Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A High-Test Success

epstein-rallyAlex Epstein’s new bestselling book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels has been extraordinarily successful to date, and its success appears to be going nowhere but up. As just a few indicators:

  • John Stossel devoted an op-ed to discussing the book and summarized its message: “Fossil fuels are no catastrophe. They contribute to health and a better life.” Stossel also had Epstein as a guest on Stossel last Thursday.
  • Robert Zubrin writes for National Review: “Epstein presents . . . a powerful, systematic, and relentlessly logical philosophical case for the moral value of the fossil-fuel industry.”
  • Economist Bryan Caplan writes, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is the best book I’ve read all year, combining an important topic, thought-provoking evidence, and charming style.”

The success of Epstein’s book is largely a consequence of the fact that it is accessible and free from jargon and overly technical language, and the fact that it presents its major themes with crystal clarity.

Epstein focuses on two essential points: We should consider the profound benefits of fossil fuels, not just its costs and problems; and we should measure these benefits and costs by the standard of human life, not untouched nature. Epstein reviews relevant scientific and historical facts in view of those major themes.

With this book, Epstein has not only changed the debate on fossil fuels and seized the moral high ground for those who produce, use, and champion those fuels; he has also set a high bar for intellectual activism and provided a great example for intellectuals (and activists in general) who want to promote policies consonant with reason and human life.

If you haven’t yet read Epstein’s remarkable book, do yourself a favor and get a copy today.



Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Anonymous posts are not permitted; commenters must use their real names. To be considered for posting, a comment must be civil, substantive, on topic, and no longer than 400 words. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, off-topic comments, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article will be deleted. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.