The “ holistic strategy” is so bad. The guy sounded like a flat earth theorist or a leftist that thinks men and women are the same. Why did Thiel keep trying to talk sense in that ideologue instead of talking about other things.
@@investornabil8825thiel likes to steel man ideas so he wants to debate with someone so his arguments become stronger and more concise. That’s how real academics work you don’t only talk to people you agree with I fear too many ppl have forgotten this.
Alex's point is the ingenuity of man will likely solve our problems with hydro carbons, which will open new frontiers. Peter is seeing the world in current terms.
Wrong, he is saying hydrocarbons and quadrupling production is not doable and we should be focusing on nuclear and fusion plus more fracking. Solar and ugly windmills will never be enough.
They ignore every major development in the last 10 years of energy technology and focus on social philosophies and politics. If that's refreshing to you, I can't imagine the kind of "air" you're used to breathing.
@@asnark7115 they completely ignore the consequences of emissions too and the increasingly brutal effect it is having on our economies and our "prosperity", especially poorer countries who these guys claim to care about. Newest floods have left India about 5 billion $ in losses in just 2 days
@@ravoid36 poor countries have lots of contamination due to being poor and having to choose the cheapest fuel, not because they want to use the cheapest one
One thing not talked enough about is the carpeting of methyl mercury all over earth from burning coal and is now in all of our food especially fish now. That’s really terrible and ash from coal generation is super toxic. I don’t hear enough people talking about this.
Alex nails it when he says he wants us to have the freedom to use more fossil fuel and to explore other options, without government’s thumb on the scale.
Yeah part of me says let the oil companies go nuts and lets drill and frack the shit out of everything until we quadruple production. The markets and governments would go nuttier than they already are and corruption would be at all time high.
Two people I love to listen to while they work through complex ideas and visions of the future talking to each other, one on one? Yes, please! Thank you Alex for everything you do!
This guy is just a ripoff of Bjørn Lomborg and Julian Simon, he's not making any new arguments that haven't been made and debunked before, and he has never resolved the moral question from the libertarian point of view: Negative rights, my right to swing my fist ends at your face -- applied to pollution. Why do I have a right to burn coal in my backyard and fill your children's lungs with mercury and radioactive dust? Both from an economic and a moral standpoint, the simplistic libertarian arguments have always been naive. Even if you wanted to argue that using coal to bring up the rest of the world to a Western standard of living was 'good', it is not clear there aren't hard limits on that, constraints with respect to pollution, water, food, and other materials that aren't magically solved by waving a Coal Magic Wand. On top of that, this guy handwaves solutions to coal like conversion to liquid fuels or sequestration or filtering, all of which are only even proposed because of regulation over the years making coal pollution (eg acid rain) bad, and he doesn't do anything to evaluate the difficulties and trade offs between say, the technical difficulty of developing this liquid coal solution, vs the technical difficulty of competing solutions (battery tech, new fission plants, fusion, geo, etc) Also, a petro economy is a centralizing one. From a libertarian standpoint, if you want a adhocracy, and flattened power structure and more diverse competition, geo, solar, and wind are distributed solutions, you can go out in the middle of no where, and exist on them, but petro makes you a b1tch to the petro state. Thiel is a much deeper thinker than this Alex guy. Most people who read Ayn Rand as a teenager eventually grow out of it and realize how dumb Rand actually was. Some unfortunate adults, live inside of a sci-fi novel and never wake up.
