Kind: captions
Language: en
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
Joan lomberg and Andrew revkin 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 the base like
these including uncontroversial 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 environmentalists
please check out his work at lombard.com
that includes his books articles and
other writing Andrew revkin is one of
the most respected journalists in the
world on the topic of climate 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 lomberg and Andrew rafkin
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 uh
constructing this fabrication that's one
extreme and then the other extreme
there's a
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 senses 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 central 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 uh 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 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 that
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 how the planet works that you
know 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 is changing
everything for thousands of years it's
already happening what do you mean by
bubbles and beer CO2 carbon dioxide the
main greenhouse gas why beer look
because I like beer it's also in
Coca-Cola well you were talking about
Cola before uh and it's so it's
innocuous we grew up with this idea as
CO2 unless you're trapped in a room
suffocating
yeah is innocuous gas it 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 Tamp down from the top
is is Fantastical you know 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 yes of 1988 Jim
Hansen the famous American climate
scientist the really he stimulated this
article by doing this uh dramatic
testimony in the senate committee that
summer in may actually spring lead
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 when you get to back
cigarettes different tobacco yeah yeah
you know looking back at my own career
on the climate question is 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
um 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 that were making things
bad so really focusing 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
through about 2007
when I was the period I was at the New
York Times
in the middle there
um was that we're building vulnerability
to climate hazards at the same time so
climate is changing but we're changing
too and we where we 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
start saying global warming global
warming and the other side is not
recognizing that we've built willfully
uh greedily
uh vulnerability in places of utter
hazards same things played out in
Pakistan and in Fort Myers Florida
if you and you start to understand that
we're creating a landscape of risk
as climate is changing then that could
it feels oh my God that's more complex
right but it also gives you more action
points it's 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 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 I don't 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 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 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 uh useful
I think that's exactly the right way to
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 uh and and so
I think in in one sense
um certainly the people who used to say
oh this is not happening they're very
very small and diminishing crowd and
certainly not right
um but on the other hand I I think to an
ex
increasing extent we've gotten into a
world where a lot of people really think
this is the you know the end of the
times uh if if you so the OCD did a new
survey of all oecd countries and it's
shocking so it shows that 60 of all
people in the OCD so the rich World
believes that global warming will likely
or very likely lead to the extinction of
mankind
and and and that's that's scary in a
very very clear way because look if this
really is true if if global warming is
this meter hurtling towards Earth and
you know we're gonna be destroyed in 12
years or whatever the number is uh uh uh
uh today then clearly we should care
about nothing else we should just be
focusing on making sure that that
asteroid get you know we should send up
Bruce Willis and get get this done with
but that's not the way it is this is not
actually what the U.N climate panel
tells us or anything else so I think uh
it's not so much about arcing against
the people who are saying it's a it's a
hoax that's not really where I am I
don't think that's where Andy are 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 you know if
you really think this is the end of time
and you know 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 in say well but we're
gonna you know we're really gonna go a
lot more renewable in the next half
century they look at you and like but
that's what 38 years too late uh and I
get that but so so I think in in your
question what I'm trying to do and I
would imagine that's true for you as
well is to try to pull people away from
this precipice and this end of the world
and then open it up and I think Andy did
that really well by saying look there's
so many different sub conversations and
we need to have all of them and we need
to be respectful of 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 actually means that
we end up doing much less good both on
climate but also on all the other
problems the world faces oh yeah and it
just empowers people too 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 knee-list
crowd for those who've seen it who just
say you know fuck this or uh and and a
lot of people have that approach when
something's too big no
and
it just paralyzes you as opposed to
giving you these action points and the
other thing is I hate I hate it when
economists are right about stuff like
the I I I I uh
no no there are these phrases like I
never knew the words path dependency
until probably 10 years ago in my
reporting 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 when you
screw in a light bulb even if it's an
LED light bulb it's going into a hundred
and thirteen hundred twenty year old
fixture
because and actually that fixture is
almost designed if you look at like 19th
century gas fixtures they had to screw
anything so we're like on this long path
dependencies when it comes to energy and
stuff like that that you don't just
click magically transition a car Fleet a
