Alex Epstein Profile picture
Sep 22, 2021 15 tweets 12 min read Read on X
You may have noticed that the media aren't covering the Great Barrier Reef much this year, after reporting its imminent death incessantly for years. The reason is not no news but good news. The GBR has been rapidly improving—which doesn't fit the catastrophist agenda.

THREAD
The New York Times has for years been “reporting” on the Great Barrier Reef with these ominous headlines. Yet now that the reef has been dramatically improving, @nytimes is mute. My research team has been unable to find one story about the GBR’s improvement.
Readers of The New York Times, I encourage you to reach out to @nytopinion and @nytimes climate reporters @jwilliamsNYT @damiencave @JustinHGillis @livia_ar and ask "Why are you denying the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef by not covering it?"
aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…
The Washington Post has, like the Times, been "reporting" on the Great Barrier Reef with ominous headlines for years. And they, too, aren't reporting at all on the reef's dramatic improvement. Why is the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef not news, @WashingtonPost?
Readers of The Washington Post, I encourage you to reach out to @PostOpinions and @washingtonpost climate reporters @chriscmooney, @themadstone, @bydarrylfears and ask “Why are you denying the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef by not covering it?”
aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…
Background: From 2016-2020, the mainstream media expressed extreme concern about the fate of the Great Barrier Reef--a huge, beautiful underwater landscape, formed by corals and brimming with life--portraying it as in irreparable decline due overwhelmingly to our CO2 emissions.
The Great Barrier Reef *was* experiencing significant bleaching, but there were many causes, including unusually warm local waters, predatory starfish, storms ravaging the reef, plus bleaching from the reef's natural lifecycle.
Instead of looking at bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in an evenhanded way, the climate media downplayed all factors except for global warming--which they claimed would do irreparable damage by leading to warmer waters that corals couldn’t recover from.
It didn't make much sense that global warming would lead to irreparable decline of the Reef given that corals have been around for 100s of millions of years, are adaptable to extreme events, are resilient thanks to a high reproduction rate, and can grow faster in warmer temps.
Given the media’s professed concern for the Great Barrier Reef, you would think that an improvement in the reef would be cause for widespread celebration. But the reef has experienced a dramatic improvement in the last years, and the never-quiet climate media have nothing to say.
The climate media’s evasion of the Great Barrier Reef improvement confirms that they have no interest in the truth about what’s happening with climate and why. They are interested in attacking fossil fuels, attacking capitalism, and justifying vast expansions of government power.
Any science editor that covered the decline of the Great Barrier Reef but not its improvement should commit to correcting their failures--or be pressured into resigning. This includes the editors of the @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @cnn, @guardian, @usatoday, and @natgeo.
Why does it matter so much that the climate media only cover negative stories and ignore positive ones? Because it contributes to deadly energy policy by catastrophizing the side-effects of the fossil fuels that modern life depends on, while ignoring their massive benefits.
If you want to know more about why I believe fossil fuels are so crucial, and why climate catastrophizing is so dangerous, read my recent Congressional testimony.
energytalkingpoints.com/alex-epstein-c…
Please share the story of the improving Great Barrier Reef with everyone who has publicly catastrophized about the GBR, such as @LeoDiCaprio, @MarkRuffalo, and @adriangrenier. Hopefully they will celebrate, share the good news, and walk back their climate catastrophism.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

Apr 27
Canada has 3X the US’s oil reserves but less than 40% the production.

Why? Anti-oil politicians like Mark Carney who say they’re protecting Earth’s coldest country from global warming.

Here's the story of Canada's squandered oil opportunity—and how to reverse it 🇨🇦👇 Image
*Canada has the greatest oil opportunity on Earth: > 3 times the reserves of the US, with lower production costs.*

Canada has 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves—by far the largest of any free country. And its producers can profit at $44 oil, vs. >$57 for US shale.

Canadian oil production is also continuing to get cheaper. Oil sands operating costs have dropped 19% over the past five years, and the industry—which is still fine-tuning how to coax oil-like bitumen out of oil sands—has substantial room for further cost reductions.

In addition to its massive proven oil reserves, Canada also has massive unexplored oil resources. Canada’s Northwest Territories may contain up to 37% of Canada’s total oil reserves, much of it light crude, which is even cheaper to extract and transport than bitumen from oil sands.
*Canada is squandering its oil opportunity, with < 40% of US production and much slower growth.*

Given Canada's massive oil reserves and lower production costs, Canadian oil should have been growing far faster than US oil—on a path to producing even more oil than the US does.

Instead, Canada is totally squandering its oil opportunity, with less than 40% of US production and slower growth since 2010.Image
Read 12 tweets
Apr 25
Why Congress's new budget should eliminate all IRA "tax credits"

1. They are subsidies
2. They promote inferior energy
3. They raise energy costs
4. They make energy unreliable
5. They increase our debt
6. They make our economy less productive
7. They don't lower CO2 emissions
*Truth 1: IRA energy tax credits are really just subsidies*

Real tax credits let productive industries keep/reinvest more of their profits.

Most IRA "tax credits" are transferable tax reduction certificates that unprofitable industries trade for cash. I.e., subsidies.

A tax credit lets productive industries pay less tax on profits, which enables them to reinvest in additional productivity.

But most IRA "tax credits" support activities that are unprofitable on a free market—e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen—and therefore have no taxes to reduce with credits.

How can unprofitable activities be set to get a trillion dollars in IRA "tax credits"?

Because they are aren't really tax credits but *transferable tax reduction certificates* that can be easily sold for cash to profitable companies (and sometimes the government itself).

Giving a trillion dollars in transferable tax cut certificates to unprofitable activities that pay no taxes is no different than giving transferable tax reduction certificates to individuals who pay no taxes.

It's a trillion dollar subsidy, not a tax credit.
*Truth 2: Every IRA subsidy promotes inferior energy*

Every subsidy has lobbyists who say it's somehow improving American energy.

But the fact is, they are demanding subsidies because the energy they are pushing is inferior and couldn't survive or thrive on a free market.

The IRA's "45Y" and "48E" subsidies will give $241-901 billion to companies for "clean electricity," mostly intermittent solar and wind—which would be used far less in a free market because they are so unreliable. E.g., CA has chronic reliability problems from depending on solar.

The IRA's "45X" Advanced Manufacturing Production subsidies will give companies $132-193 billion to inefficiently manufacture batteries, as well as the solar panels and wind turbines that are created huge reliability problems on our grid and increasing the cost of electricity.

The IRA's "30D," "25E," and "45W" subsidies will give $117-393 billion to companies for EVs—whose mix of cost and (in)convenience most consumers won't pay market prices for, and therefore need huge subsidies as well as mandates to buy.

The IRA's "45Q" subsidies will give companies $34-210 billion to capture CO2 and pump it underground—a process companies would use very little on a free market since it's so costly. E.g., carbon capture for a coal plant costs 4 times the price of the coal!

The IRA's "45V" subsidies give companies $33-100 billion for hydrogen fuel—which would exist very little in a free market because it's so expensive to make. Hydrogen costs 10 times what gasoline does for the same energy! And favored "green" hydrogen is even more!

The IRA's "45Z" subsidies will give companies $43 billion for various "clean fuel" projects, mostly biofuels—which would be used far less in a free market since they are expensive to produce and compete with food for cropland.

The IRA's "25C" and "25D" subsidies will pay (mostly wealthy) property owners $28-276 billion to use government-favored "energy efficiency" technologies like solar panels and heat pumps that they wouldn't otherwise use or be willing to pay for.
Read 10 tweets
Mar 28
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America

Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.

Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵 Image
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.

Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline! Image
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.

The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.
Read 11 tweets
Mar 12
Did the EPA really just take the "Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History"?

Actually, yes.

Here are 18 important deregulatory actions EPA announced today, and why they will make life better for all of us.

🧵👇
1. "Reconsideration of regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0)"

These Biden regs would effectively ban all coal plants and new natgas plants by demanding impossible 90% carbon capture.

Reconsidering them is essential to preserving the grid and unleashing electricity.
2. "Reconsideration of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations"

These Biden regs paved the way for the EV mandate by imposing unachievable emission standards on gas vehicles.

Reconsidering them is essential for preserving automotive choice.
Read 20 tweets
Mar 12
Amazing news: @EPA is challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the "endangerment finding."

This bogus "finding" allowed Obama/Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.

Full story 👇
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?

It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."

But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.
Read 13 tweets
Jan 15
It may seem impossible, but 4 years from now America can have

1. Record oil and gas production

2. Cheap, plentiful, reliable electricity

3. High environmental quality

4. Low climate danger

5. A nuclear renaissance

Here are the 25 policy changes that will get us there.

👇 Image
1: Unleash responsible development on federal lands/waters

Anti-development policies prevent us from tapping enormous energy reserves on federal lands/waters.

Responsible development can unlock the full energy potential of ¼ of the US (!) while protecting environmental quality.
2: Limit NEPA

The leading source of project delays is the abuse of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) to require endless environmental reviews.

Dramatically limiting NEPA's complexity and scope will help all energy reach its potential, from oil to nuclear to geothermal.
Read 28 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(