In short, one of Lomborg's boldest claims was that cheap fossil fuels would improve lives. He reasoned that with the use of coal, countries have vanquished the spectre of poverty that haunts many, and that fossil fuels will continue to be an integral part of our daily lives.
Upon closer examination of Lomborg's strand of argument, it is revealed that one of its biggest flaws is the blatant omission that several poor countries already have access to cheap fossil fuels through fuel subsidies. In fact, the biggest subsidies are in developing nations, spending more than $400 billion yearly protecting their population from high fuel prices (Stephen and Adam, 2012). Therefore, it is evident that Lomborg's argument is fundamentally invalid.
Furthermore, most of the benefits of fuel subsidies are harvested by non-poor households. As a matter of fact, the top quintile of households account for 61.3% of these benefits, compared to the shocking 3.0% of the bottom quintile (citation). Through this, it is clear that the poor lack adequate purchasing power to benefit from cheap fossil fuels. On another level, underpriced fossil fuels' propensity for encouraging overconsumption may also bear wider, deleterious consequences for society. By bestowing upon the rich cheap fossil fuels, energy subsidies may …show more content…
In the face of a multitude of examples, it is arguably naive to deny that cheap fossil fuels would improve lives. For one, by 2050, the world will have a projected population of 9.6 billion with majority living in cities, requiring large amounts of power and other necessities for living. With almost 1 trillion tons of global proven reserves, coal is the only fuel that can meet such demand at scale. Without coal, humanity's progress might screech to a halt, and potentially take a step backwards, affecting our daily
Upon closer examination of Lomborg's strand of argument, it is revealed that one of its biggest flaws is the blatant omission that several poor countries already have access to cheap fossil fuels through fuel subsidies. In fact, the biggest subsidies are in developing nations, spending more than $400 billion yearly protecting their population from high fuel prices (Stephen and Adam, 2012). Therefore, it is evident that Lomborg's argument is fundamentally invalid.
Furthermore, most of the benefits of fuel subsidies are harvested by non-poor households. As a matter of fact, the top quintile of households account for 61.3% of these benefits, compared to the shocking 3.0% of the bottom quintile (citation). Through this, it is clear that the poor lack adequate purchasing power to benefit from cheap fossil fuels. On another level, underpriced fossil fuels' propensity for encouraging overconsumption may also bear wider, deleterious consequences for society. By bestowing upon the rich cheap fossil fuels, energy subsidies may …show more content…
In the face of a multitude of examples, it is arguably naive to deny that cheap fossil fuels would improve lives. For one, by 2050, the world will have a projected population of 9.6 billion with majority living in cities, requiring large amounts of power and other necessities for living. With almost 1 trillion tons of global proven reserves, coal is the only fuel that can meet such demand at scale. Without coal, humanity's progress might screech to a halt, and potentially take a step backwards, affecting our daily