The Capital Research Center released on May 18 an executive summary for its upcoming report, ‘Enemies of Energy,’ which profiles the most influential non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that oppose hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources in the United States, as well as their largest donors and key myths underpinning their advocacy.
The report aims to examine the impact of these NGOs on energy policy and public understanding, arguing that reliable access to abundant energy is essential for modern civilization. According to the summary, hydrocarbons and nuclear reactors currently account for 85 percent of global energy consumption and 88 percent in America. The document claims that anti-energy NGOs promote a shift toward renewable sources such as wind and solar power but questions both their practicality and environmental benefit.
The executive summary details how some groups labeled as environmentalists are described instead as “anti-energy NGOs” due to their opposition to established fuels. It also highlights what it calls misconceptions about climate risks, including sea level rise projections. The report states: “NASA has identified less than 4 total inches of sea level increase since 1993, or three millimeters per year. At that rate of increase, it will take nearly 1,400 years for seas to rise another 20 feet.” Another point made is regarding land use: an April 2021 study cited in Bloomberg Green found solar energy requires significantly more land than natural gas or nuclear plants.
China’s role in global emissions is also addressed. The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is quoted praising China’s carbon neutrality goals; however, the summary asserts China has increased coal usage by over two hundred percent since 1995 while accounting for almost a third of worldwide industrial CO2 emissions by 2024.
Profiles within the forthcoming full report include organizations such as RMI—whose revenue reportedly grew from $10 million in 2012 to $164.7 million by 2024—and others like Greenpeace and Sierra Club facing internal challenges or legal issues. Major donors are also scrutinized for perceived contradictions between their lifestyles or business interests and support for anti-energy causes.
In conclusion, the Capital Research Center suggests there need not be a conflict between conservation efforts and maintaining reliable energy supplies: “If this report has a singular purpose, then it is to demonstrate that protection of the natural world never needed to become the enemy of reliable energy abundance—and need not remain so.”
