This episode was recorded just three days after the U.S. presidential election. My guest, UT Law Professor David Spence, recently published an exceptional book Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship. I believe this book is perfect for this moment and one of the best I’ve read on climate policy—and I read a lot on climate policy.

David and I dove into the roots and contributors of America’s current partisan and ideological divides which have grown rapidly over the past few decades. We discussed not only the challenges this divide presents — though we talked about those extensively — but also some possible solutions. David shows how we can bridge these divides, re-establish trust, and find common ground. We also talked about the Inflation Reduction Act and why energy policy could, maybe, be a unifying area in an increasingly polarized landscape.

I found this conversation both important and thought-provoking, and I hope you will too. I highly recommend David’s book; it’s a remarkable piece that is particularly relevant now. If you’re interested in the energy transition, the history of energy-related regulations, or want a deeper understanding of our current political landscape, especially as it relates to climate and energy, I think you’ll enjoy this episode as much as I did.

As always, please like, share, and leave a five star review wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for being a listener. 

Timestamps

2:31 - The major ideas in Climate of Contempt

4:06 - How the thesis of the book connects to the outcome of the US presidential election

5:54 - Discontent with the status quo in the US

8:09 - The depth of the ideological divide in the US

13:27 - How to bridge ideological divides and actively listen (and why it’s so challenging)

17:51 - Effectiveness of deliberative polling and in-person, offline interactions. The role of media and social media in driving polarization.

23:52 - The importance of active listening, education over persuasion, and not being too sure you are right.

29:05 - Is energy a place we can find more common ground? Challenges and opportunities.

37:54 - The future of the Inflation Reduction Act

43:31 - Regulatory uncertainty… what happens next?

Show Notes

Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship by David B. Spence

David’s website and blog

EnergyTradeoffs.com

Works from Katharine Hayhoe

”Spirit of Liberty” – speech from Judge Learned Hand

Advanced Manufacturing Production tax credit

Transcript

Doug Lewin

David Spence, welcome to the Energy Capital Podcast.

David Spence 

Happy to be here, Doug.

Doug Lewin

It's great to have you here today. You have written what I think is a really remarkable book and I hope it is read widely. I think it is really illuminating for the moment we're in. We'll of course put a link in the show notes so people can find it easily, but it's called Climate of Contempt, the subtitle, How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship. We're recording on Friday, November 8th, the Friday just after the reelection of Donald Trump. So I think that this book is even, I thought it was incredibly relevant before the election, I think it's even more so now. Can we just start David with you just explaining the thesis of the book generally, but also in light of the political earthquake that happened this week?

David Spence

Sure, happy to. So the main point of the book is to try and reintroduce into the popular debate and also parts of the scholarly debate what I think are some underappreciated forces that are driving regulatory politics and, in the case of what we're both interested in, energy transition politics. And that missing element is what I would call the bottom-up forces that are driving what particularly members of Congress, but all elected politicians do. We hear a lot about the top down forces, about how elites are controlling the regulatory process or the policymaking process. And that's part of the story and not an unimportant part of the story, but a really neglected part of the story is how receptive and sensitive elected politicians are to what voters want or more particularly what they don't want. And so politicians work hard to avoid the kind of mistakes that might lose them the next election. And those forces I think are much more important than most people realize. And that's what the book explores and applies to the energy transition.

Doug Lewin

Yeah, and so talk about that a little bit in light of this week.

David Spence

Sure, sure. So we've all seen probably 40 or 50 takes on what happened the other day in the election. In fact, the New York Times alone has had at least 10 different takes depending upon who's doing the writing. And voters' decisions are complicated. They only get to choose one of two choices, but they're motives and reasons for making those choices are varied and complex. And so among the takes we're seeing are takes crediting fears about inflation, racism, sexism, Harris being too progressive, Harris being not progressive enough, other worries about all kinds of other issues.

And again, these tend to be the kinds of things that pundits look at, but among the takes that the New York Times had was one today in which a writer said that what Trump was betting on was that he could make a majority of voters believe that the situation that they face is miserable and getting worse under Democratic administrations. And that's the take that probably comes closest to the way I analyze politics in my book, which focuses on how the changes in the modern media environment make it harder for the truth to win out. And so I analyze that in the pre-election environment, but we can see that same sort of dynamic at work in understanding the results of the election the other day.

Doug Lewin

Yeah. And I think, to that latest take, there's also some really good data floating around on the internet now about anti-incumbency globally. This is, I believe, one thing I saw was this is the only time in recorded history, which for this particular metric goes back to 1905, that every incumbent party lost voter share in developing countries. That's never happened before. That every single, whether they were right, left, moderate, that the incumbent party lost voter share. So if Trump's strategy was to lean into the anti-incumbent sentiment, he was definitely picking something up in the zeitgeist here and globally. And sometimes we forget here that we do exist in a global context and media is very global at this point too.

David Spence 

Yeah, and on that, you meant developed countries, right? You said developing, but you meant developed.

Doug Lewin

Developed, excuse me, developed, you’re absolutely right.

David Spence

Yeah, and there's no doubt that the disruption of the pandemic had a huge effect on people's perceptions of where the economy is and where it's going. If you look at charts comparing inflation in the United States, coming out of the pandemic with inflation in other countries. It went up everywhere because of the supply chain disruptions. While we were able to get it under control right before the election, that doesn't mean that voters weren't sincerely shaken by the influence of inflation on their everyday lives. So I'm not meaning to discount economic forces entirely here. But clearly there was a belief that all sorts of conditions of daily life were a lot worse than they actually are heading into the election. We can see that in the exit polling.

Doug Lewin

Yeah, I think we all feel it to a certain extent. Like every time I go to a grocery store I'm still kind of shocked at what the prices are. There's obviously some truth to all that and I think that that's why the anti-incumbency sentiment is there. 

But here's what I wanna zero in on a little bit, David, from your book that I think is so striking. And this has been written about obviously other places, but I think you do a great job applying it to how we deal with energy and climate issues. The ideological divide has gotten so strong. You summarize some of that research. Can you talk a little bit about just how bad it's gotten? And I know people have probably heard this before. Where I want to go with it is really where you go in the book, which is how we actually have conversations across these ideological divides. So let's do both of those things. Part A, the ideological divide itself and how strong is it, sort of this partisan, almost like tribal partisanship. And part B, what is at least part of the recipe for dealing with that fundamental problem.

David Spence

Sure, so I break that divide into sort of two main parts. One is the familiar ideological polarization, which has been getting worse since the mid to