Robert Bryce’s latest book lays out a powerful case for treating electricity as a human right
Duggan Flanakin
In his latest seminal book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Austin, Texas-based energy analyst and futurist Robert Bryce declares that “electricity has become a human right.”
It’s not an “endowed by our Creator” human right, nor one enunciated by a constitution or UN charter. It’s not akin to freedom of religion or speech. It’s not some entitlement we get for free. But it is definitely a fundamental right of access to this all-empowering energy source; a right for all human lives to be improved and blessed the way ours have been; a right to never be denied access to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity, on a phony claim that letting you have it would hurt the environment or climate.
Try to imagine your home, school, healthcare, business, community or world – your life – without this amazing energy source, and you will wholeheartedly agree with Bryce.
In chapter 16, Bryce speaks of “the Terawatt Challenge.” It’s a term coined by the late Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, who posited that, if we can provide sufficient electricity to all peoples of the world, we can largely eliminate the massive problems of poverty, polluted environments, unsafe water and food insecurity. Bryce solemnly notes that our world is still far from that goal. But we can get there.
Bryce traces the history of harnessed electricity, from Benjamin Franklin through Tesla, Edison and Westinghouse – to the much less well known but equally important Frank Julian Sprague, who developed electric elevator motors (enabling skyscrapers) and the nation’s first electric rail system. He illustrates how Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw construction of massive dams that provided cheap electricity to every corner of America. It was FDR, Bryce notes, who in 1932 proclaimed that “Electricity is no longer a luxury; it is a definite necessity.”
Bryce then hits us with the horrific reality that roughly 3.3 billion people (45% of humanity!) still live today in places where annual per capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr) – about what his home refrigerator uses. These people barely survive in Unplugged countries.
Another 2.7 billion people (37%) scrape by in Low-Watt countries. Only 19% of all people on Planet Earth live in “High-Watt” nations (more than 4,000 kWh/yr) – the bottom threshold, says Dr. Alan Pasternak, the key dividing line below which countries cannot improve their Human Development Index.
A major barrier, therefore, to electricity sufficiency for the Unplugged – and even the Low-Watt – nations is the lack of societal integrity, capital investment and affordable energy. Yet, to ensure that all humanity can reach its full potential – to liberate women from endless drudgery, enabling them to develop their innate skills and talents – requires that the human right to electricity be recognized and made reality.
How do we reach this lofty but essential goal? An essential component of societal integrity is that governments enforce the rule of law. The freest and wealthiest countries are those where factions share political and economic power. In the poorest countries elites organize society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people. Capital – and energy – are much easier to obtain in a free society.
To illustrate the magnitude of the gap between Unplugged and High-Watt nations, Bryce chronicles the meteoric rise of the Giant Five – Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft – each of which consumes more electricity each year than many entire countries. Financial services, from Visa to Bitcoin, also have giant electricity appetites, as does the marijuana industry.
These businesses all know from experience the cost that electricity blackouts impose on them – and their customers. Both weather and sabotage threaten the integrity of the electric grid, but the greater threat is the folly of those who believe that wind and solar alone can provide sufficient electric energy for a high-tech society, let alone the world’s billions.
Bryce chronicles how four factors – cost, storage, scale, and land use – prevent renewables from taking over our energy and power systems. Electricity prices are soaring in countries like Germany, which panicked after Fukushima and began shuttering its nuclear power plants. A third of German businesses, including automotive, see high electricity costs as threats to their viability, Bryce notes.
Rising electricity costs following enactment of Ontario’s Green Energy Act led to political defeat for the Liberal Party and the rescission of 758 renewable energy contracts. Even in California, civil rights leaders have filed a lawsuit, decrying how the state’s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers; it is now working its way through the legal system.
Bryce’s reporting suggests that the elitists who are pushing renewable energy – like despots in broken (Low-Watt or Unplugged) countries – ignore the poor and middle class and treat rural areas as if they were uninhabited or just irrelevant, as they pursue unattainable goals that heavily burden taxpayers while threatening electricity reliability.
