Elon Musk Interview, Talking About Climate Change in Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne 10 Years Ago!!!

Summary

Podcast Summary: Elon Musk Interview on Climate Change at Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne

Podcast Information:

• Title: Elon Musk Thinking
• Host/Author: Astronaut Man
• Description: A documentary-style podcast exploring the life and thoughts of Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, Neuralink, Boring Company, and Chief Engineer of SpaceX. Elon Musk is recognized as the world's richest billionaire.
• Episode: Elon Musk Interview, Talking About Climate Change in Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne 10 Years Ago!!!
• Release Date: January 1, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of "Elon Musk Thinking," host Astronaut Man interviews Elon Musk at the Panthéon-Sorbonne in Paris, delving deep into the pressing issue of climate change. The discussion spans Musk's insights on the carbon cycle, the urgent need to transition from fossil fuels, the role of government in facilitating this change, and responses to various audience questions on related topics.

1. Understanding the Carbon Cycle and the Climate Crisis ([00:00] - [13:00])

Elon Musk begins by explaining the fundamental principles of the carbon cycle:

"There's a certain amount of carbon that is circulating through the environment... and this carbon is just circulating on the surface, and this is fine." ([02:15])

He emphasizes that while the natural carbon cycle has been stable for millions of years, human activities have introduced excessive carbon into the atmosphere:

"We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for hundreds of millions of years and adding it to the carbon cycle." ([05:30])

Musk highlights the unprecedented rate of carbon increase in recent centuries, leading to significant temperature rises:

"The carbon parts per million has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10 million years. And then in the last few hundred years, it went into a vertical climb." ([07:45])

He underscores the high sensitivity of the climate to temperature changes:

"We need to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to zero... Small changes result in huge effects." ([10:20])

Musk warns of the vulnerability of modern civilization, particularly coastal cities, to climate-induced disasters.

2. Transitioning from Fossil Fuels to Sustainable Energy ([13:00] - [22:00])

Acknowledging the inevitable decline of the fossil fuel era, Musk stresses the importance of accelerating the transition to sustainable energy sources:

"It is inevitable that we will exit the fossil fuel era because at a certain point we will simply run out of carbon to mine and burn." ([13:50])

He distinguishes the current transition from the historical shift from wood and whaling to fossil fuels, advocating for a leap towards renewables:

"We want to use things like hydro, solar, wind, geothermal. Nuclear is also a good option in places like France." ([16:00])

Musk envisions a future powered by renewable energy sources capable of sustaining civilization for billions of years.

3. The Role of Government and Carbon Tax ([22:00] - [35:00])

Musk identifies government intervention as crucial in rectifying market failures related to carbon emissions:

"We have to fix the unpriced externality, talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry." ([22:15])

He advocates for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, balancing increased taxes on carbon with reductions elsewhere, such as lowering sales tax:

"We should make it probably a revenue-neutral carbon tax... reducing taxes in other places." ([30:40])

Musk compares the hidden subsidies on carbon-producing activities to not paying for garbage collection, emphasizing the need for accountability:

"We have a hidden subsidy on all carbon producing activity... a $5.3 trillion a year subsidy that needs to be removed." ([25:30])

He criticizes the carbon industry's tactics, likening them to those used by the tobacco sector to undermine scientific consensus.

4. Audience Q&A ([35:00] - [48:33])

The interview transitions to an interactive Q&A session, where Musk addresses various concerns and topics raised by the audience.

a. Climate Change vs. Other Global Issues ([14:05] - [14:30])

A student questions the prioritization of climate change among other global challenges. Musk responds by asserting that climate change poses the most significant long-term threat to humanity, potentially displacing billions:

"If we don't take action we could see anywhere from 5 to 10%, maybe more of the land mass absorbed by water... about 2 billion people being displaced." ([13:48])

b. Motivating Participation in Global Challenges ([14:30] - [22:00])

A PhD student in marketing inquires about the effectiveness of monetary incentives versus altruistic motivations in solving global problems. Musk emphasizes the role of proper incentives aligned through government policies:

"People want to do the right thing and they want to do what's good... the rules fundamentally favor the bad outcome." ([14:30])

He reiterates the importance of government-led initiatives to reshape incentives for sustainable practices.

c. Carbon Sequestration and Environmental Impact ([15:55] - [17:30])

Questions about carbon dioxide removal techniques and the sustainability of lithium resources prompt Musk to express skepticism about current sequestration methods and reassure about lithium availability:

"I'm not aware of any carbon sequestration or carbon storage system that works and works economically." ([16:24])

