:00:07. > :00:13.Welcome to HARDtalk, I'm Stephen Sackur.
:00:14. > :00:21.The trump administration is intent on a radical reset of America's
:00:22. > :00:24.energy and environment policies. The implications will be profound on
:00:25. > :00:31.everything from fossil fuel production to climate change policy.
:00:32. > :00:35.My guest today is Myron Ebell, who led the Trump transition team on
:00:36. > :00:38.environment policy and has long been an advocate of radical reform of the
:00:39. > :00:44.Federal environmental protection agency. In America's new politics,
:00:45. > :00:47.will the interest of big business consistently trump environmental
:00:48. > :01:12.concern? Myron Ebell,
:01:13. > :01:28.welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you for having me. Let's ask a
:01:29. > :01:36.simple question to start with, in your opinion does the Drum residency
:01:37. > :01:39.represent a fundamental reset of environmental and energy policy in
:01:40. > :01:42.the United States? -- Trump. Everything that he has said in the
:01:43. > :01:47.campaign, it seems to me suggests that it is a fundamental reset and
:01:48. > :01:52.that we will be turning a corner and moving to a much brighter future.
:01:53. > :01:56.Yes, I mean, you obviously have the inside track on this, because you
:01:57. > :02:02.were part of the transition team very much involved with drawing up a
:02:03. > :02:06.roadmap for future policy on environmental matters. So, just give
:02:07. > :02:12.me a sense of the way in which your input and he insights to you work
:02:13. > :02:15.together. Were you both on the same page, or you both talking about
:02:16. > :02:19.really moving in a very different direction from the Obama
:02:20. > :02:25.administration? First, I have no role in the Trump Administration. My
:02:26. > :02:29.work in the transition is over, so I don't represent or speak for the
:02:30. > :02:34.Trump Administration or for the President. I was asked to lead the
:02:35. > :02:40.transition team on EPA because in fact my views largely respond to the
:02:41. > :02:44.views that the President campaigned on and that he promised the American
:02:45. > :02:50.people he would do if he was elected. So, yes, I think that we
:02:51. > :02:58.share most views on energy and the environment. Let's talk big picture
:02:59. > :03:02.sort of mindset before we dig down into the detail of environmental
:03:03. > :03:07.policy making. In terms of your approach and the President's, and I
:03:08. > :03:11.take the point that the transition is over and you are not part of the
:03:12. > :03:17.team today, but in terms of both of your mindsets, do you believe that
:03:18. > :03:19.when a scientists, when politicians in the western world, when
:03:20. > :03:25.environmental campaigners all talk about the urgent need to
:03:26. > :03:32.de-carbonise the global economy, do you think they are wrong? Yes, I do,
:03:33. > :03:36.and I think that the campaign that we have just witnessed in the United
:03:37. > :03:41.States is interesting, because it is the first presidential campaign that
:03:42. > :03:47.we have had where both candidates, Secretary Clinton and Mr Trump,
:03:48. > :03:52.campaigned on climate policy and on energy policy and put forward very
:03:53. > :03:58.different views. One side won and the other side lost, so I think the
:03:59. > :04:04.American people basically agree with President Trump, that climate change
:04:05. > :04:11.is not one of their top concerns and that there are a lot more pressing
:04:12. > :04:14.issues to take up by the government. Do you think the American people
:04:15. > :04:20.agree with President Trump when he tweets, as he has, in the last few
:04:21. > :04:24.years, in fact, because it is a consistent thought of his, that
:04:25. > :04:29.global warming is a hoax, "I am not a believer" he has said, we have the
:04:30. > :04:32.weather, it goes up and down, but we have much bigger problems than that.
