Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
S8 E4: Benji Backer: The conservative environmentalist
7 Plays1 year ago
Benji Backer is the founder and Executive Chairman of the American Conservation Coalition (ACC), which is the nation’s largest right-of-center environmental organization. He has been named to Forbes’ and GreenBiz’ 30 Under 30 lists, Fortune’s 40 Under 40, and the Grist 50. He is also the author of the book The Conservative Environmentalist, which has received praise from voices across the political spectrum, including Van Jones and Dave Rubin. We discuss the book, the ACC, and what it means to be a conservative environmentalist.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to The Free Mind Podcast
00:00:03
Speaker
Welcome back to the Free Mind podcast, where we explore topics in Western history, politics, philosophy, literature, and current events with a laser focus on seeking the truth and an adventurous disregard for ideological and academic fashions.
Guest Introductions: Matt Burgess and Benji Backer
00:00:18
Speaker
I'm Matt Burgess, an assistant professor of environmental studies and faculty fellow of the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization at the University of Colorado Boulder.
00:00:28
Speaker
My guest today is Benji Backer. Benji Backer is the founder and executive chairman of the American Conservation Coalition, or ACC, which is the nation's largest right-of-center environmental organization. He has been named to Forbes's and Green Biz's 30 Under 30 lists, Fortune's 40 Under 40, and the Grist 50.
00:00:51
Speaker
He is also the author of the book, The Conservative Environmentalist, which has received praise from voices across the political spectrum, including Van Jones and Dave Rubin.
Book Introduction: The Conservative Environmentalist
00:01:01
Speaker
We discussed the book, the ACC, and what it means to be a conservative environmentalist today. Benji Backer, welcome to the Free Mind podcast. It is great to be here. Thanks for having me. And thanks for, as always, the work that you do in this space. I really appreciate it. Yes, likewise.
00:01:19
Speaker
So you have a book coming out called The Conservative Environmentalist. Yeah. Let's unpack those words. So what does it mean to you to be a conservative?
Conservative Environmentalism: Balancing Ideals
00:01:33
Speaker
Well, first and foremost, I think the reason that this title was chosen by myself and the publisher and how that all works is because it really goes at the ethos of what I've been trying to do for the last seven years, which is prove that
00:01:49
Speaker
Things are not as black and white as what we hear about in the media, especially on the environment. Conservatives can be environmentalists and environmentalists can be conservatives.
00:01:58
Speaker
And to solve environmental challenges, you need to have conservatives at the table, not just because you need both sides of the table from a practical perspective, logistical perspective to pass bills and everything, but also because you need conservative ideas to balance out liberal ideas to come up with the best solution. And there's obviously a range of solutions that we need to be pursuing.
00:02:23
Speaker
To me, that's the importance of this book and the importance of the title is to show people that there is a path forward that is not just one sided. But I have been a lifelong conservative on top of that goal.
Conservative Approach to Decision-Making
00:02:37
Speaker
And I've been a lifelong conservative because conservative to me, to answer your question directly, is somebody who conserves society's current best practices and also is working towards better
00:02:51
Speaker
working towards a better future that doesn't necessarily always rely on government to get to that better future. That doesn't mean that government isn't involved. That doesn't mean that government doesn't play a role. But it's this belief that people make the best decisions for themselves first.
00:03:08
Speaker
And if they can't make a decision for themselves because of whatever reason or it's too big of a problem, then look at the local government, then look at the state government, and then look at the federal
Evolution of Conservative Movement
00:03:18
Speaker
government. And oh, by the way, before all those government things, let's look at the private sector and see if they can tackle it. So that's what conservative means to me. That's very different maybe from where the conservative movement has headed in the past few years.
00:03:30
Speaker
But I'm 26 and I've been active in this since I was 10. And when I got active in this 16 years ago, which is crazy to think about, that's kind of what the conservative movement meant back then publicly. And that's what it means to me as well.
00:03:44
Speaker
So let me try to summarize that and tell me if I've got it right. It sounds like there are two main elements in what you're describing as conservatism. One is a deep respect for the wisdoms of the past and the historically unique awesomeness of our current society, despite its flaws. And the second thing is respect for individual liberty, individual responsibility, and free enterprise. Is that right? Yeah.
Individual Liberty vs. Government Intervention
00:04:09
Speaker
And just to add on to that, though, knowing that there's this respect for the past and the present,
00:04:14
Speaker
that there of course are things to improve upon, but it's that belief in individual liberty and free enterprise that can solve most of those problems, not necessarily the government first.
Young Involvement in Conservatism
00:04:26
Speaker
Because obviously there are real problems that exist that we need to tackle. It's not like we live in this perfect world and that America is the best country, therefore we have everything figured out. I do think we're the best country, but we don't have everything figured out. And so I believe that that kind of individual liberty and
00:04:42
Speaker
limited government free market approach can tackle most of the problems that exist. So you mentioned you got into this movement at age 10. That's weird.
00:04:53
Speaker
Yeah, I'm pretty weird that way. In a sense, it's unusual, right? The young people, historically, young people have mostly been liberal, although that's actually changing in an interesting way recently, right? I saw a recent statistic in Gene Twenge's new book that grade 12 boys now identify two to one conservative to liberal, and young people are identifying as independence in record numbers. But historically, it's been unusual, and certainly, when you were 10, it was unusual for young people to be
Influence of Political Figures
00:05:20
Speaker
conservative. So what drew you to the conservative movement in the first place?
00:05:23
Speaker
Well my voice hadn't even changed yet and I was active in politics so yeah it's definitely and it obviously hasn't changed too much because it's still pretty high but maybe someday it'll it'll get a little lower but yeah I mean it definitely was weird and it still is weird to be active at this age I mean
00:05:39
Speaker
I'm often still at 26, the youngest person in the room by at least a decade. So it's definitely unique just to be involved in politics in general as a young person, but specifically on the right. And what really drew me to being involved was actually kind of that problem, which is that we have so many young people in this country that
00:06:01
Speaker
don't take a stand in the things that they care about because of very fair reasons, right? The political system is super divided and super toxic. And there's so much money and influence that seems kind of untouchable for somebody who's young. Like how can I overpower the money in politics, the influence in politics, the media, I'm just one person. And
00:06:25
Speaker
What I realized is that the only way to change the system was to be involved with it. And I know that's a weird thing to think when you're 10 years old. But when John McCain was on the debate stage with Barack Obama, they both talked about the importance of individual voices and young people being active in politics to change the course of history.
00:06:46
Speaker
And they agreed on that, and it was a fairly cordial election compared to the ones we have now. It didn't seem like that at the time, because, you know, it was divisive for that time, but it's obviously gotten a lot worse.
Power of Individual Activism
00:06:57
Speaker
But that kind of, you know, you're young, you can get, you know, you can make this huge difference in the world. I believed that blindly, and I went out and tried to kind of be unique and change things in my local community by volunteering in Wisconsin where I grew up.
