Questioning the Unquestionable

With a recipe for saving the world.

I CAUGHT HELL from some renewable energy advocates for my comment on Facebook: “Does it bother anyone else that media constantly refers to renewable energy as "clean" or "green"? As for the climate, it's relatively better than fossil fuels. So, while it may be appropriate to call it "relatively clean,” clean it is not.”

The response:

"Disingenuous claptrap...Stop trying to muddy the debate, there is no debate: if we want power without it costing the earth, the answer is to ditch fossil fuels and fully develop renewables.”

“This isn't an innocence comment, this is fossil fuel industry propaganda that seeks to deflect from the facts.”

“This is anti-renewable energy BULLSHIT, brought to you by the fossil fuel industry.”

Such comments suggest that anyone questioning industrial scale renewable energy (RE) is advocating for fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My response: “You missed the point of my post. It's a very brief critique of media use of the terms ‘clean’ and ‘green’ as applied to energy as well as unequivocal praise for renewables regardless of ecological impacts. Our Facebook page is about the need to scale down the human enterprise for the benefit of the entire living world.”

Regardless of one’s viewpoint, it’s best not to impugn another’s motives to “score points” on social media. Those needing to ridicule people who question the purity of RE suggests some doubt or lack of confidence in their own beliefs. I (we) could fall into this same trap by claiming that RE advocates are mere propagandists for the corporate energy establishment, which salivates at the opportunity to make billions from RE development on top of that from fossil fuels. Better stick to the merits of one’s argument!

---

THE LIVING WORLD faces a double whammy: climate disruption plus accelerated destruction of natural ecosystems driven by economic overgrowth in wealthy countries and overpopulation globally. There’s something fundamentally wrong with us forcing climate change on the planet and then, to save our own skins from the worst of it, forcing other life to pay by further eliminating and degrading habitats with tremendous RE buildout.

Environmentalists, including climate activists, should recognize that RE development causes significant damage to life on top of what’s caused by a wide range of other human activities. They should also question whether RE development can avert the worst of climate change as fossil fuels continue to drive the global economy, and, in fact, make RE possible. One likely scenario is that, despite massive RE industrialization and resulting loss of habitat, climate chaos will nonetheless prevail as continued economic and population growth outrun efforts to mitigate it.

The underbelly of RE advocacy is a refusal to demand of society a planned drawdown of energy consumption, a sure fire way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We can’t expect to sufficiently cut emissions while energy consumption continues to climb.

Global energy demand will increase by 15% in a decade (at recent annual growth rates averaging ~1.5%) and likely more, given rapid expansion of AI and data centers, wealthy countries pushing to get wealthier, and surging economic growth in parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Consider that RE accounts for just 13% of global energy production: ~3% solar and wind, ~3% hydroelectric, and ~7% biofuels, all of which nevertheless have significant environmental impacts (including climate related).

Much was made in the media about how great RE did last year in matching growth in electricity consumption. However, what media typically failed to mention was that RE accounted for only about 35% of growth in total energy production. (Note: electricity use is only about a fifth of total energy consumption.) More growth in energy production came from fossil fuels (40%) and nuclear generation (25%). It’s no small wonder that carbon emissions from fossil fuels didn’t decline but, in fact, reached an all-time high in 2025.

Fueling energy consumption with RE is not the solution for the climate crisis, and certainly not the broader ecological crisis. Barring reduced energy demand, RE is faced with the Sisyphean task of outrunning the growth steamroller, a daunting situation that few RE advocates are willing to acknowledge.

The truth is that overgrowth of the human enterprise is what’s driving the ecological crisis (including climate change). It will continue doing so with or without massive RE deployment.

I’m confident that the view I’ve expressed here is fair and accurate, and backed by close examination of energy use data and the ecological crisis. A recent report on deforestation of the world’s main tropical forests (Amazon, Congo Basin, Southeast Asia-Oceania) lends support.

Here’s a key excerpt from the report’s summary:

Global energy demand continues to grow while renewables and electrification scale. However, near-term realities point to a “layering” of systems rather than a full transition (my emphasis). Many pathways are land- and resource-intensive: surging demand for ‘critical’ minerals, continued expansion of bioenergy (biofuels and biomass), and residual reliance on fossil fuels in hard-to-abate sectors all pose risks to rainforest regions when safeguards are weak. The direct and indirect footprints of mining, especially along access roads, power lines, and settlements, are still often underestimated, yet they widely overlap with key rainforest geographies in the three basins.

Jonathan Watts of The Guardian (20 May 2026) describes the report in further detail. Here are some relevant points:

• [There’s] an urgent need to replace and reduce the use of products from forest regions, rather than simply adding new forms of consumption, as is currently the case.

• According to the report’s lead author, “A reduction in resource use can’t be avoided…The overall use of resources is just too big…Even in sectors where we hope for a transition, like energy, the impact on forests is worryingly high.”

• Additional pressure is coming from mining for critical minerals, such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt that are used for batteries and other technologies used in the transition towards cleaner energy. The cumulative impacts of mining on forest areas have likely been significantly underestimated for many years.

• Fresh demands for critical minerals, biofuels and pulp (used in fast fashion, processed food and packaging) are compounding existing pressures from cattle ranching, monocrops, oil and logging.

• Oil, gas and coal are playing an ever bigger role in the destruction of rainforests, both directly from drilling and indirectly through global heating.

• Another source of rising stress on the forest is the biofuel sector, which claims to be a sustainable alternative to oil and gas for aviation and shipping.

• Cattle ranching, agriculture and gold mining remain by far the biggest threats…all three are forecast to continue expanding. The 10.2% increase in beef production forecast by the Brazilian government is expected to cause at least 57,000 sq km of deforestation by 2034…Over the same period, global meat production is expected to increase 13%, driven by population growth.

• The report sets out possible solutions, including improved transparency in supply chains and stronger enforcement of regulations. Recycling could also help reduce new mine development needs. Ultimately, a core goal should be to reduce demand in consumer countries (my emphasis).

Those who think that people questioning RE development comprise a quirky minority of impractical people should also consider the ongoing debate over it in Europe.

The European Commission wants to fast-track RE projects including growth of the power grid. It seeks to compel EU countries and local communities to treat RE projects as “in the overriding public interest” for permitting and other legal purposes. The Commission is using the current “energy crisis” to justify sweeping deregulation measures that also benefit fossil fuel and mining. The result is perpetuation of “all-of-the-above” energy policies that damage the environment and do nothing for the climate. This is how energy politics generally works, even in what are considered “progressive” countries!

Environmentalists both within and outside of EU governments are pushing back hard, arguing that the energy transition should not come at the expense of Europe’s nature protection rules. A vote on the matter by EU countries is expected in about a month.

A Wasteland?

Unlike the EU, India has already fast-tracked RE projects by exempting them from environmental review. This paved the way for the huge Khavda Energy Park, currently the world’s largest solar/wind energy development. It will include about 60 million solar panels and numerous wind turbines imbedded in imported stone and concrete. The project covers 280 square miles of the Rann of Kutch Salt Marsh, conveniently described as a “wasteland” by the government.

But wait! Here’s how D. Soumyadaupta, a data science specialist based in India, describes the Rann of Kutch:

Imagine a land where the earth transforms from a fertile green expanse to a vast, shimmering white desert. Where the horizon stretches endlessly, meeting the sky in a breathtaking spectacle. Welcome to the Rann of Kutch, a place that defies description, a canvas painted by nature with hues of white, blue, and green.

This extraordinary salt marsh, straddling the border between India and Pakistan, is more than just a geographical marvel. It’s a cultural tapestry, a wildlife sanctuary, and an adventure seeker’s paradise.

The culture of the Rann of Kutch is as vibrant and diverse as its landscape. The region is home to various ethnic communities, including the Kutchi, Sindhi, and Rabari people, each with its distinct traditions, languages, and lifestyles…The Rann of Kutch is a birdwatcher’s paradise, with numerous migratory and resident bird species.

According to an article in EBSCO (a research data base provider):

The Rann of Kutch seasonal salt marsh is vital in offering refuge to migratory wading birds, in particular the greater flamingo and lesser flamingo; cranes, including common crane and Sarus crane; and storks such as white stork and Asian open-bill stork. The region is also home to the red-wattled lapwing, Indian courser, more than twelve species of lark, and in all, provides habitat to more than 200 bird species.

The region is quite famous for the Indian Wild Ass…Other larger mammals found here seasonally include blackbuck, the nilgai antelope, chousingha or four-horned antelope, and chinkara or Indian gazelle, as well as predators such as striped hyena, Indian wolf, jackal, Indian and white-footed foxes, leopard, and caracal or African lynx.

A field survey of wildlife at a nearby wildlife Sanctuary listed 30 species of mammals, 112 species of birds, 20 species of reptiles, and 22 “important” plant species, with a total of 9 threatened species of mammals and birds.

I searched online for information on the potential impacts of the Khavda RE Project on the fauna and flora of the Rann of Kutch ecosystem. I found little. That’s in sharp contrast to the glowing media attention and propaganda the development has generated.

There’s been some limited pushback on the project, mainly related to social justice issues. As one commentator noted, “The [local] people did not know that they would lose complete access to their land. So there's barbed wire everywhere and so nobody can ever enter their land. And people didn't realize that, it was only after the fences came up.”

It turns out that the lead corporation for the $16 billion development, Adani Green Energy, did an environmental assessment report. The executive summary is available online.

According to Santana Nair and Dr. Abi Van of India’s Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), “the report states that the project’s ecological impact will be moderate during the construction phase and high during the operation phase. It highlights the impact on birds as particularly significant, with the site elevating the risk of collision and electrocution.” The project area is in the Central Asian Flyway, a major bird migration route that stretches from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.

