>> hello, everyone and welcome to the national book festival.

we had this compelling debate should america eliminate fossile fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe and we want to give them the full hour. we did this debate at the university of miamind in florida and boulder last week and it was debating general wesley clark and you can find both of those on the steamboat institutes channel. today we have a different debate opponent and let me briefly introduce. we are pleased to have the professor of atmospheric science at texas a&mpr university. a climate scientist who studies both of the science and politics of climate change.

he's the chair in geosciences in the introduction to climate change and the meteorological societies offers award. we are also pleased to have alex the president and founder of the center for industrial progress author of the moral case for fossil fuels. alex is a philosopher who argues human flourishing should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. he is the author of "the new york times" bestseller case for xfossil fuels and alex is known for his willingness to debate isanyone, anytime and publicly

debated leading environmentalist organizations such as the sierra club and 350.org over the morality of fossil fuel use. finally, our moderator for this morning's debate is the editorial page editor of the denver gazette. the dam is a longtime journalist and more than 25 year veteran of the colorado political scene. he's banana award-winning editor, senior legislative staffer atr t the state capitald political consultant. let's welcome to the stage. [applause]

you had the introductions from jennifer not everyone can see me but you can hear my voice. we are going to ask each of the gentlemen on the view of the proposition that you've heard before you and let me just repeat it for the record should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe? we are going to have andrew go first and we will let each one doing an opening statement stating where they are out and give a seven and a half minutes

each. we will give andrew a chance to read about anything that he feels needs to be addressed. 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. is what is the best way to generate energy. let me explain why i personally am extremely concerned about climate change. let's go back for the last ice age this is what north america looked like. 300 feet lower it was a different planet if you walked outside, you wouldn't recognize

your planet. now it was about 10 degrees fahrenheit colder at that time into the global average you cool the planet we are going to call that an ice age unit. let's think about the future we are on track for 5 degrees of warming that is half of an ice age unit. that has the possibility of completely remaking the surface of thes. earth. we can try to adapt to this but it's possible even plausible if we do that our descendents are going to be spending all their money building seawalls and energy water infrastructure they will be impoverished by this. fossil fuel poisons the air. it kills millions around the world due to air pollution.us in addition, there's the national security risks of these are some deadlines that are not that far out of date. texas gas prices could reach

four dollars per gallon. let me give you a headline the wind pricesto skyrocketed to u., russia tensions. saudi arabia to increase sunlight as midterms. we will never invade kuwait in order to rescue wind and son. the v fossil fuel commodities so the prices vary and in the price variations, gas is five dollars a gallon this was causing incredible pain. i filled up my tank for $10.10 last month and ten dollars next month. it's a always the same so this variability is economically damaging. if you are a small business owner what is the price going to be in a year, nobody knows. how do you make plans when you can't predict the price of

energy. so let's be clear that we need oenergy and if fossil fuels were the only way to go i would be the first person in line a saying let's burn the stuff we dig out of the ground. those are the cheapest power sources now. when i show people this and i point this out people are often stunned and in fact will get angry at me because they don't realize we are in the midst of a revolution right now. most people don't keep track of this. the prices are a few-years-old but the people in texas who build energy, they know this, so if you go to the website, the grid in texas, they published statistics on what people are connecting to the grid. it's 90% of solar, wind and batteries, 10% gas because they realize the cheapest energy and wind m and solar.

the cheapest is wind and solar. let me talk about the thing that isis not arguable. this shows, unfortunately people on that site have to look alln the way over. the price of energy in 2019 this is solar and that's wind going back from there to there. this is the trend and it's not going k to stop. it's going to continue to go. we could argue but the wind and solar are the cheapest energy of the future there can be no debate about that. now people will tell you you know, wind and solar are intermittent and that is true so then the question becomes can you build a grid that uses intermittent renewable energy that's reliable and cheap.

