The Environment Conundrum

Of all the political topics, the environment is perhaps the one that is the most challenging for a person trying to utilize logic and pragmatism in analyzing options and choosing a policy platform to support. The position of the “green” wing of the political spectrum is that the earth is warming at an alarming rate putting the very existence of the human species in jeopardy. They are convinced that human contributions to this warming are the primary drivers, specifically our dependence on fossil fuels. The position of the “capitalist” wing of the political spectrum is that the earth has warmed and cooled throughout its existence and that there is little evidence humans are causing the current warming trend. They feel the greenies are crying “wolf” in order to push a socialist agenda with more government control over the economy.

Most people, save the most ardent deniers, agree on the basic science: the earth is going through a warming period that coincides with the industrialization of most of the world’s economies. There is plenty of evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have contributed to warming periods, both in the past (volcanic activity primarily) and in the present (modern industrialization). There is no clear science that suggests that if all human use of fossil fuels ended tomorrow, that the warming trend would necessarily slow or end.

Geo-political Considerations

At the time of this writing, Russia has just launched an invasion with the intent of occupying Ukraine. Many reputable analysts suggest that Russia’s primary motivator is the control of fossil fuel production and distribution in eastern Europe. Western Europe has been a leader in adopting green energy alternatives, but those countries have been using more energy than they have produced for many years. Putin is exploiting that deficit, betting that it will continue. The U.S. made a strong shift away from fossil fuel production immediately after the installation of the Biden administration as well.

Economic Considerations

The greenies insist that the only way to break the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is to allow the price of oil to get so high that it forces people to seek alternatives. The capitalists say that forcing the issue will have grave economic consequences and put the U.S. in a weakened international position when adversarial economies don’t make a similar commitment.

The greenies have already won part of the argument. A Pew Research study published in June 2020 shows that over half of Republicans and a strong majority of Democrats think the government should do more to combat climate change. While their preferred solutions differ, the consensus that the earth is warming and Americans should do their part in combating it has fairly universal support.

Several events of the past year have proven the capitalists right on parts of their argument as well. Simply pulling the plug on the supply side of the energy equation does not automatically result in an immediate decrease in demand. Homes that used natural gas for heat previous to the 2020 election are still using natural gas for heat. Trucks, critical to our infrastructure, still largely run on diesel fuel – even as electric alternatives are being brought to market.

Donald Trump touts that under his administration America was energy independent and heading toward being a major energy supplier worldwide. When he was elected, the U.S. deficit in oil produced vs consumed was about 5 million barrels per day or 25%. In 2019, oil production in the U.S. hit an all-time high and was very close to the amount consumed. So his claim has some merit, even if exaggerated in Trumpian style. After Biden issued a series of clean energy executive orders, U.S. production did reduce by about 2 million barrels per day and the potential for increasing that production became extremely limited. Because demand has slowed more slowly than supply has slowed, the U.S. has once again become dependent on imports to meet demand, though not as much as pre-2016.

Without potential U.S. surpluses to help Europe meet its energy demand, European nations are forced to look east – to Russia and Ukraine – for help. This makes continued aggressive action by Russia more likely.

Best Path Forward?

While it is good that the greenies are pushing the world toward a carbon-neutral future, they are naive to think that we can reduce the use of fossil fuel energy when the alternatives aren’t sufficiently available. Adoption of electric vehicles in the U.S., for example, has been slower than the greenies would prefer. But it is accelerating. Every major auto manufacturer is making the shift. And several new entrants, including Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian, have motivated the traditional auto makers to catch up or risk of becoming dinosaurs (pun intended).

As far as U.S. policy goes, it is logical for the government to continue to invest in the development of green technologies and to incentivize the adoption of those technologies while the costs to produce them remain higher than fossil-fuel alternatives. It is not logical to hinder our ability to produce petroleum and natural gas energy sources domestically while alternative technologies are being developed and adopted. By increasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy in the interim, we find ourselves at the mercy of geo-political forces. Policy that results in rapidly increasing oil prices only serves to fuel inflation in the U.S. and war to control the supply side in Europe.

Even if the most ardent climate change deniers, like Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, turn out to be right, government involvement in shifting economies away from fossil-fuels to greener, sustainable energy sources is still logical. The supply of fossil fuel sources is finite. If the most ardent greenies, like Greta Thunberg, are right, we are already doomed. Even if the U.S. and western Europe halted all fossil fuel consumption tomorrow, India, Russia, China and other developing countries in Eastern Europe and Asia are showing no such inclination. If we’re on the fast track to destruction, we’re going to be destroyed no matter what the U.S. does. Therefore, it is logical to allow the conversion of our economy to a different energy model to happen at a more reasonable pace that causes less disruption to the typical American family and business.