Connect with us

Energy

Energy & the Environment

Published

12 minute read

Energy & the Environment
Oil and gas.
 
The three letter curse words.
 
Many are calling for the end of oil and gas while promoting the slogan “Build Back Better”.
 
The slogan which originated from the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in response to Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, has now morphed into the slogan for all things green and socially just.
Liberal Environment Policy
The Liberal Party of Canada’s website outlines their plan for “Protecting our Environment and Moving Our Economy Forward” as follows:
 
  1. Fighting and Preparing for Climate Change
  2. Making Communities Cleaner, More Efficient, and More Affordable
  3. Protecting Canada’s Natural Legacy
 
The document lays out a commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, plant two billion trees in ten years, provide interest-free loans for retrofits, build vehicle charging stations, set up a camping travel bursary and ban single-use plastics.
 
So what is the problem with the Liberals environmental plan? Simple. It lacks depth, neglects financial implications and worst of all, its not rooted in reality.
Zero Emissions
Net-Zero Emissions by 2050
 
Making a commitment to hit this target through “legally binding” targets ignores the reality that we live in.
 
The Parliamentary Budget Office has indicated that emissions-reductions cannot be met unless the carbon tax is drastically increased.
 
While it may be possible to tax the country into a state of zero emissions, this would significantly cripple the economy, destroy jobs and ruin lives. This is not acceptable.
 
What should the government do?
 
Up to the mid-late 1800s, wood was the primary source of energy for developed nations.
 
What changed from that point to now? Innovation.
 
Government needs to remove red tape, repeal poor policy, end harmful taxation and allow the free market to pursue new technologies.
 
How can we be sure that this will work?
 
The free market is driven to create returns for shareholders. If there is an opportunity to create profits through new technology, free markets will find a way to capitalize.
 
In order to truly implement policies that improve our environment, we need to look beyond our borders and bring leading Canadian technologies to foreign countries.
 
Canada is a significant coal exporter. Coal, when burned, is a much higher polluter than other non-renewable resources such as natural gas and hydrogen. The government should work with foreign countries to promote the use of natural gas as a substitute.
Retrofit
Retrofit Buildings
 
Plans to provide free energy audits, interest-free retrofit loans and grants for zero-emissions homes are the main talking points of the Liberal retrofit plan.
 
First off, nothing supplied by the government is free. All government expenses are bankrolled by taxpayers.
 
In the midst of reduced or eliminated incomes due to the pandemic, the likelihood of home-owners or landlords being willing to take on debt to retrofit homes or office buildings is going to be limited for the foreseeable future.
 
Similarly, the costs associated with building a zero-emission home will not be offset with a $5,000 grant as proposed in the Liberal plan.
 
What should the government do?
 
Canada is already home to stringent building regulations. Regulations that carry significant costs.
 
In order to encourage further “green” building, the market needs access to more affordable products.
 
The government could accomplish this through the reduction of red tape, and the promotion of trade deals that allow for foreign firms to bring their goods and technology to Canada.
 
Competition and innovation ultimately drive down consumer costs and will always be more effective and efficient than government subsidies.
Charing stations
Charging Stations
 
Recently, the federal government announced that it will “invest” $295 million to help Ford Canada upgrade its Oakville assembly plant to begin making electric vehicles.
 
With the increased manufacturing of electric cars, comes a requirement for charging stations.
 
According to a 2015 US Department of Energy study, costs for single port Level 1 stations range from $300-$4,500. For DC fast charging stations, $14,000-$91,000.
 
Level 1 stations add 6 miles of range per hour @ 1.9kW. DC fast charging stations add 90 miles per 20 minutes @ 90kW.
 
Before taxpayer funds are thrown at green projects, a complete analysis of the life-cycle costs should be a requirement. This will ensure that emissions are truly lower and that taxpayers are receiving economic value for their tax dollars.
 
What should the government do?
 
