As an example of how a country can flourish with reduced fossil fuel consumption Pielke cites France, which slashed its oil and coal consumption since the 1960s by shifting to nuclear power. Good point, although Epstein also happens to be a big proponent of nuclear energy, which he says “has demonstrated by far the most potential as an alternative to fossil fuels.” He argues that nuclear power, while filled with promise, has been “criminalized” by activists.
Pielke also accuses Epstein of ignoring the downsides of fossil fuel dependence, including “pollution, insecurity, and economic risks.” While Epstein in his book acknowledges such “downsides,” he does not see them as a justification for fossil fuel elimination. Just because economic activity does not properly price and account for all fossil fuel externalities such as climate change does not mean that “the government should take action to make fossil fuels more expensive.
Which takes us to what seems like the real heart of the Epstein/Pielke clash. In Fossil Future, Epstein outlines his view that solar, wind, biofuels, carbon sequestration, electric vehicles and other state-mandated projects cannot offer the kind of energy system the world needs. Moreover, the externalities caused by moving to zero fossil fuels will exceed the externalities of their continued use.
In response to texted messages, Epstein said Pielke and other critics present a “significant distortion of my view and then argue against it.” He said he will be formally responding to Pielke and others in a few weeks. Let the debate continue!
Canada Latest News, Canada Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: GlobalNational - 🏆 81. / 51 Read more »
Source: SaltWire Network - 🏆 45. / 63 Read more »
Source: timescolonist - 🏆 15. / 75 Read more »
Source: TheTorontoSun - 🏆 23. / 68 Read more »
Source: CTVNewsVI - 🏆 28. / 68 Read more »
Source: ottawasuncom - 🏆 4. / 92 Read more »