The entire climate argument is founded on one single premise: "Just you wait, you'll see, it's going to get bad". Repeat ad nauseum decade after decade.
It's pretty sad that we live in an age where the information gathered in this book is somehow antagonistic to the view of the majority. Those in power have a different agenda for obvious reasons so i would not expect anything less from them. The fault lies in the ignorant masses that refuse to do the heavy lifting of educating themselves on these issues.
"... the view of the majority." The majority of what Epstein calls 'the disseminators' (ie media, writers, etc), and the 'designated experts', who are selected to preach and reinforce the biased agenda.
Always a pleasure to listen to Alex. Make no mistake, he may speak with elegance and charm. he may have those boyish good looks but this guy can and will unload with both barrels irrespective of the feelz or the sensitivities of the audience.
Outstanding show. I'm no "influencer" but I'm picking up this book. At the very least, my friends and family will get educated when the topic comes up.
If you plan on talking to your friends and family about this issue, I highly recommend Alex's playlist on having better conversations. th-cam.com/play/PL_itweecuKtBn0OE2Gj-k3Cui2cGzNEFQ.html I saw it a couple of times and using this approach really helps to make subsequent conversations more likely.
I actually don’t mind them doing that - if that was the ONLY thing they ever did with “controversial” opinions and reports. But, of course, they often do more than that...
Very excellent show! Thank you for having the courage to talk about these views, which I believe really elucidate the real nature of the problem we face and the solutions/commentary on its development and future give great food for thought.
"Expertism" has cost us all these past two 1/2 years... energy freedom cannot be limited/controlled by "expertism"... not merely "experts" but the overall phenomenon: the whole reinforcing system where individuals cede their agency to experts, the process, the outcome, etc.
Fossil Fuels must be considered on its humanitarian basis, first. 1. Water Treatment Plants are mostly powered by electricity. 2. The majority of electricity comes from Fossil Fuels. 3. There's no modern Medical Technology, Medicine, or Procedure that can happen without clean water, for sanitation. The life expectancy in India has improved as a result of numerous medical and healthcare advancements. India's life expectancy in 1950 was 35.21 and it will be 81.96 in the year 2100. To understand this, it must be noted that India's life expectancy in 2022 is 70.19.
Moreover, co2 is actually very useful. It is being readily absorbed by vegetation and anything that photosynthesizes. The main result from co2 is lush vegetation. This is a fact. People who keep densely planted fish tanks need to inject co2 to support plant growth. Without co2 plants don't grow nearly as thick or lush.
When the government say the experts say... The experts need to be out front. Their names as well what disiplin they studied that they are to be considered an expert of. As i am an expert in the comfort of what makes an exclint toilet. Or somthing along those lines. I climb mountains so therefore I am an expert in all things. We need to know just who these experts are as well as we need to know their back grounds are in the area of what they clame to be an expert in. To be able to give advice or directions to others, us.
I have this on audiobook, and I have listened to it twice through while I am driving. I don’t agree with 100% of his arguments, but at least a good 95%, and this is good information that voters need.
Hello Alex. Interesting commentary on fossil fuel philosophically. I have yet to get your book but will shortly. Until then I come at the issue from a different prospective. I worked in the oil business for over 40 years as both an exploration and production geologist. What I’ve witnessed is the oil and gas business is a sunset industry. In other words, the business is rapidly contracting especially in the on-shore domestic portion of the business. The oil and gas industry will last a long time but at increased cost for steel for drilling, steel for casing, pumps, etc. All of the support that is required to extract oil and gas is costly. That could really go up if the materials and people are still available in the future.
This conversation made me think of Milton Friedman quote: society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both. Is that the way to frame the argument as opposed to equality versus in equality? In the Friedman quote you are arguing to 100 of equality or freedom.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 equality of outcome is a horror show. Equality of opportunity is an excellent goal. However equal opportunity almost (actually probably always) always leads to inequality.
Opposition to lockdowns is not about who can potentially kill who? It is about being defensive instead of running over others. If you honestly think that a particular thing and behavior will protect you then you should adopt that behavior to protect yourself, instead of trying to protect me from me. That is not your job. It is my job and let me take care of it.
@Thomas Hägg whoa check your arrogance amigo. You’re in serious danger of sounding like a typically self-contradictory Objectivist. If you haven’t outgrown Rand yet then you’re a ways off. “Over a decade” and you think you understand? Come on man…
The elephant in the room when it comes to 'Climate Change' is the geo-engineering of the weather. Good recent example is massive floods in Australia. In other words they aren't playing fair. They're creating droughts, storms, flooding, etc. Then the collaborative media reports on the events as climate disasters. This is the same method used to drive the cv narrative. You're book sounds great though.
Besides Geo engineering, think of the political engineering such as policy in CA on neglectful Forestry capitulating to Environmental Groups resulting in devastating forest fires year after year. All blamed on ‘Climate Change’.
What can we do to solve the climate crisis? Allen Savory says that by allowing livestock to graze grass in a controlled manner (planned grazing) CO2 from the air through photosynthesis of the plants will be stored in the soil. A microbiologist Walter Jehne who says that by always having the soil covered with green growth, the evaporation of water will lower the temperature considerably. He claims that about 95% of the temperature is controlled by water evaporation and about 4% is controlled by CO2. So it becomes very important to keep the soil covered with green growths all the time. What we also need to be aware of is the large temperature difference between uncovered bare soil, which receives a strong heating and heat radiation, and soil that is covered with green growth. What we should do is always have the earth covered with green plants and trees so that we can capture the maximum amount of CO2 and at the same time facilitate water evaporation from the plants so that the temperature is lowered. Allan Savory - How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change th-cam.com/video/vpTHi7O66pI/w-d-xo.html Walter Jehne - Climate Solutions for a Blue Planet th-cam.com/video/DQN9t-g2J-0/w-d-xo.html The Magic of Soil th-cam.com/video/AWILIYSf5ts/w-d-xo.html
Dude see?!? You already getting solid 1k of views in less than 24 hrs. You and Bob make a good duo. I've tried to listen to Bob's podcasts. Omg, alone, he has zero direction or sense forward. Now you've got yourself a winning team. I only heard about this guy recently so you got him early. 😉
I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about equality. Equality and freedom don't come together, choose one. If you don't like freedom get out of the west.
I always appreciate hearing the green's claims countered. Claims that bdon't sound right but ones I don't have the knowledge or time to research for myself. I would be interested to hear his stance on subsidies for energy as a whole. Does he ever see a benefit for subsidies for fossil fuels?
He's said elsewhere that he's against subsidies for the energy industry in general (consistent with his history as an Objectivist). He often emphasizes that so called "renewables" are only used in any significant volume in countries where they receive heavy subsidies; if left to compete on a fair playing field, they flounder as expected.
Fossil fuels hardly gets any subsidies, so the question isn’t particularly relevant. The outlandish numbers of “subsidies” that anti-fossil fuel activists complain about are mostly standard business deductions which applies to all industries.
Green Peace is anti fossil fuels and this quote is all they could come up with to slander oil companies regarding subsidies. "These policies come in the form of tax breaks, low-interest loans, and the failure to account for the true cost of fossil fuel pollution." It should also be noted that governments collect royalties from fossil fuel development, so it's more of a government investment. The subsidies for renewables, or rather unreliables, are obtained because they would be unable to survive in a free market.
I would love to know what Alex's take is on Roger Pielke, Jr? Pielke seems to have gone off the deep end all in on Zero Carbon? Previously he seemed more moderate and now he has shifted to extreme.
Alex, totally support you, I feel you have missed to inform our skeptics on how fossil fuels even came to exist, what was the level of Co2 to allow such fuel (fossil) to have been able to exist today. There is nothing in this world today under the Co2 we have, gives a future fossil fuel forests for the future, in other words the world is well under the required Co2 to produce such. Also, you need to show the sceptics that, it's not electricity we require, when producing a product to replace every life style product fossils fuels allows humanity to produce for what we require to enjoy life today or to exist.
His phrasing is often repetitive. The plus point is that it makes it easier for his arguments to sink in, especially if you are initially sceptical of his thesis. Apart from this, based on my reading so far (I’m 1/4 through) the book merits at least the same status as Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource.
I learned this in grade 8 152.07 Million Kilometer Sun to Eart changes 147 Million Kilometer every Year takes Tousand of years to change the Iec age to Global warming roughly 20,000 the great Ice sheets buried much of Asia, Europe, and North America stooped creeping advance. Within a few hundred years the sea level in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters and also covers Greenland which to melt today. This freshwater flood filled the North at and shut down the ocean currents that conveyed warmer water from equatorial regions northward The sea Ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a result- and for reasons that remain unexplained 152.07 million Kilometer Sun to Earth changes 147.1 million Kilometer to 94 million Kilometer every year difference time from the Ice Age 20 thousand years to Ice to melt Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe, and North America creeping advance. Within a few hundred years the Sea level in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters than if the Ice sheet that still covers Greenland were to melt today This freshwater flood filled the now the equatorial heat warmed the precinct that of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead shrinking the sea Ice and changing the circumpolar winds As a result -and for reasons that remain unexplained the Southern may have begun to release carbon dioxide enough to raise concentrations in the by more than 100 parts per millennium a-roughly equivalent to rice in the last 200 years then wormed the globe, melting back the Ice sheets and usherin in the current climate to humanity to drive.
Alex: I invite all criticism of ALL energy sources. This criticism is an industrial necessity. There is no doubt that an industrial revolution led to human flourishing. But there cannot just be one industrial revolution. Would you not agree that we need successive industrial revolutions to promote human flourishing? If we are to move forward, we do not need a retrospective, over-glorified view of fossil fuels. No type of energy can be put on a pedestal. To re-frame criticism of fossil fuels as anti-human is disingenuous. Fossil fuels are not evil. It is not McKibben's intention to make a moral argument that is over-optimistic about new technology, and project guilt on people in the fossil fuel industry. Because this will invite over-optimism within the fossil-fuel industry itself, as it attempts to reach net-zero. We know this is a very challenging goal. Reaching the next energy revolution is very challenging. Criticism of all kinds is necessary to move forward. In it's current state of the art, fossil fuels are regressive. This is because fossil fuels didn't reach 'net-zero', when we need real-zero. To continue human flourishing we need to move away from putting carbon in the atmosphere. I know this is hard for the fossil fuel industry, but that is what science tells us. Do you even agree with the science? because that would be a fundamental problem. Nevertheless, it is possible for people to agree on science but still have different views on an economic/moral level. My concern is that you are biased toward a moral value that is best expressed in the bible which says, 'subdue the earth' to 'go forth and multiply'. and this is in direct contradiction of G-ds biblical covenant with humankind after the floods, as told by the story of Noah, we have a duty of care to protect animals and the earth (ie G-ds innocent creations). How do you or Rand's think tank, balance that out? I am not particularly religious, and the story of Noah has a certain simplistic binary bias, 'two of each kind', that discriminates against trans people, but I use the bible to identify two moral values that might not be exclusive of each other but they seem paradoxical, without an industrial revolution. Steve
We need to focus on decarbonizing Fossil Fuels towards Hydrogen/ Ammonia fuels, advanced biofuels that can replace fossil fuels, microhydro, enhanced geothermal energy, and advanced nuclear power. Decarbonizing fossil fuels is a process of switching from coal & oil to natural gas then switching from natural gas or methane to ammonia or hydrogen via methane pyrolysis. Methane pyrolysis produces no downstream greenhouse emissions.
All very good but that takes time. In the meantime we need to keep using fossil fuels in the absence of adequate alternatives. And they make us safer from climate, despite emissions.
Elon Musk says we need to produce more oil. He said it like a month or two ago. I think it is well tho for people who understand the positive impacts of fossil fuels to realize that they are being successfully, profitably replaced and there is basically no limit in the ability to do so. I imagine in 10 years 90% of fossil fuels will be replaced. Some use cases like Jet fuel or gas wells capped with a local generator for producing local bitcoin will probably be niche uses. All you have to do with battery powered transportation is to pass on spot prices and they will charge when it is cheap. Peaker plants can be replaced with batteries.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way in hell that fossil fuel usage will be cut by 90% in just 10 years. That drastic of a change that quickly would result in mass death in the third world and would also result in the highest inflation the world has ever seen…like..apocalyptic levels of inflation. I’m not arguing for not going renewable or battery….but it’s going to take a long time and will and should be a gradual process.
@Prep n Rep the peak oil argument is heavily debatable. As technology in reaching it increases, so does the total potential usable pool. Sure there is ultimately a finite amount, but I suspect we are nowhere near that at this moment in history. It seems more likely to me that current extraction and refinement technology set more of the limit than does the total resource. If we continue to restrict the use of oil, there will be less innovation in technology to reach, extract, refine and use. This also has the impact of slowing innovation in finding ways to burn it more efficiently and with less pollution.
@@scarletspider1240 Well, apparently you didn't read what I said because I said "profitably" and I made no mention of a government imposed monopoly. therefore I am talking about a market solution which is also optimal, meaning that it would minimize mass death from the perspective of everyone's immediate voluntary choices. Electric vehicle production is growing 60% a year and I expect Tesla to have a 5X multiplier on effective transportation production of Full self driving vehicles, which will make transportation as a service cheaper and better than car ownership. there are also grid storage batteries that can replace peaker plants. It is so drastic that we should be aware. Literally the green new deal is like a socialist plot to take credit for the market's homework, because for many it would be a shame to fix climate problems without implementing socialism.
@@thaddeuswalker2728 nope, I read exactly what you said…and whether governments do it or the market does it, we’re not going to reduce fossil fuel usage by 90% in 10 years. The vast majority of vehicles in existence today are gasoline powered vehicles and most of the cars even still being made are gasoline powered and will collectively be driven on the road for far longer than 10 years. Again, I’m not saying it shouldn’t or won’t happen eventually…but there’s no way in hell it’s happening in just 10 years. You’re not overhauling the entire global transportation system in 10 years…it’s simply not going to happen that quickly.
@@scarletspider1240 Well, at least we are focused on what I actually said. I figure that 10 years gives 2 years into complete replacement of the supply chain and a few years of partial replacement. Each vehicle from now on will replace about a million gasoline miles. These vehicles are going to replace basically all urban ICE by then. Could you believe 80% replacement in 10 years? You should definitely examine the market and project an exponential growth curve. Tesla has a stated objective of producing 20 million units by 2030, 8 years.
Fossil fuels are super useful. That is why we should conserve them and not use them needlessly such as for stationary energy production or most types of transportation, excluding airplanes and rockets. Better to keep fossil fuels for these situations where only they offer a practical solution such as plastics, chemicals and a subset of energy applications. Fossil fuels are limited in supply. Just how limited we don't know but is it wise to rely on that for the most important foundation of civilization, namely energy? And increase our reliance? And that is leaving aside the negative health externalities. Purely in terms of energy security and literal sustainability it seems wise to diversify reliance into solar and nuclear. Even just solar + batteries could replace a giant fraction of grid energy. Sunlight is abundant without a doubt. Gravity batteries don't rely on rare minerals and so can be made abundant as well. I like that a voice like Alex is out there but i do see him like a pendulum swinging too far to the other side of balanced reason. Alex sometimes comes accross as if increasing solar + batteries isn't even a good goal to have. But again i like that he is out there and i disagree with many of the "green" folks and the policies they promote. Many of these policies are misguided, counterproductive and destructive. Many of the people promoting them seem to me very ignorant and that leads me to believe they care more about appearing to do good than actually doing good. They haven't done their homework at all. However i also came upon the following phrase which i think should be considered here: "There is no idea so good that it cannot be made to look bad by government implementation of it". There are good reasons to want to transition to solar and batteries, and there are good ways and bad ways to go about this transition. Not only bad ways. Just because there is alot of noise doesn't mean there isn't some signal. I should also mention that partly as a result of "green" policies more and more people are burning wood for heat poisoning their whole neighbourhood. The damage from wood smoke really is enormous relative to the utility that is provided, and given that other solutions exist. Green are policies causing black lungs all over europe. Looking into the health effects of wood smoke, and how much of it is emitted in typical use may cause dismay to say the least. Gas is a waaaaaaay better solution to the problem of heating homes.
@@freetrade8830 Like electricity and the car and the internet and oil and ... were called "crackpot ideas" or synonyms thereof when they were nascent technologies? Just a possibility to consider. Not quite sure which ideas specifically you are referring too, perhaps the whole lot. As for using solar + batteries: There are thousands of people already living fully offgrid by harnassing the sunlight that hits their property and storing it in batteries. And these are primitive batteries. We are at the start of battery technology innovation. Also note that i am not against fossil fuels. In fact i'm a big fan. One of my favourite uses of fossil fuels is to use them to create solar panels and batteries.
@@freetrade8830 As for the woodsmoke comment. Do you also think smoking causing cancer and heart disease is a crackpot idea? Basically people are smoking at a low level for hours on end in neighbourhoods where there are alot of woodburners. And woodsmoke contains even more toxic stuff than cigarette smoke does
Read his book. It contains plenty of arguments. Or if you can’t or won’t read his book then see his energy talking points or Substack websites that go into a lot of issues, with references.
The Hair: Can't Stop, Won't Stop.
People like Alex help restore my faith in humanity.
The entire climate argument is founded on one single premise: "Just you wait, you'll see, it's going to get bad". Repeat ad nauseum decade after decade.
Hands down the best interview on and views of fossil fuels I’ve seen. Definitely picking this up.
It's pretty sad that we live in an age where the information gathered in this book is somehow antagonistic to the view of the majority. Those in power have a different agenda for obvious reasons so i would not expect anything less from them. The fault lies in the ignorant masses that refuse to do the heavy lifting of educating themselves on these issues.
"... the view of the majority."
The majority of what Epstein calls 'the disseminators' (ie media, writers, etc), and the 'designated experts', who are selected to preach and reinforce the biased agenda.
Always a pleasure to listen to Alex. Make no mistake, he may speak with elegance and charm. he may have those boyish good looks but this guy can and will unload with both barrels irrespective of the feelz or the sensitivities of the audience.
Outstanding show.
I'm no "influencer" but I'm picking up this book. At the very least, my friends and family will get educated when the topic comes up.
If you plan on talking to your friends and family about this issue, I highly recommend Alex's playlist on having better conversations.
th-cam.com/play/PL_itweecuKtBn0OE2Gj-k3Cui2cGzNEFQ.html
I saw it a couple of times and using this approach really helps to make subsequent conversations more likely.
@@YashArya01 very good, thanks
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN flourishing. Energy POWERS every other industry
Any time I see the context box from Google, I automatically want to watch the video. These algorithms are insane with the censoring.
I actually don’t mind them doing that - if that was the ONLY thing they ever did with “controversial” opinions and reports. But, of course, they often do more than that...
Very excellent show! Thank you for having the courage to talk about these views, which I believe really elucidate the real nature of the problem we face and the solutions/commentary on its development and future give great food for thought.
37:05 need that time stamp for a friend
"Expertism" has cost us all these past two 1/2 years... energy freedom cannot be limited/controlled by "expertism"... not merely "experts" but the overall phenomenon: the whole reinforcing system where individuals cede their agency to experts, the process, the outcome, etc.
Fossil Fuels must be considered on its humanitarian basis, first.
1. Water Treatment Plants are mostly powered by electricity.
2. The majority of electricity comes from Fossil Fuels.
3. There's no modern Medical Technology, Medicine, or Procedure that can happen without clean water, for sanitation.
The life expectancy in India has improved as a result of numerous medical and healthcare advancements. India's life expectancy in 1950 was 35.21 and it will be 81.96 in the year 2100. To understand this, it must be noted that India's life expectancy in 2022 is 70.19.
I wish this guy would get on Tim Pool's show or Dave Smith's podcast. This was one of alex's best interviews.
I keep mentioning him in various places. I’m nearing the end of part 1 of his book.
As usual, fabulous! His arguments are rock solid, and more importantly, ethical.
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN flourishing. Energy POWERS every other industry.
Capitalism:The UNKNOWN Ideal by Ayn Rand
ALEX EPSTEIN 's "Fossil Future" on sale now June,2022. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN flourishing
Moreover, co2 is actually very useful. It is being readily absorbed by vegetation and anything that photosynthesizes. The main result from co2 is lush vegetation. This is a fact. People who keep densely planted fish tanks need to inject co2 to support plant growth. Without co2 plants don't grow nearly as thick or lush.
So glad that you understand CO2. Not many people do.
Damn, Alex has more hair than both of them combined
yeah, it's a statement of "F U" towards the boomers :D
When the government say the experts say... The experts need to be out front. Their names as well what disiplin they studied that they are to be considered an expert of. As i am an expert in the comfort of what makes an exclint toilet. Or somthing along those lines. I climb mountains so therefore I am an expert in all things. We need to know just who these experts are as well as we need to know their back grounds are in the area of what they clame to be an expert in. To be able to give advice or directions to others, us.
Uh uh we got a "Context" box. Apparently the UN thinks you're liars. 🤣😂🤣
And the UN has been right about so many thibgs. Check Al Gore's new film CONvenient Falsehoods.
@@mikeharrison3618 Please think of the children. 🥺😭
No, we can assume the context box is true, as far as those words are concerned. Alex’s arguments are unaffected by it.
I have this on audiobook, and I have listened to it twice through while I am driving. I don’t agree with 100% of his arguments, but at least a good 95%, and this is good information that voters need.
Hello Alex. Interesting commentary on fossil fuel philosophically. I have yet to get your book but will shortly. Until then I come at the issue from a different prospective. I worked in the oil business for over 40 years as both an exploration and production geologist. What I’ve witnessed is the oil and gas business is a sunset industry. In other words, the business is rapidly contracting especially in the on-shore domestic portion of the business. The oil and gas industry will last a long time but at increased cost for steel for drilling, steel for casing, pumps, etc. All of the support that is required to extract oil and gas is costly. That could really go up if the materials and people are still available in the future.
This conversation made me think of Milton Friedman quote: society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both. Is that the way to frame the argument as opposed to equality versus in equality? In the Friedman quote you are arguing to 100 of equality or freedom.
Although true, It’s still making a concession to equality as a desirable end.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 Equality is an impossible endeavor. If we rebalanced the entire planet, in less than 6 months you'd have inequality again.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 equality of outcome is a horror show. Equality of opportunity is an excellent goal. However equal opportunity almost (actually probably always) always leads to inequality.
Opposition to lockdowns is not about who can potentially kill who? It is about being defensive instead of running over others. If you honestly think that a particular thing and behavior will protect you then you should adopt that behavior to protect yourself, instead of trying to protect me from me. That is not your job. It is my job and let me take care of it.
12:11 The right “Pro-Freedom Policy” is always a non-policy. That is what freedom is. This misconception is the underlying problem with conservatism.
Pro freedom nuclear war
Incorrect. Protecting rights requires law (policy).
@@freetrade8830 No, that’s a common conservative/minarchist misconception and literally an oxymoron.
@Thomas Hägg Untrue. Private security firms negotiating variable contracts over geographical regions works better. Study/think more.
@Thomas Hägg whoa check your arrogance amigo. You’re in serious danger of sounding like a typically self-contradictory Objectivist. If you haven’t outgrown Rand yet then you’re a ways off. “Over a decade” and you think you understand? Come on man…
The elephant in the room when it comes to 'Climate Change' is the geo-engineering of the weather. Good recent example is massive floods in Australia. In other words they aren't playing fair. They're creating droughts, storms, flooding, etc. Then the collaborative media reports on the events as climate disasters. This is the same method used to drive the cv narrative. You're book sounds great though.
Besides Geo engineering, think of the political engineering such as policy in CA on neglectful Forestry capitulating to Environmental Groups resulting in devastating forest fires year after year. All blamed on ‘Climate Change’.
What can we do to solve the climate crisis?
Allen Savory says that by allowing livestock to graze grass in a controlled manner (planned grazing) CO2 from the air through photosynthesis of the plants will be stored in the soil.
A microbiologist Walter Jehne who says that by always having the soil covered with green growth, the evaporation of water will lower the temperature considerably. He claims that about 95% of the temperature is controlled by water evaporation and about 4% is controlled by CO2. So it becomes very important to keep the soil covered with green growths all the time.
What we also need to be aware of is the large temperature difference between uncovered bare soil, which receives a strong heating and heat radiation, and soil that is covered with green growth. What we should do is always have the earth covered with green plants and trees so that we can capture the maximum amount of CO2 and at the same time facilitate water evaporation from the plants so that the temperature is lowered.
Allan Savory - How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change
th-cam.com/video/vpTHi7O66pI/w-d-xo.html
Walter Jehne - Climate Solutions for a Blue Planet
th-cam.com/video/DQN9t-g2J-0/w-d-xo.html
The Magic of Soil
th-cam.com/video/AWILIYSf5ts/w-d-xo.html
Thanks to Alex. !
Alex Epstein is a genius, and a very honest,
extremely well educated genius at that.
The green agenda and carbon taxes will certainly make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Dude see?!? You already getting solid 1k of views in less than 24 hrs. You and Bob make a good duo. I've tried to listen to Bob's podcasts. Omg, alone, he has zero direction or sense forward. Now you've got yourself a winning team. I only heard about this guy recently so you got him early. 😉
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN flourishing. Energy POWERS every other industry. ALEX EPSTEIN has a TWITTER account.
great talk
Look at a chart with GDP and energy consumption. They correlate almost perfectly. Without fossil energy we would have the same GDP as in 1800.
I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about equality. Equality and freedom don't come together, choose one. If you don't like freedom get out of the west.
I always appreciate hearing the green's claims countered. Claims that bdon't sound right but ones I don't have the knowledge or time to research for myself. I would be interested to hear his stance on subsidies for energy as a whole. Does he ever see a benefit for subsidies for fossil fuels?
He's said elsewhere that he's against subsidies for the energy industry in general (consistent with his history as an Objectivist). He often emphasizes that so called "renewables" are only used in any significant volume in countries where they receive heavy subsidies; if left to compete on a fair playing field, they flounder as expected.
Fossil fuels hardly gets any subsidies, so the question isn’t particularly relevant. The outlandish numbers of “subsidies” that anti-fossil fuel activists complain about are mostly standard business deductions which applies to all industries.
Green Peace is anti fossil fuels and this quote is all they could come up with to slander oil companies regarding subsidies.
"These policies come in the form of tax breaks, low-interest loans, and the failure to account for the true cost of fossil fuel pollution."
It should also be noted that governments collect royalties from fossil fuel development, so it's more of a government investment. The subsidies for renewables, or rather unreliables, are obtained because they would be unable to survive in a free market.
I would love to know what Alex's take is on Roger Pielke, Jr? Pielke seems to have gone off the deep end all in on Zero Carbon? Previously he seemed more moderate and now he has shifted to extreme.
Alex, totally support you, I feel you have missed to inform our skeptics on how fossil fuels even came to exist, what was the level of Co2 to allow such fuel (fossil) to have been able to exist today. There is nothing in this world today under the Co2 we have, gives a future fossil fuel forests for the future, in other words the world is well under the required Co2 to produce such. Also, you need to show the sceptics that, it's not electricity we require, when producing a product to replace every life style product fossils fuels allows humanity to produce for what we require to enjoy life today or to exist.
I read the book and it is excellent albeit imho a bit overly wordy.
His phrasing is often repetitive. The plus point is that it makes it easier for his arguments to sink in, especially if you are initially sceptical of his thesis. Apart from this, based on my reading so far (I’m 1/4 through) the book merits at least the same status as Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource.
if you want some lolz you can go read the salty reviews of the book.
Where?
What was the temp when historical CO2 levels were 15 times what they are today?
Tip: building Fukushima on a fault line is not recommended.
I learned this in grade 8
152.07 Million Kilometer Sun to Eart changes 147 Million Kilometer
every Year
takes Tousand of years to change the Iec age to Global warming
roughly 20,000 the great Ice sheets buried much of Asia, Europe, and North America stooped creeping advance. Within a few hundred years the sea level in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters and also covers Greenland which to melt today. This freshwater flood filled the North at and shut down the ocean currents that conveyed warmer water from equatorial regions northward The sea Ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a result- and
for reasons that remain unexplained
152.07 million Kilometer Sun to Earth changes 147.1 million Kilometer to 94 million Kilometer every year
difference time from the Ice Age 20 thousand years to Ice to melt
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe, and North America creeping advance. Within a few hundred years the Sea level in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters than if the Ice sheet that still covers Greenland were to melt today This freshwater flood filled the now the equatorial heat
warmed the precinct that of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere
instead shrinking the sea Ice and changing the circumpolar winds
As a result -and for reasons that remain unexplained the Southern may have begun to release carbon dioxide enough to raise concentrations in the by more than 100 parts per millennium a-roughly equivalent to rice in the last 200 years then wormed the globe, melting back the Ice sheets and usherin in the current climate
to humanity to drive.
Alex:
I invite all criticism of ALL energy sources.
This criticism is an industrial necessity.
There is no doubt that an industrial revolution led to human flourishing.
But there cannot just be one industrial revolution.
Would you not agree that we need successive industrial revolutions to promote human flourishing?
If we are to move forward, we do not need a retrospective, over-glorified view of fossil fuels.
No type of energy can be put on a pedestal.
To re-frame criticism of fossil fuels as anti-human is disingenuous.
Fossil fuels are not evil.
It is not McKibben's intention to make a moral argument that is over-optimistic about new technology, and project guilt on people in the fossil fuel industry.
Because this will invite over-optimism within the fossil-fuel industry itself, as it attempts to reach net-zero.
We know this is a very challenging goal.
Reaching the next energy revolution is very challenging.
Criticism of all kinds is necessary to move forward.
In it's current state of the art, fossil fuels are regressive.
This is because fossil fuels didn't reach 'net-zero', when we need real-zero.
To continue human flourishing we need to move away from putting carbon in the atmosphere.
I know this is hard for the fossil fuel industry, but that is what science tells us.
Do you even agree with the science?
because that would be a fundamental problem.
Nevertheless, it is possible for people to agree on science but still have different views on an economic/moral level.
My concern is that you are biased toward a moral value that is best expressed in the bible which says, 'subdue the earth' to 'go forth and multiply'.
and this is in direct contradiction of G-ds biblical covenant with humankind after the floods, as told by the story of Noah, we have a duty of care to protect animals and the earth (ie G-ds innocent creations). How do you or Rand's think tank, balance that out?
I am not particularly religious, and the story of Noah has a certain simplistic binary bias, 'two of each kind', that discriminates against trans people, but I use the bible to identify two moral values that might not be exclusive of each other but they seem paradoxical, without an industrial revolution.
Steve
No people. Solved. End of issue.
...what a liberal would say. 🖐😎🇺🇸
Big chungus energy
Clone this man 😳
I'll believe climate catastrophe is a real problem when I see climate "experts" traveling to conferences on a bicycle.
Climate alarmists are a bunch of fools!
Why is no one talking about Thorium Reactors? India has a prototype. It even has a Wikipedia page yet crickets!
Probably because, it's a fantasy. th-cam.com/video/568iDYn8pjc/w-d-xo.html
Russia are building and will build the coming 50 years a LOT of nuclear. And total energy consumption will increase.
We need to focus on decarbonizing Fossil Fuels towards Hydrogen/ Ammonia fuels, advanced biofuels that can replace fossil fuels, microhydro, enhanced geothermal energy, and advanced nuclear power.
Decarbonizing fossil fuels is a process of switching from coal & oil to natural gas then switching from natural gas or methane to ammonia or hydrogen via methane pyrolysis. Methane pyrolysis produces no downstream greenhouse emissions.
All very good but that takes time. In the meantime we need to keep using fossil fuels in the absence of adequate alternatives. And they make us safer from climate, despite emissions.
You're arguing to zero... Against people who are being dishonest at best about their goals.
Elon Musk says we need to produce more oil. He said it like a month or two ago. I think it is well tho for people who understand the positive impacts of fossil fuels to realize that they are being successfully, profitably replaced and there is basically no limit in the ability to do so. I imagine in 10 years 90% of fossil fuels will be replaced. Some use cases like Jet fuel or gas wells capped with a local generator for producing local bitcoin will probably be niche uses. All you have to do with battery powered transportation is to pass on spot prices and they will charge when it is cheap. Peaker plants can be replaced with batteries.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way in hell that fossil fuel usage will be cut by 90% in just 10 years. That drastic of a change that quickly would result in mass death in the third world and would also result in the highest inflation the world has ever seen…like..apocalyptic levels of inflation. I’m not arguing for not going renewable or battery….but it’s going to take a long time and will and should be a gradual process.
@Prep n Rep the peak oil argument is heavily debatable. As technology in reaching it increases, so does the total potential usable pool. Sure there is ultimately a finite amount, but I suspect we are nowhere near that at this moment in history.
It seems more likely to me that current extraction and refinement technology set more of the limit than does the total resource.
If we continue to restrict the use of oil, there will be less innovation in technology to reach, extract, refine and use. This also has the impact of slowing innovation in finding ways to burn it more efficiently and with less pollution.
@@scarletspider1240 Well, apparently you didn't read what I said because I said "profitably" and I made no mention of a government imposed monopoly. therefore I am talking about a market solution which is also optimal, meaning that it would minimize mass death from the perspective of everyone's immediate voluntary choices. Electric vehicle production is growing 60% a year and I expect Tesla to have a 5X multiplier on effective transportation production of Full self driving vehicles, which will make transportation as a service cheaper and better than car ownership. there are also grid storage batteries that can replace peaker plants. It is so drastic that we should be aware. Literally the green new deal is like a socialist plot to take credit for the market's homework, because for many it would be a shame to fix climate problems without implementing socialism.
@@thaddeuswalker2728 nope, I read exactly what you said…and whether governments do it or the market does it, we’re not going to reduce fossil fuel usage by 90% in 10 years. The vast majority of vehicles in existence today are gasoline powered vehicles and most of the cars even still being made are gasoline powered and will collectively be driven on the road for far longer than 10 years. Again, I’m not saying it shouldn’t or won’t happen eventually…but there’s no way in hell it’s happening in just 10 years. You’re not overhauling the entire global transportation system in 10 years…it’s simply not going to happen that quickly.
@@scarletspider1240 Well, at least we are focused on what I actually said. I figure that 10 years gives 2 years into complete replacement of the supply chain and a few years of partial replacement. Each vehicle from now on will replace about a million gasoline miles. These vehicles are going to replace basically all urban ICE by then. Could you believe 80% replacement in 10 years? You should definitely examine the market and project an exponential growth curve. Tesla has a stated objective of producing 20 million units by 2030, 8 years.
TH-cam community guidelines are facist
Fossil fuels are super useful. That is why we should conserve them and not use them needlessly such as for stationary energy production or most types of transportation, excluding airplanes and rockets. Better to keep fossil fuels for these situations where only they offer a practical solution such as plastics, chemicals and a subset of energy applications. Fossil fuels are limited in supply. Just how limited we don't know but is it wise to rely on that for the most important foundation of civilization, namely energy? And increase our reliance? And that is leaving aside the negative health externalities. Purely in terms of energy security and literal sustainability it seems wise to diversify reliance into solar and nuclear. Even just solar + batteries could replace a giant fraction of grid energy. Sunlight is abundant without a doubt. Gravity batteries don't rely on rare minerals and so can be made abundant as well. I like that a voice like Alex is out there but i do see him like a pendulum swinging too far to the other side of balanced reason. Alex sometimes comes accross as if increasing solar + batteries isn't even a good goal to have. But again i like that he is out there and i disagree with many of the "green" folks and the policies they promote. Many of these policies are misguided, counterproductive and destructive. Many of the people promoting them seem to me very ignorant and that leads me to believe they care more about appearing to do good than actually doing good. They haven't done their homework at all. However i also came upon the following phrase which i think should be considered here: "There is no idea so good that it cannot be made to look bad by government implementation of it". There are good reasons to want to transition to solar and batteries, and there are good ways and bad ways to go about this transition. Not only bad ways. Just because there is alot of noise doesn't mean there isn't some signal.
I should also mention that partly as a result of "green" policies more and more people are burning wood for heat poisoning their whole neighbourhood. The damage from wood smoke really is enormous relative to the utility that is provided, and given that other solutions exist. Green are policies causing black lungs all over europe. Looking into the health effects of wood smoke, and how much of it is emitted in typical use may cause dismay to say the least. Gas is a waaaaaaay better solution to the problem of heating homes.
Crackpot ideas.
@@freetrade8830 Like electricity and the car and the internet and oil and ... were called "crackpot ideas" or synonyms thereof when they were nascent technologies? Just a possibility to consider. Not quite sure which ideas specifically you are referring too, perhaps the whole lot. As for using solar + batteries: There are thousands of people already living fully offgrid by harnassing the sunlight that hits their property and storing it in batteries. And these are primitive batteries. We are at the start of battery technology innovation.
Also note that i am not against fossil fuels. In fact i'm a big fan. One of my favourite uses of fossil fuels is to use them to create solar panels and batteries.
@@freetrade8830 As for the woodsmoke comment. Do you also think smoking causing cancer and heart disease is a crackpot idea? Basically people are smoking at a low level for hours on end in neighbourhoods where there are alot of woodburners. And woodsmoke contains even more toxic stuff than cigarette smoke does
He talked a lot and didn’t answer some questions directly. Too much book promo and not enough meaty argument
Can you give more detail?
Read his book. It contains plenty of arguments. Or if you can’t or won’t read his book then see his energy talking points or Substack websites that go into a lot of issues, with references.