Dan Sutter: In defense of fossil fuels
Governments are promising to end fossil fuel use by 2050 or sooner. Fossil Future by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, argues that this would be tragic. Contrary to conventional wisdom, he believes that expanding the use of fossil fuels is humanity’s only moral course. I will detail the steps of Mr. Epstein’s argument shortly. Perhaps more is his analysis of standards of value. His standard, human flourishing, contrasts with the standard of minimizing human impact on the environment driving the campaign against fossil fuels. The argument for fossil fuels has three parts. First, fossil fuels provide inexpensive energy, enabling us to perform inconceivably more work than with just human or animal power. Fossil fuels provide concentrated, on-demand, portable, and scalable energy, or energy we can build lives and an economy around. By contrast, wind and solar provide intermittent energy. And fossil fuels, which provide 80 percent of energy, have no substitutes in heavy transportation and heat generation. Second, fossil fuels power climate mastery, making the Earth more livable for humans. We alter the environment in many ways to improve life, like draining swamps to control malaria. Climate mastery, epitomized by the Netherlands’ flood protection system, has reduced extreme weather fatalities per capita by 98 percent over the past century. Finally, global warming will not overwhelm our fossil fuel-enabled climate mastery. Melting glaciers after the last Ice Age increased sea level by over 300 feet. Our ancestors, living at a subsistence level, survived. Irrigation, flood control, fertilizer, and pesticides will control any impacts of warming. Climate change does not threaten human existence. This is great news! Still, Fossil Future’s biggest contribution is discussing standards of value for energy. Mr. Epstein employs human flourishing, defined as “increasing the ability of human beings to live long, healthy, fulfilling lives.” Human flourishing has experienced a true “hockey stick” takeoff over the past 250 years, powered by fossil fuels. Yet the framework also recognizes fossil fuels’ side effects, including air pollution and warming. Human flourishing requires a hospitable environment. Leading environmentalists, Mr. Epstein argues, value minimizing the impact of humans on the natural environment. Mr. Epstein interprets environmentalist writings within this anti-impact framework. Bill McKibben observes how altering the flow of water in a creek is wrong: “Instead of a world where rain had an independent and mysterious existence, the rain had become a subset of human activity.” Yet undisturbed nature includes disease, droughts, and extreme weather. The anti-impact framework is ultimately anti-life. Extreme charges should not be made casually, and Mr. Epstein proceeds carefully here. Consider this review of Mr. McKibben’s The End of Nature: “Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” If you think Mr. Epstein exaggerates, how would you greet a source of cheap energy without pollution or warming side effects? In the late 1980s, a reported breakthrough on nuclear fusion offered just this. And leading environmentalists’ reactions: “disastrous,” “the worst thing that could happen to our planet,” and “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” Vague slogans like “going green,” “protecting the environment,” or “saving the planet” gloss over the anti-life aspect of anti-impact. Most people like polar bears and consequently support action against climate change. Standards of value matter immensely. Under human flourishing, humanity-enhancing impact is moral. Under the anti-impact standard, any impact of energy use is immoral. And this ultimately drives climate change’s “existential threat” label. Human-caused warming is immoral and unacceptable regardless of whether it hurts us. Recognizing the anti-impact framework rationalizes some otherwise contradictory policies. Hydro and nuclear power offer electricity without carbon emissions. But they impact the environment and therefore are not green. Reducing human impact, not saving humanity, is the goal. We cannot hope to feed eight billion people without fossil fuels. Ending fossil fuel use by mid-century will impoverish America and condemn millions to energy poverty and ultimately likely starvation. If people read and engage Alex Epstein’s arguments, perhaps we can ensure an empowered life for every human. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Barry Moore to join colleagues at D.C. hearing on ‘Bidenflation’
Congressman Andy Biggs will hold an off-site hearing on Tuesday to discuss what he terms “Bidenflation” and “Biden’s energy crisis.” Alabama Congressman Barry Moore will attend the hearing. The hearing will be at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., from 3:00-5:00 pm EDT, and will feature nearly 20 prominent House Republican lawmakers. Four expert witnesses will provide testimony. According to the Heritage Foundation website, the group’s mission is to “formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” According to the press release, this hearing will “examine the Biden Administration’s policies that have led to a disastrous economic and energy state for the country.” The hearing also aims to determine how Republicans in Congress can “hold Joe Biden more accountable for his reckless leadership.” Other congressional members attending the hearing are Reps. Chip Roy, Claudia Tenney, Dan Bishop, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Doug Lamalfa, Ralph Norman, Byron Donalds, Ben Cline, Yvette Herrell, Andrew Clyde, Bob Good, and Andy Harris. Witnesses include former Governor of Texas and former Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow Stephen Moore, President of Western Energy Alliance Kathleen Sgamma, and Alex Epstein, President of the Center for Industrial Progress.
Dan Sutter: The freedom to use fossil fuels
The Biden Administration seems intent on renewing the war against fossil fuels to combat global warming. Before going down this path, I hope Americans will consider Alex Epstein’s argument in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. A moral argument requires a standard of value and Mr. Epstein’s is human life. As he explains, “I think that our fossil fuel use so far has been a moral choice because it has enabled billions of people to live longer and more fulfilling lives.” Many environmentalists do not share this standard. Mr. Epstein describes their standard as minimizing human impact on the environment. Environmentalist Bill McKibben desires a world where “Human happiness would be of secondary importance.” David Graber hopes, “Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” Human life and well-being is a holistic standard embracing all people, not just an elite. It means far more than enriching oil and gas companies and demands considering benefits and costs, including pollution. The Industrial Revolution unleashed what economist Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment, the enormous increase in standards of living and life expectancy of the past 250 years. Energy has powered the Industrial Revolution’s tractors, steamships, factories, and railroads. Fossil fuels specifically give humans low-cost energy, which is crucial. A tractor allows us to save time planting compared with working by hand. But we are not better off if obtaining fuel takes all the time saved. Fossil fuels also provide the energy to build machines and buildings. Electric power grids and natural gas systems also improve the quality of life. Previously people burned coal, wood, or animal dung in their homes, creating indoor air pollution and smog. Energy allows modern, sanitary water and sewer systems to deliver safe water to and remove dangerous waste from homes. Energy makes our planet more livable. Mr. Epstein notes that nature, “attacks us with bacteria-filled water, excessive heat, lack of rainfall, too much rainfall, powerful storms, decay, disease-carrying insects and animals, and a large assortment of predators.” Technology protects us from nature’s hazards. Hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia still lack electricity, clean water, and sanitation. Modern medicine also requires energy. A lack of affordable energy kills 3 to 4 million people each year. Mr. Epstein puts a human face on these statistics. He observed the impact on medicine of unreliable electricity visiting Africa: “A full-term infant was born weighing only 3.5 pounds. In the U.S. the solution would have been obvious and effective: incubation. But without reliable electricity … [t]his seemingly simple solution was not available to this newborn girl, and she perished needlessly.” Pollution harms human life and well-being and should be avoided if possible. Mr. Epstein suggests viewing pollution is as a by-product. We use fossil fuels to power factories and cars and then recognize that this causes air pollution. What do we do? Use human ingenuity to reduce the by-products. Inventing and installing pollution control technology on cars and factories yields prosperity and environmental quality. Global warming represents a similar by-product, although the harm is speculative and occurs primarily in the future. Banning fossil fuels is not the only way to address global warming. Alternatively, we could continue to use fossil fuels to make the world wealthier than today. With continued economic growth, world GDP per capita could easily increase by a factor of four by 2100. Even if global warming reduced world GDP by 25% in 2100 (a rather extreme estimate), the world would still be three times richer than today. The economic freedom and empowerment, including the freedom to use fossil fuels, has produced modern prosperity. Using more of this energy could soon extend this prosperity to billions more. If we care about human life, climate policy must acknowledge the enormous human value of fossil fuels. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