there is an enormous amount of peer-reviewed research that has gone on over the last decade or so we know the answer is unless you can say where these people went wrong, your feelings don't matter. this is the math and physics and engineering problems. people have solved this. so let me talk about how you build a grid that runs mainly on intermittent energy that is still reliable. there's the power you can turn on and off anytime you want. the power can be nuclear, hydro, geothermal, gas with carbon capture and what you want to do for the cheapest grid is use as

much renewables. you might ask why do this, why not use a grid with hundreds of nuclear and the answer is it's going to 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 it will be about 75. it's around that magnitude and about 25 cents of dispatch of willpower. we need to power but we can get power from wind and solar the cheapest energy source of the future. based on a decade of peer-reviewed research we can build a grid that does provide at low cost and having talked more about that it will avoid the social c cost of climate change and fossil fuel poisons the air, the cost they don't

pull us into wars. so ie will wrap up there. >> you came in with 45 seconds to spare. >> i can't believe i didn't use those 45 seconds. >> when you have a debate like this involving the respected climate science i think the usual assumption is there's going to be big differences over climate and science and for the most part i thinknc that's not true. between me and n the whole net zero movement its methodology. my background is philosophy and i have a very particular methodology for thinking aboutut this issue. lowhat's interesting about thiss

nobody's ever disagreed and yet i've never met one opponent that even follows if so let me explain there are four key factors we have to consider when thinking about fossil fuel and climate we have to think about the harm of rising co2, the benefits of rising co2, the benefit of the climate mastery, the ability to master or adapt and then the benefits. myer analysis is usually what happens they do talk about the rising co2 and i think the professor does that less. they tend to be o trivialized. climate mastery cannot be discussed at all and i will show that he's doing this despite seeming not to.

>> i generally find him reasonable is one of the more honest commentator. it's nothing resembling what we hear in the media with sea level rises you're talking like 3 feet by the year 2100 and extreme scenarios knocked like 20 feet in several decades like al gore talked about. joe rogan said explicitly wee have no idea what it will do anb i cannot tell you it's going to be bad but i think it could be bad. when we talk about the degree of fahrenheit we took about five or 10 degrees i think we need to be more honest about that so if we took about 5 degrees it means 3 degrees from now. that brings us to rising co2 benefits which even if you think the harms are big the benefits are demonstrably huge particularly cold related

deaths. in terms of cross benefiting it's measured in the trillions of dollars so the fact that this isn't mentioned or acknowledged we are going to see much more apparently. here's where we really get into problems with that a deal. it's the fact that climate -related disaster deaths from trextreme temperatures, storms, floods, wildfires and droughts were down 98% over the last century and its demonstrable in the low cost reliable energy. using fossil fuels to power irrigation and transport to make us safer from drought. the mastery is so great that 100 milliony people live below high tide sea level.

so for 100 million people they are below and totally fine. here's what i find objectionable this is never mentioned it's got thousands of pages it does not mention. this is like discussing the effects of polio without discussing the fact we have a vaccine. we are masters of climate. i want to emphasize this nothing that a denier projects about the future can be trusted because they deny the climate master ability. it certainly provides applies to the professor. so even more itsi is possible denying the benefits of fossil fuel so they are uniquely scalable and versatile sources of energy for billions of people

and versatile as all types of machines. you might notice he talked about electricity but it's 20% of global energy use. fossil fuels are growing particularly in china and other parts of the world that want the lowest cost. it's curious china isn't going all inap given that it's so allegedly cheap and if we look at solar and wind it's very clear it's only used in places with large subsidies and mandates and when you see more solar and wind the priceso go u. why is this? it's very simple you look at this graph and see sometimes solar and wind cann go to zero. that means you need 100% back up you have to pay for the cost of the 100% reliable in all the unreliable infrastructure including transmission lines but most importantly the reliable power plant. when you try to cut costs on the reliable powerpoint or resiliency measures which happened in texas and california

