For decades, left-wing environmentalists have warned against the dangers of climate change, the “existential threat” that must be dealt with immediately in order to avoid a cataclysm of epic proportions. In 1989, a senior U.N official argued that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000” and, in 2009, Al Gore contended that there was “a 75 percent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years.” As recently as 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asserted that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
While a transition to cleaner energy is a noble goal for the future, the left’s radical green energy goals are impractical solutions and dismiss the many benefits that cheap nonrenewable energy have brought to our society. Instead of these policies, we should invest in a technology-based approach to curb emissions in a more practical and moderated manner.
Liberal activists and politicians use apocalyptic threats to push radical climate policies which completely renounce the use of fossil fuels. The CLEAN Future Act introduced by House Democrats in 2021 would restrict electricity suppliers to providing only renewable energy by 2035. Sen. Sanders introduced the Climate Emergency Act of 2021, which would require the president to declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act in response to climate change. Through Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed Green New Deal, America would be forced to net-zero emissions by 2050, requiring the rapid elimination of our coal, oil, and natural gas industries (which comprise roughly 79% of current U.S energy consumption).
For activist Greta Thunberg, even 2050 is not soon enough, “We don’t just need goals for just 2030 or 2050. We, above all, need them for 2020 and every following month and year to come.” Thunberg, whose radical beliefs increasingly align with the American left, believes the current climate ‘crisis’ will soon lead to a “mass extinction”.
Because of this widespread vilification of fossil fuels, it’s important to first acknowledge the immeasurable ways in which cheap, abundant energy has benefited our society. In his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein argues that the fossil fuel industry paired with genetic science are responsible for solving world hunger, allowing food production to outpace our exponentially growing world population. He cites the implementation of oil-powered mechanization of farmland cultivation, oil-based transportation in produce delivery, and gas-based fertilization of crops in allowing the tremendous increase in food production of the previous century.
Likewise, cheap fossil fuel energy has enabled millions to break out of the cycles of poverty, providing the necessary energy for heating, cooking, and electricity to improve living standards. As activists preach on the evils of fossil fuels, they fail to ponder the dependence of so many on non-renewable energy, and, ironically, their very own dependence. Instead of disparaging others’ use of fossil fuels, we should embrace a more nuanced view that also cedes their numerous benefits.
The reality of the left’s radical climate policies is that they are impractical and unrealistic for most Americans. Currently, renewable energy makes up 12% of the U.S energy consumption. It turns out big oil and gas lobbying of Congress isn’t why an energy transition hasn’t occurred. The answer is simpler–renewable energy such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric are unable to meet the nation’s energy needs due to implementation costs and intermittency.
The switch to an all renewable energy grid would require tremendous upfront costs. For instance, total renewable energy dependency would require the construction of an array of new wind and solar farms, along with a transformed power grid. The intermittency problem can be seen in Germany’s renewable energy transition. While fossil fuels are energy dense and nearly always available, the amount of energy many renewable sources can provide often greatly fluctuates. With Germany deriving a significant portion of its energy from renewable sources, an embargo on Russian oil would leave Germany completely dependent on its intermittent and unpredictable renewable energy grid, which could lead to blackouts in periods of no wind or sun.
The story here at Princeton is a microcosm of the radical and uncompromising energy policy happening on the national stage. Beginning in 2013, Students United for a Responsible Global Environment urged the University to divest its then $17 billion endowment from any fossil fuel companies to combat the climate crisis. Divest Princeton has taken up the cause since then, continuing the call for the university’s complete dissociation from fossil fuels. Although in September of last year, Princeton announced a dissociation from 90 companies they deemed the most harmful in emissions, Divest Princeton states they will not be satisfied until Princeton pulls the remaining $700 million invested in fossil fuel companies and ends all fossil-fuel-funded research on campus.
In addition to being impractical, the divestment movement and other radical green energy policies epitomize liberals’ disconnect with the majority of Americans. Although it is easy to preach the need for green energy from the ivory towers of Princeton’s campus, this amounts to nothing more than virtue-signaling paternalism. Less than one-third of U.S adults agree with completely phasing out fossil fuels and instead prefer to rely on a mixture of fossil fuels and renewables. Imposing extreme climate policies on the majority means that working-class Americans will pay more to fill up their cars and heat their homes. This paternalistic sentiment is similarly illustrated by the world leaders attending the COP26 Climate Summit: the politicians in attendance used 118 private jets for transportation to the summit, emitting tons of CO2 in the process, to discuss policies that would restrict the masses’ access to cheap and reliable energy.
I encourage my peers to continue being climate-conscious, but I urge them to offer practical policy solutions. Fossil fuels have played a crucial role in the world’s past, and they will continue to benefit us in the future. Fortunately, I believe Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s doomsday prophecy is false, just like all the previous apocalyptic warnings, and the Earth will continue to exist for many decades to come. Our transition to renewable energy should be intentional, but not immediate. The optimal switch will involve utilizing technology to find new and innovative solutions to the emissions problem.
This pragmatic approach is best seen with Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s 2022 Energy Plan which “embraces an all-of-the-above energy plan that includes natural gas, nuclear, renewables and the exploration of emerging sources to satisfy the growing needs of the Commonwealth.” Youngkin’s plan affirms his state’s need for affordable and reliable energy but also makes technological investments to spur on a realistic transition to renewable energy. Most notably, a significant investment will be made in nuclear generation technologies which will replace the economic dependency on coal in southwestern Virginia.
I applaud Gov. Youngkin for offering a real solution to the issue, and not vilifying fossil fuels to push a radical climate policy. Like Virginia, I look forward to an energy-rich future and a technology-focused transition to renewable energy that is practical and realistic.
The above is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.