"There's definitely not a lithium constraint on energy storage for batteries... plenty available in earthy resources." ([17:22])

d. Large-Scale Energy Storage Systems ([17:30] - [20:22])

Musk discusses Tesla's involvement in large energy storage projects, highlighting their potential to enhance grid efficiency and reduce reliance on polluting power plants:

"We've got a number of very, very big storage projects underway with utilities around the world." ([19:06])

e. Government's Ability to Prevent Climate Change ([20:22] - [22:49])

Addressing skepticism about governmental capacity to tackle climate issues, Musk emphasizes the pivotal role of policy in driving sustainable energy adoption:

"This fundamentally is a government issue... Unless the government does something to fix the market mechanism, we're going to have a very slow transition out of the fossil fuel era." ([20:38])

He calls for decisive governmental action and international cooperation to set clear, enforceable rules.

f. Colonizing Other Planets vs. Saving Earth ([22:49] - [24:05])

When questioned about prioritizing space colonization over Earth-saving measures, Musk advocates for a dual approach to minimize existential risks:

"I think we should do both... Minimize existential risk." ([24:05])

g. Future Energy Sources and Nuclear Energy ([24:05] - [28:01])

Inquiries about the sustainability and timeline of nuclear energy prompt Musk to support nuclear fission under safe conditions and express optimism about future fusion technologies:

"I think nuclear fission... is a good approach." ([25:52])

"Fusion is a feasible technology... but it's about 30 years away." ([25:52])

He also highlights the immense potential of solar energy as a substitute for traditional power sources.

h. Entrepreneurial Advice on Sustainable Energy ([28:01] - [35:00])

Musk offers guidance to aspiring entrepreneurs passionate about combating climate change, sharing his own experiences with Tesla and SolarCity:

"Look at companies that are trying to do sustainable energy and decide if you want to join them or if you want to start one." ([28:26])

He candidly discusses the high risks involved in pioneering sustainable technologies but underscores their necessity.

Conclusion

Throughout the interview, Elon Musk passionately advocates for urgent and systemic changes to address climate change. He emphasizes the critical role of government-led policies, particularly carbon taxation, in realigning economic incentives towards sustainability. Musk acknowledges the challenges in transitioning from fossil fuels but remains optimistic about the potential of renewable energy sources and technological innovations. His insights highlight the interconnectedness of policy, technology, and societal behavior in forging a sustainable future.

Notable Quotes

• "We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for hundreds of millions of years and adding it to the carbon cycle." — Elon Musk ([05:30])
• "We need to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to zero." — Elon Musk ([10:20])
• "This is why it's so critical to be that action be taken at a government level." — Elon Musk ([22:30])
• "We just want to encourage as many governments as possible to change the rules to incent a good future." — Elon Musk ([38:00])
• "We're talking orders of magnitude difference between fossil fuels and batteries, like not even on the same scale." — Elon Musk ([46:39])

---

This episode offers a profound exploration of climate change from one of the most influential figures in technology and sustainability. Elon Musk's candid perspectives and actionable suggestions provide listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and pathways to a sustainable future.

Transcript

[A]

