Climate Change： Propaganda vs. Reality with Mallen Baker
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 8 minutes
Words per minute
181.05992
Harmful content
Misogyny
3
sentences flagged
Toxicity
12
sentences flagged
Hate speech
12
sentences flagged
Summary
In this episode of Trigonometry, writer and YouTuber Malin Baker joins us to talk all things environmentalism. We talk about his journey to becoming a writer, how he got into YouTube, and what he thinks about climate change.
Transcript
00:00:00.700
Broadway's smash hit, the Neil Diamond Musical, A Beautiful Noise, is coming to Toronto.
00:00:06.520
The true story of a kid from Brooklyn destined for something more, featuring all the songs you love,
00:00:11.780
including America, Forever in Blue Jeans, and Sweet Caroline.
00:00:15.780
Like Jersey Boys and Beautiful, the next musical mega hit is here, the Neil Diamond Musical, A Beautiful Noise.
00:00:22.660
April 28th through June 7th, 2026, the Princess of Wales Theatre.
00:00:30.360
Part of the problem is people are thinking of it as a green revolution,
00:00:33.920
because the thing that they would most hate is for us to solve the problem of climate change
00:00:40.080
to create a world that looks exactly like it does right now, but without climate change.
00:00:52.200
Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster.
00:00:57.360
And this is a show for you if you want honest conversations with fascinating people.
00:01:03.120
Our brilliant guest today is a writer and YouTuber, Malin Baker. Welcome to Trigonometry.
00:01:08.440
It's great to have you on the show. Before we get into the conversation, and it's going to be a very
00:01:12.220
interesting one, tell everybody a little bit about who are you, how are you, where you are,
00:01:16.660
what has been your journey through life that leads you to be sitting here talking to us?
00:01:20.580
Well, it's probably a journey of four parts, which is, first of all, was campaigning,
00:01:26.880
because when I was a youngster, we literally thought that global nuclear war was about to
00:01:34.240
break out any minute. So that drew me into campaigning, which led to me living for a period
00:01:40.680
of time in a plastic bag outside the main gate of a nuclear missile base. I mean, we've all been
00:01:47.000
You were against, I assume, right? Against the global nuclear war.
00:01:50.540
I thought it was a bad idea, to be fair. And that much was certainly true. I would say that I was
00:01:56.600
right and wrong in equal measure during those times, but that's a longer discussion. The second
00:02:01.740
stage then was politics, because I got fed up of campaigning, which is about saying no to stuff
00:02:07.100
all the time. And I thought, surely we should be able to say what we actually want to happen
00:02:11.760
instead. We want to say yes to something. And I was under the strange impression that you went to
00:02:16.820
politics for that sort of thing. I know, I know. I was naive and youthful. So I ended up in the Green
00:02:23.020
Party, became co-chair of the UK Green Party for a while. Once I realised that that wasn't totally an
00:02:29.960
organisation that wanted to make itself fit for changing anything very much, I ended up in the
00:02:35.140
Lib Dems for a while, until the point when I realised that actually I'm not built for politics.
00:02:41.540
I'm a pragmatist, not remotely ideological. I don't enjoy factions. I'm always looking for
00:02:49.480
the objective, pragmatic solutions. So there need to be good people in politics, but I realised that
00:02:56.420
wasn't me. And I have to say that I don't think I feel a huge amount of fellow feeling for either of
00:03:03.360
those parties in their modern incarnation. I've been a floating voter ever since. Third stage then
00:03:10.660
is corporate social responsibility, which was talking to major corporations, some of the top
00:03:17.720
FTSE 100 companies about their environmental impact, about their social responsibilities,
00:03:22.760
not to be confused with woke corporations. There's a distinction that is important, but probably not
00:03:28.120
very interesting. And that was with Business in the Community, which is a membership organisation
00:03:33.380
that has a lot of the top chief executives engaged. So that was an interesting eye on that universe
00:03:40.560
of people making decisions for huge corporations with lots of power and influence, and how sometimes
00:03:48.120
change goes through those sorts of spheres. And then finally now, here I am with the YouTube channel,
00:03:54.820
where I stepped away from that and ended up going back to those principles of becoming curious again
00:04:00.760
about, well, what is really true about what's going on. Having started the channel thinking I was going
00:04:07.980
to be carrying on doing what I'd always been doing, which was supporting change makers who were working
00:04:12.560
in different spheres. Ultimately, I started to do a few debunking videos and then got really curious as
00:04:18.860
to, well, actually, hang on a moment. I thought this was going to be debunking this, but the closer you look
00:04:24.460
at it, actually, there's some real substance to this argument.
00:04:29.220
Yeah. I wouldn't go quite that far. So I refashioned what I was doing into stepping aside
00:04:39.020
from the polarisation and just asking the questions about, well, what does the research really say?
00:04:45.600
And does it actually mean what people popularly would have you believe? And that has been fed into
00:04:51.520
all sorts of topics and issues, largely where the scientific realities bump into the political
00:04:58.420
sphere, which is increasingly happening, as we all know, and actually is going to become more and not
00:05:04.640
less the factor of the next few decades. So it's where all the difficult dilemmas lie, all the grey
00:05:11.660
And you've got a great YouTube channel, and I was watching it over the past couple of days
00:05:16.720
for doing research, and you did this brilliant video that really hooked me in on safetyism
00:05:22.120
and the role that safetyism is playing in our society. And before, when I was talking with
00:05:28.560
Constantine, we realised that it also linked in with the main topic that we're going to be talking
00:05:34.560
about, which is climate change. So could we have, first of all, your thoughts on safetyism
00:05:40.320
and how we've seen it rapidly progress from the moment when you were a child, in fact?
00:05:45.920
Yes. It's interesting because over the first 10, 20 years of my adult life, it was always a running
00:05:54.400
joke about, as society changes, you can tell how old you are by how often you moan about how things
00:06:01.380
are different to how they were when you were younger. And there was always a running joke
00:06:05.420
about health and safety. You know, health and safety was always a thing that had gone mad sort
00:06:10.180
of thing. And yet, beyond that, when you looked at where we are now, and the mindset that we have
00:06:19.060
now, you realise, well, it's actually gone beyond a joke. And it really struck home for me, first of all,
00:06:23.860
when I did a video where I was comparing the current pandemic, the recent pandemic, shall we say,
00:06:29.460
with the 1957 Asian flu, which was not identical, but was broadly in the same zone in terms of the
00:06:38.660
harm, the health harm that it created. But of course, how society reacted to it was completely
00:06:43.920
different. Mostly, we just carried on with life as normal. There were some adaptations that people
00:06:49.820
made. But the interesting thing was, it wasn't a political issue. It just wasn't. I mean, there was a
00:06:55.280
vaccine that was produced relatively quickly, and I think government support helped that to happen.
00:06:58.920
There was an election in America the next year, I think, and the incumbent lost. But that was
00:07:04.960
nothing to do with it. It was not a political issue at all. And the reason for that, of course,
00:07:10.820
was that people just didn't have the expectation that government was there to keep them safe from
00:07:16.280
a virus. You know, disease happened. And obviously, if this really serious disease came along, then
00:07:22.420
people would have to organise a way to deal with that. If health services might be overcome,
00:07:28.300
then, of course, the government has to put resources in to make sure that doesn't happen. But otherwise,
00:07:33.400
people just didn't think that that was what it was there to do. Now, that has changed, obviously.
00:07:40.020
And all of the lockdown fever that we've seen over the last couple of years, and the fact that no
00:07:46.380
leaders, even those who started well with the pandemic, have ended well. You know, not even the
00:07:54.960
saintly Jacinda, you know, they are now seriously unhappy there as well. Not even there have any of
00:08:02.420
the leaders come through the whole two years well. And arguably, that is because the expectations now
00:08:09.320
on what the government can and should provide for you as an individual has just gone beyond the basis
00:08:15.020
of what it can actually deliver. And this has gone hand in hand with this view that it's there to
00:08:21.860
keep us safe. You know, the first job of government is to keep us safe. And that was always the case.
