Connect with us

Energy

How global warming saves more people than it dooms

Published

6 minute read

From Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein

This is Part 3 of a 4 part feature where I cover 4 of the top energy issues that will be discussed this summer, especially as politicians return home for August Recess.


Warmer temperatures are less of a threat than cold ones, and fossil fuels make us safer from both.

  • Anti-fossil fuel politicians love summer because hot temperatures give them the opportunity to portray the world as “on fire”—and offering anti-fossil-fuel policies as a solution.In reality, cold is a bigger problem than heat—and anti-fossil-fuel policies make both worse
    temperature-headlines
  • Anyone commentating responsibly on summer temperatures must acknowledge 3 facts:1. Heat-related deaths are far less prevalent than cold-related deaths
    2. Earth is warming slowly—especially in warm places
    3. Fossil fuels make us safer from both cold and heat
  • 1. Heat-related deaths < cold-related deaths 

    When our leaders discuss the warming of the planet, they treat warming as obviously bad. But while they portray the planet as already “too hot,” the fact is that far more human beings die of cold than of heat

    lancet-cold-deaths
  • Study after study has found that deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15 times. On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat. Even in many countries we think of as especially hot, such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.³
    lancet-warming-saves-lives
  • 2. Earth is warming slowly—especially in warm places 

    So far we’ve had ~1°C of warming from a cold starting point in Earth’s history 150 years ago. Future warming will be limited by the diminishing nature of “the greenhouse effect”—as well as being concentrated in colder places.⁴

  • Warming so far has been slow and benign. But will future warming make the world unlivably hot? No, given 2 facts almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists: 1) the diminishing warming impact of CO2 and 2) the concentration of warming in colder places.
  • The warming impact of CO2 diminishes (“logarithmically”) as it increases in concentration.Every new molecule of CO2 we add to the atmosphere has less of a warming effect than the previous one. Warming will diminish as emissions increase—the only question is at what rate.⁵
    climate-sensitivity
  • Climate warming is concentrated in colder areas of the world (such as the Arctic), during colder times of day, and during colder seasons.This means that future warming will occur more in cold situations where it saves lives than in hot situations where it causes problems.⁶
  • All reporting on the warming of the Earth should specify not only that humans are far more endangered by cold than by heat, but also that Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places. That virtually no reporting acknowledges this shows that much “reporting” is propaganda.
  • 3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temperatures 

    Not only is the warming from fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions slow and in many ways beneficial, the uniquely cost-effective energy we get from fossil fuels makes us both safer from cold and heat.

  • The key to being protected from dangerous temperatures is to master them by producing different forms of temperature protection, such as: insulated buildings, heating, and air-conditioning. All of these things require energy—which means for most people they require fossil fuels.
  • Fossil fuels are the only source of low-cost, reliable energy that for the foreseeable future can provide energy to billions—in a world where 3 billion people still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.⁷
  • On a planet where people die much more from cold than from heat, but both are major threats, the key to safety is to have energy be as affordable and plentiful as possible so as many as possible can afford heating and air conditioning. For now this means more fossil fuels.
  • People who blaming pro-fossil-fuel politicians for hot temperatures evade that:1. Cold is more dangerous than heat
    2. Warming is slow, especially in warm places
    3. We need fossil fuels to protect us from cold and heat
  • Reducing CO2 emissions in a humane and practical way means focusing on liberating alternatives—especially the most potent, nuclear—to try to truly outcompete fossil fuels in the future. Depriving us off fossil fuels now and pretending China will follow is immoral and impractical.

Share

Popular links


“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Ottawa’s emissions cap will impose massive costs with virtually no benefit

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

The resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent (i.e. 0.004 per cent) with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.

Last year, when the Trudeau government said it would cap greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the oil and gas sector at 35 to 38 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030, it claimed the cap will not affect oil and gas production.

But a report by Deloitte, a leading audit and consulting firm, found that the cap (which would go into effect in 2026) will in fact curtail production, destroy jobs and cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars. Under Trudeau’s cap, Canada must curtail oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 or by approximately 10.0 per cent of the expected production—and curtail gas production by approximately 12.0 per cent.

According to the report’s estimates, Alberta will be hit hardest, with 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario will lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec will lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, the whole country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. Canada’s real GDP growth in 2023 was a paltry 1.1 per cent, so a 1 per cent reduction would be a significant economic loss.

Deloitte’s findings echo previous studies on the effects of Ottawa’s cap. According to a recent economic analysis by the Conference Board of Canada, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.

Similarly, another recent study published by the Fraser Institute found that an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector would inevitably reduce production and exports, leading to at least $45 billion in lost economic activity in 2030 alone, accompanied by a substantial drop in government revenue.

Crucially, the huge economic cost to Canadians will come without any discernable environmental benefits. Even if Canada were to entirely shut down its oil and gas sector by 2030, thus eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent (i.e. 0.004 per cent) with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.

Given the sustained demand for fossil fuels, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada would merely shift production to other regions, potentially to countries with lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

The Trudeau government’s proposed GHG cap will severely damage Canada’s economy for virtually no environmental benefit. The government should scrap the cap and prioritize the economic wellbeing of Canadians over policies that only bring pain with no gain.

Continue Reading

Economy

Scrap the second carbon tax: Taxpayers Federation

Published on

Author: Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to scrap its second carbon tax following the release of government documents showing it will cost the Canadian economy $9 billion by 2030.

“This is another government report that shows carbon taxes are a big drag on the economy that Canadians can’t afford,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The second carbon tax alone will cost average families hundreds and even thousands of dollars.”

The second carbon tax is embedded within federal fuel regulations, which took effect July 1, 2023.

The regulations require producers to reduce the carbon content of their fuels. If they can’t meet the requirements, they must purchase credits, increasing costs that are passed onto Canadians purchasing gasoline or diesel.

According to government documents, in 2030, the second carbon tax “will result in an overall GDP decrease of up to $9 billion.”

The documents were tabled by Environment and Climate Change Canada in the House of Commons in response to an order paper question filed by Conservative MP John Barlow (Foothills).

Previous analysis from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows the first carbon tax (including industrial) will cost the Canadian economy $30 billion by 2030.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the second carbon tax will cost the average household between $384 and $1,157 in 2030 depending on the province.

“Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change,” according to the PBO report.

The PBO also estimated the second carbon tax will increase the price of gasoline by up to 17 cents per litre and the price of diesel up to 16 cents per litre by 2030.

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can make life more affordable and help our economy by scrapping his carbon taxes,” Terrazzano said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X