Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna; Interview with The New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief Mujib Mashal; Interview with Oceanographer Sylvia Earle; Interview with "Holy Ground" Author Catherine Coleman Flowers. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 06, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Canada's new prime minister comes to the White House as old allies navigate new conflicts. We get the latest.
And military drills in Kashmir as tensions flare between India and Pakistan. So, what could come next? I ask the New York Times South Asia
Bureau Chief.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CATHERINE COLEMAN FLOWERS, AUTHOR, "HOLY GROUND": I have extended an invitation to President Trump himself to come and see it for himself. And I
can take him to the homes of black and white families that have raw sewage on the ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "Holy Ground." Environmentalist Catherine Coleman Flowers talks to Michel Martin about rural communities and her mission to bring them
clean water.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, came face-to-face with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House today. An old steady alliance now
more fraught than ever with Trump slapping tariffs on his neighbor and threatening to make it the 51st state. Carney and his Liberal Party notched
a surprise win at the polls just over a week ago, and Canadians decided he is the best man to take on Trump. Listen to this exchange in the Oval
Office after a reporter asked the president if he still wanted Canada to become part of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I am a real estate developer at heart. When you get rid of that artificially drawn line, somebody drew that line many
years ago with like a ruler, just a straight line right across that top of the country. When you look at that beautiful formation, when it's together,
I'm a very artistic person. But when I looked at that, I said that's the way it was meant to be. But you know, it -- I just -- I do feel it's much
better for Canada.
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: As you know, from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: We're sitting in one right now, you know, Buckingham Palace that you visited as well.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign last several months, it's not for sale. It won't be for sale.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The owners of Canada being the voters and constituents of the country. Here now is Frank McKenna, former Canadian ambassador to the
United States. Ambassador McKenna, welcome to the program from Toronto. I know you were listening to that very lively and wide-ranging press
conference, but let's just stick to the conversation as it relates to Canada. Prime Minister Carney campaigned as the man for the moment saying
that he does not make a good leader when times are calm, but he is the man when there is a crisis.
Given that he is a political novice, as he went into that Oval Office meeting with the president, how do you think he fared?
FRANK MCKENNA, FORMER CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: I thought he did terrific. He really had a difficult challenge because Canadians are
extraordinarily upset and very united in their animosity at the present time towards the president of the United States. But he also is sitting
down with our biggest client, ally, and friend. And he needs to demonstrate that a respectful relationship and a mutually profitable relationship can
be achieved.
GOLODRYGA: Well, he seemed well prepared and rehearsed, that line specifically about Canada not being for sale, addressing him as a real
estate expert, saying, you know, real estate, well, some things are not for sale, including our country.
We noted that he is a political novice. He was a former banker at Goldman Sachs. He was a Central Bank head of Canada and also, the head of the Bank
of England. So, he comes with vast experience as it relates to economics and as it relates to this crisis at hand for the nation.
I'd like to place sound for you from some of the opening exchanges between the two leaders, which were actually quite cordial.
[13:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's a great honor to have Prime Minister Mark Carney with us. As you know, just a few days ago, he won a very big election in Canada, and I
think I was probably the greatest thing that happened to him, but I can't take both -- right.
CARNEY: You're a transformational president. Focused on the economy with a relentless focus on the American worker, securing your borders, providing -
- ending the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids and securing the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: You see the president there nodding in agreement with the analysis there offered by Prime Minister Carney. Was that the right
approach in your view?
MCKENNA: I think one has to be respectful, but not obsequious. Canadians would never tolerate our prime minister (INAUDIBLE) collecting to the
president. Canada is a sovereign country. Canadians are united. 40 million people are all united in support of our country. And that is really the
proper course for our prime minister to take, to respect the president for the office that he holds but not to be genuflecting and being obsequious
towards him at all. No need for that.
GOLODRYGA: The prime minister went on to say that there are some areas where they definitely can work on, and that is Canada investing more in its
own security and defense. Also, its contribution as it relates to GDP percentage for NATO. He credited President Trump for revitalizing NATO. But
he also reminded the president that Canada is the largest client of the United States.
And I'm curious how he should -- we didn't see this litigated in front of the cameras, but behind closed doors, how should he push back on just the
false math that the president continues to broadcast about the trade deficits? He continues to say that it's around $200 billion as it relates
to Canada when you take out oil -- first of all, it's actually about $60 billion. You take out services, it's half of that, and then you take out
the oil that the United States buys from Canada, and we actually have a surplus here.
How would you advise the prime minister to remind the president that the facts that he's coming to these negotiations with are just wrong to begin
with?
