"We need to transition incredibly rapidly off fossil fuels If things carry on at the rate they are now, the rate of heating, we'll be seeing large numbers of deaths later this century, 3° C by 2050 is perfectly possible. A number of analyses have suggested societal and economic breakdown anytime from the 2040s"
]AND]"There's talk of various geoengineering ideas which at a global scale are just not going to work. As things get more difficult and things start to fall apart, there isn't going to be the money to do any of this. People always say we need to do this to buy us time what do they mean? We'd be buying time for fossil fuel companies"
************
[The numbers in this transcript are a little screwed up because I stopped blogging for a while and forgot my trick for how to get rid of the time codes in YouTube's new transcripts format. I figured it out for the post I'm doing next, bear with me.]
TRANSCRIPT
2.37
AB: Now, when somebody with that kind of CV tells you that you should be even more alarmed about climate change than you already are, you should probably pay attention. We know this is a problem. We know it's a crisis. But I think we also know over the last few months that things are probably developing even more quickly. JUMP TO
The Speed of Global Heating
54.13
BM: My personal view and the view of others is if things carry on at the rate they are now, the rate of heating that we'll be seeing, large numbers of deaths later this century, maybe not that much later this century.
I mean, you know, let's look at the rate of heating. We're talking about at the current rate, which is generally used now, which is 35 of of a degree centigrade. That's one degree every 28 years. Um, so you're looking at 2° arriving in the late 2 s or 2 .
But there's satellite data which suggests that the planet's heating up much more rapidly, maybe half a degree a decade. And there was a report last year by the German physical and meteorological societies saying 3° C by 2 is perfectly possible. So then you're looking at five or six degrees by the end of this century
and that's when it's going to be very very hard for human civilization to carry on.
Well, I know a number of analyses have suggested societal and economic breakdown anytime from the 2040s for business as usual. And I would agree with that because the impact of extreme weather will just become all pervasive and its impact on economies, impact on food security will rapidly, very very rapidly really start to hammer home in terms of deaths. I think particularly in majority world countries, but not only there.
AB Let's stick with that for a moment. Explain for me quickly the difference between wet and dry bulb temperatures because this is the thing that we're really talking about when we say tens, hundreds of millions, billions of people potentially not living through all of this. So what are these things What's the difference between wet and dry bulb temperatures? And when does it get dangerous for humans?
BM: Well, when we have a normal thermometer, we're measuring the temperature of the air. So, it's extremely hot and unpleasant. But using what's called a wet bulb thermometer, the temperature you see is a measure of heat and humidity. And when you reach 35° on a wet bulb thermometer, it means the air is saturated with water. And if it's saturated with water, you cannot sweat. I mean, we lose heat from sweating. If you can't sweat, you can't lose heat. And so the temperature, the internal temperature of your body just increases and increases and increases until your organs start to fail. And uh you've got about 6 hours to live.
So these conditions do occur and they're becoming more common particularly in the Gulf region, in parts of Central America, in South Asia, etc., and in China. But they're going to become more and more common.
And at the moment the the saving grace is you don't get wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C for very long because you tend to get massive thunderstorms that break the temperature if you like and temperature falls.
But in the future you may see those conditions prevailing for much longer and there's one particular area which is a north China plain where you have something like 4 million people working. It's a bread basket of China, lot of irrigation so very humid that in the future in decades to come we'll see these conditions more and more commonly occurring and most people there have no air conditioning if you don't have air conditioning and the these conditions prevail for a day then you won't survive so 6 hours is when people die when they're subject to 35 degrees of wet bulb temperatures
AB: yeah and it doesn't matter if you're in the shade or if you've got lots of water whatever you just the heat will just keep building you cannot lose heat.
AB: I mean this is the start of Minister of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson the science fiction book and that is actually probably one of the more readable novels he's written and he talks about you know a mass death event I think in India in South Asia
AB: but something like that happening how plausible is that in the next 2 years?
BM: well a few years ago I would have said we're looking at the middle of the century before we start seeing that possibility but things are just progressing so quickly now that you know within the next 2 years it wouldn't be a surprise to me. So when I was young, I suppose these kinds of conditions existed.
AB: I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, in some like Nevada, Death Valley, etc., etc. But you're saying they're too dry there. Too dry. Okay. So historically, where were these kinds of conditions limited to? The Gulf region.
BM Just the Gulf region. South Asia, India, you know, the um parts of Central America, these sorts of areas where you can have humidity, high humidity and high temperatures. Nevada, you it gets incredibly hot, Death Valley, but it's very, very dry heat It's not going to be nice, but it's not going to kill you.
And as you said a moment ago, these, you know, these conditions existed for very small parts of the world, but invariably they were broken up by storms. And so that six-hour time frame wasn't really a thing. That's going to change. BM: Yeah. And we're now seeing the conditions occurring much more commonly as well. So, you'll probably start to see them in parts of Australia maybe even part of North America, not Europe as far as 53 we know, but again, things are changing so quickly. You know, it wouldn't surprise me in southern Europe some point
A: and politicians aren't preparing for this.
BM No, not in the least. If they even know about them,
A have we had a a sort of glimpse of something like this happening? You know, has there been somewhere where there's a large concentration of people and they say, "Well, actually, we hit wet bulb of 35 for 9 minutes or something." Have we had a glimpse of the future so far or not?
BM Not yet. There will have been situations like that, but I don't think there's been a significant die off if you like to so that people would recognize it.
A: If you have it in the Gulf region, nobody noticed with the hill being bloody air conditioned tower blocks or whatever. It's true. You know, it's really it's really something. I'm half Iranian and you know, in late June, early July, I'll be on a weather app and I'll say I wonder what it's like in Bander Abas in southern Iran or even Baghdad. And it's often 48, 49,5 in Baghdad, [clears throat] which is a capital city.Yeah. And you just think a couple more degrees and this is not a habitable place, right? Even with air con.
BM Oh, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we're getting, you know, so many parts of the world now, cities, major cities. We're getting to that threshold where you think how can people survive? How can they how can they live in terms of normal lives?
I mean, you can't sleep, can you? you wouldn't be able to sleep night after night after night. How can you function? So, it's not just temperatures and humidities that kill you. It's temperatures that too high to be able to do your normal job or whatever you do.
You wouldn't be able to do anything apart from sort of lie down.
A Let's talk about sea levels because that's something that got a lot of attention, right? Especially when I was a kid. All that I remember about the sort of the the planetary crisis was in the 8 s ozone that was a big one ban CFC's Captain Planet cartoon I remember that litter anti-litter but also acid rain was a big one in the 8 s right I'm showing my age here uh but sea levels too and actually people like Farage or Richard Ty say well look sea levels have barely risen you know what's the-
You know, you were talking a few m moments ago about sea levels being , 2 m higher, etc. when we had concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere like we do now, but that's not being reflected in sea levels. Why not? And and how quickly can things change with rising sea levels?
BM Well, it takes a while obviously for changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to translate into melting ice, or expansion of sea water, and that's what drives sea level rise. But we're now seeing it really start to accelerate. I mean, up until 2?? years ago or so, sea level was rising at , millimeter and a half, something like that a year.
Now, it's getting on for half a centimeter a year with a doubling rate, which could be 2 years. So, it doesn't, you know, you go from a half a centimeter a year to a centimeter to two , to four to eight. Doesn't take long then for you to see these enormous rises that we saw the end of the last ice age , where you had um several meters in years.
And so the IPCC estimate or the maximum estimate is about .8 m maybe by um .2 8 , m by the end of the century. But you can easily get to 2 meters. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see 2 m by the end of the century.
A And what would that mean? Because 2 meters doesn't sound like very much, right?
BM No, it doesn't. But I know a guy who's 2 meters tall, [laughter] you know. Yeah. But if you look, for example, at East Anglia, I mean, something like two, two or three meters of sea level rise in the sea will be coming into Cambridge because the land is incredibly low and incredibly flat. So, you know, it can change the shape of countries very very much with a very small sea level rise.
I mean a few meters rather than tens of meters. There's a great stat, I think it's in hot house earth, which is that if we burn all the fossil fuels in existence, and of course this is very hard to model, but if we did, we'd warm the planet by °. Yeah.
And of course, there are some people out there who want us to burn all the fossil fuels in existence. That's what they want us to do. ° sounds quite a lot, though.
