's, lithium, nickel, processing are all in china? the very idea that we would make ourselves less competitive and give the advantage to our adversaries, and who is going to produce energy? if it is not us, who will? i can make a list.

perhaps he ran -- iran, perhaps venezuela, perhaps russia. host: part of the argument from representative zinke's point of view. what is your response? guest: he represents the buggy whip manufacturers. when henry ford was bringing out his model t, you can go back in the congressional record and find the same comments from the people that represented the buggy whip manufacturers. it just seems like he is stuck in the past, representing an existing industry, buggy with manufacturing, in his case, fossil fuels, and cannot see any way out of that. maybe that is his district, his state. but the world moves on. we found out there were all kinds of problems with henry ford's car. the tires were not any good. some of them blew up like

molotov cocktails driving down the road. there was gasoline in them. it scared the horses. peoplewere hurt because of henry''s cars coming around and backfiring. but it worked and we decided it was an easier way to get around than the horse. buggy whip manufacturers went out of business. isn't that what conservatives really believe? we believe in the creative destruction is him of the free enterprise system. we say that that brings innovation and moves people along. sorry to say that what we just heard, it is going to be just like the buggy whip venue factors. in the future we will say, can you believe somebody said that on the house floor? look at how we are doing energy now. but we have to get there. host: you heard his comments on electric vehicles.

a recent poll by the wall street journal looking at the sales of hybrids over ev's. hybrids getting the majority of sales over ev's, other stories about a softening of sales on ev's. where do you think the electric vehicle falls in, as far as the future is concerned, contributing less to climate change? guest: i'm a big fan. i remember in 2017, my wife said we need to walk the talk. she said i'm going to go test drive a volt, the chevy car, hybrid. she came home with said volt. at which point our youngest daughter from college called to make sure we were ok, thought that we were having a midlife crisis, because we had never bought a new car in our lives. we would always buy a used car, fix the transmission.

the first time we ever bought a new car. pretty impressive car. you go 50 miles on electricity and then converts to a gasoline engine that charges the battery. now i understand mary barra, the ceo of gm, says they will start to make it again. that is a neat transition. mr. toyota says that is the future, to do this kind of hybrid. we say at republicen.org, let the free enterprise system figure that out, make it so the cost of owning fossil fuels is built in through a carbon tax, paired with a reduction in payroll taxes. then let's see what the impact is on cars. it may be that toyota is right, that mary barra's decision to reel in production of a hybrid will be right.

in the meantime, we surely need to get off all these admissions and make us accountable for that, and then we will find those hybrids pretty attractive vehicles. host: bob inglis is joining us for this conversation. david in san francisco. hello. caller: he has an unenviable effort. when you think about money, people are born into a system that they have no knowledge of, the rules are never taught to them, and then there are con artists who take advantage of those rules. when you think of polluters, each drop of pollution might cost 30 times more than they got in profit. when you think about trying to clean up the pollution, and these people are making money polluting, and there is no money

to clean it up. this whole thing about getting tax breaks for stopping pollution might work. it could be cost effective. but what we really need is for these people to clean it up. and it is getting worse and worse. the idea that america doesn't have an infrastructure bill, much less an infrastructure bill that works on cleaning it up, means that we are heading for an ugly disaster. if these people have figured out it is not cost-effective to clean it up, and our lives are not cost-effective, and they would spend money on lawyers looking for some excuse why they should never clean it up rather than actually cleaning it up. host: david in san francisco. guest: david, what you are onto is the key message that we have at republicen.org, this idea of

internalizing negative externalities. every time i say that, the ad guy laughs and says i don't know what you're talking about. basically accountability for the side effects of burning fossil fuels. that is what it's all about, fixing that problem of economics. right now we all get to trash dump into the sky without paying a tipping fee. that is not what you do if you are a trash hauler. in san francisco where you live, you pay a tipping fee at the dump. that causes you to back that up to your customers, and then your customers are more careful of what you will put in the bin to take to the dump because it costs them something. that is what we need, a price on carbon dioxide. i say we are conservatives that want to cut taxes somewhere else, the payroll tax, that

would fix the problem of economics. there are progressive listening, i think that sounds familiar. i have heard about this before but i may progressive, they might say. it might be the same thing that al gore has been for over 30 years. i asked if i could keep on saying that. he said, if you are talking about a

let us hear from john, hello. >> good morning. i do not believe there is any statistical data that shows what the united states is doing is going to make any difference in climate change. united states reached its peak of co2 emissions with 5.7 seven kilotons admitted. the paris agreement calls for all countries to reduce their co2 emissions by 50% of what they produced in that year. the united states has reduced our co2 emissions by approximately 15%. on the other hand, china has increased theirs by 300% in india by 200%. if we were to reach the goals set forth in the agreement,

china and india would have eclipsed our reduction by 150 percent. nothing we do is going to have any impact until china and india get on board with it. do you really think that any people living in countries like africa who live in conditions unknown to the western world really care about climate change? emerging countries cannot emerge from a third world status on renewables. somehow there has got to be a way for countries to emerge from third world status on other -- in other ways. host: thank you. guest: i think it is quite possible for those places to emerge from that and into wealth and into growth of their economic situation on renewables. that would make a lot of sense. why continue to