James Ault (“Fossil fuels are good on balance,” Our Readers’ Views, Dec. 2) writes, “Alarmists have been catastrophizing the downsides of fossil fuels without evaluating a rational cost/benefit analysis. These ‘benefit-deniers’ cannot be taken seriously until all the issues are on the balance scale.”
Catastrophe-deniers have been downplaying the downside of fossil fuels without evaluating an updated rational cost/benefit analysis. These “fossil fuel advocates” cannot be taken seriously when all the issues are on the balance scale. Without denying the verifiable, historical benefits we have enjoyed from the use of fossil fuels, we can weigh the costs we know now, the future costs we can forecast scientifically and decide it’s time for new chapter of our history to be written.
