Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin

Lex Fridman Podcast #339 – Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Bjorn Lomberg and Andrew Refkin on the topic of climate change. It is framed as a debate, but with the goal of having a nuanced conversation, talking with each other, not at each other. I hope to continue having debates like these, including on controversial topics. I believe in the power of conversation to bring people together, not to convince one side or the other, but to enlighten both with the insights and wisdom that each hold. Bjorn Lomberg is the president of Copenhagen Consensus Think Tank and author of False Alarm, Cool It, and Skeptical Environmentalist. Please check out his work at Lomberg dot com that includes his books, articles, and other writing. Andrew Refkin is one of the most respected journalists in the world on the topic of climate. He has been writing about global environmental change and risk for more than thirty years, twenty of it at the New York Times. Please check out his work in the link tree that includes his books, articles, and other writing. And now a quick two second mention of his sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got A Sleep for Naps, Linux for Linux, Inside Tracker for biological data, and Onit for supplements. Choose wisely, my friends. And now the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I hate those. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will too. This episode is sponsored by an old and favorite sponsor of mine that brings so much joy to my heart. A sleep and its new Pod Three mattress. They recently launched this new generation of mattress. It's it's amazing. It's a source of so much pleasure for me. I know it because when it's gone, I miss it. I remember how much joy brings to my world, whether that's through a short power nap or a great night sleep. Warm blanket, cold bed surface with the rain gently falling outside. I'll even sometimes take a drink of coffee right before, and I pass off for twenty minutes and I wake up a new human being. I don't know why that works. I don't know if everyone enjoys naps as much as I do, but they work for me, and sometimes it can make the difference between a mind that is cynical and is really struggling with life in the world to a mind that is open to the possibilities and the beauty of the world. I do that on an A Sleep bed. Check it out and get special holiday savings of up to four hundred dollars when you go to a sleep dot com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by Linux, Linux virtual machines. Why is it that my heart fills with joy anytime I think about Linux and the great provider of cloud Linux systems that is Linux? If you need to do any kind of compute, just the interface is super easy to use, it's super reliable, easy to monitor. There is tech support, of course, and that tech support is not just every once in a while or whenever they feel like it. It's always twenty four seven three sixty five real human beings, just incredible. Everything is clear. Everything is easy to use. The world runs on Linux. We're just a bunch of human biological systems having fun with our little pursuits and daily habits and rituals and so on, but all of that, just like fish swim in water, humans in this modern twenty first century technological age are swimming in compute. That makes almost no sense, but in a way it does, and you may make sense of it if you visit linux dot com slash lex for free credit. This show is also brought to you by Inside Tracker, a favorite sponsor, a favorite service that paints a beautiful painting that previews the future because in the future, my friends, all the recommendations, all the wisdom, the advice, the mentorship. You will need about the future trajectory of your life, whether that's lifestyle, health, diet, medical—all of it. I think all that will come from your body. And Inside Tracker collects data from your body through blood tests. It's getting blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data—all of that to make recommendations. This is what the future will be like. Obviously, it has to be done in a way that preserves the privacy and respects your ownership of the data. But outside of that, once that is done and that's a must. Once that is done, then the recommendations that through machine learning. Based on this data will be so so much better than the twentieth century way of doing science, which is based on population data versus you, the beautiful unique flower of an individual that is you. Get special savings for a limited time when you go to insidetracker dot com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by Onit, a nutrition supplement and fitness company. I first heard of Onit from Mister Bjorn Rogan, so it's kind of incredible to know that I am now doing an ad read for Onit on this very podcast. I take alpha brain every once in a while when I need a super boost for my mind when there is a long session. I've been doing more and more and more programming lately. And when there is a long session of a difficult programming task, or also sometimes really having to think during debugging, so those can be really exhausting. So sometimes I'll take an alpha brain to help me through that process. It is what it is, my friends. Those sessions can be super exhausting, but super gratifying. So in general, I don't take alpha brain every day, coffee in the morning, and just focus and focus and focus. I try to rely on the power of my mind, but sometimes it's definitely a big help. I enjoy it, like I said, it's a nutropic that helps support memory, mental speed, and focus. You can get a special discount on Alpha Brain at lexfreeman dot com slash onit. This is Alex Friedman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now dear friends, here is Bjorn Lomberg and Andrew Refkin. There is a spectrum of belief on the topic of climate change, and the landscape of that spectrum has probably changed over several decades. In one extreme, there is a belief that climate change is a hoax; it's not human caused. To pile on top of that, there is a belief that institutions, scientific, political, the media are corrupt and are kind of constructing this fabrication. That's one extreme, and then the other extreme. There is a level of alarmism about the catastrophic impacts of climate change that lead to the extinction of human civilization. So not just economic costs, hardship, suffering, but literally the destruction of the human species in the short term. Okay, so that's the spectrum, and I would love to find the center. And my sense is, and the reason I wanted to talk to the two of you, aside from the humility with which you approach this topic, is I feel like you are close to the center and are on different sides of that center. If it's possible to define the center, like there is a political center for center left and center right. Of course, it's very difficult to define, but can you help me define what the extremes are again as they have changed over the years, what they are today, and where is the center? Oh boy, well in a way on this issue, I think there is no center except in this. If you are looking on social media or if you are looking on television, there are people who are trying to fabricate the idea of there is 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. The connector 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 a growing awareness of how 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. It is changing everything for thousands of years. It's already happening. What do you mean by bubbles in beer? CO two carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Why beer? Because I like beer. It's also in Coca-Cola. You were talking about cola before, and so it's innocuous. We grew up with this idea is CO two unless you are trapped in a room suffocating. Is an innocuous gas. It's plant food, it's beer bubbles, and the idea we can swiftly transition to a world where that gas is a pollutant, regulated, tamp down from the top. Is is fantastical, you know having looked at this for thirty five years. I brought along one of my tokens. This is my nineteen eighty eight cover story on global warming. The greenhouse effect discovered nineteen eighty eight. Jim Hansen, the famous American climate scientist, really he stimulated this article by doing this dramatic testimony in a Senate committee that summer in May actually spring late spring. It was a hot day and it got headlines and this was the result. But it's complicated. Look what we were selling on the back cover. What you see is when you hit tobacco cigarettes, tobacco. Yeah, you know looking back at my own career on the climate question, it's no longer a belief fight over is global warming real or not. You say well, what kind of energy future do you want? That's a very different question than. Stop global warming, and when you look at climate actually, I had this learning journey on my reporting, where I started out with this as the definition of the problem. You know the seventies and eighties 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 fifteen years of my reporting from nineteen eighty eight through about two thousand seven. When I was that period, I was at the New York Times in the middle there. Was that we're building vulnerability to climate hazards at the same time. So climate is changing, but we're changing too. And we where we where we are here in Austin, Texas is a great example. Flash flood alley, named in the nineteen twenties west of here. Everyone forgot about flash floods, built these huge developments. You know along these river basins, then one side starts saying global warming, global warming, and the other side is not recognizing that we built willfully, greedily. Vulnerability in places of utter hazard. Same things played out in Pakistan and in Fort Myers, Florida. If you and you start to understand that we're creating a landscape of risk, as climate is changing, then that 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 coast won't be tomorrow's coast. 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 a multiple questions in one in one big question? Do you think it's possible to find 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 exact or we should be worried about things in a different way that makes it much more useful. I think that's exactly the right way to think about it. On the other hand, that was also where you kind of ended. We are stuck in a place where this very much is the conversation right now, and and so I think in in one sense, certainly the people who used to say, "Oh, this is not happening," they're very very small and diminishing crowd, and certainly not right. But on the other hand, I think to an increasing extent, we've gotten into a world where a lot of people really think this is the you know the end of the times. If if you so the OECD did a new survey of all OECD countries and it's shocking. So it shows that sixty percent of all people in the OECD, so the rich world, believes that global warming will likely or very likely lead to the extinction of mankind. And 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 meteor hurtling towards Earth, and you know we're going to be destroyed in twelve years or whatever the number is today, then clearly we should care about nothing else. We should just be focusing on making sure that that asteroid 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 UN Climate Panel tells us or anything else. So I think it's not so much about arguing 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 or really where the conversation is. But it is a question of sort of pulling people back from this end of the world conversation because it really skews our way that we think about problems. Also, you know if you really think this is the end of time and you know you only have twelve years, nothing that can only work in thirteen years can be considered. And the reality of most of what we're talking about on climate and certainly our vulnerability, certainly our energy system is going to be half to a full century. And so when you talk to people and say, "Well, but we're going to you know we're really going to go a lot more renewable in next half century," they look at you like, "But that's what thirty eight years too late." And I get that, but so so I think in in your question, what I am trying to do and I would imagine that's true for you as well is to try to pull people away from this precipice and this end of the world, and then open it up. And I think Andy did that really well by saying, "Look, there are so many different sub conversations and we need to have all of them and we need to be respectful of of some of these are right in the in the sort of standard media kind of way, but some of them are very very wrong and it actually means that we end up doing much less good both on climate, but also on all the other problems the world faces. " Oh yeah, and it disempowers 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 nihilist crowd for those who've seen it who just say, "You know fuck this." We're and and a lot of people have that when when something is too big. 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 it doesn't happen all that often though. No, no, there are these phrases like I never knew the words path dependency until probably ten years ago in my reporting, and it basically says you are 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 one hundred and thirteen hundred twenty year old fixture because and actually that fixture is almost designed. If you look at like nineteenth century gas fixtures, they had the screw in thing. So we're like on these long path dependencies when it comes to energy and stuff like that. That you don't just quickly transition a car fleet. A car built today will last forty years. It'll end up in Mexico, sold on a used car, et cetera, et cetera. And so this there is no quick fix, even if if we're true that where things are coming to an end in thirteen years or twelve 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 is 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 of climate change? So is that the center still? Like is there still debate on this? Yale University, the climate communication group there for like thirteen years has done this Six Americas study where they've charted pretty carefully in 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 is from dismissive to alarmed, and with lots of bubbles in between. I think some of those bubbles in between are mostly disengaged people who don't really deal with the issue. And they've shown a drift for sure. There is much more majority now at the alarmed or or engaged bubbles than just the dismissive bubble. There is a durable like with vaccination and all lots of other issues. There is a durable never anything. Belief group, but on on the reality that humans are contributing to climate change. Most Americans when you ask ask them, and it also depends on how you write your survey, you know. Think there is a component globally. I mean when you when you ask around, I mean and and this is you know if you hear this story from the media of twenty years, of course that's what you will believe, and it also happens to be true. That is what the science I think you know it's perhaps worth saying, and it's a little depressing that you always have to say, but I think it's worth saying that I think we both really do accept you know the UN Climate Panel science and you know there is absolutely global warming. It is an issue, and it's probably just worthwhile to get it out of the way. It's an issue and it's caused by humans. It's caused by humans, yeah. But vulnerability—the losses that are driven by climate-related events—still predominantly are caused by humans, but on the ground. It's where we build stuff, where we settle, Pakistan. In nineteen sixty, I just looked these data up. There were forty million people in Pakistan today. There are two hundred twenty five 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 five thousand year history of agriculture there, but when you put two hundred 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 is a new weather attribution group. 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 CO two changing weather. But and the media glom onto that, as I did you know in the eighties nineties two thousands. But the and 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 CO two. In fact, Lauren's Bower. B O W E R 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 greenhouse gases to human suffering is 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 the hurricane Ian that went through Florida, you have a situation where Florida went from what six hundred thousand houses in 1940 to seventeen million houses. Sorry, ten million houses so so seventeen times more. Over what a period of eighty years, of course you're going to have what yeah yeah yeah you're going to have lots more damage and many of these houses have now been built on you know places where you probably shouldn't be building. And and so I think a lot of scientists are very focused on saying can we measure whether global warming had an impact, which is an interesting science question. I think it's 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 CO two lever doing something about climate is an incredibly difficult and slightly inefficient way of trying to help these people in the future. Whereas of course zoning, making sure that you have better housing rules. What is regulations? That that you maybe you know don't have people building in the flash flood. What was it called flash flood alley flash flood alley way yeah yeah. It's it's just simple stuff and and because we're so focused on this one issue, we sort of it almost feels 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 think this is this is going to be a large part of the 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 steal man the case of Greta, who's a representative of alarmism, that we need that kind of level of alarmism for people to pay attention and to think about climate change. So you said the singular view. Is 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 steal man the case of for alarmism essentially or is there a better term than alarmism? Communication of like holy shit, we should be thinking about this. So I think yeah I totally understand why Greta Thunberg is doing what she's doing. I I have great respect for it 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. And that of course you know this is the meteor 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. 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 end of the world fear. But I totally get why she's doing it. I think she's done a service in the sense that she's gotten more people to talk about climate. And that's good because we need to have this discussion. I think it's unfortunate and this is just what happens in almost all policy discussions that they end up being you know sort of discussions from from the extreme groups because it's just more fun on media. To to have sort of the the total deniers and the and 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 mud wrestling fight. So would you think the mud wrestling fight is not useful or is useful for communication for effective science communication on one of the platforms that you're a fan of which is Twitter. Yeah I wrote a piece recently on my sustain what column saying if you go on there. For the entertainment value of seeing those knocked 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 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 hate build back. Or you can go there and just watch it as an entertainment value that's not going to get the world anywhere. You don't think entertainment I wouldn't call it entertainment but giving voice to the extremes isn't a productive way forward. It seems to. You know to push back against the main narrative it seems to work pretty well in the American system we we think. Politics is totally broken but maybe that works that like oscillation back and forth. You need a Greta and you need somebody that pushes back against Greta to get everybody's. Just to to get everybody's attention, the the fun of battle, over time. Creates progress. Well and this gets to the you know people who focus on communication science I'm not a scientist I write about this stuff. If you're going to try to prod someone with a warning like like this is three years apart nuclear winter. Nuclear winter we'll talk about that 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 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 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 three hundred seventy 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 can 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 an action movie. And and and again I think also it very easily ends up sort of skewing our conversation about what are the actual solutions. You know because yes it's great to 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 that is why you should get rid of them. And again if you really want it to help people for instance with hurricanes you should have better you know. Rules in zoning in Florida, which is a very different outcome. So so the the mud wrestling fight also gets our attention diverted towards solutions that seem. Easy fun you know sort of the electric car is a great example of this the electric car somehow become almost the sign that I care and I'm really going to do something about climate. Of course look electric cars are great and they're probably part of the solution and they will actually cut carbon emissions somewhat. But they are an incredibly. Ineffective way of cutting carbon emissions right now they're fairly expensive you have to subsidize them a lot and they still emit quite a bit of CO two both because the batteries get produced and because they usually run off a power that's not. Strong words from your love. Okay let's go there let's go electric cars okay educate us. On the pros and cons of electric cars in this complex picture of of climate change what do you think of the efforts of Tesla and Elon Musk on pushing forward the electric car revolution. So look electric cars are great I I don't own a I don't own a car but you know I've been driving there you go socially signaling. Yeah but yeah I've I've we're in Texas okay blue in here so it's not like I'm in any way a virtuous guy on that path but but you know look. They're great cars and eventually electric cars will take over a significant part of our driving and that's good because they're more they're more effective they're probably also going to be cheaper. There's a lot of good opportunities with them but it's because they've become reified as this thing that you do to fix climate and right now they're not really all that great for climate. They you need a lot of. Extra material into the batteries which is very polluting and it's also it emits a lot of CO two 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 are more likely driven less than half as much as as regular 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 short trips. 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 virtuous signal 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 in in many countries it's you actually get a. A sort of sliding scale you get more subsidy the the more expensive it is we sort of subsidize this to very rich people to buy very large Teslas to drive around them. Whereas what we should be focusing on is perhaps getting. Electric motorcycles in third world developing cities where they would do a lot more good you know they can actually go as far as you need there's no you know worry about running out of and they would obviously they're much much more polluting just air pollution wise and they're much cheaper and they use very little battery. So it's 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. Insight it's more like it's a virtuous signal so just you know I'm I work with economists I'm actually not an economist but I like to say I claim my kind of am 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 CO two. 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 five thousand dollars that they're about. You know huge amount for one ton of CO two you can right now cut a ton of CO two for about what is it fourteen dollars on the Reggie or something. You can regional greenhouse yes additional. So you can basically cut it really really cheaply why would we not want to cut dozens and dozens of tons of CO two for the same price instead of just cutting one ton and the simple answer is we only do that because we're so focused on electric. Come interrupt typical European come here in Texas tell me I can't have my Ford F one fifty but now you can have your F one fifty Lightning. That's true I'm I'm just joking. But what do you think about electric cars if you could just link on that moment and this particular element of helping reduce emissions. Well you talked about the middle in the beginning and you know I loved moving to the hybrid the Prius was fantastic it 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 two thousand Toyota Sienna which is an old hundred thousand mile 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. Oh you mean in terms of the size of the vehicle yeah size and just you know convenience factor for a bigger vehicle. I would love a fully electrified. Transportation world it's kind of exciting I think what Elon did with Tesla I remember way way back in the day when the first models were coming out there 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. I think it's done a huge service prodding so much more R and 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 you know there was there were fights to keep this tammed down and it's it's fundamentally cleaner fundamentally better if. But then you have to manage these 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 transport cars? And Jigar Shah, that guy at the energy department I mentioned who has all this money to give out. He he wants to give loans to. If you had an Uber fleet, those Uber drivers they're the ones who need electric cars. As 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 sixty eighty thousand dollar vehicles. Each like the the Hummer the electric Hummer I can't there was a data point on that. Astonishing data point the the battery in that Hummer weighs more than. I'd have to look it up. It weighs more than your Prius. Yeah I think it might have been a Prius. And think of the material costs there. Think of where that battery 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 for rich people. There's so many contrary arguments to that that I think we have to figure out a way we I don't like the word we I use it too much we all do but we all do. You usually refer when you say we we humans we society we government yeah there has to be some thought and attention put to where you put these incentives so that you get the best use of this technology for. For the carbon benefit for the conventional sooty pollution benefit, for the transportation benefit. Can can I step back and ask a sort of big question? We mentioned economics journalism. How does an economist and a climate scientist and a journalist that writes about climate see the world differently? What are the strengths and potential blind spots of each discipline? I mean that that's just sort of just so people may may be aware. I think you will fall into the economics camp a bit. There's climate scientists. And there's climate scientists adjacent people like who hang some of my best friends are climate scientists kind of which is I think where you fall in because you're a journalist you've been writing it so you're not completely in the trenches of doing the work. You're just step into the trenches every once in a while. So can can you speak to that maybe beyond like what's what does the world look like to an economist? Let's try to empathize with these beings that you know that unfortunately has fallen into the. Disreputable economics so so I think I think the the the main point that that I've been trying for a long time and I think that's also a little bit what Andy has been talking about for a very long time the whole conversation was about what does the science tell us is 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 got to. This is not a question about whether you feel morally virtuous or 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 answer is that electric cars right now in the next decade or so. Will have a fairly small impact and unfortunately right now at a very high cost because we're basically subsidizing these things at five or ten thousand dollars around the world 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 instance cut more CO two and the obvious answer is yes, that's what we've seen for instance with fracking, 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 electric for power that basically cut more carbon emissions than pretty much any other single thing and we should get the rest of the world in some sense to frack because it's really cheap there are some