18 Burst results for "Wallace Wells"

Browns lose coach to virus for Steelers

WTOP 24 Hour News

00:25 sec | Last month

Browns lose coach to virus for Steelers

"Wallace well marked the Cleveland Browns have some covert issues. Browns coach Kevin Stefanski among five positive test for the Browns. So he will not coach this weekend and the Browns first playoff game in 18 years. Mike pray for the special teams coach will serve as the acting head coach on Sunday night against Pittsburgh to other coaches and two players among MI five as Cleveland, shutting down their practice facility today, Washington

Cleveland Browns Kevin Stefanski Wallace Mike Pittsburgh Cleveland Washington
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

02:45 min | 10 months ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"Daniel Defoe's plagued journal and Yeah folks I want you to stop there at twitched. Tv slash litter hangover. I didn't understand anything you just said. I imagine the kids Hey can you guys hear me? Yes what's happening on the anti-fraud this week I'm so glad you asked this week on the Anti Fatah. Our current episode is part one of a two part series on the political economy of China as well as the US and how their economies developed separately and then together and it's really good so you should listen to it. I learned a lot from it myself. also coming out this week. We have an episode with the extremely smart Marxist Assad hater wherein we do a little bit of Bernie postmortem looking at it through the lens of deep politicization and how that operates in society and you know we also talk about all kinds of other things chiefly communism because that is our favorite thing to talk about. Also this Thursday andy and I will be moderating a panel as part of Red May Seattle which is happening. Virtually this year on Corona virus and the future of work with Aaron Banana of any mcclanahan and Mugali. Miranda so I will definitely put that Info in the blog and just noticed demise funds zoom background that. I used when I was having a zoo party with my friends still on so. I'm sorry if you have to look at the hallway from the shining great. See you in the fun half have to say. Jamie and I may have a disagreement. Yeah you can't just say whatever you want about people just because you're rich. I have an absolute right. Mark them on Youtube. He's up there buggy whipping like he's the boss. I am not your employer negatively. I'm sorry I didn't mean cert- you nervous a little bit. Upset you riled up. Yeah maybe you should rethink your defensive at your booking idiots which is going to get rid of you all right but do do do. Do you want to smoke his joy? Yes you feel like you are a dinosaur shit exactly. I'm happy now win. It's a win win win. How Ya listen to me. Two three four five times eight. Four seven.

Daniel Defoe Fatah Youtube Assad China Aaron Banana Miranda US Bernie Seattle andy Jamie mcclanahan Mugali
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

02:26 min | 10 months ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"At twice the salary that's not gonNA happen. We we are like our government is not reckoning. At all with what we're going to be facing as a society economically they just simply are not the Republicans. Don't care and the Democrats at this point. As far as I can tell have been feckless. They have put a couple of bandaids on this but they don't realize there's a gaping wound that is just in another part of the body. I guess we're just in the state of shock seeing Pieces now like progressives are not going to get what they want in this. It's just absurd. There does not seem to be realization of of what's going to hit and I'm afraid that we're in another one of those situations where it's like. I don't know maybe this is one of those situations where you can go backwards in time on some level. Because it's GONNA cost you more money but there is going to be a radical transformation of many of many aspects of our economic lives and the so-called market in terms of healthcare mid across the board. The question is just like what is that. Transformation GonNa look like and I'm just afraid that the That Mitch McConnell is having a far greater say in it than anybody else and that is not good That's our Our free show for today. Allays gentleman Hope you enjoyed it. Dave Wallace Wells. He was not maybe not as terrifying as normally is just because Everybody's already in a mild state of panic anyways. I Dunno Brenda. Where would you put that on the terrifying scale for Dave whilst wells? I have a feeling he's enjoying being off the climate doom beat for just a period of time however short. That might be right. I put it at the the the lesser end of the..

Dave Wallace Wells Mitch McConnell
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

05:02 min | 10 months ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"We are back Sam Cedar on the majority report on the phone. It is a pleasure to welcome to the program. David Wallace Wells deputy editor and climate columnist for New York magazine author of the Uninhabitable Earth. David Welcome back to the program. Thanks so much for having me great speakers. I think we've had you on a couple of times to discuss Climate Change and Universally after Every time that you've been on my program I hear from a lot of people that they are terrified and I tell them well a good on some level because we need to We need to. We should be a little bit concerned in terms of being understanding. Obviously about climate change Going forward and of course Apparently you're also on the I mean let's start with this 'cause you're not just on the You know near Apocalypse Beat I guess there but there is a relationship on some level or at least possibly between a pandemic like this and climate change well There are huge similarities and echoes. Which is I think why I found myself so You know so. So driven to write about coveted. I've been doing Now you know a few times a week for the last few months and you know we can talk about those in a second but yeah it's also the case that I'm just GonNa make the next like this And that's because what we're doing to the world generally is destabilising ecosystems and natural habitats. We're doing that through you know deforestation development but we're also doing through you know turning up the temperature of the planet and making what had been stable local climate much less stable and what that does is it scrambles the all of the natural lives that are living in those areas and that means that in some cases humans are coming into contact with Moore animals but it also means that viruses and bacteria are now living in different climate conditions and they were all too and the As a result may change their behavior some some in some quite dramatic ways that could make them much more dangerous pathogens to the planet as a whole so this pandemic in particular. We think we know it. Probably Came from you know. Some fastened southern China. Pass through Some you know wet markets or whatever and came through To John. There's some possibility it may have escaped from from a lab doing research into Into viruses but in either case. I don't think you can say the climate change caused this disease But nevertheless we're likely to see many more disruptions like this going forward the more that we disrupt the ecology of the planet but what interest in more than that storyline is the way that you know people have said things like this is what we're seeing now is a change on fast forward that we're seeing on so much that we took for granted as stable and permanent features of modern life transformed rapidly before. I both you know in some horrifying ways And also in some time encouraging ways because the political has forward that had been opened up are kind of much more radical than would have seemed possible. I'm just a few months ago. And if you know like climate change the faster we had take action to sort of choke this off at the start the better off the world will be. I think there are a lot of Lessons like that to learn from this dipping going forward although on the other hand I also wonder worry that you know by the time through this crisis. We're going to be so exhausted. emotionally politically. And you know in terms of littoral capital that we may not have the appetite to undertake the kind of large-scale transformative investments. We need to really get a handle on climate change so I can read it both as a kind of encouraging story for climate activism in the sense that so much more steam as possible now than than seemed possible. A few weeks ago in the world is acting incredible. Spirit of solidarity. I'm for the time being but it's also the case that this is already a kind of an unprecedented rapid challenge and if we have to deal with another interesting challenge right afterward Rocket May that we're GONNA be answering call. Yeah it's it's a very weird I mean this is obviously a very weird time. But it's also very strange insofar as that like and maybe this is just a function of my job but I. I'm always trying to sort of like you know. Plant a flag in terms of Assessing where we're at but it but that seems to be very difficult to do both in terms of where we're at with the with the virus but also like where we're at in terms of the way that we're all gonNa respond to this like you know. I was just thinking to myself as you're saying like well and and and frankly.

Sam Cedar David Wallace Wells New York magazine deputy editor China Moore
"wallace wells" Discussed on Climate 2020

Climate 2020

06:46 min | 11 months ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on Climate 2020

"We don't have an authority that we trust on this issue but many others as well. And that means that people try to build their own understanding of the world that they are motivated especially in times of crisis to find their way to relatively palatable worldviews Relatively palatable sense of what's going on and what's necessary and especially in a time of you know real intense partisanship and tribalisation Also often are pushing themselves to see things as the leaders of their preferred party. See them and that really distorts any effort to have a kind of collective Plan but also a shared understanding of the crisis that we're dealing with. And the result of that I think is a lot of especially on the Internet and social media a lot of quite well would have once been marginalized the fringes of our intellectual culture ideas You know taking hold and Forming the basis of not. Just the sort of you know casual worldview of casual observers but forming the basis of a kind of information warfare In which people are trying to dismiss those who have different views and advance their own More comfortable ones I think to some degree. Intellectual combativeness is useful. I think there there are certainly reasons to believe that if Oliver information about the corona virus was coming from a single centralized source There will be problems without too early. We've seen many of those problems. Emerging from from China which operates information only in in quite that way In which much of the day that we got early on with this disease misleading much of the rest of the world's formed A set of expectations about the Z. Is on the basis of the data and Scramble when it turned out not to be entirely true on the other hand you know. I don't want to sound like too much of a nostalgic but I do think that Is One of the great tragedies of our age that When that since we none of us can trust any single authority that everyone is empowered to make their reality even on something that is as Vividly illustrated in the real world as a pandemic. Yeah you know I should have said in characterizing those those those hundreds of letters to New York magazine that they kind of span the spectrum from from from senior as kind of prophetic to others. That saw you as a kind of a crank and A tool and Someone who is an alarmist? And why don't you just kinda chill out because Okay this May Affect New Yorkers. It doesn't affect the vast number of people in this country. That's that's it wasn't that there were responded that there were lots of Responses that had a different slightly different. Acre that asked a question. They were lined up very ideologically. Well that's just a reflection of our political culture and not just our political culture but the way that our culture as a whole has become politicized culture But I would say you know one of the unfortunate things have going through a crisis like this is that we we have one of the A Piston logically unfortunate things about going through a crisis like this is that we only have a case study of one and if we deal relatively well with the problem then it looks like the problem. Wasn't that big to begin with this. Is You know one of the false lessons of the Y2K panic Is that? We didn't really need to worry all that much about it at all. But the reason we didn't end up having to worry about it much at all was that there were hundreds of thousands of people all around the world who devoted many months of glass to fixing the problematic time in a mostly uncoordinated but still basically directionally coordinated effort You know with a the pandemic think there. There were some problems with the early models. I think probably some of them were a little too Pessimistic and didn't account for the kind of measures that were ultimately taken and as a result. The numbers were a little bit higher than they should have been. But even if you take the low end estimates you know the Imperial College report. That was a major event in changing both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump's thinking said that even with relatively aggressive mitigation measures In the US we would probably see one million Americans die now. It looks likely now. Most epidemiologists would say that we're looking at a death toll in the tens of thousands. I think even kind of Pessimistic forecast would be still in the hundreds of thousands not in the not approaching a million and I think that's ultimately a sign of how much we've done and how quickly and aggressively we've acted with this shutdown but it's already being used to discredit the expertise of people who have been proposed these numbers in the first place And I think that's deeply unfortunate. I think the lesson that the right wing takes from this crisis is that we never needed to worry about it in the first place really. That's that's backwards Obviously the lesson is we need to be worrying about it more than we should have. And if we had taken the kind of urgent action that someone who had been a little more alarmist about it frankly would've taken in January or so. We wouldn't have had to go into the kind of extreme measures that we've taken today With those were made necessary by inaction produced by complacency and that is ultimately from the same moral of the story as As lies behind the climate change parable. You know if we if we moved faster sooner we'd be in a much better position if we wait to see just how bad things could get. It'll probably be already too bad to avoid the worst outcomes and You know at least some of those worst outcomes so I think My hope is that current virus teaches us to be to be More forward thinking in dealing with existential global climate change. But I worry that the same things that have corrupted on planning and public policy around climate change Are are just going to be you know recreated again in the aftermath abuse epidemic. Hey Man thank you so much for spending time with us. Today's was really important stuff. Thank you. It's great to be here to be talking about this. Climate Twenty is produced in association with Years Project in.

New York magazine China Imperial College Oliver Acre Boris Johnson US Donald Trump
"wallace wells" Discussed on Climate 2020

Climate 2020

12:45 min | 11 months ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on Climate 2020

"This is one of the points in the book that I think is more useful as a kind of hyperbolic illustration than as a statement of Real direct growing threat. But the truth is that there are frozen in Arctic. Ice Now Many many bacteria and viruses some of which have been frozen there since before humans had even evolved which means that humans have absolutely no immune You know sort of trained immune response against them and some of these have already begun to emerge from Thong Arctic ice Some of them have been reanimated. Labs and most scientists believe that it requires in general quite closely monitored lab conditions to really reanimate viruses. That had been frozen for millions of years but we have At least one instance of a anthrax outbreak that occurred in Russia into seventeen. I believe Maybe two dozen fifteen. Sorry and in which you know. The carcasses are frozen reindeer which had been frozen in Siberian permafrost. For about a century began to melts and the reindeer carcasses were exposed an anthrax which killed those reindeer emerged into the air Infecting a huge herd of Local reindeer killing many of them and actually traveling and inspecting A number of humans including one Russian boy who died of anthrax result. Now again like. I don't WanNa say that you know at three degrees of warming when you know when when all the ice melts there. Were going to be swimming in all of these ancient diseases. And they're going to be the biggest Public Health problem that we face I think is probably going to be relatively small challenge To deal with what's coming out of the ice but I think it illustrates just how dramatically the entire landscape of public health will be transformed by warming And the Truth. Is You know we anywhere you look on the globe they're gonNA be Effects Impacts That are almost scary. If not more scary so tropical diseases that we used to sort of you know Think we're Trop trapped in the tropics and wouldn't travel beyond The ecological footprint of particular kinds of mosquitoes are now going to be carried as far north as the Arctic circle in just a few decades so that's malaria dengue There these these diseases which used to be geographically. Limited are now going to become global and again. It's not the kind of thing that we don't know how to protect against at all but many of these cities many of these public health cultures arose without any sense of you know without any direct with these diseases and all which means we're going to have to We're GONNA have to risk sort of on the fly. There's also you know the the The fact that we're seeing you know it's a little unclear. Exactly what the origin of the krona virus really was I think this sort of help account is probably the right one. Though that it it emerged from From bats in southern China. And you know the truth. Is that the more that we deforest the more that we destabilize. Our ecosystems and habitats the more viruses are going to emerge from what had been previously stable Natural Systems now that can happen because of human action independent of global warming if you cut down a forest to build a a farm. That's not exactly a you know. An action of climate change on but it can also happen because of climate change because ecosystems are transformed by the temperature changes and associated whether patterns being transformed and that goes not just for the natural systems in the outside world. It also goes for the natural systems inside all of us in the thing that actually I write about in the book that scares me. The most is not about humans up the public health human health few months. This story of this particular antelope species the SAIGA antelope which is an amazing story. Yeah so this is an animal that you know comfortably. Like most animals on the planet had comfortably lived in a particular way For many millions of years and Then in the space of a single hot humid summer Basically went entirely extinct because the slight temperature right. It was an unusually hot and humid summer. That slight temperature rise transform. The behavior of one of the bacteria in the antelopes digestive track and that bacteria had been previously either sort of a helpful bit of bacteria helping digest food or at least one that didn't pose a threat to the health of the of the animal as a whole for this transfer this Temperature change and the humidity change. Sort of rewired. Its behavior so that it became Essentially a toxic force within within the body of the antelope and it didn't just kill one one answer open. Just kill forty. Antelopes kills basically the entire species. And we know from from research human biology that each of US contains You know millions even billions of bacteria and viruses. Some of which help us do everything that we do and others of which are sort of just lying there dormant. I don't think all of those are going to be rewired by small temperature change but both the chance that Some of them could be Changed a little is quite high and we don't even have to get all the way to like the bacteria inside. You was going to kill you for it to be really problematic because it meaningfully changes our the ability of Arja digestive tracts do their work or anything of any of the other things that we know that the the Gut microbiome now helps us with. Which is you know. Depression anxiety mood regulation. It's related to schizophrenia. And many other Mental Health Issues in addition to physical health issues we could be dealing with a very very serious Public Health crisis in relatively short order. But you know when I think about the Toronto virus. The thing that I'm most interested in is the body of research that has come out even just since the epidemic has started about how much worse air pollution makes makes their susceptibility to the cove. Nineteen and it can make you can make it as much as fifteen percent more more lethal If you're living in an environment that is has a lot of air pollution and I think that is what your lungs and where your lungs have already been affected by pollute right exactly and I think this is one of the you know. One of the Big Subjects for those Worrying about climate change that I think hasn't gotten enough airtime so to speak. Which is how air pollution which is not precisely an impact of climate change but is primarily produced by the same thing that produces climate change the burning fossil fuels. How much of our Our physical health and mental health is affected by by evolution. The bottom line number the lance at the sort of Sterling British Medical Journal says that nine million people are dying every year from air pollution. But even short of those people that are dying your C effects on Karner disease and cancers of all kinds and You know respiratory disease and low birth weight and premature birth in children and the development of children You know all the way through all the mental health issues. Adhd autism. I'm just about any affliction that you could possibly imagine is made such significantly worse by air pollution and you know if we if we could solve climate change would happily solve those issues as well. Let me turn to the piece that you wrote for New York magazine called There is no plan to end the corona virus crisis. I'm sure you get some pushback from trump and the CDC about that What's your case at? The government doesn't have a plan. Why think just maybe this morning our last night released some preliminary sketch but the truth is you know we should have had a kind of outline place at the very least when we began the lockdowns. The we've entered into and I would say you know practically speaking realistically. We should have started thinking about this very hard as soon as early. January when when the epidemic first broke out in China. And that's why it's so shocking and dismaying that there was so little early action Especially by the federal government in the US. But again I would say really at every level of government and down through You know directors of hospitals and health networks Who did very little preparatory work on this until at the very earliest mid February which which point we had lost at least six weeks possible action to to start to ramp things up famously. Trump didn't invoke the defense production act until MID-MARCH And hasn't really used it actually since then That tool was available to him at any point It certainly would have been available to him in mid-january And if we had started those kinds of Policy changes then. We'll be in a much. We'd be much farther along this production path that would allow us to To sort of implement a mass testing regimen which at the moment still seems quite far away. Because we haven't started to manufacture this test that the scale we need. We haven't started to manufacturer even like the little pipe. Pets that or the swabs. We haven't started to hire the people who would do those tests in fact the federal government just announced last week that they would stop funding Any testing sites and that would have to fall to the states which is on a special special kind of grotesque Move because you know. The federal government can do deficit spending most states can't and because of the TAX SHORTFALL ABOUT TO Z. Are All about to go broke. So if trump and the rest of the federal government saying this is the responsibility of the states in will get no federal support. It's a lot lot harder For states to come up with the resources to to build that kind of infrastructure than it is possible for the federal government to do it. And that's why I wrote before the there is no plan. B Sarah Apiece in Late February The headline was just. America is broken and This was This was you know summing-up sort of all of this All of this that I've been talking about for the last few minutes which is to say there was really no Empowered expertise in which public health decisions were being made by people who were concerned about the well-being of population as a whole at nearly every at nearly any level of Of American government for several months while we knew this was a real issue. Now since I wrote that piece I've actually grown a little more sympathetic to the American response in the sense that I think when you look around the world especially around the countries we think of as our Our sort of You know fear appears in Europe Hardly anybody has done much better than the. Us has on any of these questions. Germany's done a bit better. But but they're basically alone and you can't really hold them up as exemplary either because you know they still have had a number of infection the number of deaths which means I think ultimately this challenge may be a lot harder than at least I was saying at the outset on the other hand. I do think that the fact that you know trump disbanded You know unseeded eliminated the seat on the National Security Council devote. Its pandemic response. Didn't really pay attention to this crisis until late. February really the earliest and didn't start to Meaningfully engaged with it until the middle of is a real crime when you look at. Just what the statistical epidemiology says you know the difference of a week or two weeks can make all the difference. If China had taken action three weeks earlier it was possible that they would have avoided ninety. Five percent of all of the cases that arose in China and as a result could have conceivably stopped this transmission around the world the same basically true of the curves of transmission in the US where if New York had acted on one or two weeks earlier we could cut our The number of cases we had today in half on war and of course that's true at the federal level as well. Yep for all of those months where the opportunity was there to take meaningful action and begin to prep for what would happen after. The outbreak arrived when we need much more aggressive testing. The federal government did absolutely none of that in fact chose to Sort of diminishing and minimize those who were even raising the alarm because so many other countries haven't been exemplary either. I think it is a fair question to ask whether those of us who were pulled by a donald trump are being a little too hard on his management of the virus. Who'd.

federal government China US donald trump trump anthrax Thong Arctic Russia malaria Toronto Adhd New York magazine Trop Europe Germany
"wallace wells" Discussed on Climate 2020

Climate 2020

14:29 min | 11 months ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on Climate 2020

"The New York had acted one or two weeks earlier. We could have cut our The number of cases we had today in half on war and of course that's true at the federal level as well. Yep For all those months where the opportunity was there to take meaningful action and begin to prep for what would happen after. The outbreak arrived when we need much more aggressive testing. You know the federal government did absolutely none of that in fact chose to diminish minimize those who were even raising the alarm and this is climate twenty twenty a podcast about climate change in the twenty twenty election. I'm David Gilbert the Climate Media Company Years Project. And this week. We have a bonus episode for our listeners. Earlier this week I sat down with David.

David Gilbert federal government New York
"wallace wells" Discussed on Drilled

Drilled

01:30 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on Drilled

"Welcome to hot. Take the podcast where we talk about storytelling in the face of the greatest story of all time climate change. I'm Amy Westervelt am mary-anne and we're so glad to be back with you in earner. I'm so glad to be back together for this show. I'm I you know I floundered I floundered without you did and blonder without you. Yeah and this episode. We're going to be joined by David. Wallace Wells who is the deputy editor and New York magazine and the author of the Uninhabitable Earth? Both the article and the book. And we're really glad to have him here with us. It was great to talk to him. I feel like he was the perfect person to have on amidst all the corona virus. Stuff too yeah exactly. So we didn't actually even wearing the same city. David and I didn't do this. And the studio together. We had to do it by a Social Justin. Oh my God I need this shitty in so fast and yeah yeah. became confession. I always whenever I see David initials. I always want to call him. Dr Queens this is. Wwe grew up in the ninety s at all. You remember the cartoon Dark Green Dot.

David Amy Westervelt Wwe Wallace Wells deputy editor Dr Queens New York magazine
"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

06:49 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Can you using the technology we have get us on track with? Ipc can we cut emissions by forty five percent in twelve years? I would say twelve years a little optimistic but it's not hugely optimistic. Existing giving twenty nineteen existing technology. Yeah this is just this is a this is a little bit of a misleading anecdote. But I think it's helpful to illustrate it so there is now technology to take out of the atmosphere called. Carbon capture hasn't been deployed at scale. But it has been tested in laboratories and we can take carbon out of the atmosphere at a cost of about one hundred dollars tonne where we put it whereas it go the ground. That's the problem we get this but yeah so one hundred ten. That means we could completely neutralize the entire carbon footprint of the global economy for the cost of about three trillion dollars a year. Three trillion dollars is a lot of money. But we're subsidizing the fossil fuel business by some estimates as much as five trillion dollars year. So we just redirected those subsidies to those solutions we could in some theoretical way have solved the problem already without even disturbing our economy at all. Now the question you raise is a really important one. In order to like store this carbon would require they say an infrastructure two to three times the size of the existing oil and gas industry and we would have to build it and where it would be stored in by whom next to whose houses and there'd be Nimby ISM and all that complicated problems but the first thing I would do as global dictator would just be to end fossil fuel subsidies. There's no reason why we should be propping up. These businesses their massive investments to be made in green energy with the same money and in fact in many parts of the world. Green energy is already cheaper than dirty energy. It's just that those companies are more powerful now. They have incumbency advantage totally. The energy problem is actually the simplest one to solve because green energy is doing so well in that is in part because of the investments that the Obama Administration made during the stimulus package that was really consequential so that the gains made in green energy are much faster than even its advocates would have predicted twenty five years ago but the bad news on that is that we have not changed the proportion of clean energy dirty energy over the last forty years. So we've made this unbelievable progress were green. Energy is way cheaper than it ever thought was possible and yet. We've just responded to that news by growing capacity with it rather than retiring dirty. Nasa's so I think there needs to be much stronger national or international push to aggressively retire dirty energy not just subsidize and invest in Green Energy. And I think probably that will mean things in relatively short order like banning new inter internal combustion engines. I think we need to Banning NEW INTERNAL COMBUSTION CITIES IN EUROPE. That are car free. I think this is just like one. Step down that path and I think that we will see in this way the kind of God damnit liberal. Wow Wow the real problem. We're we're sitting here. I should say that were part of the subjects. Were sitting. Here at this. In these microphones at the with pod studios which are luxurious beyond your pasta imagining. It happens to be the day that Michael Cohen Testified for Government Oversight Committee and so fresh in my mind is the performance of various members of that committee. And so I'm running all this through the like the Mark Meadows Test Mark Meadows being North Carolina Republican congressman. Who's particularly outspoken? Today in his defense the president just like Mark Meadows on combustion engine which sort of brings us to I mean. I'm getting ahead of ourselves but I just keep like there's the technical question. Yeah and then I think like a Mark Meadows. What's what's Mark Meadows GonNa do at Bam you internal combustion engine like not to mention you know. Donald Trump and James inhofe. I mean it's bleak but there are also reasons for despair on the technical side of things so good okay. I'm glad we got the infrastructure. If cement were country it would be the world's third-biggest amid her and China's now China's now pouring cement every three years than the US port in the entire twentieth century. They're building all new infrastructure of ASIAN AFRICA WITH THAT CEMENT. That's not even counted in their carbon footprint. China's carbon footprint is actually significant. All the stuff. They're doing velzen road. Which is the huge Trans Easy Attic Infrastructure Development? They're doing and then all the development they're doing particularly sub Saharan Africa which is enormous mind boggling. I mean they're really making a play in the same way that the US did with say the Suez Canal and to be the world's empire for the next century. And I think it's a sort of them. Yeah it's weird. I you know I felt growing up. I was like okay China. Maybe they'll surpass the US but it would mean becoming more like the US and now we're seeing a China that is Now not that way at all. So there's there's infrastructure is really problematic. Agriculture is really problematic on the other hand. There are also some technical solutions so we hear a lot about beef-eating and how bad that is for the planet. But they're small studies that show that you feed Cattle Seaweed. Their methane emissions could fall by ninety five or ninety nine percent so we fed all of our beef seaweed conceivably we could completely eliminate the carbon problem of eating beef. And that's that's that to me. That sounds like the setup for late night joke. Yeah that's I think the world that we're entering into the contours of our existence will be so transformed by this that anytime we contemplated it seems eerie and funny strange. But that's the world that we're entering totally. I mean I'm very pro feeding seaweed that they've far less yeah purpose ceremony. Puerto yes But but that to me that illustrates the thing about Personal responsibility policy. Because you know I could eat. Fewer hamburgers impact is trivial right. And you can't stop China from pouring concrete throughout the entire Asian continent profound way. I think it's it's unfortunate but in a really profound way. The future climate of the planet will be determined by China slightly lesser extent India and sub Saharan Africa. But China is really the main driver here the. Us is the biggest historical emitter. But at the moment we're only responsible for about fifteen percent of emissions while we're up last year were on a downward trend. That trend will continue not fast enough but I think it will continue regardless of policy but China is a very different trajectory and to the extent that we're considering warming three or four degrees the century it will be. It will be the result of China's response to people that. Make the argument because it. It's it's amazing to watch. The ways in which the arguments against climate action have just hopped all over the place very very long time. It was like no the sciences wrong. No we're actually in an ICE age. No SCIENTISTS IN THE UK at East. Anglia were faking their research. No the hockey stick doesn't exist. We're not actually warming. No carbon isn't a real substance. I don't know all sorts of nonsense. Carbon good for good verbiage that basically is essentially all gone by the wayside. I mean there's still some of it but in in in in sort of mainstream political particularly.

China Green Energy US Mark Meadows Ipc EUROPE hockey Nasa Saharan Africa Donald Trump North Carolina Suez Canal pod studios AFRICA
"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

10:57 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Total collapse of civilization. I think that we will endure but I think it will be an enormous amount of suffering that we will be dealing with in some ways trying to process through resettlement and that kind of thing but we will also just ignore it. And that is the outcome. I want to avoid if we can. Do you think it will be the case I think? Sometimes when I read I read a lot of like American history. And and it's it's really interesting when you go back and read stuff you know. Eighteen fifteen twenty thirty forty. There's a sort of sense in which you're like how they talk about slavery all the time but the but anytime they're not talking about your your kind of like guys. Let's get back on the label. How how is everyone just going along like this is obviously how? How is you know? Well we gotta do this about the is that your conception of how history will understand this moment in one hundred years absolutely. I don't think there's really any arguing with that. You know. We forged a global international order after World War. Two that was built on principles of human rights and peace and prosperity. I think the twenty first century global political order will be built around carbon and climate. Change when you see. Nba Sang that. He doesn't think that the Saudi economy could be oil-dependent by two thousand fifty. He has to get it off oil by then to me. That's I mean he's a grotesque figure but that's wisdom. He understands that at that point. It won't be possible to be continuing to produce and burn oil in the way. The Arabia does and still expect a seat at the table of nations. That'll be out of the question and I think similarly our national politics will be transformed the way that we buy food and eat. I mentioned in the book. I think it won't be surprising in the supermarket where you start to see. This food is carbon free in the same way that you're now seeing it as organic and people will orient their lifestyle choices along those axes. I also have a bit of a rant. That lifestyle choices are a distraction from politics. Which is the real solution. But there's no aspect of life going forward. That will be unaffected by this and to me more important than the alarming science that I present in the book is the humanistic inquiry. Which is what will this do to how we organize our lives and our societies and what will it mean to be living under the shadow of climate change and seeing the world degrade well immune for our sense of our place in nature and history our obligation to one another? If we're living in in England relatively well off what do we owe the people in India in Bangladesh? Who are suffering so much former colonies of an empire that was built on fossil fuel. What is the relationship of un-american to the Saudis who can't go to Mecca because it's too hot when we made that country extract that oil as a kind of client state of ours and as a result completely destroyed its environment? Those changes are coming for us to think it will be able to escape them in the US and the UK. For instance. But the question of climate reparations I think will be a major subject in the coming century. Who's going to build the seawalls? And where do we decide where the sea walls will be built and where they won't be built I was talking to a really prominent climate scientists A few months ago who was one of the leaders of the last report and has been doing a lot of consulting work in New York City where he lives and he was saying so. I said Oh. We're going to build a wall in New York and he said Oh of course. We'll build a seawall manorial estates way too expensive to lose but those kinds of projects. You look at like the subway. It takes thirty years if we started now. He said we couldn't build it fast enough to save parts of Howard. Beach South Brooklyn Queens. He said the city knows this. And you're GONNA start seeing them stopping infrastructure repair not doing work on the subway lines and even telling those residents explicitly. You might be able to live here for another twenty years but you're not going to be able to leave this house for your kids. This is in New York City and this is a conversation that like the early. Yeah parts of New York City that the city sort of already knows in his long-term planning are going to have to be essentially abandoned back to the sea. Yeah he said You know if you look at the The map of Long Island's the cemetery is that are in. You know in Brooklyn and Queens. They basically they trace a particular geological line all the way out to the middle of the forks at the end of Long Island. That's the highest point on the island and he was like basically everything south of there. And maybe that'll take centuries maybe it'll take decades but the ice melt is inevitable at that scale and that means that long island will be a shell of its former self and this is not a freaky guy. This is not a you know. This is not a guy on the fringe this. He was one of the lead author of the last. Ipc assessment and when you talk to climate scientists privately. These are the terms that they talk in that it will completely reshape the map of the world by which I mean the literal physical map but also the psychological map how we organize our politics all that stuff and then you meet some people who are even crazier that who say well. We'll be extinct in ten years but this is not. I'm certainly not one of those people and write is not one of those people. I was thinking about this in the context of of World War Two and the fact that the US was paralyzed in the run-up to the war. Over action or inaction there were factions in the country. That were pulling for. Both people were mad at Roosevelt for essentially pulling US door and lend lease and even if things were mobilizing the direction of US involvement in world to the argument gets settled by Pearl Harbor. I wonder if there's an analogy there. The climate level is there something so big so so shocking so cataclysmic so seismic that it takes. What is the current kind? You know again the debates moving in the right direction but too slowly and it's still kind of like ossified is is that ultimately what does it. I think it'll be an accretion of events rather than a single event but I think that the phenomenon that's been most powerful is the wildfires. There's been a huge movement against plastic pollution. Which is also think. Basically distraction from the climate issue which is much more important. But it's so vivid when you see pictures of the ocean filled with plastic you're like Holy Shit. Holy Fuck this is like just the aesthetics of this is so gross unsightly. Yeah totally clean that up. But carbon is invisible. That's the problem. But wildfires are not invisible and people feel the threat of them really intimately. Something about fire is even more immediate than say hurricanes. I don't live in California. I'm but it I feel the terror of those fires and it's estimated that for every degree a warming fires in the western. Us could quadruple in size. Which means that theoretically we could get fires that are sixty four times worse at the end of the century than they were last year. Sixty four times worse. I think the imagery of that is really powerful. And I think that extreme weather has moved public opinion. You know the sort of gold standard polling on this is the communication survey. They have set. I think seventy three percent of Americans are think global warming is real and and it's happening now seventy percent concerned about it. Those are actually big numbers. Considering how much we process everything we know about the world is Americans through partisan prizms. So if you get seventy percent of Americans who are concerned about it that's really significant. Those are numbers are up fifteen percent since two thousand fifteen and the numbers at apples to oranges polling comparison but it's up eight percent since March. That's really significant movement when you look abroad the climate strikes in Europe extinction rebellion in the UK sunrise. Here and the green new deal. There is rapid political movement. On this question which is really encouraging. Yeah the problem is if we really only have twelve years to have emissions to the worst-case scenarios we need to get started right now and we can't wait for those numbers to creep up any further. There's also the question of just how committed the people who say they're concerned. Arto issue of climate change the flip side of that seventy percent number is that most Americans say they wouldn't pay ten dollars a month to address climate change so they're concerned but they're not that concerned the average American says they'd be willing to pay one median. Contribution is one dollars a month. But there's actually good news on that it used to be the case that the economic conventional wisdom was that action on climate was really expensive and not just in the sense of investment upfront but in the sense of forgoing economic growth. Because you'd have to be choosing not to burn coal for instance and I think that's one of the main reasons we've seen so little climate action global is because that wisdom has held and in fact it's it's a big part of the argument. I mean you see people total domestic. Us politics up all the time. Which is well. Why should we bail out of growth that China India? Or just gonNA screw up right. I think that is actually how trump thinks about it he. I don't think he's a real desire. I think he just thinks there's kind of an advantage for him in slow walking action on climate but all of the new economic research suggests that that logic is totally backward. That it's sort of ugly in the sense that it's mostly a reflection of the fact that we now are estimating the cost of climate change much much higher than we used to but relatively speaking we would be saving a ton of money in fact adding a lot of wealth to the economy very shortly if we took action so a big study in twenty and said that we could add twenty six trillion dollars to the global economy by just twenty thirty through rapid decarbonisation. And that's because the cost of what you're describing laid out in the book when you talk about everything from the habitability of Asian cities in the summer. Two parts of the outer boroughs being underwater to fire sixty four times as bad as they are now all that is economic costs. All of it all that all that you added up together. Enormous economic enormous economic drag and as we put more carbon the atmosphere and the warming gets worse. And what we've already stuffed into the system coming. I gets worse. The cost of all that gets up higher so that the cost of preventing it looks better as an invest also genuine business opportunities builder. Solar Empire now in twenty years ago. But you know I often talk about the economic cost because I think it is like if you have to have a single metric. It's sort of the best summation but it's also deeply misleading in the sense that real estate in Bangladesh is not valued in the same way that the real estate in Miami beaches and so totally especially the cost of global south on the Global South which is makes it all the more remarkable that like India is scheduled to have more than a quarter of all climate impacts in the twenty first century are going to hit India so India is going to be really really devastated and since they're poor you can imagine it's really a much much bigger impact truly than that so there's a kind of technical question political question so let's start with technical question David. Wells wells is made unilateral dictator of the earth with a entirely enthusiastic coordinated group of planetary administrators..

US New York City India Long Island UK Bangladesh Nba New York Mecca England Europe Brooklyn Wells wells Pearl Harbor
"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

06:12 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Yeah and that's why the things that by twenty fifty we're going to have two hundred million. Climate refugees at least in the upper range of that estimate is one billion climate refugees which is many people who live in north and South America combined. I think those numbers are actually exaggerated. I don't think they're going to be that high. But if you keep in mind that the Syrian refugee crisis that totally destabilized European politics one million refugees. It gives you a sense of just. How vulnerable all of our political institutions. All of our intuitions about how the world should work and how stable it should be. We'll be scrambled and deformed by these forces and the refugees are just one aspect at their million. It's almost like well if we just had to deal with sea level rise or if we just had to deal with refugees maybe we could engineer some way out of it but it's everywhere you look. There's a climate impact coming and every one of them is going to undermine the way we live now but that's not to say that. I'm like a decline alarmist. I don't think that Civilizations GonNa Fall Apart. I think civilizations resilient I think you have the urge just crack extremely grim jokes like the way that I react to this kind of thing. It's just like looking for the joke. Yeah well I mean. Everybody has their own psychological coping mechanisms. Right so everybody. All of our reflexes are to not look at the science and stop making me fucking science but I think it's really important to remember that all of these scenarios that I'm talking about I'm not writing a SCI FI novel. I'm not even interesting. These ideas myself. I'm literally summarizing sentence by sentence scientific papers that have been published in the best journals that we have. Yes but and here's where here's the big sort of argument right that you will get not just from sort of climate denials but along sort of spectrum? Is there have been prominent. Scientists have made predictions about apocalyptic levels of doom before they have in. Some cases garnered tremendous concensus political mobilization. The version people always talk about what you talk about in the book is a Paul Ehrlich. Who wrote the population bomb? It was version of an argument. That Thomas Malthus I makes I should note that malthus argument is essentially correct until fossil fuels are discovered right. Mouthpieces argument is essentially that when you have increased prosperity then you get increased population and the increase population eats away the foundations of that prosperity. And you're locked forever in this cycle that you can't break out of and essentially mouth is correct until we figure out fossil fuels. Yeah there's a theory that everything we know of economic growth is just about the discovery of fossil fuels that we would be basically locked into eternal subsistence existence until we discovered. Oh there's this power that's buried in the earth. Let's extracted and Burnett which is just millions of years of the sun's energy it's just been embedded in the ground and lifeforms. I mean it's really like actually it's Fossil's that's why it's called fossil. Which is incredible to think about too. And that's one of the mind. Bending features of this story also is the way that plays with your sense of time so you burn a chunk of coal. You're burning millions of years of earth's stored energy. It's work that you're burning. Took millions of years to build up and then the impact that we're having on the planet we probably only have a decade or two to really avert some real catastrophic impacts but those impacts could unfold over millennia which means it's both extremely fast and unbelievably long if the sea levels rise two hundred sixty feet which is possible if all the ice melts that will take thousands of years. We won't be able to reverse it so five hundred years from now we'll have descendants who are living with an onset of seawater that was unleashed by their ancestors centuries before they will be dealing with engineering problems that we are inventing now but the other argument the other side of that argument. Just sort of finished. The the sort of contention is you know malthus. And then there's there's Ehrlich and throughout history there have been prophets of doom who say that we have an unsustainable path and that right around the corner is grave disaster destruction and EHRLICH's population bomb about overpopulation. And that was an idea with tremendous traction. He was on the tonight show. People started all sorts of organizations people started like forced sterilization did some extremely gnarly ship in pursuit of S. Right he was wrong. And so what? I want you to respond to his people being like your doing it again. This that you have taken all of the science that says the worst case stuff. You sort of aggregated together and you're sort of giving us a modern population bomb well. I don't think that any of the things that I write about in the book are inevitable at all. I think actually when I talk about a lot of these climate horrors. It's really important to keep in mind that they actually reflect how much power we have over the climate if we to four degrees it won't be because of what our grandparents did. It will be because of what you and I in our children do and we can choose to do things differently and not get there. Which makes it a sort of affirmative choice to get all the way to three or four degrees everything about the climate system. I wouldn't say everything. There are things that are outside of our control but the most important input at this stage is how much carbon we put into the atmosphere and that is a choice that we're collectively making we're making it haphazardly with institutions. That aren't focused on the important questions. But it's a human choice. It's not beyond our control and we can avert it. I think we will make some of those choices so that we will avert the worst-case scenarios and I think that we will continue to live even in many ways that people consider as prosperous and happy in the generations ahead. One of the things I'm trying to do in my book is to square these two facts so like if we live in a world that's three degrees warmer and that means fifty times as much flooding in India and Bangladesh Fifty Times as much flooding in the UK It means a major impact on our economic growth. It means significantly more warfare all these things. If those things come to pass and yet people still find themselves living relatively satisfied and fulfilling lives. How does that happen? How is it the case that we can continue going forward with this much suffering and I think this tragic answer is well? We live with a lot of suffering. Now you know one of the facts in the book that grabs people most vividly is as study by this guy named drew shell about the effects of air pollution just between the.

Paul Ehrlich Thomas Malthus South America Bangladesh Fifty Times engineer S. Right India Burnett UK
"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

03:52 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Really change the conditions of life that you and I- conduct in the decades ahead that's the scope it's everywhere and then the third thing is the severity. So scientists often talked about this two degrees Celsius warming threshold as the threshold of catastrophe and will shrink. If we hit that worried about one point one degrees now a lot of suffering the island nations of the world call two degrees genocide. But because we talked about it as this threshold catastrophe it meant that there was really very little storytelling imagination about what life would be like north of two degrees. It was just understood to be something like a worst case scenario and given where we are now having taken basically no action on carbon for all the time that we've known about it as a problem two degrees is basically a best-case scenario worst-case scenario and where we're on track for is four degrees. Actually very little north of four degrees by the end of the century and that range of outcomes was really just up until quite recently not at all disgust by people who are talking about climate science in the public for a number of reasons some of which are noble. Some of which are understandable. Other of which I think are not the public was not given this information what the world would be like a three degrees at four degrees and it's actually a lot worse. I mean every tick upward of temperature will inflict more suffering on the world. It's an obvious point but it's important one because I do think there's this feeling of people think of it is binary totally screwed or were not screwed and I hear people say I even think like well. We're screwed anyway and one of the important things understand that you do in this book is like it's not binary it can literally always get worse. There's parts of the book re talking. About what eight degrees? Look like eight degrees. We're talking about basically like essentially Dante's inferno made real. I mean like literally an uninhabitable Earth or something approximating Earth and. You make the point. That like eight degrees sounds insane. But we've blown through the last thirty years doing nothing. We we clearly have it in us. Yeah I mean just eight degrees. There was a study this week. That showed that if we get to about twelve hundred parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere word about four hundred ten now scientists think about three hundred and fifty s like a safe level. So we're about sixty above that but if we got to twelve hundred which is possible but it's in maybe next century that the effect on clouds would be catastrophic so clouds would just immediately disappear and that alone would add eight degrees Celsius to the planet's temperature that alone that impact alone so the thing about it's not binary it could always get worse. There's there's a lie and how the kind of way that we've talked about. It has been two degrees because it's the benchmark. God we gotta avoid you degrees. That's now the best case scenario. That's what the Paris accords are to try to keep us to to write that. Although the commitments that were actually made in the Paris accords would only get us to about three point two degrees so it says she made a rhetorical commitment to to the pledges that the nation's actually made would only get us three went to and no industrial nation in the world on track to meet those commitments. Not a single one and then so when you think about four degrees again part of this is hard because I think part of the reason this is all hard is because there's like a bunch of really big numbers and then a bunch of really small ones so it's like when you say oh six hundred trillion dollars five hundred million tons of ice and then it's like one degree or two degrees like it's a real challenge for the human mathematical mind to make sense of those numbers but one of the things that stuck out to me in the book one line. There's a line the book that says the last time. The Earth was four degrees above the band. We've in there were palm trees in the Arctic. Yeah that's some that really hammers at home for me. Yeah that's a good mental shortcut from me. Four degrees means palm trees in the Arctic. Well the way that I think of it is climate change will be to the twentieth century. What modernity west of the nineteenth century that it is will be all encompassing all touching and what it means will figure it out along the way exactly.

Arctic Paris
"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

02:59 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Just absolutely being human on this planet in this moment as we face. This challenge together collectively need to listen a one related to in the book and I think he talked about this a little bit in the first article published was your way into this issue. You weren't kind of a lifelong environmentalist. That's not what kind of gets you like. How did you end up getting interested in this topic? I mean as a journalist. I'm a lifelong New Yorker. I've lived here really forever. Always felt like nature was something that happened elsewhere and I didn't live within it and it didn't threaten me and like maybe I'd go on vacation and see it but it was not something that governed any aspect of my life and would certainly not govern the life of my children and grandchildren. Just doesn't exist in your. I grew up in the Bronx on a lifelong New Yorker. Their first of all the whole idea of like camping and hiking is sort of weird. Yes slightly creepy to me. That's changed as I've gotten older but that was my general feeling for a while. Like what do you do there like? There's just so there's trees that's that's not what Zada thing like. Go Play Basketball Court. And I always felt a kind of aesthetic alienated from the Environmentalist Movement. Coachella seemed to me like a lot of people who wore a lot of l being and really loved animals. Yes I mean I yeah I I never had any pets. Growing UP. Side have no love for animals either but Which makes me a kind of a strange environmentalist but I was You know journalist who has been interested in the kind of near future of science and technology for a long time and I was following academic research in a variety of areas Just sort of casually on the side and then starting sometime in two thousand sixteen. I just saw much more alarming research about climate change. I work in New York magazine and looking at the places that I think is like competitors Other newspapers other magazines TV shows. I just didn't see those stories being told really my first impulse was a journalistic which is just. This is a story. This is a huge story. Climate change could be much much worse than most people understand. It's happening much faster than we think. It'll be everywhere. It's not just a matter of sea level but you won't be able to escape it no matter where you live and what that means for how you and I relate to one another what it means for our politics culture storytelling. These are all questions that had not yet even been asked let alone sort of thought through in any concrete way and it just felt like such a large large story and I felt like you needed to be told even just from a narrative from narrative imperative as much as from a scientific perspective or an advocacy perspective. Although those came later what is the distance? Between what is being communicated because people do I mean there's a dearth climate coverage when you consider it in relative size to the importance of it but there's not a dearth in an absolute sense like people do out. There's a fair amount. What is not being communicated. What's.

Environmentalist Movement Bronx Basketball New York
"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

04:57 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Means palm trees in the Arctic. Hello and welcome to wise is happening with me your host Chris Hayes. All right you guys know how much. I like to try new stuff here on the podcast experiment new guests new topics things we haven't done before today's topic that we have done before and it's a topic. I think about a lot. I'm fairly obsessed with. I think the single most important issue we face probably the most important issue in the history civilization and its with a book author of a book that I flew through an incredible book that I'll tell you what about but I'm trying to think about what's the best way to do. The intro for this because the topic itself is so intense in the conversations. You'll hear is probably one of the most. I don't know what's the right word like emotionally intense spiritually intense conversations that we've had it it revolves around some of the most profound questions of what our purpose on. This planet are the brief time that we get to inhabit it. Why why we're here and what we can or can't do during that time. And so I was trying to think about the best way to intro it and then got an email from Brendan McDonald. Who is the Brilliant producer who edits our interviews. And he'll sometimes he'll send an email after taking a passer interviewing edited down with some notes about the intro saying oh you may need to set this upper or you mentioned this but you never say what it is so think about this. I'm just GonNa read a portion of Brennan McDonald's email about this episode that you're about to listen to with David Wallace Wells. He gives me some There's some logistical stuff. And he says now the trickier part which seems both unavoidable impossible to deal with. There is no amount of setup. No amount of rationalization no amount of stating the precise case of why? It all needs to be heard that makes this. An easy lesson is arguably an act of emotional violence to put one's brain nonstop for an hour in stark terms over and over. The causes of global misery are extreme culpability in it and the absence of will to change it. It's easier to do a podcast on that reaction then a podcast with a topic that prompt such a visceral response. I'm obviously not telling you anything you don't know since you approach the topic from these terms several times within the discussion but it's just to say that it doesn't actually diminish the impact as a listener of taking this all in over the course of an hour my feeling is you can just play that as it lays and accept the fact that it may just be too much for some people to hang with for an hour or at the very least acknowledged upfront that. This is a known conundrum. A kind of I feel your pain. Pre-battle for what you're about to listen to so. Are you ready? Out there in gasoline. So that is brand new. Mcdonald's WHO's a really incredible incredibly talented brilliant area. Funny Witty a great writer as you can tell who Who EDITS OUR INTERVIEWS? That's him having listened to author David Wallace. Wells speak about his new book called. The how'd worth the topic of which is what climate change is doing to the Earth. And we'll do the earth with some certainty in the present and very near future. The range of what is possible is enormous but one of the central thrust of the book is. We are under counting. Just how bad it's going to get and how bad it's going to get already baked into the system based on the car and we put in the air and also how bad it could get in the worst case scenario which is something that we might that we humans have control of obviously but may just fail the test. We may not rain in enough to avoid truly genuinely this topic cataclysmic eventualities. That is the topic of the conversation what we are doing. The planet by putting carbon in the atmosphere what we have been doing in the last thirty years since we knew what we were doing our apparent inability to stop ourselves from doing it so far what it will mean for us and our children in the very near future and out into the end of the century and beyond what it means for human life on the planet what it means about humans and human civilization and Human Agency as we look into the vast darkness that is a universe that blinks back at us. Cold unfeeling because there is nothing else out there that we know of like us like what we are doing here on this planet. The one project for life that exists in the vast -ness of the universe that we know of and what we are doing to that project right now as. I speak to you as you hear the words in your ears from my voice. That's the topic of today's conversation. I found it really bracing. I find it kind of beautiful and dark cold and lonely way but it's something it's it's intense as hell and I think it is as important a book because I read in a long time on Earth by David Wells Wells and he is brilliant and incisive and thoughtful and sensitive about all this and is someone that you.

David Wallace Wells Brennan McDonald Brendan McDonald Arctic Chris Hayes David Wallace Human Agency producer writer
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

05:08 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"Devastating, but that gets us back to where we started, which is, I think the likeliest outcome is that we do that we produce those catastrophic outcomes, and we find a way to live with them and to find them as normal. Rather than unconscionable and that maybe the biggest tragedy of the whole story. Indeed. David Wallace wells, the habitable earth, life after warming. Thanks for your time today. Thanks for having me. All right. Folks. There you have it. And. Oh my God. And like the number of deaths that he cited that happened will happen every year because of climate change is just an immense. Immense thing to think about this is what I'm always saying, though. Like I talk about how we need a revolution to progress past capitalism, and impose some sort of central planning that would actually solve the problem. Maybe I mean, like a high percentage of the oil, that's still in the in the ground needs to be left there in order to solve the problem. Does anybody trust corporations under the current paradigm to do that? I don't think so. I don't trust them to do it under capitalism at all. And people say, oh, you say you want a revolution. All revolutions involve at least violence, but look at the violence of the status quo. Look at the violence, that's happening now double the wars, he said like that's something to way. Yeah. I mean I, I think the question is, what is the quickest route? What is the most direct the most direct route to? To mitigating the trajectory were on now. Those all and the, you know, that, that, that is alternately the question if there was a, you know, is it is it quicker to simply say, like? Let's raise taxes and by or nationalize, you know, oil production or cut subsidies and make it just not profitable. You know, one of the things that happened with TransCanada for instance was the pipeline. The thing that really slowed the pipeline was the fact that well prices had dropped so much that simply did not become profitable to take those tar sands. I mean that is the and that had nothing to do with any sort of major structural problems that was just became unprofitable. And there's, there's a multitude of ways in which you can do that. Paul can do that policy can do that, that doesn't necessarily need structural change. You definitely need an apparatus some way in which to have policy. That encompasses as much of the world as possible. I wanna say two quick things I mean, I tend to agree with Jamie on this, in terms of, like structural like I do think you need to not only only question of nationalizing, these companies, you need to reassert that there are certain resources in this world even in some type of social democratic whatever paradigms that are Commons that are not privatized assets, particularly things that both, as you know, I think Norway's got the equation, right in terms of public distribution. You know, something that's just in the ground shouldn't be profited, on slowly by private companies. But then on the other hand, obviously, we literally need to stop drilling. And I think that, you know, one access there's climate, but there's there is also Justice. So somebody like Jerry Brown made some real strides on certain aspects of climate innovation, but not on the Justice dividends. Right. And then the second thing. I would like to say, maybe I'm contradicting myself a little bit here. But what do you mean on the Justice dividend? Well, climate is one area, and there is definitely a path, where at the very least, I, I don't, I think I think, on the drilling and supply side, I think it's very hard to deal with that under capitalism I do. But I certainly think that you could generate new markets and technological innovation. And that's what Jerry Brown was very good at doing. But when it came to, hey, I'm in a poor area and I don't want my town to be frat, you know, other area other or pollution is distributed in different ways. Global warming is going to have this proportion of fact, on, like indigenous communities in Fiji. As an example there. These other, quote unquote, Justice dimensions of this, which, frankly you can skip over in a Dabo, Bloomberg Brown kind of paradigm, right? Like you can cut it missions. You can upgrade the grid, you can change these things and still have a pretty sust. Disregard for a fair amount of the population. So I think that, that's one thing, but I.

David Wallace wells Jerry Brown TransCanada Dabo Bloomberg Brown Paul Jamie Fiji Norway
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

03:42 min | 1 year ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"Going to join the majority of report dot com. On the phone. It is a pleasure to welcome back to the program, David Wallace wells. He is deputy editor at New York magazine and author of the uninhabitable earth life after warming. David, welcome back to the program. Thanks for having me, great to talk to. We smoked you. I guess, maybe it was around October of last year or so. Based on a piece that you had written that was the that makes up in some respects, you know, I guess almost one section of this book, and it was pretty harrowing wanted you to back with the completion of this book, and I have to say, like I wanna start here because literally yesterday, maybe it was two days ago, my daughter, I was telling my daughter, she's gotta eat a little more responsibly, like little less sugar in a little more protein, like it doesn't matter twelve years. We're all gonna be dead. Anyways because climate change, and stormed off, she's teenager. But I also. I I we're all gonna die is basically what I yelled after her. But I mean to a certain extent, she's right about how dire it's going to be relatively soon. And that is what you outlined in the section on the elements of chaos. Right. We like we really haven't come to grips with this sort of practical. Implications of, of what is all, but guaranteed to happen at this point, why would say that both of you are sort of right? I think that it's inevitable that we got some additional amount of warming past where we are already. And we are already living on a planet is hotter than it has ever been in the entire history of humanity. So everything that we know of as human biology as human civilization history as culture, all of those things are dependent on climate conditions, and evolved and developed under climate conditions that no longer hold. And it says, though we've landed on an entirely different planet, and they're going to have to figure out just how many of them will endure in this new climate situation, which is not just different but it's changing even more and we'll change going forward into the future. And some harrowing ways there will be almost inevitably quite a bit more suffering from climate change than we've seen to this point. But I also think it's important personally to, to keep in mind that. We're very far from the kind of scenarios, that would mean you know, the total extinction of human life on the planet. I think the likeliest outcome is that we over the next generation or so produce significantly more human suffering, and simultaneously, find a way to kind of normalize that suffering so that we look away from those who are in most paying and, and justify our own lives in part by considering just how much you know just how intense competition for resources and prosperity has gotten but I think that it would be an ugly outcome and I'd really like it, I really hope that we might find our way to kind of more empathic situation where for instance, we would be moved by the fact that by twenty fifty some of the biggest cities in South Asia, and the Middle East will be made unlivable just by direct heat in summer, which means you can't you wouldn't be able to go outside during the summer months without risking heat. Stroke, and death. These are cities that today hold ten or twelve or fifteen million people. And it's one reason why the UN things that we could have just by twenty fifty have two hundred million climate refugees..

David Wallace wells UN New York magazine South Asia Middle East twelve years two days
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show

The Ezra Klein Show

04:22 min | 2 years ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show

"Wallace wells, David Wallace. Wells, welcome to the podcast. Thanks, so much great to be here and talking to you in particular. I I have to ask David heavy read the famed Dr Seuss story too many Daves. I can't say that I have. But something tells me, I know the meaning I thought that was our anthem. Well, you should check it out. I have I have occasion to think about it quite frequently. My mom tells me that in the in the nursery school where she put me that they were. I think the status there were six kids in my class in four of them were named David. Well, try having a last name like Robert clawing my way up the Google search results, my whole my whole career onto the serious stuff though. So David in terms of at least of climate journalism, you kind of debuted with a bang or came out of nowhere with a bang with a two thousand seventeen New York magazine story called the uninhabitable earth, which is now, of course, the name of the book, you just released as far as I know that was the most read story in New York magazine website history in remains. So as far as I as far as I know it actually it was passed by extra that we published of Michael wolf's, fire and fury. So no longer held holds the title. But you know, close enough. Yeah. Number two. I wanted to get into that piece a little bit later. But I maybe just tell me a little bit about your background and how you ended up covering climate change as your beef. Well, totally by accident is the short answer. I mean, I'm a I'm a journalist. I'm mostly editor. Actually, I don't do a ton of writing. But to the extent that I do right for a number of years. I've been sort of especially interested in the near future of science and technology, and you know, so following that news as best I could reading academe agree. Search, you know, reading some obscure magazines and websites that cover it. And I wasn't especially interested in climate. I'm a lifelong New Yorker and have always thought of myself, as you know, an urban who is living outside of nature and while I was concerned about climate change in theory in the abstract. I always also sort of thought I was conducting my own life outside of its forces and also trusted that. Most of our policy makers and leaders would though the threat was meaningful and large would be able to figure out a way out of it and beginning in about twenty sixteen the stuff that I was reading from new research from academics. And scientists first of all I was just seeing much much more about climate change than I'd seen before it seemed like eighty percent of the news. I was reading from science generally was about climate. And Secondly that it was much more harrowing painting a much bleaker portrait of what was possible over the coming decades than places that I thought of is my competitors. So this is like punching up a little bit. But places like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the New Yorker the Atlantic tended to be talking about the issue. So I saw that there was like a a great divergence between the news as I understood it from climate science and the way that that story was being told in climate journalism, and I responded to that really. As a journalist more than as an environmentalist more than as a advocate. I just felt that there was a story to tell there that the news was getting bleaker by the day. And in a way that actually many scientists were reluctant to talk super forthrightly about to the public because they were worried about what that what's scaring people would would mean and not just that it was darker. But that the story was bigger. And by that, I mean, you know, we had sort of learned through the ninety in the two thousands hearing about climate change in this and that arena that it was mainly an issue of sea level rise. I mean so much of the conversation about climate change is about sea level, and that meant and pole and polar bills, don't forget the polar polar bears. And that meant that if you were off the if you lived off the coast, you could feel like it was going to happen..

David Wallace Wallace wells New York magazine Michael wolf Dr Seuss David New York Times Robert Google editor Washington Post eighty percent
"wallace wells" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show

The Ezra Klein Show

02:27 min | 2 years ago

"wallace wells" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show

"We brought ourselves to the threshold of true climate catastrophe in the time span of a single generation. We now have about the time of a single generation to avoid unimaginable suffering. And we are the ones writing that story. Hello, welcome to the as recline show on the vox media podcast network. I am not as recline. In fact. My name is David Roberts. I may staff writer here at vox, I cover energy and climate change and the politics thereof. Our guest is David Wallace wells, the author of a new book on climate change called the uninhabitable earth life after warming. Hesitate to kick off my podcast career with a moldy cliche. But if you read only one book on global warming make it this book, it is a painful, and sometimes emotional read, I had to put it down a few times walk my dog hug my kids. But every word feels necessary. I loved my conversation with the other David we talked about exactly what it means that climate change is worse than you think. And what's in store for us? We talked about the dark blunt tone of his writing the lack of sort of canned and scripted hope and this sort of tension that's caused among the climate communications and and climate science crowd, and we talked about US climate politics in all their glorious and ongoing dysfunction. And finally, we talked about how. How climate might in the twenty first century shape? Our imaginations our sense of history, our sense of identity, the stories we tell our children about what kind of world they live in. It was as any conversation on this subject. A not always the most uplifting. But it was very interesting. I thought and I think you'll really enjoy it as always you can Email the show at as recline show at vox dot com here without further ado is David.

David vox media David Roberts David Wallace wells US staff writer