Pretty good. Were all doing what we can to share a moment, even those avoiding the contagion which supposedly presaged what was going to happenreally didnt capture the full scope. I guess my first question is about the book which is apocalypse never. Its a very definitive statement unless theres nuances that ive missed. It implies certainty in a world of interlaced. I describe our Current Situation as tripwires and landmines that are interlaced and complex and unpredictable in a complex system so are you confident when you say apocalypse never and i guess that depends on the definition of apocalypse. Thanks andy. The arguments in the book is Climate Change is real but its not the end of the world and its not even almost areas environmental problem. I plan climate activist for 20 years, and i see what im trying to do here is more if youre a cancer doctor and theres like a bunch of people are saying everybodys going to die of cancer or billions are going to die of cancer in 10 years going wait a second. I hear about this issue and i dont like to see that level of extremism, alarmism and exaggeration. So look, are there scenarios in which you can imagine Climate Change destroying human civilization . Sure, you can imagine. There is no scientific basis for it. By contrast there was a strong scientific basis for imagining the current pandemic. The warnings of the pandemic were eerily pressey and including coming from a coronavirus, coming from poor hygiene from chinese Small Farmers and markets so we cant say its impossible but to sort of say lets get our understanding of it straight. I think one of the most shocking things most people dont know and this is where i think the news media deserves a lot of blame for this is death from Natural Disasters have declined 90 percent over the last hundred years, 80 to 90 percent after over the last 400 years. Theres no scenarios in any reports that for that number to reverse itself and there is no basis for thinking that were going to see, we see people like Bill Mckibben saying its the biggest problem weve ever faced kind of like really . That would imply that we have some mechanism for the death toll to reverse itself or for damages from extreme weather events to increase or for them to be some class in Food Production but where producing 25 percent more food than we need and according to every report and a basic understanding those food surpluses should continued to rise as long as countries have access to fertilizer, tractors, irrigation and the other elements ofmodern agriculture so never say never. Certainly aliens could invade. There could be some cosmic problem we are not aware of no its not to say never but to say apocalypse, certainly i think that the title is also meant as a bit of a defiant. Its a starting letsnever have an apocalypse as much as it saying there will never be an apocalypse. I guess the goal is to prod and kind of get a new conversation going. Although i do wonder sometimes and i wonder this about all books, ive written some books, one out this year but i see the form is kind of brittle and it also ends up being the form where you generally see the books that are most visible in the public sphere are the ones that are against the archetype and you talk about so many of us have brought bought into this environmental emergency and even a book by mckibbens will sell hundred thousand or thats a good one. I think most people are actually not bought into this otherwise you would have listened to that end of the argument and i wonder sometimes if that argument, apocalypse never an apocalypse now are varying the saying that it doesnt need to be done. They are going for the edges and i know theres a lot in your book that i like and i embrace in my writing and i went from 1988 where this is my cover story on Global Warming, talk about a meltdown, apocalypse never. With tobacco ads on the back. Too much more nuanced reporting for the last 10 or 15 years. Which got at some of these basic underlying points you make in the book and you could really say about Energy Density and look at the landscape or what could happen in renewables with theoretically could happen with renewables, it is no contest in terms of kilowatt hours or terawatt which is what we need. Andyet , in the book i would love to see many could articulate how you moved from the prod to sort of a roadmap. The roadmap for nuclear is almost as fantastically improbable as the roadmap for rapid renewables extension so what is your sort of clarion call to the world on how you wouldget that done . Thanks for the question. I think so obviously titles are titles that you only get one or two words for the title. The book is basically a defense of human civilization. Its a defense of Human Development and human progress. It points out that sure, air pollution rises as nations industrialized and urbanized but we also see now that Carbon Emissions date in britain france and germany in the mid70s. Ap in the United States 15 years ago. Theres every reason to believe theyre going to be in developing economies within i dont know, 10 years. Some people think they already and are going to go down. Temperatures are unlikely to get above 30 degrees over preindustrial levels. Obviously theres a bunch of uncertainty there but remember the Nobel Prize Winner or his work on Climate ChangeWilliam Lloyd helps at the optimal level was four degrees meaning that was the level where costs and benefits offossil fuels were properly accounted for. I dont rely on, i cited my book and i dont rely on models and im not crazy about models but the overall direction and the trends that im 22 are incredibly positive so human kinds biggest use of land is for half or meat production. It paid in 2000. Sorry, it 20years ago and it declined in an area almost the size of alaska and we should celebrate that. Human resilience to Natural Disasters we should celebrate. The client in infant mortality, these are all amazing trends. And i also point out an apocalypse never that that is not the end of the story. Theres very serious environmental problems we still need to deal with so i point to the fact that one to 2 billion people still use wood for fuel. One of the biggest threats to wild animals is we continue to eat them. And that goes for wild fish. And many of the things that environmental groups have advocated our ad for the environment so the renewables acquired 3 to 400 times more land andnatural gas plants and Nuclear Plants. On the question of i think my views have been badly misrepresented by some people who i think no better. People ive said michael youre just insisting its all nuclear. Thats simply not true. In apocalypse never i defend the right of indonesia to burn coal because burning coal is better than burning wood. I defend fracking for natural gas because natural gas is better than cole and michael they say are you pro natural gas or antinatural gas . Im in favor of natural gas when it replaces whole and nuclear and in my view eventually humans are going to be 100 percent nuclear. When will that be . Could be as early as 2100, probably not going to be, more like 2200 but its no more ridiculousto think we will be 100 percent nuclear and to think we will be under present fossil fuels. Whereas 100percent in terms of Natural Energy so i dont think its that farfetched. Nuclear and foremost is a technology we use to make the most powerful weapons that humans have ever made. Its the ultimate weaponand thats the primary use of Nuclear Energy. We then had this powerful Spinoff Technology which are Nuclear Power plants which are the only way to basically shrink humankinds energy imprint too close to zero. Even though uranium mining underground takes a tiny amount of land for nuclear so i dont see it as farfetched that the us is going to turn back to nuclear particularly at this moment when theres a back to national identity, there is a backlash against globalization and neoliberalism. So for me and im testifying in front of congress in a couple hours on this issue, for me a far bigger concern on Climate Change is the future of Nuclear Energy. Right now were ceding Nuclear Energy to the chinese and russians. Weve seen the last 10 months chinese are clearly in the midst of a genocide against their muslim ethnic minority and the russian president has declared himself dictator for life so as soon as the country is Building Nuclear plants with russia or china they are in the sphere of influence of russia and china and i always point out the line between power and hard power runs directly through Nuclear Energy so for me, nuclear is special and different in that sense from oil or gas or coal and in that it always has this dual use and i do think once we come to grips with what that dualuse is and remind ourselves of it there would be turned back towards nuclear. One of the good arguments for the us staying involved in Nuclear Energy work is that ive heard after fukushima particularly was that International Safeguards and standards are negotiated in ways that are only, you could only be a part of if youreactually involved in the industry. So that is another argument for staying involved but its also ive written a lot about this too as you know and i kept saying kind of like what you were saying a minute ago about a more nuanced menu. I was saying its easy to have a no nukes march. Its easy to have a yes new smart, its harder tohave a some nukes march. There isnt a placard that says some nukes and i think that is a way to look at the future of the United States. Cuomo, its shutting down. My wife and i disagree over whether it should have stayed operating. I wanted it to stay operating. Cuomo for political reasons that its so too close to new york city. He conceded what i think of as a some news policy that upstate plans where the economy is struggling most to support and has included those subsidies essentially. I wonder what the next step for you given what we just said about arguing from the edges and where is the middle . The middle isnt always right but where is the point where you can start to build an American Energy futurethat has some of the aspects you called for in the book . Thanks. I think the idea that the United States should compute on energy, i think its the right one. So you see countries likerussia and the uae. Building Nuclear Plants to replace their combustion of natural gas. Partly so they can export natural gas. Partly so that they can become leaders in building Nuclear Power plants which is an important export as well. My view of nuclear and i articulate it in apocalypse never is very different from most pronuclear people. I think that the Current Technology is basically fine. Its better than fine, its developing it for nearly 60 years. Its a, we have a lot of experience the current watercooled design then i dont thinktheres anything wrong with it. I think what is still, were still dealing with the trauma and the shock of having created such a radical technology so i think nuclear oil is 75 years its no, this technology is going to be with us for thousands of