The New Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein 

Alex has a consistently good track record. 'Like' is understandable.

Ah, I came from 2016 Rubin Report... Good to see you again.

That’s sad lol

Where I come from simple means Stupid, ignorant. Makes sense.

@@tuduloo7799 Lol

My friend, I wholeheartedly agree. I was lost on this topic and this man has provided a clarity on the subject that is far away better than anything I have seen. I think you'll find his ideas are permeating through this area without people knowing it originated with him. That is the greatest compliment he can get. Thank you, Alex.

Tony Wilson I think you just stated his point, practicality is a central part of his argument. Did you even know what he’s saying before calling him a clown? Or do you not read beneath than the headline like most ?

His content is always set out in a friendly, rational way and he gets good guests on his programmes. He seems a very normal guy and a good sign of how Rand's ideas can spread.

@Tony Wilson Pure ad hominem. You say he is a "spin merchant" as if his arguments cannot be objectively verified and that he is not motivated by truth, only by $$. The oldest trick in the book. Also, in your comment above, you overlook that for an Objectivist such as Epstein, the moral IS the practical. He does not see a clash between doing what is effective and what is good for Man, because he sees these as parts of the same thing. The fact you make such a basic mistake means I am not inclined to take your smears about him at all seriously.

@Tony Wilson Sowell is "one of the greatest frauds of all time". Really? Give me an example. Just one will do. Seriously, though, this is an economist who has obviously stoked anger in certain quarters by contesting a number of claims over the years, not least by pointing to the errors of Big Government, etc. How this makes him a fraud is a mystery. A lot of people who want to shut down carbon emissions are not scientists or engineers. So what that AE is not a trained scientist - he can understand data and draw out connections, and he gets scientists on his programmes, refers to them in his notes, etc. Or are you claiming that only a professional scientist is allowed to hold views and be taken seriously? Given the current COVID situation, and the less-than-stellar performance of epidemologists, I'd be careful about argument from authority if I were you. You made a basic mistake at the top by denouncing the idea of there being a moral case for using a form of technology, and I pointed out that for objectivists, the moral IS the practical. And the best you can do is respond by being rude and hurling words around like "criminal", etc. You sound like a fanatic, of the kind causing mayhem in much of today's politics and culture. You are too quick to make sweeping claims about people's motives - the mark of a religious mindset. Knock it off.

@No Bias Do

@No Bias aight. cuz ya said pls

what rare earth minerals are required for turbines ?

"Despite their name, rare-earth elements are - with the exception of the radioactive promethium - relatively plentiful in Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper. However, because of their geochemical properties, rare-earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found concentrated in rare-earth minerals; as a result economically exploitable ore deposits are less common."

They are talking about it, asteroid mining is an option. Check out Peter Diamandis' Ted Talk

@@Apjooz the key is concentration. You a get gold out of sea water but you'd have to process so much sea water its not viable. The test fusionreactor cost 22 billion dollars and it has yet to generate a equal amount of energy it expended to produce said energy. We need energy that is viable meaning all can afford it!

I didn't know that - thanks.

He is, Don Christian, he is.

W Tucker I agree, but I also think his objectivism philosophy allows for a dynamically changing argument, for instance, what is the best course of action for us now may not be the best in 1000 years and I think it's unlikely that Alex believes that consuming natural resources is indefinitely sustainable because everyone knows it's not, it's just that the argument for it beats the argument against it by alot.

@@jacobgrundy2065 Hi Jacob, I don’t believe Objectivism allows for a dynamically changing argument. The following is taken form the Appendix to Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” The best course of action for the group or “us” as you put it, will at times conflict with someone’s personal happiness. Since Objectivism is based on rational self-interest and one’s own happiness is the moral purpose, the concept of “us” is not a priority. Since Alex is happy with his life anything that comes between him and his happiness would be seen as a threat. So, unless the use of fossil fuels negatively effects Alex’s personal well-being I don’t see him presenting a dynamically changing argument.

@@haydenjohnson1727 Hi Hayden. In your economic premise, what happens to the people that are depending on the diminishing resource that find it no longer affordable as the price starts to rise?

How is that? Erlich was debunked long ago and Holdren is a crackpot, I used to read his alarmist screeds about an imminent ice age in the 70"s. Now he is breathing fire about global warming, and his argument has all the flaws of his ice age argument.

agreed big time

Studies show that persons on the autism spectrum tend to think the comment section is an actual conversation they are having with whoever appears in the video

Why? It's not even the only reason for moving to better sources.

