Renewable Energy Is a Subject of Passion — Perhaps Too Much
Occasionally I go off by myself for a “happy hour” drink at a local upscale restaurant/bar — a place that’s almost always good for an interesting conversation with the people sitting next to me. Last evening was no exception: I found an elderly couple that looked like they were right out of the “Society” column of the New York Times — dressed to the nines, very nicely educated, with warm and sophisticated old-money smiles. In fact, she was from Boston, Wellesley to be exact, and her paternal heritage was a line of “Harvard men” that was (I’m not exaggerating) four generations long.
The couple was so cordial and so sincerely excited to meet a fellow transplant from the East Coast that it was hard to imagine that the conversation could possibly turn sour, but it did precisely that when they asked me about my vocation and I explained that I was in renewable energy. The guy, perhaps 80, who, a moment before, was regarding me as if I could have been a rowing mate on the Charles, was at a loss to contain his anger. He demanded to know: What about clean coal? Could I convince him that we won’t be burning oil in 100 years? Did I think people really want these spinny toys (wind turbines), an aesthetic blight, all over the place? After all, we’re not running out of coal and oil; we keep finding more.
At least he had enough class and self-composure to emphasize repeatedly, “I’m not an expert, but…” before throwing out another unworkable defense for the continued extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. That, in fact, is the part I find most interesting with people like this; it’s what I call the “I’m Not an Expert, but… Syndrome.”
It’s unclear to me how people who know quite well that their understanding of the energy industry is limited feel entitled to extremely rigid positions – especially ones that fly in the teeth of the beliefs of the vast majority of scientists – i.e., actual experts. Would this guy have felt comfortable being so doctrinaire if the discussion were on cancer research or criminal psychopathology? Nope. Yet when it came to energy, he didn’t mind latching onto a few sounds bites and blasting them at me as if they had come from Mount Sinai.
I’m normally pretty good getting people to see that there really are tough realities here, that perhaps there are issues that make this subject a bit more complicated than they may have initially realized. In such situations, I try to fashion myself after Socrates (one of my great heroes growing up); I just try to ask good questions. But this gentleman was having absolutely none of it.
The experience served as an important reminder: part of what makes the migration to renewable energy such an interesting challenge is getting the world to back down off of what they think they know, and look at our problems fairly and squarely in the eye. I suppose that’s why the public relations angle is so crucial here. This fellow’s intractable viewpoint is the product of a considerable fortune that’s been spent convincing him of something extremely specific; the problem is that it’s also totally incorrect.
The court of public opinion can be quite dicey, particularly when there’s money involved, and most especially when that money firmly takes sides.
However, there are a couple of interesting observations on group phenomena of which we’d do well do remain mindful.
One is the accuracy of the group mind in making collectively accurate observations of unvarnished data – when they’re paying attention and are not misled. Will Hutton, a British political economist, has reasoned that American journalist James Surowiecki’s analysis (in his book The Wisdom of Crowds) can apply to decisions regarding values as well as factual issues, and observes that conclusions that “emerge of our own aggregated free will [are] astonishingly… decent”. He concludes that “There’s no better case for pluralism, diversity and democracy, along with a genuinely independent press.” Three broad areas using the wisdom-of-crowds effect currently occur: Prediction markets, Delphi methods, and extensions of the traditional opinion poll.
Examples are numerous where popular opinion is consistent with the scientific consensus on the need to mitigate climate disruption, yet public policy (set as it is by pocketed “public servants”) often remains at odds with both the best data and the public mind.
We can look at topical examples in the 2007 poll that found 75% of respondents willing to pay more for electricity generated from renewable sources like solar or wind. 68% favored government focus on increasing conservation and efficiency (opposing 21% who favored a focus on increased petroleum extraction). 64% favored higher taxes on gasoline to fund renewables research.
Nevertheless, resisting popular opinion, government support for renewables research and implementation is spotty and uneven. Progress on efficiency standards has been slow. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) states that, “Transportation accounts for about 72 percent of our total domestic oil consumption.” Yet, from 1978 to 2011, combined CAFE standards rose by only 9.4 miles per gallon. Meanwhile, the national average gasoline price went from about 65¢ a gallon in 1978 to $3.52 in 2011, and was $3.75 last month (February 2013). The fact that domestic demand for fuel has tapered off recently is the result of the price vs. income relationship far more than efficiency gains.
Another group phenomenon is discussed in great detail in The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. We can all recall moments in human history when large segments of society rapidly adopted a previously rare practice or view. One famous example is the swing in popular perception, from the long tradition of considering the donning of rare furs to be a symbol of status, to the very modern opinion that fur coats are an expression of selfish and mindless cruelty. The very recent shift in the public’s support for recognizing same sex marriages is another example. The Arab Spring might be viewed in this light, as might the women’s suffrage movement and the civil rights movement.
There have been ideas that have emerged and persisted in a fringe standing, and then rather suddenly taken hold in a short span of years to become the dominant viewpoint, and has often done so against centuries of static tradition. Though media elements are often heavily involved at some point, the linkage between media and movements seems often to be more consequent than causative. Frequently, the most prominent media initially oppose the change.
My points here are that the money is highly potent but doesn’t always hold the high cards, and that if the common people lead firmly enough, the “leaders” will eventually follow.
Our historical model of a democratic republic may perhaps put us in a better position for such changes than, say, an entrenched dictatorship, but opposing moneyed forces now exercise an unprecedented depth and degree of influence.
What remains an open question is whether this much-anticipated movement in favor of enlightened energy solutions will grow strong enough to shape national (and global) energy strategy in time to stave off the worst lethal effects of privileged bullheadedness.
I’m not an expert ,but if we don’t get off oil and coal burning power plants,by 2050 ,our next generation will wonder why we didn’t think of them,before it was too late.