Environmentalism once again took the center of the national policy stage when self-proclaimed “climate activists” prodded children across the country to skip a day of school to protest climate change. The Sept. 20 event came to be known as the “climate strike,” and it epitomized the sensationalism at the center of the climate movement. This emotion-based activism has, in many cases, led the movement to promote policy conclusions that are misaligned or even antithetical to their stated goals.

No example better illustrates this point than the opposition of environmental groups to natural gas pipelines. Natural gas has around 55% fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than burning coal. Yet new natural gas pipeline projects tend to stir radical responses and staunch opposition from environmental activists.

Opposition to new natural gas pipelines is opposition to a cleaner economy than we have today.

North Carolina currently has one major natural gas pipeline, but there are two more projects planned for the state in the coming years. The Cooper administration approved the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) in exchange for a $58 million slush fund (which was rightfully diverted by the General Assembly). Now, the same department that approved the ACP in exchange for ransom has publicly opposed a second project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), saying they "remain unconvinced" that the MVP is necessary. This reversal in position on pipelines from the governor may be a result of pushback from far-left environmentalists on Cooper’s energy policies.

Some activists say that a cleaner energy source is not enough and that the only path forward is through a zero-emissions energy portfolio. The American Action Forum's conservative estimate of infrastructure cost is $5.7 trillion for a transition in the United States to zero emissions by 2030. That's a staggering amount considering energy infrastructure is projected to cost only $48 billion during that same time if we continue on the current trajectory.

Despite the astronomical price tag, the zero-emissions energy portfolio is a central goal of the crisis-motivated environmental policy playbook known as the Green New Deal (GND).

It is easy to brush aside the extremism of the GND as unrepresentative of the mainstream environmental movement. Opposition to a natural gas pipeline could be considered mild compared to some of the more outlandish suggestions from that plan — such as banning air travel or cattle.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves, however, into thinking that opposition to natural gas expansion is a reasonable compromise position. Slowing the growth of natural gas in the U.S. has real consequences for low-income Americans.

As a means of achieving the goal of a zero-emissions economy, some opposition to natural gas pipelines is intended to limit the supply of fossil fuel energy to drive up prices and incentivize reduced energy consumption. Instead of banning fossil fuels outright, as something the GND may attempt to do, limiting the supply of natural gas seeks to control consumer behavior by distorting the market.

Such a strategy for lowering emissions ignores the fact that demand for energy changes slower than demand for other goods and services. As a result, higher energy prices would likely lead people to cut spending in other areas before they would reduce energy consumption in a meaningful way.

The American Action Forum also estimated that the $5.7 trillion in infrastructure costs needed to achieve a zero-emissions portfolio would cause energy prices to increase an estimated 43% to 286%. American families would not only bear that burden directly through higher energy prices, but they would also pay more for every other consumable good or service as the higher cost of energy impacts the entire economy.

Working-class individuals and families, who have less disposable income, are most impacted by this type of interference in the free market. We shouldn’t take extreme environmental measures at the expense of energy affordability.

On the other hand, increasing the supply of natural gas through the construction of additional pipelines can bring down the price of energy. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to traditional coal-burning power, and its abundance and availability mean that it doesn’t have the negative economic impacts of moving to an exclusively renewable energy portfolio. Building the Mountain Valley Pipeline's Southgate extension into North Carolina is a sensible step in the right direction to provide concerned citizens a market-based cleaner energy option.


Leah Byers is a policy analyst for the Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank based in Raleigh.