We Need to Talk About Climate
The decisive Democratic defeat is an invitation to rethink climate advocacy
It’s not often I get to repeat a Fox News talking point, but here it goes: This week we saw one of the most dramatic comebacks in world political history. Donald Trump returns to power with a truly impressive, decisive victory, and a clear mandate for a political movement that is here to stay.
Don’t get me wrong — I find his style of politics loathsome. I still find it puzzling that Americans could vote so resoundingly to put back in power such a grotesque and dangerous character who is manifestly unfit to hold public office at any level, let alone the most powerful post in the world. But the reality is that a majority of voters chose him, and that demands some introspection.1
Much has and will be written about the reasons for Trump’s victory. Some point to Joe Biden’s insistence on running even though he was clearly no longer up to the job. Or that Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket had it doomed from the start, even if she played a bad hand surprisingly well. Others blame pandemic-fueled inflation and the Biden administration’s inability to promote its accomplishments. Or their misguided immigration policy. Or the elite’s detachment from working-class concerns. Or the left’s strange fixation with identity and other luxury beliefs. Perhaps it was all inevitable in the midst of a global backlash against incumbents. It’s probably a bit of all of the above, but whatever the reasons, the electorate just isn’t buying what Democrats are selling.
In reflecting on the election, David Brooks urged us all to look at this result with humility and I will do my part by thinking very hard about how those who worry about climate change (i.e., people like me) debate and advocate for this issue. Large chunks of the Democratic agenda, much of it related to identity politics, have alienated voters, and I believe some of the ways we talk about climate do the same.
Some widespread views within the climate movement are nonetheless quite unpopular with the general population. Take the kind of small-is-beautiful environmentalism that gives a lot of air time to things like banning private jets and plastic straws, or getting people to ride more bikes—influences of the degrowth movement, which proposes “degrowing” the economy (read: reduce living standards for much of the world) to combat climate change. While these ideas might have some merit, they can feel like lifestyle judgements, an almost aesthetic concern, rather a serious attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Meanwhile, solutions that could drive significant impact get less attention—and sometimes opposition—likely because they require large-scale projects and infrastructure development. There are many examples. Comprehensive permitting reform in the U.S. can unblock construction of more transmission lines to support more renewables on the grid. Developing cleaner ways of making steel and cement could on their own reduce global emissions by a third or more. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could cut down pollution from the countless fossil fuel power plants that will inevitably continue to operate for several more decades. Ensuring the developing world has access to plentiful natural gas reserves (as opposed to halting LNG exports) would be a game changer not only for emissions reduction, but also to spur human development2. Also on the list is the rejection and even fear of nuclear power often seen in climate circles3.
I am guilty of using the expression “clean energy transition” but recognize that the word transition is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Clean energy cannot be willed into existence. Nor can we eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels at the snap of a finger. This transition requires reinventing our entire economy and supply chains, manufacturing, power grids, construction, driving habits, growing and producing and cooking food, and basically everything else. It will take a long time and demand a lot of work. Crucially, it is a cultural shift that many people just don’t feel comfortable making. If on top of that we are asking everyone to pay a green premium to buy clean products or make sacrifices that lowers their living standards, all the while indicating that their well-paying jobs in the fracking industry are at risk, this whole clean energy transition business is a non-starter. We will only have a cleaner economy once we can tell a true and convincing story about creating a more modern, more comfortable, more affordable, wealthier society. In other words, a world of energy abundance.
Finally, there’s the catastrophism about impending climate disaster, especially in media coverage of extreme weather. Overly dramatic narratives can lead to fatalism or vandalism, or worse: voters feel judged for not driving an electric vehicle, not recycling enough, or not installing that expensive heat pump once the furnace breaks down.
Whether climate change is to blame for wacky weather is a question that can be answered objectively. The best I can do on this topic is point to the excellent work by the Breakthrough Institute to examine the climate impact on floods (parts one and two) and severe storms (parts one and two). The impact is, of course, real and measurable, and it will continue to get progressively worse as the planet warms up. But many will be surprised to learn what the data shows about actual impact from climate change compared that from increasingly larger populations and more material wealth accumulating on the path of destruction. Simplistic narratives in the vein of “another hurricane just hit Florida because of climate change” are not only false, but will quickly switch off the general population from understanding or caring about the gravity of the long term trends, and the real work we need to do in order to mitigate and adapt to the changing climate.
On a personal level, if you care to ask, I am now facing the prospect of living for four more years as an immigrant in Trumpistan, having to decide how seriously, or literally, to take the Trump campaign’s dark rhetoric. First world problems, am I right?
In my day job, I work to electrify homes in the United States, and I strongly believe in that mission. Those of us in rich countries can afford expensive modern appliances to further reduce emissions. But until someone comes up with a realistic plan for mass adoption of affordable induction stoves in Sub-Saharan Africa, natural gas would be life changing for the 26% of the world population still cooking with cow dung and other unprocessed biomass.
Thankfully, being fiercely anti-nuclear appears to be an increasingly unfashionable position to take. This is anecdotal, but I am often surprised to see how much support nuclear power continues to gain even amongst my friends in activist climate corners.