Lex Fridman PodcastClimate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast #339
EVERY SPOKEN WORD
150 min read · 30,271 words- 0:00 – 1:51
Introduction
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... people all around the world, their lives are basically dependent on fossil fuels. And so, the idea that we're going to get people off by making it so expensive that it becomes impossible for them to live good lives is almost morally reprehensible.
- ARAndrew Revkin
People who have the most basic science literacy, like who know the most about greenhouse effect, they're at both ends of the spectrum of views on climate, dismissives and alarmed.
- LFLex Fridman
What is likely the worst effect of climate change? The following is a conversation with Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin on the topic of climate change. It is framed as a debate, but with the goal of having a nuanced conversation talking with each other, not at each other. I hope to continue having debates like these, including on controversial topics. I believe in the power of conversation to bring people together, not to convince one side or the other, but to enlighten both with the insights and wisdom that each hold. Bjorn Lomborg is the president of Copenhagen Consensus Think Tank and author of False Alarm, Cool It, and Skeptical Environmentalist. Please check out his work at lomborg.com that includes his books, articles, and other writing. Andrew Revkin is one of the most respected journalists in the world on the topic of climate. He's been writing about global environmental change and risk for more than 30 years, 20 of it at the New York Times. Please check out his work in the link tree that includes his books, articles, and other writing. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin.
- 1:51 – 18:53
Politics of climate change
- LFLex Fridman
There's a spectrum of belief on the topic of climate change, and the landscape of that spectrum has probably changed over several decades. On one extreme, there's a belief that climate change is a hoax, it's not human-caused. To pile on top of that, there's a belief the institution, scientific, political, the media are corrupt and are kind of, uh, constructing this fabrication. That's one extreme. And then the other extreme, uh, there's, um, a level of alarmism about the catastrophic impacts of climate change that lead to the extinction of, uh, human civilization. So, not just economic costs, hardship, suffering, but literally the destruction of the human species in the short term. Okay, so that's the spectrum, and I would love to find the center. And my sense is, and the reason I wanted to talk to the two of you, aside from the humility with which you approach this topic, is I feel like you're close to the center and are on different sides of that center, if it's possible to define a center. Like, there is a political center for center left and center right. Of course, it's very difficult to define, but can you help me define what the extremes are again, as they have changed over the years, what they are today, and where's the center?
- ARAndrew Revkin
Oh, boy. Uh, well, I, in a way, on this issue, I think there is no center except in this, if you're looking on social media or if you're looking on TV, there are people who are trying to fabricate the idea of just a single question. And that's the first mistake. Uh, we are developing a new relationship with the climate system, and we're rethinking our ene- energy systems. And those are very disconnected in so many ways that connect around climate change. But the first way, to me, to overcome this idea of there is this polarized universe around this issue is to step back and say, "Well, what is this, actually?" (laughs) And when you do, you realize it's kind of an uncomfortable collision between old energy norms and a growing awareness of how th- how the planet works, that, you know, if you keep adding gases that are invisible, it's the bubbles in beer, if you keep adding that to the atmosphere, because it accumulates, that will change everything. It is changing everything for thousands of years. It's already happening.
- LFLex Fridman
What do you mean by bubbles in beer?
- ARAndrew Revkin
CO2, carbon dioxide, the, uh, main greenhouse gas, uh-
- LFLex Fridman
Why beer? (laughs)
- ARAndrew Revkin
... well, 'cause I like beer. It's also in Coca-Cola. We were talking about cola before.
- LFLex Fridman
Yes.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Uh, and it, so it's innocuous. We grew up with this idea is CO2, unless you're trapped in a room suffocating-
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... it's an innocuous gas. It- it's plant food. It's beer bubbles. (laughs) And the idea we can swiftly transition to a world where that gas is a pollutant, regulated, tamped down from the top, is- is fantastical. Uh, you know, having looked at this for s- 35 years, I- I brought along one of my tokens. This is my 1988 cover story on global warming.
- LFLex Fridman
The greenhouse effect.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
Discovered in 1988.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Jim Hansen, the famous American climate scientist, th- really he stimulated this article, uh, by doing this, uh, dramatic testimony in a Senate committee that summer, uh, in May, actually spring, late spring. It was a hot day and got headlines, and this was the result. But it's complicated. Look what we were selling on the back cover.
- LFLex Fridman
What you see is what you g- tobac- tobacco-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Cigarettes. (laughs)
- BLBjørn Lomborg
(laughs)
- LFLex Fridman
Tobacco, yeah. Yeah.
- ARAndrew Revkin
You know, looking back at my own career on the climate question, it's no longer a belief fight over is global warming real or not? You say, "Well, what kind of energy future do you want?" That's a very different question than, "Stop global warming." And, um, when you look at climate, actually, uh, I had this learning journey on my reporting where I started out with this as the definition of the problem. You know, the '70s and '80s, pollution was changing things, so making things bad.
- LFLex Fridman
So, l- really focusing in on the greenhouse effect and the pollution.
- ARAndrew Revkin
But what I missed, the big thing that I missed of the first 15 years of my reporting from 1988 through about 2007...... when I was, the period I was at the New York Times, uh, in the middle there, um, was that we're building vulnerability to climate hazards at the same time. So climate is changing, but we're changing too. And we- w- where we, where we are here in Austin, Texas is a great example. Flash Flood Alley, named in the 1920s west of here. Everyone forgot about flash floods. Built these huge developments, you know, along these river basins. Then one side starts saying, "Global warming, global warming," and the other side is not recognizing that we built willfully, uh, greedily, uh, vulnerability in places of utter hazard. Same thing's played out in Pakistan and in Fort Myers, Florida. I- if you, and you start to understand that we're creating a landscape of risk as climate is changing, then that g- i- it feels, oh my god, that's more conflicts, right? But it also gives you more action points. It's like, okay, well, we know how to design better. We know that today's coasts won't be tomorrow's coasts. Work with that. And then let's chart an energy future at the same time. So the story became so different, it didn't become like, you know, a story you could package into a magazine article or the like. And it just led me to a whole different way of even my journalism changed over time. So I don't fight the belief/disbelief fight anymore. I think it's actually kind of a waste. I, I don't... it's a good way to start the discussion 'cause that's where we're at, but this isn't about, to me, going forward from where we're at, isn't about tipping that balance back toward the center so much as finding opportunities to just do something about this stuff.
- LFLex Fridman
What do you think, Bjorn? Do you agree that it's, uh, multiple questions in one, in one big question? Do you think it's possible to find the center? Where, where is the center?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Hmm. I th- I think it's wonderful to hear Andy sort of unconstruct the whole conversation and say we should be worried about different things, and I think that's exact- or we should be worried about things in a different way that makes it much more, uh, useful. And I think that's exactly the right way to, to think about it. On the other hand, and that was also where you kind of ended, we are stuck in a place where this very much is the conversation right now. Uh, and, and so I think in, in one sense, um, certainly the people who used to say, "Oh, this is not happening," they're a, a very, very small and diminishing crowd, and certainly not right. Um, but on the other hand, I, I think to an ex- uh, uh, increasing extent, we've gotten into a world where a lot of people really think this is the, you know, the end of the times. Uh, if, if you l- so the OECD di- did a new survey of all OECD countries, and it's shocking. So it shows that 60% of all people in the OECD, so the rich world, believes that global warming will likely or very likely lead to the extinction of mankind. And, and, and that's, that's scary in a very, very- ... uh, clear way because, look, if this really is true, if, if global warming is this meteor hurtling towards Earth and, you know, we're gonna be destroyed in 12 years or whatever the number is, uh, uh, uh, uh, today, then clearly we should care about nothing else. We should just be focusing on making sure that that asteroid get, you know, we should send up Bruce Willis and get, get this done with, but that's not the way it is. This is not actually what the UN Climate Panel tells us or anything else. So I think, uh, it's not so much about arguing against the people who are saying it's a, it's a hoax. That's not really where I am. I don't think that's where Andy or really where the conversation is. But it is a question of sort of pulling people back from this end of the world conversation because it really skews our way that we think about problems. Also, you know, if you really think this is the end of time and, you know, you only have 12 years, nothing that can only work in 13 years can be considered. And the reality of most of what we're talking about in climate and certainly our vulnerability, certainly our energy system, is gonna be half to a full century. And, and so when you talk to people and say, "Well, we're gonna, you know, we're really gonna go a lot more renewable in the next half century," they look at you and like, "But that's, what, 38 years too late." Uh, and I get that, but so, so I think wh- in, in your question, what I'm trying to do, and I would imagine that's true for you as well, is to try to pull people away from th- this precipice and this end of the world and then open it up, and I think Andy did that really well by saying, "Look, there are so many different sub-conversations, and we need to have all of them, and we need to be respectful of, of, of some of these are right in the, in this sort of standard media kind of way, but some of them are very, very wrong and actually means that we end up doing much less good, both on climate, uh, but also on all the other problems the world faces."
- ARAndrew Revkin
Oh, yeah. A- and it disempowers people too. It, uh, those who believe this then just sit back. Even in, uh, Adam McKay's movie, the, uh, Don't Look Up movie, there was that sort of nihilist crowd, for those who've seen it, who just say, you know, "Fuck this. We're, uh..." And, and a lot of people have that appro- when, when something's too big-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yeah.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... uh, and it just paralyzes you as opposed to giving you these action points. And the other thing is I hate wh- I hate it when economists are right about stuff. Like, w- I-
- LFLex Fridman
(laughing)
- ARAndrew Revkin
I, I, uh, I, uh-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
It doesn't happen all that often, though.
- ARAndrew Revkin
No, no, uh, th- there are these phrases like I never knew the words path dependency until probably 10 years ago in my reporting, and it basically says you're in a system, uh, the things around you, how we pass laws, the brokenness of the Senate, you know, the, those are... We don't have a climate crisis in America. We have a decision crisis, uh, as it comes to how the government works or doesn't work. So, but those big features of our landscape are, are... It's path dependency. Uh, when you, when you screw in a light bulb, even if it's an LED light bulb, it's going into a 113, 120-year-old fixture because... And actually that fixture is almost designed, if you look at, like, 19th century gas fixtures, they had the screw-in thing. So we're like on this long path dependencies when it comes to energy and stuff like that, that...... you don't just quick- magically transition a car fleet. It, uh ... A car built today will last 40 years. It'll end up in Mexico, sold on a u- as a used car, et cetera, et cetera. And so, this ... There is no quick-
- 18:53 – 25:23
Greta Thunberg
- BLBjørn Lomborg
remember those.
- LFLex Fridman
Can you steel man the case of Greta, who's a representative of alarmism, that we need that kind of level of alarmism for people to pay attention and to think about climate change? So, you said the singular view, um, is, is not the correct way to look at climate change, just the emissions. But for us to have a discussion, shouldn't there be a, somebody who's, uh, really raising the concern? Can you steel man the case of- for alarmism, essentially? Or is there a better term than alarmism? Uh, commu- communication of, like, "Holy shit, we should be thinking about this."
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Hmm. So, I, I think... You know, I, I totally understand why Greta Thunberg is doing what she's doing. I have great respect for her because if... (laughs) You know, I, I look at a lot of kids growing up, and they're basically being told, "You're not going to reach adulthood," or at least not... "You're not going to get very far into adulthood." Uh, and that... Of course, you know, this is the meteor hurtling towards Earth, and then this is the only thing we should be focusing on. I understand why she's making that argument. I, I think it's... At the end of the day, it's incorrect, and I'm sure we'll get around to talking about that. And one of the things is, of course, that her whole generation, uh... You know, I can understand why they're saying, you know, "If, if we're going to be dead in 12 years, why would I want to study? You know, why would I really care about anything?" So, so I totally want to sort of pull Greta and many others out of this, uh, end of the world fear, but I totally get why she's doing it. I think she's done a service in the sense that she's gotten more people to talk about climate, uh, and that's good because we need to have this discussion. Uh, I think it's, uh, unfortunate, and this is just what happens in almost all policy discussions that they end up being, you know, sort of discussions from, from the extreme groups, because it's just more fun on media, uh, to, to have sort of the total deniers and the, and the people who say, "We're going to die tomorrow," and it sort of becomes that discussion. It's more, you know, it's more sort of a mutt wrestling fight -
- LFLex Fridman
So, what do you think? The mutt wrestling fight is not useful or is useful for communication, for effective science communication on one of the platforms that you're a fan of, which is Twitter? Yeah. I wrote a piece recently in my Sustained What? column saying if you go on there for the entertainment value of seeing those knockdown fights, I guess that's useful, if that's what you're looking for. The thing I found Twitter invaluable for... But it's a practice. It's just like the workouts you do, or, you know. It's how do I put this tool to use today, thinking about energy sufficient- energy action in poor communities? How, how do I put this tool today learning about what really happened with Ian, the hurricane? You know, who was most at risk, uh, and how would you build back- build forward better? I hate build back. Um, or you can go there and just watch it as an entertainment value. That's not going to get the world anywhere. You don't think entertainment... I, I wouldn't call it entertainment, but giving voice to the extremes isn't a productive way forward? It seems to... You know, to push back against the main narrative, it seems to work pretty well in the American system. We think politics is totally broken, but maybe that works, that, like, oscillation back and forth. You need a Greta, and you need somebody that pushes back against Greta to get everybody's... Just to, uh, to get everybody's attention. The fun of battle-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Right.
- LFLex Fridman
... over time creates progress.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Well, and this gets to the... You know, people who focus on communication science. I'm not a scientist. I write about this stuff. If you're going to try to prod someone with a warning, like-
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
This is three years apart. Nuclear winter.
- LFLex Fridman
Nuclear winter.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
1985.
- LFLex Fridman
We'll talk about that.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Global warming. Well, yeah, we'll talk about it. But look at, look at that. You know, this is three years apart in the covers of magazines.
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
And, uh... But then you have to say, to what end, if you're not directing people to a basket of things to do? And if you're- if you want political change, then it would be to, you know, support a politician. If you want energy access, it would be to look at this $370 billion the American government just put into play on climate and say, "Well, how can my community benefit from that?" And I've been told over and over again by people in government, Jigar Shah, who heads this giant loan program at the Energy Department, he says, "What I need now is like 19,500 people who are worried about climate change," maybe because Greta got them worried. But here's the thing you could do. You can connect your local government right now with these multimillion dollar loans so you can have electric buses instead of diesel buses. And that's an action pathway. So, without... So, you know, alarm for the sake of getting attention or clicks to me is not any more valuable than watching an action movie.And- and- and again, I think also, it very easily ends up sort of skewing our conversation about what are the actual solutions. Uh, you know, because yes, it's great to, uh, to get rid of the diesel bus, but probably not for the reason people think. It's because diesel buses are really polluting in the, you know, in the air pollution sense.
- LFLex Fridman
Right, right, right.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
And that- that is why you should get rid of them.
- LFLex Fridman
Right.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Uh, and again, if you really wanted to help people, for instance, with hurricanes, you should have better, you know, uh, uh, uh, rules and zoning in- in Florida, uh, which is a very different outcome. So, so the- the- the mud-wrestling fight also gets our attention diverted towards solutions that seem, uh, easy, fun, you know. Sort of the electric car is a great example of this. The electric car has somehow become almost the sign that I care and I'm really going to do something about, uh, climate. Of course, look, electric cars are great and they're probably part of the solution, and they will actually cut carbon emissions somewhat, but they are an incredibly ineffective way of cutting carbon emissions right now. Uh, they're fairly expensive. You have to subsidize them a lot, and they still emit quite a bit of, uh, CO2, both because the batteries get produced and because they, you know, usually run off a power that's not totally clean.
- LFLex Fridman
Strong words from Jorn
- 25:23 – 32:45
Electric cars
- LFLex Fridman
Lowman. Okay, let's go there. Let's go electric cars.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
(laughs)
- LFLex Fridman
So, okay, educate us on, uh, the pros and cons of electric cars in this complex picture of, uh, of climate change. What do you think of the efforts of Tesla and Elon Musk on pushing forward, um, the electric car revolution?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
So look, electric cars are great. I- I- I don't own a, uh, I don't own a car. Uh, but, you know, I- I've been driving a Tesla-
- LFLex Fridman
There you go, socially signaling. (laughs)
- BLBjørn Lomborg
(laughs) Yeah, yeah. But- but yeah, I've- I've, uh-
- LFLex Fridman
We're in Texas. It's okay.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Well, I flew in here.
- LFLex Fridman
(laughs)
- BLBjørn Lomborg
So, it's not like I'm- I'm in any way-
- LFLex Fridman
Yes.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... a virtuous guy on- on- on that path. But- but, you know, look, uh, they're great cars and eventually electric cars will take over a significant part of our, uh, uh, driving. And that's good because they're more- more effec- they're more effective. They're probably also going to be cheaper. Uh, there's a lot of good opportunities with them, but it's because they've become reified as this thing that you do to fix climate. And right now, they're not really all that great for climate. They, uh, uh, you need a lot of, uh, uh, uh, extra material into the batteries, which is very, uh, polluting and it's also, uh, it emits a lot of CO2 e. A lot of electric cars, uh, are bought as second cars in the US. Uh, so we used to think that they were driven almost as much as- as a regular car. It turns out that they are more likely driven less than half as much as- as, uh, regular cars.
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
So, you know, 89% of all Americans who have an electric car also have a real car that they use for the long trips, and then they use the electric car for short trips.
- LFLex Fridman
Is that true? 89%?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
89, yeah. So- so the point here is that- that it has... it's one of these things that become more sort of a virtue signaling thing.
- LFLex Fridman
Right.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
And again, look, once electric cars are sufficiently cheap that people will want to buy them, that's great, and- and they will, you know, do some good for the environment. But in reality, what we should be focusing on is instead of getting people electric cars in rich countries where because we're subsidizing typically, uh, in- in many countries it's all, you actually get a- a- a sort of sliding scale. You get more subsidy the- the more expensive it is. We sort of subsidize this to very rich people to buy very large, uh, Teslas, uh, to drive around in. Uh, whereas what we should be focusing on is perhaps getting, uh, electric motorcycles in third world developing cities where they would do a lot more good. You know, they can actually go as far as you need. There's no, you know, worry about running out of... Uh, and they would obviously, they're much, much more polluting, uh, just air pollution wise-
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah, yeah.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... and they're much cheaper and they use very little battery. So it's a, it's about getting our senses right, but the- but the electric car is not- is not the con... It's not a conversation about, is it technically a really good or is it a somewhat good, uh, uh, insight. It's more like it's a virtue signal. So just, you know, I'm- I'm... I work with economists. I'm actually not an economist, but I like to say, I claim I kind of am.
- LFLex Fridman
(laughs)
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Uh, but- but, you know, the- the fundamental point is we would say, "Well, how much do you... how much does it cost to cut a ton of CO2?" And the answer is for most electric cars, we're paying in the order of 1,000, 2,000. You know, Norway, they- (laughs) they-
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... pay up to what, uh, $5,000 or thereabouts. You know, a huge amount for one ton of CO2. Uh, you can right now cut a ton of CO2 for about, what is it, $14 on the RGGI or something? Uh, you know, you can reach-
- LFLex Fridman
RGGI, that's a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yes. Uh, so you can basically cut it really, really cheaply. Why would we not want to cut dozens and dozens of tons of CO2 for the same price instead of just cutting one ton? And the simple answer is, we only do that because we're so focused on electric-
- LFLex Fridman
If I may interrupt.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
Typical European, come here in Texas-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
(laughs)
- 32:45 – 40:22
Economy
- LFLex Fridman
big question? You mentioned economics, journalism, uh, how does an economist and a climate scientist and a journalist, uh, that writes about, uh, climate see the world differently? What are the strengths and potential blind spots of each discipline?
- ARAndrew Revkin
Mm-hmm.
- LFLex Fridman
I mean, tha- that's just sort of ju- just so people may- may be aware, I think you'll be able to fall into the economics camp a bit. There's climate scientists-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Right.
- LFLex Fridman
... and there's climate scientist adjacent people, like who hang... Some of my best friends are climate scientists kind of, which is I think where you fall in because you're a journalist, you've been writing it, so you're not completely in the trenches of doing the work. You're just stepping to the trenches every once in a while.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Right.
- LFLex Fridman
Uh, so ca- can you speak to that maybe, Bjorn? Like, what's, what does the world look like to an economist? Let's try to empathize with these beings that, uh, you know-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
That unfortunately has fallen into the-
- LFLex Fridman
(laughs)
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... (laughs) disreputable, uh, economics. Yeah. So, so, uh, I, I think, I think the, the, the main point that, that I've been trying for a long time, and I think that's also a little bit what Andy has been talking about, for a very long time the whole conversation was about what does the science tell us as, is global warming real? And, and to me it's much more what can we actually do? What are the policies that we can take and how effective are they going to be? So the conversation we just had about electric cars is, is a good example of how an economist think about, look, you've got to, y- this is not a question about whether you feel morally virtuous or whether, you know, you can sort of display how much you care about the environment. This is about how much you actually ended up affecting the world. And the honest answer is that, uh, you know, electric cars right now in the next decade or so will have a fairly small impact and unfortunately right now at a very high cost because we're basically subsidizing these things at five or $10,000 around the world, uh, per, per car. That, that's just not, it's not really sustainable, but it's certainly not a very great way to cut carbon emissions. So I would be the kind of guy and economists would be the types of people who would say, "Is there a smarter way where you, for less money can, for instance, cut more CO2?" And the ob- obvious answer is yes. That's what we've seen for instance with, uh, fracking. Uh, the f- the fact that the US went from a lot of coal to a lot of gas because gas became incredibly cheap, because gas emits about half as much as, uh, as, as coal does when you use it for elec- uh, uh, uh, for power, that basically cut more carbon emissions than pretty much any other single thing. And we should get the rest of the world (laughs) in some sense to frack because it's really cheap. There are some problems and absolutely we can, we can also have that conversation. There is n- no technology is problem-free, but fundamentally it's an incredibly cheap way to get people to cut a lot of CO2. It's not the final solution because it's still a fossil fuel, but it's a much better fossil fuel if you will, and it's much more realistic to do that. So that's one part of the thing. The other one is when we talked about, for instance, uh, how do we help people in Florida who gets hit by a hurricane or how do we hit, uh, uh, help people that get, um, uh, uh, damaged in flash floods, the people who are in, who are in, uh, uh, in heat waves. And the simple, the simple answer is this, there's a lot of very, very cheap and effective things that we could do first. So most climate people will tend to sort of say, "Uh..."... we gotta, you know, uh, uh, get rid of all carbon emissions. We've got to change our entire, uh, the- the engine that, uh, that- that sort of powers the world and has powered us for the last 200 years. And that's all good and... Well, but it's really, really hard to do, and it's probably not going to do very much. And even if you succeed, it- it would only help, you know, future victims of future Hurricane Ian's in Florida, a tiny, tiny bit at best. So instead, let's try to focus on not getting people to build right on the waterfront where you're incredibly vulnerable and where you're very likely to get hit, where we subsidize people, uh, with, uh- uh, with federal insurance again, which is just, you know, actually losing money. So, we- we're much more about saying, "It's not a science question." I just take the science for granted. Yes, there is a problem with climate change, but it's much more about saying, "How can we make smart decisions?"
- LFLex Fridman
Can I ask you about blind spots? When you reduce stuff to numbers, the cost and benefits, is there stuff you might miss about... That are important to the flourishing of the human species?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
So, everyone will have to say, of course, there must be blind spots. (laughs)
- LFLex Fridman
But I don't know what they are.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yeah. I'm- I'm- I'm sure, uh, Andy- Andrew would probably be better at telling me what they are. Uh, so we try to incorporate all of it, but obviously we're not successful. We- you can't incorporate everything, for instance, in a cost-benefit analysis. But- but the point is, in some way, um, I- I- I would worry a lot about this if we were, you know, sort of close to perfection human race, we're doing almost everything right, but we're not quite right, then we need to get the last digits right. But I think it's much more the, you know... And th- the point that I- I tried to make before, that we're all- we're all focused on going to an electric car or, you know, something else rather than, uh, fracking. We're all focused on cutting carbon emissions instead of reducing vulnerability. So we're- we're similarly getting it orders of magnitude wrong. Uh, and- and while I'm sure I have blind- blind spots, I think they're probably not big enough to- to overturn that point.
- LFLex Fridman
Andy, why is Bjorn and economists are all wrong about everything?
- ARAndrew Revkin
Well, the models, we could spend-
- LFLex Fridman
On models, yeah.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... a whole day on models. Uh, there are economic models. There's this thing called optimization models that... There were two big ones used to assess the US plan, this new big IRA, Inflation Reduction package. And they're fine, they're a starting point for understanding what's possible, but as it... This gets to the journalism part or the public part, you have to look at the caveats. You have to look at what model... Economists expressly exclude things that are not modelable.
- LFLex Fridman
Hmm.
- ARAndrew Revkin
And if you look in the fine print on the REPEAT project, the Princeton version of the assessment of the recent giant legislation, the fine print is the front page for me, as a deep diving journalist, uh, because it says, "We didn't include any sources of friction." Meaning-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Right.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... resistance to putting new transmission lines through your community, or people who don't want, um, mining in America because we've exported all of our mining. We mine our cobalt- cobalt in Congo, you know? And trying to get a new mine in- in Nevada, um, was a fraught fight that took more than 10 years for lithium. Um, so- so if you're excluding those elements from your model, which on the surface makes this $370 billion package have an emissions reduction trajectory that's really pretty good. And you're not saying in your first line, "By the way, these are the things we're not considering."
- BLBjørn Lomborg
You could probably-
- ARAndrew Revkin
That's the job of a journalist.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... summarize all of human history with that one word, friction. (laughs)
- LFLex Fridman
(laughs)
- ARAndrew Revkin
Yeah. Yeah. Well, inertia... Friction implies there's a force that's already being resisted, but there's also inertia, which is a huge part of our, you know... Uh, we- we have a status quo bias. Uh, the scientists that I...
- 40:22 – 54:23
Journalism
- ARAndrew Revkin
I- in grappling with the climate problem as a journalist, I paid too much attention to climate scientists.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
(laughs)
- ARAndrew Revkin
That's why all my articles focused on climate change. And it was 2006, I remember now pretty clearly, uh, I was asked by The Week in Review section of The New York Times to write a sort of a weekend thumb sucker, we call them, on, um-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Thumb sucker?
- ARAndrew Revkin
You know, you sit- you sit and thumb- suck your thumb and think about something. "Why is everybody so pissed off about climate change?" It was after Al Gore's movie, the Al Gore movie came out, Inconvenient Truth, Hurricane Katrina was big. Senator Inhofe in the Senate from Oklahoma wasn't yet throwing snowballs, but it was close to that. And so I looked into what was going on. Why is this so heated? In 2006, the- the story is called Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet. And that was the first time... This is after 18 years of writing about global warming. That was the first time I interviewed a social scientist, not a climate scientist. Her name was Helen Ingram. She's at U- UC Irvine. And she laid out for me the factors that determine why people vote, what they vote for, what they think about politically. And they were the antithesis of the climate problem. She used the words, she said, "People v- go in the voting booth thinking about things that are soon, salient, and certain." And climate change is complex, you know, has long time scales. And- and that really jogged me in. And then I... Between 2006, 2010, I started interviewing other social scientists and I- I... This was by far the scariest science of all. It's the- the climate in our heads or inconvenient minds (laughs) and then how that translates into political norms and stuff really became the monster, not the- not the climate system.
- LFLex Fridman
Is there social dynamics to the scientists themselves? Because, uh, I- I've gotten to witness a kind of flocking behavior with scientists. So it's- it's almost like a flock of birds. Within the flock-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Right.
- LFLex Fridman
... there's a lot of disagreement, and fun debates, and everybody trying to prove each other wrong. But they're all kind of headed in the same direction. And, and you don't want to be the bird that kind of leaves that flock. (laughs)
- ARAndrew Revkin
No.
- LFLex Fridman
So, like, there's an idea that science as a mechanism will get us towards the truth, but it'll definitely get us somewhere, but it could be not the truth in the short term. In the long term, a bigger flock will come along and it'll get us to the truth. But there's a sense that I don't know if there's a mechanism within science to, like, snap out of it, if you're down the wrong track.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Well, this is, uh-
- LFLex Fridman
Usually you get it right, but, uh, sometimes you don't. And when you don't, it's very costly.
- ARAndrew Revkin
And there's so many factors that, that line up to perpetuate that flocking behavior. One is media attention comes in, the other is funding comes in. Um, Na- National Science Foundation or whatever, European foundations pour a huge amount of money into things related to climate. And so you... And then you, your narrative in your head is shaped by that aspect of the climate problem that's in the spotlight. I, I, I started using this hashtag few years back, narrative capture. Like, be wary of narrative capture, where you're, you're on a train and everyone's getting on the train. And this is in the media too, not just science. A- And it becomes self- self-sustaining, and, and contrary indications are ignored or downplayed. Uh, no one does replication science because you don't, y- your career doesn't advance through replicating someone else's work. So those contrary indications aren't... Are, are not necessarily, you know, really dug in on. And this is for... This is way beyond climate. This is of many fields. You've... As you said, you might have seen this in AI. And it's really hard to find... It's another form of path dependency. The, the term I used before. But breaking narrative capture, to me... For me, has come mostly from stepping back and reminding myself of the basic principles of journalism. Journalisms' basic principles are useful for anybody confronting a big, enormous, dynamic, complex thing. Is who, what, where, when, why? (laughs) Just be really rigorous about not assuming, because there's a fire in Boulder County, or a flood in Fort Myers, that climate... Which is in your head because you're part of the climate team at the New York Times or whatever, is the front... Is the foreground part of this problem.
- LFLex Fridman
What's the psychological challenge of that? If you incorporate the fact that if you, uh, try to step back and have nuance, you might get attacked by the others in the flock?
- ARAndrew Revkin
Oh, I was. Right. Well, you, you've certainly been threatened.
- LFLex Fridman
So both of you get attacked-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
... continuously from different sides. So let me just ask about that. How does that feel and how do you continue thinking clearly and, uh, tr- continuously try to have humility and step back and not get defensive in, in that, uh, on... As a communicator?
- ARAndrew Revkin
I, I mean, there are other things happening at the same time, right? I'm now 35 years into... Almost 40 years into my journalism career. So I have some independence. I, I'm free from the obligations of... You know, I don't really need my next paycheck. I live in Maine now, in a house I love. Um, I own it outright. It's a great privilege and honor. And, um, as a result of (laughs) a lot of hard work. And, and so I am freer to think freely. Uh, and I know my colleagues in newsrooms. When I was at the New York Times, in the newsroom, you become captive to a narrative, just as you do out in the world. Um, the New York Times had a narrative about the... About Saddam Hussein. Drove us into that war. The Times sucked right into that and helped perpetuate it. Um, I think we're in a bit of a narrative. We, the media-
- LFLex Fridman
Mm-hmm.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... my friends at the Times and others are on a train ride on climate change, depicting it in a certain way, uh, that really... I saw problems with how they handled the Joe Manchin issue in, in America. The, the West Virginia senator. They really kind of piled on and zoomed in on his investments, which is really important to do, but they never pulled back and said, "By the way, he's a rare species. He's a Democrat in West Virginia." And... Which a seat that'd be other- o- otherwise occupied by a Republican. There'd be no talk of a climate deal or any of that stuff without him. A- And... But when you... Once you're starting to kind of frame a story in a certain way, you carry it along and as you said, sometimes it breaks and a new norm arrives. But the, the climate train is still kind of rushing forward and missing the opportunity to cut it into its pieces and say, "Well, what's really wrong with Florida?" And it's... For me, when you ask about how I handle the slings and arrows and stuff, it's, it's partially 'cause I'm past worrying about it too much. Um, I mean, it was pretty intense. 2009, Rush Limbaugh suggested I kill myself on his radio show. It's a really great time.
- LFLex Fridman
What was that about?
- ARAndrew Revkin
I, I had... Uh, actually, this was a meeting in Washington in 2009 on population at the Wilson Center. I couldn't be there. So actually this is pre-COVID, but I was Zooming in or something, like Skyping in, and I was talking about... In a playful way, I said, "Well, if you really want to worry about carbon..." This was during the debate over a carbon tax model for a, a bill in America. "We should probably, uh, have a carbon tax for kids, because a bigger family in America is a big source of more emissions." And it was kind of a playful thought bubble. Some right-wing blogger blogged about it. It got into Rush's, you know, pile of things to talk about.... and, and the clip is really fun. Uh-
- LFLex Fridman
Also meaning s- so, uh, if humans are bad for the environment-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Well, he- he's, uh ... I could play it.
- LFLex Fridman
... or we can, uh ... I can imagine, rush- (laughs)
- ARAndrew Revkin
It's amazing. He, he was very-
- LFLex Fridman
That's how, that's how you know you've made it.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... he was very explicit. He said, "Mr. Revkin of The New York ... Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, if you really think that people are the worst thing that ever happened to this planet, why don't you just kill yourself and save the planet by dying?" (laughs) It was, uh-
- LFLex Fridman
So, that was tough for you?
- 54:23 – 1:12:11
Human emissions
- ARAndrew Revkin
- LFLex Fridman
Andrew, you co-wrote the book The Human Planet: Earth at the Dawn of the Anthropocene, which is the new age when humans are actually having an impact on, on the environment. Let me ask the question of, what do you find most beautiful and fascinating about our planet Earth?
- ARAndrew Revkin
... it would be cheap to say everything, but just walking here this morning under the bridge, uh, over the Colorado River, seeing the birds, knowing there's bat colonies, massive bat colonies around here that I got to visit a few years ago. I, I experienced one of those bat (laughs) explosions. It's mind, mind-blowing, uh, the, the, I've been really lucky as a journalist to have gone to the North Pole, to camp on the sea ice, uh, with Russian help, a, a camp that was set up for tourists coming from Europe every year. There were scientists on the sea ice, floating on the 14,000-foot deep Arctic Ocean, and I was with them for several days. I wrote a book about that too, um, along with my reporting. Been in the depths of the Amazon rainforest. I've been, uh, when I was very young, I was a crew on a sailboat that sailed two-thirds of the way around the world. I, I was halfway across the Indian Ocean, again, in 14,000-foot deep water. We were just... there was no wind, and we were, uh ... this is before, way before I was a journalist, 22, 23 years old -- and we went swimming. And swimming in 14,000-foot deep water, uh, you know, 500 miles from land, the western Indian Ocean, halfway between, uh, Somalia and the Maldives, is like so mind-boggling, chillingly fantastical thing with a mask on, looking at your shadow going to the vanishing point below you-
- LFLex Fridman
Wow.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... looking over at the boat, which is a 60-foot boat but just looks like a toy, and then getting back on and being beholden to the elements, the sailboat, you know, heading toward, um, Djibouti.
- LFLex Fridman
So, the immensity and the power of the elements.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Oh my God. And then, you know, and then, um, the human qualities are unbelievable. You know, the Anthropocene, I played a bit of a role as a journalist in waking people up to the idea that this, this era called the Holocene, the last 11,000 years, you know, since the last Ice Age, had ended. I wrote my 1992 book on global warming thinking about all that we're just talking about, thinking about the wonders of the planet, thinking about the impact of humans so far in our explosive growth in the 20th century. I wrote that perhaps earth scientists of the future will name this post-Holocene era for u- for its formative element for us, uh, because we're kind of in charge in certain ways, you know, which is hubristic at the same time. It's like, you know, the variability of the climate system is still profound without... with or without global warming.
- LFLex Fridman
So, this immense, powerful, beautiful organism that is Earth, the-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
... all the different sub-organisms that are on it, do you see humans as a kind of parasite on this earth?
- ARAndrew Revkin
No, no. I don't t-
- LFLex Fridman
Or do you see it as a, um, as something that helps the flourishing of the entire organism?
- ARAndrew Revkin
That can.
- LFLex Fridman
Can. Intelligence.
- ARAndrew Revkin
But hasn't yet.
- LFLex Fridman
Hasn't yet? I mean, is... aren't, is... aren't we on a... so, th- the ability for the collective intelligence of the human species to develop all these kinds of technologies and to be able to, uh, have Twitter to introspect onto itself. (laughs) We should get Twitter to
- NANarrator
Who's... who-
- ARAndrew Revkin
Oh, well, we do, I, I think, you know, I think we're doing a... we're... it's always-
- LFLex Fridman
In a way, we are.
- ARAndrew Revkin
It's catch-up. We're always in catch-up mode, you know. Um...
- LFLex Fridman
Right.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Uh, I was at the Vatican for a big meeting in 2014 on sustainable humanities, sustainable nature, our responsibility, and it was a week of, um, presentations by, like, Martin Rees, who's this famed British scientist, uh, physicist, who's an honor-
- LFLex Fridman
Been on this podcast.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Ah. Great.
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Well, he's-
- LFLex Fridman
Right.
- ARAndrew Revkin
... you know, he's, he's fixated on existential risk, right?
- LFLex Fridman
Yes, he is.
- ARAndrew Revkin
So, there's a week of this stuff, and, um, the meeting was, was kicked off by, um, I wr- I wrote about it, uh, Cardinal Maradiaga, who is, I think, from El Salvador. He's one of the pope's kind of posse. He gave one of the in- initial speeches, and he said, "Nowadays, mankind looks like a technical giant and an ethical child." Meaning, our technological wizardry is unbelievable, but it's way out in front of our ability to step back and kind of, like, consider in the full dimensions we need to, is it helping everybody? Is it, uh... wh- what are the consequences of CRISPR, uh, you know, genetics technology? And there's no single answer to that. If, if, um, the African Union, I'm just using this as an example. CRISPR has emerged so fast, it can do so much by changing the nature of nature. We'll... in a, in, in a kind of a programming way, not, you know, building genes, not just transferring them from one organism to another. We've only just begun to taste the fruits of that, literally. Um, um, and it can wipe out a mosquito species. We know how to do that now. You can, like, literally take out the dengue-causing mosquito. The scientists have done the work, and you think, "Okay, cool. Well, that's great." Uh, now qu- there's this big fight over whether that should happen. Uh, African Union, and I'm with their view, says, "Hey, if we can take out a mosquito species that's causing horrific chronic loss through dengue," which I had once in Indonesia, it's not fun, and, um, we should do it. You know? And Europe-
- 1:12:11 – 1:32:32
Worst-case climate change scenario
- ARAndrew Revkin
- LFLex Fridman
So Bjorn, you wrote ... One of the books you wrote, the most recent one called False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts The Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet. Good title by the way, very intense, makes me want to read it.
- ARAndrew Revkin
(laughs)
- LFLex Fridman
What is likely the worst effect of climate change?
- ARAndrew Revkin
First let me just ... Uh, my, my, uh, editor actually hated the subtitle because it gives away the whole book, you know? (laughs)
- LFLex Fridman
Right. Yes.
- ARAndrew Revkin
Basically tells you what the book tries to make ... I, I, I think, you know, that's exactly what it should be. It's about getting this, uh, conversation out in the, in, in the public sphere. So the worst thing that climate change can do is ... Like, the worst thing that anything can do is that it wipes out everything and we all die. So it's, it's not like, you know ...
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... if you're just go- looking for worst case outcomes, um, you know, anything can get to the worst case outcome. Um, imagine if we, uh, suggest... What's the worst thing that could happen from HIV? It breaks down, uh, uh, uh, uh, one or more African states because we don't fix it, uh, and then you get sort of, uh, biological warfare and terrorism. Throw in that, in the mix, and then you get someone who makes a virus and kills the whole world. You know, you can make worst case scenarios-
- LFLex Fridman
Sure, but-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... for everything.
- LFLex Fridman
... but let's just
- NANarrator
So-
- LFLex Fridman
... call it a... I get the point and sorry for the interruption. And, and I appreciate worst case analysis 'cause I'm, uh, I am fundamentally a computer scientist and that was the thing they defined the discipline of the... To measure the quality of the algorithm, you measure what is its worth- worst case performance. That's the big O notation. That's how you discuss algorithms. What is the worst possible thing, uh, in terms of performance this thing can do? But for climate change, let's even go crazy. What is exactly the worst case scenario for climate change? Because, um, I have to be honest and say I haven't, uh, really paid it deep attention, I just have a lot of colleagues who think about climate and so on. And there's a kind of... In the alarmism, there was a sense what... This is, this is a very serious problem.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
And then the sentence would never finish.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
What exactly is the problem? Well, the extinction of the human species, okay. With a virus, I understand how that can possibly happen. What is the mechanism by which the human species becomes extinct because of climate change?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
I'm not sure I would want to be able to argue that because it really requires you have to have sort of very, very extreme p-parameter choices all down the line. And so it's more, yeah, it's this kind of idea that we, that we hit some of these unexpected, uh, outcomes. So for instance, uh, the West and Arctic ice sheet, uh, melts really, really quickly. It doesn't look like that can happen really, really quickly, but let's just, you know, say that this could happen within 100 years or something. Uh, so we basically get, what? Um, seven meters, what is that? 20 feet of, of sea level rise. Uh, that will be a real challenge to a lot of places around the world. This would have, you know, significant cost. Uh, it's likely, and, you know, there's actually been a study that's tried to estimate, could we deal with that? And the, this, the short answer is, yes, if you're fairly well off. You know, if you're Holland, you can definitely deal with it. Uh, it's also likely that most developing countries are gonna be much closer to Holland towards the end of the century because they'll be much richer. So they can probably handle it, but it will be a real challenge.
- LFLex Fridman
May I ask a dumb question?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
What happens when the sea level rises exactly? What is the painful aspect of that?
- BLBjørn Lomborg
It is that all of your current infrastructure in a lot of coastal cities around the world that are literally built on... You know, Ja- Jakarta is a good example. That are literally built on the, uh, (laughs) just, you know, uh, inches above the sea level. Uh, if, if you then get a sea level rise, they'll rise, say, what would, uh, 20 feet of... That would be like a third or a fourth of a, of a foot every year-
- LFLex Fridman
Yeah. All right.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
... uh, kind of thing, you know?
- LFLex Fridman
I see no evidence that that's even- Well, hold on a second. Let's... We're not talking about evidence.
- BLBjørn Lomborg
No, but, okay.
- LFLex Fridman
We're talking about worst case analysis-
- BLBjørn Lomborg
Yeah.
- LFLex Fridman
... and algorithm
- NANarrator
Okay.
Episode duration: 4:11:05
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Transcript of episode 5Gk9gIpGvSE
