https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGLluvMu5Zw
Far too often, the discussion over “energy” begins with a variety of assumptions that go unchallenged. The first is that energy policy should first and foremost be about environmental impact. The second is that traditional fossil fuels are obviously bad for the environment. This leads to the third, that society must obviously change its energy usage to stop an environmental disaster from happening.
These assumptions are so ingrained in the conversation that even opponents of green policies often base their arguments on them. Team blue may say that we need more taxes and regulations to force a change in energy use. Team red may argue that only by getting the government out of the way will business innovate its way out of fossil fuels.
What everyone seems to agree on is that fossil fuels are a bad thing and that transitioning to alternatives is a necessary part of a better future.
But what if these assumptions are wrong?
Should energy concerns be focused primarily on the environment rather than human well-being? As we’ve noted, the environmental impact of so-called green energy is greater than many believe, but even if this were not the case, would an energy source that is unable to support as many people as fossil fuels but is less environmentally harmful necessarily be “better” for society?
Proponents of the energy revolution argue that environmental crises will prevent human thriving. They warn of violent weather and destroyed farmland. Yet this is not what we’ve seen. In fact, climate deaths have declined over time, despite the media’s attempts at rebranding extreme weather events as modern phenomena. Farmland and food supplies have increased. Interestingly, many of the same individuals concerned about global warming and rising sea levels are continuing to buy houses and property on beautiful coasts.
In fact, the actual findings of the institutions that push the hardest to change our energy consumption do not match the severity of their rhetoric.
For example, government officials looking to promote alternative energy celebrate the work of Nobel Prize–winning economist William Nordhaus. While Nordhaus will often talk about the need for an energy revolution, his own work tells a different story.
A 2018 United Nations report he assisted with outlined a variety of global polices—such as phasing out fossil fuels—needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
While the headlines lauded the report as clear evidence of the need for a green energy revolution, a careful analysis of Nordhaus’s economic model revealed just the opposite. As economist Bob Murphy has noted, Nordhaus’s own findings show that the economic costs of achieving the report’s policy goals would be greater than the projected damage done by a higher rate of global warming.
To recap, the UN’s own analysis, conducted by a Nobel laureate specializing in the economics of climate change, shows that its policies would be more detrimental to the economic well-being of society than they would be beneficial to the environment. This is without question what would happen if the UN’s goals became reality. Many nations, such as China, seem to understand this and have made it clear that they will not be complying with these policies.
The hysterical nature of contemporary energy discussions has been great for the activist class, but it has had terrible consequences for intellectual debate, government policy, and the economy. The justification for this aggressive approach is the repeated warning that a failure to act will result in global catastrophe. In our next video, we will look at the poor track record of doomsday environmentalist prophecies.
______________________________________
Want to learn more?
For more animated content, check out Economics for Beginners at https://BeginEconomics.org.