MCKENNA: Well, you're well informed. That's exactly the math, and every Canadian knows the math. We are -- we buy more from the United States than
any other country in the world, more than the entire European Union put together. But that's not all, our trade relationship is almost in balance,
which is almost miraculous considering it's the largest trading relationship in the world.
The surplus in Canada's favor that you mentioned is almost a rounding air in the relationship. And we provide all of these raw materials, which take
jobs out of Canada, in the case of oil and aluminum and steel and potash and uranium, and export them to the United States. So, it's a big net plus
for the United States. So, I'm convinced the math will be discussed in great detail.
Somehow or other, we've got to tell the president, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your facts. And the facts are that
Canada is an extraordinarily important contributor to the United States' economy and that we're all better off in fortress North America than we are
going on our own.
But I think the prime minister and his ministers will be emphatic about that because if -- it is really irritating to Canadians to hear this false
claim repeated over and over again when it's just factually not true. None of it is true.
GOLODRYGA: So, how should the prime minister respond when you heard from the president just there in the Oval Office, repeat what he had posted on
Truth Social going into this meeting and is that is, we don't need cars, we don't need steel, we don't need aluminum, we don't need any of that from
Canada? There is no reason to subsidize Canada. He used that word subsidize again.
MCKENNA: Yes. Well, I think the prime minister just has to set the facts straight. In the case of aluminum, 70 percent of American aluminum
consumptions is from Canada. And quite frankly, they cannot build aluminum capabilities that will be cost effective. We have the advantage of having
hydro. We produce -- we're one of the largest producers of potash in the world. We provide close to 90 percent of the potash used in the United
States, which allows them to grow crops. They need those commodities.
Our tourism industry -- in the case of Canada, 31 percent of the tourists going to the United States are Canadians. We've got a massive business with
the United States. We have 300,000 people today across the border. We have a thousand nurses from Windsor, Ontario alone go to Detroit to treat the
sick and the dying in the hospitals in Detroit.
[13:10:00]
So, he is minimizing and trivializing a relationship that for a hundred years was really a role model for the world of a non-dependent border of
8,000 kilometers and peaceful coexistence and a relationship of mutually beneficial trade. And I think that we have to set a record straight, not
just with the president, but with his cabinet and also with the Congress of the United States, with the media of the United States and the citizens of
the United States.
And by the way the public of the United States are largely on our side. In a recent poll, only 13 percent felt comfortable with the president talking
about annexing in Canada. And as you know, the margin of error in that, there's probably more people who believe in aliens than 13 percent.
And in terms of the trade relationship and the tariff relationship with Canada, 75 percent of Americans say we should not have tariffs up against
our best friend and ally Canada. So, I think that we have a lot of support with the American people in terms of this relationship.
And all we want as Canadians is to have it back, restored again. We do not want to be fighting with Americans. We do not want to be booing their
national anthems. We do not want to be boycotting their goods and avoiding travel to the United States of America. That is not what we want, but we do
not choose this fight and make no mistake, we are prepared to fight back aggressively and not capitulate if the president insists on carrying on the
fight.
GOLODRYGA: I mean, it's interesting. The president opened up the press conference by saying that the top concession that he wants from Canada is
friendship. And he closed by saying there's nothing Canada can do to lift these tariffs. But the president does have a point in terms of more damage
would be inflicted upon Canada, then the United States if these tariffs at these levels go into place, if for no other reason than about three
quarters of Canada's exports do go to the United States. And economic models suggest that a major trade shock like this could reduce Canada's GDP
by three to six percentage points.
The prime minister inherited an already quite unstable economy. A lot of frustration about the cost of living and housing in particular, and
inflation continues to be a menace. How much leeway will Canadian voters give him before they start putting more pressure on him to maybe even
capitulate with the U.S.?
MCKENNA: A lot. As one of our former prime ministers said, Canada and Canadians have to be prepared to take any amount of pain order to protect
our sovereignty. And there's one thing the president I don't think understands. It's not just low dollars and cents, it's about more than
that. It's about what degree of pain the respective parties are prepared to take.
We have an old saying that it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight and the dog. There's a lot of fight in this dog. Canadian's pain threshold
on this is extraordinarily high. And the threshold of Americans in terms of pain on this is extraordinarily low. And for that reason, we are going to
end up winning this fight.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Well, you were right to point out, neither the majority of Americans nor Canadians want to fight at all. Frank McKenna, thank you so
much for joining us.
MCKENNA: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up, a dangerous standoff between India and Pakistan. Two weeks after a deadly massacre reignite attentions, we get a glimpse
inside Pakistan administered Kashmir, and I discuss where this is heading with the New York Times South Asia Bureau chief.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, tensions are high between India and Pakistan with multiple major airlines avoiding flying over Pakistan until further notice.
