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 ob