Hacker News Books

It wasn't a rounding error, the wind wasn't blowing, which is the problem with these renewables, they don't work when the wind doesn't blow.

If you are really open to a different framework for analyzing energy policies, I recommend The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein.

Alex Epstien, who is widely despised, has written, in The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels that to withhold cheap abundant energy, and the technology it enables, from the world's emerging populations is immoral and fundamentally anti-human. Supported by people who think this Earth would be a much better place if Man never set his filthy foot upon it.

You might want to read "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" for a slightly less dire perspective.

It's worth pointing out here that, thousands of years ago, Colorado was under water. While a case can be made for human-influenced climate change, it's still a fact that the earth's climate also changes on its own. If we're going to be here (which seems likely), we have to adapt to that.

Most people are not willing to give up the benefits of fossil fuel (which has improved every area of our life from the food supply to medicine and housing) in order to try and stave-off the inevitable changes, whether they're caused by humans or not. A good book on this subject is The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

But civilization itself depends upon free trade, industry, and cheap energy.

http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/

"With more politicians in climate science than scientists, the refining fire of debate has devolved into the burning of heretics. Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels may make your blood boil, but his cool reason and cold, hard facts will lead us beyond hysterics to a much better future." - Peter Thiel

I would suggest that anyone here who trashes the fossil fuel industry read "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" before they continue such trashing. They don't necessarily have to agree with it, but they should at least read it.

I've read it, and do you know why? Because I saw an article somewhere which was just vehemently hating on the book (or more specifically its author, IIRC), and since I'd never heard of it before - and since much of that hate didn't seem to be terribly coherent to me - I went ahead and read the book for myself. I'm weird that way.

The author merely repeats the current costs of renewable energy. He makes no argument that would support the statement that "they were never mean to sustain society." That's a huge leap.

A good book on this subject (despite several errors and gaps in honesty) is The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

While I agree that fossil fuels will and probably should rule the roost for quite a while, it's a bit extreme to suggest that we will never develop a cheaper, non-polluting form of energy. Tesla (Nikolai) thought we would.

If you'd like to get a good overview of the case for fossil fuels, check out The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein. [1]

Here is a video trailer for the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu6637cjk8A

Edit: This interview with Dave Rubin may also be helpful in understanding the other point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

For anyone interested in this topic I would recommend reading "The moral case for fossil fuels". It gives a big picture look of this problem in the context of human flourishing. As someone who had only ever been exposed to the gloom and doom predictions like this article it was a refreashingly clearly thought and precisely structured counter argument.

Try to look from another lens.

Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society. They want accountability from others, but not themselves. How many have done the calculations to work out the second and third order effects of their zero fossil fuel agenda?

Many of the most ardent callers for climate action are themselves not even climate scientists, but merely offload their thought processing to the intellectuals who are. Almost without fail, neither them, nor the intellectual are educated in economics.

The reality is that nobody can work out the second and effects and so on for these drastic changes, because they have incomplete information. The intellectuals and 'thought leaders' themselves have a fraction of a percent of the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity. The knowledge is very widely distributed, which is why central planning is less efficient than the market almost all of the time.

The tension isn't caused by the "status quo" fighting back. It is caused by hysterics calling for action on things they know nothing about. How many extinction rebellion fanatics have read The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels? It's not like they would if they were recommended it - the mere name will put them off because they have a preconceived notion and will ardently resist any information which is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in themselves.

Which tells you everything you need to know.

It isn't intellectualism driving them - it is misplaced fear due to grossly exaggerated climate scare claims, drummed up by the status-quo.

Almost always, it is the same crowds who babble on about equality and wealth distribution too. Many of them from wealthy or middle-classes, who have resources to help the people they claim to want to help, but rarely, if ever, engage in altruistic acts of voluntary work or charity because they'd rather spend the time talking about it. They won't put their own money or action where their mouths are, but demand it of others - many of whom are not in such fortunate positions.

You posted a blog post by a Randian climate change denier who authored a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

I'm assuming you just searched for the first article that tries to spin Apple's environmental efforts negatively and that you don't actually endorse anything he wrote.

If in fact you do, consider this: when you deposit cash in an ATM on one side of town and withdraw it from another on the other side of town, the cash may not be physically the same cash you deposited. Electrons work the same way.