Zion Lights, a former spokesperson for the radical United Kingdom environmental group called Extinction Rebellion (XR), had to ask herself a painful question: “What if you’d dedicated most of your life to trying to save the planet,” she wrote last year, “but then you realized that you may have actually — potentially — made things worse?” It’s a question that more environmentalists should grapple with today. Over the past half-century, their movement has scored world-changing victories in reducing air and water pollution, preserving wilderness and protecting wildlife. But when it comes to fighting global warming, the issue that most environmentalists now see as the planet’s paramount threat, the green-policy elite has arguably done more harm than good.
That claim certainly sounds counterintuitive, but evidence shows that some of the activists’ favored policies — especially the single-minded focus on wind and solar facilities for making electricity — have been marginally effective, at best. Other policies, such as replacing gasoline and diesel fuel with biofuels made from plants, actually increase emissions. One of the environmental movement’s biggest self-described victories has been its long-running war against nuclear power, the only technology that has yet proven the ability to drastically reduce a nation’s carbon output. Call it the green war on clean energy.
Many environmentalists seek pragmatic, scientifically based solutions. But too many others, including some world leaders and influential NGOs, speak of climate change in apocalyptic terms. And they propose radical, top-down measures that would hobble economies and disrupt every aspect of modern life.
These activists want to achieve “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050, and yet they often reject or neglect the very policies most likely to help the world achieve that goal. Green elites want to upend the lives of billions but show surprisingly little interest in whether their programs work. In some parts of the world, the climate lobby has already managed to enact policies that raise prices, hinder growth and promote political instability — all while achieving only marginal reductions in emissions.
The problem starts with the movement’s blanket opposition to fossil fuels. For example, most environmentalists viscerally oppose fracking and natural-gas pipelines. But in fact, since natural gas emits nearly 50% less carbon dioxide than coal, it is one of our best tools to bring down emissions in the short term, while also benefiting the economy.
But most environmental activists argue that we must phase out natural gas as rapidly as possible, replacing it almost exclusively with wind and solar power. Wind and solar power can help reduce carbon emissions, as long as they are part of a mix of energy sources. But renewable-energy champions tend to gloss over the huge challenges of trying to power the grid primarily with such on-again, off-again energy sources.
People understand, of course, that wind and solar facilities make power only when the wind blows or the sun shines. But even experts sometimes underestimate what a complex challenge this “intermittency” presents to grid operators. While the “all-renewable” power-grid activists’ demand isn’t technically impossible, it would cost far more — and take far longer to build — than more balanced approaches.
Despite those obstacles, most green activists regard wind and solar power as something close to a climate panacea. So one would assume that environmental groups are lobbying hard to get these projects approved and built. Yet environmental activists often lead the way in opposing the construction of renewable-energy projects — especially when they’re slated to be built in their own backyards. In the U.S., environmental groups are currently fighting wind and solar installations in dozens of states.
The biggest roadblock that the green movement has thrown in front of cutting emissions is its long-standing opposition to nuclear energy.
Even after decades of research into alternative energy, nuclear power remains the only proven means to produce electricity that is at once reliable, emissions-free, and capable of being scaled up to meet growing demand. But decades of antinuclear activism have eroded public support. After the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the U.S. and other countries imposed regulatory burdens that go far beyond legitimate safety needs. In most Western nations, nuclear-plant construction has largely ground to a halt.
But what if nuclear research and plant construction had continued to advance at the pace seen in the 1970s? One Australian researcher concluded: “Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost.” That cheap, clean power would have made the use of coal — and, in many cases, even natural gas — unnecessary for power generation. In turn, this hypothetical nuclear revolution would have eliminated roughly five years’ worth of global emissions from fossil fuels and prevented more than 9 million deaths caused by air pollution. Most green activists today would see such numbers as nothing short of a miracle. Yet it was environmentalists who led the campaign to halt the rollout of the cleanest, and greenest, of all power sources.
The nuclear industry remains in a vise: on one side, nuclear plants face pressure from activists and politicians; on the other, they are financially squeezed by renewable energy, which receives comparatively massive subsidies.
California offers a vivid example of this phenomenon. In 2018, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a mandate to create “an entirely carbon-free energy grid” by 2045. The plan isn’t going well. Replacing the reliable baseload electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear plants with fluctuating wind and solar power has made the state’s power grid notoriously unreliable. To avoid blackouts, California has had to allow gas plants to exceed normal emissions limits, import coal-generated electricity from other states, and even permit the use of diesel generators for grid power. Not surprisingly, California consumers now pay about 80% more for electricity than most Americans. But the state’s carbon emissions have fallen only about 5% since 2000, roughly on par with the national average.
Nonetheless, for years, California leaders remained committed to retiring Diablo Canyon, the state’s last operating nuclear power plant, in 2025. Fortunately, Gov. Gavin Newsom has had a road-to-Damascus conversion on the issue. In a dramatic turnaround, Newsom recently proposed having the state offer the plant’s owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, a forgivable $1.4 billion loan to keep the plant open through 2035.
Such pragmatism is encouraging. But not everyone is on board. Despite research showing that closing Diablo Canyon would cause California’s carbon emissions and utility bills to skyrocket, environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council are still trying to scuttle the proposal.
This reveals a troubling contradiction at the heart of the climate movement. Green technocrats say that we must “electrify everything,” shifting cars and trucks, home heating, industrial processes, and more to electric power instead of fossil fuels. In a world of ample, cheap electricity, that process might be feasible, even desirable. But while activists support renewable energy in theory, they consistently oppose the infrastructure needed not just to produce that energy but to deliver it to consumers.
Green advocates also tend to be cavalier about the costs their policies impose on the public. Even as he tries to reassure Americans about today’s stratospheric gas prices, President Biden optimistically describes the price surge as part of the “incredible transition” away from fossil fuels.
Source: OCRegister
