[null, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "/sites/all/themes/desmog2015/images/desmogblog2015_tip_jar_new.png", "src": "https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/all/themes/desmog2015/images/desmogblog2015_tip_jar_new.png", "formatted_filename": "desmogblog tip jar new"}, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "/sites/all/themes/desmog2015/images/Desmog_DisinformationDatabase_Sidebar.png", "src": "https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/all/themes/desmog2015/images/Desmog_DisinformationDatabase_Sidebar.png", "formatted_filename": "Desmog DisinformationDatabase Sidebar"}, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "/sites/all/themes/desmog2015/images/on_desmog_uk-blue3.png", "src": "https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/all/themes/desmog2015/images/on_desmog_uk-blue3.png", "formatted_filename": "on desmog uk blue"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Alex%20Epstein.jpg", "src": "https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Alex%20Epstein.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Alex Epstein", "rendered_width": 154, "rendered_height": 171}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "//www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202017-03-12%20at%204.27.20%20PM.png", "src": "http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202017-03-12%20at%204.27.20%20PM.png", "formatted_filename": "Screen Shot at"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "//www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-24%20at%208.11.38%20PM_0.png", "src": "http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-24%20at%208.11.38%20PM_0.png", "formatted_filename": "Screen Shot at"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein", "unformatted_src": "//www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Epstein%20website--Shell%20Oil%20quote_0.png", "src": "http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Epstein%20website--Shell%20Oil%20quote_0.png", "formatted_filename": "Epstein website Shell Oil quote"}, null, null]





Alex Epstein Alex Epstein



Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” Epstein is also a blogger at Master Resource, a “Free Market Energy Blog,” and a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations amounting to $100,000 between 2005 and 2011. [3]

“As the Founder and the Director of the Center for Industrial Progress, I make it my job to educate the public about the incredibly positive role energy and industry, particularly the oil industry, play in their lives,” Epstein wrote at CIP. [4]

Alex Epstein has written articles in this area in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, The Objective Standard and numerous other publications largely on the subjects of energy and industrial policy. Epstein also hosts a monthly podcast titled “Power Hour” that features “leading energy thinkers” including climate change deniers like Richard Lindzen and Steve Milloy.

He previously maintained a website, alexepstein.com (now redirects to the Center for Industrial Progress), where he advertised his range of consulting services “from PR consulting to editorial consulting,” in which he reframes the debate to fit the view that aggressive industrial progress will always benefit the environment. [48]

Epstein regularly appears in conservative talk radio and television programs to promote the idea that industrial development is the best way to improve the environment. He has made appearances on FOX, PJTV, and Thom Hartmann. He also publishes his opinion in a wide variety of publications including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, and Fox News.

Corporate Speaking & Consulting

Alex Epstein also makes speaking rounds in colleges and communities including Stanford, Duke, Rice, and UCLA. He also offers corporate speaking and consulting services for the energy industry to combat “formidable attacks by so-called environmentalists that can put a halt to your projects and sabotage your bottom line.” [49], [50], [5]

According to his website, “CIP [Center for Industrial Progress] is unmatched in its ability to successfully out-message 'environmentalists' and turn their supporters into your supporters.” [5]

In a September 11, 2018 piece at the CIP website, Epstein disclosed “proudly” that one of his industry clients was Tyler White, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. [77]

“In praising this piece I must disclose, proudly, that the author is one of my clients. As is the allied website, 'The Coal Truth,' that has a more in-depth expose of “100% renewable,” Epstein wrote.

According to WHOIS records, thecoaltruth.com was registered by Aaron Bond who appears to work for Alliance Coal, and the administrator is listed as Health Lovell.  Lovell is Vice President for Public Affairs at Alliance Coal, and also spoke at the Heartland Institute's America First Energy Conference in 2017. Lovell has praised the pro-coal stance of the Trump Administration. [78], [79], [80], [81]



“If we look at what has been scientifically demonstrated vs. what has been speculated, the climate impact of CO2 is real — but mild and manageable.”

[…] while fossil-fuel use has only a mild warming impact, it has an enormous protecting impact. Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and air-conditioning, drought relief and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, overwhelmingly from fossil fuels.” [54]


In an interview on The Aaron Harbor show during IHS CERA Week, Epstein responded to a number of questions on his views about climate change. [83]

Aaron Harber:  “Do you agree with the vast majority of climate scientists that climate change is happening?” [1:11]

Alex Epstein: “Loaded question. I agree that mild climate change, but not catastrophic climate change, is happening.”

Harber: “All right. What are the implications of climate change, in your opinion?” [1:22]

Epstein: “The main implication is we have to protect ourselves from the inherently dangerous and volatile climate using lots of energy and lots of industry.”

Harber: “Can mankind affect climate change, do you think? What kind of impact…” [1:32]

Epstein: “Theoretically, yes. In practice, very mildly.”

Harber: “So you don't think that a significant portion of climate change that's occurring is due to mankind, is anthropogenic?”  [1:39]

Epstein: “Well, the overall is not that much. So you could have a significant portion of not very much, and it wouldn't be that much.”

