Myron Ebell, director of Competitive Enterprise Institute HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk, I'm Stephen Sackur.

The trump administration is intent on a radical reset of America's

energy and environment policies. The implications will be profound on

everything from fossil fuel production to climate change policy.

My guest today is Myron Ebell, who led the Trump transition team on

environment policy and has long been an advocate of radical reform of the

Federal environmental protection agency. In America's new politics,

will the interest of big business consistently trump environmental

concern? Myron Ebell,

welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you for having me. Let's ask a

simple question to start with, in your opinion does the Drum residency

represent a fundamental reset of environmental and energy policy in

the United States? -- Trump. Everything that he has said in the

campaign, it seems to me suggests that it is a fundamental reset and

that we will be turning a corner and moving to a much brighter future.

Yes, I mean, you obviously have the inside track on this, because you

were part of the transition team very much involved with drawing up a

roadmap for future policy on environmental matters. So, just give

me a sense of the way in which your input and he insights to you work

together. Were you both on the same page, or you both talking about

really moving in a very different direction from the Obama

administration? First, I have no role in the Trump Administration. My

work in the transition is over, so I don't represent or speak for the

Trump Administration or for the President. I was asked to lead the

transition team on EPA because in fact my views largely respond to the

views that the President campaigned on and that he promised the American

people he would do if he was elected. So, yes, I think that we

share most views on energy and the environment. Let's talk big picture

sort of mindset before we dig down into the detail of environmental

policy making. In terms of your approach and the President's, and I

take the point that the transition is over and you are not part of the

team today, but in terms of both of your mindsets, do you believe that

when a scientists, when politicians in the western world, when

environmental campaigners all talk about the urgent need to

de-carbonise the global economy, do you think they are wrong? Yes, I do,

and I think that the campaign that we have just witnessed in the United

States is interesting, because it is the first presidential campaign that

we have had where both candidates, Secretary Clinton and Mr Trump,

campaigned on climate policy and on energy policy and put forward very

different views. One side won and the other side lost, so I think the

American people basically agree with President Trump, that climate change

is not one of their top concerns and that there are a lot more pressing

issues to take up by the government. Do you think the American people

agree with President Trump when he tweets, as he has, in the last few

years, in fact, because it is a consistent thought of his, that

global warming is a hoax, "I am not a believer" he has said, we have the

weather, it goes up and down, but we have much bigger problems than that.

