Discrimination against Fossil Fuels and Those Who Benefit from Selling Them: "Fuelism" and the Journey from Hero to Zero

Discrimination against Fossil Fuels and Those Who Benefit From Selling Them: “Fuelism” and the Journey from Hero to Zero 

“Dirty,” “filthy,” “brown vs. green,” “polluters,” “gasholes,” “earth rapers,” etc. These are terms used to deride fossil fuels and those who work with them, particularly those at the executive levels. Demonization of fossil fuels and their execs is a key MO of those who want to see them displaced. Most don’t realize it but George W. Bush first coined the phrase “our addiction to fossil fuels,” that is now so much used. Psychologically and politically the practice of demonizing an enemy can be very powerful. It is a technique of political manipulation that has been very widely used throughout history to consolidate public opinion toward an enemy.

While one might well say that coal enabled greater slavery, long grueling hours in poor working conditions for workers, and toxic coal smoke, one might also say that overall it enabled people’s lives to get better. Wood smoke can be just as bad or worse than coal smoke and grueling work and poverty was a daily condition for many before the Industrial Revolution.

Oil saved the whales, some say, as whale oil was no longer needed for lamps. It also freed the horses since the internal combustion engine could replace them with much more powerful and reliable transportation of people and equipment. One might also say that fossil fuels saved the forests, forests which would have been cut down to burn the wood for heat, although in many places the forests were cut down for both building and heat. The deforestation of many parts of Western Europe was a consequence of burning wood for fuel. In North America, many of the forest areas are being regenerated and forested area is increasing significantly, which would not be happening without fossil fuels replacing wood. Advocates of mass use of biomass and shipping wood biomass to Europe as ‘renewable energy’ for wood-burning power plants should be considered advocates of deforestation, increased pollution, and accelerated greenhouse gas emissions.

Conflict rhetoric is another related issue where different sources of energy are pitted against one another, particularly fossil fuels vs. renewable energy. Green and clean usually suggests “good” and brown and dirty usually suggests “bad,” at least subconsciously. In reality, fossil fuels and renewable energy can be and are often complementary.

Alex Epstein addresses the issue of lack of gratitude toward fossil fuels in his book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, and in his articles. He notes that we should be grateful for fossil fuels and the great advancements and reduction in human suffering they have provided and continue to provide. Some clean energy advocates might say that fossil fuels are archaic and yet many science and technology advancements come from the fossil fuel industries.

It has been suggested by various climate scientists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and methane) may have thwarted or at least delayed the onset of the next Ice Age. William Ruddiman, in his book, Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum, suggested that may have been the case when humans increased atmospheric CO2 and methane on a smaller scale before the Industrial Age through land-clearing, farming, rice paddy development, burning, and population increase. He thinks it is possible that the so-called Little Ice Age that followed the so-called Medieval Warm Period coincided with a solar minimum that may have triggered a full-blown Ice Age. Others think that the next Ice Age has been staved off by the much greater greenhouse gas emissions of recent times or will stave it off in the future. However, as in much of the details of climate science, there is significant uncertainty and disagreement about this. In any case, if this is true in any way we can thank fossil fuel burning, strange as it seems. A full-blown Ice Age would likely be much more catastrophic than a 2 or 3 deg Celsius warming although some climate scientists like James Hansen say we could stave off an Ice Age currently with a CFC factory or 2 (oddly that he and others think it would be OK to do geoengineering to prevent an Ice Age but not to slow global warming).

Metaphorically, we do have the brown dirty energy vs. green clean energy depictions which are easy to project into the subconscious. Pollution is seen as poison, poison is seen as anti-life, and anti-life is seen as “evil.” This is a subtle way for advocates to influence public opinion. Based on this, “fuelism” is the strange idea that fuels that emit more pollutants and greenhouse gases, basically fossil fuels, are discriminated against on this basis and also on the basis of downplaying their advantages over so-called cleaner fuels. Thus, it is easy, through metaphor, to demonize fossil fuels.

The recent claims that Exxon new about CO2-fueled global warming all the way back in the early 1970’s (back when climate scientists were seriously concerned about an impending Ice Age) seem rather absurd to me personally. How could Exxon have known or have been in any way certain about such ideas when climate scientists focused directly on the issue did not get to a high level of certainty until decades later? Even now when we say “certainty” it needs to be qualified. Climate scientists are basically certain that the global climate is changing, warming, due “mainly” to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In that statement one might ask how much is mainly? Is it the highest single factor, say 35%? Is it by and far the largest factor, say 90%? There is still uncertainty. Much of the uncertainty is based on the effects of clouds, how much CO2 is taken up by plants and forests and other carbon budgeting issues, what is the true ‘climate sensitivity,’ and how every feedback works and is quantified. Climate predictions are based on modeling and modeling is based on assumptions. While it cannot be denied that we humans are contributing to global warming and climate change, there is still significant uncertainty. The strange focus on Exxon has been called an “inquisition” and it does seem to be that way. Climate scientist and self-proclaimed climate alarmist, James Hansen, has called for climate change skeptics to be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called skeptics traitors who should be tried for treason. These are extremist positions by most any standard. There is great uncertainty and I am not convinced that the alarmists and catastrophists are incorrect. The situation may well be as dire or even worse than they predict, but we really don’t know. It may also be a much more mild problem than they predict. Fossil fuel advocates like Alex Epstein and many others point out that human problems now caused by energy poverty or lack of affordable energy access for up to one billion humans are far worse than possible human problems projected into the future and that our technologies based on affordable energy can help us mitigate both problems. In any case, things like forming committees to investigate and harass Exxon or young people filing lawsuits against the government for not protecting their descendants from presumed future climate change problems are mostly just attention-getting drama. The anti-fossil fuel movements seem to become more galvanized and emboldened with every pipeline delay or denial and fracking ban. While they may see themselves as noble protectors of the earth and of the future they are also slowing down adoption of legitimate coal-to-gas-switching and thus ghg emissions reduction. People like to see issues in terms of black and white (or brown and green) but in reality most are gray. There are pros and cons that must be weighed, benefits and consequences that must be considered. Coal certainly got the short-end of the fossil fuel stick but the move to lighter hydrocarbons is a key and necessary feature of reacting to the threat of climate change. It is also the least expensive way to react to the threat, at least for now, and so the most sensible.

Humans also think in terms of heroes and villains. In the energy realm we seem to have the stereotype of the greedy and ruthless energy barons. These stereotypes are as strong as ever and in some cases deservedly so. Coal execs like recently convicted Don Blankenship and the very vocal Robert Murray and high-profile oil and gas execs like the late Aubrey McClendon, Harold Hamm, Tom Ward, and Cherif Souki – all seem to confirm these stereotypes. On the other end we have the quintessential clean energy ‘visionary’ in the figure of Elon Musk, whose Tesla and related Solar City are often seen as heroic companies. In reality Musk and the energy barons as well as philanthropic visionaries like Bill Gates are part of the same 1%. In terms of income inequality no one of them is better than another. Many were or are great entrepreneurs and smart businesspeople. Just this morning I read that Elon Musk is calling for a ‘revolt’ against the fossil fuel industry and its lobbying power to accelerate the transition to clean energy and that educating the public on climate issues could fuel such a revolt. Well that would certainly help his businesses if the public were to revolt against his competitors! It would accelerate his ability to make a profit! The audacity of Musk complaining about fossil fuel subsidies when EVs and solar receive the highest percentages of direct subsidy is a bit over the top. How can he get away with it? Because subsidies are measured in different ways by different people to support their arguments. In particular, many studies tabulate the societal cost of pollution and climate change effects which are difficult to put in monetary terms and call those subsidies. However, there is no confusion regarding direct tax credit subsidies, the bulk of which renewable energy, particularly solar, receive. A carbon tax would punish his competition and yet carbon taxation is occurring in some senses with Obama’s Clean Power Plan, with methane leakage regs on oil and gas systems, with renewable energy standards, and with the massive direct subsidization of renewables and EVs. He needs high fossil fuel prices to better compete and if they don’t appear there is always the call for carbon taxes and the call for a revolt against fossil fuels to fall back on, to which he now resorts. Both Tesla and Solar City are not in good financial positions with reported losses many quarters in a row in the case of Tesla. They are banking on the ability to mass produce EVs to a high demand market (which seemingly has been made possible with the Model X pre-orders) but have thus far failed to meet deadlines and targeted production quotas.

