TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast - #238: Green energy jobs fraud, unreliable renewables, climate catastrophe, and controllable electricity with Alex Epstein

Episode Date: March 17, 2021

Join Marty as he sits down with Alex Epstein, Author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, to discuss: - Green energy jobs v. oil jobs - Subsidies driving energy prices higher - Using fraud as a heuristic to question the anti-energy movement - Developing our environment to protect from climate - "Climate catastrophe" - Why not nuclear? - Moralizing energy conversion - Bitcoin and energy - much more Follow Alex on Twitter Check out The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels Shoutout to this week's sponsors. Cash App. Start #stackingsats today. Use the promo code: "stackingsats" to receive $10 and contribute $10 to OWLS Lacrosse when you download the app. Lend at Hodl Hodl is a new non-custodial bitcoin backed lending platform, that allows peer to peer lending and borrowing between users, globally, anonymously & on your own terms. Create you offers & set your own terms on lend.hodlhodl.com Compass Mining. Compass wants to democratize bitcoins hashrate and give everyone the ability to strengthen the network while mining bitcoin profitably. Thanks to Compass, it’s never been easier to mine bitcoin. Check them out at compassmining.io Braiins. Braiins are leaders in the mining industry; running Slush Pool, creating firmware to make miners more profitable (Braiins OS+), and building out Stratum V2 to help further decentralize mining and make Bitcoin more robust. Check out their mining profitability calculator.

what is up freaks it's your boy marty ben here to introduce this episode of tales from the crypt which is a cross post from gamcast another gamcast cross post if you freaks aren't aware of gamcast it's a podcast that we've put together at great american mining to help bridge the gap between the bitcoin mining industry and the oil and gas industry this cross post is meant to draw attention to gamcast if you're interested in that particular section excuse me intersection of of bitcoin and the energy industry highly recommend you go subscribe to that just search gamcast g-a-m-c-a-s-t one word on your local platforming podcasting platform and hit subscribe and also if you're not subscribed to tales from the crypt yet hit subscribe as well uncle marty's going to

be bringing you that hot content it's all got something to do with bitcoin if you're looking to learn about bitcoin and how it affects our world how it works this is the podcast for you and gamcast is a more focused podcast on on bitcoin and energy particularly how it affects the oil and gas industry and this week i sat down with alex epstein the author of the moral case for fossil fuels incredible dense one hour episode that really comes at the the green energy narrative and the people pushing it it's uh not the type of information you're going to get in mainstream media i don't think and i i encourage you guys to listen to the whole episode and really take it in

are we being lied to is there fraudulent manipulation of data and narratives going on i think alex makes a pretty very not pretty a very compelling case that this is true i think that that there there is some fraudulent activity going on in narrative framing and i think there may be some ulterior motives i don't think the green energy movement is as up front with what it actually wants to accomplish as as many people think so take it in let me know what you think again subscribe to gamcast and tales from the crypt at your local podcasting platform if you guys are feel so compelled to give us a rating a review

uh for both pods they help us get more uh awareness on these platforms and help us get this this good information to more freaks out there we're trying to reach as many freaks as possible this episode is brought to you by our good friends at the cash app they're helping you stack that sense that receive that sell sats we're saying sat sat sat sat sats because sats are the standard okay there's 100 million sats and one bitcoin you don't have to buy a whole bitcoin cash app makes it easy to stack sats as little as one dollar at a time you can set it and forget a dca into sats that's dollar cost average you you set a set amount you want to buy whether it's twenty dollars however much you want you can buy daily weekly bi-weekly cash app can be your

bank account you can get account number rounding numbers and direct deposit your paycheck so you can stack sats faster they've got their boost program allows you to go get their cash card accept it anywhere visa is accepted you use your boost you go to a partner merchant you get some money back sometimes you get sats back go check all this out use the code stacking sats when you download the cash app if you haven't already that's s-t-a-c-k-i-n-g-s-a-t-s you're going to get ten dollars and ten dollars is going to go to owls lacrosse our good friends in chicago owls lacrosse this episode is also brought to you by good friends at hodl hodl all right hodl hodl now has a lending product that is available to us customers this is one

of their only products that's available to us customers and that is because it's non-custodial it is no kyc no aml you meet on the hodl hodl the lend.hodlhodl.com you meet at the landed hodl hodl lending platform you use your bitcoin as collateral you put your bitcoin in multi-sig escrow so you always hold one key and you have control at least partial control of your bitcoin you can see what's going on it's not being re-hypothecated you don't want to sell your bitcoin so you you put it up as collateral you get a loan in the form of a stable coin and then you can go use that however you see fit okay lend.hodlhodl.com you go you meet in marketplace you meet a counterparty you you make a deal you say hey i'm looking to borrow

x amount of dollars your counterparty says all right put up x amount of bitcoin you get the the stable coins you're paying back the loan you get to keep your bitcoin on top of that if you have stable coins you can put them up in this marketplace as well to get yield on that all right check it out bitcoin done the right way leveraging the native properties of bitcoin particularly multi-sig non-custodial anonymous no kyc email lend.hodlhodl.com l-e-n-d dot h-o-d-l h-o-d-l dot com this episode is also brought to you by good friends at compass mining compass mining is looking to make it easy for for us plebs to to mine bitcoin so they've set up a a platform that allows you to to engage with compass mining you can buy a miner they'll acquire

that for you and then you can pick a hosting facility with a competitive power cost so you don't have to mine at home pay 14 cents they've got they've got the ability to get you very highly efficient miners and then they're going to plug them in at hosting facilities with competitive power rates they're abstracting all all the hard work and obscurity that comes with the mining industry they're gonna they're gonna do all the hard work for you you basically just pay for your miner you pick a hosting facility compass mining acquires that miners plugs it in and they start streaming the sats that your miner mines to a wild of your choice it's pretty beautiful again they're trying to make it easy they have really good customer support the reviews

that are coming out are pretty great so far from what i've seen so go to compass mining dot io c-o-m-p-a-s-s-m-i-n-i-n-g dot io to check all this out tell them uncle marty sent you last but not least we have our good friends at brains okay brains is is doing some incredible things they've they've been around for quite a while if you guys don't know brains is the company that owns slush pool they officially bought out the remaining stake in slush pool earlier this year they're creating incredible firmware for miners with their brains os plus so if you have a miner and brains os plus is available for it you download it and it makes your miner more efficient helps you get more sats helps you stack more sats as a miner i'm sure compass mining's implementing some brains

