At Issue: Newsweek published an excellent piece debunking Taylor Sheridan’s factually flawed commentary in his new show Landman regarding fossil fuels and climate change. I’ll link to the story below. Here, I’ll focus on one small aspect of the debunked narrative: the fallacy surrounding oil production and consumer products—taking it for a spin toward a carbon-neutral perspective.

The Fallacy of Fear-Mongering Over Consumer Products and Fossil Fuels

There’s a persistent argument from some corners that transitioning away from fossil fuels will mean the end of everyday consumer products—your TVs, cosmetics, and more. This fear-mongering is a red herring. The real focus should be on the internal combustion engine (ICE), which dominates oil consumption and contributes significantly to global carbon emissions.

Let’s break it down. About 25% of global oil production goes toward making petrochemicals, the key ingredient in consumer products. Of that, approximately 75% of petrochemical production is used for these products, while the remaining 25% supports agriculture (e.g., fertilizers) and refining processes. This means that 18% of total oil production is tied to consumer goods.

In contrast, 70% of oil production fuels internal combustion engines—cars, trucks, planes, and ships. That’s where the real dent in oil dependence needs to happen. It’s a bit like the debate over abortion: it will likely never fully go away, but most people agree that reducing its necessity is better for society. Similarly, even if you don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, it’s undeniable that oil is a finite resource. As supplies dwindle, conflicts over access will only increase—a reality that should give pause to anyone, particularly right-wing libertarians, who claim to oppose war.

The reason for emphasizing this distinction is to counter a common conservative argument: that phasing out fossil fuels will result in chaos because it means losing the consumer products we rely on. This is a strawman argument. The largest portion of oil use, and the most urgent area for reduction, is in transportation. Consumers are already adapting—electric vehicles (EVs), hybrids, and extended-range vehicles are becoming the norm.

The transition to EVs or cleaner technologies must, of course, be carbon-neutral or include offsets to address skeptics’ concerns. But pretending that reducing oil dependence threatens our supply of consumer goods distracts from the real issue. Tackling the dominance of internal combustion engines is both feasible and necessary—and it’s where the biggest impact can be made. 

Newsweek Story debunking the show “Landman.”

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-taylor-sheridan-landman-hit-writing-misleads-1995622