By Thomas Carey and Jordan Walker
The purpose of this Op-Ed is to present a rebuttal to the Criterion’s recent article “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Ryan Biller, published on February 26th, 2020. The Criterion is a student run newspaper at Colorado Mesa University. The purpose of this rebuttal is to evaluate both sides of this argument and let individuals arrive upon a genuine conclusion. The LEM Club’s stance is to uphold civil discourse for this rebuttal.
Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert who argues that “human flourishing” should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. Epstein is the author of the New York Times bestseller: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. This was the central theme to Epstein’s presentation.
Alex Epstein presented on the “Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” on Thursday, February 20th. Epstein was sponsored by the Land and Energy Management (LEM) Club. Epstein was supported with a generous grant from the American Association of Professional Landmen. Other grants were obtained to help with filming costs of this event and the purchase of books for curriculum development of the LEM program.
The LEM Club has approximately 44 members. 21 members were present at the event. From the time of the event to the article’s publication date, six days passed. During this time only one member of the LEM Club was contacted by Ryan Biller or affiliates of the Criterion. Biller nor Criterion affiliates did not take any statements from LEM Club members or many of the public that were supportive of Epstein’s views after the event.
The LEM Club believes that the Criterion article was a very unbalanced representation of Alex Epstein’s message, as well as alternate and LEM Club opinion. The LEM Club believes this to be true by statements made by Ryan Biller and some Colorado Mesa University students. For example – Ryan Biller’s opening statement – Epstein is not a self-titled philosopher. Epstein earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Duke University. This, by default, earns someone the title of philosopher, just as a degree earned in engineering earns someone the title of engineer.
Statements made from Ian Thomas (Vice President of Sustainability Council) and Michael Acker are obvious character attacks, made to discredit Epstein. This is demonstrated by “Cherry picked and misrepresented data used to support the exact opposite ideas it is representing is not only an affront to the revered scientific processes that created them, but also puts at risk our hopes for a livable future” (Thomas)
-and-
“Alex Epstein presented several extremely dangerous and irresponsible fallacies. I have never been in a room with a man so dangerous” (Acker).
Institutions of higher education have historically been places where diverse opinions and ideas come together to solve complex problems. Colorado Mesa University prides itself on a
diverse range of ideas within the student body and continues to promote this by allowing various speakers to come to campus. Additionally, we live in the United States of America, where the First Amendment of our Constitution grants us the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble.
Since the Criterion’s article lacked alternate viewpoints and LEM Club member’s opinions, the authors of this rebuttal would like to propose a few:
1. Thomas Marso (CMU Geology Major): “Epstein presented another side to the debate of whether or not fossil fuels should be used in our future by stating so much of the world is sustained by fossil fuels and an abrupt end to their use would impact the standards of living we have come to enjoy.”
2. Robbie Larkin from Western Colorado University: “It was an informative talk that gave me good resources to apply to my education.”
3. Jordan Larsen, LEM Treasurer: “Bringing Alex Epstein here was a milestone for the program and the industry. Epstein provided a framework of ideas to better represent the positives of the oil and gas industry that will benefit me and my fellow classmates in our future careers and help us change the stigma around fossil fuels.”
As a result of this event, The LEM Club expected controversy. This is because fossils fuels have become politicized. Some examples of this are: we are going to run out of fossil fuels, fossil fuels are the driving force of climate change, or fracking in general. Since being politicized, fossil fuels have been put under a negative spotlight through various forms of media outlets.
The LEM Club brought Alex Epstein to Colorado Mesa University to show the positives of fossil fuels, a topic that is rarely presented. One of Epstein’s main points is that everyone must weigh the benefits AND the side effects before decisions are made that could affect the lives of billions of people. Fossil fuels run the machines that power almost every industry in the world. From agriculture, manufacturing, health care, and transportation, fossil fuels are a major part of human existence. Fossil fuels not only drive industry, but are the main components for plastics, fertilizers, medications, and over 6,000 products that people use daily.
Fossil fuels have benefited humans since their discovery. This has made modern humans’ way of living very easy. Alex Epstein presented facts to support this claim. For example, human lifespan has increased, water/air quality has increased since the 1800s, and there are now lower infant death rates. These facts were chosen through nonpartisan sources that can be found on Alex Epstein’s website, www.industrialprogess.com. Epstein even offered these sources to be sent directly to your email via a signup sheet he handed out at the event, or by signing up for his email list.
The LEM Club would like to thank everyone who attended Alex Epstein’s presentation on February 20th, 2020. The closing forum where questions were asked and a diverse range of opinions were heard, was appreciated. Attendees and questioners were civil and respectful at
this event. If you were unable to attend or would like to see what Alex Epstein had to say, Epstein will be posting the video from the event on his YouTube channel ImproveThePlanet in the next few weeks. You can also view other Epstein events from Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Colorado, and Duke.
Perry Notten • Mar 21, 2020 at 10:05 pm
A sad day for America… An even sadder day for Brendan Lindner.
Brendan Lindner • Mar 15, 2020 at 3:13 pm
And the comments continue to attack both the LEM club as well as the writers of this OP-ed. Both classy and classic.
Props to the LEM club for putting this piece together. Very well written, articulate, and does an excellent job of addressing the points they considered important without being aggressive and attacking the opposing view. Very well written!
Marta Añez • Mar 13, 2020 at 2:09 am
here is my question to the LEM and Alex Epstein (and maybe this newspaper, too!), what is the harm of working towards clean energy? Even if climate change isn’t real, the worse that could happen if we prepare for it is creating a better future for our kids! If we act like it isn’t happening (like these people are), and if it is happening (which it is), then frankly we are done for. It’s like that quote about religion. A believer has nothing to lose. If the believer is wrong, nothing happens. If they are right, they are rewarded. Someone who does not believe will lose BIG if they are wrong! Might as well believe! Better safe than sorry people
Naomi Candice • Mar 13, 2020 at 2:04 am
is it just me, or does it seem like the crite is really trying to make the LEM guys happy? does anyone know if LEM and the newspaper are connected? overlap in membership maybe? seems weird. I wasn’t at the event, but I checked it out online. seriously, blatant lies! I’m a republican, and even I had the rational thought to say to myself, hey, this guy is not only misrepresenting information, but he’s totally lying! what the heck.
Chris DeLeon • Mar 22, 2020 at 2:38 pm
Thank you for the opportunity to provide clarification on an issue that apparently is a matter of confusion. Op-ed articles do not originate within The Criterion. In fact, they are generally written in opposition to something, including the stance of the newspaper. The term op-ed actually comes from “opposite editorial,” because they were traditionally placed on the opposing page of the editorial, and often literally opposed the editorial. In fitting manner, the op-ed in question specifically criticized The Criterion for the original coverage. Just like letters to the editor, The Criterion is not involved in editing op-eds because we don’t want to change any content that doesn’t originate with us. You may wish to reference the original coverage of the event and the opinion piece The Criterion published about Epstein if you still think The Criterion and LEM are complicit or have conflicts of interest. The truth is that we neither officially agree or disagree with letters to the editor or op-eds; we just publish them. Thank you for your readership and have a wonderful day.
Triniti Rivera • Mar 11, 2020 at 8:53 pm
I was disgusted by the fact that Thomas Carey and Jordan Walker could write such a belligerent and ignorant article. How could the Criterion publish an article like this.
Jeff Andrews • Mar 11, 2020 at 7:48 pm
After being in attendance to Mr. Epstein’s event, I must say that any rational person would realize that the LEM is a club that has lost any legitimacy for even hosting such a character. Epstein’s presentation was riddled with typos and basic grammatical errors. For example, the word “access” was misspelled as “acess”. But that isn’t even the point. Epstein’s platform is an entire fallacy. To say that there is “no harmony in nature” is nothing shy of absurd. Eco-systems, cells, the solar system, etc, etc, etc are all examples of the perfection of this world. He also suggested that we are not harming the planet, which is ignorance of the highest order. To indicate that we are not polluting the earth and that absolutely nothing should be done to remedy such a situation saddens me. People aren’t suggesting that fossil fuels haven’t helped humans flourished, but we are saying that they’ve helped us so much so that it will be at our expense if we do not do something now. The members of the LEM should apologize to their future children. The only comfort I can take away is that less people share such beliefs. Today is not only a sad day for the LEM, but a particularly sad day for The Criterion.