Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

The Us vs. Them of Energy

You can turn even the wonkiest policy into a culture war issue if you try hard enough.

JD Vance.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

“We need a leader,” said JD Vance as he accepted the Republican nomination for vice president, “who rejects Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Green New Scam and fights to bring back our great American factories.” The election, he said, is “about the auto worker in Michigan, wondering why out-of-touch politicians are destroying their jobs,” and “the energy worker in Pennsylvania and Ohio who doesn’t understand why Joe Biden is willing to buy energy from tinpot dictators across the world, when he could buy it from his own citizens right here in our own country.”

This is the tale Vance tells about energy and climate — one of contempt and betrayal, elitists sacrificing hard-working blue-collar Americans on the altar of their alien schemes. On the surface it may sound like it’s about jobs and economics, but it’s really about the eternal culture war that divides us from them.

This is nothing new. Maintaining this artificial division between environmental and economic concerns is central to the effort to protect the fossil fuel industry, and has been for decades. Voters must be convinced that any attempt to do something about climate change is not just unserious but an assault on virtuous working people waged from Washington and other places controlled by the snobbish liberal elite.

The argument plays on beliefs about environmentalism that go back decades. Beginning in the 1970s, a group of political scientists led by Ronald Inglehart drew attention to a change in public opinion in advanced societies around the world, as “post-materialist values” based on autonomy and self-expression grew in political prominence. The generations that grew up after World War II, they argued, were less focused on material scarcity and more concerned with issues like abortion, equal rights for women and minority groups, and the environment.

The idea that environmental concerns were separate from economics — that they are fundamentally cultural and not material — has always been used by the right to discredit environmentalism and those who advocate for it. As George H.W. Bush said about Al Gore in 1992 when Gore’s warnings about climate change were considered a little wacky, “This guy is so far off in the environmental extreme, we’ll be up to our neck in owls and out of work for every American.”

Since then, the problem has only gotten worse. But the solutions have also gotten more real.

In Vance’s home state, for instance, an “energy worker” is much more likely to be working in green energy than fossil fuels; as Semafor recently noted, “Clean energy-related companies now employ about 114,000 people in Ohio, compared to 71,000 working in oil and gas.” The state is enjoying something of a solar boom, as well as a significant increase in production of batteries that will power the electric vehicles Vance and his running mate despise. The “great American factories” Vance celebrates apparently don’t include projects like the joint LG-Honda battery plant in Jeffersonville, an hour’s drive from his home town of Middletown, which will complete construction later this year and is slated to employ 2,200 of his constituents.

But in the picture painted by Trump, Vance, and others running on the anti-anti-climate change agenda, there is essentially no such thing as a green job; efforts to lower emissions have only costs and no benefits. And the cost is not just to our economy but to our spirit, making us impotent and weak. North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who may well become Secretary of Energy if Trump wins, began his convention speech with a call-and-response to the audience. “Who will make America energy dominant?” he asked three times, to which the audience responded, “Donald Trump!” “Energy dominant” has replaced “energy independent” as the goal for the Trump-era GOP, not surprising given that dominance and submission is one of the central themes of Trump’s life.

“Energy dominance” isn’t so much a practical state of affairs as a feeling, the sense that our heads are held high and others grovel before us, whether that has any relation to reality or not. After all, under Joe Biden the country is about as energy dominant as it could be, and not always for the best. America is not only producing more oil than any country in the world, it’s producing more than any country in human history. We’re also the world’s largest exporter of liquified natural gas.

Yet according to Burgum, the next four years will bring either an apocalypse of enfeeblement as we huddle together in darkness or an explosion of manly strength, depending on which president we elect. “Imagine: no electricity for your fridge, your lights or air conditioning,” he warned. “President Trump will ensure there’s power for you, and importantly, that we have the power as the United States to beat China in the AI arms race.” You can almost feel the power Trump will give you, like a steroid shot to the national soul — or a dose of something even more potent. “Teddy Roosevelt encouraged America to speak softly and carry a big stick,” Burgum went on. “Energy dominance will be the big stick that President Trump will carry.” To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes a stick is just a stick — but not this time, I think.

All that was no doubt music to the ears of the American Petroleum Institute, one of the convention’s sponsors, as well as both Trump and Vance, who has introduced a bill to repeal the EV subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act and replace them with subsidies for internal combustion vehicles. “The whole EV thing is a scam,” Vance has said.

In other words: Don’t be fooled when Democrats tell you that climate change is an economic threat and that transitioning to a green economy will actually increase prosperity. All you need to know is that the “Green New Scam” is being imposed by the people you hate.

Those resisting climate action would prefer that voters continue to see it as solely a cultural issue, as though the environmental conversation were still confined to beautifying highways and picking up litter, something we can set aside with no material cost. But the truth is that culture and economics are entwined, and always have been. The Republicans who took the stage in Milwaukee to rail against green energy and present themselves as the protectors of the working class understand that only too well.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Trump Asked to Kill Wyoming Wind Projects for Eagles

Conservationists in Wyoming zero in on a vulnerability anti-wind activists are targeting elsewhere: the administration’s species protection efforts.

Eagles and wind turbines in Wyoming.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Wildlife conservationists in Wyoming are asking the Trump administration to block wind projects in their state in the name of protecting eagles from turbine blades.

The Albany County Conservancy, a Wyoming wildlife advocacy group, sent letters on February 11 and 18 to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the letters, which I obtained, the group asked the Trump officials to do everything in their power to halt Repsol’s Rail Tie and BluEarth’s Two Rivers wind projects, including suspending Two Rivers’ right-of-way from the Bureau of Land Management and even the interconnection grant for Rail Tie’s transmission line.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

A Hail Mary Kansas Lawsuit Against the IRA

And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.

A Hail Mary Kansas Lawsuit Against the IRA
  1. Jackson County, Kansas — We’ve been covering anti-renewable lawsuits in the Trump 2.0 era closely at The Fight. But we now have a champion for the most aggressive lawsuit yet: a case filed against a single solar project intended to somehow kill … the entire Inflation Reduction Act?
    1. Three Kansas residents have gotten the support of five seasoned attorneys — including two Federalist Society alums — to sue the federal government claiming that projects benefiting from IRA tax credits should have to be reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act, and that implementation of the IRA violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
    2. Their lawsuit, which was filed days before Trump took office, cites a single NextEra project in Kansas to make its claims of tangible damages.
    3. We asked the attorneys to comment on the lawsuit, as we’re wondering if this is an opening salvo before a broader legal effort to challenge IRA implementation.
    4. It’s worth saying this is obviously a huge ask of the administration, even in the Trump era. Not to mention it’s unclear how this legal complaint will fare with Trump’s decision to knock down NEPA implementing regulations (more on that in our Policy Watch section). But at a minimum, this is a noteworthy and novel attempt at what some may argue is a nuisance lawsuit — and indicates how conservative legal experts are finding common cause with disgruntled neighbors of renewables projects.
  2. St. James Parish, Louisiana — A state judge ruled this week that St. James Parish lawfully rejected what is believed to be one of the state’s largest solar projects.
    1. The Parish Council last year denied D.E. Shaw Renewables’ St. James Solar Energy Center which was supposed to connect to an Entergy substation as part of that utility’s solar and wind project pipeline.
    2. The rejection however came after years of local resistance to the project. D.E. Shaw took them to court after the most recent denial. But now they’ve lost, with a state judge ruling this week that they’ve failed to prove the council had good reason to say no.
    3. It’s a potential bad omen for Entergy’s efforts to complete the largest renewables expansion in state history.
  3. Alaska — We’ve never talked about Alaska here at The Fight but it’s time to do so, because renewables projects are having trouble up North.
    1. Renewable IPP is pulling the plug on a large solar project in Nikiski, a village southwest of Anchorage, citing uncertainty around federal funding and tax credits.
    2. The remote city of Kotzebue is trying to develop wind turbines to move its grid off of fossil fuels. But its money is tied up in the Trump funding freeze.
    3. Why am I watching this so closely? Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy is quietly pro renewables. Its broader effort to use “all of the above” to market his state’s relevance in energy markets and its minerals tied to the energy transition.

Here’s what else I’m watching …

In Massachusetts, anti-wind activist Mary Chalke is running for a seat on the select board for the town of Nantucket. She’s well known for wearing a whale costume to protests.

Keep reading...Show less
Policy Watch

What Trump’s NEPA Wrecking Ball Means for Renewables

And more of the week’s top policy news.

Environmental review, mapped.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New NEPA world – The Trump White House overnight effectively rescinded all implementing rules for the National Environmental Policy Act, a key statute long relied on by regulators for permitting large energy and infrastructure projects.

  • What does this mean for renewables developers? Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles told me today that even though fewer regulations sounds nice, Trump’s implementation strategy is unlikely to ease minds on renewables permits.
  • A big reason is confusion. Litigation that anti-renewables advocates filed against Biden’s permits will be considered under the previous NEPA regulations, while Boyles expects regulators to use a new attempt at NEPA implementation in an uneven way that privileges fossil fuels projects.
  • An example is “cumulative impacts,” a term historically used by agencies to look at comprehensive environmental impacts under NEPA. Previous challenges to the cumulative impacts of renewables projects will continue; meanwhile, the new Trump memo scrapped the definition of the term and dissuaded agencies from using it. What Boyles told me is this will simply put more discretion at the hands of political officials in permitting agencies.
  • “When you get rid of the definition, you’re going to still have a fight,” she said. “You now no longer have that common basis of understanding of what is a definition.”
  • When I first asked Boyles to tell me what comes next, she started hysterically laughing: “I’m not laughing because it’s a bad question. I think it’s a question that everybody’s asking.”
  • Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has a deeper dive on the Trump rule withdrawal here.

2. Our hydrogen hero – Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito this week came out against any freeze for a hydrogen hub with projects in her state, indicating that any clampdown on H2 projects from the federal level may get Republican pushback.

Keep reading...Show less