green energy — VOICES for REASONVOICES for REASON

Proponents of “green energy” claim that oil and coal are “dirty” addictions and that “renewable” energy sources, like solar and wind, represent the future of energy. Should we get on board with their plans?

Not according to ARC fellow Alex Epstein. Last Earth Day he wrote:

Fact: there are three proven categories of industrial-scale energy: carbon-based, which produces about 86% of the world’s energy; nuclear, which produces roughly 6%, and hydroelectric, which produces another 6%. Revealingly, most environmentalists oppose nuclear and hydroelectric (both emissions-free) as insufficiently “green”; in the last several decades they have successfully made nuclear plants nearly impossible to build and shut down hundreds of dams.

That means a meager 2% of energy is produced by “green” sources such as wind, solar, and plant/animal materials (“biomass”). Is this a case of promising technologies denied a chance to develop? Hardly; they have been heavily subsidized in the United States for decades. Consider: In 1977 Jimmy Carter proclaimed that he would “develop permanent and reliable new energy sources. The most promising, of course, is solar energy, for which most of the technology is already available.”

But even with decades of subsidies, “green” proposals have failed to deliver the industrial-scale energy required to fuel our cars, light our homes, and make possible the daily activities of our modern economy—like running hospitals, transporting goods, and growing food on an industrial scale.

Why do “green” alternatives like solar and wind perform so poorly? According to Mr. Epstein:

“Green energy” has failed because it lacks the physical properties necessary to provide industrial-scale power: a combination of abundance, high energy concentration, and reliability. For example, where coal, oil, and natural gas can be burned whenever power is needed, at the exact quantity needed, wind and sunlight can be harnessed only when the weather cooperates—and electricity can’t be stored for a rainy day. Thus, they are always used as supplemental, not primary, sources of power on electric grids. Statistics about Denmark getting 10% or 20% of electricity from solar and wind are misleading; that is the maximum they can get without seriously endangering the grid with power outages and electronics-frying power overloads.

Yet despite the physical shortcomings of “green” alternatives, their proponents continue to push for political programs that would force a shift to these meager energy forms. What would this mean for our daily lives? In his essay “Energy Privation: The Environmentalist Campaign Against Energy” in Why Businessmen Need Philosophy, ARC fellow Dr. Keith Lockitch considers what life would be like without industrial-scale energy. He says:

Today industrial-scale energy fuels a global trade worth trillions of dollars, with automated factory equipment churning out all manner of life-enhancing goods and with petroleum-powered trucks, freight trains, and cargo ships carrying them all over the planet.

Yet even today, large numbers of people still suffer for lack of industrial-scale energy. About 1.5 billion people have no electric lighting, refrigeration, computer technology, electronic devices or medical equipment—no access to electricity at all. About 2.5 billion people—more than one-third of the world’s population—have no source of energy for heating or cooking other than biomass fuels such as wood or animal dung, and the resulting smoke from open fires is a leading cause of death in undeveloped countries. The World Health Organization estimates that about 1.6 million people die every year from respiratory diseases directly attributable to indoor air pollution—almost as many as die annually from AIDS.

Similarly, for lack of freshwater and sewage infrastructure built and powered using industrial-scale energy, “over 1 billion people globally lack access to safe drinking-water supplies, while 2.6 billion lack adequate sanitation.” Consequently, “diseases related to unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene result in an estimated 1.7 million deaths every year.” And for lack of an adequate capacity for food production and distribution, chronic undernourishment affects more than 1 billion people. The result is that in parts of the world today—particularly in parts of Africa—life expectancy is under forty years. It hasn’t been that low in the industrialized world since the eighteenth century—and today, in industrialized countries life expectancy is closer to eighty years.

Industrial-scale energy is an indispensable, life-saving value. It has completely transformed human life for the better in the industrialized world. And the benefits of industrial development will come to undeveloped countries only if they develop the infrastructure for the large-scale production and use of energy, as India and China are currently doing.

All of the life-saving, life-enhancing goods and services we enjoy today in industrialized society require massive amounts of cheap, concentrated, and reliable energy—and solar and wind just don’t cut it. But if “green energy” proponents get their way, what quality of life can we expect in the future?

If you have questions about the “green energy” movement, be sure to submit them here and watch the live Q&A on Earth Day (tomorrow, Friday, April 22) at 9 a.m. PST via ARC’s Facebook page to hear your questions answered by Dr. Keith Lockitch and Alex Epstein.

When the proponents today of “green” energy call for massive reductions in carbon emissions, they lead us to believe that their goal is to protect human beings from the negative consequences of a warmer planet. But is it?

The Ayn Rand Institute has been saying for years that, while the environmentalist movement has led the public to believe its goal is human welfare, this is a ruse. As Peter Schwartz wrote in “Man vs. Nature” more than a decade ago:

The common view of environmentalism is that its goal is the betterment of mankind—that it wants to purify our air and clean up our parks so that we can live healthier and happier lives. But that is a very superficial interpretation. When environmentalists are faced with a conflict between the “interests” of nature and those of man, it is man who is invariably sacrificed. If there is a choice between electric power for human beings and swimming lanes for salmon, it is always the fish that are given priority. If there is a choice between cutting down trees for human use and leaving them untouched for the spotted owl, it is always the bird’s home that is saved and human habitation that goes unbuilt. Why?

Because the requirements of human life are not the standard by which environmentalists make their judgments. Their goal is to maintain nature in its virginal state—despite the demonstrable harm this inflicts upon people. They want to preserve wildernesses, to enshrine wetlands, to tear down dams and levees—i.e., to prevent the man-made “intrusions” upon nature.

What does it mean if wilderness, not human life, is the standard by which environmentalists operate? In Schwartz’s words, “[it] means that man must suffer so that nature remains pristine.”

ARC fellow Dr. Keith Lockitch expands on this point:

Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being—every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture—is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.

Human survival, by its nature, requires re-shaping the earth to meet our needs. So if the environmentalist goal is to preserve the earth as is, it is human survival and progress that must be sacrificed. One of the most concrete, gross examples of this is the environmentalist campaign against DDT in the 1960’s. Dr. Lockitch explains:

The environmental crusade against DDT began with Rachel Carson’s antipesticide diatribe “Silent Spring,” published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide antimalaria campaign. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence—Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson’s book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT’s crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.

Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation—alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT-use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day.

[…]

In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a “necessary” component of a “vibrant biosphere” and seeking a “reasonable accommodation” with them.

Similarly, today’s “green” energy proponents oppose every form of practical, cheap energy in order to minimize the human impact of industrialization on the earth. In his essay “Energy Privation: The Environmentalist Campaign Against Energy,” Dr. Lockitch notes:

Oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectricity. Altogether, these sources provide essentially all of the world’s energy—more than 98% of it, to be exact. They collectively supply more than 96% of the world’s electricity, while petroleum alone accounts for more than 94% of the world’s transportation fuel. These energy sources are what currently power our modern world, and, given their indispensable role in agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and all the other elements of industrial civilization, it’s no exaggeration to say that they are literally keeping us all alive.

Yet, mainstream environmental groups systematically reject each one as unacceptable forms of energy.

With “green” alternatives like solar and wind being fantasy energy solutions, could the motive of “green” energy proponents actually be to oppose human welfare in the name of erasing man’s “footprint” from the earth? That is the controversial proposition Ayn Rand argues for at length in her book Return of the Primitive.

If you have questions about the “green energy” campaign and its opposition to every practical form of energy, or about environmentalism more broadly, be sure to submit them here and watch the live Q&A on Earth Day (Friday, April 22) at 9 a.m. PST to hear your questions answered by Dr. Keith Lockitch and ARC fellow Alex Epstein.

For years, environmentalists have warned us that economic progress under capitalism paves the way for future devastation. Smoking coal stacks blacken our lungs. Growing populations set the stage for widespread famine. Gas-guzzling SUVs warm the planet and lead to frequent hurricanes and droughts.

Ayn Rand held a radically different view of the impact of industrial development on human survival. In 1971, she wrote in the essay “The Anti-Industrial Revolution”:

In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive.

If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):

1900—47.3 years

1920—53 years

1940—60 years

1968—70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)

Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.

Rand viewed industrial development as an enormous positive that greatly improved the quality of life for everyone. Far from it being an impediment to human survival, she argued that industrialization dramatically changed for the better how people dealt with their environment. For example, she noted in the same essay:

Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible, mind-and-body-wrecking ordeal. In “nature,” the struggle for food, clothing and shelter consumes all of a man’s energy and spirit; it is a losing struggle—the winner is any flood, earthquake or swarm of locusts. (Consider the 500,000 bodies left in the wake of a single flood in Pakistan; they had been men who lived without technology.)

ARC fellow Dr. Keith Lockitch expands on this point:

Consider the poster child of global warming alarm: Hurricane Katrina. In 1970, a severe tropical cyclone struck the coast of the Bay of Bengal, in what is today Bangladesh. It is estimated that the storm was a category 3 cyclone, and the death toll it left in its wake was estimated to have been as high as three hundred thousand people. Compare this with Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans in 2005. By the time it made landfall Katrina was also a category 3 storm and the directly affected population was comparable to that in Bangladesh. Yet the number of people dead or missing was far, far less—estimates put it at around two thousand

Without denying the tragedy of the lives lost to Katrina, two thousand versus three hundred thousand is an incredible difference. In assessing what accounts for that difference, one can debate the relative roles of social, political, geographic and climatologic factors, but there can be no question of the fundamental and decisive importance of the technology and infrastructure made possible by industrial capitalism. Unlike the helpless victims of the Bangladesh storm, the citizens of New Orleans could rely on advanced early warning systems and a functioning communications infrastructure, modern vehicles and paved roads to facilitate evacuation and transport relief supplies, sturdier homes and structures and advanced flood control systems, etc. Indeed, much of this even failed in New Orleans: the levees were breached, many people couldn’t or wouldn’t evacuate, the relief effort was delayed, and so on. Yet, even in spite of these failures, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by the products of industrial technology and industrial-scale energy.

This is the real lesson of today’s climate-related tragedies: the immeasurable degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced our vulnerability to climate threats.

Read the rest of Dr. Lockitch’s paper here. Read more of Ayn Rand’s view on environmentalism here.

If you have questions about how industrial development has made us far less vulnerable to climate disasters or want to know about how it has kept us safer from other environmental dangers, like pollution, disease, resource shortages and more, be sure to submit your questions here and watch the live Q&A on Earth Day (Friday, April 22) at 9 a.m. PST to hear your questions answered by Alex Epstein and Dr. Keith Lockitch!