Shellenberger is a voice that should be amplified. He is the type of “liberal” that the “left” has left behind. He is sensible and willing to change his mind.
He deserves applause for willing to change his mind but I wonder about his honesty. I read an interview by Peter Gleick and it seems like Shellenberger totally misquotes scientists. For example, he quotes a trio of scientists and suggests they were implying that a nuclear reactor could become a nuclear bomb even though right before the paragraph he quoted they directly said that it was impossible to turn a reactor into a bomb. There are numerous errors like these including not understanding the language of scientists like the difference between ‘uncertainty’ and “don’t know what’s going to happen”.
I really have been enjoying Lawrence Krauss. His interviewing style is endearing, obviously well prepared and deeply researched . . . and he demonstrates a genuine interest in his subjects. I’m learning a lot.
I'd like to see Krauss have an Origins conversation with physicist Steven Koonin about his 2021 book: "Uncertainty: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"'
@@lebowski_dude Michael Shermer interviewed Koonin, although ten months after the book was published. Shermer admitted he hesitated because he was concerned how progressive viewers would react.
Well done?!?! Lawrence just embarrassed himself for 3.5 hours. This was pathetic. Now I can't decide who's lost more credibility him or Sam Harris. They have both made a joke out of themselves in recent years as emotional cowards and wanna be tyrants in the name of "the greater good" HA!
wishing him all the best. Hope he becomes the Governor. More power to sensible, far thinking individuals like him. Thanks Mr.Krauss for this conversation, and the update!
Perhaps you don't have young grandkids who'll hopefully still be around end of this century, as well as being unaware of Carbon Dioxide 'half life' in our atmosphere. I'd appreciate you researching and returning with 'Eddie, you're right, this is as serious as stated'!
@@johnbatson8779 between 300 to 1,000 years Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it's added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.9 Oct 2019
@@johnbatson8779 Did you open and read that informative link I replied with? If so, can you now commit to being a believer in the damage we're doing to our kids' environment?
@@eddieheron1939in fact it gets absorbed into the oceans too then travels in the deep sea currents and gets spat out 700 years later so what we load the atmosphere with now will get spat out centuries lattee.
As one who respects nature I would prefer ethics and massive resources being directed to getting compact nuclear right thus sparing large areas of land being directed to solar, wind and destructive mining for rare earths and the like. Then the real emergency of plastics and natural world and species destruction can be addressed.
Great discussion! This was very interesting, and informative. Not every single idea Michael Shellenberger has is the answer to the madness, but it's at least an attempt to make things better.
"All else being equal, we wouldn't want any temperature change, at all." Why? Was 1800 the optimum temperature for human flourishing? Is there any case to be made for that at all?
Great conversation. Bravo to both Michael and Lawrence for being taking criticisms in stride. Both made good points and both had some moments that they went off the rails a bit. But they both learned something and I am glad I listened
I like Michael, he is a rational environmentalist. He may not be exactly right in all his ideas, but his ideas need to be taken into consideration. He is a good foil for the highly emotive over the top catastrophists.
Very good point that Lawrence makes about hesitating in going into politics is that you can't really go into and talk about the real issues you feel are important ! Ideas and concepts for Planethood , World Peace and Human Solidarity , Illiminating the War Machines and Weapons that potentially can destroy our civilizations , working wholeistically to solve the vexing problems and alienations of our human family , etc, etc ! Instead candidates too often resort to petty party politics and criticisms , put downs and narcissistic ego bragging that we have been most familiar with the past few years ! We need to rise to a better standard of behavior and coherent enlightened thinking to serve the real needs and desires of all humankind !
Why does TH-cam keep force feeding me this channel? Every time I fall asleep I wake up to this guy. It tells you something about him that TH-cam tries to force him upon you.
Good but some "devil in details issues appeared". They discussed the time to make reactors like it is fixed at this decade-long process when we built the first X pile reactors on the Columbia river in about 2 years starting from not knowing how to build a reactor. The difference between then and now is we now know a lot more with better design and control capacity being strangled by a bureaucracy that has no idea of the cost of delay. As an Applied Scientist (physics, chem, math with an undergraduate in mainly nuclear engineering) in '71 I took a job in the nuclear/environmental department contractor building reactors. My first assignment resulted in a design that would save about 10 million dollars along with higher performance, which went up the line only to be rejected because it would cost more than the savings to get it through the regulators. I switched to coal-fired plants with real environmental issues without regulatory permissions required. Dr. Krauss said that solar didn't have these big regulatory delays without noting that the regulatory delays in building a solar-grade silicon production facility in the US are so large that it is impossible in the US to compete with China, which has 90% of the world's production because they allowed multi-billion dollar facilities to be built in 15 months. Technically these facilities are more like a cross between a steel plant and a major petrochemical plant. Yes, we can build an assembly plant in an empty building, but the solar silicon to create the material to assemble are into the regulator delay game on everything from the sand supply to the carbon supply, infrastructure needs, etc.
Michael kept saying well I have two points to make there when Lawrence would ask a question, but he could have had ten points it didn't matter as 20 seconds into his first point Lawrence would interrupt him and the conversation would veer off in another direction. Shellenberger had far more patients than I could have mustered.
Enjoyable informative interview/discussion with a demonstrably patient and gracious Michael Shellenberger - and an honest, somewhat uncomfortable acceptance of uncomfortable facts by Professor Krauss - cheers and thank you :O)
1:12:20 (No) “the worst heat level” will not be the tropics, per AGW theory, temps will rise marginally there, while northern latitudes experience timberlines again into the Arctic What results is more uniform global temperatures, a smaller pressure gradient and so less extreme storms… win win
My Bubbie Sadie used to sing “Que Sera, Sera” to me. I remember the Hitchcock film, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and the Doris Day song fondly but I didn’t pay much attention to the lyrics. Sadie died 40 years ago. I miss her so much. It was so comforting, snuggling in her lap while she sang to me. What will today’s future grandmas or bubbies be singing to their future grandchildren?
