Fossil Future

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

Author	Alex Epstein
Language	English
Subject	Fossil fuels
Publisher	Portfolio Hardcover
Publication date	May 24, 2022
Publication place	United States
Media type	Print
Pages	480 pages
ISBN	9780593420416

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas–Not Less is a 2022 book by Alex Epstein that argues in support of fossil fuels as being essential for human flourishing. The book also criticizes other people labeled as "experts" by what Epstein calls the "knowledge system" (the mainstream media largely), who have often been wrong in their predictions about climate catastrophe, but that are still trusted as "experts" by that system of information dissemination.

Content

Part 1

Chapter 1. Ignoring Benefits

The first chapter opens with arguments about how experts ought to be listened to when they offer their advice, but as advisors, not as authorities. Also, this chapter explores the problem of "ignoring benefits", and in particular emphasizes the problem of how some experts are given by media a role to make policy, when in fact the given expert might only actually know a lot about a small and hyper-specific sub-section of knowledge in any given field. Epstein argues that only expert advice on the aggregate, taken from many different sources, can be heeded.[1] Epstein also explains his concept of a "human standard of value", first introduced in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, which argues for placing human beings, and human flourishing and happiness, as the foremost value worth pursuing and that should guide public policy. Epstein contrasts this with other "standards of value" such as "pristine nature", even when those other goals may result in mass death for humans. One example including a major virus that wipes out large swathes of humanity, but that then leaves "nature" in a position to exist without the presence of human beings. In summary, this chapter argues that any consideration, including considerations of policy around vaccines and other items, needs to consider all the benefits along with the costs and downsides of any particular item, in this case Epstein argues that the benefits around fossil fuel use (such as heating, air conditioning, transportation needs, etc.) are not properly weighed in proportion to the downsides (pollution, environmental impacts, etc.).[1]

Chapter 2. Catastrophizing Side-Effects

In this chapter Epstein relates his view that mainstream media sources, or what he calls the "knowledge system" and "designated" experts have an issue with focusing too much on those "experts" that will cast dire and exaggerated predictions about things such as the climate, environment, fossil fuel stockpiles and known reserves et al. Epstein argues that if you are a scientist that does not make such newsworthy, headline catching "predictions" you will not get coverage by the media ("knowledge system") and therefore there is a bias towards the public hearing only the most inflammatory claims and figures, since those are what will generate the best revenue streams for the media that can sell advertising in tandem with such "experts" making such claims.[1]

Epstein specifically takes to task a number of so-called "experts" including: Bill McKibben, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, John Holdren, and others that have been "lionized" and elevated by the "knowledge system" despite being repeatedly and demonstrably wrong in their predictions about climate, weather and relevant and appropriate policy recommendations according to Epstein.[1] Epstein quotes Paul Ehrlich as writing in 1971 that, "...power companies should be forbidden to encourage people to use more power, power is much too cheap, it should certainly be made more expensive...", in 1998 Epstein cites Bill McKibben as endorsing a plan that would call for the outlawing of 60% of fossil fuel use to slow climate change, even though, in McKibben's own words this would mean that each American would be capped at a firm legal cap of being allowed to drive a car no more than 9 miles per day. By 2025, the limit would be down to 6 miles per day of allowed driving. Epstein cites a 1975 opinion piece by John Holdren titled, "Too Much Energy Too Soon: A Hazard" and quotes, "The United States is threatened far more by too much energy too soon, than too little, too late."[1] These remarks Epstein states, were all made before the digital revolution and the rise of the information age, therefore the demands on electricity, and the concomitant benefits to human flourishing, were still in the future at the time of Holdren's comments. Epstein uses these examples and others to show that the "designated experts", and not the expert's writ large, are often wrong, and incapable of accurately forecasting the future with a level of certain that we as informed citizens within a larger society should heed without deep reflection and analysis and counter opinion. Worse still, Epstein argues that these "experts" that were wrong, in nearly no cases offered up apologies, or corrections to their mistaken forecasts and predictions, in what Epstein argues should further discredit their being "authorities" on anything related to important public policy on the climate or energy generation grid.[1]

Chapter 3. The Anti-Impact Framework

This chapter is used by Epstein to demonstrate what he believes to be the deeper, real cause and primary motivation behind most anti-fossil fuel arguments from people that might otherwise know better based on data and facts. Epstein believes that there is something called a primary moral goal. Your primary moral goal as argued by Epstein is explained thusly:

The same thing that has caused people throughout history and today to support anti-human policies, even when they have the factual and methodological knowledge to know that they are supporting anti-human policies: their primary moral goal is anti-human.

The issue of one's primary moral goal is a crucial one in philosophy that we are almost never taught to think about, yet it shapes our evaluations to an almost unimaginable degree.

Whether we are evaluating what to do about something, whether fossil fuels or antibiotics or the use of animals for medical research, there is a primary moral goal at work—something that takes precedence over everything else—that serves as our primary standard of evaluation.

Consider the evaluation of animal testing for medical research. Is animal testing for medical research good? Most people, including me, believe the answer is yes. Why? Because while we have no desire to make animals suffer, we prioritize the countless lives that animal testing saves. Why? Because our primary moral goal in this context is some version of "advancing human flourishing"—increasing the ability of human beings to live long, healthy, fulfilling lives—not "preventing animal suffering and death." That primary moral goal serves as the standard by which we evaluate animal testing for medical research as good.

Epstein also outlines what he calls, "anti-human goals" such as: animal welfare (putting animals before human benefit), Nazism (putting so called "Aryans" above Jewish humans), or climate alarmism (putting environmental serenity above the benefits of using fossil fuels for cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy).[1]

Part 2

Chapter 4. Our Unnaturally Livable Fossil-Fueled World

This chapter mainly explores the argued benefits of fossil fuels to human flourishing in many ways, from increasing quality of life around personal income to less time spent toiling for one's food, to greater optionality in general when measured in leisure time or modern technological conveniences. Epstein also explains in this chapter that the term "Hydrocarbons" to refer to "Fossil Fuels" is actually the better, more scientifically accurate term to refer to them by.[1]

Chapter 5. The Unique and Expanding Cost-Effectiveness of Fossil Fuels

Chapter 5 involves Epstein explaining the technical specifics as to why fossil fuels are more cost-effective than other fuels (such as oil being more cost-effective for the production of energy over burning wood or animal dung, both of which are still used in large numbers in the developing world, such as India).[1]

Epstein argues that until another fuel source is able to surpass fossil fuels in terms of cost-effectiveness, versatility, portability, and energy output, humanity on Earth will continue to be reliant on fossil fuels in a major way. Lastly, Epstein presents evidence to the point that increased fossil fuel use does not even necessarily lead to increased negative externalities because the cheap and efficient energy from fossil fuels also can be used, and is used, to offset the very same polluting effects that they create. For example, burning coal may increase polluting particulates to be in the air, but the massively increased level of energy generated in a cost-effective manner from such coal plants can then be used towards better air purifying technology, even at the level of the production of the pollution in the power plant itself.[1]

Chapter 6. Alternatives: Distortions versus Reality

Chapter 6 covers the alternatives that are most frequently cited as potential future replacements for the uses of energy that fossil fuels currently serve as for humanity, namely, solar power, and wind power. Epstein argues that while some of these may hold promise in some ways for some select purposes, such as a solar cell panels that illuminates a street sign at night and that charges during the day, there are many other uses where such power generation methods are nowhere near viable for replacing largescale grid power needs (which coal, nuclear and natural gas are best for), or largescale freight transportation energy needs, such as cargo ships.[1]

Later in the chapter Epstein criticizes biomass as a replacement for fossil fuels. His primary criticism of biomass is that it is really not cost effective to grow the (trees mostly) required in a cost-effective manner for the mostly wood fuel from biomass. Epstein argues that biomass seems great when you are harvesting and burning wood from a forest initially, but once harvested, it takes quite some time to grow back, and unlike fossil fuels, is not nearly as abundant, or more importantly, energy dense, as fossil fuels.[1] Epstein also explores the potential for new prototype and speculative opportunities for geothermal, though he remains skeptical that such potential will be realized any time soon.[1]

Lastly, Epstein speaks highly of nuclear power and the nuclear power prospects for powering the world, but he says that the "anti-impact knowledge system" (people that argue against any sort of "impact" to the world's environment) keeps nuclear power from being explored and furthered more widely, to the great detriment of humankind.[1]

Part 3

Chapter 7. The Enormous Power of Fossil-Fueled Climate Mastery

In Chapter 7, Epstein aims to look into the potential downsides of fossil fuels, but instead of the more mainstream "anti-impact framework" that is used, Epstein argues that a "human flourishing framework" ought to be the lens from which we (humanity) evaluate the potential benefits and negative effects of using and increasing use of fossil fuels.[1] One point Epstein makes in this chapter is that climate is "naturally" far more "dynamic" than is argued by anti-fossil fuel activists, and in particular Epstein specifically outlines the massive and relatively rapid changes that have occurred in the past, independent of any human involvement:

Over long spans of time, climate changes dramatically without human impacts. Some twelve thousand years ago humans lived in an ice age, with up to two miles of ice covering what is now Canada. Just twenty thousand years ago sea levels were 300 feet lower than they are today. Local climate changes can happen very quickly even without human impact. For example, there is paleoclimatological evidence for a medieval warm period in Europe between the ninth and fourteenth centuries followed by a cooling that is often called the Little Ice Age.[1]

Epstein allows repeats in this chapter that climate, naturally left to its own devices without the involvement of man, is still "dangerous, diverse, and dynamic."[1] Epstein also has a section in this chapter entirely devoted to support the claim that cold, rather than heat, is the most dangerous temperature related killer of human beings on Earth, regardless of whether or not it is anthropogenic in origin. Epstein says:

In reality, dangerous temperatures—which overwhelmingly come from too much cold, not too much heat—are a smaller danger than ever thanks to two forces: fossil-fueled climate mastery and modestly warming temperatures. Contrary to the portrayal of the unimpacted global climate system as a delicate nurturer that will be ruined by a few degrees of warming, most climates have a dynamic range of often-dangerous temperatures—which are largely more dangerous at the cold end than at the warm end.[1]

Chapter 8. The Problem of Systemic Climate Distortion

In Chapter 8, Epstein discusses the problems with several mainstream climate influencers and persons that have, to date, been tasked with disseminating information, and misinformation around the benefits of fossil fuels in fighting the impact on climate that humans have on the planet. One aspect of this is the words that are used, such as "climate change" as opposed to "climate impact", "human impact", or more measured or specific wording such as describing the specific issues around any particular storm or effect, "global warming" for example at least referred to one aspect of change. Furthermore, Epstein argues that the degree of "change" should always be quantified, so that humanity can take measured and appropriate, and not disproportionate or inappropriate action in mitigating such human caused or non-human caused climate change.[1]

Epstein also discusses the issues related to funding and how researchers and information disseminators are incentivized to continue to push bad information around fossil fuels, saying:

Most scientific research today is funded by governments. To justify this research, the officials running the government must believe that the research has value to voters or to their own agendas. And the values of voters and elected officials are heavily influenced by the anti-impact framework, which leads them to be morally uncomfortable with climate change impact and to expect disaster. Historically, government officials have found value in researching CO₂ with the expectation that it would be a crisis that would require massive government intervention to "save the planet." They have found little value in researching, let alone publicizing, positive impacts of CO₂. This is even more so the case today given a massive environmental activist and "green energy" lobby whose subsidized and mandated existence depends on CO₂ having catastrophic climate impacts. Thus there is a tendency to fund negative research about the impacts of CO₂—and not to fund positive or neutral research.[1]

Chapter 9. Rising CO₂ Levels: The Full Context

This chapter is focused on arguing that any restrictions placed on fossil fuels in the aim of lessening the harmful effects of rising CO₂ levels in the world does not properly take into account the benefits of climate mastery from fossil fuel generated power as well as the mobility (to move away from coasts or to move food and supplies to coasts and at-risk areas) offered only by fossil fueled methods of human transport.[1] This chapter aimed also to look into the arguments made most specifically around CO₂ and argues that in fact, contrary to the mainstream views about CO₂ being almost universally a harm for the world, that there are numerous benefits, including that CO₂ is "plant food" and therefore crops and plant life do far better with higher levels of CO₂ present for plants to make use of.[1]

Part 4

Chapter 10. Maximizing Flourishing Through Energy Freedom

Chapter 10 is where Epstein argues that there are other, more pressing, problems than rising CO₂ levels or other aspects of human impact on the climate. Such issues according to Epstein include: "...antibiotic resistant bacteria, growing government deficits, and the rise of dictatorial nations."[1] Epstein confidently asserts however, that an "empowered world", or one that makes full use of the most cost-effective energy sources at its disposal either through direct extraction or trade, is one that is best situated to deal with these kinds of problems or other unforeseen potential problems that may arise.[1] Epstein also argues for the main problem being government policies that restrict the main power sources for massive power growth, mainly, fossil fuel use in a liberated fashion, and nuclear power when possible, mainly as a supplement to fossil fuels according to Epstein.[1]

This chapter also explains why, in Epstein's view, that the United States has been one of the top producers of alternative oil and gas products in the decades beginning from the early 2000s onwards, and he says, "the reason is freedom", in other words, free market regulatory environments allowed for exploration and development of new methods of producing and extracting oil and gas products in innovative ways that other countries, more regulated and restrictive than the United States, have not allowed their would-be entrepreneurial citizens to take advantage of and innovate.[1] Also, property rights, including property rights to all the minerals and substances below the surface of the earth, is somewhat unique to the United States, Epstein argues, and that this uniquely incentivizes American entrepreneurs forward to create innovative techniques such as fracking:

Why has the United States been the overwhelming source of innovation in oil and gas extraction, from the birth of the oil industry in 1859 to the fracking revolution that has turned once-useless rocks into vast supplies of life-giving low-cost energy? The reason is freedom—in the above cases, the freedom to own and develop underground minerals. In most countries around the world, the government claims ownership to everything below the surface of the earth—which means that if someone has an idea for a new method of cost-effective oil exploration or drilling, they are not free to implement that idea on their own land or contract to try it out on someone else's land. Instead, they must get the permission of a government—which, historically, is not forthcoming for new methods. Under U.S. law you are free to implement any method you identify for how to cost-effectively explore and drill for oil—so long as you persuade other free people to cooperate, from landowners to investors to employees. And if your idea produces value, you are free to keep and enjoy that value. This kind of freedom maximizes the amount of good ideas that are identified and implemented—just as freedom does in the computer industry, in the medical device industry, and in the mobile phone industry.[1]

Chapter 11. Reframing the Conversation and Arguing to 100

The last chapter of the book summarizes and closes out the arguments made in the preceding chapters. Primarily Epstein focuses in chapter 11 on restating the importance of convincing individuals to not be worried about fossil fuels, and to even move towards their advocacy when and where possible.[1] Epstein argues that corporations serve as one of the largest threats, since substantial amounts of corporate money from many different companies in the West is now being spent to advance an anti-fossil fuel "ESG" (environmental, social, and governance) agenda, to the great detriment to human flourishing and prosperity in Epstein's view:

In the realm of advocacy, the corporate push for fossil fuel elimination adds massive firepower to the anti-fossil fuel movement, because vast resources and credibility of the world's leading companies are being harnessed to support anti-fossil fuel propaganda and policies. To take just one example of the scale of this, Jeff Bezos—in my view one of the greatest producers to ever live—has pledged $10 billion to "fight climate change," money that will overwhelmingly go to "green" (including anti-nuclear) groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and World Wildlife Fund, both of which got initial $100 million grants from Bezos.[1]

Reception

The book received mixed and contradictory reviews.[2]

Economist Tyler Cowen, writing in his blog Marginal Revolution offered a mix of praise and criticism, stating that "Why could he not have had the subtitle: “Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas for a while, and Then Less”?  Then I would be happier.  In economic language, you could say he is not considering enough of the margins."[3] Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and someone who, like Epstein, is considered part of the community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, wrote a critical review of the book, saying that Epstein's arguments are based on faulty logic and that his observation that the Industrial Revolution was the result of fossil fuels does not support his conclusion that they are necessary in the future.[2]

The libertarian Ayn Rand Institute praised the book saying, "A Powerful, Must-Read Defense of Fossil Fuels."[4] The conservative non-profit organization Capital Research Center said of the book that, "Epstein is a self-described philosopher, not a scientist, and he writes for the layman. He likes to describe scientific concepts in useful ways (e.g., energy as “machine calories”) that transform an opaque topic into something tangible."[5] A mixed criticism of the book came from Jordan McGillis; writing for City Journal, a publication of the conservative think-tank the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, McGillis praised the way the book celebrated the achievements of fossil fuels, and described the book as advocating a "pro-human" lens, but criticized it for creating a false dichotomy.[6] Sources from within the fossil fuel industry, meanwhile, were universally positive in their reception of Epstein's work.[7][8][9][10][11]

Left-wing media sources were more critical of the book including Vox, stating that the book, and Epstein more generally offers a form of "complacent optimism."[12] Slate also criticized the book stating, "This New Style of Climate Denial Will Make You Wish the Bad Old Days Were Back."[13] Also, Foreign Policy called the book a sequel to the "flawed" arguments of Epstein's first book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.[14] Lastly, The New Republic said of the book that, "We may all start hearing about [Alex Epstein] more often because the time is ripe for his particular brand of fossil fuel boosterism to become the GOP's mainstream climate talking point."[15]

See also

• The Skeptical Environmentalist
• Global Crises, Global Solutions
• Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

References

1. Epstein, Alex (2022). Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas - Not Less. Portfolio / Penguin (published May 24, 2022). ISBN 978-0-593-42041-6.
2. "Terence Corcoran: New debate over the future of fossil fuels". Yahoo Finance. 2023-02-08. Retrieved 2024-01-29. On its release early in 2022, Fossil Future received contradictory pro and con reviews.
3. Cowen, Tyler (2023-01-31). "Alex Epstein's *Fossil Future*". Marginal REVOLUTION. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
4. "Fossil Future: A Powerful, Must-Read Defense of Fossil Fuels". 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
5. "Book Review: Fossil Future -Capital Research Center". capitalresearch.org. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
6. "Are Fossil Fuels the Wave of the Future?". City Journal. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
7. "Today's high prices and shortages are a function of the global anti-fossil fuel movement | BOE Report". boereport.com. 2022-11-01. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
8. "Alex Epstein- hydrocarbons and human flourishing "Hockey Sticks"". Oil & Gas 360. 2022-09-30. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
9. "The Irrefutable Case for a Fossil Future - Alex Epstein". Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow.com. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
10. Kingston, John (2023-11-08). "Epstein lays out benefits — and morality — of fossil fuel use". FreightWaves. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
11. Vaccaro, Nick (2023-03-09). "Taking a Philosophical Stance in Justifying Fossil Fuel Use - OILMAN Magazine". Retrieved 2024-01-29.
12. Ritchie, Hannah (2023-03-13). "We need the right kind of climate optimism". Vox. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
13. Pahwa, Nitish (2022-05-31). "This New Style of Climate Denial Will Make You Wish the Bad Old Days Were Back". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
14. Chung, Suhaas Bhat, Connor (2024-02-06). "Should We Burn More Fossil Fuels, Not Less?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
15. Taft, Molly; Featherstone, Liza; Aronoff, Kate (2022-10-21). "The GOP Darling Who Claims Fossil Fuels Are Good for Humanity". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2024-01-29.