My discussion with Jusper Machogu at African Energy Week
Kenyan energy advocate Jusper Machogu and I were interviewed by Nadya Swart at African Energy Week. This is the video and full transcript of the interview.
Here is a full transcript of a recent discussion I had with Jusper Machogu, a Kenyan energy advocate whose profile is quickly growing, and Nadya Swart, a South African independent journalist. The discussion occurred right before my speech at African Energy Week. I very much enjoyed this discussion and I hope you do, too.
Nadya Swart:
I am with Alex Epstein and Jusper Machogu.
Alex Epstein:
Got it. [The right pronunciation of “Machogu.”]
Nadya Swart:
I was having difficulty getting that right, but I'm glad that I did. New York Times bestselling author of 2014, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and recently released Fossil Future book, and Jusper is an agricultural engineer from Kenya, and he's joining us. This is your first time out of Kenya?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, it's my first time.
Nadya Swart:
Amazing. Well, welcome to Cape Town. This is where we are. And Alex, you've been here before?
Alex Epstein:
I have been here before, just very briefly. Actually, this visit is even less than three days. So I keep making these ridiculously short visits to Cape Town because I have other obligations.
And I would also describe Jusper as, I think he's one of the new, exciting energy freedom advocates in the world. And we have a bit of a history, we never met in person, so I wanted to meet him here.
Nadya Swart:
Well, that's why you guys are here. Today kicks off the beginning of the African Energy Week conference. And I have to say, I'm a little bit surprised that fossil fuel advocates are not only invited as keynote speakers but welcome. So it's not a green conference, I assume?
Alex Epstein:
No, I think it's a lot of oil and gas people. I think it has multiple [forms of energy], that's probably why they call it African Energy Week, it probably has some diversity of energy in it. I do think, though, I am the most controversial speaker, I think there's no doubt about that. And I intend to fully make good on that with what I say.
Nadya Swart:
Okay. And Jusper, you met Alex how long ago? He let me know that you are from Kenya. I want to actually know what the situation is like in Kenya, but he's been mentoring you to get to the point of actually being a fossil fuel advocate. When did you guys meet? Tell me the story.
Jusper Machogu:
Okay.
I was supposed to go to school. That's how I met Alex because I think in one of his tweets he was talking about Washington Post trying to cancel him because they termed him as a racist. But I didn't know him as a racist. I knew him as somebody who was advocating for energy, like energy freedom, especially in Africa. That's how I knew Alex. After that, I wrote a letter to Washington Post, because that's what we were doing as Alex supporters or fans, and that's how we got to meet with Alex. I wrote a letter and I also forwarded it to Alex. And he liked it. After that, we are here.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, but part of it's, you were one of these people who responded to me on Twitter, and your responses were consistently interesting. So I already had you flagged. I didn't just learn about you from that Washington Post thing. In the time when I could actually follow my Twitter response, which, now Elon ruined Twitter. Sorry, you can't follow anything. But yeah, now you were a sharp guy. And I guess one of my goals for a long time was to, I really wanted to see, there were some certain natural people who should be talking about the case for fossil fuels and energy freedom who weren't. One group was the oil industry, which just never said anything positive about themselves. And one of my goals was to try to get them to do that, which I've had some significant success in.
And then the other one was, well, the biggest victims of the anti-fossil fuel agenda should be very vocal. And there's no bigger area of victims than Africa, because what happens is with the anti-fossil fuel movement, the people that are going to be hit worst are the people who haven't developed yet. The people who have developed, or who are more midway through development, like China and India, they're going to be much more reluctant to give up what they have. It's always easier to stop something new. So Africa is the next natural place to develop rapidly, just like China did, India did starting 40, 50 years ago.
But with the anti-fossil fuel movement, they're telling Africa, “Hey, don't develop using fossil fuels. Do it some other way.” Even though the rest of us all used fossil fuels and continue to use fossil fuels. And none of us can use dominantly solar and wind, but somehow the poorest people in the world are supposed to. So it makes no sense. But I didn't hear any international voice for this. And so one of my goals in my books was to empower people who were from this part of the world, so it's not just Alex Epstein who lives in Laguna Beach, California saying, “Hey, Africa needs fossil fuels, India needs fossil fuels.” So that actually people from there would. And there are a couple of people that I've encountered, including actually NJ Ayuk is a really cool guy. He's organizing African Energy Week, and he's the one who insisted on bringing me. So he's a lawyer, he's been a really good advocate.
But I'm always on the lookout for new, there's a really good guy from India, Vijay Jairaj, who I interviewed on my show once, who's another guy. And then I saw Jusper, and he was clearly very bright. And then as we started to talk, one thing that impressed me is, I would tell him something or maybe give him some advice, and then I wouldn't talk to him for three months, and then he would go do a lot of cool stuff on his own, including recently, maybe you should tell people about your internship.
Jusper Machogu:
Oh, yeah.
Alex Epstein:
He started offering this very interesting internship.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, I do have a net-zero or sustainable internship running, but I haven't got people signing up for it. I think they're scared. So some interesting things have happened-
Nadya Swart:
Well, what is… What does it entail?
Jusper Machogu:
The internship is, you come to Kenya. We are a community, so we're going to do stuff that we usually do. So usually we are about 99% farmers. So we're going to do farming manually. That's how we do it. If it's plucking tea, we do it manually. We do hoeing, we do weeding using the horse manure. Everything is done manually. We fetch water from a river about 600 meters away manually. Everything is done manually. So that's the sustainable internship that I have running. But the funny thing or interesting thing that has happened for the few people that I have invited, including, there is a lady working for the UN-
Alex Epstein:
Sophia Kianni?
Jusper Machogu:
... Sophia Kianni. The moment I mentioned that in one of her tweets, she blocked me. I've also invited people like Greta Thunberg, among others. Yeah.
Nadya Swart:
And you're surprised that didn't go well.
Jusper Machogu:
I'm not surprised, because most of these people, they're earning well. But even African activists, they're blocking me on Twitter because the moment I mention, like, “We need energy, we need lots of fossil fuels.”
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
Because as Alex says, the energy industry runs every other industry. So we need lots of fossil fuels, not just wind and solar, which is a tiny percent of the total energy consumption throughout the world. So the moment I say that people end up blocking me, which is not a good thing.
Nadya Swart:
That's the thing about this whole net-zero. And I'm still trying to understand it because there's net-zero 2050 and then there's sustainable development goals 2030. Someone needs to explain this to me because every time I've spoken to someone about the whole net-zero movement, I spoke to climate scientists about this all the time. And they'll say, “Really? It's the most ridiculous thing. It's the most harmful thing to actually strive towards a world with no carbon dioxide. This is plant food. This is what keeps us alive.” And then you'll get a lot of comments, and a lot of people will say, “No, don't even read the comments, but honestly, I am just learning about these things.” You'll learn so much from people that are invested in watching a 45-minute interview in the comments, and they'll say, “That's not what net-zero is about.” But what is net-zero about? Because I spoke to Kevin Trenberth, and he's one of the IPCC’s most regular contributors. And he says, “It's just about maintaining the level of carbon dioxide.” But according to who and who maintains this, who decides?