00:07:14
Speaker
But I saw firsthand very quickly that one person, one individual can make a huge impact. And it's not this like you don't have to be the CEO of fortune 500 company or a US Senator to make a difference in this in this country. And that's what's really unique about America. I think it's one of the amazing things about America. The unfortunate part is that most young people don't
00:07:39
Speaker
feel that they can do that so they don't try and they kind of get tapped out and maybe don't even vote, which is kind of my opinion the bare minimum, but it's understandable based on kind of this mountain that they feel like they can't climb. But I never felt that way, so I got active pretty early.
Founding of the American Conservation Coalition
00:07:54
Speaker
So let's talk about your environmental activism now in particular. In your book, you describe the moment when you started the American Conservation Coalition, where you basically, you had an issue you were passionate about and you discovered a void in that issue from the angle that you were coming at. Describe that.
00:08:13
Speaker
Well, we live in a capitalist world where new business ideas are created when there is a there is a void in society, there's a problem that needs to be solved. And I grew up with entrepreneurial parents, and they always urge me to be a leader in that way, where like, if I saw a problem to go and try to solve it, so although it's not a for profit business, and it's not like a, you know, startup
00:08:37
Speaker
entrepreneurial startup in the for-profit way. I saw a void just like you would see if you wanted to create a new product and there wasn't that thing and you needed to make it more efficient and you wanted to create a new technology. I wanted to create this new technology called getting conservatives active in the climate and environmental dialogue. It was in the midst of the 2016 presidential election.
00:09:02
Speaker
where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were on the debate stage talking about climate change, and it was, we are going to die if we don't solve this problem, and we need to take drastic action that's very radical, or this problem doesn't exist at all, and we don't need to do anything. Those were kind of the two approaches on the stage. So I was like, okay, this is not helpful for the environment or for
00:09:28
Speaker
the politics or for the economy or anything that the climate affects. And that's been always a passion area of mine is being an environmentalist and being outside and being a hiker and a skier. And that's why I went out to school at the University of Washington, literally why I chose that school. And it was very obvious to me that there was nothing pushing the right towards climate action and nothing pushing the left
00:09:53
Speaker
towards moderation or like sensibility on the topic, everything seemed to be pushing both sides the wrong way away from action. I'm not a liberal, so I can't work on the liberal side of that problem necessarily, or as well as I could on the right. So I was like, okay, well, I'm going to fill this void. There's no organization on the right that is pushing the right towards climate and environmental action. So then I started it, and now we have tens of thousands of activists across the country pushing for environmental action on the right.
ACC's Growth and Impact
00:10:23
Speaker
Yeah, and I went to your conference last year with a couple of my students. And one of the things that was really interesting about it was, regardless of what anybody thinks about your group's issue positions, the level of organization and scale for a bunch of young people was incredibly impressive. So congratulations on all that.
00:10:45
Speaker
Let me go back to your comment about watching Trump and Clinton debate.
Climate Debate Extremism
00:10:51
Speaker
Because one of the things that's very interesting about what you said is that on some issues, polarization has to do with tactics, right? And extreme, you know, should we tax everybody or should we tax nobody kind of thing?
00:11:07
Speaker
In this case, essentially what you're describing is two opposite empirical claims about the world. Trump is saying climate change isn't real. Clinton is saying climate change is going to kill us all. Those are empirical claims. And sure, they also imply courses of action that are very different.
00:11:26
Speaker
The fact that the earth is getting warmer and fossil fuels are responsible for the vast majority of that is so obvious that we probably don't need to discuss it at length. That's why it's like maybe a half a page of the book. But let's talk about the other side of that. Because I think what's really interesting there is that, first of all,
00:11:52
Speaker
If Clinton was right that climate change has a risk of causing human extinction or something or collapse of society within a couple of decades, then it actually wouldn't be that hard, I think,
Impact of Alarmist Climate Rhetoric
00:12:05
Speaker
to convince. If you can convince everybody of that, I think it wouldn't be that hard to convince everybody that we need some kind of radical course of action. So what convinced you that she's wrong about that?
00:12:16
Speaker
Two things. First off, fear at that level never dropped. So let's just say she is right, according to what you're saying. I think it's a great kind of hypothetical. If she was right and people believed her, that sort of mindset basically creates panic amongst a percentage of people, which I think that those people are already panicked about this. And then for the rest of people, the majority of people, it's like, well, might as well give up. There's no chance.
00:12:46
Speaker
I don't really want to ruin my entire life to try to solve this problem that really doesn't seem like it's solvable. And I'm just going to keep living my life. And that's what I see as a response from most young people. We see young people in the streets protesting and panicking and all those things. And there's a lot of respect I have for people who are active in that way, even though I disagree, which I'll get to in a second. But that's not the majority of people.
00:13:10
Speaker
That's a very small percentage of even young people who feel that way. Arguably, it's not even the majority of Democrats. One of the criticisms of the far left approach to climate that I've heard is that some of the other parts of it, like we need to address climate change, but also we can only address climate change if we do these 10 other things. That's not consistent with the belief. If you're saying that, you don't really think it's an emergency, you maybe even care more about those 10 other things.
00:13:37
Speaker
But anyway, go ahead. Exactly, right. You're lubing in all these other topics that are distracting from the actual, if this is that severe, you're making it difficult to even get to those sorts of solutions that are so radical that you can't even be, you can't lump in other things and hope to get that done. So yeah, I completely agree.
00:13:54
Speaker
They disenfranchised an entire group of even young Democrats who just feel like there's no hope, and then you don't get action. So that was one thing that I didn't like about Hillary Clinton's approach, and honestly, most of the left-of-center approach. And again, tons of problems with the right-of-center approach, but we're focusing on the left-of-center right now. But that doesn't address why she's wrong. Why is she
Scientific Hope in Climate Solutions
00:14:14
Speaker
wrong? Why is she wrong? She's wrong because the science doesn't back her up.
00:14:21
Speaker
The science says that we are definitely contributing, that we need to be taking action, but that we can avert and avoid the most consequential damages and that we actually are in a lot of areas headed in the right direction. So the science shows that there is hope amidst a severe problem that we still need to be addressing. The hope doesn't mean that we stop acting, but the
00:14:49
Speaker
The hope is there. And when you paint it as if we're all headed in the wrong direction, America is horrible, and we are emitting so many fossil fuels that the world's going to burn unless we ban them from society, that's just not factually true. So let's get a little bit specific. And it's actually a little bit of a funny thing to be interviewing you about because, of course, the science you're referring to is something that I've contributed to. Yes.
00:15:17
Speaker
I'm preaching to the choir there. I'm preaching to the choir. Let's get specific just for our listeners. Despite climate change, despite the earth getting warmer and that making some types of extreme events more severe, deaths and damages for GDP have been going down for a decade.
00:15:37
Speaker
Yeah, and not only that they've been going down more in poorer countries than in rich countries on average Which I think that in particular is something that not a lot of people know people, right? Certainly it is true that there's an inequality aspect to both climate change and I would argue the transition In terms of you talk about energy energy equality But so that's an example of good news the one of the things that I
00:16:02
Speaker
we're working on now is trying to look at, okay, in the range of uncertainty and different parameters, what is the likelihood that climate change will make the world poorer? Not just that climate change will damage the economy all else equal. We know that that's true, well, in most places at least. But will it do so much damage that it offsets growth and then some? And our answer is very, very, very unlikely, at least based on what we know, looking for the rest of the century.
Practical Climate Solutions
00:16:33
Speaker
There was a book called what we owe the future by Will McCaskill that I was one of the expert reviewers on Kind of the the big book for this new movement called long-term ism There's all tons of debates about that movement but the one of the claims one of the fat claims that he made that I Personally agree with is that if you talk about kind of existential global threats in this coming century and
00:16:58
Speaker
there are many that rank higher than climate change in terms of the risk of civilization level threats. How am I doing? Do you agree with all that? Anything I missed? I completely agree. But I want to add on to that to say.
00:17:13
Speaker
That's proof that the solutions need to be sensible and workable for average people because if all those things are true, which they are, that there's a lot of hope around this and that even if things went down the wrong path that we could figure things out. Nothing's like black or white. We either survive as a species or the whole world burns.
00:17:37
Speaker
that black and white. So if that is all true, and that black and white kind of way of thinking, which is kind of what we hear in the media, is not part of the equation, then that means that the solutions have to be part of people's lives in a way that work for them. They have to be cost effective. They have to be implementable in a way that's easy and efficient. They have to make people's lives easier.
Media and Political Climate Discussions
00:18:03
Speaker
instead of harder, and they need to be able to improve the world, not just from an environmental perspective, but from an everything perspective, an economic perspective, a national security perspective. That's the sort of thing that we're not talking about. And so when you're being sensible about, okay, you know, GDP has been going up in the United States while emissions have gone down, and that if emissions continue to rise in the world,
00:18:29
Speaker
Would the damages be so irreversible that we, you know, couldn't handle it? Like, these sorts of nuanced conversations aren't happening because there's also not nuanced solutions to be backed up with that are actually being talked about. And most Americans would agree with what you're saying and the solutions that we need to be putting forth. But that doesn't fit the political narrative that both sides want. But that's a long way of saying I completely agree with you.
00:18:54
Speaker
Well, so let me try to fill in... I follow the train of logic of what you just said, but I think there's one in-between step that was assumed that I just want to draw out for the audience. You said that because it's not going to kill us all probably, we need to have solutions that work for people, solutions that are cost-effective, and you listed several other related qualities.
00:19:19
Speaker
Is it correct that what you're basically saying is we need to do a cost benefit analysis like we would for anything? And if you're talking about something that's a big challenge, but maybe isn't a civilization threatening challenge, at least in a short time scale, then we need to be mindful of the costs. Now, that doesn't mean that the costs need to be zero, right? Or does it?
00:19:45
Speaker
It does not mean that the costs have to be zero, but there does need to be a cost benefit analysis, absolutely.
Role of Fossil Fuels in Energy Transition
00:19:50
Speaker
And there will be a cost sometimes, but there also will be a lot of benefits that outweigh those costs.
00:19:57
Speaker
And so we'll get into that. Okay. So now I want to talk, let's get into the weeds a little bit. So at the beginning of your book, you have these statements that you frame as something like, you know, things that might surprise you. I don't think that's quite the phrasing you used, but the kind of facts that might surprise you. And then you talk about the climate commitment, which of course is a big aspect of what the ACC is about. So I just want to talk about some of the bullet points in those two lists.
00:20:21
Speaker
So the first thing in the list of facts is you say smartly producing fossil fuels would help emissions in the short term. Am I correct that, for example, the rise of fracking-based natural gas and its effect of contributing to the fall of coal, combined with the fact that coal is much dirtier than gas? Is that an example of that? And if so, what are some other examples?
00:20:44
Speaker
That's absolutely an example, and there's a few other examples, and I'm glad you asked this because it does feel like a backwards thought if you believe climate change is a serious threat, which I do, that we would continue to burn fossil fuels.
00:20:58
Speaker
But the reality is we use fossil fuels in everything that we do all the time. And so we need to figure out a way, if we can get away from it as much as we aim to, or as much as some people aim to, while we're still living in the world that we're living in now, how can we do that more efficiently? And if you have the option,
00:21:19
Speaker
to burn fossil fuels, 70% as dirty, for lack of better terms, as the alternative, you should take that because you're then reducing emissions by 30%.
00:21:33
Speaker
That's the sort of comparison, those sort of numbers are the case when you're comparing American fossil fuels to specifically natural gas and even coal, but natural gas specifically compared to that of the Middle East and Russia.
00:21:49
Speaker
And so when we're saying we're going to shut down our fossil fuels here, and then we are importing it from other places because the demand is still there, as I was alluding to earlier, then we're actually increasing emissions by feeling like we're doing good, even though we're not. So what we should be focused on is
00:22:09
Speaker
While we're using these fossil fuels, how can we do it as efficiently as possible? Can we capture some of that carbon or methane? Can we plug the methane leaks that are happening on oil and gas wells that are abandoned? Can we
00:22:25
Speaker
limit the emissions on flare technology, which there's been some great advancements. Again, these aren't like going to change the course of Earth's temperature increase, but they will avert more damages because we're going to be reducing emissions at like a 20 to 30 to 40 to 50% rate, depending on the technology, just by using the same fossil fuels. So your example is one, but there's so many others. And I think we need to figure out
00:22:52
Speaker
How to work within the existing system to reduce emissions while also thinking about alternatives at the same time. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Okay. So I have two follow-up questions and one is going to be maybe what you'd call friendly to your point. Another one is going to be challenging. So let's start with the challenging one. Okay. And, and, and I'm going to use an analogy of personal fitness. Hmm. Okay. Like, like, you know, how in shape you are and you're in very good shape from what I understand, uh, better shape than I am. So.
00:23:23
Speaker
I can imagine some of your critics saying, okay, fine.
Criticism and Defense of Fossil Fuel Use
00:23:27
Speaker
Yes, there are ways to decrease emissions and still use fossil fuels. But isn't that just like somebody saying, well, I don't really feel like exercising. And I know that that I need to get in shape, but I get a little bit in shape if I use Splenda in my coffee. And so I'm going to do that. And I'm going to say I don't need to exercise.
00:23:48
Speaker
I imagine some of your critics might draw a parallel argument about fossil fuels. Like, yeah, okay, we could reduce our emissions relative to the status quo and keep using fossil fuels. But is that really the best option? Or are you just basically trying to avoid getting off fossil fuels for some other reason? My answer to that is a great point. And I think that it's a fair question. I think people should ask that.
00:24:13
Speaker
What I would say to that is those are not mutually exclusive. So the reason you use Splenda, and I'm not agreeing with using Splenda from a dietary perspective, I don't know enough about Splenda. Yeah, I actually agree with you, but my wife- I actually don't even know enough, but I have had Splenda before. I don't know how it affected me, but hopefully not too poorly. It's not a frequent part of my daily routine, but I would say if you're trying to cut down on sugar, right, because it's a fake sugar,
00:24:44
Speaker
cutting down on sugar will not make you fit, working out and cutting down on sugar will make you fit. And that's how I view this conversation on fossil fuels, lowering the emissions of current fossil fuel usage while we're still using fossil fuels and the equivalent of this would be working out and looking at existing technology or non-existent technologies or non as prevalent technologies like solar, wind, EVs,
00:25:13
Speaker
you know, nuclear, you know, hydrogen, all these kind of new technologies that are emerging or old technologies that are emerging, but have not been as, you know, prevalent as fossil fuels, all those things you need to do while also trying to lower your intake on sugar aka fossil fuels, because they go hand in hand. And if you just work out but you eat like shit,
00:25:34
Speaker
Sorry to swear, but if you like shit, you will not make the progress that you want. And if you eat well, but you don't work out, you also won't make the progress that you want. So it's not mutually exclusive. Okay. Actually, I'm really happy with where you took that analogy because it perfectly sets up my second question, which I think is more friendly to your point. Thank God. Your critics, you know, cause your critics might say,
00:26:01
Speaker
Well, why use fossil fuels at all, right? Why don't just eliminate sugar, right? And I suspect underneath your argument
00:26:11
Speaker
is a point that you alluded to earlier, that it's not like fossil fuels are like cigarette smoke, where it's just it's just bad, right? Like we would be better off if nobody smoked cigarettes, right? It's like, it's in everything. It's in our plastics, right? It's the, you know, historically dominant source of cheap energy, which is the base of our economy and therefore all our prosperity. You know, we use it in all our industries, etc,
Balancing Energy Needs and Climate Goals
00:26:38
Speaker
etc. And so I think
00:26:40
Speaker
the reason people argue
00:26:44
Speaker
that we can't get off of fossil fuels tomorrow is that that would create huge energy poverty, which would have, depending on how much energy poverty you're talking about, might have a much greater impact on humanity's well-being than half a degree of climate change or something, right? Is that basically... That's completely right. And I will be as bold to say that fossil fuels are the reason that we're here today.
00:27:12
Speaker
And that's like not controversial if you know what i'm saying it is controversial for most of america that believes that climate change is a problem which again. It is but we wouldn't have ninety five percent that is a number i pulled out of my butt but a vast majority of things that we have today without fossil fuels and a lot of us would be alive today without fossil fuels.
00:27:34
Speaker
It brings us so much ability to advance as a society, or it did specifically in the 20th century, in a way that just made society what it is today. And you could say you don't like society today, and that's a whole different argument. But like, my grandma talks about how she used to have glass shampoo bottles in the shower, and you couldn't let one drop because it would shatter all over your feet and cut you.
00:27:58
Speaker
And I'm like, oh my God, I dropped my plastic shampoo bottle in my shower all the time. I would have had no feet by now. Those are the sorts of things, I mean, every single thing that we do, even this conversation that's being recorded on a microphone that's using a plastic base, I mean, everything is using fossil fuels around us, whether we know it or not, gum, skis,
00:28:25
Speaker
you know, cell phones, computers, everything. And again, that's not to say that we shouldn't move away from having that dependency. I totally am into that. But it needs to make people's lives either neutral or better than it was with fossil fuels. Otherwise, we're just screwing people over. Yeah, let me try a more visceral example than plastic shampoo bottles, no offense. I sometimes ask my students,
00:28:53
Speaker
Who thinks we should ban coal globally? And usually a few people raise their hand and they say, oh, you just turned 60% of China's energy off. How do you think that went for their people? Right. You're talking about life and death in a lot of cases. Right. Exactly. For most of the world, fossil fuels are the cheapest option out there. And until we can come up with some other solution that is just as cost-effective and reliable,
00:29:22
Speaker
It will not change that fossil fuels are used because people who are in poverty should not be forced to live in worse poverty because they're forced to pay
00:29:32
Speaker
for more energy that they can't afford to begin with. So to tie a bow on this strand of thinking, it sounds like you're saying that cheap energy is really important to prosperity. Greenhouse gas emissions are bad also. And therefore, we need to find substitute forms of cheap energy. And if we can't, then we have to weigh the costs and benefits of the prosperity that cheap energy gives us and the damages that fossil fuels or that greenhouse gas emissions give us.
00:30:01
Speaker
100%. That's exactly right.
Challenges of Renewable Energy Scaling
00:30:04
Speaker
Okay, so this actually is a great segue into another one of your points that I wanted to ask you about. So you said, you know, we need to find substitutes that are that are cheap. Some of your critics might say, we have those in solar and wind, which are by some measures in many places, cheaper than fossil fuels.
00:30:24
Speaker
And yet in your book, you talk about solar and wind as solutions as being, I think, doomed to fail were the words. And correct me if that's wrong.
00:30:33
Speaker
Explain that. Why are solar and wind doomed to fail? Well, to clarify, they're doomed to fail at the scale that they have been asked to provide energy. They're not doomed to fail as secondary energy sources. I think that there is a future for solar and wind. I work with a lot of great energy companies that have huge investments or are renewable energy companies.
00:30:58
Speaker
The reason that they're doomed to fail at the scale that they have been asked to power our lives by is because a lot of people listening to this will understand this, but they're not the base load energy source that we need from a 24-7, 365 reliability perspective. I live in Arizona, where it is sunny.
00:31:19
Speaker
Very sunny. My parents have solar panels on their roof, but for a decent chunk of the day, actually usually over 50%, and if it's cloudy, like almost 100% of the day, they don't get power from solar panels. They get it from coal and natural gas. So they're doomed to fail because of that true challenge that even if battery storage was scalable at the level, which I'll get into that problem with that in a second,
00:31:47
Speaker
even if it was scalable you would need so many solar panels and wind farms across the country that would take up so much land in so much area and likely not be something that we could even rely on in times of true distress now that again doesn't mean that we can't use it for ten twenty thirty
00:32:07
Speaker
you know, some percentage of our energy in each state. But there are some states that aren't sunny and there's some states that aren't windy. And even if they are windy or sunny, there are downsides. But on top of that, people don't realize that there is this huge energy water consumption problem and environmental harm that's done to create those forms of energy.
00:32:30
Speaker
and that the critical minerals that it takes to create solar panels is a very real problem and is damaging environments across the globe, and also is using a ton of fossil fuels to create those solar panels in the process, like China is using tons of coal to mine for the materials in the solar panels.
00:32:52
Speaker
So on top of the unreliability, there's also this resource problem of you need a lot of wind turbines and a lot of solar panels to power a community.
Diverse Energy Approach
00:33:02
Speaker
And to power the whole world on that, you would need so much that we don't even have the materials for, but you'd also be destroying the physical environment in the process. So my argument in the book is not that we shouldn't be pursuing solar and wind. I do believe that we should have a pursuit of that and to keep trying to make it more efficient.
00:33:23
Speaker
but that it's not going to be black or white, like solar and wind only. It's going to be solar and wind with nuclear, with natural gas, with hydrogen, with probably some coal in some places. It's going to be this wide array of technologies, things that we haven't even come up with yet, things that are coming on like geothermal, and that it's doomed to fail at the level that it's been billed to us.
00:33:45
Speaker
Okay, let me try to unpack a couple of the big points there because I followed everything you just said, but I also studied this for a living and I think there's a lot of our listeners who don't know as much of this topic as well as you do. So I want to separately discuss the two issues you talked about that I would describe as one being intermittency and the other being low energy density and then the externalities implications when you scale them of that.
00:34:13
Speaker
So, first, intermittency. And as far as I understand, there's two basic challenges that intermittency causes. So, intermittency, for those who don't know the term, just refers to the fact that it's not always sunny, it's not always windy.
00:34:26
Speaker
Uh, you said the same miss with, uh, that on to you mirroring. Yeah. Um, you know, and so you need to have some other source of power or some type of storage to make up for that. The second challenge, which is, I think even less widely appreciated has to do with, uh, load balancing. So, so for example, uh, a couple of months ago, I got the opportunity to tour one of the big power plants in Colorado and the operator was telling us about how, you know,
00:34:56
Speaker
they have to exactly balance the power going out with the power coming in you know to the second because they don't the voltage will go up or down on the grid in a way that will fry all your appliances and so.
00:35:13
Speaker
So they don't want that, right? And it's a fascinating engineering challenge because they can't know who's going to turn their light on, right? But interestingly, they have, because they're trying to balance the whole load of the grid as a whole, and they have incredibly good models that predict extremely accurately what the aggregate demand is going to be. But of course, that's just one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is supply.
00:35:42
Speaker
Now with something like fossil fuels or nuclear, the supply is easy because you can control it. You can turn it on and off pretty easily. With renewables, you can't because it's passive power. I'm sorry, specifically wind and solar. It's passive power generation because hydro is renewable and you can't turn it on and off. What you have to do if you've got a lot of wind and solar on your grid is you have to basically unplug stuff
00:36:09
Speaker
as an option and plug it back in, which is hard to do, or have some kind of storage solution. And there are some fascinating storage solutions some places have. So, for example, there's a place in Colorado where they've got a reservoir and then another reservoir that's a thousand or a couple thousand feet higher elevation. And what they do is when they're producing too much wind and solar, they use that to pump
00:36:32
Speaker
Water from the lower reservoir to the higher one and then they bring it back down as hydro when there's less when there's less It's really awesome, but it's only I think like 60% efficient. So there's a huge there's a huge loss I'm in that but so but so and so I guess my point is is that intermittency? poses two different challenges one is that you need some other base load and
00:36:54
Speaker
And the second thing is that it's harder to predict the supply, which makes balancing supply and demand and the grid harder. Okay, the second thing is energy density, right? And what I'm referring to, and again, I know you know this, I'm just saying this for our listeners. Energy density is how much power do you produce per unit area, right? Or per unit mass, if you're talking about something like a solar panel. How much stuff do you need, how much space do you need to produce power?
Vision for a Net-Zero Power Grid
00:37:23
Speaker
And fossil fuels and nuclear have much higher energy density than solar and wind. And so that means to produce the same amount of power with solar and wind, you need a lot of space and a lot of stuff, a lot of materials, including critical minerals that go into solar panels. Have I summarized those two issues accurately? Perfectly, yep. You're like the Spark Notes version of my answers here, and I love it.
00:37:48
Speaker
I teach this stuff to undergrad, so you sort of practice not being able to assume somebody of your level of expertise. Okay, so that all makes sense. Now, I think a really important point that you made
00:38:03
Speaker
which I think we shouldn't minimize in terms of trying to predict or prognosticate, is that many of the technological solutions that will eventually take us to net zero haven't been invented yet. And so any answer you give to my next question, I'm just going to acknowledge up front, has some uncertainty related to that. But if you had to guess, try to imagine a net zero, let's say power grid, a net zero electricity system in the United States.
00:38:30
Speaker
What fraction of that grid is solar and wind? What fraction is nuclear? Is there a fraction that's fossil fuels? And you would have to assume that there's an equivalent size of carbon capture.
00:38:45
Speaker
And just for background, correct me if this is wrong, but I believe it's the case that the current power grid is something like 20% nuclear. The other 20% is a mixture of hydro and renewables. I think it's about half hydro, maybe slightly more than half hydro. And then the other 60% is fossil fuels. So how do those percentages change in your vision for a net zero power grid in the United States?
00:39:11
Speaker
It's a really great question. Like you said, it's obviously TBD. But I think if we're looking 50 years ahead and we're talking about a world where that exists, hopefully we get there. I think it's probably 30% to 40% nuclear, 20% geothermal. I'm pretty excited about the opportunity there. 20% solar and wind.
00:39:36
Speaker
Hydropower, probably 10%, and then 10% fossil fuels. But I think there's a world where there's more than 10% fossil fuels and we still get there. If carbon capture technologies take off and we can figure out other sequestering ways to store carbon that we're pursuing, but maybe not as rapidly as we could.
00:40:01
Speaker
Because we have to realize that what I talked about at the beginning of the book is that at its core, this problem about emissions is a balanced problem of we're emitting too much carbon for what we are capturing in the natural process. Because obviously before humans were here, nature took in carbon.
00:40:24
Speaker
There's a carbon cycle and we have diminished and cut down a lot of that nature, right? There's a lot that we could do to suck up more carbon in the natural carbon cycle.
00:40:38
Speaker
So we have to realize that it's not just an energy issue as much as it is a balance issue. So in addition to that answer to the question where it's like 30 to 40 percent nuclear, et cetera, we also, I think, need to do a better job of sequestering carbon if it's a 10 to 30 percent fossil fuel future. But I think it is.
00:40:56
Speaker
Okay, thank you for those those numbers. This is a great segue into your climate, some of your climate commitment points. So based on the numbers you gave, which again, you know, are uncertain, but I actually don't think that they're uncertain, but they don't strike me as wildly unrealistic either kind of based on what I know.
00:41:13
Speaker
But based on where we are now and what you just described, so before we change the composition of the grid, or in reality while we do it, but just in terms of the calculation before we do it, electrification, which is part of the transition for things like transportation, plus increasing demand from getting richer and having more people, we're going to maybe have to double the size of the grid compared to what it is currently.
00:41:38
Speaker
If you factor that plus the composition, just this is a back of the envelope calculation, I think your numbers would imply something like a quadrupling of our nuclear capacity, a quadrupling of our wind and solar capacity.
