out politics and maybe has some influence, that's some scary.

Somebody says Jesse Watters mentioned me last night on Gutfeld. I have that recorded and I will watch that today.

Well here's some good news. Are you ready for the good good news? Really good news. Great news. I'm going to give you the best news today that you've ever heard. You ready?

Now some of you don't think it was a problem, climate change. But suppose you did. Or suppose you didn't think it was a problem but you'd like everybody to shut up about it, which would be a different kind of problem.

There are two gigantic happenings that can solve climate change. Number one, a carbon capture plant, the world's first and largest, just opened up. It's a factory that sucks air into it, takes the carbon dioxide out, mixes it with water and turns it into some kind of limestone and sticks it in the ground. Now how many factories would you need to suck enough? It's in Iceland. How many would you need?

And the company is a Swiss startup called Climeworks. Clime as in climate. Climeworks. Now we know the technology works, okay? So we don't have to wonder, hey, will this technology work? It already works. They built the factory. They didn't build a prototype. Hear this clearly. It's not a prototype. It's an actual factory that's taking carbon dioxide out of the air.

Now how many do you need? I don't know. But how much more efficient can the carbon capture become? Well if it's like everything else in the world it starts out somewhat barely efficient and it just keeps getting better. What happens when our technology for carbon capture goes from kind of works to really good? Problem solved, right?

So when you see that it's already apparently economical in some sense, I don't know, I can't imagine that they have a profit and what they're not selling anything so I don't know who's funding it but it got funded. So it means that somebody has an interest that's large enough to put money into it.

So if you don't have a technical problem because it works, there's no question about it, it's open and working, you don't have that question. And you don't have a funding problem because many would say it's the biggest problem in the world or whatever. Yeah it may be inefficient now but what's it going to be? What will the technology get to in 10 years? That's the question you have to ask yourself. I don't know.

So Adam Dopamine was pointing this story out but it also goes to what I call Adam's law of slow-moving disasters. How many of you have heard of that? Have you all heard of Adam's law of slow-moving disasters? It's I named it after myself and the law states this: that the only disasters you have to really worry about are the ones you didn't see coming. The ones that sneak up on you fast like the pandemic. Well arguably we could have seen that coming but not the specific one.

And the argument goes like this: that whenever humanity can see a problem developing over decades we always solve it. Such as you're going to run out of oil? Nope. We saw it coming and we've learned to frack and do other things and we solved it. You're going to run out of food because there are too many people? Nope, nope. We just figured out how to grow more food. The cars are gonna pollute the air and we won't be able to breathe? Nope, nope. We just changed some laws and made the smoggy cars go away and it's much better now, right?

So basically every time you find a problem. How about the ozone hole in the atmosphere? So when I was a kid the ozone was going to disappear and we'd all be fried by the sun but we knew it would take a long time to happen and so we changed some laws and got rid of aerosols and we're fine.

So climate change is the prototypical example of that because we're looking at an 80-year kind of time frame. You know and granted it's the first 20 that might be critical but it's a lot of time by human standards. That's a lot of time. And the odds that we will figure out workarounds for it are really good.

So am I worried about climate change? No. Because everybody else is. If everybody else was not worried about climate change I might be worried about it because I'd be like hey I'm not positive this is going in the wrong direction but it might and nobody's doing anything about it. But if you tell me we've got decades to work on something and everybody knows it's a problem or let's say most of the scientists and most of the industry believes it's a problem, some of you maybe not, but that's exactly the situation that makes me feel comfortable.

My ideal situation is there's a problem that will take decades to materialize and we're working really hard to fix it already. That's a good situation. Golden age here we come.

And now here's the second part of that. I'm all about the good news today. Are you feeling better? Do you feel a little optimism today? All right, here's the second part.

If you've been watching Michael Shellenberger talk about green energy being not as useful as we hoped it would be and that nuclear energy actually is the only really feasible way to give us all the energy we need in the future with other sources of course but we can't not do nuclear power and we need it for space and blah blah.

But here's the thing. In the history of humanity or at least let's say your lifetime have you ever heard of a major debate, let's say a public debate, where there are definitely people on both sides like really dug in? Take abortion. Abortion would be where there's two sides really dug in. Take socialism. Two sides really dug in. Nothing's gonna change. And that defines most of our topics, right?

Somebody says there's three sides in some cases. Okay but I'm simplifying for this. Wouldn't you say that over your entire life you've never seen a major debate with two sides where somebody just won the debate and the other side said okay you're right? Can you think of any case where that's ever happened?

It's happening right now. Do you see all the protesters protesting against the building of nuclear power plants? Nope. Do you see all the people going on television and saying we should close all of our nuclear power plants? Nope. No. Do you know why? Because the debate is over. It's the only time a debate has ever been won that I can think of.

You won't even see anybody go on television who's an expert, you know I'm not talking about some scared citizen, but you won't see any experts on television saying we shouldn't build nuclear power plants. Because if you've got an expert associated with the right politically they'd say yeah nuclear power plants. But if you got somebody associated with the left, let's say Joe Biden, he'd say yes on nuclear power plants. Have you ever seen this before?

And by the way I credit Michael Shellenberger for I don't know maybe most of this change because he's worked this harder than I've seen anybody work any topic ever and more effectively. By the way his communication skills are through the roof. Rarely do you see somebody with that kind of communication skill who gets a bite on a topic and just drives it down to the ground. But I think he did. I mean he's testified to Congress enough and incredibly and persuasively that you don't even see politicians railing against nuclear power, do you? Because I think it would be embarrassing at this point.

Now if you're a little behind the information here the quick version is this. If you are worried about storage of nuclear waste, basically solved. They just store it in big barrels right on site and they don't ship it anywhere. When was the last time you heard a big story about a gigantic problem of where to store nuclear waste? It's