In this issue:
- Two valuable new books: Apocalypse Never and False Alarm
- A new COVID paper I contributed to
- A thought on COVID policy
Two valuable new books: Apocalypse Never and False Alarm
On this week’s Power Hour, I discuss two soon-to-be released books that I’ve read and am very excited about: Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger and False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg. As I discuss on the episode, I think these are crucial books in the broader project of a pro-human environmental movement that rejects climate catastrophism. I am in the process of scheduling interviews with both authors for coming episodes. In this episode I:* Summarize each book.* Discuss my favorite features of each book.* Explain why I’m excited about the pro-human environmental movement. Listen to the full episode of Power Hour on YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Here again are links to purchase the books: Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet
A new COVID-19 paper I contributed to
Back in April I recorded a Power Hour with philosopher Onkar Ghate on a pro-freedom approach to COVID-19. The interview was widely viewed and actually influenced at least one state’s policies. I’m happy to announce that Onkar has just released an essay on this topic, A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease. I think it’s the best article at articulating positively what government should do in this and other pandemics if it is to protect freedom. It’s one thing to say that the lockdowns were wrong. But the question remains: What is the right, pro-freedom approach to infectious disease? This essay answers that. Warning: It is very long. A short summary of the article was published by Onkar’s colleague, Dr. Ben Bayer, in the Orange County Register. At the end of the article Onkar writes:A number of individuals have helped improve this paper. But I’m especially grateful to Alex Epstein for detailed discussion of many of the issues and for extensive comments on how better to structure the overall argument of the paper as well as to formulate specific points. I’m happy to have been helpful on this piece and hope it reaches the audience it deserves.
A thought on COVID-19 policy
On the topic of COVID-19, there’s been an issue on my mind for awhile that prompted me to start a discussion on Twitter. All the evidence on COVID-19 seems to point to the conclusion that VENTILATION IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN DISTANCING. Ventilated locations make it a) hard to get and b) most important, hard to get in high doses. Can anyone refute this? I am genuinely curious. Both sides of the badly-framed “reopen” vs. “don’t reopen” debate don’t seem to be focusing on ventilation. On the “reopen” side people want to go to bars and churches without changing the ventilation situation. The “don’t reopen” side still acts like the beach is dangerous. Right now people seem to be costing themselves trillions of dollars to optimize for distancing (instead of ventilation), which seems a) insufficient in poorly ventilated indoor situations, and b) completely unnecessary in well ventilated (especially outdoor) situations. The best champion of ventilation I’ve seen has been Daniil Gorbatenko. But we need many more like him. I’d like to hear what the best pro-freedom COVID thinkers think of this. That’s it for this week. I continue to spend most of my time in editing mode for The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels 2.0, as well as helping pro-freedom candidates with their energy messaging. Thanks to all the Accelerators who help make this possible.
To Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Energy,