The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels | Alex Epstein | Talks at Google 

If Pompeii happened today it would somehow be blamed on climate change. California has vastly improved quake safety since the 70s with amazing innovative technology. I agree it can be done if the will is there.

@@cdmarshall7448 how does a volcano erruption have anything to do with global warming? Heating our planet is going to have far reaching adverse effects. Climate Change doesn't just mean more flooding or drought. It means temperatures so hot in the middle East that it is unlivable. Drought so bad, we will lose entire crop yields. Floods so harsh that entire cities will be decimated. Yet fools want to continue to push fossil fuels.

@@dylanm3519 Yeah climate changes. You adapt or die. Many species die because of climate change all of our cousins, in fact, didn't make it. When the planet cools again maybe humans will become extinct. I won't know, that's not for around 10,000 more years.

@@cdmarshall7448 you don't seem to realize what's coming. There are billions of people living in coastal cities. In the next hundred years, we will see 15 feet of ocean rise from the melt of the Greenland ice cap if we continue to use fossil fuels. That means adapting by losing all those cities. The cost will be far beyond adapting. The costs will go far beyond anything we lose from shifting away from fossil fuels.

@@dylanm3519 Has nothing to do with fossil fuels, CO2 is not the driver of our climate, neve has been. You've been fooled for a Ponzi scheme. No empirical evidence exists for CO2 being the driver of climate. The climate will change as it always has, humanity is just a short term passenger on this planet. If you want to ensure the survival of humanity support space exploration and nuclear or better as a means of energy.

That's why the radical environmentalist get really mad about him. They'd prefer to argue against the average run of the mill conservative, who just yells "Socialism! Socialism!" "Agenda 21! Agenda 21!" Alex Epstein makes you actually think and understand the context of the debate, and makes you have to accept that there is a cost of going against fossil fuel that you have to think about, giving how much our lives are dependent on fossil fuels.

@@jeviosoorishas181 " . . . you have to accept that there is a cost of going with fossil fuel . . . " “The UN Special Report found that: There has been around 1°C of global warming to date, almost entirely caused by human activities that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) - particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Global warming of 1.5°C would result in risks to natural and human systems, including ecosystems, wildlife, sea level rise, food and water security, and human health and well-being. researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0594

@@averybrooks2099 "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

@@Nhoj737 Congrats you replied to a year old comment with a link to John Cook's website the guy who has repeatedly lied on his website and is responsible for the 97% myth. This shows that the models are wrong journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 you may be able to find the study elsewhere but it shows that the current models predict twice as much warming as we would realistically have even under the assumption we cause warming. I can link you to websites that have shown off some of John Cook's website's lies, and can also point to you his use of wording to deceive you however I doubt you plan to drop John Cook anytime soon. Never cite John Cook or his website, in the climate community he is a joke.

@polka where are those results of those models that actually map directly to the truth? They don't exist and that's why the models are used as a tool to force an agenda and not as a tool to demonstrate the eventual truth. With that said, the whole CO2 debate is already biased from the get go. The reality? The influence of CO2 is overestimated and likely doesnt have the impact we think it has. The alarmism has no solid grounds to exist and we should focus our attention on actual issues like plastic waste

Well, there were only like 5 heads in the audience.

They fired all who attended a week later.

Google's way of pretending they are fair and balanced.

It was an easy way to find out employees who violate the ideology-noncompliance code at the company

progressive as in human regressive? I dont see any progression in a way of thinking that only leads to social disaster and destruction. We need more people like Alex and less socialists

Nuances are important within a limit but some people use them to evade connecting facts. If youre on the wrong road, knowing the nuances of that wrong road is worthless.

Human flourishing is too important I agree! But we can only flourish as much as the biosphere does

Objectivism.

