Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt again.
Speaker 1: This season we are making our way through a huge
Speaker 1: collection of all the peer reviewed research we have so
Speaker 1: far on climate obstruction and how it works globally. It's
Speaker 1: called Climate Obstruction, a Global Survey. It comes to you
Speaker 1: from the Climate Social Science Network, and in each episode
Speaker 1: of this season we're talking to the lead authors of
Speaker 1: a different chapter focus on a different area of this research,
Speaker 1: who are walking us through what we know so far
Speaker 1: about how this stuff works. As is one of the
Speaker 1: editors of this volume, Tim Ands Roberts said in our
Speaker 1: first episode of this season, for a really long time,
Speaker 1: people who wanted climate policy had no idea what they
Speaker 1: were up against in terms of the organized and very
Speaker 1: well funded efforts to block climate policy. Sometimes in action
Speaker 1: on climate or the sort of stalled spot that we're
Speaker 1: at so far gets chalked up to, you know, bad
Speaker 1: policy making or bad messaging from the climate movement. And
Speaker 1: while any or all of those things could very well
Speaker 1: be true, you can't discount the impact that the large,
Speaker 1: extremely well funded, very consistent, global, decades long effort to
Speaker 1: obstruct climate policy has had on our ability to make
Speaker 1: progress on this issue. Last week we talked about what
Speaker 1: climate obstruction looks like in the global south. Today we
Speaker 1: look at local obstruction. So in a lot of cases,
Speaker 1: local governments can be really helpful in climate policy even
Speaker 1: when the national or federal or international negotiations are going badly.
Speaker 1: Sometimes a mayor or a governor can get climate policy
Speaker 1: going at the local level. But the opposite is also true.
Speaker 1: It's a real double edged sword. Local governments can also
Speaker 1: block the implementation of national or international efforts. Joining me
Speaker 1: today to talk about how that works in both directions
Speaker 1: are Rebecca Bromley Trujillo from Christopher Newport University and Joshua
Speaker 1: Bessechis from Tulane University. That conversation is coming up after
Speaker 1: this quick break. Okay, so I know this sounds really basic,
Speaker 1: but I feel like people do actually have a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about what can non federal government entities sub
Speaker 1: national government entities do about climate. And I know obviously
Speaker 1: this changes from country to country and even region to region,
Speaker 1: but if you could offer sort of an overview of
Speaker 1: the sorts of things that these types of government bodies
Speaker 1: can do about climate.
Speaker 2: So our chapter focuses on certain regions such as the US, Canada,
Speaker 2: and Latin America and Europe. Certainly there's variation across those
Speaker 2: and across the globe, but generally speaking, sub national governments
Speaker 2: have a big role in things like transportation, the energy sector,
Speaker 2: land use, and so this is sort of a double
Speaker 2: edged sword. It means that they can be a source
Speaker 2: for policy that is mitigating the climate, or they.
Speaker 3: Can be a source for obstruction.
Speaker 2: And so we see these sub national units again, such
Speaker 2: as things like states, provinces, cities, counties. They do things
Speaker 2: like climate action plans or renewal energy requirements, or changes
Speaker 2: their transportation systems that are more efficient, and so there's
Speaker 2: a lot of opportunity. But certainly all of the sources
Speaker 2: of obstruction that happen at national levels come to play
Speaker 2: at the state and local and provincial levels as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I would just add, of course that sub
Speaker 4: national power relative to the nownational government varies considerably. So
Speaker 4: in the United States, subnational states are actually much more
Speaker 4: powerful because of the Tenth Amendment and other things like that.
Speaker 4: There's much more that they're able to do than subnational
Speaker 4: governments in other parts of the world. One thing that
Speaker 4: varies by country is how much power institutionally and legally
Speaker 4: the subnational government has relative to the national government. And
Speaker 4: then just like Becky said, it's a double edged sword,
Speaker 4: tons of opportunities. In the US, almost all of the
Speaker 4: climate policy we've seen has been at the state level.
Speaker 4: But also there are some added challenges like less levels
Speaker 4: of media coverage. Right, so those who would obstruct can
Speaker 4: often get away with more at the state level just
Speaker 4: because there might be weaker mechanisms of accountability.
Speaker 1: That's a good segue into the next thing I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you about, which is the public opinion piece,
Speaker 1: and especially how this plays out in the US and Canada,
Speaker 1: just how public opinion plays into climate obstruction at this level.
Speaker 2: So both the US and Canada, you show variation in
Speaker 2: public opinion on climate change from a range of things
Speaker 2: as to whether it's human cause, or whether the scientific
Speaker 2: consensus is there, and support for public policy to address
Speaker 2: climate change. What I'd say is in the US there
Speaker 2: is a more pronounced polarization between liberals and conservatives, Republicans
Speaker 2: and Democrats, and so you really see this especially in
Speaker 2: the priority placed on climate policy issues, and also in
Speaker 2: terms of like the broad idea that it's human caused
Speaker 2: and so these variations and public opinion on this issue
Speaker 2: can make it easier or harder for some national governments
Speaker 2: to pass policy, both in the US and Canada. So
Speaker 2: if you have a public that doesn't really see climate
Speaker 2: change as an important issue and doesn't really show strong
Speaker 2: support for public policy, then it's easier for those governments
Speaker 2: to then say, well, we shouldn't do anything. And I'd
Speaker 2: also say we do actually find a lot of support
Speaker 2: for renewable energy investment and other policies among both Republicans
Speaker 2: and Democrats, or conservatives and liberals. But there is a
Speaker 2: pretty clear disconnect between some of those public positions versus
Speaker 2: positions of political elites. And I'm sure we'll talk more
Speaker 2: about how political elites plai into this process, but that
Speaker 2: connection is important to think about in both the US
Speaker 2: and Canada. And again, in the US, public opinion overall
Speaker 2: is less supportive than it is in Canada for climate
Speaker 2: mitigation policy, but we do see some of the same
Speaker 2: challenges play out in both countries.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Interesting, Okay, I want to ask you about political
Speaker 1: party affiliation and how that works, especially this difference you
Speaker 1: point out between the US and Canada, where it's actually
Speaker 1: much more like if you're a Republican, you're doing this
Speaker 1: in the US, and it might be in Canada.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I mean at the subnational level in the US,
Speaker 2: arguably the greatest obstruction is happening within these state legislatures
Speaker 2: and by governors and other actors that you know, for
Speaker 2: the Republican Party, generally they are opposed to any sort
Speaker 2: of climate mitigation policy.
Speaker 3: And so if there's a.
Speaker 2: Single Republican control, whether it's a lower house or upper
Speaker 2: house of the state legislature or the governorship, it acts
Speaker 2: as a veto point for any sort of renewable energy
Speaker 2: or climate policy at that state level. And that also
Speaker 2: occurs at the local level in the US and in Canada.
Speaker 2: Certainly we see as there are shifts in party leadership
Speaker 2: from like a liberal to a conservative party leadership in Canada,
Speaker 2: we do see some changes in what they're doing. It's
Speaker 2: just it's more based on sort of the extraction interests
Speaker 2: and economic interests there than party interests, although there's some
Speaker 2: certainly some role there.
Speaker 4: State legislators are closer to the publics that they serve,
Speaker 4: they have fewer and then the other thing is they
Speaker 4: just have less access to information, fewer inputs into the
Speaker 4: policy making process more likely rely on autol legislation from
Speaker 4: a group like the American Legislator Change Council or ALEC,
Speaker 4: which is funded largely by fossil fuel companies. Fortunately, one
Speaker 4: of the problems that we face is one of accountability
Speaker 4: to voters. At both the state and the federal level.
Speaker 4: There's so many, so much politicians and get away that,
Speaker 4: you know, when the public isn't paying attention, and that's
Speaker 4: even more so at the state level.
Speaker 1: Well to your point earlier, there's just there's a lack
Speaker 1: of media coverage and just a lack of outlets that
Speaker 1: are even right there too. So yeah, anyway, okay, so
Speaker 1: how do extractive industries come to play the subnational level?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I can start with that one. So, I
Speaker 4: mean basically there's sort of the more overt ways and
Speaker 4: then the more subtle ways. So the more overt ways
Speaker 4: is that you know, these groups, the fossil fuel interests
Speaker 4: have tremendously skilled lobbyists. They have tremendous resources to actually
Speaker 4: help with drafting legislation and to actually intervene directly in
Speaker 4: the legislative and regulatory process. And the regulatory process is
Speaker 4: the process that does often gets less attention, right, So
Speaker 4: like public utility commissions, or you know, in Texas, there's
Speaker 4: this railroad Commission that actually, even though it's called the
Speaker 4: Railroad Commission, it regulates the oil and gas industries. And
Speaker 4: so there's all kinds of ways in which they can
Speaker 4: just use their resources to directly influence the legislative process.
