Climate Change and Class

In America it remains impolite to talk about class. In America class is all about economics, so the outdated and irrelevant British sense of class of which most of us are aware is distinctly different. In America, public discourse has become more impolite even while income inequality has again become an existential threat to democracy, so talking about class is back in session.

I recently wrote a post critical of a Substack writer’s characterization and positioning of specific climate progress entities as class-deaf elites aching to impose their will upon us all and so well-funded that a tone of pity for the poor fossil fuel industries was palpable in Bryce’s post. While the cherry-picked facts and figures were themselves absurd, at least I got to enjoy the writer’s use of the phrase NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex.

So, thank you Robert Bryce for that moment of levity.

I received a thoughtful reply to my comment posted on the particular Substack post. The comment offered a clarifying perspective on Bryce’s position, which I had described as fossil fuel-shill-like. The commenter argued that Bryce accepts the science of climate change but was pushing back against “the whole idea of mitigating climate change by shutting down new sources of fossil fuels,” finding this to be “ill-conceived and even dangerous.”

The commentator’s explication is useful, and I largely agree with the concern he’d expressed, although I retain my opinion about Bryce’s tone coming across as fossil fuel boosterism. I certainly agree with the dangers of abruptly stopping fossil fuels before the energy alternatives (e.g., solar, wind, and, even, Bryce’s apparent favorite, nuclear) are in place. Anyone with half a brain knows that if the fossil fuels spigot was to be closed today, the likely death count could be in the billions as heating and cooling would become inaccessible for many, but even worse, the economy—including food production and distribution—would largely collapse. I’m happy to go on record as opposing mass death.

Still, there is something fishy in Bryce’s focus on economic issues framed as class issues. I believe that class is viciously under-discussed by many climate progress activists, but to Bryce this is bête noire and his misplaced outrage has him reversing reality. Sure, there are idiots on every side and climate progressives have their fill of these, but those are neither plentiful nor useful. I think any reasonable person understands that “keep it in the ground” doesn’t mean stop any and all fossil fuel immediately, but rather in the context of swift and effective building of renewable (and to some like me, nuclear) power and necessary infrastructure. For sensible people “keep it in the ground” has more to do with preparing to let Big Oil collapse if they want to keep exploring and exploiting new fossil fuel sources, when the world has excess fossil fuel infrastructure already, as in, like, enough already! For those paying attention to the new LNG port infrastructure projects freeze, this is a recent example.

The truly disturbing thing to me is that fossil fuels companies are bad business. Even though these companies are capital rich, most seem intent to continue business as usual even though their own scientists have been telling them that this is the way the world as we know it will end, and these scientists and most others have been reporting on the deleterious effect of greenhouse gases for decades.

So when Bryce posts about (this is his deck) “the hypocrisy of the billionaires who are funding anti-hydrocarbon campaigns, including bans on gas stoves. Natural gas bans are more about class than climate change,” I have to scratch my head. This is the big problem?

Anyone reading the news knows that gangs of ultra-wealthy wanting to take away our gas stoves is not the issue, but rather there is a reasonable argument for not adding to natural gas infrastructure for new structures. I’m pretty sure that natural gas will have a far too long life as a legacy fuel, just like other fossil fuels, even with the IRA effort to encourage heat pumps and other “electrify everything” strategies for reducing greenhouse gases emissions. By the way, anyone who delights in the occasional EV battery bursting into flames should look at the number of internal combustion vehicles, that, um, combust. And any online search will turn up news of buildings—and even blocks—blown up by gas, or people burned and suffocated, or many other lesser maladies.

But back to the issue of class, which is what I wish Bryce would stay with, given his Substack “About” statement:

My credo: Energy realism is energy humanism. Spotlighting the essentiality of affordable energy and power to modern society is my purpose and my passion. I am particularly focused on electricity and electric grids

The question of energy affordability is an important question. Despite some techno-optimists on the climate progress side, much-vaulted claims of cheap clean energy from renewables tends to overlook the economic turmoil (i.e., higher bills) the transition to renewables and everything electrified is going to cost. I’m all in favor of taxing immense corporate or individual wealth to underwrite the energy transition, but my guess is that we will all be paying something for the necessary move away from fossil fuels. How long until the ascension to renewable energy paradise? I don’t know, but it isn’t going to be quick or painless. In terms of climate change unaddressed, of course, quick and painful is the best bet, so I prefer slow and economically painful since it happens to be the more likely means of keeping human culture intact, with a pretty good side bet of actually improving things for everyone.

Image courtesy of Kellyann Monaghan (copyright 2019). This image is a screen capture of an animated monotype, and you should check out the real item.

One of the themes of The Steep Climes Quartet, and especially the second book in the climate fiction series, Dear Josephine (due out this spring), is how energy costs will play out. We know from many past examples that so-called “pocketbook” issues carry a lot of weight in elections, but to date the climate progress movement has been letting the climate change naysayers/fossil fuels boosters be the ones to squawk about how “your pocket is being picked.” I argue that this is a mistake and that we need to correctly balance the issue. I wrote a couple of posts last November on the topic, including “We Have to Pay for Fixing the Greenhouse Gases Crisis: The Climate Fight in All of Its Complexities and Confusion about Costs… and Politics” and “Paying the Climate Piper: Household Budgets as Climate Fiction Subject Matter,” if you want to take a look.

Stephen Williams’ comment on my recent Bryce post, excerpted below, is good:

I find the whole idea of mitigating climate change by shutting down new sources of fossil fuels to be ill-conceived and even dangerous. Purposely causing energy shortfalls will drive up energy prices. I know ma[n]y environmentalists think this a good idea since high prices will drive down energy consumption. But the reality is that it will also kill the political will to mitigate climate change while putting the biggest burden on those with the least resources. (Hence the class argument.) A far better approach is to drive down fossil fuel use by making low-carbon energy sources far more abundant and affordable.

The only item I take issue with is the “mitigating climate change by shutting down new sources of fossil fuels to be ill-conceived and even dangerous” statement, because there is a century-and-a-half’s worth of fossil fuel infrastructure in place that can (some conclude) supply what we need for and across the energy transition. When Exxon acquires Permian gas holdings for tens of billions of dollars, and when this is just one of a recent spate of mega-mergers of the sort, I’m hard-pressed to think that these fossil fuels companies have much intent of weaning from fossil fuels. This never-pause/never-stop mentality strikes me as a stupid business plan because their market is going away, one way or another. And I prefer the way of ASAP renewable energy transition over the devolution of the market because of widespread death and destruction, but then again, I don’t have an MBA. Add to the recent acquisition frenzy the laughably tiny amount of Big Oil’s real investment in renewables, and it becomes clear that Big Oil is up for nomination for the Enemy of the People award.

But everything that can be done to help the less well-off among us and the world should be done. Of course, I have the plan to save the world in a fair-minded and equitable way. I think that this is likely in that stack of papers towering on the chair next to my desk.

On the other hand, maybe what we need to do is to be open about the economic issues and push for necessary invest-now/profit later thinking, especially when invest-now makes for the sort of profit-later of not losing your house to climate catastrophes or helping ensure your grandchildren’s future.

Bryce (and in his comment, Williams) is right, I think, that every option for speeding and expanding the energy transition be considered, and that means nuclear, too, and there are a lot of serious climate progress people who agree. On the other hand, picking on some filthy rich people who support building code changes to disallow gas appliances in future construction isn’t helpful, nor is pretending that there is more outside money being spent by climate progress groups than by fossil fuels interests. Bryce, as seen in another post, makes the specious argument that tiny local grass-roots opposition to renewable energy projects is being crushed by nefarious cabals of climate progress groups. Sure, there is no doubt outside aid for pushing for some local project permitting, but the chronic spending of fossil fuel corporations and individuals is the major influence in these fights. Well, that and NIMBYism and the human tendency to say “no” when first confronted with change.

Consideration of class and economic issues is crucial to the climate fight. I suspect that the biggest issue is the out-sized state of income inequality and the out-sized influence of fossil fuels’ big money and dark money that have long held our governing bodies and regulatory agencies, and if you don’t think that results in a kick in the teeth for working class and middle class families, well, you just haven’t been paying attention.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *