What's the Deal with the Green New Deal?
There’s been a lot of talk about The Green New Deal. Beyond the headlines, what is it really? Given our energy needs, is it practical? Can we have an abundance of energy and a clean planet? Alex Epstein, the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, considers these questions and has thought-provoking answers.
The core idea of the Green New Deal is _____________________________.
that government should make all industrial pollution illegal by the year 2025that government should rapidly prohibit the use of fossil fuel energy and impose 100% renewable energy, mostly solar and windthat the government should legislate and enforce laws whereby all major cities have to reduce the amount of concrete per square acre by 35% and replace it with trees and shrubsthat government should mandate all energy sector jobs to be filled with at least 35% immigrantsDespite decades of government subsidies and mandates to encourage their use, how much energy actually comes from solar and wind for Americans to use?
3.4%50%80%100%No town, city, or country has ever come close to being able to use 100%, or even 50%, solar and wind energy to power them.
TrueFalseSince we started using significant amounts of fossil fuels in the middle of the 19th century, how much have we increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?
from .01% to .02%from .02% to .03%from .03% to .04%from .04% to .05%_______________________________of France gets its electricity from nuclear power.
20%40%50%70%
- The Green New Deal seeks to rapidly prohibit the use of fossil fuels, which provide Americans 80% of their energy.
The core idea of the Green New Deal is that the government should rapidly prohibit the use of fossil fuel energy and require meeting power demand entirely “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission sources.”
View sourceToday, 80% of the energy Americans use comes from fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas.
View sourceRelated Reading: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” – Alex Epstein
View source- After decades of government subsidies, only 8.2% of American energy is solar and wind. The reason? They aren’t reliable sources of energy.
According to 2018 estimates by the US Energy Information Administration, only 8.2% of the energy Americans use comes from solar and wind—despite decades of government subsidies and mandates to encourage their use.
View sourceSolar and wind are unreliable fuels that only work when the sun shines and the wind blows.
View sourceWATCH: “Why Private Investment Works & Govt. Investment Doesn't” – Burt Fulsom
View source- Dire environmental predictions like those found in the Green New Deal have a decades-long track record of getting it wrong.
The Green New Deal includes dire predictions such as “more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050.”
View sourceIn 1989, the Associated Press reported a United Nations prediction that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
View sourceIn 2008, Al Gore warned, “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.”
View sourceIn the two decades since 2000, none of the dire environmental predictions have come true.
View sourceWATCH: “Do 97% of Climate Scientists Agree? ” – Alex Epstein
View source- Although CO2 does cause some warming, it’s much less significant than we’ve been told by climate alarmists.
Since we started using significant amounts of fossil fuels in the middle of the 19th century, we’ve increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to .04%, which correlates to a rise in the average temperature of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
View sourceThe International Disaster Database, a nonpartisan organization that tracks deaths from climate-related causes, shows that such deaths have been plummeting as CO2 emissions have been rising.
View sourceContrary to popular belief, Alex Epstein says, “The impact on sea levels of human-influenced global warming pales in comparison to local factors and to the massive natural sea level rises of the past.”
View sourceWATCH: “Green New Deal or Green Great Depression?” – Alex Epstein
View source- The Green New Deal and climate change alarmists never acknowledge how fossil fuels contribute to human empowerment.
Nature is naturally dangerous to humans, but fossil fuels make the world safer and more habitable.
View sourceAlex Epstein says, “while fossil-fuel use has only a mild warming impact, it has an enormous protecting impact. Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe.”
View sourceWithout fossil fuels, the fertilizer that makes modern farming possible could not be produced.
View sourceOverall, fossil fuels have made the world cleaner and healthier.
View sourceWATCH: “Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy” – Alex Epstein
View source- Getting rid of fossil fuels won’t actually stop changing sea levels—but it will make dealing with these changes far more dangerous.
Getting rid of fossil fuels will not actually prevent changing sea levels; however, eliminating the use of fossil fuels — the most reliable, effective, and affordable form of energy — will make dealing with these changes far more dangerous.
View sourceAccording to Alex Epstein, “only the fossil fuel industry has developed the ability to produce energy for electricity, fuel and heat on a scale of billions.”
View sourceRelated: Wood Mackenzie optimistically tallies zero-CO2 US grid at $4.5T – Steffen Henne and Alex Epstein
View sourceRelated Reading: “Fossil Fuels Improve the Planet” – Alex Epstein and Eric M. Dennis
View source- Nuclear energy has been demonstrated to be the safest form of energy ever created, yet Green New Deal proponents oppose it.
Sweden gets 40% of its electricity from nuclear and in 2016 abolished a heavy tax on nuclear power.
View sourceFrance gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear and is the world’s largest exporter of electrical power.
View sourceWhile nuclear energy is portrayed as unsafe, it has been demonstrated by study after study to be the safest form of energy ever created.
View sourceOf the three major nuclear power plant accidents since nuclear power’s inception, only the meltdown at Chernobyl in the old Soviet Union resulted in deaths.
View sourceDespite being an excellent alternative to fossil fuels, Green New Deal proponents vigorously oppose nuclear.
View sourceWATCH: “Green New Deal or Green Great Depression?” – Alex Epstein
View source
We face an existential threat. Life as we know it is on the line. We have 12 short years to change everything or it’s game over.
This is the terrifying scenario that’s used by many leading politicians to justify a “Green New Deal”: an unprecedented increase in government power focused on the energy industry.
The core idea of a Green New Deal is that government should rapidly prohibit the use of fossil fuel energy and impose “100% renewable energy,” mostly solar and wind.
This may sound appealing, but consider what it would entail.
Today, 80% of the energy Americans use to heat their homes, farm their land, run their factories, and drive their cars comes from fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. Only 3.4% comes from solar and wind—despite decades of government subsidies and mandates to encourage their use.
The reason we don’t use much sunlight and wind as energy is that they are unreliable fuels that only work when the sun shines and the wind blows. That’s why no town, city, or country has ever come close to 100%—or even 50%—solar and wind.
And yet, Green New Deal proponents say they can do the impossible—if only we give the government control of the energy industry and control of major users of energy, such as the transportation industry, manufacturing, and agriculture.
All of this is justified by the need to “do something” about the “existential threat” of rising CO2 levels. We’re told on a daily basis that prestigious organizations like the United Nations have predicted mass destruction and death if we don’t get off fossil fuels. What we’re not told is that such predictions have a decades-long track record of getting it wrong—and by wrong, I mean completely-missing-the-dart-board wrong.
For example, in 1989, the Associated Press reported a United Nations prediction that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” We’re now two decades past 2000, we’re not missing any nations, and human beings are living longer, healthier, and wealthier lives than ever before.
But aren’t things bound to get worse? Haven’t scientists established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a warming influence on the planet? Yes—but that’s only a small part of the big picture.
Although CO2 causes some warming, it’s much less significant than we’ve been told. Since we started using significant amounts of fossil fuels in the middle of the 19th century, we’ve increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to .04%, which correlates with an average temperature increase of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. It also correlates with significant global greening—because CO2 is plant food.
All of this is far from unprecedented territory for our planet, which has existed with at least 10 times today’s CO2 levels and a 25-degree warmer average temperature.
What is truly unprecedented, though, is how safe we are from climate. The International Disaster Database, a nonpartisan organization that tracks deaths from climate-related causes—such as extreme heat, floods, storms, and drought—shows that such deaths have been plummeting as CO2 emissions have been rising.
How is this possible? Because of the fossil fuel energy that emitted the CO2, which has empowered us to climate-proof our environment with heating, air-conditioning, sturdy buildings, mass irrigation, and weather warning systems.
Fossil fuel energy has not taken a naturally safe climate and made it unnaturally dangerous; it’s taken our naturally dangerous climate and made it unnaturally safe. Fossil fuels are not an existential threat. They are an existential resource because they increase something much more important than the level of CO2 in the atmosphere: the level of human empowerment. Increased life expectancy, income, health, leisure time, and education are all tightly linked to increased access to fossil fuels.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t look for lower carbon energy alternatives? Of course not. But the alternatives should lead us toward more abundant, more reliable power, not less.
The most promising form of alternative energy is not unreliable solar and wind, but reliable, carbon-free nuclear energy. Sweden gets 40% of its electricity from nuclear. France, over 70%. While nuclear energy is smeared as unsafe, it has actually been demonstrated by study after study to be the safest form of energy ever created.
And yet, Green New Deal proponents, who say that we have 12 years to save the planet from rising CO2 levels, vigorously oppose nuclear—in addition to all fossil—fuel use.
By opposing every affordable, abundant, reliable form of energy, the Green New Deal won’t protect us from an existential threat; it is an existential threat.
I’m Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, for Prager University.
Stay up to date on our latest releases
PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide. Help us keep our videos FREE!
Help support our mission
To make a donation over the phone, call (833) PragerU
At $35 or more you’ll be a PragerUnited Member
- Free merch every quarter
- Insider updates
- Free Annual Membership Sticker
Prager University is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Tax ID: 27-1763901. Your contribution is fully tax-deductible in the USA.