tv Debate on Climate Change CSPAN June 1, 2022 5:32pm-6:36pm EDT
we want we have this compelling debate on should america rapidly we have this compelling debate and should america are rapidlyly eliminate fossil fuel use to eliminate climate catastrophe and we want to give them the full hour. we did this debate at the university of miami in florida and at cu boulder last week could not case alex was debating general wesley clarke and you can find out that those debates on the youtube channel. today we have alex epstein and
we have a different debate opponent and let me briefly introduce. i will read their bios, and i believe they will come up to the stage after i introduced them. we are very pleased to have with us this morning professor subthree a professor of atmospheric science at texas a&m university. professor dressler is a climate scientist that study science and politics of climate change. he is to read a heinz chair of geoscience at texas a&m. in 2022 he was named director of texas a&m's texas center for climatee studies. professor dressler also served in the clinton administration during the last year. he served as a senior policy analyst in the white house office of science and technology policy. his latest book "introduction to modern climate change" one the 2014 american meteorological society's ruth j. batton authors award.
wewe are also pleased to have ax epstein the president and founder of the center for industrial progress author of the moral case for fossil fuels. alex is a philosopher who argues human version should be the guiding critical of industrial and environmental progress. he is the author of "the new york times" bestseller the world's case for fossil fuels and his willingness to debate anyone any time and his leading our brand from -- embraer mentalist such as greenpeace sierra club and 350.org over the morality of fossil fuel use. and our moderator for this morning's debate is dan njegomir the editorial page editor of the denver gazette. dan is a longtime journalist and more than 25 year veteran of the colorado political scene scene. he has been an award-winning newspaper reporter and editorial page editor a senior legislative staffer at the state state capid the political consultant. let's welcomelele professor drer
occurred today and let me repeat it just for the record. should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel to prevent climate catastrophe? we are going to have to andarko first and we will let each one do an opening statement to stay where they are at. they will get 7.5 minutes each and andrew will go first and he'll be followed by alex and we will give andrew a chance to rebut anything he feels needs to be addressed at any point that alex raised. slides, thanks. for me begin by saying energy is the most import in the world if you have been urging you can do anything else you want. the question is what is the best way to generate energy? we generate energy from fossil
fuels. let me talk about the disadvantages of fossil fuels. let me explain why i'm extremely concerned about climate change. this is basically what north america looked like covered with thousands of the device.e there were different ecosystems and the sea level was below her. it was a different planet. if you walk outside youou would not recognize your planet. it was 10 degrees fahrenheit colder that time. two degrees local fahrenheit. the call that an ice age in an ice age unit comes in degrees fo let's think about the future. we are on track with five degrees of warming that's half of an ice age unit. that has the possibility of completely remaking the surface of the earth. we can try to adapt to this. it's plausible to do that our descendents will be spending all of their money holding seawalls
and water destruction things like that. they will be significantly impoverished by this. movingue on fossil fuel poisons the air and kills mites of people every year aroundwo the world due to air pollution. in addition it's a national security risk. these are deadlines that, are nt that short out of date texas gas prices could reach $4 per gallon could let me give a headline that will never be written. the energy your response to u.s.-russia tensions could saudi arabia plans to increase some might. we will never invade kuwait in order to rescue wind and sun. and fossil fuels are a commodity so the price variations is what we are experiencing now with gas at $5 an hour. this is causing credible paper
that m electric car and i charge my tank for $10. i will be $10 this month and $10 next s month. this very abilities economically damaging were fewer small-business owner what is the path -- price of gas going to be near? how do you make plans when you , can't forget the price of energy? let's be clear that we need energy. if fossil fuels only way to go i be the first person in line. we have an alternative. the alternative is wind and solar and those are the cheapest power sources. when i show people this and i point this out people are often stunned. they don't realize where in the midst of ann energy revolution right now. their knowledge of energy crisis is a few years old but they know
this.ot ercot runs the grid in texas and they publish statistics on what people capacity to degrade its 9090% solar wind and valor -- and the cheapest energy's wind and solar. the cheapest energy is wind and solar. i put a question mark there oubecause people want to say wht about -- but it's not arguable. look at the trend. the price of energy and 2019 as aa solar and that's when going down from there that they from there to bayer produces a is the trend of missed rent is not going to stop. this trend will continue to go and that means we can argue about it now.
wind and solar are the cheapest energy of the -- energy of the future. people will tell you wind and solar are intermittent and that is true. then the question becomes can you build a grid that uses intermittent renewable energy that's reliableow and? i'mt not going to give you my opinion or give you a hunch or claim that i know the answer. there's an enormous amount a of research that's gone into this over the last decade. we know the answer and the most you can say where these people went wrong your feelings don't matter. this is a math and physics and engineering problem. so i'll talk about how you build a grid there remains an energy that still reliable. there are two classes of energy
what you might call the fuel saver when solar and a intermittent power and the power you can turn on and off anytime you want. for example the fuel savers are wind and solarme and battery doesn't burn fuel. there's nucleotide road geothermal to what you want to do for the cheapest grade is the answer in a policy can and you might reasonably ask why do this? if you want to pay the least amount of money this is the grid you want to look at. on average the grid will be 75% of the numbers vary. let me just wrap up. we need power.
we can get power from wind and solar. the cheapest energy source of the future. we can based on a decade of research we can build a grid that does reliably provide energy at a low cost and i'd be glad to talk more about that and in that wind will avoid the social clause -- cost of social change in the fact that fossil fuels poison me air and economic consequences. i will wrap up there. thank you. >> thank you andrew. you left me with 45 seconds to spare. alex it's all yours. >> when you have a debate like this i think the usual functions that there will be a big your friends over climate science and
i think this is not sure but the key difference is between me and the net zero movement and methodology. i think about methodology and i've particular methodology for thinking about this issue. what's interesting about this methodology is nobody has ever disagreed with this methodology and yet i've never met one opponent of fossil fuels. let me explain it. there four key factors we have to consider when thinking about fossil fuel. you think about the arms of co2 and the benefits of rising co2. and to think about what i call climate mastery our trilogy to adapt to climate changes. my analysis is used and what happens with the nets are a movement ass we talk about risig seaa arms.
rising co2 benefits tend to be trivialized or denied were not discussed at all. i'm going to go through each of these factors and explain my views. i'll start off for the harm. generallytl find him reasonable and he's one of the more honest commentators. it's nothing likely resemble the media like when sea level rises you are talking about 3 feet by by -- and we have no idea in terms of what it will do and i cannot tell you it's going to be bad but it could be bad. when we talk about degrees
fahrenheit clear up two degrees fahrenheit and we talk about five or 10 degrees and we need to be what honest about that. it means three degrees from now. that brings us to rising co2 benefits which even if you think the harms are big they are demonstrably huge particularly fewer cold related deaths. i'm using this chart which has been vetted many times. there's also global greening in terms of crops benefiting a lot. the fact that this i is not mentioned is significant by the netzero movement shows the bias that we will see with climate mastery hears or we get into problems with that. is the fact that climate related disaster deaths from extreme temperatures and drought are 98%
over the last century and its tavon schugel that fossil fuels would provide 80% of the energy we used. for example using fossil fuels to power irrigation transport to make us far safer from drought. our mastery so great the 100 million people in the world within high tide. so in terms of the sea level 100000000 people are below it. here's what i find objectionable. this is never mentioned. there's thousands of pages that are not mentioned. he doesn't mention it here. this is like discussing colin the fact of polio without the fact that there's a polio vaccine.
nothing climate mastery projects about the future and to future and co2 can be trusted because they deny the climate master ability. thehi final factor which is a me denial of that is possible as denying the benefit of fossil fuels. fossil fuels are uniquely scalable and versatile source of energy. versatile means all types of machines. we talked about electricity and electricityal is only 20% of global energy use. fossil views are growing predicting china and other parts oft the world as the most reliable energy. if we look a solar and wind of the action performance around the world they are only used in places that a have large subsids so when you see more solar and wind elect or city prices go up.
why is this? is very simple. you see sometimes solar and wind can -- you need one of% back up. you have to pay for the cost of the one of% reliable grid and structure including transmission lines. in most importantly the reliable power grid. when you try to cut costs for resiliency measures which have happened in texas and california than you have disasters. on top of it millions more people need to low cost survival energy like one third of the world. fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective and its low cost to rapidly eliminate them. either he's unaware of being very manipulative. it relies on near-term possibilities. anyone who uses this is either
or defrauding. i mean is very literally could if look at thect actual numberst does not take into account the viability related to iteration so it relates to the cost of the solar panel and not the transmission line and not the backup. you have to pay the government to work and you pay for 100% reliable staff. you need to look at the full cost. in terms of near-term possibility that talks about nuclear hydro and geothermal in terms of this magical grid. nuclear is the red one on the bottom and award series steadily and now with intermittency. hydrilla's location limited in her faster dressler said hyder is not something to expand --
hydro is not something to expand. there's a tremendous amount of ignorance about the energy. if somebody is distorting the present they cannot be trusted to look at the future. they look forward to discussing these issues and dr. dressler has a lot to explain. >> thank you both very much. [applause] and what we are going to do is give andrew a chance to briefly review some of the salient points and if you can do that in a minute and a half. >> i'm not even sure will where to begin. can we put my slides back up? first of all a lot of the advantages that mr. epstein talks about when heed talks abot not the advantage of fossil
fuels and the advantage of power. doesn't matter where you get the power. if you get the power from renewables or fuels they'll still be important power sources to reduce deaths. he showed a clock that had germany and california on it. come on this is all the states and the x-axis is the price in the y axis is how much renewable energy it has. it is not more expensive to add renewable energy. that is false. as far as nuclear let's just say i did talk about adaptation. he says we have climate mastery. i did mention it and what he doesn't talk about the cost of climate mastery. if you want to build a seawall that's tens of billionson of
dollars. who's going to pay for that? we are. climate mastery makes us poor. you have almond and they are not trucking in water. they are corruptly building a t pipeline. co2 fertilization the mastery of climate is too expensive to do.l it's too expensive to master climate and when you have renewable energy available. theirse costs associated with ts and if you look at the study said than done they include the cost of transmission lines. again you have to look at the peer-reviewed literature. you can't build a reliable grid and now he is right we also need to electrify. that's another part of the n problem. we can't electrify many of them
may be 95% for the last 5% is hard and if you get the last 5% of electrifying that will be difficult. >> and are thank you. i hate to cut you off. >> i could go on. >> you're extremely knowledgeable about it and i might add that our audience is using language like a layperson like i would use. maybe you can talk about the more technical questions a lot of which go over my head but not over yours. let me start off with one of those. alex has written all this energy points talking points.
he wrote this month in "rolling stone" the amount of warming in the world on will transform our planet and an unimaginable way. someone like me who is not an energy expert looked at both ofk those and thought what if he's right. it which case o instead of bearg no expense in your attempt to curb climate change should we try and can we? to me asking her first. >> certainly we have to adapt to climate change. people need to realize adaptation is not magic.ok people say we will use fossil fuels to master the climate. it will give you an example. houston almost got wiped out by hurricane ike an l.a. to thousands. we were proposing to build the
virtually saying you'll be wiped out without the sometime thisil century.ou compared to the price of houston -- but they can get the money. it's extremely expensive to adapt and certainly have to adapt to what we can avoid that we can avoid with low-cost global warming and if you avoided more cheaply you should do that. >> i've been disappointed by ender's response. putting myself in this position if some have pointed out that i made fraudulent s statistics in terms of the cost of energy and i'm using imaginary scenarios in terms of hydro and nuclear and geothermal and solar and wind that wouldal give me pause. rather than saying their academic studies in the future.
i just want to read or eight the conclusion that the earth will become warmer with fossil fuels is based on the connect the text thatat professor dressler continues not to do they look the benefits of fossil fuels that provides low-cost energy and powers machines for millions of people the beepp project if including safe from climate. we are 50 times safer from climate than years ago. there is no climate crisis at all and there is a climate renaissance right now. the idea that three degrees more fahrenheit can be a disaster this iski chair of -- cherry-picking and ended total. netzer is not impoverishment and not premature death. >> i like to follow on that.
let's say there is an increase in global warming from one to five degrees by the end of the century. it makes more sense nonetheless to adapt and do a have to do rather than trying to go2net his ear on carbon emissions. >> netzero is regarded as is masks murder and shouldn't even be on the table. what policy should you have given the energy is so important to engage in any deliberation that's possible of low-carbon alternatives and wena are very fortunate and we have an unbelievable low carbon alternatives and it's cheaper which is nuclear which was virtually criminalized by the green movement to the point where nuclear -- 10 times for it
adjusted for inflation the 70s0s and everyone should look at nuclear. they make energy more available to people. if you look at professor dressler's track record and tell the series then hostile to nuclear and then nuclear and any call that expensive than gnats and extortion. it's the green movement that he's a major supporter of delivery --. >> and roam going to ask a different question. this e is one from our audience. environmental justiceak seems to require making light for the
poor and middle class more expensive. is it's the only solution to reducing fossil fuel use making american by tesla's? >> i hate to do this to you. let me respond to alex saying i am deeply dishonest. the reason we don't do it in the u.s. is regulatory. so does state that we can do it is aptly wrong. getting back to your statement we do need to switch if we want to get to a world that doesn't have air pollution and mr. epstein has not mentioned the villains of people killed by fossil fuels and if we want to get away from that which i think yewe should then we need to swih to electric. i don't think everybody needs a bite tesla. 10 years ago if you would tell people the electric cars we had
today what will happen in the future is theirs and innovation driving down these other prices. just to hammer on this point that mr. epstein is telling you something wrong. you can complain about it. look at what tesla's are doing. they ar' building wind and solar. they don't care what they say. they have made the calculation that went in a solar achieved energy source. certainly this revolution in energy that we are now experiencing this is goingg to drive innovation. everyone will be buying an electric car in 10 or 20 years. >> it's like -- in 1988 should i be using my computer my ibmt selectric? >> here's another reference.
does the 2019th that include the full cost of power including the backup required for wind and solar generation? >> that's a great question and that's a fundamental mistake that people don't think about when they say renewable energy needs backup. as i talked about it's a mistake to think about this as an energy source. what you want to do on the grid as you want to generate as much power through fuel saver as you can you can't get the power you turn on your extra power. it's including the cost of that. that's part of the grid. it's completely the wrong way to think about it and they think the lazard study is about energy. they are thinking about it wrong that that's the way you think about it. see mckinna responded that? >> this is the great difference
betweenmp us. i want to reexplain it. you have to look at the full cost of things if you take something like we want all of the solar and wind you can c thk of about an worker who's willing to work. there are costs associated in i mentioned transition costs and the most important things back up costs. what that really means is the system cost necessary to take an intermittent input like solar and wind and turn it into controllable reliable output and you have to look at the full cost. you mentioned there's no correlation in the real thing to look at is what happens at the numbers when you add solar and wind. there's a strongs correlation with the prices going up. there's a lot more distortion here and i want to point out this is a hugege distortion
putting the same price on somethinget that and something s reliable and as one executive put it it's like putting the same price on the car the works all the time. they are totally different in the recent solar and wind have increase penetration is because we have an u unfair grid and subsidizes on top of that. something amazing. an economic perversion based on this worship of sun when the said decriminalizing nuclear and executing something done. see mckinna responded that? >> people of done that study. that's what they have done. they have done that. this is not something that we ignore. >> first o of all any projection projection, if a rule that any projection about the future is in ballots all of these studies
and every single one i've looked at are in total denial. they claim that solar and wind -- that's shows you the skill of their accounting. they are denying that so there's all sorts it out but the future and making up hypothetical things. what i go by is what happened 10 years ago. europe was saying all the same things you are and they are not ttotal predicament depending on russia. if these ideas are so great implemented in one place arounde the world do not force us to ban fossil fuels. which is what you are advocating in theom name of total fallacie. or let's shift gears just a little.. >> they are's denial going on. >> just so they don't shoot the piano player. [laughter] can any good come from higher
global temperatures down the road if they were to come back and i think both of you say -- there will be higher global temperatures. >> let me ask you first alex is very good that could come to that? >> there's a greening which is huge. a fact about warming that is not publicized because it's incriminating as warming tents to place -- take in colder places during colder seasons at colder times so it's more the world becoming less cold than the equator and the warmest places. they are our huge positives.
people like warren. warren this crucial to life. he related deaths are far fewer than cold related deaths. to want to find out the reason why people don't care about this is they have a philosophy which is the planet we inherited was perfect in any pact -- impact we have is normal. i think most people accepted in most climate scientists accepted and that's why they are considering all the negatives and don't appreciate how amazing we have made the earth. if you look at the world from her perfume and perspective we are in the climate renaissance a nodhe acclimate tragedy. >> that the temperature we have right now is the best temperature. if you look around the world we have built their entire world around temperature. people inside. build houses on permafrost and they assume the permafrost will never meld them when the melts
the house is split. people build cities on the sea. we made chilly and of for example bridges. when you build a bridge to bridge is expanding. you have to repair the bridge. it's going to be extremely expensive for us to adapt. will there be some positives? i have no no doubt there are some people somewhere that will have positives. let's point out and think about warming in higher latitudes and we are warming a lot. ion don't care what happens in canada. i care what happens in san antonio and austinau and houston and not just in winter.
in the summer but it's going to be expensive but it's going to be very expensive for us. >> another one from the audience and it's an injecting question. can we talk about co2 and how the introduction of fossil fuel the planet. but the increased co2 we have green beer. is that false reasoning? >> i don't think the planet is about to die. >> but the part our generation of more co2? >> we have increased it 40%. if that i was the only thing that was happening we certainly would be helping plants will be about greenhouse people do that. that's not what's happening. that's not the only thing that's happening and as i mentioned
before california farmers are ripping up their almond trees. as the climate warms it's great for that plant. other things are happening and i would also point out, or so i won't pointed out. >> co2 benefits and the historical perspective is interesting. i want to factor in the tube it just variables which are the employment benefits of fossil acclimate mastery. fossil fuels provide 80% of the worldsds energy especially the parts of the world they care most about low-cost reliable energy like china. the world is drastically short of energy and this is important concept. energy is crucial to use machinesav to make themselves
productive and prosperous. we have solar winds with subsidized mandates. papers in the worlds energy totally dependent on reliable sources of energy and we have this claim so we can ban the worlds leading source of energy to replace it with solar and wind. this is t why call it masks murder. this would end billions of lives prematurely. anything within the realm of possibilityng is measurable and nothing compared to the benefits ifif we follow his policy. >> i'm going to ask each of you on the assumption of climate change how much is the u.s. mitigated [inaudible] soio much carbon emissions and i have a follow-up question.
i'll start with you andrew. obviously it's a global problem. you can't solve the problem by yourself. that's a political issue. i'm not someone who's an expert on international associations. the point is we can do this physically. i will say most of the other countries in the world with a few exceptions of australia and the u.s. are looking for u.s. leadership. the u.s. has enormous leadership capabilities. if we laid the way other couples will -- other countries will follow. c >> it's amazing how china and india have no idea what their interests are. china has torn" plants new coal
plants. fossil fuels are by far the most -- energy. that's why they are planning to use so many of them in the future. the only demonstrable way to deal with this is not agreement because we see because we've seen that they'll a lot in terms of co2 emissions is coming up with lower-cost sources of low-carb and no carbon energy. it reinforces nuclear and creates grid that are and that's why nuclear plants are being shut down swinging to recognize nuclear has the potential to liberate natural gas and this will be good for the world in terms of energy and lower emissions long-term. there's no climate -- empower the world and lower emissions. over time in a truly humane way. as long as we are on this solar and wind dogma which is this
idea thathe we wander energy by the wind. we will and billions of lives prematurely and. >> she's focus on doing in america we are going to become than germany is with russia right now.nd europe has been a climactic in this issue and look at them now. spirit lets go further further into the morality of it. is it a lecture post economic industries. green green is the idea of n eliminating human impacts and i think this is based on primitivi philosophyhe which is idea that our impacts on the world are highly and somehowom inevitably self destructive like you violate the commandment andd its wrong. you're also goinggl to. the warming narrative is like a hail mary.
people have this religious view that we arew really going to hep her this is a primitive view and it's not a view held by anybody who lives in nature. if you live in nature you have two master injured. you take for granted the world he lived than they did think of that is natural. you support and adopt these green policies and unfortunately what we do is we have the totally non-greek society. then we impose his anti-human policies on the rest of the world and in the name of so-called sustainable t developmentnd. and somehowan use solar wind to power a flashlight or charge a cell phone. this modern movement is fundamentally and harming the poorest people in the world. >> is an advantage, to going green in the green movement and
i realize it's a broadbrush. >> the people that work t on ths and then they so this discussion because the people who work on this into the pier reviewed research have identified the cheapest energy's wind and solar. he's literally making stuff up. sshow me a study that shows th. we cannot check each other on the fly. the point is it's the cheapest energy people in africa cannot affordle renewable energy they cannot afford also does is pursuing out the cost to master the climate. let i me simplify this. mastering the climb is incredibly expensive than building a seawall is expensive building flood control infrastructures expensive but it's going to impoverish us. i don't think it's going to and human -- but it's certainly
possible and ie said initially e would be spending all of our time and spending their money just trying to stay alive and master the climate to it's not. look at the seawalls and all the investments people have to makee >> can i respond to this. i'm very big one you make rejections about the future of knowledge in the present and we've been increasing the number of co2 in an atmosphere for 70 years. we have two degrees fahrenheit of warming and talking about three more in what we have seen mastery is drastically reduced the rate of climate. it's something we do in a way to deal the dangers of nature money look at what we are talking about there e extremely slow and there involved installation that's rebuilding itself anyway. these are very slow masterful
changes in keeping millions of people in poverty is not a slow masterful change and i point our every real-world example around the world where you try to use solar and wind increases the cost. there's a group by mostly environmentalists who decide to make a pure scenarios. most know that fossilco fuels ae crucial for the future including real decisions. it's so great find it and make it work because it's making people and secure. >> that is wrong in the data that i can't go to the web site to show he's wrong. >> i c do like conflict and i wh someone would get it a shot of
me doing this may be ducking. let me do a check here. let me do a check with you. we want to reserve a minute or so for each of our speakers to sum up what they have come herey to s say and at the same time a tremendous amount of questions to show how learned url are that i would like to see if there's time for that. >> i get two more right? >> i'm not sure how you wanted to do that. some of them overlap and some of them have been addressed in various ways. let's t get back to the cost of renewable. and a number pointedly addressed to andrew.
and just for the record you are death whether. dressler. your electric car cost you $10 to fill up and will continue for the future because as the cheapest form of energy through anything california and europe have highest electricity cost when they built the most renewable energy infrastructure. >> good question. you have to look at the time of when people built out there of the structure. if you look at the lazar plot i0 shows 10 years ago solar was the most expensive in today's solar so least expensive power. germany but a lot of power and that will drive up the cost could we should thank germany. they are spending a lot of money so now it's the cheapest power. that's what energy are doing,
the building l solar. so it's. i know people don't like to hear that. it was a popular podcast recently and you can imagine how many people e-mail me about that. we are going through andll enery rose -- revolution. you can't have a recent debate about that. you don't know the revolution we are going through right now. >> i'm going to try to say somethingme noncompetitive. okay so it's true as i mentioned solar and wind are not replacements for fossil fuels. their cost adding supplements because again they depend a 100% reliable infrastructures so it's true has some of the prices go down they will add costs but they still do have cost everywhere they are used. >> there's one other point i wanted to make.
bosa last point you made? >> you want to ask about the university of chicago epic study.ne >> neither one of us have mentioned that. >> that you are familiar with it and to study that shows renewables are more expensive by the chicago epic study. this is for professor dessler. >> i and they made with the study. i think the studies were too conservative. one thing is the ability like solar and wind because they are like replacing the first 10% is replacing the second or third 10% but you have to add more for structured to get a larger volume of percentage but you need a viable infrastructure is well to you look at texas they have
>> $70 billion to get to 21% solar and wind so to get his tune is 25% 3.5 times they get to spend new money on infrastructureoi and an importat point is this drives up costs. what happens is you defund reliable power plant resiliency. professor dessler talks about the free market is doing this. not one person in this room including professor dessler up pay the same amount forever liable employer or an employee. it's google corruption we talking about 80% of energy that is no electricity in the millions of people who have the edge of the solar and wind can justify rapidly banning fossil fuels with no cost. it's just a murderous plot. >> the nation's second most popular state have a renewable energy standard mandate like
coloradost which i understand ad i think is pretty aggressive and does aggressive and does it have one and that is part of what'ss driving it? >> the way thehe texas grade the works is it's a free-market energy system. they have an auction every day weren't energy come and say this is how much i will charge you for energy. ercot says we only need 60 gigawatts so they say will take the cheapest 60 gigawatts of powerre and wind and solar because their cost of power zero theyan have an advantage. i won hundred% agrees the texas market and because of that the incentive to continueat building wind and solar is in sight the cheapestce energy source and understand there's disagreement there.
you may not believing now that you you may believe in a few years. dessler was right. you understand i'm right in a few years if not sooner. in texas people are building wind and solar as the cheapest energy and we'll add wind and soldier we will eventually create a stable grid. there is zero incentive to build nuclear in texas or other types of power and that's a problem of the market. not a problem with energy and that's a big difference we have. wind and solar are not the problem. them problem is the redesign the market to give advantage to power. >> how do you do that? >> it toto market. for power, i don't know i'm not -- >> it's a ercot in the texas
legislature. so requires more legislation. >> the government needs to solve thatui r problem. >> the way to think of it as the proper policy on long-term system cost analogy. what makes it the most effective that was praised and nuclear would decriminalize colin to some extent natural gas and appointed me before the main distortion involved in andrew's claim of solar and wind is not looking at the full cost. important even with the raw materials those do not go down indefinitely because they are real physical materials and a lot of those materials are going up. chinese solar panels are down it because they include chinese coal. they are using coal to make solar panels.
they are using colin that's an advantage over us and the other thing is they are using low environmental standards and labor. [applause] somebody wanted me to say that i guess. the sale of the can't miss the cheapest they are using and that's relative to the situation. it's as humanitarian evil but it's one of the smaller distortionswl he's repeating without knowledge. important one but it's just a distortion. >> alex at least one of the questions coming from her audience i like to give the audience credit for their knowledge and insight was directed to you in explaining the or mental impactsal of wind with the drilling rig in texas.
what about what alex is saying making the solar panels and doing it with coal. setting aside questions of ethics and morality is there a cart beforeo the horse? >> i server responses. in inner mongolia you drive down the road and their whole fire power plant comes to action and easy wind turbines. i'm not an expert on the chinese great that. my take on that as they recognize they need both. everybody understands that. >> us laypeople you're talking about -- >> power you can turn on and off. itro could be hydrogen were hydroelectric. it could be storage batteries
sewed guess theyy are building fossil fuels but they need to stabilized the grid and they understand you have some power and they wish they were building nuclear but they are not doing that. as far as the other part of her question >> certainly there are supply-chain issues. >> what does that do to climate action and fossil fuels? >> i don't see a problem with that. right now once the solar panels are available you can shut off the fossil fuels and that's how you make advances for use the power you have to get the power system you want. >> we have just about one minute and let's keep the order restart of is so andrea go first.
>> your memory is better than mine are exactly right. >> and like to read or write what the key methodology the harms of sia to the benefits of co2 the effect of climate mastery and also if you benefit and you look at the reality today you recognize how the world works. the situation of fossil fuels have unique masks of the near-terms replaceable benefits for millions of people have energy and dependability and the claims that they are necessary or based on while distortions including by the way the idea that solar and wind the full supply chain is controlled by china. .. on distortions about denying fossil fuels benefits and denying climate mastery and when you actually look
objectively at the full context, it is obvious that the world needs vastly more energy most of that needs to come from fossil fuels for the next sever most of that needs to come from fossil fields for the next several decades. eliminating fossil fuels is a death sentence for millions of people should beor morally condemned as an evil idea based on falsehoods.pl that is what i tried to explain today. chris thank you. >> is a set at the beginning and i will say again we need power no one doubts that. what is the power source that is the best power source for us to use? i want people done analyses that we can significantly on them right fossil fuel use. i don't thinkan there's any analysis that says that. there's a lot of things i think are simply notot correct. a lot of facts are just wrong. i'm happy to engage with anyone in the audience if you e-mail me i would happy to be look into these things. all the evidence of people who are expert suggests we could do
this. when solar is the cheapest energy in the future look what people are installing now. the idea adding it increases the cost of energy is not correct to the grid. this department solving climate change is a huge risk. fossil fuel poisons the atmosphere. we haven't talked about that. there is a security issue. right now look at ukraine look at the price of gas at the pump they do things that don't exist inth the world of renewable energies those are significant disadvantages. >> thank you, thank yout both. let me point out 56 people goes to show how engaged you all were. thanks to both of them in the spirit of steamboat institute coming together civilly and engaging like this for all of our benefits people. i'm very impressed by this by
the fact this forum is here to provide just such an exchange for all of our food for thought. let's applaud at both of them. [applause]ef >> thank you gentleman. it takes a lot of courage to get on the stage and many people refuse to do so kudos. [applause] >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government our newsletter word for word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for this e-mail and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr
code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. ♪ c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington's live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events on live with hearings of u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more for the world of politics all at your fingertips but you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and by scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google plate downloaded for free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington. anytime, anywhere. >> be up-to-date and the latest in publishing with the book tv podcast about books.
with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends are insider interviews per you can find about books on c-span now our free mobile app. or whatever you get your podcasts. >> weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday documents america's story and on sunday @booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions of building infrastructure upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications lawn with these television companies support cs
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on