Source: Center for Industrial Progress
Posted on 12/10/2021 4:00:07 AM PST by Kaslin
Source: Center for Industrial Progress
Author, philosopher, and speaker Alex Epstein isn’t afraid to make the moral case for fossil fuels. To him, coal, oil, and gas are essential for continued human flourishing and environmental progress.
The Center for Industrial Progress founder has decried climate alarmism and radical decarbonization efforts for well over a decade. And he’s not slowing down anytime soon.
The sought-after lecturer has previously presented at Google and before Congress. He also regularly lectures at college campuses and board rooms across the nation. And he has a New York Times bestseller, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014), to his name and another book due out next spring.
With the Biden administration’s aggressive push to go carbon-free by 2050, Epstein’s insights are timely and valuable. Alex recently spoke with me for a wide-ranging conversation about fossil fuels, clean energy alternatives, and the future of human flourishing.
Climate Emergency? Far From It
Epstein believes the “climate emergency” pushed by Democrats, environmentalists, and media outlets is grossly overhyped. In his view, fossil fuels have lessened instances of actual climate emergencies.
“I think there is a really interesting element of people not believing in climate catastrophe. And it's very justified to not believe it because … our actual danger level from climate is far lower than it's ever been,” he said.
“The chance of you dying from a climate-related disaster is 1/50 what it would have been 100 years ago,” Epstein noted. “We're 50 times safer from climate in terms of mortality. And yet, we view it as an emergency,”
He continued, “The way I like to explain it: fossil fuels didn't take a safe climate and make it dangerous; they took a dangerous climate and made it far safer.”
Epstein isn’t wrong. Even a new study from the University of Michigan and Rutgers University revealed that “little is known about how this particular use of stronger terminology may affect readers of climate change news.”
Let the Free Market Decide Viable Alternatives
Instead of the government picking energy winners and losers, particularly the push for unreliable solar and wind, Epstein believes markets should determine supply and demand.
“Have a free market and find out,” he stressed to me.
“I end up talking about the non-viability of certain things like solar and wind, at least as they're proposed, because these are part of coercive government schemes,” Epstein said. “It's not …like [I] go out of my way to just trash solar and wind, but people are claiming solar and wind can replace fossil fuels and therefore it's okay to ban fossil fuels.”
As for net-zero energy proposals to be met by various deadlines, the author calls them unrealistic and says the U.S. is better off sticking with traditional fuels.
“Fossil fuels are by far the world's best source of energy,” he declared.
Epstein said nuclear energy should be explored more, especially after decades’ worth of misinformation misrepresenting it, noting, “There's a strong case that nuclear could be a much more significant player had it not been criminalized by the Green Movement for 40 years.”
In a recent tweet, the energy expert excoriated the Biden administration for its proposal to push net-zero by 2050:
There is no such thing as "net-zero emissions" energy today. All forms of energy use large amounts of fossil fuel in their supply chain.The only hope for net-zero is decriminalizing nuclear. Yet Biden continues to criminalize nuclear and pay for today's "net zero" frauds.
The Future Requires More Fossil Fuels, Not Fewer
Epstein discussed the premise of his forthcoming book, Fossil Future, and why coal, oil and gas are needed to sustain global human flourishing.
“My basic argument in the book is most of the disagreement over energy and climate issues is not a disagreement about scientific facts or economic facts. It's mostly a disagreement about methodology, and in particular, values. So is your top value advancing human flourishing, or is it eliminating impact on nature?” explained Epstein. “I think I show very definitively that most of the anti-fossil-fuel movement—and most of people's anti-fossil fuel thinking—is because knowingly or not they're not thinking of things in a pro-human way.”
The philosopher equally slammed the Build Better Better Act as the worst “anti-energy piece of legislation” and cautioned against politicians pushing similar top-down proposals like it.
He also warned that if the U.S. isn’t prudent, it could tragically morph into “the Venezuela of energy.”
Conclusion
Contrarians like Alex Epstein— along with Michael Shellenberger, Steven Koonin, and Bjorn Lomberg, for instance — are boldly speaking out. And naturally, Americans are seeking their writings and musings for climate and energy issues.
Excellent.
To me, as well.
When we run out (and we will some day) the power will have to come from renewables - and they are NOT gonna be widespread or cheap!
Thanks. I have been a big fan of Alex for years.
Alex Epstein...not a positive image with his last name.
Most folks are not familiar, or can grasp, the Law of Conservation of Energy/1st Law of Thermodynamics. It is a mechanical engineering concept that has been taught in first semester Thermodynamics since the beginning of advanced education. It’s a concept proven over and over again.
When one does finally grasp the concept, the use of fossil fuels (outside of nuclear) becomes evident and predominant over other forms of so-called “alternative clean energy”, especially when it comes to massive usage.
Regardless of what moronic ideology the communist left can dream up, the bottom line is our civilization and society depends, thrives and runs on fossil fuels. Just go sit on an overpass of any major interstate in the USA and count the number of 18-wheelers that pass under it in an hour....and they’re all burning diesel fuel. Every farm tractor in the country runs on diesel fuel. Every railroad locomotive runs on diesel fuel. Every merchant marine ship runs on diesel fuel. Every aircraft (private, airliner, military, etc.) all run on av gas or jet fuel, a type of kerosene. Wanna see how many aircraft are in the air over the USA at any given time? Just go to flightaware.com and take a peek.
Is this to say, I personally oppose alternative energy sources? No. In fact, they should obviously be explored and developed to point of being economically feasible on a mass scale, but to think we’re just going wholesale replace all the above by punishing fossil fuel usage is insane...entropy is gonna bite em in the arse...every time they try.
Meanwhile, they’ve “demonized” nuclear energy; the most abundant source of energy ever known to man. These people are morons...but, I repeat myself. They’re talking out their arse on a subject they’re not even qualified to talk about, and IF society isn’t careful, society as we know it may cease to exist. Maybe that’s their real goal to begin with. I despise the bassturds.
.
there is no such a thing as a fossil fuel
Leftists will not acknowledge the basic physics and economics attendant to the energy density of liquid fuels. Leftists are serial nihilists who would rather rule from atop the rubble of a civilizational collapse than to leave the rest of us alone.
Climate alarmism was never about the truth.
The original anti-nuclear propaganda campaign was begun and financed by the KGB (proven directly from KGB records made public when the USSR disintegrated and Yeltsin became the elected leader of its Russian remnants). It was picked up by American leftists and became an item of faith of leftist ideology.
Nuclear's real safety record is unmatched by any other energy source in spite of the real and serious reactor incidents that have occurred.
And the problems are all readily fixable, but cannot be implemented due to the residual illogical leftist ideology and knee-jerk opposition.
Given sufficient nuclear energy, we can make all the liquid fuels we need, probably just from converting the carbon content of urban and agricultural waste.
He is right. So tired of all this garbage talk about “green energy”. It’s useless by itself & has to be backed up with conventional sources. Why pay for part time energy & the conventional sources both? Makes no sense when conventional “fossil” fuels do the job & are plentiful. We have some solar power locally but nobody has any comments on what it is costing per KWH. And you must have conventional power for winter days and (all) nights most of the time. Solar & wind can be useful for non-essential power sources with low requirements.
<>Climate alarmism was never about the truth.<>
It’s about destroying the middleclass to make way for a Muslim/Marxist Dark Age hell on earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.