00:08:28.080
That was the old Hobbesian contract with the state, the Leviathan state, was that it was there to protect
0.69
00:08:35.220
us from each other and ourselves. What Hobbes was talking about was, you want to be protected
00:08:42.380
from foreign enemies and from criminality in your own country. That's it. That's what he was talking
00:08:47.660
about. Absolutely. Yeah. But over time, that has become layered up and layered up. And particularly
00:08:52.620
then in the aftermath of World War Two, when we had the creation of a welfare state and everything,
00:08:58.300
you had more and more layers for O non, all of which we then we simply absorbed into our expectations
0.99
00:09:03.760
of what government can do for you. And so now we have ended up in this position where we have been
00:09:09.340
officially wrapped in cotton wool for so long that we have become fragile people. You know, whereas
00:09:17.940
before we dealt with adversity by training ourselves to be strong in the face of adversity,
00:09:24.360
by teaching young people how to cope with difficulties and difficult situations, and they read to kill a
0.77
00:09:31.020
mockingbird because it made them feel uncomfortable because I was part of growing up, confronting all
00:09:36.100
of these things. And I walked to school and nobody thought anything of it. Probably they were kind of
00:09:42.600
hoping I'd get lost, to be fair, but that might actually just be me. But nevertheless, nobody much
00:09:48.960
commented on that. In fact, the stat that came out of when I did the research of that video was
00:09:52.740
something like, I can't remember the exact number now, something like 78% of kids walked to school
00:09:58.240
when I was seven or eight year olds walked to school when I was seven or eight. And now it's
00:10:03.760
something like 8%. I mean, it's just astonishing. And of course, that's because the traffic got worse.
00:10:10.140
We had all the newspapers telling us about stranger danger and people then wouldn't let their darlings
00:10:15.260
out because they were terrified that there are predators on every street corner. And the process
00:10:21.820
is just as we have seen it. Media hyping up dangers because it feeds clicks, which feeds their
00:10:28.980
advertising model, which feeds into a terror mindset amongst the population, and then looking to authority
00:10:37.200
to defend themselves from that. And that has created a weakened, dependent mindset rather than a strong,
00:10:46.460
resilient citizenship. And that is a real problem for us.
00:10:49.860
Well, politically, it's a big problem because one of the consequences that seems quite inevitable
00:10:57.040
to me out of this sort of approach is that means the government has to do more things. And if the
00:11:02.420
government does more things, it means there are more errors of your life that the government's
00:11:05.560
involved with. And I'm not someone who thinks the government has no role in society at all. Of course
00:11:11.720
it does. But the problem is the government is a very blunt instrument for dealing with lots of
00:11:16.760
issues. You see it in the conversation around freedom of expression, for example. The government
00:11:21.540
can either ban things or it can allow them. It can't have, you can't have the nuanced conversation
00:11:27.220
about, well, you are allowed to be a dick, but maybe you shouldn't be, right? The government can't do
0.97
00:11:33.200
that. So if we make the government regulate every element of our relations, every element of our
00:11:38.280
behavior, every element of our safety, you are going to end up with a sort of, at best, soft
00:11:43.100
authoritarianism eventually. That is one of the dangers for sure. And you can add to that the
00:11:49.160
fact that governments are actually just not very good at doing lots of things. You know, why did
00:11:54.880
we get such a rapid vaccine rollout? Well, in this country, it's because they took it out of the
00:11:58.720
bureaucracy's hands and put it into a small panel that brought together the private sector who are
00:12:03.800
used to doing things quickly and to scale. And they managed to do a much, much better job. And then as
00:12:09.280
soon as they handed it back to the bureaucracy of the state, it all gummed up again. So you've got
00:12:13.960
both the tendency of governments to want to push you to comply, you know, if you won't, you know,
00:12:22.440
if you will insist on getting fat, then they'll try and nudge you. And if nudging won't work,
00:12:26.660
they'll push you a bit harder. And then you marry that with the fact that they're actually not very
00:12:30.940
good at executing. And so that you get the worst of all worlds in that sort of sense. But we do have
00:12:37.220
a real danger ahead of us because as we are moving more towards these big global issues that we're
00:12:44.200
facing, that tends towards the technocratic mindset in terms of what are the solutions and how do we
00:12:50.440
deal with them, they tend towards authoritarian solutions. Now, it doesn't mean to say that
00:12:56.920
governments will all naturally give in to that. You know, I don't see that the likes of Boris Johnson
00:13:02.500
or the likely successors have that as an ambition, particularly, but there is a dynamic that you
00:13:08.380
have to actively oppose. You actually have to push the other direction, not to drift that way.
00:13:14.640
And I don't see that they have a sufficient vision currently to do that.
00:13:19.300
Broadway's smash hit, the Neil Diamond musical, A Beautiful Noise, is coming to Toronto. The true
00:13:26.320
story of a kid from Brooklyn destined for something more, featuring all the songs you love, including
00:13:31.580
America, Forever in Blue Jeans, and Sweet Caroline. Like Jersey Boys and Beautiful, the next musical
00:13:37.960
mega hit is here, the Neil Diamond musical, A Beautiful Noise. Now through June 7th, 2026 at the
00:13:44.760
Princess of Wales Theatre. Get tickets at Mirvish.com.
00:13:50.640
Are you tired of using bulky old wallets, giving you a bulge where you don't want it to be? My old wallet
00:13:57.580
was massive, so it brought all the ladies to the yard, which was a huge distraction and got in the way of my
1.00
00:14:04.340
esteemed work on trigonometry. Ridge wallets have an incredible solution for you. This is mine, sleek, stylish,
00:14:11.640
and with an industrial look to it. It can fit 12 cards with cash on the back using a clip like this
00:14:17.740
one or a strap. We've got one for the whole team. I've got one, Francis has one, even our producer
00:14:23.380
Anton has one, but he's from Liverpool, so he flogged his on the black market. The great thing about Ridge
00:14:29.200
is that they give you a lifetime guarantee, which means if you want, you can have only one wallet for
00:14:35.520
the rest of your life. Ridge are so confident in the quality of their product, they will give you 45
00:14:41.140
days to test drive their wallets. That means you can get the wallet, use it, and if you don't like it,
00:14:46.600
you can return it within 45 days. Because Ridge are such great guys, they're going to give you 10%
00:14:51.720
off and free worldwide shipping and returns. To take advantage of this incredible offer,
00:14:57.720
go to ridge.com forward slash trigger. That's ridge.com forward slash trigger and use our special
00:15:04.160
code, which is of course, trigger. I was going to say, man, the thing that worries me is we're
00:15:10.080
talking about authoritarianism and a few years ago, I would have scoffed at that. But what we are seeing
00:15:14.960
is a kind of soft authoritarianism, which ties into the whole safetyism issue. Because you look at what
00:15:21.460
the American government are trying to do to Joe Rogan and trying to silence him.
00:15:25.420
By the time this goes out, he could have been assassinated.
00:15:27.300
Yeah, exactly. R.I.P. Joe. But that would be in bad taste. Anyway.
00:15:31.760
That would be in bad taste if that actually happens, mate. We'll have to cut it out.
00:15:37.320
But if you look at what the American government are doing, they're trying to silence him. They're
00:15:41.620
trying to de-platform him. And they would argue that they're doing that because they want to
00:15:46.400
inverted commas, keep people safe, so that he can't spread his, in inverted commas,
00:15:52.400
misinformation. And what we're seeing is this safetyism, as far as I'm concerned,
00:15:57.540
being used as a way to control us. It's soft authoritarianism. Do you agree, Mellon?
00:16:04.400
I do. And I'll tell you why it's happening, I think. Which is that we have now come across two big
00:16:10.520
issues where it's very easy for the elites, if you like, the government, but also the mainstream media
00:16:20.800
types and various people in the same orbits, to see that there is a right thing to do and people
00:16:27.560
need to be persuaded to go along with it. So both in terms of a pandemic and now also in terms of
00:16:31.660
climate change, you have got the situation where the population need to be persuaded to do the right
00:16:38.940
thing. And that has turned what used to be streams of communication, streams of information from
00:16:45.840
government, where they were there to tell us what was going on, that has now become streams of what
00:16:54.380
some would describe as propaganda, but in any case is campaign messaging. When I first started out
00:17:00.820
dealing with climate change issues and, you know, I've always, half of what I ever dealt with on
00:17:06.620
the corporate responsibility stuff was showing companies how they had to respond to the climate
00:17:11.380
change agenda. It's something I've been dealing with for decades. However, Extinction Rebellion,
00:17:15.860
as mad as a box of frogs. So, you know, I did a few videos critiquing the extreme campaigner end and
00:17:23.400
some of the things that they were demanding, which just didn't make any sense. And I had various people
00:17:28.900
saying, well, what you say is absolutely right. It's just not helpful to say it at this point.
