on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents story and on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 companies television companies and more including media. >> the world changed in an instant. but media comp was ready. internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality because at media come we keep you ahead for. >> media, along these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. >> we had this compelling debate

on showed america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel used to prevent climate w catastrophe. we want to give them the full hour. we did this debate at the university of miami in florida and at cu boulder last week. that case it was alex epstein debating clark. you can buy those on steamboat institutes channel. today we have alex epstein we have a opponent. let me briefly introduce, i will read their bio and i believe they're going to come up to the stage after i introduce them. we are very pleased to have it with us this morning professor andrew dressler. he is the professor of atmospheric science at texas university. professor dressler is a client science and politics of climate change. he is that really a heinz chair in geoscience texas a&m in 2022 hehe was named director of texas a&m texas center for climate

studies. professor dressler also served in the clintone administration during the last year he servedr as a senior policy analyst in the white house office of science and technology policy. his latest book introduction to modern climate change on the 2014 american meteorological society's louis j batten authors award. we are also pleased to have alex epstein president founder for the center for industrial progress, author of the moyle trend moral fuels he is a philosopher who argues human flourishing should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmentalst progress. he is the author of the "new york times" bestseller the moral case for fossil fuel but alex is known for his willingness to debate anyone, anytime. has publicly debated leading environmental organizations such as greenpeace, the serra club and the 350.org over the

morality of fossil fuel use. and finally, our moderator for this morning's debate is dan is the editorial page editor of the denver gazette. dan is a longtime journalist and more than 25 year veteran of the colorado political scene. he has been an award-winning newspaper reporter editorial page editor for senior legislative staffer and political consultants. let's welcome professor dressler and alex epstein. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ can everyone hear me? they are, good. let's get right down to

business. now they've had the introductions from jennifer,. [inaudible] not everyone can see me but you can hear my voice but we're going to ask each of the gentlemen to offer us an opening statement his view of the h proposition which you have heard. let me just repeat it for the record, that is showed america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel used to prevent climate catastrophe? what we are going to do is have andrew go first. were going to let each one to an opening statement kind of stating where they are at forgive them about seven and half minutes g each. as i sit andrew will go first to be followed by alex. after words will give andrew a chance to rebut anything he feels needs to be addressed at any point that alex raised.

>> slides. >> thanks. so let me begin by saying energy is the most important thing in the world if you have energy you can do anything else you want. the real question is what is the best way to generate energy? now we generate most of her while from fossil fuels right now but let me talk about some of the disadvantages of fossilut fuels. talk about number one, climate change explain why i personally am extremely concerned about climate change. let's go back to the last ice age. this ish basically what north america looked like it was covered with thousands of feet of ice about half covered their different ecosystems, sea level was 300 feet lower. it was a different planet. if you walked outside you would not recognize your planet. now, is about 10 degrees fahrenheit colder that time to think about 10 degrees fahrenheit the global average or cool the planet get ice age.

pleuritic closeted ice age unite 10 degrees prilosec about the future. we are on track for 5 degrees of warming that's half of an ice age. that has a possibility of completely remaking the surface of the earth. now, we can try to adapt to this. is it plausible we do that and our descendents are going to be spending all of their money building seawalls and water infrastructure and things like that where they'll be significantly impoverished by this. moving on, fossil fuel poisons the air they killed millions of people every year around the world due to air pollution. in addition there's office in the national security risk. these are some headlines that are not that far out of date. texas gas prices could reach $4 per gallon if every sector of tensions. let me give you headlines that will never be read, texas when

skyrockets energy respond to u.s./russia tension question rick saudi arabia was biden's plan to increase sunlight as midterms loom. those headlines will not occur we will never invade kuwait in order to rescue wind and sun. fossil fuels are a commodity so the prices vary per these price variations look at we are sprinting or enough gas is $5 a gallon this is causing incredible pain. i fill up my tank for $10.10 last month they'll be $10 next month it's always the same. this variability is extremely economicallyri damaging. ife you are small business owner what is the price of gas going to be in a year? nobody knows. how do you make plans when you cannot predict the price of energy? so now let's be clear that we need energy but fossil feels are the only way to go be the first person in line to say let's burn stuff we dig out of the ground.