Very interesting discussion. What I think is missed in this discussion is that most people serious about dealing with climate change understand that it is the large Industrialized countries that need to limit their greenhouse gasses etc. It was the oil companies that stopped us from putting specific limits on our emissions because they pushed the talking points through ads and lobbyists that it would be unfair to us if the undeveloped countries didn't have to do it to and it would hurt our economy too much (LOL.) But we could be curbing climate change better and limiting the impact Industrialized countries have on climate change while still letting developing countries industrialize.
It is very obvious that Kraus as he admits himself i very new to the issue of climate change. His points are kind of sophomore points where one thing that pointing out a problem is proving some amazing point, not taking 2nd and 3rd order effects into account. Shellenberger is great as always. A great respectful discussion.
Mekong Delta vulnerability has been enhanced by extensive dams in the upper Mekong Delta. Deltas live by having enough sediment to overcome sea level rise globally and deltaic subsidence locally. The reduction in sediment due to dams is problematic. Also, the legacy of delta destruction done during the Vietnam War. The impact of massive herbicides on the floral composition, especially plants more essential to retaining sediment and enhancing delta stability. I don't know if this has studied enough, though I stand to be corrected.
I enjoy this debate, but I have seen solar panels over parking lots which produces power from an existing use, while simultaneously providing shade for the vehicles in the summer months.
I suspect putting solar cells in cities over parking is dumb. It's like saying let's build housing over the parking. It's extra cost. Exhaust and tire dust gets on solar panels. It's hard to wash panels monthly if gotta wait for weekend. Some cats will crash into pillars... 50% of lower USA is unused land, too hilly or rocky or dry, no need to put the 2% of solar coverage on the 5% that is paved parking... And obviously solar around less sunny NE gets half the power as in Florida and third as in W Texas ... it's crazy how Germany is adding solar, that solar could be installed in Kenya around Kilimanjaro and produce 4x....
We have been about for Millennia. The only people worried about wind,water and weather are the ones living on the second floor of a house of cards....the rest already adjust daily because "that's life".
Equating people who have mental illnesses with gun toting mass murderers is wrong. The millions of people with mental health issues do not murder anyone. Get rid of the assault rifles and close loopholes. We know for a fact this will save lives.
What really bothers me is those who continue to cash in on economic growth are given deference concerning how much environmental damage everyone else should tolerate.
How about instead of throwing your plastic in the regular garbage, we require a plastics recycling plant in every county in the country? Use of plastic products leads to ingestion and/or inhalation of large amounts of both microplastic particles and hundreds of toxic substances with known or suspected carcinogenic, developmental, or endocrine-disrupting impacts. Is Shellenberger saying that if we put it in a landfill, that serious health risk goes away?
Surely, a very significant feature of supporting Ukraine is to stall / prevent restructuring of another USSR. Ask all the former USSR countries and others that avoided such then, and most certainly want that 'off the cards' for their future.
I’ve never experienced so many ads inserted into a TH-cam video before. I guess funding for the Origins project is a bit anemic these days? Or is that no longer a thing?
I have a concern that all wealthy countries have lower birth rates but larger and larger immigration to increase the population to keep driving growth. So what happens when all countries are developed?
Then we will hopefully see the obvious limits to the whole mistaken concept of unlimited growth. Progress and growth are not exactly the same thing...as we have plainly seen they can even be exact opposites.
One of the best episodes I've seen so far. So informative. About the nuclear power I already knew. I've been pro nuclear for some 30 years. Hydro and nuclear are the only two sensible alternatives in the long run. Living off grid of course private solar- and wind power make sense.
Living OFF the grid seems to require more energy. Besides having to commute far, if a city builds turbines and solar and batteries it can do it at lower cost in overhead and labor.... And the city can build less per capita since each person must build for their highest day in the year. And then off grid person must overbuild like x4 for the worst month of weather, Feb, while a city can run for 1 month their natural gas plants.. So a off grid person will need 4x or so, than what a city system can use. .. the millionaires to go off grid do 4x. The in poverty survivalists frankly huddle for Feb and don't run their machines, so ok they keep it to 2x.... Transmission losses are only 10% which is just physics its this low . So again letting city do it all is best ..... All this is sorta true for people on the grid who have some wind or solar .... . . . .. . . I'm "pro Chernobyl nuclear", we don't need containment domes and costly fail-safes, plus we can skip shielding and employ men in their 70s!!! But we re dummies so this won't happen, we sorta deserve extinction for this weak thinking.....
The Hard Questions concern Culture. I'm always interested in what quality and kind of growth people refer to. Under certain constraints how do we define growth? Also, what does one mean by Rich?
It is a bit cynical to say, "Well then people in South Vietnam can move to North Vietnam". There was a war between the two only fifty years ago, and the tensions are very real. In fact, this dynamic is present in many areas in the world. Some climate analysts predict that climate change will have some of its worst affects in parts of the world where tribal and ethnic tensions are highest. Christian Parenti's book "Tropic of Chaos" explains that climate related droughts often bring famine to already war-torn nations, thereby exacerbating the violence and misery people are experiencing. I do think Michael might be viewing the issue of mass migration and refugee flow through rose colored glasses. I'm sure Michael would have a rebuttal to this, but I thought it was worth noting.
The possible tensions arising from people forced to move inland a few miles are secondary to tensions likely to arise from cutting the entire country off from affordable energy, or from liquid fuels.
It's not a militia, it's a free-for-all. Start with well-regulated. A gun is just a club without munitions. Regulate the availability and possession of ammunition. Nothing to do with the 2nd amendment
A more important aspect is energy blindess with regards to the power house of the Diesel engine and crude. Without that, nothing gets built. So unless there is a protection and rationing of crude stores, i dont care if i have rebuildable solar and wind, nor nuclear.
Given the choice between Schellenberger's truth and the UN's lies, I choose truth. Many don't. Many prefer lies. I understand the grifters who love the money-making benefits, but why are so many others falling for this?