They also note that the project “will inevitably disturb the area’s soil composition, release stored carbon into the atmosphere, create hazards for wildlife, and restrict areas used by pastoralists for grazing or migration.” Offsite impacts involve construction of a power transmission corridor to the main grid through adjacent wildlife habitats.

If you read the executive summary, you’ll get the impression that all’s pretty much okay: “the environmental and social risks and impacts associated with project allied activities are expected to be limited, generally site-specific, largely reversible and can be readily managed through appropriate mitigation measures.” It notes that land clearance and construction may disturb local ecology and biodiversity, and that, by the way, the project is located in “a very high damage risk zone concerning earthquake occurrences.”

Incidentally, the primary developer, the Adani company, is India’s largest importer of coal. India’s demand for coal is expected to peak in 2050, more than double the current 1.26 billion metric tons.

For anyone who might think I’m unfairly picking on India, check out my comments on the SunZia RE development in the U.S.

What about the ecosystem?

Back in the 1960s, a U.S. Forest Service official assured students and faculty at the University of Montana’s Forestry School of the merits of insecticide spraying and clearcutting of Montana’s forests to enhance timber production. An old botany professor dared to question the guy. He stood up, looked at the official for a second and slowly turned to the rest of us asking, “what about the ecosystem?” Some in the audience rolled their eyes, a few even snickered. How could anyone doubt such expertise and common sense?

The Khavda RE Park and others illustrate the horrific bind the world is in. Our global civilization is demanding more excessive energy production to keep up with population growth and rising economic expectations. Expect more destruction of nature in the name of RE for little gain in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a spike in global emissions tied to the vast amount of materials and fossil fuel energy currently being poured into RE development.

RE enthusiasts are too often willing to ignore or minimize the ecological harms caused by the RE industry. Sometimes it just makes me mad, like when I read this article in Yale Environmental 360 extolling the virtues of Khavda RE Park.

The lengthy piece, A First Among Major Nations, India Is Industrializing With Solar, devoted a mere two sentences to the great marshland’s wildlife and ecology, noting that the development “may put wildlife at risk.” May? Really? Apparently, they just referenced the developers executive summary of the project!

Many RE advocates point out that, while admittedly there are growing environmental impacts from RE, those from continued use of fossil fuels are a lot worse. Unfortunately, the much heralded energy transition actually involves a transition from nearly complete reliance on fossil fuels to mostly relying on them. With growing energy demand, ecological impacts from RE are additive, not diminished.

It surprises me that so many environmentalists are willing to support a “clean energy” agenda that’s bad for the living world, when there clearly are alternative degrowth strategies. They dismiss these as impractical, and, in doing so, unwittingly yield to nature’s destruction.

There are, of course, efforts and proposals to rein in climate change beyond those involving RE. Some of these, such as geoengineering, present a high risk gamble that could do tremendous harm to the biosphere. Others promote nuclear power and potential new energy sources, or large-scale carbon dioxide capture from the air. All of these carry environmental uncertainties, risks, and costs. None address the primary problem of ecological overshoot.

Ongoing efforts to improve energy efficiency of buildings, transportation, industry, agriculture, and equipment are useful. However, the core problem is not inefficiency in energy use—it’s energy overuse. More efficient use of energy, making it less costly, tends to increase, not lower energy consumption. What’s lacking is interest in reducing less-than-essential uses of electricity, transportation, and commercial and consumer products. The bottom line is that more available energy, through greater generation or efficiency, will further fuel the destruction of nature.

So, how about promoting a novel recipe like the following one in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions and tackle the broad ecological crisis?

Recipe

Mix in:

1/3 Scale down to levels of sufficiency in using electricity, transportation, and commercial and consumer products. (Yes, to save the world, changes in human behavior are possible and essential).

1/3 Restore forest, shrub, grassland, and wetland ecosystems. (A 25% increase in stored atmospheric carbon is possible through global forest restoration alone. We can certainly do better than that).

1/3 Install renewable energy in urban and high density suburban areas, retired agricultural lands with little potential for restoration, and industrial and mining areas. (Solar panels on half the world’s roof tops could cover the world’s use of electricity, and about 20% of total energy use.)

Top it off with robust promotion of smaller families throughout the world.

Serve cool, serve well—and here’s to life!

I haven’t heard a single government, the U.N., mainstream media, or any prominent environmental organization serving up something very special like that—for the good of the entire living world. Have you?

It’s not too much to ask for!

Hey…

Wouldn't it be nice if we were older?
Then we wouldn't have to wait so long
And wouldn't it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong…

[change in cadence]

You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But let's talk about it
But wouldn't it be nice?

Wouldn’t It Be Nice by The Beach Boys, first and last verses.

Clean Energy! A Solar-Powered Native Forest (photo T. Povilitis).

---

COMING SOON!

“IS THERE ANY HOPE? Take the lawn view!

---

Dear Friends, Kindly subscribe if you haven’t already. You can access all Scale Down essays and share those you like best. Cheers! Tony P.