All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:18
Political Mass Suicide On National TV | Ep. 854
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Democrats roll out their climate change plans, and it is a full-scale disaster.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
That's right.
It is all climate change, all the time, because last night was the big CNN town hall on climate change.
Now, I know you watched.
I know you watched with bated breath.
I know you, like millions of Americans, tuned in to hear Democrats talk about how they're going to take away your cow and your airplane and your car.
And how they're gonna magically create sources of energy that emerge from the buttocks of a unicorn.
I know that you were into every single moment of it, but if you weren't, we're gonna recap all of it for you.
But we begin with the media focusing disproportionately on a specific narrative with regard to climate change.
The narrative is not that there is a solution available, because as we will see, it turns out the solutions to climate change are extraordinarily difficult.
They require global cooperation that is extremely unlikely to happen.
The fact is that whatever climate change is going to happen is largely baked into the cake already.
There is future climate change that theoretically could be prevented by collective action, but collective action is incredibly difficult when you have developing countries that are seeking to better the lives of their citizens, like China, or India, or Brazil, for example.
But what the media have decided to focus on in the absence of solutions is the problem.
And this is how you know that people aren't serious about solving a problem.
When everybody focuses in on diagnosing the problem and how bad the other guy is, then this means they don't have a solution.
There's a guy I'm friendly with named Adam Grant.
He teaches over at University of Pennsylvania Wharton Business School, and he once said to me that if you want to have a useful conversation, start with the solutions.
If you want to have a useless conversation, start with the problems.
Naturally, most of our politics starts with the problems.
Most of our politics is now about, well, I diagnose this as a problem, and then I don't have a solution.
But you aren't even diagnosing it properly, and that means you're bad.
Well, politics is not the business of diagnosing problems.
Politics is the business of providing solutions to those problems.
And if you have no solution, then your diagnosis is fairly useless.
So what the media have decided to do, what Democrats have decided to do, because the solutions to climate change are not easy, and also, they are not really doable in the way that Democrats are talking about, and they inflict enormous pain on the American public the way Democrats are talking about them.
Instead, they have an alternative narrative.
And the alternative narrative is, Republicans are science deniers.
They are climate change deniers.
Now, you'll notice, That isn't an argument for a solution.
That is not an actual solution being provided.
That is not an answer.
That is just, we are superior, we are better, because we understand science, and you are a science denier.
And so they focused in on the Trump administration with this.
Now, Trump does make that easy when he says things like climate change is a Chinese hoax and all of that.
Now, I don't believe that climate change is a Chinese hoax.
I think that climate change is happening.
I think that the majority of climate change is man-caused.
The reason I think that is because even people like Roy Spencer, who is frequently quoted on other talk radio programs, who studies this sort of stuff and is considered a climate change skeptic, even he suggests that well over 50% of climate change on planet Earth is at this point human activity caused.
He's what we call a lukewarmer.
And the vast majority of people who are quoted by the right Poor, credible scientists are lukewarmers, meaning that they believe that the climate is changing.
They don't know quite how much.
They are not sure what the sensitivity of the climate is to carbon emissions, but they are not going to deny that the climate has indeed been getting warmer over the course of the last century and a half, and that man-made activities are linked to this.
Bjorn Lomberg feels this way.
For example, in a second, we're going to discuss how what the left does is ignore all of that in favor of this narrative that the Republicans just deny science wholesale.
And they focus in on the most egregious examples of this to get outraged, to gin up the idea that Republicans are backwards and that they are cave dwellers and all the rest of this.
And all of that is really a misdirect, the misdirect from what they are actually proposing as policy, because it turns out their solutions suck.
Their solutions are so bad.
The Democrats had a long conversation internally about whether they should have a climate change debate.
And the DNC was like, no, we're not going to do it.
So instead, they went with this town hall.
You could see why they didn't want a climate change debate, because every moment of that CNN town hall last night was a Republican attack ad in the making.
It's utterly unbelievable.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, Let's talk about how you make your blinds better looking.
And by the way, save on your energy bills.
How?
Well, you get good blinds.
Okay, now I know you don't think about the blinds that you have in your house.
Instead, you sort of walk in like, ah, things, you know, they look pretty good, but it still feels a little dingy.
That's because you're not thinking about the window coverings.
If you took a look at your blinds, you'd be like, ah, ah!
And then you would want to replace them.
And then when you want to replace them, you would check out Blinds.com, because Blinds.com makes it really fast and really easy to shop for the best blinds on the market, which is why I like them.
With 15 million windows covered, over 30,000 five-star customer reviews, Blinds.com is America's number one online retailer for affordable, quality, custom window coverings.
Blinds are a simple, effective way to make a home beautiful again.
They can greatly Increase the beauty and the efficacy of your home.
And they make it really easy for you.
Blinds.com makes it fast and easy.
Every order gets free samples, free shipping, a free online design consultation.
Plus, if you screw it up, Blinds.com will remake your blinds for free.
So there really isn't even any risk on that.
And they've made it supremely easy for you.
For a limited time, my listeners get $20 off at Blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
Again, that's Blinds.com, promo code Ben for $20 off.
Faux wood blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more.
Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
User-friendly, from soup to nuts, it's fantastic.
Check it out, blinds.com, promo code Ben, save 20 bucks.
Rules and restrictions do apply.
Okay, so, as I say, the narrative that the media wish to draw, instead of getting into the actual hard-nosed facts about climate change, is that Republicans deny climate change wholesale, and therefore they are stupid and evil and terrible.
And as I say, President Trump tends to play into this because he says things like climate change is a Chinese hoax and all of this.
Well, yesterday was another opportunity for the Democrats to smack Trump and smack them he did.
That was because President Trump did this press conference about Hurricane Dorian.
And it was a bizarre press conference because he held up an outdated chart of the storm path for Hurricane Dorian, which showed the possibility of Hurricane Dorian Hitting the entire state of Florida.
And then someone had taken a sharpie and marked in on the map that Hurricane Dorian could swing into Alabama.
And they did this presumably because Trump had said that Hurricane Dorian could swing into Alabama.
Well, as it turns out, Hurricane Dorian turned north.
It didn't turn west.
And therefore, there was really no shot that it was going to enter Alabama, apparently.
Instead, it was going to move up the coast into North Carolina.
This drove the left up a wall.
It was evidence that Trump was denying science and that the White House was tailoring the science in order to fit Trump's weird conception of reality.
So the New York Times reported, when President Trump displayed a large map of Hurricane Dorian's path in the Oval Office on Wednesday, it was hard to miss a black line that appeared to have been drawn to extend the storm's possible path into the state of Alabama.
That might have been intended to bolster Mr. Trump's claim on Sunday when he tweeted that in addition to Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama will most likely be hit much harder than anticipated.
Never mind that the Alabama office of the National Weather Service quickly responded to Mr. Trump's original claim by insisting Alabama will not see any impacts from Dorian.
We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama.
The system will remain too far east.
So, did Mr. Trump, who frequently uses black Sharpie pens to sign legislation, add the mark to justify his unfounded claim about the dangers faced by residents of the cotton state?
Or did someone else in his administration clumsily modify the map so that it would appear to back up the president?
There's a full-scale front-page story in the New York Times that somebody took a Sharpie and drew a picture on a map.
Really, why?
Because they're trying to draw the narrative.
And the narrative is that Trump denies science, his team denies science, and that they do silly things in order to please him.
They say the black line on the map was drawn to look like the top of the so-called cone of uncertainty that is familiar to weather watchers.
The line curved through the southwest corner of Georgia and the southeast corner of Alabama and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Asked about the marking on the map, Trump told reporters he didn't know how it got there.
I don't know.
He said on Wednesday while insisting that his assertion about the dangers that Alabama faced had been right all along.
Why this is a big story is beyond me.
Like, it's dumb, it's ridiculous, but it's a big story.
And it isn't beyond me, it's pretty obvious.
Okay, the reason that this is a big story is because the Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself.
are attempting to create the narrative and push the narrative that Republicans deny science.
And so this ties directly in to their whole take on global warming.
So the big move over the last 24, 48 hours has been Trump needs to leave the White House because he's a climate change denier.
Now, denier is, again, a word that has usually been linked when you're talking about denial of something, denial of a set of facts.
It's usually been linked to things like Holocaust denier.
And so it is really, really overwrought.
But that is the language that the left wants to use.
It is a moral failing for you to deny that climate change is happening.
And then they extend that logic out to, it is a moral failing for you to deny the solutions that we have proposed for climate change.
Now, I think that we should look at the best available science, the facts on the ground, and we'll go through those in just a second, and then analyze what the solutions are that are possible.
Democrats, really, if they had their druthers, they wouldn't talk about solutions at all.
Instead, they would just lay out a litany of grievances with Republicans for not accepting the science.
And that's exactly what they did yesterday.
So Amy Klobuchar, who is still quixotically running for president, she was appearing on national TV and she said, Trump is bad, right?
The big story here is not that we have an answer to climate change.
Spoiler alert, they don't.
The big problem here is that Trump is a bad man, orange man bad.
We can do this, and there are so many opportunities when you're out there and you see that 99% of the wind turbines are in rural areas.
The potential for all these new jobs and technology, and we just have to put our mind to it, get the climate denier whiner out of the White House, and see this as actually an economic driver instead of just the negative.
We have to look at it as cost-benefit.
It's going to cost us something like $500 billion every year if we keep doing this.
OK, first of all, that is a really, really upper level estimate as to what it will cost us over the next century.
In terms of climate change to the United States public.
But the key there is the point that she's making.
Trump is a climate change denier.
Climate change denier.
And as we'll see, this is the Democrats' main thrust.
Because when it comes down to the actual conversation that matters, namely solutions, Democrats not only have nothing, they have a bunch of ideas that are wildly unpopular with the American people.
Because the ideas, frankly, suck and are ineffective.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about credit card debt.
So, the fact is, credit card debt ain't going away.
Bernie Sanders ain't relieving anybody's credit card debt because that would be nuts.
It is also true that it's possible that you bought into a credit card thinking you could pay it off, and now you have all this credit card debt.
It's raking in at 20% interest rate a month, and it's just terrible, and you need to do something about it as a responsible adult.
Well, don't wait for the government to come save you.
Instead, figure out a responsible way to pay off your debts.
The best way to do that would be to go to Lending Club.
Lending Club allows you to consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank.
No high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform.
With over $35 billion in loans issued.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Listen, it's really easy to get into credit card debt.
I have a lot of friends who have done it.
And the best thing to do is find a responsible way to move out of that debt.
LendingClub can help you do that.
Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
All loans made by WebBank.
Member FDIC.
Equal housing lender.
Again, that's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so it's not just Amy Klobuchar doing the orange man bad routine.
Elizabeth Warren last night, she said, well, Trump is a nightmare.
That's the real problem here is Trump Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump is bad.
We'll get to their solutions.
As it turns out, you want to talk about a nightmare?
Wait until you hear what these folks have proposed for you and your life if they actually gain the levers of power.
Here's Elizabeth Warren, though, pointing out that on a moral level, because Trump is a climate change denier, he's a threat to us all.
So quick step into the future.
You win the nomination.
I like that.
Say that again.
So far the premise is good.
You're on the debate stage.
You're across from the president and he says the Green New Deal is a dream because we're 60% right now on fossil fuels.
You're saying you want to put into research and get it done but you don't know how right now.
So you want to bet our economy on an ambition.
What's the answer?
He says the Green New Deal is a dream.
I'm assuming he says it.
I don't know what he'd say.
No, but I'm just saying where he is right now is a nightmare.
That's not an actual answer to the question, right?
Cuomo asks a very specific question, which is, everything you're saying makes no sense.
And she's like, well, you're a nightmare!
Ooh!
And she just counts on the fact that it's a bunch of clapping seals in the audience.
Okay, that didn't solve anything, did it?
Right?
You shouldn't answer the question.
But this is the point, right?
Bernie Sanders did the same thing.
Bernie Sanders was asked about all of this.
He goes, well, Trump's approach is very idiotic.
And I know idiotic.
Let me tell you, I know many things about idiocy.
So yeah, I mean, I think it is just idiotic, if you like, that a president, a president takes that, has that type of approach toward climate change.
And again, it is, forget the word idiot, it is so dangerous.
It is dangerous.
We are the most powerful country on earth.
We should be leading the world.
Right, this is all vague crap, right?
We're gonna- We'll lead the world.
We need to do something.
It's danger- Are you hearing a solution anywhere in here?
As we will see.
I keep pitching this forward because, man, when you hear what the Democrats want to do to you, That is going to be really unpleasant.
OK, that is basically what they want to do to you in terms of policy is basically the first half of the movie Midnight Express.
It is just awful and nothing good is happening if the Democrats get control of the policy on climate change.
And by the way, it's not going to help climate change.
As we are about to see.
OK, and then the other thing that Democrats do is they say, well, it's a crisis.
We have 11 years left.
And if you don't take it seriously, then you're part of the problem.
Here's Julian Castro desperately vying for attention, saying we have 11 years left.
It is fun to watch the clock tick down for Democrats.
We have 12 years left.
No, it's 11.
No, it's 10.
No, it's one minute.
If we don't solve climate change in the next one minute, we'll all die.
Here's the reality.
The climate's going to change over the next century.
We're going to put into place adaptation and mitigation.
Not everybody is going to die.
There will be costs to climate change.
Those costs will largely come at the expense of people who have to move.
They will largely come at the expense of some of the mitigation efforts that we're going to have to put in place, building new sea walls, geoengineering, and all the rest.
You know what will survive?
Humanity.
It's going to be OK.
It's going to be OK.
It'll cost us money.
It ain't going to destroy the world.
But that's not a pitch.
So Julian Castro is like, no, we're all good.
We have 11 years to solve this thing.
Well, then I hope he's made his will, because guess what?
None of the solutions Democrats propose are a thing.
Looking back with the challenge that we have, right, with this U.N.
report that says now, I guess it's 11 years that we have left.
It was 12 years in 2018 when they released it.
Uh, I think many of us look back and say, wow, you know, we, the earlier we could start, the better.
So of course, if I were mayor of San Antonio again, would I approach things a little bit differently?
Yeah, perhaps.
Okay, guess what?
He wouldn't.
If you're mayor of San Antonio again, he wouldn't approach anything differently because People of San Antonio, we're not gonna be super into the answers that the Democrats are providing.
Okay, so, before we get to the answers Democrats are providing, I want to do a basic look at the science of climate change, because there are too many people, I think, on the right, who are under the misimpression that climate change is a complete fiction, that it's not happening at all.
This was pushed yesterday by a guy named James Taylor over at Real Clear Energy.
Who is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, which does do some good work.
And he has a piece yesterday talking about the idea that climate change is particularly a hoax.
He says, when American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago.
That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to the updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S.
Climate Reference Network.
USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states.
NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.
Prior to the U.S.
CRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data.
With most pre-existing temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials perform many often controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data.
Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the U.S.
Was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.
The U.S.
CRN has eliminated the need to rely on and adjust the data from outdated temperature stations.
Strikingly, U.S.
CRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005, when the network went online.
If anything, U.S.
temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.
Okay, so this is the piece from James Taylor, and this was sort of flying around the internet among conservatives yesterday.
Okay, so a couple of things.
One, if you're talking about global warming, you can't just talk about regional warming like warming in the United States.
You have to talk about the global average temperature.
I emailed a friend of mine over at Caltech, who is a climate scientist, and I asked him specifically about this data.
And here is what he wrote back.
And I think that it is important to present both sides.
And again, this is a highly credible climate scientist at Caltech.
He says, this is cherry-picking data.
Generally, a decade is too short to see climate trends.
Weather varies, and the climate change signals drown in the weather noise on these relatively short timescales.
This is the difference between weather and climate.
Basically, if you want to look at long-term impacts, you can't look at a 10-year period.
You have to look at the course of the last century, for example.
He says, if you put the same data From the NOAA in a longer context, you can see the clear warming trend in the United States.
So here's a chart of the warming trend in the United States since like 1895.
Do we have that chart?
This would be the December average temperature anomaly, contiguous US.
There we go.
So this is a chart from the NOAA.
If you can't see this, what you see is since 1900, there has been an increase in temperature.
This is particularly warmed for the first half of the century a little bit, and then it sort of maintained a little bit of coolness through the 50s and the 60s, and then it starts climbing pretty radically all the way to 2020.
Right, so you have to lengthen the time period so you can see better exactly what is going on.
He says, even if you want to focus only on recent temperatures from quote-unquote good stations, you see an upward trend in minimum temperatures.
And then he sent over this chart, which shows the upward trend in minimum temperatures, which, as you can see, is a real thing, right?
The temperature is volatile on a year-to-year basis, but you do see a generalized upward trend since 2000.
He says, the urban heat island effect to which the article makes known is known to be small globally, is small even on scale of continents.
It does matter in cities.
Obviously, cities tend to be hotter than non-cities.
Okay, so climate change is not a myth.
It is a thing that is happening.
Now, there are serious questions as to how much climate change is going to happen.
Climate scientists don't know whether we are going to warm two degrees Celsius or six degrees Celsius over the course of the next century.
That is a very, very large variation, obviously.
And there are certain estimates that say we're at the low end, there are certain estimates that say we are at the high end.
What the left likes to do is not only take the high end, they then like to take tipping points.
They like to suggest that all sorts of horrible things are going to happen that are unforeseeable.
There's going to be a thaw in Antarctica and a woolly mammoth with the Black Plague is going to be unearthed and we're all going to die from that.
Or there's going to be massive tsunamis that are going to emerge and just wipe major cities from the coastlines.
None of that is predictable and all of that is based on sheer speculation at this point.
So, a few things can be true at once.
One, human activity is creating climate change.
Two, we don't know the sensitivity of the climate to human activity.
And three, we are able to mitigate against a lot of those effects.
But there's something else that is important to know, and that is that a global solution is not really in the offing.
Hey, this is the hard part, and the part that people on the left don't want to acknowledge.
That is, the solutions to climate change that they are proposing in the United States are not only ineffective, they're counterproductive.
They hurt American citizens, they make the rest of the world poorer, and if you actually want the rest of the world to care about climate change and the environment, they need to be richer, not poorer.
There are studies that show that countries start to care about environmentalism basically when the GDP per capita hits about $3,100 per capita.
Well, a lot of countries don't have that.
And you really think they're going to let their citizens continue to burn dung in their homes, which, by the way, ain't great for carbon emissions, instead of using coal-based energy to create electricity plants, for example?
In a second, I want to go through some of the facts on climate change.
Where are the emissions actually coming from?
And then we'll look at the Democratic solutions, and you will see how these solutions are not even tailored to solving the problem.
They're more tailored to making people feel good about themselves because Democrats know these things will never be implemented.
We'll get into that in just a second.
First, take a look at this beautiful watch.
You see this watch?
It's a nice watch, and this did not cost me an arm and a leg.
Now, I'm something of a watch aficionado lately, and I can tell you that the value on this watch is excellent.
Why?
Because it is a movement watch.
MVMT.
Okay, it is spare-looking, it is clean-looking, it is minimalist.
All I want is a watch that's gonna tell me the time and look good doing it, and that's what MVMT does.
They have you covered with tons of quality, clean, all-around good-looking watches and accessories that we can actually afford and order directly from our couch.
With over 2 million watches sold worldwide, MVMT has solidified themselves as one of the fastest-growing watch brands out there.
Movement watches start at just 95 bucks.
You're definitely not breaking the bank.
And you're guaranteed to find something you love that is not going to cost you an arm and a leg.
These dudes are truly a grounds up entrepreneur success story.
They understand that living on a tight budget doesn't mean that you have to look like garbage, at least in terms of your timepiece.
They've sold over 2 million watches across more than 160 countries.
Their collections are always expanding just for you.
I've gotten MVMT watches for pretty much everybody in my family, because again, they don't cost an arm and a leg, and also, they look really, really good.
They also happen to be pretty durable.
They're 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
That's MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
See why the MVMT keeps growing.
Check out their expanding collection.
They also do sunglasses.
I've got those too and they're great.
Go to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
Join the movement.
MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
Okay, so.
Let's go through some of the information on where exactly greenhouse gas emissions are coming from.
And you can see the problem almost immediately.
Almost immediately here.
Greenhouse gas emissions for major economies.
What are the sources of these emissions?
Okay, first, if you look by country, what you'll see is that the United States has basically held steady since about 1990 in terms of its greenhouse gas emissions.
It's actually receded since the year 2000.
We've actually reduced our carbon emissions.
The same thing is true for the EU, which used to be responsible for the second most emissions as of 1990.
Look at this line for China, okay?
China continues to elevate its greenhouse gas emissions Arithmetically.
I mean, it's an arithmetic line from the bottom left of the chart to the top right of the chart.
And China continues to grow this way.
The same thing is true of India, which has now moved into a solid fourth place and will soon surpass the EU in total greenhouse gas emissions.
In other words, the United States can cut down its greenhouse gas emissions.
The EU can cut down its greenhouse gas emissions.
They're never going to cut those greenhouse gas emissions down to zero.
It's just not going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future, as we'll also see in just a moment.
China and India are not going to stop any of this.
So if your solution is we're going to solve this thing in the next 10 years, you're going to have to get China and India on board.
Good luck to you, because if you think that China is simply going to cut off its access to carbon-based sources of energy on behalf of global Good?
You got another thing coming.
China is in a competition right now with the West and with the United States on everything from 5G through their IP stealing company Huawei to the belt and road system.
You think they're going to cut off that competition when it comes to an energy deal?
The greater likelihood is that they sign on to some deal like, for example, the Paris Climate Accords and then proceed to do absolutely nothing.
My evidence for this is that that's exactly what they have done under the Paris Climate Accords.
They signed on.
The US didn't.
We reduced our emissions.
China did not.
Okay, so that's number one.
And then we have to look at greenhouse gas intensity.
Okay, meaning on a per capita level, on a per GDP capital level, who is actually spending the most?
Like, are you a poor country that is disproportionately benefiting from carbon-based emissions?
As you'll see here, the United States' greenhouse gas intensity, meaning the amount of carbon-based fuel that we are using per dollar of GDP, is actually fairly low.
It is places like Russia and China, developing countries, That are that are spending enormous amounts of carbon emissions based on the GDP per capita that they have.
The United States is actually below the world average.
So again, China, Russia, developing countries, this is where the major problem lies in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
And then we have to look at where exactly these emissions are coming from, because there's this weird idea in the West that this is all coming from automobiles and eating meat.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's not how this works.
If you look at the source of greenhouse gas emissions by sector globally, what you see is that the vast majority of it is coming from the energy sector.
The vast majority of it is not coming from automobiles.
The vast majority of it is not coming from agriculture.
The vast majority of it is coming from the energy sector, meaning electricity and heat, transportation, other fuel combustion, manufacturing and construction.
That 72% of all emissions are not coming from, for example, agriculture, or land use change in forestry, or waste, or industrial processes.
It's coming from actual energy grids, like people who are trying to live in the world.
Which means that if you are looking to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, then that should be the sector you're targeting.
But amazingly, Amazingly, that's not the sector that the left actually wants to target, mostly.
They're targeting coal, but they refuse to buy into, for example, nuclear power.
This is something Henry Olson writes about at the Washington Post today.
He says, 10 Democratic presidential hopefuls gather on Wednesday for a climate town hall in which they will lay out their plans to combat climate change.
There are two words few of them, if any, are likely to mention.
Nuclear power.
Voters who take climate change seriously should demand better.
Climate change activists tell us that the planet's future is at stake if we don't act now.
But nuclear power expansion is notably absent from three of the four leading Democratic candidates' climate action plans.
Warren, Harris, Bernie, So Warren and Harris don't mention it at all.
Sanders does mention nuclear power, and he says he will stop construction of all nuclear power plans and place a moratorium on renewing licenses for existing ones.
Now, as you will see, this is complete idiocy because here is a chart of the actual cost.
This is the one that we just pulled, guys.
The actual chart that shows the capital and other fixed costs of particular sources of energy.
What you will see here is that, by far, the capital and other fixed costs, the lowest source of available energy, is conventional combined cycle natural gas.
Natural gas is the cheapest thing to draw out, which is why fracking is so popular right now.
It is also true that the emissions rate of fracking and natural gas is significantly lower Then that of conventional coal, for example, which is one of the reasons why the United States has reduced emissions.
Fracking has actually led to a reduction in carbon emissions in the United States, because when you contrast natural gas with conventional coal, natural gas is significantly more carbon efficient than conventional coal.
Then you get to the actual cost of the other sources of energy, and what you see is that conventional coal costs the estimates of cost in the near-term electricity generation, and they are measuring They're measuring basically cost per unit.
And so cost per unit in capital and other fixed costs for conventional and combined cycle natural gas is like $2.05.
You get a conventional coal, it's $7.05.
Wind is $9.70.
Geothermal is $9.22.
Then you get up into solar, we're talking about like $21.
970, geothermal is 922, right?
Then you get up into solar, you're talking about like 21 bucks.
You're talking about solar thermal, 31 bucks.
Advanced natural gas is a lot lower.
It's closer to conventional natural gas.
So what exact advanced nuclear is not nearly as high as solar or solar thermal.
In essence, what this chart shows, the one that I'm showing right now, this comes from William Nordhaus's book, by the way, what this chart shows is that Democrats are focusing on the most expensive, least efficient forms of energy at the expense of the forms of energy that are most carbon efficient and also least expensive.
If you're focusing on wind and you're focusing on thermal and solar thermal, for example, and you're ignoring advanced nuclear or you're ignoring natural gas, you're a fool.
But that's exactly what Democrats are doing.
Now, it's also important to note here.
Where exactly climate emissions in the United States are coming from.
So here are the percentages of emissions in the United States by economic sector.
So people keep talking about agriculture, as you'll see.
9% of total US greenhouse gas emissions are coming from agriculture.
9%.
29% comes from transportation, so that would be cars and buses, but that's still only 29%.
Electricity and industry represent About 50% of all of the greenhouse gas emissions, which means that you're going to knock out some of the key industries in the United States and raise costs for consumers in some of the key industries of the United States.
Commercial and residential represents about 12%.
Broken down a different way.
From Nordhaus's book, if you look at emissions for different activities by U.S.
households in 2008, here's what you find.
The percentage of emissions in the United States for individual households, about 15%, is from automotive travel.
About 6% is from space heating.
About 3% is from air travel.
About 2.5% is from air conditioning.
Everything else, including non-households, is about 64%.
Meaning that the vast majority of the things that the Democrats are targeting are not the things that are actually going to affect the carbon emissions, right?
And here's the problem.
The problem is that there are no good solutions for any of this, because as that chart shows, the one that shows you about the alternative sources of energy and their relative costs, there ain't nothing great coming directly on the horizon.
William Nordhaus, the current Nobel Prize winner in economics, writes in his book Climate Casino, quote, The central question going forward is the prospect for economical low-carbon electricity.
Wind is the only mature low-carbon technology.
It is 50% more expensive than the best existing technology.
Moreover, its capacity is limited in the United States.
The other promising technologies with the possibility of large-scale deployments are, from least to most expensive, Advanced natural gas with carbon capture and storage.
This is where you create machinery that helps basically capture the carbon emissions from natural gas.
Advanced nuclear power and advanced coal with carbon capture.
These are 50 to 100 percent more expensive than the most economical existing technology.
So even these ones are way more expensive than just natural gas for itself.
itself.
Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, says Nordhaus, emitting about half as much CO2 per kilowatt hour as coal when burned for electricity generation.
Shifting a greater fraction of electricity to natural gas is an important way of reducing CO2 emissions.
Guess what Democrats want to do?
Some of them are, okay, they say they want to kill the natural gas industry.
They're not interested in nuclear power, but they want to stop you from eating meat and using plastic straws.
If all this sounds like stupid virtue signaling that is not designed to actually solve the problem, that's because it is stupid virtue signaling that is not designed to solve the problem.
And it's because Democrats know they're never gonna do any of this crap.
We're going to go through the Democrats' climate change plans at long last in just one second.
First, there are a lot of options when it comes to shaving products.
You go into the store, you're not sure what to buy.
Plus, it's annoying because the truth is that by the time you realize that your razor Is too blunt for you to use?
Now you missed the day shaving.
You have to go out to the store and you're like backfilling your time.
It's ridiculous.
Instead, you should be using Dollar Shave Club.
Dollar Shave Club makes your life easier.
They take out the guesswork and they guarantee quality shaving products.
First of all, their razors are fantastic.
Second of all, they've got all sorts of other great products.
They've got this Amber Lavender Body Cleanser, which is calming and soothing and delightful.
I smell delightful right now.
Dollar Shave Club is way more than just razors.
They've got you covered head to toe.
They have everything you need to shower, shave, style your hair, brush your teeth.
It is nice to have a one-stop shop for all your grooming needs, and Dollar Shave Club can keep you automatically stocked up on the products you use.
You get what you want whenever you need it, whether that's once a month or a few times a year.
I never have to waste time at a store wondering if what I'm getting is any good, because I know that Dollar Shave Club products are top quality.
Right now, you can put the quality of Dollar Shave Club's products to the test.
Their ultimate shave starter set has basically everything you need for an amazing shave.
They've got the executive razor, shave butter, prep scrub, post-shave dew.
The best part is you can try it for just five bucks.
After that, the restock box ships regular size products at regular prices.
So you can try them out.
If you like it, you keep it going.
Get that ultimate starter set for just five bucks at dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
Once you start, you're not going to want to stop.
That's dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Okay.
We are going to, at long last, get to the Democratic Solutions presented last night on CNN.
It is a massive campaign ad for Republicans.
Insane.
Massive campaign ad for Republicans.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, head on over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
$9.99 a month or $99 a year gets you this, the greatest of all beverage vessels.
It is indeed magnificent.
Also, when you subscribe, you help us bring you the show every single day.
A lot of folks on the left don't want you to hear facts.
They don't want you to hear conservative opinions and ideas.
Well, you can fight them by joining the club and becoming part of the team.
It is a great way to help us out and help spread the message.
Go check us out at dailywire.com.
We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty.
So now, at long last, we get to the Democrats' plans on climate change.
As I say, what Democrats would prefer to do is say Republicans are denying the science.
I just ran you through all the science.
All of the things that I just quoted are things from people who are deep believers in climate change, people who are deeply concerned about climate change.
They're from books.
From Nobel Prize winners, there are studies from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
These are all data based on the same data that folks in the Democratic Party are using.
What I'm saying is that the only way to fight climate change in reality is going to end up being over the next century, investing in new technologies, which is already happening, and investing in geoengineering, Right, trying to take tax that mitigate climate change, not by destroying people's quality of life, but by actively trying to change the climate.
The only one who I heard talk about this at all yesterday was Andrew Yang, my boy Andrew Yang.
There's going to be mitigation effects, people attempting to build sea walls and move infrastructure.
That's what's going to end up happening in reality.
Then there's all the pie in the sky crap Democrats are talking about, which is not going to accomplish anything.
Which means this is all about virtue signaling.
So we're going to go through candidate by candidate and show you what they say.
So Joe Biden, last night, he said the Green New Deal, as in like AOC's Green New Deal.
You know, the Green New Deal that was supported by zero senators, including co-sponsors of the Green New Deal.
He says that that doesn't go too far.
You know, her $93 trillion plan for the United States economy.
Biden says that doesn't go too far.
Now, the reason he's saying this, of course, is because he is trying to force Republicans into a position of saying that they don't care at all about climate change.
He's trying to do with climate change what Democrats are doing with guns right now, which is we disagree on the solutions to the problem.
But that means I'm denying the problem according to the left.
So according to Joe Biden and the left, if I say that your stupid solutions are not in fact solutions, they're just dummy, they're just dummy garbage, then that's because I'm a denier.
That's Joe Biden's shtick here.
You're not saying that you support everything In the original Green New Deal, do you think it goes too far?
Is it unrealistic, promising too much?
No, it's not.
Here's what it is.
It doesn't have a lot of specifics.
But the reason, I don't know, I'm not opposed to the Green New Deal.
What I did was I thought beyond, at least in more detail, what the Green New Deal is calling for.
How to do the things we need to do.
When they have to be done.
How quickly we should move.
How much we should invest, etc.
Okay, except that he doesn't actually call for any specificity.
He just wants to say that the Green New Deal is a good idea.
So, because when he gets specific, here is where all the attack ads for Trump start.
Last night was a fantastic night for President Trump.
Listen to Joe Biden say he's going to shut down every coal plant in the country.
You think this is going to go well?
He's not going to invest in advanced carbon capture technology for coal plants.
He is not going to talk really about how to move those jobs.
Instead, we're just going to have to shut down all the coal plants in the United States.
Now, the United States is responsible on a global level for about 15% of all carbon emissions.
So he's now talking about wiping an entire sector off the face of the American economy.
And that sector, by the way, is already in trouble, largely because of technological advances.
But he's talking about forcibly killing that sector from above, to the tune of what?
Maybe 3% of total carbon emissions on planet Earth?
That would be a real high-end estimate.
Here's Joe Biden.
We set out the rules for what kind of coal-burning plants.
No one's going to build another coal-burning plant.
We've got to shut the ones down we have.
But no one is going to build a new one.
Guess what?
They're not efficient.
OK, well, he is right that the coal plants are not efficient, that you'd be better off building natural gas plants.
There's only one problem, and nuclear plants, probably.
One problem.
The same Democrats who are talking about getting rid of coal plants are also avoiding the talk about how exactly they're going to build a new plant.
You're not building a wind farm to replace those coal plants.
It is just not happening.
And then Biden says, you know what?
We'd like to reach a point where everyone drives electric cars.
That's my plan.
Electric cars, electric cars.
There's only one problem with that, which is that electric cars ain't going to do a job.
Ain't going to do the job.
Here's a study from National Geographic circa 2014.
Electric cars can help limit reliance on imported oil and take a bite out of air pollution from urban traffic jams.
But as Surefire ammunition against climate change, a new study finds, they come up short.
The study attempted to take a big picture view, analyzing the ripple effects of electric vehicles on the U.S.
energy system.
Including possible changes in emissions of key air pollutants like heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
The team of researchers, led by Joseph DeCarolis, Assistant Professor of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University, created a model to look at the complex interplay among fuel prices, battery costs, government policies, and adoption of electric cars in the coming decades.
The team modeled 108 scenarios.
The new model found, they reported, that even in scenarios that yield the highest levels of electric vehicle deployment, plug-ins and hybrids would make up no more than 42% of all U.S.
passenger vehicles in 2050 and would reduce overall emissions by a slim margin.
But good news, Joe Biden wants to force you to drive one of these newfangled smart cars.
Will there be a point, or would you like there to be a point, and if so, when, that everybody drives an electric car or has to drive an electric car?
Well, I think, look, that's going to be based upon whether or not we can make it economically feasible.
And it is economically feasible.
Because guess what?
Everybody knows where the world's going.
We have to take combustion engine vehicles off the road as rapidly as we can.
But that also could create a significant number of jobs and opportunities for people.
No, actually it's going to take away a significant number of jobs because it turns out that American heavy industry and car companies are generally in the business of building light trucks.
The manufacturing in the United States is disproportionately not in the electric vehicle industry.
It also happens to be the case that, as we already referred to, only about 15% of household emissions in the United States come courtesy of your car.
So that actually doesn't solve the problem.
So what does solve the problem, according to Joe Biden?
A carbon tax.
Now, The truth is that if you had a global carbon tax, you artificially raise the price of carbon emissions, then that would be an effective way, presumably, of lowering carbon emissions.
There's one small problem with that.
Do you think that China and India are going to sign on to a global carbon tax?
Do you think developing countries are going to be into this?
You think this is a thing that's going to happen?
There are a lot of people who advocate for this, including William Nordhaus, who I talked about earlier.
This global carbon tax.
It does not work if it's regional.
If the United States taxes our own citizens on carbon and destroys our economy in the process, and presumably hurts other economies in the process also, preventing their upward mobility because the world economy is dependent on the United States economy, do you think that those economies are more or less likely to rely more on carbon-based fuels in order to spur their economy?
OK, a regional tax will not work.
You need a global tax.
Guess what's the thing that is not happening?
Any of this.
Here's Joe Biden talking about why we need a carbon tax anyway.
Would you support a carbon tax?
Other some other candidates said they would.
Yeah, no, I would.
But here's what we have to do.
Look, the bottom line of this is what we have to do is we have to understand that you need to be able to bring people and countries and interests together to get anything done.
You can have the plans are great, but executing on those plans is a very different thing.
We make up and it's the existential threat of not this generation, but the whole world.
The existential threat that exists.
We don't move on it.
OK, well, guess what?
China ain't moving on it.
That's why.
Listen, everyone who is serious about this topic.
It's funny.
There's there's almost like an Oreo cookie effect to knowledge about climate change.
It goes somewhat like this.
When you don't know a lot about climate change, you assume there really is not a lot we can do.
Then you know a little bit, and you're like, there's so much we can do, man, we can solve this thing.
Then you know a lot about climate change, you're like, ah, there's not that much we can do.
I mean, unfortunately, because the collective action problem is too grave, and also because all of these little measures that the Democrats are talking about taking do not solve the problem, do harm the economy, and are politically unfeasible.
I mean, Bernie Sanders is at least honest about this stuff, right?
Bernie Sanders is like, I'm just gonna ruin your life.
That's the wonderful thing about Bernie Sanders.
Bernie has, he doesn't even attempt to sell it.
Bernie's like, yes, I'm going to raise your taxes.
Yes, I'm going to make you stop eating meat.
Yes, I'm going to take your car.
Yes, I'm going to take away your airplane.
I won't do any of those things.
I still want my pudding, but you should do all of those things.
Now, let's talk about raising your taxes.
Sounds like a great idea, right?
Let's do this thing.
We have a moral responsibility to act and act boldly.
And to do that, yes, it is going to be expensive.
And when we do that, you're going to have a lot of taxpayers out there who will be paying more in taxes.
You'll have people who are not getting food stamps and so forth.
Would you guarantee to the American public tonight that the responsibility for $16.3 trillion, which is a massive amount of money, wouldn't end up on taxpayers' shoulders?
Well, it'll end up on some taxpayers' shoulders.
If you are in the fossil fuel industry, you're going to be paying more in taxes, that's for sure.
Whenever Elizabeth Warren did the same routine, Elizabeth Warren said, the fossil fuel companies are going to pay for this.
It'll be the fossil fuel companies.
Fossil fuel companies want us to talk about straws and cheeseburgers, but really they're the ones who have to pay.
Okay, do you think that's not going to get passed on to you, the consumer?
In the same way that a tariff gets passed on to you, the consumer, if you tax the fossil fuel industry, you really think they're just going to keep the price the same?
Of course not.
And that's the part she's not telling you.
There are a lot of ways that we try to change our energy consumption and our pollution.
And God bless all of those ways.
Some of it is with light bulbs, some of it is on straws, some of it, dang, is on cheeseburgers, right?
But understand, this is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we're all talking about.
70% of the pollution of the carbon that we're throwing into the air Okay, you can set those targets and guess what?
It ain't gonna happen because those costs are gonna get passed on to the American consumer.
That's the part that she is not telling you about.
Now again, at least you got to appreciate Bernie because he just puts it out there, man.
So yesterday, Bernie Sanders was asked about overpopulation, okay?
Which, again, has not been a problem historically on planet Earth.
And there's a lot of Malthusian theory going around for centuries about how we were going to overpopulate the Earth, there'd be mass die-offs.
Paul Ehrlich famously wrote a book called The Population Bomb in the late 1960s, suggesting that billions would die of starvation and hunger instead.
People are living more prosperously than they ever have, and there are almost 8 billion of us on planet Earth.
But nonetheless, this has become a sort of rote point of contention on the left.
It's become just a talking point on the left that there are too many people.
Bernie Sanders, he just lays it out there.
He's like, well, you know what?
If we have a problem with carbon emissions, let's just kill all the poor people.
They may not be born yet.
As long as they're not born yet, we can kill the poor.
Once they are born, we guarantee them all sorts of rights.
But if they're unborn, then we should probably pay to have them snuffed out in the womb.
Boom!
They're not the problem anymore.
No babies, no carbon emissions.
Problem solved.
Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact.
Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?
Well, the answer is yes.
The Mexico City Agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions, or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd.
So I think, especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies.
Okay.
In poor countries, we should fund abortion so that it helps climate change.
That's a hell of a pitch right there.
Remember five minutes ago when they were saying the pro-life movement is racist, which makes no sense at all?
Bernie Sanders is openly stating he wants fewer poor brown babies around the world through abortion to fight climate change.
That's not great, Bernie.
But he spells it out.
That's the one thing people love about Bernie, is that that dude just lays it right out there.
Now, the thing people hate about Kamala Harris is that she is a pander bear, right?
Kamala Harris just tries to pander.
And so she is going over the top yesterday on the CNN town hall.
She's like, yeah, we're gonna ban everything, man.
We're gonna ban fracking.
Now, as I just showed you, There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.
So, yeah.
carbon emissions in the United States right now is the substitution of natural gas for coal because natural gas is cheap and it is effective and it is a lot lower in terms of carbon emissions than coal.
Naturally, she wants to ban fracking, which makes tons of sense, obviously.
There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.
So, yeah.
And starting with what we can do on day one around public lands, right?
And And then there has to be legislation.
But yes, and this is something I've taken on in California.
I have a history of working on this issue.
And to your point... Okay, so again, we're going to ban fracking.
Again, quote, William Nordhaus.
Again, he knows more about this than she does.
Shifting a greater fraction of electricity to natural gas is an important way of reducing carbon emissions.
And she's like, let's ban fracking.
Makes perfect sense.
Then you get Kamala Harris suggesting we need to have Americans eat less meat.
Now, if Americans want to voluntarily eat less meat, that's fine.
But Kamala Harris is basically suggesting that the government should cram down, from the top, restrictions on your ability to eat meat.
Yeah, this is going to go over great with the American people.
Great.
By the way, again, agriculture represents about 11% of U.S.
carbon emissions.
And global emissions.
Agriculture does not represent a tremendous percentage, as we showed you earlier in the program.
Here's Kamala Harris saying we need to get people to stop eating meat.
Also, she wants to ban plastic straws.
We can play those back-to-back.
We the balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors.
I mean, just to be very honest with you, I love cheeseburgers from time to time.
Right.
I mean, I just do.
And I think that but there is but there has to be also what we do in terms of creating incentives that we will eat in a healthy way, that we will encourage moderation, and that we will be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment.
And we have to do a much better job of that, and the government has to do a much better job of that.
Okay, and then she called for a ban on plastic straws as well, Andrew Yang, competing with her, he said we should eliminate commercial air travel.
Like, this is a hell of a pitch, guys.
If Democrats really believe that the way to win the hearts and minds of Americans is to eliminate air travel, raise your taxes, increase your energy prices, and do all of this without significantly affecting carbon emissions, because there is no global deal in place, and because there is no new technology on the horizon that is going to replace carbon-based fuels at the moment, Those technologies may arise, but they ain't arising right now.
Instead of focusing in on mitigation and adaptation, which are the other sides of the coin, again, you can do something about climate change.
It may not be targeting your cheeseburger.
It may be about building seawalls.
It may be about geoengineering and figuring out how to change the climate by creating cloud cover.
There are things we can do.
They ain't the things the Democrats are talking about.
And you know what?
The Democrats know that.
The Democrats know that.
Because what the Democrats really want from all of this is to look like they are willing to do anything to stop climate change.
The problem is, the American people are not.
The people of the world are not.
Other countries are not.
And so basically, this is a bunch of virtue signaling nonsense that is really going to come back and bite them directly in the ass in the 2020 presidential election.
So good for them.
They want to own it?
Enjoy.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I like, and then we'll do a quick thing that I hate.
So, Things that I like today.
First of all, I do not understand people making a big deal out of Joe Biden having a burst blood vessel.
Like, this is the headline at Drudge, that Joe Biden has a burst blood vessel.
You can actually see this burst blood vessel in his eye.
And I get it.
I mean, I know everybody's like, an eye beheld when he had opened the sixth seal and lo, there was a great earthquake and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair and the moon became as blood.
And people, ooh, he has a bloody eye.
Okay, my wife saw this last night.
She's a doctor.
And my wife was like, uh, no, that's not a thing.
Like, who cares?
That is not a sign of ill health.
That is not a sign of being elderly.
That is simply a subconjunctival hemorrhage.
Okay, it can be caused by a lot of stuff, but it does not have to be caused by just being an old person.
Nonetheless, people made a big deal out of it.
The internet is a funny place, and thus there were many funny memes about all of this.
But!
I will say that Joe Biden has been handling his lack of ability on the world stage and on the campaign stage with a fair bit of good humor.
So Biden was on Stephen Colbert last night, and he said the only thing that's been said that's funny on Stephen Colbert for years, actually.
You want to talk about issues, but a lot of people want to talk about your gaps.
You've called yourself a gaff machine, okay?
In the last few weeks, you've confused New Hampshire for Vermont, said Bobby Kennedy and MLK were assassinated in the late 70s, assured us, I'm not going nuts.
Follow-up question, are you going nuts?
Look, the reason I came on the Jimmy Kimmel show is because I'm not.
There's Joe Biden.
Again, Joe Biden, a little self-effacing humor goes a long way.
And it's something that if President Trump had self-effacing humor, it would really serve him pretty well.
OK, final thing that I like.
We're going to skip things I hate today because we're out of time.
But final thing that I like.
So Bernie Sanders was asked yesterday if he would cancel all credit card debt.
And he has no answer to this question because Bernie Sanders' basic program is that everything will be paid for by some deus ex machina called the rich.
I don't know who the rich are that are going to pay for all this stuff.
And I also don't know what his limiting principle is on simply relieving people of their debt.
Neither does Bernie Sanders, and that became perfectly obvious in this exchange.
Let's say you win the nomination.
Very good chance of that.
You're running now in the general election against President Trump and the Republicans.
And they're going to say what?
Bernie Sanders wants to wipe out college loan debt.
He wants to wipe out medical debt.
What's next?
Are you going to wipe out credit card debt?
How do you push back against that?
No, I think there's a difference.
We're not here to talk about, I don't believe we wipe out credit card debt.
You want to buy something, you pay for it.
But I do believe we have to make a distinction, Paul.
You wanna buy something you pay for, unless we're talking about college tuition, or your healthcare, or any of the other products that I want to relieve debt from.
If you rack up charges on your credit card, well then you're on your own.
Bernie Sanders, I have a feeling this thing's gonna last for very long.
I mean, honestly, I don't know why he doesn't just go here.
Like, really, why doesn't he just go here?
You know he wants to.
You know, deep in the recesses of Bernie Sanders' peculiar brain, there's a small voice, a small, weird Brooklyn voice going, Do it, Bernie.
Do it.
Tell them that you will relieve all credit card debt.
Do it.
You can do this.
You know that he wants to.
And sooner or later that will break free and he'll be like, I'm relieving all the mortgages and I'm getting rid of credit card debt.
In fact, we will call it Jubilee Year and we'll just relieve all the debt.
Like in the Bible, which I've never read.
It will be great.
Bernie Sanders, that dude's the best.
I do love that Bernie Sanders, again, he can't help but be honest.
And his honesty is, it's bracing, man.
It is bracing.
Alrighty.
Well, we will be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
We've already reached nearly the end of the week, guys, because we had a short week this week.
So congratulations to us.
We'll see you here a little bit later.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Stajewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.
▲
Export Selection