21 lines to get people to think about fossil fuels in a balanced way
When evaluating what to do about a product or technology—for example, a prescription drug—we need to carefully weigh the benefits and side effects of our alternatives.
This is a commonsense principle that most people agree with, but few people follow when it comes to one particular technology: fossil fuels.
Instead, many people—following the example of our media’s favorite "experts"—fixate on fossil fuels’ negative climate side effects and ignore their enormous positives, e.g., the fact that oil-powered equipment and natural gas fertilizer are crucial to feeding 8 billion people.
I have long been arguing that global human flourishing requires more, not less, fossil fuels going forward. But I have found that the bulk of my disagreement with my skeptics—and thus the bulk of the persuasive opportunity—lies not in scientific fact or political belief, but in our core thinking method.
AMERICA NEEDS ENERGY RESILIENCY, NOT BIDEN-HARRIS' ACTIVIST IDEOLOGY
If I can get someone to agree that we must think about fossil fuels in a balanced way—carefully weighing both benefits and side-effects—then, I’ve found, they are far more likely to be receptive to any facts I share with them.
Below are 21 lines that I use to get people to think about fossil fuels in a balanced way. In my experience, starting conversations about fossil fuels with these lines is the best way to turn non-supporters into supporters and supporters into champions. Try them out!
1. Most "experts" look at the negatives of fossil fuels but ignore the huge positives.
For example, climate scientist Michael Mann’s book on fossil fuels and climate doesn’t once mention the essential benefit of fossil fuel use to the availability of food—even though 8 billion people depend on diesel machinery and natural gas fertilizer to eat!
2. Many "experts" ignore that much of the world would starve without fertilizer from natural gas.
3. Many "experts" ignore that much of the world would starve without oil-powered agricultural machines.
4. Fixating on the negatives and ignoring the positives of any technology is deadly.
The more crucial the technology to human life, the more dangerous it is to ignore its positives.
5. If we just looked at the negatives of antibiotics and ignored the positives, billions would die.
The prospect of banning antibiotics sounds so irrational that no one is seriously discussing it—yet this is exactly what many "experts" advocate when it comes to fossil fuels.
6. To decide what to do about fossil fuels we must be balanced, looking at both negatives and positives.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives, e.g.: more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, building, etc.
7. Fossil fuels do impact climate—but even there we must consider positives along with negatives.
8. We can’t just look at how warming increases heat waves, we also must look at lives saved from cold.
9. A huge, ignored climate positive we get from fossil fuels is the ability to master climate danger.
10. Fossil-fueled cooling allows us to dramatically reduce danger from heat.
11. Fossil-fueled heating allows us to dramatically reduce danger from cold.
12. Fossil-fueled irrigation allows us to dramatically reduce danger from drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.
13. Fossil-fueled evacuation systems allow us to dramatically reduce danger from storms.
14. Fossil-fueled climate mastery has helped us become safer than ever from climate.
15. The climate death rate has decreased by 98% over the last century as fossil fuel use has risen.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
16. Sadly, most "experts" ignore fossil fuels’ climate positives, including climate mastery.
17. The IPCC’s 1,000+ page climate reports ignore all the ways fossil fuels increase climate safety.
That’s like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine!
18. In weighing fossil fuels’ positives and negatives, we must be precise—not exaggerate or fabricate.
19. Sadly, many "experts" exaggerate the negatives of fossil fuels in addition to ignoring the positives.
Most "experts" ignore well-documented positives of rising CO2, such as global greening.
20. Al Gore portrays a 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme U.N. projections are 3 ft / 100 years.
21. If we carefully weigh fossil fuels’ positives and negatives, it becomes clear we need more of them.
See my book "Fossil Future" for the complete argument.
I’d love to hear how these lines work for you! You can reach me at alex@alexepstein.com.