Introduction:
Alex Epstein, the host of the Power Hour podcast, welcomed Peter Thiel as a guest for a unique format of challenges to the fossil future. The discussion aimed to address criticisms and disagreements from those who generally agree with Epstein’s arguments in his book “Fossil Future.”

Common Ground:
Both Epstein and Thiel agreed that reducing fossil fuel usage in the next five to ten years would likely lead to a lower growth, poorer, more regulated, and authoritarian world. Conversely, increasing fossil fuel production and consumption would result in a better world within the same timeframe.

The Role of Fossil Fuels:
Thiel emphasized the importance of fossil fuels in enabling human progress, including advancing technology and improving living standards.

Risks of a Premature Transition:
Epstein highlighted the risks associated with a premature transition away from fossil fuels, arguing that it could lead to energy poverty and hinder innovation. He emphasized the need for a gradual and responsible transition that considers the availability of affordable and reliable alternatives.

Challenges and Opportunities:
Thiel acknowledged the challenges in transitioning to a fossil-free future, such as the intermittency of renewable energy sources and the need for energy storage solutions. Epstein emphasized the opportunities presented by technological advancements, such as breakthroughs in fusion energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS), which could potentially address these challenges.

Incremental Approach:
Both Epstein and Thiel agreed on the importance of taking an incremental approach to the energy transition, focusing on achievable steps and avoiding drastic measures. Epstein emphasized the need to make incremental changes that lead to a better world, rather than pursuing radical changes that could have negative consequences.

Conclusion:
The discussion between Epstein and Thiel highlighted areas of agreement and disagreement regarding the role of fossil fuels in the future. Both experts emphasized the importance of a gradual and responsible transition, considering the risks and opportunities associated with different energy sources.

Energy Consumption and Resource Limits:
Peter Thiel and Alex Epstein discuss the global energy consumption and the potential limitations of fossil fuels. Thiel argues that the world’s current oil consumption of 100 million barrels per day cannot be sustained indefinitely, especially if developing countries strive to reach the living standards of developed nations. Epstein, on the other hand, emphasizes the potential for resource creation and transformation, suggesting that harnessing new forms of energy can mitigate the reliance on fossil fuels.

The Role of Fossil Fuels in the Future:
Epstein advocates for the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels, arguing that they are essential for human flourishing and economic growth. Thiel agrees that fossil fuels have played a vital role in the past and will likely continue to be important in the foreseeable future. However, Thiel expresses concerns about the long-term availability of relatively cheap oil and the potential resource limits that could arise from overreliance on fossil fuels.

The Need for Alternatives:
Both Thiel and Epstein acknowledge the need for alternative energy sources to complement fossil fuels. Thiel emphasizes the importance of nuclear power and fusion energy as potential solutions to the world’s future energy needs. Epstein highlights the potential of resource creation and transformation, suggesting that new technologies and innovations can unlock abundant and sustainable energy sources.

The Importance of Broad Thinking:
Thiel stresses the importance of looking beyond abstract concepts and considering concrete realities when discussing energy sources. He cautions against an overly optimistic view of resource availability, drawing parallels to the coal industry’s challenges in the early 20th century. Epstein emphasizes the need for a broad perspective that appreciates the potential for resource creation and transformation, rather than focusing solely on the limitations of specific resources like oil.

Coal Conversion:
Companies are exploring cost-effective methods to convert coal into liquid hydrocarbons, potentially dividing coal into solid, gaseous, and liquid elements. Coal is abundant and easily accessible compared to oil, making it a promising resource if refinement technologies are developed.

Natural Gas:
Liquefying methane hydrates under the ocean could provide a significant source of natural gas.

Resource Creation:
Epstein emphasizes the need for openness to resource creation beyond traditional sources. Hydrocarbons can be synthesized using nuclear energy, providing diverse options for liquid fuel production.

Nuclear Energy:
Epstein challenges the limited view of nuclear energy, suggesting that it can be used to synthesize hydrocarbons in various ways.

Pollution from Coal:
Thiel raises concerns about pollution from coal-intensive economies, particularly in China, emphasizing that pollution goes beyond carbon dioxide emissions.

Evolving Standards:
Thiel acknowledges that pollution standards have evolved over time, leading to different perceptions of what constitutes a polluted environment.