Meeting California’s 80% renewable mandate, for example, will require massive increases in costly electric storage because of seasonal variation in wind and solar electricity generation. Green energy growth today cannot even keep up with the annual increase in global electricity demand, let alone replace all conventional power. But the final nail in the renewables coffin is land use.
Bryce cites multiple studies showing that an all-wind grid would mean turbine farms would cover a tenth of the nation’s total land. Frustrated by the indifference of urban elites to the real-world impacts on human health and wildlife, rural counties are fighting wind farms with renewed vengeance. Giant solar arrays also present a choice between vanishing ecosystems and “clean” energy that is actually highly polluting. Mining for metals and minerals to build wind and solar systems would also be monumental.
Despite opposition by environmentalists, developing nations are rapidly turning to nuclear as a fuel for the future. But, Bryce notes, it takes national commitments akin to the New Deal to provide both the political stability and financial backing to construct and operate large nuclear power plants economically. High-Watt countries have imposed exorbitant permitting and regulatory costs on themselves and poor countries; together with antinuclear zeal, this greatly limits the prospects for nuclear energy.
Thanks to fracking, natural gas has become abundant and cheap. It must be a major part of the world’s electricity generation future. Yet governments in High-Watt countries are already banning fracking, blocking new pipelines, and even demanding that citizens mothball their gas-burning appliances.
Despite all the attacks on affordable, reliable fuels, Bryce is optimistic about the world’s ability and willingness to meet the Terawatt Challenge and provide electricity to a hungry world, without wrecking the biosphere. Indeed, in little over a century, a fifth of the world has gone from no electricity to High-Watt usage and another three-eighths is somewhat electrified – and their environments are better for it.
The humanist response to the Terawatt Challenge, Bryce asserts, is to empower the billions who are living in the dark to come into the bright light of modernity, progress, and better, longer, healthier lives. This will require societal integrity, massive infusions of capital, and the right choices of fuels. Bryce admits that electrifying the world will take time. But it can – and must – be done.
Government regulation of these entities has become increasingly bloated and corrupt, Bryce notes. We must significantly change our standards for both fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, to acknowledge technological improvements, the falsity of many environmentalist claims, and the fact that not having more of those power plants imposes enormous costs on lands, wildlife, human health and human rights.
Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many articles on energy, climate change and environmentalism.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I dislike the pollution of the word “right”. In it’s original meaning a “right” is something that is inherently yours, was never granted by government authority and which government authority cannot take away or infringe. An example is the right to speak freely without risk of arrest or prosecution. You can say whatever you like, but nobody is required to listen or provide you a platform. Many people lack this right today.
Modern usage has morphed so that a “right” is something that a government guarantees to you, without any merit or effort on your part. The progressive push is to bundle more and more goodies under the label of “basic human right”. The problem is these kinds of “rights” generate a corresponding “duty” on someone else’s part to provide them to you. Would so many people be in favor of “free universal health care” if it was instead labeled “compulsory uncompensated work for doctors and nurses?”.
So calling electricity a “right” pushes us down a path of wrong thinking.
Electricity is an enabler of higher civilization. It’s not that we have a “right” to it, but we should want it for the benefits it provides and set aside resources to make it available and reliable.
Other technological enablers:
+ Written language.
+ Numeracy (mathematical literacy).
+ Transportation. Every civilization of note has invested in roads, bridges, canals, ships, etc. In the ancient world the Romans are the best example, reaching a level not matched for over 1,000 years. The modern world has added rail and air travel to the mix, each requiring specialized infrastructure.
+ Communication. Prior to telegraphy communication and transportation used the same infrastructure, since either a person or a written artifact had to physically get from one communicant to the other (watchfires, smoke signals and heliographs being limited exceptions). Even with telegraphs, the wiring was strung along existing road/rail lines. Broadcast medium and later satellites got away from that strict dependence and communication required its own specialized infrastructure.
+ Water/sewer. Urban civilization is impossible without moving in potable water and taking out waste.
People should understand how each of these enablers is essential to maintaining modern industrial civilization and be willing to devote the resources required to provide them. And modern industrial civilization in turn enables us to generate the surplus wealth to pay for these essentials without having to sacrifice others.
