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

Oct 14
Why are leading institutions so biased against fossil fuels?

Because their operating “anti-impact framework” causes them to view fossil fuels, which are inherently high impact, as intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.

A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 3 🧵👇
An Anti-Human Moral Goal and Standard

Our knowledge system’s opposition to fossil fuels while ignoring their enormous benefits can only be explained by it operating on an anti-human moral goal and standard of evaluation that regards benefits to human life as morally unimportant.
Outside the realm of energy, an example of an anti-human moral goal at work is the scientists who, operating on the anti-human moral goal of animal equality, oppose animal testing for medical research and disregard its life-saving benefits to humans.
Read 22 tweets
Oct 2
LCOE must die.

If you ever hear anyone favorably compare solar and wind to coal, gas, or nuclear by citing a low LCOE—"Levelized Cost of Energy"—you are being scammed.

LCOE explicitly ignores "reliability-related considerations" and is therefore a garbage metric. 🧵👇 Image
You've heard it over and over: "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels."

You might suspect something is wrong here, because if solar/wind were so cheap their developers wouldn't always be asking for subsidies, or claim the sky is falling when subsidies are taken away. Image
The suspicious claim that "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels" is usually justified using an intimidating-sounding metric called LCOE: "Levelized Cost of Energy."

LCOE is used all the time in prestigious publications and in government.
Read 18 tweets
Oct 1
Our “knowledge system”—the people and institutions we rely upon to research, synthesize, disseminate, and evaluate expert knowledge—consistently ignores the massive, life-or-death benefits of fossil fuels.

A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 1 🧵👇 Image
Save the World With…Fossil Fuels?

I am going to try to persuade you of something that might seem impossible: that one of the best things you can do to make the world a better place is to fight for more fossil fuel use—more use of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Questioning the “Expert” Moral Case for Eliminating Fossil Fuels

We're told rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is the expert consensus, but consider: 1) sometimes the alleged “expert” view is wrong, and 2) eliminating fossil fuels is a radical and potentially disastrous change.
Read 32 tweets
Sep 20
Apple, Google, Meta and hundreds of other companies claim be "100% renewable" while using mostly fossil fuel electricity.

How is this possible?

Because an FTC rule called the "Green Guides" lets them buy so-called "credits" to count others' solar and wind use as their own. 🧵👇 Image
No significant US company is close to being "100% renewable," since all such companies rely on the mostly fossil fuel electricity grid.

But in 2012, the Obama FTC rewrote a guidance document called the "Green Guides" to let companies falsely claim to be "100% renewable" anyway.
The FTC has published the "Green Guides" since 1992 to specify what constitutes deceptive environmental marketing claims under The FTC Act.

In particular the Green Guides specify when it is misleading—and therefore illegal—to claim to use a given amount of "renewable" energy.
Read 20 tweets
Jul 1
Senate fails to terminate Green New Scam

The Senate bill *looks like* it has a 2027 "placed in service" cutoff for new solar/wind subsidies.

But one last-minute paragraph makes it worthless—because projects making a recoverable 5% investment in the next 12 months are exempt!

The idea of a 2027 "placed in service" cutoff was that new subsidies would actually end during the Trump administration.

But under the last-minute carveout, Big Green has 12 months to initiate as many subsidized projects as it wants using the insanely-easy-to-meet "construction" threshold. (All you need to do is commit 5% of expected project cost to buying re-sellable assets like solar panels.)

Once they declare "construction"—e.g., in July 2026—they'll have 4 years (e.g., July 2030) to "place in service." And then some of those projects, e.g., most wind projects, will get 10 years of subsidies.

So we'll still have wind subsidies on Donald Trump's 94th birthday!

Here's how much worse the Senate bill just got:
* Two days ago: "Placed in service" by 12-31-27—with new subsidized solar/wind projects stopping very quickly, and Trump being able to let subsidies truly end.

* Today: "Placed in service" by JULY 2030—with new subsidized solar/wind projects absolutely spamming the rid and ripping off taxpayers like never before, and Trump having no control over whether the subsidies end.

The current Senate bill is arguably worse than the original Senate Finance one. At least that bill decreased solar/wind subsidies starting in 2026 to 60%. The current bill just increased them to 100%.

The current bill is a solar/wind lobbyist's dream. It does not terminate the Green New Scam in any way, shape or form. It absolutely perpetuates it. And offensively so, I might add, by keeping the "placed in service" cutoff language so many people courageously fought for, then totally undoing it with a single last-minute paragraph that makes it worthless.

If the Senate wanted to extend the Green New Scam it should have said so, not insulted our intelligence by trying to bury the extension in one sneaky little paragraph.

PS Several Senators have already told me they didn't know about or understand this last-minute paragraph. If that's the case they should do whatever they can to fix the situation.Image
And just to be clear, NOTHING good will come out of extending the Green New Scam.
More on how a "construction" cutoff—e.g., the Senate's new "construction" by July 2026 "cutoff"—is not a cutoff but an extension.

Lobbyists love “construction” by a certain “cutoff” because they get 4 more bonus years of eligibility: a 4-year "safe harbor."

E.g., a solar/wind developer can just put a small amount of money down (5%, most of it recoverable) and it gets 4 more years to cash in the subsidy.

With the earlier Senate 2027 “placed in service” cutoff—no exceptions—new subsidized solar/wind projects would slow to a crawl by early 2026. And President Trump could ensure that subsidies would terminate during his term.

But under the final Senate bill's exemption for projects in "construction" by July 2026—which TOTALLY EXEMPTS PROJECTS FROM "PLACED IN SERVICE" BY 2027—these new unreliable projects will spam our grid at least through 2030 (4 years after the "construction" pseudo-cutoff).

Using the 10-year PTC (Production Tax Credit) subsidy, wind farms will still be collecting subsidies on President Trump’s 94th birthday in 2040!

This disaster for our grid and our budget is unfortunately the best-case scenario for the Senate bill.

Realistically, by extending eligibility for new subsidies well beyond President Trump’s term, the proposal makes it likely that future administrations and Congresses will extend solar and wind subsidies yet again—just as previous ones have done for over 30 years!Image
Read 5 tweets
Jun 30
Dear US Senators,

Here is a refutation of every lobbyist lie that more solar/wind subsidies are good for electricity.

FACT: SUBSIDIES HAVE PROVABLY REDUCED CAPACITY + RELIABILITY—AND INCREASED PRICES.

More subsidies can only make things worse.

Vote against extending them!

⚡️
Senators are deluged by lobbyists who say solar/wind subsidies have been great for America—and that the Senate needs to pass @joniernst's amendment to extend them.

But the Administration's top experts know the truth: these subsidies are a disaster the Senate needs to terminate. Image
@SecretaryWright @SecretaryBurgum Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy, this year called IRA solar and wind subsidies “lunacy,” “a big mistake,” and “political posturing that results in higher costs and less reliable electricity.”
Read 22 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!

:(