In the last few years, vested interests have changed their strategy for opposing action on climate change. Where they once focused on denying the problem, they’re now putting their efforts into sabotaging the solutions. Instead of funding fake experts to say the ‘science isn’t settled’, fossil fuel companies and their political backers have been running a smear campaign against renewable energy technologies like wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
We can see this in Australia, where, in just a few short years, the ‘climate debate’ has morphed into the ‘energy debate’. Right-wing ideologues like Tony Abbott, who previously rejected climate change as ‘crap’, now concede it’s happening but retaliate with attacks on renewable energy. Since September last year, the coal mining lobby has been pushing the myth of ‘clean coal’ and a branch of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia was even caught using fake Twitter accounts to spread misinformation about the cause of blackouts in South Australia.
Al Gore’s new film, An Inconvenient Sequel, brings this ‘solutions denial’ out into the open. In one scene, Gore meets with an Attorney-General to discuss ExxonMobil’s PR campaign against solar power in the US.
The film covers many other topics—particularly the devastating impact of extreme weather events—but the main source of hope throughout is the exponential growth of clean energy, which has become a proxy battleground for public discourse on climate change.
The focus on energy solutions rather than the climate problem has huge implications for the role of government. Previously, many environment groups were calling for government to intervene in the market by making polluters pay for the damage they cause (e.g. Australia’s carbon price laws, now repealed); or by giving government agencies the power to regular greenhouse gases more directly (e.g. Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the US).
But now it’s cheaper to build new solar and wind power stations than it is to build coal or gas. The economics have flipped, and it is easy to mount a financial argument in favor of cleaner energy sources and cutting emissions. In fact, even the lobby group representing big polluting energy companies is calling for a national Clean Energy Target.
Environment groups, and the many millions of people who want stronger action on climate change, are surprised to find themselves arguing for less government intervention in the market. We can see this in Australia when they say a big new coal mine or coal-fired power station won’t go ahead because ‘banks won’t fund it’.
What they’re implicitly saying here is ‘leave it to the market’ because that means coal will wither for lack of capital. Whereas previously the green Left was criticising capitalism, they’re now in the strange position of defending the economic status quo.
"The economics have flipped and renewable energy will progressively replace coal and gas, but it won't happen fast enough to avoid the worst impacts of an overheated planet."
I’ve made this argument myself. But I now think it’s dangerously short-sighted, for two reasons.
First, we still need more government intervention to solve the climate crisis. Yes, the economics have flipped and renewable energy will progressively replace coal and gas, but it won’t happen fast enough to avoid the worst impacts of an overheated planet. We need governments to close power stations, regulate pollution and apply stricter standards for energy efficiency and vehicle emissions. Saying ‘let the market decide’ might be a strong argument against government funding of a new coal-fired power station today, but it’s self-defeating in the long run.
Second, if the focus is on economics in the energy market, what role do citizens have to play? At least when the target is governments, citizens can pressure them to do the right thing—after all, politicians are supposed to represent the people’s views. Yes, there’s a lot of cynicism about this, but the link is a logical one.
However, now the climate change argument is about the falling costs of wind and solar power, the role of concerned citizens is less clear. If the economics are changing rapidly and coal can’t compete, why do we, the people, have to do anything? Can’t we just sit on our bums and let the invisible hand of the market do the heavy lifting? The answer, as described above, is that the transition won’t happen fast enough—but is that compelling to the general public?
Gore’s new film highlights this conundrum. The big hero isn’t Gore himself, or the people he inspires, but the changing economics. Even his insider’s view of the Paris climate agreement, which could have emphasised the crucial role of government, becomes another example of ‘markets to the rescue!’.
Gore makes a deal with US company SolarCity to transfer solar panel technology patents to India, overcoming a crucial stumbling block to that country’s co-operation.
The film ends on a speech about the power of social movements and calls for political pressure to reach 100 per cent renewable energy, but doesn’t give much detail about what concerned citizens can do to speed up the transition of our energy market.
If the falling cost of clean energy is our savior, how are members of the audience supposed to help it along? Calls to switch to green electricity or install solar panels at home aren’t enough. Without an explicit political strategy, this risks repeating the failed ‘your dollar is your vote’ approach environmentalists adopted in the late 1980s.
The manufactured opposition to cutting greenhouse gas pollution has now definitely shifted from climate denial to solutions denial. Gore’s new film confirms it, but doesn’t fully explain how to combat this new approach.
Greg Foyster is a Melbourne writer and the author of the book Changing Gears. He saw An Inconvenient Sequel as a guest of the Transitions Film Festival (www.transitionsfilmfestival.com)