Introduction:
Peter Thiel and Alex Epstein discuss the interplay between the oil industry and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors.

Oil Industry Manipulation:
Thiel argues that the oil industry has been hijacked by ESG, leading to coordination and cartel-like behavior. He explains that the inelastic nature of oil demand creates incentives for manipulation.

Coordination via ESG:
Thiel suggests that oil majors coordinate their actions through ESG compliance and consultations with organizations like BlackRock. This coordination allows them to cut production and increase prices, mimicking OPEC’s actions but avoiding antitrust violations.

Share Price Impact:
Companies that invest in solar and wind, even if non-profitable, experience share price increases due to ESG compliance. This leads to misallocation of resources and a distorted industry.

Smaller Players and Control:
Thiel highlights that smaller players in the oil industry, like frackers in Texas, are more focused on production. However, they face challenges in accessing pipelines and can be controlled by larger players.

Energy Transition Argument:
Some large producers argue for increased production due to their efficiency and lower emissions. They believe they should gain market share as part of the energy transition.

Conclusion:
The discussion centers around the implications of ESG on the oil industry, with Thiel emphasizing the need to address the coordination and distortions caused by ESG compliance.

Emergent Dynamics and Moral Questions:
Peter Thiel sees a plausible conspiracy in the way fossil fuel companies have become an extension of the state, while Alex Epstein views it as an emergent feature. Epstein emphasizes that producing hydrocarbons is a moral act and criticizes the industry for accepting anti-impact frameworks uncritically.

Virtue and Opportunism:
Epstein believes there is a core of virtue in the fossil fuel industry, despite the opportunistic behavior of some businesspeople. He highlights the positive resonance his arguments have found among independent producers.

Oil Production and Authoritarian Regimes:
Thiel points out that much of the oil production is now in the hands of authoritarian third-world governments, leading to underperformance and corruption. He suggests that environmentalism may have been used as a displaced argument to weaken these countries, particularly by neocons in the U.S. establishment.

Foreign Policy and Despotism:
Epstein argues that appeasing foreign policy toward oil-rich nations has empowered despots and put the U.S. in disrepute. He believes the U.S. should have enforced contracts and defended its interests instead of sacrificing principles.

Moral Neutrality and Fossil Fuels:
Thiel observes that the fossil fuel industry has led to a situation where moral judgments about major oil countries are discouraged. Epstein advocates for making moral judgments when oil is stolen or contracts are violated, preempting the current situation.

Honesty Tests and Sincere Alternatives:
Epstein proposes that genuine concern for oil dependence should include exploration of real alternatives, such as coal and natural gas conversion. He criticizes the Democrats’ shift from supporting domestic production in the 1970s to opposing it in 2020, questioning their sincerity.

Nuclear Energy as a Key Focus:
Epstein emphasizes the importance of focusing on nuclear energy as a potential solution, arguing that it has the potential to address baseload power needs.

Nuclear Power:
The development of nuclear power has been hindered by various factors, including the burden of environmental regulations and the lack of approval for new designs. The lack of innovation in nuclear technology is seen as a major obstacle to its success. Alex Epstein believes that the future of energy depends on the success of nuclear power.

The Green Movement:
The Green Movement has been successful in gaining support due to its ability to present a compelling vision of the future, often contrasting it with dystopian scenarios. The pro-tech side lacks a compelling story of the future that can inspire people. Human flourishing as a term is seen as problematic, and Alex Epstein suggests focusing on understanding why the elimination of fossil fuels has become the primary moral and political goal.

Impact Haters:
The anti-impact movement, represented by the modern environmental movement, is seen as fixated on restricting human impact, particularly through the elimination of fossil fuels. Alex Epstein’s argument against the anti-impact movement is gaining traction but has not yet reached a stopping point in convincing people.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX:
Elon Musk’s vision for SpaceX, involving travel to Mars, has inspired thousands of aerospace engineers to work for the company. However, this vision does not extend to the level of motivating the entire society.

Environmental Concerns and the Statist Perspective:
In the 1960s and 1970s, the left and statists sought to oppose capitalism on environmental grounds, claiming that it was harmful to the environment. The statist side associated themselves with environmental protection and claimed they would provide a better environment, while the capitalist response mostly focused on refuting specific claims rather than taking the high ground.

Valuing the Environment and Human Flourishing:
The pro-freedom side needs to own the issue of the environment and value it properly. A holistic approach considers various aspects of life, including environmental quality and natural beauty, and seeks to optimize them together rather than focusing solely on production and economic growth.

Setting Pollution Standards and Balancing Needs:
When setting pollution standards, it’s crucial to consider the need for production and economic activity, as well as the impact on human lives and health. Different areas can legitimately set different pollution standards based on their specific circumstances. Rights-based theories can help determine appropriate pollution thresholds and allocate emission rights among individuals and entities.

Zoning Laws and Property Rights:
Zoning laws have significantly restricted property rights, limiting the ability of property owners to develop and innovate. The naive view of property rights assumes that homeowners should have control over their property, but in practice, zoning laws have created a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) structure that prevents development and innovation.

Addressing Zoning Challenges and Human Flourishing:
Pro-freedom policies need to address zoning challenges and find ways to empower homeowners and property owners to act and innovate. The current stagnation and lack of new roads and development are shameful and need to be addressed. The way policies are made should take into account that people think about their lives holistically, and solutions cannot be limited to just letting everyone do whatever they want.

Human Flourishing and Zoning Policy:
Zoning policy should be easier to fix than energy policy, but it’s currently far outside of pro-freedom control. Micro-adjustments to zoning policy may not be effective due to deep structural reasons, and moving to a different city may not be a desirable solution. Persuading people about zoning is challenging, but there’s a need to address this issue to promote human flourishing.

Hijacking of “Human Flourishing”:
The term “human flourishing” has been used extensively by bioethicist Leon Kass, who advocates for restrictive policies and opposes actions that promote human well-being. Kass’s usage of the term raises concerns about its potential for manipulation and hijacking.

Importance of a Holistic Concept:
There is a need for a comprehensive concept that encompasses various aspects of human life, including material well-being, mental health, and opportunities for personal fulfillment. The term “flourishing” captures the idea of living to one’s highest potential and achieving success in various areas of life.

Material Aspects of Human Flourishing:
In the context of material well-being, human flourishing requires a nourishing world where nourishment is easily accessible, safety from surrounding threats, and opportunities for personal fulfillment. This holistic approach differentiates the view of energy focused on optimizing for less impact from the dominant framework that prioritizes minimizing environmental impact.

Energy and Human Flourishing:
The dominant thinking about energy and industry emphasizes reducing impact on the environment. This approach contrasts with the view that energy should be harnessed to enhance human flourishing by providing nourishment, safety, and opportunities.

Human Flourishing vs. Eliminating Human Impact:
Alex Epstein contrasts “human flourishing” with “eliminating human impact” as opposing goals for evaluating the Earth’s status. He argues that Greta Thunberg stands for eliminating human impact, while the right has adopted human flourishing more. Peter Thiel suggests that human flourishing emphasizes the positives while environmentalists focus on the negatives.

Nature’s Role:
Epstein views the Earth as a “wild potential” where humans are producers and improvers, rather than a delicate nurturer where humans are parasites. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the causal relationships in nature to achieve human flourishing.

Human Nature:
Epstein explains his Randian perspective on human nature, which he sees as a set of universal timeless fundamentals that can be discovered through philosophy. He acknowledges that Ayn Rand doesn’t have a full theory of human psychology but argues that it’s useful for psychologists to know that reason is man’s basic tool of survival.

Human Flourishing in Policy:
Epstein proposes using human flourishing as a basis for environmental policy. He argues that defining rights in terms of human flourishing allows for a holistic approach to determining what constitutes a violation of rights.

Concerns about Human Flourishing as a Standard:
Thiel expresses concerns about using human flourishing as a standard for policymakers due to its potential for misuse and subjective interpretation. He emphasizes the importance of individual self-interest and rational choice in achieving flourishing.

Conclusion:
Epstein and Thiel discuss the challenges and implications of using human flourishing as a basis for policy, highlighting the need for a balanced and thoughtful approach to its application.

Key Points of Alex Epstein and Peter Thiel’s Discussion:

Human Flourishing as a Standard for Rights:
Epstein suggests that the concept of human flourishing is essential in determining rights in environmental issues. He emphasizes that individual flourishing requires freedom of action within defined spheres and that arbitrary restrictions on individual choices are counterproductive.