Do you think with those sorts of messages that he tweets out, he is

speaking for the American people? I think he is speaking for a majority

of the American people and I think, you know, he tends to exaggerate for

a fact and then he walks back, so he said climate change is a hoax and

later when asked about it he said, I was making a joke, but I don't think

it is a big problem is the gist of his position, I think. I mean, I was

about to say I am assuming you don't think climate change, giving given

all of the consensus, you don't think man-made climate change,

though warming of the planet, you don't think it is a hoax, do you, or

do you? No, but I think a great deal of exaggeration has entered the

debate by the campaigners for very rigourous climate policies, and I

think if you actually look at the science, it doesn't support what I

would call the alarmist position. And, you know, we can discuss that,

but I think the fact is that there are large interests, both in the

scientific community but also in the business community, that it is in

their interest to exaggerate the impact of climate change. Well,

let's try to keep it out of politics and the realms of exaggeration,

let's just, and I don't want to spend long on it, let's be specific,

two of the US federal agencies that have voiced most concerned about

climate change, our NASA, and goodness knows they rely on science

and the US department of defence, which are stated in 2015 that

climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national

security, so, leave aside politics, leave aside exaggeration, you would

accept the words of NASA and the Pentagon, would you? No, I think

that the department of defence was under very strict political

supervision from the Obama White House and that they were told to

make sure that climate change is involved in all of your thinking

about defence, so no, I do not accept that and I think that opinion

at NASA is divided between the modelling community and what I would

call the empirical community, people who rely on temperature datasets. It

is probably to remind everyone you come from a background, the

Competitive Enterprise Institute centre for energy and environment

which in the past winner has been funded by Exxon Mobil, by the Koch

brothers, by people who clearly have an interest in pouring scorn on the

climate change agenda, so it is indeed interesting that Donald Trump

pick you to handle his EPA and environmental policy transition,

isn't it? Yes, I was surprised. Usually an insider is chosen for

each transition team. Someone who has had experience working inside

the agency or the department, I do not have that, I have always been an

outsider. But I don't think a funding sources of my organisation

have much to do with the policies that we pursue. The fact is that we

adopt policies based on what we think are the facts and our

political beliefs, which are for free markets and limited government

and then we go out and try to attract funding from sources that

agree with us. Sure, but in the end you're not a scientist, I mean, I

was talking about NASA's science and all of the data they collected and

their conclusion that carbon dioxide particles are the highest in the air

in 650,000 years, global temperatures have risen much more

than one Celsius since 1880, you know, this is scientific data, you

are not a scientist, and the group that you have come from and that you

have very ably represented, very influential in represented, has an

agenda which is driven by people who have an interest in denying climate

change. I think that the facts are that the warming we have seen since

the end of the little Ice Age in the middle of the 19th century is

modest. It may be that there is an increasing component of that change

caused by human activity, primarily burning coal, oil and natural gas,

but, for example, we have produced - humanity as a whole has produced

about 31% of the total greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of

the industrial age, they have been emitted in the last 20 years, and

yet there has been a pause, or a hiatus, or a plateau of warming in

the last 20 years. If the climate is as sensitive to CO2 as is claimed by

the alarmists we should have seen significant warming in the last 20

years. Now, there was an attempt to rewrite the temperature record and

that has just this week been exposed as a hoax. Well, I do want to get

into the detail of what you think is going to happen to environment

policy under the Trump administration but one more point on

the politics of this, and again I think it is instructive to look at

where conservative parties and politicians sit around the world on

this issue, and I have looked from, you know, Western Europe, Austral

Asia, everywhere else, and, frankly, right or centre politicians on the

whole art now very accepting of the scientific consensus around climate

change -- Australiasia. -- are now. And two other grandees of the

Republican Party, Jim Baker and Georgia shorts, on this very day

have published an article arguing for a carbon tax as saying that

there is mounting scientific evidence of the problems with the

atmosphere, they are too compelling now to ignore -- Schultz. I use

weighed by the fact that, you know, so many conservative political fears

are now saying this? -- Are you swayed. No, in fact, the house of

representatives held a test vote on a carbon tax last year and every

single Republican, including those who agree with your statement that

climate change is a growing problem voted against a carbon tax. Every

single Republican. So I think that the Republican Party is united, and

we have some people who have perhaps served their country well many

decades ago but they really... They are out of the debate, they are not

a significant part of the conservative movement today. Right,

well, let's look at what Donald Trump as president, surrounded by

people from the conservative movement may do in terms of

environmental policy-making. Let me be blunt about it, was your

recommendation to him that he should emasculate the environmental

protection agency? I have seen leaked documents which suggest you

think the cuts should go from a workforce of 15,000 to 5000, that a

huge amount of the grant giving activity should be frozen and then

stopped, what kind of EPA do you imagine Donald Trump will supervise

and look after? The document I prepared, it it was an action plan

for the administration, it was advisory and was meant to translate

the campaign and the candidate's promises and commitments into

governance. So, let me tell you what President Trump said during the

campaign. He promised to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, he

promised to defunct United Nations climate programmes, and he promised

to get rid of all withdraw or rescind a number of greenhouse gas

rules and other environmental rules that he said, and I think quite

correctly, had very little to do with environmental to it in, but

have a huge negative effect on the economy and they are blocking

investment in the economy and creating jobs. So, that is what he

promised, so that is what I imagine he is determined to deliver. But the

fact is that he also promised, or he said he wanted to abolish the EPA,

so when I have been quoted recently as saying, I think we are in for

some radical downsizing at the EPA, I am actually taking a more moderate

position than he did when he said he wanted to abolish it, or at one

point he said, we will leave a little bit. So, let me get this

clear in my head, you believe that Donald Trump is going to revoke the

clean air act, that he is going to revoke the standards that he imposed

on coal and natural gas power plants, he is going to revoke some

of the clean water regulations, the waters of the US rule, the standards

imposed on the Chesapeake Bay, these are all gone as far as you concerned

if Donald Trump gets his way? Shinzo Abe

not the clean air act. Very important to power stations across

the nation? It will take some time to withdraw and reseat some of these

rules but I think those are his commitment and I think largely you

can make a very strong case that the reason he wanted the election is of

the reasons because of these policies and similar policies for

job creation resonated across America in places where we still

have manufacturing, we still have energy intensity... And America is

breathing dirtier air and living with dirty water and that is a prize

worth paying? President Trump said during the campaign that he wanted

to return to the EPA to look after water and carbon dioxide is a

naturally occurring gas necessary for life on Earth, it is not a

pollutant and the waters of the US rule has nothing to do with drinking

water but expanding Federal jurisdiction over wetland, you will

recall President Trump said he wanted to drain one particular slot

in Washington and so it is no surprise that he wants to with draw

a rule which would expand federal jurisdiction dramatically.

Interesting you pick on that phrase. Do you think putting a former chief

of ExxonMobil in charge of the EPA, if he gets is way, Scott Pruett, as

Attorney General in Oklahoma has run lawsuits and action against the

environmental protection agency, does that to you represent the

draining the swamp? Yes, Scott Pruett really has shown his

dedication to try to rein in the EPA which is really out of control. It's

regulatory onslaught against people across America who dig up staff,

grocer, and I am proud to say my organisation has been with the

Attorney General in Oklahoma on several major suit including the

case to overturn the greenhouse glass rules will power plants. The

appointment has not been matched by the feelings of employees. They have

signed a petition saying he is shown no interest to withhold polluters

accountable but most significantly, a former Republican chief of the

EPA, Christine Todd Whitman, saying that she could not remember ever

seeing an appointment of someone so disdainful of both the agency and

the signs of what the agency does. -- science. I disagree with that

characterisation. These are the people I have been posing on policy

grounds for a long time and I pleased the new administrator of the

EPA is someone who agrees with me that fundamental reform needs to be

made at the EPA. With respect, the only people ardently backing him a

big business leaders, the fossil fuel industry and people like you

who we have established have a background in think tanks which are

to a certain extent sponsored by those sorts of groups. Well, it is

just the fact that elections can change directions and this election

surprise people and there are a lot of people coming to terms with the

fact that we have a candidate who ran on these issues and the American

people elected him and he won in states there are still based in

manufacturing and energy intensive industry that disagree with the by

coastal orbital wheat and every person you have quoted all refer to

is part of the urban elite and think they know better than people who

have to deal with all issues and think that really do not need energy

and their career in front of computer screens manipulating

information somehow everybody can live like that... You are, you know,

obviously a man with a senior position I do not think you are 1

million miles away from the elite yourself. But keeping to the

specifics. There are some very important decisions. The philosophy

of... We want to push ahead with energy on all fronts. Let's think

about some of the key decisions. This Dakota pipeline which so many

people, environmentalists and the Sioux native Americans on whose land

it will cross, can we take it that it will go ahead and you will push

for the keystone pipeline to be built as well? President Trump has

made it clear in his executive order that he expects both pipelines to be

completed after the regulatory obstacles have been removed and a

fully permit it. The Dakota pipeline will move very rapidly. The Standing

Rock Sioux have said they will be a massive backlash and protest if the

Dakota pipeline goes ahead full of do you think the Trump

Administration is ready for that sort of public stand-off? We will

have to see our have lots of experience with pipelines. We've

have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in this country, they

never became politically... They never became a political matter

until the environmental community said that we have to stop producing

fossil fuels. The pipelines in themselves do not resent a safety

threat, in fact, they register the risks of oil spills because right

now the oil in North Dakota and Alberta a lot of it is being moved

by rail cars and we have seen the kinds of disasters that can happen

when you try to move liquid petroleum in a rail car and you have

an accident. Let's just end if we may with thoughts of the global

stage in which it is drama is being played out. At the Paris climate

agreement was a milestone wrecked it knows as such not just by the Obama

administration but by governments all over the world and that there

was a great deal of talk of the United States and China, together,

leading the move towards a decarbonisation of the global

economy. You happen to think while the rest of the world continues in

that direction, the US is performing at heartbreak turned and going in

the opposite direction? Yes, I think the US will lead the world to a much

brighter future full think the Paris agreement is a dead end. I think the

commitment made to their largely on paper and not real. I think every

country that wants to have a growing and prosperous economy finds out

that these kinds of commitment are huge obstacle to maintaining

economic growth. I think is see China has made a promise that its

emissions will peak sometime in the 20 30s and that gives them a long

time to grow and they can then say we have made a mistake not take that

is not what is happening in China. They are interest so many billions,

it is mind-boggling, in renewable energy. By 2020 half of the energy

will will be wind, hydro, solar and 14 million jobs will be created.

They are not bleeding heart liberals but they believe that is their

future. I disagree with that. If you look at the facts,... Of those are

facts. We have talked about science and fax throughout the interview...

Hang on, if you look at other things they are investing in, they are

making huge investment in fossil fuel in fossil fuel plants. They

have a variety of policies that they are pursuing the fact is, their

energy consumption is going up and most of that, most of the new

consumption is coming from fossil fuels. Windmills are great when they

are blowing. Solar panels are great when the sun is shining but in fact,

their economy, like the US economy and the European economy, runs on

fossils fuels. 80% of the world 's energy comes from fossil fuel. In 25

years, the right predictions are that about 80% will still be used.

We could go on but we have run out of time. Myron Ebell, and cute for

joining us from Washington. Thank you.