6 ms·

I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. I believe it's mostly about protecting existing money/power stru

I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. I believe it's mostly about protecting existing money/power structures, but I don't really know. I mean, where does all Trump's energy on this topic come from? Is it owning the libs or courting donors or the Heritage Foundation/AEI? If it's really about protecting fossil fuel wealth, is there a long-term plan or are they just juicing quarterly earnings as long as they can? Is there a serious belief that wind/solar is a fad? This isn't the kind of thought that begets rational discussion, but if you can avoid cynicism and sarcasm, I am curious to hear what the smart people of HN think.

adaml_623 2mo ago
I know what you mean. You'd think nationalists would want to put the citizens of their country first but nope they can all go and get cancer from coal power plants.
bluGill 2mo ago
I'm confused too, and I often self-identify as conservative. Part of the problem is you think there is unity in any large movement. There is not, only tiny movements with no political power have unity. There are multiple factions is always the right answer and you have to understand each. As a short cut, many (often the majority) are willing to live with those in their midst but don't actually care. Fossil fuel companies have long supported conservative positions. This is their payback, they get support back. Many do see renewables as the "left", and so they don't care to think, they just oppose anything the left does. (you often see the reverse)
loudmax 2mo ago
I think this is more about tribalism than conservatism. There's nothing inherently "conservative" about opposing renewable energy. The political movement that's currently leading the Republican party shouldn't be understood as "conservative". At least, certainly not in terms of the conservative values of respect for the rule of law, traditional mores and institutions, or personal integrity. The populist energy that passes for "conservative" is reactionary and much more concerned with scoring points on social media than governing sensibly. To be fair, the populist left is also ascendant with its own set of bad ideas.
orangecat 2mo ago
I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. It's almost all tribalism: the left is for it, so they're against it. They have a partially valid point that a lot of so-called environmentalists are anti-progress degrowthers, but the response should be to demonstrate that clean energy (including nuclear) is very good for growth. When conservatives do what they're supposed to and let market forces work, you see things like Texas producing more renewable energy than California.
redmaple892 2mo ago
I knew as soon as I read your comment that multiple people would object to your use of 'conservative' instead of focus on the point (as if the opposing political views lack integrity, values, respect for law, etc). In any case I think the reason comes down to money/power structures and short-term thinking. We have two corporate controlled parties with one that is wholly owned and the other which allows a tiny sliver of dissent. Fossil fuels will never completely go away but anything that questions the entire infrastructure (worldwide, including the need for bases in producing countries), is seen as a threat to the status quo. In this way I don't see it as any different than teams protecting their turf in a large company which stifles innovation.
teamonkey 2mo ago
My favourite theory is that the climate crisis is stressful to think about, reducing its impact requires everyone to make sacrifices, and there’s a lack of control over the situation. People will be inclined to latch on to anyone making an alternative suggestion: it’s a hoax, it will all be fine, the real problem is those people making you make sacrifices. It’s a relief to think that way, because the alternative is harrowing. It’s an easy sell for populists who are willing to say anything to get votes. See also Covid: it’s easier to think of it as some kind of hoax than parse the true horror of the situation. Someone comes along and says it’s far less bad than the news is reporting, that these solutions aren’t necessary. You don’t need to feel guilty that you want to break isolation, find masking uncomfortable and find the jab unpleasant, because it’s all made up.
tialaramex 2mo ago
Not so much this specific structure as the structure at all, the ownership of energy resources. In a country like the US somebody owns the coal. They didn't make that coal, but we decided they can own it anyway, and so even though they didn't make the coal and it's never going to be replaced, just destroyed for all time, they get to capture the economic value from that. Nobody, even in the US, owns the wind, and a wind farm doesn't capture some finite wind and gradually use it up, there's more wind where that came from, essentially forever. Solar is even worse, because it works at a tiny scale. Owning your own wind turbine almost never makes sense but owning some solar panels makes sense for most owner-occupiers, especially if you live outside a city. I don't think Trump would care whether the guy handing him an "America's Best Ever President" trophy and a $5Bn check is a Californian Sunlight Baron or a Wyoming Coal Baron, but the problem is that there can't be a Californian Sunlight Baron. You can't own California's sunlight, that's not a thing.
- Hnrobert42 2mo ago
  This point is very useful to me. I consider myself a pretty good engineer and a not so good entrepreneur. Maybe I'm not so good at it because I find it far more interesting to think every detail of PKCE, something only tangentially related to my work, than I do to think about how to make all the money. It would never have occurred to me that the appeal of carbon based fuel over renewables is that carbon base fuels are not renewable. There is less of a moat. Huh!

