This pre recorded show furnished by Matthew Matern. Hi, this is Matt Matern. And this is Unite and Heal America and KABC 790. Our guest today is Karly Matthews, communications director of the American Conservation Coalition. Welcome to the show, Karly.

Thanks for having me.

Well, tell us a little bit about the American Conservation Coalition and the kind of work that you do.

Yeah, so the American Conservation Coalition was founded in 2017, by a group of young conservative activists who saw this kind of gap in the market of ideas, that conservatives weren't engaging on conversations, like climate change and environmental protection. But they knew as conservatives that we cared about the environment, we wanted to preserve it for future generations. But we had to be more vocal and do more than just oppose maybe leftist proposals or leftist solutions, and present our own.

Well, that's certainly near and dear to my heart is that one of the main reasons that I ran against President Trump in 2020, as a Republican was that I felt he had swung so far away from the environmental message that had attracted me to the party, like leaders like George HW Bush, who'd said he wanted to be the environmental president and signed into law, the extensions to the Clean Air Act.

Which according to a National Geographic article, I just read, saves 230,000 lives a year in in the United States. So once what once upon a time not that long ago, Republicans were leaders on this issue, what happened?

You're absolutely right. I mean, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, he's known as the conservation President started at the National Park System. Richard Nixon founded the EPA, like you talked about HW Bush worked on the Clean Air Act. Even Ronald Reagan said that environmental protection is just common sense. So we do have a legacy of wanting to protect our environment of being conservationists.

But I think in the last three decades, maybe the left really owned this issue of climate change of environmental protection. And so instead of also coming to the table and presenting our own solutions, we reverted to kind of climate denial or climate apathy, at least. And what we should have done is come to this come to the table and said, you know, environmental challenges, environmental issues don't require growing the size of the government to, you know, massive sizes, but it does require smart, targeted government, we have to recognize that there's a problem that there's challenge.

But we can come to the challenge from different perspectives, we don't have to be, you know, denying the problem because the left is championing solutions. So I think that kind of blowback is what happened. And we're coming back to the table now and saying, No, everyone cares about the environment, we all want to protect the environment. But let's hash out solutions. We want to get there in different ways.

So tell us tell me how you got to this organization personally, what, what compelled you to, to seek a position here?

Yeah, so I'm from a really small rural town in Pennsylvania. My dad and my grandfather are very passionate sportsmen. So I grew up outside, I knew that my my parents cared about conservation, they cared about, you know, protecting the environment and preserving species in the area. But I also knew that I was a conservative.

And so that was kind of a disconnect when I got to college, because I would go to, you know, conservative club meetings, and no one really talked about the environment. And it was an issue I was passionate about. So when I found ACC in, I think, 2018, about a year after it was founded, I was so excited, because I felt like it was a like minded group of individuals who, you know, saw this challenge for what it was wanted solutions. But those solutions didn't sacrifice my principles.

So that was why I was so excited to join. And I've been with the organization for almost two years, almost one year full time. And it's been incredibly rewarding to see how the conversation has shifted, even in that incredibly short time.

Well tell us what kind of work you're doing with the organization, and what are the results that you're seeing on the ground?

Yeah, so we have more than 110 branches, which is, you know, two or more activists in a community or on the college campus throughout the country. And Earth Day last week was a great demonstration of what kind of work these groups do. We had more than 30 cleanups or hikes or other other events nationwide showing that you know, conservatives care about the environment and we care about bettering our communities. So that was really rewarding to see here in DC.

We do a lot of legislative advocacy. Just last week, the growing Climate Solutions Act was introduced into the Senate and this was legislation would essentially lower the barriers to entry to agricultural carbon markets so that farmers can essentially trade, you know, financial compensation with carbon and naturally sequester that carbon on their land for smaller companies that, you know, maybe don't have the means to pursue carbon capture technology or other carbon offsets.

So that's some of the really exciting legislation that we champion, really common sense, bipartisan solutions that will result in emissions reduced, not just, you know, rhetoric or or plans that that don't have tangible results at the end of them.

