Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al.
(2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database
The first time I read this statistic, I didn't think it was possible. But my colleagues and I at the Center
for Industrial Progress have mined the data extensively, and it is that dramatic and positive. Because the
numbers are so startling, in chapter 5 I'll explain them in depth.
Once again, the leading experts we were told to rely on were 100 percent wrong. It's not that they
predicted disaster and got half a disaster—it's that they predicted disaster and got dramatic
improvement
.
Clearly, something was wrong with their
thinking
and we need to understand what it is because they are
once again telling us to stop using the most important energy source in our civilization. And we are listen-
ing.
Why did so many predict increasing climate danger when the reality turned out to be increasing climate
safety as we used more fossil fuels? Once again, they didn't think big picture—they seemed to be look-
ing only at potential risks of fossil fuels, not the benefits. Clearly, as the climate-related death data show,
there were some major benefits—namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a
durable
civiliz-
ation that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on. Why weren't those
mentioned in the discussion when we talked about storms like Sandy and Irene, even though anyone going
through those storms was far more protected from them than he or she would have been a century ago?
WHAT'S AT STAKE
