B (4:14)

I think you're right.

A (4:16)

Did Bill Gates change his mind? We'll find out right after this. So America's demand for electrical power is absolutely exploding. By 2030, we're going to need to generate and transmit 55 gigawatts of additional energy, enough to power 46 million homes. And every year that means more lines, more rebuilds, more recovery work, and more opportunity if you got the right stuff. I'm talking about line work. This is one of the few careers out there that can take you from the classroom to a high paying, purpose driven job in less than four months with no student debt. I know at least a dozen microworx scholars have attended this school. All of them are prospering and I'll tell you why. Their 15 week program will get you career ready 90% faster than a four year degree. There's just no comparison. The power industry, telecom and renewable industries alone currently have 125,000 job openings every year. And that number's only going up. This is six figure earning potential, especially with overtime and storm work. Every instructor is a Department of labor certified journeyman lineman. They're trained by those who have lived in the trade. NLC is also part of the Quanta Services family. That means you'll have a direct pathway to the nation's Number one employer of craft, skilled labor. I know I'm a broken record on this, but this really is the golden age of the trades. You can earn big, live well, do work that matters in a job that AI cannot do. Learn more at Lineman Edu. That's Lineman Edu. Hi, Alex.

B (6:03)

Hey there.

A (6:05)

I can't decide. I forgot the last time I saw you in this setup. I thought it's kind of like the usual suspects. Where are you sitting, exactly? Like, you're not in a precinct, are you?

B (6:14)

I'm not in a precinct. That's funny. No, I have a really nice office in Laguna Beach. We actually just expanded to two side by side places. I won't disclose it exactly, because who knows what kinds of people are out.

A (6:27)

There, But I know.

B (6:28)

Yeah, we haven't gotten much decor. And one thing is, I don't read physical books very much, so I don't have the usual bookshelf as a thing. I mean, I read a lot of stuff, but it's mostly on Kindle or reading PDFs on my iPad. So I need a better background.

A (6:44)

Well, now that you mention it, it does freak me out a little bit because I feel like a poser. Just I'm surrounded by books that I've. Some of which I've read anyway, and you're just there with nothing to fall back on except your facile brain. Which, by the way, it is worth pointing out that for a guy that doesn't read books, you. You certainly do write a few.

B (7:03)

I do, and most people want to read them in hardback. So, yeah, I have a lot of those books here because I sign them and send them to people and that kind of thing. But that would be a little bit weird if you showed the relative volume of Fossil future versus other books. That would be worse than the prison background, I would say.

A (7:21)

Fossil Future, of course, one of your best sellers. The other, I think, is the moral case for fossil fuels.

B (7:27)

That's right.

A (7:27)

And I thought of both of them when I read this essay by Bill Gates, which I want to talk to you about, because I can't for the life of me figure out where to put this in the hierarchy of relativism, I suppose. Is this a significant turn? I guess is my first question. But before you answer it, let me just point out if I didn't do it in the preamble, that this is two or three thousand words that Bill Gates has written wherein he essentially says, not so fast. The climate crisis is still a thing, and I'm still terribly concerned by it. But it doesn't really pose a threat to humanity, as you may have heard me and others catastrophize with alarming rapidity over the last decade or so.

B (8:21)

That last part is definitely not in there, as you may have heard me. No signal of a shift in his public perspective. Really well in his thing. This is an interesting aspect of it. I think you summarized very accurately where he's coming from. Other people have summarized it too much as, oh, he's just rejected climate catastrophism and taken the Alex Epstein stance. There's a couple of reasons why people think that, and those are some of the best things about it. It's a very marked shift in his public position. My guess is there has been little to no shift in his internal position. I've been tracking him for a long time for obvious reasons. Incredibly influential guy in general and in particular in the international policy world where he's probably the leading private philanthropist and by extension influences a lot of what happens with governments. He's always had like, he's always had some version of the views that he is advocating. And I'd say that the three most important things that are good are. One is he believes in evaluating global issues by a human well being standard, or I'll call it a human flourishing standard. Ultimately, when we're thinking about, hey, what do we want to do about changes in climate and fossil fuels, ultimately he's thinking about, hey, we want a better world for human beings. That's what we're looking for. He wouldn't make this explicit, which he should, but he wouldn't say, hey, we, we're not trying to just keep CO2 the same as an end in itself. We're only interested in that insofar as it affects humans. And if CO2 being higher were better for humans, we'd be better on its own. We'd be for that. And if, on balance, even if CO2 being higher had some negatives but the positives that came with it outweighed those negatives, we'd be for that.

A (10:05)

So he says that, wait a minute, people should understand. But that's like a great. It seems part of the Dogma, right? Like CO2 is the villain. CO2 is the enemy in that world. And from what I've. Well, I certainly don't. CO2 is plant food essentially, right? I mean, we kind of need it and it's always been here. And it's a preposterous villain to have it seems in a story like this, right?

B (10:34)

I mean, the more sophisticated version is the rising CO2 levels, which is how I put it in in fossil future. I think it's a much better way to think of it that way than climate change. Climate change is just such a vague term in so many ways, and it sort of assumes it's having certain kinds of effects and it's vague about how big those effects are. Whereas if you think of it as rising CO2 levels, or slightly more technically rising GHG levels, you get at the phenomenon that there's this dispute about. It's like, okay, we have rising CO2 levels, what do we do about it? But first, how do we think about it? And one of the questions is, are you thinking of it from a human centric perspective, which I detailed, or are you thinking about it from an anti impact perspective? And the anti impact perspective says it is wrong for us to increase CO2 from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% of the atmosphere. Not because it's on balance bad for us, but because it's just wrong. It's wrong for us to impact climate and more broadly the rest of nature. And that is my analysis for a long time of the animating view of the climate catastrophist movement. They think there's a climate catastrophe not because the livability of climate and the safety of climate have decreased, because in fact they've increased. By every objective measure, we're much safer from climate disaster than ever. They think it's a catastrophe because they think impact is evil and therefore a climate that we've impacted in a world that we've impacted, those are just bad. But you have to think of it as a religious kind of commandment, thou shalt not impact climate. You can't think of it as they're really concerned about a livable climate, but that's what they always pretend. And this is part of why it's really important for Bill to be explicit about. Hey, I'm thinking of this from a human centric perspective. I haven't seen him be nearly this explicit. But that's a good thing because that starts you off. At least we're measuring by the same standard instead of we're often measuring by blended standards. So sometimes we care about human life and sometimes we just care about preserving a perfect non human climate. And when you blend those, you don't think clearly.

A (12:40)

But whatever the leading edge is on the rhetorical part of that argument, you've got this sort of umbrella, this patina that hangs over all of it, that has for a very long time said in the Most catastrophic Armageddon. Ish way you can. We got 12 years, we've got 10 years, we've got nine years. And I mean, I'm just looking at this article and I would encourage people to read it. Noah Rothman wrote it and it's in the National Review, but it just talks about, you know, all the fresh drinking water in 1992 is going to be gone from the Maldives, and the Gaza Strip is ecologically uninhabitable back in 2020, and air pollution in 1985 is halving the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface. It's just one prediction after the next, after the next, after the next. And I only point it out because is it possible that Bill, I call him Bill, has looked around and said, you know something? We've made ourselves exponentially less credible every time we cry wolf within the boundaries of the average biped's life, who can look back and go, you gave me a date. Certain. And again, right again, you're just Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, and I'm starting to look like a jackass lying here on my back having missed another Armageddon. Is he just trying to get in front of that, you think?

B (14:15)

I mean, there's been a lot of those failed predictions, and those didn't seem to drive him to change his public view again. He's had the human centric view, as far as I can tell, indefinitely. He's very focused in particular on alleviating poverty, vaccination. I think a lot of really good stuff he's done in terms of saving lives and thinking about that in a pretty prioritized way. What are the things that make the biggest difference? It's no accident he's talked quite a bit to Bjorn Lomborg, who's been a much better advocate on these issues, much better thinker on these issues publicly. And I think Bill, like most people who study the science and economics on this, has never believed that we face Armageddon. That was always a marketing thing for people who just believe our impact is bad. And sure, they believe there's some negative consequences to humans, but it's really been a marketing thing to get humans on board. Because if you just say, hey, we want to suppress the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we want to keep it as close to what it was pre us becoming productive, the Industrial Revolution as possible. That's our number one priority. And by pursuing that priority, we are going to cause the most suffering and premature death that humanity has ever caused, which is just absolutely True, if you go net zero on some rapid timescale, there's nothing in human history that compares to the suffering and death of starving a world of 8 billion people of the energy that produces their food, heats their homes, cools their homes, literally. World would starve as a first pass. Starve and freeze. Probably those would be the first two big things that happened if you got rid of fossil fuels on their timescale. So they need a way of the people who are more anti human who I think are really driving this push to just preserve some perfect mystical natural climate pre human climate, they need to market it to humans as oh, it's actually gonna be good for you. And the easiest way to market it as good for you is to create a fear of an apocalypse if you don't do it, cause then you activate the fear and then people don't even think about costs and benefits. They're just like, we gotta stop this, we gotta stop this, the world's gonna end in 12 years. But Bill never believed this, nor does basically any climate scientist. You take the UN reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, these things are terrible. They're so distorted, they're so biased. But in all of their scenarios, even what they would consider the worst case scenarios, which are crazy exaggerations of everything, in not one does human life get worse over time, it's always getting better. So all the catastrophe is human life gets less good than we would expect it to be without climate change. But the fallacy there is they're assuming that you'll get all the benefits of fossil fuels, but you can get those without any kinds of climate impacts, which you can't for a while. But they all know the world was going to get better for humans. It's been a total lie that it's going to get worse for humans. This is just a very common distortion. And what Bill did in the past is he didn't engage in it directly, but he engaged in it as an accomplice. He gave credibility to it by allying himself with these people, fighting, funding them in cases like funding the Guardian, which is the main thing that does this. But he knew that this wasn't true. And he also knew that net zero by 2050 was mass murder. And he never believed that. And there are clips of him contesting it, but nevertheless Microsoft supported this, everyone supported it, but he privately, his view hasn't changed. What's interesting is his status calculation, I would say, or let's just say his expediency calculation has changed. And That's a good thing because it means the world. The world is more favoring rational, humanistic thinking on these issues than it did before. So I don't give Bill much credit, but I think the fact that he's comfortable saying more of what he thinks is a great sign culturally.

A (18:18)

After recommending American Giant clothing to millions of people for the last several years and personally wearing their excellent garments for over a decade, it should come as no great surprise to hear me tell you that everything currently for sale at american-giant.com Mike would make for a fantastic Christmas present. Because it would. I'm talking about sweatshirts and hoodies and yarn, dyed American flannel so thick and soft and durable you won't believe their comfort even after you put them on the kind of garments made with a reverse weave that makes them virtually indestructible and guaranteed to be stolen by covetous girlfriends, as so many of mine have been. I'm talking about T shirts and jeans and all the essentials made from American cotton assembled by US cutters and sewers and textile workers who live and work in American towns. Men and women determined to prove we can still make quality stuff here. And I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention a limited line of microworks T shirts and sweatshirts made exclusively by American giant, where 100% of the net proceeds go straight to our next round of Work Ethic scholarships. Now that is a Christmas present. Go to american-giant.com mike and buy something awesome. Even if it's just a simple American Made T shirt to help us close the skills gap, the quality really is second to none. Use Code Mike to get 20% off your order at american-giant.com mike. That's american-giant.com Mike. American Giant, American made. American Giant, American made. It sure feels like from our perspective, looking at it broadly, all of that lines up. I'm more interested, I think, in what this means for the movement itself in terms of. Call it an internecine struggle, in keeping with your religious metaphor. Right. Like you've got people in the movement who agree with Bill, I believe.

B (20:31)

Oh, for sure, for sure. Most people have something like his view. Most people, like most climate scientists, they have something like his view.

A (20:41)

Let me read you what Noah wrote. Tell me what you think of these two paragraphs. There's long been a debate within the climate change activist camp to which outsiders were not supported. Supposed to be privy. On the one hand, there are activists who emphasize malorianism. They believed that human activity caused climate change. But they also concede that human activity can stave off the worst of its effects and reduce the severity of its impact on individual lives. While dogmatic, their worldview is anthro, and they seek to maximize outcomes for the greatest number of people. On the other hand, we have the misanthropes. Those are the climate activists who struggle to see any redeemable features in modernity and humanity's contributions to our present conundrum. They emphasize what they call degrowth, what the rest of us would refer to as deindustrialization. Our path to salvation, with all its quasi religious overtones, rests in our capacity to unshackle us from our machines, to return to a more organic relationship with our environment, to become smaller and less numerous. If those factions exist in whatever degree, then it feels to me like given the fact that he's put $2 billion into the cause over the years, there's going to be a giant grab for money. Where is the money going to go? Because the cause du jour, like every charity from Save the Children to the United Way, had a component of the climate cause wrapped into it. I think there's going to be an unbelievable reshuffling of philanthropic resources as a result of this. Don't know, but it's going to be interesting.

