Log in
In her recent book The Mattering Instinct, philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein argues that much of what human beings do is driven by a universal need to matter — to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of consideration. She argues that efforts to fulfill this need are responsible for a wide range of human projects, from the greatest achievements of scientific discovery and artistic creation, to the worst atrocities of murder and genocide.
On this episode of ARI Bookshelf, Greg Salmieri, Ben Bayer, Mike Mazza and Sam Weaver discuss Goldstein’s book. The episode includes discussions of the merits and limitations of Goldstein’s account of mattering and her emphasis on the idea that life involves resisting entropy. They also comment on the book’s brief mention of Ayn Rand and relate her ideas to Goldstein’s.
Topics include:
Goldstein’s basic account of why people have a need to matter
Her conception of what constitutes objective mattering
The absence of businessmen and entrepreneurs from her categories
The book’s quotation of Ayn Rand in a section about intolerance
How Goldstein uses the concept of entropy in her account of mattering
Her apparent unwillingness to radically rethink conventional ideas about morality
This episode was recorded on September 19, 2026.
Summary: Diesel prices are at record highs, making everything in our economy less affordable. The short-term cause is wars in the Middle East and Europe; the short-term solution is working with allies to free up more diesel supply. The long-term cause is decades of anti-fossil-fuel policies; the long-term solution is becoming the world’s diesel superpower. A proposed ban on diesel exports would raise overall fuel prices and wreck America’s energy superpower status.
Diesel prices have never been this high—and things could get worse
Diesel is the dominant fuel of heavy-duty vehicles: from the farm equipment that grows our food, to the mining and logging equipment that provides raw materials for manufacturing, to the semi-trucks that carry almost everything we consume.
Diesel is also many Northeast homes’ source of heat (in the slightly modified form of “heating oil”).
When the price of diesel goes up, the price of everything goes up. And the price of diesel has gone way up. A year ago, the price of US diesel averaged $3.66 a gallon. It recently hit $6.53 a gallon—an 80% increase.1
Other countries are experiencing even more pain. Australia is paying about $7/gallon for diesel. The UK and France are paying around $10.2
As we head toward winter, the problem could become even worse as the US, Europe, and parts of Asia use more diesel in the form of heating oil.
Americans are understandably upset, especially those who suffer most directly from rising diesel prices, such as farmers (who are in harvest season), truckers, and Northeast residents.
Politicians understandably want to “do something”—especially as an election approaches. But to make sure that the “something” actually makes things better instead of worse, we need to first understand what’s responsible for our diesel problems.
The short-term cause: wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe
The number one thing to understand about today’s diesel prices is that it’s overwhelmingly a lack-of-supply problem.
Diesel is a global market, with prices set by global supply and global demand. It’s good that diesel is a global market, because this makes diesel supply more secure at generally lower and more stable prices than they would otherwise be.
High demand has certainly played a role in price increase. We are in the fall harvest, where diesel-powered agricultural equipment creates increased demand for diesel use.
But low supply of diesel is the overwhelming cause of today’s prices.
The global seaborne diesel trade—which plays a central role in setting diesel prices worldwide—has lost over 60 million gallons a day, or nearly 20% of its normal volume!3
The leading short-term causes of insufficient refining capacity and supply disruptions are the wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
The Iran war has taken an estimated over 30 million gallons/day of diesel from the market, about 10% of the seaborne diesel trade.4
Ukraine’s successful attacks on Russian refineries have taken out an estimated 25-30 million gallons/day of diesel exports. This is another 8-10% of the seaborne diesel trade.5
The long-term cause: global anti-fossil-fuel policies
While today’s supply disruptions are dramatic, they did not need to be nearly as disruptive as they have been.
If the US and our allies around the world had embraced the growing need for diesel and dramatically increased refining capacity accordingly, we would have significant excess refining capacity and diesel stockpiles to draw upon in the current moment.
But thanks to two decades of global obsession with anti-fossil-fuel policies, most of our allies have failed to grow capacity and in many cases reduced it.
Since 2020, Australia has lost 50% of its fuel refining capacity, Canada—the fourth-largest oil producer in the world—lost 6%, the UK lost over 9%, Japan more than 5%, and the EU lost almost 7% of its refining capacity despite growing demand for refined fuels inside the EU and globally.6
The US should have responded to attacks on global refining by rapidly scaling up our own refining abilities to become a diesel superpower. We were perfectly positioned to do so, with record amounts of crude oil production (that’s increased by 340 million gallons a day since 2010) and huge opportunities to import even more crude oil from Canada (Keystone XL was designed to bring 30 million gallons a day).7
But instead we squandered our opportunity through anti-fossil-fuel policies of our own.
We have disincentivized untold potential refining through anti-fossil-fuel policies such as Biden’s “whole of government” opposition to fossil fuels, state and national bans on diesel vehicles, and threats of “windfall profits” taxes.8
We stopped Keystone XL and other projects that would have brought a “heavy” oil well-suited to existing US diesel refining capacity.9
Since 2019 America has lost an estimated 21 million gallons a day of diesel refining capacity (about 70 million gallons a day of total refining) when we should have been keeping more existing capacity and adding much more new capacity! Diesel would be much cheaper now had we not done that.10
The long-term solution: become the world’s diesel superpower
Long-term, becoming the world’s diesel superpower is the solution to our diesel problems.
To be sure, we should encourage our allies to reverse anti-fossil-fuel policies, as we can use as much diesel fuel as we can get. But no matter what our allies do, we need to be committed to dramatically increasing our refining capacity and removing the many roadblocks to doing so.
On this front, the Trump administration has done a great job at reversing domestic and global anti-fossil-fuel policies.
It has challenged the endangerment finding, reversed the Biden “whole of government” attack on fossil fuels, cut subsidies for unreliable electricity, and reversed bans on gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Domestically, it can continue to work for comprehensive, tech-neutral permitting reform (freedom-to-build) legislation that will make it easier to build refineries along with all other energy projects.
Being a diesel superpower requires not only refining a lot of diesel but also having refiners to make great, mutually beneficial deals with customers in other countries who can rely on our exports.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, is considering an action that would wreck our prospects of becoming a diesel superpower, undercut our broader energy dominance, and increase fuel prices: a diesel export ban.
A diesel export ban would wreck US energy dominance and raise overall prices
Since diesel prices are set by supply and demand, there is a temptation to lower US diesel prices by banning any of the supply we produce from going abroad. That way we will have up to 63.3 million more gallons/day (19.5% of global seaborne trade) domestically.11
Make no mistake, flooding the market with diesel that was planned for export will temporarily lower diesel prices in much of the US, just as banning any export will temporarily lower its price in the US. (If we ban wheat exports, automobile exports, or tractor exports, the prices of wheat, automobiles, and tractors will temporarily go down.) But at what cost?
Short-term gasoline and jet fuel price increases
Refiners will quickly run out of places to store the excess diesel, requiring them to cut production. Since refineries simultaneously produce diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel, gasoline and jet fuel prices will rise.
Devastating consequences for our allies—and for our energy superpower status
If the US removes 63.3 million gallons/day from the global diesel trade we will dramatically increase prices for Mexico, Latin America, and Europe. As well as California, Alaska, and Hawaii, who also get their diesel from global diesel trade.
Mexico, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil have trusted us to deliver them diesel, have few alternatives within 4000 miles, and cannot afford far higher prices than today’s.
Europe will suffer higher prices just as they’re heading into the winter, where diesel in the form of fuel oil is crucial to keeping them warm.
The US, led by the two Trump administrations, has spent the last decade positioning itself as an energy superpower that reliably exports energy to allies. A diesel export ban will destroy that positioning and the US will lose out on countless mega-deals to more countries that will be perceived as more reliable suppliers—such as China, Iran, and Russia.
Longer-term prices increases for everyone
At the end of the day, a US diesel export ban cuts US refining and therefore reduces US and global diesel production.
As long as the ban stays active, gasoline and jet fuel prices will stay higher than they would otherwise be.
When the ban ends, there will be higher US prices for diesel (along with all other fuels) than there would have been.
US refining investment will be disincentivized for the foreseeable future. If the Trump administration is going to punish domestic refiners then who can refiners count on to make investment worthwhile?
The real short-term solution: work with allies to open Hormuz and free up more diesel
The most effective US short-term policies are: open the Strait of Hormuz, suspend biofuel mandates, continue to suspend the Jones Act
Keep opening the Strait of Hormuz: No near-term policy can come close to this. It would quickly add tens of millions of gallons a day to the global diesel trade.
Work with countries to put idle refining capacity to use: Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria have reported substantial refining capacity the US might be able to help put to rapid use.
Temporarily reduce or eliminate diesel (excise) taxes: Americans currently pay on average 60 cents a gallon in federal and state diesel taxes. For more relief, reduce or eliminate the 52 extra cents a gallon we pay in federal and state taxes for gasoline.12
Extend Jones Act waivers beyond November 15: This will ensure the ability of diesel to move from the Gulf Coast to constrained US markets like California and New England.
