ללא מחבר No Author

The MORAL Case for Fossil Fuels…

Putting People’s Well-Being First: A Review of Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

by Pierre Desrochers

To most environmental activists, many of my students and some of my colleagues, life before the era of “carbon fuel pollution” was somewhat similar to the idyllic and carefree existence of the Hobbits. Indeed, looking at the support that organizations like Toronto350 have garnered in their quest to get universities to divest from “socially injurious” fossil fuel companies, one must admit that (re)creating the Shire is a political program with much wind in its (one must assume organically grown and ethically woven) sails…

So how should an energy realist go about reminding a University of Toronto Presidential Advisory Committee that the “good old days” were more akin to trying times, that poverty is something that most human beings have historically tried to escape from rather than a virtue, and that (energy) reality is not optional?

One option is to explain once more that coal, petroleum and natural gas came to dominate our energy system for good practical reasons, and that truly superior alternatives would not need taxpayers’ money to be mandated into our houses or shoveled down on our landscape.

For instance, a few days ago my friends Germain Belzile and Youri Chassin published a study on the costs of an accelerated transition toward green energies and the willingness of Canadians to pay for these costs. Looking at some proposals of Québec-based Équiterre and Vivre en ville for reducing oil consumption for personal transportation that ranged from bicycle sharing services to high-speed rail service, they concluded that these “sustainable” options would come with an annual price tag of approximately $6.4 billion for Quebec as a whole, or $1,875 per household. In Quebec as in other jurisdictions that have already gone down green roads paved with (feel) good intentions, subsidizing inferior alternatives will result in massive wealth destruction without any meaningful beneficial environmental outcome.

The problem, of course, is that energy reality doesn’t accord with the ethical preferences of self-appointed guardians of the greater good who would rather dismiss or heckle their critics as corporate shills than address their arguments. After all, who could be against unspoiled nature, communal bliss and subsidized elitist artistic expressions but people in the pockets of greedy corporations? And who will dare to keep consumers in check for their own good and that of future children, to say nothing of voiceless critters and ecosystems, if not virtuous individuals like themselves (even though they might have to use a fair amount of carbon fuels to get their message across)?

“As one expects, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels debunks most of the nonsense that has now become the common wisdom of the chattering classes on energy issues.”

But while it was perhaps unavoidable that pampered academic rebels looking for a new cause would eventually settle on telling energy-starved masses to eat little, distant, costly, intermittent, unreliable, and low-density energy cupcakes, what has been especially disheartening for energy realists is how many energy executives have been shamed into paying lip-service (and a fair amount of “sustainability” and “green partnership” consulting fees) to their most virulent detractors.

Enter Alex Epstein, the young dynamo behind the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP) (Disclaimer: Alex is a virtual friend, meaning we’ve met through Skype rather than face-to-face, something which would have required burning much more carbon fuel…)

A philosopher by training, Epstein is now an energetic happy intellectual warrior who takes the case for fossil fuels into the most hostile corners, be they academia or the People’s Climate March. Even better, he managed to organize a debate in which he confronted the 350 éminence grise Bill McKibben himself!

Apart from his intelligence, passion and youthful drive, Epstein’s success is largely attributable to his re-framing of old energy debates in a moral light. As he explains in his recent book, the question of what to do about fossil fuels should come down to what will promote human life and flourishing rather than “holding human nonimpact as one’s standard of value, without regard for human life and happiness” (page 30). (Of course, the fact that Epstein even has to make the case against the “irrational moral prejudice” against cheap and reliable energy tells us how far some sizeable segments of the political left have gone on the misanthropic side of the intellectual universe, a corner once mostly populated by aristocrats, romantics, nouveaux riches and academic ecologists. Truth be told though, not all self-styled progressives are comfortable with the now dominant “reactionary apocalyptic pastoralism” and some, like my [again virtual] friends at Spiked! are actually remarkably sensible and creative on the issue.)

