A Dearth of Carbon (w/ Dr. Patrick Moore, environmentalist)

conversations that matter is a partner program for the Center for dialogue at Simon Fraser University the production of this program is made possible thanks to the support of the following and viewers like you welcome to part two of my conversation with dr. Patrick Moore we pick it up now as he continues to share his opinions on GMOs climate the environment and NGOs that he says have little regard for the truth but our rather pedaling an agenda Freeman Dyson told me he said we'll just look around the world right now it's greener and yet then when I see that happen like that's a proven fact yeah well the reforestation or the regrowth in the Amazon has been phenomenal then I read comments in the New York Times what it like well it's ridiculous that this should have happened in the first place it said you can't be like replanting or recovering from what was an environmental disaster by putting more carbon into the into the atmosphere it was as though there it you cannot have good news I find it quite remarkable I get to the point where like the voices are so loud that I'm going okay how do I find where there actually is truth well where there's truth is that carbon is the basis of all life on Earth mhm and where there's truth is that carbon dioxide is the source of that carbon for all life on Earth and it's also true that for the last six hundred million years of which we have a reasonable record co2 has been declining in the global atmosphere to the point where at the peak of the last glaciation when the oceans absorb more co2 than they do when they're warm it was cold mm-hmm co2 dropped to 180 parts per million you know and that is only 30 parts per million above the death of plants and it is surmised because there's an ash layer associated with these peaks in cold there in the glacis parts per million above the death of plants yes and it's very clear from my paper that I've just published that if we had not intervened by putting the balance back into the carbon cycle which was out of balance it's a really interesting story because it's life itself that has sucked the co2 out of the atmosphere fear over the millennia and put it into fossil fuels but that's a very minor part of it the big part of it is what's called carbonaceous rocks limestone chalk and marble and those are the remains of shells of marine calcifying organisms and the calcium carbonate is what those shells are made out of carbon in the calcium carbonate is from co2 that the oceans absorbed from the atmosphere and that is what we're fracking for oil and gas are those marine deposits of the shells of Kaka Litha fors which are minut phytoplankton that learned how to build many marine organism iliyan years ago many marine organisms learned how to control calcification biomineralization is the general term for it there are bones for example our case of biomineralization but we did it for our skeletal structure for so we can stand up mm-hmm the reason marine organisms did it was to basically build an armor plating around themselves like clams and mussels and coral reefs and and crabs all of these are calcareous and the calcium comes from the seawater the co2 carbonate comes from the air and is dissolved in the water and so these huge deposits of shale are actually calcium carbonate they are the shells of those plankton the oil and gas is the orc is the organic matter of the living plankton that died mm-hmm fell on the bottom of the ocean but a hundred million billion tons of carbonaceous rock represent carbon dioxide pulled out of the atmosphere and because the earth has cooled over the millennia it we are notice no nature's no longer putting co2 into the atmosphere to offset this so the curves are there to look at on the internet you can see it co2 has been declining mm-hmm to where it is getting close to the end of plant life and another 1.8 million years if you just take that line and draw it straight down another 1.8 million years life would begin to die on planet Earth through lack of co2 not because of an excess there is no such thing as an excess of co2 under any real-world sir stance well the message out there is pretty clear that there is such a thing no there isn't because it's it's proven fact for example at greenhouse growers purpose they actually buy co2 in bottles well I know they pump it in they pump it in to get it up to a thousand parts per million the optimum co2 level for plant growth which when you think about it is the basis of all the animal life on earth every insect every every inverter every vertebrate every invertebrate all the things that are not plants depend on the plants for their existence the sugars the plants produced through photosynthesis are the energy supply for the whole world what are those sugars made out of water and carbon dioxide those are the and when you burn fossil fuels which are the result of photosynthesis what do you get water and carbon dioxide and some contaminants which we know how to clean mmm-hmm but that's what basically comes out of the tailpipe is water and co2 plants take those two things and turn them in to glucose sugar and everything everything else goes from there so we should care about the plants and if we cared about the plants we put the co2 up to a thousand and it's only at 400 now mmm-hmm and actually it may not be possible for us to get it to a thousand just due to