The Push To Eliminate Fossil Fuels Is Hurting Poor People
"When we look at solar and wind around the world, it always correlates to rising prices and declining reliability."

Earth Day is Saturday! Hooray?
"Saving humanity from the climate crisis," says EarthDay.org, requires us to "push away from the dirty fossil fuel economy."
Sounds logical.
But my latest video explains why doing that is cruel to poor people.
"Three billion people in the world still use less electricity than a typical refrigerator," explains Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. If they're going to have "their first well-paying jobs…their first consistent supply of clean water…a modern life…that's going to depend on fossil fuels."
But the greens say we have a better replacement: wind and solar power.
So I push back at Epstein: "Solar is getting cheaper all the time. It's already cheaper than fossil fuels."
"When we look at solar and wind around the world," he answers, "it always correlates to rising prices and declining reliability. Why? Because solar and wind are intermittent. At any time, they can go near zero."
That means wind turbines and solar farms don't replace fossil fuel plants. You have to build them in addition to fossil fuel plants.
"We spent trillions of dollars in subsidies and mandates putting solar panels and wind turbines everywhere," Epstein points out, "Yet we're still having shortages of fossil fuels."
Germany invested heavily in solar and wind power. Elites around the world praised German politicians for creating record renewable power. But that didn't work so well when the winds slowed and clouds appeared.
Germans now pay much more for electricity, triple what Americans pay.
Germany has even turned to coal for energy. Coal! Coal is the filthiest fuel. Yet Germany now imports coal from Russia and America.
OK, say the activists, even if renewables have problems, soon we'll have better batteries so we can bank wind and solar energy and store it until it's needed!
Batteries are "getting continually better and cheaper," I say to Epstein.
Backing up all solar and wind with batteries would cost "multiples of global GDP," responds Epstein. "This is a total fantasy."
"You say unaffordable," I push back, "but who's to determine what that is?"
"The general narrative is we're destroying the planet with fossil fuels, so who cares how much energy costs?" Epstein says. "The truth is, the planet is only livable because of low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels."
Before fossil fuels, "Life expectancy was below 30. Income was basically nonexistent. The population was stagnant because people had such a high death rate. The basic reason is that nature is not a very livable place for human beings."
By contrast, thanks to cheap fossil fuels, "We make it unnaturally safe by producing all forms of climate protection. We produce drought relief…sturdy buildings. We produce heat when it's cold, we produce cold when it's hot. We have this amazing, productive ability. That's the only reason we experience the planet as livable."
Unfortunately, because of today's foolish hysteria over fossil fuels, energy prices will climb. "When you threaten an industry, you scare investors and producers. Massive threats to industry have definitely cut down production."
America's affluent protesters can afford the higher prices. But poor people will suffer. Allowing billions of the world's poor to live a modern life requires energy from gas, oil, and even coal.
The United Nations now puts pressure on countries to stop using fossil fuels. Governments in poor countries, eager for UN handouts, often listen.
"Their whole population is going to suffer," warns Epstein. "People who have by far the least in the world [are] most subject to today's international pressure against fossil fuels."
If we want more of the poorest people to have decent lives, we need to invest in both fossil fuels and nuclear power.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The really important question concerning this video for me is, "Why can't they make ear-buds for people on camera that are flesh-colored or hidden inside the ear canal?"
Band-Aids got away with it because they were that color before it was racist.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————–>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
"Flesh-colored" could be almost any color ... just sayin'
I get paid over $400 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 13455 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing...........
.
.
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Skin color is the most important thing
In fairness, if those particular ear-buds had been the same color as his skin, they would have looked like odd tumors. It would have been more disturbing and distracting that those obvious white things.
Hidden inside the ear canal is the answer you need - and that's more expensive than most people want to pay.
Fucking Christ people it's 2023! Just download a Snapchat filter that covers up the ear buds or replaces them with The Great Gazoo-style antennae coming out of their ears or whatever and call it a fucking day.
Climate cult is just a bolshevik cult.
They dont give a flying fuck about the 'climate'. they want power. and they want to depopulate the planet. and they want to eat t he rich.
climate fear porn is just the excuse they are using today.
they want to eat t he rich
The ironic part is how many of the climate cultists ARE rich. Of course, they want their brainwashed to eat those other rich people. You know, the ones who made their money doing evil things. You know, like providing goods and services that people want at a price determined by market forces of supply & demand. That kind of stuff. How dare they!
Or they just hate daddy (who made the fortune).
The rich people's kids, and a vital part in amassing and centralizing power for the new aristocracy.
Rich and woke.
They don't actually want to eat the rich, it's just useful rhetoric to stir resentment in the rabble and *morally acceptable* rousing.
So I push back at Epstein: "Solar is getting cheaper all the time. It's already cheaper than fossil fuels."
Solar at 100% efficiency cannot supply the energy needs of the globe. So the only answer (in regards to solar) is use less energy. A lot less energy.
So cut off all electricity for all democrats and confiscate all their cars and any houses beyond one.
Tax payments from foreign governments to any Biden at 1,000%.
Make EarthDay.org shut down because it cannot be used without expending energy.
Use the wind and solar advocates to replace the child labor in the mines.
Try that for a few years and reevaluate.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Solar is cheaper the way time shares are cheaper.
For those living north of 50° ϕ, which is most of Canada and Europe, solar is near useless in winter and on cloudy days.
Haha. Of course.
about 200,000 times the world's total daily electric generating capacity is received by Earth every day in the form of solar energy.
I'm sure you have a cite for your claim.
Hey guys, JFear is going to give us his usual "I read an article once, so I am an expert" schtick.
But sure...if we were to capture all that solar energy we'd be set. Pity that all the plants and algae that depended on that solar energy...I guess we paved over them with solar panels, too, so it doesn't matter. No one wanted that Amazon rain forest anyways.
Hahaha.
Yeah.
Let's stick with fossil fuels.
For the algae.
You provided no argument.
Also, all that refracted energy isn't wasted, it is very important in moderating extremes in temperature between the side receiving sunlight and the side that isn't. You think it gets cold during winter in the central US at night, wait until you start trapping and utilizing all that refracted energy.
You mean - like wind energy.
Wind energy is hardly free, blights the skyline, affects the wildlife that roams the sky and uses a lot of fossil fuel to manufacture its components. I thought you cared about nature.
Also, as weather moves west to east, what kind of effect will massive wind farms create in unintended consequences as they harvest the wind energy that drives the climate?
Does this look green to you?
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fx4M9IBY3x2E%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c7b6014f66d8673d3d050a43dd997b0be21d660aff07b303daafac9d7c56b607&ipo=images
I care about nature but no more than anyone else who likes the outdoors. What I care about is sustainability from one generation to the next. What I despise is theft from future generations by current generation. Whether that is public debt or fraudulent resource economics.
And that comes straight from Thomas Jefferson
Yeah let’s cover the entirety of the earths surface with solar panels.
No matter how many solar panels you put up, they supply 0% of your energy needs at night. No power source that won't run 24 hours can supply more than a tiny fraction of global energy needs.
Because anyone with more than two brain cells can tell you it's impossible to capture all that energy without turning the Earth into a frozen ball akin to Pluto, you fucking idiot.
If you want a clue, realize that every form of energy comes from somewhere else. It's literally basic thermodynamics but I suppose you would have had to go to school to know this.
So you're arguing the precautionary principle. But far more extreme since you are oblivious that fossil fuels combustion is transferring millions of years of sequestered energy from inside the crust of Earth to the atmosphere - where that also interacts with solar energy.
The greens don't give a shit. Not as long as there's ESG money to be made.
What else are poor people for? Asking for your typical Marxist dictator.
It's a feature, not a bug.
The only thing more important than hurting the poor is disenfranchising the working classes.
How much is being utilized to keep the planet warm enough to have liquid water (the Earth is barely in the Goldilocks zone)? How much is being utilized for photosynthesis (you know to make the oxygen we need to breath)? How much is reflected by our thick atmosphere (hint it's the majority by a far margin)? Or just admit you know nothing about science, and just are impressed by a large number without taking the time to actually understand that that number is meaningless.
Hah- you and I had the same answer to JFear's nonsense...but I got mine in the right spot. Neener, neener.
Fucking thread fails. I started out answering Jfear, not sure why it got moved. But I've said this all to him before, he just is really impressed by big numbers without understanding the underlying science, which actually isn't that advanced level. I think Earth Science is generally a freshman high school level course.
Should we tell him that without our atmosphere one side of the planet would burn and the other side be approaching absolute zero? Or do you think that would be hard for him to understand?;
Also, light travels in a straight line from it's point of origin, ergo, all that light energy would not be evenly distributed across the globe, our atmosphere bends light so that it is more evenly distributed but the equator gets far more than the poles, due to the tilt of our axis. This is really high school level science, not even particularly advanced stuff. Even using space arrays isn't a solution, as you would still have to transmit it through that deep atmosphere, which is going to disperse it, bend it, fracture it and lose some to friction. Using transmitter lines so your always collecting from the side receiving light is even more inefficient.
Also, consider that there are millions of chemical reactions going on in the atmosphere at any time, that require and utilizes energy from the sun, which further erodes how much light energy actually reaches the surface. So, out of all the energy that reaches the planet earth, less than 1% actually reaches the surface of the planet, and of that, the vast majority is already utilized and needed to support life. So, you're talking a fraction of a fraction of a percent of available energy that we can utilize without severely hindering life supporting processes. When you trap that energy in a photovoltaic panel, it isn't available for these other processes (I rather like oxygen and liquid water myself, not to mention the billions of chemical processes that require energy input, most often from the sun that are vital to maintaining our atmosphere).
No the 200,000x is not meaningless. In fact it’s huge. In fact also - it's the number that directly undermines the inference that the number is less than 1. So the question is – what is the effect of directly utilizing 1/200000 of that solar energy for human purposes rather than algae purposes.
The truth that sets men free is seldom the one lobbyists get paid to discuss, witness these two in tendentious conversation.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article......................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
According to Epstein, before fossil fuels, "Life expectancy was below 30. Income was basically nonexistent."
That must have been WAY before fossil fuels. Like 30,000 years ago, when research shows that life expectancy rose above 30 for the first time.
Yeah, sure. Now tell us about when child mortality dropped below 50%.
So fossil fuels are the cause of childhood vaccines?
I'm pretty sure fossil fuels are also the cause of the real God since before fossil fuels everyone was like Zoroaster and worshipped the sun.
This energy transition is the riskiest potential event in human history since forever if everything is about to reverse.
Oh damn. What about the Earth's rotation? Did fossil fuels cause that too? Shit. Hang on to your hat folks.
These people have the same disdain for fossil fuels as Alan Dershowitz has for pulled pork.
Of course, Dershowitz never demanded that the state stop others from eating pulled pork.
What kind of elite behavior is that?
It may be true that poor people need the kind of quick available energy that fossil fuel can supply but that does not mean that we have to save fossil fuel for all. This is a case where wealthier nations should move to more renewable to make remaining fossil fuel more available to bootstrap poorer nation until they can use more renewable.
It is also true that renewable don't always need the heavy infrastructure that fossil fuels require. The cost to run powerlines to a village might be many times more than a small solar array and pair of wind turbines. For poorer nations decentralize renewables may make more sense.
Finally, the fact is that climate change will likely impact the poorest nations more than wealthier nations and so poor nations have a greater stake in reducing and addressing climate change. What they gain by using fossil fuels could be quickly lost.
Stossel hasn't yet made the case.
Finally, the fact is that climate change will likely impact the poorest nations more than wealthier nations and so poor nations have a greater stake in reducing and addressing climate change. What they gain by using fossil fuels could be quickly lost.
The poors must starve in case the summers get 1 degree hotter.
"Green" energy is only going to get cheaper while fossil fuels are not. So at some point people will transition voluntarily because it will cost them less. No need to use government force.
“Green” energy is only going to get cheaper while fossil fuels are not.
Oh, huh, it's right there on page 12 of Carnot's Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire:
You would think economists, engineers, and greenies would've spotted it before you did. Man was that guy prescient.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that, even without government subsidies, "green" energy is getting cheaper while fossil fuels are not. At some point the prices will converge, and people will start to switch. Of course there will still be a need for fossil fuels where "green" energy won't work, but it will be a niche item instead of the standard.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to see that, even without government subsidies, “green” energy is getting cheaper while fossil fuels are not. At some point the prices will converge, and people will start to switch.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon. It does take an intro-level understanding of economics to understand that the only way the price remains fixed relative to demand is if you're talking about a command-style market. Otherwise, gas is phenomenally cheaper, and dropping, than it was in Carnot's day and the reason Germany, the birthplace of rocket surgery, can't run on solar is because more solar can't be had at any arbitrarily high price, while coal, being more available and in demand than it was even a decade prior, is phenomenally cheap.
Go set your phenomenal strawman on fire.
You've got reality backwards. There are places where the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. They currently have power because you can plunk a gas or coal-fired power plant down relatively anywhere compared to wind/solar.
Stossel hasn't made the case because you live in bizarro world where people using the existing fuel and infrastructure are guilty of violating the (your, unstated) laws of Gaia until proven innocent.
I think you are the one living in a bizarro world. Dropping a conventional power plant is a much bigger deal that you think. You need rail or pipelines for fuel, you need water for cooling and power lines out. Small scale solar and wind is a much better option for isolated villages.
As for area with no sun or wind. Most places on earth have wind, area nears the equator have less but have more sun and area near poles may not have sun in winter but they have wind.
None of which refutes the fact that there are millions, if not billions, of people currently living in places where wind and solar couldn't and still can't support them at any cost.
Just because you think solar/wind could support them doesn't change the fact that it doesn't.
And where are all these people that cannot use solar and wind? Can you name a geographic location.
The real world is the one in which America gets more KWH from solar electric in 2023 than it got from all sources at the start of World War II, and fifty times more than they provided before World War I
As above, wind power to turn generators and pump water predates the grid. Just because you think it could be better into the future doesn’t change the fact that it couldn’t keep up with the comparatively small demand in the early 20th and can’t keep up with demand now.
Even if you had the schematics for the windmills and the minerals for the solar panels and could cram it all into a time machine to take you back to the pre-WWI days you would still be building out windmills and solar panels across the countryside the way the grid was built out in the intervening decades. It’s really sad that, even with magic wand time machines you people continue to demonstrate that you don’t have the depth of thought to understand the past hundred or so years, let alone the next hundred. Even when it's been spelled out at a 3rd grade level for children, for a hundred or so years.
And there it is. Sacrifice!
"Germany invested heavily in solar and wind power. Elites around the world praised German politicians for creating record renewable power. But that didn't work so well when the winds slowed and clouds appeared."
Hahahaha
Germans now pay much more for electricity, triple what Americans pay.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Germany has even turned to coal for energy. Coal! Coal is the filthiest fuel. Yet Germany now imports coal from Russia and America.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Funny thing is Spain did the same over a decade ago with the same result.
At least Spain has a slightly lower latitude and sunnier weather. Germany is in the dumb-ass location category for solar.
Name an American coal mine now exporting coal to Germany
Plenty of evidence if you'll just google it. And not just metallurgical coal either.
Show us your links.
Why would Germany be importing American coal for power plants when they still have vast reserves of lignite? That is the lowest grade and dirtiest coal, but it burns to heat a boiler.
Causing suffering was always the whole point. “The object of power is power.”
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article......................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The elites have a romantic image of poor brown people-that they should stay poor, filthy, and covered with flies, like in the National Geographic shows they watched as kids.
Thanks in favor of sharing such a nice thinking, article is pleasant, thats why i have read it entirely.
https://www.hours-advisor-ca.com/polo-park-mall-hours-canada/
I don't know if John Stossel actually reads the comments here at Reason, but I would simply say this. I don't think those (Wokesters, Greenies) who are pushing for the reduction in fossil fuels care about the welfare of millions who would be harmed. They simply do not care, Mr. Stossel.
That is the scariest part to me. The pandemic really drove that point home. This merely reinforces it.
Anyone who thinks fossil fuels actually helps poor people has never paid one whit to actual fossil fuel economies around the world. Not one penny of oil revenues from say Nigeria has ever gone to a poor person in say Nigeria.
It is beyond laughable that you morons don't realize that everything about fossil fuels has empowered the state - has funded the corruption that keeps those places poor.
Not one large scale 'green energy' project does a damn thing to reverse any of that. That has nothing to do with green energy and everything to do with big projects.
There is a reason that solarand wind will take off in the third world (and already is) regardless of whatever vomit you choose to inhale about what is real.
Because that energy is already distributed widely. The sun shines and the wind blows equally on a poor person as on a rich one. The distribution can't be controlled by some self-righteous sociopathic shit like you people commenting here about the plight of poor people somewhere else. It just needs to be tapped.
Which has transparently NOT happened in the fossil economy. That's why lying little shits like you are yapping about poor people whose life hasn't changed one whit in decades in a fossil fuels economy. And are still very poor.
So hey maybe you clowns should change tack. Poor will always be poor and nothing can change. that. Except green energy which will make them poorer.
You whiny middle class post WW2 Americans living in burbs far from work or food or entertainment or hell anything. Spending trillions deciding who around the world should get subsidized energy and who shouldn't get any. That's the world that is maybe upset by green energy. And your goal in claiming some poverty status is so that YOU can keep sucking at a public teat that subsidizes that world.
Yes, XY, I often do.
Logic and Reason has "lost the war of public opinion."
On countless fronts. Thanks to Commie-Indoctrination or I mean ?Education? that can **only** sustain itself by Gov-Gun THEFT. Otherwise; it wouldn't need Gov-Gun THEFT/Dictation.
Government worshipers are barbaric creatures. Always resorting to criminal death threats (Gov-Guns) to make a living. This is NOT what the USA was founded on.
If you aren't talking about nuclear power options, then you don't really believe global warming is a crisis. We have a reasonable solution to supplant fossil fuels for stationary power generation.
That comes with the threat of a half-life toxicity of 87-years.
I'm not against nuclear what-so-every; but also realize it isn't a golden goose egg.
Humorously; None of [WE] mob energy picks would be happening had not the [WE] mob RULES governing ideology not taken over this nation. Instead of supply and demand picking; [WE] mobs with Gov-Guns picks everything for us.
That comes with the threat of a half-life toxicity of 87-years.
What is "half-life toxicity"? I presume, from "87-years", that you're referring to the plutonium isotopes that have been successfully powering fixed-implant pacemakers since the 1970s.
"If you aren’t talking about nuclear power options, then you don’t really believe global warming is a crisis."
The total global energy consumption is something like 160000 terawatt hours. Multiply that figure by 20 to get an idea of total global energy consumption if the world, on average, consumed energy as much as the US, Canada, or other wealthy nation.
Currently nuclear accounts for 2500 TWh of global energy production. We would need more than a thousand fold increase in nuclear power to replace fossil fuels and get to US levels of energy production. I think the prospects for this are dubious.
...which is why CA power companies are floating a proposal to charge variable electricity bills based on income rather than consumption, to promote "energy equity", of course. Yup, it's an actual thing...