0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Refkin on the topic of climate change.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is framed as a debate, but with the goal of having a nuanced conversation, talking with each other, not at each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hope to continue having debates like these, including on controversial topics.
0
SPEAKER_00
I believe in the power of conversation to bring people together, not to convince one side or the other, but to enlighten both with the insights and wisdom that each hold.
0
SPEAKER_00
Bjorn Lomborg is the president of Copenhagen Consensus Think Tank and author of False Alarm, Cool It, and Skeptical Environmentalist.
0
SPEAKER_00
Please check out his work at Lomborg.com that includes his books, articles, and other writing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Andrew Rufkin is one of the most respected journalists in the world on the topic of climate.
0
SPEAKER_00
He s been writing about global environmental change and risk for more than 30 years, 20 of it at the New York Times.
0
SPEAKER_00
Please check out his work in the link tree that includes his books, articles, and other writing.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We ve got Asleep for Naps, Linode for Linux, InsideTracker for biological data, and Onnit for supplements.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hate those.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is sponsored by an old and favorite sponsor of mine that brings so much joy to my heart to eight sleep.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it s new pod three mattress.
0
SPEAKER_00
They recently launched this new generation of mattress.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s it s amazing.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a source of so much pleasure for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
I know it because when it s gone, I miss it.
0
SPEAKER_00
I remember how much joy it brings to my world, whether that s through a short power nap or a great night s sleep.
0
SPEAKER_00
Warm blanket, cold bed surface, with the rain gently falling outside.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ll even sometimes drink a coffee right before, and I pass out for 20 minutes, and I wake up a new human being.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t know whether that works.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if everyone enjoys naps as much as I do, but they work for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
And sometimes it can make the difference between a mind that is cynical and is really struggling with life and the world to a mind that is open to the possibilities and the beauty of the world.
0
SPEAKER_00
I do that on a sleep bed.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check it out and get special holiday savings of up to $400 when you go to asleep.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Linode, Linux, virtual machines.
0
SPEAKER_00
Why is it that my heart fills with joy anytime I think about Linux and the great provider of cloud Linux systems that is Linode, if you need to do any kind of compute.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just the interface, super easy to use, it s super reliable, easy to monitor, there s tech support of course, and that tech support is not just every once in a while, or whenever they feel like it, it s always, 24-7, 365, real human beings, just incredible.
0
SPEAKER_00
Everything is clear, everything is easy to use.
0
SPEAKER_00
The world runs on Linux.
0
SPEAKER_00
We re just a bunch of human biological systems having fun with our little pursuits and daily habits and rituals and so on.
0
SPEAKER_00
But all of that,
0
SPEAKER_00
Just like fish swim in water, humans in this modern 21st century technological age are swimming in compute.
0
SPEAKER_00
That makes almost no sense, but in a way it does.
0
SPEAKER_00
And you may make sense of it if you visit linode.com slash Lex for free credit.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a favorite sponsor, a favorite service that paints a beautiful painting that previews the future.
0
SPEAKER_00
Because in the future, my friends, all the recommendations, all the wisdom, the advice, the mentorship,
0
SPEAKER_00
you will need about the future trajectory of your life, whether that s lifestyle, health, diet, medical, all of it, I think all of that will come from your body.
0
SPEAKER_00
An insight tracker collects data from your body, the blood test, it s getting blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data, all of that to make recommendations.
0
SPEAKER_00
this is what the future will be like.
0
SPEAKER_00
Obviously, it has to be done in a way that preserves the privacy and respects your ownership of the data, but outside of that, once that is done, and that s a must, once that is done, then the recommendations that through machine learning, based on this data, will be so, so much better than the 20th century way of doing science, which is based on population data versus you.
0
SPEAKER_00
the beautiful, unique flower of an individual that is you.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get special savings for a limited time when you go to insighttracker.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Onnit, a nutrition supplement and fitness company.
0
SPEAKER_00
I first heard of Onnit from Mr. Joe Rogan, so it s kind of incredible to know that I m now doing an ad read for Onnit on this very podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
I take AlphaBrain every once in a while when I need a super boost for my mind, when there s a long session.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve been doing more and more and more programming lately.
0
SPEAKER_00
And when there s a long session of a difficult programming task, or also sometimes really having to think during debugging.
0
SPEAKER_00
So those can be really exhausting.
0
SPEAKER_00
So sometimes I ll take an alpha brain to help me through that process.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is what it is, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
Those sessions can be super exhausting, but super gratifying, so.
0
SPEAKER_00
In general, I don t take AlphaBrain every day.
0
SPEAKER_00
Coffee in the morning, and just focus and focus and focus.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to rely on the power of my mind, but sometimes it s definitely a big help.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy it.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like I said, it s a nootropic that helps support memory, mental speed, and focus.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can get a special discount on AlphaBrain at lexfriedman.com on it.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Rufkin.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s a spectrum of belief on the topic of climate change, and the landscape of that spectrum has probably changed over several decades.
0
SPEAKER_00
On one extreme, there s a belief that climate change is a hoax, it s not human-caused.
0
SPEAKER_00
To pile on top of that, there s a belief that institutions, scientific, political, the media, are corrupt and are kind of constructing this fabrication.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s one extreme.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then the other extreme, there s a,
0
SPEAKER_00
a level of alarmism about the catastrophic impacts of climate change that lead to the extinction of human civilization.
0
SPEAKER_00
So not just economic costs, hardship, suffering, but literally the destruction of the human species in the short term.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so that s the spectrum.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I would love to find the center, and my sense is, and the reason I wanted to talk to the two of you,
0
SPEAKER_00
aside from the humility with which you approach this topic, is I feel like you re close to the center and are on different sides of that center, if it s possible to define the center.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like there is a political center for center left and center right.
0
SPEAKER_00
Of course, it s very difficult to define, but can you help me define what the extremes are again, as they have changed over the years, what they are today, and where s the center?
0
SPEAKER_01
Oh boy.
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, in a way, on this issue, I think there is no center except in this, if you re looking on social media or if you re looking on TV, there are people who are trying to fabricate the idea that there s a single question.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that s the first mistake.
0
SPEAKER_01
We are developing a new relationship with the climate system and we re rethinking our energy systems.
0
SPEAKER_01
And those are very disconnected in so many ways that connect around climate change.
0
SPEAKER_01
But the first way to me to overcome this idea of there is this polarized universe around this issue is to
0
SPEAKER_01
step back and say, well, what is this actually?
0
SPEAKER_01
And when you do, you realize it s kind of an uncomfortable collision between old energy norms and a growing awareness of how the planet works, that if you keep adding gases that are invisible, it s the bubbles in beer.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you keep adding that to the atmosphere, because it accumulates, that will change everything.
0
SPEAKER_01
It is changing everything for thousands of years.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s already happening.
0
SPEAKER_00
What do you mean by bubbles in beer?
0
SPEAKER_01
CO2, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
0
SPEAKER_00
Why beer?
0
SPEAKER_01
Because I like beer.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s also in Coca-Cola.
0
SPEAKER_01
We were talking about Cola before.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so it s innocuous.
0
SPEAKER_01
We grew up with this idea.
0
SPEAKER_01
CO2, unless you re trapped in a room suffocating,
0
SPEAKER_01
It s an innocuous gas, it s plant food, it s beer bubbles.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the idea we can swiftly transition to a world where that gas is a pollutant, regulated, tamped down from the top is fantastical.
0
SPEAKER_01
Having looked at this for 35 years, I brought along one of my tokens.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is my 1988 cover story on global warming.
0
SPEAKER_00
The Greenhouse Effect, discovered in 1988.
0
SPEAKER_01
Jim Hansen, the famous American climate scientist, really, he stimulated this article by doing this dramatic testimony in a Senate committee that summer, in May, actually, spring, late spring.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was a hot day, and it got headlines, and this was the result.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it s complicated.
0
SPEAKER_01
Look what we were selling on the back cover.
0
SPEAKER_00
What you see is when you get tobacco.
0
SPEAKER_00
Cigarettes.
0
SPEAKER_00
Tobacco, yeah.
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, looking back at my own career on the climate question, it s no longer a belief fight over is global warming real or not.
0
SPEAKER_01
You say, well, what kind of energy future do you want?
0
SPEAKER_01
That s a very different question than stop global warming.
0
SPEAKER_01
And when you look at climate, actually, I had this learning journey on my reporting where I started out with this as the definition of the problem.
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, the 70s and 80s, pollution was changing things that were making things bad.
0
SPEAKER_00
So really focusing in on the greenhouse effect and the pollution.
0
SPEAKER_01
But what I missed, the big thing that I missed of the first 15 years of my reporting from 1988 through about 2007,
0
SPEAKER_01
when I was, that period I was at the New York Times, in the middle there, was that we re building vulnerability to climate hazards at the same time.
0
SPEAKER_01
So climate is changing, but we re changing too.
0
SPEAKER_01
And where we are here in Austin, Texas is a great example.
0
SPEAKER_01
Flash flood alley.
0
SPEAKER_01
named in the 1920s, west of here.
0
SPEAKER_01
Everyone forgot about flash floods.
0
SPEAKER_01
Built these huge developments, you know, along these river basins.
0
SPEAKER_01
Then one side starts saying, global warming, global warming.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the other side is not recognizing that we built willfully, greedily,
0
SPEAKER_01
the vulnerability in places of utter hazard.
0
SPEAKER_01
Same things played out in Pakistan and in Fort Myers, Florida.
0
SPEAKER_01
And you start to understand that we re creating a landscape of risk.
0
SPEAKER_01
as climate is changing, then it feels, oh my God, that s more complex, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
But it also gives you more action points.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s like, okay, well, we know how to design better.
0
SPEAKER_01
We know that today s coasts won t be tomorrow s coasts.
0
SPEAKER_01
Work with that.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then let s chart an energy future at the same time.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the story became so different.
0
SPEAKER_01
It didn t become like, you know, a story you could package into a magazine article or the like.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it just led me to a whole different way of, even my journalism changed over time.
0
SPEAKER_01
So I don t fight the belief-disbelief fight anymore.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think it s actually kind of a waste.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a good way to start the discussion, because that s where we re at.
0
SPEAKER_01
But this isn t about, to me, going forward from where we re at, isn t about tipping that balance back toward the center so much as finding opportunities to just do something about this stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
What do you think, Bjorn?
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you agree that it s multiple questions in one big question?
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s possible to define the center?
0
SPEAKER_00
Where is the center?
0
SPEAKER_02
I think it s wonderful to hear Andy sort of unconstruct the whole conversation and say, we should be worried about different things.
0
SPEAKER_02
And I think that s exactly, or we should be worried about things in a different way that makes it much more useful.
0
SPEAKER_02
I think that s exactly the right way to think about it.
0
SPEAKER_02
On the other hand, that was also where you kind of ended.
0
SPEAKER_02
We are stuck in a place where this very much is the conversation right now.
0
SPEAKER_02
And so I think in one sense, certainly the people who used to say, oh, this is not happening, they re very, very small and diminishing crowd and certainly not right.
0
SPEAKER_02
But on the other hand, I think to an increasing extent, we ve gotten into a world where a lot of people really think this is the end of times.
0
SPEAKER_02
So the OECD did a new survey of all OECD countries, and it s shocking.
0
SPEAKER_02
So it shows that 60% of all people in the OECD, so the rich world, believes that global warming will likely or very likely lead to the extinction of mankind.
0
SPEAKER_02
And that s scary in a very, very clear way.
0
SPEAKER_02
Because look, if this really is true, if global warming is this meteor hurtling towards Earth,
0
SPEAKER_02
and we re going to be destroyed in 12 years or whatever the number is today, then clearly we should care about nothing else.
0
SPEAKER_02
We should just be focusing on making sure that that asteroid gets – we should send up Bruce Willis and get this done with.
0
SPEAKER_02
But that s not the way it is.
0
SPEAKER_02
This is not actually what the UN climate panel tells us or anything else.
0
SPEAKER_02
So I think it s not so much about arcing against the people who are saying it s a it s a hoax.
0
SPEAKER_02
That s not really where I am.
0
SPEAKER_02
I don t think that s where Andy or really where the conversation is.
0
SPEAKER_02
But it is a question of sort of pulling people back from this end of the world conversation because it really skews our way that we think about problems.
0
SPEAKER_02
Also, if you really think this is the end of time and you only have 12 years, nothing that can only work in 13 years can be considered.
0
SPEAKER_02
And the reality of most of what we re talking about in climate and certainly our vulnerability, certainly our energy system is going to be half to a full century.
0
SPEAKER_02
And so when you talk to people and say, well, but we re going to, you know, we re really going to go a lot more renewable in the next half century.
0
SPEAKER_02
They look at you and like, but that s what 38 years too late.
0
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and I get that, but so, so I think in, in your question, what I m trying to do, and I would imagine that s true for you as well, is to try to pull people away from this precipice and this end of the world, and then open it up.
0
SPEAKER_02
And I think Andy did that really well by saying, look, there are so many different
0
SPEAKER_02
sub-conversations and we need to have all of them and we need to be respectful of some of these are right in the sort of standard media kind of way, but some of them are very, very wrong and actually means that we end up doing much less good, both on climate, but also on all the other problems the world faces.
0
SPEAKER_01
Oh yeah, and it disempowers people too, those who believe this than just
0
SPEAKER_01
sit back, even in Adam McKay s movie, the Don t Look Up movie, there was that sort of nihilist crowd, for those who ve seen it, who just say, you know, fuck this.
0
SPEAKER_01
And a lot of people have that, when something s too big.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it just paralyzes you, as opposed to giving you these action points.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the other thing is, I hate it when economists are right about stuff like the, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,
0
SPEAKER_01
the things around you, how we pass laws, the brokenness of the Senate.
0
SPEAKER_01
We don t have a climate crisis in America, we have a decision crisis as it comes to how the government works or doesn t work.
0
SPEAKER_01
But those big features of our landscape, it s path dependency.
0
SPEAKER_01
When you screw in a light bulb,
0
SPEAKER_01
even if it s an LED light bulb, it s going into a 113, 120-year-old fixture.
0
SPEAKER_01
And actually, that fixture is almost designed, if you look at 19th century gas fixtures, they had this screw-in thing.
0
SPEAKER_01
So we re on these long path dependencies when it comes to energy and stuff like that, that you don t
1
SPEAKER_02
just magically transition a car fleet.
1
SPEAKER_02
A car built today will last 40 years.
1
SPEAKER_02
It ll end up in Mexico, sold as a used car, et cetera, et cetera.
1
SPEAKER_02
And so there is no quick fix, even if we re true that things are coming to an end in 13 years or 12 years or eight years.
1
SPEAKER_00
So most people don t believe that climate change is a hoax.
1
SPEAKER_00
So they believe that there is an increase, there s a global warming of a few degrees in the next century.
1
SPEAKER_00
and then maybe debate about what the number of the degrees is.
1
SPEAKER_00
And do most people believe that it s human caused at this time in this history of discussion of climate change?
1
SPEAKER_00
So is that the center still?
1
SPEAKER_00
Is there still debate on this?
1
SPEAKER_02
Yale University, the climate communication group there for like 13 years has done this Six Americas study where they ve charted pretty carefully in ways that I really find useful what people believe.
1
SPEAKER_02
And we could talk about the word belief in the context of science too.
1
SPEAKER_02
And they ve identified kind of six kinds of us.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s from dismissive to alarmed and with lots of bubbles in between.
1
SPEAKER_02
I think some of those bubbles in between are mostly disengaged people who don t really deal with the issue.
1
SPEAKER_02
And they ve shown a drift for sure.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s much more majority now at the alarmed or engaged bubbles than just the dismissive bubble.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s a durable, like with vaccination and lots of other issues, there s a durable never anything,
1
SPEAKER_02
belief group, but on the reality that humans are contributing to climate change, most Americans, when you ask them, and it also depends on how you write your survey, you know, think there s a component.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this is also true globally.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, when you ask around, I mean, and this is, you know, if you hear this story from the media of 20 years, of course, that s what you will believe.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it also happens to be true.
1
SPEAKER_01
That is what the science, I think it s perhaps worth saying, and it s a little depressing that you always have to say it, but I think it s worth saying that I think we both really do accept the climate panel science, and there s absolutely global warming, it is an issue, and it s probably just worthwhile to get it out of the way.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s an issue, and it s caused by humans.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s caused by humans, yeah.
1
SPEAKER_02
But vulnerability, the losses,
1
SPEAKER_02
that are driven by climate-related events still predominantly are caused by humans, but on the ground.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s where we build stuff, where we settle.
1
SPEAKER_02
Pakistan, in 1960, I just looked these data up, there were 40 million people in Pakistan.
1
SPEAKER_02
Today there are 225 million.
1
SPEAKER_02
And a big chunk of them are still rural.
1
SPEAKER_02
They live in the floodplain of the amazing Indus River, which comes down from the Himalayas.
1
SPEAKER_02
Extraordinary 5,000 year history of agriculture there.
1
SPEAKER_02
But when you put 200 million people in harm s way, and this doesn t say anything about the bigger questions about, oh, shame on Pakistan for having more people.
1
SPEAKER_02
It just says the reality is the losses that we see in the news
1
SPEAKER_02
And the science finds this.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s a new weather attribution group.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s WXrisk on Twitter.
1
SPEAKER_02
This does pretty good work on how much of what just happened was some tweak in the storm from global warming, from CO2 changing weather.
1
SPEAKER_02
And the media glommed onto that, as I did in the 80s, 90s, 2000s.
1
SPEAKER_02
But the reports also have a section on, by the way, the vulnerability that was built in this region was a big driver of loss.
1
SPEAKER_02
So discriminating between loss and vulnerability.
1
SPEAKER_02
Change in what s happening on the ground and change in the climate system is never solely about CO2.
1
SPEAKER_02
In fact, Lawrence Bauer, B-O-U-W-E-R, I first wrote on his work in 2010 in the New York Times.
1
SPEAKER_02
And basically, in 2010, there was no sign in the data of climate change driving disasters.
1
SPEAKER_02
Climate change is up here, disasters are on the ground, they depend on how many people are in the way, how much stuff you built in the way.
1
SPEAKER_02
And so far, we ve done so much of that so fast in the 20th century particularly, that it completely dominates, it makes it hard, impossible to discriminate how much of that disaster was from the change in weather from global warming.
1
SPEAKER_00
So a function of greenhouse gases to human suffering is unclear.
1
SPEAKER_02
And that s very much in our control, theoretically.
1
SPEAKER_01
The point, I think, is exactly right.
1
SPEAKER_01
If you look at the Hurricane Ian that went through Florida, you have a situation where Florida went from, what, 600,000 houses in 1940 to 17 million houses.
1
SPEAKER_01
Sorry, 10 million houses, so 17 times more.
1
SPEAKER_01
over a period of 80 years, of course you re going to have, what?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
You re going to have lots more damage.
1
SPEAKER_01
And many of these houses now have been built on places where you probably shouldn t be building.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so I think a lot of scientists are very focused on saying, can we measure whether global warming had an impact?
1
SPEAKER_01
Which is an interesting science question.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think it s, it s very implausible that eventually we won t be able to say it has an impact, but the real question it seems to me is if we actually want to make sure that people are less harmed in the future.
1
SPEAKER_01
What are the levers that we can control?
1
SPEAKER_01
And it turns out that the CO2 lever, doing something about climate, is an incredibly difficult and slightly inefficient way of trying to help these people in the future.
1
SPEAKER_01
Whereas, of course, zoning, making sure that you have better housing rules, what is it, regulations, that you maybe don t have people building in the flash flood, what was it called?
1
SPEAKER_01
Flash flood alley.
1
SPEAKER_01
Flash flood alley.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s just simple stuff.
1
SPEAKER_01
And because we re so focused on this one issue, it almost feels sacrilegious to talk about these other things that are much more in our power and that we can do something about much quicker and that would help a lot more people.
1
SPEAKER_01
So I think this is going to be a large part of the whole conversation.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes, climate is a problem, but it s not the only problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there are many other things where we can actually have a much, much bigger impact at much lower cost.
1
SPEAKER_01
Maybe we should also remember those.
1
SPEAKER_00
Steel man the case of Greta, who s a representative of alarmism.
1
SPEAKER_00
that we need that kind of level of alarmism for people to pay attention and to think about climate change.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you said the singular view is not the correct way to look at climate change, just the emissions.
1
SPEAKER_00
But for us to have a discussion, shouldn t there be somebody who s really raising the concern?
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you still man the case for alarmism, essentially?
1
SPEAKER_00
Or is there a better term than alarmism?
1
SPEAKER_00
Communication of like, holy shit, we should be thinking about this.
1
SPEAKER_01
So I totally understand why Greta Thunberg is doing what she s doing.
1
SPEAKER_01
I have great respect for her because I look at a lot of kids growing up and they re basically being told
1
SPEAKER_01
you re not going to reach adulthood or at least not, you re not going to get very far into adulthood.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that, of course, you know, this is the meteor hurdling towards earth.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then this is the only thing we should be focusing on.
1
SPEAKER_01
I understand why she s making that argument.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think it s,
1
SPEAKER_01
At the end of the day, it s incorrect, and I m sure we ll get around to talking about that.
1
SPEAKER_01
And one of the things is, of course, that her whole generation, you know, I can understand why they re saying, you know, if we re going to be dead in 12 years, why would I want to study?
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, why would I really care about anything?
1
SPEAKER_01
So I totally want to sort of pull Greta and many others out of this end of the world fear, but I totally get why she s doing it.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think she s done a service in the sense that she s gotten more people to talk about climate
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s good, because we need to have this discussion.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think it s unfortunate, and this is just what happens in almost all policy discussions, that they end up being sort of discussions from the extreme groups, because it s just more fun on media to have sort of the total deniers and the people who say, we re going to die tomorrow.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it sort of becomes that discussion.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s more sort of a mud-wrestling
1
SPEAKER_00
So would you think the mud wrestling fight is not useful or is useful for communication, for effective science communication on one of the platforms that you re a fan of, which is Twitter?
1
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, I wrote a piece recently in my Sustain What column saying if you go on there for the entertainment value of seeing those knockdown fights, I guess that s useful if that s what you re looking for.
1
SPEAKER_02
The thing I found Twitter invaluable for
1
SPEAKER_02
But it s a practice.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s just like the workouts you do.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s how do I put this tool to use today, thinking about energy action in poor communities?
1
SPEAKER_02
How do I put this tool today, learning about what really happened with Ian the hurricane, who was most at risk, and how would you build forward better?
1
SPEAKER_02
I hate build back.
1
SPEAKER_02
Or you can go there and just watch it as an entertainment value.
1
SPEAKER_02
That s not gonna get the world anywhere.
1
SPEAKER_00
You don t think entertainment, I wouldn t call it entertainment, but giving voice to the extremes isn t a productive way forward.
1
SPEAKER_00
It seems to, you know, to push back against the main narrative, it seems to work pretty well in the American system.
1
SPEAKER_00
We think
1
SPEAKER_00
politics is totally broken, but maybe that works, that like oscillation back and forth.
1
SPEAKER_00
You need a Greta and you need somebody that pushes back against Greta to get everybody s attention.
1
SPEAKER_00
The fun of battle over time creates progress.
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, and this gets to the, you know, people who focus on communication science, I m not a scientist, I write about this stuff.
1
SPEAKER_02
If you re gonna try to prod someone with a warning, like, this is three years apart, nuclear winner.
1
SPEAKER_00
Nuclear winter, we ll talk about that.
1
SPEAKER_02
Global warming, well yeah, we ll talk about it.
1
SPEAKER_02
But look at that, this is three years apart in the covers of a magazine.
1
SPEAKER_02
But then you have to say to what end, if you re not directing people to a basket of things to do.
1
SPEAKER_02
And if you want political change, then it would be to support a politician.
1
SPEAKER_02
If you want energy access, it would be to
1
SPEAKER_02
Look at this $370 billion the American government just put into play on climate and say, well, how can my community benefit from that?
1
SPEAKER_02
And I ve been told over and over again by people in government, Jigar Shah, who heads this giant loan program, the energy department, he says, what I need now is like 19,500 people who are worried about climate change, maybe because Greta got them worried,
1
SPEAKER_02
But here s the thing you could do, you can connect your local government right now with these multi-million dollar loans so you can have electric buses instead of diesel buses.
1
SPEAKER_02
And that s an action pathway.
1
SPEAKER_02
So alarm for the sake of getting attention or clicks to me is not any more valuable than watching an action movie.
1
SPEAKER_01
And again, I think also it very easily ends up sort of skewing our conversation about what are the actual solutions.
1
SPEAKER_01
Because yes, it s great to get rid of the diesel bus, but probably not for the reason people think.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s because diesel buses are really polluting.
1
SPEAKER_01
in the air pollution sense.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that is why you should get rid of them.
1
SPEAKER_01
And again, if you really wanted to help people, for instance, with hurricanes, you should have better rules and zoning in Florida, which is a very different outcome.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the mud wrestling fight also gets our attention diverted towards solutions that seem
1
SPEAKER_01
Easy, fun, you know, sort of the electric car is a great example of this.
1
SPEAKER_01
The electric car has somehow become almost the sign that I care and I m really going to do something about climate.
1
SPEAKER_01
Of course, electric cars are great and they re probably part of the solution and they will actually cut carbon emissions somewhat.
1
SPEAKER_01
but they re an incredibly ineffective way of cutting carbon emissions right now.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re fairly expensive, you have to subsidize them a lot, and they still emit quite a bit of CO2, both because the batteries get produced and because they usually run off of power that s not totally clean.
1
SPEAKER_00
Strong words from your in-law.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, let s go there.
1
SPEAKER_00
Let s go electric cars.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, educate us on the pros and cons of electric cars in this complex picture of climate change.
1
SPEAKER_00
What do you think of the efforts of Tesla and Elon Musk
1
SPEAKER_00
on pushing forward the electric car revolution.
1
SPEAKER_01
So look, electric cars are great.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t own a car, but I ve been driving a Tesla.
1
SPEAKER_00
There you go, socially signaling.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re in Texas, it s okay.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, I flew in here, so it s not like I m in any way a virtuous guy on that path.
1
SPEAKER_01
But look, they re great cars, and eventually electric cars will take over a significant part
1
SPEAKER_01
of our uh driving and that s good because they re more more effective they re more effective they re probably also going to be cheaper uh there s a lot of good opportunities with them but it s because they ve become reified as this thing that you do to fix climate and right now they re not really all that great for climate they uh you need a lot of uh
1
SPEAKER_01
uh, extra material into the batteries, which is very polluting.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s also, uh, it emits a lot of CO2.
1
SPEAKER_01
A lot of electric cars, uh, are bought as second cars in the U S uh, so we used to think that they were driven almost as much as, as a regular car.
1
SPEAKER_01
It turns out that they are more likely driven less than half as much as, uh, as a regular cars.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, 89% of all Americans who have an electric car also have a real car that they use for the long trips.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then they use the electric car for sure.
1
SPEAKER_01
89%, yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the point here is that it s one of these things that become more sort of a virtue signal and thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
And again, look, once electric cars are sufficiently cheap that people will want to buy them, that s great.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they will do some good for the environment.
1
SPEAKER_01
But in reality, what we should be focusing on is instead of getting people electric cars in rich countries where because we re subsidizing typically, uh, in, in many countries, it s, uh, you actually get, uh, uh, a sort of sliding scale.
1
SPEAKER_01
You get more subsidy, the more expensive it is.
1
SPEAKER_01
We sort of subsidize this to very rich people to buy very large, uh, Tesla s, uh, to drive around him.
1
SPEAKER_01
Uh, whereas what we should be focusing on is perhaps getting, uh, electric motorcycles in third world developing cities.
1
SPEAKER_01
where they would do a lot more good.
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, they can actually go as far as you need.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s no, you know, worry about running out of, uh, and they would obviously, they re much, much more polluting, uh, just air pollution wise.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they re much cheaper and they use very little battery.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it s about getting our senses right, but the electric car is not a conversation about, is it technically a really good or is it a somewhat good insight?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s more like it s a virtual signal.
1
SPEAKER_01
I work with economists.
1
SPEAKER_01
I m actually not an economist, but I like to say I claim I kind of am.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the fundamental point is we would say, well, how much does it cost to cut a ton of CO2?
1
SPEAKER_01
And the answer is, for most electric cars, we re paying in the order of $1,000, $2,000.
1
SPEAKER_01
In Norway, they pay up to $5,000 or thereabouts.
1
SPEAKER_01
Huge amount for one ton of CO2.
