Here I pose a hypothetical question: would it be ethical to burn fossil fuels if it didn’t cause climate change? Supposing that the scientific consensus turns out to be wrong. That the warming we are currently experiencing is actually part of a natural cycle unconnected with the billions of tonnes of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. Would that mean that the continued use of oil, coal and gas would be justified?
I believe that there is a strong, moral argument against the continued burning of fossil fuels even if it didn’t cause climate change. What is the basis of this belief?
Firstly, the rate of fossil fuel use is increasing year-on-year as demand from economies such as those of India and China grows. In tandem, many experts predict that we are close to (or have already exceeded) peak production of fossil fuels. Simple economics shows that increased demand and decreased supply equals increased prices. In my view, this situation will inevitably lead to further conflict as countries vie for an increasingly scarce resource. And even if we weren’t already at peak production then the conflict situation will only have been at best postponed.
Secondly, increased demand for fossil fuels is leading to encroachment into, and destruction of, natural habitats such as those in Alaska and Africa. Even offshore oil drilling is now firmly on the agenda in the US (depending on the outcome of the election). The result will be further degradation of forests, wildlife and natural habitats to feed a growing oil addication.
Thirdly, and probably the most obvious yet most overlooked point, fossil fuels are fundamentally a finite resource. It really doesn’t matter whether we are at peak production or not – fossil fuels will ultimately run out and an alternative will be needed. Talk of ‘it won’t be in my lifetime’ or ‘it will be way in the future’ is really just apathy and denial from people who lack vision. Global economies cannot simply be switched from one energy source to another – it takes many years, even generations, to make the transition. The pragmatic approach is to start the shift now from our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable and sustainable energy sources.
Finally, economies which rely on fossil fuels are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Recent events have shown that increases in oil prices can destabilise markets and send inflation soaring. Longer-term stability and economic growth cannot be sustained in economies which are heavily oil-dependent – a point now begrudgingly accepted by politicians.
Of course, if the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming as most scientists now believe, then the preceding points simply add weight to an already compelling argument!

















October 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Good post and picks up what I think is actually more important in many ways that the man-made climate change debate, and that is sustainability.
Whether or not we’re responsible for the changes in climate that are being seen around the world, the fact of the matter is that we are living in a totally unsustainable way. We’re using finite resources at an ever increasing rate, destroying more and more pristine habitats and causing a whole range of indisputable pollution (from PCB’s, to parabens, to fertilizer run-off).
With the world’s apparent obsession with global warming, particularly by the media, the wider issues of sustainability and general pollution is getting pushed aside. The funny thing is, that by tackling these true issues, we’d automatically be tackling any potential CO2 problems at the same time.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I agree fab post and if possible a better first comment from Dan but I would point to a further issue that is implied within the post inthat as bad as climate change is in itself it is also an umbrella for several other issues that happen as a result of climate change. For me the big issue is not sustainability per se but biodiversity. The more that climate change and the pursuit of fossil fuels impacts on the genetic base of the planet, the more stresses are placed on eco-systems and the worse quality of life for us all.. rich, poor, present and future.
So I guess the real question is how do we package these issues in such a way that the subtleties and breadth of the issues are communicated to a wider and more suspicious public?