Should America Rapidly Eliminate Fossil Fuel Use to Prevent Climate Catastrophe?

Should America Rapidly Eliminate Fossil Fuel Use to Prevent Climate Catastrophe?
A debate at "The Steamboat Institute Energy and Climate Summit, The Nexus of U.S. Energy Policy, Climate Science, Freedom and Prosperity" featuring Alex Epstein, author of the New York Times bestseller The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University; author of Introduction to Modern Climate Change, moderated by Dan Njegomir, Editorial Page Editor, Denver Gazette, held March 12, 2022 in Steamboat Springs, Colorado
Subscribe to the Newsletter: www.steamboatinstitute.org/up...
============================
Visit The Steamboat Institute: www.steamboatinstitute.org/
Campus Liberty Tour: www.steamboatinstitute.org/th...
Liberty Chats Podcast: www.steamboatinstitute.org/li...
============================
Follow The Steamboat Institute:
KZbin: / steamboatinstitute
Facebook: / steamboatinstitute
Twitter: / steamboat_inst
Instagram: / thesteamboatinstitute
LinkedIn: / the-steamboat-institute
============================
Our Mission:
The Steamboat Institute promotes America's first principles and inspires active involvement in the defense of liberty. We stand for the following five founding principles:
1) Limited government
2) Limited taxes and fiscal responsibility
3) Free-market capitalism
4) Strong national defense
5) Individual rights and responsibilities
The Steamboat Institute is an educational organization recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code-and we are here to educate. We are here to help provide tools, information, and inspiration to those who hold the Founding Principles of the nation dear.

[@waynet2165]

I like Alex's trinity - Energy has to be Cheap, Reliable and Abundant. Anyone advocating unreliable energy is dangerous to our society.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

This claim relies very heavily on the idea that solar and wind combined with other decarbonized productions of electricity along with renewable capacity cannot be reliable. I disagree I think advancement along with price efficiency can build a reliable, cheap and accessible power grid.

[@johngage5391]

Excluding the cost of pollution in the price of goods is a classic market failure. Alex never talks about the economics of an efficient market, because it's clear that we get more net benefit from efficient markets, and the fossil fuel industry doesn't want that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6DcmKiGadN_rJI

[@YashArya01]

And Versatile.

[@SWOBIZ]

If unreliable wind/solar/storage was so cheap, there would be no need for any government program to install them. Industry would build the farms and infrastructure at their own expense since they would put their competitors out of business.

[@greenmanbucket]

just like they did with nuclear. Oh, wait.....

[@michaelhutchings6602]

@@greenmanbucket Nuclear is regulated to the point of criminalization. Modular nuclear is finally starting to happen which could be a breakthrough.

[@jespernyman6738]

Just wait and you'll see Dessler is right. If not in a year, in ten years. Wind and solar are getting cheaper by the year. Even China is now installing way more renewables than fossil fuels to their grid (about 120GW new renewables and 60GW new fossil fuels as of 2020).

[@Juznik1389]

@@jespernyman6738 Wind and solar can't EVER be cheaper. It goes against PHYSICS. You have direct energy vs indirect energy. Indirect energy loses ALWAYS to direct energy. And funny you should mention China. China has announced it is going to build ADDITIONAL 150 nuclear power plants, which is more than what the world combined has built in 35 years. Wind and solar are merely stored energy sources, because you need to get the raw materials and then to produce them. How do you think that is done?

[@jespernyman6738]

@@Juznik1389 wind and solar can absolutely be cheaper, they already are. For solar and wind you only need the raw materials to make the panels and turbines, while for oil or gas plants you need to build the plant itself after which it constantly consumes oil/gas to operate. Clearly this is a benefit for renewables. I'm actually a big fan of nuclear. It's pretty much the best (and safest btw) technology we have for energy generation, but it has drawbacks like being expensive and taking a long time to build. In an optimal world we would've all ditched fossil fuels a long time ago and changed to nuclear like France.

[@rtcell]

yes, let switch to renewables - because it "worked" so well for Germany

[@thegeneralist7527]

Impoverish yourself and enrich your enemy. Brilliant government.

[@arturoeugster2377]

When he ( Dressler) mentioned "carbon capture" he proved his narrow mindedness. Most stupid and injust concept. Because it affects peoble living in high elevations, it denies them the ability to grow their own food. Why? Explanation follows in next chapter.

[@henryjanicky4978]

And green ideology is most toxic at present time in Germany with being slave to Russia

[@rayshepherd2479]

I purchased a Tesla 7.5 years ago. The cost for electricity has gone from 13 cents/kwh to 26.5 cents per kwh in California PG&E EV minimum time of use rate. This is at the same time that PG&E has greatly increased the use of wind and solar. In addition as they have added renewables their reliability has dropped. We never even thought of having a backup generator untill the last few years and it's now needed because of all the power outages.

[@williamanthony915]

Here in Sydney, Australia it has gone from 20c/kWh to 33c/kWh. Australia is the biggest exporter of LNG and one of the biggest coal exports. Instead of burning it here we send it to China where their electricity is 8c/kWh.

[@emoshunless]

One of the best debates I've ever seen. Bravo, Alex, Andrew, and host. I say this as someone on the Alex side. He rocked it and Andrew was respectful and fought pretty well. Props to him but the award from me goes to Alex.

[@bemore7410]

Impressed with Alex

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

You’re clearly impressed by very little

[@bingbong3643]

Alex got this guy to argue on his terms. It was over after that.

[@nm0213]

I think its partially the moderators fault, they should have put someone on there who actually knows something about meteorology and climate science. Dan doesn't seem to have the slightest idea about how a debate works. Alex threw so many red herrings and ad hominems that the moderator should have caught.

[@infini_ryu9461]

@@nm0213 Well no, he was throwing ad-hominems to climate scientists in general.

[@brianthom6798]

@@nm0213 Examples of the red herrings and ad hominems?

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

@@nm0213 An ad hominem is an attempt to impugn the reputation of the opponent instead of addressing the opponents argument. If you're referring to Alex's characterization of Mr. Dessler's claims as being fraudulent you're ignoring both sides of the issue. Dessler's arguments are fairly typical of the Green movement in that they lack scientific rigor and social context. Alex puts Dessler's arguments (and that of the Green movement) into context to show how silly and stupid they are, calling them fraudulent is being nice since Dessler and others who argue for the elimination of fossil fuels also argue for the elimination of all forms of cheap and reliable energy. The fraud is that they care about mankind's well being and give a shit about the environment. Wind and solar in the aggregate require far greater "destruction" of nature than all other forms of energy production. They produce less energy and produce it only when circumstances are right, not when it's needed. Once wind and solar become part of the energy grid Dessler and others like him will attack them because of their environmental impact. They obviously don't care enough about energy production to put forth cogent arguments, and they only want to see the human race gone from the earth. They are anti-human racists. A red herring is a distracting premise or argument put forth to divert the opponents attention. You'll need to provide an example. I didn't hear either Alex or Andrew attempt to distract the other. I don't think you know exactly what these two fallacies are, or don't have enough experience to accurately detect them in a debate.

