 And those of you who are big Trump fans don't get too what do you call it, upset and I know I trigger you and I commit all these microaggressions against Trump fans but we'll see where this takes us. So I'm going to start actually with something positive I have to say about the Trump administration. Not too significant, not too big, but still a positive and that is that today the Trump administration announced that they were exiting the Paris Accord, if you remember the Paris Accord is an international accord that basically dictates or dictates reductions, doesn't really dictate, we'll get to that in a minute, but it kind of encourages, encourages reductions in CO2 emissions with the idea that you know the world is heating up and ice is melting everywhere except I guess in my freezer and you know just catastrophic disaster is about to hit us all and the only way around this is for us to reduce our carbon emissions. And of course the funny thing about it is they don't even take themselves seriously because the Paris Accord is a toothless hollow, you know I'm quoting, I'm quoting from Commentary Magazine they say the document is a toothless hollow expression of national aspirations that would have almost no effect on global greenhouse gas emissions overall even by the standards of the U.N. or by the standards of anybody. It's just a completely empty document so you know it's great that the United States leaves I think it's important as a statement that not everybody agrees with this nonsense and this approach to CO2 and to you know supposed climate change that not everybody agrees to the approach to it but the fact is the Paris Accord was meaningless. Everybody's actually achieving their stated goals except the United States and we'll get to that in a minute so European Union is way short of its promises. Canada at the rate they're going right now will achieve its targets even with a socialist government will achieve its targets in roughly two centuries, two centuries that's 200 years right. The only signatures to the Paris Accord that are actually meeting their objectives as stated are Morocco and Gambia not exactly countries that are going to have any impact whatsoever on CO2 emissions. Indeed one of the kind of amusing things about the Paris Accords is that China was defined as a developing nation which it is it's it's not a developed nation it's still a very poor nation in terms of the standard living of its individual citizens and as a consequence they didn't set targets for China so China was exempt from any kind of emissions targets and you know so it is it's promised to stop coping emissions in 2030 by which time you know it will have emitted dramatically more than it is now and of course India another developing country is also not subject to any restrictions and it will let's see it will double its carbon emissions from 2012 to 2030. So it's you know it's an irrelevant irrelevant document the whole Paris Accord is one big joke and indeed the reason Trump can just withdraw withdraw us from the Accord is that Obama who signed on to the Paris Accord never actually got Congress to vote on it so if Congress had voted on it and made a treaty then only Congress could approve getting out of it but because Congress never voted on it it's been in limbo it's never really become US a treaty you know by which the US has to abide Trump can just withdraw us easily of course the next person can just put us back in easily that's the problem of doing stuff without actual legislation but the funny thing is the funny thing is that the United States is actually on target to reduce greenhouse emissions by between 26 and 28% from the 2005 level by 2025 but they're on target not because of any grand federal policy they're on target for a number of different things one is state restrictions at the state level states like California and other states that have restricted carbon emissions but mostly most of the reason for the fact that we're emitting less Europe is increasing carbon emissions in spite of all their investment in spite of all their focus on alternative energies they are not decreasing the emissions and they're not anyway close to the targets they said but the United States is primarily because of more efficient cars more efficient power generation and basically and more efficient you know extraction industries and basically the transition to natural gas which is still a carbon but far more efficient than oil or coal so and coal is disappearing in spite of Trump promising to save the coal industry is dead mostly because coal is just too expensive relative to natural gas and relative to the availability of natural gas so the United States is actually going to meet its standards whether we are in the Paris Accord or not so it's good that we're leaving good signal good message good action in real life in terms of actual consequences not very significant because it's not going to change our behavior I mean that Trump administration has been pretty good on energy policy so Perry secretary the energy although he's resigning now was pretty good at allowing more drilling at you know it actually eliminating some of the penalties for coal and some of the penalties for for carbon and some of the rolling back some of the the Obama attempts to penalize the energy industry so so Perry's been pretty good you know it's sad they were not seeing a boom in in nuclear energy production it's sad that we're not seeing even a greater expansion in oil drilling around the United States but better than the alternatives in terms of oil production in terms of energy production this administration has been all right so good riddance to Paris now so a capitalist nick asks when are you getting Alex Alex I've seen back on the show sometime you know we'll coordinate schedules I haven't had many people being interviewed on the show on call was the first in a long time my plan is to resurrect the interview format and I'm sure Alex will be one of the people there's still a lot backlist of people who I haven't interviewed yet which I would like to which I would like to interview and then what do I think of the recent debate with Robert Kennedy I haven't seen it I'm sure he did great I haven't seen it I'm looking forward to seeing it seeing it you know maybe I'll comment once I actually see it but you know Alex is good at what he does so I'm sure it was it was good all right one other comment on well it's vent to the whole global you know climate change warming whatever they want to call it these days or you know the catastrophe the global extinction of mankind because of climate change today we had a I guess 11,000 experts I mean this is I'm eating from Bloomberg but I saw this in other news feeds so this is coming out of somewhere I don't know if this is legit or illegit but this is a press release it's circulating everywhere more than 11,000 experts 11,000 I wonder what qualifies them as experts have signed an emergency declaration warning that energy food and reproduction reproduction must change immediately immediately or we're all gonna die why because of climate change and they say 40 years ago scientists from 15 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the co2 climate problem at the time with reliance on fossil fuels having helped trigger the 1979 oil crisis they predicted global warming would eventually become a major environmental challenge indeed they made some bold specific predictions back then none of them none of which have actually come true but these 11,000 scientists are now saying 40 years have gone by we've done nothing and they they say the Paris Accord is meaningless it's stupid it's irrelevant I mean at best the Paris Accord if everybody follows the guideline to the letter would reduce would reduce the warming by 0.2 degrees centigrade insignificant meaningless so we need drastic change we need obviously to change energy we need a green new deal we need to get rid of fossil fuels we need a shift to alternative energy and we need to do it quickly and we need to do it now immediately and of course we need to change our food supply way too many cows farting methane out there way too much methane methane is a greenhouse gas gas more supposedly responsible for climate change than co2 emissions so we need to stop the cows from farting the only way to stop the cows from farting is basically to kill them so we need to stop eating beef which means killing millions of cows I don't know if this applies to pork and chicken and others but basically we should become vegetarians but even vegetarians then we have to chop down forests in order to grow more vegetables so we can all eat vegetables I don't know if that's gonna work but anyway let's not bother with the details when there's a crisis and we're all gonna die if we don't do it so hysteria and of course most importantly most importantly we have to get the global population under control now under control is or stabilized they say it's codeword for population control it's codeword for for stabilizations which is what paul ehrlich called for in the in the late 1960s in his book the population bomb it means one child like policies like china had it means corrosion on a massive global scale to reduce the number of god forbid people we don't want more people people are bad people consume meat and meat causes the earth to warm of course they say we need to do this carefully and we need to make sure we use it do it justly and with social you know in a way that ensures social integrity whatever the hell any of that means it means we need to use corrosion force but gently and and given that we have to maintain social justice maybe we should sterilize the rich first now that's me that's not them but maybe we should sterilize rich people first because we don't want to penalize poor people they're suffering enough I mean look I've said many times that I don't get into the whole issue of the science of climate change I you know it would take too much energy for me I leave that to Alex Epstein and others um and even Alex doesn't completely just say no it's all bogus but what is clearly bogus is the hysteria what is clearly bogus is the solutions are the solutions if the climate is changing let's come up with technologies that sustain human life given the changing climate let's say it's true the global temperatures are rising let's even say it's true the global temperatures are rising significantly that means if we had a free market the insurance insurance policies and places that are going to flood will be rising dramatically right now incentivizing people to move away from those areas to safer places that's a great market mechanism to shift populations away from places that might flood or you could imagine insurance companies teaming up with homeowners association teaming up with towns and cities in areas that were going to flood were willing where people were willing to pay for remedial mechanisms like dykes like flood canals like all kind of things like that would reduce the impact of rising sea levels like Amsterdam which has had dykes for hundreds of years I think is below sea level and last time I was in Amsterdam was a pretty cool city didn't flood didn't have people running away so today we have technology far far exceeds the technology that existed back then build dykes maybe as it gets warmer some people will have to buy electricity I mean not by electricity by air conditioning and maybe we should start developers should start thinking about that maybe we should de-regulate energy markets make it a true free fall and not encourage investment in nuclear and maybe encourage philanthropists like Bill Gates who is doing this indeed to invest in nuclear because maybe it's not economical to invest in nuclear if it's not a philanthropic venture but if it's true that the world is about to end then maybe nuclear energy makes sense and people philanthropic people will start investing in it how about some of that philanthropy money or just science money but corporations and other maybe insurance companies who don't want to see insured properties flood invest in technologies that sucks CO2 out of the air there's one technology I can't remember the university that developed it that actually sucks the methane out of the air and it turns methane which is a really bad greenhouse gas well assuming the models are correct into CO2 which is actually not a really bad so I think methane is five times more damaging the CO2 or something like that anyway you would be able to reduce the greenhouse effect by just turning methane into CO2 and the machines that can do this so why not do it so let's think about technological solutions that don't involve the end of economic growth the end of industrialization the end of technological progress and the end of human life for probably hundreds and millions if not billions of people which is what would be involved if we stopped using fossil fuels so put aside the science let's him you know if there's a real problem markets will solve it we will solve it individuals will solve it technology will solve it but the very fact that these kind of solutions are rejected by the proponents of climate change of the hysteria around climate change suggests to me that they're not serious that this is all just one big way of motivated by by the ideologues of hatred of mankind it would be great to shrink the number people on earth and it would be great to finally get rid of economic progress economic growth industrialization and technology that's the real goal of the of the intellectuals behind this whole movement they want us to go back to the caves they really really really do want us and and they don't want anything for themselves they just want to in glee watch us all die as they wither away and die as well but they don't care because their lives are meaningless what we need today what i called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason by the intellect not by feelings wishes wins or mystic revelations any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads using the super chat and i noticed yesterday when i appealed for support for the show many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time so i'll do it again maybe we'll get some more today if you like what you're hearing if you appreciate what i'm doing then i appreciate your support those of you who don't yet support the show please take this opportunity go to your on book show dot com slash support or go to subscribe star dot com your on book show and and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going i'm not sure