00:17:33.820
And I have heard that so many times since from other things. You know, I kicked back against the
00:17:38.140
insect apocalypse because the language being used there was overblown apocalyptic language again.
00:17:44.480
And when you look to the research, it didn't support some of the top line messaging. Yes,
00:17:49.400
there were problems with insect declines and the research shows that, but not what was being claimed.
00:17:53.960
And then again, someone came back and said, everything you said was correct scientifically.
00:17:59.000
All the papers you cited were correct. You didn't misinform, but it wasn't helpful messaging.
00:18:05.180
And it just underpinned for me now how much of this has turned into campaign messaging.
00:18:10.900
This is the problem. And this is why people then start to distrust what they're being told.
00:18:16.560
You know, why did we get some stats during the pandemic and not others? Because some stats
00:18:21.340
were considered to be helpful in underpinning the message that says you should be worried about
00:18:26.560
this and therefore you should comply with the measures that we put in play. And some were less
00:18:31.900
helpful in that, although they were arguably more helpful in understanding what the heck was going
00:18:38.580
What you're really talking about, Malin, is a very good point, which is it's very sneaky what they've
1.00
00:18:44.420
done. What they've done is they've traded the science for public health, right? These are two very
00:18:49.100
different things. Science is about finding what the truth is. Public health is about getting people
00:18:52.920
to do what you want, right? And they've said, if you're questioning the public health, you're not
00:18:58.460
following the science, right? These things are not the same thing. And climate change, which is the
00:19:04.240
issue that we were originally going to talk about, and let's get into it now because you've kind of
00:19:08.100
brought us there very neatly, seems to me to be exactly the same, right? Because what you've got on the
00:19:15.180
one hand is a bunch of people running around, gluing themselves to trains, going absolutely
00:19:21.660
apeshit over every tiny little thing that happens. And the science isn't really being talked about
00:19:27.220
properly. What you've got is that extreme end on one end. And there's other people who think it's
00:19:33.640
not happening. And I know I'm not a scientist. I don't know which one of them is right. I'm just
00:19:37.560
saying that I think the messaging is much more like public health than it is like science, the way we're
00:19:44.200
having the conversation about climate change. So what is the truth about climate change? Because
00:19:49.780
you know we've had Roger Hallam from Extinction Rebellion on the show. We've had Patrick Moore
00:19:54.080
who thinks it's all a bunch of horse shit. We've had Bjorn Lomborg who thinks it is happening but it's
1.00
00:19:58.360
not that big a deal. Like where are you on that? Yes. So this is one of the frustrations if you get
00:20:05.140
involved with this because of course what you have with most of those characters there is that you have
00:20:10.560
people on the opposite extremes. And people often say well to get the balance of the issue you talk
00:20:16.580
to the one side and then you talk to the other side. The vast majority of this issue lives in the
00:20:20.600
middle. I mean it's not as simple as that but nevertheless let's start there. So the core science, the core
00:20:25.880
science is the planet warming, is the human burning of fossil fuels causing it, is pretty clear.
00:20:32.440
And I mean there are multiple streams of evidence that all point in the same direction. So when
00:20:38.840
scientists say the science is settled they're talking about that basic core which is supported
00:20:44.240
by multiple streams of evidence all of which are very very straightforward and hard to argue with.
00:20:50.100
And most of the sceptics now bar a few of the out and out you know the scientific community is
00:20:56.260
engaged in a conspiracy against us all types. They largely accept that much. The question then
00:21:04.960
really comes through was so what? So what does that mean for what's going to happen in the future
00:21:09.840
and particularly then what does that mean in terms of what we should do about it?
00:21:14.700
And half the problem with climate change is that people conflate the two. So because the extreme
00:21:21.140
campaigners go around trumpeting their version of the science which is cherry-picked for the
00:21:26.760
most doomist elements that they can find, then people will confuse their messaging with the
00:21:35.500
scientific underpinning. And so it's very easy then if you're on a conservative mindset to say well
00:21:41.920
you know that is associated with those wild-eyed loons therefore the whole thing is wrong.
00:21:46.420
And that is a real mistake. What we have had in the UK over the last couple of decades has been a bit
00:21:52.200
of a privilege in that both the conservative end and the socialist end all agreed on the core of
00:21:59.000
reality. This is kind of what's happening and we could disagree about what we do about it. You know you
00:22:04.820
can have a conservative approach to tackling climate change, you can have a socialist approach to tackling
00:22:09.520
climate change, there'll be some commonalities, there'll be lots of differences. That's what we should be
00:22:14.260
arguing about and fighting about for sure. Let's deal with reality and then argue like cats in a bag
00:22:20.460
about what we do about it. Fine. And then in America you had you know something that was quite
00:22:25.060
different and I tend to think it's because Al Gore arose as an early spokesperson and that helped to
00:22:30.640
polarise it because he was a very partisan figure. But for whatever reason you've got one side that is
00:22:37.800
going on the extinction rebellion end of the debate shall we say losing it drifting in that direction
00:22:46.580
and then we've got the other side that's then on the Trumpian end drifting in the other direction
00:22:50.700
and they can't even agree on reality which is a real problem. Now I always thought that eventually
00:22:56.380
what we had achieved would start to drift over there and moderate republicans would start to pull
00:23:03.020
things in. Moderate democrats would start to pull things in. I kind of think it might be happening the other
00:23:08.820
way round. Which is not good news really. And part of that is because of the incompetence of our politicians
00:23:16.980
because we have a conservative government that's not overly conservative and what they are doing on net zero
00:23:25.180
has some good underpinnings but then they are also generally incompetent I'm afraid.
00:23:31.560
And then you've got people within the conservative party who are then lumping in the whole goal of net zero
00:23:38.160
as part of what they dislike in that and it's creating then the same dynamic, same political dynamic
00:23:45.560
that we see in America. That could play out well and it could play out really badly
00:23:51.040
and it's too early to tell which way it's going to go.
00:23:53.840
Manon, I've got this question which I always ask people when it comes to this.
00:23:58.020
On every issue you get your extreme on either side, right? And that always happens whatever issue
00:24:03.780
you take, fine. Why is it that you have the extreme left saying things, you know, we've only got 50 good
00:24:09.760
harvests left, the world is doomed, all the rest of it. Look, they're entitled to their opinion.
00:24:15.060
Maybe they're right, maybe they're not. I don't know.
00:24:16.960
But then why is it that that opinion is then funneled into our kids and it's widely accepted
00:24:22.260
and then the media start talking about it. And we've got this generation of people
00:24:26.820
who are completely terrified because they think one day they're going to wake up and the world's
00:24:31.900
Well, they probably won't wake up if it's on fire.
00:24:34.020
Yeah, well, yes. This is a real problem. You're absolutely right.
00:24:38.180
And one of the things that I discovered most, that surprised me the most when I started doing
00:24:43.940
the YouTube deep dive videos where I did the research on these, was just how often the campaign
00:24:50.020
messages that I had entirely accepted were standard. And I've seen people like Michael Gove
00:24:55.840
repeating, you know, the government had entirely accepted. As soon as you looked into them,
00:25:00.320
they fell apart. 50 harvests, that has come from nowhere. That has no scientific underpinning
00:25:07.820
whatsoever. I think somebody tracked it back to where it was and it came from a campaign
00:25:12.520
thing that was then misquoted. And it's just not true. Simply not true. And yet it is repeated
00:25:18.340
over and over to the point where through repetition, it has become accepted as fact. And then Michael
00:25:23.780
Gove will repeat it because he accepts that it's a fact.
00:25:28.360
Obviously. Obviously. Well, he's such a good dancer. You couldn't possibly...
00:25:32.680
So this is a real problem because then when you start to then take that as a education process
00:25:40.080
for kids, then you are storing up these deeply ingrained attitudes then that become the next
00:25:47.540
generation's instincts, their gut instincts about how they see the world. That is one of our biggest
00:25:53.980
worries. And of course, it's always been the case that the teaching community who do fantastic jobs,
00:26:00.320
many great teachers in there, as a whole, they tend to lean leftwards, as we know.
