In this engaging conversation, David Spence, an expert in energy and environmental law from the University of Texas at Austin, discusses the widening partisan divide over climate action. He explores how media and social networks exacerbate this issue, making meaningful governmental action nearly impossible. David emphasizes the importance of in-person dialogue to bridge ideological gaps and advocates for transparency and strong legislative initiatives to tackle climate change effectively. His insights reveal how collaboration can pave the way for a sustainable future.
Today's extreme partisanship obstructs significant climate action, as both Republicans and Democrats prioritize their political agendas over addressing global warming.
Engaging in face-to-face dialogue can bridge ideological divides, fostering a more informed electorate essential for effective climate policy.
Deep dives
The Impact of Online Communities on Political Perception
The rise of online communities has contributed to a narrow worldview among individuals, as interactions predominantly occur within ideologically homogenous groups. This environment distorts the perception of complex issues like climate change, creating a stark divide between Republicans and Democrats. A Pew Research survey highlighted that only a small percentage of Republicans view climate change as a priority, contrasting sharply with the Democratic platform that emphasizes its urgency. This polarization underscores the necessity for more face-to-face dialogue to bridge the gaps in understanding and promote effective regulatory politics.
Political Polarization and Climate Change Policy
Political polarization has intensified over the past few decades, particularly affecting energy and climate policies in the U.S. Historical data reveals that bipartisan collaboration was once commonplace, with major regulatory statutes being passed by both parties. However, the contemporary political landscape is characterized by extreme partisanship, where many congressional seats are now dominated by one party, reducing incentives for bipartisan cooperation. As a result, even legislators who previously supported environmental initiatives are increasingly apprehensive about aligning with climate policies due to fears of losing primary elections.
The Role of Modern Media in Shaping Public Discourse
The modern media environment complicates the public's understanding of intricate issues like climate change, as news consumption has shifted dramatically. Unlike the past, when individuals relied on a few reputable sources of information, today's landscape is inundated with ideological media that prioritizes persuasion over objective reporting. This shift leads to an oversimplification of complex narratives and an erosion of critical thinking, making it challenging for people to form well-rounded opinions. As a consequence, the information individuals encounter is often laced with biases that exacerbate division and misunderstanding.
The Need for Bottom-Up Political Movements
Effective climate policy requires a bottom-up approach that prioritizes grassroots movements rather than solely relying on elites to drive change. Historical evidence indicates that successful regulatory actions often emerge from public demand rather than elite influence, as politicians are motivated by the need to respond to their constituents. However, the current partisan environment hampers the potential for such movements to flourish, highlighting the importance of fostering dialogue across political divides. Ultimately, cultivating a more engaged and informed electorate is essential to advance a cohesive climate agenda and address the challenges posed by climate change.
It’s no secret that Republicans and Democrats don’t see eye to eye on climate change.
According to a Pew Research Survey conducted earlier this year, just 12% of Republicans and Republican-leaners think climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress. Meanwhile, the official 2024 Democratic party platform states there’s “nothing more important than addressing the climate crisis."
Energy and environmental law professor David Spence says today’s news and social media are partly responsible for the divide.
In his new book, “Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship,” David argues it’s all but impossible for the government to take significant action to address global warming in a media environment focused on persuading more than educating.
This week host Bill Loveless talks with David about his book and his perspective on the ideological polarization and negative partisanship that’s been building in the U.S. in the past 10-15 years. And how he believes getting us all offline and engaging with each other in person can help push regulatory politics forward.
David is the Rex G. Baker Chair in Natural Resources Law in the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He’s also a professor of business, government, and society in the McCombs School of Business at UT Austin, where he teaches courses in energy and environmental regulation. And he’s co-author of a leading casebook “Energy, Economics, and the Environment.”
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode