One of the climate solutions that doesn't get enough attention is good urban planning. The US's fossil fuel consumption per capita is twice that of EU and America's lack of walkable neighborhoods and good public transit is the biggest reason why. US cities are planned in an environmentally and financially unsustainable manner that arguably makes our overall quality of life worse.
@@inthefade No, Europe has much better public transport. It sounds crazy to me that in America its kinda assumed that everyone has a drivers license and it is used as an ID. I am 25, live in Europe, I don't have a drivers license, and half of my friends don't either. We simply don't need a car. And the majority of travel you do is to and from work, where distance between cities doesn't play a role.
@@inthefade I second what pyroman2918 said. I lived in Argentina for a couple of years and was blown away by the comprehensiveness of their public transit--and Argentina is not a rich country by any means. The US's public transit (or lack thereof) is just plain embarrassing
I agree fully. Th idea of '15 minute cities' is something that has been captured by the conspiracy theorists. In fact, a more tenable conspiracy is the reverse. We know for a fact that oil, car, road and construction lobbyists have spent a fortune over the last 100 years, and that we have laws and planning restrictions in place as a result. They have changed the face of cities in their favour.
How sad that many people these days don’t understand that experts can, in fact, be genuine experts with highly valuable insights and political advice. It’s like a good portion of society always knows the true story better, while feeling the need to condemn academics that often _actually_ do. Granted, scholars/scientists can be wrong about a lot, arrogant or flat out corrupt, but we can’t always rely on our own (often relatively poorly informed) intuitions and opinions on truly complex matters. So, choose your experts wisely I say. Because experts can, in fact, be genuine experts
This guy is a politician, not an expert. He is exactly why we don't trust the experts any more. He dishonestly manipulated the interpretation of the facts at every part of this conversation to support the climate change cult.
@@hagengilbert8102: He would have said something along the lines of that the vast majority of scientists at the time believed that the globe would warm long term and that the global cooling hypothesis which was presented in a rather small proportion of the scientific journals concerning climate change have been emphasized by organizations that have been funded by fossil fuel companies as part of their doubt creating machinery. It was well known during the 70's and still known today that the aerosouls stemming from our fossile fuel burning are short lived sunlight reflectiving particles, that pollute and cool the atmosphere. There was space at the time for questioning whether aerosouls or CO2 would win out in the long run. It was well known at the time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for much longer than aeorosouls, but it was not known exactly how much longer until the 2000's. Graphs of global average surface temperature do not show cooling in the 70's, instead temperature was constant; but there is a dip from a higher temparture which existed in the 1940's, which can be partially explained by the large quanitities of aerosouls which were poured into the atmosphere during a period of increased fossil fuel burning with no restrictions on aeorsoul pollution. In reality, the signal of human induced global warming wasn't louder than natural background decadal oscillations stemming from events like El-niño until the 80's. It was about that time that the signal of warming from human caused greenhouse gas pollution exceeded others signals of oscillations in climate stemming from the sun, heat exchanges between the oceans and the atmosphere among other natural factos. Hope this helps.
Well, that’s what I thought until I heard him commenting on recent events. When it hit close to home he ditched all his philosophy. Now Waking Up looks like a fib he told us to get ahead.
What amazes me is the fact that solutions that I read about more than 50 years ago which seemed fairly straitforward have never been implemented, like Flywheels in inner city busses, Modular Nuclear Reactors and generating stations that take advantage of tides and wave action.
Because tidal energy is ridiculously expensive. Most of the renewable sources that have the highest potential are vastly expensive, If not linked to generation itself but to the cost of storage.
Governments always kick the can down the road, because they are only interested in getting back into power in 4-5 years, not what's going to happen in 20-50 years. In the USA the fossil fuel industry has been bribing politicians to ignore the issue for decades. A good energy independent and clean energy program for any country would utilize all the available options, wind, solar, tidal/wave, geothermal, hydro-electric etc. Of these options tidal/wave has been the slowest to get research started as it's the hardest to do, but there are companies developing systems.
Because the oil industry fights hard to keep the world burning fossil fuels... they'll continue to refuse development of renewables until every drop has been exploited
Maybe it's a great big grift. (Con) They don't really want solutions because they know the truth. That "climate change," provides the ultimate tool for control and business. FEAR is a powerful tool to keep society in line, while allowing LOTS of money to be made. When you look at the LONG history of the media scaring us about climate change, (global warming, global cooling etc) it simply looks like one great big grift. Imo I'm open to being proven wrong, hence why I am here, watching this video. 🥴
I came to the conclusion a while ago that as a species, we've decided "fuck it" and we're just gonna ride it out and hope that someone comes up with some invention that will save the planet. I used to think that humanity would kick the can down the road and not act until the situation became so dire that we had to act but now I don't even think the direness of the situation will have any effect. We can have all the grand ideas we want about lowering emissions, getting off fossil fuels etc but we don't want to give up our creature comforts, we don't want to make the required sacrifices. We've decided to ride the bomb all the way down and the only way we're ever going to get off that ride is if we come up with some kind of revolutionary technology that will save us without asking for sacrifice. I'm aware this is a very pessimistic point of view. But when we look at the Just Stop Oil protesters and care more about them disrupting a tennis match than the actual message they're trying to convey, I think that about sums it up. In the Trojan War story, Cassandra of Troy had the gift of prophesy but was cursed into having nobody believe her. We don't even have that excuse. We know the prophesy is true. We see the warnings about climate change come to pass. We just don't care.
I think you're right regarding creature comforts that we're unwilling to let go of, especially as many parts of the developing world are beginning to enjoy what we've taken for granted for decades. And I don't think the economy or culture can simply trade in our most modern machines for more primitive alternatives. We don't have solar powered trucks, trains, ships, and planes. But I think we do "care." As the guest says, the caring has to manifest as durable political coalitions that commit to certain strategies. Human beings are also good at adaptation, if not sacrificing for the future.
I'm pro-nuclear, but nuclear facilities are extraordinarily expensive and take decades to complete. We might not have decades. And what's worse is that only 20% of global energy use is in the form of electricity. Nuclear is great for producing electricity, but does not address the other 80% of energy demand (which is increasing every year by about 3%). There's no way we're going to give up on the miracle super juice in the earth as long as our civilization demands growth in GDP. The 1700 kwh of work in a barrel of oil is beyond amazing (it's mind blowing) and can be bought for about $70. No way in hell we're giving that up any time soon. We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but we can't stop burning fossil fuels. We're like drug addicts that dug up mountains and mountains of cocaine, and we're going to snort every last flake of it that we can extract profitably as quickly as we can
Yep, it’s why the people and governments investing in more sustainable energy research are doing some of the most important work. Imagine where we’d be if we just started research, or waited until the price shot up so high (or resources so low) that garbage first gen renewable energy technology became the best tradeoff. What may save us is the time and money that many people have called “wasted” on research that didn’t immediately save energy and pay dividends.
Nuclear is only expensive because of regulations and the type of nuclear that was chosen (light water reactors). If we used nuclear that can’t explode and doesn’t need massive containment buildings, the regulatory and construction expenses go away. we should be all in on nuclear. Not the 70yr old tech, tho.
The total fixation by environmentalists and most politicians on wind & solar at the expense of nuclear is in great part due the influence on public opinion by what the fossil fuel industry prefers. For every wind farm built you need another gas burning power plant as backup, which could be done better with almost zero-carbon footprint nuclear power. That's why large part of the fossil fuel invested capital not only goes into wind & solar to "diversify" but also towards propaganda against nuclear power, continuing to push false talking points about the dangers of radioactivity like "there is no safe level of radioactivity". Which is b.s., given the fact of inevitable natural radioactivity, to which all of biology has developed DNA self-repair mechanisms.
What a troll!!!!! Do You even understand a ratio "price per produced energy"? We usually measure the price of a produced kWH or MWH - not the power - because You can install 100 GW of solar power and get less ehergy from it than from a 10 GW Nuclear Plant(s) in the same period of time (let's say 1 year), of course! And You don't understand the next problem which is called "lifespan" of a facility. Solar panels last about 15 Years, then they need to be replaced while the nuclear facility lasts for 50 or more Years with very little maintenance (compared to the energy they produce). And the final argument: 1 kwh of energy produced in any nuclear plant costs about 5 cents while the same amount of energy produced by photovoltaics costs about 5 to 10 times more!! Yes, that is 500% to 1000 % more, depends on location.
This dude is on valium, whistling past the graveyard. Methane is now escaping from wetlands and permafrost at a rate that is alarming climate scientists because of feedback loops. The implications for global food distribution and production alone are staggering. This is not a problem only for localized disasters, give me a break. Who funds this cat anyway?
This is not a problem of science. It's a problem of the psychology of tribalism. I think anyone that has followed you over the years is clear that climate change is real. We won't persuade anyone, who is currently unconvinced, with scientific experts. Unfortunately, those people will need a 9/11 type climate event.
Listen to Sam's description of skeptical people at 7:20, which does an amazing job describing people like me, and compare it to your own. The fact that you think the other side of the debate is "climate change is all fake" reveals that you have never even listened to or considered the other side of the argument
@@SolarPlayer I've listened to SO MANY people who think climate change is a "hoax", and I've listened to a number of people who express a skepticism in a way that it's clear they are not idiots. The "intelligent skeptics" are inevitably just unaware of the science. They are the sort of people who often will change their mind when they see the facts. I take it that's the kind of person you are. Once you get explanations and answers for your questions, you'll see that "the other side of the argument" doesn't really exist.
If we won't persuade anyone unconvinced through science alone, how would you suggest we do it? I've tried fiction (people like a good story). I wrote a road trip novel: Zen And The Art Of Saving Life On Earth. I'm giving it away for free on UA-cam. (It covers the ecocide as a whole, not just climate change.)
@@NeilMalthus I think the only way to get the message out, is through doctors. When those denying the problem are told that they, or their loved ones, died, had a stroke, a heart attack, suffer from diabetes, asthma, parkinsons, MS, autoimmunity, depression, dementia...etc, etc, etc, because air pollution has affected their ability to correctly regulate the cellular function of their body, by their trusted and respected doctor, then and only then, will they start doubting their opinion. Any disease which has inflammation involved, is considerably (big time) exacerbated by air pollution, air pollution at levels currently thought to be acceptable.
Did I miss something? There seemed to be no mention of minerals availability and what the growing needs of renewables and electric vehicles will do with regards to price and potential scarcity.
@@incognitotorpedo42 You know populations in developed nations may already be far too high? Say, if the 'ecocide rate' can be considered to be the product of overpopulation x overconsumption. #ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth - if you're interested @janlemasters7344 - it's my attempt at addressing the ecocide and I'm giving it away on UA-cam.
Too many people burning too much stuff. We have had a doubling in the past fifty years of energy use, population and externalities. A bottleneck (aka: rapid reduction) is coming, with no way to know exactly when with collapse and conflict volatility nearly impossible to envision.
I’m a big fan with probably the most credentialed pod cast Guests on climate out there. And he has quite the impressive back catalogue Tom Nelson Podcast
Yeah, because Richard Lindzen would have been too much to ask! Instead a biologist doing a lot of speculation things out of his specialty. I think it is still quite likely' " The Science" presented here as a sanity check seems to have come back unchecked, so at least we still have our insanty to rely on.
The "problem" (if it is a problem) with Sam Harris's podcast compared to others is that he doesn't do clips. And clips are what circulates these days the widest and fastest.
I would position myself as a centerist mostly, possibly leaning slightly more right at times, but most people fit somewhere along the middle either slightly more left or right... I don't understand why there are such Extremists today on both sides, i feel like only the extremists get media coverage and so we end up with this horrificly polarised argument for and against climate change. Jordan peterson (who i agree with on some things, but also disagree on others) is a good example of this, he completely goes off the rails on climate change and religion. People act as if climate change isnt a thing and if you support it you are one of those nut jobs who stops traffic on the road. What happened to reasonable people who don't need to shout names at eachother?
Pretty left of center, and I see you and appreciate you. There are plenty of us left/right/center that are interested in engaging with these topics without going off the rails. There’s just a lot of distracting extremists.. I’ve been enjoying and benefiting from a lot of content by seeking out: 1) rational, reasonable people who challenge my beliefs and 2) rational, reasonable people who I largely align with, but open themselves up to conversations and debates with people from group 1. Hopefully you’ve found (or can find) people to listen to that fit that description… stay away from asinine Twitter content… read the whole article while ignoring the sensational headline… and you will likely find that you’re still learning, keeping up with current events, avoiding disillusionment, and generally staying above the fray. Just my 2 cents.
We need more people who declare their independence from tribalism for sure. As an independent thinker my main point about the anthropogenic climate warming debate is that there is a lot more uncertainty from scientists then is being peddled by our media and policy makers. That's where it ends. I don't think it is a hoax -- I will have to look up what politicians are saying it is a hoax. That's similar to COVID being a hoax and there are still a lot of those opinions around. But I also don't think that we are going to cross some threshold with no return by 2030 which was being peddled around by the Extinction Rebellion club. I do think we should question whether it makes sense to spend trillions of dollars in tax-payer money on policies to get us to net zero (if that is even possible) when we don't know for certain how much global warming is caused by humans or whether it will significantly improve outcomes in the future. We should be open to different perspectives and not go straight to the discrediting of people just because there is a conflict.
There is a pronounced lack of extremism on the side that's concerned about climate change. Blocking traffic and throwing soup on the glass protective cover of a painting may be stupid, but it's hardly extreme in the face of the path we're currently on. Killing people would be extreme. Nobody concerned about climate change is bombing Exxon headquarters. There's barely even been any sabotage.
just like he said: by looking at the progress from the last 10 years, there is reason for hope. I remember 20 years ago noone gave a shit about climate
Go look at the charts of the various climate conferences that people celebrate and track the planetary boundaries and what has happened, in that time. It's virtue signalling, nothing else
I feel some level of issue with when Sam asks him at he 9 minute mark if we have been on wrong on anything in regards to climate change and if so what. Chris proceeds to only respond with things he has been right about and completely dodging the question on any examples of where their models may have been wrong. Sam doesn't proceed to hold him to the question. This sets the tone of what kind of truth seeking I am to expect from this, whether that gut instinct is true or not.
Where have the *Models* been wrong? Be aware that some guy saying something is not a model, and Time magazine publishing a sensational claim forty years ago is not a model.
Your observation may be correct. Most models were wrong and underestimated the impacts and how fast they would come. This had to be self-censored to not sound too alarmist. It sounds apocalyptic. So all models got the direction right. Almost all of them got wrong when and how hard it would hit. Reality is worse than the models. If you say that, you are a radical, fringe. This is why Sam Harris did not push here. Why put yourself in the corner when people have just seen Burning Man, in the middle of the desert, turned into a mud-pit by days of rain?
Chris continues the list of establishment „experts“ on whom Sam‘s BS-detector is turned off. Like SBF, like N. Christakis, like E. Topol. These are dishonest people with an to me obvious agenda
So the thing about scientific modeling, be it climate or epidemiology or anything else, is that we have to run dozens of scenarios with differing assumptions about future that cannot be predicted. For example we cannot know if there is going to happen a major volcanic eruption within the next five years, so we run two scenarios. One with an eruption and one without. And if an eruption happens, we compare that data to our model with the eruption, and discard the one without an eruption since it is not relevant for us to figure out if our models are accurate. And every aspect that adds similar unpredictability multiplies the amount of scenarios we model, as well as new reasons to tweak the numbers on forcing and feedback impacts to know which values are closest to truth. That is why "majority" of models are "wrong". Because became useless to us when a scenario changed. And finally we compare the relevant scenario predictions to real world data and see how accurate our assesment on the core assumptions are. Mainly climate sensitivity. And that is what he meant that the models made in 1990 were correct. The scenarios that correlate with what did end up happening were well within tolerance, meaning it is very likely that our prediction on climate sensitivity is correct.
Except it is not a Ponzi scheme - technology and innovation driving productivity enables growth whilst using less resources. Ultimately there is an effectively infinite amount of resources available to humans via solar power, automation, robotics, space trace etc. If we think back to what was possible 100 years ago and what we can do now, who knows where we can be in 100 years from now! The future is bright and optimistic if we chose it to be :-)
Around 53:00, Field promotes the use of hydrogen as an energy storage medium. The thermodynamics of that are very unfavorable. For a variety of reasons, it's unlikely to ever be cost competitive with other forms of storage.
There's a huge lobbying push happening right now for hydrogen. Fields bringing up carbon capture and fossil made hydrogen has me questioning whether he's compromised. Everything is about money and politics.
When you overbuild renewables to make up for the intermittency you end up with a lot of excess power during peak production which will be cheaper than anything seen before. Opening up opportunities for inneficient forms of energy storage. More efficient forms of storage will dominate electrical generation, but when you need high portability or backwards compatibility things like this may be competitive.
@@IAMACollectivist it's possible yeah but hydrogen isn't an easy technology, will it win out against LFP and Sodium batteries which ultimatley comes down to cost, we shall see
In 1880, there were 116 weather stations and the vast majority of them in the northern hemisphere. So,exactly how did they measure average yearly southern hemisphere with surface temperature accurately? Obviously there is unquestionable uncertainty!
@@HoboGoblinCatfor thanking them for a great conversation? Damn. I didn't know that was bootlicking. Sounds to me like your looking for someone to fuck with
The biggest problems that still are not solved are agriculture and cement and steel production. We don't know how to do these without fossil fuels. It's a little frustrating that the growth issue was not addressed. The problem of ever increasing emissions is a problem of growth. Arrhenius did not envision the massive amount of growth that would be coming, and did not foresee CO2 in the atmosphere as a real problem as a result. If we were increasing the CO2 concentrations at a very, very slow rate, we would have time to adapt, along with the rest of the ecosphere.
The captain of the Titanic was optimistic that he was piloting an unsinkable ship. We have built a behemoth of a fossil fuel based economy that will not be easy to steer around the proverbial iceberg, especially with multiple countries, corporations, and political entities pulling on the wheel in different directions. I am skeptical that we will have the political will to change course until we are careening off the precipice.
