Discussion with a Climate Doomer: Interview with Prof. Eliot Jacobson

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: And yes, okay, so we are live. So, everyone, welcome to Climate Chat. I'm your host, Dan Miller. And today we have a special guest, Professor Elliot Jacobson. And we're going to be talking about doomerism and things like that. And climate, we'll get into climate science as well. And we have Stacey here. So, one second as I bring her on board here. And so, first of all, Elliot, welcome to Climate Chat. It's great to have you here. I have to say this is maybe one of the first by popular demand we've done. There's been a lot of people have contacted me and said I really should talk with you. So, it's great to have you here. And I'd like to start off by having you just tell us a little bit about yourself, like what your background is, and how you got into climate. [00:01:04] Sam Mitchell: So, thank you so much, Dan, for having me on. It's very much an honor to be on this program. Well, actually, I started at about age five, if you want to know the truth. I was a little bit obsessed as a youngster with mathematics and numbers. I used to listen to KFI radio when I was five years old. And I would jot down all of the individual data points for what the meteorologists predicted and then track that. And the very first course I ever took in college was intro to meteorology. I was, as a professor of mathematics, I was advisor to the undergraduate meteorology major. So, you know, I sort of have always had this in my blood. And also, as far as sort of the ecological aspect of it, I grew up in California, mostly my teenage years in the 1970s. You know, the Santa Barbara oil spill sort of started the modern environmental movement. That's where I live. You know, I went to Earth Day in 1977. Started sort of being a prepper during the Reagan days in the 1980s, if you want to know the truth. So, long time doomer in a lot of ways. But, you know, life does what it does. I was a math professor. I was a computer science professor. I was a consultant in the casino industry, all the while sort of paying attention to climate. But it was just when I retired fully in 2017 that I said, OK, what do you want to do as a retiree? You want to find the thing as a child you really love, but you never got to do. And for me, that was climate science. So, I sort of decided, OK, let me take a look using all the tools I sort of acquired in my lifetime and start being more serious about this. So, that's kind of how I got to where I am today. [00:02:55] Speaker 1: Well, you also mentioned you live in Santa Barbara or that area. And so, we should note that as of this recording, there is a huge storm barreling down on that area. And this might be the first climate chat program that gets interrupted by climate change. But hopefully not. Well, I'll give you a quick update. [00:03:16] Sam Mitchell: So, the highest winds are expected about 50 miles north of us. And so, if you actually look at the winds offshore right now, we're at about 100 to 150 knots. So, there's pretty serious winds going on. Onshore, they're expecting gusts up to about 80 miles an hour. Here, we've had gusts over 40 already. We're expecting a rainfall rate close to three quarters of an inch an hour to come our way within the next hour or two. So, the lights could go off at any second. I mean, that's just a very real possibility. [00:03:54] Speaker 1: Well, if that happens, we're going to have like an open discussion on doomerism here. Yeah, it is happening in real time. [00:04:00] Sam Mitchell: Yeah. [00:04:01] Speaker 1: But let's start off about, first of all, my first question is, do you consider yourself a doomer? [00:04:09] Sam Mitchell: Of course. Yes, absolutely. [00:04:12] Speaker 1: Okay. And you're kind of one of the, I should point out that you're one of the more famous doomers on Twitter or X and probably other places as well. But that's where I've seen you a lot and doomerism, which we're going to talk about, is kind of a controversial thing. But before we can really dig into it, can you give us your definition of either what a doomer is or what doomerism is? [00:04:38] Sam Mitchell: So, that is a great question. And just to clarify, Sam Mitchell, who is another sort of well-known doomer, he says if you put 12 doomers in a room and ask for a definition, you'll get 13 different answers. So, I may have two answers myself to that question, depending on the day I'm asked. Right now, what it means for me is that I'm sort of an old-fashioned environmentalist from the 1970s. I am not concerned with humanity's collapse or trying to preserve the planet for global industrial civilization. I'm more concerned with what I personally can do to preserve the natural world for whatever comes after humans. So, there's sort of an implicit assumption that this massive civilization we're part of is on its way out. And as part of that, I sort of recognize a tremendous personal grief and grieving process that I'm going through, tremendous sadness. I love humanity. I love especially the arts and sciences, you know, and consider those the pinnacles of what humans have achieved. And so, I'm very sad to see our legacy believing. And I write about that sometimes and express that sadness on Twitter. But I also recognize its inevitability. And as part of that recognition, I avoid certain topics quite vigorously. Because they're small compared to what's actually happening in terms of collapse. And so, topics I exclude are things like politics and religion and, you know, just the sorts of things that typically divide people in very sort of artificial ways based on social constructs, rather than sort of the reality of collapse that's happening all around us right now. And, of course, that's not to say those things aren't real and causing suffering for people, those issues. But they're just small compared to sort of the collapse of everything, which is what we're currently witnessing. I'm not sure if that definition is clear or not, but that's the one I'm going to go with. [00:06:47] Speaker 1: Well, let's get into a little bit. Like, so, you're saying that collapse is inevitable. Did I hear that part right? Okay. What time frame, when you say collapse is inevitable, what time frame are you speaking about? [00:07:03] Sam Mitchell: So, that is probably the most common question that I'm asked. And my answer to that is it depends on where you live. If you live in the Amazon right now or Venezuela because of political reasons or Yemen that we're bombing or, I mean, there are parts of the planet that are collapsing as we speak for political or climatological reasons. So, we're lucky to be starting now, basically. [00:07:33] Speaker 1: Right. [00:07:33] Sam Mitchell: So, if we live in Chile, right, where a fire is just, you know, sort of modeled what happened in Maui last year. I mean, so, we already see these things happening. If you're talking about when will United States civilization collapse, we have a long way to go. But, you know, fascism is… [00:07:54] Speaker 1: But is it this century? Is it like 10… Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. Okay. Less than 50 years? [00:08:00] Sam Mitchell: Like a number? I would say less than 50 years, fairly easily, yes. And if you want me to get… So, one of the things I do, you know, I have this website called Climate Casino, right? Right. [00:08:10] Speaker 1: I have a link, by the way, in the description on the YouTube channel and on Clubhouse, so you can see that. [00:08:16] Sam Mitchell: So, one of the things I often do is create what are called over-under bets. In other words, it's an even money bet that that collapse will happen before or after this date. So, what I've noticed is that people in my audience, the people I'm speaking to, oftentimes think collapse is going to happen earlier than sort of I think it's going to happen, right? So, if I give an over-under bet for a worst-case scenario, most people think that it's going to be worse faster than I do. And so, I would say that that's a common sort of difference between me and sort of the audience I'm talking to. And, you know, there are sort of famous doomers out there who are predicting extinction by 2026, right, of the human species or at the latest… [00:09:05] Speaker 1: Well, I guess Guy McPherson might be the most famous of them and he's been wrong all along, of course. Yes, exactly. He actually predicted that we're already all extinct. Yes, functionally extinct. And not long ago, I mean, not long ago predictions. [00:09:19] Sam Mitchell: Right. So, if you include him in the doomer, you know, sort of paradigm, then you can see that there's a huge range. And so, you know, the group who follow him is a part of my audience. And so, you know, they are sort of looking at more near-term things. And the same with Sam Karana, who's another sort of, you know, climate doomer that's out there. So, I tend to be more conservative with this. I think that we are going to stretch the rubber band to its absolute limit here in the richest part of the planet that exploits the rest of the world to preserve itself. So, you know, the United States, parts of Europe will be the last to go. [00:10:05] Speaker 1: But let's keep going on this definition just so we can be talking from a common framework here. You say collapse, but you're not saying extinction. Right. You're saying like societal collapse. [00:10:17] Sam Mitchell: Yes. [00:10:19] Speaker 1: Okay. Like maybe Mad Max style kind of collapse kind of thing or something like that? [00:10:23] Sam Mitchell: There are just as many visions of it as there are science fiction writers out there. But no, we're talking obviously about the collapse of infrastructure. So, loss of electricity, loss of food supply, loss of energy supply, loss of sanitation. All of those things happening as to who and how that survived. You know, there are groups out there right now that are creating off-grid sustainable communities, sort of anticipating. You know, there are billionaires creating bunkers. There are, you know, preppers. There are all sorts of people who recognize that that future where these sort of things that we take for granted from civilization are no longer going to be here. That is not the same as like, you know, extinction. Now, the line these near-term extinction folks will draw is that who's going to man the nuclear power plants when all of this stuff happens. And so, will we have massive meltdowns of 450 nuclear plants leading to catastrophic fallout worldwide, pretty much irradiating everything? I just think that that sort of presumes an acceleration of collapse where these things are not in our control, where one day everything's good and the next day people are running for the hills and abandoning the plants. I just don't think that will happen that quickly. I think there's going to be plenty of time to mitigate any sorts of damage, at least in the 400-plus range of nuclear meltdowns. There may be a few, but there's already been a few. [00:12:02] Speaker 1: Okay, so people who listen to Climate Chat have been listening to me for a long time. They've heard about all this danger that's going on, including, by the way, the damage that is happening today. I totally agree with you. I mean, when you say, when will collapse happen? Well, it's already happened for a lot of people. And although when we really talk about it, I think we're talking really more about the whole of the earth, at least, or most of the earth. I don't know maybe what the definition would be there. But, of course, there's always catastrophes all the time throughout history. We're accelerating those catastrophes. And they happen, in this case, not to be natural, but sort of man-made through climate change. So I totally agree with you there. But the difference, I think, between you and I, and this is what I want to explore, again, I'm totally with you on the dangers and maybe more so at times. But I say that we all, it's still, the future is still in our hands. And I also say, we're not doing anything right now to stop it. I mean, on net, I mean, we're doing some good things. We're doing some good things, but we're not doing some good things, but we're not doing some good things, and we're not doing any good things, and we're not doing any good things. Some good things, more than others, you know, whatever, and some less than others, of course. But on net, not much. However, things are getting bad, and we're going to see that. The only thing, after 20 years of doing it, the only thing I've seen that hadn't made the difference in getting people to pay attention is climate damage. So we are getting climate damage, and I'm saying, and I want to hear what you say about this, I'm saying that it's still up to us. Now, that doesn't mean, just because we must do something, doesn't mean we will. And that's sort of the story of climate change, right? But we can, and on this channel, we also talk about the solutions, not only emissions reduction, which is the one everyone talks about, but, you know, carbon dioxide removal and sunlight reflection methods or solar radiation management. And so I believe when things get bad enough, we'll at least try. And I believe we have the tools to avert, not some collapse, because it's already happening, as you said, and not even more collapse, because there's a lot built in, but the total collapse. So I'd like to get your thoughts on what I just said, and what do you, how much do you agree or disagree with that? [00:14:46] Sam Mitchell: So if I can rephrase what I heard you say, it sounds a lot like what's called apocalyptic optimism, which is to say that when things get bad enough, people will sort of suddenly have this moment of realization that, oh, yes, this is real now. And there will be enough sort of recognition of that truth, that people will be able to somehow come together and create whatever technologies are needed to stave off total collapse. There might be, you know, marginal or regional collapse, but there won't be total global collapse. So that's what I just heard you say. And, you know, I'll fine tune that later, but go ahead. But I mean, there was just a book, right, about apocalyptic optimism. But the response to that is something called the backfire effect, which is part of sort of an innate human bias, you know, sort of an evolutionary bias we have, which is to say that the more we are confronted with evidence that contradicts our worldview, the stronger we dig into our worldview. So, you know, this idea that at some point there will be enough evidence that people who are driving large pickup trucks will say, oh, yes, I shouldn't drive anymore. I should stop, you know, using this car because it's part of the global problem that's destroying everything. I think it's going to be the opposite. And you already see this, you know, people will, you know, famous YouTubers have said, well, you know, against you people who think we should be driving less or driving EVs, I'm going to take my gas guzzling car and burn all the carbon that, you know, to make up for. I mean, there are people who are out there actually actively trying to sort of subvert the perspective that you're talking about as a possible future. So, I think the, you know, the fundamental flaw is built in human bias, sort of an evolutionary bias that gets us to believe that the paradigm that we've created for ourselves is the one we should live out. And, yeah, I think, you know, it takes someone with great intelligence and great perspective to be able to understand their own evolutionary biases and get outside of those. You know, for me, it's, I think probably everyone, yourself included, we, you know, we're still using a lot of the tools that are in real time destroying this planet, right? We're using electricity in our homes, we're not, we're driving our cars, we're buying clothes that have been made in China and transported with fossil fuels over the ocean to our homes, right? We are having people do yard work with fossil fuel driven components. I mean, the best of us are doing these things, right? Sure. You know, this, this shirt is probably has a fossil fuel footprint in it that's, that's huge. You know, I've tried to wear it a lot over the last couple of years. Sorry. A lot of my videos feature this shirt. So, I just, I don't see the technical optimism you do. Can I push back a little bit on that? [00:18:10] Speaker 1: Because, and also I may be mischaracterizing a little bit what I'm saying. First of all, you're talking about individual action to solve climate change. I don't think that's theoretically possible, number one. And number two, I totally agree with you on the sort of the evolutionary biases. I wrote a whole, I put together a plan of 20 points of the policies, by the way, and we'll get back to that, policies we need to fight climate change. And then I realized, well, you know, maybe I'm pretty smart, but I'm not the smartest guy in the world. Why isn't this list everywhere? Why aren't we doing these things? We're not. And then I wrote a list to why we're not, which probably you would appreciate very much. They're all the reasons we ignore climate change, both evolutionary and then there's sort of the corruption side, politicians bought off and all that kind of thing. But I'm not arguing for the pickup driver to stop driving his pickup truck to fight climate change. I don't, I don't even see how that theoretically works. However, we can, we haven't yet, but we can have governments, while they're still around, which is the key thing, to implement policies that get everyone to do the right thing. And some, you know, you can argue there's countries in Northern Europe that have started to do this already. And that's what I'm saying when things get bad. And if they do get bad, we actually have the tools we need. I mean, sunlight reflection methods haven't been done by humans. Well, actually, they are being done by humans right now, just in an inefficient way. We could do it in an efficient way and buy ourselves a little more time and that kind of thing. So I'm not saying we will, but I think the difference between a doomer and maybe myself is I'm saying we can. And I think you're saying we can't. Let's focus on that a little bit. Do you think, and by can't, I mean, even though there's just no way we'll ever try or whatever, or we don't have the tools or? [00:20:09] Sam Mitchell: So James Hansen is with you on the political solution. And his argument is that we need a third political party, one that will not take on special interest money and will just create the policies that will make a quick transition to certain geoengineering and other mechanisms, carbon capture, and everything you need nuclear to be able to stave off climate collapse. So I think he's in agreement with you about the political solution. And right now we have two political parties. I happen to agree with one more than the other because I have a social justice, women's rights sort of perspective on politics. But both parties are deeply invested in maintaining the status quo of infinite growth on a finite planet, right? They're both invested in two different ways to protecting our borders against immigrants. So the idea that somehow we're going to completely come up with some new party and have that rise to power and create these changes at a policy level nationally and ultimately internationally to take on China and India. Yeah, of course, that can happen, right? But it falls into what I call the ain't going to happen. I would distinguish between can't happen and will happen by this sort of intermediate ain't going to happen. And so I've actually compiled my own list. I have a list of 30 items that are on my ain't going to happen list. [00:22:02] Speaker 1: I saw that list. Yeah. I disagreed with a few of the key ones on that. [00:22:07] Sam Mitchell: Among the ain't going to happen is going to be sufficient geoengineering, say, the mere reflection project or putting a space sail between us and, you know, out in space to block solar, incoming solar. I mean, all of these sort of ideas on this list are all possible. They all can happen, right? So I'm not going to argue that that that this point, whether it can or it can't, they all can and they all won't. Right. [00:22:38] Speaker 1: So so let me let me disagree with you on one since you brought it up. My prediction is that sunlight reflection method, which I think is a better name for solar radiation management, it's far easier to understand far more. And it's very accurate about what it's all about. Same thing, though. Not everyone is against it now because they think, oh, it might have side effects and we can go and spend a whole hour on that. But I also guarantee that we're going to do it. And the reason we're going to do it is besides being relatively cheap and easy to do, and I'm talking about sulfur particles in the stratosphere, you only need like 200 special airplanes that are just sort of, you know, big, powerful planes that we can modify what we have. But the reason we're going to do it is because when the shit hits the fan, which and then and by the way, Hansen, who I interviewed like a month or so ago and I've known for 15 years or so. He does say, yeah, let's just change the government, which I attribute that to let's just get rid of capitalism and everything will be fine. You know, I agree with you. That's not going to happen in the near term. He also says, you know, it's quite as directly, but in some of his writing says, when we finally decide to do something, this is what we're going to do. And he's implying that when the shit hits the fan. So now the shit is hitting the fan and then politicians have a number of choices. We can cut our emissions and we can do CO2 removal. None of those will have any impact on the climate for many decades before you even notice that they've happened. And you'd have to compare to what would have happened, right? And who knows? In terms of making things better, you're not going to notice for 50 years. And to a politician, that means absolutely nothing, right? You can't do it. It's worthless. Solar radiation management happens right away. You know, a year later, things are way cooler and, you know, things are, you know, there might be side effects, but the side of the elimination of the primary effects is going to be very dramatic, quick, et cetera. We know it works, volcanoes do it. We're doing it today, a very inefficient way by putting sulfur in the lower atmosphere, and times more than we need. And so that's why I guarantee we're going to do it. Would you, well, I don't want to get into maybe your list of ain't going to happen things. I really want to keep it on the idea that we won't be able to respond. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. [00:25:15] Sam Mitchell: So I recently did a calculation on behalf of the mirror reflection project. So the question is, if you look at the amount of solar that's actually hitting the surface of the planet, how much of the planet would we need to cover with mirrors, which are about 93% efficient, according to the mirror reflection project and their ability to reflect incoming shortwave solar back in space? How much of the planet would we need to cover with mirrors in order to take us back simply to the albedo we had in the year 2000? Right. So not all the way back to the beginning of, right, but just to the year 2000. And my answer came out to be 1.6% of the planet. [00:26:02] Speaker 1: Which is the United States. [00:26:04] Sam Mitchell: Well, the United States is 1.8% of the surface area. [00:26:07] Speaker 1: With Alaska in a way, yeah. [00:26:08] Sam Mitchell: So we're talking about, but you'd have to do this in the equatorial region so you have more direct solar coming in and you'd have to actually double it so that you can take care of the fact that it's night or day. So it is essentially, you know, a project of a scale that is just unimaginably large. And of course, hurricanes or other weather or the natural way these mirrors would sink or not be stable. So they'd have to be constantly monitored and replaced. And I've heard a different number. You said 200 planes flying full time. I've heard something like 70,000 planes flying 24-7. I would have to double check that number. But, you know, I would say that 200. [00:26:57] Speaker 1: Well, we interviewed Doug McMartin, who's a researcher at Cornell doing exactly this stuff. And we've actually had lots of discussions with him. But I mean, that's just one view, you know, but he is actually a researcher trying to figure out how to do it. [00:27:10] Sam Mitchell: But that would have to be 24-7. And then we have this issue of termination shock at the end of it, which is essentially something we're experiencing. Right now, anyway, after IMO 2020 is a termination shock. So, I mean, once you sort of go down the path of geoengineering, the stratosphere, you're kind of locked into it, right? Because what happens when you stop is completely, I mean, of course, the idea... [00:27:35] Speaker 1: Well, to be very clear, if you don't do it, you're locked into it. [00:27:39] Sam Mitchell: So let me just give you what another climate scientist said is the easiest solution. And I mean, this one took me aback when I heard it. I couldn't believe this person said it. But Housefather actually said, if it comes down to the point where, you know, civilization is going to collapse because of climate change, and there's no other geoengineering solution on the table that's feasible in the short run, we need to start lighting off nukes. I mean, he actually said that, right? To essentially create a digital nuclear winter. [00:28:10] Speaker 1: Oh, he did. Okay, he said that. So... By the way, we're doing... Just to be clear, we're doing it today. When you talked about the termination shock from shipping, that's because we're putting about 100 million tons of sulfur into the lower atmosphere where it lasts for about one week, right? And then we have to keep replacing it, replacing it. In the stratosphere, it lasts for about a year or so. So you need far less. Now, there's a difference in cloud formation. So you got to double it up there versus down here. But you're still talking about a 95% reduction in what in the geoengineering we're doing and getting more cooling. It's just like a hybrid car. You just get more, you know, get more mileage for the same gasoline. You get much more cooling for the same amount of sulfur. [00:28:55] Sam Mitchell: I think the other point... [00:28:56] Speaker 1: But we're doing it today. So it's not a question of, will we do it? In fact, we're stopping doing it. And that's why we're getting accelerated warming, right? [00:29:06] Sam Mitchell: So I think another perspective on this, and one that we can easily sort of get sidetracked on, is that climate is just one aspect of collapse, right? We have all of the different Earth systems are sort of simultaneously collapsing from the cryosphere to the biosphere. You know, we have extinction. We have acidification of the oceans. We have deoxygenation of the oceans. You know, we have melting glaciers. You know, and all of these things are happening in real time. And they're not going to all be sort of reversed by putting a little bit of sulfur into the stratosphere. So, you know, we are outside the planetary boundaries, what, on six out of nine right now. And so we're just sort of seeing a systemic collapse at a much larger scale than some simple geoengineering, you know, fix for temperature alone, which is essentially what that is, is that simply temperature. [00:30:04] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, yes. And I agree with you there. I do think that climate is such a near-term thing, plus the tipping points coming, that we have to get a handle on this while we do the other things, too, by the way. And then it's a question of what does exactly collapse mean? You know, is it really the end of civil society or whatever? [00:30:28] Sam Mitchell: So I want to say one more thing, okay? [00:30:33] Speaker 1: Yeah, please. [00:30:34] Sam Mitchell: So another part of this is that once we start doing geoengineering at any scale, let's say we decide, okay, to save the planet, we need to do geoengineering. What that does is that opens the door for fossil fuel companies and all the other sorts of things we do that are currently generating emissions and destroying the planet to continue unabated, right? So unless you sort of put that together with a political solution at the same time, you're really just going to open the door for acceleration in these other sources. And so, you know, it's almost like this is a way of inviting Pandora into your home, right, by putting sulfur. It's, yeah, the social consequences are also part of the equation, not just the climatological consequences. [00:31:21] Speaker 1: Okay, I'm not sure I follow you fully on that one because, as I said, we're doing it now 10 times more than we need to do it. So we can cut our pollution by 95%, still have more cooling. By the way, on the mirror thing, I'm glad you looked at that because I keep hearing about mirror, which I should explain to the audience, is a supposed climate solution for cooling the earth by putting mirrors on the ground all over the world and reflecting the sun away. And I was really, doesn't that have to be like the size of the United States? And you're sort of confirming that it does. So, yeah, anyway, so we'll move off of that. Let's get into the really critical issue on dumerism. Is dumerism just a way for people to say, well, screw it, I'm giving up, you know, or something and having that attitude, and maybe, you know, grieving and whatever else, emotionally coming to terms with, you know, the inevitable future? Is that one thing? Or is it a way to get the public, society, whatever, engaged on climate to take action? How do you see dumerism in that context? [00:32:39] Sam Mitchell: So what I see is environmentalism losing its way. I see. So when I grew up, right, my childhood was the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, right? It was rivers on fire that are, you know, there were oil spills. There were, you know, there was DDT. There was essentially the biosphere was collapsing in real time, and we were witnessing that. And so as an environmentalist, as a child, right, a young environmentalist, what I cared about more than anything was protecting the biosphere, protecting the environment. So environmentalism means to me someone who is more concerned about the beauty of the natural world and the survival of the natural world than they are the survival of global industrial civilization. And so what I've sort of experienced is this transformation of environmentalism into, okay, we don't have time to protect species anymore. The biosphere is fucked, right? We don't have time to protect the cryosphere or to worry about what's happening in the oceans. What we need to do is make sure that civilization survives. And what does it take to make civilization survive? It takes putting sulfur into the air. It takes electric vehicles. It takes solar energy. It takes wind energy. It takes all of these things, right, that actually actively destroy ecosystems. Yeah, sure, fossil fuels destroy ecosystems, but so do these green technologies. So what it means to me to be a doomer is to say, enough, enough, right? Civilization is going away one way or another. Let's destroy as little of the planet as we possibly can as we're on our way out. In other words, to be a doomer, in a sense, I think the closest in my framing is somebody who's a de-growther, right? If you want to know what would save the planet right now today, if I had it in my power, right, to save the planet, what I would do is restrict every single person on the planet to a limit of 20 miles from their house from now on for the rest of their life, right? Unless they are invested in an industry or an emergency where they need to travel more, for example, food delivery. And I would restrict diets. I would restrict, you know, what people can eat. And I would make those two changes immediately. You cannot travel. And from now on, the following foods are off limits. I would also completely shut down sort of this production line of goods that are just sort of used and disposed of in real time over and over. And that would be sort of the mandate. Well, that's a bunch of ain't going to happen, right? That's a bunch of ain't going to happen. So as a capitalism, right, we're in we live in capitalism. We're not people are not going to suddenly wake up and say, oh, I should no longer visit my son who lives 700 miles away ever again for the rest of my life. Right. That's not going to happen. So. [00:35:54] Speaker 1: So you're so you're a doomer beyond climate is what I think what you're saying. You're sort of an environmental planetary boundaries doomer. [00:36:01] Sam Mitchell: Yes. [00:36:02] Speaker 1: And saying, even if we can cool the earth here, we're still destroying wildlife here. Yeah, of course, of course. [00:36:10] Sam Mitchell: I mean, I mean, if you just focus on climate alone, you're not really you don't really have a perspective on what's happening to the planet yet. Yet that's where all the numbers are, right? That's where the data is. And so we like to crunch that data all the time. [00:36:24] Speaker 1: Well, biodiversity numbers are pretty and they're available. [00:36:27] Sam Mitchell: Yes, you were reading about species extinctions, about bird extinctions and fish extinctions. And that's in the news all the time, right? These horrible, horrible numbers that are coming down. I mean, the penguins in Antarctica just got the bird flu, right? So they're dying off in droves right now. So, I mean, the fact that humans travel to Antarctica is actively killing the penguin populations in Antarctica, right? That we bring in our items and transports and somewhere along the line we carried the flu there through one of the products. I don't know how it happened. I don't know the vector. But the point is that I am an environmentalist, right? I am an old school environmentalist. And what that has turned into is being a doomer. I mean, it makes no sense to want to support anything that will preserve the status quo for humanity on this planet. That there's nothing that humans are doing that is enriching the environment over our own self-interests. [00:37:30] Speaker 1: So, let me ask you a very, I guess, very direct question. Are you for taking action to stop climate change, emissions reduction and or carbon removal and or SRM? [00:37:51] Sam Mitchell: So, for example, in my four electric vehicles that need lithium, that's mined and cobalt and my four wind turbines that need copper from Chile, that's mined. No, I'm against any technology that further degrades the planet. [00:38:12] Speaker 1: Okay. So, that's going to take the discussion in a little different direction, maybe, than I thought. So, Michael Mann, who's a famous climate scientist and here on Climate Chat, when we have our discussion with Leon Simons about how we're blown through 1.5 and we're heading to whatever temperature and Michael's saying, oh, we can still stay at 1.5 if we get to net zero by 2050. And we're thinking, well, what's he smoking here? I mean, that makes no sense whatsoever. However, so that's Michael, that Michael Mann we're talking about. He also said that he almost hates doomers like you, I guess, more than he hates climate deniers because he thinks the mindset of doomerism