The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

by Alex Epstein

  Southern California is considered a desirable climate to live in only because technology maximizes its benefits and minimizes its drawbacks. Technology enables us to live in practically any climate.

  Consider that in the United States, a large country, we are home to every type of climate imaginable: from polar Alaska to desert California to swampy Florida to scorching Texas. And yet in each state we have a life expectancy of over seventy-five!11

  There is no climate that man is ideally adapted to, in the sense that it will guarantee him a decent quality of life. Nature does not want us to have a life expectancy of seventy-five or an infant mortality rate below 1 percent. Nature, the sum of all things on Earth, doesn’t care about human beings one way or another and attacks us with bacteria-filled water, excessive heat, lack of rainfall, too much rainfall, powerful storms, decay, disease-carrying insects and other animals, and a large assortment of predators. Today we regard death before age thirty as a tragedy; in more “natural” times, it was the expectation.

  We are naturally dependent on climate, and naturally endangered by climate.

  While today it does not make sense to obsess about climate changes, at one point in history it did—because such changes controlled our lives more than we could control them.

  The right climate conditions at the right time meant a good harvest—the wrong ones could lead to food shortages; the right climate conditions meant the ability to build at least a primitive civilization—the wrong ones could destroy that civilization in a few days.

  To put it bluntly, in our “natural climate,” absent technology, human beings are as sick as dogs and drop like flies. Notice that today, though we talk a lot about climate, and episodes of bad weather get huge media attention, we don’t fear climate on a day-to-day basis.

  There are two lessons here: First, weather, climate, and climate change matter—but not nearly as much as they used to, thanks to technology. Climate livability is not just a matter of the state of the global climate system, but also of the technology (or lack thereof) that we have available to deal with any given climate. Second, having that technology is useless unless we have the energy to run it.

  We often talk about Mother Nature as if it is really our mother—a being that deliberately nurtures us and has our best interests at heart. But it isn’t, and doesn’t. Nature, including the climate, is a wondrous background that gives us the potential for an amazing life—if we transform it. To obsess over changes in the background while ignoring the need for technology and transformation is a prescription for a worse life.

  The one thing we can’t live without, climatologically, is technology. Which means we can’t live without the fuel of technology, energy. Which means we can’t live without energy we (and potentially everyone) can afford. Which means, for the foreseeable future—as in, most of the unrepeatable, irreplaceable years of our lives—we can’t live without fossil fuel energy.

  With it, we can achieve a stunning—and growing—amount of mastery over any climate hazards, natural or man-made. We have been doing so for decades. And we can get even better.

  Let’s look at how climate mastery applies to perhaps the most hypothetically dangerous consequence of hypothetically dramatic warming: significant sea level rises.

  MASTERING THE SEA

  The effect that seems to be most directly connected to the warming of the planet is the rise of sea level. If the planet warms enough ice from the polar regions will melt, adding additional water to the oceans, which will creep up the landmasses of the world, such as coastal cities and island nations—with the potential for massive population displacement and enormous numbers of “climate refugees.”12 As I indicated in the last chapter, all the actual evidence of the trends I have seen—as against model speculation—points to very mild sea level rises, much as we have had for thousands of years. But let’s say sea levels rise more significantly—which has happened rapidly in the past due to natural causes. Some countries will face this situation no matter what; as we saw in Chapter 4, local conditions can lead to above average sea level rise (or fall) in certain regions—and land can sink independent of what the ocean does.

  Fortunately, with development and cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, nations can transform their environments to be far safer.

  Now, I’m not talking here about some science-fiction ten-foot-a-year rise in sea level, which would be an unmitigated disaster for coastal cities (the 2011 Japan tsunami paints a vivid picture of what this would look like). It would be a disaster because we would have had no time to plan. However, a rise of around two feet over a century, which the IPCC projects13 (likely overprojects, given the models it relies on) is a much different proposition. People, even entire cities’ worth, have time to find a solution.

  History has provided us with an example of a people and nation that have experienced the problem of rising sea level: the Netherlands. More accurately, the Netherlands experienced a sinking of the land, rather than a rise of sea level, but the effect was essentially the same—50 percent of the Netherlands lies less than three feet above sea level, and roughly 20 percent of its people actually live at an elevation below sea level.14

  This situation resulted from the choices that the residents of the Netherlands made about a thousand years ago. Early people drained the swamps of the region in an effort to find new farmland. While the peat soil beneath was very fertile, it was also very soft and began to sink as it was used for crops. In addition, peat (which is a precursor to coal) was also a very useful fuel, and the residents of the Netherlands extracted it and consumed it, causing the land to sink even more.15

  At a certain point, it became obvious that floods were becoming a large problem because the water in these lowlands had nowhere to drain. Strangely (or perhaps not), this situation did not turn the residents of the Netherlands into helpless refugees but spurred them to find solutions.

