I wrote to you regarding this book by Alex Epstein "Fossil Future." And it really struck me why people are not thinking in the same way, as Alex? I don't know, is it only our reality or everyone else's, but it seems like he's taking the internet by storm, you know, like he's everywhere on all Twitter and everything talking about the benefits of fossil fuels. And although we can argue that fossil fuels are not the best, but the case that he makes, and this is what I wanted to talk about today, is that all this green stuff and Going Green and preserving the planet, all these vague terms, they are anti human, they're really anti human, because they want to preserve the state of the Earth, prevent the warming of the planet, all at the expense of human lives. And this is kind of strange, like for whom do they want to do it? I was listening to Alex's appearance on the Brendan O'Neill show, he was saying repeating again, what he wrote in his books that the rhetoric of going green can be popular. But the consequences can't be popular. Why? Because the rhetoric is dishonest. And this rhetoric says that if you act to eliminate your impact, meaning the impact of humans on Earth, somehow your life is going to be better. And that is a contradiction. Because the way we make our life better on Earth, is by massively and intelligently impacting it, including by using the most cost effective sources of energy, which most of the time today is fossil fuel. And we've been talking also about that everything that we could achieve as humanity, this growth in the past couple of centuries, was because we had new sources of energy that allowed us to amplify and extend our abilities to building all this infrastructure that we are having today. And the case that Alex makes is that the CO2 clan and all this green agenda, well they're continuously highlighting only the negatives of the fossil fuels, as Alex calls it, it is fossil fuel benefit denial. Why? Because they're opposing the negatives of the fossil fuel only to the positives of the green energy, while completely ignoring the negatives of renewables, or the green energy. And this creates a distorted picture of reality. If we have a look at how we live today, the more I start noticing these things, and obviously, I mean anyone, when we experienced power cut, we understand that, oh, we can't go make some tea, we can't make a cup of coffee. And if you have electric heaters, or water heaters in your house, there is no hot water, there is no heating or cooling in summer. And these are the things that we are completely taking for granted. This may be about to change with all the power cuts we've been talking about that are being programmed already for this winter for many European countries. And I also heard that Switzerland wants to ration the water supply. This is quite interesting. And this is what Alex Epstein says that the world unimpacted by human beings was already a really inhospitable place for 500 million people back then. But now, it is a completely unlivable place for 8 billion unimpacted. So we totally depend on machine labor to sustain our life. So this abundant and relatively safe world that we have today, we owe it to the amount of machine labor that amplifies and expands our abilities. Today's world again, the machinery allows one farmer to do the work that would require 1000 people previously. And another example that he makes is that crossing an ocean, for example, can only be achieved using machine labor, and no amount of human labor can help us achieve crossing the ocean without using machines. And no amount of human labor can save a prematurely born baby's life without using an incubator. It's a machine and it needs power. And no matter how many people would gather around this baby if we don't have these machines that are powered by some sort of energy, we'll not be able to save this baby. Now this is very interesting. When we start thinking about all the things that we have today and we will have to abandon. If we don't have energy, we will not be able to use any of the machines that we're using today, our life will not be the same. So I wanted to share this with you and ask for your opinion on this.

