Debate on Global Energy Consumption Solutions
Steve, when you say we need to reduce energy,
do you mean the UK?
I mean the species. I mean human species.
Okay. So how does Andy Burnham do that?
Th- we are not set up to deal with this
problem because we're broken into nation
states.
Okay.
We can't make decisions that affect the entire planet.
So we need world government to reduce world energy consumption. Is that right?
We're gonna be stuck with that, yes.
Uh-huh.
We're gonna be stuck with it.
Well, see, this what... I'm glad we're having this conversation
'cause at least
this is the first time, and I mean this in a genuinely respectful
way-
Yeah
... it's the first time I've ever heard anyone
be honest about this issue.
Yeah, yeah.
That's what you want. You want world government-
No, I don't want it.
You believe it's inevitable.
I'm saying it's inevitable-
It's inev-
... because by ignoring-
You believe it... Yeah, I get it
... this problem, we've got to the scale-
You believe it's inevitable-
... where it's an existential threat to our
species
... that we have a world government-
Yeah
... that reduces world energy consumption, and therefore the prosperity of everyone
living on the planet.
And if we had taken the advice of the Limits to Growth 50 years ago,
we would not
be having this conversation.
Good.
We have delayed for half a century.
Is there any solutions that you believe are actually possible?
Um-
No.
No. There we go. You've done a public service here because
you have
showed what it is that sits underneath all the conversation
about
climate. It's a best case scenario, people who know there's nothing we
can do, but what we should do is flail about in the meantime, and
in order to not address this issue, impoverish not just in this case our
citizens and our fellow people, but actually the entire world.
That's, that's what this is. And the entire challenge I have to this
is I don't
believe in suicide for token gestures towards not
solving a problem you're claiming to solve, right?
We are not going to solve this problem by creating a world government and
reducing energy consumption. That is never, ever, in a billion years,
going to happen.
No, what we're gonna do instead is run into the crisis and fall apart as a
civilization-
What we're gonna do instead-
... in the process
... what we're gonna do instead... Look, you may...
There's a possibility you're correct about that, but the only choice we actually
have to solve this problem is to create forms of energy that do not
produce CO2, but produce GDP. Clean energy.
That's what we're gonna have to do.
By the way, it's what we've done throughout history.
And we need to make that clean energy more favorable in terms
of the
economics to India-
Yeah
... and China. And this-
Did you need a world government
to reduce usage of the horse and cart and replace it with the automobile?
No, you didn't. You came up with a better technology,
and people
adopted that technology voluntarily because it was advantageous.
This is not going to be solved by making everybody poor,
well, for the reasons that Steve himself articulated,
but it's also not going to be
solved by making everybody... Because people will not do it.
You say you need everybody to, to hold hands and sing Kumbaya
and act together.
No, what I'm saying is we need to have engineers in control.
And, and we're talking about it 50 years ago.
Engineers in control?
Engineers, okay?
So we should stop having elections.
So...
Compared to the politicians we get, yes, I'd rather get rid of elections than have
engineers running everything.
But, well, see-
They do a damn sight better job than our politicians have done.
Well, and this is why I say this is a public service, 'cause this
is what y- this
is the true face of the climate catastrophe narrative.
Let's go back-
We need world government
... 50 years to the true face.
We don't want elections, and we want to make everybody poor.
And you know why?
And we've got it out in the air.
Okay.
It's fantastic.
End of transcript · 706 words