All right, well, thank you for having me. It's great to be here. Paris is one of my favorite places in the world. And it's actually on the first trip that I went out of South Africa. Paris, that was where I went when I was a little kid. Well, my parents brought me when I was like, 6 years old. So I've loved Paris ever since. So thank you for having me. What I'm going to talk about today is just in general terms, what is needed to address the climate crisis. And this is the thing that if we do, what actions can we take that will accelerate the transition out of the fossil fuel era? So where we are today is. Let's see if this looks worth it, Maybe not. Okay. All right. We have the present era where we have the carbon cycle. My apologies if some of you already know all about this, but I think some of these things are maybe not as obvious as they may seem. So there's a certain amount of carbon that is circulating through the environment. So it's going into the air, being absorbed by, getting absorbed by plants and animals and then going back into the air, and this carbon is just circulating on the surface, and this is fine. And it's been doing that for millions, hundreds of millions of years. The thing that's changed is that we've added something to the mix. So this is what I would call the turd in the punch bowl. So we added all this extra carbon to the carbon cycle, and the net result is that the carbon in the ocean's atmosphere is growing over time. It's much more than can be absorbed by the ecosystem. It's really quite simple. We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for hundreds of millions of years and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking it from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle. The result is that a steady increase in the carbon in the atmosphere and in the ocean oceans, which doesn't look like much if you look at it on this chart, but when looked at in the context of history, it actually looks like this. So the carbon parts per million has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10 million years. And then in the last few hundred years, it went into a vertical climb. This is the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and a very extreme threat, as you can see from this rate of growth. Then this is accompanied by a temperature increase, as one would expect. And this temperature increase, people talk about 2 degrees or 3 degrees. It's important to appreciate just how sensitive the climate actually is. To temperature. And it's important to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to zero. We need to say what is the temperature change relative to absolute zero. That's how the universe thinks about temperature, it's how physics thinks about temperature. It's relative to absolute zero. So for small changes result in huge effects. So New York City under ice would be minus 5 degrees. New York City underwater would be plus 5 degrees. But looked at as a percentage relative to absolute zero, it's only a plus minus 2% change. So the sensitivity of the climate is extremely, extremely high. We've amplified this sensitivity by building our cities right on the coastline. And most people live very close to the ocean. Some countries of course, that are very low lying and would be completely underwater in a climate crisis. So we've essentially designed civilization to be super sensitive to climate change. And the important thing to appreciate is that we are going to exit the fossil fuels era. So it is inevitable that we will exit the fossil fuel era because at a certain point we will simply run out of carbon to mine and burn. So the question is really what? When do we exit the era? Not if the goal is to exit the era as quickly as possible. That means we need to move from the old goal with the pre industrial goal, which was to move from chopping down forests and killing lots of whales. The old goal was to move from chopping wood and killing whales to fossil fuels, which actually in that context was a good thing. But the new goal is to move to a sustainable energy future. And we want to use things like hydro, solar, wind, geothermal. Nuclear is also a good option in places like France which aren't subject to natural disasters. We want to use energy sources that will be good for a billion years. So how do we accelerate this transition away from fossil fuels to a sustainable era? And what happens if we don't? So if we wait and if we delay the change, the best case is simply delaying that inevitable transition to sustainable energy. So this is the best case. If we don't take action now, at the risk of being repetitive, there's going to be no choice in the long term to move to sustainable energy. It's tautological. We have to have sustainable energy or we'll simply run out of the other one. So the only thing we gain by slowing down the transition is just slowing it down. It doesn't make it not occur, it just slows it down. The worst case, however, is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined. These are the best, worst case scenarios. So then we have about 3% of scientists that believe in the best case, about 97% that believe in the worst case. This is why I call it the dumbest experiment in history ever. Why would you do this? So the reason that the transition is delayed or is happening slowly is because there is a hidden subsidy on all carbon producing activity. In a healthy market, if you have, say, €10 of benefit and €4 of harm to society, the profit would be €6. This sort of makes obvious sense. This is where the incentives are aligned with a good future. This is not the case today. But if you have the incentives aligned, then the forcing function towards a good future, towards a sustainable energy future, will be powerful. In an unhealthy market, you have your €10 of benefit, you have your €4, but the €4 isn't taxed. You have an untaxed negative externality. This is basically economics 101. So you have basically unreasonable profit and a forcing function to do carbon emitting activity. Because this, this cost to society is not being paid. The Net result is 35 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere. So this is analogous to not paying for garbage collection. And it's not as though we should say, in the case of garbage, have a garbage free society. It's very difficult to have a garbage free society, but it's just important that people pay for the garbage collection. So we need to go from having untaxed negative externality, which is effectively a hidden carbon subsidy of enormous size, $5.3 trillion a year, according to the IMF. Every year we need to move away from this and have a carbon tax. But this is being fought quite hard by the carbon producers and they're using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or tobacco industry used for many years. They would take the approach of having. Even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that smoking cigarettes was bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say, look, scientists disagree. So that's essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad. The solution obviously is to remove the subsidy. So that means we need to have a carbon tax and to make it sort of something which is neither a left nor a right issue, we should make it probably a revenue neutral carbon tax. So this would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, but then reducing taxes in other places. So maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax of VAT and an increase in carbon tax so that only those using high levels of Carbon would pay an increased tax and moreover this, I mean in order to give industry time to react, this could be a phased in approach. Maybe it takes five years before the carbon taxes are very high. So that means that only companies that don't take action today will suffer in five years. But there needs to be a clear message from government in this regard because the fundamental problem is the rules today incent people to create carbon and this is madness. And whatever you incent will happen. That's why we're seeing very little effect thus far. And depending upon how, what action we take will drive the carbon number to either extreme or moderate levels. I think it's pretty much a given that the 2°C increase will occur. The question is whether it's going to be much more than that, not if there will be a 2 degree increase. So then the question is so what can you do? I would say whenever you have the opportunity, talk to your politicians, ask them to enact a carbon tax. We have to fix the unpriced externality, talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry. So that's the basic message I have and I'm happy to take questions. So we have, we have some mics in the audience being passed around. Do you want to raise your hand and we'll give you a mic? Hi sir, I'm from the Master of Innovation and Technology Management and my question is what do you say to those who think there are more important concerns right now then climate change and global warming? Sure there's definitely there are many important issues in the world. This is not the only important issue but it is I think the thing that will have the biggest negative effect on humanity if we do not address it. I mean based on the projections that we're seeing right now, these are like I'd say arguably best case projections. We're going to see significant rises in temperature and sea level. The net result is if we don't take action we could see anywhere from 5 to 10%, maybe more of the land mass absorbed by water, which is maybe not, doesn't sound like that much but about a third of humanity lives right on the coastline or in low lying countries. So we'd be Talking about maybe 2 billion people being displaced and their home is being destroyed and their country is being gone. So I think we should take action.

[B]

Hello sir, thank you for coming here. My question is I'm a PhD student in marketing and what I study is what motivates people to participate in challenges.

[A]

Now you have created a company which.

[B]

Creates challenges which brought a rocket to moon and back.

[A]

If I, if I'm not wrong, my.

[B]

Question would be, do you think a challenge, maybe not Moon and back, right?

[A]

Yeah. Space and back. I'm getting there.

[B]

Getting there. My question to you would be, do you think that incentives, which is the biggest incentive to use monetary incentives, are the best possible incentive to get people to participate and solve the world's biggest problems? Or do you think people can do it in order to just help everyone.

[A]

On the planet and make it better?

[B]

So is money the only way to ask people to get in and solve challenges, or do you have other ways.

[A]

To actually motivate people to participate? I think there's definitely a philanthropic element and there's, you know, I think there's. I think in general, people want to do the right thing and they want to do what's good. The issue we have right now is that the rules fundamentally favor the bad outcome. So when you're fighting for the good outcome and it's an uphill battle, it's just slower. So with respect to climate change, it's just critical that the government, and the government is the center of rules. The government decides what rules companies will play by. And if we currently have a system which massively incents bad behavior. So even if most people don't do the bad behavior, some people will still do the bad behavior. Yeah, I mean, money and prices are. Prices are basically just an information mechanism. They're just, they're just basically, they tell you money's mostly an information mechanism for labor allocation and for, you know, and sort of tells companies what to do. So it's just critical. This is why it's so critical to be that action be taken at a government level. Because the government is the one. They're setting the rules of the game. And it's just crazy to have the rules of the game favor a bad outcome. The question up top there, there's a question here.

[B]

Hi, Elon Musk. My name is Michel. I'm an undergrad in economics here at Paris Sorbonne Sub Empire. My question is there are some new studies on removing carbon dioxide dioxide from the atmosphere and burrowing deep in the ocean. Do you think it's a sustainable solution and why? Thank you.

[A]

You know, I'm not aware of any carbon sequestration or carbon storage system that is that that works and works economically. And I definitely wouldn't want to store the carbon in the ocean because of possible acidification, you know, as the, as the carbon, as the CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere. Some of that is absorbed into the ocean becomes carbonic acid. And a lot of the shellfish in particular are super sensitive to changes in PH level. So I would definitely err against trying to store it in the ocean there. Potentially you could try to store some of it in giant underground caverns, but the sheer quantity we're talking about I don't think can be stored anywhere. There's just nowhere to store it. Yeah.

[B]

Hello sir. I'm studying management at Parion and I.

[A]

Would know how long do you do.

[B]

Tesla Motors intends to use lithium batteries knowing that it is not a limited resource?

[A]

Well, actually, I think so. Lithium in terms of energy storage. Lithium I think is definitely the future and will be for a long time. There's actually not a shortage of lithium on Earth. So lithium is number three on the periodic table. It's actually extremely common. Any salty water has lithium. So there definitely won't be a lithium constraint on energy storage for batteries. So I feel pretty confident that one could make enough batteries to store all the energy that the world needs with the current resources that are available. Yeah.

[B]

Hello, my name is Aydin Vayadi. I am a PhD student in Project and Infrastructure Finance in Sorbonne. First of all, I would like to thank you for your latest product powerwall, which to me it gives to the citizens to have the power to select the way they can consume energy. You can spend few thousand dollars to buy some solar panel and the power wall and to be free of any offer in the market. My question is about the larger scale storage systems you have designed. Have you received any serious involvement from governments and large companies to develop such such infrastructure? Or do you have any serious plans within the United States or maybe in.

