The Better Energy Strategy aims at increasing the use of energy sources that violate The Damage Assumption. 

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

The Damage Assumption doesn’t apply equally to all energy sources. Some energy sources result in less damage to the environment than others, and some are more effective at promoting human well-being than others. If we’re careful and smart about how we use energy and about the sources of energy we use, we can maximize the human benefits of higher energy consumption while minimizing its environmental costs. 

The Better Energy Strategy requires careful evaluation of the costs and benefits of each energy source. Those costs and benefits fall into three broad categories: human factors, environmental factors, and local feasibility factors.

Human factors

Human factors, such as affordability, reliability, and safety directly affect the quality of people’s lives. Here are seven human factors we need to consider when examining an energy source.

1. Security 

Does an energy source protect a country’s autonomy—its ability to govern its own affairs without foreign intervention or pressure? If a country depends on natural resources extracted or produced outside its borders, its energy supply is at greater risk of supply chain disruption. A nation’s liberty and self-determination is more secure when it controls its own access to the minerals and natural resources it needs to provide its people with affordable, reliable energy. Domestic sources of energy are thus more secure than sources that depend on imports.

2. Reliability

Can people and businesses reliably access energy when they need it? A reliable energy system provides power 24/7/365 rain or shine. Energy sources that are available on demand are thus more reliable than intermittent sources that are available only when the sun shines or the wind blows.

3. Affordability

Can households and businesses afford the energy that comes from a particular source? The cost of energy affects the cost of everything else. If energy isn’t affordable, businesses can’t make the products we want, and people can’t afford to heat or cool their homes or use the appliances that make life easier. The less households and businesses have to pay for energy from a given source, the more affordable it is. 

4. Safety

Is an energy source safe? Producing, storing, and transporting energy—from any source—poses potential health risks to workers and the public. Risk assessment estimates the likelihood of an accident and the severity of its consequences. The lower the likelihood of accidents and the milder their consequences, the safer an energy source is.

5. Pollution

What are the energy source’s effects on the air people breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat? All energy sources generate pollution, but measuring how much pollution an energy source generates can be difficult. It’s necessary to measure the pollution generated by every part of the supply chain that leads to energy production, not just the pollution it generates when operating. Mining raw materials, for instance, can pollute the soil and water, making the water unsafe for drinking and the soil unsafe for growing crops. Likewise, exposure to pollutants can cause reproductive problems or harm developing offspring. Pollution becomes an even bigger problem if parts of the supply chain get outsourced to developing countries with weak environmental regulations. When that happens, the overall pollution that an energy source generates can end up being much higher than you’d think simply by examining the pollution it generates in use. The less pollution an energy source generates in total—not just in use, but along its entire supply chain—the better it is in this regard. 

6. Greenhouse gas emissions

How many tons of greenhouse gasses does the energy source emit? Greenhouse gasses include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gasses. Greenhouse gasses are a concern because they have the potential to trap heat and contribute to global warming and climate change. 

Many human activities emit greenhouse gasses. Examples include burning fossil fuels for energy production, transportation, and industrial processes, as well as agriculture, animal husbandry, waste management, and timber harvesting. The less greenhouse gasses an energy source emits in total—not just in use, but along its entire supply chain—the better it is in this regard. 

7. Versatility

How many different kinds of machines or industrial processes can the energy source support? We need energy that’s useful for a broad range of industrial, commercial, and residential uses—from feedstocks that make chemicals to machines that mine, drill, pave, fly, cut, heat, pump, filter, transport, compact, excavate, grade, and lift. The more diverse the range of commercial, industrial, and residential processes an energy source can drive, the more versatile it is.

8. Scalability

How many people can use the energy source across how many places? Moving energy where it's needed can be difficult and expensive. Homes and businesses across a wide range of locations, climates, and weather conditions need access to reliable energy. An energy source that can be sited near urban areas and that functions optimally in all climates is more scalable than an energy source that is constrained by weather or land conditions.

Environmental factors

Environmental factors such as pollution and land use directly affect the quality of the environment. Here are four environmental factors we need to consider when considering energy sources.

1. Materials use

How much material and energy does it take to utilize an energy source? And how long will a source produce energy in return for the investment in energy and materials? Materials use is the biggest factor in determining environmental impact. The more materials it takes to utilize an energy source, the more mining it requires. And the more mining it requires, the more diesel fuel is needed to power the machines that dig, process, and transport the materials. More materials use also means more land use, which means more wildlife habitat gets destroyed. Finally, more materials means more waste that needs to be disposed of at the end of the energy source’s useful life. An energy source that requires less material throughout the cycle of its production, useful life, and disposal, is better for the environment than an energy source that requires more material.

2. Land use

How much land does it take to utilize an energy source? And what are its effects on wildlife habitat, farmland, viewsheds, and coastlines? The less land required, the smaller the impact on wildlife, farmland, and local communities. An energy source that requires less land is better for the environment than an energy source that uses more.

3. Pollution

Pollution isn’t just a concern for human health (see above); it’s also a concern for the environment as well. Air and water pollution from mining, transporting materials, generating power, and disposing of waste can kill wildlife and damage natural ecosystems. The threat of pollution is even worse if parts of the supply chain get outsourced to developing countries with weak environmental regulations. When that happens, the overall pollution from an energy source can end up being much higher than you see at first glance.  The less pollution an energy source generates in total—not just in use, but along its entire supply chain—the better it is for the environment. 

4. Waste

How much waste does the energy source generate and what risk does that waste pose to the environment? An energy source that produces less waste with less potential to harm the environment is better in this regard.

Local feasibility factors 

Local feasibility factors determine whether it’s practical (or even possible) to use an energy source in a particular place. Local availability of a natural resource and local economic or political conditions are two types of local feasibility factors.

1. Local energy improvement

Does an energy source provide at least as much energy to the local population as they are getting from their current sources? If we’re going to help people and the environment in a given place, we need to increase the amount of energy available there. That means that whatever energy sources we use in that place need to provide at least as much energy to the local population as they get from their current energy sources. 

2. Local infrastructure

Does a locality have the political, economic, and resource infrastructure to build and operate a facility that uses a given energy source? Not all places have abundant natural resources like geothermal or hydro energy. Not all countries or regions have the economic, technological, or political wherewithal to build and operate something as technologically sophisticated as a nuclear power plant. The feasibility of using an energy source in a place depends on all these factors.

Paying close attention to all these factors can help determine which energy source is best for a particular location. Unfortunately, too many world leaders are failing to examine these factors. They’re instead focusing all their attention on climate change. 

Climate Change

Climate change has become a hotly debated political issue. Here are two views that get a lot of media attention: 

Climate View 1: Climate change threatens human civilization as we know it. There’s a limit on how much damage the environment can endure. Reaching that limit will result in rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and the destruction of natural habitats that will increase the severity of droughts, hurricanes, fires, and floods. Many species will go extinct, and billions of people will be displaced. Therefore, we need to eliminate fossil fuel use and rapidly transition to renewable energy sources and electric vehicles. 

Climate View 2: Human activity doesn’t contribute to climate change in any noticeable way. The climate has been undergoing regular cycles of change throughout Earth’s history. Today is no different. CO2 isn’t a pollutant, but a basic ingredient of living systems—fuel for plant life around the globe. CO2 emissions don’t pose any credible threats to human well being. In fact, CO2 levels are lower now than they have been at other times in Earth’s history. Therefore, we need to continue using coal, natural gas, and oil to ensure prosperity for both the developing world and the developed world.

I think both of these views are wrong, but neither is completely wrong. Each has a kernel of truth—but just a kernel. 

The kernel of truth in Climate View 1 is that increasing emissions of greenhouse gasses like CO2 likely increases the risk of climate-related natural disasters in the future. 

The kernel of truth in Climate View 2 is that Earth’s atmosphere is a dynamic system that undergoes regular cycles of change, and that CO2 levels are lower now than they have been at other periods in Earth’s history.

The problem is that each view exaggerates the kernel of truth that it has. As a result, both views fail to reckon the complexity of the issue, and both fail to evaluate climate risk in a way that reflects the problem’s real dimensions. To be reasonable and responsible about climate change we need to consider the risks that more severe natural disasters pose to human populations, and weigh those risks against the benefits of increasing energy use to fuel economic development and technological innovation—especially innovation that shields people from the effects of climate change. 

Will using more energy—even if it’s better energy—change the climate? It likely will. There’s little doubt that human energy consumption contributes to climate change. But climate change by itself isn’t either good or bad. It becomes a concern because of the way it could affect people’s lives. Some of its effects on people’s lives could be negative; others could be positive.

For example, the world has warmed about one degree celsius since the 1850s. That increased global temperature could increase the severity of floods, droughts, heatwaves, hurricanes, and fires—events that could negatively affect people’s lives. On the other hand, that increased temperature has also increased food supplies in many parts of the world—something that could positively affect people’s lives. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization forecasts that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050. Moreover, the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80% to 90%. In addition, more people die worldwide from exposure to cold than from exposure to heat. Even in hot India, cold kills five times as many people as heat. On balance, warming saves about twice as many people as it kills.

Moreover, energy consumption fuels the development of technologies that insulate people from the negative effects of climate change. Deaths from natural disasters declined over 98% during the last century even though the global population quadrupled. Why? Because we developed technologies that sheltered people from the effects of natural disasters—early warning systems, heating and air conditioning systems, and more resilient buildings and infrastructures. In general, increasing energy use and fueling economic development helps shield people from natural disasters while providing better healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects a 430% increase in human welfare for the average person by 2100 after accounting for climate-related damages. 

So handling climate change isn’t a simple matter of trying to stop it by consuming less energy. That’s an approach that effectively turns a blind eye to the billions of people living in energy poverty around the globe. A better approach is to weigh the likely effects of climate change on people’s lives—both positive and negative—and to prepare for whatever negative effects there are by eradicating poverty and developing technologies that make people more resilient in the face of climate hazards.

Unfortunately, world leaders haven’t adopted this balanced approach. They’re instead  pursuing misguided energy policies that are hurting both people and the planet.