Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein argues that we have a moral obligation to support  fossil fuels in order to have humanity flourish. He argues that while emissions can impact the climate, the damage they cause is overshadowed by the gains humanity receives. Most of the argument to reduce carbon focuses on the harm without looking at the positive. If there were no positives, there would be no justification for using fossil fuels at all now. However, there are positives and we don't have any alternatives that can provide the benefit they provide. There is also confusion on adoption of policies, with some of the best non-carbon energy sources (nuclear and hydro) being attacked, while intermittent sources like solar and wind are subsidized. The climate research framework and reporting is willing to bend the facts to support an anti-fossil fuel agenda. The focus is on harm rather than benefits. Even as weather and climate related deaths have plummeted, reporting declares any incident as being climate change related. There is very little reporting on positive response to increased temperatures. Estimates of negative impact are also significantly underreported. Many advocates are seeking to eliminate any human impact rather than doing what is best for people.

It is easy to see the hyperbole and inconsistencies of climate change. Every heat wave of forest fire is declared to be a symptom of climate change (even if the problem had nothing to do with climate.)  Plastic straws and shopping bags are replaced by paper ones. Electric cars are mandated instead of gas. These are "swap in" solutions that may be a little less convenient, but feel better for the environment - even if they actually require more energy to produce. "Others" are encouraged to skip fossil fuels. We have low flush toilets that may need to be flushed a few times, high efficiency dishwashers that require more handwashing and other "improvements" that have limited value. 

If we really want to reduce energy use, we need to reduce it. The cheats are not going to cut it. We need to allow cities to be built in a way that people can walk instead of drive. We need to be "smaller" and produce less waste. If we are not willing to use less energy, then making changes is just rounding errors. Wind and Solar are "green", but they require disturbing the environment with their placement and the transmission lines needed. They also need backups, which can require moreland and possibly fossil fuel.

The books simple argument is that we should focus on what is best for humanity. With that model, fossil fuels are required. No other fuel is close to providing similar benefits. Others may have some limited benefit, but all have challenges. Things get a bit slow in the middle of the book, before the end presents ways to argue the point.