Today’s conversation about energy and climate is “rigged” with bad thinking methods, misleading terms, false assumptions, and anti-human values—all of which serve to promote deadly policies.

Our rigged conversation about energy and climate

Just as legal systems can be rigged, so can cultural conversations

We are all familiar with the idea of a legal system that is rigged against certain types of people. For example, in the classic To Kill a Mockingbird, the legal system of (fictional) Maycomb County, AL, has a deep racist bias against black individuals that dismisses strong evidence of their innocence and embraces pseudo-evidence of their guilt.

A rigged legal system inevitably leads to immoral results—as captured by the saga of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird, a good man who, after resisting the sexual advances of a white woman, was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for rape.

Just as it is possible for a legal system to be rigged, so it is also possible for a culture’s intellectual conversation to be rigged. To continue with the example of racism, it is unfortunately commonplace throughout history for the conversation about particular racial minorities to be rigged. One element this almost always involves is ignoring the positives of individuals in the disfavored group and exaggerating or fabricating negatives.

For example, in (the unfortunately numerous) anti-Semitic cultures, it is commonplace to ignore any positive attributes and contributions of individuals of Jewish descent, while fabricating the idea that all Jews are miserly and uncaring.

4 common ways in which cultural conversations are rigged

4 common dimensions in which a culture’s intellectual conversation can be rigged are:

1. Bad thinking methods. For example, with racist conversations, the aforementioned examples of ignoring positives and exaggerating or fabricating negatives.
2. Misleading terminology. For example, criticisms of Jews as “greedy” misleadingly associate 1) financial success earned by productive achievement, a good thing, with 2) getting money by uncaringly exploiting others, a bad thing.
3. False assumptions. For example, racist cultural conversations falsely assume that an individual’s ideas and character are determined by their skin color.
4. Anti-human values. For example, racist cultural conversations treat some categories of human beings as intrinsically non-valuable.

Rigged conversations are common—no conspiracy required

To say that a conversation is “rigged” is not to assert a conspiracy in which a few people covertly decide to craft a cultural conversation with bad thinking methods, misleading terminology, false assumptions, and/or anti-human values. (Although this can happen.)

It is to recognize that very frequently, for whatever set of reasons, cultural conversations operate on bad thinking methods, misleading terminology, false assumptions, and anti-human values that rig them against coming to true and pro-human conclusions.

And the cultural conversation I study, the conversation around energy and climate, is rigged to a degree that almost no one can imagine.

To counter the rigging, you must first understand it

To help you counter the rigged nature of this conversation, I will identify 12 distortions that rig our global energy and climate conversation to reach the deadly conclusion that we should rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe.

By making you aware of these distortions, I hope to

1. Help you point them out explicitly whenever they occur (which is all the time).
2. Help you lead and have energy/climate conversations without these distortions.

After explaining the 12 distortions, I’ll share some of my favorite “talking points” that reframe—de-rig—the conversation, so that we can make others see the truth.

12 distortions around which the energy and climate conversation is rigged

1. (Bad thinking method) Looking only at the negative side-effects of fossil fuels, while ignoring the massive and unique benefits of fossil fuels.
2. (Bad thinking method) Only looking at the positives of solar and wind while ignoring obvious negatives. E.g., praising solar and wind as “secure” because they don’t depend on Russia like oil and gas do, when in fact, they depend on China far more than oil and gas depend on Russia.
3. (Bad thinking method) Only looking at the negatives of CO2 emissions while ignoring the positives (such as greater plant growth and the prevention of cold-related deaths—which far outnumber heat-related deaths).
4. (Bad thinking method) Engaging in “partial cost accounting” for solar and wind—claiming they are cheap by only looking at some of their costs (e.g., solar panels, wind turbines) while ignoring other huge costs (e.g., the cost of 24/7 life support for an unreliable input that can easily go near-0).
5. (Bad thinking method) Ignoring the massive climate-related benefits of fossil fuels—their benefits in helping us master climate danger—even though these benefits have thus far overwhelmed any negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels.
6. (Misleading terminology) Using the vague term “climate change” conflates some human impact on climate (which the vast majority of climate scientists agree with) with catastrophic human impact on climate (which is not supported by climate science and economics).
7. (Misleading terminology) Using “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” as the basic noun to refer to the state of today’s climate—thereby asserting a catastrophe without needing to provide any evidence.
8. (Misleading terminology) Using the terms “energy” and “electricity” interchangeably, even though the vast majority of the energy that powers our machines is not electricity but the direct burning of fossil fuels for transportation, industrial heat, or residential heat. This (along with “partial cost accounting,” helps promote the false idea that solar and wind electricity can rapidly replace all fossil fuel energy.
9. (False assumption) Treating climate (and, more broadly unimpacted nature) as a “delicate nurturer”: a stable, sufficient, safe phenomenon that human impact ruins, when in fact climate (and more broadly unimpacted nature) is dynamic, deficient, and dangerous—and human impact makes it a lot safer (e.g., irrigation radically reduces drought-related deaths).
10. (Anti-human value) Treating today’s global energy use as sufficient or even excessive, when in fact most of the world is desperately lacking in energy. E.g., 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.
11. (Anti-human value) Treating human impact on climate, and more broadly, human impact on nature, as intrinsically bad. E.g., assuming all “climate change” is bad even though rising CO2 clearly leads to beneficial greening and warming will clearly save many lives in many places (far more people die of cold than of heat).
12. (Anti-human value) Making eliminating human impact on climate at all costs (e.g., “net zero”) our number one global climate, energy, and political goal—instead of embracing the proper, pro-human goals of maximizing climate livability, human empowerment, and human flourishing.

Countering our rigged conversation about energy and climate

Understanding the distortions around which our energy/climate conversation is rigged is one key to countering them because once you understand these distortions, you can explicitly and effectively point them out.

3 other keys are:

• Explaining what you think is the right way to think about energy and climate issues—not just criticizing the wrong ways.
• Explaining the essential facts about energy and climate that are relevant to policy-making—not just counters to various myths.
• Advocating a positive energy and climate policy—not just negatively reacting to bad ones.

Explaining what you think is the right way to think about energy and climate issues—not just criticizing the wrong ways

Here are some ways I explain what I think is the right approach to thinking about energy and climate—including my thinking methods, assumptions, and values—all using precise terminology.

Thinking methods

Summary: I believe that we should think about fossil fuels the way we should think about every other product or technology: we should carefully weigh the benefits and the side-effects. And that includes the many climate-related benefits of fossil fuels that no one talks about, such as their ability to power irrigation systems that alleviate drought.

• When we’re evaluating what to do about any technology, we must factor in not only its negative side-effects but also its benefits. E.g., oil-powered equipment and natural gas fertilizer are crucial to feeding 8 billion people.
• Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels’ benefits, not just their negative side effects, most designated experts totally fail to do this.

E.g., “expert” climate scientist Michael Mann 100% ignores fossil fuels’ unique agricultural benefits in his book on fossil fuels and climate.

¹

• One huge benefit from fossil fuels is the ability to master climate danger—e.g., fossil-fueled cooling, heating, and irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels’ negative climate impacts.
• Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels’ climate mastery benefits, our designated experts totally fail to do this. E.g., the UN IPCC’s multi-thousand-page reports totally omit fossil-fueled climate mastery! That’s like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.

²

• When we’re carefully weighing the climate side-effects of fossil fuels we must consider both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact.
• Even though we obviously need to factor in both negative and positive impacts of rising CO2 with precision, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Al Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).

Assumptions

Summary: I believe Earth is not a “delicate nurturer” that human impact inevitably ruins, but rather “wild potential” that human impact generally improves, transforming Earth’s naturally deficient and dangerous environment into an unnaturally abundant and safe environment.

• Much of our energy and climate conversation operates on the false assumption I call “the delicate nurturer”: Earth (including climate) exists in a delicate, nurturing balance—that’s stable, sufficient, and safe—but human beings are “parasite-polluters” whose impact inevitably destroys the delicate balance and us with it.
• Insofar as you believe that Earth is a “delicate nurturer” and humans are “parasite polluters,” you expect that continuing human impact on Earth will inevitably lead to disaster. That’s why catastrophists keep thinking their next catastrophe prediction will be the one that’s right.
• In reality, Earth is not a “delicate nurturer” but “wild potential”—it’s dynamic, deficient, and dangerous—and human beings are not “parasite-polluters” but “producer-improvers” whose impact generally produces new value and therefore makes the world much more livable for us.

Values

Summary: When we are evaluating what to do about global issues such as energy and climate, I believe our primary moral goal should be advancing human flourishing on Earth—which means a lot of impact since Earth and its climate are not naturally very livable. I reject the idea that our primary goal should be to eliminate our impact on Earth.

• Many “experts,” when evaluating what to do about global issues such as energy and climate, are implicitly or explicitly operating on the goal of minimizing or eliminating human impact on Earth. For example, the leading climate-related goal today is “net-zero emissions,” which means “eliminate human impact on climate.”
• If your primary goal is to eliminate human impact on Earth, then you will inevitably regard today’s highly-impacted Earth as bad, even though it’s never been more livable for human beings. Note how many “experts,” say we have “destroyed” the Earth and its climate, even though humans have never flourished more—including being safer than ever from climate danger.
• I believe that our goal for the Earth should not be to eliminate human impact on Earth—which, taken consistently, means mass poverty and ultimately death—but to advance human flourishing on Earth. That means we need to impact Earth a lot, just to do so intelligently such that the benefits to human flourishing of our impacts far outweigh the negative side-effects.
• I believe that our goal for climate should not be to eliminate human impact but to maximize climate livability. We want a climate that’s as livable as possible for human beings. If we use fossil fuels and the planet is a little warmer overall as a side-effect, but the benefit of all the energy is that we have made ourselves 50 times less likely to die from climate-related disasters like temperature extremes and storms and floods, that’s a great thing.

³

• Over the last century, fossil fuels have made us far better off climate-wise, driving down climate disaster deaths by a factor of 50. Compare today’s fossil-fueled “climate mastery” to the real “climate crisis” of the past, when we were having very little impact on climate but were terrorized by climate—since climate is naturally so dangerous and we had so little energy and technology to master it.

Explaining the essential facts about energy and climate that are relevant to policy-making—not just counters to various myths

Benefits of Fossil Fuels

Summary: If 8 billion people are going to have the cost-effective energy they need to flourish—including to master our naturally dangerous climate—in the far greater quantities needed, fossil fuel use needs to increase. Rapidly restricting fossil fuel use, as many experts advocate, is deadly.

• Undeniable energy fact 1: Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing
  Cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, versatile, scalable energy—is essential to human flourishing because it gives us the ability to use machines to become productive and prosperous.
• Undeniable energy fact 2: The world needs much more energy
  Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood/dung for heating/cooking. Much more energy is needed.

⁴

• Undeniable energy fact 3: Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective
  Despite 100+ years of aggressive competition, fossil fuels provide 80%+ of the world’s energy and they are still growing—especially in the countries most concerned with cost-effective energy. E.g., China.
• Undeniable energy fact 4: Unreliable solar/wind are failing to replace fossil fuels
  Despite claims that solar + wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide < 5% of world energy—only electricity, ⅕ of energy—and even that depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants.

⁵

• Undeniable energy fact 5: Fossil fuel energy gives us an incredible climate mastery ability
  Fossil fuels have helped drive down climate disaster deaths by 98% over the last century by powering the amazing machines that protect us against storms, extreme temperatures, and drought.

⁶

The climate side-effects of fossil fuel use

Summary: If we’re free to use fossil fuels, we’ll continue to have a warming impact that we can master and flourish with. If we follow “net zero” policies we’ll have a less-impacted climate in the short-term, but the climate and the world as a whole will be incomparably less livable, with billions plunging into poverty and premature death.

• Undeniable climate fact: Fossil fuel energy gives us an incredible climate mastery ability
  Fossil fuels have helped drive down climate disaster deaths by 98% over the last century by powering the amazing machines that protect us against storms, extreme temperatures, and drought.

⁷

• Undeniable climate fact: CO2 emissions correlate with 1°C warming, + greening
  Fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C. Here’s what that looks like compared to normal temp changes.

⁸

• Undeniable climate fact: Deaths from cold far exceed deaths from heat

While leading institutions portray a world as increasingly riddled with heat-related death, the fact is that even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer far more people die from cold than heat (even in India!).

⁹

• Undeniable climate fact: Warming from CO2 occurs more in colder places

The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). This is good news.

¹⁰

• Undeniable climate fact: Rising CO2 leads to diminishing warming

Mainstream climate science is unanimous about a conclusion that the public is, shamefully, not made aware of: the “greenhouse effect” of CO2 is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warming.

• The only moral and practical way to reduce CO2 emissions is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. So long as fossil fuels are the most cost-competitive option for people, especially in developing nations, they will (rightly) choose to emit CO2 vs. plunge even further into poverty.
• So long as America and other wealthy nations follow the anti-development “green energy” movement and the “climate emergency” narrative, they will continue to adopt senseless policies that harm their economies and security while doing nothing to bring about globally cost-competitive low-carbon energy.

The truth about alternatives

Summary: No alternative or combination of alternatives to fossil fuels have any near-term hope of replacing fossil fuels’ unique combination of affordability, reliability, versatility, and scalability in a world that needs far more energy. We should, however, liberate alternatives from any and all restrictions that are preventing them from reaching their full potential.

• Myth: We can rapidly reduce fossil fuels at very low costs.

Truth: Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective form of energy, which is why they are 80% of global energy and still growing. Rapidly reducing fossil fuels, in a world that needs far more energy, is catastrophic.

¹¹

• Myth: Solar and wind are cheap.

Truth: Solar and wind are unreliable, parasitical sources of energy that add costs to the grid.

Claims of “cheapness” are based on ignoring the full costs of solar + wind—above all the cost of a reliable grid that gives them 24/7 life support.

• Myth: Solar/wind is cheaper than fossil fuels because Lazard’s “Levelized Cost of Energy” (LCOE) is lower for solar/wind.

Truth: LCOE, by Lazard’s own admission, doesn’t include many costs of solar/wind—above all the cost of a reliable grid needed for 24/7 life support.

¹²

• Myth: Solar and wind are “winning in the marketplace,” out-competing fossil fuels and nuclear with superior economics.

Truth: Unreliable, parasitical solar and wind are only “winning” when given massive preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability.

• Myth: Nuclear is too expensive, so we should use solar/wind instead.

Truth: Solar/wind can’t provide reliable energy; nuclear can. And nuclear is only expensive because it has, with the help of many “green” activists, been falsely labeled unsafe and effectively criminalized.

• Myth: Solar and wind will reduce our dependence on adversaries for energy.

Truth: If Europe’s level of dependence on Russia for natural gas scares you, know this: America is even more dependent on China for many of the key components of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries than Europe is on Russia for natural gas.

¹³

This piece originally appeared at alexepstein.substack.com and has been republished here with permission.