congressional delegations back every year to selma, if you needed something on an anniversary, he was always there and the only public figure i've ever known could be at the scene of his great trials, should have been all about him it was the most on self referential thing you can imagine which is hard to do. >> to watch the full program, search eddie or john at book tv don't work if you want to see more of the book festival, search new orleans festival at the top of the page. ♪♪ >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with both tvs podcast about books with current nonfiction releases plus bestseller list as well as industry news. c-span now, free mobile app or

wherever you get your podcast. ♪♪ >> we have this compelling debate on should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel used to prevent climate catastrophe? we want to get the fullo hour. we did this debate at the university of miami florida boulder last week and in that case, there was alex epstein debating clark and you can find both of those debates on the youtube channel. today we have alex but 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 pleased to h have with us and are, professor of atmospheric science and climate

scientist who studies science and politics of climatete chang. he's the chair and geoscientist at texas a&m. in 2022 named director of texas center for climate studies. professor served in the clinton administration during the last year serving as senior policy analyst in the white house office of science and technology policy. his latest book introduction to modern climate c change on the 2014 american urological societies wasas j authors award. we are pleased to have alex epstein, the president and founder of the center for industrial progress, author of the also fuels. a philosopher who argues human flourishing should be the guiding principle of industrial environmental progress. he's the author of the new york times bestseller fossil fuels

he's known for his willingnessss to debate anyone anytime and publicly debated leadingub environmental organization, the sierra club and 350.org over the morality of both of you will use. ourod moderator for this mornins debate is the editorial page editor of the denver gazette, a longtime journalist 25 year veteran of the colorado political scene, and award-winning newspaper reporter and editorial page editor, senior legislative staffer at the state capitol and political consultant, welcome professor and alex epstein to the stage. ♪♪ [applause]

>> can everyone hear me? good. let's get down to businesss t. not everyone can see me but you can hear my voice. you have gentlemen to offer an open statement of his view of the proposition which you have heard. let me repeat it for the record, should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel used to prevent climate catastrophe? record you have and are the first and we're going to let each one to an opening statement

where they are. enter local first and followed by alex. then we'll get andrew a chance to rebut anything he feels he needs addressed at any time. andrew. >> thanks. let me begin by saying energy is the most important thing in the world, energy, you can do anything you want. the question is, whatt is the best way to generate energy? will generate most from fossil fuel right now but let me talk about disadvantage of fossil fuels. number one, climate change. this is what i am extremely concerned about change personally. let's go back to the last ice age basically what north america like, covered with thousands of feet of ice. for half covered. there wereem different ecosyste,

see 300 feet lower, at different planet. if we walked outside, hene wouldn't recognize your planet. there's about 10 degrees fahrenheit colder. think about that, 10 degrees cooler. you cool the planet and you get an ice age. call it ice age, we are on track for this. ... the possibility of completely remaking the surface of the earth. now we can try to adapt to this. but it is possible or even plausible that if we do that in 2100, our descendants are going to be spending all of their money building seawalls and energy and water infrastructure things like that. they will be significantly impoverished by this. moving on fossil fuels poison the air they kill millions of people every year around the world due to air pollution. in addition, there's obviously the national security risk. so these are some headlines are actually not that far out of date, but i feel like they're

out of date texas gas prices could reach $4 per gallon as energy sector response to us russia tensions. now, let me give you a headline that will never be w u.s.-russia tensions. that may give you a headline that will never be written. the energy sector response to u.s. energy russia tensions. it will never invade kuwait in order to rescue wind and sun. and fossil fuels are a commodity so the prices vary. these price rations which were facing right now, gas is $5 a augallon is causing incredible pain. i fill up my tank for $10.10 last month and it would be $10 next month. this variability is extremely economic a damaging were fewer small-business owner what is the price of gas going to be near pikes nobody knows. how do you make a entity can

