Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy

by Stephen Moore, Kathleen Hartnett White

Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free.

Genres: Nonfiction

328 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 5, 2016

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Stephen Moore is an American economist who advocates free-market policies and limited government. He has a B.A. from the University of Illinois and an M.A. from George Mason University. Moore is the founder of two political advocacy groups: the Club for Growth and the Free Enterprise Fund.

Reviews

[Abby · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author presented many arguments, none of which I agreed with before or after reading this book. The author was extremely biased and generally unlikeable.

[Jerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Energy remains an elusive concept, easily misunderstood by policy makers who would impose grand plans on society.

Ubiquitous and reliable electrical power lays at the foundation of modern civilization. We cannot make good public policy decisions about energy production without an understanding of basic physics, such as power density and conservation of energy. The difference between energy concentrated over a few hours, over a few millennia, and over millions of years is between power sources that require a huge human footprint over fertile land, and that require practically no human footprint.

But it isn’t just the physics. It is also necessary to understand just how much our society depends at almost every level on energy being there reliably, on demand, and in any quantity. And there’s basic economics, such as where the money is. When we subsidize something expensive from taxes we are transferring wealth from the middle class to the rich.

In fact, what we call the Industrial Revolution might be more aptly called the Great Energy Enrichment.

The great energy density of fossil fuels compared with the low density of the renewables we’d been using ended slavery and child labor, saved the whales, saved innumerable forests, and vastly reduced income inequality through the creation of a middle class.

Our carbon footprint shrinks our physical footprint. The reason is the high concentration of energy in fossil fuels. The way renewable energy is defined—crops, wind, and solar—requires massive physical footprints. And burning trees only trades massive forest land for low carbon if you use the creative bookkeeping that says a tree burned today doesn’t add carbon if you plant a tree tomorrow that grows back in several decades or over a century.

But the unreliability of wind and solar means requiring the wood, as burning wood is at least reliable. Because of this, many parts of Europe are finding it more difficult than the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The more they move to wind and solar, the more wood and coal they have to burn; but in the United States,

Increased use of natural gas now abundant from shale is already cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other major country—thanks to shale gas.

Cutting trees instead of using fossil fuels at least only harms forest creatures; converting crop land from food production to ethanol literally takes food from starving people, both by reducing the quantity available, and raising the price of what remains available.

The move to renewable energy sources—as the term is defined today by governments—is an attempt to turn back the clock, to take land that would either remain pristine or be used to feed the world, and use it for energy production—for corn and for wood (euphemistically called biomass). By mandating such energy sources over fossil fuels, the United Nations holds developing countries in a state of energy poverty, resulting in death, starvation, and abject poverty. It takes reliable energy to heat cold houses and cool hot ones; it takes reliable energy to pump water to food crops; it takes reliable energy to access the vast information source known as the Internet, to transfer food and clothing to where and when it is needed.

The authors are particularly critical of ethanol mandates.

Using hundreds of millions of acres of fertile agricultural land to produce transportation fuel is a throwback to a time when our needs for food, mechanical energy, and fuel competed for the produce of a fixed amount of land.

But their main argument is twofold: one, that most of the push toward renewables as it is defined today is a retrogression.

For many centuries mankind relied on what is now called “renewable energy”—windmills, wood, water, and the sun. The notion that green energy is “in its infancy” is laughable. These sources of energy go back thousands of years. … The inherent limitations of wind and solar are physically intractable. We are facing a regression to the limited energy horizons of pre-industrial societies.

These sources cannot maintain civilization the way we currently envision it; while our phones, for example, might appear to be low-power devices, they rely on data centers which decidedly are not.

“The average square foot of data center uses 100-200 times more electricity than does a square foot of a model office building. Put another way, a tiny few thousand square foot data room uses more electricity than lighting up a one hundred thousand square foot shopping mall.”

Wind turbines and solar panels cannot power data centers. Google tried it, and it was a complete flop. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear are the only generating sources right now that can reliably power the data centers.

And two, that any successful electrical power source must be available when people need it, rather than requiring people to need it when the power is available.

“There are two essential facts to understand about electrical power. It cannot be stored on any appreciable scale and it cannot be spilled. As a consequence, power must be produced as required instantaneously; any deviation affects system frequency… that sustain generation output.”

There is also a very nice short history of the development hydraulic fracturing; how it was abandoned by large businesses but jumpstarted by innovative individual entrepreneurs.

Regardless of where a person stands on renewable energy vs. fossil fuels, it is essential that we understand the basics of how power is generated and what resources that generation uses; and how power is used by people and why. Without that understanding, we are likely to cause the very problems we want to solve. This book is a great step toward that understanding.

[Ann Bridges · Rating 3 out of 5]

Moore makes a convincing argument about how fossil fuels are the engine behind the incredible increase in standard of living across the globe in the 19th and 20th centuries. While much accolades are given to the brains behind the inventions, it is also true that without harnessing power beyond human and animal muscles, we would not be much further along--certainly, we'd still be earthbound. We need to stand up and applaud those who got their hands dirty powering our revolutions--industrial AND technological--and make sure we don't retrace our progress with the desire for perfection. I personally have faith in humankind's ingenuity, and if the new reserves of natural gas and advances in safe Thorium-based nuclear power are given the chance to provide us with dirt cheap energy, I say go for it!

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good, albeit very repetitive, book. It basically divides in to three main points, although the internal structure of the book is almost non-existent (the terrible execution of the book will hamper the effectiveness of this book's message, I fear). The first main point is that fossil fuels, and the energy gained from them, has done more to lift mankind out of subsistence poverty than anything else in world history (and probably more than EVERYthing else in world history). The second main point is that current plans to curtail fossil fuels' use in an attempt to lower carbon emissions is a total joke. One, it is probably immoral because it is denying life and liberty to those who have not yet been reached the full potential that fossil fuels can bring. Two, because more CO2 in the atmosphere will almost certainly be a boon to human flourishing. The third main point is that there is at least $50 TRILLION worth of fossil fuels under federal land, waiting to be produced. Federal licensing fees and corporate income tax on those who would produce these fuels could almost by themselves eliminate our current national debt, or be used to lower taxes, build infrastructure, you name it. Unfortunately, the current administration wants to keep it all in the ground. Let's hope the next guy reads this book, or at least invites the author for a "chat" at his Tower.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors very convincingly present the case not only for not rolling back, but for increasing, the widespread use of fossil fuels. This is outright heresy in most quarters of the modern world, but most, if not all, of the "green" orthodoxy with which we have been inculcated is based on faulty logic, hyperbole, misrepresentation, or outright lies. Moore and White tackle these one at a time, clearly, and convincingly.

Two things did peeve me a little, however. First, the authors tend to repeat themselves in successive chapters, and sometimes even in successive paragraphs. Also, the copy editing was a little sloppy. Misspellings, misplaced pronunciations, grammatical errors, etc., tend to be distracting from an otherwise great read.

I read this immediately after The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein, which was intended for a somewhat wider audience, and is frankly written a little better, in my opinion. I can also recommend Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future by Robert Bryson, for an extremely informative introduction to the whole issue of energy resources that likewise runs counter to the prevailing orthodoxy of the day.

[Joe Bags · Rating 4 out of 5]

Educational, interesting, and a bit bias.

I read this book in ignorance of what's going on with the energy industry. I thought that green energy was good, and still do. But this book presents the facts that green energy still needs some more technological advances before we can really rely on it. "Coal keeps the lights on" and along with oil and natural gas, these 3 resources are vital for our country. Facts, charts, and some history help make this book believable, with a good list of sources. Only complaint is the bias standpoint. Didn't really adhere to the opposing side, rather beat it into the ground with a 'your all dumb' hammer. But hey, all in all, bravo.

[Wayne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bogus book that hadn't aged well. Author implies that those looking to replace fossil fuels disregard history. The details they provide about green energy are clearly not the whole story - now with their incredible cost savings it turns this story on its head.

[Roberto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unrivaled research of "what we don't hear on the mainstream media" regarding "green energy".

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit repetitive and biased but certainly eye opening comments about the value of fossil fuels and why the world cannot run with wind and sun alone

[Vance Ginn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors, Kathleen Hartnett White and Steve Moore, provide a thorough historical and economic perspective on the benefit of fossil fuels.

By taking a deep look into the efficiency of energy sources and costs of producing them, the authors show that fossil fuels are the lifeblood of the US economy. This really started around the time of the Industrial Revolution, which the authors connect with the rise of fossil fuels as a primary factor that drives economic prosperity.

Many countries and politicians have tried to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources, but these are less efficient and more costly forms of energy that will bankrupt a country and leave a population poorer. Instead, politicians should embrace fossil fuels as the path towards prosperity that is met with the elimination of market distorting subsidies for all energy sources and less government regulation, including allowing drilling on federal lands.

This is a though-provoking book that should be read by all. There's much that we can learn from the benefits of fossil fuels.

[Ronald J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good follow-up to "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." Also does a good job debunking climate change, and discussing the "science" behind how fossil fuels save lives and lift the poor. Also lays out a plan at the end of the book to tap USA energy resources and shrink our debt.

[Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sorry to tell my Tesla friends that they may not be leaving the small carbon footprint they think. Two thirds of electricity comes from coal and natural gas. The electricity doesn't come from the plug!