Burning More Oil to Fight Climate Change

In the previous post, we discussed why cheap energy enables life. And how decreasing energy production can result in life losses in emerging countries. Using the same set of ideas, I will explain why burning more oil to fight climate change might be a good idea. And that I haven’t click-baited you with the title of this post.

Maslow’s hierarchy: Basic needs go first

Let’s start with Maslow’s pyramid.

This shows the priority of needs for individuals, from physiological needs at the bottom to self-actualization at the top. This tells us that a person needs to feel each level covered before focusing on the next. It is true that psychological and self-fulfillment needs entangle with each other. But I think we could all agree that basic needs differentiate very well from the rest.

For example, eating and drinking are basic physiological needs. If you didn’t have access to food or water regularly, most likely, you would not focus on developing your musical skills.
Or if your safety would be in constant danger, you would put all your efforts into changing that before focusing on something more spiritual, let’s say.
As an example of the upper stages, think of the classic philosophers. Socrates or Plato for example. Those guys had all their basic needs covered and tons of time to reflect on their existence.

Now, you could judge countries through the same type of lens. Separate those that have their basic needs covered from those that don’t. The developed countries, from the emerging ones.

As a premise for this post, I would claim that fighting climate change belongs to the upper level of the pyramid. So a country that does not have its basic needs covered would not focus on climate policy. It would focus on whatever it needs to fulfill its basic necessities. So the minimum necessary condition for a country to do something about climate change is to fulfill those. And the only way to do that is to develop. A country can develop only through energy consumption at a mass scale, and fossil fuels are the simplest way to get there.

Let’s take a look at some graphics and interesting data, so we can check if this idea matches reality.

Top 10 CO2 emitting countries

According to Wikipedia, in 2017, the top 10 polluting countries were responsible for 74% of the total carbon emissions worldwide, which derive mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. You can see it in the table below.

For you to get a grasp of what some of those numbers mean: if India, which has barely developed yet, would increase its emission 2.4 times, that would be the equivalent of the whole European Union’s emissions. Or if China would increase 1.8 times, that would make up for the whole European Union and the United States together. So in relative terms, we will become a drop in the ocean once China or India take the next step in their development.

We said the premise is that fighting against climate change does not belong to basic needs. Then, if we check the emissions over time, we should see that developed countries are reducing them. And the less developed ones are increasing them.

Let’s take a look at the developed ones:

As you see, all have reached their peak emissions, and now they are reducing them. This is not only because they are more technologically advanced. This is also because they are in a “state of mind” where it makes sense for them to worry about the climate, as Maslow’s hierarchy theory suggests.

Yet, if we take a look at the less developed, we can observe that the trend goes in the opposite direction, up.

The trend for these countries, clearly shows, that they are not done with their development, and regardless of what we might think, they will continue until their job is done. So…

How can we accelerate the transition to fight against climate change?

The reduction of carbon emissions is a global issue. If we want a real reduction, we need to consider that everyone should take part, out of their own will. But for that, the basic needs of their citizens need to be met first. If only a handful of countries would reduce their emissions, the issue would be just solved locally but not globally, and in the end, we all breathe the same air.

Emerging countries want and will develop and we have no control over their policies. So we cannot make them lower their emissions. However, we can help them speed up their development process to fulfill their basic needs and thus consider changes in their policies.

As mentioned earlier, the key to growth is access to energy sources. If developed countries produced more fossil fuels it would take its price down. That would allow emerging countries more affordable access to them. Consequently, those countries would get to the point of development when they can start implementing emission reduction policies.

If solving the problem globally, requires developing countries to finish their development, and for that, they need to burn fossil fuels, then we can only conclude that burning more oil to fight climate change is a good idea. And also that I haven’t click-baited you with the title of this post.

You can subscribe/connect to keep updated when the next post is out, and if you liked it, you can even share it to help me increase the audience.