Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels....

Alex Epstein is both morally courageous and a genius. BTW, he correctly calls the "progressive" movement the "regressive" movement because in truth, that is what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4

The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels
Haven’t watched the vid, but the book looks interesting.
Of course the liberals and SJWs are just gonna dismiss it as more propaganda from the evil oil and coal companies.
7mm

Haven't an hour plus to listen to that fella but do have a few thoughts. Fossil fuel is too valuable to burn. It has been a good and viable resource but supplies are finite. There are alternatives and we need to get to work on them.

Oh Snap!


Incoming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't wait!

I’m all for conserving fuel and finding new forms of fuel, but these idiots want to destroy our way of life and our prosperity, all in the name of climate change.
Wind and solar are not the answer, yet. Maybe in a few years we’ll be able to transmit and store it more cheaply and efficiently, but right now it’s not viable for mass population centers. If it weren’t for government subsidies, there’d be no demand at all.
The more i study it and read about it, the more I think this global warming/climate change is just a scam for taxes and what globalist call “Sustainable Development”. If you’ve done your homework on Agenda 21, you know it a nice way of saying population control.
They want us all living in concentrated government run cities. At least the ones that aren’t labeled “undesirable” and liquidated. Communism on a global scale.
7mm

Heretic!

Geno

Seems I heard that in the 70's in High School. Back when the American Car companies were saying the American public did not want small, fuel efficient vehicles and they were going to continue building land yachts. Then, because they had fallen behind in the race, we got the Pinto and the Vega. And they were far enough behind they had to go into joint ventures with the foreign car companies to try to catch up.

Agenda 21 aside, will American kids that are 17 now be hearing "Wind and solar are not the answer, yet" when they are in their 60s. While American companies fall farther and farther behind?

Seems I've read stories that new technology was not the answer over the years.........mechanical tractors vs mule and plow, repeating rifles vs single shots, and so on.

In the words of some famous songwriter........................The times they are a changing.

Geno

Supplies are finite only in a very abstract and essentially meaningless way. For all practical purposes, supplies are infinite. For example, we have available to us currently many more times the amount of energy in fossil fuels than all mankind has used in the last 300 years. As far as alternate sources, the market is far more able to utilize and exploit alternate sources of energy than government "cram-down" policies. The best policy is to do nothing and let the market decide.

The anti-global warming and modern environmentalist movements are, in truth, anti-human being movements. At bottom, they hate their own humanity and the very idea of human beings. The logic leading to this conclusion is irrefutable. Epstein makes this case very compellingly in several videos and in his books.

Everyone who is against oil, should read the book.

"It has been a good and viable resource but supplies are finite."

Not trying to start am argument but I don't how finite fossil fuels really are. There are oil wells in west Texas that are still producing long after they thought they'd go dry. My SIL inherited some property in south Texas that has oil/gas on it. When he signed a lease with Conoco/Philips they told him that the lease was just of the first pool of oil and they'd be back later to lease the deeper pool. There's guys on here that are in the oil business that will know a lot more about it than I do.

The western standard of living requires cheap and plentiful energy. Both are required and alternative energy is not as cheap and consistent as fossil fuels.

That’s why I added “yet”. Right now, wind and solar aren’t viable for big cities with large populations. But 10, 15, or 20 years from now, who knows? 40 years ago, computers were great big expensive things. Phones were mounted on a wall and had big dials and springy cords. Now you got a device in your hand the size of a small notepad that functions as both!
I’m 54, never pictured the advances in technology we’ve seen in 30 years. I sure don’t mean to rule “green energy” out, just saying it ain’t the answer “yet”.
I for one never thought a mid size car would ever be the size of a Vega or Pinto! I still miss points ignition, carburetors and drive shafts to the back wheels. But I never dreamed I’d see cars and engines go 1/4 million miles and more either! The only thing that never changes is that things are always changing.
7mm

I'm not looking for a pizzin' match, just pointing out a few things. For starters, finite means what it means. I don't know how much there it out there, but Mother Earth isn't making coal and oil like the good old days. Use it for fuel and it's a one time deal. There are better uses for some of the components in my opinion, and taking the long view as I'm inclined to do we really don't have a lot of choice.

I don't want the government promoting this but note there have been some interesting forays of investigation. We went to the moon by use of liquid oxygen and hydrogen. A few years back Honda experimented with fuel cell electric autos in CA and as far as I understand they did fairly well. Something like 150 MPG of H2. Back in the '80s a Convair 880 was flown by use of hydrogen slush fuel. The byproduct of hydrogen fuel "combustion " is water vapor. It is reusable....it is one helluva lot more energetic than fossile fuel and not difficult to crack.

https://www.britannica.com/story/do-fossil-fuels-really-come-from-fossils

not really fossil fuels.... we just got used to calling them that, I guess

Pretty much exactly what he says in many ways... except, there is plenty of fossil fuel and the known resources are expanding continuously as we learn more and more ways to extract it.

Another of his main arguments is the simple fact no one is supplying the other side of the argument... it is all anti-fossil fuels. Wind generators require huge back-up systems which actually significantly raise the price. Just drove across Iowa at night a couple weeks ago. The number of winking red lights on the horizon was hard to believe. Every time the wind dies they have to swap to another source.

Also, the huge increase of agricultural productivity due to increased CO2 is never mentioned...

Oil and natural gas are still under production underground.

I'd like to care, but I don't.

I do not buy the premise that there's a question of morality in using "fossil fuels" in the first place. Nor is there ANY doubt that those pushing for more and bigger government have malicious intent.