Green activists prioritize the environment over potential human casualties of zero fossil fuel use

We often come across the unfounded claim that due to the reality of climate change, we should “follow the science” and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

This assertion is frequently made by politicians advocating for rapid carbon reductions, and even by natural scientists themselves, such as the editor-in-chief of Nature proclaiming: “The science is clear — fossil fuels must go.”

It is a convenient narrative for politicians, as it allows them to evade accountability for the numerous consequences and drawbacks of climate policies, framing them as inevitable outcomes of faithfully adhering to scientific evidence.

However, this assertion is false because it conflates climate science with climate policy.

The story promoted by activist politicians and climate advocates suggests that there are only benefits to discontinuing fossil fuels, as opposed to a dystopian scenario if no action is taken.

Yet the truth is that the world has witnessed significant improvements over the past centuries — largely due to the substantial increase in available energy, primarily derived from fossil fuels.

Life expectancy has more than doubled, hunger has significantly decreased, and incomes have risen tenfold.

While the repercussions of climate change are likely negative, they are greatly exaggerated.

We frequently hear about extreme weather events like droughts, storms, floods, and fires, even though the UN Climate Panel acknowledges that evidence of their exacerbation cannot be conclusively proven for most of these events.

More significantly, a wealthier world is much more resilient and therefore much less impacted by extreme weather.

Data indicates that climate-related deaths from droughts, storms, floods, and fires have dropped by over 97% from nearly 500,000 annually a century ago to less than 15,000 in the 2020s.

Simultaneously, the detriments of the climate campaigners’ insistence to “simply cease” using oil, gas, and coal are considerably underestimated.

Currently, nearly four-fifths of global energy is sourced from fossil fuels. If we abruptly halted our use of fossil fuels, billions of people would perish.

Four billion individuals — half of the world’s population — rely entirely on food grown with synthetic fertilizer mainly produced from natural gas.

If we abruptly abandoned fossil fuels, there would be no viable means to feed four billion people.

Considering the billions of individuals dependent on fossil fuels for heating, as well as their usage in steel, cement, plastics, and transportation, it is no surprise that a recent estimate suggests an instantaneous cessation of fossil fuels would result in the deaths of 6 billion people within less than a year.

Most politicians advocate for a less hastened transition away from fossil fuels by 2050.

This gradual approach would prevent billions of deaths, but the drawbacks remain substantial.

Recent peer-reviewed climate-economic research reveals that achieving net-zero emissions efficiently by 2050 would cost an astonishing $27 trillion per year on average throughout the century.

This amount equates to one-quarter of the world’s current GDP.

The same research indicates that the benefits derived would be only a fraction of that cost. The policy would be exorbitantly expensive with minimal benefit.

An apt analogy is presented by considering the more than 1 million global traffic fatalities annually.

Traffic — akin to climate change — is a human-caused issue. We have the capability to resolve it entirely.

If scientists solely focused on how to avert those million traffic fatalities, one solution might entail universally reducing speed limits to 3 mph.

If rigorously enforced, this measure would nearly eradicate traffic fatalities.

Nevertheless, it would nearly obliterate our economies and productivity.

It would be regarded as absurd if politicians suggested we should “follow the science” and prevent traffic deaths by implementing a 3 mph speed limit.

Similar to how we handle traffic issues, in the climate discussion, we should adopt a sensible approach. This involves concentrating on short-term adaptation to bolster resilience, and long-term investment in R&D for sustainable energy sources.

Innovation must drive down the cost of reliable green energy below that of fossil fuels, eventually enabling everyone to transition to low-carbon alternatives.

When politicians assert they are “following the science,” they use this assertion to shut down open discourse about the substantial costs of their policies.

“The science” informs us about the problem, but it does not dictate the solutions.

Decisions in democracies do.

Rapid, drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption will entail significant downsides — downsides that their proponents prefer to overlook.

Climate change is a concern, but an apocalyptic remedy can prove to be far worse than the ailment itself.

Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus, Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”