It&#x27;s hard to imagine any process that doesn&#x27;t have some interaction with carbon-based fuel. So while he is willing to pay the cost along with everyone else, the conflict of interest is still there -- his company will benefit _at the margin_ with a much higher carbon tax, so there&#x27;s an extent to which he might be talking his book.<p>That all being said, as a matter of simple fact I think he&#x27;s correct with only relatively straight-forward caveats (like, &quot;within the lifespan of currently alive humans&quot;). So the issue isn&#x27;t him talking his book per se as it is him attempting to set the public agenda in a way favorable to him. This isn&#x27;t something I typically worry about, although given how totally non-surprising the headline is to anyone who has paid attention to energy policy in the last couple decades, it might be worth bringing up.