March 4, 2024

A hydrocarbon-fueled future is alive and well in the eyes of Alex Epstein, author of the 2022 book Fossil Future. I was drawn to this book after watching an interview of the author in which he posits that the human species is morally obliged to provide power and development to the developing nations of the world. To best facilitate human infrastructure and development, we should forge ahead with oil and gas as our primary fuel sources.

It would be easiest to disseminate Epstein’s text by his own standards of reviewing climate change claims:

“1. They give clear explanations of the evidence for their views rather than just invoking authority.” Clear explanations are arguably Epstein’s forte. He proposes a moral argument for fossil fuels, emphasizing that human progress has accelerated through their use. He suggests that substantial infrastructure development–through the use of oil and gas–will help both developed and developing nations. We will adapt to the environment we create with continued economic development, irrespective of how hot it will be.

Some critics of Fossil Future have taken issue with the morality of Epstein’s claims; he essentially disregards mass die-offs of fish and extinction of other species, property loss due to sea-level rise, and exploitation of workers in developing nations to acquire fossil resources. I will not attempt to argue these points. To find any merit in Epstein’s book, one must accept that there will be sacrifices. Epstein’s belief is that the advantages of fossil fuel development dramatically outweigh its drawbacks.

Epstein’s “pro-human” case in the book is over-explained, to the point of redundancy. By his own standard though, he does not lean on authority, and he believes what he says.

“2. They are precise — not sloppy — with terminology, magnitude, and probabilities.” As a PhD student, I might have higher standards in this category than other readers, but some of the data Epstein uses has clearly been misused. For example, his depiction of sea level is misleading. He writes that media pundits catastrophizing about sea level are immoral because sea level is not uniform globally. He shows a graph of sea level over time in six locations, three of which are in areas affected by glacial isostatic adjustment, then claims that sea level should be disregarded as a metric of climate change. This argument lacks depth and overlooks critical factors.

Furthermore, Epstein misuses energy vocabulary. He takes a binary view of energy use, and uses the phrase “net-zero” to mean complete elimination of fossil fuel energy, and replacement by renewables and other sources. This is about as factual as the author’s claim that most global warming will occur at the poles rather than at the equator. Misguided and not at all precise.

“3. They distinguish degrees of known and unknown—in their field and for themselves personally.” Other reviewers have highlighted scientific failings in Epstein’s book. One notable issue is that the author doesn’t discuss the impact of methane, found to have a greater impact on the climate than carbon dioxide. Epstein at one point references carbon dioxide as “plant food”. It is abundantly clear from this book that Epstein did not talk to a single scientist before penning it, nor does he adequately disclose his lack of knowledge on the climate system.

“4. They legitimately engage and address competing viewpoints, without evading, demonizing, or straw-manning them.” Epstein’s representation of climate activists is narrow and often limited to figures like Greta Thunberg or AOC. From my academic vantage point and in particular the climate research space, I can say I have not heard these names mentioned in a professional context in years. Yet, there’s a valid argument that armchair activists, often spared from the worst impacts of climate change, shouldn’t dominate the conversation. Rather than allowing for equal discourse, Epstein of course prefers that their current influence be redistributed to himself and other libertarian commentators.

There is a point to be made that developing nations should have a voice in deciding where and how they get their energy. While I myself won’t claim to speak for the nations of the world, there are many people who’d like to live in the comfort afforded to Americans by fossil fuel use. Furthermore, to claim boldly that oil and gas have no place in modern life while reaping the benefits of decades of post-industrial society (as many young Americans do) is just as laughable as Epstein writes. However, his thesis: “Forge ahead! Damn the climate!” is undeniably reckless.