I’m currently most of the way through Alex Epstein’s Fossil Future, and I find the arguments within very convincing.
In (extreme) brevity, they are:
Fossil Fuel use and the cheap energy it enables is responsible for unprecedented human flourishing for billions. Billions more need access to ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy to flourish.
Any argument against fossil fuel use must argue that its side effects (CO2 warming the planet) overwhelm the good they do by providing cheap energy. These side effects must be so bad that it’s worth compromising the safety and flourishing of billions of humans to curtail their use. Such an argument must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.
No such argument is justifiable, given the current state of climate science.
Does anyone (preferably those who’ve read the book, although I don’t want to restrict answers to just those people) have an opposing view/opinion, and if so why?
I’d like to do my intellectual homework on this one, and actively seek disagreement, given how convincing I’ve found the argument so far.
[Question] Arguments Against Fossil Future?
I’m currently most of the way through Alex Epstein’s Fossil Future, and I find the arguments within very convincing.
In (extreme) brevity, they are:
Fossil Fuel use and the cheap energy it enables is responsible for unprecedented human flourishing for billions. Billions more need access to ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy to flourish.
Any argument against fossil fuel use must argue that its side effects (CO2 warming the planet) overwhelm the good they do by providing cheap energy. These side effects must be so bad that it’s worth compromising the safety and flourishing of billions of humans to curtail their use. Such an argument must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.
No such argument is justifiable, given the current state of climate science.
Does anyone (preferably those who’ve read the book, although I don’t want to restrict answers to just those people) have an opposing view/opinion, and if so why?
I’d like to do my intellectual homework on this one, and actively seek disagreement, given how convincing I’ve found the argument so far.