The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels | Alex Epstein | Talks at Google

Energy philosopher Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, challenges conventional wisdom about the fossil fuel industry and argues that if we look carefully at the positives and negatives of all our energy alternatives, we have a moral obligation to use more fossil fuels, not less.
Get the book here: goo.gl/nejqGy

[@atgred]

I live in Monterrey, Mexico. Here we have a “dry” river called Santa Catarina. What floods this river are hurricanes that enter through the Gulf of Mexico and when they touch ground in the state of Tamaulipas they become tropical storms. I was born in 1975, my first experience of this river flooding was in 1988, hurricane Gilbert. Many people died, about 500+, many were never found. The material loss was huge. After that, the government invested in a huge dam that is between the mountains of Monterrey. Many were very mad because it would alter its ecosystem, the government argued it was more important to save lives then what would happen in that place where the dam was going to be built. A lot of money was spent, a lot of resources, and no one would even consider how much fossil fuels were used to build it and much less consider the CO2 emissions caused by it. And that if the hurricane was caused by “global warming”. No one thought anything about those subjects, in a very public way, I mean. Then came 2010, Hurricane Alex, even stronger than the last one, and thanks to the investment made, about 51 people died and there was less material destruction and investment was more in making better streets and bridges that either cross or run along the river. And just this year, 2019, hurricane Fernand, just one person died, and the streets and bridges were left intact, and it was an even stronger tropical storm then the two before!!! This shows human ingenuity to build a safer city, educate ourselves on the dangers of floods and how to use the resources at our disposal and that includes fossil fuels, which made all this possible. So yes fossil fuels have made my city safer. Is it a free polluting city? No, it is not, has life expectancy fallen because of this? No it hasn’t. Do people then don’t go and enjoy themselves outdoors? This is a very touristic city and has a lot of outdoor activity. So we are OK. And hope your cities are too!!

[@cdmarshall7448]

If Pompeii happened today it would somehow be blamed on climate change. California has vastly improved quake safety since the 70s with amazing innovative technology. I agree it can be done if the will is there.

[@dylanm3519]

@@cdmarshall7448 how does a volcano erruption have anything to do with global warming? Heating our planet is going to have far reaching adverse effects. Climate Change doesn't just mean more flooding or drought. It means temperatures so hot in the middle East that it is unlivable. Drought so bad, we will lose entire crop yields. Floods so harsh that entire cities will be decimated. Yet fools want to continue to push fossil fuels.

[@cdmarshall7448]

@@dylanm3519 Yeah climate changes. You adapt or die. Many species die because of climate change all of our cousins, in fact, didn't make it. When the planet cools again maybe humans will become extinct. I won't know, that's not for around 10,000 more years.

[@dylanm3519]

@@cdmarshall7448 you don't seem to realize what's coming. There are billions of people living in coastal cities. In the next hundred years, we will see 15 feet of ocean rise from the melt of the Greenland ice cap if we continue to use fossil fuels. That means adapting by losing all those cities. The cost will be far beyond adapting. The costs will go far beyond anything we lose from shifting away from fossil fuels.

[@cdmarshall7448]

@@dylanm3519 Has nothing to do with fossil fuels, CO2 is not the driver of our climate, neve has been. You've been fooled for a Ponzi scheme. No empirical evidence exists for CO2 being the driver of climate. The climate will change as it always has, humanity is just a short term passenger on this planet. If you want to ensure the survival of humanity support space exploration and nuclear or better as a means of energy.

[@LifeWithTarsha]

I appreciate his focus on the framework of the debate. I think this is the right starting point. He approaches the topic objectively and discusses pros and cons before delivering his full conclusion. Alex has made me think about things I had taken for granted.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

That's why the radical environmentalist get really mad about him. They'd prefer to argue against the average run of the mill conservative, who just yells "Socialism! Socialism!" "Agenda 21! Agenda 21!" Alex Epstein makes you actually think and understand the context of the debate, and makes you have to accept that there is a cost of going against fossil fuel that you have to think about, giving how much our lives are dependent on fossil fuels.

[@Nhoj737]

@@jeviosoorishas181 " . . . you have to accept that there is a cost of going with fossil fuel . . . " “The UN Special Report found that: There has been around 1°C of global warming to date, almost entirely caused by human activities that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) - particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Global warming of 1.5°C would result in risks to natural and human systems, including ecosystems, wildlife, sea level rise, food and water security, and human health and well-being. researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0594

[@Nhoj737]

@@averybrooks2099 "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

@@Nhoj737 Congrats you replied to a year old comment with a link to John Cook's website the guy who has repeatedly lied on his website and is responsible for the 97% myth. This shows that the models are wrong journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 you may be able to find the study elsewhere but it shows that the current models predict twice as much warming as we would realistically have even under the assumption we cause warming. I can link you to websites that have shown off some of John Cook's website's lies, and can also point to you his use of wording to deceive you however I doubt you plan to drop John Cook anytime soon. Never cite John Cook or his website, in the climate community he is a joke.

[@Cenot4ph]

@polka where are those results of those models that actually map directly to the truth? They don't exist and that's why the models are used as a tool to force an agenda and not as a tool to demonstrate the eventual truth. With that said, the whole CO2 debate is already biased from the get go. The reality? The influence of CO2 is overestimated and likely doesnt have the impact we think it has. The alarmism has no solid grounds to exist and we should focus our attention on actual issues like plastic waste

[@chapter4travels]

One of your best speakers yet, very clear line of thought.

[@ddstar]

Objectivism.

[@KaliszAd]

Some of the arguments and values are great, some arguments just don't seem to hold up. E.g. deaths because of climate change. It might be, people just aren't as poor as they were and can handle bad situations better. Now is it because of fossil fuels? Perhaps. Is it more likely, people are just more well off because like half of the developed world could focus on more productive stuff than keeping up the cold war until like 30 years ago and the rest of the world is also much less poor than even a decade ago? Is it maybe, that goods are much cheaper now because of the manufacturing powerhouse of China and other very hardworking folks in the world? Yes, a great talk and clear argumentation. The content of the arguments, some unusual and good point and others rather an oversimplification to such degree as to almost be considered a straw man/ lie. It is hard to see beyond his very good rhetoric skills. But as I say, some great points e.g. I agree we should focus on the human aspects much more, that is a value I hold very high. Btw. regarding the fossil fuels vs "unreliables". The situation changed dramatically since ~2017, the International Energy Agency (IEA) writes in the report www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=overview "Supportive policies and maturing technologies are enabling very cheap access to capital in leading markets. With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gasfired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen." The agency even reconsidered estimates for the future, estimating more usage of solar, because it trends cheaper than previously thought. The Internation Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) supports these findings: www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost We know, that the wind doesn't blow constantly and the sun doesn't always shine even during the day and can quite reliably predict it days in advance/ can also apply statistics. It is a factor in planing from the start, else we cannot calculate the return on investment and will not get funding. With storage or enough transmission capacity, we can work around these problems and flatten the peaks and valleys in production or demand. The central limit theorem then is our friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem if we have enough independent sources (which we might create by having long distance transmission capacity or vast storage capacity basically). Also, in some rather remote parts of the world, solar and wind (and perhaps micro dams) is the only way we can generate electricity economically. E.g. where we cannot buy or transport diesel fuel easily. This doesn't only concern islands and "third world" countries but also remote parts in the USA.

