May 6, 2023

A proper accounting of the pollution impacts of products or activities requires an assessment of the total “ecological footprint” involved.  Writer Wendell Berry called these the “externalized costs” of production.  Proponents of so-called “renewable energy” products largely avoid analyzing true costs.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

There is only so much that humanity can reasonably accomplish in energy conservation.  If renewable energy is to make a difference, the increase in manufacturing production required is mind-staggering:

[T]he transition of the U.S. electrical supply away from fossil fuels by 2050 would require an astonishing increase in the rate of grid construction, amounting to an estimated 14 times that of the rate over the past half century. The same goes for wind and solar plant construction. To achieve 90% decarbonization and electrification by 2035 the United States “would have to quadruple its last annual construction of wind turbines every year for the next 15 years and triple its last annual construction of solar PV every year for the next 15 years” — and then repeat this colossal manufacturing endeavor indefinitely, as solar panels and wind turbines have average lifespans of around 15 to 30 years. 

The full pollution footprint of the construction and installation of all those wind turbines and (coal-fired) solar panels must be measured to assess their true environmental cost.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

If energy and pollution reduction are to be seriously undertaken, so too should the end uses of energy be differentiated based upon their utility.  For instance, it is a better use of fossil fuels, and a more justifiable release of pollution, to grow crops or provide homes with heat than it is to race NASCAR or drive a long distance to ski or skydive.

I am not advocating to use government to widely regulate human activities to control pollution.  But those who do, if they were to be credible, would oppose first and foremost those uses of energy that are least justified in their relative benefit to individuals and the community.

For instance, mowing lawns and fireworks displays are two quick picks for activities that have little merit with which to justify energy use and pollution.  Both are 1) immensely popular and 2) unaddressed by climate alarmists.

Fireworks

Fireworks do not feed or warm us.  They produce air, water, and noise pollution, and they are highly dangerous as a fire threat and to human health.  Notwithstanding Greta Thunberg‘s pugnacious protestations, fireworks purchases escalated during COVID:

In the 21st century, consumer fireworks revenue slowly and steadily ticked up from $407 million in 2000 to $1 billion in 2019. In a single year, that number nearly doubled to $1.9 billion in 2020 and then jumped to $2.2 billion in 2021. …