In the U.S., people appreciate the freedoms they have—thanks, in part, to accessible energy sources. They can drive where they like, whether in gas, hybrid, or electric cars, enjoy comfortable housing, prepare meals on gas or electric stoves, and watch their favorite TV shows or sports. All of this is possible largely due to the nation’s affordable energy resources.
Recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy for 2024 indicates that about 82.16% of the energy consumed in the country derives from fossil fuels—think coal, oil, and natural gas—while nuclear power contributes roughly 8.67%. This means that over 90% of the energy last year stemmed from these sources.
In stark contrast, wind energy accounted for only 1.64% and solar power for just 1.17%. There’s a discussion about how a complete transition to green energy could risk destabilizing the power grid.
As both the economy and population grow, energy needs follow suit. Since 1960, energy consumption from fossil fuels and nuclear sources has more than doubled. It’s important to note that nuclear energy reached its peak in 2019 and has mostly stagnated since, largely due to opposition from various environmental groups.
This is somewhat paradoxical; despite an increase in fossil fuels and nuclear energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions have reportedly decreased over the past few decades. For instance, between 1990 and 2022, fossil fuel consumption rose by 8.64%, while the Environmental Protection Agency noted a 3% drop in emissions during that same timeframe.
However, organizations such as the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the National Resources Defense Council are not only opposing the expansion of fossil and nuclear energy production but are advocating for a rollback. They believe the decline in these energy sources should be made up for with so-called renewable technologies like wind and solar, despite some concerns regarding their reliability.
It’s interesting to note that while these groups are particularly against nuclear power—despite its lack of greenhouse gas emissions—they actively campaign against new nuclear plants. For example, the Sierra Club firmly maintains its opposition to new commercial nuclear fission plants. Similarly, 350.org warns that “new nuclear” could be a harmful distraction in the fight against climate change.
The NRDC argues that increasing nuclear power isn’t a proper strategy to diversify energy sources or cut down on carbon emissions. Yet, recently, there has been a noticeable resistance to these campaigns. Major banks, like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan, previously pledged support through the Net Zero Banking Alliance but have recently pulled out.
On the flip side, renewable energy advocates have had notable successes. Since 2001, the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” initiative has led to the closure of over 300 coal-fired plants. Certain projects, like a liquid natural gas export terminal in Oregon and a gas power plant proposal in Connecticut, have also been scrapped, partly due to pressure from these environmental groups.
Interestingly, as pressure mounts to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear power, there’s growing concern that the U.S. is becoming more dependent on China for energy-related technologies. A recent Heritage Foundation report highlighted how China currently dominates the global supply chain for green energy products. This shift could make the U.S. vulnerable economically.
Restricting energy production presents challenges by limiting freedom and options. This dependency could lead to an impression that one must adhere strictly to the lifestyles promoted by climate activists, which could seem overbearing to many.
To maintain genuine freedom, a more liberal approach to energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear power, may be necessary. By overcoming biases against these energy sources, it’s argued that the U.S. can foster a future where affordable energy is part of the equation for true freedom.
