Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, is perhaps the most philosophic, as well as among the most prominent, of American advocates of pro-free market energy liberation. Bill Nye, science communicator and host of Netflix series Bill Nye Saves the World, is perhaps the most visible spokesperson in popular media of what appears to be the received scientific view concerning the putative catastrophic risk human-caused climate change may incur, namely that dependence upon non-“renewable” energies will exacerbate the rate and intensity of anthropogenic climate change, so if reducing the rate and intensity of anthropogenic climate change is a worthwhile goal (which Nye holds it is), public policy that is both pro-“renewable” energy and anti-carbon-intensive energy would be worthwhile.
Epstein has publicly challenged Nye to a public debate:
.@BillNye will you debate me at a major university on the morality of fossil fuels? I'll handle all the logistics.
— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) February 28, 2017
I agree with Craig Biddle at The Objective Standard that if Nye could provide a compelling case against that of Epstein, then Nye defeating Epstein in a debate could potentially be a watershed moment against the growing influence of both Epstein and the pro-fossil fuels movement. If stemming the influence of both Epstein and the pro-fossil fuels movement is a goal of Nye’s, it would seem expedient to his interests to debate Epstein. Presumably Nye holds this goal. So Bill Nye should debate Alex Epstein.