but we have an alternative for the alternative is wind and solar. those actually are the cheapest power to sources in now. know when i people this on the pointt this out people are stunned they get angry because theyy do not realize we are in the midst of an energy revolution right now. most people don't keep track of this their knowledge of energy prices or a few years old. but the people in texas who build energy they know this. you go to the urquhart websitete and runs the grid of texas. they published statistics on what people are connecting to the grid it is 90% solar, wind, batteries 10% gas. they realize the cheapest energy as wind and solar. it's my phone beeping out turn it off. the cheapest energy as wind and solar and they know this. w upon? there because people often say what about subsidies? i'm happy to argue but that the

q&a people to talk about limit talk about something that's not arguable. let's look at the trend. this shows and firstly people on that side -- my chemo and move over for the price of an 2009 in 2019 for this is solar going doubt that the wind going down from there to there. this is the trend. this trend is not going to stop. this is going tot continue to g. what that means is we could argue about what's cheapest now. wind and solar are the cheapest energy of the future for there can be no debate about that. now people will tell you wind and solar are intermittent. then the question becomes can you build a grid that uses intermittent renewable energy that's cheap? i'm not going to give you my opinion paramount going to give you a i'm not going to claim i know the answer but there's an enormous amount of research is gone on this over the last decade. so we know the answer.

we know the answer unless you can say where you you people went wrong, your feelings do not matter. this is the math and physics and engineering problems. people have solved this. you talk a little bit about how you build a grid that runs mainly on intermittent energy that still reliable paired the first thing you have to you have to realize are two classes of energy. you'll save that when an soldier intermittent power then there's the power you can turn on and off anytime you want. so for example fuel savers are wind and solar batteries do not burn fuel the powers will be nuclear, hydro, geothermal, long-term storage and what you want to do for the cheapest grid is use as much renewables as you can. patchable power that gives you the cheapest great now you might reasonably ask, why do this why not just have a grid that's 100% firm dispatchable power 100% nuclear and the

answer is it's gonna be a lot more expensive if you want to pay the least amount of money. this is the grid you want to look at and on average the grids can be about 75% renewable and the numbers very different groups have different numbers, but it's sort of around that order magnitude and about 25% firm dispatchable power. so, let me just wrap up. so, you know we need power, but we can we can get power from we can get power. the cheapest energy source of the future. we can build a grid that does provide energy at low cost. and that grid will void the social cost of climate change, the fact that fossil fuels poison the air, the fact that fossil fuel does not pull us into wars. i will wrap up there. thank you.

>> you came in with 45 seconds to spare. >> i cannot believe i did not use those 45 seconds. >> alex, all yours. >> when you havecu a debate involving this, i think the usual assumption is there will be big differences over climate science. i think that the key difference here between me and the whole net movement is methodology. i have a very particular methodology for inking about this issue.ob what is interesting about this methodology is no one is ever disagreed with this and yet i have never met one opponent that follows it.r there are four key factors we

have to consider. we need to think about the benefits of rising co2, we need to master or adapt and the benefits of fossil fuels. they do talk a lot about rising co2 harm. a little bit of distortion in that realm. rising benefits tend to be trivialized or denied. climate mastery denial tends to not be discussed at all. i will show that the professors doing this despite i will go through and explain my view andy explain where the net zero you just failed. i generally find the professor reasonable. one of thehe more honest commentators.

nothing resembling what we hear in the media. sea level rises you are talking about 3 feetar by the year 2100. explicitly, we have no idea. i cannot tell you it will be bad, but i think it will be bad. it is important to recognize we are already up 2 degrees fahrenheit. i think that we need to be more honest about that. today is the most amazing world that has ever existed. that brings us to rising co2 benefits. particularly fewer cold related deaths. i am using his chart which has been vetted any times. there is also global greening in

terms of crop benefit. this is very significant. the fact that this is not mentioned or acknowledged the significance shows the kind of bias that we will see much more with climate master. it is a fact that climate -related disaster deaths, extreme temperatures, storms, floods, disasters and drought, are down 98%. fossil fuels which provide 80% of the low cost reliable energy we use to master climate, thatos they are a cost. using it to power irrigation and transport to make us far safer. it is so great that 100 million ipeople in the world live below high tide sea level. they are totally fine. this is what i find totally

objectionable. it has thousands of pages that did not mention it. he does not mention it here. the effects of polio. we are masters of climate do not discuss this is claimant mastery denial appearance simple. i want to really emphasizes. nothing they project about the future harms the co2 can be trusted because they deny the climate mastery ability. it certainly applies to the professor. the final factor which is an even more agree just denial is denying the benefits of fossil fuels. they are uniquely scalable and versatile source of energy.d provide energy for billions of people thousands of places. versatile means all type of machines. the professor only talked about the electricity. only 20% of global energy use.

fossil fuels are growing particularly in china and other parts of the world that want the lowest costll of energy. curious why china is not going all in on solar given it is allegedly cheap. when we look at the performance around the world, it is very clear. large subsidies and mandates and they add cost. the electricity prices go up when you see solar and wind. you look at this graph and youoe see that sometimes it can go to zero. what does that mean? you need 100% backup. you have to pay for the cost of the 100% reliable grid and all the unreliable infrastructure, most importantly the reliable power plant. when you try to cut cost, which is what happened in texas or where i live in california, then you have disasters. lbillions more people need low cost reliable energy.

fossil fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective. low cost to eliminate them. how can we claim this? two denials. unaware or t very manipulative. these are partial cost accounting and relying on near-term possibilities. the cost of energy/electricity, anyone that uses this are ignorant or defrauding you. i mean this very literally. does not take into account reliability related c consideration. it only looks at the cost of the solar panel, but not the transmission linehe and not the backup. i have a really cheap employee.v $18 an hour instead of $20 an hour. but you have to pay to bust them into work and you have to pay for 100% reliable staff. $18 an hour, it is so cheap. you need to look at the full cost. this is partial cost accounting.

talking about nuclear hydro and geothermal in terms of supporting this magical grid. nuclear does not work with intermittent solar and wind. nuclear is at the bottom. the tan one is the one that goes up and down. hydro's location limited. also recently said i agree that hydro is not something to expand geothermal is highly location. limited at a fraction of a percent. it is not practical. dealing with a tremendous amount, there is a fantastic argument or engaging in deliberate deception. they cannot be trusted toth predict the future. i look forward to engaging these issues, but the doctor has a lot to answer for. >> please wrap it up. perfect timing. [applause] >> as agreed, what we will do is give andrew a chance to briefly

refute some of the points that he thinks need addressing. a minute and a half. >> sure. yeah. can you put my slides back up. one slide. i will not bore you. again, first of all, a lot of the advantages that mr. epstein talked about, not the advantage of fossil fuels.ou actually, the advantages of power.r. it does not matter where you get the power here you get the power from renewable or fossil fuels, they will still be important power sources solving the problems and reducing. i amm almost there. you showed the plot that has germany in california on it. come on. athis is a plot of all thes states. the x accesses the price.

itbl is not more expensive to ad renewable energy. that is false. as far as nuclear -- i have to say, i did talk about adaptation he says we have climate mastery. i did mention it. the cost of claimant mastery. ifha you want to build a seawal, tens of billions of dollars. who was going to pay for that? we are. that isor going to make us poor. if you go to california, go to the producers, they are not trucking in water. they are not heroically building a pipeline. they are just ripping their trees out of the ground. co2 fertilization is not helping them. it is too expensive to do it. too expensive to master the climate. when you have cheap renewable energy available. it does exist with all systems.

if you look at the studies that have been done, they include the cost of transmission lines and that. again, you have to look at peer-reviewed literature on r ts now, he is right, we also need to electrify things. that is another part of the problem. we use a lot of fossil fuels. we cannot electrify many of them the last 5% of electrifying like international flights. that can be difficult. >> andrew, inc. he. i hate to cut you off, i've got to be a. >> you both have written plenty on it. i may add that our audience includes many energy experts. the term a layperson like me would use. i can see the questions coming in.

i will balance that with some oh the more technical questions which, a lot of which are over my head, but not over yours. i will try to balance that to policy type questions. let me start off with one of those. i know that alex has written on these websites that stopping fossil fuels would make the earth unlivable. andrew wrote this month in "rolling stone," the amount of warming the world is on track and will transform our planet in unimaginable ways. somebody like me that is not an energy expert looks at both of those and thought, you know, what if they both are right? instead of sparing no expense in an attempt to curb climate change, should we try to adapt and can? we? let me go ahead and ask andrew,

first. >> we have to adapt to any climate change that we have done people need to realize adaptation is not magic. we will use fossil fuels to master the climate. that is extremely specific. i will give you one example. houston almost got wiped out in the late 2000 by a hurricane. they have been proposing tosa build a dike to basically save houston. houston will be wiped out without this at some point in this century. they just cannot get the money. it is extremely expensive to adapt. certainly, we have to adapt what we cannot avoid tiered if you ncan avoid it or more cheaply than you have to adapt, you should do that. >> to have an observation on that? >> i've been disappointed to andrew's response in my opening. putting myself in his position.

