11-29-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Is the Church of the Climate Activists Failing?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Too night.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of
talk show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 3 (00:04):
Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
The Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey, welcome back to the
Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me.
Appreciate you tuning in. We're broadcasting from Denver, Colorado as usual.
Text line, as always, is always open on your message
app that numbers three three one zero three three three
one zero three. Keyword Mike or Michael. Go follow me
on x at Michael Brown USA, and then do me
a favor, go subscribe to the podcast. The podcast on

(00:30):
your podcast app is called The Situation with Michael Brown,
The Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find that, hit
that subscribe button, leave a five star review because that
helps us with the algorithm, and then that will automatically
download for you all five days of the weekday program
and the weekend program, so you get all six days
of my radio programming. So go do that, and I

(00:51):
greatly appreciate it. You're checks in the mail. Last last hour,
we talked a little bit about language, how words mean
things that people want it to mean. Well, I want
to tell you that we might be at what I
would call a turning point, an inflection point, or maybe
a tipping point. You know, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book

(01:13):
it's been decades ago, called The Tipping Point, and it
described how events kind of accumulate and the cumulative effect
of that accumulation of events reaches a point that he
calls the tipping point, where a social issue, a scientific matter,

(01:33):
something will tip over and it will be an entirely new,
almost novel denovo type of issue. And I think we're
at a turning or a tipping point, perhaps maybe the
closing act of an era that's been marked by all
these apocalyptic environmental warnings and the climate crisis narrative that

(01:56):
has really dominated public discourse. For that, I don't know
the last years. I just know that when I was
in high school and involved in high school debate and
even in my college debate years, that climate change although
it was originally you know, we were entering the you know,
a new ice age, and then suddenly became we're all

(02:17):
going to burn to death, and then it became well,
it's just changing all the time, and it's all our
fault because we drive internal combustion engines, we eat meat,
we breathe out co two. Well, we humans exist, and
so it's just our fault and so just deal with
it and just you know, go off yourself. So the
planet can live a happy life without any humans on it.
That's been at least fifty years or longer. Well, let's

(02:41):
discuss about how we got here, why things are changing,
and what might be coming next. And let's start with
a recent headline that we talked about on this program.
Bill Gates, once one of the most prominent advocates of
urgent climate action, a couple of weeks ago publicly declared

(03:02):
that he no longer considers climate change a serious existential
threat to humanity. I think that indeed is an inflection point.
Maybe it's a turning point, maybe it's a tipping point,
pick whichever one you think that it is. But Bill Gates,
in conversations over at CNBC, said several things that make

(03:27):
me believe that he's had a change of heart. Now
I don't know Bill Gates. He'd never sit down with
me that I know of. But when people have these
kinds of moments on their road to Damascus, where suddenly
they believe or suddenly they disbelieve. Suddenly they've had a
complete change of heart. I'm always curious what was it.

(03:50):
Can you name me one, two, three or more things
that on your road to Damascus you suddenly had this
change of heart. I really would like to know. This
is Bill Gates on global warming with a new climate message.

Speaker 2 (04:07):
Climate is a super important problem. There's enough innovation here
to avoid super bad outcomes.

Speaker 1 (04:18):
So it's a problem. But I'm recognizing there's enough innovation
that we may be able to solve some of these problems.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
We won't achieve our best goal, the one point five
or even the two degrees. And as we go about
trying to minimize that, we have to frame it in
terms of overall human wealthfare, not just everything should be
solely for climate.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
How much of your own view is a function of
just contextually what's happening in the world versus what I
think you've fought for a long time about the climate.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, if the aid budgets to poor cun we're continuing
to go up the way they did over the last
twenty five years, and then the trade offs between climate
action and saving children's lives wouldn't be as acute as
it is now that these budgets are going down, and
going down quite a bit. And so the plea here

(05:18):
is to say, okay, let's take that very limited money
and not have some partitioned off for thicker causes. Let's
measure it all in terms of the human welfare. How
do you help those countries?

Speaker 1 (05:33):
I find that fascinating because if you recall, Barack Obama
was the one who once told a group of college
students in Africa or high school students whatever they were,
there really sucks to be you because you live in
a really crap whole country and you can't have refrigeration
or you can't have air conditioning because it's going to
burn up the planet. And Bill Gates is an essence

(05:54):
saying there. At least the way I interpret is that
now that we're cutting off aid, which you know, most
of it was just wasted or use for really you know,
absurd purposes, we really ought to focus what limited aid
we give to underdeveloped countries on how do we best
take care of children? Did he suddenly have some grandkids?

(06:15):
Did he suddenly wake up and realize that there are
starving kids in Africa, that they're dying from malaria or
HIV from HIV from their mothers, or what happened here,
I'm not quite sure, but he continued.

Speaker 3 (06:29):
When the climate activists, who have been very supportive of
what you've done, and you've been very supportive of what
they've done, read this. And if Greta Thunberg is reading
this and saying to herself, my goodness, he seems like
he is reversing himself. What would you tell her?

Speaker 2 (06:45):
I'd say, it wasn't the goal here to improve human lives.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
And see I find that fascinating because I thought climate
action climate activists was not to improve our lives, but
to save us from destruction, to save the planet, to
make certain that we didn't all burn up. Now Bill

(07:11):
Gates's time, Oh no, No, all this climate stuff was
always about just improving human life. Well, if the climate's
always been changing, and it has, we now know. For example,
I've always given this example. We had the big Thompson
flood decades ago in Colorado. The destruction was pretty bad,

(07:33):
but we had a flood in I'd say probably the
past five years may have been longer down the exact
same canyon, and the flood went down the same path,
same canyon, same river, except the destruction and damages this
time was probably ten or one hundred times greater than
it was decades ago. And that was because human life

(07:56):
and our infrastructure has improved so much over time that
we mitigated against those potential disasters. So the damage wasn't
as great, even though it could have been even greater
had we not done the things we had done. Like
you know, we have stronger bridges, stronger highways. We build
things in flood zones knowing that they may flood, so

(08:18):
we build according to building codes to try to minimize that.
We mitigate against disasters, and so the consequences are still severe,
but they're not nearly severe as they would have been.
But for modernization of society.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
Shouldn't we in our awareness of how little generosity there
is to help measure, you know, should we get them
amasles vaccine or should we do some climate related activity?
And if if we could take if we stop punting
all vaccines and that you know, saved yo point one degree,

(08:56):
would that be a smart trade off? That's the kind
of question and we have to ask. So I'm a
climate activist, but I'm also a child survival activist.

Speaker 3 (09:07):
Oh, so what do you think is going to be
the critique of this. There are going to be people
who are going to say that you are changing the
goalposts because of this political climate as a way to
placate President Trump, who is not thin on the side
of some of the zero and obviously the Parish Climate
Accord and things like that.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
Well I'm glad, Well you'll hear, you'll hear mister Gates's
answer coming up next, don't go away. Welcome back to
the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me.
Text line as usual, always opened three three ones zero three,
keyword micro Michael. If you like what we do during

(09:50):
the weekend in Denver, it's at eight fifty am or
ninety four to one FM. I broadcast live Monday through
Friday on that station from nine to noon mountain in time.
So hit that preset button for KOA eight fifty am
ninety four to one FM and then stream me Monday
through Friday, nine to noon mountain time. Back to Bill Gates,

(10:10):
as I say, I think we have reached a tipping point,
and Bill Gates is the primary cause of this tipping
point because he's come out vocally a couple of weeks
ago and said that, you know, actually saving kids is
probably more important than all the climate activism that I've
involved in. In fact, I'm a child activist.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
He says that some of the provisions that promoted new
climate technologies got preserved. I was disappointed that a lot
of that was taken away, but the provision supporting nuclear
and shield thermal, some of those were maintained. The US
is pulled back, and that's that's a huge disappointment. We

