Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast #339

people all around the world, their lives are basically dependent on fossil fuels. 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. People who have the most basic science literacy, like who know the most about greenhouse effect, they're at both ends of the spectrum of views on climate, dismissives and alarmed. What is likely the worst effect of climate change? The following is a conversation with Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Refkin on the topic of climate change. It is framed as a debate, but with the goal of having a nuanced conversation, talking with each other, not at each other. I hope to continue having debates like these, including on controversial topics. 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. Bjorn Lomborg is the president of Copenhagen Consensus Think Tank and author of False Alarm, Cool It, and Skeptical Environmentalist. Please check out his work at Lomborg.com that includes his books, articles, and other writing. Andrew Refkin is one of the most respected journalists in the world. He's been writing about global environmental change and risk for more than 30 years, 20 of it at the New York Times. Please check out his work in the link tree that includes his books, articles, and other writing. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Refkin. There's a spectrum of belief on the topic of climate change, and the landscape of that spectrum has probably changed over several decades. On one extreme, there's a belief that climate change is a hoax, it's not human-caused. 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. That's one extreme. And then the other extreme, there's a level of alarmism about the catastrophic impacts of climate change that lead to the extinction of human civilization. So not just economic costs, hardship, suffering, but literally the destruction of the human species in the short term. Okay, so that's the spectrum. And I would love to find the center. And my sense is, and the reason I wanted to talk to the two of you, 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. Like there is a political center for center left and center right. 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? Oh, boy. 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. And that's the first mistake. We are developing a new relationship with the climate system. And we're rethinking our energy systems. And those are very disconnected in so many ways. They connect around climate change. But the first way to me to overcome this idea of there is this polarized universe around this issue is to step back and say, well, what is this actually? And when you do, you realize it's kind of an uncomfortable collision between old energy norms and growing awareness of how the planet works. That if you keep adding gases that are invisible, it's the bubbles in beer. If you keep adding that to the atmosphere, because it accumulates, that will change everything. It is changing everything for thousands of years. It's already happening. What do you mean by bubbles in beer? CO2, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Why beer? Well, because I like beer. It's also in Coca-Cola. We were talking about Cola before. And so it's innocuous. We grew up with this idea. CO2, unless you're trapped in a room suffocating, is an innocuous gas. It's plant food. It's beer bubbles. And the idea we can swiftly transition to a world where that gas is a pollutant, regulated, tamped down from the top, is fantastical. Having looked at this for 35 years, I brought along one of my tokens. This is my 1988 cover story on global warming. The greenhouse effect, this cover, 1988. 1988, 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. It was a hot day, and it got headlines, and this was the result. But it's complicated. Look what we were selling on the back cover. What you see is only tobacco. Cigarettes. Tobacco. Yeah. 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. You say, well, what kind of energy future do you want? That's a very different question than stop global warming. 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. You know, the 70s and 80s, pollution was changing things, they were making things bad. So really focusing in on the greenhouse effect and the pollution. But what I missed, the big thing that I missed of the first 15 years of my reporting from 1988 through about 2007, 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. So climate is changing, but we're changing, too. And where we are here in Austin, Texas, is a great example. Flash Flood Alley, named in the 1920s, west of here. Everyone forgot about flash floods. Built these huge developments, you know, along these river basins. Then one side starts saying, global warming, global warming. And the other side is not recognizing that we built willfully, greedily, vulnerability in places of utter hazard. Same things played out in Pakistan and in Fort Myers, Florida. And you start to understand that we're creating a landscape of risk. As climate is changing, then it feels, oh my God, that's more complex, right? But it also gives you more action points. Like, okay, well, we know how to design better. We know that today's coasts won't be tomorrow's coasts. Work with that. And then let's chart an energy future at the same time. So the story became so different. It didn't become like, you know, a story you could package into a magazine article. Magazine article or the like. And it just led me to a whole different way of, even my journalism changed over time. So I don't fight the belief-disbelief fight anymore. I think it's actually kind of a waste. It's a good way to start the discussion because that's where we're at. But this isn't about, to me, going forward from where we're at. It isn't about tipping that balance back toward the center so much as finding opportunities to just do something about this stuff. What do you think, Bjorn? Do you agree that it's multiple questions in one big question? Do you think it's possible to define the center? Where is the center? I think it's wonderful to hear Andy sort of unconstruct the whole conversation and say, we should be worried about different things. And I think that's exactly, or we should be worried about things in a different way that makes it much more useful. And I think that's exactly the right way to think about it. On the other hand, that was also where you kind of ended. We are stuck in a place where this very much is the conversation right now. 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. 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 the times. So the OECD did a new survey of all OECD countries and it's shocking. 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. And that's scary in a very, very clear way. Because look, if this really is true, if global warming is this meteor hurtling towards earth and we're going to be destroyed in 12 years or whatever the number is today, then clearly we should care about nothing else. We should just be focusing on making sure that that asteroid gets... We should send up Bruce Willis and get this done with. But that's not the way it is. This is not actually what the UN climate panel tells us or anything else. So I think it's not so much about arcing against the people who are saying it's a hoax. That's not really where we're going. It's a hoax, that's not really where I am. I don't think that's where Andy or really where the conversation is. 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. 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. 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. 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. They look at you and like, but that's what 38 years too late. And I get that. So I think 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. And I think Andy did that really well by saying, look, there are so many different sub conversations and we need to have all of them and we need to be respectful of some of these are right in the, in the sort of standard media kind of way, but some of them are very, very wrong. And it actually means that we end up doing much less good, both on climate, but also on all the other problems the world face. Oh yeah. And it just empowers people to those who believe this, then just 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. And a lot of people have that approach when something's too big. And it just paralyzes you as opposed to giving you these action points. And the other thing is, I hate it when economists are right about stuff like the... I don't know about all that often though. No, no. There are these phrases, like I never knew the words path dependency until probably 10 years ago in my reporting. And it basically says you're in a system, the things around you, how we pass laws, the brokenness of the Senate, you know, that those are, 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. So, but those big features of our landscape are, it's path dependency. When you screw in a light bulb, even if it's an LED light bulb, it's going into a 113, 120 year old fixture. Because, and actually that fixture is almost designed, if you look at like 19th century gas fixtures, they had the screw in thing. So, we're like on this long path dependencies when it comes to energy and stuff like that, that you don't just magically transition a car fleet. A car built today will last 40 years. It'll end up in Mexico, sold on the used car, et cetera, et cetera. And so, there is no quick fix, even if we're true that where things are coming to an end in 13 years or 12 years or eight years. So, most people don't believe that climate change is a hoax. So, they believe that there is an increase, there's a global warming of a few degrees in the next century. And then maybe debate about what the number of the degrees is. And do most people believe that it's human caused at this time in this history of discussion of climate change? So, is that the center still? Is there still debate on this? Yale University, the climate communication group there for like 13 years has done this Six Americas study where they've charted pretty carefully and ways that I really find useful what people believe. And we can talk about the word belief in the context of science too. But, and they've identified kind of six kinds of us. There's from dismissive to alarmed and with lots of bubbles in between. I think some of those bubbles in between are mostly disengaged people who don't really deal with the issue. And they've shown a drift for sure. There's much more majority now at the alarmed or engaged bubbles than just the dismissive bubble. There's a durable, like with vaccination and lots of other issues, there's a durable never anything 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, think there's a component. And this is also true globally. I mean, when you ask around, I mean, and this is, if you hear this story from the media of 20 years, of course, that's what you will believe. And it also happens to be true. I mean, that is what the science, I think, you know, it's perhaps worth saying, and it's a little depressing that you always have to say, but I think it's worth saying that I think we both really do accept, you know, the climate panel science and you know, there's absolutely global warming. It is an issue. And it's probably just worthwhile to get it out of the way. It's an issue and it's caused by humans. It's caused by humans. Yeah. But vulnerability, the losses that are driven by climate-related events still predominantly are caused by humans, but on the ground. It's where we build stuff, where we settle. Pakistan, in 1960, I just looked these data up, there were 40 million people in Pakistan. Today, there are 225 million. And a big chunk of them are still rural. They live in the floodplain of the amazing Indus River, which comes down from the Himalayas. It's an extraordinary 5,000-year history of agriculture there. 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. It just says the reality is the losses that we see in the news are, and the science finds this, even though there's a new weather attribution group, it's WXRisk on Twitter. 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. But, and the media glommed onto that, as I did, you know, in the 80s, 90s, 2000s. 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. So, discriminating between loss, change in what's happening on the ground, and change in the climate system is never solely about CO2. In fact, Lawrence Bauer, B-O-U-W-E-R, I first wrote on his work in 2010 in the New York Times. And basically, in 2010, there was no sign in the data of climate change driving disasters. Climate change is up here, disasters are on the ground, they depend on how many people are in the way, how much stuff you've built in the way. 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. So, a function of greenhouse gases to human suffering is unclear. And that's very much in our control, theoretically. I mean, the point, I think, is exactly right, that 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, sorry, 10 million houses, so 17 times more over, what, a period of 80 years? Of course, you're gonna have, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're gonna have lots more damage. And many of these houses now have been built on places where you probably shouldn't be building. And so, I think a lot of scientists are very focused on saying, can we measure whether global warming had an impact, which is an interesting science question. I think 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 wanna make sure that people are less harmed in the future, what are the levers that we can control? 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. 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? Flash flood alley. Flash flood alley. Alleyway, yeah. It's just simple stuff. 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. So I think this is gonna be a large part of the whole conversation. Yes, climate is a problem, but it's not the only problem. And there are many other things where we can actually have a much, much bigger impact at much lower cost. Maybe we should also remember those. Can you still man the case of Greta, who's a representative of alarmism, that we need that kind of level of alarmism for people to pay attention and to think about climate change? So you said the singular view is not the correct way to look at climate change, just the emissions. But for us to have a discussion, shouldn't there be somebody who's really raising the concern? Can you still man the case for alarmism, essentially? Or is there a better term than alarmism? Communication of like, holy shit, we should be thinking about this. So I totally understand why Greta Thunberg is doing what she's doing. I have great respect for her because I look at a lot of kids growing up and they're basically being told, you're not going to reach adulthood, or at least you're not going to get very far into adulthood. And of course, this is the meteor hurdling towards Earth, and then this is the only thing we should be focusing on. I understand why she's making that argument. I think at the end of the day, it's incorrect, and I'm sure we'll get around to talking about that. And one of the things is, of course, that her whole generation... I can understand why they're saying, if we're going to be dead in 12 years, why would I want to study? Why would I really care about anything? So I totally want to pull Greta and many others out of this end of the world fear, but I totally get why she's doing it. I think she's done a service in the sense that she's gotten more people to talk about climate, and that's good because we need to have this discussion. I think it's unfortunate, and this is just what happens in almost all policy discussions, that they end up being discussions from the extreme groups. Because it's just more fun on media to have the total deniers and the people who say, we're going to die tomorrow, and it becomes that discussion. It's more a mud wrestling fight. 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? 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. The thing I found Twitter invaluable for, but it's a practice. It's just like the workouts you do. Or it's, how do I put this tool to use today, thinking about energy action in poor communities? 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? I hate build back. Or you can go there and just watch it as an entertainment value. That's not going to get the world anywhere. You don't think entertainment, I wouldn't call it entertainment, but giving voice to the extremes isn't a productive way forward. It seems to push back against the main narrative. It seems to work pretty well in the American system. We think politics is totally broken, but maybe that works, that oscillation back and forth. You need a Greta, and you need somebody that pushes back against Greta to get everybody's attention. The fun of battle over time creates progress. Well, and this gets to the, you know, people who focus on communication science, I'm not a scientist, I write about this stuff. If you're going to try to prod someone with a warning, like, this is three years apart. Nuclear winter. We'll talk about that. Global warming. Well, yeah, we'll talk about it. But look at that, you know, this is three years apart in the covers of a magazine. But then you have to say to what end, if you're not directing people to a basket of things to do. And if you want political change, then it would be to support a politician. If you want energy access, it would be to look at this $370 billion the American government just put into play on climate and say, well, how can my community benefit from that? 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. But here's the thing you could do. You can connect your local government right now with these multimillion dollar loans so you can have electric buses instead of diesel buses. And that's an action pathway. So, you know, alarm for the sake of getting attention or clicks, to me, is not any more valuable than watching an action movie. And again, I think also it very easily ends up sort of skewing our conversation about what are the actual solutions. Because yes, it's great to get rid of the diesel bus, but probably not for the reason people think. It's because diesel buses are really polluting in the air pollution sense. Right. And that is why you should get rid of them. 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. So the mud wrestling fight also gets our attention diverted towards solutions that seem easy, fun, you know, sort of the electric car is a great example of this. The electric car has somehow become almost the sign that I care and I'm really going to do something about climate. Of course, electric cars are great and they're probably part of the solution and they will actually cut carbon emissions somewhat, but they are an incredibly ineffective way of cutting carbon emissions right now. 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 a power that's not totally clean. Strong words from your in-law. Okay, let's go there. Let's go electric cars. Okay, educate us on the pros and cons of electric cars in this complex picture of climate change. What do you think of the efforts of Tesla and Elon Musk on pushing forward the electric car revolution? So look, electric cars are great. I don't own a car, but you know, I've been driving. There you go, socially signaling. Yeah, but yeah, I've... We're in Texas, it's okay. I flew in here, so it's not like I'm in any way a virtuous guy on that path. But look, they're great cars and eventually electric cars will take over a significant part of our driving and that's good because they're more effective. They're probably also going to be cheaper. 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. You need a lot of extra material into the batteries, which is very polluting and it emits a lot of CO2. A lot of electric cars are bought as second cars in the US. So we used to think that they were driven almost as much as a regular car. It turns out that they're more likely driven less than half as much as regular cars. So 89% of all Americans who have an electric car also have a real car that they use for the long trips and then they use the electric car for short trips. 89%. 89, yeah. So the point here is that it's one of these things that become more sort of a virtue signaling thing. And again, look, once electric cars are sufficiently cheap that people will want to buy them, that's great and they will do some good for the environment. 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 in many countries, you actually get a sort of sliding scale. You get more subsidy, the more expensive it is. We sort of subsidize this to very rich people to buy very large Teslas to drive around in. Whereas what we should be focusing on is perhaps getting electric motorcycles in third world developing cities, where they would do a lot more good. They can actually go as far as you need. There's no worry about running out of them. And they would obviously, they're much, much more polluting, just air pollution wise. And they're much cheaper and they use very little battery. 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? It's more like it's a virtual signal. So just, I work with economists. I'm actually not an economist, but I like to say I claim I kind of am. But the fundamental point is we would say, well, how much does it cost to cut a ton of CO2? And the answer is for most electric cars, we're paying in the order of a thousand, 2000, Norway, they pay up to what $5,000 or thereabouts, huge amount for one ton of CO2. You can right now cut a ton of CO2 for about, what is it? $14 on the Reggie or something. You can do this. That's the regional greenhouse gas. Yes. So you can basically cut it really, really cheaply. Why would we not want to cut dozens and dozens of tons of CO2 for the same price instead of just cutting one ton? And the simple answer is we only do that because we're so focused on electric cars. If I may interrupt, typically European come here in Texas, tell me I can't have my Ford F-150, but I'll- Oh, now you can have your F-150 Lightning. That's true. I'm just joking. No, I know. But what do you think about electric cars? If you just link on that moment and this particular element of helping reduce emissions. Well, you talked about the middle in the beginning and I loved moving to the hybrid. The Prius was fantastic. It did everything our other sedan did, but it was 60 miles per gallon performance and you don't have range anxiety because it has a regular engine too. We still have a Prius. We also inherited my dad, dear dad's year 2000 Toyota Sienna, which is an old 100,000 mile minivan. And we use it all the time to do the stuff we can't do in the Prius. Like what? Taking stuff to the dump. Oh, you mean in terms of the size of the vehicle? Yeah, size and just convenience factor for a bigger vehicle. I would love a fully electrified transportation world. It's kind of exciting. I think what Elon did with Tesla, I remember way, way back in the day when the first models were coming out, they were very slick Ferrari style cars. And I thought, this is cool. And there's a history of privileged markets testing new technologies and I'm all for that. And I think it's done a huge service prodding so much more R&D. And once GM and Ford started to realize, oh my God, this is a real phenomenon. You know, getting them in the game. There was that documentary who killed the electric car, which seemed to imply that, you know, there were fights to keep this tamped down. And it's fundamentally cleaner, fundamentally better. But then you have to manage these bigger questions. If we're going to do a build out here, how do you make it fair? As you were saying, who actually uses transformed cars? And Jagir 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 electric cars. As 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. They're 60, $80,000 vehicles. Each, like the Hummer, the electric Hummer, I can't, there was a data point on that, astonishing data point, the battery in that Hummer weighs more than, I'd have to look it up, it weighs more than a car. Your Prius. Yeah, I think it might've been a Prius. And think of the material costs there. Think of where that battery, the cobalt and the lithium, where does this stuff come from to build this stuff out? 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. And those impacts have to be figured out too. And if they're all big Hummers for rich people, 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. But- We all do. You usually refer when you say we, we humans. We society, we government, yeah. There has to be some thought and attention put to it. And attention put to where you put these incentives, so that you get the best use of this technology for, for the carbon benefit, for the conventional sooty pollution benefit, for the transportation benefit. Can I step back and ask a sort of big question? We mentioned economics, journalism. How does an economist and a climate scientist and a journalist that writes about climate see the world differently? What are the strengths and potential blind spots of each discipline? I mean, that's just sort of, just so people may be aware. I think you'd be able to fall into the economics camp a bit. There's climate scientists, and there's climate scientists, adjacent people, like who hang, some of my best friends are climate scientists, kind of, which is, I think, where you fall in, because you're a journalist, you've been writing it. So you're not completely in the trenches of doing the work. You're just step into the trenches every once in a while. So can you speak to that maybe beyond like, what does the world look like to an economist? Let's try to empathize with these beings that, you know. That unfortunately has fallen into the disreputable economics. Yeah. So I think the main point 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, the whole conversation was about, what does the science tell us? Is global warming real? And to me, it's much more, what can we actually do? What are the policies that we can take? And how effective are they going to be? So the conversation we just had about electric cars is a good example of how an economist think about, look, you got to, 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. This is about how much you actually ended up affecting the world. And the honest answer is that, you know, 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 five or $10,000 around the world per car. It's not really sustainable, but it's certainly not a very great way to cut carbon emissions. So I would be the kind of guy, and economists would be the 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. 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 coal does, when you use it for power. That basically cut more carbon emissions than pretty much any other single thing. And we should get the rest of the world, in some sense, to frack, because it's really cheap. There are some problems, and absolutely, we can also have that conversation. No technology is problem-free, but fundamentally, it's an incredibly cheap way to get people to cut a lot of CO2. 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. So that's one part of the thing. The other one is when we talked about, for instance, how do we help people in Florida who get hit by a hurricane, or how do we help people that get damaged in flash floods, the people who are in heat waves? And the simple answer is there's a lot of very, very cheap and effective things that we could do first. So most climate people will tend to say, we've got to get rid of all carbon emissions. We've got to change our entire, the engine that powers the world and has powered us for the last 200 years. And that's all good and well, but it's really, really hard to do, and it's probably not going to do very much. And even if you succeed, it would only help future victims of future Hurricane Ians in Florida a tiny, tiny bit at best. 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 very likely to get hit, where we subsidize people with federal insurance again, which is just actually losing money. So we're much more about saying, it's not a science question. I just take the science for granted. Yes, there is a problem with climate change, but it's much more about saying, how can we make smart decisions? Can I ask you about blind spots? When you reduce stuff to numbers, the costs and benefits, is there stuff you might miss that are important to the flourishing of the human species? So everyone will have to say, of course, there must be blind spots. But I don't know what they are. Yeah, I'm sure Andy would probably be better at telling me what they are. So we try to incorporate all of it, but obviously we're not successful. We can't incorporate everything, for instance, in a cost-benefit analysis. But the point is, in some way, I would worry a lot about this if we were 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. But I think it's much more, and the point that I tried to make before, that we're all focused on going to an electric car or something else, rather than fracking. We're all focused on cutting carbon emissions instead of reducing vulnerability. So we're simply getting in orders of magnitude wrong. And while I'm sure I have blind spots, I think they're probably not big enough to overturn that point. Andy, why is Bjorn and economists are all wrong about everything? Well, the models, we could spend a whole day on models. There are economic models. There's this thing called optimization models. There were two big ones used to assess the US plan, this new big IRA inflation reduction package. And they're fine. They're a starting point for understanding what's possible. But as this gets to the journalism part or the public part, you have to look at the caveats. You have to look at what model. Economists expressly exclude things that are not modelable. 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 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. We mine our cobalt in Congo, and trying to get a new mine in Nevada was a fraught fight that took more than 10 years for lithium. 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. And you're not saying in your first line, by the way, these are the things we're not considering. That's the job of a journalist. You could probably summarize all of human history with that one word, friction. Yeah, 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. The scientists that I, in grappling with the climate problem, as a journalist, I paid too much attention to climate scientists. That's why all my articles focused on climate change. 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, on- Thumb sucker? You know, you sit and suck your thumb and think about something. Why is everybody so pissed off about climate change? It was after Al Gore's movie, the Al Gore movie came out in Convenient Truth, Hurricane Katrina. It was a big, Senator Inhofe in the Senate from Oklahoma wasn't yet throwing snowballs, but it was close to that. And so I looked into what was going on. Why is this so heated? In 2006, the story's called Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet. And that was the first time, this is after 18 years of writing about global warming. That was the first time I interviewed a social scientist, not a climate scientist. Her name was Helen Ingram. She's at UC Irvine. And she laid out for me the factors that determine why people vote or what they vote for, what they think about politically. And they were the antithesis of the climate problem. She used the words, she said, people go into the voting booth thinking about things that are soon, salient, and certain. And climate change is complex, you know, has long timescales. And that really jogged me. And then I, between 2006, 2010, I started interviewing other social scientists. And this was by far the scariest science of all. It's the climate in our heads, or inconvenient minds. And in how that translates into political norms and stuff, really became the monster, not the climate system. Is there social dynamics to the scientists themselves? Because I've gotten to witness a kind of flocking behavior with scientists. So it's almost like a flock of birds. 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. And you don't want to be the bird that kind of leaves that flock. No. So like, there's an idea that science as a mechanism will get us towards the truth. But it'll definitely get us somewhere. But it could be not the truth in the short term. In the long term, a bigger flock will come along and it'll get us to the truth. But there's a sense that I don't know if there's a mechanism within science to like snap out of it if you're on the wrong track. Usually you get it right, but sometimes you don't. When you don't, it's very costly. And there's so many factors that line up to perpetuate that flocking behavior. One is media attention comes in. The other is funding comes in. National Science Foundation or whatever, European foundations pour a huge amount of money into things related to climate. And so you, and then your narrative in your head is shaped by that aspect of the climate problem that's in the spotlight. I started using this hashtag a few years back, narrative capture, like be wary of narrative capture, where you're on a train and everybody's like, train and everyone's getting on the train. And this is in the media too, not just science. It becomes self-sustaining and contrary indications are ignored or downplayed. No one does replication science because your career doesn't advance through replicating someone else's work. So those contrary indications are not necessarily really dug in on. And this is way beyond climate. This is many fields. As you said, you might've seen this in AI. And it's really hard to find. It's another form of path dependency, the term I used before. The breaking narrative capture to me, for me has come mostly from stepping back and reminding myself of the basic principles of journalism. Journalism's basic principles are useful for anybody. Confronting a big, enormous, dynamic, complex thing is who, what, where, when, why. 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. 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? Oh, I was. Well, you've certainly been to- Both of you get attacked continuously from different sides. So let me just ask about that. How does that feel? And how do you continue thinking clearly and continuously try to have humility and step back and not get defensive in that as a communicator? I mean, there are other things happening at the same time. I'm now 35 years into, almost 40 years into my journalism career. So I have some independence. I'm free from the obligations of, I don't really need my next paycheck. I live in Maine now in a house I love. I own it outright. It's a great privilege and honor as a result of a lot of hard work. And so I'm freer to think freely. 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. The New York Times had a narrative about Saddam Hussein, drove us into that war. The Times sucked right into that and helped perpetuate it. I think we're in a bit of a narrative of 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 really, I saw problems with how they handled the Joe Manchin issue in America, the West Virginia Senator. 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. He's a Democrat in West Virginia. And which is a seat that would be otherwise occupied by a Republican. There'd be no talk of a climate deal or any of that stuff without him. But once you're starting to kind of frame a story in a certain way, you carry it along. 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 and say, well, what's really wrong with Florida? 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. I mean, it was pretty intense. 2009, Rush Limbaugh suggested I kill myself on his radio show. It's a really great time. What was that about? I had, actually, this was a meeting in Washington in 2009 on population at the Wilson Center. 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, we should probably have a carbon tax for kids because a bigger family in America is a big source of more emissions. It was kind of a playful thought bubble. Some right-wing blogger blogged about it. It got into Rush's pile of things to talk about. And the clip is really fun. So meaning, so if humans are bad for the environment, I can imagine Rush, that's how you know you've made it. It's amazing. He was very explicit. 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? So that was tough for you. It was tough for my family. You know, to me, it did generate some interesting calls and stuff in my voicemail. But on the left, I was also undercut. Roger Pilkey Jr., a prominent researcher of climate risk and climate policy, UC Boulder was actively, his career track was derailed purposefully by people who just thought his message was too off the path. You've been dealing with this for a very long time. Oh, God, yeah, yeah. What do you? So I just want to get back to, so the science, I don't think the science get it so much wrong as it just becomes accepted to make certain assumptions, as you just said, we assume no friction. So there's a way that you kind of model the world that ends up being also a convenient message in many ways. And I think the main convenient message in climate, and it's not surprising if you think about it, the main convenient message is that the best way to do something about all the things that we call climate is to cut CO2. And that turns out to only sometimes be true and with a lot of caveats, but that's sort of the message. And it takes a long time. Yes, yes, it's really, really difficult to do in any meaningful sort of timeframe. And if you challenge that, yes, you're outside the flock and you get attacked. I've always, so somebody told me once, I think it's true, they say at Harvard Law School, if you have a good case, pound the case, if you have a bad case, pound the table. And so I've always felt that when people go after me, they're kind of pounding the table. They're literally screaming, I don't have a good case. I'm really annoyed with what you're saying. And so to me, that actually means it's much more important to make this argument. Sure, I mean, I would love everyone just saying, oh, that's a really good point. I'm gonna use that. But yeah, we're stuck in a situation, certainly in a conversation where a lot of people have invested a lot of time and energy on saying, we should cut carbon emissions. This is the way to help humankind. 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? And it turns out that a lot of these other things are much cheaper, much more effective, will help much more, much quicker. And so getting that point out is just incredibly important for us to get it right. So in some sense, to make sure that we don't do another Iraq and we don't do another, lots of stupid decisions. I mean, this is one of the things mankind is very good at. And I guess I see my role, and I think that's probably also how you see yourself, is trying to get everyone to do it slightly less wrong. LUIS So let me ask you about a deep psychological effect for you. There's also a drug of martyrdom. So whenever you stand against the flock, there is, you wrote a couple of really good books on the topic, the most recent, False Alarm. I stand as the holder of truth, that everybody who is alarmist is wrong. And here's just simple, calm way to express the facts of the matter. And that's very compelling to a very large number of people. They want to make a martyr out of you. Is that, are you worried about your own mind being corrupted by that, by enjoying standing against the crowd? SIMON No, no, no. There's very little, I guess I can see what you're saying sort of in a literary way or something. LUIS Yeah, so I'm being poetic here. SIMON Yeah, there's very little comfort or sort of usefulness in annoying a lot of people. It just, whenever I go to a party, for instance, I know that there's a good chance people are going to be annoyed with me. And I would love that not to be the case. But what I try to do is, so I try to be very polite and sort of not push people's buttons unless they sort of actively say, so you're saying all kind of stupid stuff on the climate, right? And then try to engage with them and say, well, what is it you're thinking about? And hopefully, they're not going to be well, what is it you're thinking about? And hopefully, during that party, and then it ends up being a really bad party for me. But anyway, so I'll end up possibly convincing one person that I'm not totally stupid. But no, I'm not playing the martyr and I'm not enjoying that. LUIS It's so interesting. The, I mean, the martyr complex is all around the climate question. 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 and really abused in many ways. 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. And he, you know, he's definitely sits there in a certain kind of spotlight because of that. So it's not unique at any particular vantage point in the spectrum of sort of prominent people on the debate. LUIS 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. Let me ask the question of what do you find most beautiful and fascinating about our planet Earth? ANDREW 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. I experienced one of those bat explosions. It's mind-blowing. I've been really lucky as a journalist to have gone to the North Pole, the camp on the sea ice with Russian help. This is a camp that was set up for tourists coming from Europe every year. There were scientists on the sea ice floating on the 14,000 foot deep Arctic Ocean. I was with them for several days. I wrote a book about that too, along with my reporting. I've been in the depths of the Amazon rainforest. When I was very young, I was a crew on a sailboat that sailed 2 3rds of the way around the world. I was halfway across the Indian Ocean, again, in 14,000 foot deep water. There was no wind. This was way before I was a journalist, 22, 23 years old. We went swimming, swimming in 14,000 foot deep water. 500 miles from land, the Western Indian Ocean, halfway between Somalia and the Maldives. It's 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. Then getting back on and being beholden to the elements, the sailboat, heading toward Djibouti. The immensity and the power of the ocean. Djibouti. The immensity and the power of the elements. Oh my God. Then the human qualities are unbelievable. The Anthropocene, 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, since the last ice age, had ended. 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. I wrote that perhaps earth scientists of the future 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. It's like the variability of the climate system is still profound with or without global warming. 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? No, no. Or do you see it as something that helps the flourishing of the entire organism? That can. Can. Intelligence. That hasn't yet. Hasn't yet? 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? We should get Twitter to the animals. I think we're doing a... In a way, we are. It's catch-up. We're always in catch-up mode. I was at the Vatican for a big meeting in 2014 on sustainable humanity, sustainable nature, our responsibility. And it was a week of presentations by Martin Rees, who's this famed British scientist, physicist who... Been on his podcast. Yeah, great. Well, he's fixated on existential risk, right? Yes, he is. So it was a week of this stuff. And the meeting was kicked off by... I wrote about it, Cardinal Maradiaga, who is, I think, from El Salvador. He's one of the Pope's kind of posse. He gave one of the initial speeches. And he said, nowadays, mankind looks like a technical giant and an ethical child, meaning our technological wizardry is unbelievable, but it's way out in front of our ability to step back and kind of consider in the full dimensions we need to, is it helping everybody? Is it... What are the consequences of CRISPR, genetics, technology? And there's no single answer to that. If I'm in the African Union, I'm just using this as an example. CRISPR has emerged so fast. It can do so much by changing the nature of nature, willful, in a kind of a programming way, building genes, not just transferring them from one organism to another. We've only just begun to taste the fruits of that, literally. And it can wipe out a mosquito species. We know how to do that now. You can like literally take out the dengue-causing mosquito. The scientists have done the work. And you think, okay, cool. Well, that's great. Now there's this big fight over whether that should happen. 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. And Europe- What's the other side of the argument? The European Union, they're saying, using their capital P precautionary principle, says, no, we can't meddle with nature. And this is just like we were talking with climate. There's the real-time question and the long-term question. 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. And those who are trying to cut CO2, which will have a benefit in the future by limiting the fat tail outcomes of this journey we're on. So when I think about the Anthropocene, I think about this planet. I love that we're here right now. I love that our species has these capacities. 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, what's your role? The wonderful thing about the complexity of it is everyone can play a role. If you're an artist or a designer or an architect or an economist or a podcaster, whatever you do, just tweak 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. What do you find beautiful about this collective intelligence machine we have? From an economics perspective, it's kind of fascinating that we're able to, there is a machine to it that we've built. 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. 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 create complete chaos and actually collaborate and have collaborative disagreements that ultimately or so far have led to progress? Yeah, I think fundamentally the point, apart from the fact that, you know, 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. You know, most people just don't stop to think about those stats. You know, I get that in the normal bustle of day, but just, you know, in 1900, the average person on the planet lived to be 32 years. 32 years, that was our average life expectancy. Today it's about 74. So we've literally got two lifetimes on this planet, each one of us. And, you know, every year you live in the rich world, you get to live three months longer and the poor world is about four months longer. Because of medical advances, because we get better at dealing both with cancer and especially right now with heart disease, these are amazing achievements. Of course, it's a very, very small part of it. We're much better fed, we're much better educated. We've gone from a world where virtually everyone or, you know, 90% were illiterate to a world where more than 90% illiterate. This is an astounding opportunity. And 200 years ago, 95%, 94% of the world were extremely poor, that is less than a dollar a day. Today, for the first time in 2015, it was down below 10%. So, and again, these are kind of boring statistics, but they're also astounding testaments of how well humanity has done. So just on the point of, we've kind of just been focused on making our own world better. And in many ways, you know, so we've hunted a lot of big animals, either to extinction or down to much, much smaller populations, as much smaller populations of fish in the ocean. So there's a lot of things that sort of bear the brunt of our success. Not, it's not because we're evil in that sense, it's just because we didn't care all that much about them. I think it is important as one funnel of that, I'm not gonna make a big deal out of it, but the fact that we're putting out more CO2 in the atmosphere, because CO2 is, as you also mentioned before, it's actually plant food. If you're a greenhouse grower, you know, if you put in CO2 in your greenhouse, you actually get bigger and plumper tomatoes. And that's essentially what we're doing in the world. This has overall bad consequences, and that's why we should be doing something about it. But one of the good side effects is actually that the world is getting greener. So we get much more green stuff. Now, I don't know, and this is where I'm gonna stop. This is where I sort of show my economist roots, because if you just measure all living stuff in tons, so in weight, there's actually more living stuff than there were a hundred years ago, because elephants and all these other, you know, big fish and stuff are actually really, really small fraction of the world. So the fact that we have, yes, so we have an enormous amount of life stuff, but that doesn't even measure it. It's mostly just wood, wooden green stuff that has dramatically increased in the world. Now, we're still not there from what it was in 1500. So 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, when you're poor and you worry about what's going to happen the next day, this is just not your main issue. Am I killing too many large animals in the world? 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. 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, we really need to get them out of poverty first. And it's a simple point that we often forget. And get them connected to all these gifts. Yes. I have these memories of, I was reporting on the next big earthquake that's going to devastate Istanbul in 2009. 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. This is all known. There was an earthquake in 1999 and the next one's coming. One of my advantages in covering climate is I've covered other kinds of disasters too. So it keeps my context, me in touch with other things we can do. So I'm walking around and interviewing everybody. Went to the school that's being retrofit. They actually were getting ahead of it there. The World Bank provided some funding to put in iron bars in the brick building. And I met these kids. And they came, when you're a journalist with a camera and stuff and a pad, and you get swarmed by kids, mostly in developing countries. And so these kids are running up to me. And they weren't going like, are you American? Or just, they were saying Facebook. Facebook. And I went, that's interesting. And they led me to their little town, a little community center that had a bank of eight or 10 pretty flimsy computers. And they were all there playing Farm. It was a game that was hot at that time on Facebook. Farm. Farmville? Farmville, yeah. And my son back in the Hudson Valley, I remember him playing it. And I thought, wow, that is so fricking cool. These kids. And actually, I became Facebook friends with a couple of them afterwards. We traded our... And I thought back to my youth when we had pen pals. I would write a letter to a kid in West Cameroon, and he would write back. And it took weeks. And it was a crinkly letter. And I never met him. And now you can kind of connect with people. And that all through my blogging. 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 new sphere, the connected world. That's a term from these two earliest, a Russian guy, an early 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. And I just became smitten with that, especially meeting kids in Istanbul, slums who were on Facebook, looking for connectedness. What can you do with these tools? Which is what drives me with my work now. And, but then there are these kids that there are these counterweight, counter currents that if the connectedness can cut back, we'd allowed Al-Qaeda to recruit, use decapitation videos to recruit, distributed, disaffected young people into extremism. And there's lots of, these systems are not, they're just like every other tool, right? They're just for good or ill. And the efficiency thing, the economics of the world, which I also wrote about a little bit, in the late 20th century, it was so cool that everything became so efficient that our supply chains are 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. And everyone got totally sucked in by that, including me. It's great, you know, super efficient, cheaper. And then COVID hit and the whole supply chain concept crumbled and one of the big lessons there, hopefully, and this is relevant to sustainability generally, is efficiency matters, but resilience matters too. And resilience is inefficient. You need redundancy or a variety of options, right? 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. You're still thinking about, can we get that widget here just in time for this thing to happen? And then on we go. So it's kind of, I love the noosphere, this noosphere idea, the connectedness is fantastic. Oh, another thing, like in the early 90s, when I wrote my first book on global warming, it was for an exhibition at the Museum of Natural History. The Environmental Defense Fund was involved. They were like a partner, one of these longstanding environmental groups, and they're very old-fashioned. It's mostly lawyers, really, just using the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act to litigate against pollution. And now EDF is vastly bigger, and they're actually, this coming year, they're launching a satellite. An environmental group is launching methane sat, and it's providing a view, an independent view of where there's this gas, you know, same thing, natural gas is basically methane. 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 know where the problem is to fix in so many ways. And that's just one example. I'm like, if someone had told me in 1993 that EDF was gonna launch a methane satellite, I would've laughed out loud. So technology plays a huge role if it's kind of, you know, employed with the bigger vision and leadership. 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. Good title, by the way, very intense, makes me wanna read it. What is likely the worst effect of climate change? First, let me just, my editor actually hated the subtitle because it gives away the whole book, basically. Tells you what the book tries to make. I think that's exactly what it should be. It's about getting this conversation out in the public sphere. 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. So it's not like, you know, if you're just looking for worst case outcomes, you know, anything can get to the worst case outcome. Imagine if we, what's the worst thing that could happen from HIV? 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. You know, you can make worst case scenarios for everything. Well, 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. Of the measure, the quality of the algorithm, you measure what is its worst case performance. That's the big O notation. That's how you discuss algorithms. What is the worst possible thing in terms of performance this thing can do? But for climate change, let's even go crazy. What is exactly the worst case scenario for climate change? Because 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, well, this is a very serious problem. And then the sentence would never finish. What exactly is the problem? Well, the extinction of the human species, okay. With a virus, I understand how that can possibly happen. What is the mechanism by which the human species becomes extinct because of climate change? 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. So it's more, it's this kind of idea that we hit some of these unexpected outcomes. So for instance, the Western Arctic ice sheet melts really, really quickly. 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. So we basically get what, seven meters, what is that, 20 feet of sea level rise. That will be a real challenge to a lot of places around the world. This would have significant costs. It's likely, and there's actually been a study that's tried to estimate, could we deal with that? And the short answer is yes, if you're fairly well off. If you're Holland, you can definitely deal with it. It's also likely that most developing countries are gonna be much closer to Holland towards the end of the century because they'll be much richer. So they can probably handle it, but it will be a real challenge. May I ask a dumb question? Yeah. What happens when the sea level rises exactly? What is the painful aspect of that? It is that all of your current infrastructure in a lot of coastal cities around the world that are literally built on, Jakarta is a good example, that are literally built on the, just inches above the sea level. If you then get a sea level rise, that'll rise, say, what would 20 feet? That would be like a third or a fourth of a foot every year. Yeah, I see no evidence that that's even... But hold on a second. We're not talking about evidence. We're talking about worst case analysis and algorithm. And so basically you would see your infrastructure, all your stuff, very quickly being very, very challenged. And you basically have to put up huge sea walls or migrate out of that area. Very quickly. Well, very quickly as in 50 years or something. Right. So is that, as a human species, we're not able to respond to that kind of thing? Of course we are. And look, again, the point here is, then there's a lot of other arguments. And I should just put the disclaimer, this is not what I think is correct, but you're asking me what's the worst case outcome that you have. So most of global warming is really about that we're used to one way of doing things. So we live in Jakarta because it's right next to the sea. We're used to the sea being at this level. We grow our crops because we're used to, 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. 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. So our infrastructure will be wrong if the world changes, and that's what climate change does. At a large scale. Yes. And so this is a problem in most of these sentences, 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, imagine that you're going to get a very different sort of precipitation, for instance, the, what is it, the, the rain season, monsoon in the Indian subcontinent changes dramatically, that could affect a lot of agriculture and make it really hard to imagine that you could feed India well. There are these kinds of things where you can imagine, and then that this would be very difficult to deal with. And then if you add all of it up, you could possibly get sort of a system collapse because you just have too many problems in one. Is it possible to model those kinds of things? So what I understand is the sea level rise itself isn't the destructive thing, it's the fact that it creates migration patterns and human tension, battle over resources, and so you start to get these human things, human conflict. So the big negative impact won't be necessary from the fact that you have to move your house, it's the fact that once you move your house, that means something else down the line. And this is 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 pattern. Is it possible to model those kinds of things? So there are people who looked at this, and surprisingly, again, most people will move within their country for a lot of different reasons, but mainly language and political structure. You have your money, you have your relationships there. So it's not like we're gonna see these big moves from the Southern Mexico and Central America up to the US or from Africa up to the EU. That's not predominantly because of climate, that's because there's a lot of welfare opportunity. You can make your life much, much better, you can become much more productive if you move into a richer country. So yes, there are these issues. Again, you're asking me for sort of, what is it that could really sort of break down the world? 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. So just one fun thing, I encourage everyone to just look that up on Wikipedia, the rising of Chicago. So in the 1850s, Chicago was a terribly dirty place, and they didn't have good sewers. And so they decided, and we can't really make up all my, they decided to raise Chicago one to two feet. And so they simply took one block at a time, they put like 50,000 jacks underneath a building, and they would just raise the building, and then they'd go on to the next building. They raised all of Chicago one to two feet. This is almost 200 years ago. Of course, we will be able to deal with these things. I'm not saying it'll be fun or that it'll be cheap. Of course, we would rather not have to deal with this. But we're a very inventive species, and so it's very unlikely that we'll not be able to- What about COVID pandemic just said, hold my beer. The response of human civilization to the COVID pandemic seems to have not, they didn't find the car jacks. Oh, yeah. 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. 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 and in terms of policy, in terms of socially, medically, all that kind of stuff. So if the COVID pandemic brought the world to its knees, then what does a sea level rise? I think there's a different kind of thing that happened in the COVID. So politicians, a lot of politicians, I think made certainly suboptimal decisions, but I also find the fact that we actually managed to get a vaccine in a year. 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, but fundamentally we fixed this. We could have done it better and prettier. I mean, I rode through the COVID pandemic in Southern Sweden. So, and yes, we can have that whole conversation. It was certainly much easier to live there than many other places. But the fundamental point was, we actually fixed it. So yes, we'll do, and we'll do that with climate. We'll make a lot of bad decisions and we'll waste a lot of money. Like we do with all other problems, but are we going to fix this? Yeah. Can you add onto that uncomfortable discussion of what's the worst thing that could possibly happen? I'm not worried about the sea level rise component. Certainly not nearly as much as the heat and disruption of agriculture patterns and water supplies. And a lot of it relates to, again, path dependency and history. Farmers are the heroes of humanity all through history because they're incredibly adaptable if you give them access to resources. 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. But the heat issue is the one that's most, the most basic element related to global warming from CO2 buildup is hotter heat waves. 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. And so how many people die as a result of that is important. So we're talking about, maybe you can also educate me, what's the average projection for the next 100 years of the temperature rise? Is it two degrees Celsius? Well, yeah, although this gets us into the modeling realm. You're assuming, you have to assume different emissions possibilities. 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. There are aspects of the warming, the fundamental warming question that are still deeply uncertain. But the debate is like two, three or four Celsius. It's in that range. But the thing is, all of those are bad for, this is an educational question. 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. But it is, from a global perspective, a huge impact on agriculture. Well, yeah, and getting back to sea level and glaciers, the melting point of ice is a number. And so if you pass that number, things change, start to change. What became known about Antarctica and Greenland more is that it's ocean temperature, 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. Glaciers, these big ice sheets live or die based on how much snow falls and how much ice leaves every year. And I was up on the Greenland ice sheet in 2004 and written about it forever since then. 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, that's the ice sheet. It's a lot of water. That's 23 feet of sea level rise. But you were not gonna melt it all. And the pace at which that erosion begins and becomes sort of a runaway train is still not well understood. 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. To me, it's in the realm of what I've taken to calling known unknowables. 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. Because learning, there's a lot of negative learning in science. This may be true in your body of science too. There's a guy named Jeremy Bassis, B-A-S-S-I-S, 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. 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. But those papers don't get any attention in the media because they're not scary. They're not scary and they're sort of after the fact. Just this past year, there's been this cycle around collapse, the word collapse and Antarctic collapse. And Antarctic ice. It started actually several years ago with the idea that the West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly vulnerable. And some paper, everyone, the science community, like the birds, we were talking about flocks to it and some high profile papers are written. And then a deeper inquiry reveals, you know, it's more complicated than that. And we, the journalists, the media, pundits don't pay attention to that stuff. So, and actually, which is why I started to develop kind of a dictionary. I call it watch words, like words to, if you're out there, you're, you know, you're just a public person, you're a person and you wanna know what's really going on. You hear these words like collapse in the context of ice. What do you do with that? And so I've created conversations around these words. Geologists and ice scientists use the word collapse. They're talking about a centuries long process. They're not talking about the World Trade Center. And scientists would do well to be more careful with words like that. 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. 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. I can just crank up the air conditioning. I think that sort of touches on a really, really important point that for most rich people, much of climate change is not really gonna be all that impactful. It still will have an impact, but fundamentally, if you're well off, you can mitigate a lot of these impacts. And there's a young scientist at Carnegie Mellon, Destiny Nock. She just was the lead author on a study what poor and prosperous households do in a heat wave when they have access to air conditioning. 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. And that create adverse outcomes. If you have an asthmatic in the house, an old person, you're endangering their lives. 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. This is families in like Pittsburgh. We're not talking about Botswana. And so that divide in capacity to deal with environmental stress is something you can really work on. And it gets hidden in all this talk of climate crisis. People think that. And that's one of the important parts is both to say, look, if seven billion people, sorry, eight billion people will now have all experienced this, even though for each one of them, it's manageable, it's still a big problem because it's eight billion people living through this. And the second- And how's the air conditioning eight billion people? Yes. And then it's the point of getting to realize it's very, very much about how do you help the world's poor. And that's very much about making it more affordable, basically getting them out of poverty. 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. 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 and have lots of different issues that they would like us to focus on climate and heat waves, just being one of them. So it's sort of taking progressive steps back and realizing, all right, okay, this is a problem. This is a problem, not the end of the world. And one tiny little last example, you mentioned Jakarta at the beginning. It's really valuable to look around the world at places that are sort of leading indicator places, whether it's sea level rise or heat. And you could do that. Jakarta is sinking like a foot a year, literally a foot a year. 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. I wrote a piece ages ago, the New York Times calling it Delta Blues, you know, all the musicians. And in Jakarta, so what are they doing? They're moving, they're moving the capital to another area. And so that says to me, there's a lot of plasticity too. 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. So look there, look to those kinds of places and you can start to build. Tokyo had the same thing in the 1930s. They were also withdrawing lots of water way too fast. And so, you know, one of the obvious things is maybe you should just stop withdrawing water so fast. Yeah, and again, we seem to almost be intent on finding the most politically correct way to fix a problem or, you know, the thing that sort of gets the most clicks instead of the thing that actually works the best. So a lot of these things are really, you know, not rocket science solutions. We'll get there. Let me add one more on top of the pile of the worst case analysis. So what people talk about, which is hurricanes and earthquakes, is there a connection that's well understood between climate change and the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes and earthquakes? I've dug in on both a lot. 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. The Himalayas, even with that earthquake in 2015 in Kathmandu, that whole range is overdue for major earthquakes. 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. And unfortunately that's, what was the term this Turkish engineer, rubble in waiting. Rubble in waiting. It's rubble in waiting. And we're looking at it, videotaping it, and there are people playing there. So I don't worry about the earthquake connection to climate change. The hurricanes I've written about for decades. And the most illuminating body of science that I've dug in on, literally, related to hurricanes is this field that's emerged, it gets a tiny bit of money compared to like climate modeling. It's called paleotempestology. It's like paleontology, you know. They look for evidence of past hurricanes along coasts that we care about. And they dig down into the lagoons behind like the barrier beaches along Florida or the Carolinas or in Puerto Rico. And what you have is a history book of past hurricanes. So there's mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, you know, accumulating over centuries. And then there's a layer of sand and seashells. And what that indicates is that there was a great storm that came across the beach, pushed a lot of sediment into the mud. And then there's mud, mud, mud, mud, mud, mud. And when you look at that work, I first wrote about this in 2001 in the Times, in a long story. And then I kept track of these intrepid scientists putting these core tubes down. And it shows you that we're in a landscape where big, bad hurricanes are not, they're the norm. But something that's rare and big is something that's extreme. When you think about the word extreme, right? It means it's at the end of the spectrum of what's possible. They're rare, rare in human timescales. Hurricane Michael, four years ago, devastated. Category five came ashore in the panhandle of Florida, leveled that much photographed town, Mexico Beach. And people, actually the Tallahassee National Weather Service said unprecedented hurricane. And the damage was unprecedented because there hadn't been a community there before. But the hurricane was not unprecedented at all. If you look at the history, and this is published research, just that no one bothers to, we have this blind spot for the longer timescale you need to examine if you're thinking about big, bad, big, bad things that are rare. And hurricanes are still rare. I was recently covering Fort Myers, the awful devastation. There's a young climate scientist at Florida Gulf Coast University, Jo Muller, who's done that paleotempestology work there, right in Fort Myers. 