Tomorrow the @washingtonpost plans to "cancel" me and my new book Fossil Future by publishing a 100% slanderous hit-piece labeling me as "racist."
Please join me in calling for The Post to spike the piece, fire the "journalist," and publicly apologize.
VIDEO THREAD
The @washingtonpost's smear campaign against me has 4 main steps: 1. Refuse to engage my arguments. 2. Hunt down things I wrote at 18 that seem controversial. 3. Falsely portray those *individualist* writings as "racist." 4. Use "racism" to discredit my work.
Refuse to engage my arguments, including the many parts of Fossil Future where I condemn and ridicule racism as deeply immoral and absurdly pseudoscientific.
"Fossil fuel eliminators" can't refute me so they try to smear me.
Try to find the most "smearable" things I've ever written. In this case, climate reporter @maxinejoselow is using articles of mine I wrote at Duke when I was *18 and 19* years old--then totally misrepresenting them as racist.
Portray 18-year-old me's statements of Western culture's historical superiority as racist--even though I made clear that I believe that culture, which is fundamentally *ideas*, is totally different from skin color!
Portray 18-year-old me's criticisms of certain MLK actions--e.g., affiliating with Communism, supporting policies that proved destructive to black individuals--as racist.
The criticisms were *individualist*, not at all racist.
When you look at the @washingtonpost's "allegations and information" about my "racist" views at ages 18 and 19 in the context of what I actually said, it becomes clear that I was *not remotely racist* and that the WP is trying to *destroy my work and life for political reasons*.
Use the totally false smear of me as "racist" to attack the motives for my energy arguments.
Reporter @maxinejoselow wrote that she plans to portray me as not really concerned about "poverty in developing nations in Africa"!
Instead of engaging with my arguments in Fossil Future, @washingtonpost is planning to publish a hit-piece on me to discredit my arguments with the absolute lie that I'm a racist--a lie that could be used to attack me for the rest of my life.
Try to discredit my extensive *energy* expertise by citing a complete non-expert (climate scientist Andrew Dessler) with an enormous axe to grind (he's been widely ridiculed for recent debate performances against me).
Summary: @washingtonpost climate reporter @maxinejoselow is planning to "cancel" me tomorrow by 100%-baselessly portraying me as "racist."
Please join me in calling for the Post to: 1. Fire Joselow for malpractice. 2. Apologize to me. 3. Pledge to root out political smearing.
Here's the YouTube video with my full explanation of how @washingtonpost and @maxinejoselow are planning to "cancel" me and my new book Fossil Future tomorrow through slanderous claims that I am a racist.
No legitimate paper can allow this to happen.
If you're new to my work, follow me @AlexEpstein for extreme clarity on energy, environmental, and climate issues from a humanist perspective.
Also, subscribe to my newsletter, featuring lots of concise, powerful, well-referenced energy talking points. alexepstein.substack.com
FYI not only can you buy Fossil Future from typical booksellers, students and educators can get a *free* copy from @yaf.
Please spread the word so that thousands of young people are exposed to the truth about our energy, environmental, and climate future. yaf.org/fossilfuture/
Update on @washingtonpost's plan to "cancel" me as "racist": the Managing Editor has not only failed to apologize, she is *praising* the "climate reporter" who responded to my major energy/climate book by falsely accusing me of racism 23 years ago.
Dear Editor @Krissah30, did you even look at the video I made detailing the horrific plan to *destroy my life* with "racism" allegations that are *total distortions* of my *individualist* writings at age 18?
I wonder if this note from an African energy leader who knows me will affect @washingtonpost’s desire to portray me as a racist who doesn’t really care about Africa.
Or will they continue to rely on their staffer’s bizarre distortions of me at age 18?
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 🇨🇦👇
*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.
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.
⚠️ 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👇🧵
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!
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.
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.