Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 79 of 295.
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“America, given its combination of abundant domestic energy resources, technological ingenuity, and free-market competition, has the potential to have the best grid in the world” https://t.co/YUjtddoSMA — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
RT @NickDeIuliis: Military contractors told to reduce C footprint by going solar & battery. Yep, US military thinks it's smart to rely on c… — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Get #FossilFuture: https://t.co/KvYDUsRB55 Watch the full interview with @DineshDSouza on the Dinesh D’Souza Podcast: https://t.co/T4R38RF2kg — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“anyone who talks about the threat of climate impact, but they don't mention that we have so far been masters of it and that fossil fuels have made us safer, I call them ‘climate mastery deniers.’ And that is rampant, unfortunately, among scientists” With @DineshDSouza https://t.co/CYn8BOllTt — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
RT @natbrunell: "The number one goal in the world is don't impact climate. It's not, 'Let's empower 8 billion people.' It's certainly not,… — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
"The climate debate ignores the reasons we burn fossil fuels in the first place. Alex Epstein reminds us that rich countries may be able to treat green lifestyles as luxury fashion, but for much of the world reliable energy is a matter of life and death." - @peterthiel https://t.co/t8M35sTr0Z — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
If you're new to my work, follow me @AlexEpstein for extreme clarity on energy, environmental, and climate issues from a humanist perspective. Also, subscribe to my newsletter, featuring lots of concise, powerful, well-referenced energy talking points. https://t.co/NS8O3mzWft — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Whatever the technology—fossil fuels, fission, fusion—we need leaders who embrace human flourishing, who reject "green" hostility toward human impact, and who support pro-human, truly scientific safety laws that don’t hold back innovation. Only such leaders truly support fusion. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that fission has challenges that can be demonized (radioactivity, waste) but fusion doesn’t. Consider temperature: the fusion breakthrough involved temps of 100M °C—100,000X hotter than nuclear fission, and 7X hotter than the center of the sun! — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
"Safety" pseudoscience is a leading reason that nuclear fission has failed to live up to its amazing potential. If we allow the green movement to engaging in "safety" pseudoscience with fusion then fusion will meet the same fate. https://t.co/jQGkiiweHj — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
What we need for the recent research breakthrough in fusion to become an economic breakthrough as fast as possible is a pro-human, pro-technology attitude and legal framework. This must include the rejection of pseudoscience that shuts down new techs as "unsafe." — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Research breakthroughs make possible tech breakthroughs, which make possible economic breakthroughs. E.g., the research breakthrough that rockets can reach escape velocity made possible the tech breakthrough of going to the moon. But we still don’t have economic moon travel. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Given that fusion is our sun’s energy source, the prospect of harnessing it for human purposes is thrilling. But we must recognize that the recent development is a research breakthrough—and that there’s a huge gap between a research breakthrough and an economic breakthrough. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
From a human flourishing perspective, the recent development in fusion is indeed exciting. Researchers were able to create a fusion reaction—fusing together the nuclei of multiple atoms—that for the first time released more energy than the laser initiating the reaction used. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
To understand why fossil fuels are so valuable for the foreseeable future, and why their benefits far outweigh their negative side-effects including climate-side-effects, read this summary of my new book *Fossil Future*. https://t.co/ec2zKw4Dr3 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The irrefutable case for a Fossil Future If we want a world in which all 8 billion of us have the opportunity to f… https://t.co/MWtuw3Vlov
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The world needs to reject the "green" movement and instead embrace a "human flourishing" movement that embraces intelligent human impact on Earth as a good thing, and embraces both today’s most cost-effective energy sources—above all, fossil fuels—and is eager to improve on them. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
When asked in 1989 about the prospect of fusion by the LA Times, leading "green" thinker Paul Ehrlich said that given society’s dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." https://t.co/iME1uYrhAv — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
When asked in 1989 about the prospect of fusion by the LA Times, Jeremy Rifkin said: "'It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.' Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance…" https://t.co/hxoWe0Qp77 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Amory Lovins, the leader of the modern "green energy" movement, said in the 1970s: "It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we would do with it." https://t.co/vE10bU5xIP — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Because the "green" movement is anti-energy, any enthusiasm its leaders express for fusion is phony; while they may claim to want clean, cheap, abundant energy before it exists, they will not like the impact it has once it exists. And in the past, green leaders admitted this. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
"Green" leaders supported nuclear—until it became cost-effective, at which point they demonized and criminalized it. "Green" leaders supported natural gas—until it became cost-effective on a global scale thanks to shale energy tech, at which point they demonized it as "fracking." — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The fundamental hostility of the "green" movement to energy explains why throughout its history it has never supported current, cost-effective source of energy and only "supported" imaginary sources of energy that might exist in the future. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The core reason that the "green" movement opposes energy is that using energy *by its nature* impacts Earth. Energy is "the capacity to do work," which means transforming our environment. The more energy we use, the more we transform "nature," the more impact we have. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Observe that "green" activists are now successfully opposing the massive mining, transmission-line-building, development involved in solar and wind—because of the large impact these have on nature. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The reason the green energy movement is hostile not just toward fossil fuels but also nuclear fission and also hydro is that "green"—"minimal human impact"—is an anti-energy idea. If you don’t want us to impact Earth you ultimately must oppose every form of energy. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
While doing nothing meaningful to unleash fission’s potential, the Biden Admin has engaged in meaningful destruction of the fossil fuel industry—the only industry that, for the foreseeable future, can provide cost-effective energy to billions in a world that needs more energy. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Instead of acting to decriminalize fission, this administration has *at best* called for new subsidies. But these won’t unleash fission’s potential. Consider: Since the NRC was established in 1974, no nuclear plant has gone through the full process of conception to completion. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Real nuclear leadership means radical reform to "decriminalize" fission, such as: banish the pseudoscientific "linear no-threshold model" from public agencies and eliminating the ability of anti-development activists to be involved in the nuclear permitting process. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
In the 1970s, we had fission that was cost-effective—producing low-cost, reliable electricity in the cleanest and safest way ever achieved. And yet the Green movement’s false portrayal of fission as dangerous has made it so regulated that fission costs many times what it used to! — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Nuclear fission—generating energy by splitting (fissioning) the nuclei of atoms—has been an epic and preventable tragedy for the past 50+ years thanks to the Green movement, which has demonized it as dangerous and regulated it to the point of effective criminalization. — PolitiTweet.org