Now, this comes two weeks after militants massacred 26 civilians in Indian- administered Kashmir. It's a region that's been greatly disputed between these two neighbors since the partition of India in 1947.
Both countries are now flexing their military muscles with some escalatory tit for tat moves. Nic Robertson has been on the ground of the Pakistani
controlled side of Kashmir.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): High in the Himalayas, Pakistan's army is taking us deep into disputed Kashmir
toward the line of control, the de facto border with India and one of the most militarized conflicts in the world. Tensions between the two nuclear
armed neighbors rising since a terror attack killed 26 civilians, mostly Indian almost two weeks ago.
Militaries is on both sides readying for possible escalation as India blamed Pakistan and Pakistan denied responsibility. It's a war of words.
Civilians on both sides of these rugged mountains fear, not for the first time, will be victims of events way beyond their sway. Control of the
towering peaks unresolve for 75 years.
ROBERTSON: Just driving through the mountains here, it's easy to understand why Kashmir is still a disputed area, so hard to fight a
decisive war in this rugged terrain.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): The other thing you see here is poverty, meager villages clinging to the hillside. People here say the spiking tensions,
making it harder to eke a living, as we're about to find out.
On foot now, the village we're heading to a few hundred feet from the line of control.
ROBERTSON: And just look over there, you can see how close the frontlines are. That's the last Pakistani position there. The Indian army positioned a
few hundred meters away and those trees, that's the line of control.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): When we arrive, most villagers clustered around one house, some hiding in the dark inside. Children peeking from unglazed
windows.
This villager telling us they live in fear now. Elderly, children, and women are incredibly scared, he says. We want to take our livestock out to
pasture, but the Indians are right there in front of us and we're very concerned.
Their fears may be well-founded. This 17-year-old says Indian troops killed his father, Malik (ph) Farooq. He had gone to the line of control to chase
our cattle, he says. The Indian shot him and accused him of being a terrorist. He is not. He's a good man.
The day after the massacre in Indian administered Kashmir, the Indian government announced it had foiled a terror plot, killing two Pakistanis.
Malik's (ph) brother denies the allegations too, says, he was just a herder like me. Believes India wants their land before breaking down in tears.
ROBERTSON: It's OK. It's OK. It's OK.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): India's done a great cruelty to us, he says. If they want me to leave, put a bullet in my head. That's the only way I'll
go.
With no end in sight on both sides of the border, civilians, as ever, the losers in this decades old conflict.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Nic Robertson reporting there from Kashmir. With this decades long conflict showing no signs of resolution, there's no shortage of
grievances and accusations being levied on both sides of the border. Officials in India have long accused Pakistan of backing armed groups in
separatist forces inside the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir. Pakistan says this was true in the past but is not happening now.
But the killings of 26 civilians still fresh in the minds of many across the border and calls for revenge, it's no surprise that global powers,
including the United States and China, have stepped in to urge restraint in this tense standoff.
And for more analysis on the political situation between India and Pakistan, I spoke to Mujib Mashal, the New York Times South Asia Bureau.
[13:20:00]
Mujib Mashal, thank you so much for joining us. So, this latest standoff between India and Pakistan comes in the wake of a tourist massacre in the
Indian-administered part of Kashmir. Tell us exactly what we know about this attack.
MUJIB MASHAL, SOUTH ASIA BUREAU CHIEF, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, just to set the context, the Indian government for a couple years now is saying
that Kashmir has become a safe place and it encouraged a lot of tourism into its part of Kashmir. And in a sort of a scenic, very beautiful part of
the valley, people are picnicking and then, gunmen sort of appear from the woods and commit a massacre.
It's probably the most horrific terror attack that has happened in India in recent decades. 26 civilians, all of them civilians were killed. 25 of them
were Hindus. And we have accounts of survivors who said the men were singled out for their religion. So, this was clearly a horrific attack, but
it was also meant to send a message.
GOLODRYGA: And this was the deadliest attack in the region since 2019 when about 40 Indian policemen were murdered. What distinguishes this recent
escalation from 2019?
MASHAL: I think the main thing is just the victims and the nature of the attack. The 2019 one was a sort of an attack on security forces. This one
was an entirely civilian area. And all the victims were civilian. There were no military targets around. And just the nature of singling out people
for their religion and then murdering people in front of their families, in front of their wives and children, I think just the sheer brutality of the
attacks sets set apart.
GOLODRYGA: So, obviously, the world is watching to see how and when this will escalate. Thus far, Indian troops have been exchanging small arms fire
with Pakistani troops across the disputed border. India's Navy has been conducting a number of long-range missile drills. But thus far, India's
response has mostly been on the economic and diplomatic front. Do we expect to see a military response imminently?
