Alex Epstein: Despite Climate Change, the Future Needs More Fossil Fuels
Coal, oil, and gas have contributed to global warming, but we can deal with their impact while letting them bring billions more up to middle-class living standards.
HD DownloadToday's discussion of climate and energy policy is dominated by two overarching claims.
First, fossil fuels are causing catastrophic climate change that threatens the very existence of the planet. And, second, renewable forms of energy—particularly wind and solar—can easily replace oil, coal, and gas.
In his new book Fossil Future, Alex Epstein argues that neither of these statements is accurate. He notes that the number of people around the globe dying from climate-related events has plummeted by 98 percent over the past century and that wind and solar comprise just 3 percent of current global energy use. An immediate shift to renewables, he argues, would consign billions to poverty or death in order to stave off the impact of man-made climate change, the consequences of which have often been exaggerated and with which humans are equipped to deal.
Epstein, who is the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, tells Reason about how he fought back against a hit piece in The Washington Post accusing him of racism by using social media to tell his side of the story and why he believes "human flourishing requires more oil, coal, and natural gas—not less"
Photos: John Englart/Flickr/Creative Commons; Stephen McCarthy/Collision/Sportsfile/Flickr/Creative Commons; Gage Skidmore/Flickr/Creative Commons; Gage Skidmore/Flickr/Creative Commons
Written and produced by Nick Gillespie; intro edited by John Osterhoudt; interview edited by Adam Czarnecki.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is an easy solution to climate change.
If a warming climate is the problem, making the whole world freezing cold all year long is the solution.
Of course.
Yet we must ask; how much fossil fuel will that size air conditioner require?
Carl Sagan figured out a way back in 1983.
Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. (rea15) I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.
Details on this website >>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Well both are strawmen. Thinking of this is as reason-based argument is a category error; this is pure agitprop / outrage product development.
"catastrophic climate change that threatens the very existence of the planet" -> right, like what the planet is going to blow up? Obviously a scientifically rigorous conversation going on here.
"renewable forms of energy—particularly wind and solar—can easily replace oil, coal, and gas" -> strategic insertion of "easily" so you can make people sound irrational.
In reality, the scientific community hashes out reports that provide a public statement on current understanding (IPCC), so it is pretty trivial to identify grifters like Alex. They don't address the published scientific or economic summaries, they build strawmen like the above so they can get their followers excited and sell books.
Use skepticism.
"If a warming climate is the problem, making the whole world freezing cold all year long is the solution."
It's just logic.
" . . . neither of these statements is accurate . . . "
Actually, both of those statement are already disproven lies.
somehow managed to reply in the wrong place... both of these statements are strawmen. comment above ^
Climate change is political because we don’t have the science to demonstrate truth.
If our climate scientific community brain trust developed a peer reviewed model including man made choices and natural phenomena, we could know EXACTLY what to expect.
Every adult on earth would be modeled based on their energy usage. Tax breaks awarded for lower energy footprints.
China.
If it’s so fucking important, why aren’t we doing it,
Because like everything else, the gullible are duped by altruism while the real plan is greed.
Peer reviewed doesn't mean accurate. But don't let that stop your longing for a "well ordered" society.
I guess I’m pining for the days before definitions of words were changed by biased lobby groups to achieve their myopic objectives.
We know what you're pining for, stormfag.
Yeah because I just said so retard.
No, because you're a stormfag, stormfag.
I imagine you’re working hard to murder more jews. The first six million were just a warm up for you and the Reich.
You sound like one of the Jews who falsely claimed no less than 166 times between 1900 and 1945 that 6 million of them were being murdered around the world.
Begging for shekels like wastes of skin faking cancer on go fund me pages.
Fuck you.
"Climate change is political because we don’t have the science to demonstrate truth"
Uhhh.
"peer reviewed model including man made choices and natural phenomena"
that doesn't sound like it makes a lot of sense.
How about scientists study physics and tell us what that means about how the planet works? Oh, that's what they do and what lots and lots of people really do not like them doing.
"Every adult on earth would be modeled based on their energy usage. Tax breaks awarded for lower energy footprints."
There are simpler ways to handle large negative externality problems in economics, but ok.
Things you don’t understand don’t make sense.
What you do about it is on you.
this guy gets it?
He has a real knack for showmanship and for dusting off old science denial tropes and making them sound fresh and positive.
The future needs nuclear fusion. After many decades of government-funded research and work, it's coming, and will save life on earth. Unfortunately including the lives of many authoritarian-adjacent Reason commenters posing as libertarians.
Nuclear fusion is just twenty years away. As it has been for fifty years.
Fission is good enough. We already had a Manhattan Project for energy It was called the Manhattan Project.
So, reasonmag is on the lazy twitter journalist model, rehashing the same piece twice (or more, damn I hope not more)? This interview, the Bindel/ENB sex worker debate. The 3 new domestic terrorism units created, specifically focusing only, if the verbiage is correct, on white supremacists, seems like they might be of interest to a magazine that purports to be libertarian.
Epstein sounds like the guy saying “Great so far!” as he is plunging to earth.
What "Global Warming"???
the... surface of the earth is warming, quite rapidly geologically speaking. To depth of 2000m of ocean.
It's quite a thing. Welcome back from your time capsule or wherever you've arrived from – the year btw is 2022.
Good grief;
I was told in 1976 there wouldn't be a normal ocean in 2022...
LIES, LIES, LIES
I was told in 1976 we'd be in the middle of a dust bowl in 2022..
LIES, LIES, LIES
I was told in 1976 there wouldn't be anymore winters...
LIES, LIES, LIES
Here it is 50 F'En Years later and your all still talking smack about some dooms day just around the corner. Playing complete ignorance the the LIES as plain as day as all 'models' have FAILED ASTRONOMICALLY.. Couple years ago record low temperatures were set not seen since the 60's and Winters are just getting colder.
Y'll live in an imaginary world without a speckle of *reality*...
"there wouldn't be a normal ocean in 2022"
Lol. Like the ocean was going to turn gay or something?
I'm pro-reason, so I tend to stick to conversations grounded in scientific findings and discussion. In 1976 scientists were starting to use understanding of physics to work out earth's energy budget and estimate the warming that results from increasing the global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere by 30% (now 50%).
These straw men arguments "scientists said it would be raining cats!" are greatly curated on the internet, but not a reflection of scientific discussions.
Your original comment was "what global warming". The fact that we're heating the surface of the entire planet including the oceans to depths of 2,000m is just observed fact. Start with that. I think when people can really rationally engage with geophysics and see why that that's happening, it gets more possible to have rational conversations about the larger topics.
" 'models' have FAILED ASTRONOMICALLY"
You don't need models to project warming, it's clear from physics.
But model work like NASA in 1981 famously accurately projected four decades of warming in advance, at a time when temps weren't rising as fast.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/crystal-serenity/
And yet no matter HOW MUCH BULLSH*T YOU SPEW.............
Every-time I'VE OPENED MY F'EN FRONT DOOR I can see *REALLY* how much Bullsh*t you spew on a daily basis over 50-years.
I don't want a HD download! I want a mp3 download to put on my old ipod nano you couch potato mongering jerks!
Fossil fuels should be reserved for future generations as well. Yes they will likely need them in addition to renewables. But this is just advocating that WE should use them up in order to avoid doing anything difficult re transitioning - which means your kids will have to transition AND with higher priced fossil fuels.
But hey - there's 30 trillion bits of evidence that we don't give a shit about our kids anyway.
Alex offers reheated standard issue climate science denial plus the now familiar pitch for government picking winners. Fossil fuel prices are great as long as government protects its free-to-pollute subsidies while policing competitors like nuclear. No big deal, the costs of literally heating the entire planet will just be passed on to others whether they like it or not. Perhaps the distilled essence of the distinction between "Liberty" and liberty.
Hilarious; Everyone's already paying for costs-of-heating.. Maybe if your B.S. wasn't sooo much B.S. heating bills wouldn't cost so much.
Naturally, if you assert the view that the earth is flat, NASA launching monitoring satellites into space sounds like a corrupt racket.
Ironically flat earth views ran AGAINST *reality*....
Ya know; the same 'belief' you "The earth is melting" freaks carry on about that is AGAINST *reality*.