Work with allies to release diesel fuel reserves: This can only work if the US is seen as a reliable trading partner.
Our government faces a choice.
It can use rising diesel costs as a way to educate Americans about the damaging consequences of anti-fossil-fuel policies and the need for America to be an even greater energy superpower that our allies depend on.
Or it can panic and pass an export ban that will just create a cascade of new problems, including rising gasoline prices and an enduring decline in our superpower status.
Tell the Trump administration and Congress to make the right choice.
Daniil Gorkatenko and Steffen Henne contributed to this piece.
Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:
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.
8
11
63.3 million gallons/day is the latest 4-week US daily diesel export volume average.
U.S. Energy Information Administration - Exports of Distillate Fuel Oil
"Before you give the government new powers, try the 'Munger Test': cross out 'government' and insert the name of the politician you trust least. Then see if you still like the idea..."~ from the podcast 'Public Choice and Politics Without Romance' (with Russ Roberts & Mike Munger)'
The death of anti-ICE activist Renee Good is a tragedy, full stop.
It also could have been avoided.
Video shows Good, who harassed ICE officials and ignored repeated warnings, began to drive into an ICE agent seconds before he shot and killed her in self-defense.
Facts.
The Left demonized the ICE agent in question anyway. U2 even penned a song honoring Good and ignoring the reason why she no longer walks among us.
Now, it’s The Daily Wire’s turn to bring Good’s story, and the larger anti-ICE movement, to cinematic life.
TMZ reports that the company’s upcoming “Pawn Shop” is currently filming in Montana. The fictional tale features a Good-like character in the story.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Enjoying Hollywood in Toto? I hope you’ll leave a coin (or two) in our TIP JAR.
The far-Left site, ostensibly created as a Republican backlash against Donald Trump, allegedly got its hands on the film’s script. The article is dismissive of both the screenplay’s contents and the recent Daily Wire original, “Run Hide Fight: Infidels,” produced by site co-founder Ben Shapiro.
Here’s where it gets interesting – and emblematic of the Modern Left’s zest for censorship.
Locals got their hands on the script, too, and started honking their car horns and attempting other small-scale disruptions to the shoot.
“We want them to know: Don’t come do this s*** in our town,” one protester, who asked not to be named for fear of online retaliation, told me.
An admirable effort [emphasis added], but I think Shapiro’s film is sufficiently self-sabotaging on its own.
Admirable? Why?
Does The Bulwark want the movie shut down? What about free speech? Can’t the “other” side of the Good narrative have its say? Why can’t a conservative company make a movie about a contentious event with its own perspective?
Imagine if Michael Moore shot a film and conservative protesters did all they could to interrupt the shoot. The outcry would be palpable – as it should be. (Except that’s a very unlikely scenario)
This isn’t an isolated moment.
RELATED: ‘INDY 5’ DIRECTOR: BOYCOTT FOX NEWS
We’ve seen other right-leaning projects face stiff winds from the cultural Left. The pro-life movie “Unplanned” faced major obstacles en route to theaters in 2019. Google even dubbed the film “propaganda.”
Film crews asked that their names be removed from a right-leaning documentary for fear of professional retaliation.
The L.A. Times dubbed “Infidels” racist weeks before the film’s release.
Now, this.
All for a streaming original with a microscopic budget that will live primarily on The Daily Wire site for its subscribers.
Meanwhile, Warner Bros. just poured as much as $180 million into “Digger.” The Tom Cruise vehicle is a two-hour Climate Change screed, full of lectures on the evils of oil.
Last year, the same studio threw well north of $100 million to produce “One Battle After Another,” a far-Left assault on white men and, more specifically, anyone who thinks arresting illegal immigrants is wrong.
The latter movie lost millions. Who knows how much “Digger” will cost Warner Bros., but the figure could reach $200 million.
Did anyone leak the scripts of these far-Left films and suggest they shouldn’t be made, let alone seen? Why would the far-Left Bulwark complain about “Pawn Shop,” an indie film that won’t have the marketing muscle to ensure widespread distribution?
It’s simple.
The Left owns Hollywood, by and large. That includes the industry’s messaging machine, too. That’s why both the Left and the media, but we repeat ourselves, went into mourning when “The Late Show” and its nightly progressive messaging got cancelled.
More importantly, any threat to that cultural dominance, even from an indie film offering a different perspective, is seen as a threat.
Here’s betting the attacks on “Pawn Shop” have only begun.
The post Bulwark’s Attack on Daily Wire’s ICE Movie Says It All appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.
Next Page of Stories