website booktv.org. >> welcome to the manhattan institute streaming event and today i have the pleasure as an eminent scientist, a famous scientist and for some infamous to scientists. professor at nyu and the head of the department of energy research portfolio undersecretary of energy and the senate approved post under senator obama and then the chief scientist for those who may remember that used to be british petroleum and then

beyond petroleum and then back to bp. we will be talking about that. and part a of that was professor and provost at caltech because that is my first choice right wanted to go to school i went university in canada so we will talk about his book if you're joining us you would know why were talking about the book unsettled. what climate science tells us and what it doesn't know what that's like that can be fun it's a lot of work so you hope people read it and not just

this debate but the issue of science and in the public space and the idea of that i have gotten to know him i like him. they review the vote for the wall street journal in a student favorably. and so to see that was a cancellation. this is good. that helps you focus on why the book was written. and as a preamble then i should point out from the

history it is an atmosphere over 400 years. and carbon dioxide was discovered 250 years ago. a scottish chemist discovered it and then 200 years ago almost exactly a couple years to the anniversary the idea of the greenhouse effect it was identified by a mathematician which was kind of fun it was like anybody as a mathematician. and he figured out it was kept warmer than other lives would be and then it would function like a greenhouse. if they didn't they would be no life on earth. and that so understanding the

climate matters because it is consequential. that's my bias i'm interested in books. so let's start off with the title because typically on the circuit you will find out people have nothing better to ask you why did you title the book? i have a specific reason so why the title and why did you write the book? >> first of all it's a pleasure to be talking with

you this afternoon and it refers to the science itself with those common influences that we don't understand. in that state of mind when i found out as i had previously believed. that then when it happened and how that happened. so the tiffany that it occurred because you are looking into the science. with the capacity. and then whenn it comes to the

climate issue. and that narrative with that solid view. so then up and tell the time i left in 2012. and then to demonstrate. so in 2013 in a physical society which wast a professional society that represents with that gay controversy among the membership. and that is a red flag.

and why many professional societies and that we should have a deeper look. and my piano which was five physicists. and with the presentations a talk for a day or so. and that's very important that we didn't know and i was also surprised how i had not and then to study the manner it was both a revelation about the senseless and then it had

been communicated. >> that your eps anyone similar to mine earlier on a different subject on nuclear energy. and first come to the united states with the documented immigrants. i'm an american citizen now also. so charting the debate around nuclear energy and then to be first with that nonproliferation issues. and then the safety issues was on mathematician and did a

spectacular job by the accusation if it was safe to operate we should abandon it setting up that kennedy commission to examine science and the engineering with what we know is uncertain. a great experience but what i learned to your point is a profound difference between in the public space from what they thought they knew and that they chasm and the people across the chasm are a minority and then i can tell you i tried to get out of scientist in your body to join in the debate. and then prominent scientist in a named names but then they

last pennsylvania. the scientist didsc not want to join me. and then for a variety of reasons is like we are now the now onn steroids. and as a piece in the wall street journal from five years ago now. >> and then to be in the middle of it.

but then that event was a was emotional.vent was a but to call that description compared to nuclear energy. >> i think the differences two things. and with that legendary authoritative that the us government report and they allegedly defined the sentence in the second thing that we have is that and then to think it is more syrians and with

that reliability of energy in the cost of energy and then with said desire with the allegedly authoritative science. >> so then to focus how the body actually works. and then with the language of the debate. and those to argue about the science but with this construct that was created briefly it is important from every venue with the issue to be labeled to talk about the

science of climate. and then to be really offended. so then with those micro aggressions i get really mad. but this is about science we should take emotion out of it. but i was very careful to quote almost entirely from the official assessment reports. from the us government. so if somebody takes issue with what is in the book we can then have a conversation because in fact those people who are criticizing actually criticize themselves.

>> what i like in the public space, and this is just the nature of the space. but with that research in a look at what they said manufacture they said you cannot do a perfectly that is what research is like. that this is what struck me early on. twenty years ago. but if you read the literature with the fcc reports and i'm paraphrasing saying the public space and then to debate the

science don't keep saying the science is wrong is very adamant the actually it is very good to be solid and to the extent it can get borderline angry that is the triangulation and not done media. but there is no answer to the question so science and public policy merge because public policy support science. it's not badad but it's difficult so the process of science to reachch a consensus is to understand the continuum of consensus from knowing that

the earth istu round at the temperature of the planet it's a very different place on the continuum. you undertook this examination how do you do that with that consensus you are cherry picking. the consensus is we have a problem. >> and so then to distinguish from what anybody thinks we should do about it. and then to be very careful about that. so let's just talk about the science. and that just talks with the

research papers for policymakers which are heavily influenced by government to the media and the politicians and with those opportunities as i wrote the book i tried very hard to circumvent the whole distortion with those nonexpert leaders. and that's what science actually says. and then from the princess bride. i don't think the science is what you think it says. >> and those surprises but if

somebody thinks im cherry picking. >> with that is one of the great movies of all time. and the great line he says i don't think that bird is what you think it means. and. >> all in.

>> you are right. it's right to correctly on that because it is a decision but it's the difficulty in sound bites because if you're lucky you get three or four minutes of airtime usually the impacts that it is a hoax or biden did this or trump did that. >> and then to come back with an answer you cannot equivocate to reach the conclusion in conclusion and in three minutes it is hard.

to be complicated and nuanced. >> talk about this after i published my review which i can share with the audience so for those are listening if you haven't read it you should. that carefully explaining what has happened where they are and where it comes from. and of course it oscillates. and then it decelerated and what you don't see is the

signal saying there is a clear trend with that straight line this or that you have the oscillation and this is the decision there is a clear trend for the sea level read rising for 10000 years now? we make 20000. >>s. because because they measured carefully. >> it is pretty solid. there's a lot of other historic measurements it's a sloppy measurement because we didn't have thermometers of value but you don't see any acceleration because it is an amazing phenomenon. but statistically with the sea levels accelerating for how

long it's for the couple a few decades. and then that is decelerating so what does that tell you? we don't know much about what the factors are. >> and then you have to answer that for people because if you go back to 1950. >> so that makes it hard to understand. >> and the iconic one phase to call it global warming and then it's climate change we won't speculate on why that just say it seem like a better

description that was reported that carefully that is called a climate crisis so you have the nomenclature problem which is pushing it towards a catastrophe of what is going on because this is a really important point but those short-term events that are located toevents that are atmospheric planetary events it delayed it but they are different so it's important for you to explain we may have people in the audience but it's important to explain how they related and how they're different is that happens every day so it's defined the long-term average typically 30

years sometimes people talk about 20 years so that's still pretty much and then we can stop talking about climate but it's the height of the nile river and those eyes measured in cairo and then to be imposed on the ups and downs and they get worried when was going down for a couple decades and then it turned around again and it had nothing to do with human influences. >> for me i'm sure you have

this experience and then the editors tell you to get it out of your book because it scares people away but when i see a graph it just yells at you the information that a picture is worth a thousand words it's very dramatic and provocative but speaks volumes. >> it is a long-term trend and it's interesting as a start to put the book together we had a big debate but then that was quite unusual that as you say the way you talk about the

language you cannot talk about it any other way but then to say. >> . >> and with that arithmetic and people who look at stocks. >> but then a make friends of mine in these debates the people who are good at getting balance sheets on financial reports and it was amazed when i was helping in the investment climate and i would watch the guys that i work with they were just look at the financial pages and they could just nullify the numbers in a could just tell that you

are right you have to understand the narrative for those who don't think they should be in a hurry because the western world is trying hard to change. i have written about it this audience surely knows is the role gets about 3 percent of its energy and then another 10 percent from non- combustion sources otherwise it is 80 percent call and gas and also to decades with

$2 trillion in europe and the united states and then for bp in the height of the beyond petroleum for whatever reason they had on the public relations i there was a luncheon dish with the price petroleum world. >> so talk about infusion about me ask you this question. i did all the time. so you are scientists. you are an expert but a marker down it is 2035 based on what you know the in the —- the economics they still using a lot of oil.

>> energy systems change slowly there's very good reasons why so two of the most important and they need to be reliable and they don't make changes in the system for reliability or a fuel supply that needs to do that every day. the second there are large capital investments you expect that to last many decades so it takes a long time and then was to force the system i like to say you change the intersystem by orthodontia not to the extraction. 's make those changes that would be proposed and i - -

there may be headed for trouble. >> i know for me i had taken a position publicly is not a tough one to take but that that which is locked into the system that's because the machines are better than they ever were. cibut forcing it through subsidies does not create new physics word create new machines. takes a long time but with your in the department of energy i learned this and i was much longer younger. so i must been in diapers and

the reagan administration. caand then energy matters enormously. and with the challenge that we have today in the future now let's stick with the hydrocarbon cousin given who produces the oil to big players number two and three players. and the three producing is russia and saudi arabia. i think it's a formula and then to be headed of the

domestic oil gas industry with ten and a half million people and for the gdp that produces about 12 percent or something like that. but then other countries are going to need oil and then to have that geopolitical leverage that you talked about. that seems to be a pretty good thing to do and with that 15 percent to do with greenhouse gas emissions as the rest of the world uses more energy. and then to put the economy

and turbulence if we don't do this in a thoughtful way. >> and then just to add the obvious and then to be self-sufficient. >> and damaging percent of the gdp and 8 percent of gdp at least. so that is a net net 16 percent had. and with that aspect. >> and then to remind people that is different where it gets manufacturers. and from where it gets deployed. and then as an example and

then that's for the best economic benefit. and then first to play here. and they are manufactured largely in china. as greatest invention was. and then the rock yield hydrocarbons. that is hard work. i don't think it is an accident. the biggest exporters of the easy to make stuff. g>> and then with that

availability of the transport system but also says they will not produce gas. >> i quit graduate school as my colleagues know not because it was hard but because i wanted to work with microprocessors where i was building stuff. in those days you didn't build anything in university. >> they said something profound at the time and he said a degree in physics is a license to poconos and everybody's business. [laughter] but my family will attest to that. >> now let's go to those energy sources.

because then i get to include energy because in the history of humanity. and then to be excited by photons or electricity. and that is nuclear energy so nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.he and in the intellectual. >> but there is no phenomenon as remarkable andnd challenging those that are low cost and easy to deploy. so if you are as encouraged with the breakthrough.

>> in the department of energy to get the first modular reactors but generally that is a —- not a new idea. and with the aircraft carriers and the submarines. >> and when you get the new designs and then licensing should be a lot easier. and if the nation really wants to with that system and they

will have that as an important part. no question about it. >> no question nothing like the energy density of microfiche in. what makes it sent on —- essentially irrelevant. and then to get to that next stage so quickly. so those who want to have that transition, nothing is as effective as accelerating with the energy. so given the regulatory environment that they know it so well. if the administration was serious about energy transmission when it that be the first thing that we tackle? >> and they have been shy

remember the private sector is here as well if we can get that initial the claimant i'm sure that many countries for the demonstration. >> we get those regional reactors with three years or five years so the idea that we could build a reactor that small no one shows up with every five years they show up in a sloppy out and then they go away. what a magical thing. something we have never had. to talk about the reactors and the civilian.

and then you know some protected spaces but yes. we don't refuel them very often. >> we have done that safely and economically. it is a political perception problem. >> and the waste is solid but smaller in volume so aviation is fairly easy to monitor we can track single atoms so if you want to attract something as you know that's hard to find. >> that we don't do that. enough with safety issues. >> but that is already.

>> but anyway before return to questions, i have a good friend with a phd in fusion and was asked by his advisor how many fusion reactors he thought would be in the world and 20 or 30 years. and his answer was a couple. [laughter] and he was overly optimistic because we still don't have a couple. i have my opinions. where is your head on the visibility with the equivalent of the shipping port reactor?

>> so let's just step back so to be focused in the south of france. i think they expect to see that in about 15 years if i'm not mistaken and from there a demonstration plant i'm an interesting observer. and then to sit on the board of a small commercial. and then making good progress. and then we could see within six or seven years and then

from there probably not so difficult. and then 15 years maybe 12 if they are lucky. we realistically 20 or 25 years. but i keep asking why do we need this. >> it has to work better than fusion and someone. but then we tried to develop it but that commercialization is going to be an issue. >> and then to take 12 or 15 years then you had ten or 15 years after that which is 30 years from now and then you start to scale knowing what the design looks like another ten or 20 years and a half a century before you can start

scaling which is typical a big systems. but the first question but a very specific question about what could specifically be done to accelerate the next generation of reactors if they ask that question to get to that? what do they propose quick. >> there is time lessons to be learned from the first generation of reactors all had e military need to build reactorse for nuclear weapons and submarines and then in some ways the commercial effort was an offshoot from that, but the government promoted the technology and released liability from the reactor

operators and in general it is stimulated through regulation and financial help to get the industry off the ground. whether you could do that today for the new emerging generation i think it would be more difficult to do that in the present political climate. as you know there's always been political climate. about the proper relationship between the private sector and the government stimulating and deploying new technologies. the new federalist papers i think it was madison vero that asked the question because it is fickle and can change every few years. so i think using the regulation

is a hurdle to get over but we can make it better by educating and then the sound financial concessions to get the first couple running. >> it's not a new idea but it's an idea you've heard of before which is the small reactors are the natural size for tones, cities, that potential fire for the defense department buying hundreds. the contest for new aircraft.