predict the price of energy? so now let's be clear that we need energy. fossil fuels are the only way to go all be the first person in line saying let's dig it out of the ground but we have an alternative. wind and solar are the cheapest power sources now. when i show people this and i point this out people are often stunned and they get angry at me because they don't realize where in the midst of an energy revolution right now. most people don't keep track of this and their knowledge of this is a few years older people in texas who build energy they know this.. if you go to the ercot web site in texas and they published the two sticks on what people who are connecting to the grid it's 90% solar wind and battery 10%er gas. they realized the cheapest

energy as wind and solar. >> that's my son beeping. the cheapest energy as wind and solar. i put a question mark there because people want to say what about -- and i'm happy to argue that in the q&a but it's not arguable. let's look at the trends. this shows the price of energy of 2009 to 2019 is a solar and that's's when going from there there to bear for this is the trend. this trend is not going top sto. this trend will continue to go and we can argue but what is the cheapest now that wind and solar are the cheapest energy of the future. people will tell you yeah. wind and solar and are met and in that it's true so then the question becomes can you build a grid that uses intermittent

renewable energy that's reliable and? i'm not going to give you my opinion or give you a hunch or claim i know the answer. there's an enormous amount of peer-reviewed research that's gone on for this over last decade. we know the answer. we know the answer unless you can say where people went wrong your feelings don't matter. this is a math physics and engineeringin problem. people hav' solved this. it's about how you build a grid mainly on intermittent energy. there toca classes energy. there's what you might call the fuel saver that's wind and solar and intermittent power and there's the power you turn on and off anytime youny want. for example the fuel savers are wind and solar batteries and it can be nuclear hydro geothermal gasbo with carbon capture and wt

you want to do for the cheapest grid is used as much renewable as you can and anytime the renewable doesn't give you enough power you turnat on the - and then you ask why do this? why why not 100% nuclear and if you want to pay the least amount of money this is the grid you want to look at and on average the grid can be 75 but the numbers vary with different groups. it's around that magnitude. so let's just wrap up. we need power but we can get power from wind and solar. the cheapest energy source of the future. we can build based on a decade of peer-reviewed research we can build a grid that does reliably provide energy at low cost and i'm happy to talk more about that and that would avoid the

social costs of climate change with fossil fuel poisoning the tair and the economic problem ad fossil fuels don't pull us into war. >> thank you andrew. you came in with 45 seconds to spare.e. >> i can't believe i didn't use those 45 seconds. >> alex it's all yours. >> when you have a debate like this on climate science the usual assumption is that there's going to be a big difference in climate science and for the most part i think that's not sure but the difference here is between me and the nets are a movement is methodology. i think a lot of its philosophy and technology and type a particular methodology for thinking about thist issue.

and what's interesting about this methodology nobody is ever disagreed with the technology and yet i've never met one opponent of fossil fuel. therefore key factors we have to consider when thinkingcl about fossil fuel decline and the cost of risingis co2 in the benefitsf rising co2 might think about what i call climate mastery our ability to adapt to climate danger and then the benefits of fossil fuels. my analysis is usually it happens in the netzer movement they tend to overstate it. if rising future benefits tend to be trivialized in climate mastery denial that denial is rampant. i'm going to go through eachac f these and explain my view and

professor dressler netzero. i'll start off with theo harm. what he and the ipp sees a is nothing we resemble with sealevel risere you're talking 3 feet by the year 2100 not like 20 feet like al gore talks about. he said explicitly he has no idea and to not tell you it's not going to be bad but it could be bad. i think that's the kind of f measure weor need. we talk about degrees fahrenheit already up two degrees fahrenheit and we are talking about five to 10 degrees i think we need to be more honest about that.s today is the most amazing world of ever desisted and temperatures are rising. even if you think the harm is that the benefits are

demonstrably huge particularly fewer cold related deaths. i'm using this chart which as been vetted many times. there's also global greening in terms of crops benefiting a lot. the fact that this is not mentioned shows a bias that we are going to see much more apparently with climate mastery and here's where we get into a problem with that. it is the fact that climate related disasters go from extreme temperatures storms wildfires and droughts down to 90% over the last century. it's also demonstrable that fossil fuels provide 80% of low cost of reliable energy we used a master climate. for example using fossil fuel to power irrigation and transport will make is far safer from drought. her mastery is so great 100 million people in the world.

in terms of sea level 100000000 people there at the lowest and they are totally fine. blhere's what i find totally objectionable. this is never mentioned. ipcc has thousands of pages that it doesn't mission. professor dressler doesn't mention it here. anthis is like discussing poli n the effects of polio without discussing the polio vaccine. it's climate mastery denial. simple. they deny the climate mastery ability. so the final factor which is evenif more denial if that's possible if denying the benefits of fossil fuels. fossil fuels are unite --

uniquely scalable to they will provide energy for billions of people and versatile means all types of machines. as it is only 20% of global energy use. fossil fuels are growing particularly in china and other parts of the world that want the lowest cost reliableit energy. it's curious that china is not going all in on solar is it so allegedly cheat. their only using large subsidies and mandates in the ad costs. it's very typical. if you look this graphic some types of solar and wind -- you need 100% backup in it to pay for the cost of the 100% reliable grid and the ctctinfrastructure including transmission lines and most importantly for reliable power.

cut reliable power plants for resiliency than you have disasters. on top of this billions more people need low cost energy like one third of the world using wood.tl he's using to denial expertise either unaware of being very manipulative and these are called partial cost accounting and relying on near-term possibilities. if anyone who uses this is either or defrauding and i mean this literally. if you look at the actual numbers does not take into account the liability related considerations that only looks at the cost of solar panels but not the transmission lines and not the data. it's only $18 an hour and play

instead ofof 20 but you have to pay to bustamante to work and 100% reliable status but it's still. you need to look at theul full costs. in terms of near-term possibilities professor gessler offers geothermal in supporting this magical grid. nuclear doesn't work with intermittent solar wind. it works deadly. hydrois location limited and professor gessler recently said i agree that hydros not some ink to expand in geothermal is limited. either we are dealing with a tremendous amount of ignorance about energy. there's or engaging in deliberate deception and if someone is distorting the present they can't be trusted to the future. dr. gessler has a lot a to answr

for. >> that will wrap it up prethank you all perfect timing. thank you both. [applause] has agreed what we are going to do is give andrew a chance to briefly review some of the salient points that need addressing. >> i'm not sure where to begin. can you put my slide back up, one slide. i'm not going to bore you guys. a lot of the bandages that he talked about are the advantages of power doesn't matter where you get the power. you can get the power from renewables are fossil fuels they will still be important power sources to solve the problems.

he showed a plot that is germany in california on it read i mean come on this is a plot of all thehe states and this is the pre and the y axis is how much renewable energy they have. there's no correlation there. that's false. as far as nuclear i have to say i did talk about adaptation.ot the thing he's not talking about his climate mastery. i did mention it and what he doesn't talk aboutt is the cost of that. if you build a seawall that's tens of billions of dollars. who is going to pay for that? we are. climate mastery makes us poor. if you go to california and the almond they are not trucking in water. they are not heroically building a b pipeline. they are just ripping their trees out of the ground.

the mastery of climate isxp helping us. it's too expensive to master climate when you have renewable energy available. certainly there are costs associated but that exists with all of them. look athe the studies like netzo they include the cost of lines.ssion again you have to look at the peer-reviewed literature. you can build a reliable grid. he is righte that we also -- we need to be electrified. we use a lot of fossil fuels but we can't electrify probably 95% of her energy. the last 5% on international flights would be difficult. >> i hate to cut you off. you both have written plenty.

you're extremely knowledgeable and i might add our audience includes many energy experts that a layperson like i would use in many the questions are coming in. what i'm going to try to do is balance that with maybe the more technical questions a lot of which are over my head but i know they aren't over yours. i thought we'd balance that with some priorities. i noticed that alex has written his talking points -- talking points web site -- andrew wrote this month in "rolling stone" the amount of warming up the world is on track and will transform air planted in unimaginable ways. i'm not an energy expert but you know what you're both right.

>> in which case in an attempt to curb climate change should be tried to adapt and can we and let me ask andrew first. >> certainly we have to adapt to climate change. people have to realize adaptation is not magic trick people will say we will use fossil fuels to master the climate. that's extremely expensive. i give you one example. houston on moscow wiped out i hurricane ivan in the late 2000. they've been proposing to build a site. $30 billion. they just can't get the money. so it's extremely expensive to adapt and certainly we have to adapt to do weekend to avoid at low cost a lot of the warning --

warming. if we can do for more cheaply we can do that. senate alex to have an observation? >> i been disappointed by interest response. i'm putting myself in his position and somebody pointed out that i'm using fraudulent statistics in terms of the cost of energy and also i'm just using imaginary scenario that the top -- deny physical realities like hydroand nuclear in geothermal and solar and wind. that really gives me pause. their academic studies. i just want to reiterate that the conclusion that earth will -- has become more livable is based on lookinge at the full context. if you look at the benefits of fossil fuels they provide low-cost reliable energy intake and power machines for millions

of people to be productive and prosperousin including unnaturay safe from climate. that need to be stressed. if you look at climatet damage two degrees fahrenheit of warming in some cases they are declining. there is no climate crisis and there'ss a climate rose -- a renaissance right now. the fact that two or three degrees is going to be disastrous that's just cherry-picking and not looking at the big picture. the big picture is a netzero impoverishment and premature death. senate alex to follow up on that if indeed let's say there's an average global temperature change from one to five degrees by the end of the century. it would make more sense nonetheless to adapt and spend

what we have to rather than necessarily trying to get to netzero carbon emissions. >> the netzero should not eon the table if you actually look at the full context. what policies should you have given that energy is so -- to engage in low carbon alternative. were fortunate we have anev unbelievableea low carbon alternative and it's cheaper for electricity of fossil fuels. nuclear was virtuallyel criminalized by the green movement to the point that nuclear prices are most 10 times more today adjusted for inflation than they were in the 70s. i think everyone shouldul in far of decriminalizing nuclear as well as liberating natural gas. they work to reduce the ot emissions. you can't have it as a priority but they make energy more available to more people.

with the green movement' in look at professor dressler's track record. until this year he's been hostile to nuclear and called it expensive and that's another distortion.. it's expensive because of the green movement that he's a major supporter of. liberatees oil apprentice to let 8 million people have energy and don't pull them back by distortion of solar and wind. >> and drum going to ask a different question. this is one from ourur audience. environmental justice makes life for the poor and middle-class work since it is the only solution to reducing fossil fuels making americans by tesla? >> a hate to do t this to you bt i have to cite alex are being dishonest. in france they have to -- to say

we can't do it is absolutely wrong. getting back to y your statemen. we do need to switch if we want to get to a world that doesn't have air pollution death which he does not mention that millions of people are killed by also fueled poisoning the air. if they want to get a away from that which i think we should then yes we should switch to electric but i don't think everyone needs a by tesla. one thing you see happening as 10 years ago people would laugh if you told them the penetration that we have today but i think what's going to happen in the future is driving down renewable energy price and all theseth otr prices and again remember just to hammer on this point you can complain about the numbers.

look at what the texas are doing. they are building wind and solar. they don't care what it says. they are doing the calculation of the wind and solar as an entry source. certainly there's that's a revolution of energy that we are now experiencing, this is going to drive innovation. i think everyone will be driving electric cars in 10 years. >> it was like the flat-screen media versus 1999. >> you mentioned the study and here's another reference by an audience member. does this 2019 study include the full cost of power including the backup required for intermittent wind and solar generation? >> that's a greatan question. it's something people think about when they say renewable energy needs backup. as i talked about if you want to

design design a brady have to think about it as an energy versus energy source that you want to think of it as a grid standpoint. did you want to generatete as mh power as a fuel savers you can so wind and solar. it's not that it's including the cost of that. that's part of the grid and it's a completely wrong when you think about it. to think the lazard study is just the amount of energy. that's wrong if that's what you think about it. >> can i respond to that? this is a great difference between us because i think he's completely wrong about this and i want to reexplain it but i thought i explained it earlier. 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 think of that like an worker who is willing to $ work. i'll work for $18 an hour set at

$20 an hour but their costs associated with it. the most important things are back up cost and the system cost is necessary to take an intermittent input like solar and wind and turn it into a controllable reliable output. you absolutely have to look at the full cost in you mentioned there's no correlations to the real thing to look at is what happens to the numbers when you tap p solar and wind and there'a strong correlation with prices going up. there's a lot more distortion here but itre is want to point t this is a huge distortion to act like putting the same price on something that is against something that's reliable it's analogy like saying putting the same price on a card that works a third of the time and the car that works all the time. they are totally different and the reason for women to having increased penetration is because we have an unfair grade that pays the same for reliable and

and subsidizes on top of that. it is not an amazing market revolution. it's an economic perversion based on sun did when instead of decriminalizing nuclear in the long-term and getting something done. >> people done that study. he said you need to look at the full cost. they have done that. this is notot something we are touring. >> first of all any projection about the future that does not esacknowledged the present is invalid. all the studies that i've studies that i've looked at are in total denial and they claim the solar and wind have made things cheaper already in that shows you the skills of their counting. so it involves also to denial about the future and making up hypothetical things based on quality g assumptions.

would i go by is what actually happens. 10 years ago we were saying all the same things you were in there in a total predicament where they are dependent on russia because they don't look at reality. these ideas are so great implement than one place around orthe world and don't force us o ban fossil fuels. in the name of total fallacies. >> go ahead. >> this is true. there is denial going on from the energy grid. >> just so they don't shoot the piano player. [laughter] can any good come from higher average global temperatures down the road? if they were to come fast and i think both of you say that this -- that there'll there will

be higher global temperatures. is that there are? >> oh yeah. >> let me ask you first alex and then i will ask you. is there any truth to that? >> greening is huge. affect about i warming that professor dressler knows that it's not publicized its incriminating warming tents to take place in colder places during colder seasons at colder times so it's more the world becoming less cold and cold places than more warm in the warmest places. even if you think there is significant -- people like warmth. warmth is crucial to life. he related deaths are far fewer than cold related deaths so i want to point out a point of philosophy. theph people don't care about ts because i have a philosophy called up perfect planet which is the planet we inherited was perfect in any impact we have is

inevitably self-destructive. unfortunate think most people accepted most climate scientists accepted and that's why they are so concerned with all these negatives and they don't appreciate how amazingly save the earth is pretty good of the world from a pro human perspective one of climate renaissance and not a climate crisis. >> andrew. >> the temperature we have now is the best temperature because we are adapting to a pretty good look around the world we have told and entire world around us temperature. people in siberia build houses on permafrost that they assume it will never melt and wind it melts the house is split. people build cities on the seat because they assume the sea level rise and we have trillions we make trillions of tiny adaptations. when you build a bridge you assume the temperature range and

the bridge will expand a contract. if the bridges outside of the temperature range after pair ths bridge. it will be extremely expensive for us to adapt. will there be some positives? i have note out that there are some people somewhere. the thing about we are warming the high latitudes more than we are warming the equator. we are warming the low latitudes a lot read i care what happens in san antonio and austin and there's a lot of a lot of warmth not just in winter. in summer. it will be more expensive' than we will do running our air-conditioners more. >> i'm going to skip to the end and the audience hasn't it just in question. can we talk about the co2 part with the introduction of fossil fuels and how it saved the

planet? is false reasoning? let me ask you first andrew. >> the parkr about her generatig generating -- the part about her generating more co2. are we helping plant life? >> absolutely. if that was the only thing that was happening we certainly would be helping plans to have a greenhouse people do that. that'spp not what's happening. or it's not the only thing that's happening. as mentioned before california farmersme are ripping up their almond trees because they can't get water so as the climate warms. again other things are happening and i would point out -- i will end there.

>> is definitely true that co2 has benefits and there harms of warming as well but i want to factor in the two biggest variables which are the enormous benefits of fossil fuels in the climate mastery. i want to reiterate fossil fuels provide 80% of the worlds energy and its growing especially in the parts of the world they care most about low-cost reliable energy like china. the world is drastically short of energy. 80% of energy is cost-effective and world that desperately needs energy and energy is crucial for people to make themselvesro productive than prosperous. solar and wind are subsidized meant they didn't like about 3% of the worlds energy totally dependent on the reliable sources the energy mostly fossil fuels. we can -- and replace them with

solar and wind. this was literally went in millions of lives prematurely. anything with ann aroma of possibility is masterful and ilnothing compared to the benefs will lose if we follow professor dressler's policies. >> youou talked about the assumption of impact on climate change. china soon to be the world's largest economy in india which will soon be the world's most populous produces so much of the world's carbon emissions. i'll put that out for both of you starting with you andrew. >> obviously it's a global problem. we can't solve the problem by herself. that's a political issue which i probably, i'm not someone who's an expert on international

negotiations.s the point is we need to convince the country and i will say most of the other countries in the world with a few exceptions like australiaa and the u.s. are looking for u.s. leadership. the u.s. has enormous leadership capabilities and we lead the way and others follow. >> it's amazing how china and india have no idea what their edges start. china has to do plus new coal plants in the pipeline. fossil fuels are by far -- going forward. if you care about emissions the only two months of the a way to deal with this is not an agreement that is the scene that fail a lot in terms of co2os

emissions it's coming up with lower-cost sources of low-carbon or no carbon energy and its contrary to that because it reinforces the criminalization of nuclear and creates great unfairness that favors the up-and-down for. it's t why nuclear plants are being shut down so many to recognize nuclear has amazing potential two prior criminalizing it in and liberate natural gas. this will be good for the world in terms of energy and will lower emissions long term. you empower the world and you lower emissions over time. as long as we are on the solar wind dogma which i think is the primitive idea that we wonder and energy as long as we are doing this we will end millions of lives prematurely and with just focus on doing in america we will become even than germany is with russia right now. they were the leader on this issue and look at them now. sirak let's look further into

the reality of it. it's going a green eight -- is that an unfair listed burden -- unrealistic verdant and let me ask you first alex. >> green philosophically is the idea of minimizing or eliminating human impactat on nature. this is based on primitive philosophy with the idea that our impact on the world is somehow a moral and somehow inevitably self-destructive like you violate the commandment and it's wrong we are also going to goer to. the global warming errors like a helmet. people at this religious view that. this is a primitive view and it's not a few held by anyone who lives in nature. if you look at nature you understand you have a master nature and only when you've been elevated by the people's master

you take for granted the world we live in and you think of that is natural to support and adopt these green policies. unfortunately what we do as we have a totally nongreen society but we impose these anti-human green policies on the rest of the world telling them not to build coal plants and gas that use solar andel wind to power flashes lights or power a cell phone. it's fundamentally a moral and affecting the poorest people in the world. >> i'm amazed by this discussion. that work on this and to do the pier review research mr. epstein is making stuff up when he said it's more expensive. show me a study that shows that.

the problem with these these debates as they can check a each other on the fly. show me a study and we can argue her e-mail or something or the point is it's the cheapest energy. if people in africa cannot afford renewable energy they cannot afford fossil fuel especially if you add in all the cost to master the climate. let me emphasize this mastery of the climate is incredibly expensive rebuilding a seawall is expensive and flow control infrastructure is expensive. it's going to impoveris' us. i don't think it's going to end human society but it's's certaiy possible and i said this initially we will be spending all of her time we'll be spending all their money just trying to stay alive and master the climate. it's not. look at the seawall and all the investments that people estimate

>> i felt like i dealt with this. apparently i haven't. you make her addictions about the future of knowledge in the present and we have tori experience increasing the amount of co2 in the avenue -- in the atmosphere. what we have seen his mastery is drastically reduced climate related -- if you look at the changes we are talking about there extremely slow and they are involved in civil initiation is rebuilding itself anyway. these are slow changes keeping millions of people in poverty is ponot a change. keep pointing at every real-world example around the world we try to use solar and wind is increasing the cost. it's a study by a select group of what i would call charlatans and mostly environmentalists who

decided to make upup an economic scenario. most real energy economist and other fossil fuels are cooked crucial for the future including china and india who are making rev decisions. this is massive energy denial. if it's so great find a place to make it work. peit's just making people insecure. >> thatro is wrong and the probm with these debates is i can't go to the eia web site and show that he's wrong but i will do it after this. >> at somebody could get a still of me doing this. let me do a signed check here. we want to reserve a minute or so for each of our speakers to sum up what they have come here to say and what they have to say. thehe same time a tremendous

amount of questions to show how learned you all are have come in. i would likee to get to a few more if there's time. i'm not sure how you wanted to do that. let's go some more of these. some of them overlap and some of them have been addressed in various ways. a number of them touch on the cost of renewables in the real world cost and the number of these address andrew. and just for the record you are dust were. you said your electric car cost $10 to fill up and will continue to do so for the future because renewables are the cheapest form of energy. what do you think california and europe have such high prices

when they have built the most amount of renewable and for structure? >> that's a good question. i think you have to look at the time of when people built out their infrastructure. if you look at the lazard plot it showed 10 years ago solar was the most expensiveiv power today solar is the least expensive power. that's going to drive up the cost. they are spending a lot of money. now it's the cheapest power. 00energy are building solar. 100 gigawatts sold in the next two years. it's and i know people don't like to hear that. i was on the popular podcast recently you can imagine how many people e-mailed me aboutt that. we are going through an energy revolution. you can't have a reasoned debate

if you don't know the revolution we arein going through right no. >> alex? >> let me try to say something noncompetitive. again it's true as i mentioned solar and wind are not replacements for fossil fuels. their cost adding supplement. they depend on 10000% are near 100% reliable infrastructure. some of the prices go down they will add less cost but they still add costs everywhere they are used and there was one other point i wanted to make. so last point? i will try to remember it. >> you wanted d to ask about the university of chicago epic study. you are familiar with it and it's a study that shows renewable -- is the 2019

university of chicago epic study. are you familiar with the study? >> i have be honest i'm not familiar with the study. >> we have to keep looking at things. one thing iss the ability like solar and wind because they are for placing the first 10% is cheaper than replacing the second and third 10%. if you add moretr and more reliable infrastructure you need the infrastructure as well so if you look at a places, like texas they have >> $70 billion to get to 21% solar and wind and to andrew dessler's -- an important point is that drives up cost. you defund reliable power plants in de-fund resiliency. he keeps m talking about the fre

market is doing it. his subsidies and mandates and you pay the same forelectricity has reliable industry. not one person in this room with pay the same amount for a reliable employee and an employee. we are in even talking about 8% of energy that is not electricity and not talking about the resiliency and the idea that solar and wind can justify rapidly banning fossil fuels with no cost. it's just a murderous farce. see the nation's second most populous state having renewable energy standardd like colorado which i understand and i think it's pretty aggressive with this at have one? >> the way the texas grid works, it's a free market energy system

and they have an auction every day were energy come in and say this is how much i will charge you for energy and ercot says okay we need 60 gigawatts and we will take this cheapest gigawattsar of power and wind ad solar because of power zero and i won hundred% agree the texas market and because of that to continue building wind and solar essentiallyes forever so cheapet energy source and i understand there's disagreement here. you may not believe me now that you will believe me a few years. you will understand i'm right in a few years if not sooner. so in texas people are building wind and solar is the cheapestit energy no endve up with an unstable grid. as i talked about in the beginningt you need to have powr

