Importance Of Environment
James Damore must have scared all the wamen away with his google memo.
Epstein was an Evil Egotistical Ediotic, Idiot
With wind turbans is good. Cut down all forests so no bird and bat will find a place to make a nest. After all trees r gone only wind turbines will remain.
Yes we really to buy petroleum. I agree that burning all kinds of fossil fuels is good. We need to cut down all trees so humanity won’t have problems.
We need to buy petroleum.
We really should stop holding Googlers in awe. That leaked video of the Google meeting after the Presidential election shows that the company is full of snowflakes and rent-seekers. Google is not at all like the evil cyberpunk corporation run by the competitive jerks in business suits like the one shown in the RoboCop movies.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is it both absorbs and releases infrared photons. Once released, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 40% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately .9C at present. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 35 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.
I know you have to throw a bone to that left, but … cats don't kill golden eagles, hawks, condors, and other endangered species protected by law. Wind turbines not only kill these birds, but are given a pass by the Feds because they are "green".
Don't agree with Epstein on a bunch of things, but, well done giving him a platform.
All internal combustion engines can safely and economically use E15, regardless of age. This is proven by Brazil's decades long use of E15, E25, and now E27. They have the same engines as those available in the U.S.
In addition, E15 to E30 was used throughout Great Britain from the 1920's to the 1970's. This is also true of other countries such as France and Germany.
My 600+ page book "THE ETHANOL PAPERS" has just been published and it's free to read on TheAutoChannel website at @t
Firstly there is no such thing as running out of fossil fuel it's renewable and continuously being made through natural organic means period I have been in this field for over 46 years and can SAY that I Do Know A thing Or Two and we will NEVER RUN OUT. .. NO MORE THAN WE WILL RUN OUT OF WATER OR AIR ON THIS PLANET. AS WHERE THE HELL WILL IT GO ? IT CANNOT GO ANYWHERE as what ever we have here is here forever with Earths gravity its here forever so you sniveling idiots eco fterk numb nuts idiots are wrong about everything …and I know this frild better than you know your bloody name
Radical Leftist have no use for truth and facts about anything. Globalists have a plan to reduce the World's population by 50%? We are about 30 years out to get away from Fossil fuel according to the Feds.
I am amazed the Google let him talk..
As earth cools we will need more co2 pumped into the atmosphere to keep it warmer.
Great talk. Can't believe I'm hearing this truth here on a Google talk.
"I was a very poor person at the time, so I decided to offer Bill McKibben $10K to debate me." I don't think Alex Epstein understands what being poor means.
This man paints the world up as black and white, red and blue, binary etc. He talks about people that have environmental concerns as being either ignorant simpletons or having evil intent. He does not really explain anything about climate change as such. He is simply unconcerned about what could be happening there and the risk the human race is subject to with continued use of so called fossil fuels.
Gosh golly YouTube.. you forgot to put the "Global warming – Wikipedia…" notice on this video – usually it is right under the frame – that is, for so many other videos about global warming and climate change. Did you forget? Do you think this video is somehow exempt? Or perhaps it is actually about the speaker, and not the topic. Please address this, because I intend to make a comment like this on everyone I see.
So admittedly I have not read your book and I would very much like to do so that being said, you talked about the need for precision when discussing environmentalism and environmental issues but you have a great lack of precision when you talk about the idea of human flourishing. I would put this to the same rigor. For instance if I lived in a beautiful mansion and every day I got more girlfriends to move in and acquired more sofas, puppies and television sets. What's more we all consider pepperoni pizzas to be a measure of flourishing so each of us consumes more and more pepperoni pizzas. Clearly in the end my beautiful mansion would be a hell and we would be racked with disease even though each time we considered what we were doing to be flourishing. I would be more inclined to agree with you if we could have a serious discussion on what the balance between the proliferation of humans and our quality of life ultimately should be…and how our economic choices can have hard wired checks and balances that work towards a holistic optimization.
Just got his book on Audible, heard him on Dave Rubin. Seems like a very intelligent guy.
The simple fact that temperatures 5000 years ago were at least 3 degree warmer than today and carbon dioxide was below 300 ppm proves CO2 did not cause that warming. Why is there a debate about this?