00:26:09.300
Well, yeah. And they were when I was brought up.
00:26:12.820
Yeah. He's just too attracted to that profession.
00:26:15.300
Most of us survive our upbringing perfectly well. And most kids are very quick to spot a certain
00:26:21.480
amount of bullshit in their education. You know, there's a certain amount you can just relax a little
0.99
00:26:26.620
bit. On the other hand, when it comes to something where they are absolutely encouraging your deepest
00:26:32.660
insecurities and fears by saying, you know, the climate is going to hell in a handcart.
00:26:39.140
There's one Extinction Rebellion person who goes to kids and says, you know, the issue isn't whether
00:26:44.860
you're going to grow old, it's the issue of whether you're going to grow up. There's no science to
00:26:49.160
support that whatsoever. But nevertheless, this is being pushed to kids.
00:26:53.360
Have you seen millennials these days? They haven't grown up. We are millennials as well. So I'm just
00:26:59.440
we're testament. But look, you haven't quite addressed my earlier question, which I think
00:27:03.620
is important to do if we're going to have this part of the conversation, which is what is the truth
00:27:07.960
about how dangerous climate change is, how quickly it's happening, what sort of measures might be
00:27:15.440
sensible to consider in response, etc. Tell us that because I think that's really the answers that
00:27:21.480
everybody's looking for is like, we keep being told there's a disaster. I don't think there is a
00:27:26.400
disaster coming in the next 12 years, as AOC said, we're all going to die. You know, all of that's not
00:27:31.100
happening. So how urgent is the problem? How big is the problem? And what are some of the reasonable
00:27:36.400
solutions that we might consider to it? Okay, the reason why this is so confusing is because media has
00:27:42.920
pushed extreme scenarios. Now, the IPCC, the body that collects together the science and publishes it and
00:27:49.480
reports every few years, they produce a number of scenarios based on what we do, because you can't
00:27:56.460
predict the future without settling for how many fossil fuels are we going to burn in the meantime.
00:28:02.440
On the basis of what we kind of said that we're going to do, and the fact that we won't do all of
00:28:07.340
it, but we'll do some of it, you know, we're on a midstream scenario. The extreme worst case scenario
00:28:13.820
is what tends to get often quoted. And that's one of these problems, I think called RCP 8.5,
00:28:18.360
as it was. And that has been one of the problems that always the clickbait journalism will talk
00:28:26.780
about the extreme cases. And so everyone thinks that this is going to happen imminently. That
00:28:32.160
doesn't mean that there is no capacity for things to go seriously wrong, you know, in a timescale that
00:28:38.700
we would care about. Yeah, that is absolutely a possibility. Is it a high probability? Not on the
00:28:45.980
current basis, but there's a high probability that there will be some problems that we need to deal
00:28:51.580
with. Like what? So one of the challenges that we have is that we have grown as a population onto
00:28:57.140
this planet. The population is starting to even out, but it is very, very high for the state of
00:29:04.120
the planet that we have on. And we are currently now using all the agricultural land, as much land
00:29:09.680
space, agricultural land, as we're likely to have ever going forwards. So we have hit a barrier
00:29:16.480
there. We can make it more productive, but we're not going to have any more. Now, the question is,
00:29:21.700
when you have 11 billion people, as we will end up having, dependent on particularly a number of
00:29:26.940
breadbasket regions that have to be highly productive to feed all those people, you become
00:29:31.840
very vulnerable to shocks to the system, because you don't have very much resiliency left in the
00:29:36.000
system. Okay, so you might be able to create new agricultural land further north as climate
00:29:42.540
changes, but then you will lose some in the tropics as they become less suitable for growing.
00:29:49.400
We're not going to have a lot more than we've got. So then if you get extreme weather events,
00:29:55.180
which we expect to get more of, you may well have several years in a row where you get severe shocks
00:30:00.900
to food systems, which will then have big knock-on effects throughout human society. Those are the
00:30:06.480
sorts of things that are hard to map, because they depend on certain shock events that will become
00:30:11.880
more frequent, happening in an unfortunate sequence, and then the consequences could be very serious.
00:30:18.060
Those are examples. Then, of course, there's the things like the rising sea levels and how much of
00:30:22.680
human habitation is on coastal areas and the amount of disruption and cost that's going to cause and
00:30:28.860
so on. I'm less worried about that, because that will be expensive, it will be a pain in the backside,
00:30:34.100
but that's not life-threatening in the way that some of those other sort of key things are.
00:30:39.180
Now, what should we do about it? Well, net zero is a policy goal that we absolutely have to do.
00:30:48.440
Because, ultimately, carbon dioxide stays around in the atmosphere for quite a long time. You have to
00:30:54.780
stop adding to the natural carbon cycle. You know, it is relatively in balance without our contribution,
00:31:02.020
but so long as we keep adding to it, it's like an overflowing bath. You know, you put more in and more
00:31:08.960
in and it overflows. And until we stop adding to it, then it won't stabilise. It will always continue.
00:31:17.100
Now, timescales, you know, should be as fast as possible, but not faster.
00:31:21.700
And this is where we get the overlap into where people conflate the science with the policy.
00:31:29.160
Because we've had a committee on climate change that have looked at all the different aspects of
00:31:34.440
the electricity grid and industry and so on, and what has to happen to change all of those.
00:31:39.400
They did a reasonably good, pragmatic, practical job of looking at all of that. And they came up with
00:31:46.100
this. We could get to net zero by 2050 with our system, the way that it is, working correctly.
00:31:53.820
So not laying waste to the economy in any way, shape or form, which is what we want.
00:32:02.140
Maybe it's going to take a bit longer than that. I would expect it to take a bit longer than that
00:32:06.080
because circumstances and humans, imperfect. We will go there imperfectly and messily and
00:32:12.060
two steps forward and one step back. That's kind of how we are. Nevertheless, that timescale
00:32:16.980
is a reasonable one if we do it properly. Another 10 years is reasonable if we do it properly.
00:32:24.280
The question is, we shouldn't try and do it faster than is feasible. And the danger is that people are
00:32:31.080
seeing it as a one variable problem, just like the pandemic. They saw the pandemic was a one variable
00:32:36.400
problem, COVID cases. And we had to upend every single thing to bring COVID cases down, which
00:32:42.260
obviously didn't work anyway. But in any case, if the problem had been maximum human welfare,
00:32:48.860
then COVID is one variable amongst a number of variables. And you're weighing up the cost of
00:32:53.400
the different things that you're going to do about each of those different things. And maybe you'd
00:32:57.520
have ended up doing exactly the same. Probably not. But at least you had been weighing up those
00:33:03.040
different factors. It's the same here. You know, the single variable in this case is CO2.
00:33:08.780
But of course, it isn't. What we want is for human society to continue to flourish,
00:33:14.300
for people to be able to achieve their ambitions for themselves and to live out lives while preserving
00:33:19.740
the natural world, which keeps us alive. It's our life support systems and also keeping the climate
00:33:25.320
within the bounds that will support our future going forwards.
00:33:30.460
Malin, what would you say to the Bjorn Lomberg argument, which is that if we introduce this,
00:33:36.720
what's going to happen is that energy prices are going to go through the roof for the average person.
00:33:41.460
That's going to give rise to ever more populist leaders who will then push back on it. And then
00:33:48.340
I don't think you said that, Bob. You just added that from yourself.
00:33:54.200
Yeah, I was nodding along. That's a tabloid journalist in me. We're all fucked. No, carry on.
00:34:00.300
Bjorn asks some very good questions. And the challenge I have with Bjorn is some of his
00:34:09.960
evidence that he uses for his specific answers. But he asks absolutely some of the right questions.
00:34:15.760
And when I say that net zero is a policy objective, not a policy, the point is there is no,
00:34:22.420
if you do this, energy prices will go up because there's 20 things you can do. And if you do it
00:34:27.500
properly, you should be able to do it in a way that means that energy prices don't go up.
00:34:32.280
And when you say properly, what do you mean by that?
00:34:34.580
Well, so at the moment, what we're doing is we are creating a morality around the use of fossil fuels.
