This brief article concerns a divide between the political Left and Right related to the environment. It is an instructive difference, for it encompasses an understanding of economic freedom, of interpreting science, and of the role of government in addressing and solving problems. The confidence that so many have on the political Left that government does a better job than many citizens will acknowledge is not shared on the political Right. The political Right hesitates to use government authority when the market of ideas and the free exchange of goods and services will figure out whether there is an issue and if there is how to solve it.
We have a moral obligation to care for our environment. We depend upon our environment for our lives. As we continue in technological and economic growth, we need to be alert to the cleanest path toward that growth.
This brief reflection on the green ideology arises out of a practical concern that America and the West not cut itself off from an important energy resource that can enhance the possibility of human flourishing on this planet. The industrial expansion of the past several centuries and its accompanying technological advances has brought an improvement of the lives of billions of human beings. We average folks have life much easier than many of our predecessors due to those advances. Life on this planet is not easy. Human beings have struggled to survive and thrive here. Science and technology have provided a higher degree of ease and comfort and will continue to do so. However, the green ideology is prepared to lessen the quality of life for an illusion.
It is possible to scaremonger about climate change endlessly. The polluting of the environment is a wound that climate change activists use to dismantle free enterprise. Humanity had much to learn about how industry affected the environment. It has done so and will continue to learn more. To keep picking at this wound of the past is to generate anger toward the free enterprise system, a system that has provided a comfortable life for so many of those who participate in it.
First, I offer a reality check about the climate history of this beautiful planet, our own Garden of Eden nested at the far reaches of its galaxy. Known for its expansive glaciers and the coldest temperatures on Earth, the Antarctica of today is quite different from its tenure as a subtropical paradise 53 million years ago, replete with palm trees, summer highs near 25°C (77 F), and frost-free winters sitting near 10°C (50 F) despite the endless darkness.
The earth has a climate history to which we need to pay attention. The historical record tells us of many warming episodes—and subsequent cooling periods—that have bedeviled humans for thousands of years. Bruce Bartlett, in an article entitled “Climate History,” June 27, 2007, shares the following information.
Plato, who lived from 427 BC to 347 BC, wrote about major climate changes that he knew in his day. Timaeusrefers to flooding causes by global warming. Critias refers to “formidable deluges.” Plato’s student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, Meteorologica. He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. “But now the opposite is the case,” Aristotle wrote. “The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful.” He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations. Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle who lived from 374 BC to 287 BC, discussed climate change in his work, De ventis, which means “The Wind.” He observed that in Crete, “nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls.” In earlier times, Theophrastus said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. However, when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, “De causis plantarum,” Theophrastus noted that the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees, but that falling temperatures killed them all.
In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, “De re rustica.” In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, “regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance.”
In the Middle Ages, people began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300. We know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us that they abandoned these settlements after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult. The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall.
By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year-round started to freeze in the winter. This “little ice age” continued well into the 19th century. Since then, we have been in a warming cycle that appears to have accelerated around 1950.
It should not be surprising that greatest variable regarding the temperature of the earth throughout its history is what happens with its sun, something over which we have no control. The earth is moving around and jostled by forces over which human beings have no control. Differing orbiting patterns affect solar input. These shifts have created ice ages and the interglacial periods in which we are in now. Higher levels of CO2 track with those changes, becoming low during ice ages and high during interglacial periods.
Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago, and its climate changes frequently. Human activities (not just CO2 emissions) affect local climate and combined have the potential to affect global climate measurably. Third, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, albeit a minor one. The scientific debate is not about any of this. It is, rather, about the direction and magnitude of global human effects, and their significance when considered in the context of natural climate change – which has been occurring ever since Earth developed its oceans, atmosphere, and climate many eons ago.
The Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity to (try to) regulate the planet's climate? We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. We do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Are we sure that the climate at this moment is exactly right, and that we must preserve it, no matter the cost?
The story I tell is boring. The earth warms and cools on its own naturally, usually the result of surface changes upon the sun. Imagine that. The temperature of the earth has a relationship to the sun. The earth is continually warming and cooling. I urge anyone to read the material at http://www.petitionproject.org. Read the conclusion of the document. The authors make it clear that the extent to which the earth has warmed, it means longer growing periods, lush plant life, and flourishing of animal life. It also affirms the need to explore all avenues for expanded energy sources.