[@farlanghn]

You can do a simple thought experiment to disprove what Dessler says. You have solar on your home. During a sunny day your home is powered by the solar. Sun goes down. Where is your home getting it's energy? The Grid. Now it's a week later. You have a solar on your home but it is overcast and your solar it's producing enough energy during the day. Where is your home getting it's energy? The grid. When Alex says you need 100% backup it is because solar is unreliable. This is what inflats the costs. You could cut the solar out and just pretending like you are doing something. There is not a hospital in America that is powered 100% by solar and wind. You wouldn't risk the lives of people in the hospital. Dessler is distorting the facts. Plain and simple.

[@nm0213]

Bro what!?!? seriously. Andrew explained this so simply. You don't need 100% backup because even though renewable doesnt make energy all the time, IT STILL MAKES ENERGY, you just need to fill the time that renewables cant produce energy with backups. Thats it!

[@farlanghn]

@@nm0213 bro what!?!? Seriously. As I already explained. You need 100% because at any minute your panels could stop producing. You are showing how much you don’t know how solar panels work. If you don’t have 100% backup any dip could affect your home. Andrew only explained how much he doesn’t understand how the grid works. You don’t even have solar panels because if you did you would know that sometimes the inverters go out which prevents the solar panels from working. AGAIN, if that were to happen and you weren’t connected to the grid you would be fucked. Get out of here with you limited knowledge.

[@nm0213]

@@farlanghn Just to be clear you are using a personal electricity grid as an example right? Because obviously you cant compare your shitty personal grid to a nationwide power system. In case you didn't actually watch the debate, we're talking about large scale power structures where entire nations would potentially get most of their energy from renewables. You wouldn't see the massive energy fluctuations when there's both wind and solar used all over the country like you might with personal power systems. Places like Australia and Vermont are already nearing 75% renewables in their grid.

[@wbaumschlager]

@@nm0213 Fun fact: There are times when the sun is down all over the U.S. at once. For that reason alone solar needs 100 % backup. Same thing is true for wind.

[@nm0213]

@@wbaumschlager Solar needs a backup but it doesn't need it 100% of the time. If you think it does, explain to me how.

[@01downside]

Dessler is great at propagating midwit nitpicked climate data and narrative. You can tell with his "cheap" argument. Talks about costs, but doesn't have knowledge of economics to back it up. Alex on the other hand had knowledge on all aspects of the subject as a whole.

[@ibt12]

Epstein rehearses fossil fuel industry talking points. Nothing more.

[@mdombroski]

@@ibt12 They are correct talking points.

[@meltingzero3853]

@@ibt12 Whenever I hear someone talk bad about Alex Epstein in KZbin comments these days, they're doing a short ad-hominem and a sort of "nothing else to know about it" which is pretty convenient as you don't have to critique or rebuke (or even think about) any of his arguments when doing that.

[@wasdwasdedsf]

@@ibt12 physicists are just rehearsing newton talking points, nothing more. mabe your side should try an argument once and stop running away rom reality?

[@mrsmith1097]

@@ibt12 you know that even fossil fuel companies don’t stand up for themselves right? They spend their time talking about how they’re making up for being bad by providing us fossil fuels and how they’re investing in renewables. Alex has to convince even the fossil fuel companies of the value of fossil fuels 😂

[@Drumsgoon]

Well, it is good some 'expert' deigned Alex worthy of a debate. After this one, I doubt other 'experts' are jumping in line to get a portion of Alex's firepower!

[@DavidSiegelVision]

Alex is right. Alex has done his homework. He isn't dogmatic. Dessler can't change his view, because he's bunkered in. He can't see the big picture.

[@jimjones3482]

In what way was He not worthy?

[@RedBricksTraffic]

Wow, Alex absolutely dominated here. Amazing!

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Alex got wrecked dude. No wonder I can’t find any more videos of him debating actual experts.

[@saltburner2]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp You haven't looked carefully enough. There is an online a debate with Bill McKibben, who charged Alex 10 thousand dollars for the 'privilege' of debating him! Alex is not alone in his views, they are very similar to those of Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Moore, Michael Schellenberger and a number of others who have all written detailed books on the subject.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

@@saltburner2 Whoa I guess if you write a book that makes you an expert 😭… how about you follow the money and see where their financial incentives are. If you are in opposition to 99% of the peer reviewed literature on a subject that should raise red flag for any rational human being.

[@michaelnishiguchi3176]

"There's 0 incentive for you to build nuclear in Texas or build other types of firm power and that's a problem with the market. It's not a problem with the energy.... You need to redesign the market to give some advantage to dispatchable power" He spends the entire first half claiming that renewables are cheaper than then goes and says that government needs to step in and help fund renewables because there's no market incentive.

[@jespernyman6738]

That's not what Dessler said though. Basically, because wind and solar power are so cheap (and continue to get cheaper every year) if we don't intervene and just let the market do its thing we'll have a grid that has too much wind and solar and isn't stable anymore. This is clearly a problem with the market, which is why we need to give some incentive to building firm dispatchable power (of which we need about 25% to have a stable grid).

[@bobby33x97]

How about we real the laws that have criminalized Nuclear Energy! Seems like a reasonable place to begin!

[@linkmeup2003]

@@jespernyman6738 You: "Wind and Solar grids are unstable." Also You: "Wind and Solar are not the problem."

[@hbgl8889]

@@jespernyman6738 If markets are allowed to function they will deal with unreliability by simply pricing it in. That's a big if though.

[@erikkovacs3097]

What incentive is there to build a power plant that takes 10+ years to build, will most likely go over budget and could be cancelled at anytime?

[@sigma_curry]

I have no idea how Dessler has a phd. He doesn’t understand basic economics or basic logic.

[@sigma_curry]

The problem is all thise “peer reviewed” studies r by ppl who believe in the “perfect planet premise” and all that primitive green religion stuff.

[@benjaminjeffery6873]

I first got the red pill on the “the perfect planet” premise when I read David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity, the chapter on mothership earth that the naturalist state of human nature IS poverty, and only through wealth: energy: technology can we increasingly adapt in SPITE of our environment. Much to say it then lead to me find Alex; Bjorn; Shellenberger works. The journey of finding out these explanations is truly mentally curing.

[@sigma_curry]

@@benjaminjeffery6873 i check out the deutsch book

[@robgeach8105]

the point of a peer reviewed study is even if the people are complete nutjobs they can still put out a study with reasoned methodology and descriptive math. pretending studies have no value because the people who publish them believe in crazy stuff would put christy and spencer out of a job. instead someone just fixed their math so their measurements didn't look insane anymore. the framing of PPP and primitive green religion is projection from religious people.

[@oldocean5999]

The problem is that scientifically illiterate fools who didn’t even bother to take environmental science 101 presume to be in any position to evaluate the literature of an entire field. Get a PhD in climate science, prove everyone wrong, and then you’ll get a Nobel prize. If you don’t respect peer review then don’t be a hypocrite and go live 1600s-style in a shack without plumbing. See, science (and only science) truly works precisely because everyone is trying to prove each other wrong. What other institution has peer review? None, and that’s why only scientists can get you to the moon.

[@sigma_curry]

@@oldocean5999 u cant get a phd in climate science wo perfect planet premise ideology

[@salliesmith5991]

Love the "I live in Texas, I don't really care what happens in Canada" WTF! I thought it was the planet he cares about, nope!

[@nm0213]

Bro why would he care about Canada? Its Texas and more southern states that are going to feel the negative effects of climate change, not so much Canada and colder climates.

[@mauriciosolano9342]

I mean, Canada doesn't care about outsourcing dirty manufacturing...

[@bobd251]

@@nm0213 This Dessler guy is completely full of crap, what a clown, and not very bright in my estimation. So you shouldn't care about anything coming out of this man's mouth. And don't worry about Texas and the southern states. There's no climate crisis for gods sake. The climate system moves hot air from the equator towards the poles so the poles do actually warm more during a warming cycle. Like a conveyor belt, look up Hadley Cells and Ferrel Cells. It's an awesome system. CO2 is a very small part of the climate system. It can't possibly cause the dangerous warming they are scaring everybody about.

[@northrockboy]

@@nm0213 thats like saying dont care about China's coal plants cause they are over there.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

He was making the point low lands are warming.

[@303Hammy]

You still dig wind and solar out of the ground, and the price of electricity is not static.

[@bigike1313]

Dessler’s argument that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy doesn’t pass the red face test. Germany is easy counter example. Don’t need to look at so called peer reviewed papers which most likely are rubber stamped.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

How is Germany a counter example ?

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp they restarted coal fired electric generation this winter in Germany, because their solar and wind weren't providing baseload power.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

@@wheel-man5319 I believe that has more to do with natural gas being cut off from Russia.

[@wheel-man5319]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp yes, but so far as I know, there's a good possibility that Germany has unexploited NG resources. I know that if instead of building solar and wind they had spent half of that money on building equipment to convert municipal sewage to NG they would have been in a much better place. But if they have coal, and I'm pretty sure they do, then I would expect NG as well.

[@williamanthony915]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp It has something to do with Germany shutting down all remaining 17 nuclear reactors since 2011. It has something to do with banning fracking and coal mining so they have to rely on gas from Russia. It has something to do with spending all of their money on renewables instead of actual reliable energy sources.

[@stuartwood5448]

As soon as he said “let’s not talk about the cost of subsidies” his whole arguments fell apart!

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Lmao how, I think you might want to check to see how much fossil fuel are subsidized 😂

[@williamanthony915]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Yep I've checked. They don't receive any. In the UK oil and gas companies have to pay a 75% tax on their profits. In Australia, the government has a 40% royalty on coal mines on top of their taxes. This royalty gave one of the governments a $10billion surplus in their budget, which they spent entirely on renewable energy. So fossil fuels are taxed heavily in order to subsidize renewable energy.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

@@williamanthony915 Here in the US it’s heavily subsidized… probably the only reason they’ve survived. They’ve been at the bottom of the s&p for the better part of the last decade.

[@williamanthony915]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Yet Biden just put $1 trillion towards renewables? In my home state in Australia, the government put a 40% royalty on coal mines, and made $10 billion from it. Then they just subsidized renewable energy by $20 billion, using the money they got from coal. So actually, the government is taking money from fossil fuel companies, and giving it to renewable energy companies.

[@johnjones6601]

It should be a lay down misère that anyone with a scientific background would win this debate, but Alex Epstein has a degree in Philosophy. A good philosophy degree arm's one with the ability to think deeply and critically about arguments and language, using the Socratic method to detect falsehoods and errors in logic and reasoning and this he uses to excellent effect to make his case.

[@MsOoo90]

Alex did well as usual

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Alex did terrible. All rhetoric no substance.

[@Drumsgoon]

" billions of people are dying from air pollution" - Dessler Whut?!

[@TheDisproof]

He said millions. 1 in 5 deaths are from fossil fuel air pollution according to Harvard and UCL

[@antonyfendt6544]

@@TheDisproof LOL show me the bodies !

[@nm0213]

Didn't he say millions? Thats what the WHO statement at least. If he said billions at some point he just misspoke.

[@Prodigy_Il]

@@nm0213 it's 7 million, and it's from unregulated use of gas, wood/dung burning often in homes I think. So nothing to do with use of fossils with carbon capture, which also need nitrogen capture so we could use it for farming. It's stupid that we don't have it.

[@nm0213]

@@Prodigy_Il It isn't or it could be that too. A study by Harvard says fossil fuel emissions were responsible for 8 million deaths in 2018.

[@willnccc]

Alex lit those fools up, the other guy is full if it!

[@WalterHorsting]

Worry about the next cooling cycle, not warming...

[@Avidcomp]

Dessler stated that when we have enough solar panels we could shut off the fossil fuel plants that were needed to create them. First of all, enough is a large production over a long time, during which time the earliest panels will need replacing as they all will. So when exactly does he advocate shutting off the fossil fuels?

[@VyseLegendaire]

As soon as possible. The goal is to crash the economy.