00:34:44.100
It just says fossil fuels bad, morally bad. So you want to open up a new thing in the North Sea
00:34:50.640
for gas? Bad. Don't do it. New coal mine? Bad. Don't do it. And yet, if we are going to make any
00:34:58.800
kind of sensible progress through to net zero by 2050 or 2060, then it's a taper. And we're going
00:35:04.820
to be using a lot of fossil fuels, a declining amount of fossil fuels over a period of time.
00:35:08.360
Now, managing a declining industry is perfectly possible. And companies can make perfectly good
00:35:14.260
profit out of a declining industry. They've done that all the time through history. But it has to
00:35:19.280
be a managed decline. Because as I think the head of BP said to the COP26 summit, if you try to reduce
00:35:29.120
the supply of a thing before you've reduced the demand, then the prices go up. And arguably,
00:35:36.400
it's not the only thing that's been happening over the last year with energy prices, but it's
00:35:41.240
certainly been a big part of what has driven up energy prices. So this approach that the ideologues
00:35:47.740
have, and sadly, some of the ideologues are in government as well, which is simply to push away
00:35:53.620
anything to do with fossil fuels, rather than saying, well, we've got a plan. Over the next 10
00:35:58.180
years, we're going to use this amount of fossil fuels, and it's going to decline to that. It's going
00:36:00.920
to decline to that. How do we supply this in the most cost effective way, in the way that gives us
00:36:08.760
But isn't that the problem, Alan, that essentially, you're trying to reduce the demand for something
00:36:12.420
that will never be reduced because of the population for energy, not for fossil fuel energy,
00:36:17.200
but for energy. And you haven't got a ready made replacement that is cheaper. That's Bjorn's point is
00:36:25.320
you have to invest in technology to make alternative forms of energy cheap enough that you don't then
00:36:31.380
need the levers of government to introduce it, because people are just going to buy this cheaper
00:36:35.340
energy wherever it comes from. But we don't have it yet. Do you see what I'm saying?
00:36:39.880
Yes. Although I don't think that that is entirely true in that, you know, certainly some of the
00:36:46.460
alternative forms of energy have become cheaper.
00:36:49.480
Well, the renewable forms of energy have become cheaper.
00:36:58.920
However, the flip side of that is that you need to, they are intermittent forms.
00:37:04.260
So you need to either be able to store the energy that they create.
00:37:08.180
Or you need to find a way to fill in when they're not produced.
00:37:12.380
So that's what I mean. Overall, as a package, it's not cheaper at this point.
00:37:16.680
Or we don't have the way to make it work without fossil fuel. Whatever way you want to put it,
00:37:20.580
it's not a viable alternative that is cheaper as well.
00:37:23.920
If you are taking all of the pros of all of the different energy sources and all of the cons of
00:37:29.740
different energy sources, and you factor in the impact of the use of fossil fuels into that equation,
00:37:36.000
then it drives you necessarily to forcing the pace on some of the alternatives. Now,
00:37:41.760
some of the alternatives are perfectly workable and will become better, we know, if we drive them.
00:37:47.460
So nuclear technology, for instance, stood still for 20, 30 years because we got scared about it
00:37:53.320
after Chernobyl and we froze the development of that technology where it was. You know,
00:37:58.480
the existing nuclear power stations are using 30-year-old technology, basically.
00:38:03.400
Fourth generation, absolutely. Fourth generation nuclear solves a lot of the problems that we
00:38:09.300
were worried about. You know, if something goes wrong, plants will shut down safely rather than
00:38:14.380
melt down. You know, they don't create very much nuclear waste. In fact, they can use nuclear waste,
00:38:20.460
old nuclear waste as fuel. As with anything, if you work a technology to scale, then you gradually
00:38:27.500
make it better and you solve the problems. So if we work nuclear technology to scale,
00:38:33.260
as the Chinese are doing, because they can see that this is the technology of the future,
00:38:37.680
if you push yourself as pioneers into that space, you become the providers of that technology to the
00:38:42.880
world. So then what you've done by putting money into it when it was less cost effective is you've
00:38:47.940
invested in the new technology, which you then recoup the cost of that investment from by selling it
00:38:54.100
to the world. Because the world will go net zero in a blink of an eye when you've got the cost
00:38:59.820
effective technology that works. But how do you get that? You get it by investing in developing that
00:39:06.180
technology. We already know that nuclear works. It's just that we've got ideological stuff going on
00:39:11.860
that has said that, you know, even though we say that there's a climate crisis, we're also going to be
00:39:17.100
anti-nuclear. And you sit there and say, how could you ever come to that conclusion if you're simply
00:39:22.140
thinking this is a pragmatic problem to be solved? It's not. It's an ideology that is driving these.
00:39:28.740
Why is Germany shutting down nuclear power stations right now and ramping up coal when it says that
00:39:34.300
it's going to be a climate leader? And by the way, making it extremely vulnerable to Russia, which is
0.71
00:39:38.780
why the current situation with Ukraine, Germany can't do shit because they've closed all their
0.87
00:39:43.160
power stations. And this is the challenge. So net zero, if it's taken as a pragmatic engineering problem
0.93
00:39:49.320
to be addressed, then there's a certain amount of investment in technology that makes sense.
00:39:54.200
And you can plan in a way that will avoid the problems of massive energy price spikes and so
00:40:00.600
on and so forth. But that's not how we're doing it. We're doing it in this weird, ideological,
00:40:07.100
knee-jerk, technocratic way where we are making decisions based on how difficult they are politically
00:40:15.960
more than we are about what's going to get the job done. And that is going to lead to exactly what
00:40:21.500
you described, what you ascribed to Bjorn, whether he would have owned it himself.
00:40:26.220
No, he did say you're going to get more Bolsonaro's if you carry on down this path.
00:40:31.160
Absolutely right. Because the technocrats who are pushing the solutions at the moment are doing a
00:40:36.260
really bad job of pushing their case. You know, they are tending towards the authoritarian,
00:40:42.940
authoritarian, which we don't like, and telling you whether you can or can't eat meat and all those
00:40:49.080
sorts of things. And again, if you were being pragmatic about this, you'd start by saying,
00:40:54.140
what do people most value? How do we reduce the impact of those things? So people value travel.
00:41:01.660
They value what they eat. And as soon as a country comes out of poverty, what do they do? They start
00:41:07.360
eating more meat. It's highly prized, highly nutritious. So you would start with a pragmatic
00:41:12.700
question of how do we reduce the impact of the things that people value, which makes them more
00:41:17.360
likely to come with us on the journey that we need to go on. But that's not what we're doing at all.
00:41:22.840
No. What we're doing is, you know, we start this with an ideological preference, which is that people
00:41:28.940
consume less, they travel less, they drive less, they eat vegan, they do whatever it is that we think
00:41:34.820
is a good lifestyle. And what we're going to do is we're going to cram that down on them. That is not
00:41:41.020
a winning proposition, I would suggest. And yet, the BBC, you know, as soon as the BBC is talking
00:41:48.120
about climate change, it takes seconds before they've gone on to meat eating, or they've gone
00:41:53.200
on to flying, they can't keep away from it. And yet there are massive impacts in all sorts of areas
00:41:59.260
that are much more important to talk about, because there are bigger impacts that have systemic
00:42:05.960
engineering challenges that can be done at scale. Why wouldn't you do those things first? Why wouldn't
00:42:13.600
you focus on those things first? And persuade people that actually, you're working on their behalf,
00:42:19.880
you're working so that they can have more of the things that they value long into the future,
00:42:25.020
and that their kids can have those things as well. And then if at some point in the future,
00:42:30.060
if you have to turn around and say, we really wanted you to be able to have this, but actually,
00:42:34.500
we can't get this to work. We can't get flight that works anymore. You know, we tried it for 20 years,
00:42:41.760
and we failed. And you're not going to be able to fly as much. And people say, well, we trust that you
00:42:46.640
did try. No one's going to say that now. Because what they see is a bunch of people whose first
00:42:53.120
preference is to cram down lifestyle restrictions on people. First preference.
00:42:58.760
And it's also as well, Malin, you're not going to win hearts and minds in doing that. And if you
00:43:02.860
really want this green revolution, as it is, to work, you're going to need that. You're going to
00:43:09.240
need ordinary people to buy in. But if you're saying to people, oh, you can't fly, and you're
00:43:14.060
not going to be able to eat meat, yet you see the elites doing that very thing, flying around the
00:43:18.580
world, and doing the things which you aren't allowed to do anymore, people aren't going to
00:43:23.340
Yes. And part of the problem is people are thinking of it as a green revolution. Because the thing
00:43:28.440
that they would most hate is for us to solve the problem of climate change to create a world
00:43:35.480
that looks exactly like it does right now, but without climate change.
00:43:39.640
This is what I was going to ask you, Malin, because I tell you what I see in it as well.
00:43:43.880
There is a broader thing going on in Western society, which partly I cover in my book, which
00:43:50.320
is there's a sort of self-loathing in the West. And the reason I think a lot of people feel
00:43:55.820
quite antagonistic to this green shit is that it's like you want people to suffer. You want
1.00
00:44:02.960
to take away from people the things that they enjoy because we are bad, because of colonialism
00:44:08.600
and industrialisation and whatever else that the West is, you want us to suffer for that.
00:44:14.660
And this is your punishment. We're going to raise your energy prices. You're not going
00:44:17.820
to have any meat. You're not going to travel anywhere. There's a sort of like, they love
00:44:21.980
that shit. They love to feel like they're taking things away from people that we must be punished
1.00
00:44:27.540
for our sins. I think it feels like that to a lot of people.
00:44:32.720
Yes. But the important thing is not to confuse that mindset, which is alive and well in the
00:44:40.000
heads of the extreme environmental campaigners, and then a number of other mouthpieces. I mean,
00:44:46.220
you will see echoes of that in various places, definitely. You still have to divorce that from
00:44:52.040
the actual core science that says, yeah, we still have a pragmatic problem that we have
00:44:56.160
to do something about. And the challenge is always when people conflate the two, because
00:45:00.600
it's very easy to fight back against that mindset and to believe that then that's the whole
00:45:05.620
No, but I'm with you. I'm like, look, if you need, if you want to raise my taxes to invest
00:45:09.940
in better nuclear energy, go for it. If you want to raise my taxes to make sure that the
00:45:15.680
energy we use is used efficiently and we're not wasting, like to me, resource depletion
00:45:19.960
is a big problem. Pollution is a massive problem. Go for it. I'm happy to pay more money
00:45:26.620
if that's what I need to do for those things to be addressed. What I don't like, though,
00:45:31.140
is that tinge of punitive action for the sins of my forebearers. I don't know. And I think
00:45:38.380
maybe you're right. It's about the way it's being marketed, perhaps.
00:45:42.260
Yes, yes. And it's the sense that, as we said earlier on, that all the communications
00:45:47.660
are now campaign communications. And of course, we've seen this finesse to a fine art with the
00:45:52.320
pandemic with the use of a nudge unit to manipulate us gently and subtly to complying. And this
00:46:01.740
is a real problem because they've already started producing documents looking at, well, how do
00:46:08.280
you start to nudge people into the right behaviours on climate change? Now, on the one sense, it's
00:46:13.680
a fair question and discussion to have to say, well, if people's behaviours are less than optimal
00:46:22.600
for themselves, how would you encourage them to address that? How would you encourage to change
00:46:28.380
that? You know, if a higher percentage of America is obese, then really should be the case and is the
00:46:35.840
case anywhere else? Why is that? And actually telling them that they're dreadful people and they
00:46:40.900
should change probably isn't going to work. So what would work? Asking the question of how you
00:46:45.680
persuade people, that's one thing. But manipulating them in a way that they don't even notice you're
00:46:52.140
doing. Marketers do it all the time, but there's got to be a line. Now, marketers do it all the time.
00:46:58.380
You go into a supermarket, you probably won't even notice there's a smell of freshly baked bread in the
00:47:03.760
air. And it won't occur to you that there's no bakery in that supermarket because they've worked out
00:47:08.880
that if there's that lovely scent or freshly ground coffee, people buy more. And they're
00:47:16.080
subtly influencing you to buy more. Okay, so we know that corporates are sort of borderline evil,
00:47:21.660
but at the end of the day, that is relatively harmless, relatively harmless. I don't mind that
00:47:26.520
particularly. Maybe some people do. But if they're going to work out...
00:47:30.000
You can go to a different supermarket if you want, or not shop in supermarkets. You can't go to a
00:47:34.620
No, that's true. But you go into the supermarket, you don't know that's what they're doing.
00:47:39.020
It's all very subliminal in that sort of sense. But if they're going to use subliminal techniques
00:47:43.960
to scare you because of the pandemic, and they want you to stay at home, and then suddenly
00:47:50.280
everyone is so terrified, they want the government to lock down again. And so the government locks
00:47:55.620
down again, because that's what everybody wants. But everybody wanted it because the government
00:47:58.880
scared them in the first place. What the heck is going on with that? If you're going to do
00:48:03.320
that with climate change, then yes, you are going to have populist reaction, and deservedly so.
00:48:12.280
Of course. Incredible interviews, hilarious live streams, hard-hitting satire, plus my handsome jawline.
00:48:19.720
Whatever takes away from your hairline. But if you do love Trigonometry and you want to support us,
00:48:25.020
there's only one place to do that, and that's on Locals.
00:48:28.520
Yes, Locals is a brilliant platform that has been incredibly supportive to our show and other
00:48:34.140
problematic creators. The great thing about Locals is that it's a community for people who love
00:48:40.040
Trigonometry. That's right. It's a place for you to hang out with like-minded people, share thoughts,
00:48:44.660
memes, and discuss the show. You can enjoy it for free, but it also gives you the option of supporting
00:48:49.920
us for as little as $7 a month. And if you want to give more, you can. We have incredible rewards for
00:48:56.280
our higher tier supporters as well. We've got everything from mugs, monthly group calls, and
00:49:00.800
one-on-two chats with me and KK. Get in. Join our community by hitting the link in the description
00:49:07.020
and the pinned comment below. See you there, guys.
00:49:10.940
You know, I said to Roger Hallam, we were joking about, you know, my time in my peace movement days,
00:49:17.580
and, you know, lots of me and my colleagues were in jail, like he's going to jail now. He said,
00:49:22.800
oh, Malin, you should get back into that. I said, it's fine, Roger. When you take over,
00:49:26.380
I'll be in jail soon enough. And I absolutely hold to that. Where we are going, the rise of
00:49:36.400
the soft authoritarianism of ultimately where this takes you, there are some real confrontations
00:49:45.460
And that's such a good point because there is. I remember talking with a friend who is
00:49:50.060
conspiratorial in nature. And at the start of the pandemic, I'd say he's a conspiracy theorist,
00:49:54.840
but now it just looks like he's sort of a prophet, if I'm going to be honest with you.
00:49:59.060
And he actually said to me, can you imagine in five years or 10 years or maybe even 20 years,
00:50:04.320
can you rule out lockdowns for climate change? And then I thought about it and I was going to
00:50:10.760
scoff at him and I thought, after everything that's happened, I genuinely can't.
00:50:15.460
Yeah, I think I still would. I'm still holding onto reality by my fingernails.
00:50:20.920
That's what I think I'm doing anyway. I might be kidding myself.
00:50:24.840
Largely because it's such a slow burn thing. It wouldn't make sense.
00:50:30.380
Now, OK, there's quite a lot of things that we've done over the last couple of years that
00:50:34.120
didn't necessarily make sense. But nevertheless, with a virus, with a pandemic, it is demonstrably
00:50:39.480
a short term thing. You get short term waves and so on. But there is nothing to do with the
00:50:45.980
release of CO2 into the atmosphere that is that short term, where locking down is going
00:50:49.980
to make a huge amount of difference. And it didn't.
00:50:51.640
Well, lockdown is a word. What you could say is, and by the way, I'm not his conspiratorially
00:50:56.260
minded friend. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But you could say, look, you know, there's
00:51:00.780
no lockdown. You just you can only drive a certain number of miles a year without a special permit.
00:51:06.640
And you can only have one flight a year unless you're going to visit a family member who's on
00:51:14.400
their deathbed or for a funeral. Or you can only have X number of kilograms of beef, chicken,
00:51:21.020
pork, whatever, a year. Like, all we're really talking about is restricting people's freedom
00:51:26.940
to do what they think is the right thing for them based on the argument that we've got,
00:51:33.020
That vision, that vision is definitely a possibility. And for me, this is a possibility in the same
00:51:42.880
Can I have that spliff now, please? At least I'll feel better about it.
