At the heart of addressing climate change and securing America’s energy future lies the challenge of overcoming political divides and other basic differences that hinder collaboration and progress. Dr. David B. Spence, Rex G. Baker Centennial Chair in Natural Resources Law Professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law, has explored this critical issue at length in his book, Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship. Dr. Spence shared his findings at the Carbon Action Alliance’s CO2NNECT 2024 conference in the fall, underscoring the importance of understanding and addressing the root causes of polarization in climate policy, emphasizing the role of thoughtful engagement and dialogue in finding common ground. The Carbon Action Alliance invited Dr. Spence to share some of his insights in a Q&A on his career, insights from his book, and the ways we can foster productive conversations to advance innovative solutions for carbon management and beyond.
Could you start by sharing a bit about your background and what led you to focus on energy and environmental law?
I became interested in energy and the environment as a college student. Late in my undergraduate career the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant melted down about 30 miles from where I was living. That was really the beginning of my interest in the subject. After college I took classes in environmental law and energy law in law school and practiced in those areas as a young lawyer before returning to academia.
Your career has spanned both academia and consulting. How have these experiences influenced your views on energy policy and regulation?
I think they complement one another. Academic training is theoretically and methodologically rigorous and gives me a set of broad frameworks and tools for thinking analytically about big, complex problems. Working with real people on the ground—people who are trying to build things and comply with relevant regulations—gives me a more granular sense of how theory meets reality. Hopefully it keeps me from succumbing to ivory tower naivete.
Your latest book, Climate of Contempt, addresses the current political climate surrounding energy and environmental issues. What motivated you to write this book now?
For almost a decade now I have had a growing sense that the dominant narratives of energy and climate politics were missing something important. They focused almost exclusively on top-down, elite influence over policy. To people on the right, the problem is intellectual and coastal elites; to people on the left, it is economic elites. But empirical political science research has always told a more complex, nuanced story, one that includes powerful bottom-up influences. Elected politicians are very responsive to voters’ wishes. Members of Congress really don’t want to risk losing reelection, and so they avoid taking actions or positions that might increase that risk.
In your book, you discuss the polarization of climate policy. Could you explain what you mean by “climate of contempt” and how it affects efforts to address climate change?
Beginning in the 1980s, the two major political parties grew ideologically farther apart, particularly on regulatory issues, and later on social/cultural issues. And beginning around the turn of the 21st century, voters became much more negatively partisan, to the point that today they seem to mostly despise one another. At the same time, more and more congressional seats became “safe” for one party or the other. So, the primary electoral risk most members of Congress face is losing in a primary election. Therefore, the voters that they must keep happy are those especially ideologically extreme and negatively partisan voters who vote in primaries. They do that by demonstrating their contempt for the opposing party and the things it wants.
What are some of the key takeaways you hope readers will gain from Climate of Contempt?
In addition to the importance of the bottom-up forces exerted by these partisan voters, I hope readers come away with an understanding of how the modern media environment feeds and sustains the climate of contempt by censoring the information we see and isolating us from each other. Extensive research discussed in the book shows how it is possible for voters to believe that the economy is doing poorly when it is doing well, that energy prices are high when they are relatively low, etc. Democracy cannot function without a common set of facts, without the ability to talk to one another across partisan boundaries. If we continue to hate one another with increasing intensity, sustaining our democracy will be impossible, and strong climate policy will continue to elude us.
"Democracy cannot function without a common set of facts, without the ability to talk to one another across partisan boundaries."
What role do face-to-face interactions play in bridging the polarized divide? How can people begin to connect with others with different views?
Face-to-face conversation with someone you know is an entirely different—and superior—form of communication than online conversation. We approach one another with more care and respect face-to-face because we value the continuation of the relationship. And we get more of the human context behind the message. So, when we talk about difficult subjects like politics face-to-face, we do so cautiously and iteratively, asking questions rather than declaring the other person’s wrongness or stupidity. Face-to-face conversation happens often without an audience present, which dampens the egotistical desire to “win” the conversation. Online conversation happens in front of an audience, in writing, under space constraints. Everything about face-to-face conversation is more productive, more conducive to learning and to auditing our own beliefs, which after all is how we get closer to the truth.