[@chapter4travels]

@@KaliszAd You are reading propaganda, renewables are not cheap. All the wind & solar does is hopefully replace some NG fuel which costs 2.0 cents/kwh. It does not replace any infrastructure which is the bulk of electricity cost. In fact it adds massive infrastructure costs. The cost of those massive infrastructure add-ons and costs are not included in the EIA analysis. Or in any of the usual tripe from IEA & Lazard. 1) The new transmission lines to wind & solar farms are an ADDITIONAL cost to the existing grid which still must be manned & maintained for the majority of time that wind & solar are low. And transmission lines to wind must be oversized by ~3X to supply their peak power, whereas their avg power is 1/3 of peak. Similarly solar farms must have transmission infrastructure oversized by 4X. And that means high line losses. Look for line loss of ~25% on wind/solar transmission. 2) All the wind & solar is doing is theoretically replacing some NG fuel worth 2 cents/kwh. But the induced inefficiencies of cycling on the buffering fossil power supply pretty much negates that fuel saving. 3) Add to those costs very expensive submarine & long distance transmission in order to import power from remote suppliers when wind & solar are low and export when they are high, dumping the power at often negative pricing. That alone is more expensive than the substitute NPP's that don't need the long distance transmission. 4) The inevitable curtailment cost when wind & solar are surplus and unwanted. 5) The Overbuild cost, which must be done with wind & solar, total energy inefficiency on steroids. 6) Negative pricing losses and inefficiency, again inevitable with wind/solar. 7) The added cost of of grid stability batteries (i.e. Tesla) as are being added to the grid now, for when wind/solar craps out suddenly, as it often does. 8) The huge added cost of expensive grid storage with 10-70% round-trip energy loss. That alone is more expensive than a substitute NPP that doesn't need the storage. 9) The added cost of economic inefficiencies of running the fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro & geothermal plants intermittently rather than full out 24/7. 10) The economic forcing of low efficiency diesel, OCGT & dirtiest coal replacing high efficiency CCGT, cleanest most efficient supercritical coal, nuclear & hydro means increased grid inefficiency and operating costs 11) Massive added cost of having a duplicate energy supply for when wind & solar are low. Includes pipelines, gas/oil/coal storage, oil fields, gas fields, tankers etc. 12) The high decommissioning costs and waste disposal costs of the wind & solar that are not paid up front unlike for nuclear. Wind & solar require >300X the land area of nuclear and >18X the material inputs. With a lifespan of 10-30yrs vs nuclear at 60-100yrs. What is the added cost of all that massive land use, opportunity cost, environmental cost? Not accounted for. 13) The Seasonal variation of wind/solar. Many large regions, i.e. a giant swath of land from Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Britain, Northern Europe & Russia or Monsoon season regions, that have upwards of 5:1 variation (as high as 10:1) December:June. There is no known storage method to economically compensate for that. Hydrogen methods are ~30% round-trip efficiency with very high capital costs & extreme physical limitations, not even close to feasible. 14) The Geographical limitations of wind/solar. There are vast regions that have poor solar and/or wind resources, coupled with #1 & #13 above mean severe limits on wind/solar capability to replace fossil 15) Climate change will move the areas of best solar & wind locations. So plants being built now are in optimal locations which will shift, once again impairing the economics of wind/solar. This effect has already resulted in serious declines in hydro outputs in many areas. And it is well known that the primary effect of climate change is to reduce the temperature differential between polar & equatorial regions which is the driving force for wind energy. Avg wind speeds will decline, since wind energy is proportional to the cube of wind speed, a 50% drop in wind speed will result in a 87% drop in wind energy making those sites giant towers of scrap metal. 16) The high added cost of doing BEV charging in the most inefficient method = fast charging stations in the daytime when grid is already at max output rather than at home charging at a slow rate overnight when there is surplus baseload generating capacity with low nighttime prices. Nighttime BEV charging will increase the efficiency of Baseload power generation, allowing all power to be high efficiency baseload, reducing grid costs accordingly. 17) The Electricity Grid is the largest factory on Earth. Like all large, expensive, high embodied energy machines you want to run them 24/7 not whenever the wind blow or sun shines or conversely shutting 70% of your buffering infrastructure down. That's why wind & solar are made in giant factories running 24/7 not whenever the wind is blowing. 18) Wind & solar are always going to be severely and inescapably limited by the fact that they are a diffuse intermittent seasonal energy source. No getting over that.The EROI of wind/solar/batteries grid is so low as to be a physically impossible replacement for fossil. As you try to run wind & solar factories on wind & solar energy the law of diminishing returns will cause rapidly spiraling cost inflation while destroying the balance of the economy resulting in total economic collapse will before wind & solar can supply even 50% of the world's industrialized nations energy. Wind & solar can only exist by siphoning energy off of fossil, nuclear, hydro & geothermal energy. Electricity prices directly correlate with wind & solar grid penetration. An intermittent, fluctuating grid is a low efficiency grid as proven by a survey of 68 nations over the past 52 years done by Environmental Progress and duplicated by the New York Times shows conventional hydro was quite successful at decarbonization, nuclear energy was also very successful and both wind and solar show no correlation between grid penetration and decarbonization. In other words wind & solar are not replacing fossil, they are a complete waste of money. Well over $2.5 trillion worldwide down the sewer already.

[@KaliszAd]

