The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

“Almost nothing matters more to our lives, the lives of those you care about, and the lives of billion of others around the world than the existence of cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.” - Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.As I read these words this Thanksgiving Day, I sat in relative comfort while my turkey was roasting. I listened to Christmas music on internet radio, sipping hot coffee and scouring the internet for the best Christmas gifts. Then I got this text from my mom:Screen Shot 2014-11-27 at 3.32.58 PMMy family lives in New Hampshire where a heavy storm knocked out the power on the eve of Thanksgiving. Reports said “Cato’s heavy snow brought down power lines and knocked out utilities for more than 270,000 homes, from Virginia to Maine.” You can’t cook a turkey on Thanksgiving, or turn on the heat for that matter, without power. And most of the power we all use comes from fossil fuels.It is in exactly this context that we need to consider the public statements of today’s supposed experts on energy. Take “James Hansen, probably the world’s most politically prominent climate scientist: ‘CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing [by emitting CO2] and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”In his new book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, energy expert Alex Epstein has curated a mountain of data showing unequivocally that such claims are, well… noise pollution. His research shows that in all areas, including environmental cleanliness and safety, we are far better off using fossil fuels than not.“This book is about morality, about right and wrong. To me, the question of what to do about fossil fuels and any other moral issue comes down to: What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing - realizing the full potential of human life? Colloquially, how do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years? When we look at the recent past, the past that was supposed to be so disastrous, we should look at flourishing - and that of course includes that quality (or lack thereof) of our environment.”Obviously, if we care about living the best lives we can, we definitely do not want to pollute ourselves out of existence. We don’t want to destroy the scenic beauty in which we can find “spiritual” fuel and reset our mental screens. Nor do we want to destroy these values for future generations or for today’s undeveloped countries. But at the very base of our incredible civilization is a need for cheap, reliable, plentiful energy. A gripping tale about just one day at a hospital in The Gambia without cheap, reliable, plentiful energy shows what life was and could be like again if our politically connected green lobbyists ever realize their vision. So what we need to do then, is take an in-depth look, not just at all the negatives we hear so much about from energy’s leading spokespeople, but the positives as well. We need to zoom out and consider, without bias, all of the factors affecting our lives now and in the future.Epstein says: “I understand that a lot of smart people are predicting catastrophic consequences from using fossil feels, I take that very seriously, and I have studied their predictions extensively.And what I've found is this: leading experts in the media have been making the exact same predictions for more than 30 years. As far back as the 1970s they predicted that if we did not dramatically reduce fossil fuel use then, and use renewables instead, we would be experiencing catastrophe today-catastrophic resource depletion, catastrophic pollution, and catastrophic climate change. Instead, the exact opposite has happened. Instead of using a lot less fossil fuel energy, we used a lot more-but instead of long term catastrophe, we have experienced dramatic, long-term improvement in every aspect of life, including environmental quality. The risks and side effects of using fossil fuels declined while the benefits-cheap, reliable energy and everything it brings–expanded to billions more people.”We’ve all heard about runaway catastrophic climate change. As celebrity environmentalist Bill McKibben put it in 1989, “The choice of doing nothing - of continuing to burn ever more oil and coal - is not a choice, in other words. It will lead us, if not straight to hell, then straight to a place with a similar temperature… a few more decades of ungoverned fossil-fuel use and we burn up, to put it bluntly.” So, what’s come of this prediction?Epstein shows, with the help of 102 compiled climate prediction models, the extent of the exaggeration of claims like McKibben’s. “Those who speculate that CO2 is a major driver of climate have, to their credit, made predictions based on computer models that reflect their view of how the climate works. But fatally, those models have failed to make accurate predictions - not just a little, but completely.”“Unfortunately, many of the scientists, scientific bodies, and especially public intellectuals and media members have not been honest with the public about the failure of their predictions. Like all too many who are attached to a theory that ends up contradicting reality, they have tried to pretend that reality is different from what it is, to the point of extreme and extremely dangerous dishonesty.”Though labelled by Rolling Stone as one of the “Global Warming Denier Elite” Epstein and company don’t deny climate change per se. That the greenhouse effect does cause a mild warming is sound science. But what alarmists attempt to do is equate mild warming with the catastrophic, runaway warming of our planet. As the data bears out, this is false.But, on the other side of the coin, how often do you hear about CO2’s positive effect on on the world’s plant life? How often is it pointed out that fossil fuel powered agriculture is responsible feeding the world? Or that there is a direct correlation between fossil fuel use and income, increased life expectancy, and history’s lowest known infant mortality rates? Take this interesting fact that Epstein points out: “In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.” It is undeniable that fossil fuels have improved our lives tremendously.But will they continue to do so? “Stories of rampant smog in Chinese cities bring fears that the situation will inevitably get worse there and in any other country that industrializes. Fortunately, our experience in the United States illustrates that things can progressively get better.” EPA measurements graphed in the book show an incredible downward trend in U.S. air pollution since the 1970s, even though we are using more fossil fuels now than ever before. “There were no computer problems before computers. And just as we use computers to help solve computer problems, so we can use fossil fuels to help solve fossil fuel problems…” And that’s exactly what we have been doing. A fossil fuel powered civilization means less manual labor, means more time for discovery, means more innovation and problem solving, means less pollution. In area after area, Epstein shows that the more energy we have to use, the cleaner, safer, better we make our environment.But, why take any risk? Why can’t we all cook our turkeys or heat our homes with “cleaner” solar or wind energy? Renewable energy like solar and wind requires difficult to extract rare earth minerals that must be separated from other materials with harsh chemicals like hydrofluoric acid. Here I think it’s necessary to quote at length one of the most poignant scenes in the book: a firsthand account of a rare earth mine from reporter Simon Parry.“On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.”“Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile-wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.”“This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.”“…When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump…”“The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.”“For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr. Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.”“People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.”Note, this is just one part of the process for creating so-called renewables. Here, Epstein points out that, just as with fossil fuels, we must consider and weigh all of the positives and negatives when considering whether using a given energy source is right or wrong. So, given human ingenuity, and the fact that we likely could make this process cleaner and safer over time, what else do we need to consider about renewables? What would a solar powered hospital be like?“While energy from, say, coal is available on demand so you can keep a refrigerator - or a respirator - on whenever you need it, solar energy is available when the the sun shines and the clouds cooperate, which means it can work only if it’s combined with a reliable source of energy, such as coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro… Here’s the bottom line with solar, wind, and biofuels - the three types of energy typically promoted in renewables mandates. There is zero evidence that solar, wind, and biomass can meaningfully supplement fossil fuel energy, let alone provide the energy growth that is desperately needed. If, in the future, those industries are able to overcome the many intractable problems involved in making dilute, unreliable energy into cheap, plentiful, reliable energy on a world scale, that would be fantastic. But it is dishonest to pretend that anything like that has happened or that there is a reason to think it will happen.”Epstein makes it clear that no other fuel is up to the task of providing the energy we need to live and thrive - that, in fact, everyone will benefit from far more fossil-fuel energy than we currently have. So, why do our politically charged environmental leaders have it out for fossil fuels when they have such an undeniable positive impact on our lives and there is clearly no other fuel up to the task? Consider the following statement by research biologist, David Graber, with the National Park service, in his review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature.“McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value - to me - than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are a part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line - at about a billion [sic] years ago, maybe half that - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”Here’s another answer that Epstein quotes from, “Prince Phillip, former head of the World Wildlife Fund..”