In addition to the large-scale heroes there are the local heroes, at least in some areas. Simply promoting and adopting green energy and sustainable philosophy is somehow seen as heroic, but is it? I think it is perhaps mildly heroic in the sense that one is trying to do what one thinks is best for the environment and the future and that is fine. However, I think there is nothing heroic about badmouthing fossil fuels and those who produce, sell, and advocate them.

Although I am far far from being a Bernie Sanders or Occupy Wall Street supporter I could support extremely high tax rates for billionaires and on anyone that makes say $50-100 million in a year or more. That is a massive amount of money. Who the hell needs that much money and why the hell are they allowed to tie up and control that much money? I support free market capitalism but we humans have an intuitive sense of fairness and this much inequality just seems unfair. It seems to me that corporate boards need to put a lid on this and require companies instead to reinvest in infrastructure, employees, benefits, suppliers, other stakeholders, etc. etc. I do think the brakes need to be put on by the corporate entities themselves and not by the government. It would do much to stem the tide of anti-corporatism that keeps rising up. I can’t blame them when it comes to CEO and executive pay and excessive assets.

   

Fossil fuels and the technologies they empower have allowed us to support over seven billion humans in relative comfort. Considering the suffering of past humans that is a major accomplishment, perhaps one of the major accomplishments of humanity. We have also made much progress and continue to make progress in mitigating the effects of fossil fuel pollution and ghg emissions. To say merely that fossil fuels are destroying the earth through some polluting effects and increasing ghg emissions is to miss the whole picture. I happen to like renewable energy. I think it is great, I support it, and I use it. I am interested in the various technologies and I realize that one day it will be probably be viable on a larger scale. New breakthroughs couId occur with battery technology, increasing solar and wind efficiencies, in energy efficiency, and even in making fossil fuels more efficient and less polluting. However, most think these improvements will be small and incremental as they have been over the past years and decades.  I also realize that renewable energy is not currently economic, feasible on a large scale, and can’t work without direct government subsidy and fossil fuel support. I think it is great but I do not think it is great, sensible, or intelligent to portray fossil fuels and the industries around them as archaic, somehow immoral, greedy, and unneeded. In fact, it is rather ridiculous and unintelligent to do so. There seems to be a big disconnect among anti-fossil fuel advocates at all levels (think of Bernie Sanders recently) about how necessary fossil fuels are in our everyday lives. Fossil fuels power more than 85% of our lives in the U.S. and much of the remainder is nuclear and limited hydro-power. Wind and solar remain miniscule – powering somewhere around 5% of the electric grid with caveats (and forcing fossil fuel backup to run less efficiently) and virtually none of the transportation. When scientists like Stanford’s Mark Jacobson come up with data that suggests it is theoretically possible (on paper) to run our entire economy on renewable energy it empowers other people to proclaim “100% renewable energy is possible now.” This incredibly daunting task would costs tens of trillions, take decades, and probably would be beset with many many technical problems. It’s almost like the loony “free energy” advocates. A few years ago there was a movie out called “Thrive” which suggested that we could have free energy now, that it was available, and that those who produce energy, fossil fuel energy, were suppressing it. It was a ridiculous assertion, and yet it was fairly popular. It was probably watched hundreds of thousands of times more than this blog post will be read. And that is a shame. We should be realistic. That is all.