By Vijay Jayaraj
Having been subjected to daily media fantasies about a climate crisis, consider the reality that your children’s children will not only survive but thrive in a world that is benefiting from a warmer climate, higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and a plethora of scientific discoveries and innovations.
In the annals of human history, few, if any, periods have witnessed such profound and rapid advancement as the span from the mid-20th century to the present day. The transformative power of human ingenuity — coupled with the harnessing of natural resources, particularly coal, natural gas and oil — has spurred remarkable progress.
Some key metrics of humanity’s upward movement are life expectancy, access to clean water, the reduction of disease-related mortality, the resurgence of natural habitats in developed nations, advancements in transportation, increases in productivity and the overall elevation of living standards.
In 1950, the global average life expectancy at birth stood at a modest 46 years. By 2021, this figure had surged to 73 years, marking an increase of nearly three decades in the span of a single human lifetime. In 1950, 63% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. By 2018, this figure had plummeted to less than 10% while the global population more than tripled.
Nutrition has improved significantly. Concerns about global food security were widespread in 1950. Today, food production has more than kept pace with the growing number of people. The Green Revolution, powered by fossil fuel-based fertilizers and mechanized farming, has enabled agricultural yields to increase by 175% over the last 70 years.
This extraordinary achievement is the result of a confluence of factors, many of which can be traced to the utilization of fossil fuels to affect scientific advancements and make electricity widely available.
The petrochemical industry, a byproduct of refining fossil fuels, has been instrumental in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. From the plastic tubing used in intravenous drips to the synthetic materials in prosthetics, the fingerprints of hydrocarbon derivatives are ubiquitous in modern medicine.
Access to clean water, a prerequisite for health and social development, has expanded markedly since the mid-20th century, when only a small fraction of the world could count on access to safe water. Today, according to the World Health Organization, more than 70% of the population enjoys healthful water services.
The development of modern plumbing systems, facilitated by the mass production of pipes and fittings (often derived from petroleum products), has brought clean water directly into homes. This seemingly simple advancement has had profound implications for public health, personal hygiene and overall quality of life.
Contrary to popular belief, the latter half of the 20th century and the early 21st century have witnessed an extraordinary recovery of natural habitats in many developed nations, particularly in the United States and Europe. In more recent decades, even rapidly developing and highly populated economies like India and China have registered a growth in forest area and even resurgence of some once at-risk wildlife species.
Proliferation of automobiles has transformed societies, granting individuals unprecedented freedom of movement. The global logistics network, powered by diesel engines in ships, trucks and trains, has enabled the creation of complex supply chains that bring a diverse array of goods to consumers at ever-decreasing costs.
In 2019, 4.5 billion passengers used commercial air travel. The advent of jet engines, which rely on petroleum-based fuels, has shrunk the world, making international travel accessible to millions and facilitating global commerce on an unprecedented scale.
Powered by fossil fuels, machines have taken over much of the physical labor in agriculture, manufacturing and construction, dramatically increasing output per worker. This productivity surge has been the engine of economic growth, enabling the production of more goods and services with fewer resources.
While life expectancy in Japan reaches 85 years, it barely exceeds 50 in some African nations. The path to development for these nations must, by necessity, employ the same drivers that propelled the West’s progress in the 20th century. Access to abundant, reliable energy is paramount. The role of fossil fuels in this process cannot be overstated.
The story of human advancement since the 1950s is inextricably linked to our harnessing of fossil fuels and our ever-expanding scientific understanding. As we look to the future, we must build upon these foundations, pushing the boundaries of innovation.
This commentary was first published at The Washington Times on July 1, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K., and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, U.K.
and now it’s the “science” that is dragging us back
The corruption of science by Climate Alarmists is what is dragging us back.
fossil fuels freed up many man-hours so individuals could pursue other interests
Very nice.
The sad part is that 80% of Westerners have no clue about this, or outright deny it and claim fossil fuels are actually killing us by causing cancer and whatnot. The only thing that may change their ignorance is to just take it all away. Just like our fascist governments did with COVID … just shut it all down … by declaring it “non-essential”. That’s what a zero carbon future envisions. Let the people live without fossil fuels and all those things carbon chains produce for ONE month. Go ahead … label fossil fuels “non-essential” … and tear it all down, baby!!
And see how they like it then … because that’s the future they envision.
The FBI wants to know if you’re up to date on your boosters.
All 10 of em?
“ The path to development for these nations must, by necessity, employ the same drivers that propelled the West’s progress in the 20th century. “
This is just nonsense. Logically it would equally valid to claim that African nations need to to embark on several hundred years of slavery and colonisation before they could become rich. But clearly that is not necessary and their are other much better paths to take. The same is true with fossil fuel use. Similarly I am sure people would like to skip the killer smogs of early 20th century London and move straight to clean technology. You are allowed to learn from mistakes that other countries have made in developing.
Nothing wrong with that sentence. Those drivers would be access to reliable and inexpensive energy.
Anyway, I keep saying that people should transition to flying on magic carpets, no fuel or lubes needed.
We can be absolutely certain that every little part of Izzy’s insignificant little life is there because of fossil fuels.
Including Iz equipment and connections to broadcast his ignorance.
‘You are allowed to learn from mistakes that other countries have made in developing.’
Yes. And the biggest lesson is that countries that flirt with socialism in any of its forms go down the tubes.
That’s right.
The People of the United States should stop flirting with Democrat socialism. You see what it gets us: Poverty and Chaos.
The correct term, as I recently discovered, is Identity Socialism, which is what the Democrat Party autocracy is pushing.
Africa (some of it) seems stuck in the slavery and colonialism stage.
“are other much better paths to take… the same is true with fossil fuel use.”
Absolute BS as usual.
There is no other path forward for these countries that is in any way achievable.
All the rest of your comment is shear idiocy because the western world has already done all the hard work in making fossil fuels clean, affordable and reliable.
Why the HATRED of Africans and other under-developed countries, that you deny them all the benefits the YOU had in your life.
Just despicable!
There is no hatred. Just a suggestion that they do not need to repeat the same mistakes. Just because the west went from A to B via a particular route there is no
need for other countries to do the same. Nobody would argue that African countries
needed to install telegraph and land lines before getting mobile phones and the same is true with energy sources. Why mine coal if uranium is plentiful?
And one of those mistakes to learn from is tell the climate clowns to buzz off.
Denial of the fact that you want to stunt the growth of undeveloped nations by denying them fossil fuels.
Deep seated racism and hatred…. you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.
Cancel yourself.
you need to take a course in logic
This is just nonsense. Logically it would equally valid to claim that African nations need to to embark on several hundred years of slavery and colonisation before they could become rich.
That is your opinion, and it is not factual.
The fact is, the road has already been paved and those countries do not have any need to start from square 1.
The industrial revolution based on oil and coal started well after slavery was abolished.
Why mine coal if uranium is plentiful?
“Why mine
coaluranium ifuraniumCOAL is plentiful?”Processing uranium requires modern facilities and high-level expertise, powered by reliable electricity.
Right then … America ONLY developed and progressed because of slaves picking cotton. Seriously? You’ve never heard of the Industrial Revolution? And all those white faces working in the factories … children even … little white girls. The ignorance of race-based History is too absurd for words.
“America ONLY developed and progressed because of slaves picking cotton. Seriously?”
Yes, I think that was his point, which is to bash the Western world.
How many countries have slavery going on in their country right now? Just about all of them, to one degree or another, I would say.
So the nations of the world are following the same path. Slavery is endemic in human society.
Joe Biden is one of the biggest slave traffickers on the planet. He is the Slaver-in-Chief. He traffics humans and drugs.
Well, at it’s start, The United States did used be a collection of colonies … (sarc)
Depends what is meant by ‘clean’, HELE coal plants, hydro, CCGT, nuclear are all ‘clean’ compared with older technologies but I think I know what you mean by ‘clean’ viz. solar PV and wind.
If presently developing countries were to adopt wind and solar as primary energy production they would never achieve Western standards of living. Fortunately they are far more intelligent than Western so-called elites who seem to be intent on economic ruination for everyone except perhaps themselves.
Quite so and those developing countries are involved in the IPCC summary reports not for science, but to influence politics so they get a larger share of Western “largesse.” It really is not generosity when the transfer of economic funds is mandated or forced.
Izaak, just because you can’t comprehend something, it doesn’t mean it is nonsense.
The author specifically chose 1950 as a start point (wrongly in my opinion, as I state in another post). From that point, pollution reduction, efficiency and diversification have been constant drivers in energy production and transportation. However, the main driver for modern civilization is access to cheap, reliable and dispatchable energy so, Vijay’s point is absolutely valid.
Your point, on the other hand, is mere obfuscation. There was no Western country in the 20th century where slavery was legal (except for one in the early 1940’s that we won’t mention). And, Africa has been practicing slavery for thousands of years, yet that has not only not aided their progress – it has actually hindered it.