There is a path out of national poverty and electricity is most certainly part of it, but it is not the first or most important step. Having a government and social structure that supports private property, commercial contracts and access to markets for goods and services is much more fundamental. So are a common language and available if not widespread literacy and numeracy.
The 3.5 billion people currently lacking even minimal electricity also have the “basic human right” to not be ruled by autocratic and incompetent kleptrocracies, but building terawatts of new power won’t fix that. And providing electric infrastructure to societies which can’t support or won’t allow the level of economic activity necessary to pay for its maintenance only guarantees it will fall into disrepair and collapse.
I know electricity is essential to the kind of life I wish to continue to live. But let’s not promote it as a sufficient solution to problems which require much more fundamental remedies. And trying to oppose renewable energy mandates because they will stop the world’s poorest from getting electricity is a weak argument at best. It’s part of the rhetorical contortions we go through in the belief that whatever we oppose must be called “racist” to get anyone’s attention.
We should oppose renewable energy mandates because they are unnecessary, wasteful and impractical. And the resources thus wasted will delay or deny us achieving some new technological enabler which in turn will advance industrial civilization. Our generation should bequeath to the next more capabilities and options than we were given. It’s for the children.
I know you weren’t intending to make an exhaustive list, but how can anyone leave out signal flags, semaphores and signal lights which were and to a limited extent still used by war ships.
There are also various finger gestures.
Well said! It needs also to be resisted when the UN charter is put on the same footing as the Declaration of Independence.
UN Universal Delcaration of Human Rights, Article 25 includes:
“(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
The UN Charter Declaration of Human Rights is not some simple document that we should all agree to.
To paraphrase Mnuchin, “First study economics, then lecture us on universal rights.”
Yup
Perhaps this ‘right’ should be better phrased in that we all gave the right to pursue affordable electricity, like the USA Constitution allows the right to purse “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. None of these are guaranteed to magically appear…you have to pursue it. It should be priced affordably, which is part of the total debate about a lot of renewables, as the worst of these (solar and wind) tend to be increasing the price past affordability for many.
If it were some inalienable right like the freedom to breath, then the homeless would all get electric blankets and plug into my outdoor block heater outlet. Actually if I were homeless, an electric blanket and perhaps an electric vest, socks and gloves would be my prized possessions, just to make that cardboard mattress a little more comfortable. And a 50 foot extension cord.
If electricity is a necessity for life, are the Amish zombies?
Tired of this ****** meme where everything is now a “right” . It’s time to end it, not join it. The only inalienable rights we have can be exercised without anyone else’s labor. If you say we have a ‘right’ to clothing, housing, food, medicine, TV, or whatever, then you are saying that we have a ‘right’ to someone else’s labor. There is a name for someone whose labor you have the ‘right’ to – a slave. The fact that we have muddled this relationship through the great money laundering of government coercion doesn’t change this fact. Government guaranteed rights are enforced by the threat of deadly force. If that includes your labor for someone else’s ‘right’ then you are, at least a little bit, a slave.
David is correct.
The implication of Liberty is that you have the Right to enjoy the fruit of your own labour. Forced labour without reward is at least partial slavery.
True rights cost others nothing; anything with a cost imposed on others is not a right, it is, however, theft.
Nobody has a right to a commodity produced by other people.
A brief review: https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/just-right-anyway-5-word-test/
It is not a right; however, neither is food, housing, and a guaranteed paycheck.
You can stop by a water source, lake, etc. and pretty much get the water you need, but that is different. You have to treat it like you just came out of the forest with nothing on your possession. That is how to treat a right.
If his argument is that we should have access to power not denied, like water, that would be different in a way. Not that you deserve the power and get it for free, but you do have access to water.
Arizona and California almost went in an interstate war on the Colorado River as California was vacuuming the water from the river for its agricultural industry. It was one of the longest SCOTUS cases between AZ and CA, some 11 years. It guarantees that States have rights to water sources (most of AZ is in the Colorado river network).
Access should only mean where it is available. Not a guaranteed right.
I like Bryce. I may not agree with everything he says, but he is a very savvy dude.