Have you ever felt guilty leaving a light on, running a bath instead of taking a shower, or staying in the shower a little too long? If so, you have likely absorbed a story promoted by traditional environmentalism: that energy is scarce and must be rationed. I call this the myth of scarcity.
For decades, we have been told a story about energy that many of us have accepted without much reflection: that electricity is inherently scarce, that it must be conserved at every opportunity, and that renewable energy represents the moral path forward. This narrative has shaped public attitudes as well as policy and investment decisions. It has also contributed to the situation we now face – electricity prices that are persistently high, and power grids that are increasingly fragile.
The logic behind this idea is simple, which helps explain its appeal. If societies consume less energy, they produce fewer emissions, cause less industrial disruption, and leave a smaller ecological footprint. On paper, the argument seems reasonable, even noble. In practice, however, it has often meant accepting intermittent sources of energy that cannot reliably power modern economies, tolerating higher electricity prices for basic needs, and delaying – or even rejecting – technologies capable of providing abundant, clean power, such as nuclear energy.
The problem is that this story is false. Civilisations require energy to thrive: every system that sustains or advances human life depends on it. Health care depends on electricity; food production relies on mechanised agriculture and the manufacture of fertilisers; shelter requires industrial materials like steel and cement; knowledge depends on digital infrastructure; and safety depends on stable, powered systems. When energy is scarce, all of these systems become fragile. When energy is abundant, they flourish.
Energy is not merely a part of civilisation; it is the foundation that makes everything else possible.
The myth of scarcity has had very tangible consequences. Around the world, policymakers influenced by this ethos have prioritised intermittent sources such as wind and solar, while discouraging large-scale, reliable generation. There is nothing inherently wrong with including wind and solar in a diversified energy mix, but the emphasis has shifted toward relying almost entirely on intermittent sources, while excluding non-renewable options and therefore limiting our ability to back up renewables with dependable power. Intermittent sources can play a useful role in any grid, but treating them as sufficient to power entire economies creates serious problems. By pursuing the goal of 100 per cent renewables, we have been sold the idea that energy should be ‘green and scarce’ rather than clean and abundant. And, as many of us now see in the form of rising electricity bills, scarcity is an expensive lesson. Countries across the globe are paying the price for decades of energy prudence framed as virtue.
Like a persistent fable, the myth of scarcity carries a deep irony: nuclear energy, which is one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions and provide abundant power, has faced decades of opposition from the very groups that present themselves as the strongest advocates for the environment. Thanks to its energy density, nuclear fuel can generate vast amounts of electricity. Its compact footprint occupies far less land than most other energy sources. And since modern reactors are designed to operate for eighty years or more, this drastically reduces the need for mining and material extraction.
The environmental case for nuclear energy has never been stronger. Unlike coal or gas, nuclear plants produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear requires far less land for the same output and does not disrupt ecosystems in the same way. A single modern reactor can provide continuous power to millions of homes, whereas a solar farm covering the same area produces far less, only intermittently, and the panels require replacement after 25 to 30 years. When properly evaluated, the environmental benefits of nuclear are difficult to compete with.
Yet, despite these advantages, opposition persists. This brings us to a curious phenomenon: that people who have never known scarcity have often been the loudest advocates for limitation. I call this the paradox of plenty: those who are already powered up are the most eager to preach poverty.
The electricity crisis we face is, at its core, a crisis of choice. We have mistakenly prioritised scarcity over abundance, intermittent sources over reliable baseload power, and policies that limit the deployment of technologies capable of delivering cheap, clean, and continuous energy. The consequences are now evident: brittle power grids, volatile prices, and citizens forced into energy rationing or spiralling bills. There is also an ongoing environmental cost from failing to deploy the cleanest, most effective source of power generation.
With growing scrutiny of these narratives and better access to reliable information about nuclear energy, attitudes are finally beginning to change. Many environmentalists now recognise that nuclear energy is not only safe, but essential for serious decarbonisation. Transitioning to nuclear requires humility and the courage to reconsider long-held assumptions. It also demands political will, public education, long-term vision, and sustained investment.
The case for embracing nuclear energy has never been stronger. Countries that invest in it can enjoy power that is clean, reliable, and affordable. They can reduce carbon emissions without suffering the economic disruptions associated with intermittent and unreliable sources. They can power their homes without feeling guilt. And in doing so, they can finally escape the trap of artificially imposed scarcity and build a grid capable of supporting modern life.
It is time to acknowledge that the myth of scarcity was never about physics; it has always been about politics. The real question is whether we have the courage to embrace nuclear fully – to abandon outdated fears and recognise that energy abundance is not the enemy of the environment, but its greatest ally.
Nuclear is more than just a source of electricity; it is the key to reconciling human progress with environmental responsibility. After decades of fear and misunderstanding, even many former critics are beginning to recognise that reliable, abundant, and clean energy is not a threat to the planet, but its strongest ally. If we have the courage to embrace it, we can finally end the era of scarcity, lower electricity bills, protect the environment, and build energy systems that can sustain the modern world. But to achieve this, we will first have to stop believing in the myth of scarcity that has constrained our energy and imagination for far too long.
Zion Lights is a science communicator and environmental writer. A former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, she is the author of the new book ‘Energy is Life: Why Environmentalism Went Nuclear.’