adaml_623 2mo ago

I know what you mean. You'd think nationalists would want to put the citizens of their country first but nope they can all go and get cancer from coal power plants.

bluGill 2mo ago

I'm confused too, and I often self-identify as conservative. Part of the problem is you think there is unity in any large movement. There is not, only tiny movements with no political power have unity. There are multiple factions is always the right answer and you have to understand each. As a short cut, many (often the majority) are willing to live with those in their midst but don't actually care. Fossil fuel companies have long supported conservative positions. This is their payback, they get support back. Many do see renewables as the "left", and so they don't care to think, they just oppose anything the left does. (you often see the reverse)

loudmax 2mo ago

I think this is more about tribalism than conservatism. There's nothing inherently "conservative" about opposing renewable energy. The political movement that's currently leading the Republican party shouldn't be understood as "conservative". At least, certainly not in terms of the conservative values of respect for the rule of law, traditional mores and institutions, or personal integrity. The populist energy that passes for "conservative" is reactionary and much more concerned with scoring points on social media than governing sensibly. To be fair, the populist left is also ascendant with its own set of bad ideas.

orangecat 2mo ago

I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. It's almost all tribalism: the left is for it, so they're against it. They have a partially valid point that a lot of so-called environmentalists are anti-progress degrowthers, but the response should be to demonstrate that clean energy (including nuclear) is very good for growth. When conservatives do what they're supposed to and let market forces work, you see things like Texas producing more renewable energy than California.

redmaple892 2mo ago

I knew as soon as I read your comment that multiple people would object to your use of 'conservative' instead of focus on the point (as if the opposing political views lack integrity, values, respect for law, etc). In any case I think the reason comes down to money/power structures and short-term thinking. We have two corporate controlled parties with one that is wholly owned and the other which allows a tiny sliver of dissent. Fossil fuels will never completely go away but anything that questions the entire infrastructure (worldwide, including the need for bases in producing countries), is seen as a threat to the status quo. In this way I don't see it as any different than teams protecting their turf in a large company which stifles innovation.

teamonkey 2mo ago

My favourite theory is that the climate crisis is stressful to think about, reducing its impact requires everyone to make sacrifices, and there’s a lack of control over the situation. People will be inclined to latch on to anyone making an alternative suggestion: it’s a hoax, it will all be fine, the real problem is those people making you make sacrifices. It’s a relief to think that way, because the alternative is harrowing. It’s an easy sell for populists who are willing to say anything to get votes. See also Covid: it’s easier to think of it as some kind of hoax than parse the true horror of the situation. Someone comes along and says it’s far less bad than the news is reporting, that these solutions aren’t necessary. You don’t need to feel guilty that you want to break isolation, find masking uncomfortable and find the jab unpleasant, because it’s all made up.

tialaramex 2mo ago

Not so much this specific structure as the structure at all, the ownership of energy resources. In a country like the US somebody owns the coal. They didn't make that coal, but we decided they can own it anyway, and so even though they didn't make the coal and it's never going to be replaced, just destroyed for all time, they get to capture the economic value from that. Nobody, even in the US, owns the wind, and a wind farm doesn't capture some finite wind and gradually use it up, there's more wind where that came from, essentially forever. Solar is even worse, because it works at a tiny scale. Owning your own wind turbine almost never makes sense but owning some solar panels makes sense for most owner-occupiers, especially if you live outside a city. I don't think Trump would care whether the guy handing him an "America's Best Ever President" trophy and a $5Bn check is a Californian Sunlight Baron or a Wyoming Coal Baron, but the problem is that there can't be a Californian Sunlight Baron. You can't own California's sunlight, that's not a thing.

Hnrobert42 2mo ago
This point is very useful to me. I consider myself a pretty good engineer and a not so good entrepreneur. Maybe I'm not so good at it because I find it far more interesting to think every detail of PKCE, something only tangentially related to my work, than I do to think about how to make all the money. It would never have occurred to me that the appeal of carbon based fuel over renewables is that carbon base fuels are not renewable. There is less of a moat. Huh!