Based on this conversation, Alex seems more optimistic overall compared to Peter. few reason i feel this are: Alex believes fossil fuel freedom and technological progress can enable endless energy abundance and human flourishing. Peter thinks alternatives like nuclear are ultimately needed and is more cautious on fossil fuel optimism. Alex advocates providing pro-energy messaging to politicians as a path to change. Peter agrees but emphasizes real-world examples are also critical, suggesting some skepticism just arguments alone will suffice. Alex appears very optimistic that his moral case for fossil fuels and similar messaging can continue convincing more people. Peter seems less convinced it will reach a critical mass. Alex comes across as having more unbound optimism in principle about human progress through technology. Peterl is sympathetic but seems more measured about limits/tradeoffs. please correct me if im wrong :)
Alex is very pro-nuclear but focuses more on fossil fuels because it's a far more important technology for humanity today and for the foreseeable future. If you're pro-nuclear but don't care about fossil fuels then you're not living in current reality but some alternate universe where nuclear can be used to replace most fossil fuels (it can't).
Thiel says "cheap oil". No one ever calls it "cheap wind turbines" or "cheap solar". The oil in the ground is actually "free", so is the sunshine, so is the wind - it's how you "harness" the energy that's costly, and how we use wind and solar is extremely limited, whereas combined fossil fuel's uses are already virtually endless.
GREAT discussion. Only thing lacking was mention of the importance of freely fluctuating prices on the market, so that resources can go to their highest real demand - the key think for entrepreneurs, scientists, capitalists, etc. to make positive change happen as fast as possible toward satisfying the needs/desires of real humans.
Buyers arent stupid. Apart from the usual local booms and busts, the policymakers wont just mandate something that sees nickel, cobalt, or lithium skyrocket to the point of absurdity. The market at the moment, despite all the warnings of shortages for nickel, cobalt, and lithium, doesnt price any of those warnings in. The prices are quite stable, and quite short term focused.
@lieshtmeiser5542 I'm really curious as to why you think that long-term expectations aren't reflected in present day prices. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that there will be a "shortages" of any of those metals, and I'd say that most investors agree with me. If you know better than us, then you might consider using that knowledge to make yourself wealthy. I don't mean this in an antagonistic way. I'm just saying...
@@jflaccid5442 "I'm really curious as to why you think that long-term expectations aren't reflected in present day prices." I see these prices because I trade stocks, and nickel is only elevated, it is not up enough to encourage brand new supply. The market is only pricing such things based on what they think can be done over the next few years at best. This short term thinking is only exacerbated by the current tightening of interest rates, which has sucked liquidity out of the stock markets. That still leaves autocratic owners of projects, like communist china and putins russia etc, but those are not going to be reliable sources of future battery metals. Look at the 5 year chart on nickel, is is barely at the upper end of the US$5 to 10 / pound level. Its nowhere near enough to stimulate a lot of new mines to be developed. There is a lot of drilling, but in the context of the bear market a lot of those companies are devalued, in the doldrums, or have failed. Lithium recently boomed, and there is far more excitement there, but still not reflecting the quantities that will be required a few years from now.
@@jflaccid5442 I believe the latest prices DO reflect the latest/most current understanding of what long-term prices will be. Why do you think my comment did NOT imply that? Prices are far from perfect in prediction. BUT they are probably the very best motivator for getting the future right, compared to all other methods. THAT is partly why my comment was made, since there seemed to be no discussion of this in the video. I am a big fan of Mises and Hayek's understanding/writing on the importance of prices and the market for the betterment of humankind.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 markets dont work like that, my lovely investor, they growth in price if demand is higher than supply, not because in the future there maybe bottlenecks
Consider the audience is rather small, compared to other subjects on RU-vid. At this point (June 14, 2023), there are 14.3K views. The first twenty hours is no barometer of popularity. People had to find it first. There are more people who have never heard of Alex and Peter than there are who have. Give it a chance.
I would really love to just listen to Peter Thiel explain the world in detail over 100 hours. He has a rare ability to explain complex topics with a minimum amount of jargon. I don't think anyone has reached his level in this particular skill since Richard Feynman. It is also a dangerous skill. It is easier to avoid criticisms when you say something that is technically irrefutable, highly abstract, and 30% in Latin, than when you are being specific, using simple words, and providing helpful approximate numbers,.
