Doubts About Whether A Bipartisan Approach Is Possible

While no one felt a bipartisan approach to creating long-term, stable energy policies that survive which party holds the Presidency was a bad idea, there was a great deal of skepticism about whether this could happen. One pessimistic view stated, “Good luck in trying to bridge the divide in the US on this topic. It is really difficult to see the energy transition happening at the speed required when government subsidies still largely favour fossil fuels globally and markets still largely ignore the negative social and environmental externalities of fossil fuel usage.” Another observed that “Bipartisanship assumes strategic compliance on energy and zero emissions policy, by when?” The clear implication of this is that bipartisanship will take too long to solve the problem. A fair point to raise.

That said, I was a little puzzled by that same person noting that “On your own account, by 2050 Mother Nature will likely have had the final say on human health and mobility, while human leadership will still be raging in vein (sic) about who has won or lost the least in economic and technological warfare.” We never said that and I am optimistic we can keep this from happening. Another, in expressing the view of “us lefties’” argued for a faster transition “Because we like snow, corals, stable weather patterns, food sources, species existence, survival of the human race.”

I like those things too. But while I acknowledge that every tenth of a degree of global warming makes adaptation even more challenging, I am not in the Doomsday Camp that sees human civilization on its way to distinction 25 years from now. I believe this one of five narratives has been singularly unsuccessful in getting the majority of the world’s citizens to focus on climate change as most people are just trying to live their lives. Fear, especially about the long-term, just doesn’t sell. According to the Pew Research Center, in a survey of 9,593 U.S. adults conducted Oct. 21-27, 2024, only 23% of Americans (32% Democrat/Lean Democrat and 14% of Republican/Lean Republican) feel they will have to make major sacrifices during their lifetime due to climate change.

In the highly polarized U.S. political environment it is easy to be cynical about bipartisanship. It is certainly much easier than trying to solve the problem. But cynicism just makes the problem worse. And it’s a problem that needs solving—recognizing there will always be different, even very different, views across the political spectrum. That same Pew survey found that 80% of Americans (73% Republican/Lean Republican and 88% Democrat/Lean Democrat) are frustrated that there is so much political disagreement about climate change. Nearly half of Americans (48%) are confused about all the information out there on climate change (39% on the left and 55% on the right).

It is also interesting to note that roughly the same percentage (51%) are suspicious of the groups and people pushing for climate action. Since most of these groups are on the left, it’s not surprising this number is 75% for Republican/Lean Republican vs. 28% for Democrat/Lean Democrat. Fortunately, there is an emerging “Ecoright” (which is where Nick and C3 Solutions reside) that has credibility with conservatives. But, by definition, you cannot create stable long-term policies for the energy transition and climate change if half of the country isn’t on board with these policies. Everyone who cares about climate change has to decide whether they want to be part of the solution by working for bipartisanship or part of the problem by giving up on it, or even worse, working against it.

What China Is Doing

This topic received the most attention. On balance, the comments were more disagreeing than agreeing with Nick and me. I found these comments helpful and illuminating. One person provided a particularly thoughtful exposition and asserted that China is doing many of the positive things China is doing including:

• Recently finding a thorium deposit that can supply 60,000 years of energy
• Creating an artificial sun at 100 million degrees Celsius (hotter than the sun’s core) which can drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels
• Increasing its forest area by 22 million hectares
• Developing an early weather/natural disaster warning system that can get messages to people in 17 provinces within 0.23-3.17 seconds
• Having a young grid that allows integration of solar, wind, and hydropower into it

One of the five recommendations Nick and I make is to make dramatic improvements in the creaking U.S. electrical grid.

This person also rightly pointed out that “We need collective, decisive, effective climate (and nature) action by all countries, businesses, and earth dwellers to contain global warming and ensure a sustainable planet for our future generations.” I have no disagreement with that at all. I simply want to point out that each country needs to address it in ways that work given its political system, resources (financial, technological, and human), and capabilities. She also urges us to “not be naive” and that we should “take note of the commitments, devoted resources and contributions China makes towards a sustainable planet for all.” This point was also made by someone who asked “Is it really important what drives China if it ultimately contributes to decarbonisation?” She then went on to say, “Much worse is that the U.S. has no interest in tackling climate change and that Trump has taken it to such an extreme that it is almost incomprehensible.” When it comes to Trump, “incomprehensible” applies to a long list of topics but I think it’s an oversimplification to say that the U.S. has no interest in tackling climate change.

In our paper Nick and I acknowledge that China is making an important contribution through its vast capabilities in terms of production capacity and intellectual property in wind, solar, batteries, and EVs. We also say that policymakers should not “raise tariffs on competitors or close to import cheaper energy inputs like steel and aluminum or clean energy technologies from America’s trading partners (including from China).”

But the main point of our paper when it comes to China is captured in the comment from the person who drew an analogy between the U.S. and Canada when he said, “China’s approach is brutally pragmatic: energy security first, economic dominance second, climate action a distant third.” Another person, asking how to resolve the paradox of China being the world’s largest emitter and being the largest investor in low carbon and carbon free energy solutions, opined that what China is doing “is not because China deeply cares about saving humanity and the planet. It is because China wants to dominate the global energy market.” Someone else noted that “It’s impossible to have a serious conversation about global challenges—whether it’s climate risk or trade policy—without addressing China’s role.” Finally, a pithy repost mentioned the book “The New Map” by Pulitzer -rize winning global energy expert Daniel Yergin as substantiating our basic thesis.

Where does this leave us on China? China is neither all good nor all bad. The country is making an important contribution to dealing with climate change. At the same time, it is doing this for economic growth, competitive advantage, and increasing its geopolitical influence. At the same time, it is making extensive use of fossil fuels for years to come, both at home and in helping other countries do so. I don’t begrudge China this at all. Rather, I respect their disciplined and steely intent to use climate change as an opportunity to pursue the country’s national self interest. The U.S. needs to do the same and the partisan debate is hobbling our ability get our national act together in a democratic way. Failure to do so will leave us weaker in terms of energy security, energy affordability, and reducing our own carbon emissions.

Fossil Fuels And Climate Change

Not surprisingly, the debate about fossil fuels and climate change was reflected in the comments. A person who started his career in fossil fuels referred to them as “so last century” and made the complaint I’ve heard before of “Please stop calling it ‘natural’ gas as though there is something healthy about.” And while another agreed with the need for a bipartisan approach, he said we lost him in our statement that “public policy should allow for access to energy development, whether it is a solar project on federal lands or a liquified natural gas export project.” Also agreeing with the need for a bipartisan approach, another person expressed the view that we had oversimplified the comparison between both sides since, “The fossil fuel industry has not only been slow to adapt but has actively misled the public and obstructed progress on climate action for decades.”

On the flip side, discussing Security of Energy Chris Wright’s presentation at CERAWeek, the view was expressed that “we should leverage our natural gas and oil resources in a responsible way to get the right balance between affordability, energy security, and carbon emissions.” Another acknowledged that “fossil fuels have driven the tremendous progress over the last century and a half and so should stop being soley cast as the bad guy” but also felt we should be pivoting to renewables as quickly as possible.

Fossil fuels are, and will remain, central to the debate about climate change. One person stated that, “Some of those 2025 energy mix projections make me wince but I have to believe the economics will kick in long before 2050.” Less optimistic and in the Doom and Gloom Camp was the opinion that, “I guess if ‘fossil fuels will still make up 70 percent of global energy consumption in 2050.’ then the planet and our futures are pretty cooked!”

There are no easy answers when it comes to the role of fossil fuels. What is needed is for their staunchest supporters and staunchest critics to have civil and constructive conversations about their different views. This is foundational to producing bipartisan stable, long-term policies in the U.S. for the energy transition and addressing climate change.