B (22:42)

I think it is going to be interesting. So I think that characterization, by the way, is fundamentally accurate, particularly the misanthrope one, the anthropocentric, or you can just call it human centric to be simpler about it. I think that the people on that side of the climate pessimism or catastrophism, that kind of continuum. My contention in fossil future in general is just like they've kind of half bought into anti humanism and half pro human, as we might talk about. I mean, Gates says that his analysis is human centric. It's bizarrely not human centric in terms of just discounting so many benefits of fossil fuels. But nevertheless, by him bringing up the pro human standard explicitly, that's a really important, important thing. And disavowing certain elements of the misanthropes, including just the apocalyptic nature. And he doesn't say it explicitly, but he's saying it as the net zero by 2050 timetable. Those are the three things that are huge. Challenging the standard, challenging the anti human standard, having a pro human standard, challenging climate catastrophism and then challenging net zero by 2050, those are very big. And it's obviously, I mean, made a huge impact already. It doesn't just seem like A news cycle thing, although I always worry about that kind of thing. But he's such a figure in the international thing that now he's given. I think the culture was more favorable toward this and that's why he felt comfortable. But now that he feels comfortable, other people are already coming out and feeling comfortable. You're seeing this in the tech world. There's some really interesting comments in the tech world already. But in the international world, the world of cop, Conference of the Parties, which is part of the UN Framework concerning Climate Change, which is related to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, these international climate conferences, he will probably change some of the discussions there. And he's explicitly saying, hey, let's think about this in a human centric way. That's going to be fascinating because he's enabling a lot of people to come off in his direction. And it doesn't seem like that can be anything but really good compared to the usual cop, which is just total. Fossil fuels are obviously evil. They're destroying the climate. They can be rapidly replaced by renewables. Why aren't we just getting off fossil fuels already? And you have Antonio Guterres, like this former socialist thug. I think he's still a thug and he's still a socialist, but that's not his role. He's the Secretary General of the Union. He's just always saying some insane thing about fossil fuels are poisoning. Why don't we get off them already? They're destroying the Earth and its people. I think Gates is really gonna change that and it should be an enduring change. Cause I don't think he can take this back in the way that you can kind of take the catastrophism back. But I don't think once Trump leaves office, let's say you have a Democrat, President Newsom or whatever, not endorsing that, by the way, but I don't think you can take this back. So I feel like we've made some kind of permanent shift where the energy and climate humanism and the more balanced or even handed thinking is more mainstream now, including in the most extreme part, which is the whole international climate racket.

A (26:00)

Right. That's why I called you. It's not because Bill Gates said anything I hadn't heard before. I just had never heard it come from him. I've heard it come from you. Here are the three truths that he espouses in this memoir that is currently freaking everybody out. Truth number one, climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization. Truth number two, Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate. And truth number three, health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change. This all is coming out of your side of the argument, but at least it's adjacent. I'm not saying he would have made an endnote in one of your books, but I mean this is heretical to I think a significant number of people. Yes, and that is what, you know, I mean, how ironic. He's calling them hard truths, Gore called them inconvenient and so it goes.

B (27:10)

But yeah, so Bill Gates hard truths are considerably different and more true. I mean anything could be more true than Al Gore's inconvenient truths. But it is a thing and it's a little challenging for me because I'm extremely excited culturally about this. But I still think because it's such a shift and I think it's going to encourage a shift, but nevertheless, Gates thinking is just God awful in terms of the, how biased it is against fossil fuels and how inaccurate certain things are. And I think he's, he's doing that. I think it's again a calculated thing. I think he's actually more pro fossil fuels than this suggests. But he's, he's like, I admire Gates in a lot of ways I should say this, but like he is a super calculating guy. That's always been a dominant thing. It's kind of been his business strength. Like his business strength was never, I'm designing products that people absolutely love and go mad for. So he's not a Jobs or a Bezos, who's just a customer obsessed person. You often use Microsoft products, sorry, Microsoft people. I like a lot of you, but you often just hate Microsoft products. Sometimes you just like you were not thinking about me when you did this, but you were thinking about some spreadsheet. And I get it and I respect that and congratulations to you and I don't think the government should have gone after your for antitrust. But like it's just not many of our style. And so he's just a calculated guy. You have to think of him. That's never changed. You got to think of him through that lens. But let me just justify what I'm saying just for a second about how bad the analysis is. The elephant in the room is just that fossil fuels have enormous unique benefits that are what allow him to point to things like health and prosperity and resilience. So he's acting like, oh, we address climate change through health and prosperity and resilience. Where do those things come from? They come from energy. Right? Energy is what allows us to produce modern health care and hospitals and pharmaceuticals and all these other things. And it allows us to produce resilience measures like irrigation to alleviate drought and sturdy buildings, air conditioning and heating, et cetera. And energy has been such a powerful force for creating health and prosperity and resilience that as Gates acknowledges, finally, the death rate from climate disasters is way down. Finally, somebody, he's saying this, which many of us have been saying for a long time, but he's acting like there's just some kind of abstract world of prosperity and health and stuff that is separate from fossil fuels. And then there's this evil thing called greenhouse gases, which he calls climate change or greenhouse gas levels, which cause climate change. And we should just fight that. But the problem is that greenhouse gas thing is directly coupled to fossil fuels and we don't near term have a way of decoupling them, despite what he says, which I'll comment on in a second. So he's just ignoring the fact that all the good stuff he's pointing to, including the resilient stuff, is fundamentally the product of fossil fuels. But he's still giving his support to this anti fossil fuel thing because you're just fixating on the side effect greenhouse gases without talking about the benefits. If you read the thing and you have that in mind, it's just a pervasive fossil fuel benefit denial. And one inaccuracy that I find particularly outrageous that enables him to perpetrate this is by saying solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels for most things. Now he says that. Now he contradicts it later by saying, oh yeah, actually it turns out we need reliability, so we need nuclear and geothermal. We don't have those yet. But he says this, and he says this, and he also says at the same time, well, solar and wind have helped us drive emissions way down. Well, here's the problem. Emissions have been going up every year, as I and others have predicted, because people want to be prosperous. And despite all this net zero pressure and rhetoric, people are still choosing to use more Energy. China has 300 coal plants in the pipeline designed to last 40 plus years. They're setting fossil fuel records all the time. So how can Gates say that emissions are going down? I'll give you the brilliant way he does this. And so many useful idiots have been sharing this on the web. He can't say emissions have been going down. So instead he says projections of emissions are going down. And in particular, he highlights a little outfit called the International Energy Agency, which in the last 10 years has been totally taken over by climate catastrophists and in particular its chairman, Fatih Birol, whom I consider a massive villain, has just changed the IEA from somewhat incompetently trying to predict the future of energy, but honestly but incompetently, to deliberately dishonestly saying we're going to get off fossil fuels to the point where in the early 2000s, they called for a halt to all new investment in oil and gas. How would that have gone with the AI revolution or even just human beings surviving and being able to be fed? So what happened is the IEA started changing their, quote, projections to be the climate catastrophe movement's political wish list. So now their projections 10 years later are very different because they've just been politicized. But Gates can't draw on real declines in emissions. So he just deals with this imaginary decline that the IEA says. But all these climate catastrophes are always projecting declines in emissions. Every time they have a climate conference, they say, oh, the emissions are going to go down after this. And they never do. They all go up because of the fundamental economic reality. So it's just so. It's so disingenuous. I think he knows better to act like fossil fuels have no benefits and they're not really causing all the good stuff you're talking about, including the climate resilience. And then to act like they're being rapidly replaced by solar and wind and lowering emissions, when that's absolutely not true. And this is where the calculating Bill Gates annoys me because he's always thinking about what can I say to get what I want now and to preserve my status. And a lot of the stuff he wants, I think is pretty good. I don't think he just wants to enrich himself with AI for Microsoft, although he sure as hell wants that. I think he wants a lot of stuff that's good for the world, but he has this idea that he needs to be in this position. And I think his public positions are dictated largely by what's expedient for whatever mission he has and his status in that mission versus what's true. So I don't think his views have changed. I think his expedient's calculation has changed. And again, that's huge. That's great.

A (33:59)

That's great. But couldn't it also be true that it's the audience that so often determines the tenor and tone of the message as well as the content? Right. So, I mean, if you're a preacher and It's Sunday morning to stay with our metaphor and the church is filled. You probably don't have to spend a whole lot of time on the basics, you know, the heaven, the hell, the this that, you know, it's reasonable to assume everybody in there is singing out of the same hymn book, literally. But if you're gonna go out into the world to evangelize, right, you're gonna have a whole different rap. And it just strikes me that Bill Gates could have, could have reduced his, his memo to about 1300 words instead of 2,500 and got it on the front page of any paper he wanted to in the whole wide world. You know, from the Journal to the Times, they all would have printed it. It's Bill Gates. But he didn't. He put it on a blog called Gates Notes, right. So he had to know it was going to be picked up. But I think, I think what he wrote was in large part a real reflection of who he knew his audience was. So maybe to your point, you know, had it been on the front page of any of those papers, you know, he would have been less circumspect. Remember what it felt like to graduate from high school with absolutely no idea of what you were going to do with the rest of your life. For thousands of kids today, that's a very real and very overwhelming feeling. Which is why I always tell parents about K12 powered schools. There is no better way to give a high school student the tools they need to start to figure out what's next for them while they're still working toward their high school diploma. And you don't need to wait until next year. You can start anytime, as in right now. K12's career and college prep program allows students to explore real world careers as early as middle school. I'm talking about careers in business, healthcare, IT courses, and of course the skilled trades where business is booming right now. They'll get hands on experience and chances to earn industry certifications to get them ahead before they graduate. And if college is the right path for your student, K12 provides dual enrollment programs for the opportunity to earn college credits while they're still in high school and career coaches who will guide them through the application process and the scholarship process and all the financial aid hoops that you gotta jump through. See what's possible with K12's career and college prep@k12.com roe that's the letter K the number12.com roe the letter K the number 12.

B (37:08)

Yeah, I mean, look, can't argue with that. Guy's distribution strategy. I mean, who writes on their own blog? And everyone in the world covers it. I was really impressed by just how many people reached out to me and just said like, have you seen this? What do you think of this? And it's really gotten legs. Which is part of the reason I'm excited that you just reached out today to talk about it.

A (37:30)

Because I'd have called you last night, but I was flicking around and I saw you talking to Will Kane. I'm like, oh God, Will Kane beat me to it. But I knew your phone must have been blowing up. And forgive me if I haven't asked you anything you haven't been asked already. But I'm still stuck on the money because this thing has just generated so much money over the years for so many people. And this thing that Noah has written, let me just read you the very end too, because I think it's coming. In short, those who are desperate to preserve their access to capital will accuse those who fail to propagate climate change apocalypticism of seeking only access to capital. It'll be psychological projection of the highest order, but it's the understandable sort. Those who retail that face saving line are steeling themselves for a fight not with their critics, but with in their own movement. And make no mistake, a fight is coming. It will determine whether climate change malarianism remains the altar to which all left of center activist groups must genuflect, or whether that preoccupation will be relegated to the fringes as the worlds of charity and philanthropy retreat back into their respective lanes. The stakes are high, as that mournful shriek you hear just off in the distance would suggest. The gravy train is screeching to an abrupt halt. A scramble to loot it for all its remaining worth comes next. I think he's right, man. I think it's gonna be the mother of all Easter egg hunts.

B (39:15)

It'll be interesting. I mean, we should say. You know, I think there are a couple driving factors here. I mean, obviously having a pro fossil fuel, anti climate catastrophist administration is a huge factor. I mean, people are very politically driven. Although, notice we didn't see this in 2016-2020 nearly as much. Now this relates to a second factor which it might be in my interest to overemphasize. But I think the energy humanists have, including me, have had quite a bit of influence culturally and on politicians in particular. I mean, I've worked probably the most in politics directly, and the energy education level of the average Politician is way better, in my view, than it was eight or 10 years ago. I mean, way, way better. And you see a lot of these people, not just in Congress, but in the agencies. And I mean, we have Chris Wright, who's a longtime energy humanist, as our energy secretary. I mean, I don't take credit for him, but that's great help. Alex, that's amazing.

A (40:13)

Yeah, don't all shucks it, man. You were there at the beginning. Maybe not at the beginning, but you've been a steady voice of. And I know we've talked about this before, but I hope it's gratifying for you to see the headlines catch up to your smack. Right.

B (40:27)

It's exciting, particularly when the changes are good. It's the kind of when things are bad and people recognize, oh, you were kind of right, that's not that satisfying. This is good. But those two factors are big. But I would say probably the biggest one for Gates and others is just the AI revolution and the demand for reliable electricity. People need to understand how big a shift. It's not just Gates at all, but in the digital tech world, the shift that has happened in the last three or four years is just absolutely stunning and has to be primarily explained in economic terms. Just to go back to 2020, 2021, 2022, you have these leading companies basically all advocating for net zero and agitating specifically for quasi net zero legislation. In the United States. For example, Facebook Meta was doing this. I mean, they were all doing this. And why were they doing this? Well, they were doing it because maybe they believed it in some way, but mainly they thought it was expedient. As in there wouldn't be a high price to pay. And why didn't they think there would be a high price to pay? Well, because we didn't yet have modern large language models whose compute is proportional to energy put in them. So we didn't have anything in the digital tech world, which you dump a lot of energy in and then you get a lot of compute value out. And they could outsource their stuff to China and have them build the stuff, but once you were using it, it didn't use that much electricity. So their main focus was, hey, let's be part of the politically correct movement. Let's actually focus on not expanding the amount of electricity, but let's pay utilities to relabel our electricity so that others get the blame for our fossil fuel use. And then we claim to be 100% renewable because we paid for green credits for others. That was their focus in Electricity. And they thought it was fairly harmless to agitate for the country to retreat from reliable electricity in general, because, I don't know, they didn't really care that much. Then they realized, oh, wait a second, what are called transformer models, which is the basis of modern LLMs. These things are actually just energy. Like, energy equals compute equals wealth, equals our business. Once they saw that, it's like, wait, we need more electricity. We can't just kind of fiddle around with the labeling of our stagnant electricity. We need more electricity. And then they realized, wait a second, it needs to be reliable. And, yeah, we kind of knew solar and wind weren't reliable. Like, what about the night and the evening and the clouds and early morning and all this other stuff? And then they start to realize, wow, we don't have that many nuclear plants. We didn't really help with people killing that industry. So guess what we need is natural gas. We need natural gas and quite a bit of oil, actually. Like, diesel power plants. And so guess what Elon is powering Grok with is a whole bunch of natural gas plants. And everyone wants natural gas. And what they find out is, wow, we kind of screwed everyone because we set all these net zero targets for the world, and now there's a shortage of turbines. And we're like, why can't you assholes make turbines? It's like, because you assholes told them not to because we're going net zero. And everyone's like, where's my natural gas? I decided natural gas is good two weeks ago, and why isn't it here? Why isn't it available for power? So now they've totally changed because they need natural gas for their business, and that's good. Again, it's not very admirable in terms of the public honesty, but it's great that people are waking up to, we need reliable electricity and we need fossil fuels, and this really matters for our economy and security. And maybe we can also start caring about the billions of people who have almost no energy. Maybe we can start recognizing that if our AI machines need it, maybe people in the Gambia need it too.

A (44:16)

History is full of examples of civilizations pivoting. Never this fast. Never this fast. I. I finally got a tour of a data center in Plano, Texas, last week. I mean, I'm sure you've seen it, but for the uninitiated, it's otherworldly. They're huge. This was a small one. It was only 400,000 square feet, but it had. It had 26 generators in it. The Size of a house. And each generator is backed up with at least one uninterrupted power supply, which is about the same size. And then on the roof, they've got cooling systems that are the size of two houses, and every generator needs one. And the like, you can feel, you can smell the electricity in the air. It's crazy. It's so much of it. And, in fact, it was our friend Raj who I met at your energy conference, who invited me out over at Aligned. And so sorry for the filibuster, but invite me back when you do that thing again, because that got me an invite to.

B (45:24)

Yeah, you're already invited. We're just figuring out, you know, where to put you on the schedule, but hopefully we're getting. Yeah, we got a great slot plan for you so we can negotiate that offline. But, yeah, that was great. That was a really big thing. You know, Rick Perry, when we were at that conference, I thought it was so interesting that he just said, mike Rowe's the most important person here.

