NEWYou can now listen to articles from Fox News!
When assessing what to do with a product or technology – such as a prescription drug – we must carefully weigh the benefits and side effects of our alternatives.
This is a universal principle that most people agree with, but few follow when it comes to one particular technology: fossil fuels.
Instead, many people, following the example of our media’s favorite “experts,” focus on the negative impacts of fossil fuels on the climate and ignore their enormous positive aspects, such as the fact that oil-powered appliances and natural gas-based fertilizers are essential to feeding eight billion people.
Freshly harvested wheat is transferred from a combine to a trailer near Dinsmore, Saskatchewan, Canada, on Monday, August 29, 2022. (Heywood Yu/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
I have long held the view that global human prosperity will require more fossil fuels, not less, in the future. But I have found that most of my disagreement with my skeptics—and therefore most of my persuasive power—lies not in scientific facts or political beliefs, but in our fundamental mindset.
AMERICA NEEDS ENERGY EFFICIENCY, NOT THE ACTIVIST IDEOLOGY OF BIDEN AND HARRIS
In my experience, if I can convince someone that we need to think about fossil fuels in a balanced way – carefully weighing the benefits and side effects – then that person is much more receptive to any facts I share with them.
Below are 21 phrases I use to get people thinking about fossil fuels in a balanced way. In my experience, starting conversations about fossil fuels with these phrases is the best way to turn non-supporters into supporters and supporters into advocates. Try them out!
1. Most “experts” see the negative aspects of fossil fuels but ignore the enormous positive aspects.
For example, in the book “Fossil Fuels and Climate” by climate researcher Michael Mann, not a single word is mentioned about the essential benefit of using fossil fuels for the availability of food – even though eight billion people depend on diesel engines and natural gas fertilizers for their food!
2. Many “experts” ignore the fact that large parts of the world would starve without fertilizers made from natural gas.
8 billion people depend on diesel engines and natural gas fertilizers for their food (iStock)
3. Many “experts” ignore that large parts of the world would starve without oil-powered agricultural machinery.
4. Focusing on the negative aspects of a technology and ignoring the positive ones is fatal.
The more important technology is to human life, the more dangerous it is to ignore its positive aspects.
5. If we only saw the negative sides of antibiotics and ignored the positive ones, billions of people would die.
The prospect of banning antibiotics sounds so irrational that no one seriously discusses it. And yet, it is exactly what many “experts” advocate when it comes to fossil fuels.
6. In making a decision about how to deal with fossil fuels, we need to take a balanced approach and consider both the positive and the negative aspects.
It is particularly important to weigh any negative climate side effects of continued fossil fuel use against the associated benefits for managing climate change, as these benefits can either neutralise or outweigh the negative impacts (e.g. more energy for heating and cooling, irrigation, construction, etc.).
7. Fossil fuels have an impact on the climate – but here too we must consider the positive as well as the negative aspects.
8. We must not only observe how warming increases the number of heat waves. We must also consider the number of lives saved by the cold.
Fossil fuels have already saved lives, even as millions of people have been affected by freezing temperatures. (AP)
9. A major, previously overlooked, positive aspect of fossil fuels is their ability to manage climate threats.
10. By cooling with fossil fuels we can drastically reduce the risk of heat.
11. By using fossil fuels we can drastically reduce the risk of cold.
12. By using fossil fuels for irrigation, we can drastically reduce the risk of drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 levels to drought is masked by fossil fuel-powered irrigation and crop transportation, practices that have helped reduce drought deaths by more than 100-fold in the 100 years since they were introduced as CO2 levels rose.
13. Fossil fuel evacuation systems allow us to dramatically reduce the danger from storms.
Consequences of Tropical Storm Henri in Massachusetts (Aftermath of Tropical Storm Henri in Massachusetts)
14. Controlling climate change through fossil fuels has helped us be safer from climate change than ever before.
15. Climate-related deaths have fallen by 98% over the last century, while fossil fuel use has increased.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OPINIONS FROM FOX NEWS
16. Unfortunately, most “experts” ignore the positive impacts of fossil fuels on the climate, including the potential to tackle climate change.
17. The IPCC’s 1,000+ page climate reports ignore all the ways in which fossil fuels increase climate security.
This is like ignoring the polio vaccine in a polio report!
A health worker administers a polio vaccine to a child in a neighborhood in Karachi, Pakistan, January 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Fareed Khan)
18. When weighing up the pros and cons of fossil fuels, we must be precise – we must not exaggerate or invent.
19. Unfortunately, many “experts” not only exaggerate the positive aspects of fossil fuels, but also ignore their negative sides.
Most “experts” ignore the well-documented positive aspects of CO2 increases, such as global greening.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
20. Al Gore is predicting a 20-foot sea level rise as imminent, while the extreme UN predictions are 3 feet/100 years.
Former US Vice President Al Gore (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
21. If we carefully weigh the pros and cons of fossil fuels, it becomes clear that we need more of them.
The full argument can be found in my book “Fossil Future”.
I would love to hear how these lines work for you! You can reach me at [email protected].
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ALEX EPSTEIN
