You're watching...
'The Skeptical Environmentalist' author Bjorn Lomborg weighs in on the impact of global emissions.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Let's not forget oil and gas however.
First of all check out oil -- -- about not much movement the national average for a gallon of gas down again it we're at 371 it was down just a fraction open eyes.
And this -- this -- cent -- a new report from Citi.
It says that current consumption levels at current consumption levels.
We will exhaust -- current oil was -- worldwide by 2039.
And 37 trillion dollars needs to be invested in energy between now and 2035.
To affect its growth especially in emerging economies hold on a second.
That seems incredible to me out of oil by 2039.
Just so happens that we have a man here and as we've talked about.
-- -- -- lumber the the environment is that we should in the -- He is it what do you make of that.
-- -- -- -- this bizarre I mean we've been predicting running out of oil since nineteen total ten.
When the bureau of mines back then came out and said the world -- me at ten years more.
Of oil and we kept having -- about forty years everyone every year and then maybe fifty years now.
We'll keep having lots of -- because technology actually finds more as we use of the easily access this.
Hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in the northern California -- indeed practice shale absolutely we get the new technologies.
Fracking oil is going to be a big -- we -- frank that all right stay right that you'll struggle was for -- The State Department cents.
About oil from Canada that would head south of the Keystone Pipeline it would contribute what -- Zero point 01%.
Of global emissions in other words virtually nothing.
However actress and an activist Daryl Hannah she was on I'll show this week.
You don't wanna hear about us State Department won't listen us.
Department says that those tar sands contribute zero point 01%.
Of the global -- crumple it up and throw it away that is a piece of garbage that's what you always say that's not true you always say I don't -- -- -- -- -- -- you'll say it's a line that's not true -- Obama lying.
In this case yes.
Behind that your -- -- he still India.
You're reasonable environmentalist.
What is that I think we're dealing here with irrational people opposing the pipeline -- -- yeah.
While fundamentally a lot of people are saying we should cut down.
Are -- -- fossil fuels and I understand that argument I think in the long run that's the way to go but trying to cut off.
The consumption by saying we don't want this pipeline is not like the oil is not gonna go out if anything Canada with -- -- -- -- to British Columbia.
So fundamentally this oil is gonna get out this oil can help our recovery now it can help economic growth now.
What you have to do is not tell people you can't have the oil that you have to make the alternatives better.
If you want to get people -- the dollar.
McDonald's menu and you've got to offer them a better choices very.
You got to offer them healthy food that's actually -- wonderful well.
-- -- ms.
Hannah and her friends think that you are in the pay of the oil companies you're only saying this because.
The oil money rules everything better that conspiracy -- what he said about.
Why I don't know what they would -- who have not paid by -- or anything else.
But listen the reality -- that we're gonna see more and more people using more more fossil fuels especially in the Third World remember there's three billion people.
Who don't have access to the oil and the energy reserves that we have right now -- want to get our -- have a car and everything else so what are we gonna do about this if that they all gonna use all fossil fuels -- to persuade them not to.
What we're not gonna persuade them by saying could you please you know step back and poverty.
The only way we can persuade them this if we can get green and -- -- eventually be so cheap and so effective.
That everyone will want to buy the window when you know none of -- and that's of course why we shouldn't be spending a lot of money on putting up about solar panels and wind turbines one point oh that costs a lot that are intermittent and we don't know.
How to actually make them more efficient.
But we should spend lots of money on research and development to get to 2.0 -- three point -- And eventually will get and it might not be solar -- -- might now be wind turbines but there are lots and lots of ideas out there and some over are gonna be so cheap that eventually will switch -- the public.
-- say that as long as you've got fossil fuels those loans -- relatively cheap we'll keep using it and we will not get to Sola and wind and Hydro and all the rest of it.
Is the reverse of your argument.
What noted they're saying that as long as we don't find cheaper and smarter green energy we won't switch and that's absolutely sure.
But they want to make fossil fuel so expect yes -- do want -- -- that must never gonna work let's look we've tried in the rich world and we've not done.
Course they're not gonna do this and China and India.
And so the reality is we've got to realize just like with everything else it's only technology that's gonna save the -- undergo round the table five seconds -- always going to build the pipeline yes on yes -- we off.
Monica yes we off shelves the proposal unanimity in the it is general -- -- view on.
You know analyst -- -- -- -- everybody does not everybody doesn't if people area Stallone book flexibility I appreciate.