Pro-Human vs. Anti-Human Approaches to Energy Policy:
Epstein argues that energy policy should be approached from a pro-human perspective, regardless of political philosophy. He believes that the goal should be to optimize energy production and consumption for the benefit of human beings.

Deflections from Human Flourishing Standard:

Epstein identifies two main ways in which people deflect from the human flourishing standard:
1. Caricaturing human flourishing as short-range or narrow, without considering long-term or holistic perspectives.
2. Invoking the idea of delicate nurture, claiming that human flourishing through technological progress will lead to environmental destruction.

Individual vs. Collective Human Flourishing:
Thiel raises the question of whether human flourishing should be considered individually or collectively. Epstein suggests that in theory, there is no separation, but in practice, focusing on individual human beings currently in existence may lead to different outcomes than considering all future human beings.

Anti-Impact Movement as Human Sacrifice:
Epstein criticizes the anti-impact movement as a form of human sacrifice, as it advocates for sacrificing human well-being for the sake of an unimpacted planet. He contrasts this with seemingly pro-human approaches that ultimately turn out to be anti-human.

Utilitarianism and the Value of Individual Lives:
Epstein rejects utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on their potential to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. He argues that this approach can lead to the devaluation of individual lives and the justification of sacrificing certain individuals for the benefit of the majority.

Peter Singer’s Effective Altruism:
Epstein criticizes Peter Singer’s effective altruism, which extends the concept of happiness to include other animals. He argues that this approach is unrealistic and impractical, as humans cannot peacefully coexist with all animals.

Effective Altruism:
Alex Epstein criticizes Effective Altruism (EA) for prioritizing the imagined interests of humans indefinitely in the future over the rights of individuals. Epstein argues that this leads to sacrificing individuals and disregarding their rights. Peter Thiel expresses skepticism towards EA, questioning the sincerity and morality of its proponents.

Capitalist Communist Fusion Product:
Thiel criticizes the fusion of capitalist and communist ideologies in EA, where individuals like Sam Bankman-Fried and Dustin Moskovitz aim to become trillionaires while promising to distribute wealth. He views this as a fraudulent attempt to gain social approval.

Human Sacrifice and Masquerading Collective Flourishing:
Epstein identifies EA as a form of human sacrifice, where individuals are sacrificed for the sake of a collective, including future generations. He emphasizes the need to distinguish between human flourishing and forms of human sacrifice that masquerade as collective flourishing.

Negative Side Effects and Earth as Delicate Nurturer:
Epstein criticizes EA for focusing on the negative side effects of human activity and treating the Earth as a delicate nurturer. He argues that the primary goal should be to enhance human capability, which benefits future generations by providing them with more resources and capabilities to address challenges.

Undercutting Capabilities for Future Generations:
Epstein criticizes EA for advocating actions that undermine the development of new capabilities, claiming that this will benefit future generations. He emphasizes the importance of developing capabilities to address challenges such as pandemics and climate change.

Allergic Reaction to Sacrifice:
Thiel advocates for an allergic reaction to talk of sacrifice, self-sacrifice, and sacrificial logic. He believes that these concepts are harmful and should be rejected.

The Discomfort with Change:
Peter Thiel believes that most people have an allergic reaction to change. In 2008, Obama’s campaign slogan initially included “hope and change,” but it was poorly received. The slogan was revised to “the change we need,” which implied a limited and necessary change rather than radical change. People tend to perceive change as negative, even though it’s a neutral concept.

Change Versus Progress:
Progressives often use the term “change” instead of “progress.” Progress implies measurable improvement, while change is more ambiguous and open-ended. The shift from progress to change may reflect an attempt to avoid accountability and quantify results.

Manipulation and Power Dynamics:
Thiel and Epstein discuss the potential for manipulation and power lust in those who advocate for sacrifice. Sacrificial logic often involves unequal distribution of burdens and benefits. The Ellsworth Toohey character from Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” is cited as an example of a manipulative and Machiavellian individual. Real-world individuals who advocate for change may not be fully self-aware of their motivations.

Suspicion of Change Agents:
Epstein expresses skepticism towards individuals who claim to want to change the world. He suggests that such motivations may stem from a desire for control or superiority. Epstein acknowledges his own aversion to people who talk about changing education or other societal aspects.

Allergic Reaction to the Word “Change”:
Thiel emphasizes his allergic reaction to the verb “change.” He believes that the use of the word “change” by progressives is problematic because it lacks a clear definition and direction. Thiel suggests that “change” is often associated with decline rather than improvement.

Neutrality of Change:
Peter Thiel criticizes the phrase “change the world” for being vague and neutral. He emphasizes the importance of specificity and clarity in defining goals.

Effectiveness of Progress:
Thiel argues that “progress” is a more effective term than “change” because it implies a positive direction and desirability. He suggests that verbs like “grow,” “develop,” and “increase” were more commonly used in a healthier United States.

Lack of Improvement:
Alex Epstein points out that “change the world” doesn’t necessarily imply improvement. Thiel agrees and suggests that “improve the world” would be a better standard, but it’s more challenging to define and evaluate.

Positive Vision for Energy and Industry:
Thiel and Epstein discuss the need for a positive vision for energy and industry in the 21st century. Thiel believes that the successful 21st century will look different in a physical and material way compared to the 20th century.

Energy Version of Progress:
Thiel mentions that the energy version of progress would involve affordable, reliable, and clean energy for everyone. He emphasizes the importance of abundance and efficiency in energy production.

Environmental Aesthetics:
Peter Thiel envisions a future where the environment looks vastly different due to the widespread adoption of renewable energy sources such as solar panels and windmills. He expresses concern about the potential negative impact of these technologies on the landscape, leading to deforestation and visual pollution.

Concrete Vision:
Thiel acknowledges the importance of having a clear and tangible vision for the future but highlights the difficulty in articulating such a vision without advocating for centralized government control. He suggests that the lack of a concrete picture of the future is a weakness on the side of those who oppose centralized planning.

Flying Cars as a Symbol:
Thiel uses the historical visual of flying cars as an example of a future that has not been fully realized. He sees it as a symbol of something that has gone awry, implying that it lacks a holistic and comprehensive approach to progress.

Holistic Future:
Thiel emphasizes the need for a future that incorporates a balance between technological advancement and the enjoyment of nature. He believes that simply preserving the present state of Los Angeles until 2100 would be a sign of failure, as it would indicate a lack of meaningful progress.

Shared Visual vs. Words:
Thiel poses a question about the extent to which the vision of the future is communicated through visual representations versus a set of words. He acknowledges the power of visual imagery in shaping public perception and wonders about the role of language in articulating a desired future.

The Power of Argument and Action:
Peter Thiel emphasizes the importance of effective messaging and policy ideas in driving political change. Alex Epstein believes that providing politicians with well-researched messaging and policy solutions can improve their decision-making. Thiel cautions against relying solely on persuasion and argues that concrete actions and results are essential for lasting impact.

Beyond Words: The Need for Practical Solutions:
Thiel highlights the need to go beyond arguments and actually implement solutions to drive change. He advocates for a balanced approach that combines persuasive messaging with tangible actions. Thiel suggests exploring new approaches, such as medical tourism and seasteading, to circumvent regulatory obstacles.

The Role of Test Cases and Practical Demonstrations:
Thiel emphasizes the significance of practical demonstrations and test cases in showcasing the effectiveness of new ideas. He draws a parallel to Uber’s success, which resulted from proving its concept through practical implementation rather than solely relying on convincing taxi drivers through arguments.

Identifying Promising Avenues for Change:
Thiel encourages Epstein to explore countries or regions with less stringent regulations, where innovative medical treatments or nuclear micro-reactors could be introduced. He proposes using these test cases as a means to bypass regulatory hurdles and demonstrate the viability of new approaches.

The Importance of Action over Endless Discussion:
Thiel acknowledges his tendency to focus on theoretical discussions and encourages a shift towards practical implementation. He emphasizes the need to take action and demonstrate results, rather than engaging in prolonged debates without tangible outcomes.

A Call for Innovation and Practical Implementation:
Epstein expresses his intention to pursue practical solutions and potentially undertake undisclosed projects with significant impact. He acknowledges the importance of moving beyond discussions and taking action to bring about positive change.