The mission of the Center for Industrial Progress is to inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.
CIP was founded by Alex Epstein, a philosopher and keynote speaker, whose book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” became a New York Times bestseller. His writings on energy and energy policy have been published in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, and dozens of other publications. He is a Principal blogger for MasterResource, the leading free-market energy blog. Mr. Epstein's weekly podcast, "Power Hour," features discussions with leading energy thinkers including author Robert Bryce ("Power Hungry"), climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT), and energy economist Michael Lynch (EnergySEER). Mr. Epstein's writings on philosophy, business, and energy have been featured in 10 books, including, most recently, Why Businessmen Need Philosophy.
For more information on CIP and its philosophy and practices, see our website, linked below.
Пікірлер
Its like paying for other kids college. The driver benefits at everyone else expense. Its totally unfair, especially when you realize that electric cars do zero to affect the climate. Its a giant scam.
Keep up the good content on Energy!
Crabtree's warning that challenging climate science and net zero hasn't served the industry well (1:23:23) made me think: who in the industry has ever challenged net zero? Other than Alex Epstein--who isn't directly in the industry. Moreover, did these challenges cite data climate-related deaths? A charitable interpretation of Crabtree's statement is "a popular idea must be right" or "percepition is reality."
Worst President in our lifetime. The virtue signaling is just gas lighting. The climate doesn't report to the green mafia. Neither should we.
Environmentalists have been destroying the auto industry for 60 years.
And destroying the environment.
No human impact = fewer humans...
Its a religious type of thing when people get convinced that it is hopeless unless we spend billions of dollars on junk that will do absolutely nothing to affect the climate, but will make them fell good while they call you a climate denier.
Uninformed beliefs will cost everyone tons of money and do zero to affect the climate.
Useful idiots as a certain tyrant said....
One brilliant mind, so many fools.
Alex is the best. 👍🏻🖖💯
Too much sense for too many dummies.
What is wrong with these fools ,theyre so overwhelmed and weak ,its a pitiful combination
Facts! Irrefutable!
We should help people out as much as possible.
We do that by promoting *_energy-freedom._*
Auto accidents kill 30,000/yr, but autos save many millions per day. Not hyperbole, truth. The same can be said of industrial pollution, thousands may die, but millions live better, healthier, wealthier, and happier lives, including the ones that are dying.
💯 exactly.
"The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon, published in 1981. Simon argued against the idea of fixed resource limits, suggesting that human innovation and technology continually redefine and expand what resources are available, thus countering the pessimistic views of the "Peak Oil" movement and other resource scarcity theories. Boring Robots can extract coal, for instance. Until the women are no longer so scared of Micro-Nuclear, until we get fusion online. Trim-tabbing and baby-steps.
No way this mfer looks like beavis
This guy Alex Epstein is a f***ing idiot! I can't believe his line of argument! It's so dishonest. So because fossil fuels have some benefits, which nobody's denying they do, we should therefore disregard all the negative side-effects of their usage and advocate for using MORE of them, regardless of the costs. Because that will lead to LIMITLESS growth (yeah right! as if that's possible). He's basically advocating for thoughtless materialism, as if we can exploit the earth, and not worry about the consequences. As we're somehow separate from it and will be able to catapult ourselves into space when it all goes to hell. Wow... Wake up people, this guy's paid by the fossil fuel companies. Takes you two seconds to find out his sponsors on the internet. He's crooked as can be.
Wind and solar are consumables in that you need to dig up massive amounts of earth and spend a lot of fossil fuel energy to produce the required materials for them, but in 20 to 30 years you need to do it all over again and junk the original equipment which becomes toxic waste not fit for regular landfills
I think you mean that in the area of energy production, wind and solar are net consumers. IOW they never produce more energy in the system than it took to produce the machines to convert diffuse, intermittent energy to usable forms.
I, for one, am impressed by wind-and-solar's perfect track record of never having powered any country 50+%, and never having powered any off-grid factory or data-center.
Wow so insightful, if only you had common sense. Its almost like because we dont have the required amount of solar panels or wind turbines to power 50% of a country, plus noones complaining if we use hyrdo or geothermal or any other form of RENEWABLE ENERGY. We just want people to use renewable energy.
@@Inventeer Wind-and-solar advocates complain that uranium-fired power plants *_"take too long to build"._* Yet, the wind-and-solar *_"revolution"_* has been ongoing for 51 years, and still isn't powering anything except a few satellites and cell towers. "...hyrdo or geothermal..." So now you're throwing wind-and-solar *_under the bus._* That was quick.
👏👏
If you make gasoline so expensive, people will revert to horses again.
