The clean energy revolution that never happened

OPINION:

Cast your mind back to Sept. 6, 2019, when presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden, campaigning in New Hampshire, took the hand of a 24-year-old activist. “Kiddo,” he said, “look in my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”

Mission unaccomplished.

Did President Biden’s policies, including hugely expensive subsidies and mandates, hasten a revolutionary and inevitable “energy transition”?

According to the elite media, absolutely.

To take but one example: An essay by two Oxford professors in The Wall Street Journal late last month was headlined: “The Clean Energy Revolution Is Unstoppable!”

The subhead: “The Trump administration is determined to promote fossil fuels, but the economic and technological forces driving solar, wind and other sources are now too powerful to resist.”

Color me skeptical.

I say this having just read “Blackout” by Brenda Shaffer, a senior adviser for energy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the think tank where I expend my professional energies.

Her monograph examines energy policies that threaten U.S. national security. The title of her first chapter: “There is no energy transition coming.”

Among the facts she marshals: Strong interest in and promoting “alternative energy” began during the oil crisis in 1973, when fossil fuels provided 84.5% of global energy consumption.

Half a century later, with trillions of dollars invested in alternative energy, fossil fuels provide roughly 82% of global energy.

Does that sound like a revolutionary and unstoppable clean energy transition to you?

What’s more, as Ms. Shaffer points out, this modest decline in fossil fuel usage is only partly explained by the growth of wind and solar. Another part is “explained by counting as renewable the burning of dung, wood, and other biomass,” such as charcoal and lump coal.

Do I need to explain why dung, wood and other biomass are not revolutionary, clean or green?

What I may need to bring to your attention are some of the reasons that solar, wind and electric vehicles are not as green and clean as advertised.

Solar “farms” are often like deserts, with panels covering vast tracts of land devoid of flora and fauna.

Wind turbines can be guillotines for birds.

Electric vehicles run on batteries that require cobalt, which comes mainly from impoverished Congo, where mining practices, including children working bare-handed, have been causing enormous environmental damage.

Companies under Chinese control take possession of most of the cobalt and send it to companies in China for processing.

Once an EV is manufactured because it’s emissions-free, it must be green and clean, right?

No, because if the electricity that charges its battery comes from a coal-fired power plant, it’s a coal-powered vehicle. If the plant uses natural gas, that’s much cleaner, but natural gas is one of the fossil fuels that the “energy transition” is meant to “end.”

Regarding the national security implications, China dominates the global EV market — batteries, EV production and sales — and the global wind and solar industries. China has more market dominance in strategic minerals than OPEC has in oil.

American, European and United Nations policies that promote and even underwrite the substitution of these renewables for fossil fuels empower China, ruled by the strongest communist party in history led by President Xi Jinping, whose goal is to displace the United States as the most powerful nation on earth.

Mr. Xi leads an anti-American axis that includes Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran, and Kim Jong-un in North Korea.

Perhaps you think: “But we still need an energy transition because we need much more electricity. Artificial intelligence demands huge amounts of electricity to power data servers.”

Yes, we are indeed in an AI arms race. As Mr. Putin has predicted, whoever wins will become “the ruler of the world.”

Solar and wind duplicate rather than add. Because they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows, they must be backed up by a continuous energy source, which generally means fossil fuels.

Your next objection might be: “But wind and solar are addressing climate change.” Addressing is not the same as impacting.

Among the reasons: The Chinese are building dirty coal-fueled power plants at a frenetic pace.

Unlike Greta Thunberg and John Kerry, Mr. Xi doesn’t believe climate change is an existential threat. The scientific evidence suggests he is correct.

Climate change is a challenge. We can handle it. Fossil fuels will help. If you think that’s wrong, buy condos in Halifax rather than Miami.

Some good news: President Trump appears to understand that energy security is a key component of national security.

Last month, he signed an executive order creating the National Energy Dominance Council. The council, which will be chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and vice-chaired by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, will recommend a national energy dominance strategy.

“American energy leadership is vital not only for our Nation’s economic and national security but also for the security of our allies,” a White House fact sheet declares.

Expect the council to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy emphasizing domestically produced fossil fuels and next-generation small modular nuclear reactors.

There’s more to do. Mr. Trump should prod allies, the World Bank and the United Nations to reverse their many policies that, as Ms. Shaffer points out, exacerbate “global energy poverty” and create “opportunities for China to increase its influence in the developing world.”

She concludes: “The future of America’s energy security depends on revising the full array of policies based on the premise of an imminent transition to renewable energy.”

• Clifford D. May is the founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the “Foreign Policy” podcast.