A Modest and Equitable Solution to the “Climate”/Energy “Problem”

I would not object if the so-called “environmentalists” swept away all the trappings of modern civilization in their own lives that involve use of fossil fuels, including cars, airplanes, washing machines, trucks and the rest and went to live as their ancestors did. In fact, all that they would need to do would be to join Amish or other similar communities that hold somewhat similar beliefs and live out their lives following the rules of these groups. Or they could start new groups and make up their own rules. Windmills and solar panels would be allowed but fossil fuel-based electricity and hydropower would not (even though hydropower predated much of modern civilization). Etc.

But that is not what they are proposing to do. They want governments to compel everyone to observe such arbitrary rules and pay for their enormous costs too. This is where I draw the line. They want government to use other people’s money to force them to live like the “environmentalists” think people should live. On the contrary, I believe there should be freedom of energy use and selection as long as there are no significant adverse effects on others.

As has frequently been pointed out, many people who call themselves “environmentalists” do not really want to live the way they want everyone else to live. They like the business jets and the big SUVs as much as anyone else. So my proposal may be a bit of a hard sell since Gandhis they are not.

The “environmentalists” have gotten governments to pay for developing elaborate “scientific” justifications for their ideologies, and continue to do so. This has cost many tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of other people’s money for justification development alone. And government subsidies for wind and solar have cost many tens of billions more each year.

Climate skeptics have long argued that these expensive justifications are not scientific at all, and we now know that this is indeed the case. In fact, moderate increases in atmospheric CO₂ levels are good, not bad. Life on Earth needs higher atmospheric CO₂ levels and would benefit from slightly higher temperatures too, not lower. There is no economic or scientific case for government intervention in the energy markets other than to control conventional pollutants, which in the US is already the case. And there is certainly no basis for sending tens of billions of dollars yearly to less developed countries to bribe them to use wind and solar on the basis of current science or even non-treaty “treaties.”

My Modest Solution

So this is my solution: Let the economic marketplace decide how energy should be used (since it has been shown over many years that it yields the lowest prices and most efficiency) and how it is generated. Those who want to use only particular types of energy, should be allowed to do so; those who do not, do not have to. Users who want to use only wind and solar generated energy will be allowed to buy only such energy from their local utilities (or even allowed to self-generate it themselves on their own property if allowed by local ordinances and if they pay the full cost of such special, high cost, and low reliability energy. This would be much like those who want to eat only “organic” food can buy such food, but no one else is forced to do so. This solution should end the so-called climate/energy use “problem.”

No one would be forced by government to use energy generated by any particular means or even to use any at all. Believers can band together to create communities of such people if they want, but they cannot get government to make anyone else follow their arbitrary energy use and selection ideologies. The same applies internationally. No treaties or even “non-treaty” treaties will be entered into that force any other nation to follow such ideologies or force some nations to pay others to do so.

Perhaps the new “right” suggested here could be called “freedom to select energy use and sources” or FSEUS, although perhaps others can suggest a better acronym. Those who want unreliable, weather-dependent energy can select this despite its much higher price and inconveniences. Those who want reliable, low cost fossil fuel-generated energy can also do so without interference by ideological fanatics who like inferior wind and solar-generated energy.