Poor Dr Krauss. He tried soooo hard over and over to trap Schellenberger. Mostly when Dr Krauss wasnt tongue tied, he was busy interrupting. I feel like Dr Krauss once witnessed a serious discussion, at least he thinks he did, and so feels like he can participate in one. Alas, not quiet. And let's have some specific criticisms to what Shellenberger has presented. The comments I've read as extremely qualitative and appear to reflect that the writers are largely unfamiliar with the issues MS eloquently presents. Wait! I have an idea. Read his book. This is my first exposure to Dr Krauss and his podcast. I'm hoping it will be my last.
Krauss is a weak interviewer. He’s so concerned about stirring up or defending his own beliefs. Shellenberger is trying to be transparent. Krauss is tip toeing around!
So the drought in California and almost the entire SW - how will that impact food production? And the rationing of water? Does that limit population growth?
The drought in CA is secondary to what CA does about water infrastructure and management. The coastal rainfall was never close to supporting the population without man made water retention, the inland food production was never close to supporting population without irrigation made possible by man made water retention. If CA decides to not build new and to not maintain old dams and canals, an instead decides to let all the mountain melt water run out to the sea, then drought or no they have a disaster looming.
@@Nill757 There is less rainfall and snowfall in California now. There is less underground water as well. It's called a drought. I don't know how California is supposed to build its way out of a drought.
@@rolfbattlec7672 Yes less now. There is still enough run off from the Sierras … IF you keep it all in water management, both in current dry years and stored longer term from wet years. If it’s dumped out to sea in the Sacramento River etc, then no you don’t. Keep in mind the coastal populations never has enough local precipitation in CA, in any year. Those populations depend on water shipped from inland. New reservoirs, canals are needed.
@@Nill757 so the 1000 year drought is not a problem? And no cut backs in water are needed. BTW 75% to 80% of California's water goes to agriculture NOT to cities. BTW 2: who pays for new infrastructure?
@@rolfbattlec7672 WTH? Of course drought is a problem, especially when Sierra mountain runoff dumps in the ocean. CA built a dozen major dams and reservoirs and hundreds of miles of water canals starting a hundred years ago. Residents paid for all that. Nothing new has been built in the last fifty years, even though population increased 20M in that time, and the existing infrastructure was allowed to decay.
Krauss is such a putz here, but plays a decent foil to enable Michael to shine ✨ I had no clue Krauss would be so ignorant of the subjects and addicted to dogma after he clearly read Michael’s work and took notes…
I’ve read one of Shellenberger’s books and listened to a number of his talks. As a liberal I’m convinced he’s doing God’s work. However, he would convince more of my tribe and perhaps reach a critical mass of opinion if he would spend less time denigrating liberals on MAGA shows.
shellenberger: “I love humanity, I love humankind” also shellenberger: “I don’t cry for people who lose their small farms to migrate into sweatshops and industrial parks in cities.” Shellenberger is the type of “naturalist” that want to empty indigenous of their native lands. He argues that villagers are financially better off working in city factories while not accounting for the cost disparity btw village life vs city life. Worst, while he confidently cite evident of for prosperity of the last 150 years he fail to account for how robots are already displacing factory workers in places like Vietnam.
if climate change is going to be causing poverty what caused it 100 years ago? isn't global poverty at one of the lowest levels its been? IT seems like a lot of banking on the environment getting worse when the data doesn't really support that.
A lot is used to heat the planet so that's reduced by the time it filters down to our level ? Again no engineer also absorbed by oceans used by plants but the potential seems huge
@@jeffnolan7392 One's a scientist, or rather, a theoretical physicist. And the other, a supporter for the best source of energy for advanced civilization. Never, I mean never, judge a book by its cover.
@@fireofenergy He is a mixed bag to me. His viewpoint is purely urban. He is not empathetic to rural people. His solution is that everbody should just move to a city for prosperity. Flip it and tell the urban downtrodden to move out to the country and raise livestock. Rural people see cties as noisy, dirty places where people live like rats. City people see rural as boring and its people as backward. He doesn't get that. I am suburban and hope to move to the country and live in an off grid, solar powered home with natural beauty around me.
@@markstipulkoski1389 Who said that everyone should move to the city? The scientist or the clean energy industrialist? That said, I feel like moving to the country, too (but I work suburban).
@@fireofenergy At 1:14:40, Shellenberger says "I don't cry for small farmers" and talks about displacing them. I am from a town on the Mississippi gulf coast that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina with a 30 foot tidal surge caused by the acts of man (destruction of Louisiana marshland that shielded my town from storm surge). People from California like Schellenberger pushed that the government should declare most of the town a national park and prevent people from rebuilding. People who live there have roots there for 300 years. He sounds just like those other California assholes.
This is great until 2.23 when they both agree that emissions have peaked and that this is an achievement. But the logical fallacy is apparent. The emissions have peaked because Western governments are enacting the very policies that Shellenberger is arguing against. He seems to be having it both ways. I am with him up to this point, but I have no idea why he suddenly says that the consequences of the stupid policies - and they are stupid - that he is arguing against, are an achievement.
I agree largly with this guy but why build a new coal fire power station in inda? African jumped past telephone wires and poles and jumped straight to smart phones. Industrialise yes but adopt the newer greener (not green) technologies. Coal and gas are both more expensive than re storage is the prime issue here so that needs to be our infrastructure focus.
75% of the worlds wildlife has vanished in the last 50 years and. during this time the worlds population has doubled. Some of these animals have become extinct. I would say this is mostly because of deforestation resulting in the loss of habitat. Things like DDT and other chemical pollution has also paid a part in this of course. There are an estimated 1'474 billion motor vehicles on the road world wide today. 19% of these are in America by the way. It is sad that we have lost so much, but these animals have important functions like bees for example which are a cornerstone species, but they are not the only pollinators of course. Birds carry pollen as well as seeds. You don't need a climate model to predict a catastrophe we are already in one. Its not as simple as this but if in 50 years 75% of the worlds wildlife has vanished and the worlds human population has doubled in that time then at the current rate of wildlife loss it will all be gone in 25 years and it will be just us with our livestock and our virus's left. Our children are being born on death row because of our addiction to oil and lack of respect to the planet and each other. So while we debate whether or not man made climate change is real or not the planet is dying. What a world to leave our kids and we say that we love them. Actions speak louder than words. The petrochemical industry is killing us.
What wrong with tightening up background checks?? Why check some and not others?? 100 round magazines are not needed for hunting. 12 rounds is plenty. No need to hunt with an AR-15; it ruins too much eat. Nobody does that. Too destructive for hunting ok for people?? AR-15 round is designed for maximum destruction of the enemy. not your neighbor. Bolt action rifles were used in WWI and WWII. Plenty effective. No need for semi-automatics rifles. (well regulated) militia, keep and bear arms. Hint: WELL REGULATED! Yes, 2nd amendment says that. Regulations are expected for guns.
You can opine about the virtues of bolt action. Far more accurate. A sniper will swear by one. Your definition of "well regulated" is not what you imply it means. You need to understand the context. Well regulated actually means trained. "Keep and bear arms" is not under the "well regulated militia". It is above that statement. The language is clear and it is you who muddy the public waters whom are unregulated. Don't be deceptive by twisting language to whatever end you seek. It only discredits you from being a sincere person.
I can't stand people like Shellenberger,who can't have a good conversation without constantly interrupting and raising his voice. An intelligent and emotionally mature person can have a conversation,or even a debate, without getting upset and interrupting and raising their voice. That's childish. And it's an attempt to strong-arm the other person and force your opinion on them by force of voice alone. Every good conversation or debate has the participants politely sharing their ideas and opinions with one another,and then explaining why you do or do not agree with one another. At no timr,is there a valid reason for raising your voice,interrupting,and shouting over the other person, just because you don't agree with what they are saying. You let them speak,and then you offer a rebuttal,afterward. This Shellenberger guy is a perfect example of how politics prevents things from getting done. It's this tendency to argue instead of consider.
Hey Walmart… can we start an adopt a child program where we get to sponsor one of the little dudes that’s are mining the ore we need for our phone batteries. I wanna contribute to 2 of those little dudes
I respect both of these guys, but Shellenburger won one most points in this discussion as far as I’m concerned. I think Laurence has too much trust in the current “climate change” nonsense which totally surprises me. He’s far too intelligent to think this way.
I thought this was a good discussion but a few things jumped out. First, Shellenberger assumes solar technology won't improve with respect to waste. Second, Shellenberger is dogmatic about centralized energy and wrongly lumps energy in with food, which clearly is something where in order to get variety and good nutrition we don't want to rely on local farms. Schellenberger never explains why Krauss wanting small nuclear is a bad idea. Krauss says that a 7 meter rise in sea level could happen but the IPCC estimates a 0.3 to 0.8 meter rise by 2100. A rise over 1.5 meters by 2100 is impossible.
wind and sun make its energi when we don't use the less energy and only 30% of the time in a year over lifecycle years 9% under the time we use most of ur energy over its lifecycle so you need 91% of outer energy sources if you want energy 24/7 to cover a 600MW nuclear plant with wind you need to install 6000MW so to say thats a area of 3 184 km²
IT seems to me Shellenberger gets more defensive as the discussion progresses. He may have had valid points, but his defensiveness tells me he's hiding something.
Shellenberger is a voice that should be amplified. He is the type of “liberal” that the “left” has left behind. He is sensible and willing to change his mind.
Probl is that ace wholes will suck life till it's aaaall gone.. one road leads to the next road leads to wall to wall pavement.
@@CONEHEADDK😊❤❤
l
] LLP] '
GB: ::u:::::v:::v:::v::::::9
He deserves applause for willing to change his mind but I wonder about his honesty.
I read an interview by Peter Gleick and it seems like Shellenberger totally misquotes scientists.
For example, he quotes a trio of scientists and suggests they were implying that a nuclear reactor could become a nuclear bomb even though right before the paragraph he quoted they directly said that it was impossible to turn a reactor into a bomb.
There are numerous errors like these including not understanding the language of scientists like the difference between ‘uncertainty’ and “don’t know what’s going to happen”.
I really have been enjoying Lawrence Krauss. His interviewing style is endearing, obviously well prepared and deeply researched . . . and he demonstrates a genuine interest in his subjects. I’m learning a lot.
Fantastic interview, thank-you Lawrence for having the intellectual bravery and honesty to have this conversation, bravo
I'd like to see Krauss have an Origins conversation with physicist Steven Koonin about his 2021 book: "Uncertainty: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"'
Interesting book - that would be a discussion worth watching.
@@lebowski_dude Michael Shermer interviewed Koonin, although ten months after the book was published. Shermer admitted he hesitated because he was concerned how progressive viewers would react.
Well done, Dr. Krauss - Shellenberger is an important voice on this subject
Yeah, an important voice if you're Krusty the Clown.
@@HoboGoblinCathe knows a lot more than you do
Well done?!?! Lawrence just embarrassed himself for 3.5 hours. This was pathetic. Now I can't decide who's lost more credibility him or Sam Harris. They have both made a joke out of themselves in recent years as emotional cowards and wanna be tyrants in the name of "the greater good" HA!
wishing him all the best. Hope he becomes the Governor. More power to sensible, far thinking individuals like him. Thanks Mr.Krauss for this conversation, and the update!
I love everything you've done Lawrence, but on the subject of climate I feel you've fully gone down the "we're doomed unless" road.
Perhaps you don't have young grandkids who'll hopefully still be around end of this century, as well as being unaware of Carbon Dioxide 'half life' in our atmosphere.
I'd appreciate you researching and returning with 'Eddie, you're right, this is as serious as stated'!
As the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 6 months. Not a big deal Eddie
@@johnbatson8779 between 300 to 1,000 years
Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it's added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.9 Oct 2019
@@johnbatson8779 Did you open and read that informative link I replied with?
