As a serial procrastinator, I have more posts in draft format than published; this one has been languishing for a several weeks following a recommendation not to publish (in its then form) by a respected pre-reader. So after some mild editing it is time to publish and be damned.
Churchill famously chose cabinet ministers who would disagree with him1. In an equally famous and possibly apocryphal story, Margaret Thatcher did the opposite as she slowly lost the plot, and ended up surrounded by “Yes-men”. Thus when the putsch came, she was taken by surprise - no one had dared tell her the bad news.
As the Net-Zero promises of yesteryear start to meet the economic realities of today, whole segments of the political and media classes seem to be blindsided by the backlash amongst the hoi polli. Rather than any kind of self-reflection, Net-Zero afficionados seem to think that denigrating the dissenters and doubling-down on the unpopular policies is the righteous path.
Something Wicked This Way Comes
In recent history, probably the most maladroit example of this was Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump supporters as “deplorables”.
Clearly, there is a fur-and-horns wearing fringe of the Trump supporters who are, well.. very fringe. But the misunderstanding of the Democrats was the degree of support Trump garnered from the centre and left-of-centre. Ironically, by fishing in the pond of the middle-to-lower-income, blue-collar workers, who in normal times would be natural unionised Democrat supporters - Trump won the 2016 election. Some of the “deplorables”, it turns out, were disenfranchised Democrats. There doesn’t seem to have been much self-examination, asking why this demographic felt disenfranchised, just more derision for those who just didn’t get with the progressive agenda.
Political echo-chambers have a habit of being surprised by popular opinion. When that happens there are two possible course of action: re-examination of the unpopular policies or lashing out.
As the obviously unrealistic goals of Net Zero policies start to meet popular opposition, so the proponents will double-down and lash-out at “the opposition”.
The New Bogeyman: “Populism”
To be fair, this should worry most people; even a cursory review of the 20th century would show that populism leads to many terrible outcomes, not the least of which was the rise of the Nazis in 1930’s Germany.
With that caution in mind, it is still possible to question the recent popularity(!) of the terms “populism” and “populist”, especially as they are used to label the new deplorables. You know,
Those who worry that Net Zero
fantasiesAmbitions seem to be coming at a cost that is unacceptable to working families.The ones who have noticed that the promised social justice is leading to subsidies for wealthy EV owners and roof-top solar homeowners.
The ones who think that having a robust and (marginally) profitable agricultural sector might be a good plan.
The ones who wore Gilets Jaunes. Crazies. Obviously manipulated by populist demagogues. They who are victims of all that mis/disinformation.
This is assault-by-labelling on anyone and everyone who dares question the Net Zero dogma. The term “populists” is of course very condescending - as one would expect from the elites2 who have a monopoly on truth. We all remember being told that the UN “owns the science”. Hubris much?
One might also suspect that it is a deliberate choice. In the same way climate-alarm sceptics are routinely called “deniers” with an implied association with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers (as described and repudiated by Steve Koonin in “unsettled”), so the use of “populist” might be a deliberate word choice to smear-by-association the targets.
Democracy is a Popularity Contest
The focus on “populists” is not just condescending, but oddly hypocritical.
Why? Because the whole climate emergency / New Green Deal / Net Zero / energy transition has itself, been a populist movement.
When contending for power, populist movements appeal to those who share the same kinds of frustrations and beliefs. (Demirel-Pegg)
To get elected you had to be popular, to be popular you had to wave the Net Zero flag rallying those with shared frustrations and beliefs.
If we think back to 2019, these were some Halcyon days:
pre-covid
pre-European energy crisis
pre-Russia invading Ukraine (again)
pre-cost-of-living crisis
We can picture the rebels-in-search-of-a-cause on sunny marches demanding “climate action now”. This was an easy time of picnics in the park, a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose and of “doing something”. Even if that thing was driving 150 miles in a big SUV to wave Greta off on her transatlantic sailing jaunt (as someone I know did…).
A dynamic triad of activists/media/politics formed. For many politicians this was electoral gold. The UK was preparing for COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 and the vote winning strategy was to promise more Net Zero ambitions that the other parties. BoJo, ever the opportunist, saw the opportunity and occupied the Net Zero terrain pushing the Labour and Liberals to even more extreme positions - leaving anyone who cared about energy security completely disenfranchised. There was literally no one to vote for.
Why Plato Hated Democracy
One of the great failures/limitations of the UK education system is that as early as 16 years old, you have to specialize (for the “Advanced-Levels” = High School Diploma), typically taking no more that 3 or 4 subjects. The French “Bac” is much broader and includes philosophy no matter what orientation/specialization you do within the Bac framework. By chosing STEM, I sadly missed out on the Philosophy and Political classes.
Therefore, in this post I am paddling outside my pond by delving into philosophy and politics - but I highly recommend this great read by Meno.
Democracy is a popularity contest; and many variables will factor into winning elections. Being tall is a quite well known one… But away from height and nice hair we have to hope that a lot of votes are cast on the basis of policies. This is why parties put out manifestos, why candidates have debates: to explain what they will do once in power. Sometimes not getting elected might be the smart option if what you have promised is totally unrealistic…
When you’re competing to be a ruler (or a politician, in the modern age) within a democratic system, there’s basically one thing that matters; getting votes. It’s not necessarily about how smart you are, how moral you are, or how qualified you are to lead a community or a nation. Instead, it’s about how well you can be perceived, if you can tell people what they want to hear, and ultimately, if you can convince a majority to vote for you. Why Plato Hated Democracy by Meno
Telling people what they want to hear.
Ah yes, 2019 and all that. How ironic that the Net Zero dreams that rose on a wave of popularity, are now being challenged by “Populists”.
The Overton Window
Back in 2019 it was easy to make promises. The calculus was simple
2019 - Promise the Earth (or at least promise to save it), tell people what they want to hear, get elected.
2035 - Set any old target for 2035 that sounds vote-winning, with the understanding you’ll be well into retirement by then.
2050 - Promise that, absolutely, definitely, Net-Zero carbon by 2050 - an easy committment given that “I’ll be dead by then”.
Unfortunately, time has a nasty habit of creeping along3, and suddenly these intermediate milestones start to look ominously close. The UK made the mistake of making emissions targets “legally binding” - whatever that actually means. A short 4 years after passing the law, back-tracking started in earnest, quickly followed by Scotland watering down its own targets. At least the UK has been consistent in “leading from the front”; being early to set targets and early to back-track. Meanwhile, for countries such as Germany - does anyone seriously think they will meet their emissions reductions targets?
Defenestration
While watching a fascinating Q+A between Patrick Pouyanné (CEO of the iconic French energy company TotalEnergies), and various French Senators (the debate is in French of course!), I was reminded of how the political window of opportunity “the Overton Window” can move much faster than - dare I say it - populist Green politicians. The session was focused on the reconciliation of TotalEnergies’ underlying business, TotalEnergies’ Net Zero targets, and France’s Net Zero ambitions.
I have used the above screenshot because the questioning from Yannick Jadot (Ecology Party, former Greenpeace and Member of the European Parliament) was an illustration of the kind of rhetoric and arguments that carried the day in 2019, but falls pretty flat in 2024.
He layered Net Zero tropes; combining “appeals to authority” with highly emmotional language. Firstly, citing that UN Secretary General Gutteres has been warning us “morning, noon and night” that “Climate Collapse” is on us. Secondly, he followed up with the lamentable IEA Net Zero by 2050 roadmap; a widely discredited “scenario” that laid out what would need to happen for the Net Zero 2050 targets to be met. This thought-experiment has been taken as a literal “roadmap” by many, including seemingly, by Yannick Jadot, despite all evidence that it is not a roadmap. He then reverts to the emotional language of “Carbon Bombs” and so on.
The result of this exchange was a demonstration of the gulf that separates politicians, elected by promising people what they want to hear, and an indisputably extremely smart person who has risen on merit to the top of France’s corporate establishment. Popularity vs Meritocracy: it is fun to watch.
The up-coming European Parlimentary Elections will also be interesting to watch - as it is generally expected that the backlash against the Net Zero policies will translate into many bogeymen (and women) getting elected. Given that the European Parliment has been quite the Net Zero echo-chamber, an increase in the diversity of view points should shake it up, even if this kind if “diversity” may be unwelcome.
He Who Fights With Monsters
To many on the left in the US, Trump is seen as some kind of monster. To be sure, he is no choirboy, indeed a terrible role-model for younger generations - but the cognitive dissonance is extraordinary.
Beyond simply abhorring him, it's astonishing how little self-awareness the Democrats seem to possess. A compelling argument can be made (example, example, and Bad News) that the "progressive" agenda, encompassing elements of ESG, DEI, BLM, Net Zero, and transgender rights, has become an obsession within a specific demographic: the educated, largely white, metropolitan elite. Ironically, this agenda which is sold as being “inclusive” has alienated the political center – the often-mentioned "silent majority."
Seeking an alternative, many turned to Trump given the two-party system that is US politics. Progressive politics has created the monster that it now so fears. It is but a tiny step to accepting that this dire outcome should be stopped by any means - hence the rise in anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies coming from the left in many countries.
The meme below is of course a caricature, but the message is well understood. Liberal doesn’t always mean what you think it means.
Beyond Good and Evil
One of many great posts by the original bad kitty El Gato Malo argues compellingly that whilst many will welcome the decline in woke (DEI) overreach, we should guard against a “pitchforks and torches” reaction. Firstly, this would lose the moral high ground. Moreover, it would make the faux-victims into real victims, thereby springing the ultimate trap (intentionally or not).
This post is not a celebration of the rise of populists or even schadenfreude for the flailing and ludicrous Net Zero ambitions.
No, it is a cathartic review to welcome (hopefully) the beginning of a new era of energy ( and indeed, emissions reductions) pragmatism.4
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
In the film World War Z, the concept of “The Tenth Man” was popularised - this is the idea is that in any group which has strong consensus and conviction, someone should be nominated to argue the under, so as to not miss something important, to not get caught unawares.
yes I know, using “elite” and “elites” is also a form of labelling.
Somewhat ironically, thermodynamics is one of the only places in physicis where the arrow of time has a direction.
Dave Blackon has just posted a good example of this from Florida (along with the “incomprehension” from the usual suspects)
.
“In addition to removing the term climate change, the new law would make affordability and reliability the focus of the state’s energy policy - an echo of conservative talking points…”
So, “affordability and reliability” for your power grid are now nothing more than “conservative talking points”, folks. Who knew?
Excellent post Richard and some thought provoking comments and links.
I’d like to modify slightly the quote you took from Meno’s powrrful essay:
“It’s not necessarily about how smart you are, how moral you are, or how qualified you are to lead a community or a nation. Instead, it’s about how well you can be perceived, if you can tell people what they want to hear, and ultimately, if you can convince a majority to vote for you. Why Plato Hated Democracy by Meno”
A politician that is a truly gifted orator is one who not only tells the people what they want to hear, but also convinces the people what they should want to hear.
Methinks you misjudge Trump, like many before you. What you should be looking at is how he treats his employees, many love working for him, those he meets in the street (never talking down unless given good reason by their behavior towards him) and the majority of his family. Not so long ago Powerful Democrats, the MSM and Hollywood fawned on him, now, within the space of a few years he is another Hitler? I have no time for what he says, but his actions are far superior to any left wing leader.