As one expects, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels debunks most of the nonsense that has now become the common wisdom of the chattering classes on energy issues. Do you want to know why you can’t power light rail systems or simply manufacture smart phones, bicycles or triple glazed windows with wind turbines, solar panels and anaerobic digesters? Or why being operated on in a hospital powered only by “alternatives” might be harmful to your health? Epstein will not only tell you with clarity and gusto, but with a knack for witty one liners that this (arguably less articulate and funny) energy writer hasn’t encountered before.

Most importantly, Epstein dares to venture where many energy realists won’t go by explaining at some length that cheap, plentiful and reliable energy, combined with human ingenuity, “gives us the ability to transform the world around us into a place that is far safer from any health hazards (man-made or natural), far safer from any climate change (man-made or natural), and far richer in resources now and in the future” (page 33).

Whatever your reason might be for buying gifts in late December, please consider (on top of your own) offering a copy of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels to both your loved ones and those sanctimonious green hipsters in your life. It is, as far as I know, the best accessible moral case made on behalf of an issue that is, in the end, a matter of life and death.

From QL, here.

חברי הליכוד שנוטעים בשמיטה הם גרויסע חזו”א-ניקעס? הרב יוסף אפרתי מפקפק

הגאון רבי יוסף אפרתי חיזק את מקלב ותקף: “שיבוש דברי החזו”א”

ח”כ מקלב שתקף את הליכוד על “נטיעות ההצלה” בנגב, והיו כאלה שניסו לטעון כי החזו”א היה מתיר את הנטיעות, קיבל מכתב חיזוק מהגר”י אפרתי, שתקף את חוסר המשילות בדרום (חדשות)

| ט”ז בשבט תשפב   07:15  18.01.22

ראש בית מדרש להלכה בהתיישבות חקלאית ואחד מרבני ‘דגל התורה’, הגאון רבי יוסף אפרתי, יוצא הבוקר (שלישי) להגנתו של חבר הכנסת מקלב, בנוגע ל’נטיעות ההצלה’ של הליכוד בנגב.

כזכור, מקלב תקף בחריפות את מפלגת הליכוד שערכו נטיעות בנגב – בעיצומה של שנת השמיטה. מנגד, היו שטענו, כי מרן החזו”א, היה מתיר את הנטיעות.

במכתב שפרסם הרב אפרתי נכתב, “הנני לחזק את ידך על דבר מחאתך אודות “נטיעות ההצלה” שבקשו לבצע בנגב בשנת השמיטה. והדברים פשוטים שגם נטיעות לצורך חשוב, אפילו לצורך מניעת השתלטות נכרים על קרקעות – אין להתיר’ כותב הרב אפרתי לח”כ מקלב ותוקף את חוסר המשילות בדרום – ‘במקום שהשלטון יעשה את המינימום הנדרש ממנו, לסייר בשטחים, לוודא ולדאוג שלא משתלטים עליהם, השלטון עצמו מבקש להשתמש בהיתר עבודה בשביעית משום היתר ארנונא”.

“אלא על של עתה באתי”, הסביר הגר”י אפרתי, “בעקבות מי שכתב לך “גם רבינו החזו”א התיר כגון דא”, ועל כן לתקן טעות זו נסביר את הדברים בקצרה. אי אפשר לדמות לנדון שהיה לפני מרן החזו”א בישוב “מחנה ישראל”, כאשר היה פחד כי בהעדר חרישה ישתלטו נכרים על אדמות המושב, שהרי שם היה מדובר בחשש השתלטות קרקעות, כאשר שלטונות הגוים שהיו בארץ ודאי שלא יתמכו בהחזרת הקרקע לידי הישוב “מחנה ישראל”. לעומת זאת במקרים שלפנינו כל מה שצריך לעשות לשימור הקרקע הוא רק לפקח במשך השנה באופן רציף ולמנוע פלישה כחוק”.

הרב אפרתי מוסיף: “מכל מקום היו גופים שביצעו נטיעות כאלה בתואנה של ישוב ארץ ישראל. ברור לנו שמבחינה הלכתית אין לבצע נטיעות בארץ ישראל בתואנה של ישוב ארץ ישראל, ומה שצריך זה לשמר את אדמות מפלישה בשנת השמיטה, ולהכפיל את כמות הנטיעות בג’ תשרי תשפ”ג”.

הרב אפרתי אף סיפר, כי “המצב שהיה בישוב “מחנה ישראל” מתואר בכמה מכתבים של מרן החזו”א למרן האחיעזר. מרן החזו”א כותב: “מחנה ישראל” אי אפשר להם להתקיים במקומם בשביעית, כי אין להם די מים לגדל ירק, וגם אין בסביבותם פרדסים להשׂתכר בעבודת הפרדס, ויוכרחו לנוד ממקומם, וירשו זרים נחלתם”. ובמכתב נוסף (שם): “אמנם “מחנה ישראל” אין פרדסים בסביבתם והם תמוכים על יבול השדה, וגורלם קשה בשביעית, ואם הם לא ישמרו שביעית יאמרו האומרים: האח! ולזה אנו מקוים. ולמען הכריז לפני כל באי עולם כי תורתנו נצחית וכל דברי המלעיגים עלינו הבל, עלינו להתחזק על שלימות החזית באגודת ישראל לשמירת שביעית, ואשר שמירתה היא דחיפה עצומה לקיום התורה כולה”.

“בעיצומה של שנת השמיטה פנו המתיישבים לשאול את מרן החזו”א אודות ביצוע מלאכת חרישה, שתמנע השגת גבולם ע”י הנכרים. וזה הכתב אשר נתן החזו”א בידם; “השטחים הגובלים עם האינם יהודים ושכבר ניסו השכנים להשיג גבולם, ושהדבר מביא לידי פגישות מסוכנות, ושאפשר למנוע הדבר בחרישה לחוד, ושהחרישה הזאת לא תועיל לזריעה במוצאי שביעית, קרוב הדבר שמצב זה חשיב כאונס ארנונא”.

“וכאמור”, מוסיף הרב אפרתי, “מרן החזו”א התיר רק מלאכת חרישה, ורק כאשר החרישה לא תועיל לזריעה שתיזרע בשדה זו במוצאי שביעית, ורק באותם שטחים הגובלים עם האינם יהודים שבהם יש חשש נוסף שנסיונות המתיישבים למנוע השגת גבול ע”י הנכרים “הדבר מביא לידי פגישות מסוכנות” – סרך פיקוח נפש, ולכן לדעתו קרוב הדבר שמצב זה נחשב כאונס ארנונא. ובשביעית (סי’ יח סק”ד) כתב לבאר היתר ארנונא “התם אניסי טפי ע”י המלכות וקרוב הדבר לפיקוח נפשות ע”י עניות וגביית ארנוניות”. בפתק נוסף שנתן בידם חוזר מרן החזו”א וכותב ב’ דברים. האחד, שמניעת החרישה תביא שלא יוכלו לזרוע בשדה זו בשמינית “ואז יוכרחו לעזוב את המושבה כולה, ויבואו עליה זרים חס ושלום”. והשני, שהחרישה שיחרשו לא תהא בה תועלת חקלאית לצורך זריעה, ולאחר מכן מפרט החזו”א כיצד לבצע את החרישה, כשהוא מבקש לנצל כל שינוי אפשרי בחרישה שלא תהא חרישה רגילה”.

“ובכן, הנידון וההיתר של החזו”א אינו בספק, כי המדובר הוא בחשש קיים של השתלטות נכרים, כאשר אם הנכרים יזרעו את השדות הרי ודאי שהשלטון המנדטורי לא יפעל להשיב את השטח, וכמו שכותב החזו”א (במכתב הנ”ל) שאם לא יספיקו המתיישבים למחות והנכרי יזרע, אז ודאי שיזכה בקרקע. וכמו שכותב האחיעזר (אגרות ר’ חיים עוזר, ח”ב, מכתב תתח): “כי אם ישאירו שדה בור יעלו זרים וינחלום, וכפי חוק השורר אי אפשר לעכבם מלחרוש שדה בור, ואח”כ יהיה קשה להוציא מידם”. ויצוין בזה, כי לפני מספר חדשים פורסם מכתב שלא היה ידוע ממרן החזו”א (וכפי הנראה הוא המכתב הראשון שכתב לאחיעזר בענין זה), שם הוא מציין כי אם אנשי “מחנה ישראל” יוכרחו לעזוב את המקום בשנת שמיטה, יעלו הנכרים וינחלום, “וכפי חוק השורר אי אפשר לעכבם מלחרוש שדה בור, ואחרי כן קשה להוציא מידם”.

“לסיכום, מרן החזו”א לא התיר אלא חרישה, ורק במקום שההעדר ביצועה היה מביא השתלטות הנכרים על אדמת הישוב. ובירור הדברים מעלה כי מלבד שמרן החזו”א לא התיר אלא חרישה, הרי בנידון דידן אין בכלל היתר של ארנונא, החזו”א כתב בכמה מכתבים בענין “מחנה ישראל” כי היתר ארנונא הוא נטילת הקרקעות מן היהודים ע”י השלטון, וכך היה ב”מחנה ישראל”, איבוד אדמותיהם מכח זריעת הנכרים, והמלכות ודאי לא תבוא לסייעתם לשמור על אדמותיהם”.

“אבל היום”, כותב הרב אפרתי לקראת סיום, “המדובר הוא באדמות השלטון, ובמקום שהשלטון יעשה את המינימום הנדרש ממנו, לסייר בשטחים, לוודא ולדאוג שלא משתלטים עליהם, השלטון עצמו מבקש להשתמש בהיתר עבודה בשביעית משום היתר ארנונא, והיתר כזה לא קיים. (משל למה הדבר דומה, לאדם שזקוק לאכול בשבת קודש, ובהגיע שבת במקום לאכול אוכל המותר, הוא מבשל בשבת, בטענה שבההעדר אכילה הוא עשוי להגיע למצב של פיקוח נפש, ומה היינו משיבים לו? אפילו אם לא הכנת אוכל, תוכל למצוא אצל שכנים וכדו’ אוכל לרוב, שישמחו לתת לך, אבל הוא צועק במר לשונו: באוכל מבושל על ידי אני חפץ…)”

מאתר כיכר השבת, כאן.

The State of Israel’s Corona Regime – *J’ACCUSE!* by Professor Ehud Qimron

Professor Ehud Qimron: “Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure”

Published: January 10, 2022

Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.

Original letter in Hebrew: N12 News (January 6, 2022); translated by Google/SPR.

See also: Professor Qimron’s prediction from August 2020: “History will judge the hysteria” (INN).

∗∗∗

Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure

In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect, it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common-sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort, and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines, and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did with some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

Irreversible damage to trust

However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns, and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.

You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.

You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society, and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights, and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.

When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.

There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.

This emergency must stop!

Professor Udi Qimron, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

From Swiss Policy Research, here.

Aliyah Is Not a Milestone but a QUEST!

Haaretz Hatovah: Five Times Aliyah

4:33 am

Binyomin Biron, Kiryat Sefer, Modi’in Illit

I first came to Eretz Yisroel as a bochur. I had previously been involved in kiruv activities in Kiev. At the end of the school year, my brother-in-law who was living in Eretz Yisroel suggested that I continue on to yeshivah here, being that I was already so much closer in Kiev to Eretz Yisroel than from back home in the US. With my parents’ approval, I came to learn in the Ponevezh Yeshivah. Once here, my brother-in-law suggested that I try to just imitate the Israeli dialect of speech (including resorting to the guttural “reish”), as this would help me acclimate myself to speaking Hebrew and make me comfortable while doing so. I also practiced my Hebrew by speaking to Israeli kids who were happy to be of help with my Hebrew vocabulary.

While I was here in Eretz Yisroel, it was eventually time to start shidduchim. I fortunately found someone who was also interested in living here, and although we went back to the US to get married, we came back to Eretz Yisroel shortly thereafter. Although we had both come to Eretz Yisroel before, this time it was more significant because we were now establishing a home here.

After we had done our own “aliyah,” establishing ourselves here in Eretz Yisroel, we decided to go through the process of what the Israeli government calls “aliyah”—as in obtaining Israeli citizenship. This would allow us to work here legally, get some benefits, and save a bit of money (e.g. cheaper health insurance, possibly lower home purchase tax, etc.). We know people who choose to live here without becoming Israeli citizens, but we didn’t want to have to renew our visas and be subject to the whims of the Interior Ministry clerks, or have it easier to decide to move back. Though, for some people that works better.

When we went to the Interior Ministry with all of our documents to process our citizenship request, there was a minor issue with one of my documents which prevented my request from immediately being processed. I was going to fix the issue, but a friend, who b’siyatta diShmaya “happened” to be there just then, alerted me to the fact that as a male Israeli citizen eligible for the draft, I would be subject to some restrictions regarding the length of time I may be out of the country. This held true even though I was a full-time learner and would not be drafted. Because this friend knew about my kiruv activities, he advised me not to apply for aliyah so I could travel if necessary. I decided I would push off the process for myself, and at that time only my wife obtained citizenship, I was eventually offered a job in a kiruv kollel in Moscow. They wanted a commitment of at least two years, but we ended up staying there slightly more than three. I would not have taken up such an offer from a kollel in the US, because there would be a risk of finding ourselves stuck there—after all, we were both originally from the US and had family there. As for Russia, there really wasn’t anything that would keep us there for the long term and prevent us from fulfilling our goal of settling in Eretz Yisroel.

When our oldest child was going to enter kita aleph (first grade), we decided, with guidance from Gedolim, that it was time to reestablish ourselves in Eretz Yisroel, this time as a small family. We weren’t going to wait until the kids got older when the adjustment would be more difficult. We really wanted the chinuch available in Eretz Yisroel, especially in a place like Kiryat Sefer. The chinuch here is on a very high level—there is more Yiddishkeit, more kedushah, less gashmiyus, and less exposure to tum’ah. Here, learning Torah is most valued, tzaddikim are the role models, and there is a general atmosphere of yir’as Shomayim. Although earning money, having a car, and similar materialistic items might be important, it’s not the focus.

We are privileged to raise our children in a place that is more closed and protected. Such communities exist back in the US, but they’re still more vulnerable to the influences and social pressures of their country and general society.

Several years after we were back in Eretz Yisroel, I completed the process of citizenship, further strengthening my connection to the Land, at least in a technical way.

Here’s an observation of mine: Among the American bochurim who are here learning in Eretz Yisroel, there are at least some who would also like to establish themselves here. Many are unaware that they don’t have to go back to the US for potential shidduchim. There are many regular Beis Yaakov girls from America who are already here that also want to live here and who have already started shidduchim. Some of them are here in post-seminary programs and others have immigrated with their families. Although the boys are primarily here to learn, I don’t see why those interested shouldn’t try shidduchim here.

While there is a possibility of finding a shidduch in chutz laAretz who would also tentatively agree to come to live in Eretz Yisroel, even with all the goodwill it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Good intentions aside, there are differences one would have to adjust to over here—not having two cars, getting along with Jews from “arba kanfos ha’aretz”—i.e. many different cultures, and many other things—someone who’s not wholeheartedly committed to living here might just not get over any real or perceived difficulties. As for the pool of potential shidduchim for Americans being smaller here, well, the bottom line is you only need one…

Still Ascending

I came as a bochur, came again with my wife, came a third time as a small family, and have gone through the citizenship process twice—once for my wife, and once for myself. But, as Rav Zev Leff, shlita, says (I learn in the yeshivah in his Moshav Matityahu in the mornings), aliyah doesn’t end at the airport (or in the Interior Ministry). It’s really two stages—the first step is leaving America behind, and the next step is to keep shteiging here.

This article is part of our Haaretz Hatovah series featuring Yidden living in, settling, and building up Eretz Yisroel. For more information please contact us at info@naavakodesh.org or visit naavakodesh.org/haaretz-hatovah

Reprinted with permission from Yated Ne’eman

From Matzav, here.