There is a political movement that seeks to end all fossil fuel use. The primary rationalization for this goal is the theory that the continued buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in global warming and degrade the natural environment. The attempt to phase out fossil fuels is both misguided and dangerous. We use fossil fuels because they are inexpensive, reliable, abundant and concentrated forms of energy. Energy use correlates with life expectancy, literacy, education and prosperity, values that all human cultures appreciate. For several decades, fossil fuels have supplied about 80% of world energy. This is not going to change in the foreseeable future. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in the year 2050, the two leading energy sources in the U.S. will be gas and oil. Renewables, while the fastest growing category, are only anticipated to supply about 20% of the energy mix. The Chinese are among those who have an appreciation for the inevitability of fossil fuels. China has more than a thousand coal-fired electric power plants. The characterization of wind and solar power as “sustainable” and “renewable” is misleading. The infrastructure necessary to capture, concentrate, and deliver energy is not sustainable. Both wind and solar suffer from inherent limitations to which there is no conceivable technological solution. They are dilute and intermittent. There is no mechanical fix that can make the sun shine at night or the wind blow during a calm. Battery storage is insufficient by many orders of magnitude. Mining raw materials for battery manufacture has environmental consequences. Lithium-ion batteries and solar panels wear out and accumulate in landfills as toxic waste with the potential for groundwater contamination.

Recently the Russians announced that they were going to cut off the flow of natural gas from Russia to Germany (and from there to the rest of Europe) while they conduct maintenance on the Nord Stream I natural gas pipeline. Germany responded to the news by rationing hot showers and announcing that they would not seek to extend the life of their three remaining nuclear power plants. If that last one seem irrational, it is. Starting last year, wind speeds have been down all over Europe. Due to the attendant reduction in wind power, the Europeans have had to burn more natural gas to generate electricity than they had anticipated. Despite this, the Europeans have resisted developing their own supplies of natural gas, preferring to remain dependent on Russia, while at the same time closing coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants because, of course, climate change. There was no way the Europeans could wean themselves from Russian natural gas in the middle of winter and in the wake of the failure of wind power all across the continent. So, they didn’t. Instead, the European Union has kept buying Russian natural gas, thereby propping up the Russian war effort and helping Russians kill Ukrainians. This whole mess is simply because the Europeans proceeded as if a generation source that humans cannot turn on and off as needed ― in this case wind power ― is a legitimate substitute for nuclear, coal and natural gas-based generation. For their punishment, Europeans are now paying five times what we pay for electricity. This has probably already driven them into recession. Winter in Europe will no doubt be difficult as nations scrounge for natural gas to keep their citizens warm.

Today, there’s no end in sight to Russia’s belligerence toward NATO. The West should deter Russia from using its tactical nuclear weapons. Here are four steps the Biden administration and Congress should take, in cooperation with our NATO allies. First, bolster NATO’s conventional force posture to deter future Russian adventurism against NATO territory and interests. This should include theater missile defenses and long-range fire capabilities, especially in frontline NATO countries (e.g., Poland and the Baltic States). Deterring conventional war with Russia is critical to preventing escalation that involves Russian nuclear weapons. Second, undermine Russia’s asymmetric advantage against NATO by deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to Europe. This will narrow the nuclear deterrence gap with Russia, provide political reassurance to nonnuclear NATO allies and send a firm signal to Moscow discouraging first use ? or the threat of first use as a stratagem. Third, deploy additional theater missile defenses to offset the threat of Russia’s missile-based tactical nukes. Fourth, assess U.S. and NATO readiness to respond to a Russian tactical nuclear attack. Russia’s mammoth edge in tactical nuclear weapons gives Moscow significant political-military advantages, including a broader range of policy options. It may even increase the chance of additional Russian risk-taking and adventurism. The likelihood of Moscow using its tactical nuclear weapons isn’t tremendously high, due to the possibility of uncontrolled escalation. But the risk isn’t zero, making now the time to address this issue.