Some of the arguments and values are great, some arguments just don't seem to hold up. E.g. deaths because of climate change. It might be, people just aren't as poor as they were and can handle bad situations better. Now is it because of fossil fuels? Perhaps. Is it more likely, people are just more well off because like half of the developed world could focus on more productive stuff than keeping up the cold war until like 30 years ago and the rest of the world is also much less poor than even a decade ago? Is it maybe, that goods are much cheaper now because of the manufacturing powerhouse of China and other very hardworking folks in the world? Yes, a great talk and clear argumentation. The content of the arguments, some unusual and good point and others rather an oversimplification to such degree as to almost be considered a straw man/ lie. It is hard to see beyond his very good rhetoric skills. But as I say, some great points e.g. I agree we should focus on the human aspects much more, that is a value I hold very high. Btw. regarding the fossil fuels vs "unreliables". The situation changed dramatically since ~2017, the International Energy Agency (IEA) writes in the report www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=overview "Supportive policies and maturing technologies are enabling very cheap access to capital in leading markets. With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gasfired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen." The agency even reconsidered estimates for the future, estimating more usage of solar, because it trends cheaper than previously thought. The Internation Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) supports these findings: www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost We know, that the wind doesn't blow constantly and the sun doesn't always shine even during the day and can quite reliably predict it days in advance/ can also apply statistics. It is a factor in planing from the start, else we cannot calculate the return on investment and will not get funding. With storage or enough transmission capacity, we can work around these problems and flatten the peaks and valleys in production or demand. The central limit theorem then is our friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem if we have enough independent sources (which we might create by having long distance transmission capacity or vast storage capacity basically). Also, in some rather remote parts of the world, solar and wind (and perhaps micro dams) is the only way we can generate electricity economically. E.g. where we cannot buy or transport diesel fuel easily. This doesn't only concern islands and "third world" countries but also remote parts in the USA.