years unless the aliens give us their Antigravity Technology but unless that happens Nuclear Energy is the most revolutionary technology and its shocking in its power and military application so my view is that people need to really see nuclear for what it is. And stop adding things to it like this idea that Nuclear Waste could leak. It couldnt leak because were talking about solid metal fuel rods that really, thats the main event is just a change in public consciousness. Were starting to see britain considering building six fullsized French Nuclear reactors and its already building two of them in the next four would be standardized. Doing it mostly for National Security reasons, not exactly military because britain and islands ireland are supporting natural gas and if the United States comes back to Nuclear Energy it will be because theyre recognized as a threat to that china and russia opposed to dominating Nuclear Energy construction around the world. I will say in my defense in terms of moderation, youll note that one of the characters, one of the heroines , many and maybe most of the heroines in my book are women and women of color but one of them is zion light who is a spokesperson for extinction rebellion. I am the book by noting in my conversation with her she told me she was pronuclear in two weeks before apocalypse never was released i ended up hiring her as my british director so shes running operations for us in britain and i think thats a testament to the fact that apocalypse never does articulate a moderate path towards expanded natural gas and Nuclear Solutions to Climate Change which republicans have always been fine with an even now i think most democrats at least most Democratic Leaders would agree that these are two fuels that we need todeal with Climate Change. How much of the resistance have you faced in that many others can look at the portfolio of Energy Options you would need to limit Global Warming and have to have nuclear on the menu, how much of what you see in that counterargument from the green conventional green like those who wanted a Green New Deal but so it was just renewable. A lot of what i see in their views is really about that worldview, about self control, distributed capacity and decentralized, capitalized capacity. Is that really the enemy of your argument more than any of the logic or numbers . Thats a great question. I think we have to just reflect on the fact that theres been a huge sea change in public attitudes, at least in the attitudes as expressed on the news media and social media. Just three years ago the dominant idea from the left was 100 percent renewable as proposed by Mark Jacobson from stanford. Now market jacobson is largely discredited in part because he sued our mutual acquaintance can counter and others, authors of the National Academy of science paper. Now the democratic plan, the climate plan, the biden plan is not call for 100 percent renewables, it. 40 carbon and thats huge, just in the long tradition of antinuclear advocacy on the left thats a huge shift. Now to the issue of why because much of the reason i wanted to write apocalypse never was i was this particular question that you see me wrestling with it for several years. Why if the left is so alarmist about Climate Change is it against Nuclear Energy and why would want renewable which has such a large impact on landuse action mark question was driving me bonkers for almost a decade. I feel like ive finally got to the bottom of. Obviously one big part of this is just a bomb but the bomb doesnt explain it all because obviously the grasses are much more concerned about the bomb and conservatives so it cant be uniform irrational fear thats sortof in all of us. Clearly its ideologically motivated and it comes from this tradition just to introduce jargon multiples unison which is based on the ideas of the 18th century british economist Thomas Malthus who said we would always overpopulate and result in famine and maltas was not disproved once, hes beendisproved every year since he was writing. Obviously if he was right there wouldnt be nearly 8 billion people on earth. Where obviously our environmental problems are almost all result of having been too successful as a species. We eat and take up too much of nature. So i tried to get at whats behind this idea that civilization must collapse, that theres something eminently wrong with the way we live and i look at three factors over the last three chapters of the book. Money, power and religion and ultimately conclude that the reason we see secular people more than traditionally religious people gravitate towards apocalyptic environmentalism is that its serving this same need that religion has traditionally served in terms of providing the kind of ritual transcendence, sense of immortality. And a feeling of being heroic as a climate activist or as a vegetarian or whatever it might be. And i think we see that the power of the morality. So whats interesting to me is theres no interest in the part of advocates of the Green New Deal of learning from past efforts to have a Green New Deal including the one i cofoundedin early 2000 called the new apollo project inspired by your writings. Theres no interest in learning about the historyand i dont think thats coincidental. I think whats being advocated is a kind of morality and immorality thats ahistorical. Other in 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 the religious movements area and i think once if its kind of looks like a religious movement, talks like a r