No. Horses are vastly more-expensive than automobiles to own and operate, and rising oil-prices would only make them more-expensive.
@aliendroneservices6621 At $15 to $20 a gallon, I'd be willing to bet horses become competitive again. Mules and donkeys, too. This is speculative, of course. I would suspect people would probably start chopping down trees and putting wood gasifiers in their trucks first. When wood becomes less abundant, we would move on to horses, mules, and donkeys next.
@@erikkovacs3097 If we assume the average human worker can produce 50 watts of work continuously, and a gallon of gasoline contains 33,700 watt-hours of potential energy, then a gallon of gasoline can replace 674 human workers. At $20 per hour for human labor, that gallon of gasoline is therefore worth $13,500. You're going to have to do a lot better than a mere $20 per gallon. Horses need food and other things, all of which are provided by oil. High oil prices cause high horse prices. You can't get away from that by wishing it away. A horse economy also requires an army of horse specialists. This army of specialists does not exist right now. Billions of people would need to be retrained to cater to the special needs of horses. This isn't impossible, but it would take decades. In the meantime, people would be riding bicycles, not horses.
@aliendroneservices6621 Your math is wrong. You assume 100% conversion efficiency from gallons of gasoline to watt-hours. I have no idea why you think a gallon of gasoline can replace 674 humans. Where did you get that number? Horse food comes from oil? Horses eat roughage, which generally does not require fertilizer. How hard do you think it is to tend horses? You make it sound like these animals who evolved on savannahs and can survive of their own with zero human intervention require an army of humans to care for them. They don't.
@@erikkovacs3097 I meant 674 humans *_for an hour._* Divide 33,700 watt-hours by 50 watts per person, and we get 674 people for an hour. (Which I explained in detail, above. Why are you asking me to repeat what you just read?) "...these animals [...] evolved on savannahs..." False. Humans bred them from slow, wild animals with short, stocky legs: "The ancestral stock of the domestic horse is generally considered to be the tarpan from eastern Europe and the Ukrainian steppes, the forest horse of northern Europe, and Przewalski's horse from central Asia." (Google AI) "As of June 2024, the American Farriers Journal (AFJ) estimates that there are around 27,500 to 32,000 full- and part-time farriers in the United States. This estimate takes into account factors like changing horse numbers and the number of part-time farriers. However, other estimates of farrier numbers range from 10,000 to 70,000." (Google AI) There are about 7M horses in the United States, and almost none of them work. If they were working, there would be far more need for equine professionals, such as farriers. There would also be far-more need for large-animal veterinarians. Horses also travel 3 mph, so we need to compare to automobiles traveling 3 mph (which would be many times as efficient as traveling at their normal speeds). "When Horseshoers Convened in Cincinnati in 1898, Few Foresaw Their Looming Doom" "By Greg Hand posted on February 5, 2024 | Posted in Education Source: Cincinnati Magazine" *_"Cincinnati horseshoers in 1898 had no idea their entire profession was about to be decimated by the bicycle and the automobile."_* Given that horses travel 3 mph, it would make far more sense to travel by bicycle than by horse. People wishing to heroically save money on gasoline could also simply switch to hybrid vehicles, and drive slow. This would consume less oil than 3-mph horses would.
Thank you CG. When Islam chants death to Israel, and death to America, we should have taken it seriously long ago. Namby pamby responses are idiotic. ICC is full of cowards.
What’s crazy is that people think dollars spent ie. green mafia will mean changing the climate for the better. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The average pure-plug-in subsidy in the US is $50k per unit. (Texas Public Policy Foundation)
This study is very misleading at best and filled with lies at worst. More than 25,000 of the subsidies don't even apply in Texas, where this is done. In fact, they don't apply in over 70% of the us.
Why does everybody always complain about electric vehicle subsidies but forget to mention that gas subsidies and fuel subsidies are way more
Fossil-fuels are net-taxed, not net-subsidized.
Apparently we don't need energy as much, cause why the most cost effective fuels would be subsidized? Or maybe you are just wrong.
There are no gas or oil “subsidies”. Depreciation is not a subsidy, keeping your money is not a subsidy.
All that money is from taxpayers you fool.
Please get Alex involved in policy making
01:01:48 "At some point..." I think it was Michael Shellenberger, but I heard from someone in this space that one argument against nuclear given by a congressman was "what if, after another Ice Age, the remains of the human species come across nuclear waste buried in the Rocky Mountains...." It's clear to which side is taking this way too far. But it also reveals Alex's point of how certain people become more important with apocalyptic narratives. This congressman could now be the savior of the future human race.
