Nick J

Nice job Steve!


I can't imagine him doing the same thing he did to Jim Cramer -- after all, Freakonomics is a whole other bag of marbles that doesn't promise to get you rich.


Stewart is not a fan of BS and fear mongering by politicians and the media. As long as you're not completely fully of BS, then you're usually in pretty good shape on his show.


I wouldn't call it a "thumping endorsement." As Jon said toward the end, "I really have no idea what I'm doing."


Great interview!

You and Dubner are both informative and entertaining speakers.


Here in Canada the website is blocked out. The friendly statement sends us over to the Canadian comedy channel, where your clip is not available, of course. And we can't buy the Kindle here either. Geez.


That was a great endorsement...

Superfreakonomics: It's Recyclable!


Professor Levitt

You kept claiming that one has to strip away moral beliefs. But this quote contradicts that statement.

It isn't about paying the price or not; it's about what is most expedient at least cost. Geo-engineering solutions can be potentially deadly; and we DO NOT KNOW THE COST.

With carbon mitigation, the uncertainty is still significant but far lesser.


did not ease my fears of ocean acidification...


I still dont think you guys should be apologized to for all the publicity that has gone on, even if some of it is negative. It will probably fall under the category of any publicity being good publicity.

Paul Klemencic

Removing carbon from emissions doesn' t cost $ 1 trillion per year... this is the total cost of generating energy, not just the incremental cost of using green energy sources instead of fossil fuels.

As an economist, you must understand the incremental cost versus the total cost. I don't understand why this statement hasn't been corrected by now.


Is it just me or does Levitt need to update his thumbnail picture for the blog?? I would have never guessed that was him on The Daily Show after seeing his avatar on here several hundreds of times.


Garry: Yes it is available on the comedy network website -- that's where I watched it.

Go to October 27th's full episode, part 2 of 4.


Enjoyed your informative interview with Jon..


Kinishaka: "With carbon mitigation, the uncertainty is still significant but far lesser."

Not true. If the effects or benefits of carbon mitigation will in fact take 50 years to manifest itself, then the opportunity costs are actually very great.

What if we only do the conservation thing. And 50 years later ... we find out it didn't really work? Then over these 50 years, essentially we might as well have done nothing.

Geo-engineering might be "potentially deadly" but what is the potential for it to be deadly? I don't know, but it seems that mainstream environmentalists are refusing to even think about it -- and thinking about it costs nothing. That suggests to me that environmentalists have a vested interest in their own recommendations. After all, a lot of money will be made as we convert to greener conservation-based technologies and products.