if someone pointed out i'm using fraudulent statistics and levelized cost of energy and also i am just using imaginary scenarios in terms of this hydro and nuclear and geothermal and solar and wind, that would really give me pause. oh, there are some academic studies in the future. i just want to reiterate that the conclusion that the earth has become more livable with fossil fuels is based on looking at the full context in which the professor continues not to deal. if you t look at the benefits, providing low-cost reliable energy to power machines for billions of people to be productive and prosperous, including unnaturally safe from climate. fifty times safer than we were 100 years ago. that is amazing and needs to be stressed.ei if you look at climate damages,

they are flat. in some cases, they are declining. no climate crisis at all. there is actually a climate renaissance right now. it is just cherry picking. not looking at the big dick sure. the big picture is clear.hm mass impoverishment and premature death. >> let's say that there is an increase in average global temperatures. i am seeing 125-degree. adapting and spending what we have to do so rather than necessarily trying to go to net zero. >> net zerove as mass murder should not even be on the table if you look at the concepts. what policy should you have

given thatng energy is soio important, the key thing is to engage in any liberation that is possible of low carbon alternatives. we are very fortunate that we have an unbelievable low carbon alternative that is actually cheaper in the 70s which is nuclear which is virtually criminalized to the point that nuclear prices are almost 10 times more today adjusted for inflation than they were in the 70s. i think everyone should be in favor of decriminalizing nuclear ways actually work to reduce the emissions is not my highest priority, but you can have it as a priority. you can also make energy more available to more people. theyy are very hostile to nucler and then he calls it expensive, but that is another distortion. only becausese of the green

movement that he is a major part of and supporter. liberate nuclear, natural gas and alternative, but let people have energy and do not hold them back by this total denial and distortion about solar and wind. >> i'm going to ask you a different question rather than follow-up on nuclear. this is one from our audience. making life for the poor and middle-class more expensive. is the only solution to reducing fossil fuel use making american families by a tesla? >> i hate to do this to you, i just have to respond to alex saying i am being dishonest. most of the electricity is nuclear. the reason we do not do it in the u.s. is regulatory. the statement that we cannot do it is absolutely wrong. getting back to your statement about -- i mean, we do need to switch if we want to get to a

world, millions of people are killed by fossil fuel poisoning the air,ah if we want to get awy from that, which i think we could i think we need to switch to electric. i don't think everyone needs to buy a tesla. ten years ago people would have laughed at you if you told them the penetration that electric cars would have today. there are innovation cycles driving down prices. again, remember, just to hammer on this point that mr. epstein is reallyza telling you somethig that is wrong, you can complain about them. look at what the producers are doing. they are building wind solar. they don't care what they say. a they are doing the calculation.r they have made the calculation that wind and solar are cheap energy sources.

this revolution in energy that we are now experiencing will drive innovation. i think everyone will be driving electric cars in 10 or 20 years. >> the flat screen tv versus now. >> 1988 -- giving you my ibm selector. >> you mentioned the study.nc here is another reference by one of our audience members. does the study include the full cost including the backup required for intermittent wind and solar generation. >> that is a great question. that is a fundamental mistake that people think about when they say renewable energy needs backup. it is a mistake to think about this as an energy versus energy source. you want to think about it from a grid p standpoint. you want to generate as much power from fuel savers as you

can. from wind and solar. it is not that, it is including the cost of that. that is part of the grid. completely the wrong way to think about it. specifically i think that the study is the amount of energy. you are thinking about it wrong if that is the way you think about it. >> can i respond to that? >> this is a a great difference between us. i just want to reexplain it. so, you have to look at the full cost of things. we want all of this solar and wind. you can think of it like an unreliable worker thatf is willing to work cheaply. again, there are costs associated. the most important things are backup costs. maybe being to literal. system cost necessary to take an intermittent unreliable input and turn it into a

controllable reliable output. you absolutely have to look at the full cost. thepe real thing to look at is what happens to the numbers when you add solar and wind. there is a very strong correlation. some of these places they are showing up super cheap electricity already. this is a huge distortion. it is something unreliable. putting the same price on a car that works a third of the time in a car that works all the time. they are totally different. the reason they are having increase penetration is because we have the same grid that pays for reliable and unreliable. this is not some amazing market resolution this is based on the worship of sun and wind and set of decriminalizing nuclear and the long-term and actually getting something done.

