Scan barcode
rahldynasty's review against another edition
5.0
At times this book felt exceedingly unapologetic humanist, however, that is because it has to be. I agree with the premise of the book, but even I found it a bit hard to swallow at certain points. Many times throughout the book he mentions a human standard of value. I use a human standard of value but I wish he could make clear that value is preferential ranking system that allows you care about multiple facets of an issue. I think that an approach like that would better persuade people to closely examine their own beliefs.
craicerjack's review against another edition
1.0
Mental gymnastics and a lack of imagination lead to a ridiculous conclusion.
vinayak's review against another edition
1.0
This is like writing about the moral case for eating fats. Everyone knows that eating fat is essential for development of the brain since brain is mostly composed of fats. However this does not make doctors recommend eating unlimited fat to overweight people.
Psuedo-experts like Epstein present a false dichotomy - by ignoring the time and scale of issues. Environmentalists everywhere are not asking for an immediate or total ban on fossil fuels - instead they are recommending a drastic reduction in their use.
Thankfully, the numbers of idiots like Epstein are declining are now found mostly in USA. Even the great Donald Trump has recently changed his position to say that Climate Change is not a fraud.
Psuedo-experts like Epstein present a false dichotomy - by ignoring the time and scale of issues. Environmentalists everywhere are not asking for an immediate or total ban on fossil fuels - instead they are recommending a drastic reduction in their use.
Thankfully, the numbers of idiots like Epstein are declining are now found mostly in USA. Even the great Donald Trump has recently changed his position to say that Climate Change is not a fraud.
bwitbeck's review against another edition
4.0
A bit repetitive, but a very clear moral case for increased use of fossil fuels as a moral imperative.
katharine_whitfield's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
thewalrus11's review against another edition
1.0
I really tried to give this book a chance, but the author's reasonings delusional at best and utterly dishonest at worst. He makes no attempt to present a full picture of any of the topics, nor does he bother to address confounding variables in his incredibly misleading charts and figures. This could have been a good book if the author was able to set aside his ego and tendency towards condescension.
talamak's review against another edition
2.0
I decided to read this after I finished Naomi Klein's book This Changes Everything last year. Klein leans to the left and her bias was extremely evident throughout the book, so although I agreed with most of her stances I felt it was prudent for me to seek an opposing viewpoint. This book was it.
Epstein raises a few good arguments - for instance, solar and wind power are less reliable than fossil fuels and not as clean as people perceive them to be (the inclusion of the anecdote about the rare-earth metal mining wasteland in China was particularly touching) - however his assertions about evidence are overwhelmingly misleading and indicative of a poor understanding of the science behind climate change.
The main argument of the book boils down to fossil fuels being amazing because of how far they have advanced society, lowered mortality rates, improved our technology for dealing with a dangerous climate, and powered our everyday lives, and that switching away from fossil fuels will diminish our chances to save future billions of people due to breakthroughs happening later and technology lagging behind where it could be with fossil fuels. There's no doubt that we should be grateful to fossil fuels for what they've done for humanity so far - we live longer, we're able to get machines to do labour we previously would have had to do, and so on - but saying that we should stick with fossil fuels for that reason is like saying someone should stay in an abusive relationship because their partner was really affectionate and kind during the first six months of it, or never abolishing slavery because of the economic benefits it brought.
I think the next step for me is to do more research into nuclear energy, because it seems to be by far the most ideal energy source for society right now (side note: I held this view before reading this book). Nuclear is reliable, incredibly safe, doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect or emit harmful pollutants like SOx and NOx, and has a plentiful and high-energy feedstock (uranium and thorium). From what I can gather, the main reason both environmentalists and Epstein eschew it in favour of renewable energy or fossil fuels respectively is cost.
Unfortunately, the book scaffolds its arguments, meaning the later arguments of the book are useless because they rely on the reader agreeing with the incredibly faulty conclusions drawn in earlier chapters. Regardless, I've given it two stars because the author had an engaging writing style which had me finish the book in a couple of days, and was at least trying to put together a rational defence of fossil fuels.
Epstein raises a few good arguments - for instance, solar and wind power are less reliable than fossil fuels and not as clean as people perceive them to be (the inclusion of the anecdote about the rare-earth metal mining wasteland in China was particularly touching) - however his assertions about evidence are overwhelmingly misleading and indicative of a poor understanding of the science behind climate change.
The main argument of the book boils down to fossil fuels being amazing because of how far they have advanced society, lowered mortality rates, improved our technology for dealing with a dangerous climate, and powered our everyday lives, and that switching away from fossil fuels will diminish our chances to save future billions of people due to breakthroughs happening later and technology lagging behind where it could be with fossil fuels. There's no doubt that we should be grateful to fossil fuels for what they've done for humanity so far - we live longer, we're able to get machines to do labour we previously would have had to do, and so on - but saying that we should stick with fossil fuels for that reason is like saying someone should stay in an abusive relationship because their partner was really affectionate and kind during the first six months of it, or never abolishing slavery because of the economic benefits it brought.
I think the next step for me is to do more research into nuclear energy, because it seems to be by far the most ideal energy source for society right now (side note: I held this view before reading this book). Nuclear is reliable, incredibly safe, doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect or emit harmful pollutants like SOx and NOx, and has a plentiful and high-energy feedstock (uranium and thorium). From what I can gather, the main reason both environmentalists and Epstein eschew it in favour of renewable energy or fossil fuels respectively is cost.
Unfortunately, the book scaffolds its arguments, meaning the later arguments of the book are useless because they rely on the reader agreeing with the incredibly faulty conclusions drawn in earlier chapters. Regardless, I've given it two stars because the author had an engaging writing style which had me finish the book in a couple of days, and was at least trying to put together a rational defence of fossil fuels.
holtfan's review against another edition
5.0
Why didn't I rate this after I first read it? I can't remember. Maybe I was too busy freaking out at how AWESOME it was! I heard Alex Epstein speak and it really restructured everything I'd heard about fossil fuel. I devoured his book in one sitting, then went back to re-read passages. I like how he focuses on the moral case, bringing philosophy in to weigh the cost of climate change.
Worth reading, even if you disagree.
Worth reading, even if you disagree.