Alex Epstein:
Well, there's a question of what net-zero is technically. I think the interesting thing is they advocate what they call sustainable development goals, which I think in so far as those actually involve any real development are in total contradiction to net-zero. But net-zero just technically means no new CO2 is added to the atmosphere. So it's whatever we started with before we industrialized and became prosperous, let's say it's about 280 parts per million, net-zero back then would've meant stay at 280, and now it's around 420. So it just means stay at 420. And the specific proposal is usually by 2050 we reach a peak. So let's say we're at 450 by 2050. We never go above that. And then that means that every year we cannot emit more CO2 than we somehow absorb, which basically means get rid of fossil fuels. So net-zero is code for rapidly eliminate. Net-zero by 2050 is code: for rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use. You're making a lot of interesting facial expressions.
Nadya Swart:
Oh, no, I tend to do that. I have the resting concerned face… It still confuses me because-
Jusper Machogu:
If I can tell you something about sustainable development goals, because Alex just talked about net-zero?
Nadya Swart:
Uh-huh.
Jusper Machogu:
So the sustainable development goals, it's a nice framework by the UN, whereby they came to Africa, did good research on what we need to develop by starting with our biggest problems, the 17 problems or 16 problems minus climate change. And then they designed a solution, solutions for those problems centered around climate change. So the sustainable in SDGs just means centering everything around climate change. And that's a big problem because when they say climate change is happening, they're saying, “Let's not use fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are emitting lots of carbon into the atmosphere.” And that's not a good thing because we need lots of energy. How do we develop minus fossil fuels? How do we develop minus energy? Show me one country, a developed country that developed minus fossil fuels. Show me one.
Nadya Swart:
For a country that actually has eliminated carbon dioxide emissions and fared well, look at Sri Lanka. How are these countries not cautionary tales to the rest of the world?
Alex Epstein:
That's part of what I'm talking about at African Energy Week. But I do think this, because I forget all the sustainable development goals, but some of them are legitimate in terms of we want more water, right, education, things that are pretty universally valuable. But notice, why is “sustainable” in front of it? I think anytime anyone starts using a new word without explanation, I am very suspicious. The philosophy background makes you question this thing. And one question is you asked, “How many countries have developed without fossil fuels?” The answer is zero. My question in addition to that is how many countries have developed with sustainable development? And the answer is also zero. So what does sustainable development mean in practice? In practice it means, as Jusper said, develop without fossil fuels.
But the broader idea of “sustainability” is that we should live a repeatable lifestyle. That's what they mean by sustainable. So we need a lifestyle where we do the same thing over and over. That's why they love the idea of solar and wind, because you just put some panels up, and wind turbines up, and you forget that they break down after 10 or 20 years and you have to rebuild them. But it's just like, “Oh, we're just going to take in the sun and the wind, and it's going to be magical, and we're not going to change anything.” It's really about, “Let's do the same thing over and over just like the other animals do, and let's not impact much.”
But that's not how humans develop. The way we develop is we transform nature and we don't do sustainable things, we do evolving things. So we figure, it's not that we use fossil fuels for a million years, it's we use fossil fuels maybe for a few hundred years. And then you find nuclear fission, and then you find nuclear fusion. But it's an evolving or progressive way of existence. That's a human existence. But they want us to live like animals. But when humans live like animals, we just stagnate for thousands of years.
Jusper Machogu:
And then the problem with the UN, I wouldn't trust the UN to have Africans' best interests at heart, because there is a very interesting article that the UN did, I think back in 2008, so that the article was titled “The Benefits of World Hunger.” And I wouldn't trust them.
Nadya Swart:
Oh, that's quite shocking.
Alex Epstein:
Oh, man. Yep.
Nadya Swart:
So any of those, what those benefits were?
Jusper Machogu:
So what they said was, “Who is going to mow our lawns? Who is going to do vegetables for us?” And when the author was asked, I think Steve Milloy, or somebody of the sort, asked him, like, “Was it satire?” Because the UN clarified at some point and said, “Oh, it was satire. It was meant as satire.”
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
So the author was asked, “Was it satire?” And he said, “No, it wasn't satire.” So I wouldn't trust the UN.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, that's one of a million reasons I wouldn't trust the UN on anything. The UN, it's this weird thing where the conception of the UN was, “Let's get all the countries together regardless of whether they're free or not.” So near the conception, two of the most influential members of the United States, one of the freest countries in the world, and then Soviet Russia, one of the most murderous countries in the world. And the idea is that if we allow, just everyone has a voice and then it'll somehow end up just, and it almost never does anything just. And here it's been the number one vehicle of imposing these anti-fossil fuel, but also anti-nuclear, really anti-energy ideas on the world.
And again, the biggest victims are the countries with the least standing and the least wealth. So you see that with the African nations, they're getting pressured, “Don't develop coal, don't develop your oil, don't build pipelines.” And that's much more harmful when you're just at the beginning of development than it is to the richer countries, which even aren't really doing it. And to the extent they are, as you mentioned, they're suffering. So you look at Germany suffering from its solar and wind policies. Now you imagine, “Okay, let's impose that on Kenya. Let's try to have them do what's failing in Germany.”
Jusper Machogu:
And the funny thing is, you're talking about solar panels in Germany. So usually solar and wind don't work most of the time. A good example is Germany. The solar panels in Germany work 12% of the time. In Africa, I think they work around 25 to 30% of the time. And what will we be using when, about 70% of the time, what will we be using?
Nadya Swart:
How is it then that countries like China who are already very advanced, but it's warranted by the fact that they had their recession and the economy was suffering, that they were building a bunch of coal plants? Mainly, they already have, I think they have more coal plants in the process of being built right now, than the rest of the world has. Yeah. But it's excused when they're one of the biggest nations supposed to be leading this whole net-zero of 2050 thing. It doesn't make sense. Like, should the main, stronger nations not be leading by example? It does seem like a very bullying, victimized, because we, South Africa, we're in deep trouble, and now we're being exposed, and we have, what, no choice. And now we are signing these contracts. We are getting into loans with all these people. What is the situation in Kenya at the moment? What have you guys agreed? What has the government agreed to?
Jusper Machogu:
What our government agrees to is different to the reality. So our government is talking about green hydrogen, thanks to Germany, because Germany is doing a lot of work in Africa, telling African politicians, “Oh, you should develop green hydrogen.” But at the end of the day you realize that green hydrogen, even in China, China is the largest consumer of hydrogen, but you realize less than 1% of their hydrogen is green. So it doesn't make sense. And hydrogen is not going to replace fossil fuels with its energy density…
So our government is being pushed by, I'd say the IMF, because the IMF, just as the UN, they don't want us to develop. So last year, this year, actually, I think in June, the IMF was pushing our government to end fuel subsidies. Our government didn't. For the past three months, our fuel prices have gone up, and people, the ones who owned vehicles are leaving them at home. So that's the UN, that's the IMF. That's what they do. That's World Bank. That's what they do. It's not good. We are not going to develop, or if we're going to, it's going to take more time.
Alex Epstein:
One thing to say about the UN agenda stuff, you mentioned something about at least they're claiming, “Hey, here are the guidelines for how to develop.” But we have already huge guidelines for how to develop because we can look at what every developed nation has done. And so one thing that's clear is, “Well, you need to use the cheapest energy you can get.” And almost always for electricity for developing nations, that's coal, which you say, “Coal is the most opposed form of energy today.” So that hurts African nations the most, to oppose coal.
But then more broadly, you can see, “Well, how to develop as you need a business-friendly political climate, including some political economic freedom or some quasi version of that.” Even China has a quasi-version of that, where they somewhat respect the rights of foreign investors, and they've been able to develop. So one thing is just if you look at the UN, it's generally hostile to fossil fuels, and it's generally hostile to capitalism. And yet those are the things that are necessary. And so I think it's easy for, maybe you experience it as they don't want Africa to develop, and I experience it as they don't want anyone to develop. But Africa is the victim of that because this anti-development idea is taking place at a time when Africa's development is in the balance. And it's very comparable to nuclear.
So the whole anti-energy movement has been actually more successful in restricting nuclear than fossil fuels, even though nuclear is supposedly what they would want because it's very clean and it's actually very safe. It doesn't emit CO2. But the green movement arose pretty near the beginning of nuclear development. And so they were able to stop something new, versus with fossil fuels, it was so entrenched that they could just stop its growth, which has already been tremendously destructive. But with nuclear, so it's like nuclear in Africa, there are these earlier stage things at the green movement, the green movement being at its peak power is a menace, too.
Jusper Machogu:
Because we're talking about electricity, I come from a family of six people, and we usually consume about 12 to 16 kilowatt-hours in a whole month. So if you go to Alex's place, so I'm talking about an average American, they consume 13,000 kilowatt-hours per year. It's a lot of electricity. That's electricity, now. If you come to Sub-Saharan Africa, about 80% of our energy consumption is coming from burning firewood, cow dung, charcoal, 90%. So when we talk about electricity, we have electricity. Kenya has got plenty of electricity. We have about 85% of our population connected to the grid.
But at the end of the day, you realize that we don't have microwaves, we don't have laundry machines, we don't have the fancy stuff. Anyway, generally we don't have much. We are poor people. So you give us electricity, what are we going to use the electricity for? The first thing we need is energy to help us become rich. So once we become rich, we can now afford microwaves and laundry machines, then we can use more electricity. But at the moment, when you talk about even if it's nuclear, nuclear, it's amazing, I know. But it's not amazing for us because what we need first is energy to help us become rich so that we can now afford the stuff that we need for electricity.
Alex Epstein:
There's a couple of things this reminds me of. One is something you do that I like, is: Ca you tell them about your poster boards that you hold up? Because he is this very cute thing that he does.
It's a very effective thing. This is what I love when people come up with innovations. So this is something where I just started seeing him do this. I'm like, “Oh, this is clever. And it's getting pretty good responses.” So you have these little posters?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, I usually do posters. A good example is on nuclear, I love nuclear, but it's just electricity. I have others for sustainable development goals. So what I try to do is I try to compress all my thoughts in just a poster. It could be five points, three points, two points, stuff like that. So it has helped me become even more popular on Twitter because thanks to Alex, of course, and other people, Jordan Peterson has retweeted my work, me holding the posters up. Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
But it's good, because it's something like, “The average African uses this much electricity. The average American uses this much electricity. You're telling us not to use fossil fuels.”
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, I also do comparisons. A good example is the amount of oil that we consume in a day. For the US, it's 20 million barrels of oil per day. That's how much they consume. That's 330 million people. So if you come to the East African region, it has got 470,000 [470,000,000] people. We consuming 600,000 barrels of oil per day. Africa as a whole has got 1.4 billion people. It's consuming 3.9 billion barrels of oil [million barrels of oil per person] per day, compared to 20 million barrels of oil [per person] per day for 330 million people. It doesn't make sense.
Alex Epstein:
One thing that's pretty cool is what, you're saying these things, and sometimes they're being seen now by what, hundreds of thousands of people? And who else is doing that from the African continent? Almost no one is doing it in general, but it's just does it feel a little bit odd that you're just in a sense, some random farmer from Kenya and you're starting to become known internationally?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
It's part of what you've done and then also just the power of the Internet to share these things.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, it's so interesting because usually on Twitter, on social media, what I usually see is they just transition groups. They're talking about transitioning from, I don't know, is it fossil fuels to green energy? But 90% of Sub-Saharan African energy is coming from burning biomass. So that's green already. What? It doesn't make sense.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah. You've said that, “Green energy is neither green nor energy.”
Alex Epstein:
Yeah. Not really energy and it's not really green.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
It's more important that it's not really energy because I don't care about things being green.
Nadya Swart:
As opposed to where fossil fuels, it might actually, really, be energy.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah.
Nadya Swart:
And where would these banned nuclear and hydro, for example, I think that we will get there later, but nuclear, it's so demonized. But it's the cleanest.
Alex Epstein:
Right. Well, that question helps call into question the idea of “green energy,” because in practice it really means almost all solar and wind.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
There's huge hostility toward nuclear, and then quite a bit of hostility toward hydro. And so it's fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro. What do those have in common? Well, they have in common that they're real energy in the sense of they are able to deliver energy that is very reliable at low cost for a large number of people. Hydro is a lot, but it can only expand so much because you're limited by where you can build dams and that kind of thing. But it's notable that there's hostility toward the two forms of non-fossil fuel energy that are the most plausible substitutes for fossil fuels. And then above all, nuclear. And then, if you look at solar and wind, they don't actually provide reliable energy right now.
Now, theoretically, you could combine them with other things and provide reliable energy cheaply. I'm open to that possibility. That's not what's happening now, but I'm totally open to that. But in their current incarnation, I call them unreliables, because they're just on grids. They get subsidized, they get mandated, they get all these preferences, so they just dump a bunch of unreliable electricity on the grid. And then the rest of us have to figure out what to do with it. Sometimes, it's always too little or too much. It's never the amount that you need because you can't control it. It's usually too little. And so what happens is you need near 100% life support.
So you have to pay both for the solar and wind infrastructure, but then also for the reliable infrastructure. And then if you want to save money, then what you do is you shut down the reliable infrastructure. And I call this reliability chicken, because you're just hoping, right, you're hoping the sun shines enough, the wind blows enough, doesn't get too hot, doesn't get too cold. And that's why I say in the US, we have electricity shortages around the country, which we didn't used to have, because we've been so focused on solar and wind. So that's why I say they're not real energy. So that's the main problem with them. And so there's this movement that claims, “Hey, we just want better energy. We don't dislike energy. We just don't like fossil fuels.” But then you say, “Wait, you don't like nuclear, you don't like hydro. And then the thing you do say you doesn't provide real energy. And then you say you like it because it's green, which means it doesn't impact nature. But then you look at solar and wind, and they have a very large impact on nature.”
Nadya Swart:
Also, they require so much fossil fuel assistance…
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, well, to make them and then…
Right. But it's interesting, even on their own, though, they have a lot of impact and they get opposed. So for example, they involve a huge amount of mining. And you see more and more opposition to that around the world. And they involve just building all these structures around the place, and you're seeing more opposition, and they require very long-distance transmission lines. So you see this thing where the green energy movement says, “We don't like fossil fuels, we don't like nuclear, we don't like hydro. We like solar and wind.” But then in practice, they don't like the mining, they don't like the construction, they don't like the transmission lines. And so then they end up slowing green energy, too, because it's not green, so what's going here? What's going on here is green is an anti-human idea. Because the idea of green is that you should minimize or eliminate your impact, but that's not compatible with energy. Because what we use energy for is to impact our environment. That's what you do with energy, is you do work on nature, you impact nature.
So what the real hostility is, they don't like abundant, plentiful energy. That's why there's hostility not just to fossil fuels, but nuclear and hydro. And I think the solar and wind fetish is just a ruse, because if they said, “We hate all energy,” they wouldn't get away with it. [So they say] “Oh, we just want cleaner, green energy.” But then the green energy doesn't even work. And then insofar as it could work, they oppose the development. So what you see is that green means anti-human-impact, and that means anti-energy, which ultimately means anti-life. And maybe a really clear exponent of this is Michael Moore. Did you ever see this thing Planet of the Humans? This was big a few years ago. He had this documentary. Planet of the Humans.
Jusper Machogu:
Oh, yeah.
Alex Epstein:
And it was very critical, interestingly, of solar and wind.
Nadya Swart:
… from Planet of the Apes.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, it was a take on that. It was a take on that. But interestingly, a lot of pro-fossil fuel people liked it because it was very critical of solar and wind and all the impact they have. But Moore's solution at the end was, “We shouldn't be using any of this stuff. There should just be fewer people using less energy.”
Well, that's, of course, the logical implication of green. If you want to minimize impact, you need to minimize the population. Imagine if I told you, “Hey, you know what? I hate lion impact. Lion impact is evil.” Well, how do you solve lion impact? You depopulate the world of lions.
Jusper Machogu:
I think that's what's happening, because the WEF is right now talking so much about degrowth, and I've seen plenty of people on Twitter talking about degrowth. It's a trending topic.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
I think it boils down to depopulation. And of course, I'm worried because the West thinks that because the WEF is Western, they think Africa and Asia are overpopulated. So if degrowth or depopulation is going to happen, it's going to happen, it's going to start in Africa. And that's not a good thing. I think that's why they don't want us to have access to fossil fuels, which is energy. Because with energy, we can do whatever we want to do. We can be very rich.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah, we can.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, we're going to flourish.
Alex Epstein:
And notice, you see this refrain by people in the prosperous world, and they say, “We can't afford to have everyone live like we do.”
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
But they never become poor themselves.
Jusper Machogu:
Obama said that. Back in, I think 2012 or 2013, Obama, he was addressing a group of African youths. And he said, so I'm not saying what he said exactly, but the general thought was, “So, Africans, if everyone of you has got a nice car, a modern house, and air conditioning, the world is going to boil over. So boil over.” That's what Obama said. So I wouldn't trust the West to have the best-
Nadya Swart:
No.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
It seems to be more popular than ever to say that, “If you just support something with words and your voice, then that means you've acted.” So they can say, “I am concerned about climate change. I think we use too many fossil fuels.” And then just live the exact same lifestyle, but then say, “Oh, well, of course Africans can't use them. We can't afford that.” I think this is part of the opportunity I've believed in for a long time of Africans speaking up. Because I can speak up and I think it's had a real effect. But the victims of the injustice are going to be the most effective. So I think that's part of the reason why you're effective, and I think you and others are going to be much more effective going forward, much more than anyone expects, because they have no moral ground to stand on whatsoever.
Jusper Machogu:
Thank you. And what's happening now is the UN, of course, it's a big, big rich organization. It's funding climate activists in Africa. So nobody's going to say no, because if I'm poor, and the UN approaches me, and tells me, “Oh, Jusper, we have work for you. This is what you're going to do. You are going to carry signs up, saying, ‘Just transition.’ Or you're going to say, ‘Let fossil fuels stay on the ground in Africa.’ And we're going to pay you. You're going to travel throughout the world. We're going to give you a five-star hotel.”
Nadya Swart:
I think that's really happening.
Jusper Machogu:
That's what's happening. If you look at these climate activists, they are usually attending meetings throughout the world. That's a good thing for them. But it's not a good thing for Africans.
Nadya Swart:
No.
Jusper Machogu:
Yes.
Nadya Swart:
But generally, from what I've noticed, there are elite people to begin with that are now just traveling around the world, and there's just another notch on their belts. I didn't know that it was actually a reality that they were going to poorer people and saying, “Hey, here's signs. Carry them around, make some-”
Alex Epstein:
Well, that's been-
Nadya Swart:
“And we'll pay you.”
Alex Epstein:
Greenpeace has always done some version of that, mostly through private donations. But they give these kids this money. I think you were involved in them at one point. Weren't you involved with Greenpeace?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, I was a Greenpeace member back in university, but not so popular. Okay. What we used to do was we'd go through university doing cleanup activities, let's say polyethylene and stuff like that. That's what we used to do. Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
One thing that just occurred to me, because I was wondering, like, “Why is it that Jusper is having success and other people who were in more of a position, more of a leadership position with larger audiences, hadn't had a success?” And I think a lot of it is maybe just because you were independent because you were just doing your own thing.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
And so you could just say whatever you wanted. And with the Internet, nobody's going to stop you. Versus people in the more establishment organizations, there's so much fear.
Nadya Swart:
Yes.
Alex Epstein:
This is true of the oil industry, I think too, why they didn't speak up. When you're held back by fear, you say these very boring things.
And the basic message you get from the fossil fuel industry is, “We're not quite as bad as you think.” That's their main message. And that's a boring message. No one will listen to that. Whereas if they said, “Hey, we're actually really good.” Then people will listen to that. I think when somebody says the controversial truth that's interesting, versus the more institutional people who wouldn't say it, that's why I hope other people learn from your example, though, that actually saying what you think is the truth is the ticket to actually being persuasive.
Jusper Machogu:
I agree with that, although that can land one in trouble. Last year we heard that something happened to us. Okay, I was supposed to go to university, as I said earlier. And what happened is at some point, two weeks before my flight, the school told me, “Oh.”
Alex Epstein:
We should tell the longer story because this was a whole ordeal.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. I was supposed to go to school for my master's degree in post-harvest technology. And we did everything. Okay. So-
Alex Epstein:
We did a public fundraiser.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. We had a GoFundMe, we raised our money. And then at some point, because we were running out of time, Alex said, “Oh, Jusper, I'm going to help you with that, with the school fees and stuff.” And after that, everything went very well. I had booked my flight ticket to London. Accommodation, everything was paid for, the school fees was cleared. So two weeks-
Alex Epstein:
After 100 bureaucratic hoops, which, anyone knows me, is the thing I least like spending my time on. We're like, okay, “He wants to go to this school, let's make it happen.” And then, so we just jumped through every hoop. You and I both were up a lot doing this.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
And so this is the context of then what happened.
Jusper Machogu:
So what happened is two weeks before my flight, the school wrote to me, they said, “You're not going to join us. You can try next time because of the risks associated with the mentioned persons.” The only mentioned person was-
Nadya Swart:
Was-
Jusper Machogu:
... Alex Epstein, because he was my-
Nadya Swart:
Your sponsor.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. So they just canceled me.
Nadya Swart:
I've never heard of any other case before where someone's sponsor for school was a reason that they weren't allowed. How many people have been sent through school? What were you planning on studying on doing your masters in?
Jusper Machogu:
Post-harvest technology, that's the processes after harvesting food, those processes, rest processes. Yeah, it's not even about, it wasn't about oil and gas, coal. It wasn't about that.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, it's hard to say. There are all kinds of crazy biases and there's a lot of just incompetence and bureaucracy in these things. But ultimately, I'm glad. It was really sad that we did this thing and people were contributing and stuff like that. But ultimately, I'm glad it didn't happen because I hate most institutions of, “higher learning,” or at least my view is, “You should only go if you really need to for some purpose.” So I deliberately, I went to school just because it was in my family. And at that time, 1998 to 2002, there was just no consideration of not doing it. I think now, if I were in my same status, I wouldn't go to college. And even when I was in school, it was very controversial to not do graduate school, because I wanted to be a philosopher, and I just thought, “I'm going to actually get knowledge efficiently versus going through seven years of this thing.” And I think you're learning a lot more on your own than would happen… and particularly for the energy stuff.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, and I'd say generally school is somebody like an institution brainwashing you. Yeah.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah. If they're upset with that kind of thing, then the curriculum that you're about to learn is most likely somewhat intercepted or affected by that mindset as well. But on the point of philosophy, it's very interesting, your background, when you studied philosophy and then you became a fierce advocate of fossil fuels. And that's the way that you actually pinpoint that the way that we think about fossil fuels is that it's a knowledge system that's wrong, that that's where our systemic flow is, that we are not seeing the good in it, and that we need to replace the impact with human flourishing system.
Alex Epstein:
The anti-impact.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah. Anti-impact. Do you see any intonation of that having happened yet since you've spoken about it, since you've lectured about it? What are the chances? Where do you see this whole thing going?
Alex Epstein:
Well, so just because probably the most people have read Fossil Future, I use this term “knowledge system,” which, I coined it for a purpose, because we often think of, “Oh, the media says X,” but it's really, there's something broader than the media because there's, “What do all these institutions say? What do we learn in kindergarten? What do we learn in high school? What do we learn in college? What do we learn, yes, from the media, but also what do we learn from official government institutions?” And I call this collection of institutions and also influential people, our “knowledge system,” because that's the system of institutions and people we rely on for expert knowledge and guidance, which is a very important thing to rely upon. But my observation is that when it comes to fossil fuels, they're committing a very obvious error that nobody has been able to convince me they're not committing, which is that they're almost exclusively looking at the negative side-effects of fossil fuels, but not the benefits.
And if you look at the benefits of fossil fuels, if you just look at them a bit, this is 80% of the world's energy. It's still growing, because nothing can match it in terms of low cost, reliable energy for every type of machine, for billions of people in thousands of places. So without it, we wouldn't have nearly as much energy, and we won't going forward. And then one of the huge benefits I talk about is it actually helps us keep ourselves safe from climate, because it powers all these machines like irrigation machines, machines that bring crops from one place to another to alleviate the consequences of drought, heating machines, cooling machines, building machines, the more energy you have…
Nadya Swart:
... the power.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, we have this what I call “climate mastery ability.”
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
It's even beyond adaptation, which is what other animals do. We can master our environment. And this has made us demonstrably 50 times safer from climate-related disaster deaths like storm deaths and flood deaths, than we used to be. And yet nobody's talking about these benefits. So you have this incredible set of benefits. And people are only looking at the negatives. Well, if you look at something that way, you're going to make a bad decision. So my observation is the whole knowledge system that's supposed to give us expert knowledge and guidance, is making this error. It turns out they're making other errors, too, but this is the root one. I do think that by pointing this out and then by showing people, “Hey, what happens if you look at what I call the full context? So if you look carefully at benefits and side effects, you have a very positive evaluation of fossil fuel use going forward.”
I found that that has been quite powerful, certainly since I started 16 years ago, it was almost just me back then. And now there are a lot more prominent people who are talking about this. And I'm having a lot of influence now on government, which is my current focus. And you're seeing politicians talk about these ideas, and start legislation based on these ideas. And you're seeing that the more these ideas come up, the other side doesn't really have an answer. So when they debate us, it doesn't go well for them. They often just avoid debates with us. They try to get stuff suppressed on social media, as you probably have some experience with.
But it's interesting that insofar as there is a debate, that they're so weak, and one thing is they've resorted to trying to call me a racist, because they can't actually address my arguments. And the ironic thing is, the thing they think I'm racist about is, well, the reason they're trying to call me racist in particular, is they can't refute the argument that poor, mostly non-white countries need fossil fuels. There's no refutation of that. So their argument is, “Oh, well, the person making that argument, who's popularizing it most, he's a racist. So he doesn't really care about those people.” Which, first of all, if I didn't, it wouldn't change the fact that the argument is true.
Nadya Swart:
Okay. Right.
Alex Epstein:
But it's demonstrable. It's absurd, but also the evidence they draw upon is so revealing, because the evidence is that in college, which, interestingly by the way, they have to go to college, which, I'm 43 years old, that's where they try to go to. But in college, I wrote things saying that, “Africa needs more freedom,” and that I think that's good, and that needs more prosperity. And they say, “That's racist.”
Because they think you're criticizing the culture if you say it needs more freedom. But in a sense, that's true. But I think everyone needs more freedom. I think my ancestors, who were enslaved, needed more freedom. My background is Jewish. I think in general, the world should evolve from a place of less freedom, where everyone was, to more freedom, from less energy to more energy. So if I'm saying, “Yeah, I think Africa should have more freedom and more energy.” I think that's true in terms of if you care about human life. And most Africans in my experience, agree with me, but unfortunately, many in the West have, I think, a racist view of Africans, and they think, “No, they don't want freedom. They don't want progress. They just want to stay the same. They just want to have the same lifestyle forever.” And that's a racist view.
Jusper Machogu:
Another thing, so when people talk about fossil fuels, they focusing on the energy part. But then we have the four pillars of modern civilization, which, okay, so we have plastics, we have a cement, we have steel, and fertilizer. All of them rely on fossil fuels. So we Africans, if we don't have access to fossil fuels, we don't have access to these things, these four pillars of modern civilization, how are we going to develop minus fossil fuels, then? How do we build climate resilient houses? How do we do that minus steel, minus cement, minus plastics? Yeah. How do we feed ourselves? Because right now we're consuming so little fertilizer.
For instance, in Kenya, today we're using about 20 kilos of fertilizer per hectare. If you go to a place like the US, they're using 120 kilos. If you go to the EU, the organic, right now, they're talking about organic. But if you go to EU, they're using 150 kilos per hectare. If you go to China, they're using 360 kilos per hectare. So when they say, “Africa is hungry.” We're hungry because we don't have access to fertilizer. Fertilizer has got crazy amount of nitrogen compared to other things. So a good example is urea. Urea has got 46% nitrogen compared to manure. Fermented manure has got about 4% nitrogen. So you need about 30 tons of well composed manure versus a hundred kilos per hectare. For urea, we need plenty of fossil fuels.
Alex Epstein:
I just was reminded of something. And I haven't even followed this that much, but can you tell a little bit about what you've been doing with these projects to bring, I think, LPG to your communicate?
Jusper Machogu:
Oh, yeah. What I've done is I bought LPG cans. Usually they-
Alex Epstein:
Tell them what that is, because I don't think most people know the term.
Jusper Machogu:
Oh, okay. That's natural gas in a can, usually six kilos, 13 kilos, and above. So I got six kilos for over 50 people. That is very clean, because it doesn't release any smoke. And it's just amazing compared to firewood, because I've been brought up, my family uses firewood in everything, be it cooking, heating, boiling water, all of that. So LPG is going to transform people's lives, especially in Africa, because that's where most people use dirty firewood cow dung to cook. Yeah. I've also-
Alex Epstein:
I assume this came in part, like you were able to finance it because of some of the notoriety?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
Right?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
Didn't some sponsors come in?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, somebody came in.
Nadya Swart:
Where did the initiative come from?
Jusper Machogu:
It came from a good friend of mine. He told me, “Oh, what can you do to [help] your people?” And I said, “Okay,” because I know my people, the problems they're facing, the biggest problem was water because getting water from very far away, 600 meters away. And during drought seasons, which is usually January and February, throughout the rest of the year, we have plenty of rain.
But those months, during now January and Feb, we're getting water from a kilometer away, and you have to carry water, 20 kilos, 20 liters, now, that's 20 kilos on your head. That's not good at all. Because even when students come back home from school, high schoolers, they have to go fetch water. And that's a lengthy process. It consumes a lot of time. So I did a borehole for my community, and then now the next thing was LPG for my community. And also electrifying post columns.
Alex Epstein:
You're stating all that pretty quickly. That was a pretty big deal to do the borehole, right?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, I did a borehole.
Alex Epstein:
But it made a big difference, right?
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. A very big difference. Very big difference. So people-
Nadya Swart:
How do they think of that? Were there any other people in your community doing that? Or were you just like, “Hey, let me.”
Jusper Machogu:
No.
I'm that guy who got my village a borehole. That's a big, big thing. And of course, we wouldn't have done it without fossil fuels, the energy. You can't drill using solar and wind.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
I don't think you can. So I've also got people connected to the grid, but that's a big challenge because in Kenya, okay, connecting people to the grid is quite expensive, but at the same time, the electricity itself is quite expensive compared to other places. So a good example is China. A friend of mine, I have a friend in China, they were telling me at night, they're buying one kilowatt-hour. That's one unit. They're buying one unit of electricity at, is it five shillings? Five. That's now five cents USD. At night, they're buying it at 10 cents. So in the US they're buying it. In some counties, they're buying it at 13, 14 cents. That's one unit. So in Kenya, we're buying it at 19 cents. That's quite expensive. And the reason is solar and wind, because our government, our president goes to these big meetings, and climate meetings, and is talking about Kenya being green because we're getting about 90 something percent of our electricity from renewable sources.
Alex Epstein:
Does he actually say that?
Jusper Machogu:
Geothermal? Yeah, geothermal and the-
Alex Epstein:
He is bragging about the wood and the dung?
Jusper Machogu:
No, electricity now.
Alex Epstein:
Oh, okay.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. So geo and hydro mostly. And now what?
Nadya Swart:
Geo and hydro, not solar and wind.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. But what our government has done is for the past, I think four years, they have been chasing the wind and solar. So we have one of the largest, that's what our president boasts about. So he's saying, “Kenya has got the biggest wind power plant in Africa.” I see if that's a good thing. That's not a good thing for us because just look at the electricity prices. They're just…
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, you see just the international influence already of just, this is the idea that poor countries are thinking at all about how to be, “renewable,” instead of just, “How do you get energy as cheap as possible?” That's the imperative if you want to develop. So it should be, yeah, it's cheap. You want it to be way cheaper than the US is paying. 14 cents is even a lot for us. California is even more…
So it's great. You can see why it's pretty exciting what he's doing, just as an activist, but then also just making the things happen on the ground. I don't know how many people who are doing that. I certainly haven't.
Nadya Swart:
No. But are there any other people in your community, younger community members that are following in your footstep or people that have come up to you and said, “How can we do the same, or emulate what you're doing, or help out at least? Or, is the movement spreading?”
Jusper Machogu:
Unfortunately, no.
Alex Epstein:
Aren't you getting some opposition?
Jusper Machogu:
I am getting opposition. But that's usually from politicians because I'm doing work. They're not doing anything. They just sit there. They're stealing money from us. That's what they're doing. So they are trying to oppose my project.
Nadya Swart:
In what kind?
Jusper Machogu:
That's just-
Nadya Swart:
In what way? How are they trying to? How are they actually firmly made their opposition known?
Jusper Machogu:
Last month I was in jail. I slept in a cold room. I don't know if that's what it's called, like it's-
Nadya Swart:
A cell?
Jusper Machogu:
It's a cell, yeah. I slept in a cell for one night because I was building an three orphans a house. And that was just my crime, because I didn't follow the right procedures, which is usually bribing government officials so that they can give you a permit to build a house. But then I was like, “I'm building a house for orphans.” So anyway, what's happening is, apart from the few activists that are paid, who care about climate change, they don't care about climate change. They care about the dollar, because money's flowing in in dollars and euros. It's good money. Apart from that, most people don't care about climate change. I actually don't know anybody who cares about climate change from my area or haven't met people.
Nadya Swart:
In what way? Either way, they don't care. They're not afraid of it. But they're not motivated to correct it?
Jusper Machogu:
But they have far bigger problems.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
So a good example is, “Where is my next meal going to come from?”
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
That's it. That's what people are worried about, not some climate change. Yeah. And then at the end of the day, you realize that most of whatever is happening, especially mainstream media, what they're doing is they catastrophizing everything. So a good example is the heat versus cold deaths. So in Africa, we have 1.2 million people dying from extreme cold versus 26,000 people dying from extreme heat. So at the end of the day, you realize even in the tropics around the equator-
Nadya Swart:
Warmer is better.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, heat is not the problem. Cold is. Yeah.
Nadya Swart:
This conference, this week, since Fossil Future, which is, I took a note because it seemed to me that in between Moral Case for Fossil Fuels in 2014, when you made the case with fossil fuels and just basically tried to defend it up until last year with Fossil Future, you had shifted your approach a little bit to expand it, to say that, “There's a long-term future for fossil fuels, that it actually has a positive environmental impact.” What has your research shown you?
Alex Epstein:
Well, partially, it's not just research. It's more the way you think of it. I'm trying to very deeply challenge the way people think about our environment, because when people talk about the environment, which I never use that term, they say, “The environment.” They mean actually two things at once, which are confused. So one is non-human nature. So just means, “The environment is just everything that's not us, and has nothing to do with us.” And then the other idea is, “Surroundings that affect us.” So they'll think about, “Oh, I want to protect the environment. On the one hand, that means I want to keep this wasteland in Alaska from having no oil drilling on it whatsoever, even though I'll never go there, ever. Because I just think you should protect non-human nature from humans.” But then protect the environment also means, “Hey, let's avoid smog if we can. Let's avoid water pollution if we can.”
So, it's combining two different things. One is an anti-human concern, as in protect non-human nature from humans, believing that inherently it's wrong for us to impact non-human nature. And the other is protecting our surroundings. So when I think of “environment,” I think of it in the second sense, as our surroundings. And I think of the whole world in that sense of, “We want a good world for us.” And that includes things like enjoying natural beauty, enjoying being out in nature. I think I like those more than most people. I certainly spend more money enjoying those than most people [at my income level], but I want the whole world to be a good place for humans. And so I don't really draw a distinction between clean air, and a factory, and natural beauty. I think of all of these things as these are, if they're configured in such a way that's good for us, they're good for our environment.
So when I think of fossil fuels, I think of, “Fossil fuels makes the world an amazing environment for human beings, because they allow us to become incredibly productive, which allows us to take a world that's otherwise very deficient in resources and very dangerous from threats, and to make it an abundant and safe place.” So I think of it as just, “Fossil fuels make our environment amazing, but in a full sense of environment.” Many people have a narrow sense where they just think of, “What does it do to the water quality? What does it do to the air quality?” Now, fossil fuels certainly improve the water quality overall.
Nadya Swart:
The sanitation. How did-
Alex Epstein:
Yeah. Look at what he was just talking about with-
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah.
He's making a borehole. And you think about just, yeah, “Drinking water is often naturally dirty. And so you need to purify it, and it's often naturally distancing, you need to pump it.” I say, “Yeah, we, South Africa and America, we're in a world where we have instant clean water, that's in a much better environment than one where you have to go a mile to get it, and it's not even that clean.”
Nadya Swart:
But, sorry, I feel a little bit cringy when I use this word sustainable now. But you say long-term, how long-term are we talking? We can't-
Alex Epstein:
With what?
Nadya Swart:
... possibly just enjoying the fruits of our world and doing it at the expense of future generations. Are you taking this into account when balancing the two?
Alex Epstein:
Well, you should take a long-term view, but sustainability is ultimately not ... The view of having a repetitive lifestyle is neither good short-term nor long-term. Because if you live a repetitive style, you're going to be poor now, and you're going to stay poor forever. Just imagine our ancestors 200 years ago said, “We're going to be sustainable.” We sure as hell wouldn't be here. I sure as hell would've never visited South Africa. You couldn't get anywhere, right? So it's the same thing now. I want our spawn, if any, all of us have kids. I'm confident I will. I won't talk about you guys, but I want the future generations to look back at us and say, “Wow, the world sucked back then compared to now.” Because the question is, “How do you get there?” And the way you get there is you grow your knowledge and you grow your capabilities.
That's the progress that makes the world a better place, because the more knowledge you have and the more capabilities you have, the more you can create more of what is good for you, and less of what isn't. That's what you do, you have an increasing mastery over nature. And so whatever you like in non-human nature, by the way, you can have more of that. So it's the more wealthy and more capable you are, the more you can preserve the most beautiful species you care about, the more you can travel to enjoy them. So it's really, I reject the idea that the world is scarce in resources and then us impacting it makes it worse. I think in general it has unlimited potential resources, because resources are just matter and energy that we transform to be useful. Aluminum wasn't a resource. Oil wasn't a resource. Coal wasn't a resource. Gas wasn't a resource. Uranium wasn't a resource. We made the resources. We can do that with more and more things.
So I think of it as we have the capability to make the world a more abundant and safe place. And that's what we're passing on to future generations, is more capability. And that's what I'm grateful to the past. People think, “Oh, the way to benefit future generations is like, ‘Don't use that plastic bag. Somehow, they'll thank you.’” Right? No. You give them more knowledge and more capability and then they'll be able to both inherit more of the wealth that you created, but then also have an ability to create whatever they want to create.”
Nadya Swart:
So you're speaking tomorrow at the conference.
Alex Epstein:
Yes, I am. [Watch my speech here.]
And you're going to be there. I need to go into some, yeah. Yes. I'm going to tell anyone who will listen that there's no compromise, really, with the net-zero transition movement. So there's been this movement, which is a good sign, where, instead of just totally accepting the transition to net-zero, they say, “We want a just transition.” And what that means is, “Well, we don't want to be totally screwed by it, so either let us use a little fossil fuel or give us some money.”
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
Which I think the first one is a much better motivation and less corrupt motivation. But I just want to be clear, the idea of net-zero by 2050 is 100% incompatible with African development and prosperity. And so you shouldn't be for a transition, you should be for an energy expansion and energy evolution. That's what's needed around the world, but certainly in the poorest parts of the world. And just I am going to tell them, “You cannot do what's right for your people and remain in the Paris Agreement.” And that is considered just, nobody could ever question that. “How could you question that?” It's one of these things where people think, “Oh, because all the countries agreed, you can't question it.” But it's insane. How can all these countries agree to essentially go net-zero by 2050 when most of the world is desperately poor and needs fossil fuels to develop?
So all these countries are playing along. They're afraid of losing aid or they're hoping to get more aid and more handouts. And I think I have some strategies for them in terms of those who really care. Now, some of them, there's going to be some corruption and stuff, but at least the people should know, “You need to reject this. You need more freedom in general. You need better political institutions in general. And you certainly need the freedom to use fossil fuels along with anything else that's cost-effective and for anything that's actually cost-effective, but it requires fossil fuels.” And I think it would be an amazing service to Africa and to humanity if you had three or four African governments say, “You know what? We're withdrawing from this Paris climate agreement.” Go to Dubai for COP. Of course, it's in Dubai. For COP 28, you know, the incredibly rich place made entirely possible by oil.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
We're going to go there to pledge to not use oil. Why don't some of you just stand up and say, not just ask for reparations or money, and stuff, ask for freedom. My one idea is, “If you get threatened behind the scenes, just expose that. Bring a tape recorder in the room. If Joe Biden says he's going to withdraw your aid, expose that.” Because if it's exposed that the West is threatening poor countries who want to use energy to develop, that's going to be really bad optics.
Nadya Swart:
Keep enough to actually make waves. Because from what we've seen certain Western countries do at this point... that makes sense.
Alex Epstein:
If you add three African nations, even three publicly say, “We'll withdraw from the Paris Agreement because it's immoral. And we don't believe in transition to net-zero, we believe in expansion in using fossil fuels.” Having influenced it would be the greatest thing I ever did. And it would make waves. So my view is you should always ask for what you want. Always tell people what you think is the right thing. They can compromise on it. So I don't know what'll happen, but I think you should just say what you think is true. It's just like we're saying with you, you say what you think is true and then whoever listens, listens. But you don't suppress yourself and say something stupid or weak because you don't think people will take the truth. And the way you move things is you say the truth that is a little too much for people, maybe, but at least moves the debate. So I think we'll see. And so I have to leave pretty quickly, but I brought my agent, here, who will reinforce the message here the whole week.
Jusper Machogu:
I'm so glad that you have that platform. You're going to present my ideas basically very well. So thank you for that.
Alex Epstein:
Thanks.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah, Alex is just nailing it. He's saying it as it is. And I don't see why African governments should be worried about the West and them taking aid away, because we have got plenty of resources. We have plenty of oil, we have plenty of gas, and we don't need aid to access that. We just need investors.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
And investors going to come, they drill our oil, they sell it, or they will do whatever they want to do with it. At the end of the day, it's going to generate profit. And that profit is going to pay for their investment. So that's just it. No aid. And a good thing with that is we're going to have that oil cheaply. We're going to have the fossil fuels very cheaply. That's good for us. Because we need lots of fossil fuels, be it for agriculture, because around 60 to 70% of Africans rely on farming or agriculture for livelihood.
So one of the easiest ways to improve their lives is by improving agriculture. How do you improve agriculture? Actually, how do you get these people fed? By fertilizers, irrigation, and bits of value addition, and stuff. So irrigation requires lots of fossil fuels, be it for the plastics, the pipes, be it for the drilling boreholes, be it for desalinization. The UN wouldn't have what to do in Sudan and Somalia if the countries had irrigation. So fertilizer, lots of fossil fuels. At the end of the day, Africa is going to develop what the UN, the IMF, World Bank, WEF, what they're doing is just derailing or curtailing our development. But at the end of the day, we're going to develop fossil fuels for Africa.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah, but I don't… For that day, it could take a lot longer.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
…it's just that you only have one life. And so you just have all these people whose prospects are disrupted. And most of us probably know people, I definitely do, who died of some disease where 10 years later there was a cure. And I think of that every time I think of delayed progress. It's just, “Oh, all these people who could have an education, who could fly on a plane.” What percentage of Africans have ever flown on a plane, which is one of the coolest things that humanity has ever done? And of course the green movement is trying to restrict that.
Nadya Swart:
Unless they're going to COP.
Alex Epstein:
Unless they're going. No, they're not for themselves. No. They fly on planes to form agreements that no one else can fly on a plane. But it is just, every bit of delay is so outrageous. When you think of just people only live once, and people are going to die prematurely, and even more, they're going to lose opportunities to have a life, and they're never going to get that back. So I really hate the people who hold that back.
Jusper Machogu:
It's neocolonialism. That's what it is. It's just colonialism.
Alex Epstein:
I think it's much worse than colonialism. “Colonialism” is a vague term because there's various degrees of oppression versus ... Even, you take colonialism in the United States. Well, ultimately, I think that led us to be the freest country in the world, the British putting colonies in a place. There are versions, “colonialism” has various degrees of badness, sometimes some goodness to it, depending on if it's a totally uncharted region or something like that. We would colonize Mars. I think that's a good thing if we do that… But what's so different about the green movement is it's just about everyone regressing. So I don't even think of it as it's specifically anti-African. I just think you're the victims at this point in space and time, because the anti-human agenda has become popular now. So it's much worse than even the bad colonialism.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah. I hope the paid activists at some point realize that people, their communities need developing. They need to become rich, they need to become fed. They need clean water. I hope they realize that, so that they stop chasing the euros, and pounds, and dollars.
Alex Epstein:
We need to come up with a name for the paid activists.
Jusper Machogu:
Yeah.
Alex Epstein:
Let's do that. Maybe people in the comments can give us suggestions. It's always good to come up with a bad name for bad things.
Jusper Machogu:
Actually, if you look at the developed countries, actually, throughout the world, this is the best time to be alive. This is the best time, be it the age, how long a person is going to live, be it that, be it how fed they are, be it how safe they are from the climate, everything. This is the best time to be alive. And Africa is going to be in a better position if we have plenty of energy, like we're going to become rich. So generally, at the end of the day, it comes down to Africa need lots of fossil fuels, and we have plenty of that. We're not going to ask for aid. We have plenty of fossil fuels in Africa. Why can't we use our fossil fuels to better our lives?
Alex Epstein:
Yeah.
Jusper Machogu:
It's that simple.
Nadya Swart:
Anything you want to add, Alex?
Alex Epstein:
I like ending on that.
Nadya Swart:
Yeah, good.
Jusper Machogu:
Well said.
Alex Epstein:
Yeah.
But man, I'm just saying it's exciting to see what you've done. I think we've known each other a year and a half.
Jusper Machogu:
Thanks.
Alex Epstein:
And I hope you keep doing it.
Jusper Machogu:
I will. I love doing that.
Nadya Swart:
Alex Epstein, Jusper Machogu.
Jusper Machogu:
Thank you.
Nadya Swart:
And I'm Nadya Swart.
Popular links
EnergyTalkingPoints.com: Hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
That each of the United Nations IPCC models makes an argument and that this argument violates all three of Aritotle's Laws of Thought is inconsistent with imposition by a government of the Net Zero policy