If so, can you now commit to being a believer in the damage we're doing to our kids' environment?
@@eddieheron1939in fact it gets absorbed into the oceans too then travels in the deep sea currents and gets spat out 700 years later so what we load the atmosphere with now will get spat out centuries lattee.
As one who respects nature I would prefer ethics and massive resources being directed to getting compact nuclear right thus sparing large areas of land being directed to solar, wind and destructive mining for rare earths and the like.
Then the real emergency of plastics and natural world and species destruction can be addressed.
Great discussion! This was very interesting, and informative. Not every single idea Michael Shellenberger has is the answer to the madness, but it's at least an attempt to make things better.
No he's actually an idiot and liar
"All else being equal, we wouldn't want any temperature change, at all." Why? Was 1800 the optimum temperature for human flourishing? Is there any case to be made for that at all?
was thinking the same every time he said it :)
Great conversation. Bravo to both Michael and Lawrence for being taking criticisms in stride. Both made good points and both had some moments that they went off the rails a bit. But they both learned something and I am glad I listened
I like Michael, he is a rational environmentalist. He may not be exactly right in all his ideas, but his ideas need to be taken into consideration. He is a good foil for the highly emotive over the top catastrophists.
You ain't saying nothing. Everyone is not right in all their ideas. Why even say that if you are not even going to point out one of his wrong ideas
Very good point that Lawrence makes about hesitating in going into politics is that you can't really go into and talk about the real issues you feel are important ! Ideas and concepts for Planethood , World Peace and Human Solidarity , Illiminating the War Machines and Weapons that potentially can destroy our civilizations , working wholeistically to solve the vexing problems and alienations of our human family , etc, etc ! Instead candidates too often resort to petty party politics and criticisms , put downs and narcissistic ego bragging that we have been most familiar with the past few years ! We need to rise to a better standard of behavior and coherent enlightened thinking to serve the real needs and desires of all humankind !
Why does TH-cam keep force feeding me this channel? Every time I fall asleep I wake up to this guy. It tells you something about him that TH-cam tries to force him upon you.
Good but some "devil in details issues appeared". They discussed the time to make reactors like it is fixed at this decade-long process when we built the first X pile reactors on the Columbia river in about 2 years starting from not knowing how to build a reactor. The difference between then and now is we now know a lot more with better design and control capacity being strangled by a bureaucracy that has no idea of the cost of delay.
As an Applied Scientist (physics, chem, math with an undergraduate in mainly nuclear engineering) in '71 I took a job in the nuclear/environmental department contractor building reactors. My first assignment resulted in a design that would save about 10 million dollars along with higher performance, which went up the line only to be rejected because it would cost more than the savings to get it through the regulators. I switched to coal-fired plants with real environmental issues without regulatory permissions required.
Dr. Krauss said that solar didn't have these big regulatory delays without noting that the regulatory delays in building a solar-grade silicon production facility in the US are so large that it is impossible in the US to compete with China, which has 90% of the world's production because they allowed multi-billion dollar facilities to be built in 15 months. Technically these facilities are more like a cross between a steel plant and a major petrochemical plant. Yes, we can build an assembly plant in an empty building, but the solar silicon to create the material to assemble are into the regulator delay game on everything from the sand supply to the carbon supply, infrastructure needs, etc.
Michael kept saying well I have two points to make there when Lawrence would ask a question, but he could have had ten points it didn't matter as 20 seconds into his first point Lawrence would interrupt him and the conversation would veer off in another direction. Shellenberger had far more patients than I could have mustered.
Krauss is off putting. I always have to force myself to watch anything he’s in. Just here to hear what Shellenberger used to be like.
MS is an international treasure! An intellectual giant of our time!
Love Shellenberger, his books, Apocalypse Never and San-Fransicko are wonderful and well researched.
clearly, you don't know what the word 'research' means. Neither does that fraud shellenberger
Enjoyable informative interview/discussion with a demonstrably patient and gracious Michael Shellenberger - and an honest, somewhat uncomfortable acceptance of uncomfortable facts by Professor Krauss - cheers and thank you :O)
One of these two is well spoken and very intelligent.
Magnificent discussion !! 👌👍👍👍
You guys are great representatives of both sides on this debate.
I am hearing thoughts of Bjorn Lomborg. Love these dialectics. . Learn so much!
Hey, Please put out last 30 min interview about running for Governor separate TH-cam please. Seeing 2.5 hours is disincentive for listening.
Great vid, I have a lot of respect for both of you, keep it up. Love the jar of water 👍
Brilliant video. Fantastic educational value. Tremendous chance to live and learn. Cheers 😮
Wonderful discussion! Can't help but point out, the Koch brothers betrayal of Murray Rothbard shows exactly how libertarian they are.
1:12:20 (No)
“the worst heat level” will not be the tropics, per AGW theory, temps will rise marginally there, while northern latitudes experience timberlines again into the Arctic
What results is more uniform global temperatures, a smaller pressure gradient and so less extreme storms… win win
Looking forward to this one 😃
My Bubbie Sadie used to sing “Que Sera, Sera” to me. I remember the Hitchcock film, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and the Doris Day song fondly but I didn’t pay much attention to the lyrics. Sadie died 40 years ago. I miss her so much. It was so comforting, snuggling in her lap while she sang to me. What will today’s future grandmas or bubbies be singing to their future grandchildren?
I've never heard better arguments before on climate change.
47:20 wow.. lol 47 minutes in.. "one of the the things I want to ask you at the very beginning ..." love it!
Feisty. I appreciate that you let Shellenberger remonstrate while yourself remaining steadfast in your questioning.
Very interesting discussion. What I think is missed in this discussion is that most people serious about dealing with climate change understand that it is the large Industrialized countries that need to limit their greenhouse gasses etc. It was the oil companies that stopped us from putting specific limits on our emissions because they pushed the talking points through ads and lobbyists that it would be unfair to us if the undeveloped countries didn't have to do it to and it would hurt our economy too much (LOL.) But we could be curbing climate change better and limiting the impact Industrialized countries have on climate change while still letting developing countries industrialize.