“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”As Epstein shows, it is not that our leading environmental thinkers want us to have the best, cleanest energy and mistakenly believe we should get it somewhere else. It is that they hold an entirely different standard in regard to what is good. If we drain a swamp to rid of a village of malarial mosquitoes, that is definitely good, on a human standard. But, if “human nonimpact” is your standard, if you hold the “environment” (including the malarial mosquito, or even the bacteria in your water) to be of greater importance than human life, than “the good” is to let those mosquitoes be, and to let those people keep on dying from a preventable disease.“The reason we have come to oppose fossil fuels and not see their virtues is not primarily because of a lack of factual knowledge, but because of the presence of irrational moral prejudice in our leaders and, to a degree, in our entire culture.”“We’re not taught that some people truly believe that human life doesn’t matter, and that their goal is not to help us triumph over nature’s obstacles, but to remove us as an obstacle to nature.”By the standard of human nonimpact - all energy is bad. It is bad because it gives us tremendous power to transform our environment and our lives for the better, to power the tractor that saves the farmer from eighteen hour days of back-breaking labor, to cultivate food supplies on a massive scale, to allow the farmer’s son to stay in school, go to college, and become a doctor, to study and cure diseases and save lives. Epstein shows that this is what our “energy experts” oppose. Consider these words from a man considered to be among the world’s leading authorities on energy, Amory Lovins: “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”I know what my parents would have done with it this Thanksgiving; cooked a damn turkey. To hold human nonimpact as the standard of value is to ask the human race to stop changing, stop trying, stop living. It is entirely corrupt and immoral. On the other hand, when we look at the big picture, it’s clear that using fossil fuels to live and thrive is incredibly moral.Epstein says, “There is a group of people who are working every day to make sure that the machines that can make us safe from our naturally dangerous climate and enable us to thrive in it have all the energy they need. These people work in coal mines, on oil rigs, in laboratories, in boardrooms, all devoted to figuring out how to produce plentiful, reliable energy at prices you can afford - because that is what their well-being depends on and, in my experience, because they believe that is is the right thing to do. Those are the people in the fossil fuel industry, who are dehumanized in the media on a daily basis, who are tarred as Big Oil or, in the case of workers, such as coal miners, are portrayed as dupes who don’t know what they’re doing, that aren’t wise enough to know they’re making our climate unlivable through the work that supports themselves and their families.”“Actually it is the top environmentalist intellectuals who lack climate wisdom. Because they are unwilling to think in an unbiased way about the benefits and risks of fossil fuels according to a human standard of value, they are blinded to the fact that the fossil fuel industry is the reason they’re alive…”“I wrote earlier that we owe the fossil fuel industry an apology for the way we’ve treated it on climate and that we owe them a long-overdue thank you. I meant it.”I am thankful for hot food, hot showers, cold beer, modern medicine and the people that make all of this possible. I’m thankful that Alex Epstein has publicly named the immoral standard by which so many “energy experts” operate. And, I’m thankful that he has stood up to say that life is good, fossil fuels promote life, and so fossil fuels are good. This book can and should be the fulcrum upon which public opinion may swing in the right direction.www.revivingreason.com

I am not a climate scientist. My entire career has been in the medical field, but I have been an omnivorous reader of science, almost from birth. I have been an especially avid reader of climate science for about 55 years, ever since I was in the fourth grade, when I first read about the possible effects of atmospheric CO2 on the Earth's climate in the science section of a children's weekly news periodical. This was a few years before a U.S. President (L.B. Johnson) ever mentioned the possibility of human-induced climate change in an address to the public. During those five-plus decades, I have spent at least a thousand hours reading on this subject, but probably much more than that.For the first half of those years, "global warming" was completely uncontroversial and apolitical, as it had been since well before 1917, when Alexander Graham Bell coined the term "Greenhouse Effect" in his passionate and prophetic writing on the subject. (In fact, the theoretical possibility of CO2-induced climate change was first made public in a scientific address at the Royal Society in London, three weeks before Abraham Lincoln became President.) For more than a century, it had been no more than an obscure scientific curiosity of which almost no one was even aware. Fodder for nerds.Then, in the mid- to late-1980s, for