00:51:47.560
The alternative possibility on the other wing is the Trumpian future, where the populist
00:51:53.700
backlash means that we say, sod all that. We don't believe any of it anyway. So we're just
00:51:58.540
going to, you know, burn while we can. And there is somewhere in the middle on all of
00:52:05.880
this. But ultimately, if the middle bit fails, if the centre fails to hold, as they say, one
00:52:11.140
of those two is the extremes we can lurch to. And maybe we'll lurch to the one and then in
00:52:16.660
reaction to that, we'll end up being pulled back to the other. But ultimately, the game is
00:52:22.100
to avoid either. And that means really trying to bring us back to, away from the polarised state
00:52:30.360
that we've become in, back to the sensible centre. This country used to run. Does it still run? I think
00:52:39.000
it still runs. I'm not sure anymore. It used to run on the centre. Because our electoral system works.
00:52:46.480
Yes. So we vote for a government. They get in. There's a lot of counter evidence to that lately,
00:52:51.360
I have to say. But you're right. You're absolutely right. But they govern. I'm just joking. You're
00:52:55.820
absolutely correct. They have power. And then if they mess it up, we can then boot them out. Yes.
00:53:00.100
Now that pushes people back to the centre. Yes. By and large. And the various parties, their fortunes
00:53:06.340
have risen and fallen when they've tacked to the centre and when they've been competent. And most of the
00:53:12.320
elections have been fought and lost on competence. Every now and then we'll get one where we've got
00:53:17.760
two incompetents. That doesn't happen that often. Whereas in America, they can't govern. They've got
00:53:25.100
gridlock so bad that basically whoever gets in, they're not really governing at all. So they never
00:53:31.100
have consequences because they can always point to the other side and say, we would have done great
00:53:35.340
things, but they stopped us. And that therefore has created the incentive for them to drift further and
00:53:41.100
further to the extremes. Whereas if you were able to govern, if Biden was elected, and they say,
00:53:47.040
okay, you run the government, you want to do stupid stuff, you can do it. You're the government now.
0.99
00:53:52.640
And that would actually sort them out pretty quickly because then they will be held accountable for
00:53:58.280
their actions. And that would be a very sobering thing. Now, we have had that, I think, over the last
00:54:04.580
few decades. Are we still there? I don't know. The Brexit, non-Brexit dynamic, the populist movement
00:54:12.600
stuff. It's very hard to see where our core now is. But if it's still there, as I think it is,
00:54:21.220
then there's everything to play for in tacking to the centre. The problem is we have a government
00:54:25.440
that won't fight for its vision. When Margaret Thatcher first talked about climate change,
00:54:30.260
she argued the case why Conservatives were the natural home for those who care about the
00:54:35.820
environment. And you could agree with her case, as you could not, but she put forward a Conservative
00:54:40.600
case why they were better on the environment. And the Labour Party would put forward their case why
00:54:45.400
they were better. And you understood the visions that were being put forward. What vision has the
00:54:50.920
current government got around net zero? Well, that's more vision as the current government got
00:54:54.960
around anything. It's because you don't have any Margaret Thatchers anymore. That's why.
0.98
00:54:57.780
So you've got the extremist campaigners saying the world is going to end and we have to do all this
00:55:02.580
stuff. Who's arguing with them? When I was there arguing for nuclear disarmament in my naive,
00:55:09.240
charming way, the government was saying, don't do what he said. He's an idiot.
1.00
00:55:14.480
And they were kind of right, although I had a point as well. But they put the case,
1.00
00:55:19.540
they made the argument. They said, if we don't address this argument and explain why we need to do what
00:55:25.720
we need to do, the public won't understand why we're doing it. And we're just simply not doing
00:55:31.200
that. The Conservative government has no Conservative vision for net zero. So the Conservatives in the
00:55:38.540
party are saying, what's this net zero stuff about? This isn't Conservative. And then the people on the
00:55:44.120
outside are looking at Extinction Rebellion. And they're thinking, well, that's what net zero must be
00:55:49.080
about. And that's one of the reasons why people are conflating the science with the extreme campaign
00:55:55.220
solution. And the problem is, as well, is if a government doesn't have a clear vision, then it
00:55:59.940
gives credence to all the nutters at the far left and far right. Well, I think that was the point that
00:56:03.960
you were making. And this is, like I said, if you had a government, whether they were Labour or Tory,
00:56:09.660
frankly, went, look, we've got this problem. The science is pretty clear. We've got this problem
00:56:14.740
that's looming. We need to invest in technology to solve this problem, right? And that's why
00:56:20.820
a portion of our budget will go towards what is the best form of nuclear energy? How do we get wind
00:56:26.900
and solar? How do we design better batteries? Elon Musk here is a grant, whatever, right?
00:56:32.820
What sensible person would go, no, actually, I think this is all bollocks? I don't think anyone would.
00:56:40.020
I mean, some people would, of course, but the vast majority of people will be like, well,
00:56:44.000
okay, that's fair enough. I mean, we spend a billion here, a billion now and other stuff.
00:56:47.620
If we threw a few billion at finding new technology, that's going to address some of these issues.
00:56:53.360
But that isn't the way the conversation has been had. And you're right. It is on the government
00:56:57.260
because they're not engaging aggressively with this nonsense and going, look, we think the climate
00:57:05.160
is important and here's our plan to deal with it. And Greta Thunberg needs to go back to school,
1.00
00:57:10.920
right? If they did that, you would have a much easier time of convincing people to get
00:57:17.220
Yes, absolutely. And of course, Greta is now old enough to be wrong. So this is interesting.
00:57:24.460
At the COP26 conference, it was the first time when she wasn't invited onto the main platform,
00:57:30.320
you'll have noticed. And she said her usual thing about, oh, they're all going blah, blah,
00:57:35.040
blah, and they're not doing anything. And the first time there were news stories that were appearing
00:57:38.720
saying, Greta, you know, it was very gentle and it was very respectful, but it's saying,
00:57:42.680
actually, we think Greta might be wrong about this. I thought, well, she's come of age now.
00:57:47.000
She was saying whatever she liked before and people found it charming. But if you're these
00:57:50.760
people in that conference hall who have been working and slaving, trying to make this thing
00:57:55.480
work, trying to make, you know, it's really genuinely difficult. What we are trying to do
00:58:00.600
has never been done before. It is incredibly difficult. And they're going to make it, make mistakes
00:58:05.080
and get it wrong and do all sorts of things. Nevertheless, they've been really trying to
00:58:08.580
do it. Having someone say, what you do equals nothing. Charming when they're 15, not so much
00:58:15.440
when they're 19, which is why she's outside the conference because that's where outsiders
1.00
00:58:19.920
live. And it's up to her because they would let her in as part of a process. But you have
00:58:25.840
to stop being an outsider if you're going to do that. And she can't do it because she's
00:58:31.000
become part of that extreme campaign group community. And their messages are not the
00:58:37.840
messages of the insiders trying to work solutions. They're not interested in solutions.
00:58:42.560
What does Extinction Rebellion want to happen? They can't tell you. They won't tell you.
00:58:48.700
They won't point at a policy because there are no policies that would deliver zero emissions
00:58:54.340
in five years, that wouldn't throw hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people into poverty.
00:58:59.260
Again, if you were looking at it as a multivariable problem, you would have way more people dying
00:59:05.040
if you did what they say, than climate change would ever be killing. Poverty has killed way
00:59:12.500
Manon, what would you say to this argument? And I'm not for Extinction Rebellion at all.
00:59:17.560
But what they have done is they've brought this issue into the forefront of everyone's minds.
00:59:23.860
They've publicised it. We now talk about it. They're on the front page of every newspaper.
00:59:32.640
Not really. That's largely recency bias. We were talking about it before. We were. Go back and look.
00:59:40.580
We were talking about this already to the point of nauseam before this happened. And it's the same
00:59:48.020
with any campaigning movement. You know, I was in the peace movement when they got rid of nuclear
00:59:52.120
cruise missiles. The people in the campaign was, ah, we did that. And I looked at it, I thought,
00:59:58.600
nah, we didn't. There was all this geopolitics as to why that happened. And then ultimately,
01:00:03.700
the Soviet Union collapsed because we outspent them. There were those dynamics that led to that
01:00:08.460
outcome. Peace movement actually had very little to do with it. They kept the issues alive in the
01:00:13.980
general population. If that was a vehicle for change in that particular instance, then yeah,
01:00:19.500
that would have been fine. But it wasn't. And it isn't. So in this case, constantly reminding people
01:00:25.840
about climate change. How does that help particularly? The government was already working on the
01:00:33.380
Committee on Climate Change process. That predated Extinction Rebellion forming. They produced their
01:00:41.240
report then after they just started. And the government said, yep, we will sign up to that
01:00:47.280
report that's been three years in the making. And Extinction Rebellion said, yes, we did that.
01:00:51.900
No, you didn't. No, you didn't. Not at all. Now look, I don't want to decry it because I was there
01:00:57.820
and most of the people who sign up to the movement are doing it because they're scared for the future.
01:01:03.340
And that's not an irrational thing to be. You know, you can be pushed too far with that.
01:01:09.220
Nevertheless, as a young person, it's correct to be concerned. And they just want to do something
01:01:14.620
and to be heard. That doesn't go for the likes of the political activists behind the movement.
01:01:22.040
And, you know, I interviewed Roger and he's a very nice, amiable guy. But, you know, he is a
01:01:26.520
political activist. He's a far left activist who wants to overthrow the state. Hasn't got a hope in
01:01:32.560
hell of doing it. But nevertheless, that's his modus operandi. That ain't going to create the sort of
01:01:37.800
change that is going to make anyone's lives any better. And I think the sooner you call that out
01:01:43.180
and say, yes, the issue is important, but this process that was going on before isn't being
01:01:49.640
pushed by that movement per se, then we can start to have sensible conversations about, well, what
01:01:54.600
actually needs to change? Because what they are doing is distracting attention. They're saying
01:01:58.620
something big needs to happen. And something is already happening. And the question is,
01:02:04.240
no one's paying attention and holding that accountable because they're involved with this
01:02:10.680
cartoon level discussion that's going on over here. So at the moment, the government isn't being held
01:02:15.280
accountable for net zero. Why is that? Because none of the opposition parties disagree with the
01:02:21.080
objective of net zero. And because all communications are now campaign communications, they won't
01:02:26.900
criticise them on this because it won't be helpful. Now, that's not how political opposition
01:02:32.240
is supposed to work. The only people who are providing real political opposition at the moment
01:02:36.240
are the anti-net zero people, the people who wouldn't do any of it at all, who have done things
01:02:43.460
like demanding the Committee on Climate Change release their costings for their programme. And they
01:02:50.200
refused to do it. So they took them to court and they were able to say, well, look, some of these
01:02:53.700
figures don't add up. And that should be happening. Because of course, they're probably
01:02:58.680
cutting corners and doing things that people do when they think no one's looking. Because that's
01:03:03.960
what happens. That's not a political thing. It just happens. Bureaucracy, politics, everyone gets
01:03:09.640
away with what they think they'll get away with. That's why you have scrutiny. And so if the political
01:03:16.700
parties are not going to scrutinise the government on this area, because it's all campaign messaging,
01:03:21.460
that is a real problem for us. And then Extinction Rebellion are over there saying, well,
01:03:26.020
we need to overthrow the government doesn't actually help that conversation at all.
01:03:29.700
I don't know, mate. The longer this shit goes on, the more I start to agree with them.
0.99
01:03:34.020
But Mellon, it's been an absolute pleasure, really, genuinely. And to have this conversation
0.99
01:03:38.380
from a sensible perspective is quite reassuring, frankly, in some ways. So thank you for coming
01:03:44.880
on. Before we ask not only our last question on the interview, but also our special questions
01:03:49.600
for locals, tell everybody where they can find your work online and follow up on this chat and
01:03:54.200
find more of the things that you're putting out there.
01:03:56.400
So most of my content goes on to my YouTube channel. If you just simply search on YouTube
01:04:01.000
for Mellon Baker, that will come up. And I also have a website at mallonbaker.net.
01:04:07.800
And then little bits dribble out there. I'm on Twitter at Mellon Baker.
01:04:12.580
Thank you very much, Mellon. Before we go to our local questions, we always have our one
01:04:18.840
final question, which is, what's the one thing we're not talking about, but we really should
01:04:23.640
Well, I think that we're spoilt for choice, to be honest. I'm going to give you two quick
01:04:27.540
ones rather than just for one. So one quick one is how different the economic dynamic is
01:04:34.840
going to be as we move on to a stable or declining population base. Our thriving economy of the last
01:04:43.480
50 to 100 years has been based on a rapidly increasing population. Already, you know, with
01:04:49.140
China, because they don't allow a huge amount of immigration, they're now suddenly confronting
0.65
01:04:53.860
the real constraints that a stable population is going to throw. They are an emerging superpower.
01:05:00.040
They're about to overtake America. And suddenly, they're bumping in to this democratic real
01:05:05.260
issue. And that is going to change all these equations. It's all very well Bjorn Lomborg
01:05:09.600
coming on here and saying, well, of course, in 100 years, with the economic growth that's
01:05:13.320
going to be happening. Yeah, but all of that is based on what happened in the past. And what's
01:05:16.680
coming in the future is demonstrably going to be different, because we can't negotiate our
01:05:20.540
way around that. We can't have 20 billion people in 100 years. So that is going to make
01:05:25.260
a big difference. The other thing I would say is the huge difference that
01:05:30.020
the emergence of artificial intelligence is going to make on the battlefield. So military
01:05:36.400
technology with artificial intelligence is pushing us logically into where we were 30
01:05:44.560
years ago with nuclear weapons. It's just that it will be very easy for us to miss the fact
01:05:51.180
that we've entered a new paradigm of destruction before we unleash it. You know, with nuclear weapons,
01:05:59.400
we worked out very quickly that this had achieved the scale where the disincentive to use them
01:06:06.740
kicked in. You know, generally, if we had it, we used it and it kicked in to say, ah, no, maybe we
01:06:13.720
shouldn't. We nearly did. We came very close, but we didn't. Artificial intelligence on the battlefield
01:06:19.740
is going to the same singularity, particularly what the Chinese want to do, which is to use artificial
1.00
01:06:26.520
intelligence to mean that things move too fast for humans to keep up with, to understand what's going
01:06:32.720
on. You know, the West is saying we do not want that to happen. We always want a human decision
01:06:38.300
maker to be the one who decides whether somebody dies. You do not want AI making that decision.
01:06:46.540
The Chinese are saying, well, that's the wusses. The whole power of AI is going to be that it can think
0.98
01:06:51.960
a lot faster than human beings ever can. And you start to build that into a swarm of a thousand tiny
01:06:59.000
drones, all sorts of things that can completely change the nature of what we think of as a balance
01:07:05.620
of power in the world as we understand it at the moment. We should probably be talking about that a
01:07:09.920
little bit more than we are. Well, that's cheered me up. Yeah, it's great. It's basically like YouTube's
01:07:13.940
algorithm with drones. Yeah. That's what you want. Yeah. Fantastic. Exactly. Malin, it's been an
01:07:20.060
absolute pleasure. I'm sure we'll have you back to talk about more stuff. We've got to wrap up here
01:07:24.500
though. So thank you for being here and thank you for watching and listening. We will see you very
01:07:29.560
soon with another brilliant interview like this one or all show. All of them go out at 7pm UK time.
01:07:35.660
And for those of you who like your trigonometry on the go, it's also available as a podcast. Take care
01:07:40.520
and see you soon guys. State level communism has been terrible for the environment by and large
01:07:58.580
Broadway's smash hit the Neil Diamond musical A Beautiful Noise is coming to Toronto. The true
01:08:04.960
story of a kid from Brooklyn destined for something more featuring all the songs you love including
01:08:10.200
America, Forever in Blue Jeans and Sweet Caroline. Like Jersey Boys and Beautiful, the next musical
01:08:16.600
mega hit is here. The Neil Diamond musical A Beautiful Noise. April 28th through June 7th,
01:08:22.640
2026. The Princess of Wales Theatre. Get tickets at Mirvish.com.