Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

This claim would suggest that fossil fuels reduces energy poverty and that

there are few reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels. I believe that Lomborg has
sufficiently established that the availability of fossil fuels among the poor reduce
poverty. It is true that China moved 680 million people out of poverty (The
Economist, 2013), by giving them access access to energy, powered by coal (IEA,
1999). Yang writes in his 2003 paper, China's Rural Electrification and Poverty
Reduction, that part of Chinas economic reforms in the past decades were rural
electrification, and that poverty was reduced significantly as a result.
Lomborg has also argued against other sources of energy being reasonable
alternatives to fossil fuels. He claims that people in energy poverty require cheap and
reliable energy sources, implying that alternatives are not cheap and reliable. In a
country with a good electric transmission grid running on a mix of renewables
including solar and wind energy, the energy from renewables is reliable. However,
with poor infrastructure as is usually the case in poorer countries, the reliability for
solar and wind energy is not high. Nuclear, biofuel, geothermal, and hydroelectric
energy are more expensive than fossil fuels.
He quotes South Africas finance minister in

Furthermore, Chinas energy in the past 3 decades was indeed powered mostly
by coal. 75% of all energy generated in China was from coal (IEA, 1999)

His claim that 3.5 million people die prematurely annually as a result of
breathing polluted air from cooking is corroborated by evidence from the World
Health Organization and continues at least into 2014 (World Health Organization,
2014).

In his second key argument, Lomborg (2013) argues that fossil fuels are vital
to reducing energy poverty for the next few decades. This claim depends on the truth
of his premise that people living in energy poverty need reliable, low-cost fuels. This
would appear to be common sense. Given the low income of the poor, for them to be
able to obtain energy, energy would have to be cheap. Besides, they require reliable
energy. If the energy were not reliable, they would still have to rely on open fires and
leaky stoves that burn dirty fuels. They would have to buy both goods that rely on
electricity and traditional sources of energy.
He quotes the South African finance minister in saying that to sustain growth
rates, they require their most abundant and affordable energy source, which is coal.
We might assume the South African finance minister to know what hes talking about,
that coal is indeed the most abundant and affordable energy source. However,
economists disagree that coal is indeed the best energy source. Because it is not clean,
it imposes externalities. However, the infrastructure for renewables are not there yet
in many poor countries. Yet there is great potential for African countries in terms of
solar energy.

He too admits that China might not be able to cut carbon dioxide emissions
because these emissions are a by-product of the cheap energy that makes the world go
around. His argument that air pollution will begin to cut through regulation is not
sufficient. The Professor of Harvard mentioned in ChinaX that the reason why we
have air pollution and that it is not solved is that the science underlying that particular
air pollution is not known. Therefore, regulation may not be enough unless it is
known
Besides, even if fossil fuels were vital, they might not be better than
alternatives in tackling the problem of death and suffering due to energy poverty. The
renewables are actually cheaper overall, and cause less suffering to people. He argues
that timing and priorities are wrong that we should not reduce the quantity of fossil
fuels used immediately, and that the priorities are wrong in that the priorities should
be weighed more heavily in favour of humans dying in the present rather than . The
dichotomy seems to be eliminate fossil fuels now, and reduce.

It is true that even according to the International Energy Agency, there is no


argument that there will be an increase in fossil fuels and that for each barrel of oil the
OPEC uses less, non-OPEC countries will increase their usage of fossil fuels by 2
barrels. So there is no reason to believe that
He claims that the terrible air pollution and huge increase in greenhouse gas
emission is a trade-off many developing countries would gratefully choose. I disagree
strongly with this statement. How on earth would he know this?
This is an inductive argument as he is merely trying to increase the likelihood
that fossil fuels are indeed vital to reducing energy poverty for the next few decades.
Time horizon: Up to 2040

Next 25 years.
He is right that it seems nearly impossible to get alternative

He seems to think that getting a new technology in the next few years is not
possible. Actually, I agree.
This is a cogent argument.
Or this is a weak argument
He begins by pointing out that people living in energy poverty need reliable,
low-cost fuels. He points out that South Africa has no choice but to rely on coal to
sustain growth rates, as evidenced by its finance ministers statement. In this key
argument, he focuses on the historical precedent of Chinas using largely coalpowered modern energy to reduce poverty. He argues that the resultant increase in air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is necessary and an acceptable cost for
developing countries.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division


(2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and
Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241.

Pew Research Center. (2015, July 8). World Population by Income. Retrieved
September 9, 2015.

Serway, R. A., & Jewett, J. W. (1982). Physics for scientists and engineers with
modern physics. (6th ed., p. 1245, 1267). Belmont: Brooks/Cole-Thomson
Learning.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective
procedures. Judgment under Uncertainty Heuristics and Biases, TIMS Studies
in Management Science 12: 313327

However, much of the perceived necessity of fossil fuels is overestimated as the


environmental costs are not internalized (Sovacool, 2008). Renewable energy
may have lower overall costs, after factoring in environmental costs.

Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Renewable energy: Economically sound, politically difficult.


The Electricity Journal, 21(5), 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2008.05.009

we can always wait


He assumes that stopping the death and suffering of those in energy poverty by
providing them with fossil fuels is of higher priority than faster action against
climate change.
He argues that misguided you should emphasis those poor to faster change because
the poor have no alternative.
Priority
We should wait
Dying people are more important. Timing delay.

He assumes that clean energy can be found before it is too late


Is Africa relevant?
Any details from the IEA he didnt mention?

Imply moral

He follows this example with an argument that the resulting increase in air pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions is a reasonable price to be paid, at least in the
eyes of developing countries.

http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/AWEA%20Reliability%20White%20Paper%20-%20212-15.pdf

http://www.cogta.gov.za/index.php/about-cogta/about-us/562-minister-gordhan

"Human Development Report"


(PDF). UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME. Retrieved 15 April 2015.

He is implying that you are not me and have no right to decide for me.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

http://www.iea.org/ciab/papers/coalchina99.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

Potrebbero piacerti anche