the fact that there's only so much fossil fuel but the other interesting thing is the carbonaceous rocks limestone that's what we make cement with and when we make cement about five percent of the co2 emissions from humans today in this world is from cement production by burning calcium carbonate and creating calcium oxide which is lime which has made the major constituent of cement mm-hmm and co2 goes up so we can actually burn lime with solar energy by focusing solar energy solar heat onto lime we can burn it so even if we run out of fossil fuels and the co2 starts going down again say three million years from now humans will still be here three million years from now you see I'm that optimistic well we've only been around for about 120 hundred and thirty thousand years and as Homo sapiens as Homo sapiens yes but the primates have been here the 65 million years or so mm-hmm so primates began a long time ago and no doubt we will evolve as time especially because of our technology making life so easy compared to what it was when average life age was 2530 going back to 1750 which you cited earlier so I want to go back there so what we can do is we can keep the co2 in the global atmosphere at a good level for plants for hundreds of billions of years because that carbonaceous rock which we can easily dig out of the ground and and and burn either to make cement or eventually maybe just to make co2 so that our plants will grow we can do that into the foreseeable future I gave you the hang on for just one second while we take a quick commercial break we'll be right back conversations that matter is a not-for-profit program made possible thanks to the charitable support of the following and from viewers like you please visit conversations that matter dot TV and help us to continue to produce this program okay so what you're saying throws into question like well why should we even bother like trying to cut back on the burning of coal for power generation for electrical power generation if it's if it's the number one source of co2 into the atmosphere mmm why get so worried about it and and then I'm not against using coal to make electricity but and there's there's a big but too big butts you know one natural gas is a lot cleaner yes and if there's natural gas why not use it so clean cleaner in the other emissions that come from the burning of the fuel they're trying to make out now that natural gas has more co2 emissions than coal they're doing this out of the states is the anti-fracking movement which is also based on nothing like the anti GMO movement is well has more methane doesn't it methane yes they're trying to change the name of natural gas to methane because that's its chemical name mm-hmm but it is natural and they don't like it to be called natural anymore so now they're calling it methane and saying that it's destroying the climate it's another fabrication but the back to coal the reason not to burn so much coal you because in the future we're going to need liquid fuel when the gas the gas and oil are from marine deposits the coal is from land-based trees and there's a lot of it when the when the oil and gas runs out and transportation depends on having a gas or liquid we're not going to end up shoveling coal into our car yeah we're not going back to the station coal coal can't go in a pipe is the problem it can't go through a hose whereas liquefying coal is is going to be possible well it's being done now in South Africa there's a huge facility there when South Africa was under the embargo they don't have any oil or gas they well I do now offshore I believe but they didn't then mm-hmm they're turning coal into fuel for cars and this can be done and so it would be a good idea to save the coal for that because transportation needs liquid or gas and coal can be made into liquid or gas especially with high temperature nuclear you can actually turn a hundred percent of the coal into liquid fuel with no co2 emissions or virtually no co2 emissions in the process whereas now two-thirds of the coal is used for producing heat and hydrogenation and you really only get one-third of the coal turned into fuel it's still worth them doing it because there's no other alternative you know during the Second World War Germany ran out of oil and what did they end up doing Wood gasification trailers towed behind their buses and cars and on the roof of their cars they would they put wood gas and we're not going back to wood gas no that's for sure what we're going to go forward you know I've had people tell me oh no that's the future wood gas we're gonna be able to do that now if the problem here's how I put it if we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow there wouldn't be a tree left on this planet in two years the whole we need them for it because we'd have to burn them for fuel yeah and we don't want to do that no we don't so you've spent your entire life in this you are a scientist you have a PhD in ecology you've thought about and focused on carbon for more than 25 years now as a focus of your work does it not cause you frustration that even you keep running into so many obstacles in getting people to listen to what you have to say well what has happened is a new cult religion has been born on the issue of climate I think it might some people say it's because Christianity and the other religions have been you know people sort of going like there isn't actually an old guy with the white beard mm-hmm this is all bunk right and so secularism has come to a new way but people it seems it seems that people still need a religion and so the trouble with the climate issue is it's not only a new religious movement it's a new political movement and the scientific establishment because of the huge tax payer money going into it is totally bought into it and so is the political establishment and so are the business I mean even the big oil companies are pandering to the politicians on this subject the biggest problem we have on climate is the is the fossil fuel companies themselves will not defend themselves and will not not even listen to an alternative explanation of this situation this is our second break but I'm anxious to get back to this back in a moment conversations that matter is a not-for-profit program made possible thanks to the charitable support of the following and from viewers like you please visit conversations that matter dot TV and help us to continue to produce this program co2 is the food of life it is the foundation of all life is is that hard to understand it seems to be I tried to explain that to people and I get blank stares and yeah right hostility because they have actually an ideology or a religious belief system that makes them reject even the basic truth that carbon dioxide is the most important food for life on earth along with water those two things are the those two are the most important the problem is co2 is invisible but CNN lies they put a picture of the smog in Beijing on the TV while talking about climate change and co2 those are two different things they don't seem to think so it was sort of like the headline during Fukushima at one of my favorite headlines nuclear crisis deepens as bodies wash ashore that was the headline the bodies were washing ashore from the tsunami from the tsunami yeah but then I don't think the Fukushima nuclear plant caused the tsunami mm-hmm but you know that's how so they're they're making it seem as though co2 is responsible for the smog in in Beijing when actually it's particulate matter sulfur dioxide NOx Sox all these things and those all need to be addressed they do that's a real problem and the Chinese know that you know the beauty of the situation is is that a full third of the world's population right between China and India I think maybe they're at least a third of the world's population they do not buy into this climate thing they play along for the sake of optics I guess you'd call it political optics in the same way that when Stephen Harper went to the Indonesia summit of the g7 last September he agreed to a statement that said fossil fuel should be phased out by the end of the century he's a conservative from Alberta and he agreed to that it's a world that is headed in a really bad direction for the future of our children and they're making it seem like the people who support energy are the ones who are going to drive us into extinction or oblivion and it the truth comes out when you say okay you're against fossil fuels how do we replace them with nuclear energy no with hydroelectric energy no those are actually the only other two other technologies that can produce large-scale continuous power mm-hmm they say no we'll do it with wind and solar well the power demand over the next thirty years if the increase is going to be two and a half times what we're consuming right now by 2100 it'll be two and a half times O'Jays no yeah and where are you going to get that energy obviously nuclear energy is going to play a huge role in the future China's building a hundred clear plants India's building 50 Russia's building 50 Viet Nam's going nuclear Saudi Arabia with all its oil is going nuclear and they're doing it because it's makes sense because it's clean reliable and in the long run cost-effective high capital cost upfront but it's like buying a Toyota versus buying whatever you're gonna have a car that goes for hundred thousand kilometers instead of one that only goes to yeah and same that's the same with nuclear and the gas will play an ever-increasing role I love your passion unfortunately I've gotta take a quick commercial break here we'll be back in a moment conversations that matter is a not-for-profit program made possible thanks to the charitable support of the following and from viewers like you please visit conversations that matter dot TV and help us to continue to produce this program so if on the environmental movement side these days which you helped to create but their fear is that the term I've heard is climb again is the extinction of the world as we know it because we're going in this direction what's your fear well my fear is that they will succeed in their agenda which is to eliminate 98% of all the world's energy supply and you know we don't just need food that's our personal energy to run a keep our bodies running but they're against so many things that we need in order to survive and yet at the same time they're saying we if we don't stop using these things we'll all die that's not right that is simply not correct I mean fossil fuels actually have contributed immensely to the wealth of this world but they're against wealth they actually I don't know what their vision is going back to hoeing your own weeds in your front yard or something in your little mud hut you know it seems to me that's where they're taking us if