The fossil fuel revolution that started in the Eighteen and Nineteenth Centuries was not planned by governments. It occurred because humans found fossil fuels useful in their daily lives. In later years fossil fuels made possible even more useful forms of energy generated using fossil fuels, particularly electricity. With assistance from increasing human ingenuity, the result is much of the modern developed world. The difference can be seen by comparing Western developed economies with those of less developed economies (LDCs) around the world where use of fossil fuels is still very limited.
The great desire by people in the LDCs to migrate to the Western economies shows that there is a great preference for modern developed economies, in substantial part made possible by their use of fossil fuels. Humans are even willing to endanger their own lives in order to enjoy these and other benefits of Western developed economies.
Using Fossil Fuels Has Proved a Win-win for both Humans and the Environment
It has always been unlikely that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels would turn out to be an environmental problem given the very low CO2 concentrations involved. But the big news is that it has now been shown that rather than creating a problem as the climate alarmists claim, the use of fossil fuels is actually a win-win situation for both humans and the environment, and that shifting to unreliable renewables is a loss for everyone except renewable equipment providers. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels help plant growth. Improved human wealth from the use of fossil fuels means more concern and care for the environment, not less since people now have the time and resources to worry about such things. In most developed countries, especially the US, the conventional pollutants resulting from burning fossil fuels have been greatly controlled, so this is no longer a reason to oppose use of fossil fuels. Finally, the great alarmist inspired claim that more CO2 will result in catastrophically higher temperatures has been shown to be false since there is no significant effect of increasing CO2 on global temperatures.
All this is perhaps the best news that the modern fossil-fueled world could possibly have gotten. It means that the modern world can continue to grow and that people can live longer, better, and healthier lives as long as the opponents can keep the climate Luddites from imposing climate-inspired CO2 emission controls. Yet the climate-industrial complex is determined to argue that this is not the case despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
It is time to bring the climate alarmists’ nonsense to an end and not waste any more resources in trying to make fossil fuel energy more expensive and less reliable. It is time to get on with further expanding fossil fuel use for the benefit of both humans and the environment, particularly in the less developed world. Any other course of action would reduce human welfare, particularly at the expense of activities and people that cannot afford to pay greatly inflated energy prices for their immediate energy needs.
“Let’s not pretend that burning fossil fuels is pollution free.”
True. But let us not pretend that you can get the energy from other sources with less pollution. When people burn wood, dung, grass, moss, and other carbon-containing fuels they generate a great deal more pollution per unit of energy. We need an apples to apples comparison and cannot assume that a society with a low population density where per capita pollution is diffused over a greater area is the same as one where population density is higher. Take a look at the population of a large city like New York. When you examine the total energy use the total production and the standard of living, you will see that it produces far less pollution than the primitive societies that many people tend to worship.
“There can be serious problems, as in China, India and other parts of Asia.”
True. But China could not support so many people at such a high standard of living without access to fossil fuels. I lived in Xi’an, one of the world’s most polluted cities, for two years and know how bad the pollution in China could be. But as progress is made and there is less government-controlled production, the pollution levels fall even as the standard of living increases. Take away the fossil fuels and many of the people would starve.
“My recommendation is to burn MORE fossil fuels to get to 800 to 1,200 ppm CO2 as soon as possible, to green the planet and optimize C# plant growth, while reducing water needs for those plants.”
While I agree with your position that CO2 is good, I do not favour central planning of any type. The best thing that we can do is to get the regulators out of the way and to see where economic decisions made by billions of people leads us.
Let’s not pretend that burning fossil fuels is pollution free.
There can be serious problems, as in China, India and other parts of Asia.
Of course the so-called “environmentalists” don’t care about real pollution
that’s here now.
CO2 is not pollution, and adding it to the air
benefits our planet (I speak for all C3 plants and the people
and farm animals who eat them).
My recommendation is to burn MORE fossil fuels to get to 800 to 1,200 ppm CO2
as soon as possible, to green the planet and optimize C# plant growth,
while reducing water needs for those plants.
Plants used for food grow faster and bigger and need less water with CO2 enrichment.
Ask any greenhouse owner.
And if we are lucky, we’ll get a little nighttime warming too.
Another policy solution is more independence for State environmental agencies.
This will result in more competition in the realm of environmental policy. Let each State shape its own environmental programs. if California goes for windmills, fine, this can be its choice. Other states can make other choices.
All unions want more mission budget and benefits for their members. Public sector unions raise price of government. And unions can form alliances across agencies.
Science reliant public health agencies should not be unionized. they should put public service first. The military is not unionized.
Unions may be ok at the post office for inStance. The post office is not going to market cargo cult save the earth stuff.
But organizations like noaa, Usepa, USfda, nih, the IRS, the FBI, do not need unionized workers undercutting the public good. The FBI can’t catch Lois Lerner and other shameless big government misbehaviors.
The scientific case against global warming is overwhelming, on the merits. The skeptics won, alarmists have nothing.
Yet this is not a scientific debate that can reach fair minded consensus, rather a political tussle against unyielding propagandists of the alarmist CIC.
The CIC practices what feynman termed cargo cult science. They publish studies and act like scientists, but it’s an end is nigh cult and the science is slanted. Al Gore is Bernie Madoff.
Doc, I cannot recall if your book alluded to the key nefarious role played by public sector unions within the Climate Industrial Complex.
Global Warming nonsense comes from the Left. It is financially underwritten by Uncle Sam. Uncle has “scientists” like now retired mad jimmy Hansen who declare the earth is warming.
Public sector unions must play a large though low profile role. They benefit from cooking the science and attacking fossil fuels. they will encourage this kind of thinking inside federal government bureaucracies on a daily basis.
The congress would render valuable service to america by prohibiting unions within the federal workforce. Drain the swamp.