The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels Plot Summary

Introduction

In 1970, a grim prophecy swept across America: the world was running out of resources, pollution would choke our cities, and climate catastrophe loomed on the horizon. Prominent scientists and intellectuals warned that humanity's addiction to fossil fuels would bring civilization to its knees within decades. The Club of Rome's influential report "The Limits to Growth" calculated that oil and natural gas would be depleted by the early 1990s. Paul Ehrlich, one of the most celebrated environmental thinkers of the time, predicted that "hundreds of millions of people would starve to death" due to resource depletion. Yet something remarkable happened instead. Between 1970 and 2014, humanity nearly doubled its use of fossil fuels while global life expectancy, income, and environmental quality all improved dramatically. Climate-related deaths plummeted by 98 percent. This paradox—how increased fossil fuel use coincided with unprecedented human flourishing rather than catastrophe—reveals one of the most consequential yet misunderstood chapters in modern history. Through this historical lens, we can better understand the complex relationship between energy use, technological progress, and human wellbeing, challenging conventional narratives that have shaped public policy and opinion for decades.

Chapter 1: The Fossil Fuel Paradox: Predictions vs. Reality (1970-2014)

The 1970s marked the beginning of a profound period of environmental anxiety in Western societies. Following the first Earth Day in 1970, Americans were inundated with apocalyptic forecasts about humanity's future. Prestigious scientists like Paul Ehrlich warned that "the battle to feed humanity is over" and that hundreds of millions would die of starvation in the coming decades. The Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth" in 1972, predicting that oil, natural gas, and numerous metals would be exhausted by the early 1990s. These weren't fringe views—they represented the intellectual mainstream, embraced by major media outlets and influencing government policy worldwide. The core prediction was straightforward: fossil fuel use had to be dramatically curtailed before depletion, pollution, and climate change destroyed civilization. John Holdren, who would later become President Obama's science advisor, argued that "a massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States" to avoid catastrophe. Amory Lovins, perhaps the leading energy thinker of the era, claimed in 1977 that "we don't need any more big electric generating stations" and that society must rapidly transition to "soft" renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. What actually transpired over the following decades contradicted virtually every aspect of these predictions. Between 1980 and 2012, worldwide fossil fuel use increased by 80 percent. Oil consumption rose 39 percent, natural gas use jumped 131 percent, and coal burning grew by an astonishing 107 percent. Rather than depleting resources, proven reserves of oil and gas consistently increased even as consumption rose. The explanation was simple but profound: resources aren't fixed quantities waiting to be used up—they're created through human ingenuity, as new technologies transform previously worthless raw materials into valuable assets. Even more surprising was what happened to human welfare during this period of fossil fuel expansion. Global life expectancy rose from 63 to 70 years. Child mortality declined by almost 60 percent. Access to electricity, clean water, and sanitation improved dramatically. Perhaps most remarkably, climate-related deaths from floods, droughts, storms, and extreme temperatures fell by 98 percent—not because climate dangers decreased, but because fossil-fueled development made societies vastly more resilient to natural threats. Developing countries like China and India, which increased fossil fuel use most dramatically, saw the greatest improvements in human welfare. This historical record reveals a profound paradox: the solutions proposed in the 1970s would have caused precisely the problems they aimed to solve. Had the world followed the advice to dramatically restrict fossil fuel use, billions would have been denied the energy that enabled them to escape poverty and build safer, cleaner, more prosperous societies. The divergence between prediction and reality wasn't merely a matter of timing or degree—it reflected fundamental misconceptions about the relationship between human development and environmental quality.

Chapter 2: Energy Challenge: Human Needs in a Resource-Constrained World

The period from 1970 to 2014 presented humanity with an unprecedented energy challenge: how to provide sufficient energy for a rapidly growing global population without depleting essential resources or degrading the environment beyond repair. In 1970, the world population stood at 3.7 billion; by 2014, it had nearly doubled to 7.2 billion. More significantly, billions were emerging from subsistence living and aspiring to energy-intensive modern lifestyles. The International Energy Agency estimated that for everyone worldwide to reach average American energy consumption levels would require quadrupling global energy production. This challenge was complicated by the fundamental importance of energy to human life. Energy isn't merely a luxury or convenience—it's the foundation of modern existence. As economist Milton Friedman observed during this period, industrial progress and abundant energy had "redounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person," making available "conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful." Every aspect of modern life—from food production and healthcare to transportation and communication—depends on reliable energy. A poignant example comes from a hospital in The Gambia in 2006, where unreliable electricity meant doctors couldn't use ultrasound machines for pregnancies or incubators for underweight newborns, resulting in preventable deaths. The prevailing view among environmental thinkers in the 1970s was that this challenge could be met through conservation (using less energy) and rapid transition to renewable energy sources. Amory Lovins argued in 1976 that "a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic." This view prompted governments worldwide to invest billions in developing solar, wind, and biofuel technologies while implementing policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Yet the fundamental properties of different energy sources proved stubbornly resistant to wishful thinking. Solar and wind energy suffer from what energy analysts call the "diluteness problem" (requiring vast land areas and materials to collect diffuse energy) and the "intermittency problem" (producing power only when the sun shines or wind blows). Without efficient, large-scale energy storage—which wasn't developed during this period—these sources couldn't provide the reliable power needed for hospitals, factories, or modern infrastructure. Biofuels faced their own constraints, requiring enormous amounts of agricultural land and competing with food production. Throughout this era, countries that prioritized human welfare consistently chose fossil fuels. Even Germany, celebrated for its renewable energy investments, increased coal consumption when its energiewende (energy transition) couldn't deliver reliable power. China and India lifted hundreds of millions from poverty primarily through coal-powered electrification. By 2014, fossil fuels still provided approximately 87 percent of global energy, not because of corporate conspiracies or political failure, but because they remained the only energy source that could meet the fundamental requirements of being cheap, plentiful, and reliable on a global scale.

Chapter 3: Climate Impact: Greenhouse Effect vs. Human Adaptability

From 1970 to 2014, climate concerns evolved from scientific hypothesis to the dominant environmental issue of our time. In the early 1970s, climate worries actually centered on global cooling. The National Academy of Sciences warned in 1975 of a possible new ice age, and magazines like Newsweek ran cover stories about "The Cooling World." By the late 1980s, however, concern had decisively shifted to global warming as atmospheric scientists identified rising carbon dioxide levels and their potential warming effect through the greenhouse mechanism. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen delivered landmark testimony to Congress, declaring that human-caused global warming had begun. His dramatic pronouncement—delivered on a strategically chosen hot summer day—transformed climate change from an academic concern to a major political issue. Hansen predicted that global temperatures would rise by 0.5 to 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit in the 1990s and by 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. These predictions formed the basis for increasingly urgent calls to reduce fossil fuel use dramatically. The scientific understanding of climate during this period involved three main components. First, the basic greenhouse effect—the property of certain gases like CO2 to trap heat in the atmosphere—was well-established physics dating back to the 19th century. Second, computer models attempted to predict how increasing CO2 would affect the complex global climate system, projecting substantial warming. Third, researchers speculated about how warming might affect human welfare through changes in weather patterns, sea levels, agriculture, and other impacts. The historical record from 1970 to 2014 provided crucial empirical evidence about these climate questions. Atmospheric CO2 increased from about 325 parts per million in 1970 to approximately 400 ppm by 2014—a significant rise by geological standards. Global temperatures did increase during this period, but at a much slower rate than most models had predicted. From 1980 to 2014, global temperatures rose approximately 0.5°C (0.9°F), with periods of faster warming in the 1980s-90s and a "hiatus" with little warming after 1998 that climate scientists struggled to explain. Most significant was what happened to human vulnerability to climate. Despite the moderate warming that occurred, climate-related deaths (from droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures) declined by approximately 98 percent from 1920s levels. In the 1920s, climate-related disasters killed almost 500,000 people annually; by the 2010-2014 period, that number had fallen to fewer than 20,000 per year despite a much larger global population. This dramatic improvement occurred because fossil-fueled development enabled humans to master their climate through air conditioning, heating, irrigation, flood control, early warning systems, and robust infrastructure. This historical evidence revealed a crucial insight: human adaptability, powered by abundant energy and technology, was proving far more significant than the direct physical impacts of moderate climate change. Countries with the highest fossil fuel use also had the lowest vulnerability to climate extremes, suggesting that access to energy was the key determinant of climate resilience. This pattern raised profound questions about whether climate policies focused primarily on restricting energy use might actually increase human vulnerability rather than reduce it.