we would if we listened to them and so the hypocrisy of the situation is rampant I've been tweeting they want to put us in jail for being skeptical of the climb scam I want to put them in jail for using fossil fuels I want to catch them I want to have an army of people going out and catching these guys using fossil fuels like Leonardo DiCaprio would take about three seconds to catch him right he should be tried and convicted of hypocrisy or something because he's saying we should stop using fossil fuels with a 350 foot yacht and private jets you know I'm saying if people come into a fueling station they should be asked there should be somewhere there with a clipboard show your driver's license are you in favor of a pipeline and trucks bringing fuel to this service station if they say no there are a few service right just like that why not I mean how how can we allow this rampant hypocrisy of 40,000 people flying into the largest private jet port in Europe at Paris and having a great big bash and partying and drinking all night and talking about how they're saving the world and not one science subject comes up through the whole thing it's all about how are we gonna rip off people for a hundred billion dollars a year and give it to Mugabe you know and he was the first one to apply for the climate fund because he says climate change has ruined the agriculture in his country when in fact it was because he kicked out all the people who knew how to farm so this is what's happening in the world today and I don't like it and that's why I'm fighting really hard to bring some sense to the situation and my website is eco sense dot me Emmy I'm easy to find I have papers and videos on these subjects I've been talking about especially the co2 issue Prager University if you google Prager University Patrick Moore you'll find five five minute lectures that I did with them on a number of subjects one of which is why I left Greenpeace also on GMOs co2 climate and trees trees are the answer is a book I wrote that I'm republishing now because trees are so important to the future of this world and yet especially from the point of view of producing a renewable resource like this table and basically the green movement is opposed to forestry they're there they like trees they love trees but they don't want them to be used and so it's like they hate fossil fuels so that's very straightforward except they use them everyday themselves in their daily lives and they should be called out every second of the day they should be called out for the hypocrisy of not doing what they say they say there's too many people you know where's the lineup of those guys to go away why don't why don't they go away if they think there's too many people and contribute to the cause you know and so so you are frustrated it's very frustrating to see such hypocrisy in the world where people are continuing to live a good life oil has produced our longevity our prosperity and our personal freedom now what is wrong with those three things living longer being wealthier more prosperous I mean I don't I'm not a profligate spender I don't have a lot of money I have a nice house I have a lovely family I have a good lifestyle is that evil apparently so you know I mean there are people who go way over the top like Leonardo DiCaprio for example he's got a stupid lavish lifestyle he he could probably tone it down a hair you know and not not spend a million dollars a week or whatever he's doing but I I really I really do believe that most of the environmental issues that are at the top anti-nuclear anti GMO the climate scare climate Inc or climate incorporated which is a huge convergence of interests among elites that is driving the political agenda today which is totally misguided I think actually we've done a pretty good job and we need to keep refining it I mean sustainable development or sustainability is not an end game it's about continuing to improve our relationship with nature and each other and this is actually the last 50 years has been the most peaceful period in the history of civilization for 2,000 years or more or whatever people have been warring with each other all through history and even though there's skirmishes and small Wars it's nothing compared to what it was for the whole history of civilization so I have a huge amount of optimism for the future I just wish people would stop telling our kids the world's coming to an end and that we're evil you know that we're the enemies of nature's kind of like that's where I departed Greenpeace it was when the environmental movement turned from being humanitarian to stop nuclear war to stop toxics in the environment which were all dangerous to people to becoming anti human basically and saying that the humans are the enemies of the earth and I don't believe that we're part of the earth thank you very much for coming in and doing the thank-you sir she ate it thanks

Channel: Conversations That Matter

Views: 702,772

Keywords: Dr. Patrick Moore, Carbon, Patrick Moore, Stuart McNish, Conversations That Matter, Environment, Climate, Dennis Prager, Prager University, Prager, PragerU, CO2, Greenpeace, Climate Change, Global Warming, Environmentalism, Going Green, Carbon Emissions, Carbon Dioxide, Ice Age, Arctic Ice Caps, IPCC, Vancouver Sun, CHEK News, CJDC - TV, Green, #1000frolly

Id: TjlmFr4FMvI

Length: 23min 29sec (1409 seconds)

Published: Fri Sep 16 2016