  As early as the year 1000, many villages in the Netherlands were connected by earthen walls that held the ocean and floodwaters back.16 Over time, these primitive dikes were improved upon and, after several centuries, combined with pumps operated by windmills to remove any water that did manage to make its way into the lowlands.17 These countermeasures kept the Netherlands mostly safe, except for rare large storms that overwhelmed the dikes and pumps.

  Industrialization brought the flood control of the Netherlands, like every human endeavor, to a whole new level. Today the system consists of thousands of miles of dikes, dams, and electronically operated storm walls and sluice gates. Much of the system has been designed to withstand floods that have a probability of occurring once in ten thousand years. In addition, people are making plans and designs for what would have to change in the event of a rise in sea level.

  Note that most of these innovations were made before the availability of cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, so if necessary, it would be far easier for other countries to replicate what the Netherlands has done. And who knows what else human ingenuity would come up with to deal with higher sea levels?

  CLIMATE MASTERY

  Even as we are taught to think of ourselves as in mortal climate danger, human beings are progressively becoming masters of climate. There are two components to mastering climate. One is control over the climate you’re in. Two is the ability to make the most of the climate you’re in.

  At any point in the last billion years, the Earth has been full of all kinds of different climates with different levels and patterns of heat, cold, precipitation, etc.—and there will always be a wide variety of desirable and undesirable places. But even once human beings came on the scene, with their fantastic brains, they couldn’t choose their climate very easily because of lack of mobility. Thanks to the internal combustion engine, which in 1992 Al Gore said should be outlawed in twenty-five years (i.e., 2017), we can go anywhere, anytime.18

  You can also, incidentally, choose more dangerous areas that have other ben
efits. You can choose to expose yourself to hurricanes and flooding on the coasts because you like other features of the area. Or you can go to blizzard-prone areas because you want to ski and snowboard every day. This is the ultimate climate freedom. And we have this freedom, not just once but (to the extent we can afford it, which is closely related to the affordability of energy) throughout the year.

  If you think of climate in a real way, not as some vague, mystical, “global climate” but as the climate around you, you are a master of climate just by virtue of the fact that you can change climates.

  Of course, moving is not always easy (especially for the undeveloped world, which I’ll discuss in a moment), but climate changes, even in the worst scenarios proposed by the most alarmist of the failed models, occur over periods of fifty to a hundred years. As with everything else in life, if we need to enhance our ability to do something—such as move—we need to be doubling down on energy production, not restricting it.

  Again, mass movement with regard to climate changes seems very unlikely, but it’s still worth mentioning because mobility is desirable, period, for the sake of the pursuit of happiness and because someday, some future generation is going to be faced with a dramatic climate change, and they’ll need the energy and mobility to cope with it.

  So fossil fuels give you the climate freedom to move, but as we have seen, they also give you the climate freedom to stay and thrive pretty much anywhere. Cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels amplifies our ability to build an infrastructure that insulates us from nature’s climate dangers and discomforts. And cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels amplifies our ability to enjoy the benefits of a given climate (or multiple climates).

  Bottom line: Fossil fuel energy, by enabling us to cheaply build and run wondrous machines that give us the mobility to choose any particular climate and the ability to increase the livability of that climate, has made us masters of climate. That doesn’t mean we are invulnerable, but the numbers show that we have become progressively less vulnerable. And if we care about climate livability, energy and technology have to be the focus.

  Why do our thought leaders never talk about this part of the fossil fuel–energy equation, which we can call the energy effect? It’s all around us. While in Minnesota over New Year’s 2014 visiting some dear friends (they would have to be dear for me to brave that weather), I realized, upon walking from my car to the bed-and-breakfast about forty feet away, that I couldn’t find my key. I was in the natural climate. As I searched for my key at −10 degrees Fahrenheit, my fingers getting very cold very fast, it occurred to me that, were I stuck outside, I could easily die within the hour. I can only imagine what it would have been like the next week, when temperatures reached −70 degrees Fahrenheit one day. Fortunately, I could get warm in a high-energy car, find my key, and stay warm in a high-energy hotel.

  Our climate focus needs to switch. The way to deal with climate danger is to take the high-energy actions necessary to deal with it. The answer is not in promoting inaction in the form of using less of our best form of energy. Once again, we have not been taught to think about these issues with human life as our standard of value.

  BUT WHAT IF . . . ?

  That said, I want to consider a hypothetical scenario in which CO2 emissions do cause a significant climate danger around the world. I believe that even if that were true, the current conduct and policies of environmental leaders would be inappropriate.

  Given what we know about the value of energy and of fossil fuels’ superiority in most contexts, how should an honestly concerned person respond if there is a big problem?

  First of all, by getting a straightforward understanding of the exact nature, magnitude, and certainty or uncertainty of the problem. It’s actually hard to imagine a dilemma that might justify restricting fossil fuels, for our potential climate mastery is so great. But say there’s a rapid rise in sea levels, enough to be truly concerned. What reaction would we want from our thought leaders?