@@KaliszAd You are reading propaganda, renewables are not cheap. All the wind & solar does is hopefully replace some NG fuel which costs 2.0 cents/kwh. It does not replace any infrastructure which is the bulk of electricity cost. In fact it adds massive infrastructure costs. The cost of those massive infrastructure add-ons and costs are not included in the EIA analysis. Or in any of the usual tripe from IEA & Lazard. 1) The new transmission lines to wind & solar farms are an ADDITIONAL cost to the existing grid which still must be manned & maintained for the majority of time that wind & solar are low. And transmission lines to wind must be oversized by ~3X to supply their peak power, whereas their avg power is 1/3 of peak. Similarly solar farms must have transmission infrastructure oversized by 4X. And that means high line losses. Look for line loss of ~25% on wind/solar transmission. 2) All the wind & solar is doing is theoretically replacing some NG fuel worth 2 cents/kwh. But the induced inefficiencies of cycling on the buffering fossil power supply pretty much negates that fuel saving. 3) Add to those costs very expensive submarine & long distance transmission in order to import power from remote suppliers when wind & solar are low and export when they are high, dumping the power at often negative pricing. That alone is more expensive than the substitute NPP's that don't need the long distance transmission. 4) The inevitable curtailment cost when wind & solar are surplus and unwanted. 5) The Overbuild cost, which must be done with wind & solar, total energy inefficiency on steroids. 6) Negative pricing losses and inefficiency, again inevitable with wind/solar. 7) The added cost of of grid stability batteries (i.e. Tesla) as are being added to the grid now, for when wind/solar craps out suddenly, as it often does. 8) The huge added cost of expensive grid storage with 10-70% round-trip energy loss. That alone is more expensive than a substitute NPP that doesn't need the storage. 9) The added cost of economic inefficiencies of running the fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro & geothermal plants intermittently rather than full out 24/7. 10) The economic forcing of low efficiency diesel, OCGT & dirtiest coal replacing high efficiency CCGT, cleanest most efficient supercritical coal, nuclear & hydro means increased grid inefficiency and operating costs 11) Massive added cost of having a duplicate energy supply for when wind & solar are low. Includes pipelines, gas/oil/coal storage, oil fields, gas fields, tankers etc. 12) The high decommissioning costs and waste disposal costs of the wind & solar that are not paid up front unlike for nuclear. Wind & solar require >300X the land area of nuclear and >18X the material inputs. With a lifespan of 10-30yrs vs nuclear at 60-100yrs. What is the added cost of all that massive land use, opportunity cost, environmental cost? Not accounted for. 13) The Seasonal variation of wind/solar. Many large regions, i.e. a giant swath of land from Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Britain, Northern Europe & Russia or Monsoon season regions, that have upwards of 5:1 variation (as high as 10:1) December:June. There is no known storage method to economically compensate for that. Hydrogen methods are ~30% round-trip efficiency with very high capital costs & extreme physical limitations, not even close to feasible. 14) The Geographical limitations of wind/solar. There are vast regions that have poor solar and/or wind resources, coupled with #1 & #13 above mean severe limits on wind/solar capability to replace fossil 15) Climate change will move the areas of best solar & wind locations. So plants being built now are in optimal locations which will shift, once again impairing the economics of wind/solar. This effect has already resulted in serious declines in hydro outputs in many areas. And it is well known that the primary effect of climate change is to reduce the temperature differential between polar & equatorial regions which is the driving force for wind energy. Avg wind speeds will decline, since wind energy is proportional to the cube of wind speed, a 50% drop in wind speed will result in a 87% drop in wind energy making those sites giant towers of scrap metal. 16) The high added cost of doing BEV charging in the most inefficient method = fast charging stations in the daytime when grid is already at max output rather than at home charging at a slow rate overnight when there is surplus baseload generating capacity with low nighttime prices. Nighttime BEV charging will increase the efficiency of Baseload power generation, allowing all power to be high efficiency baseload, reducing grid costs accordingly. 17) The Electricity Grid is the largest factory on Earth. Like all large, expensive, high embodied energy machines you want to run them 24/7 not whenever the wind blow or sun shines or conversely shutting 70% of your buffering infrastructure down. That's why wind & solar are made in giant factories running 24/7 not whenever the wind is blowing. 18) Wind & solar are always going to be severely and inescapably limited by the fact that they are a diffuse intermittent seasonal energy source. No getting over that.The EROI of wind/solar/batteries grid is so low as to be a physically impossible replacement for fossil. As you try to run wind & solar factories on wind & solar energy the law of diminishing returns will cause rapidly spiraling cost inflation while destroying the balance of the economy resulting in total economic collapse will before wind & solar can supply even 50% of the world's industrialized nations energy. Wind & solar can only exist by siphoning energy off of fossil, nuclear, hydro & geothermal energy. Electricity prices directly correlate with wind & solar grid penetration. An intermittent, fluctuating grid is a low efficiency grid as proven by a survey of 68 nations over the past 52 years done by Environmental Progress and duplicated by the New York Times shows conventional hydro was quite successful at decarbonization, nuclear energy was also very successful and both wind and solar show no correlation between grid penetration and decarbonization. In other words wind & solar are not replacing fossil, they are a complete waste of money. Well over $2.5 trillion worldwide down the sewer already.

