I’m constantly astounded that Bjørn Lomborg is almost personal non grata in the climate discussion. I think it’s useful to have points of view from different perspectives.
There is no real discussion because there is 98% consent through the scientific studys about climate change. Well, first knowledge about climate change based on human influence is from 1848 (Humboldt) and people still think it's a hox. Yeah crazy right? Lomborg is well known because he took money from oil companies - sorry - from organizations who are funded by the oil lobby. For example why hes not respected look in his wikipedia article it says "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis", accusing Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature. There are reasons real scientists don't respect him. The Murdoch empire or KKR are on the way to destroy the natural resources for future generations. It's sad Joe Rogan is now part of that.
I worked at a cement plant. We had a kiln about 250 ft long to cook the cement. We burned lpg mainly, but we'd also get train tankers of thinners and all types of liquids that had to be burned. This company got qualified to burn to dispose of all this stuff, including plastic trash. They had chemiest working there to calculate the thermal effectiveness of all fuels. Why? Because the company was paid to use these fuels.
Joe seems to miss that coal creates many more pollution-related issues than fracking. There is not a single path, as Bjorn repeats, that is free of problems. You either get more pollution and CO2 in Appalachia and Wyoming with coal. Or your get less (but not zero) pollution and CO2 in Texas (and other fracking states). You're gonna get CO2 with both energy sources: coal and fracking. Fracking simply gives you more benefits and fewer side effects vs coal.
The idea behind having electric cars powered by coal-fired electric power plants is this: this arrangement is helpful for air quality in congested urban areas. The number of pollutant emitters is reduced to a handful of power plants located outside the urban area, and which can be equipped with elaborate systems to remove pollutants (note: CO2 is not really a pollutant). This is the immediate benefit of electric vehicles, and probably the only substantial benefit in the near term.
@@illegalopinions4082 Actually, the CO2 business is a recent thing, and it is absolutely silly to think that electric cars are a factor there, unless one plans to replace all fossil-fuel electric plants with nuclear-powered ones. This electric and hybrid vehicle thing started off in the late 80s and early 90s, when the California Air Resources Board was considering how to reduce air pollution (NOx, particulates, etc.) in urban areas.
@@RichardBonomo Hybrids aren't a factor in this conversation and the goal is to reduce the number of cars, not replace them 1 for 1. CO2 is intrinsically linked to the promotion of EVs instead of ICE cars in concert with ever tightening emissions regulations and outright bans on the sale of new ICE vehicles. What makes you think that EVs aren't directly related to the conversation about CO2 and its effect on global warming? The solution they propose to global warming includes EVs charged by "renewable" sources with absolutely no use of fossil fuels anywhere.
@@illegalopinions4082 My point is that this whole business *started* with the desire/need to reduce pollution in urban areas, and hybrids were certainly relevant. The chatter has morphed. I know certain parties have pushed the idea that EVs can be used to reduce CO2, but, in itself, that makes no sense unless you can switch the electricity sources that are derived from nuclear energy. I won't go into the whole CO2 business here, because the validity of that concern is an entirely different conversation. Also, the whole ideology of wanting to reduce the number of cars is another conversation.
The problem at Fukushima wasn't safety, system reliability or lack of fail-safe systems. The reactor safely shutdown when the Tsunami was detected. The reason radiation was released is because the Tsunami was so powerful, it literally destroyed the entire nuclear facility & the reactor. The edge of an ocean susceptible to or prone to underwater earthquakes and Tsunamis probably wasn't the smartest place to build a Nuclear Reactor facility. The Chernobyl disaster wasn't caused by a failure of any safety system(s) or a system failure. The people running the Reactor were doing a test that they knew was dangerous. They wanted to see if they could change out a fuel rod without shutting down the Reactor. They powered down the Reactor to around 20% and tried to remove a fuel rod. The safety system(s) wouldn't allow the rod to be removed - so they shut off/disabled the safety system(s) and started to remove the rod. That's when the Reactor went into melt down and they couldn't reverse/stop it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Three Mile Island was another human error caused accident. But, the amount of radiation released was no more than what one would get if you were outside all day, exposed to the sun. No more than getting an x-ray. Keep in mind, the US Navy has been using Nuclear Reactors to power ships & submarines since the 1950's. Currently, all of the US Navy's aircraft carries, submarines and many other ships are Nuclear powered.
@@ScoriacTears The Japanese Archipelago has 360° of coastline. Rather than build a Nuclear Power Station on the WEST side, directly on the Pacific Ocean, which is prone to Tsunamis, they shoulda/coulda found a location on the EAST side, on the Sea of Japan coastline, where the chance of a Tsunami occurring would be far less. Japan is located in an area where several continental and oceanic plates meet in the Pacific Ocean, and has a high amount of seismic activity. Earthquakes occurring on the ocean's floor is what triggers Tsunamis.
But France, which derives 85% of its total energy needs from nuclear, has nuclear energy down to a science. You build a simplified straightforward design and you cookie-cutter it everywhere. You make sure you only build reactors on solid sites with no geological activity. And now there are breeder reactors, which are actually fueled by nuclear waste from traditional fission reactors. And we get closer every year to developing workable fusion reactors. What we see in climate among other issues is that no one is trying to serve mankind. Everybody seems to be trying to serve some political narrative or outcome. Those always require some sort of bogeyman… Something that the population must fear. Hello, climate crisis.
@@davidbroussard8760 France also has some of the least expensive consumer electricity in Europe, thanks to nuclear power. The problem in the US is the cost to build new nuclear power plants & the time factor to build them. Endless lawsuits by special interest group (always the usual suspects) along with continually changing regulations - all done intentionally to delay and make the cost to build financially prohibitive, prevent us from building power plants that are the cleanest and best overall way of producing electricity. Sad...
I would like to know why Bjorn says kids are eating better nutrition today. I understand if you compare it to 100 years ago. Nowadays, we in North America, have an apparent illusion of more “food”, but maybe 80% or more is not nutritious, hence not “food”. As the obesity issue affects more and more kids and younger every year, I cannot believe that that’s not affecting their minds and their intellectual abilities.
You're comparing kids that had food available to eat then, to kids that have food available to eat now. He's referring to kids that didn't have food to eat then.
Dr Steve Allan is perfect for your podcast. He is a pilot and sailor and has devoted his life to researching micro plastics that are in every part of our lives. He is the ultimate adventurer and scientist .
Why arnt you talking about the micro plastics in the air? You should be talking to Steve Allan about what we are breathing in. Why isn’t anybody talking about this. The studies have proven the effects of micro plastics in the air but the industry doesn’t want anybody to know this.
He's good on some things, but terrible on others. IQ might have gone up, but G hasn't. It's called the flynn effect. Reaction time tests show that humans were more intelligent in 1890 than today.
Please have a chat with Steve Allan. He will be presenting to the Canadian government and you need to hear what he has to say. Micro plastics are in everything. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. The amounts directly correlate with plastic production.
Just not a fact. My employer has a business plan that in 4 years will put out up to 900.000.000 pieces of disposable plastic items per YEAR. That alone will add 13.500 tons of plastic all derived from oil.
Fracking takes massive amounts of water and increases possibly of earthquake because they dig deeper, also the natural gas produced doesn't benefit Americans. It's compressed and shipped and sold to eruope making energy companies richer. Europe/UK decided buying expensive natural gas from America when they could invest in the infrastructure already in use to increase the natural gas they already get from Russia. These countries got together and invested to build the Nordstream to supply cheap ,unfracked, uncompressed natural gas from Russia. Which is their right to do. Then guess happened next America put troops on Ukraine/Russian border, we committed an act of terrorism and blew up the underground pipeline, caused environmental disaster and forced those countries to buy our expensive natural gas.
