The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Revised Edition
- Downloads：1240
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-02 16:31:09
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Alex Epstein
- ISBN：0593084101
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Mark Mulvey
，
"No matter what we're doing in life， whether we're coming up with a business plan or raising children or deciding what to do about fossil fuels， it is always valuable to be able to think clearly about what is right and what is wrong and why。" "No matter what we're doing in life， whether we're coming up with a business plan or raising children or deciding what to do about fossil fuels， it is always valuable to be able to think clearly about what is right and what is wrong and why。" 。。。more
Christian Barry
，
What if we’ve been thinking about the energy industry all wrong？ What if instead of pursuing “carbon-zero” and “nonimpact”， we instead make life or “human flourishing” our standard of value？ Alex Epstein identifies this flourishing: longer life expectancy， higher income， cleaner water， cleaner air， plentiful food， less climate-related deaths， less disease， and other positive metrics…all being tied to the use of more fossil fuels （cheap， reliable， and plentiful energy）。 It can get even better add What if we’ve been thinking about the energy industry all wrong？ What if instead of pursuing “carbon-zero” and “nonimpact”， we instead make life or “human flourishing” our standard of value？ Alex Epstein identifies this flourishing: longer life expectancy， higher income， cleaner water， cleaner air， plentiful food， less climate-related deaths， less disease， and other positive metrics…all being tied to the use of more fossil fuels （cheap， reliable， and plentiful energy）。 It can get even better adding nuclear and hydroelectric power into the mix。 Epstein does a great job of contextualizing/reframing the whole energy debate and peeling back the curtain of renewable/unreliable energy using public data from the World Bank， the International Energy Agency， and the BP Statistical Review of World Energy。 He shares the historical context of our relationship with energy and climate while also challenging the reader to imagine a world without cheap， reliable， and plentiful energy。 It’s scary。 It’s not wrong to want “clean” energy （it’s also important to measure how “clean” something really is）。 It’s wrong to want clean energy at the expense of human lives。 Epstein’s philosophical approach coupled with his years of industry research allows him to say if there was a better form of energy being attacked/ignoring its positives， then he’d be writing the moral case for “that” form of energy。 He debunks the “success” of renewable-energy countries like Germany， and acknowledges （like China & India） that carbon-zero goals are a death sentence。 We should appreciate the lifestyle that fossil fuels afford billions of us， not criminalize it。 He emphasizes/values that it’s human ingenuity and technological progress that will make the world a better place。 Fossil fuels （highly concentrated/reliable） have been empowering our ingenuity/progress since the industrial revolution - and we shouldn’t stop it simply in favor of very dilute/unreliable energy sources （solar & wind）。 The current public discussion is prejudiced by an assumption that human impacts are bad。 Epstein effectively communicates how great of an impact mankind has had on our way of life through the ingenuity of fossil fuels。 “Our concern for the future should not be running out of energy resources; it should be running out of the freedom to create energy resources” and “the government should always respect individual rights， including property rights; thus， achieve the liberation and growth of energy production and the progressive reduction of pollution and danger。” He offers plenty of data to obsess over， but I really appreciate this different way of thinking that critically assesses how far we’ve come today and how we should think about the future。 Just as computers are used to fix computer problems， fossil fuels are used to fix fossil fuel problems （through coal， oil， and natural gas we’ve been cleaning the air and sheltering people from a climate that’s always been dangerous）。 I’ve learned that energy isn’t simply taken & used; resources are not taken from nature， but rather created from nature。 Energy is a process， and every part of that process to produce it needs to be cheap and plentiful。 We just need human ingenuity to be free to discover ways to turn unusable energy into usable energy。 We’ve had 40+ years of false predictions by climate catastrophists。 All while globally increasing our use of fossil fuels， and life/flourishing has gotten better。 Is climate change addressed in this book？ You betcha。 If you’re interested in an honest discussion （void of emotional rhetoric） about maximizing the benefits and minimizing risks associated with fossil fuel use， then this is for you。 The energy industry has a special place in human productivity， prosperity， and progress。 It’s the industry that powers every other industry。 Everyone could take something away from this book; there really is a moral case for fossil fuels。 。。。more
Blake Dickinson
，
