Billy Cunningham, the Great America many times, having done this for not just
years, but decades. I like to think all I do is pound on
the door, and no one ever answers. I have a sense when it
comes to climate scientists anymore, there may be a slight change in direction of
sanity. And no one is more knowledgeable about the green energy collapse about to
occur, the breakdown, than the great Steve Gorm. He's executive director of
the Climate Science Coalition of America, author of four books on energy, climate
change, and the Sustainable Development, with over one hundred thousand copies in print.
And Steve's new book is the Green Breakdown, which is happening almost as
I speak, the coming renewable energy failure. And Steve Gorm, once again,
welcome to the Bill Cunningham Show. And I see a column in the
New York Times which has got to be accurate that talks about large American firms
are backing off some of the ridiculous climate change models that they're build into their
systems, analytics at Black Rock, et cetera. So can you inform the
American people, Maybe you and I and we're a small part of the whole
deal. But our corporate executives now learning that maybe the green energy breakdown is
about to occur and that things aren't as good as we think they are.
Give us a report to the American people. Steve gorm Hey, Willie,
thanks for your kind words. Great to join you again. Yeah. Just
this last week, we had a bunch of the Wall Street firms that have
decided to pull back from their commitments. They were part of a group called
Climate Action one hundred that has been urging financial organizations to adopt environmental governmental and
ESG what my environmental, social and governmental standards and also go after companies to
try and get them to stop with coal, oil, and natural gas.
That's really been the big push for ESG. Just announced this week this was
black Rock, JP Morgan, Pimco, and some other Wall Street firms said
they're going to pull out of Climate Action one hundred and about fourteen trillion dollars
in total assets that disappeared from that effort, and maybe this is one of
those first signs of a green breakdown. They mentioned a couple things. First,
they've been getting pressure from states West, Virginia, Texas and I think
Florida have said to them basically, you know, if you keep pushing this
ESG stuff, we are going to not let our pension funds invest in any
of your funds. So that was a concern to them. But the second
factor is that their renewable energy companies are doing terrible in the markets. There's
an index called the Rennix Index ri NIXX that's been in place for about twenty
five years attracts the top thirty renewable companies in the world. That's down about
fifty percent in the last four years. That's been dropping three four years in
a row, and so you know, they're finding that if they promote these
green companies, their investors don't do as well as if they promote other companies.
So maybe one of the first signs of the green breakdown. You know,
Steve Gorham, all of us are in favor of clean air and clean
water. The smog and the pollution is one thing, but ESG, DEI
and these other things. The technology. You know more about this than about
anyone, but we don't have the technology presently. Maybe in ten or twenty
or thirty years, when we have the technology, when di lithium crystals are
discovered, we might be able to get to that point. But you and
I everyone's against pollution. I don't want to walk across the Ohio River.
I don't want to breathe terrible air. And I said years ago that when
it comes to the EPA, the out of disband because they've been successful.
Cincinnati used to have smog all over the place. We have none, La
used to be encapsulated in smog largely non existent we have right now because of
all the epas and all the lawsuits being filed. Every American wants to breathe
clean air and drink clean water. So this is not about more pollution.
Explain why the differential between pollution on one hand and the climate change models on
the other, and that most reasonable Americans are in the middle. Because I
love to live a twenty first century lifestyle with lights that turn on, the
cell phones that work, with low electricity bills, my Duke energy bills through
the roof, and I love to live in a society with clean air and
clean water to pass on to the next generation a better environment than we have
than it was given to me. And we've done that. But why can't
they accept the idea Steve Gorm that we're successful we've won. The air is
clean. Coal burning utilities are almost going out of business. They're getting cleaner
every day. Nuclear power is waiting to be energized. Bill Gates and others
want to use these small nuclear power generation units for elect electrical purposes. Explain
why we're not saying we need more pollution. Well, you're right. One
of the great untold stories of our age that you don't hear in the press
is how clean our air is now. The six major EPA pollutants, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, ozone, particulates, lead, those
are all down more than eighty percent since nineteen eighty and probably about ninety five
percent since the nineteen fifties. But what the ep and others have done is
conflated carbon dioxide, which is an odorless, harmless and visible gas that is
plant food with pollution, and they're mixing it in with all the other ones,
and they're calling it dirty and saying we have to eliminate it. That's
where we've really gone off the rails, and we need to stop messing with
that. We need to continue to reduce pollution as we have been real pollutants,
not carbon dioxide, we need to stop putting so much plastic in the
oceans, although that's usual a little bit overstated around the world, not in
the US or Europe. They have a big problem with discharge of untreated way
beatater into riveters, oceans and streams that needs to be cleaned up. Well,
let's work on those real problems and not carbon dioxide. But unfortunately the
world is spending at trillion dollars a year un renewables trying to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, which isn't changing pollution levels at all. In fact, CO two
is not pollution. Can we say a thousand times that the composition of the
Earth's atmosphere is about zero point zero four percent CO two? Zero point zero
four is CO two, And so what's behind is really is socialism controlling the
American economy giving billions of dollars to your friends and family who contribute to a
campaign. Am I in the right track? There? Yeah? CO two
is plant food one. Hundreds of privid studies show that plants grow bigger and
faster with higher levels of atmospheric CO two. They get thicker tree trunks,
they get bigger root systems, they're more resistant to drought, but you're right.
The theory of man warming, the ideology which I call climatism, is
being used by many, many groups for many objectives. Of the United Nations
is one example. They've had two long running objectives. One is to have
create a world government. Jack Sharrock, president of France, a number of
years ago, said the first Climate Conferences were an example of world government.
They also want to redistribute wealth from the United States and Europe and to the
developing nations, and climate change is a tremendous way to do that. Today
twenty five percent of all four and eight is tied to a climate objective.
It used to be about about four percent. And we have people like India
two years ago asked for a trillion dollars a year to become necessario by twenty
sixty, a small sum, so that has become a big, big issue.
And also get rid of the goal and gas companies. A lot of
people don't like them when to get rid of them, despite the fact they
drive them modern society. So you know it is a massive, massive mistake
and many many ways. Well, let's get some headlines. Follow the money.
Secondly, CO two is plant food and part of God's great design that
the atmosphere is zero point zero four percent is CO two We're trying to stop
if going to zero point zero five or six and that CO two is not
pollution. A little more CO two is good for the growing of plants and
vegetables. No. Secondly, I saw a report from Hillary Clinton and she
has she's called out the beginning of climate related deaths. We have to keep
the game alive, got to keep the money flowing. Explain what Hillary Clinton,
who may be the Democratic nominee in November, who knows about Joe Biden's
tripping up steps constantly, what's going to occur? They may turn to her
or Gavin Newsom. What is she saying about beginning to count climate related deaths
to keep the scare tactics. Yeah, yeah, she wants to kind of
climate deaths. And I've called this. I wrote an article and published in
the Washington Examiners saying that this is the next big climate scare, the counting
of climate deaths. If you remember, during COVID nineteen, you could look
every day on line and see deaths or cases of COVID for every state,
every country around the world, and it was a great tool for driving COVID
nineteen policies. But now the climate folks want to do the same thing.
So missus Clinton wants to start counting climate deaths and claims that we have many,
many deaths from heat waves. There was an article also written in the
last two weeks that was published in Nature Medicine by a guy by the name
M. Colin Carlson, and he claimed that there were one hundred and sixty
six thousand climate deaths per year since the year two thousand, a total of
about four million. But if you look at what he's counting though, he
was counting malarial deaths from malaria and deaths from diarrheal disease in developing nations.
He was even counting deaths from cardiovascular disease. And you know, if you
count a heart attack as a climate death, you can count anything as a
climate death. So that's where we're headed. I'm afraid. But you know,
if you look at the evidence first, the number of deaths. There's
an outfit called m DEBT, the World Disaster Database that has been tracking deaths
from disasters for more than a century, and those include floods and droughts and
famine and all sorts of things, and those deaths are down ninety percent in
the last century. Famine itself deaths are down about ninety eight percent. We
used to have about ten million people a decade that would die across the world
from famine, and now that's down to under five hundred thousand a decade.
So and by the way, warm temperatures are better for people. So it's
gonna be a very, very tough case to make by upcounting climate deaths.
But we'll see if they try to do this. Steve Gorm I watch MSNBC
now and then so you don't have to. I know Tony Bender, my
producer, loves MSNBC, loves Rachel Maddow, but that's a different issue.
And I'm watching this when climate activists talk about not having children, and there's
a movement of foot on college campuses controlled by people like Claudine Gay, et
cetera, that are telling young women do not have children because you're contributing to
global warming and you're killing the planet by having a child. Now, I
hear this climate activist and I'm thinking this is crazy, But it's mainstream thinking
among the elite that that's why the birth rate among Americans is two point one
percent, which is barely keeping our population current. But explain how having children
will not destroy the planet, because having a child is about the worst thing
you can do for the planet. Very very sad, and we're going to
have We have many many young people think that today either afraid that the planet
won't be around or it won't be livable. No. And there's even an
article that came out in the New York Post, uh about a month ago
that said humans may be fueling global warming by breathing what breath? That's right,
Well, we need to text sale about two pounds of carbon dioxide a
day. Oh man. When I wrote an article a number of years ago
about about the the Keystone XLI pipeline, if you look at the emissions that
they were expecting from that pipeline and then you look at housecats, turns out
housecats to a whole lot more carbon dioxide emitting than the pipeline. So in
the US, how about a dog. I mean, I've had dogs most
of my life. Should I tell schnor from the painted head to skip of
breath every now and then? Yeah, we got all these crazy things going
on. There was another article in New York's Times that said that you should
mate with short people to save the planets. There was a there was a
mate with short people. There was an article in in the Miami Times a
few years ago that that said that that couples are unfaithful because of global warming.
So now you have excuse. Yeah, global warming made me do it.
My wife. You know, So my wife with like five foot five,
should I encourage her to maybe lose some lose some vertebrus so it should
get a little shorter to I mean, Steve, we're dealing with this is
utterly ridiculous, but it's being peddled as real science. That CO two is
like arsenic and that it's all about paying off people who contribute to political candidates.
And no one is worse about this than the UN. The UN,
and what they're doing is utterly absurd. So I can't breathe. I have
to mate with short women. I can't have pets and can have children.
I can't have kids. I'm gonna die and I can't breathe. All these
young women, it's gonna be very very sad about thirty or forty years when
they when they get to be older and they don't have a family and then
they realize this is all a bunch of nonsense when the world says, okay,
never mind, we aren't changing Earth's climate. It's nominated by natural factors.
That is what is going to occur. And it'd be very, very
sad for many many people believing this stuff. Well they do, and it's
an article of faith that cannot be questioned. And if you individuals like you
and indirectly I continue to put the truth out to the American people that somehow
we're part of a holy cabal representing coal and natural gas. I can't imagine
a world without electricity. Can you kind of break down for the American people
electrical power grid which is constantly having problems? Nonetheless, what is the breakdown
of coal approximately, natural gas, oil, and nuclear about America's power grid
right now? Kind of break it down just in rough terms. Well,
in America, it's about forty percent gas, it's about eighteen percent coal.
I think the total is about sixty percent that are coal and natural gas,
nuclear about eighteen percent. But you make an interesting point, John carry,
our Climate envoy made a statement a couple months ago saying we need to get
rid of all coal power plants. There are sixty five hundred of those in
the world, and the world is building or planning another thousand, and they
provide thirty five percent of the world's electricity. Yet we have probably hundreds of
hospitals and poor nations that don't have electricity. Imagine no air electricity for air
conditioning in an operating room. And then we have about two We have seven
hundred million people that don't have access to electricity, and we have about two
billion people that have blackouts or brownouts every single day. So your air conditioner
in Ohio, if you have one, and most people do, uses more
electricity on average than a third of the people in the world get to use
every day. So you know, this statement that we got to get rid
of all the power plants is just nuts. The elites are very far from
anything that's realistic, and we need to get back to what makes sensible energy
policy. Lastly, I see every day there's literally thousands and thousands of illegals
pouring into this country, supported completely by the liberals, the progressives, the
Joe Biden types, the John Podesta types who's taken over from John Carey,
And according to US Census Bureau, we're going to have by the year twenty
fifty, which is only twenty six years away, which seems like forever.
But let's face it, we're as close to twenty fifty as we are to
nineteen ninety nine that we're going to have an additional one hundred to one hundred
and twenty five million persons living in America. Now, the liberals say,
keep them wide open, keep them coming from all over the world, the
largely unattached single males that are wreaking havoc in our major cities. If the
liberals are serious about fighting so called climate change, which we cannot fight because
the world's going to do what the globe wants to do. What happens to
America When we take the liberal position that we need another one hundred and twenty
five million persons living in America, what would that do for pollution inside of
this country. Well, again, that's another thing that's being blamed on climate
change. A Kamala Harris, yeah, has said this is due to climate
change, and President Biden I think as well. And they were talking about
about the Central America. But you know, the funny thing is if you
look at temperatures in Central America, they haven't changed very much. The warming
that's occurring in the world, the gentle warming is almost nothing near the equator
in the United States, it's about a degree in one hundred and forty years
of degree celsius. And then it's more up near the Arctic region. So
the area is where a lot of the people are coming, the immigrants,
the illegal immigrants. It's not warming much of all. No, So climate
change is not the answer. No. But you know that's a whole other
topic. You need a different expert for you to get into that. Steve
Gorm, thank you. You're the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of
America, author of four books and energy and maybe our words are having some
marginal impact and I hope the American people embrace it. But once again,
Steve Gorm, thank you for coming on the Bill Cunningham Show. With your
permission, we'll do it again. Thank you, Steve, Thank you.
Bill. All right, God bless you. Let's continue with more Bill Cunningham
the Great American Live at j Home of the Reds, starting in about two
days right here on news Radio seven hundred WW