yep. and for saying this out in the public, pulitzer winner Seymour Hersh, Prof. Mearsheimer, Prof. Sachs, indipendent journalist G. Greenwald and so many others got called by the Anne Applebaums of the world, "Putin flankers", "Putin propagandist". 😓
Great info Bjorn, but I think you hugely under estimate the economic and emission reduction benefits of using EVs and other clean energies. EV costs are coming in parity with ICE vehicles, and the operating cost is much lower, so why encourage usage of more expensive and polluting ICE vehicles. Solar, wind and battery energy systems are the cleanest, lowest cost and fastest to build than any other technology, so why encourage usage of fracking and natural gas power plants, or others. China has switched over to EVs, and has more EV and battery patents than any other country and buy the most number of vehicles, so why encourage ICE vehicles which are going the way of the the horse and buggy. All of these things are lower cost for consumers and help reduce emissions to reduce global warming, a win win.
I’m constantly astounded that Bjørn Lomborg is almost personal non grata in the climate discussion. I think it’s useful to have points of view from different perspectives.
There is no real discussion because there is 98% consent through the scientific studys about climate change. Well, first knowledge about climate change based on human influence is from 1848 (Humboldt) and people still think it's a hox. Yeah crazy right? Lomborg is well known because he took money from oil companies - sorry - from organizations who are funded by the oil lobby. For example why hes not respected look in his wikipedia article it says "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis", accusing Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature. There are reasons real scientists don't respect him. The Murdoch empire or KKR are on the way to destroy the natural resources for future generations. It's sad Joe Rogan is now part of that.
And if he's wrong, we should hold him accountable.
Joe and Jamie where very critical on this one. A shame if you ask me, imo Bjørn is brilliant.
enjoyed this conversation, very interesting
I worked at a cement plant. We had a kiln about 250 ft long to cook the cement. We burned lpg mainly, but we'd also get train tankers of thinners and all types of liquids that had to be burned. This company got qualified to burn to dispose of all this stuff, including plastic trash. They had chemiest working there to calculate the thermal effectiveness of all fuels. Why? Because the company was paid to use these fuels.
Joe seems to miss that coal creates many more pollution-related issues than fracking. There is not a single path, as Bjorn repeats, that is free of problems.
You either get more pollution and CO2 in Appalachia and Wyoming with coal. Or your get less (but not zero) pollution and CO2 in Texas (and other fracking states). You're gonna get CO2 with both energy sources: coal and fracking. Fracking simply gives you more benefits and fewer side effects vs coal.
Maybe he needs to go to Edinburgh to see the coal-stained buildings from long ago and imagine that in his lungs.
Interview begins at 2 hours 14 minutes. Cool, clever, well spoken American vs brilliant European speaking 2nd or 3rd language.
The idea behind having electric cars powered by coal-fired electric power plants is this: this arrangement is helpful for air quality in congested urban areas. The number of pollutant emitters is reduced to a handful of power plants located outside the urban area, and which can be equipped with elaborate systems to remove pollutants (note: CO2 is not really a pollutant). This is the immediate benefit of electric vehicles, and probably the only substantial benefit in the near term.
Pollution doesn't remotely enter the messaging with "green" vehicles. It's all about CO2.
@@illegalopinions4082 Actually, the CO2 business is a recent thing, and it is absolutely silly to think that electric cars are a factor there, unless one plans to replace all fossil-fuel electric plants with nuclear-powered ones. This electric and hybrid vehicle thing started off in the late 80s and early 90s, when the California Air Resources Board was considering how to reduce air pollution (NOx, particulates, etc.) in urban areas.
@@RichardBonomo Hybrids aren't a factor in this conversation and the goal is to reduce the number of cars, not replace them 1 for 1. CO2 is intrinsically linked to the promotion of EVs instead of ICE cars in concert with ever tightening emissions regulations and outright bans on the sale of new ICE vehicles. What makes you think that EVs aren't directly related to the conversation about CO2 and its effect on global warming? The solution they propose to global warming includes EVs charged by "renewable" sources with absolutely no use of fossil fuels anywhere.