This is exactly why we need to protect freedom of speech
We cannot ever have free speech in the corporate capitalist system that dominates our societies.
It is very obvious that Kraus as he admits himself i very new to the issue of climate change. His points are kind of sophomore points where one thing that pointing out a problem is proving some amazing point, not taking 2nd and 3rd order effects into account.
Shellenberger is great as always.
A great respectful discussion.
Shellenberger's point are sophmore? No they're not. He lies through his teeth.
He's not some innocent fool
A true delight to listen to.
The book has received positive reviews and coverage from conservative and libertarian news outlets and organizations,
Mekong Delta vulnerability has been enhanced by extensive dams in the upper Mekong Delta. Deltas live by having enough sediment to overcome sea level rise globally and deltaic subsidence locally. The reduction in sediment due to dams is problematic. Also, the legacy of delta destruction done during the Vietnam War. The impact of massive herbicides on the floral composition, especially plants more essential to retaining sediment and enhancing delta stability. I don't know if this has studied enough, though I stand to be corrected.
I enjoy this debate, but I have seen solar panels over parking lots which produces power from an existing use, while simultaneously providing shade for the vehicles in the summer months.
I suspect putting solar cells in cities over parking is dumb. It's like saying let's build housing over the parking. It's extra cost. Exhaust and tire dust gets on solar panels. It's hard to wash panels monthly if gotta wait for weekend. Some cats will crash into pillars... 50% of lower USA is unused land, too hilly or rocky or dry, no need to put the 2% of solar coverage on the 5% that is paved parking... And obviously solar around less sunny NE gets half the power as in Florida and third as in W Texas ... it's crazy how Germany is adding solar, that solar could be installed in Kenya around Kilimanjaro and produce 4x....
We have been about for Millennia. The only people worried about wind,water and weather are the ones living on the second floor of a house of cards....the rest already adjust daily because "that's life".
These are the best convos👌
Only for a bunch of yes men
@@AudioPervert1 no, I am not a yes man.
@@AudioPervert1 🤣 see how I just proved it there?
Equating people who have mental illnesses with gun toting mass murderers is wrong. The millions of people with mental health issues do not murder anyone. Get rid of the assault rifles and close loopholes. We know for a fact this will save lives.
What really bothers me is those who continue to cash in on economic growth are given deference concerning how much environmental damage everyone else should tolerate.
Wow.
Thank you.
Is that Captain Kirk in the background behind Laurence?
I thi
@@rodneyholmes720 …nk so?
How about instead of throwing your plastic in the regular garbage, we require a plastics recycling plant in every county in the country? Use of plastic products leads to ingestion and/or inhalation of large amounts of both microplastic particles and hundreds of toxic substances with known or suspected carcinogenic, developmental, or endocrine-disrupting impacts. Is Shellenberger saying that if we put it in a landfill, that serious health risk goes away?
Michael is PISSED in this interview. Daaaaaaaamn. I've never seen him this spicy.
Surely, a very significant feature of supporting Ukraine is to stall / prevent restructuring of another USSR.
Ask all the former USSR countries and others that avoided such then, and most certainly want that 'off the cards' for their future.
I’ve never experienced so many ads inserted into a TH-cam video before. I guess funding for the Origins project is a bit anemic these days? Or is that no longer a thing?
I have a concern that all wealthy countries have lower birth rates but larger and larger immigration to increase the population to keep driving growth. So what happens when all countries are developed?
Then we will hopefully see the obvious limits to the whole mistaken concept of unlimited growth.
Progress and growth are not exactly the same thing...as we have plainly seen they can even be exact opposites.
This is about wounded ego. Vanity and Politics. Who'd have thought?
One of the best episodes I've seen so far. So informative. About the nuclear power I already knew. I've been pro nuclear for some 30 years. Hydro and nuclear are the only two sensible alternatives in the long run. Living off grid of course private solar- and wind power make sense.
Living OFF the grid seems to require more energy. Besides having to commute far, if a city builds turbines and solar and batteries it can do it at lower cost in overhead and labor.... And the city can build less per capita since each person must build for their highest day in the year. And then off grid person must overbuild like x4 for the worst month of weather, Feb, while a city can run for 1 month their natural gas plants.. So a off grid person will need 4x or so, than what a city system can use. .. the millionaires to go off grid do 4x. The in poverty survivalists frankly huddle for Feb and don't run their machines, so ok they keep it to 2x.... Transmission losses are only 10% which is just physics its this low . So again letting city do it all is best ..... All this is sorta true for people on the grid who have some wind or solar .... . . . .. . . I'm "pro Chernobyl nuclear", we don't need containment domes and costly fail-safes, plus we can skip shielding and employ men in their 70s!!! But we re dummies so this won't happen, we sorta deserve extinction for this weak thinking.....
Michael Shellenberger telling Lawrence Krauss "NO, NO, THIS IS BASIC PHYSICS" as if Lawrence Krauss doesnt know basic physics.
Knowing and applying are two different things.
@@wbaumschlager
Uh, no.... No it isnt.
The Hard Questions concern Culture. I'm always interested in what quality and kind of growth people refer to. Under certain constraints how do we define growth? Also, what does one mean by Rich?
It is a bit cynical to say, "Well then people in South Vietnam can move to North Vietnam". There was a war between the two only fifty years ago, and the tensions are very real. In fact, this dynamic is present in many areas in the world. Some climate analysts predict that climate change will have some of its worst affects in parts of the world where tribal and ethnic tensions are highest. Christian Parenti's book "Tropic of Chaos" explains that climate related droughts often bring famine to already war-torn nations, thereby exacerbating the violence and misery people are experiencing. I do think Michael might be viewing the issue of mass migration and refugee flow through rose colored glasses. I'm sure Michael would have a rebuttal to this, but I thought it was worth noting.
