The problem with Forbes "Opinion" pieces is that they are never written by true journalists who have investigated an issue. Instead they are virtually always the work product of an "expert" who has a definite agenda. It can take a while to figure out what that agenda is and who is paying for the author to produce their "opinions" but they all seem to be slick PR pieces.
In this particular case, we find the author, Alex Epstein, says he is part of an organization called the Center for Industrial Progress. Pretty impressive sounding. Would you believe he is the founder and only member??? This guy is a philosophy major from Duke who was excited by Ayn Rand and now writes books telling everyone that fossil fuels are wonderful for the environment. I wonder who funds his for profit Center for Industrial Progress. He is a quack and a shill for the oil industry pure and simple. He writes on energy and climate science and his only preparation is an undergraduate philosophy degree...come on, give me a break.
Forbes is notorious for this sort of biased publication. The Forbes article most certainly does NOT present a true picture of anything. The guy is a quack in service of the oil industry.
Look into the authors and their backgrounds before believing what they say folks.
Alex Epstein (American writer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IT,
If I may I'd like to respectfully challenge your judgement on this one.
First off, Epstein as a philosophy major and college trained writer, is probably very qualified to write on the moral aspects of fossil fuel use. I can easily see a valid claim that a large part of mankind's current welfare and wealth is due to our ability to extract and use fossil fuels. In fact, I can see the claim that a very expensive switch to "green" alternatives may only be possible due to the wealth generated by the use of fossil fuels. (Of course that assumes that those who held that wealth are willing to spend it in such a fashion.) I do worry about the moral implications of switching to expensive "green" energy. A large part of that cost will be born by those least able to afford their increased electric bills, more expensive cars, restricted mobility and decreased economic activity. It is reasonable to expect that a philosopher could easily be qualified to opine on such moral considerations. So I am curious, would you be so quick to criticize Forbes and him if he was saying that "green" is good and fossil fuels were bad?
Second, my experience is that who is trained as something is not necessarily capable of doing that task and that some with little or no training are far more capable than some who are trained/experts in that area.
Let me share four real examples. I'm a trained CPA who formerly practiced public accounting for one of the largest such firms in the world. I have almost 40 years of accounting/executive experience.
First, the best accountant I ever had work for me had only three hours of college credit. She could make and balance complex entries, balance and maintain that balance of large inventory, receivable and payable accounts. She clearly understood assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses.
Second, during her tenure, I had two other accountants. One had a bachelor's degree with a high GPA (3.9 if I remember correctly.) and was studying to take the CPA exam. That accountant had trouble debiting cash and crediting a receivable or revenue. She had absolutely no understanding of assets, liabilities, etc. Not surprising, I promoted the capable, proficient and untrained accountant. Unfortunately, I had to let the trained accountant go. She just couldn't do the work.
Third, the other degreed accountant was also unproductive. My assessment was she had some skills but was totally unmotivated to put forth real effort or care about real results. I managed to keep her productive enough that I didn't have to fire her but it was a struggle.
Finally, and probably most dramatic example happened during a presentation by a partner in a large architectural/engineering firm. We had requested plans for an intricate four story office building. The partner was presenting the detailed drawings and painting a grandiose picture of a very complex design. One attendee in the meeting was a residential builder whose college degree was in English. He had no training as an architect/engineer/builder but we all knew who built beautiful very large homes. As this untrained builder looked through the drawings he suddenly stopped, flipped back a couple of pages then back to the page that had caught his attention and simply stated "This isn't possible. It can't be built." The next 30 minutes were spent with the highly trained and experienced engineer architect patronizingly calling him dumb and the builder holding to his claim of impossibility. Suddenly the the engineer's eyes widened and he froze. After what seemed like an eternity, the builder asked "Do you see the problem now? The problem can be solved by either X or Y" (The specifics of those suggestions went over most of the heads in that room, mine included.) The engineer quietly rolled up the drawings, apologized for the problem and promised to redo the plans.
As I recounted these four examples, many more started coming to mind. My point is not to denigrate formal training but to point out that what really shows an expert is demonstrated success in a particular endeavor.
So, where I am challenging you is to recognize that Epstein may, or may not be, capable of productively opining on the morality of fossil fuels (and conversely of "green" energy) and that we all are prone to jumping to the conclusion that supports our own agenda. I'm not meaning to tick you off or start a fight, I just think your conclusion was too quick and not as accurate as you think.
Respectfully,
Greg
