Good to see you two. How are you faring in this pandemic time. A little cabin fever, i must admit, im eager to get back to traveling again, i was getting sick of it before the pandemic and im eager to get out of california. How are you . Pretty good were all doing what we can to get through it. Even the movie contagion which said was going to happen Something Like this but it did not capture the full scope of what is unfolding, a gift to my first question about the book which is apocalypse never, very definitive statement unless surgeon wants and i missed, it implies certainty and worlds of interlaced, i describe her Current Situation as tripwires and landmines that are complex and largely unpredictable in the system. So are you confident when you say apocalypse never. Thank you andy, the argument of the book is that Climate Change is real but its not the end of the world and not the most serious environmental problem, ive been a climate activist for 20 years environmental for 30, i see what im trying to do, if your cancer doctor and adventurer saint everybodys going to die of cancer or billions are going to die of cancer in ten years saying wait a second, i care about this issue and i dont like to see that level of extremism, alarmism and exaggeration. Are they scenarios in which you can imagine Climate Change destroying civilization, sure. You can imagine that, theres no scientific basis for. By contrast, there was a very basis for imagining the current pandemic. The warning of the pandemic organ really pressing it including coming from a run a virus or poor hygiene and Small Farmers and markets, its not impossible but to say lets get our understanding straight, one of the most shocking things that most people dont know, this is where the news media deserves a lot of blame, deaths from natural disasters have declined 90 and 80 90 over the last 40 years, there is no scenario in any report for that number to reverse itself. There is no basis for thinking that we are going to see, they say the biggest probably ever faced, its kind of like really, that would imply that we have some mechanism for the death told the reverse itself or damages from extreme weather events or increase or collapse in Food Production, were producing 25 more food than we need and according to every major report and basic understanding, though food surplus should rise as they have access to fertilizer tractors, your nation and the other elements. Never say never, aliens could invade. There could be some cosmic problem were not aware of, never say never but to say upon publics, i think the title means a defiant which is asserting lets never have another poapocalypse. The goal is to prod in challenging given you conversation. Although i do wonder sometimes, ive been to this with all and theres a new when they came out this year, i see the form is kinda brittle and also is more visible in the edge of the argument and so many of us have bought into this and even a book will sell, most people are actually not brought into this and you wouldve listened to the argument, i wonder with the argument, they are trying to do the thing that does not need to be done, theyre going to the edges. And i embrace my writing and this is my cover story and ml donovan apocalypse with tobacco to the back to a nuance reporting for the last ten or 15 years. Which got the underlying point you make in the book, you just say Energy Density in the look at the landscape and what could they theoretically and no contest which is what we need and yet i would love to see, many could articulate how you move to a roadmap, the roadmaps are nuclear in almost probable from a renewable extension, what is your call on how you would actually get that done. Thank you for the question, obviously titles or titles, you only get one or two words for title the book is a defense of human civilization, Human Development and progress and appoints out the air pollution rises as nations industrialized and urbanized but we also see now that it peaked in 16 years ago, there is every reason to believe theyre going to peek in developing economies within ten years, some people think they peaked already in going to go down so temperatures are very unlikely to give 3 degrees in preindustrial levels, there is uncertainty but remember the Nobel Prize Winner working on Climate Change says optimal level was 4 degrees meaning the level where costs and benefits were properly accounted for, i dont actually cite that in my book or rely on models and am not crazy about models but the overall direction and the trends and pointing to our incredibly positive, the biggest use of land is for pastoring me production, it peaked in the 2000, it peaked 20 years ago and is declined in an area in the size of alaska, we should celebrate that, human resilience, National Disasters, mortality, these are amazing trends and that is not the end of the story, theres some very serious environmental problems we still need to deal with so i point to the fact that 122 billion people use wood for fuel, one of the biggest threats to wild animals, we continue to eat them, that goes for wild fish and many of the things that environmental groups have advocated are bad for the environment, they require 300 400 times land the natural gas or nuclear plants. I think my views have been really badly misrepresented by people who know better, i said michael youre just insisting its all nuclear. That is not true, and to defend the right to burn coal, it is better than burning wood, i defend fracking for national gas because is better than coal, people say are you pro natural gas or antinatural gas. Im in favor natural