More than 80% of our energy and nearly every product we rely on daily come from fossil fuels. But they’re killing the planet, right?

Wrong.

Data models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), traditionally a champion for fighting climate change, project that even banning ALL U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would barely put a dent in the climate.

The IPCC claims that the world needs to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The problem is that developing countries need to increase their energy use (and therefore their emissions) over that time, and the effect of developed countries limiting their future emissions is minimal.

For example, here is what the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas-Induced Climate Change (MAGICC) projects would happen if the United States banned fossil fuels by 2050, as many politicians are calling for.

Just over twelve one-hundredths of a degree — so maybe 2050 isn’t soon enough. What about 2030, like the Green New Deal proposes?

The European Union recently announced its plans to go “zero carbon” by 2050. This would have even less effect on the temperature, given that the EU collectively emits about a third less carbon dioxide.

Those who want to ban our most affordable, reliable, abundant source of fuel might be surprised to know that banning fossil fuels and going 100% renewable — if it were even feasible — would have no meaningful impact on the temperature.

The best science indicates that our climate is is likely to remain moderate and manageable. The question remains whether imperceptibly slight warming is worth strangling our economy and quality of life.