Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
of fresh food, to generate heat and air-conditioning, to irrigate deserts, to dry malaria-infested swamps, to
build hospitals, and to manufacture pharmaceuticals, among many other things. And those of us who en-
joy exploring the rest of nature should never forget that energy is what enables us to explore to our heart's
content, which preindustrial people didn't have the time, wealth, energy, or technology to do.
We'll revisit this topic later; for now, I just want to stress that whenever we have more energy, we have
more ability everywhere —including the places we can do damage. So when we look at the damage or the
risks of damage, we have to take into account the positive as well. Once again, we're always looking for
the big picture about what benefits human life.
THE BIG PICTURE
We have seen that the non-fossil fuel attempts at cheap, plentiful, reliable energy for billions of people fall
short—because none of them involve a process wherein every element can be scaled cheaply and reliably.
Butfossilfueltechnologyputseverythingtogether:Itcangetaplentifulfuelsourcecheaplyandconvert
it to energy cheaply—on a scale that can power life for billions of people. This is why when people choose
to use energy to improve their lives, 87 percent of the time they choose fossil fuel energy. 30 The techno-
logy is that far ahead of the competition. If we want cheap, plentiful, reliable energy around the globe, we
absolutely need to use fossil fuel technology. If we want to flourish, we need fossil fuel technology.
And yet opponents of fossil fuel energy claim there are catastrophic consequences to using fossil fuels
that will prevent us from flourishing. That will be our subject for the next several chapters.
But before we get there, let's be clear: If fossil fuels have catastrophic consequences and it makes sense
to use a lot less of them, that would be an epic tragedy, given the state of the alternatives right now. Being
forced to rely on solar, wind, and biofuels would be a horror beyond anything we can imagine, as a civiliz-
ation that runs on cheap, plentiful, reliable energy would see its machines dead, its productivity destroyed,
its resources disappearing.
Thus it is disturbing to hear politicians talk about restricting fossil fuels as an “exciting opportunity.”
John Kerry, our secretary of state, whose job is to represent the mainstream views of America to the rest
of the world, described the prospect of outlawing the vast majority of fossil fuels, even if there were no
catastrophic climate change, this way:
If the worst-case scenario about climate change, all the worst predictions, if they never materialize,
what will be the harm that is done from having made the decision to respond to it? We would actually
leave our air cleaner. We would leave our water cleaner. We would actually make our food supply more
secure. Our populations would be healthier because of fewer particulates of pollution in the air—less
cost to health care. Those are the things that would happen if we happen to be wrong and we respon-
ded. 31
Actually, the type of “response” governments around the world have embraced—an 80 percent reduc-
tion in CO 2 emissions over several decades—would, by all the evidence we have, lead to billions of pre-
mature deaths.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search