American energy consumption since 1776
Happy Fourth of July to all of our readers. Did you know that virtually all of the energy used by Americans until 1850 was renewable? From 1776 to 1850, wood…
Tomorrow, Policy Fellow Isaac Orr will be participating in an online webinar talking about energy policy in a post-COVID world.
Early in the coronavirus quarantines, media outlets began reporting on significant changes in the natural environment as a result of reduced human activity. We were told that wildlife was returning to urban areas and that the air was suddenly and dramatically cleaner, as was the water. We were told that CO2 emissions were dropping noticeably and that the reductions in human activity were actually a “silver lining” to the virus. Progressive greens trumpeted the economic slowdowns as something that should be made permanent to ensure a cleaner environment and a solution to climate change.
But we’ve had a bit more time to look into the actual changes caused by reduced human activity and we’re learning that these early reports were largely incorrect. Air quality reports are showing little to no impact from the quarantines. In fact, some areas actually have higher particulate matter readings due to natural events. We also learned that many wildlife “sightings” were misreported or that the wildlife seen was typical of that area.
In almost every case, the natural laboratory that the coronavirus quarantines have created is demonstrating that many of the progressive green movement’s most dearly held beliefs about the negative impacts of human activity are simply and profoundly wrong. Since that is the case, we have ample reason to question whether we should implement the green movement’s extreme policy suggestions, like the Green New Deal.
Join us as we point out better options.
Click here to register!