View this email in your browser ([link removed])


** Earth Day Reclaimed: Challenging the Top 10 Myths that Hijacked Environmentalism
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John,

The first Earth Day ([link removed]) in 1970 was organized in response to growing public concern for the environment. Many of the calls to action were justified: polluted rivers were catching fire, and smog was so dense that in downtown Los Angeles, you couldn’t even see the hills a few miles away.

We’ve come a long way over the last half-century. But as Americans celebrate Earth Day on April 22, it’s also time for a reality check: today, many policies advanced in the name of environmentalism too often do more harm than good. Their consequences have either failed to benefit the environment — or have actively made things worse.

What's more, environmental priorities are being shaped and exploited by special interests for profit. Under the banner of “environmentalism,” we’ve seen profound transfers of wealth as only the largest corporations are able to survive the regulatory onslaught and politically favored “green” industries use climate rhetoric to manipulate markets and drive out competitors.

For environmentalism to fulfill its noble and necessary ideals, it must be grounded in truth, not hype. What follows are the top 10 biggest myths that have hijacked environmentalism.

Myth #1: We are in a climate crisis

The claim that our planet is at imminent risk of catastrophic climate change is used to justify sweeping regulations and trillions in spending. But there remains vigorous — if suppressed — debate over whether the data actually supports a “climate crisis.” There is ample evidence that average global temperatures are not rapidly increasing, if they are even increasing at all. There is also strong evidence ([link removed]) that extreme weather events are not increasing but rather that our ability to detect them has improved, and that population increases have led more people to live in places particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.

Even if there is some truth to the claims of climate catastrophists — or to the idea that fossil fuels are to blame — it is not possible to precipitously transform our entire energy infrastructure. The technology is not yet available at any price we could possibly afford, and most nations will not participate. Adaptation is our only rational course of action.

Myth #2: There are too many people

For decades, environmentalists warned of overpopulation because populations worldwide at that time were rapidly growing. Today, in almost every nation, the inverse is now true: birthrates are well below replacement levels. The rapid population growth we’ve seen over the past two centuries, where the global population octupled ([link removed]) from 1 billion in 1804 to over 8 billion by 2024, is over.

The United Nations now estimates the total global population will top out at around 10 billion people ([link removed]) , after which it is projected to decline. Even in those nations that continue to experience rapid population growth, the rate of growth is following the same pattern of decline. There is not one trend anywhere on earth that contradicts this pattern. Humanity faces a future of too few people, not too many.

Myth #3: We are running out of “fossil” fuel

In the U.S. and around the world, new technologies and discoveries have pushed total reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal to record highs — despite increasing demand. According to the Statistical Review on Global Energy, based on current consumption, proven reserves ([link removed]) could supply oil for 61 years, natural gas for 50, and coal for 208. This grossly understates the big picture, however, because proven and recoverable reserves are being expanded all the time. So-called “unproven” reserves — those waiting to be discovered — will easily double the amount of time left.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to research new sources of energy. But we have a century or more to sort this out. So while it is technically correct that fossil fuels are finite, the situation is nowhere near as urgent as was famously predicted by American geologist M. Hubbert, who claimed in 1956 that oil production in the U.S. would peak by 1970 ([link removed]) and then slide into permanent decline.

Myth #4: Biofuel is renewable and sustainable

Biofuel will never supply more than a small fraction of our energy requirements, and attempts to scale it beyond a niche product have produced catastrophic results.

Take California, for example. An acre of corn produces about 500 gallons ([link removed]) of ethanol. To replace the 13.6 billion gallons ([link removed]) of gasoline Californians consumed in 2023, we’d need 20.3 billion gallons of ethanol — because ethanol has less energy per gallon. That would require over 63,000 square miles of farmland and four times more water than the entire state’s agriculture currently uses. Today, all of California’s irrigated farmland only totals about 14,000 square miles. Globally, biofuel crops already cover half a million square miles while only offsetting 2 percent of the global consumption ([link removed]) of transportation fuel.