gas, im against it when it replaces nuclear. In my view humans will be 100 nuclear, when will that be . It could be as early as 2100, it will probably not be, but its no more ridiculous to think will be 100 nuclear than fossil fuel, where it 90 in terms of primary energy. I dont think its that farfetched. First and foremost, the technology we used to make the most powerful weapons that humans have ever made, the ultimate weapon, its always been 75 years. We then had this powerful Spinoff Technology which the Nuclear Power plant are the only way to basically shrink humankind close to 0 which is uranium is underground and takes a tiny amount of land for nuclear, i dont see it farfetched that the world would turn back to nuclear critically at this moment where theres a reverse and back to nation to National Identity and backlash in neoliberalism, and im testifying in front of congress in front of this issue, a far bigger concern is Nuclear Energy, right now are feeding Nuclear Energy to the chinese and russians weve seen the ten months chinese are in the midst of a genocide against the muslim ethnic minority in the russian president has declared himself dictator for life. As soon as a countrys Building Nuclear plants, they are in the sphere of influence of russia and china and i point out the line between soft power and hard power runs directly through Nuclear Energy. For me nuclear is special and different and that comes from oil or gas or coal and it had a dual use and i think once we come to grips and remind ourselves of it, there will be a back towards nuclear. What are the good arguments for the u. S. Being involved in Nuclear Energy work that i have heard are negotiated that you can only be a part of if youre involved in the industry. So that to me is another argument for getting involved but i written a lot about this as you know, i kept saying, what you were saying a minute ago about the nuance menu, i was saying it was easy to have a march in a yes nuke march, and i think that is a way to look at the future of the United States. Cuomo, covid shut dog, my wife and i disagree, cuomo for political reasons, i think the policy the upstate plans for the economy struggling the most has included the subsidies, i wonder what is the next step for you given what we just said arguing from the edges, where is the middle, the middle is not always right but where can you start to build American Energy future that has some of the aspects in the book, how does that come about. Thank you, i think the idea that the United States should compete on energy is the right word secret trees like russia Building Nuclear plants to replace the combustion of natural gas, partly so they can export natural gas, partly so they can become leaders in building Nuclear Power plants which is an important product as well, my view of nuclear and articulated, its very different from most pronuclear people. I think the Current Technology is basically fine and better than fine, weve been developing for 60 years, we have a lot of experience with the current designs, i dont think theres anything wrong with it, i think were still dealing with the trauma in the shock of having created a radical technology, its so old is 75 years, no, this technology will be with us for thousands of years unless the aliens give us the Antigravity Technology but unless that happens, Nuclear Energy is the most revolutionary technology, shocking in its power and military application. My view is that people need to see nuclear for what it is and stop adding things to it, like this idea that Nuclear Waste could leak, could not leak because of solid metal, that is the main event to change the public consciousness. Were starting to see it, look to britain building six fullsize nuclear reactors, attorney building two and the next will be standardized, doing it mostly for National Security reasons, not exactly military but britain is not an island and depends on not to gas, my view of the United States comes back to Nuclear Energy, its because they are recognized as a threat that china and russia opposed to dominating Nuclear Energy construction around the world. I will say just in my defense it heard the moderation, one of the characters and heroines in many and most of the heroines of my book are women and women of color but one of them is a spokesperson for extinction rebellion, i in the book by noting in my conversation with her she told me she was pronuclear and basically two weeks before she was never released i hired her as my british director and now shes really running operations in britain and i think thats a testament to the fact that it does articulate a moderate path towards expanded national gas and Climate Change which frankly republicans have always been fine with and now most democra democrats, these Democratic Leaders would agree that these are fuels we need to deal with Climate Change. How much of the resistance that you face and many others who look at the portfolio of Energy Options you would need for global warming, how much of what you see in the counterargument and it was just renewable, a lot of what i see in the news is about worldview, distributed capacity as opposed to centralized, capitalized, capacity. Is not the enemy of your argument before the logic and numbers . Thats a great question, i think we just have to reflect on the fact that theres a change in public attitude, least elite attitude on news media and social media, through years ago the dominant idea from the left was 100 renewable as proposed by Mark Jacobson from stanford. Now Mark Jacobson has discredited in part because he sued our mutual acquaintance and other office of the National Academy of sciences, now the democratic plan, the climate plan, the biden plea does not call for 100 renewables it calls for 0 carbon, that is huge in the long antinuclear advocacy, thats a huge shift. Because much of the reason i wanted to write it was a particular question that you see me wrestling with for several years, why the left is so alarmist about Climate Change, is it against Nuclear Energy, why would he want renewables a has a large impact, that was driving me bonkers for almost a decade, i feel like i finally got to the bottom of it, obviously one big part is fear of the bomb but the bomb does not explain it all because obviously progressives are concerned about the bomb and it can be a uniform irrational fear thats in all of us, is clearly illogically motivated and it comes from the tradition which is based on the ideas of the 18th century and he said we would over populate the earth and result in famines. He was noxious proved once, hes been disproven every year since he was writing, obviously if he was right there would not be a billion people on earth, there obviously environmental problems in a result of having into successful as a species. We eat and take up too much nature. So i tried to get out what is behind this idea that civilization must collapse and theres something fundamentally wrong with the way we live, i look at three factors, money, power and religion and ultimately conclude that the reason that we see secular people more than traditionally religious people is that it is serving the same needs that religion has traditionally served in terms of providing a spiritual transcendence, sense of immortality and a feeling of being heroic as a climate activist or vegetarian or whatever it might be and i think we see that with the power of the morality, what is interesting, theres no interest on the part of the Green New Deal of learning from past efforts that have a Green New Deal including the one that i cofounded partly inspired by your writing, there is no learning about the history, i dont think thats quincy dental, its whats been advocated as a morelle and a morelle is a historical, and other words if its truly good it should be good at all times and places. So i see whats happening in terms of advocacy on climate as a religious movement, i think once if it looks a religious movement, toxic religion, its a good bet that it is a religion, i found that on a scholarship to support that. For me thats whats driving this, i think the anxiety about the global system, the sense in which globalization is coming to an in is driving the anxiety among progressives and particularly among the elite and. The globalization. I dont think globalization is coming to an end, i think the global system is in crisis, i think every Major Institution in our society is in crisis, i was just reflecting the other night, the thing that everybody believed about the pandemic in the first few weeks, washing your hands is the most important but we did not need to wear masks. Now the thinking that masks are essential important in washing your hands is like sure, but we dont know of any cases that they might transfer. World health organization, i dont think from bad intentions, thicker discredited organization, i think the white house is a discredited institution, im starting to say this, i note your former employer, i know the New York Times does not have the credibility and once had a reads like the nation, does not read like a newspaper, im struck, how many environment stories only have one side of the story i just heard a bloomberg piece, it does not quote anybody critical of renewable at all. That is standard. So these institutions are in a crisis of credibility and trust, i dont think they mean the institutions will go away, it means institutions need new leaders who have a different worldview who are more comfortable expressing the fact that we dont know if masks work or not but you might want to wear them in the real issue theyre worried about not having enough masks, and saying that there was manipulation, i dont think globalization is going to end and i think nations will get in touch with the fact that we are competing with each other and an essential way the World Economic nationalist without even think about it. In these institutions are ultimately going to need to be regenerated by new leadership and new ideas. Lets talk about climate diplomacy, i want to get to ecology and jesse asked about. A concept that i focused on when the Keystone Pipeline happening and i was writing pieces saying the macroeconomic lens saying fighting the pipeline is fine but well will find its way. And i was being punished for some things. I was googling words like cooperation, likeminded, people with a goal, a sustainable Human Experience on the planet, acknowledge diversity, is not possible and i was googling this paper by thomas and us as ecosystems that are resilient, sought the number of species its a number of responses of species in a function ecosystem. That was a really cool moment. You think about the human adventure in your china and the United States and europe is different sensibility, geographies, histories and the strong and the result which gets to report of the danger of having the uniformity o. And if youre not with us, youre against us. But weirdly when i was writing, actually it has all the attributes that you would want its a disaster, it is not determinative, all the things that will be weak. Courts attributes that creates a hundred year landscape and thats the kind of thing that makes me optimistic with the future and i wonder how well that sits with you in your articulation of a pathway or how to act as an individual or country with the response, doesnt make sense question. Integrate observation, you know my view on the United Nations, i dont think diplomats, the United Nations or treaty will have influence over the decisions of nations about food and energy supply, think the decisions need to be clear about supply referencing and i there is in energy dilute fuel towards energy dense like natural gas and nuclear. But on your broader point i wholeheartedly agree, everything i complain about i can find something very positive in a society. In the New York Times and bloomberg and most elite media are very onesided and at the same time we have twitter and most of us, i dont even go to the i just go to twitter, as an activist and a terminal list i wrote a column for forbes and i love my relationship with forbes its had some challenges there but nonetheless im able to publish articles that are widely read than environmental articles in the New York Times because they see the traffic on them. I can get 1 million or 2 million views even though i dont work at the New York Times just because im writing about things that people care about. Similarly on the one hand its a polarized society, on the other hand is a bunch of stuff that are not clearly right issues, i think nuclear is one of them, not clear thats traditionally perceived as a bipartisan technology and then became a technology and other democrats who supported, housing, in california we have liberal and conservative, i think there is other elements of that and im interested, its obvious that some things are liberal or more conservative and has been determined by partisan polarization. I think there is actually more space opening up and i think read the beginning and accredit social media for a lot of this. My view the social media is platos discussion of medicine which is it a poison, medicine exposed into depends on how you use and what the dose is. I think were in an interesting time, potentially social media is bringing collective madness but i also think some amount of madness can be very creative. I do as well given the institute on the initiative and how do you make it matter in the new information environment and thats a question of course. How many species. Lets get into ecology, the amazon where we spent time and extinction headlines versus realities, thereto im with you on the extension being a much more hypothesis and in 10 million years to really care about in every extinction the plan has have. At the same time there was a section on ed wilsons in the formula that is long in terms of taking island extinction to a planetary level, and recent book, i kind of like it, what i liked about it was a concept if you leave room for nature, weve been in the Hudson Valley a mile from where i live is an old quarry that is hardly recognizable, 50 years ago it was a quarry. I wonder i wont say middle ground but im not sure you have this in the book but what is conservation need in the 21st century, if you could articula articulate, what would be a conservation success that looks like. Im going to make one observation way for a answer totally, two claims that i made that are controversial and accurate, were not causing the mass extinction and Climate Change not making it worse. The response to both of them was hypotheses that i think were asked science, humans could cause extinction but first of all that is a possibility but thats not whats happening now and different from other people including the people that are criticize me, it could be that natural disasters wouldve killed fewer people had there not been Climate Change. That is not science, thats a hypothesis, one of the challenges is that people are conflating hypothesis which is an important part of the Scientific Method with scientific evidence. On the latter run, it is clear that the climate has changed, translating that into a component is what is impossible but at the same time it would be impossible to stay categorically there is no effect. Michael and i debated, he says every event is changed and the seasons were no tornadoes, those are Climate Change two. I think what some people have latched onto is a definitive idea that there is no goal for Climate Change, its not measurable and were storm is happening it would be impossible to say Climate Change is not in their. In a disagreement you and i might have or might have with others is what is appropriate science communication rather than what is scientific. For example part of the reason i wrote this book, big part the claims of billions of people will die, the earth is dying that half of the public around the world believe that Climate Change will make humans extinct, this is nuts and it needs to be pushed back against, is causing Mental Health problems, one of the children has nightmares of Climate Change, its contributed to anxiety and depression. Let me give a different example. This is in the news. If the president of the United States were to say aliens are not invading the United States, for reporter says theyre not invading the United States, that reporter can make the argument of my statements which is to say, you cannot say that for sure, we have navy pilots who have reported Close Encounters with what appeared to be alien spacecraft, we have Video Evidence that has been released in the group studying it, how can you be sure the United States is not being invaded by aliens. So this part of the problem, you cannot prove a negative, that gives you the burden of proof, if the president of the United States wants to avoid panic which is what was encouraged by greta, she said she wanted you to panic, that is unthinking behavior, i dont think shes ever wanted that, the president does not want to panic he says aliens are not invading the United States, he does not say we cant be sure but it appears to be in if theres an alien invasion, i think you have to explain clearly and then if you turn out that the death toll for National Disasters reverses and starts going up because of Climate Change in extreme events which are acknowledged or more severe, then we know but we have to have a basic point. I can go back to the extinction if you want. By the way i agree in the work of lauren with the european disaster and did a bunch of work in 2010, the thing that is completed too much is entangling the losses in a meteorological event. There is three things, losses and a meteorological effect, their changes like a hurricane, and theres Climate Change and how that might change in the coastal surge. When you look at losses in roger who is a defendant, the extreme event, all acknowledged that losses is where and how people are settling. And it totally supports that the next several decades and damage under the terms of compensated and out of luck because theres so much building and development in harms way that you will be able to discern from Climate Change. That i do feel there has to be a way forward in distinguishing between changes in the storm of the phenomenon in the losses and impacted my half. Again your book is a good propagation to get to that, it might be a next step and learns something specifically on the point, you were consulted probably on the Nuclear Section not on a working group to which impacts, is our productive way to measure things devoutly so you can have the same conversation . I think the itcs science is pretty good, i defended in the book, im critical of working group three which is the recommendation of what to do and im critical of the publicity that the press release but i different working group one working group to, theyve done a good job but theres some of that stuff that i go you should get out of an institution like that. I dont have that big of a problem, i kind of defend the way they talk about extremism and for me and felt like the hero of the story was roger who i defended but also richard who are argues this is a mans problem and we should stop describing as the road to hell as you say. Im eager to address your questions about extinction but its fine to stay on the extremes if you want. Theyre both about impacts and creating pathways for words it makes sense. Lets circle back to ed wilson, its pretty clear to anyone working on extinction and species in the conservation but the one formulation dont really work well so they defending the idea so given all that and given the deep uncertainty which we still have not measured when we talk about biodiversity more effectively when im writing my book in 19 eating nine talking interior when who climbed the tree and got beatles. So knowing what we dont know and knowing the reality of the extinction is still to be determined and maybe never in human timescales. What do you do . Various were cities were approaching like the amazon, weirdly despoiled our north american region fantastically and so its hard for us to say you should do this. But lets talk about the amazon, we had some time on the ground in brazil, we do have both which is change dynamics in this like saying the amazon is not like it was in the 1980s, its not the endpoint, what do we do now, what is the role of trading policy and Remote Sensing in indigenous communities. Great, i think the first thing im trying to do in the amazon and the other place i spend a lot of time is the albertine rift, both are very special places in the book and run through the book, the first thing im trying to do is to show that the degradation of national environments and the killing of species and the risk of extinction is not being cared about evil people who hate nature, its often being carried out by people who are desperately poor, poor and ways of the young people who were alarmed by polar bears and Plastic Straws have no understanding, you are no understanding because you go to those places. The first thing is to bring my kids and kids my daughters age, 14, 15, 16, want to write simple stories of characters and show what their struggles are producing in the amazon chapter i object, condemning people on the ground for what the drink, these are desperately poor people, i lived in communities of former slaves, the children of former slaves, the descendents of former slaves from brazil and they pointed out certainly all else being equal we would like the amazon force to be intact. I dont want any temperature change, weve adapted to the temperature. Thats the first thing, the second thing that is so important, i had my main character on the amazon who now regrets having spoken to me because he spoke so frequently and i know you know him, dan, he spoke so freely because he was upset as i was by the media coverage, but he reveals this important thing which is in demanding more from small is beautiful contribution measures, greenpeace forced the fragmentation of what occurred. If you want to produce more food on leslie and you need to concentrate Agricultural Production and intensify, that should happen in the savanna region which is in the southern and for agriculture with diverse and fewer colleges think is the same as amazon forest, that would allow you to protect the amazon but they insisted that farmers maintain half of the land in the forest and create forest islands that make it more difficult. If i go over to the albertine rift in africa, some of the heroes were also conservation scientist who had been working with Oil Companies to develop oil safely in National Parks so it can be used as a substitute for wood fuel, it is the worst fuel, it disrupts forest light, americans we Pay Attention to people who die in breathing toxic smoke but the time that it takes an impact that it takes unforced is devastating for hundreds of thousands of people going to the forest and eating wild animals and going through the woods. In both cases i feel like im arguing for moderate view which is to intensifier culture and the savannas of brazil and to allow some industry particular for petroleum in the albertine rift so people can be liberated from what is fuel. I wrote the book in part because if i were to say on cnn or msnbc, i think there should be oil drilling, i would be crucified in the chapter of extinction and leave that chapter and think somehow it is wrong, how could it be wrong, i note the all the americans and europeans flew on jet planes and petroleum powered lifestyle, the idea that Petroleum Drilling in these parks is worse than wood fuel is also wrong, wood fuel is naturally worse for the environment and getting oil out of the ground, i think invading that moderate case, thats what im arguing, there is a way to Balance Development conservation but we do need to have appreciation of the importance of moving of the anarchy ladder and the importance of growing more food unless concentrated agriculture. I did a lot of reporting on cooking fuel a couple years ago and where the issue in a lot of european funders to supporting projects about the natural gas propane which is a product. And there is hypocrisy that is unbelievable and it has a Development Program that they find to help countries and ghana that are more effectively but they wont spend money to help lpg to communities that are burning wood, im with you on these levels of hypocrisy and clashing agendas around us. I want to talk briefly about population and growth, ten years ago i wrote a piece in the Washington Times jesse noted that the old model of the population bomb that we know is total killed. But i call it the population cluster bomb, the population with high rates are devastating and its an environmental problem, i look at this in nigeria towards operation of 750 Million People just nigeria, its easy on a global scale in recent weeks, the new spending, there was a report on the popularization and since will have, what i see missing is in its apocalypse in the local context that can be so troubling as a fertility rate of six and anywhere in the world and has outcomes. I dont knows population and area where more work is needed as well and were giving a less approach or what . For sure, humans are having a huge impact in there so many of us, we all need food and energy, you did a good job on describing the food energy population issue so you sort of start with that. I think one thing i want to point out is Environmental Impact is not so simple as more people, is dependent on it people live in apartment buildings and they consume their food out of high energy greenhouses and all their electricity is from Nuclear Power plants, their footprint is tiny. They incinerate all their waste or landfill in you dont have to worry about it, your footprint is really small and several thousands of families around the National Park in that part of africa using wood for fuel and animals can be devastating. The story that i tell and report is the original story, i did a lot of work on it, it appears that the park director in creating antagonism with the local communities created a backlash that means killed 250 of the parks 300 dolphins. It does not take a lot of people to kill that many elephants, really when were looking at impact, i think its easy to say one person is the same everywhere and its clearly not. The second thing i totally agree, and what will determine at what level the human population peaks in the women go down its what happens and in africa. I make the case for urbanization, industrialization, concentrated Food Production in places like the congo in part so we can take the pressure off of the park, i would like to see the National Park continue to exist decades and i would love to see dolphins come back, we could see the gorilla population increasing in considering helicopter in them to different habitats. You could be very ambition, the question is how you do that, how do your boys eight. China totally has manufactured, ethiopia dams its rivers, invited in h m job factories, i talked about how factories have been liberating for women, have they have been the driver of Economic Growth for four people around the world for centuries. If you are worry about a lot of people in nigeria, something a lot of people you should support industrialization and urbanization rather than oppose them, i point out ways many have targeted vast awesome, gap and other companies but when in fact h m has been in the impact in terms of empowering the minute creating jobs and moving people away from the farm where they have 6 8 kids where they have to have six or eight because out of retirement and those of their workers and living in the city where they might have two or three kids, turn to have kids in the city and they dont want or need that many. We have a few minutes left, i want to circle back to my question, 200,000 words on growth. It surprises me i talked to him for 20 years now. Analyst of Global Trends as you described. Its not the same. There are these limits in its environmental but along with a hardtofind reality check and a picture as you would see it in the concept of growth. In the two are related. Im a huge fan, i rely heavily on his writings for the books. One of the things i set out to do for the book is to use as few of my own calculations as possible. I wanted to report to other published collars so they wouldnt be a debate about our research and i rely heavily on power density which shows moving towards the Energy Ladder from a natural gas to nuclear and its the right path, the growth book which offers to read and appreciated in so many ways, the fascinating book he does the same thing, he asserts the limits to growth, hes not providing mechanisms, im struck by the one part with devastating cities and he got a good point that cities are built and fertile river and landscapes a hammer by cities, not the Hudson Valley where you live, its not what it was before humans were there. But sure, thats different from suggesting there will be a resource scarcity which is done and he says were not resource scarcity because we could not use more Nuclear Energy for example. This is one of the most interesting things, one of the things i discovered in the research for apocalypse, the people who say were going to run out of resources had to constantly attack the technologies that wil would allw for more resources. He said we cannot grow more food and we should not use contraception to have fewer kids, in the 70s they said were going to run out of energy because we can have industrial farming in poor countries because we have limited fossil fuel resources and now they say were going to run out of resources or cancel Climate Change because we cant use Nuclear Energy to give weapons. So i think you can combine in the same person i really discipline science but also somebody who comes from certain amount for human species. Its redirection with them and i learned something i remember when he was interviewed, he was reading zola and hes a scholar, i think hes in a fundamental way, he hates consumer culture, and the factory worker that i talk about indonesia, shes a consumer and enjoying the fruits of prosperity, he looked at that as terrible and icy human liberation. Were down to the end, its been a great hour talking with michael and much more to go over Going Forward in a hobby on one of my conversations and in person and otherwise, your contacting humanism is grasping for that concept that the vatican and the humanities and i think having open discussions of what that looks like with the news and response is inevitable to find the space in conversation. Thank you for having this conversation today. During a virtual event, counsel on formulations president s richard talks about the state of the world and the Foreign Policy challenges facing the United States. Here is a portion of our discussion. The pandemic tells us first and foremost that the world matters, that is an obvious thing for a member of the council on Foreign Relations but i dont think obvious for everybody. The world matters, what happens around the world does not stay there, in this case it was a small city in china and wuhan were virus program, got worse and spread through china and then spread to the United States and elsewhere around the world, on 9 11 is terrorist trained in afghanistan, other various times it was what weve seen the Climate Change coming from everywhere financial contagion toward this or that, so what this should tell us is that the two oceans are new drawbridge, sovereignty and whatever else it is is not the same thing as security. Were affected by what happens in the world, Foreign Policy in turn is when we do that affects the world. But the most Important Message to take is the world matters, isolationism, denial, sticking her head in the sand, whatever else you want to call is not a serious or viable strategy, you talk at length of the interconnectedness of the globe in the interdependent, how has the american response to the Global Crisis reflected the things that you bring up the absence of the u. S. And the european convening to tackle the vaccine for covid19. This is not been a good experience i will say or demonstration of u. S. Connected to the world but it begins with the fact that were connected, globalization is many things, its not a choice, how we respond is a choice, itself it is a reality and as you say, we chose not to participate in the european political resources and intellectual and financial to work toward a vaccine, it seems to me that reduces the chance that it will succeed or succeed quickly and it means if it were to succeed we would be very hardpressed to make the argument that we ought to be towards the front of the queue, a lot of europeans would say you were not there when we needed you, now suddenly you need this, why should we favor you over others, i think that is true and i think more which hurt us has been the example we set, such an important part of what foreignpolicy is about, its not what diplomats say or do or soldier say or do, its important in the example that we set, the functioning and vibrancy of our democracy when we have equality for americans and when the economy grows and how we respond to the challenge and no one around the world gets up in the morning and says i want to do this just like america. And its inconceivable and is being expressed. To watch the rest of the Program Visit our website booktv. Org and search richard or the title of his book, the world. We encourage everyone to ask questions during the questionandanswer portion by clicking on the q and a box at the bottom of your zoom window. Click on that and type in your questions and we will get to as many as we can and the second thing is we encourage everyone to purchase sony is a book,