Transcripts For CSPAN2 After Words Michael Shellenberger Apo

I must admit. Im eager to get back to traveling again i was sick of it before the pandemic and now i cant get out of california. How are you quick. Pretty good were all doing what we can but even that contagion it really didnt capture the full scope. My first question about the book is apocalypse never its a very definitive statement and it implies a certainty in the world that is interlaced and that is largely unpredictable that complex systems are you confident apocalypse never and of course that depends on your definition of apocalypse. Yes. Thank you i argue in the book its not the end of the world even not the most serious environmental problem environmental activist as for 30 years what im trying to do here is like a cancer doctor a bunch of people say everybody will die of cancer in ten years and then say wait a second i dont like to see that level of exaggeration or extremism or alarmism are there scenarios you can imagine Climate Change destroying human civilization . Sure. There is no scientific basis but by contrast there was a strong basis to imagine the current pandemic the warnings were prescient including coming from coronavirus of poor hygiene and Small Farmers and markets. So its not impossible but to say lets get our understanding of it straight. One of the most shocking things that people dont know where the news media deserves a lot of blame natural disasters have declined 90 percent over the last 100 years and 80 percent over the last four years ive now that all sec reports that this would reverse itself so there is no basis to think that we will say its the biggest problem weve ever faced really . That would imply we have a mechanism for the death toll for damages from extreme other events perhaps in Food Production we produce 25 percent more food than we need according to every report in the basic understanding the food surplus should continue to rise fertilizer tractors and other elements of modern agriculture. Never say never. Certainly aliens could invade. There could be a cosmic problem were not aware of. But apocalypse . And the title also has a bit of defiance lets never having an apocalypse that there will never be one. So the goal is to get a new conversation going although i do wonder sometimes and i have written some books and one that came out this year but those books that are among the most visible you talk about so many of us have body into this and even to sell 100,000 so i think most people have not bought into this are they would have listened to that argument and i wonder apocalypse never or apocalypse now trying to decide what does it need to be done to there is a lot in your book that i like going from 1988 this is my cover story in 1988 talk about the apocalypse cover going too much more nuanced reporting over the last ten or 15 years which had these basic underlying points you make in the book looking at the landscape what could happen but theoretically it is no contest because of what we need but yet many you occurred articulate how it moves from a roadmap the roadmaps are nuclear is almost as improbable as renewable expansion so how do you actually get that done quick. Thanks for the question. Titles or titles the only get one or two words for a title but the book is a defense of human civilization and Human Progress and it points out it rises as nations industrialized but we see now Carbon Emissions from germany and the mid seventies but with us it was 15 years ago there was every reason to believe it would peek in developing economies in ten years some people thinks it peaked already so its very unlikely to get 3 degrees over industrial levels there is some uncertainty there but Nobel Prize Winner so the optimal level was 4 degrees meaning that was the level where cost and benefit of fossil fuel was properly accounted for. I dont rely on the models im not crazy about them but the overall direction and the trends i am pointing to are incredibly positive. So the use of land for our meat production peaked in the 2000s and has declined in an area almost the size of alaskan we should celebrate that. Human resilience and natural disaster. Rising Life Expectancy these are amazing trends. I also point out in apocalypse never thats not the end of the story. There are serious environmental problems we have to deal with between one and 2 billion on people use fuel and that we need to eat animals also for wild fish and many of the things environmental groups have advocated are bad for the Environment Renewables take more land than Nuclear Plants my views have been badly misrepresented by people i think actually know better to say just go nuclear but thats not true i defend the right to burn coal thats better than burning wood. I defend fracking for natural gas people say are you pro or anti natural gas . Wrong question i am read for it when it replaces coal but against it replacing nuclear eventually humans will be 100 percent nuclear. When will that be . It could be as early as 2100 probably not may be 2200 but no more ridiculous to think that we will be 100 percent fossil fuels. So i dont think it is that farfetched. Nuclear first and foremost is the technology we use to make the most powerful weapons humans is ever made thats the primary use of Nuclear Energy then we have a peril fall Spinoff Technology the only way to basically shrink humankind Energy Footprint close to zero even a uranium mind takes a tiny amount of land. I see it is farfetched that we will turn back to nuclear particularly at this moment with the reverse to a National Identity and neoliberalism. So i testified to congress in a couple hours on this issue but its the future of Nuclear Energy right now we feed that to the chinese and the russians over the last ten months the chinese are clearly in the midst of genocide in the russian president has declared himself dictator for life. As soon as a country builds a Nuclear Plants with russia or china they are in their influence and the line between soft power and hard power is there energy so for me nuclear is special and different from oil or gas or coal and i do think once we come to grips and remind ourselves we will turn back towards nuclear. One of the good arguments for the energy work is that international safeguard standard are negotiated and ways of the evolving industry. I have written a lot about this as you know and i kept saying that you were saying about the parking lot menu its harder to have a son nuclear march and cuomo and the city has shut down i wanted it to stay operating but for political reasons he confused when i think of as a policy and then included those countries. So what is the next step for you that we talked about arguing from the edges then where is the middle . Where is the point we build the American Energy future that has those aspects you call for in the book . Yes. Thinks. The idea the United States should compete on energy is the right one you see countries like russia and uae building Nuclear Plants to replace combustion of natural gas so they can escort on export it to build Nuclear Power plants. But my view of nuclear that i art one articulate is very different the Current Technology is fine we been developing it for 60 years a lot of experience theres nothing wrong with that but we are still dealing with the trauma and the shock of a radical technology also be with us for thousands of years unless the aliens give us Antigravity Technology that is the most revolutionary technology is shocking in its power so people need to see nuclear for what it is and stop adding things to it that Nuclear Waste could leak we have solid metal fuel rods. That is the main event to change consciousness britain is considering building six fullsize French Nuclear reactors the next four would be standard on standardized for National Security reasons not military but because britain is an island but if the United States comes back to Nuclear Energy it is because it recognizes the threat china and russia has to the domination of Nuclear Energy around the world but in my defense in terms of moderation, one of the heroines in my book are women and women of color one is a spokesperson for the extension rebellion and a and to the book by noting in my conversation with her she said she was pro nuclear and then two weeks before the book was released i asked on i hired her as my director so she runs operations for us in britain and thats a testament are on apocalypse never has a path toward expanded nuclear what republicans have always been fine with and even now most democrats release most Democratic Leaders have agreed these are the fuels we need to deal with Climate Change. How much of the resistance have you faced and many others looking at the portfolio options of Global Warming how much of what you see in a counter argument if not just clean but only renewable . A lot of what i see is that capacity is that really the enemy of your argument of the logic of the numbers . Thats a great question. We have to reflect there has been a huge sea change in attitude for news media and social media. Just three years ago the dominant idea from the left was 100 Percent Renewables proposed by Mark Jacobson from stanford now because he sued our mutual acquaintance now the democratic plan it does not call for renewables but zero carbon. Thats huge. Thats a huge shift in the issue of why is your see me wrestling with it for several years why is it against Nuclear Energy that was driving me bonkers for almost a decade i feel like i got to the bottom of it but it doesnt explain it all because obviously progressives are much more concerned than conservative so it can be a uniform irrational fear. Clearly ideological motivated which is based on the idea the h century british economist would always overpopulate the earth resulting in a famine he was not disprove once but every year since he was writing it would it be 8 billion people on Earth Environmental problems are all the result of being too successful as the species what is behind the idea civilization must collapse and theres something fundamentally wrong with the way that we live . And there are three factors money and power and religion and ultimately conclude the reason why we see secular people as it serves the same needs to provide a spiritual transcendence a sense of immortality and the feeling of being heroic as a climate activist or a vegetarian or whatever you might be and the power of the morality. Theres no interest of the Green New Deal from learning from past efforts partly inspired by your writing theres no interest in learning about the history so what is being advocated is a morality that is a historical if its truly good it should be good at all times and places so whats happening as a religious Movement Looks Like it will religious movement than it is our religion and i found a bunch of scholarship to support that. So for me, thats whats driving this and the anxiety of the global system the sense of globalization coming to an end is driving that anxiety among progressives in particular among the elite. And globalization is coming to an end . I think the system is in crisis every Major Institution is in crisis. The other night the other thing that everybody believes about the pandemic the first few weeks washing your hands is the most important but we didnt need to wear a mask now thinking they are essential in washing your hands is sure but we dont know any cases that would transfer. Who not from bad intentions and the white house is a discredited institution im sorry to say this but the New York Times does not have the credibility it once had it reads like the guardian and the nation not like a newspaper how many environment stories only have one side of the story and doesnt quote anybody critical at all. Now that is standard so these are in a crisis of credibility and trust i dont think that means they will go away but that they need new leaders who have a different worldview who are more comfortable to express the fact we dont know if masks might work but you might want to wear them or that the real issue not having enough but that manipulation. You think nations will get back in touch we are competing with each other without even thinking about it but ultimately they need to be regenerated. We do want to get to ecology but something that you just said brought to mind a concept i focused on with the Keystone Pipeline to say its a Macro Economic lens with the pipeline and i was googling of the likeminded with a sustainable Human Experience on the planet and to acknowledge diversity and googling response of diversity. To say that ecosystems that are resilient not the number of species but the responses so for me that basically with china and the United States and europe with those different sensibilities at through those results. But to your point with the danger of having that uniformity. And if youre not with us you are against us. So when i was writing about the climate accord has all the attributes you would want is not determinative for its attributes has a landscape of change and i guess that makes sense of the future. And how we act as the country. And this response to diversity makes sense. Its a great observation, andy. With United Nations i just dont think that it would have much influence over the decisions of food and energy supply. That is based on local geography and i believe there is a clear trend from energy to natural gas and nuclear from wood and coal but i wholeheartedly agree on the broader point. Thing i complain about i find something positive in the society. The New York Times and bloomberg are very onesided. At the same time we have twitte twitter. I dont even go to the New York Times anymore just go to twitte twitter. As an activist and as a journalist with a column for forbes i love my relationship with forbes it has had some challenges they are but nonetheless i can publish articles that are much more widely read than the New York Times. And i know that because i can see that traffic so one or 2 million views even though i dont work at the New York Times but just because i write about what people care about. And with that polarized society is just a bunch of stuff that isnt clearly left or right issues. And traditionally a bipartisan End Technology and housing is another issue is it conservative or liberal to be nimby . There other elements of that so some things are more liberal or conservative than others and how this is determined by partisan polarization. There is more space opening up. And i credit social media. Its like platos discussion of medicine is it a poison or a medicine . It is both. We are in an interesting time. It does have collective madness but that that can be very creative. Had you make at matter in this environment . There are no simple answers. Lets get into ecology. With the headline versus reality the hypothesis and for that timescale. But at the same time there is a section of this area a very simple formula in terms of picking up extinction at the planetary level but with eds book i like it. I dont like the specificity but what i liked about it was the concept if you leave room for nature, it will do stuff. Even here in the Hudson Valley there is an old quarry that is hardly recognizable. Ant making the natural disasters worse. The response to both of them was the form of hypotheses that i think were, for example, it could cause extinction that is a possibility but that isnt what is happening now and then ive heard from other people it could be natural disasters that have killed fewer people had there not been kind change. That isnt science, that is a hypothesis. Thats one of the challenges we are dealing with. People are inflating hypothesis which is an important part with scientific evidence. Host it is clear that the climate has changed from the parsing of co2. And [inaudible] to state categorically there is no fact, when you know that michael mann and i debated on twitter feed says every meteorological event changes. Sunny days and seasons of tornadoes, those are Climate Changes, too. There is the definitive idea that there is no role for Climate Change. Its just not measurable. If you change the climate where a storm is happening, it would be impossible to say guest the disagreement we might have with others more about what is appropriate science communication rather than scientific. So, for example, part of the reason i wrote this book a big part the claim billions of people will die, the earth is dying, that half of the public around the world believe that it would make humans extinct. This needs to be pushed back. Its causing Mental Health problems. It is contributing to anxiety and depression. Let me give another example, another aliens example. If the president of the Climate Change<\/a> destroying human civilization . Sure. There is no scientific basis but by contrast there was a strong basis to imagine the current pandemic the warnings were prescient including coming from coronavirus of poor hygiene and Small Farmers<\/a> and markets. So its not impossible but to say lets get our understanding of it straight. One of the most shocking things that people dont know where the news media deserves a lot of blame natural disasters have declined 90 percent over the last 100 years and 80 percent over the last four years ive now that all sec reports that this would reverse itself so there is no basis to think that we will say its the biggest problem weve ever faced really . That would imply we have a mechanism for the death toll for damages from extreme other events perhaps in Food Production<\/a> we produce 25 percent more food than we need according to every report in the basic understanding the food surplus should continue to rise fertilizer tractors and other elements of modern agriculture. Never say never. Certainly aliens could invade. There could be a cosmic problem were not aware of. But apocalypse . And the title also has a bit of defiance lets never having an apocalypse that there will never be one. So the goal is to get a new conversation going although i do wonder sometimes and i have written some books and one that came out this year but those books that are among the most visible you talk about so many of us have body into this and even to sell 100,000 so i think most people have not bought into this are they would have listened to that argument and i wonder apocalypse never or apocalypse now trying to decide what does it need to be done to there is a lot in your book that i like going from 1988 this is my cover story in 1988 talk about the apocalypse cover going too much more nuanced reporting over the last ten or 15 years which had these basic underlying points you make in the book looking at the landscape what could happen but theoretically it is no contest because of what we need but yet many you occurred articulate how it moves from a roadmap the roadmaps are nuclear is almost as improbable as renewable expansion so how do you actually get that done quick. Thanks for the question. Titles or titles the only get one or two words for a title but the book is a defense of human civilization and Human Progress<\/a> and it points out it rises as nations industrialized but we see now Carbon Emissions<\/a> from germany and the mid seventies but with us it was 15 years ago there was every reason to believe it would peek in developing economies in ten years some people thinks it peaked already so its very unlikely to get 3 degrees over industrial levels there is some uncertainty there but Nobel Prize Winner<\/a> so the optimal level was 4 degrees meaning that was the level where cost and benefit of fossil fuel was properly accounted for. I dont rely on the models im not crazy about them but the overall direction and the trends i am pointing to are incredibly positive. So the use of land for our meat production peaked in the 2000s and has declined in an area almost the size of alaskan we should celebrate that. Human resilience and natural disaster. Rising Life Expectancy<\/a> these are amazing trends. I also point out in apocalypse never thats not the end of the story. There are serious environmental problems we have to deal with between one and 2 billion on people use fuel and that we need to eat animals also for wild fish and many of the things environmental groups have advocated are bad for the Environment Renewables<\/a> take more land than Nuclear Plants<\/a> my views have been badly misrepresented by people i think actually know better to say just go nuclear but thats not true i defend the right to burn coal thats better than burning wood. I defend fracking for natural gas people say are you pro or anti natural gas . Wrong question i am read for it when it replaces coal but against it replacing nuclear eventually humans will be 100 percent nuclear. When will that be . It could be as early as 2100 probably not may be 2200 but no more ridiculous to think that we will be 100 percent fossil fuels. So i dont think it is that farfetched. Nuclear first and foremost is the technology we use to make the most powerful weapons humans is ever made thats the primary use of Nuclear Energy<\/a> then we have a peril fall Spinoff Technology<\/a> the only way to basically shrink humankind Energy Footprint<\/a> close to zero even a uranium mind takes a tiny amount of land. I see it is farfetched that we will turn back to nuclear particularly at this moment with the reverse to a National Identity<\/a> and neoliberalism. So i testified to congress in a couple hours on this issue but its the future of Nuclear Energy<\/a> right now we feed that to the chinese and the russians over the last ten months the chinese are clearly in the midst of genocide in the russian president has declared himself dictator for life. As soon as a country builds a Nuclear Plants<\/a> with russia or china they are in their influence and the line between soft power and hard power is there energy so for me nuclear is special and different from oil or gas or coal and i do think once we come to grips and remind ourselves we will turn back towards nuclear. One of the good arguments for the energy work is that international safeguard standard are negotiated and ways of the evolving industry. I have written a lot about this as you know and i kept saying that you were saying about the parking lot menu its harder to have a son nuclear march and cuomo and the city has shut down i wanted it to stay operating but for political reasons he confused when i think of as a policy and then included those countries. So what is the next step for you that we talked about arguing from the edges then where is the middle . Where is the point we build the American Energy<\/a> future that has those aspects you call for in the book . Yes. Thinks. The idea the United States<\/a> should compete on energy is the right one you see countries like russia and uae building Nuclear Plants<\/a> to replace combustion of natural gas so they can escort on export it to build Nuclear Power<\/a> plants. But my view of nuclear that i art one articulate is very different the Current Technology<\/a> is fine we been developing it for 60 years a lot of experience theres nothing wrong with that but we are still dealing with the trauma and the shock of a radical technology also be with us for thousands of years unless the aliens give us Antigravity Technology<\/a> that is the most revolutionary technology is shocking in its power so people need to see nuclear for what it is and stop adding things to it that Nuclear Waste<\/a> could leak we have solid metal fuel rods. That is the main event to change consciousness britain is considering building six fullsize French Nuclear<\/a> reactors the next four would be standard on standardized for National Security<\/a> reasons not military but because britain is an island but if the United States<\/a> comes back to Nuclear Energy<\/a> it is because it recognizes the threat china and russia has to the domination of Nuclear Energy<\/a> around the world but in my defense in terms of moderation, one of the heroines in my book are women and women of color one is a spokesperson for the extension rebellion and a and to the book by noting in my conversation with her she said she was pro nuclear and then two weeks before the book was released i asked on i hired her as my director so she runs operations for us in britain and thats a testament are on apocalypse never has a path toward expanded nuclear what republicans have always been fine with and even now most democrats release most Democratic Leaders<\/a> have agreed these are the fuels we need to deal with Climate Change<\/a>. How much of the resistance have you faced and many others looking at the portfolio options of Global Warming<\/a> how much of what you see in a counter argument if not just clean but only renewable . A lot of what i see is that capacity is that really the enemy of your argument of the logic of the numbers . Thats a great question. We have to reflect there has been a huge sea change in attitude for news media and social media. Just three years ago the dominant idea from the left was 100 Percent Renewables<\/a> proposed by Mark Jacobson<\/a> from stanford now because he sued our mutual acquaintance now the democratic plan it does not call for renewables but zero carbon. Thats huge. Thats a huge shift in the issue of why is your see me wrestling with it for several years why is it against Nuclear Energy<\/a> that was driving me bonkers for almost a decade i feel like i got to the bottom of it but it doesnt explain it all because obviously progressives are much more concerned than conservative so it can be a uniform irrational fear. Clearly