[A]

Other countries for large energy storage? Yeah, we do actually. We've got a number of very, very big storage projects underway with utilities around the world. So both in the US and outside. The thing that's interesting about the energy storage situation is that even without renewables, there's a huge potential to make the energy grid more efficient and to be able to shut down the heaviest polluting power plants. Because the energy consumption through the day usually changes by a factor of two or more. With the exception of hydroelectric, you can't store the power. It has to be available in real time. The world has somewhere between two to three times as many power plants as it actually needs. So if you can buffer the power with big stationary battery packs, then you can actually shut down the worst half of the power plants in the world. So I think that's sort of a Very exciting thing that I think a lot of people don't appreciate. And I think it's going to make a big difference.

[B]

Hi sir, I'm Connie from the master degree, Innovation and Technology Management. And my question is, do you believe that in the ability of government, international government, to prevent climate change and what would you suggest?

[A]

Yeah, absolutely. I think this fundamentally is a government issue. So it's the, as mentioned, the government is the one that sets the rules of the game. They set how companies are rewarded financially. And so in the absence of government actually establishing some kind of a carbon tax or potentially a cap and trade on carbon, which I was very excited to see that China announced earlier this year that they were going to do that. Unless the government does something to fix the market mechanism, we're fundamentally going to have a very slow transition out of the fossil fuel era. So it's critical that government action change the incentive structure. And that'd be very clear. And so it's like, hopefully what comes out of this, out of these climate talks in Paris is that the governments of the world say that they put their foot down and they say five years from now, let's say there has to be a huge change and that companies know for sure that this is going to happen. And if they do, then the investment decisions they make today will bear fruit in five years. So for heavy industrial applications or for heavy industry, you kind of know what the world's going to look like in five years, if you know what factories are being built today. Because if you build a really big factory to get to full production takes about five years from start. And so since we know that today there are very few sustainable energy projects at large scale that are being built, we know that unless something changes very quickly, sustainable energy will still be in a bad situation five years from now. So, you know, I mean there are companies like, you know, Tesla and SolarCity. We're quite ideologically motivated, but that's relatively unusual. So.

[B]

Hi Elan, my name is Thomas.

[A]

What do you think about people who.

[B]

Are saying then rather than trying to save the Earth, we should try to colonize other planets?

[A]

Well, I think we should do both. Yeah, I think we, you know, I mean my sort of personal ideology is kind of split right now between trying to be helpful on Earth related stuff, which is sustainable energy, and then trying to, you know, advance space technology so we can establish a self sustaining city on Mars. But I do think it's important to be multi planet, not just one planet, but another planet. And the overarching goal is to Minimize existential risk. So if we look out into the future and say what are the things that pose a risk to humanity? What is going to make the future good versus bad? And I think obviously if we have a sustainable energy future that's good and the faster that comes, the better. And then if we're a multi planet species, that gives us much more resilience against an extinction event and also would be a really great and fun adventure.

[B]

Hi, my name is Joyda and I wanted to know, in your opinion, what would the future will look like in terms of energy sources and how soon could we use nuclear fission if efficiently? Thank you.

[A]

Sure. Well, the thing to appreciate about the sort of installed industrial base is that it's really enormous. Like the number of petrol and diesel cars on the road and trucks is about 2 billion. There are sort of hundreds of thousands of of power plants using fossil fuels. So even if today we went super hard in the direction of renewables, it would still take a long time. So I think before we see significant change, it's probably 10 or 20 years. And there's a lot that can happen in 10 or 20 years, of course. So the faster we can bring that date forward, the better.

[B]

Hi, my name is Natasha. I'm from the Master Program of Sustainable Development. I have two questions. First one, because I want to be optimistic that we are going to switch at some point to be completely sustainable and to use renewable energies. Do you think that there are going to be a gap between developing and developed countries and when developing countries will be able to reach developed ones, switching into sustainable and renewable energies. And second one would be sustainability of nuclear energy, in your opinion? Thank you.

[A]

Sure. And I actually, I should answer the nuclear question because that was posed just, just before this. I actually think that like nuclear fission, if it's in a location that is not subject to natural disasters, like in the case of France, there's a very high percentage of nuclear. I think that's actually a good thing. Obviously you don't want to have nuclear fission power plants in places that are subject to natural disasters because that obviously can go wrong. So I think fission is a good approach. Fusion is also interesting and it's exciting to see what's happening with the ITER project, which is a fusion plant that's being built in France. I do think fusion is a feasible technology. I think we can definitely make fusion work, but it is kind of a far off technology. So to make fusion at the power plant level work is probably, I don't know, 30 years away and a lot of effort. So that's why, at least you know, for now, and I think maybe even in the long term, I'm a proponent of using the big fusion power plant in the sky called the sun, so that the sun is a giant fusion explosion and it shows up every day. And if we have photovoltaics, solar panels, we can capture that fusion energy. It also needs to be stored in batteries so we can use it at night. And then we want to have high power lines to transfer solar energy from one place to another. But the important thing to appreciate is let's say the only thing we had was solar energy. That was the only power source. If you just took a small section of Spain, you could power all of Europe. It's a very small amount of area that's actually needed to generate the electricity we need to power civilization. Or in the case of the US like a little corner of Nevada or Utah, power the entire United States.

