Clean Power

Published on May 16th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan


Is Clean Energy Yet Another Culture War?

May 16th, 2012 by  

David Roberts of Grist had a great post the other day portraying clean energy as a culture war. I think it’s highly worth a read, so I’m reposting it in full from Grist to make it easy as pie to not pass up (note: there’s also a Part II linked at the bottom of the post that is worth a read):

by David Roberts

Not that long ago, some folks were arguing that clean energy — unlike climate change, which had been irredeemably stained by partisanship (eww!) — would bring people together across ideological lines. Persuaded by the irrefutable wisdom of wonks, we would join hands across the aisle to promote common-sense solutions. It wouldn’t be partisan, it would be … post-partisan.

Some day, I will stop mocking the people who said that. But not today. The error is an important one and it is still made regularly, especially by hyper-educated U.S. elites. They think clean energy is different from climate change, that it won’t get sucked into the same culture war. They are wrong.

On clean energy, the material/financial aspects of the conflict are the easiest to understand. Wind, solar, and the rest threaten the financial dominance and political influence of dirty energy. Last week, the Guardian broke the story of a confidential memo laying out a plan to demonize and discredit clean energy, meant to coordinate the plans/messages of several big right-wing super PACs funded by dirty-energy money.

At the bottom of that same piece, though, is one of the best expressions I’ve ever seen of the cultural and psychological aspects of the conflict. Witness:

Opposing Obama’s energy policies was a natural fit for conservatives, said Marita Noon, a conservative activist from New Mexico who was at the meeting. “The American way, what made CostCo and Walmart a success, is to use more and pay less. That’s the American way.” The president’s green policies however were the reverse, she said.

“President Obama wants us to pay more and use less.”

Not for the first time, it strikes me that conservatives understand the stakes of this struggle much better than liberals and centrists do, especially at a gut level. They’re on the wrong side of it, but at least they get it.

Photo by Walmart.

Noon is more or less correct: The American Way has been to carelessly consume high quantities of cheap energy, much of it embedded in disposable plastic crap at Walmart. Conservative leaders are telling their flock that there are endless deposits of fossil fuels all around them, if only those pesky Democrats and their regulations would get out of the way. The message is that the American way of life can continue forever, indeed that it is our patriotic birthright, but that Democrats want to take it from them. That goes deeper than energy. It’s about home and hearth.

And Noon is right that the alternative — barely hinted at by Obama’s policies, but sure to come into sharper relief in coming years — is to use much less, and more expensive, energy. You and I know that even if the per-unit price of energy goes up, consumer bills can go down, through efficiency. You and I know that it’s possible to use less energy while still enjoying the same high quality of life. You and I know that there’s no other choice, that cheap, abundant fossil fuels are a thing of the past.

But Noon and her ideological cohort are hearing otherwise. They’re hearing that American abundance, the bounty available to even the poorest Americans at Walmart, is under threat. They’re hearing that Democrats want to make America, the land of plenty, into Europe, the (imagined) land of tiny cars, cramped apartments, and high prices. Again, that’s about more than prices or watts. It’s about cultural identity.

Clean energy supporters can try, if they want, to convince people like Noon that clean energy can offer the same abundance — “use more and pay less” — that fossil fuels offered, through the magic of technology or innovation or whatever. But it’s dishonest. Reducing emissions enough to substantially slow climate change will inevitably involve being more judicious and intelligent in our energy use. Profligate, heedless consumption of disposable crap is going to have to be reined in. That will mean changing habits and land-use patterns. Insofar as those habits and land-use patterns are viewed as constitutive of a “way of life,” many will view that as a threat.

Remember, unlike wonks, average folk don’t think in terms of discrete political “issues.” They think in terms of broad cultural associations and identities. For the conservative base — about which I’ve written many times, see especially here — the issue of energy is wrapped up in a way of life that they view as under threat from multiple directions.

As I’ve said before, it’s unlikely that such people can be persuaded with evidence and reason. What they will eventually do is die off. In the meantime, the job is to define a new American way of life for young people, so when they take over they won’t view Walmart as akin to church.

See also: More on clean energy and the culture war

Tags: , , , , ,

About the Author

is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession and Solar Love. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. He has presented about cleantech at conferences in India, the UAE, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, and Canada. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in. But he offers no professional investment advice and would rather not be responsible for you losing money, so don't jump to conclusions.

  • The people to motivate aren’t those in government: it is the citizens themselves. When they are motivated themselves to work on promoting and practicing clean energy, the most work will get done.

  • jburt56

    There is hope because many bitter clinger survivalists have discovered off grid tech and ground mount solar. Yaaaahoooo!!! P.S. Need any high-powered long range wifi with that?

    • Bob_Wallace

      A lot of people in the middle of the country have learned that wind farms create jobs, produce income for ranch and farm owners, and increase tax revenue for state and local governments.

      Recently we’ve see the Republican governors of two conservative states campaigning for continued federal support for wind farms. Legislation designed to limit wind farms in conservative states has failed.

      Add to that the fact that many rural areas are starting to suffer from the impact of gas fracking. It’s one thing to drill for fuel, but when you can’t breathe the air and can’t drink the water from your own well attitudes change.

      Drive through the countryside and you see warning lights being powered by solar panels. One small panel and that light blinks on and off all night long.

      I suspect the wall has been breached….

  • Ross

    That is a depressing article but I think it captures a perception that clean advocates and the Obama Administration need to get on top of.

    It is not a given that renewable is or will always be more expensive than legacy, dirty power sources. Already there are instances of renewables winning even with the unlevel playing field of air pollution, environmental and health costs caused by dirty sources borne by wider society.

    As clean energy technology improves, social costs are included and the price of diminishing easily exploitable fossil fuel goes up the relative cost position will change.

    Also as is regularly pointed out the amount of ambient energy received from the Sun is vastly more than we currently need.

    So we can have our cake and eat it. Clean power, cheaply and in abundance.

  • Hope

    As someone that lives in London, and has visited America frequently in the past fifteen years for work and leisure, I can say with honesty now that America is worse than Europe.

    Trips to America used to be suffused with cries of just how reasonable, nay cheap everything was. Not any longer.

    I balk at Petrol prices, and the fact that half the cars on the road are still SUVs, or even just cars with V6 and V8 engines. Food prices are ridiculous, and consumer goods in general seem savagely overpriced compared to (where I live) London.

    • Ross

      The absolute cost of petrol in the US is still half of what it is in London so they have great scope for savings by moving to more fuel efficient engines.

Back to Top ↑