If human flourishing requires energy that is affordable, reliable and clean, then we have to evaluate our options in light of all three requirements.

About a year ago I did an episode for Oilfield Ingenuity where I proposed a radical notion. Instead of having anxiety about our planetary future, what if we do like every previous iteration of human society and simply live our best life for the present time? This would be a stark contrast to the current frenzy about future climate catastrophe—where no sacrifice is too much to ask (or require), from the eating of bugs to the rationing of power.

In terms of human history, this anxiety about the global future is a new thing. Imagine taking people from Late Antiquity, let’s say 4th century, and trying to rally them around some very disruptive life change to prevent the Justinian Plague coming a couple hundred years later. That was a pandemic that killed 25-50 million people (at a time when world population was 200-300 million). Even with so dire an existential threat, I’m willing to bet your 4th century citizens will tell you they have other things to worry about. Things like freedom from tyranny and the health and prosperity of their loved ones. They might even conclude that making people stronger today will improve the odds of surviving future calamity.

So then why are we so preoccupied with something that people before us never thought about? More importantly, is our obsession with the planet distracting us from the real needs of the people living here? If we save the planet and lose people in the process, that’s not exactly a win. Perhaps a more human mindset is to say, “Let’s not worry so much about the climate. Let’s focus on affordable, reliable energy for the billions of people right now who are suffering without it.” Then trust in the innovation and adaptability that comes with human flourishing to keep the planet inhabitable.

In his book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” Alex Epstein supports the position that a greater use of fossil fuels (or hydrocarbons, to be more accurate) is “best for human life across the board, economy and environment, present and future.” It’s a shocking notion in today’s ethos, especially the environment bit. But if we are trying on our new mentality, where quality of life is more important than the looming clouds of eventual doom, then should we not take a serious look at whether Mr. Epstein is in fact correct? And if it’s true that hydrocarbons are right now the best way to get reliable energy to the most people, and thereby save them from suffering, then perhaps that is the greatest good after all.

At this point a thoughtful person might say, “No—you’re going the wrong direction!” We must give up our terrible addiction to fossil fuels and get on with more virtuous options like wind and solar. They’re not perfect but that’s why we need more investment. More government support. More constraints on the evil industry that keeps obstructing progress.

First let me say that I have no objection to the pursuit of better options (nuclear comes to mind, but that’s for another day). But if human flourishing requires energy that is affordable, reliable and clean, then we have to evaluate our options in light of all three requirements. “Clean” doesn’t get to be the most important, because without the other two we’re back to human suffering.

And this is where an even more thoughtful person might see that we have a horse race. Imagine three finish lines: affordable, reliable, and clean. Two horses are closest to “clean” and the other horse has already reached “affordable” and “reliable.” The teams behind each horse are working feverishly to close the respective gaps.

So which horse do you bet on? Suppose the hydrocarbon horse is closer to the “clean” finish line than the other two are to “affordable” and “reliable” (more on that in a future post). If that’s true (and I think it is)—and if the stakes are quite high, such as human quality of life, then I’m putting all my money and enthusiasm behind the hydrocarbon horse.

I feel pretty confident about that bet—unless of course someone is throwing rocks to trip up my horse. Then it’s back to human suffering until another horse finally comes in.