The Worst Case Scenario
Well, we put 2.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we burn all known reserves, that's another three and a half trillion on top of that. That's a lot of CO2. Uh, and degrees isn't a surprise at all. And much of the planet, most of the planet, all of the planet would not be habitable for humans. I mean, that's a pretty interesting one, right? Because somebody like Richard Tyson or Nigel Farage or or Kem, you know, they actually Chem Badnaugh, for instance, acknowledges that the planet is warming. She does, but she's not, you know, she thinks net zero is a bad idea.
[laughter]
But I suppose if you're saying well look if we if we carry on with what you want to do which that's what you want to do here's what the costs are then this is where we end up and they don't seem to have a response.
well you know there are lots of question like this I mean you think you're an oil company executive you've got young children why do you keep pushing for more oil and gas?
I mean money talks I can't think of any other reason profit counts for everything. I mean, why otherwise would fossil fuel company CEOs condemn their kids and their grandkids to absolute hell?
Do you think there's other explanations as well, though?
BM So, there's a lot of wishful thinking, right? Because we've lived through such a fortunate time. Oh, yes. In the postwar period, especially in the global north. Incredibly lucky. As good as it gets, quite possibly. So there's like a firstly there's a recency bias but also I mean that leads people that have lived in this extraordinary moment the great acceleration where you know living standards and life expectancy and the consumption of just about everything was like this hockey stick right well I I can look at that and that's the last 6 years.
And I hear this gentleman talking about rising sea levels and billions dying he sounds like an alarmist I mean in a way you could understand it right only from someone that thinks we can carry on growing at an exponential rate on a tiny tiny planet with finite resources.
But that's our public ideology. That's my point, I suppose.
But, you know, that fits with the profit motive, doesn't it? And it fits with the oil executive saying, "I don't care about the future. I want to make lots of money. I want more oil. More oil as much as possible." I mean, what other reason would you want to keep doing that if you had young children? I mean, they're not stupid people. They must understand what what's going on. It's I don't know. You know, I have no answer for that to be honest.
Biggest belief really.
I suppose some of them think there's wishful thinking as we've said. Some of them think that there'll be a technological solution, right? Because that again that's part of our ideology in the 21 st century, isn't it? The technology will solve most problems.
BM Yeah. But it's becoming apparent that we haven't got anything. We haven't got an answer to this. No. I think I mean even oil company executives must realize nothing is going to just turn up you know Mr. McCorba like to sort of solve everything for us. I mean, you know,
There's talk obviously of all these various geoengineering ideas which at a global scale are just not going to work. Things like sucking carbon out the atmosphere to get our level of CO2 back down to reasonable proportions. I mean, even for a moderate scenario in terms of increasing emissions into the future, at some point we'd have to start taking them out at a rate of up to 6 billion tons a year, which is much more than we were already pumping out. There's no infrastructure to do that and we're not going to have it
because as things get as I think and as others think as things get more difficult and things start to fall apart there isn't going to be the money to do any of this and there's not going to be the infrastructure to support these sorts of geo geoengineering schemes.
So the longer we go on even if these things were feasible the less likely they are ever to happen.
A You're a volcanologist so you're big amongst other things.
B Yeah but by training.
A So no, I say this because one of the big geoengineering solutions is to basically spray stuff into the atmosphere and that will lead to global cooling which we we know historically as you've already mentioned in the last hour and a bit is something that volcanoes do and we can verify that through you know empirical data and whatnot. I presume you think it's a bad idea.
B Yeah. I mean, one of the first things we know because we've looked at volcanic eruptions in the past is that when you have a big explosive eruption and a lot of SO2 in the atmosphere, you get a massive impact on weather patterns. So, it can affect the monsoon, it can cause all sorts of changes which would lead to a lot of 8 people dying in famine etc. for this type of geoengineering to work, it's called solar radiation management.
The idea is to maintain a level of about 2 million tons of SO2 in the atmosphere permanently or well into the future. That would reduce the temperature by something up to ° C. So it wouldn't cancel out all the cooling.
You'd have to keep adding it to the atmosphere. So a huge project and you would have to have no effectively the earth the population of the earth would have to agree with this country. So have to sign up to it. They haven't we haven't managed to get them to sign up to cutting emissions effectively. So you know this would be at least as difficult as getting everybody on board as would they though you know the US could just unilaterally do something like that. Not to the level you're saying for a global change,
but there might be Peter Thiel might say, "Me and Elon Musk have partnered and we're going to try. We're going to do a pilot."
