A New Group of "Deplorables" for the 2024 Campaign?
People who are concerned about energy costs are a big issue for the Biden Administration - which doesn't want to brag about what it's done to help them/us
In what will very likely be the weirdest Presidential election in American history, it seems the Biden Administration is trying to repeat Hilary Clinton’s big mistake. A February 29, 2024 article in the New York Times’ “The Morning”, The Muffled Boom, includes this reproduction of a chart it says was initially created by a junior White House economist last year. It shows the change in US energy production since the beginning of the century.
Looks like a great accomplishment, right? Check out that upward progression for renewables in particular post COVID. Natural gas prices now at their lowest levels in nearly 30 years, and many coal-fired plants have been retired and replaced with natural gas-fired facilities that produce less CO2 and way fewer particulates than their predecessors. Since energy use is a very strong indicator of economic activity, you might think the Administration would be bragging about its success in overseeing record high production. And with the war in Ukraine, should be highlighting how being the world’s largest exporter of natural gas in early 2023 supported the rhetoric around replacing Russian fuel as part of that effort.
The lack of publicity around these achievements highlights a dilemma for this Administration. It’s now trying to navigate a political minefield that is the path between those who want to see meaningful progress toward “phasing out fossil fuels”, as the US has committed to do in the last COP28 (aka the United Nations Climate Conference), and a group that hasn’t got much airplay lately.
This would be the “working class”. The Times article sums up the challenge: “keeping oil and gas flowing in the short term can ease the path to a no-emission energy future by shielding working-class consumers from high prices that might turn them against climate policies.”
How about the rest of us? Does this mean that consumers who aren’t “working class” are fine with high energy prices as part of the transition to Net Zero? Why would the Administration concerned that prices will be ‘high’ as a result of its climate policies and cost it (even more) votes? Will the “non working” class be happy to cast its vote for these policies just because it can afford them?
And, why would an industry keep cheap energy flowing for the short term while the Government is figuring out how to replace it ASAP?
The Democrats are apparently trying to turn the narrative from “supporting higher production” to “achieving energy independence”, which is a goal the US is much closer to than it was 20+ years ago due to the Shale Revolution. This spin is supposed to appeal to independent voters, and maybe even some Republicans who have long advocated increased drilling. It appears we got it, or at least the output gains, even if unintentionally. And the new methane emissions regulations are supposed to reduce the environmental impact of growing natural gas production. Something for everyone!
Except, perhaps for people who are beginning to realize that they may end up with 2 of the 3 attributes of green energy. It’ll be abundant if enough money is spent, and “clean” in the sense that electric power doesn’t produce a lot of visible emissions, but the “affordable” part isn’t turning out to be true so far. Let’s see whether it’s “just” the working class who cares.