Myth #5: Offshore wind energy is renewable and sustainable

Offshore wind projects are anything but harmless. Wind turbine blades, on land or offshore, routinely kill raptors, condors, and other magnificent endangered birds, along with bats and insects. Electromagnetic fields from undersea cables produce birth deformities in marine life and produce magnetic fields that disrupt the orientation abilities of some fish. Their low-frequency operational noise disrupts sounds made by fish for mating, spawning, and navigating. The turbines raise sea surface temperatures and disrupt phytoplankton growth — the foundation of the entire marine food chain.

In California, the official plan is to disrupt the state’s treasured marine ecosystem by installing at least 2,500 wind turbines, floating 20 miles offshore, to generate 25 gigawatts (when the wind blows). At 10 megawatts per turbine, each one would need to be nearly 1,000 feet high from the waterline to the top of an upright rotor blade. They will need 7,500 tethering cables ([link removed]) descending 4,000 feet to the sea floor, along with 2,500 high-voltage cables. Expect ratepayers and taxpayers ([link removed]) to subsidize a project that could cost $300 billion or more to build systems that may have a lifespan of only 10-20 years.

Myth #6: Renewables are renewable

Renewables are not renewable ([link removed]) . Renewables most in favor with environmentalists are solar and wind farms with battery farms to store the intermittently generated electricity. Just the consumption of natural resources to build these renewables is hardly sustainable.

For example, using International Energy Agency data, geopolitical writer Peter Ziehan showed ([link removed]) that renewable energy sources require far more raw materials ([link removed]) for power generation than natural gas; to generate one megawatt of power, offshore wind needs 16,000 kilograms of minerals, onshore wind needs 10,000, solar panels need 7,000 — but natural gas needs only 2,000 kg/MW.

Compounding this disparity is the fact that natural gas power plants can operate for 60 years or more, whereas solar installations are typically viable for only 30 years, and wind turbines less than that, depending on where they’re situated. As for electric vehicles (EVs), Ziehan calculated kilograms of minerals per vehicle, with EVs requiring over 200 kg/vehicle, compared to conventional cars at only 35 kg/vehicle.

It’s easy enough to see what this means: replacing conventional energy with “renewables” has ignited an expansion of worldwide mining in nations with minimal environmental protections.

Myth #7: Renewables can replace fossil fuels

Not anytime soon. Worldwide, in 2022, 82 percent of global energy ([link removed]) was still derived from fossil fuels. For everyone on earth to consume half as much energy per capita as Americans, global energy production will have to double. Based on those two facts, fossil fuel is going to be around for a very long time.

Even these statistics understate the challenge. In 2023, most of the non-fossil fuel energy produced was from either nuclear (4.0 percent) or hydroelectric (6.8 percent) sources, leaving only 7.5 percent from allegedly renewable sources. Two-thirds of those “renewables” was biofuel production, which should not be considered renewable or, at the very least, must be considered already at maximum capacity. That leaves only about 2.5 percent of worldwide energy production coming from other renewables, primarily wind, solar, and geothermal sources.

Myth #8: New housing must be confined to the footprint of existing cities

This is not true for California, the United States or worldwide. California’s urban containment policies have caused skyrocketing housing prices by blocking growth. The result is that 94 percent of the population lives on only 5 percent of the land.

Building homes for 10 million Californians on quarter-acre lots, for four-person households — with an equal amount of area allocated for schools, parks, roads, and retail and commercial areas — would consume just 1,953 square miles, and would only increase California’s urban footprint ([link removed]) from 5.0 percent to 6.2 percent of the land in the state. There’s plenty of room for both people and nature.

