The moral, economic and environmental case for fossil fuels

Debate: Should America rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe?

A debate at The Steamboat Institute Energy and Climate Summit, The Nexus of U.S. Energy Policy, Climate Science, Freedom and Prosperity featuring Alex Epstein, author of the New York Times bestseller The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University; author of Introduction to Modern Climate Change, moderated by Dan Njegomir, Editorial Page Editor, Denver Gazette, held March 12, 2022 in Steamboat Springs, Colorado

The simple, final answer is: NO!

By its very nature, Mother Nature is not kind or even supportive of human life. Human prosperity and sustainability has been facilitated if not created by 'climate mastery,' be it in reducing absolute poverty, improving lifestyles, or creating wealth.

There is a familiar theme to this debate: The proponent for fossil fuels uses facts and economics to analyze the historic, present and future impact of fossil fuels, while his opponent prefers to just claim -- without evidence or even specifics -- that the fossil fuel proponent is "wrong." I found this approach all to common among students who "felt strongly" about a topic and who were eager to criticize if not condemn one side of the argument, yet who were also unable to either explain what was actually wrong about the argument or to present facts as to the credibility of their own argument.

In one example, the opponent of fossil fuels argues that the proponent is ignorant of the current research yet, when questioned about a very current study supporting the proponents's case, the opponent simply pleads ignorance, basically acknowledging that he is guilty of exactly what he accuses the proponent, confirming both his ignorance and hypocrisy.

Or while extolling the reducing costs of solar or wind energy, the opponent of fossil fuels uses a footnote to overlook the total costs of a solar or wind energy system, costs that include a reliable backup system (solar and wind are NOT reliable), the long-term costs of re-cycling or replacing batteries, windmills and other "green" or "renewable" energy sources. This is done either from willful ignorance or a desire to deceive to make an arrogant -- yet false -- assertion.

My position as a teacher was this: Don't criticize unless you can offer a constructive solution; it is better to remain silent less you expose your own ignorance in the presentation of your feelings. Use facts, not feelings. Arguments can not be made in an historical vacuum; short-term, current trends are most often misleading, with the start and end points chosen to support the weak argument. For example, the claim of "record forest fires" in the United States comes from ignoring all history before 1983, as prior to that time forest fires were ten times worse than the 'record high' rate claimed today.

Or the 'other side' moves the goalposts or ignores unintended consequences, as the United Nations did when it dropped calls for "reducing poverty" in favor of "reducing inequality," without even acknowledging that world poverty has been greatly reduced, consistently for over two corded years. Reducing poverty has produced greater inequality, but it has not made the world population worse off, i.e., people are not rich because someone is poor.