trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
A book review written by Kurt H. Wulff of
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein
Use more fossil fuels on the philosophical basis that “Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is supremely virtuous— because human life is the standard of value, and because using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human life.” Pointing to the downside of the anti-fossil fuel view, author Alex Epstein writes, “Imagine if we had followed the advice of some of our leading advisers [thirty years ago], many of whom are some of our leading advisers now, to severely restrict the energy source that billions of people used to lift themselves out of poverty in the last thirty years? We would have caused billions of premature deaths— deaths that were prevented by our increasing use of fossil fuels.” Mr. Epstein agrees that coal, oil and natural gas caused global warming, which amounted to an almost immeasurable 0.8 degree Celsius in the past 150 years. The “science” that predicts future catastrophe is based on models that have been wrong for the past three decades. Yes, fossil fuels cause pollution, but that risk has been drastically reduced. “The data clearly show that we have never had higher environmental quality and we have never been safer from climate, despite— no, because of— record fossil fuel use.” Meanwhile, the culturally popular alternatives to coal, oil and natural gas – solar and wind – require backup power to smooth out intermittency. The author writes “It’s more accurate to say that solar and wind are parasites that require a host.” We think there is much sensible discussion in “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” that deserves more respect from our political, educational and media leaders who seem all too ready to spread false narratives.
Carbon Dioxide in Perspective
The most overblown misrepresentation of the anti-fossil fuel movement, as we see it, is the negative characterization of carbon dioxide, CO2 for short. In contrast, particulates (smoke), sulfur dioxide and smog inducing byproducts of combustion are obviously undesirable and have been dramatically curtailed. Epstein frames his discussion of CO2 around the greenhouse effect, the fertilizer effect and the energy effect.
The greenhouse effect where CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun to warm the earth has been well-publicized in a negative context. The modest degree of warming since the pickup in CO2 concentration with the industrial revolution supposedly portends much more serious warming in the future that must be prevented. Epstein points out that the computer models to support future warming apocalypse have been wrong for the past thirty years. The book cites an analysis of 102 models that overestimated actual temperature rise at four times actual. Moreover in the last fifteen years there has been no increase in global temperatures. Similarly, there has been no increase in storm activity the past 45 years as measured by global accumulated cyclone activity. Though we don’t know all the assumptions that compound in the models, Epstein highlights the logarithmic, rather than linear response of temperature change to CO2 concentration. In other words, it may take twice as much of an increase in CO2 to get the same temperature increase in the next 150 years as in the past 150 years. Then there is the observation that seems obvious to investors, the failure of seemingly sophisticated financial models that contributed to the financial crises of 1998 and 2008. How much more difficult must it be to model the atmospheric climate in 2050 than the investment climate today? Through it all, we might forget that the concentration of CO2 in air is a minute 0.04%.
The fertilizer effect gets little attention for its positive impact. Plants eat CO2 as a vital ingredient for growth. Epstein cites work showing how plants grow larger in higher concentrations of CO2.
Epstein’s energy effect accompanying rising CO2 includes climate mastery. Climate related deaths from floods, storms and droughts are down to a fraction of their incidence when fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions were lower. What if there were more serious climate implications of rising CO2 than we think likely? The author believes there is time for ingenuity and technology to mitigate unexpected results. Finally, in our words, let us celebrate, not denigrate natural gas, oil and cleaner coal.