You are right that people are allowed to learn from mistakes that other countries have made in developing. First among these should be avoiding socialism and communism like the plague; they are the worst when it comes to progress, actively slowing it or even causing regress. Second would be avoiding “renewables” because, they can’t provide enough energy for modern societies and never will. Africans should be looking to access the same energy sources that power all modern societies and rejecting those with which Western leftists are trying to saddle them.
As for “clean” technologies, clean is a relative term. When something is called “clean”, one must always ask: Compared to what? “Renewables” are only “clean” if you ignore the mining, construction, transportation and clean-up involved with them (none of which can be done without fossil fuels, by the way).
If you don’t want Africans to enjoy the benefits of clean, reliable and dispatchable energy, be honest and just say that.
Nothing clean about destroying farms and forests to install “clean energy”.
Here in Wokeachusetts, if I managed a timber sale, and a grain of dirt is disturbed, the state forestry fascists can stop the job. But when a solar “farm” was installed in a forest behind my ‘hood, they brought in 14 bulldozers to drastically alter the site- doing infinitely more damage to the environment than the worst logging job.
Historical fact. The first oil well was drilled in 1859.
The birthing of the industrial age in the US came during the Civil War as the need for clothing, food, weapons and munitions, medicines, transportation, horses, and the establishment of centralized banking were ramped up to support the northern war effort. Much of that was in cottage industry, but there were foundries and mines and logging that substantially developed as well.
One could also take the point of view that the first modern assembly line for the Model T was the nexus defining modern industrialization in the US.
One could also take the point of view that the formulation of mass production in the American Revolution (making all muskets with interchangeable parts) was the nexus.
One can pick any point in time as the starting reference. It’s easy. If one pushed back from the mid 1800s, one would find variable CO2 levels and temperatures that do not align with the Climate Syndicate narrative.
“Logically it would equally valid to claim that African nations need to to embark on several hundred years of slavery and colonisation before they could become rich.”
Utterly absurd to draw that conclusion- proving that you are not very intelligent.
“Logically it would equally valid to claim that African nations need to to embark on several hundred years of slavery and colonisation before they could become rich.”
Good grief.
You obviously have no idea of history especially the history of slavery.
“…human advancement since the
1950s1850’s is inextricably linked to our harnessing of fossil fuels…”.FIFY … because it’s been a lot longer than just the last 75 years. (I could have said the 1750’s but, that’s not quite so clear cut).
Interestingly, Benjamin Franklin invented a stove bearing his name in the early 1740’s and, while primarily it used wood, he experimented with burning pitcoal to great effect.
Good point, because it’s not just fossil fuels, but the ideal of limited government, i.e., classical liberalism, that took root over that period. Both of which the Left is working overtime to overturn.
If you need a year as a starting point the early 1860s (read of the physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, 1831-1879) is a good time. He got started in 1855.
I was thinking more of the widespread adoption of the steam engine, which is hard to pin to a single year. Both in industry and transportation, the adoption of steam engines was the hallmark of the industrial revolution. I chose 1850 mostly because it was well under way by then but, also because it was 100 years earlier than the date the author chose. I’m not deprecating Vijay’s choice, it makes perfect sense in the context of the article. I just believe my statement is equally true.
Probably 1775 is the key date – the James Watt steam engine. Maybe 1800 for widespread use of it. The first commercial sale was 1776. That enabled widespread use at scale of the various spinning innovations, and the early industrial revolution in England was in textile production, though the engine found applications in all sorts of areas after the initial takeup in textiles.
“The Green Revolution, powered by fossil fuel-based fertilizers and mechanized farming, has enabled agricultural yields to increase by 175% over the last 70 years”
Vijay, you’ve forgotten the most important driver! Note the seedlings were planted at the same time and grew at the same temperature. The sole difference is amount of CO2. Yes crops also had NPK fertilizers and scientific enhancement, but wow! Moreover elevated CO2 made plants more drought resistant
Pity they couldn’t arrange for a pine grown under 250ppm.
Probably half the size of the 385ppm pine, if it even grew at all.
And the world will never see 835ppm. If we burned all the available coal, oil, and natural gas, all at one time in a big bonfire, it wouldn’t raise the ppm to that level.
I’m sure you’re right- but is there any “science” to back that up?
The so-called science of how much CO2 human activities adds to the mix is based on estimates and averages. All coal when burned burns exactly per average?
Somebody did the numbers a while back.