Speaker 4: But then there's also all of these sort of ways
Speaker 4: that they try to influence the discourse, right, like the
Speaker 4: public discourse as well as the education system. So there's
Speaker 4: this great article that we cite in our chapter looking
Speaker 4: at Saskatchewan in Canada and how oil industry funded groups
Speaker 4: have produced like educational resources that are used in classrooms
Speaker 4: to like educate children about the realities with a lens
Speaker 4: towards what's good for their industry. And then we can
Speaker 4: talk about you know, think tanks and front groups as well.
Speaker 4: But one of the big ways that they influence the
Speaker 4: discourses by funding these nonprofit organizations that you know are
Speaker 4: not called Exxon Mobile or Chevron or all these other companies.
Speaker 4: They're called things like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which
Speaker 4: sounds so innocuous, right and so neutral. So those are
Speaker 4: just some of the ways that they the more insidious
Speaker 4: and ways that they influence policy, as well as the
Speaker 4: more obvious ones like lobbyists and contributions and things like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that reminds me. Just talking about the Texas Public
Speaker 1: Policy Foundation reminds me of another way they get involved,
Speaker 1: which is weird court cases.
Speaker 4: Yes, and this is this is a side note, but
Speaker 4: you know, the Texas Public Policy Foundation was also heavily
Speaker 4: involved with Project twenty twenty five as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I'll just devtail onto all of what you're saying.
Speaker 2: So certainly, fossil fuel interests get involved through think tanks,
Speaker 2: and it's really kind of a very clever way of
Speaker 2: producing misinformation, and so that links directly to that public
Speaker 2: opinion piece. So basically you've got fossil fuel interests funding
Speaker 2: think tanks and funding these groups like Josh mentioned, and
Speaker 2: some of these groups even sound like environmental organizations like
Speaker 2: Protect our Coasts or Save the Whales, and so they
Speaker 2: will create these entities, these little groups, they will push
Speaker 2: money through them that spreads misinformation, and so we see this,
Speaker 2: you know, especially on the East Coast in the US,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of misinformation spread about offshore wind and
Speaker 2: harm to whales. There's no evidence that that's an issue,
Speaker 2: but EXI Mobile and other fossil fuel interests are funding
Speaker 2: various entities that spread this idea. The same is true
Speaker 2: of this idea that wind farms are extremely bad for birds,
Speaker 2: for instance. So there's a lot of misinformation around those things,
Speaker 2: and if you follow the money back, it goes all
Speaker 2: the way back to those fossil fuel interests.
Speaker 1: You talked about political elites earlier and how they play
Speaker 1: into the public opinion piece too. Could I have you
Speaker 1: unpack that a little bit and maybe give some specific
Speaker 1: examples in the US and Canada.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, So, I mean politically elites are also part
Speaker 2: of this misinformation ecosystem, if you will. And so I
Speaker 2: just mentioned think tanks possil fuel interests. Certainly political elites
Speaker 2: are joining in that effort and trying to influence public opinion,
Speaker 2: downplaying issues and.
Speaker 3: Making it sound like renewable as a problem.
Speaker 2: In the chapter, we talk specifically in the US about
Speaker 2: Texas and how politically leads the governor members of the
Speaker 2: state legislature in Texas use a crisis a statewide power
Speaker 2: failure back in twenty twenty one to suggest it was
Speaker 2: actually renewables that cause this, But when we actually look
Speaker 2: at the evidence, there were widespread failures related to natural gas,
Speaker 2: but they kind of grab this issue and spread that
Speaker 2: misinformation alongside all of these other powerful interests. And so
Speaker 2: that's kind of a US example, Josh, I don't know
Speaker 2: if you have a Canadian example you want to share.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, the Texas example that Becky mentioned, Like, in
Speaker 4: addition to gas plants failing and being literally frozen during
Speaker 4: that winter storm in twenty twenty one, there's also more
Speaker 4: technical limitations on the Texas grid. For example, the Texas
Speaker 4: grid is not adequately connected to the Eastern and Western grids,
Speaker 4: so basically their supply is very scarce. And that's true.