@@chapter4travels Thank you for the exhaustive answer. You are giving numbers without linking sources, which makes it quite hard to look at them and make up my own mind how to interpret the data and the methods how the data was obtained. I would actually be very interested in good sources with robust data and methods of measurement. If I search for the hints you have given, I would spend like an hour just going through your answer and perhaps I will only find a fraction of the sources because how search works nowadays... of course, some of the data is quite obvious so let me quickly answer at least that. 1) Yes, partially. Current transmission lines in the USA don't seem to be in a great shape as it is currently and at least some very serious problems with it cannot have anything to do with renewables. At from what I can remember the Camp Fire that killed 85 was caused by bad maintenance practices on the power lines, basically a very old hook was sawn into half: hackaday.com/2020/09/17/closely-examining-how-a-pge-transmission-line-claimed-85-lives-in-the-2018-camp-fire/ Actually, any network has the property that maintenance doesn't scale linearly with the size or usage of the network. I know this from vast computer networks and energy transmission will most likely be not that much different even though usually more is at stake. Actually, oversized infrastructure usually has lower losses when used just at a fraction of the capacity. This must be the case with electrical transmission lines as well, as the current is lower and therefore the losses are proportionally lower as well. The bigger the difference between voltage and current, the better. That is why we have hundreds of kilovolts voltage but just hundreds to low thousands of amperes in transmission. I don't think the voltage changes, so the only way to change the amount of power transmitted is by changing the current. P = U * I = I^2 * R so dropping the current (e.g. by making voltage higher) is a good proposition. In some countries, the grid is quite dense so smaller installations e.g. on warehouses or over parking lots has marginal added transmission line costs. This is also a reason, why some company owners install solar without subsidy today - because it just is good business in some countries where electricity prices are higher. Yes, we don't use the transmission lines at 100% most of the time. Guess what, we do exactly the same thing with our data networks, which are very expensive as well and it is ok. 2) Sorry, no clue what you talking about. Next Generation fuel? Yes, perhaps there are some economies of scale that would be impaired or storage costs or whatever. We seem to be quite competent about figuring out logistics generally. This point is exactly, where more concrete information would be great. 3) Perhaps. People usually don't build stuff, that is not economical. Some hard data on costs, whether there were subsidies etc. would be great. 4) We know how to handle this, let people use the cheaper tariff, smart meters that turn on e.g. water heaters when the price is low, offer companies to cooperate (we do this already e.g. in steel foundries). We need this for fossil fuels as well. E.g. there was this problem in Europe, where something happened in Bulgaria or Romania and the grid went out of sync. These countries don't use much renewable energy so the problem (and it was big) was caused by some failure in the more traditional parts of the infrastructure. Suffice to say, there was no big impact (big blackout) even though whole Europe could see it as we only have a single grid. So yes, we need management opportunities even with just coal/ gas/ nuclear. 5) I don't understand. Yes, we have to build more. We do this already everywhere, we produce slightly more than is needed. That is cost of doing business in capitalism. 6) Yes and it is a great opportunity e.g. to be more intelligent about heating, cooling and such, where we have a large buffer that is not used currently nearly as much as it could. If it in the end costs less, it would be a win-win situation for everybody (hopefully). 7) We build those especially, because they are very fast and can stabilize the grid from peaks. They pay for themselves exactly like mentioned in point 6. Actually, in Australia (where there is a big installation) there is a mandate to have some capability to react quickly to demand/ production peaks - utilities just need something like this. It also helps them use renewables more efficiently, so 6) isn't a loss (or so I understand it). 8) Yes, grid storage is a problem. We don't have a general solution for that, because we never needed it at such a scale. This is an opportunity for innovation. Until then, we will have to use a combination of small capacity/ high cost battery installations, demand shaping with better transmission lines and expensive peeker plants that can run for days if needed. Not ideal, but nothing is in reality. 9) Yep, well, we don't shut off nuclear and coal because they need like 8 hours or more to reach peak power. We instead shut off the renewables when we can't use the energy they produce. Most of this we can predict, some things flatten if there is enough over a large area. It is not perfect. But to mine 3000 tonnes of coal a day for a 1 GW plant also is a problem. 10) I don't know about any economic forcing. Could you provide sources? 11) It will not really be duplicate, as I have written, the central limit theorem works in your favour the bigger the infrastructure and the more independent the parts. 12) Could you cite sources? Do you could the uranium ore over the next 60 years in all of that as well? Do you finish building that power plant on time on on budget? What about the expensive enrichment facilities that are the same as you would use e.g. for atomic weapons? As for the massive land use, you can build solar above a field making a more humid microclimate. When done e.g. in a checkered pattern, you get enough sun and the benefit of the shade. If I remember correctly, Frauenhofer did some practical research in this field. You can install solar above parking lots and give shade and protection to the cars beneath and such, which you cannot do with nuclear or coal power plants. 13) Yes, this is a challenge. Hydrogen in its current form is mostly bullshit. As you write, to have any usable density, you have to compress it or liquefy it and you lose a considerable amount of energy doing that. There are other ideas, e.g. producing sodium from sodium hydroxide (known industrial process) and let it react with water while producing an electric current. There are patents by Lockheed & Martin just for that but it hasn't been deployed at industrial scale anywhere and perhaps only existed in laboratories. worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3730776A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19730501&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# 14) It is a problem but really not as big. Most people live where solar and wind work ok or even quite well. This is because you cannot plant crops without the sun. 15) It doesn't change over night. It also might change for the better locally, we don't know. I guess, this is a risk that is probably included in the costs. I only know, the off shore wind is quite reliable and the economics work out fine. 16) Yes, but I wasn't writing about BEVs. People with homes will probably over time add chargers at home, batteries will improve. The plus is, the sun is shining during the day, so you could use EVs as a buffer on opportunistically charge them up. 17) Yes, but also nuclear power plants only run like 85% of the time. There is some fuel change, maintenance etc. The same for coal fired power plants. You just have to clean the boiler to have good efficiency. Perhaps they run more than 85% of the time but certainly not 99%. In practice, nothing works 100% of the time everywhere not even Google or Amazon. 18) Yes, singular facilities without storage. We are speaking about a vast system of interconnected sources with different economies and characteristics. This point really sound more like it is not correct or vastly oversimplifying. Could you provide sources? Any survey older than perhaps 5 years is not really relevant, because the economies and technology just weren't there. If you look on the outlooks, most were corrected last year in favour of solar and wind generally. Coal has developed to include a huge number of filters and other technologies to make it vastly cleaner. I have been at a research institute for exactly that and have seen mini installations with the newest technology at that time. Solar and wind also progressed considerably. Nuclear is, perhaps besides electronics, mostly the same things as 30 years ago. As with anything else, could you provide the concrete sources? Thank you for your time and effort! I am looking forward to all the sources to read and perhaps update my viewpoints.

[@chapter4travels]

@@KaliszAd I can't give you the sources, I didn't write it, I'm passing it on with permission. The best path forward is to replace coal in the emerging nations of Asia and Africa that don't have or can afford natural gas infrastructure. Pollution from coal without modern scrubbers is truly a problem. These countries will power themselves out of poverty with coal unless there is something cheaper and wind and solar are not cheaper. Luckily we have a solution and it looks like Indonesia will be the first to adopt. Molten salt nuclear fission, specifically Thorcon Power. If they stay on track, they will be in mass production by 2030. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXOUeqWweal8b8k

[@benjaminskipper7742]

I've been following Alex ever since he was first crowd-sourcing funds for his Center for Industrial Progress. How great it is to see him make it to a Google Talk.

[@harrymullin7731]

I second Tarsha's comment: "Alex has made me think about things I had taken for granted." Exactly! At a time when the response to any argument that is different resembles the approach of the Red Queen in Alice (i.e. "off with her head"), Alex's approach is refreshing. Plus the fact a company with the reach and respect of Google was willing to allow him a platform. Kudos to all who made it happen! As to the "nuanced" objection - I for one heartily concur. Notice how Alex didn't try to persuade - he just told us how he was persuaded. Hard to figure how to do more in one hour. How many "C" level talks have we all been in that amount to little more than platitudes (sorry, don't intend to disrespect, but sometimes when the shoe fits...). So, contrary to elfootman, please don't ignore what he has to say and hide behind some "denier" label. Bring it on! I want to hear more from the best that all sides have to offer! Human flourishing is too important. Let's advance our understanding! Do more.

[@TeaParty1776]

Nuances are important within a limit but some people use them to evade connecting facts. If youre on the wrong road, knowing the nuances of that wrong road is worthless.

[@gavine2363]

Human flourishing is too important I agree! But we can only flourish as much as the biosphere does

[@416dl]

It's now almost 4 years since Alex gave this talk at Google. Would love to see him return for an update and to see how the audience's perception of what has transpired has affected their perspectives. At any rate, thanks to Google for sponsoring this speaker and supporting his alternative view to the still dominant narrative when it comes to energy and the climate. Cheers.

[@fl6646]

He did a 2.0 at Lafayette .. KZbin it

[@416dl]

@@fl6646 Thanx..watching it now...and wanted to mention that during Michael Schellenberger's recent podcast with Joe Rogan he mentions the hit piece targeting him from the WaPo. The tide is turning. Cheers.

[@416dl]

@@fl6646 Here''s his response...2 days ago kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZ6ZqIGuprqAZ8k

[@theflyingdutchman2542]

I'm surprised such a progressive place as google would host this speaker. Pleasantly surprised that is.

[@MAM1000W]

Well, there were only like 5 heads in the audience.

[@xtusvincit5230]

They fired all who attended a week later.

[@wellofbeersheba]

Google's way of pretending they are fair and balanced.

[@ga1226]

It was an easy way to find out employees who violate the ideology-noncompliance code at the company

[@Cenot4ph]

progressive as in human regressive? I dont see any progression in a way of thinking that only leads to social disaster and destruction. We need more people like Alex and less socialists

[@heltok]

Given the diversity fallback I was surprised by the level of the questions. Hope they don't get fired for their opinions! Really good answers about experts and maturity in different fields!

[@IIVVBlues]

Bjorn Lomborg essentially makes the same arguments in his 1998 book, "Cool It". He suggests we would be better served by applying our resources to other issues the we can have and immediate positive effect on humanity, such as disease prevention and access to potable water.

[@ObsydyanInkTV]

Many of these comments in denigration of this talk are proof that you can lead a man to information, but you can't make him think.

[@thishandleistaken1011]

The irony in your comment...

[@ChiccinTendies]

@@thishandleistaken1011 Any objections to the points made in the video?

[@thishandleistaken1011]

@@ChiccinTendies I haven't watched this talk in a year, but I'll get back to you when I rewatch it. For now, you should know Alex Epstein runs is a for-profit political think tank funded by coal companies. This man is literally a paid political propagandist.

[@ChiccinTendies]

@@thishandleistaken1011 Funding has nothing to do with his arguments. I want you to refute his arguments.

[@salesprocessexcellence9562]

@@thishandleistaken1011 And if you can't refute his arguments, that makes him someone who makes money by telling the truth -a rare and wonderful accomplishment.

[@fruts821]

I had never seen a video with this amount of praiseful comments.

[@thedrivechannel83]

I am amazed the Google let him talk..

[@thishandleistaken1011]

What do you think a huge corporation wants? Every megacorporation is as anti-environmentalist possible.

[@rokuhelper]

I'd never heard of an "energy philosopher" before. Is that on Mr. Epstein's business card ? Now that I've watched this, I can see how it's the best title for Mr. Epstein. I've never seen such a philosophical presentation of energy. Everything else we hear and read is stupid sound-bytes and, basically, propaganda. This is a great video - highly recommended - please share it far and wide !!!

[@johnmarshall9945]

What he was speaking about was facts and perceptions, but you wouldn't understand.

[@thishandleistaken1011]

"energy philosopher" is some made up term. The man is a shill. He's a paid political propagandist who runs a think tank funded by coal companies. He's being paid to bullshit you.

[@cdmarshall7448]

@@thishandleistaken1011 That sounds like a quack conspiracy theorist talking.

[@thishandleistaken1011]

​@@cdmarshall7448 lmao imagine being that ignorant.

[@bobbyb4024]

@@cdmarshall7448 Thats literally what coal, oil, and fracking companies do it's not even conspiracy. The data says they are major climate change pollutants is overwhelming so they have to downplay it by spreading targeted misinformation.

[@johnjamison4427]

Tough to be a dissenting voice, wither you agree or not he re-frames the issue in an interesting way.

[@eyecoin]

His book is fantastic. All of his data in the book are all accepted data from all of the "govt and scientific community" accepted data sources. Its fantastic to see. His comparison to prediction models versus reality using these accepted data sets is really revealing.

[@ProlificThreadworm]

'If the models don't predict accurately, the world is wrong'

[@hsfbunny]

Ya, well your nose is big.

[@30fold]

Wow, that was an amazing talk. I only regret having just heard it, but now that I have I will definitely promote it. I am amazed this talk happened at Google where "narrative" "trumps" everything else these days. I guess they can't de-platform themselves, now can they?

[@xfreeman86]

8:52 The vaccine example is an even more powerful comparison today given its politicization.

[@excellentmike]

Alex Epstein's approach to how one should think about energy issues and climate change is hard for any reasonable person to disagree with. Only radical environmentalists could deny that human well-being should be the standard of value by which to judge any given energy policy issue. Likewise, his point that one must consider both the costs and benefits of any policy proposal seems almost self-evident, yet hardly anyone in the energy and climate debates makes this point explicitly and systematically besides Epstein Lastly, his point that climate scientists, or any scientists, should be considered as advisors, not authorities on policy questions, is very sound, and I would argue is no different than the widely accepted approach of considering one's doctor as an advisor, whose opinions should be carefully considered, but not blindly obeyed. Overall, I thought that this was an excellent talk. I hope many people get a chance to watch it.

[@markfrancis3072]

HMM NOW THEY TEACH YOU THAT ALBERT EINSTEIN WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ? LOL COME ON YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS , ARE YOU & YOUR PEERS THAT GULLIBLE & TOO LAZY TO CHECK FOR YOUR SELF ? FROM A PHD. PHYSICS. GOOGLE EARTH'S INTERGLACIAL PERIOD.

[@amsour._.]

why should only human well being be the standard

[@kyb3er]

Remarkable clarity of thought and well supported conclusions. My compliments.

[@randominternetcommenter7595]

IMO, his conclusions are not very well supported at all. At 10:25 he says nuclear and hydro are the best ways to combat climate change. The problem is that nuclear power costs 3 to 5 times other clean energy sources and also it can't economically adjust its output to follow load, which is a requirement if you want to use a single generation source to meet all your power needs. Wind and solar aren't perfect because their output is intermittent. However, they're really really cheap compared to nuclear. In the short term, by far the cheapest approach is to pair wind and solar with hydro and natural gas and maybe some batteries as their cost comes down. In the long term, most energy experts expect solar and wind to get paired with hydrogen powered generation, with the hydrogen fuel created and stored when there's an excess of wind and solar power.

[@damonhage7451]

Random Internet Commenter Nuclear power is only 3 to 5 times more expensive than those “clean” energy sources because the government subsidies those industries and it requires that nuclear be about a million times safer than them. If solar and wind were held to the same safety/risk standards as nuclear, nobody on the planet could afford it.

[@levinb1]

Interesting and pretty well thought out argument. He is trying to argue several points against the mainstream climate debate: 1. Talk about the environment first with regard to human agency and the human factor. Call this "Human Flourishing" with relation to the environment instead of only just "climate change." 2. There is a trend of climate and a general warming, but it may not be significant or bad for humans. The data can't be seen as close to casual correlations for bad. And, in many cases it seems that changes in climate are not hurting people as in the past. 3. Talk about the good and the bad in regards to all forms of energy used by people. 4. Fossil fuels, Nuclear, and other feared energy sources could still have a prominent future in our development of civilization as we now know it. These sources of energy can be utilized properly. 5. Don't discount the ability of more advanced technology to change the environment for the better. What I see as weak points in his argument: 1. There is a "Modern Civilization" bias of how he views the ideas of progress and flourishing societies. The Brazilian woman asking a question at the end tries to bring up this point, that not all people in the world wants to live the way of Urban, highly-Technically integrated, lifestyles. Or, at least they want a lesser degree of dependence of this type of lifestyle. 2. His "Modern Civilization" bias is also strong when talking about how people's lifestyle is "cleaner" with increased energy use. That people used to, for the most part he posits, live in "filth." Urban industrialization makes a lot of trash, and for whatever reason certain people have always lived in varying degrees of filth. 3. He argues that certain effects of climate change, like rising sea levels, are more localized in effect than anything else. I argue that local changes that displace people aggregate into pan-regional problems. 4. He argues that Freedom will be a force which prompts increased technology and innovation. It's a nice idea, but the history of fossil fuels development paints a Machiavellian picture of our world. It's not Freedom for all parties. Ask Mr. Diesel how his engine threatened fossil fuel interests, for example. He died of mysterious circumstances. The power of oil in our culture and politics, regarding the US, is hard to ignore.

[@marce11o]

I'm not clear on how the Diesel death is a strike against freedom. Free markets do not imply its ok to violate rights. Maybe you're pointing out different unrelated issues that happened to have the energy industry in their backdrop.

[@levinb1]

marce11o After reviewing the topic of Diesel, I should have left him out. I used to believe his death had something in relation to pernicious fossil fuel interests. Now I think that is wrong. My main point on this matter is that fossil fuel interests have used powerful resources to manipulate politics and markets. This has been demonstrated consistently in history. Examples include local politics like Pipeline construction, and geopolitics like the 1953 Iranian coup and the Oil Crises of 1973 and 1979. From this, I say that the notion of Freedom isn't seen the same by all parties in the game of energy. From the average consumer, energy freedom is in agreement, mostly. For Fossil fuel interests at the corporate and governmental level, they use coercion and manipulation if necessary to retain monopolistic power.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

B. Levin we can't live without fossil fuels. And the only technology that can replace coal and gas is nuclear. Replacing oil is just impossible right now.

[@levinb1]

Lucas P I'm ultimately fine with using nuclear power as a source of electrical power and for powering the heavier demands of industry, for example. If nuclear power is done with the upmost precautions for safety, and with the right infrastructure to enforce safety, then I am relatively comfortable with it. My big issue though is how to safely store the spent radioactive material over the half-life periods. I think that Mr. Epstein is correct in that we can't begin to think about any serious transition to a more renewable infrastructure without still relying upon fossil fuel sources of energy. Modern civilization could make changes starting today, but the reliance is still there.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

The argument that Alex Epstein often makes is that these people tend to vastly underestimate how much modern life is dependent on fossil fuels. The lady might say not everyone wants to live with modern civilization, but I'm sure she doesn't want herself or her children to have a life expectancy of about 30 years old. She probably wants to be able to travel long distances so she can go back to Brazil every once in awhile.

[@chapter4travels]

Best notion from this talk at 29:00 - 30:00 and beyond. Running out of resources is less of an issue than running out of freedom. !!!!!!!! more after that just as profound.

[@PostMillMan]

I really like the way Alex puts together his argument that fossil fuels do an incredible amount of good. I've read his book and it is one of the most intelligent, well laid out arguments I've heard on any subject. His clarity of thought is refreshing to hear in this day of anecdotal information.

[@dks13827]

Alex is obviously a great thinker, listener, and speaker.

[@LFabry]

Awesome, it's like the best bits of the book in a speech! But the book is great too!

[@drstrangelove4998]

A fan, I buy his books, lucid and logical.

[@zacharynelson47]

Brilliant talk from Alex, thank you!

[@alexanderolsson9299]

Omg you just took the words out of my head, hope that more other people understand you like I just did now and all the others who agree with 🖖, well spoken of you 10/10 rating ⭐ bonus: keyword to bring home starts at 55:00 - 56:30

[@philippaauton9341]

Thank you Alex you are a great inspiration. Energy gives us life and safeguarding our access to reliable cheap energy has never been more important.

[@blackmancer]

oh how this has aged well

[@jsamc]

@@blackmancer yes sacrifice The weak and the elderly to the god of Convenience.

[@jonathanharshman4895]

Great talk, compelling points made. Kudos to Google for promoting diversity of thought by hosting a speaker presenting a big-picture, full-context view of energy use.

[@rhymeswithteeth]

That was then.

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

Just preordered his newly revised book

[@dks13827]

Alex, England really needs you to speak there, please !!! They have gone insane.

[@jpratt8676]

Nuclear power is awesome! I'm totally for (safe implementations of) Nuclear power in my country. I'm totally on board with swapping it in as a replacement for Coal.

[@pehenry]

By why swap out coal? None of what you said is an argument.

[@jpratt8676]

Patrick Henry I was just trying to respond to a comment made in the video that 'resistance to nuclear was from anti-fossil fuel groups'. I'm anti-fossil fuel but also pro-nuclear power. For an anti-coal argument I'd point to the effect of coal on other fossil fuels and the run away heating process that we are contributing to. Not all human impact is bad, but we have no plan for dealing with a hotter, more chaotic weather cycle which is what is predicted by climate scientists. Examples include the carbon dioxide that is locked in the polar permafrost which will be released as temperatures rise. I think the danger is real. I live in Australia and we're losing huge portions of our coral reefs due to ocean acidification (caused by carbon dioxide absorbed into the sea, and bad fishing practices). I'm actually not too upset about the Earth changing, i just think we need to be able to support our population (and any of the environment that we want to survive) for the future (until we go and use up the next planets resources or something). I'm not a climate scientist so I hope I've done an okay job.

[@pehenry]

You haven't. You don't seem to know anything about the subject. First thing you need to do is understand the facts and the data. You present no facts or data to support your "fossil fuels are bad mmmkay". Lets start with facts. 1. Current C02 levels in the atmosphere are 405 parts per 1,000,000. It's commonly abbreviated as 405 ppm. That is to say our atmosphere is .000405% C02. Do the math. The decimal point is correct. 2. The 2nd thing to understand is the effect C02 has on warming. C02 has a mild warming effect that graphs into a logarithmic function. That is to say, the more C02, the less warming. The majority of he warming in our climate is from the initial 280ppm prior to industrialization. The additional C02 since then has had little effect on global warming. This should raise some questions to you. First thing is why haven't you heard about logarithmic function of C02 in regards to warming before? How did we have 280ppm C02 prior to industrialization? How was it that during an ice age thousands of years ago did the Earth have a C02 level at 7000ppm (nearly 20x higher than today)? What happened to all that C02? The facts are C02 has a very mild effect on warming. And, if you look at metrics for human quality of life, you'll see that prior to 1750, average life expectancy of humans was about 30 years old. Since 1750 (i.e. Industrialization fueled by fossil fuels) human standards of living and life expectancy have skyrocketed. If fossil fuels were so bad, you would think they would have the opposite effect on human flourishing. Get his book. It will help.

[@jpratt8676]

Patrick Henry First up I have to say that a log function is strictly increasing which means more carbon dioxide, more heating (less growth is still growth). Second, improvements in health post-industrialization is not reasonably explained by the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but by advances in medicine and nutrition. We can continue these advances using other energy sources like nuclear and solar and no longer rely on coal/oil. I'm also interested in your claims about climate models. Can you link to something that explains your model?

[@chapter4travels]

"a log function is strictly increasing which means more carbon dioxide, more heating (less growth is still growth)." You have this backwards sir.

[@nasernehzat268]

Good points, great talk. Thanks Alex

[@ralpholiver1519]

I read the book some time back.....a good read and fascinating as well...it's good to see the face behind the book.....thanks Google ....I take back half of what I said about you.

[@jamesdorpinghaus3294]

Wow. Brilliant and well educated. I've never heard this point of view delivered so well.

[@sean3533]

Just got his book on Audible, heard him on Dave Rubin. Seems like a very intelligent guy.

[@mughat]

I can't find it on Audible. Do you have a direct link?

[@simonobrien3185]

Great talk

[@shubhamrai4063]

Amazing talk. Beautifully presented ideas

[@ForbiddenDuke]

Sea level rise will be location dependent, so maybe you need to ask more specific questions if you want to know specific predictions regarding parameters like sea level change

[@maxdecphoenix]

what? that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Sea level rise (if it happens) will be CONSISTENT the WORLD OVER, not location dependent. You make it sound like the atlantic will rise 2' but only toward the south. What will be dependent is how that rise affects locales.

[@farlanghn]

maxdecphoenix you haven’t actually looked this up have you?

[@daviddawkins2829]

@@maxdecphoenix Yes and no. Think about the beaches of Florida, then think about the white cliffs of Dover.

[@bobby33x97]

This guy is BRILLIANT!!!

[@straygeologist]

I enjoyed this. The speaker is convincing to the extent that the conversation about fossil fuels, renewables, and impact need to be shifted towards more scientific, human-centric frameworks. He loses me by little bits with quotes like "we should only be worried about running out of Freedom". My eyes kind of roll a bit when I hear those one-liners, I feel they are pandering somewhat to certain ideologies and they will not be effective at reaching the audience who he most needs to convince. However, overall, he's very sharp in opening up the framework of our energy discussions. Most people take for granted the scope/scale of our energy infrastructure and how much goes into keeping civilization going through ravenous use of fossil fuels. Producing energy is a thankless and now often maligned task. Its easy to signal distaste for fossil fuels on social media, feel good about yourself, then go fill up your prius with gasoline while knowing you're one of the good guys. The truth is far more nuanced.

[@henrybarker1159]

A good example of how to think

[@DreamMaster8]

A good example of how not to think...

[@henrybarker1159]

brain less control freak

[@doodlejumper12]

@ 40:05 increase in crop growth is not because of the increase of carbon in the atmosphere but rather the "green revolution" in the mid 1900's where agriculture technology and practices were updated

[@farlanghn]

Chaz Garraway he talks about this in the book. What feeds the agriculture industry? Fossil fuels.

[@Cenot4ph]

It's both isnt it, the greening affects area's that have not been influenced by those practices.

[@jjackflash8907]

Then why do greenhouse growers add CO2 to them (up to 1000ppm) to increase yields. They have the optimum amount of fertilizer and water available already.

[@michaelwashington7312]

Lol @ 50:00 he says both genders then (realizing he's at Google) quickly corrects to say ALL genders. Outrage averted.

[@susannec659]

Michael Washington yes he's used to walking Between The Raindrops

[@canuck5896]

I know, hahaha, Google are cunts.

[@shadfurman]

Hahaha! "Staaay on target" lol

[@ianprado1488]

Give him a break. Convincing liberals to be pro-energy abundance is worth it

[@yolafur]

@@ianprado1488 Being pro environment does not mean being anti energy abundance. In fact, having more choices in ways of producing energy is pro energy abundance. With humanities enourmous need for energy, new nuclear technologies should be sought after and funded properly. On that I agree with Alex but he his more into promoting fossil fuel as a safe bet for civilisation. That is unproven to say the least and the benefit of the doubt should be with the environment that we totally rely on for sustenance.

[@rapauli]

Gosh golly KZbin.. you forgot to put the "Global warming - Wikipedia..." notice on this video - usually it is right under the frame - that is, for so many other videos about global warming and climate change. Did you forget? Do you think this video is somehow exempt? Or perhaps it is actually about the speaker, and not the topic. Please address this, because I intend to make a comment like this on everyone I see.

[@intoleranttexan5687]

My hope and faith in humanity is being restored one honest lecture at a time. Thank God real, credible scientist are beginning to have a voice to debate the politicians and special interests activist

[@kaizen960]

He is not a scientist, he is a grifter. His an activist paid by special interests

[@julianholman7379]

His educational qualification to speak on these issues is a BA (and exposure to Ayn Rand novels)

[@04July1955]

Brilliant presentation. Logical, clear, fact-based - this is a great tool for thinking through not just this issue, but any issue. It's interesting to read the comments - they show more about the commentators than about the truth and value of the contents of the presentation.

[@jameshkramer]

No ones makes the case better than Epstein.

[@nelson6702]

Having an undergraduate degree in philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. No more than mine in math makes me a mathematician.

[@lesjensen2453]

I would disagree that the issue with windmills is that they kill birds - personally have no idea if they do or not. The issue is the resources required to mine the minerals, make, build, and maintain a windmill far exceeds the energy they produce. Additionally, on the backend, which most people are unaware of, they require tremendous resources on the part of the utility company to incorporate them into the electric grid system.

[@ericmichel3857]

Don't worry, our tax dollars are subsidizing it, so the companies involved are doing just fine. Why else would they keep adding more?

[@plojo]

Windmills are still far from being the major human-made constructions that kill birds. Pet cats lead in all statistics True, that those statistics don't make a difference between an eagle and a sparrow. The lost of a large bird is going to have more impact in the environment that the loss of several smaller birds. The lives of those birds can be spared, if the placement of wind turbines is done, after a proper study of its ecological impact, in each particular location. The mining comparision is always bad and biased, despite Alex E. claiming he doesn't like biased discussions. It is not the same the process to build something, as the process to keep something running. Fossil fuels may have some efficiency positives, but only because they have plently of help, subsidies and years to become better.

[@Gismo3333]

@@plojo - How many eagle, haukes other endangered species of birds, do cats kill every year? Not one… Most of them don't even get killed. They get their wings chopped off. And they get to jump around screaming in pain for some weeks, before they die of pain and starvation. Mostly big birds… They don't give a crap about any animals they kill or run off. All the animals that live on the ground also goes away.

[@plojo]

@@Gismo3333 well, roadkills are also higher in the statistics than any energy production. Can't find right now any specific number about raptors but if you pay attention, you will most likely see death raptors along highways than other species.

[@boylamak]

Alex is an adult in the room for the co-called "climate change" debate. His opposition is relegated to ad hominem attacks since his approach, perspective and data are sound

[@donaldclifford5763]

Their "go to" first reaction is to attack his funding. No mention of their funding.

[@PRODOS]

Very informative and thought-provoking. Refreshing to hear a different way of thinking about energy and fossil fuels. Glad to see Google being so open to alternative viewpoints.

[@TeaParty1776]

Are you still doing commentary from down under?

[@robindumpleton3742]

It's good that there are people who are sensible about the speed of change. Already energy prices in the UK have spiralled out of control. Stupidity of paying generators not to generate (£500 million per annum) because the transmission lines are insufficient to get the power from Scotland to England, distributed power generation, has meant putting in thousands of miles of new transmission lines.

[@mariojorge9529]

Thank you very much! God bless you all!

[@reddchan]

Surprised google let him leave alive.

[@SkipTerrio]

I am frankly astonished that Google would permit such a flagrant "wrongthinker" into their bubble. Diversity of opinion is not exactly their strong suit these days.

[@TeaParty1776]

The intellectual climate is changing. You have just read the first pro-fossil fuel joke.

[@yeahohright3097]

I love diversity of opinion, which is why I pay just as much attention to the guy who says 2+2=5 as I do to the guy who says 2+2=4.

[@harrymullin7731]

Jack, I am not the least surprised. From what I read (I have no connection with Google beyond using their products daily), the talk was arranged as are all others from the endorsement of individuals within Google. Read Laszio Bock's superb "Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google" to see what lengths Google goes to improve internal communication and operations. Are there biases? Sure, but so too in the rest of the culture! I encourage everyone to focus on the huge comment responses here. Do some sling labels? Sure. But so what, look how many have taken the time to outline questions and present ideas. From there, we can all learn. Perhaps there will be interest from Googlers to bring Alex back to deepen the conversation!

[@markfrancis3072]

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE DRANK THE KOOAIDE ! LACK CRITICAL THINKING OR HAVE THE EFFORT TO DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE ! THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CLEARLY DENIES "CLIMATE CHANGE" & THE JUNK SCIENCE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SPEWING SINCE THE 70'S WHEN AL GORE CLAIMED WE WOULD "ALL BE FROZEN BY THE 80'S" WE ARE IN A 25K INTERGALCIAL PERIOD W/ 5000 YRS LEFT . AFTER THAT NORTH AMERICA WILL AGAIN BE FROZEN OVER JUST AS IT'S HAS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS" AMAZING WHAT ICE CORE SAMPLES HAVE TOLD US FOR OVER 100 YRS ! YOU'VE BEEN DUPED BY WAY OF YOUR EMPATHY & GUILT & LEFT WING TEACHERS WHO SHOULD BE ERADICATED FROM OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS... GO AHEAD TAKE A RISK AN DO SOME RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN , DON'T LET YOUR PRIDE GET IN THE WAY OF THE REALITY OF THE FACTUAL TRUTH....

[@jilljames4530]

Nice leftist outrage, bud! We're onto you and your globalist comrades!

[@dwightshowman]

Most encouraging from this talk was to see the young people at the end, who aren't blindly accepting what they're told (from either media or from Alex). However, I get the impression that most of them are struggling to express their opinion on a with friends and family, which is sad to see. It at least suggests that there might be a sizeable number of people who are silent skeptics.

[@alexanderhartray2857]

I hate to upset the fawning friends but when we are reassured that we are “at a relatively low level of co2” from the Paleozoic (250 million years ago) high point and that “the planet can handle it” OF COURSE IT CAN!!!... the planet is a rock ... might want to read up on what the planet was like back then and then check the specs on your air conditioning system. This is the kid of graph one puts up after the clown is done making figures out of balloons!

[@LowenKM]

Love Google Talks, thx folks! This echoes a lot of the 'pragmatism' of Stewart Brand's once-famous 'hippie' publication, The Whole Earth Catalog, which debuted back in 1968 with the opening sentence... "We are as gods and might as well get good at it." As one of the founding members of the modern environmental movement, he's actually a strong advocate for nuclear energy, with fission reactors serving as a 'bridge' to eventually achieving practical Fusion power. And he's since 'revised' that famous quote to, "We are as gods... and we've *_got_* to get good at it!"

[@Jazzper79]

Brilliant speech

[@julitocefe]

Very interesting and convincing. Good talk, Sr.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

I am impressed that Google hosted this talk.

[@hyperreal]

Same. Alex is great I hope he does more talks like these.

[@nataliedavidson4389]

I'm shocked that Google hosted him. Just a few years later from 2017 to 2022, it seems that the Overton window of acceptable discourse has shifted to where Google would not allow a different perspective.

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

Spot on!❤️

[@ARGENTINAADOLF]

His name was James Damore.

[@hansvetter8653]

Great talk! Thanks & greetings from Hamburg/Germany

[@johnmoore5293]

Would love to see you being able to help increase the use of energy to help people especially in 3rd world countries who need cheap fuel the most

[@diegomorales8616]

33:50 The most important data: "Proponents of drastic greenhouse gas controls claim that human greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, which then exacerbates the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including extreme heat, droughts, floods, and storms such as hurricanes and cyclones. In fact, even though reporting of such events is more complete than in the past, morbidity and mortality attributed to them has declined globally by 93%-98% since the 1920s." Source: www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

[@karenpike2420]

I just finished Alex's book. It's excellent and I recommend reading it. This video gives you a nice taste of what the book has to say.

[@nitinchhabria9781]

If fossil fuels as energy does not adversely affect these three then definitely efforts should be made to find investors for it and use it

[@nitinchhabria9781]

Think in terms to resources lastly in clean states not for only ur generation but for many generations to still come.otherwise conflicts will start for them.consume what one can pay for within ones lifetime is a way of life which enables one to live in peace and leave behind a planet which can sustain all the descendents left behind to care for all

[@foreropa]

This discussion should be based on facts and not beliefs, and this type of videos help on this a lot.

[@RaduOleniuc]

Alex speaking at Google. That's a first! :)

[@chapter4travels]

This talk aged very well, very prophetic.

[@rhymeswithteeth]

I take it you're referring to his mentioning of vaccines. Yes, that struck me, too, as prophetic.

[@chapter4travels]

@@rhymeswithteeth I was referring to energy.

[@rgboyshares_7137]

I'm from the Philippines. Spot on indeed that anti-fossil fuel policies would have a chain reaction of inflicting hundreds of millions of poor people; not letting us have the same kind of energy that made first world countries, first world.

[@S41NT93]

Of course, Alex's recent appearance on Tom Woods brought me here. Liberty

[@off-meta-michael]

This talk should be required in every university.

[@DreamMaster8]

I sincerely hope not, we don't need more brainwashed people like you in the world.

[@off-meta-michael]

@@DreamMaster8 right, because critical thinking and skepticism means "brainwashed."

[@amsour._.]

not when the speaker only cares about humans

[@franksu9735]

Is Human flourishing the priority ?

[@letsrockandroll-now]

Yes.

[@chapter4travels]

Yes, that's his point.

[@KingComputerSydney]

For the Nazis, Stalin and Mao human flourishing wasn’t the priority. For Neo Marxist’s of today it isn’t either. Depends if you think its OK shorten peoples lives, wipe out all the intelligentsia and run a regime of oppression and information control. For the radical greens of today attempting to destroy cheap reliable power, they do all of the above.

[@amsour._.]

@@letsrockandroll-now why

[@amsour._.]

@@KingComputerSydney because environmental protection always shortens people's lives ._.

[@samfisher4566]

It’s awesome how this panel ended in audience asking how to convince others about this topic. Wow! That’s how facts and truth works. What a masterclass!

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

Affordable/cheap electricity is the path out of poverty.

[@TheBandit7613]

The fossil fuels industry literally saved the whales. Think about that...

[@alfredaramouni5884]

how??

[@fernandogaribaldi7349]

Alfred Aramouni we used to use whale blubber as a source of fuel.

[@deandavictoreduardo]

Google would later regret having this presentation held in their offices

[@steakovercake3986]

Why?

[@doodlejumper12]

@ 38:12 there is a difference between weather(day to day conditions) graph on the left and climate(weather conditions over a long time) on the right

[@luxdevoid]

So admittedly I have not read your book and I would very much like to do so that being said, you talked about the need for precision when discussing environmentalism and environmental issues but you have a great lack of precision when you talk about the idea of human flourishing. I would put this to the same rigor. For instance if I lived in a beautiful mansion and every day I got more girlfriends to move in and acquired more sofas, puppies and television sets. What's more we all consider pepperoni pizzas to be a measure of flourishing so each of us consumes more and more pepperoni pizzas. Clearly in the end my beautiful mansion would be a hell and we would be racked with disease even though each time we considered what we were doing to be flourishing. I would be more inclined to agree with you if we could have a serious discussion on what the balance between the proliferation of humans and our quality of life ultimately should be...and how our economic choices can have hard wired checks and balances that work towards a holistic optimization.

[@chapter4travels]

The end of the spectrum is pretty silly and has no place in the real world. However the other end of the spectrum, abject poverty is a very real thing and more than a billion people live with that. So I think human flourishing incontext to energy is pretty clear. Energy can not bring to people out of poverty without the political will, but it's the next most important element needed.

[@luxdevoid]

@@chapter4travels well it's true that poverty is real it is also extremely transitory. Many civilizations have collapse at the upper end of the spectrum so that condition has been experienced as well

[@Rupe1992]

Super interesting to hear this point of view. Thanks! Also when is Mr Epstein going to get to work developing my space propulsion system that can take you from Eros to the Sun in minutes, eh?

[@SkillBuilder]

Don't go to the sun, it is too hot there.

[@Gismo3333]

@@SkillBuilder - Huuuush… Don't tell him that, he is a bot.

[@thotung34]

15:45 Cats are a terrible invasive species though, even though it's not a popular opinion. I don't think that's a valid counter argument ... even though I'm not against wind farms

[@nicklasahlund8995]

Please people, you have to take in a bigger picture. Not being able to do that is one of the worlds biggest problems. Just use your minds a tiny tiny bit more, ok?

[@lindsaypeacock5672]

The biggest hurdle to overcome is to the politics of power and control and how much will it cost..at the moment the will to power is happy with the status quo.

[@cliffsheets73]

15:26 Cat's might kill birds, but Wind Turbines kill Eagles and Condors (and they also kill cats).

[@PabloAlvestegui]

We need more people like Alex Epstein in the world.

[@paulramsey51]

This philosopher is right on. Of course he is.

[@markcampbell7577]

We still need widespread distribution of Edison generators and dynamos. While we teach people to use electric power efficiently and generate more electricity than they use. Electric power is very easy to generate and we have the technology to use a small amount of current and voltage then use this to generate unlimited electric current and voltage AC to power lines or appliances. We are grossly misinformed about power generation and power use.

[@markcampbell7577]

If we practice design and building to application of physics and basics of electricity we can power an entire city with one 12 VOLT DC generator.

[@norbi4148]

After the backslash of firing James Damore for no reason, they suddenly upload slightly conservative videos.... Wonder if there's a connection...

[@Drumsgoon]

this talk took place about a month ago, check out Epstein's facebook status about it if you don't believe me.

[@alexanderscott2456]

I follow Epstein closely and this was announced a couple of months ago. Completely unrelated.

[@MrApplewine]

No connection and just so you know Alex is not a Platonist which we divide into what we call the Left and Right. He is an Aristotelian, an Objectivist, so a totally different area and lineage of philosophy which is neither Right/conservative nor Left. Something like 99.999999999999+% of the Earths population are Platonists. Aristotlians which are today Objectivists are very rare and extremely valuable if humanity is to have any hope.

[@chapter4travels]

Thank you MrApplewine very well said.

[@chapter4travels]

This was recorded before that firing.

[@EranAviram]

"Hello?" "Yes?" "May I order some straw men, please?" "How many would you like?" "As many as you have."

[@paforgues]

I haven't read the book, but I wonder if Alex has on opinion regarding what the optimum number of humans is for this planet?

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

Mining for rare earth minerals is disastrous ….hardly green. Plus at present, EV batteries are good for 8-10 yrs and will cost @$10,000 to replace and are not able to be recycled…🙄🤦‍♀️

[@Gismo3333]

It can cost up against $20 000. And the price will probably sky rocket when they get the gas cars go away. I see in my country, the parts prices are so extremely high. Mostly if it more then a scratched fender, the car get condemned and they trash the hole car. And most the people drive them, drive like idiots, with out control of the power on the car. It is people that are not much interested in cars, and learning how to get good at driving. They only want to have one fast cheep car, once. And they get into lots of accidents. And they start killing people, but with no consequence to them self, of course. And because this is a protected kind of car, I suppose they also set the insurance up on all cars, not on that car… Like they do on every thing else. So they get to crash for almost free too. They may not be prosecuted for reckless driving, because the car and driver are protected in several ways. And that the state has an agenda for these cars to take over the market. The driver mostly are used to lying them self out of problems, blame others, blame the car. The car was suppose to stop by it self. Even when the manufacturer say specifically that is not the case, when you buy it. But of course the buyer are not interested in anything other then getting a fast car. And see if he can beat a bike of the line in traffic. And they start racing bikes in the streets. That this week ended in two bikes got run down and killed. So this is going to be fun in the future. Most of us are going to end up on trains, buses, and other slow stupid cheep public transport. Whit bad heating, bad/no AC… You can say that public transport is better then driving your self. Specially on a test run with the politicians, the traffic manager in public transport. But it become a living hell when you have to use it all the time. Specially when you have to bring stuff with you. You are really struggling, every one else around you are angry at the transport, and Specially on you, because you have much stuff with you. Take up to much space… have kids with you… Think how stressful a car trip is… And then try taking away the tool you are using, the car.

[@benoitdupras7144]

"I was a very poor person at the time, so I decided to offer Bill McKibben $10K to debate me." I don't think Alex Epstein understands what being poor means.

[@farlanghn]

Bill McKibben is a fool. He went into that debate with a strict plan and got derailed instantly.

[@Gismo3333]

It is you that don't understand who economics work. Sometimes it cost money to make money. And Alex are good at making money and doing business. So you are 100% wrong… You don't have to always been poor, to know what it means to be poor. Most rich people have been poor one or many times in their life. Some even been homeless periods. You have know clue what you are talking about.

[@TheAutoChannel]

I recently published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebuts a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition. It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available. The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this. Previous attempts to rebuke Mr. Epstein and Ms. White, such as the one written by Jody Freeman, have failed because the writers have as little understanding of history, fuels, energy, and real solutions as Epstein and White do. You can read my complete rebuttal at www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/02/19/511177-immorality-arguing-that-there-s-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels.html. Marc J. Rauch Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher THE AUTO CHANNEL

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

"Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil." Thats untrue, and is actually stunningly oversimplified.

[@TheAutoChannel]

It is completely correct and it's stunning that you would either not know this or try to hide the information. If it was incorrect, you would be able to correct the information instead of just posting a dopey comment.

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

"It is completely correct..." No, not at all. Lets take Afghanistan for example, it was a base for Al Qaeda, that is why it was attacked. Lets look at Vietnam, it doesnt have oil, America was there to fight the spread of communism. Lets look at Japan in WW2, the war escalated after they attacked China and sanctions were applied to them. In none of those cases was "petroleum oil" the central motivating cause.

[@TheAutoChannel]

Thanks for showing that you have no clue about the subject. Lucky for you, I'm going to explain it to you. We are in Afghanistan because of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The reason for all of this and the money behind it all traces back to petroleum oil in the Middle East. The reason we are STILL in Afghanistan is because of the natural gas and oil in Turkmenistan, which lies to the North of Afghanistan. Turkmenistan has vast natural gas reserves and sizable oil reserves. There's only two ways for Turkmenistan to get their gas and oil out, through Russian controlled territory, or through Afghanistan and Pakistan into the Gulf of Oman/Arabian Sea. The Turkmenistanians don't want to be under the Russians thumb and don't want to pay a heavy financial price to the Russians. American oil interests would like to get their hands on the oil. Consequently, if we can control Afghanistan then the pipelines can be completed and protected. We already have a reasonable relationship with Pakistan. Vietnam: Vietnam has huge oil reserves. They have the largest oil reserves in the area. The French first discovered oil there about 100 years ago. It's why the French wanted to reclaim Vietnam after WWII. In the late 1940's the Soviet Union worked with Ho Chi Min's people to drill and test for oil. The Rockefellers were involved etc., etc. SEE: www.luckinlove.com/oilwar.htm www.oilcompanies.net/oil1.htm WWII: America entered World War II because Japan bombed Hawaii and invaded some American islands in the South Pacific. Japan did this because America strongly objected to Japan's invasion of various oil-rich areas of Southeast Asia. Japan invaded those areas because they wanted the oil. The Japanese also declared war on Great Britain and they invaded the British controlled oil countries of Southeast Asia. Now, I'm happy to respond to everything else you want to ask or claim, regardless of how stupid they are. But you must reveal your name, profession, and any relationship you have to the oil industry. Otherwise I'll just consider you a jerk and not respond. So either be quiet, identify yourself and ask what you want, or be a jerk.

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

"We are in Afghanistan because of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. " Oh ok, so now that I told you that, its not just because of "petroleum oil"...amirite? Im quite happy being a jerk to numpties like you.

[@mastersinr]

29:38 - briefly brings up pollution but talks dirty environment pre industrialization not dirty air post industrialization. We've cleaned up air quite a bit but wanted to hear about that.

[@markcampbell7577]

There is a lot of certain opinions about industrial pollution that is erroneous. For example all fossil fuels power plants have smoke stack scrubbing and don't emit sulphate or carbon dioxide. The rumours are more scientific than simple basic chemistry.

[@th3dudeabides1]

In the scientific communities the discourse is neither biased nor sloppy. This guy is.