Travis Fisher
Travis Fisher is the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute. He has nearly 20 years of experience in energy policy, including leadership roles at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Institute for Energy Research, Department of Energy, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, and Heritage Foundation.
Fisher’s research focuses on the economics and reliability of electricity; the role of free markets in improving the availability and affordability of energy and natural resources; and environmental regulations that affect energy. He was the lead author of the Department of Energy’s 2017 Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability and has published dozens of reports and op-eds. He also serves as a council member of the US Association for Energy Economics.
A native of North Carolina, Fisher holds a BS and an MS in economics from North Carolina State University. He lives in Maryland with his wife, three kids, and two dogs.
Travis’s substack: The Fishtank: Musings on Energy Policy
801: Travis Fisher, part 3: Restoring time with family
Meaningful interactions don’t have to be complex. Travis simply shares his experiences in nature in childhood and finds ways to recreate the emotional experience today. To me the most meaningful part is the result: he expects to spend more time with his children (and dog) doing something he’s meant to do a long time. It doesn’t cost money. It sounds like it will give him more time. The cleaning part, we’ll see how it goes, though I predict the activation that comes from that part of it will affect him.
He works in policy so he describes how he sees personal change leading to systemic change more than trying to start with something top-down alone, like working from government or coercion. As I understand, he sees more than most that starting from intrinsic motivation, as the Spodek Method does, can lead to exponential growth in cultural change.
Time will tell, but I see it happening.
792: Travis Fisher, part 2: The spirit that America was founded on, Cato, and sustainability
We recorded this conversation just after the election. We talked about it, especially Travis’s and the Cato Institute’s views. One of his main views is that the US puts too much executive authority in the president. I’m also
We shared our concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act coming from different standpoints, but agreeing with each other.
Our main conversation was about approaching sustainability from a view of freedom, not coercion or imposing values. I share my view that
If you think living more sustainably makes people’s lives worse, you have to become a better dictator.
If you think living more sustainably improves people’s lives, you learn to become a better marketer, entrepreneur, or leader.
Travis agrees on the problems with top-down coercion and we took off from there, in Travis’s words: “the spirit that America was founded on.”
787: Travis Fisher, part 1: A nonpartisan, libertarian view on the environment from the Cato Institute
I’ve been curious in what ways libertarian views on the environment and sustainability differ from conservative views. Travis worked at the Heritage Foundation, which is more conservative, and now works at the Cato Institute, which is more libertarian. Since I haven’t spoken to many libertarians directly, I’m interested in this conversation to learn, so it’s a conversation, not a debate.
Early in our conversation, he describes some of their differences and similarities, and why he chose Cato. He shares some of his training and background that led him to his views.
Then we talked about a few issues: the Inflation Reduction Act, regulation, how government funding of many programs results in industries growing without being profitable from its customers. We look at several moral hazards, including government gaining money and power from permitting polluting behavior and distributing funding evenly so everyone votes for something even if it doesn’t help.
We recorded just before the election so talked about recording again after the election to talk about how its results affect the political, energy, and pollution landscape.