Well, it's no secret that I've been watching lately lectures and listening to podcasts by Alex Epstein. I get to say so many points he's saying, are really, you know, very well thought through. And the way he presents the facts makes you take a different look. And the things that we're usually being told on the mass media, from which perspective, we actually want to take a look at our humanity. Do we want to develop it the best possible way? Do we want to allow everyone in the world to live safely have energy? For example, one of the things he has mentioning that most of the people in the world using less energy than your fridge. And that case, well, you have this new technology that allows people to get alternative sources of energy. We already have amazing sources of energy, right, but so many people don't have them. And you coming up with wind turbines and solar panels, for example, and you really like them. Well then install them in those places where people have really, really need them. There are so many places where they desperately need them. But they don't. They try to cut the production of energy in already developed countries. And you know, what's interesting, that the most advanced power sources and the cleanest ones, I mean, the nuclear energy are not being, you know, viewed as an alternative for some reason that we are not developing those stable sources of energy. You know, I was looking this week had the map of power outages in Texas in 2021, when there was no power for a couple of days, and it was a disaster, a few 100 people died, and so much more suffered, because there was no energy, even in vital areas like hospitals and everything. Of course, they had led to political debate, was it due to renewables? Was it due to power grid? Was it due to something else, but it just shows shows how vulnerable our system is without the energy. And one thing that when you look at the map of energy production, right, the solar goes like this up and down, right that other sources go up and down. But nuclear, it always stays the same, like nuclear is their only source of energy that is clean, that produces a lot of energy. And then for some reason, we started shutting down these factories, and it doesn't make much sense, because we need definitely need much more power. And the cheaper the power is, the better the quality of the people do, you want to work 16 hours a day, or you want to work eight hours a day, or you want to make enough living and maybe even a better living by working four hours a day, it all depends on the amount and cost of energy that we have. As simple as that. We have so many people who work a lot, a lot of hours to produce goods that first world countries consume. But those are being produced in so called third world countries or a second world or whatever, in Southeast Asia, in India and China, in other countries, we are being pushed this narrative that those countries are polluting, that those countries have dirty production. Well, excuse me, who's consuming the results of their production. In most cases, it's not the people of those countries. It's the people of the first world who live in the sterilized world, imaginary world where human impact is eliminated. You know, there is a good parallel when people live in absolutely sterilized surrounding, they're not gonna survive long. Because your immune system everything needs to needs to coexist in a competitive space. And the same applies to like water, distilled water with no salt with no other elements. And that doesn't work. And if we want to make our world really competitive, in good sense, compete in improving the quality of human life, we should use all our existing technologies to create new sources of energy. It's fascinating how many people actually invest in money into the energy and everything into getting this new sources of energy, magnetic energy generators, but those are not being supported on the governmental level. And what's been supported are pretty unreliable resources. Another graph I've seen is how much advanced the solar and wind technologies are. And you know, their efficiency, we already almost pushed those technologies to the limit of their abilities. And it's still not that good. Like, it's still not that great. Yeah, it's really about the debate, if you really want to eliminate human impact. Do you still want the humans on this planet? Or what do you want to do the humans, and we clearly seing that the reduction of population is openly being discussed as one of the problems overpopulation of the Earth, at the same time, the very same people offering us to cut the consumption of energy. I don't think it's taking our humanity doing any good service to it, you know, even from looking at California energy production and the way they shut down couple of nuclear plants. That's very interesting, because you know, the reaction keeps on going. Because once the reaction has been started, it keeps on going can go for many, many years. It just doesn't produce the energy anymore. So it looks like there is some strange political requirements to it. If it was only about the energy, that's one thing, but I believe there is also almost a spiritual thing to it, where human freedom, which is possible due to free energy, or very cheap energy is seen as a threat by certain people, people who have power or people who temporarily in power. You know, what's the next guy comes and he speaks well, but then in couple of years, we seing him continuing the very same agenda. I think that's one of the reasons why Donald Trump was so popular in the office, because he came and he completely destroyed openly all the arguments against it. He was like, I want my clean, beautiful coal, clean, beautiful coal, and no one ever said, clean and beautiful coal prior to him. And he was like, I'm gonna cut the Paris Agreement that doesn't do us any good. And everybody was like, whatever this guy's up to, he has a plan. He knows what he's doing. He is not up to this BS and telling us that white is black, and green is good. No, he definitely had that plan. We don't have to agree with all his talking points. But when it comes to energy, resources he made our country America definitely much more stable, comparing to where it is right now. Another book that I've been reading is regarding how it was all built this whole myth of having green energy and putting solar panels and not impacting. One of the very important reasons, which allows many people to consider this, as an alternative is lack of time and desire to actually learn it themselves. If only people had looked more into how the energy actually works, what are the consequences of using solar? What are the consequences of using other sources of energy? What are the cons and pros of each one of them? There would be no argument about switching to solar. Like definitely, we need clean energy. But just the thing is that solar and wind is not an alternative that's so obvious to anyone who spent a little time looking into it. And if you haven't, you can check those videos about wind and solar on Creative Society YouTube channel on the conferences.

Independently whether this new project of transforming the end-of-lifed wind turbines propellers into gummy bears is completed or not, I mean, this total nonsense, that oh, by the way, you know that you're eating a lot of fossil fuels products anyway, so why not eat this? We're not talking about this. But as you said, we are losing human lives, because we don't have power during these power cuts that really impacted a lot of people. And this is very sad that we are being told as if we were in a kindergarten, you know, kids, you see, we are just capturing the energy of the sun, it is free. So, therefore, it is good. Or you know, the wind is blowing anyway, we are just putting these wind turbines and we are capturing this energy and this is good because it is green. We are not harming nature. But we know that these wind turbine farms, they change the trajectory of the winds, they change a lot of things. They kill birds, not only they're changing the landscape, they're ugly, and you need a lot of concrete to stabilize them. And even then, they are not withstanding high winds. The other thing that we are not being told when we are being advertised these renewables and green energy is that they are not consistent in the power output. And everyone knows everyone who went hiking with a solar battery charger, you know how unreliable it is, you turn it out of the sun or the sun hides behind the cloud. And that's it, you don't have energy. How can we transform our lives in that we are dependent on whether there are clouds or not? This is completely strange for me. And this is why I like this, you know, logical reasoning that the energy needs to have four characteristics. As Alex Epstein says in his book, it should be low cost so that people can afford it, it should be reliable, so you can use it when you need it, and in the quantity you need, it's versatile, meaning that you need to be able to power all sorts of machines that we require to live, to sustain life on this planet. And scalability, that you need to be able to provide energy that's low, cost, reliable and versatile for billions of people. And today, in our today's world, fossil fuels provide 80% of this energy, and this part is still growing, why we're not using nuclear? Well, I don't know, we also talked about Molten Salt fission in the previous episode. And why we are not exploring this? This is the question that we need to ask those in power, because it's certainly not ignorance on their part, I think that they have enough gray matter to understand that unless you have energy that is constantly supplied, from a reliable source, and that can power all our life support machines, we can call it this, because we need heat in winter, we need to cool down certain places on Earth like Dubai, you cannot live without air conditioning for most, at least half of the year. And this is certainly not because they don't understand, but they have to have a different agenda. And this agenda is apparently getting rid not only of human impact, but by saying to eliminate human impact, they must be meaning eliminate humans, so they don't impact the planet. But then the question is, for whom then we are conserving this planet, if we're not living in it? And this is something that we should be discussing, not whether we should install more solar or more wind turbines or anything else that is not as a reliable as the energy sources that we have today that we've been using. I don't know, but I'm, I'm terrified in the prospect of losing access to this energy that we have today. And losing access to machines, including machines to produce food, shelter and medical care, because we know that if there is not enough electricity to power our hospitals, then it will be much more devastating for humanity than increasing temperatures or anything else. And even, let's say if the climate is changing, even if we admit for a second that it is changing, because we are using these fossil fuels, which it's not but let's admit Are we still going to prefer reducing our use of something that gives us the opportunity to live or we are going to stop everything and be in a more vulnerable position? And we can see the results of this reduction in energy availability in Europe with prospects of starvation, water supply interruptions, and freezing during the winter. For example, today I read also an article that said that costs of electricity in the UK are projected to be three times higher this year compared to the previous one, and for many people, this will be unaffordable. So I don't want to see people choosing between eating or heating, because this is really crazy. You know, it's also a bit crazy that we are afraid of freezing during the winter in a world which is allegedly too hot. Also, as you mentioned, 3 billion people use less electricity than a standard American fridge this crazy more than half of the population of this planet still use wood and animal dung to cook and it's not a joke you know guys it's it would be a funny joke, but it's not it's the sad reality that we are trying to reduce energy usage in the so called developed countries so that we can return to being non developed maybe we should be start already preparing wood and animal dung to be able to prepare food and heat our homes during the winter without electricity. This is really sad.

There is a saying "follow the money" right because we can clearly see one tendency regarding the policies that are being passed in one country or another, you can tell that they are highly dependent who's lobbying the laws. Like, for example, we've been checking certain things like who spend the most money on lobbying in the US. And it's quite open information, so you can go check it. And this is how investors usually do - they go, they see who's investing into lobbying what, and then based on how successful or how much money they spend on lobbying certain things, you can tell that this is a good area to invest, for example, or this might be not. And they noticed that first of all company of Edison of South California, they spent a lot of money on lobbying their projects, because apparently, they do not want their only nuclear plant in the state of California to be shut down. California is already lacking power. And we've been told air conditioning in the summer should not exceed certain temperatures, don't put your AC too low. And this kind of things, which, prior to now, nobody cared because we had enough energy right now, not so much. And the tendency keeps going in opposite way. And also, one interesting thing that has been noticed, and that there are companies like Occidental Petroleum, which is a oil company, basically fossil fuel company, but they spent a lot of money on to lobbying something called 45Q tax credit and what it is, and why it's so interesting, and why some people like Warren Buffett investing their money into this company, so as ExxonMobil and other fossil fuels, but this one specifically because it's the biggest developer of so called CO2, CO2 sucking plants, I don't know for a lack of a better world to call it. So facilities, which are, first of all, consuming a lot of energy, they're huge buildings with huge propellers built into their walls, and they just processing a lot of air and sucking CO2 out of it, and then store it. And then for each ton of CO2, captured and stored, they get certain amount of money, but nobody's calculating how much energy has been spent to get that CO2 out of the air. And if you calculate that, then it comes back to the point where it doesn't make sense at all. But again, those are not being included in calculations, and nobody's even thinking about it. And like, you know, as you said, they do not show the downsides. And people don't ask these questions, because I don't know, we were on the call with specialists who learned about CO2 and, you know, participating in Creative Society project, I had to read about it as well. And the question I asked was based on, you know, basic knowledge I picked up about CO2 that says that it's a heavy molecule, right? That's why in the air, it doesn't stay up in the high altitude layers of the atmosphere. It gradually goes down and being absorbed by the ocean and the trees, greens, whatever. The question I'm asking in every article where they talk about greenhouse effect and how CO2 is warming our planet, it says it's warming because few of those molecules going very high into the higher altitudes. Stay there for some reason, sort of exceptional molecules. And they trap the heat, and they don't allow the heat to bounce back to the space. The question I asked was very simple. If bad molecules so-called bad molecules of CO2 are high up in the air, then what's the point of making these factories that sucking them out of the air on the ground level, where they already being absorbed by the ocean and greens? And everyone was like, what? really? We never thought about it. I was like, how come nobody talks about it that these solutions, they have nothing to do with even inside of this fictional agenda of blaming CO2 as a root cause of all evil. Even within this very same agenda. It doesn't click like, you know, one plus one doesn't add up here. The stuff that they're doing is not helping. But how much profitable is it if you can make so much money. Going back to this Occidental Petroleum and their 45Q tax, what it says that such facilities can get up to $50 per storing each ton of captured CO2. Well, they love it to get at least 125 $125 per each ton. And you know, that's a very good question that who's gonna calculate and how they're going to calculate it, but the most importantly, that this stuff is the new gold rush. It's a new gold rush after free money being given under politicized projects. You know, what's the real outcome? How much it improves our lives? In this case, it's a very good question that nobody asks, because it doesn't make it better. We're in this imaginary field that's being pushed on us, an imaginary picture that something evil is going to happen if the temperature is gonna go up by 1.5 degrees. And to lower it, we have to do certain things. Nobody guarantees you anything. Nobody can guarantee any results. Nobody's even sure how it works. And many scientists who studied they say, We don't know how much of it is anthropogenic in a way because climate has been changing forever. And the only reason why we think it's anthropogenic is because this 2001 IPCC report that erase medieval warm period, which was showing us the temperature goes up and down. For some reason, we believe the scientists, a few of them who made nonsense claim that climate has been stable for centuries for 1000s of years never changed. And here we go again, those scientists made themselves very good careers. Just to give you an example, one of the most notorious, I would say, people of this scientific field, Michael Mann, he got employed in Penn State after his hockey stick graph was so much promoted by IPCC, the guy is working for United Nations, there is no way that could be achieved without creating this sensationalism, presenting the graphs that erase all known history, and presents it in a way that was weirdly convenient for certain politicians who were, weirdly enough fighting against nuclear fighting to reduce energy consumption on planet Earth. We know for a fact that one of the very first bills passed by Clinton and Al Gore's administration in 1994, was to reduce and cut any funding of finding new nuclear reactors. So at the time, there was already work regarding development of small modular reactors, which is amazing for nuclear plants, back in good old days, they used to build them in 1960s, that whole plant around the huge reactor, and like, you know, it was stationary. And then there was a thought that we can make them small, we can link them up up to 12 of them, and create the small plants. And the reactors themselves could be mass produced on factories, they do not have to be built stationary, you can produce them on the factory, just like cars, or airplanes or whatever. You can transport them anywhere, and create beautiful, clean sources of energy anywhere on the planet. Clinton and Gore tried to destroy it. Yeah, it didn't work out. But they cut the funding. They made it very hard to actually develop this project. And then a couple of years ago, when they were asked, Al Gore was asked, why don't we consider nuclear power? His answer was, well, because it's too expensive, they priced themselves out of market. And that's the guy who did everything possible to find the technology that would make nuclear energy much cheaper and much more affordable for the people. Well, you did that it's because of you. The most amazing part about it that despite that this Portland, Oregon company from Portland, Oregon, they developed this technology. Now we have this beautiful nuclear power reactors that can be produced mass produced and put everywhere. The only question is how long it's going to take us to find out that renewable thing is not working solar panel and wind plants are not the way out. The question is, how do we allocate our resources because for the money that are being spent on solar and wind, with the very same money, we can gamble, put it on solar and wind and we can destroy the current existing sources of energy as they do with coal and nuclear. It can turn our like, you know, this picture of the future that looks like past when 20 years ago we had this films and movies in which future looks like medieval times. I was like why do they present this picture? It doesn't make sense it's like I know fiction and stuff by Why does the future does not look futuristic future according to these films and books looks like medieval past. And now I see oh, wait, that wasn't just fiction. It's actually what we might end up getting. If we follow this woke agenda of fighting against human impact on the nature. It seems like it's way closer than we thought.

You asked this question, when will we realize that this betting on renewables was not a great bet? The thing is that you know, as in the casino, the casino always wins at the end of the day. And you also said, follow the money. So we will see who is getting the money. But then the problem is that we will be facing much bigger problems than just losing the money, we will be using human lives. And apparently, this is the agenda. Why would we even want to eliminate human impact, for whom? Certainly, the goals are not to eliminate human impact, because if we wanted to eliminate human impact on the planet, and improve our conditions, then we will be exploring alternative energy sources like these small nuclear reactors, molten salt burners, fuelless generators, we are being told that guys, we need to choose only between these two, there is no third option. But the thing is that there is a third option, there is a fourth option there is there are 10s of options available, if we just start looking around, start looking in a different direction, saying that everything that nature does is good, and everything that humans do is evil. So therefore, we should eliminate human impact, meaning humans, and this is totally anti human, it's clear that you know, if we continue going this route, then we will self eliminate. But we need to understand that either we want to live and improve our lives here on this planet or on another. But this should be our primary goal. And if our primary as Alex says, moral goal is advancing human flourishing, then flourishing for an organism is living to its highest potential. And while enjoying nature, and the outdoors is really one of the most important things or parts of this flourishing, it's important to preserve the ecology, the ecological environment, but it doesn't mean that it has to be done at the expense of our lives. Because if we are not there to experience the outdoors, for whom are we protecting these outdoors? What is the point of turning off the power of our life support systems, because let's say it as it is heating, and air conditioning, or any sort of energy that powers the water pumps that deliver water into our houses that power, the food production plants that allow us to grow and process food, and to store this food, they all require energy, most of this energy derived from fossil fuels, if you want something to be clean, and not use hydrocarbons, why are we not looking into other forms of energy? And while everyone is vilifying the nuclear, many experts, people who are not paid by the CO2 clan, everyone is saying, guys, the levels of radiation that is generated by a nuclear power plant, just rounding errors compared to what is harmful to humans, nuclear plants don't explode just by themselves. People, they will say, yeah, but there was Chernobyl. Oh, yeah, there was Chernobyl. But since then, things have changed and were developed differently. Why were we not looking into this? Why? Why do we prefer basically turning off the life support and saying, yeah, now we will be eliminating our impact on the planet, because, yeah, because we will die. It's not funny, guys. I don't know what you think about all these things. Let us know what is your opinion on this anti human agenda. We need to understand that behind this vague terminology of protecting the environment, everything is blended together, like protecting the environment from pollution, or protecting the environment from humans, we need to understand that there is a difference. Putting these vague, renewables green and everything we are being told things that are completely opposite of what is being advertised and we are being advertised, well something that is obviously true in certain cases, like yes, sun gives energy and you could potentially use it in some sort of applications. Just playing with a solar charger for your phone while you're hiking is completely different from using a glorified solar charger for the whole city is different. This is the problem that's simple things like this are not being discussed. And we are voting for this green energy because we want to protect the environment. Everything is being played on this this desire to protect our home planet, our only planet. And people say yes, yes, I want to protect the environment. But we want to protect it from pollution, not from ourselves. Because if our activity, let's talk about this thing for a moment. And this is something that also Alex Epstein wrote in his book, this planet is really not a great place to live, if we don't have all the advancements and the energy to power, these advancements, we are so accustomed to have everything that works just works, you know, you just flip the light switch and you have the light, you kind of don't even think that you have the heating when it's cold, and you have the AC when it's hot. But these things, including the water that runs when you need it, just from the tap, you turn it but there is machinery that constantly is working to provide you these benefits. And when we are being pushed to switch to green energy, that is not we cannot rely on this energy. I don't think that we fully understand what we are voting for what we advocate for. Yeah, we're coming back to this idea that we need to learn, because ignorance is what led us to this point where we have to decide if we are going to have enough electricity to heat our homes this winter, and will we be able to afford it, or we will just perish and not impact the environment as we are being advised to do. We are more preparing to launch a satellite, we are more testing technology to launch satellites into space to have internet, then we are testing an unreliable and unproven technology to power our lives. How is this even possible? Who is the designated expert? Someone designated Michael Mann as the expert on hockey sticks, okay on these graphs of global warming, and no one can contradict him because he's the designated authority. We've talked about the 98% consensus or 97, whatever, and how they achieved it. But what if even 99% of scientists were wrong? What if one scientist as in the movies that we have sometimes this one scientist that has the solution to humanity's problem? What if, and we're not even giving him a chance to speak freely, and expose his point of view? You know, when we have these influential people talk about humans being a plague on the planet, as if we were like some kind of a pox is really terrifying that over the past years, it became common. But really, I don't know if you noticed this, I think the last months, this accelerated injection of this narrative that we are like parasites on the planet, into the mass media channels everywhere, it's spreading quite fast. And if we combine everything that we've been talking about on this podcast, and that we are being told guys, there will be famine, and at the same time, we have farmers in Europe being told not to use fertilizers and to kill off their herd. Well, we've all seen what trying to make bio biological, agricultural country out of Sri Lanka resulted in but also I read that farmers in the US are being paid not to plant crops, also to reduce carbon emissions, methane and nitrogen or whatever. When you combine everything that we are being told, okay, guys, you will have nothing to eat, and we clearly see this "nothing to eat" being organized in a very dedicated manner, and actually authoritative manner. For whatever reason, our government thinks that we are the plague on this planet. I think that's really this idea of human flourishing framework. When assessing the situation and planning our actions. We should really, first and foremost, ask this simple question, Will this be of benefit to humankind? This resonates greatly with me, because this is how I understand the first foundation of the Creative Society, which is the value of human life, that each human's life is valuable. If we take this approach, that whatever decision we have to take as a civilization as humanity, if we put human life first, a lot of things just fall into place. You know, can you switch to this other form of energy that is not reliable and will cost many millions human lives? Well, of course not. Or can you produce food that is definitely not beneficial for human health? Well, of course not. And if we look through this optics if we take this approach to any decision, everything becomes so easy. It's very easy to ask this question, will it harm humans on this planet or not? And there will be solutions, there will be solutions found by the scientists or ordinary people that will present new sources of energy, new ways of manufacturing things or doing agriculture to feed the population. And we are already 8 billion. So this is official World Bank said that we are 8 billion already. So yeah, we need to change our approach to how we evaluate things and everything will be much, much easier. On this note, I think we can, we can say that we will continue presenting you things that are going against humanity against your life and the life of your loved ones. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it. You cannot unsee these anti humane manifestations of governments or influential people that are really saying that we should not impact the planet. And by not impacting the planet. They mean we should not exist