[@BobQuigley]

98yr old Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's longtime business partner offered the best insight on FF. He is skeptical (he recognizes the PHYSICS of GHG) that climate will happen faster than civilization can respond and make changes. His deepest concern though is spot on! Hydrocarbons are key to civilization as we now experience it. Thousands and thousands of products depend on fossil carbon. He called for keeping these precious molecules in the ground! Extract what's needed for manufacturing inputs. He went so far as to consider them strategic reserves. BURNING these molecules is irresponsible. He recognizes that once extracted there is no FOSSIL FUEL FAIRY who refills the holes at night. All 8 billion precious humans alive today have similar desires. Decent life, future for their kids. And please stop with .. " when does he advocate shutting off fossil fuels.." Lazy unintelligent drivel worthy of ridicule. Unless of course you believe in the Fossil Fuel Fairy

[@Avidcomp]

@@BobQuigley If you think they should be left in the ground before a cheap, plentiful, reliable alternative is found, then you condemn human life to the same fate as using them all up (over say a thousand years) without a replacement. The fact of the matter is that we should continue to extract them because of the prosperity it brings us now. So long as you think of it as sound wealth, then that wealth can be directed towards a future replacement. Given how much we have achieved over the last 100 and 200 years, the potential along a thousand year timeline is unimaginable, but innovation is the trend we see as an example. So long as freedom and liberty to innovate are upheld. It's that last part that is under growing attack. Nuclear is not expensive as an interesting and viable solution, but is made so by restricting freedom and liberty and property rights. Prior to the Carter administration it would take 3-4 years to build and begin operating a nuclear plant. During and after the Carter administration it would take 8 years, then 16 years, along with reprehensible bureaucracy. Since 1974 when the NRC was formed, not one plant has been built in America. The plant at Long Island that finally made it through the regulatory body was stopped by the then Governor, so the investment was lost and fear (rational) set in for future investors. They're being bureaucratically scared away. The B.S. is the cause of the expense, not the plant itself. Those same companies have built those plants in places like South Korea in under 4 years. As for GHG.. the models suck. I do not trust anyone to predict the future if they cannot recognise the present.

[@bobby33x97]

How do Solar Panels do in a West Texas Hale Storm???

[@ceephaxx]

@@bobby33x97 Given that solar panels can already be mounted in arrays high off the ground and rotate themselves to follow the optimum solar input it's surely not impossible to design them to rotate through 180 degrees so that the PV panels face downwards away from the hail storms.

[@dwnlogic]

Excellent debate Mr Epstein.

[@chrisbischof6824]

Alex, tell Dessler the price of Electricity in Germany. As you know, it's the most expensive electricity in the world.

[@henryjanicky4978]

We seems to learn nothing- Germany with green policy si in dire situations and on top burning most fossil fuel. Madness

[@drstrangelove4998]

Desler must know his electric vehicle runs on electricity generated by fossil fuel… 🤦‍♂️

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

@@drstrangelove4998 Don't underestimate the need for denial and self-righteous, backslapping for being superior in their morality these people heap upon themselves.

[@jimjones3482]

And how about now!?

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@drstrangelove4998 I'm sure he believes it runs on moonbeams and unicorn farts.

[@castlerock58]

Epstein is a great debater. This was like Mike Tyson, in his prime, against Stephen Hawking.

[@shlomonissenbaum3750]

In a debate or in a fight?

[@alwill6693]

At no point did Dessler mention Nuclear or Hydro power. When someone ignores other more clean forms of energy than the ones they're peddling, that's a huge tell.

[@kevinoneill41]

Like the none vaccine for ivermectin and other known early treatments.

[@grantw7946]

The words you never want to hear: We're the Gov't and we're here to help.

[@bobby33x97]

To a Left-Wing Jew like Dassler, of course it's the problem of the Market!

[@Whysomean850]

God I hate when elite academics can’t argue anything besides saying “show me the study”! And I’m academic researcher!

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

And they're in denial about institutional capture, i.e. corruption with peer reviwed studies.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Oh wow 😂 yeah don’t you hate it when people ask for actual evidence to back up their arguments lmaoo the worst

[@Chino780]

Dessler made a fool of himself on Joe Rogan and continues that streak in this exchange.

[@donostradingpost1173]

I think he moreso isn't experienced in his talking points. He seems very "green" at debate. Lol

[@benjaminjeffery6873]

Would love to see Alex on joe rogan, would super charge his profile like it did for Michael Shellenberger.

[@gaaligadu148]

exactly ! or lex friedman atleast

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin are terrified to have Alex on their shows (again for Rubin) because of the backlash from the climate cult they'll face.

[@garyhalpin7202]

Overall, great debate. We need more of these. Dessler is at least brave enough to do so.

[@Zack_Raheem]

Yes, finally. I've been waiting for this video to drop.

[@tbroda2351]

In the True North, our people don't have any option except for fossil fuels...at -40 I don't see anything. My husband & I built the most energy-efficient house we could & we STILL need natural gas to not freeze

[@je4270]

Alex has the clearer and more convincing arguments - hands down.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Alex clearly speaks to dumb people that’s the only way I could ever imagine thinking he has good arguments. I don’t think anyone impressed with Alex could explain the structure of a valid argument.

[@je4270]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp insults aren't exactly structurally sound arguments.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

@@je4270 I wasn’t making an argument, I was insulting Alex and anyone who believes him.

[@je4270]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp seems pointless. Better to present your own counter-arguments.

[@saltburner2]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Ad hominem - the last refuge of a scoundrel!

[@richardpiland912]

Surprised that this Institute found a green energy professor who was willing to debate. They usually shun debating.

[@GenHornhead]

This video where facts and reality overshadow fantasy and delusion is the reason greens shun debate.

[@wheel-man5319]

And how ‼️

[@saltburner2]

The few that accept, like Bill McKibben, charge Alex $10,000 for the 'privilege'.

[@paulc728]

It’s crazy how this cheap solar is making energy prices double. Weird.

[@noahgoris2234]

Energy prices are rising because natgas prices are rising not because of solar lol.

[@henryjanicky4978]

We being taken for raid with renovable

[@commentorinchief788]

Dessler says “The current temperature is the perfect temperature because we have adapted to it.” So if the temperature goes up 1° why would we not adapt to that making it the perfect temperature? How does he not realize this invalidate his entire argument?

[@salliesmith5991]

Why can Dessler come up with only one example, sea walls, as to how expensive mastering nature is. I suppose it's because of where he lives and that's all he cares about

[@UmaROMC]

Ask the Dutch about how impossible and horrendously expensive it is. We could do it fifty years ago, and the delta project has created UNIMAGINABLE amounts of human value

[@303Hammy]

I thought the same thing..bizarre thing to focus on. Andrew claims Hurricane Ike almost wiped Houston off the map. This of totally false - areas of Houston were flooded and damaged by by and large, Houston was back to normal within 5 weeks and is thriving today. Catastrophizing

[@highwaymen1237]

Houston flooded because of overbuilding and poor drainage management.

[@Cnick1891]

I thought it was rather odd he kept going back to the sea wall argument also. Alex is not talking about just one method of mastering climate, but it seemed that Andrew could only focus on one.

[@kevinoneill41]

Sea wall. Isn't that what Hustion is? The material to build a sea wall, and it's in the right place.

[@WalterHorsting]

CA keeps adding solar even though they are curtailing back solar from 11AM to 2 PM....

[@TheJpwzrd]

29:00 “fundamental mistake that people think renewables need backup” … hmmm really I noticed that the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing

[@colin_a]

in answer to the question, "Yes!", we need more of it and we need to get fossil fuel production back on line asap..

[@pauldroop]

Dessler is shockingly puerile. His economic ignorance alone is astounding. Why did he insist on spending his time arguing way way outside he area of knowledge?

[@thegeneralist7527]

He is a liar.

[@amarreder6241]

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. WATER TREATMENT PLANTS ARE POWERED BY ELECTRICITY

[@303Hammy]

DESSLER: You need to redesign the market. MODERATOR: How you do that? DESSLER: er eh uh.. you just do it. Dessler is a clear and present danger to the health and safety of millions of people.

[@andrewgohring7625]

Those who dispose of the past as a foundation will founder.

[@PaulPukite]

@@andrewgohring7625 Automatic once the fracking fields continue their inexorable decline.

[@andrewgohring7625]

@@PaulPukite There's 500 years worth in the Permian Basin alone. 500 years is far more workable to find something new than the 10-20 "hoped" for. The current ideals regarding wind, solar, etc are pure fantasy. Thanks for identifying your ineptitude.

[@PaulPukite]

​@@andrewgohring7625 Little fantasy boy has no feel for numbers. You do realize they are doing secondary infill drilling on the Permian already?

[@Nathanhiggerz]

Alex is on the side of correct.

[@farmingganja5277]

Germans ordering firewood for the winter would probably disagree with Dressler about abandoning nuclear and coal.

[@WalterHorsting]

Sun cycles 24-27 portend cooling through 2050...Warming is better for crops, more CO2 is better for crops...colder and less CO2 is worse for crops.

[@stevecaldwell8740]

Dessler keeps talking about analyses and experts without citing real world examples.

[@SWOBIZ]

Why don't we pick a city, say South Bend Indiana, and build it out 75% solar/wind + 25% gas/coal. Then disconnect it from external power sources and see what happens.

[@303Hammy]

Exactly. Alex mentions it a bit but it's something I've said in testimony. Show me a pilot city, county, village, government municipality...anything that works without baseload fossil or nuke power, then scale it. Until then it's all snake oil.

[@jespernyman6738]

That's not how any of this works, you cannot do that with just one city. Part of how a grid with mostly renewables would work is by bringing electricity from places where there's too much generation to places where there's too little. Let's say it's not windy in South Bend and it's night time too so solar isn't producing either. You can replace a part of the lost capacity by ramping up nuclear, gas, hydro, batteries etc. but you also have to import electricity from other places where there's excess production. How such a grid would work is quite widely studied and Dessler points out plenty of studies in which all of this stuff is taken into account.

[@303Hammy]

Oh, gotcha. So renewables are intermittent and parasitic to fossil baseload power. Got it. I'll stick with natural gas, thanks.

[@jespernyman6738]

@@303Hammy natural gas (especially with carbon capture tech) could definitely be one of the firm power sources in the grid. It's not optimal since it still emits some greenhouse gases but it's somewhat better than coal or oil for example. As Dessler points out, the ideal grid would mostly consist of renewables which are cheaper, and have only about a fourth of firm, dispatchable power for the times when renewables are not producing. I thought the analogy that Alex used with the unreliable vs reliable worker was somewhat disingenuous, but could actually be good with some editing. I'd put it like this: Let's say you have a cheap worker (say $18/h) who can only work at certain times of the day, and a more expensive worker, (say $20/h) who can work at any time you need him. Optimally you'd use the cheaper worker whenever he's available and only use the more expensive worker when the cheaper one isn't available. Oh, and the more expensive worker is throwing his shit all over the workplace.

[@303Hammy]

@@jespernyman6738 dessler is very obviously completely clueless on reality. He stumbles and makes a complete fool in this debate. I feel very badly for anyone listening to him for advice on power generation.

[@kimlibera663]

We have clean air standards unlike other parts of the world.

[@commentorinchief788]

“Wind and solar are cheaper.” Also “I don’t want to get into subsidies.” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@andrewgohring7625]

For "greenies"- three words. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. Learn this principle NOW, or we'll all be back to carrying water. Drill, drill, drill. And build 1000 nuclear plants.

[@ASlaveToReason]

1000? Those be rookie numbers.

[@PaulPukite]

@@ASlaveToReason Crude oil is finite & nonrenewable. USA consumes 20 million barrels a day but only extracts 12 million. Something has to give, and putting your head in the sand ain't it.

[@meltingzero3853]

@@ASlaveToReason I am in the right thread.

[@salliesmith5991]

Would love to read the peer-reviewed studies Dessler talks about. Any help with finding those would be greatly appreciated.

[@thegeneralist7527]

Why would you read garbage? These studies are all flawed if their findings are flawed.

[@VyseLegendaire]

Peer-Reviewed is more or less code word for 'industry stamped' today.

[@mdombroski]

This is most likely Mark Jacobson and his clique of cloistered academics. Jacobson actually sued (unsuccessfully) over a PNAS paper that debunked his PNAS paper.

[@infini_ryu9461]

People always mention "peer-reviewed" but it's not always a sign it's actually valid. Just look at nutrition "science". Epidemiology makes statistically significant studies depending on how you break down the data, but it's not clinically significant--In other words, nothing to see. They do this because the layperson can't read stats properly.

[@markvalery8632]

@@VyseLegendaire So you put more weight on arguments from someone who's background is philosophy than scientists publishing peer reviewed articles???

[@mako88sb]

Roger Pielke wrote an article on Sept 30 2019 that went into detail what would be required to reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Basically, starting the day after that article came out, we would need to bring online one and a half nuclear power plant every day while at the same time decommissioning a fossil fueled power plant at the same rate until 2050. He also went with the equivalent using wind turbines which would require 1500 of them being installed every day. Of course energy transition will require numerous methods but what he’s trying to get across is the magnitude of the effort required which is obviously totally unrealistic. I haven’t looked into how much percentage wise we should have progressed by now to be able to reach that net-zero goal and what we have actually achieved but fossil fuel usage is projected to increase for the next few years, if not longer. Sure China is constructing numerous nuclear power plants but they currently burn more coal than the rest of the world combined and are expected to do so for decades to come.

[@TheDisproof]

China is hitting those targets. More renewables added to its grid in 2020 than FF and nuclear. 2020 MW Wind 71,670 Solar 48,200 Nuclear 1,120 Thermal 56,370. Just under 17 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity were installed in 2021.

[@mako88sb]

Science and climate They also produced record levels of coal in 2021. Global consumption of coal by China went from 50% in 2019 to 53% in 2021. As pointed out in Roger Pielke’s article, rising renewables also requires decommissioning of fossil fuel energy sources at an equivalent rate of renewables being brought on line. Clearly that isn’t happening which as I said in my above post shows the magnitude of what needs to be done to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Pielke’s article factors in expected rising global growth. We are pretty well back to global pre-pandemic levels of fossil fuel consumption and the airline industry is still quite a ways from returning to pre-pandemic levels of air travel. The figures Pielke used for his article is readily available and there’s no way the government’s of the world aren’t aware of what needs to be done to reach net-zero by 2050 and how it obviously is an impossible goal. I’m all for clean energy but It has to be done at a realistic pace.

[@rossfleming4111]

Does that hold the amount of energy constant, or does it also account for the huge amount of growth that will be happening in the developing world?

[@maunaowakea777]

That study was a deception from the beginning since he used the total embodied energy of the fossil fuels consumed. For instance, a gallon of gasoline has the total equivalent energy of 33.7 kilowatt-hours But an electric car will typically get (about) 150 miles distance on that same amount of kWh. The difference? A car wastes about 60% of the energy of has as heat. Roger Pielke used the 33.7 kWh as the amount of total energy needed to switch to EVs, this is a massive overstatement and he is intentionally deceiving people.

[@yirgach]

@@maunaowakea777 Please consider that the system used to generate, store and send the electricity to the Ev which must then convert has the same amount of loss. Also consider that using "rrenewable" energy such as wind or solar requires dispatchable enegry to maintain grid stability, this means fossil/nuclear/hydro energy. Ain't no free lunch😂.

[@TheJpwzrd]

27:00 burning wood and dung to warm your home is equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigs a day. I bet they would take the risk of air pollution from fossil fuels. Coal is pretty dirty and I am pretty sure they would take that even

[@saltburner2]

Alex is streets ahead of Dessler. If solar were so cheap, why does it need such massive subsidies? And why have fuel costs risen five-fold in Germany since Putin cut off supplies, and has to burn huge amounts of dirty coal to off-set the deficit, largely because it had shut down its nuclear power stations while France has kept theirs and is in a much better position?

[@Scottar50]

Dessler goes by flawed studies. For instance it has been shown that the EPA exaggerated the pollution from FF. Most of your pollution comes from indoor chemicals and natural sources. Dessler also fails to account for the enormous subsidies required per KW to make solar and wind economical, the enormous land requirement and transmission network plus expensive battery backup in a net zero world. Put the biggest factor that blows his net-zero claims is the enormous amount on materials which have to be mined to get the required minerals to make wind and solar equipment. And that can't be done with electrical equipment. Those are the hidden costs. Same for EVs, the added grid capacity to handle those along with the charging infrastructure will be costly. It's just not economically feasible and likely the world will run out of the materials to make it all happen. So Co2 has been steadily increasing and studies show that most of it is natural from land and largely the oceans heating up due to the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth which varies in several cycles that exceed human's brief lifespans.

[@KiaSorento-tu5op]

Trying to understand this issue by listening to many debates. Alex Epstein is giving a much better argument. Stick with what works until we can safely switch to something else that will be as reliable and won’t cost more (nuclear)

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

Nuclear is incredibly expensive and capital intensive especially to bring to scale. Secondly, cos arguments are terrible and all rely on false premises that you can easily debunk with an hours worth of research.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp can you tell me why nuclear power is expensive?

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

@@wheel-man5319 capital costs.

[@wheel-man5319]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp No other reason?

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

@@wheel-man5319 mainly the capital cost it takes in order to bring to operation.

[@Dogga10001]

Alex has won this debate hand over fist

[@colin_a]

I think we all need to thank our lucky stars that there are people like Alex to argue our corner.. Andrew seems to conveniently ignore the elephant in the room all the time, in fact, he keeps ignoring "all" the elephants in the room. If we had a level playing field, so no subsidy for wind and solar and battery, and all the restrictions on nuclear and fossil fuels removed we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Sorry, but wind and solar are niche industries.. They also only have a life cycle of 20 years, so you then have to build it all again and then deal with the epic waste problems associated with disposing of it.. We need fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro to produce clean, affordable energy, and we need to get on with it before we all go bankrupt and die of cold.. If we don't, I fear there will be an uprising among all the various nations..

[@Wasserbienchen]

If the costs are all there, just deregulate the market and remove all subsidies and incentives. Pass a law that energy companies will not be saved from bankruptcy if they fuck up. Then, watch as everyone scrambles to make that cheap renewable energy... ... except it's not gonna happen, because realistically, companies ALWAYS chase cheap, and we don't need to encourage them to do that. If it was really that great, it wouldn't need all that marketing.

[@zbigniewbecker5080]

All Tesla factories need to be producing batteries for 500 years in order to be able to store one day's demand for electricity in the US, Professor Dessler...

[@henryjanicky4978]

Medness is everywhere

[@davidlloyd5456]

As has been proven using the actual climate models if the total CO2 produced by America were removed from the models then temperatures may reduce by 0.03 degrees. C in the next century. Not one of the 102 climate models actually align with recorded temperature increase. The temperature has been increasing for 20 000 years the 5 degrees. C increase is theoretical based on inaccurate models. The reason wind and solar have become cheaper is due to carbon tax being added to coal and oil.

[@henryjanicky4978]

Spend trillions on climate change and no mining full improvement or any visable changes will be noticeable. Spend fraction of it on construction of schools, hospitals, roads, factories, dams,irrigation systems, comunity housing will improve significantly live of millions. JUST COMPARE AND LEARN

[@AndyS52]

Dessler really came out with the most idiotic claim that electricity always costs the same amount

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

❤️❤️❤️ Alex! Spit on!

[@RW-bt6ex]

Maybe you should research just what is made with fossil fuels before you try to do away with it .

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

The lower cost argument that the "Green" energy people keep putting forth is puzzling on a lot of different levels. Why in the hell would anyone who thinks the world is going to end...care about costs? They always seem to be baffled by cost related terms like "capital expenditure" and "productive lifecycle". If you ask them about "material costs" they start talking about CO2. The most basic accounting related questions seem to...well, flummox them. This presents me with the choice of thinking that the "Green" energy people are either accounting fools or foolish accountants.🤔

[@highwaymen1237]

Start raising the tax on gasoline and Diesel. What are you going to do when you have a massive cold front and the solar power supply shuts down.

[@h.gibbsbauer4139]

Excellent discussion.

[@commentorinchief788]

Is Dr. Dessler willing to put his life on the line if his predictions are wrong (they are) and his policies kill billions? Will any of these people be held responsible for the damage they have ALREADY done?

[@paulgeorge1144]

"Solar and wind technology is getting better and cheaper,"...so is fossil fuel technology! An example would be the new gas turbine engines used on planes.

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

55:16 Mr. Dessler lost any credibility in my estimation with the "Chinese wind turbine" sighting during his trip there. I do not doubt that he has been to China and I do not doubt that he saw wind turbines in the distance, but I know what it's like to be a foreign guest in a totalitarian society. You see what they want you to see. And minders are just...creepy.

[@garyhalpin7202]

Professor Dessler, the Texas grid is far from a free market. You keep mentioning lack of subsidies is a fault of the market, which is absurd.

[@seaplaneguy1]

Both sides are wrong. Renewable Energy (RE) is energy harvesting. The grid is an on demand system. Cars, Trucks, airplanes, houses are on demand. Key point... If we ran our food system as an "on demand" system, food prices would be 10 to 20 times more than they are now. We harvest food and we should harvest RE. We store food and we should store RE. How then to harvest energy? Batteries? No, they are full of CO2 and very expensive. How then? Make fuels? Yes, Fuels are the batteries, not batteries. Making fuel from wind/solar OFF grid is much cheaper than making it for the grid due to the on-demand nature and value of a fuel. By turning RE into a fuel, the energy has a much higher value. By not having a battery, the vehicle can be 1/2 the weight or less. The lower weight makes up for the energy cost of making fuels. RE to wheel is the same. How then to use the fuel? Old ICE engines are about 4 times less efficient from the pump to the wheel. If you put RE fuel into an ICE car the CO2 is 1/2 that of an EV. This says that by making fuel you cut CO2 by over 2x over EV when both are running on 100% RE. Key is to have a new type of engine that allows high efficiency while being able to use solar thermal (6 times more energy capture) so as to make electricity for fuel making and cover thermal loads in buildings. This energy problem is not hard to solve with the right combustion tech. It will take about 20,000 hrs of engineering work for a first prototype. This can be done by engineers on a free basis, like what I am doing. Literally, CO2 can be solved for less than $200,000 dollars with first prototype with free engineering. It does not take $trillions. This NewEngineType . com NET tech is the ONLY net zero tech that can get to CO2 neutral. Grid RE with batteries and EVs cannot get more than around a 30% reduction in CO2 over old ICE cars on gasoline. NET used over 60 years can be 30 times less CO2 than an EV... Game over for EVs when you understand this fact. Folks, net zero is possible with NET, but not with anything either is talking about. NET also can use nuclear via fuel making. Nuclear (constant) = electrical loads (variable) + fuel making (balancer). No wind or solar PV farms are needed or wanted. All is solar thermal on buildings and nuclear. No gas, coal, diesel or oil is needed. Make electro fuels and electro plastics.. to get off of oil. EVs rob the $ from fuels which are the precursors to plastics. Walk (fuels) before you run (plastics). They feed on each other and both are needed to get off of oil. EVs do nothing for this key issue. NET does.... So, as I explain, both are wrong. In fact all the guests are wrong. Both sides of the CO2 debate can use NET. Those who think CO2 should be tripled (me) and those who thing CO2 is evil and must be zero or less, can both use NET tech. I use it to get cheap fuels, and the CO2 hater uses it to eliminate CO2. I recycle CO2 to get cheap fuel. The hater recycles CO2 to get to CO2 neutral. Different goals leading to the SAME solution. No solution I have seen on any of your forums has both sides solved with one solution. The cost is also around 30 times less than GND. 2-6 cents/kwh. 2 for solar day, and 6 with fuel. Car would get 120 mpg on $1/gal fuel (Ethanol made from electricity). Again, this problem SAVES money. There is no $145 to $350 trillion price tag. It SAVES a person 20% of their income. Now we spend 25% of income. Biden will be 50% of income. NET will be 5% of income. Result, energy independence for all, from USA to the poorest African nation. All have all the energy they want. It also works in airplane...no more roads...except local.

[@Junglebtc]

That other guy recommending a 25% reliable grid with 75% solar wind. Do it with 40% reliable and 60% Solar wind would be less prone to blackouts and may not be as costly

[@pauljackson2409]

This this falls at the first hurdle. Here is how Climate Change is defined in the notes: 'Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels'. So this deliberately deceptive definition, explicitly ignores the natural causes of these long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, which have caused huge climate variations for hundreds of millions of years. How the hell can you formulate policy on energy use, if you are not looking at the whole picture? In a survey of professional members of the American Meteorological Society, conducted in 2015, almost half disagreed that 'climate change' was mainly, i.e. >50%, caused by human activity. Many well credentialed experts believe that the human impact is in fact minuscule.

[@suew4609]

I live in a 2000sqft home in CA that has 29 solar panels. We paid so much for the panels and installation that we are paying $245/month to pay it off on 20 plus years. We also have to pay a true-up at the end of the year, of $1100, for energy we used from the grid. Tell me how solar is helping me save money? We used to pay a yearly average of $265/mo. We now pay $336/mo. We were sold a bill of goods! Also, when the power goes off, you can't use it unless you spend another 20,000 for a energy storage system. We are 65+ and we'll never see a savings. It's all BS, that unfortunately, my husband bought into!!! Besides, solar and wind deface the earth. They are ugly!

[@amarreder6241]

SAD IMHO

[@kenlyneham4105]

The USA population is 3.3 million, while China has 1.3 billion people along with most of the world's manufacturing. Which country do you really think would make a difference by reducing fossil fuel use?

[@PuckSlappy]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant and causing any catastrophe. CO2 is essential and the gas of life. CO2 has been dropping for 500 million years from a peak of 6,000PPM down to close to 200PPM. Plants die and life would end at under 150PPM. We are currently over 400PPM and very little of that ~4% is due to burning fossil fuels.

[@panosstavroulis9417]

it;s not 4% it's 0.04% convenient to talk with 200 400 etc. Cause it doesn't mean much to many.

[@PuckSlappy]

@@panosstavroulis9417 Yes it's .04 of the total atmosphere but I meant as % of CO2 output 96% is from naturally occurring events (oceans warming from solar activity) and we are about 4% of the total from burning fossil fuels.

[@Avidcomp]

EV's are better than IBC cars? Trying setting off home on a long drive through freezing winter weather. Your EV battery won't like it. And more EV still makes more demand for electricity which needs to be there on tap whenever you need it. So if your own board with ramping up nuclear then say it loud.

[@PaulPukite]

NoDak's famed shale oil is rapidly depleting. Whatcha gonna do about that?

[@Avidcomp]

@@PaulPukite Permit geo-search for more by removing more regulations. We we're told a few decades ago we'd reached peak oil. Then we found more.

[@PaulPukite]

@@Avidcomp LOL, found more expensive bottom-of-the-barrel sh!t oil. The USA consumes almost 20 million barrels per day while only extracts about 12 million per day. Where is the rest of that 8 million coming from, if you believe the lie that the USA is a net crude oil exporter? The world is past peak oil, time to move on.

[@Avidcomp]

@@PaulPukite "Move on" ? You'd rather import 20m bpd than 8! And what of the increase exports through HF as a revenue stream? The move ought to apply to wind and solar (unreliables) get them off the grid.

[@PaulPukite]

@@Avidcomp You apparently can't do math. Recently the USA was considered the #1 producer of crude oil in the world. If they exported 10 million barrels per day then they would need to extract 30 to meet the needs of 20 million that they consume per day! It's all creative book-keeping to keep the citizens clueless as to our growing energy deficit. Even Texas realizes wind and solar will continue to increase as a percentage.

[@mdombroski]

Dessler's scatter plot at 19 minutes in does not prove what he thinks it does. The states are almost all interconnected. California and Germany are much more relevant. What's really interesting about Dessler's plot is that the middle of the cost axis is populated with California and NE Atlantic states. The high cost end has only outlier Hawaii. Note that these are states with strong green policies, but they have low to middling solar/wind fractions. What his plot shows is that green policies don't work when it comes to reducing fossil fuels!

[@thisguy3032]

Dr Dressler says things like , “just look at what people are trying to build now”, 59:10. No kidding they want to build solar, in California.SDGE charges over $0.35/kWh. On the low end. And the gov gives rebate incentives. What people do to pay less for energy or for incentives is not the flex you think it is. Your argument would hold water if all things were equal, like no incentives between sources.

[@wbaumschlager]

All that professor Dessler proofed here is that he is not an economics professor.

[@CreepSoldier]

When the other guy started to stutter he had already lost it

[@AscendantStoic]

The faster we develop tech that allows us to adapt efficiently to extreme heat and cold the better, because we will NEVER be able to stop climate change, it was always changing before we were around and it will continue to change in the future, sometimes slow, sometimes fast and sometimes abruptly as a result of a super-volcano eruption or a meteor, so better get that tech sooner than later (not to mention it could be used to colonize other planets with varying temps as well). It's also so funny that Prof.Dessler is acting like earth has one unified temp when the difference between the hottest and coldest places on earth is 30 degrees Celsius/86 degrees Fahrenheit, and humans live in both, so we already can deal with a vast difference in temps (not just 5 or 10).

[@ICPR1200]

The start point is always missing from these debates, which is to ascertain the benchmarks, and that must start with the premise. The premise is AGW, s the question should be to provide the scientific method for this claim, and when they fail to do that (they always do), then they have to revert to the political convenience of the precautionary principle and models, hence must provide the evidence of the critical equations to then solve the closure problem. They can't do that either, and this I know because I have asked them all, going up to the IPCC, so the whole argument collapses at the first benchmark principle.

[@jonathanlunn2464]

Agw?

[@mb3799]

@@jonathanlunn2464 Anthropogenic Global Warming

[@williambaikie5739]

At least Dessler wants nuclear, but he is way off on everything else. Build the solar PV panels and other components in America and they are still way too expense. Wind is even worse.

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

But he's disingenuous about why nuclear has become so expensive to build. His ilk regulated it out of existence practically.

[@thebeanstalker631]

Podcast link?

[@meltingzero3853]

I am a great fan of Alex Epstein, I am in agreement with his points. Precisely because I think so much of him, I think he was not at his best in this discussion. He missed tons of opportunities to paint direct and specific pictures to the audience of why Dessler is making moot points, and instead opted to double, triple, tenfold down on the same sentence "You need to look at the full context". That doesn't mean anything anymore the second time you say it, and instead of reiterating it and treating the audience like they need to be told things more often, he could've spent that valuable time with specifics. The most important instance is that he never responded to the allegation on fossil fuels that they were causing an exorbitant amount of deaths where he could have critiqued the bad deaths accounting (although I don't know if Alex had made this point or Michael Shellenberger), or said that pollution deaths are to be seen in context of increase in life expectancy, or that it can be and is improved with filtering technology. Regarding life expectancy, he could've argued that hundreds of millions of people die from air pollution because they lack fossil fuel plants, not because they have them. Why? Because without clean fuel for cooking from oil or gas, people cook their food indoors from wood or dung which has terrible consequences in terms of lung disease. Solar panels on the rooftop can charge your phone, but not run a stove. They need LPG, not solar panels. Individual arguments like these - talking points, you might say - is in my perception what will make people in the audience realize that one person is looking at green-biased, university manufactured and wrong literature that has no bearing on the real world, while the other is looking at the full context. Much moreso than telling the audience that "you have to look at the full context" for the 10th time. I might be wrong in my judgment of the situation, also it might just be Alex not being at his full capacity this particular talk around. But if my point is correct, I hope looking forward that Alex will along these lines develop better at argumentation in coming debates.

[@donostradingpost1173]

Can't solar panels run an electric stove?

[@meltingzero3853]

@@donostradingpost1173 You're right, you can run an electric stove with solar panels. You need a lot of them, though, to get enough power, or extra batteries. And installing solar panels + batteries + an electric stove is not realistic for the lowest income segment of the world. Producing and selling liquefied petroleum gas is a much better way of helping these people not get lung disease on a large scale.

[@kevinoneill41]

No matter you can not argue with a closed door.

[@meltingzero3853]

@@kevinoneill41 Pardon?

[@markschuette3770]

we need to shift to the energy source that has the least negative effect on all the ecosystems we rely upon! thus we do not want cheap subsidized energy! we want expensive/clean energy! this is called sustainability. extreme energy efficiancy will be needed.

[@thebryanhigh]

LOL... he literally said he "doesn't want to talk about subsidies"

[@Dogga10001]

Why is Texas the second most populous state? It is warmer and everyone likes it warmer.

[@TheJpwzrd]

6:02 “I have an electric car, I fill up my tank for $10 the price will be the same next month” the man is oblivious to supply and demand, what happens when a bunch more electric cars are sucking from the grid, where is the energy coming from? And it takes 20-30min to ‘fill’ your electric battery. So your time must be worth 0 to you.

[@BedrockLeadership]

Sadly Dessler reinforces the meaning of PhD . . . Piled Higher and Deeper.

[@elkabong8454]

Knew the Aggies was a typical Aggie when he said electric costs don't fluctuate. /lol

[@poetmaggie1]

The wisdoms that be by eliminating fossil fuels are going to create much suffering and death especially in the winter, It is already happening is parts of the world. How does making a human catastrophe prevent a climate catastrophe?

[@davidpennmiller354]

Andrew’s claim that costs did not increase in the countries that did added renewables is laughably false. It is well documented that energy prices soared in Germany, Spain and California who are the leaders in adding renewables.