Young people understand hypocrisy. They know that celebrities who fly private jets yet advocate small electric vehicles for the masses aren’t serious about reducing CO₂ emissions. They distrust those who prescribe wind and solar power but oppose nuclear power, which has produced most of France’s electricity for decades with no accidents. And they’re wary of those who would drive manufacturing out of Europe to China and then declare success for the approach of “Net Zero.”

No wonder then that over 100 students and young professionals from all over Europe, especially Eastern Europe and the Nordic countries, recently came to this idyllic lakeside resort for a Young Leaders Summit seeking “conservative” climate-change solutions.

From an early age, students these days are taught that a climate crisis exists, and that the moral way to solve it is by phasing out fossil fuels, almost (not all teachers would include that “almost”) regardless of cost. They are taught that they are in a “race” to net-zero carbon emissions. Quite how net-zero emissions are to be achieved is not always made as clear as it should be by proponents, who tend to wish away difficulties, whether political, economic, or technological, and have a way of resorting to something suspiciously akin to magical thinking.

Hosted by the New Direction think tank in Belgium, which Margaret Thatcher founded in 2009, the Summit presented an opportunity to explore more honest, realistic views in dealing with climate issues.

>>> Debunking Another Misleading Green Energy Study

First, the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels indefinitely, unless many more nuclear-power plants are constructed. Even if all of Western Europe were covered with wind turbines and solar panels and all cars were electric, fossil fuels would be needed to make the turbines, the panels, and the batteries that powered the electric cars. The production of these sources causes emissions. Only nuclear energy can displace oil, coal, and natural gas, yet too many proponents of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 also oppose nuclear power.

Second, everyone wants cleaner air, but global emissions won’t drop if energy-intensive manufacturing moves from Europe to China. On the contrary, since China relies on coal-fired power plants for most of its electricity production—and those plants’ emissions are much less regulated than coal-plant emissions in Western Europe—global emissions could rise.

Third, substituting wind and solar for fossil fuels, and electric vehicles for gasoline-powered vehicles, is morally suspect. It raises prices of electricity and transportation and disproportionately hurts poor people, small businesses, and farmers, because these costs represent a higher share of their incomes. If poor people cannot afford costly electric cars, their range of jobs will be more limited. If blackouts happen due to unreliable energy, then small-business owners will lose refrigeration in their stores and be forced to either see their inventory spoil or sell it at a loss before it spoils.

Fourth, green initiatives are often described as environmental justice, but it is unjust to raise poor people’s electricity and transportation costs and prevent them having jobs and feeding their families in the name of a mythical goal. It is equally unjust for people with high standards of living in the West to prevent people in Africa and Latin America from using fossil-fuel and nuclear-power plants to improve their lives. No country should be kept from using modern technology to achieve such basic economic objectives as running water and reliable electricity.

>>> Leftist Hypocrisy: Failing to Criticize Environmental Disaster of Biden’s Open Border

Fifth, higher incomes bring a demand for many different goods, including cleaner air and water. That’s why richer countries have cleaner air and water. Measures that increase economic growth—such as lower taxes and cost-effective regulation—result in more innovation and a cleaner environment.

Europe’s green policies are highly beneficial to China, whose carbon emissions have increased by 5,000 million metric tons over the past 15 years, at the same time as U.S. emissions have declined by 1,000 million metric tons. China has not agreed to begin reducing emissions until 2027, and is still increasing its construction of coal-fired power plants.

Young people—particularly those who attended the Young Leaders Summit in Sundbyholm—know that the “celebrity approach” to climate change is economically harmful and morally vacuous. They want more sensible, practical ways to help the environment.

One way they can do this is by planting trees, which last for decades and sometimes for centuries, and act as carbon sinks. Trees do not raise electricity costs or disadvantage poor people, and they are essential to our enjoyment of nature, as anyone who’s traveled through the forested countryside to visit Sundbyholm would attest.

The Young Leaders Summit spurred hope for a more honest and just future for all mankind. Margaret Thatcher would be proud.