@@illegalopinions4082 My point is that this whole business *started* with the desire/need to reduce pollution in urban areas, and hybrids were certainly relevant. The chatter has morphed. I know certain parties have pushed the idea that EVs can be used to reduce CO2, but, in itself, that makes no sense unless you can switch the electricity sources that are derived from nuclear energy. I won't go into the whole CO2 business here, because the validity of that concern is an entirely different conversation. Also, the whole ideology of wanting to reduce the number of cars is another conversation.
You need to have Alan Savory on the show any time soon!
@PowerfulJRR Alan Savory on Regenerative Farming and Judith Curry on climate.
1:41:00 Craig Venter’s petroleum algae is not free floating in the ocean, but in sealed bags rafted together.
The problem at Fukushima wasn't safety, system reliability or lack of fail-safe systems. The reactor safely shutdown when the Tsunami was detected. The reason radiation was released is because the Tsunami was so powerful, it literally destroyed the entire nuclear facility & the reactor. The edge of an ocean susceptible to or prone to underwater earthquakes and Tsunamis probably wasn't the smartest place to build a Nuclear Reactor facility. The Chernobyl disaster wasn't caused by a failure of any safety system(s) or a system failure. The people running the Reactor were doing a test that they knew was dangerous. They wanted to see if they could change out a fuel rod without shutting down the Reactor. They powered down the Reactor to around 20% and tried to remove a fuel rod. The safety system(s) wouldn't allow the rod to be removed - so they shut off/disabled the safety system(s) and started to remove the rod. That's when the Reactor went into melt down and they couldn't reverse/stop it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Three Mile Island was another human error caused accident. But, the amount of radiation released was no more than what one would get if you were outside all day, exposed to the sun. No more than getting an x-ray. Keep in mind, the US Navy has been using Nuclear Reactors to power ships & submarines since the 1950's. Currently, all of the US Navy's aircraft carries, submarines and many other ships are Nuclear powered.
Good thing we need no fission to end FF.
it was built next to the sea to be close to a source of water for cooling purposes obviously!
@@ScoriacTears The Japanese Archipelago has 360° of coastline. Rather than build a Nuclear Power Station on the WEST side, directly on the Pacific Ocean, which is prone to Tsunamis, they shoulda/coulda found a location on the EAST side, on the Sea of Japan coastline, where the chance of a Tsunami occurring would be far less. Japan is located in an area where several continental and oceanic plates meet in the Pacific Ocean, and has a high amount of seismic activity. Earthquakes occurring on the ocean's floor is what triggers Tsunamis.
But France, which derives 85% of its total energy needs from nuclear, has nuclear energy down to a science. You build a simplified straightforward design and you cookie-cutter it everywhere. You make sure you only build reactors on solid sites with no geological activity. And now there are breeder reactors, which are actually fueled by nuclear waste from traditional fission reactors. And we get closer every year to developing workable fusion reactors.
What we see in climate among other issues is that no one is trying to serve mankind. Everybody seems to be trying to serve some political narrative or outcome. Those always require some sort of bogeyman… Something that the population must fear. Hello, climate crisis.
@@davidbroussard8760 France also has some of the least expensive consumer electricity in Europe, thanks to nuclear power.
The problem in the US is the cost to build new nuclear power plants & the time factor to build them. Endless lawsuits by special interest group (always the usual suspects) along with continually changing regulations - all done intentionally to delay and make the cost to build financially prohibitive, prevent us from building power plants that are the cleanest and best overall way of producing electricity. Sad...
Only 13 k views ??? Has this been suppressed ?
100%
Joe has 18.6 million subscribers. Only 13k willing to watch one of his videos?
Wow man. Pull that up Jamie.
I would like to know why Bjorn says kids are eating better nutrition today. I understand if you compare it to 100 years ago. Nowadays, we in North America, have an apparent illusion of more “food”, but maybe 80% or more is not nutritious, hence not “food”. As the obesity issue affects more and more kids and younger every year, I cannot believe that that’s not affecting their minds and their intellectual abilities.
…and physical abilities. I agree, it sounded weird to me too.
You're comparing kids that had food available to eat then, to kids that have food available to eat now. He's referring to kids that didn't have food to eat then.
58:30 TLDR of the whole podcast in one sentence
Why?
Dr Steve Allan is perfect for your podcast. He is a pilot and sailor and has devoted his life to researching micro plastics that are in every part of our lives. He is the ultimate adventurer and scientist .
Rogan dumped his entire catalog on this day!
what do you mean?
@@Karussellbremser179 He re-uploaded a bunch of his old episodes all at once.
480 views lol, i assume rogans spotify deal has expired or whatever its called
Who is the off-camera voice?
Jamie, Joe's Boss
@@TrendyChronicles Does he ever show himself?
@@RichardBonomo rarely, but I think he was shown in this episode for a second actually
It’s crazy how little we question the status quo’s now days compared to most of history
Uploaded 2 months ago and has 9000 views on a channel with millions of subs??
I love listening to Joe grilling this guy.😅
Why arnt you talking about the micro plastics in the air? You should be talking to Steve Allan about what we are breathing in. Why isn’t anybody talking about this. The studies have proven the effects of micro plastics in the air but the industry doesn’t want anybody to know this.
Gotta go to RosAtom for nuclear pp, right?
On time, safe and fast?
He's good on some things, but terrible on others.
IQ might have gone up, but G hasn't. It's called the flynn effect. Reaction time tests show that humans were more intelligent in 1890 than today.
G wiz? G string? Golly G? G force?
Please have a chat with Steve Allan. He will be presenting to the Canadian government and you need to hear what he has to say. Micro plastics are in everything. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. The amounts directly correlate with plastic production.
Coal stops growing next year and then goes down by half by 2030. Peak oil is this year or next.
Just delusional thinking
Just not a fact.
My employer has a business plan that in 4 years will put out up to 900.000.000 pieces of disposable plastic items per YEAR.
That alone will add 13.500 tons of plastic all derived from oil.
They're turning the freakin frogs gay
Woooa
Fracking takes massive amounts of water and increases possibly of earthquake because they dig deeper, also the natural gas produced doesn't benefit Americans. It's compressed and shipped and sold to eruope making energy companies richer. Europe/UK decided buying expensive natural gas from America when they could invest in the infrastructure already in use to increase the natural gas they already get from Russia. These countries got together and invested to build the Nordstream to supply cheap ,unfracked, uncompressed natural gas from Russia. Which is their right to do. Then guess happened next America put troops on Ukraine/Russian border, we committed an act of terrorism and blew up the underground pipeline, caused environmental disaster and forced those countries to buy our expensive natural gas.
yep. and for saying this out in the public, pulitzer winner Seymour Hersh, Prof. Mearsheimer, Prof. Sachs, indipendent journalist G. Greenwald and so many others got called by the Anne Applebaums of the world, "Putin flankers", "Putin propagandist". 😓
Tuesday in the USA.
He loses me with the access to contraception comment.
Dr Steve Allan
If you post that only one more time you get a prize.
WTF another one!!!!
Joe interrupted wayyy too much this episode
I enjoyed this discussion but I think that Joe swears too much. Swearing is lazy and distracts from the points being made
This guy may know economics, but he doesn’t know how nature works. Makes it hard to trust anything he says.
Spit the damn words out bjorn. Almost impossible to watch.
1st
Great info Bjorn, but I think you hugely under estimate the economic and emission reduction benefits of using EVs and other clean energies. EV costs are coming in parity with ICE vehicles, and the operating cost is much lower, so why encourage usage of more expensive and polluting ICE vehicles. Solar, wind and battery energy systems are the cleanest, lowest cost and fastest to build than any other technology, so why encourage usage of fracking and natural gas power plants, or others. China has switched over to EVs, and has more EV and battery patents than any other country and buy the most number of vehicles, so why encourage ICE vehicles which are going the way of the the horse and buggy. All of these things are lower cost for consumers and help reduce emissions to reduce global warming, a win win.
You don’t even know what it takes to make the batteries that goes into those EV’s. It’s horrible for the environment.
No such thing as cold death in Florida so its location specific. Air condition or die here
someone look at my taint, I need to know if my body is compromised