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.
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!