Why I I contributed to @ceidotorg: This organization has for years been taking courageous, principled stands for energy freedom and against climate catastrophism.
One realm they excel in is the catastrophist dominated legal realm. Courageous @Chris_C_Horner does great work here.
Why I contributed to @IERenergy: This organization has a track record of principled, pro-liberty positions and disseminating extremely useful, precise information.
IER's founder, Robert Bradley Jr., “discovered” me in 2009 and told me I could be an energy thought leader.
Why I’m contributing to @envprogress: @ShellenbergerMD is one of the world’s absolute leading voices for energy humanism, and has courageously undergone public mind-changes away from renewables/unreliables and away from climate catastrophism. I want his voice to be even louder.
Why I contributed to @spikedonline: this is an amazing and crucial British publication that takes humanistic stands on every issue, including climate. Hard to think of any publication with more consistently interesting takes. I’m happy to do anything I can to keep it going.
Why I contributed to @AynRandInst. I worked at ARI for 7 years, and before that wrote for them freelance and learned from their great educational programs. Their intellectual leader, Onkar Ghate, has shaped my energy and environmental thinking more than anyone else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Truth: Elon, through Tesla, has been one of America's biggest advocates of direct and indirect EV subsidies—and of punishments for Tesla's competitors.
🧵👇
Elon Musk likes to tell us that he is against all energy subsidies, including EV subsidies.
Yet the company he runs is one of America's biggest and most successful advocates of EV subsidies.
What gives?
Tesla under Elon Musk's leadership has consistently advocated for EV subsidies in various forms, including:
1) Biden's EV mandate (the most extreme form of subsidy) 2) Biden's EV subsidies (a direct EV subsidy) 3) Biden's heightened "CAFE" standards (an indirect EV subsidy)
Why are leading institutions so biased against fossil fuels?
Because their operating “anti-impact framework” causes them to view fossil fuels, which are inherently high impact, as intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.
A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 3 🧵👇
An Anti-Human Moral Goal and Standard
Our knowledge system’s opposition to fossil fuels while ignoring their enormous benefits can only be explained by it operating on an anti-human moral goal and standard of evaluation that regards benefits to human life as morally unimportant.
Outside the realm of energy, an example of an anti-human moral goal at work is the scientists who, operating on the anti-human moral goal of animal equality, oppose animal testing for medical research and disregard its life-saving benefits to humans.
If you ever hear anyone favorably compare solar and wind to coal, gas, or nuclear by citing a low LCOE—"Levelized Cost of Energy"—you are being scammed.
LCOE explicitly ignores "reliability-related considerations" and is therefore a garbage metric. 🧵👇
You've heard it over and over: "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels."
You might suspect something is wrong here, because if solar/wind were so cheap their developers wouldn't always be asking for subsidies, or claim the sky is falling when subsidies are taken away.
The suspicious claim that "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels" is usually justified using an intimidating-sounding metric called LCOE: "Levelized Cost of Energy."
LCOE is used all the time in prestigious publications and in government.
Our “knowledge system”—the people and institutions we rely upon to research, synthesize, disseminate, and evaluate expert knowledge—consistently ignores the massive, life-or-death benefits of fossil fuels.
A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 1 🧵👇
Save the World With…Fossil Fuels?
I am going to try to persuade you of something that might seem impossible: that one of the best things you can do to make the world a better place is to fight for more fossil fuel use—more use of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Questioning the “Expert” Moral Case for Eliminating Fossil Fuels
We're told rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is the expert consensus, but consider: 1) sometimes the alleged “expert” view is wrong, and 2) eliminating fossil fuels is a radical and potentially disastrous change.