The most amazing thing about this lecture is that it was held at Google. Google!
A cartoonist came up with the term '97% of scientists agree'. He just made it up, and the kooks ran with it – and now it's gospel.
Time to deregulate nuclear this means you’re taking climate science seriously
Amazing talk. Beautifully presented ideas
No one of the Predictions Of global warming has come true! To use Global Warming for political agendas is criminal!
How could Google have allowed this dime store, pollution worshipping charlatan to feed them such a steaming pile of sloppy, biased, anti-human, fossil-fuel sponsored propaganda? The folks at Google are supposed to be some of the smartest technocrats in the world but they meekly sat down and let themselves be spoon-fed a cascade of contrived, hypocritical soundbites that fly in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus.
To swallow Epstein’s narrative one would have to believe that a major branch of science (climatology) is utterly corrupt and worthless. This, in spite of the fact that it is linked to so many other branches of non-contentious science such as chemistry, physics, geology, vulcanology, helioseismology, glaciology etc. All long-term weather forecasts, infrastructure planning and the futures markets for every agricultural industry in the world rely on climatology. The field’s consensus is supported by countless, peer-reviewed scientific papers and mountains of data. The best qualified experts have debated the relevant evidence over decades. And yet Google decided to give a platform to this manipulative shill for a dying industry which is desperate to wring every penny out of the public while they still can.
He undermines the credibility of Climate science by declaring it to be “immature”. It’s far older than the branches of science that gave us Google. He denigrates experts by stating that they should act as advisors rather than authorities. He wants them to be easy to ignore and dismiss if their advice is unpalatable. He insinuates that Climate scientists don’t know enough about their field (how would he know unless he was one) and that they don’t explain or prove their conclusions. They actually explain and prove their claims in painstaking detail for anyone who has the patience to read their peer reviewed papers. He is of the opinion that experts overstep their field when they talk about anything that may be policy related. He wants intelligence and expertise to be kept out of policy making when it comes to fossil fuels.
Epstein encourages everyone to circumvent the best qualified scientists and do their own research on the subject. This is a well established ploy to make the general population think that they are as smart as the experts and then get them to ignore the issue entirely when they realise that research is hard and complicated. It works just as well for anti-vaxxers and moon landing skeptics.
There is almost no area of human advancement that Epstein fails to attribute exclusively to fossil fuels. He predicts all manner of social and economic calamities for the world if we cease relentlessly pumping carbon into the sky. He gives credit for all increases in human population and life expectancy on the benevolence and altruism of the petrochemical industry. He never mentions the enormous advances in medical science, sanitation and food production over the last century.
The fertiliser effect he speaks of might be credible if there were a single scientific paper or qualified botanist to confirm it. But all he produces are a few nonsensical graphs with no detail, context or citations and his own moral outrage that the government is not teaching children this overblown pseudoscientific claim.
There is a central contradiction to Epstein’s argument. If fossil-fuels are so vital to the continuation of human prosperity and development, why must we burn through them all so quickly in the segment of the world that least needs development? Why must these precious hydrocarbons be squandered on first world luxuries instead of third world necessities? Why must the current generation gouge all the known reserves out of the ground and burn through them immediately rather than save any of them for the prosperity of future generations? He insists that fossil fuels will never run out while we keep inventing methods like fracking to extract them from more difficult sources. This will mean we will be obtaining fuel less and less efficiently and generating more and more CO2 per unit of energy generated.
His advice can be summarised down to the following points: Burn it all. Burn it now. Share none of it with the poor. Save none of it for the future. Disregard any consequences for the global environment that all humanity relies upon to stay alive. It is an agenda that could have been written by a CEO for the exclusive short-term benefit of fossil-fuel industry shareholders.
Congratulations Google. You let yourselves be conned by the shallow, superficial, short-sighted talking points of a cheap huckster in the pay of the world’s most destructive polluters. You’d better get your dystopian, post apocalyptic business model ironed out soon because you’re helping to make it all happen.
The opponents of fossil fuels enjoy their usage and benefits daily while the opponents of vaccination believe that a life can be destroyed by their usage in an instant (perhaps from dead or autistic children in their own circle). Alex's comparison may not be the best way to show the fossil fuel alarmists' bias.
