Andrew Revkin

is blaming everything that happened in Pakistan on carbon dioxide, warming the climate, creating this, when a lot of what was going on was also on the ground.

And you can blame colonialism, Pakistan's history, all kinds of things.

But under the treaty, you want it to be about CO2 because that puts the onus on rich countries.

You're not paying us.

Where's our money?

And they're right, you know, in the context of what everyone agreed to.

There was supposed to be $100 billion a year from rich countries to poor countries starting in 2020.

It didn't happen.

It's like basically some money is flowing, but it's not really made up money.

Yeah.

And so that whole dynamic, they latch on to the climate science and they, you know, so they're there and they're very handy, quotable people.

And you have a justice angle.

You have bad guys and good guys, which fits all of these narrative threads that come together into this information storm we're still living with.

Yeah, this reminds me of what we were saying earlier about the things that models don't integrate and the things that cost benefit leave out because you really can't go there.

One of the issues facing the world right now is the reality that we're reminded of, that energy availability is a geopolitical destabilizer.

If you have uneven access to energy and you have Vladimir Putin coming into office or something else happening,

that disrupts that system, you're vastly increasing poverty.

This is playing out across the world.

Fertilizer prices, fertilizer comes from gas, natural gas.

If you can envision a world later in the century where we're no longer beholden on this material in the ground, at least fossil fuels, you know, cobalt and lithium for batteries, that's pretty cool, you know, because you're taking away geopolitical instability and