Alex’s sequel to “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” is called “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less” and it systematically destroys the “anti-human impact” (watermelon) myths.

I absolutely love the terms he coins for the perspectives in the book — either you’re about “human flourishing” and cost-effective hydrocarbons that efficiently and cheaply power human progress and improvement or you’re about minimizing the impact humans make on planet earth, regardless of what that means to the benefit of species.

Alex does an extremely thorough job of analyzing the complete cost-benefit analysis of hydrocarbons vs. alternatives.  Just as you can imagine with what we’ve seen in the past three years of Covid-19 medical establishment fear-porn, the narrative is formed by captured special interests that have very little to do with the actual truth.

These “anti-impact” interests use propaganda to generate fear and hysteria via a whole lot of simplistic tropes, superficial research that doesn’t account for all of the costs and impacts related to alternatives, and skewed objectives that have nothing to do with improving the human condition writ large but instead minimizing how we change the earth from its natural, inhospitable-to-humanity state.

As a side note, I do not use “fossil fuels” to describe hydrocarbons even though it has unfortunately been a mainstream but most likely incorrect and unscientifically sound term for quite some time.  We’ve let the watermelons redefine our vocabulary with Orwellian Newspeak words for way too long.  Thomas Gold’s book “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth Of Fossil Fuels” does more than enough to provide evidence that hydrocarbons are not the byproduct of biological debris, but are a common constituent of the materials from which the earth itself was formed some 4.5 billion years ago.  For all intents and purposes, there are no limitations to that supply for human consumption for centuries, if not millennia.