April 15, 2023: Collapse of the Climate Movement
Good evening. Today’s late post is mostly on the impending collapse of the climate movement, with a few quick hits.
Collapse of the Climate Movement
It is a deliberately provocative claim that the movement on climate change is, at this time, in the process of cracking up, especially given that I have made similar claims in the past and been wrong. But I will go out on a limb and claim that today.
Efforts to combat climate change will, of course, not come to an end, and the problem is certainly not solved. But I expect that, as a major political issue and as the dominant issue in the environmental movement, the climate movement has now gone into terminal decline.
The reason why is illustrated clearly here.
And here.
And here.
This matters because a central principle holding together the climate movement is a 100% renewable energy system. This has been the case since the 1970s, when Amory Lovins advocated a decentralized energy system of renewable sources and energy efficiency, as opposed to centralized power grids fueled by fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Certain aspects of the book, such as advocacy for coal burning and hostility to electrification, have not aged well even among environmentalists. But the opposition to nuclear energy remains an important animating principle.
Even today, renewable energy remains niche. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, wind power constituted 2.9% of primary energy consumption in 2021, solar was 1.6%, and other renewables (geothermal, biomass, other) were 1.4%. All of these categories were growing rapidly as of 2021, but not rapidly enough to offset growing energy demand, which is still met mostly by fossil fuels. Hydropower remains the leading renewable energy source at 6.8%, though growth has been slow, and this category is also viewed with suspicion in the environmental community.
But it has long been the expectation that wind, solar, and battery price decreases and capacity growth, which had been so dramatically illustrated in the 2000s and 2010s, would continue indefinitely and lead to an energy system in which most electricity is produced from renewable energy and most energy would be supplied, directly or indirectly, from electricity. Learning curves—Swanson’s Law specifically in the case of solar power—were the mechanism by which this would happen. I think the winner for the most over-the-top forecast goes to Jeremy Rifkin, who wrote in The Zero Marginal Cost Society that the Internet of Things—in his presentation a cluster of technologies that includes renewable energy—would have essentially zero marginal cost and upend economics as we know them.
It has been obvious for a long time that at some point, and that point may be now, the cost of renewable energy would have to reach a low point and from there decrease marginally at best. Several factors set a cost floor: the raw material inputs, value deflation for variable energy sources, the cost and difficulty of siting transmission, land use conflicts, etc. Those of us who raise these issues get tarred as renewable energy “deniers”, or as killjoys who want nothing more than to rain on a parade.
An end to falling renewable energy prices is an existential threat to the climate movement, as currently constituted, because it means that the movement cannot fulfill its promises. The “100% renewable” slogan that underpins the mainstream of the climate movement is pitched toward mainline environmentalists who oppose nuclear power, carbon capture, and any permitting reform such as NEPA reform; environmental justice activists; trade protectionists; and good old fashioned corporate rent-seekers. As long as there was a semi-plausible expectation that renewable energy prices would fall indefinitely, the surplus generated by abundant, cheap, clean energy could satisfy the promises to every constituency without trade-offs. If the price drops end, then these promises can no longer be kept.
Instead, the climate movement must now graduate to the real world, where there are tradeoffs, and getting something done means that some constituency will not get what it wants. These pressures are causing infighting.
Meanwhile, Ruy Teixeira documents disinterest among working class voters toward climate policies. This has long been a problem, but it has gotten worse in recent years. I found this public opinion data to be particularly shocking.
That’s right, a majority of American adults no longer believe that climate change is caused mostly or entirely by human activity. I can hardly imagine a starker failure of public relations.
Another major disappointment and sign of the times is from Citizens Climate Lobby and their lobbying agenda. When I first got involved with CCL, their focus was on a carbon fee and dividend. Now they advocate carbon pricing and several other things, including permitting reform, forestry, building electrification, and some efficiency stuff. I don’t have any real objection to any specific item on the list, but what happened to the “laser focus” they once had on the fee and dividend? Did they tacitly admit they can’t win on this issue and so are broadening their agenda to encompass some points of which they can win? Usually, losing focus like this is a sign that an organization is in decline. For (I thought at any rate) the best climate-related advocacy organization to decline is an ominous sign for the movement.
All political movements have a shelf life. There were times when the gold standard, health insurance, and all sorts of other environmental issues were high on the agenda. Those moments passed. Those that are successful are the ones that implement solutions, not those that imagine that they can call up activists forever.
As yet another reminder of how detached from reality the environmental movement remains, European Greens are celebrating this week the closure of nuclear power plants in Germany. I hope they savor their victory, because the era in which they can conduct climate policy and ignore tradeoffs is rapidly coming to an end.
Quick Hits
The Fall of Civilizations podcast has an episode this week on Carthage. It is their 17th episode. Fall of Civilizations, run by Paul Cooper, is one of my favorite YouTube channels, and the infrequency of new episodes is easily justified by their high quality. One can learn a lot without having deep knowledge of the subjects covered.
Interest in the war in Ukraine among Western media has waned, but the war is still raging with no end in sight. The Institute for the Study of War, which I’ve mentioned before, has good coverage; here is today’s update, which is part of a daily series. Although the Russian offensive continues to struggle to make progress, it does look like they are on the verge of capturing Bakhmut, which has been a priority of Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner Group in particular for a long time.
I’m a few weeks late talking about this, but there is a recent study challenging assertions that gas stoves are a major cause of respiratory illnesses.