CNBC's Joe Kernen sharply criticized climate change alarmism Friday on Squawk on the Street.
Former BP CEO Lord Brown and the panel were discussing possible implications of implementing policies that regulate domestic and international carbon dioxide emissions. Brown said he does not favor a carbon cap unless it were to be implemented equally for every country across the board.
However, Brown noted he does believe governments should take out an "insurance policy" and develop energy resources that burn less CO2.
Kernan reacted skeptically, noting CO2 emissions have increased over the last 17 years yet global warming has stalled.
The CNBC host asked Brown what if his supposed "insurance policy" would manifest in policies that actually hurt developing economies and job growth in the United States.
"What if it's chasing a phantom? I understand what you're saying, it would already be too late. But, to take real action that will hurt developing economies, actually hurt people, based on this?"
Brown replied Kernan is "absolutely right," emphasizing it is important to develop resources that burn less carbon but at the right price.
The CNBC host followed up by criticizing liberals for conflating China's particulate pollution problem with rises in atmospheric C02 and and adverse weather events. "There's no scientist that would agree with that. Yet you see what's done," he said.
Full exchange:
JOE KERNEN: If we were to take out the insurance and even though there's some -- the 17-year pause has even climatologists scratching their head and they're trying to explain it in different ways because co2 emissions have increased. Let's say that for insurance we cut off developing countries, that really need economies to develop more quickly, our even our growth here in the U.S. is slower than we'd like it to be. We've got a jobs problem. We have a jobless problem globally. What if it's chasing a phantom? I understand what you're saying, it would already be too late. To take real action that will hurt developer economies, and actually hurt people, based on this.
BROWN: You're absolutely right. It means we need to invest in technologies that produce us energy at the right price and also reduce carbon dioxide. That is something which is happening, for example, around the world total renewable energy, electricity from renewables now exceeds that coming out of nuclear. And that hasn't happened by accident. It's happened by technologies improving over time. There are plenty of things we can do.
KERNEN: Everybody wants clean air and clean water and China has a terrible pollution problem but to conflate it with an extra 100 parts per million of CO2, rather than the real issue in China is particulate pollution. It's a horrible, disgusting pollution. But people conflate that with an extra 0.01 - you know we've gone from 0.3 percent atmospheric carbon to 0.4 parts every single adverse weather event is attributed to this. There's no scientist that would agree with that. Yet you see what's done.
BROWN: I agree. China has a very big low-level pollution problem. It needs to sort out traffic patterns. It's the way it generates electricity, burning coal close to cities is not a good idea. So all of those things need to be sorted out. It's both got a carbon dioxide and a carbon and a particulate problem that's very big.
Full interview: