What Bitcoin Did

View Original

Is There a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels? with Alex Epstein

Peter McCormack

Interview | Description | Timestamps | Show Notes

See this content in the original post

iTunes | Google | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | YouTube | Deezer | TuneIn | RSS Feed

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

Is There a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels? with Alex Epstein - WBD493 Peter McCormack

Download Episode MP3 File
The file will open in a new window. Click down arrow to download the file.

See this content in the original post

Alex Epstein is a philosopher and author of ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ and ‘Fossil Future’. In this interview, we discuss how energy abundance has enabled humans to flourish, whether climate mastery has made us unnaturally safe, and the need for more low-cost reliable energy.

- - - -

According to a recent survey for the UN, 64% of people believe that climate change is a global emergency. News reports are dominated by stories of floods, heatwaves, droughts, hurricanes and other events, highlighted as potential signs of a warming world. The implicit assumption is that urgent reductions in the use of fossil fuels are required to minimise the potential impacts.

But increasingly, a growing collective is questioning these opinions. Exploitation of fossil fuels is linked to civilisations' rapid development in the 250 years since the industrial revolution. Yet, billions still lack access to adequate levels of energy. The concern is alternative energy sources won’t be able to meet current demands, let alone demands that aren’t currently being met.

Furthermore, there is scepticism regarding climate change projections and forecast impacts on societies. Those who hold such views are labelled as climate change ‘deniers’, a pejorative term meant to imply resistance to science and facts. This is emblematic of how combative and polarised the two sides of the debate have become. Some are now refusing to engage.

Perhaps, such division is understandable given the stakes. If global warming has the capacity to be an existential threat this century, then delays in curtailing fossil fuels could be catastrophic. Equally, if such warnings turn out to be wrong then we could be constraining the empowerment of billions of people. In our view, this is why we should remain engaged in the debate.

See this content in the original post

Co00:04:03: Introductions
00:05:36: Debating a subject with the audience in mind
00:11:51: The search for truth and The Knowledge System
00:15:49: The gameplay of debate
00:23:55: The Washington Post debacle…
00:26:46: The Energy Humanists
00:33:11: Human flourishing
00:37:04: Fossil fuel capacity
00:42:00: Curtailing fossil fuels - impact to poorer nations
00:52:10: Environmental impacts - global temperatures
01:02:35: Environmental impacts - air pollution
01:16:36: Implications of climate change
01:20:38: Sea level changes
01:41:04: Social responsibility for poorer nations
01:50:31: Flooding and crop failures
02:00:33: Relative economics of energy
02:05:45: How Alex's thinking has evolved
02:09:26: Final comments

See this content in the original post

SUPPORT THE SHOW

If you enjoy The What Bitcoin Did Podcast you can help support the show by doing the following:

If you are interested in sponsoring the show, you can read more about that here or please feel free to drop me an email to discuss options.

SPONSORS

See this content in the original post

Connect with Alex:

Mentioned in the interview:

Other Relevant WBD Podcasts:

See this content in the original post