Walter Hudson recently interviewed me for the PJMedia website. He asked great questions and, more than any other reporter I have ever dealt with, really got the essence of what we are trying to do at CIP.
The sign at her feet read “For a nuclear free, carbon free future.” The one in her hands an equally predictable “Excessive wealth and consumption are dying paradigms. Renew American with a Green Revolution.”
Before her stood Alex Epstein, energy expert and frequent PJTV guest commentator. Noting the sign on the sidewalk, Epstein asked, “You’re opposed to nuclear power and [carbon dioxide] generating power?”
“Yes,” she answered.
“Do you know what percentage of power in the world those generate right now?”
“That’s not my concern. My concern is the people that are profiting off of power that is unsustainable….”
Calm among the hubbub of Zuccotti Park, Epstein endured a lengthy non-response, then answered the question for her.
“We’re talking about something that’s producing 95% of the power in the world,” he stated flatly. “This is the power that’s keeping people’s lights on. It’s keeping the food going. And you’re saying we ought to dismantle that somehow. And I’m saying, if that happens, the entire world as we know it will collapse.”
This is how Epstein and his cohort at the Center for Industrial Progress confront the menace of radical environmentalism. There is a difference between caring about the world we live in and elevating wilderness above human life. The former motivates industrious action, shaping the environment to promote a thriving human existence. The latter retards industry and reduces both the quality of life and the capacity to sustain it.
On top of that, the legendary Instapundit blog linked to the story, which led to a lot of attention.
Here’s an excerpt from the interview:
PJ Media: How would you advise Tea Partiers and activists of like mind seeking to increase their literacy on energy policy and environmental issues?
Epstein: I would say first and foremost increase your literacy on industrial and environmental philosophy. Most of the political decision-making about energy and industry today is not based on economics or science, but rather bad philosophical ideas about our proper relationship to our environment. In every policy debate, there is a dogmatic obsession with only the negative impacts or possible impacts human beings can have (for example, an oil spill) and a dogmatic ignorance of the radically positive impact that, for example, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. have had on the human environment over the past two centuries. What that points to is that there is a deep-seated belief in our culture that there is something inherently wrong with the human project of transforming nature.