reasons that I did not understand until the last few years, it suddenly became a deeply contentious issue. (I won't dwell on this manufactured social/political transition and why it came about in this review, but I strongly recommend Oreskes and Conway's well-researched and very detailed " Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming " to those who want to know more. A hint: At today's low prices, the known reserves of crude oil still in the ground are worth about $200 Trillion.) So, in the second half of those 55 years, besides continued reading about the actual science of climate change, my reading expanded to encompass the almost-entirely-bogus "objections" to the science. I say "almost-entirely-bogus" because there actually was some real, hard-science-based questioning of what has now become the scientific consensus, but those questions were put to rest well over a decade ago. All of the counterarguments since then have been, at best, what I call "scientifish." That is, they have enough of the trappings of science -- graphs, charts, logical-enough-sounding arguments -- to fool people who do not know what the actual science says.All of that is to say that, in my entire life, I have never read a more cynically misleading book - on ANY subject - than the scurrilous "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." My first reaction to it was to say that if Epstein meant to make a "moral" case, then NOT lying on almost every page would have been a good place to start. But perhaps he and I have a different definition of "morality."Given the title, at first I was very surprised to find that Epstein readily accepts almost all of the facts that his fellow climate science deniers have spent 30 years dismissing. He even scoffs at those who dispute them. He admits that the Earth is warming, that excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing the warming, and that human activity is chiefly responsible for that carbon dioxide being there. This was a real head-scratcher for me and, I thought, the rhetorical equivalent of voluntarily giving up your queen and both bishops at the start of a chess game. But then, it turns out, although Epstein doesn't deny what the scientists say has already happened, he rejects what they say WILL happen in the next century because of what has already happened and what we do next. Then, ignoring or papering over the scientists' dire warnings, he goes on to advocate for much more carbon pollution, bizarrely arguing that it is the only "moral" thing to do.I won't try to dwell on every deceptive detail in Epstein's book. There are just too many of them. It would take a longer book than his own to adequately critique them all. At its core, I found this book to be one long, slickly-written straw-man argument. Epstein systematically misrepresents climate science, and then he argues against his own misrepresentations. Mostly, he cherry-picks the scientific findings, as other one-star reviewers have pointed out, and he peppers his text with red herring sophistry about the "human centeredness" of his stands to mislead the reader into believing their worth.I will go into some detail on two fraudulent arguments that I consider to be at the core of what Epstein passes off as "reasoning." The less significant of these is his take on "the fertilizer effect," which has to do with the long-known fact that plants consume carbon dioxide and grow larger when exposed to more of it. He uses pictures of plants grown under ideal conditions in enclosed laboratories to show how much bigger they get when exposed to more CO2. This, he says, shows that more CO2 in the air will mean more food for people and livestock. He then flat-out declares that climate scientists have concealed this "fact" from the public, which anyone with access to Google can easily disprove.What he fails to reveal is the great mass of research that has gone into this vital question. Decades of scientific work and many millions of dollars have been spent on this important intersection of climate science and botany. The first and most pertinent botanical finding on this was that, taken together, the entire mass of plants growing on Earth is incapable of absorbing enough carbon to even begin to correct the atmospheric imbalance that mankind's fossil fuel use has caused. Early on, it was hoped that plants might mitigate the problem, but they are not capable of doing so.Then, botanists went further, to intensively study the question of the possible impacts of increased CO2 on agriculture. (Much of this work was done at Duke University.) Open areas outdoors were surrounded by rings of tall, mechanized towers capable of actively altering the CO2 concentration in the air within the rings. (See attached photo.) The plants growing within these areas were measured, dissected, and analyzed chemically and biologically. These studies found that, while increased CO2 does indeed cause plants to be bigger, it also makes them weaker, far more susceptible to insect damage, and, crucially, much less nutritious. In other words, like people who get very fat from eating too much sugar, plants that get much bigger from absorbing too much CO2 become more vulnerable, sicker, and generally less functional. THAT is the real fertilizer effect, not the idiot's version