web stats

ללא מחבר No Author

The MORAL Case for Fossil Fuels…

Putting People’s Well-Being First: A Review of Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

by Pierre Desrochers

To most environmental activists, many of my students and some of my colleagues, life before the era of “carbon fuel pollution” was somewhat similar to the idyllic and carefree existence of the Hobbits. Indeed, looking at the support that organizations like Toronto350 have garnered in their quest to get universities to divest from “socially injurious” fossil fuel companies, one must admit that (re)creating the Shire is a political program with much wind in its (one must assume organically grown and ethically woven) sails…

So how should an energy realist go about reminding a University of Toronto Presidential Advisory Committee that the “good old days” were more akin to trying times, that poverty is something that most human beings have historically tried to escape from rather than a virtue, and that (energy) reality is not optional?

One option is to explain once more that coal, petroleum and natural gas came to dominate our energy system for good practical reasons, and that truly superior alternatives would not need taxpayers’ money to be mandated into our houses or shoveled down on our landscape.

For instance, a few days ago my friends Germain Belzile and Youri Chassin published a study on the costs of an accelerated transition toward green energies and the willingness of Canadians to pay for these costs. Looking at some proposals of Québec-based Équiterre and Vivre en ville for reducing oil consumption for personal transportation that ranged from bicycle sharing services to high-speed rail service, they concluded that these “sustainable” options would come with an annual price tag of approximately $6.4 billion for Quebec as a whole, or $1,875 per household. In Quebec as in other jurisdictions that have already gone down green roads paved with (feel) good intentions, subsidizing inferior alternatives will result in massive wealth destruction without any meaningful beneficial environmental outcome.

The problem, of course, is that energy reality doesn’t accord with the ethical preferences of self-appointed guardians of the greater good who would rather dismiss or heckle their critics as corporate shills than address their arguments. After all, who could be against unspoiled nature, communal bliss and subsidized elitist artistic expressions but people in the pockets of greedy corporations? And who will dare to keep consumers in check for their own good and that of future children, to say nothing of voiceless critters and ecosystems, if not virtuous individuals like themselves (even though they might have to use a fair amount of carbon fuels to get their message across)?

“As one expects, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels debunks most of the nonsense that has now become the common wisdom of the chattering classes on energy issues.”

But while it was perhaps unavoidable that pampered academic rebels looking for a new cause would eventually settle on telling energy-starved masses to eat little, distant, costly, intermittent, unreliable, and low-density energy cupcakes, what has been especially disheartening for energy realists is how many energy executives have been shamed into paying lip-service (and a fair amount of “sustainability” and “green partnership” consulting fees) to their most virulent detractors.

Enter Alex Epstein, the young dynamo behind the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP) (Disclaimer: Alex is a virtual friend, meaning we’ve met through Skype rather than face-to-face, something which would have required burning much more carbon fuel…)

A philosopher by training, Epstein is now an energetic happy intellectual warrior who takes the case for fossil fuels into the most hostile corners, be they academia or the People’s Climate March. Even better, he managed to organize a debate in which he confronted the 350 éminence grise Bill McKibben himself!

Apart from his intelligence, passion and youthful drive, Epstein’s success is largely attributable to his re-framing of old energy debates in a moral light. As he explains in his recent book, the question of what to do about fossil fuels should come down to what will promote human life and flourishing rather than “holding human nonimpact as one’s standard of value, without regard for human life and happiness” (page 30). (Of course, the fact that Epstein even has to make the case against the “irrational moral prejudice” against cheap and reliable energy tells us how far some sizeable segments of the political left have gone on the misanthropic side of the intellectual universe, a corner once mostly populated by aristocrats, romantics, nouveaux riches and academic ecologists. Truth be told though, not all self-styled progressives are comfortable with the now dominant “reactionary apocalyptic pastoralism” and some, like my [again virtual] friends at Spiked! are actually remarkably sensible and creative on the issue.)

As one expects, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels debunks most of the nonsense that has now become the common wisdom of the chattering classes on energy issues. Do you want to know why you can’t power light rail systems or simply manufacture smart phones, bicycles or triple glazed windows with wind turbines, solar panels and anaerobic digesters? Or why being operated on in a hospital powered only by “alternatives” might be harmful to your health? Epstein will not only tell you with clarity and gusto, but with a knack for witty one liners that this (arguably less articulate and funny) energy writer hasn’t encountered before.

Most importantly, Epstein dares to venture where many energy realists won’t go by explaining at some length that cheap, plentiful and reliable energy, combined with human ingenuity, “gives us the ability to transform the world around us into a place that is far safer from any health hazards (man-made or natural), far safer from any climate change (man-made or natural), and far richer in resources now and in the future” (page 33).

Whatever your reason might be for buying gifts in late December, please consider (on top of your own) offering a copy of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels to both your loved ones and those sanctimonious green hipsters in your life. It is, as far as I know, the best accessible moral case made on behalf of an issue that is, in the end, a matter of life and death.

From QL, here.

The State of Israel’s Corona Regime – *J’ACCUSE!* by Professor Ehud Qimron

Professor Ehud Qimron: “Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure”

Published: January 10, 2022

Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.

Original letter in Hebrew: N12 News (January 6, 2022); translated by Google/SPR.

See also: Professor Qimron’s prediction from August 2020: “History will judge the hysteria” (INN).

∗∗∗

Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure

In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect, it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common-sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort, and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines, and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did with some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

Irreversible damage to trust

However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns, and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.

You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.

You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society, and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights, and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.

When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.

There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.

This emergency must stop!

Professor Udi Qimron, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

From Swiss Policy Research, here.

Aliyah Is Not a Milestone but a QUEST!

Haaretz Hatovah: Five Times Aliyah

4:33 am

Binyomin Biron, Kiryat Sefer, Modi’in Illit

I first came to Eretz Yisroel as a bochur. I had previously been involved in kiruv activities in Kiev. At the end of the school year, my brother-in-law who was living in Eretz Yisroel suggested that I continue on to yeshivah here, being that I was already so much closer in Kiev to Eretz Yisroel than from back home in the US. With my parents’ approval, I came to learn in the Ponevezh Yeshivah. Once here, my brother-in-law suggested that I try to just imitate the Israeli dialect of speech (including resorting to the guttural “reish”), as this would help me acclimate myself to speaking Hebrew and make me comfortable while doing so. I also practiced my Hebrew by speaking to Israeli kids who were happy to be of help with my Hebrew vocabulary.

While I was here in Eretz Yisroel, it was eventually time to start shidduchim. I fortunately found someone who was also interested in living here, and although we went back to the US to get married, we came back to Eretz Yisroel shortly thereafter. Although we had both come to Eretz Yisroel before, this time it was more significant because we were now establishing a home here.

After we had done our own “aliyah,” establishing ourselves here in Eretz Yisroel, we decided to go through the process of what the Israeli government calls “aliyah”—as in obtaining Israeli citizenship. This would allow us to work here legally, get some benefits, and save a bit of money (e.g. cheaper health insurance, possibly lower home purchase tax, etc.). We know people who choose to live here without becoming Israeli citizens, but we didn’t want to have to renew our visas and be subject to the whims of the Interior Ministry clerks, or have it easier to decide to move back. Though, for some people that works better.

When we went to the Interior Ministry with all of our documents to process our citizenship request, there was a minor issue with one of my documents which prevented my request from immediately being processed. I was going to fix the issue, but a friend, who b’siyatta diShmaya “happened” to be there just then, alerted me to the fact that as a male Israeli citizen eligible for the draft, I would be subject to some restrictions regarding the length of time I may be out of the country. This held true even though I was a full-time learner and would not be drafted. Because this friend knew about my kiruv activities, he advised me not to apply for aliyah so I could travel if necessary. I decided I would push off the process for myself, and at that time only my wife obtained citizenship, I was eventually offered a job in a kiruv kollel in Moscow. They wanted a commitment of at least two years, but we ended up staying there slightly more than three. I would not have taken up such an offer from a kollel in the US, because there would be a risk of finding ourselves stuck there—after all, we were both originally from the US and had family there. As for Russia, there really wasn’t anything that would keep us there for the long term and prevent us from fulfilling our goal of settling in Eretz Yisroel.

When our oldest child was going to enter kita aleph (first grade), we decided, with guidance from Gedolim, that it was time to reestablish ourselves in Eretz Yisroel, this time as a small family. We weren’t going to wait until the kids got older when the adjustment would be more difficult. We really wanted the chinuch available in Eretz Yisroel, especially in a place like Kiryat Sefer. The chinuch here is on a very high level—there is more Yiddishkeit, more kedushah, less gashmiyus, and less exposure to tum’ah. Here, learning Torah is most valued, tzaddikim are the role models, and there is a general atmosphere of yir’as Shomayim. Although earning money, having a car, and similar materialistic items might be important, it’s not the focus.

We are privileged to raise our children in a place that is more closed and protected. Such communities exist back in the US, but they’re still more vulnerable to the influences and social pressures of their country and general society.

Several years after we were back in Eretz Yisroel, I completed the process of citizenship, further strengthening my connection to the Land, at least in a technical way.

Here’s an observation of mine: Among the American bochurim who are here learning in Eretz Yisroel, there are at least some who would also like to establish themselves here. Many are unaware that they don’t have to go back to the US for potential shidduchim. There are many regular Beis Yaakov girls from America who are already here that also want to live here and who have already started shidduchim. Some of them are here in post-seminary programs and others have immigrated with their families. Although the boys are primarily here to learn, I don’t see why those interested shouldn’t try shidduchim here.

While there is a possibility of finding a shidduch in chutz laAretz who would also tentatively agree to come to live in Eretz Yisroel, even with all the goodwill it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Good intentions aside, there are differences one would have to adjust to over here—not having two cars, getting along with Jews from “arba kanfos ha’aretz”—i.e. many different cultures, and many other things—someone who’s not wholeheartedly committed to living here might just not get over any real or perceived difficulties. As for the pool of potential shidduchim for Americans being smaller here, well, the bottom line is you only need one…

Still Ascending

I came as a bochur, came again with my wife, came a third time as a small family, and have gone through the citizenship process twice—once for my wife, and once for myself. But, as Rav Zev Leff, shlita, says (I learn in the yeshivah in his Moshav Matityahu in the mornings), aliyah doesn’t end at the airport (or in the Interior Ministry). It’s really two stages—the first step is leaving America behind, and the next step is to keep shteiging here.

This article is part of our Haaretz Hatovah series featuring Yidden living in, settling, and building up Eretz Yisroel. For more information please contact us at info@naavakodesh.org or visit naavakodesh.org/haaretz-hatovah

Reprinted with permission from Yated Ne’eman

From Matzav, here.

Before Supporting New Legislation, STOP & THINK!

“There Oughta Be a Law!”

by Adam Allouba

You may not hear that precise expression every day, but you recognize the sentiment. It’s one that you probably feel yourself now and then: The government should do something to fix some problem or another. It may be something gravely serious or nothing more than a minor nuisance; it may be something that oughta be mandatory or oughta be illegal. But whatever it is, it needs to change and using the law is the way to change it.

“There oughta be a law” is not something you’re likely to hear coming out of the mouth of a libertarian, however, except as sarcasm. Most libertarians believe that government legislation leads to bad outcomes for all kinds of reasons, from warped incentives to unintended consequences. More fundamentally, libertarians are against government legislation because we believe that it is inherently wrong to initiate coercion against other human beings. Now, that is a decidedly minority view; most people believe the state should adopt rules that govern our conduct in order to (presumably) make the world a better place. So why the disagreement on such a basic question?

In my view, the reason that non-libertarians are so comfortable with government action is that they have not thought through what exactly it means to say, “There oughta be a law.” Of course, they know that it means that something should be mandatory or illegal—but they haven’t taken a step back to think about what exactly that means in practice.

So what does it mean to assert that government should do something? Let’s start at the beginning. The textbook definition of the state is an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (within its borders). It’s vital to understand that this is not some eccentric libertarian viewpoint—any introductory political science textbook will tell you the same thing. In practice, that means that if you violate the state’s rules, you get punished through force. Drive too fast? Get fined. Flunk a health inspection? Get shut down. Sell drugs? Get arrested.

Wait a minute, you might say. I see how being thrown in jail for selling drugs is using force, but shutting down a restaurant? That doesn’t seem like force. And a speeding ticket? Getting pulled over is inconvenient and no one likes paying up, but where’s the force there? In fact, having your property seized or your business shut down is a use of force. This can be made clear by thinking about what happens to people who don’t comply.

Imagine a simple scenario: You’re a business owner who buys and sells second-hand goods. One day someone enters your store with an old baby walker that’s been sitting in their basement for the past decade. Figuring someone might be interested, you take it off their hands. Unbeknownst to either of you, however, that walker has been banned since last it was used. And because it’s your unlucky day, later that afternoon, in walks an employee of Health Canada’s product safety division. “That’s illegal!” he says, pointing to the offending device. Thinking he should mind his own business, you ignore him and, when he insists, politely ask him to leave. Unfortunately for you, our hypothetical do-gooder is fully seized of his mission to protect the public. The next day, he informs his supervisor of your contraband. When the inspector comes through the door, you tell him that your mother used a walker with you, you used own with your kids, that he’s out of his mind and that he has until the count of 10 to get out before you get him out. Undeterred, our friend returns—this time, with police backup. At this point, your choice becomes clear: Either let the man onto your property to carry out his task, or risk finding yourself staring down the barrel of a gun. Kicking out a man with a clipboard is one thing, but trying to kick out a police officer is liable to get you shot dead.

“To say that ‘there oughta be a law’ is to say, ‘People should be compelled under threat of violence.’ It is to say that whatever the rule is, it should be applied not by persuasion but by compulsion.”

The point is this: Every rule and regulation adopted by the state is ultimately backed up by the threat of physical force—if necessary, deadly force. That’s not to say that public workers are aspiring Robocops. The vast majority of them are ordinary people who do a job like anyone else—except that theirs grants them the right to force other people to comply with their instructions. And while it may be unheard of for, say, a workplace safety inspector to call in a SWAT team so she can check a factory floor, that’s precisely because the threat of violence hovers over her as she goes about her day. After all, if the mob showed up at your door “asking” for their cut of the day’s profits, the interaction would probably unfold very cordially, since you know what would happen if you were to refuse. The same is true of anything the state does: As people know that there are serious consequences for refusing to comply, they do so cheerfully.

To say that “there oughta be a law” is to say, “People should be compelled under threat of violence.” It is to say that whatever the rule is, it should be applied not by persuasion but by compulsion. Anyone who fails to comply should be required to yield or else to face physical force and—if it comes to that—potentially lethal consequences. Walk through the scenario with any government edict and the penalty for stubbornly refusing to obey is ultimately the same. Whether it’s extracting fossil fuels from rocks, exchanging money for healthcare or broadcasting the wrong kind of music, a persistent, stubborn refusal to follow the rules will not just get you in trouble but will ultimately result in physical damage to your person, should you refuse to cooperate.

I don’t doubt that many people would still support all kinds of laws even if they fully understood that uniformed men brandishing firearms will be called in to enforce them if necessary. Some things are arguably worse than the threat of violence, and if you think that a rule is necessary to prevent starvation or disease or societal collapse, it’s entirely reasonable to insist that it should be enforced at the barrel of a gun. But how many laws and regulations even purport to have so critical a purpose? How many are supported merely on the grounds that there is some nuisance or inconvenience that should be done away with? Put in these terms, is it right that the state mandate the colour of one’s home? Should it prevent you from accessing a Wi-Fi network? What about fixing the price of books, the hue of margarine, the layout of your keyboard, the type of bulb in your socket or how you open your bathroom door?

It’s doubtful that people would support anywhere near as large a government as they do now if they fully appreciated the implications of every law that the government adopts. And instead of casually calling for legislation to fix almost every difficulty in existence, they would be much more likely to see it as a last resort—one to be used only when there seems to be no other way to solve a major problem that simply cannot be allowed to continue. It is a very grave thing indeed to say that people should be compelled under threat of physical force to behave in a certain manner, and there should be an extremely demanding burden of proof on those who argue for such a thing, every time they argue for it.

So the next time you find yourself tempted to say, “There oughta be a law,” ask yourself whether you really mean it. Is this something that really merits the use of force? Should someone who doesn’t behave in the manner you like really be coerced into doing as you say? Or it is best to address the problem through education, persuasion, or plain and simple tolerance of one another? I’m not a pacifist through and through, but I prefer to live in a world with as little violence—actual or threatened—as humanly possible. And I suspect that, when they think about it, that’s a sentiment that most people can agree with.

From Le Québécois Libre, here.