The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A Case Study in the Methods of Economics Dr. D. Foster – ECO 285 – Spring 2017

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: C1. 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: C1. 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! Coal: 8 bill. tons consumed (2012); reserves = 1 trill. tons Oil: 91 mbd consumed (2013); reserves = 1.6 trill. barrels Natural gas: 121 trill. cu. ft. consumed (2013); reserves = 7 quadrillion cu. ft.

Address critiques: C2. 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, abundant, reliable, scalable. 1980-2012: World fossil fuel use up 80%; accounts for 86% of total. --Nuclear & hydro account for 11%.

Address critiques: C3. Using fossil fuels will lead to imminent catastrophe. No evidence of this: Doomsday critics have been making this claim since the 1970s. By [2012] we will burn up, to put it bluntly. Global temps will rise by 2.5º to 5º by 2010. I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. CO2-induced famines will kill up to 1 billion people by 2020. 1986 1989 1986 1970

Address critiques: C4. Using fossil fuels generates CO2 and that will lead to global warming. No evidence of this: Dire consequences are based on computer models, not on observation. Effects of increased CO2 are ambiguous at best (greenhouse vs. fertilizer effect). The rhetoric of proponents is toxic. The “energy effect” promotes our climate mastery. Should climate skeptics be jailed as war criminals? Well, we’ll see what happens.

Address critiques: C5. 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 – Spring 2017