1
SPEAKER_01
you can right now cut a ton of CO2 for about, what is it, $14 on the Reggie or something?
1
SPEAKER_01
You can do this.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s the regional greenhouse gas.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you can basically cut it really, really cheaply.
1
SPEAKER_01
Why would we not want to cut dozens and dozens of tons of CO2 for the same price instead of just cutting one ton?
1
SPEAKER_01
And the simple answer is we only do that because we re so focused on electricity.
1
SPEAKER_00
If I may interrupt, typical European, come here in Texas, tell me I can t have my Ford F-150, but I ll,
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, now you can have your F-150 Lightning.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s true, that s true.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m just joking, yes.
1
SPEAKER_00
No, I know.
1
SPEAKER_00
But what do you think about electric cars, if we could just linger on that moment and this particular element of helping reduce emissions?
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, you talked about the middle in the beginning, and I loved moving to the hybrid.
1
SPEAKER_02
The Prius was fantastic.
1
SPEAKER_02
It did everything our other sedan did, but it was 60 miles per gallon.
2
SPEAKER_02
performance and you don t have range anxiety because it has a regular engine too.
2
SPEAKER_02
We still have a Prius.
2
SPEAKER_02
We also inherited my dad, dear dad s year 2000 Toyota Sienna, which is an old 100,000 mile minivan.
2
SPEAKER_02
And we use it all the time to do the stuff we can t do in the Prius.
2
SPEAKER_02
Like what?
2
SPEAKER_02
Taking stuff to the dump.
2
SPEAKER_00
Oh, you mean in terms of the size of the vehicle?
2
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, size and just, you know, convenience factor for a bigger vehicle.
2
SPEAKER_02
I would love a fully electrified transportation world.
2
SPEAKER_02
It s kind of exciting.
2
SPEAKER_02
I think what Elon did with Tesla, I remember way, way back in the day when the first models were coming out.
2
SPEAKER_02
They were very slick, Ferrari style.
2
SPEAKER_02
cars and I thought this is cool and you know there s a history of privileged markets testing new technologies and I m all for that.
2
SPEAKER_02
I think it s done a huge service prodding so much more R&D and you know once GM and Ford started to realize oh my god
2
SPEAKER_02
this is a real phenomenon, you know, getting them in the game.
2
SPEAKER_02
There was that documentary who killed the electric car, which seemed to imply that, you know, there were fights to keep this tamped down.
2
SPEAKER_02
And it s fundamentally cleaner, fundamentally better.
2
SPEAKER_02
But then you have to manage these bigger questions.
2
SPEAKER_02
If we re gonna do a build-out here, how do you make it fair?
2
SPEAKER_02
As you were saying, who actually uses transferred cars?
2
SPEAKER_02
And Jigar Shah, that guy at the energy department I mentioned who has all this money to give out, he wants to give loans to, if you had an Uber fleet, those Uber drivers, they re the ones who need.
2
SPEAKER_02
electric cars.
2
SPEAKER_02
His work, and there was a recent story in Grist also, said that most of the sales of Teslas are the high end of the market.
2
SPEAKER_02
They re $60,000, $80,000 vehicles.
2
SPEAKER_02
The Hummer, the electric Hummer, there was a data point on that.
2
SPEAKER_02
astonishing data point, the battery in that Hummer weighs more than, I d have to look it up, it weighs more than a car.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think it might have been a Prius.
2
SPEAKER_02
And think of the material cost there.
2
SPEAKER_02
Think of where that battery, the cobalt and the lithium, where does this stuff come from to build this stuff out?
2
SPEAKER_02
I m all for it, but we have to be honest and clear about that s a new resource rush, like the oil rush back in the early 20th century.
2
SPEAKER_02
And those impacts have to be figured out too.
2
SPEAKER_02
And if they re all big hummers for rich people.
2
SPEAKER_02
There s so many contrary arguments to that that I think we have to figure out a way, we, I don t like the word we, I use it too much, we all do.
2
SPEAKER_02
We all do.
2
SPEAKER_00
We usually refer when you say we, we humans.
2
SPEAKER_02
We society, we government, yeah.
2
SPEAKER_02
There has to be some thought and attention put to where you put these incentives so that you get the best use of this technology for the carbon benefit, for the conventional sooty pollution benefit, for the transportation benefit.
2
SPEAKER_00
Can I step back and ask a sort of big question?
2
SPEAKER_00
We mentioned economics, journalism.
2
SPEAKER_00
How does an economist and a climate scientist and a journalist that writes about climate see the world differently?
2
SPEAKER_00
What are the strengths and potential blind spots of each discipline?
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, that s just sort of, just so people may be aware.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think you ll fall into the economics camp a bit.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s climate scientists,
2
SPEAKER_00
And there s climate scientists adjacent people, like who hang some of my best friends are climate scientists, which is I think where you fall in because you re a journalist, you ve been writing it.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you re not completely in the trenches of doing the work.
2
SPEAKER_00
You re just step into the trenches every once in a while.
2
SPEAKER_00
So can you speak to that maybe beyond like, what does the world look like to an economist?
2
SPEAKER_01
let s try to empathize with these beings that, uh, you know, unfortunately has fallen into the disreputable, uh, economics.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, so, uh, I think, I think the, the, the main point that, that I ve been trying for a long time, and I think that s also a little bit what Andy has been talking about for a very long time.
2
SPEAKER_01
The whole conversation was about what does the science tell us is, is it global warming real?
2
SPEAKER_01
And, and to me, it s much more.
2
SPEAKER_01
what can we actually do?
2
SPEAKER_01
What are the policies that we can take and how effective are they going to be?
2
SPEAKER_01
So the conversation we just had about electric cars is a good example of how an economist think about, look, this is not a question about whether you feel morally virtuous or whether you can sort of display how much you care about the environment.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is about how much you actually ended up
2
SPEAKER_01
affecting the world.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the honest answer is that electric cars right now in the next decade or so will have a fairly small impact, and unfortunately right now at a very high cost because we re basically subsidizing these things at $5,000 or $10,000 around the world per car.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s just not really sustainable, but it s certainly not a very great way to cut carbon emissions.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I would be the kind of guy and economists would be the
2
SPEAKER_01
types of people who would say is there a smarter way where you for less money can for instance cut more co2 and the Obvious answer is yes.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s what we ve seen for instance with fracking The fact that the US went from a lot of coal to a lot of gas because gas became incredibly cheap Because gas emits about half as much as as coal does when you use it for elect for power
2
SPEAKER_01
That basically cut more carbon emissions than pretty much any other single thing.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we should get the rest of the world in some sense to frack because it s really cheap.
2
SPEAKER_01
There are some problems and absolutely we can also have that conversation.
2
SPEAKER_01
No technology is problem free, but fundamentally it s an incredibly cheap way.
2
SPEAKER_01
to get people to cut a lot of CO2.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not the final solution because it s still a fossil fuel, but it s a much better fossil fuel, if you will, and it s much more realistic to do that.
2
SPEAKER_01
So that s one part of the thing.
2
SPEAKER_01
The other one is when we talked about, for instance, how do we help people in Florida who gets hit by a hurricane, or how do we help people that get damaged in flash floods, the people who are in
2
SPEAKER_01
We re in heat waves.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the simple answer is there s a lot of very, very cheap and effective things that we could do first.
2
SPEAKER_01
So most climate people will tend to sort of say, we got to get rid of all carbon emissions.
2
SPEAKER_01
We got to change the engine that sort of powers the world and has powered us for the last 200 years.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s all good and well, but it s really, really hard to do.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it s probably not going to do very much.
2
SPEAKER_01
And even if you succeed it, it would only help, you know, future victims of future hurricane Ian s in Florida, a tiny, tiny bit at best.
2
SPEAKER_01
So instead, let s try to focus on not getting people to build right on the waterfront where you re incredibly vulnerable and where you re
2
SPEAKER_01
Very likely to get hit where we subsidize people with federal insurance again, which is just actually losing money.
2
SPEAKER_01
So we re much more about saying, it s not a science question.
2
SPEAKER_01
I just take the science for granted.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, there is a problem with climate change, but it s much more about saying, how can we make smart decisions?
2
SPEAKER_00
Can I ask you about blind spots?
2
SPEAKER_00
When you reduce stuff to numbers, the cost and benefits, is there stuff you might miss?
2
SPEAKER_00
that are important to the flourishing of the human species?
2
SPEAKER_01
So everyone will have to say, of course there must be blind spots.
2
SPEAKER_01
But I don t know what they are.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I m sure Andy would probably be better at telling me what they are.
2
SPEAKER_01
So we try to incorporate all of it, but obviously we re not successful.
2
SPEAKER_01
You can t incorporate everything, for instance, in a cost-benefit analysis.
2
SPEAKER_01
But the point is in some way,
2
SPEAKER_01
I would worry a lot about this if we were, you know, sort of close to perfection, human race, we re doing almost everything right, but we re not quite right, then we need to get the last digits right.
2
SPEAKER_01
But I think it s much more of the, you know, and the point that I tried to make before
2
SPEAKER_01
that we re all focused on going to an electric car or something else rather than fracking.
2
SPEAKER_01
We re all focused on cutting carbon emissions instead of reducing vulnerability.
2
SPEAKER_01
So we re simply getting in orders of magnitude wrong.
2
SPEAKER_01
And while I m sure I have blind spots, I think they re probably not big enough to overturn that point.
2
SPEAKER_01
Andy, wise Bjorn, economists are all wrong about everything.
2
SPEAKER_02
Well, models, we could spend a whole day on models.
2
SPEAKER_02
There are economic models, there s this thing called optimization models.
2
SPEAKER_02
There were two big ones used to assess the US plan, this new big IRA, inflation reduction package.
2
SPEAKER_02
And they re fine, they re a starting point for understanding
2
SPEAKER_02
what s possible, but as this gets to the journalism part or the public part, you have to look at the caveats.
2
SPEAKER_02
You have to look at what model, economists expressly exclude things that are not modelable.
2
SPEAKER_02
And if you look in the fine print on the repeat project, the Princeton version of the assessment of the recent giant legislation, the fine print is the front page.
2
SPEAKER_02
for me, as a deep diving journalist, because it says we didn t include any sources of friction, meaning resistance to putting new transmission lines through your community, or people who don t want mining in America, because we ve exported all of our mining.
2
SPEAKER_02
We mine our cobalt in Congo, and trying to get a new mine in Nevada.
2
SPEAKER_02
was a fraught fight that took more than 10 years for lithium.
2
SPEAKER_02
So if you re excluding those elements from your model, which on the surface makes this $370 billion package have an emissions reduction trajectory that s really pretty good.
2
SPEAKER_02
and you re not saying in your first line, by the way, these are the things we re not considering.
2
SPEAKER_02
That s the job of a journalist.
2
SPEAKER_00
Summarize all of human history with that one word, friction.
2
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, well, inertia, friction implies there s a force that s already being resisted, but there s also inertia, which is a huge part of our, you know, we have a status quo bias.
2
SPEAKER_02
the scientists that I, in grappling with the climate problem, as a journalist, I paid too much attention to climate scientists.
2
SPEAKER_02
That s why all my articles focused on climate change.
2
SPEAKER_02
And it was 2006, I remember now pretty clearly, I was asked by the Weekend Review section of the New York Times to write a sort of a weekend thumb sucker, we call them.
2
SPEAKER_02
You know, you sit and suck your thumb and think about something.
2
SPEAKER_02
Why is everybody so pissed off about climate change?
2
SPEAKER_02
It was after the Al Gore movie came out, Inconvenient Truth, Hurricane Katrina.
2
SPEAKER_02
It was big.
2
SPEAKER_02
Senator Inhofe in the Senate from Oklahoma wasn t yet throwing snowballs, but it was close to that.
2
SPEAKER_02
And so I looked into what was going on.
2
SPEAKER_02
Why is this so heated?
2
SPEAKER_02
In 2006, the story s called Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet.
2
SPEAKER_02
And that was the first time, this is after 18 years of writing about global warming.
2
SPEAKER_02
That was the first time I interviewed a social scientist, not a climate scientist.
2
SPEAKER_02
Her name was Helen Ingram.
2
SPEAKER_02
She was at UC Irvine.
2
SPEAKER_02
And she laid out for me the factors that determine why people vote, what they vote for, what they think about politically.
2
SPEAKER_02
And they were the antithesis of the climate problem.
2
SPEAKER_02
She used the words, she said, people go into the voting booth thinking about things that are soon, salient, and certain.
2
SPEAKER_02
And climate change is complex, you know, has long timescales.
2
SPEAKER_02
And that really jogged me.
2
SPEAKER_02
And then I, between 2006, 2010,
2
SPEAKER_02
I started interviewing other social scientists, and this was by far the scariest science of all.
2
SPEAKER_02
It s the climate in our heads, our inconvenient minds, and then how that translates into political norms and stuff really became the monster, not the climate system.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is there social dynamics to the scientists themselves?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because I ve gotten to witness a kind of flocking behavior with scientists.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it s almost like a flock of birds.
2
SPEAKER_00
Within the flock, there s a lot of disagreement and fun debates and everybody trying to prove each other wrong, but they re all kind of headed in the same direction.
2
SPEAKER_00
And you don t want to be the bird that kind of leaves that flock.
2
SPEAKER_00
So like there s an idea that science is a mechanism will get us towards the truth, but it ll definitely get us somewhere.
2
SPEAKER_00
But it could be not the truth in the short term.
2
SPEAKER_00
In the long term, a bigger flock will come along and it ll get us to the truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
But there s a sense that I don t know if there s a mechanism within science to like,
2
SPEAKER_00
snap out of it if you re down the wrong track.
2
SPEAKER_00
Usually you get it right, but sometimes you don t.
2
SPEAKER_00
When you don t, it s very costly.
2
SPEAKER_02
And there s so many factors that line up to perpetuate that flocking behavior.
2
SPEAKER_02
One is media attention comes in.
2
SPEAKER_02
The other is funding comes in, National Science Foundation or whatever, European foundations pour a huge amount of money into things related to climate.
2
SPEAKER_02
And then your narrative in your head is shaped by that aspect of the climate problem that s in the spotlight.
2
SPEAKER_02
I started using this hashtag a few years back, narrative capture, like be wary of narrative capture where you re,
2
SPEAKER_02
You re on a train and everyone s getting on the train.
2
SPEAKER_02
And this is in the media too, not just science.
2
SPEAKER_02
And it becomes self-sustaining.
2
SPEAKER_02
And contrary indications are ignored or downplayed.
2
SPEAKER_02
No one does replication science because your career doesn t advance through replicating someone else s work.
2
SPEAKER_02
So those contrary indications are not necessarily really dug in on.
2
SPEAKER_02
And this is way beyond climate.
2
SPEAKER_02
This is of many fields.
2
SPEAKER_02
As you said, you might ve seen this in AI.
2
SPEAKER_02
And it s really hard to find, it s another form of path dependency, the term I used before.
2
SPEAKER_02
But breaking narrative capture to me, for me, has come mostly from stepping back and reminding myself of the basic principles of journalism.
2
SPEAKER_02
Journalism s basic principles are useful for anybody.
2
SPEAKER_02
confronting a big, enormous, dynamic, complex thing is who, what, where, when, why?
2
SPEAKER_02
Just be really rigorous about not assuming because there s a fire in Boulder County or a flood in Fort Myers that climate, which is in your head because you re part of the climate team at the New York Times or whatever, is the foreground part of this problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
What s the psychological challenge of that if you incorporate the fact that if you try to step back and have nuance, you might get attacked by the others in the flock?
2
SPEAKER_02
Oh, I was.
2
SPEAKER_02
Well, you ve certainly been.
2
SPEAKER_00
So both of you get attacked continuously from different sides.
2
SPEAKER_00
So let me just ask about that.
2
SPEAKER_00
How does that feel and how do you continue thinking clearly
2
SPEAKER_00
and continuously try to have humility and step back and not get defensive in that as a communicator.
2
SPEAKER_02
I mean, there are other things happening at the same time, right?
2
SPEAKER_02
I m now 35 years into, almost 40 years into my journalism career.
2
SPEAKER_02
So I have some independence.
2
SPEAKER_02
I m free from the obligations of,
2
SPEAKER_02
I don t really need my next paycheck.
2
SPEAKER_02
I live in Maine now in a house I love.
2
SPEAKER_02
I own it outright.
2
SPEAKER_02
It s a great privilege and honor.
2
SPEAKER_02
And as a result of a lot of hard work.
2
SPEAKER_02
And so I m freer to think freely.
2
SPEAKER_02
And I know my colleagues in newsrooms, when I was at the New York Times, in the newsroom, you become captive to a narrative, just as you do out in the world.
2
SPEAKER_02
The New York Times had a narrative about Saddam Hussein.
2
SPEAKER_02
drove us into that war.
2
SPEAKER_02
The Times sucked right into that and helped perpetuate it.
2
SPEAKER_02
I think we re in a bit of a narrative, we, the media, my friends at the Times and others are on a train ride on climate change, depicting it in a certain way, that
2
SPEAKER_02
Really, I saw problems with how they handled the Joe Manchin issue in America, the West Virginia senator.
2
SPEAKER_02
They really kind of piled on and zoomed in on his investments, which is really important to do, but they never pulled back and said, by the way, he s a rare species.
2
SPEAKER_02
He s a Democrat in West Virginia.
3
SPEAKER_01
which is a seat that would be otherwise occupied by a Republican.
3
SPEAKER_01
There d be no talk of a climate deal or any of that stuff without him.
3
SPEAKER_01
But once you re starting to kind of frame a story in a certain way, you carry it along.
3
SPEAKER_01
And as you said, sometimes it breaks and a new norm arrives, but the climate train is still kind of rushing forward and missing the opportunity to cut it into its pieces.
3
SPEAKER_01
and say, well, what s really wrong with Florida?
3
SPEAKER_01
And it s for me, when you ask about how I handle the slings and arrows and stuff, it s partially because I m past worrying about it too much.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it was pretty intense.
3
SPEAKER_01
2009, Rush Limbaugh suggested I kill myself on his radio show.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s a really great time.
3
SPEAKER_01
What was that about?
3
SPEAKER_01
Actually, this was a meeting in Washington in 2009 on population at the Wilson Center.
3
SPEAKER_01
I couldn t be there, so actually this is pre-COVID, but I was Zooming in or something, like Skyping in, and I was talking about, in a playful way, I said, well, if you really want to worry about carbon, this was during the debate over a carbon tax model for a bill in America,
3
SPEAKER_01
we should probably have a carbon tax for kids because a bigger family in America is a big source of more emissions.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it was kind of a playful thought bubble.
3
SPEAKER_01
Some right-wing blogger blogged about it.
3
SPEAKER_01
It got into Russia s pile of things to talk about.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the clip is really fun.
3
SPEAKER_00
Oh, so meaning, so if humans are bad for the environment, I can imagine.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s how you know you ve made it.
3
SPEAKER_01
He was very explicit.
3
SPEAKER_01
He said, Mr. Revkin of the New York, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, if you really think that people are the worst thing that ever happened to this planet, why don t you just kill yourself and save the planet by dying?
3
SPEAKER_01
So that was tough for you.
3
SPEAKER_01
It was tough for my family.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, to me, it did generate some interesting calls and stuff in my voicemail.
3
SPEAKER_01
But on the left, I was also undercut.
3
SPEAKER_01
Roger Pilkey, Jr., a prominent researcher of climate risk and climate policy, UC Boulder.
3
SPEAKER_01
was actively, his career track was derailed purposefully by people who just thought his message was too off, off the path.
3
SPEAKER_01
And you, you know, you ve been dealing with this for a very long time.
3
SPEAKER_02
So I just want to get back to the science.
3
SPEAKER_02
I don t think the science get it so much wrong as it just becomes accepted to to make certain assumptions.
3
SPEAKER_02
As you just said, we assume no friction.
3
SPEAKER_02
So, you know, there s there s there s a way that you kind of model the world that ends up being also a convenient message in many ways.
3
SPEAKER_02
And I think the the main convenient message in climate and it s not surprising if you think about it, you know, the main convenient messages
3
SPEAKER_02
that the best way to do something about all the things that we call climate is to cut CO2.
3
SPEAKER_02
And that turns out to only sometimes be true and with a lot of caveats.
3
SPEAKER_02
But that s sort of the message.
3
SPEAKER_02
And it takes a long time.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_02
It s really, really difficult to do in any meaningful sort of timeframe.
3
SPEAKER_02
And if you challenge that,
3
SPEAKER_02
You, yes, you re outside the flock and you get attacked.
3
SPEAKER_02
I ve always, uh, so, uh, somebody told me once, uh, I think it s true.
3
SPEAKER_02
They say at the, uh, Harvard Law School, if you have a good case, pound the case.
3
SPEAKER_02
If you have a bad case, pound the table.
3
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and so I ve always felt that when people go after me, they re kind of pounding the table there, you know, they re literally screaming.
3
SPEAKER_02
I don t have a good case.
3
SPEAKER_02
I m really annoyed with what you re saying.
3
SPEAKER_02
And, and so to me, that actually means it s much more important to make this argument.
3
SPEAKER_02
Uh, sure.
3
SPEAKER_02
I mean, I would, I would love, you know, everyone just saying, oh, that s a really good point.
3
SPEAKER_02
I m going to use that.
3
SPEAKER_02
But yeah, uh, we re, we re stuck in a situation, certainly in a conversation where.
3
SPEAKER_02
A lot of people have invested a lot of time and energy on saying we should cut carbon emissions.
3
SPEAKER_02
This is the way to help humankind.
3
SPEAKER_02
And just be clear, I think we should cut carbon emissions as well, but we should also just be realistic about what we can achieve with that and what are all the other things that we could also do.
3
SPEAKER_02
And it turns out that a lot of these other things are much cheaper, much more effective, will help much more, much quicker.
3
SPEAKER_02
And so getting that point out,
3
SPEAKER_02
It s just incredibly important for us to get it right.
3
SPEAKER_02
So in some sense, you know, uh, to make sure that we don t do another Iraq and we don t do another, uh, you know, lots of stupid decisions.
3
SPEAKER_02
I mean, this, this is one of the things mankind is very good at.
3
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and I guess, uh, uh, I, I see my role.
3
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and I think that s probably also how you see yourself is trying to, you know, get everyone to do it slightly less wrong.
3
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask you about a deep psychological effect for you.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s also a drug of martyrdom.
3
SPEAKER_00
So whenever you stand against the flock, you wrote a couple of really good books on the topic.
3
SPEAKER_00
The most recent, False Alarm.
3
SPEAKER_00
I stand as the holder of truth, that everybody who is alarmist is wrong.
3
SPEAKER_00
And here s just simple, calm way to express the facts of the matter.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s very compelling to a very large number of people.
3
SPEAKER_00
They want to make a martyr out of you.
3
SPEAKER_00
Is that, are you worried about your own mind?
3
SPEAKER_00
being corrupted by that, by enjoying standing against the crowd.
3
SPEAKER_00
No, no, no.
3
SPEAKER_02
There s very little, I guess I can see what you re saying sort of in a literary way or something.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so I m being poetic here.
3
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, there s very little comfort or sort of usefulness in annoying a lot of people.
3
SPEAKER_02
Whenever I go to a party, for instance, I know that there s a good chance people are going to be annoyed with me.
3
SPEAKER_02
And I would love that not to be the case.
3
SPEAKER_02
But what I try to do is, so I try to be very polite and sort of not
3
SPEAKER_02
push people s buttons unless they, they sort of actively say, so you re saying all kind of stupid stuff on the climate, right?
3
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and then try to engage with them and say, well, what is it you re thinking about?
3
SPEAKER_02
And hopefully, you know, during that party and then it ends up being a really bad party for me.
3
SPEAKER_02
But anyway, so I ll, I ll, you know, I ll end up possibly convincing one person that I m not totally stupid, but no, I m, I m, I m not playing the martyr and I m not enjoying that.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s so interesting.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, the martyr complex is all around the climate question.
3
SPEAKER_01
Michael Mann, at the far end of the spectrum of activism from where Bjorn is, was a climate scientist, is a climate scientist who was actively attacked by Inhofe and West Virginia politicians.
3
SPEAKER_01
really abused in many ways.
3
SPEAKER_01
He had come up with a very prominent model of looking at long-term records of climate change and got this hockey stick for temperature.
3
SPEAKER_01
And he, you know, he definitely sits there in a certain kind of spotlight because of that.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it s not unique at any particular vantage point in the spectrum of sort of prominent people on the debate.
3
SPEAKER_00
Andrew, you co-wrote the book, The Human Planet, Earth at the Dawn of the Anthropocene, which is the new age when humans are actually having an impact on the environment.
3
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask the question of what do you find most beautiful and fascinating about our planet Earth?
3
SPEAKER_01
It would be cheap to say everything, but just walking here this morning under the bridge over the Colorado River, seeing the birds, knowing there s bat colonies, massive bat colonies around here that I got to visit a few years ago.
3
SPEAKER_01
I experienced one of those bat explosions.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s mind-blowing.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve been really lucky as a journalist to have gone to the North Pole, the camp on the sea ice with Russian help.
3
SPEAKER_01
This is a camp that was set up for tourists coming from Europe every year.
3
SPEAKER_01
There were scientists on the sea ice floating on the 14,000-foot-deep Arctic Ocean, and I was with them for several days.
3
SPEAKER_01
I wrote a book about that, too, along with my reporting.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve been in the depths of the Amazon rainforest.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve been, when I was very young,
3
SPEAKER_01
I was a crew on a sailboat that sailed 2 3rds of the way around the world.
3
SPEAKER_01
I was halfway across the Indian Ocean, again, in 14,000 foot deep water.
3
SPEAKER_01
There was no wind.
3
SPEAKER_01
This was way before I was a journalist, 22, 23 years old.
3
SPEAKER_01
And we went swimming, swimming in 14,000 foot deep water, 500 miles from land, the Western Indian Ocean, halfway between Somalia and the Maldives.
3
SPEAKER_01
is like so mind-boggling, chillingly fantastical thing with a mask on, looking at your shadow going to the vanishing point below you, looking over at the boat, which is a 60-foot boat, but it just looks like a toy, and then getting back on and being beholden to the elements, the sailboat heading toward Djibouti.
3
SPEAKER_00
So the immensity and the power of the elements.
3
SPEAKER_01
Oh my God.
3
SPEAKER_01
And then the human qualities are unbelievable.
3
SPEAKER_01
The Anthropocene,
3
SPEAKER_01
I played a bit of a role as a journalist in waking people up to the idea that this era called the Holocene, the last 11,000 years, you know, since the last ice age, had ended.
3
SPEAKER_01
I wrote my 1992 book on global warming, thinking about all that we re just talking about, thinking about the wonders of the planet, thinking about the impact of humans so far in our explosive growth in the 20th century.
3
SPEAKER_01
I wrote that perhaps earth scientists of the future
3
SPEAKER_01
will name this post-Holocene era for its formative element, for us, because we re kind of in charge in certain ways, which is hubristic at the same time.
3
SPEAKER_01
the variability of the climate system is still profound with or without global warming.
3
SPEAKER_00
So this immense, powerful, beautiful organism that is Earth, all the different sub-organisms that are on it, do you see humans as a kind of parasite on this Earth?
3
SPEAKER_00
No, no.
3
SPEAKER_00
Or do you see it as something that helps the flourishing of the entire organism?
3
SPEAKER_01
that can.
3
SPEAKER_00
Can.
3
SPEAKER_00
Intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_00
Hasn t yet.
3
SPEAKER_00
Hasn t yet?
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, aren t we on the ability of the collective intelligence of the human species to develop all these kinds of technologies and to be able to have Twitter to introspect onto itself?
3
SPEAKER_00
I think we re doing a...
3
SPEAKER_01
In a way, we are.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s catch-up.
3
SPEAKER_01
We re always in catch-up mode.
3
SPEAKER_01
I was at the Vatican for a big meeting in 2014 on sustainable humanity, sustainable nature, our responsibility.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it was a week of presentations by Martin Rees, who s this famed British scientist, physicist who.
3
SPEAKER_00
Been on his podcast.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, great.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, he s fixated on existential risk, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes, he is.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it was a week of this stuff.
3
SPEAKER_01
The meeting was kicked off by, I wrote about it, Cardinal Maradiaga, who is, I think, from El Salvador.
3
SPEAKER_01
He s one of the Pope s kind of posse.
3
SPEAKER_01
He gave one of the initial speeches, and he said, nowadays, mankind looks like a technical giant and an ethical child.
3
SPEAKER_01
Meaning our technological wizardry is unbelievable, but it s way out in front of our ability to step back and kind of like consider in the full dimensions we need to, is it helping everybody?
3
SPEAKER_01
What are the consequences of CRISPR?
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, genetics, technology?
3
SPEAKER_01
And there s no single answer to that.
3
SPEAKER_01
If I m in the African Union, I m just using this as an example.
3
SPEAKER_01
CRISPR has emerged so fast, it can do so much by changing the nature of nature.
3
SPEAKER_01
in a kind of a programming way, building genes, not just transferring them from one organism to another.
3
SPEAKER_01
We ve only just begun to taste the fruits of that, literally.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it can wipe out a mosquito species.
3
SPEAKER_01
We know how to do that now.
3
SPEAKER_01
You can like literally take out the dengue-causing mosquito.
3
SPEAKER_01
The scientists have done the work.
3
SPEAKER_01
And you think, okay, cool, well, that s great.
3
SPEAKER_01
Now there s this big fight over whether that should happen.
3
SPEAKER_01
The African Union, and I m with their view, says, hey, if we can take out a mosquito species that s causing horrific, chronic loss through dengue, which I had once in Indonesia, it s not fun, and we should do it, you know?
3
SPEAKER_01
And Europe- What s the other side of the argument?
3
SPEAKER_01
The European Union, they re saying,
3
SPEAKER_01
Capital P precautionary principle says, no, we can t meddle with nature.
3
SPEAKER_01
And this is just like we were talking with climate.
3
SPEAKER_01
There s the real-time question and the long-term question.
3
SPEAKER_01
And there s the people who are just facing the need to get through the day and be healthy and survive and have enough food, which is not integrated sufficiently at all into the climate, stop climate change debate.
3
SPEAKER_01
And those who are trying to cut CO2, which will have a benefit in the future by limiting the fat tail outcomes of this.
3
SPEAKER_01
journey we re on.
3
SPEAKER_01
So when I think about the Anthropocene, I think about this planet.
3
SPEAKER_01
I love that we re here right now.
3
SPEAKER_01
I love that our species has these capacities.
3
SPEAKER_01
I would love for there to be a little bit more reflection in where things come from and where they might go, whether you re a student, a kid.
3
SPEAKER_01
What s your role?
3
SPEAKER_01
The wonderful thing about the complexity of it is everyone can play a role.
3
SPEAKER_01
If you re an artist, or a designer, or an architect, or an economist, or a podcaster,
3
SPEAKER_01
Whatever you do, just tweak it a little bit toward examining these questions, stepping back from the simplistic label throwing toward what actually is the problem in front of me, whether it s in Pakistan or in Boston or wherever, you know, Florida.
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, what do you find beautiful about this collective intelligence machine we have?
3
SPEAKER_00
From an economics perspective, it s kind of fascinating that we re able to
3
SPEAKER_00
there is a machine to it that we ve built up that s able to represent interests and desires and value and hopes and dreams in sort of monetary ways that we can trade with each other, we can make agreements with each other, we can represent our goals and build companies that actually help and so on.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you just step back every once in a while and marvel at the fact that a few billion of us are able to somehow not
3
SPEAKER_00
create complete chaos and actually collaborate and have collaborative disagreements that ultimately, or so far, have led to progress.
3
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, I think fundamentally the point, apart from the fact that we should just be joyful of the fact that humans live here, I think it s incredibly important to remember how much progress we ve had.
3
SPEAKER_02
Most people just don t stop to think about those stats.
3
SPEAKER_02
I get that in the normal bustle of day.
3
SPEAKER_02
But just in 1900, the average person on the planet lived to be 32 years.
3
SPEAKER_02
32 years, that was our average life expectancy.
3
SPEAKER_02
Today it s about 74.
3
SPEAKER_02
So we ve literally got two lifetimes on this planet, each one of us.
3
SPEAKER_02
And every year you live in the rich world, you get to live three months longer, and the poor world is about four months longer.
3
SPEAKER_02
because of medical advances, because we get better at dealing both with cancer and especially right now with heart disease, these are amazing achievements.
3
SPEAKER_02
Of course, it s a very, very small part of it.
3
SPEAKER_02
We re much better fed.
3
SPEAKER_02
We re much better educated.
3
SPEAKER_02
We ve gone from a world where virtually everyone or 90% were illiterate to a world where more than 90% illiterate.
3
SPEAKER_02
This is an astounding opportunity.
3
SPEAKER_02
And 200 years ago,
3
SPEAKER_02
95% 94% of the world were Extremely poor that is less than a dollar a day today that for the first time in 2015 It was down below 10% so there and again, these are kind of boring statistics, but they re also astounding
3
SPEAKER_02
uh testaments of how how well humanity has done so just on on on the point of uh we ve kind of just been focused on making our own world better uh and in many ways you know so we ve hunted a lot of big animals either to extinction or uh down to much much smaller populations that s much smaller populations of fish in the ocean so there s a lot
4
SPEAKER_01
a lot of things that sort of bear the brunt of our success.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s not because we re evil in that sense.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s just because we didn t care all that much about them.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think it is important as one funnel of that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not going to make a big deal out of it.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the fact that we re putting out more CO2 in the atmosphere,
4
SPEAKER_01
Because CO2, as you also mentioned before, it s actually plant food.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you re a greenhouse grower, you know if you put in CO2 in your greenhouse, you actually get bigger and plumper tomatoes.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s essentially what we re doing in the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
This has overall bad consequences, and that s why we should be doing something about it.
4
SPEAKER_01
But one of the good side effects is actually that the world is getting greener.
4
SPEAKER_01
So we get much more green stuff now.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t know and and this is where I show sort of show my economist roots because if you just measure all living stuff in in tons so in weight
4
SPEAKER_01
there s actually more living stuff than there were 100 years ago, because elephants and all these other big fish and stuff are actually really, really small fraction of the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
The fact that we have, yes, so we have an enormous amount of live stuff, but that doesn t even measure it.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s mostly just wood.
4
SPEAKER_01
Uh, you know wooden green stuff that has dramatically increased in the world now We re still not there from what it was in 1500 So, uh, we we ve still cut down the world a lot, but we re actually making a much greener world again Not because we really cared or thought about it, but just sort of a side effect of what we re doing I think the crucial bit to remember is
4
SPEAKER_01
When you re poor and you worry about what s going to happen the next day, this is just not your main issue.
4
SPEAKER_01
Am I killing too many large animals in the world?
4
SPEAKER_01
But when you re rich and you can actually sit in a podcast in a convenient place in Austin, you can also start thinking about this.
4
SPEAKER_01
So one of the crucial bits, I think, if we want to get the rest of the world to care about the environment, care about climate, care about all these other issues,
4
SPEAKER_01
we really need to get them out of poverty first.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it s a simple point that we often forget.
4
SPEAKER_00
And get them connected to all these gifts.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_00
I have these memories of, I was reporting on the next big earthquake that s gonna devastate Istanbul in 2009.
4
SPEAKER_00
I was in a slum, immigrant, poor neighborhood, and walking around with an engineer pointing out to the buildings that were going to fall down.
4
SPEAKER_00
This is all known.
4
SPEAKER_00
There was an earthquake in 1999 and the next one s coming.
4
SPEAKER_00
One of my advantages in covering climate is I ve covered other kinds of disasters too, so it keeps my context, you know.
4
SPEAKER_00
me in touch with other things we could do.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I m walking around and interviewing everybody, went to the school that s being retrofit.
4
SPEAKER_00
They actually were getting ahead of it there.
4
SPEAKER_00
The World Bank provided some funding to put in iron bars in the brick building.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I met these kids and they came, when you re a journalist with a camera and stuff and a pad, you get swarmed by kids, mostly in developing countries.
4
SPEAKER_00
And so these kids are running up to me.
4
SPEAKER_00
And they weren t going like, are you American?
4
SPEAKER_00
They were saying, Facebook, Facebook.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I went, that s interesting.
4
SPEAKER_00
And they led me to their little town, little community center that had a bank of eight or 10 pretty flimsy computers.
4
SPEAKER_00
And they were all there playing Farm, it was a game that was hot at that time on Facebook.
4
SPEAKER_00
Farm.
4
SPEAKER_00
Farmville.
4
SPEAKER_00
Farmville, yeah.
4
SPEAKER_00
And my son back in the Hudson Valley, I remember him playing it.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I thought, wow, that is so frickin  cool that these kids, and actually I became Facebook friends with a couple of them afterwards.
4
SPEAKER_00
We traded our, and I thought back to my youth when we had pen pals.
4
SPEAKER_00
I would write a letter to a kid in West Cameroon and he would write back.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it took weeks and it was a crinkly letter and I never met him.
4
SPEAKER_00
And now you can kind of connect with people and that all,
4
SPEAKER_00
through my blogging, you know, at the New York Times, I was doing my regular reporting, but I launched a blog in 2007 called Dot Earth, which was all about where you were just describing, the newest sphere, the connected world.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s a term from these two earliest, a Russian guy in early,
4
SPEAKER_00
Vernadsky and a French theologian and scientist, which is so interesting, Teilhard de Chardin, they had this idea in the early 20th century that we re creating a planet of the mind, that human intelligence can foster a better Earth.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I just became smitten with that, especially meeting kids in Istanbul slums who are on Facebook, looking at connectedness, what can you do with these tools, which is what drives me with my work now.
4
SPEAKER_00
But then there are these counter-currents that if the connectedness can cut back, it allowed
4
SPEAKER_00
Al Qaeda to recruit, use decapitation videos to recruit distributed, disaffected young people into extremism.
4
SPEAKER_00
And there s lots of, these systems are not, they re just like every other tool, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
They re just for good or ill.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the efficiency thing, the economics of the world, which I also wrote about a little bit, you know, late 20th century, it was so cool that everything became so efficient.
4
SPEAKER_00
that are supply chains, just-in-time manufacturing, you know, getting the stuff from where the sources of the material are to the car factory and to get the car to the floor just in time for someone to buy it.
4
SPEAKER_00
And everyone got totally sucked in by that, including me.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s great, you know, super efficient, cheaper.
4
SPEAKER_00
And then COVID hit and the whole supply chain concept crumbled.
4
SPEAKER_00
And one of the big lessons there, hopefully, and this is relevant to sustainability generally, is efficiency matters, but resilience matters too.
4
SPEAKER_00
And resilience is inefficient.
4
SPEAKER_00
You need redundancy or
4
SPEAKER_00
or a variety of options, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
Which is not what corporate companies think about, which is not what, if you re only focused on a bottom line, short term timeline, those disruptions are not what you re thinking about.
4
SPEAKER_00
You re still thinking about, can we get that widget here just in time for this thing to happen?
4
SPEAKER_00
And then on we go.
4
SPEAKER_00
So it s kind of, I love the noosphere, this noosphere idea, the connectedness is fantastic.
4
SPEAKER_00
Oh, another thing, like in the early 90s,
4
SPEAKER_00
When I wrote my first book on global warming, it was for an exhibition at the Museum of Natural History.
4
SPEAKER_00
The Environmental Defense Fund was involved.
4
SPEAKER_00
They were like a partner, one of these longstanding environmental groups.
4
SPEAKER_00
And they were very old-fashioned.
4
SPEAKER_00
It was mostly lawyers, really, just using the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act to litigate against pollution.
4
SPEAKER_00
And now, EDF is vastly bigger.
4
SPEAKER_00
And they re actually, this coming year, they re launching a satellite, an environmental group
4
SPEAKER_00
is launching MethaneSat.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s providing an independent view of where there s this gas.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s the same thing, natural gas is basically methane.
4
SPEAKER_00
So if you have a leak, whether it s in Siberia or in Oklahoma, you can cross-reference, you can identify the hotspot, you can...
4
SPEAKER_00
know where the problem is to fix in so many ways.
4
SPEAKER_00
And that s just one example.
4
SPEAKER_00
I m like, if someone had told me in 1993 that EDF was gonna launch a methane satellite, I would have laughed out loud.
4
SPEAKER_00
So technology plays a huge role if it s kind of,
4
SPEAKER_00
you know, employed with the bigger vision and leadership.
4
SPEAKER_02
So Bjorn, you wrote, one of the books you wrote, the most recent one, called False Alarm, How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.
4
SPEAKER_02
Good title, by the way, very intense, makes me wanna read it.
4
SPEAKER_02
What is likely the worst effect of climate change?
4
SPEAKER_01
First, let me just, my editor actually hated the subtitle because it gives away the whole book.
4
SPEAKER_01
Basically, it tells you what the book tries to make.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think that s exactly what it should be.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s about getting this conversation out in the public sphere.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the worst thing that climate change can do is like the worst thing that anything can do is that it wipes out everything and we all die.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s, it s not like, you know, if you re just looking for worst case outcomes, um, you know, anything can get to the worst case outcome.
4
SPEAKER_01
Um, imagine if we, uh, what s the worst thing that could happen from HIV?
4
SPEAKER_01
It breaks down one or more African states because we don t fix it, and then you get sort of biological warfare and terrorism, throw that in the mix, and then you get someone who makes a virus and kills the whole world.
4
SPEAKER_01
You can make worst case scenarios for everything.
4
SPEAKER_02
But let s just call it, I get the point, and I m sorry for the interruption, and I appreciate worst case analysis, because I am fundamentally a computer scientist, and that was the thing that defined the discipline.
4
SPEAKER_02
to measure the quality of the algorithm, you measure what is its worst case performance.
4
SPEAKER_02
That s the big O notation, that s how you discuss algorithms.
4
SPEAKER_02
What is the worst possible thing in terms of performance this thing can do?
4
SPEAKER_02
But for climate change, let s even go crazy.
4
SPEAKER_02
What is exactly the worst case scenario for climate change?
4
SPEAKER_02
Because, you know,
4
SPEAKER_02
I have to be honest and say I haven t really paid deep attention, I just have a lot of colleagues who think about climate and so on, and there s a kind of, in the alarmism, there was a sense why this is a very serious problem.
4
SPEAKER_02
and then the sentence would never finish.
4
SPEAKER_02
What exactly is the problem?
4
SPEAKER_02
Well, the extinction of the human species, okay.
4
SPEAKER_02
With a virus, I understand how that could possibly happen.
4
SPEAKER_02
What is the mechanism by which the human species becomes extinct because of climate change?
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not sure I would want to be able to argue that because it really requires you to have sort of very, very extreme parameter choices all down the line.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s more, it s this kind of idea that we hit some of these unexpected outcomes.
4
SPEAKER_01
So for instance, the Western Arctic ice sheet melts really, really quickly.
4
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t look like that can happen really, really quickly, but let s just say that this could happen within a hundred years or something.
4
SPEAKER_01
So we basically get what,
4
SPEAKER_01
seven meters what is that 20 feet of sea level rise uh that will be a real challenge to a lot of places around the world this would have you know significant costs uh it s likely and you know there s actually been a study that s tried to estimate could we deal with that and the this the short answer is yes if you re fairly well off you know if you re holland you can definitely deal with it uh it s also likely that most
4
SPEAKER_01
Developing countries are gonna be much closer to Holland towards the end of the century because they ll be much richer.
4
SPEAKER_01
So they can probably handle it, but it will be a real challenge.
4
SPEAKER_02
May I ask a dumb question?
4
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_02
What happens when the sea level rises exactly?
4
SPEAKER_01
What is the painful aspect of that?
4
SPEAKER_01
It is that all of your current infrastructure in a lot of coastal cities around the world that are literally built on, you know, Jakarta is a good example, that are literally built on the, just, you know, inches above the sea level.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you then get a sea level rise, they ll rise, say,
4
SPEAKER_01
what would 20 feet, that would be like a third or a fourth of a foot every year.
4
SPEAKER_01
That kind of thing.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_00
I see no evidence that that s even... But hold on a second.
4
SPEAKER_01
We re not talking about evidence.
4
SPEAKER_01
We re talking about worst case analysis and algorithm.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so basically you would see your infrastructure, all your stuff, very quickly being very, very challenged.
4
SPEAKER_01
And you basically have to put up huge sea walls or migrate out of that area.
4
SPEAKER_01
Very quickly.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, very quickly, as in 50 years or something.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right.
4
SPEAKER_02
So like, is that, as a human species, we re not able to respond to that kind of threat?
4
SPEAKER_01
Of course we are.
4
SPEAKER_01
And look, again, the point here is then there s a lot of other arguments.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I should just, you know, put the disclaimer, this is not what I think is correct.
4
SPEAKER_01
But, you know, you re asking me what s the worst case outcome that you have.
4
SPEAKER_01
So most of global warming is really about that we re used to one way of doing things.
4
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, we live in Jakarta because it s right next to the sea.
4
SPEAKER_01
We re used to the sea being at this level.
4
SPEAKER_01
We grow our crops because we re used to, you know, you grow corn here, you grow wheat here because we re used to that s where the precipitation and the temperature is the right for this kind of crop.
4
SPEAKER_01
If this changes, and this is the same thing with houses, if it gets colder, if it gets warmer, it s suddenly uncomfortable because you ve built your house wrong.
4
SPEAKER_01
So our infrastructure will be wrong if the world changes, and that s what climate change does.
4
SPEAKER_02
At a large scale.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so this is a problem in most of these senses.
4
SPEAKER_01
But if you then sort of take it to the extreme and say, well, imagine that you re going to get a huge sea level rise.
4
SPEAKER_01
Imagine that you re going to get a very different sort of precipitation.
4
SPEAKER_01
For instance, the, what is it?
4
SPEAKER_01
The rain season, monsoon in the Indian subcontinent changes dramatically.
4
SPEAKER_01
That could affect a lot of agriculture and make it really hard to imagine that you could feed India well.
4
SPEAKER_01
There are these kinds of things where you can imagine and then that this would be very difficult to deal with.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then if you add all of it up, you could possibly get sort of a system collapse because, you know, you just have too many problems.
4
SPEAKER_02
Is it possible to model those kinds of things?
4
SPEAKER_02
So what I understand
4
SPEAKER_02
is the sea of Arise itself isn t the destructive thing.
4
SPEAKER_02
It s the fact that it creates migration patterns and human tension, battle over resources.
4
SPEAKER_02
And so you start to get these,
4
SPEAKER_02
human things, human conflict.
4
SPEAKER_02
So the big negative impact won t be necessarily from the fact that you have to move your house.
4
SPEAKER_02
It s the fact that once you move your house, that means something else down the line, and it s the secondary, tertiary effects that can have potentially to wars, military conflict, can have destabilized entire economies, all that kind of stuff, because of the migration power.
4
SPEAKER_02
Is it possible to model those kinds of things?
4
SPEAKER_01
So there are people who looked at this and, and, and surprisingly, again, you know, most people will move within their country for a lot of different reasons, but you know, mainly language and political structure, you have your money, you have your relationships there.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s not like we re going to see these big moves, you know, from,
4
SPEAKER_01
from southern Mexico and Central America up to the US or from Africa up to the EU.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s not predominantly because of climate.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s because there s a lot of welfare opportunity.
4
SPEAKER_01
You can make your life much, much better.
4
SPEAKER_01
You can become much more productive if you move into a richer country.
4
SPEAKER_01
So yes, there are these issues.
4
SPEAKER_01
Again, you re asking me for sort of what is it that could really sort of break down the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think the fundamental point is to recognize that it s not like we haven t dealt with huge challenges in the past, and we ve dealt with them really well.
4
SPEAKER_01
So just one fun thing, I encourage everyone to just look that up on Wikipedia, the rising of Chicago.
4
SPEAKER_01
So in the 1850s, Chicago was a terribly dirty place and they didn t have good sewers.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so they decided, and we can t really make Obama, they decided to raise Chicago one to two feet.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so they simply took one block at a time.
4
SPEAKER_01
They put like 50,000 jacks underneath a building and they would just raise the building.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then they d go on to the next building.
4
SPEAKER_01
They raised all of Chicago, one or two feet.
4
SPEAKER_01
This is, you know, almost 200 years ago.
4
SPEAKER_01
Of course, we will be able to deal with these things.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not saying it ll be fun or that it ll be cheap.
4
SPEAKER_01
Of course, we would rather not have to deal with this, but we re a very inventive species.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so it s very unlikely that we ll not be able to deal with these things.
4
SPEAKER_02
COVID pandemic just said, hold my beer.
4
SPEAKER_02
The response of human civilization to the COVID pandemic seems to have not, they didn t find the car jacks.
4
SPEAKER_02
Seems to have not been as effective as I would have hoped for as a human that believes in the basic competence of leadership and all that kind of stuff.
4
SPEAKER_02
It seems that given the COVID pandemic luckily did not turn out to be a pandemic that would eradicate most of the human species, which is something you always have to consider and worry about, that I would have hoped we would have less economic impact and we would respond more effectively in terms of
5
SPEAKER_02
policy in terms of socially, medically, all that kind of stuff.
5
SPEAKER_02
So if the COVID pandemic brought the world to its knees, then what does...
5
SPEAKER_01
a sea level rise.
5
SPEAKER_01
I think there s a different kind of thing that happened in the COVID.
5
SPEAKER_01
So politicians and a lot of politicians, I think, made certainly suboptimal decisions.
5
SPEAKER_01
But I also find the fact that we actually managed to get a vaccine in a year.
5
SPEAKER_01
We should not be sort of unaware of the fact that, yes, we did a lot of stupid stuff and a lot of people were really, really annoyed.
5
SPEAKER_01
But fundamentally, we fixed this.
5
SPEAKER_01
Uh, we could have done it better and prettier.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I, I, uh, rode through, uh, the COVID pandemic in the Southern Sweden.
5
SPEAKER_01
Uh, so, uh, and, uh, yes, we, we can have that whole conversation.
5
SPEAKER_01
It was certainly a much easier, uh, to live there than, uh, than many other places.
5
SPEAKER_01
But the fundamental point was.
5
SPEAKER_01
We actually fixed it.
5
SPEAKER_01
So yes, we ll do, uh, and we ll do that with climate.
5
SPEAKER_01
We ll make a lot of bad decisions and we ll waste a lot of money like we do with all other problems, but it s, are we going to fix this?
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
5
SPEAKER_02
Can you add on to that uncomfortable discussion of what s the worst thing that could possibly happen?
5
SPEAKER_00
I m not worried about the sea level rise component.
5
SPEAKER_00
Certainly not nearly as much as the heat and disruption of agriculture patterns and water supplies.
5
SPEAKER_00
And a lot of it relates to, again, path dependency in history.
5
SPEAKER_00
Farmers are the heroes of humanity all through history because they re incredibly adaptable if you give them access to resources.
5
SPEAKER_00
In some cases, it s just crop insurance, which is really basically still impossible to get in big chunks of Africa to get you through those hard spots.
5
SPEAKER_00
But the heat issue is the one that s the most basic element related to global warming from CO2 buildup.
5
SPEAKER_00
is hotter heat waves.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s still some lack of evidence of the intensification, but the duration, and that s what really matters for heat, is how many days, seems to be very powerfully linked to global warming.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so how many people die as a result of that is important.
5
SPEAKER_02
So we re talking about
5
SPEAKER_02
maybe you can also educate me, what s the average projection for the next 100 years of the temperature rise?
5
SPEAKER_02
Is it two degrees Celsius?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, yeah, although this gets us into the modeling realm.
5
SPEAKER_00
You re assuming, you have to assume different emissions possibilities.
5
SPEAKER_00
You have to assume we still don t know the basic physics, like how many clouds form in a warming climate and how that relates to limiting warming.
5
SPEAKER_00
There are aspects of the fundamental warming question that are still
5
SPEAKER_02
Deep land certain.
5
SPEAKER_02
But the debate is like two, three, or four Celsius.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s in that range.
5
SPEAKER_02
But the thing is, all of those are bad for, this is an educational question.
5
SPEAKER_02
Sure.
5
SPEAKER_02
It doesn t seem like that much from a weather perspective, if you just turn up the AC and so on in your own personal home.
5
SPEAKER_02
But it is, from a global perspective, a huge impact on agriculture.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, yeah, and getting back to sea level and glaciers, the melting point of ice is a number.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so if you pass that number, things start to change.
5
SPEAKER_00
What became known about Antarctica and Greenland more is that its ocean temperature
5
SPEAKER_00
the seawater in and around and under these ice sheets, because it kind of gets under parts of Antarctica, is what s driving the dynamics that could lead to more abrupt change, more than air temperature.
5
SPEAKER_00
Glaciers, these big ice sheets live or die based on how much snow falls and how much ice leaves every year.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I was up on the Greenland ice sheet in 2004,
5
SPEAKER_00
I ve written about it forever since then.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s the same amount of water that s in the Gulf of Mexico as if God or some great force came down and flash flows the Gulf of Mexico and plunked it up on land.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s the ice sheet.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a lot of water.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s 23 feet of sea level rise.
5
SPEAKER_00
but you were not gonna melt at all.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the pace at which that erosion begins and becomes sort of a runaway train is still not well understood.
5
SPEAKER_00
That changed from like a manageable level of sea level rise from these ice sheets to something that becomes truly unstoppable or that has these discontinuities where you get a lot more all of a sudden.
5
SPEAKER_00
To me, it s in the realm of
5
SPEAKER_00
what I ve taken to calling known unknowables.
5
SPEAKER_00
Like don t count on another IPCC report magically including science that says, aha, now we know it s gonna be five feet by 2100.
5
SPEAKER_00
Because learning, there s a lot of negative learning in science.
5
SPEAKER_00
This may be true in your body of science too.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s a guy named Jeremy Bassis, B-A-S-S-I-S.
5
SPEAKER_00
who wrote a paper about this West Antarctic, the idea that you could get this sudden cliff breakdown of these ice shelves around Antarctica leading to rapid sea level rise.
5
SPEAKER_00
He did more modeling and physics, and it turns out that you end up with, it s a much more progressive and self-limiting phenomenon.
5
SPEAKER_00
But those papers don t get any attention in the media, because- They re not scary.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re not scary, and they re sort of after the fact.
5
SPEAKER_00
You know,
5
SPEAKER_00
Just this past year, there s been this cycle around collapse, the word collapse, and Antarctic ice.
5
SPEAKER_00
It started actually several years ago with the idea that the West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly vulnerable.
5
SPEAKER_00
And some paper, everyone, the science community, like the birds, we were talking about flux to it, and some high-profile papers are written.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then a deeper inquiry reveals, eh, you know, it s more complicated than that.
5
SPEAKER_00
And we, the journalists, the media, pundits, don t pay attention to that stuff.
5
SPEAKER_00
And actually, which is why I started to develop kind of a dictionary.
5
SPEAKER_00
I call it watchwords, like words to, if you re out there,
5
SPEAKER_00
You re just a public person, you want to know what s really going on.
5
SPEAKER_00
You hear these words like collapse in the context of ice.
5
SPEAKER_00
What do you do with that?
5
SPEAKER_00
And so I ve created conversations around these words.
5
SPEAKER_00
Geologists and ice scientists use the word collapse.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re talking about a centuries-long process.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re not talking about the World Trade Center.
5
SPEAKER_00
Scientists would do well to be more careful with words like that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Unless your focus is what we were saying earlier, your idea that alarming people will spur them to act, then you use that word carelessly.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can I just follow up on the other point that you said, you know, two, three, four degrees, you know, that doesn t sound like much.
5
SPEAKER_01
I can just crank up the air conditioning.
5
SPEAKER_01
I think that sort of touches on a really, really important point that for most rich people,
5
SPEAKER_01
much of climate change is not really going to be all that impactful.
5
SPEAKER_01
It still will have an impact.
5
SPEAKER_01
But fundamentally, if you re well off, you can mitigate a lot of these impacts.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there s a young scientist at Carnegie Mellon, Destiny Nock.
5
SPEAKER_00
She just was the lead author on a study
5
SPEAKER_00
what poor and prosperous households do in a heat wave when they have access to air conditioning.
5
SPEAKER_00
In a poor household, you wait, they found through science, they delay turning on the air conditioner four to seven degrees more of heating before they start to use the air conditioner.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that can create adverse outcomes if you have an asthmatic in the house, an old person.
5
SPEAKER_00
you re endangering their lives.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that s just a little tiny microscopic fractal example of this powerful real phenomenon that there s a divide in vulnerability and it s not just based on where you live.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is families in like Pittsburgh.
5
SPEAKER_00
We re not talking about Botswana.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so that divide in capacity to deal with environmental stress is something you can really work on.
5
SPEAKER_00
And it gets hidden in all this talk of climate crisis.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s one of the important parts is both to say, look, if
5
SPEAKER_01
7 billion people, sorry, 8 billion people will now have all experienced this, even though for each one of them, it s manageable.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s still a big problem because it s, you know, 8 billion people living through this.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the second condition, 8 billion.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
And and then it s it s the it s the point of getting to realize it s very, very much about how do you help the world s poor.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s very much about making it more affordable.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
5
SPEAKER_01
basically getting them out of poverty.
5
SPEAKER_01
And remember, getting out of poverty doesn t just mean that they can now afford to air condition themselves, but they get better education, they get better opportunities, they get better lives in so many other ways.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then, at the end of it, it s not just about making sure that we focus on this one problem, but it s recognizing that these families have lots of different issues that they would like us to focus on, climate and heat waves just being one of them.
5
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, it s sort of taking progressive steps back and realizing, all right, okay, this is a problem, not the end of the world.
5
SPEAKER_00
And one tiny little last example, you mentioned Jakarta at the beginning.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s really valuable to look around the world at places that are sort of leading indicator places.
5
SPEAKER_00
whether it s sea level rise or heat, and you could do that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Jakarta is sinking like a foot a year, literally a foot a year.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s some insane number, from withdrawing groundwater, from a gas withdrawal from, it s a delta, you know, it s sediment, it s built on sediment.
5
SPEAKER_00
I wrote a piece ages ago with the New York Times calling it Delta Blues, you know, the musicians.
5
SPEAKER_00
And Jakarta, so what are they doing?
5
SPEAKER_00
They re moving, they re moving the capital to another area.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so that says to me, there s a lot of plasticity too.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a city that s going through this, that rate of sea level, of their relationship with the sea level through sinking is way faster than what s happening with global warming.
5
SPEAKER_00
So look there, look to those kinds of places and you can start to build.
5
SPEAKER_01
Tokyo had the same thing in the 1930s.
5
SPEAKER_01
They were also withdrawing lots of water way too fast.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so, you know, one of the obvious things is maybe you should stop withdrawing water so fast.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
5
SPEAKER_01
And again, we seem to almost be intent on finding the most politically correct way to fix a problem or, you know, the most, the thing that sort of gets the most clicks instead of the thing that actually works the best.
5
SPEAKER_01
So a lot of these things are really, you know, not rocket science solutions.
5
SPEAKER_02
We ll get there.
5
SPEAKER_02
Let me add one more on top of the pile of the worst case analysis.
5
SPEAKER_02
So what people talk about, which is hurricanes and earthquakes, is there a connection that s well understood between climate change
5
SPEAKER_02
and the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes and earthquakes?
5
SPEAKER_00
I ve dug in on both a lot.
5
SPEAKER_00
The earthquake connection to climate change I m not worried about compared to just the earthquake risk that we live with in many parts of the world already.
5
SPEAKER_00
The Himalayas, even with that earthquake in 2015 in Kathmandu,
5
SPEAKER_00
that whole range is overdue for major earthquakes.
5
SPEAKER_00
And what has happened in the last 50 years since they last had big earthquakes, huge development, big cities, a lot of informal construction, like the stuff I wrote about in Istanbul, where the family builds another layer and another, they put a floor on, every time someone gets married and has kids, you put another floor in the house.
5
SPEAKER_00
And unfortunately, that s, you know,
5
SPEAKER_00
What was the term, this Turkish engineer?
5
SPEAKER_00
Rubble in waiting.
5
SPEAKER_00
Rubble in waiting.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s rubble in waiting.
5
SPEAKER_00
And we re looking at it, videotaping it, and there are people playing there.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I don t worry about the earthquake connection to climate change.
5
SPEAKER_00
The hurricanes I ve written about for decades.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the most illuminating body of science that I ve dug in on, literally, related to hurricanes is this field that s emerged.
5
SPEAKER_00
It gets a tiny bit of money compared to climate modeling.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s called paleotempestology.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s like paleontology.
5
SPEAKER_00
They look for evidence of past hurricanes along coasts that we care about.
5
SPEAKER_00
And they dig down into the lagoons behind like the barrier beaches along Florida or the Carolinas or in Puerto Rico.
5
SPEAKER_00
And what you have is a history book of past hurricanes.
5
SPEAKER_00
So there s mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, you know, accumulating over centuries.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then there s a layer of sand and seashells.
5
SPEAKER_00
And what that indicates is that there was a great storm that came across the beach, pushed a lot of sediment into the mud.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then there s mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud.
5
SPEAKER_00
And when you look at that work, I first wrote about this in 2001 in the Times, a long story, and then I kept track of these intrepid scientists putting these core tubes down.
5
SPEAKER_00
It shows you that we re in a landscape where big, bad hurricanes are not, they re the norm.
5
SPEAKER_00
But something that s rare and big is something that s extreme.
5
SPEAKER_00
When you think about the word extreme, right, it means it s at the end of the spectrum of what s possible.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re rare, rare in human timescales.
5
SPEAKER_00
Hurricane Michael, four years ago, devastated.
5
SPEAKER_00
Category 5 came ashore in the panhandle of Florida, leveled that much photographed town, Mexico Beach.
5
SPEAKER_00
And people, actually the Tallahassee National Weather Service said, unprecedented hurricane.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the damage was unprecedented because there hadn t been a community there before.
5
SPEAKER_00
But the hurricane was not unprecedented at all.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you look at the history, and this is published research, it s just that no one bothers to, we have this blind spot for hurricanes.
5
SPEAKER_00
The longer timescale you need to examine if you re thinking about big bad things that are rare, and hurricanes are still rare.
5
SPEAKER_00
I was recently covering Fort Myers, the awful devastation.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s a young climate scientist at Florida Gulf Coast University, Joe Muller,
5
SPEAKER_00
who s done that paleotempestology work there, right in Fort Myers.
5
SPEAKER_00
She lives there and she was away in London at a meeting of reinsurance companies that reinsure all the world s big bad risks when this was happening.
5
SPEAKER_00
But she has done the work that shows it s a thousand year record of past hurricanes and it s super sobering.
5
SPEAKER_00
when you consider how fast people have moved into Florida and built vulnerably in an area that hurricanes will hammer, that it s part of the fundamental dynamics of the Gulf of Mexico and the storms come off of Africa, it s a place where they will come.
5
SPEAKER_00
Now, the question of global warming impact is subtle.
5
SPEAKER_00
There are aspects of hurricanes that haven t changed.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s aspects like rainfall that seem pretty powerfully linked to global warming.
5
SPEAKER_00
A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, so when you have a big disturbance like the heat engine of a hurricane comes through, you get more rain.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s rapid intensification.
5
SPEAKER_00
You know how quickly these storms
5
SPEAKER_00
jump from like, you know, category one to five or four before they hit is a new area of science.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I think it s still early days in knowing, because no one was looking for that.
5
SPEAKER_00
There were no data back 300 years ago, you know, when these big bad previous hurricanes came to know whether they were rapidly intensified or not.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I, as a journalist, I try to
5
SPEAKER_00
keep track of what we don t know, not to be too constrained and think about new science as being robust unless it s considering and actually actively stating we don t really know what s going on with earlier hurricanes.
5
SPEAKER_00
And all of that is swamped ultimately, literally, by the vulnerability, building vulnerability in these areas.
5
SPEAKER_00
If there s a marginal change in a storm,
5
SPEAKER_00
and you ve quadrupled or sextupled how much stuff and how many people are in the way.
5
SPEAKER_00
And if some of those people are poor and vulnerable or elderly and can t swim, you re creating a landscape of destruction.
5
SPEAKER_02
So a lot of the human suffering that has to do with storms is about where and how you build versus the frequency and the intensity of storms.
5
SPEAKER_02
Still, you didn t quite answer the question.
5
SPEAKER_02
When I m having a beer with people at a bar and they say, hey, why are you having a beer?
5
SPEAKER_02
We re all going to die because of climate change, usually what they bring up
5
SPEAKER_02
and I m just trying to add some levity.
5
SPEAKER_00
No, this is good.
5
SPEAKER_02
Usually what they bring up is, you know, the hurricanes and the most recent hurricane saying like this, they re getting crazy, hurricanes all the time, they re getting more intense, more frequent and so on.
5
SPEAKER_02
Is there, I m sure there s incredible science going on trying to look at this.
5
SPEAKER_02
Is there, is it possible, is there evidence and is it possible to have evidence
6
SPEAKER_01
that there s a connection between what we can call global warming and the increased frequency and intensity of storms.
6
SPEAKER_01
And is, okay, no, thank you.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a question, come on.
6
SPEAKER_00
You added intensity.
6
SPEAKER_00
Let me just get into this a tiny bit more.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, hurricanes, I grew up with them in Rhode Island in my youth, and there was a very active period of hurricanes in New England in the 50s and 60s, 70s.
6
SPEAKER_00
And then in the North Atlantic, generally was very, very active, 50 when I was a kid.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the dynamics of them forming off of Africa and coming here, circling up the coast was just prime time.
6
SPEAKER_00
Then there was like what Kerry Emanuel, who s the most experienced hurricane climate scientist around at MIT, he s in this story, he s in my 1988 article.
6
SPEAKER_00
He and colleagues have found, and others, that there s what they call a hurricane drought from like the 70s through about 1994 in the Atlantic, specifically the Atlantic Basin.
6
SPEAKER_00
And there s been a lot of questions about that.
6
SPEAKER_00
People thought it was ocean circulation, something about the currents.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s these multi-decadal variabilities in the oceans, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
And then now it looks robustly, I can t find a climate scientist who disagrees, that the thing that caused the drought was pollution, smog.
6
SPEAKER_00
And significantly in Europe.
6
SPEAKER_00
And you say, well, how does smog in Europe relate to hurricanes crossing the Atlantic and getting to the United States?
6
SPEAKER_00
It s because of the smog was changing the behavior of the Sahara Desert, which is just south of Europe.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the Sahara Desert kills hurricanes.
6
SPEAKER_00
Sand and dust coming off the Sahara.
6
SPEAKER_00
You can see this every year.
6
SPEAKER_00
When that s active, it stifles these big storms.
6
SPEAKER_00
At the point right in their nursery, they all form, there s this area for hurricanes off of West Africa.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s like the nursery zone.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so if you re stifling those hurricanes because of pollution in Europe before the Clean Air Act s cleanups, and then that goes away,
6
SPEAKER_00
None of that has anything to do with global warming.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s another kind of forcing in the climate system, a local one, that created a regional dynamic that created a quiet period when all these friends in the bar, maybe they were born in the 90s or whatever, they grew up in an area of like, you know, hurricanes weren t a big deal.
6
SPEAKER_00
And now we have an end to that drought because we cleaned up the air pollution, the sooty kind of air pollution, sulfury, and
6
SPEAKER_00
Anyone who says global warming, global warming, without saying, well, that s in there too, is kind of missing that.
6
SPEAKER_00
And when you look globally, you know, there s still, I think, what is it, 90 or so hurricanes a year, cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, globally.
6
SPEAKER_00
That hasn t changed.
6
SPEAKER_00
The number of these tropical storms that reach that porosity has not changed.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s just a fundamental dynamic of, and by the way, on the long time scale, the models,
6
SPEAKER_00
still indicate as you warm the planet, and remember the Arctic warms quicker, this is something people probably understand, you re actually evening out the imbalance between the heat at the equator and the cold in the northern part of the hemisphere.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that calms the whole system down.
6
SPEAKER_00
So there could be fewer hurricanes later in the century because of global warming.
6
SPEAKER_00
And for me, that s a lot of information, but if I m in a bar,
6
SPEAKER_00
I start with what do you care about?
6
SPEAKER_00
You care about safety, you care about security, you care about having everybody safe, not just you.
6
SPEAKER_00
You know, you get in your car and you can evacuate.
6
SPEAKER_00
What about the old person, you know, or the poor family who can t do that?
6
SPEAKER_00
They re not gonna leave their house.
6
SPEAKER_00
What are we doing to limit vulnerability now?
6
SPEAKER_00
That, I circle back to that over and over again.
6
SPEAKER_00
I have like a pocket card, I have this,
6
SPEAKER_00
graphic card I created about risk.
6
SPEAKER_00
What we really care about is climate risk.
6
SPEAKER_00
Who s at risk?
6
SPEAKER_00
What s driving the risk?
6
SPEAKER_00
How do you reduce that?
6
SPEAKER_00
It s a card, you can almost pull it out in a bar.
6
SPEAKER_00
I should print them.
6
SPEAKER_00
You should do that.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s like, risk is the hazard.
6
SPEAKER_00
Climate bar, Pat.
6
SPEAKER_00
Risk is the hazard.
6
SPEAKER_00
The hazard is a storm.
6
SPEAKER_00
times exposure, how many people, how much stuff, factoring in vulnerability or resilience.
6
SPEAKER_00
And climate change is changing the hazard for some things, not for tornadoes, not for everything.
6
SPEAKER_00
Exposure is this expanding bullseye.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is another hashtag, expanding bullseye.
6
SPEAKER_00
Get out there and look for that.
6
SPEAKER_00
And you ll see, I m pushing these two geographers to do this for every hazard, wildfire, earthquake, flood, coastal storm.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we re building an expanding bullseye in an area and nature s throwing darts.
6
SPEAKER_00
Some of the darts are getting bigger because of global warming.
6
SPEAKER_00
Some of the darts, we don t know.
6
SPEAKER_00
What do you do?
6
SPEAKER_00
Like, what do you do?
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, you get out of the way, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
You don t want to be on the dartboard.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that, it just simplifies the whole formula.
6
SPEAKER_00
To me, it s kind of a transformational potential.
6
SPEAKER_00
to go into a bar, maybe I should print these things.
6
100%.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I should go drink it with you more often.
6
SPEAKER_00
There should be coasters in bars.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because that was fascinating about smog.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s just, it s nice to be reminded about how complicated and fascinating the weather system is.
6
SPEAKER_02
Let me try to answer the questions slightly quicker before your friends have drunk too much.
6
SPEAKER_02
Never enough.
6
SPEAKER_02
Or not enough.
6
SPEAKER_02
So if you look at the amount of the number of hurricanes, as Andy rightly pointed out, it doesn t look like it s changing.
6
SPEAKER_02
So we see more because we have now much better detection systems with satellites.
6
SPEAKER_02
But if you look since 1980, when we have good satellite coverage, for instance, last year was the year that had the lowest number of hurricanes in the world.
6
SPEAKER_02
And you re sort of like, that s odd because it s probably the year where I heard the most about hurricanes.
6
SPEAKER_02
And what that tells you is that just because you hear a lot about hurricanes doesn t actually mean that there is a lot of hurricanes.
6
SPEAKER_02
You can t just go that way.
6
SPEAKER_02
If you remember in the 1990s and 2000s,
6
SPEAKER_02
Uh, there was an enormous amount of talk about how violence how crime was getting worse in the u.s While all the objective indicators showed that it was going down But there s sufficient amount of violence that you can fill every radio and tv show with a new crime And so if you get more and more tv shows that talk about crime Actually, most people end up thinking that there s more crime while the real number is going down so the reality here is
6
SPEAKER_02
Yes, climate change will probably affect hurricanes in the sense that they ll be the same number or slightly fewer as Andy was mentioning, but they will likely be somewhat stronger.
6
SPEAKER_02
This seems to be the best outcome.
6
SPEAKER_02
We re not sure, but this seems to be the outcome.
6
SPEAKER_02
And it s important to remember, stronger is worse than fewer is better.
6
SPEAKER_02
So overall, climate will make the world a little bit worse.
6
SPEAKER_02
So that s that s the that s the sort of bottom line.
6
SPEAKER_02
But and that s the real issue here.
6
SPEAKER_02
All the other things, the fact that people are much more vulnerable is is just vastly outweigh this, which is why if you look at the impact
6
SPEAKER_02
of hurricanes and impact of pretty much everything, it is typically going down.
6
SPEAKER_02
If you look, for instance, in percent of GDP, you have to look at percent of GDP because if you have twice as many houses, obviously, the same kind of impact will have twice the impact or if they re worth twice as much.
6
SPEAKER_02
If you do that in percent of GDP, and even the UN says that s how you should measure it, it s going down.
6
SPEAKER_02
Why is that?
6
SPEAKER_02
It s because we re becoming more resilient.
6
SPEAKER_02
Just simply, if you look at what happens when hurricanes come in, we have much better prediction in the long run.
6
SPEAKER_02
That means you now know two or three days out that there s a big hurricane that s likely to come here.
6
SPEAKER_02
What does that mean?
6
SPEAKER_02
All the
6
SPEAKER_02
things that can be moved.
6
SPEAKER_02
So, you know, typically all buses, all trucks, everything that s not bolted down will leave this area.
6
SPEAKER_02
And so you ll get less damage from that.
6
SPEAKER_02
You will have more people knowing, oh, this is going to be a big one.
6
SPEAKER_02
They moved to their relatives somewhere else.
6
SPEAKER_02
So you ll have fewer people being vulnerable.
6
SPEAKER_02
There s a lot of... If people are responsive and aware.
6
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, there s a lot of ways you can do this.
6
SPEAKER_02
So the outcome, and this is important for the whole conversation, the outcome is that we re actually becoming less vulnerable and that damages are becoming smaller, not bigger.
6
SPEAKER_02
But had there not been global warming, it would probably have gone down even faster.
6
SPEAKER_02
So we would have become even better off.
6
SPEAKER_02
quicker had there been no global warming.
6
SPEAKER_02
But this is a crucial difference and this is what I find really hard to communicate.
6
SPEAKER_02
Climate change is not this, oh my god, everything is going off the charts and we re all going to be doomed kind of thing.
6
SPEAKER_02
Climate change is a thing that means we re going to get better slightly slower.
6
SPEAKER_02
And that s a very, very different kind of attitude.
6
SPEAKER_02
It s one of the many problems, rather than, this is the end of all of us.
6
SPEAKER_00
And by the way, if you look at what s happening in the world, the data also show that in rich places and poor places, we still are moving into zones of hazard faster than climate is changing.
6
SPEAKER_00
Beth Telman,
6
SPEAKER_00
who was at Columbia and she moved to Arizona, she and colleagues at this outfit called Cloud to Street did an amazing study showing, this is a year or so ago I wrote about, showing, again, we re moving into zones of hazard, which it applies to me, just what Bjorn was saying, that people wouldn t be doing that if they thought that was gonna lead to devastation.
6
SPEAKER_00
And this is today, we re doing this now, and it s flood zones, wildfire zones.
6
SPEAKER_00
So that means there s these things to do.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s so much plasticity in human behavior and how we build and where we build.
6
SPEAKER_00
You can make a big, big change in the outcomes.
6
SPEAKER_02
I mean, one of the things to remember is, you know, people move to where hurricanes hit because when they re not there, it s a really beautiful place to be.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah.
6
SPEAKER_02
Right?
6
SPEAKER_02
So in many ways, we make the trade-offs and say, look, I m happy to live, you know, have an ocean view, and then maybe a hurricane s going to hit.
6
SPEAKER_02
And of course, it becomes a lot easier than when the federal government is actually subsidizing your risk by saying, we ll insure you really cheaply.
6
SPEAKER_02
And that s one of the things that we should stop doing.
6
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
6
SPEAKER_02
We should actually tell people, look, if you wanna live where hurricanes hit, maybe you should be more careful.
6
SPEAKER_00
And by the way, what I was saying about past storms, the paleo-tempestology, past fires, it s the same thing.
6
SPEAKER_00
We ve suppressed fire in the United States for 100 years through much of the West, through wanting to save the forests, you know, the whole Smokey the Bear thing.
6
SPEAKER_00
When these are landscapes that evolved to burn,
6
SPEAKER_00
And what happened in the last 100 years?
6
SPEAKER_00
A lot of people love the West.
6
SPEAKER_00
We love these environments.
6
SPEAKER_00
We love to live with the trees.
6
SPEAKER_00
The Boulder County area, the explosive development in zones of implicit hazard leads to big, bad outcomes when conditions align.
6
SPEAKER_00
And climate change is worsening some of those conditions.
6
SPEAKER_00
And sometimes it s really counterintuitive.
6
SPEAKER_00
A wet season builds more grass.
6
SPEAKER_00
A dry season comes along, parches the grass.
6
SPEAKER_00
Then comes a human ignition.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s almost always human ignitions.
6
SPEAKER_00
And then you have this disaster where a thousand homes burn in Boulder County.
6
SPEAKER_00
And it s like, there s so many elements there that can be worked on that give me confidence that we can change these outcomes.
6
SPEAKER_00
Disasters are not natural.
6
SPEAKER_00
Disasters are designed, really, as some people say.
6
SPEAKER_01
Can I take a quick aside and ask about terminology of climate change and global warming?
6
SPEAKER_01
Because we use it interchangeably.
6
SPEAKER_01
It is an aside, but it s one that s worthy of taking.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do those carry different meanings, and has that meaning changed over the years?
6
SPEAKER_01
Between those two terms, are they really equivalent?
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, some people say there was this industry or propagandistic shift from, let s see, which came first?
6
SPEAKER_00
Oh no, they re going to climate change now, like it s a new thing, which is, it s ridiculous.
6
SPEAKER_00
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 wasn t the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, it was on climate change.
6
SPEAKER_00
So these terms have been there, they ve been sort of evolving.
6
SPEAKER_00
When I wrote this cover story, it was the greenhouse effect.
6
SPEAKER_01
So green, and that s falling out of favor, greenhouse effect is not often talked about.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s really, that s the physical effect that s holding in the heat.
6
SPEAKER_01
But see, there s terms that mean stuff, and there s terms that are actually used in public discourse to designate what you re,
6
SPEAKER_01
a whole umbrella of opinions you have.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I guess as somebody, me, who doesn t pay attention to this carefully, you have to use terms carefully.
6
SPEAKER_01
Sure.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because people will, you know,
6
SPEAKER_01
a noob that rolls into a topic will often use terms to mean exactly what they mean, like literally.
6
SPEAKER_01
But they actually have political implications, all that kind of stuff.
6
SPEAKER_01
So I guess I m asking, is there like, are you signaling something by using global warming versus climate change?
6
SPEAKER_01
Or people have calmed down in terms of the use of these terms?
6
SPEAKER_00
No, no, but the Guardian newspapers made it worse.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now they have their style book, you know, every newspaper has a,
6
SPEAKER_00
They prescribe, they don t want their reporters to use any of those terms anymore.
6
SPEAKER_00
They call it climate crisis, climate emergency.
6
SPEAKER_01
Oh, no.
6
SPEAKER_01
Or global heating.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s literally in their rule book.
6
SPEAKER_01
Global heating, that sounds more intense.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that was the point.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, I wrote about the global heating.
6
SPEAKER_00
thing more than a decade ago, that s been around.
6
SPEAKER_00
But you know, so they re doing the, what was the movie where the comedy, the rock and roll comedy where he sets his... It s 11, yeah, yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
His amplifier goes to 11.
6
SPEAKER_00
You know, the idea that you turn up the rhetorical volume and that s gonna change people s
6
SPEAKER_02
It s ridiculous.
6
SPEAKER_02
So for me, I use global warming and climate change interchangeably, and I think it s fair.
6
SPEAKER_02
There s some technical ways that you can differentiate them.
6
SPEAKER_02
But the reality is that global warming is probably a better way to describe a lot of it, because this is really what is the main drive of what we worry about.
6
SPEAKER_02
Climate change seems a little diffuse, but it s convenient when you talk about climate all the time that you can call both of them
6
SPEAKER_02
But I think the climate crisis and the climate catastrophe is really sort of this is the amping up of a catastrophe.
6
SPEAKER_02
And again, as we ve talked about before, if it really were true, we should tell people.
6
SPEAKER_02
But if it s not true, and I think there s a lot of reasons why this is not a climate catastrophe, this is a problem.
6
SPEAKER_02
uh we re actually doing everyone a disservice because we end up making people so worried that they say we got to fix this in 12 years or whatever the number is and also that it makes it almost impossible to have a conversation of you know well you know maybe we should be focusing on vulnerability first and it a lot of people and I think a lot of well-meaning
6
SPEAKER_02
uh, and well-intentioned people feel that it s almost sacrilegious to do, you know, to say it s a, it s about a vulnerability because you re taking away the guilt of climate change.
6
SPEAKER_02
You re taking away our focus on, on, on dealing with climate change.
6
SPEAKER_02
Whereas I think we would say it s about stuff that actually works and, you know, doing that first.
6
SPEAKER_00
And by making it about carbon dioxide, you re implicitly making it about fossil fuels, which implicitly gives you another great narrative, good guy, bad guy.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s these big companies.
6
SPEAKER_01
Where s the source of alarmism?
6
SPEAKER_01
So is it the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
6
SPEAKER_01
There s a chain here.
6
SPEAKER_01
Is there somebody to blame along the chain or is this some kind of weird complex system where everybody encourages each other?
6
SPEAKER_01
Can you point to one place?
6
SPEAKER_01
Is it the media, is it the scientists?
6
SPEAKER_02
I think the UN Climate Panel is fundamentally a really good climate research group.
6
SPEAKER_02
You can have some quibbles with the way that they sort of summarize it in politically coordinated documents and stuff.
6
SPEAKER_02
But, you know, fundamentally, I think they do a good job of putting together all the research.
6
SPEAKER_02
This also means it s incredibly boring to read, which is why virtually nobody does.
6
SPEAKER_02
I m sure you have, but I m pretty sure a lot of climate journalists have never sort of looked past the at least the
6
SPEAKER_02
the summary for policymakers.
6
SPEAKER_02
So they... So your climate panel, they do predictions as well?
6
SPEAKER_00
No.
6
SPEAKER_02
Well, they pull together all the
7
SPEAKER_02
stuff that people have published in the period literature, uh, and then try to summarize it and basically tell you, so what s up and down with climate change.
7
SPEAKER_02
They do that in four, four large volumes every four to five to six, seven years or something.
7
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and, um, and yes, it s, it s, you know, I think it s the gold plated version of what we know.
7
SPEAKER_02
Uh, there tends to be a lot of, um,
7
SPEAKER_02
uh well this is what they say actually they say so many different places with so many different people that it s not quite clear exactly what they re saying often you know you can sort of find contradictions between one volume with one set of authors and another but yeah look I I think this is fundamentally the right way that we know about climate
7
SPEAKER_02
But then it gets translated into, how do you know about this?
7
SPEAKER_02
When most people don t read these 4,000 pages, you read a news story in a newspaper, and that news story will be very heavily slanted towards, if you say, so sea levels could rise somewhere between one and three foot, what do you hear?
7
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, you obviously hear the three foot.
7
SPEAKER_02
Three foot is just more fun, more scary, more interesting than one foot.
7
SPEAKER_02
And it s that way with all of these.
7
SPEAKER_02
So what s the prediction for temperature rises?
7
SPEAKER_02
It s somewhere from not very scary to pretty damn scary.
7
SPEAKER_02
And again, you hear the pretty damn scary all the time.
7
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and, and then there s, there s obviously always researchers who are saying, well, but actually it could be a little more scary than that.
7
SPEAKER_02
And then there are likewise researchers who say, well, you know, it s probably not going to be as scary as that.
7
SPEAKER_02
And most of the journalists will, you know, interview.
7
SPEAKER_02
Do you really put the blame fundamentally on the
7
SPEAKER_02
on the journalists?
7
SPEAKER_02
I put it on the media setup.
7
SPEAKER_02
Look, media is simply trying to get clicks or sell newspapers.
7
SPEAKER_02
And if you were just going to say, this is not a big issue, it just doesn t sell anything.
7
SPEAKER_02
But I think you re probably much better able to address this.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, no, folks can Google for my name, Revkin, and the words front page thought,
7
SPEAKER_00
in the newsroom every afternoon.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now we have a 24-7 news cycle, so it s different, but back in the day, the New York Times, when it was a flourishing print institution, every afternoon, there was a front page meeting, and the big pooh-bah editors would go in there, and the desk editors come in with their pitches for the day.
7
SPEAKER_00
And my friend, Cory Dean, who was the science editor for a chunk of my time,
7
SPEAKER_00
You know, I remember having a conversation with her about some new study of, I think it was Greenland, the ice sheet, and I laid it out for her and she said, where s the front page thought in that?
7
SPEAKER_00
So we re all set up to look for the...
7
SPEAKER_00
And the news environment has gotten so much worse than 10 or 20 years ago.
7
SPEAKER_00
At least you had filters and limited number of outlets.