The possible tensions arising from people forced to move inland a few miles are secondary to tensions likely to arise from cutting the entire country off from affordable energy, or from liquid fuels.
Shellenberger seems to have anaive view of the potential for human altruism.
It's not a militia, it's a free-for-all. Start with well-regulated. A gun is just a club without munitions. Regulate the availability and possession of ammunition. Nothing to do with the 2nd amendment
As well educated Krauss is in theoretical physics he is very uneducated in the field of applied energy.
Thank you.
Discoursing is necessary.
A more important aspect is energy blindess with regards to the power house of the Diesel engine and crude.
Without that, nothing gets built.
So unless there is a protection and rationing of crude stores, i dont care if i have rebuildable solar and wind, nor nuclear.
2:07:23 "of course I've seen it all" wow!
How is this guy a physicist and not know so much of the basic physics of energy?
Given the choice between Schellenberger's truth and the UN's lies, I choose truth. Many don't. Many prefer lies. I understand the grifters who love the money-making benefits, but why are so many others falling for this?
Poor Dr Krauss. He tried soooo hard over and over to trap Schellenberger. Mostly when Dr Krauss wasnt tongue tied, he was busy interrupting. I feel like Dr Krauss once witnessed a serious discussion, at least he thinks he did, and so feels like he can participate in one. Alas, not quiet.
And let's have some specific criticisms to what Shellenberger has presented. The comments I've read as extremely qualitative and appear to reflect that the writers are largely unfamiliar with the issues MS eloquently presents.
Wait! I have an idea. Read his book.
This is my first exposure to Dr Krauss and his podcast. I'm hoping it will be my last.
Krauss is a weak interviewer. He’s so concerned about stirring up or defending his own beliefs.
Shellenberger is trying to be transparent. Krauss is tip toeing around!
So the drought in California and almost the entire SW - how will that impact food production?
And the rationing of water? Does that limit population growth?
The drought in CA is secondary to what CA does about water infrastructure and management. The coastal rainfall was never close to supporting the population without man made water retention, the inland food production was never close to supporting population without irrigation made possible by man made water retention. If CA decides to not build new and to not maintain old dams and canals, an instead decides to let all the mountain melt water run out to the sea, then drought or no they have a disaster looming.
@@Nill757 There is less rainfall and snowfall in California now.
There is less underground water as well.
It's called a drought.
I don't know how California is supposed to build its way out of a drought.
@@rolfbattlec7672 Yes less now. There is still enough run off from the Sierras … IF you keep it all in water management, both in current dry years and stored longer term from wet years. If it’s dumped out to sea in the Sacramento River etc, then no you don’t.
Keep in mind the coastal populations never has enough local precipitation in CA, in any year. Those populations depend on water shipped from inland. New reservoirs, canals are needed.
@@Nill757 so the 1000 year drought is not a problem?
And no cut backs in water are needed.
BTW 75% to 80% of California's water goes to agriculture NOT to cities.
BTW 2: who pays for new infrastructure?
@@rolfbattlec7672 WTH? Of course drought is a problem, especially when Sierra mountain runoff dumps in the ocean. CA built a dozen major dams and reservoirs and hundreds of miles of water canals starting a hundred years ago. Residents paid for all that. Nothing new has been built in the last fifty years, even though population increased 20M in that time, and the existing infrastructure was allowed to decay.
Krauss is such a putz here, but plays a decent foil to enable Michael to shine ✨
I had no clue Krauss would be so ignorant of the subjects and addicted to dogma after he clearly read Michael’s work and took notes…
I’ve read one of Shellenberger’s books and listened to a number of his talks. As a liberal I’m convinced he’s doing God’s work. However, he would convince more of my tribe and perhaps reach a critical mass of opinion if he would spend less time denigrating liberals on MAGA shows.
shellenberger: “I love humanity, I love humankind”
also shellenberger: “I don’t cry for people who lose their small farms to migrate into sweatshops and industrial parks in cities.”
Shellenberger is the type of “naturalist” that want to empty indigenous of their native lands. He argues that villagers are financially better off working in city factories while not accounting for the cost disparity btw village life vs city life. Worst, while he confidently cite evident of for prosperity of the last 150 years he fail to account for how robots are already displacing factory workers in places like Vietnam.
Nuclear is more expensive than other soruces of power? Shellenberger seems to ignore economics.
Planetary boundaries literature says #1 is declining biodiversity.
if climate change is going to be causing poverty what caused it 100 years ago? isn't global poverty at one of the lowest levels its been? IT seems like a lot of banking on the environment getting worse when the data doesn't really support that.
170,000 Tera watts of energy hits the earth every day, I’m not an engineer but can’t someone sort out how to use that ?
A lot is used to heat the planet so that's reduced by the time it filters down to our level ?
Again no engineer also absorbed by oceans used by plants but the potential seems huge
Too dilute. And in any particular location, that energy doesn't arrive at night or during cloudy weather.
This guy has a Masters degree in anthropology, and he lives in Berkeley. With those credentials, how can anyone doubt his views?
cuz he's a fraud
@@jeffnolan7392
One's a scientist, or rather, a theoretical physicist. And the other, a supporter for the best source of energy for advanced civilization.
Never, I mean never, judge a book by its cover.
@@fireofenergy He is a mixed bag to me. His viewpoint is purely urban. He is not empathetic to rural people. His solution is that everbody should just move to a city for prosperity. Flip it and tell the urban downtrodden to move out to the country and raise livestock. Rural people see cties as noisy, dirty places where people live like rats. City people see rural as boring and its people as backward. He doesn't get that. I am suburban and hope to move to the country and live in an off grid, solar powered home with natural beauty around me.
@@markstipulkoski1389
Who said that everyone should move to the city? The scientist or the clean energy industrialist?
That said, I feel like moving to the country, too (but I work suburban).
@@fireofenergy At 1:14:40, Shellenberger says "I don't cry for small farmers" and talks about displacing them. I am from a town on the Mississippi gulf coast that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina with a 30 foot tidal surge caused by the acts of man (destruction of Louisiana marshland that shielded my town from storm surge). People from California like Schellenberger pushed that the government should declare most of the town a national park and prevent people from rebuilding. People who live there have roots there for 300 years. He sounds just like those other California assholes.
Both on the beam!
Thanks much guys.
This is great until 2.23 when they both agree that emissions have peaked and that this is an achievement. But the logical fallacy is apparent. The emissions have peaked because Western governments are enacting the very policies that Shellenberger is arguing against. He seems to be having it both ways. I am with him up to this point, but I have no idea why he suddenly says that the consequences of the stupid policies - and they are stupid - that he is arguing against, are an achievement.
9:50 "No one's reported back from the dead and told us that there's an afterlife." NDE's anyone.
Lawrence, you say you have left the US, smart move with their antique gun laws.
Is it lousy governance that inhibits economic development?
"Arguably,if you kill ANYONE you're mentally ill." Stupidist quote ever.Self-defense? Such an intelligent guy,too.
There's not enough Uranium to meet demand.
I agree largly with this guy but why build a new coal fire power station in inda? African jumped past telephone wires and poles and jumped straight to smart phones. Industrialise yes but adopt the newer greener (not green) technologies. Coal and gas are both more expensive than re storage is the prime issue here so that needs to be our infrastructure focus.
75% of the worlds wildlife has vanished in the last 50 years and. during this time the worlds population has doubled. Some of these animals have become extinct. I would say this is mostly because of deforestation resulting in the loss of habitat. Things like DDT and other chemical pollution has also paid a part in this of course. There are an estimated 1'474 billion motor vehicles on the road world wide today. 19% of these are in America by the way. It is sad that we have lost so much, but these animals have important functions like bees for example which are a cornerstone species, but they are not the only pollinators of course. Birds carry pollen as well as seeds. You don't need a climate model to predict a catastrophe we are already in one. Its not as simple as this but if in 50 years 75% of the worlds wildlife has vanished and the worlds human population has doubled in that time then at the current rate of wildlife loss it will all be gone in 25 years and it will be just us with our livestock and our virus's left. Our children are being born on death row because of our addiction to oil and lack of respect to the planet and each other. So while we debate whether or not man made climate change is real or not the planet is dying. What a world to leave our kids and we say that we love them. Actions speak louder than words. The petrochemical industry is killing us.
What wrong with tightening up background checks?? Why check some and not others?? 100 round magazines are not needed for hunting. 12 rounds is plenty. No need to hunt with an AR-15; it ruins too much eat. Nobody does that. Too destructive for hunting ok for people?? AR-15 round is designed for maximum destruction of the enemy. not your neighbor. Bolt action rifles were used in WWI and WWII. Plenty effective. No need for semi-automatics rifles. (well regulated) militia, keep and bear arms. Hint: WELL REGULATED! Yes, 2nd amendment says that. Regulations are expected for guns.
You can opine about the virtues of bolt action. Far more accurate. A sniper will swear by one.
Your definition of "well regulated" is not what you imply it means. You need to understand the context.
Well regulated actually means trained. "Keep and bear arms" is not under the "well regulated militia". It is above that statement. The language is clear and it is you who muddy the public waters whom are unregulated.
Don't be deceptive by twisting language to whatever end you seek. It only discredits you from being a sincere person.
Guns don't kill people, Bullets kill people!!! Global Warming will have to take my firearms from my cold dead hands!!!!
Why isn’t Plymouth Rock not under water after 400 years?
I can't stand people like Shellenberger,who can't have a good conversation without constantly interrupting and raising his voice. An intelligent and emotionally mature person can have a conversation,or even a debate, without getting upset and interrupting and raising their voice. That's childish. And it's an attempt to strong-arm the other person and force your opinion on them by force of voice alone. Every good conversation or debate has the participants politely sharing their ideas and opinions with one another,and then explaining why you do or do not agree with one another. At no timr,is there a valid reason for raising your voice,interrupting,and shouting over the other person, just because you don't agree with what they are saying. You let them speak,and then you offer a rebuttal,afterward. This Shellenberger guy is a perfect example of how politics prevents things from getting done. It's this tendency to argue instead of consider.
It is difficult to deal with ignorant critics.
Why have you removed my first comment?
Lost me on the farm issue.Losing family farms started the American downfall.Along with women's lib.
Hey Walmart… can we start an adopt a child program where we get to sponsor one of the little dudes that’s are mining the ore we need for our phone batteries. I wanna contribute to 2 of those little dudes
Berkeley is fine screw the rest. What an attitude…
Sarcasm: poverty is great. I don't know how I'd keep my shed full of slaves without it.
😂
What is Michael talking about on the London Underground?
I respect both of these guys, but Shellenburger won one most points in this discussion as far as I’m concerned. I think Laurence has too much trust in the current “climate change” nonsense which totally surprises me. He’s far too intelligent to think this way.
I thought this was a good discussion but a few things jumped out. First, Shellenberger assumes solar technology won't improve with respect to waste. Second, Shellenberger is dogmatic about centralized energy and wrongly lumps energy in with food, which clearly is something where in order to get variety and good nutrition we don't want to rely on local farms. Schellenberger never explains why Krauss wanting small nuclear is a bad idea.
Krauss says that a 7 meter rise in sea level could happen but the IPCC estimates a 0.3 to 0.8 meter rise by 2100. A rise over 1.5 meters by 2100 is impossible.
wind and sun make its energi when we don't use the less energy and only 30% of the time in a year over lifecycle years 9% under the time we use most of ur energy over its lifecycle so you need 91% of outer energy sources if you want energy 24/7 to cover a 600MW nuclear plant with wind you need to install 6000MW so to say thats a area of 3 184 km²
IT seems to me Shellenberger gets more defensive as the discussion progresses. He may have had valid points, but his defensiveness tells me he's hiding something.
if you are a kid you smell how petrol exhausts make you breathing system bloody, now you are used and lagg the memory
The climate is just fine ☺