Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

The 7 most important truths about our energy future

Published

2 years ago

17 minute read

From EnergyTalkingPoints.com

By Alex Epstein

At Jordan Peterson’s ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) conference I was asked to share the most important truths about our energy future.

I boiled it down to 7. Understand these and you’ll be a better thinker than 97% of energy or climate “experts.”

GIM 7 most important truths

Energy Truth 1

To decide what to do about fossil fuels and other forms of energy, we must carefully weigh their benefits and side-effects.

  • When evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., a prescription drug—we need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of our alternatives.

    But most “experts” just focus on fossil fuels’ negative climate side-effects.

  • It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.

    E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, building, etc.

  • Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: drought.

    Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.1 drought deaths

Energy Truth 2

Fossil fuels for the foreseeable future will remain a uniquely cost-effective (affordable, reliable, versatile) and scalable source of energy.

  • Myth: There are no real benefits of continuing fossil fuel use because it can be rapidly replaced by mostly solar and wind.

    Truth: Fossil fuels are and for decades will remain uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.

  • Myth: Fossil fuels are being rapidly replaced in an “energy transition” to solar and wind.

    Truth: Fossil fuel use is 80% of the world’s energy and still growing despite 100+ years of aggressive competition and 20+ years of political hostility and massive solar and wind favoritism.2 primary energy consumption by fuel

  • Myth: Fossil fuel use will soon rapidly decline because countries know “green” energy will be cheaper.

    Truth: Countries that care most about cheap energy are pro-fossil fuels.

    E.g., China, which uses mostly coal to produce “green” tech, has over 300 planned new coal plants designed to last over 40 years.3

  • Myth: Solar and wind are growing fast by outcompeting fossil fuels with superior economics.

    Truth: Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability—along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.

  • Myth: Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.

    Truth: For the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs, solar and wind either can’t do what fossil fuel can—e.g., non-electricity energy uses such as airplanes or cargo ships—or are far more expensive.4

  • Myth: Solar and wind electricity is getting so cheap that it will lead to rapid electrification of the 4/5ths of today’s energy that is not electricity.

    Truth: When you factor in full cost of the 24/7 life support that unreliable solar and wind electricity need, they are far more expensive.5 TX freeze 2021

  • Fossil fuels are uniquely able to provide energy that’s low-cost, reliable, and versatile on a scale of billions of people. This is due to fossil fuels’ combination of remarkable attributes—fossil fuels are naturally stored, concentrated, and abundant energy—and generations of innovation by industry.
  • There is currently only one energy technology that can match (actually exceed) fossil fuels’ combination of naturally stored, concentrated, abundant energy: nuclear. Nuclear may one day outcompete all uses of fossil fuels, but this will take radical policy reform and generations of innovation and work.

Energy Truth 3

The more cost-effective and scalable energy is, the more human beings can flourish on this naturally deficient and dangerous planet.

  • Myth: The Earth will be a highly livable place—stable, sufficient in resources, and safe—as long as we don’t impact it too much.

    Truth: Earth is very inhospitable—dynamic, deficient, dangerous—unless we have the productive ability to transform and impact it to be abundant and safe.

  • The more energy is cost-effective—affordable, reliable, versatile—and scalable to billions of people in thousands of places, the more people can use machines to produce the values they need to flourish on this naturally deficient and dangerous planet.
  • Thanks to today’s unprecedented availability of cost-effective energy (mostly fossil fuel) the world has never been a better place for human life. Life expectancy and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to <10% today.6 Poverty headcount

Energy Truth 4

Given that the vast majority of the world is energy-poor, the world needs far more energy as quickly as possible.

  • The world needs much more energy.

    Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood or dung for heating and cooking. Much more energy is needed.7 primitive biofuel use

  • Myth: Poor countries will “leapfrog” fossil fuels and go right to solar and wind.

    Truth: No rich country has been able to abandon fossil fuels even at huge cost, while every dramatic increase in wealth has involved fossil fuels: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, etc.

    Poor countries are not guinea pigs.

  • The desperate lack of life-giving, cost-effective energy means that any replacement for fossil fuels must not only provide energy to the 2 billion who use significant amounts of energy today but to the 6 billion who use far less. Rapidly eliminating fossil fuels would be mass murder.
  • Summary: Fossil fuels are a near-term irreplaceable source of the scalable energy humans need to flourish.

    With fossil fuels billions more people can have the opportunity to flourish. Without them, billions of energy-starved people plunge into poverty and early death.

Energy Truth 5

Any negative climate side-effects of our massive fossil fuel use so far have been completely overwhelmed by their climate mastery benefits—as evidenced by the 98% decline in climate disaster deaths over the last 100 years.

  • Myth: We are more endangered than ever by climate because of fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions.

    Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating and cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.8 climate disaster deaths

  • Myth: Even if climate-related disaster deaths are down, climate-related damages are way up, pointing to a bankrupting climate future.

    Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—preferences for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.9 weather losses

Energy Truth 6

Mainstream climate science predicts levels of warming and associated climate changes that human beings can continue to master and flourish with.

  • Myth: Even if we’re safe from climate now, we can expect future emissions to lead to disaster.

    Truth: Since today’s unprecedented safety exists after 100+ years of rising CO2, and with 1° C warming, we should be skeptical that further CO2 rises will somehow overwhelm us.

  • Climate mastery is so powerful that for CO2 emissions to be apocalyptic enough to justify rapid fossil fuel restriction, let alone elimination, they’d need to have unprecedented impacts like:
    • Seas rising feet per decade
    • Storms becoming 2 times more powerful

    Science shows nothing like this.

  • Myth: Future warming is ominous because heat-related death is already such a catastrophic problem.

    Truth: Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer, far more people still die from cold than heat (even in India)! Near-term warming is expected to decrease temperature-related mortality.10 fewer cold deaths

  • Myth: Future warming is ominous because it will be worst in hot areas.

    Truth: The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). Good news.11 warming pattern

  • Myth: Future warming will accelerate as CO2 levels rise.

    Truth: Mainstream science is unanimous that the “greenhouse effect” is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warning.

    Even IPCC’s most extreme, far-fetched scenarios show warming leveling off.12

  • Myth: We face catastrophically rapid sea level rises, which will destroy and submerge coastal cities.

    Truth: Extreme UN sea level rise projections are just 3 feet in 100 years. Future generations can master that. (We already have 100 million people living below high tide sea level.)13 sea level projections

  • Myth: Hurricane intensity is expected to get catastrophically higher as temperatures rise.

    Truth: Mainstream estimates say hurricanes will be less frequent and between 1-10% more intense at 2° C warming. This is not at all catastrophic if we continue our fossil-fueled climate mastery.14 hurricane projections

  • Myth: We face catastrophic increases in dangerous wildfires, an “Earth on fire.”

    While the media increasingly reports on fires and draws connections to warming, the world burns less than 20 years ago and far less than 100 years ago. Fire danger primarily depends on human mastery.15

  • Summary: Continuing fossil fuel use will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.

    Policy implications

    • Energy freedom —> CO2 levels rise, life continues to get better and better
    • Net zero —> CO2 levels rise more slowly, billions of lives ruined

Energy Truth 7

A policy of energy freedom, including but not limited to fossil fuel freedom, is the fastest path both to more plentiful energy and to more cost-effective alternatives.

  • What are “energy freedom policies”?

    Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don’t engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.

  • Energy freedom policies include:
    • Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
    • Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., “decriminalizing nuclear.”
  • Energy freedom policies are more likely to lead to long-term emissions reductions.

    Because they accelerate the rate at which nuclear and other alternatives become globally cost-competitive. (The only moral and practical way to reduce global emissions.)16 China and India increasing emissions

  • Fact: The 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
    • Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the “green” movement virtually criminalized it.
    • Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
  • “Net zero by 2050,” by failing to recognize the unique benefits of fossil fuels, is catastrophic when barely implemented and would be apocalyptic if fully implemented.

    Energy freedom gives billions more people the energy they need to flourish and unleashes truly cost-effective alternatives.

References

  1. UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

    For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.

    Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

    Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, the population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

    Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

    ↩

  2. Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy

    ↩

  3. As of July 2023, China has over 300 new coal-fired power stations in various planning and construction phases. Global Energy Monitor – Coal Plant Tracker, Coal Plants by Country (Power Stations)

    ↩

  4. Alex Epstein – The ultimate debunking of “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels.”

    ↩

  5. U.S. Energy Information Administration – Hourly Electric Grid Monitor

    ↩

  6. World Bank Data – Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population)

    ↩

  7. IEA – Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

    Robert Bryce – A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations

    ↩

  8. UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

    For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.

    Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

    Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, the population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

    Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

    ↩

  9. Roger Pielke Jr. – Weather and Climate Disaster Losses So Far in 2022, Still Not Getting Worse

    ↩

  10. Zhao et al. (2021)

    Bjorn Lomborg – Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think

    ↩

  11. NOAA – Climate change rule of thumb: cold “things” warming faster than warm things

    ↩

  12. IPCC AR6, WG1, chapter 4

    ↩

  13. IPCC AR6, WG1

    ↩

  14. NOAA – Global Warming and Hurricanes

    ↩

  15. Roger Pielke Jr. – What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires

    ↩

  16. Reuters – Analysis: China no closer to peak coal despite record renewable capacity additions

    Reuters – India rejects net zero carbon emissions target, says pathway more important

    Alex Epstein – A pro-human, pro-freedom policy for CO2 emissions

    ↩

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 5 hours ago

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

International / 6 hours ago

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Censorship Industrial Complex / 6 hours ago

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Energy

China undermining American energy independence, report says

Published on June 29, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Tom Joyce

The Chinese Communist Party is exploiting the left’s green energy movement to hurt American energy independence, according to a new report from State Armor.

Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor, says the report shows how Energy Foundation China funds green energy initiatives that make America more reliant on China, especially on technology with known vulnerabilities.

“Our report exposes how Energy Foundation China functions not as an independent nonprofit, but as a vehicle advancing the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party by funding U.S. green energy initiatives to shift American supply chains toward Beijing and undermine our energy security,” Lucci said in a statement before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee’s hearing on Wednesday titled “Enter the Dragon – China and the Left’s Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance.”

Lucci said the group’s operations represent a textbook example of Chinese influence in America.

“This is a very good example of how the Chinese Communist Party operates influence operations within the United States. I would actually describe it as a perfect case study from their perspective,” he told The Center Square in a phone interview. “They’re using American money to leverage American policy changes that make the American energy grid dependent upon China.”

Lucci said one of the most concerning findings is that China-backed technology entering the U.S. power grid includes components with “undisclosed back doors” – posing a direct threat to the power grid.

“These are not actually green tech technologies. They’re red technologies,” he said. “We are finding – and this is open-source news reporting – they have undisclosed back doors in them. They’re described in a Reuters article as rogue communication devices… another way to describe that is kill switches.”

Lucci said China exploits American political divisions on energy policy to insert these technologies under the guise of environmental progress.

“Yes, and it’s very crafty,” he said. “We are not addressing the fact that these green technologies are red. Technologies controlled by the Communist Party of China should be out of the question.”

Although Lucci sees a future for carbon-free energy sources in the United States – particularly nuclear and solar energy – he doesn’t think the country should use technology from a foreign adversary to do it.

“It cannot be Chinese solar inverters that are reported in Reuters six weeks ago as having undisclosed back doors,” he said. “It cannot be Chinese batteries going into the grid … that allow them to sabotage our grid.”

Lucci said energy is a national security issue, and the United States is in a far better position to achieve energy independence than China.

