It's hard to imagine any process that doesn't have some interaction with carbon-based fuel. So while he is willing to pay the cost along with everyone else, the

It's hard to imagine any process that doesn'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's an extent to which he might be talking his book. That all being said, as a matter of simple fact I think he's correct with only relatively straight-forward caveats (like, "within the lifespan of currently alive humans"). So the issue isn'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'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.