Alex Epstien goes up against Dr. Dino Ress this time and wins handily. Dr. Ress seems like a nice enough person who I'm sure believes that what he is teaching is for the greater good. Unfortunately the chemistry PhD doesn't quite grasp the economics of energy and it showed.
Dr. Ress clearly believes that oil is the root of all evil but fails to put forth a good argument why? He also claimed that there are four futures for oil but doesn't explain why there should be only four possible outcomes.
Alex Epstien made very clear linkages with our standard of living and the use of oil. The most astounding part of this refresher is that he has to give it at all. Children should understand the importance of mining to their lives by the 4th grade, but sadly it needs to be explained again to adults who have lost the faculty of reason in this area.
Mr. Epstien skillfully batted down misconceptions about fracking and nuclear accidents. He also does really well explaining that the real issue isn't about a desire for oil but a desire for energy market freedom. If oil is the overall best energy for transportation then so be it.
I may work in the oil industry but if someone were to invent a better fuel tomorrow it would be great. The UN or some NGO or even our own government can't just make a law stating that donkey power or whatever is better than oil because donkeys have some intrinsic goodness revealed only to members of a particular ideology.
Only the market can tell us what is the best fuel. While I might lose my job along with hundreds of thousands of others if something better than oil appeared, the net result would be an economic boom. Our standard of living would improve because a purely market driven energy transition would mean more capital available to just about everyone.
An ideologically driven transition of energy would have to be forced on markets. People would be made to use a less efficient and more expensive form of energy which would drag the economy down and reduce our standard of living. We have already started down this road by deficit subsidizing inefficient forms of energy like wind and solar.
Some people like the idea of sacrifice for high ideals and that's fine for them. When they try to force it on others for the sake of their own satisfaction, well, what about my satisfaction? What makes their ideal society so good that I must transfer my own hopes for happiness to them against my will? Who in the hell gives them this right over me? I didn't, and I pledge to you here and now that I will never support or comply with the green agenda.