Not to mention for example the part were Sam explains the part about aerosols at length and then the guest regurgitating the EXACT same stuff again. It's like "Dude, I just said that"@@hank-uh1zq
Not sure it is worth the time engaging with the snarky doubters because they aren't going to listen to facts in any case. Almost invariably they think Trump is a very "truthful" person so what can you say about their ability to discern truth?
I m only just starting this podcast, but I will say… of utmost importance… energy must stay cheap, otherwise the poor will burn wood and or starve . So whatever we do… keep energy cheap and easy to get
Fossil fuel prices need to massively increase. If the poor burn wood and starve, we can use weapons to prevent the first half of that. Fossil Energy being and staying too cheap is part of the problem.
@@kurtilein3 Get a grip. No one is proposing shooting poor people so they don't burn wood. As we transition away from fossil fuel, it is going to get CHEAPER. Don't expect it to be taxed, at least not in America. Electricity will get cheaper as well. The poor will be fine. The transition is happening faster than you think.
@@kurtilein3do you not see the "let them eat cake" sentiment in what you say? It certainly seems like that if you live in a developed country. Just look at Brazil, if you take away their oil (the biggest single economic power there) they will no longer be able to afford the programs that literally feed their poor. The very utilitarian numbers of climate catastrophe suffering vs deaths and suffering resulting from different pro climate action are rarely touched upon. I'm not saying that people wish these nasty unintended consequences of climate action. Just that they are inevitable and need to be better considered.
No serious climate scientists believe we will succeed in limiting warming to the Paris goals. These targets are already missed, we needed to have done more before now. The most optimistic current median trajectory is +2.8*C by 2100. We don't know what a +2.8*C warmer world will look like. My generation (I'm 63) is handing on a planet undeniably damaged by ignorance, greed and carelessness. I grieve over my own culpability for the damage caused. So much has and will be lost of nature, diversity and stability.
Exxon mobile just announced it is now impossible to prevent 2°C by 2050. The El Niño in 1the 2050’s will peak at 2.5-2.7°C The feedback loops ensure these numbers are conservative. Business as usual brings Co2, NH4, & N20 above 1,000 ppm in year 2100 When Co2 reached 1,000 ppm, it led to 10°C, which led to a Seal Level rise of 197 feet above today’s level. That was 50 million years ago.
If you haven't already, I recommend the new 8-part Web TV series "Extrapolations," which provides insight into what life on earth may be like in the years 2037, 2046, 2047, 2059, 2066, 2068, and 2070.
@@dbadagna After your comment, I started watching the series. I just finished episode four. I dig it. I’m going to try to finish it this weekend. I could tell right away that a lot of research was done for accuracy on temperature timelines. So I googled it. The writers talked to James Hansen and other climatologists. So that’s why. Thanks for the recommending it!
@@dbadagna Also, they casted some a lot of big names. So I was surprised to see mediocre ratings on rotten tomatoes and IMDB. But I think that’s because the average viewer is unaware that the scenarios are what we expect. They think they’re watching some wild fantastical story.
@@ImproveYourMagic I agree. The critics also almost universally missed the point of "Don't Look Up." Two other recent related films that I found very poignant are "The Midnight Sky" (2020) and "Finch" (2021).
Don't focus on any narrative, just look at the science. You have to be in denial to not admit that we have had an effect on the environment, and climate.
@@chrisbirch4150 Yes - it moved the dial. It addressed concerns sensibly and head on rather than screeching about people being 'deniers'. This podcast is an excellent example of why shutting down debate rather than engaging in it is a terrible idea.
It rarely if ever is. Hardly anyone, even those who promote critical thinking and following science and combatting cognitive dissonance is willing to consider the inconvenient truth of the cruelty and abuse of factory farming on those poor animals and its effects on the environment and human health as well. People don’t want to hear they should change their diet. It’s just too damned inconvenient. They’ve been addicted for far too long and just don’t want to have to deal with it. So sad and unfortunate.
@@christopheradams1912 I stopped eating meat. What did it for me was that "Game Changers" netflix documentary. On top of all the environmental problems, all meat is really unhealthy. Top athletes boost their performance by going vegan. A vegan beat Conor mc Gregor in MMA. A vegan carries 555 Kilograms on his shoulders over 10 meters for a world record and flips cars. Your body lacks nothing and your arteries clear up. Meat tastes good but its like smoking cigarettes.
Glad to hear. Happy for u. So many documentaries and resources are available that allow us to peak behind the curtain and see what really goes on in the meat, poultry, and dairy industries, as well as their affects on the poor animals, ourselves and the environment. Too bad more people won’t watch and listen. Glad u did.
This has nothing to do with warming and everything to do with pesticides. We willfully try to slaughter bugs all the time. Bugs flourish under warming. How many bugs do you see in winter or in cold climates?
I love how people vaguely remember random shit about their lives and tell themselves it's proof of a scientific hypothesis. See, science is so easy anyone can do it!
I was never really crazy about climate change. That changed in the past 3 months after experiencing the insane heat in Phoenix that is almost unlivable. In a couple decades it might be borderline uninhabitatable
@@davidfayfield6594Thus increasing load on the energy system (which is fueled by carbon at present), thus increasing emissions, thus increasing global solar energy retention, thus increasing warming, thus increasing energy demand, thus increasing emissions, thus increasing global solar energy retention, thus increasing warming, thus increasing energy demand... I think you get the point. This has nothing to do with Arizona. Essentially, the only way the suggestion you mention is a solution is if you will die soon and don’t mind the consequences after you are gone. Billions of others, such as myself, will have to live with the consequences.
They are going to run out of water in Arizona far more quickly than "a couple decades". That's going to make it pretty uninhabitable. Their problem stems from the Colorado River getting so low.. Oh, and from letting Saudi Arabia drain the aquifer to grow alfalfa.
Thanks Mr Harris and Mr Field, some great questions and answers. A couple that weren’t asked were water supply and food production. Also climate migration if areas become too hot/wet/unstable for successful habitation. Also if changing our consumption habits should be considered or if we can keep shopping and the other tech solutions will be enough. Was wondering about making carbon cost a thing that all products should have on their label, from food to cars to clothes, everything. Then the consumer could perhaps choose local over shipped which would have a two-fold benefit.
A rather disappointing episode. They didn't talk about any of the huge risks of climate change: the fact that the Amazon has become a carbon source, the possibly impending collapse of the AMOC, what happened with sea surface temperatures and Antarctic ice this year, how frequent and bad heatwaves and droughts may become, the risk of long-frozen diseases being released from melting permafrost, the chances that feedback loops could take us beyond 4C (or even 10C in the long run, according to a new paper by James Hansen) and what that would look like, and, possibly most important, how incredibly off track the world is for stopping it. We're so off track that it's not even fair to call ourselves "off track," because we're so far away from the track that it doesn't make sense to say we're attempting to be on it. We're just wandering as we were, ignoring the track altogether. Coincidentally, a climate stocktake just came out a couple of days ago showing all of this. The situation is really bad. I encourage everyone to learn exactly where we are by reading the IPCC reports. I'd love to see Johan Rockstromm, James Hansen, or Stefan Rahmstorf as guests.
Thanks for the calm broad discussion. I must speak up after hearing Carbon Capture and Storage CCS discussed in almost the same breath as wind. This may have oversimplified and may have misrepresented this for those who don't have clarity on the state of CCS. To say "we know how to capture the carbon and store it" is different from saying "And this is happening today." For practical purposes it isn't. With Wind, we see Entire electrical grids, Denmark, Australia etc. having wind and solar representing the majority of their production. This is proven, established and in place today with a carbon payback of several months (4?) for a windmill. CCS on the other hand is not broadly deployed. When it is deployed, it is not capturing all the carbon and making fossil fuels carbon neutral. THAT just isn't happening. Its possible in the future but right now CCS is science fiction if we mean "CCS that really exists and really captures (ALL or most) of the carbon." Yes, invest in researching CCS, but lets not encourage complacency with continued pollution, because CCS is theoretically possible. Apart from needing more clarification on CCS. I really appreciated everything else that you shared. Thank you. well worth the listen. I liked what I heard about "the wealthy countries need to be WAY ahead." And yet they are not. We see Canada and various oil producers continuing to expand exploration and production as each of these companies seems to position themselves to maximize profit and production before the end. This unregulated self-interest is sacrificing the opportunity to avoid over-reach. Thanks again.
I would have been nice if you pushed Mr Field to explain further his assertion that we know how to solve emissions from coal plants and diesel engines with "renewable energy". I don't think it is true that it is known or easily resolved unless extreme degrowth and population control is part of his plan.
I think his position was that wind and solar will get cheaper over time, hydrogen will integrated and if that's not enough then supplement with nuclear.
Considering that fossil fuels is estimated to run out in this century, this is the bigger problem to solve. AGW will be moot. Time to change the focus.
@Paremata Link to that statement. Expert's predicted we'd run out of oil and gas early this century, with franking its increased . If the EU overturned it's franking ban it would be well over 100 years . Nuclear is key for reliable baseboard energy
I'd love Chris to be joined by former guest Peter Ziehan. He has interesting commentary in that he wants to go green but doesn't think we can because of materials shortages, and because many renewables are misplaced geographically resulting in increased carbon footprint.
I like Peter's musings on geopolitics, but he's far too broad to have truly useful commentary on the very complicated topic of renewable energy. However, I think he and Sam could have a fun talk about changing demographics (much more predictable) and the possible impacts that will have on China, the US, Russia, and others.
@bjkarana true Peter is a generalist so there might be something he's missing, but those concerns didn't come up at all so who knows if they have an answer or not.
@@DavidBrown-ts2us peter and sam are both generalists both of them have shown to be narrative following clowns when it came to cv completely delusional totally lacking critical thinking or the ability to use basic logic to solve problems
Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. Green should mean meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact. Unfortunately, many, including governments, think green means RE. Often, this is not the case.
Absolutely. Why we don't have strong bipartisan support for nuclear is a mystery to me, except for the fact that I'm sure there's a financial angle to ensure we keep pretending wind and solar are equivalent replacements to fossil.@@dodiewallace41
This is a strange conversation. It sounds like two people on a planet I don't recognize having a nice little chat about climate change. On the planet that I live on, governments and legal systems worldwide are beholden to fossil fuel corporations: the richest entities on Earth. These corporations don't care that solar energy and wind power are cheaper and more sustainable forms of energy production. They're not interested because the profit margins aren't big enough. There's lots of 'we' and 'our' and 'us' in this discussion as if all of humanity was a unified whole working together with a common purpose. Think of how corporations act to maximize profit above and beyond all other considerations. Think about how the tobacco industry knew for years that smoking caused cancer. Think about what Chevron got up to in Nigeria in the late 90s. Think about how, in the 70s, Texaco were found guilty by the government of Ecuador of polluting parts of the Amazon and fined 18 billion dollars and how in order to avoid paying anything they just moved all their assets out of the country. I don't see how a podcast can claim to be a 'sanity check' when the main obstacle to the mitigation of the worst effects of climate change doesn't even rate a mention. Chris Field maybe a great scientist but I get the sense that he's somewhat insulated from what goes on in the real world.
The world's oceans continue to absorb 91% of the solar radiation trapped by greenhouse gases, which as of 2023 amounts to 10 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second, every second of the year. That's going to have consequences.
Exactly. I think this exposes both of their right wing, conformist tenancies, in spite of how much of a few thinker Sam thinks he is. They seem to agree the planet is getting warmer, and that awful consequences such as mass migration and destruction from more extreme weather events are already baked in... And that there is a bit of hope with new technology... But there is no sense of urgency, as if all the bad stuff is going to happen somewhere far away so they won't be affected. I would say I'm very disappointed in Sam, but that happened a long time ago. He's got quite a few moral blind spots for someone who thinks about morality so much, and this is one.
While Sam asked some very good questions, I found his guest to be just awful. I heard this guy debate Dr. Steve Koonin, and he spoke in that debate like he did with Sam, nothing but platitudes. While it's true we are having a lot of wildfires in Canada this year, in 2020 we had the lowest number of fires since the government started keeping records and we had by far the lowest amount of area burned. If you look at the government data there is no trend one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with CO2 or climate change. Also, 30 years ago the world derived 84% of its energy needs from fossil fuels, today it's 80%. That's not an energy transition, that's a slight reduction, There's no energy transition, we've just spent a lot of money on some new energy sources that provide almost no energy. There is no way wind and solar displace fossil fuels unless you disregard math or want to live in a low-energy world. Also, I used to build powerline and substations as a construction engineer. I've read we are at a minimum going to have to double the electrical grid if we want to go full renewables, Chris Field has no idea how much time, money, and effort that would involve. There are not enough, engineers, Linemen, and Power System Electricians in North America to even attempt a build-out like that, let alone the material costs from a relatively small amount of suppliers of power grid equipment. Do you have any idea how much that would raise your electrical bill, Germany pays 50 cents/kW/hour.....anyone feel like paying that much and probably more?
The level of vehicles produced drives me crazy. You can move 30-60 people with one well made engine, instead of giving 30-60 people each one an engine. The magnitude of material waste is unnerving, why does the systemic infrastructure design seem to stagnate with such a narrow range of ideas? How how about what takes more effort to maintain, 30-60 vehicles or 4 buses going through a suburb? Then the volume of lawn space across all suburbia as potentially being the food supply in itself, exampling a sore lack of design. How agriculture is resorted to antiquated practices, and should in reality be many layers of many plants, not just one, to optimize surface area. People could be walking out of their houses into food, instead of driving around through drive through to pick up food shipped in plastic from a whole continent over, grown in other peoples back yards. The health of people would be far better. Bunch of regenerative land based practices and food forestry stuff: ua-cam.com/play/PLKty8zmNqWGynKTXoPFpxAOlZDlzC_Ntq.html
"This is a complicated, important, critical to address problem. Because it has lots of leverage on the future, not because we're on the edge of a precipice that's likely to be civilization ending" What a quote. Thank you for this conversation.
@@primalchaos7 The media is generally ignorant on this topic and pro-sensationalism. You could send a link to this podcast to your favorite media outlet.
Unless we are ALL prepared to alter our standard of living, especially those of us in the developed world, no amount of wind, solar will suffice. Going green might sustain 2 billion very comfortably but not 8+ and growing. Thank you for uploading and sharing.
Elitists want the middle class and working poor to adjust their lifestyles while they continue to take private jets and live however they see fit. It's a Eugenics program on the poor.
I listened to this episode and though Mr.Field is the expert in all this my intuition says, you can’t watch climate change in real time and think you are not in a much more dire situation then Field suggested. Two things stood out for me. The first was that Sam simply listened which is fine but very few to zero challenges. The second is that you could have put another impressive and qualified speaker on the microphone and his overview would be much more dire. Throw Guy McPherson up there and we’re doomed by 2030. Not sure about the truth but I think we know less and have many more unknowns then we realize.
What about the natural ecologies that can’t adapt to the rapid change in temperature and go extinct? Isn’t this the six mass extinction event currently undergoing due to anthropogenic climate change? We don’t live in a world where we kill our ecosystem and think our a/c will save us from disaster.
Sam Harris chose a good man to interview. All of his statements concerning the science on climate change were correct. While his estimate for what the future holds for humanity is on the optimistic side it is not outside of a possible future reality for humans. That being said there is room for a much more dire world, even one where humans go extince, but this would likely happen well after 2100 if due to climate change. Guy McPherson by the way is not a climate scientist, has been shown to be intentionally dishonest (lies about what the science says) and seems to make a living off of claims of dire consequences for humans that repeatedly don't get realized. I found this video where he Guy McPherson says that we have months at most before humans go extince from climate change ua-cam.com/video/VTy-nZmNkuQ/v-deo.html . But that was five years ago. I hope this helps you get a better assesment of where the truth lies.
Guy is not my point as much as the number of externalities around real time global climate change. Im not saying we will be gone in 5 years but I see endless issues linked to this changing planet and they feed into the loop. If the stressors increase the Chances of other black swan events increases.
We are indeed on the edge of a precipice that is likely to be civilization ending. Actually that is not correct. We are past that precipice by decades. Watch and learn.
He said "we know how to replace diesel engines with renewables" - but this isnt true. Diesel is 36 times more energy dense than a lithium ion battery. My 120hp tractor becomes 4hp and now I cant farm as before. Currently, there is no viable way of replacing diesel - and remarkably, not many people are even thinking about it.
JCB has recently produced its first all electric back-hoe. Diesel is a mature technology incapable of dramatic improvement. The green alternatives are in their infancy.
@@Onequietvoice Diesel is millions of years of stored sunlight condensed into a liquid. First law of thermodynamics is energy cannot be created. After 50 years of lithium ion batteries, they are still 1/36th the power of diesel. Renewables can power civilisation - just not this one. Chris Field has been called out on Twitter for this pod, he knows "we can replace diesel" is completely untrue. But he knows its not good for his carrer to say so.
Yes, now finally if everyone will listen to this they will submit to and give up their freedom to a communist autocracy and we can pay our way out of this climate catastrophe. I am so relieved.
This entire conversation was a bunch of BS. Just more of the dishonest climate change agenda hoax. If you want to hear the actual facts about what we should do about climate change check out Alex Epstein and Bjorn Lomborg who are actually experts on this topic.
The goal is all that is important and I believe both sides can find it agreeable. Global reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced and increased use of nuclear energy must replace it. Getting into the weeds of how much is human caused will never get us anywhere.
The problem is that Republicans are intransigent obstructionists who deny the problem to maintain fossil fuel profits. That is is almost entirely human caused is actually a good thing because then we can do something about it.
I agree with nuclear power use. Using breeder reactors does not seem to come up in many conversations. We could use our accumulated nuclear waste to power them.
