Alex Epstein Profile picture
Dec 14, 2021 18 tweets 7 min read Read on X
The media and government are portraying a tragic tornado as a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster that eliminating fossil fuels will save us from—even though there is no tornado trend, and we have achieved unprecedented safety from climate thanks to fossil fuels.

THREAD
Is the recent, deadly tornado in Kentucky a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster? The only scientific way to answer this question is to look for long-term trends in dangers from storms and other climate disasters. And if we do, we find that storm deaths are declining.
Has global warming been causing a disastrous increase in tornado frequency or intensity? Here's the data for the continental US, the most tornado-prone area on the planet, since the advent of comprehensive doppler-radar. There is no trend in tornado frequency or intensity.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms the lack of a disastrous increase in tornado frequency or intensity: "In the United States... The mean annual number of tornadoes has remained relatively constant"
The tragically high death toll from the Kentucky tornado was due, not to some disastrous trend in tornadoes, but to specific factors such as the high population density of the region hit and the fact that it was nighttime (when people are less inclined to grasp the full danger).
Fossil fuels have made us far safer from storms and other climate disasters by providing the low-cost, reliable energy we need to build and power sturdy buildings, warning systems, evacuation vehicles, etc.

Climate disaster deaths have decreased *98%* over the last century.
Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions *have* contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5X higher than today's.
As we get safer from climate thanks in large part to fossil fuels, we also become better at protecting property from disasters like tornadoes. That said, impactful tornadoes happen irregularly. 2021 seems to be one such outlier year. Not part of a trend.
Instead of acknowledging the non-trend in tornadoes and the decline in climate danger, the media and government are denying them. Our FEMA director says, "This is going to be our new normal and the effects that we’re seeing from climate change are the crisis of our generation.”
Why do the media and Administration portray a climate that fossil fuels have made safer than ever as a catastrophe? Because they hold the anti-scientific, anti-human dogma that human impact on Earth, including climate, is intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.
We can see a bias against human impact in Biden’s post-tornado claim that “everything is more intense when the climate is warming.” Actually, warming often makes life better—e.g., preventing cold-related deaths, which far exceed heat-related deaths.
Our society's bias against human impact is revealed by the fact that in the 1970s, when the media were warning of human-caused global cooling, they assumed that it would also make all kinds of climate dangers worse—including tornadoes.

(Image: @TonyClimate.)
The truth about safety from climate is that it is overwhelmingly determined by our ability to master climate, not the exact state of the global climate system. This is why Americans, using low-cost, reliable energy, can thrive in every climate—from polar Alaska to swampy Florida.
The media and administration are putting forward the false narrative of a fossil fueled climate catastrophe to justify fossil fuel elimination policies such as “Build Back Better.” But in reality the world needs far more fossil fuel.
Billions of people desperately need low-cost, reliable energy, which for the foreseeable future largely needs to come from fossil fuels. 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood and dung for heating and cooking.
Solar and wind can't come close to replacing fossil fuels. They only provide electricity (20% of energy use)--and they don't even do that well. Because solar and wind are unreliable, they don't replace reliable power plants--they add to the cost of reliable power plants.
Poverty is still rampant around the world. Poverty is due to lack of productivity. Productivity requires low-cost, reliable energy.

The world needs far more energy, which means more fossil fuel. This matters far more than whether the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is .03% or .05%.
The media and Administration are engaging in deadly pseudoscience by portraying the tragic Kentucky tornado as a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster that requires eliminating fossil fuels. More fossil fuel is needed so that everyone can live in an abundant, safe world.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

Apr 25
Why Congress's new budget should eliminate all IRA "tax credits"

1. They are subsidies
2. They promote inferior energy
3. They raise energy costs
4. They make energy unreliable
5. They increase our debt
6. They make our economy less productive
7. They don't lower CO2 emissions
*Truth 1: IRA energy tax credits are really just subsidies*

Real tax credits let productive industries keep/reinvest more of their profits.

Most IRA "tax credits" are transferable tax reduction certificates that unprofitable industries trade for cash. I.e., subsidies.

A tax credit lets productive industries pay less tax on profits, which enables them to reinvest in additional productivity.

But most IRA "tax credits" support activities that are unprofitable on a free market—e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen—and therefore have no taxes to reduce with credits.

How can unprofitable activities be set to get a trillion dollars in IRA "tax credits"?

Because they are aren't really tax credits but *transferable tax reduction certificates* that can be easily sold for cash to profitable companies (and sometimes the government itself).

Giving a trillion dollars in transferable tax cut certificates to unprofitable activities that pay no taxes is no different than giving transferable tax reduction certificates to individuals who pay no taxes.

It's a trillion dollar subsidy, not a tax credit.
*Truth 2: Every IRA subsidy promotes inferior energy*

Every subsidy has lobbyists who say it's somehow improving American energy.

But the fact is, they are demanding subsidies because the energy they are pushing is inferior and couldn't survive or thrive on a free market.

The IRA's "45Y" and "48E" subsidies will give $241-901 billion to companies for "clean electricity," mostly intermittent solar and wind—which would be used far less in a free market because they are so unreliable. E.g., CA has chronic reliability problems from depending on solar.

The IRA's "45X" Advanced Manufacturing Production subsidies will give companies $132-193 billion to inefficiently manufacture batteries, as well as the solar panels and wind turbines that are created huge reliability problems on our grid and increasing the cost of electricity.

The IRA's "30D," "25E," and "45W" subsidies will give $117-393 billion to companies for EVs—whose mix of cost and (in)convenience most consumers won't pay market prices for, and therefore need huge subsidies as well as mandates to buy.

The IRA's "45Q" subsidies will give companies $34-210 billion to capture CO2 and pump it underground—a process companies would use very little on a free market since it's so costly. E.g., carbon capture for a coal plant costs 4 times the price of the coal!

The IRA's "45V" subsidies give companies $33-100 billion for hydrogen fuel—which would exist very little in a free market because it's so expensive to make. Hydrogen costs 10 times what gasoline does for the same energy! And favored "green" hydrogen is even more!

The IRA's "45Z" subsidies will give companies $43 billion for various "clean fuel" projects, mostly biofuels—which would be used far less in a free market since they are expensive to produce and compete with food for cropland.

The IRA's "25C" and "25D" subsidies will pay (mostly wealthy) property owners $28-276 billion to use government-favored "energy efficiency" technologies like solar panels and heat pumps that they wouldn't otherwise use or be willing to pay for.
Read 10 tweets
Mar 28
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America

Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.

Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵 Image
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.

Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline! Image
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.

The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.
Read 11 tweets
Mar 12
Did the EPA really just take the "Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History"?

Actually, yes.

Here are 18 important deregulatory actions EPA announced today, and why they will make life better for all of us.

🧵👇
1. "Reconsideration of regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0)"

These Biden regs would effectively ban all coal plants and new natgas plants by demanding impossible 90% carbon capture.

Reconsidering them is essential to preserving the grid and unleashing electricity.
2. "Reconsideration of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations"

These Biden regs paved the way for the EV mandate by imposing unachievable emission standards on gas vehicles.

Reconsidering them is essential for preserving automotive choice.
Read 20 tweets
Mar 12
Amazing news: @EPA is challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the "endangerment finding."

This bogus "finding" allowed Obama/Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.

Full story 👇
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?

It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."

But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.
Read 13 tweets
Jan 15
It may seem impossible, but 4 years from now America can have

1. Record oil and gas production

2. Cheap, plentiful, reliable electricity

3. High environmental quality

4. Low climate danger

5. A nuclear renaissance

Here are the 25 policy changes that will get us there.

👇 Image
1: Unleash responsible development on federal lands/waters

Anti-development policies prevent us from tapping enormous energy reserves on federal lands/waters.

Responsible development can unlock the full energy potential of ¼ of the US (!) while protecting environmental quality.
2: Limit NEPA

The leading source of project delays is the abuse of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) to require endless environmental reviews.

Dramatically limiting NEPA's complexity and scope will help all energy reach its potential, from oil to nuclear to geothermal.
Read 28 tweets
Nov 13, 2024
COP 29 is immoral

COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.

In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.

Good people should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom. 🧵👇
The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.

This is 180° wrong.
COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:

1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life
2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(