Hey did you watch his Ted Talk ? Me neither. Don't bother looking it won't happen.
Definitely going into the lions den with this presentation. Amazing framework………what do human beings need to thrive. Cheap, safe and ubiquitous energy.
apologetics for fossil fuels
I like your talk however couple of things. CO2 is not responsible for global warming. Historically [email protected] follows the global warming event. Also hydrocarbons are NOT Fossil fuels. Titan has oceans of it.
Please people, you have to take in a bigger picture. Not being able to do that is one of the worlds biggest problems. Just use your minds a tiny tiny bit more, ok?
Wow! What an asshole. Right from the get go he starts manipulating conservative morons by making strawman arguments about liberal ideologies. Then proceeds to say everything their want to hear. The amount of greed it takes to be willing to destroy the entire Earth's environment is astronomical. And there it is, screaming out for 63 minutes.
Very small crowd. Too bad…
Where is the argument for hemp?
A good example of how to think
The problems with nuclear are 1) CO2 output from constructing, supplying and decommissioning nuclear reactors will never be repaid by energy production during the lifetime of the reactor 2) uranium and plutonium remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years 3) it takes 10 years to commission and build a nuclear reactor, its active life is 30 years and it takes up to 60 years to decommission. A solar array or a wind farm can be put up in a week and taken down in a week. The only problem with renewables is unreliability and that is solved by storage. Apart from this a reasonable and balanced presentation.
This talk should be required in every university.
One of 30 videos I have seen (sponsored by the coal companies) where a guy tries to convince you that coal is good and climate change is a hoax. DOPE! 99% of scientists all over the world agree that climate change is bad news. Only a fucking moron would fall for this crap. Oh, I'm reading some of the comments below. I'm sorry for calling some of you fucking morons. How about we will call you gullible. If I tried to convince you that smoking is good for you, you should smoke more, would you buy it? No, because we KNOW smoking is really bad. We KNOW climate change is and will be really bad news. Don't be fooled by the coal companies. They only care about money, not your Health or your future well being. Be smarter than that. Remember, it is Scientists ALL OVER THE WORLD who agree on climate change. And for anybody who buys the crap in this video, I will try to make it simple for you, since you are a little slow. POLLUTION BAD. CLEAN AIR AND WATER GOOD!
The best lesson Mr. Epstein presents is the art and science of CRITICAL THINKING that has been lost in the indoctrination centers that our universities have become…
Bjorn Lomborg essentially makes the same arguments in his 1998 book, "Cool It". He suggests we would be better served by applying our resources to other issues the we can have and immediate positive effect on humanity, such as disease prevention and access to potable water.
10-20 people watching. Tells you a lot about what a liberal hell hole Google is.
What makes you think carbon based fuel is from fossils?
@ 38:12 there is a difference between weather(day to day conditions) graph on the left and climate(weather conditions over a long time) on the right
@ 40:05 increase in crop growth is not because of the increase of carbon in the atmosphere but rather the "green revolution" in the mid 1900's where agriculture technology and practices were updated
At 50:00 he mentions practices we consider as barbaric like “ female genital mutilation” but neglects to mention the equally barbaric practice of “male genital mutilation”. There it proves Alex is also a victim of political correctness too.
At 38:14 man… Just common. The deception here is so obvious, it makes me burst out laughing every time I see it.
Specious. Contradictory. Disingenuous. If you make energy open source, free/near free/low cost, it upends the pyramid scheme. There are people who would rather kill humanity than disrupt the chattel system.
@ 5:20 he implies that the reason gasoline cars became dominant was because fossil fuels are superior. This is wrong. It was actually due to the workings of the 19th centurary oil giants. Gasoline/oil vehicles beat out ethanol due to Rockerfeller influencing politicians to pass an alcohol prohibition and forcing ethanol fuel to include part fossil fuels to make it not drinkable.
48:00 here comes the divercity hire..
I haven't read the book, but I wonder if Alex has on opinion regarding what the optimum number of humans is for this planet?
An "Energy Philosopher" is the phoniest self stylized title i have ever heard of. It sounds about as useful as a Poetic Mechanic or an Artistic Dentist. At best it's entertaining and harmless, and more likely – at worst – it's completely misleading and is supposed to add credibility to someone with 0 actual credentials.
There are probably ten time stamps i could point out where he's blatantly and undeniably wrong about basic things, and at least twice as many where he uses facts in a twisted way to make false assumptions.
As for "Human Flourishing Framework"… I mean, if that's not double speak for "Business as Usual" i don't know what is. It's always the most irresponsible people that claim to be self-righteous promoters of "Morality".
Wide scale nuclear energy under capitalism that starves most of the population and then gatekeeps them from helping solve the world's problems because they're poor is not smart. This is the main reason we've had such horrific nuclear accidents thus far. There IS an element of human error regardless of our socioeconomic system, but the more people you have COLLABORATING (not competing against each other for a higher wage in a situation where the result of their work together is life and death) on the job, the more likely human error will be minimized.
Also: trying to find a way to live that is compatible with nature IS what's best for human beings whether this smug asshole acknowledges it or not, they're not two separate interests as his strawman suggests. When you say "maximize human flourishing" with the flawed understanding that humans are separate from nature and what we do to affect the environment negatively won't eventually effect us negatively, you're doing the opposite unbeknownst to yourself and so long as you think we're separate from nature and don't listen to those who tell you you're not, that will be our problem.
Climate "change" was not deemed so to say change as such is bad, it was a misguided corrective measure to satisfy the imbeciles who complained about the term "global warming" because winter was still a thing. It's just strawman on top of strawman with this guy. We need to employ the most sustainable forms of energy appropriately (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and yes *some nuclear) based on local resources and possible levels of human contribution/maintenance. Also, our living spaces should be designed to convert kinetic energy to electricity from opening doors/drawers/anything you move in a way such that you can fasten gears to the structure and harvest the energy. Also we need to grow a lot of trees and a lot of hemp for energy and other uses. That's the real solution, using fossil fuels will take us past the point of no return and listening to idiots like this is one stupid way we can seal our fate.
I think google talk really lost respect for me. (Hopefully many more’s) How is it possible we will still denying such prevailing truths? 10 year from now we will look back in our history, we will take him as an example on how little general mass understand natural science..
Fucking hell, this is common sense but everyone is totally polarised on this issue. They either think fossil fuels are evil or they are great. Meanwhile the ocean acidifies and the animals there die. Geo engineering for the win
This guy is awesome.
Here's the temperature record before NASA altered it. They are comparing high quality data from the US, using thousands of recording stations, to exceedingly sparse and unreliable data from the rest of the world (Aug 1999).https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
So what did they do about this discrepancy? Naturally they altered the high quality data to match the crap data.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kUAtt2pXlc
No solutions only trade offs. The question should always be which trade off promotes human flourishing at the highest level. Regardless of the subject.
This guy is very lame. You people who think CO^2 in the atmosphere is no problem just are not looking at reality–and you are behaving extremely poorly–deadly, really. Murderous, really.
It is very weak that so many people are completely removed from reality regarding the looming climate chaos. Denying this severe crises is the fruit of a closed mind.
"Practical Philosopher"??? who seeks maximising "people flourishing" at the cost of support systems (nature & its elements). And at the same time he's looking for balance. What a contradiction. Bear or Beaver Impact is totally different from Human Impact. he could even differentiate this, but still talk about "morality" What exactly does he means by this vague term "human Flourishing" but still want to look at nuances in relation to fossil fuel or "Morality" to disrupt planet earth.
Just because he presents his case pleasantly doesn’t make it better. Fossil fuels aren’t good.
The protesters against fossil fuels are hysterical hypocrites. They have no idea where their food and everything else they have comes from. Life before oil was short and harsh. People face the daily threat of starvation .The vast majority lived in abject poverty. Life expectancy in 1750 was 30 years. Enabling the government to tax people because of personal laziness and fear is wrong. Government won’t save anyone.
I'm surprised the left hasn't flagged this as hate speech, but would google demonetize google? I'm sure this won't be up much longer after how youtube is going these days.
He looks like a Batman villain.