A few facts. None of this is speculative or controversial. -It's been known in physics for well over a century that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared, AKA heat -With no CO2, Earth's average temperature would be ~0 F instead of ~57 F. -Industry raised CO2 to 150% of what has been the normal high for a million years… As CO2 rises so does temperature. -When heat energy is added to a fluid system it becomes more active. -A warmer, more active atmosphere means more extreme weather. -A warmer atmosphere increases evaporation making droughts worse faster with more crop failures and fires. -A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. 7% more per 1 C. This makes precipitation more intense. This makes more and worse flooding. Water vapor is also a GHG. -A warmer atmosphere melts more ice. The heat plus the melt expands the volume of the ocean. -Less white ice reveals more blue ocean which absorbs more heat. -Melting permafrost releases more methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2. -Because of geography, the Arctic is warming much faster than the Earth as a whole. This changes the Jet Stream to larger, deeper waves which makes warm, high-pressure and cool, low-pressure areas more extreme producing more extreme weather. -Warmer oceans means more energy is available to tropical storms. These are just some of the basic changes to climate and weather. Beyond this is how it affects agriculture and all living things that can’t adapt fast enough to this rapid change.
But Field claimed that if society switches to mostly solar and wind, everything will be more or less okay. Doesn't he know better, or does he have an agenda (and a bank account large enough to give him a false sense of security)?
@@dbadagna : Things are going to get worse just based on what's already in the atmosphere. The question is: How bad and how fast? That will be determined by how much more GHG we emit.
@jjsr7861 : No and yes. Yes it is the atmosphere but most gases in the atmosphere are completely transparent to light. It passes right through with no effect. GHGs are different which is why the are called Green House Gasses. They absorb some of the infrared bouncing off Earth and that changes Earth's energy balance. Water vapor is the most abundant GHG but it precipitates out every three days, Methane is more powerful but breaks down in about 20 years. CO2, however, can linger for a thousand years. It is the primary regulator of temperature. The rest are feedback mechanisms. Svante Arrhenius discovered this in 1896. "How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?"-MIT org Climate Portal
@jjsr7861 Humans are warming and destabilizing the earth's climate just as the oil companies had predicted would happen in reports they commissioned all the way back in the 1970s and 1980s. About 91% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been absorbed by the oceans, however.
One isotope that produce lesser transuranic materials is Thorium and that should be the future of fission reactor but is unfortunate our US government have not given a green light to build Thorium molten salt reactor while China have proposed to go with the project.
Chris Field. is a leading expert on climate change, and his work is essential to our understanding of this issue. He is also a strong advocate for action on climate change, and his work is helping to make a difference. So lets lower emissions as soon as possible.
@@ImproveYourMagic The greatest threat to marine life is overfishing. Humans are decimating the oceans, but people whine about climate. It's the most disingenuous climate argument of them all. Warming isn't killing anything because marine life isn't that fragile. Ocean temps change dramatically with depth and latitude. Marine life experience dramatic changes day to day and season to season. If you truly cared about marine life, you'd be advocating smaller population levels not trying to miraculously and with futility lower planetary temps.
@@anthonymorris5084 So oceanographers are wrong? Btw, regarding earths largest extinction in history,…. *96%*of marine species died off at the end of the Permian period. The "Great Dying" was *caused by global warming that left ocean animals unable to breathe.* Earth's oceans became so inhospitable to life that some died from a lack of dissolved oxygen in the water, an excess of *carbon dioxide,* a reduced ability to make shells from calcium carbonate, altered ocean acidity and higher water temperatures. “If I really cared about marine life?” I’m 15 years vegan buddy. Thank you for showing interest in climate change, and the rapid rise to 3°C as we enter into Earths 6th great extinction!
@@anthonymorris5084 de·lu·sion·al adjective 1. characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.
This guy is unbelievably optomistic! Does he not realize how much Germany is struggling after going all in with wind and solar? Also, his solutions for Western nations will have the effect of impoverishing the working class and sending more and more people on the street who are now currently barely hanging on.
Germany isn't struggling because of wind and solar. They're struggling because they don't have enough wind and solar and Putin cut off their fossil fuel supply line. Before the sanctions, HALF of their oil came from Russia.
@@visicircle Well if they stick to their anti-nuclear plan as they have till now (and they've amped up the rhetoric over the years) I imagine it's gonna get pretty tough in the next few decades, also depends on how the Russia - Ukraine war gets resolved (if that's even a possibility?). Unless some major technological breakthroughs happen in the renewable energy sector (from what I understand, solar energy storage would be the biggest issue to tackle here), the country seems to be headed towards either relying on energy imports (likely from France and other neighbouring countries, but mostly France since they've historically supplied a lot of their 'dirty' nuclear energy to many EU countries) or keep burning coal and gas (the only available from now on is LNG which is more expensive than just regular NG, again, depends on Russia - Ukraine) or a combination of both but having neither would mean that the country would have to lower its' energy consumption SIGNIFFICANTLY to be able to function with just solar and wind (main renewable sources in the country) and even then you can't really last long without a back up for these (which you will need, solar and wind will only work in relatively good weather conditions) so they'd have to resort back to coal and/or gas since going back to nuclear is politically ineffective and is presented to the public as a fate worse than climate change. All in all, they'll probably do fine but I can assure you their future won't look nearly as 'green' as they are boasting right now and have been for years past. Personally, I just hope that the French stick to their agenda of increasing nuclear power production because its' success can only motivate other countries in EU (like Slovenia for example) and rest of the world to keep working on maintaining existing plants and feel comfortable in making more and investing more in the industry in general as well as remove any unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that might have been put in place in attempts to halt the industry from developing (mostly by environmentalists, ironically). All that being said, I've no idea what the OP means when he talks about "impoverishing the working class". If we're talking about jobs, it just isn't that simple and that's disregarding the fact that as technologies advance, there's less of a requirement for physical based labour, labour which can be redistributed in the same industries or to other existing or emerging ones. Imagine all the jobs that were lost with the introduction of home computers! Oh wait, no, it probably produced more new jobs while reconfiguring existing ones to fit the new landscape and at the same time probably increased productivity immensely due to the convenience and efficiency of these machines. And honestly, I don't even care anymore if losing a few jobs is the sacrifice we have to make, these people don't bother with any viable solutions of their own so their stance is essentially "Fuck it, I'd rather keep my job for the next 4 years than make sure the planet will stay habitable for the next 100" and that's understandable. It still doesn't solve the impending issue, so frankly, I see no reason to care about their jobs when they don't even care about the planet. It's clear as day that oil needs to go so crying about the loss of jobs is either to halt the process of phasing it out or to score emotional karma on the internet. Neither will get us anywhere in the fight against climate change and it is therefore an irrelevant topic. If you want to discuss practical solutions to combatting the inevitable loss of jobs like retraining, early retirements, or subsidizing that's one thing but funnily enough, I rarely hear discussions on these topics, it's almost always virtue signalling mottos^^ usually borne out of ignorant republican talking points that tend to over simplify and exaggerate one issue in favour of completely dismissing solutions to the much bigger issue that we're currently facing. Again, not saying the loss of jobs isn't an issue, but it would serve the argument well if you actually talked about it sincerely with the goal of providing a possible counter-solution, rather than disregarding the entire process and maintaining the status quo even if it means destroying an entire planet in the process.
Not that, just that the whole podcast doesn't seem to be in touch with the problem@@shock_n_Aweful added : It lulls people into inaction, thinking there are possibly pathways we can trade our way out of this and the economic system will find a way out of this, I find this to be a lie and Sam would know this, I get he is pandering to a majority audience but it's still lying.
When will you have a conversation about this with guys like Prof. Emeritus Richard Lindzen, Prof. Judith Curry, Prof. R.A. Pielke Jr., Prof. Nir Shaviv, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Mathew M. Wielicki, Dr. Patrick Moore etc. etc. or any of the thousands of scientists who have made it clear that they don't concur and that there isn't a "consensus" on the idea that we are facing a "climate emergency"?
Let me guess, you seeked out a small minority of people with PhD'ds that already aligned with your predisposed political ideology. Striking. If you're wondering, that's what a confirmation bias is in real life.
@@efabiano82 You guessed wrong, cupcake. 1) Argumentum ad populum is not a rational argument. 2) Ideologically I'm a Voluntaryist, which means I'm on neither silly political "side". I don't do cheerleader politics. 3) You not even wanting TO LISTEN to what they want to say is most definitely denialism and confirmation bias. You've such intense neurotic angst about it you won't even Google them. If you did, you'd find for example that the first guy, Prof. Lindzen, is the retired former head of Atmospheric Physics at MIT, and was one of the leads of the actual UNIPCC Scientific Working Group. Curry is right now the foremost climate science advisor to the largest insurance companies in the world and former department head at Georgia Tech. Pielke is the current department head at the University of Colorado, and just last year published along with a group of some of the most distinguished climate scientists the latest metastudy of all the IPCC projections and the latest rea-world data. Moore is a co-founder of actual Greenpeace.... and I have actual lecture videos and references to published work of HUNDREDS more. 4) ASSumption is the worst fvckup in rational thinking, and you just did it.
@@efabiano82Seriously? The suggestion behind his comment was to encourage a debate with the other side of the aisle....that is quite literally the opposite of confirmation bias. A perfect example of confirmation bias is when brainwashed hacks like you come on here to watch videos that only align with your POV, and then you rush to the comments to troll out people that you assume disagree with you. He was asking a very simple question: can we have a debate between these climate alarmists and the qualified experts who disagree with the fact that there is a “climate emergency”? The fact that you took his comment and turned it into your regurgitated comprehension about “seeking out a minority of experts for confirmation bias” shows the level of brainwashing you’ve been subjected to. This is precisely the reason that these conversations get shut down because you bafoons would rather debate the idea of having a debate instead of having the actual debate.
[sigh] For those who have seen the movie Oppenheimer, there is a critical scene to keep in mind. When Oppenheimer feels guilty about killing so many Japanese with the bomb he help build, Truman tells him "you didn't kill those people. I did." Scientists generally don't make good executives, perhaps because executives are less driven be the optimism expressed by Chris Field, and are more pragmatic (and self interested, admittedly). Sam asked all the right questions, but many of the answers given by Fields were either given with too few disclaimers, or were simply wrong with respect to global implementation. Comments that sustainable energy sources are cheaper, and will remain cheaper, probably heads the list. Big picture: If by some miracle governments around the world adhere to the schedule of hydrocarbon transition laid out by the IPCC, the unintended consequences will be massive. It simply can't be done without radically changing principles of personal freedom we take as given in the west. Which is why it isn't going to happen. Pragmatists, if they took this problem seriously, would be talking about engineering and infrastructure projects to mitigate global warming AS IT HAPPENS, not just exerting maximum effort, including social and political turmoil, to prevent warming from happening within model-based rates and limits.
In other words. Change is coming. But by the time the necessary steps have been taken it will already be too late. Warming past two degrees Celsius is pretty much inevitable at this point. The fallouts from which will be catastrophic.
It doesn't have to come with removing personal freedom, adding accountability should be mostly enough. Meaning mostly pricing in negative externalities, so that people can use climate damaging technologies, but they have to pay for the damage they cause, which can then fund the solution.
@@Nick-kb6jd No, that's not what I mean, although it may have seemed that way. All big and small problems in life have tradeoffs, and in this case the tradeoffs are huge, not just in our lifestyle, but also the degree of control western governments would need to exert over their people, and on other governments, especially in Africa to meet the timing goals. It's the sort of single factor analysis that scientists (I am one, by the way) often aren't good at. An example would be the tradeoff between keeping kids out of school during COVID even though their demographic had almost no risk. It's not that such decisions are easy, it's just that getting tunnel vision, and especially distorting the problems associated, is getting more common, and doesn't address itself well to the most difficult problem facing mankind ever. I'm all for moving away from fossil hydrocarbons. They are a precious unreplaceable resource for raw materials, and we are foolishly burning them for heat. But when Sam asked Fields to point out which parts of the science and implementation problems were certain, and which weren't, Field's response was way more toward certain than it should have been. Transition goals to minimize fossil hydrocarbon use by. say, 2100 are reasonable, and probably doable. But lurking behind the argument is this threat that the world will come to an end, based on numerical modeling, of which I am familiar. In any other context, that would seem absurd, but given the timeframe is not possible in my opinion, it makes more sense to be talking mitigation instead
I had to stop listening around 30:00. The guest only said that based on the ice core samples the temperature had been equal to or colder than current periods. We know they were much hotter as well. I can’t waste my time with someone who doesn’t entertain doubt in their own hypotheses
echo chambers at its best. A real sanity check would have at least two voices for a real discussion. Rather, Sam just cherry picks someone that pukes up that damn narrative. John Christy, Judith Curry, Willie Soon... There are MANY voices that could be featured.
As an entrepreneur, I find it silly to bring in a "climate change expert scientist" who's job security is dependant on him finding evidence of climate change. Let's bring in Mark Zuckerberg and ask him the importance of social media for human interaction and have him figure out how the government can help fund him as it may be a public service. Instead you need to have a critic debating an expert and people decide who has better points. This episode only shows one side with skewed evidence at best with no realistic economic impact examples.
Feels like you are just unwilling to listen to a person who knows a ton about the subject. I don't think the fact that the man has been studying this subject and knows it in depth should put you off listening to him.
I'd like to know what the data says, not what the "mainstream scientific consensus" is. Popularity doesn't make science. You said the quiet part out loud. I knew this was going to be frustrating to listen to, but you could have at least pretended like you were trying to impartially evaluate evidence.
Notice that government actions are never the culprit for, say, increasing wildfires (even though latest the scientific report of the IPCC itself picks up no signal whatsoever in terms of increasing "fire weather" - due to "climate change"). Government actions like "protecting forests" (with a multitude of regulations that end up increasing fuel load and underbrush flammable volumes). These two are taking for granted everything the government dishes out as "fact". Huge mistake! No need to go further. Waste of your time.
The main and most significant cause of wildfires continues to be excess CO2 creating warmer drier and more fire prone enviroments. ie climate change. Not to say that forest mangement and other mitigations are not important but managing forests the size of those in Canada for example is not logistically possible.
@@Onequietvoice absolute nonsense! Not even the latest IPCC report notices any detectable signals for more "fire weather" (as they call it in their report). Stop parroting media propaganda.
My main state of mind when listening to Sam is wonderment as to how he's not severely depressed. This was a great conversation and one of the lighter ones (!) but there's a lot of problems in the world he's trying to unravel and the only person who's doing it with a view to honest insight and practical (which mean being honest about the potential effectiveness) solutions. Doing interviews with Russell Brand and other crackpots is a terrible use of his time. More of this please.
Yep, it seems like there's an insurmountable issue with, as it turns out (thanks internet), millions and millions of people desperate to lick the plug socket in the hope that, maybe, just maybe, it'll give them superpowers.
Sam is/was one of the greatest thinkers of our time. He was wrong about most everything to do with covid which was one of the most important issues we as a society have dealt with in our time. It shouldn't take away his lifetime contributions but it is very difficult to listen to what he has to say going forward. Especially when he never really admits his mistakes. Despite always preaching about how wonderful it is to be able to change your mind.
Huge fan of Sam Haris but this is where I part ways with him. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not the driver of global warming as the evidence shows. He's right though it's a new religion.
Rubbish. Anything can be a pollutant in the wrong place or quantity. Gasoline is a pollutant in your drinking water and water is a pollutant in your gas tank. It's one thing not to know about CO2 but another to make such foolish claims about evidence. This is science based on data and facts not belief in spooks. SEE: "MET Office UK, Causes of climate change" "Columbia Climate School, How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?" "MIT, How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?
Keep in mind that any discussion involving just one guest cannot begin to show you the whole picture. There are opposing and orthogonal views that are barely mentioned, if at all.
The way I see it, this is an "opinions differ on shape of the Earth" situation. If one point of view is essentially correct, there is little need to hear a large number of opposing views, since they would necessarily be essentially wrong.
There's definitely climate scientists more alarmed and less optimistic than this guy, but there's virtually no publishing climatologists who disagree that humans are causing global warming and that humans are causing it.
Having worked in climate sea level rise for decades, I have seen that the unrealistic adjustment to rising sea levels is a behavior that continues to promote coastal development. Even former President Obama, has bought a large, multi-million dollar estate right next to the shoreline. Some have accused Obama of hypocrisy, but it's probably more a problem of desiring the advantages of coastal living without understanding its hazards. This conundrum to adoption of sea level rise appropriate coastal development plans could be handled effectively in an authoritarian regime, but who would want that? In a democracy, people will do what they want to do, and people love living along the coast. Another problem is that the sea level rise models have been well beyond what tide gauge records have recorded. This has enabled those disinclined to climate change poo-pooing the hazards of continuing coastal development in a rising sea level rise. A few millimeters per year, which is high on a low lying coast, like much of the middle Atlantic and Southeast Atlantic coast, is cumulatively a disaster. In a couple of decades, a couple of centimeters could mean much greater penetration of storm surges and waves atop them during tropical storms. People find it hard to comprehend how such "teensy-weensy" amounts of sea level rise could be so dangerous. Yet storm surges are the main killer from tropical cyclones on coastal populations. One issue that was touched upon was the placing of wind mills offshore. I would be leery of this proposal as the coastal ocean -- (essentially the inner continental shelf in trailing continental margins, i.e., much of the US Atlantic Coast south of New York) -- is the most productive part of the ocean, and, unfortunately, the most impacted by human activities for obvious reasons. If the we plan to use the coast off New Jersey, for instance, for extensive windmill fields, then we better have a good idea of how finfish, migratory marine animals (whales), and the benthos will be affected. Killing off the ecology of the coastal ocean in many areas on our ocean planet, seems to be a poor trade off for more electricity from windmills which would be very vulnerable to damage from tropical storms (Summer) and super tropical nor'easters (Winter). In other words, and not an original idea, we have to be cognizant of being good stewards for species other than ourselves. Lastly, in the search for renewables, I hope we don't ignore the oceans. There is more water being moved by the Gulfstream than the rivers combined on land. Moving at 4 m per hour, what a vast source of energy! I know there are groups exploring oceans sources of energy -- waves and tides -- but I'm not sure our decision makers, or the general public, even consider ocean power. The technologies for harnessing it will be decades off, but sooner more research on what could be done -- scientists and engineers -- the better. Ocean power can be consistent (no diurnal problems like solar or seasonal like wind), and limitless.There will always be waves, tides, and currents.
