I had experience today that I believe showcases how universities can and should foster the open discussion of ideas.
I spoke to Prof @RogerPielkeJr’s “Energy, Policy and Society” class about the future of fossil fuels.
Here are 4 things that impressed me about Roger’s class.
🧵
1. Expressing strong challenges and disagreements with politeness.
I was impressed by the fact that whatever the level of a given student’s (or Roger’s) apparent agreement or disagreement with me, they expressed themselves with politeness and nothing resembling personal attacks.
2. Understanding someone’s views before challenging them.
I was impressed by the several students who challenged me *based on an accurate portrayal of my views*.
This is in wonderful contrast to the “straw-manning” of controversial views that often occurs on campuses.
For example, one student accurately described my views on the injustice of restrictions on fossil fuels to the poor world, but asked if a “carbon tax” would be appropriate for the rich world.
You can read some of my perspective on this issue here:
I was impressed that the students asked questions about aspects of energy/environment/climate that they clearly cared about, and were interested in my views on, vs. asking questions to virtue signal or to show off.
4. A professor without a political agenda.
While @RogerPielkeJr and I agree on quite a bit, we also disagree on quite a bit policy-wise. He could have tried to “protect” his students from my influence, but instead let them think for themselves about my arguments/positions.
As new institutions and movements emerge to encourage the open discussion of ideas (e.g., University of Austin), they should make sure to consult professors like @RogerPielkeJr who are currently doing a great job at fostering open discussion.
@Starbucks, an advocate of disastrous “net zero” and "100% renewable" policies, positions itself as proof that these policies can work.
In fact, Starbucks’ stores, supply chain, and rapid expansion in China are mostly powered by fossil fuels.🧵
Starbucks is a major supporter of “net zero” and “100% renewable” policies. They are a founding member of the “Transform to Net Zero Initiative,” which pushes businesses and government to rapidly eliminate the fossil fuels that today provide 80% of the world’s energy.
To help justify its support of “net zero” and “100% renewable,” Starbucks portrays itself as well on its way toward these goals, with stores that are already powered by solar and wind energy.
We are in the middle of a mass-propaganda campaign to deny the obvious fact that Joe Biden and other anti-oil politicians have unnecessarily driven up oil and gasoline prices by reducing the *supply* of oil through massive restrictions on oil production and transport.
THREAD
President Biden and other anti-oil politicians around the world are in a bind: they want the *prestige* that comes with their decades of restricting the production and transport of oil, but they do not want the *results*: voters angry about rising oil and gasoline prices.
Since November 2020, crude oil spot prices have doubled--rising from about $40/barrel to over $80/barrel and the avg price for regular gasoline has risen from $2.10/gallon to $3.30/gallon. These skyrocketing prices are contributing to low Presidential approval ratings.
Skyrocketing oil and gasoline policies are not a failure of the oil industry. They are the total failure of *anti-oil politicians*, who have artificially restricted the *supply* of oil with massive restrictions and threats to oil production and transport.
THREAD
Elizabeth Warren says gasoline prices are rising "because giant oil companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil enjoy doubling their profits." Joe Biden says "companies have not ramped up the supply of oil quickly enough."
These anti-oil politicians should blame themselves instead.
Contrary to rhetoric by Elizabeth Warren and others, oil and gasoline prices are not rising "because giant oil companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil enjoy doubling their profits." If oil companies could control prices they would have done so during often-unprofitable 2015-2020.
"despite the enormous growth in world population, deaths due to natural disasters plummeted over the 20th century....As author @AlexEpstein notes, fossil fuels didn’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous, they took a dangerous climate and made it safer." @RossMcKitrick
"Do city councils that issue climate emergency declarations begin ramping up disaster preparedness? Do they upgrade their drainage systems....No, more likely they just book tickets for an ever-larger delegation to whichever climate conference is coming up next..." -@RossMcKitrick
"When I think climate change, I think [Chinese] jobs."
--President Joe Biden
Here's why the reconciliation bill, aka "Build Back Better," will create mass "green joblessness." One of many reasons it should be called "Make Everything Worse." alexepstein.substack.com/p/talking-poin…
"Climate envoy" John Kerry is also clueless about energy jobs.
For my actual relationship to industry, which I am proud of, see this video.
I admire the Kochs and would be proud of being funded by them, provided they respected my independence--as I require of everyone I deal with.
But Koch hasn't funded me.
The only "evidence" I've seen offered for the "Koch-funded" lie is: 1. Koch supposedly gave my former employer a small contribution a long time ago. 2. Of the hundreds of speeches I have given, 4 have been to Koch-connected groups. 2 for free because I admire them.