The United States and Russia are pretty evenly matched in terms of the number of nuclear weapons, right? Well, not really. Under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty both countries have 1,550 deployed strategic (i.e., high-yield and long-range) nuclear weapons each. But this treaty doesn’t cover nonstrategic (i.e., low-yield and short-range) nuclear weapons. And when it comes to these tactical weapons, Russia has a tremendous advantage. Moscow has about 2,000 tactical nukes, while the U.S. and NATO have about 200 ― half of them deployed in Europe and half stored in the United States. Put another way, in the European theater, Russia has an approximate 20:1 advantage in these battlefield weapons and a 10:1 advantage over the United States and NATO overall. This asymmetry is deeply troubling. Tactical nuclear weapons are meant for use against military installations or troop and equipment concentrations. But they could be used against civilians, as well. There are deep concerns that Russia might use these weapons to change the course of its war on Ukraine. There is also unease that Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons could also be used against NATO as part of an “escalate to deescalate” stratagem. During a conventional conflict with NATO, for example, Russia might decide to use a tactical nuke to prevent defeat, consolidate territorial gains or even freeze a conflict in place, limiting the prospect of further fighting. Given the nearly 10:1 disparity in the tactical nuclear arsenals, Moscow may think a nuclear response from NATO isn’t credible due to Russia’s numerical advantage or concerns over escalation.

In the last 30 years, 15 million Americans have died unnecessarily from cigarette smoking. To change this trajectory, it is time for the FDA to embrace bold, new thinking, including offering smokers safer nicotine-containing alternatives. In fact, the majority tend to be people of color, those from lower socioeconomic status, those with dual addictions and those with co-occurring mental health disorders. Another recent proposal by the FDA to establish a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes will likely not produce the results FDA wants. The concept here is to establish a cap on nicotine in cigarettes so that they are no longer addictive. This is not a new idea. Twenty-eight years ago, scientists proposed establishing a nicotine threshold for addiction. To make real and meaningful progress in addressing the tremendous toll of cigarette smoking, it’s critical that the FDA authorize lower-risk nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. For example, e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches are increasingly showing that they can help smokers quit. While these products are not safe, many believe they are significantly safer than combustible cigarettes. Just as public health has embraced harm reduction concepts for opioids, alcohol and many other public health areas, we must embrace it for tobacco products too. It may be hard for many to appreciate, but nicotine is not the devil; cigarettes are. As renowned researcher Michael Russell famously said, “People smoke for the nicotine, but they die from the tar.” To truly embrace the concept of reducing harm, alternative nicotine products may be the game changer we have needed to save lives.

It would have required only a very small contingent of U.S. and NATO troops to continue to empower Afghan security forces, frustrate the Taliban’s ambitions, and maintain pressure on al Qaeda and the more than 20 other terrorist groups in the region. And did we learn nothing from Iraq where, in 2011, then-President Barack Obama ordered a complete withdrawal, refusing to leave in place even a residual force as his top advisers urged? The vacuum he left was filled by the Islamic State, which went on to conquer about 40% of Iraq and a third of Syria. Iran’s neo-imperialist rulers also walked through Iraq’s now-unlocked door. More broadly, strategically competent presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, did not bring home all U.S. troops after the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945. To this day, American forces remain in Europe and Japan, where they accomplish essential missions. The usefulness of the U.S. military presence in South Korea also is obvious to anyone not of the isolationist persuasion. The abandonment of Afghanistan has cast serious and lasting doubt on America’s credibility, reliability and will to prevail. Perhaps not just coincidentally, Mr. Putin is now waging an all-out war of aggression against Ukraine. Afghanistan, once a fledgling free state, is now once again a totalitarian Islamic Emirate. Afghans who sided with Americans are being hunted and murdered. Dire poverty is spreading throughout the land. Women are again being brutalized. Around the world, American haters of all stripes are encouraged and emboldened. That is what happens when leaders in Washington delude themselves regarding persistent threats, the nature of America’s enemies and the ability to end wars.

Prior to 9/11, influential voices in the foreign policy community argued that terrorism was not a serious national security threat, merely the weapon of the weak, a way for those without fighter jets and tanks to call attention to their “legitimate grievances.” After 9/11, I thought that debate would end. I also thought it had become obvious that grievances, legitimate or not, provide no license for the murder of other people’s children. My optimism turned out to be unjustified. To this day, there are those - U.N. officials included - who condone terrorism for causes they favor, euphemizing it as “resistance.” And I certainly never expected that the United States, having removed the Taliban from power in the autumn of 2001, would usher that al Qaeda-aligned terrorist organization back into power. Perhaps President Biden didn’t understand that his withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan would bring that result. A report from Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee led by Rep. Michael McCaul recently revealed that at least 800 Americans were left behind. Thousands of American-trained Afghan military personnel, including elite commandos, fled to Iran, where we must assume they spilled their guts to the regime’s Ministry of Intelligence. David Ignatius, a longtime columnist for the Washington Post, wrote that while Mr. Biden’s retreat was “horribly executed,” the decision to exit was correct. Reasonable people can disagree on that. The U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan effectively ended in 2015. The military mission since then was to train and assist, and provide essential intelligence, operations planning and air support.

The decline in living standards will result in more death and disease - all of which would be preventable if the world were again blessed with good political and economic leadership. On September 1-2, 1859, a major geomagnetic event, caused by a coronal mass ejection from the sun, hit the earth. The event caused serious damage to telegraph systems throughout the world, as well as lighting the skies at night. It was named after Richard Carrington, one of the astronomers who recorded its details. The event was well before the age of global mass electronic communications and satellites. Some scientists have estimated that an event of similar magnitude today would cost 15 percent of global GDP. Lesser solar storms occurred in throughout the 20th century, knocked out power in some areas, and caused other disruptions. Despite known dangers to our physical and economic well-being, the political class has been focused on climate change as though it was the most serious threat. In November world leaders met in Scotland to try to agree on what economic and liberty-reducing hardships they can impose on the world’s peoples - all in the name of what may be one of the lesser dangers. The news media, particularly NPR and CNN, hyped the fact - as proof of global warming - that the number of Atlantic hurricanes was well above average two years ago, while ignoring that there were almost no Pacific hurricanes, resulting in fewer global hurricanes. There was little discussion and virtually no action to prevent the next pandemic.

Fortunately, the Cold War never turned into a hot war, even though a couple of times miscalculations by the Russians and Americans literally resulted in mistakes with only minutes to correct them. With many more countries now possessing nuclear weapons, the probability of some country miscalculating rises at an exponential rate. COVID-19 now appears to be an unintentional lab leak in Wuhan, but again, with many more countries experimenting with potential biological weapons, the probability of an unintended (or even deliberate leak) increases at an exponential rate. Mega volcanic eruptions are more common than is believed, and they have often altered the course of history. For instance, massive volcanic eruptions in the 1790s in Iceland killed much of the Icelandic population. They so darkened the skies over Europe that it caused major crop failures - which many historians believe led directly to the French Revolution. The Yellowstone caldera (site of a number of supervolcanic eruptions) appears to be overdue for another massive event - which in all likelihood would destroy much of the farmland in the American mid-west and Canada for decades - leading to global famine. An article in the Wall Street Journal in October argues that if the caldera under Yellowstone Park is used for geothermal power, it could both heat twenty million homes and prevent a cataclysmic eruption. It is increasingly certain that, given the buildup of unsustainable government debt in most of the world’s major nations, a global financial meltdown will occur. The supply chain disruptions and decline in world trade will exceed the current crisis by an order of magnitude - which, in turn, will cause great economic hardship to hundreds of millions.

Which of the following catastrophic events do you think poses the greatest threat to your family: A new and much more lethal pandemic than COVID-19; A mega terrorist event, using nuclear or biological weapons that wipes out entire cities? A hot war between countries, using nuclear and/or biological weapons; A mega volcanic eruption that destroys much of the world’s agricultural production; A global financial collapse as a result of excessive debt that destroys most trade and causes a significant reduction in the standard of living and a massive increase in poverty and disease. A “Carrington event” (solar electromagnetic storms) that takes out all space-based electronics, including GPS and electricity transmission lines, and almost all communications; or climate change (previously known as global warming). Pandemics are not rare and have often caused mass death. In the Middle Ages, a series of pandemics are estimated to have caused 30 to 60 percent mortality rates. The current COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a global panic, is now estimated to have killed millions of people in the world, which is a very small part of the world’s population. Smallpox had a mortality rate of as high as 35 percent of those infected. The good news is that, fortunately, the disease is now eliminated. The bad news is that scientists have learned to make perhaps even more lethal viruses in the lab, which might be weaponized. It is known that terrorist groups have been and are actively seeking to acquire nuclear and biological weapons. To date, they have been stopped, but at some point, they are likely to succeed. Imagine what would happen if they set off one of these weapons in New York or London!