MASHAL: All indications are that there will be a military response. So far, the Indian government has bought itself time by, as you said, sort of,
announcing non-military, punishing measures against Pakistan, sort of disrupting -- threatening to disrupt the flow of rivers that Pakistan's
irrigation system is heavily dependent on, expelling Pakistani citizens from India.
But publicly, Indian officials, including Prime Minister Modi, have signaled that there will be a military retaliation as well. The prime
minister has talked about sort of raising terror, safe havens and his officials have continued that rhetoric.
So, it's been two weeks since the attack. There is still a lot of public anger. So, the analysts and officials we speak to, they say the likelihood
of some sort of a military strike against Pakistan. It may be a limited strike, but some sort of a strike, the likelihood of that is very high.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we should note that India has expelled Pakistani diplomats, defense attaches, and all Pakistani citizens. So, there were not
many in India at the time it closed. As you noted, the only land border crossing and suspended the river sharing treaty that goes back to 1960. For
the most part, Pakistan responded in kind.
But there is growing pressure on Prime Minister Modi for a more forceful response. He has vowed to do as much, and not only stating that, but
stating it in English, which he rarely speaks in addressing the public. The majority of the time he speaks in Hindi. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARENDRA MODI, INDIAN PRIME MINISTER: India will identify, track, and punish every terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends
of the earth. India's spirit will never be broken by terrorism. Terrorism will not go unpunished. Every effort will be made to ensure that justice is
done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, following the 2019 attack, India conducted airstrikes on militant targets. This is still a modernizing military that he is
overseeing. What are some of the options that Modi has in terms of a military response?
MASHAL: Yes. So, I think, on the one hand, at the precedent that Prime Minister Modi has created, that every time there is a terror threat in
India, India will respond, and every time it will respond more forcefully.
[13:25:00]
This precedent was created in 2016 and then 2019. So, that means he has no choice. He has little choice but to respond. But at the same time, he has a
military that, you know, was slightly exposed when it retaliated in 2019. One of India's, you know, fighter jets was shot down. In that process of
retaliating, there was another mistake where India shot one of its own helicopters. So, in that faceoff in 2019, concerns became very public about
the state of the military, especially the Air Force.
Since those years, he has, you know, poured billions of dollars into modernizing the military. But in the same period India faced another
threat. It almost went to war with China. For four years, the Indian and Chinese troops were in a face of high in the Himalayas.
GOLODRYGA: Going back to the fact that Modi decided to deliver this message in English and how rarely he does address audiences in English. How
much should we read into that? What does that signify?
MASHAL: I think he was mostly speaking to the world that listens, this horrific attack happened on my soil. I have information, that information
has not been shared publicly. There is a past pattern of Pakistan supporting, you know, terror groups on its soil as a proxy. And I will
retaliate and I have every reason to take action.
So, he was clearly speaking to the world. And the response from, you know, the majority of world powers and sort of countries around the world have
been a responsive support to India. Some have urged restraint, but, you know, including the United States and others have basically almost signaled
that India is within its rights to hunt the perpetuators and, you know -- so, he was speaking to the world, but at the same time, it seems like he's
getting the green light from a lot of the countries around the world as well.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And the U.S. has historically played a dominant role in mediation between these two countries. We know the personal relationship is
rather strong between President Trump and Modi, though Trump has not expressed much detail in terms of how the U.S. feels about this particular
incident right now. What role, if any, is India hoping the United States plays here?
MASHAL: Among the first world leaders that Prime Minister Modi spoke to after the horrific attack was President Trump, sort of a sign of the
closeness between these two countries. In the past, at least, the U.S. has enjoyed a close relationship with Pakistan as well. It's just that this
attack happens in a moment where the alliances in this region are very dramatically shifting.
If we go back to sort of the Cold War era, even more recently, the 20 years that the U.S. was, you know, at war in Afghanistan, for all those decades,
Pakistan was its central sort of frontline ally in this region. But with those two reasons over, Pakistan is struggling to find sort of much
relevance in the U.S. calculation. That relationship is diminishing. There isn't much weapons supply going to Pakistan anymore.
On the other hand, the India-U.S. relationship has been growing pretty rapidly. This has become a very, very central relationship for Washington,
particularly as a counterweight to China. So, in this space, the relationship in the regions are changing. China is sort of standing with
Pakistan. The U.S. is standing with India. And it's a new reality, new dynamics in this region.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we should note, Iran's foreign minister also recently visited Islamabad as well. So, you're right, shifting international
dynamics here in terms of alliances. We will continue to closely watch this developing story. Mujib Mashal, thank you so much for the time.
MASHAL: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come after the break, the crisis facing our oceans. We revisit Christiane's conversation with renowned oceanographer
Sylvia Earle for a deep dive into how we can protect our planet's greatest support system.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Next to a crisis taking place in our oceans. The sea makes up some 70 percent of our planet, and it's facing a catastrophe that will
impact all life on earth. With a rise in temperatures, a rise in sea levels, and a rise in pollution it's so concerning that it's the focus of a
new work by acclaimed journalist David Attenborough as he turned 99. He's releasing a vital documentary called "Ocean."
In 2018, Christiane spoke to pioneering oceanographer Sylvia Earle, who spent her decades researching life beneath the waves, and she raised her
concern about the terrifying impact of plastics. Here's their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Sylvia Earle, welcome to the program.
SYLVIA EARLE, OCEANOGRAPHER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's wonderful to talk to you about this really important issue, plastics. And you've been diving, let me just get the precise number
of hours, 7,000 hours underwater over the 65 years you've been diving. It is incredible to think that.
So, all of this exploration, plus the fantastic pictures, plus as we know David Attenborough in the "Blue Planet" --
EARLE: Oh, it's fabulous.
AMANPOUR: Phenomenal, right?
EARLE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: He has been credited with really boosting awareness of the dangers to our oceans, and particularly the plastics. Would you say that
plastics are the biggest danger right now?
EARLE: They're a great threat. There are actually two categories. What we're putting into the ocean is one of those categories. And it is excess
carbon oxide from burning fossil fuels that is not only warming the planet, but it is causing the ocean to become more acidic. So, it's all the trash,
all the toxins, the things that we allow to flow into the sea and the deliberate trash, especially plastics.
AMANPOUR: Well, we're seeing some trash and the like over here. We know that CNN did a wonderful documentary at Midway Island, plastic island,
which is just shocking to see.
EARLE: This port albatrosses just making nests out of plastic fishing net.
AMANPOUR: And being cut open and umpteen amounts of plastic coming out. But something that really shocked me was this sperm whale that washed up on
a beach in Spain and had, listen to this, 64 pounds of plastic and waste in his stomach. I mean, ropes also. Pieces of net, other debris lodged in its
stomach. I mean, this is the whale here. I mean, here we have all the stuff that the scientists have taken out.
EARLE: It's just --
AMANPOUR: It's awful.
EARLE: It should cause people to just sit up and take notice and realize there's no way on Earth, especially when you think of the plastics. They
don't go away. They sometimes break into smaller pieces, but they're very durable. Microplastics are now an increasing problem.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me about that a little bit because I think people start to become aware when they see things like this, mountains and mountains of
garbage and plastic. Tell me the story of plastic. It's our disposable society, right? Everybody has got a --
EARLE: It's marketing. Humankind got along perfectly well without single- use plastics until we started to get into that habit and it wasn't until
the middle of the 20th century. When I began diving and explore when I was a child, we didn't need -- because it didn't exist -- plastics, but they've
become remarkably useful.
Plastics are really not the big problem. It's what we do with them and the way that many plastics are created to be thrown away. Use it once, toss it
as if there is some place that it goes. It does. It goes into the ocean largely.
AMANPOUR: This is the albatross that we were talking about before.
EARLE: Right.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it is really just a tragic thing.
EARLE: That bird never got to fly. This looks like a young one.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: Oh, my God.
EARLE: Gets so stuffed with --
AMANPOUR: How do they even put that stuff in their mouth. It's huge.
EARLE: Well, moms and dads come back thinking that they are giving them sustenance and often they do have fish eggs or other things going on them,
but in all innocence with the best of intentions they stuff their babies with these colorful pieces.
Well, there is another thing. There are fewer squid, fewer small fish in the ocean to feed their little ones and that's part of the problem, what
we're taking out. We've taken on the order of 90 percent of the sharks, the big tunas.
AMANPOUR: Well, so as of 2014 more than 5 trillion pieces of plastic, collectively they weigh something like 269,000 tons, were floating in the
world's oceans. As of 2010, 8 million metric tons of plastic entering the oceans annually. So, I mean, look, we're describing a catastrophic problem.
Am I correct? Is it catastrophic?
EARLE: It is catastrophic, but it's not the only problem. It is matched by what we are taking out.
AMANPOUR: Right.
EARLE: It is matched by the changing chemistry of the ocean. But the worst problem of all, I'm so glad we're having this conversation, it is
ignorance. People either don't know the magnitude of what's going on or they don't know why they should care. So, we lose the whales. So, there's a
lot of junk in the ocean. So what? People will think or don't think about the real reason they should be concerned and that is that the ocean drives
climate and weather. The ocean is the basis of Earth's life support. It's where most of the oxygen is generated.
Trees and grass and ferns, all of that photosynthesis helps, but the heavy lifting is done by the small creatures in the ocean. They are now getting
clogged with all the bits of plastic in the ocean too. And the creatures that feed on those microorganisms are now feeding on a lot of plastic as
well.
So, if you look inside a little fish or a jellyfish that takes up some of these small bits, it's become part of the food chain in that way.
AMANPOUR: You've been doing this, as I said in the beginning, for about 65 years. You've been diving. How was it for a woman to do the heavy lifting
over these years? Was it -- did you encounter sort of prejudice, sexism or anything even underwater?
EARLE: Well, it's still going on, of course, but it's better today than it was in terms of being accepted as a scientist or as a professional. Really,
I have always felt that I'm doing what I'm doing because of what I love. It's exploration, research, caring for the world.
AMANPOUR: It's a beautiful picture of you there.
EARLE: Yes, I took my children to meet that dolphin in the Bahamas. Out of school, we went to the big blue school. Well, it was fascinating to come
along at a time when it was unexpected for women -- well, you know --
AMANPOUR: Yes.
EARLE: -- to be doing certain things in certain places. And I, in 1964, as a scientist, was invited to go on an expedition out of the country. First
time, I'd been out of the United States. I went to Indian Ocean for six weeks on a ship. And I was the only woman and there were 70 men.
AMANPOUR: 70 to 1?
EARLE: Yes. And the headline read, Sylvia's sails away with 70 men, but she expects no problems.
AMANPOUR: You're in your 80s now.
EARLE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You don't look it and you're still diving.
EARLE: Last week in Indonesia. It's great. As long as you're breathing, you can be diving.
AMANPOUR: Sylvia Earle, thanks for being with us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Diving in her 80s. Incredible. Well, President Trump's climate and civil rights rollbacks are only making life harder for environmental
activists, like our next guest who spent years leading the charge for a landmark settlement to address the sewage crisis crippling rural
communities in Alabama, only for the agreement to be killed last month.
But Catherine Coleman Flowers isn't giving up. She joins Michel Martin to discuss her new book, "Holy Ground," and the fight for environmental
justice in America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Catherine Coleman Flowers, thank you so much for joining us.
CATHERINE COLEMAN FLOWERS, AUTHOR, "HOLY GROUND": Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: Can I just start with learning a little bit about you, you know, environmental activist, climate activist, you've been a high school
teacher, you were in the Air Force at one point. How would you say you got started as a, I don't know even, I don't want to say environmental
activist? You actually started when you went home to Alabama and you were working on sanitation, right?
[13:40:00]
FLOWERS: Yes, but my -- I think my development as an environmental activist started long before then. You know, it was growing up in Lowndes
County, Alabama, growing up as a country girl. I think that anyone that grew up in a rural community is an environmental activist. You are an
environmentalist. You have to learn how to live with the land. You have to learn how to deal with the changing weather. All of those things. What the
growing season is, all of that.
I just remember in my book, "Waste," my earlier book, I talked about that and I talked about poor riches Almanac that people use to kind of predict
something about, you know, the growing seasons when the plant season, all of that. And I grew up growing -- walking among corn fields. And even now,
I still pay attention to within -- I'm in an area where I see a lot of vegetation and I don't see bugs and I don't see butterflies, that I
question that, you know, why aren't there birds here in places where there are lots of trees?
So, that was my coming of age. And I think that the environmental -- the activism part on the environmental side happened later after I became a
teacher, moved back to Lowndes County and the Montgomery area, and found out that there's a connection between all of this.
MARTIN: One of the other reasons that you come to public attention is you have been calling attention to is the fact that when there are kind of
municipal systems, often they are placed in communities of color. And then there are health effects for the people who live nearby that sometimes are
not accounted for or they're not maintained as well as they could and should be and then, there are health effects, or when you have extreme
weather events and the systems are overwhelmed, guess who are the people who are most affected?
FLOWERS: Yes. Let's look at Jackson, Mississippi. When the water pressure, and I write about this in my new book, "Holy Ground." I happened to go to
Jackson, Mississippi just prior to going to the conference of parties on climate change in Dubai. And I was able to make a comparison between
Jackson, a place where the mayor said it is that way because of the lack of investment or disinvestment in Dubai, which is a country or a city in a
country that is water is scarce, you know. And -- but at the same time, because of the investment in Dubai, it's a world class city.
Whereas you go to Jackson when they had the homecoming, when Deion Sanders was the coach of the of the team there at Jackson State, a lot of people
came to the homecoming because the team was winning. But the mayor warned the residents that the pressure of the water pressure would go down.
When the water pressure goes down, they can't flush their toilets. People don't see the connection there. And we are trying to show that connection.
And the connection is this is a capital city of a southern state that is very red, however -- but in the capital, the disinvestment is being shown
up through the lack of investment in its infrastructure and certainly the people are suffering because of the water issues that'll come about because
of that lack of investment.
MARTIN: You're from Alabama, you're from Lowndes County, had some adventures. You went home to, you know, do your thing. You start working on
economic development and you realize, well, wait a minute, businesses aren't going to come here because the infrastructure isn't there. People
aren't going to come where there isn't like consistent sewage systems and you know, water systems.
But when did you start to think to yourself, this isn't just a matter of this particular place in this particular time, that this is kind of a
bigger issue?
FLOWERS: When other people started reaching out to us and telling us they were having the same problem, that's when we realized it was a bigger
issue. And we also did a house-to-house survey locally where we went from house-to-house in Lowndes County. And what we thought people were -- would
be resistant, hey were not resistant. They started telling us -- from one example is, one of our surveyors. She was afraid to go into this community
because it was predominantly white and she was afraid that if she went there, she would not be well received. So, when she went there, she went
with a sheriff deputy.
And when she went to this person's house and she started taking the survey, he started calling all of his neighbors because they were having the same
problems and saying, you need to talk to her. So, it is a problem, although recently, it's been characterized as a DEI issue. It's not a DEI issue.
White people in Lowndes County have the same problem.
There are people in all 67 counties in the State of Alabama have the same problem. So, we are hearing from around the country and indeed around the
world where people are having these same issues and that's how we realized that this was a much bigger problem than just what was happening to poor
people in Lowndes County.
[13:45:00]
They were the first ones to speak out about it, but they're not the only ones that are dealing with the issue.
MARTIN: And one of the points that you have been making in recent years is that with climate change, with extreme weather events, people who've never
had to deal with these issues before are dealing with them now. Why is that?
FLOWERS: Because the water tables are rising. That's one of the reasons why. And when they get all of this rain at one time, because now we're
having like big delusions of rain. And right now, we're under extreme weather warning in my area. And with that will come rain. People that are
on septic systems, that's when they expect to have problems, because when all this rain comes down and the ground gets saturated, that's going to
force -- the gravity forces their flow back into the home.
I have even heard from people that have new homes that are saying the same thing. The one common denominator that I hear a lot is that when a lot of
rain comes down, they have a problem. Then we're also seeing in places where people have -- are experiencing sea level rise. Like in Florida, I
went to a conference in Florida. I thought I would be the only ones talking about failing septic systems and everybody that spoke before me was talking
about it as well.
Throughout the Miami Dade County area, they built lots of communities on septic systems and they are failing as well because of sea level rise. I
think another issue that people don't talk about is salt water intrusion, where salt water is coming into areas. And Lowndes County, you have to dig
below a thousand feet in some areas to get below salt water, but that's not factored into the design.
So, the big problem, I believe, is the design. The designs are not working properly. People designed them years ago. They don't want to change the
design. They make money off of them because once they fail you got to go and pay more money to replace it with another design, that's going to also
fail and we need to do something about that.
MARTIN: It does seem as though you and others like you, who've been working with you, had been making progress. I mean, you've been working for
years to expose the fact and to work on the fact that there are a number of rural communities in Alabama who still live with raw sewage in their yards
because of inadequate, you know, facilities. And that led to this historic federal settlement to fix those conditions.
But now, the Trump administration has abruptly terminated the agreement. The administration, for example, said that the Alabama wastewater
settlement was an illegal DEI policy. What do you make of that? Like how do you respond to that?
FLOWERS: I think that it was mischaracterized, and I also have extended an invitation to President Trump himself to come and see it for himself, and I
can take him to the homes of black and white families that have raw sewage on the ground, and I challenged them to fix it. That's my response to it.
And I think that the way we deal with this is to keep raising these issues and letting people know that it exists and who's impacted by it and its
impact, and people are being impacted around the country. Everywhere I go, people come and talk to me, whether I'm in a red area or blue area.
Usually, I'm in red areas. They come and tell me about the situations that they're living in, that they're living in the same -- with the same issue.
In the book I write about Senator Tuberville and I had to testify before a committee that the Senate had, Senator Booker's people invited me to
testify about the wastewater problem. And they were looking at the farm bill and extending the amount of money for the farm bill to use -- to put
into rural communities to address this issue. And what was interesting is that most of the people that showed up at the hearing were members of the
GOP. They were GOP Senators. Because their areas are the ones impacted by this.
And the person who was leading that particular committee on the senate side -- on the Republican side was Senator Tuberville. And he and Senator Booker
actually worked together on trying to increase those funds. But part of the problem was because of the divisions, there were people on the Democratic
side that refused to support it because of Tuberville.
