Scan barcode
suzukabunny's review against another edition
4.0
Selama ini kita hanya mendengar dan menyaksikan keburukan dari energi fosil (minyak bumi, gas alam dan batubara). Mulai dari meningkatkan suhu bumi, mempercepat perubahan iklim, hingga menyebabkan bencana alam, seperti yang selalu didengungkan aktivis Greenpeace. Kita lupa mengukur manfaat yang diberikan energi fosil, mulai dari bahan bakar murah, energi listrik melimpah, hingga penyedia energi utama bagi aktivitas manufaktur. Berkat bahan bakar fosil perekonomian tumbuh, jutaan lapangan kerja tercipat, peradaban dunia berkembang, dan teknologi berkembang pesat.
Ide atau premis utama dari buku karya Alex Epstein ini adalah keuntungan (benefit) yang didapat dari bahan bakar fosil jauh melebihi risiko atau bencana yang ditimbulkannya. Dunia memang menjadi lebih panas, tapi lajunya tidak secepat yang diperkirakan ilmuwan 30 tahun yang lalu. Es di Greenland memang mencair, tapi tidak meningkatkan ketinggian air laut seperti yang diperkirakan ilmuwan lingkungan 20 tahun yang lalu. Penduduk Greenland justru bisa bercocok tanam sejak suhu bumi menghangat.
Buku ini tidak hendak membela penggunaan energi fosil secara membabi buta. Epstein justru ingin pembacanya memandang pemakaian energi fosil dari sudut lain, yaitu kemajuan peradaban dan kesejahteraan manusia. Ia pun menekankan perlunya diversifikasi sumber energi. Karena bahan bakar fosil saat ini adalah satu-satunya sumber energi yang reliable (dapat diandalkan) tapi efek sampingnya sulit dimitigasi, perlu ditambah sumber-sumber energi lain dari bahan bakar non-fosil. Untuk sumber listrik, diperlukan pembangkit listrik tenaga nuklir, air, mikrohidro,panas bumi, ombak, kincir angin dan surya untuk melengkapi pembangkit listrik tenaga gas alam dan uap (batubara). Untuk bahan bakar kendaraan, saatnya mendiversifikasi bahan bakar minyak bumi ke bahan bakar etanol, olein (minyak goreng), listrik atau hidrogen.
Sebagai karya investigasi tentang konsumsi bahan bakar fosil, Moral Case For Fossil Fuels sangat membuka mata akan sisi baik dari bahan bakar fosil tanpa mengesampingkan efek buruknya. Yang perlu dilakukan adalah menyusun portofolio energi agar efek buruk bahan bakar fosil dapat diperkecil.
Ide atau premis utama dari buku karya Alex Epstein ini adalah keuntungan (benefit) yang didapat dari bahan bakar fosil jauh melebihi risiko atau bencana yang ditimbulkannya. Dunia memang menjadi lebih panas, tapi lajunya tidak secepat yang diperkirakan ilmuwan 30 tahun yang lalu. Es di Greenland memang mencair, tapi tidak meningkatkan ketinggian air laut seperti yang diperkirakan ilmuwan lingkungan 20 tahun yang lalu. Penduduk Greenland justru bisa bercocok tanam sejak suhu bumi menghangat.
Buku ini tidak hendak membela penggunaan energi fosil secara membabi buta. Epstein justru ingin pembacanya memandang pemakaian energi fosil dari sudut lain, yaitu kemajuan peradaban dan kesejahteraan manusia. Ia pun menekankan perlunya diversifikasi sumber energi. Karena bahan bakar fosil saat ini adalah satu-satunya sumber energi yang reliable (dapat diandalkan) tapi efek sampingnya sulit dimitigasi, perlu ditambah sumber-sumber energi lain dari bahan bakar non-fosil. Untuk sumber listrik, diperlukan pembangkit listrik tenaga nuklir, air, mikrohidro,panas bumi, ombak, kincir angin dan surya untuk melengkapi pembangkit listrik tenaga gas alam dan uap (batubara). Untuk bahan bakar kendaraan, saatnya mendiversifikasi bahan bakar minyak bumi ke bahan bakar etanol, olein (minyak goreng), listrik atau hidrogen.
Sebagai karya investigasi tentang konsumsi bahan bakar fosil, Moral Case For Fossil Fuels sangat membuka mata akan sisi baik dari bahan bakar fosil tanpa mengesampingkan efek buruknya. Yang perlu dilakukan adalah menyusun portofolio energi agar efek buruk bahan bakar fosil dapat diperkecil.
jennyag09's review against another edition
5.0
"Notice that, with each issue surrounding fossil fuels, we all too easily believe the negatives and are blinded to the positives. How many of us have ever thought to appreciate the man-made miracle that is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy? ... As a culture, we are consistently inclined to view the fossil fuel industry as negative, and in particular, environmentally negative ... we believe that to be environmentally good ... is to be "green," to not have an impact on things ... In fact, the WORST thing we can do environmentally is NOT transform our environment, because then we would live with the threat-laden and resource-poor environment of undeveloped nature ...We need to say this loudly and proudly. We need to say that human life is our one and only standard of value ... Mankind's use of fossil fuels is supremely virtuous - because human life is our standard of value, and because using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human life."
Epstein acknowledges the negatives of fossil fuels, but also lauds the positives - energy is machine food, and machines provide us ability. Ability to protect ourselves from climate, to produce more food and cleaner water, to specialize and free up our time for innovation. Cheap, plentiful, reliable energy is what we need, and fossil fuels are our best option. He also discusses the environmental science arguments, and especially notes that climate prediction models are ridiculously terrible.
As a professional in an oil and gas related space, I learned a lot and had some great takeaways from this book. Highly recommend :)
Epstein acknowledges the negatives of fossil fuels, but also lauds the positives - energy is machine food, and machines provide us ability. Ability to protect ourselves from climate, to produce more food and cleaner water, to specialize and free up our time for innovation. Cheap, plentiful, reliable energy is what we need, and fossil fuels are our best option. He also discusses the environmental science arguments, and especially notes that climate prediction models are ridiculously terrible.
As a professional in an oil and gas related space, I learned a lot and had some great takeaways from this book. Highly recommend :)
lindseysparks's review against another edition
3.0
I agreed with many of Epstein's points going in, so to some extent I wasn't his target audience. I did like it and felt like it was well argued. I thought his argument that using fossil fuels isn't just fine, it's the moral thing to do to make life better for humans was interesting.
karenreads1000s's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting. A slow start, but the facts are interesting and the argument picks up in the 2nd half. And difficult to not agree that fuels and energy make life better and longer for humanity. The focus on progress by the end is encouraging... don't the 1 billion people without power deserve a better life too? This book discusses the benefits of fossil fuels that are not often heard in the mainstream.
tangleduphair's review against another edition
4.0
"The need for moral clarity will always be timely. Here, in a sentence, is the moral case for fossil fuels: mankind's use of fossil fuels is supremely virtuous because human life is the standard of value and because using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human life."
cdeck's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting book but left feeling a bit flat. Author is clear about the benefits of fossil fuels, obviously it’s been a foundational building block of society and our best, cheapest, most reliable energy source available. His takeaway from this is that we should invest even more heavily in fossil fuels, trusting that side effects will be overcome through future efficiency improvements and technological developments. I really wished he would have explored that idea to any extent. I think there’s a strong contrary case to be made that development should continue but that significant resources should be diverted to exploring innovative solutions to solve these issues before they become critical condition problems. Overall, decent book but would have loved to see more look toward the future and solutions.
bootman's review against another edition
3.0
I think one of the most important things we can do is read books with opinions that challenge our views. It's easy to read books that agree with us, but it's difficult to read an entire book from someone with an opposing viewpoint. I do this because we all succumb to biases, and we need the opposition to show us things we might be missing. As someone who is Pro-Green New Deal and renewable energy, I decided to read this book. I also thought it'd be interesting because I love moral philosophy. With that being said, this book was terrible. I went into it with as much good faith as possible, and the author is definitely smart, but this book is filled with weak arguments and cherry-picking of data.
I could write an entire essay picking apart this book. Instead, for this review, I'll just take his premise and strongest argument. It can be summed up with a quote from the end of the book:
"We don't need to save the planet from human beings; we need to save the planet for human beings. We need to say this loudly and proudly. We need to say [that] human life is our one and only standard of value."
Alex Epstein comes from a moral position that humans are the most important creatures, so we can do whatever we want. If you believe that humans are more important than plants and animals and we should just destroy them for our convenience, this book is for you. But, if you're someone with a wider scope of morality, you'll choose to work towards other solutions that help us live in harmony with nature rather than destroying it because we're at the top of the food chain.
I could write an entire essay picking apart this book. Instead, for this review, I'll just take his premise and strongest argument. It can be summed up with a quote from the end of the book:
"We don't need to save the planet from human beings; we need to save the planet for human beings. We need to say this loudly and proudly. We need to say [that] human life is our one and only standard of value."
Alex Epstein comes from a moral position that humans are the most important creatures, so we can do whatever we want. If you believe that humans are more important than plants and animals and we should just destroy them for our convenience, this book is for you. But, if you're someone with a wider scope of morality, you'll choose to work towards other solutions that help us live in harmony with nature rather than destroying it because we're at the top of the food chain.
cyranoreads's review against another edition
5.0
An extraordinary philosophical work. Even if you were to presume that Epstein's conclusions were wrong, you'd still have to admire his methodology, and acknowledge that it is superior to virtually anything we get from Greens and environmental pundits of all stripes. The book is a wake-up call to solid, independent thinking about an issue hazed-over by recycled fallacies, hype, and moralizing. Its radicalism is bound in its common-sense appeal: Should we be opposed to something because it has some negative side-effects? — or should we judiciously weigh negatives and positives, in a rational context? Is our standard of value human flourishing or non-impact? Epstein's philosophic reasoning and hard facts should shift everyone's view toward a more empowered big-picture view of the issues surrounding fossil fuels — and a result contrary to what's oft-touted and popularly believed. Whatever your existing views, you'll find this a perspective-enhancing book, if not a revelation.
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.