in the grid and there's zero expense free to build nuclear in texas or to buildot other typesf power. that's the problem. it's not a problem with energy and that's a big difference we have. wind and solar are not the problem come the problem is the market. we need to redesign the market to give advantage to spectral power. >> how do you do that? >> at the market. you save for that power, i don't know. it's ercot. the texas legislature. >> it does require more regulation of the market? i >> absolutely. the way to think of it is the ziproper policy is what i call long-term system analysis. you look at the electricity needs and look at the long-term

that is most effective at the lowest price. and their member the point he missed beforeso then main distortion -- he's not looking at the cost in some port and with raw material they are real physicale materials and what we are seeing a lot of those materials are going up and those chinese solar panels are dominant because they involved -- china is using coal to make solar panels. they are using coal and that's an advantage they have over us and the other thing is they are using low environmental standards in their using labor. [applause] everybody wanted me to say that i guess. people say it's so that they are using and that's relevant to the

situation.va so it's a humanitarian evil. one of the smallerer distortions that professor dessler engaged in but it's an important one. it's a distortion. >> alex one of the questions that's coming from her audience and i like to give the audiencet credit for their knowledge and their insight was directed to you and said can you explain the a bar mental impacts of wind and solar. what about whatow alex brought p and making the solar panels and they are doing it with coal. is there a cart before the

horse? >> in inner mongolia could drive down the road and you see wind turbines and as i said i'm not an expert on the chinese grid. my take on that is they recognize they need to both. everybody understands that. >> for us laypeople you're talking about -- >> it could be nuclear geothermal. it could be hydrogen or hydroelectric. it could be long-term storage. and they understand that so yes they are billing fossil fuels and theyne understand you need o have power. i wish they were building nuclear but they are doing that. as far as the other part of your question what was it?

>> it was all wrapped in 11. >> supply-chain issues. certainly their supply-chain issues. >> what does that do to climate action. using additional fossil fuels? >> i don't see a problem with that.lo right now once the solar panels are there we can shut off for fossil fuels. that's how you use the power you have to get to the power system you want. >> we have about one minute and lets keep the order that we start it was so angry you go first and alex to go second. >> your memory is better than mine.on >> i want to reiterate what i said the key methodology is to look at precisely the harms of co2 in the benefits of co2 and

factoror climate mastery and if you look at the reality today you recognize how the world works the situation of fossil fuels have unique massive and near-term irreplaceable benefits for the aliens to have it in the billions who need it. including the idea that solar and wind are full supply-chain supported by china. i don't mean to attack them personally but to hold that cermotan is o based on distortis about denying fossil fuels benefits and denying climate mastery and when you look objectively at the full context it's obvious that the world needs vastly more energy most of that comes from fossil fuels and eliminating fossil fuels should be morally condemned as an evil eye gap based on falsehoods by

try to explain today.an >> as i said in the set of beginning ousted again we need power no one doubts that but the question is what'' the power source? a lot of people done analyses and i'm not sure we can significantly -- a lot of things are simply not correct. i'm happy to engage with anybody in the audience just e-mail me and i'm happy to look into these things. all the evidence of people who are experts in this say we can do this. wind and solar are the energy of the future. look at what people are installing now. the idea that it increases the cost of energy is not correct. fossil fuels poison the atmosphere.

right now a look at ukraine in the price of gas at the pump. those are significant disadvantages. >> thank you both. let me point out that 56 people people -- it goes to show how engaged you were with this debate and how engaged they were. thanks to both of them are coming together civilly, civilly and engaging like this for all of our o benefit. i'm very impressed by this evening by the fact this form is here. all of us are enlightened and food for thought. [applause]

>> thank you gentlemen. takes a lot of courage tore getn the i stage and many people refe to do it so kudos to them.

>> where providing low income students access to affordable internet. >> he's got an interesting story. michael ian ian black says the comedian writer who started with a comedy showdy on mtv and cread aio and inspired many of the television shows movie appearances including american summer. he is the author of several books for children including the award-winning trio of the i'm bored i'm sad and i'm worried. and a parody of the child's