New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2022
430 pp. $19.59 (hardcover)

We know what today’s “experts” say about fossil fuels: Global warming is an imminent threat to life on earth; CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are the cause; and therefore, we should quickly replace fossil fuels with “renewables” or “green” energy such as wind and solar.

But are these conclusions based on science? Are we on the brink of planetary disaster? Can renewables actually replace fossil fuels—and should they?

These are questions raised and carefully answered in Alex Epstein’s comprehensive new book Fossil Future, which expands on his previous book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. As a philosopher and energy expert, Epstein evaluates the methods employed by today’s opponents of fossil fuels, identifies their unstated assumptions, and penetrates to the core of this vital issue.

Today’s calls to “listen to science” on this matter, Epstein explains, direct us not to science but to interpretations of science. We do need interpreters, he acknowledges: Imagine trying to digest hundreds or thousands of scientific, highly specialized, peer-reviewed articles without the help of expert interpreters. But, as with every field of specialized knowledge, the interpreters—part of what Epstein calls our “knowledge system”—can and often do get things wrong. Are today’s interpreters of the data regarding climate issues and the use of fossil fuels advising us based on objective scientific findings—or an undisclosed agenda?

Epstein shows how and why many of today’s supposed experts get things disastrously wrong. His claim is not that fossil fuels do not emit CO2 that contributes to global warming—they do; nor that we should ignore the side effects of energy—we should not. Rather, Epstein argues that when we examine these effects, we need to be honest, objective, and thorough in identifying and evaluating the full context of relevant facts.

Today’s most trusted “synthesizers,” “disseminators,” and “evaluators” of science—including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the New York Times, and spokespeople for governments and universities worldwide—nearly unanimously warn of the harmful effects of fossil fuels (8–19). What is missing is an honest appraisal of their benefits. The question is not merely: Do fossil fuels have harmful side effects? All forms of energy do. Rather, the key questions are: Do the benefits outweigh the negatives? And can we use the benefits of fossil fuel energy to protect us against its potentially harmful side effects?

Citing extensive data illustrated with graphs, Epstein points out that the rise in CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuel use correlates strongly with the steep rise in standards of living from the mid-1800s to the present. It is thanks to fossil fuels, he argues, that the modern world enjoys unprecedented prosperity.

But, Epstein is quick to add, this is beside the point if fossil fuels are leading us to an apocalypse. Thus, he carefully examines the science of CO2 emissions and the controversies involved. He concludes that, based on even the most extreme and highly unlikely projections of warming, our current technologies enable us to deal effectively with increased temperatures, droughts, wildfires, and storms, as well as rising sea levels.

Further, Epstein argues, on a geologic time scale of 570 million years, CO2 levels in the most recent three million years—including today—have never been lower. In the Mesozoic Era extending from 246 million years ago to 65 million years ago (which includes the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods), average temperatures were approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today, there were few or no ice sheets or glaciers, and CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher—6,000 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to 420 ppm today (322–23). During this era, forests grew near the poles, dinosaurs roamed the earth, mammals first appeared, and life flourished.

Epstein also explains why fossil fuels dominate in today’s energy market, comprising as they do 80 percent of the world’s current energy use. Fossil fuels are abundant, with natural stores in the earth, and they have high energy concentration (traits, he points out, that nuclear energy shares). Epstein painstakingly explains why solar and wind—lacking these qualities—cannot replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way.

But, you might ask, aren’t sunlight and wind free? Yes, but converting them to a usable form of energy is not. Indeed, Epstein explains, converting sunlight and wind into usable energy is extremely expensive and, in the foreseeable future, unfeasible. “Because the intermittent flows of sunlight and wind are not controllable, they cannot by themselves provide reliable energy without being accompanied by a massive storage system that stores energy when sunlight and wind are available and deploys it when they are not (which is most of the time)” (185). With vast farms of wind turbines and solar cells, and extensive use of batteries and transmission lines, it may be technologically possible to supply our electricity needs; however, it is not economically feasible. By analogy, Epstein points out, technically it is possible to supply each person with a private jet, yet doing so would more than exhaust our resources.

Further, he observes, not all energy needs can be addressed by batteries. Today’s best car battery (in the Tesla Model 3) has, by mass, eighteen times less energy density than gasoline, and there are no breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon to address the enormous energy needs of cargo ships and airplanes.

Summarizing Epstein’s case: Interpreters in our “knowledge system” ignore the vast benefits of fossil fuels, grossly exaggerate their harmful side effects, and mislead the public about the efficacy of so-called “green” energy alternatives. Why? In a skilled display of philosophical detection, Epstein exposes the underlying assumptions of those who oppose fossil fuels.

Consider that neither nuclear nor hydro power produces emissions. Yet, many of those who catastrophize about fossil fuels also fervently oppose these energy sources. (Some even oppose wind and solar because they require vast tracts of land and extensive transmission lines and must be backed up with reliable energy sources—meaning, fossil fuels.) What all forms of energy generation have in common is that they massively impact nature. It is the purity of nature, not human welfare, that many advocates of “green” energy value. Viewed from within their philosophic framework, any significant impact by humans on nature is morally wrong. This premise often is disguised by vague language to the effect that “we want to save the planet for future generations.” But Epstein exposes this as a charade because a genuine concern for future generations would lead them to demand not less fossil fuel use but more. Understanding this charade, he says, is essential to understanding the distortions and evasions of today’s alleged experts.