So that that bill that you talked about the growing climate solutions, that is bipartisan support.

Yes, absolutely. I believe there's already more than 60 co sponsors, and it was just introduced last week, and both Republicans and Democrats are on that bill, I believe. Mike Braun from Indiana and Debbie Stabenow from Wisconsin. Nope, that's not right. Off to double check that, but then Senator Debbie Stabenow are the champions of that bill.

So it is largely bipartisan. Oh, that's great to hear, because we hear so much on the news about the partisan divide. And it's, it's nice to hear that some, some people are getting together. Where's that bill in the House? Are we there through getting it? Has it gotten any traction there?

There is a house bill expected, but it has not been introduced yet. But we're hoping that this bill both in the House and the Senate moves pretty quickly, because it's, it's really widely supported. And it would, it would really change the landscape for farmers to really engage in this conversation.

So basically, they the farmers would be able to be encouraged, say, if they've planted some trees or other things on their on their land that would capture carbon, they would be paid for it.

Exactly, yes. So they would essentially, this is a voluntary program. It's not any sort of mandate. So it's a voluntary carbon market. Essentially, a company would pay a farmer and a farmer would, you know, either plant trees on their land plant cover crops that would you know, they're not really harvesting them, they're just increasing the quality of the soil. And that would be natural carbon sequestration to kind of offset the company's carbon.

Right? Well, certainly, Bill Gates talks a lot about in his book, that carbon sequestration is something we should be doing. And he talks about a number of kind of techie type solutions to it. Something that's natural, like growing more trees is certainly could be part of the process and part of the solution as well. So where else do you see the your organization in action? And what types of strides is it making?

Absolutely. So also, last week, last week was a really big, big week for environmental protection. House Republicans led by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy actually rolled out a House GOP climate plan 30 More than 30 bills, addressing different ways to reduce carbon and protect our environment to address climate change, called the energy innovation agenda.

And ACC was involved in this. We did a video with Representative John Curtis from Utah that was included in the rollout. And this is, you know, an incredible step forward for Republicans who, you know, we've been branded kind of as party of climate denial, and now, the most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives is championing a climate plan. And ACC and our activists have been absolutely instrumental in making these sorts of things happen.

That That does sound encouraging. What are these 30 bills, if you could kind of give us a preview of some of the ones you think are most important?

Sure. So it focuses on three different sections of, you know, climate change strategy, which is energy innovation, or sorry, innovation, energy infrastructure and natural climate solutions. So I think there's some really encouraging things with nuclear energy promoting that on a global scale. Nuclear energy is a baseload source, it can be produced 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it's carbon free.

So that's something that should absolutely be a part of our energy profile if we're serious about climate change. And there's also some natural climate solution bills, such as, you know, the the initiative to plant a trillion trees globally. I think the Nature Conservancy suggested that if we kind of pursued this natural climate solutions Avenue, more than 30% of emissions reductions needed by 2030 could be accounted for by natural climate solutions.

So it's not a cure all but it's an incredibly important piece to moving forward. And then like you were saying, A this idea of innovation and emission reducing tech that Bill Gates, Elon Musk, other, you know, very powerful people are championing that's going to be critical as well. And that's, that's a big part of Republican strategy moving forward is incentivizing that sort of innovation.

Certainly, Bill Gates talks about it fairly extensively in his book that, that nuclear energy is a, a source of clean energy, and he doesn't see a path to the kind of the type of reductions that we need without using nuclear, because we just don't have it unless there's some incredible breakthrough in the next 10 years in some other way, shape or form, it's just the most efficient way to produce energy in a clean way. Because, for instance, windmills, and solar take up a lot of space, and, you know, just don't have the same ability to produce power 24/7, which is what the market kind of needs at this point in time.

Well, you're listening to Unite and Heal America with Matt Matern. And my guest today, Karly Matthews, the communication director of the American Conservation Coalition, your listener KABC, 790. We'll be back in just one minute.