prevents action on climate. And I have to say, maybe he's right because of what you just said, you're not really for doing that. But you disagree with him, though. I thought you disagreed with him, too, at the same time. [00:39:12] Sam Mitchell: So, yeah, he says that deniers are the unwitting pawns of the fossil fuel industry. [00:39:18] Speaker 1: Oh, okay. [00:39:18] Sam Mitchell: And what I would say is that Michael Mann is the unwitting pawn of the green industry because the green industry is also invested in destroying the biosphere. It may not have as large a footprint of destruction at present that fossil fuels do. But, you know, if you talk about a long-term transition to green technologies, you're talking about solar that has a lifespan of 20 years or batteries that have. And then you're talking about continued production, essentially, to preserve the status quo of civilization, right? So, how can we maintain civilization by transitioning to these green technologies? How can we still have everything we have and not have to sacrifice anything so that we can still have a car that we can feel good about driving, but it's an electric vehicle? And so, fine. So, I consider his perspective extremely destructive to the environment. I consider his point of view that what we need to do is transition to these other destructive technologies instead of the current destructive technology, just so that human civilization can continue to grow. It sort of is not clear what the long-term plan is there, right? We are in the midst of overshoot. We're in the midst of the collapse of multiple systems on the planet. And there is not a plan that involves a transition to green technologies that avoids that collapse. There simply isn't one. [00:40:52] Speaker 1: Well, I have to just disagree with you a little bit of it because you brought up lithium. So, you want to take a guess for every one ton of lithium, how much oil we extract? [00:41:03] Sam Mitchell: There's some equation. I don't know, 800. [00:41:05] Speaker 1: It's 50,000 tons of oil for every one ton of lithium, and it's 100,000 tons of coal. Coal for every one ton of lithium. So, lithium is not really a problem. Plus, you can recycle it, you know, for a really long time. So, we're talking about instead of a one-time use. I mean, this is what, I mean, let's talk about environmentalism a little bit. We have a society based on fossil fuels where you dig them up at mind-boggling amounts that people cannot fathom how much that is. Again, 50,000 to one. And we use them one time, and then we got to dig them up again, versus lithium and renewable energy, where you dig up and you mine, by the way, tiny fractions of an amount compared to fossil fuels. And then you reuse them over and over and over again. You know, circular economy, all that kind of thing. And then you reuse batteries. Hold on. And then you reuse those things over and over again. So, I'm not saying that that's not also destructive, but in the context of let's not do anything, let's might as well just keep on the same way and shut it down as fast as possible, we're really talking about quite qualitatively and quantitatively different impacts on the Earth. Both negative, but, you know, one's way up here and one's like down here. Any thoughts on that? [00:42:30] Speaker 3: Well, I'd just like to, the way I look at it, and based on what you said, it's like we're burning styrofoam cups to power our transportation needs right now. And if we switch to electric, I want transit. I want bikes. I want the least, I'm surprised how much I agree with you. [00:42:53] Speaker 1: Wait, wait, wait, with who, by the way? Be careful. [00:42:54] Speaker 3: I want the lighter thing. Absolutely. But if we must, it's like the step away from oil, the burning styrofoam cups to power cars, as opposed to crafting the glass or steel container to carry our coffee, that we will reuse over and over and over again. And to me, that seems like a better approach, not ideal, but way better than the other. [00:43:34] Speaker 1: Anyway. Elliot, what are your, well, sort of the same point. So what are your thoughts on that? [00:43:40] Sam Mitchell: So the thought is that the intention is to maintain some similarity to our lifestyle at the expense of yet another ecosystem. So, yeah, you can try and draw equivalences between the two, or you could say, well, maybe the right thing is to limit our ability to drive, to ban cars entirely and create infrastructure for public transportation. You know, there are solutions that are far better than lithium, that are far better than electric vehicles out there, but we're not doing them. So, you know, to sort of argue this middle point as an effective stopping point is simply because of our desire to maintain civilization and status quo. And I, again, I draw the line very simply at ecosystems. If our intention is to maintain the status quo through destruction of yet another ecosystem, I don't need to hear an equivalence between oil and lithium in order to know that I'm against it, right? I am against destruction. [00:44:42] Speaker 1: But let's be clear here, by the way, that I'm probably not, I probably won't disagree with anything you think we should do. I may be more radical than you if I was king of the world and got to decide what to do. It would be dramatic, okay, in terms of very much along the lines of what you're saying. Because I agree that, you know, the long-term health of the humans and all other living things really depends on how dramatic we cut back now. But you made a list of ain't going to happen. I'm going to put on that list everything you're suggesting to do. And so my list, again, if it will happen, I'm for it, okay? I'm for what you're saying, but ain't going to happen. So what I'm trying to do is say, given what might happen, might not happen, but what could plausibly happen in a relatively near-term time frame, when people are motivated by shit hitting the fan, because even when they're motivated by shit hitting the fan, I'm doubting they're going to want to cut back like you're saying. But there are some things we can do, first of all, to get rid of the crazy one-shot energy system and go to a recycled energy system. And by the way, other hopefully dramatic cutbacks, especially among the wealthy, where most of the damage is occurring. So, okay, how do you address the, ain't going to happen with what might we be able to do part of the equation? Because if you just say, this is what I would do, or I'm going to give up, okay, that's not going to happen. So you're not part of the discussion anymore then, I guess. [00:46:27] Sam Mitchell: So I'm not fully following you, I mean, I told you that I am an environmentalist, and so I am in favor of the collapse of global industrial civilization. Right. I am in favor of human footprint on this planet becoming smaller, just as quickly as it possibly can. And, you know, along the way, if lithium could be part of degrowth, part of shrinking, you know, the net footprint, as it already is in many ways, part of that. The problem is that these technologies are more likely to prolong civilization than to aid its descent. And as such, all of the other things that humans are doing, whether it's, you know, destroying the biosphere through plastic pollution, or, you know, what we're, our food production and how we treat animals. So, you know, all of these other harms we're doing to the planet are only going to grow in scale, there's not a substitute for beef, you're not going to put lithium in place of beef, right, so, so as, as populations grow, it's like, it's likely that food sources are going to transition. And so we have this, another one of the, the systems that's in decline are soils, right, so, as, as we create products that will allow civilization to maintain itself and grow even more. We're talking about destruction of our soils at a greater point, which inevitably what, what all this boils down to is even more suffering for a greater number of humans, even more suffering for a greater number of animals and species on the planet, even a larger, ultimate extinction event, right, that, that growth, you know, we're going to hit the Seneca cliff. And the question is how high up that cliff do we want to compel ourselves to go through these alternative technologies before we go over it. So I'm not going to tell you that, that they don't work, right, that, that, that there is zero benefit to the environment from lithium, or there isn't a net benefit. But I think that's outweighed by the long-term impacts it has on allowing population civilization to continue to grow and allowing the destruction of yet other ecosystems that won't survive post-human because they've been destroyed. [00:48:54] Speaker 1: So I would actually, tell me if you agree with it, not only would I describe you as a doomer, but I would describe you as a pro-doomer. Yeah, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're for doom because you think it will be better, you know, for the entire earth or, it'll be better for the environment. [00:49:14] Sam Mitchell: Yeah. I, again, I am an environmentalist and the best thing that could happen to this planet is, is get rid of people. Right. [00:49:22] Speaker 1: Yeah. Get rid of people. [00:49:23] Sam Mitchell: So, so. [00:49:23] Speaker 1: I think that's a true state. Obviously we're, you know, people are having a very damaging effect on the environment. Okay. Well, that's very interesting. I didn't expect the conversation to go there, but, uh, I, yeah, I, I guess I don't agree. I mean, first of all, I, I don't disagree with sort of the premise and a lot of what you say. And again, if I was in charge or if you were in charge, I mean, I would probably agree with everything that you'd want to do, but that's not going to, by the way, even pro-doomerism. Well, let, let me ask you the question. Are you, are you trying to, you're, you're for doom. Are you trying to promote doom? Are you trying to get us there faster? And if so, what are the things you're doing on that front? [00:50:08] Sam Mitchell: Um, so I am against green technologies. [00:50:12] Speaker 1: Okay. [00:50:13] Sam Mitchell: And, um, by virtue of being anti EV, anti, um, wind, anti, uh, uh, nuclear, right. Uh, by virtue of being against these technologies, the upshot is that collapse will happen faster, right? Because all those technologies, that's true. Um, prolong, continue burning fossil fuels. [00:50:35] Speaker 1: Right, right. [00:50:35] Sam Mitchell: They prolong civilization and, and allow for continued growth. So I'm not directly invested in, um, speeding doom, but by virtue of being against technologies that further degrade the environment that is, you know, and, and because the things that would solve the problem of simultaneously being an environmentalist and wanting to maintain civilization aren't going to happen, you know, like degrowth, um, because of that, then yes, essentially I'm, I'm indirectly promoting, uh, collapse. [00:51:08] Speaker 1: So in a sense, my, what Michael Mann was saying about maybe you or people like you, I guess, um, in some sense is correct, right? He was saying that if, if you're for, if you're for action on climate change, you know, let's take that as a premise for many people are, I am, and many people are for action on climate change, which means getting rid of fossil fuels, which remains, which also, let's just say it means replacing them with renewables and other kinds of quote, green technology. If you were for that, then people who are doomers are against, are against you and are against that. I mean, is he at least correct in that regard? [00:51:50] Sam Mitchell: Michael Mann: So I'm not going to define what it is for all doomers, right? [00:51:55] Speaker 1: Again, Michael Mann: No, no, but, okay, but you, we're using you as an example. [00:51:58] Sam Mitchell: Michael Mann: Again, Michael Mann is not an environmentalist. He is the opposite of an environmentalist. Michael Mann: He is for the destruction of ecosystems. He is for, um, new technologies that are going to be placed on locations that are pristine, um, by whether they're mines or they're going to be fields of solar panels or unknown effects of wind turbines in ocean ecologies, right? He is for all of the things that are degrading this planet right now in real time. And he's for them, um, with the idea that that would allow human civilization to continue to grow, which because of all the other impacts of humans will even further degrade various, uh, systems, right? So call me the one who is pro collapse. Actually, Michael Mann is setting the stage for a much larger collapse than I am. He said his, his idea is not just that humans, that 8 billion humans should collapse, but that 10 or 12 billion humans should collapse. And on our way out, we should create even more devastation to the planet, right? So I, I absolutely disagree that Michael Mann is sort of, um, more in favor of, of, um, you know, preserving the planet or, or, well, no, I, I didn't, I didn't say [00:53:17] Speaker 1: that. All right. I said that for people who want to fight climate change and get rid of fossil fuels and replace them with renewables and green technology. Uh, by the way, I, I also agree. Michael's approach is not helpful, but not for the reasons you're saying. Yeah. I'm saying he sugarcoats it so much and makes it seem like, oh, it's so easy to fix. We'll just, we'll just get to net zero in 2050 and everything will be fine. But wait, wait a second. That's not true. We better, we better be more alarmist, by the way, which is the other side I wanted to talk to you about is doomer versus alarmist. I think there's another kind of doomer than you, and I'll call you the pro doomer, maybe the regular doomer. They don't want doom. They just think it's inevitable and they're just fearful. There's nothing we can do about it. That's like a whole other, I'm sure they are listened to you, but I mean, they're sort of a separate group. They don't want doom, but, but they, they think it's too late. Would you agree with that, that there's that kind of doomer as well? I, I think that's correct. Yeah. And [00:54:21] Sam Mitchell: I'm aware of that. I wanted to backtrack a little bit about your statement about 1.5. Uh, I did a calculation, um, this morning. Um, so last week I did this, this computation of what the current, um, level of warming is compared to the 1850 to 1900 baseline. I was frustrated with sort of, um, the numbers that were coming out from, um, various meteorological agencies. And I came up with 1.38 C as our current level with 0.3 C of, uh, current, uh, warming per decade. And what happened was, was, um, you know, the, the status quo has been 0.2 C and just this morning, I read, um, [00:55:05] Speaker 1: not, not James Hanson, 0.5 C. James Hanson thinks it's 0.4 to 0.5, you know, um, and our equilibrium, [00:55:13] Sam Mitchell: you know, sort of point we're going to reach no matter what right now is at least 2.0 C. I mean, we can stop today or we're going to hit 2 C, right? If we, unless we're going to blow through it, unless we do, unless we start removing, uh, carbon and putting in geoengineering, 2 C is already baked in, right? If we were to stop and let things, uh, come to equilibrium. Um, but I was really happy to see a very famous, uh, climate scientist post on Twitter today that his calculations were also 0.3 C for current warming. So, you know, the fact that Michael Mann or this whole sort of gang of climate scientists are still saying 1.5 C is possible is, is just, it's so aggravating because, because there is no, you know, there's nothing that, that suggests that that's in our future. Uh, no real science says that, that we're going to stop at 1.5. I mean, [00:56:06] Speaker 1: we were at one totally, totally agree with you on that one. We were at 1.5 for this year, [00:56:10] Sam Mitchell: according to Berkeley earth, right? My own, we did it. We did a whole program on that with Leanne Simon. So yeah, our, my own computation was 1.46 for this year. So, um, yeah, it's, um, I think we're going to be at 1.6 or 1.7 this year. Well, I I'm keeping track of the running 365. And so, you know, I'll post it to Twitter if we get there, but at any rate, I just want to respond a little bit more to the Michael Mann issue. I mean, or, or just, you know, it's not just him as Catherine Hayhoe, it's a house father. And it's a bunch of these climate scientists who keep sort of chiming in as this 1.5, uh, number is still attainable and, and it's just not, it's just. Well, I think by the way, [00:56:47] Speaker 1: you're getting into an essence here that maybe is the thing that brings it together with Doomerism is that of hope versus fear. And Michael Mann, obviously, as they, everyone jokingly say is he must be smoking hopium. You know, he wants, he doesn't want to say anything to remove that hope from the discussion. But of course, the way he puts it makes it sound like you don't have to act, you know, like, it's like, it sort of leads you to in that in action. Michael Mann said it might be okay, you know, or something like that. But then there's fear, which, um, by the way, I just call it honesty. And I think you do too. I mean, by the way, you and I talk about the same climate data, and we talk about it in the same terms. This is like really bad stuff and totally agree. I think we should be honest about it so that we get to that point where we, instead of choosing to fail, we choose to succeed. I think you're saying, no, you hope we don't choose to succeed because you think that's even maybe not worse, but prolonged, um, environmental damage. Right? Did I get that right? [00:57:53] Sam Mitchell: Yeah. And let me, let me respond to hope because that's a really, uh, good question. So, uh, I wrote a, an essay about hope. Um, essentially, uh, there was this, this 2018 study, uh, by Harvard on hope. And what they found is that, uh, hope derived drives inaction, right? People who are hopeful actually are less likely to take action than those who are, are driven by, uh, let's call it climate realism, right? Rather than doom. We'll call it climate realism. Okay. That, that the more you're aware of the true facts of what's coming down, the more likely you are to take an action in your own personal life. The point of hope is that if we have hope, then we believe a solution is possible, right? You cannot have hope without at least having somewhere, the conception that this is a problem that can be solved. Correct. And once you believe it can be solved, the, the human tendency is to say, ah, so somebody will solve it. All right. Good. Somebody will solve this thing. Ah, well, that means I don't need to do anything. Hope drives inaction. And that was essentially the pathway, uh, that the Harvard study drew, you know, the vector from hope to inaction was, was this understanding that hope, uh, um, believe solutions and solutions means somebody is doing it and good. I don't have to do it. The other point, um, is that hope itself, you know, was the one evil that Pandora did not release when she opened Pandora's box, right? So she released everything else, death, pestilence, uh, disease, everything, hope stayed in the box, right? So, so if you actually correctly translate hope from the original, text, it means deceptive expectation. It means setting up an expectation for the future that's simply not based on reality. So that's another part of hope. It gives us a bias, uh, towards, um, a future that's not going to happen. It makes us think that there is a future, you know, we have this deceptive expectation because of Michael Mann that stopping at 1.5 is possible. If only we had enough political action to make it happen. And it's simply not, that's a deceptive expectation. [01:00:05] Speaker 1: Well, that I would agree. I mean, scientifically, I would just say, you know, it's not even possible. I don't even know why he's saying it, but, uh, however, let me distinguish. And by the way, this is an area, what we're talking about now is an area we get back to time and time again on climate chat with all kinds of different people, because I think this is, I mean, to me, we, in terms of climate science, we know all we need to know about the science. We'll learn more, but we know all we need to know. We have solutions, which you might disagree with, but I believe that we have solutions that we can implement that with policies in place, not just individual action can actually make a serious dent. Still will be a lot of problems, but not maybe the kind that you're talking about. Um, but all, all of this requires us. So there's fear that we're in danger. And the other thing I always emphasize, we're not doing anything right now. The hope is we could, if we chose to, but choosing to obviously in this particular case does actually require individual action in terms of getting in the streets and changing the political calculus for politicians, because right now they're just, they're just not interested in it at all. Um, but okay. I, by the way, I would love talking to you forever about this. Uh, but I also want to give some other folks a chance to ask you questions. So let's start with Eli or one of our co-mods and Eli, do you have, and for everyone who's wants to ask a question, this is an interview show as opposed to an open discussion show. So please keep your, your comments short and like 30 seconds to ask [01:01:40] Speaker 4: Elliot the question. So, um, Eli. Well, it's, it's more some criticisms of, of the argument that he's laid out and I would like his response. Um, so, uh, there, there are three, three things that I take issue with in, in the analysis that he's laid out. Um, the first is that, uh, renewables, uh, um, wind up being, you know, extra as, or, or, or sufficiently, uh, um, badly extractive that, uh, uh, they just wind up being more environmental damage. Uh, that is not intrinsic to renewable energy technologies. That is how we have implemented them in the context of, uh, a market economy that admits, admits externalization of cost. You do not need lithium. You do not need niobium. You do not need cobalt. Uh, you don't necessarily even need copper, uh, to have, uh, photovoltaics and, uh, uh, wind power. Um, it's just that, you know, those are the cheapest way to come up with the highest efficiency, uh, devices, uh, for those things. Um, we could be using earth abundance for all of those things. So that's, that's the first thing. What's your, what's your question though for Elliot? So, so, um, would you, on, on, on that particular point, would you, uh, uh, reconsider your views on renewable energy if, if, you know, or would you, would you in fact advocate a shift to earth abundance as a way of avoiding the, the harm that, that you raise rather than, than simply avoiding, uh, renewables in general, but that, that I think will lead to your civilizational collapse things, which is a separate point that I want to get to. So if you want to respond now, you can respond now, or we can do them all. [01:03:47] Speaker 1: I really don't know what the question. I think the question was if you could go from fossil fuels to earth abundant materials to generate energy and things like that, and other things that we need, would you, before that, even though it might, uh, make collapse happen later because we would be getting away from, you know, fossil fuels will accelerate collapse. I think everyone would agree on that. So it's kind of a little, it's strange to meet someone who wants to keep going on fossil fuels so that, that, that, that, that happens, but I'm not sure if that's, by the way, is that true? Did I just, are you for continuing with fossil fuels until collapse happens? Yes. Okay. There you, I think you got your question answered, Eli. Do you have another quick [01:04:31] Speaker 4: question? Well, that, that was the first out of three. The second point is that, uh, um, you argued that, that, uh, um, we can't replace meat. Uh, we absolutely can, and we absolutely will, uh, not just with plant-based, uh, uh, meat substitutes, but with cellular agriculture, which eliminates, uh, cruelty and, uh, uh, a significant, uh, the majority of the footprint of meat production. Um, I, I, are, are you arguing against cellular agriculture as well? [01:05:04] Sam Mitchell: Uh, no, I'm, I'm not arguing against any of that. I'm just saying that what will happen as the population increases is that more meat will be eaten. Uh, I, I think the idea that somehow a technology, technological solution will find its way to, uh, 1.4 billion people in India, you know, uh, 1.3 or whatever in China and, and throughout, um, four sections of Africa and South America as a substitute for meat, you know, when, when essentially meat is, is, um, you know, such a ready source of protein and such a demand source of protein, I, of course, there are solutions that, you know, uh, and, um, it all falls under the general category of techno optimism. You know, the techno optimist is somebody who believes that, yes, there are solutions. Just let me implement my solutions. And then, uh, humanity and civilization will live in this golden age again. And whether that solution is, is a meat substitute, whether it's mushrooms or, or whatever you want to, you know, develop for that, or whether, uh, the solution is wind power, solar, electric, thermal, um, you know, nuclear, whatever, you know, these are all things that, that underscore, uh, at, at their basis, a desire for humanity to, um, expand its reach, its population, its, um, ability to, to inhabit the earth. Um, and so, I mean, the, the real question is, do you like humans, right? If you want to get down to it, are you a fan of humans? Um, I'm a fan of some humans, right? I, I certainly love some humans, but as far as humanity, I think humanity is a destructive force to this planet. And I don't think there is any time historically, uh, when that's not been the case. And I don't foresee any time in the future where, where it will be the case. And so, um, you know, you can, you can pose technological solutions to, to various things you disagree with me about. And, and yes, they are solutions in the short term, but they're not long-term solutions towards protecting the environment. [01:07:02] Speaker 4: Okay. Well, so, okay. So, so this gets to the, the third, the third, uh, class and, and that is that it, uh, and, and this, uh, will, you will, you will regard this as techno optimism as well, but, um, we know enough it just to, in terms of, you know, how we've been damaging, uh, the planet, both through climate degradation and ecological degradation, um, to really do things differently. And it's, it's beyond the present, uh, substitution, but all of these things are more scalable than people realize, uh, in, in terms of cost and in terms of timeframe. Um, it, if, it just, if, if you grant for the moment, hypothetically, that we could have a civilization with an infrastructure that instead of, uh, degrading the climate and, and its surrounding ecology actually operated to restore it. Um, and also that restoration happened faster than the, the, the, the null, the null hypothesis, which is for you civilization collapsing and then the climate and ecology, you know, gradually healing itself. Um, [01:08:17] Sam Mitchell: would that alter your, your view at all? Um, so you're, you're creating an idealized, um, situation here and it is sort of based on the, um, what, what is the, um, notion that at some point in history, there was some civilization somewhere on the planet where humans lived in harmony with the, their surroundings and, um, you know, used only as they needed and, uh, honored the earth that they lived in and, and it would have stayed that way forever, but you know, Western people invaded or whatever. So I finally, fundamentally do not believe that. I don't believe humans are capable of, um, a civilization that is not, uh, inherently harmful to their environment. And I think that, that historically, if you look at, for example, native American civilizations, you will find that, but for, uh, pestilence, disease, uh, drought, hunger, um, warfare with neighboring tribes and competition, that all of these populations would have grown exponentially if they had had access to oil and the energy that it provided them. So, um, you know, it's, it's sort of, uh, um, a different philosophy than I believe underscores your question. Um, I do not believe that humans have any innate, um, goodness towards their environment. I don't, I don't believe that such a civilization ever existed. And, you know, if you look at the megafauna, the, uh, extinction of megafauna follows very closely the rise of, of humans on this planet over the last 50,000 years, there's never been, you know, a situation where, where megafauna, um, were sort of treated as anything other than a source of, of food and clothing and, and, uh, resources. So, um, that that's more or less my answer to your question, I think. [01:10:11] Speaker 1: Great. Well, thank you. We're gonna, we're gonna go to Stacey here for, uh, uh, another question. [01:10:15] Speaker 3: Stacey? Uh, oh, sorry. Thanks. Yeah. Hi. Hey, Elliot. Um, so first, do you have children? [01:10:29] Sam Mitchell: So I don't want to have a, an argument about something that where you're going here. So [01:10:35] Speaker 3: I'm going to decline to answer that. Okay. Okay. I look, I don't think we're that far apart and I have kids and I just, um, I guess that's where I'm on the other side of the coin is I have to have hope for them. You know, I have to, otherwise I'm dooming them. And I didn't know everything I knew, um, when I had them. And I, I don't know how that would have changed. Cause I spent so much of my life wanting to have kids, um, you know, or, you know, thinking I would have kids. So I'm just looking for that kind of thing. Like how, how can you balance the, I have kids and what I want, you know, the world to be for them. And then the other thing is, and I'm serious. Like I rarely meet people who are further along than I am, you know, like in terms of it's, this is what's happening to people. And so I, and I'm, I do not mean this in a weird way. I like, how do, are you able to socialize? Cause I do have issues. Like my friends are traveling, they're doing these things, you know, whatever, like, how can I, how can I be a part of normal life, you know, with people who are doing things that it's just like, it's, it's, it's difficult because I know what that contributes to. [01:12:04] Sam Mitchell: If you have any advice. So both of your questions are incredibly deep and personal. And, um, I mean, they touched me really deeply. I just want to let you know that. Um, I think every species loves its children. I don't think humans are alone in loving their children. Um, and you know, a dog loves his puppies, uh, you know, I mean, every, every species loves his children and, but for our awareness of death and mortality, right. We are no different than every other species, but, but for our conscious knowledge of that event and our ability to fortale that future is what separates humans in many ways from other species, right. Our ability, not only to foretell that, but to create sort of mythologies that let us deal with that inevitability. Um, and so it's a tragedy. I mean, it is, it is so beyond sad, not only that our children, you know, the children that are alive today will experience this, but, but that, that that's an inevitability in their lifetimes. I mean, let's look at a best case scenario. We have three feet of sea level rise by 2100, right. And everything else is solved, but we have three feet of sea level rise. Well, in that case, we have no more, uh, coastal infrastructure around the planet. We have no more ability to transport goods and services, especially foods between nations, right. So we can't transport grains from, uh, Ukraine to the United States or India, or, you know, we don't have any more rice or wheat or so at the very least there, there is starvation, massive starvation and the collapse, uh, uh, society coming because of loss of the simple transportation mechanisms. Um, so, so there, there's no hope that this isn't going to happen. And, you know, the, the problem is, you know, for you that, that you want to have hope for your children, right. And I'm with you there. I, I, we all do, right. Um, we want this planet to be good for our children. Um, it's not going to be, and it's going to be something that we're going to have to come to terms with. Um, and I'm not sure how you tell children, you know, about this. Um, I w I get asked that question all the time, how do I tell my children? And, uh, my answer to that question when I'm asked is wait for them to ask me, wait for them to bring the issue to me. They will learn it from their peers. They will learn it, you know, through their, uh, interactions on social media, wherever they learn it, when they come to me, I'll be ready to answer and I'll have an answer for them and be able to meet them wherever they are, you know, honestly. Um, and the other thing is how do I socialize? And the answer is not very well. Um, you know, um, I, I actually, I have a friend who knows I'm a doomer and, um, you know, she was, we were having this conversation the other day and in the middle of the conversation, she just stopped and said to me, Elliot, don't be a doomer. And I just wanted to walk out of the room. It's like, you know, okay, don't be a feminist, you know, don't be, you know, don't be a Democrat. Just, just, you know, there are, there are things that we so identify with as who we are that, that you cannot simply tell someone to not be that thing and have that be okay. Um, so, so the answer is it's really difficult. I, I am so sad all the time. I'm, I'm so profoundly sad. [01:15:26] Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I'll just add a little comment on that. I, I, I feel for you. I, I am, I'm not quite there, [01:15:32] Speaker 1: but I am very close and it's, it's tough. It just reminds me that, uh, when I was giving my climate talks in 2008, telling people how bad things were going to get. And unfortunately I was basically right about all that stuff. Uh, yeah, yeah. In the section of what can you do personally? The first thing I had put was ask for forgiveness from your children. And, uh, I got people to open [01:15:56] Sam Mitchell: their eyes a little bit, except, except I want to, I don't, I don't like that. Okay. We're often blamed. You and I, our generation is blamed for letting this happen in the 1970s and 1980s. But the difference is that, but for us, right. But for the endangered species act and the clean air act and the clean water act and getting, um, you know, errors, getting, uh, refrigerants out of the atmosphere and lead out of paints and DDT out of the food chain and all these other things our generation did. Yeah. The individuals who asked that question to ask wouldn't exist to ask the question. It's called the anthropic principle, right? It's called the, in physics, it's the weak anthropic principle that, but for you existing, you wouldn't be here to ask that question. You would not be here to blame us for what we didn't do, but for what we did. Oh, I see what you're saying. Although, I mean, [01:16:49] Speaker 1: I guess we did some good things like that, but of course the major thing, which was depending on fossil fuels, which we were, depending on how you want to look at it, we knew about in the fifties, sixties, certainly by the eighties. And we still chose not