--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- John Bickley: Welcome to Morning Wire, I'm Editor-in-Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Saturday, August 5th, and this is an extra edition.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Joining us now to discuss the growing pressure for President Biden to declare a climate emergency is Alex Epstein, author of Fossil Future.
--:-- John Bickley: So, Alex, first, is the U.S. facing a climate crisis that merits the federal government stepping in to impose emergency measures?
--:-- Alex Epstein: The call to declare a climate emergency, I think, is one of the scariest and most unjustified things I can imagine. The standard for declaring any kind of emergency involves at least three things: the phenomenon has to be dire, it has to be temporary, and it has to be in our control. And so, in this case, there's no dire phenomenon. The earth is warming slowly, so we're in a warming period. We're in a warming period before we impacted things. And then I do believe that we impact things with rising CO2 levels. But it's a slow warming. And it's a warming that we're very, very good at dealing with.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Can you explain what you mean by "dire phenomenon"?
--:-- Alex Epstein: Not only does warming have some benefits in a world where far more people die of cold than of heat, but if you look at the overall deaths from climate-related disasters like extreme temperatures and storms and floods, et cetera, those are down 98% over the last century. So we're safer than ever from climate. So it's not a dire situation. The fact that we have changed does not at all mean catastrophe. In fact, we've had an overall improvement in the livability of climate.
--:-- John Bickley: That's a pretty stark contrast to what we're hearing from some politicians and environmental activists. They're saying that we need to take drastic action to address this climate crisis. What do you think they're missing?
--:-- Alex Epstein: Insofar as there is a problem, it's not an emergency problem. It's not a temporary thing. So this is going to happen for decades, in large part because the developing world is going to keep emitting CO2 because it's in their interest too, because they need fossil fuels and there's no viable replacement for decades. And it's not in our control. We emit about a seventh of the world's CO2 and that's falling over time. So this is a non-dire situation. It's not temporary. It's not in our control.
--:-- Georgia Howe: I'd like to talk more about the specific proposal that's being put forward by some members of Congress, including Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders. They've introduced the Climate Emergency Resolution, which demands that the president wield both existing authorities and emergency powers to unleash every resource available to mitigate and prepare for the climate crisis. Can you explain what that would mean in practice?
--:-- Alex Epstein: What we saw with COVID at the federal level and maybe even more so the state level was that government today has an extraordinary and I think unjustified view of what it can do when it declares a state of emergency. And this is particularly scary with regard to energy policy. Because with energy policy, I think it's obvious that the government is already overstepping its bounds in terms of you look at what's happening via different executive orders, different attempts to shut down drilling on federal lands, which you're not allowed to do, axing a totally vital pipeline and just arbitrarily saying, hey, this isn't in our interest and just destroying 10 plus years of work with Keystone.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's a pretty alarming scenario. I'd like to talk more about the specific powers that the government would have if they were to declare a climate emergency. There's been a lot of discussion about the potential for the government to take control of the energy sector and impose strict regulations on fossil fuel use. Can you explain what that would mean in practice?
--:-- Alex Epstein: What that means is, I mean, it could mean they can try to shut down drilling on private lands. They can take even more kind of ESG action against investment. I mean, I can't even imagine the scope of what they think they could do with emergency powers, given that with normal powers, they're already doing more than they should be able to do with emergency powers.
--:-- John Bickley: That's a pretty chilling prospect. I'd like to talk more about the specific proposal that's being put forward by some environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, which has provided a legal guide that they say Biden can follow under an emergency declaration. Can you explain what that would mean in practice?
--:-- Alex Epstein: To that point, we've seen the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity provide what they're calling a legal guide that they say Biden can follow under an emergency declaration. So they say, among other things, that he can end crude oil exports and all offshore oil and gas leasing, restrict U.S. fossil fuel exports, dramatically accelerate a transition to clean energy.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's a pretty radical proposal. I'd like to talk more about the potential impact on the economy. Some people are saying that this would be a necessary step to address the climate crisis, but others are warning that it would have devastating consequences for the economy. Can you explain what you think would happen if the government were to take control of the energy sector and impose strict regulations on fossil fuel use?
--:-- Alex Epstein: Let me jump on this idea that, oh, the government has the power to dramatically accelerate the transition to clean energy or clean electricity. What does the government have the ability to do? What it certainly doesn't have the ability to do, which would be the relevant ability, is the ability to make, quote unquote, clean energy globally cost effective. So make it so cheap that China and India will want it. The only way to do that is to actually liberate the most potent forms of energy and then really make sure that they have everything, all the freedom they need to develop and compete.
--:-- John Bickley: That's a pretty interesting point. I'd like to talk more about the specific proposal that's being put forward by some politicians, including John Kerry, our presidential climate envoy, who has said that we need to aggressively regulate agriculture in order to address the climate crisis. Can you explain what you think about that proposal?
--:-- Alex Epstein: John Kerry's statement is definitely not a scientifically or economically accurate statement. If you look at the last century, the planet has been warming, including from our impact, and agriculture is doing better than ever, in part because of longer growing seasons, which is a product of warming, but mainly because we have fossil fuels to power all the amazing machines that make agriculture productive.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's a pretty interesting point. I'd like to talk more about the potential impact on air travel. Some people are saying that we need to take drastic action to reduce our carbon footprint, including restricting air travel. Can you explain what you think about that proposal?
--:-- Alex Epstein: I mean, the hatred of flight I find particularly repulsive. If you think about just what an amazing thing it is to be able to fly, the fact that everyone who's complaining about this prominently uses flight and that flight is completely inaccessible to the vast majority of the world. And yet that is what is being attacked.
--:-- John Bickley: That's a pretty interesting point. I'd like to talk more about the broader discussion around climate change. Some people are saying that we need to take drastic action to address the climate crisis, but others are warning that this would have devastating consequences for the economy and for human well-being. Can you explain what you think about that proposal?
--:-- Alex Epstein: Those who say the earth is in danger primarily blame fossil fuels. Are fossil fuels really destroying the earth? Are they the primary cause of warming? We have to look at what are fossil fuels supposed to do in terms of, quote, destroying the earth. What they're mainly doing is emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but mainly CO2. And so that is a warming gas and a fertilizing gas. So it's very odd to say that a warming gas and a fertilizing gas is going to destroy the earth, given that most organisms on earth, including humans, do better when it's warmer.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's a pretty interesting point. I'd like to thank Alex Epstein for joining us today to discuss the growing pressure for President Biden to declare a climate emergency.
--:-- Alex Epstein: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- John Bickley: And that's a wrap for today's episode of Morning Wire. Thanks for tuning in.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast and follow us on social media for the latest updates.
--:-- John Bickley: And if you want to learn more about the issues we discussed today, check out our website for links and resources.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Thanks for listening to Morning Wire.
--:-- [Theme music starts playing]