@@Garrison169 What? I didn't mention anything about turbines, commonly referred to, as windmills. I used this term because turbine is not widely used. I'm a scientist (PhD) and know the difference but a lot of people don't.
@@Garrison169 I am a scientist, not if. I also have over dealing with non scientists, who were certainly not stupid, but I'll informed. I have tried to tell people in reports to politicians of both parties that what they windmills are really turbines, and what probabilities in scientific studies mean. Some get it, others don't. It also doesn't behoove one to adopt a snarky tone, because no matter what you think, they are the decision makers, Ultimately, I don't care if "lay" people call wind turbines windmills as long as the
Whoops phone dropped my reply before I finished. Continuing: not you. One should realize that most people in elective office are not scientists, unfortunately. The reason I've rambled on this long is that you seem to be a smart guy -- I laughed at your insouciance as it's your typical UA-cam fare. But on a science site, let's leave Twitter behind. Have a good day, bud.
32:50 - At this point to neglect to mention the fact that India and China have increased their CO2 emissions at the same time as the Western countries have attempted to decrease theirs is intellectually dishonest.
I mean, it is in the current regulatory environment. But solar cost most people quote doesn’t include the batteries that are necessary to provide the same service as nuclear or gas or coal. Even with solar/wind plus batteries, it still probably cheaper. But we could change that with new nuclear tech.
At a grid scale, Solar is cheaper if you are willing to add a Gas-fired power station to the grid to back up the intermittent power source, and ignore the cost of your gas power plant when calculating the cost of Solar-PV electricity. That is, there is a lot of fraudulent accounting involved when people assert that Solar is cheaper. It does also depend a lot on your location and specific use case though. If you are trying to live off grid, it's a lot cheaper to install solar panels and battery backup in your house than try to get a SMR installed. If you are trying to run an electric power utility in Canada or Germany etc. though, Solar power is just a dumb idea.
He lost me at the get go by not answering the first question about models. He went straight to extreme weather which seems extremely difficult to understand the causality of. I suppose it involves crazy complicated statistics but I’d like to know how we know extreme weather since 2010 suddenly shows the warming signal since temps have gone up maybe .25C since then.
Small temperature changes result in counterintuitively large effects. A one degree rise in temperature alone can increase atmospheric moisture by 7%. Even a slightly warmer ocean temperature results in stronger hurricane winds. A heat-dried landscape itself contributes to drought conditions, as it did in the American Dust Bowl years, as no further moisture is available to rise up from the biosphere. With diminished plant cover, the extra solar radiation absorbed by the ground in turn produces still more rising heat, encouraging high pressure systems that supress rainfall further. (The increased evaporation that warmer air causes also dries out tinder and brush and makes it much more likely to ignite and spread. ) As the climate warms up, dry areas become drier and already wet areas become wetter. Meanwhile, the high latitudes of the Arctic warm three times faster than the mid latitudes. This is because sun-reflecting ice melts, exposing darker ocean or land which absorbs more heat than it reflects. As more ice melts, reducing earth's albedo, temperature rises more than it would at mid latitudes. As temperature between mid latitudes and high latitudes come closer together, the jet stream reacts by slowing. (It's the mix of temperature extremes that create powerful wind currents.) An Omega Block is what happens when the Jet Stream stops moving in its predominant west to east pattern and instead moves in big, blocky waves. This can lock in weather patterns, like heatwaves or droughts, for days or weeks at a time over the same area. The polar vortex is also disturbed by warming air. It too will sometimes collapse into blocky waves that drop far down over the United States to send it into a deep freeze in winter. All small changes but together, working synergistically, they create big climate variations. Heatwaves have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. Extreme precipitation have also increased worldwide, as have droughts, according to the IPCC. Hurricanes intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to NOAA. According to the UN, major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years. Large effects indeed.
I think it’s because the top acolytes such as this gentlemen who’ve been in the IPCC for so long are literally in a bubble. A cycle of research that supports the same narrative. Differing views are barred and they self perpetuate the narrative as, to be honest, if an alternate view was demonstrated to them they simply can’t turn back. They’re whole careers are literally built on ‘The Crisis’.
You know straight away that you’re dealing with a bad actor when they suggest that pumping crap into the atmosphere to mitigate the effect of crap in the atmosphere is a good idea. I’m afraid that dear old Sam is increasingly filling the role of useful idiot.
Thank you. What does he think will happen when population collapse, and therefore resource use collapse, happens. The ice age we were promised 30 years ago? Its only 80 years away, so his career will be over.
this is a low IQ comment by a low IQ person (i don't mean this to be insulting, though i recognize that it is). you either are tremendously unintelligent or did not actually pay attention to what he said and still felt the need to confidently leave this comment - in either case, you can't be very smart. not only did he never argue that the pros outweigh the cons, this also isn't a controversial position, and anyone who dismisses it out of hand and doesn't understand the cost-benefit analysis behind the suggestion (which does in fact have benefits, in addition to costs) is not fit to participate in this conversation
This is a nonsense opinion. If you look at what we know and the catastrophe we're heading towards, it's reasonable to consider whatever options available. Millions of people will be displaced and die. Are you going to welcome them in and share your wealth to keep them fed? Or support politicians who will happily let them die to keep your QOL??
Dude, you can look up the results. No developed nation failed harder than the USA. You maxed out all the bad stuff. Death toll, loss of life expectancy, economic impact, new debt, you got it all maxed out.
@@JonathanLoganPDX No, I’m sure the two have nothing to do with each other, apples and oranges, of course of course. By the way, where might I be able to find a record of your comments regarding the Covid consensus from two years ago?
@@LAZARUSL0NG considering it was a novel Coronavirus, and mainstream medicine can only do predictions based upon best guesses about viruses since they'd never seen the coronavirus like that before they did pretty damn well. Especially since if you consider the fact that they were warning people will siparos Lee at the beginning about how it could spread and where it would go and what it would do to people. So if you lived in a big city where the hospitals were overwhelmed in the first couple of waves then you would have seen freezer trucks arriving by the hour where they stacked dead frozen bodies like cordwood.
Is this experts headline argument in favour of manmade climate change -'personal experience of extreme events? Wild fire?? Really, REALLY? Climate is the overall pattern of weather over 30 years, not what happened last week. This is very disappointing from the off.
This was a strange conversation. One example: questioning the negative impact on communities due to climate mitigation instead of focusing on the massive impact based on not doing any mitigation. I consider this conversation to be one of the many «it is serios, but relaxe, we can fix this» . I would suggest to invite Nate Hagens. There is a big need (also for Sam) to understand our Predicament better than this conversation enables.
I think Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are quite superficial about what is happening in the world and can't form a coherent presentation like Daniel schmachtenberger/Nate hagens, peter Joseph, Buckminster Fuller etc etc does.
"One example: questioning the negative impact on communities due to climate mitigation instead of focusing on the massive impact based on not doing any mitigation." But to the converse, what % of the elite climate discourse is ever spent on the costs of mitigation versus the dangers of warming? We currently have an elite climate discourse wherein 99.999% of the time we hear about the dangers of warming, never the dangers of over-rapid decarbonization. (Leave that only for denizens of the right to raise.) If one's goal is to persuade the bulk of humanity to rapidly hop off carbon, hadn't one better address the elephant in the room of the strongest counter-argument to win more people?
@@notafantbh : Climate is the symptom that will cause the most suffering. The geopolitical power of the fossil fuel industry is what's creating climate change and their incentive is $2.2 Trillion dollars per year. Population is a huge issue but the degradation of the environment on which all species depend is not so much about how many we are but how we produce energy. The more of us there are, the more we depend on a stable agricultural system and that is in jeopardy.
Nuclear has its drawbacks. Building a plant is far more expensive than building a solar or wind farm and the energy payback is many years longer. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, new advanced nuclear reactors are no safer than the old technology. I'm not qualified to judge, but I think it's wise to read what those two esteemed scientific organizations have to say before becoming an advocate.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 none of that is true. Solar and wind energy payback is far longer than nuclear and uses far more resources to built per energy produced. I flat out don't believe that new designs aren't safer and if an organization is saying that they are suspect. The only problems nuclear has are political.
There’s isotopes element that produced less transuranic materials than Pu and U. Thorium isotope should be the future of nuclear power along fusion power and hydrogen. China has given green light to building thorium molten salt reactor while US is playing politics with environmental management. Solar and wind alone will not be sufficient alone to solve energy needs.
I think these folks clearly hate capitalism more than they love the environment, because nuclear is the obvious solution and they are all against it. But with wind and solar it's impossible to run a thriving economy which puts a big smile on their faces. Nuclear generates economic growth and that makes their skin crawl.
Chris Field almost understands the real problem the world currently faces to try to solve climate change. Climate change is a not a science problem. We understand how CO2 affects heat buildup in our atmosphere. It's not an engineering problem. There are MANY engineering solutions for stopping or removing CO2 from our atmosphere with our industrial processes. It's not a policy problem. We know how to get industry to implement the engineering solutions to stop adding or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. You create favorable regulation and tax breaks. It's not even a finance problem, as in who pays how much at what times. We know how to do that. You start a company and go to a bank and get a loan or sell stocks and bonds. It's called capitalism. You may not like it but we know how to do it. Climate change at this time is a currency problem. As in what currency do we use to pay for it, like Euros, Yen, Rubles, Rupees, Dollars, Dinars etc. In order for the world to decarbonize, the world must first dedollarize. The US dollar the the "Global Reserve Currency". That means it's the currency that is used the most in international trade. When countries buy and sell things to each other they pay in US dollars and not their own currency. So the worlds wealthy be it individuals, corporations, or governments have most of their assets in US dollars. The US dollar is backed by oil. It's referred to as the "petrodollar". Saudi Arabia will only accept US dollars for their oil. So if any country wants to buy Saudi oil they first have to go to a US bank and exchange their own currency for US dollars, inflating demand for the dollar and thus it's value. This is how the US dollar is "backed" by oil. This started in 1971 when the US left the gold standard and the the value of the dollar started to tank. Kissinger had the idea that we offer Saudi king Faisal a deal. We would protect them from all enemies foreign and domestic and they in exchange would not accept any currency other then US dollars for their oil. The king eventually agreed. The rest of OPEC over time agreed as well. So now the value of the dollar is determined by the worlds demand for oil. This was a good thing at the time because it made the dollar a stable currency. Using it meant planning a long term budget was much easier, think the Weimar Republic. This was before climate change was well understood. Climate change was not well understood in the 1970's. Once climate change was better understood in the 1990's the worlds wealthy were not eager to do anything about it because if the world stopped needing oil, then the world would stop needing dollars and it's value would drop and they would find themselves with a ton of currency that nobody wanted, i.e. they would be poor. So asking them to invest in something that would reduce the worlds demand for oil is basically telling them I want to make all that money you have valueless. What makes things even worse is to keep the value of the dollar stable the US had to print more dollars as the global demand for oil grew. If the US didn't do this the dollars value would have become unstable. A large increase in value can be just as bad and a large decrease. So there are more dollars around then there were back in 1971. It's gotten to the point now that if the world stops needing oil the value of the US dollar drops not only from lack of demand but also from a glut of supply. Global warming will not truly be solved until the world, or rather the worlds elite, can agree on a common currency thats value is not determined by the worlds demand for oil, i.e. the petrodollar. You might say what is required is a "global financial reset". Just so happens that the worlds wealthy are talking about just such a thing. You might have heard it's about debt forgiveness. It is, but it is also about establishing a new global reserve currency. Is it because they care about funding technology for fighting climate change? Possibly, but I think it has more to do with the fact that the US has sanctions on over 30 countries. Countries they would like to do business with but they can't. The way the global banking system is set up currently (SWIFT) is if you want to buy something internationally in US dollars, those dollars have to go through a US bank. Thus the US can stop any purchase once those dollars hit a US bank. Thus all this talk about a financial reset means that it appears that the global elite (or non-US and Saudi elite that is) are ready to move on from the petrodollar. Once the worlds wealthy can decide on a new global reserve currency (and what it will be backed by like gold or block chain) they can start exchanging their dollars for it and that will allow them to invest in technology to fight climate change without destroying their wealth. This is is referred to as dedollarization. Everything changed after Russia invaded Ukraine. The US put such harsh sanctions on Russia that other countries questioned if it was safe to have so much of their wealth in US dollars. Thus the BRICS nations started taking about using their own currency in trade with each other. They even started talking about creating a BRICS currency. Saudi Arabia has even started accepting Chinese currency for their oil. If you care about climate change then this should give you hope that the world will start investing in climate fighting technologies at the scale necessary to make a difference.
Just got back from the Denver CO area. That area has gotten ugly in the last 15 years. Its filling up with big-box stores, mini malls spread out wastefully and large junk home developments miles away from any stores, forcing everyone to drive everywhere. It's like we aren't learning anything. Our way of life is going to die. Almost no one cares and it's highly upsetting and depressing.
This was a very-quality conversation on Climate Change. I feel much better informed and deeply appreciative. The severity and number of atypical weather-related events IMO is incrementally improving the collective interest in Climate Change making this discussion very timely. Thanks again to both.
If politicians quit sending money and weapons to Ukraine that would help prevent man made climate change because you know bombs going off isn't good for the climate.
One of the climate solutions that doesn't get enough attention is good urban planning. The US's fossil fuel consumption per capita is twice that of EU and America's lack of walkable neighborhoods and good public transit is the biggest reason why. US cities are planned in an environmentally and financially unsustainable manner that arguably makes our overall quality of life worse.
Or is it because it is a huge country where the cities are spaced far apart from each other?
@@inthefade No, Europe has much better public transport. It sounds crazy to me that in America its kinda assumed that everyone has a drivers license and it is used as an ID. I am 25, live in Europe, I don't have a drivers license, and half of my friends don't either. We simply don't need a car. And the majority of travel you do is to and from work, where distance between cities doesn't play a role.
@@inthefade I second what pyroman2918 said. I lived in Argentina for a couple of years and was blown away by the comprehensiveness of their public transit--and Argentina is not a rich country by any means. The US's public transit (or lack thereof) is just plain embarrassing
I agree fully. Th idea of '15 minute cities' is something that has been captured by the conspiracy theorists.
In fact, a more tenable conspiracy is the reverse.
We know for a fact that oil, car, road and construction lobbyists have spent a fortune over the last 100 years, and that we have laws and planning restrictions in place as a result.
They have changed the face of cities in their favour.
@@inthefadeNot at all. Very few people commute each day between cities.
How sad that many people these days don’t understand that experts can, in fact, be genuine experts with highly valuable insights and political advice. It’s like a good portion of society always knows the true story better, while feeling the need to condemn academics that often _actually_ do. Granted, scholars/scientists can be wrong about a lot, arrogant or flat out corrupt, but we can’t always rely on our own (often relatively poorly informed) intuitions and opinions on truly complex matters. So, choose your experts wisely I say. Because experts can, in fact, be genuine experts
This guy is a politician, not an expert. He is exactly why we don't trust the experts any more. He dishonestly manipulated the interpretation of the facts at every part of this conversation to support the climate change cult.
This guy does what John Doerr and whoever join Doerr associates with bidding.
I’d like to hear his explanation if “global cooling” in the 70’s.
@@hagengilbert8102: He would have said something along the lines of that the vast majority of scientists at the time believed that the globe would warm long term and that the global cooling hypothesis which was presented in a rather small proportion of the scientific journals concerning climate change have been emphasized by organizations that have been funded by fossil fuel companies as part of their doubt creating machinery. It was well known during the 70's and still known today that the aerosouls stemming from our fossile fuel burning are short lived sunlight reflectiving particles, that pollute and cool the atmosphere. There was space at the time for questioning whether aerosouls or CO2 would win out in the long run. It was well known at the time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for much longer than aeorosouls, but it was not known exactly how much longer until the 2000's. Graphs of global average surface temperature do not show cooling in the 70's, instead temperature was constant; but there is a dip from a higher temparture which existed in the 1940's, which can be partially explained by the large quanitities of aerosouls which were poured into the atmosphere during a period of increased fossil fuel burning with no restrictions on aeorsoul pollution. In reality, the signal of human induced global warming wasn't louder than natural background decadal oscillations stemming from events like El-niño until the 80's. It was about that time that the signal of warming from human caused greenhouse gas pollution exceeded others signals of oscillations in climate stemming from the sun, heat exchanges between the oceans and the atmosphere among other natural factos. Hope this helps.
@@hagengilbert8102now now, don’t think to much about it, you’ll give yourself a headache
Keep it up, man. It can’t be easy being one of the last sane humans on earth, but it’s genuinely starting to feel that way.
Well, that’s what I thought until I heard him commenting on recent events. When it hit close to home he ditched all his philosophy. Now Waking Up looks like a fib he told us to get ahead.
@@cinikcynic3087What events are you referring to?
What amazes me is the fact that solutions that I read about more than 50 years ago which seemed fairly straitforward have never been implemented, like Flywheels in inner city busses, Modular Nuclear Reactors and generating stations that take advantage of tides and wave action.
Because tidal energy is ridiculously expensive. Most of the renewable sources that have the highest potential are vastly expensive, If not linked to generation itself but to the cost of storage.
@@thomassowell3324 : It' getting better all time.
Governments always kick the can down the road, because they are only interested in getting back into power in 4-5 years, not what's going to happen in 20-50 years.
In the USA the fossil fuel industry has been bribing politicians to ignore the issue for decades.
A good energy independent and clean energy program for any country would utilize all the available options, wind, solar, tidal/wave, geothermal, hydro-electric etc.
Of these options tidal/wave has been the slowest to get research started as it's the hardest to do, but there are companies developing systems.
Because the oil industry fights hard to keep the world burning fossil fuels... they'll continue to refuse development of renewables until every drop has been exploited
Maybe it's a great big grift. (Con) They don't really want solutions because they know the truth. That "climate change," provides the ultimate tool for control and business. FEAR is a powerful tool to keep society in line, while allowing LOTS of money to be made. When you look at the LONG history of the media scaring us about climate change, (global warming, global cooling etc) it simply looks like one great big grift. Imo
I'm open to being proven wrong, hence why I am here, watching this video. 🥴
I came to the conclusion a while ago that as a species, we've decided "fuck it" and we're just gonna ride it out and hope that someone comes up with some invention that will save the planet. I used to think that humanity would kick the can down the road and not act until the situation became so dire that we had to act but now I don't even think the direness of the situation will have any effect.