My mother’s parents lived an agricultural lifestyle. Water came from a pond in front of the house, the garden was behind the house, and further down was the outhouse, with the proverbial Eaton’s catalog on a string hung from a nail. They never had electrical power. Light came from kerosene lanterns on the walls. They worked hard, lived a good life and retired to amenity rich seniors homes.
We grew up camping, a little similar to visiting my grandparents. We camped both summer and winter. Fine if you like, but the net – zero future is four season camping in a crowd, with very little food readily available, and someone else always wanting it, and no firewood left. A city would not be survivable for more than a few. And even if the rural areas had sufficient resources to share, there would not be transportation to handle enough movement of goods.
To me, this seems the inescapable, inevitable scenario such policies will produce. Am I wrong?
Excellent piece, needs to be widely circulated.
Both of my parents came from farm backgrounds going back many generations. I have
memories from one of the farms that utilized practices that were very primitive compared
to todays. They worked very hard and always had food on hand. I have a large box of photos from the homestead days and a book written by a cousin on that history that runs back to the early 1800’s. The men in the photos were very lean, nothing like the men of today..
Some of the storys are very tough. Things like riding a horse to death trying to get a doctor
to save an injured child that later died.. We’ve been in peak times on so many levels and
energy is the backbone of that fortune.
A perceptive comment on last night’s UK election, which will lead to the appointment of Ed Miliband as Energy Secretary later today, and to the subsequent Labour and Liberal Parties deep dive into Net Zero.
Tony Blair left behind a legal system, quangocracy and technocratic state that would entrench New Labour’s policies for a generation. The Tories did nothing to unwind it – they didn’t scrap the Climate Change Committee or unpick the Equality Act; they acted like such changes were out of their control. Labour is now promising to kick the last hereditary peers out of the Lords.
The great tragedy is that Britain is now a centre-Right country (Labour’s vote share in England remains largely unchanged on 2019) where Left-wing parties hold nearly 500 Parliamentary seats. What have we done?
You may have elected a Parliamentary Dictatorship.
Labour apparently likes to force the citizenry to comply with Labour demands, and in this UK government system, they can do just that.
If they force Net Zero on the population, and it looks like they will, it will be a disaster for the UK.
At least in the United States, the People have the U.S. Constitution to turn to when Dictators like Biden and the Democrats appear.
The People of the UK have nothing to turn to. If they vote wrong, and get a dictitorial parliament, they are screwed. It looks like that is the case now in the UK.
U.S. Democrats would have undermined such a system of government long ago. All they would need is a majority one time, and it’s all over for the people.
The word is autocracy.
I am quite sure that Net Zero is a scam. However, whilst I am entirely happy with the concept that current population levels and our way of life can only be supported by use of fossil fuels, how long will such bounty last? When fossil fuels diminish, is likely, (in my view), to be a real disaster far worse than any projected climate change. Do we need to ration fossil fuels or find some other way to prevent ignorant people squandering such a valuable resource?
Don’t give them any more stupid ideas; they have too many already.
We have enough fossil fuels to last until well after the end of the current inter-glacial but, we are already supplementing them with other fuels, such as nuclear. Plus, we have started to burn garbage in HELE incinerators and, because we create a lot of it, that may never run out.
As for oil, we can synthesize that but, at the moment, it’s cheaper to extract it from the ground. That won’t always be the case.
Besides, who gets to determine what constitutes “squandering”?
We have enough fossil fuels to give us enough time to make good decisions.
But we don’t want these decisions made by CO2-phobes.
As fossil fuels diminish- other fuels will compete to keep the price for energy reasonable. Basic supply and demand economics. Best all done with no government interference.
From the article: “In 1950, 63% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. By 2018, this figure had plummeted to less than 10% while the global population more than tripled.”
That *is* remarkable.
A rising tide is lifting all boats.
The Climate Syndicate does not do analysis of alternatives. It should.
The Climate Syndicate does not do cost-risk-benefit analyses. It should.
The ability to adapt to a changing world is augmented by economics, and in particular, low cost, reliable energy.
It is obvious the Climate Syndicate is all about reducing the population of the planet and putting all except the non-elected elite in a state where they “have nothing but are happy.”
WEF claims they own the climate science.
IPCC claims they are changing the world’s economies.
What are the odds of the mainstream media and left-leaning political parties publicizing the above facts? Such information is exactly what they don’t want the public to know; otherwise they’ll have little justification for laying on new taxes and enacting new laws and restrictions to ostensibly save the planet.