car built today will last 40 Years it'll
end up in Mexico sold on a used car et
cetera et cetera and
so this there is no quick no fix even if
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 in the in
this history of discussion or climate
change so is that the center still like
is there still the 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 could 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 adrift for sure
there's much more majority now at the
alarmed or engaged bubbles then just the
dismissive bubble does a durable like
with vaccination and all lots of other
issues there's a durable never anything
belief group but on on the reality that
humans are contributing to climate
change most Americans when you're asked
ask them and it also depends on how you
write your survey you know I think I
think there's a component globally I
mean when you when you ask around I mean
and and this is you know if you hear the
story from the media of 20 years of
course that's what you'll believe and it
also happens to be true all right that
is what the sign I I think you know it's
perhaps worth saying and it's a little
depressing that you always have to say
it but I think it's worth saying that I
think we both really do accept you know
the climate panel uh science and you
know there's absolutely global warming
it is an issue uh 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 okay 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 1968 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 extraordinary 5000 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 and the science finds this even
though there's a new weather attribution
group it's a WX risk 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 glom on to 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 was a big
driver of 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 um
has for 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
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
uh greenhouse gases
to human suffering is
unclear that's and that's very much in
our control theoretically I mean the the
point I think is is exactly right that
you know if you look at uh the hurricane
em that went through Florida you have a
situation where Florida went from what
600 000 houses in 1940 to 17 million
houses yeah sorry 10 million houses so
uh so 17 times more over uh what a
period of 80 years of course you're
gonna have one yeah yeah you're going to
have lots more damage and many of these
houses now been built on you know places
where you probably shouldn't be building
and and so I think uh 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 it's very
implausible that eventually we won't be
able to say it has an impact but the
real question it seems to me is if we
actually want to make sure that people
are less harmed in the future
what are the levers that we can control
and it turns out that the CO2 lever uh
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 uh regulations uh that
that you maybe you know don't have
people building in the flash flood
lately what was it called flash flood
alley Alleyway yeah it's it's just
simple stuff and and because we're so
focused on this one issue we sort of it
it almost feels uh sacrilegious to 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 I
think this is uh this is going to be a
large part of the whole conversation you
know 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
Steel 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
uh
is 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 of for alarmism essentially
or is there a better term than alarmism
uh
commit communication of like holy shit
we should be thinking about this so I I
think you know I I totally understand
why credit tunberg is doing what she's
doing I I have great respect for her
because if you know I 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 not you're not
going to get very far into adulthood uh
and that of course you know this is the
media are hurtling towards Earth and
then this is the only thing we should be
focusing on I understand why she's
making that argument I I think it's 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 uh you
know I can understand why they're saying
you know if if we're going to be dead in
12 years why would I want to study that
you know why would I really care about
anything so so I totally want to sort of
pull Greta and many others out of this
uh end of the world fear but I totally
get why she's doing it I think she's
done on 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 you know sort of
discussions from from the extreme groups
because it's just more fun on media uh
to to have sort of the the total deniers
and the and the the people who say we're
going to die tomorrow and it sort of
becomes that discussion that's more you
know it's more sort of a mutt wrestling
fight so what do you think the modern
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 on my
sustain what column saying if you go in
there
for the entertainment value of seeing
those knock down 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
you know
it's how do I put this tool to use today
thinking about energy sufficient energy
action in poor communities how do I put
this tool today learning about what
really happened with Ian the hurricane
you know who was most at risk and how
would you build back build forward
better I hit build back
um or you could 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 I wouldn't call it
entertainment but giving voice to the
extremes isn't a productive Way Forward
it seems to
you know 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 like oscillation back
and forth you need a grata and you need
somebody that pushes back against the
ground to get everybody's
just to uh to get everybody's attention
the the fun of battle right over time
creates progress well and this gets to
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 yeah this is three
years apart nuclear winner nuclear
winner global warming well yeah we'll
talk about it but look at look at that
you know this is three years apart in
the covers of magazine yeah and uh 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're if you
want political change then it would be
to you know support a politician if you
want energy access it would be to look
at this 370 billion dollars the American
government just put into play on climate
and say well how can my community
benefit from that and 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 multi-million dollar
loans so you could have electric buses
instead of diesel buses
and that's an action pathway
so without so you know alarm for the
sake of getting attention or clicks
to me is not any more valuable than
watching a an action movie and and again
I think also it very easily ends up sort
of skewing our conversation about what
are the actual Solutions uh you know
because yes it's great to uh 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
you know in the air pollution sense
right that is why you should get rid of
them uh and again if you really want it
to help people for instance with
hurricanes you should have better you
know uh rules and Zoning in in Florida
uh which is a very different outcome so
so the the mud wrestling fight also gets
our attention diverted towards solutions
that seem uh easy fun you know sort of
the electric car is a great example of
this the electric cars somehow become
almost the sign that I care and I'm
really going to do something about uh
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
incredibly ineffective way of cutting
carbon emissions right now uh 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 you know
usually run off of Power that's not
strong
okay let's go there let's go electric
cars okay educate us on uh the pros and
cons of electric cars in this complex
picture of of climate change what do you
think of the efforts of Tesla in Elon
Musk on pushing forward
um the electric car Revolution so look
electric cars are great I I don't own a
I don't own a car uh but you know I've
been driving there you go socially
signaling yeah but yeah I've uh we're in
Texas okay flew in here so it's not like
I'm I'm in any way uh virtuous guy on on
that path but but you know look uh
they're great cars and eventually
electric cars will take over a
significant part of our uh driving and
that's good because they're more
effective they're more effective they're
probably also going to be cheaper uh
there's a lot of good opportunities with
them but it's because they've become
reified as this thing that you do to fix
climate and right now they're not really
all that great for climate they uh you
need a lot of uh uh extra material into
the batteries which is very polluting
and it's also uh 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 as a regular car it turns out
that they're more likely driven less
than half as much as a brachial cars so
you know 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 sure 89 89
yeah so so the the point here is that
that it has 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 and they will you know 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 uh in in many
countries it's uh you actually get uh uh
a sort of sliding scale you get more
subsidy the more expensive it is we've
sort of subsidized this to very rich
people to buy very large uh Teslas uh to
drive around in uh whereas what we
should be focusing on is perhaps getting
uh electric motorcycles and third world
developing cities where they would do a
lot more good you know they can actually
go as far as you need there's no you
know worry about running out of them uh
and they would obviously they're much
much more polluting uh just air
pollution wise and they're much cheaper
and they use very little battery so it's
a it's about getting our senses right
but that but the electric car is not is
not the it's not a conversation about is
it technically a really good or is it a
somewhat good uh Insight it's more like
it's a virtual signal so just you know
I'm an I work with economists I'm
actually not an economist but I like to
say I claim I kind of am uh but but you
know the the fundamental point is we
would say well how much do you 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 two
thousand you know Norway they they pay
up to what uh five thousand dollars that
they're about you know huge amount for
one ton of CO2 uh you can right now cut
a ton of CO2 for about what is it 14 on
the Reggie or something uh you know you
can read this that's the regional
Greenhouse yes initiative 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 the election from
interrupt typical European come here in
Texas tell me I can't have my Ford F1
150 but I'll now you can have your F-150
Lightning yes that's true uh I'm I'm
just joking but uh what do you think
about electric cars if you just link on
that moment and uh yeah this particular
element of helping reduce uh
emissions well you talked about the
middle in the beginning and you know I
loved moving to the hybrid the Prius was
fantastic and did everything our other
sedan did but you know 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 uh
Minivan and we use it all the time to do
the stuff we can't do in the in the
Prius like what taking stuff to the dump
all I mean in terms of the size of the
vehicle yeah we'll get yeah a size and
just you know convenience factor for a
bigger vehicle
um I would love a fully electrified
Transportation world uh 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 you
know there's a history of privileged
markets testing new technologies and I'm
all for that um I think it's done a huge
service prodding so much more r d and
you know once GM and Ford started to
realize oh my God
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 uh you know
there's there were fights to keep this
Tamp down and it's it's fundamentally
cleaner funnily mentally better if
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
transfer cars and Jigger Shaw that guy
at the energy Department I mentioned who
has all this money to give out
he he wants to give loans to um
if you've had an Uber Fleet
those Uber drivers they're the ones who
need
electric cars as his work and 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 to 80 000 vehicles
each like the how 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 your price yeah I think it might
have been the Prius and 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 and those impacts have
to be figured out too and if they're all
big Hummers uh 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 uh we all do
we usually refer when you say we we
humans we Society we the government yeah
there has to be some thought and
attention put to where you put these
incentives so that you get the best use
of this technology for uh for the carbon
benefit for the conventional city
pollution benefit
for the transportation benefit can I
step back and ask a sort of the big
question we'll mentioned economics
journalism
uh
how does an economist and a climate
scientist and a journalist uh 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 just so
people may may be aware I think you'll
be able to fall into the economics Camp
a bit there's climate scientists right
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 journals you've been
writing it so you're not completely
in the trenches of doing the work you're
just up into the trenches every once in
a while so can you speak to that maybe
Bjorn like what's what does the world
look like to an economist
let's try to empathize with these beings
that uh you know unfortunately has
fallen into the
disreputable uh economics yeah so so uh
I think I think the the main point that
that I've been trying for a long time
and I think that's also a little bit
what Andy has been talking about for a
very long time the whole conversation
was about what does the science tell us
is is it global warming real and 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 gotta
you this is not a question about whether
you feel morally vert true so whether
you know 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
answers 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 ten thousand
Dollars around the world uh per per car
that that's just not 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
Economist would be the types of people
who would say is there a smarter way
where you for less money can for cut
more CO2 and the obvious answer is yes
that's what we've seen for instance with
uh fracking uh the the fact that the US
went from a lot of coal to a lot of gas
because gas became incredibly cheap
because gas emits about half as much as
as coal does when you use it for elect
uh 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 frac
because it's really cheap there are some
problems and absolutely we can we can
also have that conversation there is 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 uh how
do we help people in Florida who gets
hit by hurricane or how do we help
people that get damaged in flash floods
the people who are in who are in uh in
heat waves and the symbol 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 sort of say we gotta you know uh
get rid of all carbon emissions we've
got to change our entire uh the the
engine the uh the the sort of 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 it would only
help you know future victims of future
hurricane the ends 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 uh with uh with Federal
Insurance again which is you know
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
about 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 but yeah I'm I'm sure
uh Andy and would probably be better at
telling me what they are uh so we try to
incorporate all of it but obviously
we're not successful we you can't
incorporate everything for instance in
the cost benefit analysis but but the
point is in some way
um I I would worry a lot about this if
we were you know sort of close to
Perfection human race we're doing almost
everything right but we're not quite
right then we need to get the last
digits right but I think it's much more
the you know and the the point that I
tried to make before that we're all
we're all focused on going to an
electric car or you know something else
rather than uh fracking we're all
focused on cutting carbon emissions
instead of reducing vulnerability so
we're simply getting in orders of
magnitude wrong uh and and while I'm
sure I have blind blind spots I think
they're probably not big enough to to
overturn that point Andy was Bjorn and
economists are all wrong about
everything well the models we could
spend a whole day on models uh their
economic models there's this thing
called optimization models the there
were two big ones used to assess the
U.S 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
is a deep diving journalist because it
says we didn't include any sources of
friction meaning right resistance to
putting new transmission lines through
your community or people who don't want
um mining in America because we've
exported all of our mining we mine our
Cobalt and Congo you know and trying to
get a new mine in Nevada
was a fraught fight that took more than
10 years for lithium
so so if you're excluding those elements
from your model which on the surface
makes this 370 billion dollar 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 summarize
all of human history with that one word
friction
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 uh
I was asked by the week in review
section of the New York Times to write a
sort of a weekend thumb sucker we call
them on um
just sit and suck yourself 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 Inconvenient Truth the
hurricane Katrina's 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 is called Yelling fire on 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 is Helen Ingram she's the 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 in
the voting booth
thinking about things that are soon
Salient and certain
and climate change is complex you know
has long time scales and and that really
jogged me and then I between 2006 2010
I started interviewing other social
scientists and I I this was by far the
scariest science of all it's the the
climate in our heads or inconvenient
Minds
and in how that translates into
Political norms and stuff really became
the monster not the not the climate
system is there social dynamics did the
scientists themselves because uh
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 is 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 done 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 the
National Science Foundation or whatever
European foundations pour a huge amount
of money into things related to climate
and so you and then you your narrative
in your head is
shaped by that aspect of the climate
problem that's in the spotlight I I
started using this hashtag
a few years back narrative capture like
be wary of narrative capture where
you're
you're on a train and everyone's getting
on the train and this is in the media
too not just science and it becomes self
self-sustaining and
and contrary indications are ignored or
downplayed no one does replication
science because you don't your career
doesn't Advance through replicating
someone else's work so those contrary
indications are are not necessarily you
know really dug in on and this is for
this is Way Beyond climate this is of
many fields you as you said you might
have seen this in Ai and it's really
hard to find it's another form of path
dependency the the term I used for
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 climb it which
is in your head because you're part of
the climate team at the New York Times
or whatever
is the front
is the foreground part of this problem
what's the psychological challenge of
that
if you incorporate the fact that if you
uh try to step back and have Nuance you
might get attacked by the others in the
flock oh I was right well you you've
certainly been both of you get attacked
yeah continuously from different sides
so let me just ask about that how does
that feel and how do you continue
thinking clearly
and uh continuously try to have humility
and step back and not get defensive in
in that on as a communicator I I mean
there are other things happening at the
same time right 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
you know 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 and
um as a result of a lot of hard work and
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
um
the New York Times had a narrative about
the about Saddam Hussein
drove us into
that war the times sucked right into
that and helped perpetuate it
um I think we're in a bit of a narrative
we the media my friends at the times and
others are on a train ride on climate
change depicting it in a certain way
that really I saw problems with how they
handled the Joe manchin issue in America
the 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 to see there'll be
other otherwise occupied by Republican
there would be no talk of a climate deal
or any of that stuff without him and but
when you once you're starting to kind of
frame a story in a certain way you
carried along and as you said sometimes
it breaks in 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 it's partially because I'm fast
worrying about it too much
um I mean it was pretty intense 2009
Rush Limbaugh
suggested I kill myself on his radio
show it's a really great what was that
about I had this is 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-covered 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
is during the debate over uh carbon tax
model for a bill in America
we should probably uh 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 Russia's
you know pile of things to talk about
and and the clip is really fun awesome
meaning so uh if humans well these are
bad for the environment uh we can I can
imagine
that's how you know you've made it
explicit he said Mr revkin of the New
York Andrew rev kind of the New York
Times if you really think that people
are the worst thing that ever happened
to this planet why do you just kill
yourself and save the planet by dying it
was tough for you it was it was tough
for my family you know to me it did
generate some interesting calls and
stuff on my my voicemail and
um but 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 off the
path when you you know
even dealing with this for a very long
time so look I I just want to get back
to so the science I I don't think the
the science get it so much wrong as it
just becomes accepted to to make certain
assumptions as you just said we we
assume no friction so you know there's
there's a way that you kind of model the
world that ends up being also a
convenient message uh in many ways and I
think the the main convenient message in
climate and it's not surprising if you
think about it uh you know 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 with a lot of caveats but
that's sort of the message it takes a
long time yes yes it's really really
difficult to do in any meaningful sort
of time frame uh and and and if you
challenge that you yes you're outside
the flock and you get attacked I've
always uh so uh somebody told me once uh
I think it's true they say it at the uh
Hobart law school if you have a good
case pound the case if you have a bad
case pound the table uh and so I've
always felt that when people go after me
they're kind of pounding to table
they're you know they're literally
screaming I don't have a good case I'm
really annoyed with what you're saying
and and so to me that actually means
it's much more important to make this
argument uh sure I mean I would love you
know everyone just saying oh that's a
really good point I'm gonna use that but
you know uh we're we're stuck in a
situation certainly in a conversation
where
a lot of people invested a lot of time
and energy on saying we should cut
carbon emissions this is the way to help
humankind and 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 uh 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 an incredibly
important for us to get it right so in
in some sense you know uh uh to make
sure that we don't do another Iraq and
we don't do another uh you know lots of
stupid decisions uh I mean this this is
one of the things mankind is very good
at uh and I guess uh I I see my role uh
and I think that's probably also how you
see yourself is trying to you know get
everyone to do it slightly less wrong 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
right no there is uh 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
uh being corrupted by that by enjoying
standing against the crowd no no no
there's there's very little uh I I guess
I can see what you're saying sort of in
a literary way or something
poetic here yeah there's there's very
little Comfort or or sort of usefulness
in in in Annoying a lot of people uh you
know it just it just you know 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 you know uh uh so I I try to be
very polite and you know sort of not
push people's buttons unless they they
sort of actively say so you're saying
all kind of stupid stuff on the climate
right uh and then try to engage with
them and say well what what is it you're
thinking about and hopefully you know
during that party and then it ends up
being a really bad party for me but
anyway so I'll I'll you know I'll end up
possibly convincing one person that I'm
not totally stupid but no I'm I'm not
playing the Martyr and I'm not enjoying
that
see it's so interesting
the uh I mean they're the the
um martyr complex is all around the
climate question uh Michael Mann at the
far end of the spectrum of activis