  One would be an embrace of technological solutions, including those used in the Netherlands and every other place that deals well with sea level and flooding. Another would be investing a huge amount of energy and technology looking for still better solutions.

  In terms of communicating with the public, we would want our leaders to offer precise, objective briefings about evidence, risks, and probabilities with a recognition of the need to balance the risks with other risks (e.g., the hardships of energy loss). We would definitely not want vague talk of “catastrophe” with Hollywood hysteria scenarios.

  We would want scientists and other thought leaders to welcome debate and be understanding of opponents. We would not want them to bash the inquisitive or skeptical as “deniers.”

  Economically, we would want a commitment to liberate any and every technology that could help, from seawall technology to dike technology to durable building technology to CO2-free energy technology. We would not oppose the only globally scalable form of CO2-free energy ever invented: nuclear power. I believe the evidence is clear that nuclear is the safest energy technology (safer than fossil fuels, hydro, wind, solar).19 But even if it wasn’t, if it would help avert a catastrophe, the doomsayers shouldn’t be hostile to it. Ditto for large-scale hydroelectric power, which is also widely fought.

  The one thing a human-focused response to a major climate danger would not do is try to save ourselves by pursuing solar, wind, and biofuels. These are the worst-performing sources of energy we have, and if we were truly in desperate straits, we would go with something that works; we wouldn’t force everyone to use the worst and hope for the best.

  Finally, on an emotional note, I think that a proper reaction to a major danger from fossil fuels would be sorrow. Think about it: If the energy that runs our civilization has a tragic flaw, that is a terribly sad thing. It would be even worse, say, than if wireless technology caused brain cancer. The appropriate attitude would be gratitude toward the fossil fuel companies for what they had done for us, combined with recognition that we would have to suffer a lot in the years ahead, combined with the commitment to the best technologies that I mentioned earlier.

  But the doomsayers’ response to the (fortunately) nonexistent tragedy is to express no gratitude for industrial civilization, and to condemn the fossil fuel companies as fundamentally evil. Bill McKibben calls them “Public Enemy Number One.” James Hansen calls for them to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” (Notice Hansen’s equation of humanity and nature, making it unclear what his standard of value is.)20 Others act is if it’s an “exciting economic opportunity” to try to switch to the least competitive energy technologies on some insanely fast time frame, while opposing the truly effective energy technologies, such as nuclear, that could at least cushion the blow. “The winners of the race to reinvent energy will not only save the planet, but will also make megafortunes . . . fixing global warming won’t be a drain on the economy. On the contrary, it will unleash one of the greatest floods of new wealth in history,” says Fred Krupp, president of the anti–fossil fuel, antinuclear Environmental Defense Fund.21

  Clearly the doomsayers are not really focused on minimizing CO2 emissions. Clearly human life is not their operating standard of value; nonimpact is.

  I believe that we owe the fossil fuel industry an apology. While the industry has been producing the energy to make our climate more livable, we have treated it as a villain. We owe it the kind of gratitude that we owe anyone who makes our lives much, much better.

  There is one other issue of justice to discuss: the relationship between fossil fuel use and the climate difficulties of underdeveloped countries.

  CLIMATE JUSTICE

  One of the important moral issues of the climate-change discussion is the idea that the developed world is ruining the underdeveloped world by burning fossil fuels and that the solution is to stop using fossil fuels. This idea is usual
ly accompanied by strongly emoted concern for the plight of the poor whose lives we are ruining.

  If climate endangerment of the poor is a moral issue, then the climate catastrophists are major sinners.

  We know that the way to make climate livable is not to try to refrain from affecting it but to use cheap energy to technologically master it. Thus, if the undeveloped world is having trouble dealing with climate, it’s not because of our .01 percent change in the atmosphere; it’s because they haven’t followed the examples of China, India, and others who have increased fossil fuels use by hundreds of percent.22 And the goal should be to help them do so—especially because the benefits of fossil fuels go far beyond climate: cheap, plentiful, reliable energy gives human beings the power to improve every aspect of life, including productivity, food, clothing, and shelter. You can’t be a humanitarian and condemn the energy humanity needs.

  Even if the underdeveloped world doesn’t industrialize—which, by the standard of human life, it should—it is still wrong to claim that we’re making lives worse climatewise (or otherwise). The data completely contradict that notion. Climate-related deaths are down 98 percent worldwide, including in undeveloped countries.23 Our technologies and our wealth have given poorer countries better, cheaper everything: materials for building buildings, medicine, food for drought relief. The scientific and medical discoveries we have made in the time that has been bought with fossil fuel–powered labor-saving machines benefit everyone around the world.

  To oppose fossil fuels is ultimately to oppose the underdeveloped world. Fortunately, many up-and-coming countries realize this. China and India and much of Southeast Asia are committing to technological progress, which means energy progress, which substantially means fossil fuel progress—and they don’t appear to be willing to sacrifice their futures to climate fear. Neither should we.