This is Unite and Heal America, this is Matt Matern and KABC 790. My guest again, Karly Matthews, Communication Director of the American Conservation Coalition. Currently, before the break, we're talking about nuclear energy and the need to to build more plants for us to have a cleaner and greener future. What's the impediment to that? Are we seeing pushback from Democrats on that issue?

Yeah, I think, first of all, nuclear is a bipartisan issue. There are a lot of bipartisan bills, either in in Congress now, or we're in the last session of Congress. But there is a holdup on nuclear energy on the left side of the aisle, as opposed to the right side of the aisle. And I think this revolves around two things. First of all, Americans generally are a little wary of nuclear. When we talk about nuclear power, you know, immediately that nuclear bomb comes to mind.

And that, you know, that's fear inducing. And then we've also had, you know, in my home state of Pennsylvania, Three Mile Island, and then other meltdowns, or you know, dysfunctions of nuclear power plants worldwide. But it's really important to note that nuclear power has come so far, even since Three Mile Island, and innovation and development has made this a very safe source of energy. So it's really important that our elected leaders, business leaders, anyone who you know, has authority on this issue really emphasizes that nuclear power is safe now.

And then the other issue here is nuclear waste management. I'm sure you've heard of like you can mountain and like dealing with nuclear waste in different areas that have nuclear power plants. So there does need to be supplemental legislation development, in how we handle nuclear waste, to really deploy more nuclear power.

But like you were saying, Before the break, it's impossible to reach net zero by 2050. Without nuclear power, it's just transitioning away from fossil fuels is not possible without a baseload source, like nuclear power. So even though it's not perfect, and there are certainly things we need to troubleshoot, we need to do that to move forward.

Well, gates to Bill Gates talks about the the risk factor of nuclear and he mentions how realistically, very few people have died related to nuclear power, as compared to say, US burning fossil fuels, the pollution related to that causes far more deaths than than nuclear does. You know, I have to admit that I'm a bit wary of nuclear power in in my lifetime, I see so many people who are careless and negligent, and we do see accidents. So you kind of hate to have the kind of accident with nuclear power, which is very hard to clean up.

And, and of course, storing the waste, like you said, is a is a very challenging problem. But given the potential risk of climate change, it probably is worth the risk. And it's an important point to let the audience know it for a lot of countries have mastered this, like France has 70% of their power come from nuclear sources. So that's pretty impressive. And if we could do some even half of that we would probably go a long way towards reaching net zero.

So that's certainly something we can work on going forward. What do you see in terms of Coming to some compromise between the Republican position on the environment and the 30 bills they've put forward and the green new deal that the some of the Democrats, not all of them have put forward. Where's the compromise here? I haven't I haven't seen kind of many articles about how there's going to be compromise between these two proposals.

Yeah, that's a great question. And it really comes down to, you know, a difference in philosophy regarding environmental issues. So Republicans are open to this idea of incremental ism. And that, you know, a climate bill does not have to fix climate change in totality to be effective, and to be, you know, a legitimate solution. And the left is often looking for this silver bullet solution. And that's painting with a broad brush, because like I said, there are a lot of bipartisan climate bills out there and energy clean energy bills.

So that is important to note there, there is bipartisanship, on climate change, we just don't hear about it. So I think, you know, coming back to this idea of what do we agree on what what is consensus building, and maybe that can be nuclear power in the next few years, maybe that can be emission, reducing tech, like carbon capture technology, or battery storage for renewables, like wind and solar, but we have to kind of come to come to consensus is on an issue by issue basis, we're never going to come up with, you know, the perfect marriage of a green New Deal.

And these 30 Plus bills, that's a one off piece of legislation that's going to fix climate change, we have to, you know, hash out solutions as they come by sector. So that could be, you know, putting together energy legislation putting together natural climate solutions legislation, putting together infrastructure legislation, and finding consensus there. But I don't think we're ever going to have, you know, this silver bullet solution to climate change.