How has the rise of social media platforms, particularly as news distributors, affected discussions and political action around climate policy? Has this influenced the rise in polarization, in your opinion?
The rise to dominance of omnipresent ideological and social media distorts our politics in terribly destructive ways. It is the most powerful propaganda machine in human history. It is a 24/7 “devil on our shoulders” providing us with narratives designed to sustain our existing biases and foment hatred of those with whom we disagree politically. Fifty years ago, most news came from professional journalists who strived to educate people. Today most “news” is designed to persuade us. We have to work harder to separate the reliable news from the propaganda, to get at complicated truths. We are rarely if ever exposed to reasonable presentations of opposing points of view online, and so we conclude that those opposing views must be based on ignorance or motivated by ill will. This dynamic is one of the engines of polarization and the primary engine of negative partisanship.
The Carbon Action Alliance’s CO2NNECT 2024 conference is centered around education, stakeholder engagement, and collaboration for carbon management. How do you see the themes of your book aligning with the goals of the conference?
Because of the ubiquity of petroleum products in our lives, carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) will enable a faster, more affordable energy transition. But on the right, the propaganda machine feeds misunderstanding of climate science, of Democrats, and of the need for strong climate policy. On the left, it feeds misunderstanding of the trade-offs involved in the energy transition and of Republicans; so it foments suspicion that CCUS is some sort of cover for continued dependence on fossil fuels or oil company “control” of the political process. The modern information environment strengthens these political barriers to the industry by treating cooperation across partisan boundaries as fraternizing with the enemy.
In Climate of Contempt, you touch on the challenges of public perception and acceptance of climate policies. How can stakeholders address public concerns and build trust in clean energy projects?
In two ways. First, developers of any new energy in infrastructure have to pass through many regulatory veto gates. Doing this successfully requires sophisticated, stakeholder engagement planning and execution. The best engagement plans prioritize engaging with local communities early and often, transparency, and active listening. It is extremely rare (and ill-advised) to “sneak a project by” an unsuspecting local community. Second, given how partisan the climate issue has become, it may be best to frame projects not in terms of their climate benefits, but in terms of how the project can benefit both communities (jobs, tax revenue, etc.) and ratepayers (lower rates, better service, more reliable supply, etc.).
In your view, what role do legal frameworks play in advancing carbon capture and storage technologies?
As I note in my book, our regulatory system is fragmented because it was created episodically over many decades. It splits jurisdiction horizontally among multiple agencies—environmental regulators, energy regulators, oil and gas regulators, etc. It splits jurisdiction vertically between federal, state, and local governments. So, a CCUS project will require multiple permits from multiple state and federal agencies, as well as local zoning approvals. And different regulators apply the applicable legal standards differently at different times and in different places. Regulators in one state may view the same CO2 pipeline or CCUS project very differently, even though they are applying the same laws.
Public engagement is often seen as crucial to the success of clean energy projects. In your experience, what are the most effective ways to involve communities in these initiatives?
Public engagement is of course an important part of any external stakeholder engagement plan and program. Public hearings, town hall meetings, etc., can provide frightened or curious parties an opportunity to be heard and reassured. Again, active listening and empathy are more important than providing accurate information or scientific facts at these kinds of public sessions. It is also important to make contact with known opponents and influencers in a community before public meetings and hearings so that those concerned citizens can put a face to the company representative. It is easier to demonize company X than it is to demonize Joe or Linda from company X, particularly if you have met or spoken with Joe or Linda. This is exactly the same skill set that we need to help us break down the partisan divide that is impeding climate progress.
Thank you to Dr. Spence for his participation at CO2NNECT 2024. His book, Climate of Contempt, is available for sale online at Columbia University Press. To learn more about the Carbon Action Alliance’s work on community engagement and climate action, sign up for our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.