The High Costs And Deadly Downsides Of Ending ‘Fossil Fuels’
Written by Bjorn Lomborg
We constantly hear that because ‘climate change’ is real we should ‘follow the science’ and end ‘fossil fuel’ use
We hear it both from politicians who favor swift carbon cuts and from natural scientists themselves, as when the editor-in-chief of Nature insists “The science is clear — fossil fuels must go.”
The assertion is convenient for politicians because it allows them to avoid responsibility for the many costs and downsides of climate policy, painting these as inevitable results of diligently following the scientific evidence.
But it is false. It confounds climate science with climate policy.
Careful climate science is clearly needed to shape thoughtful climate policy. It tells us what the physical impact will be of emitting more or less CO2.
But climate policy, like any policy, should be the democratic outcome of a weighing of benefits and costs. Climate science tells us about some of the benefits of cutting emissions but it tells us nothing of the costs, which instead come from the much less hyped field of climate economics.
The story told by activist politicians and climate campaigners suggests there is nothing but benefit to ending ‘fossil fuels’ — and a hellscape if nothing is done.
But the reality is that life has improved dramatically in recent centuries largely because of the immense increase in available energy that has come mostly from ‘fossil fuels’.
Lifespans have more than doubled, hunger has dramatically declined and incomes have increased ten-fold.
We constantly hear about extreme weather such as droughts, storms, floods, and fires —although even the UN IPCC finds that, for most of these things, evidence of their worsening cannot yet be documented.
But much more importantly, a richer world is much more resilient and hence much less affected by extreme weather.
The data shows that climate-related deaths from droughts, storms, floods, and fires have declined by more than 97 percent over the last century — from nearly 500,000 a year 100 years ago to fewer than 15,000 in the 2020s.
At the same time, the costs of the climate campaigners’ calls to “just stop” oil, gas, and coal are massively downplayed.
The world currently gets almost four-fifths of all its energy from ‘fossil fuels’.
If we quickly ended our use of them, billions of people would die.
Four billion people — half the world’s population — depend on food grown with synthetic fertilizer produced almost entirely by natural gas. If we ended ‘fossil fuels’ quickly, we would have no way to feed these people.
Add the billions who depend on ‘fossil fuels’ for wintertime heating and steel, cement, plastics, and transport, it is little wonder that one recent estimate shows that abruptly ending ‘fossil fuels’ would lead to six billion people dying in less than a year.
These vast downsides are not considered within climate science, which understandably focuses on carbon emissions and climate models. But they need to be an integral part of the debate about climate policy.
Most politicians advocate a slightly less rushed end to ‘fossil fuels’, phasing them out by 2050. The short-term death toll would be much lower but the downsides are still immense.
The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows that efficiently reaching ‘net-zero’ emissions by 2050 will cost a staggering US$27 trillion per year on average over this century.
That is one-quarter of the world’s current GDP — per year.
The same research shows that the benefits will be just a small fraction of that cost: the policy is prohibitively expensive and brings little benefit.
A good analogy is to consider the more than one million global traffic deaths annually. Like ‘climate change’, traffic is a man-made problem. Like ‘climate change’, it is something we could entirely solve.
If scientists were to look only at how to avoid the million traffic deaths, one solution would be to reduce speed limits everywhere to three miles per hour and enforce that strictly.
This would almost eliminate traffic deaths. Of course, it would also almost eliminate our economies and our productive lives.
We would laugh if politicians said we should “follow the science” and stop traffic deaths by reducing road speeds to three mph. We should take the same sensible approach to climate policy that we take to traffic policy.
We should focus on short-term adaptation to build resilience and long-term investment in R&D to develop ‘green’ energy. Innovation must drive the price of reliable ‘green’ energy down below that of ‘fossil fuels’, eventually making sure everyone can switch to low-‘carbon’ alternatives.
When politicians tell us they are “following the science,” they use the claim to shut down open discussion of the enormous costs of their policies.
“The science” informs us about the problem but is not the arbiter of solutions. Democracies are.
Sudden, dramatic cuts in ‘fossil fuel’ consumption will have huge downsides their backers would rather ignore.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-high-costs-and-deadly-downsides-of-ending-fossil-fuels/
*****************************************************CEI Leads Coalition Letter Supporting CRA Resolution of Disapproval on EPA Power Plant Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently finalized powerplant rule will kill America’s existing supply of baseload generation from coal. At the same time, the rule will deter investment in new baseload generation from natural gas. That means the rule will drive up consumer energy costs, impair grid reliability, and chill economic growth. The rule is also an unlawful power grab that defies the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH) are expected to introduce Congressional Review Act resolutions of disapproval to overturn the EPA’s rule. We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to support those resolutions.
The EPA’s rule sets various requirements that will quickly drive coal generation out of the nation’s electricity fuel mix. If a coal powerplant intends to produce power after 2039, it must, by January 1, 2032, install equipment capable of capturing 90-percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Carbon capture is an energy- and water-intensive system that adds significantly to power generation costs. Moreover, carbon capture powerplants do not reduce emissions unless connected to networks of CO2 pipelines and storage facilities that may never be built.
Unsurprisingly, despite decades of R&D and billions of dollars in ratepayer and taxpayer subsidies, only two carbon capture powerplants currently operate in North America—Petra Nova in Texas, and Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. Both were built with hefty subsidies and plagued with technical difficulties. Note, too, that central to the business model of each project is a partnership whereby the powerplant sells its captured CO2 to companies engaged in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Thirty-eight states (more than three-quarters) do not have EOR operations.
PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that coordinates wholesale electricity and manages grid reliability in all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, observes in its statement on the rule: “There is very little evidence, other than some limited CCS [carbon capture and storage] projects, that this technology and associated transportation infrastructure would be widely available throughout the country in time to meet the compliance deadlines under the Rule.”
The bottom line is that, for coal powerplants, 90-percent carbon capture is not an “adequately demonstrated” “best system of emission reduction” (BSER), taking “cost” and “energy requirements” into account, and thus is not a lawful basis for setting emission standards under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The EPA’s rule provides two alternative compliance options. A coal powerplant can avoid the expense of installing a carbon capture system if it (a) commits to shut down by January 1, 2032, or (b) commits to shut down by December 31, 2039, and repowers with 40 percent natural gas by January 1, 2030. PJM Interconnection cautions:
The present gas pipeline system is largely fully subscribed. Moreover, given local opposition, it has proven extremely difficult to site new pipelines just to meet today’s needs, let alone a significantly increased need for natural gas in the future. The Final Rule, which is premised, in part, on the availability of natural gas for co-firing or full conversion, does not sufficiently take into account these limitations on the development of new pipeline infrastructure.
It could not be clearer that the rule aims to drive coal generation out of U.S. electricity markets. Indeed, the EPA itself estimates that, by 2045, coal generation will decline by 94 percent compared to the prior policy baseline (Regulatory Impact Analysis, Table D-10).
As in the Clean Power Plan, the EPA is promulgating “emission performance standards” that are, in fact, non-performance mandates. ‘Perform less or not at all’ is not a valid performance standard under CAA Section 111.
The EPA’s new rule also establishes a 90-percent carbon capture requirement for new baseload natural gas powerplants. Far from being “adequately demonstrated,” no utility scale natural gas CCS plant exists today. Only one small-scale facility was ever built—Florida Power & Light’s 40 MW CCS gas plant in Bellingham, Massachusetts. It closed in 2005. That is nowhere near an adequate technological basis on which to predicate an industry-wide 90 percent carbon capture requirement.
The EPA could not have picked a worse time to attack affordable, reliable, coal- and gas-fired generation. Electricity demand is projected to grow substantially due to the proliferation of data centers, expansion of Artificial Intelligence, onshoring of chip production, and the EPA’s and California’s policies to forcibly electrify U.S. motor vehicle fleets.
PJM Interconnection warns: “The future demand for electricity cannot be met simply through renewables given their intermittent nature. Yet in the very years when we are projecting significant increases in the demand for electricity, the Final Rule may work to drive premature retirement of coal units that provide essential reliability services and dissuade new gas resources from coming online.”
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court made it clear that CAA Section 111 does not authorize the EPA to act as the nation’s grid manager or resolve the national debate on climate policy with respect to a fundamental industrial sector. If Congress wanted the agency to possess such authority, it would have said so in clear terms. Congress has not done so, yet the EPA is still trying to assert an expansive transformation of its regulatory power. As in the CPP, the EPA ignores the separation of powers that is vital to the nation’s republican form of government.
For those reasons, our organizations urge legislators to overturn this rule.
*******************************************************
New Zealand scraps ‘burp tax’ on livestock after backlash from farmers
New Zealand has scrapped plans for a so-called “burp tax” aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions from sheep and cattle.
The country’s centre-right coalition government said on Tuesday it would exclude agriculture from the country’s emissions trading scheme in favour of exploring other ways to reduce methane.
The move, which fulfils a pre-election pledge by former businessman Christopher Luxon’s National Party, comes after the plans to tax agricultural emissions from 2025 led to nationwide protests by farmers worried about the effect on their livelihoods.
“It doesn’t make sense to send jobs and production overseas, while less carbon-efficient countries produce the food the world needs,” Agriculture Minister Todd McClay said in a statement.
“That is why we are focused on finding practical tools and technology for our farmers to reduce their emissions in a way that won’t reduce production or exports.”
The coalition, which also includes the pro-business ACT New Zealand and populist New Zealand First, said it would invest 400 million New Zealand dollars ($245m) in the commercialisation of emissions-reduction technology and increase funding for the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre by 50.5 million New Zealand dollars ($31m).
The previous Labour Party government announced the “world first” levy in 2022 as part of Wellington’s efforts to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the country’s estimated 10 million cows and 26 million sheep.
Then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern argued that the tax was necessary to slow global warming and farmers would be able to recoup the costs by charging more for climate-friendly meat.
The Greens, the third largest party in parliament, said on Tuesday that the government had once again “kicked the climate action can down the road”.
“From pouring oil, coal and gas on the climate crisis fire, the Government has now put half of our emissions which come from agriculture into the industry-led too-hard basket,” Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said in a statement
********************************************************
Australia: NSW coal jobs hit new record high, export volumes also up
The Hunter's coal industry employed 14,750 people in March.
Coal mining jobs in NSW reached record numbers in March 2024, breaking the 25,000 barrier for only the second time since coal job numbers were first recorded.
The new record number of 25,505 to March is the highest number of coal jobs ever recorded by Coal Services Pty Ltd since it began tracking the number of people working in coal mining in NSW in 1998.
The figure is more than double the number first recorded in the last quarter of 1998, when there was a workforce of 10,898 coal mining workers across the state.
The latest data shows that in the Hunter - NSW's largest coal mining region - there were 14,750 coal mining jobs in March 2024.
In the Gunnedah region, the data shows that coal mining jobs remained at near-record levels, with 3116 coal mining jobs in March 2024, only a slight drop from the all-time record number of jobs set in April 2023 of 3253.
In the Western region of NSW, coal mining jobs reached an all time high with 3585 workers in coal mining compared to just over 1400 when job numbers were first recorded.
In the Southern region of NSW the number of coal mining jobs improved over the last 12 months with 3344 local coal mining workers, over a hundred more than the same time last year.
NSW Minerals Council chief executive Stephen Galilee said the increase in coal mining jobs in NSW was a sign of the ongoing importance and resilience of the coal sector.
"The record number of people working in the NSW coal mining sector shows that over the last 25 years, coal mining has become increasingly critical to regional communities and the state economy. These job numbers also highlight the need to support mining communities," he said.
"A mark of the importance of the coal mining sector to NSW is the strong ongoing demand for our high quality coal."
Coal Services figures show that coal exports to the state's major trade partners are up almost 16 per cent with thermal coal exports used in energy production up over 19 per cent.
"NSW coal mining is playing a critical role in the budget repair task being undertaken by the state government. In particular, the decision to increase coal mining royalty rates from 1 July 2024 was the single biggest revenue decision taken by the NSW government," Mr Galilee said.
"Metals mining jobs are also at near record levels with nearly 8,000 people working in the NSW metals mining sector based on the latest annual NSW Mining Industry Expenditure Survey."
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment