From the Summary:
“Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution, which made possible investments in goods and services that are essential to protecting human health and prolonging human life. Fossil fuels also power the technologies that reduce the environmental impact of a growing human population, saving space for wildlife.
The IPCC and national governments around the world claim the negative impacts of global warming on human health and security, occurring now or likely to occur in the future, more than offset the benefits that come from the use of fossil fuels. This claim lacks any scientific or economic basis. The benefits of fossil fuels are nowhere reported in the IPCC’s assessment reports. The analysis conducted here for the first time finds nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs), near zero (no net benefit or cost), or are simply unknown.
The alleged negative human health impacts due to air pollution are exaggerated by researchers who violate the Bradford Hill Criteria and rely too heavily on epidemiological studies finding weak relative risks. The alleged negative impacts on human security due to climate change depend on tenuous chains of causality that find little support in the peer- reviewed literature.
In conclusion, the IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels. The global war on fossil fuels, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The authors of and contributors to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels urge the world’s policymakers to acknowledge this truth and end that war.” click here
“At today’s costs, $1 million invested in a modern wind turbine will produce, over 30 years of operation, about 50 million kWh (kilowatt-hours). And $1 million spent on utility-grade solar panels will produce about 25 million kWh over 30 years. Meanwhile, $1 million spent on a shale rig will produce enough natural gas to generate 400 million kWh over the same 30 years” click here
“IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely to do so given their political agendas. The CBAs conducted for this volume find the social benefits of fossil fuels exceed the costs by a wide margin. A forced reduction of GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 would require that world GDP in 2050 be reduced to only 4% of what it is projected to be in that year. Most regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions have costs that are hundreds and even thousands of times greater than their benefits.” click here
“China continues to be the world’s largest user of coal fuel with its coal fuel use now climbing again with increased coal imports needed to meets its growing electricity generation.” click here
“It seems that Pope Francis has learned little since his 2015 papal encyclical calling on the world to fight climate change by limiting the use of modern technologies and fossil fuels. At a recent Vatican meeting he called many of the world’s leading oil company executives to the carpet. Francis told the executives they should shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources to fight “global warming.” ” click here
I have not read this book yet but the title and this review (here) suggest it presents the proper perspective regarding fossil fuels. Click here for the book.
From Barnes and Noble:
“Could everything we know about fossil fuels be wrong?
For decades, environmentalists have told us that using fossil fuels is a self-destructive addiction that will destroy our planet. Yet at the same time, by every measure of human well-being, from life expectancy to clean water to climate safety, life has been getting better and better.
How can this be?
The explanation, energy expert Alex Epstein argues in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, is that we usually hear only one side of the story. We’re taught to think only of the negatives of fossil fuels, their risks and side effects, but not their positives—their unique ability to provide cheap, reliable energy for a world of seven billion people. And the moral significance of cheap, reliable energy, Epstein argues, is woefully underrated. Energy is our ability to improve every single aspect of life, whether economic or environmental.”