A few things made this a really enjoyable read。 First， I liked being introduced to a totally different perspective on a major issue with global interest and impact。 Second， it challenged me to reconsider or challenge my previous beliefs that may have been formed by public opinion and pressure rather than unbiased scientific research。 I still have objections to a couple points， but I think the author would be okay with that。 He appears to raise these points out of pure concern for humanity rather A few things made this a really enjoyable read。 First， I liked being introduced to a totally different perspective on a major issue with global interest and impact。 Second， it challenged me to reconsider or challenge my previous beliefs that may have been formed by public opinion and pressure rather than unbiased scientific research。 I still have objections to a couple points， but I think the author would be okay with that。 He appears to raise these points out of pure concern for humanity rather than financial gain or ulterior motive。 Third， it helped me to reflect on and realize the good that has been done in the last century due to industrial， technological， and scientific progress。 Our worst， most uncomfortable days today are often significantly better than the best days of our not-too-distant ancestors。 We have many reasons to be thankful and many people to thank…the fossil fuel industry is a pretty good place to start。 。。。more
Bear-it
，
really interesting case and seemed well research on a side of an argument you're unlikely to hear about really interesting case and seemed well research on a side of an argument you're unlikely to hear about 。。。more
Travis
，
There were some strong points made through the book， but it was incredibly repetitive。 The book put all the arguments within the first 50 pages which made the rest of the book recycled material with depth and detail that was unnecessary。
Steven Raszewski
，
JUST READ THE BOOK！Before it’s too late and they ban it。
Grace Matychuk
，
Incredibly informative and fairly easy to understand。 It took awhile to get through， but mostly because I'm a fiction reader by nature。 Would definitely recommend for anyone looking to understand the pro-fossil-fuel position thoroughly。 Epstein does an excellent job of evaluating the impact of fossil fuels on our world today。 Incredibly informative and fairly easy to understand。 It took awhile to get through， but mostly because I'm a fiction reader by nature。 Would definitely recommend for anyone looking to understand the pro-fossil-fuel position thoroughly。 Epstein does an excellent job of evaluating the impact of fossil fuels on our world today。 。。。more
Jennieowen
，
Eye opening and helpful。
Lizzy Tonkin
，
This book accomplishes everything it sets out to。 Am interested to see the updated references， graphs & stats in the new edition coming out。
Nicolas Barbin Selander
，
En del goda argument som gav mig teman att reflektera över， essensen är något egosentrisk och en del argument är rakt av motsägelsefulla。
Balint Erdi
，
Fossil fuels help humanity live an ever longer， more secure， comfortable， and productive life。Energy is what makes all of this possible， and there's currently no alternative to fossil fuels for producing cheap energy reliably， in large quantity。 We should thus embrace and use more of them as energy is machine food: without them， we're weak， vulnerable， and inefficient。The more energy we use， the better life we can live。 There are thousands of years' worth of reserves left even using today's tech Fossil fuels help humanity live an ever longer， more secure， comfortable， and productive life。Energy is what makes all of this possible， and there's currently no alternative to fossil fuels for producing cheap energy reliably， in large quantity。 We should thus embrace and use more of them as energy is machine food: without them， we're weak， vulnerable， and inefficient。The more energy we use， the better life we can live。 There are thousands of years' worth of reserves left even using today's technology， so there's no reason to hold back fossil fuel consumption on the grounds of saving resources for later。As to pollution， the technology of generating energy from coal， gas， and oil has become a whole lot cleaner thanks to anti-pollution technology （operated by energy mainly extracted from fossil fuels） and will continue to do so。Unfortunately， unless you actively seek the truth， you'll only hear how fossil fuels destroy the planet， with all living beings on it。 The doomsday prophets of environmentalism have been preaching this since the 60s， yet none of their predictions have become even remotely true。 That doesn't prevent people from believing them， and governments are ever so eager to step in and regulate –or even outright ban– fossil fuel use。And yet， fossil fuel use strongly correlates with improving our life quality in many ways – most of it as a direct result of having abundant， affordable energy that powers our machines and technologies。 We have way more food for way more people thanks to synthetic fertilizers and pesticides。 We have cleaner water thanks to purification systems。 The threat of deadly diseases is kept in check by vaccines and pharmaceuticals made possible by scientific research， which is in turn enabled by the increased wealth amassed thanks to our constantly growing productivity。 The number of people dying due to natural disasters （floods， droughts， storms） has fallen sharply because of humanity's capability to fight them。 We laugh at the piercing cold and scorching heat sitting in our sturdy， heated， or air-conditioned homes。 Again， all this is enabled by using energy， the primary source of which today can only be burning fossil fuels。 So how can we oppose this？The main reason is probably the Gaia myth， the belief that Mother Nature is a caring， affectionate mother that loves every one of us and should thus not be touched。 However， this is entirely false。 To be able even to survive （let alone live comfortably）， we， humans， have to find ways to adapt to the world we live in using technology and cheap， reliable energy。 Yes， that means having an impact on our environment。The main reason prominent environmentalists （though indeed not all of them） are against fossil fuels ultimately comes down to having non-impact as their standard of value， not human life and flourishing。The book makes the compelling case that we should appreciate fossil fuels if we consider healthier， longer， more comfortable human lives as a worthy goal: 。。。more