I think the question "why governments would want to push 'renewables', wouldnt it be more expensive for them due to subsidies etc" is a VERY good question and I think Alex (@improvetheplanet) did NOT have an answer to do that. I think what actually is the answer is the fact 'renewables' require two distinct systems in place (100% solar/wind + 100% fossil fuel backup). This means two sets of long spanning contracts, two sets or partnerships, two sets of infrastructure, two sets of construction, more grid complexity, more software complexity, double the employment etc. Which are all GDP boosting measures. Having two sets of complementary energy infrastructures is better for the economy than having tiny infrastructure (nuclear). This idea/agenda was originally conceived by Germany (their Energiewende campaign) to boost the economy and employment and has worked for them - and the blueprint is now being adopted by other governments. The 'looking green' is just the bonus (cherry on top) and not the sole dumb self-deception Alex thinks it is.
I have yet to see this impact on climate. #WealthTransfer
I have yet to see this, or any, impact on climate. Where is it?
His hair gets taller each month.
There is nothing like a guy giving advice without a clue. If Alex Epstein wanted to give good advice, he should have gotten a Master's or Ph.D. in physics instead of philosophy.
the number of flaws in this discussion is overwelming
That girl at the ended is a re-tard
The youtube disclaimer that human activity is the main driver of climate change seems like a specious case. Climate changed by itself for the history of the world. They might add that even if it is the “main driver”, there's nothing that can be done to reverse it because people aren't going to stop using FF. Nobody likes being too cold or too hot, or walking, or enjoying all the many benefits. Sadly, the alarmists will drain bank accounts to pretend they can reverse it. It’s theft, and misery for millions to virtue-signal and transfer wealth to the green mafia. No amount of spending will reverse it.
I get google's notice here "Human activities … main driver of climate change, … fossil fuels" link to UN page. ffs
I miss Kimberly until she started dating Trump Jr
Great Q&A
Fossil fuel benefit deniers have it too easy. Their minds can be twisted by alarmism and few benefit monetarily but all think they do. No amount of money will change the climate. Better to change the response to it.
Flow chart: If climate is a threat: increase power-consumption. If climate is *_not_* a threat: increase power-consumption. The correct course of action is the same, therefore any questions of climate-threat are moot.
Epstein makes good points
So-called 'fossil fuels' have vastly improved life for humans, and will continue to do so for at least the next 100 years, probably longer. No country has ever managed to run itself on 100% wind and solar because such things are weather dependent, and there can never be enough 'storage' to back them up...every time someone claims they have run on 100% 'unreliables', it is for a few hours only and during low demand, or they are importing electricity from elsewhere.
There is no oral case for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels Are old technologies that are dirty and cost-prohibitive.
Read the book.
@@danreach I spent 9 years getting 2 master's degrees. What do you think Alex Epstein has to say that I don't already know? This is what happens when you try to live in the past instead of pushing for the future. Then again, you may be right for me to read the book. I'll check it out in the public library.
@@spacescatatford people can have any number of college degrees and still be stupid...
You need to take a closer look at the facts as they exist today.
@@spacescatatford Right now there are no cost-effective replacements for fossil fuels globally. That's why last year was an all-time record for burning coal. Coal will remain king until there is a realistic replacement that is cheaper. High-temperature/low-pressure nuclear fission will replace coal and natural gas but that will take a long time. There are a billion+ + people on earth that live without any electricity or in energy poverty. Those people will power themselves out of poverty with coal unless there is something cheaper. If you haven't read his book, your degrees mean little.
The EPA is going to fine a volcano.
Yes! Fossil fuels will remain the dominant part of energy generation for a very long time. At least until the environmentalists get out of the way and let all forms of energy production compete.
You can see these Students Minds have been corrupted with BS through the questions they are asking But good to see they are willing to have their minds opened by Alex
For every 1 BTU of fossil fuel, we can gain 18 BTUs of windmill energy or 9 BTUs of solar panel energy. The objective is to be as cheap an energy source with as little environmental damage as possible. That's not oil, natural gas, or coal. According to the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in a mild glacial period. Instead, 2024 is the hottest year on record. As we continue to inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the temperature will continue to climb. This means crops will begin to fail raising food prices along with everything else. The faster we wean ourselves from fossil fuels, the better off the human species will be.
You can cherry pick data to claim almost anything that you want. Vegans do the same thing. Your claims have never aligned with reality.
An excellent Q&A session
7:02 All airliners taking off from South Africa are fueled up with jet-fuel made from non-oil sources.
Made from _someting_ black though? 👀
@@johanponken Coal.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Cool. My 30's vibes got assuaged, where I assumed tar…. (All in jest.)
There's huge reserves of coal that with the addition of energy (say from a msr or other nuclear reactor) could be liquified.