to do, not only not do anything, but to [01:17:04] Sam Mitchell: make it far worse. So yeah. But overshoot was an inevitability, right? Overshoot is an inevitability of any, uh, species that has a food source, right? A source of growth. And so it was going to happen sooner or later. It might've prolonged it to the late two thousands or 2150 or whatever, but overshoot is an inevitability of, of any species on a finite planet, right? Of, of a, a bacteria in a Petri dish is essentially what we are with oil. So, um, you know, it was going to happen and we just happened to be cursed to be the generation that's alive when it's happening. [01:17:40] Speaker 1: Okay. Let's go to Eric. Eric, you had your hand up for a long time. What's your question for Dr. Jacobson? [01:17:50] Speaker 5: LMT. There you go. There you go. Oh, Hey, sorry. I, uh, okay. Um, so, um, so the first, the first, I guess it's two part question. The first part is, um, for, uh, I guess I don't think to worry very much about what the planet will be like a million years after the last human, since I kind of assuming that the planet will mostly clean itself up, um, over, uh, over millennia. Um, and so it really does make sense to focus on the habitability of the planet for humans, because we're not really big enough to do that much damage that, um, there will be, you know, genetic diverse, there will be biodiversity after we're gone anyway. So I, so I want to talk about [01:18:41] Speaker 1: very long-term you're talking about. Yeah. So like, we're right. We're in a position to mess it up for, [01:18:47] Speaker 5: for things that are alive now and will be alive in the very near future. Um, but I don't see, so that's, I guess one, one of the reason I don't, I'm assuming I, it doesn't make sense to share your concern. I'd love to hear about why I'm wrong about that. Um, and the second point is, well, let's, [01:19:03] Speaker 1: let's do one at a time. Let's do one of the, okay. So Eric's saying that, uh, in the long run after we're gone, whether it happens right away or a little bit later, um, the earth will just like the [01:19:13] Sam Mitchell: dinosaur come back. What, what's your thoughts on that? Um, so yeah, on the million year time scale, um, you know, it'll be hard to find, uh, evidence of, of humanity. Um, actually multimillion. I think the current number is 4 million years, uh, for humanity to be sort of washed clean. Um, but you know, it's sort of, when you ask a question like that, the question is why was anyone ever an environmentalist? Why did anybody ever want to save the, uh, Andean condor, right? Or the bald eagle or reintroduce wolves to Montana? Why be an environmentalist at all? If it doesn't matter to you, you know, either you care about the environment or you don't. And, and at my core, I'm an environmentalist. I am somebody who loves this planet deeply. I love the natural world deeply. And I do not foresee a time when humanity is going to change the way it's treating this planet, um, other than to further degrade it. So, um, you know, if, if you say, well, yeah, but it doesn't matter in a million years, well, you're right. But then why was anybody ever an environmentalist ever, you know, uh, either there, there's a point [01:20:26] Speaker 5: to it or there's not. Right. And so the answer for me, the answer for me is, um, that I like human timescales. I want the, the condor to be around in part to be enjoyed, um, by humans while we're still on the planet. Um, and I assume there will be a time post humans and, uh, and the, and biodiversity [01:20:50] Speaker 1: will find a way to recover. Um, the other, what's your other question, make it quick. Yeah. Um, the [01:20:56] Speaker 5: other question is, um, the, the, the interesting thing for me about this Dumerism is, you know, should we bother to do things like get to, um, um, to zero green, uh, net zero, uh, greenhouse gas emissions. Since I believe that this is not an extinction level problem. Um, this is a problem that will kill billions of people, but not a hundred percent of us. Um, we have responsibility, even if there's only half a million, um, um, humans alive in 200 years, we have responsibility to those people. And that's why I don't, you know, that's why I want to see people, um, get, what's your question [01:21:39] Speaker 1: though? Should there be responsibility for humans versus animals? Maybe it's your question. Almost there. [01:21:44] Speaker 5: Um, what would you say to people who say we have that responsibility because for those of us who care about humans, we have that responsibility. Any, any comment on that? Yeah. I, it comes under the [01:21:56] Sam Mitchell: framework of speciesism, which is to say that you view humans as somehow a, a more important species on this planet than other species. Right. And, and it's very natural to do that. I'm sure that wolves view wolves as the most important species, if they were able to have that cognitive ability to make that recognition. And, you know, there's a famous line, um, uh, from a song, you know, when blood sees blood, uh, of its own, right. It recognizes the face. So every species knows its own species and wants to mate with its species, wants to, you know, eat or habitat with its species. So I just think, I think I am not, um, a, it's a weird way to use the word humanist, but I'm not a humanist in that sense that I do not believe humans are superior species who have more right to this planet than [01:22:48] Speaker 5: other species. Okay. Thank you very much. The only correction I'd make there is that I don't have to believe that we're more important. I just have to care about us more. [01:22:57] Sam Mitchell: Well, all species care about themselves more than other species. [01:23:01] Speaker 1: Except for my, yeah, go ahead. And, uh, Dr. Brian, welcome. [01:23:07] Speaker 6: Thank you. Um, I'm unable to start my video. No, you should be able to do it now. Oh, wait, hold on. Try it now. Thank you. Very good. Um, well, Elliot, first of all, I want to, uh, thank you for insightful perspectives. I'm in wild agreement with you that if we don't address the population problem, uh, we'll have an exponential denominator on our hands, which is a huge factor. Um, but I do note with interest that we're actually scheduled for demographic collapse, not only in China, but also Russia, uh, Italy, and Germany. Uh, so in fact, um, between that and the, the insight that in fact, as humans urbanize their, um, their number of offspring drops, uh, precipitously that, um, to me addresses to some extent, this population concern and actually raises the prospect of a soft landing. Um, so that's really a statement, um, leading towards a question. Um, and that is, I mean, that gives me some, some hope that in fact, we can address the population side of it. Um, the interesting question I wanted to ask you about is that, uh, George Monbiot is an environmentalist writer who has written among other books, Regenesis. And, um, it may provide a counter example to one of your claims that, you know, lithium or anything else, it's just gonna, you know, be mining more things against environmentalism. But I think George has an example in Regenesis of regenerative technology, and that is precision fermentation takes approximately 70 times less land area to feed the world than the present farming practices. So he's pointed out that if you use PV in limited quantities and enable local production of protein with precision fermentation, you can actually grow enough food to feed 10 billion people with about 50 times less land area than we have now, which would enable rewilding of 98% of all that farmland that we've been using right now. So I'd be interested in your thoughts there on, um, that perspective. And if you have read George Monbiot, uh, and, and, and Regenesis, I'd be interested in his other regenerative proposals [01:25:20] Sam Mitchell: there. Thank you. So I, I know about him. I've watched him on a couple of videos. I've read a couple of his articles. I think he's a writer for the Guardian. Is that correct? Uh, or are you, right? I think he's a writer for you, right? There, um, and I'm a great fan of his, and, um, you know, he had an episode. He was on some news program a couple of years ago where he started talking about grandchildren and, and broke down in tears, you know, at, um, what he kind of saw about their future. Um, and I'm really grateful you mentioned the P word population. Um, you know, that word is typically not part of these conversations, but is obviously, um, one of the key things I'm about here behind everything I'm saying. Uh, so I, I tend not to like to say that word because, um, you know, people will often argue that it's the first world, it's the capitalists, it's the wealthy, you know, it's certain populations that are creating the problems more than other populations, um, rather than understanding that population in general will always have this stratification that will, you know, matter the population level will lead to a certain fraction, having, uh, these abusive behaviors. Um, so, you know, if we could just eat the 1%, it would be great as some people have that as a bumper sticker, eat the 1%. Um, so, um, I'm not sure where I would fall in that because most people will live, live in the United States or in the top 1%, uh, you know, on the planet. Um, so, but what do I, in general, feel about, uh, a technology that would allow, um, expansion of our population to 10 billion through, you know, some plan to change the food source that would allow rewilding? Um, I, I think that's great. I, I would, you know, if we, I don't want the population to go to 10 billion. I love the idea of changing the food sources and, and, uh, you know, rewilding is, is something I'm a big fan of that because rewilding is exactly the opposite of environmental degradation, right? So as an environmentalist, I'm a hundred percent for, um, don't touch that, right? Do not touch that area, uh, kind of ideas. Um, but I mean, I think you, you know what my answer is based on the other things I've said here already. I'm not, uh, a techno optimist. I'm not, um, in favor of technologies that promote population growth. Um, I'm not in favor of human expansion, you know, or, or doing these things. And I think the, the whole point of, of what you're saying here is that, um, this technology would allow more humans, right? So, wait, wait, I think there's a misunderstanding here. [01:28:07] Speaker 6: I actually see the demographics leaning us towards a soft landing of a few billion people on the planet reduced from where we are today. And I'm just wondering, do you, is there anything you see that makes you not believe the demographic numbers or the reduced, I mean, we're getting 0.8 to 0.4 births in urban regions and people are urbanizing over half the world's population will be urban by 2050. [01:28:28] Sam Mitchell: Yeah. So, I mean, that's another way collapse will happen because, you know, once you sort of start down this path and you no longer have, um, the young people to support the needs of the entire civilization, right. And since top heavy and the top half is not as productive in terms of creating product that, that the civilization needs to, to maintain itself. So, yeah, I mean, that, that is absolutely happening. It's already happening in China. I think Japan and some other countries are already seeing this and they're, you know, I think in China, they're actually offering to pay women, you know, $10,000 to have, you know, more children or some, some number like that. You know, there are incentives, uh, where it, it underscores that population decline is part of collapse, right. It, it leads to collapse naturally. And so, you know, so this sort of paradigm of infinite growth requires population growth as well. Um, so that we always have, you know, more, more at the