The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Discuss liberty related books, videos, audio, as well as downloadable resources.
Post Reply
User avatar
Separatist
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1150

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by Separatist »

Quite excellent actually.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fo ... 1591847443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
moral.png
moral.png (57.46 KiB) Viewed 3723 times
You tube Alex Epstein to get a little flavor of his reasoning.

He also has a podcast you can subscribe to: Power Hour with Alex Epstein
http://powerhour.alexepstein.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is also founder of: The Center for Industrial Progress
http://industrialprogress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Separatist
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1150

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by Separatist »

Divestment-600-AEA-1.jpg
Divestment-600-AEA-1.jpg (165.9 KiB) Viewed 3682 times
past30.jpg
past30.jpg (39.08 KiB) Viewed 3682 times

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

Blowing Hot Air on the Wrong Target? A Critique of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement in Higher Education
https://fcpp.org/fossil-fuel-divestment-movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excerpt from the executive summary:
Third, divestment manifestos are silent on the economic, social and environmental benefits of carbon fuels and petrochemical products for which there are currently no better substitutes. For instance, carbon fuels made possible large-scale, reliable and affordable long-distance transportation which paved the way to improved overall nutrition (by concentrating food production in the most suitable locations thus making food more plentiful, diverse and affordable), the eradication of famines (by moving the surplus of regions with good harvests to those that had experienced mediocre ones), wealth creation (by facilitating the migration of large number of people away from the countryside and into cities), and advances in modern medicine (by allowing more people to devote themselves to medical research and the development of a wide range of new and better medical products). As a direct result of greater use of carbon fuels, in the last two centuries every indicator of human well-being, from overall number, life expectancy, income per capita, hunger and infant mortality to child labour and education, has improved, very often dramatically. Increased usage of carbon fuels and feedstock was also directly responsible for environmental and public health benefits ranging from improved air and water quality and sanitation to reforestation. For instance, kerosene, propane and heavy oil displaced poor quality biomass fuels such as firewood and dung that filled houses with soot, particles, carbon monoxide and toxic chemicals (and still kill millions of people today who cannot afford carbon fuels or electricity). Humanity’s increased reliance on resources extracted from below the Earth’s surface helped preserve and promote life forms on the surface. A case in point is the relatively recent large-scale reforestation of all advanced economies and of some developing economies (e.g., China, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam) that can be traced back to carbon fuels-driven advances such as drastically increased agricultural yields that made much marginal agricultural uneconomical and available for spontaneous reforestation (in most cases) and tree plantations (in a few selected locations), the replacement of work animals such as horses and mules by tractors and other machinery, and the substitution of agricultural products such as plants grown to produce fibres, dyes and rubber to animals raised primarily for their wool and fur by synthetic products.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »


User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

Reminder of this great book ^^^The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels^^^ to combat the environmentalist watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside).

Also to point to this great article from 2001: Environmentalism Refuted

From the article:

-Environmentalism is the product of the collapse of socialism

-The only difference I can see between the green movement of the environmentalists and the old red movement of the Communists and socialists is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as "exploitation," "monopoly," and depressions. The Greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The Greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage . . . [And in the end,] both the Reds and the Greens want someone to suffer and die; the one, the capitalists and the rich, for the alleged sake of the wage earners and the poor; the other, a major portion of all mankind, for the alleged sake of the lower animals and inanimate nature. - George Reisman, Capitalism

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

ajax wrote: February 17th, 2021, 10:52 am [And in the end,] both the Reds and the Greens want someone to suffer and die; the one, the capitalists and the rich, for the alleged sake of the wage earners and the poor; the other, a major portion of all mankind, for the alleged sake of the lower animals and inanimate nature. - George Reisman, Capitalism
This at total variance with Genesis 1:28:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Had we watered and cared for the OTEC seed President Carter planted, we’d have ended devastating typhoons and hurricanes, alleviated many drought conditions, and increased food production ten-fold. Not funded OPEC, ISIS, and the Arab Spring. Foregone 911 and be sailing smoothly down the highway of the hydrogen economy. 8-)

While sipping from fossil fuels in places where it makes good sense, keeping in mind God’s commandment to “subdue it” in Genesis 1:28. No wonder the horrors we are to expect, having eaten greedily from the wrong tree, again. :x

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

Excellent piece from the above author, Alex Epstein, re the problem with TX and US policy as a whole:
https://industrialprogress.com/the-trut ... ty-crisis/

There is a lot of conflicting “information” about the TX blackouts. Here’s the bottom line: the root cause of the TX blackouts is a national and state policy that has prioritized the adoption of unreliable wind/solar energy over reliable energy.

-For the last decade+ policy in TX and in the US has been focused on mandating or subsidizing as much wind and solar as possible. TX has bragged about being the biggest wind generator in the US.

-The TX focus on wind has come above all at the expense of coal, which has the resiliency advantage (along with nuclear) of being able to store large quantities of fuel onsite; gas mostly requires “just in time” delivery from pipelines.

-“In 2009, coal-fired plants generated nearly 37 percent of the state’s electricity while wind provided about 6 percent. Since then, three Texas coal-fired plants have closed…In the same period, our energy consumption rose by 20 percent.”

-Because intermittent wind and solar can always go near zero–as we saw recently in TX–they don’t replace the cost of reliable power plants, they add to the cost of reliable power plants. This is why the more wind and solar grids use, the higher their electricity prices.

-To lessen the price increases from “unreliables” governments try to get away with as few reliable power plants online as they can. TX is no exception. The Public Utilities Commission of TX has called their grid’s margin for error (“reserve margin”) “very scary.”

-Additionally, the expense and distraction of accommodating “unreliables” takes away money and focus from resiliency. In CA this meant not maintaining power lines. In TX it may have meant not focusing enough on making the reliable power plants resilient enough to winter weather.

-While we don’t know yet what exactly caused certain gas and coal plants to go down–lack of resilience for those plants, grid mismanagement, or fuel infrastructure–we know with 100% certainty that gas and coal plants can easily run in far more adverse conditions than TX has now.

-We know with 100% certainty that gas, coal, and nuclear plants can easily run in far more adverse conditions than TX has now. And we know with 100% certainty that even if no wind turbines had frozen they would have been nearly useless during large portions of recent weather.

-If you are looking at the facts in TX, the obvious lesson here is: stop subsidizing and mandating unreliables–which are often useless when you need them most–and do a better job at managing reliables.

-Instead of acknowledging the reality that unreliables can’t keep us warm or powered in the winter–and that the “100% renewable” direction is disastrous–advocates of unreliables are instead implying that no source of electricity can be relied upon, so no need to single out wind.

-Dr. Emily Grubert of GA Tech writes: “Let us be absolutely clear: if there are grid failures today, it shows the existing (largely fossil-based) system cannot handle these conditions either.” Really? Ever heard of the Midwest or Canada?

-We know how to produce enough low-cost, reliable electricity for every situation. You just build a whole bunch of reliable power plants, including those with on-site fuel storage–such as coal and nuclear. You place a premium on reliability and resilience. That’s it.

-TX is having an electricity crisis during bad winter weather because it did not focus enough on building reliable power plants and infrastructure–because it was obsessed with getting as much unreliable wind/solar electricity as possible. Let’s all learn from this mistake.

-Right now TX’s plans include
* 0 new nuclear plants
* 0 new coal plants
* 9.4 GW wind (the existing 32 GW went to 1 GW during crucial times this week)
* 11.9 GW solar (solar was useless much of the week)
* 5.0 GW gas (to handle the unreliables)
These plans should change.

-As bad as TX’s plans to “rely on unreliables” are, they are nothing compared to the Biden Plan, which calls for nearly 100% solar and wind electricity by 2035! Everyone should be asking him how the hell his plan would have fared in TX this week.

TX and America need to totally change direction in energy policy toward one of energy freedom, including freedom for the wonderful but demonized and criminalized ultra-reliable, non-carbon electricity source known as nuclear.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by BeNotDeceived »

ajax wrote: February 4th, 2017, 8:47 am
Dudes bought and paid for by oil interests,

may as well ask Big Soda about the diabetes explosion. :lol:

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by samizdat »

I am of the idea that we do need to get rid of fossil fuels but NOT in one fell swoop like what the GND asks for. Also, any new energy policy will need to by force include geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear (both fission and fusion).

It is kind of like finding new income streams to replace older, aging income streams, in place of waiting to get fired before starting to look for a new job.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by Serragon »

samizdat wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:15 pm I am of the idea that we do need to get rid of fossil fuels but NOT in one fell swoop like what the GND asks for. Also, any new energy policy will need to by force include geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear (both fission and fusion).

It is kind of like finding new income streams to replace older, aging income streams, in place of waiting to get fired before starting to look for a new job.
Like most leftist beliefs, this one also ends up harming and killing people.

Outside of nuclear, there is no rational case to be made for eliminating fossil fuels. They are cheap, available, plentiful, and overall cleaner than all so called "green" sources with the exception of hydro. And the left is busy tearing down hydro sources and keeping us from building new dams.

There is no compelling reason that can be made for eliminating fossil fuels.

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by samizdat »

Serragon wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:22 pm
samizdat wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:15 pm I am of the idea that we do need to get rid of fossil fuels but NOT in one fell swoop like what the GND asks for. Also, any new energy policy will need to by force include geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear (both fission and fusion).

It is kind of like finding new income streams to replace older, aging income streams, in place of waiting to get fired before starting to look for a new job.
Like most leftist beliefs, this one also ends up harming and killing people.

Outside of nuclear, there is no rational case to be made for eliminating fossil fuels. They are cheap, available, plentiful, and overall cleaner than all so called "green" sources with the exception of hydro. And the left is busy tearing down hydro sources and keeping us from building new dams.

There is no compelling reason that can be made for eliminating fossil fuels.
The contaminants in the air are more than reason enough to start weaning down on their use. And it is a shame that the left wants to get rid of dams. They are very useful for a variety of applications. Good enough for beavers. Why not for us?

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by Serragon »

samizdat wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:24 pm
Serragon wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:22 pm
samizdat wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:15 pm I am of the idea that we do need to get rid of fossil fuels but NOT in one fell swoop like what the GND asks for. Also, any new energy policy will need to by force include geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear (both fission and fusion).

It is kind of like finding new income streams to replace older, aging income streams, in place of waiting to get fired before starting to look for a new job.
Like most leftist beliefs, this one also ends up harming and killing people.

Outside of nuclear, there is no rational case to be made for eliminating fossil fuels. They are cheap, available, plentiful, and overall cleaner than all so called "green" sources with the exception of hydro. And the left is busy tearing down hydro sources and keeping us from building new dams.

There is no compelling reason that can be made for eliminating fossil fuels.
The contaminants in the air are more than reason enough to start weaning down on their use. And it is a shame that the left wants to get rid of dams. They are very useful for a variety of applications. Good enough for beavers. Why not for us?
No, "The contaminants in the air" is not more than enough reason. You have to define the contaminants and the damage they do versus the good that is done by having cheap available energy. Doing such an analysis leaves you with the inescapable conclusion that fossil fuels have a benefit many hundreds of times greater than they do negative consequences.

Air pollution is a very minor problem in the United States today, yet we have increased our use of fossil fuels considerably over the same time period. Clean technologies have been the difference, not eliminating the use of the product.

Making decisions like this based on an emotional reaction to some abstract understanding of air pollution leads to harm and death.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

This book was one of those rare "mind changing" books for me, along with The Real Lincoln.

He's coming out with a revised and updated edition in July.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

Serragon wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:33 pm
Making decisions like this based on an emotional reaction to some abstract understanding of air pollution leads to harm and death.
Indeed. It's always abstraction vs reality / real people.

Make the world safe for democracy = bombing real people

Save the union = invading and destroying real people who voted in mass for their own independence

Saving the planet from climate change = harming and destroying real people

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by Serragon »

ajax wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:39 pm This book was one of those rare "mind changing" books for me, along with The Real Lincoln.

He's coming out with a revised and updated edition in July.
I agree. It is one of the few books where there really is no counter argument to be made.

Most people come at this idea of eliminating fossil fuels from the standpoint that they care about their fellow human beings and wish to help eliminate their suffering. In fact, this is the justification for almost all leftist ideas. But this book really exposes the fact that the motivations of the leftists are purely selfish and emotional and have nothing to do with helping humanity at all. If people truly wanted to alleviate suffering, they would do all they can to make these fossil fuels more available to people, not eliminate them and restrict energy usage generally.

Bjorn Lomborg also does a very good job of explaining how most of these environmental policies actually harm people instead of helping them. His example of organic strawberries is perfect.

environmentalists want to eliminate pesticides and artificial fertilizers used to farm strawberries to eliminate pollutants and cancer. The result of this is healthier fruit, but smaller size, yields, and higher prices. So the people eating the strawberries have a very slightly reduced chance of contracting cancer, but the increased cost of this means that less people eat the fruit. The cancer reducing benefits of eating fruit is not realized. The net result is that the chance of people getting cancer has actually gone up overall, and especially with those in low income or poverty groups. The only people who actually benefit are the wealthy who can afford to eat the more expensive fruit.

So far from helping those whom they profess to care for, they have only helped themselves while causing the people they claim to be advocates for to be less healthy.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

Yep, human flourishing is the goal. Cheap, reliable, dense energy that is economically viable on it's own merits is the solution. If other energies get to that point, so be it, but until then fossils and nuclear are the game.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

e5a0ace3cbb1b97acfbcbc24d421ee0d6d9ec95b10f43e69a729e61dce2371a5_1.jpg
e5a0ace3cbb1b97acfbcbc24d421ee0d6d9ec95b10f43e69a729e61dce2371a5_1.jpg (71.57 KiB) Viewed 1416 times

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by BeNotDeceived »

ajax wrote: February 17th, 2021, 2:58 pm Yep, human flourishing is the goal. Cheap, reliable, dense energy that is economically viable on it's own merits is the solution. If other energies get to that point, so be it, but until then fossils and nuclear are the game.
Just Have a Think

Biomass is held up by governments around the world as a net-zero carbon alternative to fossil fuels. Just like most aspects of climate change mitigation though, the reality is far more complicated than that. Some studies have suggested it may actually be doing far more harm than good. So what's going on?

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »


User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Post by ajax »

Alex Epstein is coming out with a new book, Fossil Future

He has teamed up with Young America's Foundation to offer this book free to students and educators.

Encourage the students or educators you know to sign up for a free copy here:
https://www.yaf.org/fossilfuture/

Post Reply