Roger--I thought this was an excellent episode! I recently joined the board of Switch Alliance and am a huge supporter of the education mission. Your episode was well balanced. The Carbon tax is a tough political pill and I am highly doubtful it would pass. This tells you all you need to understand about how much the general public is willing to pay out of pocket for some of the changes being advocated. There is a widespread belief that any incremental cost associated with energy transition should be borne by the companies. This ultimately ends hitting the consumer pocket book but it's not an explicit tax. Thus its easier to find ways to force companies to internalize the cost of carbon through various rules and regulations and pass the cost on through increase price on products and services.
What a terrific and balanced episode. So glad PBS will be airing it next month. America and the world need more informed discussion like that and far less alarmism about climate change. You are to be commended for continuing to be a voice for truth and reason in the face of so much misinformation and hostility. Please keep doing what you’re doing.
Interesting discussion. I was interested in the point that climate alarmism tends to drown out the other advantages of clean energy. More breathable air and more drinkable water. In 50 years our global environment could possibly be better than now in those respects.
Helpful sanity. I had no issue following the transcript. In fact, it was an interesting experiment to read the comments unattributed and to judge and digest them solely on their own merits.
Not sure the least developed world can make the energy leap from burning wood to wind and solar without an interim fossil fuel step. But for the sake of that population's health any leap is beneficial.
Any reading of reality shows this forced “energy transition” is going to require massive expansion of minerals beyond what is possible, which means massive shortages will develop meaning huge increases in costs. Just like with LNG and food western countries will be able to outbid developing countries to hog these materials and end products.
My problem with the carbon tax is that I don't trust the Government to use it to promote R&D for new technology. Instead they'll invest in more DEI training at nuclear plants. We would get 10 cents on the dollar if we were lucky.
I agree with your skepticism, sir, and the government has a history of misdirecting funds. For example, the Waste Fund was collected as a levy on nuclear power to pay for a repository. Harry Reed got that redirected to count against gov't debt, and we now have about 40 billion dollars collected for one purpose but not used. For me, personally, it comes back to uncoupling energy policy from the 4-year political cycle. I agree with Dr. Pielke's numbers - a low tax would raise a lot of money simply because carbon is everywhere in our daily lives. I also think they should stop subsidizing energy. Set policy goals, and let the market obtain them. Reward those who meet goals based on total carbon avoided??
Hypothecated taxes are never 100% efficient (far from it), however, that does not mean that they cannot be useful. Look eg at the US highway trust fund, which enjoys widespread political support based on a meaningful gasoline tax.
This was about as good as one could expect for objectivity. The moderator was excellent. The final line was there's no existential threat from climate change. I'm surprised that PBS let that through.
It seems like Prof. Cohan is well behind on the research re. ocean acidification and damage to coral reefs as well as forecasts of increased disasters. I would have liked to see Roger push back on him a bit on this, but I guess the idea is to show agreement rather than disagreement. I think Cohan sees the writing on the wall and is trying to retrench and save as much face and career as he can.
I sent it on to one of my granddaughters who is in the "we're all gonna die soon anyway so no kids no ambition" group. I hope she takes 30 minutes to watch it.
Sorry to hear about your grand daughters, just more victims of this form of child abuse. We are creating generational harm, between Covid BS and climate emergency BS, it’s going to take decades to fix this.
People should be held responsible.
Starting today with every individual involved in writing the latest “synthesis” report from the UN, as Roger calls it the summary BY policymakers.
If someone counsels kids to commit suicide we prosecute and jail them.
Eventually we will have to do so here.
My 2 girls are grade 8 and 10 (I started late) and I make sure to reprogram them weekly, asking what nonsense they have heard and then showing them data.
Enjoyed it, you were very presentable and articulate. Dr Cohen’s body language seemed uncomfortable in some cases. I think he would want a larger carbon tax as an example. It is really unfortunate that the show will be consumed by such a small percentage of the population. Send a copy to the D of E and maybe they will reconsider the silly EV goals they are talking about. Seems adaptability is dependent on a dependable electrical grid which seems to me to one of the the items that might benefit from a carbon tax?
I don't agree with the optimism. The energy policies being promoted and enforced by the global elites are going to lead to disaster. The Developing World will require a 4X increase in World Primary energy consumption or a 5X total increase. There just isn't enough economical fossil fuels to achieve that growth in energy. And the overwhelming emphasis being placed on wind & solar, which is just a scam. The high materials inputs, land use, intermittency, seasonality, low EROI, vulnerability to changing weather patterns, geographic limitations, extreme energy inefficiency are all inescapable attributes of wind & solar. Not even remotely capable of replacing fossil, a recipe for disaster.
The only viable path forward is a rapid expansion of Nuclear Power. That is quite capable of replacing fossil fuels essentially forever. Unlimited energy. It still is being suppressed and blockaded by the same bunch who are promoting climate change alarmism. They don't want solutions. They want energy poverty, population reduction and a techno-feudal World government. In short the leaders of the Western World are Malthusians and are using energy poverty caused by the switch to energy scams i.e. Wind, Solar, Agrofuels, Hydrogen, Biomass burning, CCS and ITER to increase their power & control.
Unless our rulers wake up and realize Nuclear power needs an emergency level expansion, there is nothing to be optimistic about.
Not only does the math not work, but "NetZero by 2050" requires technology that has not been invented or has not been demonstrated at scale. Not to mention the ~275 trillion dollar cost. (From McKinsey's Corp. cost assessment ) It's magical thinking from a physical, financial and geopolitical standpoint.
I agree that the global elites are Malthusians and this mindset drives climate change alarmism and the anti-nuclear ideology. But I think these are basically luxury beliefs enabled by the high EROEI of petroleum and natural gas. As soon as we reach peak cheap oil this will change. We are currently experiencing a huge crack in the resistance to nuclear around the world. And the rich nations simply cannot prevent the poor nations from exploiting fossil fuels. They aren’t powerful enough. What they can do is put their own populations and industries into energy poverty, such as in Germany, but they can’t stop India and China.
Their plan is to destroy Russia, turning it into a multitude of independent weak countries, and without Russian resources, China will be isolated, while India is absorbed into the Bankster empire. China, India and any other country that hopes to be free & independent need to get off of their butts and start a rapid expansion of nuclear power including high temperature SMRs for heat applications. Their survival will depend upon it. As Kissinger stated: "If you control the energy supply, you control the nation". That's why the Malthusian Bankster cult despise nuclear energy so much.
There never was an emergency but am totally shocked that PBS even airing a discussion that things may not be so bad.
I have been a fan of PBS since I bought my first satellite dish as a 17 year old in the early 80s, living in a small canadian prairie town. I watch Nova, Frontline, Nature and other shows regularly and I have not seen anything reasonable on climate on there in a decade.
I have cable and a PVR, I record nova, frontline, nature, secrets of the dead.
A quick perusal of the synopsis’s of all my recent recordings shows huge content of “we all going to die now, in future, and forever” so there is a long way to go
Roger--I thought this was an excellent episode! I recently joined the board of Switch Alliance and am a huge supporter of the education mission. Your episode was well balanced. The Carbon tax is a tough political pill and I am highly doubtful it would pass. This tells you all you need to understand about how much the general public is willing to pay out of pocket for some of the changes being advocated. There is a widespread belief that any incremental cost associated with energy transition should be borne by the companies. This ultimately ends hitting the consumer pocket book but it's not an explicit tax. Thus its easier to find ways to force companies to internalize the cost of carbon through various rules and regulations and pass the cost on through increase price on products and services.
What a terrific and balanced episode. So glad PBS will be airing it next month. America and the world need more informed discussion like that and far less alarmism about climate change. You are to be commended for continuing to be a voice for truth and reason in the face of so much misinformation and hostility. Please keep doing what you’re doing.
Interesting discussion. I was interested in the point that climate alarmism tends to drown out the other advantages of clean energy. More breathable air and more drinkable water. In 50 years our global environment could possibly be better than now in those respects.
I remain perplexed why climate activists don’t play up the clean air benefits more.
Very informative and thoughtful discussion.
It is important to explain the flaws with the extreme scenarios, as was done in this presentation:
"These highest emission scenarios really don't look realistic anymore.
They have doubling or tripling of coal use beyond today, which I just don't see the world heading towards for a wide number of reasons."
is a valuable quote.
Later on the other impossibility came up: population will never reach the 12 billion in 2100 that is the basis for the extreme temperature increases.
China is losing population right now, as are several other large countries. Many more will start losing population by the 2050s.
Thanks!
Helpful sanity. I had no issue following the transcript. In fact, it was an interesting experiment to read the comments unattributed and to judge and digest them solely on their own merits.
Not sure the least developed world can make the energy leap from burning wood to wind and solar without an interim fossil fuel step. But for the sake of that population's health any leap is beneficial.
Any reading of reality shows this forced “energy transition” is going to require massive expansion of minerals beyond what is possible, which means massive shortages will develop meaning huge increases in costs. Just like with LNG and food western countries will be able to outbid developing countries to hog these materials and end products.
"It’s not...Yellowstone,..."
Yes, unless they've edited the transcript, it's definitely not like Yellowstone:
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/19afb1b8-5995-4361-93d9-8c7f441f72f0
:-/
Ha!
Maybe more 1883 ;-)
My problem with the carbon tax is that I don't trust the Government to use it to promote R&D for new technology. Instead they'll invest in more DEI training at nuclear plants. We would get 10 cents on the dollar if we were lucky.
I agree with your skepticism, sir, and the government has a history of misdirecting funds. For example, the Waste Fund was collected as a levy on nuclear power to pay for a repository. Harry Reed got that redirected to count against gov't debt, and we now have about 40 billion dollars collected for one purpose but not used. For me, personally, it comes back to uncoupling energy policy from the 4-year political cycle. I agree with Dr. Pielke's numbers - a low tax would raise a lot of money simply because carbon is everywhere in our daily lives. I also think they should stop subsidizing energy. Set policy goals, and let the market obtain them. Reward those who meet goals based on total carbon avoided??
Hypothecated taxes are never 100% efficient (far from it), however, that does not mean that they cannot be useful. Look eg at the US highway trust fund, which enjoys widespread political support based on a meaningful gasoline tax.
This was about as good as one could expect for objectivity. The moderator was excellent. The final line was there's no existential threat from climate change. I'm surprised that PBS let that through.
It seems like Prof. Cohan is well behind on the research re. ocean acidification and damage to coral reefs as well as forecasts of increased disasters. I would have liked to see Roger push back on him a bit on this, but I guess the idea is to show agreement rather than disagreement. I think Cohan sees the writing on the wall and is trying to retrench and save as much face and career as he can.
I sent it on to one of my granddaughters who is in the "we're all gonna die soon anyway so no kids no ambition" group. I hope she takes 30 minutes to watch it.
Mark
Sorry to hear about your grand daughters, just more victims of this form of child abuse. We are creating generational harm, between Covid BS and climate emergency BS, it’s going to take decades to fix this.
People should be held responsible.
Starting today with every individual involved in writing the latest “synthesis” report from the UN, as Roger calls it the summary BY policymakers.
If someone counsels kids to commit suicide we prosecute and jail them.
Eventually we will have to do so here.
My 2 girls are grade 8 and 10 (I started late) and I make sure to reprogram them weekly, asking what nonsense they have heard and then showing them data.
Good luck!
Thanks!
Enjoyed it, you were very presentable and articulate. Dr Cohen’s body language seemed uncomfortable in some cases. I think he would want a larger carbon tax as an example. It is really unfortunate that the show will be consumed by such a small percentage of the population. Send a copy to the D of E and maybe they will reconsider the silly EV goals they are talking about. Seems adaptability is dependent on a dependable electrical grid which seems to me to one of the the items that might benefit from a carbon tax?
Thanks!
Roger, that was excellent.
🙏
I don't agree with the optimism. The energy policies being promoted and enforced by the global elites are going to lead to disaster. The Developing World will require a 4X increase in World Primary energy consumption or a 5X total increase. There just isn't enough economical fossil fuels to achieve that growth in energy. And the overwhelming emphasis being placed on wind & solar, which is just a scam. The high materials inputs, land use, intermittency, seasonality, low EROI, vulnerability to changing weather patterns, geographic limitations, extreme energy inefficiency are all inescapable attributes of wind & solar. Not even remotely capable of replacing fossil, a recipe for disaster.
The only viable path forward is a rapid expansion of Nuclear Power. That is quite capable of replacing fossil fuels essentially forever. Unlimited energy. It still is being suppressed and blockaded by the same bunch who are promoting climate change alarmism. They don't want solutions. They want energy poverty, population reduction and a techno-feudal World government. In short the leaders of the Western World are Malthusians and are using energy poverty caused by the switch to energy scams i.e. Wind, Solar, Agrofuels, Hydrogen, Biomass burning, CCS and ITER to increase their power & control.
Unless our rulers wake up and realize Nuclear power needs an emergency level expansion, there is nothing to be optimistic about.
Thanks, I agree that it is difficult (maybe impossible) to make the math work without a large presence of nuclear in the mix.
Not only does the math not work, but "NetZero by 2050" requires technology that has not been invented or has not been demonstrated at scale. Not to mention the ~275 trillion dollar cost. (From McKinsey's Corp. cost assessment ) It's magical thinking from a physical, financial and geopolitical standpoint.
I agree that the global elites are Malthusians and this mindset drives climate change alarmism and the anti-nuclear ideology. But I think these are basically luxury beliefs enabled by the high EROEI of petroleum and natural gas. As soon as we reach peak cheap oil this will change. We are currently experiencing a huge crack in the resistance to nuclear around the world. And the rich nations simply cannot prevent the poor nations from exploiting fossil fuels. They aren’t powerful enough. What they can do is put their own populations and industries into energy poverty, such as in Germany, but they can’t stop India and China.
Their plan is to destroy Russia, turning it into a multitude of independent weak countries, and without Russian resources, China will be isolated, while India is absorbed into the Bankster empire. China, India and any other country that hopes to be free & independent need to get off of their butts and start a rapid expansion of nuclear power including high temperature SMRs for heat applications. Their survival will depend upon it. As Kissinger stated: "If you control the energy supply, you control the nation". That's why the Malthusian Bankster cult despise nuclear energy so much.
There never was an emergency but am totally shocked that PBS even airing a discussion that things may not be so bad.
I have been a fan of PBS since I bought my first satellite dish as a 17 year old in the early 80s, living in a small canadian prairie town. I watch Nova, Frontline, Nature and other shows regularly and I have not seen anything reasonable on climate on there in a decade.
So congrats, it’s a start.
Yes, agreed. They did a nice job.
Yes, I'm glad to see that PBS is willing to present something like this. It does seem like a little bit of progress.
I have cable and a PVR, I record nova, frontline, nature, secrets of the dead.
A quick perusal of the synopsis’s of all my recent recordings shows huge content of “we all going to die now, in future, and forever” so there is a long way to go
Sigh.