Alex Epstein is not, and has never been, Credible on Energy or Climate.
Epstein is a classic case of the fossil fuel apologist — someone for whom, whatever the problem, the solution is to burn more fossil fuels. His arguments are some combination of disingenuous, bad, specious, or plain wrong. He[1] is emblematic of a class of detractors on climate action.
Lets’ take a look at a few of these lousy arguments in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. These criticisms hold to pretty much anything the man says.
There are three main lines of argument.
First, because previous predictions of catastrophe did not come to pass, we should ignore the current rings of climate alarm — and burn more fossil fuels. Second, because increased carbon emissions closely track measures of human well-being — including a drop in climate-related deaths — we should burn more fossil fuels. Third, since solar and wind have not yet stepped up to the plate to replace fossil fuels, we can assume they won’t — and burn more fossil fuels. Each of these arguments is wrong. Let’s take them one at a time.
1. Previous cries of alarm didn’t pan out, so we can safely ignore current warnings. Epstein cites as evidence news reports of claims of impending catastrophe by NASA scientist Jim Hansen and journalist Bill McKibben. A single extravagant quote is no more counterevidence of climate risk than a cool day in July. Professional risk management doesn’t entail picking out a data point or quote you happen to like. Crop insurers don’t estimate weather risk by saying, “The last time someone said there would be a drought, it rained!” Climate risk is gauged by the preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence gathered over decades by experts across many disciplines. Consensus expert opinion as reflected in groups like the IPCC underwrites climate risk — not Epstein’s flippant selection of extravagant headlines.
2. Since carbon emissions are correlated with increased well-being, we should burn more of the stuff. There are two glaring errors here.
First, carbon emissions are only indirect evidence of the harm fossil fuels do and are displaced significantly in time. It’s not the emissions we’re worried about, it’s the altered climate those emissions bring about, which occurs significantly later than the emissions.
Second, he confuses correlation for causation; it’s not carbon emissions that bring well-being, it’s the energy those emissions represent. Which is why Epstein also needs his final argument below.
3. Since solar and wind haven’t yet stepped up to replace fossil fuels, we can safely assume they won’t. The fact that solar and wind have not yet dom- inated energy production is irrelevant; all that means is we’ve only just started on the job. If I have a marathon to run, and someone spots me only one kilometer in, does that mean I’m not going the rest of the way? Aside from all those accelerating, non-linear graphs showing explosive growth in wind, solar, batteries, EV’s and now heat-pumps — looking in the rearview mirror is not the best way to gauge where you’re going.
All of Epstein’s mistakes can be characterized as errors of inductive logic. The philosopher David Hume pointed out the problem of induc- tion way back in the eighteenth century: just because every swan you’ve seen so far is white, does not mean all swans are white; a single counter- example upsets the hypothesis. Best to find independent reasons as to why swans are white to buttress the argument. In each of Epstein’s arguments, he takes a tiny piece of data and uses it — incorrectly — to make broad claims. A few reports of failed predictions imply all predictions are invalid. A few examples of emissions correlated with well-being means they are causally and inextricably linked. A few years of solar and wind being outcompeted means they always will be. Very sloppy thinking for a self-proclaimed philosopher.
Furthermore, these are not independent arguments. Epstein needs all three to hold for his conclusion. If any of the following three statements is true, his house of cards collapses: climate risk is significant; the harm from carbon emissions is not instantaneous; clean energy has a real shot at powering the developing world. All three look true to me, although just one does the trick.
That the arguments taken together are incoherent isn’t important to apologists like Epstein. What’s important is to always land on the conclusion you want. Fossil fuel apologists are guilty of a constructed affect bias. Affect bias means we’re more likely to believe an argument if we agree with the conclusion. By constructed affect bias, I mean apologists construct arguments with the express purpose of coming to a conclusion they like. A key test is whether any data or argument would convince them otherwise. I’ve never found that to be the case. Hence, either their thinking is faulty or they’re lying.
It’s true fossil fuels are useful, and they will be hard to replace. It’s equally true Climate Capitalism must accommodate the energy needs of the developing world. But that’s the beginning of the story, not the end.
The difficulty in replacing them sets a baseline for our ambition, not a limit. Wanting to burn more is like taking another drink in the hopes of delaying or avoiding a hangover. It doesn’t work. Believe me, I’ve tried.
[1] Given Epstein is a self-declared “practical philosopher” who practises “critical thinking,” his book is a uniquely spectacular example of sloppy thinking.
