America is a free market economy, and for the most part, this means we are free from intense government planning, and allow market forces to dictate economic dynamics.
If the government wants to kick-start a certain program, like wind power, incentives like tax breaks, financial subsidies, and regulatory guidelines are offered, but then the government typically takes a step back.
However, sometimes the government uses the market to force a position. Sometimes this is good, like manipulating the price of oil or fighting inflation; but it’s clear the clean energy industry has become more influential in the last decade, influencing the government to continually provide subsidies to prop up the incentive to invest. In theory, this is a different type of manipulation.
When it comes to clean energy, the United States is one of the biggest financial backers in the world, standing behind hundreds of billions in investments and subsidies for clean energy programs.
Tesla, for instance, as of 2015, had received an estimated $4.9 billion in government support. That number has probably doubled by now.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 funneled over $66 billion for public transport; $7.5 billion for electric vehicle infrastructure; more than $5 billion in funding for clean school buses; more than $22 billion for legacy pollution programs; and more than $65 billion of investment for clean energy transmission.
Globally, clean energy startups raised $54 billion in 2022, $67 billion in 2021, and $28 billion in 2020. There’s no doubt that we constantly need innovation, but you must wonder to what extent we are forcing innovation. My biggest argument about the rush to clean energy is that we are dealing with new technology, technology that still causes harm to the environment.
Putting personal opinions aside about the environment, the U.S. environmental narrative is undeniably controlled by American leftists and liberals. Instead of attempting to roll out a unified plan for energy security and environmental policy, the left has chosen to politicize the situation. As an example, instead of conserving more land, stopping overfishing, or even taking part in massive habitat restoration campaigns to stave off environmental degradation, the left insists on billions and billions of dollars for new clean energy. The problem is, some of it works, some of it doesn’t work.
Now we have new energy technology demanding the same old materials. So much so that many of the most ardent, environmentally friendly nations are now considering deep-sea mining and mining the seafloor.
As Matthew Wielicki, PhD, recently said to me in a conversation we had about commodities for new energy: “I find it very strange that in order to save the planet we are switching to mineral-intensive and low density-energy alternatives. These new energy sources require significant amounts of natural resources and energy inputs to be created, and they usually have a life cycle of 20 to 25 years. This energy transition could require more natural resources and energy inputs then continuing with fossil fuels.”
Best-selling author and medical doctor Michael Crichton echoed the same sentiments in 2003:
“Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.”
Ironically, Mr. Crichton had rational views—20 years ago—about science and the environment, despite being a Hollywood hitmaker.
Contrary to headlines, we are not rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels. At this point, more than 80 percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels, which is a decrease of 4 percent from 20 years ago.
Truthfully, the world will likely consume more fossil fuels in 2050 than today, based on projected growth in the developing world.
Over the past eight months, for example, China has authorized new coal-burning power plants, totaling over over 50 gigawatts of capacity. Curious about the numbers behind that? 1,000 megawatts equals 1 gigawatt, which equates to over 9,000 tons of coal needed per day to make enough power for a 1-gigawatt power plant.
As for India, legislators have paused new coal-plant developments for five years in order to focus on building out renewables, but the country is currently reliant on coal for around 75 percent of its electricity.
It is time for rational thinkers to take over clean energy mandates. America’s progressive establishment, who are only progressive for the sake of being progressive, are asleep at the wheel.
