Any argument against fossil fuel use must argue that its side effects (CO2 warming the planet) overwhelm the good they do by providing cheap energy. These side effects must be so bad that it’s worth compromising the safety and flourishing of billions of humans to curtail their use. Such an argument must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.
It looks like you are using a double standard here.
Any argument against fossil fuel use must argue that its side effects (CO2 warming the planet) overwhelm the good they do by providing cheap energy.
Seems reasonable. If someone wants to build a new coal plant, I agree with you that, to know if it is a good decision, we need to compare the coal plant, including its benefits and its side effects, to alternatives (another source of electricity, or even no plant at all).
Such an argument must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.
This part sounds like an unrealistic standard. Assuming that, in the same scenario, taking into accounts benefits and side effects, the coal plant is not the best alternative, then it should not be chosen. If you want to claim that we should discount or ignore the negative side effects, based on the fact that we could overcome those, then you need to prove it, you need to bear the burden of proof.
It looks like you are using a double standard here.
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I follow.
Epstein spends a large portion of the book going into how human ability to master the dangers of the earth’s climate have grown with our ability to deploy cheap energy and machines. He argues that the dangers of CO2 emission, in particular, are entirely masterable with fossil fuel energy.
I’m not prepared to do service to his entire argument here; I’d encourage reading the book for yourself if you haven’t.
Purely looking at evaluating the book Fossil Future, I’d want Alice to provide evidence that the project she supports delivers energy at market or below-market rates, while avoiding any sort of obviously terrible pollution (e.g. dumping toxic waste into a river). I’d want Bob to provide evidence that the project will impact human beings and the environment so terribly that the energy generated by the project is insufficient to account for the damage done.
Of course, outside of evaluating the book I’d only make sure that the project wasn’t doing anything obviously terrible and then be all for it; our society is heavily biased against action, and so I try to be biased towards action to correct for it.
It seems to me that it is not what you said though. Quoting you:
Any argument against fossil fuel use [...] must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.
That is, even if evidence of terrible impact is provided (e.g. dumping toxic waste into a river), you will require Bob to prove that this impact cannot be mitigated/adapted to/...
To reiterate, you will not ask Alice “How do you plan to solve the dumping toxic waste into a river problem?”. Instead, you will ask Bob “Can you prove that the dumping toxic waste into a river problem cannot be solved?”.
Since it is very difficult to prove that a problem cannot be solved, the standard for Bob is orders of magnitude harder to reach than the standard for Alice.
I see your point, and part of this is the difficulty I’m having distinguishing—and communicating the differences—between the book Fossil Future and my own personal views.
I think your interpretation might actually be correct when it comes to Alex Epstein’s answer to the question. He shows that dangers from climate are consistently surmountable, and we should expect to continue to be able to surmount them.
Granted, he certainly wouldn’t support literally dumping toxic waste into a river, but that isn’t really what the book is about, or indeed what the modern conversation regarding fossil fuels is about either.
Previous eras of environmentalism focused on pollution—acid rain, the ozone layer, toxic waste, etc. Today’s environmentalism focuses on greenhouse gases, largely because we’ve basically solved all the previous problems. Epstein argues that greenhouse gases are not a sufficient reason to stop the use of fossil fuels.
Sure there are other environmental problems, but my experience of the main concern of modern environmentalists is climate change, largely because it’s seen as apocalyptic in scope and thus the most deserving of concern.
As for deaths resulting from fossil fuel pollution, I suspect Epstein’s response would be that we should be evaluating fossil fuel use in its full context. How many lives were saved/improved by access to the energy generated? How many people were lifted and kept out of poverty?
The largest effect in the article is also found in East Asia, which deploys large amounts of coal.
I think Epstein would prioritize lifting people out of energy poverty, at which point they would have the slack and the wealth to get to work on pollution, following a similar trajectory as we did in the US.
It looks like you are using a double standard here.
Seems reasonable. If someone wants to build a new coal plant, I agree with you that, to know if it is a good decision, we need to compare the coal plant, including its benefits and its side effects, to alternatives (another source of electricity, or even no plant at all).
This part sounds like an unrealistic standard. Assuming that, in the same scenario, taking into accounts benefits and side effects, the coal plant is not the best alternative, then it should not be chosen. If you want to claim that we should discount or ignore the negative side effects, based on the fact that we could overcome those, then you need to prove it, you need to bear the burden of proof.
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I follow.
Epstein spends a large portion of the book going into how human ability to master the dangers of the earth’s climate have grown with our ability to deploy cheap energy and machines. He argues that the dangers of CO2 emission, in particular, are entirely masterable with fossil fuel energy.
I’m not prepared to do service to his entire argument here; I’d encourage reading the book for yourself if you haven’t.
Let’s say Alice wants to support some fossil fuel project, ans Bob is against it. What evidence does each character need to provide, according to you?
Purely looking at evaluating the book Fossil Future, I’d want Alice to provide evidence that the project she supports delivers energy at market or below-market rates, while avoiding any sort of obviously terrible pollution (e.g. dumping toxic waste into a river). I’d want Bob to provide evidence that the project will impact human beings and the environment so terribly that the energy generated by the project is insufficient to account for the damage done.
Of course, outside of evaluating the book I’d only make sure that the project wasn’t doing anything obviously terrible and then be all for it; our society is heavily biased against action, and so I try to be biased towards action to correct for it.
Thanks for your answer.
It seems to me that it is not what you said though. Quoting you:
That is, even if evidence of terrible impact is provided (e.g. dumping toxic waste into a river), you will require Bob to prove that this impact cannot be mitigated/adapted to/...
To reiterate, you will not ask Alice “How do you plan to solve the dumping toxic waste into a river problem?”. Instead, you will ask Bob “Can you prove that the dumping toxic waste into a river problem cannot be solved?”.
Since it is very difficult to prove that a problem cannot be solved, the standard for Bob is orders of magnitude harder to reach than the standard for Alice.
I see your point, and part of this is the difficulty I’m having distinguishing—and communicating the differences—between the book Fossil Future and my own personal views.
I think your interpretation might actually be correct when it comes to Alex Epstein’s answer to the question. He shows that dangers from climate are consistently surmountable, and we should expect to continue to be able to surmount them.
Granted, he certainly wouldn’t support literally dumping toxic waste into a river, but that isn’t really what the book is about, or indeed what the modern conversation regarding fossil fuels is about either.
Previous eras of environmentalism focused on pollution—acid rain, the ozone layer, toxic waste, etc. Today’s environmentalism focuses on greenhouse gases, largely because we’ve basically solved all the previous problems. Epstein argues that greenhouse gases are not a sufficient reason to stop the use of fossil fuels.
That’s not true. We have research like what’s described in https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research that suggest that fossil fuel emissions kill over a million people each year.
We also have other enviromental problems like nitrogen accumulation in the ocean, PFCS and microplastic.
Sure there are other environmental problems, but my experience of the main concern of modern environmentalists is climate change, largely because it’s seen as apocalyptic in scope and thus the most deserving of concern.
As for deaths resulting from fossil fuel pollution, I suspect Epstein’s response would be that we should be evaluating fossil fuel use in its full context. How many lives were saved/improved by access to the energy generated? How many people were lifted and kept out of poverty?
The largest effect in the article is also found in East Asia, which deploys large amounts of coal.
I think Epstein would prioritize lifting people out of energy poverty, at which point they would have the slack and the wealth to get to work on pollution, following a similar trajectory as we did in the US.
Very clear, thank you for your patience and your answers!
Happy to engage, and thanks to you as well!