Harber: “So, when you say 'not very much', give me a sense of what, what you mean.” [1:51]

Epstein: “Well, you have one, you know one-point four degrees in 150 years, and a little over half of that is since major CO2 emissions began. So you have a small amount of natural warming and a slightly less small amount of possibly man-made influenced warming.”

Harber: “All right. Som the goal to prevent us from warming two more degrees, do you think  that that's an easy goal to reach? Or is that goal, does that goal even make sense?” [2:07]

Epstein: “The whole premise is based on climate-related, climate predication models that can't predict climate. So I reject that as a goal. … so in two degrees is probably better off anyway. But there's no evidence that we're getting there.”

Harber: “So two degrees would be a good thing?” [2:29]

Epstein: “I don't think, technologically, we know how to get there if we wanted to. Two degrees celsius.”

Harber: “In terms of prevention?” [2:34]

Epstein: “No. We couldn't warm the Earth that much.”

Harber: “So you don't think we're headed to two degrees on our current path?” [2:39]

Epstein: “No. It's all climate prediction models that can't predict climate. Anyone can make stuff up. Most predictions are wrong, including these have been wrong for 35 years. There's nor Eason to assume there's anything different.”


“[B]urning fossil fuels has improved the lives of millions in the developed world by helping solve their biggest environmental challenges, purified their water and air, made their cities and homes more sanitary and kept them safe from potential catastrophic climate change.” [52]


Writing at Forbes, Epstein compared mainstream climate change science to Scientology: [63]

“[T]oday’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science,” he wrote. [63]


“In my opinion, the time for debate is certainly not over because the vast majority of us don't even know what the debate is about — let alone what has been proven and what hasn't, let alone what action implications all of this has.” [6]


April 6, 2018

Alex Epstein praised Scott Pruit on Twitter, voicing support during a time that the EPA Administrator was facing a range of criticism and controversies:

.@EPAScottPruitt has heroically transformed the @EPA from a lawless, dictatorial agent of green activists to a Constitution-following agency focused on true threats to human health. His appointment by @realDonaldTrump has been great for industrial progress and human flourishing.

— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) April 6, 2018

December 2017

“You shouldn't be afraid of running out of oil. You should only be afraid of running out of freedom,” Epstein said at a 2017 Turning Point USA event. [71]

November 30, 2017

The following are some notable quotes from Epstein's presentation at the “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). [69]

“The price of electricity on a grid always goes up when you add solar and wind. People have a bunch of ENRON-accounting-type devices to make it seem cheap, but that is actually I think fraud and should be prosecuted, but I’m not a lawyer.” [69]

“The basic relationship that’s not understood is that nature doesn’t give us a clean environment. Nature doesn’t give us a clean environment that we make dirty. It gives us a dirty environment that we need to make clean. So actually, the energy we get from using a lot more fossil fuels helps us purify water, helps us move water, helps us in general clean our environment.” […] It’s actually industrial progress at its core improves the human environment. So, in the human centered view of the world, we can’t just leave nature alone. We’re actively improving it.” [69]

“This idea of catastrophic pollution justifying a mass sacrifice of energy is invalid. So that should be dismissed.” [69]

“If we liberate fossil fuel use instead of restricting it is compatible with a safe climate, a clean environment, and continuous progress.” [69]

“My general view is that [..] the studies […] of these issues that are claiming millions of deaths due to coal plants, let alone gas, I don’t think those are valid.” [69]

“And not like the polar bears are disappearing, it’s not like the polar bears can’t survive if it’s two degrees warmer, whatever people are saying. So they have to move from one piece of ice to another or something. But you think about this priority, and the same thing with the caribou in Alaska.”[69]

October, 2016

“[W]e have to reject the false alternative of 'climate change believer' or 'climate change denier' and become 'climate thinkers' — people who think carefully about the magnitude of man-made warming and compare it with the unique benefits of fossil fuels.

Candidates who are climate thinkers will conclude that man-made warming is mild and manageable, not runaway and catastrophic. And thus they will conclude that fossil fuels should be liberated, not restricted.” [55]


Speaking with regards to climate change, in an interview on The Aaron Harbor, Epstein declared: [83]

“The burden of proof is on the catastrophists, and they have not met it, fortunately. They should be happy they have not, because their jobs depend on there being a catastrophe.” [3:59]

Talking about risks associated with pollution, and its effect on public health, Epstein said:

“Mercury levels are completely overblown, because natural mercury levels are so much higher than anything that can come from a coal plant. But, certainly theoretically, you could have amounts that were dangerous.” [12:10]


”[… ]Rockefeller and Standard Oil had profoundly changed the world for the better by providing something that enabled every other industry to excel like never before: cheap, plentiful illumination. And I realized that this kind of person and this kind of industry are so important to everything else in life—so important to every other productive endeavor—that they must be liberated from any ties that bind them.” [53]


“This is not an institution that has supported capitalism. It's wrong and misleading for people to say this pope has deviated from this pro-capitalism path. But this pope is probably the worse.” [35]

“[Pope Francis is] just looking at the negatives. The slant of his focus is not human well-being, it’s this idea of untouched nature.” [35]

“Everything that the pope is saying on the climate issue is very much lockstep with the establishment view that fossil fuel use has no unique positives and only catastrophic negatives. From that view if you had a climate catastrophe it would affect the poor,” he added.” [35]


“I am proud to work with the fossil fuel industry. I think it has historically done a horrible job of educating the public and I think my ideas will help it make a better case for freedom.” [30]

“[The Center for Industrial Progress'] model allows us to keep conflicts of interest to an absolute minimum as we do our research and writing. As for our relationship with the fossil fuel industry, it’s the same as everyone else–they pay for our ideas, we never accept money to voice theirs.” [30]


“The story of oil at its core is one of human aspirations, human challenges, and human triumphs. It’s a story of the aspiration to produce the best energy in the world—particularly the best portable energy to power the mobile machines that allow us to grow enough food to feed seven billion people, to whisk us away on amazing vacations, to have cars that allow us to work and play where we choose. Not to mention, the energy that improves our environment: by things like building water purification systems, sewer systems, and climate resistant buildings. Your story is a story of the challenge of figuring out how to produce this caliber of energy, which nature doesn’t automatically give us.” [25]

“The most important thing to having a healthy environment to live in is development. Which, ironically, is considered bad for the environment. This is exactly why undeveloped countries have the worst environments. It’s not some coincidence; it’s exactly because they are undeveloped. They breathe smoky air from wood fires because they lack centralized power plants—built by oil. They drink naturally contaminated water because they lack irrigation and water purification plants. They live with filth because they lack industrial scale sanitation. They are vulnerable to climate because they lack sturdy climate controlled homes. And they don’t get to enjoy nature very much for that matter, which is supposedly what you get when you take away industry because they lack modern transportation—no one’s going to the Grand Canyon with a five mile travel radius.” [25]


“The difference between a healthy environment and an unhealthy environment can be summed up in one word, and it's not 'CO2' or 'climate' or 'temperature.' It's 'development.' […] Whether you're drinking clean drinking water, listening to a thunderstorm with pleasure instead of fear, or going to the Grand Canyon, you should be thanking Big Coal, Big Oil, and Big Gas.” [8]

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.” [9]

“The natural environment is not particularly hospitable to human life … the key to having a good environment is improving it through work… . Energy is fundamentally an environmental improver and if we classify it that way it makes sense out of a lot of these controversies… . It's our obligation and our right to make [our environment] as good for human beings as possible. With that view, it's very easy for people to understand precisely the reason it's good to alter it — because it doesn't naturally come the way we need it to be.” [10]


“…so much of what has gone right in American industrial history is that this country used to have a philosophy that embraced the transformation of nature through energy and industry—that is, embraced industrial progress. The more I read and talked to experts in the field, the more I saw an opportunity to use my knowledge of philosophy, and in particular Ayn Rand’s philosophy, to change the way people think about energy, industry, and environment.” [7]


“…Americans are not 'addicted' to oil. 'Addiction' implies an intense desire for something harmful. But we do not desire oil irrationally; we consume it because it is a wonderful, life-sustaining product.” [12]


“Our lives depend on recognizing that human cloning, like all forms of 'playing God,' is a moral, life-promoting endeavor.” [13]


“To attribute rights to animals is to ignore the purpose and justification of rights—to protect the interests of man.” [11]


September 11, 2018

Writing at CIP, Epstein promotes a piece written by Tyler White, who as the President of the Kentucky Coal Association that criticized the tech industry, specifically Apple, for claiming to be powered by 100% renewables. [77]

“The goal of my consulting work is to create principled, persuasive messaging for other organizations that support pro-freedom, pro-flourishing policies. I only help with projects that I believe are advancing human flourishing through human freedom.”

August 19, 2018

Epstein spoke at TOS-Con 2018 in Richmond, VA on “The Human Flourishing Project.” According to description for Epstein's talk, “The mission of Epstein’s new endeavor, The Human Flourishing Project, is to develop such a system and to work with experts to apply it in their respective spheres. In this talk, Epstein will unveil the essentials of the system. 'If I am successful,' he says, 'you will leave with an immediately enhanced ability to acquire, organize, and apply the knowledge you need to flourish'.” [76]

View video below, via The Objective Standard on Facebook: [82]


Epstein spoke at the Heartland Institute's “America First Energy Conference” (AFEC 2018) in New Orleans, Louisiana. [73]

“The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s 'war on fossil fuels' and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change,” the conference description reads. [74]

Epstein gave a keynote presentation on August 7. [75]

March 22, 2018

Epstein spoke on “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” at the Wagner Noel Performing Arts Center for a membership luncheon of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Midland Reporter-Telegram reported. [72]

“The industry has a bunch of different channels of communication to use. But they also need to tell their story so that both the positives and concerns are objectively addressed,” Epstein said at the event.

““It’s amazing how little the conversation (about fossil fuels) cares about those people,” Epstein stated. “How often has the New York Times covered energy poverty? [72]

Without addressing the impacts that a changing climate could have on the world's poor, Epstein declared that reducing emissions would hit poor people the hardest: [72]

“Who cares about those 3 billion people? We just don’t want to raise the earth’s temperature one degree.”

According to Epstein, we need to “Get rid of unchanged nature as the standard.” According to Epstein, his goal is to reframe the conversation:  [72]

“There’s nothing special about me but I’m very clear about the right standard and I’m very clear on how the debate impacts human flourishing. My goal is not just to reframe the conversation but to get converts enthusiastic.” [72]


Epstein was a speaker at the Student Action Summit (SAS), hosted by Turning Point USA. In his speech, Epstein declares that “We're not concerned about climate change, per se” and that “The question is not how much we are changing the climate, that's not the fundamental question. That's the 'Earth framework' that says thou shalt not change the Earth. I don't believe that at all.” [71]

View his presentation below.

Event sponsors included:

*Sponsor listed as of November 2017, but removed as of January 2018. [70], [71]

**Sponsor added January 2018. [71]


Epstein spoke at the “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). During his speech, Epstein focused on the “framework” of the debate, and consistently emphasized what he describes as “human flourishing.” [69]

He portrays environmentalists and those seeking to reduce CO2 emissions as anti-human:

“This kind of anti-human Earth-centered thinking, where bias and sloppiness are OK as long as you’re ‘for the Earth,’ this thinking is not relegated to some dumb people or even a few smart people. This thinking is universal in our culture. It is to the point it is the framework by which we think about energy issues. Is this Earth-centered, which really means anti-human perspective.” [69]

Epstein notes that “If we can get people to agree to the right framework, then and only then can they really process the facts well.” [69]

“I’ve spent a lot of time working with individuals and companies, trying to teach them how to reframe discussions and trying to get this all to a science.”

“As much as I love fossil fuels, and as much as I love freedom, the key ‘f’ word of today is framework,” he concluded.

According to Epstein, reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables is a “terrifying” prospect. He also offers some advice on terminology, suggesting “They shouldn’t be called renewables, in part because they exclude hydro, I think they should be called unreliables. So I would encourage the good people in this audience to start using that terminology.” [69]

Going further, he describes policies favoring solar and wind “a murderous policy if it’s taken seriously” and claims that “we are completely ignoring the unthinkable costs of these radical restrictions on fossil fuels.” [69]

“There’s no justification for ignoring the benefits, and the unique benefits of fossil fuels,” Epstein told the audience. [69]

He also said we will never run out out fossil fuels because “Human ingenuity has an unlimited potential capacity to create new energy resources. […] There is no shortage of potential oil and gas and what human ingenuity has proven is we can get that. But we also don’t have to worry long term because we’ll figure out more ingenious things.” [69]

On the climate issue, Epstein said it is our duty to change the environment: “Nature doesn’t give us a clean environment that we make dirty. It gives us a dirty environment that we need to make clean,” Epstein said. “Energy is the key to mastering climate, which is what we should be aspiring to do.” [69]

He goes on to repeat the often-used argument that there have been higher CO2 levels in the past, even though he admits that “this doesn’t prove anything per se”: [69]

“You know, in the history of the planet there’s been way more CO2 and way higher temperatures. That’s just another indicator that doesn’t seem like catastrophe is looming,” Epstein said, later adding that “The idea that it's becoming unbearably hot is not empirically true.” — See SkepticalScience Myths #1.  [69]

According to Epstein, “the dominant models that are cited significantly overpredict the warming.” — See SkepticalScience Myth #6. [69]


Alex Epstein was hosted by Americans for Prosperity on a speaking tour at a number of AfP chapters across America on the “Moral Case for Fossil Fuels - Insight to Action.” According to the event descriptions, the presentations were developed by AfP's Grassroots Leadership Academy. Venues and listed dates include the following:

The Alaska event description reads: [66]

April 23, 2017

Alex Epstein attempted to debunk the 97% consensus of climate scientists that climate change is real and man-made, comparing those who believe in the consensus to anti-vaccine activists. View his PragerU video below, reposted at Capitalism Magazine in April 2017. Epstein argues that the benefits of fossil fuels outweigh any risks to climate change. [64]

“Fossil fuel opponents don't want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change,” Epstein claims. “Because if you did, you wouldn't be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels.”

February, 2017

Epstein began advertising a new workshop titled “Energy Messaging 2017, Challenges and Opportunities” catering to the oil and gas industry. The description provided via an email to his message list notes that “In recent years the oil and gas industry has learned the hard way that effective messaging is not a luxury—it is a necessity, whether to maximize the chances of project approval or maximize the motivation of employees.”  [56]

The workshop offers “the lessons of opposition successes,” outlining such opposition as “DAPL and Keep it in the Ground” which “have been far more effective than industry expected.”  [56]

“We can anticipate many of the threats they will pose going forward—and be prepared to meet them with the most effective messaging,” the description notes.  [56]

The four-hour workshop offers to give participants “ample time to ask questions about their specific situations. Additionally, participants will be given Epstein’s Stakeholder Strategy System tools to draft custom strategies for their own companies.” [56]

Epstein also posted on Facebook that his workshop would help with project approval: [57] October 19, 2016

Alex Epstein posted an “Opposing View” article in USA Today titled “Warming is mild and manageable” where he says that “'Climate change' — more precisely, man-made warming — is a side effect of using fossil fuels for cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.” [55]

According to Epstein “To ask candidates to address climate change without addressing the unique benefits of fossil fuels is like asking the candidates to address vaccine side effects without addressing the unique benefits of vaccines.”

“[W]e have to reject the false alternative of 'climate change believer' or 'climate change denier' and become 'climate thinkers' — people who think carefully about the magnitude of man-made warming and compare it with the unique benefits of fossil fuels,” Epstein adds. “Candidates who are climate thinkers will conclude that man-made warming is mild and manageable, not runaway and catastrophic. And thus they will conclude that fossil fuels should be liberated, not restricted.” [55]

July, 2016

Alex Epstein criticized a letter to Congress from 31 science associations advocating policies to combat climate change, reports The Washington Times. [45]

On June 28, 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued the letter and a press release introducing the letter, describing it as a  partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies “reaffirming the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions 'must be substantially reduced' to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.” [46]

The letter (PDF) addresses Members of Congress, writing to remind “of the consensus scientific view of climate change.” [47]

“This letter is not balanced, saying absolutely nothing about the unique ability of fossil fuels to provide affordable, reliable energy on a scale of billions,” said Epstein. “And it is not careful, failing to distinguish between the trivial fact that CO2 causes some warming with the unfounded speculation that CO2 causes catastrophic warming.” [45]


Alex Epstein's Center for Industrial Progress was listed among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change, reports The Washington Times. [43]

Epstein's response, writes The Washington Times, was “Buzz off, fascist. […] Only he didn’t say 'buzz.'” Epstein posted his response on Twitter (see screenshot below): Organizations named in the Massachusetts subpoena included the following: [43]

April 21, 2016

Alex Epstein was featured on a PragerU video titled “Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy.” According to Epstein, “fossil fuels don’t take a naturally safe environment and make it dangerous; they empower us to take a naturally dangerous environment and make it cleaner and safer.” [40]

Video below:


What if I told you that someone had developed an energy source that could help us solve our biggest environmental challenges, purify our water and air, make our cities and homes more sanitary, and keep us safe from potential catastrophic climate change? What if I also told you that this energy source was cheap, plentiful, and reliable?

Well, there is such a source. You probably know it as fossil fuel. Oil. Natural gas. Coal.

But wait? Don’t fossil fuels pollute our environment and make our climate unlivable? That, of course, is what we’re told…and what our children are taught. But let’s look at the data. Here’s a graph you’ve probably never seen: the correlation between use of fossil fuels and access to clean water. More fossil fuel. More clean water. Am I saying the more we that we have used fossil fuel, the cleaner our water has become? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

In the developed world, we take clean water for granted. We turn on a tap and it’s there. But getting it there takes a massive amount of energy. Think of the man-made reservoirs, the purification plants, the network of pipes. In the undeveloped world, it’s a much different story. They lack the energy, so they lack clean water. More fossil fuel. More clean water.

The same is true of sanitation. By the use of cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy from fossil fuels, we have made our environment cleaner. Take a look at this graph. More fossil fuel. Better sanitation.

Okay, what about air quality? Here’s a graph of the air pollution trends in the United States over the last half century based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency. Note the dramatic downward trend in emissions, even though we use more fossil fuel than ever. How was this achieved? Above all, by using anti-pollution technology powered by…fossil fuel: oil, natural gas and coal.

But even without modern pollution control technology, fossil fuel makes our air cleaner. Indoor pollution—caused by burning a fire inside your house, cabin, hut or tent to cook and keep warm—was a deadly global problem until the late 19th century when cheap kerosene, a fossil fuel byproduct, became available in America and Europe. Indoor pollution is still a major issue in the developing world today. The best solution? Fossil fuel.

And now we come to the biggest fossil fuel concern of all—global warming. On this very sensitive topic we need to get our terms straight: There is a big difference between mild global warming and catastrophic global warming. We can all agree on that, right?  The issue isn’t: does burning fossil fuel have some warming impact? It does. The issue is: is the climate warming dangerously fast?

In 1986 NASA climate scientist James Hansen—one of the world’s most prominent critics of the use of fossil fuels—predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. But as you can see from this graph, since 2000 the trend line is essentially flat—little or no warming in the last 15 years. That’s probably why we hear much less talk about “global warming” and much more talk about “climate change.”

Has this “climate change” made our world more dangerous? The key statistic here, one that is, unfortunately, almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” that is, how many people die each year from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures. In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide has rapidly declined – by 98%.

The reason is that the energy from fossil fuel has allowed the developed world to build a durable civilization, one highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on. The developing world—where natural disasters can still wreak terrible havoc—would like the chance to do the same. But to do that they will need a lot more energy. The cheapest, fastest and easiest way to get that energy is from fossil fuels.

I’m Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University.

According to their website, PragerU's mission is to “spread what we call 'Americanism' through the power of the Internet. Our five-minute videos are conservative sound bites that clarify profoundly significant and uniquely American concepts for more than 100 million people each year.” They focus on “Judeo-Christian” values including “freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values.” [41]

According to Conservative Transparency, PragerU has received $215,000 from the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. [42]

Alex Epstein's other PragerU videos include:


Alex Epstein spoke at a legislative hearing held by the The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee in Washington convened by James Inhofe (R-Okla.) E&E Reporter/Greenwire describes how Epstein testified that raising carbon dioxide levels would be beneficial to plants and America and defended fossil fuel use (video below). [36]

“The president's anti-fossil-fuel policies would ruin billions of lives economically and environmentally,” Epstein said, “depriving people of energy and therefore making them more vulnerable to nature's ever-present climate danger.” [36]

In Epstein's full testimony (PDF), he contends that fossil fuels keep us “safe” from nature's “dangerous climate”:

“Because while fossil fuel use has only a mild warming impact it has an enormous protecting impact. Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and air-conditioning, drought relief, and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, overwhelmingly from fossil fuels.” [37]

Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that Epstein was not a scientist: “You're a philosopher and not a scientist,” Boxer said, “and I don't appreciate being lectured by a philosopher and not a scientist.”[36]

Robert A. Sirico, President and founder of the Acton Institute, was a majority witness on the panel. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) pointed out the Acton Institute's past of fighting federal health regulations while receiving funding from the tobacco industry:  “When you're taking industry money and doing what industry tells you,” Whitehouse said, “I have an issue with that.” Sirico confirmed that about 5% of the Acton Instute's funding came from industry sources such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and organizations affiliated with the Koch brothers.  [36]

After Whitehouse had left the room, Epstein called on the senator to resign:

“As long as your life is being made possible by the people of the fossil fuels industry, I think you should be grateful,” Epstein said, “and I think it is a crime, a moral crime, that you are damning anyone by association.”
“And I wish Senator Whitehouse were here,” Epstein added, “because what he is doing to the free speech of those companies and anyone associated with them is unconstitutional, and I think he should apologize and resign.” [36]

When asked for comment on the remarks after the hearing, Whitehouse's office told Greenwire that “Mr. Epstein's comments don't merit a response.”[36]

At the end of the hearing, Boxer commented: “I'll never forget this hearing. We have a philosopher who wants Senator Whitehouse to resign. Senator Whitehouse, who is working every day to stop carbon pollution and save lives.” [36]


Alex Epstein writes in Forbes magazine “How Republicans Can Make Energy A Winning Issue In 2016.” His goal is to overcome Democrats' “anti-development, anti-freedom initiatives”—things like the Clean Power Plan, renewable fuel standards, green jobs, green building standards, solar subsidies, and energy efficiency mandates—by “changing tens of thousands of minds on energy issues, particularly on the morality of fossil fuels.” [38]

Epstein's primary tactic is to reframe the issue, suggesting that it is “moral” to use fossil fuels because he contends “the risks and side-effects of fossil fuel use […] are incomparably smaller than the benefits.” According to Epstein,  “short-term and long-term, the energy policy ideal is energy liberation.” [38]

“If we reframe the debate, making our ideals explicit, we can both win supporters and champions of the right policies, and expose the evil and anti-humanism of the wrong policies,” Epstein writes. [38]

He suggests that politicians should follow the Center for Industrial Progress's “America's Energy Opportunity platform” which suggests America can become “the world's energy superpower, overtaking Russia and the Middle East” by doing the following: [39]

March 22, 2016

Writing at Forbes, Epstein claimed that humans have little effect on sea level rise. [58]

“The impact on sea levels of human-influenced global warming pales in comparison to local factors and to the massive natural sea level rises of the past,” he wrote. “Global average trends can be alarming, however–not because of human beings but because of nature.”

According to Epstein, we should prepare for sea level rise by “ building the infrastructure necessary to cope with whatever sea level changes occur” because “we can never be sure what nature will throw at us.”

He concludes that, to adapt to sea level rise, we actually ned more fossil fuel use: [58]

“Thus, if the world wants to be safe from the sea, it needs more fossil fuels, more development, and more freedom.”

March, 2016

Epstein challenged Bill Nye to a debate on cliamte change, writing in an email that “ I believe I could do a lot of good by making an example out of him.” [65]

“If Nye’s followers and their networks are made aware of a live event or recording in which Nye’s position is shown to be unscientific (and immoral) and are exposed to a pro-human, big picture way of thinking about fossil fuels, it could create a measurable shift in how the youth view fossil fuels,” Epstein wrote in the email, shared by Robert Bradley Jr. at MasterResource. [65]


Alex Epstein claimed, in a Forbes article, that health risks related to the release of mercury by coal fired power plants were a “myth” while the “truth” is that “Shutting down coal power will make electricity more expensive and threaten human health, while the impact on mercury exposure would be so small that it will have no observable effect.” [59]

October 5, 2015

Alexander Epstein planned to release his “Energy Liberation Plan” for consideration by 2016 political candidates. While he initially planned to release the plan in October, as of April 2017 it still does not appear publicly available on the CIP website. [51]

According to an article by Epstein in Forbes, the Energy Liberation Plan seeks to combat “backwards energy and environmental policies that are anti-development, not anti-pollution.” He contends that we are “squandering the opportunity of a generation, through blind opposition to our three most potent sources of power: hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, and gas), nuclear energy, and hydroelectric energy.” [34]

Epstein concludes that “The Energy Liberation Plan is based on the timeless wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who believed that everyone has the right to produce and consume as they judge best so long as they do not violate the rights of others” (emphasis added).

Alex Epstein wrote an article in Forbes titled “Jerry Brownout,” where he criticizes California governor Jerry Brown for his opposition of fossil fuel use. According to Epstein, “it's crucial to understand just how destructive his anti-oil agenda is.”

“Energy abundance is essential to climate livability—since the natural climate is inherently variable, volatile, and vicious. And oil and other fossil fuels do infinitely more to make it safer than make it more dangerous. This has been proven and documented—there has been a 98% decline in the rate of climate-related deaths since significant global CO2 emissions began. For 40 years doomsayers have hidden our ever-safer climate by conflating mild, manageable global warming, which is real, with catastrophic global warming, which is not,” Epstein writes. [33]

Alex Epstein appeared at an event hosted by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation's Grassroots Leadership Academy to discuss “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.” [67], [68]

February 25, 2015

Epstein offered a solution on “How to solve the water crisis.” Writing at Forbes, he suggested that using more fossil fuels will be the best way to combat drought: [60]

“[T]hanks in part to increasing fossil fuel use, we are bringing about a world where our bodies and our crops have more of the water they need, not less,” Epstein writes. “Clearly, CO2 emissions have not had a significant effect on droughts, but expanded human ability to fight drought, powered by fossil fuels, has […]”


Alex Epstein claimed that the 97% consensus among climate scientists on man-made climate change “is 100% wrong.” [61]

“Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need,” Epstein wrote in an article at Forbes.

About a year before, Epstein had also written in Forbes claiming that there was a consensus “that in the last 15+ years there has been no significant global warming, despite record, accelerating CO2 emissions, and the climate models based on high sensitivity failed to predict this.” [62]

November 28, 2014

Alex Epstein offered followers of his Facebook page, “I Love Fossil Fuels,” the opportunity to receive a “Book-Coal Bundle” if they purchased his book The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels on Black Friday. [31] The social media post reads:

“Wondering what to give that downcast friend or colleague for the holidays, or that curmudgeon in your family for Christmas? How about something to brighten his day! With every copy of The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels you purchase on Black Friday, you will receive a free piece of coal. A perfect combo, The Moral Case offers an uplifting view of man's potential while coal serves as a reminder that even from the blackest of black can come light. There's tremendous untapped energy inside of each of us–even within your gloomy environmentalist neighbor–so let's fire it up this Black Friday! Happy shopping, Alex”

November 13, 2014

Alex Epstein hosts a Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) Session titled, “I am Alex Epstein and I just wrote a book called The Moral Case FOR Fossil Fuels (published by Penguin). AMA!” In response to a Reddit user's question regarding Epstein's sources of funding, Epstein wrote he was “proud to work with the fossil fuel industry,” which he believes has “historically done a horrible job of educating the public,” and thinks his ideas “will help [the fossil fuel industry] make a better case for freedom.” [30] Epstein states his main sources of revenue vary “depending on what [he's] working on,” but in the “last year it's been a combination of public-facing (e.g., getting paid to write the book [The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels]) and giving speeches, a lot of which are to industry groups,” noting that he'd be willing to “work with anyone fighting for freedom–but not for subsidies.” [30] Epstein continues by writing the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), his for-profit think tank, “has no funders,” and that the business “model allows [CIP] to keep conflicts of interest to an absolute minimum,” because CIP conducts its own research and writing. [30] As for Epstein's relationship with the fossil fuel industry, he writes “it's the same as everyone else–they pay for our ideas, we never accept money to voice theirs.” [30]


Alex Epstein releases The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, published by Penguin Random House. Epstein asks if everything we know about fossil fuels could be wrong, and suggests readers should “look at the big picture of fossil fuels”:

“Compared with the alternatives, the overall impact of using fossil fuels is to make the world a far better place. We are morally obligated to use more fossil fuels for the sake of our economy and our environment.” [28]

Epstein's writing received praise from Patrick Michaels and Matt Ridley on the book's publisher's page, which describes The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels as “the best popular-market book about climate, environmental policy, and energy,” as well as an “eloquent and powerful argument for using fossil fuels on moral grounds.” [28]

September 21, 2014

Alex Epstein attends the People's Climate March in New York, New York to “explain to protesters why they should stop marching against the lifeblood of civilization.” [26]

Epstein, at 3:50, states:

“You know, Mother Earth wasn't a very good mother for 99.9% of history. It was only a good mother once man industrialized it. So, I think we should thank 'Father Watt' for his achievement, for giving birth to the coal-fired steam engine.” [26]

June 5, 2013

Alex Epstein writes a letter published on the Center for Industrial Progress' website titled, “Don’t Divest, Educate—An Open Letter to American Universities,” in which he and several other notable climate change deniers, including Peter Ferrara, J. Scott Armstrong, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, David Schnare, Richard Lindzen, and Matt Ridley, proclaim that they are “proud to stand in favor of fossil fuels.” [32] The “undersigned scientists, philosophers, energy experts, and economists” of the letter ask for a “more rigorous education on energy and environmental issues,” and “are willing to debate anytime, anywhere to defend what [they] believe is right.” [32]

April 12, 2013

Alex Epstein speaks to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) in an effort to help Canadian fossil fuel companies reframe climate-related communications tactics to the public. [25] Epstein, in his talk, repeats his stance that “fossil fuels improve the planet” and protect society at large from the climate. [8] [25]

Epstein encourages fossil fuel companies to switch the conversation (from the “environmentalists' argument”)–and embrace their product as a communications tactic–as highlighted by the creation of his Facebook page entitled “I love Fossil Fuels.” [25] Noticeably and intentionally throughout his discussion, Epstein speaks to the incredible environment we live in, which he believes is possible only because of fossil fuels. He then motivates CAPP communications audience members to spread this type of dialog throughout the public sphere. [25]

February 19, 2013

Alex Epstein's website featured a testimonial from former Shell Oil Company CFO, Jeri Eagan. The website no longer exists. November 5, 2012

Alex Epstein debates leading environmentalist Bill McKibben on the issue of global warming. Epstein argues that “fossil fuels improve the planet” while McKibben presents the majority scientific view that the continued burning of fossil fuels will have a strongly negative impact on the environment. [8]

The debate was urged on by MasterResource's Robert Bradley who showed Epstein an article published by McKibben titled “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math” which Epstein now claims received “not nearly enough criticism.”

Epstein has launched a website, fossilfueldebate.com where he presents his case on the issue — that “McKibben is dead wrong about fossil fuels and our environment.” Epstein purports to take an “objective, scientific look” at why he believes fossil fuels have given us “the greatest environment in human history.” [14]

October, 2012

Alex Epstein hosts the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow's “North East speaking tour,” which included visits to “CFACT's chapters at the University of Connecticut, Sienna College, and Rutgers University.” [27] Epstein spoke to students about how “fossil fuels have allowed humans to better protect the environment and advance civilization and technology beyond the squalor of absolute poverty,” while debunking the “catastrophic claims being made about climate change.” [27] Epstein's speaking tour was a lead-up to his debate with Bill McKibben at Duke University on November 5, 2012.

May 21 - 23, 2012

Epstein's Center for Industrial Progress was listed as a co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). [15]

April 2 - 5, 2012

On April 2, 2012, Epstein spoke at the University of North Carolina. His speech was titled “The Green Blackout” and suggested that green energy policies are “harming both America's economy and environment.” It was sponsored by The Carolina Review, a conservative student publication associated with CampusReform.org. [16]

On April 3 he spoke at Furman University on “Why the Green Movement is Ruining America.” [16]

On April 5th he made a final speech at Pennsylvania State University titled “Fracking Amazing” which focused on the supposed benefits of hydraulic fracturing. According to Epstein, the media is “completely overblowing the risks of fracking… while completely undervaluing the benefits.” [16]

June 12 - June 13, 2011

Alex Epstein attended an international conference titled “Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny?” hosted by the American Freedom Alliance, a group that has been described by some sources as anti-climate science, anti-evolution and Islamo phobic in its outlook. [17]

Speakers included numerous conservative commentators and climate change skeptics such as Christopher Monckton, James Delingpole, Christopher Horner, Steve Milloy, Benny Peiser, and Brian Sussman. [18]

The American Freedom Alliance describes the event as “A Conference on Radical Environmentalism,” and suggests that “the contemporary Green Movement, represented by a variety of national and international institutions, may have far exceeded its original mandate to protect the Earth.” Topics debated included “The Assault on Human Exceptionalism”; “Agenda 21 and the UN Mandate for Social Revolution”; and “Transhumanism, Deep Ecology and Ecocide: How Are Shifting Social Attitudes Re-shaping Our Appreciation of Human Uniqueness?”


Tar Sands Affiliations

Alex Epstein gave a presentation to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in a speaker series titled, “How to Convert Fossil Fuel Opponents Into Supporters.” He gave a preview highlighting “key ideas” of his talks, which he noted would not normally be recorded or available to the public. [25], [29]

Epstein also spoke to the CI Energy Group who wrote they “would be more than happy to have [him] back anytime.” [29]

Alex Epstein's Professional References


Epstein has published articles in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, National Post, Washington Times, Detroit Free Press, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Arizona Republic, Indianapolis Star, Orange County Register, and Tampa Tribune. He has also written in quarterly journals (of “culture and politics”) including The Objective Standard.

According to Google Scholar, Epstein has never published an article in a peer-reviewed journal on any subject. View a larger list of Epstein's publications here (.xlsx).

Capitalism Magazine

Capitalism Magazine has republished an extensive lest of Epstein's publications. See some samples below:


 Alex Epstein Publications.xlsx
Center for Industrial Progress
