The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels A Case

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A Case Study in the Methods of Economics Dr. D. Foster – ECO 285

Clear statement of the issue: 1. Have humans “flourished” with the increased use of fossil fuels? 2. Will humans “flourish” if we eliminate our use of fossil fuels? What does human flourishing means? Realizing the full potential of life.

Clearly state key assumption(s): The standard of value here is the improvement of human life Are there other standards? Yes: • God’s will • Pristine nature “Human happiness … [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. ” David Graber

Provide verifiable evidence: Epstein – “no perfect measure. ” Strong correlation of fossil fuel use and: • increased life expectancy (esp. China/India) • increased income (GDP/person) • improved quality of water sources • decline in climate-related deaths • decreasing disease • improved sanitation There seems little disagreement about the past, although the evidence goes up to today!

Address critiques: C 1. We need to end our dependence on fossil fuels because we are running out. No evidence of this: • Forecasts of “provable reserves” have been wrong since they began. • Over 3000 years of coal reserves! • We don’t run out; we keep “running into” more reserves!

Address critiques: C 1. We need to end our dependence on fossil fuels because we are running out. No evidence of this: • Forecasts of “provable reserves” have been wrong since they began. Coal: 8 bill. tons consumed reserves = 1 trill. tons Coal • Over 3000 years(2012); of coal reserves! Oil: Oil 91 mbd consumed (2013); reserves = 1. 6 trill. barrels We don’t run out; we keep Natural gas: trill. cu. ft. consumed (2013); reserves = 7 gas 121 into” “running more reserves! quadrillion cu. ft. •

Address critiques: C 2. Alternative energy sources are better. No evidence of this: • Our basic need is to provide for 7 billion people! • Wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear are not cheap, cheap abundant, abundant reliable, reliable scalable • 1980 -2012: World fossil fuel use up 80%; accounts for 86% of total. --Nuclear & hydro account for 11%.

Roscoe Wind Farm (Texas) 100, 000 acres (156 sq. miles) 781 megawatt capacity Glen Canyon Dam (Arizona) 1500 feet across 1320 megawatt capacity Navajo Generating Station (Arizona) 1. 3 sq. miles 2250 megawatt capacity

Address critiques: C 3. Using fossil fuels will lead to imminent catastrophe. No evidence of this: CO 2 -induced Global temps By [2012] we I would take even • Doomsdayfamines criticswillhave been makingwill this kill rise by 2. 5º will burn up, to money that up to 1 billion to 5º by 2010. put it bluntly. claim England will notsince the 1970 s. people by 2020. exist in the year 2000. 1970 1986 1989 1986

Address critiques: C 4. Using fossil fuels generates CO 2 and that will lead to global warming. No evidence of this: • Dire consequences are based on computer models, not on observation. Well, we’ll Should climate skeptics be • Effects jailed as war of increased CO 2 criminals? (greenhouse vs. fertilizer are ambiguous effect). see what at best happens. • The rhetoric of proponents is toxic. • The “energy effect” promotes our climate mastery.

Address critiques: C 5. The negative side effects of using fossil fuels means we should ban their use. • There are negative side effects --pollution • The question is one of benefits & costs! • We can be concerned about improving the environment over time --highly correlated with higher incomes! • 1970 -2010 air pollutants down in U. S. • Alternative energy not necessarily friendly!

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A Case Study in the Methods of Economics Clear statement of the issue Clearly state key assumption(s) Provide verifiable evidence Address critiques

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A Case Study in the Methods of Economics Clear statement of the issue Clearly state key assumption(s) Provide verifiable evidence Address critiques

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A Case Study in the Methods of Economics Dr. D. Foster – ECO 285