@@chapter4travels Thank you for the exhaustive answer. You are giving numbers without linking sources, which makes it quite hard to look at them and make up my own mind how to interpret the data and the methods how the data was obtained. I would actually be very interested in good sources with robust data and methods of measurement. If I search for the hints you have given, I would spend like an hour just going through your answer and perhaps I will only find a fraction of the sources because how search works nowadays... of course, some of the data is quite obvious so let me quickly answer at least that. 1) Yes, partially. Current transmission lines in the USA don't seem to be in a great shape as it is currently and at least some very serious problems with it cannot have anything to do with renewables. At from what I can remember the Camp Fire that killed 85 was caused by bad maintenance practices on the power lines, basically a very old hook was sawn into half: hackaday.com/2020/09/17/closely-examining-how-a-pge-transmission-line-claimed-85-lives-in-the-2018-camp-fire/ Actually, any network has the property that maintenance doesn't scale linearly with the size or usage of the network. I know this from vast computer networks and energy transmission will most likely be not that much different even though usually more is at stake. Actually, oversized infrastructure usually has lower losses when used just at a fraction of the capacity. This must be the case with electrical transmission lines as well, as the current is lower and therefore the losses are proportionally lower as well. The bigger the difference between voltage and current, the better. That is why we have hundreds of kilovolts voltage but just hundreds to low thousands of amperes in transmission. I don't think the voltage changes, so the only way to change the amount of power transmitted is by changing the current. P = U * I = I^2 * R so dropping the current (e.g. by making voltage higher) is a good proposition. In some countries, the grid is quite dense so smaller installations e.g. on warehouses or over parking lots has marginal added transmission line costs. This is also a reason, why some company owners install solar without subsidy today - because it just is good business in some countries where electricity prices are higher. Yes, we don't use the transmission lines at 100% most of the time. Guess what, we do exactly the same thing with our data networks, which are very expensive as well and it is ok. 2) Sorry, no clue what you talking about. Next Generation fuel? Yes, perhaps there are some economies of scale that would be impaired or storage costs or whatever. We seem to be quite competent about figuring out logistics generally. This point is exactly, where more concrete information would be great. 3) Perhaps. People usually don't build stuff, that is not economical. Some hard data on costs, whether there were subsidies etc. would be great. 4) We know how to handle this, let people use the cheaper tariff, smart meters that turn on e.g. water heaters when the price is low, offer companies to cooperate (we do this already e.g. in steel foundries). We need this for fossil fuels as well. E.g. there was this problem in Europe, where something happened in Bulgaria or Romania and the grid went out of sync. These countries don't use much renewable energy so the problem (and it was big) was caused by some failure in the more traditional parts of the infrastructure. Suffice to say, there was no big impact (big blackout) even though whole Europe could see it as we only have a single grid. So yes, we need management opportunities even with just coal/ gas/ nuclear. 5) I don't understand. Yes, we have to build more. We do this already everywhere, we produce slightly more than is needed. That is cost of doing business in capitalism. 6) Yes and it is a great opportunity e.g. to be more intelligent about heating, cooling and such, where we have a large buffer that is not used currently nearly as much as it could. If it in the end costs less, it would be a win-win situation for everybody (hopefully). 7) We build those especially, because they are very fast and can stabilize the grid from peaks. They pay for themselves exactly like mentioned in point 6. Actually, in Australia (where there is a big installation) there is a mandate to have some capability to react quickly to demand/ production peaks - utilities just need something like this. It also helps them use renewables more efficiently, so 6) isn't a loss (or so I understand it). 8) Yes, grid storage is a problem. We don't have a general solution for that, because we never needed it at such a scale. This is an opportunity for innovation. Until then, we will have to use a combination of small capacity/ high cost battery installations, demand shaping with better transmission lines and expensive peeker plants that can run for days if needed. Not ideal, but nothing is in reality. 9) Yep, well, we don't shut off nuclear and coal because they need like 8 hours or more to reach peak power. We instead shut off the renewables when we can't use the energy they produce. Most of this we can predict, some things flatten if there is enough over a large area. It is not perfect. But to mine 3000 tonnes of coal a day for a 1 GW plant also is a problem. 10) I don't know about any economic forcing. Could you provide sources? 11) It will not really be duplicate, as I have written, the central limit theorem works in your favour the bigger the infrastructure and the more independent the parts. 12) Could you cite sources? Do you could the uranium ore over the next 60 years in all of that as well? Do you finish building that power plant on time on on budget? What about the expensive enrichment facilities that are the same as you would use e.g. for atomic weapons? As for the massive land use, you can build solar above a field making a more humid microclimate. When done e.g. in a checkered pattern, you get enough sun and the benefit of the shade. If I remember correctly, Frauenhofer did some practical research in this field. You can install solar above parking lots and give shade and protection to the cars beneath and such, which you cannot do with nuclear or coal power plants. 13) Yes, this is a challenge. Hydrogen in its current form is mostly bullshit. As you write, to have any usable density, you have to compress it or liquefy it and you lose a considerable amount of energy doing that. There are other ideas, e.g. producing sodium from sodium hydroxide (known industrial process) and let it react with water while producing an electric current. There are patents by Lockheed & Martin just for that but it hasn't been deployed at industrial scale anywhere and perhaps only existed in laboratories. worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3730776A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19730501&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# 14) It is a problem but really not as big. Most people live where solar and wind work ok or even quite well. This is because you cannot plant crops without the sun. 15) It doesn't change over night. It also might change for the better locally, we don't know. I guess, this is a risk that is probably included in the costs. I only know, the off shore wind is quite reliable and the economics work out fine. 16) Yes, but I wasn't writing about BEVs. People with homes will probably over time add chargers at home, batteries will improve. The plus is, the sun is shining during the day, so you could use EVs as a buffer on opportunistically charge them up. 17) Yes, but also nuclear power plants only run like 85% of the time. There is some fuel change, maintenance etc. The same for coal fired power plants. You just have to clean the boiler to have good efficiency. Perhaps they run more than 85% of the time but certainly not 99%. In practice, nothing works 100% of the time everywhere not even Google or Amazon. 18) Yes, singular facilities without storage. We are speaking about a vast system of interconnected sources with different economies and characteristics. This point really sound more like it is not correct or vastly oversimplifying. Could you provide sources? Any survey older than perhaps 5 years is not really relevant, because the economies and technology just weren't there. If you look on the outlooks, most were corrected last year in favour of solar and wind generally. Coal has developed to include a huge number of filters and other technologies to make it vastly cleaner. I have been at a research institute for exactly that and have seen mini installations with the newest technology at that time. Solar and wind also progressed considerably. Nuclear is, perhaps besides electronics, mostly the same things as 30 years ago. As with anything else, could you provide the concrete sources? Thank you for your time and effort! I am looking forward to all the sources to read and perhaps update my viewpoints.

@@KaliszAd I can't give you the sources, I didn't write it, I'm passing it on with permission. The best path forward is to replace coal in the emerging nations of Asia and Africa that don't have or can afford natural gas infrastructure. Pollution from coal without modern scrubbers is truly a problem. These countries will power themselves out of poverty with coal unless there is something cheaper and wind and solar are not cheaper. Luckily we have a solution and it looks like Indonesia will be the first to adopt. Molten salt nuclear fission, specifically Thorcon Power. If they stay on track, they will be in mass production by 2030. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oB1IrzDDI9g.html

He did a 2.0 at Lafayette .. RU-vid it

@@fl6646 Thanx..watching it now...and wanted to mention that during Michael Schellenberger's recent podcast with Joe Rogan he mentions the hit piece targeting him from the WaPo. The tide is turning. Cheers.

@@fl6646 Here''s his response...2 days ago ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-om6wNxqUM1g.html

'If the models don't predict accurately, the world is wrong'

Ya, well your nose is big.

What do you think a huge corporation wants? Every megacorporation is as anti-environmentalist possible.

The irony in your comment...

@@thishandleistaken1011 Any objections to the points made in the video?

@@ChiccinTendies I haven't watched this talk in a year, but I'll get back to you when I rewatch it. For now, you should know Alex Epstein runs is a for-profit political think tank funded by coal companies. This man is literally a paid political propagandist.

@@thishandleistaken1011 Funding has nothing to do with his arguments. I want you to refute his arguments.

@@thishandleistaken1011 And if you can't refute his arguments, that makes him someone who makes money by telling the truth -a rare and wonderful accomplishment.

That was then.

He is not a scientist, he is a grifter. His an activist paid by special interests

IMO, his conclusions are not very well supported at all. At 10:25 he says nuclear and hydro are the best ways to combat climate change. The problem is that nuclear power costs 3 to 5 times other clean energy sources and also it can't economically adjust its output to follow load, which is a requirement if you want to use a single generation source to meet all your power needs. Wind and solar aren't perfect because their output is intermittent. However, they're really really cheap compared to nuclear. In the short term, by far the cheapest approach is to pair wind and solar with hydro and natural gas and maybe some batteries as their cost comes down. In the long term, most energy experts expect solar and wind to get paired with hydrogen powered generation, with the hydrogen fuel created and stored when there's an excess of wind and solar power.

Random Internet Commenter Nuclear power is only 3 to 5 times more expensive than those “clean” energy sources because the government subsidies those industries and it requires that nuclear be about a million times safer than them. If solar and wind were held to the same safety/risk standards as nuclear, nobody on the planet could afford it.

What he was speaking about was facts and perceptions, but you wouldn't understand.

"energy philosopher" is some made up term. The man is a shill. He's a paid political propagandist who runs a think tank funded by coal companies. He's being paid to bullshit you.

@@thishandleistaken1011 That sounds like a quack conspiracy theorist talking.

​@@cdmarshall7448 lmao imagine being that ignorant.

@@cdmarshall7448 Thats literally what coal, oil, and fracking companies do it's not even conspiracy. The data says they are major climate change pollutants is overwhelming so they have to downplay it by spreading targeted misinformation.

HMM NOW THEY TEACH YOU THAT ALBERT EINSTEIN WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ? LOL COME ON YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS , ARE YOU & YOUR PEERS THAT GULLIBLE & TOO LAZY TO CHECK FOR YOUR SELF ? FROM A PHD. PHYSICS. GOOGLE EARTH'S INTERGLACIAL PERIOD.

why should only human well being be the standard

I'm not clear on how the Diesel death is a strike against freedom. Free markets do not imply its ok to violate rights. Maybe you're pointing out different unrelated issues that happened to have the energy industry in their backdrop.

marce11o After reviewing the topic of Diesel, I should have left him out. I used to believe his death had something in relation to pernicious fossil fuel interests. Now I think that is wrong. My main point on this matter is that fossil fuel interests have used powerful resources to manipulate politics and markets. This has been demonstrated consistently in history. Examples include local politics like Pipeline construction, and geopolitics like the 1953 Iranian coup and the Oil Crises of 1973 and 1979. From this, I say that the notion of Freedom isn't seen the same by all parties in the game of energy. From the average consumer, energy freedom is in agreement, mostly. For Fossil fuel interests at the corporate and governmental level, they use coercion and manipulation if necessary to retain monopolistic power.

B. Levin we can't live without fossil fuels. And the only technology that can replace coal and gas is nuclear. Replacing oil is just impossible right now.

Lucas P I'm ultimately fine with using nuclear power as a source of electrical power and for powering the heavier demands of industry, for example. If nuclear power is done with the upmost precautions for safety, and with the right infrastructure to enforce safety, then I am relatively comfortable with it. My big issue though is how to safely store the spent radioactive material over the half-life periods. I think that Mr. Epstein is correct in that we can't begin to think about any serious transition to a more renewable infrastructure without still relying upon fossil fuel sources of energy. Modern civilization could make changes starting today, but the reliance is still there.

The argument that Alex Epstein often makes is that these people tend to vastly underestimate how much modern life is dependent on fossil fuels. The lady might say not everyone wants to live with modern civilization, but I'm sure she doesn't want herself or her children to have a life expectancy of about 30 years old. She probably wants to be able to travel long distances so she can go back to Brazil every once in awhile.

oh how this has aged well

@@blackmancer yes sacrifice The weak and the elderly to the god of Convenience.

what? that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Sea level rise (if it happens) will be CONSISTENT the WORLD OVER, not location dependent. You make it sound like the atlantic will rise 2' but only toward the south. What will be dependent is how that rise affects locales.

maxdecphoenix you haven’t actually looked this up have you?

@@maxdecphoenix Yes and no. Think about the beaches of Florida, then think about the white cliffs of Dover.

By why swap out coal? None of what you said is an argument.

Patrick Henry I was just trying to respond to a comment made in the video that 'resistance to nuclear was from anti-fossil fuel groups'. I'm anti-fossil fuel but also pro-nuclear power. For an anti-coal argument I'd point to the effect of coal on other fossil fuels and the run away heating process that we are contributing to. Not all human impact is bad, but we have no plan for dealing with a hotter, more chaotic weather cycle which is what is predicted by climate scientists. Examples include the carbon dioxide that is locked in the polar permafrost which will be released as temperatures rise. I think the danger is real. I live in Australia and we're losing huge portions of our coral reefs due to ocean acidification (caused by carbon dioxide absorbed into the sea, and bad fishing practices). I'm actually not too upset about the Earth changing, i just think we need to be able to support our population (and any of the environment that we want to survive) for the future (until we go and use up the next planets resources or something). I'm not a climate scientist so I hope I've done an okay job.

You haven't. You don't seem to know anything about the subject. First thing you need to do is understand the facts and the data. You present no facts or data to support your "fossil fuels are bad mmmkay". Lets start with facts. 1. Current C02 levels in the atmosphere are 405 parts per 1,000,000. It's commonly abbreviated as 405 ppm. That is to say our atmosphere is .000405% C02. Do the math. The decimal point is correct. 2. The 2nd thing to understand is the effect C02 has on warming. C02 has a mild warming effect that graphs into a logarithmic function. That is to say, the more C02, the less warming. The majority of he warming in our climate is from the initial 280ppm prior to industrialization. The additional C02 since then has had little effect on global warming. This should raise some questions to you. First thing is why haven't you heard about logarithmic function of C02 in regards to warming before? How did we have 280ppm C02 prior to industrialization? How was it that during an ice age thousands of years ago did the Earth have a C02 level at 7000ppm (nearly 20x higher than today)? What happened to all that C02? The facts are C02 has a very mild effect on warming. And, if you look at metrics for human quality of life, you'll see that prior to 1750, average life expectancy of humans was about 30 years old. Since 1750 (i.e. Industrialization fueled by fossil fuels) human standards of living and life expectancy have skyrocketed. If fossil fuels were so bad, you would think they would have the opposite effect on human flourishing. Get his book. It will help.

Patrick Henry First up I have to say that a log function is strictly increasing which means more carbon dioxide, more heating (less growth is still growth). Second, improvements in health post-industrialization is not reasonably explained by the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but by advances in medicine and nutrition. We can continue these advances using other energy sources like nuclear and solar and no longer rely on coal/oil. I'm also interested in your claims about climate models. Can you link to something that explains your model?

"a log function is strictly increasing which means more carbon dioxide, more heating (less growth is still growth)." You have this backwards sir.

I hate to upset the fawning friends but when we are reassured that we are “at a relatively low level of co2” from the Paleozoic (250 million years ago) high point and that “the planet can handle it” OF COURSE IT CAN!!!... the planet is a rock ... might want to read up on what the planet was like back then and then check the specs on your air conditioning system. This is the kid of graph one puts up after the clown is done making figures out of balloons!

Are you still doing commentary from down under?

I can't find it on Audible. Do you have a direct link?

A good example of how not to think...

brain less control freak

Chaz Garraway he talks about this in the book. What feeds the agriculture industry? Fossil fuels.

It's both isnt it, the greening affects area's that have not been influenced by those practices.

Then why do greenhouse growers add CO2 to them (up to 1000ppm) to increase yields. They have the optimum amount of fertilizer and water available already.

Michael Washington yes he's used to walking Between The Raindrops

I know, hahaha, Google are cunts.

Hahaha! "Staaay on target" lol

Give him a break. Convincing liberals to be pro-energy abundance is worth it

@@ianprado1488 Being pro environment does not mean being anti energy abundance. In fact, having more choices in ways of producing energy is pro energy abundance. With humanities enourmous need for energy, new nuclear technologies should be sought after and funded properly. On that I agree with Alex but he his more into promoting fossil fuel as a safe bet for civilisation. That is unproven to say the least and the benefit of the doubt should be with the environment that we totally rely on for sustenance.

Same. Alex is great I hope he does more talks like these.

I take it you're referring to his mentioning of vaccines. Yes, that struck me, too, as prophetic.

@@rhymeswithteeth I was referring to energy.

Their "go to" first reaction is to attack his funding. No mention of their funding.

The intellectual climate is changing. You have just read the first pro-fossil fuel joke.

I love diversity of opinion, which is why I pay just as much attention to the guy who says 2+2=5 as I do to the guy who says 2+2=4.

Jack, I am not the least surprised. From what I read (I have no connection with Google beyond using their products daily), the talk was arranged as are all others from the endorsement of individuals within Google. Read Laszio Bock's superb "Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google" to see what lengths Google goes to improve internal communication and operations. Are there biases? Sure, but so too in the rest of the culture! I encourage everyone to focus on the huge comment responses here. Do some sling labels? Sure. But so what, look how many have taken the time to outline questions and present ideas. From there, we can all learn. Perhaps there will be interest from Googlers to bring Alex back to deepen the conversation!

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE DRANK THE KOOAIDE ! LACK CRITICAL THINKING OR HAVE THE EFFORT TO DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE ! THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CLEARLY DENIES "CLIMATE CHANGE" & THE JUNK SCIENCE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SPEWING SINCE THE 70'S WHEN AL GORE CLAIMED WE WOULD "ALL BE FROZEN BY THE 80'S" WE ARE IN A 25K INTERGALCIAL PERIOD W/ 5000 YRS LEFT . AFTER THAT NORTH AMERICA WILL AGAIN BE FROZEN OVER JUST AS IT'S HAS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS" AMAZING WHAT ICE CORE SAMPLES HAVE TOLD US FOR OVER 100 YRS ! YOU'VE BEEN DUPED BY WAY OF YOUR EMPATHY & GUILT & LEFT WING TEACHERS WHO SHOULD BE ERADICATED FROM OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS... GO AHEAD TAKE A RISK AN DO SOME RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN , DON'T LET YOUR PRIDE GET IN THE WAY OF THE REALITY OF THE FACTUAL TRUTH....

Nice leftist outrage, bud! We're onto you and your globalist comrades!

Think in terms to resources lastly in clean states not for only ur generation but for many generations to still come.otherwise conflicts will start for them.consume what one can pay for within ones lifetime is a way of life which enables one to live in peace and leave behind a planet which can sustain all the descendents left behind to care for all

Don't worry, our tax dollars are subsidizing it, so the companies involved are doing just fine. Why else would they keep adding more?

Windmills are still far from being the major human-made constructions that kill birds. Pet cats lead in all statistics True, that those statistics don't make a difference between an eagle and a sparrow. The lost of a large bird is going to have more impact in the environment that the loss of several smaller birds. The lives of those birds can be spared, if the placement of wind turbines is done, after a proper study of its ecological impact, in each particular location. The mining comparision is always bad and biased, despite Alex E. claiming he doesn't like biased discussions. It is not the same the process to build something, as the process to keep something running. Fossil fuels may have some efficiency positives, but only because they have plently of help, subsidies and years to become better.

@@plojo - How many eagle, haukes other endangered species of birds, do cats kill every year? Not one… Most of them don't even get killed. They get their wings chopped off. And they get to jump around screaming in pain for some weeks, before they die of pain and starvation. Mostly big birds… They don't give a crap about any animals they kill or run off. All the animals that live on the ground also goes away.

@@Gismo3333 well, roadkills are also higher in the statistics than any energy production. Can't find right now any specific number about raptors but if you pay attention, you will most likely see death raptors along highways than other species.

I sincerely hope not, we don't need more brainwashed people like you in the world.

@@DreamMaster8 right, because critical thinking and skepticism means "brainwashed."

not when the speaker only cares about humans

Don't go to the sun, it is too hot there.

@@SkillBuilder - Huuuush… Don't tell him that, he is a bot.

Yes.

Yes, that's his point.

For the Nazis, Stalin and Mao human flourishing wasn’t the priority. For Neo Marxist’s of today it isn’t either. Depends if you think its OK shorten peoples lives, wipe out all the intelligentsia and run a regime of oppression and information control. For the radical greens of today attempting to destroy cheap reliable power, they do all of the above.

@@bencollar5802 why

@@KingComputerSydney because environmental protection always shortens people's lives ._.

Why?

how??

Alfred Aramouni we used to use whale blubber as a source of fuel.

this talk took place about a month ago, check out Epstein's facebook status about it if you don't believe me.

I follow Epstein closely and this was announced a couple of months ago. Completely unrelated.

No connection and just so you know Alex is not a Platonist which we divide into what we call the Left and Right. He is an Aristotelian, an Objectivist, so a totally different area and lineage of philosophy which is neither Right/conservative nor Left. Something like 99.999999999999+% of the Earths population are Platonists. Aristotlians which are today Objectivists are very rare and extremely valuable if humanity is to have any hope.

Thank you MrApplewine very well said.

This was recorded before that firing.