Well, where is President Biden as far as leading on this issue in terms of bringing together consensus from what you can see?

Yeah, so I think that President Biden has been very successful in really putting climate change at the center of his presidential agenda. Right. So even before he was elected, he wanted to tackle climate change while in office. So that's been really encouraging. I will say that, you know, good rhetoric does not mean good policy. And so far, his policy has been leading by executive order by, you know, encouraging the growth of government.

So I think there does need to be, you know, a little bit more of compromise on, you know, private sector action, and encouraging innovation, that, you know, is not coming directly from the government. So, but I do think that there is absolutely room for compromise and consensus between President Biden and congressional Republicans, and I think it's, it's encouraging, especially after four years of President Trump where the environment simply was not a priority.

You know, it, it occasionally was there was some good legislation passed and signed, like the great american outdoors act that helps to fund our national parks. But it certainly was not a priority. So it is encouraging that climate change is consistently on the table. It's consistently being discussed. And I think that will lead to solutions.

So what about the infrastructure bill? What is the infrastructure bill that President Biden minutes put forward? The you, are you supporting your organization supporting and think would be has some good solutions for improving the our environment?

Yeah, so the infrastructure bill, there are parts of it that are they're really good. There are nuclear provisions, actually, there are important updates to our physical infrastructure. But I think we've come to kind of a dangerous point where we're redefining infrastructure to mean a lot of things that are not traditionally infrastructure. Right. So I think we have a about a c minus grade, I believe on infrastructure, nationwide right now. So our roads and bridges need to be updated.

And then there are absolutely things we can do with clean energy infrastructure, updating and securing our grid we saw in Texas grid security and making sure that we have energy even in very extreme weather circumstances is critical people's lives were in peril or ended because the grid was not secure and people lost power, didn't have water. And you know, it was terrible in Texas earlier this year.

So those things are really important. I think it comes down to again, we have to have targeted solutions. If we throw everything in the kitchen sink into a plan or a piece of legislation. That's that's not open to compromise. That's a very, you know, that's a wish list. That's a one size fits all solution. And I don't think that's going to work. You know, even if we kind of push that through reconciliation, I don't think it's smart to kind of, you know, have these catch all bills that supposedly fix everything.

Right. And so I think there's room for compromise with Joe Biden's infrastructure plan. But, but there definitely needs to be some toning down, or tailoring down the legislation, the plan to make it really focused on infrastructure.

Well, I definitely see that it makes sense to pare back the infrastructure bill, and for many reasons, I mean, I read a good article recently, and they were saying, well, the US was something like 15th, or 16th in the world, regarding infrastructure, but a number of the one, the countries that were higher than us were very small countries, we're talking about, you know, like Lichtenstein or something like that. So when you compare us to countries of similar size, our grade really isn't that low.

So they may be overstating the issue of the need. And then I think secondary to that is whether or not we need that big of an economic boost, because the economy right now from all accounts is pretty much booming. Not to say that some targeted monies could be helpful in certain areas. But I agree with you that less is more and really targeted to where we really need it and not to spend money, like a drunken sailor, which is kind of how we've been spending money, both under the Trump administration, and now the beginning of the Biden administration. I mean, our debt is just exploding. Young people are going to have to pay for this at some point in time.

And I don't think it's a wise thing to do. But we're going to be going into the break in just a second here. But I wanted to talk to you briefly when we get back about how you see the compromise between the green New Deal proposals and the House GOP proposal.

So you're listening to Unite and Heal America, KABC 790. My guest again, Karly Matthews, Communication Director of the American Conservation Coalition.

You're listening to Unite and Heal America with Matt Matern. KABC 790. Our guest again, Karly Matthews, communications director of the American Conservation Coalition, and Karly kind of want to pivot back to politics and say, where the Republican Party is going nationally, at on this issue of the environment.

And I had a chance to witness some things locally, when I was traveling around in New Hampshire last year and talking to people and and I got to meet the governor there. Chris Sununu and, and very intelligent guy. I think he went to MIT and he was pretty pro environment.

And you wouldn't kind of know that if you were listening to President Trump or former President Trump on on the environment. And how how does the party kind of pivot back to this very kind of intelligent informed environmentalism that was fairly common in the Republican Party to kind of denialism which was something that Trump promoted?

Yeah, I think this is a really important question. And I think there absolutely were Republicans under the Trump administration still being environmentalists, right. I'm thinking about Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Senate. There are members of the House like Brian mast from Florida, who champion common sense climate solutions, even under President Trump and, and like I mentioned before, there were pieces of legislation, the great american outdoors Act, the saber Seas Act, that did make it through the legislature and onto the President's desk and were ultimately signed.

But you're right, the rhetoric coming from the Trump administration on the environment on climate change was damaging to the Republican Party at large also, you know, just kind of generally to the conversation of climate change, because now we have an even deeper design divide between alarmism on the left and denial on the right. And most Americans are in the middle and they say I believe in climate change. But you know, I I don't really want socialism. I don't want 100% renewable energy right now because I want to power my home.

But I want solutions and I and I want to pursue a cleaner future for my children. For my grandchildren, so we need to get back to rhetoric that is common sense and isn't the world is going to end in 12 years, or we don't have a problem. But if we do, people in beach side houses are going to have to move. Both of those attitudes are equally damaging.

And so there's a lot of work to do on the right to come back to a place where it is climate change is happening, and we have to do something about it. And there's room, you know, to work on the left of saying, Okay, how do we bring this conversation back to a reasonable place that is not scaring the life out of youth activists and kind of paralyzing people in inaction. So I think there's a lot of work to do in our country to get to a productive place in the climate conversation.

Well, I guess the question is, how do we how do we do that? Or particularly within the Republican Party, because it seems as though because of the Trump hold on the quote, base? It has. It is a kind of dissuaded Republican leaders from getting out in front and being more pro environment, in my opinion, because it just didn't seem like I saw too many Republicans taking this on nationally as an important issue.

That's absolutely fair. And I think you're right that at large, the Republican Party did not engage on climate change under President Trump, the 2020 Republican platform did not mention the environment. So that's that's an excellent example of us not engaging on that. I think, with President Biden in the White House, there is a trap to fall into of, maybe not exactly climate denial, but back to climate, apathy, and pushing back against Democratic proposals without proposing any actionable solutions of our own.

So I think the path forward for Republicans is to do what Kevin McCarthy did last week and champion solutions and show that conservatism and conservation and climate action are compatible. And they those solutions look different than progressive solutions. But it's still a problem that we're prioritizing. So I think legislation like the House GOP package, like the growing Climate Solutions Act, I think those pieces of legislation as more Republicans open, openly champion them and talk about why these issues are important for them in district and state.

I think that's the path forward. It's not going to happen overnight. Unfortunately, it is a long road back and I think it will take a long time for people to disassociate climate denial with the Republican Party and and that is largely on Trump's shoulders. But I think there is a path forward and it's it's a path forward based on action rather than just rhetoric.

Well, that's, that's my question is that is it in Kevin McCarthy's interest to actually give work with Democrats to give them, quote, political wins. And I think that I have seen over the past 30 plus years, that the party out of power, was more interested in denying a win to the party in power than to getting things done.

And I would hope that Kevin McCarthy would actually show leadership and say, Hey, we're going to actually work together with the Democrats to enact legislation, which is pro environment, and, and helps the country. So the legislators actually put their own personal interests, secondary to their to the country's interests. Do you see that actually happening?

You know, I can't predict the future. And as much as I want to be an idealist and say, Absolutely, that'll definitely happen. You know, I am skeptical that, you know, we'll get a huge climate package through with Democratic and Republican support. But I'll come back to the idea of breaking the problem down and, you know, focusing on targeted solutions, and I do think that there's a bipartisan way forward for some pieces of legislation that deal with climate change that reduce emissions.