@@michaelwright8896I respect Feynman very much but he does not possess the broad knowledge that Thiel does. Feynman is great but as soon as he steps out of his field of expertise, he lacks breadth.
@@datatransformation69 I don't know much about Thiel but when he debated David Graeber he got his ass kicked and just kept repeating the same line over and over again.
The devil is in the details and Theil’s explanation of UK National coal strike of 1912 falls short of reality. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_National_coal_strike_of_1912 follow the links within the article and see where they lead
I was honored to meet Mr. Epstein in person a few years ago, during John Locke Institute's Public Policy Symposium hosted in Princeton. He gave us new perspectives on fossil fuel applications and was a very intelligent man.
28:00 Peter raise I think one of the biggest issues with US politics. It’s a lack of moral backing that has made policy so confused over decades. If the USA had stood up for core moral values many of the issues wouldn’t exist for example funding the Taliban against Russia is arguably immoral and led to 9/11.
@PeterThiel How is Norway the most disfunctional Scandinavian country? Having travelled the length and breadth of both Sweden and Norway and spent a month working in Finland (Scandi adjacent:) this is not my impression.
If we lived in a serious society, almost all of the money spent on renewables would be redirected to battery technology R&D, but of course, our society is anything but serious.
@@paulwhetstone0473 Who said this? "quality not quantity" Reducing reproduction rates does nothing to impact human quality. It's all in the genes. Fortunately, the 21st century eugenics revolution is well underway, commercially operating.
@@sybo59 We know from Chemistry that there clear Thermodynamical bounds when converting hydrocarbons. For it to be economical, the price of coal would have to be lower.
Why does Peter Thiel rely on his intuition regarding resource constraints when there are experts available who can cite numerical values for resource supply and demand?
Peter is correct about the hijacking of the oil industry. I personally know someone (I wouldn't call him a friend) that is working "for" a Nigerian oil company, and his role is to get them off of oil production! He comes from a "privileged" English family.
Can't find this on your channel page for some reason and didn't come up when I searched directly. Had to save link from Twitter > YT mobile to computer.
I like Alex at least he makes sense and he's on humanity's side.he has great talking points.the climate cult is anti human and its all about control.this man deserves respect
Both of these are acceptable perspectives from my POV. It's really just more constrained versus less constrained visions, but highly rational either way.
What I'm about to say is far less insightful than most of the comments I've read here, but... If i wrote a book, and I became aware that Peter Thiel had read it, I can't imagine having much else to look forward to as an author... but I'm not an author, so I can't say for sure, that I'd know how I'd feel. Their whole exchange here is amazing to me.
"The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon, published in 1981. Simon argued against the idea of fixed resource limits, suggesting that human innovation and technology continually redefine and expand what resources are available, thus countering the pessimistic views of the "Peak Oil" movement and other resource scarcity theories. Boring Robots can extract coal, for instance. Until the women are no longer so scared of Micro-Nuclear, until we get fusion online. Trim-tabbing and baby-steps.
Peter Theil is very articulate and balanced. Alex Epstein seems to deal in hypothetical extremes which can be useful but seem to go off course and seem to lack common sense. So far I feel Theil is much more compelling, not that they are very much in disagreement. I very much disagree with the notion of switching to coal. Turing coal into oil is expensive, which is why they dont do it right now. Its not Only oil, but cheap oil that develops economies. Therefore, alternatives are necessary imo.
More atmospheric CO2 is good for the environment and food production up to at least 4 times the current level! Grid power for the foreseeable future is in molten salt reactors, particularly modular. Liquid fossil fuel for transportation, though nuclear works for heavy transportation too. Solar power works for most off-grid and mobile applications. Wind power only works in niche off-grid applications.
@@Sara3346 Geothermal like wind is a niche solution in off-grid power. Though it works nicely in Iceland currently, in the future, it may be more economical to run modular molten salt reactors.
Things a like about Alex when he positions a theme of say Net Zero or many things…he doesn’t do that Goffy voice that say Joe Rogan does-he’s a total pro Alex I’m in the UK-he’s been on before but I wish he’d make another couple of appearances on GB News….a lot of the presenters aren’t skilled on the push back of minerals and alternatives etc. He’d teach them a lot
Because Thiel was on the other (offender) Epstein's list. This is Thiel's way of manipulating Google results. Glad to see you have a curious mind too ;)
totally disagree. Alex wasn't trying to protect anything and is extremely open and easy to understand. Watch the video again or please explain what exactly he was protective on?
@@Harp00n007 Humanity is "tired" because of the incessant demand to eliminate inexpensive reliable energy and undermine capitalism. Subsidies are not the answer to humanity's energy needs.
@@Harp00n007 No matter how you spin it, the US runs on a free market economy. The US is also not the center of the universe or the sole domain of capitalism. The entire Western world has embraced free market economics. How is solar "deflationary".
What’s funny to my mind is the question, why it is that simply capturing the carbon emitted from releasing the energy is so cost prohibitive relative to the energy produced by the fuel. Just as one might intuitively understand physics, my intuition tells me that the energy for carbon capture should be quite small relative to the energy produced. This is why I don’t believe the false reality we have made for ourselves, that there are pollution constraints to fossil fuels. I think, politics aside, the real underlying constraint defining policy is what we are willing to pay for energy. Assuming the hippies didn’t hijack the country I don’t think we would have even started down the nuclear path, let alone veered off of it later. I think if the hippies didn’t take over the country we would have done the work to scale a clean fossil fuel industry. I think what’s really eating into the industry is the energy efficiency of the logistics and process itself. There’s probably a lot that can be done to reduce transport costs to the efficiency of the industry.
I love how they co-opted the term freedom … they don’t mean your freedom they mean their freedom to pursue profits as see fit and that is in opposition to your freedom. Don’t get duped.
This is incorrect. Profit is proof that you have created value for other individuals. There is no exploitation. If the businessman profits, so do consumers and workers.
@@freetrade8830 I can easily offer examples that disprove that insulin is one. It doesn’t mean that if you profit from something is socially optimal. Rent seeking , Georgism, 0% interest rates that enable market capture and scaling without actually generating profits and organic growth … etc
What about the freedom of future generations to live in a world where the atmosphere hasn't been catastrophically polluted with CO2, Methane et cetera? The cavalier abuse of the word "freedom" to defend the most petty and indefensible recklessness is a sort of modern madness. Even in 1250AD the fact that pollution must result in constraints to private property was recognised under the common law, and in fact this was recognised since the most ancient times. These market fundamentalists who warp science, economics, philosophy - really everything - in the service of a boneheaded politics that's anything but conservative are a fascinating study in self deception.
When Peter's model for the "greener" version of the future is Greta Thunberg and he thinks this will be cleaner and less dystopian, that says a lot more about Peter than it does anything else. Then there was his maligning of those who "came of age in the seventies." I was 20 in 1972, when Peter was just starting kindergarten. I had not only learned a great deal more about the world by then than Peter gives me credit for, but I have had an enormous amount of time since then to learn even more, still. Believe me, I'm hardly set in my ways and, if anything, am routinely mistaken for being much younger than I am, not just because of my genetic propensity to look younger than I am, but because I have a younger, more active mind than my peers. Maybe Peter's just assuming we're all like his father.
You have it totally opposite. Greta is completely dystopian; it's just the other two narratives are worse. Do you actually think anybody was arguing anything in favor of this poor unhappy soul that is confused, and easily misalinnged Greta?
@ayyleeuz4892 Hmmm but wasn't Leo Strauss more respecting of the sacred? Wouldn't he abhor transhumanism (fundamentally anti-Christian)? Thiel seems quite cosy with it... And also his longtermism... He criticizes effective altruism (and correctly so) but doesn't he in the end also fall into the same mistakes?
@ayyleeuz4892 by anti-Christian I meant anti-religious/sacred. Also, Thiel describes himself as Christian, which is why I struggle to understand his cozyness with crazy stuff like transhumanism or longtermism.
I am about 9 minutes into the conversation. Wow, I am really surprised that Peter Thiel, one of the sharpest minds in the tech world, does not get the big story about resources. Resources are not limited in any meaningful sense. Energy is also not limited. Coal is limited, hydrocarbons are limited, nuclear is limited -- but humanity will never "run out" of them. The answer was given by Julian Simon decades ago. Disappointed that Thiel did not learn that lesson.
@@wtucker4773 The explanation for why humanity does not run out of any particular resource is simply because of what economists call substitutes. Oil is a substitute for coal, coal is a substitute for wood, wood is a substitute for muscle power, etc. As we need more energy, we also figure out better sources of energy. The Industrial Revolution of the 1750 - 1820 which began in Britain was powered by coal. People worried that the end of economic growth was near because coal was limited for sure. See the wiki entry "The Coal Question". Anyway, we did not "run out" of coal. Oil was the new source, the substitute. Now we will have other substitutes such as nuclear fusion. On a less serious note, it is said that the Stone Age ended not because we "ran out" of stones but because we invented bronze. And the Bronze Age ended when we figured out how to make iron. And we are still in the Iron Age (with steel being the main variant.) And finally, to really understand what are resources, where they come from, why we don't run out of them, etc., I recommend Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource". A great place to start is www.humanprogress.org/simonproject/ Best wishes.
It is a valid point that in practical terms, carbon trading markets are considered the best platforms for trading credits. However, there is a risk of corruption within these markets, similar to the concerns surrounding ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) practices, such as Nigeria receiving credit for not planting trees in the receding Sahara. Consequently, effective government monitoring schemes are essential when utilizing these markets. Interestingly, the term "human flourishing" has been employed by certain bioethicists, including some with questionable motives, on multiple occasions (23 times). This raises the possibility that even individuals like Greta could be trained to use the argument of human flourishing, which is being implemented in schools, but it can be a peculiar and ambiguous line of reasoning. The wholistic argument, although appealing, can be too vague and easily misappropriated, as Rand does not provide a comprehensive theory on psychology or philosophy regarding what actions to take. Productivity should not be the sole focus, but rather human flourishing on an individual level. However, once it becomes nationalized or excessively controlled by the state, it can lead to outcomes similar to North Korea. While human flourishing can encompass both collective and individual well-being, it often fails to materialize in practice. When people use sacrificial terms, it is natural to question their motives and consider them sociopathic. The word "change" is neutral and can have various interpretations, but in contemporary usage, it often implies negative connotations. It has become such a contentious term that it requires careful handling and has lost its clarity, leading to potentially harmful outcomes by default. It is worth pondering why we have shifted away from using the word "progress." At least with that term, we had a means to measure advancements. However, with the term "change," it has become a mere verb in today's context, devoid of positive implications. I appreciated the comparison made between the sophists and the biblical usage in John, where it states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."
I enjoyed it too. At the end of this fascinating conversation several ideas emerged for me. One, Alex and Ben Shapiro would be best buddies in HS and would talk for hours in the school library. They would also "win" all the school debates. Unfortunately Ben and Alex would grow apart in later years. And two, Peter is a wise Professor politely "enjoying" the rhetorical skills of his nerdy precocious student.
Do you know about Ned Nikolov and his discovery that greenhouse gasses don't exist. Alex disappoints because he won't even take a look at it and gets snarky.
@@cantankerouspatriarch4981 Yep, I've emailed alex and he won't respond when I talk about nikolov. When I even suggested that he take a look at somebody like Nikolov he sent back "Well I could prove there is no such thing as germs".
I argue in my eclectic way that the energy supply for human consumption should be independent of human action, just as all life forms have historically relied solely on the sun's energy. Before dismissing this statement as impractical, consider what might happen if we were to provide abundant, clean energy solely for fulfilling all current and future human dreams, sourced from a strictly isolated segment of society - apart from all other economic activity - dedicated exclusively to this purpose. This would allow humans to operate on an unimaginably large scale without the ability to control or weaponize the energy supply.
Perhaps the biggest advantage for fossil fuels is that you can move vast quantities vast distances at cheap prices at almost no loss Whereas electricity is very costly to move vast distances it costs almost 10x as much to move electricity than it does to move Natural Gas and you lose maybe 10% of it If someone could invent a way to move electricity long distances 10x cheaper than today then you'd have far more nuclear/wind/solar as you'll be able to build/specialise in a few locations and export it So for instance a single country could potentially build 500 nuclear reactors and get very good at doing it. Thr first 5 will be expensive the next 50 will be okay and the next 450 will be very good But that isn't possible as the cost to transmit electricity 2,000 miles is too expensive
I think we should go half and half, between Dirty energy(Natural gas/coal) and Clean energy(nuclear). Also, there must be ways to ensure the air emitted by Dirty energy production is cleaner. If we could somehow convert dirty air into dirty water, which is more easily managed, we might be able make dirty energy less bad. How great would it be to create a clean coal production that, yes, has lower energy output, but can be scaled to infinity. Basic Principle: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BOvsXL0pk8Y.htmlfeature=shared This product would create dirty vapors, but if new water is constantly introduced to the system and the dirt is effectively captured from the vapors and excessed from the system, it could be cleaned. I'd like to look at the tried experiments.
An ESG (environmental, social, and governance) score is a measure of a company's exposure to environmental, social, and governance risks. These risks can include energy efficiency, worker safety, and board independence. ESG scores are a tool for investors to assess a company's sustainability and ethical performance. A high ESG score may indicate that a company is considering its impact on people and the planet, and how this impact could affect its financial performance. ESG scores typically range from 0 to 100, with a score of less than 50 considered relatively poor and more than 70 considered good. ESG scores are calculated using a combination of data collection, analysis, weighting, and comparison to industry peers. These scores help investors and businesses gain insights into a company's ESG performance and identify potential areas for improvement.
The problem with "human flourishing" is that it's a very abstract term that - like Peter Thiel says - *can* work on a micro level, which is not saying that it's easy even there.
The earth is an inert object. What you are trying to say is that humans of today are harming humans of 100 years from now I'm not sure that's that true on a planet scale I'd definitely give up $2 today if I coupe and it to my great grandparents from 100 years ago as they get far more benefit from $1 then than I do $2 today
Peter's thinking that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is not. The pollutant is carbon monoxide and where that is concerned, the pollution from burning hydrocarbons has greatly decreased since the sixties.
Peter was referring to pollutants emanating from coal burning, i.e., PM2.5, PM10 and SO2. They have not decreased but substantially increased since the sixties in global terms, and kill 11 million people per year.
@@tabishumaransari When people were dying of coal pollution in England a century ago, nobody wanted to end the use of coal. It was actually lifesaving. It's also quite revealing that while CO2 is a harmless gas and carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas, nobody has ever demanded the end of fossil fuels because of carbon monoxide. That's very telling. The climate movement is an ideological movement, not an environmental movement.
@@tabishumaransari Incorrect. Deaths due to pollution are due to *indoor* pollution. Let me repeat, only INDOOR pollution kills. And it is not pollution from coal. It is pollution from burning wood and animal dung indoors without proper ventilation. These people die because they don't have clean electricity from coal and gas. Countries like Bhutan that rely on indoor dung burning to cook food are the ones where people are dying. Burning coal for electricity would save these lives.
I think Peter Thiel was trying to point out that Alex’s book cover should say, human flourishing is about increasing energy production while reducing the negative effects.
While I am very interested in Alex's ideas and am sure he means the best, Alex ultimately strikes me as someone who is excessively defensive and whiny.
42:00 "a market is always better than a non-market" - does this mean that a market is better than every single other form of preference signaling? Also, Is he implying here that the issue of carbon footprint reduction is simply a matter of whether or not there's a market for carbon? (At least the only one he takes seriously)
It’s seems to me that in a way the increased fossil fuel argument makes sense to create a greater momentum to progress technologies of alternative energies. These grossly over exaggerated projections to the reduction of fossil fuels seems not only unrealistic but a rather naive perspective on the scalability of things like wind and solar. Nuclear seems like the logical choice so long as there able to convince the public that they have the technology and will to prove they have mitigated most of the dangers.
Both Alex and Peter's philosophy espoused here has a serious flaw in that it ignores or discounts the rights of future individuals of agency. The presumption is that anyone today who is operating to maximize their individual freedom has full and complete knowledge that their action will not affect future generations. That is just hubris to me. Of course the way to get around that is that this concern is not material because "technology will solve that problem" in the future. That is essentially a belief-system that cannot be proved. The European Green's are frankly more consistent with Libertarian principles as they acknowledge that CO2 emissions impact the freedoms of individuals in other countries, and freedoms for future generations as well. As such, minimizing one's impact is morally consistent with the idea of maximizing personal freedom while not infringing on freedom of others. Personally, I see solar panels on every household roof to be more consistent with individual freedom than to rely upon a fossil fuel industry which is subject to gamesmanship.
Cheap oil & the limited oil supply are indeed issues of their own. But how you burn this oil & the CO in the atmosphere & the greenhouse effect are also huge issues. Miami & all those hoity-toity high rises are already flooding on many days. Just image what it will be like by 2070.
One can think about humand civilisation as a whole, as having a Oil-Account, from which it can withdrawl but on to witch it can not deposit anything. Now the question is, on what does it make sense to spend our limited oil.
What is Peter saying at 16:55? Is he saying oil companies are reducing output and pretending it's for ESG reasons but really that just want to decrease supply to raise the price of oil?
I think he is comparing how OPEC can curtail demand to drive price and revenues forward for oil companies to how western oil companies are basically doing the same thing, but they can’t cut demand due to regulation so they have to partner with these ESG groups to arrive at the same results.
An interesting discussion but it seemed insular and flawed from the outset with the premise that the goal is in somehow having the rest of the world (the undeveloped, for arguments sake) up to enjoying the 'standard of living' as experienced in the west with the U.S as the epitome of that goal. It seems this 'is' the problem. Our standard of living is quantified and marketed to us with millions of messages a day as about consuming more stuff to continue to satisfy the pockets of those that profer and our economic models that doesn't have any other answers.
Competition for resources is more of a zero sum game than the libertarian minded Alex seems to understand. The history of human conflict especially recently relates to some having energy and others not. In the short and medium term there is not enough to go around for everyone to meet their desires for growth and power.
There's enough uranium in the oceans which can be used in fission fast breeder reactors to supply us with clean energy until the Sun melts us in its red giant phase.
@@anthonymorris5084 you mean *under population. Malthus was proven wrong throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The world population will stabilize by mid-century and then start falling most likely. The question is whether we can (partially) manage that decline and aging with things like AI.
@@tomasfontes3616 Over population is at the foundation of almost every single threat facing humanity. From energy resources to the depletion of other resources. Water shortages, pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction, deforestation, consumption etc. Over population exacerbates all of these issues. Capitalism and wealth, education, access to birth control, family planning and the rights for women all contribute to lower population levels. Unfortunately, many of these things are under attack.
Is the problem oil consumption or what we consume oil for? A decent amount of it is burned through for microliters of dopamine with nothing to show for it in the end isnt it? If we conceive the oil reserves as a battery that we are going to draw down anyways why not at least use it for things that we agree upon that are useful longterm.
Yea the impact of rampant consumerism needs to be exposed more. Energy is a necessity but there is so much waste and junk consumerism from oil (plastic) it's insane.
