Cost of Blizzards

In case you missed it, there was an article today reporting the New England blizzards have cost the country between $1 and $2 billion so far this year. That is in addition to the $15-16 billion from last year. The winter weather in 2014 was responsible for lowering the U.S. GDP to -2.1% for the first quarter last year.

Climate change is leading to more severe weather, including more severe winter weather. It is interesting how we keep getting 100-year blizzards multiple times a year now when we didn't even a few decades ago. Clearly, something has changed. And, that change in regards to winter weather has cost the country over $16 billion in a little more than one year. That comes out to about $53 per person.

The cost of climate change just keeps piling up. There is more costs being revealed nearly every single day. And, there are those people who still want to pay instead of doing something about the problem.

Amazing.

Stormy Arctic

I read an excerpt from a new book on storms in the Arctic and the all of the associated effects. It was an interesting read and really made some excellent points. The Arctic is warming and it is warming faster than any other region of the planet. The author, Edward Struzik, states

Between 1951 and 2012, for example, temperatures in the region exceeded the freezing point an average of 110 days. In 2010 and 2011, they did so 127 times. In 2012, the warmest year on record in the Arctic, it happened 134 times.

Over the past two decades, the number of ice-free days averaged 80 per year. In 2012, there were 96 ice-free days that significantly accelerated the erosion that is already taking place.

The results of that warming are not good. Animal species, plants, wet lands and coastline are disappearing. Communities are falling into the ocean. And, storms are getting worse.


Reductions in sea ice are making Arctic storms more frequent and more severe. This is happening a number of ways. Sea ice traps humidity but as the ice melts the open water fills the atmosphere with moisture and is doing so earlier every year. This moisture then fuels storms that normally wouldn't occur before the fall but are now happening during the summer months. Also, the ice cover keeps storm waves from getting too intense. Now, waves and storm surges are getting bigger as the ice disappears. Rising sea levels are causing storm surges to travel ever further inland. And, ultimately, ice would pile up on the coast and protect it from the storm action, but that protection is now disappearing and the results are grim.

Struzik tells of towns disappearing in the Arctic region as the coastline erodes away - slowly, initially but at increasing rates. Coastlines that were loosing fewer than 7 meters per year in the 1950 - 1979 time period are loosing more than 25 meters per year today.

In case you are thinking, 'so what?', let me tell you the estimated engineering costs associated with all of this will be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars in just Alaska. That estimate comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is only the cost of mitigation for about 60 coastal communities at risk of falling into the sea. Do you think the fossil fuel companies are going to pony up that money? Do you think the Koch brothers will donate any of their fortune? Don't count on it. The money for all of this will come from tax payer dollars. In other words, the American taxpayer will be paying for this.

Let's see. $100 billion dollars comes out to about $300 for every person in the country (bad news for a family of four!). And, the estimate is there will be 'several' billions of dollars of engineering costs. Where are those deniers that keep telling us global warming is good for us?

Canada does not come out very well in his account. Prime Minister Stephan Harper is a devoted anti-science advocate and has nearly shut down all science research in the country while actively trying to remove environmental regulations. Government scientists are prohibited from discussing their research with media. Government agents are sent to science conferences to monitor what Canadian scientists are saying.

Arctic research is being slashed, but the country then spent $300 million on a gravel road to a tiny village on the Arctic coast that will see only about $4.2 million in benefits from it. The people that will see the most benefit? Is there any surprise it is the fossil fuel industry that wants to build a natural gas pipeline through the area?

So, the Canadian government is shutting down research and instituting a Joe McCarthy policy, while spending hundreds of millions on a single road for the mega-wealthy fossil fuel companies. Too bad they didn't decide to spend that $300 million on research and let the fossil fuel companies build their own road.

Like I said, it is an interesting read. Not pleasant, but interesting.

