Could there be a greater illustration of our zeitgeist than a pair of narcissistic children trying to destroy a priceless work of art for "political reasons"? I guess they would also burn down the Louvre to "raise awareness" and get themselves more Twitter followers.
Part of what we are living through is not just the collapse of institutional authority but the collapse of all authority bc adults refuse to set limits and boundaries, refuse to defend any tradition or discipline if it goes against conventional wisdom (or hurts a feeling somewhere), and would just rather play on their phones while the world collapses around them.
Anyone who attacks Van Gogh is a barbarian who deserves a solid spanking and to be sent to their room with only white walls to gaze at.
I hope none of them here in UK sees your comment bc very soon that will become a legal but hateful crime - with up to 5 years jail time - and yet gangs of up to 30 Mahoundian men can rape a girl of 13 - underage in UK - she was accused of being a hooker or their girlfriend and that she should shut up for the sake of diversity by a diverse member of the UK parliament.
I agree and add the young are justified in having no faith in adults and authority in general after seeing themselves thrown to the dogs by "responsible" adults during the covid panic.
You have this completely backwards. The young have complete faith in leftist authority. The entitled and wealthy young, featured here in the flesh of climate activists were fully on board with COVID policing, statism, punishing "misinformation" peddlars, stopping free speech, eternal masking, mandatory vaccines etc. The list is endless and there is no shortage of literature showing no generation in history is as conforming as the current crop of young people. Climate hysteria is the position of authority and has been for over a decade. This is the locus of their self righteousness. The responsible adults you scorn here are the woke school teachers pushing climate hysteria and gender derp. These kids worship those adults.
In large part I agree. However, in questioning some teenage boys on their imprisonment during the covid panic I got the impression they were against the whole thing but had been so guilt-tripped by the emotional blackmail propaganda that they quietly 'behaved'. These were sporty, non-neurotic boys as well, so perhaps a different mentality to the Greta Thunberg types. To the second point, I don't know, do kids worship their school teachers? If so- Sad!
There is a lot to unpack here. For insight into the general decline of males in schools k-12, in college and in the workforce maybe start with The War on Boys by Sommers. It's a long term trend. Boys either submit to authority or completely drop out. You have the complete opposite trend with females in the US. Hysterical and tyrannical females are now the cultural force controlling bureaucracies. They are the authority you claim young people distrust. If the ideology of teachers and admins were easy to disregard young people would not be marching in lock step with woke curriculum.
I'm familiar with Sommers and her work in charting the decline in male achievement over the past few decades; it's an issue that particularly troubles me. I'm sure too that woke nonsense ideas have gained a hold upon many young people (Johnathan Haidt etc) but I think ascribing those views to 'young people' in general is too broad, and that it's in many ways class-based. As an example, in my regional working and middle-class town I really haven't seen much evidence that many of the teenage kids there, male or female, who work out the same gym I do or play sport, live on farms etc caring less about Thunberg or being preoccupied with wokeness.
I will note that when I left that town in the 2000's to study at art school in the capital, the differences in attitude and culture between the young people in that institution and the regions was marked. While I don't deny 'progressive' ideas have bled out of the cities into the wider country I still think that the youth that truly believe in woke nonsense are a relatively small but noisy coterie of middle/upper middle class kids either in or heading into humanities degrees at the more prestigious universities. Most teenagers are likely more concerned with the usual adolescent hangups (friendship, social status, sport, trying to get laid etc). And yes, world leaders did sabotage their energy security trying to appease Thurnberg's foolishness but that's more reflective on how pathetic and craven those adult "leaders" are than on the teenagers under their charge.
Well if you read haidt's "coddling of the american mind" you'd know it absolutely gen Z that sticks out like a sore thumb here. Of course the next gen could be different but all the evidence shows the same trends are at play. you are right that rural red areas will be largely distinct from cities and suburbs. Poor people don't obsess over climate change and pronouns. I is overwhelmingly something more affluent kids indulge in.
Let me put it this way. Do you think young people in the west look up to Greta Thunberg ? Shellenberger has spent huge amounts of energy explaining how entire nations in the west tripped over themselves to create energy policies that would please this young eco-fascist. What is she if not an emblem of woke female authority for the young to worship ?
Cuomo spent the last several years vilifying anyone to the right of his (CNN's) subjective viewpoint. No one is beyond redemption and I appreciate his newfound neutrality, especially in regard to your knowledge on climate. However, his authenticity is and will be deeply suspect for sometime to come. I do think he is correct (regarding his Dad and shutting down nuclear) that a politician is subject to the information given to him/her and the will of the voting mob. That's where authenticity comes in: knowing the matter (or trusting your advisors) ,educating the voters, and being accountable when wrong.
I am sorry, but you cannot be Chris Cuomo and reinvent yourself as a moderate victim of the radical left when you carried the water of the radical left for most of your professional career.
I have no doubt that he does not completely share the ideology that he pushed, but push he did. Was it greed for his paycheck that caused him to sell out? It really does not matter. He is branded untrustworthy. Unlike the left that will love and embrace anyone that tells them they are ideologically pretty and their politics are good and righteous, or that even joins them to hate their enemies in kind (Liz... where are you?), the rest of us need to hold people accountable for their political actions. No slithering away.
Pay close attention to the way Shellenberger is positioning both Cuomo and himself: the politically neutral outkasts with good ideas and a willingness to debate'. Shellenberger's mission, redeemable or not, is to find a center path. I'm not so sure it's feasible. Regarding Cuomo, he wasn't cancelled for defying the left he was cancelled for carrying water for the left and criminally covering up their misdeeds.
I wonder if Michael would ask Chris Cuomo about his governor brother's role in shutting down Indian Point nuclear power plant and replacing it with gas. Dirty dealings:
Working for Natural Gas Interests, Former Cuomo Aides Lobbied to Kill Indian Point Nuclear Plant:
"...Environmental Progress (EP) has learned that two top former aides to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo worked with a major Cuomo campaign contributor, the natural gas company Competitive Power Ventures, to close Indian Point nuclear plant.."
Shellenberger didn't point out the unholy alliance in the interview but they did discuss anti-nuclear hysteria. In spite of the big nat has donors fracking was banned in NY.
Its very interesting to see Chris be open to these ideas. I think it just shows how influential your environment can be on your ideas and your identity. I think we would all like to imagine, that had we worked at CNN, we would have had the courage to speak out, and change people’s minds. But the truth is, when everyone around you is thinking the same way. When ideas and culture are reinforced so strongly, as Im sure they were at his former workplace. It would take extraordinary courage, and an extraordinary person to break out of the mold. Most of us would have done exactly what he did, which is protect the narrative. Its so much easier now that he is in an independent position to gain some perspective, and we should give him some grace for his priors and praise him for being open to changing his mind. This gives me hope
It is quite possible that for some to change their mind on a subject so scientifically nuanced as nuclear energy they have to be ejected entirely from their leftist bubble. Those of us who promoted and defended nuclear energy for the past 30 years were effectively cancelled by the left
Interesting conversation. Never in my life did I think I'd hear some of those words come from Chris. One needs to keep an open mind and I'm willing to listen. One of your strengths Mike is not getting emotionally drawn in by good or bad behavior, you keep to your area of knowledge and openly admit when you are wrong or out of your league - that's a attribute many of us need to work on - and I'm sure as hell including myself.
In the discussion of failing NPPs causing massive systemic anti-nuclear panic Cuomo pivoted to Ukraine and said "They damaged a nuclear plant and it could kill the entire region"
Fact Check: False.
Shellenberger's rejoinder left alot to be desired. Instead off dispelling the hysterical claim myth that an NPP could kill an entire region he said "The same thing that makes nuclear safe is what makes it so powerful.... energy density etc".  Modern NPPs do not endanger millions even if sabotaged. This is extremely important to get right and Shelleberger has gotten it right in the past when debunking the hysteria pushed by the Chernobyl series. Even the worst constructed NPP and the worst NPP accident in history killed less than 50 people. Not an entire region. Modern NPPs would not explode and kill a city.
If this is going to be an influential energy/climate blog I'm hoping the wonks come on board and help explain the concepts in high resolution.
Yes, that's totally true. The Illinois EnergyProf did a good video to explain how this endless Fear Porn about Ukraine's nuclear reactors and the war is utter nonsense:
I respect Michael's perspective and generally agree, but I don't really understand his "drill baby drill" attitude for natural gas. Why should the US be shipping gas/petroleum to Europe? Shouldn't the EU be working to wean itself off of gas and use electricity for heat etc? Change seems to come quickest in times of crisis. The longer we keep ourselves (everyone globally) chained to petroleum (which is already costly), the longer it will take to transition to electric everything (which can be from nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, etc) and to rebuild our infrastructure to require less energy inputs.
There are huge opportunities to make buildings more energy efficient. And a huge need for better and more extensive train transit in the US which would greatly reduce the need for people to spend their income on gas for a car which is primarily used to drive them back and forth from home/work/school/supermarket -- other countries like the Netherlands and Japan have shown for decades that if you design your cities and even small towns properly, you don't need a car at all except to rent one for the occasional camping trip to the mountains or whatever. Shouldn't we be focusing on these things, instead of prolonging our expensive addiction to petroleum and natural gas?
Why do you want to wean off of gas? Natural gas & gasoline can be replaced with methanol. For carbon neutral you can make green methanol or green methane. Even for heat the most efficient way to do it is probably using CHP. That would be best done with nuclear waste heat especially with locally located SMRs.
Expensive addiction to petroleum is certainly true. That means largely a move to BEVs, PHEVs and hyper-efficient series HEVs. And replacing gasoline with methanol, diesel with DME. Gas is generally fairly inexpensive (until the recent price hikes), LNG is dubious, it makes much more sense to switch to methanol than to use LNG.
green methane is one of the myths debunked by breakthrough institute or any of the previous shellenberger orgs. biofuel has proven to be massively damaging to the environment. maybe there will be viable biofuels in the future but so far none survive scrutiny.
Green methane doesn't necessarily mean biogas from waste, sewage or livestock facilities. That is low grade production. It could be synthesized in large quantities from wood biomass, cement plant flue gas or seawater CO2 in some low carbon future or where gas is in short supply. Although I believe methanol is far superior in that regard. Personally I ain't big on the low CO2 thing, but that is the thing right now. The point is that going low carbon does not necessitate quitting NG, it may be more cost effective to replace NG with green methane. It sure as hell will be more cost effective than going H2.
If there is a technology that can produce methane without massive government subsidies I'm sure the private sector will ramp it up. Generally my critique here is that government subsidies of biofuel, in the name of ecological preservation or any other emission reducing national initiative has backfired in the worst ways.
It not an addiction it is absolutely the only way to power civilization for the foreseeable future. There is no evidence fossil fuel can be replaced by nuclear and renewables in the time frame you are hoping for. This is a massive subject you need to study in order to understand. It took me years of reading to travel from where you currently are to where I am. Fossil feuls are bridge fuels. Natural Gas is extremely benign and has displaced more coal pollution and carbon pollution than all non-hydro renewables combined. Nat gas is the single reason the US has had declining emissions for the last 15 years not renewables. Shellenberger was instrumental in pioneering this third way all of the above energy policies that Obama embraced. Obama led the fracking revolution and that is a good thing. Fracking is demonized more than nuclear. Read the EPA reports on it. It posed NO THREAT to water systems. The microtremors stuff is just as bogus.
We could do the same for Europe, Africa, India. Accelerate growth why reducing emissions.
No, we could replace fossil fuel with nuclear, that is entirely doable, although it would take 40yrs or so. France replaced their largely oil based electricity supply with nuclear in 20yrs, and half their domestic primary energy supply. So-called renewables (which actually means wind/solar) have nothing to do with nuclear, in fact are the enemies of nuclear energy due to how the screw up grid economics. And Fracking is not demonized more than nuclear, in fact many of the enviro groups which are staunchly anti-nuclear have embraced fracked natural gas as a "bridge fuel". The more recent animosity to fracking is really more to do with the Malthusian effort to crash our economies in the West.
Thanks for responding and it is good to meet a wonky guy here. We agree on the ideologies and what not. Regarding my statement: Most grids could be powered by Nuclear. I have never read a convincing plan for forcing transport to ditch gas and run on EVs. It would bankrupt most economies. I'm very familiar with the unholy alliance between renewable and fossil. Despite this financial alliance (NDRC, Sierra Club and other green NGOS with nat gas), the public has more antipathy against fracking than nuclear at this point. It has been a successful disinformation campaign (pushed by Russia, Arab states and in alliance with the anti-humanists in green NGOs) I[m not saying green NGOs aren't flush with NeoMalthusianists.. but t's not simply one poisonous ideology however. Each region will find a group to ally with against nat gas - like Native Americans or a shared desire to outsource energy production to other regions. Neverthless Hence fracking was banned in liberal states just like it was banned liberal parts of Europe. Most liberals have no idea nat gas is the reason our emissions went down and they all bought the lie that fracking pollutes water. Fracking has been succefully demonized. Nuclear is enjoying a revival of support, after decades. Even Thunberg is pivoting for nuclear energy in Germany. More dems are coming out for Nuclear. Newsom and Diablo Canyon etc. There has not been a similar pivot by the left accepting fracking/nat gas as necessary evils.
Thunberg pivoting for nuclear in Germany? Really. Where do you get that from? And Newsom had to be dragged kicking and screaming to "temporarily" keep Diablo Canyon open. He had no problem whatsoever with shutting down and replacing it with natural gas. The problem now is that will take time, time they don't have, with natural gas prices exploding and the Ecofascist movement has gone far beyond what Newsom was into, he is after all a Getty family lackey:
What we are seeing since the Covid Plandemic began is a centrally coordinated worldwide effort to destroy our energy supply, which has more to do with creating the recent anti-gas movement. That is not climate change, that is Malthusianism, a de-industrialization plan for a neo-feudal socioeconomic system.
Not much of a pivot. Indicates only that Greta is not totally corrupted, fanatical nutballs as the German Greens are. Accepting that it is insanity for Germany to close its last 3 NPPs in the wake of the current energy supply catastrophe is just one tiny step forward for Greta. She still remains opposed to nuclear power, just as Newsom is, and now we see Trudeau is also.
And to be clear, I'm not anti-car (I quite like my Subaru) but I do think it's super dumb that America has largely constructed its cities to require a car for boring and mundane tasks such as mindlessly driving to work, or going short distances like 3 miles across town to visit a friend because there's literally zero safe bicycling infrastructure to get there. I'm spending more on gasoline per month than any other fossil fuel, by far (even if hypotheticially, 100% of my electricity came from coal or nat gas). I'd imagine it's the same for most Americans. I've spent lots of time abroad, and it's really liberating to be able to live daily life without a car. It also saves a hell of a lot of money. With so many Americans barely able to make ends meet financially, it would seem prudent to do as much as we can to reduce reliance on cars since owning a car (even an old used one) costs, at minimum, several thousand dollars a year. We need fossil fuels to reconstruct our cities in order to rid us of fossil fuels. Seems foolish to send those fuels abroad, just so Exxon can make more profit.
Ok. Every country is developed differently. You can't simple shove a round peg in a square hole. The US is larger than any of the countries that have biking cultures. Most of our cities are massive and spread out. Evs are a cleaner way to get around than re-engineering entire swaths of modern cities to satiate a biking fetish. I've travelled the world too and I assure you outside of first world nations biking cultures are not so pretty. Europeans bike largely for exercise and to get fresh air. It is generally very dangerous and inefficient in third world countries.
We don't need speed trains because we have the best freeways in the world and the best airports in the world. The nostalgia is unserious. You can hope for a viable bullet train and biking cities in CA but the reality is those are mostly massive boondoggles. Biking lanes are the province of the extremely affluent suburbs. No working class people bike to work from Tijuana to San Diego. They take trains, busses, ubers etc and the affluent people bike in North County bike lanes.
I don't totally disagree with you. The US tends to do train / public transit terribly -- wasting money all over the place, providing awful service, then wondering why nobody uses it.
But I don't see the logic here:
"The US is larger than any of the countries that have biking cultures. Most of our cities are massive and spread out."
Being a big country is not really related to whether or not individual cities are walkable and bikable. I do think a national network of high speed rail would be foolish. But wouldn't it be great if we connected every city above a certain population (maybe 500,000?) to every other city of that threshold that was <300 miles apart? That would be doable. Start with the 10 most populous states, and connect the 5 most populous cities in those states (and maybe a few smaller cities that are directly on the routes between bigger cities). Yes it would be a massive undertaking, but do we want to be reliant on cars forever? EVs aren't a panacea. It's trading fuel sources, not actually solving any of the problems that come with engineering cities to be 100% car dependent. Freeways can only be so big, and studies have shown over and over again that adding extra lanes costs a TON of money, yet don't really end up relieving congestion.
Maybe we'll never agree on this, but I appreciate the discussion.
I like Frank Lloyd Wright's idea of the linear city. So you have city in the country and country in the city. And a highly efficient central backbone of utilities and rapid transit. Also commuting to work can be replaced with more remote work and factories can be done as on a 1 week in/ 1 week out, 12hr/day shifts method. The future world really doesn't need the centralized city anymore. The distributed city makes much more sense.
They are kind of trying that in KSA. While every region may try their hand with infrastructure projects. I find the statism encroaching and would not invite the federal government to take any leads in engineering cities based on futurists or ecofascists obsessed with reducing human footprints.
Ok. Nothing you are saying is new to me. I was exactly where you were about 15 years ago. You need to take your ideas into areas where they can be challenged or you'll never learn. It is all extremely idealistic.
The design of cities and countries as well as their history matter to how people get around and live.
European cities are smaller, older and denser - with massive traditions of walking and biking to get around and they generally have the plaza style design - all streets going downtown where people walk and shop. More busses and trains take you from one city to the next and they all have the same general design.
Most Americans by contrast live in suburbs around big cities. LA is basically a series of suburbs. All cities are newer than Europe so they weren't designed around a city center per se.
Congestion is a complicated subject and I didn't bring that up. I didn't make the case that more freeway lanes solves traffic. I am saying freeways are a more efficient way in large countries to get from one city to another one hours away than trains. In europe and japan all cities are closer together so trains made more sense.
Let's say that's all true -- I'm not arguing whether it is or not -- shouldn't the US be saving its fuel resources to be used for its own interests, because we know that gas and petroleum isn't going to last forever? Shouldn't it be used to rebuild US infrastructure to be more energy efficient while we still have access to relatively affordable fuel? To give lower prices to US citizens instead of selling it on the world market for private gain? It seems like the US is on a trajectory where all of these bad energy policies are going to catch up to it in the very near future. Might as well save what we can (I'm American) to help reconstruct our cities and lifestyles to be more energy efficient, no? Otherwise we'll find ourselves in the position where natural gas and oil are 2x (or greater) more expensive than it is now, which is already straining the economy as-is.
America really can't keep sprawling everywhere and constructing our society to require automobiles for everything. We need more infrastructure for safe and efficient walking, biking, electric trains, etc. That requires fossil fuels to build, and it's going to take 10-20 years to start to make a significant dent (just look at how long it took the Netherlands, and that was mostly during a time when fossil fuels were cheap).
Ok. There is a ton to be combed over here. It is important to be specific about what types of fossil we are talking about. There are hundreds of types of crude alone. So our current high gas prices are caused by shortages in sweet crude. None of those are the backbone of Europe's grid energy situation. We need more sweet crude in the US but that takes longer to ramp up than nat gas and coal. Most of the fossil we export is not even used for transport/energy it is used for petroleum derivatives. We are closing coal plants because of lack of demand here and because natgas is more efficient , not because we are running out of coal. We are not running out of nat-gas either. The financial incentives are not large enough to ramp up production and Shellenberger has written at great length on how Biden is sabotaging this. If the US were to become the main exporter of coal and nat gas to Europe we could open up the spigots.
Everything requires energy. There is no shortage of fossil in the US nor in Europe. The issue is green policies.
Biking and green walkways are NOT what we need to prioritize, they are an indulgence of the extremely affluent and almost entirely divorced from actual transport. Biking is great exercise but trying to make bike lanes that traverse metro areas causes exponentially more emissions and cost than simply using EVs and busses to get to work. I have some things to do but if you really want to discuss these issues I would just say books are good. Get the basics of fossil down. Alex Epstein is good.
"Biking is great exercise but trying to make bike lanes that traverse metro areas causes exponentially more emissions and cost than simply using EVs and busses to get to work."
Can you expand on this? I've lived in Japan, which as you know is home to some of the world's premier car manufacturers -- yet their transportation system is very well balanced and accommodates walking, biking, efficient bus service and such even in smaller towns (not just Tokyo and Osaka), unlike the US which greatly favors (or flat out requires) driving cars for everything everywhere except in a few older cities that were developed before the automobile came along.
To me it seems extremely foolish to require people to drive a car short distances. In many US cities, even if the supermarket is only 2 miles away, there is no safe way to get there unless you own a car. That's just idiotic. Why do you think bicycles are only useful for exercise? And why do you think creating and using bicycle and pedestrian pathways causes more emissions than car-based infrastructure? That doesn't really pass common logic, nor the experience of other countries that have invested in this type of infrastructure, but I'm open to new data if you have it...
Again I'm not anti-car, I just think it's dumb to require them for situations where all people need to do is get from point A to point B, especially when those locations are just a handful of miles apart (same goes for traveling from one big-ish city to another, it makes much more sense to take a train 100 miles than staring at the car in front of you on the interstate for 1.5 hours). I think I read once that in the US something like 80% of car trips are less than 5 miles. In many places with heavy car traffic, riding a bicycle at an average pace can go the same distance in about the same time as driving a car. And certainly in most cities I've lived, biking a few miles across town is MUCH faster than taking the bus.
I would suggest you leave your bubble and go meet some men that work in an industry not flush with effete deskjobs. None of them want to bike to a construction site.
I think you've completely missed my point. There's a huge opportunity for a majority of Americans (who live in urban areas) to be able to walk or bike short distances. Sure, not everyone will choose that. But the people who *would* choose it currently can *NOT* because safe infrastructure for biking and walking does not exist in the vast majority of US towns and cities. So the status quo FORCES people to drive cars for EVERYTHING even if they don't want to. In places where cities have been revamped to have *safe* walking and biking (not just EU, but US too) the result is almost always that tons of people actually do start walking and biking for many of their daily needs (obviously the multi-use path must connect popular daily destinations like schools, supermarkets, shopping centers, etc and that businesses also install proper secure bike parking). Unfortunately, in the US most "bike lanes" are nothing more than white paint on the road, so it's not surprising that you never see anyone using it -- nobody is dumb enough to bike 3 feet away from a car going 55 mph with nothing in between to protect them.
Integrity is not the only thing that is important to people like Cris Cuomo and many others. Ego is much more important and it does not have any age limitation.
The founder of Nikola Corp. was recently found guilty of charges he deceived investors with exaggerated claims about his company's progress in producing zero-emission 18-wheel trucks fueled by electricity or hydrogen. I think that is a big setback for the green new deal concept.
There have been a plethora of similar scandals plaguing car companies over the past decade. Perhaps the biggest one was Volkswagon and Mercedes inflating their emissions numbers. It is called corporate greenwashing and it is a largely unregulated advertisement gimmick.
I don't see the similarity. Trevor Milton was found guilty, not Nikola. Milton was trying to further the interests of the Green New Deal, compliance had nothing to deal with the case as it did with Volkswagon and Mercedes.
Everyone is scrambling for green money and cutting corners doing it. Individuals in VW were found guilty as well. Volkswagen was jockeying the green deals in Europe. massive tax breaks for emissions reductions that were simply illusions
I lost track of what we are arguing about but we agree all Green Climate Hysteria is deadly. GND is just the latest incarnation of a 30 death grip on energy policies in the west. India banned Greenpeace long ago because they saw the writing on the wall.
Thanks for the clarification. I am a retired PE and engineers are trained to see the big picture. I can go from the technology of solar panels to the claim of ocean acidifation in a second. ( I just can't spell very well)
Hi Michael, I've just paid for an annual subscription - I remember some time ago ordering your book and paid a premium of $50 I think for a signed copy - this was for my daughter's 15th birthday present. To date I haven't received the book. I know you're very busy and I support all that you are doing but just wondered what might have happened.
Please keep up your excellent efforts on the behalf of truth, justice and etc you know the thing.
Could there be a greater illustration of our zeitgeist than a pair of narcissistic children trying to destroy a priceless work of art for "political reasons"? I guess they would also burn down the Louvre to "raise awareness" and get themselves more Twitter followers.
Part of what we are living through is not just the collapse of institutional authority but the collapse of all authority bc adults refuse to set limits and boundaries, refuse to defend any tradition or discipline if it goes against conventional wisdom (or hurts a feeling somewhere), and would just rather play on their phones while the world collapses around them.
Anyone who attacks Van Gogh is a barbarian who deserves a solid spanking and to be sent to their room with only white walls to gaze at.
I hope none of them here in UK sees your comment bc very soon that will become a legal but hateful crime - with up to 5 years jail time - and yet gangs of up to 30 Mahoundian men can rape a girl of 13 - underage in UK - she was accused of being a hooker or their girlfriend and that she should shut up for the sake of diversity by a diverse member of the UK parliament.
hope links are allowed here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11282263/Moment-police-swoop-house-devout-catholic-mother-malicious-online-posts.html
I agree and add the young are justified in having no faith in adults and authority in general after seeing themselves thrown to the dogs by "responsible" adults during the covid panic.
You have this completely backwards. The young have complete faith in leftist authority. The entitled and wealthy young, featured here in the flesh of climate activists were fully on board with COVID policing, statism, punishing "misinformation" peddlars, stopping free speech, eternal masking, mandatory vaccines etc. The list is endless and there is no shortage of literature showing no generation in history is as conforming as the current crop of young people. Climate hysteria is the position of authority and has been for over a decade. This is the locus of their self righteousness. The responsible adults you scorn here are the woke school teachers pushing climate hysteria and gender derp. These kids worship those adults.
In large part I agree. However, in questioning some teenage boys on their imprisonment during the covid panic I got the impression they were against the whole thing but had been so guilt-tripped by the emotional blackmail propaganda that they quietly 'behaved'. These were sporty, non-neurotic boys as well, so perhaps a different mentality to the Greta Thunberg types. To the second point, I don't know, do kids worship their school teachers? If so- Sad!
There is a lot to unpack here. For insight into the general decline of males in schools k-12, in college and in the workforce maybe start with The War on Boys by Sommers. It's a long term trend. Boys either submit to authority or completely drop out. You have the complete opposite trend with females in the US. Hysterical and tyrannical females are now the cultural force controlling bureaucracies. They are the authority you claim young people distrust. If the ideology of teachers and admins were easy to disregard young people would not be marching in lock step with woke curriculum.
I'm familiar with Sommers and her work in charting the decline in male achievement over the past few decades; it's an issue that particularly troubles me. I'm sure too that woke nonsense ideas have gained a hold upon many young people (Johnathan Haidt etc) but I think ascribing those views to 'young people' in general is too broad, and that it's in many ways class-based. As an example, in my regional working and middle-class town I really haven't seen much evidence that many of the teenage kids there, male or female, who work out the same gym I do or play sport, live on farms etc caring less about Thunberg or being preoccupied with wokeness.
I will note that when I left that town in the 2000's to study at art school in the capital, the differences in attitude and culture between the young people in that institution and the regions was marked. While I don't deny 'progressive' ideas have bled out of the cities into the wider country I still think that the youth that truly believe in woke nonsense are a relatively small but noisy coterie of middle/upper middle class kids either in or heading into humanities degrees at the more prestigious universities. Most teenagers are likely more concerned with the usual adolescent hangups (friendship, social status, sport, trying to get laid etc). And yes, world leaders did sabotage their energy security trying to appease Thurnberg's foolishness but that's more reflective on how pathetic and craven those adult "leaders" are than on the teenagers under their charge.
Well if you read haidt's "coddling of the american mind" you'd know it absolutely gen Z that sticks out like a sore thumb here. Of course the next gen could be different but all the evidence shows the same trends are at play. you are right that rural red areas will be largely distinct from cities and suburbs. Poor people don't obsess over climate change and pronouns. I is overwhelmingly something more affluent kids indulge in.
Let me put it this way. Do you think young people in the west look up to Greta Thunberg ? Shellenberger has spent huge amounts of energy explaining how entire nations in the west tripped over themselves to create energy policies that would please this young eco-fascist. What is she if not an emblem of woke female authority for the young to worship ?
Cuomo spent the last several years vilifying anyone to the right of his (CNN's) subjective viewpoint. No one is beyond redemption and I appreciate his newfound neutrality, especially in regard to your knowledge on climate. However, his authenticity is and will be deeply suspect for sometime to come. I do think he is correct (regarding his Dad and shutting down nuclear) that a politician is subject to the information given to him/her and the will of the voting mob. That's where authenticity comes in: knowing the matter (or trusting your advisors) ,educating the voters, and being accountable when wrong.
I am sorry, but you cannot be Chris Cuomo and reinvent yourself as a moderate victim of the radical left when you carried the water of the radical left for most of your professional career.
I have no doubt that he does not completely share the ideology that he pushed, but push he did. Was it greed for his paycheck that caused him to sell out? It really does not matter. He is branded untrustworthy. Unlike the left that will love and embrace anyone that tells them they are ideologically pretty and their politics are good and righteous, or that even joins them to hate their enemies in kind (Liz... where are you?), the rest of us need to hold people accountable for their political actions. No slithering away.
Pay close attention to the way Shellenberger is positioning both Cuomo and himself: the politically neutral outkasts with good ideas and a willingness to debate'. Shellenberger's mission, redeemable or not, is to find a center path. I'm not so sure it's feasible. Regarding Cuomo, he wasn't cancelled for defying the left he was cancelled for carrying water for the left and criminally covering up their misdeeds.
I wonder if Michael would ask Chris Cuomo about his governor brother's role in shutting down Indian Point nuclear power plant and replacing it with gas. Dirty dealings:
Working for Natural Gas Interests, Former Cuomo Aides Lobbied to Kill Indian Point Nuclear Plant:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/1/6/natural-gas-promotor-at-center-of-new-york-corruption-scandal-pushed-to-close-indian-point-nuclear-plant
"...Environmental Progress (EP) has learned that two top former aides to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo worked with a major Cuomo campaign contributor, the natural gas company Competitive Power Ventures, to close Indian Point nuclear plant.."
Shellenberger didn't point out the unholy alliance in the interview but they did discuss anti-nuclear hysteria. In spite of the big nat has donors fracking was banned in NY.
Just Upgraded to Paid. Thanks!
Ack. I just paid for an annual subscription and my reward is Chris Cuomo?
Its very interesting to see Chris be open to these ideas. I think it just shows how influential your environment can be on your ideas and your identity. I think we would all like to imagine, that had we worked at CNN, we would have had the courage to speak out, and change people’s minds. But the truth is, when everyone around you is thinking the same way. When ideas and culture are reinforced so strongly, as Im sure they were at his former workplace. It would take extraordinary courage, and an extraordinary person to break out of the mold. Most of us would have done exactly what he did, which is protect the narrative. Its so much easier now that he is in an independent position to gain some perspective, and we should give him some grace for his priors and praise him for being open to changing his mind. This gives me hope
It is quite possible that for some to change their mind on a subject so scientifically nuanced as nuclear energy they have to be ejected entirely from their leftist bubble. Those of us who promoted and defended nuclear energy for the past 30 years were effectively cancelled by the left
Interesting conversation. Never in my life did I think I'd hear some of those words come from Chris. One needs to keep an open mind and I'm willing to listen. One of your strengths Mike is not getting emotionally drawn in by good or bad behavior, you keep to your area of knowledge and openly admit when you are wrong or out of your league - that's a attribute many of us need to work on - and I'm sure as hell including myself.
In the discussion of failing NPPs causing massive systemic anti-nuclear panic Cuomo pivoted to Ukraine and said "They damaged a nuclear plant and it could kill the entire region"
Fact Check: False.
Shellenberger's rejoinder left alot to be desired. Instead off dispelling the hysterical claim myth that an NPP could kill an entire region he said "The same thing that makes nuclear safe is what makes it so powerful.... energy density etc".  Modern NPPs do not endanger millions even if sabotaged. This is extremely important to get right and Shelleberger has gotten it right in the past when debunking the hysteria pushed by the Chernobyl series. Even the worst constructed NPP and the worst NPP accident in history killed less than 50 people. Not an entire region. Modern NPPs would not explode and kill a city.
If this is going to be an influential energy/climate blog I'm hoping the wonks come on board and help explain the concepts in high resolution.
Yes, that's totally true. The Illinois EnergyProf did a good video to explain how this endless Fear Porn about Ukraine's nuclear reactors and the war is utter nonsense:
Ukraine's Nuclear Reactors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9v1GAOJAY
Mike
In your comments to Chris, you mentioned “integrity” and “personal reputation”. As if personal virtue were still important today. How quaint.
We now live in a country where personal virtue has been replaced with social virtue. The social justice ends justify any behavior.
Wokies have no concept of personal rectitude or responsibility.
The two kids who vandalized the painting have no concept of personal responsibility.
No one is more SELF-RIGHTEOUS than the eco-theologians.
I respect Michael's perspective and generally agree, but I don't really understand his "drill baby drill" attitude for natural gas. Why should the US be shipping gas/petroleum to Europe? Shouldn't the EU be working to wean itself off of gas and use electricity for heat etc? Change seems to come quickest in times of crisis. The longer we keep ourselves (everyone globally) chained to petroleum (which is already costly), the longer it will take to transition to electric everything (which can be from nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, etc) and to rebuild our infrastructure to require less energy inputs.
There are huge opportunities to make buildings more energy efficient. And a huge need for better and more extensive train transit in the US which would greatly reduce the need for people to spend their income on gas for a car which is primarily used to drive them back and forth from home/work/school/supermarket -- other countries like the Netherlands and Japan have shown for decades that if you design your cities and even small towns properly, you don't need a car at all except to rent one for the occasional camping trip to the mountains or whatever. Shouldn't we be focusing on these things, instead of prolonging our expensive addiction to petroleum and natural gas?
Why do you want to wean off of gas? Natural gas & gasoline can be replaced with methanol. For carbon neutral you can make green methanol or green methane. Even for heat the most efficient way to do it is probably using CHP. That would be best done with nuclear waste heat especially with locally located SMRs.
Expensive addiction to petroleum is certainly true. That means largely a move to BEVs, PHEVs and hyper-efficient series HEVs. And replacing gasoline with methanol, diesel with DME. Gas is generally fairly inexpensive (until the recent price hikes), LNG is dubious, it makes much more sense to switch to methanol than to use LNG.
green methane is one of the myths debunked by breakthrough institute or any of the previous shellenberger orgs. biofuel has proven to be massively damaging to the environment. maybe there will be viable biofuels in the future but so far none survive scrutiny.
Green methane doesn't necessarily mean biogas from waste, sewage or livestock facilities. That is low grade production. It could be synthesized in large quantities from wood biomass, cement plant flue gas or seawater CO2 in some low carbon future or where gas is in short supply. Although I believe methanol is far superior in that regard. Personally I ain't big on the low CO2 thing, but that is the thing right now. The point is that going low carbon does not necessitate quitting NG, it may be more cost effective to replace NG with green methane. It sure as hell will be more cost effective than going H2.
If there is a technology that can produce methane without massive government subsidies I'm sure the private sector will ramp it up. Generally my critique here is that government subsidies of biofuel, in the name of ecological preservation or any other emission reducing national initiative has backfired in the worst ways.
It not an addiction it is absolutely the only way to power civilization for the foreseeable future. There is no evidence fossil fuel can be replaced by nuclear and renewables in the time frame you are hoping for. This is a massive subject you need to study in order to understand. It took me years of reading to travel from where you currently are to where I am. Fossil feuls are bridge fuels. Natural Gas is extremely benign and has displaced more coal pollution and carbon pollution than all non-hydro renewables combined. Nat gas is the single reason the US has had declining emissions for the last 15 years not renewables. Shellenberger was instrumental in pioneering this third way all of the above energy policies that Obama embraced. Obama led the fracking revolution and that is a good thing. Fracking is demonized more than nuclear. Read the EPA reports on it. It posed NO THREAT to water systems. The microtremors stuff is just as bogus.
We could do the same for Europe, Africa, India. Accelerate growth why reducing emissions.
No, we could replace fossil fuel with nuclear, that is entirely doable, although it would take 40yrs or so. France replaced their largely oil based electricity supply with nuclear in 20yrs, and half their domestic primary energy supply. So-called renewables (which actually means wind/solar) have nothing to do with nuclear, in fact are the enemies of nuclear energy due to how the screw up grid economics. And Fracking is not demonized more than nuclear, in fact many of the enviro groups which are staunchly anti-nuclear have embraced fracked natural gas as a "bridge fuel". The more recent animosity to fracking is really more to do with the Malthusian effort to crash our economies in the West.
Thanks for responding and it is good to meet a wonky guy here. We agree on the ideologies and what not. Regarding my statement: Most grids could be powered by Nuclear. I have never read a convincing plan for forcing transport to ditch gas and run on EVs. It would bankrupt most economies. I'm very familiar with the unholy alliance between renewable and fossil. Despite this financial alliance (NDRC, Sierra Club and other green NGOS with nat gas), the public has more antipathy against fracking than nuclear at this point. It has been a successful disinformation campaign (pushed by Russia, Arab states and in alliance with the anti-humanists in green NGOs) I[m not saying green NGOs aren't flush with NeoMalthusianists.. but t's not simply one poisonous ideology however. Each region will find a group to ally with against nat gas - like Native Americans or a shared desire to outsource energy production to other regions. Neverthless Hence fracking was banned in liberal states just like it was banned liberal parts of Europe. Most liberals have no idea nat gas is the reason our emissions went down and they all bought the lie that fracking pollutes water. Fracking has been succefully demonized. Nuclear is enjoying a revival of support, after decades. Even Thunberg is pivoting for nuclear energy in Germany. More dems are coming out for Nuclear. Newsom and Diablo Canyon etc. There has not been a similar pivot by the left accepting fracking/nat gas as necessary evils.
Thunberg pivoting for nuclear in Germany? Really. Where do you get that from? And Newsom had to be dragged kicking and screaming to "temporarily" keep Diablo Canyon open. He had no problem whatsoever with shutting down and replacing it with natural gas. The problem now is that will take time, time they don't have, with natural gas prices exploding and the Ecofascist movement has gone far beyond what Newsom was into, he is after all a Getty family lackey:
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/01/gavin-newsoms-keeping-it-all-in-the-family/
What we are seeing since the Covid Plandemic began is a centrally coordinated worldwide effort to destroy our energy supply, which has more to do with creating the recent anti-gas movement. That is not climate change, that is Malthusianism, a de-industrialization plan for a neo-feudal socioeconomic system.
Yeah for sure it was an uphill climb with Newsom and all CA greens. My only point is that the tide did turn. For those of us campaining for nuclear for the past 30 years the change is palpable. Here is the NPR piece on Shellenberger's nuclear victory. https://www.npr.org/2021/12/04/1061539850/how-nuclear-power-figures-into-a-green-energy-future
Here's Greta's recent pivot.
https://fortune.com/2022/10/12/greta-thunberg-germany-greens-nuclear-power-plants-coal-gas-ukraine-russia/
Not much of a pivot. Indicates only that Greta is not totally corrupted, fanatical nutballs as the German Greens are. Accepting that it is insanity for Germany to close its last 3 NPPs in the wake of the current energy supply catastrophe is just one tiny step forward for Greta. She still remains opposed to nuclear power, just as Newsom is, and now we see Trudeau is also.
And to be clear, I'm not anti-car (I quite like my Subaru) but I do think it's super dumb that America has largely constructed its cities to require a car for boring and mundane tasks such as mindlessly driving to work, or going short distances like 3 miles across town to visit a friend because there's literally zero safe bicycling infrastructure to get there. I'm spending more on gasoline per month than any other fossil fuel, by far (even if hypotheticially, 100% of my electricity came from coal or nat gas). I'd imagine it's the same for most Americans. I've spent lots of time abroad, and it's really liberating to be able to live daily life without a car. It also saves a hell of a lot of money. With so many Americans barely able to make ends meet financially, it would seem prudent to do as much as we can to reduce reliance on cars since owning a car (even an old used one) costs, at minimum, several thousand dollars a year. We need fossil fuels to reconstruct our cities in order to rid us of fossil fuels. Seems foolish to send those fuels abroad, just so Exxon can make more profit.
Ok. Every country is developed differently. You can't simple shove a round peg in a square hole. The US is larger than any of the countries that have biking cultures. Most of our cities are massive and spread out. Evs are a cleaner way to get around than re-engineering entire swaths of modern cities to satiate a biking fetish. I've travelled the world too and I assure you outside of first world nations biking cultures are not so pretty. Europeans bike largely for exercise and to get fresh air. It is generally very dangerous and inefficient in third world countries.
We don't need speed trains because we have the best freeways in the world and the best airports in the world. The nostalgia is unserious. You can hope for a viable bullet train and biking cities in CA but the reality is those are mostly massive boondoggles. Biking lanes are the province of the extremely affluent suburbs. No working class people bike to work from Tijuana to San Diego. They take trains, busses, ubers etc and the affluent people bike in North County bike lanes.
I don't totally disagree with you. The US tends to do train / public transit terribly -- wasting money all over the place, providing awful service, then wondering why nobody uses it.
But I don't see the logic here:
"The US is larger than any of the countries that have biking cultures. Most of our cities are massive and spread out."
Being a big country is not really related to whether or not individual cities are walkable and bikable. I do think a national network of high speed rail would be foolish. But wouldn't it be great if we connected every city above a certain population (maybe 500,000?) to every other city of that threshold that was <300 miles apart? That would be doable. Start with the 10 most populous states, and connect the 5 most populous cities in those states (and maybe a few smaller cities that are directly on the routes between bigger cities). Yes it would be a massive undertaking, but do we want to be reliant on cars forever? EVs aren't a panacea. It's trading fuel sources, not actually solving any of the problems that come with engineering cities to be 100% car dependent. Freeways can only be so big, and studies have shown over and over again that adding extra lanes costs a TON of money, yet don't really end up relieving congestion.
Maybe we'll never agree on this, but I appreciate the discussion.
I like Frank Lloyd Wright's idea of the linear city. So you have city in the country and country in the city. And a highly efficient central backbone of utilities and rapid transit. Also commuting to work can be replaced with more remote work and factories can be done as on a 1 week in/ 1 week out, 12hr/day shifts method. The future world really doesn't need the centralized city anymore. The distributed city makes much more sense.
They are kind of trying that in KSA. While every region may try their hand with infrastructure projects. I find the statism encroaching and would not invite the federal government to take any leads in engineering cities based on futurists or ecofascists obsessed with reducing human footprints.
Ok. Nothing you are saying is new to me. I was exactly where you were about 15 years ago. You need to take your ideas into areas where they can be challenged or you'll never learn. It is all extremely idealistic.
The design of cities and countries as well as their history matter to how people get around and live.
European cities are smaller, older and denser - with massive traditions of walking and biking to get around and they generally have the plaza style design - all streets going downtown where people walk and shop. More busses and trains take you from one city to the next and they all have the same general design.
Most Americans by contrast live in suburbs around big cities. LA is basically a series of suburbs. All cities are newer than Europe so they weren't designed around a city center per se.
Congestion is a complicated subject and I didn't bring that up. I didn't make the case that more freeway lanes solves traffic. I am saying freeways are a more efficient way in large countries to get from one city to another one hours away than trains. In europe and japan all cities are closer together so trains made more sense.
Let's say that's all true -- I'm not arguing whether it is or not -- shouldn't the US be saving its fuel resources to be used for its own interests, because we know that gas and petroleum isn't going to last forever? Shouldn't it be used to rebuild US infrastructure to be more energy efficient while we still have access to relatively affordable fuel? To give lower prices to US citizens instead of selling it on the world market for private gain? It seems like the US is on a trajectory where all of these bad energy policies are going to catch up to it in the very near future. Might as well save what we can (I'm American) to help reconstruct our cities and lifestyles to be more energy efficient, no? Otherwise we'll find ourselves in the position where natural gas and oil are 2x (or greater) more expensive than it is now, which is already straining the economy as-is.
America really can't keep sprawling everywhere and constructing our society to require automobiles for everything. We need more infrastructure for safe and efficient walking, biking, electric trains, etc. That requires fossil fuels to build, and it's going to take 10-20 years to start to make a significant dent (just look at how long it took the Netherlands, and that was mostly during a time when fossil fuels were cheap).
Ok. There is a ton to be combed over here. It is important to be specific about what types of fossil we are talking about. There are hundreds of types of crude alone. So our current high gas prices are caused by shortages in sweet crude. None of those are the backbone of Europe's grid energy situation. We need more sweet crude in the US but that takes longer to ramp up than nat gas and coal. Most of the fossil we export is not even used for transport/energy it is used for petroleum derivatives. We are closing coal plants because of lack of demand here and because natgas is more efficient , not because we are running out of coal. We are not running out of nat-gas either. The financial incentives are not large enough to ramp up production and Shellenberger has written at great length on how Biden is sabotaging this. If the US were to become the main exporter of coal and nat gas to Europe we could open up the spigots.
Everything requires energy. There is no shortage of fossil in the US nor in Europe. The issue is green policies.
Biking and green walkways are NOT what we need to prioritize, they are an indulgence of the extremely affluent and almost entirely divorced from actual transport. Biking is great exercise but trying to make bike lanes that traverse metro areas causes exponentially more emissions and cost than simply using EVs and busses to get to work. I have some things to do but if you really want to discuss these issues I would just say books are good. Get the basics of fossil down. Alex Epstein is good.
"Biking is great exercise but trying to make bike lanes that traverse metro areas causes exponentially more emissions and cost than simply using EVs and busses to get to work."
Can you expand on this? I've lived in Japan, which as you know is home to some of the world's premier car manufacturers -- yet their transportation system is very well balanced and accommodates walking, biking, efficient bus service and such even in smaller towns (not just Tokyo and Osaka), unlike the US which greatly favors (or flat out requires) driving cars for everything everywhere except in a few older cities that were developed before the automobile came along.
To me it seems extremely foolish to require people to drive a car short distances. In many US cities, even if the supermarket is only 2 miles away, there is no safe way to get there unless you own a car. That's just idiotic. Why do you think bicycles are only useful for exercise? And why do you think creating and using bicycle and pedestrian pathways causes more emissions than car-based infrastructure? That doesn't really pass common logic, nor the experience of other countries that have invested in this type of infrastructure, but I'm open to new data if you have it...
Again I'm not anti-car, I just think it's dumb to require them for situations where all people need to do is get from point A to point B, especially when those locations are just a handful of miles apart (same goes for traveling from one big-ish city to another, it makes much more sense to take a train 100 miles than staring at the car in front of you on the interstate for 1.5 hours). I think I read once that in the US something like 80% of car trips are less than 5 miles. In many places with heavy car traffic, riding a bicycle at an average pace can go the same distance in about the same time as driving a car. And certainly in most cities I've lived, biking a few miles across town is MUCH faster than taking the bus.
I would suggest you leave your bubble and go meet some men that work in an industry not flush with effete deskjobs. None of them want to bike to a construction site.
I think you've completely missed my point. There's a huge opportunity for a majority of Americans (who live in urban areas) to be able to walk or bike short distances. Sure, not everyone will choose that. But the people who *would* choose it currently can *NOT* because safe infrastructure for biking and walking does not exist in the vast majority of US towns and cities. So the status quo FORCES people to drive cars for EVERYTHING even if they don't want to. In places where cities have been revamped to have *safe* walking and biking (not just EU, but US too) the result is almost always that tons of people actually do start walking and biking for many of their daily needs (obviously the multi-use path must connect popular daily destinations like schools, supermarkets, shopping centers, etc and that businesses also install proper secure bike parking). Unfortunately, in the US most "bike lanes" are nothing more than white paint on the road, so it's not surprising that you never see anyone using it -- nobody is dumb enough to bike 3 feet away from a car going 55 mph with nothing in between to protect them.
Integrity is not the only thing that is important to people like Cris Cuomo and many others. Ego is much more important and it does not have any age limitation.
The founder of Nikola Corp. was recently found guilty of charges he deceived investors with exaggerated claims about his company's progress in producing zero-emission 18-wheel trucks fueled by electricity or hydrogen. I think that is a big setback for the green new deal concept.
There have been a plethora of similar scandals plaguing car companies over the past decade. Perhaps the biggest one was Volkswagon and Mercedes inflating their emissions numbers. It is called corporate greenwashing and it is a largely unregulated advertisement gimmick.
I don't see the similarity. Trevor Milton was found guilty, not Nikola. Milton was trying to further the interests of the Green New Deal, compliance had nothing to deal with the case as it did with Volkswagon and Mercedes.
Everyone is scrambling for green money and cutting corners doing it. Individuals in VW were found guilty as well. Volkswagen was jockeying the green deals in Europe. massive tax breaks for emissions reductions that were simply illusions
Trevor Milton was promoting the Green New Deal fraud which is much more damaging to
humans than what the car companies did. People will die of starvation and cold because of a misplaced reliance on green energy.
I lost track of what we are arguing about but we agree all Green Climate Hysteria is deadly. GND is just the latest incarnation of a 30 death grip on energy policies in the west. India banned Greenpeace long ago because they saw the writing on the wall.
Thanks for the clarification. I am a retired PE and engineers are trained to see the big picture. I can go from the technology of solar panels to the claim of ocean acidifation in a second. ( I just can't spell very well)
People do change. I would cut Cuomo some slack.
You finally got me to pay for a subscription. Vastly better than a years worth of pumpkin spice lattes!
Hi Michael, I've just paid for an annual subscription - I remember some time ago ordering your book and paid a premium of $50 I think for a signed copy - this was for my daughter's 15th birthday present. To date I haven't received the book. I know you're very busy and I support all that you are doing but just wondered what might have happened.
Please keep up your excellent efforts on the behalf of truth, justice and etc you know the thing.
So sorry! Please email me and I will send one. Michaelshellenberger@gmail.com
I'm still not much of a Cuomo fan although it seems like he's a lot better on his own.
Hopefully many of his dedicated fans followed him away from CNN and are hearing what you have to say.