I’ve nearly finished reading ‘Fossil Future” by Alex Epstetein. A premise examined throughout the book is that there are two competing ideologies that are generally used in characterizing nature and how mankind’s energy use fits with the chosen ideology.
One of the ideas, said to be anti human in the book, characterizes nature as a delicate nurturer of living things. In delicate balance, easily becoming dangerous, when impacted by man. Tends to favour relatively unreliable wind and solar energy production. Paying attention to their benefits, but not negatives, such as the need for fossil fuel built distribution infrastructure, production of wind or solar farm materials, lack of recycling, unfair incentives, or side effects. Pointing out possible harms of fossil fuels while ignoring the many benefits and climate adaption they make possible.
The other idea, said to prioritize human flourishing, is that nature has always been a challenge to the survival and flourishing of mankind . Though fossil fuel use mankind has been able to flourish by precaution, and adaption to environmental challenges. Increased food production. Sanitation, clean water, heating/ cooling, building materials and construction for resilience and insulation, affordable clothing, materials and pharmaceuticals
Shows the dilemma is not about facts alone