[B]

Good evening. You do have a very impressive and stimulating career. You succeeded in business while staying true to yourself and beliefs. So I would like to know what advice you would give to a young entrepreneur who is aware of climate change issues and maybe what was the best and the worst advice you were given about that? Thank you.

[A]

Okay, well, I think if somebody wants to do something entrepreneurial in energy, either you want to start a company or you want to join a company that's doing something sustainable. And it could be, there's obviously wind, solar and the geothermal, there's tidal power. So I would just say look at companies that are trying to do sustainable energy and decide if you want to join them or if you want to start one. So I generally wouldn't, you know, starting companies in either the automotive arena or the energy arena is quite a tricky business. I mean, when we first started Tesla and SolarCity, we thought they would fail. We thought Tesla in particular, we thought probably we've maybe 10% chance of success. So it's, you know, particularly cars, it's hard to stay alive as a car company. Honestly, this must be one of the worst risk adjusted returns. Yeah.

[B]

Hi, my name is Benjamin and I was wondering what do you wish for in terms of international rules and politics to facilitate the implementation of your powerwall battery?

[A]

Well, it's really that what I've been saying here is that the governments of the world need to price the externality, they need to put a profit price on carbon and then automatically the right behavior will occur. So this is by putting a price on carbon, we're essentially fixing a pricing error in the market's market system. So I mean, most of the times when governments intervene in markets, it usually increases the pricing error. But when the pricing error is a huge tragedy, the commons issue like we have with carbon capacity, it's critical that the government put a price on it because you just can't go wrong. And any price you put on it will be more right than close to zero, which it is right now. So this is by far the most important thing. If we want to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy, there are other less effective ways by providing incentives and subsidies to say, electric cars or solar. That is sometimes a more politically expedient way to do it. But the best way is just to directly fix the pricing error by taxing carbon. And this is, if you ask most economists, they would say the same thing. So this is sort of well known and obviously in the economics world. Elon, could you say a few words on artificial intelligence? Because I think I read or you know, you were quoted among, with others, Bill Gates and Peter Thiel and so forth, saying that, you know, you were afraid of the, that one day and hyper, you know, intelligent machine would destroy humanity. And you know, are you investing a lot into artificial intelligence with, you know, because are we wasting a lot of energy because we're using, you know, we're not being smart or we're not having smart objects and so forth. And how do you reconcile the two if there's long term major risk for us? Yeah, I mean, I definitely want to stay on the sustainable energy topic because it's easier to get derailed onto many other things. But yeah, I just think we should be cautious about the advent of AI and a lot of the people that I know that are developing AI are too convinced that the only outcome is good and we need to consider potentially less good outcomes and to be careful and really to monitor what's happening and make sure the public is aware of what's happening.

[B]

I'm Gabrielle Rondon from where I studied innovation here in Sorbonne. I have a question about fundraising, specifically about the fundraising process regarding what Tesla does. What is the most difficult thing to raise funds in the beginning, not now, because now you have a well developed project and the worldwide knows you and knows Tesla also. But in the beginning about the industry that you are working about this kind of energy. What is the most difficult thing to find investors and also to convince investors and keep what you thought in the beginning throughout the development of the company?

[A]

Sure. Well, in the beginning, in the beginning of Tesla and SolarCity, I mean, I thought the probability of Success was so low that I provided all of the money. So all of the money just came from me personally because I didn't want to ask people, other investors for money, if I thought we were going to die, because I thought, I thought we would. So I invested entirely the money that I got from PayPal. All of that got invested into Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX. And even then we only narrowly survived. So in 2008 for Tesla, we actually closed the financing round on Christmas Eve 2008. It was the last hour of the last day that it was possible. And this is one of the tricky things with something like a car company. It's like there are good times and bad times and when the economy goes south, then that's when things get really, really tricky for a manufacturing company. So, yeah, I mean, in the U.S. for example, the only two car companies that haven't gone bankrupt in history are Ford and Tesla. That's it. Everybody else is bankrupt or went bankrupt at some point, you know, General Motors, Chrysler and others. So I think we just made it by the skin of our teeth these days. Last few years, really. I'd say the last two years is when Tesla's achieved a level where it's not facing imminent death. I mean, even as recently as early 2013, we were operating with maybe one to two weeks of money.

[B]

Hi, my name is Pascal and I would like to ask you, don't you think that we need deeper reflection about our dynamic of society? Because all, all the solutions that you are talking about is about efficiency. But don't you think that we need to think differently and consume less? Because right now Ardilmac is about confronting problems and going always in the same direction and trying to find the technological innovation to save us.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I do think we should be watch our consumption, we shouldn't be wasteful. But even if we are really conservative in our use of energy and are very effective with recycling and all sorts of things, that delays the need to move to a sustainable future, but it doesn't eliminate it. If we don't have sustainable energy generation, that there's no way that we can conserve our way to a good future. We have to fundamentally make sustainable energy available. On the plus side, there's actually an enormous amount of sustainable energy. The energy from the sun per square kilometer is a gigawatt. So if you just had a 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer array of solar panels, it would be generating, well, it would be receiving a gigawatt of solar energy. Then at a 20% efficiency, you'd be generating 200 megawatts. So we can actually generate way more energy, like probably 100 times more energy than we actually need to operate civilization just with solar panels. So we just need to fix the incentive structure of the world to make sure that companies are incented towards sustainable versus unsustainable technology. This is fundamentally the problem.

[C]

Hello, my name is Lily and I'm a PhD physics student at Yale University, but I graduated here. So I have three questions. So the first one is sort of political because you mentioned it. You said that scientists, sometimes they diverge, they have different opinions and it's probably on anything. Yeah. And that's also probably because sometimes they are financed by different corporations. And so you said we should stop the propaganda. We should try to ask the politicians to set the rules so that we will go in a better direction. You know, not climate, global warming, but so that probably goes against the interest of oil companies, but as well probably the governments themselves when they have a financial interest. So I was thinking perhaps your own, I mean, perhaps we could have lobbyists ourselves. So that would be perhaps an efficient way to have those rules put into, you know, so these rules, the carbon tax would be applied. So that's my first question because also, you know, France is one of the main importer of nuclear energy. So you know, trying to ask them for a tax, carbon tax, when themselves are the people who are making the most money from importing, you know, nuclear energy from power plants that are in France.

[A]

We'll limit it to one question per person for now, I think. Thank you so much.

[B]

Go ahead.

[C]

The other question was, you know, renewable energy, that'd be great. But it's kind of intermittent, you know, like solar, solar energy. Okay, that's great. But perhaps we need to store it with perhaps with lithium batteries. But we want to use like. Sure, yeah, I see the last one was the fossil fuel area.

[A]

Okay, yeah, yeah.

[C]

I mean, yeah. I mean, is it not going to go to an end on its own because it's not an unlimited resource.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Maybe pick one out of the three questions. Elon.

[A]

Sure. Yeah. I mean, I think it's. Each government should just, they should do the right thing without waiting, without depending upon what other governments are doing. I think that's. There's too much in these climate talks of countries like trying to only do things if another country does it. I mean, if it's the right thing for the future, a country should just do it. And don't worry about what other countries are doing, just do the right thing. And many other countries are so it's really just. We just want to encourage as many governments as possible to change the rules to incent a good future. This is fundamentally what has to happen, or we will substantially delay the transition away from carbon. So. And yeah, that's what has to happen. Tesla and Solar study that my companies are very tiny. Like, we're tiny, tiny companies. So. So in order for there to be a big move towards sustainability, the giant companies have to know that that is what the governments are demanding for the future, and that's what the people are demanding for the future. So at the end of the day, the governments respond to popular pressure. If you tell politicians that your vote depends on them doing the right thing with climate change, that makes a difference. So if they're having sort of a fundraising event or a dinner party or whatever, and at every fundraising event and every dinner party, somebody's asking, hey, what are you doing about the climate? Then they will take action. So I think you have tremendous power. You have the power to make the change. Let me tell you, we definitely can't beat the oil and gas industry on lobbyists, okay? That would be a losing battle. You know, the, you know, Exxon makes more profit in a year than the value of the entire solar industry in the United States. So it's like, if you take every solar company in the United States, it's less than Exxon's profit in one year. There's no way you can win on money. It's impossible.

[B]

Good evening, sir. I have just one small question, but very actual. Do you think the Cop21 will be a success?

[A]

You know, I am. I have. I don't have any real basis for this, but I have a good feeling about it. I do have a good feeling about it. So I think, well, it's going to be degrees of success. So it's sort of like, for example, like the Copenhagen was terrible. Like, nothing came out of Copenhagen, the Copenhagen climate talks. I mean, it was basically, I think there was a net increase in global warming as a result of that one. Unfortunately, in the case of the Paris talks, I think there will be some positive movement and it's a question of what degree. And I think we need to send a clear message to the negotiating teams and to the politicians that this time there needs to be significant change. This time something needs to happen. There's a question all the way up.

[B]

Hello and thank you for coming. My name is Maria and I'm a student of international relations here. My question to you is this. We know that climate is a global common Good. So how do we get countries with economies relying heavily on fossil fuels on board with climate change, which, like, how do we get those who have the most to lose on board? Thank you.

[A]

I think we just need to turn that argument around and say, like, look, this, this is a common good, and if countries don't take action, they all will share in a bad future. So everyone needs to take action and care about what the future is going to hold and lead by example. So even countries that are quite dependent on fossil fuels, if they just change their tax structure, they can move away from that in a way that's not super disruptive to the economy. It's really just a question of collecting the same amount of taxes, but weighted towards things that people believe are most likely to be bad instead of things that are most likely to be good. And we do this already in, in our tax code, we tax alcohol and cigarettes much more than we tax fruits and vegetables. It's just sort of the sensible thing to do. And nobody, you know, and you don't hear, you know, countries saying, well, we make lots of fruits. You know, we make lots of fruits and vegetables. So, like, we want low taxes or we make lots of alcohol and tobacco and we want, you know, lower taxes. Like, that's a silly debate. It's gone. And I think the same thing applies to carbon emissions. Just adjust the tax code and the right thing will happen over time. And if it's graduated over time and starts off small and becomes significant in the future, then even if you're heavily dependent on carbon today, that message of seeing what's going to happen in the future will have a huge impact on the way that any given country's economy works. So they will then become not dependent on carbon because of the incentive structure. So I really don't think they have anything to lose here. Anything to lose by taking action and a lot to lose by not taking action. We have time for maybe two or three more questions, so there's one right here.

[B]

Hi. My question is about batteries. So electric batteries today, especially lithium ion, have a significant carbon footprint and potential impacts on both the environment and our health. And the environmental impact moves away from consumables and to how the way, how we produce and how we store the waste that comes from it. So the gap with fossil fuels might not be as wide as we think. So my question, how do you respond to this and how do you see this evolving in the next years?

[A]

So I'm not sure I totally understand that question. Could you say that again? Yeah.

[B]

Basically, the the, the impact on the environment of today, our ways of electrical batteries, lithium ion, the production of lithium ion batteries. And how do you equate this with fossil fuel and its impact as it's more about the production and how we use the waste and how we store the waste. And so how do you see this, how is this going to be optimized in the next years or is this going to change?

[A]

Yeah, well, the important thing is like once you've, once you've built a battery, then at the end of life of the battery you can recycle those components. So it's something that has no long term, negligible long term impact on the carbon cycle because you essentially you get the sort of the lithium and nickel cobalt and you create the battery. Essentially you get those materials once and then you recycle them forever. So I think that the, it's really a negligible impact for batteries on the environment. And yeah, as compared to carbon producing, mining and burning billions of tons of carbon every year, which effectively permanently human standpoint affects the carbon, the carbon content of the oceans and atmosphere. So yeah, it's really, we're talking orders of magnitude difference between fossil fuels and batteries, like not even on the same scale. Okay, then the last one.

[B]

Hello. So my question is, take taking into consideration that technology now is at some of the breaking point. It is advanced, but not so advanced to pass to the sustainable clean energy. How do you see this integration of clean energy for long term in the future, step by step? Maybe.

[A]

How do I see the integration? How do I see us getting to a sustainable energy future?

[B]

Yes, yes. How will the clean energy integrate into the society, taking into consideration that technology isn't advanced?

[A]

Sure. Well, I mean, I expect, you know, all transport to go fully electric over time with the ironic exception of rockets and then all energy production to go sustainable over time. This will take a long time, many decades. But you know, the way it'll manifest itself is by people having batteries in their homes or at the utility substation and by driving electric vehicles and having electric planes. But as I said, this is going to be quite a very slow transition because the incentive structure is so biased against sustainable energy. So in fact, I think even if there's quite a strong action by government as a result of the climate talks in Paris, I think it's still going to be a transition that's measured in decades. So it will be a slow transition. And the fundamental question is how do we accelerate that transition? That's the real question here. What actions can we take that would accelerate a transition to a good future. And that's why I'm so harping on this notion of a revenue neutral carbon tax. I think that's something that every country can implement and it can be graduated and phased in over time, and this will be by far the most effective thing for accelerating that transition to a good future. All right, well, thank you, everyone.