Dear Nate, I have enjoyed a fair number of your conversations and you have had some amazing guests with all sorts of perspectives. We all have our own prejudices and particular interests, but for me, this one was especially enthralling. Your videos demonstrate that it is still possible in this noisy and fractious world to listen to and comment on a wide range of others' views, with courtesy.
The sole purpose of extracting and burning oil is to support the massive human overpopulation /overconsumption of our planet destroying species, including the 100M barrels currently being pumped out/fracked out of the ground now. As we are now 3,000 times more populous than were our ancestral Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist clans/bands, we have become alienated from the natural environment, which can no longer sustain us, as we pollute and destroy the very planet we so depend on. There is NO good use for the 100M barrels of oil we pump/frack a day of oil in a healthy biosphere. Climate collapse is coming for us and we so deserve it.
Oil is a wonderful, precious substance. Used rationally, it could have vastly improved lives without consequent overpopulation and destruction of the natural world. Sadly, we are a clever species, not a rational one.
I really enjoyed this conversation, equally for the point-counter point and the wary decorum evinced by both participants. Thank you Nate! The substance of Mr. Tinker's arguments seem to echo those of Vaclav Smil - see The Way the World Works. Smil's conclusions however are not contaminated by either the techno-determinism or the optimism that apparently keep Mr. Tinker energized and hopeful. I do agree with Tinker that any energy future has to be an all options future - it is simply unrealistic and foolish to put all eggs in one basket. I objected most to his cherry picking of a single chart from the AR6 IPCC report to argue that in fact climate chaos is farther off than the alarmist voices would have it. Tinker derides climate scientists for playing fast and loose on the terrain of energy experts - and then wants us to entertain his unique petro-geologist's interpretation of AR6? Unbelievable! Nate, you let him off the hook there. Notably, he had little to say about natural systems and the limits imposed by carrying capacity. Instead he returned repeatedly to Accelerationism - an argument that suggests that cornucopia awaits humanity if only we can lift everyone everywhere up to the lifestyles of the developed world. I agree with Nate, that way lies disaster. Largely absent was any notice of how capitalism and its energy-tied-to growth addiction requires a periphery from which surplus can be scraped and exploited. Near the end, in a final plea for acceleration, Tinker does remark with some alarm how the widening gulf between rich and poor might lead to revolution. Perhaps Tinker really does think that petro-capitalists and their shareholders are concerned about improving lives in NIgeria, in Vietnam, in Ecuador. My money is on revolution.
I just listened to about a third of your interview with Scott Tinker but couldn’t stomach his nervous explanations. No doubt he speaks mostly truths but just the fact that he laughed after you described petroleum in the ground as ancient sunlight shows how little he cares for what he is ultimately supporting. What I could glean from as much as I listened to, his brain likes to operate out of his left hemisphere and doesn’t feel comfortable adding in the wisdom of his right hemisphere in considering what is actually happening to our earth as a consequence of drilling and extracting ancient sunlight.
Hi. I think you needed to listen to the end. Scott used that term later and I think his laugh was because it was not a way he had thought about it before.
The discussion the Scott Tinker was very good, but in the end somewhat disappointing. The aspects of externalized costs of energy, other than a too brief discussion of climate change, and embodied energy, especially with regard to nuclear power, were totally ignored. You cannot have a good discussion about energy if you do not address these costs. Dr. Tinker did with solar and wind very briefly, but the damage from drilling was ignored entirely, and the damage from nuclear waste was neglected. Therefore it is hard to accept his optimistic conclusion. I would love to have him come back for further discussion that includes these two aspects of all energy forms. Plus he rather flippantly ignored the fact that once solar or wind are installed, there are no fuel costs and not externalized costs of pollution. If done correction solar has minimal landscape cost - thinking agrivoltaics, solar on buildings, solar over canals, on reservoirs, and further options. Finally, the IPCC has always underestimated the impact of climate change because of the need for consensus, so the continually must reevaluate their conclusions from previous reports saying it is worse than we thought. They are not the best source for climate information because of that drive for consensus.
That was very interesting. It explained why America under Trump will drill baby drill. I note too Nate your frustration with an at times counter view. I was surprised with your view that the west can have a simpler life but the other half of the human planet won't be able to have what we have had or will even have what we will have to settle for.
Dear Nate, I have enjoyed a fair number of your conversations and you have had some amazing guests with all sorts of perspectives. We all have our own prejudices and particular interests, but for me, this one was especially enthralling. Your videos demonstrate that it is still possible in this noisy and fractious world to listen to and comment on a wide range of others' views, with courtesy.
Thanks Iain!
The sole purpose of extracting and burning oil is to support the massive human overpopulation /overconsumption of our planet destroying species, including the 100M barrels currently being pumped out/fracked out of the ground now. As we are now 3,000 times more populous than were our ancestral Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist clans/bands, we have become alienated from the natural environment, which can no longer sustain us, as we pollute and destroy the very planet we so depend on. There is NO good use for the 100M barrels of oil we pump/frack a day of oil in a healthy biosphere. Climate collapse is coming for us and we so deserve it.
Oil is a wonderful, precious substance. Used rationally, it could have vastly improved lives without consequent overpopulation and destruction of the natural world. Sadly, we are a clever species, not a rational one.
I really enjoyed this conversation, equally for the point-counter point and the wary decorum evinced by both participants. Thank you Nate! The substance of Mr. Tinker's arguments seem to echo those of Vaclav Smil - see The Way the World Works. Smil's conclusions however are not contaminated by either the techno-determinism or the optimism that apparently keep Mr. Tinker energized and hopeful. I do agree with Tinker that any energy future has to be an all options future - it is simply unrealistic and foolish to put all eggs in one basket. I objected most to his cherry picking of a single chart from the AR6 IPCC report to argue that in fact climate chaos is farther off than the alarmist voices would have it. Tinker derides climate scientists for playing fast and loose on the terrain of energy experts - and then wants us to entertain his unique petro-geologist's interpretation of AR6? Unbelievable! Nate, you let him off the hook there. Notably, he had little to say about natural systems and the limits imposed by carrying capacity. Instead he returned repeatedly to Accelerationism - an argument that suggests that cornucopia awaits humanity if only we can lift everyone everywhere up to the lifestyles of the developed world. I agree with Nate, that way lies disaster. Largely absent was any notice of how capitalism and its energy-tied-to growth addiction requires a periphery from which surplus can be scraped and exploited. Near the end, in a final plea for acceleration, Tinker does remark with some alarm how the widening gulf between rich and poor might lead to revolution. Perhaps Tinker really does think that petro-capitalists and their shareholders are concerned about improving lives in NIgeria, in Vietnam, in Ecuador. My money is on revolution.
I just listened to about a third of your interview with Scott Tinker but couldn’t stomach his nervous explanations. No doubt he speaks mostly truths but just the fact that he laughed after you described petroleum in the ground as ancient sunlight shows how little he cares for what he is ultimately supporting. What I could glean from as much as I listened to, his brain likes to operate out of his left hemisphere and doesn’t feel comfortable adding in the wisdom of his right hemisphere in considering what is actually happening to our earth as a consequence of drilling and extracting ancient sunlight.
Hi. I think you needed to listen to the end. Scott used that term later and I think his laugh was because it was not a way he had thought about it before.
OK, I’ll try to listen to it to the end, thanks.
Took us to listen in two halves. It gave me an understanding of why china is a green leader and why the US will mainly focus on oil.
The discussion the Scott Tinker was very good, but in the end somewhat disappointing. The aspects of externalized costs of energy, other than a too brief discussion of climate change, and embodied energy, especially with regard to nuclear power, were totally ignored. You cannot have a good discussion about energy if you do not address these costs. Dr. Tinker did with solar and wind very briefly, but the damage from drilling was ignored entirely, and the damage from nuclear waste was neglected. Therefore it is hard to accept his optimistic conclusion. I would love to have him come back for further discussion that includes these two aspects of all energy forms. Plus he rather flippantly ignored the fact that once solar or wind are installed, there are no fuel costs and not externalized costs of pollution. If done correction solar has minimal landscape cost - thinking agrivoltaics, solar on buildings, solar over canals, on reservoirs, and further options. Finally, the IPCC has always underestimated the impact of climate change because of the need for consensus, so the continually must reevaluate their conclusions from previous reports saying it is worse than we thought. They are not the best source for climate information because of that drive for consensus.
Valuable conversation. Thank you.
That was very interesting. It explained why America under Trump will drill baby drill. I note too Nate your frustration with an at times counter view. I was surprised with your view that the west can have a simpler life but the other half of the human planet won't be able to have what we have had or will even have what we will have to settle for.