Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
And what I have found is this: leading experts and the media have been making the exact same predic-
tions for more than thirty years. As far back as the 1970s they predicted that if we did not dramatically re-
duce fossil fuel use
then
, and use renewables instead, we would be experiencing catastrophe
today
—cata-
strophic resource depletion, catastrophic pollution, and catastrophic climate change. Instead, the exact op-
posite happened. Instead of using a lot less fossil fuel energy, we used a lot more—but instead of long-
term catastrophe, we have experienced dramatic, long-term improvement in every aspect of life, including
environmental quality. The risks and side effects of using fossil fuels declined while the benefits—cheap,
reliable energy and everything it brings—expanded to billions more people.
This is the secret history of fossil fuels. It changed the way I think about fossil fuels and it may change
the way you think about them, too.
DÉJÀ VU
When I was twenty years old, I decided I wanted to write about “practical philosophy” for a living. Philo-
sophy is the study of the basic principles of clear thinking and moral action. While college philosophy
classes all too often present philosophy as an impractical subject that involves endlessly debating skeptical
questions (“How do you know you exist?” “How do you know you're not in The Matrix?”), philosophy is
in fact an incredibly practical tool. No matter what we're doing in life, whether we're coming up with a
business plan or raising children or deciding what to do about fossil fuels, it is always valuable to be able
to think clearly about what is right and what is wrong and why.
One valuable lesson philosophy taught me is that with any idea, such as the idea that we need to get off
fossil fuels, we should look at the
track record
of that idea, if it has one.
Now, you might think: this idea does not have a history because it is a
new
idea based on the latest
science. This is certainly the impression many of our leading intellectuals give. For example, in 2012 I
debated Bill McKibben, the world's leading opponent of fossil fuels, at Duke University, and he presen-
ted his view of our addiction to fossil fuels as cutting-edge: “We should be grateful for the role that fossil
fuel played in creating our world and equally grateful that scientists now give us ample warning of its new
risks, and engineers increasingly provide us with the alternatives that we need.”
7
This is the narrative we
hear over and over: fossil fuels were once necessary, but the latest science tells us they're causing an im-
minent catastrophe unless we stop using them and replace them with cutting-edge renewables.
What is rarely mentioned is that thirty years ago, leading experts, including many of today's leading
experts, were telling us that fossil fuels were once necessary, but the latest science tells us they're causing
an imminent catastrophe unless we stop using them and replace them with cutting-edge renewables.
Take the prediction we hear today that we will soon run out of fossil fuels—particularly oil—because
they are nonrenewable. This prediction was made over and over by some of the most prestigious thinkers
of the 1970s, who assured us that their predictions were backed by the best science.
In 1972, the international think tank the Club of Rome released a multimillion-copy-selling topic,
The
Limits to Growth
,whichdeclaredthatitsstate-of-the-artcomputermodelshaddemonstratedthatwewould
run out of oil by 1992 and natural gas by 1993 (and, for good measure, gold, mercury, silver, tin, zinc, and
lead by 1993 at the latest).
8
The leading resource theorist of the time was ecologist Paul Ehrlich, who was
so popular and prestigious that Johnny Carson invited him onto his show over a dozen times. In 1971 he