:04:33. > :04:37.Do you think with those sorts of messages that he tweets out, he is
:04:38. > :04:42.speaking for the American people? I think he is speaking for a majority
:04:43. > :04:48.of the American people and I think, you know, he tends to exaggerate for
:04:49. > :04:54.a fact and then he walks back, so he said climate change is a hoax and
:04:55. > :04:58.later when asked about it he said, I was making a joke, but I don't think
:04:59. > :05:03.it is a big problem is the gist of his position, I think. I mean, I was
:05:04. > :05:08.about to say I am assuming you don't think climate change, giving given
:05:09. > :05:12.all of the consensus, you don't think man-made climate change,
:05:13. > :05:18.though warming of the planet, you don't think it is a hoax, do you, or
:05:19. > :05:24.do you? No, but I think a great deal of exaggeration has entered the
:05:25. > :05:30.debate by the campaigners for very rigourous climate policies, and I
:05:31. > :05:36.think if you actually look at the science, it doesn't support what I
:05:37. > :05:41.would call the alarmist position. And, you know, we can discuss that,
:05:42. > :05:50.but I think the fact is that there are large interests, both in the
:05:51. > :05:52.scientific community but also in the business community, that it is in
:05:53. > :05:57.their interest to exaggerate the impact of climate change. Well,
:05:58. > :06:01.let's try to keep it out of politics and the realms of exaggeration,
:06:02. > :06:06.let's just, and I don't want to spend long on it, let's be specific,
:06:07. > :06:13.two of the US federal agencies that have voiced most concerned about
:06:14. > :06:17.climate change, our NASA, and goodness knows they rely on science
:06:18. > :06:21.and the US department of defence, which are stated in 2015 that
:06:22. > :06:26.climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national
:06:27. > :06:35.security, so, leave aside politics, leave aside exaggeration, you would
:06:36. > :06:38.accept the words of NASA and the Pentagon, would you? No, I think
:06:39. > :06:42.that the department of defence was under very strict political
:06:43. > :06:48.supervision from the Obama White House and that they were told to
:06:49. > :06:52.make sure that climate change is involved in all of your thinking
:06:53. > :06:59.about defence, so no, I do not accept that and I think that opinion
:07:00. > :07:04.at NASA is divided between the modelling community and what I would
:07:05. > :07:13.call the empirical community, people who rely on temperature datasets. It
:07:14. > :07:15.is probably to remind everyone you come from a background, the
:07:16. > :07:18.Competitive Enterprise Institute centre for energy and environment
:07:19. > :07:23.which in the past winner has been funded by Exxon Mobil, by the Koch
:07:24. > :07:31.brothers, by people who clearly have an interest in pouring scorn on the
:07:32. > :07:36.climate change agenda, so it is indeed interesting that Donald Trump
:07:37. > :07:41.pick you to handle his EPA and environmental policy transition,
:07:42. > :07:49.isn't it? Yes, I was surprised. Usually an insider is chosen for
:07:50. > :07:53.each transition team. Someone who has had experience working inside
:07:54. > :07:58.the agency or the department, I do not have that, I have always been an
:07:59. > :08:03.outsider. But I don't think a funding sources of my organisation
:08:04. > :08:08.have much to do with the policies that we pursue. The fact is that we
:08:09. > :08:13.adopt policies based on what we think are the facts and our
:08:14. > :08:17.political beliefs, which are for free markets and limited government
:08:18. > :08:21.and then we go out and try to attract funding from sources that
:08:22. > :08:26.agree with us. Sure, but in the end you're not a scientist, I mean, I
:08:27. > :08:31.was talking about NASA's science and all of the data they collected and
:08:32. > :08:35.their conclusion that carbon dioxide particles are the highest in the air
:08:36. > :08:39.in 650,000 years, global temperatures have risen much more
:08:40. > :08:43.than one Celsius since 1880, you know, this is scientific data, you
:08:44. > :08:48.are not a scientist, and the group that you have come from and that you
:08:49. > :08:51.have very ably represented, very influential in represented, has an
:08:52. > :08:59.agenda which is driven by people who have an interest in denying climate
:09:00. > :09:04.change. I think that the facts are that the warming we have seen since
:09:05. > :09:10.the end of the little Ice Age in the middle of the 19th century is
:09:11. > :09:16.modest. It may be that there is an increasing component of that change
