Pope Francis' Policies Won't Help the Poor
This article originally appeared in Washington Examiner
During his visit to America, Pope Francis has placed the responsibility for global warming on mankind and called for countries to reduce greenhouse gas production.
At the White House, he praised President Obama's Clean Power Plan, saying "climate change is a problem that can no longer be left to a future generation."
Everyone wants cleaner air, and America's air has been getting steadily cleaner. Most families also want the security of employment that comes from economic activity. Most would agree on the need to strike the right balance between the economy and the environment. The question is what that balance should be.
Electricity from fossil fuels is less expensive than electricity produced from alternative fuels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has estimated that the average levelized cost for natural gas-fired plants entering service in 2020 is $75 per megawatt hour, compared with $125 per megawatt hour for solar-powered plants and $101 per megawatt hour for biomass.
Households have far higher electricity bills using alternative energy than natural gas. This disproportionately affects the poor, who spend a higher share of their income on energy. For the U.S., data from the Labor Department show that individuals in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend an average of 24 percent of income on energy, compared with 10 percent of income for those in the middle fifth, and 4 percent of income for those in the top fifth.
In emerging economies where people do not have access to clean water, adequate food or medical care, the difference is even starker. Using renewables instead of fossil fuels will slow growth, resulting in a higher mortality rate and a lower life expectancy.
People in emerging economies want the same level of development as those in the West. Cubans want to come to the U.S. for its material benefits. Fossil fuel or nuclear energy is the key to this development, not solar power.
To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in a less costly manner, America could assist China and India in developing shale gas from hydrofracturing and building natural gas-fired plants to reduce their reliance on coal. Or America could ship coal to China, because U.S. coal burns more cleanly.
The majority of China's coal (54 percent) is bituminous, which has a carbon content ranging from 45 percent to 86 percent. On the other hand, 47 percent of America coal, a plurality, is subbituminous, which contains a carbon content of only 35 percent to 45 percent.
The role of capitalism and free markets in raising people out of poverty was acknowledged by Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical "Centesimus Annus" in 1981. He wrote: "The obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace."
Pope Francis' concern for the environment is admirable. But to keep the poverty-reducing engine of economic growth running, it is necessary to continue to use fossil fuels. Our air is getting cleaner, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future as new capital replaces old. Abandoning fossil fuels would hurt the most vulnerable in societies throughout the world.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute. Follow her on Twitter here.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning eBrief.