Reframing the energy debate

‘WE are facing a real energy catastrophe now in trying to prevent a hypothetical climate catastrophe tomorrow.’

By TRISTAN COLEMAN

In Alex Epstein’s latest book, Fossil Future, he makes the case that fossil fuels are a net good for humanity, and we should be looking to increase their use in the near-term.

Epstein describes how he has successfully managed to use his ‘arguing to 100’ framework to present a persuasive, pro-fossil fuel argument.

Imagine a conversation set on a simple scale of -100 to +100. The worst possible outcome is -100, the best possible outcome +100.

When making your argument about a policy or set of policies, you continuously try to demonstrate how they will move you away from the -100 position and towards the +100 position.

A good example from popular culture was how Apple’s Steve Jobs reframed the question; ‘which computer is best?’.

Original Framing: the worst technical performance (-100), and the best technical

performance (+100) Jobs’ Framing: worst user-experience (-100), and easy-to- use and powerful computing (+100).

How successful was this reframing? It’s hard to put a number on it, but the fact that Apple is now among the largest companies in the world isn’t by accident.

Epstein summarises our current energy conversation as follows: “It isn’t even really an energy conversation, but rather a conversation about climate impact, where the +100 is eliminating CO2 emissions and the -100 is increasing CO2 emissions.”

This is bad framing. It allows the anti-fossil fuel side to relentlessly attack our current energy system, without having to consider the full consequences of their desired outcome, and retaining the moral high ground while doing so.

As Epstein points out, the framework was itself predicated on ‘distortions of reality’, namely:

1. CO2 emissions are causing climate apocalypse. 2. The value we get from fossil fuels today is trivial compared to its negative side effects.

3. Any value we do get from fossil fuels can be rapidly replaced by renewable energy.

Accepting this distorted framework, fossil fuel advocates can only challenge the practicality of their opponent's policies, while conceding (either implicitly or explicitly) the goal of CO2 elimination.

“Accepting this framework removes your ability to ‘argue to 100’. You are effectively left arguing to 0,” says Epstein.

Even with logic and reasoning on your side, arguing to zero while your opponents’ aim for 100 is not persuasive. By introducing ‘human flourishing’ into the ‘arguing to 100’ framework, Epstein turns the energy debate on its head. Maximising human flourishing becomes the name of the game: is there anyone who wouldn’t wish to put the well-being of as many people as possible as an ultimate moral objective?

Epstein says: “If you are open-minded enough to consider an alternative framework for discussing energy, then the debate makes much more sense; it becomes about which types of energy will allow the maximum amount of human flourishing.”

Applying this framework to the use of fossil fuels, we can now balance: Positive factors such as having access to plentiful and reliable energy, and what we know that means to human well-being, against Negative factors such as hypothetical future changes to the weather, and what that might mean to human well-being.

Epstein reduces his case down to what he calls his ‘four fundamental truths’:

1. The uniquely cost-effective energy we get from fossil fuels makes the world an unnaturally liveable place - including unnaturally safe from climate - for billions of people.

2. The world is still a barely liveable place for billions of people who lack cost-effective energy.

3. No combination of alternatives, least of all unreliable solar and wind, can replace fossil fuels’ ability to provide cost-effective energy for the billions who have it and the billions who need it.

4. Fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions may have contributed to and continue to contribute to slow, masterable, and often beneficial warming, as well as significant global greening — nothing resembling a crisis.

Whether you agree or not, these are precisely the types of issues that should be front-and-centre when discussing energy policy. We need to be open-minded enough to leave the ‘reduce CO2 at all costs’ framework behind.

https://atlasreport. substack.com/p/are-you-open- minded-about-the-energy