>> so, people left on that study that is what the net zero america says. that is what they have done. they have done that. this is not something that we are a during. >> yes. first of all, any projection -- i have a rule that any projection about the future that does not acknowledge the present is invalid. they are -- they claim that solar and wind have made things cheaper already. something that we know has already made things more expensive, they are denying that and then all sorts ofss hypothetical things based on faulty assumptions. what has actually happened. ten years ago saying all the same things you were in all the same things they were. a total predicament where they are dependent on russia. if these ideas are so great, implement them in one place around the world and be

successful. do not force us to ban fossil fuels which is what you are advocating in the name of economic total fallacies and fantasies. >> let's switch gears a little. >> there is denial going on. >> just so they don't shoot the piano player. [laughter] >> can any good come of higher average global temperatures down the road? you know, i think both of you say that is likely. that there will be higher global temperatures. >> oh, yeah. >> let me ask you first, is there any good that will come of that? >> i indicated this. there is the greening which is huge. it is important with warming. the fact about warning hundred

warming is it is not publicized. warming tends to take place in colder places during colder seasons and that colder times. more of the world becoming less cold than more warm on the equator and that warmest places. if you think there is significant warming, there are huge positives. people likee warmth. warmth is crucial to life. he related death is far fewer. the reason why people do not care about this is because they have a philosophy, the perfect planet. the planet we inherited is perfect in any impact we have is inevitably self-destructed. unfortunately, i think most people accept it. that is why they are so concerned with all of these negatives and they don't seem to appreciate how amazingly safe we

have made the earth. if you look at the world from a pro- human perspective -- >> the temperature that we have now is the best temperature because we are adapted to. if you look around the world, we have built our entire world around this temperature. people in siberia built houses on permafrost because they assume it will never melt. people build cities right on the sea because they assume that is where the sea level will be when the sea level rises. we have trillions, trillions of these training adaptations. bridges, we can build a bridge, you can assume a temperature range. the temperature gets outside of that temperature range, you have to repair that bridge. this will be extremely expensive for us to adapt. will there be some positives? i have no doubt. etsome people somewhere.

the thing about, you know, the warming, warming high latitudes more than we are warming the equator. warming the low latitudes a lot. i live in texas, i really don't care what happens in canada. i care what happened in dantonio, austin and houston. i not just in winter, but in summer. it will be expensive. we will have to run our air-conditioners more. it will be very expensive for us to adapt. >> another one from our audience. i will skip to the end. can we talk about the co2 parts per million in how the introduction of fossil fuel saved the planet. plants were about to die. let me ask you first, andrew. is that faulty reasoning? >> i do not think that the planet was about to die. it was pretty industrial.

>> the part about generating more co2. >> definitelyxi. we have increased carbon dioxide by about 48%. absolutely. if that was the only thing that was happening, you certainly would be helping plants. if you have a green house, you can inject carbon dioxide in. t'of course, that is not what is happening. i mentioned california, you have these farmers ripping up there all meant trees because they cannot get water. again, other things are happening. i would also point out that, you know, actually, i i will not pot out -- [inaudible] >> the historical benefit is interesting. definitely harms of warmings as well. the norma's benefits that they make possible.

i just want to reiterate. 80% of the world's energy and growing. especially in the parts of the world that care most about low-cost reliable energy like china. the world is drastically short of energy. 80% is cost-effective in a world that needs more energy and energy is crucial to people t being able to use sheens to make themselves productive and prosperous. here we have solar and wind which is subsidized, mandated and bite about. 3% of the world energy totally dependent on the reliable source of energy, mostly fossil fuels. we can rapidly fan the needed source of energy and replace them with solar wind. this is why i call it mass murder. this would end aliens of lives prematurely. the details are trivial. anything within the realm of possibility as master bull and nothing to the message if we

follow this policy. >> okay. i will ask each of you if we accept the assumption on climate change, how much can the u.s. be mitigated when china is assumed to be the world's largest economy and india soon to be the most popular producing most of the world's carbon omissions. i have a follow-up question. let me throw that out there for most of you. .... .... s a political issue which i really probably you know, i'm not someone who is an expert on on international negotiations and you know the point is we can do this physically. you know, we just need to convince the country as well now, i will say that most of the other countries of the we just need to convince -- i would say most of the countries of the world like australia and the u.s., are looking u.s.

leadership on the problem. the u.s. has enormous leadership capabilities would lead the way other countries will follow. other countries recognize these problems. >> it'ss amazing how china and india have no idea their interests are there's passive oa fossil fuels. china has coal plants new plants in the pipeline. fossil fuels are by far the most cost-effective going forward. that's why people using so many of them now and are planning to use more the future. if you care about omission the only way to deal with the is not agreement it is coming up with lower-cost sources low carbon and no carbon energy. the solar and wind is contrary to that. it creates unfairness privacy up-and-down unreliable overt

nuclear it was like a nuclear plant been shut down. nuclear has major potential. deliberate natural gas. he's going to be good for the world in terms of energy a lower admissions long-term. this is a win-win powerful super you empower the world when you lower admissions over time in a totally humane way. this primitive religious idea we went energy from the sun and wind. going to end up billions of lives prematurely. just focus on doing it in america were going to become even worse than germany is with russia right now. europe has been the leader on that issue and look at them now break breakfast go further into the morality of it is going during a lecture he a postindustrial economy such as. ours? that's what i'm told our economy is present unrealistic burden to heap on economies are still developing? let me ask you first.

>> green philosophically is the idea of minimizing or eliminating human impact on s nature. what does the idea our impact on the world is somehow immoral and also somehow inevitably self-destructive. if you buy at the commandment it is wrong also going to go to hell per the model global warming narrative is no plausibility to three more degrees fahrenheit and 80 years there is no plausibility good and thehe world. people have a religious view were really going to hell. this is a primitive view it's not held by anyone who actually lives in nature.e' if you live in nature you have to master nature. take for granted the world you live in think of that is natural produce support and adopt these green policies? unfortunately what we do have a totally nongreen to society that impose these antihuman green policies on the rest of the

world the name of so-calledoa sustainable development telling them not to build coal plants not to build gas and to somehow use solar and wind maybe is it to power a flashlight or charge a cell phone instead of having a nreal economy. this is fundamentally immoral and harming the people in the world. >> going green in the green movement i rose it's a broader brush for. >> the people who work on this i'm kind of amazed by this discussion. the people who work d on this to the peer-reviewed researches have identified the cheapest energy as wind and solar. literally making stuff up what he says it's more expensive. show me a study that shows that. problem of the debates as we can't really check each other on the fly. show mehe a study i will read tm we can argue that in an e-mail or something. the point is it's the cheapest energy. for people in africa are other

places cannot afford renewable energy they cannot afford fossil fuel for special when you add in all the cost of dispensing master the climate. master the claimant is incredibly expensive. building seawalls is expensive. building flood control infrastructure is expensive. it is going to impoverish us. i don't think it's wind and human society but certainly possible and again i said this initially we are going to spending all of p our time other people this room might be were going to be spending all of their money just trying to stay alive and master thet climate. it is not cheap look at the seawalls but look at all of the estimates and investments peopla have to make a. >> can i respond to this michael guide dealt with this. we actually see i'm very big you make productions about the future acknowledging the present. we have an expense were increasing an atmosphere for 170 years event 2 degrees of warming

from 2 degrees fahrenheit of warming we are talk about three more. what we have seen us drastically reduce the rate of climate -related disaster a master of something we do anyway it out the dangers of nature but look at the kind of change were talking about they are extremely slow. theyel are involved in a civilization that's always rebuilding itselfe anyway. even a very slow changers forop keeping brilliance of people is not a slowl change. i keep pointing out every real-world example around the world detritus on reliable solar and wind is increase the cost. >> that is not true. bricks are mostly not a calmness and most environmentalists who decided to make up economic scenarios. they denied the present and most real energyil economists know fossil feels are cute crucial for the future including the economists in china and india are actually making realsi decisions. this method energy denial so

great find the place to make it work because in practice is just killing people and making people insecure in europe rightdi now. >> that is wrong. the problem with these debates i can't go to the eia website and show him he's wrong but i will do it after this for. j >> is going to g be great i do like conflict where someone could get a of me doing this and maybe ducking. let me do a time check here. let me do time check with jennifer went to reserve a minute or so for each of our speakers to come up with what they have come here to say what they say the debate the tremendous amount of questions it learned you all are have come in part we've only scratched the surface i like to get to a few more if there's time for that. >> i'm not sure how you wanted to do that.

twelve minutes that sounds good. let's go with more of these fruit some overlap i'm trying to pick and choose. some also been addressed in various ways. a number of them touch on the cost of renewables the real-world cost. and a number of these are pointedly addressed to andrew. by the you are desolate. let'ss use this when here. electric car coste you $10 tohe fill up and will continue to do so for the future because renewables are the cheapest form of energy. when you think california europe have such high electricity prices and renewable infrastructure projects good question. if you look at the time when people built out their

infrastructure. it shows ten years ago solar it was a most expensive power. say it's at g least expensive. germany built the power when is expensive it's going to dry up the costs. we should think germany because they are spending a lot of money to help drive the price down. pnow it's a cheapest power you can see texas energy producers are doing for the buildingld solar. 100 kilowatts or so in the next years it is a cheat. i know people do not like it. i'm so veryy popular podcast recently, cannot imagine how many people e-mail me aboutut i. you all have to know that. you cannot have a reasonable debate about that. we do not know what were going through right now.is amanda tries to say some thing noncompetitive.

solar and wind are not the placement for pot fossil fueldd they are cost adding supplements. again a dependent one her percent or near one 100% reliablet infrastructure. so it is true as some of the vices go down they will add less cost. but they still do add o cost everywhere they are used. there's one other point i wanted to make. i guess i will try to remember it. but she one asked him at the university of chicago ethics study was that mentioned already? >> note neither of us is mentioned that progress you are familiar withhli it. an audience member asked her poinsettia study shows renewables ares more expensive s a 2019 university of chicago ethics study per are you familiar with theec study? if both of youar are familiar wh earth and every. >> i have to be honest i'm not family with that steadily. >> i'm familiar with that study. think it tends to be way too

conservative but we have to keep looking at things. one thing is the ability solar's reliable replacing the first 10% is cheaper than replace the second 10%. what you're doing a shift at more and more of the unreliable infrastructure get a larger and larger percentage. we need the whole unreliable infrastructure as well. if look at a place like texas have already spent about $70 billion to get to 21% solar and wind. tip two enters 75% your three and a half times that pretty have to spend all this new money on infrastructure. and really important point is this drives up costs but you defend power plants. talk of the free market is doing again that subsidy mandates texas grid pays the same for unreliable electricity as reliable electricity. one person and this room would pay the same amount for a reliable employee and an

unreliable employee. this is a total corruption and we are not even ten with 80% of energy but is not electricity were not talking but the billions of people who laugh at the idea solar and wind can justify rapidly banningng fossil fuels with no cost is eight murders first. >> the nation's second most sit have renewable energy standard mandate mike colorado which i understand i think is put aggressive. does it have one and is that what's driving some of this? >> the way the texaswoot grid w, all of texas it is a free market energy system. they have an auction every day were energy come and say this is how much i will charge you for energy. and they say okay we need 60 gigawatts they figure if they

take the cheapest 60 gigawatts of power.an and when solar because her marginal cost is zero they have an advantage. i one 100% agree the texas market -- mike because that the incentive for energy producers to continue building wind and solar essentially forever for that is a cheapest cheapest energy source. i can say may not believe me now but you will in a few years. he was right. you will understand i am right and if years if not sooner. so in texas people building wind and so it's a cheapest energy. now we will eventually create ab unstable grid. need to have further power on your grid there is zero incentive for you to build a nuclear in texas. or other types of firm power. that is a problem with the market. this not a prom with the energy per that is a big difference we

have it. when his floor and up the problem. the problem is the market need to redesign the market to get some advantage because you have to have that on the grid. >> it's a market. we will give you extra -- who is the week? >> the texas legislature. >> is more regulation of the market? >> absolutely the government needs to come in and solve that problem. >> requires work. the government is monopolizing something its long-term system cost analysis for you look at electricity needs to look at what mixture of things will meet that in the long term the most effective the lowest price for you do that you have nuclear to some extent natural gas but never the point i missed before it's important the main distortion involved he's not look at the full cost.

that is the main b thing. it is import it the raw material things like solar panels those are not good down indefinitely their real physical materials. chinese solar panels are dominant because they involve chinese coal time is not going to solar panels to make solar panels. why is that if they're so cheap? that's an advantage they have over us for the other thing is that we sink lower environmental standards for the other thing is using slave labor. the ò-letter quick somewhat when we say that i guess. the south cotton is so cheap but they are using slaves this kind of relevant to the situation. china's using slaves use solar panels that's relevant as well. the humanitarian evil. some of these smaller distortions engaged in. but it is an important one.

over all the picture is a crazy distortion. >> what you said right now i always like to give the audience questions for their knowledge this was directed to you said can you explain that mining m manufacturer awaits comparator drilling rig in texas it's a variation on theme. what about that doing to look that as a drilling rig in texas what alex just brought up there bacon these solar panels cheap. but they are doing itt with coal at some point in the production chain. setting a signed question of ethics and morality is there a cart before the horse? >> couple responses. you drive down the road is a power plant or construction for a few kilometers away see wind turbines.