00:41:52
Speaker
maybe a doubling of our hydro capacity, although that actually might be hard, given that a lot of the hydro resources that exist have already been tapped. And so most energy analysts I know don't see hydro growing that much. Okay, so if you take away doubling hydro, then add that to either solar nuclear, you're increasing that a lot.
Infrastructure and Regulatory Challenges
00:42:11
Speaker
And I don't know the exact number, but you're talking about scaling carbon capture by more than 10x probably, right? Maybe 20, 100x. So it has a lot of building.
00:42:21
Speaker
Now, I don't think, and I just published a paper on this a month ago, that Biden's 2035 goal is going to happen. But even if you're talking about a couple of decades after that, that's still an incredible amount of building. I want to use that as a jumping off point to kind of softball T up one of your aspects of the climate commitment, and then push you on something else.
00:42:47
Speaker
Great. So let's start with the softball. Dang it. We're starting with the softball. Yeah, just because it works. It works better in this case. So you talk about streamlining and unlocking. That's actually two of your, actually this almost works for all of them, right? So streamlining, unlocking, competing, so using capitalism in the competitive spirit and innovating.
00:43:10
Speaker
Right? All of those are obviously aligned with building stuff fast. And I and you and many other folks across the spectrum actually have talked about how we don't build things fast anymore. But you're my guest, so why don't you expand on that a little bit.
00:43:27
Speaker
Well, it's definitely not a unique viewpoint. I actually think that, you know, as I talk about in the book, there are so many areas of alignment across political ideologies, if we can just actually talk about them. And this is one of them. And yeah, it's a huge problem. And it takes a decade to get
00:43:42
Speaker
offshore wind farm approved and millions and millions of dollars. It's costing us billions of dollars every single year to be delaying all this stuff from an economic growth perspective and just to these companies and institutions that are trying to put these technologies at scale. And of course there should be a regulatory process to approving energy projects and to save us from having
00:44:06
Speaker
nuclear meltdowns and wind farms built off the shore to kill all the reefs. Of course we should be monitoring these projects and making sure that they're not doing more harm than good going back to the cost benefit analysis. It doesn't need to take 10 years. It doesn't need to take 15 years. And that's the reality of a lot of this movement. And it's actually harming clean energy more than it's harming fossil fuels. So obviously all these different energy technologies go through the process of
00:44:33
Speaker
you know, going through regulations and trying to get approvals and all that stuff. The majority of the projects that are being held up, the vast, vast majority, I think it's like 80% roughly, are clean energy projects. And if you want to get conservatives active and also work across the spectrum, I think this is a great way to talk about government getting in the way in the wrong way. Now, the problem that I also see is that
00:44:58
Speaker
similar to a lot of the stuff we've been talking about that's been, in my opinion, sort of in the middle of the political spectrum. I don't think that we're like really going either way super hardcore. The problem with where the right has stood on this is like, the government is in the way on all this stuff. Therefore, we need to fast track everything and get government completely out of the way and abolish the EPA.
00:45:18
Speaker
That's kind of been the reaction. So it's not that either. So I'm not advocating for us to get rid of regulatory standards and making sure that Americans are safe from new projects. But it's holding back at the level that we are.
00:45:36
Speaker
totally unnecessarily the progress that we could be making on a whole host of things. I mean, we could go into every technology is being held back pretty much by this problem. And just to put some numbers on what you're describing, because we just had a paper that came out on this, two examples. To get a interstate transmission line, so a power line, and we need to build a ton of the power lines to connect new energy sources to the grid.
00:45:59
Speaker
A typical review time for a federal permit is six to eight years, even higher for utility scale solar, and the productivity of the construction sector is lower today than it was in 1950.
00:46:12
Speaker
So that just sort of, there's lots of straight lining that you can do there without getting rid of the EPA. Is that kind of what you're saying? Exactly. So Southern Company, who have worked with one of the biggest power providers in the United States, they don't want more transmission lines to be proposed because it's going to take so long that it's not even worth it. It's not even worth the squeeze of the juice there. So if you have an energy company that wants to work on clean energy, but they won't and they can't because it's too expensive and too lengthy,
00:46:40
Speaker
then we're doing a disservice to literally everyone and the whole planet. So we've got to figure that out. You know, I drive a hybrid, plug-in hybrid that gets 30 miles on EV and then you can have gas powered if you need it.
00:46:56
Speaker
I'm a huge fan of electrifying the grid and powering electric vehicles and all those things, but at the scale of what we need to do with the amount of materials that we need and the lengthy review process that the government has, there's no way to get to these goals that you're saying.
Components of the Climate Commitment
00:47:12
Speaker
we need to reevaluate. We're putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. I want to get to my tough question and then one other question. I'm just going to run down the planks of the climate commitment and I'm going to try to give a one-sentence summary or two-sentence summary of what I understand your rationale for each to be. Streamline, we just discussed. We need to build stuff faster. There needs to be less regulation. That doesn't mean eliminate regulation, but we need less.
00:47:38
Speaker
unlock America's natural resources. If we need a bunch of stuff to build solar panels, for example, or we need to mine a bunch of uranium for nuclear, it would be great if we weren't getting those from hostile foreign dictatorships. Plus, there's lots of American jobs if we can export it even better. Protecting communities and livelihoods, that's the just transition. Well, I'm just going to put that aside just in the interest of time, but I think it's pretty obvious. You don't want to wreck communities doing this.
00:48:03
Speaker
Compete so using capitalism and competitive spirit And here I think correct me wrong, but the big idea is that the private sector Historically has been good at and better than the government usually at building stuff fast and we need to build stuff fast Competition is also the fact that
00:48:23
Speaker
We as a country should be competing for this clean energy and environmental arms race to make the world cleaner and not be falling behind other countries. So there's the compete from the inside of the United States, capitalism, coming up with new ideas. There's also the compete, not in a super vicious way, but just trying to get America an opportunity to lead on this.
00:48:46
Speaker
That's related to your argument about innovating too. I see at least two good arguments for innovation.
Critique of the IRA
00:48:54
Speaker
One is anywhere where there's currently a trade-off between transitioning or leaving the greenhouse gas emissions. Anyways, anywhere where there's a cost of transitioning that we'd have to pay.
00:49:06
Speaker
Technological innovation could offer us an opportunity to lessen or eliminate that cost and then the second thing related the competition is if our businesses invent the new solutions then they can export those to the world at great benefit to the world through decarbonizing the world faster through tech transfer but also a great benefit to us economically yeah i missed anything.
00:49:30
Speaker
Nope, that's perfect. All right. Okay. So, uh, let's talk about the IRA again. Now this is the more challenging question. Yeah. So we need to build stuff fast. The IRA, now you can criticize the, and this is also something that I published a paper on. Uh, you can criticize the Biden administration for the fact that, you know, we don't yet have the regulatory
00:49:53
Speaker
efficiency and other types of political infrastructures in place to roll out the incentives of the IRA effectively at scale. But we discussed that already. Let's put that aside. And even a lot of people in the Biden administration agree with that. There's lots of Democrats and Republicans talking about regulatory reform and permitting reform. It seems like the IRA is a serious attempt with that caveat to build things fast. And yet my impression from reading your book is that you're quite critical of the IRA.
00:50:23
Speaker
And certainly the Republican climate movement as a whole, I suspect there are varying opinions in the IRA, and I suspect that the tax provisions of the bill that aren't related to climate were partly related to the fact that no Republicans voted for it. But be that as it may, no Republicans voted for it. As far as I know, your organization has not publicly supported it. Why not?
00:50:43
Speaker
Well, there's a few reasons, and I'll dive into the two big ones. The first is the precedent that it sets. The precedent that it sets is that we're going to put a huge climate bill together that puts in a bunch of other issues, including tax and healthcare and pharmaceuticals and all sorts of random stuff. We're going to put this lump sum bill that no one's read, literally no one, including Nancy Pelosi. I had Democrat Congress people tell me that she had no idea what was in it. We're going to pass that.
00:51:11
Speaker
and just hope that it works. And, by the way, we're not going to try to work or consult with Republicans at all in the process. We're specifically going to take a path that excludes them from wanting to be part of this. They knew that that was going to happen.
00:51:27
Speaker
because they wanted to get a political win. That, all of that, is a bad precedent, okay? So even if it was the best policy ever, which I'll get into as my second point, it has a horrible precedent for future policies because we need more than just the Inflation Reduction Act. Okay, second problem with it is the actual substance, which is that there are some really good parts of the IRA, and I wanna be clear on that, some really good parts. What are those parts? Can you be as specific as you can,
00:51:57
Speaker
And B, as non-technical as you can, while being as specific as you can, which I know is a hard assignment, about which parts you like and which parts you don't like. We're going to go 2A and 2B now. So the second problem is the substance. I'll say A is the positives. There's two positives. One is that I love the regulatory
00:52:16
Speaker
streamlining opportunities that are coming from it. And second, I love the focus on American manufacturing and American production of these technologies. I think both of those were big wins, the incentives on having it be. Bringing a lot of these jobs and manufacturing back to America for clean technologies is exactly what we were just talking about five minutes ago, and the ability to streamline some of the processes. It's not quite where we want it to be at all, which is why we need a permitting reform discussion.
00:52:46
Speaker
but there are some good opportunities there. And I do think, I guess to add a third positive, just the ability for us to put more funding towards research is always a good opportunity in this world where we have an innovation gap, we don't have all the solutions. And just a quick note on that, the Republicans or some of the Republicans did support the Chips and Science Act, which was entirely focused on that.
00:53:09
Speaker
Totally. There were, you know, in this huge conglomerate of the inflation reduction act, for those who aren't aware, it was like a conglomerate of a million bills that people had already written. And a lot of those bills were not literally a million, but a lot of them, a lot of those bills were bipartisan. So there are Republican asks, you know, Republican supported aspects of this. But as a whole, the reason why I don't like it from a substance perspective, is that I do believe that it's super hyper focused on
00:53:37
Speaker
the past and the present technologies and what we've been focused on and not so much about where we're headed. It's so focused on solar and wind and batteries. It's so focused on electric vehicles and transmission lines. It's not that focused on nuclear. It's not focused that much on sustainable agriculture. There's a small part.
00:53:59
Speaker
It's not that focused on, you know, forest management. It's not focused on, you know, ways to make fossil fuels more efficient. There's just, and there's really not a focus on technologies that aren't there yet. And I even had John Kerry's team admit in a meeting with a bunch of CEOs that they agree that there wasn't enough past the substance level of just
00:54:26
Speaker
solar wind, EVs, transmission lines, et cetera.
Balancing Current and Future Technologies
00:54:29
Speaker
Okay. Can I ask a follow up question just about that point? Yeah. It feels like they're picking specific solutions instead of trying to cast a wide net when we need a wide net on this. Okay. Actually, I'm really glad you added that last point because then let me focus my question a bit.
00:54:51
Speaker
Let's assume for argument's sake that you're right about the importance of all the things that you listed as missing. And I actually don't think that that's that controversial. The things that you said are missing are important. I can imagine your critics and supporters of the IRA might say, is there really that much mutual exclusivity? If your criticism of the IRA, we just talked a few minutes ago about how we're going to need to quadruple the amount of solar and wind in your estimate of what
00:55:19
Speaker
the sustainable grid looks like, right? And batteries are a big part of the admittance problem, electric fields, etc. Why not, if the IRA was missing those other things that you talked about, which are also important, why not pass the IRA and then pass another bill that does agriculture or some of these other things?
00:55:39
Speaker
That's a great question. First, I think it comes down to the fact that we've already put a ton of eggs in the baskets that the IRA put in. What I mean by that is we've already passed a lot of policies and had a lot of executive orders and done a lot around solar wind and EVs. I mean, going back to George
00:55:57
Speaker
H.W. Bush we've been investing in this stuff and obviously Barack Obama took it to a whole other level and there's been a lot of investment there. I just feel like prioritizing putting more eggs in those same baskets instead of trying to work on all these other areas that in my opinion have been pretty neglected from a policy perspective. You're putting all this effort in.
00:56:21
Speaker
to get the one bill done that Congress can't do anything. Congress literally can't pass a national parks backlog bill for three decades because Congress is that dysfunctional even though Americans love national parks. It's almost impossible to pass a bill in Congress. So you're going to put all your eggs in these baskets, put in all this effort,
00:56:42
Speaker
And now we're looking two to three years later and we're not going to have any more progress on those very issues that i was talking about so i feel like that's a huge problem with the ira is that it makes sense that you can say you know why don't we just these are mutually exclusive.
00:57:00
Speaker
But let's prioritize the biggest opportunity gaps first. And I feel like that wasn't what's happened. Like we need a ton more nuclear. We need force management so badly. We need fossil fuels to be more efficient so badly. We need emerging technologies like hydrogen and geothermal, which they did focus on, but also things that we don't.
00:57:18
Speaker
We haven't figured out yet so badly. We need all these things that just were not focused on. And now we're delaying, if we're going to put money towards it as a federal government, we're delaying that by how many years?
Importance of Bipartisan Climate Solutions
00:57:29
Speaker
I mean, we can talk maybe in five years and see where the next bill was, but it still hasn't happened yet. And I don't see it happening in the next couple of years, especially under divided government. So when will that happen? And I think we missed a huge opportunity to pass a bipartisan climate bill that was much more diverse.
00:57:45
Speaker
It sounds like you're saying that there's a bandwidth constraint in government. And so saying that we can do all of these priorities at once isn't really true because of how government works. And we need to prioritize. Is that right? Yeah, that's exactly right. And I mean, we only have so many chances each go around of Congress to actually get something done.