Chapter 4: Environmental Transformation: From Natural Hazards to Human Safety

The period from 1970 to 2014 witnessed a remarkable transformation in humanity's relationship with its environment. In 1970, environmental discourse was dominated by concerns about industrial pollution—smog in cities, contamination of waterways, and toxic waste dumps like Love Canal. Rachel Carson's influential book "Silent Spring" (1962) had already galvanized public concern about pesticides and chemical contamination. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the passage of landmark legislation like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act in the early 1970s reflected a new determination to address these environmental challenges. What unfolded over the subsequent decades was an environmental success story that confounded many expectations. In the United States, total emissions of the six major air pollutants (including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) declined by approximately 72 percent between 1970 and 2014, even as the population grew by 54 percent, the economy expanded by 238 percent, and fossil fuel use increased substantially. Similar improvements occurred across the developed world. London, once infamous for its deadly smogs that killed thousands in the 1950s, transformed into a city with generally excellent air quality. This environmental progress resulted from technological innovation rather than reduced energy use. Advanced pollution control technologies—scrubbers on smokestacks, catalytic converters in vehicles, wastewater treatment plants—allowed societies to capture or neutralize harmful emissions while continuing to use increasing amounts of energy. Meanwhile, the efficiency of energy conversion improved dramatically, with modern natural gas power plants producing more electricity with fewer emissions than their predecessors. Market economies incentivized these improvements by rewarding companies that could produce more value with fewer resources. Perhaps most surprising was the relationship between fossil fuel use and access to environmental necessities. Between 1990 and 2014, the percentage of the global population with access to clean water increased from 76 percent to 91 percent, while access to improved sanitation rose from 54 percent to 68 percent. These gains were especially pronounced in rapidly developing countries with increasing fossil fuel consumption. The energy provided by fossil fuels proved essential for building and operating the infrastructure that delivered clean water, treated sewage, and created healthier living environments. By 2014, the historical evidence clearly showed that the greatest environmental threats to human welfare came not from industrial development but from underdevelopment—from lack of clean water, inadequate sanitation, indoor air pollution from primitive cooking fires, and vulnerability to natural hazards. The countries with the highest environmental quality were not those that used the least energy, but those that used it most efficiently and had the wealth to invest in environmental protection. This pattern challenged the notion that environmental progress required reducing energy consumption, suggesting instead that human ingenuity could continuously improve both living standards and environmental quality when supported by abundant energy.

Chapter 5: Moral Framework: Human Flourishing as Standard of Value

Between 1970 and 2014, a profound philosophical divide emerged regarding how to evaluate energy and environmental policies. This divide wasn't merely about scientific facts or economic analyses, but about the fundamental moral framework for making such judgments. This period saw the crystallization of competing ethical standards that led to radically different conclusions about fossil fuels and their role in society. The traditional humanist perspective, which had guided Western civilization for centuries, held human flourishing as its standard of value. From this viewpoint, the natural world exists as a resource to be responsibly developed for human benefit. The dramatic improvements in human welfare during this period—longer lifespans, reduced poverty, better health, greater opportunity—constituted moral progress. Within this framework, fossil fuels represented an extraordinary moral achievement, enabling billions to escape the poverty, disease, and early death that characterized most of human history. By contrast, an emerging environmental ethic placed intrinsic value on natural systems remaining undisturbed by humans. In his influential 1989 book "The End of Nature," Bill McKibben articulated this perspective, lamenting that human activity had affected the entire planet and arguing that "human happiness would be of secondary importance" to preserving nature's independence. David Graber, a National Park Service biologist, expressed this view more bluntly in a review of McKibben's book, writing that "human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet...Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." These competing ethical frameworks became most evident in disputes over the developing world's energy future. From 1990 to 2014, China increased its coal consumption by more than 400 percent, using this energy to power an economic transformation that lifted over 600 million people out of extreme poverty. Environmental groups typically condemned this development as an environmental catastrophe, citing increased air pollution and CO2 emissions. Chinese officials countered that access to affordable energy was a moral necessity for development, and that environmental improvements would follow as their country grew wealthier—just as had occurred in Western nations. By 2014, the empirical evidence increasingly supported the view that fossil fuels had been and continued to be essential for human flourishing. Life expectancy in China had increased from 69 years in 1990 to 76 years by 2014, while per capita income had grown from $348 to $7,683. Similar patterns appeared wherever energy consumption increased significantly. At the same time, environmental quality typically improved once countries reached middle-income status and could afford to invest in pollution control. This historical pattern suggested that the path to both human welfare and environmental improvement ran through industrial development powered by affordable energy, rather than restrictions on energy use.

Chapter 6: Future Prospects: Resource Creation and Sustainable Development

As 2014 approached, the future of global energy systems remained at the center of contentious debate. The period from 1970-2014 had conclusively demonstrated that earlier resource depletion forecasts were fundamentally flawed. Rather than running out of fossil fuels as predicted, proven reserves had dramatically increased. In 1980, proven oil reserves stood at 683 billion barrels; by 2014, they had grown to 1,700 billion barrels despite decades of increasing consumption. Similar patterns held for natural gas and coal. This counterintuitive reality exposed a fundamental misunderstanding about resources that had pervaded environmental thought. The breakthrough insight was that resources aren't merely "found" in nature—they're created through human ingenuity. Oil trapped in shale formations had always existed but wasn't considered a resource until technological innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling made it accessible. The "shale revolution" that began around 2008 transformed the American energy landscape, increasing domestic oil production from 5 million barrels per day in 2008 to over 8.7 million by 2014. Similar innovations continued to expand the accessible resource base for coal and natural gas, suggesting that physical depletion was unlikely to constrain fossil fuel use for the foreseeable future. Climate change emerged as the most significant proposed constraint on future fossil fuel use. By 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was calling for an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This target would require a dramatic transformation of global energy systems, effectively eliminating most fossil fuel use over just a few decades. Advocates argued this transition would drive innovation in renewable energy while preventing dangerous climate impacts. However, the historical evidence raised serious questions about this approach. Despite billions in government subsidies, solar and wind energy still provided less than 2 percent of global primary energy in 2014, and remained fundamentally constrained by their intermittent nature. Nuclear power, which provided reliable zero-carbon electricity, faced increasing opposition from many environmental groups. Meanwhile, the dramatic improvements in human welfare that accompanied increased energy use in developing countries suggested that energy restrictions could have severe humanitarian consequences. A more productive path forward began to emerge from the historical evidence—one focused on innovation rather than restriction. This approach recognized that human ingenuity had consistently found ways to increase resource availability while reducing environmental impacts. Advanced pollution control technologies had dramatically reduced emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Agricultural innovations had increased food production while reducing land requirements. Nuclear power had demonstrated that zero-carbon energy could be produced at scale. These successes suggested that the solution to environmental challenges might lie in accelerating technological progress rather than restricting energy use. By 2014, it was becoming clear that sustainable development required abundant energy to lift billions more people out of poverty while continuing to improve environmental quality through technological innovation. The countries that had most successfully balanced these goals had embraced a pragmatic approach that utilized all available energy sources while investing in research to develop cleaner technologies for the future. The historical record suggested that human creativity, when coupled with economic and political freedom, could continue to expand resource availability while addressing environmental challenges—just as it had done, against all predictions, in the preceding decades.

Summary

The history of fossil fuels from 1970 to 2014 reveals a profound disconnect between expert predictions and actual outcomes. While leading thinkers warned that continued fossil fuel use would lead to resource depletion, environmental devastation, and climate catastrophe, the opposite occurred. Fossil fuel consumption nearly doubled, yet human welfare improved dramatically by virtually every measure: life expectancy increased, poverty declined, and even environmental quality improved in developed nations. Perhaps most surprising, climate-related deaths fell by 98 percent despite moderate warming, as fossil-fueled development made societies far more resilient to natural hazards. This historical record offers crucial lessons for navigating contemporary energy and environmental challenges. First, human ingenuity consistently creates resources where none existed before, rendering fixed-resource thinking fundamentally flawed. Second, environmental improvements emerge primarily from technological innovation and economic development, not from restricting energy use. Third, the moral calculus of energy policy must account for energy's essential role in human flourishing—particularly for the billions still lacking access to modern energy services. Rather than pursuing energy restrictions that historical evidence suggests would harm the world's most vulnerable populations, a more promising path would embrace technological innovation to continuously improve both human welfare and environmental quality. The history of fossil fuels isn't a cautionary tale of human hubris, but rather a testament to humanity's remarkable capacity to transform the natural world for the better.

About Author

Loading...

Alex Epstein

Read more