Completely removed from where I stand on the political spectrum, I always appreciated Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw's ability to make a measured, unemotional, fact-based argument for conservative politics. Too much in the modern public debate sphere is driven by emotion, misinformation, and "gotcha" moments by provocateurs seeking out a sound bite.
I've always valued a sober and pragmatic approach to debate and problem-solving. This brings me to the subject of Fossil Fuels and Climate Change. When I began to ask very uncomplicated, and to me, very obvious questions about Climate Change, absolutely no one had the answers. Why would you not question, in detail; about a subject intended to drive incredible political and economic change? I even talked to a professor of Biology from Rice University. He spoke with considerable confidence about climate change, but when pressed, he really couldn't connect the dots.
We all should be aware of one fact, climate change is real. It has always been real. We know it happens naturally on an ever-evolving Earth. We also know human emissions have increased that (Yes, I said it) What we don't truly know, is to what degree, and what exactly is the best course of action to take. And more importantly, what "trade-offs" are we willing to make in order to combat it.(which will be addressed in part 2)
Recently I read Liberty Oilfield Service's annual ESG report. I was able to speak further with their CEO Chris Wright on the subject as well on The Mission Zero Podcast. The report details and outlines clearly and concisely the climate and pollution situation we are in, what lead to it, and where it's most likely going. It gives fantastic color to the real world we live in, and what the consequences are. However, the most relevant point Liberty's ESG report makes light of, is how much our lives have been improved due to the use of clean fossil fuels, and just how much better much of the planet's population could be with access to them.
So what's the real truth about Fossil Fuels and the climate? Well, it's both complicated and simple. I will start with a few points that need to be made transparent and clear before any authentic discussion can begin.
1) The world has been warming for 10k-20K years since the last Glacial Age (you could walk from New York to France over ice). We had a period of rapid cooling from 1300-1860 called the " The Little Ice Age" that ended just 20 years prior to the Industrial Revolution (when human emissions began). As prior stated, human-driven emissions are in fact increasing warming, but absolutely not the sole cause, therefore erasing fossil fuels will not stop global warming entirely. In fact, the most drastic decreases will only lower the global avg. temperature .1 degree by the end of this century.
2) The atmospheric CO2 concentration was just below .03% (280ppm) before the Industrial Revolution, now it sits around .04% (415ppm), and at current rates will likely be double the CO2 pre-industrial rate at the end of this century, which would be a 1.3-1.6 degree C avg. warming of the planet.
3) Just as warming has been increasing since before the Industrial Age, the sea level has been as well. The current sea-level rise is a little less than one inch per decade. More importantly, this rate is NOT increasing. The sea level has risen a total of 400 feet since the Glacial Ice Age 20K years ago. This rate has been easily dealt with over this period of time with increasing technology. Only coastal cities are possibly affected and should be aware of the problem. However, this will not pose a great threat to life, and the problem should be easily worked through over time.
4) Planet-wide, there is no increase of any kind of extreme weather. In fact, in 1920, 500K people were killed due to extreme weather. In 2020, it was estimated at 15K.
As seen in the charts below, the ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) numbers have shown no obvious increases in storms reaching landfall. 2020 did have a record number of named storms, but it doesn't even break the top 10 all-time globally.
Tornadoes are also not on the rise. In fact, they have been trending downwards for some time. That good news has never seen a media room floor, unfortunately.
What about drought? We certainly see that on the news often enough. However, same as tornadoes, there has been a drop in the last 100 years. Would you have believed this seeing our media cover the subject?
Well, surely wildfires have drastically increased due to climate change, right? Who can forget the near-daily California wildfire problems? Or the giant, record-breaking wildfire spate in Australia a few years back?
Again, with a consistent theme, wildfires have actually decreased as well and did so dramatically. Take a look below at the US Wildfire rate over the last 100 years.
Even in the case of Australian wildfires, at least half were started by arson or arson suspected. 24 people were arrested in one State, as stated in the BBC article linked below.
Australian fires: Why do people start fires during fires?
Any discussion of global severe weather inherently leads into a subject that impacts us all the most, global deaths. As stated earlier, in the 1920s, nearly half a million people perished globally from severe weather. That number was somewhere between 10K-15K in 2020. That represents a 90% decline, which is even more staggering when factoring in a global population of 6 billion more people in 2020.
But the lessening in the severity of severe global weather cannot alone explain the massive decrease in economic costs and human toll, not by a long shot. Those almost unfathomable improvements are almost entirely led by innovation, driven by, you guessed it....affordable fossil fuel.
Another overlooked upside to warming is the rapid "Greening" of the planet. Yes, that was a tough sentence to type, however no less valid. Agriculture output has expanded exponentially over the past few decades due to warmer temps and more moisture in the air. This undoubtedly helps feed a growing global population and most likely benefitting developing countries more than richer ones.