Life is all about choices. Some choices are fairly inconsequential — what sounds good for dinner, for example. But other choices could have more significant effects — like when to trade in the old car.
People make dozens of choices every day. So do businesses.

The economic term cost-benefit analysis describes the process of comparing estimated costs and expected benefits to determine if a choice makes sense from a personal or business perspective. If benefits outweigh costs, it could be argued the choice is a good one. If costs outweigh benefits, maybe it’s necessary to reconsider the decision.

The difference between an individual’s list of pros and cons and the process businesses go through in making decisions is that a cost-benefit analysis is driven by data. But the basic principles and framework of a cost-benefit analysis can be applied to any decision-making process. The risk of a poor decision is minimized when data is used and peripheral factors considered.

One might assume decisions affecting policies at the local, state and federal levels would be made using cost-benefit analysis. It’s blatantly obvious, however, that’s not the case.

Take the war on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels account for 80 percent of energy production worldwide, a proportion still growing despite political hostility and massive favoritism for solar and wind power.

Alex Epstein, author of “Fossil Future,” put it this way: “Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences in the form of mandates, subsidies with no penalty for unreliability, along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.”

Was a cost-benefit analysis completed prior to demonizing fossil fuels? Not likely. Prior to the widescale use of coal, oil and natural gas to make the high standard of living we enjoy today possible, eight out of 10 people lived in extreme poverty. Samantha Gross at the Brookings Institute recently wrote: “The pre-fossil fuel era was not the utopia we envision.” Instead, Gross noted, most inhabitants of the world endured misery and shortened lifespans.

A cost-benefit analysis would recognize fossil fuels, like all sources of energy, have environmental effects, although to what degree remains in a question. But to focus on the costs without considering the benefits constitutes no analysis. The massive benefits of fossil fuels are too many to innumerate.
A sampling includes heat during winter, air conditioning during summer, drinking water and sewage treatment plants, pumping irrigation water from deep wells to grow food and labor-saving machines that yield abundance and safety. These are the more obvious uses.

Seth Whitehead, executive director of Illinois Petroleum Resources, estimated in his article “Benefits of Fossil Fuels to Humanity Have Far Outweighed Negatives,” more than 6,000 everyday products are petroleum-based.

In all likelihood, mankind will discover more effective sources of energy. Until such discoveries are made, a cost-benefit analysis shows fossil fuels remain the most plentiful, reliable and cost-effective source of energy, followed closely by nuclear energy. Wind and solar energy are unreliable. The wind doesn’t always blow. The sun doesn’t always shine. This unreliability leads to excessive costs. If human flourishing is the goal, mandates shouldn’t be enacted before a solution is discovered.

Steve Koonin, author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t and Why It Matters,” recommended a slow and steady approach instead of setting up artificial and  unrealistic deadlines. Koonin contends climate alarmists exaggerate the problem to scare people into action. In Koonin’s view, policymakers eventually will get it right because … “there’s going to be a deep examination of science and the cost-benefit issues.”

Look around you. Clothing, computers, smartphones and even the plastic bag keeping your sandwich fresh for lunch include petroleum-based products. Life in the 21st century depend on these modern conveniences, and there’s no substitute for manufacturing these everyday items. Still sure it’s time to eliminate fossil fuel use?

Relying strictly on emotion can result in ruinous decisions. Conducting an unemotional, data-driven, cost-benefit analysis allows reason to direct action.