A Review of The Moral Case for FossilFuels, Alex Epstein (2014, 256 pages), as published in Alternatives Journal, December, 2015, by Andrew Welch.
Alex Epstein wants to shake up the way that
we think about fossil fuels and challenge what behaviours we consider moral and
immoral. In his book The Moral Case
for Fossil Fuels, he proposes reframing the conflict of environmentalists
versus the hydrocarbon industry. It’s
not a question of fossil fuel usage being good or bad – it’s a question of what
standard of value we are using to judge it.
I agree.
The author is a self-labeled humanist – a term he uses to describe
someone who “treats the rest of nature as something to use for his benefit; the
nonhumanist treats the rest of nature
as something that must be served.” What
may at first appear to be conceit actually makes sense if we look deep enough
inside the value system of most humans.
He argues that we should all hold human life as our one and only
standard of value.
I believe this is a must-read book for
environmentalists and climate change activists, but it won’t be an easy
read. Firstly, it’s hard to read
anything that contradicts your strongly-held beliefs; however, questioning
those beliefs is essential to gaining a truly balanced perspective. Secondly, Epstein clearly targets an audience
on the totally opposite end of the spectrum, opening with ‘proving’ that all
the so-called ‘experts’ preaching the
supposed detrimental impacts of
rampant fossil fuel consumption are dead wrong and always have been. (The ironic single-quotes and sneering
italics are his frequent literary devices, not mine.) Thirdly, although he conveniently lists the
most common logical fallacies that surface in this debate, he happily (and
frustratingly) employs each one in his own arguments.
Epstein is a practical philosopher and that’s
where he shines. He’s not a scientist,
and when he attempts to take on science, his misuse and misrepresentation of
statistics and data is unmistakable and shoddy.
Like every other non-scientist (and, sadly, some scientists) he chooses
policy-based evidence over evidence-based policy. To be fair, it’s a habit all humans have:
being blind to evidence that contradicts our beliefs. Furthermore, he does also present facts that
many activists choose not to see.
However, he’s also happy to make up his own, such as “if there is no
equal or superior alternative, then any government action against fossil fuels
… is a guaranteed early death sentence
for bill ions.”
The book is highly critical of mainstream
thought leaders because they’re always preaching the costs of fossil fuels and
never the benefits. This is quite true,
and while the reason might be not so much a bias as a tacit acceptance that
such benefits go without saying, if we don’t consciously consider them, it may
well skew our perspective. Fossil fuels
have made near-miraculous contributions to our standard of living in the last
two centuries, and anyone who says we should stop using them needs to have
their arguments seriously questioned.
Fair enough.
Accepting that there are errors and bias on
both sides, I’d rather review the essence of his argument – that being, in his
words: “Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is
supremely virtuous – because human life is the standard of value, and because
using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human
life.” And consequently, we should burn
more, not less.
The problem is the standard he has chosen
to judge our morality as a species. He
may be a humanist, but his goodness indicators are entirely quantitative measures:
More people, living more years, earning more money, to buy more stuff –
all good. For example, the only scale he
uses (repeatedly) to measure safety is number of deaths (including life
expectancy and infant mortality) – never health. Happiness?
Quality of life versus standard of living? Those he avoids entirely. By his singular measure of success, a planet
with 120 bill ion extravagant consumers, living 150 years each should be a
stunningly better place for all (all humans, that is). It’s a deeply-flawed more-is-always-better
approach for an author who claims to be writing about morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment
[Dear Reader: I would *love* to receive your comments, but NOTE: Blogger will only accept comments here if your browser's Third Party Cookie blocking is turned OFF (even if just temporarily). Sorry! Not my software...]