We can have all the grand ideas we want about lowering emissions, getting off fossil fuels etc but we don't want to give up our creature comforts, we don't want to make the required sacrifices. We've decided to ride the bomb all the way down and the only way we're ever going to get off that ride is if we come up with some kind of revolutionary technology that will save us without asking for sacrifice.
I'm aware this is a very pessimistic point of view. But when we look at the Just Stop Oil protesters and care more about them disrupting a tennis match than the actual message they're trying to convey, I think that about sums it up. In the Trojan War story, Cassandra of Troy had the gift of prophesy but was cursed into having nobody believe her. We don't even have that excuse. We know the prophesy is true. We see the warnings about climate change come to pass. We just don't care.
Yeah you came to the that conclusion cause you were a bit brainwashed
I think you're right regarding creature comforts that we're unwilling to let go of, especially as many parts of the developing world are beginning to enjoy what we've taken for granted for decades. And I don't think the economy or culture can simply trade in our most modern machines for more primitive alternatives. We don't have solar powered trucks, trains, ships, and planes. But I think we do "care." As the guest says, the caring has to manifest as durable political coalitions that commit to certain strategies. Human beings are also good at adaptation, if not sacrificing for the future.
I'm pro-nuclear, but nuclear facilities are extraordinarily expensive and take decades to complete. We might not have decades. And what's worse is that only 20% of global energy use is in the form of electricity. Nuclear is great for producing electricity, but does not address the other 80% of energy demand (which is increasing every year by about 3%). There's no way we're going to give up on the miracle super juice in the earth as long as our civilization demands growth in GDP. The 1700 kwh of work in a barrel of oil is beyond amazing (it's mind blowing) and can be bought for about $70. No way in hell we're giving that up any time soon. We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but we can't stop burning fossil fuels.
We're like drug addicts that dug up mountains and mountains of cocaine, and we're going to snort every last flake of it that we can extract profitably as quickly as we can
Yep, it’s why the people and governments investing in more sustainable energy research are doing some of the most important work.
Imagine where we’d be if we just started research, or waited until the price shot up so high (or resources so low) that garbage first gen renewable energy technology became the best tradeoff.
What may save us is the time and money that many people have called “wasted” on research that didn’t immediately save energy and pay dividends.
Nuclear is only expensive because of regulations and the type of nuclear that was chosen (light water reactors). If we used nuclear that can’t explode and doesn’t need massive containment buildings, the regulatory and construction expenses go away. we should be all in on nuclear. Not the 70yr old tech, tho.
The total fixation by environmentalists and most politicians on wind & solar at the expense of nuclear is in great part due the influence on public opinion by what the fossil fuel industry prefers. For every wind farm built you need another gas burning power plant as backup, which could be done better with almost zero-carbon footprint nuclear power. That's why large part of the fossil fuel invested capital not only goes into wind & solar to "diversify" but also towards propaganda against nuclear power, continuing to push false talking points about the dangers of radioactivity like "there is no safe level of radioactivity". Which is b.s., given the fact of inevitable natural radioactivity, to which all of biology has developed DNA self-repair mechanisms.
What a troll!!!!!
Do You even understand a ratio "price per produced energy"? We usually measure the price of a produced kWH or MWH - not the power - because You can install 100 GW of solar power and get less ehergy from it than from a 10 GW Nuclear Plant(s) in the same period of time (let's say 1 year), of course!
And You don't understand the next problem which is called "lifespan" of a facility. Solar panels last about 15 Years, then they need to be replaced while the nuclear facility lasts for 50 or more Years with very little maintenance (compared to the energy they produce).
And the final argument: 1 kwh of energy produced in any nuclear plant costs about 5 cents while the same amount of energy produced by photovoltaics costs about 5 to 10 times more!!
Yes, that is 500% to 1000 % more, depends on location.
This dude is on valium, whistling past the graveyard. Methane is now escaping from wetlands and permafrost at a rate that is alarming climate scientists because of feedback loops. The implications for global food distribution and production alone are staggering. This is not a problem only for localized disasters, give me a break. Who funds this cat anyway?
This is not a problem of science. It's a problem of the psychology of tribalism. I think anyone that has followed you over the years is clear that climate change is real. We won't persuade anyone, who is currently unconvinced, with scientific experts. Unfortunately, those people will need a 9/11 type climate event.
No one denies that climate change is happening. The argument lies mainly with whether it is doomsday or not.
Listen to Sam's description of skeptical people at 7:20, which does an amazing job describing people like me, and compare it to your own. The fact that you think the other side of the debate is "climate change is all fake" reveals that you have never even listened to or considered the other side of the argument
@@SolarPlayer I've listened to SO MANY people who think climate change is a "hoax", and I've listened to a number of people who express a skepticism in a way that it's clear they are not idiots. The "intelligent skeptics" are inevitably just unaware of the science. They are the sort of people who often will change their mind when they see the facts. I take it that's the kind of person you are. Once you get explanations and answers for your questions, you'll see that "the other side of the argument" doesn't really exist.
If we won't persuade anyone unconvinced through science alone, how would you suggest we do it? I've tried fiction (people like a good story). I wrote a road trip novel: Zen And The Art Of Saving Life On Earth. I'm giving it away for free on UA-cam. (It covers the ecocide as a whole, not just climate change.)
@@NeilMalthus I think the only way to get the message out, is through doctors.
When those denying the problem are told that they, or their loved ones, died, had a stroke, a heart attack, suffer from diabetes, asthma, parkinsons, MS, autoimmunity, depression, dementia...etc, etc, etc, because air pollution has affected their ability to correctly regulate the cellular function of their body, by their trusted and respected doctor, then and only then, will they start doubting their opinion.
Any disease which has inflammation involved, is considerably (big time) exacerbated by air pollution, air pollution at levels currently thought to be acceptable.
Did I miss something?
There seemed to be no mention of minerals availability and what the growing needs of renewables and electric vehicles will do with regards to price and potential scarcity.
Very good point!
Yes they do like to leave that tiny piece of the puzzle out 😂
So your solution in your comfy western existence is to continue damaging the planet and watch those less fortunate suffer. Wow
Renewables are improving constantly using better, less-expensive materials and becoming more cost effective per kWh
Nope, u didn't miss anything...these 2 r ideologues!
Could it be the growing population has contributed significantly to climate change? I’ve not heard anyone address that.
You know that populations are dropping in most developed nations, right?
@@incognitotorpedo42 You know populations in developed nations may already be far too high? Say, if the 'ecocide rate' can be considered to be the product of overpopulation x overconsumption.
#ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth - if you're interested @janlemasters7344 - it's my attempt at addressing the ecocide and I'm giving it away on UA-cam.
Too many people burning too much stuff. We have had a doubling in the past fifty years of energy use, population and externalities. A bottleneck (aka: rapid reduction) is coming, with no way to know exactly when with collapse and conflict volatility nearly impossible to envision.
Then you must be deaf.
@TheGkmasta I approve this message!!
This guy sounds like he's committed his lungs to carbon capture 😧
thanks for this sam, do more on climate and environment plzz
I read that as pizza lol
Well there is a final fantasy 7 quote about how the evil polluting corporation Shinra are turning the planet into a f-#$@&! pizza, so there is that
He won't interview Dr Linden. 10 years to save humanity....really?
When i need to detox my brain from the verbal diarrhea on twitter, I turn to Making Sense with Sam. Thanks for the detox.
I got off twitter, it rots your brain.
Unsubscribe and grab a book.
Sam is the literal God of verbal diarrhea.
@@CMon_Jack bon Appetite clown
I’m a big fan with probably the most credentialed pod cast Guests on climate out there. And he has quite the impressive back catalogue
Tom Nelson Podcast
Agreed. It's a valuable resource that eventually youtube will ban.
Yeah, because Richard Lindzen would have been too much to ask! Instead a biologist doing a lot of speculation things out of his specialty. I think it is still quite likely' " The Science" presented here as a sanity check seems to have come back unchecked, so at least we still have our insanty to rely on.
The "problem" (if it is a problem) with Sam Harris's podcast compared to others is that he doesn't do clips. And clips are what circulates these days the widest and fastest.
While I resent that culture, I totally agree. It might also incentivize unpaid followers if some clips are from "the subscriber feed".
Yea he needs a better team to do that for him.
Yeah let’s be visual!
Yea I like seeing the face
I like the eyebrow raise when they say dumb shit
I would position myself as a centerist mostly, possibly leaning slightly more right at times, but most people fit somewhere along the middle either slightly more left or right... I don't understand why there are such Extremists today on both sides, i feel like only the extremists get media coverage and so we end up with this horrificly polarised argument for and against climate change. Jordan peterson (who i agree with on some things, but also disagree on others) is a good example of this, he completely goes off the rails on climate change and religion. People act as if climate change isnt a thing and if you support it you are one of those nut jobs who stops traffic on the road. What happened to reasonable people who don't need to shout names at eachother?
Not following one of the two chosen narratives is extremist
Pretty left of center, and I see you and appreciate you. There are plenty of us left/right/center that are interested in engaging with these topics without going off the rails. There’s just a lot of distracting extremists..
I’ve been enjoying and benefiting from a lot of content by seeking out:
1) rational, reasonable people who challenge my beliefs and
2) rational, reasonable people who I largely align with, but open themselves up to conversations and debates with people from group 1.
Hopefully you’ve found (or can find) people to listen to that fit that description… stay away from asinine Twitter content… read the whole article while ignoring the sensational headline… and you will likely find that you’re still learning, keeping up with current events, avoiding disillusionment, and generally staying above the fray. Just my 2 cents.
Well said.
We need more people who declare their independence from tribalism for sure. As an independent thinker my main point about the anthropogenic climate warming debate is that there is a lot more uncertainty from scientists then is being peddled by our media and policy makers. That's where it ends. I don't think it is a hoax -- I will have to look up what politicians are saying it is a hoax. That's similar to COVID being a hoax and there are still a lot of those opinions around. But I also don't think that we are going to cross some threshold with no return by 2030 which was being peddled around by the Extinction Rebellion club. I do think we should question whether it makes sense to spend trillions of dollars in tax-payer money on policies to get us to net zero (if that is even possible) when we don't know for certain how much global warming is caused by humans or whether it will significantly improve outcomes in the future. We should be open to different perspectives and not go straight to the discrediting of people just because there is a conflict.
There is a pronounced lack of extremism on the side that's concerned about climate change. Blocking traffic and throwing soup on the glass protective cover of a painting may be stupid, but it's hardly extreme in the face of the path we're currently on. Killing people would be extreme. Nobody concerned about climate change is bombing Exxon headquarters. There's barely even been any sabotage.
This person is reeaaaaally optimistic
@@KristianSkylstad it does seem that way. Just very out of touch.
just like he said: by looking at the progress from the last 10 years, there is reason for hope. I remember 20 years ago noone gave a shit about climate
Go look at the charts of the various climate conferences that people celebrate and track the planetary boundaries and what has happened, in that time. It's virtue signalling, nothing else
take a look at the US/EU Emissions for the last 20 years and say that again@@cheweperro
@@cheweperro the man literally wrote the book on climate change, for the IPCC and he's "out of touch"? Sorry what are your credentials?
I feel some level of issue with when Sam asks him at he 9 minute mark if we have been on wrong on anything in regards to climate change and if so what. Chris proceeds to only respond with things he has been right about and completely dodging the question on any examples of where their models may have been wrong. Sam doesn't proceed to hold him to the question. This sets the tone of what kind of truth seeking I am to expect from this, whether that gut instinct is true or not.
Where have the *Models* been wrong? Be aware that some guy saying something is not a model, and Time magazine publishing a sensational claim forty years ago is not a model.
Your observation may be correct. Most models were wrong and underestimated the impacts and how fast they would come. This had to be self-censored to not sound too alarmist. It sounds apocalyptic.
So all models got the direction right. Almost all of them got wrong when and how hard it would hit. Reality is worse than the models. If you say that, you are a radical, fringe. This is why Sam Harris did not push here. Why put yourself in the corner when people have just seen Burning Man, in the middle of the desert, turned into a mud-pit by days of rain?
Chris continues the list of establishment „experts“ on whom Sam‘s BS-detector is turned off. Like SBF, like N. Christakis, like E. Topol. These are dishonest people with an to me obvious agenda
It's even worse, instead of an answer he attacked the character of the question!
So the thing about scientific modeling, be it climate or epidemiology or anything else, is that we have to run dozens of scenarios with differing assumptions about future that cannot be predicted. For example we cannot know if there is going to happen a major volcanic eruption within the next five years, so we run two scenarios. One with an eruption and one without. And if an eruption happens, we compare that data to our model with the eruption, and discard the one without an eruption since it is not relevant for us to figure out if our models are accurate.
And every aspect that adds similar unpredictability multiplies the amount of scenarios we model, as well as new reasons to tweak the numbers on forcing and feedback impacts to know which values are closest to truth.
That is why "majority" of models are "wrong". Because became useless to us when a scenario changed. And finally we compare the relevant scenario predictions to real world data and see how accurate our assesment on the core assumptions are. Mainly climate sensitivity.
And that is what he meant that the models made in 1990 were correct. The scenarios that correlate with what did end up happening were well within tolerance, meaning it is very likely that our prediction on climate sensitivity is correct.
You should invite Nate Hagens to your podcast. Would be a great guest.
Yes, Nate Hagens. Also Professor BILL REES from Canada - brilliant erudite man.
@@mkkrupp2462 Bill Rees is considerably better than Nate.
Quote of the video was Sam calling the economy a ponzi scheme because it relies on never-ending growth.
partialy why im vegan, or whole food plant based diet
to slack down my monocrop gmo usage kilos and kilos of plants and tons of water for my burger
If you aren't growing you're dying
Except it is not a Ponzi scheme - technology and innovation driving productivity enables growth whilst using less resources.
Ultimately there is an effectively infinite amount of resources available to humans via solar power, automation, robotics, space trace etc.
If we think back to what was possible 100 years ago and what we can do now, who knows where we can be in 100 years from now!
The future is bright and optimistic if we chose it to be :-)
Around 53:00, Field promotes the use of hydrogen as an energy storage medium. The thermodynamics of that are very unfavorable. For a variety of reasons, it's unlikely to ever be cost competitive with other forms of storage.
There's a huge lobbying push happening right now for hydrogen. Fields bringing up carbon capture and fossil made hydrogen has me questioning whether he's compromised. Everything is about money and politics.
When you overbuild renewables to make up for the intermittency you end up with a lot of excess power during peak production which will be cheaper than anything seen before. Opening up opportunities for inneficient forms of energy storage. More efficient forms of storage will dominate electrical generation, but when you need high portability or backwards compatibility things like this may be competitive.
@@IAMACollectivist it's possible yeah but hydrogen isn't an easy technology, will it win out against LFP and Sodium batteries which ultimatley comes down to cost, we shall see
In 1880, there were 116 weather stations and the vast majority of them in the northern hemisphere. So,exactly how did they measure average yearly southern hemisphere with surface temperature accurately? Obviously there is unquestionable uncertainty!
Thank you Sam and Chris!
for what? pretending climate change is real for an hour?
Bootlick much?
@@HoboGoblinCatfor thanking them for a great conversation? Damn. I didn't know that was bootlicking. Sounds to me like your looking for someone to fuck with
The biggest problems that still are not solved are agriculture and cement and steel production. We don't know how to do these without fossil fuels. It's a little frustrating that the growth issue was not addressed. The problem of ever increasing emissions is a problem of growth. Arrhenius did not envision the massive amount of growth that would be coming, and did not foresee CO2 in the atmosphere as a real problem as a result. If we were increasing the CO2 concentrations at a very, very slow rate, we would have time to adapt, along with the rest of the ecosphere.
The captain of the Titanic was optimistic that he was piloting an unsinkable ship. We have built a behemoth of a fossil fuel based economy that will not be easy to steer around the proverbial iceberg, especially with multiple countries, corporations, and political entities pulling on the wheel in different directions. I am skeptical that we will have the political will to change course until we are careening off the precipice.
Collapse is already underway brother. Enjoy the Mad Max dystopia in our near future.
It was to late fifty years ago.
RCP 8.5 is the path we have chosen.
I want this guy to read me a bedtime story, with the prologue read by sam harris
That is precisely what he is doing - just storytelling!
@@alokraj3128Professor raj 🤣Not
@@alokraj3128 for sure. Just study a stratigraphy column if you want a real tale of climate change.
He really does come across as somebody with very little life inside of him, a monotonous, boring voice, with zero enthusiasm.
Not to mention for example the part were Sam explains the part about aerosols at length and then the guest regurgitating the EXACT same stuff again. It's like "Dude, I just said that"@@hank-uh1zq
The only thing necessary for the triumph of snarky posts is for good people to post nothing.
Not sure it is worth the time engaging with the snarky doubters because they aren't going to listen to facts in any case. Almost invariably they think Trump is a very "truthful" person so what can you say about their ability to discern truth?
I m only just starting this podcast, but I will say… of utmost importance… energy must stay cheap, otherwise the poor will burn wood and or starve . So whatever we do… keep energy cheap and easy to get
Fossil fuel prices need to massively increase. If the poor burn wood and starve, we can use weapons to prevent the first half of that. Fossil Energy being and staying too cheap is part of the problem.
@@kurtilein3 Get a grip. No one is proposing shooting poor people so they don't burn wood. As we transition away from fossil fuel, it is going to get CHEAPER. Don't expect it to be taxed, at least not in America. Electricity will get cheaper as well. The poor will be fine. The transition is happening faster than you think.
Burning wood is better than fossils
@@kurtilein3 Are you suggesting killing all the poor to prevent them from trying to survive?
@@kurtilein3do you not see the "let them eat cake" sentiment in what you say? It certainly seems like that if you live in a developed country.
Just look at Brazil, if you take away their oil (the biggest single economic power there) they will no longer be able to afford the programs that literally feed their poor.
The very utilitarian numbers of climate catastrophe suffering vs deaths and suffering resulting from different pro climate action are rarely touched upon.
I'm not saying that people wish these nasty unintended consequences of climate action. Just that they are inevitable and need to be better considered.
No serious climate scientists believe we will succeed in limiting warming to the Paris goals.
These targets are already missed, we needed to have done more before now.
The most optimistic current median trajectory is +2.8*C by 2100.
We don't know what a +2.8*C warmer world will look like.
My generation (I'm 63) is handing on a planet undeniably damaged by ignorance, greed and carelessness.
I grieve over my own culpability for the damage caused.
So much has and will be lost of nature, diversity and stability.
Exxon mobile just announced it is now impossible to prevent 2°C by 2050.
The El Niño in 1the 2050’s will peak at 2.5-2.7°C
The feedback loops ensure these numbers are conservative.
Business as usual brings Co2, NH4, & N20 above 1,000 ppm in year 2100
When Co2 reached 1,000 ppm, it led to 10°C, which led to a Seal Level rise of 197 feet above today’s level. That was 50 million years ago.
If you haven't already, I recommend the new 8-part Web TV series "Extrapolations," which provides insight into what life on earth may be like in the years 2037, 2046, 2047, 2059, 2066, 2068, and 2070.
@@dbadagna
After your comment, I started watching the series. I just finished episode four.
I dig it. I’m going to try to finish it this weekend.
I could tell right away that a lot of research was done for accuracy on temperature timelines. So I googled it. The writers talked to James Hansen and other climatologists. So that’s why.
Thanks for the recommending it!
@@dbadagna
Also, they casted some a lot of big names.
So I was surprised to see mediocre ratings on rotten tomatoes and IMDB.
But I think that’s because the average viewer is unaware that the scenarios are what we expect.
They think they’re watching some wild fantastical story.
@@ImproveYourMagic I agree. The critics also almost universally missed the point of "Don't Look Up."
Two other recent related films that I found very poignant are "The Midnight Sky" (2020) and "Finch" (2021).
This is very good, I say this as someone skeptical on the climate change narrative.
Did it sway your opinion at all?
Don't focus on any narrative, just look at the science. You have to be in denial to not admit that we have had an effect on the environment, and climate.
“The science “ what study or studies by name and publication!
@@chrisbirch4150 Yes - it moved the dial. It addressed concerns sensibly and head on rather than screeching about people being 'deniers'. This podcast is an excellent example of why shutting down debate rather than engaging in it is a terrible idea.
@@coachduke9323 Just search for Climate Change studies. There's lots.
I haven't listened to this but I am guessing the contribution of animal agriculture on climate change was never brought up in this conversation.
true.
It rarely if ever is. Hardly anyone, even those who promote critical thinking and following science and combatting cognitive dissonance is willing to consider the inconvenient truth of the cruelty and abuse of factory farming on those poor animals and its effects on the environment and human health as well. People don’t want to hear they should change their diet. It’s just too damned inconvenient. They’ve been addicted for far too long and just don’t want to have to deal with it. So sad and unfortunate.
1/3 of climate change is because of meat
@@christopheradams1912 I stopped eating meat. What did it for me was that "Game Changers" netflix documentary. On top of all the environmental problems, all meat is really unhealthy. Top athletes boost their performance by going vegan. A vegan beat Conor mc Gregor in MMA. A vegan carries 555 Kilograms on his shoulders over 10 meters for a world record and flips cars. Your body lacks nothing and your arteries clear up. Meat tastes good but its like smoking cigarettes.
Glad to hear. Happy for u. So many documentaries and resources are available that allow us to peak behind the curtain and see what really goes on in the meat, poultry, and dairy industries, as well as their affects on the poor animals, ourselves and the environment. Too bad more people won’t watch and listen. Glad u did.
I don't even hit nearly as many bugs with my windshield as I used to 10 years ago.... huge difference
Yeah, good isn’t it.
This has nothing to do with warming and everything to do with pesticides. We willfully try to slaughter bugs all the time. Bugs flourish under warming. How many bugs do you see in winter or in cold climates?
Yup and to think abrupt cc is just getting started. We’ll see major changes once we lose the arctic ice in the coming summers
@@Jc-ms5vv Why, do insects like Arctic weather?
I love how people vaguely remember random shit about their lives and tell themselves it's proof of a scientific hypothesis.
See, science is so easy anyone can do it!
I was never really crazy about climate change. That changed in the past 3 months after experiencing the insane heat in Phoenix that is almost unlivable. In a couple decades it might be borderline uninhabitatable
Then leave. I just turned my ac up a little bit
Most people I know complaining about things being hotter put on a bunch of weight during the pandemic and just can't handle it like they used to.
@@davidfayfield6594Thus increasing load on the energy system (which is fueled by carbon at present), thus increasing emissions, thus increasing global solar energy retention, thus increasing warming, thus increasing energy demand, thus increasing emissions, thus increasing global solar energy retention, thus increasing warming, thus increasing energy demand... I think you get the point. This has nothing to do with Arizona.
Essentially, the only way the suggestion you mention is a solution is if you will die soon and don’t mind the consequences after you are gone. Billions of others, such as myself, will have to live with the consequences.
El Nino. Not climate change.
They are going to run out of water in Arizona far more quickly than "a couple decades". That's going to make it pretty uninhabitable. Their problem stems from the Colorado River getting so low.. Oh, and from letting Saudi Arabia drain the aquifer to grow alfalfa.
Thanks Mr Harris and Mr Field, some great questions and answers. A couple that weren’t asked were water supply and food production. Also climate migration if areas become too hot/wet/unstable for successful habitation. Also if changing our consumption habits should be considered or if we can keep shopping and the other tech solutions will be enough. Was wondering about making carbon cost a thing that all products should have on their label, from food to cars to clothes, everything. Then the consumer could perhaps choose local over shipped which would have a two-fold benefit.
A rather disappointing episode. They didn't talk about any of the huge risks of climate change: the fact that the Amazon has become a carbon source, the possibly impending collapse of the AMOC, what happened with sea surface temperatures and Antarctic ice this year, how frequent and bad heatwaves and droughts may become, the risk of long-frozen diseases being released from melting permafrost, the chances that feedback loops could take us beyond 4C (or even 10C in the long run, according to a new paper by James Hansen) and what that would look like, and, possibly most important, how incredibly off track the world is for stopping it. We're so off track that it's not even fair to call ourselves "off track," because we're so far away from the track that it doesn't make sense to say we're attempting to be on it. We're just wandering as we were, ignoring the track altogether. Coincidentally, a climate stocktake just came out a couple of days ago showing all of this.
The situation is really bad. I encourage everyone to learn exactly where we are by reading the IPCC reports.
I'd love to see Johan Rockstromm, James Hansen, or Stefan Rahmstorf as guests.
Thank you for making this one freely available
Thanks for the calm broad discussion. I must speak up after hearing Carbon Capture and Storage CCS discussed in almost the same breath as wind. This may have oversimplified and may have misrepresented this for those who don't have clarity on the state of CCS. To say "we know how to capture the carbon and store it" is different from saying "And this is happening today." For practical purposes it isn't.
With Wind, we see Entire electrical grids, Denmark, Australia etc. having wind and solar representing the majority of their production. This is proven, established and in place today with a carbon payback of several months (4?) for a windmill. CCS on the other hand is not broadly deployed. When it is deployed, it is not capturing all the carbon and making fossil fuels carbon neutral. THAT just isn't happening. Its possible in the future but right now CCS is science fiction if we mean "CCS that really exists and really captures (ALL or most) of the carbon."
Yes, invest in researching CCS, but lets not encourage complacency with continued pollution, because CCS is theoretically possible.
Apart from needing more clarification on CCS. I really appreciated everything else that you shared. Thank you. well worth the listen.
I liked what I heard about "the wealthy countries need to be WAY ahead." And yet they are not. We see Canada and various oil producers continuing to expand exploration and production as each of these companies seems to position themselves to maximize profit and production before the end. This unregulated self-interest is sacrificing the opportunity to avoid over-reach. Thanks again.
I would have been nice if you pushed Mr Field to explain further his assertion that we know how to solve emissions from coal plants and diesel engines with "renewable energy". I don't think it is true that it is known or easily resolved unless extreme degrowth and population control is part of his plan.
I think his position was that wind and solar will get cheaper over time, hydrogen will integrated and if that's not enough then supplement with nuclear.
He also says that PV is cheaper than fossil energy. Might be the case in some exceptions, but the general rule is a massive NO.
@@GrimKage Nuclear is pretty important, not supplemental imo
Considering that fossil fuels is estimated to run out in this century, this is the bigger problem to solve. AGW will be moot. Time to change the focus.
@Paremata Link to that statement.
Expert's predicted we'd run out of oil and gas early this century, with franking its increased .
If the EU overturned it's franking ban it would be well over 100 years .
Nuclear is key for reliable baseboard energy
I'd love Chris to be joined by former guest Peter Ziehan. He has interesting commentary in that he wants to go green but doesn't think we can because of materials shortages, and because many renewables are misplaced geographically resulting in increased carbon footprint.
I like Peter's musings on geopolitics, but he's far too broad to have truly useful commentary on the very complicated topic of renewable energy. However, I think he and Sam could have a fun talk about changing demographics (much more predictable) and the possible impacts that will have on China, the US, Russia, and others.
@bjkarana true Peter is a generalist so there might be something he's missing, but those concerns didn't come up at all so who knows if they have an answer or not.
@@DavidBrown-ts2us peter and sam are both generalists
both of them have shown to be narrative following clowns when it came to cv
completely delusional totally lacking critical thinking or the ability to use basic logic to solve problems
Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. Green should mean meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact. Unfortunately, many, including governments, think green means RE. Often, this is not the case.
Absolutely. Why we don't have strong bipartisan support for nuclear is a mystery to me, except for the fact that I'm sure there's a financial angle to ensure we keep pretending wind and solar are equivalent replacements to fossil.@@dodiewallace41
This is a strange conversation. It sounds like two people on a planet I don't recognize having a nice little chat about climate change. On the planet that I live on, governments and legal systems worldwide are beholden to fossil fuel corporations: the richest entities on Earth. These corporations don't care that solar energy and wind power are cheaper and more sustainable forms of energy production. They're not interested because the profit margins aren't big enough. There's lots of 'we' and 'our' and 'us' in this discussion as if all of humanity was a unified whole working together with a common purpose. Think of how corporations act to maximize profit above and beyond all other considerations. Think about how the tobacco industry knew for years that smoking caused cancer. Think about what Chevron got up to in Nigeria in the late 90s. Think about how, in the 70s, Texaco were found guilty by the government of Ecuador of polluting parts of the Amazon and fined 18 billion dollars and how in order to avoid paying anything they just moved all their assets out of the country. I don't see how a podcast can claim to be a 'sanity check' when the main obstacle to the mitigation of the worst effects of climate change doesn't even rate a mention. Chris Field maybe a great scientist but I get the sense that he's somewhat insulated from what goes on in the real world.
The world's oceans continue to absorb 91% of the solar radiation trapped by greenhouse gases, which as of 2023 amounts to 10 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second, every second of the year. That's going to have consequences.
Exactly. I think this exposes both of their right wing, conformist tenancies, in spite of how much of a few thinker Sam thinks he is.
They seem to agree the planet is getting warmer, and that awful consequences such as mass migration and destruction from more extreme weather events are already baked in... And that there is a bit of hope with new technology... But there is no sense of urgency, as if all the bad stuff is going to happen somewhere far away so they won't be affected.
I would say I'm very disappointed in Sam, but that happened a long time ago. He's got quite a few moral blind spots for someone who thinks about morality so much, and this is one.
It would be nice if we could actually see the people talking. This is UA-cam guys, get with the program.
Excellent, important conversation. I hope it gets shared to many who aren't currently subscribed
They spoke for an hour without saying anything
@@ninjaskeleton6140you obviously wasn't listening to shit they said. Lots of things were said
While Sam asked some very good questions, I found his guest to be just awful. I heard this guy debate Dr. Steve Koonin, and he spoke in that debate like he did with Sam, nothing but platitudes. While it's true we are having a lot of wildfires in Canada this year, in 2020 we had the lowest number of fires since the government started keeping records and we had by far the lowest amount of area burned. If you look at the government data there is no trend one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with CO2 or climate change.
Also, 30 years ago the world derived 84% of its energy needs from fossil fuels, today it's 80%. That's not an energy transition, that's a slight reduction, There's no energy transition, we've just spent a lot of money on some new energy sources that provide almost no energy. There is no way wind and solar displace fossil fuels unless you disregard math or want to live in a low-energy world. Also, I used to build powerline and substations as a construction engineer. I've read we are at a minimum going to have to double the electrical grid if we want to go full renewables, Chris Field has no idea how much time, money, and effort that would involve. There are not enough, engineers, Linemen, and Power System Electricians in North America to even attempt a build-out like that, let alone the material costs from a relatively small amount of suppliers of power grid equipment. Do you have any idea how much that would raise your electrical bill, Germany pays 50 cents/kW/hour.....anyone feel like paying that much and probably more?
The level of vehicles produced drives me crazy. You can move 30-60 people with one well made engine, instead of giving 30-60 people each one an engine. The magnitude of material waste is unnerving, why does the systemic infrastructure design seem to stagnate with such a narrow range of ideas? How how about what takes more effort to maintain, 30-60 vehicles or 4 buses going through a suburb? Then the volume of lawn space across all suburbia as potentially being the food supply in itself, exampling a sore lack of design. How agriculture is resorted to antiquated practices, and should in reality be many layers of many plants, not just one, to optimize surface area. People could be walking out of their houses into food, instead of driving around through drive through to pick up food shipped in plastic from a whole continent over, grown in other peoples back yards. The health of people would be far better.
Bunch of regenerative land based practices and food forestry stuff:
ua-cam.com/play/PLKty8zmNqWGynKTXoPFpxAOlZDlzC_Ntq.html
"This is a complicated, important, critical to address problem. Because it has lots of leverage on the future, not because we're on the edge of a precipice that's likely to be civilization ending"
What a quote. Thank you for this conversation.
We are on the edge of a precipice that could be close to civilisation ending or at least cause partial collapse of civilisation
If only that's how the concern was actually presented! The catastrophizing in the media is counter productive.
YES! I thought his choice of words had weight.
@@primalchaos7 The media is generally ignorant on this topic and pro-sensationalism. You could send a link to this podcast to your favorite media outlet.
@@primalchaos7 Maybe you can't handle the truth. Keep your head buried deeply in the sand.
I really love listening to smart people talking about important things
What are you doing here then? Sam is deranged mass formation psychosis.
Unless we are ALL prepared to alter our standard of living, especially those of us in the developed world, no amount of wind, solar will suffice.
Going green might sustain 2 billion very comfortably but not 8+ and growing.
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
Elitists want the middle class and working poor to adjust their lifestyles while they continue to take private jets and live however they see fit. It's a Eugenics program on the poor.
You first
I listened to this episode and though Mr.Field is the expert in all this my intuition says, you can’t watch climate change in real time and think you are not in a much more dire situation then Field suggested.
Two things stood out for me. The first was that Sam simply listened which is fine but very few to zero challenges. The second is that you could have put another impressive and qualified speaker on the microphone and his overview would be much more dire. Throw Guy McPherson up there and we’re doomed by 2030.
Not sure about the truth but I think we know less and have many more unknowns then we realize.
We're not doomed at all, unless you mean in the long term when the poles shift or the sun explodes.
what about melting permafrost that contains 30 times our atmospheres co2? @@DylanYoung
What about the natural ecologies that can’t adapt to the rapid change in temperature and go extinct? Isn’t this the six mass extinction event currently undergoing due to anthropogenic climate change? We don’t live in a world where we kill our ecosystem and think our a/c will save us from disaster.
Sam Harris chose a good man to interview. All of his statements concerning the science on climate change were correct. While his estimate for what the future holds for humanity is on the optimistic side it is not outside of a possible future reality for humans. That being said there is room for a much more dire world, even one where humans go extince, but this would likely happen well after 2100 if due to climate change. Guy McPherson by the way is not a climate scientist, has been shown to be intentionally dishonest (lies about what the science says) and seems to make a living off of claims of dire consequences for humans that repeatedly don't get realized. I found this video where he Guy McPherson says that we have months at most before humans go extince from climate change ua-cam.com/video/VTy-nZmNkuQ/v-deo.html . But that was five years ago. I hope this helps you get a better assesment of where the truth lies.
Guy is not my point as much as the number of externalities around real time global climate change. Im not saying we will be gone in 5 years but I see endless issues linked to this changing planet and they feed into the loop. If the stressors increase the Chances of other black swan events increases.
We are indeed on the edge of a precipice that is likely to be civilization ending. Actually that is not correct. We are past that precipice by decades. Watch and learn.
- Hey, can you answer the question about models?
- Sure! The right fossil fuel interests oppose climate research....
He said "we know how to replace diesel engines with renewables" - but this isnt true. Diesel is 36 times more energy dense than a lithium ion battery. My 120hp tractor becomes 4hp and now I cant farm as before. Currently, there is no viable way of replacing diesel - and remarkably, not many people are even thinking about it.
They will when they start getting hungry.
JCB has recently produced its first all electric back-hoe. Diesel is a mature technology incapable of dramatic improvement. The green alternatives are in their infancy.
@@Onequietvoice Diesel is millions of years of stored sunlight condensed into a liquid. First law of thermodynamics is energy cannot be created. After 50 years of lithium ion batteries, they are still 1/36th the power of diesel. Renewables can power civilisation - just not this one. Chris Field has been called out on Twitter for this pod, he knows "we can replace diesel" is completely untrue. But he knows its not good for his carrer to say so.
For me, this was the best conversation on this subject yet. Very informative and without exaggeration. We need more of this.
Yes, now finally if everyone will listen to this they will submit to and give up their freedom to a communist autocracy and we can pay our way out of this climate catastrophe. I am so relieved.
😅😮😅😅
Unfortunately, it vastly underplayed the problem. They didn't discuss any of the big risks.
This entire conversation was a bunch of BS. Just more of the dishonest climate change agenda hoax. If you want to hear the actual facts about what we should do about climate change check out Alex Epstein and Bjorn Lomborg who are actually experts on this topic.
@@theonionpirate1076 The only solution is communist martial law, and we all become slaves to it.
Appreciate the intelligent PSA
The goal is all that is important and I believe both sides can find it agreeable. Global reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced and increased use of nuclear energy must replace it. Getting into the weeds of how much is human caused will never get us anywhere.
what about the industrial revolution,the deniers are running the asylum
The problem is that Republicans are intransigent obstructionists who deny the problem to maintain fossil fuel profits. That is is almost entirely human caused is actually a good thing because then we can do something about it.
I agree with nuclear power use. Using breeder reactors does not seem to come up in many conversations. We could use our accumulated nuclear waste to power them.
A few facts. None of this is speculative or controversial.
-It's been known in physics for well over a century that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared, AKA heat
-With no CO2, Earth's average temperature would be ~0 F instead of ~57 F.
-Industry raised CO2 to 150% of what has been the normal high for a million years… As CO2 rises so does temperature.
-When heat energy is added to a fluid system it becomes more active.
-A warmer, more active atmosphere means more extreme weather.
-A warmer atmosphere increases evaporation making droughts worse faster with more crop failures and fires.
-A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. 7% more per 1 C. This makes precipitation more intense. This makes more and worse flooding. Water vapor is also a GHG.
-A warmer atmosphere melts more ice. The heat plus the melt expands the volume of the ocean.
-Less white ice reveals more blue ocean which absorbs more heat.
-Melting permafrost releases more methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2.
-Because of geography, the Arctic is warming much faster than the Earth as a whole. This changes the Jet Stream to larger, deeper waves which makes warm, high-pressure and cool, low-pressure areas more extreme producing more extreme weather.
-Warmer oceans means more energy is available to tropical storms.
These are just some of the basic changes to climate and weather. Beyond this is how it affects agriculture and all living things that can’t adapt fast enough to this rapid change.
But Field claimed that if society switches to mostly solar and wind, everything will be more or less okay. Doesn't he know better, or does he have an agenda (and a bank account large enough to give him a false sense of security)?
@@dbadagna : Things are going to get worse just based on what's already in the atmosphere. The question is: How bad and how fast? That will be determined by how much more GHG we emit.
@jjsr7861 : No and yes. Yes it is the atmosphere but most gases in the atmosphere are completely transparent to light. It passes right through with no effect. GHGs are different which is why the are called Green House Gasses. They absorb some of the infrared bouncing off Earth and that changes Earth's energy balance.
Water vapor is the most abundant GHG but it precipitates out every three days, Methane is more powerful but breaks down in about 20 years. CO2, however, can linger for a thousand years. It is the primary regulator of temperature. The rest are feedback mechanisms. Svante Arrhenius discovered this in 1896.
"How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?"-MIT org Climate Portal
@jjsr7861 Isn't it the biosphere that does that?
@jjsr7861 Humans are warming and destabilizing the earth's climate just as the oil companies had predicted would happen in reports they commissioned all the way back in the 1970s and 1980s. About 91% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been absorbed by the oceans, however.
*Nuclear power!* We need nuclear power!
One isotope that produce lesser transuranic materials is Thorium and that should be the future of fission reactor but is unfortunate our US government have not given a green light to build Thorium molten salt reactor while China have proposed to go with the project.
Chris Field. is a leading expert on climate change, and his work is essential to our understanding of this issue. He is also a strong advocate for action on climate change, and his work is helping to make a difference. So lets lower emissions as soon as possible.
No thanks. All climate policies induce poverty. Poverty kills millions, while warming isn't killing anything.
Try telling that to Marine Life.
@@ImproveYourMagic The greatest threat to marine life is overfishing. Humans are decimating the oceans, but people whine about climate. It's the most disingenuous climate argument of them all. Warming isn't killing anything because marine life isn't that fragile. Ocean temps change dramatically with depth and latitude. Marine life experience dramatic changes day to day and season to season.
If you truly cared about marine life, you'd be advocating smaller population levels not trying to miraculously and with futility lower planetary temps.
@@anthonymorris5084
So oceanographers are wrong? Btw, regarding earths largest extinction in history,….
*96%*of marine species died off at the end of the Permian period. The "Great Dying" was *caused by global warming that left ocean animals unable to breathe.*
Earth's oceans became so inhospitable to life that some died from a lack of dissolved oxygen in the water, an excess of *carbon dioxide,* a reduced ability to make shells from calcium carbonate, altered ocean acidity and higher water temperatures.
“If I really cared about marine life?” I’m 15 years vegan buddy.
Thank you for showing interest in climate change, and the rapid rise to 3°C as we enter into Earths 6th great extinction!
@@anthonymorris5084
de·lu·sion·al
adjective
1. characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.
This guy is unbelievably optomistic! Does he not realize how much Germany is struggling after going all in with wind and solar? Also, his solutions for Western nations will have the effect of impoverishing the working class and sending more and more people on the street who are now currently barely hanging on.
Germany isn't struggling because of wind and solar. They're struggling because they don't have enough wind and solar and Putin cut off their fossil fuel supply line. Before the sanctions, HALF of their oil came from Russia.
How bad is it in Germany?
@@visicircle Well if they stick to their anti-nuclear plan as they have till now (and they've amped up the rhetoric over the years) I imagine it's gonna get pretty tough in the next few decades, also depends on how the Russia - Ukraine war gets resolved (if that's even a possibility?). Unless some major technological breakthroughs happen in the renewable energy sector (from what I understand, solar energy storage would be the biggest issue to tackle here), the country seems to be headed towards either relying on energy imports (likely from France and other neighbouring countries, but mostly France since they've historically supplied a lot of their 'dirty' nuclear energy to many EU countries) or keep burning coal and gas (the only available from now on is LNG which is more expensive than just regular NG, again, depends on Russia - Ukraine) or a combination of both but having neither would mean that the country would have to lower its' energy consumption SIGNIFFICANTLY to be able to function with just solar and wind (main renewable sources in the country) and even then you can't really last long without a back up for these (which you will need, solar and wind will only work in relatively good weather conditions) so they'd have to resort back to coal and/or gas since going back to nuclear is politically ineffective and is presented to the public as a fate worse than climate change. All in all, they'll probably do fine but I can assure you their future won't look nearly as 'green' as they are boasting right now and have been for years past. Personally, I just hope that the French stick to their agenda of increasing nuclear power production because its' success can only motivate other countries in EU (like Slovenia for example) and rest of the world to keep working on maintaining existing plants and feel comfortable in making more and investing more in the industry in general as well as remove any unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that might have been put in place in attempts to halt the industry from developing (mostly by environmentalists, ironically).
All that being said, I've no idea what the OP means when he talks about "impoverishing the working class". If we're talking about jobs, it just isn't that simple and that's disregarding the fact that as technologies advance, there's less of a requirement for physical based labour, labour which can be redistributed in the same industries or to other existing or emerging ones. Imagine all the jobs that were lost with the introduction of home computers! Oh wait, no, it probably produced more new jobs while reconfiguring existing ones to fit the new landscape and at the same time probably increased productivity immensely due to the convenience and efficiency of these machines. And honestly, I don't even care anymore if losing a few jobs is the sacrifice we have to make, these people don't bother with any viable solutions of their own so their stance is essentially "Fuck it, I'd rather keep my job for the next 4 years than make sure the planet will stay habitable for the next 100" and that's understandable. It still doesn't solve the impending issue, so frankly, I see no reason to care about their jobs when they don't even care about the planet. It's clear as day that oil needs to go so crying about the loss of jobs is either to halt the process of phasing it out or to score emotional karma on the internet. Neither will get us anywhere in the fight against climate change and it is therefore an irrelevant topic. If you want to discuss practical solutions to combatting the inevitable loss of jobs like retraining, early retirements, or subsidizing that's one thing but funnily enough, I rarely hear discussions on these topics, it's almost always virtue signalling mottos^^ usually borne out of ignorant republican talking points that tend to over simplify and exaggerate one issue in favour of completely dismissing solutions to the much bigger issue that we're currently facing. Again, not saying the loss of jobs isn't an issue, but it would serve the argument well if you actually talked about it sincerely with the goal of providing a possible counter-solution, rather than disregarding the entire process and maintaining the status quo even if it means destroying an entire planet in the process.
Let's all trust a random youtuber over a credentialed expert. Germany is fine...
Which side is this guy on? I find this conversation disturbingly nuanced.
Such a breath of fresh air. Excellent podcast.
🤣🤣
Oh wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Really? I thought it was such a waste of time because it didn't get in touch with reality once.
@@antonyjh1234 its frustrating when you don't get to hear what you want huh
Not that, just that the whole podcast doesn't seem to be in touch with the problem@@shock_n_Aweful
added : It lulls people into inaction, thinking there are possibly pathways we can trade our way out of this and the economic system will find a way out of this, I find this to be a lie and Sam would know this, I get he is pandering to a majority audience but it's still lying.
@@CP-nl2zb I guess when you're too dumb to understand the facts experts are discussing all you can do is laugh and pretend.
I found this conversation very encouraging. Thank you.
When will you have a conversation about this with guys like Prof. Emeritus Richard Lindzen, Prof. Judith Curry, Prof. R.A. Pielke Jr., Prof. Nir Shaviv, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Mathew M. Wielicki, Dr. Patrick Moore etc. etc. or any of the thousands of scientists who have made it clear that they don't concur and that there isn't a "consensus" on the idea that we are facing a "climate emergency"?
No climate emergency doesn't mean climate change is a problem
Let me guess, you seeked out a small minority of people with PhD'ds that already aligned with your predisposed political ideology. Striking. If you're wondering, that's what a confirmation bias is in real life.
@@efabiano82 You guessed wrong, cupcake.
1) Argumentum ad populum is not a rational argument.
2) Ideologically I'm a Voluntaryist, which means I'm on neither silly political "side". I don't do cheerleader politics.
3) You not even wanting TO LISTEN to what they want to say is most definitely denialism and confirmation bias. You've such intense neurotic angst about it you won't even Google them. If you did, you'd find for example that the first guy, Prof. Lindzen, is the retired former head of Atmospheric Physics at MIT, and was one of the leads of the actual UNIPCC Scientific Working Group. Curry is right now the foremost climate science advisor to the largest insurance companies in the world and former department head at Georgia Tech. Pielke is the current department head at the University of Colorado, and just last year published along with a group of some of the most distinguished climate scientists the latest metastudy of all the IPCC projections and the latest rea-world data. Moore is a co-founder of actual Greenpeace.... and I have actual lecture videos and references to published work of HUNDREDS more.
4) ASSumption is the worst fvckup in rational thinking, and you just did it.
@@efabiano82Seriously? The suggestion behind his comment was to encourage a debate with the other side of the aisle....that is quite literally the opposite of confirmation bias. A perfect example of confirmation bias is when brainwashed hacks like you come on here to watch videos that only align with your POV, and then you rush to the comments to troll out people that you assume disagree with you. He was asking a very simple question: can we have a debate between these climate alarmists and the qualified experts who disagree with the fact that there is a “climate emergency”? The fact that you took his comment and turned it into your regurgitated comprehension about “seeking out a minority of experts for confirmation bias” shows the level of brainwashing you’ve been subjected to. This is precisely the reason that these conversations get shut down because you bafoons would rather debate the idea of having a debate instead of having the actual debate.
[sigh] For those who have seen the movie Oppenheimer, there is a critical scene to keep in mind. When Oppenheimer feels guilty about killing so many Japanese with the bomb he help build, Truman tells him "you didn't kill those people. I did." Scientists generally don't make good executives, perhaps because executives are less driven be the optimism expressed by Chris Field, and are more pragmatic (and self interested, admittedly). Sam asked all the right questions, but many of the answers given by Fields were either given with too few disclaimers, or were simply wrong with respect to global implementation. Comments that sustainable energy sources are cheaper, and will remain cheaper, probably heads the list. Big picture: If by some miracle governments around the world adhere to the schedule of hydrocarbon transition laid out by the IPCC, the unintended consequences will be massive. It simply can't be done without radically changing principles of personal freedom we take as given in the west. Which is why it isn't going to happen. Pragmatists, if they took this problem seriously, would be talking about engineering and infrastructure projects to mitigate global warming AS IT HAPPENS, not just exerting maximum effort, including social and political turmoil, to prevent warming from happening within model-based rates and limits.
In other words. Change is coming. But by the time the necessary steps have been taken it will already be too late.
Warming past two degrees Celsius is pretty much inevitable at this point. The fallouts from which will be catastrophic.
It doesn't have to come with removing personal freedom, adding accountability should be mostly enough. Meaning mostly pricing in negative externalities, so that people can use climate damaging technologies, but they have to pay for the damage they cause, which can then fund the solution.
In other words, I value my material
possessions and western lifestyle more than my children and grandchildren’s futures.
@@Nick-kb6jd No, that's not what I mean, although it may have seemed that way. All big and small problems in life have tradeoffs, and in this case the tradeoffs are huge, not just in our lifestyle, but also the degree of control western governments would need to exert over their people, and on other governments, especially in Africa to meet the timing goals. It's the sort of single factor analysis that scientists (I am one, by the way) often aren't good at. An example would be the tradeoff between keeping kids out of school during COVID even though their demographic had almost no risk. It's not that such decisions are easy, it's just that getting tunnel vision, and especially distorting the problems associated, is getting more common, and doesn't address itself well to the most difficult problem facing mankind ever.
I'm all for moving away from fossil hydrocarbons. They are a precious unreplaceable resource for raw materials, and we are foolishly burning them for heat. But when Sam asked Fields to point out which parts of the science and implementation problems were certain, and which weren't, Field's response was way more toward certain than it should have been. Transition goals to minimize fossil hydrocarbon use by. say, 2100 are reasonable, and probably doable. But lurking behind the argument is this threat that the world will come to an end, based on numerical modeling, of which I am familiar. In any other context, that would seem absurd, but given the timeframe is not possible in my opinion, it makes more sense to be talking mitigation instead
@@tompeargin8319 We’re screwed then.
I had to stop listening around 30:00. The guest only said that based on the ice core samples the temperature had been equal to or colder than current periods. We know they were much hotter as well. I can’t waste my time with someone who doesn’t entertain doubt in their own hypotheses
In the EU we cut our emissions by 25% since 1990, not enough but pretty proud of that
echo chambers at its best. A real sanity check would have at least two voices for a real discussion. Rather, Sam just cherry picks someone that pukes up that damn narrative. John Christy, Judith Curry, Willie Soon... There are MANY voices that could be featured.
Wow this is some great news! Now to get governments on board with strategies and commitments.
As an entrepreneur, I find it silly to bring in a "climate change expert scientist" who's job security is dependant on him finding evidence of climate change. Let's bring in Mark Zuckerberg and ask him the importance of social media for human interaction and have him figure out how the government can help fund him as it may be a public service. Instead you need to have a critic debating an expert and people decide who has better points. This episode only shows one side with skewed evidence at best with no realistic economic impact examples.
Feels like you are just unwilling to listen to a person who knows a ton about the subject. I don't think the fact that the man has been studying this subject and knows it in depth should put you off listening to him.
I can’t believe Americans are so far behind on this
yes you can. quit lying. say what you mean.
I can. No other country has worked as hard at being behind! Maybe Saudi Arabia.
Then you're probably not really paying attention.
I'd like to know what the data says, not what the "mainstream scientific consensus" is. Popularity doesn't make science. You said the quiet part out loud.
I knew this was going to be frustrating to listen to, but you could have at least pretended like you were trying to impartially evaluate evidence.
Have potholer54 on!!
Potholer54 is an excellent source of rational info and debunking.
Notice that government actions are never the culprit for, say, increasing wildfires (even though latest the scientific report of the IPCC itself picks up no signal whatsoever in terms of increasing "fire weather" - due to "climate change"). Government actions like "protecting forests" (with a multitude of regulations that end up increasing fuel load and underbrush flammable volumes). These two are taking for granted everything the government dishes out as "fact". Huge mistake! No need to go further. Waste of your time.
The main and most significant cause of wildfires continues to be excess CO2 creating warmer drier and more fire prone enviroments. ie climate change. Not to say that forest mangement and other mitigations are not important but managing forests the size of those in Canada for example is not logistically possible.
@@Onequietvoice absolute nonsense! Not even the latest IPCC report notices any detectable signals for more "fire weather" (as they call it in their report). Stop parroting media propaganda.
My main state of mind when listening to Sam is wonderment as to how he's not severely depressed. This was a great conversation and one of the lighter ones (!) but there's a lot of problems in the world he's trying to unravel and the only person who's doing it with a view to honest insight and practical (which mean being honest about the potential effectiveness) solutions. Doing interviews with Russell Brand and other crackpots is a terrible use of his time. More of this please.
Yep, it seems like there's an insurmountable issue with, as it turns out (thanks internet), millions and millions of people desperate to lick the plug socket in the hope that, maybe, just maybe, it'll give them superpowers.
Meditation
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day...you should really have interviewed someone without a conflict of interest. Shame on you Sam...
Sam is/was one of the greatest thinkers of our time. He was wrong about most everything to do with covid which was one of the most important issues we as a society have dealt with in our time. It shouldn't take away his lifetime contributions but it is very difficult to listen to what he has to say going forward. Especially when he never really admits his mistakes. Despite always preaching about how wonderful it is to be able to change your mind.
Only human. Forgive.
I have heard him change his mind or accept his thinking or conclusion was wrong. What's the problem?
Huge fan of Sam Haris but this is where I part ways with him. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not the driver of global warming as the evidence shows. He's right though it's a new religion.
Rubbish. Anything can be a pollutant in the wrong place or quantity. Gasoline is a pollutant in your drinking water and water is a pollutant in your gas tank.