os software when their when their clients demand it okay so brains is doing incredible things we've had jan and pavel on the podcast before they were on a a couple years ago i forget exactly what episode it is um but they they were on discussing stratum v2 before it was stratum v2 brains is also working on stratum v2 um that was back in 2019 episode 73 i found it okay it talked about the history of slush pool why they're focusing on brains os we've also had edward evenson edward evenson on the podcast as well notorious cheese hater cheese monger uh episode 199 talk about custom firmware shadow me to uh the race to the bottom for mining pools a lot of really good insights on mining pools and hash rate derivatives okay brains is also working on that um they've

stayed true to bitcoin throughout their whole history never never mind bcash or anything like that they they basically highlighted um amp bleed and fixed amp bleed they've done a lot of incredible stuff the firmware they're building the pool they've built stratum v2 will help decentralize um the the mining pool layer and again they're working on hash rate futures platform as well so go check them out at i i will link to the website i can never remember if it's brains.com i'm pretty sure it's brains.com that's b-r-a-i-i-n-s double i um and let me just yeah brains dot yeah it's brains.com b-r-a-i-i-n-s.com go check them out we'll link to the show notes enjoy this episode with alex love you freaks thank you for listening you're incredible

enjoy it like think think think think for yourself don't succumb to the narratives in the mainstream media. They're very powerful and they're very deceptive. And Alex is a very, very strong voice pushing back against these people. I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In the world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the victor. I mean, that's part of the bull case for Bitcoin. If you're not paying attention, you probably should be. Welcome back to GAMCAST. It's Marty Bent here.

Very excited for this conversation, sitting down with a prolific thinker in the fossil fuel space, Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Alex, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks for having me. Thanks for coming on. And like I was just describing, the last episode we had with the gentleman by the name of Wes Sellner, who's working on well pads and has worked throughout the whole stack in oil and gas, predominantly in the Bakken up in North Dakota. A particular part of that conversation we had towards the end of the episode was the quality of jobs produced by the oil and gas industry compared to green energy tech in that sector.

And as the Biden administration is trying to force a transition to green energy generation, I think it's important to sort of highlight the difference between quality of jobs produced in the oil and gas industry compared to a green tech industry. Yeah, so I've written, at least as of this recording now, I don't know when this will be out, but as of now, if you go to my Twitter page, twitter.com slash Alex Epstein, it's my pinned tweet. I have this thing on the green energy jobs. So the basic idea is, I mean, if you think about, I think of it as productive job

opportunities. So what leads to that fundamentally in terms of, and I'm thinking of economy-wide, you want to live in a world where there are lots of productive job opportunities, where you can get paid well, that's very understandable motivation. You have to realize what does that depend on? Well, one is there have to be productive jobs. That is jobs that produce, you're producing more value than they're paying you. And that that is a lot of value. So for example, I calculated, my team calculated an oil and gas extraction worker. So someone who's working in one way or another on getting oil and gas out of the ground. On average, they're producing at today's oil prices, $2 million worth of value a person. But you think, okay,

if you're a company and somebody can produce $2 million worth of value, or they can at least contribute to that, okay, then yeah, you can pay them a lot of money. Whereas if they're installing solar panels, that's not nearly as much value. And in fact, the solar panels, they need to be subsidized and they're subsidized in all sorts of ways people don't get because the solar generation gets paid as if it's reliable, even though it's unreliable. And then it gets, the taxpayers are paying for in all kinds of ways. So there's just nothing. The key thing that's going on is the oil and gas extraction worker is generating a lot of value. So it can be profitable to pay them a lot of money, whereas it's not even profitable to pay the solar worker a smaller amount of money.

Or one other thing we studied was if you look at electricity generation. So if you look at the ratio of electricity generated to number of people involved, fossil fuels are nine times more productive than solar and wind. So a fossil fuel electricity generation worker is generating nine times as much electricity, plus that electricity is reliable. It's available when we need it in the quantities we need it. So that should point to, okay, yeah, obviously this is going to be a source of much more productive jobs in general, but then you layer on top of that, to have productive jobs in a given place, you need to have comparative advantage in that place. That is, it needs to be more productive to produce the things where you are than it is somewhere else.

Well, for various reasons, it's far more efficient to produce green energy in China. And there's a whole bunch of good reasons, like vices that they have in terms of low human rights and environmental standards, and then also virtues. They're much more pro-mining and pro-industry than we are, I think, in good ways. But in any case, there is nothing resembling competitiveness in terms of, quote, green energy here, which isn't even productive in the first place. So we are like, we have a comparative disadvantage at something unproductive. So how is that going to compare productive jobs to a highly productive thing we have a comparative advantage at? And the answer is it is not. And it is just a total fraud to claim that these green jobs are some huge

productive opportunity versus at best what they will be is the gigantic welfare work scheme, wherein the rest of the country pays enormous amounts of money to give people make work doing something unproductive, but then that drives up our energy prices, which hurts every American industry and every American consumer. So that's the best case scenario for this scheme is that in the name of creating these fake jobs, we screw everyone else and deprive them of many more jobs, including, of course, the productive fossil fuel jobs. Yeah. And like you said, it's complete in object fraud because they'll use, they'll lump the green energy jobs in with the oil jobs and basically use the average of the salaries across the energy sector and say, hey, we're going to

create new energy jobs, but not communicating that the average is being pulled up heavily by the oil and gas jobs and the wages made there. So you're sort of transitioning away from those high-earning jobs to lower non-productive jobs too. And I would just say one thing about this, because when you're looking at movements, different movements are going to make sets of claims. So if you look at sort of the anti-fossil fuel movement, there's a series of claims about climate catastrophe and about what you can call renewable replacement. So the idea that, oh, well, fossil fuels can be replaced with renewables. And the climate catastrophe, we may get into that, I'm totally happy to, but that can be a harder thing to evaluate because it involves sophisticated

climate science. And you may not be confident in your ability to evaluate that. And maybe for good reasons, you're not confident and it can be hard to sort through. But when you look at something like the green jobs and you see just a totally fraudulent claim being made, and they're not being a mass protest by people in the movement, it shows that you have a movement that is very willing to distort reality to achieve its goals. So the fact that they're making these green jobs claims and they're being put forward as logical. In fact, Twitter, Joe Biden made this claim about jobs and Twitter put it as science in my Twitter feed. And I didn't even follow Joe Biden. I don't know if I do yet, but I didn't even follow him. And at the top of my Twitter feed, it said science,

Joe Biden, when I think of climate, I think jobs. So it'd be one thing to say, we have a climate catastrophe. We need to take dire actions. It's going to be terrible for us to force all these less cost-effective forms of energy, but it'll be worth it because we'll lower emissions. That would be a coherent view. But to say, oh no, we're going to be drowning in amazing green jobs by doing something that's less productive, that takes place overwhelmingly in China, that shows the movement is very willing to distort reality. And you can expect similar distortions are taking place with the other elements of their narrative. I agree. Just on a heuristics basis, you can move it from the job argument to climate catastrophe, which I do want to get to. But I think, and this is something I've been coming more attuned to in recent months, particularly because Great American Mining, we use stranded waste gas as our energy source to mine Bitcoin.

Yeah, that's a cool idea, by the way. we'll get into that as well thank you um but we've we've been getting attacked so like we've been we work closely with the wheel and gas industry and we've been learning a lot about the the narrative battles that they've been fighting obviously i've been aware of it as an american citizen has been forced on my throat but now i'm more intimately aware of of actually what's going on and how all this is working and in bitcoin itself just take out the uh what we're doing great american mining using gas as a source for electricity uh people hate bitcoin because they view it as this like ultra capitalistic sort of endeavor and i think it's becoming very clear to

me that these people especially people that are fighting us for uh using natural gas to mine bitcoin they actually don't care about the environment they care about authoritarian control bringing their world view which tends to to be like communistic and socialist uh to the the world and they see the success of Bitcoin and particularly Bitcoin mining via natural gas as a runaway from their ability to bring that ideal to fruition. I mean, one way to think of it is many movements are named exactly the opposite of what they are. And so you could call the progressive movement is very much a regressive movement, particularly today. As if you think about what are two of the main elements of progress,

they are intelligent environmental impact and then evolution of technology and so you can see with just with the whole opposition to environmental impact as such so to talk about being green minimizing our impact in this very global way, like that's an anti progress idea because the way we progress is we intelligently impact nature we develop. If you want to live in an undeveloped place go to North Korea and see what that's like that is not a good environment for human beings to have a good human environment, we need to massively develop our environment. And that means lots of energy powering lots of machines. But then with Bitcoin, you've got this other element, which you also see in the opposition to nuclear, which may seem incomprehensible because why do people oppose nuclear who say CO2 is the world's biggest problem? And part of it is they think of it as having impact, but particularly in this kind of, it's an evolutionary impact. They'll say, oh my gosh, the waste is terrible. And if you look at the waste, the waste is pretty easy to deal

it. There are a lot of things a lot more dangerous than nuclear waste, but people are offended that we're creating this new form of waste and it'll be around a long time. They just think we don't have a right to do it. And with Bitcoin, I think there's this element of like, hey, it's wrong for us to do it. Like you shouldn't have a digital currency. Like why, you know, versus from like a genuinely progressive thing. When I heard of Bitcoin, you know, I wish I didn't have any money when I heard of it, but I always thought since 2011, this is a great idea. I mean, I'm always in favor of gold. I mean, a much favor gold to somebody else can just dictatorial multiply the money. Actually, give me, give me three seconds. I want to show you something. Sure thing.

Do you know what this is? I didn't even, I just saw it. I didn't even realize it would come in handy. Do you know what this is? We've got a hundred trillion dollars. This is a Zimbabwe hundred trillion dollar bill. So this could allegedly pay for the green new deal. Um, which that's a whole ridiculous thing anyway that like something that destroys your economy you can put a cost on it but the yeah so you know it's just interesting how there's this regressive element where it's like impacting our environment bad is bad and new things uh are bad and it's not just oh there's a negative it's being done the wrong way so we should do it better it's just like this this total resistance like one more examples with nuclear people don't just say oh

I don't like the particular nuclear reactor they used in one place. It's just, we shouldn't be pursuing, we shouldn't be using the immense power of the atom at all to generate energy ever. So that is, if you want a regressive stance, that's the ultimate one. Yeah. And like for Bitcoin particularly, like the irony is so glaringly, like it like hurts how ironic the situation is. bitcoin as an industry bitcoin mining as an industry i think like i can say like number one top of the list of any industry in the world in terms of penetration of renewables as as the source of electricity generation yeah it's a potential place where they could actually be cost effective yeah and and for some reason the climate hysterics attack bitcoin and bitcoin

mining specifically even though it is achieving the goal they want to bring to fruition that's it like starts this is just recent so what's your explanation of that again like i don't think they care about the environment i think they care about control and and basically telling people how to live their lives i think they're using environmentalism as a sort of facade to trojan horse their way into control well it's interesting because i think that i'd think of it more as like they definitely don't care about renewables as a means to generating a lot of energy for a lot of people. I think they advocate renewables to mask the fact that they want people to use very little energy. Because you think about the environmentalist movement, it's definitely not

about having a good human environment. That's because if you believe that, you'd have to at least acknowledge what fossil fuels have done so far is amazing overall, even if you're worried about the future. So it's not about a human environment. It's about the environment in the sense of wilderness, in the sense of an unimpacted planet. And so if you're in favor of an unimpacted planet, you can't be in favor of energy, of a lot of energy, because what do we use energy to do? We use it to power machines that impact the planet in one way or another. So the very purpose of energy is impact. So the idea of non-impacting energy is a contradiction in terms. But if they said like Michael Moore sort of does in his Planet of the Humans thing, like, oh, we shouldn't be

using any energy or we should drastically reduce, that doesn't go over too well. So instead they promote imaginary energy. They take something that doesn't work at all or doesn't work on any large scale. And they say, oh, we support it. Like they did that with natural gas before natural gas was cost-effective at scale in a lot of ways. And now they hate natural gas. And even with nuclear, like they initially supported it and then it was pretty practical. So then they opposed it. And that's, so I think of it as it is, at least there's a power element, but also there is this religious element of it's wrong for us to impact the planet. It's a very primitive kind of religion. And I think that does definitely animate, animate the leaders and that explains like why they, they support renewables, but if you find a cost effective way to use renewables they're not, they don't say oh my gosh, I'm so excited we finally may turn these scraps

into value somewhere, they're like, no, we're using too much energy. You shouldn't be doing this. And then eventually they'll point out, oh, the renewables take up a lot of space. You have to do way more mining for them because the energy they're using is very dilute. They have to be backed up by the reliables, all these, you know, all these points that I make. And of course they take fossil fuels like, you know, Václav Smil, Bill Gates, his favorite energy guy. Like he likes to say, you know, the wind turbine is the ultimate embodiment of fossil fuels like the blades are made of fossil fuels and the steel uses coal etc so once what happens is they they pretend to support green energy or renewable energy but it's really just as long as

it's imaginary and then if it's any there's any prospect of working then they point out all the obvious ways in which it impacts things which they denied before to pretend that they supported it so that's why it's not at all surprising to me once you walk through like these points and come to understand the contradictions and the goalposts moving throughout this whole environmental movement over time, or decades, right? The Maldives were supposed to be under the water in the 80s. We were supposed to have 3 billion deaths by 2020, climate-caused deaths. But I was watching when you were- I think a billion, a billion. A billion. But according to, it's interesting,

