Original subtitles

A lot of this environmental question depends on, I think, a very flawed fundamental presupposition.

It depends on the idea that carbon dioxide is pollution.

And I would argue, after interviewing hundreds of scientists, including many who've worked

for the UNIPCC, many of the leading scientists in the world, that the notion that CO2 is

pollution is absolutely preposterous.

We exhale about two pounds of it every single day.

The proportion of greenhouse gases made up of human CO2 emissions is a fraction of a

fraction of 1%.

The idea that that is going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the Earth

is frankly, in my opinion, totally ludicrous.

But from a totalitarian perspective, if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution,

there's no human activity that doesn't result in CO2 emissions, including living, including

dying, turning on a light switch.

Every single aspect of your life then, if we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution,

then comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from

pollution.

And environmental studies, and they say, well, your CO2 footprint will be smaller if you

eat bugs or you do this, that, or that.

You drive an electric car.

That doesn't show anything about whether that's going to benefit the environment or not.

In fact, CO2 has actually been very beneficial for the environment.

In interviewing Trump's climate advisor, Dr. William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton

University, he said the Earth is starving for more CO2.

And since we've had a little bit of an increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last hundred years

or so, plants have gotten much greener, agricultural yields have improved.

So I think we need to also talk about the fundamental presupposition here.

Is CO2 really pollution?

If it's not, then all these alleged environmental benefits are completely fictional.