Energy Isn’t Just About Power Stations. It’s About Life
To advance human flourishing, enable clean, abundant, reliable energy rather than restraining it.
Get Zion Lights’s new book, Energy is Life: Why Environmentalism Went Nuclear.
Energy is so deeply woven into modern life that it is easy to forget what it truly does for us. We notice it most when it disappears—when the lights go out, homes turn cold, and transport grinds to a halt. In those moments, energy stops being an abstract policy issue and becomes something far more basic: survival, opportunity, and human dignity.
Across the broad sweep of human history, progress has gone hand in hand with energy abundance. For most of our existence, people lived close to subsistence. Life expectancy was short, physical labor was relentless, and even small disruptions—such as bad weather or poor harvests—could be devastating. What changed that trajectory was not only moral awakening and better institutions, but access to more reliable and more concentrated sources of energy.
Coal freed societies from the limits of muscle and wood. Oil and gas powered mobility, industry, and modern agriculture. Electricity transformed homes, cities, healthcare, and communication. Each step up the energy ladder made people healthier, wealthier, and more resilient. Energy was the multiplier that allowed human ingenuity to scale.
That is why energy should never be treated as a mere input or technical detail. It is a foundation on which nearly every indicator of human well-being rests. Clean water requires pumping and treatment. Modern medicine depends on refrigeration, sterilization, and precision equipment. Food security relies on fertilizers, transport, and cold storage. Education, information, and economic opportunity all depend on reliable power. Where energy is scarce, life is constrained.
Yet in today’s energy debates, energy often fades into the background. It is discussed primarily in terms of emissions targets, system costs, or consumption limits. These are important considerations, but when energy policy loses sight of what energy is for, it risks becoming detached from human needs, especially the needs of those who have the least.
Around the world, hundreds of millions of people still lack access to reliable electricity. Billions rely on traditional biomass for cooking, exposing them to dangerous indoor air pollution. For these populations, the question is not whether energy use should be reduced, but how access can be expanded safely, affordably, and quickly. Telling people who cook over open fires or study by candlelight that progress requires using less energy is not a serious moral proposition.
Even in wealthy countries, energy abundance underpins social stability and public trust. Affordable heating and cooling protect the elderly and vulnerable. Reliable power keeps food affordable and supply chains intact. When energy becomes unreliable or unaffordable, the consequences are immediate and political: household stress, industrial decline, and public backlash. These are not side effects; they are signals that something essential to human life is being undermined.
That does not mean environmental concerns should be dismissed. On the contrary, environmental progress has historically gone hand in hand with technological advancement and energy innovation. Cleaner air, safer water, and reduced local pollution were not achieved by freezing development, but by improving how energy is produced and used.
A mistake has crept into the energy transition debate: an emphasis on scarcity in the pursuit of net-zero goals, rather than on abundance and resilience. The real challenge is not to use less energy, but to build energy systems that are cleaner, more reliable, and more plentiful. Scarcity is not a climate strategy, constraint is not a development plan, and human progress has always come from expanding possibilities rather than narrowing them.
Too often, public debates frame energy as something to be rationed rather than improved. That framing risks turning energy policy into a zero-sum moral exercise, where comfort, mobility, or growth are treated as indulgences rather than achievements. History suggests the opposite lesson: societies that solve problems through innovation and abundance outperform those that attempt to manage decline.
A human-centered approach to energy starts with outcomes, not abstractions. Does a policy make people healthier? Does it reduce poverty? Does it increase resilience to shocks? Does it expand opportunity across generations and borders? These questions are harder to answer than setting targets, but they are the ones that matter.
They also point toward a more optimistic path forward. The tools for progress, such as advanced nuclear power, better grids, and improved energy storage, are real and improving. The task is not to retreat from energy use, but to deploy these tools at scale, guided by the principle that energy exists to serve human life.
Energy policy, in other words, is human policy. When it succeeds, people live longer, healthier, freer lives. When it fails, the costs are measured in more than statistics; they are measured in cold homes, dark hospitals, and stalled futures.
If we want a future defined by human progress, we must begin with a simple recognition: energy is not the problem to be managed away. Where energy is scarce, well-being stalls or regresses; where energy is abundant, people and the planet can thrive. Energy is life—and abundant, reliable, and continually improving energy systems are among the greatest enablers of human flourishing ever created.
Get Zion Lights’s new book, Energy is Life: Why Environmentalism Went Nuclear.
We have to live with the need for energy and solve the associated problems as we go. We've done the same with so many other seemingly existential problems. Malthusian-style solutions are not the answer, scarcity-inducing policies always lead within years to social breakdown, violence, mayhem and war.
Well said from @Zion Lights !
Energy is life…literally. What we call “life” is just a special form of matter that accelerates the dissipation of energy in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Every “revolution” that led to modernity, think the “agricultural revolution” and “industrial revolution” were, at their cores, “energy revolutions.”
Until the agricultural revolution, humans were relegated to hunter gathering groups. Civilization could only emerge with the surplus energy of agriculture, allowing some specialization among humans.
We spent thousands of years, however, bumping up against the limits of this revolution, watching civilizations rise and fall, until we learned how to harness the concentrated energy stores in fossil fuels.
Worryingly, we might again be bumping up against the limits of fossil fuels, again risking the fall of civilization, as the Energy Return on Investment of fossil fuels falls. Something I've explored at Risk & Progress
This is why we should be looking beyond, promoting nuclear and solar. Not constraining energy capture, but shifting to more sustainable options.