A (45:46)

Imagine being me trying to eat my eggs in the background, just trying to. I was like, oh, wow, that's new.

B (45:53)

He really, as long as I've known you and followed you, he really, in that moment, made me realize, oh, wait, I've been undervaluing the labor component of this, because I'm thinking about all the other constraints on this in terms of the policy constraints and the supply chain constraints, et cetera. But then, of course, the whole supply chain depends on actual people being able to do this. And we've done all sorts of things to discourage or certainly not encourage people to develop a lot of these relevant skills. And now we want to build all this physical stuff, which is great. I think we're going to do a lot of good. There's a lot of good trends right now culturally, in terms of wanting to build stuff. We are quite late and behind in a lot of ways, and we've done a lot of stupid stuff to make us behind, but nevertheless, better late than never. And we got a lot of smart people and not all great people in government. We got some good people in government who really want to unleash this stuff. And for the government side, it's going to be a question of how much bipartisan support can we get so that we can with permitting reform, which is my main focus at the moment, how do we fix this stuff so that we get enduring energy and industrial freedom versus just two favorable years or three favorable years? Because I guarantee in China they don't exactly have freedom, but the government is so aligned that they know that they want to be building stuff for a while in the US we need to be really clear that we want to be building stuff forever, not just two years when we're excited about AI.

A (47:26)

Look, it's a conversation for another time, but I will tell you, thanks to that conference that you had, I wound up in the room in Pittsburgh with The president and 35 CEOs, who collectively pledged $92 billion to build data centers in Pennsylvania alone.

B (47:46)

Wow.

A (47:47)

In Pennsylvania alone. And so, you know, they called on me eventually. I think nobody understood quite why I was there, other than to ask the question, could you carve off a little tiny sliver of that to help us make a more persuasive case for the jobs that you aim to create? Because the workforce is simply not there. And since we spoke last, not a week goes by where I don't get a call from the automotive industry or the energy industry or the whole AI thing, or the submarine makers. And now you know what's coming. It's the polymetallic nodules. It's the undersea mining. It's. They're going to need 100,000 people to build the ships, to go get these little balls filled with copper and cobalt and manganese and nickel. It's going to be massive for rare earths. And all of this is great. It's all coming. But workforce, workforce, workforce.

B (48:45)

Well, and it's been good that you were there. You know, this is the. This is the thing. You know, Bezos says. I think he says this. He talks about missionaries versus mercenaries in business. And the missionaries always win because it's just like you can't. Even though you could say for what you're doing or what I'm doing, it's kind of a good. It's been a good business model. Like, it's allowed us to do work we enjoy and allow us to have prosperity to a certain degree at least. I don't think you can do it for that long. The key is doing it when it's not popular or whether it is popular and you don't care and you're still it making motivated. That's right, because then people wake up and say, wow, you've been doing, in my case, for 18 years. You've been saying the same thing for 18 years. And you get the credibility and you have the expertise versus the people who are just dipping their toe in it, or they're changing all the time. It matters in so many ways. So it's gratifying to See that you are getting that attention because everyone knows that you've believed this all along and have been vindicated and have accumulated a lot of really valuable knowledge versus somebody else who's just hanging out their shingle as, like, a workforce development consultant.

A (49:52)

Well, I mean, thank you for that. I dare say that's what we have most in common. You were singing this song when nobody was singing along. And last week, there I am on stage in between the CEO of Wells Fargo and Governor Abbott, talking about this very thing. And it's not because of anything I did or said in the last five years to your point. It's because, you know, once upon a time, you were standing. What did that shirt say you used to wear that was just begging for you to get hit in the face?

B (50:22)

I love fossil fuels. Very subtle, Very subtle. Yeah. And you know, it's still. That's still true.

A (50:31)

You are consistent. I'm so glad you made the time for this. I promised to let you go in a half hour and I lied. But thanks for sticking around. Get me an invite to that thing, make sure I know the dates, and I'll see you at the next one.

B (50:44)

All right, man. See you soon.

A (50:46)

Thanks, Alex. If you leave some stars, could you make it five? And before you go, could you please subscribe? If you leave some stars, could you make it five? And before you go, could you please subscribe? If you leave some stars, could you make it five? And before you go before you go, could you please subscribe?

B (51:21)

Marketing is hard. But I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L, I B S Y N ads.com today.