Epstein hawks.The second, and more central, deception underpinning Epstein's thesis concerns pioneering NASA studies in predictive climate modeling that were done in the 1980s. The NASA work was a very important breakthrough. It produced the first true estimate of the future impact humans' use of fossil fuels might have on the climate. Scientists created a computerized version of the Earth's climate, and ran multiple "what if" scenarios through it, to predict what might happen at different levels of fossil fuel use. The result of three of those scenarios were published. They were designated, simply enough, "Scenario A," "Scenario B," and "Scenario C."The lead scientist on the project, Dr. Richard Hansen, testified to Congress about the findings, and his testimony was widely covered in the press, especially Scenario A. Looking back, we now know that Scenario C assumed a level of fossil fuel use that was the closest to the actual use that took place in the last 30 years. Scenario C also came closest to predicting the actual warming that has taken place since 1986. Scenario A assumed a very much higher level of fuel use than actually came to pass, and its warming prediction was therefore much higher than what really happened . Scenario B's assumption was somewhat less than A's, but it was still higher than the actual turned out to be. (For reasons that are now well understood, Scenario C somewhat over-predicted warming too, but we know much more about how CO2 functions in the atmosphere today than we did then. By changing a single modeling constant's value in Hansen's original equations -- the "CO2 climate sensitivity," -- and re-running the corrected 1986 model today, using the now-known fuel use of the last three decades as the basis for the prediction, the result is very nearly "right on the money." And the models have only improved since then.)Not to be outdone by actual scientific results, Epstein deals exclusively with the Scenario A prediction throughout the text of his book, constantly (literally dozens of times) harping on how far off it was from what really happened, but never once mentioning that it assumed fuel consumption that was far higher than the actual consumption that followed between then and now. Most damnably, he eliminated the Scenario C prediction altogether from his reproduction of the NASA graph that shows actual measured global temperature rise alongside the original Hansen study's predictions! If climate science could sue for libel, the case of his distortion of this graph would surely bankrupt Epstein. As with many others' attempts to deride climate scientists' work, finding that he cannot argue against the facts, Epstein makes up his own facts and argues against those instead.I will close with a few of Epstein's points that are simply absurd. I would call it "comic relief," except that the subject is anything but comical.For reasons he never makes completely clear, Epstein argues vehemently against the use of renewable sources of energy. Even while noting that renewable-energy-leader Germany can now, at peak output times, efficiently satisfy more than 50% of its electric power needs using just hydro, solar, and wind generation, he decries the use of renewables altogether, lamely stating that they hinder the "efficiency" of using fossil fuels. Apparently, according to Epstein, fossil fuels are only efficient at producing electricity if you use more of them, not less. And he does not even seem to see the contradiction in that. (Industrial giant Germany is on track to achieve its goal of generating 85% of all it's power from hydro, solar, and wind in the next 20 years.)Arguing that sea level rise will not actually be a problem, Epstein points out that, thanks to fossil-fuel, we have the means to transport people away from the rising water, in cars and trains and planes. The fact that even catastrophic sea level rise is slow enough for a toddler to slowly walk away from the danger doesn't deter him from making yet another pitch for the use of his very generous patrons' products, even if it is a totally ridiculous one.Similarly, when addressing the problem of regions that will become too warm to be survivable, he blithely recommends using yet more fossil-fuel to power air conditioners, or doing more fossil-fuel-powered migration, or both. At no point does he address the estimated 100 to 200 million refugees that the combination of inundation, drought, desertification, and regional over-heating are now expected to produce. (Consider the chaos that 5 million temporary Syrian refugees have caused in the last five or ten years. Now, multiply that by 20 to 40 times as many PERMANENT refugees, and you will understand why the Pentagon has declared climate change to be a world-wide security threat.)Finally, other than disingenuously assuring his readers that bigger plants mean more food, he never mentions the most frightening agricultural prospect - and the central fear that drives the efforts of climate scientists and those who truly understand their work - that the Earth's fertile areas will become unable to feed the human race due to being heated and dried into infertility. Perhaps Epstein would have us air-condition Nebraska, or better yet, maybe he'd have us put it in gasoline-powered trucks and ship it to Canada.

I finally had the opportunity to read this wonderful eye-opening book by the son of a scientist documented, fact checked, research on the necessity for continuing the usage of fossil fuels to power human progress. Alex makes it clear that we cannot rely on renewables for reliant, secure access to fossil fuels that power our daily lives that bring to life the United States of America.

This is an eye-opening book which takes an unpopular look at the necessity for fossil fuels.

As someone who has had a lifelong interest in understanding how things work, I was intrigued with the title of this book. As I've heard a wide spectrum of opinions on climate change citing various studies with very diverse positions, I wondered if this book would provide any clarity and perspective. I was not disappointed. I purchased the book and couldn't stop reading it. As the author, Alex Epstein is a philosopher by education, he not only provides verifiable data, but he also provides clarity of thought and common sense perspective on the information. I highly recommend this book to anyone curious about the climate change hysteria which is so pervasive in our culture and mainstream media. Its well worth the short read to better understand the climate change topic.

I'm not the smartest guy in history, but this way of "vilifying" oil, methane, etc., has got to end, folks. You wouldn't go five minutes without all of your labor-saving, comfort-providing products.... All made from or depend on petroleum. This book makes the correct point, and hopefully forces people brainwashed by these modern-day Karen's that want to deprive other people, never themselves, from civilization. That's right, everything that is civilized goes away pretty quick by removing organic chemical synthesis. Think about it.

This is an abysmal and deeply flawed book which attempts to make a case for the future use of fossil fuels and, as such, flies in the face of a scientific consensus which has been established since the last century.Firstly – and perhaps most damagingly – Epstein continually demonstrates a failure to grasp much of the basic science about which he is writing. This is most clear when he attempts to explain the greenhouse effect, stating (more than once) that it occurs “…when infrared radiation from the sun reflects off the planet”. This, as any moderately well informed Year Ten student will tell you, is errant nonsense as, of course, incoming solar radiation is predominantly towards the ultraviolet end of the spectrum and radiation does not change its wavelength when reflected. It is only when incoming ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and then transmitted as terrestrial infrared radiation that it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. His grasp of the relevant science is also inaccurate elsewhere; he refers, for example, to “…enormous, rapid sea level rises which have occurred over the last ten thousand years” (when, actually, sea levels rose by about 120 metres between 20,000 and 8,000 years ago but have since been stable) while his use of sea level change data from Scandinavia betrays a complete (or, perhaps, wilful) ignorance of post glacial isostatic rebound. Equally, his discussion of the greenhouse effect as a “…logarithmically decreasing effect”, while mathematically correct, is completely erroneous in that it refers to the proportional effect of adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere rather than its absolute impact. This is, perhaps, not unexpected from an author whose academic background was in philosophy but, given that he has elected to hold forth about a phenomenon the understanding of which revolves around science, it undermines the validity of any other conclusions which he might reach and suggests that they might not be worthy of much respect.Secondly, Epstein’s underpinning premise that fossil fuels are the only means of generating future prosperity is fundamentally flawed. Anyone and everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Industrial Revolution is well aware that the huge advances in human welfare which occurred over the last 250 years were, to a significant degree, made possible by the use of fossil fuels but the author’s repeated assertions that it follows that these fuels are therefore the key to future prosperity is an unjustified assumption. Indeed, while Epstein repeatedly emphasises the important role played by technology in enabling mankind to exploit fossil fuels effectively, he reveals a colossal blind spot by failing to acknowledge that technology has the capacity to render alternative energy sources viable; instead, he repeatedly dismisses them as unable to match fossil fuels in being cheap, plentiful and reliable. As others have noted, the Stone Age didn’t end because mankind ran out of stone but because stone was replaced by an alternative technology which enabled mankind to improve living standards. In a similar way, there is every reason to envisage a future in which alternatives to fossil fuels enable mankind to avoid the environmental degradation that fossil fuels are threatening and, thus, continue to improving living standards.Thirdly, Epstein chooses to belittle the growing evidence for the negative impacts of climate change with the selective use of outdated and unrepresentative examples instead of respecting what was (by the time of publication in 2014) already a well-established scientific consensus. He gives the game away by quoting some of the more controversial pronouncements from the likes of Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s, the Club of Rome from 1972 and James Hansen in the 1980s while ignoring the measured, sensible and scientifically agreed reports of the IPCC delivered from 1990 onwards. He is, in short, suggesting that those warning of significant climate change are publicity-seeking, self-aggrandising fringe thinkers prone to making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims and, as such, that their message should be ignored if not ridiculed.And, finally and predictably, the author is funded by the fossil fuel industry. As founder of the Center for Industrial Progress (which self-describes as “a for-profit think-tank”) Epstein is anxious to deny in this book that he has “…friends in the fossil fuel industry” but, in return for consultancy, his organisation has received funding from the Kentucky Coal Association and, via the proxy organisation Americans for Prosperity, from Koch Industries. Given that his livelihood depends on such funding, it would be surprising if Epstein were to push anything other than pro fossil fuel rhetoric.So, even if the back cover blurb signed off by right wing libertarians like Patrick Michaels and contrarian pseudo-scientists like Viscount Ridley is not enough to persuade you of this book’s dodgy credentials, I’m suggesting that it is not worth the time spent reading it. If you’re really interested in climate science, read the IPCC’s reports.

Epstein takes a different approach to the discussion about climate change and its alleged causes. He makes clear that for humanity to survive we must continue using coal, oil and gas to power our industries and help developing countries. Without these fossil fuels billions of people will be deprived of the energy that has helped us create our modern civilisation. Many millions will die and many more will live miserable lives of hardship. Epstein provides excellent graphics illustrating the benefits fossil fuels have brought to humanity.Right now 85% of our power worldwide is derived from fossil fuels. He acknowledges there are risks associated with them but explains that by using modern technology we have eliminated those risks. And the alternative renewable energy sources are simply nowhere near capable of providing sufficient energy to power our societies.Epstein also demonstrates that the manufacture of so-called green renewable technologies is not as green as we would like to think. For example, he reveals the appalling devastation in one of China’s most polluted cities caused by the manufacture of neodymium, the element used in the magnets of wind turbines. Vast lakes of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust where once lay fields of corn and wheat. A “green revolution” in the UK perhaps. But a humanitarian disaster for the Chinese who are dying from the acrid poisonous stench.Epstein portrays a powerful and emotional message with great clarity and logic. Fossil fuels do not make a naturally safe, clean environment and make it unsafe and dirty - they take a naturally dangerous, dirty environment and make it clean and safe.

One of the best starting points for anyone that is interested in the best way to frame the discussion of the energy industry and its relationship to climate change.Alex Epstein has spent years speaking to and learning from leading experts around the world and presented a well thought through understanding on how we ought to be thinking about the subject from a first principles perspective.I recommend this book completely as an essential read if you intend to begin from an unbias reader and use this book as a platform to learning how (not what) to think in order to form your own views.Really looking forward to Alex's next book.

Such a radically contrarian take on the question of energy. However alex is fantastic st putting together such a clear and compelling argument. The question of where and how we place value is very well articulated.I think that possibly what might be missing is the low level mitigation such as as a low carbon price to address long tail risks. Which Bjorn Lamborghini discusses.

Well researched and written: the ethos of which should be a part of any serious anthropological climate change debate and bring the whole issue into the context of the real world. Strongly recommend to any balanced open minded person looking at the entire scenario and subsequent consequences of Government policy, particularly on the poor and developing world.