then you have disasters. on top of this billions more need low cost reliable energy like thehe one third. fossil fuels are uniquely tocost-effective and yet it's lw cost to rapidly eliminate them. how can he claim this? he's using two denial tactics either he's unaware of or he's being very manipulative and these are partial cost accountants into than relying on the near-term. so he uses this. anyone that does is either ignorant or defrauding and, i mean, this literally if you look at the actual numbers is explicitly doesn't take into account the reliability and related considerations of it only looks at the cost of the solar panels but not the transmission line and not the backup. that's like saying i have a cheap employee only $18 an hour instead of 20 but you have to pay to drive them intono workndd that's expensive and you have to 8pay for 100% but $18 an hour is

so cheap. you need to look at the full cost. this partial cost accounting and then in terms of the near-term and possibilities. he often talks about nuclear geothermal in terms of supporting this magical grid so ernuclear doesn't work. it's the red one on the bottom it works very steadily. it doesn't work intermittently. goes up and down. location limited. the professor also recently said i agree it isn't something to expands and then geothermal is highly limited. the fraction of a percent is not practical so either we are dealing with a tremendous amount of ignorance about energy he has some fantastic arguments or he's been engaging inn deliberate deception and if somebody is distorting they cannot be trusted to predict the future so i look forward to engaging these issues. but there's a lot to answer for. >> thank you all. perfect timing.

[applause] >> thank you both very much. >> as agreed what we are going to do is give a chance to briefly refute some of the points he thinks need addressing. a minute and, a half. >> oncould you put my slides backup. a lot of the advantages he talked about when he talked about the fossil fuels are not the advantage of the fossil fuels they are the advantage of power. it doesn't really matter where you get the power if you get it from renewables or fossil fuels, they are still going to be important. power sources are not going to solve the problems or reduce deaths. i'm almost there. so he showed the plot that had

germany and california. this is of all the states. x is the price and why is how much renewable energy they have. there is no correlation. it's not more expensive to add e renewable energy. that's false. as far as nuclear i have to say ing did talk about adaptation. the thing he's not talking about he says we have climate mastery. i did mention it. what he doesn't talk about is the cost of climate mastery. so if you build a seawall that is tens of billions of dollars. who's going to pay for that, we are. climate mastery makes us poor. if you go to california, to the almond producers they are not tracking in water,ca they are nt heroically building pipelines, they are just ripping the trees out of the ground. co2 fertilization isn't helping them. the mastery of the climate isn't helping, it's too expensive to

master the claimant when you have cheapbl renewable energy available. now, certainly there are costs associated into those exist at hand if you look at the studies that have been done like the net zero study they included the cost of transmission lines. you have to look at the peer-reviewed literature. you canid build a reliable grad. now he's right we also need to electrify things so that's another part of the problem you need to be electrified and use a lot of fossil fuels. but many of them probably 95% the last 5% is hard and to get to the last 5% like international flights that can be difficult. >> i hate to cut you off but i've got to. >> you both have written plenty and are extremely knowledgeable and i might add that our

audience includes many energy experts were the late-term a person likehe me would use and i can see that from the questions coming in. but i'm going to try to do is balance some of that with some of the more technical questions a lot of which two things are over my head but i know not over yourss or yours. i'm going to try to balance that with some priority type questions. let me start off with one of those i thought myself. these energy talking points that would make it unlivable. andrew wrote the amount of forming the world is on track with experiences and willll transform the planet in unimaginable ways. somebody like me that's not an energy expert looked at both of those and thought whatt if they are both right. in which case instead of sparing no expense in an attempt to curb

climate change, should we try to adopt, and can we and let me ask andrew first. >> certainly we have to adapt any climate change we don't avoid. it's extremely expensive. i will give you one example. they've been proposing to build. $30 billion, shows he's compared the price to houston but they can't get the money if you can avoid it you should do that.

>> i've been disappointed by the response too my opening because putting myself in his position if somebody had pointed out i'm using fraudulent statistics and that i'm using imaginary scenarios like hydro and nuclear and solar wind that would give me pause instead of there's academic studies. so i want to reiterate the conclusion that the earth will become or has become more livable with fossil fuels and they are necessary to make it more livable is based on looking at the whole context which he continued not to do. if you look at the benefits of fossil fuels it provides low-cost reliable energy to power machines for millions of people to be productive and prosperous including unnaturally

safe from climate. we are 50 times safer than we were 100. years ago. that is amazing and needs to be stressed. if you look at the climate of claimantdamages from the 2 degrs fahrenheit they are flat in some cases they are declining. there is no climate crisis atct all and there's actually a climate renaissance right now. the idea 3 degrees more is going to be a this is just the cherry picking anecdotes and not looking at the big picture. it is the mass impoverishment and premature. >> to follow up on that if indeed let's say there is an increase in the average global temperature i'm seeing from one to 5 degrees by the end of the century does it make more sense nonetheless to adopt and expand rather than necessarily trying to go to net zero on carbon

emissions. >> it shouldn't even be on the table if you look at the full content. what policies should you have given that energy is so important the key thing is to engage in any liberation for low carbon alternatives and we are very fortunate to have an unbelievable low carbon aalternative that was cheaper fr electricity than fossil fuels which is nuclear and which was virtually criminalized by the great movement to the point that the price is almost ten timeser more today adjusted for inflation they and they were in the 70s and i think everyone should be in favor of decriminalizing nuclear as well as liberating natural gas. they worked to reduce the co2 emissions. that is in the highest priority but you can have it as a priority. they also make energy more available to more i people but again it's the degree of theve green movement. look at the track record i looked at every statement he's made on twitter and on until

this year he is very hostile to nuclear and then he calls it expensive but that is another distortion. it's expensive because of the green movement that he is a major part of and supporter of so liberated nuclear, liberated natural gas and all alternatives but let a 2 billion people have energy and do not hold them back by the total denial and distortion of the solar wind. >> i'm going to ask a different question ratherng than follow-up on nuclear. this is one from the audience of the environmental justice seems to require making the 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 have to respond to him saying i'm dishonest. most of the electricity is nuclear. they have to spin up and down. the reason we don't do it in the u.s. is regulatory. so the statement we can't do it

is absolutely wrong. getting back to your statement about we do need to switch if we want to get to a world that doesn't have air pollution deaths which mr. epstein hasn't mentioned the millions killed by fossil fuel and poisoning the air. if we want to get away from that which i think we should then yes people need to switch to electric. i don't think everybody needs to buy aw, tesla. ten years ago people would have laughed at you if you told them the penetration of electric cars today. i think what's were to happen in the future is there is an innovation cycle with renewable energy price, driving down all these other places and again remember just t to hammer on ths point that he is really telling you something that's wrong, the ynumbers you can complain about this but look at what the texas producers are doing.ar they are building wind and solar. they are not hippies. they don't care what it says.

they are doing the calculation and they made the calculations as cheap energy sources. certainly this revolution and energy that we are now experiencing this is going to drive innovation. i think everybody will be driving electric cars in ten or 20 years.mb they aret better than internal combustion. >> you mentioned the study and here's another reference does the 2019 study include the full cost including the backup required for intermittent wind and solar generation? >> that's a great question and a fundamental mistake people think about when they say renewable energy needs backup so as i talked about, if you have a great if you think it's a mistake to think about this as an energy versus energy source

you want to think about it from a grid's standpoint and what you want to do on the grid is generate as much power from fuel saver as you can from wind and solar. if you can't get enough power you turn on your despicable power so it's not that it's including in the cost. that's part of the grid. it's just completely the wrong way to think about it. to thinkun that the study is jut an amount of energy but you're thinking about it wrong if that's the way you think about it. >> can i respond to that?be this is a great difference between us because i think he was completely wrong about this, so i want to reexplain it. i thought i explained it clearly earlier. t you have to look at the full cost of things. so if you take something like we want all the solar and wind you cann think of that like an unreliable worker willing to work cheap. i will work for 18 instead of 20 but again costs associated i mentioned transmission costs.os the most important things are back up cost and may be the

professor is being too literal ibut what that really means is system costs. it's necessary to take an intermittent unreliable input like solar and wind and turn it into a controllable and reliable output and you absolutely have to look at the full cost. he mentioneded there is no correlation. the real thing to look at is w what happens to the numbers when you add solar and wind and there is a strong correlation. some of the places he's showing up at super cheap electricity so there's more distortions here. i just want to point out this is a huge distortion to act like putting the same price on something that is unreliable ank something that is reliable as one executive put it it'se like saying putting the same price on aa car that works a third of the time and one that works all the time they are totally different and the reason solar and wind are having this increased penetration is because we have anam unfair grid that pays the same for the reliable and unreliable and subsidizes theng unreliable. it's not in amazing market an at revolution.

it's annd economic worship of sn and wind instead of decriminalizing nuclear and actually getting something done. >> can i please respond to that. >> so people have done that the study. it says you need to look at the full cause. that is what the studies say. that's what they've done. d they've done that. they've done that. this is not something that we areme ignoring. >> any projection about the future that doesn't acknowledge the present is invalid. so every single one that i've looked atey they are in total denial and claim solar and wind have made things cheaper so that shows the skilled of the accounting. it's all sorts of denial about the future and making up of hypothetical things based on faulty assumptions. it's what is actually happening. ten years ago saying all the sameme things you were and all e same things they were and they are in a total predicament where

they were dependent on russia because they believed the se fantasies instead of looking at reality. if it's so great implement them in one place around the world. do not force us to ban fossil fuels which is what you are advocating in the name of economic total fallacies and fantasies. >> there is denial going on. >> just so they don't shoot the piano player. >> can any good come of higher average global temperatures down the road if they were to come to pass.

is there any good that can come of that. >> it is important so the fact about warming the professor knows that isn't publicized i think becauseim it sort of is incriminating that warming tends to take place in colder places during colder seasons and colder times, so it's more of the world becoming less cold and cold places at times than the equater. ..

was the only thing that was happening. you certainly would be helping plants. so if you have a greenhouse, you can inject carb dioxide in and people people do that. but of course, that's not what's happening. that's not where that's not the only thing that's happening is i mentioned before in california you have these farmers are ripping up their almond trees because they can't get water. so as the climate warm co2 is going up. okay, that's great for that plant. but again other things are happening and i would also point out that you know actually point out. i'll sit in there. okay. can >> . >> it is interesting but i

just want to factor in the two biggest variables which are the enormous benefits of fossil fuels provide just want to reiterate they provide 80 percent of the world's energy and growth especially in parts of theca world that care most about low-cost reliable energy like china. the world is drastically short of energy 80 percent is cost effective in a world that desperately needs more energy and energy is crucial to people to use machines to make themselves productive and prosperous we have solar and wind which is mandated and lied about 3 percent of the world energy that is totally dependent on fossil fuels and may have a claim we can rapidly band the world's leading source of energy that's why they call it mass murder to and billions of

lives prematurely the details of whatso co2 does or does not do is in the realm of possibility is masterful and nothing compared to the benefits we follow the professors policy. host: except the assumption of climate change how can the year s us and europe mitigate and then to produce so much of the world's carbon emission and i have a follow-up to that. >> obviously is a global problem the west can't solve the problem by ourselves but that is a political issue that i am not someone who is an expert on international negotiations. the point is we can do this

physically.ay i will say that most of the other countries of the world with the exception of australia and the us are looking for us leadership and with those capabilities others recognize these problems. they are using vastly more fossil fuels china has 200 coal plants fossil fuels are by far the most cost-effective energy going forward that's why people are using so many o of them now and in the future the only demonstrable way to deal with this we have seen that fail in co2 emissions that coming up with lower cost

sources and the assistance on solar and wind is contrary because it reinforces the criminalization of nuclear and favors the over nuclear which is why the plans are shut down and we need to recognize nuclear has amazing potential deliberate natural gas. it's good for energy and lower admissions long-term this is a win-win policy you empower the world and lower emissions over time to be totally humane but as long as we are on the solar and wind dogma we were and billions of lives prematurely w and if we just focus on america will be even worseue than germany is with russia right now. >> delving further into the going green a

postindustrial economy? and is a in unrealistic burden to keep on economies that are still developing? let me ask you first. >> green philosophically is the idea to minimize human impact on nature this is based on primitive religion or philosophy that somehow it is immoral and inevitably self-destructive like you violate the commandment and also go to hell. there is no plausibility like three more degrees fahrenheitea and 30 years the people have a religious feel that we are really going to hell so it is a primitive you are not held by anybody that actually lives in nature when you can understand you havey to master nature only when you are so elevated you take for granted the world you live in an thinko

of that is natural to support and adopt the green policies we have a totally nongreen society but then impose the antihuman green policies on the rest of the world for sustainable development and then to somehow use solar and wind to power a flashlight or charge a cell phone instead of having a real economy and its harming the poorest people in theli world. >> but going green in the green movement and realizeus that is a broad brush. >> i am amazed by the discussion people do theg peer-reviewed research. making stuff up show me a sstudy when we cannot check neach other on the fly.

but it is the cheapest energy if people in africa cannot afford renewable energy they cannot afford fossil fuels especially to master the climate. mastering the climate is incredibly expensive building seawalls is expensive and flood control infrastructure is expensive. it will not and human society but it is certainly possible and plausible that we will be spending all of our time spending all their money just to stay alive a master the claimant it is not cheap look at the seawalls and those investments people have to make. >> this keeps coming up.

i'm very big on make predictions to acknowledge the president increasing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere with 2 degrees of warning 2 degrees fahrenheit of warming talking about three more and then mastery isat drastically reduce the rate of climate related dealing with the dangers of nature. look at the kinds of change we are talking about it is extremely slow and very slow masterful changes keeping billions of people is not slow masterful change. every real world example try to use unreliable solar and wind is increasing the cost there is a study that i wouldco regard as charlatans you are mostly environmentalist who make up economic scenarios

most real energy economist know that fossil fuels are crucial for the future including china and india who make real decisions. a massive energy denial to justify in human policy find the place and make it work because is just killing people and making people insecure. >> it is wrong and then the problem with these debates go to the eia website but i will c do it after this. >> i wish somebody could get a fill of mean doing this. [laughter] so let me do a time check we went to reserve a minute for each of our speakers to sum up but they have come here to say and at the same time a tremendous amount of questions that show how learned how you are the only scratch the

surface. >> i'm not sure how you wanted to do that. but let's go with more of these some of them have been addressed in various ways. but a number of them touch on the cost of renewables. and a number the's point to andrew and just for the record so let's use this one your car that electric will cost you ten dollars for the future because renewables are the cheapest form of energy why do california in europe hasas such high prices when they have built the most amount of

renewable energy infrastructure quick. >> it's a good question. look at the time i've when people built out their infrastructure that shows that ten years ago solar was the most expensive power today it is the least. so that will drive up the cost in germany. we should thank them because they are spending a lot of money on it to help drive the price down to now is the cheapest power that's what texas energy producers are k doing their building solar 100 gigawatts so it's cheap i know people that like to hear that you can't imagine how many people e-mailed me about that t but we are going through an energy revolution. you have to know that if you don't know the revolution we are going through right now.

>> so it is true solar and wind are not replacements for fossil fuels they are cost adding supplements because they are 100 percent reliable infrastructure. semester prices go down. and there is one other point i wanted to make. >> you want to ask about chicago ethics? and then is the 2019 university of chicago directed

to the professor. >> i am not familiar with that study. >> im. they tend to be way too conservative. so the solar and wind facing the first 10 percent is cheapening on —- cheaper than replacing the second 10 percent or the third 10 percent if you have more unreliable infrastructure foror a larger percentage but you need all of that as well so texas spent $70 billion to get a 21 percent consider the 75 percent three.five times to spend on the new money on infrastructure and an important point is a drives up cost to the find resiliency. it is subsidies and mandates

for unreliable electricity and not one person in this room would pay the same amount from a lot reliable and unreliable employee it is total corruption not even talking about the 80 percent of energy in the billions of people for the idea that solar and wind can justify rapidly beginning fossil fuels with no cost is a murderous farce. >> the nation's second most populous state and like i understand is and that's what's driving this? >> the way the texas grid works is that it's free market energy system and this is how

much i will charge you for energy. and wind and solar because they have as - - an advantagee and the texas market because of that because of energy producers to to continue to build wind and solar that is the cheapest resource may not believe me now that you will in a few years and then the cheapest energy and then to have an unstable grid.

and then the firm power. and wind and solar are not the problem the problem is the market. you have to have it on the grid. but it's the texas legislature and thens to solve that problem. so think of the proper policy of the form its long-term system cost analysis. i'm an extra things only that in the long-term to be most effective at the lowest price.

nvand the point that i missed before that's the main thing but it's important even with the raw material like solarca panels those to not go down indefinitely because they are real physical materials.y in the particular chinese solar powered —- panels are dominant because it has chinese coal they are using coal to make solar panels that's why they are so cheap. and the other thing is using low environmental standards. [applause] somebody wanted me to say that i guess. that yes they are using slaves that is relevant that they are using slaves to make solar panels that is relevant as

well. and those that were engaged in but it is important but overall the picture of energy is a crazy distortion. >> at least one of the questions coming from the audience getting credit for their knowledge this one was directed to you. solarwinds compared to a drilling rig in texas. >> yes they are making these nifty solar panels cheap but they are doing it with coal. so setting aside questions of ethics and morality is there a cart before the horse? >> first off probably five years ago if you drive down

the road with coal-fired power plant of destruction and then you can see wind turbines and then the take is that they need both to be dispatch of all everybody understands that. when you say firm dispatch of all. >> how you turn on and off it could be geothermal or nuclear. it could be hydrogen or hydroelectric it could be l long-term storage. they understand that so yes they are moving fossil fuels because they need to stabilize the grid have some firm dispatch of all power. so as far as the other part ofll the question?

of their our supply chain issues.o >> what is that you for climate action? i don't see a problem withs that but right now want to solar panels are available you can set up the fossil fuels. that's how you make advances to get to the power system that you want. >> we will have each of you do a one minute summation. >> just to reiterate what i said to look at the full context with the harms of co2 o the benefit of co2 the factor fossil fuel benefits look at

the reality today you recognize how the world works the situation of fossil fuels have unique irreplaceable benefits and for the billions more who needed the claims they are not necessary is while distortion in the idea even though the whole supply chain is controlled by china i didn't mention that distortion. and then to based on distortion about denying fossil fuel benefits and if you look at the full context it is obvious they need vastly more energy over the next several decades and then illuminating fossil fuels rapidly. such an evil idea based on

falsehood. went to say we need power no one doubts that. a lot of people do analysis that shows we can significantly and eliminate fossil fuel p use. and that is not correct. and then happy to engage with anybody in the audience am happy to look into these things but of all those who are experts suggest we can do this wind and solar are the cheapest energy of the future look at what people are installing now. increasing the cost of energy is not correct to the grid. fossil fuel plays on the atmosphere.

look at the price of gas at the pump these don't exist with renewable energy it is significant advantage. >> 56 people have questions and it goes to show how engaged you are with this debate. thank you to both of them for in the spirit coming together civilly. civilly. [laughter] and engaging like this for all benefits. i'm just very impressed by this is so much by the debate that that the form is here to provide just such an exchange and have food for thought. [applause]

thank you gentlemen it takes a lot of courage to get on the stage. [applause] .

he's interviewed by bloomberg school of public health epidemiologist doctor emily gu. >> am soo happy to be talking with you today. >> obviously the themes in your book are very relevant