The Climate "Cure" Is Worse Than the Disease

In trying to prevent potential future harms, we are being asked to dismantle the very energy system that has enabled unprecedented prosperity, longer lives, and global development.

One of the biggest red flags for me, back when I was still in the climate movement, was the realization that the proposed cure for climate change might actually be worse than the disease itself.

In this case, the “disease” is climate change: the fact that by burning fossil fuels we’ve warmed the planet somewhat. And the prescribed “cure” is to rapidly phase out oil, coal, and natural gas and replace them with wind and solar as fast as possible.

First of all, oil, coal, and natural gas provide energy that is reliable, versatile, and scalable. Wind and solar, at least with today’s technology, are not. They are intermittent. They require massive land use, backup systems, and enormous investment to deliver far less consistent power. If we were to move away from reliable energy too quickly, the consequences wouldn’t just be inconvenient. Our entire global economy could be destabilized, and billions of lives would be put at risk.

So is climate change actually so dangerous that it warrants this risky switch? The answer I found when I started to look at this honestly was no. Climate change is not severe enough to justify sacrificing the energy system that underpins modern life. Let me explain.

When you set aside model projections about what might happen in 50 or 100 years and instead look at observational data from the past several decades, you see something surprising. Yes, there has been some warming. But that period has also coincided with the greatest era of human flourishing the planet has ever seen.

Humans today are doing far better than our ancestors. And I know it’s chic to be nihilistic, but by almost every measurable metric, the opposite is true. We live longer. We are healthier. We have more food, more mobility, more knowledge, and more opportunity, especially for women.

A simple but powerful example is infant mortality, which has steadily declined around the world. That tells you something fundamental: we have built a society capable of protecting the most vulnerable among us.

At the same time, the thing the climate movement fears most—CO₂—is also plant food. Plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Over the past 150 years, as CO₂ levels have risen, we’ve seen measurable increases in vegetation across the globe, a phenomenon often called “global greening.” There are even studies suggesting that parts of the Sahara Desert are becoming greener.

Other environmental fears also look different when you step back. Many of the worst waves of species loss happened centuries ago, when humans were expanding into new territories without understanding invasive species or regulating hunting. Over the last two hundred years, conservation laws and wildlife protections have helped stabilize many of those trends. As a result, extinctions have declined since the 1800s.

Then there’s ocean “acidification,” which sounds alarming until you learn that the ocean is still alkaline. The change that has occurred is relatively small in chemical terms, with estimates suggesting about a 0.1 drop in pH associated with increased carbon emissions. Earth’s geological history also shows periods with much higher CO₂ levels—far above today’s roughly 420 ppm—when marine life evolved and thrived. That context makes current changes look far less catastrophic than they are portrayed.

Another common fear is an increase in extreme weather like hurricanes, droughts, and floods. But as I’ve stated many times before, even IPCC assessments have not identified clear global increases in these events attributable to climate change, and believe me they’re looking for them!

Once you question some of these major narratives, the argument often shifts from what we observe today to what might happen someday. What if things get worse in the future? That’s an understandable concern. But fear of the unknown shouldn’t override the evidence we have in front of us.

Unfortunately, the media hasn’t gotten that message and their coverage pushes fear and uncertainty. Weather events are frequently framed as proof of climate catastrophe, even when the connection is unclear or disputed. This year outlets like The New York Times even tried to blame our snowy winter in New England on climate change! Many people trust these outlets and don’t think to question them. They’re left with a surface-level understanding that goes something like this: “Climate change is an existential threat, fossil fuels are to blame, and solar and wind are the only solution.”

That narrative then shapes public policy, often leading to poorly designed energy transitions that drive up costs while placing the burden of electrification and net-zero mandates on taxpayers.

Which brings me back to the original point: the climate movement is asking us to undertake a profound tradeoff that is rarely discussed honestly.

In trying to prevent potential future harms, we are being asked to dismantle the very energy system that has enabled unprecedented prosperity, longer lives, and global development.

I would rather live in a world with some climate change and abundant, reliable energy than in a world where energy is scarce, expensive, and unreliable, where humans have less choice and less opportunity.

That may not be a popular view, but I truly believe anyone who weighs the evidence fairly, would come to the same conclusion.