Yeah. Well, people do pilots and we want to see if it will reduce the planets, you know, global temperatures by .2 degrees and we want a proof of concept and Silicon Valley is going to come to humanity's. You can see this, right? So, because I've heard this problem before and I sometimes wonder if the global collective action problem isn't what would stop it. you know, I can see like a-
I can basically see very wealthy people because this could be big business proving the concept and then saying we want buyin from national government, you know. BM: Well, if you read my debut novel Sky Seed, you'll you see that it's all about a secretive attempt to do exactly this by UK and US governments. It all goes sadly wrong. Sky, sadly wrong.
A Yes, I've seen the novel mentioned. It's mentioned in here, I think, is it?
BM: But it's possible people will do this clandestinely or try to do it but it would be detected very quickly I think by people monitoring atmospheric compositions and countries like India where the monsoon might be affected for example would be to say the least extremely annoyed about it; but the thing is people always say we need to do this to buy us time what do they mean? buy us time.
I'll tell you what we'd be buying time for, for fossil fuel companies to go, Oh, well, we can carry on producing that because the temperature's come down a bit. We got a bit more time.
And the CO2 would keep being pumped out and pumped out and we'd be counteracting that with the SO2. But, you know, at some point if we stopped doing that, you would have this huge increase in temperature over a couple of decades. It's called termination shock, which I'm sure you've heard about.
So I've used this analogy before, but it's like giving a poison patient an antidote while pumping them full of more poison. That's what we'd be doing. Now, if you said we will look at um solar radiation management when we brought emissions way, way down, so we're hardly emitting anything. We're going to use this to cool things a little bit. Then, you know, that would make a bit more sense, even then I don't think you'd need to do that.
If you brought emissions down, you'd wait for the climate to gradually cool and you just have to get used to living on a hotter planet. But doing it now while still pumping out 4 billion tons of CO2 is just it is insane. Literally,
it's kind of an appendage to the Jevans paradox, isn't it?
Yeah. You know, and for people who aren't aware, Jevans, I think it was Stanley Jevans, I think, British economist, 19th century, and he's observing coal production. He realizes the more efficient steam engines get, you think they're using less coal. But actually, the more efficient the engine, the more coal is consumed. Yeah. And uh, you know, once you understand the Jevans paradox, it's really scary. You know, the more efficient we get at at consuming stuff, the more of it we consume. So, the limits that need to be imposed can't come via the technology or more efficient technology. if jet engines become more efficient, we're just going to use jet travel more. Um, and I suppose, yeah, it's it's feeding into this idea.
A Are there any geoengineering solutions? And I'm not talking about, you know, painting roofs white, but the more that's a good that's a good idea. We should be doing that.
B We should be doing that. I mean, that's an easy win, isn't it? Paint roofs white in cities. It'll have a big impact on the urban heat effect. Um, plant lots of trees, paint roofs white. Uh no, those are things that we should be doing because they're sensible.
In fact, planting a lot of trees is regarded as a geoengineering technique actually, but it's not one that's normally it's not what most people think about when they hear geoengineering. But those are good things to do, but the huge global scale things are the problem.
And there's one that sounds quite interesting especially to a geologist and that is that basalt which is a very common rock type. It's basalt lava. It's a volcanic rock. Um it's when it weathers it takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Why Geoengineering Won't Save Us
B So one scheme is to crush up basalt rock, spray it on fields and it will actually fertilize the fields as well. It's got lots of nice trace elements in it but it will suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as well.
But then you look at it on the global scale and you find that you'd need to cover half of the world's farmland with basalt dust for it to remove 2 billion tons of CO2 a year, which is, you know, we pump out 4 billion, but you'd have to cover half of the world's farmland. And you'd have to quarry all that as well. Can you imagine the colossal environmental disruption that would cause and the health issues and god knows what else?
That sort of thing is never going to happen. The transport of this stuff around the world is and it's like that with all of them. Good ideas may be in when you look at it on a small scale, but translating it to a global scale, they're all but again wild and wacky.
It's going to make somebody a lot of money. You know, I can see Jeff Bezos saying, "We're getting into the global basal agricultural business. It's going to be critical in meeting our, you know, our climate commitments. It's going to," and people might laugh when they hear that sort of thing, but that's kind of what we're doing with electric cars, right? That's kind of what we're doing with electric cars.
Now electric cars are obviously better than cars that depend on fossil fuels. But the idea that you have a one for one replacement of a billion electric cars instead of a billion internal combustion doesn't help does it? All the raw materials that you use etc.
When what you need is a transformation in lowcarbon public transport.
Yeah. I mean I must admit we are on our fourth electric car cuz we can't it it would either be an electric car or a horse. They're the alternatives to get anywhere from where we live. So an electric car, it's just the least bad. But, you know, whenever we can, we use public transport. So, as I did today, to come down here. Um, but the buses are very few and far between in a village of 5 people, thousand ft up in the big district. So, you need one, but I'm not stupid enough to think that they're, you know, they're a solution to anything really.
A So, what do we need to do you're talking about the sort of evasive action that you're the evasive measures that you've taken personally to move where you have. What should we be doing? Do we need to stop eating meat? And I'm not just talking about consumers. I'm talking at a sort of a global level. What are the big changes apart from obviously decarbonizing? What else?
B Well, that I mean that the decarbonizing is virtually it. I mean out of that 4?? billion tons a year CO2 we add to the atmosphere 38 billion tons is from burning fossil fuels. So if we stopped doing that we'd have solved the problem.
So decarbonization is a critical aspect of everything really and it's it's a really key issue in the UK at the moment because you know we're at this point where the the new prime minister Andy Berner will acknowledge climate breakdown and say all the right things and then say he's pragmatic about more oil and gas from the North Sea.
The excuse seems to be, and I can almost quote them here, is that we'll be relying on oil and gas for the near to medium-term future. Well, that's completely the wrong way of looking at it. What you need to to do is say we cannot afford to burn this.
We need to be on a war footing to transition ourselves incredibly rapidly off fossil fuels. And to do that, you need a mass program of of installing heat pumps in people's homes instead of gas boilers, which the plan was to get rid of gas boilers, but that's now been got rid of or extended.
So, you'd work to get these in everybody's homes. You'd work to to push renewables much much faster than you can now. So, you don't need the oil and gas. You don't say, "Oh, we're going to have to have this oil and gas" which is 8 not an excuse, you know, that's not the way to do it.
We need to be on a war footing to decarbonize now. You know, we need to well, we needed to start 3 years ago really. So, it's fossil fuels. A We could carry on eating meat. B Well, eating meat isn't good for all sorts of reasons. I mean, health reasons, environment, whatever. And it does contribute a large proportion of not a large proportion, but a significant proportion of emissions. But fossil burning is the the critical area I think.
A Yeah. I often I think when people argue against eating meat the more I learn about it actually the argument for enhanced biodiversity is a stronger one with regards to reducing animal agriculture because obviously so much land is given over to particularly beef production which could be which could be rewarded. It's just a very inefficient way of allocating land and also allocating arable land because you grow crops to feed animals rather than eat the crops yourself. Um one more question. Do we need to become a multilanet species?
B I don't think we're going to be around long enough to do that to be honest. [laughter] I mean, you know, there's an argument that the reason why we haven't we haven't come across any other life in the universe is because if it does become civilized and technological, it reaches a stage where it wipes itself out.
A Um, is that Fermy's paradox?
B Well, Fury's paradox is Yes. I mean, essentially, yeah. Do you think that I can see that you can get to a stage where you can make things very difficult for yourself as a race? I mean, we're, you know, the fact that we're where we are now and we can see how bad things are getting and how terrible things are getting and we're doing nothing effectively about it. I mean, we've got intelligence. We've got no wisdom. That's the problem, you know. And it may be that races if they exist or species and other planets also reach that level of technological intelligence if you like without the wisdom to use technology properly and everything goes bang because we think of ourselves as we are obviously a very intelligent species. We think of ourselves as a successful species. but you know homo sapiens has been around for about 3????? years. The dinosaurs were around for a couple hundred million years, right?
So we're really very stupid if you're looking at a successful species in terms of their duration on the planet. Well, I think in the fate of the world I have a section on homosultus, which is effectively stupid sapiions, [laughter] which is a better description because we're effectively in the search for because of greed and the search for short-term profit and exploitation and environmental degradation, we're destroying our world and potentially destroying ourselves.
End of readable transcription on this blog post the rest follows w/out editing:
Apologies for some of the weird numbers and things that are left out. I forgot the clerical tech wizardry I was using to remove time codes and in removing them I removed a lot of other numbers and ah and have another post coming up in shortly where I think I figured out what I was doing wrong. onward
UNCLEANED TRANSCript cont'd
Mass Extinction, Human Folly, and Billionaire Bunkers where's the wisdom in that?
And you got crocodiles and turtles that are still around. We look at them as stupid and actually they're a long long time after us as well. Well, they might be. Yes. Or we you know what we're also involved with at the moment is that I mean there have been five great extinctions and people write 8 about the sixth great extinction but it's not. This is the first great extermination. I mean we are you know we are responsible for killing all these species. That didn't happen in the past. So species that have existed for hundreds of millions of years may not get past the next hundred or so because of us. So it's Elizabeth Colbert, right? The sixth great extinction and just one of the most depressing books I've ever read and it starts with I can't remember how it starts but you know it starts with an encounter. We've only really thought about um evolution for a couple hundred years which is kind of amazing when you think about it. Um, and then she talks about this very rare bird. It's the last kind of this bird and the way it's killed before it goes extinct as a species. And you really just sum up how stupid we are. Yeah. So, well, I think I talk in the fate of the world about, you know, a couple hundred years ago million passenger pigeons in North America or something and then about 5 6 years later, none. Wiped out every single one. Just absolutely terrible. What wiped them out? We did shooting them. Wow. Killing them. I mean, just But I think the figure was million, something like that. The flocks that darken the skies. You'd think it's impossible to wipe out all those. But no, we managed it fairly quickly. [snorts] Like the bison in the US. Well, bison the same. Exactly. Reintroduced more recently. Yeah. 8 By Ted Turner, incidentally, I mean, he's died recently, but Ted Turner, of course, the man who founded CNN, um had was a big climate person. He went out, he was going out with Jane Fonder at one point, and I think he helped fund he was the guy that basically helped commission the Captain Planet series.. Quite an interesting uh interesting point. Not all not all the billionaires are bad. I know I said finally on the space thing because I think I find it interesting that you're somebody who's interested in existential risk, right? And you're looking at this stuff through the you know the long term and people like Elon Musk I think do the same thing right whether or not we overcome the climate crisis if we you know stabilize planetary conditions etc. If we want to be around for a really long time we probably would have come multiplanetary that's why I asked it but I suppose this is this is where I want to end up billionaires are looking at New Zealand as the kind of bolt hole where they'll be safe in a world of runaway climate change political breakdown declining crop yields etc. as somebody who is as authorative as almost anybody else on this stuff, is it going to work? Um, well, New Zealand is, relatively speaking, it has an amanable climate. Um, I was lucky enough to do a sbatical in Christ Church in the South Island in 2 . Um, it's certainly very quiet. [laughter] If you want somewhere to get away from things, then that's the place to be. But this whole idea of um billionaires having a bolt hole, it it just doesn't work. And I know they I know they are concerned about this because if you you know if you whiz off somewhere, hide yourself away, you've got servants, security staff, assistants, hangers on, whatever. When [snorts] things fall apart, you have no hold over those people. They don't have to do what you tell them. [snorts] Um they can just tell you bugger off, throw your hook, and they overthrow you. Well, yeah. They just, you know, they have no hold over people in those circumstances. Why would people do what they were told? No reason to. There's no no money. There's no whatever. They'll say, "Well, we'll do what we like. Thanks. You can booger off." the the the future warlord of a post-apocalyptic New Zealand will be, you know, a former kitchen porter for Yeah. could well be Mark Cuban or Jeff Bezos or some There's no reason why the billionaires should have should have any any hold over anybody else. And they worry about that. I've read things recently about them thinking of ways of um I mean this might be apocryphal of ways of controlling their 8 staff sort of some sort of thing around their neck that gives them an electric shock if they don't do as they're told seriously these sorts of things because [clears throat] otherwise they will just do what they want worth thinking about Jeff or Elon Bill Maguire this has been a fabulous conversation really one of the best we've had on one of the most important topics and I'm sorry for the excurses into, you know, five billion years of history. Hot House Earth, an inhabitants guide. I really recommend this. And of course, more recently, The Fate of the World, a history and future of the climate crisis. Both very, very good. Bill, once more, thanks for joining us. You're very welcome. It's been fantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee9fYVwhBsU&t=1s
No comments:
Post a Comment