It's one thing not to know about CO2 but another to make such foolish claims about evidence. This is science based on data and facts not belief in spooks. SEE:
"MET Office UK, Causes of climate change"
"Columbia Climate School, How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?"
"MIT, How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?
Keep in mind that any discussion involving just one guest cannot begin to show you the whole picture. There are opposing and orthogonal views that are barely mentioned, if at all.
That's where a great interviewer comes into play. And not someone that comes to work slant eyed from weed.
The way I see it, this is an "opinions differ on shape of the Earth" situation. If one point of view is essentially correct, there is little need to hear a large number of opposing views, since they would necessarily be essentially wrong.
These views you mention are irrelevant.
If they have a theory that better fits the evidence, they are welcome in. So far I have not seen anyone that would fit that bill.
There's definitely climate scientists more alarmed and less optimistic than this guy, but there's virtually no publishing climatologists who disagree that humans are causing global warming and that humans are causing it.
why not interview guy mcpherson ?
Having worked in climate sea level rise for decades, I have seen that the unrealistic adjustment to rising sea levels is a behavior that continues to promote coastal development. Even former President Obama, has bought a large, multi-million dollar estate right next to the shoreline. Some have accused Obama of hypocrisy, but it's probably more a problem of desiring the advantages of coastal living without understanding its hazards. This conundrum to adoption of sea level rise appropriate coastal development plans could be handled effectively in an authoritarian regime, but who would want that? In a democracy, people will do what they want to do, and people love living along the coast.
Another problem is that the sea level rise models have been well beyond what tide gauge records have recorded. This has enabled those disinclined to climate change poo-pooing the hazards of continuing coastal development in a rising sea level rise. A few millimeters per year, which is high on a low lying coast, like much of the middle Atlantic and Southeast Atlantic coast, is cumulatively a disaster. In a couple of decades, a couple of centimeters could mean much greater penetration of storm surges and waves atop them during tropical storms. People find it hard to comprehend how such "teensy-weensy" amounts of sea level rise could be so dangerous. Yet storm surges are the main killer from tropical cyclones on coastal populations.
One issue that was touched upon was the placing of wind mills offshore. I would be leery of this proposal as the coastal ocean -- (essentially the inner continental shelf in trailing continental margins, i.e., much of the US Atlantic Coast south of New York) -- is the most productive part of the ocean, and, unfortunately, the most impacted by human activities for obvious reasons. If the we plan to use the coast off New Jersey, for instance, for extensive windmill fields, then we better have a good idea of how finfish, migratory marine animals (whales), and the benthos will be affected. Killing off the ecology of the coastal ocean in many areas on our ocean planet, seems to be a poor trade off for more electricity from windmills which would be very vulnerable to damage from tropical storms (Summer) and super tropical nor'easters (Winter). In other words, and not an original idea, we have to be cognizant of being good stewards for species other than ourselves.
Lastly, in the search for renewables, I hope we don't ignore the oceans. There is more water being moved by the Gulfstream than the rivers combined on land. Moving at 4 m per hour, what a vast source of energy! I know there are groups exploring oceans sources of energy -- waves and tides -- but I'm not sure our decision makers, or the general public, even consider ocean power. The technologies for harnessing it will be decades off, but sooner more research on what could be done -- scientists and engineers -- the better. Ocean power can be consistent (no diurnal problems like solar or seasonal like wind), and limitless.There will always be waves, tides, and currents.
Wind turbines. No one uses wind to grind grain, anymore.
@@Garrison169 What? I didn't mention anything about turbines, commonly referred to, as windmills. I used this term because turbine is not widely used. I'm a scientist (PhD) and know the difference but a lot of people don't.
@@michaelkearney3646 If you are a scientist, you should use the right terminology.
People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are.
@@Garrison169 I am a scientist, not if. I also have over dealing with non scientists, who were certainly not stupid, but I'll informed. I have tried to tell people in reports to politicians of both parties that what they windmills are really turbines, and what probabilities in scientific studies mean. Some get it, others don't. It also doesn't behoove one to adopt a snarky tone, because no matter what you think, they are the decision makers, Ultimately, I don't care if "lay" people call wind turbines windmills as long as the
Whoops phone dropped my reply before I finished.
Continuing: not you. One should realize that most people in elective office are not scientists, unfortunately. The reason I've rambled on this long is that you seem to be a smart guy -- I laughed at your insouciance as it's your typical UA-cam fare. But on a science site, let's leave Twitter behind. Have a good day, bud.
32:50 - At this point to neglect to mention the fact that India and China have increased their CO2 emissions at the same time as the Western countries have attempted to decrease theirs is intellectually dishonest.
Solar is *not* cheaper than Nuclear.
I mean, it is in the current regulatory environment. But solar cost most people quote doesn’t include the batteries that are necessary to provide the same service as nuclear or gas or coal. Even with solar/wind plus batteries, it still probably cheaper. But we could change that with new nuclear tech.
At a grid scale, Solar is cheaper if you are willing to add a Gas-fired power station to the grid to back up the intermittent power source, and ignore the cost of your gas power plant when calculating the cost of Solar-PV electricity. That is, there is a lot of fraudulent accounting involved when people assert that Solar is cheaper.
It does also depend a lot on your location and specific use case though. If you are trying to live off grid, it's a lot cheaper to install solar panels and battery backup in your house than try to get a SMR installed. If you are trying to run an electric power utility in Canada or Germany etc. though, Solar power is just a dumb idea.
Build nuclear plants and make lots of money then.
Oil is the drug, humanity is the the addict.
He lost me at the get go by not answering the first question about models. He went straight to extreme weather which seems extremely difficult to understand the causality of. I suppose it involves crazy complicated statistics but I’d like to know how we know extreme weather since 2010 suddenly shows the warming signal since temps have gone up maybe .25C since then.
Small temperature changes result in counterintuitively large effects. A one degree rise in temperature alone can increase atmospheric moisture by 7%. Even a slightly warmer ocean temperature results in stronger hurricane winds.
A heat-dried landscape itself contributes to drought conditions, as it did in the American Dust Bowl years, as no further moisture is available to rise up from the biosphere. With diminished plant cover, the extra solar radiation absorbed by the ground in turn produces still more rising heat, encouraging high pressure systems that supress rainfall further.
(The increased evaporation that warmer air causes also dries out tinder and brush and makes it much more likely to ignite and spread. )
As the climate warms up, dry areas become drier and already wet areas become wetter.
Meanwhile, the high latitudes of the Arctic warm three times faster than the mid latitudes. This is because sun-reflecting ice melts, exposing darker ocean or land which absorbs more heat than it reflects. As more ice melts, reducing earth's albedo, temperature rises more than it would at mid latitudes.
As temperature between mid latitudes and high latitudes come closer together, the jet stream reacts by slowing. (It's the mix of temperature extremes that create powerful wind currents.) An Omega Block is what happens when the Jet Stream stops moving in its predominant west to east pattern and instead moves in big, blocky waves. This can lock in weather patterns, like heatwaves or droughts, for days or weeks at a time over the same area.
The polar vortex is also disturbed by warming air. It too will sometimes collapse into blocky waves that drop far down over the United States to send it into a deep freeze in winter.
All small changes but together, working synergistically, they create big climate variations.
Heatwaves have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. Extreme precipitation have also increased worldwide, as have droughts, according to the IPCC. Hurricanes intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to NOAA. According to the UN, major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years. Large effects indeed.
I think it’s because the top acolytes such as this gentlemen who’ve been in the IPCC for so long are literally in a bubble. A cycle of research that supports the same narrative. Differing views are barred and they self perpetuate the narrative as, to be honest, if an alternate view was demonstrated to them they simply can’t turn back. They’re whole careers are literally built on ‘The Crisis’.
Well said. Ignorance is only bliss until the reaper comes.
Highly regarded scientist is seen to be dissing a teenage girl. I ask you who’s the better person?
You know straight away that you’re dealing with a bad actor when they suggest that pumping crap into the atmosphere to mitigate the effect of crap in the atmosphere is a good idea. I’m afraid that dear old Sam is increasingly filling the role of useful idiot.
Thank you. What does he think will happen when population collapse, and therefore resource use collapse, happens. The ice age we were promised 30 years ago? Its only 80 years away, so his career will be over.
this is a low IQ comment by a low IQ person (i don't mean this to be insulting, though i recognize that it is). you either are tremendously unintelligent or did not actually pay attention to what he said and still felt the need to confidently leave this comment - in either case, you can't be very smart.
not only did he never argue that the pros outweigh the cons, this also isn't a controversial position, and anyone who dismisses it out of hand and doesn't understand the cost-benefit analysis behind the suggestion (which does in fact have benefits, in addition to costs) is not fit to participate in this conversation
This is a nonsense opinion. If you look at what we know and the catastrophe we're heading towards, it's reasonable to consider whatever options available. Millions of people will be displaced and die. Are you going to welcome them in and share your wealth to keep them fed? Or support politicians who will happily let them die to keep your QOL??
Still weird when Scientists talk and sound like politicians or lobbyists.
2:01 How’d that “Mainstream scientific consensus” on Covid pan out? I forget.
Dude, you can look up the results. No developed nation failed harder than the USA. You maxed out all the bad stuff. Death toll, loss of life expectancy, economic impact, new debt, you got it all maxed out.
Looks like you're not familiar with the term false equivalency.
@@JonathanLoganPDX No, I’m sure the two have nothing to do with each other, apples and oranges, of course of course. By the way, where might I be able to find a record of your comments regarding the Covid consensus from two years ago?
@@LAZARUSL0NG considering it was a novel Coronavirus, and mainstream medicine can only do predictions based upon best guesses about viruses since they'd never seen the coronavirus like that before they did pretty damn well. Especially since if you consider the fact that they were warning people will siparos Lee at the beginning about how it could spread and where it would go and what it would do to people. So if you lived in a big city where the hospitals were overwhelmed in the first couple of waves then you would have seen freezer trucks arriving by the hour where they stacked dead frozen bodies like cordwood.
@@LAZARUSL0NG moreover, you know nothing about climate science so it wouldn't make any sense to talk to you about it
Is this experts headline argument in favour of manmade climate change -'personal experience of extreme events? Wild fire?? Really, REALLY?
Climate is the overall pattern of weather over 30 years, not what happened last week. This is very disappointing from the off.
This was a strange conversation. One example: questioning the negative impact on communities due to climate mitigation instead of focusing on the massive impact based on not doing any mitigation. I consider this conversation to be one of the many «it is serios, but relaxe, we can fix this» . I would suggest to invite Nate Hagens. There is a big need (also for Sam) to understand our Predicament better than this conversation enables.
I agree on that one, bring Nate on the podcast Sam!
I think Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are quite superficial about what is happening in the world and can't form a coherent presentation like Daniel schmachtenberger/Nate hagens, peter Joseph, Buckminster Fuller etc etc does.
+1
Sam needs to talk with Nate and Daniel Schmactenberger. Climate change is not the problem, it's one symptom of a larger and way more complex issue.
"One example: questioning the negative impact on communities due to climate mitigation instead of focusing on the massive impact based on not doing any mitigation."
But to the converse, what % of the elite climate discourse is ever spent on the costs of mitigation versus the dangers of warming?
We currently have an elite climate discourse wherein 99.999% of the time we hear about the dangers of warming, never the dangers of over-rapid decarbonization. (Leave that only for denizens of the right to raise.)
If one's goal is to persuade the bulk of humanity to rapidly hop off carbon, hadn't one better address the elephant in the room of the strongest counter-argument to win more people?
@@notafantbh : Climate is the symptom that will cause the most suffering. The geopolitical power of the fossil fuel industry is what's creating climate change and their incentive is $2.2 Trillion dollars per year.
Population is a huge issue but the degradation of the environment on which all species depend is not so much about how many we are but how we produce energy. The more of us there are, the more we depend on a stable agricultural system and that is in jeopardy.
"Strangely optimistic". Thank you for that. It is the kind of black humor that I have only experienced in courtrooms. Really needed that.
I cant take anyone seriously about the climate crisis unless they are willing to consider nuclear power
Nuclear has its drawbacks. Building a plant is far more expensive than building a solar or wind farm and the energy payback is many years longer. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, new advanced nuclear reactors are no safer than the old technology. I'm not qualified to judge, but I think it's wise to read what those two esteemed scientific organizations have to say before becoming an advocate.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 none of that is true. Solar and wind energy payback is far longer than nuclear and uses far more resources to built per energy produced. I flat out don't believe that new designs aren't safer and if an organization is saying that they are suspect. The only problems nuclear has are political.
There’s isotopes element that produced less transuranic materials than Pu and U. Thorium isotope should be the future of nuclear power along fusion power and hydrogen. China has given green light to building thorium molten salt reactor while US is playing politics with environmental management. Solar and wind alone will not be sufficient alone to solve energy needs.
I think these folks clearly hate capitalism more than they love the environment, because nuclear is the obvious solution and they are all against it. But with wind and solar it's impossible to run a thriving economy which puts a big smile on their faces. Nuclear generates economic growth and that makes their skin crawl.
Chris Field almost understands the real problem the world currently faces to try to solve climate change.
Climate change is a not a science problem.
We understand how CO2 affects heat buildup in our atmosphere.
It's not an engineering problem.
There are MANY engineering solutions for stopping or removing CO2 from our atmosphere with our industrial processes.
It's not a policy problem.
We know how to get industry to implement the engineering solutions to stop adding or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. You create favorable regulation and tax breaks.
It's not even a finance problem, as in who pays how much at what times.
We know how to do that. You start a company and go to a bank and get a loan or sell stocks and bonds. It's called capitalism. You may not like it but we know how to do it.
Climate change at this time is a currency problem.
As in what currency do we use to pay for it, like Euros, Yen, Rubles, Rupees, Dollars, Dinars etc.
In order for the world to decarbonize, the world must first dedollarize.
The US dollar the the "Global Reserve Currency". That means it's the currency that is used the most in international trade. When countries buy and sell things to each other they pay in US dollars and not their own currency. So the worlds wealthy be it individuals, corporations, or governments have most of their assets in US dollars.
The US dollar is backed by oil. It's referred to as the "petrodollar". Saudi Arabia will only accept US dollars for their oil. So if any country wants to buy Saudi oil they first have to go to a US bank and exchange their own currency for US dollars, inflating demand for the dollar and thus it's value. This is how the US dollar is "backed" by oil.
This started in 1971 when the US left the gold standard and the the value of the dollar started to tank. Kissinger had the idea that we offer Saudi king Faisal a deal. We would protect them from all enemies foreign and domestic and they in exchange would not accept any currency other then US dollars for their oil. The king eventually agreed. The rest of OPEC over time agreed as well. So now the value of the dollar is determined by the worlds demand for oil.
This was a good thing at the time because it made the dollar a stable currency. Using it meant planning a long term budget was much easier, think the Weimar Republic. This was before climate change was well understood. Climate change was not well understood in the 1970's.
Once climate change was better understood in the 1990's the worlds wealthy were not eager to do anything about it because if the world stopped needing oil, then the world would stop needing dollars and it's value would drop and they would find themselves with a ton of currency that nobody wanted, i.e. they would be poor. So asking them to invest in something that would reduce the worlds demand for oil is basically telling them I want to make all that money you have valueless.
What makes things even worse is to keep the value of the dollar stable the US had to print more dollars as the global demand for oil grew. If the US didn't do this the dollars value would have become unstable. A large increase in value can be just as bad and a large decrease. So there are more dollars around then there were back in 1971. It's gotten to the point now that if the world stops needing oil the value of the US dollar drops not only from lack of demand but also from a glut of supply.
Global warming will not truly be solved until the world, or rather the worlds elite, can agree on a common currency thats value is not determined by the worlds demand for oil, i.e. the petrodollar.
You might say what is required is a "global financial reset". Just so happens that the worlds wealthy are talking about just such a thing. You might have heard it's about debt forgiveness. It is, but it is also about establishing a new global reserve currency. Is it because they care about funding technology for fighting climate change? Possibly, but I think it has more to do with the fact that the US has sanctions on over 30 countries. Countries they would like to do business with but they can't.
The way the global banking system is set up currently (SWIFT) is if you want to buy something internationally in US dollars, those dollars have to go through a US bank. Thus the US can stop any purchase once those dollars hit a US bank. Thus all this talk about a financial reset means that it appears that the global elite (or non-US and Saudi elite that is) are ready to move on from the petrodollar. Once the worlds wealthy can decide on a new global reserve currency (and what it will be backed by like gold or block chain) they can start exchanging their dollars for it and that will allow them to invest in technology to fight climate change without destroying their wealth. This is is referred to as dedollarization.
Everything changed after Russia invaded Ukraine. The US put such harsh sanctions on Russia that other countries questioned if it was safe to have so much of their wealth in US dollars. Thus the BRICS nations started taking about using their own currency in trade with each other. They even started talking about creating a BRICS currency. Saudi Arabia has even started accepting Chinese currency for their oil.
If you care about climate change then this should give you hope that the world will start investing in climate fighting technologies at the scale necessary to make a difference.
Yes, Stuart, YOUR comments definitely make sense.
One of the best podcasts on this topic. The line of questioning was really 5/5. Thanks for this.
Just got back from the Denver CO area. That area has gotten ugly in the last 15 years. Its filling up with big-box stores, mini malls spread out wastefully and large junk home developments miles away from any stores, forcing everyone to drive everywhere. It's like we aren't learning anything. Our way of life is going to die. Almost no one cares and it's highly upsetting and depressing.
Thank you for this great conversation.
Classic climate alarmism crap. No historical view. A complete narrative regurgitation.
A very good discussion. I appreciate the info from scientists who know their subject.
it's not. he's a biologist. nothing to do with weather.
This is presented as a fair and balanced take but is completely dismissive of any skepticism
This was a very-quality conversation on Climate Change. I feel much better informed and deeply appreciative. The severity and number of atypical weather-related events IMO is incrementally improving the collective interest in Climate Change making this discussion very timely. Thanks again to both.
If politicians quit sending money and weapons to Ukraine that would help prevent man made climate change because you know bombs going off isn't good for the climate.