This commentary is by Andrew K. Gentile, an electrical engineer who lives in Sheffield.
This summer’s flooding has prompted dozens of stories linking our weather to the use of fossil fuels, with each story following the same pattern: The flooding is due exclusively to the use of fossil fuels, and we have to stop using fossil fuels immediately or the results will be catastrophic.
Not included are any specifics to support this certainty, or the consequences of following this advice.
Attributing specific undesirable weather events to human-induced climate change is more politics than science, but for the sake of discussion let’s assume that these warnings are accurate, and that 100% of our observed climate change is due exclusively to the use of fossil fuels, and also that we live in an isolated climate bubble where external events such as China’s recent approval of 50 gigawatts of coal-powered electricity — enough to power Vermont 75 times over — have no effect on our local climate.
Imagine that Vermont imposed an immediate ban on all fossil fuels, and within 30 days everyone would switch to all-electric appliances, heat and vehicles, and all-electric generation would be renewable, having zero emissions. This is pretty much what climate activists are asking for. Assuming that this could even be done, what would be the consequences of this action?
The local environmental benefits would be significant. We would have no toxins floating in the air from vehicle exhaust. We wouldn’t hear loud ATVs or trucks or chain saws, because all motorized devices would be electric. It would be a very pleasant change.
This transition would require equipment. Households would need an EV replacement for each vehicle they own, costing at least $50,000 each. Many homes would need electric heating. Most rural homes would need a battery backup system because generators would no longer be allowed. All gas and propane water heaters and stoves would have to be replaced with electric. All boats and ATVs would be converted to electric, or replaced altogether. All chain saws would be replaced with electric. Off-grid people who now use wood heat would have to install very large solar panel arrays with batteries for their heat.
The cost per household would be significant, at least $100,000, and assuming financing would be available to everyone, the per-household cost of this energy transition would be in the area of $1,500 per month.
The costs to businesses would be greater. All suppliers of firewood, heating oil, propane and natural gas would go out of business. Most gas stations would go out of business, which would hurt tourism. A few would remain, mostly along the interstates. Most auto dealers and repair shops would go out of business.
Because there are yet no EV alternatives to agricultural equipment, commercial farming would have to be outsourced to other states where fossil fuels are still allowed. Many Vermont farms would go out of business. The cost of food would spike.
While Vermont would lose many thousands of jobs and the cost of living would at least double, the suppliers of this new transitional equipment (solar panels and other “green energy devices”) would become rich overnight. Efficiency Vermont would finally be recognized as the official government department that it is.
If we made these changes where each household invested $100,000 into the electric future, would it be worth it? If we stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, how long would it take for the climate to return to a more desirable operating point? Isn’t that what we would be paying for?
It is generally accepted among activists that our current climate is the direct result of burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, the effects of which weren’t detectable until about 75 years ago. It took 175 years of accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere before anyone noticed.
If Vermonters stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow — ignoring the overpowering effects of the rest of the carbon-burning world — no one reading this commentary would be alive long enough to see a measurable difference in climate. But we would all experience a dramatic decrease in our standard of living.
The people who are demanding that we immediately end the use of fossil fuels are virtue signaling, and they are doing so from the comfort of a civilized world created by fossil fuels. They are using computers and phones, created from mined metals and petroleum-based plastics. Count the things in your home that were provided by fossil fuels and you will get a sense of the magnitude of change being proposed.
The comforts we enjoy are proportional to the rate of energy we use. If we expect to shift away from fossil fuels, either we need a suitable replacement, or we have to be ready to live very different lives. Renewables are not yet advanced enough to be that replacement. A solar panel installed in Vermont will not even generate enough energy to make another solar panel.
If we waste our efforts on symbolic solutions instead of practical ones, we will create bigger problems. And if poorly considered policies result in us not having enough affordable energy for producing and shipping food, products and services, the results will be much more immediate and devastating than bad weather. A breakdown in society will help us understand what a catastrophe is.
A more practical approach to this transition would be to use renewables where they make sense, and to leave fossil fuel usage in place until a cost-effective alternative has been developed.