>> i met a wonderful guy who wanted to make clean energy capital of the u.s. and i suggested how about we put a reactor and things got very quiet after that. >> it's a classic example that means geography isn't your friend. here's a question getting close to ramp up time.

i have opinions on this matter and i was trained in physics, not psychology but you get asked this question all the time when you hear what you said about the study of science, then it begs the question. is it because the other analyses are subpar and are not genuinely good analysis? there are concerned people, or are there some other personal or political agendas animating the system. i get asked that all the time.

my first answer i'm not trying to get inside people's heads but there is interest among the various parties. and then for the politicians, i like to quote the early part of the 20th century that it's the purpose of practical politics is to keep the public so they will be coming to be led to safety so whether it is the claimant or integration or any number of

other things, that is something. >> with the work and the public policy debate let's say characteristics of the system that lead to kind of the nature of the debate and the emotional ad hominem's that seem to ignite that of efficiency or is it the system we have efficient to when you went to school.

>> different people go into physics with different curiosities and skepticism. i've not interacted with students but i do teach a graduate class ultimately and it's such a joy for me. to show the reports and the department of energy and to see their eyes open up for the students that have had no experience at all to the claimant orr the energy system. part of the book is to kind of educate and inform people these

are the facts that you find in the government reports. >> i've had the same experience. often it's amazement. they are capable to do something else so it takes a certain amount of faith which is the nature of all teaching but i tell you i get this question a lot for the last particularly seven years since you wrote "the wall street journal" piece okay if what you say is true, i accept what you are saying is

probably true, it seems reasonable. look at the trillion dollars this administration is looking to pose but it's hard to dodge if you look in public policy like you did. people say -- >> i thought the attitude about science advising but the

decisions that get made involve involvesa host of other factorse not particularly expert and intergenerational at the development of choices, environment and so on. i don't know about that, and that's the political debate. if the country decides to go one way, okay, so be it but at least it's a full understanding of what we know and what we don't know about the changing climate. and the book is an attempt to do that what was clear to me is the politics matter but you want to

thedecisions toad be made on tht information you have, so let's go back to this question because it's a big question now elevated around the debates as one of my grandsons called it the corona pilots. so you get expert advice or remember the nuclear debate. so, we don't have an office of technology assessment anymore. the science advisory was an important one in my opinion, but that's a political office. to your point, the policy debates take place in congress. that's where they belong. congress doesn't have an

advisory body anymore. without going into that, i'm curious about your view of resurrecting something you think is a good idea, we can get to your answer, but. that'snd the national academies and counsel and they run a host of studies for the government agencies and by and large they do a good job. i was part of the organization. i've chaired a couple of studies

on fusion over the decades. i think on climate we need a refresh of the players involved. so we get an opt in and think tanks for the defense department. these are sources of real analytic device and provide input to the approaches. it would be okay to have an organic set of analysts in the congress.

it's extremely important and they could be raised a notch, but the response required is a different feature of the policymaking. science doesn't like to be rushed but that's life, you've got to rush some things. i guess in my mind if one were to create an office of science and technology assessment it is a different thing which should be obvious but apparently it is not. that could have a budget that would create an orbit of talent that is available with think tanks, academia and can be turned quickly.

if it's packaged correctly as a practical matter. [inaudible] and trying to get a better but there's detailed technical advice in some of these other organizations and then turns around to study in about a year. the policy was providing technical input into the decision to buy a comprehensive test in the early 90s and it

was a quickly done piece of work. >> that is a great example. on that note, congress was being terrific and obviously as a cost by washington standards you've been generous with your time in the book circuit. i really do again tell everybody listening. i can't more highly recommend it. thank you for joining me. >> i hope we can continue at some point.

>> paying to the commanders for those watching i assume you do, i think they are all free. lots of reports and scholars. it's a nonprofit about the think tanks and if you're a potential supporterch so thank you for watching and listening.