Peter Zeihan

And to this point, America has chosen to just let someone else do it.

perspective being able to see over big timelines is uh is one of the many many many and that assumes it works and the green technologies that we have right now don't so spending 30 trillion dollars or whatever the most current number is to achieve net zero in the united states by 2050 um

assumes these technologies actually do what they say they're going to, and we already know that they don't.

We have plenty of math to prove that.

This is why I'm really big on physical chemistry, because we need to find new ways to do things, and we don't know what chunks of the land on the planet we're going to need access to to make those technologies work until we've built some of them.

Yeah.

Until we know the answer to that question, we don't know how to prepare it.

It's going to be one of each.

Let me give you the bad and then the good.

First, the bad.

We're very close and we have been very close for three years to a significant break in international energy markets, whether it's the Russian stuff going away or something happening in the Persian Gulf or something happening in Malacca or something happening to China.

The production of vast volumes of crude is going to fall away.

And the consumption of vast volumes of crude is going to fall away for demographic and geopolitical reasons.

And I can't tell you which one's going to happen first.

I can tell you that whichever one does happen first will then lead to the other one.

And shit will get real in a lot of places very, very quickly.

And for those of us who still want electricity, we will then basically have to fight to get access to the fossil fuels that will allow us to have it.

And that will look different in every part of the world.

Second thing, at some point in the next decade, our physical chemistry is going to improve to the point that we have a new idea that we will then want to apply, whether it's in generation, transmission, or storage.

I don't know.