Second, free enterprise, when understood properly, is a gift of freely engaging in economic activity that encourages faith and faithfulness, hope for the future, and love for self and family in which the circle of those about whom we care keeps expanding. Poverty has been the norm for most people in history. For much of that history, looting and plundering were the means of amassing wealth. In the past century billions of people have been lifted out of poverty by capitalism. Capitalism, as Walter Williams puts it, meant that the path toward wealth was to serve your neighbor. You must get out of yourself and your needs and imagine the needs of the other and develop a means to meet that need. Capitalism encourages the development of qualities like faith in yourself, your ideas, and that others will work with you toward certain goals; a care or love for yourself and your family for which you provide material sustenance, and a hope that the future will be better than the present because of what you do in the present. It requires you to consider how you treat others, both those who work for you, those who are customers, and those who might invest in you. I do not support capitalism because of a love for money, but because of a love of freedom at all levels. Political and economic freedom are effective ways of organizing a country.
All this is to say that a free civil society, a free economic sector, will listen to the arguments regarding the possibility of the danger in global warming and make decisions based upon what it hears. If it believes there is a problem, the creativity and ingenuity of millions of citizens is more likely to solve the problem than is the coercive force by a political ideology, politicians, and government personnel. Expanded government control over what citizens can buy is rarely the solution to a problem but will cause many more. In a democracy, if the adherents of a political ideology want to rob the public, it will need to deceive them by persuading them that the government is robbing them for their own good, inducing them to accept in exchange for their property imaginary services, and often worse (Bastiat).
Robert Bryce (Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusion of Energy Independence, 2008) has persuaded me that energy independence in the way many political leaders discuss it is not achievable. His basic point is that America is no longer the leader in energy production, and that it cannot be. It does not have enough oil in Alaska or offshore to replace what it receives from other countries. Further, the use of biofuels, wind, and sun, will do little to place a dent in the dependence that America has on foreign sources of energy. This means that America will be dealing with the unsavory characters of the Middle East for its energy. He would reject the notion that the taxpayers should subsidize alternative sources of energy. This is a matter of wasting vast sums of money. Rather, America needs to embrace the free market, and let the market determine the best sources of energy. In other words, this author is rejecting the positions of both liberal and conservative, and arguing for some realism. America also needs to move away from the military presence in the Middle East and toward a diplomatic presence. In any case, the American infrastructure of needs attention from government, and it is not getting it. The United States can gain greater independence in energy through expanded drilling for oil, biofuels, use of nuclear power, coal, natural gas, wind, and solar. If the government gets out of the picture, drilling for oil in ANWR is fine, as is drilling offshore, use of coal, and nuclear power.
Third, there are political decisions based upon bad science, upon lack of confidence in the free choices of producers and consumers, and far too much confidence in government, that have put western civilization at risk. The West is surrendering wise policy in favor of allegiance to pipe dreams. Then we wonder just why reality seems to keep collapsing in on us like an abandoned house. Green ideology insists we do not need nuclear and that we do not need fracking. It insists that it is just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need “degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” Yet, healing the planet and feeling all warm and fuzzy about it has led to the harsh political reality of greater dependence on authoritarian countries like Russia.
Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.
Ideological predilections dominate the minds of many rather than dealing with the reality of modern life. Such ideological commitments have led to foolish policy and dire results.
Green ideology has international implications. Germany would be wise to restart its nuclear power program. The United States needs to start building nuclear power plants again. America and Canada would be wise to commit themselves to significantly expand oil and natural gas output to ensure the energy security of themselves and Europe.
America has gone from exporting oil before Biden to begging Russia and Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. America is still the world’s leading supplier of oil and natural gas. And we have billions of dollars in investment sitting on the sidelines; refineries have been dropping offline and energy companies transitioning away from the precise forms of fuel that power the globe.
Begging countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia to sell us more oil when we have it here would seem unwise in the extreme.
Given the benefits Russia receives from green ideology, it is not surprising that well-funded, radical U. S. environment groups are waging an anti-fracking war on America’s energy security, as well as interests tied directly to Vladimir Putin. Victoria Caostes and Gloria Steffano say that for years, the U.S. government has investigated Russian financial ties to environmental groups that push for ending U.S. fossil fuel production and have successfully shut down fracking sites and pipelines, to the detriment of U.S. workers and consumers.
Americans should start paying closer attention to the ongoing farmer protests in the Netherlands, which transformed long swaths of Dutch highways into what looked like a post-apocalyptic warzone: roadside fires raging out of control, manure and farming detritus heaped across highways, traffic stalled for miles, and massive protests across the country in support of the farmers. Why is the Netherlands, of all places, experiencing such unrest? Americans need to understand what is happening over there because the ruinous climate policies that triggered these protests are precisely what President Joe Biden and the Democrats have in mind for the United States.
The story of Sri Lanka, a small island nation in Southeast Asia, is disturbing to me. It is on the verge of total political and economic collapse after its president’s “green” policies have brought famine to the island’s 21 million people. From the 1970s to 2020, with the help of synthetic fertilizers, Sri Lanka had become self-sufficient in rice production. Sri Lanka once had a per capita income twice that of nearby India. Now it cannot feed or fuel itself. Sri Lanka’s government fell under the spell of the “green” revolution promoted by Western liberal elites. Advised by the Rockefeller Foundation, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised to transition the nation’s agriculture industry to organic farming within ten years. In April 2021, he banned “the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and order[ed] the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic,” according to Foreign Policy magazine. The Western green revolutionists were so pleased that they bestowed Sri Lanka with a near-perfect Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score of 98, much higher than the United States’ score of 51. But Sri Lanka’s adoption of green policies brought nothing but disasters. Its rice production has dropped more than 50 percent, while domestic rice prices have increased more than 80 percent. Once sufficient in rice production, the nation has been “forced to import $450 million worth of rice.” The Sri Lankan people, angry and hungry, staged protests and stormed both the president’s residence and prime minister’s office. President Rajapaksa resigned and fled the country. Sri Lanka is the tip of the iceberg of how “green” policies promoted by Western liberal elites have brought miseries and instability worldwide. There are currently three countries in the world with an ESG score over 90: Sri Lanka, where government just collapsed. Ghana, where the national power supply has shut down. Netherlands, where farmers have revolted against the state green energy is a deadlier virus than covid When it comes to the Dutch government’s calculations of ammonia and nitrogen oxide deposition—the basis of climate mandates that would slash livestock numbers and put many farmers out of work—Hanekamp is especially critical of “the science.” He thinks it relies on vague definitions, excessive deference to expert judgment, and a narrow focus on costs rather than both costs and benefits. “We now treat farmers as polluters, end of story, which is a very strange perspective,” he said. The result was endemic crop failure. Cash crops for export failed. Widespread hunger followed. Without foreign exchange, it became impossible to import key staples like food and fuel. Unfortunately, its incompetent government trusted radical environmental advisers, many of them foreign experts. Sri Lanka believed it could become the darling of the “environmental, social, governance” movement, and in that way draw in unlimited Western progressive investment. Instead, it has embraced a policy of national suicide.
Los Angeles, because the city is phasing out natural gas hookups in all new residential and commercial buildings effective Jan. 1, 2023. But LA is not alone. It is California’s 57th locality to introduce commitments to phase out natural gas, and many cities across the country are following suit. In a misguided effort to reduce emissions, localities that pass ordinances like these totally ignore just how vital natural gas is not only for our broader energy landscape, but also for families and businesses. Nationwide, natural gas accounts for 38% of electricity generation, and around 177 million Americans use natural gas to heat their homes and cook their meals. Beyond its prevalence, natural gas is also an affordable source of energy. Residential natural gas is estimated to cost almost one-quarter the price of electricity, which, according to the American Gas Association, adds up to an average annual savings of over $1,000 in household utilities. And natural gas is a clean source of energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that “burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy.”
Rigging the market to force us to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when we already have increasingly efficient models in the driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world. We have centuries’ worth of the stuff waiting in the ground. Which gives us enough time to produce some better ideas. Transitioning away from modernity and into windmills, choo-choo trains, folding fans, and candles is not progress, it is regression.
The science does not support the green ideology, if the green ideology is accurate, market forces will solve the problem, but in the meantime, government needs to leave producers and consumers alone to assess whether there is a problem and if there is how to solve it.