and I want to hear the rest of what you're saying, but it's interesting. This is John Holdren, who made this prediction in the mid 80s and then he became obama's chief science advisor so one thing is you have it's not just that older generations of people like made extreme things and then they were weeded out it's like they were elevated so that's another dynamic of like how is that but sorry continue because i'm really interested in what you're like how if anybody sits down actually studies the subject and is a logical thinking human being maybe most people aren't but hopefully there's enough of us out there like how does this movement gotten so popular to the point where you have people cheering on the shutdown of the Keystone Pipeline,

the ban on fracking on federal lands, and this movement towards non-productive green jobs? How has it gotten so loud? There's a couple of dimensions. So one is just, if you look at the strategy of the environmental movement, I call it the anti-impact movement or the anti-human impact movement, because it's not at all about a good environment from our perspective. It's about, again, it's, it's about environment in the sense of wilderness or unimpacted nature. So the anti-impact movement. So part of it is they very, you know, the leaders of it were very clever and that they really infiltrated the schools a lot. And, you know, when you infiltrate the schools and that includes the universities, you just, it just, you just saturate the world with your

perspective. And by perspective, I think there are two key elements of the perspective to get when I talk about the anti-impact movement or religion, they have a, I would call a framework that's like the starting point that most of us have adopted. And I boil it down to two things. One is the idea that impacting nature is morally wrong. So we shouldn't be impacting the earth. And you can see this in the whole green movement. Like everyone is celebrating. We're not impacting. We're not impacting. We're like, again, human beings survive via intelligent impact. So you want to maximize your intelligent impacts and you want to minimize your anti-human impacts, We don't want to minimize impact. That's crazy. But it's this idea, it's intrinsically wrong. So in effect, we have this religion that says thou shalt not impact nature. And that's like the core commandment of it. And then to sort of, so that that goes down easy and seems scientific, they have the second idea, which I call the delicate nurture assumption, which is that nature is a delicate balance and any impact we have is going to cause it to destruct and us to destruct with it.

You can see this with climate. People assume if we have an impact on climate, which I believe we do, that it's A, going to be mostly negative, and B, it's going to be negative to the point of catastrophic. And you can see this throughout the history of these different predictions. So for instance, we're going to run out of resources, we're going to pollute our environment to the point that the air and water are just totally unlivable around. And then the climate, first it's going to become catastrophically cold, then it's going to become catastrophically warm. And in both cases, if you look at the details, they're saying, oh, it's going to be drought, it's going to be flood. The same negative consequences came from cold and warm in terms of bad stuff. So you can just see there's always this assumption that our impact is not just going to cause some manageable issue that we need to deal with, but it is going to cause an overwhelming catastrophe that justifies getting rid of the source of the impact. And I think that's coming from what I call this anti-impact framework of it's basically impact on nature is intrinsically immoral, and it's inevitably self-destructive because it destroys the delicate balance. And I think that to me, the combination of having that whole framework and then portraying all these narratives that reinforce it and then doing that in the schools, it's this very formidable thing. So that may seem depressing, but at the same time, I find that when I explain these issues, it's not too hard to dislodge. Like once people understand, oh, wait, I'm accepting this moral idea that doesn't make any sense. And I'm accepting this premise about how the way the world works, it doesn't make any sense, it's not true.

And if you realize, oh, wait, I can look at the world in a different way. I can look at it from what I call a human flourishing perspective. So we want a world that's maximally conducive to human flourishing, which means a beautiful planet. And, you know, we have a relationship with the rest of nature that benefits us. It's not a whole parking lot. It's not polluted all over the place. but we are thinking about it as we want a beautiful wonderful earth for humans if you have that perspective on the planet and then you have the perspective nature is not a delicate nurture it's wild potential it has amazing potential but we need to we need to actualize that potential by impacting it very significantly and productively once you get those and you see oh at the other side is just this crazy primitive religion dressed up in modern terms i think that helps a lot and then the more people see, oh, wait, I'm looking at this through the wrong framework, then they'll take something like climate and they'll question this idea of climate catastrophe. And in particular,

they will get rid of this equation of climate change or climate impact on the one hand, and then climate catastrophe, because that's really what's going on. Everyone is saying, oh, we impact the climate, therefore we shouldn't use fossil fuels. It's like, wait a second, is the impact bad? Is it catastrophic? Is it so catastrophic that it outweighs all the benefits to our world of using fossil fuels. And once you start to look into it, and we can go into detail, but there's just nothing resembling that.

Like, see, just from a historical perspective, CO2 levels are super low. They're not unprecedented. Temperatures are low. I mean, huge plant growth comes from CO2. We'll probably be better off overall with warmer temperatures. But even if we're not,

like the negatives are nothing on the order of the negatives of getting rid of fossil fuels. There's no plausibility of catastrophe once you get off this anti-impact religion. Well, let's jump into it, the climate catastrophe, because from what I hear, the science has proven that everything's going to be underwater and everybody's going to die. The science is telling us that. Are we denying science here? It's interesting. I mean, I used this example of green jobs earlier, as this is a case where there's clear pretty clearly if you look into it for 10 minutes there's clearly fraud going on and

and you can that indicates something about the movement uh you can look at this within within the climate issue there's certain things that are technical and hard to validate for yourself but there are other things that are clearly wrong with it that can indicate there's something there's something off here so one is just the propaganda to children and like the getting children to say this you know like oh you telling this to children and telling them to take it on faith and scaring the hell out of them. Like there's something very, very off with that, but also in the kind of statement you made, you know, scientists say, what did you say? We're like, we're all going to be underwater. So what you notice is there's a lot of ambiguity about

who the scientists are, and especially there's a lot of ambiguity about what they say. So you'll often hear it's 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real. And it's usually, or sometimes a little more technically it's climate change, is the main cause of global warming. And so if you take that literally, what that means is that human activities cause 50% or more of the one degree Celsius warming of the last 170 years since the beginning of industrialization in most places. So it caused at least half of a one degree rise. And again, the context here is the earth is something like 12 degrees Celsius, 25 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than it has been at many of its most prolific life-giving periods. So one degree

temperature in and of itself, there's nothing to really fear about that. So how could you get from that to even climate impact is net negative? Because you'd really have to, if you're including in the impact, like the plant growth, we know for sure that plant growth has massively increased around the world, particularly in places where we have had no other activity. So it's purely coming from the fertilization of the atmosphere via CO2. So it's a big burden of showing that 97%, if they could show that, believe that half of a one degree of warming was caused by humans, that wouldn't even be enough to show that humans and that impact on climate, the climate itself is net negative, but then you would have to add on to that. Well,