And I think that's what we have to focus on, rather than waiting for this huge plan that, you know, magically both parties are going to support and, you know, Republicans would allow Democrats to win because they have unified control of government. I don't think that's going to happen. I think we have to focus on, you know, reducing emissions. And that doesn't make headlines a lot of times. The bipartisan bills aren't flashy because they're bipartisan, and they they've garnered widespread support.

So they're not controversial many times. But I think quietly, we are moving towards the place where both parties are prioritizing this issue from my home state. Glenn Thompson. He represents Pennsylvania's 15th congressional district I believe, which is near state call like Penn State area, if you're familiar, he said the other day, it's no longer a question of whether climate change is happening. It's about the solutions, what are we going to do about it? And I genuinely genuinely believe that both parties are there. It's just a matter of getting political consensus and getting the right bills through.

Well, quite frankly, Joe Biden would be well served and have the political genius of him, for him to compromise with the Republicans on these environmental issues, and to get things passed and show that he is somebody who can get things done and, and unite the country on such an important issue. I think it would, it would be a great win for him. I mean, if if he's looking at only from a political standpoint, this is a big win for him to show, he can lead on this issue.

He can bring Republicans on board and actually solve problems. Whether he will do that, or whether he will say hold out before, Democrat only solutions will be the test. I think of his leadership. He's got it in my mind. He's got to reach out to Republicans on some issues and create bipartisan legislation, particularly on the environment would be very powerful, and healing for the country, because we haven't had cooperation on that front for some time.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. And if you listen to the President Biden's inauguration speech, he talked about unity, right. So I think what you're saying is exactly right. It can't be unity, because you do it my way or the highway, it has to be, you know, bringing different ideological beliefs together, and compromising and I think the environment is a great place to start there. I think there's a lot of momentum behind environmental solutions.

Well, what he should do, I mean, he had a big conference with world leaders recently. And I think that's great. And that was a good first step. But I think it'd be a great second step is if he brings Kevin McCarthy to the White House, he allegedly has not even spoken to Kevin McCarthy for its first 100 days, the administration, I just read and think it was the New York Times article, bring him to the White House and bring AOC and whoever else are leaders on the climate and say, Hey, let's hash this out.

Nobody's gonna get everything they want. But we can, where's some common ground? Where can we agree on some things, there have to be some things that all of us can agree on? Let's get those done first, and then we'll worry about the second tier problems. After we've established a few wins. That's my political advice to Joe Biden, if he is he's listening.

It's about time Joe to Unite and Heal America, you're listening to KABC 790. And we'll be back in just a minute. With our guest, Karly Matthews, communication director or the American Conservation Coalition.

You're listening to Unite and Heal America with Matt Matern. KABC 790. We're back with our guest, Karly Matthews, Communication Director of the American Conservation Coalition. So currently, as far as what are your top three to five priorities for your organization going forward in the coming months?

Absolutely. So legislatively, we're working to advance actionable climate solutions, which, as I've talked about, throughout this interview, natural climate solutions, energy innovation, we're working on infrastructure, as well as global engagement and keeping the United States as a leader on this issue. We're also working to build out our grassroots base, and we have six key states, across the country, that we're really working to activate those activists and have been passionate about environmental issues in their state.

And then finally, we're working to really engage members of Congress to talk about this issue and to talk to their constituents about the environment, how the environment and environmental issues affect their district or their state, if they're a senator, and really make the climate conversation as conservatives really mainstream.

So what are the six dates that you're working on? And why did you pick those six dates?

Absolutely. So our first key state was Florida. And why we picked Florida was because Republicans in Florida there's widespread consensus that climate change is happening because Florida surrounded by water, sea level rise is very obvious. Hurricanes exacerbated by climate change, hit their state multiple times every year. So there's this incredible consensus that climate change is happening and we have to fix it among Florida Republicans. So we started in Florida.

We transition to Texas, Washington State, Ohio, South Carolina, and Arizona, because all of those states are really important in national politics. But they also are uniquely challenged by climate change. So we we chose those states, because we want activists there to really advocate for their environment, and really flex their muscle on the national stage. So why in particular, Ohio?

Yeah, so Ohio has a history of manufacturing as one of its main industries. It also is a very agricultural state. And so climate change really threatens Ohio in a different way. Because moving away from fossil fuels moving away from traditional vehicles, that removes Ohio jobs, and it's really kind of a threat to the Ohio way of life for a lot of people living there. So Ohio is really emerging as a leader in electric vehicle production.

So it's kind of in this space where it's not necessarily threatened by climate change really acutely, environmentally, but it's threatened by what climate change necessitates us to do to tackle it. So we are focusing on, you know, really encouraging industry to go like green industry to go to Ohio, like electric vehicles, and, you know, cleaner manufacturing practices, because that will create jobs for Ohio, but it'll also help us with climate change.

And it's curious about Washington state that's normally seen as kind of a liberal Bastion. Why are you focusing on that one?

Absolutely. So Governor Jay Inslee is, you know, kind of the the climate governor, he ran for president in 2020, as a Democrat to you know, really be the climate president, and, you know, take that governorship to the White House, but under his leadership, emissions have rose 8% in Washington State.

So it's a very good example of how, you know, maybe progressive leadership on climate isn't actually all that effective. And we need different solutions, we need to have a discussion about solutions. So that's why we're really present in Washington State.

Well, that's very interesting. So why is it the Do you think that the emissions went up by 8%? Under jay Inslee is leadership?

Yeah, you know, I've never lived in Washington State. So I can't speak to, you know, the everyday experience there. But I think a mandate heavy approach to climate change isn't what we need, and isn't what's effective. I think empowering the private sector to reduce emissions, incentivizing innovation that will reduce emissions is really critical.

And I think kind of ruling with an iron fist from the governor's mansion, and trying to mandate our way to net zero or mandate our way to environmental protection, maybe isn't as effective as we're led to believe.

Well, I asked you and challenge on that front, regarding California, because certainly there have been mandates in the state of California for I guess, the last 50 years, and that I in my understanding has kind of driven innovation. So why do you disagree with that?

Sure. So California is a good example of you know, a state that has really tried to tackle climate change. It is it also has some of the highest energy prices in the country. So while you know, mandate, certain amounts of clean energy produced, and you know, they're talking about removing all traditional vehicles from the road and transitioning all the way to EVs.

This is not good for the consumer. And that's something that we have to think about in this transition. Right? So I think incentivizing people like Elon Musk to start a company like Tesla, you know, he didn't do that completely out of the goodness of his heart, he took advantage of, you know, government incentives, I think, I think there is a balance there, the government does need to be involved in needs to incentivize things like that.

But when we get too far into government control, it raises the price for the consumer, it kind of creates this environment where we think of green industry as a negative because it's raising costs when it doesn't have to be we can we can incentivize innovation in a way that's not cheap government heavy?

Well, I think that it does require a certain degree of government intervention. I mean, quite frankly, if we didn't have any mandate in the state of California to reduce emissions industry wouldn't do it on their own. People wouldn't do it on their own. That's just kind of the nature of business and the nature of humanity. We tend tend to be lazy and we don't do what we're supposed to do. I mean, there are some of us that would, but most of us are not. So I mean, we have to deal with reality.

And I think the reality is we have to set targets I mean, you any company has to set a target. So government in setting the target here and the In California has incentivized all of us to kind of work towards that I'm, I had a Tesla and then I switched to hydrogen cars. So last two cars I have are hydrogen power, which you can only drive in the state of California, and that that change was possible because Governor Schwarzenegger and a Republican governor in 2004, had implemented the rollout of hydrogen vehicles in California and allowed for hydrogen stations.

Presently, in a number of states across the country, you can't have a hydrogen station. So I mean, that's an impediment to having these Clean Air Solutions rolled out and government has to be involved. And I think they have to roll back some regulation to to allow, in my, in this instance, hydrogen to be used, which is, I think, the way of the future, quite frankly, because then we don't have to deal with batteries, which these electric powered vehicles all have batteries, and it takes mining and it takes, then you have to dispose of them.

So that's my soapbox there. So I think going back to kind of what do you see as legislative priorities that your organization is pushing the top three to five? Was it you think would make the highest impact for the country going forward?

Absolutely. So I've talked about this a lot throughout the interview. But I think that natural climate solutions, our best opportunity for bipartisan action, right now, energy and infrastructure are often very politically fraught, clean energy is unfortunately becoming more of a partisan issue with Biden in the White House. You know, we're seeing kind of like a, a defense of fossil fuels, kind of for the sake of a defense of fossil fuels sometimes.

So I think this idea of natural climate solutions, which are cost effective, and we they engage all sorts of stakeholders, like farmers, ranchers, foresters, and maybe our traditional stakeholders in the climate change, fight, maybe we don't consider them quite as much. I think those types of solutions are really important. So that's like the girl and Climate Solutions Act.

And that's like the trillion trees Act, which has various versions in the Senate in the house. So not quite the same. So we're hoping that they will reconcile and we'll get that on the President's desk as well. So there are solutions like this that incentivize sustainable practices that reward sustainable practices. And I think that's going to be the path forward for the short term to really reduce emissions.

Well, it certainly does bring in other stakeholders. And I think, to the extent that we widen the conversation and get people who might have been on the climate fence, so to speak, into the conversation saying, Okay, well, we see this benefit, we can agree on this issue. What are some other issues that you think that bipartisan agreement is likely as well as we'll have a high impact if passed?

Yeah, I think some emission reducing tech can absolutely have bipartisan support, carbon capture and sequestration technology in the last Congress had bipartisan support, it didn't quite make it over the finish line. battery storage for wind and solar, also bipartisan support. I think technology and this idea of innovation is actually a coalition builder.

We just have to do it in a way that appeals to both parties. I do think that infrastructure largely will be fairly partisan for the short term. But I do think there are ways that we can agree on EVs on on clean energy infrastructure to secure the grid. I think there are things that that could be reconciled. I just don't know that the environment is there in Congress right now? Well,

certainly, it's it's surprising. And it's the statistic that I say sometimes to people, the checksum a bit that some of the Midwestern states like Kansas, 40% of their power comes from wind power. And so they're, they're a Republican state, but they are generating a ton of power through through wind. And there is a tremendous reservoir of additional power available by a wind in those areas.

So if we could have better battery technology and better transmission lines, we could transfer that power in the national grid. And that's one of the things that Bill Gates is a big proponent of is to have a national grid solution. So is that something that you see happening out of the infrastructure bill?

I don't think that a National Grid Is all that feasible right now? I think there's going to be a lot of Republican pushback on that. But to your point, I think a lot of Republicans, so tell me why why should there be pushback on that?

I think there will be pushback because Republicans generally do not want national control of something like an energy grid. And, and Republicans point to Texas as a deregulated market. That largely has been. Well, of course, of course, there was the blackout in February. But there have been really great energy successes.

In Texas, for instance, Texas, is the if Texas were its own country, it would be the second largest wind power producer in the world. So there have been great successes in deregulating markets and getting the federal government out of that. So I don't know that that would be a decision that that would be widely supported.

Well, I guess I see. We have to have some cooperation across our country. And as much as I love having federalism and 50 different decision makers involved. As we all know, having 50 different decision makers involved leads to a certain degree of chaos. But well, it's been great having you on the show, Karly, and appreciate the work that you're doing.

And it's really the work of uniting and healing America, which is we need to come back together as a country, Republicans and Democrats to solve these, the most urgent issue of our time, which is dealing with the climate change.

So thank you for being on the show. And we'd love to have you back sometime. Again, you're listening to Unite and Heal America with KABC 790 with Matt Matern. And thanks again, Karly.