none expert on the chinese aha grid might take on that is they recognize they need firm dispatch a bull renewable energy. everyone understands that. >> you say firm. >> power turn on and off. could be hydrogen it could be hydroelectric. could be long-term storage, batteries. they are building fossil fuels they destabilize the grid and they understand you need tol. he some dispensable power. i wish they would go nuclear bua they are not doing that. now as far as the other part of your question, i cannot member what it was. >> supply chain issues. certainly supply chain issues. >> the irony and also what is that due to climate action if in fact you're using traditional

fossil fuel to create customer. >> i don't see a problem with that. right now is fossil fuel to create solar panels but once they are available you can shut off the fossil fuel. that's how you make advances use the power you had to get to the south power system you want. >> will be asked each of you to dissemination just about a minute. let's just keep the order was startedso with. andrew you go first alex you go second period. >> and care for quicksort is better than mine that's exactly right. ask i'm going go for a short period i want to reiterate what i said key methodology is look at the full context teams look precisely the harms of co2 the benefits of co2 effective climate mastery you actually look at the reality today recognize how the world works and the situation is fossil fuels have unique massive and near-term irreplaceable benefits are billions of people who have

energy in the billions more who need it. the claims they are not necessary is based on a while distortions including by the way the idea solar and wind are insecure even of the whole supply chain is controlled by china forgot to mention thathi distortion. 'ten specific do not mean to attack and person ofer the whole is based on distortions about denying fossil fuel benefits and denying climate mastery. when you actually look objectively at the colt full context it's obvious the world vastly more energy. most of it can succumb from fossil fuels and net bureau eliminate fossil fuels rapidly is for billions of people should be morally condemned as an evil idea based on falsehoods freight that is what i've tried to explain very quick thank you alex. >> as i said in the beginning i will say again we need a power. no one doubts that. the question is what is the power source that's the best power source for us to use? a lot of peoplet done analyses

sharing we can significantly eliminate fossil fuelion use. i don't think there is any analysis that alex can point to that says that perry says a lot of things that are simply not correct. a lot of facts are just wrong. i am happy to engage with anybody in the audience if you e-mail me i'd be happy to look into these things but all the evidence of all the people who are experts in this suggest we can do this. wind and solar are the cheapest energy of the future. look at what people are installing now. adding increases the cost of energy is not correct. this is a problem of solving climate change it is a huge risk. paul fossil fuel poison the atmosphere we haven't talked about that there's millions ofs deaths. it is a security issue. right now look at ukraine lookhe at the price of gas at the pump. these are things that do not exist in a world of renewable energies those are significant disadvantages. >> thank you both. let me point out 56 people have

questions and obviously will and scratch the surface. that goes to show how engaged you all were with this debate and how engaging a debate like this is. our thanks to both of them for in the spirit institute coming together civilly civilly and engaging like this for all of our benefits. i am actually very impressed by this. you invite debate so much the facts the form is here to provide for just such an exchange and food for thought. let's applaud both of them. >> thank you gentleman. takes a lot of courage to get on the stage. there are many people who refuse to do it so kudos ♪

♪ american history tv, saturdays on cspan2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 1:10 p.m. eastern on the 150th anniversary of yellowstone national park native wyoming resident bob richards talk about the history of the park where he led tours for nearly 40 years. and at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, president dwight eisenhower grandson, david, author of the book going home to glory a memoir of life in 1951 -- 1959 talks about ike's leadership in the military and his presence in the forces that shaped him. exploring the american story. what american history tv saturdays on cspan2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

>> live sunday september 4 on in-depth you see barkley governmental studies scholar will be our guest to talk about leadership, ronald reagan's political career and the american conservative movement is the author of several books including two volumes in the age of reagan series. greatness and patriotism is not enough about the scholars who change the course of conservative politics in america. joint in the conversation with your phone call, facebook comments, texts and tweets. in depth with steven hayward live sunday september 4 at noon eastern on book tv on cspan2. weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sunday @booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more including media.

>> the world changed in an instant. media com was ready, internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses meant virtual and we powered a new reality. because at media com we are built to keep you ahead. >> media, along these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. >> it is my distinct honor to invite up our keynote speaker tonight doctor dictated david hansen as the henry and book prize. [applause] doctor hansen is a longtime friend of isi present faculty associate going all the way back to the '90s. as i mentioned he wrote in isi book in 2002 called the bonfire of the humanities rescuing