00:58:06
Speaker
You know, what I'd love to see is for us to prioritize the things that we, A, can have the biggest impact on from a climate standpoint, and B, can actually unite across differences on to set the precedent going forward that that's possible. Because you're going to need that to happen multiple times and multiple Congresses. And if it doesn't happen now, then we're just waiting for the next Congress for us to be able to
00:58:29
Speaker
say that it's possible. And it used to be possible. I mean, you look back at Richard Nixon and H.W. Bush, President H.W. Bush, and so many other presidents, Democrat presidents too, who had a history of environmental progress with both parties at the table. We need to set that precedent, but if we're not focused and prioritized on the things that matter for the climate and we're polarizing people at the same time, then we're not going to be able to get the solutions that we want.
00:58:56
Speaker
Great, thank you for clarifying that. So I want to close with a couple of questions related to the following theme. And that is that our group researches where is the common ground on climate change? And it seems to us like one way to answer that question is to say, on the right, denial and delay is not popular. And on the left, anti-Americanism and doomism and identitarianism is not popular.
00:59:20
Speaker
And yet, so on the one hand, your approach is kind of neither of those things, right? And so it should be a broad, appealing approach. And yet on the other hand, some of the loudest, most divisive voices online are one of, or both of those, I guess, usually of the things I just said.
00:59:38
Speaker
So what's it like being a middle of the road conservative environmentalist? Are you hearing a lot of support for what you're doing? Are you getting a lot of attacks from both sides or a bit of both or neither? It's a great question because I think it points to a frustration area for me, which is that
00:59:57
Speaker
In the national narrative, it hasn't really changed much that conservatives have a place at the table. It hasn't changed much from denial versus alarmism. A lot of that narrative is not shifted. And so I do feel very alone when it comes to the fact that CNN and Fox News are always going to prioritize the most divisive voice to go on because it gets more eyeballs and, you know, the most divisive voices are going to get free range on social media for success because they
01:00:24
Speaker
catch more eyeballs. But where it's not frustrating, and I guess what makes that part more frustrating, is that everyday people are in alignment with this kind of middle road approach. And the vast majority of Americans want clean air, they want clean water, they want clean energy, they want America to lead innovation and technology, they want
01:00:43
Speaker
the government and the free market economy and all those different things to play a role in making our world and our country a greener place going forward. They don't want us to cede ground to Russia and China in the clean energy and energy race. All these things are very universal. I could go on and on and on. There's so many universal principles.
01:01:02
Speaker
You wouldn't know that by the national media narrative so that's what's so frustrating but the not frustrating part is that there is that alignment so it does feel alone sometimes but then you know what i have to do is talk to real people for a few minutes and then i come back to earth and think okay i'm not alone you know there's there's millions and millions of americans who feel the exact same way.
01:01:21
Speaker
Now the question now for me and so many others like you and our whole kind of ecosystem is that we need to figure out how to break through that noise and I don't know whether or not that's the social media and media algorithms changing and we don't really have any control over it or if there's a way for us to pierce through just with good
Navigating Divisive Media Narratives
01:01:41
Speaker
ideas. I would love to hope that
01:01:43
Speaker
we could pierce through sooner rather than later because i know it's what people want and and it's what people are desired desiring and there and they're hungry for it there hungry for common ground on issues specifically ones that there should be common ground on so it's not very alone but it can be and we gotta change the fact that the narrative is that i'm just some random guy in the middle of trying to get both sides to work together because i'm not some random guy there's millions people standing right next to me.
01:02:10
Speaker
Yeah, and that's actually a perfect segue into my next and final question for you, which is you often frame your movement as a conservative climate movement. And yet, as you were just describing, a lot of the ideas that you present are broad based ideas that have broad support across the spectrum. And in fact, you note in your book that about 40% of the members of the ACC are independents and liberals.
01:02:39
Speaker
So my question is, why not lean into that and be a big tent climate movement? Why do you think it's important to be a conservative climate movement? Or do you think it's important? I do. And I think that there needs to be both. And the book and the launch of the book and kind of my next phase of life is going to be dedicated to forming both. And I'll answer why.
01:02:59
Speaker
There are environmental groups across the country with billions of dollars in combined revenue each year that they spend on advocacy and education and all sorts of things. A lot of them do good work. They almost unanimously are left of center. And whether they admit that or whether they don't, some of them do, some of them don't. And there needs to be an authentic movement on the right so that Republicans
01:03:24
Speaker
Conservative leaders know that this isn't just a priority issue for those people who don't vote for them. It's actually a priority issue for those people who do vote for them. That actually is far more compelling than having protesters that are never gonna vote for you anyways, try to stop your traffic on your way home from the airport after flying back from DC as a congressperson. That's not gonna change their mind. But if a Republican flies back to their district and hears from their own constituents that probably would vote for them, that moves the needle. So there needs to be that.
01:03:53
Speaker
There also needs to be a movement and that's what I hope to do with the book launch and the subsequent steps from the book to really show, look.
01:04:01
Speaker
young people specifically left and center or people who don't care about the partisan political spectrum that they want action across that ideology that they hold on other issues. And I think that you can show both. I think you need to have a bridge-building movement on this and one that's focused on finding common ground. I think you need to have right-leaning and left-leaning groups to battle out the competition of good ideas. No side has a monopoly of good ideas.
01:04:29
Speaker
You're not going to get any good results by just having a middle of the road milk toast group advocating for compromise all the time when there's actually no one, two, three, four sides pushing for different ideas. But you do need to have both. And that's what ACC is filling with the gap of building the conservative environmental movement. We have a lot of young people who aren't conservative, as you alluded to,
01:04:54
Speaker
that believe that conservatives need to be at the table otherwise we're gonna get nothing done there's people who are members because they're conservative we have people who are members because they think conservative solutions are better than you know left-leaning solutions is a whole host of reasons why someone would be a member of a cc. But there also is a need for that middle of the road common ground movement and that's something that i hope to build as well.
Conclusion and Contact Information
01:05:15
Speaker
Well, great. That's a great note to end on. And so what I would just say to our listeners is whether you're a conservative or moderate or liberal, if you like what you just heard, go pick up a copy of Benji's book. It's called The Conservative Environmentalist, and it's available online and in a bookstore near you.
01:05:33
Speaker
Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it. And again, really appreciate the work that you have done to elevate this issue in a way that will actually get common sense solutions across the finish line. We need a lot more of it, as we kind of alluded to throughout the conversation. And really what it comes down to is that I think in 20 or 30 years, it will be the climate movement of what we're building towards. And this is just the first few steps in that journey. So thanks for being a friend and ally in the fight and really excited to keep working together.
01:06:02
Speaker
Same to you, Benji Backer. Thanks a lot for being on the Free Mind podcast and we'll see you on the other side. Sounds great. The Free Mind podcast is produced by the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization at the University of Colorado Boulder. You can email us feedback at freemind at colorado.edu or visit us online at colorado.edu slash center slash Benson.
01:06:27
Speaker
You can also find us on social media. Our Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube accounts are all at Benson Center. Our Instagram is at TheBensonCenter. And the Facebook is at Bruce D. Benson Center.