The law of unintended consequences is defined as the actions of people and especially governments leading to unanticipated or unintended effects. These unintended consequences fall into one of three categories: unexpected benefits, unexpected drawbacks and perverse results in which intended solutions make things worse.

Regulations enacted to solve a perceived problem often create more problems. Restricting logging in America’s national forests to protect the habitat of the spotted owl offers a classic example. Without logging operations to clear deadfall and undergrowth, forest fires routinely rage each year. Ironically, even more animal habitats are destroyed.

Banning the insecticide DDT has led to more deaths from malaria than ever throughout the world. Malaria remains a global health crisis. Writing for ONE, a global organization founded by Bono to end poverty and preventable diseases, Arielle Witter reported in April more than 240 million people were infected with malaria in 2022, resulting in 608,000 malaria deaths. DDT was most effective in eradicating mosquitos that cause malaria. In 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT because of its adverse environmental effects. This is a perverse result in which the solution worsened the situation.

There are innumerable examples of government policies instituted with good intentions that caused greater problems. One looming policy fraught with unintended consequences is the effort by the administrative state to ban fossil fuels. Exactly what would the world look like without fossil fuels? This question was asked of Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the Brookings Institute and reported in the Washington Post on Sept. 30, 2023. Gross said: “Oh, dear God, I don’t even know where to start.”

Petrochemicals are derived from fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges petrochemicals make possible the manufacturing of more than 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices. The standard of living and quality of life enjoyed in the world today are linked to these products.

Start with our homes: flooring, window coverings, upholstery, paints, heating and cooling and every plastic item ever used from toothbrushes and hair dryers to most kitchen items. Cosmetic products used by men and women alike are made with petrochemicals. The production of modern office equipment — including computers, printers, scanners and telephones — depends on petrochemicals. Fertilizers used to beautify our yards and grow our foods are products of fossil fuels.

Health care facilities rely on fossil fuel products that allow one-use items to reduce the chance of infection, including plastic bags, tubes and jars. Replacement joints are manufactured from petrochemicals.

It’s common to hear drivers complain about potholes. Imagine roads without asphalt, which would be unavailable if fossil fuels were banned. Consider the tires on your car. The inside structure years ago was made of cotton and the tires were natural rubber. The demand for tires exceeded the supply of natural rubber. Now tires have a nylon carcass with a manufactured rubber like product — all thanks to the use of fossil fuels. What about the PVC pipes so necessary to transport water around the country and into our homes? Without fossil fuels, this product goes away.

Consider national security. Aircraft carriers might run on nuclear fuel, but the airplanes, tanks and heavy equipment needed for defense run on fossil fuels. Think of the amount of lubrication alone it takes to keep equipment operating. The military can’t operate without oil products, and there’s currently no viable alternative.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers’ website details the role the industry plays in our daily lives. Plastics contribute to the essential electrical insulators, pipes, valves, fittings, lubrication and plastic covered electrical wire needed to produce wind and solar energy.

Fossil fuels and their products continue to revolutionize the lives of humanity. Banning fossil fuels by an administrative edict would result in real-world consequences affecting every single human being. Know the ramifications of banning fossil fuels before casting your vote.

A dictatorial government arbitrarily banning products used in every American household governs against its citizens’ own best interests. A fossil fuel ban would constitute an example of the intended solution making things worse.