The election of the Biden Administration has helped create a surge in the value of equities in the renewable energy space (including electric vehicles or EVs), with expectations that a variety of measures intended to discourage fossil fuel consumption and accelerate the transition to a newer, cleaner energy sector will be enacted. Arguably, some pullback can be expected given the not irrational but perhaps excessive optimism about the prospects for ‘clean energy’ inasmuch as many nations are in dire financial straits due to the pandemic.

In 1999, I published an article entitled, “Oil scarcity, oil crises, and alternative energies - don't be fooled again” in which I argued that too many renewable energy advocates were relying on a combination of regulatory support but also invalid expectations of higher oil prices, partly because of the tendency to misinterpret short-term price spikes from political disruptions of supply as representing the ‘new normal.’ My belief then as now is that renewable energies need to be fairly competitive in the marketplace, rather than relying on government support or mandates, let alone expectations about soaring oil prices or scarce natural gas, in order to become significant sources of energy.

But in recent years, I have been concerned about what seems to be irrational exuberance on the part of some climate change activists and green energy advocates who insist that fairly extreme measures should be applied to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some argue that this would be cheap as they insist that ‘solar and wind are cheaper than coal power’ and that electric vehicles are on the verge of being cost-competitive with oil-fueled ones. Many of those same also argue for increased government support for those energy sources (or carriers), which would seem to contradict the claim of their competitiveness.

Certainly, the Biden Administration should be counted on to continue the existing subsidies for wind and solar, and attempt to raise the limits on subsidies for electric vehicles (currently set at 200,000 per manufacturer, which both GM and Tesla TSLA have surpassed), as well as investment in vehicle charging infrastructure. Given the balance of power in the Senate, the most optimistic spending estimates are unlikely to be enacted, but whether it increases somewhat or remains stable is not clear. (A decrease seems out of the question, unless Republicans take control of Congress in 2022.)

Historically, there have been a number of social movements that have lost momentum over time, to varying degrees in different places. The opposition to nuclear power, at least in the U.S., appears to have declined sharply, as the predicted apocalypse never arrived. Concern about homelessness was strong in the 1980s, but then receded from public view for a time, before resurging recently. Part of the problem, it is claimed, stems from activists insistence that homelessness was due to conservative economic policies, when ultimately research demonstrated it was primarily due to people with substance abuse and/or mental health problems.

Numerous reasons can be given for the change in support for any given policy or societal challenge, including the short attention span of the public and the media. The public seems unwilling to devote time every day for an extended period to most problems, such as hunger or homelessness, although activists remain committed and involved.

I would argue that there are a number of factors that cause political views to change on policy issues, and this could apply to the movement advocating major investments in and subsidies for renewable energy and electric vehicles. The bulk of the difficulty comes from politicians and activists, rather than the scientists, most of whom make reasoned arguments and proposals. The list below represents years of observation and research, but I would recommend Niall Ferguson’s Doom (which I just started reading after I began this column).

Apocalyptic Nature of Warnings: As Michael Shellenberger notes in his book Apocalypse Never, some of the loudest voices are sounding warnings so dire that they are not credible. Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam has been widely quoted as saying, “Slaughter, death and starvation of six billion people this century.” Scientist Guy McPherson coined the term Near-Term Human Extinction, apparently claiming extinction was certain within a decade. (Recall that one prominent peak oiler also claimed the problem threatened the possible extinction of mankind.)

I’m A Scientist: Dave Levitan in Not a Scientist notes that many climate denialists start with the phrase, “I’m not a scientist, but…” and he rightly criticizes politicians who make (supposedly) definitive comments about the state of the science. He doesn’t, however, mention the many climate activists who claim to be scientists or describe their claims as being supported by science. Shellenberger challenged a number of such claims, asking for the scientific evidence (while noting it wasn’t in the IPCC reports), and got little or no response. Indeed, many climate scientists have attacked activists for their misrepresentations.

This is particularly a problem when you have groups from Greenpeace to the Sierra Club who often adopt stances against GMOs or nuclear power that are not based in science. This tends to discredit them (and others) when they argue that climate scientists should be heeded.

(On a personal note, a geologist who helped found the peak oil movement refused to debate me because "It's like asking a doctor to talk about medicine with a faith healer.” (Wall Street Journal 9/21/04) I had suggested a reporter confront him about claims he made that were simply untrue but were the core of his beliefs, to say nothing of the fact that he was not performing science but curve-fitting.)

Crying Wolf: The use of ‘extinction’ as a threat will be very familiar to the older population, since for decades many have argued that the Earth cannot even sustain its current population. The Ehrlichs (authors of 1968’s The Population Bomb) have repeatedly warned of imminent mass starvation, the date of which is constantly moving out. Peak oil advocates, as my book The Peak Oil Scare noted, started with a 1989 article claiming world oil production had already reached a peak. The expected date moved out repeatedly,

Absolutism: People attempting to reduce carbon emissions often find they are opposed by those who want to eliminate them immediately, resisting natural gas usage in circumstances where it is more efficient (such as heating) or displaces a dirtier fuel (guess which one) because they oppose any fossil fuel usage.

Hypocrisy: Some of the loudest voices have displayed astonishing hypocrisy on this issue, with celebrities deserving the most approbation. Leonardo DiCaprio produced a documentary called The Eleventh Hour, the primary argument being that people needed to live simply, while he himself lives the life not of Riley but of Croesus. Some environmental groups have been accused of gaming the carbon permit system or investing in fossil fuel developments.

Inconsistency: Michael Bloomberg, as mayor of New York, was perceived as promoting the government as public nanny, especially when he talked of regulating salt content in restaurant food and banning large soft drinks. Yet, when Citi Bike start a bike rental program, he had no trouble with letting renters ride without helmets. It is claimed that solar panel manufacturing relies in part on coerced labor in China, and much of the rare earths production needed by clean energy comes from so-called ‘blood minerals.’ Climate activists appear torn about how to respond, at least to date.

Reverse-Engineering: If you ask most activists why they support renewable energy and electric vehicles, they will argue that the purpose is to reduce climate change. But many are not advocating to reduce emissions per se, but for a particular technology or investment. Electric vehicles are a particularly inefficient way to reduce GHG emissions, and that was highlighted when the California Air Resources Board backed away from its 1990s-era electric vehicle mandate, noting their job was to reduce pollution, not promote electric vehicles.

It is always possible that the public turns against movements simply out of crisis fatigue, especially given all of the above factors. The apocalypse has been predicted many times historically, sometimes by religious figures with ‘scientific’ calculations of Judgement Day, but also by many who observed disastrous events and thought ‘this time it really is the end of the world.’ I suspect that the current skepticism that infects a large portion of the public reflects a general distrust of authority and elite figures, which has often been encouraged by the type of activist behaviors described above. Unfortunately, someone seeking a rational discussion of the challenges and appropriate policy responses can feel as lonely as Diogenes in his quest for an honest man.