“Humans are not unthinkingly destroying nature. Climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, and species extinction are not, fundamentally, consequences of greed or hubris but rather side effects of economic development motivated by a humanistic desire to improve people’s lives.”
- Apocalypse Never
As European nations ponder sanctions against Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, some find themselves in an uncomfortable position. Having rid their countries of cheap and abundant energy in the name of climate change, a significant supply of their energy demand is now being met through Russian markets. In fact, twelve countries alone get most of their natural gas from Putin, with many more reliant, in significant part, on Russian supplies. Moreover, after decades of bans on nuclear power, and ongoing rejection of fossil fuels, many European nations continue, instead, to put more of their eggs in the renewable energy basket, a backup solution, at best.
Duped by every apocalyptic warning about the inevitability of everything from famines, floods, overpopulation, and resource depletion, nations are now finding that much of what they relied upon was completely wrong. Activists, too, have ignored the significant improvements in everything from decreases in climate deaths to reductions in carbon emissions, and increased prosperity even during periods of population increase. Indeed, climate policies including carbon taxes and a shift to renewable energy have only resulted in an increased cost of energy, more reliance on fossil fuels, and a billion-dollar renewable energy business chomping at the bit.
In Michael Shellenberger’s 2020 book, “Apocalypse Never”, Shellenberger reviews the endless doomsday claims coming from environmental activists and global organizations that continue to persist despite a complete lack of findings. Instead, he reveals how the resulting green policies actually produced worse results than the climate change predictions themselves. And for all of the incessant fearmongering, the best solutions to overcome their warming claims are being both maligned and phased out. The reality is the world needs more energy not less. And because of that, we must examine the facts and fallacies surrounding the climate change agenda before the time to restore our prosperity runs out.
The environmental movement’s oft-repeated goal is the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, to lower or outright eliminate carbon emissions. The wrinkle is, of course, despite decades of hype, nearly 80 percent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas. The substitutes most popular to environmentalists, solar and wind, require large plots of land and are intermittent and expensive. By 2018, after decades of renewable investment, global solar and wind energy provided just 3 percent of needed resources. Alternately, hydropower, fossil fuels and nuclear take up only .2 percent of land and provide not only primary energy for the world but augment supplies when renewables fail. In the hierarchy of energy sources based on density/maximum power, nuclear (92.5), outperforms all other options including wind (35.4) and solar (24.9), both of which reside at the bottom.
Once favored nuclear power has seen an unfortunate setback based largely on unsubstantiated fears, despite its position as the best option to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear requires little land, expels little waste, and is zero carbon. Today, less than 9 percent of energy in the US comes from nuclear, with only 4 percent providing supplies worldwide. Since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, no further plants have been built, nor are any scheduled. Two other famous nuclear accidents, one in Chernobyl in 1986 and the other in Fukushima in 2011 have added to the discredit of nuclear as a viable option, even though the fallout from these incidents was less lethal than originally claimed. Nuclear is cheaper than natural gas and coal and is currently the most reliable source of energy. While the public’s ongoing fears of nuclear accidents may be delaying its return, the real reluctance may be much more sinister. Nuclear power’s ability to create cheap energy may result in increased freedom for too many people, and thereby, threaten the entrenched power of global institutions. It’s easier to control a world lacking than one that is thriving.
And then, of course, there’s the money. Big Green is big business, with powerful interest groups continually lobbying Congress for a near-unlimited supply of taxpayer money. And why not? When you kill nuclear and fossil fuels, they must be replaced; and that shifts tens of billions of dollars to either natural gas or renewables. Neither, however, provides the abundance of energy needed throughout the world. And neither can do it with as little carbon or without a major increase in the cost of energy. It is indisputable, that when renewables fail, fossil fuels save the day.
Unfortunately for the green activists, growing evidence suggests that the best way to overcome climate change is economic development. Prosperity increases wealth, which improves society. It builds the roads, improves sanitation, and results in better and more abundant energy sources. Developing nations need safer buildings to prevent catastrophes from natural disasters, and superior waste management systems to move sewage and prevent pollution in oceans. Meeting current needs will require more energy production, not less, making carbon emissions a byproduct of the increased consumption needed to bring about desired prosperity.
The battle over the environment has little to do with finding the best energy options. The dispute instead seems to be whether it’s better to improve the condition of humankind or limit both its development and expansion. To enhance life is to increase consumption, and the greater the lifestyle, the more energy is needed. And with efficient energy comes a demand for more. But that’s not necessarily bad. Human progress protects nature in the end, by creating enough prosperity to produce alternatives that don’t result in the depletion of our natural resources.
Comments