Jeff Bobin
，
Very interesting look at the use of fossil fuels and somethings most won't think about。 A brief history but most importantly the changes that have occurred over the years， especially in technology and the impact those things have had on our environment and economy。 Like many things if you only look at a narrow view there is a lot we miss。 Not everything is cut and dry on its impact since we often don't know what other improvements or destructive uses something will be impacted by。 Found it an in Very interesting look at the use of fossil fuels and somethings most won't think about。 A brief history but most importantly the changes that have occurred over the years， especially in technology and the impact those things have had on our environment and economy。 Like many things if you only look at a narrow view there is a lot we miss。 Not everything is cut and dry on its impact since we often don't know what other improvements or destructive uses something will be impacted by。 Found it an interesting and thought provoking read。 If you are interested in fossil fuels， the oil and coal industry it is worth the read。 。。。more
Chris Boutté
，
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。 Wi 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。 。。。more
Ashley
，
If all you know about fossil fuels is the neighborhood gas station you stop at when your vehicle's fuel tank is empty， if you're curious about the arguments you hear that declare the end is near and its all because of fossil fuels， or if you're just looking to understand an alternative perspective， this is the book for you。 As a millennial， all I've been taught by my educational institutions， by my peers， by the celebrities I admire， is that fossil fuels are bad and that their use is catastrophi If all you know about fossil fuels is the neighborhood gas station you stop at when your vehicle's fuel tank is empty， if you're curious about the arguments you hear that declare the end is near and its all because of fossil fuels， or if you're just looking to understand an alternative perspective， this is the book for you。 As a millennial， all I've been taught by my educational institutions， by my peers， by the celebrities I admire， is that fossil fuels are bad and that their use is catastrophically detrimental to our planet。 What I never learned was why and I was often perplexed by these same institutions， peers， and celebrities that spoke doomsday prophecy while never noticeably changing their actions。 My former university continues to expand its campus， my peers continue to buy goods， drive cars， travel， celebrities are still using private jets， sailing yachts， and buying mansions - all of which wouldn't be possible without the use of fossil fuels。 This book is highly educational while also being very accessible to a fossil fuels laymen。 The author provides countless supporting data and delivers a sound argument - one that claims fossil fuels can make life better for humans and our environment。 A must read， in my opinion。 。。。more
Felix
，
Great book if you want to feel hope for the future of our planets not so catastrophic climate change， and to escape the indoctrination by the environmentalist doomsday cult of despair。
Damian
，
Good book with good data to support the generally optimistic view that people and energy are good for the planet。 Reminds me of Julian Simon。 Nothing groundbreaking for me， but if you haven’t heard or read much about the positives of fossil fuels this is a good start。 I wanted less breadth and more depth however。
Richard Ramirez
，
Great points， sometimes I feel the book is repetitive and has a lot of fluff。 Could have probably been reduced to 100 pages in my opinion。
Lori
，
I really liked this book because it was the "other side" of the fossil fuels discussion。 I thought his arguments made sense， and put the industrial advances in a human perspective。 Parts of it were a little boring， but overall it was a good book and everyone in the oil industry should read it I think！ I really liked this book because it was the "other side" of the fossil fuels discussion。 I thought his arguments made sense， and put the industrial advances in a human perspective。 Parts of it were a little boring， but overall it was a good book and everyone in the oil industry should read it I think！ 。。。more
Angel
，
I live in a state that vilifies energy derived from fossil fuels。 This book made me reconsider some preconceived ideas I had about fossil fuels as well as renewables。 There is truly no perfect form of fuel and way to harness it yet。
Kyle Weil
，
