Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel | 5 Minute Video

Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity's economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.

📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!

Script:

Every year on Earth Day, we're supposed to reflect on all the ways we've made the planet worse. But what if we try something different? What if we reflect on all the ways we've made the planet better?

Try this thought experiment:
Imagine that we transported someone from three hundred years ago, at the very start of the Industrial Revolution, to today's world. What would he think about our environment? Without question, his reaction would be one of disbelief; not that we had destroyed his pristine, natural world, but that such a clean, healthy environment was possible.

"The air is so clean," our time traveler might say. "Where I come from, we're breathing in smoke all day from the fire we need to burn in our furnaces and stoves."

"And the water. Everywhere I go, the water tastes so fresh, and it's all safe to drink. On my farm, we get our water from a brook we share with animals, and my kids are always getting sick."

"And then the weather. I mean, the weather isn't that much different, but you're so much safer in it; you can move a knob and make it cool when it's hot, and warm when it's cold."

"And what happened to all the disease? In my time, we had insects everywhere giving us disease -- my neighbor's son died of malaria -- and you don't seem to have any of that here. What's your secret?"

I'd tell him that the secret was energy, specifically energy derived from fossil fuels -- oil, coal and natural gas. These fuels power machines that allow us to transform our naturally hazardous environment into a far healthier environment. Most of the natural world is too hot or too cold, has too much rainfall or not enough. Then there's bacteria-filled water, disease carrying insects, tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, to name just few of nature's other unpleasant features.

As our time traveler noted, 300 years ago human beings spent a lot of time breathing polluted air from indoor fires. As unhealthy as it was, it was worth the warmth. But we've been able to conquer all these environmental hazards. We've drained swamps, reclaimed land, cleared forests, built roads, constructed glass and steel skyscrapers. We've irrigated deserts, developed fertilizers and pesticides, linked oceans -- all of it in humanity's incredibly successful effort to create a safer, cleaner, more habitable world. And we did most of this using machines running on cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

To be sure, using that energy has carried risks and created negative by-products. But thanks to technology, we get better and better at minimizing and neutralizing those risks. Los Angeles was once smog city. Now its air is cleaner than it's been in decades. London's Thames River was once clogged with sewage; now it's clean.

[indycinema]

You didn't mention that LA and London's air and water are cleaner than they've been in decades due to government regulations that forced the hand of companies to change their polluting products.

[miks]

That's silly. Of course oil helped us develop, but that's like saying the we should love the concept of slavery since that too helped societies develop. Propoganda 101

[davidk]

Fossil fuels = Short term,
Renewable energy/Nuclear energy = Long term.
That's all I have to say.

[LittleLion]

All those does not mean that pollution is ok and oil is good, it just means that we live better than 200 years ago.

[tadstrange]

You gotta remember that PragerU is funded by the Wilks brothers, who founded a hydraulic fracking company, Frac Tech. That's why these videos exist.

[charliemogg]

"It's time to stop thinking about how to save the planet"

Yes, it actually concludes with that dumbfounding conclusion. This is shocking from an academic institution. I can only wonder who funded our proposed such an irresponsible and willfully erroneous message.

[MeliMissfit]

Aye ye ye, this video shows that Prager needs to grab an Earth Science book immediately.

[gregchung]

The moral is, just ignore all our problems and focus on the good things

[beastmaster]

This video is brought to you by the fossil fuel industry.

[ethanmanzano]

"Cleared forest" I'm sorry you did what?

[forlexer]

So basically, all his argument is, is that all of our technological advances are thanks to fossil fuel. While this isn't incorrect, it is extremely misleading, and propagating a false idea that the direction we are going is alright with fossil fuels. 99% of his argument is that it benefits humanity, but what about the long term effects? This presentation is ridiculous, and misleading with it's blatant propaganda.

[TheLolo]

We can appreciate the effects that the industrial revolution brought upon us, and still be sceptical of over reliance on fossil fuels. Go nuclear!
It's the logical way forward.

[Ultrox]

"clean healthy environment"
Tell that to China.

[AznSupaStar]

Summary of this video: "Yes, use more fossil fuels, it'll make me rich"

[RoleyPole]

I was curious as to who funded PragerU, so I did some googling and found this on Wikipedia: "The organization depends on donations to produce its content. Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks. Two members of the Wilks family are on PragerU's board".

Now there were a number of other/ smaller funders listed as well (charitable trusts, funds and foundations) but might the massive injection of cash from fracking companies be adding a drop of bias to Prager's environmental videos?

You be the judge ;)

[ikesteroma]

I'm an engineer that works everyday up to my elbows in developing energy solutions for the future.  There are a few things I've learned.

1) Environmentalists are often their own worst enemies.  There are so many things we could do to proactively work towards solutions that are good for the environment, but the tree huggers block us at every turn, forcing us to use older, dirtier technology because there is no alternative.

2) Man made climate change is real.

3) Wind and solar are utterly idiotic for energy production in first world nations.  Several people tell me that a battery revolution will rescue this industry, but I'm highly skeptical for several reasons.

4) If we care about the environment, we *must* greatly expand nuclear production.  There is nothing else we can do to more proactively combat climate change.  Ironically enough, most nuclear engineers I know don't even believe in climate change - LOL!

[ETworldjone]

I agree with most of Prager's videos but unfortunately I have to disagree with this one. I also disagree with most modern day environmentalists and their destructive solutions.  Having said that, the point they are making is not that fossil fuels are bad for economic development or a good life for human beings. The point is it is all coming at a huge price. Nature and wildlife is taking a massive hit and so in the long term our so-called 'good life' is not going to be sustainable. If nature go bust WE go bust as well. Fossil fuels are going to run out and whether we like it or not we will be forced to go back to that time-traveler's age unless we find an alternative nature-friendly form of energy.

[lawnchar]

PragerU is sponsored by fracktech so don’t forget that when watching this video

[bamatecangel]

Thorium is the solution. Enough of it on Earth to supply the world's energy needs far into the future. Safe, clean, plentiful.

[Szabolcs]

Yes we made the world better for us humans, but that completely disregards the animal and plant life. Besides, while I fully agree that fossil fuel was necessary in making our lives better, now, with our technology we can do even better. Following your example, in-house fireplaces were better than nothing, and fossil fuel is better than that. But green, renewable energy would be even better, with even less side-effects.