The Iran War & Our Energy Future | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I want to take us back in time. to the period between the election in 2024 and, say, March or April of 2025, when Donald Trump was returning. to the White House and we were just awash in this sense that--. liberals too--. that MAGA was on the march, that there had been. a political realignment in the country, that Donald Trump was not-- it wasn't. just tragic and awful that Donald Trump was returning. to the White House, but he was winning all of these votes. from young voters, Black voters, Brown voters.

He was rewriting the demographic coalition. of the Republican Party, and that he had effectively. won the culture war, especially with the support. of the tech billionaires. And now I think about this Great American State Fair. that they tried to stage 15 months later, and they booked 10 people. And it was like the headliners are, like, Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice. That's the best they could do. And then all those people had to drop out. [THEME MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Hey, everybody. Welcome to The Weekly Show podcast.

We are back. My name is Jon Stewart. We were off for a week, and we are. refreshed and healthy and ready to roll. on this Tuesday, June 2. It'll probably air on June 3. I'm still waiting to see if I'm going. to get booked to open for Freedom 250, right before Flo Rida, which is--. that poor-- I don't know if you guys saw that the C+C. Music Factory guy gave what may be, I think, one of the great--. I don't want to say "Gettysburg Address,".

but he gave one of the great speeches, while sitting on his toilet, about. how he views the type of performances. that may be going on DC. And I just can't urge you enough to find it online. and watch it through, because it rolls through his feelings. of performing in front of, let's say, the dictator of North Korea whilst. drinking wine from Venezuela and smoking Cuban cigars.

It's something. And for some reason, he is maybe one of my favorite people. in the world right now, given that speech. But today's show, we're going to go in a slightly. different direction. We're going to talk to one of my favorite sort of utility. players in the world of breaking down. all the different events and threats that. may be looming on our horizon. He's an existentialist, as you could.

tell from the title of his best seller, The Uninhabitable Earth--. Life After Warming, but he's recently--. I've just really enjoyed a lot of his columns. that range on a variety of topics, from the Middle East. to AI to all those different things. So I haven't talked to him in a little while, and I'm excited to talk to him again. Let's just bring them on in. David Wallace-Wells is joining us today. [THEME MUSIC]. I'm excited. Today, we're talking to David Wallace-Wells,

one of my favorite writers, writer for The New York Times, opinion columnist at New York Times Magazine, author of the bestseller The Uninhabitable Earth--. Life After Warming. But you have been expanding, David, your writing platforms. So here's what we're going to do today. This is our task for today, David. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Tell me. JON STEWART: I was convinced that you. thought global warming was the existential threat. to humankind. I now believe, David Wallace-Wells-- and you can. tell me if it's true or not, that you've.

expanded your extinction events into AI. or perhaps the Middle East. So today, we are going to go through where you believe. our fatal mistake will come from and destroy. the entirety of the planet. Are you still in the mindset that, in your hierarchy of extinction events, is climate still the top of the list? Or are you finding other existential threats underneath.

it that you want to explore? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I wouldn't call any of these things. extinction events, actually. I think, no matter what happens, there's going to be billions of people living on the planet, probably most of them living relatively normal lives. But I do think we have a bundle of existential challenges. in the sense of challenges that are revealing. the meaning of our existence, and that I'm still. pretty worried about warming. We can talk about that, but there. are some near-term challenges, too, which may be looming a bit. larger for your listeners.

JON STEWART: Let's do that. Let's-- first of all, thank you for saying we have listeners. That's meaningful. Let me-- all right, so we'll start with that. We'll start with near-term challenges, and then we'll go to the long-term challenges. So let's pop in with near-term challenges. What, in your mind, where are we dealing with? Who's in the pole position for near-term challenges. for humankind? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, we're. dealing with a war in the Middle East.

that was needless and elective and, I think, really poorly conceived and which has scrambled. an awful lot of geopolitics and done a lot of damage. to America's standing in the world. and made the future seem a whole lot less stable than it. did even a year ago, when we still had Donald. Trump in office, but we weren't having. an oil and gas supply crisis. We weren't having a fertilizer crisis on the onset. of growing season.

We weren't having shortages of aluminum to make Diet Coke cans. and helium to run MRI machines and plastics. to make condoms to deliver to the developing world. So I think that, over the last six months, that's the thing that has introduced itself most. dramatically, the war in Iran, totally needless, in my view, totally ill-defined and, I think, catastrophic and revealing on a number of different levels. JON STEWART: Let's tease that apart a little. bit, because that that's interesting to me.

It felt like-- the world has always had problems, but there was a relative amount of stability. It seems very clear that in the last few years, and maybe we'll start it with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or maybe even their occupation of Crimea, that the world order was about to go through a bit of a reset, that we were going to be re-choosing. who are the Allied Powers and who are the Axis powers.

And is America aligning with the Axis Powers? Is that what this Iran war represents? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I mean, you. know that famous skit from some British comedy. show where it's, like, two Nazi soldiers looking at each other. and going, are we the baddies? I don't want to underestimate the villainy of Iran. That regime has been brutal for many decades.

It is certainly not a place that I would want to live. I think very few Americans would want to live there. But that's not the same thing as saying. that that bad behavior justifies. regular military action against essentially non-existent. nuclear threats, in my view, and especially so poorly. thought through that now the result of this conflict. has been, I think, a pretty clear humiliation. for the American military and a pretty clear elevation. in global status for Iran, not to mention.

the entire global economy being put into a kind of a vise such. that we're all now, all 8 billion of us on the planet, dependent on these two kind of madmen, one of whom. is running America, and many more than one running around, but coming to some kind of rational conclusion. and rational exit from this conflict, which is hard to imagine. Or to the extent that we can imagine it, it's not going to solve all the problems that the conflict.

itself caused. JON STEWART: And do you think that the conflict--. I'm always interested in what country's misbehavior rose. to the level of intervention. Russia's behavior, invading countries, threatening Europe. with energy shortages, all these other things, that rises to the level of, well, maybe we'll. help the people under attack with some money. and some missiles.

But Iran's behavior, that, we must. intervene there immediately. Israel's behavior of bombing, not only do we not intervene, we give them the materials to do it. Saudi Arabia, their behavior can be abhorrent. in the human rights arena. They're our allies. It's very hard to find a consistent throughline morally. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, I mean, I. don't think that this administration is. applying a moral test at all. I think the purpose of this war wasn't even strategic.

I don't even think-- they now are telling us. that the goal of this war was to eliminate. Iran's nuclear weapons program, which everyone who looked. at that closely said had been badly damaged in the attacks. last year, was pretty far from posing an imminent threat. I think you have to look at this not as a strategic choice. by the Trump administration, but an effort to project. power without responsibility. And that's basically a throughline. that I think you've seen through the second. Trump administration. We had this big document that they put together,

the Pentagon, which declared that thing, the "Donroe Doctrine," which a lot of people interpreted. as this a kind of plan for America to retreat from its. rivalry with China in particular and focus. on dominating the Western hemisphere, but I think that's a little bit of a misreading. And when you look at what we did in Venezuela, what we've done in the Caribbean, and what we're now doing in Iran, I think that Trump basically just wants to play the role.

of a 19th century imperial power, where he gets to do what he wants, he doesn't have to own any of the damage that he creates. elsewhere, and he mostly wants the rest of the world to cower. in fear, intimidated by us. And that's why the Iran war is such a significant event, because even a week beforehand, most military analysts would. have said, this is probably strategically unwise, but the US is going to absolutely. destroy Iran in this conflict.

What it would lead to, who knows? Whether it unleashes chaos in the region, who knows? But this is going to be an obvious American show. of dominance. And we have done a lot of damage. to their military facilities. We've also killed some schoolgirls. and done damage to a lot of civilian infrastructure, hospitals and universities, in ways that. used to be casually called--. JON STEWART: War crimes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: --war crimes. JON STEWART: Casually. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: But the actual military conflict. has not been in any meaningful way won by the United States.

