By Vijay Jayaraj
For campaigners of the net zero agenda, “climate action” must come first, even if it means throttling the energy lifelines for billions of the poor. The data say something very different. A sweeping analysis by Kevin Dayaratna and Kat Miller, “Energy Abundance and Human Flourishing: A Data‑Driven Global Analysis,” shows what history has already taught us: No nation has ever overcome poverty without first burning, drilling, or mining its way to energy abundance.
Affordable, Reliable Energy – and Plenty of It
The record is that prosperity and energy use rise together across nations, with no exceptions. Countries that consume only a few hundred to a few thousand kilowatt‑hours per person struggle with subsistence incomes of $1,000 to $3,000 a year; those with per capita consumption of tens of thousands of kilowatt‑hours, like the United States and Norway, enjoy vastly higher earnings.
Then there is public health, where the report argues the link to energy extends beyond correlation to cause and effect. You cannot refrigerate a vaccine, sterilize a surgical suite, or run a dialysis machine on carbon credits. Global life expectancy climbed from 32 years around 1900 to over 73 years today, while American life expectancy rose from 49 to nearly 80.
Today, the gap between poor and rich nations remains stark: Life expectancy in Somalia and Chad is below 60 years, while that of Norway, Japan, and Switzerland is above 80. Following a similar arc for child mortality, nations using little energy lose more than one in 10 children while the death rate in energy-intensive countries is one-tenth that.
Industrial output is even more tightly tied to energy, as per capita production rises from a few thousand dollars a year in poor countries to tens of thousands for richer nations.
While some advanced economies exhibit an apparent “decoupling” of output from energy, the report says that this is largely because of efficiency gains and structural shifts from manufacturing to services, not a reduced need for energy itself. In the U.S., real GDP (gross domestic product) grew almost tenfold between 1950 and 2024, while primary energy use rose less than threefold. This means each unit of energy now supports over three times as much output as it did 75 years ago.
The agricultural sector provides another compelling testament to energy’s power. American corn yields are nearly 11 metric tons per hectare compared to a global average of under 6, a gap created by using artificial fertilizers, irrigation pumps, and mechanized equipment, all of which require hydrocarbons. Without natural gas-derived fertilizer and diesel fuel, the American bounty vanishes.
None of this should surprise anyone who has watched India, Vietnam, or Bangladesh pull hundreds of millions out of poverty over the past 30 years. They did it the same way Britain and Germany did it two centuries earlier – with coal, then oil, then natural gas, and eventually a broader mix that includes nuclear and hydro.
The Future Will Be Energy-Intensive
Global electricity demand is set to surge again, driven primarily by Asia. In the United States the demand will come predominantly from AI data centers, advanced manufacturing, and vehicle electrification. Projections show 2% annual growth in American electricity demand through 2030, half from data centers.
If a wealthy, energy-saturated economy like the United States still needs a substantial expansion of new generation, what does that imply for nations that have not yet electrified half their villages?
The critical point is that developing nations are seeking not marginal improvements but rather fundamental, dramatic transformations in living standards. This necessitates massive investments in infrastructure, industrialization, and agricultural modernization – all energy-intensive.
Here is the uncomfortable truth some Western policymakers avoid: A family in Lagos or Lahore cannot reach the living standards of a family in Ohio on rooftop solar panels and battery banks. Rationing power does not produce an industrial base, a modern health system, or a mechanized farm sector. All need whatever mix of coal, gas, oil, hydro, and nuclear can be built the fastest and most affordably.
Originally published at California Globe, August 13, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Tags:
“You cannot refrigerate a vaccine, sterilize a surgical suite, or run a dialysis machine on carbon credits.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Best line I’ve see in a while (-:
While I agree it is a good and funny line, it is also true that – – –
“Carbon credits are tradable instruments that represent a claim of avoided greenhouse gas emissions or enhanced greenhouse gas removals, …”
And they don’t do that either.
They are nothing more than paying an indulgence with the admonition of “Bless you child, now go and sin no more.” Right!
Rather like the Net-Zero plague in UK and the EU is just a transfer of CO2 emissions to India and China.
Almost certain increases global CO2 emissions (which is a not a bad thing)
For a “sin” that somebody made up.
I don’t think even Mel Brooks’ 15 Commandments in “History of the World, Part One” (before Moses drops one of the stone tablets) included “thou shalt not emit CO2.”
Anybody else remember when it was discovered that Al Gore’s mansion in Tennessee used enough electricity (from the grid) to poser a small town?
His defense was to claim it was OK because he’d bought some carbon credits!
Yes the typical “rules for thee but not for me” hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, he probably bought the “carbon credits” from his own climate grifter company…
“Without natural gas-derived fertilizer and diesel fuel, the American bounty vanishes.”
This is true. No amount of wishful thinking about decarbonized methods for mechanized field work, truck transport, food processing, etc. will make it magically appear. There will still be a need for energy-dense liquid fuels and internal combustion engines.
We need to put this whole misguided “climate” movement out to pasture.
Thank you for listening.
David, I agree with you. At least one of the problems is that the roots of Green idealism go back at least two centuries. JJ Rousseau provided some ammunition for it in his concept of the Noble Savage. Earlier writers provided even more and much earlier through things like the Pastoral movement in literature. This thing will not be easily uprooted. It has been scattered across European and Noth American history for centuries.
Greens are misanthropes who claim other people should live “the simple life”. Like the ancient Romans who admired chastity in others, it is always what other people should do.
After all, in the words of Paul Ehrlich, having cheap and abundant power would be like “giving an idiot child a machine gun”.
What the world needs now isn’t so-called “climate justice” but energy justice.
So-called “climate justice” is based on a zero-sum concept of energy and wealth, it is an oxymoronic term that only lines the pockets of a clerisy class.
Nuclear in particular is anathema because it offers a future of almost unlimited amounts of energy and commensurate wealth.
Minor quibble, but vehicle electrification in the US will be shrinking, not expanding.
Unless they include hybrids in “electrification,” which they undoubtedly will to SUGGEST people are “going electric.” 🙄
But but, if noble savages become more and more like us, soon we’ll be left with just – gulp – us!
It’s not that American Progressives want the Lagos family to have a better standard of living, it’s that American Progressives want American families to live like those in Lagos.
This article is about energy utopia.
Some western nations are moving to de industrialisation and a narcotics based economy. There is tremendous employment in safe injection, free meals and overdoses.
Wouldn’t have any needles without coal (metals) and oil (plastics) and gas (electricity for the manufacturing facility).
And nothing is free.
So even that economic “vision” is delusional.
OPINION: A Compass Reading on the Direction of the Nuclear Renaissance (Dan Yurman, Neutron Bytes, August 17th, 2026)
As is noted in this Dan Yurman article, natural gas now rules the roost when it comes to powering new data centers in America.
In the larger picture for Nuclear Renaissance 2.0, in those nations where new-build nuclear power is going forward in other places around the world, it is moving forward with strong government financing, both direct and indirect.
Here in America, private equity will not finance new-build nuclear power. Someone has to pay the steep upfront costs for rebuilding the American nuclear industrial base, and private investors have no profit incentive to do this.
My personal opinion is that we will not see nuclear projects move forward in the US without direct taxpayer-funded government financing of new-build projects from the federal and state governments.
Here in America, if it is eventually done through direct government sponsorship and financing, it will be done as a national security initiative wherein a premium over what natural gas costs is being paid for nuclear’s energy security and reliability benefits.