It's Too Soon to Abandon Fossil Fuels, Says Pulitzer-Nominated Author, Ronald Stein

Ronald Stein, energy policy advisor, engineer, and Pulitzer Prize-nominated author

As the global conversation around climate change intensifies, the focus has been predominantly on the transition to renewable electricity sources like solar and wind. But, according to energy policy advisor and engineer Ronald Stein, it's a conversation that's dangerously incomplete. Mr. Stein, co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book Clean Energy Exploitations and Senior Policy Advisor at the Heartland Institute, believes that the world's rush to reduce carbon emissions is overlooking an irreplaceable reality: the petrochemical foundations of modern society.

"If we stop using crude oil, we're working backwards – back to the 1800s," Mr. Stein states. He isn't being hyperbolic. From today's phones and medical devices to clothing, packing, and the very infrastructure of homes, most of the products that define modernity are either made from or rely heavily on oil derivatives. It's not just a matter of cutting down on gasoline or heating oil – reducing crude oil production affects the manufacturing of everything from electric vehicle batteries to renewable electricity infrastructure itself.

Ronald Stein, energy policy advisor, engineer, and Pulitzer Prize-nominated author

Many energy policy makers mistake electricity generation for the sole metric of electricity transition. But electricity is only one aspect of energy consumption. The more difficult truth is that fossil fuels don't just keep the lights on; they're embedded in nearly every stage of the supply chain, from raw material extraction to the production of finished goods. While the turbines and solar panels provide electricity, they do not replace the oil-derived components necessary to build those same renewable technologies.

Mr. Stein points to this gap in understanding as a critical oversight: "Policymakers are talking about energy as if it's synonymous with electricity, but that's not the case. Everything that needs electricity, from the smallest lightbulb to the most advanced microchip, is made from petrochemicals."

California, for example, often hailed as a leader in green energy, is quietly becoming more dependent on foreign oil. Back in 1992, California imported just 5% of its crude oil. Today, it imports nearly 60% of its oil, with the vast majority coming from countries with less stringent environmental regulations. While its policymakers celebrate advancements in renewable electricity, the state's heavy reliance on imports reveals the uncomfortable truth: reducing domestic oil production doesn't equate to a reduction in oil consumption.

There's another issue compounding the problem: the assumption that one can electrify everything. The narrative goes that once the world's energy needs are met through renewable electricity, fossil fuels will become obsolete. But the expert warns this is dangerously misleading. "Even if every car was electric and every home was powered by solar, you'd still need crude oil for the tires, the wiring, the insulation, the factory equipment, and the logistics to deliver it all," he notes. In other words, electrification isn't an exit strategy from crude oil; it's just another chapter in the same story. Even the wind turbines and solar panels that power electric vehicles rely on petrochemical-based materials for their blades, casings, and control systems. 

"Mandating EVs and renewable electricity is, ironically, mandating more use of crude oil," says Mr. Stein. Without a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root of our reliance on petrochemicals, the push for electrification risks simply shifting the electricity dependency, not eliminating fossil fuels.

At the heart of this debate is a stark misalignment between policy ambitions and reality. The well-meaning push for renewable electricity is inadvertently creating a blind spot: as developed countries aggressively pursue green initiatives, developing nations are left behind. The irony, this engineer points out, is that it's wealthier countries like the U.S., Germany, and Australia – representing only a small fraction of the global population – who are able to invest heavily in renewable technologies. For example, 80 percent of humanity, or more than six billion in the world are living on less than $10 a day, with hundreds of millions of those struggling for basic electricity access.

Mr. Stein frames this disparity as not just an energy issue, but a moral one. "They can't subsidize themselves out of poverty, let alone afford expensive wind and solar installations," he explains. For many developing nations, fossil fuels remain the most reliable and cost-effective means of lifting communities out of energy poverty. Attempting to leapfrog directly to renewable electricity is a step too far when basic infrastructure and access to consistent power are still missing. 

This points to a broader crisis: in the rush to decarbonize, individuals risk deepening the energy inequality between wealthy and developing nations. The unintended consequence could be a world where billions are left without access to the very technologies that are meant to drive the future.

For Ronald Stein, the answer isn't to stop pursuing renewable electricity altogether but to balance ambition with pragmatism. One of the most promising solutions, he suggests, is nuclear energy. With the advent of small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear power is poised to overcome many of its historical drawbacks, providing reliable baseload power without the intermittency issues of wind and solar. 

"Nuclear is the only zero-emission energy source that can meet the needs of a modern industrial society," Mr. Stein asserts. He believes SMRs could provide the foundation for a future energy mix that balances renewables, fossil fuels, and nuclear in a way that reduces emissions without sacrificing the products that society relies on. But he's quick to add that nuclear power isn’t a complete antidote. The real solution, he insists, is a focus on conservation and efficiency. 

"Conservation and efficiency are the low-hanging fruits," Mr. Stein argues. "We have to make what we have last as long as we can, not just for us, but for the generations that will follow." This means a more mature approach to energy policy – one that acknowledges the irreplaceable role that crude oil plays while still striving to minimize its environmental impact.

Ultimately, Ronald Stein's message is a call for greater energy literacy. Understanding the full scope of our energy needs – and the materials that enable them – isn't just for policymakers or industry experts. It's a responsibility that falls on all. "We've had 200 years to find a replacement for crude oil, and we still haven't," the expert concludes. "That tells you everything you need to know about its interconnectedness. Until we have a viable alternative, we need to be realistic about what abandoning fossil fuels would mean – and how we can prepare for a future where they're used more wisely, not simply eliminated."

Truly, Ronald Stein's perspective is a refreshing reminder: the answer to Earth's energy crisis isn't a zero-sum game. Rather, it's about striking a delicate balance – one that safeguards the progress humans have made while building a sustainable future that works for everyone.

This post was authored by an external contributor and does not represent Benzinga’s opinions and has not been edited for content. The information contained above is provided for informational and educational purposes only, and nothing contained herein should be construed as investment advice. Benzinga does not make any recommendation to buy or sell any security or any representation about the financial condition of any company.