Midwest Floods Becoming More Frequent

I have noticed over recent years how often a storm is described as being a "100-year" or "500-year" or even a "1000-year" event. If something is supposed to happen only once in centuries, how come we're getting them every few years. For instance, there have been record floods in the Midwest U.S. in 1993, 2008, 2011, 2013 and again in 2014. Maybe we need to redefine what it means to be a 100-year flood.

Or, maybe the definition of a 100-year flood isn't wrong at all - at least under previous conditions. Maybe the problem is the conditions have changed.

Researchers at the University of Iowa used river gauge data from the U.S. Geological Survey to determine the flood rate in the Midwest U.S. to examine that very question. What they found is that 34% of the stations they examined recorded an increased amount of flooding, while only 9% recorded a decrease.

The researchers just reported the findings without attempting to link them to climate change. However, these findings are exactly what we would expect, and have been predicted, as a result of climate change. As the air gets warmer it can hold more moisture. Then, when it gives it up, this will result in more severe precipitation events - flooding.

By the way, the economic cost of these floods runs into the billions of dollars. For those claiming climate change is good for us, would you mind explaining this, please?

The Cost of Climate Change Keeps Going Up

Let’s discuss the cost of climate change. The fossil fuel industry and its lackeys keep telling us climate change is good for us – the more the better. Literally, that is what they are saying. For example, take this quote from The Spectator:

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

By the way, his "expert" for all of this information is Richard Tol, an economist and well-known denier with a reputation for getting his facts wrong. In one of the big "Oops" moments in denier history, he analyzed the 97% consensus statement in an attempt to disprove it and - surprise! - proved it was correct. He has no scientific background that I am aware of.

I thought we could take a look for ourselves and see just how much global warming and climate change are costing us now and likely to cost us in the future.

One of the ways to look at the cost of climate change is to examine the economic cost. This is known as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Right now, the government puts the social cost at $37 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted. We are currently emitting about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that comes out to about $1.5 trillion per year. Yes, that was trillion, with a 't.' And, that expense is not only incurred every year, but is also increasing as emission amounts increase.

That is horrible news, but it gets even worse. Researchers at Stanford University examined this figure and have estimated it is more likely $220 per ton. That comes out to a staggering $8.8 trillion per year! Every year! And, climbing!



Why the big difference? The Stanford group included the effects current damage does to future growth.

“If climate change affects not only a country's economic output, but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time,” Frances Moore, co-author and environmental scientist, said.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they are on the high side with their calculation. It is possible, but it is widely believed the government figure is way too low. Just for the sake of argument we'll say the value is at the midpoint between their value and the government's value. The economic cost at that rate is then about $5.2 trillion per year. That amount is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except the U.S. and China.

By the way, the poorer you are, the more you'll be affected. Poor countries will fare worse than rich ones.

Keep that figure in mind when someone tells you climate change is good for you.

Then, there is sea level rise. A study found the sea level numbers for 1901 - 1990 were overstated and, as a result, the data shows the rate of sea level rise since 1990 is 25% higher than previously thought and accelerating.

If you live anywhere near a coast (as the majority of the human population does), you might want to think about how much damage you will incur as a result of rising sea levels and the cost of protecting yourself.  Factor that in when calculating how much climate change will cost you.

How about drought? The current drought in California is likely to a more common story in the future and will result in a series of ripple effects, such as increased wildfire, loss of timber, floods, erosion and degraded water quality, just to name a few. The drought is estimated to be causing California billions of dollars per year in economic damage, mostly to farmers and agriculture workers. Those are the people least able to afford the damage.


Then, I saw these little tidbits in Scientific American (August 2014, vol 311, no 2, pg 22-23):

Five National Landmarks Threatened by Climate Change:

• Statue of Liberty - After Superstorm Sandy, the National Park Service began work on flood-proofing Liberty Island. Cost: Unspecified.
• Faneuil Hall, Boston - The city is planning building renovations that may include flood-protection walls. Cost: Unknown.
• Cape Hatteras Light, NC - In 1999 the National Park Service moved the lighthouse 2,900 feet to protect it against shoreline erosion and rising sea levels. Cost: $11.8 million.
• NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston - Installed new roofs to protect withstand more severe hurricanes. Repairs from 2008's Hurricane Ike cost about $80 million.
• Mesa Verde Nation Park, Colorado - The National Park Service is performing prescribed burns and treating the cliffs to protect against flooding and erosion. Cost: Unspecified.

The American taxpayers will be footing the bill for all of those expenses.

Still not convinced? How about the study that showed as temperature goes up, economic productivity goes down? A team at the Bureau of Economic Research found that every day life gets more expensive as the temperature goes up. They found a country's economic activity decreased by about 1% for every degree over 59 degrees F. The damage comes from increased costs associated with higher temperature. For example, if you have to pay more for electricity because you are running the air conditioner longer, you have less money to spend on other things. Notice that the people who benefit from that situation are the same ones responsible for creating it in the first place and are so eager to convince you it isn't a problem. As the temperature goes up, the total damage to economies around the world will amount to many billions of dollars.

Not enough? Take a look at this article in Eos that shows how climate change is causing cholera to spread. More epidemics around the world. Expenses for those epidemics will be in the billions of dollars.

I also saw this quote in Physics Today:

As the average global temperature rises, mountainous areas across western North America are experiencing significantly less ice and snow. A hundred years ago, Glacier National Park included some 150 ice sheets, but today it has only 25. The implications are vast for the surrounding areas. Rising air and water temperatures are affecting local ecosystems, fish, and wildlife. And because at least 80% of the water supply in the US West comes from its mountains, the loss of the natural reservoir that glaciers provide is also being felt by cities, farms, and industry all across the region. Although manmade global warming has a significant impact on the ice retreat, it is not the only cause. And the shrinking glaciers are only the first symptom of larger changes to come, says Daniel Fagre at the US Geological Survey.

To bring it home, take a look at this list I saw of seven ways climate change can kill you:

• 1. Bug bites that kill
• 2. Breathing problems, including asthma
• 3. Less nutritious food
• 4. An allergy season that goes on forever
• 5. Heat waves
• 6. Too much or too little water
• 7. Sunny days that make you dreary

And, the fishery industry is expected to lose between $17 and $41 billion between now and 2050 due to climate change.  Also, don't forget that ocean acidification results in a declining shellfish population.

There is plenty more and I don't need to go through it all, but I thought I would mention one last piece of news. That blizzard that hit New York City this past week cost the city $200 million in lost economic activity. Severe weather events like this are already becoming the norm. Tell me, how many 'storms of the century' have there been in the last few years?

So, I think we can see from just a very small sampling that we can definitely say global warming and climate change are not good for us. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

But, you know who will make money off of climate change? The same people that are hell bent for everyone to believe its good for us.

Climate Refugees

A term that has been surfacing in recent years is 'climate refugees.' This term describes people that have been forced to move due to the effects of climatic actions and it can be the result of naturally occurring events or manmade ones. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes can cause climate refugees. So does global warming. In fact, climate causes between 3 and 10 times as many refugees as war. The number of climate refugees in 2013 was 22 million. There were about 10 million climate refugees in the early 1970s. As the world population increases, the number of people that are vulnerable to extreme climate events also increases, and this number is aggravated by the increasing number of extreme events. Disruptions of food and water supplies also causes climate refugees.

The Pentagon considers this issue, and other issues related to climate change, to be a national security issue. Governments are being encouraged to plan for an increasing levels of climate refugees as the climate continues to change. There was an Indy film in 2012 on the subject, Climate Refugees.

This makes me wonder. If the deniers are right and climate change is good for us, why do we see so many climate refugees and why is it a threat to national security? If climate change is so good for us, as they claim, it stands to reason the world would actually be getting more stable with climate change, not more unstable.

If someone can explain that to me I would be interested in hearing it.

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels II

The following guest submission was sent by the same individual that made the first guest submission on this topic. You can read his first submission, and my comments, here.

From: David Okner

Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: "dogw.email"

Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

And I’ll respond to your response:

1.  The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather than invoking logical fallacies.

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

'

3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway. The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to your side. That is not a valid argument.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

4. The book is full of references, which you would know if you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book. Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a lot of things, but who cares.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.  There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture. You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

7. What? More character attacks about motives and also ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels. It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

A point made in the book is that some people have humans as their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive, because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies to evade.

Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture. The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

-David

Response:

Paragraph 1:

One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909

http://industrialprogress.com/about/

http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely nuts, not overtly harmful.

Paragraph 2:

No, the best background to integrate science is a science one.  You continue to demonstrate your logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And, no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials. Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all, according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.

Paragraph 3:

Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project work so hard to hide that information.

Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein. I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your false arguments in line, please.

Paragraph 4:

I would love to debate him in a public forum.

Paragraph 5:

Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least affordable sources of energy of all.

But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr. Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the environment is a GOOD thing.

Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is nothing more than a crock of horse manure.

Paragraph 6:

This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

 Source: World Health Organization

Paragraph 7:

Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?

More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.

Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:

It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault you, but it’s for lying.

Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”

Some of the several false arguments you make with your statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean, it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the same time.

And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why) has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely false argument with nothing to support it.

Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein on these issues in a public forum?

By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.

In summation, your entire statement is an amazingly bad failure of logic and science.

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

From: David Okner

Date:12/29/2014 2:21 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: DOGW.email@gmail.com

Subject: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Keating,

I submit for you Alex Epstein's book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which was recently published.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

Nobody cares if humans can warm the planet, net warming or not. That is a a childish straw man and non sequitur. Let's have a real dialogue on the actual subject.

The question is in the big picture do fossil fuels improve our environment and make us safer from the climate? The answer is insurmountably "yes" as proven in Alex's groundbreaking book.

We should be using more if we want to improve our environment even more and make ourselves even safer from the climate. That is the subject, not "Do you believe in Climate? Science told me Climate is a fact because greenhouse gasses are real."

Trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu6637cjk8A

Challenge website:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.co.uk/p/10000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html

-David


Response:

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

And, that is everything that needs to be said about him.

More Examples of Climate Change Cost

The climate change denial industry has morphed several times over the years and continues to do so. One of the versions that has appeared in recent years is the way they claim climate change is actually good for us. Of course, this is a preposterous claim and the only way they can make it is to, once again, deny any science or evidence they don't like. They will ignore the costs associated with climate change because it doesn't fit with their message.  They won't tell you about how climate change is resulting in higher utility bills, more expensive groceries, higher insurance rates, more damage due to weather extremes, more wildfires and the spread of diseases to new regions, not to mention many other effects that are already occurring. They won't bother to tell you about how the lower your income is, the more you will have to pay as a result of climate change. The only ones that are benefiting are the billionaires that are so busy spending money to convince everyone else that climate change is good. The fact is, it is good - for them. Just not the rest of us.

I have read some articles recently that highlighted these costs. One is a very amazing account of a kayak trip down a portion of the Colorado River recently revealed for the first time in over 30 years due to the ongoing drought in the Southwestern U.S. The writer of the article tells of how the Lake Powell reservoir is at 50% of capacity and this is revealing river channels and landforms that have been flooded since the early-1980s. He also talks of all of the businesses that have disappeared and of the cities that depend on the water from Lake Powell. I'm sure all of the people that lost their jobs due to this water shortage would have a problem with the claim that climate change is good for them. He also discusses the impact to agriculture and how it will mean higher food prices. (Make that check out to the billionaire of your choice.) The scientific evidence that the drought is linked to climate change is mounting almost daily. Even if there is some natural variability involved, it is clear that climate change is, at the least, making it more severe.

This article here is an interesting compilation of the worldwide costs. This is a table they presented, based on IPCC data. Take a look and find your region:

Source: Business Insider

So, next time someone tells you that climate change is good for you, ask them which billionaire they are talking about.

More Evidence Climate Change is Bad For Us

For years the denier industry worked as hard as it could to convince people that global warming wasn't happening. Then, when it became indisputable, they tried to convince people that it is just a natural cycle. Now that its clear it is due to manmade emissions, their tactic is to tell people that it is actually good for us. That is as much a lie as everything else they say and the evidence is turning into a mountain. Here are a few examples.

The White House budget director, Shaun Donovan, recently gave a speech at the Center for American Progress and detailed the economic costs associated with global warming, stating,

"From where I sit, climate action is a must do; climate inaction is a can’t do; and climate denial scores – and I don’t mean scoring points on the board. I mean that it scores in the budget. Climate denial will cost us billions of dollars."

Here are some of the costs associated with global warming:

• Reducing GDP by roughly $150 billion a year if warming reaches 3° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, instead of an international target of 2°. Global output could suffer by roughly 0.9 percent. As Donovan said, as we all learned during the Great Recession, "even a small reduction in real GDP growth can dramatically reduce Federal revenue, drive up our deficits, and impact the government’s ability to serve the public."
• It is estimated that damages due to changes in hurricane activity will result in an annual increase of $7 billion in damages to the East and Gulf Coasts, bringing the annual price tag up to $35 billion per year. 
• Wildfires expenses has tripled since 1999 and is now averaging over $3.5 billion per year. 
• The 2012 drought cost the country $30 billion. The current drought in California will cost that state an estimated $2.2 billion and 17,000 jobs. 
• Crop insurance, paid for with tax payer dollars, is three times higher than previously estimated, about $2.6 billion this year. That figure was more than $17 billion after the drought in 2012. 

That totals up to more than $15 billion per year, without counting the future loss of GDP. That comes out to over $50 per per person, or $200 per family of four. If you include the GDP loss that comes out to about $2200 for a family of four. Every year. Make that annual check out to your favorite billionaire.

Keep that checkbook handy. This is only one example.

The Norwegian Refugee Council report on people displaced by disasters stated that 22 million people were displaced in 119 countries by natural disasters in 2013, almost three times as many as were displaced by conflict and violence.These disasters included events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, but weather related events accounted for over 94% of the displacements, including 218,500 displaced in Oklahoma due to tornadoes. Droughts are a major cause of displacement and reports indicate there is a displacement underway in California due to the drought there.

The risk of displacement has more than doubled since the 1970s. This is due to many factors. The world population has nearly doubled since the 1970s and urban population is nearly 200% higher. That last figure is over 300% for developing countries. This means there are more people at risk. Better preparation means more of the people affected by disasters survive, leaving them to be displaced. Data collection has improved. But, the report also says climate change is a factor in the increase and is expected to cause more frequent extreme weather events in the future.

I'm not sure how you would figure out how much each of us will have to pay because of the increase in people displaced due to climate change. Maybe some of those people in Oklahoma or California can let us know how much its has cost them and we can figure it out. Then, we can all write a check to our favorite billionaire.

And, here is a list of eight major companies that ClimateProgress reports have included risks due to climate change in their annual reports to shareholders: Chipotle, Keurig Green Mountain, Michael Foods Group, Heinz, Big Heart Pet Brands, Omega Protein, Coca-Cola, and Marine Harvest ASA.

The risks mentioned vary from small to significant. But, they all add up to the potential for increased expenses that will be passed down to the consumer.

Make that check out to your favorite billionaire. You know the one, the one financing the denier organizations that are working as hard as possible to block any action to stop climate change while telling you that global warming is good for you.

Send a thank-you note with that check.