By Allen Brooks — June 22, 2022
“Epstein focuses on the ‘big picture’ facts of how fossil fuels are helping the world’s populations to live longer, better, safer lives, while managing the side-effects of increasing CO2 emissions.”
After his successful book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014), philosopher Alex Epstein spent several years speaking at seminars, at corporate meetings, and in webinars to help people understand why the apocalyptical view of future climate and fossil fuels reliance are wrong. At the same time, Epstein zealously asked questions and listened to his “Energy Champions” to better understand how to break through the mainstream narrative with his sound intellectual case.
The result is a reframed energy/climate discussion in his 430-page tome, Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas – Not Less, which challenges the “expert” opinion of impact of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere in light of humanity’s huge gains from carbon-based energy usage.
Besides dismantling the apocalyptical narrative that fossil fuels are making the world “a worse and worse place to live,” Epstein focuses on the “big picture” facts of how fossil fuels are helping the world’s populations to live longer, better, safer lives, while managing the side-effects of increasing CO2 emissions.
By framing the climate discussion around the fact of human improvements since fossil fuel use began, Epstein takes on the mainstream’s “knowledge system.” driven by the climate experts, which is shown to be anti-human and anti-energy (ignoring human progress to date). As for the future, with growing world population, Epstein frames his climate discussion on “the livability of the planet,” which continues to improve despite rising CO2 levels.
In fact, more carbon in the atmosphere has contributed to dramatic increases in crop yields, further aided by man’s ability to use fossil fuels to create fertilizers that boost food output and the fuel to power farm machinery that eases the human effort needed in agriculture.
Senate Testimony: 2016
The height of the folly about climate policy and the restriction and ultimate elimination of fossil fuels from human use, in the name of avoiding a planetary disaster, came during a 2016 U.S. Senate hearing in which Epstein was testifying as an energy expert based on his writings.
The Moral Case had become a Wall Street Journal and New York Times bestseller at that point. The exchange between Epstein and liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer has become a classic.
SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Mr. Epstein, are you a scientist?
ALEX EPSTEIN: No, philosopher.
SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: You’re a philosopher?
ALEX EPSTEIN: Yes.
SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Okay. Well, this is the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I think it’s interesting we have a philosopher here talking about an issue…
ALEX EPSTEIN: It’s to teach you how to think more clearly.
Thinking clearly and critically about energy and climate change is important, especially when considering policies being promoted that would radically restructure the world and the U.S. economies and societies in the name of limiting carbon emissions that otherwise are projected to cook the planet.
Data, Not Speculation
Those scientists and policymakers who, like Epstein, are thinking critically about this subject are not attacked over the accuracy of their data and facts, their interpretations of them, or their resulting policy recommendations. They are dismissed for daring to counter the existing climate narrative. That narrative is often divorced from the data, but the terminology is used to hype fear of carbon emissions and climate change.
The public’s ignorance of the data and climate change is not surprising in a world focused on 30- second sound bites from the mainstream media who embraces the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach to reporting news. Epstein’s decade-old mission has been to counter the misinformation in short, compelling ways.
In the Moral Case (2014), Epstein argued that the world would use more fossil fuels in the future to improve lives despite the embrace of renewable energy by the anti-impact (deep ecology) experts. Global fossil-fuel reliance, 80 percent at present, has grown and continues to grow despite the recent surge in investment in new renewable energy generating capacity. Solar and wind renewables account for only 3% of world energy use after decades of investment, which has occurred in response to mandates and subsidies.
Lost on the renewables promoters is that their success has been due to the existence of reliable fossil fuel backup power supplies. As we see with the growing number of grid blackouts, the loss of this 24/7 fossil fuel backup power means grids become more fragile due to the intermittency of wind and solar power and subject to brownouts and blackouts. Meanwhile, according to Epstein, the world has become a better place to live. For him, “human flourishing” has been critically important for the poorest people on the planet who have benefited from a reduced rate of extreme poverty.
Epstein cites a college survey in the U.K. about world poverty, which is defined as living on less than $2 a day. The survey’s question was: “In the last 30 years, the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has…?” Respondents were offered three choices: “decreased,” “remained more-or-less the same,” and “increased.”
The responses showed: 55% of respondents said increased, 33% said the same, and just 12% said decreased. According to World Bank data, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty in 1980 was 42%, which has fallen to under 10% today. That is hundreds of millions of people who are living better today due in large part to the use of fossil fuels.
Anti-impact climate experts ignore this reality, but it is a critical measure of human progress. Global warming is an issue that Epstein acknowledges, and in fact devotes three chapters to.
He points out that the planet has warmed by 1ºC over the past 170 years. However, climate-related disaster deaths continue to fall to all-time lows. In fact, there has been a 98% decline in disaster deaths over the last century. This is due to “climate mastery” by society that is accomplished with the aid of fossil fuel-powered machines and equipment.
From irrigation to heating and cooling equipment, as well as our ability to construct sturdy buildings and create early warning systems are how the climate has been mastered. However, mastering the climate does not absolve us from ignoring the negative side-effects attributable to fossil fuel use – heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires – but it is equally wrong for our “knowledge system” to ignore the economic and human benefits that come from using fossil fuels.
Four Parts
Fossil Future’s 11 chapters are organized into four parts: Framework, Benefits, Climate Side Effects, and A Flourishing Fossil Future.
In Framework, Epstein dismisses the anti-impact framework of the climate alarmists, and focuses on “human flourishing,” which he demonstrates with hockey-stick charts that show how world life expectancy, world population growth, and world GDP per capita have soared despite constant increases in CO2.
The Benefits from fossil fuel use have led to reduced air pollution, sharp declines in world death rates from floods, and especially for flood deaths in G7 developed countries, among other benefits. The world’s population has gained from more plant growth and greater crop yields due to the natural fertilization effect from the increased CO2 emissions.
More food coupled with improved medicines and health care have led to significant increases in human longevity and improved living standards. In addition, these benefits contribute to our mastery of the climate that has helped address the Climate Side-Effects from fossil fuel use. As part of his examination of fossil fuel side-effects, Epstein asks about the risks from rising CO2 emissions on the human flourishing framework?
Rising CO2 levels could have implications for temperatures, precipitation patterns, and sea levels around the world. Rising CO2 levels might impact plant life and oceans, and maybe even lead to mass species extinctions. As Epstein says, these are all possible impacts, but given the level of climate data and computer models, the impacts cannot be predicted with any degree of precision.
However, the answers fall into two categories: the “CO2 benefit denial” and the “deliberate over-statement.” The climate experts focus only on those negative side-effects and deny any positive benefits. CO2 is both a warming gas and a fertilizing gas, but the experts will only talk about the warming aspect.
Not only is this short-sighted, but it also becomes a disservice to mankind. Although Epstein did not point this out, American journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, and scholar of American English H. L. Mencken did. “A demagogue is one who knowingly tells untruths to those he believes to be morons.”
Epstein’s latest book is important for people wanting to understand the full scope of climate change and its impact on the planet and society. Not only is Fossil Future a guidebook for why fossil fuels are critical for human flourishing, but Epstein also helps readers learn how to talk with anti-fossil fuel activists.
He is particularly hard on energy industry executives for failing to actively engage those who want to eliminate fossil fuels and reorient the discussion framework. Contrary to arguing to 100 as their opponents due, energy executives seem to only argue to zero, which Epstein shows helps the opposition in making its case against fossil fuels.
Conclusion
Epstein’s two books in the past seven years show how the climate and fossil fuel dialogue can be reoriented. He has delivered both the data and the mechanism to change the dialogue.
A more balanced discussion from his efforts will produce a less scary and more promising outlook that is justified by the full spectrum of data and is desperately needed in today’s polarized world.
—————————
Allen Brooks is author of ENERGY MUSINGS, where an earlier version of this book review appeared (June 14, 2022). Energy Musings contains articles and analyses dealing with important issues and developments within the energy industry, including historical perspective, with potentially significant implications for executives planning their companies’ future.
If one actually pays attention to the hard line greens, they seem to favor renewable because they will not sustain industrial society, which they hate.
According to the WHO 4m people a year are dying from inhaled wood smoke related conditions every year in developing nations. That’ll be roughly 100m dead from that alone by 2050. It can be alleviated by cheap, available FF derived electricity, but the greens won’t allow that.
The greens don’t just hate industrial societies, they hate everyone.
Except themselves
Why hasn’t it been alleviated in the last (say) 50 years by freely available fossil fuel then?
If unreliable energy is the saviour of mankind why isn’t it freely available to everyone?
Why aren’t governments giving away EVs to everyone to wean people off ICEs?
The answer is it’s all:
What I find irritating – I’m halfway through it – is the repetition of what he’s already said
It could be a lot less than 430 pages
Bottom line: human flourishing vs anti-impact, anti-humanism
We know who has the upper hand
If you require people to buy and read your previous book before they buy and read the new one, a lot of people won’t read either.
The lessons unlearned bear repetition.
“However, mastering the climate does not absolve us from ignoring the negative side-effects attributable to fossil fuel use – heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires –”
I’ve seen enough, I don’t care what Epstein has to say about climate change if he thinks heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires were caused by human emissions.
You can use the data without accepting the conclusions or opinions of the writer.
That is maddening. For some reason, every ‘expert’ who ostensibly champions personal liberty and/or free markets automatically concedes home field advantage to those who champion collectivism. It reminds me of a ‘controlled’ scrimmage in high school football practice, where the offense gets umpteen chances to score from the 1-yard line.
And the defense can’t touch the quarterback.
He’s just trying to avoid being dismissed outright as being a “denier” and probably being deplatformed. His book will still be ruthlessly attack by the true believers and guardians of the consensus though.
Exactly.
He’s putting up the standard & classic Luke-Warmer case = trying to appeal to both sides at once.
And that just winds everybody up.
Primarily because in the simple minds of Warmists, The Green House Effect is not any lah-de-dah science thing about radiations, absorptions, emissivities and temperatures. That’s all too boring for them.
The Green House Effect is = All The Bad Things it does, never mind the middleman, what route they take or how they happen.
Bad Things Happen because Trapped Heat. Period
But heat isn’t trapped to any measurable effect by the so-called Green House Gases
Because if they did trap heat in any significant amount, it would be cloudy and windy every night, everywhere and all night.
Because the Green House Effect would continue heating the atmosphere, causing convection, wind and clouds as the sun does during day-time.
We’d never see any Moon or stars.
But it isn’t windy cloudy and we can see the Moon and stars. and Sputniks even.
Thus Trapped Heat = Garbage Science.
But even that simplicity wouldn’t ‘get through‘ would it….and by now too many salaries depend on it not getting through
Does that include ‘book writing’?
After Germany’s government decides back to use coal for energy, me and my environmentalist friends are worried about the environmental impact of the war in Europe.
It will not damage the European environment but it will damage the whole planet.
I posted an article on my website talked about my thoughts healing the Earth 🌐
https://mysteriousofscience.com/what-can-be-done-to-heal-earth/
Why does the Earth need healing?
Too many nuts that want to “geoengineer” it?
Everything needs healing. Oral Roberts made a career out of it.
I agree fretslider. Why? Environmentally; most definitely. We can all do ‘our bit’ to improve this situation, but climatically(??)
A more useful endeavor than worrying “about the environmental impact of the war in Europe” would
be to find the missing heat from the signature tropopausal hot spot. That would definitely move
climate science forward if you found it & give you necessary pause to wonder why you didn’t find it,
if that’s the case instead!
Damage the whole planet?
Back on your meds dude.
The earth survived TWO World Wars and a number of lesser conflicts during the 20th century without any healing from mankind.
But that was before SUVs.
Yeah but tanks get worse gas mileage, as do the 6×6 trucks that keep them supplied.
I get the impression from the numerous spelling mistakes that english is a second language? This doesn’t excuse the scientific illiteracy throughout the entire diatribe though – have you considered stronger medication for your delusions? The earth is doing just fine it’s the gullible morons such as yourself that I worry about.
Having survived IRA bombs in the past, on picking myself up from the debris I can confirm my first thought was “How will the IRA bombing campaign affect the global environment”.
I could show plenty of examples of modern scientists, supposed experts in their field, who display none of the astute and careful thinking and reasoning of one of the greatest English scientists, Michael Faraday. This is especially the case with those calling themselves “climate scientist” when in fact they only have knowledge of only one of the various scientific disciplines that are needed to understand our 30 climate zones and sub-zones.
It is ironic that one of the great influences in the life of Faraday was a book written some fifty years before his birth by a hymnwriter on the subject of Logic. This was used in university philosophy courses for a century. Of course one would not expect someone like Senator Barbara Boxer who was on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take an interest in such trivial matters.
As I have often written, had Faraday been alive today, he would have demolished the “scientific” alarmist narrative. A good scientist builds on the foundation of men like Faraday but few seem to have bothered to familiarize themselves with his story and writings. I doubt Boxer even knows his name.
“…had Faraday been alive today, he would have…”
Been cancelled.
Fretslider, you are spot on.
I should give you a +10.
Certainly not now, Barbara has severe dementia. Democrats are besides themselves trying to keep her on committees but not let her speak.
She also isn’t very bright because for many many years her driver was a Chinese spy.
What makes you so sure that she didn’t know he was a Chinese spy?
Then there’s the Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who’s girlfriend was a Chinese spy.
She is Barbara…she is not that bright.
Why is it that dementia seems to be a qualification for politicians? Could it be that it makes them the best puppets? Actually this is not funny but shameful – exploiting people who should be retired for purely political reasons.
Barbara Boxer is no longer in the Senate. Hasn’t been for a while.
You are right and she was dumb and she had dementia while in office.
Boxer left the Senate in 2017.
And we ended up with Kamala. What is wrong with California?
You are confusing Barbara Boxer with Dianne Feinstein. She is still a senator and was the senator with a Chinese spy who was her driver.
But in reality, it may be that Dianne confuses herself with Barbara Boxer too, as she has not demonstrated good mental form recently.
You are confusing Barbara (“Don’t call me ma’am”) Boxer with Diane Feinstein—-easy to do since they are both silly California progressives. Boxer is now out of office (seat was taken by the delightful Kamala Harris, now VP). Feinstein is still in office, but out of her mind.
Love this….30 climate zones and sub-zones…..
We actually learnt some Geography at school 60 years ago. Now all teachers seem to be scientists or rather political scientists.
Keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary…..H. L. Mencken
However, mastering the climate does not absolve us from ignoring the negative side-effects attributable to fossil fuel use – heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires
The obligatory ass kissing statement.
____________________________________
“The world’s population has gained from more plant growth and greater crop yields due to the natural fertilization effect from the increased CO2 emissions.”
CO2 is way more than mere fertilizer, it is a necessary component of photosynthesis.
____________________________________
“Rising CO2 levels could have implications for temperatures, precipitation patterns, and sea levels around the world. Rising CO2 levels might impact plant life and oceans, and maybe even lead to mass species extinctions.”
Buying into the other side’s bullshit is not productive. Jesus said render unto Caesar what Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. So agree with Climate Science when what they say is factual, and vigorously point it out when what they claim is fiction.
____________________________________
“The climate experts focus only on those negative side-effects and deny any positive benefits.”
They don’t deny the positive, but they do studiously ignore them.
They also ignore the fact that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas and a whole lot of climate data from before ~1970. And if they do use decades old data, they re-write it to suit their narrative. That last fact should be a corner stone of the argument against the climate crusade.
Alex’s tactic is different as he is trying to show the world that most of green movement is anti human. They will use any means to make life difficult for humanity.
Imagine, if Co2 played no role in climate change at all. Now, envision how much money is being wasted trying to control Co2.
You don’t have to imagine Co2’s role in climate, it has no role at all. It isn’t called a ‘trace gas’ because it is the earth’s climate control knob. It is plant food. And, it is NOT a pollutant, no matter WHAT the EPA says about it.
But that money is STILL wasted. Imagine how much improvement for earth and its people if that money were diverted into doing something that actually would help. How about clean water for everyone. Sanitation in poorer areas around the world. How about preventing disease? And minimizing REAL pollution.
It is beyond imagination how people have been duped into wasting their money on a fool’s errand.
There’s a reason energy prices have skyrocketed. It is called ‘chasing Co2’. Politicians LOVE the Co2 story because they can spend their and our money at will, without any remorse, or repercussions, because you can’t see any change, but you don’t have to see change, because it is being spent on ‘prevention’.
Ever hear of summer and winter? So what if (natural) climate change moves it up a degree or two? Wait a few years, and it’ll return to where it was before. It is cyclic, if anyone cared to look. Remember the 1930s? No? It was as hot then as it has been lately. But there was no Co2 to blame then. Remember the 60s? No? Headlines had earth heading into another ice age. Cycles, folks. Cycles. You can’t PREVENT cycles.
Games people play. Just amazing how much of the citizens of the planet are duped into believing the climate fraud meme. If fossil fuel usage wasn’t such a smashing success for the whole world, we wouldn”t have 8 billion people inhabiting this planet. In 1850 ir was 1.25 billion. Most of the increase is due to widespread use of fossil fuel.
“You can’t PREVENT cycles.”
And Biden has difficulty riding them.
Two outstanding comments in a row! Thanks for the humor.
Totally agree! If only a percentage of the money spent on researching AGW were spent on ‘clean water’ and an energy source (for instance) how this would improve the lives of the World’s poorest let alone the number of (young) lives this would save.
“Those scientists and policymakers who, like Epstein, are thinking critically about this subject are not attacked over the accuracy of their data and facts, their interpretations of them, or their resulting policy recommendations. They are dismissed for daring to counter the existing climate narrative. That narrative is often divorced from the data, but the terminology is used to hype fear of carbon emissions and climate change.”
***************
It is upsetting and frustrating to see that that there are so many people in this world who believe that we can move forward to a post fossil fuels world with eco-religions and ideologies driven by the demonization of human civilization and the energy sources that keep it running.
Oftentimes in history, new eras came into being with advances in technology including the automobile, the aircraft, the rocket engine and computers, just to name a few. I remain wedded to the idea that a post fossil fuels world, if and when it gets here, will be the result of advances in energy generation (such as 4th generation nuclear) and not demonization from eco-ideologies and eco-religions that we see today. Those who confuse true science with quasi-religions (believing wind and solar are a viable alternative to fossil fuels) that are sold to us as scientific are the ones who don’t seem to understand this. They basically confuse science with what are essentially religions. Religious faith doesn’t generate energy.
The bottom line here is that the means to the ends of the anti-fossil fuels people is the problem, not their ends by itself. I have no problem with seeing humanity moving forward toward a post fossil fuel world. The question is how do we get there? The history of technological advances will give us a clue about to best way (maybe the only way) to do that.
Kudos to Alex Epstein for standing up to the green ideologists. Seeing Epstein treated like a religious heretic or Orwellian thought-criminal tells us something about the level on which the green ideologists are operating.
“He is particularly hard on energy industry executives for failing to actively engage those who want to eliminate fossil fuels and reorient the discussion framework.”
While Epstein nails a great folly of energy CEOs, the biggest one is them forming a circular firing
squad, taking potshots at each other while kowtowing to the CO2 myth by claiming theirs is the
“most virtuous” form of energy & the others stink. It makes me want to say: “A pox on all of your
houses!
Excellent book! Gives you real confidence in arguing the case for fossil fuels.
Read Alex’s book and it really gives a you a great framework in which to talk clearly to anybody regarding Climate issues. Well worth reading,
We need more Alex Epsteins.
His podcast is very good. He gets some pretty good guests.
Hydrocarbons’ use & development have been and are a boon to human civilization.
Drop the mic.
Fire Safety: Charging Electric Scooters and Bikes
Published: Friday, June 24, 2022
Following instances of fires caused by e-scooter and e-bike batteries, Wandsworth Council is urging people to take care when charging their vehicle in their home
I’d be concerned about charging an EV in a garage below any accommodation above.
Charging?! Hell, just PARKING one in a garage below any accommodation is cause for concern.
The only bad impact from more CO2 is that weeds grow faster. And Round-Up takes care of that.
This may be covered further down the thread, but, playing on the “Fears” is likely the main item in their playbook. Aids, Covid, Omicron, CO2, the examples are numerous, and continuing. The populations of the World appear VERY accepting. Common Sense is in very short supply.
“Contrary to arguing to 100 as their opponents due[sic-dd], energy executives seem to only argue to zero, which Epstein shows helps the opposition in making its case against fossil fuels.”
I bought Fossil Future and read it recently. I appreciate Alex Epstein’s carefully constructed case. I disagree with him, like some of the other commenters here, about conceding the scientific claims that warming has been caused by CO2 emissions and will cause more to come.
So in applying his own advice about “arguing to 100” I would take the same approach with the so-called consensus “science” of climate change, along these lines:
You get the point. Stop conceding that “some” warming on land and in the oceans from GHGs is inevitable and must be expected. We know no such thing by any reliable means available to us.
On the good side, Epstein destroys the credibility of the “knowledge system” claims of catastrophe by exposing the underlying ideological framework.
Correct
There may be some warming from co2 but there is no proof of such
Data argues against it
I did some research, took 2 seconds, I found a data based hockey stick related to hydrocarbon use and co2 content in the atmosphere
It’s human population of earth.
Essentially flat for 10,000 years then goes exponential 200 years ago.
This is the source of the envirofascist war on fossil fuels.
Get rid of them and the people must follow
Utopia results.
Additional “hockey stick” changes since the beginning of the 19th C, the approximate start of the Industrial Revolution in Western Societies in Great Britain, the work product of subsequent generations of talented engineers and scientists and managers, include average human life spans, mean household incomes, mean hourly wages, basic literacy percentage, private home and automobile ownership, percentage of residences with electricity, natural gas, clean water and sewage utility connections at affordable prices, miles traveled in a lifetime, private ownership of all kinds of electronic gizmos, number of safe and effective pharmaceutical products, the number of journal articles and books published per annum, the number of patents, etc. Julian L Simon’s book The Ultimate Resource 2 (1996) put paid to all the environmentalist scare tactics and nonsense about resource shortages and the dangers of over population. Alex Epstein’s book follows in Simon’s footsteps: Life is good, at times sweet, and full of upside surprises due to human ingenuity, innovation and creativity that never cease to amaze.
“ However, mastering the climate does not absolve us from ignoring the negative side-effects attributable to fossil fuel use – heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires“. Empirical data does not support this accusation. I am halfway through this book, and hope this position is not one espouse by Mr. Epstein.
No relation to Jeffrey, I presume?
‘As we see with the growing number of grid blackouts, the loss of this 24/7 fossil fuel backup power means grids become more fragile due to the intermittency of wind and solar…’
We see no such thing. There aren’t a growing number of outages nor are those which occur down to renewables.
They are often down to extreme weather which is climate related
Data, mate
griff,
Go read the essays on Prof Dieter Helms web site. He is Prof of Economic Policy at Oxford and an expert on Energy Policy. He is by no means a climate change sceptic but he is realistic about unreliables, particularly wind.
eg, ‘Energy Policy’ 30th March 2022
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/energy-policy/