ideological motivated which is based on the idea the h century british economist would always overpopulate the earth resulting in a famine he was not disprove once but every year since he was writing it would it be 8 billion people on Earth Environmental<\/a> problems are all the result of being too successful as the species what is behind the idea civilization must collapse and theres something fundamentally wrong with the way that we live . And there are three factors money and power and religion and ultimately conclude the reason why we see secular people as it serves the same needs to provide a spiritual transcendence a sense of immortality and the feeling of being heroic as a climate activist or a vegetarian or whatever you might be and the power of the morality. Theres no interest of the Green New Deal<\/a> from learning from past efforts partly inspired by your writing theres no interest in learning about the history so what is being advocated is a morality that is a historical if its truly good it should be good at all times and places so whats happening as a religious Movement Looks Like<\/a> it will religious movement than it is our religion and i found a bunch of scholarship to support that. So for me, thats whats driving this and the anxiety of the global system the sense of globalization coming to an end is driving that anxiety among progressives in particular among the elite. And globalization is coming to an end . I think the system is in crisis every Major Institution<\/a> is in crisis. The other night the other thing that everybody believes about the pandemic the first few weeks washing your hands is the most important but we didnt need to wear a mask now thinking they are essential in washing your hands is sure but we dont know any cases that would transfer. Who not from bad intentions and the white house is a discredited institution im sorry to say this but the New York Times<\/a> does not have the credibility it once had it reads like the guardian and the nation not like a newspaper how many environment stories only have one side of the story and doesnt quote anybody critical at all. Now that is standard so these are in a crisis of credibility and trust i dont think that means they will go away but that they need new leaders who have a different worldview who are more comfortable to express the fact we dont know if masks might work but you might want to wear them or that the real issue not having enough but that manipulation. You think nations will get back in touch we are competing with each other without even thinking about it but ultimately they need to be regenerated. We do want to get to ecology but something that you just said brought to mind a concept i focused on with the Keystone Pipeline<\/a> to say its a Macro Economic<\/a> lens with the pipeline and i was googling of the likeminded with a sustainable Human Experience<\/a> on the planet and to acknowledge diversity and googling response of diversity. To say that ecosystems that are resilient not the number of species but the responses so for me that basically with china and the United States<\/a> and europe with those different sensibilities at through those results. But to your point with the danger of having that uniformity. And if youre not with us you are against us. So when i was writing about the climate accord has all the attributes you would want is not determinative for its attributes has a landscape of change and i guess that makes sense of the future. And how we act as the country. And this response to diversity makes sense. Its a great observation, andy. With United Nations<\/a> i just dont think that it would have much influence over the decisions of food and energy supply. That is based on local geography and i believe there is a clear trend from energy to natural gas and nuclear from wood and coal but i wholeheartedly agree on the broader point. Thing i complain about i find something positive in the society. The New York Times<\/a> and bloomberg are very onesided. At the same time we have twitte twitter. I dont even go to the New York Times<\/a> anymore just go to twitte twitter. As an activist and as a journalist with a column for forbes i love my relationship with forbes it has had some challenges they are but nonetheless i can publish articles that are much more widely read than the New York Times<\/a>. And i know that because i can see that traffic so one or 2 million views even though i dont work at the New York Times<\/a> but just because i write about what people care about. And with that polarized society is just a bunch of stuff that isnt clearly left or right issues. And traditionally a bipartisan End Technology<\/a> and housing is another issue is it conservative or liberal to be nimby . There other elements of that so some things are more liberal or conservative than others and how this is determined by partisan polarization. There is more space opening up. And i credit social media. Its like platos discussion of medicine is it a poison or a medicine . It is both. We are in an interesting time. It does have collective madness but that that can be very creative. Had you make at matter in this environment . There are no simple answers. Lets get into ecology. With the headline versus reality the hypothesis and for that timescale. But at the same time there is a section of this area a very simple formula in terms of picking up extinction at the planetary level but with eds book i like it. I dont like the specificity but what i liked about it was the concept if you leave room for nature, it will do stuff. Even here in the Hudson Valley<\/a> there is an old quarry that is hardly recognizable. Ant making the natural disasters worse. The response to both of them was the form of hypotheses that i think were, for example, it could cause extinction that is a possibility but that isnt what is happening now and then ive heard from other people it could be natural disasters that have killed fewer people had there not been kind change. That isnt science, that is a hypothesis. Thats one of the challenges we are dealing with. People are inflating hypothesis which is an important part with scientific evidence. Host it is clear that the climate has changed from the parsing of co2. And [inaudible] to state categorically there is no fact, when you know that michael mann and i debated on twitter feed says every meteorological event changes. Sunny days and seasons of tornadoes, those are Climate Change<\/a>s, too. There is the definitive idea that there is no role for Climate Change<\/a>. Its just not measurable. If you change the climate where a storm is happening, it would be impossible to say guest the disagreement we might have with others more about what is appropriate science communication rather than scientific. So, for example, part of the reason i wrote this book a big part the claim billions of people will die, the earth is dying, that half of the public around the world believe that it would make humans extinct. This needs to be pushed back. Its causing Mental Health<\/a> problems. It is contributing to anxiety and depression. Let me give another example, another aliens example. If the president of the United States<\/a> would say aliens are not invading the United States<\/a> if a reporter asks, that reporter could speak the same argument as my statement, which is to say well, you cant say thats for sure. We have navy pilots that have reported Close Encounters<\/a> with what appear to be space craft, we have no Video Evidence<\/a> thats been released and confirmed by the pentagon. They have special groups studying it. So how can you be sure that the United States<\/a> is not being invaded by aliens, okay. So the philosophical but you cannot prove a negative. A burden of proof showing, in other words, if the president of the United States<\/a> wants to avoid panic, which is what was encouraged by the way, she said i want you to panic and by the way the definition is unthinking behavior. If he says aliens are not invading the United States<\/a> and he doesnt say while, we cant be sure, but it appears to be, and if there is, so i think you have to explain clearly. And then, if it turns out that the death toll from National Disasters<\/a> and natural disasters are going on because of Climate Change<\/a> and extreme events, which i acknowledge are becoming more severe, than we know. Then we know. But they have to have a kind of baseline. I can go back to the extinction if you want, i just want to host i agree with you. Talking about the work of bowers on the european disasters [inaudible] 2010 he did an analysis of luck. The think that is completed is the losses in a meteorological event. Theres three things, losses and changes in the meteorological event, and theres Climate Change<\/a> and how that might change the behavior of a storm or coastal surge of the lake. And when [inaudible] report and extreme events, either to college the point that loss is the prime driver and how bowers work totally supports that. Even for the next several decades, the measure of loss and damage under the terms of the Paris Agreement<\/a> could maybe get confiscated because there is so much building and development in harms way and danger that one wouldnt be able to discern that Going Forward<\/a>. That i do feel there has to be a way forward and distinguishing between changes and the phenomenon and changes to the losses and impact it might have. Your book is a good publication to try to get to that. The next step on that point, you said that you were consulted by the ipc c. And the working group that impacts that part. Is there a way to start to finih her things differently so that we can have more conversations here . Guest i think that the ipc c. Science is pretty good, and i descended intdefended in the bo. Im critical of working group three, which is the recommendations on what to do. And im critical of the publicity and the summary of the press release, but i defend working groups one and two and they do a pretty good job. Theres some stuff but thats what you should get out of an institution like that. I dont have that big of a problem with the way that like you said, i kind of defend the ipc c. Way that they talk about these events. For me, it felt like the hero of the story was roger, who i defended, but also richard toll that argued its a manageable problem and we should stop describing it as the road to hell, as you said. Im eager to address the questions of extinction and but its fine to stay on the extremes if you want. Host on the impact of creating pathways forward to lets talk about ed wilson. Its pretty clear anyone working on extinction and endangered species and conservation, the old formulations, the initial formulations dont really work well. There is lots of things defending this idea. So given all that, its to be given a pretty deep uncertainty, which we havent assured when we talk about this in the book from 1989. Knowing what they dont know, the reality of the extent of extinction is still to be determined, or maybe never on human time scales. What do you do . The subsaharan, the amazon, you know, we have already disloyal to the american region so its hard for us to say. Lets talk about the amazon. The powe car now has changed soe dynamics. It isnt as much as it was in the 1980s. Its not the endpoint, but what do they do now . With trade policy and [inaudible] guest the first thing im trying to do in the amazon and another place i spend a lot of time, where the mountain gorillas are and those are very special places in the book and are throughout the book. The first thing im trying to do is show that the degradation of the Natural Environment<\/a> and the killing of species at risk of extinction are not being carried out by evil people who hate nature. Its often being carried out by people that are desperately poor in ways that the young people that are alarmed by polar bears and Plastic Straws<\/a> have no understanding of. And you i now understand because you go to those places. The first thing i wanted is to bring my kids and kids my daughterdaughters age, 14, 15,w that the struggles are and so in the amazon chapter, theres this kind of elitis elitist literally looking down, flying over the amazon, condemning the people on the ground. These are desperately poor people, children of former slaves in brazil. I pointed out that certainly we would all come in being equal, we would like the amazon to be intact. All being equal, i dont want temperature change. But it isnt all equal. There are still 2 billion poor people. The second thing thats so important, i have my main character of the amazon that now regrets having spoken to me because she spoke so freely, and i know you know this very well, he spoke freely with me being upset as i was of the media coverage, but revealed this important thing, which is that in demanding small conservation measures, greenpeace forced the fragmentation of parts of the amazon forest that should never have occurred. So, what we know is that if you want to produce more on the land, you need to concentrate Agricultural Production<\/a> and intensify it. That should have been in the savanna region, which is in the southern south of the amazon forest. Its less bio diverse. Ecologists think that its the same as the amazon forest. That would allow you to protect more. But greenpeace insisted farmers maintain half of their land and forests in creating these forest islands that make it more difficult for predators lik to e between them. I was athat was an important fi. If i go over to drift in africa, some of the heroes of the chapter were also conservation scientists that have been working with Legal Companies<\/a> to develop allele in the parks that could be used to substitute wood fuel. That is the worst of the fuel that disrupts forest life. Americans we tend to Pay Attention<\/a> to those that are dying of toxic smoke and they complain about the time it takes and of course th the impact on e forest is devastating to have hundreds of thousands of people going through the forest, eating wild animals and using the word. In those cases i think im arguing for a moderate view, to testify agriculture in the savanna is of brazil and to allow some industries, particularly for petroleum in the rift that people can be debated from this fuel. I wrote the book in part because if i were just to say on cnn or msn i think there should be oil drilling in the National Park<\/a>, i would be crucified for that. But once you read this book, i think that its hard to read chapter four, which is of the species extinction, and leave the chapter and think that somehow its wrong. How could it be wrong . I note that all of the americans and europeans there flew there on jet planes with Petroleum Come<\/a> into the idea that Petroleum Drilling<\/a> come even in the amazon or in the sparks is worse than what fuel is also wrong. Just massively worse for the National Environment<\/a> than getting some oil out of the ground. So, i think that its worth making that moderate case, thats what im arguing is that there is a way to Balance Development<\/a> and conservation thabutwe do need to have some appreciation of the importance of moving up the ladder and the importance of growing more food on less land and concentrated agriculture. Host ive done a lot of reporting on cooking fuel a couple of years ago. The issue was antipathy to supporting projects with national gas, propane. Theres levels of hypocrisy that were unbelievable. For the fuel development, they help countries like ghana and so they wont spend money to help bring lpg to communities to stop burning wood. Im with you on these levels of hypocrisy and doublespeak and crushing agendas that surround us in many different dimensions. Lets go i want to talk briefly about population and growth. Ten years ago, i wrote a piece in the times, actually 12 years ago, [inaudible] jesse noted that as we all know it was a total fizzle. The population growth and high fertility rates for devastating. They look at those numbers and nigeria, for example, population 750 Million People<\/a>, nigeria. Its easy on the global scale theres been a new study reported on population that says [inaudible] what i see nothing in these documents, they are missing the local context that should be so troubling. The fertility rate of six, tell me anywhere in the world with the outcome. So i dont know, is population and area that more work is needed as well . Guest for sure. Obviously humans are having a huge impact on earth. Theres so many of us. We all need food and energy. You are describing the big six issue. So they sort of start with that. I think that it would be the key things i want to point out though is that what determines the Environmental Impact<\/a> is not as simple as just people. If people live in apartment buildings and they consume their food out of high energy greenhouses and electricity was a Nuclear Power<\/a> plant, their footprint is tiny. They incinerate all their waste or even landfill it. Your footprint is really small. Whereas like several thousands of families around the National Park<\/a>, again, in that part of africa we were talking about, using wood for fuel and eating wild animals can be devastating. The story of the vitality and report with a lot of work on it is that it appears the parks director in creating antagonism with the local communities created a backlash that may have killed 250 of the parks 300 elephants. It doesnt take a lot of people to kill that many elephants. So when you are looking at in practice, it is easy to see one person that is the same everywhere but its clearly not. So the second thing is that i totally agree about i think its pretty clear tha the un demogras say this but what will determine at what level the human population peaks and when it starts to go down is overwhelmingly what happens in subsaharan africa. So i make the case for urbanization, industrialization, concentrated energy sources, conservation in places like the congo and in part so that they can take the pressure off of the park. I would like to see the National Park<\/a> continue for decades and centuries into the future. I would love to see the elephants come back. We get to the gorilla population increasing. Some are actually being helicoptered to different habitats. We need to be ambitious when we have that vision. The other question is how do you do that, how do you get urbanization, industrialization, it is a huge challenge as it dominates, but i point to ethiopia that has done what every poor country does, damaged rivers, invited factories. I talk about how factories have been liberating for women. How theyve been the driver of Economic Growth<\/a> for poor people around the world for centuries. So, for me if you are worried about a lot of people in nigeria, definitely 750 Million People<\/a> in nigeria sounds like a lot of people, you should support industrialization and urbanization rather than oppose them, and i point out ways many climate trackers have been when in fact h. And m. Has been really benevolent, its had a benevolent impact in terms of empowering and creating jobs moving people away from the bond where they have six to eight kids and have to because that is their retirement, living in the city where they might have to were three kids instead. Its hard to have a lot of kids in the city and they dont want or need that many. Host we have a few minutes left. I want to circle back to the question. The most recent book i have to show it. This kind of surprised me. Ive talked to him for 20 years now. Hes one of the analysts of Global Trends<\/a> as we both know. He talks a lot about some of the tests weve talked about here and its not just articulation, but the world in 2050 cant be like the world today. Along with his reality check on everything. Do you have your own picture of growth as you see it and whether or not just give a thumbnail sketch of that concept and then the last thing if you could save enough time [inaudible] guest the two are related, so i am at huge fan. I rely heavily on many of his writings for the buck. One of the things i set out to do for the buck was to use a few of my own calculations. I want to be able to refer people to other published scholars. So, i relied heavily on the calculation of the power density that shows moving up the Energy Ladder<\/a> from nuclear gas is the right path. Now, that growth book, which of course i read and appreciate its many ways. Its a fascinating book. He does the same thing that many of them have come he just asserts theres limits to growth. Hes not providing mechanisms. Im struck by one party talks about how devastating cities are. And hes got a good point which is that they often dont in these coastal landscapes that just get hammered by this. Theres a area that i deliver lr the Hudson Valley<\/a> where he lives. It isnt what it was before humans were there. Okay, sure. That is different from suggesting some kind of a resource scarcity. So, the resource scarcity i find that he does the same thing theyve often done. He says we will have resource scarcity because certainly we could use for Nuclear Energy<\/a> for example. This is one of the most interesting things in the search for apocalypse never. People that say we will run out of resources have to constantly attack the technologies that would have allowed for more resources. So, for example he said we wouldnt be able to grow more food on the plant, and we should use contraception to have listed the. They said they will run out of energy because we continue to they cant have industrial farming in poor countries because we have limited fossil fuel resources and now most of them say they cant we will run out of resources or cancel Climate Change<\/a> because we cant use Nuclear Energy<\/a> [inaudible] so i think what i love about this is he shows you can combine in the same person a disciplined science but also somebody that i think comes from a certain amount of animus towards the human species. I want to se say this in the nit way possible. [inaudible] interaction and i learned something. When he was interviewed by you come he talked about how he was reading this. I think that hes hostile to humans in a fundamental way. He really doesnt like the consumer culture. I think that the fact worker i profile in indonesia, shes a consumer and as enjoying the fruits of prosperity. He looks about as terrible and i see some amount of human motivation enough. Host we are down to the end. Its been a great hour with you, michael. Much more to go over and Going Forward<\/a> im sure i will try to have you on one of the conversations in person or otherwise. Your concept of environmental humanism i think everyone is grasping for that concept. The sustainable humanities and i think having an open discussion about what that looks like if the response finding the space between argument is an important conversation [inaudible] thank you for having the conversation today. In this portion of the Program Committee<\/a> discusses the history of the phrase enemy of the people. Every one of those president s complained about press coverage. Every one of those president s thought the press focused on he was way too negative, great accomplishment of the administration. Thats standard operating procedure. But you know, trumps the attacks go far beyond any of that. I mean, literally you have any of the people, which is a phrase that i actually spent a little bit of time in about on the origins of that phrase. The phrase. Its a very ugly phrase thats been used by stalin, hitler used during the french revolution to justify the beheadings of people like you seem to be eecho g. A t. And. Host its one of the most interesting parts of the book is unpacking the phrase. You do that at some length in a couple of chapters, and really go through with a noxious phrase that is. If you look back at the history of it. Talk about that a little bit. Guest i spent some time looking through the origins of the phrase, and it was used quite prominently during the french revolution. That is really the most significant place. People were beheaded. And basically the justification was the people that were targeted by the law under which they were found guilty and beheaded, the actual wall uses the phrase enemy of the people. And i go through and i documented the use of it during the reign of terror when blood was flowing the streets of paris. And then the other place, the next place i saw was with germany. It gave hitler his powers. I go back and i find this article to was an Associated Press<\/a> article in the front pagef todays times and others around the world, right there there was a lead paragraph. You see the National Socialist<\/a> party making the case anybody that votes against this is an enemy of the people. Do yo you have to not cease usig the phrase. Then we see it a bit later used by joseph stalin. Now maybe im not saying donald trump knew that that was, you know, the history behind the phrase, but it certainly was pointed out by a lot of people that they had a really dark and morbid and deadly history, and he kept using it. To watch the rest of this program and find other episodes after words, visit the website, booktv. Org and click on the after words tab at the top of the page","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803200.us.archive.org\/35\/items\/CSPAN2_20200803_040000_After_Words_Michael_Shellenberger_Apocalypse_Never\/CSPAN2_20200803_040000_After_Words_Michael_Shellenberger_Apocalypse_Never.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20200803_040000_After_Words_Michael_Shellenberger_Apocalypse_Never_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}