This argument will end when our crops are failing and our cities are flooding. Governments will respond and probably with knee jerk reactions.
Alex is a rockstar in my world.
To appease the climate alarmists, lets not sellour clean coal to india and keep the poor people poor so we can pat ourselveson the back . That way we Australians can reduce our CO2 emissions from 1.3% toabout 0.5% of worldwide fossil fuel emissions which accounts for 3% ofatmospheric CO2 which represents about 0.04%.
More importantly let's not talk about theimpact on the carbon cycle by decimating our tropical forests equivalent tolosing 40 football fields of trees every minute for an entire year! The WorldResources Institute (WRI), claims more than 80 percent of the Earth's naturalforests already have been destroyed at the rate of 20,000 hectares per day inthe main report.
*Why dont the climate crusaders want to discuss deforestation and its impact onphotosynthesis?* The latter is a natural sink for CO2,utilizing the sun's energy and water to produce everything that supports life.
*By destroying forests man may be responsible for global warming but it has verylittle if anything to do with fossil fuels' meager contribution.* By destroying our natural forests we are “In Midst of Carbon Drought” (w_ Prof. William Happer, PrincetonUniversity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs&t=1s
I was very disheartened to hear one of the greatest proponents – of free market capitalism – denounce Economic models as unreliable.
What an idiot. He's not a scientist, never took a science class, doesn't listen to scientists, and gets paid by fossil fuels to tell you to ignore scientists.
Earth is warming. CO2 is greenhouse gas. Ice melting, both Arctic and Antarctic. Blooms earlier. Permafrost thawing.
Alex: Listen to me, a philosopher. I got this.
Some very good points made on the dependence of modern civilization on fossil carbon and hydrocarbons. Less good info on the 'risks' and the ecological backdrop of humans and energy use. He mentioned he debated Bill McKibben – I would like to see a third rail in that debate – someone like Nathan John Hagens who outlines the criticality of cheap plentiful reliable fuels to society, but also their impacts and their depletion. https://youtu.be/lIk7W75JbGk In any case we need to figure out what we will do after fossil hydrocarbons, esp oil, deplete. BBB
people that work in the Energy industry are salt of the earth types that actually care and find solutions to problems. People at Google/facebook/apple/amazon/microsoft with their server farms, suburban living, consumerism, etc. are the absolute most appalling people on this planet. They whine about the energy industry and of course they are the worst energy abusers and support child labor in countries like the Congo to get them their sweet coltan and lithium. Shame on these dorks for being so ignorant. Luckily karma is solidly in place and none of these geeks will ever get laid or procreate.
dumb people procreation limitation are the available resources… there are no such limitation in modern world, mostly thanks to welfare states and donations from "rich" countries… see Africa's demographics last few decades… THIS is the biggest problem of future humanity…
I had never seen a video with this amount of praiseful comments.
climate change would be happening with or without humans on earth. that's what the earth does. it's dynamic not static.
Are you related to Jeffry?
38:00 Oh so many lies. Models predict very well. They are tested backwards. Second we don't need to rely on models. We have many independent sources of data that agrees with man made climate change.
This is great for high-earning tech employees but how is any of this good for a rural farmer that lives off the land, in say Somalia where droughts are now happening every 2 years?
Here it is October 2019 and the climate change alarmists are screaming louder than ever. Demanding we quit using fossil fuels or we will tip the planet into irreversible runaway heating withing the next 12 years. These people frighten me.
Most encouraging from this talk was to see the young people at the end, who aren't blindly accepting what they're told (from either media or from Alex). However, I get the impression that most of them are struggling to express their opinion on a with friends and family, which is sad to see. It at least suggests that there might be a sizeable number of people who are silent skeptics.
Wow this video is so full of errors and distortions it is unbelievable.
he lost me at the "we need to make a decision about wether climate change is bad" bit. fucking moron
As of right now we know cheap energy in the short term is helping mankind, and cheap energy is produced by fossil fuels. The debate can be made that this short term effect will lead to long term issues that in the end will overall negatively effect mankind. I think the case Alex Epstein is making is that to be intellectually honest with ourselves we have to acknowledge the good and quantify the bad. What in the end is best for all mankind? No idea lol!!
I live in Monterrey, Mexico. Here we have a “dry” river called Santa Catarina. What floods this river are hurricanes that enter through the Gulf of Mexico and when they touch ground in the state of Tamaulipas they become tropical storms. I was born in 1975, my first experience of this river flooding was in 1988, hurricane Gilbert. Many people died, about 500+, many were never found. The material loss was huge. After that, the government invested in a huge dam that is between the mountains of Monterrey. Many were very mad because it would alter its ecosystem, the government argued it was more important to save lives then what would happen in that place where the dam was going to be built. A lot of money was spent, a lot of resources, and no one would even consider how much fossil fuels were used to build it and much less consider the CO2 emissions caused by it. And that if the hurricane was caused by “global warming”. No one thought anything about those subjects, in a very public way, I mean. Then came 2010, Hurricane Alex, even stronger than the last one, and thanks to the investment made, about 51 people died and there was less material destruction and investment was more in making better streets and bridges that either cross or run along the river. And just this year, 2019, hurricane Fernand, just one person died, and the streets and bridges were left intact, and it was an even stronger tropical storm then the two before!!! This shows human ingenuity to build a safer city, educate ourselves on the dangers of floods and how to use the resources at our disposal and that includes fossil fuels, which made all this possible. So yes fossil fuels have made my city safer. Is it a free polluting city? No, it is not, has life expectancy fallen because of this? No it hasn’t. Do people then don’t go and enjoy themselves outdoors? This is a very touristic city and has a lot of outdoor activity. So we are OK. And hope your cities are too!!
Alex, England really needs you to speak there, please !!! They have gone insane.
Few girls there. Are they playing with dolls ?
Alex is obviously a great thinker, listener, and speaker.
I read the book some time back…..a good read and fascinating as well…it's good to see the face behind the book…..thanks Google ….I take back half of what I said about you.
At least a few non-hardcore leftists showed up….🧐🤫
Great speaker! Very smart and practical.
The fossil fuels industry literally saved the whales. Think about that…
Many empty seats at Google, why is that?!
and more immediately to computer industry workers
No Petroleum = no plastics = no computers
No coal or natural gas = no metal or glass production = no computers
you cannot make millions of computers, computer cables server racks or flat screens without metals, plastics or glass
also simple formula :
More CO2 = more plant growth = more O2
so you end up with more breathable oxygen and larger food yields,
so whats so horrible about that
This discussion should be based on facts and not beliefs, and this type of videos help on this a lot.
The importance of energy to mankind as outlined in a real world sensible manner by Mr. Epstein is marginalized by the nonsense and politically charged opposition to anyone who ACTUALLY researches and tells the truth, inconvenient or otherwise can be illustrated by looking at the relatively insignificant number of people that took the time to watch this clear and easy to understand lecture. To me, it shows the bias and deniability falls on the wrong side of this discussion, and unfortunately it is impossible to get individuals who have concluded their position on such an important issue by their politics and almost purely group-think. The most important part of this argument is how the world's poorest populations are adversely impacted by the elite view of those who oppose fossil fuel. Here we have another case where the activist groups and political positions that are advertised as being more caring and more in touch with humanity are in reality taking a position that hurts those on Earth with the least ability to voice their opinion. I can sit here and blab in the comments section of this video all day long with very little to worry about, but then again i am not cooking my dinner over dried dung and counting malaria deaths as a 1:1 ratio of surviving humans in my tribe.
In January 2018, I published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebutted a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition.
In November of this year, I published a follow-up titled "The Moral Case for Internal Combustion Engines Powered By Ethanol."
It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels…regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available.
The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this.
This debate between Epstein and Junior is a joke. Junior knows nothing of the subject matter. A more appropriate opponent for Epstein would have been an addled marmoset – notice I didn't say chimpanzee or orangutan because Alex would not have been able to keep up with either one.
In January 2018, I challenged Epstein to a debate on this issue. He couldn't run away from me fast enough.
You can read my complete rebuttals at: @tand@t.
Marc J. RauchExec. Vice President/Co-PublisherTHE AUTO CHANNEL
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.