Scan barcode
A review by talamak
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein
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.