Epstein calls the framework they employ the “anti-impact” framework and contrasts it with his own “human flourishing” framework. Proponents of the anti-impact framework view nature as a “delicate nurturer.” They hold that Earth is, in effect, a Garden of Eden that becomes dangerous only when man meddles with it. For instance, Epstein cites David M. Graber explaining Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature: “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along” (81).

What does Graber mean by “rejoin nature”? He means that we should stop taming nature and using it for life-serving human purposes; we should stop creating hospitals and online retailers, plastics and airplanes, satellites and ski resorts; we should stop protecting ourselves against droughts, storms, floods, predation, pestilence, and the great swings in climate that, for millennia, made human life precarious at best, and often brutal and short. In brief, Graber, McKibben, and company call for us to forgo the vast improvements in Earth’s livability that we have made and can continue making using fossil fuels.

Contrary to the claims of anti-impact advocates, environmental dangers to human beings are not worsening. Rather, Epstein observes, during the past century, “the rate of climate-related disaster deaths has fallen 98%” (ix). In addition, property damage from climate-related events, when measured as a percentage of GDP, has also decreased. These radical improvements are due to what Epstein calls our “climate mastery,” made possible by fossil-fueled technologies. It is these technologies that will enable us to overcome the consequences of increased warming.

And contrary to Bill McKibben’s claim that fossil fuels are ending the Holocene’s “11,000-year period of climatic stability,” characterized by John Kerry as featuring “ideal, life-sustaining temperatures,” climate has never been stable, and seldom ideal. Climate disasters have devastated populations throughout human history (254–55).

Consider Epstein’s sampling of climate threats and the mastery over them made possible by fossil fuels.

Regarding dangerous temperatures, in 1911 a heat wave killed as many as forty thousand people in France and two thousand in New England. Today, in the “empowered world” where air conditioning, run on cost-effective fossil fuels, is widespread, this kind of devastation is virtually unheard of.

Drought historically has been the greatest climate-related threat to human life. For instance, in China between 1876 and 1878, droughts led to the deaths of between nine and thirteen million people. Since then, fossil-fueled technologies have reduced drought-related deaths by 99 percent. Irrigation, largely powered by fossil fuels, is primarily responsible for this achievement. Going forward, new, already proven technologies such as desalination, will greatly expand the geographical reach of irrigation. Another important technology combating drought is modern transportation: Using fossil-fueled cargo ships, airplanes, and trucks, the empowered world ships food to drought-affected areas.

Regarding wildfires, with the use of fossil-fueled machines, we reduce the load of burnable material in the environment, build barriers to reduce the spread of wildfires, and use advanced means (e.g., airplanes and retardants) to fight them. Regarding storms, with the use of fossil-fueled machines, we build resilient structures, provide early-warning systems, and evacuate populations as needed.

To protect against floods, for instance, the Netherlands (50 percent of which lies less than three feet above sea level) has developed an extensive infrastructure of “dikes, dams, and electronically operated storm walls and gates” (282). Such “climate mastery” would be impossible without fossil-fueled technologies.

Yet, Epstein asks, “Have you ever, in any mainstream discussion of ‘climate change,’ seen any concern expressed about whether restricting fossil fuel use might increase climate danger by decreasing fossil-fueled climate mastery?” (258).

Epstein laments that hundreds of millions of people in the world today live in dire poverty, with neither the benefits of climate mastery nor those of plentiful and cost-effective energy. Instead, they rely on burning wood or dung and on manual labor, their own or that of animals. These “unempowered” millions need cost-effective, reliable energy to flourish, just as the rest of us do.

From a human flourishing standpoint, Epstein argues that an honest assessment of the evidence leads to the conclusion that we can and should increase our use of fossil fuels. We should also remove irrational impediments to nuclear energy, which shares many advantages of fossil fuels and is the safest and cleanest form of energy. Even in the worst-case scenario—a meltdown—the “nonexplosive nature of nuclear power means there is ample time to react and avoid dangerous radiation. This is why in the civilized world there are zero documented deaths from nuclear radiation from commercial reactors. Zero!” (61).

Yet, the relatively free world effectively hamstrings itself by shutting down nuclear power plants and seeking to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement—which calls for rapid elimination of fossil fuels—while the unfree world does not. China, for example, gets 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels and is aggressively expanding its use of them. While it reaps the benefits of cheap, abundant, reliable fossil fuels, relatively rights-respecting nations pursue a suicidal course, embracing expensive, unreliable “green” energy.

Despite the prominence of and substantial influence exerted by opponents of fossil fuels, Epstein is optimistic. He explains how we can reverse the current trends and presents a set of rational policies to guide concerned citizens, politicians, and governments toward ensuring responsible energy use and protecting us against potential energy dangers.

In Fossil Future, Epstein has written a comprehensive and masterful treatment of this important topic. It may be just the lever needed to move the world away from a true apocalypse—one caused by the shortsighted elimination of fossil fuels—toward a flourishing fossil future.

As a philosopher and energy expert, @AlexEpstein evaluates the methods employed by today’s opponents of fossil fuels, identifies their unstated assumptions, and penetrates to the core of this vital issue.
Click To Tweet
Return to Top
You have loader more free article(s) this month   |   Already a subscriber? Log in

Thank you for reading
The Objective Standard

Enjoy unlimited access to The Objective Standard for less than $5 per month
See Options
  Already a subscriber? Log in

Pin It on Pinterest