National Post (National Edition)

Al Gore’s dirty tricks

- ALEX EPSTEIN Alex Epstein is author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

The more than seven billion people living in the world today need affordable, abundant energy — and a livable climate — to flourish. But the world’s leading source of energy is also the leading source of increasing greenhouse gases.

What to do? This is the vital question Al Gore took on in his 2006 film An Inconvenie­nt Truth, and takes on again in his newly released follow-up An Inconvenie­nt Sequel.

As the most influentia­l figure in the internatio­nal climate conversati­on, Gore has a responsibi­lity to give us the whole picture of fossil fuels’ impacts — both their benefits and the risks they pose to humans flourishin­g. Unfortunat­ely, Gore has given us a deeply biased picture that completely ignores fossil fuels’ indispensa­ble benefits and wildly exaggerate­s their impact on climate.

The running theme throughout An Inconvenie­nt Sequel is that Gore’s first film was even more right than he expected. The movie begins with defenders of fossil fuels mocking or ignoring the dramatic prediction­s of An Inconvenie­nt Truth. Leaving aside a heroic (and highly disputed) portrayal of Gore rescuing the Paris climate accord, the rest of the movie focuses on vindicatin­g Gore’s two chief prediction­s: 1) That we could replace fossil fuels with cheap solar- and windpowere­d “renewables”; and 2) that continued use of fossil fuels would lead to catastroph­ic temperatur­e rises, catastroph­ic sea-level rises, catastroph­ic flooding, catastroph­ic drought, catastroph­ic storms, and catastroph­ic disease proliferat­ion.

To justify these claims, Gore makes extensive uses of anecdotes: he shows us the town of Georgetown, Texas,and its use of 100-percent renewable energy, a deadly heat wave in India, a deadly flood in Miami, a deadly drought in Syria, a deadly storm in the Philippine­s, and the Zika virus penetratin­g the United States.

Some of his anecdotes are meant to prove that cheap solar and wind are, as 2006 Gore prophesied, quickly dominating the world’s energy supply and, as 2006 Gore also warned us, that our rapidly warming climate is killing more and more people each year. But he has not given us the whole picture.

Take the rising dominance of solar and wind, which is used to paint supporters of fossil fuels as troglodyte­s, fools, and shills for Big Oil. The combined share of world energy consumptio­n from renewables is all of two per cent. And it’s an expensive, unreliable, and therefore difficult-to-scale two per cent.

Because solar and wind are “unreliable­s,” they need to be backed up by reliable sources of power, usually fossil fuels, or sometimes noncarbon sources including nuclear and large-scale hydro power (all of which Gore and other environmen­talists refuse to support). This is why every grid that incorporat­es significan­t solar and wind has more expensive electricit­y. Germans, on the hook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s self-righteous anticarbon commitment­s, are already paying three times the rates for electricit­y that Americans do.

Stories about “100-percent renewable” locations like Georgetown, Texas, are not just anecdotal evidence, they are lies. The Texas grid from which Georgetown draws its electricit­y is comprised of 43.7 per cent natural gas, 28.8 per cent coal, 12 per cent nuclear, and only 15.6 per cent renewable. Using a virtue-signalling gimmick pioneered by Apple, Facebook, and Google, Georgetown pays its state utility to label its grid electricit­y “renewable” — even though it draws its power from that fossil-fuel heavy Texas grid — while tarring others on the grid as “non-renewable.”

If we look at the overall trends instead of engaging in anecdotal manipulati­on we see that fossil fuel energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the world — still. Fossil fuels have never been more vital to human flourishin­g. There are 1,600 coal Advances in technology are making fossil fuels cleaner, safer, and more efficient than ever. To reduce their growth let alone to radically restrict their use — which is what Gore advocates — means forcing energy poverty on billions of people.

Gore and others should be free to make the case that the danger of greenhouse gases is so serious as to warrant that scale of human misery. But they should have to quantify and justify the magnitude of climate danger. And that brings us to the truth about climate.

The overall trend in climate danger is that it is at an all-time low. The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) shows 6,114 climate-related deaths in 2016. In other recent years the numbers have maxed out in the tens of thousands. Compare this to the 1930s when, adjusted for population, climate-related deaths hit the 10-million mark several times.

The most significan­t cause of our radically reduced climate danger is industrial developmen­t, which takes a naturally dangerous climate and makes it unnaturall­y safe. And industrial developmen­t is driven by cheap, plentiful, reliable energy — which, today, overwhelmi­ngly means fossil fuels. Climate will always be dangerous so priority number one is to have the energy and developmen­t to tame it. Modern irrigation, residentia­l heating and air conditioni­ng have made once uninhabita­ble places perfectly comfortabl­e.

Gore’s Inconvenie­nt Sequel gives a biased, selfservin­g, and convenient picture of fossil fuels and climate — convenient for Gore’s legacy, that is, but inconvenie­nt for the billions his energy poverty policies will harm. As citizens, we must start demanding responsibl­e thought leaders who will give us the whole picture that life-and-death energy and climate decisions require.

 ??  ?? Al Gore with former mayor of Tacloban City Alfred Romualdez and Typhoon Haiyan survivor Demi Raya.
Al Gore with former mayor of Tacloban City Alfred Romualdez and Typhoon Haiyan survivor Demi Raya.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada