It's been a turbulent week for the eco-activists. The COP29 climate summit, the centerpiece of their annual agenda, is just around the corner. Meanwhile, the official review of Ed Miliband's plan to decarbonise the UK's electricity by 2030, released on Tuesday, warned that we would need to increase our "flexibility" fourfold to meet the target. This is music to the ears of those who believe the only way to "go green" is to sacrifice basic modern comforts. But “flexibility” is just a euphemism. What they’re really calling for is something much closer to "wartime rationing," imposed through a mix of moral pressure and higher bills—exactly what the green zealots desire.

For these activists, the goal of addressing climate change seems secondary to controlling people's behavior. This explains their fierce opposition to cleaner energy solutions that could provide both security and abundance. Their vision isn’t about solving problems—it’s about curbing what they deem to be overconsumption. And they have plenty of allies in government to help them along. "Fossil fuels simply cannot provide us with the security, or affordability, we need," said Ed Miliband recently, despite the fact that eliminating them from our electricity generation within six years could undermine both. Around 40% of the UK’s electricity is currently produced with gas—much of it imported. But then, a setback arrived.

On the very same day that the National Energy System Operator released its analysis, the U.S. went to the polls. In Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the green establishment had found some of their staunchest allies. Biden's $1 trillion Inflation Reduction Act was little more than a massive green handout, with the president admitting it was less about reducing inflation than about stimulating economic growth through alternative energy. Kamala Harris, for her part, was so committed to the Green New Deal that she was willing to kill a Senate filibuster to push it through, even calling for a ban on fracking. Yet, in an unexpected twist, Donald Trump—who once called efforts to ramp up green energy a "scam" and who wants to exit the Paris Agreement—has won the popular vote.

“The WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL CLIMATE DENIER IS BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE!” lamented Friends of the Earth, although I don’t recall Trump ever denying that the climate exists. "The world feels a whole lot more terrifying this morning… [we] will try even harder to light candles rather than curse the darkness," tweeted Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, as if we won’t all be lighting candles when Miliband’s green agenda makes us completely reliant on intermittent renewable energy. It's no wonder some green activists are "heartbroken." Trump could very well expose the core fallacy driving their crusade.

For years, we’ve been sold the idea that the only way for advanced economies to tackle climate change is by embracing austerity. The message has been clear: "Cut back, you don’t really need all those modern conveniences." “Leading the world on climate change is the right thing to do,” they say, while steadfastly ignoring the fact that no one else is following suit. But now, a new narrative is emerging—one that contrasts a vision of abundance, fueled by capitalism and technological innovation, against the austere green agenda. This clash is happening at a crucial moment. Up until now, most eco-policies have been implemented quietly, through climate taxes and regulations that largely affect businesses. But now, the green agenda wants to take aim at consumer choice in a way that will spark fierce resistance from ordinary people who don’t want to freeze in the winter or endure water rationing in the shower.

Whatever your opinion of Donald Trump, a setback for the green agenda is ultimately a victory for humanity.