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. But she has done the work that shows, it's a thousand year record of past hurricanes, and it's super sobering when you consider how fast people have moved into Florida and built vulnerably in an area that hurricanes will hammer. That'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. Now, the question of global warming impact is subtle. There are aspects of hurricanes that haven't changed. There's aspects like rainfall that seem pretty powerfully linked to global warming. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. So when you have a big disturbance, like the heat engine of a hurricane comes through it, you get more rain. There's rapid intensification. You know how quickly these storms jump from, like, you know, category one to five or four before they hit, is a new area of science. So I think it's still early days in knowing because no one was looking for that. 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. So I, as a journalist, I try to, you know, keep track of what we don't know, not to be too constrained and think about new science as being, you know, robust unless it's considering and actually actively stating we don't really know what's going on with the earlier hurricanes. And all of that is swamped ultimately, literally, by the vulnerability, building vulnerability in these areas. You know, if there's a marginal change in a storm and you've quadrupled or sextupled how much stuff and how many people are in the way, and if some of those people are poor and vulnerable or elderly and can't swim, you're creating a landscape of destruction. 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. Still, you didn't quite answer the question. You know, when I'm having a beer with people at a bar and they say, hey, why are you having a beer? We're all going to die because of climate change, usually what they bring up, and I'm just trying to add some levity. No, this is good. I mean, I love it. 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. And is there, I'm sure there's incredible science going on trying to look at this. Is there, is it possible, is there evidence, and is it possible to have evidence that there's a connection between what we can call global warming and the increased frequency and intensity of storms? And is, okay, no, thank you. Of course, can I? Well, you added intensity. You know, it's, let me just get into this a tiny bit more. I mean, hurricanes, I grew up with them in Rhode Island in the New, you know, in my youth, and there was a very active period of hurricanes in New England in the 50s and 60s, 70s. And then in the North Atlantic, the North Atlantic generally was very, very active in the 50s when I was a kid. And the dynamics of them forming off of Africa and coming here, circling up the coast, was just prime time. Then there was like what Kerry Emanuel, who's the most experienced hurricane climate scientist around at MIT, he was in, he's in this story. He's in my 1988 article. 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. And there's been a lot of questions about that. People thought it was ocean circulation, something about the currents. There's these multi-decadal variabilities in the oceans, right? 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. And significantly in Europe, and you say, well, how does smog in Europe relate to hurricanes crossing the Atlantic and getting to the United States? It's because of the smog was changing the behavior of the Sahara Desert, which is just south of Europe. And the Sahara Desert kills hurricanes. Sand and dust coming off the Sahara, you can see this every year. When that's active, it stifles these big storms. At the point right in their nursery, they all form, there's this area for hurricanes off of West Africa, that's like the nursery zone. And so if you're stifling those hurricanes because of pollution in Europe before the Clean Air Act's kind of cleanups, and then that goes away, none of that has anything to do with global warming. 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, hurricanes weren't a big deal. And now we have an end to that drought because we cleaned up the air pollution, the sooty kind of air pollution, sulfury. And anyone who says global warming, global warming without saying, well, that's in there too, is kind of missing that. And when you look globally, there's still, I think it was a 90 or so hurricanes a year, cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons globally. That hasn't changed. The number of these tropical storms that reach that ferocity has not changed. It's just a fundamental dynamic of, and by the way, on the long time scale, the models 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 at the northern part of the hemisphere. And that calms the whole system down. So there could be fewer hurricanes later in the century because of global warming. And for me, that's a lot of information, but if I'm in a bar, I start with what do you care about? You care about safety, you care about security, you care about having everybody safe, not just you. You get in your car and you can evacuate. What about the old person or the poor family who can't do that? They're not gonna leave their house. What are we doing to limit vulnerability now? I circle back to that over and over again. I have like a pocket card. I have this graphic card I created about risk. And what we really care about is climate risk. Who's at risk? What's driving the risk? How do you reduce that? It's a card, you can almost pull it out in a bar. I should print them. You should do that. It's like risk is the hazard. Risk is the hazard. Like, you know, the hazard is a storm times exposure. How many people, how much stuff, factoring in vulnerability or resilience. And climate change is changing the hazard for some things, not for tornadoes, not for everything. Exposure is this expanding bullseye. This is another hashtag, expanding bullseye. Get out there and look for that. And you'll see, I'm pushing these two geographers who do this for every hazard, wildfire, earthquake, flood, coastal storm. And we're building an expanding bullseye in an area. And nature's throwing darts. Some of the darts are getting bigger because of global warming. Some of the darts, we don't know. What do you do? Like, what do you do? Well, you get out of the way, right? You don't wanna be on the dartboard. And that, it just simplifies the whole formula. To me, it's kind of a transformational potential to go into a bar. Maybe I should print these things. 100%. And I should go drink it with you more often. There should be coasters in bars. Because that was fascinating about smog. And I mean, it's just, it's nice to be reminded about how complicated and fascinating the weather system is. Let me try to answer the questions slightly quicker before your friends have drunk too much. Never enough. Or not enough. 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. So we see more because we have now much better detection systems with satellites. 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. And you're sort of like, that's odd because it's probably the year where I heard the most about hurricanes. 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. You can't just go that way. If you remember in the 1990s and 2000s, there was an enormous amount of talk about how violence, how crime was getting worse in the US, 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, 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. This seems to be the best outcome. We're not sure, but this seems to be the outcome. And it's important to remember, stronger is worse than fewer is better. So overall, climate will make the world a little bit worse. So that's the sort of bottom line. But, and that's the real issue here, all the other things, the fact that people are much more vulnerable is just vastly outweigh this, which is why if you look at the impact of hurricanes and impact of pretty much everything, it is typically going down. 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. If you do that in percent of GDP, and even the UN says that's how you should measure it, it's going down. Why is that? It's because we're becoming more resilient. Just simply, if you look at what happens with when hurricanes come in, we have much better prediction in the long run. That means you now know two or three days out that there's a big hurricane that's likely to come here. What does that mean? All the things that can be moved. So typically all buses, all trucks, everything that's not bolted down will leave this area. And so you'll get less damage from that. You will have more people knowing, oh, this is going to be a big one. They move to their relatives somewhere else. So you'll have fewer people being vulnerable. There's a lot- If people are responsive and aware. Yeah, there's a lot of way you can do this. 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. But had there not been global warming, it would probably have gone down even faster. So we would have become even better off quicker had there been no global warming. But this is a crucial difference. And this is what I find really hard to communicate. 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. Climate change is a thing that means we're going to get better slightly slower. And that's a very, very different kind of attitude. It's one of the many problems rather than this is the end of all of us. 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. Beth Tellman, who's 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 going to lead to devastation. And this is today, we're doing this now. And it's flood zones, wildfire zones. So that means there's these things to do. There's so much plasticity in the human behavior and how we build and where we build. You can make a big, big change in the outcomes. I mean, one of the things to remember is, people move to where hurricanes hit because when they're not there, it's a really beautiful place to be. Yeah, yeah. So in many ways, we make the trade-offs and say, look, I'm happy to have an ocean view and then maybe a hurricane's coming. A hurricane's going to hit. 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. And that's one of the things that we should stop doing. Yeah, we should actually tell people, look, if you want to live where hurricanes hit, maybe you should be more careful. And by the way, what I was saying about past storms, the paleo-tempestology, past fires, it's the same thing. We've suppressed fire in the United States for 100 years through much of the West, through wanting to save the forests, the whole smokey the bear thing. Don't stop. When these are landscapes that evolved to burn and what happened in the last 100 years? A lot of people love the West. We love these environments. We love to live with the trees. The Boulder County area, the explosive development in zones of implicit hazard leads to big, bad outcomes when conditions align and climate change is worsening some of those conditions. And sometimes it's really counterintuitive. A wet season builds more grass. A dry season comes along, parches the grass. Then comes a human ignition. It's almost always human ignitions. And then you have this disaster where a thousand homes burn in Boulder County. 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. You can, natural disasters are not natural. Disasters are designed, really, as some people say. Can I take a quick aside and ask about terminology of climate change and global warming? Because we use it interchangeably. It is an aside, but it's one that's worthy of taking. Do those carry different meanings? And has that meaning changed over the years? Between those two terms, are they really equivalent? Well, some people say there was this industry or propagandistic shift from, let's see, what was it, which came first? Oh, no, they're going to climate change now. It's a new thing, which is, it's ridiculous. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 wasn't the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming. It was on climate change. So these terms have been there. They've been sort of evolving. When I wrote this cover story, it was the greenhouse effect. Yeah. So, and that's fallen out of favor. Greenhouse effect is not often talked about. Well, it's really, that's the physical effect that's holding in the heat. Well, but see, the- It's not a good- There's terms that mean stuff, and there's terms that are actually used in public discourse to designate what your, a whole umbrella of opinions you have. And I guess as somebody, me, who doesn't pay attention to this carefully, you have to use terms carefully. Sure. Because people will, a noob that rolls into the topic will often use terms to mean exactly what they mean, like literally, but they actually have political implications, all that kind of stuff. So I guess I'm asking, is there like, are you signaling something by using global warming versus climate change? Or people have calmed down in terms of the use of these? No, no, but the Guardian newspapers made it worse. Now they have their style book. Every newspaper has a, they prescribe, they don't want their reporters to use any of those terms anymore. They call it climate crisis, climate emergency. Oh no. Oh yeah. Or global heating. It's literally in their rule book. Global heating, that sounds more intense. Global heating. And that was the point. Well, I wrote about the global heating thing more than a decade ago. That's been around. But so they're doing the, what was the movie where the comedy, the rock and roll comedy, where he sets his- 11, yeah, yeah. His amplifier goes to 11. The idea that you turned up the rhetorical volume and that's going to change people is ridiculous. So for me, I use global warming and climate change interchangeably. And I think it's fair. There's some technical ways that you can differentiate them. 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 driver of what we worry about. Climate change seems a little diffuse, but it's convenient to, when you talk about climate all the time, that you can call both of them. But I think the climate crisis and the climate catastrophe is really sort of, this is the amping up of a catastrophe. And again, as we've talked about before, if it really were true, we should tell people. 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, 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, whatever the number is. And also that it makes it almost impossible to have a conversation of, well, maybe we should be focusing on vulnerability first. And a lot of people, and I think a lot of well-meaning and well-intentioned people feel that it's almost sacrilegious to say it's about vulnerability because you're taking away the guilt of climate change. You're taking away our focus on dealing with climate change. Whereas I think we would say, no, it's about stuff that actually works and doing that first. Well, 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. It's these big companies. Where's the source of alarmism? So is it the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Like what, there's a chain here. Is there somebody to blame along the chain? Or is this some kind of weird complex system where everybody encourages each other? Can you point to one place? Is it the media? Is it the scientists? I think the UN Climate Panel is fundamentally a really good climate research group. You can have some quibbles with the way that they sort of summarize it in politically coordinated documents and stuff. But fundamentally, I think they do a good job of putting together all the research. This also means it's incredibly boring to read, which is why virtually nobody does. I'm sure you have, but I'm pretty sure a lot of climate journalists have never sort of looked past at least the summary for policy makers. So the UN Climate Panel, they do predictions as well? No, well, they pull together all the stuff that people have published in the period literature and then try to summarize it and basically tell you, so what's up and down with climate change? They do that in four large volumes, every four to five to six, seven years or something. And yes, I think it's the gold-plated version of what we know. There tends to be a lot of, 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 can sort of find contradictions between one volume with one set of authors and another. But yeah, I think this is fundamentally the right way that we know about climate. But then it gets translated into, how do you know about this? 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? Yeah, you obviously hear the three foot. Three foot is just more fun, more scary, more interesting than one foot. And it's that way with all of these. So what's the prediction for temperature rises? It's somewhere from not very scary to pretty damn scary. Pretty damn scary, and again, you hear the pretty damn scary all the time. And then there's obviously always researchers who are saying, well, but actually it could be a little more scary than that. And then there are likewise researchers who say, well, it's probably not gonna be as scary as that. And most of the journalists will interview- Do you really put the blame fundamentally on the journalist? I put it on the media setup. Look, media is simply trying to get clicks to sell newspapers. And if you were just gonna say, this is not a big issue, it just doesn't sell anything. But I think you're probably much better able to address this. Yeah, well, no, folks can Google for my name, Revkin, and the words front page thought in the newsroom every afternoon. 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. And my friend, Corrie Dean, who was the science editor for a chunk of my time, 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? So we're all set up to look for the- The scary bit. And the news environment has gotten so much worse than 10 or 20 years ago. At least you had filters and limited number of outlets, and there was some sense you could track what's good or bad. There's lots of problems with that system, too. But now you have an information buffet. So if you want to be alarmed, or you want to be, stay in the tribe of those who think this is utter bull, you can find your flow. And that has led, but getting back to this specific question, the 2018 IPCC report, which was a special report commissioned to learn about the difference between 1.5 degrees of warming and two, which sounds so weird and technocratic and complicated. That's the one that generated the whole meme about eight years left. 12 years. Till doomsday. Yeah, it was 2013. And that's the one, this was the idea that there's a point we're going to, if we don't cut emissions in half by whatever it was, 2050, we're doomed. That emerged from that specific report. And it wasn't something that was in the report. It was in the spin around the report. And that's what captivated Greta appropriately as a young person going, you know, and with her unique vantage point and stuff. 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 we're doomed rhetoric that I think you're focusing on. And it's all in the external interpretations, which journalism laps up because we're looking for the front page thought. But it's not just the journalists, it's the whole system, NGOs, environmental groups. If you're, if a 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're now really looking for a way to portray this as a CO2 problem, not a vulnerability. 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, 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. And you can blame colonialism, Pakistan's history, all kinds of things. But under the treaty, you want it to be about CO2 because that puts the onus on rich countries. You're not paying us. Where's our money? And they're right. You know, in the context of what everyone agreed to, there was supposed to be $100 billion a year from rich countries to poor countries, starting in 2020, it didn't happen. It's like basically some money is flowing, but it's not really made up money. Yeah, 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. And you have a justice angle. 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. And then of course, it's not Pakistan's fault either, right? 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. In Germany, for instance, when we had that flood last year, it's not impossible that climate had a part in that, 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. And this was plainly the local leaders in Germany. 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 say climate? Or happens all the time. Yeah, so it's just such an easy scapegoat. I don't wanna 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 narratives that result in destruction of the human species. So nuclear war, pandemics, all that kind of stuff. It seems like climate is a sticky one. 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. So it's not just the journalists. I feel like journalists will try anything for the front page, but it won't stick unless there is bigger interest at play for which these narratives are useful. So journalists will just throw stuff out there and see if it gets clicks. It's like a first spark, maybe. 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. Let me ask you, Bjorn, about the first part of the subtitle. How climate change panic costs us trillions. How does climate change panic cost us trillions? 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. So I'll give you two examples. So the European Union is trying to go to net zero. So our attempt to go halfway there by 2030 will cost about a trillion dollars a year. And yet the net impact will be almost unmeasurable by the end of the century. Why is that? That's because the EU and the rich countries is a fairly small part of the emissions that are gonna come out in the 21st century. Now, we used to be a big part of it. That's mainly because nobody else, it was just the US and Europe and a few others have put out CO2 in the 20th century. So we used to be big, but in the 21st century, we'll be a small bit player. And so we're basically spending a lot of money. 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 tiny bit better. Now, it will do some good, but the reasonable estimate says, if you do a cost benefit analysis, and again, technically it's really, really complicated, but the basic idea is very, very simple. You just simply say, what are all the costs on one side and what are all the benefits? So the costs are mainly that we have to live with more expensive energy. You have to forego some opportunities. You have to have more complicated services, that kind of thing. 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. If you try to weigh up all of those, it's reasonable to assume 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. 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 cents to a hundred dollars worth of good. So there are much, much better places where you could spend this money. Likewise, the US is thinking of going net zero by 2050. It's not actually going to happen, but it's sort of a thing that everybody talks about. Biden is talking a lot about it. If you look at the models that indicate how much will that cost, it's not implausible that this will cost somewhere between two and four trillion dollars per year by mid-century. And remember, if the US went carbon neutral today, by the end of the century, that would reduce temperatures by about 0.3 degree Fahrenheit. So you would just be able to measure it. It probably wouldn't in real life, but you'd just be able to measure it. 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. So that's my main point. 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. One of the issues facing the world right now is the reality that we're reminded of that energy availability is a geopolitical destabilizer. If you have uneven access to energy and you have Vladimir Putin coming into office or something else happening that disrupts that system, you're vastly increasing poverty. This is playing out across the world. Fertilizer prices, fertilizer comes from gas, natural gas. 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, cobalt and lithium for batteries, that's pretty cool because you're taking away geopolitical instability. But that's not factored in, right? That's like way outside of what you'd factor in. But it does feel like to me, if I was gonna make the case for, you can choose your trillions, whatever that investing big isn't for these marginal things. 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. But isn't that what the proposals are, is investing in different kinds of energy, renewable energy? So what is- But I don't think most people are making that case. What's in the trillion and the T costs? What's incorporated? What are the big costs there? So the big cost is that you have slightly lower productivity gains. So basically again, and this is sort of the opposite of what we just talked about by climate change. We're gonna get richer and richer in the world. This is all models, also the UN. This is really the only way that you can get big climate change just because everybody gets a lot richer. So also the developing world gets a lot richer. So we're likely to get richer. But one of the things that drive wealth production is the fact that we have ample and cheap and available energy. 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 would rather not have used, because if people wanted to do it, we'd already have solved the problem. 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. It's not that you suddenly become poor or anything. It simply makes production slightly harder. What do you do when the wind is not blowing kind of thing? 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. And that means you grow a little less. That's the main problem with these policies, that it simply makes you somewhat less well off. So energy becomes more inefficient. Yes. So let me challenge you here. Try to steel man some critics. So you have critics. Yes. I would love you to take it seriously and sort of consider this criticism and try to steel man their case. 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 an energy, 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. So a lot of the criticism has to do with, well, you're cherry picking the models, which the models are always cherry picking anyway. So, but you want to take those seriously. So he claims that you ignore, you're not fully modeling the costs, the trade off here, how expensive is the renewable energy and how expensive is the fossil fuel. Can you steel man his case? Sure. So two things. 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. We should also recognize that this is not rich countries. This is not the countries where we're talking about climate change. This is poor countries. This is Saudi Arabia. No, that's actually not a terribly poor country. It's China, it's Indonesia, it's Russia. It's places where you're basically paying off your population, just like that you subsidize bread. You make sure that they don't rebel by making cheap fuels available. That's dumb, but it's not like they, you know, they don't know what they're doing. They're mostly doing this for things that have nothing to do with climate. So I totally agree. We should get rid of it. It's hard to do. Indonesia is actually somewhat managed to get rid of it because remember, if you spend a lot of money on fossil fuel subsidies, you're basically subsidizing the rich because poor people don't have a car. It's the rich people who can now buy, you know, a very cheap gasoline. That's, you know, that's unjust as well. So it's dumb in so many different ways. I would never argue that you shouldn't do it. I've plenty of times said we should stop that, 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. They're doing this for totally different reasons. Now, on the model side, there is virtually no model that don't show, economic model, that don't show this has a cost. And that's the fundamental point is that the, you know, this is sort of a basic point from economics. The system is already working most effectively because if it wasn't, you know, you could actually make money changing over. 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'd 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. Now there's huge discussion about just exactly how much cost is that. So there's definitely a cost. Is the cost going to be one or 5 trillion? That's absolutely a discussion about where do you take your models from? I try to do, and again, this is not possible everywhere. I try to actually take the average of all of the economic models. So there's a group called the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, which tries to pull together all these different groups that do the modeling. So some models, a lot of this cost actually comes down to the fact that we don't quite know how much more fossil fuels you're going to need in the future. And so if your projections are you're not going to use that much, the cost of reducing it is going to be very small. If you think you're going to use a ton of extra fossil fuels and you have to reduce that, the cost is going to be bigger. So I think- That's just one of the variables. That's, oh yeah, yeah. And there's many, many, many more. I think the point here is to say that if you take the average of all the best modelists that are sort of aggregated, for instance, at the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, you're pretty secure ground. And so again, I would argue that Bob Ward, yes, I've had a lot of run-ins with Bob Ward and he has a very different set of views on things, but I just don't think he's right in saying that I'm cherry picking. Well, yes. And I mean, he also has similar criticism about the estimate of the EU cost of climate action based on the NOP 2013 model. But ultimately these criticisms have to do is like, what are the sources for the different models? And just very briefly, I mean, I'm laying it out very transparently where I get these estimates from in the book. I've really tried to document this. And yes, I mean, look, there's nobody who sort of has all the information and gets everything right in all of these areas. I think most of Bob Ward's argument is not a good faith effort to sort of improve on these estimates. He's right in saying some of these estimates, we only have a few estimates. And yeah, I'd like to have more of them. One thing I should mention is that there is very little interest in general and there's very little funding in finding out how much do our climate policies cost. Because that's just inconvenient to everyone in the whole game. Who wants to know that, for instance, would you want to fund something that says that the Inflation Reduction Act is not gonna be very effective? Of course you don't want to do that, right? So again, it's a little bit the flock of birds will look at something else. And what I think is that given that we're paying for it, and this is public money, we're deciding we're gonna spend money on it. We're gonna spend money here rather than there. Let's at least look at what are the best estimates out there. I would love to have more estimates. More estimates is always better. And just a quick comment on the good faith part. Me as a consumer looking for truth, it's hard to find who's good faith and not. So it's not only are you looking for sort of accurate information, you're also trying to infer about the communicator of that information. And it's very difficult. And you put me on the podcast, of course I'm gonna say I'm a trustworthy guy. But yeah. I mean, but we believe we're trustworthy too. But I've been reading for various reasons, but mostly because I've been traveling to Ukraine and thinking and just about the people's suffering through war. I've been reading a lot about World War II and Stalin and Hitler. And from the perspective of Hitler, he really believed he's doing good for the world. And he was communicating from his perspective in good faith. He started to believe, I think, early on his own propaganda. So even your understanding and perception of the world completely shifted. So it's very, very, very difficult to understand who to trust. And just because it's a consensus in a particular community, doesn't necessarily mean it's a source of trust. So it's, I mean, basically, I don't know how to operate in this world, except to have a humility and constantly questioning your assumptions. But not so much that you're completely out in the ocean, not knowing what is true and not. So it's this weird world. Because I ultimately, bigger than climate, my hope is to have institutions that can be trusted. And that's been very much under attack in as part of the climate debate, as part of the COVID debate, as part of all these discussions. And science, to me, is one of the sources of truth. And the fact that that's under question now is something that hurts me on many levels, deeply. You said something earlier, I took a note down here, and I can't find it, about cooperation. It was like collaborative cooperation or something like that? Sure. To me, there was a point, like in 2013, after just dealing with all, everything you've been grappling with, if you know you don't know how this is gonna work out, what do you work on? And one morning I made a list of words that kind of summarized, basically system properties that give you confidence in a system, trust. And transparency is one, just as you were saying earlier. Yeah. Connectivity is another, so everyone's connected. So on the subsidy issue, for example, there are young entrepreneurs in Nairobi who are selling, ingeniously, using Nairobi's digital currency, propane, the fuel that's in our backyard barbecue grills, which comes out of gas wells, but it's a separate fuel, in little increments that poor people can use instead of charcoal. And LPG subsidies are helping them get people off of charcoal, which is a horrific trade from the source through the warlords in Somalia and elsewhere who are getting the money to the pollution in houses. So having, being sure when we're having these big debates about who the World Bank is gonna give loans to, and drawing a simple line, no more fossil fuel subsidies, hurts a really good, valuable, small-scale but scalable way to have people not die from cooking smoke in their houses and take down forests. But that only is considered if they're in the conversation. So connectivity, full connectivity, digital access. So those entrepreneurs are in the mix of people, when you're thinking about subsidies, you're not just thinking about Big Bad Exxon, you're thinking about this little company in Nairobi, Pago LPG, I think is the name, and India, the same thing. So you can list those properties of systems. And the IPCC wasn't originally transparent when I started writing about it in 1988 and 1990. And now it's way more transparent. They have more public review. So it's even better than it was. It's like a really good example of a science process of assessing the science, providing periodic output to the world, and iteratively improving the model going forward because of critique, because of scrutiny, and finding better ways for that to interface with people so they have information they can use from that big thing. And the media are not doing a good job because of this front page thotism. But we can all, I work partially in academia, Columbia, on an initiative partially in communication innovation. Like how can we have an open landscape of access to information that matters? What can you do to foster better conversations so that words like collapse, aren't just thrown around like emblems? And so system properties give you confidence, I think. And then you don't have to like be flailing around for Bjorn or Tom Friedman or Catherine Hayhoe. You can always right now find your character to follow. But I think what would be better is if you actually develop some skills to just have a basic ability to know how to cut to the chase. Can I just follow up on that? Because one of the things that I try to do, and so my day job is actually something else I work with, I think called the Copenhagen Consensus, where we work with more than 300 of the world's top economists and we work with seven Nobel laureates in economics. And the point there is really to talk about, where can you spend a dollar and do the most good for the world? That's basically the thing that we try to do. And as I said, we try to do, and as you rightly point out, look, there are lots of different estimates of what can you do, for instance, on climate, what can you do on tuberculosis, what can you do for vulnerability in all kinds of different ways. And if these were all sort of, well, you can spend a dollar here and do 2.36, but you can spend a dollar here and do 2.34 over here, I would worry a lot, but that's not how the world works because we're terribly inefficient. So there are literally lots and lots of amazing things you can do out there. There's a lot of low hanging fruit. And there's a lot of not terribly great things that you can do. And unfortunately, one of the things I try to sort of battle is that, we get a lot of things right, that's why the world is a lot better than what it used to be. But the things that are sort of left over are often the boring things that happen to be incredibly effective and the exciting things that are often not that terribly effective. And so I think one way to look at this is basically to have people do cost benefit across a wide range of areas. And we try to get a lot of different economists to do this, and they come up with different numbers and different models and different results. But if you sort of consistently get that some things give you in tens or maybe even hundreds of dollars back per dollar, remember, this is not actually you getting rich, it's the world getting rich, it's that the world gets better worth $100 for every dollar you spend. And over here, you can spend a dollar and do somewhere between 30 cents and maybe a couple of dollars. You should probably be focused on the other opportunity first. And that's really the point that I try to make with climate. There are some smart things we can do and I hope we get to talk about them in climate. But there's also a lot of sort of the standard approaches to fixing climate, turns out to be very likely below $1 back in dollar and certainly not terribly high. Even if you're very optimistic, it'll be like two or three. Whereas many other things are just fantastically better investment. Like the thing I've been advocating, a modest proposal to eat the children of the poor in England. Was that the, in Jonathan Swift, modest proposal from a few centuries ago? So it's not just cost benefit, it's also in the context of what is moral and all that, the full complexity of it. You just hit on something really important. Having been on this beat for so long, and again, on the disaster beat as well, earthquakes. I can't tell you how many disaster science experts keep telling me, like everyone says, preparedness, invest for preparedness. A strict cost benefit analysis will always tell you a dollar invested in resilience before a community gets hit by whatever is worth 10, you'll always have to spend 10 after. And so it's fine to do the cost benefit stuff, but it's just the baseline. Then you have to look at the social science, which shows, or history, which shows you how few times we do it. It's like, we just don't do it. Therefore, you can bang that drum. Your work is valuable, but it's really constrained. Because show me in the world where that does happen, and then how you turn that success, which is basically something not happening, into the story. Just very briefly, we try to, so we do this for a lot of countries. So we did it for Haiti, for instance, funded by the Canadian Development Ministry, because they were basically saying, we spent a billion dollars in Haiti since the earthquake, and we really can't tell the difference. So they want it to find, I mean, they actually say that, right? And so they said, we want to find out what are the really smart things you can do in Haiti. And so we, together with lots of people in Haiti and all the business community and the political community and the religious community and labor community and everybody else, what are the smart things to do? And then we had economists evaluate it. And there are a lot of these things that everybody wanted that were not all that smart. There's actually a lot of smart things. And yes, the politicians didn't pick most of them. So our sense is, we try to give people, you're thinking about these 70 things, you should actually just think about these 20 things. Right. And then we consider ourselves incredibly lucky if they actually do one of them. So you wrote the book, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place. So can we just list some of the things? If you got $75 billion, how do you spend them? All right. So there's some incredibly good and very, very well-documented things that you could spend money on. So we have two big infectious diseases that almost nobody think about because we only think about COVID. But tuberculosis used to be the world's biggest infectious disease killer. It still kills about 1.5 million people every year. The reason why we don't really worry about it is because we fixed it 100 years ago. We know how to fix it. It's just basically getting medication to people. It's also about getting them to take it while when they're sort of been cured because you need to take it for four to six months and that's actually hard to do. So you also need to incentivize that in some kind of way. It turns out it's incredibly cheap to basically save almost all of the 1.5 million people. These are people that die in the prime of their lives. They're typically parents. So it also have a lot of knock-on effects. And basically we find for a couple billion dollars, you could save the vast number of these. Not all of them, but you could save the vast number of them. It will also improve outcomes in all kinds of other ways. Likewise with malaria, it has somewhat better PR. It's funny to think of malaria as PR and tuberculosis. They need to improve their PR department. Those mosquitoes are the good PR. By far the biggest infectious disease that got good PR, if you will, was HIV. And I'm not trying to compare it and say, oh, it's worse or better to have HIV than tuberculosis or anything. But I'm simply saying we are underfunding because it doesn't really get the public attention. We just, we don't really care. But spending money on that has, in terms of benefit, a much bigger impact. So every dollar you spend on TB will probably do about $43 worth of good. So it'll do an amazing amount of good, basically because it'll save lives. It'll make sure parents stay with their kids and be more productive in their communities. And it'll have a lot of knock-on effects. And it's incredibly cheap to do. Same thing with malaria. It's mostly mosquito nets that we need to get out. And you're saying, just to contrast with climate change, the dollar you spend on, no, not climate change, but decreasing emissions does not have, does not come close to the $43 benefit? No, nobody would ever argue that. So very, very enthusiastic climate advocates would probably say it'll do two or $3 worth of good for every dollar. So, you know, it's still worthwhile to do. That's what they would say. I would argue, and I think a lot of the evidence seems to side that way, that a lot of the things that we're doing deliver actually less than a dollar back. But it's certainly not nearly the same kind of place. But there's many, many other things. And, you know, just if you'll allow me. Yeah, please, I love this. But, yeah, there are lots of other things, for instance, e-procurement. So, you know, it's incredibly boring. So most developing countries, well, actually most governments, spend most of their money on procurement, is typically incredibly corrupt. So we did this project for Bangladesh, where- Can you explain procurement? Yes. So that's governments buying stuff. So a large part of the government revenue is spent on buying anything from, you know, Post-it notes to roads. And obviously, you know, roads are much, much more expensive. It's mostly infrastructure stuff, hugely corrupt. For instance, in Bangladesh, it would already have been decided among the ruling elite in that local area, who's going to get this. So they'll have this bidding competition where you have to hand in an envelope, a sealed envelope with your bid on it. But you put a goon outside the office. So you literally physically can't get in with your bid. Now, what we found, and this is, you know, I'm not claiming any sort of ownership to this. A lot of smart people have done this way before. We're just simply proving that it's a good idea. 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. You can still do it, but it's harder to do it. It also means you get bids from all over Bangladesh. And in general, you'll get bids from all over. Actually, it turns out you get better quality. But most important is you get it much cheaper. So basically you can simply save money. So we did a scaled experiment in Bangladesh where we had about 4% go to be e-procurement and you could compare what it would have cost and then what it did cost. And the average reduction was, as I remember, it's 7%. 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. Now it is a corruption. So it's basically you get rid of some kind of corruption and you get some corruption. There'll still be corruption, but less corruption. Ukraine has actually been big on this. They- Yeah, I've talked to them. I talked to the digital transformation minister. It's kind of incredible. I mean, this is before the war, but still working. It's like the entirety of the government is in an app. And that one of the big effects is the reduction of corruption. And not like from a, as politicians say, to say we've reduced, we've taken these actions. And through this, no, literally it's just much more difficult to be corrupt. The incentives aren't quite there and there's friction for corruption. Oh yeah, yeah. So basically you can spend a little bit of money and you can make a huge benefit. There's still about 70 countries that haven't gone e-procurement. So obviously they should do that. Food for small kids, another thing. So, you know, basically, you know, 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. Because if you get them good food, their brains develop more so that when they get into school, they learn more. And so when they come out in adult lives, they're much more productive. So we can actually make every kid in, especially in developing countries, much more productive by making sure they get good food. So getting good food is not cost-free. So it probably costs about a hundred dollars, both in, 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. If you do that right, it costs about a hundred dollars per kid, but. Per kid or. Yeah. For two years. So it's for their first two years of life. And if you do that, 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. Remember, this is far out into the future. So this is discounted. The benefit is actually much higher. And this is one of the things that we also have a conversation about in climate change, because all, and when you talk about climate change, cost and benefits, all the costs are now, and all the benefits are in the future. But it's just like that in education, all the costs are now, all the benefits are far out into the future. 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. Again, remember about a third of all kids that go to school right now, just don't learn pretty much anything. Yeah. And 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, you know, by just simply making sure that they're smarter when they get into school, 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. Then when you say the education system is not working well, that's, we're talking about not the American education system, we're talking about globally. Yes, we're talking about globally. You know, 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? And, you know, all these students have lots of other issues. You know, there's, they need to do farm work. They need, yeah, they're constantly considering, should I just go out and start working instead? You know, there's constant disruption. There's a lot of teachers that don't show up in India. You know, you have this absurd situation where all the teachers are basically paid and hired for eternity for the rest of their lives. And so not surprisingly, a lot of them decide not to show up. So now they've hired assistant teachers that basically have taken over. So they're paying, you know, for, I think it's 7 million teachers that, I'm not saying they're not all not working, but a lot of them are not working as much as they should. And we now hired another 7 million teachers that will eventually, you know, stop working as well. They're working much better right now because they're, you know, they're not on permanent contracts, but eventually they'll get on permanent contracts and then you have the same problem again. 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. Why don't we start with solving the easy and effective ones? And this of course bears on that whole conversation on climate change, because in some ways, you know, that's also Andy's point of saying, look, if you want to save people from the impacts of hurricanes, let's fix this simple, easy things about vulnerability first. 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. That's going to be, that's a tall order, no matter how you look at it. There's some really cool elements that you guys just brought up. You mentioned that word moral before, I wasn't, I latched onto it because it relates to these timescales that really are immeasurable. If you know it's going to 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. And that process, letting go of the need for kind of a mechanistic cost-benefit approach, thinking about kids' education in poor countries, or several things we talked about, seems to be really important. And it's very hard for all of us to do. Philanthropists suck at it. I worked at National Geographic Society for a year, building some new programs when they got a big infusion of money. They have a whole department that's called M&E, it's measurement and evaluation, which is if you don't prove it, it goes away. I mentioned Spotify earlier, Spotify killing a climate podcast, because that podcast didn't measure out for their impact, what they want to do. And if we're always making the judgments based on strict cost-benefit, we're gonna miss larger realities. Another thing is, a really exciting example of what you're talking about, in terms of in Ukraine with the trust and lack of corruption and stuff, was in India. 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. Much cleaner, much healthier in so many ways. 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. So he and others, there was an American scientist, Kirk Smith, who worked this all out. They were getting a subsidy, they had that energy subsidy. You were talking about many poor countries subsidize energy just to stay in office, you know, to make something cheap that everyone wants. 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. And the critical factor was India's digital currency. India went to a digital economy, very poor families there now, if you have a phone, you basically, that's your bank. 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. But we know they're poor. We know they're not just gonna be using it behind their restaurant, which was, you know, when it was a general subsidy, people were hoarding the LPG. And the system has worked. 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, smokey fire, cooking, clean the pots and start all over again. But it's all built on trust, built on the digital economy and the same thing in Nairobi. So that excites me every day, you know, with all the doomism. I just hope people can literally 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. 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 and lead to a better outcome. But we know from history that sometimes it does. Ban Ki-moon, former secretary general. So 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. He was growing up in post-war Korea. Everyone was poor, everything was broken, destroyed. Sadly, like so much of many parts of Ukraine. And he would do his homework by kerosene lamp. He said when he was studying for his finals, his mom would give him a candle because it was a brighter flame, you know, better grades maybe. And he became secretary general. It's a hell of a story. So which, for climate change, which policies work, which don't? 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? Yeah. 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. 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? 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. Much of it is probably less than a dollar back in the dollar. There's some investments on adaptation, for instance, that's pretty good, but it's sort of two, three dollars back in the dollar. Oh, what is adaptation? 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- Adapt infrastructure, right? Yes. The physical and the digital infrastructure. The point is that people are really good at doing this already because they have a strong incentive to do it. So the extra thing that governments can do outside is somewhat good, but it's not amazing or anything. What we found by far the best investment in the long run was on investment in energy innovation. So, and I think this also sort of corresponds with what we would think in general. 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. You'd just be building these, you know, modular nuclear power plants. They would be, instead of being these 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 recognised in one go. So it'd be much cheaper. They would also be passively safe. So if all the power goes, they'll shut down rather than go boom. So that's another very good thing. And then they'll also be very hard to transform into nuclear weapons. 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. Now, this is all still being worked out, but imagine if that actually comes out. And again, remember the other three generations, they were, we were also told that it'll be incredibly safe and it'll be incredibly cheap and it didn't turn out that way. So let's wait, but it could be. And so the argument is invest in these ideas, for instance, fourth generation nuclear. And if fourth generation nuclear becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, 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 is Indian subcontinent. That's how you fix these issues, right? So the idea here is to say, 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, you know, 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 all that interested in buying it and so on. Then get the innovation such that they become cheaper than fossil fuels and everyone will switch. This is how we've solved problems in the past, if you think, in Los Angeles in the 1950s was hugely polluted place, mostly because of cars. The sort of standard climate approach today would be to tell everyone in Los Angeles, I'm sorry, could you just walk instead? And of course that just doesn't work. That doesn't pay off. You never get, you know, a politician voted in office or at least staying in office if you make that kind of policy. What did solve the problem was the innovation of the catalytic converter. You basically get those little gizmo and it cost a couple of hundred dollars and you put it on your tailpipe and then you can drive around basically almost not pollute. And that's how you fix the air pollution in Los Angeles. Basically, we've solved all problems in humanity, all big, difficult problems with innovation. 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 poor and believing that that can go on for decades. And while it possibly works in some pockets of the US 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. But yeah, there's a willingness to say, we're gonna suffer a little, but then we'll fix this problem. But the point is, we're gonna be willing to suffer a little and so fix a tiny bit of the climate problem instead of actually focusing on innovation. 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. And the terrible thing is, we have not been doing this. So because everybody's focused on saying, we need this solution within the next 12 years, it means you're not thinking about the innovation. We're actually spending less money, not more money on innovation globally. So everyone's focusing on reducing carbon emission versus innovating on alternate energy. You're basically focusing on putting the existing solar panels or wind turbines, which are either just about inefficient or inefficient, instead of making the next generation, or it's more likely the 10th generation after that, that comes with lots of battery backup power, or fourth generation nuclear, or Craig Venter has this great idea. Craig Venter, the guy who cracked the human genome back in 2000, he has this idea of growing algae out on the ocean surface. These algae, they'd be genetically modified and they would basically soak up sunlight and CO2 and produce oil. 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. $1 invested in the portfolio of different ideas. Gives $11 back. I first wrote about that in the New York Times. It was one of my actual page one stories. In 2006, it was declining R&D in energy at a time of global warming. The baseline is so low for this that it's a super bargain. During the energy crisis, the first energy crisis in the 70s before the current one, our annual spending in the United States on constant dollars on R&D, research and development for energy, was about $5 billion. Then it's just dribbled away since then. Recently now, there's a big burst of new money coming through these new bills that got passed. 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. You don't get young people away from thinking about Wall Street for jobs towards thinking about energy innovation if there isn't a future there. In the United States and Europe, the presumption was the way to that future was taxing carbon. You make that so punitive that you're basically evening the landscape for cleaner stuff that's more expensive. That has failed completely. There are little examples in Europe where it's working. What's happened now is, well, the United States, this big chunk of money, is designed to take us over a finish line that was started with not just innovation but with the production efficiency too. This is one thing I got wrong, I think, a little bit in my reporting. I was so fixated on the innovation part, just because I love science too, I saw this untapped possibility that others were saying, no, no, production efficiency, the more people are producing batteries, the cheaper they'll get. This is Elon Musk's path and many others. And it really is both. So when you were talking about purchasing power for governments, for example, that can stimulate production capacity for batteries or whatever the good thing is and take you down faster. And it's all about getting that margin of the new thing outcompeting the old. And it's not just innovation. It has so many parts of the pipeline that need to be nurtured. And the other thing is relative cost. The United States, when I was writing about this in 2006, our budget for DARPA, the Advanced Research Project Agency for the Defense Department, just for science was 80 billion a year. For health, for medical frontier research on cancer and stuff, 40 billion. Energy was two or three. So we were taking this remotely seriously. So now that if we get that up, to me, there's like this level, you know, we're taking something seriously when it's like in the tens of billions for R&D. It's not that R&D will solve the problem, but it's a proxy for what we really care about. We care a shitload about defense. What's the defense budget in the United States now? Like 800 billion? It's some insane number. Who's counting when you're having fun? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so innovation is not just like for the better, you know, camera, the better solar panel, the better battery. Social innovation actually matters hugely. Like the guy in Nairobi I mentioned with a company doing micropayment gas to get people off charcoal. We need that as much as this. And I actually, I interviewed Bill Gates. We had spent an hour with him in Seattle in 2016 when he was rolling out his breakthrough energy thing. I got to spend, it was 45 minutes, me and Bill Gates, which was pretty fun. 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. And I, yes, yes, yes, but we also- He brought up nuclear? Sorry to interrupt. Oh, he did, oh sure, yeah. 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. But I brought up a guy I met in India who runs a little outfit called Celco that they do really interesting, cool village to village. They're like an energy analyst who'll come to your house here in the States and tell you how to weatherize your house, but they do it at the village scale. And in a village that has, where they're milling wheat, he'll put in a solar-powered wheat mill. And, you know, that's not gonna solve the world's problems, but it gives them a way to control their energy. They don't have to buy something to grind their wheat. And that needs just as much attention as the things I really like too, the cool technologies. And I thought I cornered Bill Gates. I was like, because he really does focus on these big wins, the big, you know, like nuclear that will make net zero completely doable. And I said, well, you know, what about nuclear, like New York City, where I was still living at the time, or near, and I said, it's got a million buildings. New York City has 1 million buildings. And in 2013, the Bloomberg government analyzed, they said, looking ahead to 2050, 75% of the buildings in New York City that will exist in 2050 already exist. Think about these brave new futures, right? Like we're just gonna come in, and have these shiny, cool passive house cities. So I put this to Bill, and I said, so how do you do that? 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? And I kind of thought I had him. And then he immediately, he kind of sat back and went, well, but if you have unlimited clean power coming into that city, it doesn't really matter. It's a pretty good Bill Gates impression. It was a good answer. I mean, it was a good answer. He said, oh yeah, it's a leaky bucket, but if you pour in zero carbon energy, then it doesn't matter. But I still think we have to figure out the other part too. That end, how do you innovate at the household level, at the village level? It's much more of a distributed problem, we used to think. The one big change I've had in my own thinking too is from top down to distributed. Everything about the climate problem, through the first three decades of my reporting, was that the IPCC will come out a new report, the framework convention, the treaty will get us on board, we'll all behave better. It has this top down, parent to child architecture. And everything I've learned has gone the other way. It's distributed capacity for improved lives. You know, kids getting through school, women not having to spend three hours collecting firewood. And if it means propane for that household in that context, that's a good thing. So stop with all your yammering about any oil, fossil fuel subsidies. And what's an America look like that has some climate safe energy future? Find your part in that. Don't get disempowered by the scale of it. There's like a thousand things to do. When you start to cut it into pieces. So it's very different. It's not a top down thing. 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. But I also think, you know, just the sheer incentives, what we saw happening with shale gas is a great example. When shale gas becomes so cheap that you just stop using coal, then you don't really have to convince lots and lots of people. You know, coal is really bad. And it wasn't a label of climate. No, it wasn't a climate thing. It was an energy thing. It was totally. And the point is just, you know, the power of an innovation is that you almost don't see it anymore. It just happens. And I think that's really the only way we're going to fix these big problems. If you think about the nutrition problem back in the 60s, 70s, we worried a lot about India and other places. 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? It was the fact that some scientists made ways to make every seed produce three times as much. So you could grow three times as much food on an acre. And that's what basically made it possible for India to go from a basket case to the world's leading rice exporter. And that's how you do these things. You solve these big problems through innovation. And again, I'm not saying that, you know, we're actually arguing our carbon tax is a smart thing to do. You know, that's what any economist would tell you to do. 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. So it may also just be the wrong sort of tree to bark up. Again, if you can do it, please do. But this is not the main thing that's going to solve climate. The main thing is that we get these innovations that basically make green energy so cheap, everyone will just want. We mentioned nuclear quite a few times. You know, there was a, for a long time, it seems to have shifted recently. 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. When did that shift? What was the source of that alarmism? And maybe is that a case study of how alarmism can turn into a productive, constructive policy? Ha ha, productive from whose standpoint? Is it not? Is it not? Like nuclear? No, I was trying to, do you mean productive in terms of yay, we banned it? Or productive for those who want it? Oh, I see, I see what you mean, yes. I meant productive for human civilization. No, the alarmism over nuclear power dominated any alarmism over global warming, absolutely. Oh, really? Oh yeah, this in the United States, Three Mile Island, then you had Chernobyl there. And the traditional environmental movement still won't go there. 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. I lived for the last 30 years, I moved to Maine recently, 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. None of them were to the point of a meltdown or the threat of it, or even the theoretical possibility of one. I've been in, I was in it twice as a reporter, you know, looking down in the cooling pool. I can send you a fun video of bubbles in the cooling pool with the rods. And progressively they demonstrated how to handle waste 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. We just simply don't have a long-term solution. The Nevada politicians were successful in saying, not here, not here, not Yucca Mountain. 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. 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. It's being mothballed, and I was like, that sucks. We need, it was- But she's happy. Yeah, and we still love each other. And she's an environmentalist, so that just speaks to a lot of environmentalists still see nuclear as bad. Oh, totally, oh yeah. You know, and you bring in the weapons proliferation issues. But it's a safety thing, it's a generational thing. I think young people are different, I hope. These small modular reactor designs, several of which, there's a couple of PhDs from MIT who did transatomic power. They're both like in their early 30s. We need so much more of them. 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. Talk to me about what do you want to do with existing nuclear power plants? And what do you want to do about the possibility of new ones? Let's parse this out in chunks that we can have constructive conversations about. 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. So that's just my sustain what mantras. Start with some, divide and conquer. Conquer the dispute over by saying, let's at least get real. This power plant has been in the Hudson Valley for 30 years. It was the base load. It was base load. Base load is the real thing. And guess what has filled the gap since that power plant has turned off? Natural gas, natural gas. But, and you don't hear that from the environmental community that was so eager to turn off the Indian point. I think both the point of saying that people are saying, it's the end of the world, but no, I don't want a nuclear power plant. It just doesn't make sense. And Andy's absolutely right to talk about. So existing nuclear power plants, we already paid for them. We already have them. We already committed to decommissioning them eventually 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. So, you know, it's basically cheap or almost free CO2 base load power. There's just nothing there that is, that doesn't, you know, you should embrace. Now, new nuclear power plants turn out to be very expensive currently. 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. So they're much more expensive than, you know, the costliest renewables you can imagine. So they're actually not a solution right now. And that's why we need the innovation. That's why we need the potentially fourth generation nuclear power. It's just simply, it's a bad deal. And that's why, you know, nuclear is never going to win on its third generation. Now it may never get there, you know, who knows, but it's certainly a possibility and we should be looking into it. And there are, you know, wonky realities that need to be dealt with. 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. 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. And that, so it, along with the innovation, you need to have this get out of the way or you're never going to have the investment. So it really is an all of the above thing. And looking at these as systems problems, systems solutions is really important. Let me ask you about Alex Epstein. So he wrote, I'm not sure if you're familiar who he is, but he wrote a couple of books. It's just interesting to ask a question about fossil fuels because we're talking about reality. 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 that as his subtitle says, global human flourishing requires oil, coal, and natural gas or more oil, coal, and natural gas, not less. What do you think about the argument he makes? 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 then having the $1 to $11 return. He says, I'm not sure exactly how to frame it, but investing and maintaining investment to fossil fuels also has a positive return because of how efficient the energy is. I've read the first book, I've got his second one, I've been planning to have him on my webcast, my tiny webcast. What's the name of the webcast? Sustain What? Everything I do is sustain what? Because it's like, don't talk to me about sustainability, sustain what? For whom? How? Then we're talking, you know? Interrogatory approach to things. So 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. It's a boon, it's been an amazing boon to society, period. So start there. Which means going forward, what we're talking about is a substitution. Or having your fossil fuels and eating it too, meaning getting rid of the carbon dioxide. If you focus on the carbon dioxide, which is the thing warming the planet, not the burning of the fuels, then that's another way forward that could sustain fossil fuels. 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. I don't think he adequately accounts for the need to stop global warming. Slowing global warming is a fundamental need in this century we're in. And that's just not factored into his math. Well, I think that's where... I've had a few offline conversations with him. I think he said, because I mentioned I'm talking to the two of you, he said that that's probably where he disagrees about the level of threat that global warming causes. Well, Steve Koonin is another one. He's a brilliant guy. He lived right close to me in the Hudson Valley. He was in the Obama administration energy department. It's K-O-O-N-I-N. He wrote a bestseller that came out recently on skepticism about climate. There are other smart people who somehow feel we can literally adapt our way forward without any constraint on the gases changing the climate. And I've spent enough time on this. I think I'm a pretty level-headed reporter when it comes to this issue. 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. These are not static moments. That that's a good thing to do doesn't strike me as smart. I'd probably say that I think it's more sort of, 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. We get 80% of our energy from fossil fuels today. Still, as we did 50 years ago, 40 years ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And people have no sense of this, right? 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. But the reality is, remember, only about a fifth of all energy use is electricity. The rest is in processes and heating, industrial processes and so on. So actually, solar and wind right now produces 1% of energy from wind and 0.8% from solar. This is not a huge thing. It's a fairly tiny bit. And growing explosively. Yes, it's absolutely growing. 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. So we're still talking about something which is somewhat boutique, at least. 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, we will be at, if all countries do all the stuff that they promised and everything, we will be at 70% fossil fuels by 2050, globally. This is just, yes, it's a better world. 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. And forgetting that, and I think we are doing that 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. We have literally reduced our investment in oil and gas by more than half since 2014. And much of this is because of climate concerns. This has real world consequences. This is why energy prices have gone up. It's not the only reason, COVID also, certainly the war in Ukraine, but this is an underlying systemic reason why fossil fuel costs will go up dramatically. Now, a lot of greens will sort of tend to say, well, that's great because we want fossil fuels to be expensive. We want people to be forced over to renewables. But that's very easy to say if you're rich. You know, it's the kind of thing that New Yorkers will say, you know, when you go to rich, well-meaning green New Yorkers and say, yes, gasoline should cost $20 a gallon. Well, you don't have a car. You just ride the Metro. It's very easy for you to say that. But lots of people, both in the rich world, but you know, in poor parts of the US, but all around the world, their lives have basically depended on fossil fuels. And so the idea that we're gonna get people off by making it so expensive that it becomes impossible for them to live good lives is almost morally reprehensible. And I think Alex has the right point there. We need to get people to realize we're not gonna get off fossil fuels anytime soon. So we need reasonably affordable fossil fuels for most of the world. 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. But to say to everyone, look, we're gonna make fossil fuels expensive way before we have the solution is just terrible. And the rich, so much is on the rich countries of the world. I did a conversation recently with Johan Rockström, who's a famed sustainability scientist in Stockholm, actually Potsdam now. Right. And he's come up with the idea of planetary boundaries. There are lots of things he has said that I, as a journalist, I'm still looking into about that. Planetary boundaries? Yeah, that there are limits to what Earth can absorb and human, our use of water, phosphorus, our carbon dioxide loading in the atmosphere. There are these tipping, there are these boundaries if we cross them, we're in a hot zone, a danger zone. He's an interesting thinker. But on this point, last year at the Glasgow Climate Talks, he gave a very important talk about the equity thing here. 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 gonna pay poor countries to do to allow poor countries, some of which have fossil resources like in Africa, 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. Because also they're starting from this little baseline. Ghana hasn't contributed squat to the global warming problem in terms of emissions. Ghana has natural gas. And right now, this month, environmental groups are outside the World Bank today, actually tonight, saying this was on their list of dirty projects. 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. It's to me, that's really reprehensible. One of the other projects on their list 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. 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 how dare they finance that because there's a fossil fuel involved is immoral. So yes, on that point from Alex. So this is 2022 poll. Polls. Just this is a bunch of different ways to look at the same basic effect. In the United States, Democrats, younger Americans identify dealing with climate change as a top priority. US adults, 42% say that dealing with climate change should be a top priority. 11% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats. And we could see this effect throughout. 46% of Americans say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. By the way, this is a little bit different than what we're discussing. I was just looking through different polls. In the public, there seems to still be uncertainty about how much humans contribute to climate change. More than the scientific consensus. It would only be 24% that disagree with the UN Climate Panel. Three quarters would agree. Are you uncomfortable about the 29? No, 29 is actually, it's exactly right. I mean, the UN doesn't say it's all. Well, they say that could be the border case. But anyway, this is interesting. But to me, across all these polls, if you look, Republican versus Democrat. The Republican, say that 17% say it's a great deal. Democrats say 71% say it's a great deal. And you just see this complete division. I think you probably, with COVID pandemic, you can ask a lot of questions like this. Do masks work? Are they an effective method to slow transmission of a pandemic? You'll probably have the same kind of polls about Republicans and Democrats. And while the effectiveness of masks, to me, is a scientific question. But so there's different truths here, apparently. One is a scientific truth. One is a truth held by the scientific community, which seems to be also different than the scientific truth sometimes. And the other is the public perception that's polluted or affected by political affiliation. And then there's whatever is the narrative that's communicated by the media. They will also have a question, answer to the question of whether masks work or not. And they will also have an answer to the question about all these climate-related things. So that's a long way of asking the question of how is politics mixed into all of this? 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. Well, I've written a ton on this. 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. And questions about polling. 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? I don't really care about that. And I'll explain why. For one thing, more science literacy, more basic literacy, like what is a greenhouse gas, all that stuff. Dan Kahane, K-A-H-A-N at Yale. He's actually at Yale Law School. The last decade, he did all this work on what he calls cultural cognition, which is, and he did studies that showed how what you believe emerges based on culture, based on your background, your red, blue, where you are in the country. 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, they're at both ends of the spectrum of views on climate, dismissives and alarmed. Steve Koonin, as I mentioned, is a good example. He's a brilliant physicist. And he knows all the science, and he's completely at the end of skepticism. Will Happer, who was close to being Trump's science advisor, was even more out there. And he's on, they're both on the Jason Committee that advises the government on big strategic things. And people who are really alarmed about it also have the same belief. So as a journalist, I was thinking, do I just spend my time writing more explanatory stories that explain the science better? No. Do I dig in on this work to understand what brings people together? And then these same surveys, the same science shows you, if you don't make it about climate, among other things, this becomes, you don't have to worry about this anymore. If you Google for no red-blue divide climate revkin, you'll find a piece I did with some really good graphs. Essentially, it shows that in America, this is the Yale group again, their climate communication group. There's no red-blue divide on energy innovation, none. We need more climate energy, clean energy innovation. There wasn't even a divide country by state by state on whether CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant. But it's all like, what are the questions you ask? If you ask about innovation, if you ask about more incentives for renewable power, Oklahoma, Iowa, 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 because they're expanding wind power already. Not because of the climate, because it makes money sense and energy sense. So you don't think there's a political divide in this? There is on climate, if you call it climate. If you say it's a climate, do you believe in the climate crisis? You're not asking, what kind of energy future do you want in your town? And so if you ask that question, the polarization goes away. I guess what I'm asking, is there polarization on policy? No, well there, again, the bipartisan infrastructure law that was passed last November, that was bipartisan. All of Congress said yes. And that's a trillion dollars, several hundred billion of which are for cleaner energy and resilience. Yeah, but that's... And that, but it's not a climate bill. And it wasn't a tax. It's incentives. So the word climate and similar words are just used as part of the signaling, like masks. Absolutely. It's not... As Dan Cahan's work, the guy at Yale, he really demonstrated powerfully abortion, gun rights, climate, and a more part level nuclear power, has enduring camps that for and against. Why do the camps form? Well, I think it's a, why do the camps form? Some of it's cultural cognition. It's how you grew up. It's what you fear. There's no common human frame for... Is it because of like folks, like certain individuals like Al Gore? Like he would make a film. He cares about this thing. He's a Democrat. Therefore, I hate this thing. Therefore, I don't like this thing, yeah. Oh, sure, yeah. You know, when people get attached to an issue, if that's what pops into your head when you hear climate, then... And it got politicized. It became emblematic and the whole vaccine thing. 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. So a little bit like, do masks work? 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 gonna force me to wear it for the next year. So it doesn't work because then I don't have to wear it kind of thing. That it's really, you're looking much further down the line. And certainly on climate, it seems to me that a lot of the people who say, it's not real, 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. Yeah. So it's because- Because they don't like top-down government. Yeah, and also because they don't want another tax. And there's lots of other... So it's really, it's not a science, it's not a straight science question. It really is a question of what do you want to do? And that's where I think, Andy, you're much, much more right in saying we should have that discussion. So what do you wanna do? Because that will be a much easier conversation to say, do you wanna do really smart, cheap stuff? Or do you wanna do pretty dumb, expensive stuff? When you put it that way, you can get most people on board. Of course, it's not as simple as that, I know. And it gets back to what you said earlier, that again, you talked about collaborative cooperation or whatever. There's a guy at Columbia, Peter Coleman, who runs this thing called the Difficult Conversations Laboratory. Yeah. Yeah, that's awesome. And when I first heard about it, I was like, oh man, we need that. And his background's psychology and conflict resolution, mostly at the global scale related to atrocities that countries are trying to get over. And there's a science to how to hold a better conversation, as you either through experience or whatever know. If you hold a debate, like I wouldn't wanna be in a debate with Bjorn. We could find lots of things we disagree on. But that takes it back to the win-lose model, right? That's not how you make progress. And what I learned, absorbed from him, Peter Coleman, and because I was thinking like, we need room for agreement. I need to build a room for agreement. My blog and at the Times and then the stuff I do now, it's like, how can we talk and come to agreement? He says, no, no, you don't want agreement. You want cooperation. That allows you to hold onto your beliefs. But we can disagree on all these things, but let's cooperate on that one thing. And that's a really valuable distinction that's needed so much in this arena, because as I said earlier, you can parse it right down to the whole menu of things Joe Manchin wanted, transmission lines. Now we're gonna have big fights over transmission lines. We've got billions of dollars to spend expanding America's grid. And every community in America is gonna say, not here. So how do you foster a federal local dialogue that allows that to happen, if you wanna have any hope of a better grid? So that's like, those insights come from behavioral sciences that I think are completely undervalued in this area. Pilka loves to quote, I think it's Lippert, but- Oh, Walter Lippman. Lippman, yes, that democracy is not about everybody agreeing, but it's about different people disagreeing, but doing the same thing. Doing one thing together. Yes, I mean, agreeing that we're gonna do this thing. So you can disagree, but still do a thing. Possibly for very different reasons. Yeah, and there's an amazing video clip that shows this so powerfully. 2015 was the buildup to the Paris talks that led to the Paris Agreement, you know this. And a really talented journalist at CNN at the time, John Sutter, who's from Oklahoma originally, he saw another Yale study that was a county by county study of American attitudes on climate change. American attitudes on global warming. Like right down to the county level. And there's this little glowing data point in Woodward County, Oklahoma. Woodward County, Oklahoma was ground zero for climate skepticism, climate denial, whatever you wanna call it. And he thought, oh, I'm gonna go there. He went there just to meet people on the street, talk to them about energy and weather. 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. And he starts out the interview, and the guy is saying, well, you know, God controls the environment. And if you're watching this, you're just going, okay, this is gonna be interesting. 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, 6,000-year creation. So that's the guy, right? 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 wanna get off the grid entirely. And when I show this to audiences, I say, just pause and think about that for a second. Why do you think that's happening? And it's because he's independent. He wants to have his own source of power. He's libertarian. He doesn't want the government telling him what to do. He would never vote for Hillary, I guarantee you. This is 2015. But he wanted to get off the grid entirely to be his own, to be himself. 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, do you think that would be a productive way to go to that place and make your case? And the answer is pretty obvious, no. 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. 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. How do we make that work at the local level? How do we answer that guy at the energy department, Jigar Shah? So how do we put this to work to get our buses off, to get electrified or transition our street lamps and stuff? You could have a good chat with him. If you go in there and say, I'm here to debate you to death on global warming, forget about it. Actually, let me ask you a question, given your roots as a journalist. Yeah. So yeah, talking to a guy you disagree with, that's one thing. What about talking to people that might be, society might consider bad, unethical, even evil. What's the role of a journalist in that context? So climate change is a large number of people that believe one thing, a large number of people that believe another thing. It turns out even with people that society deems as evil, there's a large number of people that support them. What's your role as a journalist to talk to them? Well, I have talked to really bad people. When I wrote about the murder of Chico Mendes, a Brazilian Amazon rainforest activist in 1989, I interviewed the killers. One was in jail, several of them were just ranchers who, they had their point of view. They were there in the Amazon rainforest to, the word in Brazil and Portuguese is limpar, to clean the land. They're the bandarantes, the pioneers of Brazil. They go into these frontiers and tame them like we had in our West. And they would bring that up too. They would say to me, well, you did this. They didn't say you murdered your Native Americans and stuff, but they could easily have said that too. And you deforested all your landscapes. So who are you to come down here to? But if I didn't talk to them, that would be not a way to do journalism. But when you talked to them, did you empathize with them or did you push back? That's the ultimate question. Like if you want to understand, like if you talk to Hitler in 1941, do you empathize with him or do you push back? 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. But if you actually want to understand the person, you should empathize. If you want to be the kind of person that actually understands in the full arc of history, you need to empathize. I find that journalists, a lot of times, perhaps they're protecting their job, their reputation, their sanity, are not willing to empathize. Yeah, well, I think this happened with Joe Manchin. I'm not doing any kind of equation here related to Hitler and Joe Manchin. Yes, yes. Or Trump, I mean Trump. 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. I profoundly disagree on that point. But I interviewed him for an hour 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. And I kind of said, let's talk about some other things. And we started talking about education and science education. He went on for like 20 minutes about the vital importance of better science education for Americans. 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. And he said that he learned their teachers. At any rate, he went at a long exposition on that. He then defended climate science. He said, we need more climate science. He says, I love this stuff. I love the ocean buoys. There are now thousands of them in the oceans charting clear pictures of ocean circulation and satellites. And he said something really important that many people discount, which is we need sustained investment in monitoring this planet. We neglect our systems. We neglect our systems that just tell us what's happening in the world. And that's happened over and over again. So if I had left it, if I had gone into the terrain of the fight over CO2, some journalist friends might say, oh, that was good. Mashup, you know, matchup. And, 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. And so if I hadn't gone there, and a lot of people, if you look back, I got hammered for doing that from, even from friends. 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. In other words, there's a landscape of things that are important. He recognized that Happer is really smart about defense and all kinds of things too. 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, it's like with the guy in Oklahoma. You know, if you go in looking for the differences, you'll find them, you can amplify them. You can leave with this paralyzed sense of nothing having happened that was useful. Or you can find these nuggets that are, everyone is a human being. I can't play the mind game of what I would have said, asked to Hitler, but. I play that mind game all the time, but that's for another conversation. Yeah, yeah. I had many in my family that have suffered under him. Nevertheless, he is a human being. Yeah. And I, you know, people sometimes caricature Hitler as saying like, that's when you mentioned Hitler, the conversation devolves. Oh right, you've got a certain point. It devolves, but I don't agree. I think sort of these extremes are useful thought experiments to understand, 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. But a number of years ago, my wife and I were with our veterinarian who was German born, Dr. Bach, B-A-C-H. 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. Wow, that hit me like a brick. Yeah. Because it was so, at the very least, understanding how pathways that lead to people doing things like he did and ordered is essential. And the only way to understand that is to dig in and ask questions and get uncomfortable. That still makes my hair prickle when I think back to him saying, yeah, my mom voted for Hitler. That somehow makes it super real. Like, oh, yeah. Wow. There's elections, there's real people living their lives. Exactly, struggling with a broken economy and all kinds of stuff. Having their own little personal resentments and all that kind of stuff. Let me ask you about presidents, American presidents. Who had a positive or negative impact on climate change efforts in your view? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden. Or maybe you could say that they don't have much of an impact. So like they, in public discourse, presidents have a kind of maybe disproportional, like we imagine they have a huge amount of impact. How much impact do they actually have on climate policy? I don't know if you have comments on this. Well, there is a background decarbonization rate that's happened for 150 years. We moved from wood to charcoal to coal to oil and gas is cleaner, it's more hydrogen, less carbon. And I asked recently, I asked some really smart scientists who studied these long trajectories of energy. When you look at those curves, is there anything in that curve that says, oh, climate treaty, 1992? Oh, Paris. And it's really hard. Or China, I mean, when China came in with his huge growth in emissions, that created a bit of a recarbonization blip. But that was this huge growth in their economy. They pulled a bunch of people out of poverty. So yeah, no, presidents don't really change anything on timescales that we would measure, as meaning where you could parse it out. 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. But I have to say, when Obama stood up and took credit for reductions from moving from coal to gas because of fracking, that was actually Cheney who set that in motion. I was thinking, I would say Bush, not because I like him or anything, but he's the guy who inadvertently started fracking. Right? And it goes further back than that. 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, who cobbled together technology. 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. And also Bush did something interesting in the whole wonky climate treaty process. It was under Bush that they started to focus on sectors. Let's do, they did a, oh, and also on big emitters. This isn't about 200 countries. It's about basically eight or 10 countries. Let's get them into a room and let's have these little subrooms on electrification, on mining, on whatever, and vice parsing it out. And Obama picked up the same model. They had different names for it because presidents always name something different than the last president. One was the major economies forum, and then it was the major emitters, something or other. And that getting away from the treaty dots and dashes toward just sectoral, big sectors that matter, you know, gas, electrification, makes a difference. But again, you couldn't ever measure. No. It's always the lag time would be important. 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 what should it or has it promised to do? Emissions. Yeah, and in 2019, so just before COVID hit, they actually did a survey of the 2010s. So the last big sort of report on how well are we doing? And their takeaway quote, and I'm not going to get this right, but it's pretty much what they said was, 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. So despite the fact that we've had 10 years of, you know, immense focus on climate and everybody talks about it and the Paris Agreement, which is perhaps the biggest global sort of agreement and what we're going to be doing, you can't actually tell. And that I think is incredibly important because what it tells you is all that we're doing is not even on the margin, it's sort of smaller than that. And I'm not sure what that is, but you know, we're basically dealing in, you know, so for instance, the UK loves to point out that they have dramatically reduced their carbon emissions and they have, they've really dramatically lowered their emissions, but mostly because they've de-industrialized. They 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, which of course is great for Britain, or I don't know if it's great for Britain, but we can't all do that. And so most of what we're trying to do right now is sort of, you know, this virtue signaling, it makes us feel good, it's sort of, yeah, on the margin or in the very tiny margin, but you know, what we basically, and that was Andy, your point with China, and the reason why we can't tell the difference, of course, is because China basically became the workshop for everyone. And so not only did they lift more than half a million people out of poverty, sorry, half a billion. Yes, half a billion people out of poverty, but they also, you know, basically took over most production. Most production in the world. And so of course, you know, much, many rich countries could decarbonize and, or at least reduce their carbon emissions and feel very virtuous about it. But fundamentally we haven't solved how does the world do this? 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. And I don't think we have any sense of how hard this is actually going to be. 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. If you have something that's harder and, you know, costlier and more inconvenient, no, you're just not going to make it. And getting more time by cutting vulnerability. Yes. The pockets of vulnerability on the planet are huge and they're identifiable and you know what to do. What are the biggest pockets of vulnerability? Well, they're like- Infrastructure of cities? No, it's where people are living and what their capacities are. So moving people, how do you decrease the vulnerability in the world? What are the big ones? Affordable housing. 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. So affordable housing in cities can limit exposure to, in that case, wildfire. Durban, South Africa, that terrible devastating flood they had this year, past year, who was washed away. Poor people who don't have any place to live. So they settle on in a floodplain along a stream bed that's livable, you know, when it's not raining buckets. And those are vulnerabilities that are there because of dislocation, housing. Tacloban, this typhoon that hit the Philippines terribly ahead of the Paris talks, or was it the previous one? No, it was in 2013, I believe. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thousands died. Most of the stories that were written were framed around climate change because the Pope made a deal about it. It was just before the climate talks of that year. And what happened, partially why there were so many losses, was Tacloban City had quadrupled in population in the last 30 years. 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. So those are things we, whatever the we is in the different places, really can work on. And that gives more flex for sure in thinking about this long trajectory that seems so immovable and so hard, the decarbonization part. There's no excuse. I wrote a piece, I guess a year ago. I said there's a vulnerability emergency hiding behind this climate emergency label. That's really what needs work. 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. It killed half the city. And so what's happened since then is people just got much, much richer from early 1900 to 2013. We've just moved a lot of people out of poverty. Now it's a lot bigger. And that went back to this. And yeah. Bangladesh is even a bigger example of that. In the 1970s, they had horrible cyclones, one of which was the Beatles, George Harrison's Concert for Bangladesh. Great album that I still have somewhere. 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. Bangladesh has been hit by comparable storms recently. And it's terrible. Every death is terrible, but it's like 123 deaths. And it's not just because of wealth. It's because people know what to do. It's because there's cell phones. It's because they have elevated platforms in many communities in the floodplains there that you know to get to. So they went from hundreds of thousands of deaths in a cyclone to 123. We were working with Bangladesh. It's no longer the problem of people dying. It's the fact that their cattle die. So they want cattle places where you could herd your cow. This is their capital. 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. 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. And it's working. And ducks actually fetch a higher price at the market. And guess what? When you get flooded, they survive. You can still have your income and your future. Let me ask you to give advice. 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 what is the $1 that can do the most positive improvement to lead to $40, $45 and so on. What advice would you give to young people in high school and college, how to have a positive impact on the world, how to have a career they can be proud of? Maybe ask Bjorn first and how to have a life they can be proud of. 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. And this really matters because a lot of kids literally think that the world is going to end pretty soon. And that obviously makes any other kind of plan meaningless. So first of all, look, you're not going to die. You know, 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. No, you're not. You're going to die from old age and you're going to die much older. Very likely, right? So the reality is the world has improved dramatically and it's very likely to improve even more. So the baseline is good. This is just, you know, the facts. Then there's still lots and lots of problems. And what you should do as a young person is stop being, you know, paralyzed by fear and then realize what you can do is basically help humanity become even smarter. There's a lot of different places you can do. I mean, the obvious thing when you're talking about climate is, what if you could become the guy that, you know, develops fourth generation nuclear? It's very likely it's something that neither of us know anything about right now, but develop the, you know, the energy source that will basically power the rest of humanity. How cool would that be? That's one of the many things you could do. But again, also remember there are lots and lots of other things that need solutions. So what about you become the guy that makes the, or the girl that makes 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? Right now, it needs four to six months of medication. That 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? And you need that, otherwise you actually have a big risk of getting a multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, which is a real scourge on the earth. So, you know, what if you develop that? So the truth is not only can your life be much better when you sort of ditch that, that doomerism, but it also becomes much more possible for you to be a positive part of making sure that you do that progress. Why has the world improved so much? Because our parents and great-grandparents, they made all this work, you know, this was all their innovations and a lot of hard work. And I'm incredibly grateful that they've done it, but now it's kind of time to pay back. So, you know, you got to do this for our, you know, our grandkids, you got to make those innovations, make those policy opportunities, they'll make the world even an even better place. Totally. And to me, there's never been a better day or 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. As I said earlier, with my pen pal, with letters taking weeks to come. And so the key properties, ideally, that young people would do well to cultivate are, well, certainly adaptability, because change is changing, not just, you know, the rate of change is changing. These layers of change are all piling up on each other. Having an ability to understand the information environment is a fundamental need now that wasn't a need when we were growing up. We read a few newspapers, my dad would turn on the nightly news and Walter Cronkite would say, that's the way it is. He'd say, that's the way it is. And that's not the way the media environment is now. So courses in media literacy should be kind of fundamental parts of curriculum from like kindergarten on, or parents can do the same thing. There's a woman at URI, University of Rhode Island, Renee Hobbs, who teaches a course in propaganda literacy. And she said, you know, the history of the word is not bad. Propaganda could be good. It's pro, it's for the church. She did a wonderful chat with me. 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. 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. Because once you have an ability to step back, 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. Finding your way to make the world better. 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. So that, and then the climate problem, the prismatic giant nature of it is what makes it so daunting, but it's also what gives everybody an opportunity. Like there's something for artists, scientists, poets, everybody needs to get in the game. I just spent some time with Kim Stanley Robinson who wrote that book, Ministry of the Future, which is this sprawling novel about a worst case outcome where everyone in India is dying. And 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. And the other thing, unfortunately, that's needed, I think I first said this in 2008, when someone asked me something about climate, I said, weirdly, you have to sort of have a sense of urgency, but a sense of patience at the same time. Like, just roll those words around in your mind. Like, what does that mean? Urgent and patient? How could that possibly be? But actually it really is the reality. There is an urgency with this building gas that's cumulative, that doesn't go away like smoke when it rains. And every year that happens, it's adding to risk. And you can kind of wake up completely freaked out urgent, but when you realize energy transitions take time, then you have to sort of find patience or whatever your word is for that. 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. And like you said, with information, that is interesting, especially in the scientific community. I think you've spoken about this before. You know, 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. So it could be Twitter for a few years, then it could be TikTok, then it could be, you know, I'm a huge believer in the power of YouTube over the next several years, perhaps decades. 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. And I personally believe I have the responsibility to communicate their work. If anything, the internet made me realize that science is not just about doing the science, it's about communicating it. Like this is not some kind of virtue signaling on my part. No, no, no. No, like I feel like if the tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it, it really didn't fall. Like that's not, there should be a culture of, well, at MIT, there's a place called the Media Lab. Yes, sir. Where they really emphasize, like you always be able to demo something to show off your work. They really emphasize showing off their work. 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. But I really disagree with that. Of course, there's a balance to strike. 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 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. 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? 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 see, did I just go into an incredibly deep hole that just three other people really care about in the world? Or is this actually something that matters to the world? And being able to explain what it is that you've done to everyone else makes, 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. There was a hashtag generated maybe seven years ago by a Caltech PhD candidate woman, and it was fantastic. The hashtag was I am a scientist because, and she posted it with a picture of herself with her answer. 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 am 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. Utterly interesting. And then you've got people hooked. But it's the motivation part because everyone grew up as a kid, and a kid is basically like a scientist. Wow, what the hell is this? How does this work? So you can connect with people that way. But this other issue you broached is really important. 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, is the development lab in the basement there somewhere? Most of MIT looks like it's the basement. Yeah, it's sort of like the hurricane digs here. But it's the usability function is part of a lot of that goes on there. It's engineering and science. And it reminds me, in 1997, these two very different scientists, Dan Kammen at Berkeley and Michael Dove at Yale, wrote a manifesto. It was the virtues of mundane science. That's what they called it. It was a prod to the scientific community. Actually, it's about useful, utility. Because the whole arena is set up to advance your career through revealing new knowledge that will get you tenure someday. And actually doing useful science is disincentivized. Having a conversation, especially if it involves more than one discipline. 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. And it was like four or five things that universities don't do. Give you time to become fluent. For a physicist to talk to an anthropologist and understand how anthropology works with sociology takes time. And then building a relationship with a community that has a problem that you want to fix takes time. And so you do these 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. Those are really hard problems going forward. But starting with that idea of usability, what can I do with my skill sets? You know, a lot of great physicists I know are dug in on string theory and stuff. 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. So the two of you have been thinking about some of the biggest questions, 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. So let me ask the big question. What do you think is the why of it all? What's the meaning of it? What's the meaning of our life here on Earth? You waited till the last moment to ask us that question. Yes, in case there's... Yeah, in case I can trick you into finding an answer. 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. 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. So for me, the goal of life, certainly my goal, but I think for most people, is to make the world a better place. It sounds incredibly pedestrian because it's become so overused, but that really and literally is the point. 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. And all the things that we've talked about, 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. So let's make sure we deal with them adequately. This is very unsexy in some sense, but I think it's also very basic and really what matters. Well, biologically, evolution has demanded that life is about finding sources of energy and perpetuating yourself, right? So that's the baseline. And that's led us into a bit of a bollocks because we have this easy energy that's come from the ground so far. But our brilliance has given this larger awareness of everything about the planet is transitory. And so how do you work with that productively is really an important question. I could just sort of try to be as rich as possible and use as much energy as possible and have other people, 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. But there are consequences and there are long-term trajectories here that have to be taken into account too. So what do you wake up to do? To me, it's finding your part of this. And as Bjorn said, finding a way to pursue and expand betterment. When I taught, I was at Pace University for six years. And one of the courses I launched there was called Blogging a Better Planet. And it was for grad students mostly in communication. It wasn't an environment, it wasn't like Better Planet, like save the climate. But my task for the students was to blog about something they're passionate about, first of all. 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? If you're doing this, I used to call myself a selfish blogger because I was learning every day. I still am. I love this. My wife laughs, she thinks I work too much. But I'm always asking those questions, like sustain what? So my charge to the students was, harness a passion, build a blog, either alone or with others, that notches the world a little bit towards some better outcome. And so there was a musician who did a thing on music, musicians who use their art for their work for making the world better. Some of it was like music therapy, bands contributing money, whatever. Another one did, her blog was on comfort food. All around the world. And I thought it was my favorite. It was a video, I think it should be viral actually. It was like looking at the world, every different cultures. She was in Queens, so every culture, every cuisine is there in Queens, 200 countries. But she would go and talk to people's moms and have them cook the food of that country that's their comfort food. I mean, I just love this because we all need to eat. And you're getting this expanded sense of what comfort is by thinking about what other cultures are doing. By thinking about what other cultures choose. And that felt like a great course because it was not directive. It was just, it gave them this potential to go forward. You know, I'd love to think they've all gone on to become a superstar, whatever it is, I don't know. That's the giving, that's the letting go part. Even if one did something special, then that makes me feel job done. And you know, after I'd been writing about climate for 30 years, 2016-ish, I did a lot of writing about what did I learn, unlearn and stuff. And I had had a stroke in 2011, which was interesting. It was the first time I really thought about my brain. You know, you don't think about your brain on a day-to-day basis, but this is my brain telling me, you know, ding, ding, ding, ding, some weird shit's happening. And when I was thinking about climate, confronting climate change, it felt like some of the things I learned about my own existence, you know, I'm gonna die. But you don't really absorb that. Is that the first time you kind of faced your mortality? That was like my first, like, yeah, this is really the shit, you know, or at least deep disability, if not death. And that ability is transitory. And I thought about the climate problem. We're not gonna solve the global warming problem, at least not in our lifetimes. But you work on making those trajectories sustainable, you know, the end of life particularly. You work on making sure other people don't get strokes if they can avoid it. In my case, I wrote about it. I was blogging about my stroke while I was having it. I was tweeting about it. There's a funny tweet that's kind of mistyped because, you know, things weren't working. Wow, Co-PP? Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right, right. So that's like share your knowledge, share your learning. And everyone can do this now, like on whatever platform. And then there's also this like giving up part, but not in a depressing, well, maybe you could call it depressing. 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. 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. Yeah, see, those three properties are really important right now. Some aspects of this, we know absolutely what we can work on, cutting vulnerability, cutting vulnerability, energy transitions take time. Science can help us discriminate the difference. And that's an iterative changing landscape going forward. But at the same time, science, like I personally, on climate modeling or like narrowing how hot it's gonna get or more clarity on when an ice sheet is gonna collapse, I think those are what I call known unknowables. So being able to, I've seen enough evidence that those are deeply complex problems that we're not gonna get there quickly. So then that gives you a landscape to act on. And that, you know, whether you bring God into the mix is irrelevant, it's really know what you can change, know what you can't, and know what, that gives you the quality to work on them. And serenity is comfort with that this is transitory, that the human journey, like anyone's individual journey, will have some end. That doesn't mean it has to be near. 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. And you're also a musician. So in context, one of my favorite songs of yours, an album, A Very Fine Line, I should mention that with the stroke coming close to death, the lyrics here are quite brilliant, I have to say. Oh, yeah. It's a very fine line between winning and losing, a very fine line between living and dying, a very fine line, by the way, people should listen to this. I can't play this because you two will give me trouble. A very fine line between loving and leaving, most of your life you spend walking a very fine line, and the rest of the lyrics are just quite brilliant. It is a fine line. I'm glad you walked it with me today, gentlemen. You're brilliant, kind, beautiful human beings. Thank you so much for having this quote-unquote debate that was much more about just exploring ideas together. Bjorn, thank you so much. And Andy, thank you so much for talking today. You know, these kinds of extended conversations are the more of it, the better. And finding ways to spread that capacity just to get people out of this win-lose thing is really important, so thanks for what you're doing. Yeah. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Refkin. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Henry David Thoreau. Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.