I think when we look at these kinds of issues, it shouldn't be partisan. These are people issues. We shouldn't throw the communities that are
suffering under the bus because we don't like the person whose name is on the bill. If the bill is a good bill, and it gives them what they need in
order to get out of those situations. And that's one of the things that I've tried to do as well.
[13:50:00]
When I first started doing this work, when I went into Lowndes County, my home county, doing this work in 2002, the person that went with me was Bob
Wilson, Robert Wilson. Robert Wilson is a conservative black Republican, but he cared about his communities. And he still cares about his community.
And it doesn't matter whether the people in the community vote Democrat or Republic. They don't need to have raw sewage on the ground. They are
Americans and should be treated as such no matter who's in the White House.
MARTIN: Well, to that end though, I mean, this administration has been aggressively rolling back a number of policies of the prior administration,
including you know, he's exited the Paris Climate Agreement again. He's slashed clean energy subsidies. He's, you know, empowered the Department of
Justice to block state climate laws. And one of the things you keep pointing out and you point out in the book is that a lot of the people who
are affected by this are not just black people or brown people or poor people, people who are -- have previously not been affected, people from
all different backgrounds are affected by this, including farmers who, as a group, tended to have been particularly supportive of this administration.
And so, I'm just sort of wondering like why it is that that message that this affects everybody, it doesn't seem to be getting through, at least not
at the moment?
FLOWERS: I think that it's not getting through because the people, and this is the problem that I've found in all the years I've been doing this
work. Oftentimes the people that are making the policy haven't been to these communities. They haven't lived in these communities. They don't talk
to the people on the ground. They have no understanding of what's going on, and they have a top-down approach.
And the top-down approach does not work. It doesn't work no matter who's in the White House. And that's part of the problem. And I think the only way
we're going to get to real solutions is to make sure that, first of all, we listen to people that are on the ground. It shouldn't be policy wants who
are trying to finally get their day because they've been building -- they've been trying to get this policy enacted for 20 years and it is no
longer appropriate. It doesn't make sense.
And likewise, when we talk about infrastructure, we can't talk about the infrastructure in this country without talking about how the climate is
changing. What do you want to call it, climate change or the weather is changing, or whatever? You can call it revelations, but it is changing. And
when it's changing, it is impacting the infrastructure. The failing infrastructure is impacting our productivity and it's impacting the health
of everybody, and we need to fix it.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, your book is called -- your latest book is called "Holy Ground." Why this book, why now, and why do you call it that?
FLOWERS: Well, the book was something that I thought of two years ago because I thought we were going to come to a time when we would need that,
where we would need to be reminded about who we are and how we got to where we are. And I felt that one way to do that was to talk about my own
personal struggles because they're intertwined in each and every one of those essays.
You know, I even revealed some things about myself that I had never shared before. That I was -- that I had an atopic pregnancy, but it wasn't atopic
pregnancy that bothered me, it was the way I found out about it, you know, while I was halfway in a twilight sleep and the doctor came in and said,
she can't have the baby. I didn't even know I was pregnant, but those were decisions that were taken away from me. And I even revealed my mother's --
the fact that my mother was sterilized. And there are so many other people that have come forward since that time to share their own stories.
So, I think that we are at a pivotal point when we are talking about women's rights. We are talking about the right of Mother Earth. And I
think, again, it's all connected. But I want to also leave people with a sense of hope because with each and every essay, I do try to leave a sense
of hope because I feel, for me, to be where I am at this point, coming from the dirt roads of Lowndes County to the cover of Time Magazine. My parents
could not have imagined that. And that's why my last chapter is, I am the answer to my ancestors' dreams.
MARTIN: Catherine Coleman Flowers, thank you so much for speaking with us.
FLOWERS: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a voice from Gaza honored with one of journalism's highest accolades. Renowned Palestinian poet and writer, Mosab Abu Toha has
been awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for his essays in The New Yorker, which portrayed a deeply personal account of life amid the
devastation in Gaza.
Reacting to the award, Abu Toha wrote on social media, let it bring hope. Let it be a tale. Abu Toha spoke with Christiane last year where he read
from his latest book of poetry, "Forest of Noise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOSAB ABU TOHA, POET: No art. The art of losing isn't hard to master, Elizabeth Bishop. You know everything will come to an end, the sugar, the
tea, the dried sage, the water, just go to the market and restock. Even your shadow will abandon you when there is no light. So, just keep things
that require only you, the book of poems that only you can decipher.
[13:55:00]
The blank map of a country whose cities and villages only you can recognize. I've personally lost three friends to war, a city to darkness,
and a language to fear. This was not easy to survive, but survival proved necessary to master. But to whole things, losing the only photo of my
grandfather under the rubble of my house was a real disaster.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: A reminder of the enduring power of words, especially in wartime. Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find
the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