“We are luckily endowed with energy independence if we choose to have it. China is not endowed with that luxury,” he said. “They’re poor in natural resources. We’re very well endowed – one of the best – with natural resources for energy production.”

He said that’s why China continues to build coal plants – and some of that coal comes from Australia – while pushing the United States to use solar energy.

“It’s very foolish of us to just make ourselves dependent on their technologies that we don’t need, and which are coming with embedded back doors that give them actual control over our energy grid,” he said.

Lucci says lawmakers at both the state and federal levels need to respond to this threat quickly.

“The executive branch should look at whether Energy Foundation China is operating as an unregistered foreign agent,” he said. “State attorneys general should be looking at these back doors that are going into our power grid – undisclosed back doors. That’s consumer fraud. That’s a deceptive trade practice.”

Continue Reading

Energy

Carney’s Bill C-5 will likely make things worse—not better

Published on June 28, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens

The Carney government’s signature legislation in its first post-election session of Parliament—Bill C-5, known as the Building Canada Act—recently passed the Senate for final approval, and is now law. It gives the government unprecedented powers and will likely make Canada even less attractive to investment than it is now, making a bad situation even worse.

Over the past 10 years, Canada has increasingly become known as a country that is un-investable, where it’s nearly impossible to get large and important projects, from pipelines to mines, approved. Even simple single-site redevelopment projects can take a decade to receive rezoning approval. It’s one of the primary reasons why Canada has experienced a mass exodus of investment capital, some $387 billion from 2015 to 2023. And from 2014 to 2023, the latest year of comparable data, investment per worker (excluding residential construction and adjusted for inflation) dropped by 19.3 per cent, from $20,310 to $16,386 (in 2017 dollars).

In theory, Bill C-5 will help speed up the approval process for projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” But the cabinet (and in practical terms, the prime minister) will determine the “national interest,” not the private sector. The bill also allows the cabinet to override existing laws, regulations and guidelines to facilitate investment and the building of projects such as pipelines, mines and power transmission lines. At a time when Canada is known for not being able to get large projects done, many are applauding this new approach, and indeed the bill passed with the support of the Opposition Conservatives.

But basically, it will allow the cabinet to go around nearly every existing hurdle impeding or preventing large project developments, and the list of hurdles is extensive: Bill C-69 (which governs the approval process for large infrastructure projects including pipelines), Bill C-48 (which effectively bans oil tankers off the west coast), the federal cap on greenhouse gas emissions for only the oil and gas sector (which effectively means a cap or even reductions in production), a quasi carbon tax on fuel (called the Clean Fuels Standard), and so on.

Bill C-5 will not change any of these problematic laws and regulations. It simply will allow the cabinet to choose when and where they’re applied. This is cronyism at its worst and opens up the Carney government to significant risks of favouritism and even corruption.

Consider firms interested in pursuing large projects. If the bill becomes the law of the land, there won’t be a new, better and more transparent process to follow that improves the general economic environment for all entrepreneurs and businesses. Instead, there will be a cabinet (i.e. politicians) with new extraordinary powers that firms can lobby to convince that their project is in the “national interest.”

Indeed, according to some reports, some senators are referring to Bill C-5 as the “trust me” law, meaning that because there aren’t enough details and guardrails within the legislation, senators who vote in favour are effectively “trusting” Prime Minister Carney and his cabinet to do the right thing, effectively and consistently over time.

Consider the ambiguity in the legislation and how it empowers discretionary decisions by the cabinet. According to the legislation, cabinet “may consider any factor” it “considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can… strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security” or “provide economic benefits to Canada” or “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” or “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

With this type of “criteria,” nearly anything cabinet or the prime minister can dream up could be deemed in the “national interest” and therefore provide the prime minister with unprecedented and near unilateral powers.

In the preamble to the legislation, the government said it wants an accelerated approval process, which “enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence.” In all likelihood, Bill C-5 will do the opposite. It will put more power in the hands of a very few in government, lead to cronyism, risks outright corruption, and make Canada even less attractive to investment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X