Grid level storage batteries do not exist, renewable can only add cost to a reliable electricity source. And remember electricity is only about 25% of total energy use.

yeah and how are the electricity prices , winter how does that work,,, Wind, solar is unreliable , AND the carbon footprint for solar panels and enormous wind turbines killing thousands of birds ! So what is a fossil fuel? lets hear your description? and what place does it have in climate change which used to be called global warming but because warming was not dramtaic enough the left and environmentalist loons changed it to climate change

You are exactly what is wrong with so many ignorant and foolish people. We already have the fuels to power human prosperity. We don't need toxic, bird and bat killing eco crucifixes that will forever scar the environment after 15 years of expensive and unreliable energy production!

@Eric Flaquer i think the reason you have less pollution than Germany or the UK is that your city are pretty small compared to London and Berlin London has 8 million people and Berlin has 3.5 million i don't think Florida has a city with a million people

@@davidgladstone6588 as i have logically shown the larger the city the worst the pollution petroleum products produce lots of pollution especially from planes, 18 wheelers and factories 18 wheelers pump giant clouds of black smoke into the air hydro would produce no such pollution and require no digging or drilling

This is pure green propaganda nonsense.

[opens links to your comment]

Great. Do you you support Nuclear energy? NO. Do you support building more dams? NO. You can't even build wind and solar farms without environmentalists suing for one reason or another.

Thank you for your non-comment comment. How long will our current known reserves last at current usage levels? How many times in the past 80 years have our current known reserves grown due to exploration? I’m serious as I don’t know the answer but it would seem that your opinion would be motivated by the answers to these questions. I’m assuming then that our known increases in proven deposits are a decreasing number based upon your opinion?

@@tonywhite68 You are very welcome! Doesn't matter. I see no reason to constantly hunt for new deposits. It's not sustainable, period. We have the ability to abandon fossil fuels and when we know the effects of doing so, what's the reason for not doing so? Economics. There are HUGE investments to convert any major industry. We need to see this as a necessity, not an option. And the debate if humans causes global warming or not is irrelevant. If we lower the CO² in the atmosphere, the temperature on earth WILL drop and if the only benefit from this would be to keep the oceans from rising, it's worth it. But the benefits are so much more than that. Logically, if we wish to inhabit this earth for thousands of years, we need to use the technology that causes the least impact on it. Always, in all ways.

@Aerosim Aerosim Sure, and I get that. Even support it to a certain degree. But it's a complicated matter. I see no reason to defend current, dirty energy production. All that does is undermine progress. If you say "sure, current energy is a bit dirty, but we have all the infrastructure in place and look how cheap it is. We'll work on cleaning it up." How many will act on serious change? The urgency of the matter is swept under the rug. Imo, the approach has to be that we use what we use today because we don't have any good alternates, but we have to put every effort into new energy research. The problem as I see it is human nature. How we have such a hard time responding to threats that are not visible and immediate. Covid19 and how crappy we handle it is a perfect example of that. The effects of pollution today doesn't affect us today. And the people that are making money on said pollution, either direct or indirect will be reluctant to upset any changes in their income. Wind and solar (though ineffective) will definately make coal obsolete, with the assist of nuclear and/or water. Hydrogen vehicles is probably the way to go in transport when they can clean up hydrogen production. The point is - don't defend things that will, sooner or later, be a detriment to the entire human race. Why not use that energy to assist in solving the problem? Just as with Covid in many countries, we will some day look back and wonder why we didn't act sooner. We aren't as smart as we think we are. We are petty, greedy, egotistical animals.

@Aerosim hydro could replace coal and gas

Owen Perry not an argument

Nobody is looking harder for narratives that suit their belief than the natural climate change deniers.

@@wbaumschlager It's called science, and yes, scientists work incredibly hard to discover truths. Deniers of anthropogenic climate change simply watch RU-vid videos from guys like this and then pretend to be experts afterwards.

@@opwanncanopie Anyone can become an expert in thinking. Science doesn't discover truth btw. It's all just theories. Truth is only in religion and maybe maths.

@@opwanncanopie "Deniers of anthropogenic climate change" there are no deniers of anthropogenic climate change, only Deniers of anthropogenic climate "CRISIS". there is no crisis. The difference between change and crisis is as wide as the grand canyon.