even if it impacted the climate itself in some net negative way, what about the ability we have to protect ourselves from climate when we have all this energy from fossil fuels? And I've kind of popularized this statistic that climate related disaster deaths. So deaths from floods and storms and heat and cold, if those are down 98% over the last century. So this thing that's supposedly a problem, you know, we're supposed to have 1 billion climate deaths by 2020, according to John Holdren. But any given year, we have between 5,000 and 20,000 climate deaths now. And adjusted for population in the 30s, you had several years where it was 10 million. So climate has become safer than ever. So the point here, though, is so you might not know all

those details, but you should be suspicious if somebody says something like climate change is real or most of one degree warming was caused by this. And then they're going from that to there's a catastrophe and going from that to we need to get rid of fossil fuels and going that from that to we need to specifically replace it with solar and wind, which are like unreliable sources of energy. And you can, this is in philosophy, that's called the fallacy of equivocation. So you're using the same thing to mean many different things. So they're using climate change is real to mean both. There is some warming that we are impacting to, we need to outlaw fossil fuels and replace them with renewables. And whenever you see that degree

of equivocation, somebody is trying to put something over on you. And what it turns out is they're putting over what they want to do is they want to jump from the fact that we do impact climate, which I do believe is a factor, at least I think it's very, very likely that our CO2 emissions impact climate to fossil fuels are bad. And that doesn't follow at all. That's like if you showed that an antibiotic had a side effect to one in 10 million people, that antibiotics would be bad. No, you have to always look at way the benefits and the side effects. And when you do that with fossil fuels, they're positive. So that's how you can have the scientists saying one thing about the side effects of fossil fuels and them falsely extrapolating from there, falsely

implying, oh, fossil fuels are bad. But you notice this, one more thing is you notice the scientists, Most scientists don't stand up against this, even though in private, most of them know there's a lot of distortion and overstatement and bad reasoning. And I think it's because they buy into this anti-impact religion significantly. So they've never been taught about the value of energy. They've never been taught that it's actually really good for us to impact the planet. so they they have this view that yeah it is bad that we're impacting the planet with co2 and so why are they going to stand up if they think yeah it's intrinsically wrong for us to impact the planet whereas from a human flourishing perspective you're like wow we're fossil fuels are the greatest deal ever like they increase our light they allow us to the main thing is they allow us to use machines to produce all this value that and i mentioned it protects us from climate including it keeps us warm when it's freezing, it keeps us cool when it's hot, it allows babies to live

in incubators, it allows one man to produce 700 times more food than a man could before by using, like all the ways in which we use machines, that's made possible by fossil fuels, which are the only thing that allow billions of people in thousands of places to get low cost, reliable energy for all their needs. So that's a lot, but that's my view of how the scientists say X is just a total distortion if it's being used to say anything negative about fossil fuels, let alone positive about solar and wind. Yeah. It's all, I don't want to say PSYOP, but it is somewhat of a PSYOP, right? They're trying to control people's psychological view of a particular issue and then again like it's so easy to poke holes in like all right you

want to transition to this green economy without build on this green tech and i i posited this to um what i am now claiming a climate hysteric over the weekend i said all right like if we if we stopped all fossil fuel production tomorrow you wanted to bring your green tech revolution to fruition like would that even be possible how many fossil needed to build out the infrastructure and the technologies necessary to create that power generation that you so desperately want. What did they say? They basically said, well, there's ways.

Yes, we will console fuels, but only to create this tech and a few other things. So you're going to have to force everybody using fuels in cars and natural gas to heat their homes to stop doing that. but we will use it to build out this infrastructure, which is just a completely nonsensical. Yeah, but I wouldn't focus so much. I mean, there's this kind of, so there are a lot of really irrational things about the opposite position that I'm pointing out, and I'll probably point out more of them. But I think that one mistake sometimes people on what I view as the

right side of things make is they'll caricature the position. So some of the smarter people, Their view won't be get rid of all fossil fuels tomorrow, but it'll be, yeah, we got to use a ton of fossil fuels to make the green energy. But to then go back on that a little bit, they don't really point that out. They're not very forthright about that at all, about just how dependent these renewables, I call them unreliables, are on fossil fuels. Because the more you acknowledge the reality of how these things are produced, the more you start to realize that none of these things are anywhere near fossil fuels in their ability to power civilizations. So if you just think about why is there not one place in the world where solar panels are being used overwhelmingly to make solar panels or wind turbines are being used to make wind, like why is that true nowhere? It's not just, oh, there are eight pilot projects that Elon Musk set up, and they're working great, and it's just a matter of, we got to give him more money. Like, it's not that they're working on some scale, they don't work anywhere at all. And we're talking about getting rid of fossil fuels in 30 years. So what's going on? And you look at just in detail, okay, well, why aren't they used? Well, it turns out that for mobility, like mobile energy, which you need for things like mining, and transportation, long distances and cargo ships and that kind of thing. Like oil is totally unrivaled today because it has such a high, what's called energy density, the amount of energy that's stored in a small space and, you know, small amount of mass. And that's so important because when you're dealing with mobility, you have to take your fuel with you. So if you have a giant battery, you know, let alone like a wind turbine on something, that's not going to, that won't carry you nearly as far. So you start to realize, okay, that's why they're not mining for the solar panels using solar. And there's, of course, the reliability. And then you start to think, oh, it's also the reliability issues. And so when you're getting electricity from solar, you're never getting it from solar. you're getting it from solar plus the whole backup system that has to be tied to solar.

That's actually doing most of the work. So the cost of solar is in the cost of solar. It's the cost of the unreliable solar infrastructure, plus the reliable gas, coal, nuclear, whatever, or hydro infrastructure. So you start to realize that. So there's the mobility doesn't work even on electricity. It's not actually cost-effective. And then you look at, well, a lot of these things involve very high temperatures and we overwhelmingly generate those using fossil fuels. And why is that? Well, often to burn the fossil fuel directly gives you much higher value at lower cost than it does to burn the fossil fuel, to turn it into electricity, to then turn that into a really high amount of heat. That doesn't work very well.

And for anything else that generates electricity, turning whatever that fuel is into heat isn't nearly as cost-effective as fossil fuels, which meant that if you were forced to use these other things, a lot of people wouldn't be able to do them and we'd have a lot less stuff. And so once it just makes kind of obvious what should be obvious from the beginning when people talk about a forced government transition, which is it's not a transition if it was an evolution from something worse to something better, they wouldn't need to force it on everyone because they need to force it on everyone. It's a transition in the sense of a regression. It's that they want us to go from something that this whole industry that cost effectively

provides energy to billions of people to just these, a bunch of crackpot schemes that somehow a bunch of government officials are going to make work. And that's the scary part of it, because you take like the green energy sources are completely uncompetitive when they're not subsidized or mandated. So you take an inferior technology, this technology has been around for 100 plus years, you take inferior technologies, and then they're imposed by government. So imagine how inferior technologies imposed by government compared to superior technologies developed by free people on a market like there is no it's like the u.s versus venezuela it's like there is no that is a scary comparison to think of aoc limited by the worst energy technologies that's

that's what the green new deal is aoc it's the worst people dictating the worst technologies seems like they're winning though it's just the scariest thing ever at least for the narrative battle this is why they're definitely winning the narrative battle i mean the texas thing is there's a really important one i mean it's it's now i was happy with that because i had quite a bit of influence in that but you just see the lengths people will go to uh and this texas a lot of detail that we don't need to get into all the details of it but just the kind of obvious thing if you look at what happened is that for many for most of many crucial days when it was super cold the wind was not blowing and the sun was not shining enough to provide any appreciable amount

of Texas electricity. Whereas when the wind had been blowing and the sun had been shining the week before, wind in particular provided half of Texas electricity. So it went from like half to almost nothing. And so what does that show is you cannot rely on what I call the unreliables. You can screw around so that you make everyone else work around them. It's just like if you had a bunch of like, you had an unreliable employee from your family and you wanted him to like get as much work as possible. You could say to the other workers, okay, when Luke comes in, I'm getting this because there's an incompetent guy from Luke on the office that reminded me of this. But like when Luke comes in, like Oscar, you stop your work. Like, yeah, you can come up with a

stupid scheme like that, where when this guy decides to show up, everyone has to stop. So you're like, oh, Luke worked X number of hours a week, but that's a really dumb idea. And in any case you can't rely on luke in the future and yet the whole energy thing is like okay let's rely on luke in the future that's like the whole plan and when texas shows this can't happen their whole focus is oh no wait uh like there weren't frozen the wind turbines didn't need to freeze like you they didn't necessarily if we had winterized and they wouldn't have frozen but the wind only half at most of the wind turbines were frozen and they weren't working mainly because there was no wind So the main thing is they're unreliable. So it's like saying, oh, well, Luke, like we don't have to worry about relying on Luke in the future because like he had car trouble that day. And it's like, no, whether he has car trouble or not, he is completely unreliable. And yet you look, this got twisted so much where it's like, oh no, nothing went wrong with wind because we weren't even expecting wind to work.

But the whole point is, our whole policy is expecting wind to work in the future. So it's just this totally dishonest thing where it's like, oh, Luke didn't fail. Like either he had car trouble, or we didn't even expect him to come into work. So he didn't fail. Oh, and now we have 100% Luke policy in the future. And AOC has the goal to go from, this is why we need a Green New Deal. And she describes it as infrastructure, which is a nice euphemism. She's like, oh, this is you ignored infrastructure. That's why we need a Green New Deal. But the Green New Deal infrastructure consists almost exclusively of wind turbines and solar panels. One other point about this is that whole movement is very anti-nuclear. That's the elephant in the room. If you cared about CO2 emissions and any kind of actually emissions, that nuclear is the only thing that can at all costs effectively produce this electricity, at least on a global scale. And it's mostly opposed by today's Democrats. And today it's so criminalized to the point where it's so hard to build anything. And it's in fact so hard to keep these things running because solar and wind get so many subsidies at nuclear's expense, that we're having a record

number of shutdowns of nuclear plants this year. So think about this. Everyone says the world is ending from CO2. Nuclear is by far our leading source of non-CO2 electricity. And instead of building it up, we're shutting it down. So if that doesn't show, this is not a movement that is sincerely concerned about the things it claims to be concerned about. Its actual concern is just stopping human, I mean, I think the leaders is stopping human activity, like the philosophical leaders, they just want to stop human impact, and really have the human race regress to a more natural state. And then I think the, a lot of the other people, the kind of more political people, they want power, and they love the, they love the idea that human beings left free are causing a

catastrophe that only they can, they can fix. And then there is some like AOC is an interesting mixture because she loves that. But I also think she is somewhat scared out of her mind because she is such a product of the culture. But on the other hand, she's not exactly... I wouldn't say she seems too open to arguments on the other side. It's a product of the fiat economy we're growing up in. The what? We need the fiat economy, the fiat standard. Well, there's the fiat economy, but yeah, well, but I would put it as fiat education. Fiat education falls under the fiat economy. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. He would think of it that way. No, I agree entirely, but it's, now this is an interesting thing because even most people would agree with me on fossil

fuels probably wouldn't agree with me that I don't think there should be government education, but you just think government education means government decides what ideas are true and false that is the biggest violation of free speech in our culture like bar none so the government like as soon as you say oh the government now if you had a voucher system you know okay that ultimately the government is going to engage in i in thought control because it has to decide who gets the vouchers but it's it's a lot it was a lot better than what we have now but what we have now is just the government decides what ideas are true. And so these smart kind of activists,

they just infiltrate the governments and they decide, oh, well, every young person needs to learn about climate change, which means they need to learn that fossil fuels are bad. They need to learn nothing good about fossil fuels. And then of course, there's the whole, so there's the educational system, so-called, and then there's government controlled research

and people think, oh, isn't it going to be great? We're going to have research free of the tyranny of the dollars. But no, government gets to decide what is important research and what isn't. Somebody has to make these value judgments. And if free people don't make them with their own money, it means the government makes them. So what did the government decide? There's a great anecdote by Freeman Dyson, which my next book I use, it's not in my book that's available now, but my book that'll be available late this year,

probably. He talks about how when the US government was starting to study CO2, he wrote them a letter and he has, he shares the letters. If you look this up, I'm sure you can find it. And he says that he, he says, well, if you're looking at the impacts of CO2, you definitely have to look at the positive impacts on plant growth. Cause those are far, those are definitely there. They're very significant and they may be much more significant than the climate impacts. And he points out, nobody paid any attention because they just decided, no, we're trying to figure, not figure out, but we're trying to really establish that CO2 from fossil fuels is causing a catastrophe. And different people had different agendas. It might've been some nuclear people and then later

wind and solar people. They wanted something against fossil fuels. There's the environmental movement, which just wants something against any industry, but whatever it is, it's that government control of research allowed a group of mostly anti-human people and then opportunistic business type people to totally manufacture the whole corrupt system that led to AOC. I mean, that's like, she is a total product of what you could call fiat research and fiat education versus a free system where it's competitive, right? So it's, then you have different people have to compete. They get to compete in research. They don't get to establish themselves. And then you have educational opportunities competing to offer a good

education at a low price that parents choose among. So if we didn't have fiat research and fiat education, we would not have this anywhere near what's happening today in terms of indoctrination. Yeah. I think a future with megaflora is a really interesting one that I would make. Megaflora, like plant growth. Oh, megaflora. Getting back. Well, yeah. The dinosaurs, they were big in part because they had a lot of CO2. uh you know they couldn't have existed very well on today's co2 uh levels back to so going back to like nerd and uh the hypocrisy there and proving that um these people really don't care about reducing co2 emissions the leaders at least all about

the leaders yeah and the there's an example bitcoin got picked on uh some i forget who some blue check journalist uh tweeted the bitcoin fund was was up and people were pointing at how much is being used to mine bitcoin and just some random journalist i don't even know if she's a journalist check but she she took random pictures of uh bitcoin mining operations from around the world i know for sure one is in upstate new york and i'm pretty sure none of them were actually in california and she tweeted out pictures of these mining operations uh replying to somebody complaining about bitcoin's energy use and she was like rolling blackouts here in california people are are dying of heat strokes in the summer uh and these bitcoin miners are

taking energy away from these people when they need it most and it's like number one the mining operators aren't in california they're not competing with the energy that californians are at all number one and number two you have rolling blackouts in california because they decommission nuclear natural gas uh power plants without plans to to replace that energy generation like so it has nothing to do with bitcoin it has to do with the the idiocy of your state government not planning to replace energy generation that was decommissioned but all they see is like bitcoin mining consumes energy. We have blackouts here. Therefore, Bitcoin mining is taking energy away from us when we need it most. Well, I am a little glad that they're picking on Bitcoin because it's

nice to have some... I'm getting more and more allies in the Bitcoin community. And it's nice because the value of Bitcoin is not the most self-evident value to people. So you really have to explain the value of Bitcoin, they need to explain the value of energy and why it is right to use energy to improve our lives, even if it has some kinds of side effects. And in part of that, the side effects are hugely overstated and then the benefits are hugely understated.

But yeah, it's not like, would the same journalist tweet out pictures of all the fossil fuel mines that are used to make these unreliables? Are they tweeting out stuff about the unreliables causing the issue? So Bitcoin, this is pretty common sense. It's a cost game. You need low cost electricity. I live in California. Nobody's coming to San Diego Gas and Electric and trying to mine Bitcoin here, and certainly not at the high demand time. So what's happening with the blackouts and the rolling blackouts and brownouts is it's during the high demand times that our lack of controllable electricity bites us in the ass here, especially if it's a regional thing like it was last summer, where we don't have enough controllable electricity, and then our neighbors are more and more using these unreliables, and so we didn't contract for enough reliable electricity. Interestingly, you know now we've contracted for a bunch of fossil fuel electricity in California this summer, because, because they don't want to debacle like last time and the environmental groups are protesting but they're not protesting too loudly because they don't want to acknowledge like, if you want reliable electricity, obviously you can't use wind and solar, and they're shutting down they shut down Santa Nofre which is fairly near where I live and they're shutting down Diablo Canyon.

another great power plant in california so it's it's yeah you can all you can learn a lot about whether people are at all acting consistently with their stated objectives and if their stated objective is to protect human well-being from climate catastrophe then the opposition to nuclear is one of the biggest giveaways that that is not the goal and so it should question is there climate catastrophe and above all are they concerned about human well-being no somebody i wrote about a letter last week is one of the like leaders of some marxist pod thing it's called trap house or something like that he quotes chopo trap house is that what it is yeah sometimes yeah i think it's super popular i've never seen it yeah it's very very popular i believe i've

never listened to it either but he quote tweeted that tweet that that that blue check sent out that made no sense at all and said we should predator drone each and every one of these mining operations like literally want to bring physical harm uh to people bitcoin miners specifically without understanding the whole context of the situation yeah i mean i just on a personal note i'm has i've been working on a book for the past two two and a half years and i just i finished the manuscript And so I'm editing it in the next month and a half. And so one thing it's been fun to work on, but I'm excited being done with it because I have a lot more of a platform now than I did several years ago. And I'm going to have some time to just debate these people. And I mean, I just think there's so much potential to just like getting in debates with people and just showing because they just don't have any answers to this stuff. And when I used to debate, I would do well, for sure. But I mean, I'm much clearer about all the issues now than I was five, let alone 10 years ago. And I've really pushed on all these issues. And they just don't have, there's just no way you can really believe in.

Well, even climate catastrophe I don't think you can intelligently believe in, let alone green energy as the solution to climate catastrophe like somebody who believes both of those things, who believes that fossil fuels are making the climate literally unlivable in the near future, and that the, the best and only way to deal with that is mostly unreliable solar and wind, electricity, like that is, I there may be little details that I'm wrong about but I'm 100% sure that narrative is wrong. time as well thank you for championing this narrative common sense and that's something i've been saying on this podcast and the other one i host that's more bitcoin focused tales from the crypt is like we need adults strong men and women to start standing up and pushing back against this because it's nonsense it's actually it's actually extremely dangerous if these ideas permeate forward and they should check out i don't know if i mentioned but i have a website called energy talking points.com. And that is, I think that's particularly valuable for people.

If you want to start championing this, cause it has like very bite-sized Twitter length points on an increasing number of issues. I was just reading a new book today. That's come out by somebody who's friendly to this position. And he used like at least 12 of the energy talking points. And I thought, Oh, this is great. Like I want people using these all the time. So if I really, I, we definitely do need more champions and that people might check that out as a resource. because i think that's designed to it's designed to convince new people but also to help to empower champions with all the facts and all the arguments about every little basically every detail of this that you could imagine yeah no it's i mean it's a that's uh that's what made me start the

conversation off with the green energy jobs as you're a little and specifically um somebody asking won't joe biden's energy plan for green energy jobs offset millions of lost jobs in the fossil fuel industry right i'm just going line by line like no we actually already have an example this in germany uh they've tried for the last two decades and just doubled the cost of electricity and reduced the reliability significantly that's like yeah so thank you for that as well i know we only have 10 minutes left here but and this is a bitcoin and oil and gas podcast and And I think to highlight one of the points that you always champion is that we should try to be as efficient as possible and make sure using energy to make things better and push us forward technologically and to progress from an economic standpoint. like i think bitcoin mining especially using stranded uh energy sources that would otherwise

be wasted um is a great way to to really uh bring that and that being to fruition like so what we're doing on the oil and gas field using gas would otherwise be flared literally just set on fire and set into the atmosphere cost like it costs these producers money to to do this we can instead pipe that gas to a generator and use that generator to generate electricity to power miners to make Bitcoin the hardest asset man has ever come into contact with. Yeah, I think, I mean, I'm all for it. What's that? Oh, sorry. We just had a, no, I was laughing in affirmation. I like the hardest asset man has ever come into contact with. I like that you've created this asset that's in many ways better than gold. That's very cool.

So, you know, I'm not, I'm not, I mean, I'm very enthusiastic about that. I would just say I'm very enthusiastic about the aim of Bitcoin. And in general, I have, I have nothing but a positive opinion, but I'm not an expert on it. Like you are like safety and as, or something like that. But I would just say that it's very noble. The idea of giving people a secure currency that is secure from the manipulative, arbitrary manipulation of other people who can just have the power to counterfeit. I mean, let's just be serious. What does it mean to print money? Like that just means is let's just legalize counterfeit. You just make up new bills and you give them to yourself

or you give them to people that you like. That is basically what the government has the power to do. So there's a lot of arguments about, oh, well, it's efficient and it's necessary. I don't believe any of those practical arguments, but we know for sure, I'll bring back my $100 trillion bill here. We know for sure that this practice

of legalized counterfeit or legalized inflation, we know that that can have absolutely catastrophic consequences. And I should say there's a parallel with inflation or with energy, which is that we had crises, very related, we had crises of both in the 1970s. And I was born in 1980. So I didn't live through them, but I've read about them thoroughly. And I think we're far enough away from it where it's not top of, I mean, it's far from top of mind for people. And there's just really no concept of what an energy crisis or what an inflationary crisis is like. Now we're starting to get it with the blackouts. But, you know, an inflationary crisis, I mean, that you

just think about, I'll just use my own example of like, I think about, I've worked really hard to make X amount of money and support myself and support people I care about, like, like I've built up a lot. And what inflation can do is it can devalue the hell out of that very, very quickly, like that can just disappear, let alone the other kind of macro effects. I mean, you think about somebody in Zimbabwe who worked hard to build up a nest egg in the Zimbabwe currency, and then it's inflated where there's such a thing as $100 trillion bill. $100 trillion is basically more than the GDP of the entire world, so just to give you a sense in US dollars. So this is a terrible thing that there's a terrible kind of threat that we should be aware

about that we're not nearly aware enough about because it's distant because people say, oh, we've got modern monetary theory, got all these things, don't worry about it. It's not going to be inflation, but definitely it's great in my view if people explore the realm of private currency and Bitcoin is the leader in that. So I think that is a great use of energy to figure out a way to give private currency. And then all of these other amazing kinds of transactions where some arbitrary person can't intervene. In fact, this whole phenomenon of Bitcoin and the blockchain and stuff like this could and likely will save a huge amount of freedom uh in the world in many many realms so i think that's a great that is a great use of energy i do as well i do as well i

love bitcoin and i think this is a pretty heady idea that i have so we're actually going to have produce replace central banks not in the sense that we determine the monetary policy of bitcoin or some interest associated with it but by the sense they replace the fed window the you know the way in which money is produced and distributed in the current monetary system it opens their window to the primary banks the primary dealers they get first access to the capital after they produce the monetary goods and then it flows from there now that's going to move to the bitcoin mining layer which is going to be dominated by energy producers because they're going to have the cheapest of energy um like we are pretty confident that oil and gas producers are going

to be particularly in north america are going to be some of the largest miners in the end of the decade um and you're going to have a transition from a fiat monetary system an energy-backed monetary system that starts with energy companies and involves on the bitcoin mining layer and above and this is going to have profound effects throughout society again you mentioned the the positive externalities that come with a private currency winning against a centrally controlled currency but in terms of energy production and we've already been touching on it like bitcoin or miners going out and basically bootstrapping uh these projects particularly in renewables and how it now tests by being the last resort, creates more energy

reliance. You have more reliable energy sources, right? Because you always have this demand from Bitcoin mining. It's going to help bootstrap an energy generation that far exceeds what we'll ever need, a peak demand. If we ever need energy, some crazy climate event or something like that, bitcoin mining will will uh guarantee that it will be there when we need it most and then you talk about the incentives second or second and third order effects from that too like beginning once it's integrated throughout the energy industry it's going to create this high incentive to secure our grid which are terribly here right now if your grid goes down you're not able to hash is to mine Bitcoin, you're going to lose out on a lot of revenue. So you're highly incentivized

to make sure your grid's as secure as possible. Yeah, that's exciting. So I mean, I don't really have specific... I mean, I can't validate that for myself. It sounds plausible. I mean, I guess emotionally with just secure digital technology in general, so not just Bitcoin, it's very exciting to me what's going to happen with communication, because I think we're at a really interesting point where, you know, many of the leading sort of open communications platforms like Twitter and others are, there's a whole big subject, but they don't really, I don't think they really have an intelligent idea at all of how to manage content. And I do think you need some sort of content policy. And by the way, I'm in this, people can look up, if you look up thoughtful.community,

that's a company that I co-founded. So I'm sort of in the intellectual software or platform space myself, but if you just look at like what's going to happen, I think is there's going to be some sort of, this is not what I'm working on, but I think someone else will work on, you know, really good secure alternatives that can't arbitrarily be stopped by Amazon or by Facebook or by Twitter. And I think those will definitely win in the end. Cause you just think about like my situation on Twitter, what do I have? Maybe 47,000 followers and look, Twitter is great. I'm grateful to them for providing it. I don't take that for granted. I don't think it should be controlled by the government. But nevertheless, I am scared as hell of their content policy. I

think it's very arbitrary. I think anyone who thinks that it's good to promote Joe Biden's jobs claims as science officially has really bad judgment. And so I'm just excited by secure digital technology where we can insulate ourselves from the arbitrary decisions of all kinds of people, especially government, but also non-governmental. And so I'm just very excited to see Bitcoin and these other technologies develop. It's built on Bitcoin right now. This is in the Sphinx chat. It's built on Bitcoin's second layer,

the Lightning Network. You're literally chatting using Bitcoin. You're sending messages across the Lightning Network protocol on Symbol. And actually, if I post episode details from the Crypt as well as Gamcast, which I'm now thinking about doing, peep us into this podcast via the Sphinx chat app,

which is possible as well. It's a chat app and a podcast player. able to stream me satoshis directly for each minute list uh if you were to give me a lightning network public node i could actually siphon off some of those satoshis to you for for providing value to the conversation and this is all done over rss feed i just put a lightning node public key in my rss feed it gets out there and up by these uh and people are able to send me value in an honorable fashion well if you email me how to do that it sounds very fun to do so it sounds fun to try yeah i'll um i'll do that alex we're at the hour mark here thank you for joining me

it's been an incredible discussion i think people are getting a lot of value out of this and thank you for what you're doing in the public eye you're a fight that that many many men and women stray stray away from shy away from um but i think we need more alex epstein's in the world so bolding people thanks a lot if anyone wants to contact me just go on twitter i have open messages so feel free to reach out that way all right thank you guys for joining enjoy the rest of your day