Myth #9: Mass transit is necessary to achieve sustainability

It’s hard to imagine a claim more at odds with reality. Mass rail transit works in extremely dense urban areas where most jobs are located in a central core. With rare exceptions, such as Manhattan, most metropolitan areas no longer have this hub-and-spoke model ([link removed]) , which renders economically viable mass transit extremely difficult. Ridership has declined dramatically ([link removed]) post-COVID, and most cities are unwilling to police buses and trains, rendering their systems too dangerous ([link removed]) for potential passengers to consider. Meanwhile, technology is rapidly changing how we move. Work-from-home trends, innovations ([link removed]) that will enable smart cars to convoy at higher speeds
and increase the capacity of existing roads, dial-up autonomous taxis and minibuses, and a revolution in passenger drones will take additional pressure off roads in the future.

Myth #10: Wilderness areas are sacred

Treating wilderness as untouchable has backfired in California. Litigation pursuant to the 1973 Endangered Species Act has severely restricted, if not halted, logging on public land, although the current White House administration is trying to change that ([link removed]) . Over the past 40 years, our forests have become overgrown ([link removed]) , resulting in catastrophic fires because we’ve stopped using the tools that once kept them in check.

Similarly, ESA litigation and regulations put a stop to dredging ([link removed]) in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which was the only way to maintain deep, cool channels favored by salmon since the construction of levees in the 1800s caused silt deposits to accumulate in what remained of their migration routes.

It is important to protect truly endangered species, but overzealous environmentalists often create bigger problems.

Reimagining Environmentalism

Our challenge is to restore environmentalism to its honorable roots. That starts with rejecting the flawed ideas that have crept into environmental policy, and reshaping the regulatory system to take away the incentives for opportunism and manipulation by special interests.

Environmentalism, as it is practiced in the 21st century, has become an arm of globalism, a rebranded form of colonialism that blocks poor nations from using their own energy resources to develop their economies, while multinational corporations strip them of other natural resources. Ironically, for these nations, this is hardly “climate justice.”

Real environmental progress depends on economic freedom, competition, and prosperity — because only through prosperity will nations have the funds to invest in innovative and sustainable technology, as well as practical environmental protection.

If Earth Day is to stay meaningful, we must pull environmentalism back from the grip of special — and corporate — interests. That won’t be easy, but it starts by confronting the myths that let them profit while the public pays the price.

— A version of this article by Edward Ring, director of Water and Energy Policy at California Policy Center, was originally published by American Greatness ([link removed]) .
New Podcast ()
[link removed]


** Radio Free California #386: Joy Division
------------------------------------------------------------

On this week's podcast with CPC president Will Swaim and CPC board member David Bahnsen: Californians eager for class war throng to Bernie and AOC rallies for the promise of a “revolution with joy!” Listen now. ([link removed])

More from CPC ()


** The Hidden Costs of CalPERS: How Taxpayers Pay the Price
------------------------------------------------------------
CalPERS is waging war on common-sense staffing solutions that save taxpayers money, targeting a retired finance expert and the agency that employed him part-time. Its goal? Force local governments to hire full-time union workers to prop up a failing pension system plagued by mismanagement. CPC president Will Swam exposes how CalPERS is prioritizing its perpetual expansion over its government agency members, public retirees, and taxpayers in his op-ed in The Orange County Register. ([link removed])


** Urbanists and Unions Can Slow but Not Stop California’s Transportation Progress
------------------------------------------------------------
California is the prime battleground between transportation innovation and legacy mass transit. While Silicon Valley is rolling out driverless taxis and testing flying cars, urbanists and transit unions are seeking more taxpayer funding to buttress money-losing train and bus systems. CPC Visiting Fellow Marc Joffe explains why new technologies will ultimately prevail, but billions of taxpayer dollars will be lit up in the process. Read Joffe's Orange County Register op-ed. ([link removed])
SUPPORT CPC ([link removed])

============================================================

ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA POLICY CENTER

The California Policy Center promotes prosperity for all Californians through limited government and individual liberty.

Learn more at ** CaliforniaPolicyCenter.org ([link removed])
.
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Instagram ([link removed])
Copyright © 2025 California Policy Center, All rights reserved.
We send periodic updates to those who opted in on californiapolicycenter.org

Our mailing address is:
California Policy Center
18002 Irvine Blvd Ste 108
Tustin, CA 92780-3321
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]