(10:50):
really need all the countries working together on this, just
like we need them to be generous on the aid budget.
If you think climate is the only problem and it's acalyptic,
or if you think climate's not a problem at all,
my memo will make no sense to you. You'll be like, oh, no,
it should all be climate. Or you'll be like, why
are you even still talking about this climate thing? Why

(11:12):
why do you invest billions of your money into these companies.
The middle position that climate is super important but has
to be considered in terms of overall human welfare. I
didn't pick that position because it's a you know, everybody

(11:34):
agrees with it.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
Do you think what might really be going on is
that reality has hit Bill Gates in the face when
you have Europe, for example Germany. Germany is a great example,
highest electrical rates in the country. They shut down all
their nuclear power plans, they go all green energy, and
then suddenly there's electric rates skyrocket. And not only do

(11:58):
the rates skyrocket, but their baseline power becomes broken and
they can't meet their power demands. And then AI comes along,
increasing a further need for more power. And the only
way you can get that baseline power that is steady,
reliable and always on and always available is with fossil

(12:18):
fuels or nuclear power. I think that realization has hit him,
and I think that's why we've kind of reached this
tipping point that I'm talking about, because the headline of
him being advocate and now trying to say, well, I
think it's serious, but it's not an existential threat to humanity.

(12:42):
That is a tipping point. So how significant is this?
Only a couple of years ago, I think it would
have been unthinkable for a major public figure like Bill
Gates to even question the religion, the orthodoxy, the dogma.
You will that quote climate change is an existential threat.

(13:04):
Close quote. That phrase gets repeated by former President Biden,
formed Vice President Kamala Harris read a Tomberg which he
mentions Bill gabs and everybody kept using that phrase all
the time, the samehow climate change is an existential threat.
Go back to the conversation about words with George Orwell.

(13:25):
If I tell you that X, I don't take out
the word climate change, but I tell you that X
is an existential threat, what does that mean to you? Well,
an existential threat for me is something that threatens my
very existence, my very life, my very livelihood, my own

(13:46):
my ability to live a human life on this planet.
That is an existential threat. And their claim was that
climate change isn't existential threat, and that gets repeated over
and over and over. That is the liturgy that we
talked about with Orwell. That is the liturgy of the
church of the climate activists. That's that's one of their

(14:08):
hymns they sing. Yet now we see all of a
sudden and I think Bill Gates was at inflection point.
The reality unfolding around this is forcing a reassessment of
those dire warnings. Look at the media. This year, not
one of the major American news networks sent reporters to

(14:29):
the United Nations Climate Summit Top thirty in Berlin, down
in Brazil. We talked about that on this program. It
was in Berlin, which is a city, a major hum
Almost every city in Brazil is a major city. San
Paulo and Rio, they're all made in. Berlin is one
of those. But they cut a roadway through the Amazon

(14:52):
rainforest for to get from an airstrip, build an airstrip,
and then did for the peap yah who's to fly
in and then to drive into where the cop thirty
meetings were taking place. That seems kind of hypocritical to me.
And they're also holding in a city where raw sewage
runs out into streets and it is rampant with disease,

(15:15):
it is rampant with you know, filth and human waste,
and it's just it's an awful place. And interestingly, this
is the year that the Cabal didn't send reporters to
cover that event, and even the print media they're rapidly
cutting back on climate coverage, which raises a really important question.

(15:39):
Are we seeing the end of climate summits as the
annual quote last chance because it's always the last chance.
It's been the last chance since the first time that
al Gore said that thirty years ago. Is it the
last chance to save the planet. Or are we witnessing
a shift as some have called it, a vie shift.

(16:00):
If you will to understand this moment, reflect on the
historical arc that I'm talking about. I always like to
think about historical arcs. In the nineteen sixties, liberalism in America,
the kind that was epitomized by President John F. Kennedy,
was actually about growth. Kennedy wanted to cut taxes because

(16:21):
Kennedy knew that that would spur economic growth. Can you
imagine a so called liberal saying that today. The slogan
in the nineteen sixties was a rising tide lifts all boats. Ooh,
sounds like Ronald Reagan's supplies, like economics, doesn't it? Anesian economics,
tax cuts all underpinned a belief in abundance. But then

(16:45):
you got into the late nineteen sixties and then there
was a new ethic, one marked by limits to growth
and the specter of resource exhaustion and pollution. We were
going to destroy the planet. Thomas Malthus returned to the
scene and glued began to replace optimism. We saw the
magazine coveters like Newsweeks, running out of everything, question Mark

(17:08):
and all the headlines proclaiming that humanity's imminent demise unless
economic growth slowed or stopped. But then you stop, and
what's human history been a record of of growth and innovation,
not resource depletion. We haven't had resource depletion. I had

(17:28):
the current Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, on my program
here in Denver on you a couple of years ago,
in which we actually laughed about the whole idea that
there is peak oil, and he says that the studies
that they have all done show that there is enough
oil just in the state of Colorado to go on

(17:51):
for another six hundred years or so. And then you
think about all the oil in Venezuela that hasn't been
exploited the world. Although oil still exists in the Middle
East and else swear through throughout the country that still exists.
Things are beginning to change. I'll be right back tonight.

Speaker 2 (18:15):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director talk
show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 3 (18:18):
Brownie, No, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job
the Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (18:23):
Hey, you're listening to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad
to have you with me. Happy Thanksgiving everybody. Hope you
had a great holiday. Everybody get ready for the holidays season.
How many of you already have your Christmas trees up? Yes,
my wife actually had hers up before Thanksgiving. So yeap
worse than Charlie Brown cat text line always open three

(18:44):
three one zero three three three one zero three. Keyword Michael,
Michael go follow me on exit Michael Brown USA. We're
talking about what I believe might be a tipping point
or an inflection point when it comes to all the
climate activists, and Bill Gates is my primary example of
why I think there's been a change. It always takes
someone in. I don't care whether he liked Bill Gates
or not. He was a so called influencer them the

(19:08):
preferred word of the day. He was an influencer because
primarily because of his money when it came to climate action,
climate activity, climate change, all of the you know, all
of the crap that we did about climate, Bill Gates
was a driver of that. It was back at the
end of October. It's just been a couple of weeks ago,

(19:28):
maybe three weeks ago now that he was on CNBC
with this new message calling for a new strategy shift
ahead of the meeting that went on in Brazil, and
part of that conversation went like.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
This, You're a huge supporter of the Paris Climate Accord
at the time, and I wonder now, when you look back,
given that you're changing sort of the metric with which
you used, do you say to yourself that the Paris
Climate Accord and its goals were misplaced?

Speaker 2 (20:02):
Not at all. That was a key milestone because the
countries of the world said, hey, this is a mutual
problem that temperaturize. The entire world will experience the temperaturize
from the emissions from all these countries. So getting countries
to commit was very, very important. The one thing about

(20:24):
that accord that turned out not to be realistic was
the ambitious goal of staying to one point five degrees.
We won't be able to do that. Even if you
took all the money away from health, you wouldn't be
able to do that. So now you know the question is, Okay,
what temperature level are we going to end up at?

(20:46):
Very important to minimize that, but not at the expense
of everything else.

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Okay, but in the context of not at the expense
of everything else. So many businesses companies, including Microsoft, made
pledges around being zero, trying to get in some cases
negative and at zero, I mean going back and paying
for their carbon production from earlier. Was that a mistake now,
not at all. That's not the message that you're trying

(21:12):
to sugg Not at all.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
I mean, why have we.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Been able to lower the future missions? It's because companies
like Microsoft and many others focused on this initiative, and
it's very important that those companies help advance these new
technologies by being the early customers for things like nuclear fission, fusion,

(21:39):
clean cement.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
They're notice that whenever heat in every sound bite that
I've played, it's been nuclear energy or things like you know,
clean cement. It hasn't been wind and solar. I think
you mentioned geothermal once, but none of the really kind
of titular head of the climate activists wind and solar.

(22:02):
That's not been a part of his conversation whatsoever. So
I think it's his recognition that the power needs if
we're going to have growth. Growth advances the overall living
standard of humanity, both in developed worlds and even in
undeveloped countries. In third world crabhold countries, growth helps them

(22:23):
improve their standard of living and I think Bill Gates
is recognizing that, and he knows that wind and solar
are not going to do anything to lower the overall
temperature of the Earth, however we measure that, and it's
not going to do anything to improve the standard of
living for anybody anywhere in the world. And again I
use Germany and you know, the United Kingdom, in France,

(22:46):
Europe just a great example of how it doesn't work.
And then you look at you know, countries in Africa
that are still third world countries and we've done nothing
to improve their standard of living, and giving them solar
and wind would not improve them at all. So I
think he's recognizing that this is something that's not going
to work, which is why I think it's an inflection point,

(23:06):
and I think it's an inflection point that we need
to pay attention to. I was, before the break, we
were going back in history a little bit, because you
go back in the sixties and John F. Kennedy really
did believe in growth, which is why he advocated for
cutting taxes. He wanted to make certain that people had
more of their own money to use because that spurred

(23:29):
economic growth throughout the entire system. And that you know,
a rising tide lifts all boats. Today, that's that's blasphemy
to those on the left. And we had, as I said,
when I was growing up, we had you know, the
Coming ice Age, which turned into the you know, the

(23:50):
coming you know, we're all going to die of heat,
and that we were running out of everything. We were
running out of our capacity to build a manufacture, we
were running out of space. We had too many people.
We can never support six billion people, let alone eight
billion people on this planet. And here we are today
and we're still growing. History proved that that attitude of

(24:17):
limitation was wrong because resource depletion did not occur, and
because of technological advances, pollution control became effective. Although it
was often costly, bureaucratic, it nevertheless became effective. But then
even further technological advances then started bringing the price of
pollution control down to where it became reasonable. And that

(24:40):
shift had really serious ramifications for liberalism, changing its focus
from from allocating and redistributing abundance to trying to manage scarcity.
And then you get the Carter administration, and they became
emblematic of this contradiction. Energetic government activism but with an

(25:01):
overriding sense of rationing and limits rather than opportunity and expansion.
Carter having the stupid little fireside chats in his sweater
telling everybody to turn down the thermostep so we could all,
you know, conserve energy. We had, you know, the the
gas lines and everybody, you know, oh, let's reduce the
speed limits to fifty five to conserve gas. It was

(25:23):
all about limitation as opposed to growth and expansion, opportunity
and expansion. And then you fast forward to recent years,
his stupid ambition to reach zero emissions by twenty fifty
is being quietly yet consistently walked back buried, not only

(25:44):
in practice, but increasingly in public discourse. He noticed that
Bill Gates didn't specifically talk about net zero emissions by
twenty fifty. But hey, we you know, we were able
to reduce emissions a little bit and that's great, but
we really need to focus on human welfare. Wow, what
a change. I think. The reality bit him. In the

(26:05):
butt states with strict renewable energy mandates like Colorado, if
you go to UC Berkeley's Lawrence Laboratory, experience the highest
electricity rate increases, while those relying on market driven energy
choices actually see lower rates. There's some case studies. New

(26:26):
York and New Jersey have both recently approved new natural
gas pipelines after blocking them for years. You know what,
locals in New York said, we need to govern in reality.
I want to say to Hochel, welcome to my world,
because ideal in reality, not in these pipe dreams, not

(26:47):
in these wet dreams of wind and solars going to
save the planet. In California, despite all the daily climate rhetoric,
Governor Newsom quietly approved drilling permits for twelve hundred new
els and even the Trump administration's proposal for offshore drilling.
I haven't seen mass protests along the coast. Oh. I've

(27:08):
heard rumblings and I've heard complaints about it, and I'm
not sure they can actually get it done because of
some existing rules and regulations, but maybe Congress will change those.
It just gives Gavin Newsom something. The campaign on It's
the weekend with Michael Brown number text line three three
one zero three, keyword Mike or Michael, be sure and
subs you know, go to X follow me on X

(27:29):
at Michael Brown USA. Some final thoughts on exactly why
I think that we're reaching a tipping point when it
comes to climate change and climate activity. Hey's the Weekend
with Michael Brown, Weekend of Thanksgiving twenty twenty five. Thanks

(27:50):
for tuning into the program. I'm glad that you're here.
I really do appreciate the audience. And I know it's
Saturday and many of you are probably out doing other things.
Your shop, you're already Christmas shopping, right, Survive Black Friday.
I didn't do anything on Black Friday, try to avoid
it at all costs. But it seems like this year,
the number of emails that I got advocating for something

(28:11):
you early Black Friday early. I think Black Friday actually
started about a week ago from me. In terms of
people trying to sell me stuff online all the time.
It was just out of control. So hope you didn't overspend.
Hope you got what you whatever you were trying to get,
and I hope you didn't get you know, malled by
some you know mall wrap somewhere trying to get into
the mall to buy stuff. Quit buying stuff. Speaking is

(28:32):
scarcity in abundance? Quit buying stuff. Yeah, that's what we
need to do. So we're talking about this inflection point
this change in in climate activism and how I think
build Gates And you know, he didn't go to COP thirty.
A lot of countries didn't go to COP thirty. And
this year a lot of the media didn't cover COP thirty.

(28:54):
The usual you know, where the IPCC meets and all
these countries get together and they have all these panel
discussions how they're going to save the planet from ourselves.
And you know, we got to stop doing this and
stop eating meat. We need fake meat, we need fake everything,
and wind and sol we're going to say no, nope.
And Bill Gates is out there talking about nuclear energy,
which I love. I say, get it going as quickly
as you can. I'm getting I give you a couple

(29:16):
of examples of how the reality really bites the left
hard when it comes to climate change. New York and
New Jersey, California are great examples. In Colorado, suddenly there's
a desire because they're in a process of shutting down
some of the fossil fuel plants. There's now discussion among
liberal Democrats in Colorado that perhaps we need to look

(29:37):
at that timeline and change that, because if we're going
to attract new businesses, artificial intelligence and data centers, et cetera.
Then our electric provider, Excel does not have the current capacity,
particularly if we keep going down this timeline of eliminating
some of the fossil fuel power plants colon natural gas.
So suddenly it's like, oh, put the skids on time out.

(30:01):
Let's look closely. But it's not just micro, it's also
macro Globally, The International Energy Agency the IEA, which had
forecasted that oil consumption would soon peak, is now projecting
that the use of oil, gas and coal will continue
to grow through twenty fifty. Meanwhile, over at the United Nations,

(30:23):
their Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change at ipcc I
mentioned they've now softened some of their most catastrophic predictions.
What does this mean for the climate movement itself? Many
environmental advocacy groups are diminishing, shrinking rather than expanding. Julisierra

(30:44):
Club has lost members, laid off staff as it's now deciding, Oh,
I think we'll pivot toward social justice. Bill mckibbons three
fifty dot org. They've suspended operations amid declining support. So
is this just a momentary lull or is this actually
some sort of indication that the patient is terminal, is

(31:08):
it actually de I want you to think about a
few things. If climate alarmism is fading, what happens next
for environmental policy, because that obviously something will have to discuss.
I consider myself an environmentalist. I want clean air, clean water.
I want to be able to, you know, hike nice trails.

(31:31):
I don't want the mountains littered. But neither do I
or I do question how clean is clean? Because as
long as mankind and animals exist on the planet, there's
going to be pollution. So to what degree is clean clean?
Then think about how do we reconcile the desire for

(31:52):
you know, being good stewards or the environment with the
necessity of economic and technological growth. Those will always those
are preenty questions that we always need to deal with.
But I think what we've been doing in the past
is we've been answering those questions by simply assuming that
if we have to reconcile environmental stewardship with economic and

(32:14):
technological growth, then we'll just focus solely on environmental stewardship
and we'll just shut down economic and technological growth. And
I think we're now recognizing it. No, actually we can
and should do both, but neither one, and in particular,
environmental stewardship should not be to the detriment of our

(32:34):
our technological growth and our standard of living. Now that
doesn't mean that I want to live in, you know,
a craphole place like Bilin in Brazil or some third
world country craphole country in Africa, But it does mean
that I think we should take care of the environment.
How clean is clean? As I say, think about is
the abundance liberalism described by many younger people today truly new?

(32:59):
Or is that is simply a return to the growth
minded optimism of say the Kennedy years. Kennedy was you
know you think about the family and Hygenna support Cape
Cod all of that. They were actually environmentalists. My old boss,
George Bush an environmentalist. You know, the ranch in Crawford

(33:20):
is one of the most environmentally sound places on the planet.
Yet he's an oil and gas man. Have you watched
land Man, the Taylor Sheridan series. It's got excellent lines
in the In the last one that we wash we
have not completely caught up. There was a discussion about, oh,
the price of oil is dropped by a certain amount

(33:41):
and he's talking to the radio as he's driving down
the road and he says something to the effect, Yes,
but when the price of oil goes down, that means
the price of gas goes down. And when the price
of gas goes down, that puts more money in your
pocket that you can spend on other things. And then
when the price of diesel goes down, that means that
the cost of producing the livering, manufacturing and delivering the

(34:01):
goods and services that you buy, those costs go down.
And so yes, even the production costs of producing a
barrel of oil, those costs go down also. But that
means there's more money to spend on other things, which
means there is growth. It's just a cycle that continues
on and on and on. So it's amazing to me

(34:22):
to think that we're actually going back to the idea
of abundant liberalism. And if young people are driving that,
then power to you. And if that's a return of
the old liberal type of liberals like John F. Kennedy
who wants to cut taxes to spur growth, then bring
it on, baby, bring it on. Then can we create

(34:44):
a political environment it's not dominated by these apocalyptic predictions
or at the same time that completely disregards the environment.
I think we can. I think we've proven already that
we've done that, because today the air is cleaner, the
water is cleaner, and yet we consume more oil and gas,

(35:04):
more fossil fuels than ever and there's no end in
sight because we've allowed technology and growth to innovate and
to come up with new ways of doing things. And
that's what that's what a free market economy is like,
that's what this country is about. And then if you
think back to everything I just described, it's all in

(35:26):
a cycle, and maybe the ghosts of all these environmentalists
can finally just lay down and rest because we as
a society ought to move toward a balanced approach where
we develop our resources, we actually engage in technological innovation,
and at the same time we're good stewards of the environment.

(35:49):
There's no reason why that can't go hand in hand.
I think it should go hand in hand, and I
think it will. One final comment on Thanksgiving weekend, it's
I know people spend time with family. I'm always troubled
by this. I'm glad we have Thanksgiving. It's one of
my favorite It's not my favorite holiday, but let's take

(36:11):
the same attitude that we have during Thanksgiving and let's
extend that throughout twelve months of the year. How about that?
How about that kind of a challenge. Everybody, have a
great weekend. Glad you joined me. I'll see you next weekend.