I understand why leaders in the developed world think alleviating worldwide energy poverty threatens our environment. I used to think the same way. I held false beliefs about energy—beliefs that blinded me to human suffering around the world and to energy policies that could lift people like Grace out of poverty while at the same time protecting our environment. It took me many years—decades in fact—to realize that we can protect the environment without sacrificing people in the process.

The Damage Assumption

One of the biggest errors in my ideological reasoning—an error that continues to motivate the way so many world leaders think today—is a hidden premise that I call “The Damage Assumption.”

The Damage Assumption: The amount of energy people consume is directly proportional to the amount of environmental damage they cause.

People who endorse the Damage Assumption focus on fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gasses and other forms of pollution that damage the environment, they say. So if people burn more fossil fuels, they will cause more damage to the environment. The more they burn, the more environmental damage will result, and the less they burn, the less damage will result. 

Just one problem: The Damage Assumption isn’t equally true of all energy sources. 

Some energy sources result in less damage to the environment than others. If we’re careful and smart about how we use energy and about which sources of energy we use, we can maximize human benefits while minimizing environmental costs. 

It’s true that energy use can damage the environment. But we’ve seen that energy poverty also damages the environment. 

Poor countries with limited access to energy pollute more than wealthy countries. Energy poverty forces people in poor countries to chop down forests to cook and stay warm. The lack of sewage treatment plants leads to water pollution. The use of older inefficient vehicles and machinery leads to air pollution, as do cut-and-burn agriculture practices.

Energy + technology = better environment

Why do wealthy nations that consume more energy pollute less? One reason is that access to more energy enables them to develop and implement new technologies that improve the environment. Consider the United States. US coal plants reduced their mercury and air pollution by 90% by implementing new technologies. Likewise, new technologies enabled the US to start using natural gas as fuel instead of discharging it into the environment as waste. The resulting shift from coal to natural gas has reduced CO2 emissions in the US by nearly 1 billion metric tons since 2005—a greater reduction than the entire EU has managed to achieve. 

Similarly, using propane for cooking instead of wood protects forests. Building wastewater treatment systems protects water sources, and the wise use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and machinery can shrink the amount of land needed for agricultural production. 

The past 50 years show that as nations get wealthier, they adopt technologies that improve the environment. So if we want to minimize and reverse damage to the environment, one important step is helping poorer nations become wealthier. And the best way to do that is to help them increase the amount of energy they consume, not decrease it.

But many developed nations are doing exactly the opposite: they’re making it harder for poor nations to become wealthier. The World Bank, for instance—the largest financier of developing nations—is restricting financing for power plants, pipelines, and other critical energy infrastructure in poor nations. Other international financial institutions are doing the same thing. Without that financing, poor nations can’t use more energy to improve agriculture, healthcare, housing, sanitation, water quality, or economic opportunity for their citizens. By restricting energy-related financing, wealthy countries  are ensuring that poor countries stay poor.

Why are wealthy nations depriving poor nations of the financial resources they need? 

The answer is that many leaders in the developed world—government and corporate leaders alike—are caught in the grips of The Damage Assumption, just like I was. They think the solution is to eliminate fossil fuels.

But this is an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem. When we carefully examine different energy sources and different energy needs around the world, we discover that there is no one-size-fits-all approach that will meet all the world’s energy needs. 

The best energy solution for one place isn’t necessarily the best energy solution for another. Local conditions—geological, meteorological, political, and economic—affect what works best. We need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of different energy sources and find the best balance for each particular place. I call this approach the “Better Energy Strategy.” 

The Better Energy Strategy promises to promote human well-being while at the same time combating environmental threats like climate change. I discuss it in detail in Chapter 4. 

But first, I should explain what put me on the path to the Better Energy Strategy—how I discovered that my previous beliefs about energy were false.