An incredible demonstration of how to sound convincing using contradictory arguments and straw man fallacies， The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is a scathing rebuttal of the environmental movement filled with pages upon pages of catastrophic global warming denialism。 I do give some respect to Epstein for sounding semi-convincing at times through the use of studies and （faulty） logical reasoning; however， his argument and writing overall is deeply flawed and inaccurate。 Usually， I try to be polite An incredible demonstration of how to sound convincing using contradictory arguments and straw man fallacies， The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is a scathing rebuttal of the environmental movement filled with pages upon pages of catastrophic global warming denialism。 I do give some respect to Epstein for sounding semi-convincing at times through the use of studies and （faulty） logical reasoning; however， his argument and writing overall is deeply flawed and inaccurate。 Usually， I try to be polite and start my review with a summary of what I liked。 Epstein had some really good logical arguments on the importance of causation。 He points out multiple studies linking coal production and coal plants to higher rates of asthma。 His contention is that with so many different factors in that could cause asthma， it is hard to causally link the coal plants and asthma。 How can you really prove the coal plants are causing asthma？ Hmmm， interesting argument Alex。 Especially when you open the book showing a graph of increasing CO2 emissions next to graphs of increasing income， increasing life expectancy， and decreasing child mortality。 You give no other evidence but use these graphs as incontrovertible proof that fossil fuels （and CO2 emissions） have led to a healthier， wealthier world population。 So which is it？ Do you have to prove causality or only when it suits your argument？ The books main argument relies on correlation-based evidence similar to this which is not statistically significant in the least。 I could put a graph of people named Kyle next to income， life expectancy， and child mortality to argue that more Kyles is the reason for the healthier and wealthier world we live in。Another thought provoking argument Epstein makes is that much of global warming is unproven and based on inaccurate models。 He cites a study of CO2 emissions showing their heating effect as following an r shaped logarithmic curve。 He argues that these studies were done in labs which is in no way representative of what happens in the real world。 Right after making this argument， he discusses how increased CO2 emissions will be good for the environment。 He cites a study showing that trees （grown in a lab） which had more CO2 grew faster。 He then argues that CO2 will make trees in the world grow faster。 So which is it Alex？ Are results from a lab experiment externally generalizable or not？ You can't have it both ways。I could go on and on writing about the contradictory arguments Epstein makes but instead I want to poke fun at a few other ludicrous arguments:1。 He says being against fossil fuels is morally equivalent to being racist2。 He talks about driving an hour to Jiu Jitsu each week and that the only reason he can afford to do so is because gas is cheap。 Of course， this is right after the paragraph where he talks about traveling the world for fun and skiing hundreds of days （which is not a cheap sport to take up）3。 He argues that solar is not a good power source for developing countries because it is not cheap and reliable。 He fails to mention that building grid infrastructure is billions of dollars more expensive and that many developing countries experience frequent blackouts and grid failures。 Also， solar is now cheaper than coal and natural gas in many cases。4。 He uses a drop in climate-related deaths as proof that global warming isn't real without discussing improvements in access to water， healthcare， and new technology which are the driving factors between these declines5。 He makes multiple arguments against renewable subsidies for research or consumption since it is an inefficient use of money but has no qualms with the billions of dollars in subsidies received by fossil fuel companies 6。 He makes an argument that there have been no nuclear-related deaths in the free world。 I am a nuclear fan but this statement is intentionally misleading。 There have been multiple nuclear-related deaths over the years。 It is a small amount， especially compared to the people who have died from CO2 emissions related causes （especially from coal smoke）; however， it felt dishonest and manipulative7。 He argues that the main purpose of humans is to master the environment and change it to our favor。 We should not worry about any potential negative ramifications because we can just invent our way out of it （until we can't）8。 He argues that since fossil fuels spurred the industrial revolution over 200 years ago， they are positive forces in society and we should not look for alternative energy sources。 Okay， so are we not allowed to progress onwards from fossil fuels now？Overall， he did have an actual solid argument on the importance of cheap， reliable， and plentiful energy due to how dependent we are on energy。 Energy is an integral part of any society， powering hospitals， businesses， research， education， and almost everything else humans do。 It saves us massive amounts of works and without cheap， reliable energy， our society would most likely regress。 The rest of his surrounding arguments are pitiful at best。 I would recommend this book to people trying to get an understanding of climate denialist/big oil/big coal perspectives; however， if you are looking for an intelligent， well-argued read， this isn't it。 。。。more
Mike Harmon
，
After fire and wheel， there's no greater discovery for the advancement of mankind than fossil fuel。 All the arguments are there， though I don't like how some of them are constructed。 The problem is: as you may discern from some reviews， "climate change" is a religion; therefore， not easily struck down by reason。 This religion has been cultivated by world government globalists as the coordinating mechanism that gives them regulatory control over the global means of production。 It's the tool that After fire and wheel， there's no greater discovery for the advancement of mankind than fossil fuel。 All the arguments are there， though I don't like how some of them are constructed。 The problem is: as you may discern from some reviews， "climate change" is a religion; therefore， not easily struck down by reason。 This religion has been cultivated by world government globalists as the coordinating mechanism that gives them regulatory control over the global means of production。 It's the tool that will be used to limit the manufacturing capacity of the United States and redistribute capital across the globe while consolidating both power and wealth。 Politically， it's quite ingenious。 For democracy and the advancement of mankind， it's an ideology that must be defeated。 。。。more
Jenny
，
"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 WORS "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 :） 。。。more
Ali
，
This book is a must read for any worker related to fossil fuel industry。 The author is successfully arguing against the demonization of the industry。 The argument， in fact， is quite simple。 Fossil fuels are cheap， plentiful and reliable source of energy compared to any other type of fuel。 And if we agree to consider Human Life and Human Prosperity as our top standard then we must expand， not abandon， the industrial progress lead by fossil fuels。 Although I would stand neutral in some of the argu This book is a must read for any worker related to fossil fuel industry。 The author is successfully arguing against the demonization of the industry。 The argument， in fact， is quite simple。 Fossil fuels are cheap， plentiful and reliable source of energy compared to any other type of fuel。 And if we agree to consider Human Life and Human Prosperity as our top standard then we must expand， not abandon， the industrial progress lead by fossil fuels。 Although I would stand neutral in some of the arguments stated in the book， I agree with the overall concept。 In addition， I would encourage to keep investing in the renewable energy technologies， which doesn't seem to be within the support-scope of the author， as they may turn out to be better than fossil fuels in some aspects。 。。。more
Derek
，
Do fossil fuels cause climate change？ Yes。 Pollution？ Yes。 Are they nonrenewable？ Yes。 But by all means， continue asking more questions。 Do they improve our climate？ Yes。 Do they improve the environment？ Yes。 Is there a strong correlation between the increase of fossil fuels/CO2 emissions and the increase in life expectancy， income/GDP， population， access to clean water and sanitation， cleaner air， protection from natural disasters， productivity， leisure time， professional freedom， scientific an Do fossil fuels cause climate change？ Yes。 Pollution？ Yes。 Are they nonrenewable？ Yes。 But by all means， continue asking more questions。 Do they improve our climate？ Yes。 Do they improve the environment？ Yes。 Is there a strong correlation between the increase of fossil fuels/CO2 emissions and the increase in life expectancy， income/GDP， population， access to clean water and sanitation， cleaner air， protection from natural disasters， productivity， leisure time， professional freedom， scientific and healthcare advances， as well as a decrease in climate-related deaths （drought， storms， floods）， and deaths from disease （tuberculosis， malaria， etc。）？ Yes， yes， yes。 And could the defense of fossil fuels be the moral imperative of our time？ Well， Epstein says so。 The Green movement is inherently nihilistic。 After one looks at all the data， the numbers， the graphs， the predictions， the past—it all comes down to a moral argument。 Those who defend fossil fuels have at the bottom a 'standard of value' that is human life and human flourishing。 We owe our comforts， our advances， our technology， our industry， our hope for an even better future （and our inevitable graduation from fossil fuels to superior energy sources）， in the most meaningful of ways， to our dependence on fossil fuels。 Because never in history has anyone been able to solve the problem of providing cheap， plentiful， and reliable energy for the vast majority of our planet's population until fossil fuels。 With their advent thanks to human ingenuity， we began to exercise climate mastery and unlocked our civilizational potential。 The Green movement， characterized by climate alarmism， has a different standard of value， not human flourishing， but human _nonimpact_: pristine， untouched nature， untransformed environment。 It is a moral argument which relies on prejudices， the worst of which is the denial of human exceptionalism。 You see， fossil fuels provide cheap， plentiful， reliable energy。 "Energy is our most powerful means of transforming our environment to meet our needs。 If an unaltered， untransformed environment is our standard of value， then nothing could be worse than cheap， plentiful， reliable energy。" "。。。If fossil fuels created no waste， including no CO2， if they were even cheaper， if they would last practically forever， if there were no resource-depletion concerns， the Green movement would still oppose them。"David Graber， in praising a book by Bill McKibben （the world's leading opponent to fossil fuels）， said， "Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature， some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along。"This is the logical end of holding human nonimpact as your standard of value， and the best way to achieve it， is to not exist。 This is the black undercurrent of our culture's persistent villainization of fossil fuels， which equates to latent villainization of our humanity。 The aim begins with the silent denial of human exceptionalism， and ends with human erasure。 。。。more
Skyler Chaney
，
Fantastic book。 Epstein provides a well argued， big picture approach to how we should view fossil fuel use。 I really liked how he mentioned Brazilian Jiu Jitsu twice in this book。
Andrew Ruff
，
While USA's CO2 emissions are lower per capita than anytime since at least 1960， much of the world is increasing。 The main theme of the book is whether its worth it。 Fossil fuels tend to be demonized， but do they deserve it？ They are necessary to maintain a stable grid。 Here are some of the points the book made。 Despite a 5x increase in use of coal in China and India， life expectancy and income rose drastically in just a few decades。 Malnourishment dropped 40% across the world from 1990 - 2013。 While USA's CO2 emissions are lower per capita than anytime since at least 1960， much of the world is increasing。 The main theme of the book is whether its worth it。 Fossil fuels tend to be demonized， but do they deserve it？ They are necessary to maintain a stable grid。 Here are some of the points the book made。 Despite a 5x increase in use of coal in China and India， life expectancy and income rose drastically in just a few decades。 Malnourishment dropped 40% across the world from 1990 - 2013。 In 86 John Holdren （later science advisor to Pres。 Obama）， 3-5 degrees rise in temp by 2010（ actually ~。3 which is 10-16x less） carbon dioxide induced famines could kill as many as a billion people by 2020。 Bill Mckibbon， after speaking about how bad humans are for the environment over the past billion years， says "some of us can only hope that the right virus comes along" This implies there should be fewer people。 It is holding human non-impact as one standard value without regard for human life and happiness。Instead of following the leading advice， we doubled our use of fossil fuels。 It should have led to an epic disaster， but instead made life better than ever at a rate higher than ever。 Over and over the dire predictions of leading scientists have proven far worse than what actually occurs。Anyways， it was an interesting counter point to what we usually hear， but the book glosses over more details than I would like。 For example， I had never heard that the greenhouse effect due to CO2 was logarithmic。 I did some more digging and it is widely accepted， but it's likely not as good as it sounds when you put it on paper。 It felt a little repetitive later on too。 I'm still left with the feeling that while CO2 pollution is important， it gets disproportional attention compared to numerous environmental issues that are worthy of addressing。 。。。more
Nate Hansen
，
Good， and thought-provoking。 I most appreciate that Epstein is transparent about his philosphical underpinnings， which strengthens his case enormously。 However， one gets the sense that Epstein is extremely bullish on his own principles， and I remain unsure that his bullishness is justified。
Erin
，
I was hoping for some data or at least an analysis of fossil fuel energy use/CO2 emissions vs renewables。 Most of the book is a presentation of the positive metrics in human health and technology that have coincided with fossil fuel use。 That is a good point; we can do a tremendous amount of innovation and building to make our lives safer， healthier， happier， and more stable。 But it does not give enough evidence to convince the reader that non-fossil fuel energy sources are also not moral choice I was hoping for some data or at least an analysis of fossil fuel energy use/CO2 emissions vs renewables。 Most of the book is a presentation of the positive metrics in human health and technology that have coincided with fossil fuel use。 That is a good point; we can do a tremendous amount of innovation and building to make our lives safer， healthier， happier， and more stable。 But it does not give enough evidence to convince the reader that non-fossil fuel energy sources are also not moral choices （if moral = human flourishing）。 It shows how wind and solar are not consistent and mine heavy metals， but how about the life cycle of those panels or towers？ It says nuclear can be great in the future， but why not now？ It says there is an abundance of fossil fuels， and even if we run out of those the earth is full of energy that we'll figure out how to harvest。 Ok， I get the positivism， but I would like some more data。 。。。more
Chris
，
5/10The author brings up a couple good points （climate models not being accurate）， but so much of this is basically propaganda。 I won't get into a rebuttal here， but the author needs to learn that correlation is not causation， which is the basis of his argument。Many of his criticisms of half truths， which exist on both sides of almost every argument including this one， at negating by him using half truths throughout the whole book。Overall it had a couple good ideas sandwiched in a bunch of garba 5/10The author brings up a couple good points （climate models not being accurate）， but so much of this is basically propaganda。 I won't get into a rebuttal here， but the author needs to learn that correlation is not causation， which is the basis of his argument。Many of his criticisms of half truths， which exist on both sides of almost every argument including this one， at negating by him using half truths throughout the whole book。Overall it had a couple good ideas sandwiched in a bunch of garbage 。。。more
ZACHARY
，