In fact, I think you'd have to say that it's been lost, if anything. We are now in a weaker bargaining position. than we were when it started. Iran has demonstrated its power and control. over one of the central economic pathways. in the world, the Strait of Hormuz. And they've done that in a way that tells a lot of really. interesting stories about the near-term geopolitics, in an age of an energy transition,

in an age of drone warfare, and in an age. of declining American power. I think this is really, really significant. When you look at what happened, not just what's happened-- not. just in Iran, but what has happened in Ukraine. over the last few years and, indeed, what happened when. the US tried to go to war with the Houthis last year, we've seen a complete rewriting of the script. of conflicts involving superpowers and lesser powers. We used to think, OK, maybe the US will bungle its way in Iraq.

and Afghanistan, but we can be clear. that the military advantage there lies with the superpower. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it looked somewhat similar, but Ukraine was able to respond by essentially standing up. an entirely new drone infrastructure, drone production system that then changed the logic of war. and has allowed them to at least fight the Russians. to a standstill and then, over the last year, actually regain territory from the Russians. This is a completely new kind of war. In Ukraine, 70% to 80% of casualties.

are now the result of drones, not soldiers. They've had a number of episodes. where one army or the other has taken a position exclusively. with robots and drones, and we're now seeing something. similar play out in Iran, which Americans may be able to shoot. down an Iranian drone, but it's going to cost us a $20. million missile. And that drone might have cost them $10,000, which means they just have an incredible natural advantage. And what that means going forward,

I think, is really complicated, if we had all assumed. a few years ago that superpowers may value. the life of their soldiers so highly that they were. reluctant to get into war, but if they got into war, they would really kick ass. Now we're in a situation where it's not even clear that. in conflicts between the world's most powerful. militaries and obviously lesser adversaries, that the powerful militaries have a meaningful advantage. And that opens up huge questions. about America's rivalry with China,

about our standing in the world, et cetera. JON STEWART: But David, how in God's name. have we not learned that over--. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Over the last 30 years? JON STEWART: Forget about the last 30 years, the last 70 years, since World War II. I think back to Vietnam, and the big lesson of Vietnam. was it doesn't matter-- you can carpet bomb a country. You can napalm it. You can destroy the village, to save the village. You have the military advantage. But when a country is fighting for its own territory,

its own sovereignty, you don't necessarily have an advantage. if you are the invader or the occupier, even if you have a military that. has tremendous superiority. What you were just saying about Iran-- forget about drones. Obviously, that was a different technology--. they would say about tunnels, or that tunnels. are the new way of fighting warfare that.

humble the great superpowers. Vietnam was the lesson that should. have humbled us in terms of the way. that we deploy our military. And for a moment, it did. And then we pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. in a few weeks, and then we invaded in a few days, and we thought, oh, we're back. How is it that we don't learn that lesson? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: We told ourselves in that period. that we had found a technological solution.

to the problem of Vietnam, which is that we were. going to fight wars remotely. We were going to fight them from the sky. with targeted smart bombs, and we. were going to deploy soldiers on the ground to the extent. that it was necessary, only after we had completely. obliterated the enemy. And we did that. It was, in some cases, somewhat successful, in other cases less successful, but it. never really achieved the strategic aims of those wars. This is something that the scholar Robert Pape has really. emphasized, that we can make shows of dominance through air.

power, but if we really wanted to effectuate change. on the ground, we have just as hard. a time in the '90s and 2000 as we did in the '60s and '50s. But we told ourselves that whole time that we. were that we were kicking ass. We told ourselves that we kicked ass in Iraq. We told ourselves that we kicked. ass in Iraq the second time. We told ourselves that we kicked ass in Libya, and that was just a story we told ourselves. to pump ourselves up, to make ourselves feel more powerful.

than we really were and more consequential. than we really were on the global stage. [THEME MUSIC]. JON STEWART: You know what I hate, ladies and gentlemen, almost more than anything? It's slow-growing trees. Come on, tree. I don't have all day. Well, folks, Fast Growing Trees has the answer. They got all the plants your yard or home needs. And you might think, but I suck at growing stuff.

Doesn't matter. You can get support from trained plant experts, and they're available seven days a week, whether it's email, chat, or phone, or whatever they do, personalized video. consultations to help you plan your landscape, care for your plant. No more slow-growing-- fast. They got a variety of apartment-friendly houseplants. Did you know you could have a lemon or avocado tree indoors? Did you know that? Indoors. You know how nice that would smell? And right now, they have great deals on planting essentials,

up to half off on select plants. And listeners to our show get 20% off their first purchase. when using the code TWS at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants. and better growing at FastGrowingTrees.com, using. the code TWS at checkout. FastGrowingTrees.com, code TWS. Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use TWS to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions apply. [THEME MUSIC].

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I do think that drones. are a really powerful next phase of that story. And the way that I would illustrate that is to say, not that long ago, 15 years ago, during the Obama drone wars, when America. assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki via drone, it was like this incredible--. I felt myself pulled into this science fiction future in which. there's this global superpower maintaining. total global surveillance such that we could.

track an individual bad actor on the other side of the world. and then go and find him with flying. robots that then killed him. That seemed like we had just discovered. the Death Star, as America. JON STEWART: Did we--. I'm just curious. Did we watch the end of that movie? Because I don't know if people know--. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: You do have. to ask those questions about a lot of these military people. JON STEWART: Do they stay in the theater. till the final credits roll and see what exactly. happened to the Death Star?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. Well, I mean, to your point, that movie series was. obviously a Vietnam allegory. But, even five or eight years ago, military futurists. would think of American technological advantage. as something that just could not be overcome. by a lesser adversary. And then we saw it happen very rapidly. And we've seen it-- it's not just. that you the cost of these drones are so cheap, and what they allow any country with any meaningful industrial.

base to do is to compete on an equal level. with the world's most expensive, largest military. And I do think that this is something that we're finally. waking up to now, because I think most Americans look. at what's happening in Iran and see it clearly, whatever they're hearing on Fox News or whatever, see it clearly as a setback. JON STEWART: I think that Americans don't. I think Americans, if you look at it through the prisms of how. Americans view it, there are all kinds of narratives. that are coming out of this.

One of the most powerful ones politically now. has nothing to do with the kind of Icarus theory. that we're talking about, which is we continue. to think, oh, you know what? If I just have the right wax, I can fly as close to the sun. as I want. Every time you think, all right, we'll change--. we'll figure out a way to level the playing field on drones, and we can go back to flying next to the sun. But if you think about the narratives now, the narratives now are much more.

defined through the kind of populist demagogue lens. that we're seeing now. If we just get rid of Israel, we. won't have any of these problems. anymore because it's really their influence. Or if we just get rid of immigrants, we won't have these kinds of problems anymore. It's an elimination theory, rather than a coherent theory. of you can have influence in this world, but you cannot control it. And attempts to control it will inevitably.

lead to you plunging into the sea when the wax. melts off your feathers. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And I think. that's where we're heading over the next few months. I mean, it's a little hard to know exactly what. the consequences will be, in part because we had. a lot of warnings right at the beginning of the war. about the economic fallout. Most of the smart people said that pain was going to really. hit within four or six weeks. And here we are now, three months later, and there are consequences for the US and bigger consequences. elsewhere in the world. But it's not like we're living through the depths.

of the COVID recession right now or anything like that. But the smart people now tell us. that we managed to extend that timeline because we drew down. our oil and gas reserves, because around the world. we've found ways to maybe cut 10% of global fossil demand. But now we're about to hit the point where the shit really. hits the fan, and that may be a whole new phase. of this conflict than we've encountered before. And that, I think, is also really important, which.

is another thing that's changed in this conflict is that we. used to think of sanctions and trade war. as something that we did to avoid hot conflict, like it was a lesser escalatory choice which might eventually. graduate to a hot war. And this conflict is really interesting. because the real fight is not military. The real fight is economic. It's like, who is controlling? Who's got the hostage?

Who's suffering most from the holding of the hostage? And the occasional sorties and bombing, I would like that to stop. But it doesn't feel to me like the ceasefire periods. that we've been are in any meaningful way preferable. to the global order versus the hot conflict periods. of this war that we've had. It's actually the main fight is about the economy, and I wonder if that's also a sign of where we're heading. JON STEWART: See, here's where this. is just blowing my mind now. See, now we're going to take it back to-- when I think.

about your writing on climate, I always. think about when you talk about the real victims of the climate. being those that live sub-economically from-- they're. the ones that suffer the most. And in some ways, it's one of the reasons. we don't address it in the manner. in which maybe we should, is that there seems to be--. [SIRENS WAILING]. --a kind of-- and by the way, the police. are coming to take David Wallace-Wells away.

I don't know where he moved to--. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Not for you, Jon? JON STEWART: --but it is--. no. I'm in Jersey, baby. We don't even have cops. It's nirvana. When you talk about the economy--. we're all waiting for the economic damage to hit. But isn't there a certain plane of existence now in the stock. market, and with the AI titans and with the upper middle. class, that actually the gas could be $5, $6,

and they wouldn't feel that pain. But there is a level of economic pain in America that. is just now endemic, that 50%, 60%, 70% of the people. that are just living through these squeezes, and it's just life, that the people that make the decisions. on Iran and AI and climate don't actually.

ever feel that economic pain, and so why. would they change course? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: It's almost the opposite, I mean, in this particular case. In the future things won't be quite as corrupt, one hopes. But in this particular case, the Trump administration. has been making announcements and decisions about this war, it seems basically based on they're. looking at their Bloomberg terminal, and they see that terminal as the entire expanse. of the universe. So if they make an announcement and prices go up, their friends.

profit, sometimes literally criminally, through insider trading, in other cases, just in the normal course of corruption. JON STEWART: And his kids get a drone contract at the Pentagon. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. And then they make another announcement, and then the market moves in the other direction. and a different set of friends of theirs benefit. And there's very, very little appreciation for the real world. economic consequences. But the truth is the market is, to some degree, also operating that way in the sense. that we have had an enormous blow.

to global oil and gas supplies, and the market has not--. I mean, they've responded. The market has responded, but it. hasn't responded nearly as dramatically as most. analysts expected it to. They found ways to find new supply, but they've also just kind of continually. bet on the possibility that this is a short-term disruption. that will be smoothed out in the long run, and so you haven't had you the total turmoil in the markets. that one might have expected at the outset. And I do think that you're exactly right. There's a kind of global story playing out in which.

the nations of Asia, which were hit first and hardest. by this shortage of fuel, they've. undertaken some incredible emergency measures. They've shortened their workweeks. They've closed schools. They've imposed restrictions on fuel use. In the countries of Europe and the US, we're now paying a little bit more for gas. and maybe for some other products. we buy at the supermarket, but it hasn't. been all that catastrophic. And yet even here, where we're relatively insulated, there's huge gradations between who's suffering more.

as a result and who really could price these changes. in without noticing. And I think that you're exactly right. I mean, in the global--. I don't mean the planet. I mean the global American context, the scale and shape. of the economy, I do think that the fundamental fact. of the present is this incredibly intense inequality, which is growing year on year and in some quite. remarkable ways, especially at the very, very top.

And we see all of these plutocrats and oligarchs. every day on our TV screens, every day on their podcasts. and in their panel conferences, talking about the future. of humanity, talking maybe particularly about how AI is. going to change everything, but also about economic policy, also about the war. And these are people who are just living in an entirely. different universe than not just the bottom 50%, the bottom 95%. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Not to mention. the bottom 50%, who are also living in a completely. different universe.

And I think that's one of the things that. is behind the growing AI backlash. is this intuition that this is a technology and a world. historical force that is being designed by a small handful. of people, literally five people, and a huge amount of the world's wealth. is being channeled in their direction, and the shape of our collective future. is being written, in large part, by those five people. And for anyone who's spent the last decade worrying about.

not just the concentration of wealth, but the concentration of social power. that follows from that wealth, that. is an incredibly concerning acceleration. of pre-existing trends, which, even in their earlier phase, have caused a huge amount of political turmoil. and widespread suffering. JON STEWART: The people at the top. are always somewhat insulated from the pain that some. of their decision making, the literal effects. of their policies on the people whose lives are affected. through those policies. I don't recall a time when the distance between those two.

has ever been this large. And I think your point about AI is a really great one, because that's just going to accelerate it in a way. that we haven't seen before. What is your thought process on when. the world that the grand designers and decision. makers is so removed from the day-to-day experience.

of the people, the vast majority, the 90% of people, the 95% of people that those decisions will impact, where's the cracking point? You got Trump out there saying, hey, people's financial decisions, that doesn't play into this. They've invented a story that Iran. was about to get a nuclear weapon and drop it on people. Meanwhile, North Korea has a nuclear weapon. Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weaponry, and the technology that. surrounds it is going to be more accessible to smaller.

and smaller countries. That's just a fact. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And one of the messages of this war is, you should get over the finish line. if you're developing a new-- JON STEWART: Let's hurry. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Because then you feel protected, yeah. JON STEWART: Right. So it's not just a board game of Risk. When did they start feeling the pressure from below? Or will they ever? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, I think different actors here. are in different positions. So I think the Trump administration.

is operating in a very different. world than the AI plutocrats. I think that the Trump administration. feels that they have--. 90-plus percent of their self identified MAGA Republicans. are on board with everything. I think Trump basically only looks at that polling. He doesn't look at polling of the country. as a whole, which is one reason why he keeps telling. interviewers that he's got such support that nobody. else seems to credit. And I think that they're quite comfortable ruining the country.

by stripping it for parts and enriching themselves, whatever the political consequences. I mean, that is the Trump MO and has been for 50 years. That's how he operates, and that's not. how he's operating now, now that he's been empowered. and without the limited oversight. that there was in the first term. The AI guys, first of all, they're. kind of ideologically diverse. JON STEWART: As in some of them are libertarian.

and some of them are libertarian fascists? Is that the ideological diversity in that world? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I think that Dario Amodei is genuinely. a liberal who is trying to figure out how to square. the market logic of his company with his own set of values, and I think he's going through a very. public reckoning with that. JON STEWART: And the purpose of AI with his values. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Totally. JON STEWART: Yeah. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: But 10 years.

ago, all of these founders were obsessed with existential risk. They thought that there was some chance. that AI was going to bring about the near-term extinction. of humanity. There's some surveys that show that there's still a relatively. significant share of AI engineers. who believe this is a real possibility, but the guys who are really in charge have moved on. They've stopped talking about existential risk. They've stopped talking about biorisk, and they've started to now, over the last year. in particular, really focus on what I think the public is most.

anxious about, which is disruption. to employment patterns, political concentration. of power. And they don't exactly have a set of, I think, serious proposals for how to deal with those possibilities, but they are at least signaling or trying to signal that they. hear the public's anxieties and that they. want to be seen as people of conscience on these questions. JON STEWART: Seen as.

Seen as people of conscience, not people of conscience. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Not actual. Yeah, no, I think one big part of this story. is that it's not just them. It's all the rest of us, too. It's not clear how much faith we should have. in our ability to exercise democratic control. over these forces. I was just reading the pope's encyclical about AI. and thinking about the fact that 30% years ago, when. the first sheep was cloned, the Catholic.

Church came out and said, we're not going to do human cloning. And they weren't alone. There were a lot of other people. who said the same thing, on the right and on the left. But there was able to be a kind of social consensus built. that this arc of progress actually could be stopped. and must be stopped and would be stopped. And it was stopped. We haven't cloned humans in the 30 years since. Now, it's not an exact parallel, but when Pope Leo comes out with his encyclical against AI. now, it's like, do we have any hope of taking.

control of these systems? [THEME MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Our friends at Quince. are back to help fashion plates, like myself and like my audience, upgrade your summer wardrobe. You know, I can't always wear couture, if that's what they call it. Haute couture. Hot couture? Haute couture. I can't always wear that. I'm not always at a ball or filming an episode.

of Upstairs, Downstairs. I also have times to be casual. That's where Quince comes in. They got the summer staples. They're breathable, comfortable, high quality, 100% linen shorts and shirts, Pima cotton tees. Quince also, by the way, they're. not looking to exploit labor to bring you the softest, most durable cottons. They work with ethical factories. They cut out the middleman. You're getting premium materials. without the massive retail markup. Please, I beg of you.

You know me. I don't like to nag. I beg of you, refresh your everyday with luxury. you'll actually use. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to Quince.com/tws for free shipping on your order, and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E .com/tws for free. shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com/tws. [THEME MUSIC].

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: There are some policy. proposals on the table. Bernie just came out with a proposal. to take a significant public ownership. stake in the big AI companies. JON STEWART: I absolutely think that should be the case. But even that, isn't that just a way to corrupt humankind? I'm on board because I think they're. strip mining our intellectual property in the first place. The whole point of AI is it's training itself on the entirety. of human existence. And yet they get to put it all behind proprietary walls, and we don't see either a shareholder.

stake or anything about it. In fact, we have to pay them for the privilege. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. My boss, A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The Times, just had a great speech about this, and he's making a big stand on this front, too. But when I think about the Bernie proposal, I also worry that we're essentially affirming. the monopolistic structure of this system, if we're saying that the US government is. going to take a 50% stake in the leading AI labs. JON STEWART: Just give us a cut, and we'll let it go. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And that means that the US government. will then be invested in the stability of that system.

in which, for instance, Anthropic or maybe OpenAI. is dominating this whole field. And maybe that is the natural course of the technology, that it trends towards monopolistic structures, but I would bet-- JON STEWART: All do. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well--. JON STEWART: I mean, every time you have an advance in terms. of communications or science or thing, people tend to try and corner the market on it because so. much money pours into the first few people that develop it,

and then they use that money to pull ladders. up from everywhere else. They use it to feed into the political system. I mean, it's a well-worn--. the industrialists of the early 1900s did the same thing. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I agree. I think that's something that's happening in which. we need to worry about. But I wonder if there's also something else, another thread. here to pick up on, which is what AI people call diffusion, and that is the bet of these big frontier labs is that it's.

so important to be the best that we should leverage all. of this capital and all of these resources. and risk antagonizing the American public. in order to be a little bit better than the next best guy, because there's so many large returns to being number one. But I wonder just how true that is. If you have AI progressing so rapidly that an open source. model from China or elsewhere that. is 80% as good as the frontier model at 10% of the cost,

there are going to be a huge number of people. who find that valuable. Maybe not the absolute cutting edge cancer researchers. or the people in the Pentagon, but for the average person. doing research on whether what stocks to invest in. or where to go on vacation, they. don't actually need the absolute cutting. edge frontier model. They can use one from six months ago and be totally fine. And in that landscape, I wonder just how large the returns. to dominance really are--.

JON STEWART: That's interesting. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: --and whether the natural structure. may actually advantage smaller, more nimble--. and that's basically, by the way, the bet. that China is making on AI. They are focused on making sure that every person and every job. can use this tool well. JON STEWART: Utility. They're making it about utility and developing--. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And uptake. JON STEWART: --usage. Right. The other bet they're making that is seemingly much smarter. than us is they're making a bet on electrification. and on the fact that this is going.

to be an enormous-- they're already setting aside land. for these data centers and water to electrify their grid, because that's really going to be the challenge. is these AI companies, they can corner. the market all they want. If they run out of tokens and power, they're done. It doesn't matter if it's model 8.9178 Claude or 10.135 Claude. Like, you don't have the power, you don't have the model.

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I mean, maybe 18 months ago or so, I wrote a piece in which I said, the US is betting on AI, and China is betting on green tech. And these were the two-- they were. the bets for their century. And you pointed out the silliness. of that, which is that AI also depends on electricity. And we need abundant, cheap, available electricity. Clean energy is the fastest, cheapest way to do that. And America is not only not embracing that technology, they're doing a lot of stuff to slow its rollout. somewhat ineffectively.

But the policy direction is against clean energy. rather than for it. And in China, they're still building coal plants. They're still producing emissions. I don't want to make them seem like a perfect hero here, but especially in the context of the Iran war, which is where we started this conversation, the entire world. is now looking out and realizing that clean energy is. cheaper, that it is more reliable. because it's not subject to oil shocks,

and it is not subject to hostage taking by the world's. malevolent actors. And it is domestically sourced once you build. the infrastructure so that, yes, you have to import. some solar panels and stuff. But once you do that, the sun keeps shining in your country. And the whole world is responding to this crisis. as they did, really, the last crisis with Russia's invasion. of Ukraine, by dramatically increasing. their green electrification programs. and importing much, much more green tech, particularly.

from China. So since this war, everybody predicted that it. would produce a surge in coal. It hasn't happened. Instead, we've seen a huge surge. in the purchasing of Chinese solar panels, of EVs. all around the world. JON STEWART: China's killing it. China's killing it right now. This war has absolutely heightened. the need for their cars and their solar technology. And we're all sitting around. It makes me think in America--.

and it kind of gets us back to the Vietnam of it all. But the last time I remember this was the 1970s. That was the oil shock, when OPEC finally realized, you know what? We actually have some power over these Western societies, who have such a huge need for our delicious energy, that we can consolidate that into OPEC, and we can start to have some control here and not just be--. and this war feels like a kind of throwback.

to the analog world that we were living in back then. It's about oil and nuclear power, when everyone else is moving into that next century. of AI and electrification. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. I mean, the biggest irony there is that it. may be the end of OPEC. JON STEWART: Right. It may destroy it. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And also scramble all of these alliances. that the Trump administration has spent so much time building. over the last decade, trying to build a coalition of countries.

around basically venture capital and tech capital. in Israel, in the gulf. JON STEWART: Well, that's why it's always so funny. He sends Jared and Witkoff over there, and their plan is always like, what if we just. get $200 billion to build, like, a golf course. and some hotels in Tehran? Would that be good for you guys? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, this is, I think, one of the underrated consequences of this war. is that a lot of that money is actually drying up. JON STEWART: Not for him, though, not for Kushner. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I mean, not for the Trump family.

in particular, but the Gulf sovereign wealth. funds are reconsidering their investments around the world. A lot of stuff has already been withdrawn and canceled. That's why you're seeing problems for the Gulf stuff. And they canceled their--. JON STEWART: No more money for Mickelson, now. that this war started. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: But those were basically. efforts to court power, Western alliances and Western power.

And they're reconsidering those in the response to this war, because even Trump's allies in the Middle East, who. have benefited from these deals over the last decade. and have been scrambling to push more. money in that direction, even they see. the lesson of this war as America. is no longer a reliable partner. They are fickle, they are punitive, and they're just not-- it doesn't make sense to put all. of our chips in that basket.

JON STEWART: Well, their vision for the future. in the Middle East was a future-- we. are the cities of the future. We are going to build these. We're going to put islands where. islands didn't exist anymore. We're going to build these incredible buildings. It's going to be a place of leisure and technology and all. these different things. But the one thing that it requires, not just energy, is stability. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And peace. JON STEWART: And peace. And if you're in a volatile region of the world. and suddenly drones are hitting in the middle of Doha,

well, suddenly it all looks like a fiction. and it collapses on itself. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, even more than that, the country that they depended on. to guarantee their peace is the country that is attacking them. JON STEWART: Wow. No, that's really true. And it brings up, to get back to the existential part. of this, the throughline here is that humans. can't help themselves. And I think you think on a more philosophical level,

and so as we go through all these--. you mentioned cloning before and that we were able to stop. ourselves from cloning people. A, I'm not sure we have. You don't really know what they're doing in the CRISPR, but also there's not a huge public utility to that. that we can see. AI is different. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah, that's true.

JON STEWART: Is throughline through all of this. that, in truth, even when faced with catastrophic results. on the horizon from our actions, that we can't help ourselves, that if it's there to be made, we'll make it? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: That is Trump's philosophical goal. JON STEWART: Yes. That's what I'm saying.

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And we are living in a world. now in which many other actors beyond Trump. are behaving in parallel ways. This is not just a problem of who is President. There are many leaders in the world who have become. considerably more self-interested, amoral, acquisitive in their approach to world affairs. That is true, and I think it is depressing and distressing.

But I also think it's not the sum total here. It wasn't that long ago when--. 2014, 2015, 2016, just to use the climate story. as a kind of illustrative example, it wasn't that long ago that the world's. two great powers, the US and China, got together. And even before the incredible declines in clean energy. made electrification an obvious economic win, even before. that, the US and China said, we really.

have to get together and do something about climate. And the result of that negotiation. was effectively that the Paris Accords, which was a global agreement in which. all countries of the world said that they were going--. JON STEWART: Which we yoinked out of as soon as we could. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, I mean, it's not just that, though. We've walked out of so many things. But 10 years ago, the UN was saying, OK, the Millennium Development Goals that we had put forward. in the late '90s were so successful, we had pulled so many people out of poverty, we had driven child mortality down so much that we now.

need to come up with an entirely different. set of goals for 2030. And they did that, and the whole world. was very excited about making those real. And we were just in general imagining a more cooperative. future, which, to the paranoid, looked like the arrival. of a global governance structure, which. maybe they found unlikable. But even so, the trend of history. seemed to be more towards integration. through globalization, but also through--. JON STEWART: Cooperation. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: --cosmopolitanism. and cooperation.

All those things were ascendant. 10 years ago is not that long ago, and we've now lived through a decade or a decade. plus of break from that pattern. But I don't want to forget that it wasn't that. long ago that we were on that track, and it wasn't such a different world materially, economically. And I do think, in one perverse way, the lesson of the Donald Trump years is those of us who. diminished the Great Man theory of history. and elevated structural explanations for how things.

progressed have really missed out because small changes. in electorates producing particular personalities. and particular places can meaningfully. change the entire course of planetary history. That's what we've seen in the US, and it's quite depressing. But it also means that you get a different set. of people in there, and things could be quite different. JON STEWART: That's certainly more optimistic. But it also says maybe there's a theory that, whether it is. globalization or climate, that leaders have to be more.

cognizant of the collateral damage of progress, and that if you ignore that collateral. damage-- and this can apply to climate or AI or anything else. If you ignore it, you risk what we're. seeing now, which is the political backlash to that. So let's go back to your 10 years ago or 20 years ago, and China's in the WTO, and we start forming these more. global organizations.

But then a climate tax is levied. that hurts French farmers and truckers, and so they suddenly have a huge protest, and it leads to a kind of rejuvenation. of that populist right all through Europe, as well as. our interventions in these other places. that lead to the immigrant crisis and migrant. crisis in Europe and in the United. States, which leads again to that. populist right-wing backlash.

Is the left, is liberal world values not cognizant enough. of the unforeseen consequences of what progress can look like? We talk about Trump and them, they live in ivory towers. and they don't feel the effects of this. Is the left have a blind spot as well in that? And if we had covered it better, is it possible we wouldn't be facing this backlash?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. I mean, I think, in the American context, I think a lot about the moment in late 2008, early 2009, when Larry Summers solicited a bunch of proposals. for how much stimulus to ask Congress for. And Lael Brainard proposed, I think, $1.5 trillion. That was how big, she said, the gap between where we needed.

to be and where we were was, and the government. needed to fill that gap with $1.5 trillion in spending. And Summers looked at that and was like, we can't even present. this to Obama, because there's no way we're going. to get more than a trillion. Let's ask for a trillion, and we'll. negotiate down from there. And he did that, and the stimulus was, I think, $800 billion. And who knows how the alternate history would have unfolded. if that $1.5 trillion estimate had actually.

made its way to Obama's desk. Who knows whether it would have made it through Congress? Who knows-- who knows. But if we had found a way politically to deliver double. the stimulus that we had, I think. we'd be living in a very different place in America. politically than we were--. than we are now, and with considerably less suffering. and considerably less turmoil. Now, that's not to say that it would have solved. all the problems of the China shock. and the industrial Midwest, and it's not to say that there. wouldn't have been backlash against migration, which, by the way, I think has many causes, global causes.

that most Americans don't appreciate. because the big surge in '21, '22, we saw the same surge in Canada. We saw the same surge in the UK. We saw the same surge in the EU. Every rich country in the world had a huge migration surge. coming out of the pandemic. And we tell ourselves that it was about Biden's indifference. to the border. Probably that contributed, but there's. a bigger story there too. That's a separate point. More specifically, I do think that considerably more could. have been done over the last 20 years. to soften the jagged edges of all of these changes,

and I think it's quite striking and scary that we seem. to be heading into a similar transformation, a parallel transformation to globalization. in the form of AI, without anything, even the things. that we tried to build in to our response. 15 or 20 years ago, when at least we talked. about retraining industrial workers, and we're not doing that now with AI at all.

And I personally don't know how big. an impact AI will be for employment over the next two. or five years. I think it's more of an open question. than many people suggest. But if we take seriously the high-end projections. of how much turmoil and disruption it could cause, we need to be doing dramatically more. to respond to the fallout. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: On the other side of that, though, there's a debate within the party about whether we're. too safety-ist, and we're too worried.

about technological change, and we need to enable. transformation of our economy. We need to build more. We need to impose fewer union regulations. on our technological change. And so there's a kind of a natural conflict. in the coalition, which I think-- we're skating. towards the midterms, acting as though we. don't need to resolve that, and maybe that's a bad bargain. Maybe we really do need to resolve that in the favor. of one side or the other. [THEME MUSIC].

JON STEWART: I know a little secret about a lot of the folks. that listen to this podcast. You like animals. I'm just going to say, many of you like cats. And cats are delightful. But, the thing about cats is they got to eat, too. You don't just leave them out there, because here's. the thing about them. So I've had outdoor cats, and I've had indoor cats. Boy, the cats at the farm are literally killing machines, so you don't need to feed them. But for most cats, the civilized cat,

the cat that has been domesticated. and is not armed with what appears to be five hunting. knives, and they just follow around looking. for mammals smaller than them, you need to give them food. And that's where Smalls comes in. By the way, that is, I don't think, a great segue, because I may have presented. a picture of cats that may not be the one that.

is appropriate to this commercial, but I'm talking about your cat, your delightful cat, little Pebbles. Hello, Pebbles And Smalls makes the cat-- and by the way, it's human grade food for cats. You know, most cat food brands, it's all cheap fillers. and whatever they found on the floor of the factory. That's not good for your cat. Your cat is not going to be healthy. But Smalls, protein-packed recipes with preservative-free,

100% human grade ingredients. So stop serving your little carnivore. a bowl of processed shortcuts. For a limited time, because you are a Weekly Show listener, get 60% off your first order, plus free. shipping and free treats for life when. you head to Smalls.com/tws. Holy shit. I don't even like saying this, it's such a good deal.

One last time. That's 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when. you head to Smalls.com/tws. [THEME MUSIC]. One of the things I agree with you is a lot of times. on the left, what we'll do is in expectation of collateral. damage, we'll put up barriers prior to going into it, making a guess, because if you're. going to solve one problem, it has.

to also solve every problem. So if we're going to build more housing, it also has to solve the climate crisis, and it also has to solve racism and hiring, and it also has to solve the way that women make. less money in the workplace. So we'll put in all kinds of barriers. and ultimately don't get to build things. What we don't seem to do well in this country. is actively manage these processes. for where the collateral damage is occurring. We're really good at putting up a ton of barriers.

that bureaucratically cost a shit ton of money. and waste a shit ton of time, because you were talking about. earlier, which I thought was a great point, these inflection points, where we always have, like, the 2008 financial crisis, where in hindsight, jeez, maybe helping out only the financial institutions. and not homeowners was a mistake. and create, oh, maybe letting China into the WTO. and flooding all Western markets with cheap goods,

with people that are making a lot less. money taking jobs from people in the Midwest. wasn't a good idea. Rather than front loading obstacles, maybe the answer is more actively managing. the collateral damage of that through the things. that you're talking about, like stimulus. And this is a theory of government that I have, which is I think government has made it so that it has. an adversarial relationship with the people it.

purports to help. It's built on the idea that we have to guard against fraud. And so if we treat everybody like they're ripping us off, that will keep the 3% of people that were going. to rip us off from doing it. It'd be much cheaper and, I think, much smarter. to treat those programs like they're designed for people. to access them and beef up fraud. and enforcement on the back end, which is cheaper.

Make the penalties much higher. It's a long-winded way of saying. is I think we need to change the theory of government. Does that make sense? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: We did do some of that during COVID. I mean, we basically let people cheat the government left. and right as a cost of getting the money out the door. more quickly. JON STEWART: But what did it do differently than in 2008? It saved people's lives and homes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. JON STEWART: And Larry Summers fucking hated it.

Maybe not for that reason, but that's what I'm talking about. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: But Summers is also illustrative--. I mean, he's illustrative of so many things. that are wrong with our world and our country. But one of the things is that I think liberals in America. really do believe at their core that the world is legible. They can understand trade-offs quite clearly. and make judgments from on high, which they. then pass down to the public. I mean, that is to me one of the real--.

that story I just retold about Lael. Brainard and Larry Summers. Like, Larry Summers, I am going to decide what the right amount. of stimulus is. And I'm going to give that to President Barack Obama, and he's going to give it to Congress, and then it's going to be implemented. And he wasn't just making a perfect. technocratic calculation. Actually, Lael Brainard was the one. who made the perfect technocratic calculation. What Summers was doing was saying, I cannot just understand the gap in this economy.

I can also understand the political reality, and I can incorporate those two considerations as though they. are different inputs in a spreadsheet. and tell you the perfect answer, and avoid his proposition. I'm going to avoid the ideological conflict. around the size of this stimulus. by simply spitting out the right answer ahead of time. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And I found it really striking, to bring it back to the present, in this wave of debate and conversation. among the AI leaders, I saw an interview with Dario Amodei. recently where he said, on this very point,

I do not think that ideology can survive. the arrival of this technology, because machines. will know what the optimal distribution of resources. will be. They will tell us that. We won't have to fight over it. We will have the answer. And this is a profound misunderstanding. of political conflict and human psychology and human nature. Conservatives always, always yell at liberals and say,

you don't understand human nature. Everybody is acquisitive and market-oriented. My view is like, you plutocrats don't understand human nature. You can't simply run the entire world like you. run a factory floor room. You have people fighting, and that fight. is inherent to the process of human life and human growth. And if you try to navigate around it, you're only going to produce more backlash. JON STEWART: And no matter what it is, whether it's AI.

or whether it's anything else-- and I'm sorry. A computer can optimize it as best it wants. It doesn't know what it doesn't know. We don't know as people what we don't know, and that's the theory of the case. that I think we're missing in terms of governance, that what you just described about Larry Summers saying, I went through the spreadsheet and I came up with the answer, and now that I have the answer, we can move forward, as opposed. to saying, here's what I think the answer might be.

Let's introduce it into the system, but be prepared to change if we see. that the unforeseen consequences of introducing. this go in a direction that we did not foresee, or if the consequences of introducing it. turn more negative than what we thought. And we have to be more active in managing those consequences, and we're not.

I think that's the blind spot of that type of thinking. is, I figured it all out on paper beforehand, put it into the system, and let's all sit back. and go work on a different thing. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I mean, I think that there. is a huge cultural blind spot, particularly. among liberals on that front. But I also think that there's a huge--. when you think about it, as a matter of state. capacity and social trust. If we're imagining a world in which we are not, in one fell swoop, issuing a huge set of, for instance,

new AI regulations, but responding in real time. with different kinds of attentive stimulus packages. and retraining programs--. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: But that requires. a huge amount of new state capacity and social trust. to make that happen. JON STEWART: Not state capacity, though, David, utilization of capacity that exists. The capacity-- I don't think it's a capacity problem. It's a distribution problem. It's a read and react problem.

Don't you think we have the capacity? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I just look at the way. that the government has functioned over the last 20. years, and I see very little that. gives me faith that we could be nimble and responsive. We've gotten some big things done. I do think that a lot of the stuff. that came out of the financial crisis. was good and significant. I think health care was good and significant, imperfect, but good and significant. I do think a lot of the stuff that we. did in the COVID stimulus was, again, imperfect,

but good and significant, and in certain ways. remarkably effective. And I do think that the IRA and Build Back. Better, though they've been undermined by Trump, were also really quite significant. But I don't see a pattern of real-time. responsive governance. I see people acting in fear of the next administration, trying to get everything done and banking. progress so that nobody could mess with it. And that is a appropriate intuition about the shape. of governance and politics in our country, where every piece.

of legislation is-- we can only trust. will last as long as the next election. And in that context, can we really. imagine designing a more responsive. social welfare state to deal with more. significant changes coming? I mean, sure. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I would like to think so. JON STEWART: I say yes, David, because that's--. so opportunity lies in those gaps.

The gap that we're describing is not a place for fatalism, but a place of opportunity. What we're describing about here. is something in the system that is missing, that is not functioning correctly, that is not responsive or agile to those needs. What I'm saying is we have a factory that. has capacity and can be retooled to function in a way, especially with the advent of artificial intelligence tools.

that allow us to be more agile and responsive, and that, I think, for the left, that's where the opportunity is for a new New Deal. Not the old New Deal that has necessarily. building these large Maginot lines that protect. against social safety consequences, which I think. is absolutely necessary. But the ideal is to build that machine.

in a way that is more coherent to the way people live today. And I think not only can it be done, it must be done. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I'm with you. And I also think that here in New York, Zohran Mamdani's mayoralty is a perfect illustration. of this value set. JON STEWART: Yes. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And he's an obviously ideological actor. I share a lot of his political values, maybe not all of them, but I'm a big supporter of his. But even beyond ideology, he is saying. we need to make government work for the people. of New York City. And the test case for progressivism.

is whether it can deliver better outcomes for the voters. in the city, and that is not a matter of playing. hardball ideologically. It's a matter of filling potholes. and actually getting 2K open and all the rest of it. The question for me is whether that is scalable as an approach. to politics at the national level. I do take a lot of--. I'm really heartened by Zohran and have been much more hopeful. over the last year as a result of his rise.

than I would have been in the absence of him. And I actually see a lot of parallels elsewhere. in the country where--. JON STEWART: Sure. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: We also have. local leaders in other places who are leading the charge. JON STEWART: San Francisco is now--. that's a guy who you would not consider ideological. in terms of a leftist, but is building. a more responsive government. And then you see Los Angeles, which. is the antithesis of that, which is Democratic governance. that seems utterly unmoored from the needs of the people.

or the desires of the people, or what. they think about things. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And I do wonder whether one. possibility here is that Americans come. to see national politics--. maybe they have already--. as essentially cultural war theater. and actually look for responses from their local leaders, because there's just so much more direct. responsiveness there. We already, to some degree, see the fight between Democrats. and Republicans in DC as abstracted from.

our lived daily realities. But we may be much more engaged with mayors and governors, which may be one reason why we find them so much more. popular than the people in DC, who. are so horrifically unpopular. JON STEWART: I think that's absolutely right. But I'm heartened by--. because what's so interesting to me is one of the things that. made the soil fertile for someone. like Donald Trump is people feeling like government. was no longer responsive to its needs.

He took that dissatisfaction and used. the tools of a demagogue. Oh, the problem is trans kids in sports and immigrants. And if we fix that--. but he hasn't actually fixed it because he's not. actually making government responsive to the needs. of the people. He's making government responsive to the emotional, kind of reflexive reptilian brains of the people. But what that says to me, though, is, again, opportunity. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. And I mean, I would just say about Trump,

just to tie some of these things, these threads together, the story with Trump and climate. is also really interesting, because he is an avowed--. JON STEWART: Chinese hoax. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And he's a hater of wind and hater. of solar, and he prioritized the destruction. of the IRA, first day in office, signing an executive order to undo it. He is about as big a fossil fuel villain as you can imagine. he started all of these wars in fossil fuel-rich places,

in part because he actually still. believes that we need to control the world's. fossil fuel reserves. And yet, even in the context of that, 90% of all new energy. infrastructure built in the US last year. was green, 90%, which means for every unit. of new dirty infrastructure we built, we built nine times as much clean energy infrastructure. This year, the share is expected to be even larger. JON STEWART: Is that subsidy? Is that private industry? How is that even possible? DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, some of it.

is because, though Trump tried to appear ordinary of the tax. credits from the IRA, it was politically difficult given. the power of the green energy companies, and so many of them. have been placed on hold or are now being sunset, but sunset. far enough in the future that companies. can still take action on it. But mostly it's just because we have basically mature. fossil fuel infrastructure. We're still doing some amount of natural gas build out, but for oil and coal, we have basically mature system.

JON STEWART: It's not where the growth is going to be. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. And globally, that's true, too. I was just looking at a report the other day that. said that since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the world's energy importers, people who need energy, have spent five times more money investing in renewables. and nuclear than they have in fossil fuel infrastructure, five times as much. The world's energy exporters, the people. who are trying to sell stuff on the world stage, have spent twice as much investing in fossil fuels.

as they have in renewables and nuclear. So--. JON STEWART: The irony, David, a war to preserve our dominance. in fossil fuels has ultimately led. the world to try and become more resilient. and move away from it. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: And we're moving pretty. rapidly in that direction. I think that there's going to be. another inflection point in the green transition with this war.

We're still really far from net zero. We're very far from stopping the warming of the planet. There are a lot of things to be worried about. I don't want to sound too Pollyannaish about it. But Michael Liebreich, who's, I think, a really thoughtful. analyst, just wrote a piece last week. saying he thinks this war has brought. the peak of global emissions on this side of 2030, whereas he used to think it was on the other side of 2030. And once we've bent that curve, it's a long way down. It's a long ski slope, but we're skiing. And I think that's the near-term future that we're. looking at for energy.

JON STEWART: Can I tell you something? That may be the most hopeful metaphor or analogy. that I've heard here is once we start going downhill, we're skiing. So to wrap it around our original thought. process, which is, yes, here are these threats. Climate, energy, demagogues, populism, and all these other--. and AI and things that are so fraught with peril,

and yet, within all that, underneath it all, opportunity. And that's what's starting to be uncovered. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Yeah. I mean, just this week, there was the National Conference. of Oncologists that reported all of this great news. on cancer breakthroughs. I mean, the future in many ways is bright. There are huge obstacles. We're living through difficult times. And on a personal level, the thing that is so painful to me.

is having to abandon the suppositions that I grew up. with as a child of the '90s, thinking that the future, while progressing erratically, would bring us in a sort. of predictable way towards more justice, more prosperity, more equality. I think we've learned that we need to fight for that. rather than just put the whole thing on autoplay. But I also think when you look at, for instance, the AI. backlash, or the backlash to Trump himself, who's the most unpopular president in history,

now violating all those stories we. told ourselves in the first term. about how he was Teflon Don. We can't tell ourselves those stories anymore because he's. incredibly unpopular, including with all the demographic groups. that we told ourselves had amounted. to a political realignment. We're seeing in all of those indicators. that people are willing to fight. The question is whether the structures of power.

are assailable or whether, as in the case with the AI labs, whether they're now operating in some way. beyond the reach of democratic control. And I'm not willing to make a bet there either way. I may be a little more worried about that than you are. The fight is certainly visible. The question is to what extent any of these institutions. remain responsive or subject to popular will.

And I think ultimately that's the test. JON STEWART: No, and I appreciate that. And I do, and oddly enough, because our conversations--. and for those people who don't know, David and I have had many conversations over the years--. are generally with me taking the role of the pessimist who. says we shouldn't believe in people and their ability thing, and David explaining very patiently to me. why there is progress on the horizon. and why things are a little bit more optimistic. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I'm a famous optimist. JON STEWART: Famous optimist, famous.

But in this instance, I believe I. am more optimistic than you in that. because I've seen how these systems can be bent. And they can be bent by bad actors, but boy oh boy, they can be bent by good actors. And if there has ever been a moment where. this country and this world is ground down to a nub. by the chaos and incoherence of a man. child who has been handed power he didn't earn,

this is a moment. This is a moment where a good actor can assail, as you said, these towers of power and reform them. in a way that benefits us. I really believe that. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: I just want. to say one thing to illustrate that and then one thing. to complicate it. JON STEWART: All right, all right. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: The illustrate point is, I want to take us back in time to the period between.

the election in 2024 and, say, March or April of 2025, when Donald Trump was returning to the White House, and we were just awash in this sense that-- liberals, too--. that MAGA was on the march, that there had been. a political realignment in the country, that Donald Trump was not-- it wasn't. just tragic and awful that Donald Trump was returning. to the White House, but he was winning all of these votes. from young voters, Black voters, Brown voters. He was rewriting the demographic coalition.

of the Republican Party, and that he had effectively. won the culture war, especially with the support. of the tech billionaires. And now I think about this Great American State Fair. that they tried to stage 15 months later. And they booked 10 people, and it. was like the headliners are, like, Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice. That's the best they could do. And then all those people had to drop out. because they were just like, this isn't for us, it's too costly. And it is just so clear to me that the approval. ratings show it. But on the cultural level, Donald Trump.

has not won the culture war. He has lost the culture war. The podcasters are out on him. Entertainers are out on him. And I think, to some degree, the story. we told ourselves 15 months ago was a bit of an illusion, a self-lacerating illusion that liberals. were telling themselves because they. wanted to beat themselves up. And in fact, we were never as weak, and he was never as strong as he seemed. The complicating part of this story is, you say, someone can arrive, a new leader can arrive, and that is true.

But when I look at the Democratic party in particular, there are a lot of people that I like. There are a lot of people that I admire, but there's no Barack Obama walking through those doors. JON STEWART: And there's no idea. It's almost beyond even an individual. There's no theory of the case. And I think the theory of the case that we are making today. is one that they should be cognizant of. And I think the theory of the case is there to be made.

I actually really think it's within their grasp. It's just a simple formulation of people. want to feel like they're getting value for their money, and government has to be aligned along that axis. Forget about anything else. And it's there for the taking. And I think if somebody is able to formulate. that in a coherent way, they've got a real leg up into that. That's what I would say, and that's why I remain.

always hopeful within that. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: From your lips to God's ears. JON STEWART: Because I'm famously optimistic. David, it's always such a pleasure to talk to you, man. David Wallace-Wells, obviously you can see him in The New York. Times, opinion columnist, and New York Times Magazine, and obviously the bestseller, The Uninhabitable Earth--. Life After Warming. David, thanks so much for joining us. DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Thanks for having me. [THEME MUSIC].

JON STEWART: Guys, can I share something? GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, please. JON STEWART: I feel weirdly like, giddy. GILLIAN SPEAR: I think it's really telling. that David Wallace-Wells, the author. of The Uninhabitable Earth--. JON STEWART: Uninhabitable Earth. GILLIAN SPEAR: --is one of the more optimistic conversations. that we've had in a while. JON STEWART: Isn't that crazy? GILLIAN SPEAR: I also think it's. concerning that he's getting his optimism. from Milli Vanilli. JON STEWART: Well, Rob.

Milli, not Vanilli. It's really just Milli. But there was a moment. I'll tell you why I feel so energized. There was a moment when he was described--. it sort of felt like a Shark Tank moment, like where you go, there's got to be a better way. Like, the way that he was talking about how liberalism. functions, specifically through the vestiges of government, how the Summers of it all designs.

the program and the grant and answers all the questions. in talk because he's the smartest person that's ever. existed, and they just put it into the fax machine. and send it out, and it gets deployed. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, it always works that way. JON STEWART: It always works that way. It made me realize one of those, like, there's got to be. a better way and there is, and that there is actually. a theory of government that can be more reactive, that can take into account the negative consequences,

the unforeseen collateral damages of even. the well-intentioned policies, and try and address. it in a proactive way that can preempt the hollowing. out of the Midwest, that can preempt. the kinds of difficult resentments. that arise through immigration.

It can be done. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yes. JON STEWART: I feel it. GILLIAN SPEAR: I know. I mean, I agree, There's moments when you feel really. hopeful because it does sometimes feel. like we are turning a corner. And we're seeing a really affirmative case. being made right now in New York City, and people are loving it. JON STEWART: San Francisco, too. We don't spend much time out there because it's obviously--. GILLIAN SPEAR: I've spent a little time. out there, as you know. JON STEWART: Gillian has. For those of you who don't at home, Gillian has an unhealthy relationship with--.

I think, unhealthy with the San Francisco Giants. GILLIAN SPEAR: Right now, it's pretty abusive, yeah. JON STEWART: No, even-- and by the way, that's coming from a Mets fan. GILLIAN SPEAR: Things are darker. for the San Francisco Giants than for the New York Mets. JON STEWART: That's right, so even within that. And two polar opposite visions of what maybe. liberalism might be, but are making. government in those places or trying. to at least more responsive.

GILLIAN SPEAR: And you know what. they're also doing is broadcasting. what they're doing. They're out on the-- they're showing people, here's how government is working for you. I'm not just going to sign something into effect. I'm going to show you how it's being effected. Simply, too. JON STEWART: Yeah. GILLIAN SPEAR: People love it. JON STEWART: And hopefully acknowledging when it's not, the transparency of it all. I think if you can just connect those things, the actions. of the government with the money that you're putting in. and the value that might be coming out of it, people will start to-- you can start.

to earn their trust again. It's not an easy process, but it's. one that must be undertaken if we're to recapture, whatever the backlash will be to this toxic nationalism. and populism that's arising. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. I thought it was interesting when. he was saying how Trump has lost the culture war right now. And I do agree with that. I feel like on the outside I'm like, yeah, I'm feeling that change. But on the inside, I don't know that I 100% agree with that.

Like, yes, we're seeing everyone back out. of this concert and stuff, but we're also seeing people. who endorse win primaries. JON STEWART: But that's also a very. narrow, because it's the base. But what I would say to that is there's. a difference between losing something. and somebody beating you. And right now, nobody's beating him. A lot of this is self-owns. And my point was that the Democrats have not. been able to mount a convincing alternative.

to what he was offering. He's just so fucking incompetent. that he's losing it. GILLIAN SPEAR: And they're almost leaning in. They're almost saying, government actually. can't work for you, so you shouldn't have to pay taxes. if you don't make a certain amount of money, as opposed to saying you're going to pay your taxes. It's going to be a progressive tax rate. Other people are going to pay more, and we're going to make the system work as well. as it does for them for you. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. JON STEWART: And it's not enough for them to say, like, we're going to tax the billionaires, if people don't believe that you're.

going to use that money in any way that benefits their lives. They're not going to give a shit. GILLIAN SPEAR: Absolutely. JON STEWART: Brittany, what do we got? What do we got? Now that I'm fired up. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I love positive, Jon. JON STEWART: Positive Johnny. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon, what is your favorite topic. to talk about on the podcast? JON STEWART: Sandwiches, almost always sandwiches. GILLIAN SPEAR: This is a sandwich podcast. JON STEWART: Yeah. In fact, if we could do the sandwich podcast, I think I would do it. Do you guys have a sense of my favorite topics? Because I would say food is probably--.

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Really? I was going to go with an economist. JON STEWART: No, that's my most that's my most fearful. Can I tell you something? Economists are my bete noire. They are my white whale. I am Ahab. I am always on the search of an economist. who will not treat me condescendingly, although we. do find them, actually. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. JON STEWART: We've had some lovely ones. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, absolutely. JON STEWART: Darone was lovely. The guys from MIT showed themselves.

GILLIAN SPEAR: Para Matay was great. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah, Kitty Richards. JON STEWART: That's right. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. JON STEWART: It's so nice to know. that in Boston, you can be an economist and not an asshole. GILLIAN SPEAR: Oh, my gosh. Yeah the combination of those two things, though, Boston and economist. Oh, God. JON STEWART: It's not a good combination. But yes, I do love talking about that stuff. and egg sandwiches, I would say, the two that are my favorites. But I'd be happy to hear from the audience. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Taco Bell?

JON STEWART: Can I tell you something? GILLIAN SPEAR: It's food. JON STEWART: It really is. It is. GILLIAN SPEAR: We record so close to lunchtime. JON STEWART: It is. It's just that the Crunchwrap Supreme, it's not just that it's food. It's that it's the engineering supremacy of it all. It's that it's--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Manufacturing. It's US manufacturing. JON STEWART: It's also food that you imagine was drawn. up on an architect's table. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: A very high architect. JON STEWART: You imagine somebody. with a T-square going, what if we just-- a burrito.

is so fucking easy. You just stuff it with shit, and you roll it up. What if we get--. what about a parallelogram? What if we take--. fold it this way. Hold on. Let me get my T-square and a protractor. and figure out where I can put the beans. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: We have got to get. Taco Bell to sponsor us. JON STEWART: Genius. By the way, they already do. They just don't know it. They are the fuel that keeps me going on. What else? What else we got? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Next, Jon, how long.

do you think Trump and his, quote, extreme intelligence. would last on Jeopardy? JON STEWART: Oh, God. On Jeopardy? Gillian, you can answer this. You're the--. GILLIAN SPEAR: I don't think he would have good buzzer skills. That hand is like-- it's seen better days. JON STEWART: Boy, is that true. Talk about the bruising that would occur after a match. I think the only difference with Trump. is he would still answer. Like, even if he wasn't-- he wouldn't wait till the end. He would just blurt it out or do that.

But I've always felt that--. so where's your brain located/ It's got to be--. it's the head. And the head is at the top of-- it's sort of like, if you think about it as a New York apartment building, it's the water tower. And what's the most important thing in the water tower? Pressure and the hydraulics. And what does Trump have? Chronic venous insufficiency. He's got shitty water pressure. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Wow. JON STEWART: So what happens?

GILLIAN SPEAR: Not good. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Something ain't working. JON STEWART: Not good. No water pressure, no good shower, flushes are kind of hard to come by. So as far as Jeopardy is concerned, if this dude's not getting the water pressure, I mean--. GILLIAN SPEAR: He only just found out "dumb" has a B in it. So I don't know if I don't know if Jeopardy is the right--. JON STEWART: The idea that he was saying to her--. and for those who don't know, he was describing how. he came up with "Dumocrat.". And he was explaining to Lara Trump, I thought "Dumocrat,".

and I dropped the B because most people don't know. there's a B in that. And I'm like, well, most people who aren't dumb know. GILLIAN SPEAR: Oh, he set himself up for that one. JON STEWART: How is this real? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: He is definitely more. of a Wheel of Fortune guy. I would say. GILLIAN SPEAR: Oh that's brutal. JON STEWART: I don't think even. I think even the spinning of the wheel would throw him off. Vertigo. What's our last one? What's our last one? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Last one.

Jon, do your kids like you? JON STEWART: Why would they--. I hope so. I hope that not only do they love me, that they like me because I love them, but I also really like them. I find them very good company. I find them fascinating, interesting, singular people. that I enjoy.

And by the way, not just heavy, you. know, oh, let's talk about life and different things. I like just being with them, around them. It's fun. They're fun. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: That's very sweet. JON STEWART: They both have great senses of humor. They're both really smart. They're fun to be around. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I wonder where they got all that from. JON STEWART: Tracy. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Tracy. JON STEWART: You guys met Tracy. You know what we're talking about. But yeah.

But oh, God, that's one of those questions where. you almost feel like the hair on the back of your neck go up. Like, what? What have you heard? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Did they submit this question? JON STEWART: Like, do your kids like you? That, I think, as far as like a parent's. fear, that'd be on the list. Other than health, their health, their happiness, all. that stuff, them not liking you would be like, oh, shit, like devastating.

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. Do you think there is ever a time that they didn't like you? JON STEWART: Oh, sure. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. JON STEWART: I mean--. so relationships are fraught, no matter. how beautiful and wonderful and deep and intense they--. and I'm sure there are moments of frustration. And there are patterns of behavior. and answers that I know that I probably do that eye roll. But within healthy relationships is grace.

And we have hopefully grace for each other in those moments. of understanding that the baseline of our relationship. is respect and love and like, even though there's moments, I'm sure, where I can be a pain in the ass, if that. makes sense. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: We all can. But I also think it changes as kids get older and stuff. I mean, I don't have young kids, but I just know of being a kid. Like, my mom and I definitely went through it.

when we were teenagers, but then as you get older, you find a friendship, and you find hobbies together. and you love doing things. And you definitely grow into being. more friends as well, which is such a beautiful new chapter. JON STEWART: I wonder if the tough times. are necessary, because otherwise you'd never leave. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, I think that's probably true. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. I mean, we laugh about it now. Like, man, I was 16. I was stealing the car, sneaking out.

JON STEWART: Wait, hold on a second. That just took a turn, Brittany. That turned from--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I think I was the problem. JON STEWART: We went through it a little bit, like we used to fight a little bit. I kind of slept late and stuff, and I stole the car. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Oh, yeah. JON STEWART: Oh, and I committed grand theft auto. GILLIAN SPEAR: Armed larceny. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: But we're really good friends now. JON STEWART: Oh, and I robbed a liquor store.

Gillian, did you go through it at that age? You did. Yeah. GILLIAN SPEAR: I think everybody does. Yeah. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. GILLIAN SPEAR: Teenage angst, you know, that's necessary. JON STEWART: They have to separate from you, because when they're young, it's the most beautiful thing, but you know it has to end. And the heartbreak of parenting is that, is that when they think you're Superman, that at some point. they're going to realize--. GILLIAN SPEAR: You're going to make me cry. JON STEWART: All right. I won't do that.

All right, we'll move on. We'll move on. Brittany--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I have a question before we wrap. JON STEWART: Yes, yes. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Complete this sentence. JON STEWART: All right. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Knicks in--. JON STEWART: Oh, anything. Knicks in anything. God willing, Knicks in anything. Please. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Are you going? JON STEWART: I'm hoping to. I'm trying not to think about it. I'm so excited, so excited. GILLIAN SPEAR: Well, you'll always. have the Mets to fall back on. JON STEWART: Settle down, settle down. Brittany, how do they keep in touch with us? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, we are WeeklyShowPod.

Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Bluesky, we are WeeklyShowPodcast, and you can like, subscribe, and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Fantastic. Thank you guys very much, and thanks. for keeping in touch with us and asking. those provocative and sometimes emotionally wounding questions. Thanks, as always, to everybody. Couldn't do it without you. Producer, Brittany Mehmedovic. Producer, Gillian Spear. Video editor and engineer, Rob Vitolo. Audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce. And our executive producers, Chris McShane and Caity Gray. Thanks so much, guys, and we will see you next week. Buh-bye.

[THEME MUSIC]. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.