Having discerned the Green New Deal as fraudulent, President Trump’s shift to maximize proven energy technologies may very well be America’s salvation from an economic disaster that climate policies were sure to deliver.

The forced “transition” to alternative energy – relentlessly evangelized by policymakers, environmentalists, and corporate titans – promised to save humanity from purported perils of climate change. But far from being a solution, the movement proved a perilous misadventure, fundamentally misaligned with real-world energy demands.

For decades, fossil fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – alongside nuclear power, have met global energy needs with unmatched efficiency. Together, they account for over 84% of global energy consumption, a figure that has barely budged despite years of green rhetoric and subsidies.

Unlike wind and solar, coal and nuclear plants can churn out electricity continuously month after month, rain or shine. The amount of land and materials required for such production is but a fraction of what wind turbines and solar panels take to produce equal amounts of electrons.

Oil and natural gas fuel nearly all transportation and serve as chemical feedstock for a dizzying array of products ranging from pharmaceuticals to ubiquitous plastics – roles that so-called renewables are incapable of filling. The reliability and versatility of hydrocarbons are not luxuries but necessities. If we didn’t have fossil fuels, we would have to invent them.

The green transition’s advocates often gloss over these realities, assuming that technological breakthroughs will magically bridge the gap. But hope is not a strategy.

Germany’s Energiewende, a decades-long experiment in renewable energy, has delivered soaring electricity prices – among the highest in Europe – and required a continued use of coal to back up the intermittent production of wind and solar. In the United States, California’s aggressive push for solar and wind has led to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing utility bills. Both are examples of ideology taking precedence over sensible energy planning.

Germany and California are not anomalies but a preview of what any chaser of the green unicorn would face eventually. An imposed switch from fossil fuels is affordable only for those who can bear its inefficiencies, leaving the majority of the world with diminished living standards and shortened lives.

Moreover, energy is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Nations are endowed with unique resources, and their energy strategies must reflect the differences. Canada, for instance, harnesses its mighty rivers to generate over 60% of its electricity from hydropower – a capacity that wind and solar can’t replicate.

France’s fleet of nuclear reactors produces over 70% of the country’s power, a model of efficiency that sunlight and breezes can’t match. The Middle East, sitting atop vast oil and gas reserves, powers itself and much of the world with fuels that remain indispensable for transportation and manufacturing.

This diversity is not a flaw to be corrected but a strength to be embraced. India’s coal reserves, for example, are a lifeline for a nation where 300 million people still lack reliable electricity. Switching to imported solar panels or untested hydrogen would not only drain its coffers but also cede energy security to foreign suppliers.

Customized energy strategies, predominantly rooted in fossil fuels and nuclear, leverage available resources and efficient technologies without massive solar and wind industrial installations smothering arable land and scenic vistas.  

Beyond economics, tailored energy strategies bolster national sovereignty. Relying on local fossil fuels or nuclear capacity means less dependence on foreign supply chains – a critical edge in an unstable world.

The green agenda, on the other hand, demanded conformity. Every nation had to adopt the same playbook – mainly solar and wind – regardless of local realities. Poor nations, in particular, require flexibility to develop economically, which can only be impeded by green mandates.

The Green New Deal was dangerous dogma masquerading as progress. Fossil fuels and nuclear power must remain central to the global energy mix, not because they are traditional but because they are needed. The green fantasy has been a product of hubris – a belief that human ingenuity could defy nature’s limits and economic gravity in a single bound. The Trump administration is abandoning this mirage and embracing energy sources that are abundant, affordable and attuned to the world as it is rather than as the deluded wish it to be.

This commentary was first published at Townhall March 13, 2025.

Photo by Marc-Olivier Jodoin on Unsplash.