Thread by @AlexEpstein

The widely-publicized claim that fossil fuels cause 1 in 5 deaths is the worst kind of pseudoscience. It ignores fossil fuels' life-extending benefits and wildly overstates their negative side-effects. In reality, fossil fuels lengthen 5 out of 5 lives.

THREAD

A recent study by Harvard and UK universities is being circulated as proof that fossil fuels are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths--over 8 million deaths annually.

And yet the places where fossil fuel use has grown most in recent decades have had skyrocketing life expectancies.

Since 1980, India's fossil fuel use has increased by 700% and China's has increased by 600%. Did this lead to many more premature deaths given "fossil fuels cause 1 in 5 deaths"? No, India's life expectancy increased by almost 16 years and China's increased by almost 10!

The strong correlation between increasing fossil fuel use and increasing life expectancy is not coincidental--it is causal. Billions of people have brought themselves out of poverty by using uniquely cost-effective fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.

The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can’t come close. That’s why China and India have hundreds of new coal plants under construction.

Any study about fossil fuels' side-effects must prominently mention their life-extending benefits. But modern studies, funded by governments with anti-fossil fuel agendas, systematically ignore fossil fuels' benefits and wildly overstate side-effects.

In my book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, I discuss the "false attribution" and "no threshold" fallacies used to wildly overstate the side-effects of fossil fuels. Both are used in the recent Harvard "study"--which should properly be called a "speculation."

If the fossil fuel byproduct PM2.5 were as harmful as the Harvard study's model speculation claims, the subway systems in the NY and NJ would be death traps--as they have PM2.5 concentrations often many times above the “healthy” limits according to the EPA.

As evidence of the agenda typical in government-funded pseudoscience, note that the authors of the Harvard "scientific" study make sure to advocate "current efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and invest in alternative sources of energy"--i.e., their political views.

Two good tests for any "study" about fossil fuels' side-effects: 1) Does it acknowledge the irreplaceable, life-extending benefits of fossil fuels? 2) Does it clearly differentiate between what is demonstrated science and what is wild speculation? Most "studies" fail both tests.

Fossil fuels are powering the development that is making the world a better and better place to live for billions of people--a place where climate-related deaths are at record lows. Fossil fuels lengthen 5 of 5 lives. That is what the real science says.