Need talking points for this year's Thanksgiving energy/climate conversations?
Here's a 🧵 with my top 6.
Summary: Fossil fuels are making the world a better and better place by providing uniquely low-cost, reliable energy to billions of people--and are needed by billions more.
1: Contrary to rhetoric that we've "destroyed the planet," the world has never been a better place for human beings to live. Life expectancy and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to <10% today.
2: A root cause of today's amazingly livable world is fossil fuel. Low-cost, reliable energy enables us to use machines to be productive and prosperous. And only fossil fuels (80% of energy) provide low-cost, reliable energy for all energy needs on a scale of billions of people.
3: Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased *98%* over the last century.
4: Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5X higher than today's.
5: Solar and wind can't come close to replacing fossil fuels. They only provide electricity (20% of energy use)--and they don't even do that well. Because solar and wind are unreliable, they don't replace reliable power plants--they add to the cost of reliable power plants.
6: Billions of people desperately need low-cost, reliable energy, which for the foreseeable future largely needs to come from fossil fuels. 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood and dung for heating and cooking.
Conclusion, part 1: The world needs to continue and expand its massive use of fossil fuels, while making sure we have the freedom necessary for genuinely cost-effective non-carbon alternatives to emerge. For example, we need to decriminalize reliable, non-carbon nuclear energy.
Conclusion, part 2: The legislation the US is on the verge of passing, called Build Back Better, should be renamed Destroy American Energy--because, by seeking to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use, it will make American energy unaffordable and unreliable.
Happy Thanksgiving. Whoever else you thank, thank the people of the fossil fuel industry, who alone provide every form of energy we need--including the energy that enables us to fly to see loved ones. Yet they are perpetually demonized by the ignorant and hypocritical.
PS If you like my talking points, you can find a nearly limitless free stockpile at EnergyTalkingPoints.com. And for the ultimate resource on the future of energy, preorder my book Fossil Future for yourself and/or your loved ones. It comes out Earth Week 2022 (April 19).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you want to see how my humanistic approach to energy/climate compares to the approach of prestigious climate catastrophists, watch the just-released "Opposing Views" by @MikhailaAleksis, which features me vs. Dr. Andrew Dessler.
It's changing minds!👇
"I was expecting Alex Epstein to be an idiot, but to me he clearly comes out as the winner. I guess I'm moving away from the 'save the planet people'"
"Dr. Dessler has many political comments, but little scientific comments. Some of his scientific comments are debatable. I believe Mr. Epstein had a more cogent set of arguments."
A reader pointed me to this fascinating 2017 article by anthropologist John Tooby (credited with founding evolutionary psychology) on the nature of coalitions--including how they destroy science. Almost every paragraph applies to climate catastrophism.
👇 edge.org/response-detai…
"Since coalitional programs evolved to promote the self-interest of the coalition’s membership...even coalitions whose organizing ideology originates (ostensibly) to promote human welfare often slide into the most extreme forms of oppression..."
"to earn membership in a group you must send signals that clearly indicate that you differentially support it, compared to rival groups....to think and express content conforming to and flattering to one’s group’s shared beliefs and to attack and misrepresent rival groups."
Elizabeth Warren has just sent a letter to energy CEOs complaining about natural gas prices.
What a crock. If not for Warren's success at restricting gas production, transport, and export, we would have low and stable prices--because the US has virtually unlimited natural gas.🧵
Warren and other anti-gas politicians claim that high natural gas prices come from too much freedom to export natural gas.
In fact, *restrictions* on natural gas transport, including exports, suppressed investment in gas production and helped create today's shortages/spikes.
Here's the real reason why natural gas and coal prices are skyrocketing around the world: the actions of anti-fossil fuel politicians like @SenWarren.
Budweiser claims its beers are "100% renewable." In fact, most of the energy that goes into its beer is fossil fuel.
Learn how @BudweiserUSA is lying about its energy use and why that's so damaging--then join me in calling for a public apology.👇
Today's Budweiser cans and Budweiser ads are plastered with logos saying "100% renewable electricity"--leading customers to think that if they drink Budweiser they are not using any fossil fuel.
But in reality *most of the energy that goes into a Bud is fossil fuel*.
When you drink a Budweiser beer you are indirectly using energy in many ways: mining for aluminum, manufacturing cans, farming hops, brewing beer, transporting beer, and refrigeration. Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels.
LinkedIn has finally "explained" why they took down my popular video criticizing COP 26: "false claims of denying climate change due to the use of fossil fuels."
But my video contains no such claims, and in fact contains two *affirmations* by me of manmade climate change!
🧵
Last week LinkedIn took down, without explanation, this popular video of mine criticizing COP 26. The video had 11,000 views when they took it down, and was spreading rapidly.
Here's the transcript of my video criticizing COP 26. At no point do I deny "climate change due to the use of fossil fuels." At 2 points I affirm it--as acknowledged by the host: "AS YOU RECOGNIZE YOURSELF, HUMANS DO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE." dropbox.com/s/embtaxk552t9…
My working answers:
* anti-achievement
* anti-value
There's always some achievement/value "woke" is trying to destroy.🧵
In the case of climate change/catastrophism, the achievement of industrial civilization, which has made human life incomparably better--including far safer from climate--is the object of "woke" hatred and attempts at destruction. The hatred/destruction includes nuclear and hydro.
In the case of racism, "woke" claims to be focused on racial discrimination but its actual focus is on denigrating myriad achievements--America's success, individuals' career success, even mathematics--as "racist." (What could be more racist than calling math/logic "white"?)