Speaker 4: And of course electrons are electrons, regardless of whether they're
Speaker 4: generated from wind turbines or gas plants or coal plants,
Speaker 4: and so those kinds of grid infrastructure issues are also
Speaker 4: at play. And yet the instinct of political elites in
Speaker 4: Texas is to immediately blame green energy and wind and
Speaker 4: solar and say that the wind doesn't always and the
Speaker 4: sun doesn't always shine and all. So in Canada we
Speaker 4: see a lot of similar dynamics. One important difference though,
Speaker 4: is that when it comes to electricity, Kiedro electricity and
Speaker 4: nuclear play a much greater role in the country's electricity system.
Speaker 4: And so that being said, there are particular provinces like
Speaker 4: Saskatchewan and Alberta, for example, where the oil and gas
Speaker 4: industry is extremely effective at shaping elite behavior as well
Speaker 4: as public opinion. But I guess that's one difference that
Speaker 4: I see between the US and Canada, and that in
Speaker 4: the US there are so many states that have extractive industries.
Speaker 4: They're the majority of the fifty states, whereas in Canada
Speaker 4: it's actually the minority of the provinces. But then within
Speaker 4: those provinces we see similar things in terms of fossil
Speaker 4: fuel industries and elites to what we see in the.
Speaker 1: US, which is why Alberta wants to secede. Right. Weirdly,
Speaker 1: I have neighbors in Costa Rica who are from Canada,
Speaker 1: from Alberta and worked in the tarcans industry, and like
Speaker 1: have a giant we Love Texas poster in their house.
Speaker 3: And like that sounds very unbranded. Yeah, it's a vibe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, So in yeah, I wonder if you if
Speaker 1: you feel comfortable talking about how this shows up in
Speaker 1: Latin America too.
Speaker 4: Before we move on to Latin America, I have to
Speaker 4: talk about utilities. So utilities are really important because they
Speaker 4: are often monopolies within their service territories. So corporations provide
Speaker 4: a government function, which is you know, gas and electricity,
Speaker 4: and so in some states and areas of the country,
Speaker 4: the gas utilities and the electric utilities are separate companies,
Speaker 4: but in other places they're the same, like for example,
Speaker 4: National Grid. There are many utilities that provide both gas
Speaker 4: and electric service, and they have historically been considered part
Speaker 4: of the fossil fuel industry, but really they're actually quite
Speaker 4: distinct and there are really their interests have to do
Speaker 4: with maintaining monopoly control, and so rooftop solar or virtual
Speaker 4: power plants or consumers that want to produce their own
Speaker 4: clean energy right involves some independence from the grid. And
Speaker 4: so you know, in general, more competitive resources are clean resources,
Speaker 4: whether it's at the individual household level or utility scale.
Speaker 4: And so we end up seeing utilities very much being obstructionists.
Speaker 4: But instead of like where the oil and gas industry,
Speaker 4: what they're really obstructing to is direct competition in the
Speaker 4: utility industry. They're obstructing to the idea that anyone other
Speaker 4: than them might control the grid, and so it's a
Speaker 4: really interesting dynamic. And of course utilities, even though their
Speaker 4: policy preferences are more nuanced, they're extremely powerful in state legislatures,
Speaker 4: at public utility commissions, et cetera. And so there's sort
Speaker 4: of this pivotal player where one once you can convince
Speaker 4: them to go green, they can be really helpful, but
Speaker 4: until then they can be very challenging. The other kind
Speaker 4: of policies that they tend to oppose our policies known
Speaker 4: as decoupling, where the revenue that they get is decoupled
Speaker 4: from the energy that they sell, which of course is
Speaker 4: a good type of policy for promoting energy efficiency. But
Speaker 4: because their business model is so much based on building
Speaker 4: new infrastructure and having demand be higher, it ends up
Speaker 4: that they oppose those kinds of policies.
Speaker 1: Isn't that kind of what happened with rooftop solar in California?
Speaker 1: It was mostly utilities that were pushing that, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so yeah.
Speaker 4: The more people that put solar panels on the roof,
Speaker 4: the more that the other customers that don't have solar
Speaker 4: end up paying. But of course that's a result of
Speaker 4: the rate design, the way that the public utility commissions
Speaker 4: allocate costs, and that those policies have been largely shaped
Speaker 4: over the years by the utilities. So it's like the
Speaker 4: utilities influence has created this problem and rate design that
Speaker 4: then conveniently gets blamed on rooftop solar as opposed to
Speaker 4: all the efforts over decades to have you know, cost
Speaker 4: of service regulation where the utilities get rewarded for building
Speaker 4: more of their own infrastructure as opposed to compensating individuals
Speaker 4: who choose to put solar on their roofs. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, with both utilities and oil and gas in terms
Speaker 1: of the organizations that they use at the subnational level
Speaker 1: to kind of shape policy. Do you see their investments
Speaker 1: in like community organizations and arts centers and all of
Speaker 1: that stuff as part of that as well, like sponsoring
Speaker 1: the Little League team and all that.
Speaker 4: And sometimes it's Little League and sometimes it's like actual
Speaker 4: sports stadiums and wings of museums like Oklahoma Gas and
Speaker 4: Electric sponsors a big, a big wing of the Cowboy
Speaker 4: Museum in Oklahoma City, which is very cool but also
Speaker 4: completely unrelated to their business. They just are really good
Speaker 4: at branding.
Speaker 2: Yes, Yeah, Virginia Dominion energy sponsors like various Christmas light
Speaker 2: displays at gardens, and yeah, I mean they're very good
Speaker 2: at branding. And it's adding to what Josh has said
Speaker 2: about utilities. I know much less than he does, but
Speaker 2: in Virginia, you know, Dominion is this really powerful investor
Speaker 2: in utility. But they kind of swing a little back
Speaker 2: and forth. You know, when there were Democrats in control,
Speaker 2: they started to shift a little more towards more pro
Speaker 2: renewable energy types of plans because they thought, well, this
Speaker 2: is going.
Speaker 3: To be the future, and so we need to shape
Speaker 3: what it's going to look like.
Speaker 2: And so they got actively involved in the legislative process
Speaker 2: and shaping.
Speaker 3: Okay, well we're going to do this, so we want
Speaker 3: to make it as favorable to us as possible.
Speaker 2: But once Republicans took back control of state government, Dominion
Speaker 2: shifted the other way along with Republicans, and so they're
Speaker 2: playing both sides sometimes to really just to ensure that
Speaker 2: their business model performs the best.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I mean that it's kind of like what
Speaker 4: I was saying about like blaming you know, rooftop solar
Speaker 4: in California. So because they literally run the grid and
Speaker 4: they know more about the grid than any state policy makers.
Speaker 4: They almost have sort of like the privileges of government themselves,
Speaker 4: but the incentives of private companies. And that makes them
Speaker 4: different than other fossil fuel actors. And it's kind of
Speaker 4: like what Becky was saying is, you know, they try
Speaker 4: to get ahead of things. They don't testify very often
Speaker 4: at the public hearings because they've usually already done their
Speaker 4: influential work at the Public Service Commission or at the
Speaker 4: state legislature. So yeah, they're really interesting actors.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just feel like they stay behind the scenes
Speaker 1: a lot. People just don't think of them that often.
Speaker 4: Right, They'll think of them when they see their name
Speaker 4: on a subconscious level, like when they participate in a
Speaker 4: sporting event or an arts museum, but then they don't
Speaker 4: connect that all the way back to like their policy
Speaker 4: influence over the clean energy transition. They're just like, oh,
Speaker 4: how nice of them to sponsor this wing of the
Speaker 4: art museum.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Latin America. I'm curious what you guys saw
Speaker 1: as not experts actually on Latin America, Like what jumped
Speaker 1: out to you as key differences between that region and
Speaker 1: what you've studied in North America.
Speaker 2: I mean, I would say the first is it's so
Speaker 2: much more complex because certainly there's huge variation across Latin
Speaker 2: American countries in terms of their governing systems. So some
Speaker 2: are federal systems, some are unitary, but even some of
Speaker 2: their federal systems don't look anything like the US federal
Speaker 2: systems in terms of the autonomy granted the state and
Speaker 2: local or subnational governments. And so that stood out to
Speaker 2: me also just kind of more higher levels of political corruption,
Speaker 2: less accountability, remnants of colonialism that really empowered certain interests,
Speaker 2: especially extractive industries, and so there's, yes, it's just a
Speaker 2: much more complex situation going on there, and so how
Speaker 2: things go on in each individual country than Latin America
Speaker 2: can really vary.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just to add to that, like it's pretty clear
Speaker 4: from reading the work that our colleague Marcella put into
Speaker 4: the chapter that one thing that's different is that a
Speaker 4: lot of the energy, like the oil and gas companies,
Speaker 4: are state owned companies, so they are actually part of
Speaker 4: the national government, which makes the obstruction, which sort of
Speaker 4: changes the whole lens through which you view obstruction, because
Speaker 4: it's like the state is obstructing rather than different actors
Speaker 4: trying to influence the state's government, and then they have
Speaker 4: really weak institutions. Even though our institutions right now in
Speaker 4: the United States are being tested. This is all new
Speaker 4: for US, But in Latin America for decades they've been
Speaker 4: dealing with the sort of corruption and weak institutions, So
Speaker 4: that's another difference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting. Actually, I was talking to someone in
Speaker 1: Mexico who's like a climate campaigner, and he was saying
Speaker 1: that the trouble in Mexico is not just all of
Speaker 1: the things that you deal with in any situation where
Speaker 1: people are like, but I use gas in my car,
Speaker 1: so like what about that and whatever, but also that
Speaker 1: in Mexico, saying something bad about Pemex is like saying
Speaker 1: something bad about Mexican identity.
Speaker 4: Yes, right, And epay FA, I think is the state
Speaker 4: owned corporation Argentina, and I'm sure Brazil has something.
Speaker 2: Marcella had described both in the chapter and discussions many
Speaker 2: examples of these sort of corruption intertwining between government leaders
Speaker 2: and these various extractive industries, and there's just so much
Speaker 2: economic interests a way that you know, the money is
Speaker 2: doled out in terms of royalties and all kinds of things.
Speaker 4: And we talked about how in the US and Canada,
Speaker 4: like there is clearly a partisan alignment with fossil fuel
Speaker 4: interests like the Republican Party or the Conservative Party, but
Speaker 4: in a lot of these Latin American countries, irrespective of
Speaker 4: what parties empower, the industry you know, is one and
Speaker 4: the same with the you know, the national government, and
Speaker 4: they're so like it doesn't really or as much which
Speaker 4: parties are in power. The obstruction is less dependent on
Speaker 4: which parties are in power than it is here.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting. I was going to ask you about that,
Speaker 1: the party affiliation thing and how it comes into play there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean basically just less correlated. So certainly changes
Speaker 2: in party leadership can produce changes in climate policy in
Speaker 2: Latin America, but there's just a less direct link between
Speaker 2: sort of right parties, left parties, center parties and climate policy.
Speaker 1: Again, in Brazil, I think the assumption from outside Brazil
Speaker 1: is like, oh, Lula's in charge, so he's going to
Speaker 1: like do all this great environmental stuff. But you know,
Speaker 1: he just passed this massive rollback of environmental laws there,
Speaker 1: and he's as cozy with the Industrial Act guys as
Speaker 1: any other Brazilian prisonent.
Speaker 2: So yeah, something else Marcella pointed out about land use.
Speaker 2: So they're to these transnational companies that are coming in
Speaker 2: and getting licenses to explore lands, and she mentions some
Speaker 2: particular indigenous lands and they say they're there to explore
Speaker 2: them for one reason, but then they may go in
Speaker 2: and do something very different, and so that's also challenge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, awesome, let's talk about Europe.
Speaker 2: Well, what's interesting about Europe. It's so it has this
Speaker 2: supernational the EU, that dictates a lot of policy on
Speaker 2: down and so certainly there's obstruction in Europe, but it's
Speaker 2: happening at higher levels. And so it's not that there
Speaker 2: isn't any pushback at the subnational level in Europe, but
Speaker 2: it looks very different in terms of the kind of
Speaker 2: ability to make a change.