bottom [01:29:23] Speaker 6: supporting the, the narrow part at the top. Um, I, I think it's worth noting is regarding collapse and specifically, are you talking about a collapse to zero or a soft landing to, you know, 20 or 50% [01:29:36] Sam Mitchell: of our present population? I, you know, I, I'm not going to speculate there. I, I, on my climate casino, I do an over under, I have two over unders on population. Um, and again, that, that, you know, I take all the evidence I read and everything, and I try and reduce it to a single number. Um, and my, my numbers, I believe are 8 billion is my over under by 2030, which is already indicative of, of a serious collapse in, in process. Right. And, and 4 billion by the 2050 to 2060 time span. So in terms of a soft, a soft landing, that's sort of my, my personal over unders is, is that we're already going to see the, the impacts of, of, um, lower birth rates and, and disease and famine and, and climate events, reducing population just over the next five years or so. It's already going to start impacting [01:30:27] Speaker 6: us. So if we achieve, uh, stabilization of the population at just a few billion, and we have regenerative technologies that can feed the world, feed the 4 billion with 50 times less footprint than we have now, then why don't we have hope that we could actually do all those things we wanted to do in the 1980s. And that is clean air act and all the rest. I mean, those were done out of hope. And why can't we regenerate that hope if, since we've addressed that population thing, and now we've got a way to feed ourselves without destroying the environment. I, I don't have any answer to that. [01:31:03] Sam Mitchell: I'm just, you know, I, I, I like the division you have for the future and, and, uh, you know, we'll see there are people on here right now who will probably be alive in that year. I won't, um, you know, hopefully they'll be able to look back on this and go, yeah, yeah. You know, okay. It was a side landing. [01:31:23] Speaker 1: Okay. By the way, I'm going to just throw in my one little bit of techno optimism. It's going to sound a little weird, but addressing the collapse and what are we going to do in terms of labor and things like that? The field of robotics is pretty crazy right now. And, you know, 10 years from now, things are going to look very different in that regard. Also, we, we did survive with 3 billion in the past quite well. So I'm not exactly sure why we could do it. [01:31:51] Sam Mitchell: I don't, I don't know quite well. The reason we survived, let's not call it 3 billion. The reason we survived with 1 billion was because there were a lot of constraints on population growth. You know, the average lifespan was 40 ish, you know, there is widespread disease and widespread hunger and starvation and crops would fail and there wasn't international trade. And so, yeah, the population stabilized because there was all these, these sorts of, uh, uh, pressures on population that were downward pressures that oil has allowed us to, to, um, you know, subjugate. So, so yeah. Um, it's not clear how, how you, you re-institute those pressures once we're at 4 billion. [01:32:29] Speaker 4: I was going to make the same point about, uh, I was going to make the same point about AI and robotics and, uh, further point out that, you know, it, it, it is sufficiently significant that, uh, uh, there are other people who are worried about technological unemployment. And I think they are probably right, uh, to the extent that we will need something like a universal basic income, [01:32:54] Speaker 1: if we want political stability, um, and very different future is being envisioned here. [01:33:00] Speaker 4: Yeah. And, and, and that, that brings me to, to a larger point is that, that you're doing what, for instance, the club of Rome did and what, uh, a lot of people on the fossil fuel side also do. And that's extrapolation for, from current trends. And while that is useful information, you have to go beyond that to understand, you know, the mechanics of those trends. And when you do, uh, and you understand that things can be modified, uh, it, it leads to a totally different [01:33:31] Sam Mitchell: outlook, broadly speaking. So let me just answer that very quickly. Um, I don't actually, um, I'm not actually forecasting trends. I'm not in the way the MIT or club of Rome with very specific about their timelines of things. I'm just, I just give odds for wagers. You know, I give over under odds. That's your gambling background. Yeah. So, you know, I tend to, um, make money, money on my wagers because more people take the wrong side. Um, and I, I count, I bank on that. Um, I don't actually make money. I call them fake wagers and I, I let people bet fake money and I do it as put with Twitter polls. Um, but I'm, I continually am looking at numbers in terms of future events and creating, uh, lines for them. And I think that, that, you know, the put your money where your mouth is argument is something that is exactly what I do, you know, because I want people to realize that they are over dooming it, that they are too much on the doom side. And, and part of the educational value of these wagers is that people, you know, lose these bets over and over again by overestimating doom. Um, so, you know, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not actually giving a timeline [01:34:45] Speaker 1: of any sort here. Okay. And listen, we have one last question from Pascal. Pascal, go ahead. [01:34:51] Speaker 7: Yes. I'll switch on my camera if that works. Hello everybody. Nice to be here. Actually, Dan's, uh, climate talk where he describes three degrees Celsius as the Bible was one of the very first, uh, climate, uh, presentations I ever heard on the internet. Um, and it's, it's nice to, to come back and then be able to talk to Al you to his Twitter posts. I enjoy these days. Um, I want to make one quick comment about evolution. I think that people underestimate the complexity and sensitivity of the biosphere to the current atmospheric composition. Um, and you say that like, oh yeah, it's going to be all right in 10 million years. I think that's just, it's very sad because the, every single creature that's around today has at the base of it, a four and a half billion year history. Right. And everything we eliminate from it, we destroy that whole line of evolution. And that's just, I mean, that's horrifying to me. And my view has been, maybe you can comment on that. Well, um, that whoever is going to be left of us has to be smart about smart enough to kind of maintain the planet in such a way and try to go back to the climate that was because from a geological standpoint, our increase of carbon dioxide just looks like a step function. Right. So every single creature that's going to get to your question though, please. Yep. And it's going to need the climate of the past. That's our job. My question is actually for Elliot, the mathematician, because I've been wondering about the aim of collapse for a while, because if that happens, all our models are wrong. And I've been really wondering about how long that collapse takes. Now, Peter Dudlefsson has said that it's going to be around 30 years in his view. And I've been wondering if the speed of the system at which it approaches the tipping point has mathematically speaking, any influence on how long the tipping point actually takes? Because if that's true, that would mean we'd be faster than any of the Dansk-Kerushka oscillations because the earth energy melts so hard. That's what I really wondered about for ages. So maybe you know something about [01:36:59] Sam Mitchell: nonlinear dynamics in that sense. So, a great question. I mean, there is, you can just go look at it yourself. I mean, there's sort of a sequence of tipping points that are, you know, hitting at various levels and there's cascading tipping points. And so, you know, obviously the tipping points, most people are concerned about are the Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctic ice sheet, the methane from Siberia and the Amazon. And so, you know, those are sort of four that are already underway at 1.5. And so, I would think that we will see the impacts of those before we see the AMOC collapse and, you know, complete climate change in Europe. I mean, just based on what scientists are saying, you know, the order, sort of the sequence, the sequence of these things happening. But I mean, the currents are obviously already being disrupted and you can see that if you just sort of look at the maps, the current maps, you can already see that there's sort of a chaos already taking place. And of course, I mean, part of the drive for that change is the cold, fresh water flow and the desalination that's happening from melting Greenland, which really tells you that it's Greenland is driving, you know, the collapse. It's that ice sheet that's driving the collapse. So, you know, I am not an expert on that question. I really wish I knew more to answer you. And I just wanted to also acknowledge that you made a very important point about entire lineages, you know, in our sort of the evolutionary process being cut off. I mean, you can read about those sorts of things happening now that their entire families and species that are just going extinct, not just individual species anymore. And yeah, that they will never come back again. So yeah, no, thank you. Thank you for your question. [01:38:40] Speaker 1: Thank you, Pascal. And Elliot, well, let me turn down my... That brings us to the end for now. A fascinating discussion. Some people ask how they can get in touch with you. Do you have that on your [01:38:57] Sam Mitchell: website, climatecasino.net? Yeah, I have a contact tab on climatecasino.net. So climatecasino.net, one phrase, one thing, type it into your browser, go to the contact. The only thing I do is I don't, I don't respond to people who don't identify themselves. So just, just, you know, tell me who you are somewhere in the email. I don't, I don't respond to anonymous emails. That's the only condition. [01:39:22] Speaker 1: Other than that, I pretty much answer everything. Well, from some of the comments, which we have both on, like Clubhouse YouTube and on Zoom, I think people really found this discussion fascinating as I have. And by the way, I learned a lot. I didn't really fully understand your view of Zoomerism and things like that. And I have a much better idea. I think we're very close on a lot of things, except sort of the final conclusion. I think we differ a little bit there. Really, really fascinating. I also want to say to everyone listening, I should have done this earlier, but please subscribe, hit like on this so more people can listen and get Elliot's thoughts on where we are. It's certainly a different approach than most people in the climate community have. And I think for good reason, I guess. It is a sort of a different way of looking at things. And I really found it very, very interesting to talk with you today. So I really appreciate your time, especially at a time when your area is getting pummeled by climate change right now. So we're seeing all of that. So thank you again. I really appreciate it. This will be available on our YouTube homepage forevermore. And I'm sure a lot of people will come and listen to it later. But really a great response from all the different audiences we had on today. So thank you again. I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. This has really been [01:40:49] Sam Mitchell: a unique experience and great questions and great discussion. Thank you so much for having me on. [01:40:55] Speaker 1: Great. And everyone, we'll see you next time every Sunday at 10 o'clock Pacific time. We have our climate chat and we'll see you next week and take care. Do we have a topic for next time? Not yet. Bye-bye.