:09:17. > :09:23.caused by human activity, primarily burning coal, oil and natural gas,
:09:24. > :09:28.but, for example, we have produced - humanity as a whole has produced
:09:29. > :09:33.about 31% of the total greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of
:09:34. > :09:40.the industrial age, they have been emitted in the last 20 years, and
:09:41. > :09:45.yet there has been a pause, or a hiatus, or a plateau of warming in
:09:46. > :09:49.the last 20 years. If the climate is as sensitive to CO2 as is claimed by
:09:50. > :09:53.the alarmists we should have seen significant warming in the last 20
:09:54. > :09:57.years. Now, there was an attempt to rewrite the temperature record and
:09:58. > :10:03.that has just this week been exposed as a hoax. Well, I do want to get
:10:04. > :10:05.into the detail of what you think is going to happen to environment
:10:06. > :10:09.policy under the Trump administration but one more point on
:10:10. > :10:14.the politics of this, and again I think it is instructive to look at
:10:15. > :10:18.where conservative parties and politicians sit around the world on
:10:19. > :10:22.this issue, and I have looked from, you know, Western Europe, Austral
:10:23. > :10:28.Asia, everywhere else, and, frankly, right or centre politicians on the
:10:29. > :10:32.whole art now very accepting of the scientific consensus around climate
:10:33. > :10:35.change -- Australiasia. -- are now. And two other grandees of the
:10:36. > :10:40.Republican Party, Jim Baker and Georgia shorts, on this very day
:10:41. > :10:44.have published an article arguing for a carbon tax as saying that
:10:45. > :10:49.there is mounting scientific evidence of the problems with the
:10:50. > :10:53.atmosphere, they are too compelling now to ignore -- Schultz. I use
:10:54. > :11:00.weighed by the fact that, you know, so many conservative political fears
:11:01. > :11:04.are now saying this? -- Are you swayed. No, in fact, the house of
:11:05. > :11:09.representatives held a test vote on a carbon tax last year and every
:11:10. > :11:15.single Republican, including those who agree with your statement that
:11:16. > :11:19.climate change is a growing problem voted against a carbon tax. Every
:11:20. > :11:24.single Republican. So I think that the Republican Party is united, and
:11:25. > :11:29.we have some people who have perhaps served their country well many
:11:30. > :11:35.decades ago but they really... They are out of the debate, they are not
:11:36. > :11:38.a significant part of the conservative movement today. Right,
:11:39. > :11:41.well, let's look at what Donald Trump as president, surrounded by
:11:42. > :11:45.people from the conservative movement may do in terms of
:11:46. > :11:50.environmental policy-making. Let me be blunt about it, was your
:11:51. > :11:53.recommendation to him that he should emasculate the environmental
:11:54. > :11:59.protection agency? I have seen leaked documents which suggest you
:12:00. > :12:03.think the cuts should go from a workforce of 15,000 to 5000, that a
:12:04. > :12:07.huge amount of the grant giving activity should be frozen and then
:12:08. > :12:11.stopped, what kind of EPA do you imagine Donald Trump will supervise
:12:12. > :12:18.and look after? The document I prepared, it it was an action plan
:12:19. > :12:22.for the administration, it was advisory and was meant to translate
:12:23. > :12:26.the campaign and the candidate's promises and commitments into
:12:27. > :12:30.governance. So, let me tell you what President Trump said during the
:12:31. > :12:33.campaign. He promised to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, he
:12:34. > :12:39.promised to defunct United Nations climate programmes, and he promised
:12:40. > :12:47.to get rid of all withdraw or rescind a number of greenhouse gas
:12:48. > :12:51.rules and other environmental rules that he said, and I think quite
:12:52. > :12:57.correctly, had very little to do with environmental to it in, but
:12:58. > :13:00.have a huge negative effect on the economy and they are blocking
:13:01. > :13:03.investment in the economy and creating jobs. So, that is what he
:13:04. > :13:11.promised, so that is what I imagine he is determined to deliver. But the
:13:12. > :13:17.fact is that he also promised, or he said he wanted to abolish the EPA,
:13:18. > :13:22.so when I have been quoted recently as saying, I think we are in for
:13:23. > :13:26.some radical downsizing at the EPA, I am actually taking a more moderate
:13:27. > :13:30.position than he did when he said he wanted to abolish it, or at one
:13:31. > :13:34.point he said, we will leave a little bit. So, let me get this
:13:35. > :13:38.clear in my head, you believe that Donald Trump is going to revoke the
:13:39. > :13:43.clean air act, that he is going to revoke the standards that he imposed
:13:44. > :13:47.on coal and natural gas power plants, he is going to revoke some
:13:48. > :13:52.of the clean water regulations, the waters of the US rule, the standards
:13:53. > :13:56.imposed on the Chesapeake Bay, these are all gone as far as you concerned
:13:57. > :13:56.if Donald Trump gets his way? Shinzo Abe
:13:57. > :14:14.not the clean air act. Very important to power stations across
:14:15. > :14:21.the nation? It will take some time to withdraw and reseat some of these
:14:22. > :14:25.rules but I think those are his commitment and I think largely you
:14:26. > :14:29.can make a very strong case that the reason he wanted the election is of
:14:30. > :14:33.the reasons because of these policies and similar policies for
:14:34. > :14:40.job creation resonated across America in places where we still
:14:41. > :14:48.have manufacturing, we still have energy intensity... And America is
:14:49. > :14:56.breathing dirtier air and living with dirty water and that is a prize
:14:57. > :15:05.worth paying? President Trump said during the campaign that he wanted
:15:06. > :15:10.to return to the EPA to look after water and carbon dioxide is a
:15:11. > :15:15.naturally occurring gas necessary for life on Earth, it is not a
:15:16. > :15:19.pollutant and the waters of the US rule has nothing to do with drinking
:15:20. > :15:26.water but expanding Federal jurisdiction over wetland, you will
:15:27. > :15:33.recall President Trump said he wanted to drain one particular slot
:15:34. > :15:37.in Washington and so it is no surprise that he wants to with draw
:15:38. > :15:42.a rule which would expand federal jurisdiction dramatically.
:15:43. > :15:48.Interesting you pick on that phrase. Do you think putting a former chief
:15:49. > :15:58.of ExxonMobil in charge of the EPA, if he gets is way, Scott Pruett, as
:15:59. > :16:03.Attorney General in Oklahoma has run lawsuits and action against the
:16:04. > :16:08.environmental protection agency, does that to you represent the
:16:09. > :16:16.draining the swamp? Yes, Scott Pruett really has shown his
:16:17. > :16:21.dedication to try to rein in the EPA which is really out of control. It's
:16:22. > :16:32.regulatory onslaught against people across America who dig up staff,
:16:33. > :16:38.grocer, and I am proud to say my organisation has been with the
:16:39. > :16:44.Attorney General in Oklahoma on several major suit including the
:16:45. > :16:51.case to overturn the greenhouse glass rules will power plants. The
:16:52. > :17:04.appointment has not been matched by the feelings of employees. They have
:17:05. > :17:09.signed a petition saying he is shown no interest to withhold polluters
:17:10. > :17:14.accountable but most significantly, a former Republican chief of the
:17:15. > :17:21.EPA, Christine Todd Whitman, saying that she could not remember ever
:17:22. > :17:27.seeing an appointment of someone so disdainful of both the agency and
:17:28. > :17:33.the signs of what the agency does. -- science. I disagree with that
:17:34. > :17:38.characterisation. These are the people I have been posing on policy
:17:39. > :17:43.grounds for a long time and I pleased the new administrator of the
:17:44. > :17:47.EPA is someone who agrees with me that fundamental reform needs to be
:17:48. > :17:53.made at the EPA. With respect, the only people ardently backing him a
:17:54. > :17:57.big business leaders, the fossil fuel industry and people like you
:17:58. > :18:00.who we have established have a background in think tanks which are
:18:01. > :18:08.to a certain extent sponsored by those sorts of groups. Well, it is
:18:09. > :18:12.just the fact that elections can change directions and this election
:18:13. > :18:16.surprise people and there are a lot of people coming to terms with the
:18:17. > :18:22.fact that we have a candidate who ran on these issues and the American
:18:23. > :18:28.people elected him and he won in states there are still based in
:18:29. > :18:32.manufacturing and energy intensive industry that disagree with the by
:18:33. > :18:40.coastal orbital wheat and every person you have quoted all refer to
:18:41. > :18:46.is part of the urban elite and think they know better than people who
:18:47. > :18:50.have to deal with all issues and think that really do not need energy
:18:51. > :18:54.and their career in front of computer screens manipulating
:18:55. > :19:07.information somehow everybody can live like that... You are, you know,
:19:08. > :19:11.obviously a man with a senior position I do not think you are 1
:19:12. > :19:16.million miles away from the elite yourself. But keeping to the
:19:17. > :19:23.specifics. There are some very important decisions. The philosophy
:19:24. > :19:29.of... We want to push ahead with energy on all fronts. Let's think
:19:30. > :19:34.about some of the key decisions. This Dakota pipeline which so many
:19:35. > :19:42.people, environmentalists and the Sioux native Americans on whose land
:19:43. > :19:47.it will cross, can we take it that it will go ahead and you will push
:19:48. > :19:52.for the keystone pipeline to be built as well? President Trump has
:19:53. > :20:00.made it clear in his executive order that he expects both pipelines to be
:20:01. > :20:05.completed after the regulatory obstacles have been removed and a
:20:06. > :20:16.fully permit it. The Dakota pipeline will move very rapidly. The Standing
:20:17. > :20:19.Rock Sioux have said they will be a massive backlash and protest if the
:20:20. > :20:24.Dakota pipeline goes ahead full of do you think the Trump
:20:25. > :20:29.Administration is ready for that sort of public stand-off? We will
:20:30. > :20:33.have to see our have lots of experience with pipelines. We've
:20:34. > :20:39.have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in this country, they
:20:40. > :20:46.never became politically... They never became a political matter
:20:47. > :20:52.until the environmental community said that we have to stop producing
:20:53. > :20:58.fossil fuels. The pipelines in themselves do not resent a safety
:20:59. > :21:02.threat, in fact, they register the risks of oil spills because right
:21:03. > :21:07.now the oil in North Dakota and Alberta a lot of it is being moved
:21:08. > :21:12.by rail cars and we have seen the kinds of disasters that can happen
:21:13. > :21:18.when you try to move liquid petroleum in a rail car and you have
:21:19. > :21:23.an accident. Let's just end if we may with thoughts of the global
:21:24. > :21:26.stage in which it is drama is being played out. At the Paris climate
:21:27. > :21:31.agreement was a milestone wrecked it knows as such not just by the Obama
:21:32. > :21:38.administration but by governments all over the world and that there
:21:39. > :21:41.was a great deal of talk of the United States and China, together,
:21:42. > :21:46.leading the move towards a decarbonisation of the global
:21:47. > :21:50.economy. You happen to think while the rest of the world continues in
:21:51. > :21:57.that direction, the US is performing at heartbreak turned and going in
:21:58. > :22:01.the opposite direction? Yes, I think the US will lead the world to a much
:22:02. > :22:06.brighter future full think the Paris agreement is a dead end. I think the
:22:07. > :22:12.commitment made to their largely on paper and not real. I think every
:22:13. > :22:17.country that wants to have a growing and prosperous economy finds out
:22:18. > :22:22.that these kinds of commitment are huge obstacle to maintaining
:22:23. > :22:29.economic growth. I think is see China has made a promise that its
:22:30. > :22:37.emissions will peak sometime in the 20 30s and that gives them a long
:22:38. > :22:42.time to grow and they can then say we have made a mistake not take that
:22:43. > :22:48.is not what is happening in China. They are interest so many billions,
:22:49. > :22:55.it is mind-boggling, in renewable energy. By 2020 half of the energy
:22:56. > :23:01.will will be wind, hydro, solar and 14 million jobs will be created.
:23:02. > :23:06.They are not bleeding heart liberals but they believe that is their
:23:07. > :23:12.future. I disagree with that. If you look at the facts,... Of those are
:23:13. > :23:19.facts. We have talked about science and fax throughout the interview...
:23:20. > :23:23.Hang on, if you look at other things they are investing in, they are
:23:24. > :23:28.making huge investment in fossil fuel in fossil fuel plants. They
:23:29. > :23:33.have a variety of policies that they are pursuing the fact is, their
:23:34. > :23:38.energy consumption is going up and most of that, most of the new
:23:39. > :23:44.consumption is coming from fossil fuels. Windmills are great when they
:23:45. > :23:49.are blowing. Solar panels are great when the sun is shining but in fact,
:23:50. > :23:56.their economy, like the US economy and the European economy, runs on
:23:57. > :24:00.fossils fuels. 80% of the world 's energy comes from fossil fuel. In 25
:24:01. > :24:08.years, the right predictions are that about 80% will still be used.
:24:09. > :24:14.We could go on but we have run out of time. Myron Ebell, and cute for
:24:15. > :24:17.joining us from Washington. Thank you.