Speaker 3: It seems less impactful.
Speaker 2: So, for instance, even when we see major protests, you know,
Speaker 2: around renewable energy and concerns about renewable energy and economic concerns,
Speaker 2: those haven't necessarily moved those subnational governments in terms of
Speaker 2: rejecting renewable energy policy as much as it has in
Speaker 2: the US. So I think sort of the summary of
Speaker 2: the European section in terms of subnational so there is
Speaker 2: some pushback. Much of it aligns similarly to other nations
Speaker 2: in the North America and other parts of the globe
Speaker 2: around fossil fuel interests and those sorts of things, but
Speaker 2: it hasn't been as effective at the subnational level as
Speaker 2: it has been in those places.
Speaker 4: And just to add to that, like even the defining
Speaker 4: the subnational level is a bit more complicated because of
Speaker 4: what you're saying about the EU, Like in some ways,
Speaker 4: the EU acts maybe somehow like more like what we
Speaker 4: would see as a national government in other parts of
Speaker 4: the world, and the actual European countries or states act
Speaker 4: like states. So because there's the supranational level in addition
Speaker 4: to the national and subnational you know, like Germany does
Speaker 4: have subnational governments that are like relatively strong, but in
Speaker 4: general it's the country. The two most consequential levels of
Speaker 4: government are the EU and then the national country level.
Speaker 4: And then the other thing I would just point out
Speaker 4: about Europe is that it is, you know, even though
Speaker 4: it's not accurate to say that obstruction doesn't exist in Europe,
Speaker 4: compared to what we're dealing with now in our country,
Speaker 4: we really do need to give the Europeans credit. But
Speaker 4: a big part of it is that a lot of
Speaker 4: the renewable energy industries were actually born in Europe. So
Speaker 4: like a lot of the big wind companies like vest
Speaker 4: Us or you know, avan Grid or Yberdrola, a lot
Speaker 4: of these companies that are primoriarily clean energy we were
Speaker 4: started in Europe there, and so as a proportion of
Speaker 4: the interest groups or political land, political you know groups,
Speaker 4: the fossil fuel industry is weaker in Europe than it
Speaker 4: is in North America or Latin America or pretty much
Speaker 4: anywhere else in the world. But instead what you do
Speaker 4: have in Europe is economic populism, which like the I'm
Speaker 4: thinking about, like the yellow vest protests in France and
Speaker 4: so well, obstruction may happen there, it's not as likely
Speaker 4: to be coming from the fossil fuel industry. It's more
Speaker 4: likely to be coming from you know, still from misinformation,
Speaker 4: but also from you know, real economic inequality and how
Speaker 4: that gets and how the clean energy transition or carbon
Speaker 4: taxation might get blamed for that.
Speaker 1: Okay, coming back to the US actually for a moment,
Speaker 1: since we are in this current moment where I think
Speaker 1: people are desperate to believe that the subnational governments can
Speaker 1: do something. Obviously, this is a again, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: a double edged sword. It can go both ways, right,
Speaker 1: But yeah, what are you seeing the subnational governments doing
Speaker 1: to try to sort of like go against the national
Speaker 1: government on some of its energy policies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is obviously it's a difficult time for
Speaker 2: people who are trying to advance reneable energy or advance
Speaker 2: climate mitigation policy because of the national government.
Speaker 3: We have a President Trump and office who's very supportive.
Speaker 2: Apostle fuels and not at all supportive of renewables. And
Speaker 2: so what does states and localities kind of do to
Speaker 2: counterbalance that? I mean, for one, the states that have
Speaker 2: been active in this space for at this point, you know,
Speaker 2: around twenty plus years continue to advance their policies. So
Speaker 2: we see states passing more stringent and renewable energy mandates,
Speaker 2: one hundred percent clean energy mandates, that sort of thing. See,
Speaker 2: you know, it certainly challenges to Trump's changes to national law.
Speaker 2: So we see attorneys general firing back at what Trump
Speaker 2: is doing through the executive branch. And so that's another
Speaker 2: role for states in the US to kind of push
Speaker 2: back and act as a sort of accountability mechanism to
Speaker 2: the federal government.
Speaker 3: And so there's a lot going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, some states are doing new things, some states are
Speaker 2: pushing back on federal power. But as you mentioned again
Speaker 2: with that double edged or the states that were not
Speaker 2: engaged before are certainly not still pretty much not engaged now.
Speaker 2: So that obstruction at the subnational level really does matter,
Speaker 2: especially in a power vacuum where the federal government is
Speaker 2: either walking back or not doing anything to advance a
Speaker 2: climate policy.
Speaker 4: Right There's this concept in the political science literature called
Speaker 4: fiscal federalism, which basically has to do with state. Even
Speaker 4: though states have a lot of autonomy, they have become
Speaker 4: in recent years, like aka Biden years, dependent on the
Speaker 4: federal government and like the funds in the IRA the
Speaker 4: Inflation Reduction Act to actually fund a lot of their
Speaker 4: innovative ideas. So they're needing state level revenue sources to
Speaker 4: become less dependent on the federal government to advance climate
Speaker 4: and clean energy. And so I think there is probably
Speaker 4: a slowing down even across all states right now, just
Speaker 4: because there's this like frozenness. But like Becky was saying,
Speaker 4: the Democratic attorneys general have also played a big role
Speaker 4: in resisting a lot of the Trump decisions, which is
Speaker 4: sort of ironic because previously to Trump, it was like
Speaker 4: the Republican attorneys general that we're very active in like
Speaker 4: slowing down, you know, what the Biden administration was doing.
Speaker 4: And now we're seeing the Democratic attorneys general trying to
Speaker 4: slow down the reversals of the Trump administration so that
Speaker 4: court system and the federalism remains important as ever now
Speaker 4: under Trump. The other thing is that historically, just as
Speaker 4: Becky said, it's been like a red state blue state thing.
Speaker 4: But I'm going to be working on an op ED
Speaker 4: because of some of the because of how severe some
Speaker 4: of the changes are that Trump is making now, like
Speaker 4: getting rid of the epas and dangerment finding. I really
Speaker 4: think it's time for red states to find ways that
Speaker 4: they can make progress, and it might mean not talking
Speaker 4: about climate change and talking about it more in terms
Speaker 4: of energy affordability now that renewable energy is cheaper local
Speaker 4: economic development. In the early years of the renewable and
Speaker 4: of renewable portfolio standards, like in Texas and other Red
Speaker 4: states like Iowa, these policies were effective because of their
Speaker 4: economic benefits, and so like going forward, even though it's
Speaker 4: been so polarized in the past. I think that encouraging
Speaker 4: red states to use their power but to define the
Speaker 4: issues in less polarizing ways can be a really important
Speaker 4: strategy because the retreat, the degree of retreat that we're
Speaker 4: seeing from national government is like unprecedented. Like they're not
Speaker 4: just eracing what Biden did, They're like going further to
Speaker 4: prevent future federal administration from attempting to do that.
Speaker 1: So they've all but made it illegal to say climate change.
Speaker 3: It's something so Josh's point, Yeah, if you can avoid saying.
Speaker 2: Those words and focus on the economic issues, sometimes that help.
Speaker 2: Sometimes also helps to focus on things like public health issues,
Speaker 2: environmental justice. Broadly speaking, tying the challenges associated with climate
Speaker 2: change their issues can help spur things along.
Speaker 3: And we haven't talked about this at all, but a
Speaker 3: kind of.
Speaker 2: A new both challenge and in some ways opportunity is
Speaker 2: data centers.
Speaker 3: There. They're blowing up in the US.
Speaker 2: In certain states more than others, and they've actually made
Speaker 2: it harder in some states to promote renewable energy because
Speaker 2: they take up so much energy that like there's a
Speaker 2: need to keep fossil fuel systems online.
Speaker 3: In the eyes of lawmakers.
Speaker 2: And you know, certainly people disagree with that argument, but
Speaker 2: in some states, including Texas, they're starting to think about, Okay,
Speaker 2: maybe we do need to rein in the data centers
Speaker 2: related to that energy affordability issue that Josh raised as well.
Speaker 2: And so that's that's sort of a new issue within
Speaker 2: state and local politics in terms of energy and climate,
Speaker 2: is how to kind of grapple with data centers and
Speaker 2: their expansion and how to maybe rein it in and that.
Speaker 3: So that's a heavy debate we're seeing
Speaker 1: MHM.