Government subsidies that prop up an industry or product are inevitably harmful to consumers. These subsidies hide costs that the free market would ultimately choose not to absorb.
 
Instead, government should encourage vehicle manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, regardless of the fuel system used to power the vehicle.
 
This could be done through the existing Scientific Research & Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program. The specific objective of the project should be to offset the costs of wages paid to research and development staff who are engaged in this direct work.
 
Beyond the direct goal of improving vehicle emissions, this program would create more opportunities for high-paying jobs within the tech sector which would further help to diversify the Canadian economy.
Camping
Trees and Camping Travel Bursary
 
The tree planting program involves two billion trees, ten years, 3,500 seasonal jobs and an overall $3 billion effort to deploy natural climate solutions.
 
If there is a job that meets pandemic guidelines, planting trees in the great outdoors qualifies.
 
The camping bursary was to provide a $2,000 grant to help families go camping in Canada’s national parks. No grants have been provided to date.
 
Additionally, the Learn to Camp program was to be expanded so that every Canadian child could learn how to camp by the time they reached grade eight.
 
What should the government do?
 
The WE scandal resulted in a missed opportunity to create job opportunities for post-secondary students. This can be remedied by expanding the Canada Summer Jobs program in advance of the 2021 tree planting season.
 
If there is little or no interest in the tree planting program for 2021, it should be abandoned entirely. Instead, government should support private sector companies who are consistently engaging in tree planting projects and other environmental reclamation projects.
 
Boutique tax credits and other one-off government programs typically result in creating winners and losers. As such, the camping bursary program should be cancelled.
 
Instead, and in conjunction with a full tax code review, the government could find efficiencies within the tax system that would translate into real results for Canadians.
Plastic
Single-Use Plastics Ban
 
A recent announcement to ban single-use plastics, regulations to be finalized in late 2021, seeks to fulfill a long running Liberal election promise.
 
The ban will remove plastic grocery bags, straws, stir sticks, six pack rings, cutlery and takeout containers.
 
At a time where the hospitality industry is reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, this will be another difficult adjustment for this industry.
 
Smaller Alberta plastic manufactures have expressed concern with the new policy. Although single-use plastics account for a small portion of the plastics market, the costs associated with re-tooling a manufacturing facility can be quite high.
 
What should the government do?
 
Instead of virtue-signalling, the government should focus on addressing the issue of plastic recycling. The slogan of reduce, reuse and recycle can be traced back to the 1970s. Why hasn’t it caught on as hoped? Simply put, there is no money in plastic recycling.
 
Government should focus resources instead to projects that find viable solutions for plastic recycling. One such project is the development of plastic-bitumen composite roads.
 
Adding carbon capture technology to the plastic processing and bitumen mixing process would allow for road materials to be produced in an environmentally conscious manner.
 
Plastic-bitumen composite roads could result in better quality roadways as they are less water absorbent. Due to the temperature swings in Canada, this could save significant amounts of money otherwise spent on maintenance.
Final Thoughts
Final Thoughts
 
Canadians across the country have a strong desire to protect and preserve our environment for our children and future generations.
 
Environmental policies need to be more than exercises in virtue-signalling.
 
Government needs to understand the climate that we live in, the size of our country and the economic implications of the decisions being made.
 
Government subsidies are unacceptable. Subsidies result in expensive infrastructure projects and bloated consumer costs. If we need a reminder of this we only have to look at the recent failing of the Ontario green energy initiative.
 
Government should focus on reducing red tape, encouraging competition and providing targeted tax credits. Policy that focus on tax credits require free market enterprises to undergo the leg work to get new technology to a state where it can be capitalized on. This allows the free market to determine what is viable and how to achieve capitalization in the most efficient manner.
 
Lastly, we need capitalize on revenues from our oil and gas sector in order to further technological advances. Passing legislation to end emissions, create a zero-plastic waste economy or any other lofty agenda neglects the real world implications of these decisions. These policies do not take into consideration the resources required to accomplish these goals. Additionally, many families are being left behind as a result of these policy decisions.
 
We can protect our environment through innovation. In making policy decisions, government must not take better care of the environment than the residents who call it home.
https://www.jaredpilon.com/

I have recently made the decision to seek nomination as a candidate in the federal electoral district of Red Deer - Mountain View. As a Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), I directly see the negative impacts of government policy on business owners and most notably, their families. This has never been more evident than in 2020. Through a common sense focus and a passion for bringing people together on common ground, I will work to help bring prosperity to the riding of Red Deer – Mountain View and Canada. I am hoping to be able to share my election campaign with your viewers/readers. Feel free to touch base with me at the email listed below or at jaredpilon.com. Thanks.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 3 years ago

Leave our Kids Alone

Federal Election 2021 / 3 years ago

Vote Splitting

Energy

Energy Effect: Trump’s big win fuels talk of policy actions

Published on

From The Center Square

By

“Our long national nightmare with the Green New Deal is finally over because energy was on the ballot in 2024, and energy won”

Former President Donald Trump is on track to potentially receive 300 electoral votes or more. He won the national popular vote by about 5 million with votes still being counted. As a result, some analysts and Republicans say Trump and the GOP have a “mandate” to aggressively push forward with their agenda.

“America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate,” Trump said in his speech early Wednesday morning, creating a refrain echoed by his supporters.

As of midday Wednesday, Trump secured 292 electoral votes after Michigan and its 15 votes were called – 270 were needed to win the race. He also leads Vice President Kamala Harris in Alaska, Arizona and Nevada.

If Trump holds in those states, he will have 312 electoral votes, propelled in large part due to a level of support from Black voters and Hispanic voters unusual for a Republican.

“The American people have sent a clear message through President Trump’s resounding victory,” U.S. Sen. Thom Thillis, R-N.C., wrote on X. “The mandate is clear: fix the economy, secure the border, keep America safe, and confirm more judges who follow the Constitution.”

At the same time Wednesday, House Republicans had won 198 House racers and Democrats had won 177 with the rest uncalled; 218 are needed to win a majority. In the Senate, Republicans won 52 seats and Democrats won 42 with six still to be called, flipping the upper chamber to GOP control.

“This is a mandate,” Scott Jennings, an alum of the George W. Bush administration and CNN analyst said on the air as results came in early Wednesday morning.

“He won the national popular vote for the first time for a Republican since 2004,” Jennings said. “This is a big deal. This isn’t backing into the office. This is a mandate to do what you said you were going to do. Get the economy working again for regular, working class Americans. Fix immigration. Try to get crime under control. Try to reduce the chaos in the world. This is a mandate from the American people to do that.”

On economic policy, Trump is expected to double down on domestic oil drilling to increase revenue for the U.S. and lower energy costs for Americans. Trump made inflation a focus of his campaign, pledging to use domestic oil to get costs down for Americans and even pay off debt with the tax revenue.

“Our long national nightmare with the Green New Deal is finally over because energy was on the ballot in 2024, and energy won,” said Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of energy worker advocacy group Power The Future. “On day one, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris fired thousands of Keystone XL workers and thankfully starting in January it’s this administration that will be unemployed.”

Republicans have also vowed tax reform, something they prioritized after Trump came into office last time around. Experts said the market reacted favorably to Trump’s win.

“Trump’s election victory sparked a rally in the greenback last night as growth and inflation expectations rerated higher,” Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist for LPL Financial in Charlotte, North Carolina, said in a statement. “Fed funds futures dialed back rate cut expectations from five to four 0.25% cuts by the end of next year. Yields surged higher, a move further exacerbated by deficit spending concerns, especially if Republicans secure the House.”

Trump also pledged to quickly negotiate an end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, something that earned him bipartisan support from many Americans, including Arab and Muslim Americans frustrated by the Biden-Harris handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

Pop culture figure and Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy told his 3.3 million followers the win was a “ringing endorsement of Republicans” and “an indictment against the Democrats,” using a familiar message analysts across platforms online and on television.

That perception will be key for Republicans who likely have two years to push through a legislative agenda as reports indicate they will have a majority in the Senate and possibly the House.

Polls showed only 28% of Americans felt the country was headed in the right direction, something incumbent Harris could not overcome.

“I wanted Trump to win, but more than that, I wanted a decisive victory,” Newsweek Opinion Editor Batya Ungar-Sargon wrote on X. “If it’s true he’s won the popular vote, that is a mandate to lead. Calling Trump Hitler is now proven to be what it always was: an unforgivable smear of the majority of Americans. It’s time to embrace unity.”

While Harris delayed in recognizing Trump as the winner, still not conceding as of early Wednesday afternoon, his other fiercest opponents, like former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, recognized him on X but offered a warning.

“Our nation’s democratic system functioned last night and we have a new President-elect,” said Cheney, a Republican who campaigned with Democrat Harris on the trail. “All Americans are bound, whether we like the outcome or not, to accept the results of our elections. We now have a special responsibility, as citizens of the greatest nation on earth, to do everything we can to support and defend our Constitution, preserve the rule of law, and ensure that our institutions hold over these coming four years.”

Continue Reading

Energy

A balanced approach shows climate change has been good for us: Alex Epstein

Published on

Alex Epstein

The most heretical idea in the world

My talk at Hereticon about the moral case for fossil fuels.

Last week I gave a talk at the second annual Hereticon conference, hosted by Mike Solana and the Founder’s Fund team. (Founder’s Fund is led by Peter Thiel, the famous entrepreneur and investor. See two of my past discussions with Peter here and here.)

Here’s the full transcript and Q&A. (Audience member questions are paraphrased to protect anonymity.) I’m hoping the video will be available soon.

Alex Epstein:

All right, so I’m going to start out by taking a poll of where the audience is. Here’s the question: What is the current state of our relationship with climate?

I’m going to give you four options. Are we experiencing: a climate catastrophe, climate problem, climate non-problem, or climate renaissance? Raise your hand when you hear the one that you think best reflects the current state of our relationship with climate.

  • Climate catastrophe — in most audiences, this would be much less of a minority view.
  • Climate problem — probably about half the room.
  • Climate non-problem — a bunch of people.
  • Climate renaissance — okay, that’s the record.

So here’s what’s interesting about this issue, what I would call the “designated expert” view. The view of the people we’re told to give us guidance on these issues is that we’re obviously in a climate catastrophe that’s becoming an apocalypse; maybe some will say a climate problem on the verge of catastrophe.

And yet empirically, if you look at how livable our climate is from a human-flourishing perspective, it’s undeniable that it’s never been better.

This is a chart of what’s happened in the atmosphere. We’ve put in more CO2, and that indeed has caused some warming and has other climate effects. But at the same time, the death rate from climate disasters—so storms and floods, extreme temperatures, et cetera—has gone way down. It’s gone down actually 98% in the last century.

This means that a typical person has 1/50 the chance of dying from a climate disaster compared to what somebody used to have. And if you look at things like damages, we’re not actually more threatened by climate. If you adjust for GDP, we’re safer from climate still.

The reason I raise this is: we have this situation where the supposed experts on something say that we have a catastrophe, and yet in reality, it’s never been better from a human-flourishing perspective. And this is independent of the future. So you could say, “Well, I think it’s going to get worse in the future.” But their view is about the present; they describe us as in a climate crisis or climate emergency now.

So what’s going on here? What’s going on here is very important because it shows that the mainstream “expert” view of fossil fuels and climate is not just based on facts and science, it’s based on a certain moral perspective on facts and science—because from a human flourishing perspective, we’re in a climate renaissance. What’s going on is what I call their moral standard or standard of evaluation.

The way they evaluate the world in a particular climate is not in terms of advancing human flourishing on Earth, but of eliminating human impact on Earth. And this is the dominant idea, this is the way we’re taught to think about climate: that a better climate, a better world, is one that we impact less and a worse one is one that we impact more.

I think this is the most evil idea. I think human beings survive and flourish by impacting nature. This idea that we should aspire to eliminate our impact is an anti-human idea. And I think that if we look at this issue from a pro-human perspective—from the perspective that a better world is one with more flourishing, not less human impact—that totally changes how you think about fossil fuels.

I’m going to give you a bunch of facts—but these are not right-wing facts or something. These are all either primary source facts or they are just mainstream climate science. What I’m doing differently is I’m looking at the facts and science from a consistently human flourishing perspective, and that’s something that unfortunately almost nobody else does.

But what’s good is I think if most people realize that they’re not thinking about it in a pro-human way, they’ll want to think about it in a pro-human way, and then we can really change energy thinking for the better.

If we’re going to apply this idea of advancing human flourishing as our standard, if we’re going to do it consistently, there’s basically one rule we need to follow, which is we need to be even-handed. By even-handed, I mean we need to carefully weigh the benefits and side effects of our alternatives, just as you would do if you were deciding to take an antibiotic: what are the benefits and side effects of this? How does that compare to the alternatives?

When it comes to fossil fuels and climate—and I want to focus on climate because there are other side effects of fossil fuels like air pollution and water pollution, but those aren’t really the reason people hate fossil fuels. Those have gone way down in the past few decades, and hatred for fossil fuels has gone way up. So it’s really about the climate issue.

When we’re thinking about fossil fuels and climate, there are four things we need to look at to be even-handed. And feel free to challenge this in the question period, but literally nobody has ever been able to challenge this, and I’ve debated every single person that was willing to debate.

So one is you need to look at what I call the general benefits of fossil fuels. Then you need to look at what I call the climate mastery benefits of fossil fuels. You need to look at the positive climate side effects of fossil fuels. And then of course, you need to look at the negative climate side effects of fossil fuels.

My contention is when you do this from a human flourishing perspective, it’s just completely obvious that we need to use more fossil fuels, and that this idea of getting rid of fossil fuels by 2050 is the most destructive idea, even though it’s literally the most popular political idea in the world today. Getting rid of fossil fuels is advocated by leading financial institutions, leading corporations, almost every government in the world has agreed to it. So it’s literally the most heretical thing you could say to say that we should use more fossil fuels, and yet I’m going to argue that it’s obvious and the mainstream view is just insane.

Let’s look at the general benefits of fossil fuels. What are the benefits we’re going to get if we’re free to use fossil fuels going forward that we’ll lose to the extent that we are not? And the mainstream view, epitomized by this guy Michael Mann, who’s one of our leading designated experts, is there really no benefits. He has a whole book on fossil fuels and climate, pictured here, and he says essentially nothing about the benefits of fossil fuels—and this is pretty conventional.

Now, I’m going to argue that the benefit of fossil fuels is literally that 8 billion people have enough energy to survive and flourish. And they are basically three points I think we need to get to get this. One is that fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective. What somebody like Michael Mann and others have been saying for years, though it’s going out of favor, is that fossil fuels don’t really have any benefits because we can rapidly replace them with intermittent solar and wind.

And again, fortunately this is going out of favor now, but it never really made any sense. What we see if we look at the facts is fossil fuels have had 100 plus years of aggressive competition. They have had enormous political hostility for the last 20 years, and yet they’re still growing despite this. So there’s something special about them.

And then to further confirm this, the places that care most about cost-effective energy are committed to using more fossil fuels. So China has 300 plus new coal plants in the pipeline. And then of course, the AI data center world is doubling and tripling down on natural gas because that’s the most cost-effective thing.

By cost-effective, I mean four things. Affordability—how much can a typical person afford? Reliability—is it available when needed in the exact quantity needed? Versatility—can it power every type of machine, including things like airplanes and cargo ships that are hard to do with anything besides oil until we get a really good nuclear solution? And then scalability—is this available to billions of people in thousands of places?

I think the evidence is really clear, there’s nothing that can compare to fossil fuels in terms of making energy available to billions of people that’s affordable, reliable, and scalable.

And so what that means is to the extent we restrict fossil fuels, people have less energy, which brings me the second point about the benefits of fossil fuels, which is that it is the worst thing imaginable to deprive people of energy because energy determines how much we can flourish on Earth. By flourish, I mean live to our highest potential, so with lives that are long, healthy, and filled with opportunity. You can see, for example, in the cases of China and India, there’s a very strong correlation between energy use, which has dramatically gone up largely thanks to fossil fuels, and GDP and life expectancy.

And the basic reason is simple but profound. The more cost-effective energy is, the more we can use machines to be productive and prosperous. With machines, this naturally impoverished and dangerous world becomes an abundant and safe world. Without machines, life is terrible. Only fossil fuels can provide this for the vast majority of people.

So this is really an existential issue—and it becomes even stronger when you realize one final fact about the general benefits of fossil fuels, which is that the vast majority of the world is energy poor.

We have 6 billion people who use an amount of energy that we would all here consider totally unacceptable, and we have 3 billion people who use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator does.

So think about what this means—and maybe the most powerful area for me is to think about having a child.

My wife and I had our first child a little over four months ago. And if you’ve had a child, I’m sure you’ve had this exact experience where this tiny little fragile thing is born and you just think, “This is the greatest thing ever.” And then maybe soon after you have the thought, “The worst thing ever would be if something happened to him.”

And then you think about energy. Around the world, there are so many babies—particularly premature babies or any babies with any kind of challenges—where because they lack reliable electricity, they don’t have things like incubators, and millions of babies die. Millions of parents suffer the worst possible tragedy because they don’t have enough energy.

And yet we have a global movement saying, “You should not use the most cost-effective form of energy, which is fossil fuels.”

So this is really just the most important issue, and I think it’s supremely immoral that we’re trying to restrict the thing that billions of people need to survive and flourish.

Those are the general benefits of fossil fuels, which are just enormous, but that’s not even the only thing that our establishment ignores. There’s also very strong climate-related benefits, so what I call climate mastery benefits. How significantly does fossil fuel use, which is, again, a source of uniquely cost-effective energy, how much does that increase our ability to neutralize climate danger?

And this is really important because the more mastery you have over climate, the less any climate change, even a negative one, can be a problem. So for example, even for something like a drought—a drought can wipe out millions of people, but if you can do irrigation and crop transport, you can neutralize the drought.

And in fact, the more climate mastery you have, the more negatives don’t even become negatives. A thunderstorm that could wipe out a bunch of houses a few hundred years ago, that can become a romantic setting for a date now.

Mastery is that important. And yet our designated experts tell us there’s nothing to see here. The IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading authority on how to think about this issue has thousands of pages of reports, and yet not once do they mention climate mastery benefits of fossil fuels.

And yet, as I pointed out, we’ve had a 98% decline in climate-related disaster deaths as we’ve used more fossil fuels. And this is not just a coincidental correlation. There’s a very strong causal relationship because fossil fuels have powered heating and air conditioning, storm warning systems, building sturdy buildings. And then as I mentioned, drought: we’ve reduced the drought-related death through irrigation and crop transport by over 99%.

So fossil fuels haven’t taken a safe climate and made it dangerous; they’ve taken a dangerous climate and made it safe. And if we have such enormous climate mastery abilities, that should make us a lot less afraid of any kind of future. Now, we need to look at another category to be even-handed.

People wonder about the negative climate side effects—we’ll talk about those—but also what about the positive climate side effects?

People have this idea—I think because they have this idea that our impact is just this bad thing—that there’s no such thing as a good climate side-effect. And we have this idea of, “Oh, us impacting the climate just means a world on fire.”

But actually one of the major effects of putting a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere is you have a much greener world. There are very strong arguments that we have trillions of dollars in benefits in terms of increased crop growth that we need to take account of in our calculation.

And then warming. People think of warming as, “Oh, warming is terrible, it means the Earth is on fire.” But the fact is that far more people die of cold than of heat. And warming for the foreseeable future is expected to save more lives than it takes, particularly because—most people don’t know this, but it’s a mainstream climate science—warming occurs more in colder regions and less in hot regions. It’s not like the whole world’s going to become scorching if the world becomes more tropical at a fairly slow pace.

So then what about these negative side-effects? Well, if you factor in the climate mastery benefits, there’s really nothing that should scare us.

There are certainly negative side-effects, for example, increase of heat waves. That for sure will happen and continue to happen, and faster sea level rise than we would otherwise have. But there’s nothing that should remotely scare us.

If you look at mainstream climate science, which has a lot of biases, if you factor in our climate mastery abilities, there are no overwhelming impacts that they project.

For example, sea level rise is the most plausible problem, and yet extreme projections by the UN, the most remotely plausible extreme projections are 3 feet in 100 years. That’s something we can deal with pretty readily. We already have 100 million people living below high tide sea level.

So I return to my basic point. If we’re pro-human, including even-handed—and we really look at this issue of fossil fuels from a pro-human perspective—the world is going to be a much better place if we use more fossil fuels, and it’s going to be a horrifically bad place if we rapidly eliminate fossil fuels. And I say a corollary of this is that policy-wise, the obvious policy is energy freedom.

We need the freedom to produce and use all forms of energy, including nuclear and including solar and wind, if and when they can really provide reliable electricity. We need as much cost-effective energy as we can get, and that’s going to make the world a much better place.

So hopefully I’ve persuaded some of you of this in this direction. But I think the next logical question, particularly this room, is, “Well, what do we actually do about this?” Because it’s one thing to talk about this, but I’m really not interested in just talking about this and selling books and whatever. I’m interested in: how do we actually change energy policy for the better, which is going to require changing energy thinking for the better?

And I want to share with you my approach because it is an approach that’s working really well. And my motivation for coming here is mainly I want to get a bunch of talented people excited about this approach.

Some of you can maybe be hired by us, some of you can join us in different ways. So let me give you my basic approach—and it’s simple: make it really easy to be an ally of the truth.

Often when people have a view that’s controversial but true, they kind of like being controversial. I mean, look, we’re at Hereticon, we’re sort of celebrating being heretical. But I personally don’t really like being heretical. If I think I’m right and the world depends on it, I want the world to become conventional with the truth. And so what I’ve done for the last 17 years on this issue is I’ve thought as much as I can about, “How do I create resources that make it as easy as possible for people to understand the truth and communicate the truth to others?”

And there are basically four things that we’ve been working on for the past few years that I want make you aware of.

So what is this book, Fossil Future? This is designed to be a completely systematic guide to how to think about energy and climate from a pro-human perspective that gives you totally how to think about it and addresses every single factual issue you could ever want to address. So if you want to, you can just become totally bulletproof and clear by reading this book

Get Fossil Future on Amazon


The second thing is called Energy Talking Points. This has really been my biggest breakthrough in persuasion, because the idea here is let’s make it super easy. We break down every single issue imaginable into tweet-length talking points. So if you want to know anything about energy, environment, or climate from a pro-human, pro-freedom perspective, you can just go to energytalkingpoints.com.

Browse hundreds of Energy Talking Points


And now we have Alex AI. So if you go to alexepstein.ai, you can ask that thing anything, and it is really, really good at answering questions as me.

Try AlexAI for free

Continue Reading

Trending

X