7
SPEAKER_00
And there was some sense you could track what s good or bad.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s lots of problems with that system too.
7
SPEAKER_00
But now you have an information buffet.
7
SPEAKER_00
So if you want to be alarmed or you want to be,
7
SPEAKER_00
stay in the tribe of those who think this is utter bull, you can find your flow.
7
SPEAKER_00
But getting back to this specific question, the 2018 IPCC report, which was a special report commissioned
7
SPEAKER_00
to learn about the difference between 1.5 degrees of warming and two, which sounds so weird and technocratic and complicated.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s the one that generated the whole meme about eight years left.
7
SPEAKER_00
12 years.
7
SPEAKER_00
Till doomsday.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that s the one.
7
SPEAKER_00
Can you explain the meme?
7
SPEAKER_00
This was the idea that there s a point we re gonna, if we don t cut emissions in half by whatever it was, 2050, we re doomed.
7
SPEAKER_00
That emerged from that specific report.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it wasn t something that was in the report.
7
SPEAKER_00
It was in the spin around the report.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that s what captivated Greta appropriately as a young person going, you know, and with her unique vantage point and stuff.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that report, I still need to dig in and write something deeper about what happened with that particular dynamics, created this recent burst of redeemed rhetoric that I think you re focusing on.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it s all in the external interpretations, which journalism laps up,
7
SPEAKER_00
because we re looking for the front page thought.
7
SPEAKER_00
But it s not just the journalists, it s the whole system, NGOs, environmental groups.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you re in developing country, well-meaning leaders in developing countries, because of the structure of this treaty that goes back to 1992, that s the Paris Agreement is part of, they are now
7
SPEAKER_00
really looking for a way to portray this as a CO2 problem, not a vulnerability.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, there s a vulnerability aspect, but like in Pakistan, their climate minister, which they didn t even have a climate minister five years ago,
7
SPEAKER_00
is blaming everything that happened in Pakistan on carbon dioxide, warming the climate, creating this, when a lot of what was going on was also on the ground.
7
SPEAKER_00
And you can blame colonialism, Pakistan s history, all kinds of things.
7
SPEAKER_00
But under the treaty, you want it to be about CO2, because that puts the onus on rich countries.
7
SPEAKER_00
You re not paying us.
7
SPEAKER_00
Where s our money?
7
SPEAKER_00
And they re right, you know, in the context of what everyone agreed to.
7
SPEAKER_00
there was supposed to be a hundred billion dollars a year from rich countries to poor countries starting in 2020.
7
SPEAKER_00
It didn t happen.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s like basically some money is flowing, but it s not really made up money.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so that whole dynamic, they latch onto the climate science and they, you know, so they re there and they re very handy, quotable people.
7
SPEAKER_00
And you have a justice angle.
7
SPEAKER_00
You have bad guys and good guys, which fits all of these narrative threads that come together into this information storm we re still living with.
7
SPEAKER_02
And then, of course, it s not Pakistan s fault either, right?
7
SPEAKER_02
I mean, it also actually, almost all leaders now say it s because of climate, because then it s not, you know, we didn t do anything wrong.
7
SPEAKER_02
In Germany, for instance, when we had that flood last year, it s not impossible that climate had a part in that.
7
SPEAKER_02
But it s very, very clear that the main reason why so many people died in Germany and Belgium was because the alarm systems didn t work.
7
SPEAKER_02
And this was plainly the local leaders in Germany.
7
SPEAKER_02
Now, if I m stuck here and basically have caused the death of 200 people, would I rather say, yeah, that s on me, or would I climb it?
7
SPEAKER_01
It s just such an easy scapegoat.
7
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to place it all on the journalists, I think, because there s a lot of, if I were to think about, what did you call it, front page thought, there s a lot of really
7
SPEAKER_01
Narratives that result in destruction of the human species, a nuclear war, pandemics, all that kind of stuff.
7
SPEAKER_01
It seems that climate is a sticky one.
7
SPEAKER_01
So the fact that it s sticky means there s other interests at play like you guys are talking about in terms of politics, all that kind of stuff.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it s not just the journalists.
7
SPEAKER_01
I feel like journalists will try anything for the front page, but it won t stick unless there s bigger interests at play for which these narratives are useful.
7
SPEAKER_01
So journalists will just throw stuff out there and see if it gets clicks.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s like a first spark, maybe.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s maybe a tiny catalyst of the initial steps, but it has to be picked up by the politicians, by interest groups, and all that kind of stuff.
7
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you, Bjorn, about the
7
SPEAKER_01
First part of the subtitle, how climate change panic costs us trillions.
7
SPEAKER_01
How does climate change panic cost us trillions?
7
SPEAKER_02
So we re basically deciding to make policies that ll have fairly little impact, even in 50 or 100 years, that literally cost trillions of dollars.
7
SPEAKER_02
So, you know, give you two examples.
7
SPEAKER_02
So the European Union is trying to go to net zero.
7
SPEAKER_02
Uh, so our attempt to go halfway there by 2030, uh, will cost about a trillion dollars a year.
7
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and yet the net impact will be almost unmeasurable by the end of the century.
7
SPEAKER_02
Why is that?
7
SPEAKER_02
That s because the EU and the rich countries is a fairly small part of the emissions that are going to come out in the 21st century.
7
SPEAKER_02
Now we used to be a big part of it as us mainly because nobody else, you know, it was just the U S and, and Europe and a few others have put out CO2 in the, in the 20th century.
7
SPEAKER_02
So we used to be big.
7
SPEAKER_02
But in the 21st century, we ll be a small bit player.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so we re basically spending a lot of money.
7
SPEAKER_02
And remember, a trillion dollars is a lot of money that could have been spent on a lot of things that could have made humanity better, on something that will only make us a tiny bit better.
7
SPEAKER_02
Now, it will do some good.
7
SPEAKER_02
But the reasonable estimates is if you do a cost benefit analysis, and again, technically it s really, really complicated, but the basic idea is very, very simple.
7
SPEAKER_02
You just simply say, what are all the costs on one side and what are all the benefits?
7
SPEAKER_02
So the costs are mainly that we have to live with more expensive energy, you have to
7
SPEAKER_02
forego some opportunities, you have to have, you know, more complicated services, that kind of thing.
7
SPEAKER_02
The benefit is that you cut carbon emissions and that eventually means that you ll have less climate damage, you ll have lower temperature rises and so on.
7
SPEAKER_02
If you try to weigh up all of those, it s reasonable to assume
7
SPEAKER_02
that the EU policies will deliver for every dollar you spend, it ll deliver less than a dollar, probably about 30 cents back on the dollar, which is a really bad way to spend dollars because there s lots of other things out in the world where you could do multiple.
7
SPEAKER_02
So for instance, if you think about tuberculosis or education of small kids or nutrition for small kids and those kinds of things, every dollar you spend will do like 30 to $100 worth of good.
7
SPEAKER_02
So there are much, much better places where you could spend this money.
7
SPEAKER_02
Likewise, the U.S.
7
SPEAKER_02
is thinking of going net zero by 2050.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s not actually going to happen, but it s sort of a thing that everybody talks about.
7
SPEAKER_02
Biden is talking a lot about it.
7
SPEAKER_02
If you look at the models that indicate how much will that cost, it s not implausible that this will cost somewhere between $2 and $4 trillion per year by mid-century.
7
SPEAKER_02
And remember, if the U.S.
7
SPEAKER_02
went carbon neutral today,
7
SPEAKER_02
By the end of the century, that would reduce temperatures by about 0.3 degree Fahrenheit.
7
SPEAKER_02
So you would just be able to measure it.
7
SPEAKER_02
It probably wouldn t in real life, but you d just be able to measure it.
7
SPEAKER_02
Again, this is not saying that there s not some good coming out of it, but you re basically spending an enormous amount of money on fairly small benefits.
7
SPEAKER_02
So that s my main point.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, this reminds me of what we were saying earlier about the things that models don t integrate and the things that cost-benefit leave out because you really can t go there.
7
SPEAKER_00
One of the issues facing the world right now is the reality that we re reminded of, that energy availability is a geopolitical destabilizer.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you have uneven access to energy and you have Vladimir Putin coming into office or something else happening,
7
SPEAKER_00
that disrupts that system, you re vastly increasing poverty.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is playing out across the world.
7
SPEAKER_00
Fertilizer prices, fertilizer comes from gas, natural gas.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you can envision a world later in the century where we re no longer beholden on this material in the ground, at least fossil fuels, you know, cobalt and lithium for batteries, that s pretty cool, you know, because you re taking away geopolitical instability.
7
SPEAKER_00
And
7
SPEAKER_00
You don t, but that s not factored in, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
That s like way outside of what you d factor in.
7
SPEAKER_00
But it does feel like to me, you know, if I was going to make the case for you can choose your trillions, whatever that, investing big,
7
SPEAKER_00
isn t for these marginal things.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s for looking at the big picture, a world of abundant energy that doesn t come from a black rock or a gooey liquid that when you burn it creates.
7
SPEAKER_01
But isn t that what the proposals are, is investing in different kinds of energy, renewable energy?
7
SPEAKER_00
But I don t think most people are making that case.
7
SPEAKER_01
What s in the trillion in the T costs?
7
SPEAKER_01
What s incorporated?
7
SPEAKER_01
What are the big costs there?
7
SPEAKER_02
So the big cost is that you have slightly lower productivity gains.
7
SPEAKER_02
So basically, again, and this is sort of the opposite of what we just talked about by climate change.
7
SPEAKER_02
We re going to get richer and richer in the world.
7
SPEAKER_02
This is all models, also the UN.
7
SPEAKER_02
This is really the only way that you can get big climate changes because everybody gets a lot richer.
7
SPEAKER_02
So also the developing world gets a lot richer.
7
SPEAKER_02
So we re likely to get richer.
7
SPEAKER_02
But one of the things that drive wealth production is the fact that we have ample and cheap and available energy.
7
SPEAKER_02
If you make that slightly harder, which is what you do with climate legislation, because you re basically telling people you have to use a source of energy that you d rather not have used, because if people wanted to do it, we d already have solved the problem.
7
SPEAKER_02
So you re basically telling me you ve got to use this wind turbine instead of this natural gas plant or that kind of thing.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s not that you suddenly become poor or anything.
7
SPEAKER_02
It simply makes production slightly harder.
7
SPEAKER_02
What do you do when the wind is not blowing kind of thing?
7
SPEAKER_02
And of course, we have lots of ways to somewhat mitigate that, but it s a little more costly, a little more complicated, a little less convenient.
7
SPEAKER_02
And that means you grow a little less.
7
SPEAKER_02
That s the main problem with these policies, that it simply makes you somewhat less well-off.
7
SPEAKER_01
So energy becomes more inefficient.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
7
SPEAKER_01
So let me challenge you here.
7
SPEAKER_01
Try to steel man some critics.
7
SPEAKER_01
So you have critics.
7
SPEAKER_01
I would love you to take it seriously and sort of consider this criticism and try to steel man their case.
7
SPEAKER_01
There s a bunch, I could mention this list of criticisms from Bob Ward in London School of Economics, I don t know if you re familiar with him, but just on this point, in terms of one of the big costs being on energy,
7
SPEAKER_01
he criticizes your recent book in saying you consider the $143 billion in annual support for renewable energy but ignore the $300 billion in fossil fuel subsidies.
7
SPEAKER_01
So a lot of the criticism has to do
7
SPEAKER_01
with, well, you re cherry-picking the models, which the models are always cherry-picking anyway.
7
SPEAKER_01
But you want to take those seriously.
7
SPEAKER_01
So he claims that you ignore, you re not fully modeling the costs.
7
SPEAKER_01
the trade-off here, how expensive is the renewable energy and how expensive is the fossil fuel?
7
SPEAKER_01
Can you still manage this case?
7
SPEAKER_01
Sure.
7
SPEAKER_01
So, two things.
7
SPEAKER_02
The first, the quote, it s absolutely true that the world spends a large chunk of money on fossil fuels, and that s just stupid, and we should stop doing it.
7
SPEAKER_02
We should also recognize that this is not rich countries.
7
SPEAKER_02
This is not the countries where we re talking about climate change.
7
SPEAKER_02
This is poor countries.
7
SPEAKER_02
This is Saudi Arabia.
7
SPEAKER_02
No, that s actually not a terribly poor country.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s China.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s Indonesia.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s Russia.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s places where you re basically paying off your population, just like you subsidize bread.
7
SPEAKER_02
You make sure that they don t rebel by making cheap fuels available.
7
SPEAKER_02
That s dumb.
7
SPEAKER_02
But it s not like they don t know what they re doing.
7
SPEAKER_02
They re mostly doing this for things that have nothing to do with climate.
7
SPEAKER_02
So I totally agree we should get rid of it.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s hard to do.
7
SPEAKER_02
Indonesia s actually somewhat managed to get rid of it.
7
SPEAKER_02
Because remember, if you spend a lot of money on fossil fuel subsidies, you re basically subsidizing the rich.
7
SPEAKER_02
Because poor people don t have a car.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s the rich people who can now buy very cheap gasoline.
7
SPEAKER_02
That s
7
SPEAKER_02
unjust as well.
7
SPEAKER_02
So it s dumb in so many different ways.
7
SPEAKER_02
I would never argue that you shouldn t do it.
7
SPEAKER_02
I ve plenty of times said we should stop that.
7
SPEAKER_02
But we should also recognize these are mostly regimes that are not going to be taken over either by my argument or Bob Ward s or anyone else s.
7
SPEAKER_02
They re doing this for totally different reasons.
7
SPEAKER_02
Now, on the model side,
7
SPEAKER_02
There is virtually no economic model that don t show this has a cost.
7
SPEAKER_02
The fundamental point is that, this is sort of a basic point from economics, the system is already working most effectively because if it wasn t, you could actually make money.
7
SPEAKER_02
changing over.
7
SPEAKER_02
So if you want to have a change outside of what the system is already doing, it s because you re saying you have to do something that you rather not want to do, namely use an energy source that is less convenient or less cost effective and so on, and that will incur a cost.
7
SPEAKER_02
Now there s huge discussion about just exactly how much cost is that.
7
SPEAKER_02
So there s definitely a cost.
7
SPEAKER_02
Is the cost going to be one or five trillion?
7
SPEAKER_02
That s absolutely a discussion about where do you take your models from.
7
SPEAKER_02
I try to do, and again this is not possible everywhere, I try to actually take the average
9
SPEAKER_01
This is – I m not claiming any sort of ownership to this.
9
SPEAKER_01
A lot of smart people have done this way before.
9
SPEAKER_01
We re just simply proving that it s a good idea.
9
SPEAKER_01
It turns out that if you put this on eBay essentially, so if you do an e-procurement system where bidders can come in, suddenly it becomes harder to put up the goon.
9
SPEAKER_01
You can still do it, but it s harder to do it.
9
SPEAKER_01
It also means you get bids from all over Bangladesh.
9
SPEAKER_01
And in general, you ll get bids from all over.
9
SPEAKER_01
Actually, it turns out you get better quality.
9
SPEAKER_01
But most important is you get it much cheaper.
9
SPEAKER_01
So basically, you can simply save money.
9
SPEAKER_01
So we did a scaled experiment in Bangladesh where we had about 4% go to be e-procurement.
9
SPEAKER_01
And you could compare what it would have cost and then what it did cost.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the average reduction was, as I remember, it s 7%.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the finance minister loved it, you know, because that basically gives him a lot more money or, you know, you can buy more stuff at the same cost.
9
SPEAKER_01
This is corruption.
9
SPEAKER_01
So it s basically you get rid of some corruption.
9
SPEAKER_01
There ll still be corruption, but less corruption.
9
SPEAKER_01
Ukraine has actually been big on this.
9
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I ve talked to them.
9
SPEAKER_00
I talked to the digital transformation minister.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s kind of incredible.
9
SPEAKER_00
I mean, this is before the war, but still working.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s like the entirety of the government is in an app.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that, one of the big effects
9
SPEAKER_00
is the reduction of corruption.
9
SPEAKER_00
And not like from, as politicians say, to say, we ve reduced, we ve taken these actions through this court.
9
SPEAKER_00
No, literally, it s just much more difficult to be corrupt.
9
SPEAKER_00
The incentives aren t quite there, and there s friction for corruption.
9
SPEAKER_01
Oh yeah, yeah.
9
SPEAKER_01
So basically, you can spend a little bit of money and you can make a huge benefit.
9
SPEAKER_01
There s still about 70 countries that haven t gone e-procurement, so obviously they should do that.
9
SPEAKER_01
Food for small kids, another thing.
9
SPEAKER_01
So basically, it s morally wrong that people are starving, but it also turns out that it s a really, really dumb thing not to get kids good food.
9
SPEAKER_01
Because if you get them good food, their brains develop more,
9
SPEAKER_01
So that when they get into school, they learn more.
9
SPEAKER_01
And so when they come out in adult lives, they re much more productive.
9
SPEAKER_01
So we can actually make every kid in, especially in developing countries, much more productive by making sure they get good food.
9
SPEAKER_01
So getting good food is not cost-free.
9
SPEAKER_01
So it probably costs about a hundred dollars.
9
SPEAKER_01
both and you need some directed advertisement, you need to make sure that you actually get some of the food out there, that you help the families, and you also make sure you don t just give it to everyone because then it becomes a lot more expensive.
9
SPEAKER_01
If you do that right, it costs about $100 per kid, but- Per kid or- For two years, so it s for their first two years of life.
9
SPEAKER_01
And if you do that,
9
SPEAKER_01
you then get a benefit in that they become smarter and go longer to school, and they actually learn more and become more productive of $4,500.
9
SPEAKER_01
Remember, this is far into the future.
9
SPEAKER_01
So this is discounted.
9
SPEAKER_01
The benefit is actually much higher.
9
SPEAKER_01
And this is one of the things that we also have a conversation about in climate change, because when you talk about climate change, cost and benefits, all the costs are now, and all the benefits are in the future.
9
SPEAKER_01
But it s just like that in education.
9
SPEAKER_01
All the costs are now.
9
SPEAKER_01
All the benefits are far into the future.
9
SPEAKER_01
And if you try to do that right, and that s a whole other conversation we could have, then it turns out that for every dollar spent, you do $45 worth of good.
9
SPEAKER_01
Again, remember about a third of all kids that go to school right now just don t learn pretty much anything.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
9
SPEAKER_01
If we could make them more productive in the school system, we have another proposal on how to do that in the school system, but by just simply making sure that they re smarter when they get into school.
9
SPEAKER_01
We ve been focusing so much on making the education system better, which is really hard, but it s actually really easy to make the kids smarter.
9
SPEAKER_00
Then when you say the education system is not working well, we re talking about not the American education system, we re talking about globally.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yes, we re talking about globally.
9
SPEAKER_01
So about a third of the teachers in developing countries have a hard time passing the tests of the things they have to teach their students, right?
9
SPEAKER_01
And all these students have lots of other issues.
9
SPEAKER_01
They need to do farm work.
9
SPEAKER_01
They re constantly considering, should I just go out and start working instead?
9
SPEAKER_01
There s constant disruption.
9
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of teachers that don t show up in India.
9
SPEAKER_01
You have this absurd situation where all the teachers are basically
9
SPEAKER_01
paid and hired for eternity for the rest of their lives.
9
SPEAKER_01
And so not surprisingly, a lot of them decide not to show up.
9
SPEAKER_01
So now they ve hired.
9
SPEAKER_01
assistant teachers that basically have taken over.
9
SPEAKER_01
So they re paying, you know, for, I think it s 7 million teachers that I m not saying they re not all, all not working, but a lot of them are not working as much as they should.
9
SPEAKER_01
And we now hired another 7 million teachers that will eventually, you know, stop working as well.
9
SPEAKER_01
They re, they re working much better right now because they re, you know, they re, they re not on permanent contracts, but eventually they ll get on permanent contracts and then you have the same problem again.
9
SPEAKER_01
There s lots of these issues and, you know, it s just simply about saying, we can t fix all problems, but there are some problems that are incredibly easy to solve and there are some that are incredibly hard to solve.
9
SPEAKER_01
Why don t we start with solving the easy and effective ones?
9
SPEAKER_01
And this, of course, bears in that whole conversation on climate change, because in some ways, you know, that s also Andy s point of saying,
9
SPEAKER_01
Look, if you want to save people from the impacts of hurricanes, let s fix this simple, easy things about vulnerability first.
9
SPEAKER_01
Whereas we have somehow latched onto this, let s fix the hardest thing to do, which is to get everyone to stop using fossil fuels, which is basically what s driven the last 200 years of development.
9
SPEAKER_01
That s a tall order, no matter how you look at it.
9
SPEAKER_02
There s some really cool elements that you guys just brought up.
9
SPEAKER_02
You mentioned that word moral before.
9
SPEAKER_02
I wasn t, I latched onto it because it relates to these timescales that really are immeasurable.
9
SPEAKER_02
If you know it s gonna take decades to confirm the benefit of some investment now, that implies you re doing the investment with some moral imperative, not because you can do a spreadsheet and come up with a number.
9
SPEAKER_02
And that process, letting go of the need for kind of a mechanistic cost-benefit approach, and thinking about kids  education in poor countries, or several things we talk about, seems to be really important, and it s very hard for all of us to do.
9
SPEAKER_02
Philanthropists suck at it.
9
SPEAKER_02
I worked at National Geographic Society for a year building some new programs when they got a big infusion of money.
9
SPEAKER_02
They have a whole department that s called M&E.
9
SPEAKER_02
It s measurement and evaluation.
9
SPEAKER_02
which is if you don t prove it, it goes away.
9
SPEAKER_02
I mentioned Spotify earlier, Spotify killing a climate podcast because that podcast didn t measure out for their impact, you know, what they wanna do.
9
SPEAKER_02
And if we re always making the judgments based on strict cost benefit, we re gonna miss
9
SPEAKER_02
larger realities.
9
SPEAKER_02
Another thing is, another really exciting example of what you re talking about in terms of in Ukraine with the trust and lack of, less corruption and stuff, was in India.
9
SPEAKER_02
For all of his issues, Modi recognized that middle class people in India cook on LPG, propane, or on piped gas, natural gas if they re in cities.
9
SPEAKER_02
Much cleaner, much healthier.
9
SPEAKER_02
so many ways.
9
SPEAKER_02
And actually, compared to chopping down trees and cooking on wood, it s actually better for the climate, even though it s a fossil fuel.
9
SPEAKER_02
So he
9
SPEAKER_02
He and others, there was an American scientist, Kirk Smith, who worked this all out.
9
SPEAKER_02
If you find a way, they were getting a subsidy.
9
SPEAKER_02
They had that energy subsidy.
9
SPEAKER_02
You were talking about how many poor countries subsidize energy just to stay in office, you know, to make something cheap that everyone wants.
9
SPEAKER_02
But they wanted to shift the subsidy away from the middle class to the poor people who are cooking on firewood and dying young from pneumonia.
9
SPEAKER_02
And the critical factor was India s digital currency.
9
SPEAKER_02
India went to a digital economy.
9
SPEAKER_02
Very poor families there now, if you have a phone, basically that s your bank.
9
SPEAKER_02
And you could make the case to the public that we re gonna be starting to shift your LPG, your propane subsidy, to poor people.
9
SPEAKER_02
But we know they re poor.
9
SPEAKER_02
We know they re not just gonna be using it behind their restaurant, which was, when it was a general subsidy, people were hoarding the LPG.
9
SPEAKER_02
And the system has worked.
9
SPEAKER_02
They ve shifted a lot of capacity to cook on a clean blue flame that turns off and on in homes that previously where the woman would spend hours collecting firewood, smoky fire, cooking, clean the pots and start all over again.
9
SPEAKER_02
But it s all built on trust, built on the digital economy and the same thing in Nairobi.
9
SPEAKER_02
So that excites me every day, you know, with all the doomism.
9
SPEAKER_02
I just hope people can literally
9
SPEAKER_02
take a breath, look for these examples that show the potential when you have a trustworthy system, when you have a clear path to making lives better.
9
SPEAKER_02
And then knowing, you know, that kid having electric light as opposed to a kerosene lamp, we don t know how much that s gonna improve his homework.
9
SPEAKER_02
and lead to a better outcome.
9
SPEAKER_02
But we know from history that sometimes it does.
9
SPEAKER_02
Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary General, told the most powerful story I ever heard from a UN Secretary General was like 2012 when they were rolling out this Sustainable Energy for All initiative, which is not just climate, it was just like getting people energy they need to survive and thrive.
9
SPEAKER_02
He was growing up in post-war Korea,
9
SPEAKER_02
Everyone was poor, everything was broken, destroyed.
9
SPEAKER_02
Sadly, like so much of many parts of Ukraine.
9
SPEAKER_02
And he would do his homework by kerosene lamp.
9
SPEAKER_02
He said when he was studying for his finals, his mom would give him a candle.
9
SPEAKER_02
This was a brighter flame, better grades maybe.
9
SPEAKER_02
And he became Secretary General.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s a hell of a story.
9
SPEAKER_00
So which,
9
SPEAKER_00
For climate change, which policies work, which don t?
9
SPEAKER_00
Which are, when we look at this formula of $1 in, $45 out, for climate change, what dollar in, what policies for dollar in and dollar out are good and which are not?
9
SPEAKER_01
So we actually did a whole project back in 2009 when the whole world circus was coming to Copenhagen and we were going to save the world there.
9
SPEAKER_01
We brought together about 50 climate economists and three Nobel laureates to look at where can you spend a dollar and do the most good for climate.
9
SPEAKER_01
And what they found was a lot of these things, as we ve been talking about before, that basically investing in the current sort of technology that we re trying very hard is at best a pretty dicey outcome.
9
SPEAKER_01
Much of it is probably less than a dollar back in the dollar.
9
SPEAKER_01
There s some investments on adaptation, for instance, that s pretty good, but it s sort of two, three dollars back in the dollar.
9
SPEAKER_01
Oh, what is adaptation?
9
SPEAKER_01
The obvious thing is that you build a dike for a sea level rise, or that you make people, you get some apps that people know that there s a hurricane coming, or that, you know, so you can adapt.
9
SPEAKER_00
Adapting infrastructure, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
9
SPEAKER_01
The physical and the digital infrastructure.
9
SPEAKER_01
The point is that people are really good at doing this already because they have a strong incentive to do it.
9
SPEAKER_01
So the extra thing that governments can do outside is somewhat good, but it s not amazing or anything.
9
SPEAKER_01
What we found by far the best investment in the long run was on investment in energy innovation.
9
SPEAKER_01
So—and I think this also sort of corresponds with what we would think in general.
9
SPEAKER_01
If we could innovate—so, you know, for instance, Bill Gates is arguing we should have fourth-generation nuclear, so the next—more advanced than what we currently have in third-generation nuclear, which would be industrial-scale process.
9
SPEAKER_01
You d just be building these, you know,
9
SPEAKER_01
modular nuclear power plants, they would be, instead of being this artwork that we design once for every different plant, which is one of the reasons why they re so expensive, they would just be mass-produced and you d have one, you know, they all be recognized in one go, so it d be much cheaper.
9
SPEAKER_01
They would also be passively safe, so if all the power goes.
9
SPEAKER_01
they ll shut down rather than go boom.
9
SPEAKER_01
Uh, so that s, that s another very good thing.
9
SPEAKER_01
And then they ll also, uh, be very hard to transform into nuclear, uh, weapons.
9
SPEAKER_01
Uh, so you can actually imagine them being out in a lot of different places where we d perhaps be a little worried about having, you know, plutonium lying around.
9
SPEAKER_01
Now, this is all still being worked out, but imagine if that actually comes out.
9
SPEAKER_01
And again, remember the other three generations, they were, we were also told that
9
SPEAKER_01
it ll be incredibly safe and it ll be incredibly cheap.
9
SPEAKER_01
And it didn t turn out that way.
9
SPEAKER_01
So let s wait, but it could be.
9
SPEAKER_01
And so the argument is, invest in these ideas, for instance, fourth generation nuclear, and if fourth generation nuclear becomes cheaper than fossil fuels.
9
SPEAKER_01
We re done Everyone will just switch not just rich well-meaning americans or europeans But also the chinese the indians everybody in africa the rest of the indian subcontinent That s how you fix these issues, right?
9
SPEAKER_01
So the idea here is to say
9
SPEAKER_01
Instead of thinking that we can sort of push people to do stuff they really don t want to do, which is basically saying let s use more of the solar and wind that you would otherwise have invested in, force people to buy an electric car by giving huge subsidies because otherwise they re clearly not
9
SPEAKER_01
all that interest in buying it and so on, then get the innovation such that they become cheaper than fossil fuels and everyone will switch.
9
SPEAKER_01
This is how we ve solved problems in the past, if you think.
9
SPEAKER_01
And Los Angeles in the 1950s was a hugely polluted place, mostly because of cars.
9
SPEAKER_01
The sort of standard climate approach today would be to tell everyone in Los Angeles, I m sorry, could you just walk instead?
9
SPEAKER_01
And of course, that just doesn t work.
9
SPEAKER_01
That doesn t pay off.
9
SPEAKER_01
You never get
9
SPEAKER_01
you know, politician voted in office, or at least staying in office, if you make that kind of policy.
9
SPEAKER_01
What did solve the problem was the innovation of the catalytic converter.
9
SPEAKER_01
You basically get those little gizmo, and it cost a couple hundred dollars, and you put it on your tailpipe, and then you can drive around basically almost not pollute.
9
SPEAKER_01
And that s how you fix the air pollution in Los Angeles.
9
SPEAKER_01
Basically, we ve solved all problems in humanity, all big
9
SPEAKER_01
difficult problems with innovation.
9
SPEAKER_01
We haven t solved it by telling everyone, I m sorry, could you be a little less comfortable and a little more cold and a little poorer, and believing that that can go on for decades.
9
SPEAKER_01
And while it possibly works in some pockets of the US,
9
SPEAKER_01
And I think actually in large parts of Europe, at least, it used to, the war in Ukraine is definitely sort of changing that whole perspective.
9
SPEAKER_01
But yeah, there s a willingness to say, we re gonna suffer a little bit, then we ll fix this problem.
9
SPEAKER_01
But the point is, we re gonna be willing to suffer a little, and so fix a tiny bit of the climate problem.
9
SPEAKER_01
instead of actually focusing on innovation.
9
SPEAKER_01
So what we found was if you spend a dollar on innovation, you will probably avoid about $11 of climate damage in the long run, which is a great investment.
9
SPEAKER_01
And the terrible thing is we have not been doing this.
9
SPEAKER_01
So because everybody s focused on saying we need this solution within the next 12 years,
9
SPEAKER_01
it means you re not thinking about the innovation.
9
SPEAKER_01
We re actually spending less money, not more money, on innovation globally.
9
SPEAKER_00
So everyone s focusing on reducing carbon emission versus innovating on alternate energy.
9
SPEAKER_01
You re basically focusing on putting the existing solar panels or wind turbines, which are either just about inefficient or inefficient,
9
SPEAKER_01
Instead of making the next generation or it s more likely that in the 10th generation after that, that comes with lots of, you know, battery backup power or, you know, a fourth generation nuclear or, you know, Craig Venter has this great idea.
9
SPEAKER_01
Craig Venter, the guy who cracked the human genome back in 2000.
9
SPEAKER_01
He has this idea of growing algae out on the ocean surface.
9
SPEAKER_01
These algae, they d be genetically modified and they would basically soak up sunlight and CO2 and produce oil.
9
SPEAKER_01
then we could basically just grow our own Saudi Arabia out on the ocean surface and we d harvest it, we d keep our entire fossil fuel economy, but it d now be net zero because we just soaked up the CO2 out there.
9
SPEAKER_00
One dollar invested in the portfolio of different ideas.
9
SPEAKER_00
Gives $11 back.
9
SPEAKER_02
I first wrote about that in the New York Times.
10
SPEAKER_02
It was one of my actual page one stories.
10
SPEAKER_02
In 2006, it was declining R&D in energy at a time of global warming.
10
SPEAKER_02
And the baseline is so low for this that it s a super bargain.
10
SPEAKER_02
We were,
10
SPEAKER_02
During the energy crisis, the first energy crisis in the 70s before the current one, our annual spending in the United States in constant dollars on R&D, research and development for energy, was about $5 billion.
10
SPEAKER_02
And then it s just dribbled away since then.
10
SPEAKER_02
And recently now, there s a big burst of new money coming through these new bills that got passed.
10
SPEAKER_02
But what I was told over and over again by people in that arena is you can t just have these little bubbles of investment.
10
SPEAKER_02
You don t get young people away from thinking about Wall Street for jobs toward thinking about energy innovation if there isn t like a future there.
10
SPEAKER_02
And a lot of the, in the United States and Europe, the presumption was the way to that future was taxing carbon.
10
SPEAKER_02
make that so punitive that you re basically evening the landscape for cleaner stuff that s more expensive.
10
SPEAKER_02
That has failed completely.
10
SPEAKER_02
There are little examples in Europe where it s working.
10
SPEAKER_02
And what s happened now is, well, the United States, this big chunk of money,
10
SPEAKER_02
is designed to take us over a finish line that was started with not just innovation, but with the production efficiency, too.
10
SPEAKER_02
This is one thing I got wrong, I think, a little bit in my reporting.
10
SPEAKER_02
I was so fixated on the innovation part, just because I love science, too.
10
SPEAKER_02
I saw this untapped possibility.
10
SPEAKER_02
that others were saying, no, no, production efficiency, the more people are producing batteries, the cheaper they ll get.
10
SPEAKER_02
This is Elon Musk s path and many others.
10
SPEAKER_02
And it really is both.
10
SPEAKER_02
So when you were talking about purchasing power for governments, for example,
10
SPEAKER_02
that can stimulate production capacity for batteries or whatever the good thing is and take you down faster.
10
SPEAKER_02
And it s all about getting that margin of the new thing out competing the old.
10
SPEAKER_02
And it s not just innovation.
10
SPEAKER_02
It has so many parts of the pipeline that need to be nurtured.
10
SPEAKER_02
And the other thing is relative cost.
10
SPEAKER_02
The United States, when I was writing about this in 2006,
10
SPEAKER_02
Our budget for DARPA, the Advanced Research Project Agency for the Defense Department, just for science, was 80 billion a year.
10
SPEAKER_02
For health, for medical frontier research on cancer and stuff, 40 billion.
10
SPEAKER_02
Energy was two or three.
10
SPEAKER_02
So we weren t taking this remotely seriously.
10
SPEAKER_02
So now if we get that up, to me there s like this level
10
SPEAKER_02
You know we re taking something seriously when it s like in the tens of billions for R&D.
10
SPEAKER_02
It s not that R&D will solve the problem, but it s a proxy for what we really care about.
10
SPEAKER_02
We care a shitload about defense.
10
SPEAKER_02
What s the defense budget in the United States now?
10
SPEAKER_02
Like 800 billion?
10
SPEAKER_02
It s some insane number.
10
SPEAKER_02
Who s counting when you re having fun?
10
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
10
SPEAKER_02
And so innovation is not just like for the better.
10
SPEAKER_02
you know, camera, the better solar panel, the better battery.
10
SPEAKER_02
Social innovation actually matters hugely.
10
SPEAKER_02
Like the guy in Nairobi I mentioned with a company doing micropayment gas to get people off charcoal.
10
SPEAKER_02
We need that as much as this.
10
SPEAKER_02
And I actually, I interviewed Bill Gates.
10
SPEAKER_02
We had spent an hour with him in Seattle in 2016.
10
SPEAKER_02
when he was rolling out his breakthrough energy thing.
10
SPEAKER_02
I got to spend, it was 45 minutes, me and Bill Gates, which was pretty fun.
10
SPEAKER_02
But I brought this up, I said, you know, because he s all about the new nuclear thing that will solve the world s problems.
10
SPEAKER_02
And I, yes, yes, yes, but we also- Oh, he brought up nuclear?
10
SPEAKER_01
Sorry to interrupt.
10
SPEAKER_02
Oh, he did, oh sure, yeah.
10
SPEAKER_02
So he s interested in one of the- Oh, he s investing heavily in nuclear, but he invests in everything, you know, he s got a big portfolio.
10
SPEAKER_02
But I brought up a guy I met in India who runs a little outfit called Selco that they do really interesting, cool village to village.
10
SPEAKER_02
They re like an energy analyst will come to your house here in the States and tell you how to weatherize your house, but they do it at the village scale.
10
SPEAKER_02
And in a village that has, you know,
10
SPEAKER_02
where they re milling wheat, he ll put in a solar-powered wheat mill.
10
SPEAKER_02
And that s not gonna solve the world s problems, but it gives them a way to control their energy.
10
SPEAKER_02
They don t have to buy something to grind their wheat.
10
SPEAKER_02
And that needs just as much attention as the things I really like too, the cool technologies.
10
SPEAKER_02
And I thought I cornered Bill Gates, I was like,
10
SPEAKER_02
because he really does focus on these big wins, the big, you know, like nuclear, that will make net zero completely doable.
10
SPEAKER_02
And I said, well, you know, what about nuclear, like New York City, where I was still living at the time, near, and I said, it s got a million buildings.
10
SPEAKER_02
New York City has one million buildings.
10
SPEAKER_02
And in 2013, the Bloomberg government analyzed, they said, looking ahead to 2050,
10
SPEAKER_02
75% of the buildings in New York City that will exist in 2050 already exist.
10
SPEAKER_02
Think about these brave new futures, right?
10
SPEAKER_02
Like we re just gonna come in, have these shiny, cool passive house cities.
10
SPEAKER_02
And so I put this to Bill and I said, so how do you do that?
10
SPEAKER_02
How do you retrofit all those boilers, many of which were coal-fired like 20 years ago, to get a zero-energy New York City?
10
SPEAKER_02
And I kind of thought I had him.
10
SPEAKER_02
And then he immediately, he kind of sat back and went, well, but if you have unlimited clean power coming into that city, that doesn t really matter.
10
SPEAKER_01
That s a pretty good Bill Gates impression.
10
SPEAKER_02
It was a good answer.
10
SPEAKER_02
I mean, it was a good answer.
10
SPEAKER_02
He said, oh yeah, it s a leaky bucket, but if you pour in zero carbon energy, then it doesn t matter.
10
SPEAKER_02
But I still think we have to figure out the other part, too, that end.
10
SPEAKER_02
How do you innovate at the household level, at the village level?
10
SPEAKER_02
It s much more of a distributed problem, we used to think.
10
SPEAKER_02
The one big change I ve had in my own thinking, too, is
10
SPEAKER_02
is from top down to distributed.
10
SPEAKER_02
Everything about the climate problem through the first three decades of my reporting was that the
10
SPEAKER_02
The IPCC will come out with a new report, the framework convention, the treaty will get us on board.
10
SPEAKER_02
We ll all behave better.
10
SPEAKER_02
It has this top-down parent-to-child architecture, and everything I ve learned has gone the other way.
10
SPEAKER_02
It s distributed capacity.
10
SPEAKER_02
for improved lives, you know, kids getting through school.
10
SPEAKER_02
Women not having to spend three hours collecting firewood.
10
SPEAKER_02
And if it means propane for that household in that context, that s a good thing.
10
SPEAKER_02
So stop with all your yammering about spending all fossil fuel subsidies.
10
SPEAKER_02
And, you know, what s an America look like that has some climate-safe energy future?
10
SPEAKER_02
Find your part in that.
10
SPEAKER_02
Don t get disempowered by the scale of it.
10
SPEAKER_02
There s like a thousand things to do.
10
SPEAKER_02
When you start to cut it into pieces,
10
SPEAKER_02
So it s very different.
10
SPEAKER_02
It s not a top-down thing.
10
SPEAKER_00
No one s going to magically come in and... And that s where I think... So I agree that everyone should try to play their part and do whatever they can.
10
SPEAKER_00
But I also think just the sheer incentives, what we saw happening with shale gas is a great example.
10
SPEAKER_00
When shale gas becomes so cheap that you just stop using coal,
10
SPEAKER_00
then you don t really have to convince lots and lots of people.
10
SPEAKER_00
Coal is really bad.
10
SPEAKER_00
It just happened.
10
SPEAKER_00
It wasn t label a climate.
10
SPEAKER_00
No.
10
SPEAKER_00
It wasn t a climate thing.
10
SPEAKER_00
It was an energy thing.
10
SPEAKER_00
It was totally.
10
SPEAKER_00
The point is just the power of an innovation is that you almost don t see it anymore.
10
SPEAKER_00
It just happens.
10
SPEAKER_00
Uh, and, and I think that s really the only way we re going to fix, you know, these big problems.
10
SPEAKER_00
If you think about, you know, uh, the, uh, nutrition problem back in the 60s, 70s, uh, you know, we worried a lot about India and other places.
10
SPEAKER_00
Uh, a solution is not worrying or the solution was not, you know, us eating a little bit less and sending it down to India, wherever the solution was the green revolution, right?
10
SPEAKER_00
It was the fact that some scientists made ways to make every seed produced three times as much.
10
SPEAKER_00
So you could grow three times as much food on an acre.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that s what basically made it possible for India to go from a basket case to the world s leading rice exporter.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that s how you do these things.
10
SPEAKER_00
You solve these big problems through innovation.
10
SPEAKER_00
And again, I m not saying that, you know, we re actually arguing our carbon tax is a smart thing to do.
10
SPEAKER_00
You know, that s what any economist would tell you to do.
10
SPEAKER_00
But it also turns out that it s partly, it s not going to solve most of the problem and it s incredibly politically hard to do.
10
SPEAKER_00
So it may also just be the wrong sort of tree to bark up against.
10
SPEAKER_00
If you can do it, please do.
10
SPEAKER_00
But this is not the main thing that s going to solve climate.
10
SPEAKER_00
The main thing is that we get these innovations that basically make green energy so cheap everyone will just want.
10
SPEAKER_01
We mentioned nuclear quite a few times.
10
SPEAKER_01
There was, for a long time, it seems to have shifted recently.
10
SPEAKER_01
Maybe you can clarify and educate me on this, but for the longest time, people thought that nuclear is almost unclean energy or dangerous energy or all that kind of stuff.
10
SPEAKER_01
When did that shift?
10
SPEAKER_01
what was the source of that alarmism, and maybe is that a case study of how alarmism can turn into a productive, constructive policy?
10
SPEAKER_02
Productive from whose standpoint?
10
SPEAKER_01
Is it not, is it not, like nuclear?
10
SPEAKER_02
No, I was trying to, do you mean productive in terms of yay, we banned it, or productive for those who want?
10
SPEAKER_01
Oh, I see, I see what you mean, yes.
10
SPEAKER_01
I meant productive for human civilization.
10
SPEAKER_02
No, the alarmism over nuclear power dominated any alarmism over global warming, absolutely.
10
SPEAKER_01
Oh, really?
10
SPEAKER_02
Oh, yeah.
10
SPEAKER_02
This in the United States, Three Mile Island, then you had Chernobyl there.
10
SPEAKER_02
And the traditional environmental movement still won t go there.
10
SPEAKER_02
They still, the big groups, NRDC, EDF, that whole alphabet soup of the big greens are reluctant to put forward the nuclear option because they know a lot of their aging donors basically grew up in the thinking about nuclear as the problem, not the solution.
10
SPEAKER_02
I lived for the last 30 years.
10
SPEAKER_02
I moved to Maine recently.
10
SPEAKER_02
But I lived in the Hudson Valley, 10 miles from the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which was built in the 60s, 70s, and had some problems.
10
SPEAKER_02
None of them were to the point of a meltdown or the threat of it, or even the theoretical possibility of one.
10
SPEAKER_02
I was in it twice as a reporter, looking down in the cooling pool.
10
SPEAKER_02
I can send you a fun video of bubbles in the cooling pool with the rods.
10
SPEAKER_02
Progressively, they demonstrated how to handle waste.
10
SPEAKER_02
In the United States now, the waste is, because we haven t figured out how to move it across state lines, it s glassified, it s put into kind of containers that sit there at the plant.
10
SPEAKER_02
We just simply don t have a long-term solution.
10
SPEAKER_02
The Nevada politicians were successful in saying, not here, not Yucca Mountain.
10
SPEAKER_02
But my wife, who I ve been married to, well, I met 30 years ago, and she lives with me, she s an environmental educator.
10
SPEAKER_02
She was very happy when Cuomo shut it down, said we re gonna shut it down three or four years ago, which just happened a year, it actually has shut down now.
10
SPEAKER_02
It s being mothballed, and I was like, that sucks.
10
SPEAKER_02
We need- But she s happy.
10
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, and we still love each other.
10
SPEAKER_01
And she s an environmentalist, so that just speaks to a lot of environmentalists still see nuclear as bad.
10
SPEAKER_01
Oh, totally, oh yeah.
10
SPEAKER_02
You know, and you bring in the weapons proliferation issues.
10
SPEAKER_02
But it s a safety thing, it s a generational thing.
10
SPEAKER_02
I think young people are different, I hope.
10
SPEAKER_02
These small modular reactor designs, several of which, there s a couple of PhDs from MIT who did transatomic power.
10
SPEAKER_02
They re both like in their early 30s.
10
SPEAKER_02
We need so much more of them.
10
SPEAKER_02
And just briefly, the one thing I say about nuclear is, like with so many of these things, like subsidies, don t talk to me about yes, no nuclear.
10
SPEAKER_02
Talk to me about what do you want to do with existing nuclear power plants?
10
SPEAKER_02
And what do you want to do about the possibility of new ones?
10
SPEAKER_02
Let s parse this out in chunks that we can have constructive conversations about.
10
SPEAKER_02
The idea of no nuclear drives me crazy, just like no fossil fuel subsidies is silly in the world we inhabit that has these pockets of no energy.
10
SPEAKER_02
So that s just my sustain what mantras.
10
SPEAKER_02
start with some dividing and conquer, to conquer the dispute over by saying, let s at least get real.
10
SPEAKER_02
This power plant has been in the Hudson Valley for 30 years.
10
SPEAKER_02
It was the baseload, it was baseload.
10
SPEAKER_02
Baseload is a real thing.
10
SPEAKER_02
And guess what has filled the gap since that power plant has turned off?
10
SPEAKER_02
Natural gas, natural gas.
10
SPEAKER_02
And you don t hear that from the environmental community that was so eager to turn off the Indian Point
10
SPEAKER_00
I think both the point of, you know, saying that people are saying, it s the end of the world, but no, I don t want a nuclear power plant.
10
SPEAKER_00
It just doesn t make sense.
10
SPEAKER_00
And Andy s absolutely right to talk about, so existing nuclear power plants, we already paid for them.
10
SPEAKER_00
We already have them.
10
SPEAKER_00
We already committed to decommissioning them eventually.
10
SPEAKER_00
While they re running, they re pretty much the cheapest power you can possibly have on the planet because it costs almost nothing to run them day to day.
10
SPEAKER_00
So it s basically cheap or almost free CO2 baseload power.
10
SPEAKER_00
There s just nothing there that you should embrace.
10
SPEAKER_00
new nuclear power plants turn out to be very expensive currently.
10
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, the one they built in Finland, some in the UK and France and several other places turn out to be incredibly expensive.
10
SPEAKER_00
So they re much more expensive than, you know, the costliest renewables you can imagine.
10
SPEAKER_00
So they re actually not a solution right now.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that s why we need the innovation.
10
SPEAKER_00
That s why we need the potentially fourth generation nuclear power.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s just simply, it s a bad deal.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that s why, you know, nuclear is never going to win on its third generation.
10
SPEAKER_00
Now it may never get there, you know, who knows, but it s certainly a possibility and we should be looking into it.
10
SPEAKER_02
And there are wonky realities that need to be dealt with.
10
SPEAKER_02
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States, their approval process is still locked and designed on this 50-year-old model of big, giant power plants.
10
SPEAKER_02
There s an intense discussion right now about evolving a new regulatory scheme for small, modular ones because of all these implicit advantages they offer.
10
SPEAKER_02
And that, so it,
10
SPEAKER_02
along with the innovation, you need to have this get out of the way, or you re never going to have the investment.
10
SPEAKER_02
So it really is an all of the above thing.
10
SPEAKER_02
Looking at these as systems solutions is really important.
10
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you about Alex Epstein.
10
SPEAKER_01
So he wrote, I m not sure if you re familiar who he is, but he wrote a couple of books.
10
SPEAKER_01
It s just interesting to ask a question about fossil fuels because we re talking about reality.
10
SPEAKER_01
And he s somebody that doesn t just talk about the reality of fossil fuels, but he wrote a book, Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future, where he makes the case
10
SPEAKER_01
that, as his subtitle says, global human flourishing requires oil, coal, and natural gas, or more oil, coal, and natural gas, not less.
10
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about the argument he makes?
10
SPEAKER_01
So he pushes, we ve had this kind of, speaking of the center, of this balanced discussion of the reality of fossil fuels, but also investing a lot into renewable energy and having the $1 to $11 return.
10
SPEAKER_01
He says like,
10
SPEAKER_01
I m not sure exactly how to frame it, but investing and maintaining investment of fossil fuels also has a positive return because of how efficient the energy is.
10
SPEAKER_02
I read the first book.
10
SPEAKER_02
I haven t read, I ve got his second one.
10
SPEAKER_02
I ve been planning to have him on my webcast, my tiny webcast.
10
SPEAKER_01
What s the name of the webcast?
10
SPEAKER_02
Sustain what?
10
SPEAKER_02
Everything I do is sustain what?
10
SPEAKER_02
Because it s like, don t talk to me about sustainability.
10
SPEAKER_02
Sustain what?
10
SPEAKER_02
For whom?
10
SPEAKER_02
How?
10
SPEAKER_02
Then we re talking, you know?
10
SPEAKER_02
Interrogatory approach to things.
11
SPEAKER_02
I think the valuable part of what he has done is to remind people, particularly in the West or North or whatever, the developed world, that everything we take for granted, from low fertilizer prices to air conditioning to everything else, exists because we had this bounty that we dug out of the ground or pumped out of the ground.
11
SPEAKER_02
it s a boon, it s been an amazing boon to society, period.
11
SPEAKER_02
So start there.
11
SPEAKER_02
Which means going forward, what we re talking about is a substitution.
11
SPEAKER_02
Or having your fossil fuels and eating it too, meaning getting rid of the carbon dioxide.
11
SPEAKER_02
If you focus on the carbon dioxide,
11
SPEAKER_02
which is the thing warming the planet, not the burning of the fuels, then that s another way forward that could sustain fossil fuels.
11
SPEAKER_02
As far as I can tell from at least the first book, he makes the moral case that fossil fuels are essentially a good overall.
11
SPEAKER_02
I don t think he adequately accounts for the need
11
SPEAKER_02
to stop global warming.
11
SPEAKER_02
You know, I think that we have to slow, slowing global warming is a fundamental need in this century we re in.
11
SPEAKER_02
And that s just not factored into his math.
11
SPEAKER_00
Well, I think that s where, I ve had a few sort of offline conversation with him.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think he said, because I mentioned I m talking to the two of you, he said that he, that s probably where he disagrees about sort of the level of threat that global warming causes.
11
SPEAKER_02
Well, Steve Koonin is another one.
11
SPEAKER_02
He s a brilliant guy.
11
SPEAKER_02
He lived right close to me in the Hudson Valley.
11
SPEAKER_02
He was in the Obama administration energy department.
11
SPEAKER_02
It s K-O-O-N-I-N.
11
SPEAKER_02
He wrote a bestseller that came out recently on skepticism about climate.
11
SPEAKER_02
And there are other smart people who
11
SPEAKER_02
somehow feel we can literally adapt our way forward without any constraint on the gases changing the climate.
11
SPEAKER_02
And I, you know, I ve spent enough time on this.
11
SPEAKER_02
I think I m a pretty level-headed reporter when it comes to this issue.
11
SPEAKER_02
And I think having some sense that we can adapt our way into the world we re building through relentless climate change with no new normal, remember, more gas accumulating in the air every year,
11
SPEAKER_02
These are not static moments.
11
SPEAKER_02
That that s a good thing to do doesn t strike me as smart.
11
SPEAKER_01
I d probably say that I think it s more sort of a, at least the thing that I take away from Alex is the fact, as you point out, that we need to recognize that fossil fuels is basically the backbone of our society today.
11
SPEAKER_01
We get 80% of our energy from fossil fuels.
11
SPEAKER_01
Still as we did 50 years ago, 40 years ago.
11
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
11
SPEAKER_01
And people have no sense of this, right?
11
SPEAKER_01
So they have the idea because you see so many wind turbines and solar panels and everybody s talking about it, that this is huge, big things.
11
SPEAKER_01
But the reality is, remember, only about a fifth of all energy use is electricity.
11
SPEAKER_01
The rest is in processes and heating, industrial processes and so on.
11
SPEAKER_01
So actually, you know, solar and wind right now produces 1% of energy from wind and 0.8% from solar.
11
SPEAKER_01
This is not a huge thing.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s a fairly tiny bit.
11
SPEAKER_01
And growing explosively.
11
SPEAKER_01
Yes, it s absolutely growing.
11
SPEAKER_01
But actually, it s growing slower than what nuclear was growing in the 70s and 80s, which I thought was a fun point, not by a little amount, by like two or three times.
11
SPEAKER_01
So we re still talking about something which is somewhat boutique, at least.
11
SPEAKER_01
And when you then look out into the future, and I think this is the interesting part of it, when you look out into the future, if you look at the Biden administration s own estimate of what will happen by 2050,
11
SPEAKER_01
We will be at, you know, if all countries do all the stuff that they promised and everything, we will be at 70% fossil fuels by 2050, globally.
11
SPEAKER_01
This is just, yes, it s a better world.
11
SPEAKER_01
I think it s good that we re now down to 70 instead of 80, but it is still a world that s fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels for almost everything that we really like about the world.
11
SPEAKER_01
And forgetting that, and I think we are doing that
11
SPEAKER_01
In the sense, as you also mentioned that people say, no fossil fuels and we re in all development organizations, we re now telling the poor countries, you can t get any funding for anything that has to do with fossil fuels.
11
SPEAKER_01
We have literally reduced our investment in fossil fuels.
11
SPEAKER_01
oil and gas by more than half since 2014, and much of this is because of climate concerns.
11
SPEAKER_01
This has real-world consequences.
11
SPEAKER_01
This is why energy prices have gone up.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s not the only reason.
11
SPEAKER_01
COVID also, certainly the war in Ukraine,
11
SPEAKER_01
But this is an underlying systemic reason why fossil fuel costs will go up dramatically.
11
SPEAKER_01
Now, a lot of greens will sort of tend to say, well, that s great because, you know, we want fossil fuels to be expensive.
11
SPEAKER_01
We want people to be forced over to renewables.
11
SPEAKER_01
But that s very easy to say if you re rich.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s the kind of thing that New Yorkers will say when you go to rich, well-meaning, green New Yorkers and say, yes, gasoline should cost $20 a gallon.
11
SPEAKER_01
Well, you don t have a car.
11
SPEAKER_01
You just ride the metro.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s very easy for you to say that.
11
SPEAKER_01
But lots of people, both in the rich world and in poor parts of the US, but
11
SPEAKER_01
all around the world, their lives are basically dependent on fossil fuels.
11
SPEAKER_01
And so the idea that we re going to get people off by making it so expensive that it becomes impossible for them to live good lives is almost morally reprehensible.
11
SPEAKER_01
And I think Alex has the right point there.
11
SPEAKER_01
We need to get people to realize we re not going to get off fossil fuels anytime soon.
11
SPEAKER_01
So we need
11
SPEAKER_01
reasonably affordable fossil fuels for most of the world.
11
SPEAKER_01
And that s, of course, why we need to focus so much more on the innovation so that we can get to the point where we no longer need fossil fuels as soon as possible.
11
SPEAKER_01
But to say to everyone, look, we re going to make fossil fuels expensive way before we have the solution is just terrible.
11
SPEAKER_02
And so much is on the rich countries of the world.
11
SPEAKER_02
I did a conversation recently with Johan Rockström, who s a famed sustainability scientist in Stockholm.
11
SPEAKER_02
Actually, Potsdam now.
11
SPEAKER_02
And he s come up with the idea of planetary boundaries.
11
SPEAKER_02
There s lots of things he has said that I...
11
SPEAKER_02
as a journalist, I m still looking into about that.
11
SPEAKER_02
Planetary boundaries.
11
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, that there are limits to what Earth can absorb in human, our use of water, phosphorus, or carbon dioxide loading in the atmosphere.
11
SPEAKER_02
There are these tipping, there are these boundaries if we cross them, we re in a hot zone, a danger zone.
11
SPEAKER_02
He s an interesting thinker, but on this point, last year at the Glasgow Climate Talks, he gave a very important talk about
11
SPEAKER_02
the equity thing here that you, he basically laid out a landscape saying the rich nations of the world need to greatly ramp up their reduction of emissions or what they re going to pay poor countries to do to allow poor countries, some of which have fossil resources like in Africa,
11
SPEAKER_02
to have the carbon space, to own whatever space or time is left to be able to develop their fossil fuels as a fundamental right.
11
SPEAKER_02
Because also they re starting from this little baseline.
11
SPEAKER_02
Ghana hasn t contributed squat to the global warming problem in terms of emissions.
11
SPEAKER_02
Ghana has natural gas.
11
SPEAKER_02
And right now, this month, environmental groups are
11
SPEAKER_02
outside the World Bank today, actually tonight, saying this was on their list of dirty projects.
11
SPEAKER_02
World Bank should stop financing Ghana s right to get gas out of the ground, to develop its economy, get its people less poor, make them more productive, innovative parts of humanity.
11
SPEAKER_02
To me, that s really reprehensible.
11
SPEAKER_02
One of the other projects on their list?
11
SPEAKER_02
as a World Bank kind of gotcha, like how dare they give money, was for a fertilizer factory in Bangladesh that is designed to get three times as much fertilizer from the same amount of natural gas as the old plants that are now dormant.
11
SPEAKER_02
That s, this is in a time when we re facing high energy prices, high gas prices, high food prices, when food insecurity is spreading rapidly, when a country like Bangladesh has millions of rice farmers who need urea tablets to put in their rice fields, and to say that shouldn t, that how dare they finance that because there s a fossil fuel involved is immoral.
11
SPEAKER_02
So yes on that point from Alex.
11
SPEAKER_00
So this is 2022 poll.
11
SPEAKER_00
polls.
11
SPEAKER_00
Just this is a bunch of different ways to look at the same basic effect in the United States.
11
SPEAKER_00
Democrats, younger Americans identify dealing with climate change as a top priority.
11
SPEAKER_00
U.S.
11
SPEAKER_00
adults, 42% say that dealing with climate change should be a top priority.
11
SPEAKER_00
11% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats.
11
SPEAKER_00
And we could see this effect throughout.
11
SPEAKER_00
46% of Americans say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change.
11
SPEAKER_00
By the way, this is a little bit different than what we were discussing.
11
SPEAKER_00
I was just looking through different polls.
11
SPEAKER_00
In the public, there seems to still be uncertainty about how much humans contribute to climate change, more than the scientific attempt.
11
SPEAKER_01
Well, I mean, it would only be 24% that disagree with the UN Climate Panel, right?
11
SPEAKER_01
Three quarters would agree.
11
SPEAKER_01
Are you uncomfortable about the 29?
11
SPEAKER_01
No, 29 is actually, it s exactly right.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, the U.N.
11
SPEAKER_01
doesn t say it s all, well, they say that could be the border case.
11
SPEAKER_00
But anyway, this is interesting, but to me, across all these polls, if you look, Republican versus Democrat.
11
SPEAKER_00
Republican, it s say that 70% say it s a great deal.
11
SPEAKER_00
Democrats say 71% say it s a great deal.
11
SPEAKER_00
And you just see this complete division.
11
SPEAKER_00
I think you probably,
11
SPEAKER_00
So the COVID pandemic, you can ask a lot of questions like this.
11
SPEAKER_00
Do masks work?
11
SPEAKER_00
Are they an effective method to slow transmission of a pandemic?
11
SPEAKER_00
You ll probably have the same kind of polls about Republicans and Democrats.
11
SPEAKER_00
And while the effectiveness of masks to me is a scientific question.
11
SPEAKER_00
So there s different truths here apparently.
11
SPEAKER_00
One is a scientific truth.
11
SPEAKER_00
One is a truth held by the scientific community, which seems to be also different than the scientific truth sometimes.
11
SPEAKER_00
And the other is the public perception that s polluted or affected by political affiliation.
11
SPEAKER_00
And then there s whatever is the narrative that s communicated by the media.
11
SPEAKER_00
they will also have a question, the answer to the question of whether masks work or not.
11
SPEAKER_00
And they will also have an answer to the question about all these climate related things.
11
SPEAKER_00
So that s a long way of asking the question of what, how is politics mixed into all of this?
11
SPEAKER_00
On the communication front, on the figuring out what the right policy is front, on the friction of humanity in the face of the right policies.
11
SPEAKER_02
Well, I ve written a ton on this.
11
SPEAKER_02
After I had that conversion about the social science in 2006, I began digging in a lot more on how people hold beliefs and what they do as opposed to what they think.
11
SPEAKER_02
questions about polling.
11
SPEAKER_02
And there s two things that come to me that make me not worry about the basic literacy, like, is climate change X percent of whatever?
11
SPEAKER_02
I don t really care about that.
11
SPEAKER_02
And I ll explain why.
11
SPEAKER_02
For one thing,
11
SPEAKER_02
more science literacy, more basic literacy, like what is a greenhouse gas, all that stuff.
11
SPEAKER_02
Dan Kahane, K-A-H-A-N, at Yale, he s actually at Yale Law School.
11
SPEAKER_02
The last decade he did all this work on what he calls cultural cognition, which is, and he did studies that showed
11
SPEAKER_02
you know, how what you believe emerges based on culture, based on your background, your red, blue, where you are in the country.
11
SPEAKER_02
And one of the really disturbing findings was that the people who have the most basic science literacy, like who know the most about greenhouse effect or whatever,
11
SPEAKER_02
They re at both ends of the spectrum of views on climate, dismissives and alarmed.
11
SPEAKER_02
Steve Koonin, as I mentioned, is a good example.
11
SPEAKER_02
He s a brilliant physicist, and he knows all the science, and he s completely at the end of skepticism.
11
SPEAKER_02
Will Happer, who was close to being Trump s science advisor, was even more out there, and they re both on the Jason Committee that advises the government on big strategic things.
11
SPEAKER_02
And people who are really alarmed about it also have the same belief.
11
SPEAKER_02
So as a journalist, I was thinking, do I just spend my time writing more explanatory stories that explain the science better?
11
SPEAKER_02
No.
11
SPEAKER_02
Do I dig in on this work to understand what brings people together?
11
SPEAKER_02
And then these same surveys, the same science shows you, if you don t make it about climate, among other things, this becomes,
11
SPEAKER_02
You don t have to worry about this anymore.
11
SPEAKER_02
If you Google for, Google for no red blue divide climate revkin, you ll find a piece I did with some really good graphs.
11
SPEAKER_02
Essentially it shows that in America, this is the Yale group again, their climate communication group.
11
SPEAKER_02
There s no red blue divide on energy innovation, none.
11
SPEAKER_02
We need more climate energy, clean energy innovation.
11
SPEAKER_02
There wasn t even a divide country by state by state on,
11
SPEAKER_02
whether CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant.
11
SPEAKER_02
But it s all like, what are the questions you ask?
11
SPEAKER_02
If you ask about innovation, if you ask about more incentives for renewable power.
11
SPEAKER_02
Oklahoma, Iowa, you know, I did a piece when I was at ProPublica showing that the 17 states that were fighting Obama in court over his clean power plan were actually, the majority of them were actually meeting the targets that the clean power plan had.
11
SPEAKER_02
because they re expanding wind power already.
11
SPEAKER_02
Not because of the climate, because it makes money sense and energy sense.
11
SPEAKER_00
So you don t think there s a political divide in this?
11
SPEAKER_02
There is on climate, if you call it climate.
11
SPEAKER_02
If you say it s a climate, do you believe in the climate crisis?
11
SPEAKER_02
You re not asking, what kind of energy future do you want in your town?
11
SPEAKER_02
And so if you ask that question, the polarization goes away.
11
SPEAKER_00
I guess what I m asking, is there polarization on policy?
11
SPEAKER_02
No, well there, again, the bipartisan infrastructure law that was passed last November, that was bipartisan.
11
SPEAKER_02
All of Congress said yes, and that s a trillion dollars, several hundred billion of which are for cleaner energy and resilience.
11
SPEAKER_02
But it s not a climate bill.
11
SPEAKER_02
And it wasn t a tax.
11
SPEAKER_02
It s incentives.
11
SPEAKER_00
So the word climate and similar words are just used as part of the signaling, like masks.
11
SPEAKER_00
Absolutely.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s not.
11
SPEAKER_02
Dan Kahan s work, the guy at Yale, he really demonstrated powerfully abortion, gun rights, climate, and a more parsed level of nuclear power, has enduring camps that for and against.
11
SPEAKER_00
Why do the camps form?
11
SPEAKER_02
Some of it s cultural cognition.
11
SPEAKER_02
It s how you grew up.
11
SPEAKER_02
It s what you fear.
11
SPEAKER_02
There s no common human frame.
11
SPEAKER_00
Is it because of folks, certain individuals like Al Gore?
11
SPEAKER_00
Like, he would make a film, he cares about this thing, he s a Democrat.
11
SPEAKER_02
Therefore I hate this thing.
11
SPEAKER_00
Therefore I don t like this thing, yeah.
11
SPEAKER_02
Oh sure, yeah.
11
SPEAKER_02
You know, when people get attached to an issue.
11
SPEAKER_02
If that s what pops into your head when you hear climate, then... And it got politicized, it became emblematic.
11
SPEAKER_02
and the whole vaccine thing.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I m not American, so I should stay a little bit out of this, but I think it seems to me that a lot of the thing that people believe and talk about is really about what they worry that that will lead to in terms of policy down the line.
12
SPEAKER_01
little bit like, do masks work?
12
SPEAKER_01
I m, I m sort of imagining, I don t know whether this is true, but I think part of it is if I say masks work, they re going to force me to wear it for the next year.
12
SPEAKER_01
So it doesn t work because then I don t have to wear it kind of thing that it s really, uh, uh, you re, you re, you re looking much further down the line.
12
SPEAKER_01
And certainly on climate, it seems to me that a lot of the people who say it s not real.
12
SPEAKER_01
It s not because they don t know it s, of course it s real, but it s that they don t want you to then come and regulate it really heavily.
12
SPEAKER_01
Because they don t like top-down government.
12
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and also because they don t want another tax.
12
SPEAKER_01
So it s really, it s not a science, it s not a straight science question.
12
SPEAKER_01
It really is a question
12
SPEAKER_01
What do you want to do?
12
SPEAKER_01
And that s where I think, Andy, you re much, much more right in saying we should have that discussion.
12
SPEAKER_01
So what do you want to do?
12
SPEAKER_01
Because that will be a much easier conversation to say, do you want to do really smart, cheap stuff or do you want to do pretty dumb, expensive stuff?
12
SPEAKER_01
When you put it that way, you can get most people on board.
12
SPEAKER_01
Of course, it s not as simple as that, I know.
12
SPEAKER_02
And it gets back to what you said earlier, that again, you talked about collaborative cooperation or whatever.
12
SPEAKER_02
There s a guy at Columbia, Peter Coleman, who runs this thing called the Difficult Conversations Laboratory.
12
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, that s awesome.
12
SPEAKER_02
And when I first heard about it, I was like, oh man, we need that, you know?
12
SPEAKER_02
And his background s psychology and conflict resolution, mostly at the global scale related to atrocities that countries are trying to get over.
12
SPEAKER_02
And there s a science to how to hold a better conversation, as you, either through experience or whatever, know.
12
SPEAKER_02
If you hold a debate, like, I wouldn t want to be in a debate with Bjorn.
12
SPEAKER_02
We could find lots of things we disagree on.
12
SPEAKER_02
But that takes it back to the win-lose model, right?
12
SPEAKER_02
That s not how you make progress.
12
SPEAKER_02
And what Peter, what I learned, absorbed from him, Peter Coleman, because I was thinking like, we need room for agreement.
12
SPEAKER_02
I need to build a room for agreement.
12
SPEAKER_02
My blog and at the Times and then the stuff I do now, it s like, how can we talk and come to agreement?
12
SPEAKER_02
He says, no, no, you don t want agreement.
12
SPEAKER_02
You want cooperation.
12
SPEAKER_02
that allows you to hold on to your beliefs.
12
SPEAKER_02
But we can disagree on all these things, but let s cooperate on that one thing.
12
SPEAKER_02
And that s a really valuable distinction that s needed so much in this arena because
12
SPEAKER_02
As I said earlier, you can parse it right down to the whole menu of things Joe Manchin wanted, you know, transmission lines.
12
SPEAKER_02
Now we re gonna have big fights over transmission lines.
12
SPEAKER_02
We ve got billions of dollars to spend expanding America s grid.
12
SPEAKER_02
And every community in America is gonna say, not here.
12
SPEAKER_02
So how do you foster a federal local dialogue that allows that to happen if you wanna have any hope of a better grid?
12
SPEAKER_02
So that s like,
12
SPEAKER_02
Those insights come from behavioral sciences that I think are completely undervalued in this area.
12
SPEAKER_01
Pilka loves to quote, I think it s Lippert.
12
SPEAKER_01
Oh, Walter Lippman.
12
SPEAKER_01
Lippman, yes, that democracy is not about everybody agreeing, but it s about different people disagreeing, but doing the same thing.
12
SPEAKER_02
Doing one thing together.
12
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
12
SPEAKER_01
I mean, agreeing that we re gonna do this thing.
12
SPEAKER_01
So you can disagree, but still do a thing.
12
SPEAKER_01
Possibly for very different reasons.
12
SPEAKER_01
And that s fine.
12
SPEAKER_02
There s an amazing video clip that shows this so powerfully.
12
SPEAKER_02
2015 was the buildup to the Paris talks that led to the Paris Agreement.
12
SPEAKER_02
And a really talented journalist at CNN at the time, John Sutter, who s from Oklahoma originally,
12
SPEAKER_02
He saw another Yale study that was a county-by-county study of American attitudes on global warming, like right down to the county level.
12
SPEAKER_02
And there s this little glowing data point in Woodward County, Oklahoma.
12
SPEAKER_02
Woodward County, Oklahoma was ground zero for climate skepticism, climate denial, whatever you wanna call it.
12
SPEAKER_02
And he thought, oh, I m gonna go there.
12
SPEAKER_02
And he went there just to meet people on the street, talk to them about energy and weather.
12
SPEAKER_02
And he did these little interviews, and there s this one with this guy who s like a middle-aged oil company employee, like an administrator, Thai kind of guy.
12
SPEAKER_02
And he starts out the interview, and the guy is saying, well, you know, God controls the environment.
12
SPEAKER_02
And if you re watching this, you re just going, okay, this is gonna be interesting.
12
SPEAKER_02
And the backstory, by the way, is the guy, he paid for the local playground to have dinosaurs and people, like toy dinosaurs and people on the playground, because he believes in creation, you know, 6,000-year creation.
12
SPEAKER_02
So that s the guy, right?
12
SPEAKER_02
And then he gets to energy, and the guy says, you know, the same guy, who believes God controls the environment, says, you know, we have half of our roof covered with solar panels, and we want to get off the grid entirely.
12
SPEAKER_02
And when I show this to audiences, I say, just pause and think about that for a second.
12
SPEAKER_02
Why do you think that s happening?
12
SPEAKER_02
And it s because he s independent.
12
SPEAKER_02
He wants to have his own source of power.
12
SPEAKER_02
He s libertarian.
12
SPEAKER_02
He doesn t want the government telling him what to do.
12
SPEAKER_02
He would never vote for Hillary, I guarantee you.
12
SPEAKER_02
This is 2015.
12
SPEAKER_02
But he wanted to get off the grid entirely to be himself.
12
SPEAKER_02
And so then I say, okay, so if you were going around the country with your climate crisis placard and you go to Woodward County,
12
SPEAKER_02
Do you think that would be a productive way to go to that place and make your case?
12
SPEAKER_02
And the answer is pretty obvious, no.
12
SPEAKER_02
If you go in there and you listen, like listening is such an important property that we all forget, including journalists, you re much more apt to find a path to cooperation.
12
SPEAKER_02
You could talk to him about, I guarantee if I went there today, maybe I should go to talk about this new bill, $370 billion.
12
SPEAKER_02
How do we make that work, you know, at the local level?
12
SPEAKER_02
How do we answer that guy at the energy department, Jigar Shah?
12
SPEAKER_02
So how do we put this to work to get our buses off, to get electrified or transition our street lamps and stuff?
12
SPEAKER_02
You could have a good chat with him.
12
SPEAKER_02
If you go in there and say, I m here to debate you to death on global warming, forget about it.
12
SPEAKER_00
Actually, let me ask you a question, given your roots as a journalist.
12
SPEAKER_00
So yeah, talking to a guy you disagree with, that s one thing.
12
SPEAKER_00
What about talking to people that society might consider bad, unethical, even evil?
12
SPEAKER_00
What s the role of a journalist in that context?
12
SPEAKER_00
So climate change is a large number of people that believe one thing, a large number of people that believe another thing.
12
SPEAKER_00
It turns out even with people that society deems as evil, there s a large number of people that support them.
12
SPEAKER_00
What s your role as a journalist to talk to them?
12
SPEAKER_02
Well, I have talked to really bad people.
12
SPEAKER_02
When I wrote about the murder of Chico Mendes, a Brazilian Amazon rainforest activist in 1989, I interviewed the killers.
12
SPEAKER_02
One was in jail, several of them were just ranchers who, you know, they had their point of view.
12
SPEAKER_02
They were there in the Amazon rainforest to
12
SPEAKER_02
The word in Brazil and Portuguese is limpar, to clean the land.
12
SPEAKER_02
They re the bandarantes, the pioneers of Brazil.
12
SPEAKER_02
They go into these frontiers and tame them like we had in our West.
12
SPEAKER_02
And they would bring that up too.
12
SPEAKER_02
They would say to me, well, you did this.
12
SPEAKER_02
They didn t say you murdered your Native Americans and stuff, but they could easily have said that too.
12
SPEAKER_02
And you deforested all your landscapes.
12
SPEAKER_02
So who are you to come down here?
12
SPEAKER_02
But if I didn t talk to them, that would be,
12
SPEAKER_02
not a way to do journalism.
12
SPEAKER_00
But when you talk to them, did you empathize with them or did you push back?
12
SPEAKER_00
That s the ultimate question.
12
SPEAKER_00
Like if you want to understand.
12
SPEAKER_00
Like if you talk to Hitler in 1941, do you empathize with him or do you push back?
12
SPEAKER_00
Because most journalists would push because they re trying to signal to fellow journalists and to people back home that this me, the journalist, is on the right side.
12
SPEAKER_00
But if you actually want to understand the person, you should empathize.
12
SPEAKER_00
If you want to be the kind of person that actually understands in the full arc of history, you need to empathize.
12
SPEAKER_00
I find that journalists, a lot of times, perhaps they re protecting their job, their reputation, their sanity, are not willing to empathize.
12
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, well, I think this happened with Joe Manchin.
12
SPEAKER_02
I m not doing any kind of equation here related to Hitler and Joe Manchin.
12
SPEAKER_02
Or Trump, I mean Trump.
12
SPEAKER_02
I interviewed the guy, Will Hepper, I mentioned, who was a physicist at Princeton who thinks carbon dioxide is the greatest thing in the world and we should have more of it in the atmosphere.
12
SPEAKER_02
I profoundly disagree on that point.
12
SPEAKER_02
But I interviewed him for an hour and
12
SPEAKER_02
And it was so interesting because he was trying to kind of rope-a-dope me into making it about CO2 and climate, because he s a super smart physicist.
12
SPEAKER_02
And I kind of said, let s talk about some other things.
12
SPEAKER_02
And we started talking about education and science education.
12
SPEAKER_02
He went on for like 20 minutes about the vital importance of better science education for Americans.
12
SPEAKER_02
He drew on people he knew from Europe, Hungary, a bunch of Nobel Prize winners came from some town in Hungary, at least a couple.
12
SPEAKER_02
And he said that he learned their teachers.
12
SPEAKER_02
At any rate, he went into a long exposition on that.
12
SPEAKER_02
He then defended climate science.
12
SPEAKER_02
He said, we need more climate science.
12
SPEAKER_02
He says, I love this stuff.
12
SPEAKER_02
I love the ocean buoys.
12
SPEAKER_02
There are now thousands of them in the oceans, charting clear pictures of ocean circulation.
12
SPEAKER_02
And he said something really important that many people discount, which is we need sustained investment in monitoring this planet.
12
SPEAKER_02
We neglect our systems that just tell us what s happening in the world.
12
SPEAKER_02
And that s happened over and over again.
12
SPEAKER_02
So if I had left it, if I had gone into the terrain of the fight over CO2, some journalist friends might have said, oh, that was good.
12
SPEAKER_02
Mashup, you know, matchup.
12
SPEAKER_02
But I found these really profound and important things that I wanted the world to know about in the context of whether Trump was gonna have him as a science advisor.
12
SPEAKER_02
And so if I hadn t gone there, and a lot of people, if you look back, I got hammered for doing that, even from friends.
12
SPEAKER_02
And then later, John Holdren, who had been Obama s science advisor for eight years, he said, I would rather have Will Happer as Trump s science advisor than no science advisor.
12
SPEAKER_02
In other words, there s a landscape of things that are important.
12
SPEAKER_02
He recognized that Happer is really smart about defense and all kinds of things too.
12
SPEAKER_02
So it s like, you do have to sort of screw up your, ideally screw up your courage, but then not necessarily get into the,
12
SPEAKER_02
It s like with the guy in Oklahoma.
12
SPEAKER_02
If you go in looking for the differences, you ll find them.
12
SPEAKER_02
You can amplify them.
12
SPEAKER_02
You can leave with this paralyzed sense of nothing having happened that was useful.
12
SPEAKER_02
Or you can find these nuggets.
12
SPEAKER_02
Everyone is a human being.
12
SPEAKER_02
I can t play the mind game of what I would have asked to Hitler, but I
12
SPEAKER_00
I play that mind game all the time, but that s for another conversation.
12
SPEAKER_00
I had many in my family that have suffered under him.
12
SPEAKER_00
Nevertheless, he is a human being.
12
SPEAKER_00
And people sometimes caricature.
12
SPEAKER_00
Hitler is saying, that s when you mention Hitler, the conversation devolves.
12
SPEAKER_00
But I don t agree.
12
SPEAKER_00
I think sort of these extremes are useful thought experiments to understand.
12
SPEAKER_00
Because if you re not willing to take your ideals to that extreme, then maybe your ideals need some rethinking from a journalistic perspective, all that kind of stuff.
12
SPEAKER_02
A number of years ago, my wife and I were with our veterinarian, who was German born, Dr. Bach, B-A-C-H.
12
SPEAKER_02
We were talking about the dog and stuff, and then we were talking about Trump, and he just mentioned in passing, he said, my mother voted for Hitler.
12
SPEAKER_02
Wow, that hit me like a brick.
12
SPEAKER_02
Because it was so, at the very least, understanding how pathways that lead to
12
SPEAKER_02
people doing things like he did and ordered.
12
SPEAKER_02
It s essential, and the only way to understand that is to dig in and ask questions and get uncomfortable.
12
SPEAKER_02
It still makes my hair prickle when I think back to him saying, yeah, my mom voted for Hitler.
12
SPEAKER_00
That somehow makes it super real, like, oh, yeah.
12
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, there s elections, there s real people living their lives.
12
SPEAKER_02
Exactly, struggling with a broken economy and all kinds of stuff.
12
SPEAKER_00
having their own little personal resentments and all that kind of stuff.
12
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you about presidents, American presidents.
12
SPEAKER_00
Who had a positive or negative impact on climate change efforts in your view?
12
SPEAKER_00
Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, or maybe you could say that they don t have much of an impact.
12
SPEAKER_00
So like they, in public discourse, presidents have a kind of,
12
SPEAKER_00
maybe disproportional, like we imagine they have a huge amount of impact.
12
SPEAKER_00
How much impact do they actually have on climate policy?
12
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if you have comments on this.
12
SPEAKER_02
Well, there is a background decarbonization rate that s happened for 150 years.
12
SPEAKER_02
We move from wood to charcoal to coal to oil and gas is cleaner, it s more hydrogen, less carbon.
12
SPEAKER_02
I asked recently, I asked some really smart scientists who study these long trajectories of energy,
12
SPEAKER_02
When you look at those curves, is there anything in that curve that says, oh, climate treaty 1992?
12
SPEAKER_02
Oh, Paris.
12
SPEAKER_02
And it s really hard.
12
SPEAKER_02
Or China, I mean, when China came in with this huge growth in emissions, that created a bit of a recarbonization blip.
12
SPEAKER_02
But that was this huge growth in their economy that pulled a bunch of people out of
12
SPEAKER_02
out of poverty.
12
SPEAKER_02
So yeah, no, presidents don t really change anything on timescales that we would measure, where you could parse it out.
12
SPEAKER_02
I think that s not to say that Obama s and the current focus on the stimulus that s happening, which includes a lot more money for research, et cetera, and innovation, I do think that will be beneficial in a very, very long run.
12
SPEAKER_02
But I have to say, you know, when Obama stood up
12
SPEAKER_02
took credit for reductions from moving from coal to gas because of fracking.
12
SPEAKER_02
That was actually Cheney who set that in motion.
12
SPEAKER_01
I was thinking, I would say Bush, not because I like him or anything, but he s the guy who inadvertently started fracking.
12
SPEAKER_02
It goes further back than that.
12
SPEAKER_02
It was a federal investment in fracking in the 60s and 70s, and then this one guy in Texas, right here in Texas, George Mischel,
12
SPEAKER_02
you know, cobbled together technology.
12
SPEAKER_02
And that led to this real dramatic change from gas to coal that mostly played out in the Obama years, but that really was stimulated by Cheney s early energy task force, 2001, when they were getting into office.
12
SPEAKER_02
And also Bush did something interesting in the whole wonky climate treaty process.
12
SPEAKER_02
It was under Bush that they started to focus on sectors.
12
SPEAKER_02
Let s do a, they did a, oh, and also on big emitters.
12
SPEAKER_02
This isn t about 200 countries.
12
SPEAKER_02
It s about basically eight or 10 countries.
12
SPEAKER_02
Let s get them into a room, and let s have these little subrooms on like electrification, on mining, on whatever, and by parsing it out, and Obama picked up the same model.
12
SPEAKER_02
They had different names for it because presidents always name something different than the last president.
12
SPEAKER_02
One was the major economies forum, and then it was the,
12
SPEAKER_02
major emitters, something or other.
12
SPEAKER_02
And that getting away from the treaty dots and dashes toward just sectoral, big sectors that matter, you know, gas, electrification, makes a difference.
12
SPEAKER_02
But again, you couldn t ever measure enough.
12
SPEAKER_02
It s always the lag time.
12
SPEAKER_01
And also, I think one very under-reported fact, so the UNEP, the Environment Program, they come out with what they call a gap report every year, where they estimate how much is the world doing compared to
13
SPEAKER_02
What should it or has it promised to do?
13
SPEAKER_02
Emissions.
13
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
13
SPEAKER_02
In 2019, so just before COVID hit, they actually did a survey of the 2010s.
13
SPEAKER_02
The last big sort of report on how well are we doing.
13
SPEAKER_02
Their takeaway quote, and I m not going to get this right, but it s pretty much what they said was,
13
SPEAKER_02
If you take the world as if we hadn t cared about climate change since 2005, we can t tell the difference between that world and the world that we re actually living in.
13
SPEAKER_02
So despite the fact that we ve had 10 years of immense focus on climate, and everybody talks about it, and the Paris Agreement, which is perhaps the biggest global sort of agreement in what we re gonna be doing, you can t actually tell.
13
SPEAKER_02
And that, I think, is incredibly important, because what it tells you is all that we re doing is not even on the margin.
13
SPEAKER_02
It s sort of smaller than that, and I m not sure what that is.
13
SPEAKER_02
But we re basically dealing in, for instance, the UK loves to point out that they have dramatically reduced their carbon emissions.
13
SPEAKER_02
And they have.
13
SPEAKER_02
They ve really dramatically lowered their emissions, but mostly because they ve de-industrialized.
13
SPEAKER_02
They ve basically said, look, we re just going to be bankers for all of you guys, and then everybody else is going to produce our stuff.
13
SPEAKER_02
Which, of course, is great for Britain.
13
SPEAKER_02
I don t know if it s great for Britain, but we can t all do that.
13
SPEAKER_02
And so most of what we re trying to do right now is sort of, you know, this virtue signaling.
13
SPEAKER_02
It makes us feel good.
13
SPEAKER_02
It s sort of, yeah, on the margin or in the very tiny margin.
13
SPEAKER_02
But, you know, what we basically, and that was, Andy, your point with China.
13
SPEAKER_02
The reason why we can t tell the difference, of course, is because China basically became the workshop for everyone.
13
SPEAKER_02
And so not only did they lift more than half a million people out of poverty... Sorry, half a billion.
13
SPEAKER_02
Half a billion, yeah.
13
SPEAKER_02
Yes.
13
SPEAKER_02
Half a billion people out of poverty, but they also basically took over most production in the world.
13
SPEAKER_02
Uh, and so of course, you know, much, many rich countries could decarbonize and, or, or at least reduce their carbon emissions and feel very virtuous about it.
13
SPEAKER_02
But fundamentally we haven t solved how does the world do this?
13
SPEAKER_02
And, and that s why I think we re also left with this sense of not only are we being told this is a unmitigated catastrophe and that s why this is the only thing we should be focusing on, but also somehow, and we can all fix it.
13
SPEAKER_02
And I don t think we have any sense of how hard this is actually going to be.
13
SPEAKER_02
And that s, of course, why I would go back and say, look, the only way you re going to fix this is through innovation, because if you have something that s cheaper than fossil fuels, you ve fixed it.
13
SPEAKER_02
If you have something that s harder and costlier and more inconvenient, no, you re just not going to make it.
13
SPEAKER_01
And getting more time by cutting vulnerability.
13
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
13
SPEAKER_01
The pockets of vulnerability on the planet are huge and they re identifiable and you know what to do.
13
SPEAKER_00
What are the biggest pockets of vulnerability?
13
SPEAKER_00
Infrastructure of cities?
13
SPEAKER_01
No, it s where people are living and what their capacities are.
13
SPEAKER_00
So moving people, how do you decrease the vulnerability in the world?
13
SPEAKER_00
What are the big ones?
13
SPEAKER_00
Affordable housing.
13
SPEAKER_01
One reason so many people moved out of San Francisco and adjacent cities into the countryside and then had their houses burned down is because they can t afford to live in the city anymore.
13
SPEAKER_01
So affordable housing in cities can limit exposure to, in that case, wildfire.
13
SPEAKER_01
Durban, South Africa, that terrible, devastating flood they had this year, past year, who was washed away?
13
SPEAKER_01
Poor people who don t have any place to live.
13
SPEAKER_01
So they settle in a floodplain along a stream bed that s livable when it s not raining buckets.
13
SPEAKER_01
And those are vulnerabilities that are there because of dislocation, housing.
13
SPEAKER_01
Tacloban, this typhoon that hit the Philippines terribly, ahead of the Paris talks, or was it the previous one?
13
SPEAKER_02
No, it was in 2013, I believe.
13
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
13
SPEAKER_01
Thousands died.
13
SPEAKER_01
Most of the stories that were written were framed around climate change because the Pope made a deal about it.
13
SPEAKER_01
It was just before the climate talks of that year.
13
SPEAKER_01
And what happened, partially why there were so many losses, was Tacloban City had quadrupled in population in the last 30 years.
13
SPEAKER_01
And most of the people coming into the city were poor, looking for work, and settling in marginal places where a storm surge killed them.
13
SPEAKER_01
So those are things we, whatever the we is in the different places, really can work on.
13
SPEAKER_01
And that gives more flex for sure, and thinking about how,
13
SPEAKER_01
this long trajectory that seems so immovable and so hard, the decarbonization part.
13
SPEAKER_01
There s no excuse.
13
SPEAKER_01
I wrote a piece, I guess a year ago.
13
SPEAKER_01
I said there s a vulnerability emergency hiding behind this climate emergency label.
13
SPEAKER_01
That s really what needs work.
13
SPEAKER_02
And also on the Tacloban, I mean, the hurricane that hit in 2013, there was almost a similar hurricane in the early part of 1900s that hit pretty much the same strength and it eradicated half the city.
13
SPEAKER_02
It killed half the city.
13
SPEAKER_02
And so what s happened since then is people just got much, much richer.
13
SPEAKER_02
You know, from early 1900 to 2013, we ve just moved a lot of people out of poverty.
13
SPEAKER_01
Bangladesh is even a bigger example of that.
13
SPEAKER_01
In the 1970s, they had horrible cyclones, one of which was the Beatles, George Harrison s Concert for Bangladesh.
13
SPEAKER_01
Great album that I still have somewhere.
13
SPEAKER_01
Hundreds of thousands, he did a concert, a fundraising concert, the concert for Bangladesh after this terrible cyclone tragedy hit Bangladesh, and I think there were several hundred thousand who were killed, and a couple like that around that time.
13
SPEAKER_01
Bangladesh has been hit by comparable storms recently, and it s terrible, every death is terrible, but it s like 123 deaths.
13
SPEAKER_01
And it s not just because of wealth.
13
SPEAKER_01
It s because people know what to do.
13
SPEAKER_01
It s because there s cell phones.
13
SPEAKER_01
It s because they have elevated platforms in many communities in the floodplains there that you know to get to.
13
SPEAKER_01
So they went from hundreds of thousands of deaths in a cyclone to 123.
13
SPEAKER_02
When we were working with Bangladesh, it s no longer the problem of people dying, it s the fact that their cattle dies.
13
SPEAKER_02
So they want cattle places where you could herd your cow.
13
SPEAKER_02
This is their capital, and it s not to make fun of it, but it s an amazing progress that you ve stopped worrying about your parents dying and you worry about your cows dying.
13
SPEAKER_01
And when I was talking about social innovation the other hour, there s a model emerging in Bangladesh for farmers to move from raising chickens, poultry, to ducks.
13
SPEAKER_01
And it s working.
13
SPEAKER_01
And ducks actually fetch a higher price at the market.
13
SPEAKER_01
And guess what?
13
SPEAKER_01
When you get flooded, you can still have your income and your future.
13
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you to give advice.
13
SPEAKER_00
Put on your sage, wise hat and give advice to young people that are looking into this world and see how they can do the most good we talked about.
13
SPEAKER_00
What is the $1 that can do the most positive improvement to lead to $40, $45 and so on?
13
SPEAKER_00
What advice would you give to young people in high school and college how to have a positive impact on the world?
13
SPEAKER_00
How to have a career they can be proud of?
13
SPEAKER_00
Maybe ask Bjorn first and how to have a life they can be proud of.
13
SPEAKER_02
So I think, and this really pretty well reflects the whole conversation we ve had, we ve got to sort of take the catastrophism out of the climate conversation.
13
SPEAKER_02
And this really matters because a lot of kids literally think that the world is going to end pretty soon.
13
SPEAKER_02
And that obviously makes any other kind of plan meaningless.
13
SPEAKER_02
So first of all, look, you re not going to die.
13
SPEAKER_02
Uh, you know, that, that poster that people, that a lot of kids have, you re going to die from old age, but I m going to die from climate.
13
SPEAKER_02
No, you re not.
13
SPEAKER_02
You re going to die from old age and you re going to die much older.
13
SPEAKER_02
Very likely.
13
SPEAKER_02
Right.
13
SPEAKER_02
So the reality is the world has improved dramatically and it s very likely to improve even more.
13
SPEAKER_02
So the baseline is good.
13
SPEAKER_02
This is just, you know, the facts.
13
SPEAKER_02
Then there s still lots and lots of problems.
13
SPEAKER_02
And what you should do as a young person is stop being paralyzed by fear and then realize what you can do is basically help humanity become even smarter.
13
SPEAKER_02
There s a lot of different places you can do.
13
SPEAKER_02
I mean, the obvious thing when you re talking about climate is
13
SPEAKER_02
What if you could become the guy that develops fourth generation nuclear?
13
SPEAKER_02
It s very likely it s something that neither of us know anything about right now, but develop the energy source that ll basically power the rest of humanity.
13
SPEAKER_02
How cool would that be?
13
SPEAKER_02
That s one of the many things you could do.
13
SPEAKER_02
But again, also remember there are lots and lots of other things that need solutions.
13
SPEAKER_02
So what about you become the guy that makes the, or the girl that makes the,
13
SPEAKER_02
the social innovation in Tanzania or in Kenya, sorry, in Kenya, or what about if you become the person who finds a way that is a much cheaper, more effective way to tackle tuberculosis?
13
SPEAKER_02
Right now, it needs four to six months of medication.
13
SPEAKER_02
One of the big problems is once you pop the pills and you re fresh, it s really hard to get people to do it for the other five and a half months, right?
13
SPEAKER_02
And you need that, otherwise you actually have a big risk of getting
13
SPEAKER_02
multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, which is a real scourge on the earth.
13
SPEAKER_02
So what if you develop that?
13
SPEAKER_02
So the truth is, not only can your life be much better when you sort of ditch that doomerism, but it also becomes much more possible for you to be a positive part of making sure that you do that progress.
13
SPEAKER_02
Why has the world improved so much?
13
SPEAKER_02
Because our parents and great-grandparents, they made all this work.
13
SPEAKER_02
This was all their innovations and a lot of hard work.
13
SPEAKER_02
And I m incredibly grateful that they ve done it.
13
SPEAKER_02
But now it s kind of time to pay back.
13
SPEAKER_02
So you ve got to do this for our grandkids.
13
SPEAKER_02
You ve got to make those innovations, make those policy opportunities that will make the world an even better place.
13
SPEAKER_01
Totally.
13
SPEAKER_01
And to me,
13
SPEAKER_01
there s never been a better time to be effective as a young person, because the internet, connectedness, you can brainstorm with someone in another country just as easily as you can brainstorm with someone down the block when we were kids.
13
SPEAKER_01
As I said earlier, my pen pal was letters taking weeks to come.
13
SPEAKER_01
So the key properties, ideally, that young people
13
SPEAKER_01
would do well to cultivate are, well, certainly adaptability, because change is changing.
13
SPEAKER_01
Not just, you know, the rate of change is changing.
13
SPEAKER_01
These layers of change are all piling up on each other.
13
SPEAKER_01
Having an ability to understand the information environment.
13
SPEAKER_01
is a fundamental need now that wasn t a need when we were growing up.
13
SPEAKER_01
We read a few newspapers, my dad would turn on the nightly news, and Walter Cronkite would say, that s the way it is.
13
SPEAKER_01
And I d say, that s the way it is.
13
SPEAKER_01
And that s so not the way the media environment is now.
13
SPEAKER_01
So courses in media literacy should be kind of fundamental parts of curricula from like kindergarten on, or parents can do the same thing.
13
SPEAKER_01
There s a woman at URI, University of Rhode Island, Renee Hobbs, who teaches a course in propaganda literacy.
13
SPEAKER_01
And she said, you know, the history of the word is not bad.
13
SPEAKER_01
Propaganda could be good.
13
SPEAKER_01
It s pro, it s for the church.
13
SPEAKER_01
She did a wonderful chat with me.
13
SPEAKER_01
She laid this out, but understanding when it is propaganda, like the tobacco, you know, there is hopefully a difference between that and that, right, cigarette ads and journalistically acquired information.
13
SPEAKER_01
So, Akita, everything Bjorn was talking about, too, is just understanding how to not be sucked into this information environment and spit out as a paralyzed, doomist entity.
13
SPEAKER_01
Because once you have an ability to step back,
13
SPEAKER_01
then you can use Twitter or whatever you re on to find people who might have a skill set you don t have that is something you need to do to incorporate, to harness, to do the thing you want to do in the world.
13
SPEAKER_01
Finding your way to make the world better.
13
SPEAKER_01
And it can have nothing to do with climate, but if it makes a few more people s lives better, then overall you re leading toward better capacity for all this stuff.
13
SPEAKER_01
And then the climate problem, the prismatic giant nature of it,
13
SPEAKER_01
is what makes it so daunting, but it s also what gives everybody an opportunity.
13
SPEAKER_01
There s something for artists, scientists, poets, everybody needs to get in the game.
13
SPEAKER_01
I just spent some time with Kim Stanley Robinson, who wrote that book, Ministry of the Future, which is this sprawling novel about
13
SPEAKER_01
worst case outcome where everyone in India is dying.
13
SPEAKER_01
So fiction can help experiment, different kinds of fiction, different kinds of arts can help us sort of experiment with what the future might look like in different ways and just get started.
13
SPEAKER_01
And the other thing, unfortunately, that s needed, I think I first said this in 2008 when someone asked me something about climate.
13
SPEAKER_01
I said,
13
SPEAKER_01
weirdly, you have to sort of have a sense of urgency, but a sense of patience at the same time.
13
SPEAKER_01
Like, just roll those words around in your mind.
13
SPEAKER_01
Like, what does that mean, urgent and patient?
13
SPEAKER_01
How could that possibly be?
13
SPEAKER_01
But actually, it really is the reality.
13
SPEAKER_01
There is an urgency with this building gas that s cumulative, that doesn t go away like smoke when it rains.
13
SPEAKER_01
And every year that happens, it s adding to risk.
13
SPEAKER_01
And you can kind of wake up completely freaked out urgent,
13
SPEAKER_01
But when you realize energy transitions take time, then you have to sort of find patience or whatever your word is for that.
13
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think you have to oscillate back and forth throughout the day, having a sense of urgency when you re trying to actually be productive and have patience so you can have a calm head about you in terms of putting everything into perspective.
13
SPEAKER_00
And like you said with information, that is interesting, especially in the scientific community.
13
SPEAKER_00
I think you ve spoken about this before.
13
SPEAKER_00
that there is some responsibility or at least an opportunity for scientists to not just do science, but to understand the dynamics of the different mediums in which information is exchanged.
13
SPEAKER_00
So it could be Twitter for a few years, then it could be TikTok, then it could be, I m a huge believer in the power of YouTube.
13
SPEAKER_00
over the next several years, perhaps decades.
13
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s a very interesting medium for education and communication and for debate and that s grassroots, that s from like the bottom up, you know, that every scientist is able to communicate their work.
13
SPEAKER_00
And I personally believe have the responsibility to communicate their work.
13
SPEAKER_00
If anything, the internet made me realize that science is not just about
13
SPEAKER_00
doing the science, it s about communicating it.
13
SPEAKER_00
This is not some kind of virtue signaling on my part.
13
SPEAKER_00
No, no, no.
13
SPEAKER_00
No, I feel like if the tree falls in the forest and nobody s around to hear it, it really didn t fall.
13
SPEAKER_00
There should be a culture of, at MIT, there s a place called the Media Lab.
13
SPEAKER_01
Yes, sir.
13
SPEAKER_00
Where they really emphasize
13
SPEAKER_00
like you always be able to demo something to show off your work.
13
SPEAKER_00
They really emphasize showing off their work.
13
SPEAKER_00
And I think that was in some part criticized in the bigger MIT culture that, you know, that s like being focusing too much on the PR versus doing the science.
13
SPEAKER_00
But I really disagree with that.
13
SPEAKER_00
Of course, there s a balance to strike.
13
SPEAKER_00
You don t want to be all smoke and mirrors, but there really is a lot of value to communication and not just sort of,
13
SPEAKER_00
some broad, you almost don t wanna teach a course on communication because by the time you teach the course it s already too late.
13
SPEAKER_00
It s always being on top of how, what is the language, what is the culture and the etiquette, what is the technology of communication that is effective.
13
SPEAKER_02
I actually had a big conversation about that in my university because I think, and this is perhaps especially true for social sciences, but I think it s probably true for everyone, just simply communicating what it is you ve done in research makes it possible for you to sort of get an outsider s perspective and say, did I just go into an incredibly deep hole that just three other people really care about in the world?
13
SPEAKER_02
Or is this actually something that matters to the world?
13
SPEAKER_02
And being able to explain what it is that you ve done to everyone else makes, you know, my sort of sense is if you can t say it in a couple of minutes, it s probably, it s not necessarily true, but it s probably because it wasn t all that important.
14
SPEAKER_02
generated maybe seven years ago by a Caltech PhD candidate woman, and it was fantastic.
14
SPEAKER_02
The hashtag was I am a scientist because, and she posted it with a picture of herself with her answer, you know.
14
SPEAKER_02
And that, when I talk to scientists or basically anybody about communicating, I say don t start with I am a phytologist and I use a spectrophotometer to do X. Start with I m a scientist because the world is endlessly interesting and I just found these salamanders which are gonna vanish if we don t stop this fungus from coming to the United States.
14
SPEAKER_02
Utterly interesting.
14
SPEAKER_02
And then you ve got people hooked.
14
SPEAKER_02
But it s the motivation part.
14
SPEAKER_02
Because everyone grew up as a kid.
14
SPEAKER_02
And a kid is basically like a scientist.
14
SPEAKER_02
Wow, what the hell is this?
14
SPEAKER_02
How does this work?
14
SPEAKER_02
So you can connect with people that way.
14
SPEAKER_02
But this other issue you broached is really important.
14
SPEAKER_02
And what I love about MIT particularly, I spent a lot of time there over the decades, not just talking to the hurricane guy, Amy Smith, who has the development lab in the basement there somewhere.
14
SPEAKER_00
Most of MIT looks like it s the basement, but yes.
14
SPEAKER_02
It s part of the charm.
14
SPEAKER_02
But it s a usability function is part of a lot of that goes on there.
14
SPEAKER_02
It s engineering and science.
14
SPEAKER_02
And it reminds me, in 1997, these two very different scientists, Dan Kamen at Berkeley and Michael Dove at Yale,
14
SPEAKER_02
wrote a manifesto, and it was The Virtues of Mundane Science.
14
SPEAKER_02
That s what they called it.
14
SPEAKER_02
It was a prod to the scientific community to, actually, it s about useful, utility.
14
SPEAKER_02
Because the whole arena is set up to advance your career through revealing new knowledge that will get you tenure someday.
14
SPEAKER_02
actually doing useful science is disincentivized.
14
SPEAKER_02
And especially if it involves more than one discipline.
14
SPEAKER_02
Because as a young scientist, there were some postdocs at Columbia who wrote this other manifesto paper saying, here are the things universities need to do to foster the collaborative capacity we need to have sustainable development.
14
SPEAKER_02
And it was like four or five things that universities don t do.
14
SPEAKER_02
give you time to become fluent and for a physicist to talk to an anthropologist and understand how anthropology works with sociology takes time.
14
SPEAKER_02
And then building a relationship with a community that has a problem that you want to fix takes time.
14
SPEAKER_02
And so you do these like quick turnaround papers that get you toward your little micro career goal, but they re not actually getting you what you want in the world.
14
SPEAKER_02
Those are really hard problems going forward.
14
SPEAKER_02
But starting with that idea of usability
14
SPEAKER_02
what can I do with my skillsets?
14
SPEAKER_02
You know, a lot of great physicists I know are dug in on string theory and stuff, and someone has to dig in on that too, but I d like to have them pull a little bit of their brainpower away to think about some of the practical things Bjorn thinks about too.
14
SPEAKER_00
So the two of you have been thinking about some of the biggest questions.
14
SPEAKER_00
which is life here on Earth, the history of life here, the future of life here on Earth, of Earth itself, and how to allocate our resources to alleviate suffering in the world.
14
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask the big question.
14
SPEAKER_00
What do you think is the why of it all?
14
SPEAKER_00
What s the meaning of it?
14
SPEAKER_00
What s the meaning of our life here on Earth?
14
SPEAKER_01
You waited till the last moment to ask us that question.
14
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, in case I can trick you into finding an answer.
14
SPEAKER_01
Well, so I mean, again, I m just gonna take a stab in this because I think in some ways it s the same thing that you were talking about before.
14
SPEAKER_01
It s not about getting everybody sort of in the same track and all agree on something, but it s about getting a lot of people with very different goals and targets and ways of thinking about the world to go in the same direction.
14
SPEAKER_01
So for me,
14
SPEAKER_01
the goal of life, certainly my goal, but I think for most people, is to make the world a better place.
14
SPEAKER_01
It sounds incredibly pedestrian because it s become so overused, but that really and literally is the point.
14
SPEAKER_01
Your point of your life is to, when one of your friends is sad, to make sure that they sort of get out of that and find out why they re sad and maybe move them a little bit in the right direction.
14
SPEAKER_01
and all the things that we ve talked about, you know, stop people from dying from tuberculosis and live longer lives and fix climate change, but fix it in such a way that we actually use resources smartest because there are lots of problems.
14
SPEAKER_01
So let s make sure we, you know, we deal with them adequately.
14
SPEAKER_01
This is very unsexy in some sense, but I think it s also very basic and really what matters.
14
SPEAKER_02
Well, you know, biologically,
14
SPEAKER_02
Evolution has demanded that life is about finding sources of energy and perpetuating yourself, right?
14
SPEAKER_02
So that s the baseline.
14
SPEAKER_02
And that s led us into a bit of a bollocks because we have this easy energy, you know, it s come from the ground so far.
14
SPEAKER_02
But our brilliance has given this larger awareness of
14
SPEAKER_02
everything about the planet is transitory.
14
SPEAKER_02
And so how do you work with that productively is really an important question.
14
SPEAKER_02
I could just sort of, you know, try to be as rich as possible and use as much energy as possible and have other people
14
SPEAKER_02
I mean, Alex Epstein, I think, again, this is one of the constraints on my support for what he says, is he s just talking about growth and progress in that sense.
14
SPEAKER_02
But there are consequences and there are long-term trajectories here that have to be taken into account too.
14
SPEAKER_02
So what do you wake up to do?
14
SPEAKER_02
To me, it s finding your part of this.
14
SPEAKER_02
And as Bjorn said, finding a way to pursue and expand betterment.
14
SPEAKER_02
When I taught, I was at Pace University for six years.
14
SPEAKER_02
And one of the courses I launched there was called Blogging a Better Planet.
14
SPEAKER_02
And it was for grad students mostly in communication.
14
SPEAKER_02
It wasn t an environment, it wasn t like Better Planet, like save the climate.
14
SPEAKER_02
But my task for the students was to blog about something they re passionate about, first of all.
14
SPEAKER_02
Because you can t do this, just like you can t do your conversations if you don t wake up in the morning wanting to do what you re doing, right?
14
SPEAKER_02
You re doing this.
14
SPEAKER_02
I used to call myself a selfish blogger because I was learning every day, I still am.
14
SPEAKER_02
I loved this.
14
SPEAKER_02
My wife laughs, she thinks I work too much, but I m always asking those questions, like sustain what?
14
SPEAKER_02
So my charge to the students was,
14
SPEAKER_02
harness a passion, build a blog, either alone or with others, that notches the world a little bit towards some better outcome.
14
SPEAKER_02
And so there was a musician who did a thing on musicians who use their art for their work for making the world better.
14
SPEAKER_02
Some of it was like music therapy, you know, bands contributing money, whatever.
14
SPEAKER_02
Another one did, her blog was on comfort food all around the world.
14
SPEAKER_02
And I thought it was my favorite.
14
SPEAKER_02
It was a video.
14
SPEAKER_02
I think it should be viral actually.
14
SPEAKER_02
It was like looking at the world, every different cultures.
14
SPEAKER_02
She was in Queens, so every culture, every cuisine is there in Queens, 200 countries, right?
14
SPEAKER_02
But she would go and talk to people s moms and have them cook the food of that country that s their comfort food.
14
SPEAKER_02
I mean, I just love this, because we all need to eat.
14
SPEAKER_02
And you re getting this expanded sense of what comfort is by thinking about what other cultures choose.
14
SPEAKER_02
And that felt like a great course, because it was not directive, it was just,
14
SPEAKER_02
it gave them this potential to go forward.
14
SPEAKER_02
You know, I d love to think they ve all gone on to become a superstar.
14
SPEAKER_02
Whatever it is, I don t know.
14
SPEAKER_02
That s the giving.
14
SPEAKER_02
That s the letting go part.
14
SPEAKER_02
Even if one did something special, then that makes me feel job done.
14
SPEAKER_02
And, you know, after I d been writing about climate for 30 years, 2016-ish, I
14
SPEAKER_02
Did a lot of writing about what did I learn, unlearn, and stuff.
14
SPEAKER_02
And I had had a stroke in 2011, which was interesting.
14
SPEAKER_02
It was the first time I really thought about my brain.
14
SPEAKER_02
You don t think about your brain on a day-to-day basis.
14
SPEAKER_02
But this is my brain telling me, ding, ding, ding, ding, some weird shit s happening.
14
SPEAKER_02
And when I was thinking about climate, confronting climate change, it felt like some of the things I learned about my own existence.
14
SPEAKER_02
I m gonna die.
14
SPEAKER_02
But you don t really absorb that.
14
SPEAKER_00
Is that the first time you kind of faced your mortality?
14
SPEAKER_02
That was like my first, yeah, this is really the shit.
14
SPEAKER_02
Or at least deep disability, if not death.
14
SPEAKER_02
That ability is transitory.
14
SPEAKER_02
And I thought about the climate problem.
14
SPEAKER_02
We re not going to solve the global warming problem, at least not in our lifetimes.
14
SPEAKER_02
But you work on making those trajectories sustainable, you know, the end of life particularly.
14
SPEAKER_02
You work on making sure other people don t get strokes if they can avoid it.
14
SPEAKER_02
In my case, I wrote about it.
14
SPEAKER_02
I was blogging about my stroke while I was having it.
14
SPEAKER_02
I was tweeting about it.
14
SPEAKER_02
There s a funny tweet that s kind of mistyped because, you know, things weren t working.
14
SPEAKER_02
So that s like share your knowledge, share your learning.
14
SPEAKER_02
And everyone can do this now, like on whatever platform.
14
SPEAKER_02
And then there s also this like giving up part, but not in a depressing, well, maybe you could call it depressing.
14
SPEAKER_02
I started to zoom in years ago on the idea of the serenity prayer, the sobriety thing, you know, it s like, know what you can change, know what you can t.
14
SPEAKER_00
Grant me the serenity to accept the things that cannot change, the courage to change the things that can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
14
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, see those three properties are really important right now.
14
SPEAKER_02
Some aspects of this we know absolutely what we can work on.
14
SPEAKER_02
Cutting vulnerability, energy transitions take time.
14
SPEAKER_02
Science can help us discriminate the difference.
14
SPEAKER_02
And that s an iterative changing landscape going forward.
14
SPEAKER_02
But at the same time, science, like I personally on climate modeling or like narrowing how hot it s going to get or more clarity on when an ice sheet is going to collapse, I think those are what I call known unknowables.
14
SPEAKER_02
So being able to, I ve seen enough evidence that those are deeply complex problems that we re not going to get there quickly.
14
SPEAKER_02
So then that gives you a landscape to act on.
14
SPEAKER_02
And that, you know, whether you bring God into the mix is irrelevant.
14
SPEAKER_02
It s really know what you can change, know what you can t, and that gives you the quality to work on them.
14
SPEAKER_02
And serenity is comfort with that this is transitory, that the human journey, like anyone s individual journey,
14
SPEAKER_02
will have some end.
14
SPEAKER_02
That doesn t mean it has to be near.
14
SPEAKER_02
This Anthropocene that I ve been writing about for decades can still be a good Anthropocene, or at least a less bad one in terms of how we get through it.
14
SPEAKER_00
And you re also a musician.
14
SPEAKER_00
So in context, one of my favorite songs of yours, an album, A Very Fine Line.
14
SPEAKER_00
I should mention that with the stroke coming close to death, the lyrics here are quite brilliant, I have to say.
14
SPEAKER_00
Oh, yeah.
14
SPEAKER_00
It s a very fine line between winning and losing, a very fine line between living and dying, a very fine line.
14
SPEAKER_00
By the way, people should listen to this.
14
SPEAKER_00
I can t play this because YouTube will give me trouble.
14
SPEAKER_00
A very fine line between loving and leaving.
14
SPEAKER_00
Most of your life you spend walking a very fine line.
14
SPEAKER_00
And the rest of the lyrics are just quite brilliant.
14
SPEAKER_00
It is a fine line.
14
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
14
SPEAKER_00
I m glad you walked it with me today, gentlemen.
14
SPEAKER_00
You re brilliant, kind, beautiful human beings.
14
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much for having this quote-unquote debate that was much more about just exploring ideas together.
14
SPEAKER_00
Bjorn, thank you so much.
14
SPEAKER_00
And Andy, thank you so much for talking today.
14
SPEAKER_02
Extended conversations are, the more of it, the better.
14
SPEAKER_02
And finding ways to spread that capacity, just to get people out of this win-lose thing is really important.
14
SPEAKER_02
So thanks for what you re doing.
14
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bjorn Lomberg and Andrew Revkin.
14
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
14
SPEAKER_00
And now let me leave you with some words from Henry David Thoreau.
14
SPEAKER_00
Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads.
14
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.