Presidential nominee Donald Trump’s energy mantra is seductive. It promises that by unleashing fossil fuel companies to harness American fossil fuels, we will create jobs, stimulate long-term economic growth, provide energy security, and cement American leadership in the world.
In fact, this approach could do the opposite.
This double down on drilling only makes sense in a world that no longer exists – where fossil fuels were cheap compared to other resources, where the pain and costs of climate change were hypothetical and far off, where countries didn’t have new technologies to create their own energy sources and lower their dependency on fossil fuel exporters, where clean-tech companies weren’t creating jobs and economic growth across the U.S., with most of it happening in conservative states, and where America wasn’t already the largest oil and gas producer on the globe.
In today’s world, fossil fuels are significantly more expensive than renewable energy in almost every corner of our country, and around the world. Battery prices have dropped so precipitously that utility-scale renewables, coupled with storage systems, are becoming competitive with fossil fuels. Importantly, these new systems are projected to get much cheaper, quickly. That means a fossil fuel plant built today – which typically runs for 40 years – could lock in higher energy costs or be closed early and become a stranded asset.
It also means that conservative states like South Dakota, Iowa, and Kansas now get more than 50% of their electricity from renewables and have some of the lowest electricity rates in the country. And in Texas, the country’s fossil fuel powerhouse, consumers save significantly by integrating higher levels of renewables – running on up to 70% renewable electricity when conditions are right.
To be clear, we will need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future to maintain economic stability. After all, about 80% of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, our energy demand is increasing, and our long-term storage options are still limited. Natural gas is a market darling that provides “firm,” at-the-ready power with lower emissions than burning coal. But natural gas creates significant CO2 emissions, and leaks and flaring put methane (a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2 over the short term) directly into the atmosphere. Unless we can economically capture their emissions and make these legacy fuels cleaner and safer to use, we will need to phase them out as soon as is feasible, not make them the center of our energy strategy.
We are progressing. Clean tech already provides almost all new power capacity in the U.S. and worldwide, even in China, where 90% of new power additions this year so far have been clean energy. And despite recent negative press, EVs are growing at a scorching rate internationally – in China, the market leader, more EVs were sold than combustion engine cars this summer and Norway now has more EVs on the road than combustion engine cars. Heat pumps outsold natural gas furnaces for the first time in 2020 in the United States and now account for 55% of heating system sales. There may be zigzags in our progress, but the trendline is clear.
This strong pivot toward clean tech represents the future; these new technologies hold the potential for a superior energy system. The buildout to integrate them will be disruptive and require upfront investment, but they promise a huge prize once they’re up and running at full scale: cleaner, cheaper, more secure energy. Renewable energy and EVs aren’t perfect, but they are evolving rapidly, and their competitive advantage against fossil fuels will only grow. Other new technologies, including new nuclear, green hydrogen, and thermal batteries powered by clean energy, also hold promise and are sectors where America can lead.
The “drill, baby, drill” mantra also infers that the costs and pain caused by climate change don’t exist or matter. That is no longer credible in today’s world, when the science has become much more robust, and we are seeing impacts in our own backyards – and in our own wallets. We know that burning fossil fuels is primarily responsible for climate change and that damages will get worse as emissions continue to rise. In fact, through the science of attribution, we can identify and quantify climate change’s role in individual natural disasters. And a more chaotic climate will harm our economy, safety, health, and geopolitical stability – the issues everyone cares about, no matter how they vote.
Climate change is a jobs killer – across farming, fishing, recreation, and tourism. It puts huge pressure on our food, water, and health systems. It drives up taxes as we are forced to rebuild from more frequent and powerful natural disasters, and to create and repair infrastructure that is suitable for our new climate reality. It threatens our housing sector, driving up insurance costs or making it impossible to get, which has wider ramifications for mortgages, municipal tax bases, and the economy at large.
Doubling down on fossil fuels could also harm our standing in the world. While China is the biggest emitter today, the U.S. has emitted more than any country on a historical basis and is still one of the highest emitters per capita. As more countries grapple with the consequences of climate change, from historic flooding to crushing heat waves and more powerful hurricanes, resentment against the U.S. will grow if we flagrantly defy international treaties and collective efforts to keep our world safer. “Drill, baby, drill” will move us from being a leader to a laggard on the world stage, enabling China to “own” the technologies that will fuel the world in the future.
We all want a strong economy and a better future for our families. We need both parties to step forward with forceful, forward-looking energy and climate policies. Many conservatives who are part of the burgeoning eco-right are doing just that – recommending market approaches, like a price on carbon, instead of regulations and incentives. The “drill, baby, drill” approach is way past its expiration date. We now understand the escalating cost and pain of using fossil fuels and the promise of cutting-edge technologies that can replace them. We need policies that meet today’s realities, not ones that cleave to yesterday’s dreams.
