Eye to Eye: An Ayn Rand Institute Podcast

The subject of this month's Power Hour--my monthly podcast/Internet-radio-show--is nuclear power and nuclear safety. This is the most prominent energy issue in the news these days, following the damage to nuclear power plants in Japan following the country's once-in-a-century earthquake and tsunami. We have heard ominous media report after ominous media report about releases of radiation, radiation above government-approved levels, radioactivity, radioactive waste, meltdowns, and on and on. The net effect of all this has been to make many Americans very worried about the safety of nuclear plants in this country, and even worried about radiation coming from Japan, thousands of miles away. What is urgently needed in this situation, I believe, is education---education in what nuclear power really is, how it really works, what its dangers really are and aren't. So on today's Power Hour, we'll give you a step-by-step breakdown of all things nuclear and then break down the situation in Japan. Joining the program to explain all this will be Dr. Jay Lehr, Science Director of the Heartland Institute and a scientist with 50 years of experience in the nuclear industry For more information on Power Hour, as well as other commentary on energy issues subscribe to my newsletter “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Energy” by sending an email. Download "Power Hour with Alex Epstein," Episode 4: Jay Lehr Subscribe to Podcast | iTunes Image: Wikimedia Commons

On Earth Day, we're told that we should take stock of our impact on our environment. The assumption, of course, is that it's bad---that we are, to use the common phrase "destroying the planet." On this month's Power Hour---my podcast/Internet-radio-show on energy issues---I bring in philosopher Dr. Onkar Ghate, a senior colleague of mine at the Ayn Rand Center, to question this assumption, and many other assumptions about the relationship between human beings in our environment. Dr. Ghate discusses everything from the political, philosophical, and religious origins of modern environmentalists (the leaders of Earth Day) to the Japanese nuclear situation to how industrialization has positively impacted our environment to the danger of "moderate" environmentalist policies. I've read a lot about environmentalism over the years, and I sincerely believe that Dr. Ghate's explanations in this podcast are some of the best, clearest explanations of environmental issues available anywhere. Make sure you listen to this interview at least once before Earth Day. For more information on Power Hour, as well as other commentary on energy issues subscribe to my newsletter "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Energy" by sending an email. Download “Power Hour with Alex Epstein,” Episode 3: Onkar Ghate Subscribe to podcast | iTunes image: sxc.hu

On the latest episode of Power Hour---the monthly Internet radio show where I interview today's top energy experts to discuss today's top energy issues---I talk to Michael Lynch, President of Strategic Energy & Economic Research, about the widespread theory of Peak Oil: the idea that the world faces an inevitable, imminent, and disastrous decline in oil production. Here are a few of the many topics we covered: The most popular arguments for Peak Oil---do they add up? What is the future of oil production around the world? Why people keep confidently predicting "peak oil," even though such predictions have been failing for decades. The overlooked role of politics and economics in determining rises and falls in oil production. Download "Power Hour with Alex Epstein," Episode 2: Michael Lynch Subscribe to "Power Hour with Alex Epstein" on iTunes

Robert Bryce discusses the controversies over energy independence, green energy, and how to think about energy and power.

Last week I spoke at the 13th annual Energy & Environment Conference and Expo in Phoenix. This is one the largest events in the U.S. devoted to energy and environmental issues, with over 650 speakers and more than 2300 attendees. Marketing slogan: “650 speakers tackle solutions for USA’s energy independence and reducing carbon emissions.” Well, make that 649, because the gist of my presentation was to argue against the “solutions” that every other speaker had to offer. As I told the audience attending my panel session, I was there to make the case for not doing anything about climate change---or, more specifically, for not imposing a massive regime of government controls, regulations, or market interventions aimed at restricting greenhouse gases in the name of allegedly fighting climate change. Mine was definitely the most controversial talk on my panel session. I was even attacked as a “denier” by one of my co-panelists, the executive director of the American Solar Energy Society. But there were a number of people in the audience who came up afterwards to thank me for presenting a contrarian view that they felt was badly needed at this conference. The audio of my presentation is not yet available, but it was based on this article, which presents my argument in detail. The event was blogged and covered by the Heartland Institute for their publication Environment and Climate News. I did a pre-conference interview with Heartland’s James Taylor, available here (or via direct link to the mp3). And I also did a video interview with Heartland’s James Lakely immediately following my panel session. Here’s the YouTube video of that:

Oil is tied to so many controversial issues today -- global warming, our alleged addiction to oil, not to mention talk of speculators, “windfall profits,” “price gouging,” etc -- that it is easy for people  to think that we would just be better off without the stuff. Easy, but dead wrong. This was the theme of my recent interview on The Big Biz Show (the first two segments), on the topic of “In Defense of Oil,” in which I challenged people’s negative attitude toward oil and explained how the benefits we derive from having a free oil industry (to the limited extent we have one) are spectacular and spectacularly undervalued—while the problems associated with oil (in particular, global warming and our “dependence” on foreign oil) are either overblown or misconceived. As I mentioned on the show, August 27 is the 150th anniversary of the birth of the oil industry. That most Americans do not know this is a travesty, and reflective of how much we take the benefits of oil for granted. This is, after all, the industry that lit up America’s homes, created a generation of independent automobile drivers, and helps fuels the global economy. I’ll be writing more pieces in defense of oil leading up to the anniversary (you can also check out the links in the first paragraph, plus my essays on the history of oil here and here). You can find the audio of my recent radio interview here.

On the G. Gordon Liddy Show recently, I discussed the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I made the case that she is unqualified for the job---or, more precisely, that she has disqualified herself for a job that requires objectivity and impartiality. Sotomayor has not only declared herself helpless to resist the emotional promptings of her "Latina soul" when adjudicating cases, but she believes that the subterranean influences from her Hispanic female experience will more often than not lead her to a "better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." With Sotomayor, it's all about her upbringing, her life story. Her "Latina identity" is a bubbling brew of internal influences---race, gender, religion, and who knows what else---whose swirling emotional fumes permeate the courtroom of her mind. Do you expect her to tell you in words how those influences will affect her judging next week, or next year? Don't fool yourself. How can she tell you what she herself doesn't know? Take the abortion controversy, for example. If the "woman" part of her "Latina identity" happens to be ascendant when she's ruling, she might swoon with "empathy" for the pregnant woman who fears the burdens of an unwanted child---and vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. But if the "Hispanic" part of her identity happens to be ascendant, with its heavy Catholic influence, she might recoil at abortion as an insult to God's will---and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. We won't know the outcome until her "Latina soul" comes face-to-face with the deadline for a decision. Whatever she decides, she has given us fair warning that no one has a right to judge her. To criticize her rulings would require an objective standard to which she must measure up. But she has declared, flat-out, that "'there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.'" This means that her "Latina soul" is above the Constitution, and any "white male" (or African-American woman, or Asian lesbian) who presumes to criticize her is only giving vent to the attitudes of his or her own upbringing. If this is the future of constitutional jurisprudence in America, then the Constitution is dead. Interestingly, right-wingers are falling all over themselves to concede that they lack the votes to block her confirmation. For example, the headline on Charles Krauthammer's op-ed in the Washington Post said it all: "Sotomayor: Rebut, Then Confirm." His strategy: "Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views." I think it's way too early to give up on the prospect of scuttling this nomination. Yes, the upcoming hearings should be used to expose her views. But then her nomination should be rejected by the full Senate. Sonia Sotomayor does not deserve a seat on the Supreme Court.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Yaron Brook and I were invited to speak at the International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute. I, unfortunately, had to cancel at the last minute, but Yaron was there and gave an outstanding presentation. Free recordings of the conference proceedings are now available online. If you're interested in educating yourself on the facts of the climate change debate, you'll find a lot worth listening to (and there's much more on the Heartland website). Here's a direct link to Yaron's talk, in which he discusses the moral factors that explain why environmentalism continues to grow in power despite its record of failure and destructiveness.